opinions within the law”. A balance must be struck between the right to speak freely and the duty to protect state institutions to ensure that while discouraging abusive language, the African Commission is not at the same time violating or inhibiting the enjoyment of other rights guaranteed in the African Charter, such as in this case, the right to freedom of expression.” 68. The decision taken in ZLHR should be distinguished from another decision of the African 10 Commission in Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l’Homme/ Cameroon , where the African Commission held that the Communication was inadmissible because of the complainant’s use of language like “[President] Paul Biya must respond to crimes against humanity”, “30 years of the criminal neo-colonial/ regime”, “regime of torturers”, “government barbarisms” e.t.c., as this was considered as insulting language. 69. The Respondent State in this communication does not expressly state that the communication was insulting or disparaging but however noted that the language used is “improper” . In the opinion of the African Commission, the language used in the communication, and especially in Para. 40, is not insulting or disparaging to the Government of Sudan and as such, is not contrary to Article 56(3). For this reason, the Commission holds that the proviso under Article 56(3) has been complied with. 70. Article 56(4) of the Charter provides that a communication would be admissible if it is “…not based exclusively on news disseminated by the mass media” . There is nothing in this communication which has shown that it was based on news by the mass media and none of the parties have contested that point. To this end the African commission holds that this proviso has been fulfilled. 71. The Respondent State further submits that the communication does not comply with Article 56(5) of the African Charter which requires that “communications…received by the Commission shall be considered: if they are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged” . The Commission has stated that the justification for this requirement is that a government should be aware of a human rights violation in order to have a chance to remedy such violation, thus protecting its reputation which may be tarnished by being called to plead its case before an international body. This requirement also precludes the African Commission from becoming a tribunal of first instance, a function which it cannot fulfil practically or legally. 72. In the present case, the Respondent State contends that the complainant has not exhausted local remedies available to it in the Sudan. The State submits that the complainant has not brought its case before the Supreme Court for review and have also not taken the matter to the Constitutional Courts on appeal. Article 15 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act of Sudan (as amended in 2005), stipulates that “…there shall not be subject, to review of the Constitutional Court, the business of the Judiciary, the judgements, decisions, proceedings and orders passed by the Courts thereof”. This means that the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals arising from judgements, decisions, proceedings, and orders passed by the Judiciary. 73. The author alleges that the matter was first brought before the Court of first instance, but the case was dismissed, an appeal of this ruling was made to the Court of Appeal which ordered reconsideration of the matter in the court of first instance. The case was dismissed a second time by the court of first instance and this time the judgement was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The victims then brought the case before the High Court which approved the judgement of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the case. The complainant claims that there is no other Court where they could take the case. 74. The Respondent State has however pointed out that there is still an option of taking the case before the Constitutional Court of the Sudan, available to the Complainants. The Constitutional Court Act of Sudan provides that “…The Court…. shall assume protection of the rights of a human being and 11 the fundamental freedoms thereof” This, according to the State, means that the complainant can still take its case on the alleged violation of the rights of the 33 Sudanese, to the Constitutional Court of Sudan for a remedy of the complaint. The African Commission therefore holds that not all the local remedies which are available to the complainants have been exhausted in accordance with Article 56(5) of the Charter, and as such the communication has not fulfilled this proviso. 75. Regarding the requirement under Article 56(6) of the African Charter which provides that “Communications…received by the Commission shall be considered if they are submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted, or from the date the Commission is