118. In line with jurisprudence on this matter, the Court's position is that the substance of the complaint must relate to rights guaranteed by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned, without necessarily requiring that the specific rights alleged to have been violated be specified in the Application. 119. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has taken a similar position, as stated in Communication Number 333/06 Southern African Human Rights NGO Network and Others v. Tanzania1 . In that Communication, the Commission stated 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. Furthermore... the Commission is only concerned with whether there is preliminary proof that a viola!:: occurred. Therefore, in principle, it is not mandatory for the Complainant to mention specific provisions of the African Charter that have been violated."2 120. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on what qualifies as a complaint is defined as the purpose or legal basis of the claim. The complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on3 121. In the Hilaire v. Trinidad and Tobago Case4 the Inter− American Court of Human Rights specified that "Article 32(c) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, in effect when the complaint was lodged before it, expressly allows for the possibility that no specific reference [need be] made to the article(s) alleged to have been violated" in order for a complaint to be processed before it." 122. Failure to cite any specific articles of the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent is no reason to oust the jurisdiction of the Court. 123. The Court finds that the Applicant's Application stated facts which revealed a prima facie violation of his rights; furthermore, the Court finds that the Application relates to human and peoples' rights protected under the Charter, therefore, the requirements of Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Article 56(2) of the Charter have been met. 124. Regarding the Respondent's objection to the Application on the grounds of the incompatibility of the Application with the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity, now the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the Court finds that this argument does not stand. The Constitutive Act of the African Union provides that one of the objectives of the African Union shall be to promote and protect human and peoples' rights in accordance with the Charter and other relevant human rights instruments. Therefore the present Application is in line with the objectives of the African Union as it requires the Court, as an organ of the African Union, to consider whether or not human and peoples' rights are being protected by the Respondent, a Member State of the Union, in line with the Charter. The Court's jurisdiction ratione personae 125. The Applicant, Peter Joseph Chacha, is a national of the United Republic of Tanzania. He brings his Application in his personal capacity, as a national of the Republic which has made a declaration in terms of Article 34(6) of the Protocol, accepting to be cited before this Court by an individual. The Respondent ratified the Protocol on 10 February 2006 and made the declaration required under Article 34(6) thereof on 29 March 2010. The Court therefore has jurisdiction ratione personae over the Application. The Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis 126. The rights alleged to be violated are protected by the Charter. By the time of the alleged violation, the Respondent had already ratified the Charter, having done so on 9 March 1984, and was therefore bound by it. The Charter was operational in respect of the Respondent, and there was therefore already a duty on it as at the time of the alleged violation to protect those rights. The Respondent ratified the Protocol on 10 February 2006 and the alleged violations occurred thereafter. The Respondent made the declaration required underArticle 34(6) of the Protocol on 29 March 2010. Though the Respondent made the declaration after the alleged violations occurred, the alleged violations of the Applicant's following rights continued: the right to equal protection of the law and equality before the law, the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status, the right to liberty and security of the person and not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained, the right to a fair trial, the right to property. The Court therefore finds that it has jurisdiction ratione temporis over the Application. 16