the requirements under article 56(1) , (2) , (3) , (4) and (7) raise no contentious issues and require no further examination. The Commission considers that the Communication meets these requirements and will assess further, the conformity of the Communication with the requirement under Article 56(5) and (6) of the Charter. 37. Article 56(5) allows the Commission to consider a Communication after the Complainant has exhausted local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged. The rationale of this rule has been clarified in the Commission's jurisprudence as a means of giving the state notice and affording it the opportunity of remedying a violation that has occurred in its territory, using its own local mechanisms, before its international responsibility can be called into question. 10 38. The Commission has also held that the generally accepted meaning of local remedies, which must be exhausted prior to any Communication/Complaint procedure before the Commission, are the ordinary remedies of common law that exist in jurisdictions and normally accessible to people seeking justice. 11 The Commission has also held in Alfred Cudjoe v Ghana , 12 and reaffirmed in Good v Botswana , 13 that the internal remedy to which Article 56(5) refers entails a remedy sought from courts of a judicial nature. 39. The Commission notes the Complainant's submission that proceedings were initiated at the domestic level regarding the ban on the participation of political parties in elections. The Commission has ascertained from the evidence adduced that the local courts indeed had an opportunity to deal with the matter in the case of Jan Sithole N. O (in his capacity as a Trustee of the National Constitutional Assembly) v The Government of Swaziland , 14 (the Sithole Judgment) in which the Supreme Court of Swaziland delivered its judgment on 21 May 2009, upholding the ban on the participation of political parties in elections. The Commission also that that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the hierarchy of Courts in Swaziland. 40. Since it is not in dispute that the Supreme Court of Swaziland is the Respondent State's Court of final jurisdiction, the Commission considers that there were no other remedies left to be exhausted given that the subject matter in the Communication before the Commission and that of the Sithole judgment is the same. Consequently, the Commission holds that local remedies were duly exhausted. 41. Regarding submission of the Communication within a reasonable time, Article 56(6) provides that Communications shall be considered if they are submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted or from the date the Commission is seized with the matter . The present Communication was received at the Secretariat of the Commission on the 24 April 2012. From the Complainant's submissions, local remedies were exhausted in May 2009 when the Supreme Court of Swaziland handed down its judgment. This gives an interval of thirty four (34) months when the Complainants released that there were no further remedies to exhaust after the Sithole Judgment was handed down and the submission of the Communication to the African Commission. 42. Unlike in the other regional human rights instruments, notably the American Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which all consider the period of six months 15 as a reasonable period within which Complaints must be submitted after the exhaustion of local remedies, the African Charter has no such period. The Commission by virtue of its mandate under Article 45 of the Charter therefore interprets this provision on a case by case basis taking into consideration its duty to promote and protect human rights as laid down in the Charter. 43. The African Charter empowers the Commission to, in interpreting the provisions of the Charter, draw inspiration from various sources of law including legal precedents, doctrine, customs and practices consistent with international norms on human rights. 16 Accordingly, the Commission in interpreting the provision of Article 56(6) in Michael Mujuru v Zimbabwe17 stated as follows: Going by the practice of similar regional human rights institutions, such as the Inter-American Commission and Court and the European Court, six months seem to be the usual standard. This notwithstanding, each case must be treated on its own merit. Where there is good and compelling reason why a Complainant could not submit his/her complaint for consideration on time, the Commission may examine the complaint 5