and seven (7) days, is reasonable in terms of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 49. In the instant Application, which is similar to previous cases adjudicated by the Court,16 it emerges that the Applicant is a death-row inmate, incarcerated, restricted in his movements with limited access to information and unaware of the Court’s procedures. He also avers that he tried to use the review procedure before seizing the Court without providing any evidence. In any case, this Court has held that an Applicant using a review procedure, even though an extra-ordinary remedy, should not be penalised for exercising it.17 Furthermore, the Court held in the Umalo Mussa v. United Republic of Tanzania,18 that filing an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment on an appeal is immaterial to the determination of the reasonableness of time taken to file the Application before this Court. 50. In the circumstances, the Court concludes that the period of four (4) years, one (1) month and seven (7) days that the Applicant took to file his Application is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 51. In light of the above, the Court, dismisses the Respondent State’s objections to the admissibility of the Application based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time. 16 The Court has previously held that four (4) years, nine (9) months and twenty-three (23) days, four (4) years, eight (8) months and thirty (30) days, four (4) years, two (2) months and twenty-three (23) days and four (4) years and thirty-six (36) days, that lay, indigent and incarcerated applicants took to file their applications was reasonable. 17 Werema Wangoko v. Tanzania (merits), § 49; Alfred Agbesi Woyome v. Republic of Ghana, ACtHPR, Application No. 001/2017, Judgment of 28 June 2019 (merits), §§ 83-86. 18 Umalo Mussa v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 031/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (merits and reparations), §§ 47-48. 15