Commission on the 22 September 2009 and was dated 10 September 2009. From the parties’ submissions, local remedies were exhausted in February 2007 when the Kenyan Court of Appeal handed down its judgment. This gives an interval of thirty one (31) months between the date local remedies were exhausted and the submission of the Communication to the African Commission. The question that therefore falls for determination is whether a period of thirty one months can be considered reasonable in the circumstances of the case. 59. Unlike in the other regional human rights instruments, notably the American Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which all consider the period of six months17, as a reasonable period within which Complaints must be submitted after the exhaustion of local remedies, the African Charter has no such period. The African Commission by virtue of its mandate under Article 45 of the Charter therefore interprets this provision on a case by case basis taking cognizance of its duty to promote and protect human rights as laid down in the Charter. 60. The African Charter empowers the African Commission to, in interpreting the provisions of the Charter, draw inspiration from various sources of law including legal precedents, doctrine, customs and practices consistent with international norms on human rights.18 Accordingly, the African Commission in interpreting the provision of Article 56 (6) in Michael Mujuru v Zimbabwe19 stated as follows: See articles 56 (1) b & 36(1) respectively of the American Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. 18 See articles 60 & 61 of the African Charter. 19 Communication 308/05(2008) 25th Activity Report, ACHPR. Para 109. The Commission declared this Communication inadmissible on account of the fact that it was submitted 22 17 17