*** 54. Pursuant to Article 56(6) of the Charter, as restated in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, in order for an application to be admissible, it must be “submitted within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter”. 55. In the present case, the Court notes that between 7 March 2013 when the Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s appeal and 22 March 2016 when the Applicant filed the present Application, a period of three (3) years, and fifteen (15) days elapsed. 56. The Court further notes that Article 56(6) of the Charter, as restated in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, does not set a fixed time limit within which it must be seized. However, the Court has held that “the reasonableness of the time limit for referral depends on the particular circumstances of each case and must be determined on a case-by-case basis.”18 57. In this regard, the Court has considered as relevant factors, the fact that an applicant is incarcerated,19 their indigence, the time taken to utilise the procedures of the application for review at the Court of Appeal, or the time taken to access the documents on file,20 the need for time to reflect on the advisability of seizing the Court and determine the complaints to be submitted.21 18 Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92; Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 56; Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 19 Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426, § 52; Thomas v. Tanzania, ibid, § 74. 20 Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 61. 21 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections), supra, § 122. 14