Analysis on admissibility 60. The admissibility of communications within the African Commission is governed by the requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter. This Article provides seven requirements which must all be met before the Commission can declare a communication admissible. If one of the conditions/requirements is not met, the Commission will declare the communication inadmissible, unless the complainant provides sufficient justifications why any of the requirements could not be met. 61. In the present communication, the complainant claims that it has fulfilled all the requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter. The Respondent State on the other hand submits that five requirements of admissibility, that is, Article 56(1), 56(2),56(3), 56(5), and 56(6), have not been met. 62. Article 56(1) of the African Charter states that “Communication relating to Human and Peoples’ Rights… received by the Commission shall be considered if they indicate their authors even if the latter request anonymity…” 63. According to the Respondent State, the communication does not indicate the authors. The communication received by the African Commission indicates that the author of the communication is the Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre which brought the communication on behalf of 33 Sudanese nationals whose names are stated in the communication. This means that the author of the communication and the victims are clearly identified. The Commission therefore holds that the requirement under 56(1) of the African Charter has been met. 64. The State also submits that the communication is incompatible with the Charter of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU) and as such does not comply with Article 56(2), of the African Charter. This sub-Article provides that“Communications…received by the Commission shall be considered if they are compatible with the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity or with the present Charter.” In the present case, there is evidence of prima facie violation of the African Charter in the refusal of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (an institution of the Sudanese government), to pay the outstanding balance of the money due to the 33 Sudanese nationals in breach of the agreement between the Sudanese and Iraqi governments to pay them this money as compensation for their time in Iranian prisons. Secondly in view of the compatibility requirements, Sudan is a State Party to the African Charter. Thirdly the Republic of Sudan became party to the th Charter on 18 February, 1986, the alleged violations in this communication falls within the period of the Charter’s application to Sudan. Lastly, the alleged violation took place within the territorial sphere which the Charter applies. For these reasons, the Commission holds that the communication has sufficiently fulfilled the requirement of Article 56(2) of the African Charter. 65. In its submission, the State calls on the African Commission to declare the communication inadmissible on the ground that it does not comply with Article 56(3) of the African Charter which 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 (AU)”. 66. The Respondent State objects to the statements made by the Complainant in para. 40 of the complaint arguing that it is improper to describe any sovereign State as such. Paragraph 40 of the complaint states that “This Communication documents a situation of absolute misuse of government authority and executive powers to inflict gross injustice and suffering among a vulnerable segment of the Sudanese citizens. This situation is a classical example of the absence of accountability of public officials and for the lack of proper administration of justice and the rule of law in Sudan.” 9 67. In its decision on admissibility in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights/ Zimbabwe(ZLHR) , the African Commission stated inter alia that “in determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting and whether it has dampened the integrity of the judiciary, the Commission has to satisfy itself whether the said remark or language is aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violating the dignity, reputation or integrity of a judicial officer or body and whether it is used in a manner calculated to pollute the minds of the public or any reasonable man to cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence on the administration of justice. The language must be aimed at undermining the integrity and status of the institution and bring it into disrepute. To this end, Article 56(3) must be interpreted bearing in mind Article 9(2) of the African Charter which provides that “every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his