29. The Respondent State submits that the communication does not meet the requirements of admissibility under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights because: (i) the Complainants fail to disclose a violation of Article 9 of the Charterand; (ii) the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies as required under Article 56.5. Non exhaustion of local remedies 30. The Respondent State claims that the Complainants have not approached the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe to seek redress in terms of Section 24(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and, as such, the communication should be considered inadmissible. 31. Section 24(1) affords every person the opportunity to obtain expeditious redress if any of the rights under the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of Zimbabwe are infringed. The Supreme Court has a wide discretion to grant any form of redress in order to enforce the Declaration of Rights. 32. The Respondent State made reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the Association of Independent Journalistscase, whereby the Supreme Court struck down Sections 80 (1) (a), (b) and (c) as unconstitutional and the sections were subsequently repealed and substituted through Section 18 of Act 5 of 2003. 33. The Respondent State submits further that the Complainants have not challenged the constitutionality of the substituted provision before the courts in Zimbabwe, arguing that Complainants are therefore requesting the African Commission to become a tribunal of first instance, a function which it cannot fulfil, either as a legal or practical matter. Complainants’ submissions on admissibility 34. In response to the State Party arguments, the Complainants submits that, the communication meets the requirements ofArticle 56.5 of the Charter as all national remedies have been exhausted. The Complainants concede that in terms of the hierarchy of the courts of Zimbabwe, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on constitutional and human rights matters. They argue that Section 24 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe stipulates that an individual who feels that her or his rights as enshrined in the Chapter on the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution, have been or are likely to be infringed shall approach the Supreme Court as a court of first instance. The Complainants state that the Supreme Court was approached, and it ruled that accreditation and registration of journalists was constitutional and mandatory, for any individual who intends to pursue the profession of journalism in 2 Zimbabwe. Pursuant to that decision , the Complainants claim they had no other means of remedying the situation but to approach the African Commission. They argue therefore that the requirement ofArticle 56.5 of the Charter has been met. 35. The Complainants state further that, the Supreme Court decision which upheld the requirement for compulsorily registration by the MIC is tantamount to an intrusion in the actual right to freedom of expression. The Complainants submit that the African Commission has held in 105/1993-128/19943 130/1994 Media Rights Agenda and Other vs. Nigeria , that onerous conditions of accreditation and total discretion by the registration board, effectively giving government the power to prohibit publication of newspapers or magazines are akin to censorship and seriously endanger the right of the public to impart and receive information in contravention of Article 9.1 of the Charter. 36. The Complainants argue further that the Supreme Court found that the proscription of false news can never be said to be unconstitutional, noting that the reasoning of the Supreme Court was that 4 falsehood is the antithesis of the truth of information . They claim that the Supreme Court found that there was no constitutional protection for false news. 37. They claim it is on that basis that they have brought their communication to the African Commission, arguing that there is no domestic remedy available in Zimbabwe to afford protection to a distributor of false news or fiction or false cartoons. Decision of the African Commission on admissibility