f. Are submitted within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter; and g. Do not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of the African Union, or the provisions of the Charter. 39. The Respondent State raises an objection to the admissibility of the Application on the ground that the Applicant did not file the Application before this Court within a reasonable time. The Court will first consider this objection before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection based on the failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 40. The Respondent State avers that the decision of the Court of Appeal was rendered on 28 November 2011, whereas this Application was filed before this Court on 7 January 2016, which is 4 years, 1 month and 10 days later. As such, it contends that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time from the date when local remedies were exhausted and, thus, should be struck out. 41. The Respondent State further submits that Rule 40(6) does not prescribe, define or quantify what constitutes reasonable time, however the “period specified in the Charter” is six months in accordance with advancements in international human rights jurisprudence”. Citing the case of Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe, the Respondent State avers that the Applicant does not show any impediments that prevented him from lodging the Application within six months, which is regarded as a reasonable time-limit. It surmises that the conditions for admissibility prescribed in Rule 40(5) and (6) of the Rules of the Court have not been met, therefore this Application should be declared inadmissible and dismissed with costs. 12