PART C: Protection against Torture: Procedures before the African Commission and African Human Rights Court ‘irreceivable’ communications brought against African States who were not parties to the Charter.345 A communication would similarly be incompatible with both the Constitutive Act and the African Charter if it is brought against an entity that is not a State, such as an individual,346 or if it does not identify a recognisable adverse party.347 The African Court’s jurisdiction is also limited to complaints brought against a State348, and in particular one which has made the necessary declaration under Article 34(6) of the Court Protocol, discussed in further detail in Section 3 above. In the case of Femi Falana v. African Union, the African Court held that though the African Union represents State parties to the Protocol, it is not itself a party to the Protocol, and therefore the Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.349 In this case, the applicant sought to challenge the declaration requirement under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, arguing that the requirement was inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 7, 13, 26 and 66 of the African Charter and in violation of the applicant’s rights to freedom from discrimination, to a fair hearing and equal treatment, as well as the right to be heard.350 Second, a communication must allege prima facie violations of rights recognised by the Charter. In doing this, the complaint does not necessarily have to name specific articles or provisions of the Charter. It is enough if the facts alleged would violate any of the substantive rights recognised by the African Charter. If the allegations contained in the communication do not contain such violations, the communication is deemed to be incompatible with the African Charter. Thus, for instance, in Frederick Korvah v. Liberia,351 the author alleged a ‘lack of discipline in the Liberian security police, corruption, immorality of the Liberian people generally, a national security risk caused by US financial experts, and that other countries are supporting South Africa and her apartheid regime’. The African Commission held that these allegations did not disclose any violations of the Charter. Similarly, 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 Committee for the Defence of Political Prisoners v. Bahrain, Comm. No. 7/88, 4th Ordinary Session (26 October 1988). ACHPR, Frederick Korvah v. Liberia, Comm. No. 1/88, 4th Ordinary Session (26 October 1988). ACHPR, Mohammed El-Nekheily v OAU, Comm. No. 12/188, 4th Ordinary Session (26 October 1988). The communication in this case was initiated against then Secretary-General of the OAU, Idee Oumarou. ACHPR, Omar M. Korah Jay, Comm. No. 34/88 Cases against State parties can be referred to the Court from by the African Commission, as described in Part A, Section IV of this handbook, or can be brought by NGOs enjoying observer status, pursuant to Article 34(6) of the African Human Rights Court Protocol, as described in Section 3 of this Handbook. African Court, Femi Falana v. African Union, App.No. 001/11 (26 June 2012), para. 71. Ibid., para. 3. ACHPR, Frederick Korvah v. Liberia, Comm. No. 1/88. 85