domestic remedies are exhausted or from the date the Commission is seized of the matter.” The Commission has previously noted, generally, the requirement of timeliness in Article 56(6) of the Charter is dependent on the exhaustion of domestic remedies envisaged in Article 56(5) of the African Charter.18 56. From the facts of the Communication, the Commission notes that on 20 November 2011, the Supreme Court passed judgment annulling the decision of the lower Court. The Victim’s application to the 4th Judicial Tribunal of the City of Maputo, requesting a stay of the Supreme Court’s decision, was dismissed on 19 March 2012 and the complaint was submitted to the Commission on 19 September 2012; that is six (6) months later. In light of this, the Commission is satisfied that six (6) months constitutes a reasonable timeframe within which to submit a Communication to the Commission. The Commission therefore finds that Article 56(6) of the Charter is satisfied. 57. In relation to Article 56(7) of the Charter, the Commission notes that, as stated by the Complainant, the issues and claims in the Communication have not been brought before, or settled by any other international forum. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Article 56(7) of the African Charter has been satisfied. Decision of the African Commission on Admissibility 58. In view of the above, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights decides: i. To declare the Communication inadmissible for failure to comply with Article 56(5) of the African Charter; ii. To notify its decision to the parties in accordance with Rule 107(3) of its Rules of Procedure. Done in Banjul, The Gambia, during the 59th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, from 21 October to 04 November 2016. 18 Communication 322/2006 - Tsikata v Ghana (2006) ACHPR para 37 10