neither required to pursue an application for review of that decision at the Court of Appeal nor to file a constitutional petition at the High Court as these are extraordinary remedies. 56. Concerning the Applicant’s second case, the Court notes that, on 27 October 2006, the Applicant appealed to the High Court against his conviction and sentence on the count of conspiracy to commit a felony and robbery. However, despite several correspondences to the concerned authorities to follow up on his appeal,"© it was still pending as at the time he filed the Application before this Court on 19 March 2015, that is, nine (9) years since he filed the appeal. The Court notes that even though the remedy was available in theory, the procedure to exercise it was unduly prolonged. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 40(5) of the Rules, he is deemed to have exhausted the local remedies. 57.Accordingly, the Court dismisses the objection raised by the Respondent State to the admissibility of the Application on the ground of failure to exhaust the local remedies, ii. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 58. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant did not file his Application within a reasonable time as required by Rule 40(6) of the Rules. In this regard and citing the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (herein-after referred as “the Commission”) in the matter of Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe, the Respondent State argues that international courts consider a six-month timeframe as reasonable and the Court should adopt the same position. ‘6 See the Letters sent to the Chief Justice, dated 8 November 2013; to the Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission, dated on 2 May 2013; to the Presiding Judge of the High Court, dated 6 August 2013 and 4 February2013; to the Judge presiding over the Appeal before the High Court, dated 25 May 2012, 2 February 2012 and 11 March 2011, respectively. 18