ARBAMINCH UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW

THE STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS UNDER

THE FDRE CONSTITUTION

A SENIOR ESSAY SUBMITTED TO SHOOL OF LAW IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF LAWS

PREPARED BY: KEDIR SEID

ADVISOR: MALEFIYA TESERA (LLB, LLM)

JANUARY, 2016

ARBAMINCH ETHIOPIA
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this senior essay entitled “The status of International human rights
instruments under the FDRE Constitution”. This research is an original research done by me and
has not previously formed the basis for the award of any degree or diploma and sources of
material used in this senior essay has been duly acknowledged.

Declared by: Kedir Seid

Place: Arba minch University

Date: February 18, 2016

Signature:

Approved by: - Advisors name: Malefiya Tesera

Place: Arbaminch University

Date: February 18, 2016

Signature:
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Topics Page
ACKNOLEDGEMENT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
ABSTRACT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------II
ABRIVATION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------III

CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

1.1 Background the study--------------------------------------------------------------------------------3

1.2 statement of the problem----------------------------------------------------------------------------3
1.3 Objective of the study--------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
1.3.1 General objective------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
1.3.2 Specific Objective-----------------------------------------------------------------------------3
1.4 Significance of the study----------------------------------------------------------------------------4
1.5 Research Question------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
1.6 Scope of the study------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
1.7 Research Method-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
1.8 Limitation of the Research -------------------------------------------------------------------------4

Chapter two
General Over View of Status of international human rights instrument
2.1 General over view of international human right instruments---------------------------------5
2.2 The status of international human right instruments in member states----------------------7
2.2.1. Place of international human rights instruments in Kenya----------------------------8
2.2.2 Place of international human rights instrument in USA--------------------------------9
2.2.3 Place of international human rights instrument in Colombia-------------------------10

2.2.4 Hierarchy of Place of international human rights instrument in Kenya, United

States and Colombia ----------------------------------------------------------------------11

2.3. General Over View of Status of international human rights instrument under the
Ethiopian constitutions-------------------------------------------------------------------------12
 2.3.1 Major human rights instruments ratified by Ethiopia -------------------------------15

Chapter three
3.1 Interpretation and application of international human rights instruments in
Ethiopia--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
3.1.1 Interpretation of international human rights instruments in Ethiopia ---------------------16
3.1.2 Implementation of international human rights instruments before domestic court------17
3.1.3 Jurisdiction----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
3.2 Method of implementation of human rights instruments------------------------------------------17
CHAPTER FOUR
Analysis of the decision on international human rights instruments
4. Status of international human rights instruments VIS-À-VIS proclamations--------------------23
4.1 The case between the federal police criminal investigation department verses Naod Misale
et al---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23
4.2 The case between Dr. Negasso Gidada VIS-À-VIS house peoples representative and the
House Federation---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23
4.3 Status of Human rights instruments VIS-À-VIS the FDRE constitution------------------------24
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusion and Recommendation---------------------------------------------------------------25
5.1 Conclusion-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25
5.2 Recommendation---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26
Bibliography-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------27
Acknowledgment
First and foremost, all praise to be “Allah” the most Gracious and the most Merciful
Lord for his generous gift to accomplish this senior essay.

Secondly, I would like to thank my family members for their moral and financial support to
accomplish this senior essay.

My indebtedness and gratitude to my advisor Malefia Tesera for his effort, advise, suggestions
criticism and unreserved encouragement, professional and his technical guidance. His patience
and insightful comments were also invaluable assets for this senior essay. He scrutinizes this
senior essay with his usual verb and diligence.

Lastly, I would like to give special thanks to my best friend Nejmudin Mohammed for his
material support to accomplish this senior essay. I really thank from bottom of my heart and I
wish you success and happiness in your future career.
ABSTRACT

This research is all about status of international human rights instruments under the FDRE
Constitution. There are controversies regarding the status of international human rights
instruments ratified by Ethiopia between scholars. Some argued that international human rights
instruments have similar position with proclamation. The basis of this assertion is that since both
proclamation and international human rights instruments are enacted and ratified respectively by
the house of people‟s representatives, they are equal in hierarchical position.

Others argued that international human rights instruments ratified by Ethiopia are lower in
hierarchy than the constitution. This is because the constitution declares its supremacy under
article 9 (1) of the FDRE constitution. Despite this argument based on legal provision, as recent
judicial pronouncement confirmed that international human rights instruments are higher in
hierarchy than those proclamation enacted by the house of peoples representatives and have
equal footing with the constitution. This is also my argument.

Keywords: status, human right, FDRE Constitution, instruments, international, interpretation,

Acronyms

FDRE----- Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

HPR----- House of Peoples Representatives

HOF- - -- House of Federations

CCI- - ---- council of constitutional inquiry

ICCPR- --- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICESCR---International Covenant on Economic, social and Cultural Rights

CEDAW---Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against women

CERD-----Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women

CRC –---- Convention on the Rights of Child

UDHR---- Unite Nation Declaration on human and people‟s right

CAT------ Convention against Torture

ACHPR------African Charter on human and people‟s right

ACRWC-----African charter on the rights of wale fare of the child

USA -------- United states of America

ESCR- Net- -The international treaties network for Economic, social, and cultural rights.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACK GROUND OF THE STUDY

Today human rights issues have not only become a global concern but also remarkable interest
aimed at protecting and promoting universal respect for and observance of human right as
continually been shown at the international level 1, regional and national level .many of the basic
ideas that aimed human rights movement developed in the aftermath of the second world war
and the atrocities of the holocaust 2 cumulating in the adoption of the universal declaration of
human rights in Paris by the United General Assembly in 1948. Ancient people did not have the
same modern day conception of universal human right.
Prior to the creation of the united nation after the second world war in 1945, earlier attempts at
including specific human rights provision in the covenant of the league of nation after first
world war in1919 were unsuccessful.3 But the proclamation and adoption of the UDHR on 10
December 1948 marked the real beginning of the momentous international journey towards
ensuring that human rights are protected universality by the rule of law.4
Following the establishment of the UDHR many international human rights instruments have
been adopted. Among the international human rights instruments , Ethiopia is a state party to the
following core international human rights instruments such as : International covenant on the
Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) , International Covenant On Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), International covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR), Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW), Convention Against Torture and other Cruel ,in human degrading treatment or
punishment (CAT) , Convention on the rights of child (CRC) and Convention on the rights of
persons with disabilities (CRPD).5

