91. As the Court noted in a previous case, "... the reasonableness of the timeline for referrals to it depends on the circumstances of each case and must be assessed on case-by-case basis." 92. In the instant case, the fact that the Applicant is in prison; the fact that he is indigent; that he is not able to pay a lawyer; the fact that he did not have the free assistance of a lawyer since 14 July 1997; that he is illiterate; the fact that he could not be aware of the existence of this Court because of its relatively recent establishment; all these circumstances justify some flexibility in assessing the reasonableness of the timeline for seisure of the Court'4. 93. The Court therefore holds that the timeline between the date it was seised of the instant case, that is, 8 October 2013, and the date on which the Respondent deposited the declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to receive individual applications, that is 29 March 2010, is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56 (6) of the Charter. The Court therefore dismisses the objection on admissibility grounded on failure to file the Application before the Court within a reasonable time. 94. Having thus examined herein-above all the requirements of admissibility under Article 56 of the Charter, the Court holds that the Application is admissible. 13 In the Matter of Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (Preliminary Objections) Judgment of 21 June 2013, para. 121. See also, African Commission: Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v. The Sudan, Communication 310/05, para 75, “The African Commission notes that the Charter does not provide for what constitutes ‘a reasonable period of time,’ and neither has it defined reasonable time. For this reason, the African Commission would therefore treat each case on its own merits”. 14 In this regard, In the Matter of Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (Preliminary Objectigns) Judgment of 21 June 2013, para 122. Rs 2 \ NE POE 5! Ks