EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 51 broadcasting regime set out in the Act in good faith, the Complainants claim that they decided to file the Communication with the Commission. 68. The Complainants also submit that this Communication has not been submitted to any other international body in accordance with Article 56(7) of the Charter. 69. For these reasons, the Complainants submit that the Complaint satisfies each of the requirements for Admissibility. Respondent State’s submission on Admissibility 70. The Respondent State contends that non-compliance with even a single requirement under Article 56 of the Charter renders a Communication inadmissible, and that Article 56(5) on exhaustion of local remedies has not been complied with by the Complainants. 71. The State avers that the record shows that CRPL approached the Supreme Court in 2000 in the case CRPL v Ministry of information, Posts and Telecommunications SC99/2000 and was successful in having Section 27 of the Broadcasting Act and Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Radio Communications Services Act declared unconstitutional. 72. In the same year, the State submits, CRPL was granted an order by the High Court of Zimbabwe to have its confiscated property returned to it, which was accordingly returned. The Respondent State further submits that CPRL was ordered not to carry out broadcasting services until properly licensed and in order for the license to be issued and the air waves allocated, CPRL was required by the Court order to submit its equipment and site for inspection. The latter was not done, and hence, the State argues, CRPL itself has contributed to the failure to comply with the full court order and that CRPL has not satisfied this requirement to date. 73. The Respondent State submits that in 2002 CRPL approached the Supreme Court, which as provided by the national law is the first court of instance in matters relating to constitutional cases or matters relating to the Bill of Rights. The Court considered the application on the merits and declared that Sections 6, 9(1), (2) & (3) were unconstitutional, and declared Sections 8(1), (2) and (5), 11(4), 12(1)(f), 12(2), 12(3), 15, 16 and 22(2) constitutional. The Sections that were declared unconstitutional, according to the Respondent State, were repealed or amended to be in conformity with the Constitution. This record of proceedings, the Respondent State argues, shows that CRPL was never without a remedy. 74. The Respondent State claims that having declared some sections of the RSA unconstitutional, and the state having amended those provisions accordingly, its broadcasting monopoly was removed and CRPL could have taken that opportunity, but the latter failed to apply for a license on both the first and the second calls made in 2002 and 2004 respectively. Previously, the Respondent State alleges, other aggrieved parties in similar circumstances sought relief from the High Court and were