44.|n the case of Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania, the Court held as follows: the fact that an Applicant was in prison; he indigent; unable to pay for a lawyer; did not have the free assistance of a lawyer since 14 July 1997; was illiterate; could not have been aware of the existence of this Court because of its relatively recent establishment; are all circumstances that justified some flexibility in assessing the reasonableness of the timeline for seizure of the Court. " 45. Furthermore, in Alex Thomas v Tanzania, the Court justified its position as follows: Considering the Applicant's situation, that he is a lay, indigent,incarcerated person, compounded by the delay in providing him with Court records, and his attempt to use extraordinary measures, that is,the Application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision, we find that these constitute sufficient grounds to explain August 2013, why being he filed three (3) theApplication yearsand five before (5) this Court months on after 2 the Respondent made the declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. For these reasons, the Court finds that theApplication has been filed within a reasonable time after the exhaustionof local remedies as envisaged by Article 56(5) of the Charter.’? 46. It is also clear from the Court's case-law that the Court declared admissible an application brought before it three (3) years and six (6) months after the Respondent Protocol State accepting deposited the the Court's Declaration jurisdiction, under having Article 34(6) concluded of the that: “the period between the date of its referral of the present case, 8 October 2013, and the date of the filing by the Respondent recognition of the Court's jurisdiction 11 Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits) op.cit, § 92. 12 Alex Thomas v. Tanzania op.cit, § 74. 13 to hear State of the Declaration individual applications, of 29