ii. Objection based on the failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 54. The Respondent State claims that since the Application was not filed within a reasonable time after the local remedies were exhausted, the Court should find that the Application has failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 40(6) of the Rules.17 55. The Respondent State recalls that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on 19 April 2013, that the instrument sanctioning access to the Court in accordance with Article 34(6) and Article 5(3) of the Protocol was deposited on 29 March 2010 and that this Application was filed on 13 June 2017. The Respondent State notes that a period of three (3) years elapsed from when the judgment was delivered to when the Applicant filed his Application before this Court. 56. The Respondent State submits that a period of three (3) years does not fall within the parameters of reasonable time, therefore, this Application has not met the admissibility requirement provided by Rule 40(6) of the Rules. 18 Accordingly, the Respondent State argues that the Application should be rendered inadmissible. * 57. In his Reply, the Applicant submits that, on 11 May 2013, he had filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision, but at the time of filing the Application before this Court, no final decision had yet been made by the Court of Appeal and that no information was forthcoming concerning this appeal. It was for that reason that he decided to seek another legal remedy by bringing his Application before this Court. 58. The Applicant contends that the ongoing review process of the Court of Appeal decision explains the delay in seizing this Court. 17 18 Corresponding to Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. Corresponding to Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. 15