Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 42. In relation with this requirement, the Commission has interpreted it as including compatibility with the Constitutive Act of the African Union or the Charter, and also compliance with four (4) aspects of its competence, namely competence ratione personae, materiae, iemporis and loci'. 43. Concerning compatibility with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and or the Charter, the Commission notes that in this case the Complainant requests the protection of his human rights, i.e, his rights under Articles I, 3, 4,5,6,12 (2), 13, 17 (I), 19, 20 (1) and 22 of the African Charter. In addition to the African Charter, one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union provided for in terms of Article 3 (h) is the protection of human rights. Nothing in the Complainant's submissions reveals any incompatibility with the African Union Constitutive Act or the Charter. .' 44. Regarding the four (4) aspects: of jurisdic io e Commission notes that the Communication was introduced against a S arty to the CI:{~rter(competence ratione personae); alleges the violation of rights Pl1()vided for in the Charter, in this case the violation of Articles I, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12 (2), 13;t],? (1) , 19, 20 (1) and 22 of the African Charte{(~ompetence ratione materiae); theC~JJlplaint relates to facts that occurred since/the birth of the Complainant on 5 June 2000 and the Respondent State became a party to the African Charter on 9 July 1996 and, pursuant to Article 65 of the' Charter, is effectively bound as of 9 October 1996 (competence ratione temporis); and the alleged violation was committed in the territory of the Respondent State (competence ratione loci). Thus, the Commission concludes that all four (4) aspects of its competenceare fulfilled. Consequently, the condition of admissibility under Article 56 (2) ofthe African Charter has been fulfilled. , Article5~ 45. The rule under this provision is that "Communications ... received by the Commission shall be considered if they are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organization of African Unity [AU]". The Commission has previously found that "in determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting and whether it has dampened the integrity of the judiciary, the Commission has to satisfy itself whether the said remark or language is aimed at unlaw~~9-. intentionally violating the dignity, reputation or integrity of a judic2 ~~~~1i~~ , 6 Communication ,?'V:- "'<.:;' 0-<) .~ Al~iq~n (~"~~) Union \." '"" ~.:: 467/14 - Ahmed Ismael and 528 others v. the Arab Republic of Egypt (2015)!~tHP pa~I?r:J,~~. III <l~ \ The African Commission o~\~_u~~.and~;~:s' iJts~ 31 Bijilo AnnexLayout, Kombo Nortl:'r~'Dis'k~C" est C~1~iP,n / Phone:(220) 23 436f"b;i!x: ?ZQ),~ 05'~ ~ f"",,,,' 4~ Email: aU-ban't~ IC;o;\~' httPS':'a'Ghp~ _,;,«'" g o D J