69. With regards to Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the Complainants argue that this matter has not been taken to the Courts of la Republique du Cameroun due to unavailability and infectivity of the remedies. The Complainant further submits that there is no Court in Cameroun that has jurisdiction to hear petitions on federation, which according to the government is a threat to the unity of la Republique du Cameroun and a treasonable offence. 70. The Complainants further alleges that, many leaders in favour of federalism have either been arrested and charged with capital offences or fled the country, while the government has outlawed any form of discussion in that direction. The complainants conclude on this matter that, given the alleged repressive environment, coupled with the fact that Lawyers in the south of the country have been on strike, it is not possible for the complainants to attempt exhausting local remedies. 71. Concerning Article 56(6) of the African Charter, tile Gqmplainants argue that this matter has not been subjected to the jurisdiction of the local Courts because local remedies are not available. 72. With regard to Article 56(7) of the, African Char complaint has not been submitted to any internatiq: The State's submission he Complainants assert that the 1Adjudicatory forum. on admissibility 73. On the identity of the authors, the respondent State submits that, it is difficult to establish the link between.the applicants, all of whom are established on foreign territory, and the alleged- popul~tions of Southern Cameroons, and to determine whether they have received a mandate from these populations to act on their behalf. The State further submits that, given that the 76 authors of the communication consider themselves to be victims of the violations alleged in the communication, they should indicate precisely the nature of the violations that concern them. 74. The State avers furthermore, t,h(;1,t, tEc:an be seen that the account of the facts by the authors of the Communication reveals that they do not objectively characterise the violations of which they were allegedly victims, which implies that it is therefore not a question of the debate on the representation of victims, but of the quality of the authors of the communication who claim victim status, 75. With regard to the compatibility to the AU Charter, the respondent State submits that, The present Communication relays demands that are antinomic and contrary to the ideals and principles that underpin the functioning of the African Union. The principle of respect for the sanctity of human life and the condemnation and rejection of impunity, political assassinations, acts of terrorism and subversive activities is eminently ensl J'..i~fb~):!},.~rticle 4 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union. However, the multiple .~_j:~'eMa.~tl€)Jlt5 perpetrated by groups related to the authors of the Communication is a-demenstra 'on the violation of this principle. The Commission's courtroom cannot be C,lppropriate\ place to obtain support for such acts. The communication must ilier~t<Drebe decla ed ~; ., \ c' inadmissible on this count. \"- \,_\ r'l '\ '.: c: \ '(,-, __./ . " " v 12 / . -<;." A .... \ ot fe . '?/ , r- I 1t r