commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter; and g. Do not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of African Union or the provisions of the Charter. 35. The Court must satisfy itself that the Application fulfils these requirements. 36. In the present case, the Court observes that the Respondent State has raised only one objection to the admissibility of the Application relating to the requirement of filing an application within a reasonable time. The Court will consider the said objection (A) before examining other admissibility requirements (B), if necessary. A. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 37. The Respondent State asserts that the instant Application was not filed within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted. In this regard, the Respondent State elaborates that the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 29 April 2010. Furthermore, it asserts that the Applicant has indicated that he filed an application for extension of time to apply for review, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 19 September 2013. Accordingly, the Respondent State submits that the Applicant seized the Court five years after local remedies were exhausted, which is not a reasonable delay given the six (6) months limit developed by international human rights jurisprudence. 38. Regarding the Applicant’s contention that the delay was caused by his position as a condemned and indigent prisoner who is lay in matters of law and who was without legal counsel, the Respondent State avers that this is not a reasonable ground to be relied upon by the Court to entertain the Application. The Respondent State also notes that the Applicant had legal assistance in the domestic proceedings save for the alleged review