1
Jump up Gary ,October 20,2010
2
Jump up Gary October 20,2010
3
Convention of the League of Nation, article 23(a)
4
M.A.GLENDON, “The Rule Of law in the universal declaration of human rights”
5
Girmachew Alemu ,Ethiopian human Right hand book,2013,p.28
Ethiopia had also ratified the following African Regional human rights agreement like African
Charter on human and peoples right (ACHPR) and African Charter on the rights of and welfare
of the child (ACRWC).6
Even though Ethiopia has ratified the international human rights instrument, the Constitution
doesn‟t include the general interpretation clause whose application permeates of its provision it
does however contain laudable interpretation clause regarding the chapter dealing with human
rights and fundamental freedoms.7
Because of lack of this interpretation it creates controversies among lawyers. The status of these
international instruments in general and human rights instruments in particular in the constitution
is not definite and subject to academic debate.
Article 9(4) of the FDRE Constitution provides that all international agreements ratified by
Ethiopia are integral parts of the law of the land. Article 13(2) of the constitution provides that
the fundamental rights and freedoms specified in the third chapter of the constitution shall be
interpreted in a manner conforming to the principle of UDHR ,International Covenant on
human rights and International and international human rights instrument adopted by Ethiopia .
It is therefore clear that human right treaties are parts of Ethiopian law. Despite the
aforementioned pronouncements, the constitution doesn‟t expressly provide the status of human
rights treaties in the hierarchy of laws.8 More over the HOF has not issued any clear guidance on
this controversial question.9
Despite human rights instrument are integral parts of the laws of the country by virtue of article
9(4) of the constitution, however, the inclusion of the interpretation of clause article 13 (2) of the
constitution in relation to the fundamental rights of the chapter, has led some scholars to
conclude that international human rights instrument have a higher status than, or at least equal to
chapter three of the constitution itself.

Some argued that ratified international human right treaties and domestic proclamation are on
equal footing in the hierarchy of laws in Ethiopia.10 International human rights instruments are

6
Ibid
7
Article 9 of FDRE constitution
8
Ibrahim idris ,(note 83),p.114
9
Ibid
10
Ibid
adopted by the house of people‟s representatives through a simple majority. This holds the same
places as proclamation issued by HPR.11

A research have been made by Getnet Mitku and Adame Kassie about the status of international
human rights instrument .Both researchers draw up a conclusion about the status of international
human rights instruments as the constitution provided and an explained the theoretical principles
with its controversies . Within their research, they did not consider the legal recent development
of court in understanding the status of I the status of human rights instruments practically.

Therefore this part of the research is not studied well and now the researcher will examine the
status of international l human rights instrument by taking consideration of the recent
developments of courts in the understanding of status of human rights instruments since the
cassation decision in Ethiopia serves as a law in our legal system and it will help full to
determine the status of the international human rights instrument that Ethiopia is ratified.

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Absence of research in my area of research, the persistence of interpreters regarding the status of
international human rights instruments, lack of available journals and other research papers
which served as a tool for the accomplishment of the research paper would be the problems.
1.3. OBJJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
1.3.1 General objective
Assessing and examining the status of international human rights instrument under the FDRE
constitution would be the general objective of the research.
1.3.2 Specific objective
 Explaining what the constitution says about the status of international human rights
instrument under the FDRE constitution
 Try to know the intention of the legislator or law makers about the status of
international human rights instrument under the FDRE constitution.
 Identifying the understanding of courts about the status of international human rights
instrument under the FDRE constitution.

11
Getnet Mitku.
1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The researcher hopes that this research would be significant to avoid controversies about the
status of international human right instrument under the FDRE constitution and it will be
significant for further research as a secondary source. In addition it will be vital for courts to pass
judicial pronouncement. Finally, the study will be important for policy design.
1.5. RESEARCH QUESTION.
The researcher attempts to give answer for the following question.
 What is the intention of the law makers about the status of international human rights
instrument under the FDRE constitution?
 What is the understanding of courts about the status of international human rights
instruments under the FDRE constitution?
 What the constitution says about the status of international human rights instrument
under the FDRE constitution

1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The researcher limited to the assigning of status of international human rights instrument ratified
by Ethiopia in the hierarchy of laws.
1.7. RESEARCH METHOD
The approach undertake in this research is qualitative one in order to accomplish the purpose of
this research , the researcher would use literature‟s of scholar‟s, documents and some cases
dealing with status of international human rights instruments in Ethiopia ,books and journals
which are vital for the study.
1.8. LIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH

Shortage of time will be the prominent limitation as opposed to the required time ideal for the
study .In addition, the non-accessibility of important journals and books in the library which are
instrumental for the accomplishment of the study would be a limitation for study.
CHAPTER-TWO

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN

RIGHTS INSTRUMENT

2.1 GENERL OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHT

INSTRUMENTS

International human rights instruments are treaties and other international documents relevant to
international human rights law and the protection of human rights in general. 12 They can be
categorized into two categories. Declaration adopted by bodies such as the United Nation general
assembly which are not legally binding although they may be politically so as to soft laws,
convention ,which are legally binding instruments concluded under international law .

International treaties and even declaration can, overtime, the stats of customary international law
International human rights instruments can be divided further into global instruments to which
any states in the world can be a party and regional instruments which are restricted to states in a
particular region of the world.

Most convention establishes mechanisms to oversee their implementation. In some cases these
mechanisms are relatively little power and are often ignored by member states. In other cases
these mechanisms have great political and legal authority and their decision is almost always
implemented. Examples of the first case include, the United Nation treaty committees, while the
best exemplar of the second case include is the European court of human rights. Mechanisms
also vary as to the degree of individual access to them.

Under some convention example the European convention on human rights – individuals or
states are permitted subject to certain condition to take individual access to the enforcement
mechanisms, under however (example the UN convention) individual access is contingent on the
acceptance of that right by the relevant state party, either by a declaration at the time of
ratification or accession, or through ratification or accession to optional protocol to the
convention.

