alleges that members of the youth association are not directly engage in the sand production as Getahun Gudisa and Muluneh Getahum have employed other workers as the Applicants had done. 9. The Complainant states that the 1st and 2nd Applicants filed separate petitions before the District Court against the Office of Mines and Energy of the South West Shoa Zone for the reinstatement of their licences. On 17 June 2005, the District Court found in favour of the 1st Applicant and on 25 January 2006, found in favour of the 2nd Applicant. For both cases, the District Court found that the Respondent State‟s Proclamation 52/93, Article 2.2, was meant to regulate a different kind of mine and not the kind run by the Applicants and as such the Respondent State should have made provision for the Applicants to continue running the mines. The District Court also found that cancellation of the licences was invalid and therefore ordered for the Applicants licences to be reinstated. 10. The Complainant avers that the Respondent State failed to comply with the judgement of the District Court and the Applicants re-applied to the District Court in 20 March 2007, requesting the reinstatement of their licences. In refusing their application, the District Court held that the judgement should have been executed within a year of its pronouncement, despite the fact that Article 384 of the Ethiopian Civil Procedure Code provides a 10 year time limit for the execution of judgements. 11. The Complainant states that on 22 March 2007, the Applicants made separate appeals to the South West Shoa High Court against the District Court Judgement of 20 March 2007. In separate judgements delivered on 15 and 29 May 2007, respectively, the High Court held that the District Court‟s judgement of 20 March 2007 was contradictory and ordered the District Court to execute its previous 3