case and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Mauritius. Relying on its jurisprudence in Digbeejaye Koonjul v Mauritius/ where the Respondent State made the same argument, the Commission opines that the State has not substantiated its contention and according to the Commission, the Complainant's submissions do not suggest such attacks. 53. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Complaint does reveal any request which is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The Complainant only requests the protection of his rights under the Charter, which is in line with one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union as set out in its Article 3(h), that is, the promotion and protection of human and peoples I rights. 54. From the above, the Commission does not therefore find incompatibility in the Communication with the African Charter and the AU Constitutive Act and is thus satisfied that the requirement of Article 56(2) has been complied with. 55. Article 56(3) of the African Charter states that Communications shall be considered if they are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the state concerned and its institutions or to the African Union. 56. In respect of Article 56 (3), the Respondent State submits that the Communication should be dismissed because it has been written in disparaging or insulting language: The Respondent State specifically cites a paragraph in the Complaint and alleges that the Complainant in the referenced paragraph "attacks the integrity of the Judge in such a way as to cast aspersions on the impartiality of the latter and the public confidence in the judicial system". In addition, the State argues that the Complainant was legally represented at both the trial and appeal stages, and further that no ground in relation to the conduct of the Judge was taken before the Appeal Court. 57. It is important at this point to highlight the paragraph alluded by the Respondent State to be disparaging and insulting: The Complainant states that during his trial, the Judge presiding over his case was biased towards the prosecution and acted as if he was a Prosecutor himself. He said "under my cross-examination, a total of 18% of the questions put to me, was by the Judge himself and at times he was even leading the prosecution ... " He said the Judge used his answers against him in an attempt to proof he was lying about certain things and that the acts of the Judge are unacceptable, should be investigated and action should be taken. 58. In Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v Cameroon, the Commission acknowledged that determining what constitutes an insulting or disparaging language is 3 Communication 569/15- Digbeejaye Koonjul v Mauritius, para~· 8