to justify their failure to file an Application within a reasonable period of time.26 Even for lay, incarcerated or indigent litigants there is a duty to demonstrate how their personal situation prevented them from filing their Applications in a timelier manner. 56. The Court notes the Applicant’s claim that until May 2017, this Court, its Protocol, its Rules and its Practice Direction, were all unknown at Uyui Prison, where he was serving his custodial sentence prior to the filing of the Application. 57. The Court also takes note of the Applicant’s submission that the first Application originating from Uyui Prison in Tabora was Application No. 017/2017 – Abdallah Sospeter Mabomba and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania and that this Application was filed two (2) months and eighteen (18) days after that. 58. The Court finds, however, that this argument is insufficient to persuade it that the Applicant diligently pursued his case and that he was not in a position to know about the Court prior to the filing of Application No. 017/2017 – Abdallah Sospeter Mabomba and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania. The Court, therefore, does not consider this element to be a determining factor that would justify such a long time to submit his Application before this Court. 59. In the instant case, and although the Applicant was, at the material time, incarcerated, he hasn’t provided the Court with compelling arguments and sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his personal situation prevented him from filing the Application in a more timely manner. 60. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the filing of the Application six (6) years, two (2) months and two (2) days after exhaustion of local remedies is not a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the 26 Layford Makene v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 028/2017, Ruling of 2 December 2021 (admissibility), § 48. 15