Respondent States' Submissions on Admissibility 45. Out of the fourteen (14) Respondent States which were provided with all the relevant submissions of the Complainant relating to this Communication, only Tanzania and Seychelles reacted to the Admissibility submissions of the Complainant. Seychelles' Submissions on Admissibility 46. Seychelles sent a one-paged Note Verbale, reacting to the complaint and Admissibility submissions of the Complainant by indicating that it is not a direct party to the issues raised in the Communication and further indicating that it would "adopt the submissions made by the 1st Respondent (the Summit of the Heads of State or the Governments of SADC) and the 2nd Respondent (Council of Ministers of SADC) on the issue of admissibility."10 Tanzania's Submissions on Admissibility 47. On its part, Tanzania provided a detailed counter-argument on the Admissibility of the Communication, on the basis of the requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter, contending that the Communication has not fulfilled the provisions of the same. Preliminary Objection raised by Tanzania regarding the Commission's jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae 48. As a preliminary issue, Tanzania requires the Commission to address whether, as an organ of the AU, it can determine a complaint filed against another sub-regional organ and its members and consequently, whether it has a mandate to proceed to issue an order against SADC and its member States. Tanzania therefore prayed the Commission to dismiss the Communication for lack of jurisdiction. Submissions under Article 56 49. Concerning Article 56(1) of the Charter, Tanzania contends that while the authors' names have been indicated in the Communication, the relevance of the latter author to the Communication- Benjamin John Freeth, has not been clearly established and that neither his nationality nor profession/occupation is known. 50. Regarding Article 56(2) of the African Charter, Tanzania disputes the fact that the Complainant has met all requirements related to the compatibility of the African Charter in so far as the material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction is concerned. Tanzania contends that the provisions of the African Charter alleged to have been violated are irrelevant to the facts giving rise to the Complainant and do not in any way, establish any prima facie violation of either the African Charter or Principles of the OAU Charter, as the referenced articles deal with criminal law procedures and national courts, as opposed to the SADC Tribunal which is a sub-regional organ of the Community. It also submits that the format adopted by the Complainant, that is, in the form of affidavits, is incompatible with the one prescribed by the Commission, and that the Communication transgressed the Guidelines on Communications by including the SADC Summit and the SADC Council which are not by definition, States Parties to the African Charter. 51. Tanzania argues that the Commission is not mandated to deal with the claims of the Complainant, either by the express provision of the African Charter or by any necessary implication. Relying on the decision of the African Court in the case of Femi Falana vs. The African Union11 , it contends that neither SADC nor its organs which have been joined in the Communication are parties to the African Charter to be able to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission or mandate to deal with the Communication. It further argues that the obligations of Tanzania arising under the SADC Treaty are completely different from those arising under the African Charter and as such, the Complainant may not use facts arising from SADC to file a Communication under the African Charter. 52. With respect to the material jurisdiction (ratione materiae) of the Commission, Tanzania avers that the issues raised by the Complainant regarding access to the Tribunal are issues which can be raised and dealt with at the level of the SADC as an international organisation and a sub-regional organ, which has been given exclusive jurisdiction to deal with such community issues. In support of its argument, Tanzania relies on the case of The matter of Efoua Mbozo'o Samuel vs. the Pan African Parliament.12 53. Tanzania argues that in view of all the foregoing, the Complainant is inviting the Commission to deal with an issue, which falls outside of the latter's material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. 5