36. In accordance with Article 56(7) of the African Charter, the Complainant submits that the present Communication was never settled by the parties in accordance to the principles of the Af_rican Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the African Charter, or any legal instrument of the African Union, thus satisfying the requiring of Article 56(7) of the African Charter. The Respondent State's Submission on Admissibility 37. The Respondent State submits that the Communication is not admissible as it does not meet the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies as required by Article 56 (5) of the African Charter. 38. The Respondent State avers that the Complainant wrongfully submitted that she has exhausted local remedies by means of the mere fact that she "has approached the Constitutional Court which is the highest Court in the Respondent", and that her case in the Constitutional Court has been dismi~sed. 39. The Respondent State argues that in the case wherein a court grants the application for recession of judgment, the original default judgment will be set aside or reconsidered. This in effect entails that the case will,be reopened, and the parties will have an opport,u nityto :present their case. According tq the Respondent State, in this Communication, the 'University of Limpopo succeeded in having the default judgment of Seinenya J rescinded and set aside. Therefore, the Applicant as the dominus litis can enroll her application for hearing since the main review application under case number: 2172/2019 is still pending before the High Court. 40. The Respondent State avers that domestic remedies refer to remedies sought from the judicial courts of aState and qre only considered to have been exhausted if all levels of national courts have been petitioned. The Respondent State refers to the Commission's decision in Nixon Nyikadzino v Zimbabwe 2 where the Commission held that "the whole purpose of asking Complainants to exhaust local remedies before approaching the Commission is to give the Respondent State a chance to redress the alleged human rights violations through its structure and organs" . 41. The Respondent Stare argues that competent national judicial organs and systems to resolve disputes between persons and the State in terms of applicable law do exist in the South African domestic legal system. According to the Respondent State, South Africa has an effective and functioning legal system and there is no reason why the courts cannot be trusted to resolve disputes. The Respondent State noted that the Commission has always been careful to avoid stepping over the invisible but very real line between its jurisdiction and intrusion into the domaine reserve of