Communications should be submitted in written form, and addressed to the Secretary General of the OAU (now Chairperson of the AU Commission) and the Chairperson of the African Commission; there is no provision either in the Charter or its Rules of Procedure relating to the prescribed form for Non-State/Individual Communications. 120. The Commission further notes that Article 56 of the Charter has an exhaustive list of admissibility requirements, which do not include the form of the Communication or the manner in which it was received. The Commission therefore holds that the prescribed (and not authorised) form for submission of Communications is not a prerequisite for the admissibility of Communications, and is extraneous to the present issue before the Commission. More so, the present Communication was brought in a written for, albeit addressed to a Commissioner of the African Commission, and the then Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa. A letter to a visiting Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa seemed to have been the most practicable and reliable means for the Complainants to bring the plight of the victims to the African Commission. 121. For these reasons, the Communication Admissible. African Commission declares this THE MERITS COMPLAINANTS’ SUBMISSIONS ON THE MERITS Clarifications Submitted by the Complainants 122. Since the submission of their brief on Admissibility the Complainants have informed the African Commission that they are making some substantial ammendments and clarifications to their initial submissions. 123. It says that in paragraph two of the brief on Admissibility it had alleged violations of Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), 7(2), 25 and 26 of the African Charter and the right to privacy guaranteed under the international conventions to which the Respondent State is a party to. It states that in spite of its efforts and the fact that the violations appear very probable, it has not been able to get evidence to support some of the alleged violations. It has therefore decided to drop its previous claim that Articles 3, 5, 6 and 7(2) are violated for lack of evidence. It 24