the Charter. After carefully examining the Communication and the parties' submissions,
the Commission found that Articles 56 (6) and (7) raised no issues of contention and was
satisfied. To this end, the Commission's analysis of admissibility only focused on the
requirements contained in Article 56 (I), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the Charter.
69.
70.
Thus, the first issue for determination was whether the Communication had indicated its
authors, even if the latter requested anonymity as prescribed by Article 56 (1). The
Respondent State believes that the Communication has not complied with Article 56 (1)
because the name used to identify the first Victim is. different from the name used to
identify her in the domestic judicial proceeding ·
name appears in the Civil
Registry Department.
The jurisprudence
of
.cle..r ;..(1) to be fulfilled, the
Communication must indicate the autcyo:f"s"iaentity an ,'"dqfefr~c~n.ta~t details) and not
necessarily the victims' names. Still, it~Inust contain adequate.inforn{at1~
concerning the
victims with a degree of specificity.s' The. Commission has also pronoun~i!tl itself that
"Article 56 (1) of the African @ni:\rter
requires
a Cornmunicatiento
indicate its authors
~*f>,:,.."'"
'" "
.,,'
..
and not the victims of the violation
1 and that" Article 56 (1) of tKei:t.frican Charter will
be satisfied if the Communicatiori
loses the -identity and defails of the authors
thereof. "22
;~J<~'j"\
~it
II
;;;;~:i~~
,.~~i
71,
:''':''-~J,>t
72.
,',,;
In the present ca~~~the Comiri:"
:~iitias a, e Organizations representing the victims
have appropriately
identifier
i~inselves "ahd, provided
their addresses.
Their
representatives sign all their submitted,documents,"cmd
their hill names appear in print.P
In addition to that, they have also pr6vid~d
sufficient details, regarding the identity of the
~~. h
victims, which enabled the Respondent Sta~e to identify them, thereby making the issue
of :two ifferent n1un,~~ used to identify fR~'first Complainant an immaterial factor in
dete ',,' nm .the fulfilnient of Article.:56 (1) in this case; hence the Communication has
complif
.
ticle 56 (:0 of the ~ll~rter.
~
<
i'.
;
,. .,_ "I
'
The second ,:,,' .issue··';-~f,:~i
, , ."-~. etermine
was whether the Communication
complied with the
·:q;~;'i·;r",,',
requirement }ln9-~~tz\rticle: 56.(f) of the Charter, which requires a Communication
to be
compatible wi~::the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the African Charter. The
Respondent State disputed the compatibility of the Communication
because it results
Luke Mu.nyandu. Tembani and Benjamin John Freeth (represented by Norman Tjombe) vs. Angola and Thirteen Others,
Communication 409/12, paragraph 87
21 Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v Cameroon, Communication 266/03,para, 67, referring to Malawi African Association
et al v Mauritania, Communications 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97, 196/97 and 210/98, para. 79.
22 See, Spilg and Mack & Ditshwanelo (on behnif of Lehiohonoto Bernard Kobedi) v Botswana, Communication 277/0.:1.Ear.a,
20 See
.•~
97.
"'_,,>,
~,~
<lUI: AN 4."
~.
23 The Complainants are represented by The Redress Trust (REDRESS), the African Centre for. . ~ g clli.d!'Pelfc~"'~o
Studies (ACJPS), the Sudanese Organization for Development and Rehabilitation (SODR), th~§tldanes-effiiin~
\
Rights Initiative (SHRI) and the Justice Center for Advocacy and Legal Consultancy (J "'JLC);(A_drt-fess\fo lll~correspondence:, REDRESS; c/o Jiirgen Schurr; 87, Vauxhall Walk; SEll 5HJ London; United ~gdO
; T~,_+'¥ 20 ~ ~ I
77931777; E-mail: ]uergen@redress.org
.\~ S
IIp.,
3;;"
");(t.,;..
~
':Z,.
'" 6.
-YO'
,<5'/0
AU·
X:',
IV4~RICP.\44
c.
'~
Ito
'~""...
. Q1<; /.'
. c.;,
<v"'" 'j
'i<'
II.1MF ET D<'S
'~
"'d:f/Y
.;}S?
A
..,.