85. The Court further notes that the Application does not contain any insulting or disparaging language against the Respondent State, its institutions or the African Union, so that it meets the requirement of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 86. The Court also notes that the Application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media and therefore meets the requirement under Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 87. With regard to the reasonable time for filing an Application before it, the Court considers that Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules stipulates that the application be filed with the Court within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies or after the date set by the Court as the starting point for calculating the time to be observed before filing an application before it. 88. The Court notes that the present case involves a dispute concerning the Applicant’s divorce, granted by the Court of First Instance, and her conviction for adultery after being accused by her husband. The divorce case was subsequently brought before the Cassation Court, the highest court of the Respondent State. By judgment of 7 December 2016, the Cassation Court affirmed the revocation of the Applicant’s right to custody of her minor children, alimony and ownership of the marital home. In assessing the reasonableness of the time for referral, the Court will therefore take into account the date on which the Respondent State deposited the Declaration, which is 2 June 2017, as the starting point for computing the time to be assessed. 89. The Court recalls that the Applicant filed the present Application on 9 October 2019, that is, a period of two years, four months and two days from the date the Respondent State deposited the Declaration. 90. The Court has consistently held that determination of reasonable time for filing applications is done on a case-by-case basis and takes into 24