ETHIOPIAN POLICE UNIVERSITY

CADET SCHOOL

13th ROUND POST GRADUATE DIPLOMA PROGRAM

COURSE TITLE: EVIDENCE LAW

ASSIGMENT TITLE: SEVEN DIFFERENT QUESTIONS

SECTION: 01 GROUP: 04

GROUP MEMBERS: ID NO:

1. MESFIN SILESH……………………………………………………………….PGD026/15
2. MESFIN SILESHI BONDO……………………………………….……… …. PGD027/15
3. MELKAMU TESFAW……………………………………………… ……….. PGD024/15
4. GENENE ASHINE………………………………………………….………… PGD017/15
5. TAMENECH BEKELE………………………………………….….…...…… PGD032/15
6. SHUMANE BEKELCHA……………………………………...…...………… PGD031/15
7. HABTAMU WORKIE………………………………………...……………… PGD020/15
8. FANTAHUN YITAY…………………………………………………..……… PGD012/15
9. KULULE GUYO………………………………………………...….…………. PGD022/15
10. BEREKET ANJA………………………………………….…….…….………. PGD05/15
11. GEBIRESENAIT GEDAMU…………………………………...……………... PGD019/15

SUBMITTED TO: INS. SISAY A.

SUBMISSION DATE: 01/05/2016 E.C

Sandafa, Ethiopia
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1

.1 Advantages of court's discretionary power......................................................................................4

.2 Disadvantages of court's discretionary power..................................................................................4

SUMMERY...............................................................................................................................................11

REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................12

i
 INTRODUCTION
The Ethiopian legal system incorporates evidentiary rules that are scattered throughout various
substantive and procedural laws, including the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE)
Constitution. These constitutional provisions not only govern the admissibility and relevance of
evidence but also address important aspects such as police conduct and the protection of
individual rights. In this discussion, we will delve into the constitutional provisions that pertain
to evidence law in Ethiopia and explore topics such as the court's discretionary power in
determining the relevancy of evidence, the assessment of police conduct for oppression, the
exclusion of confessions obtained without informing the suspect of their rights, and the treatment
of admissions made before courts without jurisdiction.

Additionally, we will examine the distinction between the best evidence rule and parole evidence
and consider how these elements contribute to the overall framework of evidence law in
Ethiopia.

1
1. The Ethiopia evidentiary rules are found scattered through our substantive and adjective
laws. There are also evidentiary provisions in the FDRE constitution. Sort out and discuss
such constitutional provisions?

The Ethiopian Constitution contains several evidentiary provisions. Article 9 states that all
international treaties ratified by Ethiopia are integral parts of the law of the land. Article 13.2
provides that fundamental rights and freedoms shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
international covenants on human rights and international instruments adopted by Ethiopia.
Article 35 pertains to the rights of women, including equal rights with men in marriage,
entitlement to affirmative measures, protection from harmful traditional practices, and property
and employment rights. Article 10 states that human rights and freedoms are inviolable and
inalienable, and the human and democratic rights of citizens and peoples shall be respected.
Article 11 establishes the separation of state and religion, stating that the state and religion are
separate, there shall be no state religion, and the state shall not interfere in religious affairs.
Article 12 pertains to the conduct and accountability of the government, stating that officials
shall be accountable to the people and the law, and that the government shall be transparent and
accountable. These constitutional provisions provide a framework for the development of
evidentiary rules in Ethiopia, which are found scattered throughout substantive and adjective
laws

Let’s discuss other general provisions related to evidence in the FDRE constitution:

1. Article 20: Rights of Persons Accused of a Crime

- This article guarantees the rights of persons accused of a crime, including the right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty.

- It also establishes the principle that no one shall be compelled to testify against themselves.

2. Article 25: Rights of the Accused in Criminal Proceedings

- This article lays out the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings, including the right to
be heard, to present evidence, and to call witnesses.

2
 - It also specifies that the accused has the right to examine witnesses against them and to obtain
the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same conditions as
witnesses against them.

3. Article 34: Rights of Persons Arrested

- While this article primarily focuses on the rights of persons arrested, it indirectly touches on
evidentiary matters as well. It guarantees the right to be informed promptly, in a language they
understand, of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them.

- Additionally, it guarantees the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination.

4. Article 37: Right to Fair Trial

- This article establishes the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to adequate time and
facilities for the preparation of a defense.

