Previous 29 / 46 Next

allowed to talk to their attorneys after they all had signed confessions after a two-month long period of torture and inhuman/ degrading treatment. The attorneys were hired for the Complainants by their relatives and not themselves but even then their attorneys were prevented from talking to the Complainants. 180. According to the Complainants, their right to legal defence was violated when their lead attorney, Mr. Temam Ababalugu, was threatened with disciplinary action and prosecution for terrorism. The defence attorneys were ridiculed and threatened numerous times with suspension of their law license throughout the trial and especially when trials were conducted in camera. Disciplinary action was also threatened whenever the attorneys challenged the Court regarding violations of procedural and evidentiary rules by the judges. 181. Another restriction on the right to legal defence and counsel is the fact that the Complainants and their attorneys were prevented from having private conversations or private exchanges of documents and paperwork. 182. The Complainants submitted that this situation did not change even after the Commission requested the Respondent State to "guarantee client-attorney confidentiality privilege by ensuring that victim's lawyer conversation with the victims are not monitored and their documents are not confiscated without following the due process." 183. The Complainants submitted that in the final leg of their trial the Respondent State put yet another serious restriction on their right to legal counsel through the Ministry of Justice of Ethiopia taking a disciplinary measure against the lead attorney and suspending him for 19 months. This move deprived the Complainants of their restricted right of access to legal counsel. 184. On the fourth head of the right to examine and challenge evidence and witnesses, the Complainants submitted that their right to examine and challenge evidence was violated in various ways, namely: (i) The first set of violations are prescribed by law in that they are allowed under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009; and (ii) The second set are closely connected with the evidentiary rules of the law although they were violations that went beyond what the law allows. 185. In this regard, the Complainants took issue with Articles 23 and 32 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. According to the Complainants, Article 23 (1)and (5) of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 allow the prosecutor and law enforcement authorities to produce as evidence any form of "intelligence report" leaving an infinite amount of discretion that could be abused. And specific to Article 23(2) of the AntiTerrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 the Complainants submitted that the application thereof made the situation even worse as not only did the provision prevent attorneys from examining the primary source about which was the hearsay witness was testifying about, but they were not given any information or notice about who the primary source was and who the hearsay witness was. . ~ '11\- o"'~o~' 186. According to the Complainants the application of Article 32 of the . ii'ti-Terror;~~ Proclamation No. 652/2009 meant that their defence attorney had to go' "court ';Vith. ou~ -: \ an inkling of information as to the identity and number of the prosec uon't witnesses ~ • ! ~ ," ~~~~ '::i: 'J''b " <)y, . ~ • u.UA28 .5 , " J "'~ '" Ii J 'V"Ij."RICA\!oOt fT Qt' f" \>(1'':';/ .<'/

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 455/13 - Abubaker Ahmed Mohamed and 28 Others (represented by X and Y) v. Ethiopia

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Coercion / Duress
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Freedom of Opinion
Freedom of Religion
Personal Liberty
Right to Fair Trial

Case Head Notes: The Complainants allege that the Respondent State has been interfering with the religious autonomy of Ethiopian Muslims since 2011. At that time, the Respondent State forced thousands of Imams, religious scholars and other religious figures to take part in training by a state sponsored Lebanese sect. In 2012, a Committee of Islamic scholars and civil society leaders was set up to negotiate with the Respondent State regarding the enforced training. In 2012 the Respondent State launched a major crackdown and arrested members of the Committee and about 1000 protestors, including the victims. Before the victims' trial commenced the Respondent State released a documentary on national television that alleged that the victims and other protestors were working with global jihad organizations. The Complainants state that they have appealed to the judiciary but that local remedies are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient. The Commission found that Article 6 had been violated because, when read together, Articles 4, 5, and 23 of Ethiopia's Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2019, lead to arbitriness and potentially to violations of human freedom, as they would permit detentions based on intelligence reports that could be based on hearsay or indirect evidence. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 because the acts of the Respondent State, including the documentary that put the complainants in a criminal light, not only obstructed the course of justice, but also tainted the conduct and character of the Complainants while their cases were still pending in court. The Commission found that Articles 8, 9, 10, and 11 had been violated, noting that the onus is on the Respondent State to show that the limitation of rights is prescribed by law, and that the Respondent State did not show that the restrictions on freedom of worship, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly were absolutely necessary, strictly proportional or that they constituted a legitimate public interest. The Commission found that Article 4 had not been violated because, based on an absence of submissions pertaining to Article 4, they considered it to have been abandoned. The Commission found that Article 5 had not been violated because there was no proof that the victims had been subjected to severe pain or suffering in order to obtain information, punish or intimidate them. The Commission declared that Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 was not in line with the Respondent State's obligations under the Charter and requested the Respondent State to take steps to amend the Proclamation, and to report on the mesaures taken to implement the Commission's recommendations.

Country

Ethiopia

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Mar 7, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 8: Right to Freedom of Conscience

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 8: Right to Freedom of Conscience

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Duration of Procedure

Oct 4, 2013 ~ Mar 7, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 9.145000000000001

Longitude: 40.489673

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Ethiopia

Primary Documents

Abubaker Ahmed Mohamed and 28 Others v Ethiopia.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 455/13 - Abubaker Ahmed Mohamed and 28 Others (represented by X and Y) v. Ethiopia

Primary Documents

Notifications