32. The Respondent State submits that it is an established principle that a Communication must comply with all the conditions laid down under Article 56 of the African Charter for it to be admissible. The Respondent State avers that the Complainant has failed to comply with Articles 56(2) and 56(5) of the African Charter. 33. In relation to Article 56(2), the Respondent State submits that compatibility with the African Charter entails that a Communication should prove prima facie case of violation of specified Articles, failing there whic can be no Communication before the Commission. The State further cit s the Commission's jurisprudence in the case Samuel of T. Muzerengwa and 110 Others (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rigltts) v Zimbabuie, in which the Commission held that prima facie violation of presented in occurred. The human the the provisions Complaint Complaint rights violation show should has said is that be to a one occurred if have occ human tnat not rred rights compels "where violation the contradicted the has likely conclusion or facts that rebutted by a the Respondent State."3 34. The Respondent references to State Articles submits. 2, 3, that 5 and 7-, it while does the Complainant not substantiate made how general the Articles referred to have been violated. The State avers that the contents of the Complaint is limited to mere allegations aimed at attacking the intellectual and moral integrity of-the Mauritian Courts, and materially fails to show how human rights violations nave occurred. 35. The Respondent State in addition avers that the Complainant is using the Commission to re-litigate a matter which came to a rest in July 2012 when the Judicial Committee of application for sr.ecial content the present of the Privy leave. Council The refused Respondent Communication is to State similar hear the further to that Complainant's submits placed that the before the Supreme Court of Mauritius in an appeal lodged by the Complainant as well as in the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Supreme Court held that refused. there The was no merit in Respondent further the application submits that the and leave was accordingly Communication, b).; . R 3 Communication 306/05 - Samuel T. Muzerengwa and 110 Others (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawye � �. 1>-IJ' ,... 6 E ui:./ 'b.. -, "'iss>tl� __., , ;;. ' � · � tt " ,1 'I' , <.; � ' .1:s � 'v � /pr Rights) v Zimbabwe (2011) ACHPR para 56. Ull1'•oo x.o,'itlAP ¥-fJ· ") {,i ·� .J. ";' ·'v" ( " (l"· :,,�P�",..,,r�, . ; ., " / ' "-....._lff����\--/