44. The Applicant submits that there is no time frame stipulated under Article 56(6) of the Charter and that it “falls on the Court to pronounce itself on what in its view is within reasonable time.” In support decision of the the Commission of his submission, the Applicant cites the in Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Sudan. He argues that although Article 56(6) is meant to encourage applicants to be vigilant and to prevent tardiness in filing of applications, in appropriate cases, where there are good and compelling consideration of applications that have reasons, fairness and justice require the not been filed promptly. Specifically, the Applicant submits that, in relation to his Application: ... the acts complained of are acts that are continuous in nature and do not occur in a specific time. Therefore, due to the continuous violation of this conduct by respondent, the court should consider that the application is within the time frame as provided by the law. eK 45. The Court confirms that Article 56(6) of the Charter does not stipulate a precise time limit within which an Application shall be filed before the Court. Rule 40(6) of the Rules simply refers to 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 of the matter.” 46.As the Court has established, the reasonableness of the period for seizure of the Court depends on the particular circumstances of each case and must be determined on a case-by-case basis.1 47.In the present Application, the Court takes cognisance of the fact that the source of the violation alleged by the Applicant lies in a provision of the Respondent State’s Constitution. The Court also recalls that the Respondent State deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol in March 2010. Strictly speaking, 12 Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 248 § 57. 13