1.http://unfpa.org/resource/internatonal human rights instruments

This is part of the evolution of international law over the last several decades. It has moved from
a body of law of governing state to recognize the importance of individual and their rights within
the international legal framework. The universal declaration of human right, the international
covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, socio and
cultural right are sometimes referred to as the international bill of rights. There are some
declarations which are enacted under international human rights law. Some of them are as
follows:-
DECLARATIONS YEAR OF SIGINING
1.Declaration of right of child 1923
2.Universal Declaration of human right UN,1948
3.American Declaration of the rights and duties of OAS,1948
man
4.Declarations on the rights of disabled persons UN,1975

5.Cairo declaration of human rights in Islam OIC,1990

6.Venna Declaration and program of Action World conference on human right ,1993
There are also many core international human rights instruments which are came to exist in
different times:

International human right instruments Year of signing

1.International covenant on civil and political 1966
rights (ICCPR)
2International covenant on the suppression and
punishment of the crime of Apartheid(ICSPCA)
3.International covenant on economic, social and 1966
cultural rights(ICESCR)
4. Convention relating to the status of refuges and
protocols relating to it.
5.convention the right of child (CRC) 1989
6.Convention against torture(CAT) 1984
7. Convention on the elimination of All forms of 1979
Discrimination Against women(CEDAW)
There are also some regional human right instruments. For instance, in Africa, African charter
on Human and peoples right, African charter on the rights and welfare of child and Maputo
protocol. In addition, American convention on Human Rights, Inter American Convention to
prevent and punish torture, Inter American conventions on forced disappearance of persons are
some of the international instruments in America.
2.2 THE STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHT
INSTRUMENTS IN MEMBER STATES

The statuses of international human rights instruments with respect to their domestic laws are
different in different countries. This differences results from the theory in which countries follow
theories about the relationship between municipal laws and international law. The principle he
follow is paramount importance so as to know the status of international human rights
instruments with regard to their municipal laws or domestic laws.

The theories or in which countries of the world follows are monistic theories and dualist
approaches. According to monists, they have a unitary concept of law and consequently
international law and municipal laws as an integral part of the same system. In the event of
conflict between the international law and domestic law international law should unquestionably
prevail.

With regard to the dualists, international law and municipal law are two separate legal systems
which exist independent of each other. National and international legal systems regulate entirely
different and parallel subject matter and have no room for conflict. Pursuant to dualists
,domestic law prevail in matters of domestic nature whereas international law prevail in matters
of international law and international law and domestic law are totally different since
international law regulate the relationship of sovereign states while municipal law regulates
affairs international to the state .

Therefore the status of international human right instruments is mainly depending on these two
significant principles or theories. Depending on these principles, it is vital to examine places of
international human rights instrument with regard to the country‟s constitution and legislations.
For the sake of creating a framework discussion in the forthcoming topics I will present the
status of international human rights instruments in the three countries here in below.
2.2.1. PLACES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENT
IN KENYA

The promulgation in August 2010 of the new Kenyan constitution has radically changed the
position of international human rights law in the Kenyan domestic legal system. With the
promulgation, international human rights law in ratified treaties have been directly incorporated
into the Kenyan domestic legal system through article 2(16) of the constitution.13 The
entrenchments of the of international human rights law into the Kenyan legal system, a system
that has been plagued by almost for decades of totalitarian rule, is not strangely Kenyan
phenomenon but has been witnessed worldwide, and is based on the importance of comitmentto
international human rights protective value at the highest level possible with the hope of
repression to totalitarian rule.14

The change in the reception of international law in the Kenyan legal system from transformation
15
to incorporation was confirmed by Justice Marthan koome in the high court case of the Re
Matter of Zipporah Wambu Mathara, concerning article 11 of the ICCPR .She held that article
2(16) imported the provision of international treaties and convention that the Kenyan has ratified
into Kenyan laws as part of the source of Kenyan law.16 This was similarly affirmed in the high
court case of Beatrice Wanjiku and another v the attorney general and another, 17where the court
stated as follows.

“Before the promulgation of the constitution Kenyans took a dualist approach to the application of international
law. A treaty or a convention which Kenya ratified would only apply nationally if parliament domesticated the
particular treaty or convention by passing the relevant legislation. The Constitution and in particular article 2(5)
and 2(6) gave a new color to the relation between international law and international instruments and national
law.”

This direct incorporation of international human rights law into the domestic legal system , as
per the 2010 constitution ,in line with the prevailing jurisprudence of international treaty bodies
13
The constitutional role in addressing social injustice in M Langford (ed) social rights jurisprudence.
14
Vereshtin (n 14 above) 29-30 GL Neuman. The use of International law n constitutional interpretation (2004)98
American Journal of international law 85.
15
The practice of directly incorporating international law in to the domestic legal system in article 2(6) of the
Kenyan is comparatively similar to the 1991 Colombian constitution
16
N 16 above 4 see also John Kabui Mwai and 3 other v Kenyan examination council and 2 others ,high court of
Kenya at Nairobi, petition 15 of and Ibrahim Songor Osman v Attorney general and three others .
17
High court of Kenya at Nairobi, petition 190 of 2011 para17.
such as such as the general commenting of the committee on Economic, social, and cultural
rights has recommended to member states to the immediate and direct application of human
rights instrument in the domestic legal system of states so as to enhance to seek effective ,
accessible ,affordable and timely enforcement of their rights in domestic courts and tribunals 18

An interpretation has made placing international human rights instruments the same hierarchical
position with the national legislation which was adopted in the Kenyan high court case of
Diamond Trust Kenyan ltd v Daniel Mulwa. A case which was concerned the constitutionality
of the provisions of the civil procedure act of Kenya which permitted the committal of
judgment debtor to civil jail contrary to article 11 of the ICCPR, which was incorporated in to
Kenyan law in to through article 2(6) of the constitution.

2.2.2 PLACE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENT IN

USA
The supremacy of international law in the domestic legal system of The United states ( US) was
affirmed as early as 1804 when the chief justice Marshal , in his interpretation of article VI of the
us constitution , held that an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of
the law of nations if any other possible construction remains . However, international law
jurisprudence in US courts has progressively towards a nationalist leaning.
Three reasons have been given for this nationalist shift first, the perceived different nature of
international law and its potentially pervasive effect on domestic law , second, the perception
that fundamental tenets of the domestic legal order as enshrined in the constitution , cannot be
altered by a body of law which does not exclusively emanates from a national societal body
and third, an understanding of constitution as emerging from espousing and responding to a
nations particular history and traditions . This leads to the development of the doctrine of self-
executing and non self -executing treaties.

