40. The Commission observes that the Complainant's arguments were based only on Article 56(5) of the African Charter - the exhaustion of local remedies. However, per its established practices, the Commission will nonetheless proceed to analyze all the seven admissibility requirements provided under Article 56 of the African Charter. 41. Article 56(1) of the African Charter states that Communications received by the Commission should 'indicate their authors even If the latter requests anonymity'. In the present case the alleged victims are Peter Odiwuor Ngoge and Everlyene Iburata Ekea, and the author of the Communication is Messrs. O. P. Ngoge & Associates whose address is disclosed in the Communication. Neither the alleged victims nor the author of the Communication has requested anonymity. The Respondent State has not contested this fact. Thus, the Commission holds that the Communication complies with the requirement under Article 56(1) of the African Charter. 42. The second requirement under Article 56(2) of the African Charter requires Communications to be compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union (the Constitutive Act) or with the African Charter. 43. In interpreting this Article, the Commission had analyzed 'Compatibility' in Article 56(2) of the African Charter to mean: "in compliance" or "in conformity with" or "not contrary to" or "against" and held that allegations of violations of right to personal integrity, intimidation and harassment by intelligence services ·of the Respondent State raised prima facie violations.s It had cited the following requirements of Article 56(2) of the African Charter and 'compatibilirf? The Communication should be brought against a State party to the African Charter; The Communication must allege prima facie violations of rights protected by the African Charter; and iii. The Communication should be brought in respect of violations that occurred after [the] State's ratification of the African Charter, or where violations began before the State Partu ratified the African Charter, have continued even after such ratification. i. ii. 44. The Commission recalls that it has, with respect to Article 56(2) of the African Charter in several cases, also interpreted 'compatibility' as encompassing the issues of ratione temp oris, rationae materiae, ratione personae and ratione loci." This interpretation still holds good. 5 See Communication 308/05 - Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) ACHPR, para 69; Communication 275/2003 - Article 19 v Eritrea (2007), para 4; also Ngoge Communication listed in 3 above. 6 Communication 308/05 : Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe, 24 November 2008, para 73; Communication 246/02: Mouvement ivoirien des droits humains (MIDH) v Cote d'Ivoire, 29 July 2008; Communication 307/05 : Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe, 28 November 2007, para 48; Communication 308/05 : Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe, 24 November 2008, para 73 ; Communication 306/05 - Samuel T. Muzerengwa and 110 Others (represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human ~ v Zimbabwe, I March2011,para56. ~~ 7 Communication 266/03: Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v Cameroon, 27 May 2009, paras 68, 71-72, wh e tbe Cotnmission"'('o··. held that these requirements had been met. ~~) ":>~ <;-..... 8 Communication 383/10 - Mohammed Abdullah Saleh Al-Asad v. The Republic Of Djibouti, 14 Oct :~ 201;(paras Ii9\. .; I 133. Communication 306/05 - Samuel T. Muzerengwa and 110 Others (represented by Zimbabwe L~l ~rs for Human. \ ~ 74th Ordinary Session of the ACHPR ~~ ~, J~' n& ; . ~ 0, r;l..t. .00:. ~ "'J.I)"" 01 9:: r- .s- ~ ,.'" <;)""' ~ 10.., ' '" "":RIC"\~~ ~.§'- . (.~ .~ c.,~ O"''''E El (I( . .p/ ~ .'