121. The Court notes that, as provided under Article 7(1 ltd) of the Charter, every individual has the right "to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal". 122. In its case law on the right to have one's cause heard within a reasonable time, this Court has taken into account the length of the domestic proceedings and imposed an obligation of due diligence on the Respondent State.36 The Court has also held that the complexity of the case and the situation of the Applicant must be brought to bear in assessing whether the time being considered is reasonable.37 123. In the instant matter, the Court notes that, the Applicant was first charged on 18 October 2005. He was then charged afresh on 24 August 2007 after the State Attorney entered a nolle prosequi on the ground that there had been a mistake in procedure.38 The Applicant had thus remained in custody for one (1) year, ten (10) months and six (6) days. 124. The Court notes that the fact that the Respondent State is responsible for the delay is not in dispute. The Court is of the view that in circumstances where the Applicant was in custody and did not impede the process, the Respondent State bore an obligation to ensure that the matter was handled with due diligence and expeditiously. Moreover, the delay was not caused by the complexity of the case. Finally, even after charging the Applicant afresh, the Respondent State's courts adjourned the matter on numerous occasions and it still took from 24 August 2007 to 1 March 2010, that is, about two (2) years and six (6) months, before the trial actually started. The Applicant was eventually convicted on 30 March 2010. In view of these considerations, the length of the proceedings cannot be considered as reasonable. 3. See Application No. 013/2011. Judgment of 28/03/14 (Merits) Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, §. 152; Application No. 006/2013. Judgment of 18/03/16, Wilfred Onyango Nganyi v. United Republic of Tanzania, §. 155. 37 See Norbert Zongo v. Burkina Faso (Merits), §§. 92-97; Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, op. cit., §. 104; and Wilfred Onyango Nganyi v. Tanzania, ibid. See Applicant's reply, §. 3; and verbatim records of the public hearing, pages 1649 and 1639. 38 31