p.CHP~ , r.) 6~!j,Ef{ Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Human and Peoples· Rights communication have not been previously settled by the parties under any international or regional legal mechanism. 14 25. The Complainant concluded that the communication satisfies all admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter and should be declared admissible by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. 15 The Respondent State's Submission 26. The Respondent State submitted that the communication does not meet the admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter.16 It never contested the Complainant's identity and acknowledges that the Complainant has been disclosed in accordance with Article 56(1) of the African Charter. 17 27. The Respondent State submitted that the communication is incompatible with the African Charter and, therefore, fails to satisfy the requirement under Article 56(2). It argued that the issues raised in the communication fall outside the scope of the African Charter as they pertain to domestic administrative requirements rather than fundamental rights violations.18 The Respondent State asserted that the communication contains unsubstantiated claims and political overtones, which, in its view, render it incompatible with the objectives of the African Charter and further challenge the requirement under Article 56(2) of the African Charter. 19 28. The Respondent State contended that the Complainant used disparaging and insulting language in its submissions, violating Article 56(3) of the Charter. It argues that the Complainant's allegations against state institutions and the judiciary amount to an unsubstantiated attack on South Africa's legal framework and are therefore disparaging in terms of Article 56(3) of the African Charter.20 29. It further submitted that the Complainant's allegations are based on media reports and opinionated narratives rather than factual evidence, failing to meet the requirement under article 56( 4) that communications must not be based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media. 21 30. The Respondent State argued that the Complainant had not exhausted local remedies, as required under Article 56(5) of the Charter. It notably submitted that the Complainant's case was struck off the roll by the High Court for lack of urgency, meaning the merits were never considered further, t.'h~~~ ..! .... Complainant failed to pursue alternative remedies such as re-filing on a non-urgent basis before the High Court or seeking redres 14 Ibid, para. 34-35; also, para. 34-35 15 ibid, 16 See respondent States' Su bmission on admissibility, para. 1 17 Ibid, para. 3 18 ibid,para. 5 19 ibid, para. 6 20 ibid, para. 8 21 ibid, para. 10 5 I ,:, J ,. •f" t Ill' African Urnon The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout. Kombo North District, West Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 ~m_.i l · ::i11-h::ini11lm)::ifr1r~- 11ninn nrn