by opting for an amicable settlement of the issue brought up in the Communication. 38. The Commission however notes that as the Complainant did not agree to the amicable settlement proposed by the Respondent State, the submission procedure on admissibility was followed. The said procedure was once again suspended by the request for amicable settlement brought up by the Complainant following the reform of the nationality Code in 2013. As the State did not give any effect to the consultations with a view to settling the issue amicably, the Commission decided to revive the consideration on the admissibility. In spite of numerous letters sent between November 2011 and November 2013, the Respondent State did not submit its arguments on the admissibility. Consequently, the Commission decided to examine the Communication based on the facts in its possession.2 39. On considering the submissions put forward, the Commission notes that the Complainant directs his arguments mainly towards evidence of complying with the Rule of exhausting local remedies stipulated in Article 56(5) of the African Charter. As a prelude to its analysis on this point, the Commission itself observes that the other conditions outlined in Article 56 of the Charter were complied with. In fact, the author of the Communication has been identified and the Communication alleges violation of the provisions of the African Charter by a State Party. Furthermore, the Complaint does not contain any insulting or disparaging language and it is not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. Moreover, the Communication was filed at a time when the alleged violations were continuing, which leaves out the application of the condition of seisure of the Commission within a reasonable period of time after exhausting local remedies. Finally, the Complaint does not concern a case settled under the provisions of Article 56(7) of the African Charter. 40. Concerning Article 56(5), its provisions require that the Complainant should exhaust local remedies if only they exist, and are effective and adequate 3 and are not unduly prolonged. A remedy is considered as available when it can be used without any restraint by the applicant, effective where it offers prospects of success and adequate when it is able to provide satisfaction to the Complainant and remedy the alleged violation.4 In the event where any of See Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Angola Communication 292/04 (2008) AHRLR 43 (ACHPR 2008) para. 34 ; Social and Economic Rights Action Center and Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria Communication 155/96 (2001) AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001). 3 See Jawara v. The Gambia Communication 147/95 et 149/96 (2000) RADH 107 (ACHPR 2000) para 31. 4 See Jawara para 32. Emphasis by the Commission. 2 9