54. Tanzania further contends that the requirement of Article 56(3) of the African Charter has not been met as the Communication "is full of disparaging or insulting language, directed at the member states of SADC". It submits that the Complainant/Victims employed political rhetoric and vulgar language. 55. Tanzania relies on the decisions of the Commission in Communications 65/92 - Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l'Homme vs. Cameroon13 and Communications 322/2006 - Tsatsu Tsikata vs. Ghana 14 , in asking the Commission to find the language of the Communication insulting and disparaging, and non-compliant with Article 56(3) of the African Charter. Furthermore, it cited Communication 263/02 Kenya Section of the International Commission of Jurists, Law Society of Kenya, Kituo Cha Sheria vs. Kenya.15 56. Regarding Article 56(4), Tanzania argues that much as the Communication is not based on news disseminated through the media, it is based exclusively on allegations premised on the decisions of both the SADC Summit as well as the Tribunal which are entirely outside the scope of the Commission's intervention and entirely a different sub-regional grouping with its own mechanisms for resolving disputes. It also submits that the Complainant/Victims have not thoroughly investigated and ascertained the truth of the facts and where to refer their claim before resorting to the Commission. 57. Tanzania submits that the Communication has not fulfilled the provisions of Article 56(5) of the African Charter, regarding exhaustion of local remedies. It argues that the suspension of the SADC Tribunal is not a warrant for the Victims not to have exhausted local remedies in individual SADC states such as Tanzania and that the facts provided by the Complainant/Victims only indicate how the Victims have pursued the matter in the domestic courts of Zimbabwe before proceeding to the Commission. Relying on Communication 333/2006 - Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others vs. Tanzania]]16 and the earlier referenced Communication 263/0217 , it contends that the Victims have not pursued their claims before the domestic courts of Tanzania and as such, the State has not been given the opportunity to address the alleged wrong, in line with the international law principle relating to the exhaustion of local remedies. 58.Tanzania claims that it would be very unfair and unjust for the Commission to usurp its jurisdiction as against Tanzania in this matter, while its municipal bodies were not or have not even been given an opportunity to provide a solution on the matter. It further counters the argument of the Complainant by submitting that there are remedies for the Victims which are available, effective and sufficient within the SADC. Relying on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Earl Spencer and Countess Spencer vs. United Kingdom18 and that of the Commission in Communication 275/2003 - Article 19 vs. Eritrea19 , it asserts that it was incumbent on the Victims/Complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least, attempt the exhaustion of local remedies, even if they have reasons to believe that the same would be ineffective. 59. Furthermore, on the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, Tanzania submits that the suspension of the Tribunal is an issue that is still being dealt with at the level of SADC, and in respect of which a final decision is yet to be given, as a final report on the process of the review of the relevant SADC legal instruments is expected to be submitted to the summit in August 2012.20 Tanzania also submits that the reference by the Victims against Zimbabwe, is also still being dealt with by the SADC Summit (within its time frame and schedule of work) which is yet to give its decision thereon and that the Complainants are bound by the provisions of Article 32(5) of the Protocol of the SADC Tribunal, requiring the SADC Summit to take its appropriate action once a Tribunal has established that its decision has not been honoured. Accordingly, Tanzania contends that the Complainant/Victims have acted impetuously in bringing this Communication. 60. On Article 56(6), regarding the submission of the Communication within a reasonable time from the time local remedies were exhausted, Tanzania argues that since it contends that the Victims did not exhaust any local remedy in Tanzania, the issue of submission of the Complaint within a reasonable period does not and cannot arise. It also argues that since the alleged matters are yet to be concluded at the level of SADC, time has not begun to run such as to afford the Complainant the opportunity to bring forth his Complaint. 61. Alternatively, Tanzania submits that if the Commission should find that the Victims have exhausted local remedies, then it argues that the Communication has not been brought within a reasonable time from the time local remedies were last exhausted in Zimbabwe and South Africa as indicated in the Communication. It argues that while the Complaint does not clearly show when exactly the Victims attempted to enforce the awards in the local courts, the same indicates that the Complainant/Victims in their submissions had stated that the First Decision of the SADC Summit in August 2010 had the practical 6