jurisdiction, the Supreme Military Court of Appeals, the highest military court of appeal similarly upheld the death penalty verdict. 78. The Commission finds that based on the facts as submitted by the Complainant that the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Military Court are the highest Courts and their decisions cannot be appealed, the Victims do not have a further right to appeal the death sentences. The Complainant provides evidence of two other judicial avenues that some of the Victims pursued, first, bringing a request for review based on procedural irregularities, which it stated would not succeed based on the new law on the finality of decisions of the Court of Cassation, and second bringing a separate case before the Attorney General based on the alleged torture and forced disappearances, which has not been investigated. The Commission is of the view that the domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Commission thus finds that the requirements under-Article 56 (5) have been met. 79. In relation to the reasonable time period requirement Complainant refers to the lack of specific time l imi ts the six-months' Human Rights. time limit provided The Complainant in the states the 56 Article the (6) ecified in the African Charter and European and that under American Complaint was Conventions submitted on on 17 November 2017, whereas the dates for the final sentencing of the cases were as follows: (a) Alexandria Protest Killing on 24 April 2017; (b) Police Guard Murder on 7 June 2017; (c) Kafr Al Sheikh Bombing on 19 June 2017; (d) Rabaa Dispersal on 3 July 2017; and (e) the Qatar Espionage case on 16 September 2017. Therefore, the timeline between exhaustion of local remedies and the submission of the Complaint before the Commission ranges from about seven months to two months. The Commission is of the view that this is a reasona le period and that the Complainant has complied with the requirement under Article 56 (6). 80. TI1e Complainant indicates that in compliance with Article 56 (7), the Respondent State has not settled the case, and that the case has not been submitted to any other international human rights body. The Commission thus finds that the requirement under Article 56 (7) has been complied with. 81. For the reasons set out above, the Commission finds that Article 56 (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) have been met, but that the Complainant has failed to meet the criteria for Article 56 (1). Decision of the African Commission on Admissibility � 1 0 '. � 1. In view of the above, the African Commission on Human and Peoples;·: ,;r's;''''� ({�11 /1\{ " . � 1 > \ \ � ,.u.u,. �o \ � '. � � . «» 'It, ¥4.cR1"Mtlt'-l)t 01.,�E" El I $J � '� )' ::.s.