5. In March 2009 the Ministry of Justice issued a circular indicating that all charities and societies were permitted to continue their work in accordance with the previous legal framework until the Agency was established and the re-registration process commenced. 6. The first Complainant applied for registration on 22 October 2009. On 8 December 2009, without a court order or prior notification, the Agency froze the first Complainant’s assets including private bank accounts and sustainability fund which together were in the sum of approximately nine million Birr (equivalent of US$ 566,000.00). These funds had been acquired from both international and domestic sources since 2002. 7. The first Complainant received its certificate of registration as an Ethiopian charitable society on 11 December 2009. Three days later, on 14 December 2009 the first Complainant received a written notification of the freezing of its assets on the ground that a charitable society cannot convert to an Ethiopian charitable society while still in possession of foreign funds. 8. Relying on the Council of Ministers Regulation and the circular issued by the Ministry of Justice (paragraphs 4 and 5 above), the first Complainant lodged a complaint with the Director of the CSO Agency on 17 December 2009 and subsequently on 1 February 2010, claiming that the Agency’s decision to freeze assets was premature and unlawful. The first Complainant also contended that the CSO Agency’s decision indiscriminately affected funds lawfully acquired from foreign sources before the effective date as well as funds lawfully sourced domestically, details of which had been clearly provided in its statements of accounts submitted to the CSO Agency on application for re-registration. The Director of the CSO Agency dismissed the entire complaint. 9. On 3 August 2010 the first Complainant submitted an appeal to the CSO Agency’s Board (the Board) which, among other functions, considers appeals against decision of the Director General of the CSO Agency. In its appeal, the first Complainant additionally argued that the CSO Proclamation does not give the Agency any power to freeze bank accounts. In its decision on the appeal, the Board endorsed the decision of the Director General of the CSO Agency. Among others, the Board held that by collecting funds from foreign sources in 2009 the first Complainant had contravened the spirit of the regulation which provided for the one year transition period only for purposes of allowing the re-registration process to take place. The Board also held that 2|Page