| Abstract: | The administration of the criminal justice system tries to strike a balance
between the search for truth and the fairness of the process. To this end, the law
should protect individual rights and impose various legal burdens on the state.
One such tool is the principle of the presumption of innocence until proven
guilty. This is a constitutional principle under Ethiopian law and requires the
public prosecutor to prove each element constituting the crime which, as argued
in this article, should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, this
principle is being violated by various subsidiary laws, procedures and practices.
First, there are various provisions in the criminal law that limit (or arguably
disregard) this constitutional principle. Such criminal law provisions assume as
proved the existence of some of the elements of certain crimes without
requiring the public prosecutor to submit evidence. Second, the Criminal
Justice Administration Policy adopted in 2011 contemplates shifting the burden
of proof to the defendant in selected serious crimes. Third, the courts also
wrongly shift burden of proof to the accused regarding certain facts in various
court decisions. These laws and judicial practices deprive the accused of the
right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This article, inter alia,
examines the constitutionality of such shifting of the burden of proof and also
analyzes the standards of proof that are required in criminal cases in the
Ethiopian context. |
