r, r) 6�!:j,E,� p.CHP11 �ffo:in· ., Human s;ghts out Collective Respons,bilny Human and Peoples' Rights the case, the nature of the legal proceedings, the availability of resources, the conduct of the parties involved, and any other relevant considerations8. 61. In the present case, the Complainant emphasizes the delay in receiving the High Court's certified copies of proceedings and rulings. Specifically, the Complainant states that the High Court acknowledged the delay by issuing a Certificate of Delay on July 26, 2017. Subsequently, the Complainant filed his appeal with the Court of Appeal on July 31, 2017, and served the Respondent State on August 1, 2017. As of preparing this petition, the Complainant reports that the Court of Appeal had not yet scheduled a hearing. The Communication to the Commission was filed on October 23, 2017, approximately three months after filing with the Court of Appeal. 62. The central issue under consideration is whether the duration of the remedies sought from the Court of Appeal, specifically the three months, can be deemed excessive and whether this delay had an impact on the Complainant's ability to exhaust local remedies. The question is whether the delay was unreasonably long and justifiable and to what extent it affected the Complainant's situation. 63. The Commission notes that the Complainant has not provided a clear and reasonable explanation for why the three months should be deemed excessive. If such a justification had been provided, it would have shifted the burden of proof to the Respondent State, requiring them to explain the alleged delay in the Court of Appeal's consideration of the Complainant's case. 64. In order to address the matter at hand and evaluate the merits of the Complainant's allegation of delay in considering his claim by the Court of Appeal, the Commission will employ the common law "reasonable person's standard." This standard will objectively assess whether the Complainant made reasonable efforts to exhaust local remedies or failed to take any action. The Commission will consider the various factors and circumstances surrounding the Communication to determine the reasonableness of the Complainant's actions or inaction. 65. In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Institute for Human Ri hts and Development in Africa v Zimbabwe,9 the Complainants conten exception to the rule regarding unduly prolonged procedur,e 1.;:1 " ::, 13 . Communication 293/04 Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Institute for Huma� �-gh 1 0 � Development in Africa /Z,inzbabwe, available at: http://www . achpr.org/fr/com m u n icahons/Jecision/?93.04/ paras 57 to 6 1 8 9 Ibid, para 57 ({�» Union '..,.:I. All 0/gan ol lhe Afri�an I<' )\, \. ' 13 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombe North District, West Coast Region, The Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 OS 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org