EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 54 petitioned the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe arguing that seventeen provisions of the Act are unconstitutional (and restrict the enjoyment of freedom of expression). The Supreme Court ruled that four of the seventeen provisions are indeed unconstitutional. However, the Complainants are not satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court, nor are they satisfied with the measures taken by the State to amend some of the provisions found to be unconstitutional. They have thus approached the Commission challenging those same provisions as contravening Articles 1, 2 and 9 of the African Charter. Nowhere in their submissions have the Complainants indicated that they were before the Commission because they could not apply for a license or that they have been denied a broadcasting license. The State can therefore not rely on an issue that is not before this Commission to argue that local remedies have not been exhausted. Therefore, this Communication has complied with Article 56(5) of the Charter. 88. Article 56(6) stipulates that a Communication should be submitted within a reasonable period of time after exhausting local remedies or from the date the Commission is seized with the matter. 89. In the present Communication the Supreme Court rendered its judgment on 25 September 2003 and the Complainants submitted the Complaint with the Commission on 19 August 2005, which is almost two years after exhausting local remedies. 90. The question here is, can this period be considered as ‘reasonable’ in terms of Article 56(6) of the Charter? 91. Unlike the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 30 and the American Convention on Human Rights31, which provide a specific time limit for the submission of communications, which is six months, the African Charter only provides that Communications should be submitted ‘within a reasonable period’ which is not defined. The Commission thus treats each case on its own merit to ascertain the reasonableness of the time.32 92. Thus, in Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Republic of Sudan33 the Commission stated that the lapse of two years and five months or twenty nine months without any reason or justification was considered as unreasonable. The Commission noted further that ‘where there is a good and compelling reason why a Complainant does not submit his complaint to the Commission for consideration, the Commission has a responsibility, for the sake of fairness and justice, to give such a Complainant an opportunity to be heard’. 93. In the present Communication, it took the Complainants two years after the exhaustion of local remedies to bring the matter to the Commission. The reason 30 31 32 33 Art 26 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 46(1)(b) American Convention on Human Rights Communication 310 /05 - Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Republic of Sudan (2009) para 74. Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Republic of Sudan para 77.