indicate that the Complainants made a unilateral petition to the Council, which had been pending for over eight months before approaching the Commission." Were the remedies unduly prolonged? 124. The Commission has in the past considered that the remedies were unduly prolonged including after: one year eight months in the case of Kabambi v the Democratic Republic of Congo;30 ten years in the case of Modise v. Botsioanav! and five years in the case of Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence and Interights v Cameroon= In this regard, it appears that the time frame may vary with the circumstance of each case. 125. In order to guide itself on this issue, the Commission has developed three criteria, namely: the legal time limits prescribed by the domestic law; the facts of the case; and the specific circumstances of the Complainants.P 126. In terms of the legal time limits prescribed by domestic law, Proclamation No. 250/2001 provides under section 18(2) that the issue of constitutional interpretation could be raised by a party before the courts. The party is also at liberty to submit a case before the Council within 90 days upon the rejection of his case by the court pursuant to section 22(3). In essence, therefore, having raised the matter before the court on 17th December 2012 and the decision made, as explained under paragraph 87, that the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 did not raise constitutional concerns. The Complainants therefore made a unilateral application on 15 January 2013 to the Council, which application has been pending for over eight months.v 127. Assuming that the Council had acted on the application, the House of Federation would have been obliged to resolve the case within 30 days pursuant to section 13(2) of the Proclamation No. 251/2001. That the Complainants' petition is still pending eight months later before the Council for a matter that should have been concluded within a couple of months is untenable. 128. The facts of the case also appear to support the position that the remedies pursued by the Complainants were unduly prolonged. Otherwise, the Respondent State would not have relied on Melanku Fenta and others case to indicate that constitutional matters in the Respondent State are normally dealt with swiftly. 129. Lastly, the circumstances of the Victims necessitates that the matter is resolved in the shortest period of time pursuant to the Provisional Measures issued by the Commission earlier.P Due to the fact that it is probable that the Victims may be facing torture and other human rights violations in Prison, to require them to wait for a prolonged period of time would actually defeat the course of justice. 130. The Commission therefore finds that the eight months delay period in this Communication with regards to the unilateral petition of the Complainants is unduly See paragraphs 1 and 88 of this Communication. As above, para 47. 31 Communication 185/2002 - Modise v. Botswana (2000), ACHPR, para 69. ~ 32 Communication 272/03 - Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence and lnterights v. Cameroonr(20D9), ,. ,4lvu .,~. ACHPR, para. 47. . o~ 33 Communication 408/11- Jose Alidor Kabambi Beya Ushiye and others v. Democratic Republic ofl fgo, ACHPR, ) '-'~ \ para 40. fJg ,..,; 34 See para. 88. i u~ , 35 See paras 33 & 34 above. 'i. 04 J' ~. 29 30 ~_l I ~ .' to) . . 5 ., '" "" ~ 1. ~~ ...19 'u", ""'RIC ('Ito ....: ~fE'QC. '" ()r.c. ,,'" p.,,,~ v Q c,<'< ••.. .. ' " , ,./ .'1I