Council of Constitutional Inquiry as permitted under Article 6(2) of the Council’s Proclamation 250/2001. Moreover, the Respondent State which bears the onus has not demonstrated with evidence how a constitutional review can effectively and sufficiently redress the first Complainant’s grievances. 42. Further, the Complainants contend that the Council of Constitutional Inquiry and the House of Federation which has the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution and decide constitutional disputes is composed of representatives of the various Ethiopian nationalities. They submit that the two bodies are not courts or judicial organs for purposes of exhaustion of local remedies, citing in aid among others, Communications 221/98 – Alfred B. Cudjoe v Ghana in which the Commission held that the remedies which ought to be exhausted for purposes of Article 56(5) of the Charter must be those “sought from courts of a judicial nature”.9 In the circumstances, they were not obliged to pursue a constitutional review.. 43. Furthermore, the Complainants contend that a constitutional review would be inadequate and ineffective because the House of Federation being a non-judicial organ would not operate impartially and has no obligation to decide requests according to legal principles.10 Additionally, it is not sufficiently certain that a constitutional review would succeed and therefore it offers no prospects of success as envisaged in the jurisprudence of the Commission.11 The Complainants submit that for For this reasons also, they were not obliged to pursue a constitutional review of provisions of the the CSO Proclamation and their enforcement on the first Complainant.. The Commission’s Analysis on Admissibility 44. This Communication is submitted under Article 55 of the Charter which provides for Communications other than those of State Parties to the Charter. Such a Communications must satisfy the requirements under Article 56 of the Charter to be considered on the merits. It is primordial that the conditions are cumulative and must all be satisfied for this purpose. Consequently if one of the conditions is not satisfied, Communication 221/98 - Alfred B. Cudjoe v Ghana ACHPR (1999), para. 14; and Communication No. 262/87 - R.T v France (1989) HRC, para. 7.4 10 Citing Communication 87/93 - Constitutional Rights Project (in respect of Zamani Lakwot and six others) v Nigeria (1995) ACHPR paras. 8 & 9. 11 Communications 147/95 and 149/96 – Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia (200) ACHPR paras. 32, 35, & 38; Communications 48/90, 50/91, 52/91 & 89/93 – Amnesty International and Others v Sudan (2000) ACHPR para. 37 9 11 | P a g e