47. The Court recalls that in assessing reasonableness, consideration should be given to the situation of the Applicant, namely whether he was incarcerated, lay and indigent, or had limited knowledge of the operation of this Court.14 Furthermore, while exhausting extraordinary remedies, such as the review procedure may not be mandatory depending on circumstances of the case, the time spent in attempting to exercise these remedies should be considered in assessing reasonableness under Article 56(5) of the Charter.15 48. From the record before the Court, the Applicant exhausted local remedies on 11 March 2013, being the date of the Court of Appeal’s judgment. Given that the present Application was filed on 9 September 2016, the Court should assess whether the period of three (3) years, five (5) months and twenty-eight (28) days is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter. 49. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant is incarcerated, and is on the death row. He also filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment on 12 March 2013. On 9 September 2016, the Applicant filed the present Application, having awaited the outcome of his review application for over three (3) years. 50. The Court considers that the above stated circumstances constitute valid justification for the time it took the Applicant to file this Application subsequent to the judgment of the Court of Appeal. This Court therefore finds that such time is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter. 14 Mohamed Selemani Marwa v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 014/2016, Judgment of 2 December 2021, § 61; Amiri Ramadhani v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 344, § 83. 15 Mohamed Selemani Marwa v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 014/2016, Judgment of 2 December 2021, §§ 64, 65; Thobias Mang’ara Mango and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 314, § 55. 13