Judicial Enforcement of the Rights of Arrested Persons Under the Ethiopian Criminal Justice System: A Case Study in the Federal Courts of Ethiopia

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the judicial enforcement of the rights of arrested persons under the Ethiopian criminal justice system. The Federal Courts were employed as a case study in this research. It was carried out using a combination of doctrinal and empirical qualitative case study research approaches. Data were collected from both primary and secondary sources through in-depth interviews, expert observation, and document reviews. To protect the rights of those who have been arrested, Ethiopia has ratified several international and regional human rights instruments. Aside from this, the country enacted several laws that recognized the rights of those who have been arrested. This study uncovers that arbitrary arrest, failure to inform the right to remain silent and the reason for arrest, failure to bring the arrested person before a court within 48 hours, forced self-incrimination (confession), holding the arrest in custody and file an appeal while the court decides its release on bail, assaulting or inflicting bodily injury, and incommunicado detention as the most common types of violations brought to the attention of the federal courts. As a remedy for those violations, Ethiopia’s normative frameworks provide civil, criminal, or disciplinary responsibilities to the violators, as well as habeas corpus and inadmissibility of evidence obtained through illegal means. Practically, when an allegation of human rights violations is brought to the federal courts (i) receive and hear the complaint, (ii) order the police (Federal Police or Addis Ababa) and Ethiopian Human rights Commission to conduct an investigation, (iii) refer the case to the prosecution office to institute a charge or conduct an additional criminal investigation, and (iv) rule on the case. The courts have a good track record in releasing arbitrarily arrested persons, respecting the rights to be released on bail, and excluding illegally obtained evidence. However, ensuring the criminal and civil responsibilities of the violators continued as a daunting task for the justice system. This is due to deficiencies in the country's legal norms and institutional arrangements. The structural/institutional challenges identified in this study include, police sub-culture, organizational responsibility of the police, the relationship between the police and prosecutor, and the absence of specialized independent bodies dealing with complaints against the police. Despite these challenges, the Federal High Court issued a landmark decision in December 2022, ordering the Ministry of Justice to pay the defendant moral damage compensation for arbitrary detention. This decision is significant because it 1) allows those arrested to assert their rights, 2) establishes a judicial precedent, and 3) ensures prosecutors and police officers follow their legal obligations. However, to protect the rights of those who have been arrested bitterly addressing the legal and institutional obstacles is vital.