Respondent State Submission on Admissibility 48. In response to the above submissions, the Respondent State submitted that the Communication does not satisfy the provisions of Article 56 (2) of the African Charter, in that the Complainants have failed to indicate in what capacity they have filed this Communication. 49. The Respondent State argues that it is not sufficient for the Complainants to simply establish that they have an interest in the matter. The Complainants have to go further and establish that the Declaration of Rights has been or is likely to be contravened in respect to themselves. 50. It is argued that not having disclosed in which capacity, and the reason behind, the Complainants approaching the Commission; it should be resolved that the Complainants have no locus standi to institute this matter. 51. It is further argued by the Respondent State that the present Communication does not fall within the contended rationae materiae jurisdiction of the Commission. 52. The Respondent State submitted that there are numerous cases, including but not limited to the case Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe V. Minister of Information in which aggrieved persons have successfully invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on matters affecting fundamental rights. Competence of the Commission 53. In the present Communication, the Respondent State has raised a preliminary issue touching on the competence of the Commission to determine this Communication. The Respondent State avers that: "basically the facts and issues in dispute do not fall within the rationae materae and rationae personae of the jurisdiction of the Commission". This statement is a direct challenge on the jurisdiction of this Commission as it questions the Commission to deal with this Communication. The Commission will first deal with the preliminary issue of its competence to deal with this Communication as raised by the Respondent State. 54. In Communication 307/052 the Commission adequately addressed the meaning of its rationae materiae and rationae personae jurisdictions. 55. Article 45 (2) of the African Charter gives the Commission the mandate to ensure the protection of human and peoples' rights in the African continent. Article 55 of the African Charter further empowers the Commission to receive and adjudicate on Communications touching on the violation of human and peoples' rights in Africa. 56. Given the nature of the allegations contained in the present Communication, notably, allegations of violation of personal rights to own property, the Commission is of the view that the Communication raises material elements which may constitute human rights violation, and as such it has competence rationae materae to entertain the matter, because the Communication alleges violations to human rights guaranteed and protected in the African Charter. 57. With regards to the Commission's competence rationae personae, it is important to underscore the fact that the principle of locus standi is a basic principle in both municipal and international law that qualifies a party with legal capacity to approach any judicial or quasi-judicial body and establishes a nexus between a party and a case. It is generally accepted to mean the "right to appear as a party" before any judicial or quasi-judicial body3 such as the Commission. 58. Although the provisions of Article 55 of the African Charter does not explicitly state those who are eligible to file complaints under this Article, the Commission has adopted the actio popularis approach, a flexible approach that allows everyone including non-victim individuals, NGOs4 and pressure groups5 with interest to file a Communication, for its consideration. 59. All that is requited is for the Complainants to allege is the violation of a recognized Charter right. They need not show that they personally have any specific rights that have been violated. 60. The fact that the Communication indicates the name of the author, and relates to the allege violation of a recognized Charter right which the Respondent State is committed to respecting and protecting, the Commission is of the view that the Complainants have locus standi to institute this Communication. 4