p.CHPJi (, f,) 6~Jj,iEf{ o.u1u i .. Human Rights ou, Human and Peoples' Rights Collect ive Re sponsibil ity disseminated on mass media but rather on actual facts and decisions taken by the Respondent State. 5 35. The Complainant avers that the present Communication has exhausted local remedies as the matter of the counselling services was litigated first in the High Court in the case of Johannes Moko v Acting Principal of Malusi Secondary School: Mr. Mokgonyana and 4 other, Case No:7515/2020, all the way to the Constitutional Court, the apex court of the Respondent State, in Johannes Moko v Acting Principal of Malusi Secondary School: Mr. Mokgonyana and 4 other, CCT 297/20 thus complying with Article 56(5) of the Charter.6 36. Concerning compliance with Article 56(6) of the Charter, the Complainant submits that the Communication was filed on 12th April 2021, 4 months after the delivery of the Constitutional Court Judgement on 28 th December 2020 despite being received by the Secretariat on the 16th of February 2022 .7 He insists that the Communication was submitted on the ·12th of April 2021 and that even if it was only received by the Secretariat on the 16th of February 2022 , the 14-month duration between when he exhausted local remedies and when he filed the Communication is a reasonable time .8 37 . The Complainant also argues that the Complaint was also transmitted to the Secretariat via Courrier, but the proof was misplaced. 38. The Complainant submits that the present Communication meets the requirement of Article 56(7) of the Charter as it has not been settled in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (UN), the Constitutive Act of the AU, the provisions of the Charter or any legal instrument of the African Union. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT STATE ON ADMISSIBILITY 39. The Respondent State submits that the present Communication is inadmissible as it was filed before exhaustion of local remedies and not filed within a reasonable time. 9 40 . Regarding the former of the two , the Respondent State avers that the Constitutional Court of South of South Africa only decided on the alleged violation of the Complainant's right to education under s29(1 )(a) of the South African Constitution and accordingly the matter of the Counselling session has not exhausted local remedies.10 41 . The Respondent State avers that it has available domestic remedies which the Complainant has not used in the present case . The Respondents indicates that the Complainant could have still approached the Registrar of the Constitutio rt and e requested that the undertaking of the Respondent State autho •c.:," ~c,ti~!~h ,4 .,. O.o Complainant's counselling services be made an order of the Cou . -3' "" -----~o...; I cf <\'< I, <..> ... . . 5 Compla inant's Observations on Admiss ibility and Merits, para 12 6 Complainant's Observations on Admissibility and Merits, para 13-22 7 Complainants Observations on Admissib ility and Merits, para 23-27 8 Compla inant's Observation on Admissibil ity and Merits, Para 25 -27 9 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility and Merits, Page 5-21 10 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibi lity and Merits, para 16 -31 11 Respondent State's Observations on Admissib ility and Merits, para 32-39 \ ~;. _.. 1, \ .d. \,\ - i:! ~ ~ -- 0 <::>Q:: V) I • ( -'Y. 4•·RICAll'I~ ~v <i>.a)\I ----- Q"--":, '<,"> ~~~~v SI Page :,1:;:....,.?.c;.011 African , Union ~ O g j ~ " w ~ <t j The African Comm ission on Human and Peoples' Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kornbo North District, West Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 F m ::ail· ~11 - h~n i11 (/'n);lfri r .~-1 inin n n rn •