Nixon Nyikadzino v Zimbabwe 63. The Respondent State submits that in the modern era of communication where various modes are available, it would not require a Complainant lengthy period of time, in this case, a year, to submit a Complaint or indeed communicate with his representatives, taking into account the gravity of the alleged violations. 64. In light of the above, the Respondent State submits that the period between 14 April 2006 and 3 May 2007, which is a year, cannot be considered reasonable in the circumstances. 65. In conclusion the Respondent State contends that this Communication should not be Admissible because it is not in full compliance with Article 56 of the Charter. The Commission's Analysis on Admissibility 66. Article 56 of the Charter provides seven admissibility requirements which need to be cumulatively fulfilled before a Com~unication is declared Admissible. In the present Communication, while the Complainant argues that all the seven requirements have been met, the Respondent State contests the fulfillment of three of the seven requirements namely Article 56(2), (5) and (6) of the Charter. 67. With regards to the remaining four requirements, since the Respondent State has not expressly disputed them, the African Commission is of the view that the Respondent State agrees with the Complainant that they have been fulfilled. The African Commission, after looking into the submissions of the Complainant, also finds no ground to decide otherwise, and hence rules that Articles 56(1), (3), (4) and (7) of the Charter have been met. Accordingly, the African Commission analyzes the submissions of both parties against the contested Admissibility requirements. 16 11 th Extraordinary Session of the ACHPR I P age