alleges violations of Articles 1,7,14 and 26 of the African Charter and as such state that the Article 56(2) has been complied with. The Respondent State on the other hand argues that, the Complainant has failed to comply with the requirements of Article 56(2), because the right to conduct a mining operation is accorded by Proclamation No.52/1993 of Ethiopian laws and not by the African Charter. 63. The African Commission observes that the Communication is brought against the Democratic Republic of Ethiopia which became a party to the African Charter on 15 June 1998, and also alleges violations of rights contained in the African Charter, in particular, rights guaranteed under Articles 1,7,14 and 26 of the African Charter. Having identified the violation of certain rights guaranteed under the African Charter, which Ethiopia is a party to and which the African Commission has a mandate to promote and protect, it holds that the requirements under Article 56(2) of the African Charter have been fulfilled. 64. Article 56(5) of the African Charter states that „Communications relating to human and peoples‟ rights… shall be considered if they: are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged‟. The Complainant submits that the Applicants have duly exhausted all the domestic remedies available to them in Ethiopia for the purpose of Article 56(5) of the African Charter by undertaking the following steps in their quest for remedies before the Ethiopian judicial systems: i. On 10 June 2005 and 25 January 2006, the District Court ruled in favour of the Applicants. On 20 March 2007, the District Court rejected the 19