58. Thus, the IHRDA contends that it is not required to prove legal interest, but that it suffices to show that it is interested in the protection and promotion of human rights through the African regional mechanism. Similarly, it notes that the “citizenship” of the IHRDA, which is not registered in Ethiopia, is irrelevant to the admissibility of the Communication; and argues that such a restrictive approach would complicate matters where, for one reason or another, the “domestic actors” are unable to lodge complaint themselves before the Commission. It argues that such an approach would insulate the violating states against international scrutiny and foster the culture of impunity, which is at odds with the purpose of the Charter to promote and protect the rights and freedoms of Africans. 59. It further contends that its line of argument is in consonance with the practice of other regional and UN mechanisms, whereby complaints may be lodged on behalf of alleged victims of human rights violations. 60. The IHRDA further contends that with respect to Article 56(1) of the Charter, the provision merely requires that a Communication should “indicate their authors”, and that is designed „to enable the Commission‟s Secretary to remain in contact with the author, to keep him or her informed about the status of the Communication, and to request further information if it is required. The IHRDA disagrees with the Respondent State‟s argument that there is no author to the present Communication, and submits that this is a misconception of the “victim-author” difference. The African Commission’s Decision on Locus standi and Joinder of Parties Locus standi 61. The African Commission notes that neither the African Charter nor the Rules of Procedure of the Commission makes provisions on the locus standi of parties before it. The Commission has however, through its practice and jurisprudence adopted the actio popularis principle allowing everyone the legal interest and capacity to file a Communication, for its consideration. For this purpose, non-victim individuals, groups and NGOs constantly submit Communications to the Commission. Thus, the Commission upholds the argument of the IHRDA on their capacity to approach the Commission in its capacity as an organisation with an interest in the protection and promotion of human rights in Africa under the actio popularis principle. 62. With respect to the argument of the Respondent State that there is no legal interest for the Institute to deal with the case, the Commission has 10