678 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) 7 of Rule 40 of the Rules and Article 56 of the Charter) are not in contention among the Parties. 74. The Court considers that nothing in the pleadings submitted before it by the Parties suggests that any of the foregoing conditions has not been met in the instant case. 75. The Court considers that the said conditions have been met in the instant case. B. The admissibility conditions in contention between the Parties i. Objection to admissibility on the ground of the language used by the Applicant 76. In its additional observations, the Respondent State maintains that the Applicant’s written submissions contain insulting language towards it and its institutions. 77. It argues that when the Applicant states that “the Constitutional Judge curiously refused to censor this law”, it was casting aspersions on the credibility of this institution; that by stating that “the President of the Constitutional Council later tendered his resignation” without explaining why, the Applicant seems to be insinuating that the resignation was orchestrated by the institutions of the State, especially the President of the Republic who appointed the Judge. 78. The Respondent State further submits that casting doubts on the composition of the Independent Electoral Commission itself is a way of saying that the election organized by the said Commission is not valid and, consequently, that the elected President is not worthy of representing his country. 79. The Respondent State in conclusion maintains that the aforementioned language is insulting towards it and casts doubts on the dignity and honour of the President of the Republic. 80. The Applicant denies the Respondent State’s allegations and submits that the language used is not insulting. It contends that it has said the truth and that, besides, the information has been disseminated by the media; that it was only presenting the facts as they happened. 81. In this respect the Commission indicated that: “... in determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting ... the Commission has to satisfy itself whether the said remark or language ... 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...”77 82. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Respondent State has not produced evidence showing that the expressions used above by the Applicant were disparaging or insulting. 7 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v Zimbabwe, Communication No 284/2003, 3 April 2009, para 91.