implies according to it, that the Executive interferes with the decisions of the judiciary. 38. Regarding the requirement for Complainants to exhaust local remedies before approaching the Commission, the Respondent State recalls the Commission's decision in Jawara v The Gambia in which the Commission established the rationale for the exhaustion of the local remedies rule. It further recalls the remedies to be exhausted must be available, effective and sufficient to redress an alleged violation. 39. The Respondent State points out that the Complainant's allegation that he submitted his case to the local Courts but that the Government denied the courts to address the case properly, in fact amount to the fact that there are available remedies in Lesotho. 40. The Respondent State points out that the Complainant was able to challenge the decision of the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs not to invite him for swearing in before the High Court which ordered the Minister of Home Affairs to swear him in. It also points out that the Complainant was granted an order of court in November 2013 directing the Lesotho Revenue Authority to stop issuing any notices to his tenants till finalization of the case. 41. The Respondent State points out further that the court orders mentioned above were successfully appealed against. According to the Respondent State, both the fact that the cases were appealed against through due process of law cannot render remedies ineffective. On the contrary, both cases showed that the Complainant had effective remedies which offered prospects of success and also proved sufficient because they were capable of redressing the Complainant's complaint. 42. The Respondent State argues that the Complainant's allegation that there were abundant remedies which he was denied by the Respondent State is fallacious. Citing Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe , the Respondent State outlines that the Complainant has in his Communication cited instances where he approached the Courts in Lesotho but has in no instance alluded to any instances where he was impeded in his pursuit of remedies. 43. In view of the above, the Respondent State submits that the Complainant has failed to prove that he has exhausted all local remedies and urges the Commission to declare the Communication inadmissible. Complainant's Response to the Respondent State's Submissions on Admissibility 44. Concerning the Respondent State's claim that some phrases in the complaint are without proof and amount to disparaging and insulting language, the Complainant provide elements which according to him, is proof of the allegations contained in his statements and refutes the Respondent State's allegation that the language used in the complaint is disparaging or insulting. 45. The Complainant recalls the jurisprudence of the Commission on the use of disparaging language in several cases including Samuel T Muzerengwa and 11 others v Zimbabwe3 , Ilesanmi v Nigeria4 and Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l'Homme v Cammeroon (sic!) 5 , in which the Commission had the opportunity to define the scope of what amounts to disparaging and insulting language under the Charter. 46. According to the Complainant, the Commission has in its jurisprudence, been mindful of the need to protect freedom of expression in a democratic society and has therefore been careful in invoking Article 56(3) to deny Complainants their right to approach the Commission. 47. Concerning the Respondent State's assertion that the Complainant has failed to exhaust local remedies, he points out that Jawara v The Gambia relied on by the Respondent State applies mutatis mutandis to his case since the Complainant in that Communication was forced to flee the country for fear of his life and was unable to exhaust local remedies as a result. In such a case, the Complainant claims that where the Respondent State creates conditions which cause a complainant to flee the country, any remedies cannot be said to be available to the Complainant or even if they are, they cannot be considered 5