subjection of Victims to torture, inhuman and cruel treatment sanctioned with the judiciary being complicit.t? 51. may be officially The Complainants submitted that the government has also continued to violate their presumption of innocence through media campaigns without any reproach from the courts. 52. The Complainants submitted that there is a general lack of accountability for massive violations of human rights in Ethiopia.l! In this regard, the Complainants' Communication emanates from a larger pattern of serious or massive violations since the enactment Anti-Terrorism Proclamation in 2009. The government enacted the AntiTerrorism Proclamation alongside the Mass Media and Freedom of Information Proclamation, and the Charities and Societies Proclamation that has shrunk the democratic space in Ethiopia. The Complainants further submitted that torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatm.ent or punishment, and prolonged arbitrary detention may be classified as both 'serious' and 'massive' either jointly or separately. 53. The Complainants submitted that some of their claims are non-justiciable in Ethiopia. Their case involves a widespread pattern of violence and rights abuse with some victims not represented in court. Some rights guaranteed under international laws ratified by Ethiopia or the Constitution lack procedures to allow for their domestic adjudication. The civil procedure law for instance allows only persons with 'vested interest' to be party to a civil litigation. Criminal procedure law also recognise only the accused, the public prosecutor and private prosecutor to be party to a criminal litigation and any constitutional litigation that arises. Pursuant to Proclamation 250/200L constitutional litigation does not provide. for public interest litigation avenues since only 'final decisions' and not 'legislation' can be challenged. The Complainants further submitted that their right to dignity and healthy conditions of detention while provided for under the African Charter are not recognized in Ethiopia and that an Ethiopian Judge will be reluctant to interpret the law in a broad and assertive manner to allow for either public interest cases or recognise the rights of prisoners to a healthy and dignified condition. 54. The Complainants submitted that the Victims have been denied fair trials guarantees including being: refused access to lawyers and legal representation; subjected to torture in order to obtain confessions; denied their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; denied the right to be tried in public; and offered pardon in exchange for admission of guilt. Accordingly, since Article 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Law allows for the admissibility of evidence obtained through confession, Ethiopians courts are barred from reviewing legislations that contradicts the Constitution and as such it would be legally impossible for any court to reject evidence obtained through torture. The torture of political prisoners in Ethiopia's "unofficial" prisons is rampant particularly in military camps, public offices turned into prisons and underground buildings. The torture situation in Ethiopia is so dire that the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Appeal of England and Wales have stopped deporting individuals to Ethiopia. n The judiciary is complicit in massive human rights violations committed in Ethiopia including~. violation in Gambella Regional State; massive violations. in the Ogaden Region; massive viola ion in Oromia ,0"0~"'. J Regional State; massive violations following the 2005 elections; massive violations in relation ,and grabs; and (-:r. the case of journalists. In the last category, the 2009 anti-terrorism legislation led to a drama !lshrinking of the '" " "\1 space in which citizens and journalists can express themselves or express any vi.ews that perceived to be) t j critical of the EPRDF, ~ '"\ l.. ~ (/' J 10 ~tit~ .~u 8 :;';r /()'<- ~I' .... ,~\ , "" ') Cr ),OMME E' {'l: c ~-::::;:;- ' I "-;1 .s'~o .~ '-~, IVA"RIC t-'''' (,,,'<. " ... ' I. .'