dismissal was also dismissed. However, since the Complainant was thereafter able to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which he had in fact done, this by itself is not sufficient reason to apply the exception to the exhaustion of local remedies requirement. 53. The remaining argument which the Complainant raises in the original Complaint is that there is an undue prolongation of the processing of his cases in this matter before the Courts, and in this regard he specifically avers that there was an undue delay on the part of the Court of Appeal to set down civil Appeal No. 337 of 2013, civil Appeal No. 339 of 2013 and civil Application No. NAI 307 of.2013 for hearings and disposal, in view of the urgent circumstances of the constitutional petition dated 08 June 2012. However, this allegation was not repeated nor substantiated in the Admissibility submissions. In the Admissibility submissions the Complainant only made a general allegation that the Court of Appeal takes an appeals brought by him. asonably long period to dispose of . oe In its jurisprudence, the Commission has held that, if the domestic remedies are prolonged, this may amount to an exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement in the event that the process-has not only been prolonged but that this has been done so “unduly. Whereas there.are no standard criteria used by the Commission to determine if a process has beenunduly prolonged, the Commission has tended to treat each Communication on its own merits. The Commission held that in interpreting the rule, it takes into consideration “the circumstances of each case, including the general context in which the formal remedies operate and the umstances of the applicant”. The Commission’s jurisprudence further f 55. proof is on the Complainant to provide evidence as From the evidences provided by the Complainant, the Commission was able to ascertain that civil Appeal No. 337 of 2013 had been submitted to the Court of Appeal on 29 November 2013, and that the other two cases were also submitted around the same time. This Complaint was received at the Commission on 15 December 2014, approximately one year after the lodgement of the three cases with the Court of Appeal. Due to the absence of any explanation by the Complainant as to what transpired during that year, it is extremely difficult to assess whether this could constitute an undue delay. It is the view of the Commission that the Complainant has thus not satisfied the burden of proof in indicating that the cases pending before the 21 Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia para 50. 13