or were the basis of the proceedings before domestic courts.8 Therefore, the Respondent State had an opportunity to redress the alleged violations, which it did not. Consequently, the Applicant exhausted all the available domestic remedies. 47. For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses the objection relating to the non-exhaustion of local remedies. ii. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 48. The Respondent State submits that the Application was not filed before the Court within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies. It argues that the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on the Applicant’s case on 27 October 2014 and that the Applicant filed his Application on 8 June 2016. Therefore, according to the Respondent State, a period of one (1) year and seven (7) months elapsed between the date of the Court of Appeal decision and the date that the Applicant seized the Court. 49. The Respondent State argues that even though reasonable time is determined on a case-by-case basis, the Applicant allowed a reasonable amount of time to elapse before filing the matter in this Court. Thus, it contends that the Application should be dismissed. 50. The Applicant avers that the Judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on 21 February 2016 and not 27 October 2014 as claimed by the Respondent State. 51. The Applicant further avers that the Application was filed on 13 February 2017 which is within a period of less than a year from the date of delivery of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal. Therefore, he submits that the Application was filed within a reasonable time. *** 8 Mangaya and Mussa v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 37; Niyonzima Augustine v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 058/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023, § 18. 12