a Complaint within the framework of the domestic legal system4. The Respondent State argues that according to the jurisprudence of the African Commission, local remedies mean “all local remedies”5, which could be defined as any domestic legal action that may lead to the resolution of Complaints at the domestic level. Furthermore, Rule 114 of the amended rules of procedure of the African Commission specifically affirms that all local remedies should be exhausted unless the processes of such remedies are taking an unduly long time. 45. The Respondent State submits that as can be observed from the allegation of the Complainant, the last step taken by the Applicants was to appeal to the High Court of the Regional Government, however, is not the end of the story regarding the judicial structure and arrangement of Ethiopia. If a party is aggrieved by a decision of a Regional High Court, that party can appeal to the Regional Supreme Court. In the extent that he is not satisfied with the decision of the Regional Supreme Court and believes that the decision has basic error of law, the party can still present the case to the Cassation Bench of that Regional Supreme Court. It does not end even there. The Federal Supreme Court has a power of cassation over any final decision by the Regional or Federal Courts containing basic error of law. This is prescribed under Article 80 of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 46. The Respondent State further submits that the Applicants did not exhaust local remedies available at the Regional and Country level.. The Applicants at least should have brought their case before the Regional Supreme Court or before the appropriate judicial organs of Ethiopia. It is abundantly clear that the local remedies are not exhausted. Therefore, the Respondent State submits that the 4 5 Communication 73/92, Mohammed L. Diakite v. Gabon. Para. 16. Communication 107/92. Lawyers Comm. For Human Rights v. Tanzania. 12