55. The Applicants maintain that their Applications fulfil all the admissibility requirements outlined in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. The Second Applicant also explains that his delay in filing his Application was due to his attempt to pursue the review procedure at the Court of Appeal. However, he claims that this process did not materialize as he was not summoned until he opted to file his Application before this Court. *** 56. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, in order to be admissible, all applications must be filed within a reasonable time. 57. The Court observes 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”. 58. In its caselaw, the Court has held that: “… the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”16 Some of the circumstances that the Court has taken into consideration include: imprisonment, being lay without the benefit of legal assistance,17 indigence, illiteracy, lack of awareness of the existence of the Court,18 intimidation and 16 Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (24 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92. See also Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 17 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73; Jonas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 54; Amir Ramadhani v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 344, § 83. 18 Ramadhani v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 50; Jonas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 54. 16