82.1n 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. 83. The Court further holds that the Applicant was only presenting the acts of the lvorian authorities and that none of the expressions used is insulting towards the latter. 84.1t therefore dismisses the objection to the Application 's admissibility on that ground. 2) Objection to admissibility on grounds of failure to exhaust local remedies 85.1n its additional submissions to the brief in Response, the Respondent State reiterates that the Applicant did not exhaust the local remedies before filing the case before the Court. It contends that the Applicant could have seized the Constitutional Council to determine the unconstitutionality of the impugned law; that in Cote d'lvoire, the said remedy is truly judicial within the meaning of this notion as understood by the Commission; that, in fact, upon being found grounded, the remedy results in the annulment of the adopted law. 86. The Respondent further contends that the lvorian administrative law makes it possible to hold the State liable for its legislative activity; and that such procedure may lead the State to either abrogate an impugned law or amend the same. 87. The Respondent State argues, lastly, that it lies with the Applicant to produce evidence as to the exhaustion of loca l remedies, failing which its Application would be declared inadmissible; that this is also the position of the African 21