180. In short, whereas the Commission recognises the rule of international law enunciated in the Monetary Gold Case, it however holds the view that so far as it relates to violations of human rights and of such gravity as torture in particular, the mere fact that the conduct of a third state would as of necessity have to be examined will not absolve a State Party from accounting for its obligations duly undertaken under the Charter. 181. Thus, the mere fact that the conduct of the United States of America would as of necessity have been examined in the present Communication would not have absolved the Republic of Djibouti from accounting for its obligations under the Charter, had the Complainant established his presence in Djibouti, a fact the Commission has not so found. 182. In terms of its jurisprudence, since the conditions under Article 56 of the Charter are cumulative, where a communication fails to satisfy one condition, it is inadmissible. The Complainant has not satisfactorily made out the Communication’s compatibility with the Charter ratione loci. This being a threshold requirement which has to be made out conclusively at the admissibility stage, the Commission does not find it necessary to consider the remaining conditions. The African Commission’s Decision on Admissibility 183. In view of the foregoing, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights declares this Communication Inadmissible for incompatibility with the Charter in terms of Article 56(2) of the Charter. Done in Luanda, Angola during the 55th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, 28 April to 12 May 2014 37