circumstances in this case, the Commission decided that the communication complied with Article 56.6, stating that; “The Complainant is not residing in the Respondent State and needed time to settle in the new destination, before bringing his Complaint to the Commission. Even if the Commission were to adopt the practice of other regional bodies to consider six months as the reasonable period to submit complaints, given the circumstance in which the Complainant finds himself, that is, in another country, it would be prudent, for the sake of fairness and justice, to consider a ten months period as 17 reasonable.” 73. As portrayed in the facts of the communication before this Commission, the judgment of the Court th of Appeal was delivered on 30 January 1995, and the communication was brought to the th Commission on 17 November 2006. Even though the State indicates that the Complainants took fifteen years before bringing the matter to the African Commission, according to the latter’s calculation, it took the Complainants exactly eleven years. The question of whether eleven years falls within the meaning of reasonable time would have to be assessed by this Commission. 74. The Commission underscores the fact that, in the submissions of the Complainants, there is no substantiation as to why it took them so long to bring the matter to the Commission after exhausting local remedies. It is the opinion of this Commission that, delays such as this could be prompted by different circumstances, including attempts to request for Presidential clemency and awaiting response or judicial reviews. 75. This Commission notes that it requested the Complainants to provide additional information to explain the delay, and no response was provided. 76. In the absence of any explanation whatsoever from the Complainants regarding the long period of time that it took before the matter was brought to the African Commission, the latter observes that, given the nature of the present communication, there has been an unreasonable delay. In view of this, it holds that the communication was not submitted within a reasonable period of time and therefore does not comply with Article 56.6 of the African Charter. 77. Article 56.7 states that, “The Commission does not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the OAU or the provisions of the present Charter.” There is no evidence in this communication that would prompt the Commission to believe that the matter has been settled by any international body. Moreover, this sub-Article has not raised any contention on the part of the Respondent State. Accordingly, the African Commission holds that the requirement under Article 56.7 has been duly fulfilled. Decision of the African Commission 78. In view of the foregoing, the African Commission decides: • • • That this Communication does not comply with Article 56.6 of the African Charter, and therefore declares it inadmissible; To transmit its decision to the parties in accordance with Rule 119(1) of its Rules of Procedure; th To Publish this decision in its 28 Activity Report. th th th Done at the 47 Ordinary Session, held from 12 to 26 May 2010, in Banjul, The Gambia. Footnotes 1. The member organisations of SANGONET are; the Legal and Human Rights Centre, the Women’s Legal Aid Centre, DOLASED, Women in Law and Development in Africa, the Centre for Human Rights Promotion, the National Organisation for Legal Assistance, the Youth Partnership Countrywide and the Children Education Society. th 2. Ratified on 18 February 1984. 3. The Appellant in the Mbushuu’ case before the matter was brought to the African Commission. 4. Article 30(4) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania provides that: “Subject to the other