African Charter must be interpreted in light of Article 9(2) of the African Charter, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, and that 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 Commission is not at the same time violating or inhibiting the enjoyment of other rights guaranteed in the African Charter. 68. Consequently, a determination of compatibility with Article 56(3) of the African Charter rests on the balancing of two interests, namely allowing complainants to present their case as freely as possible and ensuring that Communications do not unnecessarily and without reasonable ground use language that puts into question the st<mding of a State or its institutions. . '·i·'· 69. In the present Communication, the Commission observes that the Complainant uses strong language in his Submissions, such as: "damning information"; "official wrongdoings", "dangerous symbiotic relationship" with the Government of the Respondent State, "colluding" with other lawyers, cleverly circumvent the Rule of law and justice" (in other words of being corrupt), "recalcitrant Judicial officers", "... the Respondent State has always hypocritically issued your humble petitioner with annual practicing certificate for legal practice in Kenya" and " ... a /I gimmick ... and thereby hoodwinking on Judicial reforms ..".22 70. The Commission is of the opinion that the words alone or ordinarily may not have been deemed disparaging at a first glance without the context in which they were used. However, the repeated use of those words throughout the Complainant's submission, exceeded ordinary expression of strong emotions on the circumstances, or reasonable expression of one's sense of being wronged by the specific actions of the respondent State. It also exceeded the bonds of normal criticism, His criticism ignored the larger issues at hand and attacked the character of all involved in his legal disputes. The words therefore seem to aim at casting aspersions on the Respondent State's entire judiciary, its institutions and authorities, and may cause one to question their integrity, and lose confidence in the administration of justice by the Respondent State and its institutions. 71. The Commission thus holds that the Complainant makes ad hominem attacks against the Respondent State and its judiciary, and that he has not sufficiently substantiated these attacks in his submissions or by adducing evidence to support or substantiate the attacks. The Complainant had alluded that the Respondent State had "enlisted the services of the judiciary" and that his complaints were treated with "disdain, suspicion and contempt" by the judiciary, which he also refers to as "recalcitrant". The Complainant makes general allegations that there is a concerted effort led by the Respondent State and its judiciary to deny him access to justice and ultimately run his law firm out of business. In this regard, Human Rights and Development in Africa v Zimbabwe, paras 52, 53. 22The insulting and/or disparaging language is found in the Complainant's submission on Admissibility: On page 2 - line 12 : "damning information" - Line 16: "official wrongdoings"; see also Page 9, line 17, and paras (i) and (ii); Line 27:~"~~~ symbiotic relationship" On page 3 - Line 8: "recalcitrant Judicial officers"; see also Page 6 (xvi); Also found oo~~rd to last line on the page, and Page 10 para (iii); On page 6 (ix): "colluding" with other lawyers ..., Page 7 «xxi -cleverly circumvent the Rule of Law and justice (corruption); Page 8 para 2, line 8,9: "... the Respondent State h ~w.5tYs hypocritically issued your humble petitioner with annual practicing certificate for legal practice in Ken Line 13 (2nd to last line in para 2): "". a gimmick ... and thereby hoodwinking on Judicial reforms .." 741h Ordinary Session of the ACHPR ( . \