-19-69. The Court recalls in this regard that the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"), when considering Communication No. 284/2003 (2009), has established the criteria for what would amount to disparaging or insulting language within the meaning of the two provisions cited above, when used in an Application. 70. The Commission has stated that: "The operative words in Article 56(3) are disparaging and insulting and these words must be directed against the State Party concerned or its institutions or the African Union. According to the Oxford Advanced Dictionary, disparaging means to speak slightingly of ... or to belittle ... and insulting means to abuse scornfully or to offend the self-respect or modesty of ... "2 Again, according to the Commission: "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 and integrity of a judicial official 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[ ... ]"3. 2 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v. Zimbabwe, Communication n° 284/2003, 3 April 2009, paragraph 88 (Frenc .. version). 3 Id., paragraphe 91. 4 19 -20-71. 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.