other than from States Parties. Article 56 of the African Charter provides that the
admissibility of a communication submitted pursuant to Article 55 is subject to
seven (7)conditions.
58. The Complainants have argued that this Communication satisfies the admissibility
conditions set out in Article 56 of the African Charter and as such, the
communication should be declared admissible. The Commission upholds
cumulative application of the conditions laid down in Article 56, meaning that if any
one of the conditions is absent, the communication will be declared inadmissible.
59. Article 56(1) of the African Charter states that Communications received by the
Commission should 'indicate their authors even if the latter requests anonymity'. In
the present case the alleged victims are Rose ModongSamuel. Isaac Jugar,
Hellen Ojaba and John Gerry who is also the authorand legal representative of
the complainants in this case and whose full details are provided in the
complaint. Thus, the Commission holds that the ~Qmmul'l~c~,ti9nC'§q~pF~~
~ith
the requirement under Article 56(1) of the African Charter.'
"
'", '
60. The second requirement under Article 56(2) of the African Gllarter
is that
~~th~
Communications should be compatible with the Constitutive Act O'FtheAfrican
Union (the Constitutive Act) or with the African Charter.
t,
• 'j
v
i'l~~jr'~~,
:!
61. The Commission stated in Law Society' of Zimbabwe ~ Zimbabwe 3 that the
compatibility of a Communication with the Constitutive Act of the African Union is
based on its compatibility with tq~.9.bjectives anQ:Rrinciples enshrined in the Act,
and more specifically on whether the requests in;lhe Communication would not
contravene the objectives or principles expressed in the Act. In this regard, the
Commission notes that neither the me{}Hs",
nor the requests contained in the
Communication violate any of the principles adopted under the Constitutive Act of
the African Union.
62. The Q~mpatibility with the African charter has been interpreted- by the
Commission to mean that:
1.
The Cwnmunic,ation should be brought against a State party to the African
Charter;
, , '(::':,
11.
The Communication must allege prima facie violations of rights protected by
the African Charter; and
iii. The Communication should be brought in respect of violations that occurred
after [the] State's ratification of the African Charter, or where violations
began before the State Party ratified the African Charter, have continued even
after such ratification.
i
~O"'HUM~'~,
63. The Complainants in this Communication allege that the rights
~<t~EiTr\~/1;~.
the following Articles of the African Charter have been viol, ~d
'.e
«c..;
Respondent State: Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ~, 10(1): 12(1) and (2), 1 ,~6( I , 1("
and (3), 25 and 26, and supports the allegations WIth relevant docu -::.
nts socl:e-Of
C'
~
which emanate from the Institutions of the Respondent State.
~,. \
""U,UA
Q-ol!' ""~.!
<oJ
r
o1-~
<:>
'RIC ",Nt Q
'!tCeT ff_<,C'fl,)
~<,
.-
~" ./
~"
..... /
321/2006 - Law Society of Zimbabwe et al vi Zimbabwe (ACHPR 2013), para 67.
'''''''_... _.-.
4 Communication 266/03: Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v Cameroon, (ACHPR 2009), paras 68, 71-72,
77lh Ordinary Session of the ACHPR
11
3 Communication
~,
~