64. The Commission notes that the allegations in this Communication are specific and establish a prima facie violation of the above listed rights and freedoms enshrined in the African Charter. It also notes that the Communication has been brought by citizens of a State Party who are rights holders within it and against a State Party to the African Charter in respect of violations that allegedly occurred within the territory of the Respondent State, the Republic of South Sudan. With regards to the ratione temporis condition, the Commission note that the alleged violations started in 2021, while the State of South Sudan ratified the African Charter in 2013. The Commission therefore holds that this Communication complies with Article 56(2) of the African Charter. 65. Article 56(3) of the African Charter provides that Communications should not be written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the AU. In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers v Zimbabwe', the Commission described disparaging or insulting language as one not aimed at "unla7,VfY:J,l,yand intentionqlly violating the dignity, reputation or integrity of a judicial officer~o¢%ody" and not" used in a manner calculated to... cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence on the administration of justice". ,. 66. In this Communication, the Commission observes that the language of the Complainants in their submissions in the prese:p.~ Communication are not disparaging or insulting. The Commission therefore holds ,that this Communication complies with the requirement under Article 56(3) of the African Charter. 67. Article 56(4) of the African Charter provides that Communications should not be based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. The Complainants' submissions were found to be based on Judicial records, not on news disseminated by the mass media. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that the Communication complies with Article 56(4) of the African Charter. 68. Article 56(5) of the AfiiEcirtCharter'provides that Communications should be 'sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged'. The Complainants aver that they made all efforts to exhaust local remedies but that local remedies were unavailable, ineffective, and insufficient. 69. The rationale behind the exhaustion of local remedies is that States should be given an opportunity to address the issue before the matter is brought before international treaty bodies. In Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire6 and Recontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de I'Homme v Zambia? the Commission stated that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is founded on the principle that a government should have notice of human rights violation in order to have the opportunity to remedy such violations before being called before an international body.