there is incontrovertible evidence of ineffectiveness of remedies and therefore would not apply in the present case. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that the First Complainant had an effective remedy at her disposal. 48. The Commission now proceeds to determine whether or not, in any event, the First Complainant was exempted from exhausting local remedies because they were unduly prolonged. As a matter of law, Article 56(5) does not require the exhaustion of local remedies where it is obvious that the procedures are unduly prolonged. ‘Unduly’ has been interpreted as meaning ‘excessively’ or ‘unjustifiably’, and therefore if there is a reason for the delay then the remedy may still require to be exhausted.31 There is no standard criteria to determine if a process has been unduly prolonged, the Commission will look at a number of factors including the ‘political situation’, the ‘judicial history’ and ‘the nature of the complaint’, as well as the ‘reasonable man test’.32 A justifiable reason for prolonging a case will not be ‘undue’.33 49. In the present case, it has been submitted by the Complainants that the First Complainant’s procedure was unduly prolonged in that she waited 12 years to receive judgment on her Civil case before the High Court. Whilst the Commission realises the lengthy duration of this process, it also notes the First Complainant waited for its completion regardless. It must be noted that by the very meaning of Article 56(5), the First Complainant was not expected to withstand that 12 year delay. The Commission has previously held that there is no requirement to wait for a pending case which does not offer a remedy which is neither available, sufficient or effective.34 It follows that after waiting for 12 years for the domestic procedure to resolve the First Complainant forfeited her right to dispense with the remedies on the basis that they were unduly prolonged. The Commission is of the view that despite her wait, given that she had stood by those proceedings, the First Applicant, by her own choice, had to exhaust local remedies. 50. The Commission further takes note that whilst the issues regarding the First Complainant’s case are trite, there has been no indication of the exhaustion of local 31 Wilfred Onyango Nganyi & 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, App. No. 006/2013, Judgment of 18 March 2016, para 91. 32 Communication 293/04 : Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa / Zimbabwe, 22 May 2008, paras 58 and 60. 33 Communication 293/04 : Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa / Zimbabwe, 22 May 2008, para 60. 34 Communication 467/14 – Ahmed Ismael and 528 Others v. the Arab Republic of Egypt, 27 May 2016, para 158. 15