as the ultimate decisions of the House of Federation. Thus both the CCI and House of Federation are required to conduct a constitutional review and decide according law. The decisions are legally binding and all government bodies and officials are legally bound to implement them. 71. Remarkably, the Respondent State has referred the Commission to the case of Melaku Fenta to illustrate that the remedy of constitutional review works in practice.55 In that case, Art. 8(1) of Proclamation 25/1996 was declared unconstitutional for being inconsistent with the rights to appeal and equal protection of the law. Consequently, the trial of Mr. Melaku Fenta before the Federal Supreme Court was averted and thecase was remitted to the Federal High Court. The Commission finds this case comparable to the present complaint in that certain provisions of Proclamation 621/2009 (a federal law) and the measures taken under it (freezing of bank accounts by the CSO Agency, a government body) are challenged as violative of fundamental rights under the Charter, which rights are also guaranteed under the FDRE Constitution. 72. The Commission is satisfied that a constitutional review is clearly a legal action that may lead to the redress of the complainant grievances at the domestic level56, and in this regard it is designed for vindication of rights as opposed to obtaining favours. Accordingly, a constitution review ought to have been pursued and exhausted at the domestic level. The Complainants did not even attempt it despite that possibility in the context of proceedings before regular courts or indeed outside of such proceedings. Instead, the first Complainant completely disregarded a constitutional review on its own opinion that such a procedure was not relevant to its grievances. This view as the Commission has concluded above is not supported by the nature of the complaint and constitutional review as a remedy. 73. In light of the nature, practicality and effectiveness of a constitutional review as considered above and illustrated by the Melaku Fenta Case, the Complainants’ view about the inefficacy of a constitutional review amounts to mere theoretical apprehensions. As held in Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia such apprehensions cannot absolve a Complainant from the obligation to pursue and exhaust local remedies which present a likelihood of success.57 The first Complainant outright ignored a constitutional review as a remedy and opted for proceedings before regular courts which do not have 55 See above paragraphs 35 and 36 56 Communication 299/05 - Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (2006) ACHPR para. 50 Id, para. 58; 57 22 | P a g e