48. Article 56(6) of the African Charter provides that the Commission shall consider Communications which "are submitted within a reasonable period from the time domestic remedies are exhausted or from the date the Commission is seized of the matter." In its jurisprudence, the Commission has held that it estimates the timeliness of a Communication from the date that the last available local remedy is exhausted by the Complainant. In the case of unavailability or prolongation of local remedies, it will be from the date of the Complainant's notice thereof.14 49. In light of the fact that the African Charter does not define what constitutes" a reasonable period of time," the Commission treats each case on its own merits.l> The Commission has also held that where there is a good and compelling reason why a Complainant could not submit his/her complaint for consideration of time, the Commission may examine the complaint to ensure fairness and justice." 50. In the present case, the Communication was submitted to the Commission on 04 April 2016, whereas the information provided by the Complainants indicates that the trial against the Victim concluded on 16 June 2015. This is a period of ten (10) months. 51. Furthermore, the Complainants submitted that the complaint was forwarded within a reasonable time" after waiting to see what would be the position of the Egyptian judiciary on the issues forwarded to them, to assess their independence and responsibility to follow due process." However, the Complainants do not provide any information on whether appeal proceedings had been initiated and/ or concluded, thus warranting a delay in approaching the Commission. More so, the Complainants' submission on Article 56(6) contradicts their submissions on Article 56(5), in which they averred that "national means to exhaust domestic remedies after the coup has become impossible," and further that 'there is no opportunity for national justice in Egypt if the judiciary in Egypt has collapsed by subduing itself to the military rulers' leading the country.' 52. If the Complainants were of the view that no possibility existed for exhaustion of domestic remedies in the Respondent State, nothing therefore precluded them from submitting the Communication to the Commission immediately after the conclusion of the victim's trial on 16 June 2015. 53. In this regard the Commission takes note of its jurisprudence in Lawyers for Human Rights (Swaziland) v. The Kingdom of Swaziland in which it held that: submitting a Communication thirty-four months after, with knowledge of the unavailability of local remedies, without any reason to explain such a long interval is clearly 14 Communication 322/2006: Tsatu Tsikata v. Ghana (2006) ACHPR, para 51 Communication 310105: Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v. Sudan (2009) ACHPR, para 75 16 Communication 308/05: Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe (2008) ACHPR, para 15 1.Q9.,::~;~~~:i7!>.', 9 c,~~,;,:~:~,;:~" -. \ //,:; l /_.. ..... '~. .\: ( ,:' ,.J : ',\ \) .... ; .\ \I' t' .... \ Y \" ___/ ,~:: ,!