applicant must exhaust all available legal domestic remedies. 13 Further, as noted in Romy Goornah (represented by Dev Hurnam) v. Mauritius, in order to meet the exhaustion requirement a victim must have obtained a final decision from the highest Court to which recourse is available.14 48. With regard to the present Communication , the Complainant submitted that, in 2021 the Victim brought an application in the High Court of South Africa for urgent relief, seeking an order declaring the Rules relating to the removal of the heads of Chapter 9 institutions. When High Court declared a number of the Rules unconstitutional, the Speaker of the National Assembly brought an application in the Constitutional Court, seeking an order for direct leave to appeal the High Court's decision, which was granted. 49 . The Victim sought an order from the Constitutional Court to cross-appeal against the judgment of the High Court against 8 of the 10 grounds dismissed by the High Court.15 The Constitutional Court granted the request by the Victim to crossappeal, 16 thereby accepting to review the Victim 's appeal. In its decision of 04 February 2022 , the Constitutional Court considered all grounds of appeal from the Victim and found them without merit. Accordingly , the Victim's cross appeal was dismissed.17 50 . The Commission takes note of the fact that the Constitutional Court of South Africa is the highest court and final court in the country's judicial system , as stipulated in Article 167(3)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa . Accordingly, the Commission finds that by submitting an application for appeal by the Constitutional Court, the Victim exhausted local remedies in the Respondent State, and therefore the requirement under Article 56(5) African Charter has been met. Article 56(6) of the African Charter 51 . Article 56(6) of the African Charter provides that the Commission shall consider Communications which "are submitted within a reasonable period from the time domestic remedies are exhausted , or from the date the Commission is seized of the matter." 52 . In Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe, the Commission noted that the African Charter does not provide for what constitutes a reasonable period ; however, the Commission took cognizance of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Inter-American Convention on