reasonable time. In the absence of this, the Commission has been flexible, treating each case based on its context and characteristics. Ascertaining the notion of reasonable time therefore within the Commission, depends on the circumstances of every case. 73. According to the facts before the Commission, the Communication was brought in May 2010 after the decision of the Constitutional Court was communicated to the Victim in January 2009. A period of fifteen (15) months elapsed between the time when the Constitutional Court ruled on the matter, (counting from the time when the decision was communicated to the Victim), and when the Communication was submitted to the Commission. 74. At this point, the Commission would proceed to determine whether fifteen (15) months can be seen as a reasonable period of time. 75. In Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe, the Commission ruled that, ...Where there is good and compelling reason why a Complainant could not submit his/her Complaint for consideration on time, the Commission may examine the Complaint to ensure fairness and justice.34 In that Communication, the Complainant submitted his Complaint twenty-two (22) months after fleeing the country, explaining that, he needed time to settle, was undergoing psycho-therapy and was concerned for the safety of his family. The Commission held that the arguments advanced by the Complainant as impediments for the late submission do not appear convincing, and that twenty two (22) months after fleeing the country is clearly beyond a reasonable man's understanding of reasonable period of time.35 76. Similarly, in Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Sudan,36 a period of twenty-nine (29) months (2 years and 5 months) elapsed between the time the matter was brought to the Commission after exhausting local remedies. The Commission held that the Communication was submitted -Way beyond a time which could be considered reasonable.37 The Commission also reasoned that - There is no sufficient reason given as to why the Communication could not be submitted within a reasonable period,38 and therefore declared the Communication inadmissible. 77. Relying on the above jurisprudence, the Commission holds that, fifteen(15) months of delay in the present Communication cannot be considered as reasonable time, as the explanation given by the Complainant justifying the delay is not compelling. 78. In this regard, the Communication does not fulfill the proviso of Article 56(6) of the African Charter. Decision of the Commission on Admissibility 79. In view of the above, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights: 1. Declares this Communication Inadmissible in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter; 2. Decides to notify the Parties and attach the decision to its Activity Report in accordance with Rule 107(3) of its Rules of Procedure. Done in Banjul, The Gambia, at the 13th Extra-Ordinary Session of the Commission held from 19 to 25 February 2013 1 Sudan ratified the African Charter on 18 February 1986 2 The Ghost House was located in the premises of the former Election Commission 3 The then Security PresidentThe then Security President 4 The then Security Director 5 The Complainant refers to, in particular, Articles 30 & 31 of the National Security Act of 1999 and Article 50 of the National Security Act of 2010. 6 Clarification from the Complainant on the 'Criminal Offence of Hurt': At the time the alleged crimes were committed (from 30 November to 12 December 1989), Sudanese Criminal law did not provide for the crime of torture. The applicable offences in lieu of a specific definition of torture were the Criminal Offence of Hurt under Article 271 of the 1983 Criminal Act and the offence of extorting confessions under Article 282 of the 1983 Criminal Act.According to Article 142 (1) of the 1991 CPA, the Offence of Hurt is deemed to have been committed by anyone who causes any pain or disease to another person and shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, fine or both. Article 142 (2) of the same Act provides: 9