clear choice to prosecute former Dergue officials who committed serious offences and this decision has been widely supported by the international community. 84. The State avers that the Complainants claim the right to pardon and amnesty under international law have been infringed. According to the State, there are no such rights under international law, adding that, the Ethiopian constitution precludes any blanket amnesty. 85. According to the State, the Complainants‟ requests are not directly related to any human right guaranteed in the African Charter and thus the Communication is not compatible with the provisions of the Charter. 86. The State went on to state that the Communication does not refer to the Charter and fails to indicate the provisions of the Charter that have been violated, noting that the African Commission has indicated that Communications must illustrate a prima facie violation of the Charter by invoking specific provisions of the Charter alleged to have been violated. It also notes that the African Commission has rejected Communications which failed to make reference to the provisions of the Charter, that even though they cited provisions under UN texts, made only general allegations of human rights violations without making any specific breaches of the Charter. 87. The State also argues that the Communication has been settled by another international organ. The State indicates that in its report E/CN.4/1994/27, Decision Nos 45/1992 and 33/1993, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued decisions regarding the detention and prosecution process involving the victims. The State argues that following this decision, the government took the necessary measures in order to comply. The State argues that the Communication should therefore be declared inadmissible as it has been settled by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 88. The state also argues that the Communication does not conform with the procedures in the African Charter and the Commission‟s rules of procedures. The State notes that the present Communication does not meet the requirements of a Communication, as it is simply a letter of appeal sent to the Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa. The State argues that the Special Rapporteur was engaging the Commission on issues which “it is already addressing and is adequately seized of through its promotional mandate”. The State concludes that the present Communication was not addressed to the Secretariat as a Communication but rather as a feed back from alleged victims of human rights to the Special Rapporteur during her 16