p.CIWJf r~ r16~!:j,iEB Human R,ghts ou, Collective Respons1b1hty Human and Peoples' Rights case was brought before the Commission by Mr. William Sipai and 13 other representatives of the Keekonyokie Clan of the Maasai People of Kitet (represented by Dr. Duncan Ojwang). 92. In view of the above, the nature of the case and the circumstances surrounding it make the connection between all the actions almost impossible. To the extent that Claimants have been subject to the same violations, the size of the community leaves no room for coordinated action. In this regard, in this particular situation, the submission of the case within six months, i.e. the determination of an exact reasonable time limit for filing such a case would be contradictory, given that all the cases were submitted by different individuals (African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v. Republic of Kenya, TAfDHP), notwithstanding the evident need to exhaust local remedies, as previously demonstrated. 93. In addition, two main arguments may further justify the long period of time taken to seize the Commission. In the first instance, considering that the cases at the national level were presented by different individuals, it can be assumed that other members of the community were patiently waiting for an outcome of these cases. In this case, the community hoped that the case brought in October 2019 would bear fruit, after which the absence of a response from the High Court on this particular matter led the Complainants to seize the Commission. 94. Secondly, the particular circumstances of the case must be put into perspective and therefore allow for a more careful analysis. Several members of the community were resettled against their will, houses burned , and individuals arrested for speaking out against the government's actions. The Commission would not qualify this as a safe environment in which to prepare a complaint effectively, since the majority of the inhabitants would have been affected. 95. The African Court took this position in the case of Association pour le Progres et la Defense des Droits des Femmes Maliennes and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa15, where it held that "and secondly, given the climate of fear, intimidation and threats that characterized the period following the adoption of the law on 3 August 2009, it is reasonable to expect that the Claimants have also been affected by this situation". In this particular case, the complainants brought the case before the Court five (05) months after the enactment of a law by the Malian "It 15 Association pour le Progr~s et la Defense des Droits des Femmes Maliennes (APDF) and Institute for Human Rights and Oeve h1tµ s: / / i., ,.1 ww r rjc.111-cou r l . o r g / ~n/im;,gt•t./Ct1'tt1't/C 1 s e ~ 2 0 S 1 1 m r n , 1 r it 1 s / C a - ; e ~ummrtr\' - lo ~ 2 0 I S pcf f ~ ~ . ~ n ~ ~ U ' WO 0 ~ ~ 4 ------ '-'-( ,'y, " "l•·~ICAIN~ Q 0-11~~EToES\> CJ ~ - f