Respondent State violated the African Charter. 154. The Complainant submitted that the Respondent State denied 14,000 Ethiopian refugees the protection they deserved and a fair determination process when it executed a joint agreement with the UNHCR in September 1999, giving effect to the cessation clause by 1st March 2000. 155. Did the actions of the Respondent State, in executing the joint agreement in September 1999 and posting the notice in February 2000, amount to committing a refoulement, i.e. the act of expelling the refugees? The mere execution of the agreement and posting of the notice did not constitute an act amounting to an expulsion or repatriation. The September 1999 and the subsequent notice clearly expressed the intent to apply the Cessation Clause. They created an atmosphere which triggered this communication even before the Cessation Clause implementation was set in motion. The repatriation process under the refugee conventions is conducted in a voluntary manner. 156. The Respondent State, being a party to the September 1999 agreement was thus responsible for whatever action that would follow the execution of the said agreement. The Respondent State cannot blame the UNHCR for its own actions. The Respondent State has however stated that it did not refoule the refugees. It has submitted that it did not forcibly repatriate them; it did not imprison them nor deny them the basic necessities of life as alleged by the Complainant. 157. The Respondent State denied that it repatriated refugees during the Eritrean-Ethiopian conflict. In fact it submitted that both Ethiopia and itself requested the UNHCR to postpone the repatriation during the Ethiopian Eritrean War. Repatriation resumed after the end of the conflict when a tripartite agreement was concluded in August 2000. The agreement provided for voluntary repatriation, inclusive of UNHCR assistance to the returnees as well as modalities for determination of a caseload of refugees who did not opt to be repatriated. 158. The Respondent State stated that the refugees were not denied assistance, in spite of the notice, till the end of the repatriation programme. 282 refugees continued receiving protection after the cessation clause. 159. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent State had mistreated the refugees for protesting their forcible repatriation. He alleged that the refugees were beaten, arrested, forcefully repatriated, and in other cases were threatened with forced repatriation for demanding to remain in Sudan for fear of persecution if they were returned to Ethiopia. 160. The African Commission wishes to state that the accounts by the two parties about the events subsequent to the Cessation Clause differ in certain respects. The Complainant, who claimed to represent 14,000 refugees, submitted that many of the refugees did not want to return to Ethiopia because they were aligned to the opposition EPRP and feared persecution. The Respondent State submitted that most of the pre-1991 refugees returned. A substantial number were granted further protection and others were issued with residence permits due to family or socio-economic reasons. The Respondent State argues that by June 2001 it had issued residence permits to more than 7000 refugees who did not opt to be repatriated. At the same time it stated that other post 1991 refugees who had fled the current Ethiopian regime continued to remain in Sudan. 161. The African Commission has not found any substantive reasons to doubt the account by the Respondent State. The African Commission holds that thousands of refugees repatriated voluntarily under the tripartite arrangements and those who remained were accorded refugee status or assumed normal immigrant status upon being granted residence permits. 162. The African Commission states, however, that the allegations made by the Complainant could have been a case of a few refugees who feared the worst during the time immediately after the Cessation Clause was announced. The fear of the unknown by a substantial number of refugees who were able to communicate with their lawyer as well as the publicity generated by press reports, coupled with the frustrations of denial of visas by the Respondent State to the Complainant, compounded the perception that the Respondent State was about to refoule the refugees. 163. The Commission has found no evidence that refugees were refouled as a result of the cessation clause. The Commission has not established any cases of imprisonment, arrest, and forcible repatriation. There was no concrete evidence brought to the attention of the Commission to the effect that such cases, if any, were linked to the promulgation and implementation of the cessation clause. The Respondent State demonstrated by providing figures, which were not refuted, of refugees who repatriated voluntarily prior to and after the cessation clause, as well as those who were granted further protection or alternative solutions to repatriation. The Complainant allegations that Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the African Charter were violated have not been proved. 14