52. In these circumstances, the dispute between the Applicants and AGEF was adjudicated by the highest national judicial body, which ruled in favour of the Applicants. As a result, they no longer had any reason to pursue any other local remedy in order to comply with the requirement of Article 56(5) of the Charter. 53. Accordingly, the Court upholds the objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies in relation to the alleged sale of parcels of land not expropriated by the Respondent State. 54. As regards the alleged violation of the right to be informed of their right to compensation following expropriation, the right to have their cause heard, the right to dignity and the right of all citizens to equality before the law, the Court dismisses the objection and finds that the Application meets the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the Charter. B. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 55. The Respondent State submits that going by the Applicants’ averment, the alleged violations were committed during the period between 13 January 2003 and 21 June 2016. According to the Respondent State, the period of almost 4 (four) years that it took the Applicants to file their Application constitutes a very long and unreasonable time. It therefore prays the Court to dismiss the Application for failure to comply with the requirement of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 40(6) of the Rules. 56. The Applicants did not make any submission on this objection. *** 57. It emerges from the record that, following the dismissal of its cassation appeal by the judgement of 9 April 2009, AGEF appealed to the Respondent 14