74. In the instant case, the Respondent State fails to show how the use of terms like "machination" and "manifest interference" affects the reputation of the Head of State . It also fails to show how the use of terms such as "interference in the decisions of the judiciary" by the Applicant are aimed at corrupting the minds of the public or any other reasonable person , or undermining the integrity and the status of the President of the Republic of Benin or that they were used in bad faith." 75. The Court notes that, in the instant case, taken in their ordinary meaning, the impugned statements are aimed simply at giving a presentation of the facts of the Application and do not translate to personal hostility on the part of the Applicant, neither are they insulting to the person of the Head of State of Benin or the Benin judiciary. 76. Accordingly, the statements made by the Applicant in this Application cannot be termed as disparaging or an attack on the Head of State of Benin and the judiciary of that country. 77.ln view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the objection based on the use of disparaging language in the Application. ii. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 78. The Respondent State submits that the present Application does not meet the conditions of admissibility set out in Articles 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 40(5) of the Rules. It refers to three types of remedy supposedly open to the Applicant who chose not to exhaust them: the remedy before the Constitutional Court for violation of human rights, the remedy provided under Article 206 of the Benin Code of Criminal Procedure and the appeal for annulment of administrative decisions on grounds of abuse of power. s LoM Issa Konet« v. Burkina Faso Judgment, Merits, I ~ / 3, ~ r cit. § 7/ ; 0 ~~