each condition based on the available information.’ Accordingly, the Commission undertakes the following analysis on admissibility on the basis of the Complainant's submissions on Article 56(5), in addition to information provided in the original Complaint. 38. In relation to the requirement in Article 56(1) of the African Charter, which provides that Communications should indicate their authors even if the latter requests anonymity, the Commission notes that the identity and the address of the Complainant is indicated in the Communication,.and accordingly finds that the Communication satisfies Article 56(1) of the Afri 39. In accordance with Article 56(2) of the African Harter, show a prima facie case? and must beompatible wi the African Charter. In relation to the p resent Cc nication, Communication must titutive Act and the Commission notes that it is alleged that Articles 2,3, 4, 5, 6.7, 8, 12, 15, 19, 2 Charter have been violated. These alleged violations fall with e rationae materiae jurisdiction of the Commission. Further, the Respondent State is a State Party to the African Charter, accordingly the Communication falls within the rationae personae jurisdiction of the-Commission. The since the alleged violations took place Commission has rationae temporis jurisdiction, in the petiod from 2012 to 2014, which is well after the ratification of the Charter by the Respondent State in 1992. Given that the Communication is not incompatible with either the AU Constitutive Act or the African. Charter, and.it indicates aprima. facie violation of the African Charter, the Commission, finds that the Communication Charter. © . satisfies Article 56(2) of the African 40. Article 56(3) of the ate Charter provides that Communications shall be considered if they are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed at the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organization of African Unity [now African Union]. In Ilesanmi-v Nigeria the Commission defined disparaging as “to speak slightingly of... or to belittle” and insulting as “to abuse scornfully or to offend the self ® Communication 304/05 — FIDH and others v Senegal (2006) ACHPR para 38; Communication 338/07 - SocioEconomic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Nigeria (2010) ACHPR para 43; and Communication 284/03 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v Zimbabwe (2009) ACHPR para 81; and Communication 299/05 - Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (2006) ACHPR para. 44; Communication 328/06 - Front for the Liberation of the State of Cabinda v Republic of Angola (2013) ACHPR para. 38. ° See Communication 333/06 - Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network & Others v. Tanzania (2010) A Para 51