A. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 33. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant filed his Application almost two (2) years and six (6) months after the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The Respondent State argues that this lapse of time was unreasonable, and the Application should be declared inadmissible. In support of its argument, the Respondent State, citing the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Commission) in Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe, submits that a period of more than six (6) months should be deemed as unreasonable for filing applications before the Court. 34. The Applicant does not respond to the objection raised by the Respondent State. *** 35. The Court reiterates that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the exact time within which applications must be filed, after exhaustion of local remedies. Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules merely provide that applications must be filed “… within 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”. Therefore, the Respondent State’s reference to the period of six (6) months, as being the reasonable time period, has no basis in the Charter and cannot be justified. 36. As the Court has previously held, “… the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”13 In assessing reasonableness, this Court has previously considered, inter alia, the fact that an applicant is 13 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits), supra, § 92. See also Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 11