against the people of Ethiopia and to educate the people and make them aware of those offences in order to prevent the recurrence of such a system of government. 133. The Complainants argues that it is clear from this Proclamation that even before the Victims were brought to court, they were branded criminals by the Proclamation. Thus, it argues, in the eyes of the Transitional Government, the Victims had subjected Ethiopians to gross oppression under the yoke of a fascistic rule; they had perpetrated „brutal‟, „heinous‟ „horrendous‟ crimes which occupy a special chapter in Ethiopia‟s history; they had impoverished the Ethiopian economy through illegal plundering, destruction and misappropriation of public property. 134. It argues that the Proclamation looks more like a legislative sentence which only ran short of declaring the Victims guilty even before they were charged. It avers that legislation is conceived as a system of rules with a generality of application for the regulation of the life and activities of the community as a whole and singling out a person for individualized treatment by legislation may not only be arbitrary and discriminatory, it can lend itself to oppression, favoritism or other kinds of abuse. 135. They further aver that in the performance of their duties, the Special Prosecutor and his officials are expected to be impartial and to protect the public interest with objectivity, take proper account of the position of the suspect and the victim, and pay attention to all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or disadvantage of the suspect.25 However, they aver that, from the way the law setting up the Special Prosecutor‟s Office was couched, this was not the role envisaged for the Office of the Special Prosecutor. They state that the Proclamation made the Special Prosecutor more of a “persecutor” than “prosecutor” and that it was obvious based on the Proclamation that the Special Prosecutor began the prosecution and investigation of the cases against the complainants on the basis that they were already guilty and needed to prove their innocence. b. statements made by the Respondent State officials during and after the trial of the Victims violate the violates the right to be presumed innocent as guaranteed in Article 7(1)(b) of the African Charter. 25 See Rule F (h) (i) (2) of the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, as in n 25 above. 28