25. The Respondent State also recalled that the guidelines for submission of communications provide that each communication should particularly indicate that local remedies have been exhausted, and observed that the Complainant failed to provide any evidence of the domestic legal remedies pursued. 26. The Respondent State also argued that the Complainant further failed to meet the requirement of Article 56(5) of the [African] Charter as he could not show in his complaint that the procedure in the High Court of Justice has been protracted or unduly delayed. It further submitted that if indeed any delay has been occasioned, it would be due to the Complainant's own repeated requests for adjournments and interlocutory appeals. 27. The Respondent State also made reference to Article 56(5) of the [African] Charter, which provides for communications to be submitted "within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted...", and submitted that the Complainant acted impetuously given that the matter has not been concluded, and time has not begun to run so as to afford the Complainant an opportunity to bring his complaint. 28. Furthermore, the Respondent State noted Article 56(3) of the [African] Charter and the guidelines for submission of communications which provide that a communication shall be considered "if it is not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned..."; and submitted that the language in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the Complainant's communication is insulting to Ghana and its judiciary where lack of integrity, impropriety, bias and prejudice are imputed to the Executive and the Judiciary of the Republic of Ghana. To this effect, the Respondent State cited the Complainant's statement in paragraph 17 of his communication whereby he stated that: "far from guaranteeing the independence of the court in relation to my trial, the Government of Ghana has shown an irrevocable determination to have me found guilty by hook or crook and incarcerated". The Commission's Decision 29. The admissibility of the communications submitted before the African Commission is governed by the seven conditions set out in Article 56 of the African Charter. 30. The parties' submissions only relate to the provisions of Articles 56(3), 56(5) and 56(6). 31. Article 56(3) specifically stipulates that communications shall be considered if they "are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions...". 32. In respect of the Respondent's State's submission that paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the complaint is written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the former, the [African] Commission holds that this is not the case. The [African] Commission notes that these stipulated paragraphs of the complaint are only facts of allegations of Charter violations; and expressions of the Complainant's fear in this regard. It is on the basis of these allegations and fear that the Complainant had submitted this communication. The [African] Commission reiterates that the purpose of its mandate is to consider complaints alleging such perceived judicial bias and prejudice, and undue interference by the executive with judicial independence, in accordance with Article 7 of the [African] Charter, its Resolution on the Respect and the Strengthening on the Independence of the Judiciary (1996) 2 , and other relevant international human rights norms; in accordance with Articles 60, 61 of the [African] Charter. 33. In this light, the [African] Commission wishes to distinguish these paragraphs, for instance, from its decision in the case of communication 65/92 Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l'Homme/Cameroon, where the [African] Commission condemned the use of words such as "Paul Biya must resond [sic] to crimes against humanity"; "30 years of the criminal neo-colonial regime incarnated by the duo Ahidjio/Biya"; "regime of torturers"; and "government barbarisms", as insulting language. 34. In respect of Article 56(5) which stipulates that communications shall be considered if they "are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged...", the [African] Commission notes the importance of this rule as a condition for the admissibility of a claim before an international forum. It notes that the rule is based on the premise that the Respondent State must first have an opportunity to redress by its own means and within the framework of its own domestic legal system, the wrong alleged to have been done to the individual. 35. In light of the parties' submissions, the African Commission notes that the complainant's allegations are in respect of an on-going/unconcluded trial. The information provided by the complainant himself states that the communication [sic] is still pending before the courts of the Republic of Ghana. The [African] Commission further notes that should the on-going trial end against the Complainant's favour, he has further rights of appeal to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Ghana, in accordance with Articles 4