COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE EXAMINES REPORT OF ETHIOPIA

The Committee against Torture this morning concluded its consideration of the initial report of Ethiopia on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Introducing the report, Fisseha Yimer, Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia, said Ethiopia had emerged from a cruel past where the State and its institutions had been used to perpetrate abuses and acts of torture on a massive scale. However, after coming to power in 1991, the Transitional Government and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia had run one of Africa’s most extensive accountability and trial processes, bringing to justice officials of the former military regime who had been directly involved in mass murder, torture and other serious crimes.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Ethiopia, Committee Expert Abdoulaye Gaye was concerned about information suggesting that spaces and dynamics of ethnic exclusion had been created. Also, the Ethiopian jurisdictional system was extremely complex, with the federal and local jurisdictions, Mr. Gaye noted, asking whether there had been any conflicts of competence. The Rapporteur also asked about the impact of exceptional or emergency situations on the freedoms of individuals and whether persons detained under the state of emergencies had the right to their classic liberties.

Essadia Belmir, the Co-Rapporteur for the report of Ethiopia, asked the delegation to comment on reports that judges in Ethiopia’s southern and eastern conflict regions were reportedly not taking the statements of detainees seriously and that judges feared for their jobs or their lives and had been forced into exile in those regions. Also, why had Ethiopia refused 32 of the Human Rights Council’s quite basic recommendations?

The delegation of Ethiopia notably included representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Mission of Ethiopia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the Federal Prison Administration Commission, and the Federal Police Commission.

Ethiopia is among the 147 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.

At its next public meeting, this afternoon at 3 p.m., the Committee will begin its consideration of the third periodic report of Turkey.

Report of Ethiopia

The initial report of Ethiopia (CAT/C/ETH/1) notes that isolated surveys roughly indicate that Ethiopia’s criminal investigation bodies, prisons and detention centres have been exerting considerable efforts to accelerate the implementation of the provisions of the Convention. Regardless of this effort, however, the full and effective implementation of the Convention is far from reality. A multitude of factors and difficulties could be responsible for the limited fulfilment of Ethiopia’s obligations under the Convention. These notably include the lack of proper awareness of law-enforcement officials as to the governing rules and ideals stipulated in the Convention, the still prevailing view that using a reasonable degree of coercion is necessary to secure the truth while interrogating a hostile accused under criminal investigation, and the lack of skills in acceptable investigation techniques, along with the desired level of professional conduct. Unfortunately, an official documentation of factors and difficulties affecting the full and effective realization of the Convention is not readily available. The only helpful account in this regard might be a recent report, released by the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission after having inspected up to 35 Federal and State prisons throughout the country.

The report underscores that the federal police has devised several mechanisms to prevent the occurrence of torture and similar crimes, including weekly performance evaluation of police officers, weekly inspection of detention centres, and ensuring that lawyers are free to talk to detained persons. Visits by non-governmental organizations, religious leaders and international organizations to the detention centres are also allowed. If a complaint is submitted, the police are duty bound to make investigations into the facts, and protective measures towards the victim or other witnesses are provided if necessary. If a police officer refuses to investigate a compliant, the victim has the right to complain to higher authorities in the police or, in cases of violations of rights by an investigator or police guard, to petition to the federal crime investigation department or to the head office of prison administration. Victims of torture are provided remedies, and civil servants or government employees are liable for any damage they cause. Moreover, the State shall be vicariously liable to the victims of such crimes if the fault committed is a professional fault.

Presentation of Report

FISSEHA YIMER, Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia, said since the fall of the military junta in 1991, Ethiopia had made major strides in the promotion and protection of human rights through the consolidation of its new constitutional dispensation and democratic governance. A lack of capacity and financial constraints had stood in the way of presenting this report within the one year period following Ethiopia’s accession to the Convention in 1994, but the Government of Ethiopia had taken steps to address its lack of capacity in meeting its international human rights reporting obligations. It had done so by fostering and promoting closer cooperation with relevant local and international institutions, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, with which Ethiopia has been enjoying a very effective and exemplary relationship and cooperation.

