45. The Applicant asserts that, in the circumstances, the Application was filed within a reasonable time as envisaged by Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule a0 (6) of the Rules and he prays that the Court should refer to its own jurisprudence which requires that compliance with this requirement should be determined on a caseby-case basis. 46. The Applicant further contends that, in the circumstances, it was difficult for him being a lay person with regard to judicial matters to be aware that new remedies which were hitherto unavailable were now possible. 47. Lastly, the Applicant submits that, if the Court dismisses his Application on the ground that it should have been filed earlier than was the case, this would amount to a flagrant injustice and a continuing violation of the rights set forth in Articles 6 and 7 of the Charter, given that he is still in prison. *** 48. 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 (O) 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 orfrom the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter." 49. Local remedies were exhausted on 20 October 2OO7 when the Court of Appeal delivered the judgment. However, it was only on 29 lvlarch 2O1O that the Respondent State filed the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the protocol allowing individuals such as the Applicant to file applications before this Court. Therefore this is the date from which time should be reckoned regarding the assessment of reasonableness as envisaged in Rule 40(6) of the Rules. The Application was filed five (5) years, one (1) month, one (1) week and six (6) days after the Respondent State filed the aforementioned Declaration. On this issue, the Court recalls its jurisprudence in Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso in which it held that: "the Court finds that the reasonableness of the timeframe for ( t2