58. From the record, the Court notes that the Applicant is a lay person, that he is self-represented in the proceedings before this Court and that he has been incarcerated since 18 August 2003. 59. The Court further notes that within the Respondent State’s legal system, an applicant is not obliged, for purposes of determining exhaustion of domestic remedies, to file a petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. However, where one opts to avail oneself of this remedy, the Court takes the time expended in pursuing this remedy into account in determining whether or not an Application was filed within a reasonable time.22 60. In the present Application, the Court takes into consideration the fact that the Applicant filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision on 30 April 2013, the fact that the Court of Appeal, on 28 February 2014, struck out the application for review for being lodged out of time and the fact that a subsequent request for extension of time to file an application for review was denied by the Court of Appeal on 13 February 2015. 61. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the period of three (3) years, and fifteen (15) days is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to the admissibility of the Application based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time. B. Other conditions of admissibility 62. The Court observes that no objection has been raised with respect to the other admissibility requirements. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, it must satisfy itself that the Application is admissible before proceeding. 22 Yassin Rashid Maige v. United Republic of Tanzania¸ ACtHPR, Application No. 018/2017, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations), § 66; Mohamed Selemani Marwa v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 014/2016 Judgment of 2 December 2021 (merits and reparations), §§ 64-65. 15