000305 Tanzania, however, the Court declared that it is not an appellate body for decisions rendered by national courts. This position was also emphasized in its judgment of 20 November2015 in the matter of AlexThomasv. Tanzania. lt is up to each courtto ascertain whether actions have been brought before it within a reasonable time. The Court had to indicate that it did not deviate from its jurisdiction to ascertain whether the proceedings before the national courts had met the international standards established by the Charter or other applicable human rights instrumentse. o 14. lt turns out that, in this case, the Court should dismiss this Application for having been filed within unreasonable time. The applicants in fact lodged an application for review of the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the ground that it contains "manifest errors". On 19 March 2015, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Application on the ground that it had not been filed within the time frame prescribed by law. The Applicants do not dispute the lateness of their application for review pursuant to Article 107(A)(2)(c) and (e) of the Constitution of Tanzania. The time limit for appealing to the Court of Appeal in this case is the one applicable to ordinary proceedings, and this period may be extended for just cause. The Application did not meet the conditions of admissibility set out in Article a0(5) of the Rules concerning the exhaustion of local remedies. 15. lt is clear that the application for review was not presented in acceptable terms before the domestic judge who had jurisdiction to hear it. As such, it cannot justify the fact that the Court regards it as an element capable of reactivating the assessment of reasonable time. Presented in 2015, the African Court accepts, in the interest of effective preservation of human rights, that extraordinary remedies do reactivate deadlines, but it is right that the said remedies comply with the law and that they meet the required conditions. The application for review Werema et a/. has been submitted out of time and the Applicants themselves do not dispute this. o 16. lt was during the Genie Lacayo case, subject of the decision of 29 January 1997, that the lnter-American Court was able to adjudicate for the first time on application of Article 8, S 1 of the lnter-American Convention on Human Rights. The Court had defined the principle of reasonable time. On the criteria defined by the interAmerican judge in the afore-mentioned important jurisprudence, one of them is notable in the Werema case: the non-diligent character of the applicantsl0. e ACHPR, Matter of Norbert Zongo, Preliminary objection and the merits, 291612013 and 281312014. Among the three criteria identified for assessing reasonable time, complexity of the case, behavior of the parties and the attitude of the courts, are recognized. 10 5