ETHIOPIAN OPPOSITION DENIED BAIL; NEXT HEARING IN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ADDIS ABABA 000049

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPT FOR AF DAS YAMAMOTO, AF/E, AF/PD, AND DRL:K.GILBRIDE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PHUM KJUS KDEM ET
SUBJECT: ETHIOPIAN OPPOSITION DENIED BAIL; NEXT HEARING IN
SEVEN WEEKS

REF: A. ADDIS ABABA 4228


B. ADDIS ABABA 4202


1. (U) SUMMARY: After holding CUD opposition leaders,
independent journalists, NGO representatives, and other
individuals suspected of anti-government activity in jail for
nine weeks, the High Court ruled on January 4 to reject their
request for bail, and decided to schedule the next hearing in
late February. The court also decided that a boy who claims
he is age 14 should remain in custody pending the court's
confirmation of his age, and that those not appearing in
court will be tried in absentia. In response to the
conspicuous absence of any defense counsels, the court
instructed defendants to have counsel present or the court
would appoint public defenders; defense counsels had decided
to boycott the January 4 session to highlight prison
officials' refusal to grant detainees access to their lawyers
on December 23 (ref A). In contrast to previous sessions,
the court did not allow defendants to speak on their own
behalf, and quickly adjourned the session when defendants
sought to make statements. Prosecutors have moved to change
the venue of the court proceedings from the current location
in central Addis Ababa, citing security reasons. Police
officials detained at least three family members as they
exited the court, in full view of diplomatic observers and
over the protests of parents. END SUMMARY.


2. (U) On January 4, nine weeks after Coalition for Unity and
Democracy (CUD) party chairman Hailu Shawel and other leading
opposition members were first taken into custody, Ethiopia's
High Court ruled against granting bail to any of the more
than 80 defendants awaiting prosecution for capital crimes
ranging from "obstructing the Constitutional order" to high
treason and genocide (ref B). The presiding judge noted that
while defendants had cited international human rights
conventions, the court also had to consider Ethiopian law and
whether the gravity of the seven substantive charges being
brought against the defendants allowed bail. In announcing
his decision, the presiding judge explained that he rejected
the defendants' argument that this was a political, rather
than a criminal case; he also rejected their assertion that
prosecutors had presented insufficient evidence to justify
continuing detention without bail.


3. (U) Professor Mesfin Woldemariam (age 76),who had been on
a hunger strike, did not appear in court; a police official
testified that his absence was due to unspecified health
reasons. All the other approximately 80 detainees appeared
in court, although none were allowed to speak. Hailu Shawel
appeared to require assistance from other detainees in
walking from a prison vehicle to the courtroom.


4. (U) The court also heard a motion by prosecutors (but did
not rule on it) that recommended changing the venue of the
trial, from its current location at a Derg-era theater on the
Ministry of Finance Compound, to an unspecified location.
Prosecutors argued that the current site's proximity to
schools (e.g., Addis Ababa University) was a security
concern. Most courtroom observers, including family members,
believe prosecutors seek to move proceedings to Kaliti
prison, on the outskirts of Addis Ababa, where the defendants
have been held since December 21.

-------------- --------------
POSSIBLE 14-YEAR-OLD REMAINS JAILED PENDING PROOF OF AGE
-------------- --------------


5. (U) The court also ruled that it would have to determine
the true age of the youngest defendant. On December 28,
Biniyam Tadesse testified that he was 14 years old (which
would render him a minor under Ethiopian law). At the
beginning of the January 4 session, the presiding judge
announced that Addis Ababa's Black Lion Hospital had
determined that Biniyam was actually age 16-17, and that he
therefore would face the same capital charge of "Outrages
against the Constitution or the Constitutional Order" as all
the other defendants. Biniyam protested that he had not been
examined by any medical personnel, and that, furthermore, he
possessed baptismal certificates showing he was 14.
Prosecutors responded that Biniyam had told police he was age
16, and that any certificates presented after the case was in
progress should be disallowed. After reviewing the
certificates in question, the presiding judge announced that
the court would have to determine Biniyam's age through
independent means. Biniyam remains in custody. (NOTE:

ADDIS ABAB 00000049 002 OF 003


Post's consular section notes that Ethiopian authorities are
usually compliant and timely in providing verifications of
official documents when requested; the High Court, however,
did not announce that it would subpoena other records. END
NOTE.)

