(7) conditions, which must be fulfilled by a Complainant for a communication to be declared admissible. 63. Of the seven conditions, the Respondent State claims that the Complainants have not fulfilled four, namely: Articles 56.1,56.2, 56.3 and 56.4. From the submissions of the Respondent State, there is an inference that Article 56.7 has not been fulfilled by the Complainant. 64. The Respondent State submits that contrary to Article 56.1 of the African Charter, the victims of the alleged violations, indicated in the communication have not been identified. 65. Article 56.1 of the African Charter provides that: Communications … received by the Commission shall be considered if they-: (1) Indicate their authors even if the latter request anonymity 66. In this particular matter, the African Commission notes that the authors of the communication have been identified at page 1 of the communication and they are 14 in number. Their ages and professions have also been given as well as their addresses of service. Furthermore, the communication reveals that the authors of the communication are members of the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) and the Southern Cameroons Peoples' Organisation (SCAPO), organisations that were established principally to protect and advance the human and peoples' rights of Southern Cameroonians, including their right to self-determination. 67. Article 56.1 of the African Charter requires a communication to indicate its authors and not the victims of the violations. Thus the present communication cannot be declared inadmissible on the basis of Article 56.1. In coming to this decision, the African Commission would like to refer to its 2 decision in consolidated communication – Malawi African Association et al/ Mauritania where it held that “Article 56.1 demands simply that communications should indicate the names of those submitting and not those of all the victims of the alleged violations”. 68. The Respondent State argues that this communication does not meet the requirements of Article 56.2, because the Complainants are advocating for secession under the pretext of allegations of violation of the provisions of the African Charter and other universal human rights instruments. While conceding that the right to self determination is an inalienable right, the Respondent State argues that the UN has established that this right should not “be interpreted as authorising or encouraging any measure that would partly or wholly compromise the entire territory or the political unity of sovereign and independent States”. The Respondent State submits further that it is established that the only entities likely as peoples to call for the external right to self determination from preexisting States are the “peoples under foreign subjugation, domination and exploitation”. 69. The Complainants argue that the communication meets the requirements in Article 56.2 because it alleges violations of the African Charter and other international human rights instruments. 70. Article 56.2 provides that “Communications… received by the African Commission shall be considered if they: (2) are compatible with the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity or with the present Charter.” 71. The condition relating to compatibility with the African Charter basically requires that: • • • 5 The communication should be brought against a State party to the African Charter ; The communication must allege prima facie violations of rights protected by the African 5 Charter ; The communication should be brought in respect of violations that occurred after [the] State’s ratification of the African Charter, or where violations began before the State Party ratified the 5 African Charter, have continued even after such ratification. 72. It is apparent to the African Commission that the present communication meets all the above requirements. The communication has been brought against Cameroon, which is State party to the African Charter. It reveals prima facieviolations of the African Charter, all of which are alleged to have continued to occur following Cameroon’s ratification of the African Charter. 73. The Respondent State also submits that the communication has been written in disparaging or insulting language. The Respondent State argues that the Complainants’ use of the phrases such as “forceful annexation” and “State sponsored terrorism” to characterise violations by the government of Cameroon against the people of Southern Cameroons, allegedly committed between 1961 and