that the Respondent State took a year to respond to the Application makes it inequitable to consider unreasonable the period of eleven (11) months within which the present Application was filed. ••• 55. In its established case law, this Court has adopted a case-by-case approach to assessing the reasonableness of the time within which an Application is filed. 12 The Court notes that the Applicant filed the present Application on 6 January 2015 after the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 28 January 2014. The issue for determination is whether the period of eleven (11) months and nine (9) days that elapsed between the two events is reasonable. 56. This Court notes that, following the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Applicant tried to have that judgment reviewed. In the Court's view, he was therefore at liberty to wait for some time before submitting the present Application. As the Court held in the case of Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v. Tanzania, even if the review process is an extraordinary remedy, the time spent by the Applicant in attempting to exhaust the said remedy should be taken into account while assessing reasonableness within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter. 13 As such, the time during which the Applicant attempted to have the Court of Appeal's judgment reviewed before filing this Application cannot be said to be unreasonable. 57. The Court therefore finds that the Application was filed within a reasonable time. As a consequence, the Respondent State's objection is dismissed. 12 See Application No. 013/2011. Preliminary Ruling of 28/06/2013, Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, §§ 121; and Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, op. cit., §§. 73-74. 13 See Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v. Tanzania, § 61. 16