that these factors did not amount to a reasonable justification for the lapse of time. 109.ln relation to the State's submission that the Complainant left of his own .free will, the Complainant submits that this is irrelevant, the relevant factor being that the Complainant was residing in another country, and that the Commission had in the past held that 11 months after relocation was reasonable. The Complainant sets out the process which he had followed to bring the Complaint before the Commission in order to stress the difficulties in communicating in Africa and the fact that his representatives were based in a different country. The Complainant submits that further factors which the Commission should take into account in determining the timeliness include the political instability in the Respondent State at the time, as evidenced by the declaration of the state of emergence and the lack of evidence submitted by the State to show that it suffered prejudice because of the time taken in filing the Communication. 110. The Commission has held in its jurisprudence that the purpose of the requirement under Article 56(6) is to require the Complainant to "be vigilant and to discourage tardiness." 39 In addition, where there is a delay, the Complainant has to provide reasons 40 and these must be a "good and compelling reason" which requires the African Commission to consider the case in the interests of fairness and justice. 41 In Obe1t Chinhamo v Zimbabwe the Complainant stated that the delay in submitting the case to the Commission was due to the fact that he needed to settle in his new country, and in this case the Commission considered that ten months, where the Complainant was now in another country, would "for the sake of fairness and justice" be considered to be reasonable. 42 111.On the submissions by the Complainant as to the reasons for the delay, it is clear that it cannot be said that he was being tardy, since he provides strong justifications for the delay, including his resettlement in a dilierent country, his mental state during this time, as well as the relative difficulty posed by communicating with his legal representatives who were in a different country. The Commission takes note of the point raised by the State that the Complainant had been in the country for tvvo months after his release and then left his country of his own free will, but does not see how this would make the period within which the Complaint was submitted unreasonable. Since his legal representatives were not in his country of origin, he would have faced the same 39 Communication 310/ 05 - Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Sudan, para 78. ~ = ~:.:_'_ thers v Tanzania, 26 May 40 Communication 333/ 06 - Soutlzcrn Africa Human Rights N 2010, para 76. 41 Communication 310/ 05 : Darfur Relief and Documenta Communication 375/09 - Priscilla Njeri Eclmria (represe ln fem ational Center for the Protection of Human Rights) v. 42 Communication 307/05 - Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe, vember 2009, para 78; Lawyers, Kenya and ,'q:,ara 60. t ~ :. u.- vi d \ ••~<'Y, 26 I P age ,q ••R,CAll'I~ O ""<,,'?/ O,1.i v,' / "-1~ ET oE.$1'~ ~ - --- _,_