Complainant contends that “it is not possible to challenge constitutional provisions within the Zimbabwean legal system.” 27. Relying on the Commission’s decision in Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Nigeria,2 the Complainant argues that a complainant is only required to have recourse to remedies which are capable of providing an effective means of redress. The Complainant further argues that there are no local remedies available to the Victims because the Constitution of the Respondent State does not provide for the rights sought to be vindicated by the Victims. 28. The Complainant submits that in a similar situation in the case of Madzango and Others v The Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs,3 (the Madzango Case) , the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe had stated that in the absence of provisions in the Zimbabwean Constitution and the Electoral Act, the right claimed cannot be granted. Hence, the Complainant argues further that “an attempt to approach the courts on the legality of the issue in question would simply be an exercise in futility as the Constitutional provisions on this issue are very clear”. Accordingly, the Complainant argues that Article 56(5) of the African Charter is satisfied as there are no effective domestic remedies to be exhausted. 29. On the requirement in Article 56(6) of the African Charter, the Complainant submits that the Communication ought only to be submitted within a reasonable period from the time when domestic remedies were exhausted or deemed to have been exhausted. The Complainant argues that the present Communication already complies with Article 56(6) of the African Charter since there are no domestic remedies to exhaust and the Communication was filed as soon as it became apparent that there would be no arrangements made for Zimbabweans in the diaspora to participate in the referendum. 30. In relation to Article 56(7) of the African Charter, the Complainant submits that the Communication satisfies the requirement because the issues in the Communication have not previously been settled in conformity with the principles of the African Charter of the United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of the African Union or the provisions of the African Charter. The Commission’s Analysis on Admissibility 31. Article 56 of the African Charter sets out seven conditions that a Communication initiated under Article 55 of the African Charter must satisfy in order to be Communication 338/07 - Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Nigeria (2010) ACHPR Madzango and Others v The Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs (2005) Supreme Court of Zimbabwe 2 3 5