Constitutive Act. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that no aspect of the Communication can be considered contradictory to the objectives or principles of the Act. 35. In relation to the criterion of compatibility with the African Charter, the Commission has determined that a Communication submitted to the Commission will be considered if certain conditions are met.2 These conditions include the State being a party to the African Charter, the alleged violations of rights falling within the scope of rights protected by the African Charter, and the alleged violations occurring within the territory or jurisdiction of the concerned State after the Charter's entry into force for that specific State. 36. In the present case, the Communication is submitted against the Federal Republic of Somalia, a State Party to the African Charter. The alleged violations occurred within the territory of the Federal Republic of Somalia, and after its ratification of the African Charter, as the alleged violations are indicated to have occurred from 2017, while the State ratified the Charter on 31 July 1985. The Communication alleges the violation of rights guaranteed in Articles 2, 3, 4, 14, 19, and 21 of the African Charter. In view of the above, the Commission considers that the admissibility requirement of Article 56(2) of the African Charter is satisfied. Article 56(3) 37. Article 56(3) of the African Charter stipulates that Communications must not be written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned, its institutions, or the Organization of African Unity to be considered. As noted by the Commission in the case between Zimbabwe Lawyersfor Human Rights <9 Associated Newspapers of Zi1nbabwe vs. the Republic of limbabwe, in determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting, the Commission must ascertain the intent behind the remark and whether it is aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violating the dignity, reputation, or integrity of a judicial officer or body. Moreover, the Commission must evaluate whether the language is used in a manner calculated to pollute the minds of the public or any reasonable person and cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence in the administration of justice. 38. After carefully reviewing the Complainant's submissions, the Commission has found no language that could be deemed excessively offensive or insulting as the Respondent State, its institutions, or the African Union. Based on _ i the Commission concludes that the requirements of Article 56(3) hav en'S Article 56(4) I AU-UA 2 Communication 266/03, Kevin Mgwanga Gunman et al V. Cameroon (ACHPR) para 70. "RICH\!*' E so Des "