that the case is pending before the courts of the Respondent State, that remedies are available, effective and sufficient to address the matters raised in the Communication. The Respondent State also insists that the Special Prosecutor Office has sufficient and independent mechanism to address the grievances and that the remedies sought are beyond the mandate of the African Commission. The State submits further that the Communication does not make reference to the African Charter and fails to indicate the provisions of the Charter alleged to have been violated, adding that the case has already been settled by another international organ. 75. According to the State, the Complainant is required to provide a prima facie evidence of an attempt to exhaust local remedies, noting that in the present case, there are effective, and sufficient local remedies which the Complainant‟s have not exhausted. The State pointed out that the Complainants could have addressed their grievances to the High Court or the Judicial Administration Officer or the Human Rights Commission. 76. The State further avers that the right to a speedy trial alleged to have been violated is embodied in Ethiopian laws, including in the Constitution, and is a fundamental right recognized by international human rights treaties Ethiopia has ratified, which by virtue of Article 9 (4) is an integral part of the laws of Ethiopia. Thus, according to the State, the courts are bound to ensure the realization of this right. 77. The State acknowledges that in terms of Article 19 of its Constitution “…where the interest of justice so requires, the court may order the arrested person to remain in custody, or when requested, remand him for a time strictly required to carry out the investigation. In determining the additional time necessary for investigation, the court shall ensure that the responsible law enforcement authorities carry out the investigations respecting the arrested person‟s right to a speedy trial”. 78. According to the State, these are legal safeguards that cancel the risk of breach of the right of the accused to speedy trial. The State points out that if the Prosecution‟s office or any other organ was therefore engaged in an act that violates the victims‟ right to a speedy trial, they could and should have called the attention of the court to the violation. According to the State, there was no indication that the Complainants resorted to this. 79. Regarding the Judicial Administration Council established by Proclamation No. 24/1996, the State indicates that one of its powers is to discipline judges who act in breach of disciplinary rules and if the 14