Netospaper of Zimbabwe 7). Zimbabwe, the Commission decided that states 'are not considered to have violated their human rights obligations if they provide genuine and effective remedies for the victims of human rights violations.'21The onus therefore is on the Complainants to provide sufficient ground(s) to support their allegation that they have complied with the requirement to exhaust local remedies. 108, Before embarking on the main analysis, it is necessary to deal with the contention by the Respondent State that local remedies have not been exhausted by the Complainants since the current case is pending before the Ethiopian Federal High Court. 109. Under Paragraph 69 above, the Respondent State submitted that about ten (10) of the accused persons as well as two (2) organisations have been acquitted after due process was observed; nine (9) others have been ordered to defend themselves. On this basis, the Respondent State argues that [t]here can be no grounds for bypassing the requirement of exhaustion of legal remedies.' I 110. The question therefore is whether the present case as submitted by the Complainants to the Commission is also pending before the Ethiopian Federal High Court as contended by the Respondent State. 111. In order to determine this issue, it is important to appreciate the nature of cases before the Ethiopian Federal High Court. Under paragraph 9, the Victims are stated to be facing criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. Under paragraphs 55 and 56, this position was also confirmed by the Respondent State in its submissions and currently a final decision by the courts is pending. 112. In Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia, the Commission clarified that the underlying question with regards to whether or not the current Communication is still pending at the national level is to look at the subject matter of the proceedings before the Commission; and, also, whether it is aimed at granting the same relief the Complainants are seeking before the Commission.F 113. The subject matter before the Commission is the violation of the African Charter in the context of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. In contrast, the cases pending before the Ethiopian Federal High Court relates to the crime of terrorism under the AntiTerrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. In terms of the reliefs sought, the Complainants wants a finding that the laws and actions undertaken in the context of the AntiTerrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 as being a violation of the African Charter, among another things. At the domestic level, only criminal sanctions are pending. To this extent, the Commission finds that the Communication before it is not pending before the national courts and in particular the Ethiopian Federal High Court. In any event, since attempts by the Complainant to raise constitutional objections before the court failed on the grounds that the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation does not raise 299/05 - Anuak Justice Council v. Ethiopia (2006), Communication No, 284/03 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newsp v. Zimbabwe (2009) ACHPR para 100, 22 Communication 299/05 - Anuak Justice Council v, Ethiopia (2006) para 62. 21