held that, although it did not have jurisdiction over the original displacement because of temporal limitations on its jurisdiction, the community’s inability to return to its lands subsequent to Suriname’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction constituted a continuing violation over which the Court did have jurisdiction.11 41. In the same vein, the Commission notes that the Victim was unable to return to his house after it was allegedly illegally expropriated by the Respondent State, a situation, which continued after the coming into force of the African Charter with respect to the Respondent State upon its ratification of the Charter, and is still ongoing to date. In light of this therefore, the Commission finds that the alleged violation of Article 14 of the African Charter constitutes a continuing violation, which falls within the Commission’s competence ratione temporis. 42. With regards to the alleged violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter, the facts indicate that the Victim filed an application against the Respondent State on 08 June 2009 to execute the judicial order for the return of the house, following which his rights under Article 7(1)(c) were allegedly violated; therefore the alleged violation of Article 7(1)(c) occurred when the African Charter was already in force in Mozambique, and in this instance the Commission’s competence ratione temporis is indisputable. Accordingly the Communication falls within the Commission’s competence ratione temporis. 43. In light of the above, given that Communication is compatible with the AU Constitutive Act and the African Charter and that it indicates a prima facie violation of the African Charter, the Commission finds that the Communication satisfies Article 56(2) of the African Charter. 44. With respect to Article 56(3) of the African Charter, which provides that Communications shall be considered if they are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed at the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organization of African Unity, the Commission does not find any insulting or disparaging language in the Communication, and accordingly the Commission finds that Article 56(3) of the Charter is satisfied. 45. In relation to Article 56(4) of the African Charter, the Commission notes the Complainant’s submission that the Communication includes briefs from the Judicial Tribunal and the Supreme Court. In light of the fact there is no evidence that any of the information provided is based exclusively on news disseminated through the media, the Commission consequently finds that the requirement of Article 56(4) has been met. 46. Article 56(5) requires that Communications be submitted after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged. 11 Ibid., Para 43. See also, Jo M. Pasqualucci, The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cambridge University Press, 2003, Pg.141 7