VZCZCXRO3023
PP RUEHROV
DE RUEHDS #0003/01 0021008
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 021008Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8985
INFO RUCNIAD/IGAD COLLECTIVE
RHMFISS/CJTF HOA
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC
RHMFISS/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORP WASHINGTON DC 0085

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ADDIS ABABA 000003 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR AF/E, DRL FOR SJOSEPH, AND INR/B 
LONDON, PARIS, ROME FOR AFRICA WATCHER 
CJTF-HOA AND CENTCOM FOR POLAD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/27/2017 
TAGS: PHUM KJUS KDEM PGOV ET
SUBJECT: ETHIOPIA: POLITICAL TRIAL WRAPS UP, CIVIL SOCIETY 
LEADERS FOUND GUILTY 
 
REF: ADDIS ABABA 02284 AND PREVIOUS. 
 
ADDIS ABAB 00000003  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
Classified By: AMBASSADOR DONALD YAMAMOTO. REASON 1.4(D). 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY:  On December 26, the trial of civil society 
leaders Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie came to a 
conclusion after nearly two years of proceedings.  In a 
bittersweet ending, the two remaining defendants from among 
the 131 originally charged in the political trial of Hailu 
Shawel et al, were found guilty, though under lesser charges 
than originally filed against them.  In a pair of bizarre 
hearings on December 24 and 26, in which the bench's final 
verdict began with heaping praise for the defendants, 
followed by outlining the thorough and overwhelming nature of 
their defense, it was announced that the testimony of two 
prosecution witnesses was ultimately the deciding factor in 
their guilt.  The very questionable testimony of these two 
particular witnesses (on November 2 and 6, 2006), followed by 
a comprehensive cross-examination, left most courtroom 
observers shocked and judges rolling their eyes.  The bench 
nevertheless decided that the defense did not properly 
discount this testimony.  While they concluded that this was 
not enough to convict the defendants on the original charge 
of "Outrages against the Constitution," there was enough 
evidence to convict them on a substitute charge of 
"Provocation to Commit Crimes against the State."  They were 
sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison.  As they have 
already served two years and one month, and with the 
remainder expected to be assigned as probation, these two are 
expected to leave prison within the next week.  International 
observers raised the questionable (though legal under 
Ethiopian law) conviction on charges not raised during the 
proceedings.  The Ambassador made a special effort to attend 
the conviction hearing and noted that the conviction raises 
concerns over due process and the need for judicial reform. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
------------------------------------------- 
MOST OBSERVERS POSITIVE AFTER TWO YEAR SAGA 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (C) On December 26, after 25 months in jail and a trial 
that lasted almost two years, the bench in the case of Hailu 
Shawel et al read the final verdict for the two remaining 
defendants--civil society leaders Daniel Bekele and Netsanet 
Demissie.  The verdict had been delayed several times over 
the previous three months, following delays by the 
prosecution and the replacement of one judge (from the 
three-judge panel).  Most international observers from 
diplomatic missions and NGOs, after having followed the 
course of this trial, were cautiously optimistic that Daniel 
and Netsanet would receive a positive ruling.  They were two 
of only four people to defend their case, from among the 131 
originally charged in this file.  Several had been freed 
during the course of the trial, with the remaining political 
leaders and journalists found guilty after having refused to 
defend their case (reftel).  While those political leaders 
and journalists found guilty were offered and accepted the 
opportunity to sign a pardon request and subsequently were 
released from prison, Daniel and Netsanet refused, instead 
choosing to present a defense.  As licensed attorneys 
themselves, they and their high-profile hired attorney 
handled their case admirably.  Though the prosecution's 
evidence had been very weak to begin with, leading head judge 
Adil to rule that there was no need for a defense in the 
first place, they thoroughly and comprehensively disproved or 
discredited all of the prosecution's evidence.  By the end of 
the case, all international observers were left with no doubt 
as to what the ruling should be--the question remained 
whether the judiciary was independent enough to issue the 
appropriate not guilty ruling or whether the GoE's influence 
would push them to a compromise ruling. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
COURT HANDS OUT COMPLIMENTS, THEN HANDS DOWN GUILTY VERDICT 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶3. (U) In a December 24 session, third judge Mohammed Amin 
began by reviewing the testimony of all the defense 
witnesses, followed by summarizing the defense's documentary 
evidence.   The substance and tone of his review was very 
positive, leading many observers to believe that indeed the 
 
