for time to reflect on the advisability of seizing the Court.22 The Court has also held that 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.23 50. As the record shows, the Applicant exhausted local remedies on 25 September 2013 being the date of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in his appeal. The Applicant subsequently filed his Application before this Court on 1 September 2016 being a period of two (2) years, eleven (11) months and seven (7) days from the date of the judgment. The Court should, therefore, assess whether this period is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter. 51. In the instant case, the Court notes that at the time of filing his Application, the Applicant was incarcerated, and on death row. It is also clear, from the record, that he was lay and self-represented when filing his Application. Further, the Applicant filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment on 15 December 2014, and was still waiting for the outcome when he filed his Application before this Court. As such he required some time to make a decision and prepare his Application to this Court. 52. The Court considers that the above stated circumstances constitute valid justification for the time it took the Applicant to file his Application. 53. Given the above findings, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection on this point and holds that the Applicant filed his Application within a reasonable time as construed under Article 56(6) of the Charter. 22 Igola Iguna v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 020/2017, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), § 35 and Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections), supra, § 122. 23 Thobias Mang’ara Mango and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 314, § 55, and Msuguri v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 47. 15