Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia 6. Furthermore, the Complainants state that from the judgement, it is shown that instead of supporting Woneishet's case, the Zonal Prosecutor recommended that the verdict of the lower court be reversed, and stated that he had no objection if the defendants were set free. 7. The Complainants claim that upon a further appeal made by the Complainants against the ruling of the High Court on 3 December 2004, the Oromia Supreme Court held that there were not sufficient grounds to reconsider the case and dismissed the appeal. This, the Complainants say, was later reviewed by the Cassation Bench of the Oromia Supreme Court on 10 October 2005, which held that there had been no fundamental error of the law in the case. 8. The Complainants further allege that a final appeal made to the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court by the Oromia Prosecutor's office was rejected by the Federal Cassation Court on 12 January 2006, on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case because no error of law had been committed. 9. The Complainants further state that there was no further avenue of domestic appeal for the Victim, and that the Government had failed in its obligation under the African Charter to provide her (Woineshet) equal protection of the law and respect for her rights to security of person, dignity and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as evidenced by the Ethiopian courts. 10. The Complainants allege that under Ethiopian law, if a person is forced to enter a contract against her or his will, that contract is rendered invalid. They state that apart from the Complainant being forced to sign the marriage contract, she was below the legal age for marriage in Ethiopia. 11. The Complainants argue that due to the above mentioned facts, the rights of Woineshet which are guaranteed by the African Charter have been violated by the government of Ethiopia. They allege that there is a violation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, and 18(3) of the African Charter, and Article 24(3) of the Convention on the Rights of a Child. 12. The Complainants argue that under Article 589 of the Ethiopian Penal Code, the rape of a child under fifteen year of age was punishable by imprisonment of up to fifteen years, and yet courts in Ethiopia denied justice to the Victim and failed under international law to provide equal protection of the law. 13. The Complainants aver that by failing to impose any sanction on those responsible for the abduction and rape of a 13 year old girl, the Respondent Sfafe \