53. Recalling that the admissibility requirements in Rule 50(2) of the Rules are cumulative, the Respondent State submits that the Court should declare the Application inadmissible. 54. The Applicant maintains that his Application was filed within a reasonable time and that the Respondent State’s objection in this regard should be dismissed. He states that even if the Respondent State subscribed to the individual complaint mechanism on 9 March 2010, he became aware of the existence of the Court only between late 2015 and early 2016. The Applicant attributes his unawareness of the existence of the Court to the fault of the Respondent State, which he asserts deprived him of any knowledge of the Court. 55. The Applicant further asserts that the six (6) month period, which the Respondent State has referenced as indicative of international human rights jurisprudence on this matter, should not be automatically applied to his unique circumstances. He contends that given his status as an incarcerated individual without legal representation, the evaluation of the reasonableness of the time he took to bring his case before the Court should be considered within the context of his situation to ensure a fair and equitable determination. *** 56. The Court notes that, with regard to filing the Application within a reasonable time, neither Article 56(6) of the Protocol nor Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules set a precise time-limit. Having acknowledge this, the Court has previously observed that: “… 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.”17 57. In its jurisprudence, the Court has previously taken into consideration circumstances such as imprisonment, being lay without the benefit of legal 17 Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92. See also Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 15