The Respondent State on its part has relied on Melanku Fenta and Others case to show that the remedies before the House of Federation are equally effective.27However, under Paragraph 89 and 90 above, the Complainants provided reasons why the above position is untenable. The issue before the Commission for determination therefore becomes whether the reasons provided by the Complainant under the relevant paragraphs is sufficient to disprove the contention by the Respondent State that the remedies before the House of Federation are effective as evidenced by the Melanku Fenta and Others case. The Commission does not find it necessary to reproduce the arguments of the Complainants and therefore summarily finds that the reasons provided were not convincing enough. The irregularities alluded to by the Complainants in terms of the fact that the Complainants did not complain about a constitutional issue and the short time period through which the issue was resolved, and the existence of political motives were not adequately substantiated in juxtaposition to the Complainants' complaint. 120. The Complainants also allege the lack of both structural and functional judicial independence. They argue that the Respondent State has relied on several tactics to ensure that the judiciary does not rule against it. The Respondent State influence on the judiciary also exists at the level of judicial training. In order to substantiate this position, the Complainants relied on several supporting documents including affidavits from previous judicial officers, various reports from international organisations and scholarly references among others. 121. The Respondent State on its part submitted that the Constitution specifically under Article 79 (2) and (3) provides for the independence of the judiciary. Contrary to the additional submissions of the Complainants under paragraph 80, the Commission also acknowledges that at least the functional independence of the judiciary has been enhanced by the establishment of the Federal Judicial Administration. The above position coupled with the fact that, under paragraph 60 above, about ten (10) persons as well as two (2) organisations facing the same terror-related charges as the Victims were acquitted by the courts persuades the Commission against the position adopted by the Complainants. 122. The Complainants also submitted that right to fair trial is not being observed in several ways including access to legal representation, the use of torture to obtain confessions, and the violation of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.28In this regard, the Complainants submitted that they should be exempted from the exhaustion of local remedies. However, the Respondent State rebutted all the submissions of the Complainants claiming that they were without basis. In particular, under paragraph 74, the Respondent State notes that the Complainants' trial was conducted in public except the pre-trial sessions. The Complainants additional submissions also indicate that their applications before the Ethiopian Federal Supreme Court failed. To this extent, the Commission is unable to find a violation of the right to a fair trial. 123. The Commission therefore finds that local remedies are available, effective and sufficient. In this regard, they ought to have been exhausted unless they are JJD.G_.-= ..... prolonged. This second ambit of Article 56(5) of the African Charter forms our I\e~ inquiry since the additional submissions of the Complainants under ~ragraph 91 '} ~ See paragraph 70 above. 28 See for example paragraph 51 above. 27 f \( ../ )t'\'l '1 ~~ A ~<) ·UA ~ .-.c, < '" oS'() .'V""' <.. (. ~ ... "'''RIC$>.I ~,J/' 0"'''1[: n (I{ S ~--,.