49. The Respondent State claims that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time after local remedies had been exhausted. 50. The Respondent State recalls that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on 7 March 2011, while it deposited the Declaration on 9 March 2010, that is, after a period of one (1) year. 51. The Respondent State further submits that the Applicant’s application for extension of time to file a review was concluded in the Court of Appeal on 13 February 2015, while the present Application was filed before this Court on 22 March 2016, that is, one (1) year, one (1) month and nine (9) days later, and without providing any reasons for the delay. 52. The Respondent State submits that this period is certainly beyond the accepted period of reasonable time as defined by international human rights jurisprudence, which considers six (6) months as reasonable time. Therefore, the Respondent State submits that this Application does not meet the admissibility requirement provided by Rule 40(6) of the Rules,17 and that the Application should be declared inadmissible. * 53. The Applicant disputes the Respondent State’s objection and submits that the Application was filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies. He submits that the period to be considered should be between the moment the Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s application for extension of time to file a review and the filing of the Application before this Court. The Applicant also contends that this Court should take into account the particular circumstances of his case when considering the period of seizure, as the Court confirmed in its decision in Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso. 17 Corresponding to Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. 13