102. In the first instance, the Commission held in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa / Zimbabwe, that "In determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting and whether it has dampened the integrity of the judiciary, or any other State institution, the Commission has to satisfy itself whether the said remark or language is aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violating the dignity, reputation or integrity of a judicial officer or body and whether it is used in a manner calculated to pollute the minds of the public or any reasonable man to cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence on [sic] the institution. The language must be aimed at undermining the integrity and status of the institution and bring it into disrepute. To this end, Article 56(3) must be interpreted bearing in mind Article 9(2) of the African Charter which provides th every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within t -t-. " 103. In the second instance, beyond setting the principle in the above-mentioned jurisprudence, the Commission has elucidated in Communication' 435/12 - Eyob B. Asemie v the Kingdom of Lesotho, that, "Although the Complainant's statements are of a nature to tarnish the image of the state and its institutions, it i~ important to note that these are merely the Complainant's perceptio.D;§.and honestopiiiion, cast in plain'language, of the State and its institutions in the circurrt~fa:nces of his,dse. It is also important to note that a Communication alleging human rights violations by.it~~very nature should be expected to contain allegations that reflect negatively on the State and its institutions'T'. 104. In the same manner, the Commission went as far as indicating in Communication Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto (represeB~,ed by Innocence.Project Africa) v. Republic of Kenya, that "the Complaint contains exp'i;¢~$ions such as: "Sickening"; "Charade"; "the Respondent is part of the ploy"; "tra:m:pI.eunder"; "fishing expedition";" demonization" which in the view of the Commission are 'disparaging and insulting" _12 105. The Respondent State argues that the complainant's insistence in accusing the Government of being at the origin of enforced disappearances, with statements such as "persistent rumour indicatingthat some had been killed and buried in mass graves in the vicinity of Yaounde" or the nierefc;tct that, in its perception, no evidence has been provided to justify such allegationsco'nsfitutes disparaging language. /. LIn', ... 106. However, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Commission, as pri bQ~wons#at~d, the mere fact that a perception and opinion are expressed by the COIhphllijlllt as 0 tI1a-, author of grave human rights violations, allegedly suffered by the mlmpers of it~' community cannot be considered disparaging. Additionally, the veryterrhs used by the " latter to express such perception cannot be considered offensive as ~p~.r\the .threshold J Communication NO.293104 : Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa 1Zimbabwe (para 51,52), bJ1P~sJLY:f:!'!YY~JJc!1Rr,.QrgLp.ll.blLcLDQ_c.umenILfjleI.EngUs.b/acDPr.43_Z9,J_Q4_eng .•.p,df 11 Communication 435112 _ Eyob B. Asemie v the Kingdom of Lesotho 10 (58), https:1 Iwww, ac h Q.L.QIlUP..Ul2li cl Do cum e n.tLfileLEnglLsblacnllr.16.eQLilllQs_4.3_5_j_,Ue.s.o_thQ__eng,p_Qf 12 Communication 464114 -Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto (represented by Innocence Project Africa) v. Republic of Kenya (para 18), 17