College of Law and Governance Studies

School of Law

Law of evidence

Individual Assignment

The relevance of DNA test under the rules governing filiation

Name; Amir Abadir

Id no; LGE/8118/13

Section; A

Submitted to; Hussein yimer

Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2
Currently recognized modes of ascertainment of paternity........................................................................3
1. Legal Presumption...............................................................................................................................3
2. Acknowledgment.................................................................................................................................3
3. Judicial Declaration..............................................................................................................................4
The relevance of DNA regarding filiation in Ethiopia...................................................................................4
Can the presumptions be rebutted by DNA results?...............................................................................5
Admissibility of DNA and when should it be allowed?................................................................................8
Burden of proof...........................................................................................................................................9
Expert witness.............................................................................................................................................9
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................9

Introduction

Filiation is the legal term for the recognized legal status of the relationship between family
members, or more specifically the legal relationship between parent and child. For all the
benefits that endows the child and the duty to carry out when the demand is manifested; of
necessity require the child to establish paternal filiations.
Establishment of paternal filiation or proof of paternity entitles the child to maintenance
allowance education and care in his/her duration of minority. Paternal filiation awards the child a
maintenance allowance in the period of minority and also the period that lies beyond where the
child may fall victims of circumstances that may deprive him of earning a living. Establishing
filial relation to a man upholds its rights to inheritance, and when circumstance dictates binds
him with a duty to provide maintenance to his father where the father lacks the means to make
ends meet.

Determining paternal filiation is difficult because it is not easy to exactly know who the
biological father of the child is. Hence, the law has provided certain important modes of
establishment of paternity. In Ethiopia, whether a child is born in or out of wedlock is legally
inconsequential. Paternity may be ascertained through legal presumption, acknowledgement or
judicial declaration.

Currently recognized modes of ascertainment of paternity

1. Legal Presumption
If a child was conceived or born within a marriage or within an irregular union, the law presumes
that the husband is the father. This legal presumption is irrefutable if the child is born more than
180 days after the marriage was contracted and within 300 days after the dissolution of the
marriage, be it through divorce, death or absence. This presumption remains valid even if the
birth record names a man other than the husband as the father, in which case the record is
considered a mistake and is duly corrected. The presumption of paternity is, however, refuted if a
child is born within less than 180 days after the marriage was celebrated or after 300 days from
the dissolution of marriage or the date the husband went missing.1

2. Acknowledgment
Acknowledgement occurs when a man comes forward with a declaration that a certain child (be
it already born or just merely conceived) is his own. A declaration may be made before an officer
of civil status, by a will or by a document filed before a competent authority. Because the law
prescribes a particular formality for establishing paternity through acknowledgement, the mere

1
Art 126-128 of the revised family code (RFC)
act of marrying a woman who has children does not amount to an acknowledgement of paternity.
To establish paternity, the man must express his intention. An acknowledgement cannot be
inferred.2

3. Judicial Declaration
Paternity may be ascertained through a court declaration if the mother has been raped, has fallen
victim “to seduction accompanied by abuse of authority, promise of marriage or any other
similar act of intentional deception.” Paternity may also be ascertained through judicial
declaration if documents are discovered that are authored by the person claimed to be the father
which “unequivocally prove” paternity, or the person claimed to be the father was involved with
the mother in a “continuous sexual relation” even if there was not any legally recognized
relationship. Paternity may also be judicially declared if the person claimed to be the father has
taken on parental responsibilities such as the maintenance, care and education of the child in the
capacity of a father.3

The relevance of DNA regarding filiation in Ethiopia

If there was to happen legal Conflicts in Regulating Paternity so far, article 146 and the
subsequent provisions serve to solve the intricacies. Hence these are the methods by which
filiation is established in Ethiopia. The revised family code or other laws do not give reference to
other ways to that effect. Nowhere under the revised Federal Family Code of Ethiopia is DNA
mentioned as a mechanism of verifying paternity. Even article 143 of the RFC when mentioning
the conditions under which a judicial declaration of paternity may be obtained assuming the
preceding articles have not been able to ascertain filiation, it doesn’t consider the possibility of
DNA tests. But science has invented an ingenious method to resolve problems related to
paternity. This is to say that modern science is able to identify who the father of the child is, by
using a method called DNA fingerprinting …the method has been perfected through time. DNA
is seen as a truth machine with very few and far apart errors providing definitive proof as to the
fatherhood of the person. As the number of births to unmarried women continues to increase, the
role of DNA in the ascertainment of paternity is very crucial. Thus we will assess and analyze

2
Art 132 & 133 of the RFC
3
Art 143 of the RFC
the relevance of DNA under the rules governing filiation in Ethiopia with practical cases, even
though it’s rare to get court decisions regarding that.

