committed "offenses" cited in the Proclamation were charged with violations of Articles 281 and 286 of the Ethiopian Penal Code, which provides for the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and incitement to genocide and crimes against humanity. They further state that in the alternative, the defendants were charged with aggravated homicide under Article 522 of the Ethiopian Penal Code, grave willful injury under Article 538, abuse of power under Article 414 and unlawful arrest or detention under Article 416. It states that the indictments further accused the defendants of establishing themselves as a provisional military council or government and setting up committees and sub-committees for the purpose of committing genocide and crimes against humanity against various political groups whom the accused referred to as "anti-people" and "counterrevolutionary" in violation of Articles 32 and 281 of the Penal Code of Ethiopia. 155. The Complainants further state that the indictments alleged that the defendants incited and encouraged people to massacre thousands of members of different political groups in violation of Articles 32(1)(a) and 286(a) of the Penal Code. They argue that the fundamental problem with these indictments was that the details of the crimes were unclear because several concepts and legal doctrines were lumped together in one very long sentence. Other Causes of Delays in the Dergue Trials 156. The Complainants state that apart from the above, there were other factors which caused the delays. Firstly, there was a delay by the Respondent State to decide how to handle the matter. They argue that the Respondent State made its decision to take the matter through the legal machinery after having arrested the former government officials for more than one year. When the Special Prosecutors Office was established, they say, some ex-officials had been jailed for 18 months without charges, taking almost five years for the prosecution finally to come up with a charge of genocide against the majority of the defendants. They say that even after the opening of the case against the Victims before the court there were still some problems associated with the prosecution. It also states that the failure of the prosecution to present evidence on time was the major problem. They aver that though the prosecutor gathered the necessary exhibits and they are found in its control, it was common to see the Prosecutor asking the court for additional adjournment to present them. 157. They submit that the Respondent State should be found liable for violating Article 7 (1) (d) of the Charter in the absence of evidence from it attributing the delay to the negligence or lack of interest of the complainants. They note that since the conduct of the Dergue officials 35