Nixon Nyikadzino v Zimbabwe Ray Choto and Mark Chavhunduka case as an example and further claimed that the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights had documented at least 12 instances where the State has ignored court rulings. 95. In the Mr. Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe in which the facts of the case and issues raised are similar with the case at hand, the African Commission ruled that "it is not enough for a Complainant to simply conclude that because the State failed to comply with a court decision in one instance, it will do the same in their own case. Each case must be treated on its own merits"3o. 96. In the same vein, in Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe31 wherein the Complainant argued on similar grounds of ignorance of court decisions by Zimbabwe, the African Commission re-affirmed its position that the Complainant instead of casting doubts, should have attempted to exhaust local remedies. 97. Similarly, in the present case the African Commission is of the view that the Complainant should have tried to pursue the local remedies available, rather than merely anticipating the outcomes of court proceedings. 98. Based on the above, the African Commission finds that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the Charter has not been met. 99. The third issue of contention is the Admissibility requirement under Article 56(6) of the Charter, which provides that Communications should be "submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted or from the date the Commission is seized with the matter". 30 31 Mr. Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe para 84. Communication 308/07 - Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) ACHPR paras 101 -103 24 l1 1h Extraordinary Session of the ACHPR I Page