Ethiopia is drafting transitional justice laws that emphasize the establishment of a Special Prosecutor’s Office (SPO) tasked with investigating international crimes. This article argues for the necessity of an international cooperation unit within the SPO to effectively prosecute offenders, particularly those residing outside Ethiopia. The challenges of ensuring extradition and gathering evidence necessitate this specialized unit to enhance the effectiveness and independence of the SPO, thus improving Ethiopia’s transitional justice framework.
Ethiopia is in the process of drafting transitional justice laws aimed at addressing historical and ongoing human rights abuses through criminal accountability, truth-seeking, reparations, and institutional reform. A key aspect of this initiative is the establishment of a Special Prosecutor’s Office (SPO), responsible for investigating and prosecuting individuals accountable for international crimes, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
The proposed SPO will have the mandate to pursue perpetrators, including foreign nationals, even outside Ethiopia’s jurisdiction. This pursuit, particularly of fugitive offenders, presents significant challenges. To assist in identifying such individuals, the draft legislation allows the SPO to incentivize informants to provide necessary intelligence. Successful prosecution will depend on fostering international collaboration, particularly in securing extradition from third-party nations where offenders may seek refuge.
In acknowledgment of the complexities involved, states ratified the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention in 2024 to enhance cross-border cooperation in prosecuting similar crimes. However, despite having specialized divisions, the SPO currently lacks a dedicated international cooperation unit, a critical necessity given its intended functions.
The requirement for this unit is underscored by three primary reasons: the Eritrean aspect of transitional justice, Ethiopia’s historical challenges with fugitive offenders, and the necessity for the SPO’s independence. The new SPO must address non-Ethiopian offenders, notably Eritreans involved in atrocities during the Tigray conflict—an issue complicated by Eritrea’s previous refusal to cooperate with Ethiopian authorities on accountability matters.
Historically, the trials of the Dergue era normalized in absentia prosecutions, which became the default due to inadequate international cooperation. The lack of a functioning international cooperation mechanism could project a lack of commitment towards holding Eritrean offenders accountable, thus limiting the SPO’s efficacy in gathering evidence and enforcing justice.
Ethiopia’s troubled history with extradition is further exemplified by the post-1991 Dergue trials, which often resorted to prosecuting individuals in their absence due to many fugitives opting to evade justice. Past experiences have shown that only a small number of fugitives were successfully brought to trial, often due to the absence of extradition treaties with other nations, notably those aligned under the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention.
An independent international cooperation unit is crucial, as it would not only facilitate extradition processes but would also bolster Ethiopia’s overall judicial framework. The SPO is set to oversee crimes committed over the past three decades—double the timeframe of its predecessor, thus indicating a potentially higher number of implicated individuals lingering abroad.
Although Ethiopia’s Justice Ministry has a cooperation department, its structure does not align with the needs of the SPO, which is designed to operate autonomously under parliamentary accountability. Such independence is vital to ensuring that the SPO remains insulated from political influence.
The absence of an international cooperation unit within the SPO is a vital shortfall in Ethiopia’s transitional justice efforts, which may adversely affect its credibility. Establishing this unit will enhance the effectiveness of justice regarding international crimes and leave a significant legacy on Ethiopia’s judicial landscape, improving knowledge transfer to regular prosecution agencies beyond the SPO’s mandate.
In summary, Ethiopia’s establishment of a Special Prosecutor’s Office to tackle international crimes marks a significant step in addressing past abuses. However, the absence of a dedicated international cooperation unit poses a substantial risk to its effectiveness. This unit is essential for securing evidence, facilitating extradition, and ensuring accountability, particularly concerning transnational offenders. Additionally, such a unit would bolster the independence and overall functionality of the SPO, ultimately contributing to the integrity and efficacy of Ethiopia’s transitional justice framework.
Original Source: www.eurasiareview.com