Can the presumptions be rebutted by DNA results?

Now having seen the RFC’s stand on ascertainment of filiation, the question is, are the
presumptions that are taken regarding paternity rebuttable and if so can DNA results does that?
Presumption is a situation where a party is relieved of the legal burden of proving a fact in issue
is where the fact comes with in the operation of presumption. Presumption is an inference made
about one fact from which the court is entitled to presume certain other facts without having
those facts directly prove by evidence. In this, the proof of one fact is taken as the proof of the
other fact. Presumptions are divided into two, Presumption of law and presumption of fact. Here
in the family code we are talking about presumption of law, which the law requires the court to
make. They are mandatory in the sense that, where the law requires the court to presume certain
fact the court cannot refuse to presume.

And they are further divided into rebuttable presumption, in which the party relying on the
presumption bears the legal and evidentiary burdens of proving the primary fact. Once the party
has adduced sufficient evidence to establish the presumed fact, the presumption will apply unless
the other party successfully discharges its legal and evidential burden to rebut the presumption.
Thus has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to another party and irrebutable Presumptions,
which cannot be disproved by another party. Thus irrebutable presumptions do not have the
effect of shifting the burden of production to another party. Once the person who has the
irrebutable presumption on his side proves the basic fact then the other party will be won without
counter proof on his side, even if he has possible grounds of disproving the allegations.

Of the means to ascertain paternity stated in article 125 of RFC the Legal presumption is
irrefutable if the child is born more than 180 days after the marriage was contracted and within
300 days after the dissolution of the marriage, be it through divorce, death or absence. Now our
question is can we rebut this presumption by presenting DNA test that proves the contrary. Let’s
see if we can get an answer from the following federal Supreme Court cassation decision no
148570.

የሰበር መ/ቁ 148570

ግንቦት 28 ቀን 2010 ዒ.ም
ዲኞች፡- አሌማው ወላ ሙስጠፊ አህመዴ አብርሃ መሰሇ ፇይሳ ወርቁ
ጳውልስ ኦርሺሶ አመሌካች፡- ወ/ሮ ጃኖ ተሰማ -ቀረቡ፡፡
ተጠሪ፡- አቶ አሉ ሰይዴ -ቀረቡ፡፡
መዝገቡ መርምረን ተከታዩን ፌርዴ ሰጥተናሌ፡፡

ጉዲዩን መርምሮ የአሁኗ አመሌካች ህጻኑን ከሟች አቶ መሏመዴ ሀሰን የወሇደት ሳይሆን ከአሁኑ ተጠሪ ጋር በጋብቻ ተሳስረው
በነበሩበት ጊዜ የወሇደት መሆኑ ተረጋግጦአሌ፣ በጋብቻ ውስጥ ሇተወሇዯ ህጻን ዯግሞ የ d ም ምርመራ የሚዯረግበት የሔግ አግባብ
የሇም ሲሌ ወስኗሌ፡፡

አቤቱታው ተመርምሮም ግራ ቀኙ የሚከራከሩበት ጉዲይ አመሌካች ሌጃቸው ኢብራሂም መሀመዴ ወይም አቡበከር መሀመዴ የሟች
ሼህ መሀመዴ ሀሰን ሌጅ ነው፣ ሌጁ የማን እንዯሆነ የማውቀው እኔ እናቱ ነኝ ሲለ ተጠሪ ዯግሞ ሌጁ የእኔ ነው ፣ ከአመሌካች ጋር
በነበረን ጋብቻ ውስጥ የተወሇዯ ነው የሚሌ ሲሆን ይህንን ሇመሇየት የዱ.ኤን.ኤ ምርመራ ሳይዯረግ በጋብቻ ውስጥ በመወሇደ ብቻ
የሔግ ግምት ወስድ ሌጁ የተጠሪ ነው የመባለን አግባብነት ሇመመርመር ተብል ጉዲዩ በዚህ ችልት እንዱታይ የተዯረገ ሲሆን ተጠሪ
ቀርበውም ግራ ቀኙ በጽሐፌ እንዱከራከሩ ተዯርጓሌ፡፡

