interest infringed and where they are effective in producing the result for which they were designed12. 55. The Complainant submits that in the Applicants‟ case, existing remedies are not adequate and they do not protect the legal interest infringed. In Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia, the African Commission has opined that it is incumbent on every Complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or to at least attempt the exhaustion of local remedies13. The Complainant states that this Complaint should be distinguished from the Anuak Justice Council case, in which, the Applicant did not bother to seek redress before the Ethiopian Courts at all. The Complainant argues that in this case, the Applicants went to the District Court and the High Court and did not take the matter to the Regional Supreme Court because it is clear on settled legal opinion from the Oromia Supreme Court, the Supreme Court‟s Cassation Bench and the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court that there is no prospect of success and secondly that the filing of an appeal would not have achieved anything more and would simply have unduly prolonged an already protracted process. 56. The Complainant further argues that in Ato Bekele Welde Michael & 25 Ors v the State14 , the Applicants sued the West Shoa Administrative Zonal Mine and Energy office in respect of the renewal of their revoked licenses. The High Court in West Shoa decided against the Appellants. The Appellants appealed to the Oromia Supreme Court and that Court confirmed the West Shoa Court‟s decision on the basis that it had found no error of law15. The Appellants appealed to the Cassation Bench of Oromia‟s Supreme Court, which decided that there was no Parque Sao Lucas v Brasil, Case 10.31, Inter-Am CHR, Report para 31. Justice Council v Ethiopia 299/ 05 para 58. 14 Case No 10597. 15 File No. 649 13. 12 13Anuak 16