C. Objection to admissibility based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time in relation to the proceedings against the Applicant’s lawyers 73. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant is responsible for the length of the proceedings, as it is his case that this failure results from the lack of diligence on the part of his lawyers. 74. It notes that haphazard management, poorly organised procedural strategies and the Applicant’s inconsistencies proved counter-productive. It follows that the Applicant only has himself to blame. 75. The Applicant submits that in line with his procedural approach, there is no need to assess whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time due to the non-exhaustion of local remedies; on the other hand, he points out that the last decision was handed down on 2 November 2016 and the instant Application was filed with this Court on 4 September 2018. 76. He concludes that this period does not constitute unreasonable time, so that the Court should declare the Application admissible. *** 77. The Court notes that a period of one (1) year and ten (10) months elapsed between the decision of the Respondent State’s Constitutional Court on the action against the lawyers and the filing of the present Application. The issue for determination is whether the said period constitutes a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter. 78. The Court has consistently held that “[...] reasonableness of the time frame for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis”.27 In this regard, the Court took into account, among other factors, the time it took the Applicant to consider 27 Zongo and others v. Burkina Faso (merits), supra, § 92. See Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 21