seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis".8 50. ln the instant case, the fact that the Applicant is in prison, restricted in his movements and with limited access to information; the fact that he is indigent and unable to pay a lawyer; the fact that he did not have free assistance of a lawyer since March 1998; and may not have been aware of the existence of this Court before filing the Application- all justify some flexibility in determining the reasonableness of the time for filing this Application. ln view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Applicaiton has complied with the requirement of filing the Application within a reasonable time. 51. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the objection relating to the non-compliance with the requirement of filing the Application within a reasonable time and consequently finds Application admissible. B Gonditions of admissibility not in contention between the parties 52. The conditions in respect of the identity of the Applicant, incompatibility with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter, the language used in the Application, the nature of the evidence and the principle that an application must not raise any matter already determined in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the Charter or of any other legal instruments of the African Union (Sub-Rules 1,2, 3,4 and 7 of Rule 40 of the Rules, are not in contention between the parties. The Court notesthat nothing on record indicates that any of these conditions has not been fulfilled in this case. 53' ln light of the foregoing, the Court finds that this Application meets all the admissibility conditions set out in Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules and declares the Application admissible. v. Tanzania Judgment op.cit, para.73; and Others v. Burkina Faso Ju dgment op. cit. para.121 4 13 @-