in Bob Njoku vs. Egypt,17 where the Commission “had rightfully rejected the argument of the Respondent States on similar grounds and declared the Communication Admissible”.18 102. The Complainants conclude that the seven admissibility requirements have been effectively complied with in the present Communication and respectfully requested the African Commission to declare the Communication admissible. The African Commission’s analysis on Admissibility 103. The admissibility of Communications submitted before the African Commission pursuant to Article 55 of the African Charter is governed by the seven conditions set out in Article 56 of the African Charter. The Complainants submit that they have complied with all the requirements. However the Respondent State argues that the Communication does not meet certain requirements under Article 56, in particular, Article 56(2), (5) and (7). 104. The African Commission notes that only three of the requirements seem to be in dispute between the parties, but will proceed to examine all seven requirements to ensure they meet the admissibility test. 105. Article 56(1) of the African Charter states that “Communication relating to Human and Peoples’ Rights… received by the Commission shall be considered if they indicate their authors even if the latter request anonymity…”The Communication indicates the authors as well as the victims of the alleged violations, and the African Commission therefore holds that the requirement under Article 56(1) of the African Charter is fulfilled. 106. Article 56(2) of the African Charter states that “Communications…received by the Commission shall be considered if they are compatible with the Charter of the Organization of African Unity or with the present Charter.” The facts reveal that the Communication is brought against the Republic of Ethiopia which became a party to the African Charter 1998, secondly the Communication alleges violations of rights contained in the African Charter. The State argues that the Communication is incompatible with the Charter as it does not indicate any provision of the Article alleged to have been violated. The Commission notes that the Complainants submissions on admissibility details the rights allegedly violated and specifically cited the corresponding Articles of the Charter. The Commission concurs with the Complainants that the Complainants 17 18 Communication 40/90. Comm 40/90 : Bob Njoku vs. Egypt, Para 56. 20