80. Based on the above, the Commission aligns itself with the Respondent State's argument that the Complainant has not engaged any proceedings in relation to his claim in Mauritius even though he had the opportunity to do so and the avenue to do so is available. The Commission also holds that the Complainant has not demonstrated that the available avenues are inaccessible, ineffective and insufficient. The Commission, therefore, concludes that the Complainant has not compiled with Article 56(5) of the African Charter. 81. With regards to reasonable time factor, Article 56(6) requires that Communications be submitted within a reasonable period of time after local remedies have been exhausted or from the date the Commission is seized with the matter. However, the African Charter does not define the time frame considered as "reasonable." From its practice, the Commission has been flexible in determining what constitutes a "reasonable period" and will make the determination on a case-by-case basis. In making such determination, the Commission focuses on when domestic remedies were exhausted or when the Complainant realized that domestic remedies were not available, sufficient, or effective. 18 The Respondent State and the Complainant did not make any submissions regarding Article 56(6). 82. In the present Communication, the Commission notes that the Complainant brought the matter to the Commission 4 months after the decision of the Court of Appeal and release from prison. However, considering the Commission's ruling that local remedies were not exhausted, can the Commission effectively establish that the Communication was brought within reasonable time? 83. In Ahmed Ismael and 528 Others v. the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Commission found that the period within which the matter was brought to the Commission was unreasonable as the Complainant did not make a proper assessment of local procedures before bringing the case to the Commission. In that Communication, the Commission noted that "At the very least, the Complainant should have waited to see the outcomes of the review procedure guaranteed in Article 224 before bringing this matter before the Commission" .19 84. Similarly, in the present Communication before the Commission, the Complainant should have exhausted all local remedies, including filing a claim for damages from the Respondent State within the specified two years and waiting for the outcome before bringing the matter to the Commission. As a matter of fact, the Communication was submitted to the Commission before the time prescribed by POP A to file for damages at the domestic level elapsed and no compelling reasons or justifications were provided by the Complainant. •