disrepute 8 57. The Respondent State has outlined a number of phrases from the Complainant's submissions from which it draws inferences of disparagement, notably that the phrases are of a nature to tarnish the image of Lesotho and that there is an imputation of non-respect of the principle of separation of powers on the part of the Government of Lesotho. It is worthy to note that the Respondent State does not point out particular phrases that on the face of it are disparaging but it is the inferences that can be drawn from those phrases which it says are disparaging. 58. Although these inferences could lead one to conclude that the Complainant's statements are of a nature to tarnish the image of the state and its institutions, it is important to note that these are merely the Complainant's perceptions and honest opinion, cast in plain language, of the State and its institutions in the circumstances of his case. 9 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. 10 59. Also, while the Commission will be loath to declare a Communication inadmissible merely because the Respondent State is at odds with how it is perceived by a Complainant, it must make sure that the ordinary meaning of the words used are not in themselves disparaging. The language used by the Complainant must unequivocally demonstrate the intention of the Complainant to bring the State and its institution into disrepute as was the case in Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l'Homme v Cameroon 11 , and Ilesanmi v Nigeria12 . This does not seem to be the case in the present Communication. 60. The Commission is mindful of the fact that the proscription of disparaging and insulting language is fundamental to diplomatic, courteous and respectful exchanges between parties appearing before it and the need to uphold the integrity of State institution, which are indispensable for the protection of human rights. However, a fine balance needs to be drawn between this proscription and the need to facilitate free expression. Where, as in the present case the Complainant uses language which conveys his perception of facts and presents evidence to justify that perception, the Commission cannot hold that such language is disparaging or insulting merely because inferences can be drawn from the language which reflects negatively on the state and its institutions. 61. In view of the above, the Commission considers that the language used by the Complainant is not disparaging and the requirement under Article 56(3) is accordingly complied with. 62. Regarding the second contested issue, namely the exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the Charter, it is the Respondent State's view that the Complainant has failed to exhaust local remedies, which it says are available, effective and sufficient to remedy the violations complained of. The Complainant on the other hand points out that he has exhausted local remedies in view of the fact that he submitted his case to several courts. He also submits that because he was forced to flee the country, local remedies are neither available nor effective both in law and in fact because it was impossible for him to access them. 63. The Commission recalls that Article 56(5) of the Charter requires Complainants to exhaust all local remedies unless it is obvious that the procedure is unduly delayed. The Commission recalls further that it is well established in its jurisprudence that the local remedies required to be exhausted must be available, effective and sufficient to redress the alleged violation. 64. The concepts of availability, effectiveness and sufficiency of remedies has abundantly been dealt with in Jawara v Gambia ; Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia , Egyptian Initiative for personal Right &Interights v Egypt etc. 13 The Commission recalls also that the remedies required to be exhausted must be sought from instances of a judicial nature and must not be discretionary. 14 It is also noteworthy that the Complainant must take his case to the court of highest jurisdiction in the Respondent State before approaching the Commission. 65. What is at issue in the present Communication is whether remedies were available to the Complainant 7