Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia 49. The Respondent State submits that the Public Prosecutor appealed to the Oromiya Supreme Court, which is the highest Court at the regional level, which rejected the appeal on the ground that there were no legal and factual reasons for entertaining the same; and subsequently, to the Cassation Bench of the Oromiya Supreme Court, alleging that there was an error in law in the decisions of the lower Court, but that the Cassation Bench of the Oromiya Supreme Court also rejected this appeal. 50. The Respondent State also submits that the Public Prosecutor made a final appeal based on an error of law to the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court, which is the highest judicial organ in the country but unfortunately, the latter also upheld the 4th December 1998 decision, and acquitted the defendants. 51. The Respondent State avers that still dissatisfied with the judgments of the judiciary, the Oromiya Justice Bureau decided to institute a different criminal charge against the principal offender, for violation of Article 595 (1) of the Penal Code. The Respondent State argues that the Arsi Zonal Justice Bureau of the Oromiya Regional State, although it failed to prove the case on the rape count, is pressing criminal charges against the offender as per Article 595 (1) of the Penal Code, for commission of sexual outrage on infants between 15 and 18 years of age, who are assumed to be incapable of giving free and full consent to sexual intercourse. It says that the case is still pending before the Criminal Bench of the Arsi Zonal Court, and argues that the prosecution has been relentless in trying to affirm justice. 52. The Respondent State, thus, wants the matter dismissed by the Commission for non-exhaustion of local remedies. It argues that the appropriate judicial organs in Ethiopia are still entertaining the case and that it is clear that local remedies have not been exhausted. It states that the Complainants do not have locus standi to bring the Communication to the Commission, and that entertaining it might interfere with the jurisdictional sovereignty of Ethiopia and result in contradictory decisions, which would have undesirable effects. 53. The Respondent State further avers that the Complainants have failed to comply with the requirement of the Commission's 'Guidelines on the Submission of Communications', wherein Applicants are expected to attach copies of Court judgments and other relevant documents. 54. It further avers that the Government is doing its utmost, within available resources, to raise awareness of the general public, the judicial organs, as well as the law enforcement bodies, regarding the rights of women and girls in Ethiopia; and that c e