th 105. The present communication was received at the Secretariat of the Commission on 8 November nd 2005 (even though dated 2 November 2005). It was considered for seizure by the Commission in November 2005, that is, two years after the Complainant allegedly fled from the country. The Complainant never approached the courts of the Respondent State. He left the country in December 2003 and only seized the Commission twenty two months later. The Complainant submits without substantiating that he had been undergoing psychotherapy while in South Africa, and also indicated that he did not have the financial means to bring the case before the Commission. He also stated that he had hoped the situation in the country would improve to enable him utilise domestic remedies but there was instead a deterioration. 106. The Commission notes that the Complainant is not residing in the Respondent State and notes further that the Complainant indicated that he was prevented from submitting his complaint on time, because the judiciary abides by a code of conduct in terms of which they do not ordinarily speak out and take positions against the establishment, noting that out of eight or so members who have left Zimbabwe because of persecution, he is the only one who was speaking out. He added that he was afraid for the lives of members of his immediate family that were at risk of persecution because of him. 107. The State on its part argues that “no cogent reasons have been given for the failure to pursue local remedies or remedies before the Commission within reasonable time”. The State submits that the communication was submitted 22 months after the alleged violation, which according to the State “was filed well out of time”. On Complainant’s submission that he had been seeking psycho-therapy treatment, the State argued that Complainant had been the centre of attraction in South Africa since 2004 demonising the Respondent State adding that articles published by the Complainant do not show someone with a psychological aliment. The State added that no proof had been given of the alleged treatment or an expert diagnosis of having such condition was acquired. On Complainant’s claim that he had no resources, the State argued that he had his pension benefits which he could have used to submit his complaint to the Commission. 108. The Charter does not provide for what constitutes “reasonable period”. However, the 19 Commission has the mandate to interpret the provisions of the Charter and in doing so; it takes cognizance of its duty to protect human and peoples’ rights as stipulated in the Charter. The provisions of other international regional instruments like the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, are almost similar and state that they “... may only deal with the matter ... within a period of six months from the date on 20 which the final decision was taken” , after this period has elapsed the Court/Commission will no longer entertain the communication. 109. The Commission is urged in Articles 60 and 61 of the Charter to consider as subsidiary measures to determine the applicable principles of law “other general or special international instruments, laying down rules expressly recognised by member states of the African Union.” Going by the practice of similar regional human rights instruments, such as the inter-American Commission and Court and the European Court, six months seem to be the usual standard. This not withstanding, each case must be treated on its own merit. 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. 110. In the present communication, the arguments advanced by the Complainant as impediments for his late submission of the complaint do not appear convincing. The complainant does not supply the Commission with medical proof to indicate he was suffering from mental problems, he does not indicate what gave him the impression that things might improve in Zimbabwe, alter he himself noted in his complaint that since 2000 there has been documented evidence to show that things were deteriorating, including the fact that the government does not respect court judgments. Even if the Commission accepts that he fled the country and needed time to settle, or that he was concerned for the safely of his relatives, twenty two (22) months after fleeing the country is clearly beyond a reasonable man’s understanding of reasonable period of time. The African Commission thus holds that the submission of the communication was unduly delayed and thus does not comply with the requirements under Article 56.6 of the Charter.