On the place of international law in relation to the constitution and domestic legislation, the US
constitution is the supreme law of the land and envisages that human rights treaty provision
inconsistent with the constitution will not have the force of law in the US. On the relationship
between federal statues and international law ,the US courts, on the basis of the supremacy of
18
CESCR General comment 9: The domestic application of the covenant ,3 December1998,E/C 12/1998/24 Para
4,http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47a7079d6.html(accessed 2 June 2013
the constitution ,have held that the federal statues and self-executing treaty provisions have
status as source of domestic law , therefore ,in case of conflict between them , the courts have
used the last in time doctrine to held the validity of the subsequent instrument, be it the treaty or
the statue. The similarity in hierarchy between self-executing treaties and domestic statues in the
US was aptly captured in the case of Whitney v Robertson, held as follows:-

By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing and made of like obligation, with an
act of legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of the land. And no
superior efficacy is given to either over the other .When the two relates to the same subject, the
courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done
without violating the language of either, but, if the two are inconsistent. The one last in date will
control the other provided always; the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self executing.

2.2.3 PLACE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHT INSTRUMENTS IN

COLOMBIA
Colombia, a country with similar constitutional provisions incorporating international law
directly in to the domestic legal system, provides a different practice to the US in relation to the
applicability of international law in the domestic legal system .Monism has been entrenched in
the Colombian constitutional jurisprudence as far back as 1914, with the supreme courts of
Colombia insisting that instance of conflict between treaty provision of municipal law, treaty
provision prevailed.19 The import of this decision was affirmed by Nagle, who, in his analysis of
the decision contended that the import of the 1914 decision was that the domestic law of
Colombia, including the constitution, was subject to the terms and conditions of international
treaties. This is still the prevailing situation after the adoption of the 1991 constitution.
An interpretation of article 93 affirming the supremacy of international human right law in the
Colombian domestic jurisdiction was delivered in 2010 by the constitutional court of Colombia
(CCC).20 In its commentary on decision c-376/10, the international treaties Network for
Economic, Social, and cultural rights (ESCR-Net) contended that the decision is significant as it
(the decision ) restates that human rights treaties and comments by human rights treaty )bodies

19
Challenge to the constitutionality of law 14 of 1914 , decision of July 1914 23 Gaceta Judicial (1915) analyzed in
Gibson(n above) 614-615)
20
Decision c-376/10(in Spanish) http//www.escr-net/usr-doc/c-376 in Spanish pdf( accessed 6 April 2013)
regarding (SERs) are part of the Colombian legal system and within it have a superior standing
compared with the remaining regulations.

2.2.4. HIERARCHY OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

INSTRUMENT IN KENYA, UNITED STATES AND COLOMBIA

As indicated by the comparative analysis of US and Colombia above, countries with

constitutional provisions directly incorporating international human rights law in to their
domestic legal system have adopted varying interpretation of those provisions, with the result
that international human rights law is accorded different hierarchical status vis-à-vis domestic
law depending on the interpretation adopted .

As we saw in the above explanation, the US, due to is nationalist leaning has progressively given
more prominence to its domestic law at the expense international human rights law with the
adoption of the self- executing and non- self- executing doctrine to the direct application of
treaties and has further placed treaties at hierarchically the same level as domestic legislation.
This leads to the application of the last – in time doctrine, with the result of that subsequent
instrument supersedes the previous one, be it a treaty self -executing or domestic legislation.

on the other hand, as shown above, Colombia has chosen to give international human rights law
in its domestic legal jurisdiction, with some commentators contending that international human
rights law has as the same level as the Colombian constitution that the interpretation of the
constitution must thus take into account the norms and principles of international human rights
law. As a result, the Colombian courts have been more willing to accept international human
rights law as prominent source of legal obligations, especially in the adjudication of human
rights violations, providing a proper accountability mechanisms to ensure that the political
institution of the state fulfill Colombians internal and external obligation emanating from binding
international human rights law.

There are several possibilities of how article 2(6) of the constitution can be interpreted so as to
accord a prominent status to international human rights law in the Kenyan domestic jurisdiction.
21
First, an interpretation that gives international human rights law norms a constitutional
hierarchy , secondly, an interpretation that gives international human rights law norms an
infra- constitutional and infra – legal hierarchy and thirdly , an interpretation international human
rights law an infra- constitutional but super legal hierarchy.

The first possibility is the interpretation that gives international human rights law a constitutional
hierarchy, that is, an interpretation placing international human rights law at the same level as the
22
other constitutional provisions. This first possibility is supported by Peters, who provides two
arguments as to why international human rights law must be place at the same hierarchical level
as the provisions of national constitution.

The second interpretation is that of placing international human rights law norm at an infra
constitutional and infra legal hierarchical position , that is, human rights norm in ratified
international treaties being below both constitutional norms and national legislations . This is the
approach that was adopted in the Kenyan high court case of Beatrice Wanjiku and another v the
Attorney -general and another.

Generally, the status of international human rights instruments in these three countries is similar
except Colombia. In Kenya, international human rights instrument has the same hierarchical
position with national legislation. But in Colombia, international human rights provisions have
higher status than her municipal laws. Where as in USA international human rights instruments
has the same hierarchical position with domestic status.

2.3. General Overview OF the Status of Human Right Instruments under the
Ethiopian Constitutions
Ethiopia had three written constitution (in 1931, 1955 and 1987) before the 1995 constitution.
The 1931 constitution 23 does not have significance relevance for the human right discourse as it
was primarily designed to reaffirm and fortify the absolute power of Emperor Haile Selassie.24 25

21
Even though only these two positions are considered as viable in the Kenyan context , international law can also
have higher status than all national legislative acts , including the constitution ,or it may have an equal hierarchical
status to national legislative acts, or even have a lower status than both the constitution and national legislative acts
.Viljoen (n above)525-527.
22
(accssed 19 2013 franck and Thiruvengadam (n above)513-514., Torrijo (n above 491)
23
Constitution of Ethiopia(adopted in July 1931)
24
Fasil Nahom, “a constitution for a nation of nations”, 1997
The 1931 constitution which is considered as the grant by the emperor designed to strengthen the
absolute power of the king has no significant relevant to human rights.
The constitution lists very few rights of the subject which are recognize by the emperor. Such as
the right not to be arrested, sentenced, deprived of their property, right to move and security. It is
only of articles which deal with rights of the people. Even it was due to influence of international
community that these few rights were included in the constitution.

