“although it obtained Presidential assent in July 2013, it could not be operational as the other members were not timely appointed save in June 2014. (sic)” 41. The Complainant further submits that Section 4(A) sets out the “procedural” (sic) for a convicted person to apply to the Human Rights Division for an enquiry to be conducted as to whether there exists sufficient fresh and compelling evidence that may satisfy the Human Rights Division that a reference should be made under Section 19A(4) of the Criminal Appel Act. 42. The Complainant submits that the question of “fresh and compelling evidence does not arise,” and further that all the human rights breaches were properly examined by the Court during the trial process. 43. The Complainant avers that he has exhausted all local remedies, as set out in earlier submissions. The Commission’s Analysis on Admissibility 44. The Commission recalls that Article 56 of the African Charter sets out seven requirements that a Communication brought under Article 55 of the African Charter must satisfy in order to be Admissible, which apply conjunctively and cumulatively.2 45. In relation to the requirement in Article 56(1) of the African Charter, which provides that Communications should indicate their authors even if the latter requests anonymity, the Commission notes that the identity and the address of the Complainant has been provided, in addition to the name of the Victim being represented in the Communication. Accordingly the Commission finds that the Communication satisfies Article 56(1) of the African Charter. 46. In accordance with Article 56(2) of the African Charter, the Communication must show a prima facie case3 and must be compatible with both the AU Constitutive Act and the African Charter. 47. In this regard, the Commission notes that the essence of Article 56(2) is that the Commission considers communications if they are compatible with the African Charter. Compatibility requires that the alleged violation should relate to: a right recognized in the Charter (compatibility ratione materiae); an alleged violation by a State Party to the Charter (compatibility ratione personae); and events which occurred within a State Party after the Charter came into force (compatibility ratione temporis).4 2 See Communication 304/2005 - FIDH & Others v Senegal (2006) ACHPR, para 38 See Communication 333/06 - Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network & Others v. Tanzania (2010) ACHPR, para 51 4 Solomon T. Ebobrah, ‘The Admissibility of Cases before The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Who Should do What?’ (2009) MLJ Vol.3, Issue 1, Pg.94 3 6