69. The African Commission will thus examine each of the provisions under Article 56 of the African Charter, whether it is disputed of not, as the African Commission has a responsibility to ensure that every requirement in Article 56 has been fulfilled before admitting a communication. 70. The requirements under Article 56 of the Charter are meant to ensure that a communication is properly brought before the Commission, and seek to sieve frivolous and vexatious communications before they reach the merits stage. Thus declaring a communication admissible does not mean the Slate Party concerned has violated the provisions of the Charter. It simply means that the communication meets the requirements necessary for it to be considered on the merits. As indicated earlier, for a communication to be declared admissible, it must meet all the requirements under Article 56. Therefore, it a party contends that another party has not complied with one of the requirements, the Commission must pronounce itself on the contentious issues between the parties, as well as the non-contentious issues. 71. Article 56.1 of the African Charter provides that communications will be admitted if they indicate their authors, even if they request anonymity. In the present case the author of this communication is identified as Michael Majuru, he has also not requested that his identity be hidden. The respondent State has also been cleared identified as the Republic of Zimbabwe. Therefore the provision of Article 56.1 has been adequately complied with. 72. Article 56.2 of the African Charter provides that a communication must be compatible with the Charter of the OAU (now Constitutive Act of the African Union) or with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights In the present communication, the Respondent State argues that the communication does not comply with this requirement. The State asserts in this regard that, for a complaint to be compatible with the Charter or the Constitutive Act, it must prove a prima facie violation of the Charter. 5 73. Compatibility denotes ‘in compliance’ or ‘in conformity with’ or ‘not contrary to’ or ‘against’. In the present communication, the Complainant alleges among others, violations of his right to personal integrity and being subjected to intimidation, harassment and psychological torture lie alleges further that agents of the intelligence service of the Respondent State constantly harassed him and prevented him from exercising his duties freely. These allegations do raise a prima facieviolation of human rights. In particular, the right to the security of the person or personal integrity and the fight to work under satisfactory condition as stipulated in the Charter. In the jurisprudence of this Commission, Complainants need not specify which articles of the Charter have been violated, or even which right is being invoked, so long as they have raised the substance of the issue in question. That, in the view of the Commission, has been established in this case. Based on the above, the African Commission is satisfied that the requirement of Article 56.2 of the African Charter has been sufficiently compiled with. 74. Article 56.3 of the Charter provides that a communication will be admitted if they are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organisation of African Unity (now the African Union). In the present case, the communication sent by the Complainant, does not, in the view of the, African Commission, contain any disparaging or insulting language, and as a result of this, the requirement of Article 56.3 has been fulfilled. 75. Article 56.4 of the Charter provides that the communication must not be based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. This communication was submitted by the Complainant himself and gives an account of his personal experience with the law enforcement agents of the Respondent State. As a result of this, the requirement of Article 56.4 has also been met. 76. Article 56.5 of the Charter provides that a communication will be admitted only after all local remedies have been exhausted. The Respondent State contends that the Complainant has not brought his case before the courts of the State in compliance with this provision of the Charter. The State argues that there are sufficient and effective local remedies available to the Complainant in the State, and the Complainant has not sought these remedies before bringing the present communication before the Commission. On the other hand, the Complainant argues that since he had to flee the country due to fear for his life, he could not come back to the country to pursue these local remedies. 77. The rationale for the exhaustion of local remedies is to ensure that before proceedings are brought before an international body, the State concerned must have the opportunity to remedy the