Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia communication/complaint procedure before the African Commission, are the ordinary remedies of common law that exist in jurisdictions and normally accessible to people seeking justice" , and that "the internal remedy [to] which article 56(5) refers entails remedy sought from courts of a judicial nature..." Furthermore, the Commission's Information Sheet No. 3 , also states that "[t]he author [of a Communication] must have taken the matter to all the available domestic legal remedies. That is, he or she must have taken the case to the highest court of the land." 80. The Commission further recalls its jurisprudence that in order for the rule of exhaustion of local remedies to apply, remedies in the Respondent State must be available, effective and sufficient. A "remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment; it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint". 81. On their part, the Complainants argue and the Commission agrees, that the case of Woineshet went up to the highest court in the Respondent State - the Federal Supreme Court's Cassation bench, which declined to hear the matter. This fact has not been disputed by the Respondent State. Indeed, the Commission notes that the Respondent State, in its own submission, avers that the Federal Supreme Court's Cassation bench is "the final judicial body in the hierarchy of the Ethiopian judicial system". 82. The Commission also agrees with the contention of the Complainants that the initiation of new legal proceedings against against Aberew, has no bearing on the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies by Woineshet, prior to filing the Communication with the Commission, on the basis that the Respondent State's own submission states that the Justice Bureau of Oromiya wrote to the Arsi Zonal Justice Department on 10 October 2007 regarding the institution of the further charge against Aberew - almost three months after the Respondent State received notification of the Communication before the Commission. 83. Furthermore, the Commission observes that the Respondent State has also not denied the contention by the Complainants that there are no further remedies under Ethiopian law that can be exercised by Woineshet, and that she has no legal right to seek further action by the Government of the Respondent State against Aberew. To this end, the Commission holds the view that the steps taken by the Complainants constitute exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the alleged discretionary procedure of initiating a new charge of statutory rape against Abefoew by the Arsi Zone Prosecutor's office is not within the power of the Victim to pursi ^'CA!N?.^'