0Q03ss 54. ln the instant case, the Court is of the view that the language used by the Applicants to express their perceptions about the Judiciary in Rwanda, considered in its ordinary meaning is not in itself disparaging. 55. The Court further notes that the Respondent State itself failed to demonstrate how the Applicants' language was aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violating the integrity of the judiciary and polluting the minds of the public as alleged. 56.The Court therefore dismisses the objection to admissibility of the Application in relation to the use of disparaging and insulting language. tY. Objection relating to exhaustion of local remedies 57.The Respondent State contends that the Application should be dismissed because the Applicants have not exhausted local remedies. The Respondent State cites the decisions by the Commission in Kenyan Section of the lntemationalCommission of Jun'sfs and Others v Kenya, Jawara v The Gambia, Kenya Human Righfs Commission v Kenya and Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria which explain the mandatory nature of the requirement for exhaustion of local remedies. 58.The Respondent State avers that the Applicants' claim that they could not exhaust domestic remedies in Rwanda because they are not available and effective lacks merit. The Respondent State refers to the Commission's decisions in Afticle 19 v Eitrea and Anuak Justice Councilv Ethiopiawhere it has held that one cannot argue that local remedies are not available and effective if he has not attempted to make use of them. The Respondent State argues that it is self-defeating for the Applicants to claim that remedies are not available in Rwanda yet they have made no attempt to use them. The Respondent State contends that Rwandan courts are independent and the remedies they grant are not just available but also effective. !4 (@