Rights in Majuru v. Zimbabwe. The Respondent State thus prays that the Application be dismissed for not being filed within a reasonable time. * 45. The Applicants submissions did not specifically address the reasonableness of time for filing their Application. *** 46. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, in order to be admissible, all applications must be filed within a reasonable time. 47. The Court reiterates that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the exact time within which Applications must be filed, after exhaustion of local remedies. Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules merely provides that Applications must be filed “… within 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”. 48. As the Court has consistently held “… the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”20 Some of the circumstances that the Court has taken into consideration include: imprisonment, being lay without the benefit of legal assistance,21 indigence, illiteracy, and the use of extra-ordinary remedies.22 In all instances, however, it is incumbent on an 20 Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (24 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92. See also Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 21 Jonas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 54; Amir Ramadhani v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 344, § 83. 22 Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 56; Werema and Werema v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 49; Alfred Agbessi Woyome v. Republic of Ghana (merits and reparations) (28 June 2019) 3 AfCLR 235, §§ 83-86. 13