Appeal on 6 June, 2011. According to the Respondent, the application was struck out for procedural errors and the Applicants later filed another application, this time for an extension of time by the High Court, application October to file an was 2012, appeal. also struck and that The out with they filed Respondent claims that this cost to the Applicants another application on for 11 the extension of time to appeal. 59. Regarding Respondent allegations argues relating to that the Applicants Police showed brutality, no the proof that the presumed victims sued the government in the domestic Courts. The Respondent also argues that a letter produced by the Applicants was baseless. 5.) Reasonable time — Article 56(6) of the Charter 60. According Applicants’ to the compensation Respondent, claim was the judgment issued to dismiss in May 2011 and the the Applicants seized this Court only in January 2012, eight (8) months after the pronouncement of the judgment. Regarding the alleged Police brutality, the Respondent argues that the facts took place on 13 October 2010, whereas this Court was seized that is, one (1) year and three (3) months in January 2012, after the alleged violence. It adds that even if the Court does not give an indication of what should be reasonable time, the Commission, as well as other regional bodies, recognized a six (6) months period as , ~~). LL’ time. \— A se _ / > = |