uoosoe assessment of reasonableness as envisaged in Rule 40(6) of the Rules and Article 56(6) of the Charter. 50. The Application was filed on 22 April2016, that is, four (4) years and thirty-six (36) days after exhaustion of local remedies. Therefore, the Court shall determine whether this time is reasonable. 51.The Court recalls its jurisprudence in Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso in which it concluded 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."11 52.The Applicant avers that he filed an application for review before the Court of Appeal but was unsuccessful; the Respondent State does not dispute this fact. ln the Court's view, the Applicant pursued the review procedure even though it was an extraordinary remedy. The time spent by the Applicant in attempting to exhaust the said remedy should thus be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of time according to Rule 40(6) of the Rules and Article 56(6) of the Charter.l2 53. From the record, the Applicant is in prison, restricted in his movements and with limited access to information; he is indigent and unable to pay for a lawyer. The Applicant also did not have free assistance of a lawyer throughout his initial trial and appeals; and was not aware of the existence of this Court before filing the Application. Ultimately, the above mentioned circumstances delayed the Applicant in filing his claim to this Court. Thus, the Court finds that the four (4) years and thirty six (36) days taken to file the Application before this Court is reasonable. ttApplicationNo.0l3/201 l.Judgmentol 28103114 (Merits), NorbeftZongov.BurkinaFaso(Merits)$92. See also Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (Merits) op.ct, S 73; 12 See Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), S 56; Application No. 02412015. Werema Wangoko v United Republic of Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), $ 49 13 @-