Respondent State and both Parties were informed on 5 December 2013. 27. The Respondent State has to date failed to make its submissions on Admissibility. The Complainant's Submissions on Admissibility 28. The Complainant submits that all the admissibility requirement under Article 56 of the Charter have been complied with. It specifically elaborates on the provisions of Article 56(5) of the Charter on the exhaustion of local remedies. 29. In that regard, the Complainant contends that all available local remedies have been exhausted. They submit that the Supreme Court, the most superior Court in Swaziland, in the case of Jan Sithole N. O ( in his capacity as a Trustee of the National Constitutional Assembly) v The Government of Swaziland 7 held that political parties are by virtue of section 79 of the Constitution barred from participating, but individual members of political parties can participate as citizens. 30. The Complainant submits further that because the Supreme Court as the highest court of Swaziland has taken the above position, there are no other remedies available for the complainants to exhaust within Swaziland. The Complainant cites the Commission's decision in Free Legal Assistance Group and others v Zaire 8 , wherein the Commission held that the requirement to exhaust local remedies should not apply literally where it is impracticable or undesirable for the Complainant to seize the local courts. In that regard, the Complainant argues that it is inconceivable for it to again approach the very courts and complain to them about a matter they have already decided. 31. The Complainant argues further that even if the remedies were available, the level of confidence that the people have in the court is very low because the courts have in recent times been deeply compromised for the reason that the appointment process of judges is devoid of credibility and transparency. 32. It is further submitted by the Complainant that all members of the Judicial Service Commission, which is the body constitutionally mandated to advise the King on the appointment of judges, are the appointees of the King himself. 33. For the above reasons, the Complainant urges the Commission to find the Communication admissible. Analysis of the Commission on Admissibility 34. The Admissibility of Communications submitted to the Commission is governed by the requirements contained in Article 56 of the African Charter. Article 56 sets out seven requirements which must be cumulatively complied with for a Communication to be admissible. The Complainant submits that all these requirements have been met but only substantiates on the requirement under Article 56(5) . 35. As indicated above, the Respondent State has not submitted its observations on admissibility. In the present circumstances and in accordance with the practice of the Commission as enunciated in the case of Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Republic of Angola , in the face of the state's failure to address itself to the complaint filed against it, the African Commission has no option but to proceed with its consideration of the Communication in accordance with its Rules of Procedure. In the same decision, the Commission re-affirmed its position by holding that it would proceed to consider Communications on the basis of the submission of the Complainants and information at its disposal, even if the State fails to submit. 9 Accordingly, the Commission must give due weight to the Complainant's allegations insofar as these have been adequately substantiated. 36. The Commission notes from the Complainant's submissions and the facts of the Communication, that 4