-------------- --------------
DEFENSE COUNSELS BOYCOTT FOLLOWING DENIAL OF ACCESS
-------------- --------------


6. (U) The presiding judge also ruled that due to the scope
of the case (i.e., 131 defendants, each facing from one to
seven counts of capital crimes),defendants either needed to
have their own attorneys, or the court would appoint public
defenders. No defense counsels participated in the January 4
proceedings; in contrast, 16 defense attorneys appeared in
court on December 21 when the defendants were formally
charged, and two attended December 28.


7. (SBU) Defense counsels have decided not to attend court
proceedings in order to underscore that they have not met
with defendants since defendants were moved on December 21 to
Kaliti prison. A group of 13 defense counsels attempted to
see the defendants on December 23, but all were rebuffed by
prison officials who required that they present specific
documentation from the court designating them as the
defendants' counsel (ref A). One lawyer, who returned the
next day, to see another client in an unrelated criminal
case, was admitted entry. In the defense counsels' view,
such discrimination violates Ethiopian law, highlights the
political nature of the charges against the detained CUD
leadership and others, and is contrary to the prevailing
practice of allowing lawyers to enter prisons to see any
client, so long as they present a lawyer's license. During
their December 28 court appearance, defendants raised the
irregularity of requiring special credentials for their
lawyers; the presiding judge also noted that the High Court
had not previously been required to provide such
documentation to prison officials, but took no further action
on the matter. Three jailed representatives of civil society
NGOs, who seek to have their case separated from that of the
other 128 defendants, have been able to have an attorney
visit them; none of the other more than 80 detainees,
however, has met with a lawyer since being moved to Kaliti.
In a meeting with lead defense counsels on January 6
(septel),Charge and other chiefs of mission urged the
defense attorneys to return to the prison and try to seek
access again.


8. (U) Unlike previous court sessions, the presiding judge
did not allow defendants to speak on their own behalf at the
January 4 hearing. After announcing his three decisions
(that those not present would be tried in absentia; that the
court would determine the age of Biniyam Tadesse; and that
defendants needed their own attorneys present),the presiding
judge ordered defendant and Addis Ababa mayor-elect Dr.
Berhanu Nega to stop reading a written statement on behalf of
the detainees. Berhanu's protest to the court, "If you don't
want to hear from me, we reject this court," led to a
spontaneous outburst of applause from the more than 80
detainees. Fellow defendant Bertukan Mideksa (CUD vice chair
and a former high court judge) then attempted to speak,
noting that she was an attorney and could therefore represent
herself. The presiding judge responded that if the
defendants had something to present, they could do so at the
next hearing; he then abruptly adjourned the session.

--------------
POLICE DETAIN FAMILY MEMBERS EXITING COURT
--------------


9. (U) Family members expressed concern to Embassy observers
about the court's decision that the next proceeding would not
occur for seven weeks, on February 23. As police escorted
detainees out into unmarked vans, the elderly mother of a
defendant cried hysterically and protested her son's
innocence to diplomatic observers and media representatives.
Police then detained at least three other family members as
they exited the courtroom; observers identified two of them
as daughters of CUD executive committee member Major Getachew
Mengiste. Their mother protested that she would not leave
the ministry compound without her children. She was
immediately surrounded by at least a dozen police officers
armed with billy clubs, who retreated upon encountering
diplomatic observers lingering outside the court. Police

ADDIS ABAB 00000049 003 OF 003


then escorted Getachew's wife away. (NOTE: Defense attorneys
subsequently reported that the daughters were likely detained
for contempt of court, for either crossing their legs or
applauding in the court, both seen by court officials as
signs of disrespect. According to defense attorneys, court
officials have detained others for crossing their legs in
court, usually women, and then subsequently released them on
bail without formally charging them. END NOTE.)


10. (SBU) COMMENT: Although this marks the seventh time that
defendants have appeared in court, prosecutors have yet to
present any formal testimony in court against the defendants,
who have all been formally charged with crimes punishable by
life imprisonment or death. The case against the 131
defendants (34 of whom are to be tried in absentia) remains
in the pre-trial stage, nine weeks after many were first
detained, and two weeks since prosecutors presented formal
charges. The judge's decision to schedule the next court
appearance seven weeks from now represents a significant
break from the weekly hearings of the last month. The GOE
appears to be concerned that the hearings are becoming a
focal point for street protests, although there were no
significant protests on January 4. Ongoing delays in
presenting the case against the detainees, the court's
refusal to allow defendants to speak on their own behalf in
the absence of defense counsel, and the prosecution of at
least four adolescents on capital charges, are increasingly
eroding the credibility of a trial that has been
controversial from the start. END COMMENT.
HUDDLESTON