68. The Applicant contends that this Application was filed within a reasonable period following the exhaustion of local remedies, given the circumstances and position of the Applicant, being a lay, indigent and incarcerated person. 69. The Applicant contends that, without prejudice to the above, should the Court consider that the period from the exhaustion of local remedies to the filing of the Application before this Court was unreasonably prolonged, there are sufficient reasons to explain the delay. 70. The Applicant contends pursuit to have that he embarked his complaints disposed on a reasonable of within his national jurisdiction by filing an Application for Review of the decision of the Court of Appeal. 71. In addition, the Applicant contends that he repeatedly wrote several letters to the Chief Justice and Registrar of the Court of Appeal requesting to have his Application for Review heard. The last letter was sent to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal 2013 on 12 July and the Applicant seized this Court on 2 August 2013. multiple requests unanswered. reasonable to agents of It is the Applicant’s time to the the Respondent strong contention Respondent State to finally State The went that he gave remedy the violation of his rights. 72. The Applicant, in support of the above facts, relies on the | Oe 29 ‘CE jurisprudence of the African Commission which has held, in Southern