EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 153 review. The State submits that the President’s powers in this instance are not judicial but administrative and hence cannot undermine the powers of the judiciary. 48. The Respondent State avers that at no point did the High Court and the Supreme Court made a final determination on the merits of the case other than being confined to the technical points that had been raised by either party. In this case, the High Court ruled that the Buhera District was the proper forum to deal with the dispute in terms of Section 8 of the Communal Lands Act and that an appeal from the Council would lie with the President in terms of Section 8(4) of the Act. 49. Although an appeal against the Council’s decision is claimed to have been filed to the President, through the Ministry of Local Government, the Respondent State submits that the said Ministry does not have the appeal. 50. Based on the above submission, the Respondent State avers that the Communication is inadmissible. The Commission’s Analysis on Admissibility 51. Article 56 of the African Charter provides seven requirements based on which the African Commission assesses the admissibility or otherwise of communications submitted to it. 52. Even though the Respondent State contests the Admissibility of the Communication on the basis of only three provisions of the Charter, namely; Articles 56(2), (5) and (6), the Commission will proceed to analyse all the seven admissibility requirements provided under Article 56 of the Charter. 53. Article 56(1) of the 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 Samuel T. Muserengwa and 110 families, and the author of the Communication is Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights whose address is disclosed in the Communication. Neither the alleged victims nor the author of the Communication has requested anonymity. The Respondent State has not contested this fact. Thus, the Commission holds that the Communication fulfils the requirement under Article 56(1) of the Charter. 54. The second requirement under Article 56(2) of the Charter requires communications to be compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union or with the African Charter. The Complainant in the present Communication catalogues a number of rights guaranteed in the Charter alleged to have been violated by the Respondent State. The Respondent State on the other hand argues that the Complaint has failed to meet the requirement as it does not