33. In computing the time to be assessed against the requirement under Article
56(6) of the Charter, two elements are of relevance. Firstly, the reckoning
of time within which to assess reasonableness in filing the Application
should have been the date when the Court of Appeal rendered its judgment
that is on 28 June 2003. However, in the instant case, the actual starting
date for computing the time is 29 March 2010, that is, when the Respondent
State filed its Declaration because that is when individuals could seise the
Court with claims against the Respondent State.
34. Secondly, the Court observes that the period between 2007 and 2013 were
the formative years of its operation. As the Court has previously held, during
the stated period, members of the general public, let alone persons in the
situation of the Applicant in the present case, could not be presumed to
have had sufficient awareness of the existence of the Court.6 Consequently,
the period to be assessed in the present case, is that between 2013, when
the public would be expected to have become aware of the Court and 2017,
the year when the Application was filed, which is a period of four (4) years.
The issue for consideration is whether such a period of time is reasonable
within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter.
35. The Court recalls its jurisprudence, that: “… the reasonableness of the
timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case
and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”7 Some of the
circumstances that the Court has taken into consideration include:
imprisonment, being lay without the benefit of legal assistance,8 indigence,
6
Sadick Marwa v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 005/2016, Judgment of 2
December 2021, § 52.
7 Norbert Zongo v. Burkina Faso (merits), op. cit., § 92. See also Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (merits)
op.cit., § 73.
8 Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), op.cit., § 73; Christopher Jonas v. Tanzania (merits) op.cit., § 54;
Amir Ramadhani v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 344, § 83.
9