be termed "undue", for example, where a country is caught in a civil strife or war, which may impact on the functioning of the judiciary, or where the delay is partly caused by the victim, his family or his representatives. 92. In Communication 293104, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa vs, Zimbabwe, the African Commission noted that while it has not developed a standard for determining what IS "unduly prolonged", it can be guided by the circumstances of each case and by the common law doctrine of a "reasonable man's test". Under this test, the Commission sought to find out, given the nature and circumstances of a particular case, how any reasonable man would decide. 93. Considering the circumstances of this Application , the question is whether the procedure has been unduly prolonged. 94. Taking all the factors into account, the Court answers the question posed in paragraph 93 in the affirmative. Since the Applicants were arrested and charged before the Respondent's Courts in 2006 until they seized this Court in 2013, and to date, almost ten years since proceedings started, the Respondent's courts have failed to bring finality to the matter. The Respondent's arguments that the delay has been occasioned by applications made by the Applicants for stay of proceedings cannot stand, as it behoves the Courts of the Respondent to bring finality to the matter. Besides, there is no indication that the Respondent's courts granted any of the Applications to stay proceedings in the matters. 95. Furthermore, the Respondent's arguments that the Applicants should have instituted a Constitutional Petition or a Review is unacceptable, because this Court has established that these are extra-ordinary remedies that the Applicants need not resort to, as it was held by this Court in its Judgment delivered on 20 November 2015, in Application 005 of 2013, Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (see Alex Thomas, supra, paragraph 64). 28