p.CHP11 r, r) 6~ttEf{ Human R,ghts ou, Collective Responsibility Human and Peoples' Rights 42. The communication is brought against the Republic of South Africa, a state party to the African Charter, thus fulfilling the requirement of ratione personae. It alleges violations of provisions protected by the Charter, notably nondiscrimination, freedom of expression, and equality before the law, thereby satisfying ratione materiae. The alleged violations occurred between 6 and 22 September 2021 , well after the respondent State ratified the Charter on 9 July 1996 and thus fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the Commission (ratione temporis). Finally, the acts complained about took place within the territory of the respondent State, specifically withi n the Polokwane Municipality, fulfilling the requirement of ratione loci. 43. The respondent State challenges compatibility, arguing that the impugned acts amount to internal administrative decisions and do not engage human rights protections under the Charter. 33 However, the Commission has consistently held that administrative decisions affecting the enjoyment of Charter rights , particularly those concerning access to expression, participation, or nondiscrimination, may be subject to review under the Charter. 34 44. The Commission finds that the nationality requirement in a publicly sponsored art competition, which restricts eligibility on grounds of citizenship, prima facie implicates the right to equal protection, non-discrimination and freedom of artistic expression under Articles 2, 9(2), and 19 of the African Charter. Consequently, the communication is not incompatible with the African Charter. 45. The Commission, therefore, concludes that the communication satisfies the requirements of Article 56(2) of the Charter. Article 56(3): Disparaging or Insulting Language 46.Article 56(3) stipulates that a Communication must not contain disparaging or insulting language directed at the state concerned. The Commission recalls its position in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v. Zimbabwe,35 that determining whether a remark is disparaging depends on whether it unlawfully impairs the dignity or reputation of the state. 47. Interrogating the Communication at hand , the Complainant asserted that its submissions do not contain offensive or disparaging language. 36 The Respondent State, however, argues that the Complainant's allegat' state institutions and the judiciary amount to an unsubstantiated a · ..,,_, \>I 33 sub adm state reply comm 788-22, para. 26 Purohit and Moore v. The Gambia, Commw1ica tion 241/ 01, Para. 32; Serac And Communica tion 155/96, Para. 50 34 ~ <5 ;;: ~ ~ 0,.,, ► IC ,t1'<El 35 Communication 284/ 03, para. 88 36 -=--- Complainant's written submissions cite above, para. 21 SI P Atnrcn, Un;on' ~ r C'I:r 0 The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Fm~il • ;:u 1-h::anil 1lm'>~frir~-11ninn nrn ~ ,..,