Commission's jurisprudence that requires the power to adjudicate disputes of constitutional significance be given to judicial organs. 86. The Complainants submit that they do not have an issue with giving of power to "special organs" to interpret the Constitution but that Ethiopia's "special organ" is a non-judicial body, its jurisdiction and power are discretionary, or it has no obligation to decide according to legal principles. These factors make a judicial remedy unavailable, impractical, inapplicable, ineffective and/ or insufficient. 87. The Complainants submit that their primary contention is that the bodies tasked with the power to interpret the nation's foundational laws/ principles are not judicial organs that operate according to judicial procedures, but they are extra-judicial organs. The House of Federation and the Council are political organs due to the constitutive principle that underpins the institutions and animates their operations and therefore their memberships are irrelevant. The Complainants further submit that the Council is irrelevant to their case as it is merely an advisory body in the process of constitutional interpretation with no binding powers. 88. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State have failed to show that Ethiopian courts have the powers to interpret the Constitution based on the interpretation of the Article 6 of Proclamation 25/1996. 89. The Complainants submitted that the Respondent State has failed to publish international human rights instruments in the official gazette thereby preventing the courts from applying these treaties including the African Charter.l> 90. The Complainants submitted that on 17thDecember 2012 their preliminary objections challenging the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation was declined and a request to refer it to the Council rejected on the basis that the law did not raise constitutional concerns. 91. The Complainants submit that their unilateral petition to the Council made on 15u1 January 2013 was not acted upon despite the law providing for a decision to be made within one month. 92. The Complainants submit that the Melaku Fenta and others case where the House of Federation ruled in favour of the Appellant did not address the issue of judicial independence since the Respondent State has mischaracterized and decontextualize the case and the decision of the House of Federation as follows. One, the defendant never sought constitutional interpretation from the House of Federation and there was no apparent advantage for doing so. Two, the referral was political since it was never sent via the Council thereby violating the laid down procedures. Three, the fact that the courts ordered the House of Federation instead of submitting the case to the Council was uncharacteristic and shows there was a political hand behind the case.' I 93. The Complainants submit that their case has been pending before the Council for one year and four months challenging the legality of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation while ~~ J .o~ \, - The Complainants rely on UN Human Rights Committee, Committee on the Elimi tien of Racial o~ ~l \ .., \ Discrimination, and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and publicatio rom prominent J', \ legal scholars to support their claim that Proclamation '3/1995 effectively prevents Ethi an courts fr091 ) applying international treaties in Ethiopia unless they are translated to Amharic and other {~ionallanguages ~ and published in their respective official gazettes. ~ fo 1I.... / IS 15 "........~,. 'l ,(' /~, - '" _J~<>«;~ '(ltv A,"""RIC ~,~'(,. ~.§ , ('-I s\'~ r OIlfMfE'~ _,",-