loser and states further that the Charter requires that there is compliance with the law when rights of individuals and groups are discussed. It goes further to state that it is unacceptable to say that the judgments passed by the courts are in violation of human rights, that these judgments testify to the reality and are in keeping with the letter and spirit of the African Charter and the AU Charter and that any assumption contrary to that shall be tantamount to denying the courts of the member States of their functions. 49. The State goes further to state that the international human rights instruments recognise the sovereignty of States and the rule of the natural law existing in these States and that any assumption to the contrary is itself a blatant violation of the law. 50. The Respondent State further submits that the complaint is not in compliance with Article 56(3) of the African Charter, which provides that a communication brought before the Commission should not be written in insulting or disparaging language. The State contends that the complainants’ submissions, especially in para. 40 of the communication contained statements which had improper utterances against officials as well as the methods of the application of justice and the rule of law in the Sudan. 51. The Respondent State also submits that the complaint is not in conformity with Article 56(6) of the African Charter, which provides that a communication should be brought within a reasonable time after the exhaustion of local remedies. The State contends that the present communication was brought before the Commission after the expiration of 31 months of the court’s judgement. 52. That for these reasons the communication should be declared inadmissible by the African Commission. Summary of the complainants’ reply to the Respondent State’s submission on admissibility 53. The complainant alleges that though the Supreme Court is the highest court in the Sudan, the Civil Procedures Act of Sudan provides that the “Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to determine: Objection by way of cassation against the decisions and orders of the Courts of Appeal concerning objections against administrative decisions.” 54. The complainant also argues that the communication does not have to do with, nor were it brought before the Shar’ia Courts; it is a civil suit which was properly brought before the civil law circuit. 55. Also the complainant submits that the final decision of the High Court which dismissed their case was handed to them by the registrar, more than three months after its pronouncement by the court. This delay prevented the petitioners from bringing an application for review of the Supreme Court’s judgment within the prescribed period of 15 (fifteen days). 56. On the contention of the Respondent State that they could bring their matter before the Constitutional Court, the complainants state that the Sudan’s Constitutional Bill of 2005, outlines the jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Constitutional Court. This Bill provides that the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to review judgements, decisions, proceedings, and orders passed by the judiciary. This means that the Constitutional Court lacks the competence to entertain matters that were already dealt with by other Courts. 57. The complainant also alleges that the victims’ ordeal with the Sudanese authorities has been going on since 1993, when the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning failed to pay the remaining balance of the funds. The victims then started proceedings in the courts in 2000, which was finally dismissed by the High Court in June 2003, and according to the Complainants, the victims have exhausted all means possible at their disposal to recover their outstanding funds to no avail. 58. The complainant also allege that the judiciary of the Sudan is not independent of the government in the discharge of its duties. This it alleges is due to the fact that the country is ruled by a totalitarian military regime. That the government pursues a systematic policy of tight control and domination at all levels of the State apparatus including the judiciary. 59. The complainant alleges that in view of the above facts, it has exhausted all possibilities for local remedy in the Sudanese courts and seek that the African Commission finds this communication admissible.