dc.description.abstract |
The two- years-long armed conflict in northern Ethiopia was characterized by gross violations that could
spark the issue of victims’ reparations based on international law. This research thus aims to assess the
adequacy of domestic law, institutions, and practical enforcement with respect to reparations for victims
including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, criminal accountability, truth, memorialization,
apology, and reform. In pursuit of this aim, the research adopts both doctrinal and non-doctrinal
qualitative research approaches. Documents of all types at any level were examined and key informants
such as officials and experts as well as victims and victims’ families were interviewed. This research finds
out that both the Ethiopian legal and institutional frameworks as well as the practice are insufficient. The
law fails to comprehensively recognize all forms of reparations including symbolic, collective, and
preventive by nature as well as restitution in its fullest senses. The existing procedural rules fail to fit for
the special conditions on the ground so lagging to provide lenient procedural and evidentiary
requirements and state liability to reparation. The law also fails to felicitously criminalize crime against
humanity, ethnic cleansing as well as enforced disappearance. Regarding institutions, the existing
judiciary suffers from a shortage of impartiality, independence, capacity, and victims’ trust and
confidence. It also inherently lacks the ability to render symbolic and preventive reparations. The same
works for the Inter-Ministerial Task Force (IMTF), which additionally has no institutional security. The
newly established National Dialogue Commission (ENDC) could help facilitate dialogue on agendas
including reparations and transitional justice had it been inclusive and mandated so. Practically, almost
all forms of reparations are not yet provided for victims. A few scattered reparations initiatives are
seriously flawed from their very inceptions such as one-sidedness, lack of consultations, and victim centeredness. This research thus argues for the implementation of comprehensive transitional justice
mechanisms including the creation of a special judicial structure, a separate truth and reconciliation
commission, and an administrative reparation (proper) program. There is also a need for proper
criminalization of gross violations including international crimes and recognition of all forms of
reparations in the domestic legal system |
en_US |