ii. the Communication does not fulfil the requirements of Article 56(5) of the African Charter. i. Incompatibility with Constitutive Act/African Charter 42. The Respondent State argues that a Communication which does not reveal a prima facie violation of the African Charter will not be executed3. The Respondent State further argues that the facts of the case represent literally a renewal of an artisanal license obtained before the coming into force of the Proclamation No. 52/1993. Any issue beyond the renewal of the license was not raised by the Applicants during those proceedings nor were they entertained by the courts. 43. Thus, the rights at stake are the right to conduct mining operations which is accorded by Proclamation No.52/1993; and not by the African Charter. Therefore, the African Commission should not entertain the case as it does not invoke any provision of the Constitutive Act of the AU or the African Charter. Moreover, the African Commission does not have a jurisdiction to entertain a right which is solely given by the laws of Ethiopia. ii. Non Exhaustion of Local Remedies 44. On the non exhaustion of local remedies by the Complainant, the Respondent State avers that the exhaustion of local remedies rule is a well established principle under international law that provides a State an opportunity to redress 3 ACHPR Information Sheet No.3, Communication Procedure, Page 6. 11