and ten (10) months and three (3) days elapsed respectively. The issue to be determined is whether these periods of time are reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 57. The Court notes that to justify the length of time it took him to file the Application, the Applicant asserts that he was deprived of his right to information as a result of his detention from 20 February 2018 to 31 October 2018, as he did not have free access to general information websites and the official newspaper of the Respondent State. In this regard, the Court finds in particular that the failure to file an application within a reasonable time due to incarceration cannot be justified by general assertions or assumptions but must be proven with evidence. 58. The Court notes that it emerges from the records that the Applicant, who was detained on 20 February 2018, escaped on 31 October 2018. The Court considers that as a result of this detention, the Applicant's access to information was significantly reduced so that he could not be aware of legislative and regulatory developments and decisions made in this regard. The Court also notes that owing to his escape, access to information and documents for the purpose of initiating actions before the Court of Appeal became more difficult. 59. In the circumstances of this case, the Court considers that the time taken to bring the case before it is reasonable. Accordingly, the requirement of Rule 50(2)(f) is met. vii. On the requirement relating to cases which have been settled by the Parties 60. Finally, the Court notes that, pursuant to Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules, there is no indication that the present Application relates to a matter already settled 20