32. The Court notes that under Article 56(3) of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules, to be admissible, applications must not be “[…] written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or the African Union”. 33. In determining whether the language of an application is disparaging or insulting, the Court must satisfy itself that the language used has intentionally jeopardized the dignity, reputation and integrity of a public official or a judicial body of the Respondent State. The terms used must in particular be aimed at undermining the integrity and reputation of the institution and discrediting it.9 34. The Court further notes that, “public figures, particularly those holding the highest office of political power, are legitimately subject to criticism”.10 It follows that for the language used in relation to public figures to be qualified as disparaging or insulting, it must be derogatory and intended to bring the concerned authorities into disrepute. 35. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Respondent State does not specify how the language used by the Applicants is disparaging or insulting and how it offends the Minister of Internal Security. Furthermore, it does not specify the terms and expressions that the Applicants used with a view to influencing public opinion or taint the image of any public figure, and to undermine the integrity and office of the Minister of Internal Security. 36. The Court notes that the terms used by the Applicants elucidate the facts and do not reflect any personal animosity, either towards the Minister of Internal Security, or towards the Ministry of Security, let alone towards the administrative and judicial authorities of the Respondent State. 9 Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (merits) (5 December 2014) 1 AfCLR, 314, § 69-71; Gihana and others v. Republic of Rwanda (merits and reparations) (2019) 3 AfCLR, 655, § 53. 10 Boubacar Sissoko and 74 Others v. Republic of Mali (merits reparations) (25 September 2020) 4 AfCLR 641, § 29. See also, UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 34, Article 19, Freedoms of opinion and expression, 12 September 2011, CCPR/C/GC/34 and Rafael Marques de Morais v. Angola, Communication No. 1128/2002, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002 (2005). 10