197. In its submission, the Respondent State informs the African Commission that taking into consideration the volume of the cases under review and the time it would require to adjudicate on it, the Federal Supreme Court, as the highest organ in charge of the administration of justice in the country, was obliged to allocate a special Bench in the Criminal Divisions of the Federal High Court. It says that this was done to facilitate the process of fair and speedy trial in accordance with Article 19 (4) of the 1995 Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ethiopia. It stated that the process of allocating dedicated benches was pursued even within the criminal divisions of regional courts. In this regard, perpetrators of genocide crimes were being tried in courts in different parts of the country. 198. The Respondent State argues that Government even provided competent legal counsels to defendants at its own cost when they are unable to do so themselves, all in an attempt to facilitate the trial process as expeditiously as possible and respect the rights of the defendants for fair and speedy trial. 199. The Respondent State argues that after charges were filed, the defendants were then informed of the particulars of charges brought against them. It says that copies of the charges were given to them and the charges read to them as prescribed by the relevant provisions of the criminal procedure Code of Ethiopia. It says that the defendants in exercise of their rights to challenge the charges brought against them in accordance with Article 130 of the Criminal Procedure Code submitted their respective preliminary objections to the charges, which amounted to about 800 pages of preliminary objections. 200. The Respondent State says that the Special Prosecutor was then asked by the court to reply to the preliminary objections – and the whole process of reviewing all the preliminary objections and replies and the adjudication of the preliminary objections took the court about one year, that is, from November 1995 to September 1996. The Respondent state avers that after examining the defendants preliminary objections to the charges and replies of the Special Prosecutor, the Court dismissed most of the objections during it‟s hearing on 9 October 1994 and ordered amendments of some of the charges. 201. It stated that the Special Prosecutor then amended the charges as per the court order and filed the amended charges to the court in November 1994. It says that the charges were again read out to the defendants by the court and they were asked to enter their plea. All of them pleaded not guilty. It says that thereafter, the court ordered the 46