ii. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 39. According to the Respondent State, the Applicants filed this Application ten (10) months after the Court of Appeal’s judgment dismissing their appeal. While conceding that the neither the Charter nor the Rules prescribe the period within which an application must be filed, the Respondent State submits that international human rights jurisprudence has “established that a period of six (6) months is considered reasonable.” In support of its submission, the Respondent State cites the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe. * 40. For their part, the Applicants submit that the Application was filed within reasonable time given that they were in prison and waiting for copies of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. They also point out that the pace at which they filed the Application was affected by the fact that they were relying on prison authorities to access the judgment of the Court of Appeal. *** 41. Pursuant to Article 56(6) of the Charter, as restated in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, an application must be “submitted within a 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.” As the Court has consistently pointed out, these provisions do not set a time limit within which it must be seized of any Application. 42. In the present Application, the Court notes that the issue for determination is whether the time taken by the Applicants to seize the Court is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter as read together with Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. In this regard, the Court observes that the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, dismissing the Applicants appeal, on 16 September 2015 and the present Application was received at the Court’s 12