Act of the AU, as the latter does not contain rights that need to be respected. 3 In the case at hand, the Complainants’ have alleged the violation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the African Charter by the Respondent State, which is a State Party to the Charter. The Communication thus reveals a prima facie violation of rights guaranteed in the African Charter, to which the Respondent State is a party. These alleged violations are said to have occurred within the territory of the Respondent State during the period when the Charter was in force in relation to the State concerned. From the above, the African Commission is satisfied that the Communication is compatible with the African Charter and meets the requirement under Article 56 sub paragraph 2. 80. It is further provided under Article 56(3) of the African Charter that for Communications to be considered by the African Commission, they must not be written in a ‘disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organization of African Unity’. The reading of the present Communication clearly shows that it is written in a polite and respectful manner. No complaint has also been made by the Respondent State in this regard. For these reasons, the Commission is of the opinion that the Complaint is written as per the requirements of Article 56(3) of the African Charter. 81. Another Admissibility requirement stipulated under Article 56(4) is that the Communication should not be based solely on news disseminated by the media. The facts of the case divulge that the Compliant is based on the personal experiences and testimonies of the Complainants, which the State has not challenged. Accordingly, the Commission holds that the Compliant is in compliance with the requirements of Article 56(4) of the African Charter. 82. With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, Article 56(5) of the African Charter requires the Complainants to exhaust all local remedies before filing the Complaint ‘unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged’. 83. The Complainants in the present Communication state that the decision of the Court of Administrative Justice on 4 April 2006 ordering the CSD to issue ID cards and new birth certificates which clearly recognize their religious affiliation as Baha’i was appealed by the Government before the SAC. The SAC admitted the appeal and later decided on 16 December 2006 to overturn the lower Court’s decision and further found that the State is under no obligation to issue ID cards or birth certificates recognizing the Baha’i faith. This decision of SAC, the Complainants assert, is final and cannot be appealed before any other Court. Consequently, they argue that they have exhausted all local remedies. 3 Frans Vijoen, International Human Rights Law in Africa (2007) pp. 331-332. 12