iii) The Court's Assessment 61. The Court notes that Article 56 (6) of the Charter does not indicate a precise timeline in which an Application shall be brought to this Court. Its mirror provision in the Rules, that is, Rule 40 (6) simply provides for "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 of the matter." It is therefore within the discretion of the Court to determine the reasonableness of the time in which an Application is filed. 62. On several occasions, this Court has emphasized that "whether an Application has been filed within reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies is decided on a case by case basis depending on the circumstances of each case. "11 The Court has also held that when domestic remedies were exhausted before a State made its declaration under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol, reasonable time under Article 56(6) of the Charter shall be reckoned from the date the Respondent deposited the instrument of its declaration. 12 63. In the instant case, the Court notes that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2006 was delivered on 24th of December 2009 and that the Applicants received the decision of the Court of Appeal only on the 2nd of November 2011. The Court also notes that the second Applicant's application for review of the Court of Appeal decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 9 June 2014. There is no evidence on record showing that the first Applicant also pursued a similar Application for review. 64.Although the judgment of the Court of Appeal was rendered on 24 November 2009 both Applicants received the copies of the judgment only on 2 nd of November 2011. With respect to the first Applicant, the relevant time should thus run from this date when he received copies of the judgment. From this date until the date the Court was seized of the matter, that is, 7 January 2015, about three (3) years and two (2) months had lapsed for the first Applicant. b (t? ~~JJ1 ~ ~ 11 Ibid, see also Peter Chacha Case, para. 141, Abubakari Case, para. 91 12 Alex Thomas Case, para. 73. 19 ) {~ --0') . ~