d. joinder of cases and accused persons e. the charges were not clear and specific which hampered their speedy trial f. other causes of delays in the dergue trials Dismantling of the Ethiopian Court system by the Government 146. The Complainants state that immediately upon seizing power, the new Respondent State dismantled almost all state institutions, including the court system, by summarily dismissing close to 300 judges on the alleged ground that the judiciary had been an ally to the Dergue regime. Consequently they aver, the Respondent State could not afford a speedy trial to the Dergue officials due to shortage of judges. It argues that there were many instances where cases were adjourned for lack of quorum of judges. 147. The Complainants aver that at the beginning, the Special First Bench of the Federal High Court, composed of three Judges, was exclusively dealing with the trial of the Dergue officials. However, from the year 2001 there to the end of the trial date, it has been additionally charged with the equally complicated and numerous anticorruption cases, thereby reducing significantly the amount of time the Bench could devote to the Dergue officials‟ trials. This additional assignment, it argues, was given to the Bench when the judicial authorities were fully aware of the fact that the Bench was exclusively constituted for the trial of the Dergue officials and that their trials have not been concluded ages after they were charged. Ambitious Nature of the Transitional Justice Ethiopia Pursued 148. The Complainants aver that another cause is the ambitious nature of the model of transitional justice Ethiopia pursued. The SPO was established with two mandates: (1) to establish for public knowledge and for posterity a historical record of the abuses of the Mengistu regime and (2) to bring those criminally responsible for human rights violations and/or corruption to justice.32They say from these two it was very clear that the SPO gave more attention and priority to its first mandate.33 32 See Preamble to Proclamation No.22/1992. In this regard Y. Haile-Mariam observed: „The recording function, while very important, cannot take precedence over the right to a speedy trial. It seems the Ethiopian court has two functions that may be contradictory--trying the accused and acting as a Truth Commission.‟ 33 32