59. The Commission notes that, as provided in Article 4A(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, “a convicted person, or his representative, may apply to the Human Rights Division for an enquiry to be conducted as to whether there exists sufficient fresh and compelling evidence that may satisfy the Human Rights Division that a reference should be made under section 1 9A(4) of the Criminal Appeal Act.”10 Further, Article 4A(4) provides that, “On completion of the enquiry, the Human Rights Division may (a) grant the application and refer the conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal in accordance with section 1 9A(4) of the Criminal Appeal Act; or (b) reject the application.”11 60. From the above provisions, the Commission notes that the type of remedy which the NHRC is empowered to provide, is to conduct an enquiry into the case of a convicted person, and may decide to refer the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal. 61. Accordingly, the Commission observes that recourse to the NHRC would not provide a judicial remedy to the Victim. Rather, the National Human Rights Commission would be an avenue to refer a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Victim had already appealed his case to a court of higher jurisdiction; that is the Judicial Committee. 62. In light of the above, the Commission finds that, by seeking an appeal in the Judicial Committee, which is referred to as the highest and final court in the Respondent State, the Victim fulfilled the requirement of exhausting local remedies, and therefore the criterion under Article 56(5) has been met. 63. Article 56(6) of the African Charter provides that the Commission shall consider Communications which “are submitted within a reasonable period from the time domestic remedies are exhausted or from the date the Commission is seized of the matter.” The Commission has previously noted that 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.12 64. From the documents submitted by the Complainant, the Commission notes that the Judicial Committee rendered its judgment on 19 November 2012, whereas the Complainant transmitted the complaint to the Commission on 03 January 2016; that is three years, one month and fifteen days later. 65. To determine whether the criterion under Article 56(6) has been met, the Commission needs to determine whether the period of ‘three years, one month and fifteen days’ 10 The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1998, Act 19/1998, Proclaimed by [Proclamation No. 2 of 1999] 23rd February 1999 11 Id 12 Communication 322/2006 - Tsikata v Ghana (2006) ACHPR, para 37 9