argues that some of the decisions had the effect of prolonging his detention up to a total period of four (4) years whereas the statutory maximum period under Cameroonian law is eighteen (18) months. 35. In summary, the Complainant concludes that some local remedies were not available or effective, while those available were unduly prolonged, thus exempting him from exhausting them. Respondent State’s Submissions on Admissibility 36. The Respondent State does not contest the fact that the Communication meets the conditions under Article 56 of the African Charter, with the exception of the provision relating to the use of disparaging or insulting language (paragraph 3) and that prescribing the exhaustion of local remedies (paragraph 5). 37. The Respondent State submits that the Complainant used insulting language against the Government of Cameroon. In this regard, the Respondent State cites an excerpt from the Complainant’s observations in which he claims that the proceedings brought against him were only initiated “to conceal the largely negative balance sheet of the regime that has been in power for thirty years and to gain credibility with international donors,” and that the process is merely “a hoax aimed at scapegoating a number of senior officials”. 38. The Respondent State submits that such statements are vexatious and do not meet the requirements of Article 56(3) of the African Charter. The Respondent State cites the Commission’s decision in the case of Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l’Homme v. Cameroon and requests that the Communication should be declared inadmissible. 9