EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 170 Oral Submissions at the 47th Ordinary Session 71. At the 47th Ordinary Session of the African Commission, held from 12 to 26 May 2010, in Banjul, The Gambia, the Complainant, the Respondent State and the second victim made oral submissions to the African Commission. 72. The oral submissions made by all the parties were the same as the written submissions submitted to the African Commission above. Decision on the Competence of the Commission 73. In the present Communication, the Complainant submits that the Communication fulfils all the requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter. The Respondent State on the other hand submits that: firstly, the African Commission is incompetent ratione temporis in terms of Article 65 of the African Charter, and secondly if the African Commission decides that it is competent ratione temporis to entertain the Communication, the Complainants have not fulfilled the requirements of Article 56(5) of the African Charter and as such, the African Commission should declare the Communication Inadmissible. 74. The Respondent State on the other hand argues that the African Charter came into force in 21 October 1986 and the Republic of Mozambique ratified the African Charter on 22 February 1988, and it came into force for Mozambique in February 1989. 75. The Respondent State submits that the African Commission is only competent to entertain allegations which occurred after the coming into force of the African Charter, or where, they constitute a continuing violation after the coming into force of the African Charter. The Respondent State further submits that since the facts which the African Commission is asked to consider in relation to both victims, preceded the coming into force of the African Charter, and as far as the Respondent State is concerned such facts have not continued subsequently, the African Commission is therefore incompetent ratione temporis. 76. The Complainant argues that the African Commission held in Krishna Achutan (on behalf of Aleke Banda), Amnesty International (on behalf of Orton and Vera Chriwa) v Malawi,69, that ‘it is a well established principle of international law that a new government inherits the previous government’s international obligations, including responsibility of the previous government’s misdeeds and mismanagements’.. The Complainant submits that even if the Government in power did not commit the human rights abuses complained of, it is responsible for the reparation of these abuses. The Complainant further argues that in order to consider whether the African Commission is competent to entertain allegations of human rights violations that took place before the coming into force of the African Charter, the African Commission has to differentiate 69 Krishna Achutan (on behalf of Aleke Banda) and others v Malawi.