although Rule 4011 does not prescribe the time-limit within which applications must be filed, the Second Applicant’s Application should be declared inadmissible for not being filed within a reasonable time. 49. In his Reply, the First Applicant argues that his awareness of the Court came about only in the year 2016. In relation to the six (6) months period invoked by the Respondent State, the First Applicant submits that the Court must have recourse to this period only cautiously without forgetting that the First Applicant was incarcerated and without legal representation. He further submits that the Court should “determine this Application without being tied with technicalities …which may obstruct dispensation of justice.” 50. The Second Applicant did not make any submissions on this point. *** 51. Pursuant to Article 56(6) of the Charter, as restated in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, in order for an application to be admissible, it must be “submitted within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter”. 52. The Court reiterates that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the exact time within which Applications must be filed, after exhaustion of local remedies. Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules merely provide that Applications must be filed “… within reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter”. 53. In relation to these consolidated Applications, the Court considers that domestic remedies were exhausted, by the First Applicant, when the Court 11 Rule 50(2), Rules of Court, 1 September 2020. 15