renown human rights instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights which provide for a period of six months. 57. The Respondent State further contends that the Applicant has not demonstrated compelling reasons as to why he did not file his Application within a reasonable time. * 58. The Applicant prays the Court to dismiss the objection contending that his Application has been duly filed in accordance with the Charter. *** 59. The Court recalls that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the time frame within which Applications must be filed after the exhaustion of local remedies. As per the Court’s jurisprudence, however, “…the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”12 60. Specifically, the Court notes that the decision of the Court of Appeal was rendered on 3 September 2015 while this Application was filed on 5 December 2018. The period at stake, therefore is, three years, and three months. The Court must, therefore, assess this timeframe to determine reasonableness. 61. Notably, in its jurisprudence, the Court has taken into consideration, among other factors, incarceration and being on death row with the resultant limitation on movement and access to information13 and being without the 12 Nobert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92; Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 13 Igola Iguna v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 020/2017, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), §§ 37-38. 14