codsde" 103' Article 7(1Xd) of the Charter provides that "Everyone shau have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: ... d) The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal". 104. The court notes that, while civil case No. 119 of 2oo7 was filed in september 2007,it was heard only in september 2010 and judgment was detivered on 2 January 2014. Therefore, it took the High court a period of six (6) years and four (4) months to complete the Applicant's case relating to the legality of his stay in Tanzania. The issue for determination is whether that time is reasonable within the meaning of Article 7(1Xd) of the Charter. 105. Before making that determination, the court must consider the Respondent state's contention that the Applicant caused part of the delay by amending his initial application in August 2010 and severally requested the recusat of the Judges handling the matter. ln that respect, the Court first considers that the Applicant cannot be sanctioned for merely exercising his rights by amending the applications and calling forthe Judges' recusals. second, the Respondent state does not provide justification for why the case was not completed between the date of its filing in september 2007 and when the Applicant caused the proceedings to start afresh in september 2010, a period of about three (3) years. 106. consequently, if the case started afresh in septembe r 2o1o as the Respondent state submits, and judgment was delivered on 2 January 2014, ittook the High Court six (6) years and four (4) months in totalto complete the matter. This Court will therefore make its determination on the basis of that timeframe. 107. When it comes to assessing reasonable time in the administration of justice, this Court has adopted a case-by-case approach, based on severalfactors, including the Respondent state's behavior, especially the operation of its courts.zo 108. In the instant matter, this Court observes that the Respondent State had already arrested and detained the Applicant for illegal residence in 2006, which is seven 20 See A/ex Thomas v. Tanzania (Merits), SS 100-1 10. See also, Buchholz v. German y (Merits), no 7759177, S 49, ECHR, 6 May 1981; Abuba v. Ghana Communication 103/93 (2OO 0) AHRLR 124 'n (ACHPR 1996), SS 10-12. See atsopeau v. France,24 nov. 1994, where the Eu ropean Court of Human Rights found in violation o eC vention long delays in proceedings before the the French Conseil d'Etat 26