46. Finally, the Complainants contend that a remedy is said to be available
if it can be invoked without impediment, and it is evident not only in
theory but in practice that the pursuit of the remedy does place the
victim in serious danger3 and is readily obtainable or accessible to the
Complainant so that it can be utilized under any circumstance.4
47. The Complainants argue that in the present case, the Federal Supreme
Court and the National Electoral Board - two bodies charged with
election-related matters- impeded Ethiopians' ability to pursue a
remedy for their right to vote and participate in the Government.
48. In that regard, the Complainants contend that complaints submitted to
the National Electoral Board and the Federal Supreme Court were all
dismissed on technicalities without the consideration of the merit of the
complaints, despite substantial evidence supporting the claims of
election irregularities and voter intimidation.
49. The Complainants submit further that the declaration by the Court of
Cassation that Medrek (an opposition candidate in the 2010 elections)
did not have any grounds to oppose the National Electoral Board and
Supreme Court’s decisions meant that no further avenue exists in the
Respondent State, in law and in practice to lodge a complaint regarding
elections issues.
50. In particular, the Complainants submit that despite substantial
evidence supporting the claim of election irregularities, voter
intimidation, and an attempt to submit complaints to local election
observers before resorting to the National Electoral Board, the panel of
three Judges at the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the
opposition parties’ appeal to investigate on all complaints and its
request for a re-run of elections.
51. Based on the foregoing, the Complainants aver that the opposition
Party’s 2010 appeal to the Court of Cassation, which is the Respondent
State’s court of last resort to examine final decisions, demonstrated that
no further avenues were available to lodge complaints about the
electoral process. They argue that there are no available, adequate, and
effective local remedies that the victims could pursue and exhaust.
Therefore, the Communication satisfies the requirement of Article 56(5)
of the Charter.
3 Communication No. 147/95-149/96
Dawda Jawara v. The Gambia, (2000) paras 31 -32.
4 Communication No. 299/2005 Anuak Justice Council v. Ethiopia, (2006) para 51.
~7~
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region, The Gambia,
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/