ASSESSMENT ON THE PRACTICE OF REMAND

AND CUSTODY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:

THE CASE OF FEDERAL POLICE CRIME
INVESTIGATION BUREAU

By cadate :-Abebe worku

Advisor: Abebe Alegaw

Ethiopian Police University Crime Investigation and Forensic Science

Collage Distance and Continuous Department

Jun, 2023
Sendafa, Ethiopia
The research submitted to Ethiopian police university crime
investigation and Forensic science collage in partial Fulfillments
of the requirement for bachelors of art in the crime investigation
Assessment on the practice of remand and custody criminal justice
system: the case of federal police crime investigation bureau

The research paper submitted practical submit fulfillment of the requirement

of the award of for b-a degree Bachelor of Arts crime investigation
BY
ABEBE WORKU
Mobil number 0920518568

Adviser inspector ABEBE Aelegawu

jun, 2023
Sendafa, Ethiopia
ASSESSMENT ON THE PRACTICE OF REMAND AND CUSTODY
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: THE CASE OF FEDERAL POLICE
CRIME INVESTIGATION BUREAU

Research Paper
Submitted to Crime Investigation and Forensic Science College in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Bachelor of Arts (BA) in
Crime Investigation

BY
ABEBE WORKU

ADVISOR

Inspector ABEBE Aelegawu

JUNE 2023

Sendafa, Ethiopia
 Abstract

The courts failure to monitor the polices diligence in carrying out the details and lists of
permits to crime investigation has paved the way to frequent unnecessary remands of suspects
and has negative impacts on the right to bail. This study assesses and evaluates the practical
implication of law of remand and custody on the human right’s particular emphasis on the right
to bail. Thus, the main objective of this thesis is to fill this gap by assessing the implication of
law of remand on human rights of suspects in general and the right to bail in particular. To
realize this envisioned objective the study employed qualitative research approach and
significant data for the study were collected both from primary and secondary sources. The
findings of this study revealed that the old practice of investigating by arresting the suspect are
become trends by the courts which is applicable for special criminal investigations, and
become applicable to all types of crimes in the Addis Ababa city administration .Arbitrary and
protracted remands cause serious disruption to the lives and rights of individuals suspected of
criminal activity; because of the above reasons which is abuse of remand law, the probabilities
of releasing on bail are narrowed which means the one who is eligible for bail is being
remanded in custody. Undetermined period of remand can also prevent the investigating police
from doing their job diligently.

Key words: Remand, Bail, Crime Investigation, custody and Suspect

Acronyms
ACHPR African Charter on Human and Peoples‟ Right
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
ICESCR International Convention on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
ACHR American Convention on Human Rights
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
CPC Criminal Procedure Code of Ethiopia
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
FGD Focus Group Discussion
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UN United Nations
UNHRC United Nations Human Right Committee
PGFTLA Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance
in Africa
AU African Union
UNCAT United Nations Committee against Torture
 Declaration
The thesis is my original work, has not been submitted for a degree in any other
university, and all sources of materials used for the research have been appropriately
acknowledged.

Name: Abebe worku

Signature:
 Acknowledgments

First of all, I would like to thank my Almighty God for giving me a life chance to
accomplish a mission. I would also like to give special thank for my ever-best advisor
Abebe Alega and Amanuel for his unlimited share of his knowledge to complete this
Thesis. My gratitude also extends to lideta high court, Ethiopian crime investigation biro,
federal first instance and high court, Addis Ababa city lideta administration police, zone
police department, city administration federal public prosecutor and public prosecutor
department, who collaborated with me in answering interview questions and facilitating
conditions to get necessary documents. Finally, I would like to provide my special gratitude
to my lawyer friend.

4
Content

s
Abstract............................................................................................................................................4
Acronyms.........................................................................................................................................5
Declaration.......................................................................................................................................6
Acknowledgments...........................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................9
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................9
1.1. Background of the Study.....................................................................................................9
1.2. Statement of the Problem..................................................................................................11
1.3. The objective the research......................................................................................................12
1.3.1. The General Objective.........................................................................................................12
1.3.2 .The Specific objectives........................................................................................................12
1.4. Research Questions.................................................................................................................12
1.5. Scope of the Study area..........................................................................................................14
1.7. Definition of the key terms.....................................................................................................14
1.8. Organization of the study.......................................................................................................15
CHAPTER TWO...........................................................................................................................16
REVIEW LITRETUR...................................................................................................................16
2. The Legal Framework for the Protection of Pre-Trial Detained Persons and Pre –
Trial Release Rights..................................................................................................................16
2.1. Justification for Remanding a Person in Custody......................................................17
2.2. Justification for Remanding a Person in Custody......................................................18
2.3. Alternative to Pre –trial Detention...............................................................................22
2.4. Bail.......................................................................................................................................24
Introduction...............................................................................................................................24
2.5. Origin of bail in Ethiopia................................................................................................24
2.6. Purpose of bail...............................................................................................................25
2.7. Independence of justice sectors on pretrial crime investigation process.....................25
2.7.1. Judiciary independence.........................................................................................25
2.7.2. Prosecutors’ and Police Independence................................................................27
CHAPTER THREE.....................................................................................................................30
3 Research Methodology and Design.......................................................................................30
5
 3.1.2 Sources of Data...........................................................................................................31
3.1.4. Instruments of Data Collection..................................................................................32
3.31.51. Focus Group Discussions (FGD)............................................................................32
3.1.7 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................33
CHAPTER FOUR.......................................................................................................................34
4.1 The purpose of a Remand and the Reasons for the Request................................34
4.2 Execution of orders to be released on bail and abuse of remand law as a legal
trick to reject bail rights........................................................................................................36
4.3 Independence of justice sectors on pretrial crime investigation process.........40
4.3.1 Judiciary independence............................................................................................40
4.3.2 Prosecutors’ and Police Independence....................................................................61
4.4 Pros and cons of limiting the period of remand.........................................................63
4.4 Human rights that are often violated by outlawed remand practice.................64
4.4.1 The Right to Fair Trial.............................................................................................64
4.4.2 Right to appeal on remand orders...........................................................................65
4.4.3 Practice of forced confession on remanded suspects..............................................67
4.5 Implication of remand practice towards the enjoyments of the right to bail (In
line with court file analysis).................................................................................................68
Chapter five..................................................................................................................................71
5.1 Conclusions and recommendations...................................................................................71
5.1.1 Conclusion..................................................................................................................71
5.2 Bibliography...................................................................................................................74
Journal articles and thesis:...................................................................................................74
Domestic legislations:............................................................................................................76
International Human Right Instruments:..........................................................................76
Recommendations, communications, cases and others:....................................................77
Internet source:.....................................................................................................................79
Annexe-1 Data Collection Tools.................................................................................................80
Interview questions for public prosecutor.................................................................................80
Interview questions for judges....................................................................................................81
Interview questions for attorneys...............................................................................................82
Interview questions for police.....................................................................................................82

6
7
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.Background of the Study

 Much about bail is defined in different jurisdictions. The right to bail is generally
construed as the set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that
they comply with the judicial process.

