context of describing the reaction of the international and regional organisations to the case brought against the first Complainant by the Respondent State. 77. The Commission held in Communication 284/03 that "Communications within the meaning of Articles 55 and 56 refer to the Complainants submitted by petitioners. These Complainants invariably include other documentations submitted by the petitioner to support their case, such as annexes."26 Therefore, going against the argument of the Complainants that those are not their words, the Commission considered those words as part of the Communication because they relied upon them to support their case, and the Commission considered those words in deterIitifiing the compliance of the Communication with Article 56 (3) of the Charter. 78. The Commission held that "the opera~!te F?rds in A"rtic!e ,~;?(~) are disparaging and insulting, and these words must be directed' against the·Sta,teJ0R~rtx,Jconcerned or its institutions or the African Union .. According to the Oxford Adv~ced Dictionary, disparaging means to speak slig~ting(i/of..,' or to bdiftle .... aitS!~t~sulting~irieans to abuse scornfully or to offend the self-reS'pect or modt:$ty of. .. "27 It is also important to note that the Commission held that a Commiliilcqtion allegirtg human rights ''ViQ~ationsby its very nature should be expected to contai'ri" ,egations that reflect negatively on the State and its institutions." "'I 79. The ordinary rv.e~6ing of the ';'!c':1~st4;akfl"abhorrent" is neither disparaging nor insulting. The word "unjust" ',F~'.. ed by theJ1Arabic Network for Human Rights Information to' express their opinioh',gn the verdicapassed against the first Victim, and "I.. .. the Organisations have submitted evidence to prove why they believe that the verdict was unjust. It is .at~o wort~ noting thae~~tCou~t of Appeal later revoked the verdict, w as perceived as unjust, Amnesty mfernational also used the word" abhorrent to expF,!" i " ppiniontowards the cas~J{rought against the firstVictim . On the face of it, the Ii< Erent" is npt.pisp<;l~agrng or insulting, and it is not precisely directed towardsJhe,tk· Stat ...;its institujiOPsl but it is part of the allegations that are expected to i!J;,. " • reflect neg~tively ontlle ~tate and its institutions in human rights Complaints .. wQ:r,9 ~., 80. .y<. ,':: •• 'h~';·•. :$:' The Respond fState argu~d that the phrase "the continuing need for protection from attacks by an'c?c.tremist religious group in the Respondent State ..." is insulting and irrelevant and tE~'tJJhe innuendo that only upon intervention of a foreign State (Italy) were the Complailiants able to leave for abroad is an attack on the sovereignty and independence of the State.s? In Communication 435/12,30 the Commission held that lithe $. ,to Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v Zimbabwe, Communication 284/03, para. 97. .. .. ,~ ~~, 27 ZImbabwe Lawyers for Human RIghts & Assoczated Newspapers of Zimbabuie v Zimbabuie, comQl~mr€a¥t6W2Ml~a, 88 1'/0 c\<.E-1AR"q)" "'~, para. . I' c:;} ~'(;. 0.., ~ 28 Eyob B.Asemie II the Kindgom of Lesotho, Communication 435/12, para. 58. . ~~F . <'1',\ 29 Paragraph 19 of the Complainants Submission on Admissibility. Iff \lJ U~\ 30 Eyob B.Asemie v the Kindgom of Lesotho, Communication 435/12, paragraph 60. j 26 I~ <.) /r. ~""\ (l 2 ~l' \." 0 '- ,.5. .\ '.;:.~ \,i~1 u~ ~"? . J , c . • 4"Rlcr,Il<"" ~ <v , I 0'<.....;;., .,1/0 ~\'\' " .1;1,;;: E1 ofS .. '-- --; !l "'/ / .j:t:. I.{ ~\(L>- '':' .~u.UI\.