71. With regards to Article 56(6), the Complainants reiterate that the application was submitted within a reasonable period of time. To the extent that there was a delay, the Complainants submit that there was a compelling reason for this. The Commission's Analysis on Admissibility 72. Article 56 of the African Charter sets out seven requirements that a Communication brought under Article 55 of the African Charter must satisfy in order to be admissible, which apply conjunctively and cumulatively.13 73. In relation to the requirement in Article 56(1) of the African Charter, which provides that Communications should indicate their authors even if the latter requests anonymity, the Commission notes that the identity and the address of the Complainants has been provided, in addition to the name of the Victim being represented in the Communication. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the requirement under Article 56(1) of the African Charter is fulfilled. · 74. Concerning Article 56(2), which provides that Communications shall be compatible with the Charter of the Organization of African Unity or with the present Charter, the Commission points out that this requirement implies compatibility ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci of the Communication with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the African Charter.14 75. The Commission notes the Respondent State's contention that the sexual violence and bodily harm suffered at the hands of the alleged traffickers was committed in their private capacity, further submitting that the conduct of the perpetrators is in no way attributable to any failure of the State to honour its obligations under the Banjul Charter and the Maputo Protocol. 76. The Commission observes that the present Communication is brought against a State party to the African Charter, alleges prima facie violations of sig~otected by the African Charter and is brought in respect of violations tha , occiur~ed a ffe the State's ratification of the African Charter. In addition, the su6stantµ,e jur·sdicti of the 1 African Commission covers the provisions of the Mapu o PrQtoco ,6 8!,. n that Namibia has ratified this human rights instrument.15 I ' '/ ~ ] ' 13 See Communication 304/ 2005: FIDH & Others v Senegal (2006) AC HPR, para \ \J \JP. l p~ B~ '< On issues of compatibility and jurisdiction, see Communication 375/ 09: Pri · la ,N"eri' Echaria>'v; (. .. , , Kenya (2011) ACHPR paras 31-39. See also, Com munication 307/05: Chinhamo v. Zimbabw t1 R paras 40, 48; Com munication 300/05: SERAC v. N igeria (2008) ACHPR paras 37-38; Com munication /03: Kev in Gunme v. Cameroon (2009) ACHPR paras 68-72 is Namibia ratified the Maputo Protocol on 11 August 2004 14 14