~ ,:H~r)ACH PR mUD:! , ' African Commission on ~ Hurnan and Peoples' Hiqhts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility large scale such as the present case. Citing Article 19 v Eritrea.s the Complainants argue that they do not need to exhaust local remedies in such a situation. 48. The Complainants further submit that apart from the fact that the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission is not a judicial remedy as envisaged under the African Charter, neither the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission nor the regular courts would be able to make the kind of orders that will protect the Victims from further displacement or villagisation. Citing Cudjoe v Chana.; the Complainants sum up that there are no effective or sufficient local remedies for the Victims to exhaust in respect of the present Communication. 49. In relation to the legislative framework necessary to sustain the claims of the Victims, the Complainants submit that Articles 40(4) and (5) of the Respondent State's Constitution creates a dichotomy between the land rights of peasants and pastoralists. The Complainants argue that the Implementation law that the Respondent State refers to in its observations relate to the rights of peasants but not pastoralists such as the Victims. Accordingly, the Complainants argue that Constitutional provision in favour of the pastoralists such as the Victims remain unenforceable by the national courts and are subject to Proclamation 456/2005 which empowers the State to displace or evict pastoralists from land supposedly for public purposes. 50. The Complainants submit further that the right to self-determination guaranteed in the Respondent State's Constitution is only available to peoples with a legislative council. It being the case that the Victims have no such legislative council, the Complainants argue that the right is not available to the Victims. The Complainants add that even the African Charter is not in practice applicable before the local courts because the African Charter has not been published and translated into the local language as required by the Constitution. 51. The Complainants submit finally that the courts are not empowered to directly apply or interpret the Constitution and its provisions as the power to do so resides in the Parliament which is a political body. The Complainant therefore submits that the Communication satisfies Article 56(5) of the African Charter since the Respondent State has failed to prove that effective and sufficient local remedies are available to the Victims, The Commission's Analysis on /vdmissibilitu 2 3 Communication 275/2003 - Article 19 v Eritrea (2007) ACHPR. Communication 221/98 - Cudjoe v Ghana (1998) ACHPR An Orqan of the African f/; '" U UnionC,,,,,/' 9 https:/achpr.au.lnt!O 0 a