construction be given to Article 56 in order to give effect to the spirit of the African Charter. 70. The thrust of the Respondent State‟s submissions is that though originally properly before the African Commission, the Communication is now without an author to pursue it as a result of Kobedi‟s execution. Accordingly, the Communication should be declared Inadmissible because the present authors 71. AC HP R pursuing the matter are without a mandate cum locus standi. The objection raised by the Respondent State raises the issue of whether or not the Complainants‟ in this Communication have locus standi before the African Commission, that is, whether Messrs Brain Spilg SC and Unoda Mack have any legal interest in the matter so as to assume authorship of it on Kobedi‟s behalf. This issue also interrogates the principle of actio popularis within the context of the African Charter. African Commission’s Ruling on the Preliminary Determination on Locus Standi 72. Having looked at the Admissibility requirement under Article 56 and bearing in mind the objections raised by the Respondent State on the locus standi of the Complainants, the African Commission decides as follows: 73. The African Commission notes that neither the African Charter nor its Rules of Procedure makes provisions on the locus standi of parties before it. In fact, the only Charter provision that could bear any relevance to the issue of locus standi is Article 56(1) of the African Charter. This provision relates to authors of a Communication submitted before the African Commission and provides: “Communications relating to Human and Peoples‟ Rights referred to in Article 55 received by the Commission shall be considered if they: 14