149. By the opening of the trials in December 1994, the SPO had gathered 309,215 pages of relevant government documents, many with clear signatures of high ranking officials.34 They state that in addition to this kind of documentation, forensic teams continued searching for and exhuming dozens of mass graves which allegedly contained the bodies of murdered civilians. They said that the SPO stated in February 1994 that it had "tens [sic] times more evidence than needed to successfully prosecute several of the detained and many of the exiles for serious criminal offenses." By August 1998, the Complainants allege, the SPO presented five hundred prosecution witnesses and warned that he had another five hundred to go. The Complainants argue that the SPO, therefore, insisted on and indeed introduced thousands of witnesses while a smaller number could establish and prove the charges against the former Dergue Officials. They argue that with such extensive documentary evidence, one thousand prosecution witnesses is excessive and unduly infringes upon the right of the accused to a fair and speedy trial. They aver that the SPO did not have to wait until it gathered „ten times‟ more evidence to try the complainants bearing in mind the fact that they remained in detention throughout the investigation and trial of their cases. Absence of Appropriate Legal Checkpoints 150. The Complainants state that the absence of appropriate legal checkpoints that could force the Respondent State to diligently and expeditiously work to investigate, charge and conduct trials also contributed to the delay. It states that the right to petition for writ of habeas corpus, for example, was not available to many of the victims and the statute of limitation with regard to the crimes the victims were alleged to have committed was removed.35 Joinder of Cases and Accused Persons 151. The Complainants state that Articles 116 and 117 of the Ethiopian Criminal Procedure Code provide for joinder of charges and accused persons. They state that even though joinder per se is permissible, where there is conflict of interests that may cause serious prejudice to the accused or to the interests of justice, which is the case with the Dergue trials, the courts should order separate trials. They aver, for instance, that if the joinder of accused persons would cause undue delay to the trials of others, the court should not permit joinder and, if any, it should order for separate trials. They argue that in the Dergue Trials, the SPO brought cases joining several accused and 34 A U.S. attorney who visited Ethiopia later wrote: „Not since Nuremberg has such documentary evidence been assembled suggesting the degree of complicity on the part of senior government officials. In many instances, there were verbatim transcripts made of critical meetings. There are over 200 volumes of these transcripts as well as audio tapes of many of these meetings.‟ 35 See Article 7 (3) of Proclamation No 22/1992. 33