64. Importantly, the Court has confirmed that it is not enough for applicants to simply plead that they were incarcerated, are lay or indigent, for example, to justify their failure to file an Application within a reasonable period of time.23 As the Court has previously pointed out, even for lay, incarcerated or indigent litigants there is a duty to demonstrate how their personal situation prevented them from filing their Applications in a more timely manner. 65. From the record, the Court notes that the Applicant claims that he is a lay person and that he was self-represented in proceedings before domestic courts as well as in the proceedings before it. 66. The Court further recalls that while an applicant, within the Respondent State’s legal system, is not obliged, for purposes of determining exhaustion of domestic remedies, to file a petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision, where one opts to avail himself 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. 67. In the present Application, the Court takes into consideration that the Applicant filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision, but that at the time of filing this Application, no final decision had yet been made by the Court of Appeal. The Court considers, in these circumstances, that the pending review process may have contributed to the delay in deciding to file an Application before this Court. 68. In light of the above, the Court finds that the time of four (4) years, one (1) month and twenty-five (25) days is not unreasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 23 Layford Makene v. United Republic of Tanzania¸ ACtHPR, Application No. 028/2017 Ruling of 2 December 2021 (admissibility), § 48. 17