38 . In the present Communication , the Complainant submits that the violations in the Communication fall within the ambit of the African Charter, and further that the Communication is in conformity with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the African Charter. The Respondent State, on the other hand, contends that a core requirement for seizure and admissibility of a Communication is that the Victim must demonstrate a prima facie case of a breach of the African Charter, and further that the allegations of a Communication should provide prima facie evidence that a provision of the African Charter has been violated . 39. In order to address the Respondent State's contention , reference can be made to Samuel T. Muzerengwa and 110 Others (represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) v. Zimbabwe , in which the Commission held the following: "It is important to explain what prima facie violation of rights and freedoms entail. The term 'prima facie ' means "on the face of it"; "so far as can be judged from the first disclosure "; "a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary. " So, prima facie is a decision or conclusion that could be reached from preliminary observation of an issue or a case without deeply scrutinizing or investigating into its validity or soundness. "10 40. Further, in Priscilla Njeri Echaria (represented by Federation of Women Lawyers, Kenya and International Center for the Protection of Human Rights) v. Kenya , it was noted that: "The African Commission has jurisdiction over a Communication in this respect, which alleges the violation of rights guaranteed in the African Charter. The subject matter of the Communication must relate to the violation of a right protected in the African Charter and the Complainant is only required to establish a prima facie violation . In assessing whether a prima facie case exists, the African Commission only needs to be satisfied that the facts before it points to likelihood that a right protected in the African Charter has been violated. "11 41. In the present Communication, the Commission observes that the Complainant alleges violations of the African Charter including the right to have one's cause heard , and in support of the allegations has submitted judgments of the High Court and Constitutional Court as evidence of the violations. Accordingly , based on a preliminary observation of the facts presented in the Communication, the Commission considers that the allegations are specific enough to establish a prima facie case. Furthermore , the Commission is of the view that the Communication raises material elements which may constitute a violation of human rights, and as such has competence rationae materae to deal with the matter.