Human Rights , which provide that they "may only deal with the matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken ." 18 53. In light of the fact that the present Communication was submitted to the Commission on 02 June 2022 , which is approximately four months after the Constitutional Court's judgment which assessed the Victim 's request for appeal on 04 February 2022, the Commission finds the Communication was submitted within a reasonable period from the time domestic remedies were exhausted in the Respondent State . Accordingly , the Commission finds that the requirement under Article 56(6) of the African Charter has been met. Article 56(7) of the African Charter 54. Article 56(7) of the African Charter stipulates that Communications received by the Commission shall be considered if they "do not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the Organization of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter." In the present Communication , there is no evidence before the Commission to show that this Communication has been settled by any international adjudication mechanism . Consequently, the Commission holds that the admissibil ity requirement in Article 56 (7) of the African Charter has been met. 55 . In view of the above, the Commission finds that the Communication is compatible with Article 56 of the Charter and declares it admissible. MERITS Submissions of the Complainants on the merits: Violation of Article 7(1) of the African Charter 56. The Complainant submits that the Victim was subjected to a removal process constituting an Independent Panel , which violates the principle of separation of powers, in particular judicial independence. Accordingly, the Complainant avers that the Respondent State violated the Victim 's right to have her cause heard. In particular, the Complainant submits that, the fact that the process for removal of the Victim is inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers , in particular judicial independence , the process violates the Victim 's right to have her cause heard , which is protected under Article 7(1) of the African Charter. 57 . The Complainant contends that, should it be found that the Respondent State's process for removal of the Victim from her office as Public Protector is inconsistent with judicial independence , it is therefore submitted that the appointment of the Independent Panel for the removal of the Victim from the position of Public Protector violates the Victims ' right under Article 7(1 ) of the African Charter. 18 Communication 308/05: Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe (2008) ACHPR, paragraph 108 10