33. The Respondent State submits further that the Complainants have not challenged the constitutionality of the substituted provision before the courts in Zimbabwe, arguing that Complainants are therefore requesting the African Commission to become a tribunal of first instance, a function which it cannot fulfill, either as a legal or practical matter. COMPLAINANTS SUBMISSIONS ON ADMISSIBILITY 34. In response to the State Party arguments, the Complainants submits that, the Communication meets the requirements of Article 56(5) of the Charter as all national remedies have been exhausted. The Complainants concede that in terms of the hierarchy of the courts of Zimbabwe, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on constitutional and human rights matters. They argue that Section 24 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe stipulates that an individual who feels that her or his rights as enshrined in the Chapter on the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution, have been or are likely to be infringed shall approach the Supreme Court as a court of first instance. The Complainants state that the Supreme Court was approached, and it ruled that accreditation and registration of Journalists was constitutional and mandatory, for any individual who intends to pursue the profession of journalism in Zimbabwe. Pursuant to that decision[FN2], the Complainants claim they had no other means of remedying the situation but to approach the African Commission.They argue therefore that the requirement of Article 56(5) of the Charter have been met. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN2] Judgment No S.C. 136\02; Const. Application N0. 252\02; Supreme Court of Zimbabwe,, Chidyausiku CJ, Sandura JA, Cheda JA, Ziyambi JA & Malab JA; Harare November 21, 2002 & February 5, 2004. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------35. The Complainants state further that, the Supreme Court decision which upheld the requirement for compulsorily registration by the MIC is tantamount to an intrusion in the actual right to freedom of expression. The Complainants submit that the African Commission has held in Media Rights Agenda and Other vs. Nigeria [FN3], that onerous conditions of accreditation and total discretion by the registration board, effectively giving government the power to prohibit publication of newspapers or magazines are akin to censorship and seriously endanger the right of the public to impart and receive information in contravention of Article 9 (1) of the Charter. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN3] Communications 105/1993, 128/1994 and 130/1994. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------36. The Complainants argue further that the Supreme Court found that the proscription of false news can never be said to be unconstitutional, noting that the reasoning of the Supreme Court was that falsehood is the antithesis of the truth of information.[FN4] They claim that the Supreme Court found that there was no constitutional protection for false news. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN4] In that decision, the Supreme Court stated that "The Constitution confers no right on an individual to falsify or fabricate information or publish falsehoods. Section 20 of the Constitution protects the right to impart and receive information, not falsehoods. Falsehoods are not information."