merits. Generally, this Commission requires Complainants to set out in their submissions the steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies. They must provide some prima facie evidence of an attempt to exhaust local remedies. This position is supported by other human rights bodies around the globe. The UN Human Rights Committee, for example, has stated that the mere fact that a domestic remedy is inconvenient or unattractive, or does not produce a result favourable to the petitioner does not, in itself, demonstrate the lack or exhaustion of all effective remedies.13 In the Committee's decision in A v Australia,14 it was held that "mere doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies or prospect of financial costs involved did not absolve the author from pursuing such remedies."15 85. The European Court of Human Rights on its part has held that even if the applicants have reason to believe that available domestic remedies and possible appeals will be ineffective, they should seek those remedies since "it is generally incumbent on an aggrieved individual to allow the domestic courts the opportunity to develop existing rights by way of interpretation."16 In Article 19 v Eritrea, 17 the Commission held that "it is incumbent on the Complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of local remedies. It is not enough for the Complainant to cast aspersion on the ability of the domestic remedies of the State due to isolated incidences". 86. From the above analysis, this Commission is of the view that the Complainant ignored to utilise the domestic remedies available to him in the Respondent State, which had he attempted, might have yielded some satisfactory resolution of the complaint. 87. The third issue of contention between the Complainant and the Respondent State is the requirement under Article 56(6) of the Charter which provides that "communications received by the Commission will 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..." 88. The present communication was received at the Secretariat of the Commission on 26th September 2005. It was considered on seizure by the Commission in November 2005, that is, ten months after the Complainant allegedly fled from the country. The Complainant left the country on 12th January 2005. 89. The Commission notes that the Complainant is not residing in the Respondent State and needed time to settle in the new destination, before bringing his complaint to the Commission. Even if the Commission were to adopt the practice of other regional bodies to consider six months as the reasonable period to submit complaints, given the circumstance in which the Complainant finds himself, that is, in another country, it would be prudent, for the sake of fairness and justice, to consider a ten months period as reasonable. The Commission thus does not consider the communication to have been submitted contrary to Article 56(6) of the Charter. Holding 90. Lastly, Article 56(7) provides that the communication must not deal with cases which have been settled by the states, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations, or the Charter of the OAU or the African Charter. In the present case, this case has not been settled by any of these international bodies and as a result of this, the requirement of Article 56(7) has been fulfilled by the Complainant. The African Commission finds that the Complainant in this communication, that is, Communication 307/05 Obert Chinhamo/Republic of Zimbabwe, has not fulfilled the requirement under Article 56(5) of the African Charter, and therefore declares the communication inadmissible. Done in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, at its 42nd Ordinary Session held from 14-28 November, 2007. * Editor's note : Until today's date 10/04/2012, the Commisssion has not yet issued a decision on this communication. 1 Zimbabwe ratified the African Charter on 30th May 1986. 2 Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l'Homme v Zambia. 3 Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara v The Gambia. 4 Communication 215/1998. 5 See communications 25/8[9, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93], 74/92 and 83/92. 6 Communication [147/95,] 149/96 7 Communication 103/1993 8 Communications 215/1998. 9 Communication 288/2004. 11