other Muslims, who declared Jihad against the Government and advocated for the establishment of an Islamic state in Ethiopia. Complainants' allegation of a violation of the Complainants' rights under Articles 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10 and 16 of the African Charter 205 The Respondent State's observations in response to the submissions Complainants can be summarized into three heads, namely: (i) of the Article 8 of the African Charter (Freedom of Religion) and Article 9 of the African Charter (Freedom of Expression); (ii) Articles 5, 6, 7 and 16 of the African Charter; and (iii) Article 10 of the African Charter (freedom of association) and Article 11 (right to freely assemble). 206. In response to the Complainants' claims that Articles 8 and 9 of the African Charter have been violated, the Respondent State submitted that each of the allegations of the Complainants with regards the Respondent State's supposed infringement of the right to the free practice of religion and the freedom of expression were either factually wrong or fail to show a violation of the African Charter. 207. First, the Respondent State submitted that the claim that Government "forcled] the community to come together under the single leadership of the Majlis against its own wishes" was plain wrong. The Respondent State's effort to end violence among the Muslim Community and to discourage adherents of the faith from espousing discourse that calls for violence by conducting training sessions on tolerance and constitutional clauses of secularism is not a violation of the freedom of religion. Second, the claim that the Respondent State gave the Mujlis "the power to decide whether a new Muslim/Islamic organization should beformed and giving it power to have organizations dissolved" was without factual basis. Third, the Majlis does not have "complete control" over the nomination and expulsion of Imams and schoolteachers. Fourth, the Majlis has never been given "complete" or any other power to authorise preaching and proselytization, gatherings, and building of mosques and schools. Fifth, the Respondent State does not interfere in the affairs of the Majilis by "stage-managing" its elections and by expelling those leaders with who it was "unhappy." 208. In this regard, the Respondent State requests the Commission to dismiss the Complainants' allegations of the violation of Article 8 of the African Charter. According to the Respondent State, even if the Complainants allegations that the Respondent State's policies favour one theological approach to Islam over another were true, there was nothing in the African Charter which prohibited a Government from promoting a certain theological approach over another so long as its policies did not infringe on the freedom of conscience and the profession and practice of religion. The Respondent State called in aid Doebler v Sudans"