 Bail is the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when
required (Deekshitha Ganesan, 2011). However for

 the purpose of this research he term bail is a mechanism of release of a person arrested,
after entering into a bail bond, with or without sureties which in the opinion of the
court,

 . The defendant is not paper court can not realize the bail because of the danger that
they might abscond, interfere with witness, or commit further offences .

 The term remand however is the process of detaining a person who has been arrested
and charged with an offence until the end of crime investigation.

 When we look at the legal framework the remand and bail law are different concepts;
however

 the outlawed practice of remand may negatively affect the right to bail. Even though,
everyone has the right to liberty, it is only in exceptional conditions lawful arrests and
detentions are allowed in various international and regional human right instruments.

Such as ICCPR ( UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, D 1966), ACHPR (African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR),
Organization for African Unity 1981, ), ACHR, (American Convention on Human
Rights "Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica", 1969) and ECHR(European Convention for the

1
 Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, As Amended by Protocols
Nos. 11 And 14, 4 November 1950, ) The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), for example, states that,

 “no one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with
such procedure as are established by law.” The exceptions in this provision tell us the
ground to restrict the right to liberty has to be prescribed in prior law and exceptions
should be listed exhaustively.

 The right to liberty of a person, as found in the above international and regional human
rights instruments, do not grant complete freedom from arrest or detention.

 Deprivation of liberty is a legitimate form of state control over persons within its
jurisdiction. Instead, the right to liberty uses only as a substantive guarantee to unlawful
and /or arbitrary that arrest. Ethiopia has ratified both the ICCPR and the ACHPR with
their respective obligations to implement these provisions. Furthermore, the 1995
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopian constitution has clear provision on the right
to liberty, which declares that; “no one shall be deprived of his or her liberty except on
such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are establish no person may be
subjected and no person may person may by detained with ought a charge or
convnvation(accordance with such procedure as are establish no person may be
subjected and no person may person may by detained with ought a charge )or category
nature by category nature in new Anti-terrorism Proclamation, Revised anti-Corruption
Special Procedures and Rules of Evidence Proclamation and current Criminal
Procedure Code by providing prior conditions narrows the probability of exercising bail
rights and contradicts with the constitution The need of additional procedural
requirement is intended to balance two competing need safeguarding citizens from rash
and unreasonable interferences with their liberty; this provision of

 the constitution indicates the need of other procedural laws to restrict liberty of a
person. In case of preliminary inquiry for crimes such as first-degree homicide and
aggravated robbery, the court may order remand of suspects.

In addition to this, as per article the bail not allowed and art 63who so ever has been
may be released bail where the offence with which he has charged does not carry the
death penalty or rigorous imprisonment for fifty years or more and where there is no
possibility of
2
 the person in respect of whom the offence was committed dying 67(c) of Criminal
Procedure Code, when the suspects likely to interfere with witnesses or tamper with the
evidence, if set at liberty is likely to commit other offences, and that he will not comply
with the conditions laid down in the bail bond the court may deny bail rights .

 remand and bail emanates here, in case when the justice institution will not apply the
parameters in which the suspects are remanded in custody. The parameters are
prescribed in criminal procedure code of Ethiopia under article 59 and 67(c), the
restrictions under this provision against bail right has to be defined narrowly

 and objectively hence, the broad interpretation of provision may lead to remand the
suspects who are eligible for bail in law. Ethiopian bail law administrations
categorization of crimes as bail and none bail different legislations contravenes the
FDRE constitutions there effect because there is no prior prohibition of bail rights in
any type of crimes under the constitution is general terms the the other laws
subordinates explain the the bile rights moreover, with respect to the nature of
offences, according to the Constitution, all crimes are boilable. Even

 if the FDRE Constitution provides better protection to the rights of bail, by categorizing
offences as none boilable in nature in new Anti-terrorism Proclamation, Revised anti-
Corruption Special Procedures and Rules of Evidence Proclamation and current
Criminal Procedure Code

by providing prior conditions narrows the probability of exercising bail rights and
contradicts with the constitution. However, new Draft Criminal Procedure Code of
Ethiopia is more compatible with the Constitution since there is no prior categorization
of crimes as none boilable in nature See Draft Criminal Procedure Code of Ethiopia,
Article 138 and 138
 When interest of justice requires the court may remand the suspect in custody. The term
interest of justice in this context refers generally to the cause of fairness and equity used
when a judge has discretion to making a ruling in a remand for the purpose of
investigation and for other forms of pre-trial detention, in order to achieve interest of
justice court may order the arrested person to remain in custody or, when requested
remand him for a time strictly required to carry out the necessary investigation, In
determining the additional time necessary for investigation, the court shall ensure that
the responsible law enforcement authorities carry out the investigation respecting the

3
 arrested person’s right to bail. But in practice, for instance, at Addis Ababa which is
located in the Ethiopia there is a number of arrestees at Police station, they are more of
suspects of boilable crimes. Be sides, the Addis Ababa Prison and detention center,
there are also to focused or suspects trial waiting that are eligible for bail, furthermore
data gathered from preliminary assessment shows that the practice of the court,
obscurity concerning time framework for remands pave the way for unlimited repetitive
remand request which may be abused by investigation office because bail is too
susceptible to abuse by all actors in the administration of criminal justice. This research
evaluates in depth and asses the law of remand and custody practical implications on
exercising the suspect’s human rights, particularly, the right
1.2. Statement of the Problem
 The Criminal Procedure Code of Ethiopia stipulates that the power to decide whether an
arrested person shall be remanded or be released on bail is given to the court before
which such person is brought. Furthermore, an investigative remand may be given by the
court
 but only for the purpose of finalizing the investigation that means the law does not allow
remand for purposes other than investigation. Where the investigation is not completed
and the continued detention of the arrestee in any way helps the furtherance of the
investigation, the investigating police officer may request the court to remand in custody.
The investigating police officer must show to the court a sufficient justification that the
continued detention of the arrestee advances the investigation activity.

 The FDRE Constitution is clear in this regard that when requested the public prosecutor
to court may remand her for a time strictly required to carry out the necessary
investigation weaver the practice shows that suspects are detained for indefinite period of
time without unpredictable procedure, and the period within which the investigation is to
be completed.

 In principle, criminal investigations should be conducted without arresting suspects.

Hence, the investigating officers after making sure that sufficient conditions were met to
arrest the suspect,

he/she must inform the court that he has not completed the investigation. Moreover
he/she must make sure if the suspect is not arrested, it will have a negative impact on the
investigation process to complete the rest of the investigation which means the suspect ay

4
 obstruct the investigation, and in this case the court may remand the suspect in custody
for determined period to complete the investigation initiated. On the other hand, in
practice the courts have to be vigilant whether the suspect who is legible for bail and the
one who should have been released in bail is being unnecessarily remanded in custody.
When the court grants such additional time, it has the constitutional responsibility to
ensure that the responsible law enforcement authorities carry out the investigation
respecting the arrested person’s human rights, particularly right to bail. The strict
regulation of remand has to be guided by the purpose of remand. It is known that political
interference is deep-rooted problem in the administration of justice. Information gathered
in preliminary assessment shows that, justice institutions are abusing the law or remands
hence, many remands may not serve their purpose and they are the cause of the violation
of human rights. Moreover, inappropriate treatment of suspects, courts timidity and
misapplication of remand laws, because of this suspect legible for bail is remanded in
detention centers. Thus, there is no in-depth research that evaluates the adequacy and
enforcement of law of remand and custody practical implications on exercising the
suspect human rights, particularly, the right to bail at the federal police crime
investigation biro . The investigator effort primarily seeks to investigate and examine
both the legal as well as practical loophole in request of remand procedure towards the
enjoyments of bail right with in the study area.
 The objective the research
 1.3.1. The General Objective
To asses assessment on the practice of remand and custody in criminal just system of this
research is to assess the practice of remand and custody the legal rights and duties the
suspects in criminal just system in federal police crime investigation office
 1.3.2 .The Specific objectives
1. To identify ASSESSMENT ON THE PRACTICE Of remand and custody tor practical
enforcement the human right

