the Respondent State rejected all the other victims for lack of evidence of any link between the deposit of toxic waste and the prejudice suffered by the victims. 97. Be that as it may, the joint chambers of the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the Respondent State, had rendered a decision on a matter with the same subject matter as the present Application. It is, therefore, not appropriate to require the NGO Applicants to initiate the same proceedings since the outcome is known in advance as the decisions of the said chamber are irrevocable. 98. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that local remedies must be considered to have been exhausted in respect of all the victims of the toxic waste dumping. 99. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies. ii. Objection based on the failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 100. The Respondent State submits that it deposited the Declaration on 19 June 2013 while the Applicants seized the Court on 14 July 2016. The Respondent State considers that a period of three (3) years and twenty-five (25) days elapsed between the date of filing of the Declaration and the date of filing the present Application. 101. The Respondent State submits that in line with the Court’s jurisprudence, the Applicants cannot rely on, nor can the Court accept, the fact that the victims are illiterate, indigent or ignorant to justify the undue delay in bringing the case before the Court. * 26