B. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 43. The Respondent State asserts that the Application was not lodged within a reasonable time. 44. The Applicant on the other hand did not make any submissions on this objection. *** 45. The Court notes that the issue at hand is whether the time taken by the Applicant to file the present Application is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter read jointly with Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 46. Under Article 56(6) of the Charter, restated in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules of Court, an application is admissible only if it is “submitted within a reasonable period from the time 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 seised with the matter.” 47. The Court notes that these provisions do not set a time-limit within which the case must be filed before it. The Court recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that: “... the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a caseby-case basis ...”.12 The Court recalls that in determining whether or not the time-limit for bringing a case before it is reasonable, it takes into account certain factors, including the applicant’s situation, the fact that he or she is in prison, is lay, did not benefit from legal assistance, and is indigent or illiterate. 48. The Court has also consistently held that failure to file an application within a reasonable time due to indigence and incarceration must be proven and 12 Norbert Zongo and others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (28 March 2014) 1 AFCLR 219, § 92. See Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 12