Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia 63. They argue that the Victim was 13 years old at the time of the rape, as indicated: in the decision of the Guna Court of 15 July 2003 (Ethiopian Calendar, 9 July 1995), which stated her age as 15 years old when she gave testimony two years after the offence was committed; and her school record, which states she was 14 years old at the end of the academic year 2002 (Ethiopian Calendar, 1994). 64. Therefore, they aver that, if the Respondent State were to charge Aberew, he should be charged under Article 594(1) of the Ethiopian Penal Code which deals with sexual outrage on infants or young persons, which provides that: "Whosoever causes an infant or young person under fifteen years of age, other than his own child, to have sexual intercourse, or to perform an act corresponding to the sexual act, with him, is punishable with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding five years"; as the offence relevant to her case. The Complainants state that they are puzzled as to why the Justice Bureau of Oromiya is considering a charge against Aberew that does not fit the facts and which carries a lesser penalty. 65. The Complainants, on 15 January 2013 made further submissions on Admissibility. In the same, they argue that the Communication fulfills all seven requirements stipulated in Article 56 of the African Charter, and also attached Exhibits A and B , which they argue, satisfy all the requirements for Admissibility. 66. In terms of Articles 56(2) and 56(3), the Complainants submit respectively, that, the Communication raises prima facie violation of the Charter, and that the Communication is not written in disparaging or insulting language directed at the Respondent State. 67. In terms of Article 56(5), the Complainants submit that the Communication was sent after exhausting local remedies. They state that copies of all referenced Court proceedings and judgments were attached to the original Communication, and consequently argue that they have no further avenue of domestic appeal to pursue. They also state that this fact was not disputed by the Respondent State in its submission on Admissibility. 68. On Article 56(6), the Complainants submit that the Communication was submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies were exhausted. They aver that the Complainant's appeal was rejected by the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court on 12 January 2006 and that they submitted to the Commission in May 2007. In explaining the timeline between the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the filing of the Communication, they state that upon receiving the decision of the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court, they applied for an official copy of the decision in preparation for submission to the Commission, and that it.took