The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES Court should not have jurisdiction.339 The complainants argued that the failure to investigate the acts in question and to punish, as appropriate, the perpetrators, as well as compensate the victims, amounted to a continuing violation of their rights. The Court agreed with the complainants, describing the matters complained of as ‘a whole continuous chain of events from when the alleged violations started until the Claimant decided that the Republic of Kenya had failed to provide any remedy for the alleged violations’.340 The EAC Court declared the case admissible. However, the State appealed the decision on grounds that the incidents alleged in the Complaint were time-barred.341 The Appelate Division overturned the decision on admissibility, finding that Article 30(2) of the EAC Treaty ‘does not recognise any continuing breach or violation of the Treaty outside of the two months after a relevant action comes to the knowledge of the Claimant’, and that the Treaty does not grant the Court ‘any express or implied jurisdiction to extend the time set in the Article’. From this case, it would appear that the EAC Court of Justice does not recognise a State’s failure to investigate amd to provide redress and remedy for human rights violations as a continuing violation of the Treaty. The Court similarly rejected the concept of continuing violations on grounds of legal certainty in the case of Omar Awadh and Six Others v. Attorney General of Kenya, Attorney General of Uganda and Secretary General of the EAC.342 c. Communications Must Be Compatible with the AU Constitutive Act and the African Charter343 There are two elements of the requirement of compatibility with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the African Charter. First, compatibility requires that a communication may only be brought against a State that is party to both the African Charter and the AU Constitutive Act. Communications may not be initiated against a non-African State or against an African State that is not party to both instruments. In respect of the former, the Commission has dismissed as ‘irreceivable’ communications brought against such non-African States as Bahrain, Yugoslavia and the USA.344 The Commission has similarly declared 339 EACJ, Independent Medico Legal Unit v. Attorney General of Kenya and 4 others, Reference No. 3 of 2010 (29 June 2011). 340 Ibid. 341 EACJ Appelate Division, Attorney General of Kenya v. Independent Medico-Legal Unit, Appeal No. 1 of 2011, from the Ruling of the First Instance Division (15 March 2012), p. 17 and 16. 342 EACJ, Omar Awadh and Six Others v. Attorney General of Kenya, Attorney General of Uganda, and Secretary General of the EAC, App. No. 4 of 2011 (5 December 2011). 343 African Charter, supra note 9, art. 56(2). 344 See, ACHPR, Iheanyichukwu Ihebereme v. USA, Comm. No. 2/88, 4th Ordinary Session (26 October 1988);) Centre for Independence of Judges & Lawyers v. Yugoslavia, Comm. No. 3/88, 4th Ordinary Session (26 October 1988); Prince J.N. Makoge v. USA, Comm. No. 5/88, 4th Ordinary Session (26 October 1988); 84