remedies is not required where, as was his case, he was illegally removed from the Respondent State’s jurisdiction. Additionally: he cannot pursue remedies from outside Djibouti; he is unable to return; and/or it would be impractical and unrealistic for him to seek any possible domestic remedy there. To demonstrate his inability to return to Djibouti, the Complainant states that he no longer has means to travel to Djibouti, a strange country for him, and to retain a lawyer to represent him in his quest for justice from the domestic courts. 74. With regard to Article 56(6) of the African Charter, the Complainant argues that since domestic remedies are not available, the requirement to present his Communication within reasonable time does not apply. 75. Alternatively, he argues that the Communication should be held to have been submitted within reasonable time from the date he became aware that domestic remedies were not available, to wit, any time after 31 March 2009 when he submitted a letter to the Djiboutian authorities, detailing the treatment he suffered. The Communication having been submitted within six months from 31 March 2009, it should be held to be within reasonable time, so he argues. 76. Further in the alternative, the Complainant argues that owing to the clandestine nature of the treatment he was subjected to and the repercussions of such treatment on his entire life, three years (from the date of his eventual release from prison) must be held to be reasonable time in terms of Article 56(6) of the African Charter. 77. Lastly, the Complainant states that the substance of his Communication has not been settled by any other procedure of international investigation or adjudication. 2. Respondent States Arguments on Admissibility 78. The Respondent State challenged the admissibility of this Communication on the basis of non-compliance with Article 56(2), (5), and (6) of the African Charter. 79. The Respondent State argues that the Communication is not compatible with the Charter as required under Article 56(2) thereof. In this regard it states first that compatibility ratione materiae requires that the Communication should indicate prima facie violations of the rights protected under the Charter. In this regard it argues that the evidence presented by the Complainant does not meet the standard of ‘sufficient factual basis’ to establish a prima facie case of violations of his rights. 14