51. The Respondent State on the other hand, submits that the facts raised in the Communication are vague and not adequate to establish a prima facie case. It is also the Respondent State‟s contention that „The facts in the Communication lack clarity and consistency and do not fall within the rationae materiae of the Commission.’ 52. Before establishing whether there has been compliance with Article 56(2) of the African Charter by the Complainant, the African Commission finds it necessary to explain the concept of its rationae materiae jurisdiction mentioned by the Respondent State. 53. Rationae materiae is one of the four aspects of compatibility with the African Charter under Article 56(2). It is a substantive requirement which validates a Complaint when a right set out in the African Charter has been violated. Hence, a Communication will be inadmissible if it does not fall within the framework of the rationae materiae of the African Commission. In other words, if it does not provide prima facie violation of the African Charter. 54. In Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe, the African Commission relied on Black‟s law dictionary to define rationae materae, stating its meaning to be, “By reason of the matter involved; in consequence of, or from the nature of, the subject-matter.7” 55. In the present Communication, the Respondent State argues that the facts do not present a prima facie case because the Complainant submits that the Victim was allegedly arrested and detained by the police on several occasions, without supplying evidence of the dates and place of such 7 Communication 308/2005- Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) ACHPR para 63. 14