This cooperation had positioned Ethiopia to complete and present its overdue reports under a number of key international human rights instruments. The Government and the High Commissioner’s Office for Eastern Africa and the Horn of Africa had also signed a Memorandum of Understanding which facilitated report preparation and also strengthened the capacity of national human rights institutions, human rights education and training of law enforcement officers and prison administration.

Ethiopia had emerged from a cruel past where the State and its institutions had been used by the Government itself to perpetrate egregious forms of abuses and acts of torture in a massive scale. After coming to power in 1991, the Transitional Government and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia had run one of Africa’s most extensive accountability and trial processes, bringing to justice officials of the former military regime who had been directly involved in mass murder, torture and other serious crimes. A new Federal Constitution, coming into effect in 1996, had also been adopted, including provisions relevant for the protection of persons from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. It had also specific provisions dealing with women and children, providing them with protection from harmful and cruel traditional practices, customs and laws. Specifically, the Constitution prohibited all forms of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and provided for humane treatment of persons held in custody. Similar provisions had also been incorporated in all regional Constitutions.

In the field of legislative reform, Ethiopia had undertaken several positive measures which had ensured the compatibility of its relevant domestic laws with the Convention. A revised Federal Criminal Code had been adopted in 2004 – including a comprehensive definition of the concept and crime of torture and the criminalization of the commission of any act that may be considered cruel, degrading and inhuman – and specific legislations and instruments had been issued, regulating the conduct of police, prosecutors, prison administrators and members of security establishments.

Mr. Yimer said that Ethiopia retained the death penalty in statutes but, in a manner that could be considered as a de facto moratorium, actual implementation of the death penalty rarely occurred. Concerning prison conditions and administration, Ethiopia now had a system that allowed free access by individuals and institutions to visit prisons without any conditions. Prisoners enjoyed access to their family and friends, lawyers and religious leaders and they were provided with sufficient food, medication, sanitation and other services. This was provided under the Federal Wardens Administration and the Treatment of Federal Prisoners regulation. Mechanisms for complaints and remedy existed if and when complaints or allegations were found to be correct and credible.

Important institutional and administrative measures had also been taken to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement institutions. Emerging from decades of neglect and manipulation by the State for Government-sponsored abuse and terror, effective renewal of these institutions had required considerable resources and attention. Concerted action had been taken to ensure that these institutions operated under the law and Ethiopia did not have undisclosed detention facilities.

The Government had facilitated an independent monitoring of law enforcement organs and prison administrations, including by a special procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Also, this Commission’s Special Rapporteur on Prison Conditions in Africa had visited Ethiopia in 2004. Since then, the Ethiopian Government had worked on several projects seeking to improve the living conditions of prisoners in detention facilities and prisons. In addition, the Government had allowed the international community, the national human rights commission and several civil society organizations to look for themselves for allegations of torture and abuse which had allegedly occurred in regional states.

Ethiopia, like numerous other countries, faced grave challenges of terrorism. Several unfortunate terrorist acts had been committed in different parts of the country. The Government would take all the necessary and lawful measures to protect the safety of its citizens. It would also continue to work with others in addressing the challenges of terrorism at the regional and global level. The delegation however reiterated that the Government’s anti-terrorism efforts were in compliance with international norms and standards. The arrest, detention and incarceration of those suspected and convicted of crimes of terrorism were conducted in respect of the dignity of the individuals concerned. The deportation and extradition of foreigners was also handled in accordance with Ethiopia’s relevant national legislations and extradition agreements the Government had entered with other Governments. The legislation was consistent with the provisions of the Convention.

Mr. Yimer said education, awareness creation and training had been effectively embedded in Ethiopia’s strategy of ensuring the prevention of torture and empowering victims to seek remedies. Ethiopia had one of the most comprehensive and exemplary human rights education programmes. The civil and education programme was an integral component of the education curricula starting from the primary school to the tertiary level. Now school children learned the core tenets of human rights. With the current enrolment rate of over 90 per cent for primary schools, the impact of this programme could not be underestimated, Mr. Yimer underscored.

