55. The Complainants submitted that their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty had been violated. The Complainants submitted that they should be exempted from the exhaustion of local remedies since in Haregeuioin Gabre-Selassie v Ethiopia the Commission held that "exception to the rule on the exhaustion of domestic remedies would ... apply where the domestic situation of the State does not afford due process of law" and "the right to a fair trial enshrined under Article 7."12 The Complainants further submitted that the government have made concerted efforts to discredit the defendants and establish their guilty in the public mind prior to trial via media including by using the film "Land of Blood" (Akeldama). Additionally, the then Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, also declared the Complainants and others and their supporters to be terrorists in a Parliamentary speech. Respondent State' Submissions on Admissibility 56. The Respondent State submitted that the Communication does not comply with the requirements stipulated under Article 56 of the African Charter. 57. The Respondent State submitted that the Complainants were suspected of violating the anti-terrorism law of Ethiopia including by deliberately and collectively conspiring to create an Islamic State. The Respondent State further submitted that in order to advance their aims, the Complainants created a committee called "Islamic Religious Preachers Group". 58. The Respondent State submitted that the Complainants had contemplated waging a jihad (religious war) against the government declaring that it would not lead its people. The Respondent State further submitted that investigations were carried out and the perpetrators arrested and prosecuted in strict adherence to international human rights law. 59. The Respondent State submitted that the current case is under adjudication before the court and that no final decision has been rendered. The Respondent State submitted that the current case falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. 60. The Respondent State submitted that there are several guarantees under the Constitution with regards to the jurisdiction and independence of the judiciary. In this regard, Article 37(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to bring a justifiable matter to, and to obtain a decision or judgement by a court of law or any other competent body with judicial power. Article 78 of the Constitution further guarantees the independence of the judiciary whilst Article 78(4) of the Constitution prohibits the establishment of special or ad hoc courts which shall take judicial powers away from the regular courts or institutions empowered to exercise judicial functions following legally prescribed procedures. Article 79(2) of the Constitution protects the Ethiopian courts from interference or influence of any governmental body, or government official or from any other source. Article 79(3) of the Constitution affirms that the judges shall exercise their functions in full independence and shall be directed solely by the law. The Respondent State further submitted that it has exerted its efforts to ensure individuals' righ constitutional rights are properly implemented and materialised in Ethiopia, ul c' Z 12 Communication 301/05 - Haregeuioin Gabre-Selassie v Ethiopia (2013) para 45 \ ... \1 ~. \ -.. \.. , , .1. )1>0's:~U~\~ c ,,\..l.ut is ,_"'> '" ~s...._ a <:;)V <., l 'u", ~"RI( ""I'C'"" vq" 'I (~ c <;Ii r ,. " o~M£ E' .:' -,