Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Complainant to demonstrate that those remedies were exhausted or ineffective in the specific case." 57. In relation to the present Communication, the Commission needs to determine whether the legislative and institutional framework required for an effective judicial realisation of the collective rights invoked in favour of the Victims exist in the Respondent State. 58. The crux of the Respondent State's argument is that by a combination of its Constitution and the Rural Land Administration and Land Use Proclamation No 456/2005, land-related human rights guaranteed in the African Charter can be claimed within its legal system either before the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) or before its national courts. The Respondent Parties argues further that by constitutional effect the African Charter itself is directly applicable before its courts. Accordingly, the Respondent State submits that it has an appropriate legislative framework and its institutions can provide effective and sufficient remedies for the rights invoked in favour of the Victims in the present Communication. 59. In relation to the need for an appropriate national legislative framework for effective domestic application of Charter guaranteed rights, the Commission has previously observed in its decision in Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and Another v Nigeria'' that where a right or set of rights is not covered by domestic law, it is unlikely that an action invoking those rights will succeed in that legal system. Thus, it has to be determined whether the existing legislative framework in the Respondent State allows for domestic judicial protection of the rights claimed in this Communication. 60. The Complainants allege that the Victims do not have any legal title to land and therefore fall outside the constitutional and statutory protection guaranteed under the laws of the Respondent State. In this regard, the Complainants have demonstrated that national law required for the implementation of existing constitutional guarantee has not been enacted as far as pastoralists are concerned. The Complainants have also demonstrated that the conditions required for direct application of the African Charter have not been put in place. This, according to the Complainants, makes the Africa Charter currently inapplicable in the Respondent State's legal system. An Org'''' of the African ((~~ Union ,,,"t. 11