45. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection based on the non-exhaustion of local remedies. ii. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 46. The Respondent State claims that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time after the local remedies were exhausted and that the Court should, therefore, find that the Application has failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 40(6) of the Rules.21 Accordingly, the Respondent State argues that the Application should be declared inadmissible and be dismissed. * 47. In his Reply, the Applicant submits that while it is true that this Application was filed in this Court nearly six (6) years after local remedies were exhausted on 29 June 2011, it was still filed within a reasonable time considering his situation and specifically his incarceration. 48. The Applicant further avers that this Court, the Charter, the Protocol thereto, its Rules and Practice Direction were all unknown at Uyui Central Prison, in Tabora, where the Applicant is incarcerated, before May 2017 when the Court and its instruments became known. 49. The Applicant claims that the first application to be lodged at the Registry of this Court, from Uyui Central Prison, was lodged on 13 June 2017, the proof of which can be found at the Registry of this Court. 50. In light of these reasons, the Applicant submits that this Application, determined on a case-by-case basis, is filed within a reasonable time after the revelation of the Court and its instruments at Uyui Prison in Tabora, in May 2017. The Applicant, therefore, contends that the Application meets the admissibility requirements and holds that this application is admissible. 21 Corresponding to Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. 13