2 .To assess whether the judge, prosecutor and investigating officer follows the strict
formalities of remand laws

3. To examine whether executive body intervenes the implementation of remands and custody
1.4. Research Questions
The study is aimed to answer the following central and specific questions. The central question
of this research’s what are the legal and practical implications of the law of remand and how its
enforcements affect human right, specifically the right to exercise bail at the federal police
5
 crime investigation biro? The specific questions that are to be addressed by this research are:

1. What are the Assessment the practice on remand and custody criminal just system?
2. Does the judge, prosecutor and investigation office follow the strict formalities of
Remand law?
3. Does the exudative body intervene to the implementation of the assessment on the
practice remand custody enforcement?

6
 1.5. Scope of the Study area
The study comprises both legal and practical analyses with regard to enforcement of remand
law, custody and its implication on exercising the right to bail in our country's legal frame
work, assesses the adequacy of legal framework both in international and domestic legal
system.
 To make the research manageable in the allocated time and resource, the scope of
the study is limited to selected areas which are called Addis Ababa and the practical
analysis covers the application of remand law in those areas in line with exercising
bail rights.
 This, for the purpose of this study purposively selected Addis Ababa Town
Administration (first instant Court, police stations and prisons, and public
prosecutor office) and federal high Court, police department and prosecutor
department) based on convenience for collecting data and the researcher is more
familiar with these offices.
1.6. Significance of the Study
 Lawful remanding and custody of the suspect is part and parcel of criminal investigation.
 This study helps the government and society in general and the criminal investigator in
particular to know problems related to investigation process. This paper can also be an
input for those who are working in the area of drafting and making a law for amendment
concerning law of remand and bail rights. Particularly for courts, to follow strict
requirements for remanding suspects, also it have a far reaching significance for police
and prosecutor who are usually at the front of crime investigation, to enable the cities
prosecutor department and supreme court to prepare a training to stake holders on the
issue to identify their weakness on following strict requirement to permit remand, to
inform stake holders to protect fundamental rights of individuals during their
investigation specially the right to bail, This study help to reflect on the problems that are
frequently occurring in practice of remanding the suspects, it inform the courts how
illegal permission of remanding the suspect negatively affect or narrow the opportunity
to exercise bail rights finally, It serve as one literature in providing insight knowledge for
any further researches in the same area.
1.7. Definition of the key terms
Accused: - person or group of people who are charged with or on trail for a crime.

7
Crime: - is the act of illegal is an offence committed by an individual who is a basic unit of
society and crimes against the public interest and the community.

Remand: a place where young people are sent when they are accused of a crime and are
waiting for their trial.
Criminal just system: the criminal justice system consists of the police, the courts, and
corrections. The major tasks of the police include selectively enforcing the law, protecting the
public, arresting suspected law violators, and preventing crime.
Custody: the legal right or duties to take care of or keep the act of taking care.
1.8. Organization of the study
The paper contains five chapters. The first chapter is an introductory part of the study includes
the background, statement of the problem, research objectives and questions, significance, scope
of the study, definition of the key. Chapter two is the discussion of literature that focused on the
The Legal Framework for the Protection of Pre-Trial Detained Persons Chapter three
Research methodology and design The fourth chapter is the data presentation and analysis based
on interview, cases and personal observation and The fifth chapter is the conclusion of the
research, and recommendations for implementation of the findings will be discus:-

8
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW LITRETUR

2. The Legal Framework for the Protection of Pre-Trial Detained Persons and Pre –
Trial Release Rights

 The right to personal liberty comprises one of the eldest and most major guarantees
integral part of a free society and the rule of law.

 In recognition of arrest or detention as a legitimate means of the exercise of state

authority in the administration of criminal justice, this right is not enshrined absolute
like that of any other human rights, but both substantive and procedural safeguards are
enshrined against unlawful deprivation of liberty by state authorities. As pre-trial
detention involves the detention of individuals who have not been convicted of a crime,
it can negatively impact on

 the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty and security of the person. All of
the international standards governing pre-trial detention, therefore, reflect the principle
that pre-trial detention should be minimized whenever possible, and should be used
only as a last resort, in certain, limited circumstances.
One of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter is a protection of human dignity. The
authority to apply pre-trial detention is restricted by the presumption of innocence and the right
to liberty and security of the person, the right to presumption of innocence at the international
level was first proclaimed in article 3 of UDHR also it has been elaborated in several human
right instruments in which detailed rights are recognize by states to attain this objective of the
UN Charters. For instance, ICCPR, ICESCR and CAT, have been singled out for this objective.
Detained persons are vulnerable categories of society due to the extent of the control the state
Or indirect relation to that octave been analyzed in relation to their pragmatic.

9
The author examines both available domestic and other jurisdictions literatures on the subject matter of
the study, yet there are a few works that have only indirect bearing on the matter there are research works
more focuses on pre-trial human right issues. For example, Tom Smith in his study, entitled as, Rushing
Remand’? Pretrial Detention and Bail Decision Making in England and Wales, found that legal processes
were generally compliant with the domestic and regional legal standards, significant problems existed in
relation to these two issues in order to reject bail and rule in favor of remanding the suspect include,
courts only reliance on police and prosecution information, rather than substantive evidence; brief and
formalistic hearings; and evident problems with sufficient and timely disclosure by the prosecution to the
defense. To start crime investigation, in the normal course of things, information may be communicated
to the police by a complainant either in the form of accusation or complaint. Accusation/complaint is a
formal statement made by a complainant to the police, a public prosecutor or a person having the
authority to investigate that particular offence with a view to criminal proceedings being institute “un
sentenced prisoners,” in countries with other languages and different legal traditions and cultures, the
terms for detention vary, too. Indeed, one can get lost in the numerous ways of classifying inmates To
start crime investigation, in the normal course of things, information may be communicated to the police
by a complainant either in the form of accusation or complaint. 5Accusation/complaint is a formal
statement made by a complainant to the police, a public prosecutor or a person having the authority to
investigate that particular offence with a view to criminal proceedings beinginstitutedWhere the
arrest is made on with or without warrant, however, it is the first time the court examines the
justifiability of arrest. This can be gathered from the police investigation diary whether the
investigating police officer has undertaken prior investigation before the arrest of the suspect.
Those investigative activities are those stated under Ethiopian Criminal ProcedureIn deciding
whether to grant remand the court needs to see whether the arrestee is a proper target of
investigation, the grounds for granting remand should be justified in that they assist the
furtherance of the investigation and whether those facts are proved to the satisfaction of the
court. to address those issues properly the court may have to first consider whether the initial
arrest is made in line with pertinent procedural laws. Those on “remand” are individuals who are
being held in custody while awaiting a further court appearance. While a relatively small
percentage have been tried and found guilty and are awaiting sentencing, the majority are
awaiting trial. Some may be awaiting a decision with respect to bail, others have been denied
bail and, unless released through judicial review, will remain in custody until their trial. Remand
is a provincial/territorial responsibility: therefore, all remanded prisoners are held in provincial
detention centers or jails. There are differences in jurisdictions in the degree of suspicion
required before someone can be arrested, held in custody or remanded in pre-trial detention.
Some countries always require serious indications that the detainee could have committed the
10
crime, others a reasonable suspicion for arrest and custody and more serious suspicions for
remand, there are also differences that can be traced to differences in legal culture and
procedural style.

