were lay and were without legal assistance during their trials before the domestic courts. 68. Furthermore, the Court held that the Applicants having had recourse to the review procedure, were entitled to wait for the decision on their application for review and that this justified the filing of their Application five (5) years and five (5) months after exhaustion of local remedies.22 69. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant was incarcerated and as an incarcerated person, he might have been unaware of the existence of the Court prior to the filing of the Application. The Court further notes that he did not have the benefit of legal aid during the appeal proceedings before the domestic courts. 70. Furthermore, it is apparent from the record that the Applicant was awaiting the outcome of his second appeal, which remained pending before the High Court of Tanzania from 27 October 2006 until 19 March 2017. In this respect, between 2011 and 2013, he did not simply sit back and wait for his matter to be considered, but rather sent several reminders to various judicial authorities requesting the finalisation of his appeal. Thus, the Applicant had a legitimate expectation that his requests would be addressed and his delay in filing his Application before this Court was justified. 71. The Court therefore holds that the period of four (4) years, nine (9) months and twenty-three (23) days that the Applicant took to file the Application after the Respondent State filed the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 40(6) of the Rules. 2Werema Wangoko Werema and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits), § 49. See footnote 17 above 21