RE: የወንጀል ሕግ ሥነ ሥርዓት እና የማስረጃ ረቂቅ ሕግ
null RE: የወንጀል ሕግ ሥነ ሥርዓት እና የማስረጃ ረቂቅ ሕግ
Anonymous
Modified 2 Years ago.
Anonymous, modified 2 Years ago.
RE: የወንጀል ሕግ ሥነ ሥርዓት እና የማስረጃ ረቂቅ ሕግ
የወንጀል ሕግ ሥነ ሥርዓት እና የማስረጃ ረቂቅ ሕግ
In relation to procedures that govern judicial witness protection measures, which is a practical problem in our courts and have a far-reaching consequence in the system, the improvement made in the draft code is insignificant. It is not comprehensive and doesn‘t solve the already existed gaps and problems in the area of witness identity protection.
The draft‘s code contribution in this area is also so minimal seen in light of the criminal justice policy. The FDRE Criminal Justice Policy (2011) under para 3.19 directs the incorporation of necessary rules of procedure in the criminal procedure code for the implementation of witness protection measures. As a result, the draft code is not in line with the directions of the criminal justice policy.
Thus, please try to revise the draft code so that it include the aspirations of the Criminal Justice Policy and exhaustively provide detailed procedural rules on the power of courts to give anonymity order; on the requirements of application to anonymity order, on the conditions and considerations for granting witness anonymity measures, on the hearing and decision making process, on the revision and appeal against witness anonymity orders.
If the revision is not possible, please give delegated power to the Federal Supreme Court, under article 443(1), to issue directives on rules of the court that regulate the procedure for making witness anonymity order, particularly that provides detailed provisions for the application and determination of witness anonymity measures and that tries to balance fair trial rights of the accused and effective protection of witnesses.
For more information please contact me, it’s my research area, I can make a little contribution
Abdurrahman Seid
ashmaji1979@gmail.com
In relation to procedures that govern judicial witness protection measures, which is a practical problem in our courts and have a far-reaching consequence in the system, the improvement made in the draft code is insignificant. It is not comprehensive and doesn‘t solve the already existed gaps and problems in the area of witness identity protection.
The draft‘s code contribution in this area is also so minimal seen in light of the criminal justice policy. The FDRE Criminal Justice Policy (2011) under para 3.19 directs the incorporation of necessary rules of procedure in the criminal procedure code for the implementation of witness protection measures. As a result, the draft code is not in line with the directions of the criminal justice policy.
Thus, please try to revise the draft code so that it include the aspirations of the Criminal Justice Policy and exhaustively provide detailed procedural rules on the power of courts to give anonymity order; on the requirements of application to anonymity order, on the conditions and considerations for granting witness anonymity measures, on the hearing and decision making process, on the revision and appeal against witness anonymity orders.
If the revision is not possible, please give delegated power to the Federal Supreme Court, under article 443(1), to issue directives on rules of the court that regulate the procedure for making witness anonymity order, particularly that provides detailed provisions for the application and determination of witness anonymity measures and that tries to balance fair trial rights of the accused and effective protection of witnesses.
For more information please contact me, it’s my research area, I can make a little contribution
Abdurrahman Seid
ashmaji1979@gmail.com