months on the other hand,12 it was clearly obvious that the process had been unduly prolonged. 56. After examining the facts presented by the parties and their respective arguments on Admissibility, the Commission notes that from the date of initiation of the procedure before Congolese courts, that is from 24 August 2001, to the date of seizure of the Commission, that is, on 20 April 2005, a period of four years had elapsed. The Commission further notes that from the date it was seized of the matter up to the time it delivered its decision on the admissibility of the Communication, it received no information from the Respondent State regarding the outcome of the third-party proceedings, and that from that same date up to the day of its decision on admissibility, a further three-year period had elapsed. Decision of the Commission on Admissibility 57. In the light of these findings, the Commission has no doubt that even if domestic remedies are available, the process is unduly prolonged. Such a delay does meet the requirements of efficiency and sufficiency of remedies established by the African Charter and that has become a tradition in the jurisprudence of the Commission. 58. As such, the Commission concludes that Communication 302/05 submitted by Mr Mamboleo Itundamilamba against the Democratic Republic of Congo meets the conditions under Article 56 of the African Charter and therefore declares the Communication admissible. Merits 59. It follows from the consideration of the case file that, in accordance with Rule 108 of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission, the parties exchanged their submissions on the merits of the case since June 2005, and that the information provided by the parties to the Communication is sufficient for the Commission to make a decision on the merits of the case. The Complainant’s Arguments on the Merits 60. The Complainant prays the African Commission to declare the Respondent State in violation of the relevant provisions of the African Charter, in particular Articles 3 and 7 (1) (a) and (c), and therefore liable for providing compensation for the damages suffered by the Complainant. Conversely, the Fabricio Proana and Others v. Ecuador Case No. 9641 (12 April 1989) Inter-American Human Rights Commission. 12 10