ADDIS ABAB 00000003  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
verdict would be positive for the defendants.   Based on 
witness testimony, he said, it was proven that the defendants 
were not part of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD), 
had not taken part in the June or November 2005 
demonstrations, and had publicly urged opposition 
parliamentarians to join parliament.  Further, it was shown 
that they had done extraordinary work in brokering an 
agreement between the largest opposition groups and the 
ruling EPRDF, with the aim of addressing the opposition's 
post-election concerns.  Mohammed continued by reviewing the 
prosecution's case, noting that they failed to prove many of 
the accusations raised against the defendants.   He even 
pointed out that some of the witnesses had contradicted 
themselves in their own testimony and were therefore not 
credible. 
 
¶4. (U) However, after more than an hour review of the case, 
much of it sounding very positive for the defense, Mohammed 
abruptly announced that Daniel and Netsanet were unable to 
disprove (or did not address) the testimony of two witnesses. 
 One of these witness had testified that he met Daniel at the 
CUD headquarters, at which time Daniel allegedly urged him to 
"recruit youth to topple the ruling party."  The other 
witness said that Netsanet gave him flyers to pass out, 
asking people to protest against the ruling Ethiopian 
People's Revolutionary Democratic Force (EPRDF). The witness 
against Netsanet had earlier been singled out by Mohammed as 
of the witnesses whose testimony had been said to be (at 
least partially) discredited, as a subsequent defense 
witnesses testified that Netsanet was elsewhere on the day 
they were alleged to have met. 
 
¶6. (U) After review of the prosecution and defense's cases, 
Mohammed said that there had not been enough evidence to 
prove that the two had committed "Outrages against the 
Constitution," for which they had been charged.  Lead judge 
Adil Ahmed then took over and announced that in a two-to-one 
decision, the bench found them guilty, but under a reduced 
charge of "Provocation and Preparation to Commit Crimes 
Against the State," which carries a sentence from 10 days to 
10 years. (NOTE: Adil had ruled earlier in the year that the 
prosecution's case did not even warrant a defense, and 
therefore was not permitted to change his vote to guilty.) 
(NOTE CONTINUED: In Ethiopian law, judges can change the 
charge against a defendant at any point in a trial. END 
NOTE.)  He then called for a ten-minute break, during which 
time the prosecution was to prepare recommended sentences and 
the defense could prepare extenuating circumstances. 
 
¶7. (U) For their part, the prosecution said that the 
defendants are educated and trained lawyers, and therefore 
knew the consequences of their actions.  As civil society 
leaders they had been trusted to work in an ethical way, the 
prosecution said, and as they violated that, they should 
receive the maximum "rigorous" sentence, which would also 
restrict their civil rights (i.e. voting or holding public 
office) once released.  The defendants, appearing very 
dejected, made very brief statements.  Daniel said, "We have 
pursued our case and defended from our hearts.  We didn't 
lie.  Based on this, we ask the court to give a final 
sentence."  Netsanet followed by saying, "I will not add 
anything.  The court understands we are innocent."  Lead 
judge Adil then announced that sentencing would be two days 
later on December 26. 
 
