proceedings. Consequently, it submits that the Applicant filed his Application before this Court as an afterthought and thus, his justification for the delay has no merit. 39. Furthermore, the Respondent State contends that prisoners in Tanzania are allowed to access this Court anytime they wish to, hence, imprisonment is not a justifiable ground for the delay in filing the Application. 40. Recalling that the admissibility requirements in Rule 50 (2) of the Rules are cumulative, the Respondent State requests that the Court declare the Application inadmissible. *** 41. The Court notes that with regard to filing the Application within a reasonable time, neither Article 56(6) of the Protocol nor Rule 50 (2) (f) of the Rules set a time-limit. For this reason, the Court has previously observed that: “… the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”7 In view of this, the Court has taken into consideration circumstances such as imprisonment, being lay without the benefit of legal assistance, 8 indigence, illiteracy, lack of awareness of the existence of the Court, 9 intimidation and fear of reprisal10 and the use of extra-ordinary remedies.11 Nevertheless, these circumstances must be proven. 42. The Court further recalls its position that the review procedure at the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State constitutes an extraordinary judicial 7 Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablassé, Ernest Zongo, Blaise Ilboudo and Mouvement Burkinabè des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples v. Burkina Faso (merits) (2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92. See also Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 8 Thomas v. Tanzania, ibid, § 73; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 54; Amir Ramadhani v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 344, § 83. 9 Ramadhani v. Tanzania, ibid, § 50; Jonas v. Tanzania, ibid, § 54. 10 Association pour le Progrès et la Defense des droits des Femme Maliennes and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Republic of Mali (merits and reparations) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 380, § 54. 11 Guehi v. Tanzania, supra, § 56; Werema and Another v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 49; Alfred Agbes Woyome v. Republic of Ghana (merits and reparations) (28 June 2019) 3 AfCLR 235, §§ 83-86.