Though certain rights are recognized they were hardly implemented due to lack of adequate
legislation to implement them The emperor adopted universal declaration of human rights
(UDHR)which is very important declaration that constitutes the international bill of rights
.While the country was internally hot in order. It was simply bandwagon with the civilized
nation and to build his image and reputation.

The 1955 constitution was adopted in response to the adequacy of the 1931 constitution to
accommodate the more complex legal and political scenario at domestic and international level.
This constitution contained 27 articles about human rights which were adopted from the
developed European countries and American bill of rights hence there was incorporation of
human rights in the constitution . However the imperial value under the revised constitution and
other legal frame work was also characterized by wide spread human right violation

The Military Junta (which called itself the Derg , which literally mean committee came to power
after the dethornation of Haile Selassie in 1974. Its constitution was highly incorporated
economic, social and cultural right because of the socialist ideology of the regime.

The Derg regime was known by its fear and no paramount importance for the recognition and
exercise of human right. After 13 year of constitutional lacuna the regime came up with the third
constitution which is the 1987 constitution. The preamble of the constitution emphasized socio
economic and cultural rights due to the socialist tendency of the regime. During this period
Ethiopia has also joined the international human rights conventions such as the convention on
elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the convention on the elimination of all forms
of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1976 and 1981 respectively . Despite these
convention and other rights and freedoms on the ground was poor.

25
Tesfaye Regassa, “Courts and human rights norm in Ethiopia”,2000 , p.40
If conflict arises between international human rights instrument and the Constitution during the
Haile Selassie regime, the Constitution should prevail because the Constitution was deemed to
have been the direct expression of the people and them all acts of whatever their kind should be
consistent to it. The PDRE Constitution did not grant international treaties the status of supreme
law .With respect to treaties article 82 (1) (d) of the Constitution states that “the council of state
would ratify and denounce international treaties.‟‟ Thus from the provision it is possible to say
that international treaties under PDRE constitution were on equal footing with the decree
proclaimed by the council of state .

This is because they came into application by the act of this organ, that is to say by ratification of
the council of the state .As a result, the constitution alone was superior to all laws including
international treaties.

In general, since the imperial period the constitution was written and revised to strengthen the
power of the emperor and also the 1987 constitution was dictatorial there was no place for
human rights instruments. The current Ethiopian constitution came to exist in 21 August 1995.
The FDRE constitution establishes an ethnic based federal state consist of regional states
delineated on the basis of settlement pattern, language, and consent of the people concerned. 26

The constitution became a corner stone for the protection of human right. I t addresses the
volatile issues ethnicity and self-determination.27 The relevance which is given to human right is
mainly seen from the outset by the preamble of FDRE constitution which gives respect for both
individual and people‟ s fundamental rights.

The constitution devotes more than one third of its content to provisions on fundamental human
and people‟s right unlike that of the Haile Selassie and the Derg constitution. The constitution
also incorporates the horizon of human right through reference to international and regional
human right instruments for the interpretation of human right. The constitution also establishes
separate procedure for the amendment of the human right and fundamental freedom of the
constitution.28

26
G. krzeczunowicz(1984), hierarchy of laws ,(1) Journal of Ethiopian law , volume No.1
27
Preamble of FDRE Constitution
28
Id. art. 105 (1)and(2)
Ethiopia has ratified different human rights instruments at different time starting from the
imperial time. Most of them are ratified at different times with their time of signing. I have listed
out the major international human rights instruments ratified by Ethiopia here in below.

2.3.1. MAJOR HUMAN RIGHT INSTRUMENTS RATIFIED BY ETHIOPIA.

Human right instruments Year of adoption Year of ratification

1.The international covenant 1966 June 11,1993
on economic, social and
cultural right
2.The International covenant 1966 June 11,1993
on civil and political right
3.Convention Against Torture 1984 March 14,1994
and other cruel inhuman or
degrading treatment
4.Convention on the right of 1989 March 14 ,1991
child
5.African Charter on Human 1981 June 2, ,1998
and peoples right

The status of international human rights instruments in FDRE Constitution is controversial. It

doesn‟t put an interpretive clause about the status of international human rights instruments.
Therefore this creates controversies among lawyers regarding the hierarchical position of
international human rights instruments. The controversies will be discussed in the next two
chapters.
CHAPTER THREE

3.1. INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL

HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENT IN ETHIOPIA

3.1.1 INTERPRETATON OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHT

INSTRUMENTS IN ETHIOPIA

In Ethiopia, international human rights instruments ratified by house of people‟s representatives

are an integral part of the land. The constitution doesn‟t provide for interpretive clause in relation
to the recognized rights. Instead reference has been made to the ratified international instruments
and UDHR as to how the interpretation shall be made. 29

In addition, the constitution along with proclamation number 251/2001 enacted to consolidate
the power house of federation (HOF), the organ which has the power to interpret the
constitution , authorizes the house off federation to identify, develop and implement
30
constitutional interpretation as it deems necessary . The constitutional Inquiry (CCI) has an
advisory power in the interpretation of the constitution. The HOF interprets the constitution in
line with UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR and other instruments ratified by Ethiopia. Accordingly,
judiciary is not given power to interpret the constitution.31 Where ever there is an issue which
gives rise to constitutional dispute, the court adjudicating the case cannot investigate the issue or
render a decision rather, it shall refer the issue to the constitutional inquiry (CCI). 32 Therefore,
the house of federation has the power to interpret issues which are related with international
human rights instruments.

