000510 ii, objection relating to failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 40. The Respondent State argues that in the event that the Court finds that the Applicant exhausted local remedies, the Court should find that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time pursuant to Rule a0(6) of the Rules. 41. The Respondent state avers that the period from 29 July 2013, when the court of Appeal of ranzania dismissed the Applicant's appeal to g December 2015 when the Applicant filed his Application before this court, is two (2) years and five (5) months. 42. The Respondent state relies on the commission's decision in Majuru v. Zimbabwe, in stating that the established international human rights jurisprudence considers six (6) months as reasonable time for filing an Application after the exhaustion of local remedies. The Respondent State argues that filing the Application after a period of two (2) years is very far from being considered reasonable. The Respondent state further contends that the Applicant being in prison does not bar his access to the Court. 43. The Applicant contends that his Application complies with Rule 40 (6) of the Rules because he appealed to both the High court and the court of Appeal of ranzania, which is the highest court in the Respondent state. The Applicant also argues that the delay in his filing the Application was because he filed an application for review at the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. 44. The court notes that Article s6(6) of the charter does not specity any time frame within which a case must be filed before this court. Rule 40 (6) of the Rules, which in substance restates Article 56(6) of the charter, simply mentions ,,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." 13