of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 11 August 2014. Given that the First Applicant filed his Application on 2 May 2017, the total time lapse, after exhaustion of domestic remedies, was two (2) years and (8) months. It is this period that the Court must assess for reasonableness under Article 56(6) of the Charter. 54. In so far as determining reasonableness under Article 56(6) of the Charter is concerned, the Court recalls that it has held “… that the reasonableness of the time frame for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”12 55. Some of the factors that the Court has considered as relevant in assessing reasonableness include the fact that an applicant is incarcerated,13 being lay in law without the benefit of legal assistance,14 their indigence, the time taken to pursue the review remedy before the Court of Appeal, or to access the documents on file,15 intimidation and fear of reprisal,16 the recent establishment of the Court, the need for time to reflect on the advisability of seizing the Court and determine the complaints to be submitted.17 56. However, as the Court has also pointed out 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 their applications within a reasonable period of time.18 It is also important for all Applicants to demonstrate how their personal situation prevented them from filing their applications within a reasonable period. 12 Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (25 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, § 121. 13 Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426, § 52; and Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 74. 14 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 54 and Amir Ramadhani v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 344, § 83. 15 Nguza Viking and Another v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 61. 16 Association pour le Progrès et la Défense des Droits des Femmes Maliennes and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Republic of Mali (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 380, § 54. 17 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections), § 122. 18 Layford Makene v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 028/2017, Ruling of 2 December 2021 (admissibility), § 48. 16