UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ADDIS ABABA 001231

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR AF DAS YAMAMOTO, AF/E, AND AF/PD S.WESTGATE
DRL FOR K.GILBRIDE
LONDON, PARIS, ROME FOR AFRICA WATCHER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM PGOV KDEM KJUS ET
SUBJECT: SLOW START TO ETHIOPIAN OPPOSITION TRIAL
EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDINGS

REF: A. ADDIS ABABA 667 (AND PREVIOUS)


B. WONG-YAMAMOTO EMAIL OF MARCH 22, 2006 (NOTAL)


1. (U) SUMMARY: What was anticipated to be the opening of
full-fledged evidentiary proceedings against CUD chairman
Hailu Shawel and more than 100 other opposition supporters
detained since November 2005 was not. Rather, prosecutors
submitted, and the Court accepted, the amended charge of
"attempted genocide," in the only substantive issue
addressed. Court proceedings will resume May 8. END
SUMMARY.


2. (U) All of the more than 100 opposition defendants facing
capital charges along with Hailu Shawel were present at the
May 2 hearing (the first since March 22), most wearing
black. As they entered the court, many embraced each other
in what was apparently the first time they had been together
for some time. They appeared to be in good health. Public
attendance was noticeably down from prior hearings, with
many seats vacant. Most European diplomats were absent;
many had begun a rotational attendance in anticipation of
continual hearings throughout the week. The European
Union's legal observer, Reuters, and Associated Press were
present, as well as a London-based ActionAid representative.
Hailu Shawel's wife and son, and Berhanu Nega's Amcit wife
were also in attendance.


3. (U) The High Court first addressed the issue of the
amended charge related to genocide. As the court had
insisted at the prior hearing that the charge be amended
formally, the prosecution formally submitted the amendments
in writing, and the defendants (all but the three civil
society defendants were unrepresented) were given copies of
the amended charges. The court accepted the charges, and
then, at the insistence of one detainee, read through the
list of defendants for their response to the charge.


4. (U) In a brief opening statement, the prosecutor
essentially recapitulated the charges and stated that the
prosecution would use various evidence to prove direct or
indirect involvement in violence against the state, and that
the de

fendants unlawfully sought change in an
unconstitutional way. No attempt was made to present a
theory of the case in the opening statement. The prosecutor
declared that he would present evidence in the following
order: video, audio, and then witnesses. No evidentiary
material or equipment was present, and no effort was made to
continue presenting the case.


5. (U) The Court then permitted several defendants to speak
on subjects unrelated to the prosecution (or defense) of the
case. One person wanted money taken from him returned,
another wanted to speak his own native language to his
family members, one defendant mother wanted longer visits
allowed for her children, several wanted their computers and
cameras returned. There were also some allegations about
prisoner abuse. When questioned by the judge, the
prosecutors and police representatives denied any knowledge
about any of the matters raised by the defendants.


6. (U) Following a short break, the Court announced its
findings. Notably, that the prosecution should bring
equipment to present its case (first video, then audio, and
then witnesses), and that the prison officials were expected
to investigate and present to the court findings on the
range of complaints registered by the defendants. The Court
also asked that the criminal investigators state why
personal property was not being returned to the defendants.


7. (SBU) One attendee (an attorney acting as interpreter for
the EU) advised conoff that she had identified 14 of the
prosecution witnesses. She said that some had actually
visited Kaliti prison and claimed they were being "forced to
testify", but that "they would not say much" if compelled to
testify.


8. (U) In a final ruling, the court ordered the venue of the
next court appearance (scheduled for May 8) changed from a
special court in central Addis Ababa (next to Addis Ababa
University) to Kaliti prison on the outskirts of the city,
where the defendants are being held.

ADDIS ABAB 00001231 002 OF 002




9. (SBU) COMMENT: Neither the prosecution nor the Court
seemed to be in any particular hurry to advance the case.
More time was allowed defendants to register their
complaints than at any prior session. The defendants did
not seem perturbed by the pace, and no statements were made
about the prosecutor's remarks. The defendants' material
possessions and visitor access seemed to be of greater
concern than the case progression, perhaps the defendants'
way of "ignoring" or refusing to take part in the hearing.


10. (SBU) COMMENT CONTINUED: So long as international and
family member access continues, the transfer of the
proceedings should be interpreted more as a security measure
than as an attempt to keep key players out. The current
location of the trial is on one of Addis' largest and most
easily accessible public squares. The approach of the one-
year anniversary of the 2005 elections may also have
heightened the GOE's security concerns, and thus the Court's
decision to transfer venue. END COMMENT.

Huddleston