the current one, it, however, notes that the remedy is unjustifiably and unduly prolonged which makes it not suitable for the Complainants to pursue. iii. Whether the Communication is presented within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies. 22. The third issue on admissibility relates to time. The Respondent State submits that the Communication does not satisfy the requirement under Section IX (1) (e) of the Revised Communication Guidelines which requires complaints to be submitted within a reasonable time after exhausting local remedies. The notion of this requirement is to ensure that Complainants who allege violations act with due diligence in pursuing their cases. The requirement aims at preventing delays in reaching out to international bodies after exhausting local remedies the main goal being to prevent what is known as ‘abuse of the right to submission’ in other jurisdictions.25 Even though there is no provided time under the Revised Communication Guidelines on the number of years within which cases should be submitted before the Committee after the period of exhaustion of local remedies, the Committee draws inspiration from the approach of the Human Rights Committee where it says no delay is acceptable without reasonable justification.26 Hence, given this rationale of the provision under the Guidelines, the argument of the Respondent State that the case is premature and hence not submitted within a reasonable time is misguided and out of the context of the requirement under Section IX (1) (e). 23. As to the other conditions of admissibility, the Committee does not observe any irregularity and no contention has been raised by any of the parties to the Communication. 24. For the forgoing reasons, the Committee finds that the present Communication is admissible as per its requirements under article 44 of the Charter and Section IX (1) of the Guidelines for Consideration of Communications. IV. Submission on the Merits of the Communication The Applicants’ Submission on the Merits 25. The Complainants allege that the United Republic of Tanzania has failed to uphold its obligation to respect, protect, and fulfil the rights of Tanzanian girls as envisioned under the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (herewith ‘the ACRWC,’ ‘the Charter,’ or ‘the African Children’s Charter’), to which the Respondent State is a Party to, through the following conduct: a) Enforcing mandatory pregnancy testing in schools; b) The expulsion of pregnant and married learners from schools; c) The denial of re-entry to schools after childbirth; 25 Article 3 of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966. 26 HRC, Communication 767/1997, Mr Vishwadeo Gobin v Mauritius (16 July 2001), para 6.3. JN 12