125. To begin with, Article 56(1) of the African Charter provides that
Communications received by the Commission under Article 55 of the Charter shall
be considered if they indicate their authors even if the latter requests anonymity.
There is no issue that arises upon this requirement as between the parties. The
Commission does not also reckon any issue as the Complainant and his legal
representatives are clearly indicated with full contact details. Article 56(1) of the
Charter is accordingly satisfied.
126. Secondly, Article 56(2) of the Charter requires that the Communication must
be compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and with the Charter
itself. As can be noted from the recount of the parties’ arguments above, this is one
of the conditions which have been profoundly contested by the Respondent State
and in respect of which both parties have exchanged incessant arguments.
127. The Commission wishes to observe that its jurisprudence has kept evolving
toward more clarity on what ‘compatibility’ with the Charter entails. In developing its
jurisprudence generally and on compatibility in particular, the Commission as with
other bodies, has always recognised that the Charter must so far as possible be
interpreted in harmony with other relevant rules of international law which it forms
part of.5
128. In this regard, the Commission wishes to note that ‘compatibility’ is not
defined in the Charter or its Rules of Procedure. However the Commission has
adopted the understanding that ‘compatibility’ generally denotes ‘in compliance
with’ and ‘in conformity with’ or not contrary to’ or ‘against’”.6
129. More importantly, the Commission recognises and is informed by principles
of international law in assessing compatibility with the Charter. For example where,
among other reasons, a Communication alleges violations which occurred at a time
when the Respondent State was not yet a Party to the Charter, and such violations
are not continuing after the Respondent State becomes a Party, the Communication
is declared inadmissible.7 This is in accordance with the principle of international
law that
Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its
provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any
Jones & Others v The United Kingdom (20140 ECHR (Applications Nos. 34356/06 & 40528/06) para 189
Communication 307/05 - Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (2007) ACHPR para 48
7 Communication 142/94 - Muthuthurin Njoka v Kenya (1995) ACHPR para 5;
5
6
24