examine the Communication if it deems it appropriate. The Commission hereby alludes to the practice of other similar bodies such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.8 In this respect, the Commission notes that while there is no provision to this effect in its current rules of procedure, there is also nothing therein precluding it from adopting this progressive approach to the protection of human rights. 71. Accordingly, the African Commission hereby joins the IHRDA as coauthor to the present Communication, in line with its widely espoused actio popularis principle, as an organisation with an interest in the protection and promotion of human rights in Africa under the actio popularis principle. The Communication will henceforth be cited as Haregewoin Gebresellaise and Institute for Human Rights & Development in Africa/ Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. The Law on Admissibility Respondent State’s Submissions on Admissibility 72. The Respondent State‟s submissions on admissibility are divided into two parts. In Part One, the Respondent State provides a background of the conflict in Ethiopia that led to the overthrow of the Dergue Regime in 1991. The State notes the alleged gross human rights violations that were perpetrated by the said regime and notes further that domestic mechanisms were put in place to prosecute perpetrators of gross human rights violations. These mechanisms, according to the Respondent State, includes the Special Prosecutor Office set up in 1992 to, among other things, establish a historical record of human rights violations under the Mengistu regime; and to bring officials, members and auxiliaries of the armed and security forces of the Dergue regime who participated in the commission of serious human rights violations to justice. 73. The Respondent State also notes that it has an independent judiciary dealing with the cases of the officials and insists that most of the cases have been disposed of and some people have been tried, some set free, others have been convicted while some are still being tried. 74. In Part Two of its submission, the Respondent State addresses itself to the question of Admissibility and argues that the Communication should be declared Inadmissible for the following reasons: that the Complainant failed to comply with the burden and standard of proof; 8 Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; http://www.cidh.org/Basicos/basic16.htm (accessed on 25/10/06). 13