29
Article 13 (2) of FDRE constitution
30
ID. Article 62 (1),80,84 of FDRE constitution
31
Proclamation on consolidation of power of federation and definition of its power and responsibilities,
Proclamation number 251 ,article 7(2)
32
council of constitutional inquiry, proclamation No. 250/2001 ,article 21
3.1.2. IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHT
INSTRUMENTS BEFORE DOMESTIC COURTS

The FDRE constitution incorporates all international treaties in Ethiopia law upon ratification;
however, some says that international agreement may not provide the basis for a cause of action
until they have been domesticated upon publication. 33Also, the general understanding is that the
court may take only take judicial notice of those instruments that have been published in the
34
Federal Negarit Gazette. However, there is no requirement on the constitution indicating the
need for publication of these instruments to be used in the courts.

Hence, the constitution is the supreme law of land, it can be said that the international human
right instruments can be directly applied by courts.

3.1.3. JURISDICTION
As Ethiopia is a federal state, judicial power is vested in both the federal government and the
regions .Therefore there are supreme, high, first instance courts both at the federal and regional
level. Article 13(2) of the constitution provides that “all federal and state legislative, executive
and judicial organ at all levels shall have the responsibility and duty to respect and enforce the
provision of the third chapter,” which sets forth fundamental freedoms and human rights treaties
ratified by Ethiopia are binding upon all public agencies and can be applied by court of law.
The federal courts are given jurisdiction over the laws incorporated under international human
right instruments. addition the federal court are expected to settle cases or disputes submitted to
them within their jurisdiction on the bass of international human right instruments ,regional
laws and federal laws.35
3.2. METHOD OF IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHT
INSTRUMENTS
As there are no stipulation on how states should implement human right standards at
international level, the implementation human right instruments is dependent on domestic law
and entirely left to the state to decide how obligation will be implemented .Domestic legal

33
Federal Negarit Gazete establishment proclamation No.3 /1995 , article 2(2) nd(3)
34
Ibrahim Idris , the place of international human rights convention in the 1994 Federal democratic republic of
Ethiopia constitution ,2000,20 Journal of Law 113
35
Federal court establishment proclamation No. 25/1996, article 3(1)
system must provide favorable legislative and administrative framework if treaty based
guarantees are to be translated no reality for domestic beneficiaries.
In addition, human right instruments incorporates a set of values that have to be respected during
interpretation, application and developments of legislation and statutory laws, as result, a state
must affirmatively incorporate international human right instruments in to domestic laws as one
method of implementation. Although there are a great varieties of domestic methods for
implementation of treaty provision into domestic laws.

In some countries with legislative incorporation method such as United Kingdom, here is a
separate legislative act enacting specific provision of a treaty for the incorporation of treaty
provision into domestic laws .This method is referred to as a dualist in that strong distinction is
maintained between domestic and international laws and the later must be written into the former
I order to carry substantial and enforceable weight.

With other countries with automatic incorporation method like France, without the need to have
separate legislative act, ratification ,and publication in the official gazette simply referred to as
monist , in that both domestic and international law are considered equal and having the same
effect. The method of incorporation of international human right treaties in Ethiopia indicates
that Ethiopia doesn‟t strictly adhere to one method of incorporation at the Ethiopia constitution
provides for both methods.

One the one hand, article 9(4) of the Ethiopian constitution declares that all international
agreements ratified by Ethiopia are integral parts of the law of the land. From international law
point of view , the wordings this provision tends to show that international agreements needs to
be transformed rather than merely adopted in to municipal laws .

Transformation in dualist state refers to a situation where relevant domestic laws are amended to
comply with international agreements .International agreement in Ethiopia is concluded by the
states executive branch which must subsequently submit it for ratification to the house of
people‟s representatives.

Under article 55(2) of the FDRE constitution, the HPR shall ratify international agreements,
including human right instrument concluded by executive. In addition, article 2(2) and (3) of the
proclamation of Federal government shall be published and all federal and regional legislative,
executive and judicial organs should take judicial notice of laws published under the Gazette.

Once they are ratified all international agreements, including human right instruments to be
implemented at domestic level. In Ethiopia pyramids of laws the normative hierarchy of ratified
treaties and international human right instruments is controversial. There are two tired dimension
to the status of ratified human right instruments.

On One hand, the provision of article 9 (1) of the constitution a null and void has to lead to the
assertion that the constitution is superior to all ratified international agreements. A literal reading
of article 9(1) and 9(4) of the constitution clearly indicates that international agreements which
under article 9(4) are made an integral parts of the laws of the land upon ratification are
subordinate to the constitution.

on the other hand ratified agreements are integral parts of the law of the land and the constitution
(chapter three) must be interpreted in conformity with international instruments adopted by
Ethiopia under article 9(4) and 13(2) of the constitution respectively lead to the conclusion that
international human right instruments adopted have a status higher than or at least equal to
chapter three of the constitution. Article 9(4) of the FDRE Constitution provides that “all
international agreements ratified by Ethiopia are an integral part of the law of the land”. This
assertion amounts to direct incorporation, which means that human right treaties form the law of
the national law of the country. Article 13(2) of the Constitution also provides that “all federal
and state legislative, executive and judicial organ at all levels shall have the responsibility and
duty to respect and enforce the provision of the third chapter,” which sets forth fundamental
freedoms and human rights treaties ratified by Ethiopia are binding upon all public agencies and
can be applied by courts of law.

Article 13(2) of the Constitution provides that the fundamental rights and freedoms specified in
the third chapter of the constitution shall be interpreted in a manner conforming to the principle
of UDHR, International Covenant on Human Rights and International instruments adopted by
Ethiopia. It is clear that human rights treaties are parts of Ethiopian law.

However, there is a separate question of human rights treaties in the hierarchy of legal norms.
Despite the aforementioned pronouncement, the Constitution doesn‟t provide the status of human
right treaties in the hierarchy of laws. 36 Moreover, the House of Federation (HOF) has not issued
any clear guidance on this controversial question.37 As a result, various positions have been
entertained in relation to the question of the place of human rights treaties in the hierarchy of
laws.

Some argued that human rights treaties and domestic proclamation are on equal footing in the
hierarchy of laws in Ethiopia.38 The basis of this contention is that the formal source of both
proclamation and ratified treaties is that of the HPR. Article 55(1) of the FDRE constitution vests
the power of enacting legislation in all matters within the federal jurisdiction to the HPR.

