of the Rules. The Court, therefore, dismisses the objection based on nonexhaustion of local remedies raised by the Respondent State. ii. Objection based on the fact that the Application was not filed within reasonable time 39. The Respondent State submits that the Application is time-barred. 40. The Respondent State further submits that although Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules does not prescribe the time-limit within which individuals are required to file applications, one can take a cue from other similar regional mechanisms such as the African Union and its organs, where a period of six (6) months has been considered a reasonable time-limit. 41. The Applicant did not respond to this objection. *** 42. The question to be decided is whether the time taken by the Applicant to bring his Application before the Court is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter read together with Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 43. The Court notes that Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules provide 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”. These provisions do not set a time-limit within which the matter must be referred to the Court. 44. In the present case, the Court notes that local remedies were exhausted on 30 November 2015, when the Court of Appeal sitting in Mwanza delivered its judgment dismissing the Applicant’s appeal. As the present Application was filed on 8 June 2016, the Applicant therefore seized this Court six (6) months and eight (8) days after having exhausted local remedies. 11