Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda 27. With regards to Article 56 (6), the Complainant notes that the Communication is submitted within a reasonable timeframe. The Ugandan Supreme Court stayed the Constitutional Court ruling on March 2012 and since then additional proceedings have not occurred. Although the Charter does not provide a definitive date for a communication to be submitted, the Commission has held that it has to be submitted within a reasonable period of time. To support this, the Complainant cites the jurisprudence of the Commission in Article 19 and others v. Zimbabwe, and Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v. Sudan4. 28. The Complainant states that the Victim perfected his communication with the Commission on 19 October 2012 as it became clear he would continue to remain arbitrarily detained and the harm is in fact continuing and ongoing. 29. In relation to Article 56(7), the Complainant submits that the Victim’s case has not been settled before any other international body and he prays the Commission to conclude that the Complaint meets the terms and requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter. Respondent State’s submission on Admissibility 30. In its submissions, the Respondent State contends that the Communication is not admissible as it does not satisfy the requirement of Article 56(5) of the African Charter on exhaustion of local remedies. 31. It states that Article 56(5) requires that all local remedies should be exhausted before Communications can be referred to the Commission and the rationale for this is to ensure that the State concerned must have had the opportunity of redressing the alleged wrong by its own means and within the framework of its own domestic system. ACHPR, Communication 305/05 – Article 19 and Others v. Zimbabwe (2010), para. 91; and Communication 310/05 – Darfur Relief and Documentation Center v. Sudan (2009), para. 75. 4 7 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018