102. In their Reply, the Applicants cite the Court’s jurisprudence in Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso and argue that the obligation to lodge an application within reasonable time should be waived where the date of exhaustion of local remedies cannot be ascertained. 103. The Applicants further contend that the existence of serious and massive violations of human rights, as in the present case, constitutes an exception to the requirement that the application be filed within a reasonable time. *** 104. The Court reiterates that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the exact timeline within which Applications must be filed, after exhaustion of local remedies. Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules simply provide that Applications must be filed “…within reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter”. 105. The Court recalls, in line with its jurisprudence, that “... the reasonableness of the time limit for its referral depends on the particular circumstances of each case ...”.25 As a general principle of law, the Applicant bears the onus to prove reasonableness of the time limit at issue.26 106. In line with its jurisprudence, the Court has found that the time-limit for bringing an application before it is manifestly reasonable where the timelimit is relatively short. In such circumstances, the requirement to demonstrate the reasonableness of time does not apply.27 25 Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (merits) (24 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 219 § 92. See Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), § 73. 38 Layford Makene v. United Republic of Tanzania¸ ACtHPR, Application No. 028/2017, Ruling of 2 December 2021 (admissibility), § 48; Yusuph v. Tanzania, supra, § 65. 27 Niyonzima Augustine v. United Republic of Tanzania, AfCHPR, Application No. 058/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (merits and reparations), § 56; Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin, AfCHPR, Application No. 065/2019, judgment of 29 March 2021 (merits and reparations), §§ 86 and 87. 27