Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia or not to pursue, and thus could not be termed as an effective remedy for her within the meaning of Article 56 (5) of the Charter. In this regard, the Commission refers to its position in Laiv Offices of Ghazi Suleiman vs. Sudan where it held that the domestic remedies, contemplated by Article 56(5) are of a judicial nature, effective and are not subordinate to the discretionary power of the public authorities. 84. The Commission has also held that a "remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment" , and can make use of it in the circumstances of his case. It has also stressed that, remedies, the availability of which is not evident, cannot be invoked by the State to the detriment of the complainant ..." ; and that the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not in theory but also in practice, failing which, it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. 85. The alleged discretionary procedure of initiating a new charge of statutory rape against Aberew by the Arsi Zone Prosecutor's office, would therefore in view of the Commission, not satisfy the requirements of "availability", as contemplated under Article 56(5) of the Charter. 86. On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission is persuaded to conclude that the Respondent State has not discharged the burden of proof that the Complainants have adequate and effective remedies that have not been exhausted. Rather, the Commission finds that: there are no such available and effective remedies, as the Complainants' appeals, even to the highest courts of Ethiopia, have been denied; and the remedy which the Respondent State contends to exist, is a discretionary one, which is outside of the nature of remedies contemplated by Article 56(5). 87. In view of the foregoing, the Commission declares this Communication admissible in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter. MERIT Summary of Parties' Submissions on the Merits Complainant's submissions 88. The Complainant states that the judge of Arsi High Court which discharged the convicts was influenced by his personal belief that rape could only be committed on a virgin. Further, the judge drew the wrong conclusion that the medical evidence was inconclusive on whether the victim was a virgin. By failing to recognise that virginity is not a prerequisite of the offence of rape, and that the law should protec^