Attorney General by Law no. 22/07 and Decree-Law no. 1/05, through which the Attorney General applied to the Supreme Court without the presence or submissions on the case from the Victim. As such, this violation on Article 7 could be remedied through rectifying the law on which the special prerogative power of the Attorney General is founded. The Victim could have done this by filing application challenging the constitutionality of the law before the Constitutional Council. The Victim did not file such an application. The Complainant has not provided explanation on why the Victim did not pursue this avenue. Indeed, from the Complainant’s submission, it was indicated that the victim was cognizant of the availability of that avenue and applied for stay of execution of the Supreme Court’s decision ‘in order to approach the Constitutional Council’. Accordingly and in the absence of a submission by the Complainant that remedies were not available or effective, the Commission finds that the exhaustion of remedies requirement has not been met with regards to the alleged violation of Article 7. 52. With respect to the allegation on the violation of Article 14 on the right to property, on the substantive demand of the Victim for asserting title over the property, the Complainant submitted that the matter was exhausted with a favourable decision reached on 08 July 2008. Since it was the Supreme Court that reversed this decision, the Victim may not have appealed on the subject to the Supreme Court itself. It is possible that the civil suit involving the Victim’s claim for asserting title over the property itself may not be amenable to be taken for review before the Constitutional Council. Yet given that what led to the Supreme Court’s decision recanting the decision of 08 July 2008 on suit no. 127/07 was the exercise by the Attorney General of the special prerogative power under Law no. 22/07 and Decree-Law no. 1/05, the Victim, as suggested in the Complainants submission, could have filed a constitutionality application on the Attorney General’s special prerogative power, which, if successful, could have the effect of setting aside the Supreme Court’s decision in suit no. 159/09 and affirming the lower court decision on suit no. 127/07. 53. In the present case, the Victim did not refer the matter on the unconstitutionality of the laws in question to the Constitutional Council. No explanation is availed on why the Victim, despite having sought to take the matter to the Constitutional Council, did not actually pursue it. However, in other Communications on file with the Commission, the Constitutional Council received and decided cases from individuals.17 54. In the light of this failure of the Victim with no indication that a redress from the Constitutional Council was not possible or ineffective, the Commission finds on the allegation of violation of Article 14 that Article 56(5) of the African Charter has not been met. 55. Article 56(6) of the African Charter provides that the Commission shall consider Communications which “are submitted within a reasonable period from the time See Communication 460/13 – Francisco Filipe Machado Vasco Mboia Campira (represented by Professor Dr. Gilles Cistac) v. the Republic of Mozambique 17 9