11. The Complainants claim that although all the Dergue officials were
collectively charged with the crime of Genocide, they raised an
objection through their defence lawyers that the charge filed by the
Prosecution did not clearly stipulate which cases fall under Genocide
and which ones fall under crime against humanity, however, the court
proceeded without making a ruling on the issue. They submit that to
their dismay, they later learnt that most of those indicted had all been
convicted and sentenced to rigorous prison terms, including capital
punishment for the crime of Genocide. Those sentenced to death are
waiting for the decision of the Head of State whether they would be
pardoned or executed.
12. They allege that Genocide has an international definition, and by
adding illegal and clandestine political parties and organizations to the
list of protected entities under the Genocide Convention, the Ethiopian
courts have created a new crime of genocide by analogy. The
Complainants submit that the Ethiopian courts by creating crimes by
analogy have not only deviated from the international Genocide
Convention to which Ethiopia is a party, but also Article 9 of the
Constitution of Ethiopia, which stipulates that all the laws of the land
must be interpreted in conformity with international conventions,
treaties and agreements.
13. They averred that when trial commenced, they had requested for an
impartial and international tribunal to be set up to investigate the
allegations but the Respondent State refused. The judges were mostly
fresh University graduates, civil servants and ex-combatants from the
new regime. Regarding the right to be represented by legal counsel,
Complainants submit that the Court ordered legal practitioners to
represent them in the subsequent trials, and that they did not have the
chance to make a choice of counsel, but had to contend with the legal
counsels assigned them by the State.
14. It is also alleged that the lawyers assigned to the detainees did not have
the right to decline the order of the State to take up the cases, even if
they indicated that they were not interested and/or that they did not
have the expertise in defending cases dealing with the crimes of
genocide and crimes against humanity. The lawyers were allegedly
underpaid for the work, with no incentives and many of them are said
to have given up going to Court to defend the detainees, consequently
leaving many of the detainees virtually without legal counsel.
15. They submit that the detainees fall under the following categories:
Those that have been sentenced from, rigorous imprisonment
up to death;
3