situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party8 130. Notably, the reason is simple and well-articulated: “an act of a State does not constitute a breach of an international obligation unless the State is bound by the obligation in question at the time the act occurs.”9 Put differently, “a juridical fact must be appreciated in the light of the law contemporary with it, and not of the law in force at the time when a dispute in regard to it arises or falls to be settled.”10 131. Further, compatibility is also assessed in terms of whether the subject matter of a complaint related to violations of rights protected under a given instrument. Thus where a complaint does not raise violations of rights guaranteed expressly or by implication under the Charter, the Communication will be declared inadmissible.11 132. Furthermore, compatibility is also considered in terms of the parties to a Communication. This in common usage is termed compatibility ratione personae. The requirement in this regard is that a Communication must be submitted by a party who is legally permitted to submit a complaint, and against a State Party to the Charter.12 By this rule, a Communication is deemed incompatible with the Charter if it is brought against a state which is not a party. 133. Similarly, subject to recognised exceptions, compatibility is considered with respect to the territorial location of the alleged violations, also termed compatibility ratione loci. This is closely linked to establishing compatibility ratione personae with regard to the respondent state. The fundamental principle of international customary law regarding treaties is that “unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory’.13 134. On this point, the Commission notes the difference between Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 1 of the African Charter: the former expressly limits the application of the ICCPR to within the territory and jurisdiction of a State Party. The latter by contrast does not expressly limit the application of the Charter within the territory and jurisdiction of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) adopted 23 May 1969, Art. 28. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of State for International Wrongful Acts, adopted 2001, Art. 13 10 Island of Palmas (Netherlands/United States of America), UNRIAA, vol. II (Sales No. 1949.V.1), p. 829, at p. 845 (1928). 11 Communication 1/88 - Frederick Korvah v Liberia (1994) ACHPR para 4 12 Communication 266/03 - Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v Cameroon (2009) ACHPR para 71 13 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, n 8 above, Art 29 8 9 25