State's position that the application of Mr. Abubaker and others before the Council had
also been decided since the Commission's ruling on Admissibility. Therefore, according
to the Respondent State, the Complainants' allegations have been considered by the
Ethiopian judiciary and the Council and as a result all domestic remedies have been
effectively and sufficiently exhausted.
221. The Respondent State also submitted that most of the issues raised by the Complainants
fall outside of the parameters permitted by the Commission which require the
Complainants to address those alleged violations of the African Charter within the
context of the charges brought under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009
and presented by the Council but were not considered due to delay. The Respondent
State requested the Commission to dismiss all the Complainants' arguments that were
not included in their original complaint or do not fall within the narrowly-tailored
grounds on which the Complaint was deemed admissible. Alternatively, or in addition,
the Respondent State requested the Commission to dismiss the Complaint on its merits
for failure to State violations of the African Charter. Accordingly, the Respondent State
requested the Commission to dismiss the reliefs sought by the Complainants.
Amicus Curiae Brief Submissions
222. By a letter dated the 19th May 2017, the Commission received Amicus Curiae brief
submissions from Messrs. Vanderbilt International Law Practice Lab which was
submitted pursuant to Rule 99(1) of the 2010 ROP.
223. The Amicus Curiae's submissions sought, in the main, to address the following issues:
First, that the Anti-Terror Statute does not meet international and regional standards
for defining and criminalizing acts of terrorism; and second, that the Anti-Terror Statute
violates the African Charter.
224. In support of its first argument that the Anti-terror statute does not meet international
and regional standards for defining and criminalizing acts of terrorism, the Amicus
Curiae submitted that:
(a) The Anti-terror Statute is overly Broad and includes a huge array of offenses which do
not meet commonly accepted definitions of terrorism;
(b) Article 3 of the Anti-Terror Statute is imprecise and fails to provide adequate notice of
what acts will constitute an offence; and
(c)
The Anti- Terror Statute criminalizes protected activities, such as exercise of freedoms
to of religion, expression, association and assembly.
225. The Amicus Curiae submitted that Article 3 of the Anti-Terror Statue defines "Terrorist
Acts" in a way that is overly broad because it includes a huge array of offences which
do not give rise to commonly accepted definitions of "terrorism". The Amicus Curiae
also submitted that the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 is ambiguous and
fails to provide adequate notice of what acts will constitute an offence and unjustly
criminalizes protected activities, such as the exercise of the rights to freed,.9lIlS:~....._
religion, expression, association, and assembly.
226. Under the second issue, the Amicus Curiae submitted that States which
African Charter are obligated to "recognise the rights, duties, freedoms in