emphasizing, the Respondent state submits, that the Dergue amended the Penal Code in 1982 and issued a Special Penal Code through Proclamation No.114/1982 and did not bother to amend this part of the Penal Code including the provision they are contesting hereunder. The Respondent State explains that the Dergue were applying the Penal Code in Ethiopia until the downfall of their regime and contested its application when it was found that it came to regulate their past criminal activities. 163. Thirdly the Respondent State argues that the Federal High Court had rejected, with the appropriate legal reasoning, when the Complainants raised the Penal Code in their preliminary objections during the trial and finally, the Respondent State argues that even if one could allege that there could be a conflict between the Penal Code and the Convention, this type of issue that raises constitutional interpretation shall be the mandate of the House of Federation in accordance with Article 62(1) and 83(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ethiopia. Thus the Respondent State submits that the African Commission cannot replace national mechanisms for local remedies and could not be regarded as a tribunal substituting national court. 164. The Respondent State further argue that full judicial independence is guaranteed by domestic laws in Ethiopia as is provided for in Article 78 of the Constitution. It argues that in the Constitution further guarantees in Article 78(4) that special or ad hoc courts which take judicial powers away from the regular courts or institutions legally empowered to exercise judicial functions and which do not follow legally prescribed procedures shall not be established. The Constitution, the Respondent State submits, also guarantees in Article 79(2) and (3) that the courts from any level shall be free from interference by government or any other source and that the judges shall exercise their functions in full independence and shall be directed solely by law. 165. The Respondent State say that every person in Ethiopia has the right to access impartial and independent courts and judges having jurisdiction over any alleged infringements including violations of human rights. It further submits that the Complainants‟ submission regarding the partiality of Ethiopian judiciary is unfounded and not substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. 166. The Respondent State maintains that the African Commission should dismiss the Communication on the following grounds: 37