78. Since evidence has been shown that the competent authorities were seized following the required formalities, the Respondent State has two obligations: act immediately to prevent remedies from being unduly prolonged or refute the Complainant’s evidence. 79. Regarding the first obligation following seizure, the responsibility lies with the Respondent State to ensure that local remedies are not unduly prolonged. On this point, the Commission notes that between the date when the Complainant’s husband attempted to exhaust remedies at the national level, that is, on 23 November 2007, and the time the Commission was seized on 7 September 2010, close to three years elapsed without the Complainant receiving any response from the authorities of the Respondent State. 80. The Commission notes in particular that between 13 November 2012 when the Respondent State acknowledged receipt of the Complainant’s submission and the date of this decision, the Respondent State has been unable to prove to the Commission that action has been taken to activate local remedies. In summary, from the time local remedies were sought in 2007 to the date of this decision, it has been close to five years since the Complainant has not received any outcome regarding her complaints. Even if the latter period cannot be taken into account when calculating the delay of remedies, the Commission notes that its seizure of the matter does not prevent the Respondent State from activating local remedies. Consequently, the Respondent State was well informed of the facts and had the discretion to act. 81. In any case, the Commission notes that at the time it was seized, local remedies were prolonged for three years without any response. In its jurisprudence, the Commission has considered that local remedies were unduly prolonged for ten years21 and also for five years. 22 It can be concluded that the Commission’s position is to consider if remedies have been unduly prolonged on a case-by-case basis. By comparison, in the case of Bousroual v. Algeria,23 the UN Human Rights Committee considered as unduly prolonged a procedure that lasted four years. In the light of the circumstances of the present case presented above, the Commission notes that local remedies were unduly prolonged, and as such fail to meet the requirements of Article 56(5) of the African Charter. See Modise v. Botswana Communication 97/93 (2000) AHRLR 30 (ACHPR 2000) para 69. See for example Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence and Interights v. Cameroon Communication 272/03 (2009) AHRLR 47 (ACHPR 2009); People’s Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism v. The Gambia Communication 44/90 (2000) AHRLR 104 (ACHPR 1996). 23 Communication 1085/2002 (2006) AHRLR 3 (HRC 2006) para 8.3. 21 22 17