detention, as well as medical reports in support of the injuries allegedly sustained. 56. Contrary to the Respondent State‟s contention, the Complainant explains the violations committed against the Victim in paragraphs 2 to 10 of his allegations above, which lead to the conclusion that the Victim‟s rights under Articles 4, 5, 6, 7(b) and 14 of the African Charter have been violated by the Respondent State. 57. The African Commission noted in Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzania, that, “The primary consideration of the Commission under Article 56(2) is whether there has been prima facie violation of rights provided by the African Charter.”8 Thus, looking at the submissions of both parties, albeit the Respondent State‟s argument that the allegations made by the Complainant are vague and inconsistent, the African Commission opines that these allegations establish a prima facie case. This is because on the face of it, they reveal violations guaranteed by the African Charter, and consequently fall within the rationae materiae of the African Commission. 58. The African Commission therefore holds that Article 56(2) of the African Charter has been complied with by the Complainant. 59. The second issue of contention in this Communication is the requirement under Article 56(5) of the African Charter. This Article provides that Communications should be “Sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged.” Communication 33/06- Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzania (2008) ACHPR para 51 8 15