2.1. Justification for Remanding a Person in Custody

The basic justification for remanding individuals in custody is to ensure that they will
attend court as required to answer the charges made against them. In addition, the need to
protect the integrity of the justice system has resulted in the development of the practice of
remanding accused persons in custody where it is deemed necessary to protect witnesses.
Many jurisdictions also remand a person in custody on occasions when it is seen to be
necessary to ensure the safety of the accused person. Furthermore, in the interest of public
safety, many jurisdictions have authorized the remanding of a person in custody if it is
necessary to ensure that further offences are not committed before the completion of a
trial.There are four recognized purposes of pre- trial detention. The first is the purpose of
ensuring that the defendant is present at the trial and does not abscond: thus, a significant
issueshouldbethecourt’sassessmentofthisdefendant’sriskofabsconding. This purpose is closely
associated to conceptions of the proper operation of the criminal justice system, which would
be impaired if defendants were usually not present at their trial and thus not able to be
subjected to a sentence in the event of their conviction. However, the importance of the
proper operation of the criminal justice system is likely related to the importance of the
proceedings in question, and therefore the probability of absconding rather than facing a trial
for a small theft from a shop would be a weak justification for pre-trial detention, if compared
with trial for a serious sexual or violent offence. The Human Rights Committee made it clear
that a detention on remand is legitimate under article 9(1) if lawful and necessary in the
particular case, in order to prevent flight, for there are differences in jurisdictions in the
degree of suspicion required before someone can be arrested, held in custody or remanded in
pre-trial detention. Some countries always require serious indications that the detainee could
have committed the crime, others a reasonable suspicion for arrest and custody and more
serious suspicions for remand, there are also differences that can be traced to differences in
legal culture and procedural style.

2.2. Justification for Remanding a Person in Custody

The basic justification for remanding individuals in custody is to ensure that they will attend
court as required to answer the charges made against them. In addition, the need to protect the
11
integrity of the justice system has resulted in the development of the practice of remanding
accused persons in custody where it is deemed necessary to protect witnesses. Many
jurisdictions also remand a person in custody on occasions when it is seen to be necessary to
ensure the safety of the accused person. Furthermore, in the interest of public safety, many
jurisdictions have authorized the remanding of a person in custody if it is necessary to ensure
that further offences are not committed before the completion of a trial.There are four
recognized purposes of pre- trial detention. The first is the purpose of ensuring that the
defendant is present at the trial and does not abscond: thus, a significant
issueshouldbethecourt’sassessmentofthisdefendant’sriskofabsconding. Thispurpose is closely
associated to conceptions of the proper operation of the criminal justice system, which would
be impaired if defendants were usually not present at their trial and thus not able to be
subjected to a sentence in the event of their conviction.

However, the importance of the proper operation of the criminal justice system is likely
related to the importance of the proceedings in question, and therefore the probability of
absconding rather than facing a trial for a small theft from a shop would be a weak
justification for pre-trial detention, if compared with trial for a serious sexual or violent
offence. The Human Rights Committee made it clear that a detention on remand is legitimate
under article 9(1) if lawful and necessary in the particular case, in order to prevent flight, for
instance. Article 5(1) (c) of the European Convention, too, foresees the possibility lawfully to
detain a person “to prevent his ... fleeing after having” committed an offence. The risk of
absconding as a possible justification for continued detention. A second purpose is the
prevention of interference with witnesses or other attempts to interfere with the course of
justice: where the court is presented with evidence that such interference is probable, this
may justify deprivation of liberty, this purpose is independent of the seriousness of the crime
charged, since the gravamen of the risk lies in the probable distortion of the process of justice
itself .A third, relatively unusual purpose is the preservation of public order where the release
of a particular person might lead to disorder or to attacks on that person, the strength of this
purpose must derive from the nature and scale of the anticipated disorder or attack, in recent
years however, the predominant purpose of custodial remands appears to be a fourth one the
„prevention of crime‟ or the „risk of committing offences. The most common legitimate
ground for deprivation of liberty is no doubt that a person is reasonably suspected of having
committed an offence. However, such suspicion does not justify an indefinite detention. What
might be considered acceptable differs from case to case, but the suspect has a right to be

12
tried “within a reasonable time or to release” pending trial. If a person who has supposedly
subjected them to harm is released on bail, the victimization might be repeated, in part it has
arisen from general concern about the number of offences being committed by defendants
who have been released on bail pending their trial. Each of these exceptions is put forward as
a justification for infringing the two relevant rights, the presumption of innocence and the
right to liberty of the person .Fourth, Deprivation of liberty for reasons of mental health
however for example, The HRC has concluded that a nine-year detention of a person under
the New Zealand Mental Health Act was neither unlawful nor arbitrary and did not,
consequently, violate article 9(1) of the Covenant. The Committee observed that the author’s
assessment under the Mental Health Act followed threatening and aggressive behavior on the
author’s part, and the committal order was issued according to the law, based on an opinion of
three psychiatrists; furthermore, a panel of psychiatrists continued to review the author’s
situation periodically, Since the continued detention was also regularly reviewed by the
Courts, neither was there any violation of article9(4).In Ethiopia Remand is not granted for
the purpose of obtaining evidence from the suspect because suspects can be interrogated
within the 48 hours because the suspect was with the police before he/she appears before the
court, Remand is requested in order to undertake specific investigative activities the
investigating police officer is seeking to undertake and with a view to incapacitate the
arrestee from tampering with evidence and interfering with witnesses. In such situation, it
means the investigating police officer knows that there is a specific type of evidence which
she wants to gather and she needs only a short time to gather that evidence. prior to trial are
more likely to be sentenced to prison than are defendants who are released on bail. Moreover,
a recent South Australian study identified that many people who are remanded in custody do
not serve a further period of imprisonment after the completion of the remand occasion. 77
Majority of remanded are not sentenced to prison. There are also social outcomes for
individual accused persons. Remand in custody increases the probability of social disruption,
it removes an individual from his or her social support from family, friends, or others in the
community, this may occur as a result of institutionalization or the remand location may be
too far from the individual’s support network, making it difficult for people to visit. Remand
in custody interrupts the capacity of the individual to assume family and social
responsibilities and leaves others to provide for any dependents, whether these are children,
parents, or other intimates. At the same time, remand in custody places the individual in
institutional custody at a time of high vulnerability. This increases pressures upon the
individual and the potential risk of self-harm of a physical or psychological nature. For the
13
community, the financial outcomes of decisions about remanding citizens in custody involve
both the high cost of incarceration for the state and the cost of enforcing court decisions and
attendance, as well as any delays to court operations. Moreover, a high remand rate
contributes significantly to the costs of imprisonment borne by each jurisdiction.

