EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 166 54. The Respondent State submits that the Communication alleges that the first victim was transferred to Nachingwea, Tanzania, in April 1975 and has never been seen since. The Respondent State states that the Communication mentioned that most probably the first victim was executed there, noting that if that is true, it is obvious that the African Commission is being called upon to entertain a matter (the occurrence of which besides being prior to its own existence also preceded the coming into force of the Charter). The Respondent State submits that the African Commission is only competent to entertain facts which occurred after the coming into force of the African Charter or, if they occurred before, they constitute a violation continuing after the coming into force of that same Charter.67 The Respondent State argues that that is not the case with the facts alleged in the present Communication. The Respondent State thus submits that, the African Commission is incompetent ratione temporis, since the facts which it is being asked to entertain in relation to both victims, preceded the coming into force of the African Charter, insofar as the Respondent State is concerned, and such facts have not continued subsequently. 55. The Respondent State submits further that if, however, the African Commission decides it is competent ratione temporis to entertain the subject matter of the Communication, the African Commission should declare the Communication Inadmissible for failure to meet the fundamental requirement in Article 56(5) of the African Charter. b) Incompatibility with Article 56(5) 56. The Respondent State argues that Article 56(5) of the African Charter states that: ‘[…] Communications relating to human and peoples’ rights referred to in Article 55 received by the Commission, shall of necessity, in order to be examined, meet the following conditions: […] Be subsequent to the exhaustion of local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious to the Commission that the procedure relating to these remedies is unduly prolonged’. 57. The Respondent State argues that with respect to the first victim, the Communication was submitted on behalf of a citizen who, according to the same Complainant had been detained on 26 October 1974 and executed in Nachingwea, Tanzania, in April 1975 or thereabout. The period in question, the Respondent State argues, coincides to a large extent with the transitional period to an independent Mozambican State, during which an assortment of legislation was enacted, culminating in the adoption of the first Constitution of the Republic on 24 June 1975, which came into force with the proclamation of independence on 25 June 1975. 58. The Respondent State further argues that there is no record at Mozambique’s judicial institutions of any report, application for the right to appear before a judge, for harbeas corpus or other appropriate judicial proceedings addressed by either the family members of the first victim or his legal representative. The Respondent State cites the 67 Communication 59/91 - Emgba Louis Mekongo v Cameroon (1995) para. 28.