information from organization, which information may include victims’ confidential information and thereby deterring victims from seeking assistance, the Respondent State has violated the right to receive information under Article 9(1) of the Charter. (c) by limiting sources of funding and thus forcing the first Complainant to scale down its monitoring, investigative reporting, and thus inhibiting it from expressing its analysis of the human rights situation in Ethiopia, the Respondent State is in violation of Article 9(2) of the Charter on freedom of expression. (d) By: (i) forcing the laying off of staff, the CSO Proclamation impacted the right of staff to associate with the organization; (ii) threatening the existence of the organization through its hostility and enactment of the CSO Proclamation which deter people from being employed by the first Complainant and other organisations, the Respondent State is in violation of Article 10 of the Charter; and by (iii) restricting the right to seek, receive and utilize funding the Respondent State is in violation of freedom of association; (e) the vagueness of some provisions and the lack of definitions in the CSO Proclamation contravene the principle of legality. (f) The freezing of the first Complainant’s funds amounts to violation of the right to property guaranteed under Article 14 of the Charter. (g) The hostility created by the unrestrained powers to interfere with the first Complainant work contravenes the right to work in a satisfactory environment under Article 15 of the Charter. Remedies sought 17. The Complainants seek the following remedies:(a) A declaration that the Respondent State is in violation of the first Complainant’s rights under Articles 1, 7(1), 9 (1) and (2), 10, 14 and 15 of the Charter, (b) That the Respondent State should allow the first Complainant to access its accounts and use or dispose of its assets. 5|Page