11 June, 2007
Addis Ababa, June 11, 2007 (Addis Ababa) - The Federal High Court on Monday convicted 38 individuals and three Printing presses on charges of treason after they had forgone their rights to defend their cases in spite of repeated rulings calling on them to submit their defense evidence. Some, including Eng. Hailu Shawl were convicted on multiple counts.
The Second Criminal Bench passed the verdicts saying it had given them ample chance to go on defending their cases, which they expressly rebuffed.
In their refusal of repeated rulings, the court said they even claimed to do without saying “we shall not have to defend; the court does not have the authority to sit in judgment on our cases”.
In view of the seriousness of the charges brought against them, the court had repeatedly called on them to deposit details of their defense evidences at the registrar, it said.
Responding to their appeals, it said, the court made sure that they had received copies of charges brought against them and that they had been allowed to look again at the audio- and video-taped prosecution evidences that were run in their presence during previous pre-trials.
The court said procedure number 124 of the country’s Criminal Code has it that any defendant should submit his/her defense evidence details to the court’s registrar upon reception of copies of the charge files and prosecution evidences, and before hearing of charges commences.
The court said it has just received from the prisons administration a letter of confirmation that it did what it had been ordered to by the court for the defendants, that is allowing them to look at the audio-visual prosecution evidences and to deliberate on their defense.
All these were in spite of the un-relatedness of the demands made by the defendants to submission of defense evidences to the court, which is a procedure required by law. It said, their refusal to submit their defense evidences is tantamount to not having any, and the court had nothing but to let go of the chance the defendants missed out. The court said it was clear that any defendant who willfully fail to make use of his/her right to defend is liable to face a guilty verdict on the corresponding charges.
Accordingly, the court found guilty of the first count Eng. Hailu Shawl, Abayneh Berhanu, Major Getachew Mengistie, Eng. Gizachew Shiferraw, Dr. Hailu Araya, Muluneh Eyuel, Sileshi Tenna, Dr. Berhanu Nega, Dr. Befikadu Degife, Prof. Mesfin Woldemariam, Dr. Yacob Hailemariam, Bertukan Mideksa, Aschalew Ketema, Dr. Tadios Bogale, Gebretsadik Hailemariam, Assefa Habtewold, Beruk Kebede, Tamrat Tarekegn, Andualem Aragie, Nigist Gebrehiwot, Debebe Eshetu, Yeneneh Mulat, Mamushet Amare, Anteneh Mulugeta, Melaku Fantaye, Mesfin Debesa, Berhanu Alemayehu, Wudneh Dechi, Abyot Waqjira, Melaku Uncha, Daniel Berihun, Tesfaye Tariku, Waltanigus Asnake, Mulugasho Wondimu, Andualem Ayele, Mesfin Tesfaye, Wonakseged Zeleke, Dawit Fasil as well as Sisay Publishing and Advertizing, Serkalem Publishing and Fasil Publishing and Advertizing organizations.
On the second count, the court found guilty Eng. Hailu Shawl, Abayneh Berhanu, Major Getachew Mengistie, Eng. Gizachew Shiferraw, Dr. Hailu Araya, Muluneh Eyuel, Sileshi Tenna, Dr. Berhanu Nega, Dr. Befikadu Degife, Dr. Yacob Hailemariam, Bertukan Mideksa, Aschalew Ketema, Dr. Tadios Bogale, Gebretsadik Hailemariam, Assefa Habtewold, Beruk Kebede, Tamrat Tarekegn, Andualem Arage, Nigist Gebrehiwot, Debebe Eshetu, and Yeneneh Mulat.
The first and second counts relate to trying to dismantle the constitutional system by instigating violence and collaboration.
On the third count, which is instigation of armed riots, the court found guilty Eng. Hailu Shawl, Abayneh Berhanu, Major Getachew Mengistie, Mamushet Amare and Tesfaye Tariku.
On the fifth count, direct or indirect attempt to harm the national defense force, Eng. Hailu Shawl, Abayneh Berhanu, Major Getachew Mengiste, Eng. Gizachew Shiferraw, Dr. Hailu Araya, Muluneh Eyuel, Sileshi Tenna, Dr. Berhanu Nega, Dr. Yacob Hailemariam and Dr. Befekadu Degife were found guilty.
The court adjourned until July 8 to begin passing sentences on the forenamed and to determine further hearings of those defendants who had already submitted as ordered details of their defense evidences.
It also adjourned until June 18 to give rulings on the claims and counterclaims made last week by some defendants and the prosecutor on the issue of defense delivery.