0001 46. Further 4 ? in Amiri Ramadhani v Tanzanials and Christopher Jonas v Tanzaniali the Court decided that the period of five (5) years and one month was reasonable owing to the circumstances of the Applicants. ln these two cases the Court took into consideration the fact that the Applicants were imprisoned, restricted in their movements and with limited access to information; they were lay, indigent, did not have assistance of a lawyer in their trials at the domestic court, were illiterate and were not aware of the existence of the Court. 47. Moreover in Werema Wangoko and another v. United Republic of TanzanialT, the Court decided that the Applicants having used the review procedure, were entitled to wait for the review judgment to be delivered and that this justified the filing of their Application five (5) years, five (5) months after exhaustion of local remedies. 48.1n the instant case, the Court notes that although the Applicants are also incarcerated and thus restricted in their movement, they have not asserted or provided any proof that they are illiterate, lay, or had no knowledge of the existence of the Court. The Applicants have simply described themselves as "indigent". 49.The Court further notes that the Applicants were represented by legal counsel in their trial and appeals at the domestic level but they did not file for review of their final judgments. Overall, while the Court has always considered the personal circumstances of applicants in determining the lapse of reasonable time taken before being seized of a matter, the present Applicants have not provided the Court with any material evidence on the basis of which the Court can conclude that the period of five (5) years and 15 16 Amii Ramadhani v. Tanzania (Merits) $ 50. Christopher Jonas v. Tanzania (Merits) $ 54. u Werema Wangoko v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations) $ 49 15 \?-"\q /'O