no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the act at issue, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant".2 52. The question here is therefore whether the period of four (4) years, six (6) months and twenty-four (24) days in which the Applicants seized the Court, that is, between 30 December 2011 (date of promulgation of the impugned law) and 26 July 2016 (date of seizure of the Court), is reasonable within the meaning of Article bG(6) of the Charter. 53. The Court in its previous judgments established that the reasonableness of the time within which the Application was filed at this Court depends on the particular circumstances of each matter and must be examined on a case-bycase basis3. 54. ln the instant case, in order for this Court to determine the reasonableness of the period of seizure, it is necessary to take into account two important elements: first, that the Applicants needed time to properly study the compatibility of the law with the many relevant international human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is a Party; and secondly, given the climate of fear, intimidation and threats that characterised the period following the adoption of the law on 3 August 2009, it is reasonable to expect the Applicants to have been affected by that situation as well. The country found itself in a situation of exceptional crisis with a vast protest movement of the religious forces which, according to the Respondent State, could even be "fatal for peace, harmonious living and social cohesion." zrhe European court of Human Rights in the matter of Dennis and Others v. United Kingdom (No. 76573/01) Judgment ot 2 t7t2002, page 6 3 Application No. 013/2011, Beneficiaries of tate Norbert Zongo, Abdoutaye Nikiema a/ras Ablass6, Ernest Zongo and Blaise llboudo & Burkinabe Movement on Human Rrghfs V Burkina Faso, Ruling of 013 (P reliminary Objections) (Norbert Zongo v . Burkina Faso Ruti ng para. 121; Application ), 00512013, Judgment of 20t11t2015, Atex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, para.73; pl and No. 007/2013, Judgment of 03/06/2016 Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of para.91 n-court.org Y4 13 I