¶8. (U) On December 26, Mohammed once again began in a tone 
contradicting the ultimate outcome.  He spoke in very 
generous praise of the defendants, saying among other things 
that they "took courageous action in post-election work with 
political parties," "have good character," "fought for 
supremacy of law," and "made significant contribution to the 
rights of citizens (in their work)."  Based on this, the 
court would not enforce "rigorous" punishment and would not 
have their civil rights restricted.  In the end, Mohammed 
announced, the bench decided on a sentence of two years and 
six months. As Daniel and Netsanet had  been in prison for 
two years and one month, they will now be eligible for 
release.  Under Ethiopian law, when a punishment is not 
"rigorous," a convict will be allowed out of prison on 
probation after serving two-thirds of their sentence.  Their 
lawyer told Poloff that he expects them to be released within 
days. 
 
ADDIS ABAB 00000003  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
COMMENT: GOE SENDS CIVIL SOCIETY LOUD AND CLEAR MESSAGE 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶9. (C) While friends and family of civil society activists 
Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie will celebrate their 
anticipated release from prison following more than 25 months 
of incarceration, Ethiopia will continue to feel the 
repercussions of their guilty verdict.  Their trial, like 
that of their political leader and journalist co-defendants, 
served as a litmus test for judicial independence in 
Ethiopia, in the politically charged, post-2005 election 
atmosphere.  Popular opinion of the case had long since been 
passed by many Ethiopian citizens and international observers 
alike--that this was a political trial and that the GoE was 
using these court proceedings to punish and undercut those 
opposed to the Government, particularly the leadership of the 
CUD and their supporters among independent journalists and 
civil society.  The CUD leadership and journalists returned 
the political volley, refusing to defend themselves, 
ultimately leaving the court a relatively easy decision of 
guilt and forcing the international community's hand to 
ultimately win their release.  Daniel and Netsanet on the 
other hand, long maintaining that they have nothing to do 
with the CUD leaders, refused to sign a pardon request and 
chose to defend their case, politically motivated or not. 
 
¶10. (C) To hear the case presented by both the prosecution 
and defense (Post had an observer at every session), leaves 
no room for question as to whether Daniel and Netsanet 
committed the crimes they were accused of--they are not 
guilty.  Given the high profile of this case, it would 
normally be expected that the GoE would have used its best 
and brightest prosecutors to present this case.  However, the 
prosecution team was regularly outwitted and overwhelmingly 
outmatched in the courtroom opposite Daniel and Netsanet. 
Cross examination of prosecution witnesses led international 
observers to conclude that they were coached and coerced by 
the prosecution.  Documentary evidence against them was 
neutral at best, and obviously doctored at worst.  The 
defense, by contrast, was thorough, well-prepared, 
unrelenting and professional.  Regardless of initial 
impressions of the merits of the case, no observer was left 
with any doubt of their innocence.  Even in their final 
ruling, the judges spent the majority of the time praising 
Daniel and Netsanet, while very opaquely explaining their 
verdict of guilt.  The Ambassador attended the Christmas Eve 
hearing during which the bench read the guilty verdict.  Of 
concern is the conviction on charges not raised directly 
during pervious trial proceedings.  Though legal under 
Ethiopian jurisprudence, it raises serious questions over due 
process and the need for further judicial reforms 
 
¶11. (C) Daniel and Netsanet's guilty verdict lends 
significant weight to the case of the initial 
pessimists--there was never any chance that the high-profile 
political leaders, journalists and civil society 
representatives were to receive a fair case.  Beyond the 
effect on the defendants, the repercussions of the trial have 
been significant for Ethiopia.  The remaining political 
opposition is now splintered and ineffectual, media outlets 
are extremely cautions and not willing to criticize, question 
or confront the government for fear of arrest, and civil 
society has taken a noticeably lower posture.  At this time, 
none of these groups will likely challenge the ruling party 
and government during the upcoming local elections scheduled 
for April 2008.  The conviction of the two civil society 
leaders who led domestic election monitoring efforts in 2005 
will particularly send a cautionary message to potential 
Ethiopian election monitors for the upcoming local elections. 
YAMAMOTO