Training for police officers, prison administrators and staff members of defence forces and security, prosecutors and judges was also important for empowering relevant institutions to effectively implement the Convention. The Federal Judicial Training Institute helped train prosecutors and judges, including on human rights and freedoms. The Ethiopian defence forces had an excellent tradition of training on international human rights and international humanitarian law, including through solid cooperation programmes with the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Nevertheless, and in spite of these efforts, Mr. Yimer acknowledged that Ethiopia still faced many challenges and shortcomings in the fullest realization of rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention. These challenges lay bare the fact that the fulfilment of the Convention was a process. Lack of awareness, necessary skills and technology were significant hurdles. The traditional view which fostered belief by some that using a reasonable degree of coercion proportionate to the situation at hand was necessary to secure the truth while interrogating a hostile accused under criminal investigation needed to be confronted with determination and continued educational and capacity building efforts.

Questions by Experts

ABDOULAYE GAYE, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Ethiopia, noted that Ethiopia had made significant efforts in adopting legislation to comply with its obligations under the Convention. However, implementing the Convention also required collecting statistics and information from the field, inter alia to allow the Committee to understand Ethiopia’s situation. The report was somewhat too theoretical in that regard and did not detail how the laws were implemented on the ground.

Mr. Gaye was concerned about the situation in Ethiopia, especially in light of information received from United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations which suggested that spaces and dynamics of ethnic exclusion had been created and that some groups could even disappear.

The Rapporteur also noted that Ethiopia’s jurisdictional system was extremely complex, with the federal and local jurisdictions, and asked whether there had been any cases of conflicts of competence and, if so, what rules had been applied.

Mr. Gaye noted that the report did not offer much information on the specific legislative measures to prevent torture. The length of detention was briefly mentioned in the report, but the conditions of these detentions were not specified and the information provided on the use of habeas corpus was insufficient. Could the delegation give additional information on these issues?

The Committee also lacked information on specific cases where the justice system had been used and the cause of death for persons who had died in prison, as this was not due to the detention conditions according to the report. Perpetrators had reportedly also been punished, but what types of sentences had been handed down to these?

Mr. Gaye also asked the delegation to provide information on the impact of exceptional or emergency situations on the freedoms of individuals, especially regarding the prohibition of torture. If people were detained under the state of emergencies, did they have the right to the classic liberties, such as the right to the assistance of a lawyer and to inform their families? And could the delegation comment on reports saying that torture had been committed during the often lengthy detentions, and could it inform the Committee on the Ogaden situation?

Mr. Gaye further wished to have clarification on the competence of the police and that of the army, saying the apparently blurred mandate made it difficult to clarify cases of alleged torture. Also, was there an independent authority of the Executive who controlled the activities of the police and those of the army?

In terms of expulsion and deportation, the judiciary did not seem to interfere and persons concerned were apparently unable to appeal. Mr. Gaye therefore asked whether the non-refoulement obligations were respected and whether examples of approved/denied cases and the underlying reasons could be given.

ESSADIA BELMIR, the Committee Vice-Chairperson and Co-Rapporteur for the report of Ethiopia, wondered whether Ethiopia had a state of emergency at the moment. This was important as the Committee was proceeding differently with States in a state of emergency than with other States. Ms. Belmir asked the delegation to comment on reports according to which judges in Ethiopia’s southern and eastern conflict regions were reportedly not taking the statements made by detainees seriously, particularly in the events of 2006 and 2007, and that they feared for their jobs or lives and had been forced into exile. Ms. Belmir also wondered why Ethiopia had refused 32 of the Human Rights Council’s quite basic recommendations relating to women, children and ethnicity, among other things.

Other Experts then noted that the competence to determine the status of a prisoner captured during the conflict was apparently with the principal military court, before which such cases were brought. However, the military court should deal with military justice while people living in conflict areas were protected by the Geneva Conventions.

A Committee member wished to know whether Ethiopian legislation distinguished between refugees per se and foreign individuals who requested the country’s protection, and whether corporal punishment was still applied in children’s homes, although it was outlawed by the Constitution.

