000 226 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." 48. The Court notes, in the instant case, that between the date of exhaustion of the last local remedy, that is, the Applicant's appeal before the Court of Appeal which delivered its judgement on 5 August 2013 and seizure of this Court on 5 April 2016, a period of two (2) years and eight (8) months had elapsed. 49. The Court recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that to assess the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure, the Court takes into account the particular circumstances of each case and determines the issue on a case-by-case basis.T ln its Judgment of 28 September 2Q17: Chistopher Jonas v. lJnited Repubtic of Tanzania, the Court noted that "the fact that the Applicant was incarcerated, is indigent, did not have the benefit of free assistance of a lawyer throughout the proceedings at national level, his being an illiterate and his being unaware of the existence of the Court due to its relatively recent establishment - are all circumstances that can work in favour of some measure of flexibility in determining the reasonableness of the time frame for seizure of the Court."8 50. From the record of the instant case, it is inferred that the Applicant is in a situation similar to the one described above because he was self-represented and could not afford the services of a Counsel. The Court further notes that the Applicant, having been in detention since 1997 right up to the date of seizure, he might not have been aware of the existence of this Court. From the foregoing observation, the Court holds in conclusion that the two (2) years and eight (8) months within which it was seized is reasonable in terms of Article 56(6) of the Charter. 51. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's inadmissibility objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time. 7 8 NorbertZongo v. Burkina Faso Judgment. op. cit. para.121 Christopher Jonas v. Tanzania Judgment. op.cit. para. 53. 13 vh/-s*Y s