Complainant states that the Applicants undertook the following steps in their quest for remedies before the Ethiopian judicial system: i. On 10 June 2005 and 25 January 2006, the District Court ruled in favour of the Applicants. On 20 March 2007, the District Court rejected the application regarding the non-implementation of its judgments by wrongly stating that these should have been implemented within a year. ii. On 29 March 2007, due to the non-implementation of the decisions, the Applicants appealed to the South West Shoa High Court. On 15 and 29 May 2007, Judge Gazali ordered that the District Court execute its decisions of 17 June 2005 and 25 January 2006 in respect of the two Applicants. iii. On 14 January 2008, the District Court declined to comply with the High Court Order stating that it would not interfere with the authorities‟ decision. iv. On 6 February 2008, the Federal Council of Constitutional Inquiry refused to hear the Applicants‟ application. It found that their petition did not warrant a constitutional interpretation. v. On 4 March 2008, the matter went to the High Court again on appeal from the decision of 14 January 2008. The High Court affirmed the decision of the District Court. 37. The Complainant submits that on the exhaustion of local remedies, the African Commission has stated that such a remedy, if it is available must be exhausted 9