based on information verified by first-hand accounts of the events, supported by means of affidavits.9 95. In respect of Article 56(5) which requires that Complainants exhaust all local remedies before approaching the Commission, the Complainants submit that the State has been given sufficient notice of the continuing violations and has had ample opportunity to remedy the situation. They argue that “the laws, procedures and practices have conspired to make it impossible for the Dergue Officials to seek any viable local remedies and/or made the remedies ineffective at best”. 96. The Complainants rebut the argument of the Respondent State on their access to the High Court or the Judicial Administration Commission (JAC) or the Human Rights Commission. In respect of the High Court, they note that the SPO Proclamation forecloses the detainees‟ rights to habeas corpus or a speedy trial, and that their request for individual charge cannot be appealed against until the final verdict is given.10 97. In respect of the accessing the Human Rights Commission, they argue that apart from the fact that the Human Rights Commission was established nine years after the effective detention of the victims; the former is expressly precluded by its establishing law from interfering in cases before the courts at any level. Article 7 of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission Establishment Proclamation No. 210/2000 provides that “The [Human Rights] Commission shall have full powers to receive and investigate all complaints on human rights violations made against any person, save cases brought before … the courts of law, at any level”. 98. In respect of the JAC, the Complainants submit that the body has always been fully aware of the trials of the Dergue Officials, and has chosen to remain a “disinterested spectator”. 99. They conclude that there is no remedy left for the Dergue Officials to exhaust as they have exhausted all available local remedies. Alternatively, they submit that should there be any reason to believe otherwise,11 the Commission should allow them to be exempted from 9 The Institute noted that these affidavits could not be submitted at this stage of the proceedings, until such time that it can bring the Commission‟s attention to the threat against the security of the individuals who have earnestly requested to remain anonymous for fear of possible government harassment. They however noted that the affidavits would be submitted at a later stage if the Commission devises a mechanism of keeping the names of the individuals confidential. 10 Para 14 of Complainants‟ submission on Admissibility. 11 Here, the Complainants note that where a State argues that a Communication before the African Commission must be declared inadmissible because local remedies have not been exhausted, then it has he burden of demonstrating the existence of such remedies. They thereby cited Communication 71/92, Recontre Africaine pour la Defence des Droits de l’Homme vs. Zambia. 18