intellectual and moral integrity of the Mauritius Police Force, the Judge presiding over the trial case and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Mauritius. 42. In relation to Article 56 (3),the Respondent State submits that the Complainant has made use of disparaging language against the Judge presiding over the trial case. The State avers that the Complainant attacks the integrity of the Judge in such a way as to cast aspersions on the impartiality of the latter and the public confidence in the judicial system. The Respondent State argues that there is a fine balance that needs to be drawn between the language used and the need to facilitate free expression. The Respondent State submits that the Complainant was legally represented at both the trial and appeal stages, and that no ground in relation to the conduct of the Judge was taken before the Appeal Court. 43. As regards Article 56 (5) of the African Charter, the Respondent State submits that Mauritius has enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act in 1998,thereby establishing a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), having as its main objective the promotion of human rights. The State submits that the Complainant does not indicate whether he filed a formal complaint with the NHRC and whether he was legally assisted. 44.The Respondent State avers that the Complainant has not engaged any proceedings in relation to his claim in Mauritius even though as per the documents and judgments he was legally represented. [He] cannot now claim that he has no avenue to seek redress following his own failure to lodge any claim against the State for damages of wrongful arrest and detention. 45. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent State submits that the Communication has failed to satisfy Articles 56 (2), (3), and (5) of the African Charter. Analysis of the Commission on Admissibility 46. The Admissibility of Communications submitted to the Commission is governed by the seven requirements set out in Article 56 of the African Charter which apply conjunctively and cumulatively. According to the Respondent State, the Communication is inadmissible because the Complainant has failed to comply with Articles 56(2); 56(3) and 56(5) of the African Charter. The Complainant on the other hand maintains that Communication meets all the admissibility requirements and should be declared admissible.