which was transmitted via DHL.3 However, no response was received and in light of this the Commission took a decision to proceed with the decision on Admissibility. 20. Informational letters were sent to the parties, following the 56th and 57th Ordinary Sessions. Admissibility The Complainant’s Submissions on Admissibility 21. The Complainant submits that the Communication satisfies all the Admissibility requirements set out in Article 56 of the African Charter and presents arguments in support of that submission. 22. With regards to Article 56(1) of the African Charter, the Complainant submits that the identity of the author has been indicated, therefore satisfies this requirement. 23. The Complainant avers that the rights claimed under the African Charter refers to the right to property, thereby complying with the requirement that Communications shall be compatible with the Charter of the African Union (sic) and the African Charter, as stipulated in Article 56(2) of the African Charter. 24. In relation to Article 56(3) of the African Charter, the Complainant submits that the Communication is not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the Respondent State and the African Union institutions. 25. The Complainant submits that the Communication is not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media as it includes briefs from the Judicial Tribunal of the City of Maputo and the Supreme Court, and therefore meets the requirement of Article 56(4) of the African Charter. 26. Regarding Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the Complainant submits that local remedies were exhausted with regards to the dispute between the Respondent State and the Victim, with a favourable decision reached on 08 July 2008. The Complainant further submits that, as the judgment was in the process of being executed with a view to reinstating the property, the Victim was informed by the Tribunal dealing with the case that the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the lower court following an application filed by the Attorney General, who made use of his special prerogative powers. 27. The Complainant submits that in the special prerogative suit, the Attorney General acted as the plaintiff, and the Judge who passed the sentence as the respondent.4 3 4 DHL Tracking Number MZ-MPM-MPM, delivered on Monday 23 March 2015. Complainant Submissions on Admissibility, paragraph 7 4