7. Do not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter.” 86. The African Commission is of the view that this communication establishes a prima facie violation of the provisions of the African Charter, and is compatible with both the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the African Charter. The African Commission also does not believe that there has been any use of a disparaging or insulting language against the Government of the Republic of Botswana or any of its institutions or the African Union. 87. Regarding the disclosure of documents, the Commission finds that the documents submitted by the Complainants in support of the claim sufficiently prove that the communication is not based on fiction or on news disseminated by the mass media. The Commission concurs, therefore, that the condition of Article 56.4 has been met. The Commission also notes that all the documents submitted by the Complainants have been disclosed to the Respondent State. 88. The Commission recalls its established jurisprudence whereby the exhaustion of local remedies 7 referred to in Article 56.5‘entails remedy sought from the courts of a judicial nature.’ Such a judicial remedy shall be effective and shall not be subordinated to the discretionary power of public 8 authorities . The Commission has also affirmed on several occasions that it is not necessary, for the sake of meeting the condition of Article 56.5, to seek ‘remedies from a source which does not operate 9 impartially and have no obligation to decide according to legal principles’ . 89. In the present communication, the victim challenged the decision expelling him from Botswana before the domestic courts. His application before the High Court of Botswana was dismissed, as was a further appeal that he filed with the Court of Appeal, the highest judicial authority in Botswana. The Commission finds therefore that all local remedies have been exhausted. The Commission is of the view that the presidential review referred to by the Respondent State is not of a judicial nature and is subject to the discretionary power of the President, the very authority that ordered the expulsion of the victim. The Commission considers that such a remedy is not effective and the victim is not obliged to utilise it. 10 90. The Commission further finds that the other arguments submitted by the State against the admissibility of the communication are based on substantive rights protected under the Charter, including the rights, the violation of which is complained of by the applicant, to such an extent that dealing with them at this stage of the procedure would be pushing the Commission to jump the gun to consider the communication on the merits. The Commission therefore will not pronounce on them but would rather deal with them at the appropriate stage. 91. From the above submissions, this Commission is of the view that the present communication sufficiently complies with the requirements under Article 56, relating to the admissibility of communications before the African Commission and thus decides to declare the communication admissible. Merits Respondent State’s preliminary objection to the Commission’s procedure nd 92. At the 42 Ordinary Session of the Commission, the Respondent State raised a preliminary objection regarding the Commission’s procedure in the handling of complaints/communications. The main thrust of the State’s objection is that the Commission’s procedure relating to the handling of communications was not followed with regards to the present communication. According to the State, Rule 119 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure was not respected, and as a result, both parties to the communication, the Respondent State and the Complainants, made submissions to the Commission at almost the same time, making it difficult to respond to issues raised by either party. 93. The Respondent State submits that the Commission had asked both parties to submit their arguments on the merits, giving both parties the same deadline. Both parties sent their arguments to the Secretariat of the Commission at almost the same time, and the Commission then forwarded the submissions of either party to the other for comments, if any.