43. Consequently, the Court holds that the Applicant has exhausted local remedies as envisaged under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules and therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection. ii. Objection based on the failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 44. The Respondent State claims that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time after local remedies were exhausted. It is the Respondent State’s contention that the Applicant has not stated any reason for not lodging the present Application within six (6) months of the Court of Appeal dismissing the criminal appeal on 11 March 2013. According to the Respondent State, such is the requirement set out by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in the case of Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe. 45. The Applicant on his part refutes the Respondent State’s objection and argues that the time he spent awaiting a decision on his application for review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment should count towards the time required to exhaust local remedies. The Applicant further avers that the review process was ongoing when he filed the present Application and responsibility falls on the Respondent State to explain the delay. *** 46. The Court notes that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the exact time 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 merely 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”. Therefore, the Respondent State’s reference to the period of six (6) months cannot be justified. 12