On the conditions of detention, Experts wished to know who the management members were who inspected places of detention on a daily basis according to the report, whether the International Committee of the Red Cross was allowed to visit places of detention, which was denied by a civil society organization and, if so, when, where and with which results such a visit had last taken place. Also, what were the findings and recommendations resulting from inspections of Ethiopian detention facilities, was there any follow-up or public reports on this, what measures had been taken to avoid prison overcrowding, and did special detention facilities exist for persons with disabilities?

Experts asked how many people had been sentenced for carrying out torture, how many cases had been treated by the State of Emergency Inquiry Board and how and with what consequences, what the current functions of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission were and whether there were any plans to strengthen this body. The Committee further wished to understand why there had reportedly not been a single prosecution for the widely and ongoing crime of internal trafficking and whether Ethiopia intended to extend the de facto moratorium on the death penalty.

Response of Ethiopia

Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said the report preparation process had been part of a project to prepare all the overdue initial, combined and periodic reports under the various treaty-based international and regional human rights instruments to which Ethiopia was a party. The preparation process had benefited from the input of a number of institutions, and a wide range of consultations, workshops and national conferences had been conducted. Before drafting the report, training workshops had been conducted to inform stakeholders on their roles and contributions in the process, involving regional and federal Government institutions, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and others. The draft report had then been developed by a Drafting Committee and the National Inter-Ministerial Committee.

With regards to questions raised about the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, the delegation said that institution had been established in 2007 and was currently implementing various programmes. This included human rights education with a focus on raising public awareness on human rights through the media, publications, and being a depository for human rights materials and training key professionals. It also included human rights protection in terms of dealing with complaints, ensuring that remedies were given, making efforts for amicable resolution of cases, and ensuring that settlements were made. The Commission further conducted human rights monitoring regarding prison monitoring, implementing recommendations, monitoring Ethiopia’s general human rights situation and conducting event monitoring. In terms of monitoring, the Commission had recently monitored more than 35 detention facilities. As a consequence of its resulting recommendations, the Government had addressed shortcomings in collaboration with civil society actors.

The Government of Ethiopia had enacted its anti-terror legislation on the basis of its national security interests and in fulfillment of its obligations under different United Nations resolutions aimed at fighting global terrorism. The legislation had been prepared on the basis of international best practices and in line with the relevant national and international legal obligations accepted by Ethiopia. Those who criticized the Ethiopian anti-terror legislation had not flagged any particular provisions as problematic.

As regards the definition of terrorism, it was clear that there was no widely accepted definition which Ethiopia could copy, the delegation added. The worry and concern of many critics was general suspicion that the Government may misuse the provisions of the legislation, but this was an unwarranted concern which was not supported by facts and evidence. The ideal approach for these critics would have been to come up with any such abuses. The anti-terror legislation was in force and operated without any problems so far. Therefore, it should be given a chance and time for implementation. If any practical problems would be encountered in due course and based on evidence there was always room for consideration and improvement, the delegation said.

In terms of children's rights, the Government had not introduced separate legislation on this topic. Nonetheless, Ethiopia had ratified the conventions of the African Union and the United Nations on children's rights, both of which were part and parcel of Ethiopian law. The United Nations convention had even been translated into different official Ethiopian languages to enable law enforcement institutions and the public to understand the essence of the Convention and implement it accordingly. Various Government institutions had also been established and mandated to work on children's rights at different levels and Ethiopia had submitted reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. However, one could not underestimate the challenges emanating from the deep-rooted traditional and cultural practices which were widespread, especially in rural areas, and required time and capacity to overcome in a meaningful manner.

The delegation said Ethiopia had no problem to entertain the requests for visits by Special Procedures, which were usually considered on a case by case basis. Ethiopia had so far received a number of requests under both the United Nations and the African Union procedures. Under the United Nations Special Procedures, this included requests for visits from the experts on the right to food, on the rights of minorities, on toxic waste, and the Special Rapporteur on prisons and detention centers, on the rights of women, and under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Ethiopia had favorably cooperated with these, the delegation said.