- It also guarantees the right to examine witnesses and to obtain their attendance and
examination under the same conditions as witnesses against them.

These constitutional provisions primarily focus on the rights of the accused and their entitlement
to a fair trial, fundamental principles of fairness, presumption of innocence, and the rights of the
accused to present evidence and call witnesses. The specific rules of evidence, such as the
admissibility of certain types of evidence or the procedures for presenting evidence, may be
found in substantive and adjective laws that complement the constitutional provisions.

3
2. Describe the advantage and disadvantages of the existence of court's discretionary
power in determining the relevancy of evidence?

The existence of court's discretionary power in determining the relevancy of evidence has both
advantages and disadvantages.

1 Advantages of court's discretionary power

Flexibility: Discretion allows the trial judge to assess the various factors involved in each case
and adapt the relevancy determination accordingly, ensuring that the evidence presented is
tailored to the specific circumstances of the case

Preventing abuse of process: The discretionary power of the court can help prevent the misuse of
evidence or the presentation of evidence that is not relevant to the case, thus ensuring a fair trial for all
parties involved

Deference on appeal: Although the trial court's ruling on relevant evidence is not considered
discretionary, the ruling is usually shown some level of deference on appeal, which allows the trial
judge's decision to be upheld even if the evidence is deemed irrelevant

Adapting to Changing Circumstances: Discretionary power enables courts to adapt to changing

circumstances and evolving legal principles. As society and technology progress, new types of evidence
may emerge that were not contemplated by existing rules. Judges can exercise their discretion to
determine whether such evidence should be admitted and considered relevant in the given case.

Ensuring Fairness: Discretionary power allows judges to exclude evidence that may be technically
relevant but could unduly prejudice the proceedings. For example, certain evidence may be highly
inflammatory or irrelevant to the central issues of the case. By exercising discretion, judges can protect
the fairness of the trial and prevent the admission of evidence that may unduly influence the jury or
distort the proceedings.

2 Disadvantages of court's discretionary power

Lack of clarity: The discretionary power of the court in determining relevancy can lead to
inconsistencies and unpredictability in the admissibility of evidence, as the relevancy
determination depends on the trial judge's assessment of the specific case

4
Potential for misuse: The discretionary power of the court can be misused to exclude relevant
evidence, which may result in an unfair outcome for one of the parties involved in the case

Limited scope: The discretionary power of the court to exclude relevant evidence based on
surprise, for example, is not recognized in some jurisdictions, such as Louisiana. This limitation
can lead to the admission of evidence that may not be relevant or fair.

Inconsistency: The discretionary power of judges can lead to inconsistency in the application of
evidentiary rules. Different judges may interpret the relevance of evidence differently, resulting
in varying outcomes for similar cases. This can undermine the predictability and uniformity of
the legal system, potentially eroding public trust.

Judicial Bias: Discretionary power exposes the possibility of judicial bias or subjective
judgments. Judges may be influenced by personal beliefs, prejudices, or external pressures when
exercising their discretion. This can introduce an element of unpredictability and potentially
undermine the impartiality and objectivity of the court.

Lack of Guidance: The discretionary nature of relevancy determinations means that the rules
governing evidence can be less clear and precise. This lack of specific guidance can create
uncertainty for litigants and legal practitioners, making it challenging to predict how the court
will assess the relevancy of evidence. It may also lead to more appeals and disputes over the
admissibility of evidence.

5
3. How can we determine whether a certain act of police against the suspect is
oppressive or not? Do you agree on the fact that oppression is a question of
degree i.e. what is oppressive as regards one individual may not be oppressive
to someone of a more unemotional disposition?

Police actions can be considered oppressive if they involve the abuse of authority while on duty
and engage in unlawful conduct with individuals who are in their custody

To determining whether a certain act of the police against a suspect is oppressive or not requires
consideration of various factors and a contextual analysis. While there may not be a definitive
formula to determine oppression in every case, the following considerations are generally
relevant:

1. Proportionality: Assessing whether the police action was proportionate to the circumstances
is crucial. The level of force used, the extent of intrusion into the suspect's rights, and the
severity of the alleged offense should be evaluated. Disproportionate or excessive use of force or
tactics that go beyond what is reasonably necessary may indicate oppressive conduct.

2. Reasonableness: The reasonableness of the police action is a key factor. This involves
evaluating whether the police acted in accordance with established laws, regulations, and
protocols. It also considers whether the action was based on a reasonable suspicion or probable
cause, and whether less intrusive alternatives were available.