የበታች ፌርዴ ቤት ህጻኑ የተጠሪ ሌጅ ነው ወዯሚሇው ዴምዲሜ የዯረሱትም እነዚህን ፌሬ ነገሮችን መሰረት በማዴረግና የዯም
ምርምራ አባት አሇመሆኑን ሇማረጋገጥ እንጂ አባትነትን ሇማረጋገጥ በሔግ የተፇቀዯ መንገዴ አይዯሇም፣ በጋብቻ ውስጥ የተወሇዯ
ሌጅ አባት ነው ተብል የሚገመተው እናትዬውን ያስቀመጠው ባሌ ነው የሚለትን ምክንያቶችን በመያዝ መሆኑን ከውሳኔው ግሌባጭ
ተገንዝበናሌ፡፡

አባትነትን በሔግ ግምት ወይም በመቀበሌ መንገድች ሇመወሰን ክርክር ሲነሳ የባህሪ ወሳኝ ቅንጣት (DNA) ውጤት እንዯ መከሊከያ
ማስረጃ እንዱቀርብ በሔጉ በግሌጽ የተቀመጠ ዴንጋጌ የላሇ በመሆኑ ዲኝነት ሰጪ የሆነው ፌርዴ ቤት በሔጉ የተረዘረጋውን ስርዒት
ተከትልና ሇትክክሇኛ ፌትህ አሰጣጥ አስፇሊጊ መሆኑን ሲያምንበት ተግባራዊ ሉያዯርገው የሚችሇው መሆኑን ከክሌለ የቤተሰብ ሔግ
አዋጅ ቁጥር 79/95 አንቀፅ 183(1) እና 155(1(ሀ)) ዴንጋጌዎች ይዘት የምንረዲው ጉዲይ ነው፡፡ ከዚህ አንጻር ስንመሇከተው የዘር
የባህሪ ወሳኝ ቅጣት (DNA) ምርመራ ውጤት በሔጉ በተመሇከተው አግባብ በሔጋዊ ምክንያቶች ሇማስረጃነት የሚቀርብ እንጂ
በሔግ የተቀመጠውን ግምት እናት ስሇካዯች ብቻ ሇማስረጃነት የሚቀርብ ማስረጃ ነው ብል ዴምዲሜ የሚያዝበት አይዯሇም፡፡

So we can infer from the above decision that we can only present DNA tests as evidence when
the paternity of the father was declared by judicial decision and not to rebut the presumption
of paternity of legal spouses as article 144 of the revised family code states;

Article 144. — (2) Action for Judicial Declaration of Paternity.

An action brought for judicial declaration of paternity, based on the provisions of the preceding Article
shall be of no effect under the following conditions:

(a) In the case where the mother of the child had sexual relationship with another man in the period
regarded by law as the period of pregnancy unless it is proved by medical or other reliable evidence that
such man is not the father of the child;

(b) In the case where the claimed person could not be the father of the child for he was absent or has
been a victim of accident during the period regarded by law as the period of pregnancy.
(c) In the case where the person claimed to be the father of the child decisively proves by blood
examination or other reliable medical evidence -that he could not be the father of the child.

So when the decision of paternity is given by a judicial declaration following one of the stated
reasons the defendant as well as the plaintiff can present DNA tests as evidence. And we can
infer this from the judgment given on federal Supreme Court cassation decision no 63195.

