ACH PR African Commission on � Human ancl Peoples' Rights Human Hights our Collective Responsibility applied. They argued that the delays in finalizing the petitions by the Supreme and High Courts were unreasonable and, according to the Complainants, justified the invocation of the exclusionary rule for exhaustion of local remedies since they were non-existent. The Commission's ruling in that case stated that the exception under Article 56 (5) requires not only a prolonged process but one that is "unduly" prolonged. In that case, "unduly" was interpreted as "excessively" or "unjustifiably. 111° Consequently, the Commission ruled that the Complainant must justify the excessive prolongation to qualify as unduly prolonged. 66. In the aforementioned case, the Commission deliberated upon the circumstances and applied the "reasonable person 's test" doctrine. Employing this test, the Commission determined that a delay exceeding four years following the submission of the election petitions constituted an unreasonably prolonged process of exhausting local remedies. 1 1 67. Furthermore, in Minority Rights Group International and Environnement Ressources Naturelles et Developpement (on behalf of the Batwa of Kahuzi­ Biega National Park, DRC) v. Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),12 after considering the circumstances of the case and the reasons presented by the Complainant, the Commission ruled that the procedure for domestic remedies was unduly prolonged, particularly in light of eight years of proceedings at the lower courts and an additional two years of pending action at the Supreme Court without a scheduled hearing date. 68. After carefully considering the circumstances presented in the current case and based on the Commission's previous jurisprudence, particularly the Zimbabwe case, this Commission concludes that three months cannot be deemed as constituting an 'excessive' delay. This determination is made by applying the "reasonable person 's test" to assess the reasonableness of the timeframe in question. 69. Moreover, the Commission contends that the Complainant had the option to pursue an expedited appeal. Rule 47(1) of the 2010 Rules of Court of Appeal13 10 Ibid, para 60 Ibid, para 61 12 Communication 588/15 Minority Rights Group International and Environnement Ressources Naturelles et Developpement (on behalf of the Batwa of Kahuzi-Biega National Park, DRC) v. Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) ( published in the combined 54th and 55 th Activity Report of the ACHPR) para 55 13 The Court of Appeal Rules, 2010 (which were in effect when the High Court issued th delay) have since been replaced by The Court of Appeal Rules, 2022. It is noteworthy that related to the issue being discussed remain the same in both sets of rules. The Court of 11 An Organ of the AfriGan r1�')) Un10n '"°'"1. 14 African Commission 31 Bijilo Anne Phone: (220) 2