and other matters pertaining thereto whenever it pleased, without any
concerns about the statute of limitation running against its actions, and
foreclosing their right to fair trial. Such offences may not be commuted by
amnesty or pardon…”
6. They aver that the SPO Proclamation also ousted the applicability of
the provisions of habeas corpus under the Civil Procedure Code to
persons detained prior to the coming into force of the Proclamation in
matters under the jurisdiction of the Special Prosecutor, thereby
wiping out the possibility of challenging the excessively prolonged
detention without trial of the detainees. According to the
Complainants this ouster is discriminatory as it applies to the targeted
groups only, and was applied retroactively, as it narrowed down the
rights of the detainees to judicially challenge their prolonged detention.
7. The Complainants further submit that although the law demands a
speedy trial, the victims stayed in detention without access to legal
counsel from 1991-1994, and that the SPO trial finally commenced only
in October 1994. The Dergue officials discovered during the trial that
they have been charged with the crime of Genocide and Crime Against
Humanity under Article 281 of the Ethiopia Penal Code of 1957. The
allegations included the killing and torture of secessionists, political
activists and farm owners.
8. The Complainants submit that after fifteen (15) years of detention of
the alleged victims and twelve (12) years of the commencement of the
trial, the proceeding are yet to be concluded.
9. They aver further that the Dergue officials were collectively charged
solely on basis of being members of the Council of the defunct
Provisional Military Administration, and accordingly, they have been
defending their cases collectively; which procedure has made it
difficult to individualise guilt, or to prove/rebut individual innocence
and guilt, and according to the Complainants will lead to collective
guilt and collective punishment.
10. This situation is alleged to have also manifestly contributed to the
delay of the proceedings. In order to expedite the trial therefore, it is
submitted that the Dergue officials have pleaded with the Court for
individual trials, and that their request was overruled. It is also noted
that an appeal on this issue, being an “interlocutory matter” is
permissible only if or when the party lodges an appeal on the
conviction or sentencing of the final verdict, and that since the final
judgment is yet to be handed down, the detainees do not have a right
of appeal on this issue at this stage of the proceedings.
2