p.CHP/i (t t) 6~ljE:fi , Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility further claims that the Communication denounces facts relating to serious violations of rights protected under the African Charter on the territory of the Respondent State. 7. Concerning the requirements of Article 56(3), the Complainant also argues that its Communication is written in a respectful language and thus meets the requirements of the African Charter. 8. The Complainant further argues that the present Communication complies with the requirements of Article 56(4) of the African Charter, adding that the facts recounted in its Complaint are contained in various reports issued by non-governmental organizations and the United Nations, and the annexes to the Communication include, in addition to the Complainant's statement, the official judgment of the OMT of North Kivu, the copy of the letter addressed to the Governor of North Kivu and the notification order issued by the Registrar of the OMT. 9. On the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies as required under Article 56(5), the Complainant states that she has exhausted all local remedies. She submits that in the present case the State has been served with the judgment of the OMT and that beyond the notification, local remedies to enforce the judgment are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient. o. The Complainant further argues that in this case, the requirements of Congolese law go well beyond the "cooperation of the creditor" that is strictly necessary for the State to be able to pay the debt determined in the judgment, such as providing bank details. Instead, under Congolese law procedures, it is up to the individual to act to force implementation by the State. 1. The Complainant further avers that the State has had ample notice of the alleged violations; first through the Complainant's 2008 Complaint, and then through its proceedings against Sergeant Chance. The courts issued the compensation order in November 2008, and the Registrar notified the Executive of its obligation to pay the amount determined in the judgment on 17 October 2013;the State was thus given ample notice not only of the violations, but also of its own liability. 2. The Complainant indicates that enforcement under these procedures is essentially discretionary, as Congolese law prohibits the seizure of government property, which means that the victim must rely on the goodwill of the government to voluntarily enforce reparation obligations. In support of her arguments on this point, the Complainant cites the Commission's decision in Bissangou v. Congo', 3 Communication 253/02 - Bissan All Organ of Ihe African Union ~'t:~ ._,.v. Page 7 on 32