ii. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 47. The Respondent State claims that since the Application was not filed within a reasonable time after the local remedies were exhausted, the Court should find that the Application has failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 40(6) of the Rules.21 48. The Respondent State recalls that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on 23 February 2016 and that this Application was filed on 1 September 2016. The Respondent State notes that a period of seven (7) months elapsed from when the judgment was delivered to when the Applicant filed his Application before this Court. 49. Relying on the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ decision in Majuru v. Zimbabwe,22 the Respondent State argues that there are developments in international human rights jurisprudence which have established that a period of six (6) months is considered reasonable time. 50. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that a period of seven (7) months cannot be considered to be a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Respondent State argues that this Application does not meet the admissibility requirement provided by Rule 40(6) of the Rules23 and should be declared inadmissible. * 51. The Applicant argues that the Respondent State’s objection is not founded and claims that the period of seven (7) months is a reasonable time given that he is a lay and indigent person who at all times, since his arrest, has been imprisoned with limited movement and limited access to information, including information about the existence of this Court. The Applicant also claims that he filed an Application for Review at the Court of Appeal and 21 Corresponding to Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Communication 308/05 - Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe (2008) AHRLR 146 (ACHPR 2008). 23 Corresponding to Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. 22 15