“in determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting and whether it has dampened the integrity of the judiciary, the Commission has to satisfy itself whether the said remark or language is aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violating the dignity, reputation or integrity of a judicial officer or body and whether it is used in a manner calculated to pollute the minds of the public or any reasonable man to cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence on the administration of justice. The language must be aimed at undermining the integrity and status of the institution and bring it into disrepute... A balance must be struck between the right to speak freely and the duty to protect state institutions to ensure that while discouraging abusive language, the African Commission is not at the same time violating or inhibiting the enjoyment of other rights guaranteed in the African Charter, such as in this case, the right to freedom of expression”. 49 In Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l’Homme v. Cameroon 50, the African Commission held that the Communication was inadmissible because of the complainant’s use of language like “[President] Paul Biya must respond to crimes against humanity”, “30 years of the criminal neo-colonial regime”, “regime of torturers”, “government barbarisms” etc, which was considered insulting language. In Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v. Sudan, the complainant stated: “[t]his Communication documents a situation of absolute misuse of government authority and executive powers to inflict gross injustice and suffering among a vulnerable segment of the Sudanese citizens. This situation is a classical example of the absence of accountability of public officials and for the lack of proper administration of justice and the rule of law in Sudan”.51 The Respondent State objected to the statements made by the Complainant arguing not that the language is disparaging or insulting but that it is improper to describe any sovereign State as such. The ACHPR held that the language used in the communication is not insulting or disparaging to the Government of Sudan and as such, was not contrary to Article 56(3) (prohibition of use of disparaging or insulting language). Non-Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies: In the course of determining admissibility, the human rights mechanisms examine the communication to ascertain that the complainants have exhausted domestic remedies. Failure to appeal a decision to higher courts 52 may be regarded as a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This is discussed further below. 3.3 Rule - Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Most human rights treaties require the State to provide an effective remedy for violations of rights and freedoms and enact necessary domestic legislation that provides for preventive measures, investigation and prosecution, and reparations to the victims and survivors. States therefore have an independent and continuing obligation under international law to provide effective remedies for all violations of rights and freedoms. 53 An important prerequisite 49 Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights v. Zimbabwe (ZLHR), (ACHPR Commu 284/2003) available at: http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/284.03/view/. 50 Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l’Homme v. Cameroon (ACHPR Commu. 65/92) available at : http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/65.92/view/. 51 Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v. Sudan, (ACHPR Commu. 310/05), para 40 available at : http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/310.05/view/. 52 Law offices of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan, ACHPR Commu. 220/98, available at: http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/220.98/view/. 53 Reparations – A Sourcebook for Victims of Torture and other Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, REDRESS, 2003, p. 13. REDRESS | ADMISSIBILITY AND EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES 17