States who do decide to engage. Finally, given that the submissions of States are not allowed in all cases, but only in cases where the Commission had not yet proceeded to make a determination on the facts before it, following the deadline for the submission, the Commission views the benefit of allowing the submissions in such a case as outweighing the potential harm. 38. For these reasons, the Commission decided to dismiss the preliminary objection and admit the admissibility submissions of the Respondent State. Admissibility The Complainant's Submissions on Admissibility 39. The Complainant submits that the Communication meets all the cumulative criteria of admissibility as set out in Article 56 of the African Charter, and therefor requests the Commission to declare the Communication admissible. 40. On Article 56(1) the Complainant submits that the authors of the Communication have been identified, being the organisations authorised to act as legal representatives of the Complainant, as set out in paragraph 1 above. The Complainant further submits that an address had been provided for correspondence with the authors. In addition, the Complainant himself, Mr Hassan Ishag Ahmed has also been identified and is not requesting that his identity be withheld from the Respondent State. He submits that thus Article 56(1) has been met. 41. On Article 56(2), the Complainant submits that the Communication is compatible with the Charter, citing previous decisions of the Commission setting out the three criteria for this requirement as being that the Communication must be brought against a State Party to the Charter by someone who is competent to do so, that the violation complained of should have occurred or continued after ratification of the Charter by the State and that the Communication must allege prima facie violations of rights protected in the Charter. 42. In response to the first requirement, the Complainant submits that he is a national of the Respondent State, and that the Respondent State is a State Party to the Charter, and that therefore the Complaint was brought by someone who was competent to do so. Secondly, the Complainant submits that the violations took place during 2014, which is after the date of ratification by the Respondent State on 18 February 1986. Finally, the Complainant submits that the that "one is presumed Commission in respect of prima fade violations has h to have presented a prima facie case [... ] w "' ~u!f~~ts; • resented in the Complaint show that a human rights viol £ ..,,~ ~ETA~~el{ ~ -o curred". The I <.,. o • 1./• u ul I z ;l o 0 ~'2, ct -;, ~ "".s. ¾ AU-UA ~ ~ -'l " RJCA1~t ~ ⇒ c,, .r,a ------ ',).,,...,0 ,.,,,,I / \\. ~ f ( i?" 9~v 8j Page