Appeal on 6 June, 2011 . According to the Respondent, the application was struck out for procedural errors and the Applicants later filed another application , this time for an extension of time by the High Court, to file an appeal. The Respondent claims that this application was also struck out with cost to the Applicants on 11 October 2012, and that they filed another application for the extension of time to appeal. 59. Regarding allegations relating to Police brutality, the Respondent argues that the Applicants showed no proof that the presumed victims sued the government in the domestic Courts. The Respondent also argues that a letter produced by the Applicants was baseless . 5.) Reasonable time- Article 56(6) of the ·Charter 60. According to the Respondent, the judgment to dismiss the Applicants' compensation claim was issued in May 2011 and the Applicants seized this Court only in January 2012, eight (8) months after the pronouncement of the judgment. Regarding the alleged Police brutality, the Respondent argues that the facts took place on 13 October 2010, whereas this Court was seized in January 2012, that is, one (1) year and three (3) months after the alleged violence. It adds that even if the Court does not give an indication of what should be reasonable time, the Commission , as well as other re tonal bodies , recognized a six (6) months period as reasonable time. --... ~/Llr- 19 ~ ~ ~~c)