38. The African Commission, having considered the criteria on admissibility under Article 56 of the Charter, is satisfied that the communication indicates the authors, that it falls within the ratione materiae and ratione temporis of the Charter and the Constitutive Act, and is therefore compatible with the Charter. It does not use disparaging language, it has provided information and facts on the decision of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, including Affidavits on which the Complaint is based. It was submitted within reasonable time, and is not a subject of adjudication in any other tribunal and/nor previously settled by another international tribunal. 39. The only criterion which the African Commission has to look at is whether the communication satisfies Article 56.5. Having analysed the submissions by both parties on the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the African Commission is satisfied that in the light of the Supreme Court 5 decision, Constitutional Application No. 252/02, spelling out the position of the law in Zimbabwe concerning the provisions applicable to the accreditation and registration of journalists, which is a binding authority in Zimbabwe, it would have been futile for the Complainants to go to the Supreme Court in order to exhaust domestic remedies. 40. Taking into account all the foregoing submissions, the Commission decides to declare the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits Complainants’ submissions 41. The Complainants argue that the emphasis on the right to freedom of expression in ensuring democracy is such that regulation, other than self-regulation, is undesirable in a democratic society. They argue further that practical considerations for media regulation arise from the need for resource management, need to ensure equal access, competition laws and minority rights, public service considerations, consumer protection and revenue considerations. All the aforesaid factors are applicable to electronic media house regulation and not applicable to regulation of journalists. 42. The Complainants submit further that there is no necessity for additional measures to control journalists in Africa because in virtually all jurisdictions in Africa, there are civil and criminal sanctions for injuria and defamation which already regulate the conduct of journalists in the discharge of their work. 43. The Complainants submit further that the registration requirements and procedures are unduly intrusive and burdensome, particularly inquiries into individuals’ private details such as one’s marital status, passports numbers, expiring dates of passports, place of issue of passports, driver’s license numbers, demands for residential addresses, and details related to any criminal record. Others include demand for details concerning specific assignments to be covered by the journalists, all of which impose prior self-censorship as a precondition to acquire accreditation. They argue that the accreditation forms have to be examined and approved by both the Permanent Secretary and the Minister, thereby establishing control of journalists by central government. 44. According to the Complainants, the fact that one has to be accredited to a media house and obtain the support of a media house to successfully apply for accreditation amounts to restriction on the practice of journalism and the free flow of information. 45. They submit that a foreign journalist is required to pay as much as US$1,050 for accreditation and registration to carry out a temporary assignment. 46. The Complainants submit further that even more restrictive and unreasonable is the fact that there is no provision for a permanent accreditation of foreign correspondents. That the US$12,000,00 requirement per annum accreditation and registration fees for a foreign news agency representative is unduly burdensome, unaffordable for most people in Zimbabwe and an unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression. 47. They claim that the temporary nature of the accreditation is itself particularly ominous and different from the accreditation required to cover specific events. The Complainants argue that accreditation is not aimed at giving the journalist access, but that it is apparent from the legislation that the accreditation is aimed at controlling and even obstructing the work of a journalist.