attention of the Commission. However, having discovered that there is a pending Communication before the Commission – i.e., based on the same facts and alleged violations, it decided to apply to the African Commission to be joined as a co-author of this Communication, rather than bring a fresh Communication. The IHRDA notes that the original author of the Communication has abandoned it and will not appear before the Commission anymore due to clear and present threat against her life, and as a consequence has refused to speak with the Institute or anyone. 54. The interest of the IHRDA in this matter, especially now that original author has abandoned the matter is stated to be related to its principal objective, which is “providing necessary assistance and expertise…” and supported by the principle of actio popularis. Response from the Respondent State 55. The Respondent State argues in their oral submissions that the IHRDA is not registered in Ethiopia and has no relationship with the victims, and therefore does not have a “legal interest” in the Communication. The IHRDA’s Response to the Submissions of the Respondent State 56. The IHRDA argues that there is no requirement of “citizenship” or “legal interest” in the provisions of Article 56(1) of the Charter which refers to the authorship of Communications (under the admissibility requirements) before the Commission. More so, it argues, neither the Charter‟s provisions nor the practice of the Commission imposes any limitation on the locus standi of authors of Communications. 57. According to the IHRDA, Article 56 of the Charter provides for seven admissibility requirements, and that the list therein is exhaustive, adding that “Legal Interest” and “Citizenship” requirements as argued by the Respondent State do not feature under the admissibility requirements under Article 56, and are therefore at odds with the Charter. It further argues that introducing these additional requirements to the admissibility requirements under the Charter would be tantamount to reviewing the Charter, which the Respondent State lacks the power to do. It notes that respect for the existing text is the practice of international mechanisms in general and of the African Commission, in particular. The IHRDA notes further that introducing additional requirements to the admissibility requirements under the Charter would render the Commission inaccessible, thereby defeating the intention of the drafters of the Charter, which encourages, rather than stifles, the submission of human rights violations to the Commission. 9