96. Given the Applicants' situation, compounded by the delay in providing them with Court records and the absence of legal counsel at the later stage of the proceedings, this Court holds that the Respondent's objection relating to non-exhaustion of local remedies is unfounded, and hereby dismisses the same. iv. 97. Filing of the Application within a reasonable time In its Response to the Application, the Respondent submits that the requirement of reasonableness of time has not been met, as the Applicants have not exhausted all available local remedies as per Rule 40 (5) of the Rules. Therefore, accordin9 to the Respondent, it cannot be said that the Application has been filed within a reasonable time from when local remedies were exhausted, as local remedies are yet to be exhausted. 98. The Respondent avers that In the alternative and without prejudice to what has been stated above, should the Court find that local remedies have been exhausted, it is its contention that the Application has not been filed within a reasonable time from when the local remedies were exhausted. It avers further that although Rule 40 (6) of the Rules does not prescribe, define or quantify a period of reasonable time, there are developments in International human rights jurisprudence, which have established a period of six (6) months as reasonable time. The Respondent adds that being in remand prison is not a bar for the Applicants to access the Court, as they in fact have been able to do so, and indeed the Applicants have let a reasonable time elapse from the time they felt aggrieved in 2006 and from the time the decision was delivered in the Court of Appeal , in Criminal Appeal 353 of 2008, to the time they brought the Application before this Court. 99. The Respondent concludes on this point that the Application should be declared inadmissible because of the unreasonable time that has lapsed, in accordance with the provision of Rule 40 (6) of the Rules. The Respondent refers to the African <til 29 ~ ~7:: ~ S- & ro·