"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 of the matter”. 87. The question that arises here is whether the period within which the Applicant seised the Court is a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56 (6) of the Charter. To adequately address this issue, it is necessary to first determine the date from which that time must be calculated and assessed. 88. Whereas the Respondent State submits that the period should start to run from the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Protocol establishing this Court, that is, 10 February 2006 (supra, para 80), the Applicant believes that the time starts to run from 9 March 2010, the date on which the Respondent State signed the declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to receive cases from individuals. 89. In the opinion of the Court, it is appropriate to take into account not only the date on which the Respondent State became a Party to the Protocol, but also and above all, with regard to an declaration Application accepting from an individual, the competence the on which that of the Court to receive cases within the meaning of Article 34(6) of the Protocol. United date State from filed the individuals The records however show that the Republic of Tanzania deposited the said declaration on 29 March 2010. In the view of the Court, it is from that date that the date of seisure has to be calculated’. 90. The Applicant having filed his Application at the Registry of the Court on 8 October 2013, the time line for seisure should run from 29 March 2010, to that date, that is, 3 years, 3 months and 10 days. The question that now arises is whether such a timeline is reasonable. Fie 12 See African Court: Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, (Preliminary Objections) Judgment of 21 June 2013, para; Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, Judgment of 20 November 2015, para 73. 27