Complainant is purported to be the Freedom and Justice Party, which would be a juridical person, as it was a political party with separate legal existence from the natural persons who established it. However, as is clear from the submissions of the Respondent State, the Freedom and Justice Party was dissolved by a sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court in 2014. It is trite law that duties and rights only accrue to juridical persons if they are recognized by law. As there is no evidence provided by the Complainants that the Freedom and Justice Party was subsequently registered in another jurisdiction, the Commission finds that legally it does not exist, and is thus not able to bring a Complaint before the Commission. 67. It should be noted, however, that the situation would have been dealt with differently if the Complainant had been dissolved following the submission of a Complaint against the Respondent State. In the present case three (3) years passed from its dissolution to the submission of the Complaint. However, the decision reached by the Commission in the present Communication would not have applied if its dissolution followed on the submission of the Complaint, as that would lead to a situation where States may dissolve any nationally registered juridical persons which brought a case against it. 68. Having found that the Complainant does not have locus standi, the Commission will not analyze the other arguments of the RespondentState in this regard. The Commission thus finds that the requirements under Article 56 (1) have not been met. 69. In relation to Article 56 (2) the Complainant states that the Communication is compatible with the African Charter demonstrate prima [aoie Respo because violations the facts of Articles contained 4, 5, 6 within and it 7 of the are sufficient Charter, to that the dent State has been a Party to the African Charter since 1981 and that the matters addressed in the Communication occurred after the Charter became applicable in the territory of the Respondent State. The Commission notes that the Respondent State ratified the Africa Charter in 1984 and the alleged violations occurred in 2017 thus after ratification. Furthermore, the alleged facts as set out in paragraphs 3 to 14 above demonstrate prima facie violations. The Commission thus finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under Article 56 (2) of the African Charter. 70. In relation to the requirement in Article 56 (3) the Complainant submits that there is nothing disparaging or insulting in the present Communication and that it records factual events. The Commission has in reading the Complaint not come across anything which would amount to disparaging or insulting language. �-�mmission therefore finds \111,\;,!.�\lft[l� , that the requirements of Article 56 (3) have been me ,•'\,,«"'" ,,, e ·� 1,1_�-0 ...,'(, ,r r�; rrt ;�1 1 \\" '4, \ "' '1 ""' Is � p_\j-lJ � r.,,, "' S,t.Yli.;c"i' f:(:5 /i ..;·, ,1,i·, "' ;;2'.··� ·�t�_:t;,:;.-;,- I 15