proceedings. The Complainant further notes that the Judicial Committee is the highest and final Court in the Republic of Mauritius. Accordingly having taken the case to the highest court of the land, the Complainant submits that the requirement in Article 56(5) has been met. 25. The Complainant further avers that the complaint was filed within a reasonable time after the exhaustion of local remedies. The Respondent State’s Submissions on Admissibility 26. The Respondent State submits that the Complainant has failed to comply with Articles 56(2) and (5) of the African Charter. 27. Regarding Article 56(2), the Respondent State submits that compatibility with the African Charter entails that any communication filed should prove prima facie violation of the specified Articles, failing which there is no Communication before the Commission. 28. The Respondent State refers to Communication 306/05: Samuel T. Muzerengwa and 110 Others v. Zimbabwe, in which the Commission held that prima facie violation of the provisions of the Charter is said to have occurred, “when the facts presented in the complaint show that a human rights violation has likely occurred. The complaint should be one that compels the conclusion that a human rights violation has occurred is not contradicted or rebutted by the Respondent State.” 29. The Respondent State submits that the complainant is using the Commission as a platform to re-litigate the matter which came to a rest following the pronouncement of the appellate court of the Supreme Court of Mauritius. The Respondent State further submits that the subject matter of the communication is strikingly similar to that submitted to the appellate court of the Supreme Court, and in its pronouncement the Supreme Court held that there was no merit in the application and the appeal was dismissed. Additionally, the Respondent State notes that the Victim petitioned the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, however the appeal was refused. 30. Accordingly the Respondent State submits that the communication has failed to comply with the requirements of Article 56(2) of the African Charter. 31. With regards to Article 56(5) on the exhaustion of local remedies, the Respondent State submits that Mauritius enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act in 1998, which established a National Human Rights Commission. 32. The Respondent State submits that the complainant had an avenue under the Act to seek redress for the alleged violations of human rights. 4