61. The Respondent State submitted that the Executive cannot give instructions to the Judge
concerning the interpretation of the law, or on issues of injunctions or concerning the
stand the Judge should take on any matter of law. The Respondent State further
submitted that Judges are guaranteed protection from being subjected to any pressure
as a result of any act done during the exercise of their power.
62. The Respondent State submitted that the establishment of the Federal Judicial
Administration was one attempt to free the judiciary from the influence of government
organs or officialdom including in jurisdiction, appointment, composition of the courts,
and the composition of the judicial disciplinary bodies. The Respondent State further
submitted that its legal system is free and independent and that the Complainants
allegations regarding its lack of independence are flawed and baseless.
63. The Respondent State submitted that the independence of the Judiciary was confirmed
when it acquitted ten of the accused as well as two organisations without the need for
them to defend the charges brought by the prosecution. The Respondent State further
submitted that the independence of the judiciary is a pillar to Ethiopia's legal system
and that the Judges are professional and that the Judiciary continuously assesses itself
in order to take necessary corrective and reformative policy and legal measures.
64. The Respondent State submitted that the House of Peoples' Representatives and the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia promulgated the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation
No. 652/2009 on 28th August 2009 in compliance with international law and the UN
Security Council Resolution 1624. The Respondent State further submitted that the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Government believes that fighting terrorist
activities is the basis for the full protection and promotion of fundamental human rights
and freedoms.
65. The Respondent State submitted that the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009
does not prohibit peaceful protests. The Respondent State further submitted that the
law is also subject to all the legal principles of a public trial including fair hearing, due
process, presumption of innocence and other principles incorporated under
international human rights instruments to which Ethiopia is a party or under the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution.
66. The Respondent State submitted that it is committed to ensuring, protecting and
fulfilling the fundamental human and democratic rights that are guaranteed under its
Constitution, the African Charter and other international instruments ratified by
Ethiopia. In particular, it has taken measures to strengthen the various institutions to
work on the protection and promotion of human rights in all aspects. Consequently, the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has adopted a national human rights action
plan and incorporated human rights in the development programmes.
67.
The Respondent State submitted that Articles 9(4)and 13(2)of the Constitution provides
that international human rights instruments ratified by Ethiopia are part and parcel of
the domestic laws. In this regard, allegations that Article 2(2) and (3) of Proclamation
3/1995 prohibiting courts from taking judicial notice is erroneous.
~
~\~.
,
"'f'
68. The Respondent State submitted that Ethiopia has consistently undes aken its
obligations under the African Charter and has submitted its 1st to 4th periOd~'~eport an;J
is currently working on its 5th and 6th periodic reports.
8
~,
•
~
~""J.
o~
'"
~~
.J,0\)'>',!}
;so
6
A
,,'v "-"'1
'?
~
0"·
1\14~'RICI»\~ ,\;~
(.
c ~ •
},oO>\fME E' ~)
•
...•..~---.:
L