were committed in violation of the existing domestic laws of the country and relevant international obligations of Ethiopia. These heinous criminal acts were committed in extremely sophisticated and covert circumstances. What makes the Dergue very unique is that it continued its atrocious acts up to its overthrow in May 1991”29 140. It says that the Respondent State‟s brief goes on to outline the „grave human rights violations‟, „multitude of crimes committed against humanity‟, „heinous criminal acts‟, „heinous crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity‟ committed all over Ethiopia by the Dergue regime. 141. The Respondent State argues that faced with such „heinous‟ and „grave‟ „crimes against humanity‟ and „genocide‟, the Respondent State took it for granted that the Victims were guilty and even portrayed them as „criminals‟ even before they were tried. They further argue that the officials of Respondent State did not conceal their bias against the victims and the Special Prosecutor and his officials saw their task as prosecuting criminals thereby violating the principle on presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 7 (1) (d) of the Charter. They aver that the Dergue Trials looked more as revenge when “the ultimate desideratum should be to engrave the rule of law into the social fabric of Ethiopian society”.30 c. Excessive long preventive detention or pre-trial imprisonment is a violation the the right to be presumed innocent as guaranteed in Article 7(1)(b) of the African Charter 142. The Complainants submit that the procedure adopted by the Respondent State in bringing the accused persons to justice failed to assign blame within a reasonable length of time. The Complainants argue that the Victims were detained for three years before their trial finally started in 1994. They state that the trial dragged on for more than thirteen years before a final judgment was reached in 2007. It avers that pre-trail detention of the Victims and their long continuous detention even after they were charged essentially meant substituting pre-trial detention for their punishment. They state that their long preventive custody thus lost its purpose as an instrument to serve the interests of sound administration of justice. They also argues that the prolonged imprisonment without conviction of the Victims for a period of about 16 years clearly violates their right to be presumed innocent in that it was meant as a sanction prior to the delivery of the judgment. The Complaint concludes that it is safe to say that the 29 30 See Respondent State Brief [on Merits] paragraph 7, as in n 70. See Respondent State Response on Merits. 30