interdiction to enter Lesotho, he made an urgent application to the Lesotho High Court to curtail the efforts of the Lesotho Home Affairs Department from denying him and his family entry into Lesotho. According to the Complainant, a Court order in his favour, restraining the Respondents (Home Affairs officials) from denying him entry into Lesotho and directing them to deal with the issue of his expulsion in accordance with the law, was issued by the Court. He states that the judgement was however reserved and postponed till 13 February 2013. He states further that the High Court also made an order to the Department of Home Affairs to reopen the border to the Complainant, which order they failed to comply with. 33. On the issue of the seizure of his property, the Complainant submits that he took the matter through his lawyers to the Tax Tribunal which heard the matter on 29 and 30 August 2013 and reserved its judgment, which was still pending at the time the present Communication was submitted. The Complainant states further that he was granted a Court Order on 22 November 2013, directing the Lesotho Revenue Authority to stop issuing notices to his tenants until the case was finalised. The order was successfully appealed and reversed by another Court on 4 December 2013. According to the Complainant, the reversal of the Court Order is ample proof that the Lesotho Government tampers with the local Courts. The Respondent State's Submissions on Admissibility 34. The Respondent State contests the Admissibility of the Communication on two grounds, namely that it fails to comply with the requirements under Article 56(3) and (5) of the Charter, respectively on the use of disparaging language and non-exhaustion of local remedies. 35. Concerning the use of disparaging language, the Respondent State posits that while it cannot be disputed that a Complainant has a right to articulate his grounds of complaint in a manner necessary to build their case, a Complainant should not write his Communication in disparaging or insulting language directed at the State concerned or its institutions. The Respondent State cites the following phrases from the Complainant's submissions which in its view, amount to disparaging language; 1. surprisingly the second day after operation (on my wife), the harassment by Lesotho continued, one immigration Officer by the name of Mr. Breed presented himself to the maternity ward and reported that he is sent to arrest my wife while she was in a hospital bed. 2. Just one day prior to their decision which was deliberately organised by Lesotho Government long arm using Mr Breed to organize the cancellation of my status in RSA. 3. Lesotho Government realised the implication an individual from RSA Immigration (Mr Breed) and fabricated a false story through a newspaper 4. they preferred to twist the arms of justice and reversed the order on the 4 th of December 2013 by another Magistrate Court decision....This act clearly shows how Lesotho Government tampers with the local courts. 36. The Respondent State submits that it is aware of the mechanisms it can use to effect arrest in a foreign state and that the Complainant does not furnish any proof to show that Lesotho has ever engaged anyone to harass him. It submits further that the Complainant's wife was in another state and it would be improper for the Complainant to assume that the Respondent State can have influence on how another country effects the due process of law. According to it, the above-cited phrases (i ii &iii) are serious allegations that tarnish the image of the Country. 37. The Respondent also submits with regards to the last cited phrase (iv above) that the imputation is that the Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho does not respect the principle of Separation of Powers. This 4