No. 2 of 2012 on 4 September 2012. There was no further remedy to be pursued and he exhausted local remedies in this regard. 57. Similarly, claims "(i)" and "Q)" impleads the composition of the Supreme Court and the way it disposed of Petition No. 2 of 2012. Neither the Respondent State, nor the Complainanthas indicated that there is a procedure for a remedy against these claims before the Supreme Court itself or courts subordinate to it. The Commission concludes that there is no remedy to be exhausted and Article 56(5) is accordingly satisfied in respect of these two claims. 58. In light of the foregoing, the Respondent State's contention that the Complainant wasted time pursuing a side show and thus neglected to exhaust local remedies in respect of the substantive matter; and the implicit suggestion that the prolongation of domestic procedures is attributable to the Complainant cannot be sustained. Moreover, the respondents to the domestic proceedings raised preliminary objections which preoccupied the courts,and led to the di~missal of the substantive matters. As the Commission has found, with the exclusion of the claim relating to imprisonment for contempt of court, domestic procedures were unduly prolonged in respect of some of the claims, while domestic remedies were exhausted or not,available in ,respect of the r~mainder of the claims. 59. In the circumstances, the Commission does not find it necessary to consider the Complainant's conte.n tion that domestic remedies are not available owing to a "serious breakdown of trust and professional etiquette." 60. Lastly, the Commission notes that both Parties do not raise issues with respect to the requirements of Article 56(6) and (7) of the Charter. For its part, the Commission notes that the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Petition No. 2 of 2012 on 4 September 2012. The present Communication was submitted in October and November 2012, utmost about three months after the decision of the final court of . the Respondent State. The Commission considers that the Communication satisfies Article 56(6) of the Charter. ~! 61. Similarly, the Commission has neither been drawn to, nor of its own motion come across any indication that the subject matter of the present Communication has been settled in , terms of Article 56(7) of the Charter. Accordingly, the Communication meets the requirement of Article 56(7) of the Charter. Decision of the Commission on Admissibility 62. •