(':CHi): ACH PR \ . " African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rigilts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 1. The Commission notes that the Complainant's allegations are not based exclusively on information provided by the mass media. It notes that the facts recounted in the Complaint are contained in various reports issued by non-governmental organizations and the United Nations and the annexes to the Communication include, in addition to the Complainant's statement, the official judgment of the OMT of North Kivu, the copy of the letter addressed to the Governor of North Kivu as well as the notification order issued by the Registrar of the OMT. The Commission acknowledges compliance with Article 56(4) of the African Charter. 2. On the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies established by Article 56(5), the Commission, in its jurisprudence, has established that a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint. The Commission has also established in its jurisprudence that the remedies required to be exhausted before a communication procedure is initiated before the Commission are those ordinary remedies available in the courts and accessible to the individual+ In this case, the Commission agrees with the Complainant that the only action the latter could take would be to ensure that the judgment was notified to the State. The Complaint concerns the execution of a judgment handed down on 5 November 2008 in which Sergeant Chance and the State, in solidum, were ordered to pay damages. The Commission notes that there is no other judicial remedy available in this case, as recognized in the Commission's jurisprudence, and that the means of enforcement to compel the State to pay damages are administrative in nature and their implementation is discretionary. 3. On the reasonable time requirement under Article 56(6), the Commission is not convinced by the Complainant's argument that she tried to communicate with the Registrar of the Tribunal on several occasions regarding the judgment of 17 November 2008but without success. However, the Commission notes that the judgment was notified to the executive by the Registrar of the North Kivu OMT only on 17 October 2013. In its jurisprudence, the Commission has accepted in subsequent precedents that the determination of the "reasonable time" to file a Communication must be done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances of each case>. In this case in point, it is reasonable for the Complainant to bring the matter before the Commission only after it has become aware of the State's unwillingness to remedy the damage in accordance with the judgment of which it is duly notified. In the present case, the Commission concludes that the reasonable period of time can be considered to begin to run only after 28 July 2014,the date on which the Complainant referred the matter to the Office of the Governor of the Communication 242/01 - lnterights, the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa, and j'Association mauritanienne des droits de I'Homme v. Mauritania. - Communication 147/95-149/96 Sir Dawda K. [awara v. The Gambia 4 - An Organ of Ihe African ((iF')) Union '>l>'~ Page 9 on 32