48. Article 56(1) requires that Communications submitted to the Commission be considered if they' 'indicate their authors even if the latter requests anonymity". The Author of this Communication has been disclosed as Johannes Jurie Botha who is also the Victim of the Communication. The address and contact information of the Complainant has also been disclosed. These facts remain uncontested by the Respondent State. The Commission is satisfied that the author of the Communication is indicated and accordingly holds that the requirement of Article 56(1) has been complied with. 49. According to Article 56(2) of the African Charter, Communications, in order to be admissible must be compatible with the Charter of the Organization of African Unity (now Constitutive Act of the African Union) or with the African Charter. The compatibility requirement is in four (4) folds: A Communication must allege a right set out in the African Charter (substantive requirement); A Communication must be directed against a State Party to the African Charter and must be submitted by someone competent or legally permitted to do so (personal requirement);The events complained of must have occurred within the Charter's period of application (temporal requirement); and the events must have occurred within the territory of the Respondent State (territorial requirement). 50. The Respondent State has contested compliance with Article 56(2) of the African Charter on the grounds that the Complainant has not identified nor specified which Articles of the Charter have been violated in relation to his rights (the substantive requirement). The State adds that the Complaint is instead made up of allegations aimed at attacking the intellectual and moral integrity of the Mauritius Police Force, the Judge presiding over the trial case and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Mauritius. 51. In Southern Africa Human Rights NCO Network and Others v Tanzania, the Commission established that one of its primary considerations under Article 56 (2) of the African Charter, is whether there has been prima facie violation of human rights guaranteed by the African Charter," and only concerned about preliminary proof that a violation occurred. It is therefore not mandatory for the Complainant to mention specific provisions of the African Charter that have been violated. In relation to the present Communication, the Commission notes that facts presented by the Complainant from paragraphs 2 to 14 of the summary of facts above are related to Articles 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the African Charter. Consequently, at this stage of the proceedings, the Commission is only determining prima facie violation of the rights alleged and not attempting to determine if the violations as alleged actually occurred. 52. The second leg of the Respondent State's contention suggests that the Complainant's allegations are aimed at attacking the intellectual and moral integrity of the Mauritius Police Force, the Judge that presided over the trial Para 51