judgements of 17 and 25 June 2006, respectively. The District Court declined to comply with the High Court order. 12. The Complainant further states that on 1 January 2008, the Respondent State had prepared a contract which states that the Applicants would use their own labour at the quarries and not engage workers. The Applicants did not agree with the contents of the contract. The Applicants informed the District Court of this development and in its decision of 14 January 2008; the District Court stated that it could not interfere with the authorities‟ decision. 13. The Complainant avers that the matter went to the High Court again on appeal from the decision of 14 January 2008, and the High Court affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Applicants applied to the Federal Council of Constitutional Inquiry which on 6 June 2008, declined to hear the application on the grounds that the facts before it did not warrant a Constitutional interpretation. 14. The Complainant alleges that the Applicants also claim that they also sought resolution of their grievances through non judicial remedies such as lodging a petition with the Ethiopian Federal Government, the Parliament, the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, the Public Ombudsman, the Council of Constitutional Inquiry and the Ethical and Anti-Corruption Commission, to no avail. Articles alleged to have been violated 15. The Complainant alleges a violation of Articles 1, 7, 14 and 26 of the African Charter by the Respondent State. 4