Article 56(2) of the Charter requires that the Communication be consistent with the Constitutive Act of the African Union or with the African Charter. In the light of the Constitutive Act, the African Commission does not receive a communication brought before it requesting a measure contrary to any provision of the Constitutive Act. Thus, in Katangese People's Congress v. Zaire, an action that infringed the doctrine of uti possidetis juris under Article 3 of the OAU Charter, now Article 4 (b) of the Constitutive Act, was dismissed by the African Commission, and the Communication declared inadmissible. 250. Recalling that the African Commission reiterated this position in the case of Law Society of Zimbabwe and Others v. Zimbabwe, the Respondent State submits that the Application, in its entirety, is incompatible with the Constitutive Act. * 251. The Applicant State did not address this objection in its submissions. 252. At the hearing, the Applicant State prayed that the objection be dismissed, arguing that the Respondent State clearly confuses issues of jurisdiction with those of admissibility. 253. Referencing the Court's judgment in Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania, the Applicant State submits that an application is compatible with the Constitutive Act and the Charter when the violations alleged therein can be examined in the light of these instruments and clearly do not fall outside their scope. According to the Applicant State, it also follows from the Court's jurisprudence that an application is compatible with these instruments if it is formulated in such a way as to achieve the objectives stated therein. * 254. In Response, the Respondent State submits that its objection should be allowed since, in its written submissions, the Applicant State has not refuted its arguments. 58