Commission's Communication 308/2005 Majuru vs. Zimbabwe to support its argument. 100. The Applicants for their part submit that "we continue to contend strongly and refute the claims of the Respondent State that we had not exhausted the local and legal remedies because in our application we insist on the time taken by the court to adjudicate our matter". They add that ~the application No 006 of 2013 was formally written on 20 June 2013 and sent to the Court on Human and Peoples' Rights registrar. The time period from when the ruling was made by the Court of Appeal sitting at Arusha on 19 March 2013 looking at the time frame, it is within the required six-month period. Although we, the applicants still insist that our main complaint in application No. 006 of 2013 is of the unduly prolonged period in dispensing of justice". 1 01 . The Court has already held in paragraph 96 above, that the objection on exhaustion of local remedies is unfounded, as the bone of contention in this Application is the alleged undue delay in hearing the Applicants' cases. Besides, the Court has deduced from the pleadings that the last Ruling of the Court of Appeal on this matter was on 20 March 2013, and the Application was filed before the African Court on 23 July 2013. In all estimation, a period of four months is a reasonable period of time. 102. The Court therefore holds that the Application was filed within reasonable time, and thus overrules the Respondent's objection on this ground. 103. From the foregoing , the Court is satisfied that the Application before it satisfies all the conditions of admissibility under Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules, and therefore declares the Application admissible. IX. MERITS I. Applicants' submissions on the Merits