being claimed by the State in its submission. The facts which form the basis of the communication, it contends, have been verified. For the complainant NGOs, both the FIDH and its affiliates in Senegal and other international human rights protection institutions such as the UN Human Rights Commission [sic], had previously denounced the human rights violations committed in the context of the electoral process in Senegal. 32. With regard to the identification of the victims, the Complainant NGOs recall that Article 56(1) of the [African] Charter simply requires that the identity of the authors of a communication be mentioned. They base their argument on the position of the [African] Commission in its decision on communications in which case the [African] Commission had felt that the "authors do not necessarily have to be the victims or members of their family". The NGOs also recall in their favour the decision of the [African] Commission according to which Article 56(1) does not require that the names "of all the victims of the alleged violations" be indicated ( communication 159/96, Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme, Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'Homme, Rencontre africaine des droits de l'Homme, Organisation nationale des droits de l'Homme au Sénégal and Association malienne des droits de l'Homme /Angola). 33. Concerning the exhaustion of local remedies, the Complainants recall that according to the terms of the Constitution of the Republic of Senegal, the international conventions have a supra-legislative value, that some of them, the African Charter included, having been cited in the preamble, even form an integral part of this constitutionality, and that the Constitutional Council is the sole competent body to rule on the constitutionality of a law. They also recall that the decisions of the Constitutional Council cannot be appealed and that only the President of the Republic, one tenth of the Members of the National Assembly, the National Council or the Court of Appeal are empowered, when an exception of unconstitutionality is brought before them, to seize the Constitutional Council. They therefore conclude that the decision of the Constitutional Council declaring that the disputed law is in conformity with the Constitution makes it impossible for anybody to challenge this law before the national courts. 34. The Complainant NGOs recall in conclusion that their communication had been submitted within a reasonable time frame and that they had not instituted any other international legal proceedings. 35. In their oral submission before the African Commission during the 40th Session, the Complainants recalled that the communication had not been drafted in abusive or insulting language. Furthermore, they re-affirm that the Constitutional Council had already made a ruling on the law in question, and that the decision of the Constitutional Council could not be subjected to any appeal. The Complainants further contended that if remedies of a civil nature are guaranteed by the law being challenged, the amnesty law makes it impossible for any kind of criminal punishment to be meted out against the perpetrators of crimes, thereby supporting impunity in Senegal. 36. The Complainants invite the [African] Commission to declare the communication admissible. Decision of the [African] Commission 37. The admissibility of communications presented in conformity with the terms of Article 55 of the Charter is governed by Article 56 of the African Charter which stipulates that: "The communications referred to in Article 55 received by the Commission and pertaining to human and peoples' rights should necessarily, to be considered, fulfill the following conditions: 1. Indicate the identity of the author even if the latter requests the Commission to maintain his/her anonymity; 2. Should be compatible with the Charter of the Organization of African Unity or with the present Charter 3. Should not contain language which is abusive or insulting towards the implicated State, its institutions or the OAU; 4. Should not limit itself to gathering only the information broadcast by the mass media; 5. Should be subsequent to the exhaustion of local remedies, if any, unless it is clear to the Commission that the procedure of these remedies is unduly prolonged; 6. Should be submitted within a reasonable time frame starting from the exhaustion of local remedies or from the date stipulated by the Commission as being the beginning of the deadline to its own seizure. 7. Should not pertain to cases which have been settled in conformity with either the principles of the Charter of the [UN] or the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity or the provisions of this 4