የሰ/መ/ቁ.90121 ቀን
28/01/2007 ዓ/ም

ዳኞች፡- አልማው ወሌ
ሱልጣን አባተማም መኮንን ገ/ህይወት

ሙስጠፋ አህመድ ተኽሊት ይመለስ

አመልካች፡- አቶ ………ጠበቃ ሀይልዬ ሰሀለ ቀረቡ ተጠሪ፡- አቶ …………- ቀረቡ
ፍርድ

በዚህ በመዝገብ የቀረበው ክርክር የአባትነት ይረጋገጥልኝ ጥያቄ የሚመለከት ነው፡፡

የስር ፍርድ ቤት የተጠሪ ሁለት ምስክሮች በማዳመጥ በሰጠው ውሳኔ በአሁን አመልካች እና የተጠሪ እናት እንደ ባልና ሚስት አብረው ይኖሩ
ነበር በሚል ስላልተረጋገጠ የአመልካች ምስክር መስማት አያስፈልግም፡፡ የአመልካች እና የተጠሪ እናት ግንኙነት በተሻሻለው የቤተሰብ ህግ
አዋጅ ቁጥር 213/1992 አንቀጽ 143 በሚያዘው አግባብ ሳይረጋገጥ የደም ምርመራ (የ DNA ምርመራ) ማድረግ ተገቢ ስላልሆነ
ፍ/ቤቱ የተጠሪ ጥያቄ ውድቅ ማድረጉን በመግልጽ አመልካች በነጻ ይሰናበቱ በማለት ፍርድ ሰጥቷል፡፡ የአሁን አመልካች በዚህ ውሳኔ ቅር
በመሰኘት ለፌዴራል ከፍተኛ ፍርድ ቤት አቤቱታውን ያቀረበ ሲሆን ፍ/ቤቱም ግራ ቀኙ በማከራከር በሰጠው ውሳኔ ተጠሪ በቃል ክርክር
የድኤንኤ ምርመራ እንዲደረግለት ጠይቋል፡፡ የስር ፍርድ ቤት ምርመራውን ለማዘዝ የልጅ አባት ነው የሚያሰብል ግምት መያዝ አለበት
በማለት መደምደሙ ከሰ/መ/ቁ.63195 አኳያ ተገቢነት የለውም፡፡ የአሁን ተጠሪ በስር ፍ/ቤት በማስረጃነት የጠቀሰውን የዲ.ኤን.ኤ
ምርምራ ጥያቄ ሳይቀበለው አልፎ የሰጠው ውሳኔ የህግ አግባብ ባለመሆኑ ምርመራ ተደርጎ በምርምራው ውጤት የመስለውን እንዲወሰን
ውሳኔውን በማሻር በነጥብ መልሶታል፡፡

የስር ፍርድ ቤት ጥያቄውን ውድቅ ለማድረግ መነሻ ያደረገው የደም ምርመራ ለማድረግ አመልካች የዲኤንኤ ምርምራ እንዲያደርጉ
ለማስገደድ ተጠሪ እናትና አመልካች በተሻሻለው የቤተሰብ ህግ አንቀጽ 143 መሰረት ግንኙነት የነበራቸው መሆኑ እና ተጠሪም በዚህ
ግንኙነት የተወለደ መሆኑ በቅድሚያ መረጋገጥ አለበት በሚል ምክንያት ነው፡፡ ይሁንና ይህ የስር ፍርድ ቤት ድምዳሜ በይግባኝ ሰሚ ፍ/ቤት
ተቀባይነት አላገኘም፡፡ የስር መጀመሪያ ደረጃ ፍርድ ቤት የፍሬ ነገር ማጣራትና ማስረጃ ምዘና ስርዓት ተገቢ አይደለም ተብሎ በይግባኝ ሰሚ
ፍ/ቤቱ ከተሻረ በሰበር ችሎቱ የማስረጃ ምዘና ሂደቱ የሚታይበት ስርዓት አይኖርም፡፡

