the competence to deal with the type of complaint now pleaded before the Commission. In so doing, the first Complainant proceeded as though it is not aggrieved by provisions of the CSO Proclamation. In challenging the measures, it did not even plead violation of a single fundamental right guaranteed under the FDRE Constitution. Only to plead such a case for the very first time before the Commission. Thus, the Respondent State was not presented with the opportunity to examine the constitutionality of provisions of the CSO Proclamation and the measures complained of under the prism of fundamental rights. In the Commission’s view, this Communication does not comply with Article 56(5) of the Charter on exhaustion of local remedies. The Complainants are at liberty to approach the Commission if a constitutional review of both the CSO Proclamation and the measures taken against the first Complainant does not yield the remedy they are seeking. Decision of the Commission on Admissibility 74. In light of the above reasons, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights declares this Communication Inadmissible under Article 56(5) of the Charter for failure to exhaust the relevant local remedy. Done in Nairobi, Kenya this 31st day of July, 2015 during the 18th Extraordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights held from 29 July – 8 August 2015 23 | P a g e