130. The Complainant further argues that the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is lex specialis in relation to the African Charter.27 131. He argues that the Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of the Refugee Problem in Africa is lex specialis to both the Charter and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. He states that this instrument elaborates and strengthens the definition of a refugee deserving the protection of asylum. This treaty, he maintains, extends the definition of a refugee by stating in paragraph 2 of Article 1 that not only is a refugee a person as described by the UN Refugees Convention, but also that: [t]he term "refugee" shall also apply to every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality. 132. The Complainant concludes that, in the instance case, this expanded definition applies to the Ethiopian refugees in addition to the definition in the UN Refugee Convention. This expanded definition must also be the basis of the interpretation and implementation of Article 12 by the Commission because it provides individuals cumulatively the most adequate protection of their human rights in accordance with the international legal obligations that the Government of Sudan has voluntarily undertaken. Respondent State's Submission on the Merits 133. The Respondent State in its submission states that Sudan is always committed to the implementation of international human rights instruments and continues to cooperate with the UN High Commission for Refugees which has the responsibility of monitoring international and regional conventions on refugees. 134. The Respondent State denies all the Complainant's allegations. It argues that as a signatory to the African Charter and various refugee instruments, it was merely cooperating with the UNHCR "...in performing its functions, and assist it in facilitating its duties and carrying out its assignments to monitor and implement the provisions" of the Geneva Convention.28 The Respondent State argues that refugees are only entitled to receive support from the UN, where fear from persecution which caused him/her to flee, still persists. 135. The Respondent State argues that following the fall of Mengistu's regime in 1991, the UNHCR was of the view that the circumstances which led to the flight of Ethiopians to Sudan and to the other countries of the world, no longer existed. The Respondent State states that the UNHCR believed that the situation in Ethiopia after Mengistu's fall had sufficiently changed for the return of large numbers of refugees to that country. It nevertheless argues that the announcement of the Termination of Refugee Status for Ethiopian refugees was not supposed to take place before an adequate period of time elapsed, to ensure stability and sustainability of the change in the country of origin. 136. The Respondent State, quoting Article 1(c) para. 1-6 × This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if: 1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or 2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it, or 3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or 4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or 5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A(1) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality; 6) Being a person who has no nationality he is, because of the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence; of the 1951 UN Refugees Convention, which defines the six conditions under which refugee status ceases, argues that in the case of the Ethiopian refugees, the conditions no longer justified their continued stay in Sudan. The Respondent State argues that these six conditions are based on the consideration that international protection is not usually granted when it is not justified. 137. It cites the Cessation Clause, Article 1(C)(5) × This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if: He can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognised as a refugee have 11