45. The Commission also recalls that it had, in interpreting the provisions of Article 56(2) of the African Charter, added that 'the Charter must sofar as possible be interpreted in harmony with other relevant rules of international law which it forms part 0[.9 46. Under Article 56(2) of the African Charter the Commission has also held that if the Communication 'seeks a remedy or redress which if granted, will contravene any of the provision of the said Constitutive Act' then it will not be admissible.P 47. Applying the provisions of Article 56(2) of the African Charter, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Court) has held that the allegations need also to fall within the scope' of the Constitutive Act, which they will if theyallege violations of human rights, given that Articles 3(h) and 4(m) of the ~onstihltiye Act refer to 'promote and protect human. rights' and 'respect for human rights' as among'objectives and principles of the African Union (AU)_11 48. The Complainant in the present Communication lists a number of rights guaranteed in the African Charter which purportedly have been violated by the Respondent State. He alleges violation of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the African Charter, and supports the allegations with orders from Kenyan Courts and other pertinent documents. The allegations in this Communication are therefore specific enough to establish a prima facie case, and in any event the Respondent State has made no contrary submissions on the rights claimed by the Complainant to have been violated. 49. The Commission thus holds that the Communication establishes a prima facie violation of rights and freedoms in the African Charter and thus complies with Article 56(2) of the African Charter, and that it consequently has jurisdiction ratione materiae: [h]aving proved the existence of prima facie violation of the African Charter, it has the rationae materiae jurisdiction to entertain the case' and the 'issue involved in the present case is an alleged violation of the provisions of the African Charter by a State Party, which squarely fits into the rationae materiae jurisdiction of the CommissionJ? Rights) v Zimbabwe. I March 20 II, para 58. Communication 310105: Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Sudan, 25 November 2009, para 64. Communication 335/2006- Dabalorivhuwa Patriotic Front v the Republic of South Africa, 18 October 2013, para 72. Communication 409/12 - Luke Munyandu Tembani and Benjamin John Freeth (represented by Norman Tjombe) v Angola and Thirteen Others, 30 April 2014, para 89. 9 Communication 383/10 - Mohammed Abdullah Saleh AI-Asad v. The Republic Of Djibouti, 14 October 2014, para 127. 10 Communication 321/2006 - Law Society of Zimbabwe et al v Zimbabwe, 18 October 2013, para 67. Communication 277/2003-Spilg and Mack & mTSHW ANELO (on behalf of Lehlohonolo Bernard Kobedi) v. Botswana, 12 October 2013, para 98. II Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania, App. No. 007/2013, Judgment of3 June 2016, para 51. Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania, App. No. 003/2012, Ruling on Admissibility, 28 March 2014, para 124. Alex Thomas v Republic of Tanzania, App. NO.005/20 13, Judgment on Merits, 20 November 2015, para 52. 12 Communication 306/05 - Samuel T. Muzerengwa and 110 Others (represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Ri~~ v Zimbabwe, I March 2011, para 57. ..,~ , I ~>-<'" Communication 340107 - Nixon Nyikadzino (represented by Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum) v. Zimb r'i,r4 June 2014, paras 72-73. -l' - 74th Ordinary Session of the ACHPR ~ (J I ( ""'. ; '8_ ~ 1 .c o '\ 'i. ""A. '" ~\).~ ~ '-I'S'n... $' r- ',J !t.,'" ~v ~Q 0' c -'Y A"'RlC"\~ ~.;). ),-~ME £T of':> .>