61. With regards to the Respondent State, the Commission notes that Zimbabwe has been a State Party to the African Charter since 1986. Therefore, both the Complainant and the Respondent State have locus standi before the Commission, and thus the latter has competence rationae personae to examine the Communication before it. 62. Having decided that it has competence rationae materiae and rationae personae, the Commission will now proceed to pronounce on the admissibility requirements and the contentious areas between the parties. Commission' s Analysis on Admissibillty 63. The current Communication is submitted pursuant to Article 55 of the African Charter, which allows the Commission to receive and consider Communications, other than from States Parties. Article 56 of the African Charter provides that the Admissibility of a Communication submitted pursuant to Article 55 of the to seven conditions.6 The Commission has stressed that the conditions laid down in Article 56 of the African Charter are conjunctive, meaning that if any one of them is not satisfied, the Communication will be declared inadmissible. 7 64. The parties to the present Communication seem to agree that five of the conditions set out under Article 56 of the African Charter have been met. They are however in dispute over the application of two of the conditions - 56(2) and 56 (5) of the African Charter. 65. Article 56(2) of the African Charter requires that the Communication must be compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and with the African Charter. 66. Article 56 (5) of the African Charter on its part requires that Communication brought under Article 55 shall be considered only if they "are sent after the exhaustion of local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged". 67. With respect to the Constitutive Act, the Commission will disallow any matter brought before it, which seeks a remedy or redress which if granted, will contravene any of the provision of the said Constitutive Act. Thus, in Katangese's Peoples' Congress V. Zaire8 , a redress which infringed on the doctrine of Uti Possidetis Juris9 enshrined in Article3 × PRINCIPLES Article III:The Member States, in pursuit of the purposes stated in Article II solemnly affirm and declare their adherence to the following principles:1.The sovereign equality of all Member States. 2.Non-interference in the internal affairs of States.3.Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State and for its inalienable right to independent existence.4.Peaceful settlement of disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation or arbitration.5.Unreserved condemnation, in all its forms, of political assassination as well as of subversive activities on the part of neighbouring States or any other States.6.Absolute dedication to the total emancipation of the African territories which are still dependent.7.Affirmation of a policy of non-alignment with regard to all blocs. of the OAU Charter and now in Article 4 (b) of the Constitutive Act, was rejected and the case declared inadmissible. 68. In Kevin Mgwanga Ngumne et al V. Cameroon,10 the Commission, drawing inspiration from its previous decisions affirmed that, the condition relating to compatibility with the African Charter, basically requires that: (a) The communication should be brought against a State party to the African Charter 11 ;(b) The communication must allege prima facie violations of rights protected by the African Charter12 ;(c) The communication should be brought in respect of violations that occurred after ratification of the African Charter or where violations that began before the State Party ratified the African Charter have continued even after such ratification.13 To be in conformity with the African Charter also requires the petition to contain a certain degree of specificity, and that the allegations are not vague.14 The view that the petition should disclose violations of specific Charter rights have now been overtaken by the decision in SERAC et al V. Nigeria. 15 69. A careful examination of the facts and arguments from both parties to the present Communication do not show that the instant Communication is at variance with any part of the Constitutive Act of the African Union or the African Charter. The Commission is therefore of the view that the instant Communication satisfies the provision of Article 56 (2) of the African Charter. 5