in the Applicant‟s complaint – confirms this, as does the fact that this Commission has dealt with several Complaints alleging similar violations. 50. The Complainant contends that the seizure of this Communication by the African Commission at the Ordinary Session of April 2009 is an indication that the alleged violations detailed in it are compatible with the African Charter6. This in effect means that the African Commission can consider this application. 51. The Complainant argues that the African Commission‟s protective mandate entitles it to assess and analyse the application of domestic legislation ratified by member states and to establish whether the application of those laws, policies and practices conflict with a state‟s international human rights obligations. The implementation of the Court Order by the Respondent State and the interferences of the Authorities in the judicial proceedings which the Applicants believed to be their only hope of securing redress for their grievances, infringed the Applicants right to property (14) and to a fair trial (Art.7) under the African Charter. 52. The Respondent State is therefore erroneous to assert that the Complaint only concerns rights provided for by domestic law. The actions of the Respondent State and its impact on the Applicants fall within the purview of the African Charter and therefore, the African Commission is empowered to consider the compatibility of those actions with the African Charter. The Government of Ethiopia ratified the Charter on 15 June 1998 and in so doing unreservedly accepted the competence of the African Commission to consider Communications alleging all African Charter violations. 6 Article 56(2) of the African Charter. 14