seized with the matter,…” . The African Commission notes that the Charter does not provide for what constitutes “a reasonable period of time,” and neither has it defined reasonable time. For this reason, 12 the African Commission would therefore treat each case on its own merits . 76. Articles 60 and 61 of the African Charter provides that the African Commission, in deciding matters brought before it, should draw inspiration from international law on human and peoples’ rights. The African Commission in this communication would look at the jurisprudence of the European Court on Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides that the (European) “Court on Human Rights … may only deal with the matter… within a period of six months from the date on which the final 13 decision was taken” , after this period has elapsed, the European Court on Human Rights will declare such Application inadmissible. The American Convention on Human Rights also provides that to be declared admissible, “the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from 14 the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment” . The Convention went further to provide circumstances where this provision will not be applicable to include when “…there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies”. 77. The Inter American Commission on Human Rights has indicated that the six month period provided for in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention “has a twofold purpose: to ensure legal 15 certainty and to provide the person concerned with sufficient time to consider his position” 78. In the present communication, a period of twenty nine (29) months (2 years and 5 months) has th elapsed between the time when the High Court dismissed the matter (18 June 2003), and when the th communication was submitted to the African Commission (24 November 2005). The complainant submitted this communication way beyond a time which could be considered reasonable, looking at the European Court and the Inter- American Court jurisprudence. The complainants have also not given any compelling reason why there was such a long wait before bringing the matter before the African Commission. 79. The provision of the Charter regarding time limit in Article 56(5) is to make a party complaining of a wrong done by a State, to be vigilant and to discourage tardiness from prospective complainants. However, where there is a good and compelling reason why a complainant does not submit his complaint to the Commission for consideration, the Commission has a responsibility, for the sake of fairness and justice, to give such a complainant an opportunity to be heard. 80. In the present case, there is no sufficient reason given as to why the communication could not be submitted within a reasonable period. For this reason, the African Commission holds that the communication does not fulfil the proviso of Article 56(6) of the African Charter. Decision of the Commission 81. It must be reiterated that the African Charter provides that all the requirements in Article 56 must be fulfilled before a communication will be declared admissible by the African Commission. The Commission holds that the provisions of sub-Articles 56(5) and 56(6) of Article 56 have not been fulfilled by the complainant. 82. In view of the above, the African Commission decides: 1) to declare the communication inadmissible; 2) to transmit its decision to the parties; th 3) to publish this decision in its 27 Activity Report. th Done in Banjul, The Gambia during the 46 Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human th th and Peoples’ Rights held from 11 – 25 November 2009.