ETHIOPIA: CUD TRIAL MOVES ON TO WITNESSES

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 ADDIS ABABA 003003

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR AF/E
LONDON, PARIS, ROME FOR AFRICA WATCHER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM KJUS KDEM PGOV ET
SUBJECT: ETHIOPIA: CUD TRIAL MOVES ON TO WITNESSES



1. (SBU) SUMMARY. The trial of detained opposition Coalition
for Unity and Democracy (CUD) leaders, independent
journalists and civil society representatives has resumed
after a two-month break and quickly wrapped up the
documentary stage of evidence. The bench ruled in favor of
the prosecution on arguments of admissibility of the
additional evidence, which may prove potentially damaging for
the defense, in particular the civil society representatives
and journalists. The witness stage of the trial has begun,
with the prosecution presenting 10 witnesses per day toward
its stated target of 300 witnesses. Witnesses so far have
made some serious allegations against the CUD leadership, but
without an organized defense, there is little effort to
refute their sometimes shaky testimony. END SUMMARY.


2. (SBU) International observers continue to attend each
session. Attorney Roger Briottet has replaced Michael Ellman
as the European Union's full-time trial observer. Lawyers
Without Borders continues to send Ethiopian attorney Semere
Kassaye to every session, in addition to a rotation of
American attorneys. Interested European embassies are
maintaining a rotation of observers. Other organizations
present have included BBC, ActionAid, and the International
Federation of Human Rights.

-------------- --------------
DEFENDANTS HAPPY TO REGROUP, CONTINUE COMPLAINTS TO COURT
-------------- --------------


3. (SBU) At the beginning of the first session returning from
summer recess, defendants warmly greeted each other upon
entering the courtroom and shared conversations for several
minutes before taking their seats. This was the first time
many had a chance to see one another and were clearly happy
to be reunited. Several defendants had health concerns and
several were hospitalized during the two-month break, but
only a few defendants have continued to miss trial sessions
due to hospitalization. Generally speaking, they appear in
good condition, despite complaints about their treatment.

4 (SBU) During the October 13 session, several defendants
addressed the court regarding their treatment. The bench
allowed this, but instructed defendants to limit complaints
to those issues that the "bench can do something about, (as)
it is impossible to give the corrections department orders."
(NOTE: In a separate meeting on October 13 with the President
of the High Court, Wubshet Kibru, Poloff was told that the
bench's jurisdiction in this regard is not entirely clear,
but generally anyone to whom the bench gives an order, must
obey - "The bench can even give the PM an order and he would
have to follow." END NOTE) The bench also instructed that if
defendants have specific evidence of mistreatment, they can
sue the corrections department in a separate case. The bench
then heard from defendants Muluneh Eyoel, Andualem Arage,
Eskinder Nega, Sisay Agena, Melaku Fantaye, Mesfin Debesa,
Tesfaye Ganta, Melaku Ouncha, and Mesfin Woldemariam. The
complaints raised included: being kept in solitary
confinement with no light (Muluneh, Andualem, Eskinder,
Sisay),limited visitation rights, lack of access to medical
care, and physical abuse by prison officials. In response
the bench said that they &can only respond within the law -
on some matters we can make a ruling, but on others we can do
nothing.8 The bench ordered the complaints be written down
and that a member of the corrections department should appear
during the session scheduled for October 18 to address each
one.


5. (SBU) In a response by the Deputy Manager of the Addis
Ababa Prison Administration provided in court on October 18,
he stated that the corrections department acts in accordance
with its constitutional duty and that many organizations and
representatives of the international community have visited
the prison to see that all possible efforts are being made to
provide adequate treatment (NOTE: Though many have been to
Kaliti, since December 2005, no organization/international
representative has been allowed into Kerchele where four
defendants are allegedly being kept in solitary confinement.
END NOTE). He went on to say that no one has been denied the
right to medical attention if needed. As an example, he
pointed out that Hailu Shawel has been taken to the hospital
25 times since he was imprisoned. He pointed out that the
prison does not have facilities for solitary confinement and
that the bench is free to assign someone to come examine for

ADDIS ABAB 00003003 002 OF 004


themselves. He also claimed that there has never been any
restriction on visitors and all who carry an ID card can
visit on the weekend. The bench concluded by saying they
would give a ruling in the following session.

-------------- --------------
PROSECUTION ALLOWED TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
-------------- --------------


6. (SBU) The trial went on recess on August 4 as the bench
was deliberating the admissibility of 9 of the 88 additional
documents submitted by the prosecution. On July 31, the
defense attorneys and defendants Daniel Bekele and Netsanet
Demissie objected to these 9 documents that allegedly
pertained to them, claiming that they are inadmissible based
on a number of arguments. The prosecution countered that not
only are the 9 documents that refer to the ActionAid
defendants admissible, but in fact all of the 88 newly
introduced documents should be considered as evidence against
them. In a lengthy explanation, the prosecution countered
each one of the defenses claims regarding the documentary
evidence. (reftel)


7. (SBU) The first full session following the recess, the
bench ruled on the additional documentary evidence. Before
giving a ruling, the bench made the point that a draft
evidence law exists but has not yet been signed into law, and
therefore evidence was difficult to evaluate. (NOTE: Poloff
later clarified with Semere of Lawyers Without Borders that
in fact the draft evidence code was presented 2 years ago but
has not yet been passed, and the existing code says very
little about admissibility of evidence, leaving much up to
interpretation by the bench.) The bench then went point by
point through the defense's objection, in the end ruling that
all the documents were admissible.


