53. Article 56.3 requires that, “communications are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the African Union”. According to this Commission, looking at the alleged facts of this communication, there is no evidence of insulting or disparaging language. Thus, Article 56.3 is complied with. 54. Article 56.4 requires that, “the communication should not be based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media”. This communication has not portrayed any indication of information coming from the media before this Commission. The Complainants’ submissions have been supported by Court judgments, national laws and reports on which the Complainants relied. In this regard, the African Commission holds that Article 56.4 has been duly complied with. 55. Article 56.5 requires that, “communications be sent to the Commission only after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”. It has become an established principle in international law that a State should be given the opportunity to redress an alleged wrong within the framework of its own domestic legal system before it is dealt with at the 6 international level. This requirement safeguards the role of domestic courts to decide the matter before it is brought to any international adjudication body. 56. The Respondent State in this communication is of the view that the Complainants have not complied with this requirement. It argues that the accused persons in the Mbushuu’ case were charged and convicted of murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment instead of death pursuant to the provisions of Section 196 and 198 of the Penal Code Cap 16 of the Laws of Tanzania. 57. It further argues that the Complainants did not exhaust local remedies available under Article 30(4) of the Constitution of Tanzania and Section 4 of the Basic Rights and Duties Act. 58. According to this Commission, the argument by the Respondent State that the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies because the “accused persons in the Mbushuu’ case were charged and convicted of murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment in the High Court, instead of death pursuant to the provisions of Section 196 and 198 of the Penal Code Cap 16 of the Laws of Tanzania,” cannot be sustained because the premise of exhausting local remedies according to the practice and purpose of Article 56.5 only requires that judicial domestic avenues should be exploited before a communication is brought to the Commission. In the present communication, there is evidence that the matter was considered and decided upon by the highest Court in the Respondent State prior to its submission to this Commission. 59. This Commission also notes that, the ruling on life imprisonment in the Mbushuu’ Case was made in the High Court on the ground that the death penalty in Tanzania is unconstitutional. The Appellant not being satisfied with the decision of the High Court, appealed to the Court of Appeal which found that the death penalty is constitutional because it is saved by claw back clauses provided in the Tanzanian Constitution. In this regard therefore, the Complainants in the present communication brought the matter before the Commission after the Court of Appeal had pronounced on the death penalty. 60. Concerning the argument that the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies because they did not avail themselves to the remedies provided by Article 30(4) of the Constitution of Tanzania, as well as the Basic Rights and Duties Act, it is imperative for the African Commission to verify the content of these Laws to determine whether remedies provided therein are sufficient and effective remedies. 7 61. Article 30(4) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania provides that: “Subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any matter brought before it pursuant to this Article; and the state authority may enact legislation for the purposes of – 1. 2. regulating procedure for instituting proceedings pursuant to this Article; specifying the powers of the High Court in relation to the hearing of proceedings instituted pursuant to this Article; 3. ensuring the effective exercise of the powers of the High Court, the preservation and enforcement of the rights, freedoms and duties in accordance with this Constitution.