be determined on a case-by-case basis”.12 Among other factors, the Court has taken into account the fact that the litigation brought by the Applicant was in the public interest.13 It has further considered that the time taken by the Applicant to decide to bring the case and to prepare the application should be taken into account in determining whether or not the time limit in question was reasonable.14 53. In the present case, the Court notes that the facts of the case present a deleterious situation characterised by the “dismantling of republican institutions, which has led to a feeling of discontent and disavowal among the Tunisian people, resulting in the collapse of the rule of law, disintegration of its institutions, constitutional stalemate, political crises, violence of all kinds and the rise of crime”. It follows that the present Application raises allegations that jeopardize public order and social cohesion, which are eminently in the public interest. The Court considers that in such circumstances, the reasonable time requirement should be assessed with circumspection and applied in context. 54. Thus, the Court considers that even assuming that the Applicant was aware of the filing of the Declaration on the above-mentioned date, she inevitably must have taken time not only to decide whether or not to seize this Court but could have also taken the time required to prepare her application. The process can take a considerable amount of time, which must be taken into account when determining whether or not the time limit for referral is reasonable. 12 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (November 20, 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 73; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (September 28, 2017), 2 AfCLR 101, § 54; Amir Ramadhani v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (May 11, 2018) 2 AfCLR 344, § 83. 13 Robert John Penessis v. United Republic of Tanzania, (merits and reparations) (November 28, 2019), 3 AfCLR 593, §§ 44-46; Glory Cyriaque Hossou and another v. Republic of Benin, (provisional measures) (2020) 4 AfCLR 538, § 20; Ali Ben Hassen Ben Youcef Den Abdelhafid v. Republic of Tunisia (jurisdiction and admissibility) (June 25, 2021) 5 AfCLR 193, § 40. 14 See Norbert Zongo and others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 122-123; Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, §§ 92-96. 15