DC Field | Value | Language |
dc.contributor.author | Demissie, Wondwossen | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-12-13T08:51:34Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-12-13T08:51:34Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020-09 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/mlr.v14i1.6 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Whether preliminary inquiry should be conducted following completion of
criminal investigation was one of the issues that arose in criminal
proceedings of leaders of some opposition parties who were arrested (in June
and July 2020) following the assassination of Hachalu Hundessa. The Court
accepted the request of the Office of the Attorney General for the holding of
preliminary inquiry. While the request of the Office of the Attorney General
and the ruling of the court are consistent with the 1961 Criminal Procedure
Code, in view of the unique nature of the Ethiopian Preliminary Inquiry, both
the request and the ruling adversely affect the right of the accused to a fair
trial. The application of the law regulating preliminary inquiry would be a
departure from the principle of equality of arms and the right of the accused
to confrontation, both of which are elements of the right to a fair trial. It is
argued (in this comment) that using evidence obtained during preliminary
inquiry against the accused is inconsistent with the FDRE Constitution and
relevant international legal instruments. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | St.Mary's University | en_US |
dc.subject | Preliminary inquiry · Equality of arms · The right to confrontation · Fair trial· Office of the Attorney General | en_US |
dc.title | Vol. 14 No.1:The Preliminary Inquiry in Ethiopia and Its Adverse Impact on the Rights of the Accused | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | Mizan Law Review
|