application regarding the non-implementation of its judgments by wrongly stating that these should have been implemented within a year. ii. On 29 March 2007, due to the non-implementation of the decisions the Applicants appealed to the South West Shoa High Court. On 15 and 29 May 2007, Judge Gazali ordered that the District Court execute its decisions of 17 June 2005 and 25 January 2006 in respect of the two Applicants. iii. On 14 January 2008, the District Court declined to comply with the High Court Order stating that it would not interfere with the authorities‟ decision. iv. 6 February 2008, the Federal Council of Constitutional Inquiry refused to hear the Applicants‟ application. It found that their petition did not warrant a constitutional interpretation. v. On 4 March 2008, the matter went to the High Court again on appeal from the decision of 14 January 2008. The High Court affirmed the decision of the District Court. 65. The Respondent State on the other hand argues that the Complainant has failed to comply with Article 56(5) because as can be observed from the above, the last step taken by the Applicants was to appeal to the High Court of the Regional Government, which is not the end of the judicial structure and arrangement of Ethiopia. The Respondent State further argues that in accordance with Article 80 of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Applicants since aggrieved by a decision of a Regional High Court, could have appealed to the Regional Supreme Court. If the Applicants are not satisfied with the decision of the Regional Supreme Court, they can still present the case to the Cassation Bench of that Regional Supreme Court. It does not end even there. The 20