murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment instead of death in the High Court, pursuant to the provisions of Section 196 and 198 of the Penal Code Cap 16 of the Laws of Tanzania. 42. The Respondent State submits further that the Appellant in the Mbushuu’ case, that is, the State, appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, through Criminal Appeal no 142 of 1994, and the Court of Appeal ruled on a death sentence, instead of life imprisonment, arguing that death sentence is constitutional. 43. Furthermore, the Respondent State submits that the Complainants did not exhaust local remedies available under Article 30(4) of the Constitution of Tanzania and Section 4 of the Basic 4 Rights and Duties Act. 44. In contending the Complainants’ fulfilment of Article 56.6, the Respondent State submits that this communication is based on the Mbushuu’ case decided fifteen years ago, adding that the Complainants have not made any efforts to exhaust local remedies since then. 45. In its final observations, the Respondent State requests that the communication be found inadmissible by the African Commission based on the aforementioned grounds. Analysis of the African Commission on admissibility 46. This communication is submitted pursuant to Article 55 of the African Charter which allows the African Commission to receive and consider communications, other than from State Parties. Article 56 of the African Charter provides that the admissibility of communications submitted pursuant to Article 55 is subject to seven conditions which must all be met. 47. In the communication before the African Commission, the Complainants aver that they have complied with all the requirements under Article 56. However, the State disagrees, arguing that, the Complainants have not complied with Articles 56(2), 56(5) and 56(6). 48. The African Commission will now proceed to determine whether these sub-articles under Article 56 raised by the Respondent State have indeed not been complied with. Nevertheless, the Commission would also analyse compliance with the, other sub-articles of Article 56 that are not in contention. 49. In terms of Article 56.1 of the Charter, “communications should indicate their authors, even if the latter requests anonymity”. In the communication before the African Commission, the Respondent State submits that it was disadvantaged by not seeing the list of the other members who are the joint authors of the communication. It is important to note that the Complainants did attach a list of the joint authors of the communication in Annexure I of the complaint to the attention of the African Commission, which was forwarded to the Respondent State. The communication in the opinion of the African Commission thus clearly shows the name of the authors. In this regard, the requirement of Article 56.1 has been fulfilled. 50. Article 56.2 requires that, “The communication be compatible with either the African Charter or the Constitutive Act of the OAU (now the Constitutive Act of the AU)”. This sub-article is subject to scrutiny because the Respondent State raised an objection to it. The State argues that the Complainants have only cited Article 4 of the African Charter which deals with the right to life, and that they have not indicated any other provisions in relation to torture which is the basis of their communication. It goes further to describe the communication as “wild, vague and hence not compatible with the provisions of the Charter…”. 51. This Commission notes that, one of its primary considerations under Article 56.2 is whether there has been prima facieviolation of human rights guaranteed by the African Charter. Furthermore, as was 5 its position in Mouvement des réfugiés mauritaniens au Sénégal v Senegal, the Commission is only concerned with whether there is preliminary proof that a violation occurred. Therefore, in principle, it is not mandatory for the Complainant to mention specific provisions of the African Charter that have been violated. 52. In the communication before the African Commission, the Complainants have alleged violation of Article 4 of the African Charter, meaning they have alleged the violation of a right by the Respondent State. The determination whether other rights have been violated or the extent to which they have been violated is not relevant because such an analysis is required only at the merits stage. Based on this, the African Commission finds that Article 56.2 has been fulfilled.