00030 4 B. A position dismissing the Application in this case would not have contradicted the Court's jurisprudence 17. The Court had two options: (1) to dismiss, by way of an order, after finding that the 19 March 2015 review decision had been dismissed for having been filed out-oftime; or, 2) having associated the merits with the procedure, take a relatively simple decision to dismiss. is precise. Applicants are not required to exhaust extraordinary remedies. The Court had noted that in the Tanzania judicial system, the procedure for filing an application for review before the Court of Appeal is an extraordinary remedy which the applicants are not required to exhaust before bringing a case before itl1. When they exercise this remedy to activate a deadline, the balance of rights and legal certainty must be recognized in order to recognize the procedural and substantive conditions that must be respected. The Werema review application did not meet these conditions. 18. Our jurisprudence o 19. The duty of promptness attached to human rights litigations has been observed by the Tanzania judicial authorities. The deficiencies were not held against them until the late application submitted for review. ln Wong Ho Wing v.Peru1?, the lnterAmerican Court analyzed compliance with the right to judicial protection and procedural safeguards. ln that case, the lnter-American Court sets forth four elements to be taken into account in determining whether a procedure has exceeded the reasonable time. These are: the complexity of the case, the procedural activity of the person concerned, the conduct of the judicial authorities and the sufferings of the person concerned as a result of his legal situation. These conditions were followed in the Werema case until rejection of the request for review. o 20.To take into account the peculiarity of the case, it may be noted that it involved a period of too long a stagnation. The Court noted that the Court of Appeal delivered its criminal appeal judgment on 1 March 2006. The Court further found that the application was lodged before it on 2 October 2015. The unduly long stagnation period ended. This state of affairs has already been denounced in international human rights law. The applicants must be diligent and not provoke inactions in the 11 12 ACHPR: Matter of Mohamed Abubakari,31612016, $ 66 to 68, IACHR Matter of Wong Ho Wingv. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs 30l6l20ts 6