By virtue of Article 55(12), HPR is also the organ responsible for the enactment of proclamation
at the federal level and also for ratification of treaties signed by the executive. Thus, some
contend that proclamations and human rights treaties ratified by the country carry the same force
of law.39 In other words, the main tenet of this position stems out of the forma source of these
pieces of legislation.40

The consequence of this position is that, in case of conflict between human rights treaties and
proclamations, the conflict will be resolved through the application of ordinary rules of
interpretation. These ordinary rule of interpretation include lex specialis derogate lex generalis
(the special law supersedes general law) and lex posterior derogatlex prior (the latter supersedes
the former). Under this interpretation, a provision in human right treaties may be superseded by a
provision in proclamation based on its generality and time of ratification.

Article 86 of the FDRE Constitution lays down the cardinal principle of external relation of
Ethiopia. Accordingly, article 86(1) provide that the promotion of national interest and respect
for the sovereignty of Ethiopia be given prime consideration. Article 86(2)goes on to state that
the external relation of Ethiopia are to be predicated upon mutual respect for national sovereignty
, the doctrine of equality of states and the principle of non-interference in the internal affair of
other states .

36
Ibrahim Idris,(83), p.114
37
Ibid
38
bid
39
Ibid
40
Takale Soboka,‟‟ The monist –dualist divide and the supremacy of clause : Revisiting the status of Human rights
treaties in Ethiopia Takele „‟2009 vol.23 journal of law ,p.138
Specifically, article 86(3) of the constitution calls for the need to ensure that international
agreements entered into by the country promote the interest of the country. Similarly, article
86(4) of the constitution stipulates that observance of international agreements must respect the
sovereignty and the interest of the state.

However, the principles which guide the external relation of Ethiopia as outlined in article 86
must be seen in light of the fact that the ratification of human rights treaties indeed amounts to
self-imposed limitation of national sovereignty. 41The invocation of sovereignty as shield against
human right is a relic of the past.

The tension between human rights norms and sovereignty is always evident. However, it is
argued that this tension should be resolved in favor of the protection of human rights. Moreover,
the phrase „‟national sovereignty” in article 86 is not meant in its Westphalia sense of absolute
sovereignty.

The position that human rights treaties ratified by the country are on equal footing with
proclamation is untenable, however, for varieties of reasons. To begin with, it runs counter to
principles enunciated in the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties of 1969, which Ethiopia
has also ratified.42 In this regard, the position that proclamation holds the same position as
ratified human right treaties is in consistent with the principle of pacta sunt sevanda, 43 which
provides that treaties willingly entered in to need to be implemented in good faith.44 It should be
stated that the principle of pacta sunt sevanda is one of fundamental rule of international law that
requires full compliance by states.

Moreover article 27 of the Vienna Convention provides that a state party may not invoke the
provision of its internal aw, including its constitution, as justification for its failure to perform a
treaty. In other words, a state party cannot present its domestic law as a defence to invade its
international obligations. 45

41
Takele Soboka(note 165)
42
Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties signed at Vienna 23 May 1969
43
Id .,Article 26
44
Takele Soboka (note 83)
45
Id.,p.143
This provision has been construed to imply the supremacy of international law over national law.
46
Apart from the fact that this position is legally sound, it also enjoyed a wide support among
47
scholars. Therefore the invocation of national laws as invocation of as excuse for breach of
48
international obligation is not warranted. In short, a state may not able to invoke its national
laws with a view to evade obligations incumbent upon it under international law.49

Second, the position that ratified human rights treaties are on equal footing with proclamation s
less persuasive when considered from the point view of duties of member states, for example, the
African Commission on Human and people‟s rights recognize a duty to respect human rights, a
duty to prevent violation of human rights, a duty to fulfill human rights and to promote human
rights.50 Likewise, the African Commission on human and peoples‟ rights also made it clear that
state cannot invoke its domestic law to avoid its international obligations. These statements
obligate Ethiopia to undertake a compatibility study before the promulgation of proclamation and
to engage in a comprehensive legal reform as opposed to one-off legal reform.51

46
Ibrahim Idris(note 83)
47
Ibid
48
Ibid
49
Ibid
50
Ibid
51
Takele Soboka, “ the monist- dualist divide and the supremacy clause : Revising the status of human right treaties
in Ethiopia”,2009,vol.23 Journal of Ethiopian Law, p.155
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT DECISION ON INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS

4. STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS

VIS-À-VIS PROCLAMATION

4.1 THE CASE BETWEEN THE FEDERAL POLICE CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT VS NAOD MISALE et al
Recent Judicial pronouncement of Ethiopian courts confirmed that ratified human rights treaties
assume a higher position than ordinary proclamations. In federal police criminal investigation
Department vs. Naod Misale et al , a court determined that Ethiopia‟s prohibition of the right to
bail under amendment to the Federal Anti- Corruption proclamation violates treaty obligations
under the CCPR52 . The court decides that the amendment , which has the effect of nullifying the
right to bail to persons suspected of corruption , doesn‟t warrant indefinite detention without
trial .The court held this position despite the fact that the ratification of took place a decade
before the adoption of the said amendment to the Federal Anti -Corruption proclamation.

4.2 THE CASE BETWEEN Dr. NEGASSO GIDADA VS HOUSE OF

PEOPLES’ REPRESENTATIVES AND THE HOUSE OF FEDERATION
The court reaffirmed the above position in the case of Dr. Negasso Gidada vs the house of
peoples‟ representatives and the House of Federation.53 In this case ,proclamation255/2001
which barred outgoing presidents from taking part in partisans politics was at the heart of the
dispute .The court decided that the said proclamation cannot limit the right of outgoing
presidents to stand for election as a candidate for seats in the house of peoples‟ representatives
.The court based its arguments on the UDDHR .In conclusion , these and other related judicial
pronouncements suggest that ratified human right treaties assumes superior status than that of
ordinary legislations.

52
The case between Federal police criminal investigation Department v Naod Misale et al file No. 17705, Federal
High Court ,10 September 2003
53
The case between Dr. Negasso Gidada vs. house of people representatives and house of Federation file
No.41183, Federal High Case Court, 6 October 2005
4.2. STATUS OF HUMAN RIGHT INSTRUMENTS VIS a VIS THE FDRE
CONSTITUTION
Countries position concerning human rights treaties vis-à-vis their constitutions vary. In some
countries, ratified human rights treaties assume superior position over the constitution. The
Netherlands, Switzerland, and France present good example of this approach where by ratified
human rights treaties supersede constitution in the event of conflict between the two.54 In other
countries, ratified human rights treaties are on equal footing with their constitution. Still some
other countries ratified human rights treaties assume inferior positions vis-à-vis the constitution.
These include Portugal, Greece and Spain.55

In Ethiopia there is a divergence opinion concerning the position of human rights treaties vis-a-
vs the constitution. Some argued that ratified human rights treaties are subordinate to the FDRE
constitution. Others argued that ratified human rights treaties are accorded constitutional status,
putting ratified human rights instruments on equal footing with the constitution. As stated above,
article 9(4of the FDRE constitution has made ratified treaties parts of the law of the land.
Furthermore, Article 13(2) of the constitution provides that the fundamental rights and freedoms
in the constitution shall be interpreted in a manner conforming to the principle of UDHR,
International Covenants on Human Rights and International instruments adopted by Ethiopia.

Article 7(2) of The Proclamation on Consolidation of the House of Federation and the definition
of its power and responsibilities‟ (proclamation 251/2001) also read as:

Where the constitutional case submitted to the house pertains to the fundamental rights and
freedoms enshrined in the constitution, the interpretation shall be made in a manner conforming
to the principles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Human
Rights and International Instruments adopted by Ethiopia. Based on the provisions t is possible
to reasonably say that ratified human rights instruments are accorded constitutional status.56

54
Ibrahim Idris(note83)
55
Ibid
56
Takele Soboka “The monist-Dualist Divide and The supremacy clause: Revisiting the status of human rights
Treaties in Ethiopia”. 2009, vol.23, Journal of Ethiopian Law, p.15
CHAPTER –FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1.CONCLUTION

The constitution of FDRE government becomes a debate among scholars in relation to the status
of international human rights instrument. This is because under article 9(1) of the constitution, it
declares the supremacy of the constitution but in article 13(2) of the constitution stipulates
chapter three of the constitution should be interpreted in the manner conforming to those
international human rights instruments ratified by Ethiopia.

This creates controversy about the status of international human rights instrument. Some argues
that ratified international human rights instruments are not accorded constitutional status since
the constitution under article 9(1) declares the supremacy of the constitution. Others argue that,
ratified international human rights instruments and domestic proclamation are equal footing in
the hierarchy of laws in Ethiopia. The basis of this argument is that the formal source of both the
proclamation and ratified instruments is that of the HPR.

But I agree that as recent judicial pronouncements of Ethiopian courts confirms ratified
international human rights instruments have a higher position than ordinary proclamations of the
country. And as per article 9(4) of the constitution, since it has made ratified international
human rights instruments parts of the laws of the land and further more article 13(2) of the
constitution provides fundamental rights and freedoms in the constitution shall be interpreted in a
manner conforming to the principle of UDHR, ICCPR and other international instruments
adopted by Ethiopia. And article 7(2) of the proclamation on consolidation of HOF and the
definition of its power and the responsibilities proclamation no.251/2001 accorded international
human rights instruments ratified by Ethiopia constitutional status.
5.2. RECOMMENDATION
In order to solve the controversies regarding the status of international human rights instruments
under the FDRE constitution, the researcher would like to recommend the following points. First,
the house of Federation should interpret the constitution in line with the United Nation
Declaration of Human rights, International Covenenant on Civil and Political rights and other
international human rights instruments. In addition, the house of people‟s representatives should
play their role in ensuring the status of international human rights instruments in Ethiopia.

second, the Constitution should be amended in order to provide strong interpretive clause so as
to ensure status of international human rights instruments which are ratified by Ethiopia and the
focus should not be only on the ratification and incorporation of international human rights
Instruments, But also on the real application of those treaties so as to ensure the status of
international human rights instrument. Third, Courts should take judicial notice of those ratified
international human rights instrument to ensure their applicability in domestic courts.
 BIBLOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. The constitutional role in addressing social injustice in M Langford (Ed) social rights
jurisprudence

2 .M.A.GLENDON, “The Rule Of law in the universal declaration of human rights

3. Girmachew Alemu, Ethiopian human Right hand book, 2013, p.28

4. Fasil Nahom (1997), a constitution for a nation of nations

5. Ethiopian human rights handbook, Girmachew Alemu, Yonas Birmeta, Wondmagegn

Tadesse, p.29, 30,31,and 33, January 2013

JOURNALS

1. Vereshtin (n 14 above) 29-30 GL Neuman The use of International law of constitutional

interpretation (2004)98 American Journal of international law 85

2 .The practice of directly incorporating international law in to the domestic legal system in
article 2(6) of the Kenyan is comparatively similar to the 1991 Colombian constitution.

3 .Ibrahim Idris , the place of international human rights convention in the 1994 Federal
democratic republic of Ethiopia constitution (200),20 Journal of Law 113

4. G. krzeczunowicz (1984), hierarchy of laws ,(1) Journal of Ethiopian law

5.Takale Soboka,‟‟ The monist –dualist divide and the supremacy of clause : Revisiting the
status of Human rights treaties in Ethiopia Takele „‟(2009)23 journal of law 138
INTERNET SOURCES

1. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47a7079d6. html (accessed 2 June 2013

2. Decision c-376/10(in Spanish) http//www.escr-net/usr-doc/c-376 in Spanish ( accessed 6

December 2015)

3.www.unfpa.org/resource/core international human rights instruments

LAWS

1 .Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, art 13(2), 62(1), 80 ,84, 105 (1) and(2)

2. Federal Negarit Gazete establishment proclamation No.3 /1995, article 2(2) and 3

3. consolidation of power of House federation and its definitions and responsibilities,

proclamation No.251,article 7(2)

4. Proclamation on the establishment of the Negarit Gzeta (proclamation No.3/1995, article

2(3)

5 .council of constitutional inquiry, proclamation No.250/2001,article 21

CASES

1. The case between the federal police criminal investigation department v Naod Misale et
al file No. 17705, Federal High Court, 10 September 2003.

2.The case between Dr. Negasso Gidada v house of peoples representatives and house of
federation file No.41183, federal high court ,6 October 2005