201 . In refuting the Applicant's allegations, the Respondent State asserts that, while it is recognized that litigants are entitled to have their case tried within a reasonable time, no specific timeframe has been set by law or by international jurisdictions. The Respondent State contends that it cannot be validly argued that the right to a trial within a reasonable time has not been respected; adding that, in the circumstances of the proceedings, there is nothing indicating that the parties to the proceedings or the authorities are at the root of the prolonged delay invoked by the Applicant. 202 . It contends that since the appeal lodged by the Attorney General, one year, nine months and twenty-two elapsed , and that in Benin's practice, this timeframe is more than reasonable, especially in the instant case given that the functioning of the justice system was disrupted during the judicial years 2016-2017 and 20172018 by several strikes which considerably slowed down the course of the proceedings. *** 203. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of a procedure is assessed according to the circumstances of each case , and that such assessment requires a global evaluation of the said circurnstances'". In similar cases, the Court assessed the duration of the proceedings taking into account certain criteria particularly the complexity of the case , the Applicant's conduct, that of the competent authorities and the stakes inherent in the litigation for the parties": 204. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant complains about the length of time that elapsed between the Judgment of 4 November 2016 and the proceedings before CRIET, which was the same as the proceedings before the Court of Appeal on appeal by the Attorney General. On this point, the Court has already noted that before the Court of Appeal, no procedural act was accomplished Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zanga and Others v. Burkina Feso, Judgment, Merits op. cit. §92 ; Application No. 007/2013, Judgment of 3/6/2013 (Merits), Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 91; Appl ication No. 011/2015, Judgment of 28/09/2017 (Merits), Christopher Jonas v.. United Repubtic of Tanzania, § 52. 27 Idem 26 I