EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 50 violations of the Charter as it would not remedy the systematic Charter violations which are inherent in the broadcast regulatory regime as a whole. The Complainants believe that the predominant effect of the broadcast regulatory regime at present is to keep in place the State broadcasting monopoly, which, as a result of the Act, has continued uninterrupted by the Supreme Court’s ruling. 61. Furthermore, they aver that the Amendment Act largely ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling on unconstitutionality and no further legislation has been enacted to implement these rulings. Accordingly, the Complainants argue, the limited remedy provided by the Supreme Court was rendered ineffective. 62. It is submitted that the Amendment Act responds to only one of the rulings of unconstitutionality of the Supreme Court judgment, but even such minor compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment fails to address the fundamental issue of the Minister’s ability to exert significant influence over the licensing process and the broadcast regulatory regime. The Complainants are of the view that a broadcast licensing process which is not independent of government control is inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression, an argument which remains unaffected by both the Supreme Court’s ruling and the Amendment Act. 63. The Complainants allege that by allocating formal regulatory responsibility to the BAZ and at the same time reserving significant powers of intervention and direction to the Minister, the Amendment Act fails to address the primary arguments put forward both at the Zimbabwean Supreme Court and in the present Communication. 64. In conclusion, the Complainants contend that by pursuing to completion the Supreme Court proceedings, CRPL has exhausted available domestic remedies. 65. Concerning the Admissibility requirement under Article 56(6) of the Charter, the Complainants submit that the Communication was filed before the Commission in August 2005, but September 2003, the date on which the Supreme Court rendered its judgment, should not be taken as the correct point for purposes of exhaustion of local remedies, because according to the Complainants, it was reasonable to wait and see how the Supreme Court judgment would be implemented and whether any broadcasting license would be issued. 66. According to the Complainants, this is supported by the fact that a call for application for satellite television broadcasting licenses had been made in 2002, although all four applicants were in fact rejected. Furthermore, a call for national radio and television broadcasting license applications as well as local commercial radio licenses was made some months after the Supreme Court judgment, in March 2004, and the period for submitting radio license applications was extended until January 2005. In May 2005, they submit, the BAZ announced that of the five applicants, only one had been short-listed. In August 2005, it was announced that even this applicant, MABC, would not be given a license. 67. Following the denial of all the applications after the March 2004 call, which made it clear that the authorities were not implementing even the very flawed