(7) conditions, which generally must be fulfilled by a complainant for a communication to be admissible. 59. In the present communication, the complaint indicates its authors (Article 56.1), is compatible with the Organisation of African Unity /African Union Charters and that of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 56.2), and it is not written in disparaging language (Article 56.3). Due to lack of information that the Respondent State should have supplied, if any, the African Commission is not in a position to question whether the complaint is exclusively based on news disseminated through the mass media (Article 56.4), has exhausted local remedies (Article 56.5), and has been settled elsewhere per (Article 56.7) of the African Charter. With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, in particular, the Complainants approached the High Court in Nakuru, Kenya, in November 1998. The matter was struck out on procedural grounds. A similar claim was made before the same court in 2000 as a constitutional reference case, in which order was sought as in the previous case. The matter was, however, dismissed on the grounds that it lacked merits and held that the Complainants had been properly consulted and compensated for their loss. The Complainants thus claim that as constitutional reference cases could not be appealed, all possible domestic remedies have been exhausted. 60. The African Commission notes that there was a lack of cooperation from the Respondent State to submit arguments on the admissibility of the communication despite numerous reminders. In the absence of such a submission, given the face value of the Complainants’ submission, the African Commission holds that the complaint complies with Article 56 of the African Charter and hence declares the communication admissible. 61. In its submission on the merits, the Respondent State requested the African Commission to review its decision on admissibility. It argued that even though the African Commission had gone ahead to admit the communication, it would nevertheless, proceed to submit arguments why the African Commission should not be precluded from re-examining the admissibility of the communication, after the oral testimony of the Respondent State, and dismissing the communication. 62. In arguing that the African Commission should not be a tribunal of first instance, the Respondent State argues that the remedies sought by the Complainants in the High Court of Kenya could not be the same as those sought from the African Commission. 63. For the benefit of the African Commission, the Respondent State outlined the issues put before the Court in Misc, Civil Case No: 183 of 2002: 1. A Declaration that the land around Lake Baringo is the property of the Endorois community, held in trust for its benefit by the County Council of Baringo and the County Council of Koibatek, under Sections 114 and 115 of the Constitution of Kenya. 2. A Declaration that the County Council of Baringo and the County Council of Koibatek are in breach of fiduciary duty of trust to the Endorois community, because of their failure to utilise benefits accruing from the game reserve to the benefit of the community contrary to Sections 114 and 115 of the Constitution of Kenya. 3. A Declaration that the Complainants and the Endorois community are entitled to all the benefits generated through the game reserve exclusively and / or in the alternative the land under the game reserve should revert to the community under the management of trustees appointed by the community to receive and invest the benefits in the interest of the community under Section 117 of the Constitution of Kenya. 4. An award of exemplary damages arising from the breach of the applicants’ constitutional rights under Section 115 of the Constitution of Kenya. 64. The Respondent State informs the African Commission that the Court held that procedures governing the setting apart of the game reserve were followed. The Respondent State further states that it went further to advise the Complainants that they should have exercised their right of appeal under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Trust Land Act, Chapter 288, Laws of Kenya, in the event that they felt that the award of compensation was not fairly handled. None of the applicants had appealed, and the High Court was of the view that it was too late to complain.