55. In view of the meaning and purpose of the requirement under Article 56(3) of the African Charter and in light of the jurisprudence cited above, the Commission considers that the excerpt from the Complainant’s submission is targeted generally at the regime in power without, however, insulting or disparaging any particular State authority or institution. In addition, the language merely expresses the Complainant’s opinion about the performance of the regime and the quality of some of its reforms. The Commission thus concludes that such language cannot be considered insulting. 56. With regard to the exhaustion of local remedies, the Commission recalls that the Complainant is required to exhaust local remedies only when such remedies are available, effective and sufficient4, and are not unduly prolonged. A remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint.5 57. If one of these characteristics happens to be lacking, local remedies cannot meet the requirements laid down in Article 56(5) of the African Charter. The Commission notes that the parties disagree on two major points. The first point relates to the availability and effectiveness of local remedies, while the second is about the remedies being unduly prolonged. 58. Regarding the first point, the Commission notes that the Complainant had the opportunity to challenge the various decisions either before the examining magistrate or before the competent court of appeal. From the facts submitted, it emerges that the parties agree that the various petitions for annulment filed by the 4 5 See Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia Communication 147/95 and 149/96 (2000) AHRLR 107 (2000) para 31 See Jawara para 32. 14