63. In a comparable case Rehak e/Czech Republic" handled by the European Court, the applicant - a former anti-communist activist had, inter alia, accused the Czech membership of the Registry of having successfully disguised" the applications of democratically orientated citizens with a view to depriving them of human rights "once and for all", and of "having accomplices" in the form of Romanian, Bulgarian or other left-leaning - and therefore partial - judges and administrators in the Court. He had, in his submission, expressed himself as follows: II "the genocide of fundamental human rights in the Czech Republic is,s~ vast that it extends to the Czech Registry of the European Court" "... not even criminal communist tribunals sent their decisions without reasoning .... What you have done is tantamount to approval of theft and, therefore, amounts to a crime from the position of a sort of' terrestrial God' [...] " ... Today, when I know that your glorious Court is full ofSTB and KGB [The secret services of former Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union] agents, [...J Your Court, with the great help of and thanks to the Czech Registry ... liquidates fundamental human rights! ... [...] In doing so, your glorious Court consecrated crimes of the communist regime and communist tribunals. Thank you! ... "[ SIC., J "d 64. The Court found the sarcastic expressions offensive and insulting. It also found that the applicant's numerous accusations in his submissions had "evidenced his determination to harm and tarnish the reputation of the very institution of European Court of Human Rights, its members and staff" 65. The Commission notes that in light of the circumstances of complainants and the nature of allegations put forward, the use of strong language or expression of emotions would not be misplaced, and as such, would not ipso facto render a Communication contrary to Article 56 (3) of the African Charter. In Eyob B. Asemie v the Kingdom of Lesothot", the Commission held that: "It is also important to note that a Communication alleging human rights violations by its very nature should be expected to contain allegations that reflect negatively on the State and its institutions ". 66. In Constitutional. Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria-v, the Commission held that freedom of expression is "a basic human right, vital to an indtoidual's personal development and political consciousness, and to his participation in the conduct of public affairs in his country". 67. In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Zimbabwe", The Commission held that Article 56 (3) of the 18 may 2004 Rehak v Czech Republic, no 67208/01 435/12 - Eyob B, Asemie v the Kingdom of Lesotho (2015) ACHPR, para 58. 20 Communications 140/94, 141/94, 145/94 - Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organis Rights Agenda v Nigeria, para 36. 21 Communication 293/04 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for ~ 18 ECHR (dec) 19 Communication .' ·r apd Medi I 741h Ordinary Session of the ACHPR § .;,' ~ ~ <6 .. ...... \ '" ~" I 8' p.u·\J'{\ Q<i.. .... 1/ '" c .,~O,y~"'RIC,,\~Ii..,1<":>~'-.' ., .. )f~E E'1" o£.'" '/,/ J: