Chapter One

General Overview

1.1. Definition, Nature, Purpose and Development of Cri pr

1.2. Sources of Criminal Procedure Rules

1.3. Models of Criminal Justice Systems: the

‘Due Process’ and the ‘Crime Control’ Models

1.4. Systems of Criminal Procedure: the Adversarial/

Accusatorial, the Inquisitorial, and the Mixed Systems
1.5. Structure, Purposes, and Fundamental
Principles of Modern Criminal Procedure
1.6. History of Ethiopian Criminal Procedure
 Chapter Two
Setting Justice in Motion:
Intake Procedures and Investigative Activities

2.1. Complaint, Accusation, and Flagrant Offences

2.2. Summons and Arrest

2.3. Police Investigation

2.4. Confession

2.5. Search and Seizure

 Chapter Three
Post Arrest Procedures

3.1. Remand

3.2. Release on Bail

3.3. Habeas Corpus

Chapter Four
Prosecution and Preliminary Inquiry

4.1. Prosecution

4.2. The Preliminary Inquiry

 Chapter Six
The Federal System and Jurisdiction of Courts

6.1. Court System in the Ethiopian Federal Set up

6.2. Criminal Jurisdiction of Courts

Chapter Seven
The Trial

7.1. Fair Trial Rights and Trial Proceedings

7.2. Preliminary Objections and their Consequences

7.3. Plea of accused

7.4. Opening of Cases and Presentation of Evidences.

7.5. Post Evidence Procedure

 Chapter Eight
Special Procedures Leading to Judgment
8.1. Private Prosecutions
8.2. Default Proceedings
8.3. Summary Proceedings: Petty Offences and Contempt
8.4. Juvenile Procedures
8.5. Corruption Crimes

Chapter Nine
Post Judgment Proceedings
9.1. Review of Judgment by the Court of Rendition
9.2. Right of Appeal and Powers of the Appellate Court
9.3. Review in Cassation
9.4. Execution
9.5. Pardon and amnesty
 CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL OVERVIEW
• This chapter lays the foundation for the
subsequent discussions on different subject
matters of criminal procedure. The theoretical
and legal bases of criminal procedure are
analyzed. It also describes the trends of
criminal procedure in the world and Ethiopia
since time immemorial; models of criminal
justice; major criminal justice systems of the
world and their structure.
 1.1. Definition, Nature, Purpose, and Development
1) Definition
• The rules governing the mechanisms, under which crimes are investigated,
prosecuted, adjudicated, and punished. It includes the protection of accused
persons' constitutional rights.
• The framework of laws and rules that govern the administration of justice in cas
es involving an individual who has been accused of a crime, beginning with the
initial investigation of the crime and concluding either with the unconditional re
lease of the accused by virtue of acquittal (a judgment of not guilty) or by the im
position of a term of punishment pursuant to a conviction for the crime.

• Due process, a course of legal proceedings according to rules and principles

that have been established in a system of jurisprudence for the enforcement
and protection of private rights. In each case, due process contemplates an
exercise of the powers of government as the law permits and sanctions, under
recognized safeguards for the protection of individual rights.
2) Due process of law
i) Substantive due process:- essence, end, substance, or content of
the law]
ii}) Procedural due process:- means/process/enforcement to achieve
ends
• Substantive due process refers to the content or subject matter of
a law. It protects people against unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious laws or acts of government. It is a requirement that
enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair,
arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual. Vague,
ambiguous laws may be challenged on the ground of their
constitutionality. Focuses on end
• Procedural due process requires that a course of formal
proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and
in accordance with established rules and principles. The means
of implementing laws
• Procedural due process is concerned with the notice,
hearing, and other procedures that are required before
the life, liberty, or property of a person may be taken
by the government. In general, procedural due
process requires the following:
1. Notice of the proceedings
2. A hearing
3. Opportunity to present a defense
4. An impartial tribunal
5. An atmosphere of fairness
• Nevertheless, procedural matters may be ends in
themselves. Fair trial, the right to be heard, etc are
rights to be upheld for their own sake besides their
instrumentality in attaining a fair result.
• In addition, the formulation of substantive rules could
affect procedural issues. For example, the penalty
provided in the law is taken into account to decide
bail or punishment. Thus, the distinction between
substantive and procedural justice is elusive.
 3) Nature of Criminal Procedure Law
• Law is broadly divided into substantive and adjective. The
latter is also divided into procedural and evidence. The
substantive law defines rights, duties, and liabilities. But, its
implementation calls for the adjective laws. Procedure and
evidence laws are corollaries of procedural rules. Hence,
criminal procedure is part of adjective laws.