8. (SBU) In the prosecution's presentation of the additional
evidence, it appeared that the intention was to address the
issue of conspiracy. Explanations included statements such
as, &this evidence is presented to show the relationship
among the conspirators for their common illegal
conspiratorial goals,8 and &this is evidence that the
conspirators have forged a close bond of cooperation to
overthrow the system.8 Another theme in this set of
documentary evidence was a focus on civil society
representatives, journalists and those defendants being tried
in absentia. For example, in reference to the civil society
members, the prosecution submitted notes and letters found in
the offices of civil society representatives, as well as
minutes from meetings that were held for the purpose of
&gathering support for CUD lead conspiracy.8 The
prosecution accused these civil society organizations of
operating under the &cover of reconciliation" and "under the
umbrella of the CUD (to) foster the conspiracy.8 A few
letters from defendants being tried in absentia call for
struggle against the EPRDF, and conclude saying that Hailu
Shawel identified these civil society representatives as
contact persons. Referring to the journalists, a number of
articles and editorials written by defendant journalists
(some detained in Ethiopia, some being tried in absentia)
were submitted. Most of the articles were written around the
time of the May 2005 election, and were very critical of the
National Election Board (NEB) and allege cooperation between
the EPRDF and NEB leadership to &cheat the election.8 A
few of the articles claim that the army has lost faith in the
government and suggest that they &join forces with the
people to defend against EPRDF-led aggression.8
Additionally, some of the authors claim that they had
information that Eritrean assassins had been brought to Addis
to kill the leadership of the CUD.

--------------
300 WITNESSES TO TESTIFY; NO DISCOVERY
--------------


9. (SBU) On October 25, the prosecution commenced the witness
stage of evidence, stating that it plans to present a total
of nearly 300 witnesses. Despite multiple objections by the
defense, the bench ruled that the names of the witnesses will
not be revealed in advance. This requires defense attorneys
(or defendants) to cross examine immediately after witnesses
are questioned by the prosecution with no "discovery" period
to prepare. The bench has instructed the prosecution to

ADDIS ABAB 00003003 003 OF 004


present 10 witnesses per session.


10. (SBU) As of November 2, the court had heard three
sessions of witness testimony. Each session, the prosecution
presents the group of witnesses around one or two themes and
the lead prosecutor begins with a summary of the testimony,
what charges it supports, and to which defendants it applies.
Testimony has mentioned a number of defendants, but it has
been primarily concentrated on the leadership of the CUD,
including Hailu Shawel, Berhanu Nega, Birtukan Mideksa, and
Muluneh Eyoel.


11. (SBU) On October 25, witnesses testified that they
assisted in serving search warrants of defendants, homes and
offices, confirming that they found specific documentary
evidence. Other defendants testified that they attended CUD
rallies at which flyers were handed out (also submitted in
documentary evidence). The only cross examination that took
place was by defendant Gizachew Shiferaw, who reacted to one
witness, claiming to be a neighborhood merchant. Gizachew
challenged this, saying that the man works for the security
detail of PM Meles, and that he had seen him during visits to
the PM,s office.


12. (SBU) On October 27, most witnesses were farmers from a
region in western Ethiopia and testified that some of the
mid-level CUD defendants were organizing meetings in their
villages. During these meetings, the defendants reportedly
said that the CUD won the May 2005 election, called for armed
struggle and instructed farmers to &use their axes and
machetes8 against security forces. One witness from the
town of Bahir Dar testified that that several of the top CUD
leadership recruited him into the CUD and instructed him to
&organize violent means of struggle8 in response to the
election results and to form a group of &armed bandits8 in
his city. He said that he subsequently formed this group and
that he was paid a stipend by the CUD for his work. He said
he was also motivated because the CUD told him after the
EPRDF won the election, the Tigray region would move to
secede from Ethiopia. Defendant Mamushet Amare, in cross
examination, told the court that the witness is currently the
chief of police in Bahir Dar and such organization would be
illegal. The witness admitted that he once was the chief of
police, but that he has since been fired, and that he met the
&bandits8 when they were in jail.


13. (SBU) On October 31, the witnesses brought forth claimed
to be organizers and party members of the CUD in Addis Ababa.
Several reported that they had attended public meetings
organized by the top leadership of the CUD, in which the
leaders asked attendees whether or not they should join the
parliament. These meetings allegedly concluded with
instructions from the defendants that participants should
&stand by and await a call from the (CUD) leadership.8
Other witnesses testified that in meetings with the CUD
leadership, they were given a 13-page document that outlined
an 8-point strategy of civil disobedience. This included
calls to: honk car horns during upcoming AU summit, not to
listen to government radio, not shop at EPRDF-run businesses,
and participation in a stay-at-home strike. Meeting
participants were asked to relay this call for action to
residents of their woreda. They also recalled that the
defendants told them that these actions would likely lead to
arrests and that participants should &defend themselves.8
No defendant offered any cross-examination.

-------------- --------------
COMMENT: TRIAL MOVES ON, (LACK OF) DEFENSE CONTINUES
-------------- --------------


14. (SBU) The final documentation presented by the
prosecution contained some material that, if found to be
legitimate, might be considered damaging to some of the civil
society representatives and journalists. The ActionAid
defendants objected to this documentation on a number of
grounds, but the bench decided that it will ultimately make
the determination on relevance of the evidence. The witness
stage has highlighted more than ever that the defendants
would benefit from having legal representation and an
organized defense strategy, even if there is no preparation
time allowed by the court. The witnesses, testimony has
varied in its degree of seeming incrimination, but the
defendants have only responded in cross-examination when

ADDIS ABAB 00003003 004 OF 004


exceptionally incensed, and have sought to discredit very
little of their claims. In the end, as with the video and
documentary evidence, without hearing from both sides, the
bench may have little option but to rule for the prosecution.
HUDDLESTON