and the African Charter. In this regard, the Commission notes the Complainant’s submission that the Communication meets these requirements. 35. The essence of Article 56 is that the Commission considers communications only if they are compatible with the African Charter.7 In relation to the African Charter, compatibility requires that the alleged violation should relate to a right recognized in the Charter (compatibility ratione materiae), to an alleged violation by a State Party to the Charter (compatibility ratione personae), and to events that occurred within a State Party after the Charter came into force (compatibility ratione temporis).8 36. In relation to the present Communication, the Commission notes that it alleged that Articles 7(c) and 14 of the African Charter have been violated, and the Respondent State is a State Party to the African Charter; accordingly the Communication falls within the Commission’s competence ratione materiae and ratione personae. 37. With regards to ratione temporis competence, the Commission notes that the Respondent State became a State Party to the African Charter on 22 February 1989, whereas the Victim’s property was expropriated on 14 January 1976, in violation of Article 14 of the African Charter. In light of this, it appears that the alleged violation of the Victim’s right to property does not fall within the Commission’s competence ratione temporis, given that State Parties are only bound to guarantee the rights provided for in the African Charter after their ratification of the treaty. 38. In this regard, and in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Commission previously held that, “The events which occurred before the date of ratification of the African Charter are outside the African Commission’s competence rationae temporis. The African Commission is only competent ratione temporis to consider events which happened after that date or, if they happened before then, constitute a violation continuing after that date.”9 39. In the present communication, the violation of the Victim’s rights with regards to expropriation of his property occurred in 1976; that is prior to the coming into force of the African Charter and the ratification of the African Charter by the Respondent State. Accordingly the Commission needs to determine whether violation of the Victim’s right to property constitutes a continuing violation. 40. In this regard, the Commission would like to refer to a decision of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, in the Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname,10 in which the victims were forcibly displaced from their ancestral lands before Suriname accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The Court Malcom Evans and Rachel Murray, The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The System in Practice, Cambridge University Press, 2008, pg.95 8 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 9 Communication 251/02: Lawyers of Human Rights v. Swaziland (2005) ACHPR, para 44 10 Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Judgment of June 15, 2005 7 6