Inquiry. Any interested party has a right to challenge federal and regional laws as unconstitutional by submitting a request to the Council of Constitutional Inquiry.4 The Council of Constitutional Inquiry is vested with the power to undertake a technical consideration of such requests and provide recommendations to the House of Federation for final decision.5 34. Where the challenge relates to fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in its Constitution, the proposed interpretation of the Constitution and recommendations are required to comply with the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenants on Human Rights and other international instruments to which Ethiopia is a party.6 The House of Federation is required to issue its final decision within 30 days of recommendations being submitted to it.7 35. To prove the effectiveness and sufficiency of constitutional review as a remedy, the Respondent State cites the case of a Mr. Melaku Fenta, the former director of the Ethiopian Revenue and Customs Authority who was prosecuted for corruption. Being director, Mr. Melaku Fenta’s rank was equivalent to that of a Minister. Article 8(1) of Proclamation No 25/1996 vested the Federal Supreme Court with exclusive first instance jurisdiction to try senior officials of federal government for offences committed in connection with their official duties. 36. The constitutionality of Article 8(1) of Proclamation 25/1996 was referred to the House of Federation on the grounds that it violates therights to appeal and equality before the law guaranteed under the FDRE Constitution. The House of Federation, upon the recommendation of the Council of Constitutional Inquiry, held the provision to be unconstitutional and accordingly struck down its application. Mr. Melaku Fenta’s case was remitted to the Federal High Court for trial. 37. The Respondent State maintains that a constitutional review before the House of Federation such as in Melaku Fenta’s case must be viewed in light of its judicial nature as a remedy. It contends that the remedy is thus available, effective and sufficient. It states that the Complainants did not use this procedure to challenge the provisions of the CSO Proclamation, the related regulations, and their application. The Respondent State invokes the Commission’s view in Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia8 that “if a remedy Council of Constitutional Inquiry Proclamation No. 250/2001 (Proclamation 250/2001), Art. 6(2) Ibid 6 Constitution, Art. 13(1), Proclamation 250/2001, Art. 20(2) 7 Proclamation 250/2001, Art. 7 8 Communication 299/05 - Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia ACPR (2006), para. 58 4 5 9|Page