64. This established position was enunciated in Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Esmaila Connateh & 13 others) v Angola, where the African Commission stated that in situations where a State Party fails to address itself to the complaint filed against it, the African Commission "has no option than to proceed with its consideration of the Communication in accordance with its Rules of Procedure ... on the basis of the submission of the Complainants and information at its disposal ... "36 65. Accordingly, the African Commission must give due weight to the Complainant's allegations insofar as these have been adequately substantiated, and hereby proceeds to undertake its analysis on Admissibility based on the information supplied by the Complainant. 66. The African Commission would also like to emphasize that the absence of a reaction from the Respondent State does not absolve the latter from the decision that it may arrive at in the consideration of the Admissibility of this Communication, as the relevant State had, by ratifying the African Charter, indicated its commitment to cooperate with the African Commission and to abide by all decisions taken by the latter.37 67. In view of the above-stated rules, principles, and jurisprudence, and given that the Respondent State has not made any submissions to dispute or accept whether the Complainant has fulfilled any of the requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter, the African Commission will analyse the arguments of the Complainant based on the entire provisions of Article 56 of the African Charter. 68. Article 56( 1) of the African Charter states that "Communications ... received by the Commission shall be considered if they... indicate their authors even if the latter requests anonymity." The African Commission notes that the reasons for the requirement under Article 56(1) of the African Charter are" ... that the Commission must receive communications with adequate information with a certain degree of specificity concerning the victims"38 and to ensure that the "Commission must be in communication with the author, to know his identity and status, to be assured of his continued interest in the communication and to request supplementary information if the case requires it".39 In this case, the Communication received by the African Commission clearly indicates that the Victim is Dr. Bushra Gamar Hussein Rahama and that the author/representative who filed it on his behalf is the African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS) i.e. the Complainant. The requirement under Article 56(1 ) of the African Charter is therefore duly satisfied. 69. Article 56(2) of the African Charter states that "Communications ... received by the Commission shall be considered if they... are compatible with the Charter of the Organization of African Unity or with the present Charter." The Commission has expounded that compatibility with the African Charter entails four main aspects, ~11:t..•,4ND 36 Communication 292/04 (above), para. 34. ~~;~f-1 AR,,.., '°c 37 See Communication 227/99 - DRC vs. Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda (2003) ACHPR, paras 51-53. ::,"' ., 38 Communication 104/94-109/94_126/94 - Centre of the Independence of Judges and Lawyers ~~/geri , (1995) AC 7 para 3. ., / 39 Communication 108/93 - Monja Joana vs. Madagascar(1997) ACHPR para 6. ~ 0 ,- R! ?,£. c.• ,,,.. .s,Ov 4• k r- ., "13 <,, , ••••,'[ "1 C)< 1. "l.s