71. Relying on the Commission's decision in Tsatsu Tsikata v Republic of Ghana,28 he submits that the Commission would only uphold an argument based on Article 56(3) in exceptional circumstances, because the cause of action necessarily requires to be pleaded in terms which cast some aspersion on the entities concerned. He argues that by its argument, Tanzania is effectively contending that Communications be cast in terms hardly capable of conveying a cause of action, and which would fetter even the Commission in formulating findings of fact and conclusion of law. 72. Regarding Tanzania's argument on the requirement of Article 56(4), the Complainant argues that there is no further need for verifying the truth of the facts underlying the allegations, the veracity of which is demonstrated by the text of formal resolutions, and in respect of which "none of the Respondent States has sought to present contrary evidence, dissociate themselves from the impugned decision, qualify it or cast it in a different light.29 73. He also submits regarding the exhaustion of local remedies that the Victims exhausted every necessary legal remedy and that the suspension of the Tribunal also frustrated their attempt to exhaust domestic remedies (by approaching the Tribunal). In response to Tanzania's contention that the Victims failed to pursue domestic remedies in the municipal courts of the Respondent States, including Tanzania, he argues that the breach of international law obligations are only justiciable in an international forum of competent jurisdiction. Further that the municipal courts of Tanzania are not "domestic" to the Victims and Article 56(5) cannot be interpreted to contemplate absurdity as the import of Tanzania' argument would be that the Complainant would be required to pursue local remedies in the fourteen Respondent States. 74. Relying on the jurisprudence of the Commission,30 the Complainant contends that the Commission will not hold the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies to apply literally in cases where it is believed that this exercise would be futile. 75. Regarding Tanzania's argument that the Victims are bound by Article 32(5) of the SADC Protocol to await the decision of the SADC Summit regarding their reference on Zimbabwe, the Complainant reiterates that the Victims' complaint is that the Tribunal has been suspended, not that Zimbabwe repudiated its rulings. 76. The Complainant also disputes Tanzania's contention that the Communication has not been submitted within a reasonable time as required under Article 56(6) of the African Charter and submits that the "final [sic] decision suspending the Tribunal"31 was taken on 20 May, 2011, and not August 2010, as stated by Tanzania, and that in effect, the Communication had been submitted about two months after the Victims' cause of action arose. 77. Finally, the Complainant submits that Tanzania misconstrues the Admissibility requirement under Article 56(7) by stating that this requirement has not been met as the subject matter of the Communication is currently being dealt with in another international/sub regional organ - SADC. He submits that Article 56(7) does not apply to matters which are "still under consideration", but matters which have already been settled by the States involved "in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter". Furthermore, he submits that the SADC Summit's purported "review" of the matter is not in accordance with the principles of the referenced international instruments as none of them allow for the review, suspension or termination of an international court's jurisdiction by the executive arm of the same organisation, especially as an independent judiciary is an essential branch of the organisation as established by its constitutive instrument. Decision of the Commission on the preliminary issue of its jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae 78. Tanzania raises objections to the Commission's exercise of jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae and requests the Commission to determine as a preliminary issue, whether as an organ of the AU, it can consider 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 argues that neither SADC, its summit, Council of Ministers nor Tanzania are parties to the African Charter by merely being a member of SADC, such as to entitle the Complainant/Victims to accrue any cause of action against its organs or member states. 79. From the submissions of Tanzania, the Commission observes that the argument of Tanzania in relation to the jurisdictional objection relates only to the Commission's jurisdiction ratione personae. Nonetheless, the Commission wishes to note that all of the four rationes jurisdictionis required for it to have the 8