Detention, like incarceration, disproportionately affects individuals and families living in

poverty, when an income-producing parent is detained, the family must adjust to the loss of
that income, the impact can bees specially severe in poor, developing countries where the
state does not provide reliable financial assistance to the indigent and where it is not unusual
for one breadwinner to financially support an extended family network. Protecting the
restrictions on the use of pre-trial detention, as well as the process leading up to a pre-trial
detention determination, is vital to preserve one of the corner stones of a rights-based
criminal justice system called “the presumption of innocence.” That is, the right of any
defendant to be presumed innocent of the allegations against him until found guilty by a
competent court. In support of this principle, most countries have ratified international human
rights instruments that allow the use of pre-trial detention only under carefully defined
circumstances. Other consequences for the defendant include the future outcome of his or her
case, Evidence suggests that defendants who are remanded in custody are more likely to
plead guilty than their bailed counterparts. In addition the UN Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention has noted that empirical research shows those in pretrial detention have a lower
likelihood of obtaining an acquittal than those who remain at liberty before their trial; this
expands further the disadvantages that the poor and marginalized face in the enjoyment of the
right to a fair trial on an equal footing. For example, those in custody before their trials were
six times more likely to be sentenced to imprisonment compared to those released on bail.
Finally, there are more than ten million people in detention (including both pretrial and post-
conviction detainees) around the world, those held in pretrial detention are most at risk of
torture, Pretrial detainees are wholly in the power of detaining authorities, many of whom
perceive torture as the fastest way to obtain information or a confession and the easiest way
to exercise physical and mental control override trainees. proceedings and not to obstruct the
investigation, periodic presentation before a judicial authority or a designated authority,
subjection to the care or supervision of a given person or institution, prohibition on leaving a
given area without authorization, withholding of travel documents, Immediate separation
from domicile in cases of domestic violence, Bail bond, house arrest, electronic monitoring
mechanisms in criminal matters, restorative justice programs in criminal matters. In order to

14
implement most of alternative measures listed above needs some level of better
infrastructure, however most African countries including Ethiopia as a least developed
countries lacks full infrastructure, thus, from the above lists which is compatible with the
current level of economy is balanced bail bond and restorative justice program. The above
examples of alternative measures has the following advantages compared to deprivation of
liberty: it is an indispensable tool for reducing overcrowding in prisons, it avoids the
disintegration and stigmatization of communities associated with the personal, family, and
social consequences of pre-trial detention, it lowers the repeat offender (recidivism) rate, it
makes more efficient use of public resources, it is a way of optimizing the social utility of the
criminal justice system and of the resources available. Remanding as Causes of Pre-Trial In
justice It is not mainly shortcomings in national legal provisions that cause pre-trial injustice,
but extensive systemic factors relating to how the law is applied or misused. These wider
factors are often closely intertwined. They include the socio-economic and political context
in which decisions are made and policies applied in response to law-breaking. Poverty,
unemployment, homelessness and substance misuse form the backdrop to a large proportion
of crime. People from backgrounds of disadvantage are more likely to be arrested and more
likely to be detained pre-trial; they are less likely to have the means to pay bail or comply
with other conditions acceptable to the court, or to be able to afford good legal representation,
Nevertheless, law matters too: just as there are practical legal provisions which can and
should curb the over-use of pre-trial detention, so too there are features of criminal law and
procedure that tend to raise the risk of pre-trial in justice. Characteristics of the wider
criminal justice„ machinery‟ are a significant part of the picture. The use of encouragements
for police, leading to more arrests than the system can handle; under-resourced prosecution
services unable to investigate quickly and effectively; inadequate legal aid funding; lack of
judges and other court staff; lack of adequate court buildings; un modern infrastructure and
technology; too few alternatives to custody, all these are identified as key reasons for the
unnecessary use and prolongation of pre-trial imprisonment. Another cause of pre-trial
injustice according to defense lawyers across the ten countries was the way judges apply the
law in practice. Some of the points the lawyers made were closely related to the wider
contextual and systemic problems outlined above. Others concerned judicial culture and
practice, Judges were described as being too ready to make assumptions about risk that were
not borne out by facts or supported by evidence; too quick to take the prosecutor’s side;
unwilling to listen to defense arguments about weak evidence or ways to mitigate risk; overly
influenced by fear of media criticism, particularly in cases where the offence carries a heavy
15
punishment; and usually disinclined to give concrete, evidence-based reasons for their
decisions to remand in custody.

2.3. Alternative to Pre –trial Detention

Alternative measures are measures or options of a procedural nature that allow the
accused to live in freedom during criminal proceedings. There are lists of a variety of
alternatives to detention in which the judges have wide discretion to apply conditions, which
may include for example residence conditions, medical treatment and driving bans. Travel
bans and other geographic limitations such as house arrest (with or without electronic
monitoring) are often accompanied by guarantees such as bail bonds. However, electronic
monitoring and house arrest are rather new forms of alternative detention. Fair Trials as an
international NGO that campaigns for fair and equal criminal justice systems points out, these
alternatives are considered forms of pre-trial detention rather than alternatives to detention.
The released may also be set under judicial or police supervision, problems occur if countries
either do not regulate the consideration of alternatives at all or link them to the primary
judicial finding of pre-trial detention, so suspension of detention is regarded as an exception
and not vice versa, Rather, the judge should be required to first consider whether any
alternative could address the risk identified to the investigation, only moving on to consider
detention if all available alternatives would be insufficient to security. Also, the Fair Trials
Organization discovered judges making poorly reasoned decisions, detaining suspects
unnecessarily, Judicial reasoning was often vague and prescribed, and failed to engage
sufficiently with practical alternatives to pre-trial detention that can protect the investigation,
limit the possibility of reoffending and ensure defendants presence atrial Even if a person will
be tried within the formal justice system, the least restrictive, legal alternatives to detention
should be made available during the adjudicative process, The United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures states that "Alternatives to pre-trial detention
shall be employed at as early a stage as possible. Pre- trial detention shall last no longer than
necessary to achieve the objectives stated under rule[W]here appropriate and compatible with
the legal system, the police, the prosecution service or other agencies dealing with criminal
cases should be empowered to discharge the offender if they consider that it is not necessary
to proceed with the case for the protection of society, crime prevention or the promotion of
respect for the law and the rights of victims. For the purpose of deciding upon the
appropriateness of discharge or determination of proceedings, a set of established criteria
shall be developed within each legal system. For minor cases the prosecutor may impose
16
 suitable on-custodial. The rule sout line a number of alterative measures such as: a promise to
submit to the alternatives to pre-trial detention must be realistic and not overly restrictive.
States must ensure that a fully functioning and sufficiently funded system exists to manage
and implement alternatives to pre-trial detention. This requires an effective system for the
supervision and monitoring of released individuals, which is a common condition of release.
Mechanisms should exist to verify that individuals are complying with the conditions of their
release and report violations of conditions and arrests in connection with other offenses. In
order to ensure that alternatives to pre-trial detention are given proper consideration by
judicial authorities, states may wish to create a government agency responsible for collecting
information concerning individuals against whom pre-trial detention is sought. This
information, which should include a risk assessment and recommendations for possible
alternatives to detention, should be used to inform the decision on pre-trial detention taken by
the judicial authority.

