EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 52 granted licenses as in Retrofit v Telecommunications. Minister of Information, Posts and 75. The Respondent State avers that if CRPL had applied for and was not granted the license then it should have taken the matter to court as the remedy has been proven not only to be available but effective. 76. With respect to Article 56(6) of the Charter the Respondent State submits that even if the Commission were to find that local remedies were exhausted, the Communication was submitted after an unduly prolonged period of time as it was filed with the Commission after more than two years. Commission’s Analysis on Admissibility 77. Article 56 of the Charter provides for seven requirements on the basis of which the Admissibility or otherwise of Communications is determined. Accordingly, the Commission proceeds to assessing the submissions of both parties against the requirements under the said provision. 78. Although the Respondent State challenges the Admissibility of the present Communication only on two grounds, that is Article 56(5) and (6) of the Charter, the Commission finds it necessary to analyze the admissibility of the Communication against all the seven requirements under Article 56 of the Charter. 79. Article 56(1) requires Communications to indicate the authors even if the latter wants to remain anonymous. With respect to this requirement, the Complainants have indicated their names as: Article 19, Gerry Jackson, Michael Auret Jr, Media Institute of Southern Africa and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa together with their contact addresses. The Respondent State has not raised any objection on this issue. Accordingly, since the Communication clearly lists the names and contact details of the Complainants (authors), the Commission holds that the Communication meets the requirement under Article 56(1) of the Charter. 80. The second admissibility requirement provided under Article 56(2) states that Communications should be compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU) or with the African Charter. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State has violated Articles 1, 2 and 9 of the Charter. They have also briefly narrated the series of events and acts that they allege have caused the violation of those provisions of the Charter. The Respondent State however does not challenge the Admissibility of this Communication on this ground. The Commission is of the view that the facts described in this Communication reveal a prima facie violation of the Charter, and the Communication is brought by persons within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the Charter. Based on the above, the Commission is satisfied that the requirement under Article 56(2) has been met. 81. Article 56(3) provides that for a Communication to be admissible it must not be written in a language which is insulting or disparaging to the AU or the Respondent State or its institutions. The Complainants contend that the Communication is written in a manner that is neither disparaging nor insulting to