reasons put forward to justify the prolongation of the remedy in order to determine whether the prolongation is normal or abnormal. 55. From the analysis of the arguments of the Complainants, it appears that the procedure for domestic remedies is unduly prolonged, particularly in the light of eight years of proceedings already gone by at the lower courts in addition to two years of seizure at the Supreme Court for which a hearing date is yet to be scheduled. Furthermore, considering that the sole purpose of the application to the Supreme Court is to rule on a question of constitutionality before referring the case to the lower courts for examination on the merits, it is clear that there is a lack of expediency in the handling of this case, which in this case constitutes an abnormal extension of the remedies. Reasonable time 56. Finally, with regard to the requirement in article 56(6) of the African Charter that the Communication must be "submitted within n reasonable time after the exhaustion of domestic remedies or idler the duh' on which the Commission considers that the Hme limilfor the submission of the Communication lms expired". Having already established the fact that appeals are abnormally prolonged, the Commission should confirm whether the time limits for submissions meet its criteria. 57. The African Charter only provides that communications must be submitted "within a reasonable time" which is not defined. The Commission acknowledged in Communication 308/05-Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe", that "six ruontlls seems to be the usual standard" for bringing a case before the Commission after the exhaustion of domestic remediesl5. But it also emphasised that each case must be dealt with on its own merits, stating that if there are valid and compelling reasons for the Complainant not to be able to submit his or her complaint within the time limit, the Commission may consider the complaint in order to ensure fairness and justice 16 58. In the case at hand, the Complainants indicated that they had filed a complaint with the Commission six months after being informed that the Public Prosecutor's Office had not given its opinion in the appeal procedure before the Supreme Court, contrary to the law in force. ~° ll Communication 308/05 Michael Mnjum v. ZinIbuhwc (2008) ACI IPR Para 109 15 Communicalion 308/05 -Mirharl Mnjum v. Zimbabwe (2008) ACI IPR Para 109 16 ibidem s? AMU* \1 .L . ¢sa¥12, *a . U I § 1 *J \ 11 .,s» .. C2} , J . \ me