"attached some documentary evidences to corroborate its allegations", the Commission found that a prima fade case was proved.20 85. In the current case, the Complainant has in paragraphs 6 to 9 above set out the alleged ways in which he suffered and in paragraph 13 above related the alleged violations to the provisions of the Charter. The Commission is therefore convinced that this establishes a clear link between the events and the rights allegedly violated, and the alleged violation is not merely stated in a general manner. The Commission does not require documentary evidence in order to establish a prima Jacie violation, but would only require evidence or proof at the merit stage, in order to establish violations on a preponderance of probability. Therefore, the Commission finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under Article 56(2) of the African Charter. 86. Article 56(3) requires that a Communication must not be "written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organisation of African Unity (now African Union)." The Complainant submits that he meets the requirements under Article 56(3) in that the language used is respectful and balanced, and the State has not offered any contrary view on this point. The Commission has in reading the Complaint not come across anything which would amount to disparaging or insulting language. The Commission therefore finds that the requirements of Article 56(3) have been met. 87. Article 56(4) of the Charter requires that the Communication must not be based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. The Complainant submits that the Communication is based on his own experience and were transmitted to the legal representatives through Skype and telephone correspondence. The State did not raise any objections on this ground, and the Commission finds that the requirements of Article 56(4) have been met. 88. On the question of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) the Complainant submits that he does not have to exhaust this requirement, since there are no available, effective and sufficient remedies in this case, stating that 1) there is no effective remedy available for arbitrary arrest and detention; 2) there is no effective and sufficient remedy to challenge the human rights abuses of the NISS and 3) that the Respondent State has failed to provide a remedy or investigate the allegations despite ample notice and time to do so.