effective or sufficient to redress the violations alleged.8 The Complainant also notes that with regard to a criminal violation the Commission has held that the obligation is on the State Party to investigate and bring the accused person to court, and that one cannot demand of the Complainants to exhaust domestic remedies in such a case.9 51. As evidence that the State had ample notice and time, the Complainant makes reference to complaints he made to the prison authorities about the abuse suffered at the hands of the NISS; international and national media reports about his alleged arrest, detention, torture and ill treatment, a protest outside the offices of the National Council of Press and Publications; public advocacy for his release; and a complaint filed on his behalf with the National Commission of Human Rights. The Complainant submits that despite being sufficiently aware, the Respondent State failed to take steps to provide the Complainant with a remedy for these violations, that there is no indication of a formal investigation having been or to be carried out. 52. Based on these three arguments the Complainant submits that the requirement to exhaust local remedies must be dispensed with. 53. The Complainant submits that he has complied with the requirement under Article 56(6) in that the Complaint is submitted within a reasonable period. The Complainant notes that in the jurisprudence of the Commission, cases where local remedies could and were exhausted are treated differently from cases where remedies were found to be unavailable, ineffective or insufficient, in the latter case assessing timeliness as from the time of the Complainant's notice of the unavailability, ineffectiveness or insufficiency of the remedies. 10 Circumstances which the Commission had in the past taken as relevant include the relocation of the Complainant to another jurisdiction; the complexities of getting representation and challenges of communication systems in Africa.11 54. On the facts of the case the Complainant submits that he filed the Complaint with the Commission approximately 13 months after he was released from prison and 11 months alter he fled to Kenya. He further submits that he had found it challenging to settle in Kenya due to mental distress and anguish at being separated from his family and friends and no longer having an income, and thus that given the circumstances, the Complaint was submitted within a reasonable time. Article 19 v Eritrea, para 77; Communication 38/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93 Amnesh; lntemahonal and others v Sudan, para 33. 9 Communication 245/02 - Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe, paras 69-70. 1°Communication 322/06 - Tsiknta v Ghana para 37. ~ ~uMAN , i ~ 0 11 Communication 307/06 - Obert Cliinhamo v Zi111babw ~tt,'89:1t&,ml ~tion 334/06 - Egi;ptian /11itiative for Perso11al Rig/its and In terriglits v Egi;pt, para c, ' \' .;,· 8 Communication 257/03 - .,,i 0 :.." - C J ,3 ;;; l u ' ?: ~ '/y 4•RiC/.1~~ Mt: El 0~ llj P age