the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been classified as a terrorist organization by the North Cairo Criminal Court, the Complainant submits that the Freedom and Justice Party itself is not a terrorist Respondent State has organization. classified the In addition, Muslim the Complainant Brotherhood as a submits that the terrorist organization despite it being the country's largest opposition movement, according to a report by Human Rights Watch. 56. The Complainant persecuting all submits those Brotherhood, and that the considered to Respondent be State dissidents is deliberately and/or members targeting of the and Muslim that their remarks in this regard is not relevant for the purpose of establishing the admissibility of this Communication. The Complainant states that the African Charter in Article 56 provides that 'Communications relating to human and peoples' rights referred to in Article 55 received oy the Commission, s all be considered' if it meets the admissibility criteria. 57. In relation to the admissibility criteria, the Complainant submits at both the African Charter and the Rules of Procedure are silent as to who may submit a Communication. In this regard they state that Article 56 (1) only requires a Communication to indicate its author, but does not state who the author may be. In addition, the Complainant refers the Commission to its submission on Article 56 (1) in paragrap 33 above, in which it states that there is nothing in the Charter to limit the definition of Complainant to persons who are victims of the alleged violations and'refers to jurisprudence of the Commission which held the Complainant need not be a national of a State Party to the Charter to submit a Communication. 58. In relation to the third challenge by the State that political parties are not included in the Rules of the Procedure of the Commission under Rule 63 (1) which lists the institutions which may request for a matter to be included in the agenda of the Ordinary Session of the Commission, the Complainant submits that the Respondent State has misunderstood the Commission's Rules of Procedure. The Complainant states that this rule refers to the ability of State Parties or other specific organizations to request the Commission to discuss a human rights issues as part of its Provisional Agenda at an Ordinary Session of the Commission, in accordance with Rule 32 (2). In contrast, the Complainant submits that it had requested the Commission to adopt provisional measures in accordance with Rule 98 of the Rules of Procedure. The Complainant submits that under Rule 98, the Commission can adopt provisional measures on its own initiative or at the request of a Party to the Communication and thus there is nothing which prevents the Commissi from issuing provisional measures irrespective of the Complainant's Communica -� 0'10,;--" �;;;,'..� ''.� " � \\ , ��) -·��- �l \ \i \\ l�l 't '"',:r,. ,f '/ �u-U� -v � "' � "-0N.r,�-e.ict..·f'� '];y · j «.f.7 ' � fl : �