and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”14 Accordingly, the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case.15 57. Some of the circumstances that the Court has taken into consideration include: imprisonment, being lay without the benefit of legal assistance,16 indigence, illiteracy, lack of information about the existence of the Court,17 and the use of extra-ordinary remedies.18 58. This notwithstanding, the Court has held that the prerequisite to justify reasonableness does not apply in instances where the delay in filing is relatively short and thus, manifestly reasonable.19 59. In the instant case, the Court observes from the record that the Applicant exhausted local remedies on 27 October 2014, when the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction and sentence. Subsequently, he filed an application for review of the same decision on 30 October 2014, only to withdraw it later. The Applicant’s Application before this Court was filed on 8 June 2016. 60. The issue for determination is whether the period running from 27 October 2014, when the Applicant exhausted local remedies, to 8 June 2016, when he seized this Court, that is, a period of one (1) year and seven (7) months, is reasonable in terms of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules.20 14 Zongo v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objection), supra, § 121. Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (24 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92. See also Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 16 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 54; Amir Ramadhani v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 344, § 83. 17 Ramadhani v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 50; Jonas v. Tanzania, supra, (merits) § 54. 18 Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 56; Werema and Another v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 49; Alfred Agbessi Woyome v. Republic of Ghana (merits and reparations) (28 June 2019) 3 AfCLR 235, §§ 83-86. 19 Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application No. 065/2019, Judgment of 29 March 2021 (merits and reparations), §§ 86, 87; Niyonzima Augustine v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 058/2016, judgment of 13 June 2023 (Merits and Reparations), § 65. 20 In this regard, the Court has previously held that four (4) years, nine (9) months and twenty-three (23) days, four (4) years, eight (8) months and thirty (30) days, four (4) years, two (2) months and twentythree (23) days and four (4) years and thirty-six (36) days that lay, indigent and incarcerated applicants 15 16