2002 and a report titled “Let My People Go Part II”, are disparaging and insulting language, contrary to Article 56.3 of the African Charter. 74. Article 56.3 of the African Charter provides that: Communications … received by the Commission shall be considered if they: (3) Are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organisation of African Unity. 75. The African Commission acknowledges that the above-mentioned provision is quite subjective because statements that could be disparaging or insulting to one person may not be seen in the same light by another person. Matters relating to human rights violations normally elicit strong language from the victims of the said violations. Nonetheless Complainants should endeavour to be respectful in the phrases they choose to use when presenting their communications. 76. The Respondent State submits further that the Complainants are not the sole authors of some of the documents and that the facts have been distorted. 77. The Complainants submit that they did not author the offensive publication, but rely on it to buttress their allegations. They argue further that the communication is not based exclusively on news disseminated through the media. They state that the evidence in support of their allegations is based on eye-witness accounts and documents prepared by those who have personal knowledge of the events and from official records. 78. Article 56.4 of the African Charter provides that: Communications … received by the Commission shall be considered if they: (4) are not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media 79. The African Commission has perused the appendices to the communication and has observed that they contain the following documents: • • • Appendix II is a publication by SCNC/SCAPO – Let my People Go! Appendix IV contains court documents, namely a motion on notice, 2 affidavits, originating summons, a ruling of the Federal High Court of Nigeria in Abuja, terms agreed by the parties to be embodied in the order of the court and an enrolment of order. Exhibit SC contains among others numerous documents, declarations, agreements between Germany and Great Britain, UN General Assembly Resolutions, the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the UN Charter, a Petition made by the Federal Republic of Southern Cameroons to the United Nations etc. 80. Article 56.4 relates to communications brought before the African Commission based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. Looking at the nature of documents described herein above, it is quite clear that the Complainants do not base their case on mass media news, but on official records and documents, as well as international statutes. This clearly falls outside the ambit of Article 56.4. 81. With respect to Article 56.5 , which relates to exhaustion of local remedies, the Complainants submit that there are no local remedies to exhaust in respect of the claim for self-determination because this is a matter for an international forum and not a domestic one. They argue that the issue for determination in this communication is whether or not the "union" of La République du Cameroun and Southern Cameroons was effected in accordance with UN Resolutions, International Treaty obligations and indeed International law. They assert that the right to self determination is a matter that cannot be determined by a domestic court. 82. The Respondent State concedes that no local remedies exist with respect to the claim for self determination. The Respondent State, however argues that, the right to self determination for the people of Southern Cameroon was solved when the British Trusteeship over British Cameroon ended th th following the plebiscite of 11 and 12 February 1961. Furthermore, it argues that the 1963 International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision in the Northern Cameroon case found in favour of the Republic of Cameroon and put the matter of Southern Cameroon to rest. The Respondent State believes that the Complainants are seeking a similar declaratory decision which should not be entertained by the African Commission.