Human Rights our Collective Responsibility disrepute. " In Communication 293/04 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Zimbabwe, the Commission said "In determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting and whether it has dampened the integrity ofthe judician;, or any other State institution, the Commission has to satisfy itself whether the said remark or language is aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violating the dignihJ, reputation or integrihJ of a judicial officer or body and whether it is used in a manner calculated to pollute the minds of the public or any reasonable man to cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence on [sic] the institution. The language must be aimed at undermining the integrity and status of the institution and bring it into disrepute. "Also in Communication 435/12 - Eyob B. Asemie v The Kingdom of Lesotho, it further stated that " [the Commission] must make sure that the ordinan; meaning of the words used are not in themselves disparaging. The language used by the Complainant must unequivocally demonstrate the intention of the Complainant to bring the State and its institution into disrepute . " 69. From all the above, it can be adduced that Article 56 (3) requires firstly, that the Communication submitted to the Commission must be written in a non­ disparaging or non-insulting language. This means it should not be written in a language that is belittling, abusive, scornful, disrespectful or offensive to the modesty of the institution or person. Secondly, the language used must not be intended to undermine the integrity and status of the State or its institutions or the OAU or bring them into disrepute. 70. In this Communication, no disparaging or insulting language has been used by the Complainant eithe� in the original written complaint submitted to the Commission or in its submission on Admissibility. It is only in the supporting documentary evidence attached to the original complaint that some of the language is found to be offensive. These are part of documentary evidence that was used in the prosecution of the case at the domestic level, and it is not expected that the Complainant would have to change the contents of these supporting documents for purposes of complying with Article 56(3) of the Charter. In addition, the Respondent State has not raised any issue regarding the language used by the Complainant in their submissions on Admissibility. There£ re, Article 56(3) of the Charter has been satisfied by the Complainant. �;::: 0".,���-;-;, ◄<\ 11/_.., l/-? ;j Page 15 of 45 .,, 41?1,., " 1i- 0. ,;�, � ;)\ African 31 tc. l l,op1e,• Righ1' 1 �l;lt::i�� rnbo North District. West C.:iast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjJl@afrn;a-union.org · https:;achpr.au.,ntJO O a