EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 55 advanced by the Complainants for this delay in submission is that they wanted to wait and see how the Supreme Court’s judgment would be implemented and whether any broadcasting licenses would be issued. 94. Is the reason advanced by the Complainants ‘good and compelling’? 95. The issue brought before the Supreme Court by CRPL was that seventeen provisions of the broadcasting regulatory regime (the BSA) were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that four of the provisions were indeed unconstitutional and the others were constitutional and that CRPL had no standing before the Court. The Court’s decision was not appealable as the Supreme Court is the highest court in Zimbabwe. CRPL was not satisfied with the Court’s ruling as it insisted that the provisions restrict the enjoyment of freedom of expression. So why was it necessary for the Complainants to ‘wait and see’ how the Supreme Court’s decision would be implemented, and whether any broadcasting license would be issued? 96. The reason advanced by the Complainants for the delay is neither good nor compelling. The CRPL itself did not apply for a license. It was ‘waiting to see’ whether others who applied would be granted the license. In any case the matter before the Commission is not the refusal to grant licenses, it is rather the incompatibility of provisions of the BSA with the African Charter. The Complainants knew as far back as September 2003 that they had reached ‘a dead end’ at domestic level. They could have within a reasonable time seized the Commission with the matter. Waiting for two years with no compelling reason is not justifiable. 97. For the above reasons the Commission finds that the Communication was not filed within a reasonable time after the exhaustion of local remedies and hence does not comply with Article 56(6) of the Charter. 98. Article 56(7) of the Charter states that a Communication submitted to the Commission should not be one already settled by states involved according to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the OAU or the provisions of the African Charter. The Complainants submit that the Communication has not been submitted to any other international body for settlement and the Respondent State has not contested this claim. Thus, the Commission holds that the Communication fulfils the requirement under Article 56(7) of the Charter. Decision of the Commission on Admissibility 99. In view of the above, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights decides: i) ii) iii) To declare this Communication Inadmissible as it does not comply with the requirement of Article 56(6) of the African Charter; To give notice of this decision to the parties; and To include this decision in its Report on Communications. Done in Banjul, The Gambia, during the 48th Ordinary Session of the African Commission, 10 – 24 November 2010.