2.4. Bail

Introduction

Conditional release in the common law countries always takes the form of bail, which is a
right that can only be refused under limited circumstances – being free before trial is a
theoretical necessity for the defendant who has to prepare his own case before trial, but not if
pre-trial investigation is the privilege of the state .In the civil law countries, the situation
differs, but in those with the most inquisitorial investigations pre-trial there is no right to bail
as such, although pre-trial detention can be suspended conditionally or unconditionally at the
discretion of the judge. Again, the position of the public prosecutor as a magisterial figure
means in some cases that he is the figure who can decide on extending detention after the
initial period of police custody and before the detainee is brought before a judge.

2.5. Origin of bail in Ethiopia

The concept of Bail can trace back to 399 BC, when Plato tried to create a bond for the
release of Socrates, the modern bail system evolved from a serious of Laws originating in the

17
Middle Ages in England.114 The use of this system finds reference in the 17 th Century
travelogue of Italian traveller Menisci who himself was restored to his freedom bail from
imprisonment for a false charge of theft, he was granted bail by the then ruler of Punjab, but
the koala released him only after he furnished

Though there is only scanty information on bail under traditional Ethiopian criminal
procedure, there are indications as to the existence of the institution of bail before the existing
Cr. Pro. Code was promulgated W. Plowmen is reported to have written the following
paragraph in relation to bail in Ethiopian history. After an accusation, before the pleadings
can commence, both parties must give security approved of by the “af-a egos” These bails or
securities are answerable for the execution of flic sentence whatever it may be, or must suffer
it themselves should the principals abscond. But at the end of the trial these first securities
may declare off in case of doubting their principals, and others must be found; the only
alternatives to the convicted party being chains. Similarly, Fisher indicates that conditional
release on personal guarantee had been regarded as the norm for accused persons under
traditional Ethiopian criminal procedure. Only where the accused could not produce an
acceptable surety for his conditional release would he be subject to ambulatory custody. For
Fisher, the feet that the accuser was responsible for the welfare of the accused while in
ambulatory custody, including providing food and shelter, operated as a deterrent to the
arbitrary rejection of persons nominated as sureties, thereby increasing the chance that the
accused would be released on bail.

2.6. Purpose of bail

In order to enforce human rights specially, the right to liberty and presumption of innocence,
the incorporation of bail rights in criminal justice system is uncountable. The main purposes
of bail right are to emphasis on the proper enforcement of fundamental human rights
principles such as the right to personal liberty and presumption of innocence, moreover bail is
to ensure the reappearance of the suspects on place determined by the court. The fundamental
principle of justice is that a person should not be deprived of his liberty except for a distinct
breach of law. If there is no substantial risk of the accused fleeing the court of justice, there is
no reason why he should be imprisoned during the period of his trial.

The aspiration of bail is to safeguard that one is not randomly deprived of his liberty earlier to
a fair determination of guilt. The fact that a person is suspected of committing an offence
may not mean that he has already committed the particular offence he is suspected of as he is

18
 presumed to be innocent. In many cases the final conviction of person suspected of
committing a given offence takes a lot of time starting from police investigation to trial
before the court of law .Under such conditions it is prejudicial to detain the person concerned
before he is formally convicted of certain crime. Though, situations exist in which one should
be detained proceeding to trial, e.g., if the behavior of defendant is a danger to the public, or
is a risk of flight or is necessary to maintain the honor of the judicial process by preventing
the suspect from interference with evidences. In principle in most of cases defendant is
released on bail, this decision has paramount importance to the defendant. A free defendant is
one who can live with and upkeep his family, preserve his ties to his community, and
diligently take part himself with his own defense by searching for witnesses and evidence and
by keeping close touch with his lawyer. Unrestrained defendant is subjected to the squalor,
idleness, and possible interdicting effect of jail. He may be confined for something he did not
do so un covering information during interview.

2.7. Independence of justice sectors on pretrial crime investigation process

2.7.1. Judiciary independence

An autonomous judiciary is significant to the formation of a free and democratic

society. Where there is a high degree of judicial independence, there is also likely to be a high
degree of respect for human rights and civil liberties, political stability, and other effective
democratic institutions. Judicial independence and impartiality have become international
legal norms, incorporated in many national constitutions and in the principal human rights
covenants to which the great majority of the nations of the world has ratified. ” A judge must
enjoy independence from the legislature, from the executive, from any other body or
authority, which could be tempted to influence his decisions.

The UN General assembly and European institutions related texts, on the independence
of the judiciary provide a useful starting point, it establishes the principle that judicial
independence must be legally enshrined and universally respected, that judges must be able to
do their duty without pressure or improper influence.

It further protects the decision of judiciary from revision outside appeal and that judge
should have immunity from civil liability. Selection, promotion, removal from office and
disciplining of judges needs extensive safeguards to be put in place to protect the judiciary
from undue influence from other branches of government, the budget allocation to the courts

19
 also needs adequate and legally recognized guarantee.

Ethiopian constitution formally establishes an independent judiciary and bars any state
organ or government authority from interfering in its functions. (Article 78 of FDRE

constitution) Although the courts have more power than any other justice organ to Protect
human rights, in particular the right to bail, due to the implementation of the remand law in
some of crimes in which the executive have interest or political gain, they intervene courts
indirectly in order to change or modify the decision in a way that suits the interest of them,
Therefore, in practice courts are not free from the interference of the executive, this does not
mean that in all crimes the executives are interfering .As per the preamble of Ethiopian Federal
Judicial Proclamation independent judiciary is a pre-requisite for democratic and impartial
administration of justice. It imposes the duty to maintain judicial independence on the
judiciary. Similar principles are found in international instruments like Bangalore Principles of
Judicial Conduct and UDHR. According to Value 1 of Bangalore Principles of judicial
conduct, judicial independence has individual and institutional aspects .The individual aspect
of judicial independence is called personal or decisional independence, it refers to state of mind
of judges, tenure, financial security and decisional independence. Security of tenure exists
when the other branches of government (executive or legislature) cannot remove the judge
from office in discretionary or arbitrary manner until retirement or for life.

In the, financial security and tenure the interviewee from federal police crime
investigator explains the issue relating with independency of judges, by saying that, in fact if
they think a crime has been committed in government official or if in the committed crime
has political interest or gain, they intervene and forced the court to permit purposeless remand
requests provided by the investigator. “Sometimes the executive puts their hands on the court,
but we keep quiet and even if there is a judge who does not obey the executive orders, he may
be fired by organized and fabricated false evidence.” Therefore, sometimes there is a risk of
falling into the hands of the executive.
A judge who has no security of tenure makes the decision that favors the executive or legislature
to retain his position, Such a judge will not make his/her decision based on law and evidences
before them, financial security implies rights of judges to non-reducible compensation while
they are in office, Judges whose salary is reduced or increased upon the discretion of the
executive or legislative have no decisional independence, they make their decision under the
pain of reduction of their salary. For these judges basing a judgment on law and evidence is

20
risky. The FDRE Constitution establishes independent judiciary both at federal and state level.
The constitution also declares that judges are free from interference of any kind. Moreover,
under the Constitution the Ethiopian judiciary is immune from interference of the executive,
legislature or any other body, judges enjoy security of tenure. As per Article 79(4) of
constitution judges cannot be removed from their office arbitrarily or at the discretion of the
executive or legislature.

