has the slightest likelihood to be effective, the applicant must pursue it. Arguing that local remedies are not likely to be successful, without trying to avail oneself of them, will simply not sway this Commission.” To the extent that Complainants did not resort to constitutional, the Respondent State submits that local remedies have not been exhausted. In that regard Article 56(5) of the Charter is not satisfied and the Communication must be declared inadmissible. 38. In any event, so argues the Respondent State, adequate local remedies have been accorded to the first Complainant. It states that the first Complainant appealed its case all through to the Federal Supreme Court, which is the apex court, without success because it had contravened the law. It avers that upon the CSO Proclamation coming into force, Ethiopian societies and charities could not source more than 10% of their funds from outside the jurisdiction. The first Complainant did exactly what the law prohibits. As a result, its assets which had foreign sources were frozen. 39. It further states that the Agency responsible for charities and societies is empowered to transfer seized assets to another society or charity with similar objectives. However, considering the first Complainant’s valuable work of promoting and protecting human rights, the seized funds have not been transfer to another charity or society. Exceptionally, the Agency has allowed the first Complainant to draw an amount equal to 10% of the latter’s annual budget every year. The Agency intends to allow the first Complainant to draw such amount until the entire fund is exhausted. 40. The Respondent State contends that where the domestic jurisdiction has accorded adequate remedies, the Commission should not be used as a court of appeal as it does not have such jurisdiction. It thus submits that this Communication must be declared inadmissible. The Complainants’ Reply 41. In their reply the Complainants contend that (a) a constitutional review was not necessary, (b) the Council of Constitutional Inquiry and the House of Federation are not judicial organs for purposes of exhaustion of local remedies; and in any event (c) a constitutional review is not an effective and sufficient remedy. A constitutional review was deemed irrelevant because, unlike in the Melaku Fenta Case,the first Complainant did not require constitutional interpretation of its grievance, and similarly the courts felt that the grievances in question did not require interpretation of the Constitution. This explains why neither the courts nor the first Complainant referred the matter to the 10 | P a g e