95. With regards to the ratione temporis condition covered by articles 638 and 659 of the Charter, the Commission does not observe any challenges in determining its jurisdiction on the matter. Indeed, the alleged violations started in 2016, while the State of Cameroon ratified the Charter in 1989. 96. The jurisprudence mentioned above specifies that the prayers submitted by Complainants should be compatible with the objectives and principles enshrined in the African Union Constitutive Act. In this regard, pursuant to Article 3(b), the objective of the Union shall be to "defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States". 97. However, among the prayers, the Complainants appeal to the Commission to issue Provisional Measures requesting the government of la-Republique du Cameroun to pull out its heavy military presence and close down its nUll1;er,ous military outposts strewn all over the territory of the former UN Trust Territory of th~ Southern Cameroons. 98. The challenge with the aforementioned prayer lies in the very spirit of the request. The analysis of the same would lead to the interpretation that the Republique du Cameroun and the UN Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons are two different sovereign States, in which case, one is subject to milita~~ occupation. In this regard, the prayer questions the unity, territorial integrity and the sovef.fe:lgnty of the country, as the Complaints' request challenges the independence of the Repiiblique of Cameroun. 99. Therefore, the Commission finds that~e'prayer contravenes article 3(b) of the Constitutive Act, which as a consequence, is not- in harmony with Article 56(2) of the Charter as it pertains to the compatibility with t~~ Constitutive Act, In conclusion, the Commission finds that the conditions of Article 56;(2) have not been satisfied . .,'.:-'> , Disparaging or insulting language (Article 56 (3)) 100. Article 56 (3) requires that Communications 'are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organization of African Unity" .. . . ' ~ , 101. In the view of thEtCoinInission, as identified in its jurisprudence, article 56 (3) is governed by two main principles. Firstly, in its analysis, the Commission ought toc;-,pa'm~¢"llib"" ~ (_C { "/"1,.-<>' aforementioned Article with the Complaint's freedom to clearly express their 'gr' vances. <'o~ Secondly a comparison needs to be drawn on the basis of the threshold set by the ~ Commission in-its jurisprudence, with regards to what constitutes disparagl.·n.g la{lgUage.) ~ J' _) CJ t =.. \~ v) \ I\d j ,,":,. IIA Article 63 ,_ ''is /.:;r, I 1. The present Charter shall be open to signature, ratification or adherence of the member states of the 0fgqnization ,,'" I , , of African Unity. I " 2. The instruments of ratification or adherence to the present Charter shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Organization of African Unity, 3, Thepresent Charter shall come into force three months after the reception by the Secretary General of the instruments of ratification or adherence of a simple majority of the member states of the Organi.zation of African Unity. 9 Article 65 For each of the States that will ratify or ad/Jere to the present Charter after its coming into force, the Charter shall take effect three months after the date of the deposit by that State of its instrument of ratification or adherence 8 " ""'J 16