2.7.2. Prosecutors’ and Police Independence

In their activities, public prosecutors and police shall be independent from any influence by
any other institution or official of neither legislative nor executive branch and shall obey to
laws only. Federal attorney general establishment proclamation and SNNPR attorney general
proclamation in the same wording assure that, public
prosecutorshalldischargeitspowersanddutiesbasedonlawindependentlyfreefromanypersonorbo
dy’sinterference.Also,the federal attorney general proclamation strengthens the issue of
independency under sub article by saying that, without prejudice to accountability of public
prosecutors provided for in the provisions of the Proclamation or other law, the Federal
Attorney General and public prosecutors shall not be held legally accountable for damages
caused as a result of performing their power and duty in accordance with law.The prosecution
area requires the public prosecutor not to act in the interest of any individual, party or group
in performing the public duty. Such independence is definitely the prerequisite to render
impartial official decision

Political independence is the attribute of an institution which is entirely autonomous

and not subject to the government control or dictation of any exterior, it refers to the freed
monad ability to make institutional decisions, without having to ask political powers for
permission to perform police duties.

When comes to practice in case area, police and public prosecutors as part of the
executive branch of the government, individuals and groups in political positions try to make
the prosecutor, police and even the courts do what they want, Not only try they do. They also
create direct pressure and give illegal orders, disrupting the work of all three justice
institutions (police public prosecutor and courts) and distort the decisions of the court.

The above act is often reflected in corruption crimes, it is also when they believe that a
crime has been committed against the government indirectly ordered by the executive by

21
 pretending that the two crimes were committed or attempted; deliberately opening an
investigation file for the purpose of remanding the innocent.

They also filed only complaint pretending that as if the crime were committed and
orders the investigating police to investigate crime without any human, documentary or any
other evidence which shows that the crimes were committed.in order to deliberately deny bail
rights to the suspects various requests were made to the courts by the investigating police to
make a decision or order as requested by the police even if the request did not comply with
the law the court decides in favor of investigator because of executive interventions in justice
institutions, this indicates that all three branches of justice institutions are not free from the
interference of the executives.
Moreover, another interviewee explains in closely related manners, there are times when
political officials intervene and put pressure on the justice system. If they believe that a crime
has been committed against the government officials, they only file a complaint to the
investigators without any evidence, creating pressure and Individuals arrested by the police and
repeatedly requests courts for unnecessary remanding in custody in order to reject right to bail.
At last contrary to the clear law which regulates the autonomy of judicial sectors, 4 Remanding
as Causes of Pre-Trial Injustice

It is not mainly shortcomings in national legal provisions that cause pre-trial injustice,
but extensive systemic factors relating to how the law is applied or misused. These wider
factors are often closely intertwined. They include the socio-economic and political context
in which decisions are made and policies applied in response to law-breaking. Poverty,
unemployment, homelessness and substance misuse form the backdrop to a large proportion o
crime .People from backgrounds of disadvantage are more likely to be arrested and more
likely to be detained pre-trial; they are less likely to have the means to pay bail or comply
with other conditions acceptable to the court, or to be able to afford good legal representation,
Nevertheless, law matters too: just as there are practical legal provisions which can and
should curb the over-use of pre-trial detention, so too there are features of criminal law and
procedure that tend to raise the risk of pre-trialin justice.

Characteristics of the wider criminal justice„ machinery‟ are a significant part of the
picture. The use of encouragements for police, leading to more arrests than the system can
handle; under-resourced prosecution services unable to investigate quickly and effectively;
inadequate legal aid funding; lack of judges and other court staff; lack of adequate court

22
buildings; un modernized infrastructure and technology; too few alternatives to custody, all
these are identified as key reasons for the unnecessary use and prolongation of pre-trial
imprisonment. Another cause of pre-trial injustice according to defense lawyers across the ten
countries was the way judges apply the law in practice. Some of the points the lawyers made
were closely related to the wider contextual and systemic problems out lined above.

Others concerned judicial culture and practice, Judges were described as being too ready to
make assumptions about risk that were not borne out by facts or supported by evidence; too
quick to take the prosecutor’s side; unwilling to listen to defense arguments about weak
evidence or ways to mitigate risk; overly influenced by fear of media criticism, particularly in
cases where the offence carries a heavy punishment; and usually disinclined to give concrete,
evidence-based reasons for their decisions to remand in custody.

23
 CHAPTER THREE

3 Research Methodology and Design

In order to address the abovementioned research questions and meet set objectives, this
research adopts qualitative Research methodologies. This is deemed important in the way of
its contribution to gather firsthand information and involves collecting a variety of
information materials, case analysis, interviews, and field observation investigation
questioners, group decisions. Under this particular study the qualitative methodology gince
the title of the research and the research questions have been is framed in the way of
considering the existing legal as well as practical synchronicity of remand and bail right,
some of the legal gaps in relation to the law of remand and impacts on the right to bail require
analysis of the prevailing legal doctrines on the international regional and Ethiopian laws on
The area. For this part, the study has followed the doctrinal method and analyzed relevant
laws. Moreover, the study will focus on practical analysis of the enforcement of these laws
and hence the study will adopt none doctrinal method therefore the study will employ mixture

of both doctrinal and none doctrinal method.

3.1 Research Approach

This study recognizes that the decision to detain a person in custody is made by an
authorized police officer, an officer of the court, bail justice (Victoria only), magistrate,
or judge. However, the study is premised on the recognition that the decision to
remand, or not to remand, person in custody is influenced by a broad range of factors.
As illustrated in the number of people in detention as a result of a decision to remand
them in custody is a product of the number of people for whom the remand in custody
decision is made and the length of time for which they are remanded. Each of these
factors is influenced by Interactions between judicial or quasi-judicial decision-makers
24
 and individual accused persons within a particular legislative
framework .Characteristics of the criminal justice system in specific
jurisdiction .Broader characteristics of the communities within which the justice system is
operating. The factors that influence the final remand position are illustrated . will be expanded to
illustrate the inter-relationship between the factors of each segment . Each of these broad issues will be
examined in the pages to follow in an attempt to show the overall complexity of the issues surrounding
the remand in custody process and its outcomes.

3.1.2 Sources of Data

The researcher gathers and reviews information from primary sources like legal
documents and interviews, FGD's, observation and secondary sources such as various
literatures; books, journal articles and court decisions. As stated earlier, the primal objective
of this study is dedicated to evaluate three study area in Addis Ababa town in the federal
police crime investigation off (center only)

Accordingly, the target populations of the study are determined, such as; suspected and
detained person, the investigators/police officer, prosecutor, advocates, remand practice
victims and judges found in the study area. Since, investigating police may arrest the suspect
and request an appointment if necessary; the court are in position to grant or deny a remand
and custody as requested by investigators, the prosecutor oversees the criminal investigation
and responsible for protecting human rights, that advocate is arguing on behalf of the
suspects and the suspects who are direct victims of arbitrary arrests and purposeless remands
and custody, thus target population have direct contact with the topic and allows me to get
accurate evidence.

