and Peoples’ Rights have specified a period of six (6) months as reasonable time to file applications. In this regard, the Respondent State cites the case of Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe. 52. The Respondent State avers that given the Applicant’s delay of eight (8) months in seizing the Court, without justification, his Application should be dismissed. * 53. On his part, the Applicant avers that reasonable time is not defined under the Rules of the Court. He, therefore, asserts that reasonable time should be construed holistically as the amount of time that is fairly necessary, convenient and acceptable to do whatever is required to be done, when circumstances permit. On this basis, he surmises that his Application was filed within reasonable time and should be accepted by the Court. *** 54. The Court notes that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the time frame 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 simply 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”. 55. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that: “… the reasonableness of the time frame for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case …”.15 As the Court has held, the onus is on Applicants to demonstrate reasonableness.16 15 Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo and Blaise IIboudo v. Republic of Burkina Faso (merits) (24 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92. See also Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 16 Layford Makene v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 028/2017, Ruling of 2 December 2021 (admissibility), § 48; Yusuph v. Tanzania, supra, § 65. 15