namely: (i) the persons involved as parties to the complaint - the Communication must be filed by a rights-bearer under the African Charter against a State party to the African Charter; (ii) the subject matter of the complaint - in that the Communication must allege prima facie violations of rights protected by the African Charter; (iii) the time the impugned events occurred relative to the time the African Charter became applicable to the Respondent State - pursuant to which Communications must allege violations that occurred after the respondent State's ratification of the African Charter, or where the violations began before the State Party ratified the African Charter, the violations must have continued after such ratification; and (iv) the location or territorial jurisdiction where the impugned events occurred - which requires that the alleged violations must have taken place in the State/under the effective control or authority of the Respondent State.40 70. In light of the above requirements, the Commission observes that the present Communication alleges violations of the Victim's rights: to dignity and consequent protection from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; to personal liberty and security of person; to have his cause heard; to freedom of expression; and to be protected from the Respondent State from the violation of his rights by taking requisite measures; thus setting out, prima facie, that Articles 5, 6, 7, 9 and 1, respectively, of the African Charter, have been violated. The substantive determination of whether the alleged facts do, in fact, amount to a breach of the referenced Articles of the African Charter, is not a matter for Admissibility but for the Merits stage.41 71. Article 56(3) of the African Charter states that "Communications ... received by the Commission shall be considered if they ... are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organisation of African Unity [now African Union]." The Commission has interpreted these terminologies in its jurisprudence, stating that " ... disparaging means "to speak slightingly [sic] of... or to belittle and insulting means to abuse scornfully or to offend the self-respect or modesty of... ". The language must be aimed at undermining the integrity and status of the institution and bring (sic) it into disrepute"42 and "insulting means to abuse scornfully or to offend the self-respect or modesty of... "43 72. In view of the above interpretation, the African Commission finds that the Communication does not contain disparaging or insulting language directed against the Respondent State nor its institutions, and therefore satisfies the requirement under Article 56(3) of the African Charter. 73. Article 56( 4) of the African Charter states that "Communications ... received by the Commission shall be considered if they ... are not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media". The African Commission has explained in 40 Communication 266/03- Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al vs. Cameroon (2009) ACHPR, paras 71 . /.~ 41 See Communication 333/2006 - Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others vs. Tanza~ tGbfl?,R, {2~10); paras 55-66. . - ...,~"" ____ .., 42Communication 268/03 -1/esanmi vs. Nigeria (2005) ACHPR para 39. See also paras 37-40. . "" "u 43 Communication 284/03 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Anor v. Zimbabwe (2009) ACHPR, ara ,88. See a ~o.::i '_ paras 83-97. ., '- .' I t \\ 's.. 't.. •;,s /,\J IJP. ......__ ~ a " '- I