EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 53 either the Respondent State or the OAU (present AU). The Respondent State is again silent on this claim which is taken as acceptance. Having studied the Communication, the Commission does not find it disparaging in any way. The Commission therefore concurs with the Complainants that the Communication complies with Article 56(3) of the Charter. 82. Article 56 (4) of the Charter requires Communications not to be based exclusively on news disseminated by the media. The Complainants submit with respect to this requirement that the Communication is based on personal experiences and testimonies of two of the Complainants and the rulings and proceedings of the High Court and Supreme Court of Zimbabwe. They have also attached the relevant Acts, Parliamentary Legal Committee report and numerous reports of NGOs. This claim is not contested by the Respondent State. Thus, the Commission is of the view that this Complaint is not solely based on news disseminated by the media and hence complies with Article 56(4) of the Charter. 83. Article 56(5) requires that Communications should be brought to the Commission after exhausting all local remedies, if any, unless it can be shown that the procedure of exhausting local remedies have been unduly prolonged. The Complainants submit that CRPL challenged the constitutionality of seventeen provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act 2001, and the Supreme Court in its 19 September 2003 judgment ruled that four out of the seventeen provisions of the Act were unconstitutional, and the rest were found to be constitutional or that CRPL, as a prospective broadcaster, lacked standing to challenge them. 84. The Supreme Court is the court of original and final jurisdiction on matters relating to the constitutionality of laws and the Bill of Rights. No appeal lies from the decision of the Supreme Court. Thus, having approached the Supreme Court of the Respondent State the Complainants are still not satisfied with the judgment and hence they were left with no other local remedy. It is the Commission’s view that with respect to this communication, the Complainants have exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. 85. The Respondent State’s argument that the repeal or amendment of certain provisions that were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court provided the CRPL with domestic remedy is noted, but does not deny the fact that the Complainants exhausted local remedies. 86. The Respondent State is of the view that after the ruling of the Supreme Court and the subsequent amendment of the provisions of the regulatory framework found to be unconstitutional, CRPL should have applied for a license using the two calls for application made by BAZ in 2002 and 2004. According to the Respondent State, had CRPL applied for, and not been granted a license then it should have taken the matter to Court. The position of the Respondent State is that by not applying for a license there is an available and effective domestic remedy left to be pursued. 87. The Commission wishes to state with respect to the above submissions by the Respondent State that the matter before this Commission is the compatibility of the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act with the African Charter. The CRPL