conditions. In this regard it notes that the Complainant indicates himself as the author in compliance with Article 56(1) of the Charter. The alleged violations as outlined at paragraph 14 above raise prima facie violations of the Charter which occurred within the Respondent State at a time when it was already a State Party to the Charter. Article 56(2) of the Charter is satisfied. Neither the Respondent State nor the Commission has reckoned any disparaging or insulting language in terms of Article 56(3) of the Charter. The Communication is not exclusively based on news disseminated through the mass media in compliance with Article 56(4) of the Charter. 43. Regarding Article 56(5) of the Charter, the requirement is that Communications must be sent to the Commission after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged. 44. The Complainant's first contention that domestic remedies have been unduly prolonged spanning a decade. The Commission notes that the Respondent State does advance direct observations on this point; The closest its submissions come to this point is that the Complc!.inant is responsible for the delay in adjudication of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004 on the substance because he concentrated on "side shows" challenging the legal representation of the defendants. 45. The Commission has examined the record of the relevant domestic proceedings to ascertain the causes of the delay, and whether such delay is attributable to the Re$pdnd~nt State or the Complainant. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Complainant's first attempt to have his alleged grievance adjudicated upon was High Court Civil Application No. 554 of2003 which was filed on 23 May 2003, about four months since the impugned events occurred on 9 January 2003. Notably, the case was dismissed because the court considered it to have been commenced using the wrong procedure and the remedies sought could not issue against Parliament. The High Court opined that the appropriate procedure was by way of a constitutional reference or petition. Indeed, despite the Complainant's suggestion that the judge had an interest in the matter and that the refusal of jurisdiction was wrong, the Complainant did not seek to appeal against the decision immediately or after his release from prison. Instead, he seemed to have agreed with the court's suggestion and eventually filed High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No . 22 of 2004 on 12 January 2004 as a way of instituting a constitutional application under section 84(1) of the Constitution. 46. is