3. Constitutional and Legal Standards: The police's conduct should be assessed against
constitutional and legal standards that protect individuals' rights. These standards may include
the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, protection against cruel and unusual
punishment, the right to due process, and the presumption of innocence. Any violation of these
rights may suggest oppressive behavior.

4. Impact on Individual Rights: The impact of the police action on the suspect's fundamental
rights and freedoms is important to consider. This includes evaluating the infringement on
personal liberty, privacy, bodily integrity, and dignity. Actions that significantly curtail these
rights without sufficient justification may be indicative of oppressive conduct.

6
 Yes, I am agreeing to that, because oppression can be subjective to some degree. What one
person considers oppressive may not have the same effect on another person with a different
disposition or emotional response. People may have varying sensitivities and reactions to police
actions based on their individual experiences, cultural backgrounds, and personal perspectives.
However, it is important to establish objective standards and legal principles to guide the
assessment of oppression, ensuring consistency and fairness in evaluating police conduct. The
subjective experience of oppression can be considered alongside objective criteria to form a
comprehensive evaluation.

4. May the court exclude the confession made under Art 27 of criminal procedure
code due to the mere fact that the suspect is not informed about his right before
investigation?

In Ethiopia, the court may exclude a confession made under Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure
Code if the suspect was not informed about their rights before the investigation. The Ethiopian
Criminal Procedure Code enshrines the right of an accused person "not to be compelled to testify
or to confess guilt and to remain silent" Additionally; Article 279 of the draft Criminal Procedure
Code provides a list of inadmissible evidence, including forced confessions. Therefore, if a
confession was obtained in violation of these provisions, the court may exclude it from evidence.

Under the Ethiopian Constitution, Article 19(2), a suspect has the right to remain silent and not
to testify against oneself. Additionally, Article 20(3) stipulates that any confession or admission
obtained through coercion or in violation of the law is inadmissible as evidence.

Ethiopian criminal procedure laws, including the Criminal Procedure Code, provide safeguards
to protect suspects' rights during interrogations. These safeguards include the obligation to
inform suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal
representation.

If a court determines that a confession was obtained in violation of a suspect's right to be

informed of their rights, it may exclude the confession as evidence. The court will consider
factors such as the voluntariness of the confession and whether the failure to inform the suspect
of their rights had a significant impact on the confession's reliability and fairness.
7
5. Is admission made before the courts other than the court having Jurisdiction over
the case, considered as evidentiary admissions? Discuss

Admissions made before courts other than the court having jurisdiction over the case can be
considered as evidentiary admissions, but the weight and relevance of such admissions may vary
depending on the circumstances and the rules of the jurisdiction in question. Let's discuss this
further. In general, an admission is a statement made by a party that acknowledges certain facts
or allegations against their own interest. Admissions can be made in various contexts, such as
during pre-trial negotiations, in legal pleadings, or in court proceedings.

When an admission is made before a court other than the court having jurisdiction over the case,
it may still be admissible as evidence in the proceedings. However, the weight and significance
given to such an admission will depend on several factors, including the rules of evidence in the
relevant jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, the principle of "admissions against interest" allows
admissions made by a party, regardless of the court in which they were made, to be used as
evidence against that party in subsequent legal proceedings. This principle is based on the idea
that a party's own statements can be reliable and probative evidence. However, there may be
limitations or exceptions to the admissibility of admissions made before other courts. For
example, if the court in which the admission was made lacks jurisdiction or if the admission was
made under duress or in violation of the party's rights, it may be challenged as unreliable or
inadmissible in the current proceedings. Additionally, the weight given to an admission made
before a different court may depend on the nature of the admission and its relevance to the issues
in the current case. If the admission is directly related to the facts or claims at hand, it may carry
substantial evidentiary weight. However, if the admission is tangential or unrelated to the current
case, its probative value may be diminished.

Ultimately, the admissibility and evidentiary weight of admissions made before courts other than
the court having jurisdiction over the case will be determined by the rules of evidence and the
discretion of the court in which the current proceedings are taking place. It is advisable to consult
the specific laws and rules of the relevant jurisdiction to understand how such admissions would
be treated in a particular legal context.

