ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility first submitted to the Commission, but when the Commission was first seized of the matter." 88. In reply, the Complainants argued that they submitted the Communication on 13 August 2009 and, therefore, argued that this Communication had been submitted within a period of three mon~hs after the dismissal of their appeal by the Constitutional Court. 1 89. The Commission notes that the requir ment under Article 56(6) provides for two events from which the timeline within which<a:;,Gommunication has been I • ,/';"'" , '., submitted may be computed, being: (i) "fro~,;::r'fie"'<tiPl~local remedies are exhausted"; or (ii) "from the date the Cohuni?sf~il"is seized'with the matter" .14 .. .' '- .~, '", '<,,_ }":"'" ;, ';: ;.-,1' 90. The Commission held in Tsatsu Tsikata " tHq~:,;ttli(r€CJ:l!ir~Inent"is quite rela.ted to the pri_nciple of the exhaus In . .' re~~!~~ ~i&a:Q~8:d.~1}ce with Article 56(5). This means that th~t '~!l;1ffi1ssIOnJf;yStImat~~"the timeliness of a ~,~l\ ~;';';~:;=~.~~ dat;;~;.~efs avru,j'lelocalre~~~risexhausted 91. The African Charter does not sp~~i£i¢ally st~t";>",1;1atit mea~s by "reasonable time", and thus, the, Commission has"~'ab~qysruled ",9:.§edon the contexts and characteristics 0~;f4e.i\~h "(~~s~,:1I},'~fI{is I 't~gftJ:d, t, :''t:ommission has in its jurisp:udence ,~~pl?yeg.as a:~:f'f~stic~, ~he six,Mp.nt s timeline stipulated in the Amenca~ C~~,',r,"ention on. Hum,~J,'\~", Igmlts (Attlcle 46(1(b)~ and the Eur~p~an Convention Qg Human RIghts (ArtJ€le 35(1)), beyond which the COmmISSIOn 1~:r'l: ".~ _':'.::i:> would require he complainant to pil~~fefy'a compelling reason for the further delay. \" ,h -, ,,';;'I~ ~,;;:::/. -. Ji'~r' 92. Fr~;i1)he, co~'~~r(,'n:~~~"':lnalYS!,!):Jf~~hcle 56(5) in the preceding paragraphs, the la',~~ayaila~le 10ca:F¥eJl~,~q.~~Was exhkusted by the Complainants - with the dismissal of't~~~t'ClPplication for leave appeal by the Constitutional Court on 7 MaY.20Q9.''FurtJiermpre, the Com.rnlssion observes from its records that the present Communication was received kt its Secretariat on 13 August 2009; a period of three months after the exha~stion of domestic remedies, and well within the international standard of a "r~asonable time" . io , ", ' I 93. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the requirements been fulfilled. I of Article 56(6) have ,,-,-<~ , '~'~\JMAN 4~" ,':-.'" ° ~f.IARl.t\'r .,; ",0 ,o~~"\ ;() "- x,_G 14lv!ajuru v Zimbabwe (20?8) AHRLR 146 (~CHPR 20?~) para104; Communication 477fiVC'!'I1Jfo[d <~,\ Lmdsay von Abo v Zimbabtoe 57th Ordinary SeSSIOn ACHPR 4-18 November 2Q15 'f~'t 88:;. uJ ~ \ Communication 340/07 - Nixon Nyikadzino (represerted by Zimbabwe Human Rights WGO~ftJl;n) v ~ ~ Zimbabwe n» Extra-Ordinary Session ACHPR 21 Frruary -1 March 2012 para 100. ~ \ \.).\.)1\ !? en!. 15 Communication 322/2006 - Tsatsu Tsikata v. Republi of Ghana (2014) para 51. , 1\ 1JQ tf} Ii \'0's. <x 'o,v 4"RICP.\~ ~<) IOM~'hET pf.'" Page 10 0!-'5 N ~0Q, / ~~ _t " ' 'I' l