fi0093? 37.The Applicant argues that the decision on his Appeal to the Court of Appeal was delivered on 13 August 2014 and he subsequently filed an Application for the review of the Court of Appeal's judgment. Therefore, the Applicant avers that he has filed his Application within a reasonable time. 38.The Court notes that Article 56(6) of the Charter does not specify any time frame within which a case must be filed before this Court. Rule 40 (6) of the Rules, which in substance restates Article 56(6) of the Charter, simply mentions "a 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 with the matter." 39. The Court recalls its jurisprudence in which it held: "...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."8 40.The record before this Court shows that local remedies were exhausted on 13 August 2014, when the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment while the Application was filed on 2 October 2015, that is, one (1) year, one (1) month and twenty (20) days after exhaustion of local remedies. Therefore, the Court is required to decide whether the time taken to file the Application is reasonable. 8 See Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (Merits) op.crt., $ 121, Kenedy lvan v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations) $ 51 , Oscar Jos iah v Tanzania (Merits)'), $ 24, Judgmenl ot 2810312019 (Merits). Lucien lkili Rashidi v United Republic Tanzania (hereinafter'Lucien lkili Rashidi v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations)"), s54 71