competence to consider the Communication are contended by Tanzania in its arguments on Article 56(2) of the Charter32 and that all of these are addressed in the Commission's analysis on Admissibility below. 80. With specific reference to the preliminary objection raised on the Commission's jurisdiction ratione personae, the Commission notes that the complaint, in its original format, listed the "Summit of Heads of State or Government of SADC", the "Council of Ministers of SADC" and the individual Respondent States as respondents. However, the Commission is well aware that it has no jurisdiction over intergovernmental organizations and their organs such as the SADC and its Summit of Heads of State or Government or its Council of Ministers. Therefore, the Commission became seized of the present Communication only in relation to the fourteen Respondent States, in their individual capacities as State parties to the African Charter. 81. Consequent to the above, the Commission holds that the present Communication is not being considered as having been filed against SADC, its Summit or Council of Ministers. It is also not being considered as having been filed against Tanzania by merely being a member of SADC, but as a State party to the African Charter by virtue of its due ratification of the same in the year 1984. Analysis of the Commission on Admissibility 82. It is to be noted that in conformity with Article 57 of the African Charter, all of the fourteen (14) Respondent States were provided with all the relevant submissions of the Complainant relating to this Communication. Article 57 of the African Charter has been interpreted by the Commission to "implicitly indicate... that the State Party to the ... Charter against which the allegation of human rights violations are levelled, is required to consider them in good faith and furnish the Commission with all information at its disposal to enable the latter come to an equitable decision."33 Notwithstanding the import of this provision and the notifications to all of the Respondent States, only Tanzania submitted an argument on the Admissibility of the Communication. 83. On its part, Seychelles expresses the view that it is not a direct party to the issues raised in the Communication and makes no other submission other than relying on any submissions that the SADC organs should have submitted were they parties. Accordingly, Seychelles will be bound by any decision taken by the Commission on the basis of the facts and evidence presented before it. 84. Despite being given ample opportunity to forward their submissions on Admissibility on the matter, Botswana and Mauritius have not provided their Admissibility submissions and the Commission, regrettably, has no option but to proceed with considering the Admissibility of the Communication based on the information at its disposal. 85. The other ten (10) respondents namely Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe neither reacted to the Complainant's submissions nor sent any submissions or correspondence to the Commission regarding the Complaint. The Commission would like to emphasize that the absence of reactions from the relevant Respondent States does not absolve them from the decision that the Commission will arrive at in the consideration of the Admissibility of this Communication, as the relevant States had, by ratifying the African Charter, indicated their commitment to cooperate with the Commission and to abide by all decisions taken by the latter.34 86. Article 56 provides seven requirements which must be cumulatively met before the Commission can declare a Communication admissible. If one of the conditions/requirements is not met, the Commission will declare the Communication inadmissible, unless the Complainant provides sufficient justifications as to why any of the requirements could not be met. 87. In relation to Article 56(1) of the African Charter, the Commission notes that the Communication indicates the Victims as Luke Munyandu Tembani and Benjamin John Freeth, and Norman Tjombe as their legal representative and author of/Complainant in the Communication.35 The Commission notes that the reasons for the requirement under Article 56(1) are "...that the Commission must receive communications with adequate information with a certain degree of specificity concerning the victims"36 and to ensure that the "Commission must be in communication with the author, to know his identity and status, to be assured of his continued interest in the communication and to request supplementary information if the case requires it".37 88. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Victims in this Communication as well as the author/Complainant, are clearly stated as required. It therefore holds that the requirement under Article 56(1) of the African Charter is fulfilled. 9