to ensure fairness and justice. 44. The question that therefore falls for determination is whether a period of thirty four months can be considered reasonable in the circumstances of the present case. 45. The Complainant has made no submissions to explain why the Communication was submitted 34 months after the Sithole judgment was delivered. It has not shown why it was necessary to submit the Communication at the material time. Submitting a Communication thirty four months after local remedies being aware of the unavailability of local remedies without any reason to explain such a long interval is clearly unreasonable and the Commission therefore finds no compelling reason why this Communication should meet the requirement of Article 56(6) . In view of the above, the Commission decides: 1. To declare the Communication inadmissible for failure to comply with Article 56(6) of the Charter; 2. To notify its decision to the parties in accordance with Rule 107(3) of its Rules of Procedure. Done in Banjul, Gambia, at the 14 th Extraordinary Session 1 Unlawful, they argue, because there was no provision in the Constitution of its repeal in the Constitution. Rather, section 134 provided for its amendment, so that if the King was unhappy with some provisions therein, he had the lawful option of amending it. In this regard the Court of Appeal of Swaziland as it then was in Ray Gwebu and Lucky Nhlanhla Bhembe v The King Criminal Appeal Nos. 19 and 20 of 2000 (Unreported) found that indeed the repeal was unlawful. 2 Sabelo Gumedze 'Swaziland' 1580-1588 in Christof Heyns (Ed) Human rights law in Africa Vol. Two (2004). 3 Paragraph 3 of the Proclamation reads: Now THEREFORE I, SOBHUZA II, King of Swaziland, hereby declare that, in collaboration with my Cabinet Ministers and supported by the whole nation, I have assumed supreme authority in the Kingdom of Swaziland and that all Legislative, Executive and Judicial power is vested in myself and shall, for the meantime, be exercised in collaboration with a Council constituted by my Cabinet Ministers. They state further that it is not necessary to go into detail on the provisions of the Proclamation as they were a subject of determination in the matter of Lawyers for Human Rights (Swaziland) v Swaziland , in which the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Commission/the Commission) found the Proclamation to be in violation of the African Charter. Paragraph 3 A. of the Proclamation reads: The Constitution of Swaziland which commenced on the 6th September, 1968, is hereby repealed 4 Appeal No. 35/2007 (Unreported). 5 It reads: Representation: Any member of the general public who desires to make a submission to the Commission may do so in person or in writing and may not represent or be represented in any capacity whilst making such submission to the Commission. 6 Lawyers for Human Rights v Swaziland, paragraph 63 7 Judgement of 21 May 2009, unreported 8 Communication Free Legal Assistance Group and others v Zaire 9 Communication Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Republic of Angola, para. 34 ; see also Communication Social and Economic Rights Action Center, Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Federal Republic of Nigeria , and Union Inter Africaine des Droits de l'Homme, Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme , Rencontre Africaine des Droits de l'Homme, Organisation Nationale des Droits de l'Homme au Sénégal and Association Malienne des Droits de l'Homme v. Republic of Angola. 10 See Communication Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Sudan (2010) ACHPR 6