44. In its contention of the Communication‟s non-compliance with Article 56(6), the Respondent State avows that according to the Complainant‟s submissions, the alleged violations took place between October 2005 and May 2006, while the Communication was received by the Commission on 5 November 2007, which add up to seventeen (17) months after the alleged violations. The Respondent State notes that, the Complainant also refers to 14 January 2003 as the date on which the alleged violations took place, making the period even longer than the time period in contention. 45. The Respondent State submits that although the African Charter does not prescribe what constitutes a reasonable time, other jurisdictions have clear indications to interpretation that of effect. reasonable The time Respondent given by State the mentions the Inter-American Commission and the Protocol merging the African Court of Justice and the African Court for Human Rights which both prescribe a period of six (6) months. It is the State‟s submission that given the modern era of communication where various modes are available, it would not require the Complainant seventeen (17) months or more to submit the Communication, taking into account the gravity of the alleged violations. 46. In light of the above, the Respondent State submits that if calculation is made from 14 January 2003, when the alleged violations are supposed to have taken place, the delay is clearly unreasonable. The Respondent State adds that, where calculation is made with effect from 2005, seventeen (17) months cannot also be considered reasonable under the circumstances. 12