56. This notwithstanding, the Court has considered that the time frame for filing an application before it is manifestly reasonable in instances where the said time is relatively short. In such cases, the prerequisite to justify reasonableness does not apply.17 57. In the instant Application, the Court observes that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 2015 was rendered on 20 February 2016, while the Applicant filed his Application before this Court on 28 November 2016, that is, nine (9) months and eight (8) days later. 58. The Court is of the view that the period it took the Applicant to seize it , that is, nine (9) months and eight (8) days is manifestly reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter. It, therefore, dismisses the objection to admissibility based on failure to file the Application before the Court within reasonable time. C. Other admissibility requirements 59. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding compliance with the requirements set out in Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) of the Rules. Nonetheless, it must satisfy itself that these requirements have been met. 60. From the records, the Court notes that the Applicant has been clearly identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 61. The Court notes that the claims made by the Applicant seek to protect his rights guaranteed under the Charter. It further notes that one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union as stated in Article 3(h) thereof is the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights. Furthermore, nothing on file indicates that the Application is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. Therefore, the Court holds that the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules is met. 17 Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application No. 065/2019, Judgment of 29 March 2021 (merits and reparations), §§ 86, 87. 16