asemie v the kingdom of lesotho communication 43512 2014 achpr 8 29 july 2014
The Commission found that the language used by the complainant was not disparaging within the meaning of Article 56(3), as it reflected honest perceptions and was supported by evidence. However, the complainant failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5), since he had access to courts, was able to initiate proceedings even from abroad, and some matters were still pending domestically. The circumstances did not render local remedies unavailable or ineffective.
Source excerpt
- Exhaustion of local remedies
- Disparaging language in pleadings
- Nationality and statelessness
- Right to property
- Right to family
- Due process