government into disrepute. The State hasn’t shown the detrimental effect of this statement on the judiciary in particular and state institutions as a whole. There is no evidence adduced by the State to show that the statements were used in bad faith or calculated to poison the mind of the public against the government and its institutions. 56. The African Commission does not therefore believe there has been any use of disparaging or insulting language against the government of the Republic of Zimbabwe or any of its institutions or the African Union. The African Commission is also of the view that the communication complies with Article 56(4) which stipulates that communications should not be exclusively based on news disseminated through the mass media. The present communication has been compiled from affidavits and applications from the High and Supreme Court of Zimbabwe. 57. Regarding Article 56(5) relating to the exhaustion of domestic remedies the Complainants argue that the exception to the rule on the basis of unduly prolonged procedure should apply. They argue that the delays in the finalisation of the petitions by the Supreme and High Courts was unreasonable and warrants, according to the Complainants, the invoking of the exclusionary rule to the exhaustion of local remedies as they are non-existent. 58. What constitutes unduly prolonged procedure under Article 56(5) has not been defined by the African Commission. There are therefore no standard criteria used by the African Commission to determine if a process has been unduly prolonged, and the Commission has thus tended to treat each communication on its own merits. In some cases, the Commission takes into account the political situation of the country, in other cases, the judicial history of the country and yet in others, the nature of the complaint. 59. The subject matter of the present communication is the validity of election results. Election results are supposed to be released as quickly as possible so as to enable those vying for office to know the outcome. In most jurisdictions, because of the very nature of elections, mechanisms are put in place to ensure that the results are released as expeditiously as possible and that whatever petitions are submitted by disgruntled contestants, they are dealt with speedily. 60. The exception under Article 56(5) requires that the process must not only be prolonged but must have been done so“unduly” . Unduly means, “Excessively” or “unjustifiably”. Thus, if there is a justifiable reason for prolonging a case, it cannot be termed “undue”, for example, where the country is caught in a civil strife or war, or where the delay is partly caused by the victim, his family or his representatives. While the Commission has not developed a standard for determining what is “unduly prolonged”, it can be guided by the circumstances of the case and by the common law doctrine of a “reasonable man’s test”. Under this test, the court seeks to find out, given the nature and circumstances of a particular case, how any reasonable man would decide. 61. Thus, given the nature of the present communication, would a reasonable man conclude that the matter has been unduly prolonged? For all intents and purposes, the answer would be yes. More than four years after the election petitions were submitted, the Respondent State’s courts have failed to dispose of them and the positions which the victims are contesting are occupied and the term of office has almost come to an end. For the above reasons, the African Commission holds that the communication meets the exception rule under Article 56(5)and the other requirements of Article 56, and thus declares it admissible. Submissions on the merits Complainant’s submissions 62. The Complainants submit that the State Party has violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 7(1)(a), 7(1)(d), 13 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and further that the violations were as follows: 1. the right to equal protection of the law under Articles 2 and 3 based on the fact that the law courts failed to decide on the election petitions within a reasonable time and that the petitioners were discriminated against on the protection of law due to the political opinions which were expressed in the petitions;