to be effective. He states that Lesotho local remedies are neither available nor effective both in law and in fact because the Respondent State made it impossible for him to access them. 48. The Complainant accordingly argues that he cannot be required to exhaust local remedies when the very actions of the Respondent State left him without an opportunity to do so. He submits further that he vigorously tried on various occasions to pursue local remedies through his lawyers even after he was forced out of Lesotho until it became clear that he could no longer pursue the remedies even while the matters were still pending in Court purportedly because he was no longer able to pay his lawyers. 49. The Complainant goes on to cite the principle established in Amnesty International &RADDHO v Zambia6 to the effect that an individual expelled by the Respondent State from its jurisdiction without due process cannot be denied the right to access the Commission on account of non- exhaustion of local remedies because it is the very fact of expulsion and the manner in which it was executed which effectively denied the Complainant the right to pursue such remedies. The Commission's Analysis on Admissibility 50. The present Communication was submitted in accordance with Article 55 of the African Charter under which the Commission is mandated to receive and consider Communications other than those of State Parties . Communications submitted under Article 55 of the Charter must comply with the conditions laid down in Article 56 of the Charter in order for them to be admissible. 51. Article 56 of the African Charter outlines seven (7) conditions which must all be met for a Communication to be declared admissible. Failure to comply with one or several of these conditions renders the Communication inadmissible. 7 52. The Communication was processed in terms of Rule 105 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure and both parties were duly accorded an opportunity to present their views on the admissibility of the Communication. 53. From the submissions of the parties, the Commission notes that the sole contentious issue between them is with respect to the requirements in Article 56(3) and (5) of the Charter. After carefully examining the Communication and the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that Articles 56(1)(2)(4)(6) and (7) raise no contentious issues and are satisfied. To this end, the Commission's analysis on admissibility will focus on the requirements contained in Article 56(3) and (5) of the Charter. 54. Concerning the first requirement in dispute, namely Article 56(3) , the Respondent State submits that the Communication should be declared inadmissible because it is couched in disparaging and insulting language. The Respondent State has cited phrases from the Complainant's submissions (reproduced in paragraph 35 above) which it claims tarnishes the image of the Government of Lesotho. The Complainant claims that the language used is not disparaging and furnishes what he considers to be evidence of some of the allegations levied against the State. 55. The Commission recalls that the requirement Article 56(3) of the African Charter specifically stipulates that the Communication should not be written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the African Union . 56. The Commission recalls further its decision in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Right v Zimbabwe it which it stated as follows: 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 the institution. The language must be aimed at undermining the integrity and status of the institution and bring it into 6