42. The Respondent State states that the High Court in the application for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court (in the petition for leave to appeal) did not hear or adjudicate on the merits of the application for review, but on whether the judgment of Makgoba J can be appealed by a different court, which all courts have dismissed. The Respondent State argues that this in effect now entails that the application for review must now be heard and adjudicated by the High Court. 43. The Respondent State submits that the Complainant can approach the High Court to hear her matter and adjudicate on the matter. It is therefore abundantly clear that the processes and remedies available in the dpmes!iclegal system of South Africa are sufficient to address the matters raised by the· Complainant. Consequently, sufficient remedies exist for the Complainant to address the alleged violation of his rights under the South African Constitution and through the court processes available to her. 44. The Respondent State avers that the Commission is not an appeal court and the Complainant is using the Commission as such and that it has the necessary power to set aside decisions taken by competent national courts. 45. The Respondent State therefore submits that it has undoubtfully demonstrated the availability of adequate judicial remedies based on the consideration of domestic constitutional and legal principles, and that the Commission, considering the applicable principles of international law and its own jurisprudence, should thus conclude that the Complainant has not exhausted local remedies in line with Article 56(5) of the African Charter. The Commission's Analysis on Apmissibility 46. The Commission recalls that Article 56 of the African Charter sets out seven requirements that a Communication brought under Article 55 of the African Charter must satisfy, in order to be Admissible, which apply conjunctively and cumulatively. 3 47. In the present Communication, the Complainants claim that this Communication fulfils all the requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter. The Respondent State on the other hand submits that the Complainants have not fulfilled the requirements of Article 56(5) and as such, the Commission should declare the Communication Inadmissible. 3 Communication 304/2005 - FIDH & Others v. Senegal (2006) ACHPR, para 38.