የዲኤንኤ ምርመራ ውጤት በማንኛውም ሁኔታ እንዲደረግ የሚጠይቅ አለመሆኑ ችሎቱ የሚገነዘብ ቢሆንም የስር ከፍተኛ ፍርድ ቤት የስር
የመጀመሪያ ደረጃ የፍሬ ነገር ድምዳሜና የማስረጃ ምዘና ባለመቀበል ምርምራ እንዲደረግ ማዘዙ በፍ/ብ/ስ/ስ/ህግ የተደነገጉት የክርክር
አመራር መሰረታዊ የስነ ስርዓት ድንጋጌዎች በአግባቡ አልተተረጎሙም ለማለት የሚያስችል ነገር አልቀረበም፡፡ በአመልካች እና ተጠሪ መካከል
ያለው የአባትነት ይረጋገጥልኝ ጥያቄ የዲኤንኤ ምርመራ ተደረጎ የስር ፍርድ ቤት የመሰለውን እንዲወሰን መታዘዙ ፤ የምርመራ ወጤት ምን
ሊሆን እንደሚችል ከወዲሁ መተንበይ በማይቻልበት ሁኔታ አመልካች ለመጉዳት ታስቦ የተደረገ ነው የሚያስብል የህግ ምክንያት የለውም፡፡
በመሆኑም የስር ከፍተኛ ፍርድ ቤት በአመልካች እና ተጠሪ መካከል ያለው አባትነት ይረጋገጥልኝ ጥያቄ ለመወሰን የዲኤንኤ ምርምራ
አስፈላጊ መሆኑ በስር ፍርድ ቤት ከታመነበት የፍ/ቤቱ ትእዛዝ ተፈጻሚ መሆን አለበት፡፡ ከዚህ አንጻር የስር ከፍተኛ እና ጠቅላይ ፍርድ
ቤቶች የዲኤንኤ ምርመራ እንዲደረግ ማዘዛቸው በአግባቡ ነው፡፡ በሌላ በኩል አመልካች በስር ፍርድ የመከላከያ ማስረጃ ማቅረብ
እንደሚችሉ ግልጸዋል፡፡ የስር ፌዴራል መጀመሪያ ደረጃ ፍርድ ቤት ክሱን ውድቅ በማድረግ የመከላከያ ማስረጃ አለማዳመጡን ከስር ፍርድ
ቤት ውሳኔ ተገንዝበናል፡፡ በመሆኑም አመልካች የዲኤንኤ /DNA/ ምርምራ ቢደረግም አለኝ የሚሉትን የመከላከያ ማስረጃ የማስማት
መብታቸው የሚከለክል አይሆንም፡፡
በማጠቃለል ከፍተኛ ፍርድ ቤት የፌዴራል መጀመሪያ ደረጃ ፍ/ቤትን ውሳኔ በመሻር የዲኤንኤ ምርመራ እንዲደረግ ማዘዙ እና ውሳኔው
በፌዴራል ጠቅላይ ፍ/ቤት መጽናቱ መሰረታዊ የህግ ስህተት የተፈጸመበት ሆኖ አላገኘነውም፡፡ በዚህ መሰረትም ተከታዩን ወስነናል፡፡
ው ሳኔ
1. የፌዴራል መጀመሪያ ደረጃ ፍ/ቤት በኮ/መ/ቁ. 57163 በ 1/09/2004 ዓ/ም የሰጠውን ውሳኔ በመሻር የፌዴራሉ ከፍተኛ ፍርድ
ቤት በኮ/መ/ቁ. 126002 ጥር 30 ቀን 2005 ዓ/ም የሰጠው ውሳኔና ፤ የፌዴራል ጠቅላይ ፍርድ ቤት በኮ/መ/ቁ.87769 የሰጠው
ውሳኔ ጸንቷል፡፡
2. የስር ፌዴራል ከፍተኛ ፍ/ቤት የዲኤንኤ ምርመራ እንዲደረግ ማዘዙ በአግባብ ነው ብለናል፡፡
3. የፌዴራል መጀመሪያ ደረጃ ፍ/ቤትም በትእዛዙ መሰረት ይፈጸም ብለናል፡፡ አመልካችም አለኝ የሚሉትን መከለከያ ማስረጃ
የማሰማት መብታቸው የተጠበቀ ነው፡፡
4. በዚህ ጉዳይ ክርክሩ ለጊዜው እንዲቆም ግንቦት 28 ቀን 2006 ዓ/ም የተሰጠው ትእዛዝ ተነስቷል፡፡
5. በዚህ የሰበር ጉዳይ ክርክር የተነሳ የግራ ቀኙ ላወጡት ወጪና ኪሳራ የየራሳቸው ይቻሉ ብለናል፡፡
መዝገቡ ተዘግቷል፡፡ ወደ መዝገብ ቤት ይመለስ፡፡

Admissibility of DNA and when should it be allowed?

We can infer two things from this decision. The first one is in Ethiopian courts that DNA tests
are admissible in cases of controversy of paternity and not only that but most importantly they
are admissible even if the conditions outlined in article 143 did not happen. That was the point of
controversy or difference between the first instance court and the federal high court for which the
cassation bench ruled in favor of the later. And the second thing is even though there is a ruling
for DNA test to be made it doesn’t prohibit the other party to present his counter evidences.

But I personally believe that the argument of the federal first instance court gives more
sense. Their argument was that for a DNA test to be allowed the conditions stated in article 143
must be proved first. That means either the mother has to be raped, has fallen victim “to
seduction accompanied by abuse of authority, promise of marriage or any other similar act of
intentional deception, or documents have to be discovered that are authored by the person
claimed to be the father which “unequivocally prove” paternity, or the person claimed to be the
father was involved with the mother in a “continuous sexual relation” even if there was not any
legally recognized relationship.

