requirement for exhaustion of local remedies. As regards the delay in the hearing of the Applicant’s review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Court considers that, although the application for review is considered to be an extraordinary remedy, should determine if used the application by the Applicant, for review within accordance with Article 7(1) of the Charter, which the competent court a reasonable time, in provides that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: d) The right to be tried within a reasonable time ...”. 90. The Court considers that in order to determine whether an application for review has been examined within a reasonable time or whether the timeframe is unduly prolonged, it is a prerequisite for an application to have actually been filed before the competent court. In the instant case, the Court notes that it has already examined this matter and found that the Applicant has not proved that he actually filed the application for review before the Court of paragraph Appeal. Nevertheless, 36 above, the Court reiterates, that the filing of the application as indicated for review in is an extraordinary remedy the Applicant allegedly decided to consider. 91.For these reasons, the allegation that there was an undue delay in the examination of the application for review is moot and, the claim is therefore dismissed. Vill. REPARATIONS 92. The Applicant prays the Court to quash the conviction for rape, annul the sentence imposed, release him from prison immediately, grant him pecuniary reparations and any other order that it may deem fit and just to grant. 93. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the Applicant's request for reparations. kK 24