47. The Complainant certainly uses strong language and the Commission notes that allegations of corruption would necessarily reflect negatively on the institution in question, and the Commission would be amiss if it were to dismiss the Communication merely on account of its negative portrayal of the judicial institutions. The question therefore is not the allegations of corruption, but on whether there are expressions or language used by the Complainant that by virtue of their nature or on account of their effect, amount to insulting or disparaging language? 48. In relation to the specific language used, due consideration must be accorded to the ordinary meaning of the words used. The use of words such as "persecution" "revenge" or "retribution" are not words that would ordinarily be considered as insulting, even more so within the context of these Communications. The use of the word "damning evidence" seems to be the strongest description but this is however largely an expression of opinion about the weight of the particular evidence. 49. In relation to the manner in which the language is used however, the Commission is of the view that the Complainant makes ad hominem attacks against the State and its judiciary, which he has furthermore not sufficiently substantiated. In this regard, the Complainant submitted that the State had enlisted the services of the judiciary and that his complaints were treated with" disdain, suspicion and contempt" by the judiciary, which he also refers to as "recalcitrant". 50. The Meriam-Webster Dictionary defines this term as "having an obstinately uncooperative attitude towards authoritlj or discipline". The Complainant makes general allegations that there is a concerted effort led by the Respondent State and its judiciary to deny him access to justice and ultimately run his law firm out of business. Inthis regard, the Complainant has submitted that the judiciary and its "friends, sympathizers, and colleagues" are seeking revenge against him. The Commission is therefore of the view that the Complainant could have utilized language which is not disparaging or insulting to make the same submissions without losing their substance. 51. 52.