Admissibility 33. The Complainant submits that the only possible remedy against the Ivorian Constitution is to request its revision, which, though provided for in the said Constitution, “is impossible in the present state of affairs”. He added that, under Article 124 of the Ivorian Constitution, “the initiative for the review of the Constitution is a joint undertaking by the President of the Republic and the members or the National Assembly”. 34. He argues further that the President of the Republic has on several occasions clearly expressed his opposition to any review of the Constitution. The Complainant also alleges that the President of the Republic has peremptorily asserted that he will never submit the Constitution to a review, which clearly expresses his intention of not applying this mechanism which only he and the Speaker of the National Assembly have the prerogative to initiate. 35. The Complainant alleges further that, the Speaker of the National Assembly, speaking on behalf of all the Deputies of the Forum for National Reconciliation, rejected the possibility of a Constitutional review by asserting that “the people of Cote d’lvoire do not want a constitutional review”. 36. The Complainant further argues that the final hope to have the Authorities (the President of the Republic and the Speaker of the National Assembly) reconsider their position remained the “National th th Forum for National Reconciliation held from 9 October 2001 to 18 December 2001 in Abidjan”. And yet, the Forum, in its final resolutions, did not rule on a review of the Constitution. 37. The Complainant contends therefore that there is no possible domestic remedy in this particular case and asks the African Commission to draw the appropriate conclusions by declaring the communication admissible. Respondent State’s Submissions on admissibility 38. The Respondent State, in a memorandum conveyed to the African Commission on th 10 November 2003 claims that as far as it is concerned, the communication is “inadmissible and baseless”. The Respondent State maintains that there is indeed a local remedy “constituted by the imminent revision of Articles 124 and others of the Constitution”. 39. The Respondent State further notes that the Complainant has not submitted any evidence on the use and exhaustion of existing local remedies. The Respondent State which considers “local remedies” as any legal and lawful action undertaken to“ensure the cessation of the alleged violations” claims that the Complainant did not attempt anything of the sort. 40. Concerning the request of the Complainant relative to the revision of certain Articles of the Ivorian Constitution, the Respondent State intimates that the Ivorian people freely espoused this Constitution which in no way “either grossly or manifestly negates human dignity”. It concludes therefore that the request for revision of this Constitution by the Complainant is not “compatible with the provisions of the OAU Charter and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights” and that the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible by the African Commission, because it is not in conformity withArticle 56.2 of the African Charter. 41. The admissibility of communications submitted to the African Commission pursuant to Article 55 is determined by seven requirements provided for under Article 56 of the African Charter. In communications 147/95 and 149/96 Sir Dawda K Jawara v The Gambia, the Commission held that these requirements must all be satisfied for a communication to be declared admissible. 42. In the present communication, without making references to the other requirements. The Complainant submits that local remedies are not available in his circumstance, as the remedy available could only be used by the President and the members of the National Assembly. He then concluded that for this reason, there are no remedies and the communication should be declared admissible. The State on the other hand avers that the communication is incompatible with the OAU Charter and the African Charter, and without specifying, also notes that the Complainant has not attempted the remedies available to him. The State concludes that for the above reasons, the communication should be declared inadmissible.