8
6. Discuss the difference between best evidence rule and parole evidence according
to Ethiopia law

In Ethiopian law, the Best Evidence Rule and Parole Evidence Rule are two distinct concepts
that pertain to the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings. Here's an explanation of each
concept:

1. Best Evidence Rule: The Best Evidence Rule, also known as the Rule of Documentary
Evidence, is a principle that governs the admissibility of written documents as evidence in court.
According to this rule, when the content of a document is sought to be proved, the original
document should be presented as evidence, unless certain exceptions apply.

Under the Best Evidence Rule, secondary evidence, such as a copy or oral testimony about the
contents of a document, is generally not admissible if the original document is available. This
rule aims to ensure the accuracy and reliability of documentary evidence by requiring the
presentation of the best available evidence, which is typically the original document itself.

2. Parole Evidence Rule: which is a common law principle, The Parole Evidence Rule is a rule
of contract law that restricts the admission of oral or extrinsic evidence to vary, contradict, or add
terms to a written contract. It states that when parties have reduced their agreement to a written
contract that appears to be complete and final, prior or contemporaneous oral or written
statements that would alter or modify the terms of the written contract are generally inadmissible
in court.

Generally, in Ethiopia, the Parole Evidence Rule is recognized and applied in contract disputes,
preventing parties from introducing evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral or written
statements that would contradict or modify the terms of a written contract.

It's important to note that while the Best Evidence Rule primarily pertains to documentary
evidence, the Parole Evidence Rule relates to the admissibility of oral or extrinsic evidence in
contract disputes. These rules serve different purposes and apply in different contexts within the
Ethiopian legal system.

9
7. Law of evidence is principally about proof of fact than proof of laws. Thus judicial
notice of law is not subject of evidence law. Do you agree in above preposition?
Why/why not?

Yes, that's generally true. Judicial notice allows a court to accept certain facts as true without
requiring formal presentation of evidence. However, this typically applies to facts that are well-
known or indisputable, not to legal principles or interpretations of law. Legal issues and
interpretations are usually subject to argument and evidence presentation in court. The law of
evidence primarily revolves around establishing facts during legal proceedings. Parties present
evidence to prove or disprove assertions made in a case. This evidence can be testimonial,
documentary, or tangible.

However, the concept of judicial notice introduces an exception. Judicial notice allows a court to
accept certain facts as true without requiring formal evidence. This often includes facts that are
well-known, generally recognized, or can be easily verified. While this can extend to laws, the
scope of judicial notice of law may vary. In many legal systems, courts may take judicial notice
of certain legal principles or statutes that are widely known and accepted. This recognition can
save time and resources in cases where the law is clear and undisputed. However, not all legal
matters are subject to judicial notice, especially when interpretation or application of the law is in
question.

In summary, while evidence law primarily deals with proving facts, judicial notice is a
mechanism that allows courts to accept certain facts, including laws, without formal proof,
depending on their well-established and generally recognized nature.

10
SUMMERY
In conclusion, evidence law in Ethiopia is governed by a combination of substantive and
procedural laws, including the FDRE Constitution. These constitutional provisions play a pivotal
role in shaping the admissibility and relevance of evidence in Ethiopian courts. While the law of
evidence primarily focuses on proving facts, it also addresses the proof of laws in certain
situations. The court's discretionary power in determining the relevancy of evidence provides
flexibility but must be exercised judiciously to ensure consistency and fairness. Assessing police
conduct for oppression involves an objective evaluation based on legal standards and the
protection of individual rights. The exclusion of confessions obtained without informing the
suspect of their rights safeguards the integrity of the legal process. Admissions made before
courts without jurisdiction are generally not considered evidentiary admissions in the substantive
case. Lastly, the distinction between the best evidence rule and parole evidence rule contributes
to the effective functioning of evidence law in Ethiopia. Overall, the constitutional provisions
and their interplay with other laws form the foundation of evidence law in Ethiopia, ensuring the
proper administration of justice and the protection of individual rights.

11
REFERENCES

1. Amelia Wirts, (2021) Policing and Criminal Oppression ,

2. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) - Article 6(1)

3. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopian constitution article 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.2, 20,
21, 25, 34, 35, 37.

4. George Fisher (2002) "Evidence" Foundation Press, Chicago

5. Ian Dennis (2007) "The Law of Evidence" Publisher. Sweet & Maxwell Oslo

6. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - Article 14(3)

7. Kenneth S. Broun, Edward J. Imwinkelried, and Christopher B. Mueller "McCormick on

Evidence “West Academic Publishing 2020

8. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

9. National laws and criminal procedure codes

12