Respondent State pursued an "Ahbashization project", the Complainants must show direct evidence showing linkage between the alleged government policy and the violation of freedom of religion of the individuals represented, This case did not arise because the defendant's refusal to espouse a particular doctrine, especially Ahbashization, but as a result of their Jihad. Adherents of Islam who subscribe to ideologies similar to those of the Defendants have never been charged of any crime because they did not call for violence or Jihad against the Government. 210. The Respondent States, in the main, requests the Commission to dismiss the Complainants' allegation concerning the violation of Article of 9 of the African Charter by Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 because the defendants were not tried and convicted under Article 6, Articles 4, and Article 7(1) of the AntiTerrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. Complainants' allegation of violations of Articles 5, 6,7,16 of the African Charter 211. Concerning the allegation by the Complainants that "the circumstances under which Ethiopia arrested and detained the [defendants] violated their right to inhumane treatment and thus violate Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter," the Respondent State submitted that given that the arrests took place pursuant to either properly executed search warrants or in accordance to warrantless search requirements under Ethiopian law, and not mere suspicion nor for "vague reasons" the Complainants' allegation in this regards must be dismissed. 212. Concerning the allegation of the arbitrariness of the arrest of Mr. Abubaker and others, the Respondent State submitted that the same was made in compliance with domestic law, specifically, Article 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. According to the Respondent State Mr. Abubaker and his co-defendants were arrested not because of their adherence to any faith but their action otherwise all members of the Negotiation Committee would have been arrested. Additionally, according to the Respondent State of the 17 members of the Committee who were arrested, the court found nine to not have violated the law and acquitted them despite the fact that they shared the same faith as the other Defendants. 213. The Respondent State submitted that, contrary to the assertions of the Complainants, the Complainants were immediately informed of their arrest and produced before a court of law within 48 hours in accordance with the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 and the Ethiopian Criminal Procedure. The Respondent State further submitted that not only was there constant judicial oversight in the case, but also that the seriousness of the allegations was considered at length by the High Court especially after the Complainants' claim that their confessions were coerced. 214. The Respondent State further submitted that none of the Complainants was charged under Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. The Respondent State submitted that the Federal Police Commission and Regional Police Commissions spends millions of Ethiopian Birr each year to train their officers to ensure that no Ethiopian is tortured. The Respondent State further submitted that neither the law&-~ criminal justice policy nor courts implementing them condone torture or anYmernP,~1~, of the police violating the human rights protections guaranteed by the Fe ~~l"and State "-Vt\. Constitutions. 8 ~' l' ~ ~ ) ~ ~\~ "... ~ \. 1.. ~ S'/. ( !I '!l} ~v,u3'2.1 /_,«,'? '? .:;; ~ "\- ~""RIC~\~~ ..::,9' ~~ E1 QE.'" ~ /'