28. The Complainant avers that the annulment decision was immediately executed without the presence of the Victim, and further that the suit was referred to the 4th Division of the Judicial Court to inform the Victim that the application had been dismissed. The Victim filed an application with the 4th Judicial Tribunal of the City of Maputo for a stay of the Supreme Court’s decision, in order to refer the matter to the Constitutional Council to assess the unconstitutionality of the law, which granted the special prerogative powers to the Attorney General; however, this application for stay of the Supreme Court’s decision was dismissed. 29. Accordingly, the Complainant submits that domestic remedies have been fully exhausted, thereby fulfilling the requirements of Article 56(5) of the African Charter. 30. With regards to Article 56(6), the Complainant submits that the Communication was submitted nine months after every domestic remedy had been exhausted, and concludes by stating that the case has never been submitted to any other international institution with a human rights mandate in accordance with the requirements of Article 56(7) of the African Charter. The Commission’s Analysis on Admissibility 31. The Commission recalls that Article 56 of the African Charter sets out seven requirements that a Communication brought under Article 55 of the African Charter must satisfy in order to be Admissible. Those requirements apply conjunctively and cumulatively.5 It is the Complainant’s submission that the present Communication satisfies all the requirements for Admissibility under Article 56 of the African Charter. 32. Despite the fact that the Commission requested the Respondent State to submit its arguments and evidence on admissibility in accordance with Rule 105(2), no response has been received. In such cases, the Commission has held that in the absence of a substantive response from the Respondent State it must decide on the facts provided by the Complainant.6 Accordingly, the Commission undertakes the following analysis on admissibility on the basis of the information supplied by the Complainant. 33. In relation to the requirement in Article 56(1) of the African Charter, which provides that Communications should indicate their authors even if the latter requests anonymity, the Commission notes that the identity and the address of the Complainant is indicated in the Communication, and accordingly finds that the Communication satisfies Article 56(1) of the African Charter. 34. In accordance with Article 56(2) of the African Charter, the Communication must show a prima facie case and must be compatible with both the AU Constitutive Act 5 See Communication 304/2005 - FIDH & Others v Senegal (2006) ACHPR, para 38. See Communication 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93, Communication 60/91, Communication 159/1996, Communication 276/03 and Communication 292/04 6 5