34. The Complainants contend that the Respondent State has been given numerous opportunities to remedy the violations of the Charter, as required by the Commission in Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan,3 and claim that the State has chosen to ignore the decisions of the constitutional judicial authorities by implementing the decisions of the Executive. 35. The Complainants further contend that the Respondent State’s appeal against the decision of the Constitutional Court over the declarations and orders affecting the Victims and the other accused, does not affect the bail release orders since the State has not complied with them. In support of this, the Complainants cite Assanidze v. Georgia, a case from the European Court of Human Rights, which concerned the detention of a person whose final release had been ordered by a competent court. The Complainants aver that the European Court, in finding that domestic remedies had been exhausted, noted that where a final release order was made, the principle of legal certainty (one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law) preclude any attempt by a non-judicial authority to call that judgment into question, or to prevent its execution.4 36. The Complainants submit that in the instant case, the Executive working with other institutions of the State, such as the military and the police, blatantly ignored the pronouncements and orders of the Court, and even questioned the said pronouncements. 37. The Complainants conclude by noting that in spite of all the efforts of the Victims and their counsel, the Respondent State has not obliged or respected the Court’s release orders. 38. For the above reasons, the Complainants submit that this Communication satisfies the admissibility requirements of Article 56 of the Charter. The Respondent State’s Submissions on Admissibility 39. The Respondent State contends that the Communication is inadmissible under the African Charter, submitting that the Communication was filed with the Commission before the exhaustion of local remedies, and therefore offends the provisions of Article 56(5). 40. The Respondent State avers that promotion and upholding human rights is one of the national objectives and directive principles of state policy, thus the Constitution enjoins the State to guarantee and respect institutions charged with the responsibility for protecting and promoting human rights. The Respondent State submits that one 3 Communication 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93: Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa v. Sudan (1999) ACHPR para 32 4 Assanidze v. Georgia (2004) ECHR (Application No.71503/01) para 131 6