65. On the other hand, as the second Applicant opted to pursue the application for review proceeding in the Court of Appeal, the date on which his Application for review was dismissed, that is, 9 June 2014, should be the relevant date to assess reasonableness under Article 56(6). Accordingly, from this date, about seven months had lapsed until the date when the Application was filed before the Court. 66. The key issue for the Court to determine is whether the three years and two months period for the first Applicant and the seven months' time for the second Applicant are, in view of the circumstances of the case, to be considered as reasonable in terms of Rule 40 (6) of the Rules. 67. With respect to the second Applicant, given that he is lay, incarcerated and indigent person with no legal assistance, the Court holds that seven months period is not unreasonable. 68. Regarding the first Applicant, the Court observes that three years and two months' time is relatively long to bring an Application to the Court. However, like the second Applicant, he is also lay, incarcerated and indigent person without the benefit of legal education and legal assistance until this Court assigned PALU to provide him with pro bono legal representation services. In view of this, with respect to the second Applicant, too, the Court finds that the time in which the Application was filed is reasonable. 69. The Court thus, finds that the filing of the Application was done within a reasonable time in terms of Article 56 (6) of the Charter as restated in Rule 40(6) and therefore, that the Application meets this criterion. 3. Admissibility requirements that are not in contention between the Parties 70. The requirements regarding the identity of Applicants, the language used in the Application, compliance with the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the nature of the evidence and the non bis in idem principle (Rule 40(1), 40(2), 40(3),40(4),40(7) of the Rules) are not in contention between the Parties. 20 ~ ~ & hli0 ~