77. lt argues that when the Applicant states that “the Constitutional Judge curiously refused to censor this law’, it was casting aspersions on the credibility of this institution; that by stating that “the President of the Constitutional Council later tendered his resignation” without explaining insinuating that the resignation was why, orchestrated the Applicant by the seems to be institutions of the State, especially the President of the Republic who appointed the Judge. 78. The Respondent State further submits that casting doubts on the composition of the Independent Electoral Commission itself is a way of saying that the election organized by the said Commission is not valid and, consequently, that the elected President is not worthy of representing his country. 79.The Respondent State in conclusion maintains that the aforementioned language is insulting towards it and casts doubts on the dignity and honour of the President of the Republic. 80. The Applicant denies the Respondent State’s allegations and submits that the language used is not insulting. It contends that it has said the truth and that, besides, the information has been disseminated by the media; that it was only presenting the facts as they happened. 81.In this respect the Commission indicated that: “...in determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting ... the Commission language has to satisfy itself whether the said remark or ... is used in a manner calculated to pollute the minds of the public or any reasonable man to cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence...”” ” African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v. Zimbabwe, Communication No. 284/2003, 3 April 2009, paragraph 91. 20 Aa, ah fl m a Ly