• Criminal procedure regulates the whole process of detection,

investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offenders. It
also contains rules protecting the constitutional rights those
apprehended for violating the criminal law. It has double
functions. It applies the criminal law. At the same time, it
helps to preserve the rights of a suspect or accused person.
Hence, it is all about striking a balance between these two
interests.
 4) Criminal Procedure and Human Rights
• Handling criminal cases is a sensitive matter as it is
highly connected with human rights. For example, arrest
and investigation limit the right to privacy, movement,
bodily integrity, work, etc. The attitude of the public
towards crime also leads to psychological embarrassment.
Thus, it could lead to socio-economic and psychological
problems. Moreover, unlike civil cases, criminal
proceedings could result in deprivation of life, and
liberty. Upon conviction, death penalty and imprisonment
could be imposed. There could also be confiscation and
fine. This loss of property is accompanied by social
stigma. The situation is different for civil liability. The
latter has predominantly pecuniary effect. So, criminal
procedure is very much related with human rights.
 5)The Constitution and Criminal Procedure
• The FDRE Constitution has formally adopted a federal system.
The level of government having the responsibility of enforcing
the criminal law has to be distinguished. The FDRE Constitution
lacks clarity in this regard. Enacting a criminal law is the mandate
of the Federal government pursuant to Art 55/5 of the FDRE
Constitution. But, regions can enact criminal law on matters not
covered by federal criminal law. However, the constitution is not
clear about the jurisdiction of the two tiers of government over
the implementation of the criminal law. Different arguments are
forwarded. Some argue that the federal government should have
the mandate to apply the criminal law it has enacted. Others say
that even though the federal government enacted it, the regions
have the responsibility to apply it. According to Art 52/2/g of the
FDRE Constitution, the regions have the power to organize police
force and maintain law and order. These functions are highly
connected with the application of the criminal law.
 6) Sources of criminal procedure law
i. At the federal level, the sources of criminal procedure
rules are the
• FDRE constitution,
• federal legislations like criminal procedure code, proc
25/96, other penal legislations
• Sentencing guideline enacted by the Federal Supreme
Court directive No 2/2005,
• Federal Supreme Court cassation division decisions,
• Criminal justice system policy, etc.
ii) At state level, besides the federal sources mentioned,
the sources include regional constitutions, policies
and legislations.
• To sum up, the sources of criminal procedure
principles and rules have to be seen the overall
political, constitutional, and legal system of a
country. In every nation, the constitution is the
first legal document to be referred to. In many
countries, there has been a trend of
constitutionalisation of criminal procedure
rules. Legislations also play a crucial role. The
statutory sources of criminal procedure rules
come next to constitutional criminal procedure
rules. There may also be case laws.
 7. Models of Criminal Justice Systems:
the ‘Due Process’ and the ‘Crime Control’ Models
• A criminal justice system has dual purposes. These are
protection of the public against criminal harm and
suspects or accused against unfair treatment along the
process. It is not easy to reconcile theses two competing
and, at times, conflicting values. A state is expected to
strike a balance between the two. But, it is unthinkable
to achieve absolute balance. The balance could tilt
towards one over the other. Consequently, depending
upon the approach of the state towards the two
interests, two models of criminal justice system have
been developed. These are the due process model and
crime control model.
• The due process model is distinguished for its
emphasis on the avoidance of convicting
innocent. It tolerates the escape of criminals for
the sake of not harming innocents. This may
affect the public interest as offenders are sent
free.
• On the contrary, the policy of the crime control
model, as its name implies, is the prevention of
crime. It gives lesser emphasis to the protection
of the rights of a suspect or accused. There is a
possibility to convict innocent persons since the
major target is repressing crime.
• Determining the orientation of a jurisdiction is
not an easy task. Comprehensive
understanding requires the examination of a
constitution, statutes, case laws, and law
enforcement activities. The approach can not
be static amidst the dynamism of socio-
economic and political reality. Thus, the policy
of the criminal justice system has to be seen in
light of the overall arrangement and operation
of the justice system.
 8) Systems of Criminal Procedure:
the Adversarial/Accusatorial, the Inquisitorial, and
the Mixed Systems
There are two major criminal procedure systems,
i.e., adversarial (accusatorial) and inquisitorial.
