claims that their rights have been violated in this respect can address their complaint to the Prosecutors Office or to the court for effective, prompt and appropriate response. 76. The Respondent State submitted that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is the cornerstone of Ethiopia's Criminal Justice system and that the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the importance of these Constitutional guarantees and ruled that all courts maintain the same standard. 77. The Respondent State submitted that the trials were all conducted in public except during the hearing of pre-trial witnesses, which was held in closed session for the sake of security. From 27th March 2013, the trial was conducted publicly, and the court room was full of observers. 78. The Respondent State submitted that the Ethiopian law puts basis for public interest litigation and guarantees healthy and dignified treatment of prisoners. 79. The Respondent State submitted that the Communication contains other allegations of human rights violations which are not part of the claims of the Complainants. The Respondent State further submitted that the Commission should dismiss all these allegations as irrelevant since they are unsubstantiated accusations. 80. The Respondent State prays that the case be dismissed because the applicants have not exhausted local remedies since the cases are currently ongoing trial at the Federal High Court. 81. The Respondent State submitted that the claims relating to the violation of fair trial and other issues are fairly substantial matters which will be argued, when and if the Communication is found admissible. Additional submissions of the Complainants 82. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State contested some of the Complainants' submissions but failed to provide evidence to support their case apart from annexing the Constitution and two other laws. 83. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State failed to address the allegations in the Complainants' submission that outlined multiple instances of violations of guarantees of the Constitution and positive law which have been circumvented and abused by the ruling party to pursue its own political agenda and that in Haregewoin Gebre-Sellaise v Ethiopia.t! the Commission specifically rejected the Respondent's State claim that Ethiopian courts are independent because "[t]he Constitution guarantees in Article 79(2) and (3) that [they] shall be free from interference by government." 84. The Complainants submit that their argument is not that they have exhausted local remedies, but that they are not available, effective or sufficient. 85. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State did not address the issue of the existence of a "Common African Standard" which has indirectly been confirmed y " Communication 301/05 - Haregewoin Gebre-Sellaise & IHRDA (2011) ACHPR para 223. 14 (all behalf of former Dergi