As to the fight against impunity, the delegation underscored that Ethiopia had zero tolerance for impunity under any circumstance. Ethiopia had not only run one of Africa’s most massive accountability and trial processes, bringing to justice officials of the former military regime directly involved in mass murder, torture and other serious crimes, the country had also established the Ethiopian House of People’s Representatives, an independent inquiry commission tasked with the investigation of the incident in the Gambella Regional State and the 2005 post-election violence. Likewise, the Government had arranged for independent investigations in the Somali Regional State. Also, Ethiopia had been and would be fighting impunity through the established regular law enforcement institutions but, undeniably, there was still much room for improvement.

In terms of women's rights and rape, the delegation explained that the Government had taken a number of legal and administrative measures to do more in addition to the multi-dimensional awareness raising training programmes, both formal and informal, including through the provision of compensation, where appropriate.

The delegation did not necessarily share the Committee’s view that statistics and data were one of the weaknesses of Ethiopia’s report. The report included a significant amount of data on various subjects, the delegation said, and the Committee should not be overburdened with detailed information. And yet, the Government hoped to be able to provide more statistics in the future.

As to the veracity of information received by the Committee from other sources, if Governments had problems to provide quality information, this applied even more to non-governmental organizations, the delegation said. In fact, the Government had visited places that had been destroyed according to Human Rights Watch, only to find them to be intact, in contrast to the assertions of Human Rights Watch. The information provided by non-governmental organizations must be placed in the political context and should not simply be accepted by the Committee.

With respect to the internal conflict, the delegation said that Ethiopia’s constitution clearly defined the competences of both the federal and the regional Governments, leaving no lack of clarity of competence. In spite of this very clear system, the House of Federation was in place to look into any potential conflicts of competency.

The delegation explained that regional states could declare a state of emergency in their own competency. However, this must be endorsed by Parliament and provisions against inhuman treatment, compulsory labour and equality and discrimination could never be derogated from. There were currently no facts on the ground which would justify a state of emergency.

Turning to the role of militia, the delegation underscored that all measures taken by regional States must comply with the Constitution, and denied the existence of militias taking orders from the Federal Government.

As to refugees, Ethiopia currently had specific legislation governing the treatment of its over 120,000 refugees, who were mainly from Eritrea and Somalia, as well as on torture. The Government was not aware of a single incidence where a refugee had been forced to go back to a country where he or she would be vulnerable to torture.

Explaining the difference between refugees and other foreign nationals in Ethiopia, the delegation confirmed that refugees were specifically defined by the country’s laws and differentiated from other groups of people. However, the Ethiopian Government assessed the deportation of any person on a case by case basis.

Ethiopia also had legislation on female genital mutilation, early marriage and corporal punishment. While these laws had been commended by United Nations agencies, challenges remained in terms of implementation, the delegation acknowledged.

As to the Universal Periodic Review recommendations that Ethiopia had rejected, the delegation said the country’s scorecard was not too bad compared to other countries, adding that all rejections had an underlying rationale. In terms of treaty ratifications, for example, Ethiopia simply wished to have more time for consideration. It would be unfair to only point to Ethiopia’s rejection of 32 recommendations, some of which might be adapted in the future. It must also be acknowledged that Ethiopia had accepted 98 recommendations.

In terms of habeas corpus, police who failed to present an arrested person to a court within 48 hours faced disciplinary measures. Practically speaking, there were no long delays in bringing people to court because courts were available throughout the country, even in remote parts of Ethiopia. There were also frequent federal circuit trials, making obsolete the Committee’s concern about long periods of travel to courts for cases under federal jurisdiction such as terrorism. Persons arrested under article 19 and detained by the police were also constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and respect of their human rights.

In terms of rape, the delegation assured that Ethiopia took such crimes very seriously and had the legislation needed to bring perpetrators to justice. Rape cases and crimes against children were investigated by the police and prosecuted by a team of prosecutors.

In terms of the allegedly blurred competencies of the police and that of the army, this was regulated by several pieces of legislation, including several federal police regulations, the delegation asserted. Major duties of the police included preventing and detecting crimes and maintaining order while the defense forces were responsible to the Ministry of Defense. Not only was frequent training provided on the roles and responsibilities, but the police also regularly assessed their activities, which could potentially lead to the dismissal of police officers who had not acted in accordance with their mandate.

