EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 151 32. Regarding Articles 56(3) and (4) of the Charter, the Complainant avers that the Complaint is not written in disparaging or insulting language and is not based on news disseminated in the mass media, as the information provided is based on court and council records. 33. The Complainant also submits that the Communication clearly lays down the processes through which the petitioners sought necessary remedies locally but failed to obtain them. After being served with the initial eviction order from the Magistrates Court the Wakarambwa Village took the case on review to the High Court and on appeal to the Supreme Court, where they lost in both courts on technicalities, thereby the decision to evict was upheld. 34. The Complainant further submits that the petitioners have tried to appeal to the President to reverse the decision under Section 8(4) and (5) of the Communal Lands Act. 35. The Complainant avers that the petitioners made the application to the President on 6 March 2003 but no formal acknowledgment of receipt or response thereto has ever been received. The Complainant submits that since the President has chosen not to respond to the “plea” by the petitioners, they have no option than to turn to regional institutions such as the Commission. 36. Accordingly, the Complainant submits that local remedies have been exhausted as per Article 56(5) of the African Charter. 37. Concerning Article 56(6), the Complainants are of the view that the Complaint was filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies. 38. On Article 56(7) the Complainant argues that the requirement has been satisfied as the matter has not been dealt with by, nor is it pending before any other international body. 39. Based on the above submission the Complainant urges the Commission to declare the Communication Admissible. Respondent State’s Submission on Admissibility 40. The Respondent State submits that the petitioners, in 1993, moved into the area in dispute without authority, effectively invading the said land. It further alleges that subsequent to the petitioning by the Nyararai village against the invasion, the Community Court, the District Court, and the High Court decided in favour of Nyararai village. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, made it clear that although the Buhera District Council had erred in proceeding to determine the dispute, “it is common cause that the First Respondent (Buhera District Council) has jurisdiction to determine land disputes in terms of the Communal Lands Act.”