Court of Appeal had been unduly prolonged. However, the Commission also has to take into account the circumstances of the case, including the general context in which the formal remedies operate. The Complainant in his Admissibility submissions notes the eight year backlog in the Kenyan Court of Appeal, which could be an indication that within that system it would not be unusual for a case to be pending for one year. In light of these considerations the Commission finds that the exception to the exhaustion of local remedies because the remedy has been unduly prolonged does not apply in the current case. 56. For these reasons, the Commission holds requirement of exhaustion of local remedies ap 56(5) of the African Charter has not been met. 57. Article 56(6) of the African Charter provides that the Communications which “are mitted within domestic remedies are exhaus 1 hi matter.” In its jurisprudence the Commission has held that where a matter has not been concluded, time has not begun to run such as to afford the Complainant the opportunity to bring this complaint.” For this reason, given the finding above that there was no exhaustion of loc. ies, the Commission finds that Article 56(6) of the African Charter is not met. 58. In relation to Article56(7) ‘ of the Charte the Commission does not find evidence which indicates that theéissues and claims in the Communication have been brought before, or settled. by any other international forum. Accordingly, the Commission 59: (7) have been me 56 (3), (5) and (6). but that the Complainant has failed to meet the criteria for Article Decision of the African Commission on Admissibility 60. In view of the above, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: 22 Communication 322/2006 — Tsatsu Tsikata v Republic of Ghana, 14 para 53.