Main Article Content
Transitional Justice Through Prosecution: The Ethiopian Red Terror Trials in Retrospect
Abstract
Ethiopia is perhaps the first African country which brought the entire regime before the national court for the heinous crimes committed while in power. In this regard, it is said that the Red Terror Trial is considered as Africa’s glaring example of retributive justice; just as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was Africa’s contribution to restorative justice.
Soon after the demise of the Derg regime, the new government of Ethiopia decided to address the past state- sponsored human
rights violations through judicial means. In accordance with this decision, the Office of Special Prosecutor charged over 5000 members of the defunct regime for the past human rights violations. At the beginning, the decision to prosecute the perpetrators received a great appreciation from inside and outside thinking that the process would heal the wounds of the society, prevent the recurrence of such kind of atrocities in the future, and bring the culture of impunity to an end. However, through the passage of
time, it appears that the process has failed to ensure accountability for the past human rights violations while respecting the rights of the defendants in conformity with the international human rights standards and domestic law. Specifically there had been lengthy pre-trial detentions, violations of the rights of speedy trial and of the rights to counsel. Besides, the process has received low public attention. This, in turn, limits significance of the process in providing a lesson to the public. In this article, it is intended to canvass Red Terror Trials as response to past gross human rights violations, and to examine the process from the perspective of the defendants’ rights. In view of this, this article has two parts: part I will begin with an overview of
transitional justice; and part II will deal with Red Terror Trials.
Soon after the demise of the Derg regime, the new government of Ethiopia decided to address the past state- sponsored human
rights violations through judicial means. In accordance with this decision, the Office of Special Prosecutor charged over 5000 members of the defunct regime for the past human rights violations. At the beginning, the decision to prosecute the perpetrators received a great appreciation from inside and outside thinking that the process would heal the wounds of the society, prevent the recurrence of such kind of atrocities in the future, and bring the culture of impunity to an end. However, through the passage of
time, it appears that the process has failed to ensure accountability for the past human rights violations while respecting the rights of the defendants in conformity with the international human rights standards and domestic law. Specifically there had been lengthy pre-trial detentions, violations of the rights of speedy trial and of the rights to counsel. Besides, the process has received low public attention. This, in turn, limits significance of the process in providing a lesson to the public. In this article, it is intended to canvass Red Terror Trials as response to past gross human rights violations, and to examine the process from the perspective of the defendants’ rights. In view of this, this article has two parts: part I will begin with an overview of
transitional justice; and part II will deal with Red Terror Trials.
