EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 154 establish a prima facie violation of rights and freedoms, or the basic principles of the Constitutive Act of AU such as ‘freedom, equality, justice and dignity’. The Respondent State submits that there is no prima facie case because the dispute in question is between two private parties and does not involve the State at all, and that the eviction was carried out by a non-state organ, in execution of a court order. 55. 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”.49 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. 56. Therefore, one is presumed to have presented a prima facie case or shown a prima facie violation of rights and freedoms under the Charter, when the facts presented in the Complaint show that a human rights violation has likely occurred. The Complaint should be one that compels the conclusion that a human rights violation has occurred if not contradicted or rebutted by the Respondent State. 57. In the case at hand the Complaint alleges a violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 10(1), 13(1) and (3), 14, 16, 17, 18(1) and (4), 21 and 22 of the African Charter supported by court orders and other pertinent documents. The allegations in this Communication are specific enough to establish a prima facie case. Therefore, the present Communication is based on alleged violations of the Charter and hence fulfills the ratione materiae requirement. 58. The ratione personae and ratio temporis requirements have also been met. The Complainants, as indicated above in paragraph 51, have the standing to bring the case before the Commission and hence meet the ratione personae requirement, and the alleged human rights violations occurred within the period of the Charter’s application to the State, which is also a fact that is uncontested by the Respondent State confirming that the ratio temporis requirement is also complied with. The last requirement under this provision is the ratione loci, which provides that States Parties to the African Charter are responsible for violations that occur within their territory. While whether the alleged violations were committed by state actors directly or by private individuals is something that would be looked into at the Merits stage, at this stage it suffice to proof that the alleged violation occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Respondent State, which according to the Commission the Complainant satisfactorily did. 49 Henry Campbell Black et al, Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed. (1990) 1189.