48. In the present Communication, the Commission notes that it is alleged that Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and other relevant articles of the African Charter have been violated. These alleged violations fall within the jurisdiction rationae materiae of the Commission. Further, the Respondent State is a State Party to the African Charter, accordingly the Communication falls within the jurisdiction rationae personae of the Commission. 49. Given that the Communication is not incompatible with either the AU Constitutive Act or the African Charter, and it indicates a prima facie violation of the African Charter, the Commission accordingly finds that the Communication satisfies Article 56(2) of the African Charter. 50. With respect to Article 56(3) of the African Charter, which provides that Communications shall be considered if they are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed at the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organization of African Unity, the Commission does not find any insulting or disparaging language in the Communication, and accordingly the Commission finds that Article 56(3) of the Charter has been complied with. 51. In relation to Article 56(4) of the African Charter, the Commission notes the Complainant’s submission that the Communication includes the transcripts of the judicial process of the Victim’s case in the Respondent State. In light of the fact that there is no evidence that any of the information provided is based exclusively on news disseminated through the media, the Commission consequently finds that the requirement of Article 56(4) has been met. 52. Article 56(5) of the African Charter requires that Communications be submitted after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged. 53. In this regard, the Commission notes that it is a generally accepted principle in international law that before an international body is approached, the applicant must exhaust all available legal domestic remedies.5 The Commission further notes that in order to meet the exhaustion requirement, a victim must have obtained a final decision from the highest court to which recourse is available.6 54. In the present Communication, the Complainant has submitted that having taken the Victim’s case to the highest court of the land, that is the Judicial Committee of the Chidi Anselm Odinkalu and Camilla Christensen, ‘The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights: The Development of its Non-State Communication Procedures,’ Volume 20 Human Rights Quarterly 1998, Pg.256. See also, Communications 54/91 - Malawi African Association v. Mauritania; 61/91 - Amnesty International v. Mauritania; 98/93 - Ms. Sarr Diop, Union Interafricaine des Droits de l’Homme and RADDHO v. Mauritania; 164/97, 196/97 - Collectif des Veuves et Ayants-droit v. Mauritania; 210/98 Association Mauritanienne des Droits de l’Homme v. Mauritania 6 Communication Procedure, Information Sheet No.3, pg.6 5 7