Organisation of African Unity (African Union). In the present case, the communication does not, in the view of this Commission, contain any disparaging or insulting language, and thus fulfils the requirement of Article 56.3. 40. Article 56.4 of the Charter provides that the communication must not be based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. This communication was submitted based on the testimonies given before the Nigerian National Assembly, text statements, reports by human rights organisations and first hand information from the Nigerian students themselves,“who have been directly affected by the theft of Nigeria’s natural resources”. Thus the requirement under Article 56.4 has been fully complied with. 41. Article 56.5 provides that communications to be considered by the African Commission must be sent after local remedies have been exhausted. The Respondent State contends that the Complainant has not complied with this requirement. The State argues that the Complainant has not sought the sufficient and effective local remedies available to them in the state, before bringing the present communication before the Commission. On the other hand, the Complainant states that they could not comply with the requirement under this article due to reasons that will be outlined below. 42. Article 56.6 provides that, communications must be submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted, or from the date the Commission is seized with the matter. From the wording of this article, the time-limit commences from the date when all local remedies are supposed to have been exhausted, and the phrase “or from the date the Commission is seized with the matter” does not apply to the case before the Commission because a communication is only seized after the Complainant must have submitted the same, and this communication has already been seized by the Commission. In addition, the African Charter does not expressly lay down a clearcut time-limit for the Complainant to submit a complaint. In this regard, “reasonableness” of the timelimit can rightfully be assessed by this Commission bearing in mind the circumstances of the case. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the complaint was submitted within a reasonable time period because according to the facts herein, the Complainant submitted when it thought it practicable to do so. Based on the above, and the fact that this article is not in contention with the Respondent State, the Commission holds that Article 56.6 has been satisfied by the Complainant. 43. Lastly, Article 56.7 provides that the communication must not deal with cases which have been settled by States, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations, or the Charter of the OAU or the African Charter. This communication has not been settled by any of these international bodies and thus the requirement of Article 56.7 has been fulfilled by the Complainant. 44. The rationale for the exhaustion of local remedies is to ensure that before proceedings are brought before an international body, the State concerned must have the opportunity to remedy the matter through its own local system. This prevents the international tribunal from acting as a court of 1 first instance rather than as a body of last resort. 45. Three major criteria could be deduced from the practice of the Commission in determining compliance with this requirement, that is: the local remedy must be available, effective and sufficient. 46. These three major criteria are clearly expressed by the Commission in 147/95, 147/96 Sir Dawda Jawara v The Gambia. In this case, the Commission held that “the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which, it will lack the requisite 2 accessibility and effectiveness …” 47. The Complainant in the present communication submit that it could not exhaust local remedies because there are no provisions in the national laws of Nigeria allowing them to seek remedies for the violations alleged. 48. It further avers that there was no local recourse readily available to them, “due to the strict interpretation of locus standi in Nigeria”. Furthermore, that locus standi is not available in domestic courts due to the large number of students involved. 49. It also submits that, Nigerian courts will not easily be disposed to hear the matter because they do not enforce socio-economic rights. In addition, there is no equivalent of articles 17 and 21 of the African Charter relating to the right to education and “the right of people not to be disposed of their wealth and natural resources under Nigeria’s Constitution or legislation”.