remedies in the claims of the 2nd to 4th Complainant. An examination of the Petition before the High Court in Kenya shows that the 2nd to 4th Complainants were not parties to those proceedings. Furthermore their claims could not have attached to that of the First Complainant because the issues they have raised before the Commission were not raised in that Civil Claim. Accordingly, the Respondent State has not had an opportunity to deal with the 2nd to the 4th Complainant’s allegations and claims for moral damages. The Commission has previously noted that remedies need to be exhausted for each element of the claim and they will be considered separately.35 The Commission is of the view that consideration of the claims of the 2nd to the 4th Complainant would render it a Court of First Instance as these elements of the Communication have not exhausted local remedies. 51. In view of all those considerations the Commission finds that the Complainants have not exhausted all local remedies and accordingly have not complied with Article 56 (5) 56(6) 52. 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 are exhausted, or from the 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,36 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 the requirements of Article 56(6). 56(7) 53. 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 25 Organisation of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter.” The rule is based on the non bis in idem and res judicata rules.37 The Commission has previously found in Luke 35 Frank David Omary and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, App. No. 001/2012, Ruling on Admissibility, 28 March 2014, paras 136-138. 36 Communication 278/2003, 12 October 2013, para 75. 37 Communication 260/02 : Bakweri Land Claims Committee v Cameroon, 4 December 2004, para 52. 16