60. The State argued that the communication was submitted 22 months after the alleged violation, which according to the State “was filed well out of time”. On Complainant’s submission that he had been seeking psycho therapy treatment, the State argued that [the] Complainant had been the centre of attraction in South Africa since 2004, demonising the Respondent State, adding that articles published by [the] Complainant in the South African press do not show someone with a psychological ailment. The State added that no proof had been given of the alleged treatment or an expert diagnosis of how such condition was acquired. On [the] Complainant’s claim that he had no resources, the State argued that he had his pension benefits which he could have used to submit his complaint to the Commission. 61. The State concluded its submissions by noting that “no cogent reasons have been given for the failure to pursue local remedies or remedies before the Commission within a reasonable time”, and as such the communication should be declared inadmissible. Competence of the African Commission 62. In the present communication, the Respondent State raises a question regarding the competence of the African Commission to deal with this communication. The State avers that: “... basically the facts and issues in dispute do not fall within the rationae materae and rationae personae of the jurisdiction of the Commission”. This statement thus challenges the competence of the African Commission to deal with this communication. The Commission will thus, first deal with the preliminary issue of its competence raised by the Respondent State. 63. Black’s Law Dictionary defines rationae materae as “by reason of the matter involved; in consequence of, or from the nature of, the subject-matter”. While rationae personae is defined as “By 4 reason of the person concerned; from the character of the person". 64. Given the nature of the allegations contained in the communication, such as allegations of violation of personal integrity or security, intimidation and torture, the Commission is of the view that the communication raises material elements which may constitute human rights violation, and as such, it has competence rationae materae to deal with the matter, because the communication alleges violations to human rights protected in the Charter. With regards to the Commission's competencerationae personae, the communication indicates the name of the author, an individual, whose rights under the African Charter, the Respondent State is committed to respecting and protecting. With regards to the State, the Commission notes that Zimbabwe, the Respondent State in this case, has been a State Party to the African Charter since 1986. Therefore, both the Complainant and the State have locus standi before the Commission, and the Commission thus has competence rationae personae to examine the communication. 65. Having decided that it has competence rationae materae and rationae personae, the African Commission will now proceed to pronounce on the admissibility requirements and the contentious areas between the parties. Decision of the African Commission on admissibility 66. The admissibility of communications before the African Commission is determined by the requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter. This article provides seven requirements which must all be met before the Commission can consider and declare a communication admissible. It one of the conditions/requirements is not met the Commission shall declare the Communication inadmissible, unless the Complainant provides justifications why any of the requirements could not be met. 67. ln the present communication, the Complainant avers that his complaint meets the requirements under Articles 56 (1) to(4), (6) and (7). He admits that he did not attempt to comply with the requirement provided under Article 56.5 dealing with the exhaustion of local remedies, but added that given the nature of his case, and the circumstances under which he left the Respondent State, and is living in South Africa, the exception rule under this sub-section of Article 56, should be invoked. 68. The State on the other hand argues that the Complainant thus not complied with the provisions of Articles 56 (2), (5) and(6) of the Charter, and urges the Commission to declare the communication inadmissible, based on non-compliance with these requirements.