the particulars of its objections on the Commission's decision on Admissibility have not been received. The Law Admissibility 21. The Admissibility of Communications brought pursuant to Article 55 of the African Charter is governed by the conditions stipulated in Article 56 of the African Charter. This Article lays down seven (7) conditions, which generally must be fulfilled by a Complainant in order for a Communication to be declared Admissible. 22. The Complainants argue that they fulfill all seven requirements stipulated in Article 56 of the African Charter, including fulfilling the conditions of Article 55. 23. Of the seven conditions, the Respondent State claims that the Complainants have failed to fulfill Article 56(5), i.e., Communication relating to Human and Peoples' Rights shall be considered if they are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged. 24. Consequently, it seems that the only provision of Article 56 that is contentious between the parties is the question of Admissibility and the rule of the 'exhaustion of local remedies.' The African Commission will therefore focus on the said provision only. 25. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies is a well-established rule of customary international law. Article 56 (5) clearly stipulates that the Complainant need not exhaust local remedies where the procedure is "unduly prolonged."1 But what is the ordinary meaning of "unduly prolonged?" How has the African Commission interpreted the provision of "unduly prolonged"? It is worth noting that the Complainants are not arguing that local remedies are not available. On page 6 of their Admissibility submission, they write: in this case local remedies such remedies (sic) as may exist are unduly prolonged and real remedies are essentially non-existent. 26. In the Inter-American system, for example, a similar exception exists where it has been found that a delay of three years,2 one year and eight months,3 and even six months4 amount to "undue delay." Complainants' submissions on admissibility 27. In the present case, the principal Complainants, Open Society Justice Initiative, argue that real remedies are essentially non-existent in the Republic of Kenya, as every effort has been made to establish the Nubians' right to Kenyan citizenship by seeking remedies though proper domestic channels. 28. The Complainants argue that in 2002, the Nubian community, through the Kenyan Nubian Council of Elders, instructed the Centre for Minority Rights Development (CEMIRIDE) to institute legal action against the Kenyan Government for denial of citizenship and / or discrimination in the issuance of identity documents to the Nubian community contrary to the Kenyan Constitution and international and regional human rights standards binding on Kenya. 29. The Complainants further state that on 17 March 2003, an action was commenced at the High Court of Kenya by way of an Urgent Application seeking leave of the Court to file a Representative Constitutional Application on behalf of the Nubian community. The Complainants further state that on the same day, ie, 17 March 2003, CEMIRIDE filed the Substantive Constitutional Application in the High Court in Nairobi by way of an Originating Summons seeking, among other things, a declaration that the Nubian Community in Kenya are Kenyan citizens under Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution and that the treatment meted out against them is discriminatory and violates the Constitution of Kenya. 3