highest organ to interpret the Constitution but it is the only organ that has this power" and it is assisted by the Council of Constitutional Inquiry (the Council). 44. The Complainants submitted that any hopes that the courts would resort to constitutional interpretation were quashed in 2001 with the passage of two laws, Proclamation 250/2001 and Proclamation 251/2001, which ensured that the judiciary was completely excluded from interpreting both procedural and substantive aspects of the Constitution. The Complainants further submitted that empirical studies show that judges routinely refer cases to the Council and the House of Federation and avoid the issue of constitutional interpretation altogether, including by refraining from citing the Constitution. 45. The Complainants submitted that Ethiopians courts are also precluded from applying or interpreting the African Charter or any other human rights treaty ratified by Ethiopia pursuant to a law passed by the House of Representatives (the "lower house"), Proclamation 3/1995. It requires that all the laws of Ethiopia be published in the official gazette (known as the" Negarit Gazeta"), which publication allows courts to take judicial notice of the laws. The Complainants further submitted that the failure to publish human rights instruments ratified by Ethiopia in the Negarit Gazeta means that the competence of the courts is ousted. In this regard, the Commission has consistently held that local remedies are ineffective or inadequate where the competence of the judiciary is ousted.' 46. The Complainants submitted that the local remedies are discretionary in nature since the House of the Federation is controlled by the ruling party, EPRDF, and its affiliates who hold 96.6% of the seats of House of Representative ("lower house") and 100% of the seats of the House of Federation ("upper house"). In this regard, the House of Federation is not a judicial organ and makes its decision through the voting of political representatives whose fidelity is to their party and electorate rather than some method of legal interpretation or principle. The Complaints submitted that they should be exempted from the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies in line with the principle established under Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria» where the Commission exempted the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies since the remedies were discretionary to the decision-maker or "if object of the remedy is to obtain a favour and not to vindicate a right." 47. The Complainants submitted that the courts have also been denied the authority to enquire into the validity of laws that strip individuals within their jurisdiction of fair trial rights guaranteed by domestic and international law. In accordance with the Commission's jurisprudence in Lawyers for Human Rights v Sioaziland.i there should be no requirement to exhaust local remedies where the courts had no authority to grant bail, although they did retain jurisdiction over criminal cases generally. 48. The Complainants submitted that the courts are unable to provide remedies given its lack of both the structural or functional independence necessary to hold the government accountable for violating the rights of its citizens including the Victims who have been harassed, tortured, and subjected to a politically-motivated prosecution. Aec~. ,' ~ 1 (I )<>,<-~, Communication 147/95,149/96 (joined) - [auiara v. The Gambia (2000) ACHPR. ( 5 Communication 60/91 - Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria (1999) ACHPR para 10. 6 Communication 251/02 - Lawyers for Human Rights v. Swaziland (2005) ACHPR paras 52 ~ ,... 4 ~~'I ~~lilJ r. (). r ... ~ 6 r: \', J:' - ~"','J// )<.- '" 4>"RICI\I1'''- .��" ? o~~E ~y /. ET [)( c>~/..,