54. Article 56(6) requires that a Complaint must be "submitted within a reasonable period from the Commission is time local seized of remedies the are matter". exhausted Neither or the from the Complainant date the nor the Respondent State had submitted arguments on this provision. The Charter does not define what constitutes 'a reasonable period', and the Commission adopts the approach that 'each case must be treated on its own merit'.? In the present case the Complainant in July 2012 applied directly to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and while the Complainant does not state at which time his appeal to the Privy Council was rejected, it appears from the submissions of the Respondent State in paragraph 35 above tliat the rejection was also in July 2012. The Complainant states that his Complaint was thereafter submitted to the Commission in June 2015. 55. In Michael good and Complaint Complaint Majuru v Zimbabwe, compelling for to consideration ensure Documentation reason fairness Centre v the Commission why on and udan11 a Complainant time, the justice" .10 and Dr. ruled that, there is could not submit his/her eommission In "(w)here the cases may of examine the Darfur Relief and Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim (represented by REDRESS) v. Sudan.I? the Commission held that two years and five months, and fifteen months respectively, did not comply with Article 56(6), as "no sufficient reason [were] given as to why th a reasonable period". , the In light of its jurisprudence, and as no justification was plainant for the-three year delay between July 2012 and June given by the Co 201 Communication could not be submitted within ommission within a reasonable finds that the time anc!.4:hus Complaint in this case is not submitted does not meet the requirements of Article 56(6). Article 56(7) of the Charter, the Commission does not find evidence which indicates that the brought before, o State did not issues settled provide any by and any claims other contrary in the Communication international argument. forum. The Accordingly, finds that Article 56(7) of the African Charter has been satisfi have been Respondent �mission ,p•':;��:�'.,\'�,.� � ... ?)-, <:, � ! � i ) :·;., ; , � �� i )} � 1; 'v o/it."" S,o\l AFR!Ct.\� (<.-;s ' C o m m u n i c a t i o n 308/05 -Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) ACHPR para 109. 10 11 12 Ibid, Para 109. Ibid, Para 80. Ibid, Para 77. 12 '<::/"°''"'"''s:Y . I