-2071. The Commission concludes its consideration of the matter as follows: " ... The Respondent State has not established that by stating that one of the judges of the Supreme Court "was omitted", the complainants have brought the judiciary into disrepute. The State has not shown the detrimental effect of this statement on the judiciary in particular and the administration of justice as a whole [ ... ], no evidence to show that it was used in bad faith or calculated to poison the mind of the public against the judiciary". 4 72. In the present case, the Court is of the opinion that the Respondent State has not shown in what manner the name "People's Democratic Republic", as used by the Applicant, undermines the dignity, reputation or integrity of Burkina Faso. It has also failed to prove that such designation is used for the purpose of poisoning the minds of the public or of any reasonable person or that it is intended to subvert the integrity and status of Burkina Faso or to bring it to disrepute. Furthermore, it has not shown that such designation is used in bad faith by the Applicant. 73. The Court therefore holds from the above that the term "People's Democratic Republic" is not disparaging or insulting towards the Respondent State. The Application therefore complies with the requirements of Article 56 (3) of the Charter and Rule 40 (3) of the Rules and will not be declared inadmissible based on the above provisions. 3). Objection to the admissibility of the Application drawn from failure to exhaust local remedies 74. Rule 40(5) provides that: [the Application] "be filed after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged". 4 Id., paragraphe 96.