53. Furthermore, the Complainant recalled that the African Commission also recognized in Alhassan Abubakar v Gambia, that, it would not be logical to require an individual to return to the state where he has allegedly suffered violations of his fundamental rights and from which he had fled, in order to pursue a complaint and/or bring a claim for reparation. 21 54. Regarding Article 56(6) of the African Charter, the Complainant submits that the Communication was lodged within a reasonable time. The Complainant avers that the African Charter does not explicitly describe what a reasonable time entails and so the African Commission "treats each case on its own merits". 22 The Complainant also submits that cases where remedies were exhausted are treated differently from cases where remedies are found unavailable, ineffective or insufficient, as in the present case, and that in such cases, the African Commission estimates the timeliness of a communication "from the date of the complainant's notice thereof', 23 taking into account the circumstances of the case. 24 The Complainant cites such relevant circumstances to include: a victim's security situation, forcing a victim to flee his or her country of origin and settle elsewhere;25 the complexities of getting a representation before an international body; 26 and the challenges of communications system in Africa.27 55. It is averred that in the present case, the Complainant submitted the Communication and request for Provisional Measures to the African Commission on behalf of the Victim who was still in NSS detention at the time, through email and fax on 5th October 2011 ,28 and also physically during the 50th Ordinary Session of the Commission, which was held from October 24 to November 05, 2011 , in Banjul, Gambia.29 The Complainant further submitted that the it never received any acknowledgement of receipt from the African Commission and so re-submitted the Communication by email on 25 July 201230 and subsequently in person on 24 April 2015 during the 56th Ordinary Session, with follow up emails requesting acknowledgement of receipt sent on 28 April 2015.31 56. Furthermore, the Complainant submitted that it did not hear from the African Commission about this case until, 10 October 2015, through a letter (ACHPR/COMPT/1707/15) requesting additional information on the complaint submitted. The Complainant avers that it then furnished the African Commission with the additional information and updated the Complaint on 08 February 2016. 21 Communication 103/93 (1996) at par. 6. Also cited Communication 205/97: Kazeem Aminu v. Nigeria, (2000) at para. 11. 22 Citing Communication 310/2005: Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Sudan, Communication 310/05,~ 23 Citing Communication 322/2006: Tsikata v Ghana, para.37. 5. ~ ,-1u~·A1, 4.._, 24 Relying on fn 21 above para. 75; Communication 288/04: Gabriel Shumba v Zimbabwe, para. 44; & Com, "oicl ijl)n:-360/05'. "',.c...._ Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project v Nigeria, para.42. /:};"'. .,, <r 25 Safia lshaq Mohammed Issa (represented by The Redress Trust and the African Centre for Justice ?np Pe e Stud~ s) v ~ Sudan, Admissibility Decision, Communication 443/13, para.67. /..., .{i' 26 Citing Communication 334/06: Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and lnterights v Egypt, para. 9~ ~ 0 '-·' ./ 27 As above. ' '?-. t-u-u.c. 28 Email evidence provided as Annex II to the Admissibility submission. "i. ~~:s, ~"-? .... " 29 Mr. Mohammed Badawi's testimony is attached as Annex Ill to the Admissibility submission. ( 1 °'• 4•R1c,;,,•i~ ,<,;,§'· 0 3 Follow-up emails are attached as Annex IV to the Admissibility submission. ' :·•.:E u o~~' 31 As above, on pg.2. ° 11