11 2015jHPj0735; 2018jCCjZOOll; 2014jSCCLj1250 AND 2015jHPj1859. Some of these cases are believed to be pending to date. It has also not been averred whether the matters before the High Court and Commercial Court were appealed as there are superior courts to take these matters upwards. And despite the secretariat requesting the complainant to provide information about these suits, no response or submission to this effect was ever received. This leaves the Commission with reason to believe that the complainant did not ~xhaust local remedies as the complainant has not provided any information to prove otherwise. This is especially exacerbated by the lingering questions on the status of the aforementioned court cases at the time of filing. The Communication 'therefore, did not exhaust local remedies, which remedies were adequate, '.av'ililable and effective, The Communication does not comply with Article 56~5). 47. Article 56(6) of the African Charter states that Communications relating to human and Peoples' Rights ... shall be considered if they: are submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies 9,re:exliausted; q,l:;fromthe date the Commission is seized with the matter". The Commission has previously held in Promoting Justice for Women and Children (PROJUST NGO) vs. Democratic Republic of Congo.l+ that where Article 56(5) has not been complied with, there is no reason to proceed to consider Article 56(6) as it will be concluded that the latter has not been complied with. As such, the Commission concludes that this communication has failed to meet th~ requirements of-Article 56(6). >,-,~,; . <_ • 48. ~ , ,f(- Article 56(7) of the African Charter states that "Communications relating to human and PeoplesRights ... shall be considered if they: do not deal with cases which have been settledby these states involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the UnitectNations, or the Charter of the 25 Organization of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter." The rule is based on the non bis in idem and res judicata rules." The Commission has previously found in Luke Munyandu Tembani and Benjamin John Freeth (represented by Norman Tjombe) v Angola and Thirteen Others that the provision requires that a case no longer be under consideration under an international dispute-settlement procedure"16 Further, that the other international body must have decided the case on the merits and there is a 'final settlement' by that body.'? The settlement must, as the Commission has II 14 Communication 278/2003, 12 October 2013, para 75. 15 Communication 260102: Bakweri Land Claims Committee v Cameroon, 4 December 2004, para . ~ I-I\.lM~ 409/12, 30 April 2014, para 112. . ,o~ ~(,~~1ARI4r ,o('o..()'~ 17 Communication 260/02: Bakweri Land Claims Committee v Cameroon, 4 Decemb :604(~ 65_ 53. ,9 o~ .~...,,:\ , I" '] I' <~ ;". ""' 0 Gl 16 Communication '<! ~\~ o ~- 'I ,\'~, \;" -, p-u.t.l~~!f ,t 11 ??\\} ": ~:; 6 en '''Zso'''_ x.- ,f; SI r<-, Oly4.R'C"\~ ~,;,'< "'I>- o ,_, ~OI'vIME ~. E1 o~sq . .