The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES allegations such as, ‘there is no justice in Algeria’,352 and the allegation that the withdrawal of Togolese support for former OAU Secretary-General Edem Kodjo’s re-election was ‘a de-facto stripping of his Togolese nationality’,353 have been declared inadmissible. On the other hand, in the case of Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe, the State challenged the admissibility of the case on the grounds that the complainant had failed to specify the particular articles of the African Charter alleged to have been violated. The Commission clarified that ‘it is for the African Commission, after consideration of all the facts at its disposal, to make a pronouncement on the rights violated and recommend the appropriate remedy to reinstate the Complainant to his or her right’.354 With the adoption of the African Women’s Rights Protocol, the Commission can admit complaints alleging violations of the Protocol, even if the facts alleged do not reveal a violation of the Charter itself. The Court’s substantive jurisdiction is wider, because the Protocol determines that the Court’s jurisdiction covers the same area as the Commission as well as ‘any relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned’.355 Article 3(1) of the Court Protocol authorises the Court to admit a case alleging violations of non-AU instruments, such as the Convention against Torture. d. The Language of the Communication Must not Be Insulting Article 56(3) of the African Charter prohibits communications written in ‘disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organization of African Unity (African Union)’. The Charter does not precisely define ‘insulting language’. In Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l’Homme v. Cameroon,356 the authors alleged serious and massive violations, including 46 distinct cases of torture and deprivation of food. They also alleged ethnically motivated persecution and massacres of civilian populations. Cameroon objected to the communication arguing that it contained abusive and insulting language directed against its President, Paul Biya. For example, the State objected to statements such as ‘Paul Biya must respond to crimes against humanity’, and phrases including: ‘30 years of the criminal, neocolonial regime incarnated by the duo Ahidjo/ Biya’, ‘regime of torturers’ and ‘government barbarisms’. The Commission sustained the objection by Cameroon and declared the Communication inadmissible. 352 353 354 355 356 86 ACHPR, Hadjali Mohamad v. Algeria, Comm. No. 13/88, 5th Ordinary Session (27 April 1994). ACHPR, Seyoum Ayele v. Togo, Comm. No. 35/89, 5th Ordinary Session (27 April 1994). ACHPR, Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 245/02, para. 167. African Human Rights Court Protocol, supra note 22, Article 3(1). ACHPR, Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l’Homme v. Cameroon, Communication 65/92, 21st Ordinary Session (24 April 1997).