Complainant did not use this remedy, contends the Respondent State, shows that it has not exhausted local remedies and that the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible. 41. Reacting to this argument in a counter memorandum addressed to the African Commission in September 2004, the Complainant argues that no local remedy had been available in this case, even if other parties had access to such a remedy. The Complainant further observed that before the African Commission, the condition for the exhaustion of local remedies should be assessed in relation to the plaintiff (in this case the MIDH) and to the plaintiff alone, and not in relation to third parties who may be entitled to complain about the alleged violation. 42. Thus, the Complainant argues that the recourse to a plea of unconstitutionality invoked by the Respondent State to say that a final remedy exists locally is not available to it as it is only possible to invoke a plea of the unconstitutionality of a law during a hearing. Whereas the MIDH, a legal entity which does not own property in the domain of rural land ownership, cannot be the object of a suit of expropriation or dispute, making possible the application of the law in question and where the possibility of the remedy alluded to by the Respondent State could be implemented. The very fact that the MIDH cannot initiate the remedy of a plea of unconstitutionality shows, argues the Complainant, that this remedy is not available to it. 43. Furthermore, concludes the Complainant, the implementation of the recourse to a plea of unconstitutionality by foreign individuals, owners of land in the rural real estate is “illusory” given the context which currently prevails in Côte d’Ivoire where “any questioning of decisions by the public authorities is seen as an act of belligerence” . 44. With regard to the “disparaging and insulting nature” of the communication, the Respondent State indicates that the Complainant referred to Côte d’Ivoire as “a xenophobic and exclusionist country” and where “foreigners are called invaders”, the nationals as “Ivorians of extraction” and “appropriate Ivorians” in the name of a “policy of denial of identity”. The Respondent State considers, in particular, that the use of these terms is insulting towards Côte d’Ivoire which has more than 26% of foreigners within its entire population. 45. Moreover, the Respondent State contends that the use of the words like “xenophobia” and “exclusionist” to qualify Cote d’Ivoire or to lead people to believe that this country is trying to establish a policy of “denial of identity” is an insult. The Respondent State concludes that the communication, for the abovementioned reasons, should be declared inadmissible. 46. The Complainant reacts to these arguments by saying that the words quoted are not used to qualify the State or its Institutions but simply to describe a situation which is “much sadder where large-scale assassinations of individuals had been perpetrated “just because of their nationality or presumed nationality of origin”. The disparaging and insulting nature of the words used in the communication 47. The Respondent State contends that the words used by the Complainant in the communication are disparaging and insulting to Cote d’Ivoire. Indeed, words like “xenophobia”, “exclusionist”, “discriminatory”, are used in the communication but the African Commission considers that these words are not used in an insulting and disparaging context for the Respondent State but rather have been used to describe a situation which has been condemned and it would be difficult to describe it differently. 48. The African Commission therefore does not accept the argument that the words used in the communication are disparaging and insulting to the Respondent State. Non-exhaustion of local remedies 49. According to the arguments submitted by the parties to this complaint the African Commission observes that local remedies exist against the law being challenged but it would appear that the Complainant does not have the necessary qualifications to exercise this remedy. 50. In effect, the remedy consisting in bringing the disputed law before the Constitutional Council is only available for a certain category of citizens, in this case, the President of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the Members of Parliament.