PART C: Protection against Torture: Procedures before the African Commission and African Human Rights Court g. Other Admissibility Conditions that Should Also be Observed ‘Reasonable Period’ Article 56(6) of the Charter requires that where domestic remedies are attempted, the communication should be initiated within a ‘reasonable period’ after their exhaustion.413 The Charter does not indicate what a ‘reasonable period’ constitutes, and the Commission has instead addressed this on a case-by-case basis. This has resulted in some inconsistency: —on the one hand, the Commission has referred to the ‘usual 6 month period’ from the exhaustion of domestic remedies given by the Commission for the submission of complaints414, but has also declared admissible complaints which were submitted more than 6 months after the exhaustion of domestic remedies.415 The Commission has clarified that ‘where there is a good and compelling reason why a Complainant does not submit his complaint to the Commission for consideration, the Commission has a responsibility, for the sake of fairness and justice, to give such a Complainant an opportunity to be heard’.416 In the case of Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v. Sudan, the complaint was submitted 29 months after the exhaustion of domestic remedies. As no reason was provided for this delay, the Commission declared the case inadmissible for failing to meet the requirements of article 56(6).417 In Article 19 and Others v. Zimbabwe, the complainants challenged the legislative restrictions imposed on the media, which they alleged infringed on freedom of expression. The complaint was submitted two years following a Supreme Court decision, and the reason given for the delay was that the complainants were waiting to see whether the Supreme Court decision would be implemented. However, the Commission did not find this to be a ‘good or compelling’ reason, as the Supreme Court decision held that only four of the 17 legislative provisions challenged were unconstitutional and the complainants were not satisfied with the outcome. For this reason, the Commission declared the case inadmissible due to the lack of a ‘good and compelling’ reason for the twoyear delay between the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the submission of the complaint to the Commission. However, there appear to be some inconsistencies in the Commission’s findings 413 African Charter, supra note 9, Article 56(6). 414 ACHPR, Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v. Sudan, Comm. No. 310/05, paras. 75-78; Obert Chinhamo v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 307/05, para. 89. In this case, the Commission held that a delay of 10 months does not constitute an ‘unreasonable delay’, however the case was declared inadmissible for failing to exhaust domestic remedies. 415 ACHPR, Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 288/2004, para. 44. 416 ACHPR, Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v. Sudan, Comm. No. 310/05, para. 77. 417 Ibid., para. 78-79. 99