53. The Respondent State contends that the general maxim on admissibility applies that for an application to be considered admissible, all the conditions for admissibility prescribed in Rule 50 of the Rules of the Court have to be met. The Respondent State therefore submits that, as the instant Application does not fulfil all the conditions, it should be deemed inadmissible and be dismissed with costs. * 54. On his part, the Applicant avers that he submitted his Application within a reasonable time. He states that he applied for a review of the decision to dismiss his appeal to the Court of Appeal on 15 December 2014. He submitted his application before this Court on 8 June 2016. At the time of submitting his application before this Court, he was still to hear from the Court of Appeal with regards to his application for review. The Applicant alleges that the time he waited after submitting his application for review, which is one year and seven months, should be considered within the time frame for exhausting local remedies. *** 55. The Court acknowledges that the Charter and Rules do not stipulate a specific timeframe for filing Applications after the exhaustion of local remedies. Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules state that an application must be filed “within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter.” The absence of an explicit time-limit is intended to allow for flexibility, ensuring that the Court considers individual circumstances while ensuring expeditious filing of cases. 56. In this regard, the Court has established that “the reasonableness of the time frame for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case 15