the repatriation exercise was carried out by lodging an appeal to the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 20 of the 1996 Code of Administrative Courts. Article 20 of the Code provides that anyone can lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court against any administrative decision taken by the President of the Republic, the Federal Council of Ministers, the Government of any region or Federal or Regional Minister. 115. The Respondent State added that the Complainant did not cite any case of refugees who had been illegally or forcibly returned to Ethiopia. The Respondent State acknowledged that the situation prevailing in Ethiopia in March 2000 was not favourable to the repatriation of those refugees fearing persecution in their country of origin. It stated however that the repatriation process followed the principles laid down in the Trilateral Agreement signed between the Government of Sudan, the Government of Ethiopia and the UNHCR in August 2000. 116. The African Commission is of the view that, even if certain domestic remedies were available, it was not reasonable to expect refugees to seize the Sudanese Courts of their complaints, given their extreme vulnerability and state of deprivation, their fear of being deported and their lack of adequate means to seek legal representation. The Commission notes that the refugees' legal representative was repeatedly denied entry into the country by the Respondent State's authorities. 117. Furthermore, even accepting the argument of the Respondent State that the refugees could have challenged the decision to repatriate them before the Administrative Courts or appealed to the Supreme Court, the Commission holds the view, which it has stated oftentimes before, that where the violations involve many victims, it becomes neither practical nor desirable for the Complainants or the victims to pursue such internal remedies in every case of violation of human rights.22 For all these reasons, the African Commission declares this communication admissible. Consideration of Merits 118. The present communication alleges that the Respondent State has violated the human rights of an estimated fourteen thousand Ethiopian refugees, following the invocation by the UNHCR of the Cessation Clause under Article 1(C)(5) × This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if: He can no longer, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A(1) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality(http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html accessed 25.10.2010) of the 1951 United Nations Refugees Convention. Complainant's submission on the Merits 119. The Complainant states that sometime in September 1999, the Respondent State and the UNHCR concluded an agreement, which inter alia stipulated that by 1st March 2000 Ethiopian refugees in Sudan would lose their right to work or receive any social assistance as a way of coercing them into forced repatriation. 120. The Complainant states that the said refugees were subsequently repatriated involuntarily to Ethiopia, or were threatened with arrest or involuntary repatriation by the Respondent State upon protesting the repatriation. Others were forced to leave Sudan for third countries. 121. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent State violated Articles 4, 5, 6, 12(3), (4), and (5) of the African Charter as a result of the failure to protect the Ethiopian refugees against the involuntary repatriation, and from threats of arrest. He states further that by failing to protect the refugees, it forced them to live under inhumane conditions, without the basic necessities of life. The Complainant is alleging that the Ethiopians are de facto refugees, and thus protected by Articles 12 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights. 122. The Complainant submits that the Respondent State has an obligation to ensure respect for the right 9