has not progressed beyond investigation to a case before the local courts, whereas in Chacha v. Tanzania the issue of undue pro! ngation of dome tic rem die was in r ferenc to the duration of time that applications were pending in the High Court. 26 95. Ba ed on the above, the Commission concludes that the State's failure to investigate the alleged violations rendered the existing local remedies ineffective, given that they did not offer any reasonable prospect of success without the n cessary investigations. According to the established case law of the Commission, a remedy that has no prospect of success does not constitute an effective remedy, 27 thereby meeting the exception to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the requirement under Article 56(5) has been met. 96. Article 56(6) of the African Charter provides that the Commission shall consider Communications which "are submitted within a reasonable period from the time domestic remedies are exhausted, or from the date the Commission is seized of the matter." 97. In its jurisprudence, the Commission has specified that it will focus on when domestic remedies were exhausted or- when the Complainant realized that the domestic remedies were not available, sufficient, or effective. 28 Additionally, based on its practice the Commission determines whether a good and compelling reason has been demonstrated to illustrate why the complaint was submitted for consideration within a reasonable amount of time, to ensure fairness and justice. 29 98. In the present Communication, the submissions indicate that the Victim and Complainants were informed that the police had closed the investigation, thereby rendering local remedies ineffective, by 15 June 2018 as detailed in paragraph 46; however the complaint was submitted to the Commission on 28 April 2019. As elaborated in paragraphs 47 and 48, the Complainants indicated that th Victim's physical and mental state necessitated an assessment before legal proceedings could be instituted at the Commission. The complaint was subsequen .,, · d to the Commission within six (6) months of receipt of this assessmen ... "t~",;•.,~ I, ,._,~ 26 Application 003/2012: Chacha v. The United Republic of Tanzania (2014) AFCHP . https:/h1fri an lii.org/afu/ jud gm nt/afri an- ou rt/2014/48 0 ~ !:, , ...,, ,. SJ ~~'"o 27 Communication147/95-149/96: Sir Dawda K. Jawara v. The Gambia (2000) ACHPR, para gb~~ ~~ Communication 386/10: Dr. Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim (represented by REDRFSS) v. Su an (2013) ACHPR, paragraph 71 29 Jd, paragraph 75; See also Communication 308/05: Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe, pa ragra ph 109 28 19