Unless at least one of these things have been proved to happen or the court has a reason to
believe that there exists prior relationship between the alleged father and the mother it seems
unreasonable to give a ruling to have DNA tests. Because how can we protect innocent people
from being a victim to ill intentional pleadings and being fed up in the process consuming
their precious time and money. If a woman can come to the court and sue anyone claiming he
is the father of the child and the court proceeds to DNA without first requiring her to present
her base to say that it would be unfair for the defendant and it’s misappropriation of the
courts limited resources.
Burden of proof
But as to who shall pay for the DNA tests it’s been argued that the one who presents it as
evidence should bear the costs be it the defendant or the plaintiff. There is a federal Supreme
Court cassation on this matter.

የሠ/መ/ቁ. 63195 ሏምላ 26 ቀን 2003 ዓ.ም ዲኞች፡- ሏጎስ ወሌደ አሌማው ወላ ዓሉ

መሏመዴ ነጋ ደፌሳ አዲነ ንጉሴ አመሌካች፡- ገረመው ሙሜቻ ተጠሪ፡- ወ/ሮ አሰፈ ነበበ -
ጠበቃ አሌማዝ አሰፊ ቀረበች፡፡

Thus we can understand from the above decision that the burden of proof is on the one makes a
claim and shall bear the necessary costs. . This is an extension of the legal duty that whoever
files the suit has the burden of proof on their shoulders. But critics have voiced their concerns
that it’s one of the most painful decisions for many mothers to make. Most of the time, it is the
mother that requests verification. This could be to secure alimony, which means that these
women are already in dire financial circumstances.

Expert witness
Finally, Judges render justice based on the presented evidence justifying their decisions. Expert
evidence is particularly important because certain issues are beyond the expertise of judges in the
current era of specialization and due to ever expanding advances in technology. Expert evidence
has to be used very cautiously based on a set of objective criteria that judges can use.

Experts who present and interpret the results of DNA tests must be "qualified by knowledge,
skill, experience, training or education" (Fed. R. Evid. 702). There is no well-defined threshold
of knowledge or education that a witness must exceed to qualify as an expert. The question is
whether the person has enough knowledge "to make it appear that his opinion or inference will
aid the trier in the search for truth" (McCormick 1992, § 13, p 54)

Conclusion

Under Ethiopian Law filiation may be ascertained through Legal Presumption, acknowledgement
or Judicial declaration. So DNA is not explicitly stated as one of the means to ascertain filiation.
However it can be used as evidence to rebut the presumptions given in judicial declaration, when
the court assumes considering the relationship between the alleged father and mother he is the
parent or it also may apply the reverse, he/she can prove to the court that he/she is not the parent.
In other ways it can also be used to affirm to the court some alleged person is really the father or
the mother showing some reason to believe that there is a relation between them. However DNA
test cannot rebut the legal presumption, that in the normal course the husband is considered the
father when they were together during the time of pregnancy or if the child is born more than 180
days after the marriage was contracted and within 300 days after the dissolution of the marriage,
be it through divorce, death or absence. This presumption remains valid even if the birth record
names a man other than the husband as the father, in which case the record is considered a
mistake and is duly corrected. In this case DNA can’t do anything.

References

1. FEDERAL PATERNITY AND LEGITIMATION LAWS, LAW LIBRARY OF

CONGRESS
2. Federal Negarit Gazetta Extra Ordinary Issue No. 1/2000 The Revised Family Code
Proclamation No. 213/2000
3. PROOF OF PATERNITY IN THE CASE OF ADDIS KETEMA SUB CITY BY: -
ASELELEFECH MERSHA
4. የሠ/መ/ቁ. 63195 ሏምላ 26 ቀን 2003 ዓ.ም
5. የሰበር መ/ቁ 148570 ግንቦት 28 ቀን 2010 ዒ.ም
6. የሰ/መ/ቁ.90121 ቀን 28/01/2007 ዓ/ም
7. Law of Evidence Teaching Material by: Kahsay Debesu, (LL.B, Lecture) & Andualem
Eshetu( LL.B, Assistant Lecturer)
8. Law of Family Teaching Material Prepared by: Aschalew Ashagrie & Martha Belete