EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 49 The Law on Admissibility Complainants’ submission on Admissibility 55. The Complainants submit that they have met all the admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter. They submit that the Communication complies with Article 56(1) as the authors of the Communication are listed as Article 19, Gerry Jackson, Michael Auret Jr., Media Institute of Southern Africa and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa. 56. Regarding Article 56(2) of the Charter, the Complainants submit that the Communication alleges violation by the Respondent State of Articles 1, 2 and 9 of the Charter. They submit that the Respondent State has violated Article 1 of the Charter by failing to adopt measures to give effect to its obligations under Article 9 of the Charter and this has the effect of denying the rights enshrined in this provision. They also argue that the specific actions of the Respondent State, particularly the Minister’s official statement that CRPL would never be granted a license because of its predominately white ownership, discriminated against CRPL, thereby constituting a violation of Article 2 of the Charter. They therefore submit that these allegations establish a prima facie violation of the Charter and thus compatible with Article 56(2). 57. Regarding Article 56(3) of the Charter, the Complainants aver that the Communication is written in a manner that is neither disparaging nor insulting to either the Respondent State or the Organization of African Unity (now the African Union). 58. With respect to Article 56(4) the Complainants submit that the Communication is supported by firsthand experience of two of the Complainants, court rulings and other pertinent documents, which are annexed to the Communication. 59. Concerning Article 56(5) of the Charter, the Complainants submit that the Supreme Court handed down its judgment on 19 September 2003, ruling that most of the impugned provisions it was challenging were either constitutional or that CRPL as a prospective broadcaster, lacked standing to challenge them. According to the Complainants, in respect of the provisions ruled constitutional (which constituted a number of the key operative provisions of the broadcast regulatory regime), it is well established that when the highest appellate court of a respondent state has pronounced on an issue in contention, it is settled that the remedy is exhausted.28 60. According to the Complainants, the Supreme Court ruled that four out of the seventeen provisions were unconstitutional.29 This limited ruling of unconstitutionality would not, in their view, even if fully implemented, provide an effective solution to the 28 29 See for example A Concado Trindad The Application of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law: Its Rationale in the International Protection of Individual Rights (1983) p 58. The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe ruled that Secs 6, 9(1), (2) & (3) were unconstitutional. Sec 6 designate the Minister as the licensing authority; Sec 9(1) restricts one national broadcasting license to each radio and television; Sec 9(2) restricts only one signal carrier license to be issued other than to public broadcaster; and Sec 9(3) prohibits a person holding both a broadcasting license and signal carrier license.