ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Hights our Collective Besponeibiutv from the date the Complainant became aware or ought to have become aware of the said circumstances. 65. The Commission observes that the present case raises claims of ongomg incommunicado detention and thus concerns a "continuing situation". This being " ... a state of affairs which operates by continuous activities by or on the part of the State to render the applicants victims'<s. This term has often been used by the African Commission when considering the ratione temporis compatibility of an application. However, sister bodies such as the European Court have also considered it under their timeliness provisions. The case law concerning the scope of acts constituting continuing situations is by no means settled. However, there is consensus in international law regarding ongoing enforced disappearances or incommunicado detention as continuing violations-". 66. As indicated in the preceding paragraphs, if d9mestic remedies are deemed ineffective, as in the present case, the reasonableness period starts to run the moment the Complainant became or ought: tq, have become aware of these circumstances. Notably, if the act complained oris "instantaneous", "does not extend in time", the above rule applies. However, if thealleged act is" continuous", "continues in time", different rules apply. The European Court in this respect has held that if an alleged act" constitutes a continuing situation against which no domestic remedy is available, it is only when the situation ends that the six-month period starts to run"30 but if the alleged act continues, the six-month rule is not applicable-t. , jJ 67. The Commission recalls that principally, the timeliness provision is anchored upon the need for legal certainty since over time a fair examination of issues raised becomes problematic. However, with continuing situations, this problem does not arise since the act(s) complained of is ongoing. Essentially, "if there is a situation of ongoing breach, the time limit ... starts afresh each day and it is only once the situation ceases that the final period of six months will run to its endll32.This rule, therefore, serves the purpose of preventing perpetrators of ongoing violations from enjoying impunity for these acts. 28 96;u~ "~ Kevin Mcdaid and Others v. United Kingdom (1996) ECHR (Application No. 25681/94). """ \U1d ..... Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 36, Blake v Guatemala at 1 (2 July 1996) / ,0 \ ~ T\, 'u / / " G ~- ',r c Sa~ri .Giine$ v. Turkey (2012) ECHR (Applica~on_ No. 27396/06) para 54. I_':.~'i.)c._,<c.. \ Oliari and Others v. Italy (2015) ECHR (Application Nos. 18766/11 & 36030/11~ }ras f 29 30 31 An0i::"Of~:ma.vaand Others v. Turkey (2009) ECHR (Application Nos. 16064/90 et al) p~ ~ 159~t..~_} . ft " "', \ Af n~an '(~)I Union ~:.>...;7 1 c~ ~ • L) o (>.. 'J (/) The African CommiSSi~ ~n ~ an SrYd~eo~ e'l Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo~ brth1J~ ~e~Roa~l~egion Phone: (220:: 3Q _43'6'~Fia~~2'Ot-M1 0504 -: cc,\ , Email: au-b .'.~ r~~a"_unIOn,or2 , "https: achpr.au.intiCi U a