prolonged and therefore the complainants are exempted from the requirement to exhaust local remedies. 131. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the requirements of Article 56(5) of the African Charter have also been fulfilled. Decision of the Commission on Admissibility 132. In view of the above, the Commission declares this Communication Admissible in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter. Merits 133. Beforeembarking on the analysis of the submissions of the parties hereto it is imperative that the Commission addresses some preliminary issues. The first one relates to an issue that the Respondent State has raised in its submissions which were filed with the Commission on 3rd May 2016. 134. The Respondent State has submitted that the Complainants allegations should be dismissed for failure to comply with the Commission's ruling on admissibility. According to the Respondent State, the Commission found that the subject matter before it is whether the laws and actions taken in the context of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 are a violation of the African Charter and therefore the Commission limited the parameters of the merits stage to include violations of laws and acts undertaken in the context of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 and which the Complainants raised before the Council. According to the Respondent State the Commission did not decide to allow a free-for-all indictment about the AntiTerrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 generally and the state of Ethiopian Democracy. 135. The Respondent State also submitted that it understood the Commission's Decision on Admissibility as one that required the Complainants to structure their merits brief on those grounds that the Commission deemed admissible. Instead of narrowly tailored arguments consistent with the Commission's decision, the Complainants now seek a ruling by the Commission to find the entirety of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 to be in violation of the African Charter and International standards. 136. The Respondent State also understood the Commission's Decision to require the Complainants to address the alleged violations of the African Charter within the context of charges brought under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 and presented before the Council but were not considered due to the delay. The Respondent State also understood that the Commission's Decision excluded from consideration at merit stage those arguments that were considered before the Ethiopian Judiciary and for which sufficient remedies were not only available but were also effective and sufficient. 137. With the foregoing matters in mind, the Respondent State requests the Commission to dismiss all the Complainants' arguments that were not included in their original complaint or do not fall within the narrowly-tailored grounds which the Complaint was deemed admissible. ......,~ =o ~, O~" o~;, -::,J'<\ 138. From the look of things, it would appear that the Respondent State was ~S">intent on making a preliminary objection. The Commission's Rules of Procedur 0 10 (the 2010 ROP) under which this Communication was brought provides f ~the filing~f I ~ "l .. s; ~ ~~ , ~ \jJ.~ ~ I) -LU ~"> I) v 4<",11 v<J.' 'I c """n"" (1<. / ),~ ['t of" . ..' $")Iy,, " ....r;..\'1'0"- t;;j "'---.~-' !