EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 178 the second victim visited Mozambique in 1995 and again in 2007 to deal with the matter and that in 1995 when the second victim visited Mozambique, it became clear that his father, the first victim, had been executed, and he decided to pursue legal action. 113. In the second victim’s personal statement Annex V and in his oral submission to the African Commission at the 47th Ordinary Session, he stated that he visited Mozambique on average every two years, and spends three to four weeks although, he indicates that he did so after taking adequate security measures. One wonders why it took the Complainant over 13 years, from 1995 to 2008, to either bring a legal action in Mozambique or seize the African Commission. In Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v. Republic of Sudan84, the African Commission held that ‘29 months after the exhaustion of local remedies, the Complainant submitting the complaint to the African Commission was unreasonable’ and in Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v. Tanzania85 the African Commission held that ‘11 years after the exhaustion of local remedies, the Complainant submitting the complaint to the Commission was considered unreasonable’. It is therefore the African Commission’s view that the Complainant seizing the African Commission 13 years after which the Complainant could have submitted the Communication to the African Commission, is unreasonable. 114. For the above reasons, the African Commission holds that the requirement of Article 56(6) of the African Charter has not been fulfilled. 115. Article 56(7) of the African Charter states that ‘Communications relating to human and Peoples’ Rights… shall be considered if they: do not deal with cases which have been settled by these states involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter.’ The Complainant submits that the Communication has not been submitted to any international body and as such this requirement has been met. The State has no objections and there is no evidence before the Commission to show that the Communication has been settled by another international body. The Commission therefore holds that this requirement has been fulfilled. DECISION OF THE AFRICAN COMMISSION 116. Based on the above analysis, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights decides: 84 85 I. To declare the Communication Inadmissible because it does not comply with the requirements under Article 56 (5) and (6) of the African Charter; II. To give notice of this decision to the parties; III. To publish this decision on its 30th Activity Report. Communication 310/2005- Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre V. Republic of Sudan Communication 333/2006- Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v. Tanzania