the jurisdictions of the Federal High Court and of the First-Instance Courts are hereby delegated to the State courts. 3. States shall establish State Supreme, High and First-Instance Courts. Particulars shall be determined by law. 4. Special or ad hoc courts which take judicial powers away form the regular courts or institutions legally empowered to exercise judicial functions and which do not follow legally prescribed procedures shall not be established. 5. Pursuant to sub-Article 5 of Article 34 the House of Peoples' Representatives and State Councils can establish or give official recognition to religious and customary courts. Religious and customary courts that had state recognition and functioned prior to the adoption of the Constitution shall be organised on the basis of recognition accorded to them by this Constitution. of the Respondent State's Constitution guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary, it is perceived by individuals both at home and abroad that the executive has considerable and even undue influence on the judiciary. 36. The Complainant quoted a World Bank Report entitled Ethiopia: Legal and Judicial Sector Assessment (2004) which concluded that "... of the three branches of government, the judiciary has the least history and experience of independence and therefore requires significant strengthening to obtain true independence". According to the Complainant, the Report notes that the interference in the judiciary is more flagrant at State level where there are reports of administrative officers interfering with court decisions, firing judges, dictating decisions to judges, reducing salaries of judges and deliberately refusing to enforce certain decisions of the courts. 37. The Complainant also alleges that bringing the case before Ethiopian courts would unduly prolong the process as the Ethiopian judiciary suffers from a complex system of multiple courts that lack coordination and resources, including "dismal conditions of service, staff shortages, lack of adequate training, debilitating infrastructure and logistical problems". The Complainant claims court proceedings take years to yield results, and concluded that the Respondent State's judicial system is so under resourced that prosecutions would be nearly impossible, noting that to date, no action had been taken to prosecute any of the Ethiopian Defence Forces or government officials for the atrocities they committed against the Anuak. 38. The Complainant also alleges that the Anuak fear for their safety in bringing the case in Ethiopia adding that there are no Anuak trained as lawyers who could bring the case before Ethiopian courts. The Complainant notes that the overwhelming sentiment in the Gambella Region and of the Anuak who have fled the country is that non-Anuak lawyers within Ethiopia would be unwilling to take the case due to the potential persecution they would face, as well as the insurmountable odds of achieving a just remedy. The Complainant added that Anuak who remain in the Gambella Region continue to suffer from extra-judicial executions, torture, rape and arbitrary detention from the authorities of the Respondent State adding that several of them have been threatened and warned specifically against pursuing a case against the Respondent State. The Complainant noted that as recently as January 2005, the Respondent State threatened Anuak leaders, declaring that anyone attempting to tarnish the reputation of the Respondent State would be dealt with. The Complainant concluded by stating that to bring the case within the Respondent State would only further endanger the lives of the remaining Anuak in the Ethiopia. 39. The Complainant added that the Respondent State had been given notice and adequate time to remedy the human rights violations against the Anuak but has utterly failed to do so. That the Respondent State received notice of the violations but chose not to take action to halt the atrocities or to make its forces accountable. The Complainant added that the Respondent State's response to the massacres in December 2003 in the Gambella Region was inadequate and disingenuous. That under international pressure, the Respondent State established a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the killings, however, according to the Complainant, the inquiry was biased and ineffectual and did not meet international standards of an independent investigation. 4