57. In respect of the First Applicant, the Court observes that he was selfrepresented in proceedings before domestic courts and he has also conducted the litigation before this Court in person. Given his lack of counsel, and also as an incarcerated person, the Court finds that the period of two (2) years and eight (8) months was not unreasonable in the circumstances of his case. 58. In respect of the Second Applicant, the Court notes that he was convicted by the District Court sitting at Shinyanga on 22 October 2004 and that his appeal before the High Court sitting at Tabora was dismissed on 27 October 2008. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 1 November 2012. Notably, however, the Second Applicant filed an application for review of the decision of the Court of Appeal and this was dismissed on 3 August 2017. His Application before the Court was filed on 8 May 2018. The time lapse between the last decision of the domestic courts, and the filing of the Application was, therefore, nine (9) months and five (5) days. 59. The Court 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 this account in determining whether or not an Application was filed within a reasonable time. In the present case, taking into account the time that lapsed between the decision of the Court of Appeal on the Second Applicant’s application for review and the time the Application was filed, the Court finds that the time of nine (9) months and five (5) days is not unreasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 40(f) of the Rules. 60. Given the above findings, the Court holds that both Applicants filed their Applications within a reasonable time as construed under Article 56(6) of the Charter and thus dismisses the Respondent State’s objection on this point. 17