59. This position is similar to the one held by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred as the "Commission") in a Communication filed against the same Respondent. In Communication 333106 - Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzania, 1 the Commission held that: "one of its primary considerations under Article 56 (2) is whether there has been prima facie violation of human rights guaranteed by the African Charter. ... The Commission is only concerned with whether there is preliminary proof that a violation occurred. Therefore, in principle, It is not mandatory for the Complainant to mention specific provisions of the African Charter that have been violated. "2 60. The Court therefore, holds that it has jurisdiction ratione materiae to deal with the Application. ii. Jurisdiction ratione personae 61 . The Court will now examine the Respondent's objection that it lacks jurisdiction because the Application contains "allegations against Kenya and Mozambique, States Parties which have not made the declaration accepting the competence of the Court to receive cases as per Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol". 62. The Court notes that in their Reply to the Respondent's objection, the Applicants made it clear that they never intended to involve any other Member State in the Application , as their Application and contention is about inordinate delay in the matters that are facing them in Criminal Case 2 of 2006 and Criminal Application 16 of 2006, before the Courts of the Respondent, this delay having been orchestrated by the Respondent, which has made a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of this ' 28th Activity Report, November 2009- May 2010 As above, paragraph 51 . 2 19