Their difference lies in the selection of the
appropriate procedures and processes for
effectively detecting and prosecuting criminals.
They are two paths to filter out the guilty from the
innocents. The adoption of these systems is
influenced by legal tradition. Generally, common
law systems follow the accusatorial system and
civil law countries adopt the inquisitorial approach.
• In the adversarial system, a judge plays the role of a
referee in the contest between the prosecution and
defense. This is thought to be the ideal system to
arrive at a fact.
• On the contrary, in the inquisitorial system, the judge
is supposed to inquire in to the case to arrive at the
truth. In the former, the court is passive, whereas in
the latter, the judge plays a key role in examining the
parties and evidence.
• Hence, the adversarial approach focuses on the
existence of fair process which is considered to have
an inbuilt method of finding facts. In the inquisitorial
system, the criminal justice system is inclined towards
finding the truth.
• However, in the actual world, there is no clear cut demarcation
between the two systems. It is common to find an element of
both in the functioning a criminal justice system. There are also
variations in their implementation within jurisdictions following
the same system. Some countries have adopted a mixed system
combining the features of both. Besides, it is mistaken to
conclude that one is apt to favor suspects or accused and the
other society. Each system has mechanisms to strike a balance
between the interest of individuals and the public. The efficiency
and effectiveness of a system has to be seen on a case by case
basis.
• To sum up, the adversarial and inquisitorial systems are the
procedures and processes utilized for adjudicating criminal cases.
The former is characterized by limited judicial intervention and
the latter is identified for its active involvement of the judiciary.
Comparison
• The inquisitorial systems emphasize the screening
phase of the criminal process with the idea that a
careful investigation will determine factual guilt. The
adversarial systems emphasize the trial phase, where
the idea that complex rules of evidence to produce
substantive results will ensure the defendant a fair
trial.
• The adversarial systems are much more likely to
restrict the involvement of the judiciary in both the
investigatory and adjudicatory process. The direct
involvement of the judge in inquisitorial systems
contrasts with his or her more indirect involvement in
adversarial systems.
• Because the inquisitorial system assumes that all involved
persons are seeking the truth, the defendant is expected
(though not required) to be cooperative. That cooperation
includes supplying information to investigators and answering
questions at trial. The adversarial systems, on the other hand,
neither expect nor require the defendant to assist investigators.
The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, who assumes that the
defendant will maintain silence.
• The role of the judge in adversarial proceedings is primarily one
of referee. The attorneys develop and present their respective
cases, and then a jury decides between the two versions of the
facts. The court in an inquisitorial system is another investigator
with the added power of being able to decide the case. The
judges ask most of the questions and develop the facts while the
attorneys exist more to argue the interpretation that the court
should give those facts…
 9) Fundamental principles and Structure of
criminal justice
• The materials in this section deal with the
institutional set up of the criminal justice
sectors and fundamental principles of criminal
procedure. The main actors in the criminal
justice system discussed are the police,
prosecution, and courts. The organization of
the organs of government is affected by the
legal tradition of a country. The role of victims
also varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
• In Ethiopia, the justice sectors are organized at the
federal and regional level. The main actors in the
criminal justice system are separately organized.
But, the police and the prosecution act together
on judicial matters of handling criminal cases.
They are differentiated for administrative affairs of
the institutions like budget, training, salary,
discipline, etc. There are also specialized
institutions like ethics and anti-corruption and
revenues and customs involved in the criminal
justice. These institutions are unique as they are
accorded both police and prosecution powers.
• Our country also shares the fundamental principles
of criminal procedure. The FDRE Constitution and
other laws have directly or indirectly incorporated
these basic principles of modern criminal justice
system.
• In short, the major institutions that are involved in
the criminal justice system include the police,
prosecution, and courts. Their organization varies
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The role of victims
can not also be undermined. Irrespective of
variation in the legal systems of states, all share
fundamental values of criminal procedure. Our
country is not also exception to that.