Responding to questions on the prison system, the delegation said two non-governmental organizations regularly visited prison centers to provide legal and other forms of assistance. The Parliament’s Legal Affairs Standing Committee also visited prisons on a quarterly basis, allowing the Parliament to monitor the situation in prisons and to give recommendations for improvement. In this regard, five prisons at the federal level had been studied. Great attention was also given to prisoners with disabilities, with a major prison being accessible to people in wheelchairs.

As for persons who died while in custody, the delegation asserted that these cases had not been due to the detention conditions and that the corpses were sent to post-mortem analysis and subsequently to the families. The delegation also denied that Ethiopia had any secret detention centers, underscoring that not a single detainee could be imprisoned for a single day without a court order.

Prison staff was trained on the protection of human rights of prisoners. Prisons had their own training centers and the curriculum had recently been revised to make it more effective. High-level officials at both the State and Federal levels had also been trained, in collaboration with the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and the High Commissioner’s East Africa Office.

Further Comments by Committee Experts

ABDOULAYE GAYE, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Ethiopia, said a stronger focus should be made to implement the descriptive, normative framework of Ethiopian law. The measures to prevent and punish torture were encouraging but insufficient in order to discourage torture and other forms of cruel treatment.

Coming back to several issues discussed previously, Mr. Gaye asked for further information on the potential lack of legal clarity between the responsibilities of Federal and State level Government, and how this would be dealt with, and asked for clarification on the distinction of competencies between the police and the military.

The four days during which people could be held in custody by the police or the military in custody were also of concern as torture often took place during this period. During this long custody period the system should guarantee access to prisoners.

The Rapporteur was concerned about what happened on the ground in particular regions with regards to the state of emergency. Mr. Gaye also reminded that the delegation was yet to clarify the grounds based on which extradition requests were granted or denied and that it should provide information on the rules of evidence in Ethiopia’s Penal Code.

ESSADIA BELMIR, the Committee Vice-Chairperson and Co-Rapporteur for the report of Ethiopia, said contrary to the delegation’s assertion, there had been criticism about specific provisions of the anti-terrorism law, namely the passages on incitement to terrorism.

In terms of impunity, Ethiopia could not start with zero tolerance to reach a zero infringement. Ethiopia must first find a middle ground.

In terms of the Universal Periodic Review, it was true that Ethiopia had accepted a great number of recommendations, but it had not accepted procedures to standing invitations.

Another Expert noted that the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission had offered a detailed report on the deplorable conditions of detention, urging to action. Two years after this report, what measures had been taken, if any, to improve this situation, the Expert asked. The Commission’s report also made reference to the “congestion” or overcrowding of detention places. Could the delegation clarify the number of detainees compared to the number of available places?

Committee members asked what specific measures Ethiopia had taken to eradicate harmful practices against women, what the findings and investigations had been on the high numbers of forced disappearances, how many people had been sentenced to death, whether there was a pending death row, how many people had been sentenced for torture, and whether victims had been compensated. It was also noted that the Criminal Code did not offer a definition of torture.

Response by Delegation

Responding, the delegation said most of these very specific questions could not be answered right away as they needed more in-depth examination. It should not be forgotten that Ethiopia was a country with significant shortcoming in terms of human resources.

Nonetheless, the delegation acknowledged that Ethiopia’s jurisdiction provided for Sharia law on specific matters, such as family issues, but said that specific legislation and guarantees on dealing with Sharia courts were in place.

The delegation also confirmed that international examination had been allowed in the Ogaden region and that concerns about the situation there being a de facto state of emergency were unfounded.

Mr. Yimer said Ethiopia faced a challenge from outsiders who attempted to define Ethiopia and criticized its ethnic federalism. Ethiopia was a country of different people who shared a culture and identity. Claims that Ethiopia was characterized by ethnic federalism, as expressed by Ms. McDougall, Special Rapporteur on the issue of systematic rape, sexual slavery, and slavery-like practices in armed conflict, after a six-day visit, were resented by the Government. Also, the bashing of Ethiopia was a full-time occupation of Human Rights Watch.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT10/025E