p.CH!'h . ~··6~1j,Ef{ ., Human Rights ouc Collective Responsibility Human and Peoples' Rights 42. It is also the contention of the Respondent State that the Complainant's prayer for compensation to the tune of $300 000.00 is a different substantive claim than that brought before the Courts of South Africa in which no monetary compensation was sought. It is argued by the Respondent that this amounts to a delictual claim which should have been filed in the courts of South Africa. 12 43. The Respondent State further emphasises that international enforcement mechanisms must be a last resort. 13 They submit that the remedies in South Africa are available, effective , and sufficient and this they argue is proven by the Bill of rights in the South African Constitution which guarantees access to the courts; an effective judiciary capable of providing a remedy. 14 44. Furthermore, the Respondent State contends that the present Communication does not comply with Article 56(6) of the Charter as it was not sent within a Reasonable time. Relying on the findings in Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) 15 it is submitted that the Commission has found a period of six (6) months to be a reasonable time to submit one's complaint from the time of exhaustion of local remedies . 45 . The Respondent State avers that the Complainant has sought to mislead the Commission by on the correct dates for when the Constitutional Court of South Africa handed down its judgment and when the Complaint was filed at the Secretariat. The understanding of the Respondent State is that the Constitutional Court handed down their judgment on the 28th of December 2020 and the Complaint was filed on the 16th of February 2022. The Respondent State also rejects the contention that the Complaint was also couriered to the Secretariat in the absence of evidence, they insist that such evidence is easily accessible from the Courrier service. In addition, the Respondent State submits that the computation of the reasonable time period is not concerned with when the Complaint was received but rather when it was seized. 46 . The contention of the Respondent State therefore is that the Commission should reject the Communication as it does not conform with Article 56(6). , ... THE COMMISSION'S ANALYSIS ON ADMISSIBILITY 47.A Communication submitted in terms of Article 55 must satisfy the seven requirements in Article 56 of the Charter in order to be declared admissible . 48 . The Commission recalls that the conditions outlined in Article 56 of the Charter are cumulative and should all be adequately fulfilled for a commun · conformity with the terms of Article 55 to be admissible. Conse i 12 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility and Merits, para 32 - 50 13 Respondent State's Observations on Adm issibil ity and Merits, para 51-55 14 Respondent State's Observations on Adm issibility and Merits, para 57-62 15 AHRLR 146 (ACHPR) " "71. ' , (~ · "-'4.• -.;:_ 041Mf ,~~ ·---= 6I Page African[ z u 4: \ Union . "I The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region Gambia Phone : (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Fm::.il · ~11- h~ni, 11/m~frir.~-t ininn nrn