Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia the same zonal prosecutor to the effect that the principal offender and one of his accomplices could be judged again after hearing them in defence. No reason was offered for disregarding this latter suggestion. Instead of remitting the case to the court a quo for retrial, the Arsi high court outright acquitted the perpetrators and suffered no concern about rendering any form of justice to Ms Negash. 135. This was repeated on appeal to the Oromo Supreme Court and the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court, both of which held that there was no error or law to warrant consideration of the appeals as they did not find anything wrong with the decision of the court a quo. 136. It is not for the Commission to second-guess domestic courts as to the guilt of the perpetrators of Ms Negash's abduction and rape. Rather, the manner in which domestic courts discharge their functions is a factor to be considered in assessing whether the domestic authorities diligently discharged the State's duty to investigate, prosecute, adjudicate and punish perpetrators of violations of a criminal nature. 137. In the present case, the Commission considers that the decisions of the Arsi high court, the Oromo Supreme Court and the Federal Supreme Court (Cassation Bench) are manifestly arbitrary and affront the most elementary conception of the judicial function. The rulings are barely reasoned. In the relevant parts, both ruling merely state that there was no error of law to warrant a review on appeal. The judgments embody the Respondent State's breach of its duty to offer a decent system of justice for each victim of crime such as Ms Negash. In this regard, the courts' refusal to re examine the matter in respect of the two key offenders constitutes a denial of justice to Ms Negash and amounts to violation of the right to have one's cause heard as guaranteed under Article 7(1) (a) of the Charter. The courts' decisions also constitute breach of the obligation to give effect to the rights by responding to violations with criminal sanctions as was clearly necessary for the abduction and rape of Ms Negash. 138. Notably, the Respondent State acknowledges the failures of its zonal prosecutor and the Arsi high court. It states that it took disciplinary measures against the prosecutor who abdicated his duty and wrongly supported the acquittal of the perpetrators. It has also removed the judge who arbitrarily acquitted the convicts. These measures indicate admission that the mechanism of criminal justice failed to render justice to Ms Negash. For the avoidance of doubt, these disciplinary measures do not amount to remedies to Ms Negash for the two-tiered violations she suffered. She was abducted and raped by private individuals and the Respondent State failed to provide her the necessary protection. This was the first tierxof violations. When she sought justice, which the Respondent State is obligated to •• \\ %x^-p^.^\