violation of the African Charter as the internal manifestation or the choice of religion was by definition not subject to limitation. 152. The Complainants submitted that while the imposition or/and prohibition of any religion or sect was by itself a violation of the African Charter and cannot be justified by its prescription by law, the Respondent State's action had not been prescribed/ established by domestic law. According to the Complainants, in fact these acts were being undertaken in contravention of the country's Constitution which provides that: State and religion are separate. There shall be no state religion .... The state shall not interfere in religious matters and religion shall not interfere in state nffairs.36 153. The Complainant also pointed out that the Respondent State had been targeting members of the "Salafis/Wahabis" and the "Ikhwans" (Muslim Brotherhood movements). But however that the Respondent State's actions were not prescribed by law in so far as the Government of Ethiopia had passed no law declaring these movements to illegal. The Complainants also submitted that the Respondent State did not proscribe any religious sect or organization as a terrorist group according to Article 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. Therefore, the Respondent State acted outside of domestic, regional and international law and did not have any legal justification for the proscription of these sects. 154. According to the Complainants, the total effect of the Respondent State's misapplication of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 had been to destroy and impair the Complainants' right to freedom of association. In this regard the Complainants submitted that the Respondent State had violated the associative aspect of the freedom of religion by: (i) Forcing the community to come together under the single leadership of the MajIis against its own wishes; (ii) Giving the Majlis the power to decide whether a new Muslim/ Islamic organization should be formed and giving it power to have organizations dissolved; (iii) Giving the MajIis complete control over the nomination and expulsion of Mosque Imans and school teachers although the Majlis is a mere a private association; (iv) Giving the Majlis complete over the authorization of preaching and proselytization, informal gatherings, and the building of Mosques and Schools; (v) Interfering in the affairs of the Majlis by stage- managing who is elected to and runs the institution and expelling those with the Respondent State; and (vi) Shifting down organization that attempt to work independently of the MajIis. Alleged violation of Freedom of Expression (Article 9(2) of the African Charter) " o~:. ,o... 155. Again after making lengthy submissions on the alleged violation of Ar ~le 9(2) of the African Charter the Complainants concluded that the Respondent Sta .tio!ated their I0 36 Article 11 of the FDRE Constitution. ~< 'i .:J"" ~ •.~ J r: ., 0 \~ ) ~ r ..¥ "..1J.U'>./0 2t+ ~f /.c.,§'V1' $/(.)\1 "'>'RI(."''!'' (>i oJ> Oo\fME E' n-- " '