the Court the matter is still pendin g in the High Court of Tanza nia at Moshi , (which is minde d to do), the period will be more than nine (9) years. brought 133. Whate ver time computation the Court adopts , it is clear that the matter for at least six before this Court has been pending in the courts of the Respo ndent (6) years. 134. Having determined the length of time the matter has been pending at domes tic level, able within the the Court will now procee d to determ ine wheth er this time is reason meani ng of Article 7 (1) (d) of the Charter. considered 135. The Court notes from the onset that there is no standard period that Is er time 1s "as reason able" for a court to dispose of a matter . In determining wheth reason able or not, each case must be treated on its own merits . 136. As the jurispr udenc e of the Europ ean Court of Human Rights reveals, severa l criteria ng inter alia: (i) may be used to determ ine wheth er time is reason able or not, includi behav iour of the complexity of the case; (ii) the behav iour of the applica nt; (iii) the 6 the national judicia l authorities]. or not the 137. This Court will therefore use these criteria for Its assess ment of wheth er duration of the procee dings in the instant case was reasonable . i. Complexity of the case ered, 138. To determ ine the complexity of a case, all aspects of the case must be consid as the compl exity may concer n questions of fact as well as of law. be, among 139 In the case-l aw of the Europ ean Court of Human Rights , complexity can ished, (ii) the other factors , due to: (i) the nature of the facts that are to be establ nts, (iv) the numbe r of accuse d person s and witnesses, (iii) international eleme 0 of 1985 (Union Alimentaria Sanders Applica tion 1291 911 987 (Bodda art v Bolgwm , Applica tion No 11681 Sa v. Spain and Application 3277111 996 ( Cuscanl v. United Kingdom) 40