Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzania, that awaiting responses on applications or judicial reviews are sufficient grounds to explain a delay in seizing an international body. It is the contention of the Applicant that the jurisprudence of the African Commission on the matter forms a highly persuasive source of law and that this Court be inclined to reach the same decision. 73. On the preliminary objection that the Applicant did not file the application within a reasonable were exhausted, application started running dismissed deposited March This was the time from the time local remedies the Court finds that in considering whether the filed within from 29 Applicant's a reasonable May 2009 time, when appeal. the However, time should Court the have of Appeal Respondent its declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol on 29 2010, therefore the time should be reckoned from that date. Court has, in Application 013/2011 Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo and Blaise Ilboudo & The Burkinabe Movement on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Burkina Faso (Ruling on Preliminary Objections of 21 June 2013) set out the principle that, “the reasonableness of a time limit of seizure will depend on the particular circumstances of each case and should be determined on a case by case basis”. 74. Considering the Applicant's situation, that he is a lay, indigent, incarcerated person, compounded by the delay in providing him with Court records, and his attempt to use extraordinary measures, that is, the application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision, we find that these constitute sufficient grounds to explain why he filed | ae AL ME 30 5 GF the Application before this Court on 2 August 2013, being three (3)