Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 43. With regards to Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the Respondent State contends that local remedies have not been exhausted despite the fact that they are available, effective and sufficient. The Respondent State submits that contrary to the claims in the Complaint, its legal system provides for both the legislative and the institutional framework for the realisation of the rights of the Victims in this Communication. 44. On the legislative framework, the Respondent State submits that Article 40(5) of its Constitution as well as its Rural Land Administration and Land Use Proclamation No 456/2006 jointly guarantee pastoralists such as the Victims a right of access to land and a right not to be displaced from their own lands without the payment of compensation proportional to the developments made on the land. The State Party states further that the rights claimed on behalf of the Victim are all guaranteed in its Constitution in addition to the fact that by Article 9(4) of its Constitution, international agreements such as the African Charter are an integral part of its domestic law and serve as a basis for legal claims before its national courts. 45. The Respondent State submits further that local remedies are available to the Victims because under its laws, an alleged victim of human rights violation has an option to either approach the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission or the regular courts for redress. The Respondent State contends that access to its Human Rights Commission is open to anyone including spouse, family member, representative or even a third party acting on behalf of an alleged victim. Based on its submission that none of these national institutions were approached, the Respondent State contends that available effective and sufficient local remedies have not been used by the Complainants and the Communication should be declared inadmissible. Complainant's Comments on Respondent State's Submission 46. The Complainants submit, in response to the Respondent State's observations, that effective and sufficient local remedies are not available to the Victims because only a court order would assist the Victims in prohibiting their involuntary displacement. 47.