date to be taken into consideration for computing the time-limit for seizing this Court is 18 February 2019. In this regard, the Court notes that it was seized on 15 May 2020. The Court observes that between that date and 18 February 2019, one (1) year, two (2) months and twenty-five (25) days had elapsed. 61. In any event, the Court recalls its jurisprudence in Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin that, where the time-limit in question is relatively short, it must be considered to be manifestly reasonable. In such cases, the Applicant is not compelled to prove that the time was reasonable.11 62. In the present case, the Court considers that the period of one (1) year, two (2) months and twenty-five (25) days is reasonable. 63. The Court therefore dismisses the Respondent State’s objection and finds that the Application was filed within a reasonable time. C. Other admissibility requirements 64. The Court notes that there is no dispute as to whether the requirements set out in Rule 50(2), (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Rules are met. Nevertheless, the Court must satisfy itself that these requirements are met. 65. The Court notes that the Applicants are clearly identified in line with the requirement of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 66. The Court also notes that the Applicants seek to protect their rights guaranteed under the Charter and other instruments to which the Respondent State is a party. It further notes that one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union is the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights. The Court finds that the Application is consistent 11 Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application No. 065/2019, Judgment of 29 March 2021 (merits and reparations), §§ 86 and 87. See also, Niyonzima Augustine v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 058/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (merits and reparations), §§ 53 to 56. 16