non-judicial or discretionary domestic remedies that may or may not be available in the DRC. 34. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the aforementioned arguments, the circumstances of this present case are such that the requirements of Article 56(5) of the Charter must be deemed to have been complied with. In fact, according to the Complainants, the requirement of having exhausted domestic remedies is based on the principle according to which the Respondent State must be aware of any alleged violation in order to have the opportunity to provide remedies within the confines of its own national legal system before they are submitted to the Commission. According to the Complainants, the Respondent State had knowledge of the content of their Communication for decades and had not reacted. Consequently, the rationale for Article 56(5) has been fully complied with. 35. With respect to the requirement of Article 56(6), the Complainants submit that this requirement is met since the Communication was filed with the Commission "within a reasonable period of time" after the date on which the domestic procedures initiated by the Complainants (if they were to be considered as "domestic remedies") were to be deemed to have been exhausted in terms of what constitutes a "reasonable period of time within which to exhaust domestic remedies" under Article 56(6). 36. They also point out that in its Communication 308/05 - Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe4, the Commission considered that "six months seems to be the usual standard". It explained, however, that "each case must be dealt with on its own merits" and thus, "where there are valid and compelling reasons for the Complainant not to submit his other complaint in time, the Commission llllll/ consider the complaint in order to ensure fairness and justice"5 37. The Complainants consider that domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 56(5) that need to be exhausted do not exist. However, the Batwas sought to exhaust all available domestic mechanisms before submitting the Communication. Moreover, they state that the Communication was submitted within six months of being informed that the Public Prosecutor's Office had not produced its conclusions in the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court, contrary to the law in force. ' Communication 308/05 Michael Majuro v/ Zimbalnvd (2008) ACHPR Para. 109 5 Ibidem 7