3.1.3. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

Based on the research problem that the study intends to address purpose full
save sampling will uses .prose sampling startlingly where employed to select
research participant who are saving in quality correction administration
purpose sampling where used .because according to divide and Finke
(2000)given the goal and logic of qualities research this strategy is often

25
employed .the writer added that his strategy is designed to enhance
understandings selected individuals .gropes ,experience which can be
accomplished by selecting participants that provide the greatest inside
researcher question in to in purpose save sampling n the slandered used in
choosing participants and sits is determined whether they are information rich
(Patton, cited in Creswell(2009) to under staph no men omen on androgen
the question answer the research purpose fully or intentional selected
individuals /participants selection critter is age grope 18-40 because this age
grope constitute the largest number sex(both male and female )the trip of
remedy custody primal jutes interview arrested person judges and prosecutors
researcher uses pre selection in formation the researcher identify precipitant the
ABOVE CRITIERIA therefore the researcher purposively selected 10 individual
the study site intently 10 individual for interview 5 males and 5 females where
propose as research participant however since the study qualities faxable is
future is the future and the size percipients was determined by data saturation(ie
the level new information does not come despite .this because frequent
interview)according in this study data is collected from 10 researcher participants.
This because Davidson (2002) indicated that sampling in qualitative research
continuous until themes emerging formed the researcher are fully developed in the
since that diverse instances have been explore and the future sampling is redundant
Marshall (also 1996 ) indicates that in qualitative research practically in the
number of required participants usually become obvious as the study progresses as
new categories themes or explanations stop emerging formed the data. This called
the stage of data saturation therefore the desertion that the data saturation or data
are Dunsany had been reached was accomplished through constant comparison of
data .hence the researcher moved back and forth between the data and emerging
tentative thematic identification and interpretation As it were stated here in above
the population in this study comprised of arrested person, investigating police
officers, judges and prosecutors. Purposive sampling has been employed to filter
sample of police stations up on which the investigation would going to be made.
Beside preferring the placement of institutions, purposive type of sampling
technique helps the researcher to select the respondents based on knowledge and
experience about which one has the most useful or representative respondent that
have an insight understanding on the issue or on the area under discussion. Yet, the
26
sample size has been determined owing to the circumstance of data saturation or
redundancy test

3.1.4. Instruments of Data Collection

As a qualitative study, different kinds of tools employed to gather information from

primary and secondary sources. Major data gathering method to be used to gather information

for this particular study, includes the FGD, interviews, observations and document reviews.
For the doctrinal part, legal analysis or statuary reviews has been employed.

3.31.51. Focus Group Discussions (FGD)

The method of focus group discussions has employed by the researcher to obtain
information useful to the assessment. Accordingly, three FGD group has been conducted. The
first FGD has conducted with the participants of 3 (three ) remanded suspects in Addis
Ababa prison administration, the second FGD has conducted with the number of participants
has been undertaken from prosecutors 02 and judges 01The third FGD has conducted with 2
remanded suspects in Addis Ababa city administration police detention center. The FGD has
been held with the total participants of 8(Eight) persons.

3.1.6. Interviews

It is used to generate primary information from individuals who have experienced an

event or who have some knowledge or information. Based on work experience, academic
competency and exposure to the issue, the interview was made with key informants to
generate information on the practical observance of remand practice and impacts on bail in
the process of criminal investigation. Researcher employed face-to–face interviews with the
key informants such as remands, public prosecutors, judges, investigators and advocates to
collect information about the topic. An interview schedule has been developed with due
consideration to the research questions in particular and the objective of the research in
general. The schedule has organized in open ended formats and has been used while
discussing the research issues with the key informants. The types of questions asked of the
respondents were related to the actual practices of the enforcement of remand procedures
made during the crime investigation process.in the study included suspect handling of reports,
memorandum, training manuals, guidelines and standards on the rights as well as treatments
of suspected and detained persons.

3.1.7 Data Analysis

27
 As the salient feature of this thesis, the blend of both doctrinal and none doctrinal form
of research design has been used. Hence, a suitable approach for such types of design will be
a narrative and interpretative data analysis. This is entirely dedicated for the measure of
knowledge, experience and attitude of the sample. However, for the other out left segment of
the design, which is assessment of the doctrinal data, thorough literary analysis and
interpretation of statutory documents has been done accordingly. Since qualitative
methodology and qualitative data collection tools are selected the researcher has been applied
narrative and interpretative data analysis if wont to develop for the question about
ideas ,experiences and meaning or to study something that can ‘t be described numerically collect
qualitative data, Which is presented by respondents, then the researcher has been drawn the
conclusions.

 The researcher applied Narrative specify reason understanding the situation the scope
of the the data

 Interpretative data Analysis understanding meninges of the word and inquiry

he researcher will be collected data depending on the principles of informed consent

through explaining the purpose of the research to the participants and that participation have
been only voluntarily. Depending on the interest of the informant’s confidentiality of the
interviewee has been protected. Different measures such as; I used fake names to secure
anonymity of the respondents to protect the participant from harm that may result from.

CHAPTER FOUR

4.The enforcement of Law of Remand and its practical Implication on

the Right to Bail in federal police crime investigation biro
4.1 The purpose of a Remand and the Reasons for the Request
Pre-trial detention is a serious measure with negative consequences for the individual
and her rights, this begs the question as to whether detention before or pending trial could be
applied in a legitimate manner.250 Criminal investigation is a police activity directed toward
the identification and apprehension of alleged criminals and the accumulation, preservation
and presentation of evidence regarding their alleged crimes.251

Criminal investigation process is closely related to the fundamental rights, freedoms

and interests of citizens and the public, and should be conducted in a manner that respects
28
 and maintains the law.252 In my observation in the case area there are three types of criminal
investigations: such as, by keeping the suspect in custody, by releasing him on bail and lastly
investigating crime without arresting the suspect. In principle the criminal investigation has
to be made without arresting the suspect or through releasing the suspect by alternative
pretrial measures. However, interview253 with public prosecutor and advocates assure that
the trend of study area shows the contrary.

The law did not specify the details of the case to allow the court to remand the suspect
in custody, this does not mean that there are no legal provisions for remanding suspects in
custody, there are general provisions in FDRE constitution.254 Criminal Procedure Code of
Ethiopia 255and Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism Crimes Proclamation of Ethiopia.

Even if Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism Crimes Proclamation does not put clear
provisions on the matter of remand, it refers other laws to rule the issue by declaring that A
person who is in detention center or prison on suspicion or accusation in connection with
crimes provided for in the Proclamation shall be protected in accordance with the Constitution
of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, International Agreements ratified by Ethiopia and
other Laws of the country concerning Rights and conditions of suspected or accused persons.

In normal practice, the investigating police request a remand in writing, giving various
reasons to the court based on the remand law; here are some of the reasons: the seriousness
and complexity of the crime; To gather documentary and human evidence that is closely
related to the crime, suspect or the suspects may be hiding from the area and destroying
evidence, and if the investigator gives sufficient evidence to the court for approval, he or she
may detain the suspect on those permitted days and conduct an investigation. But the courts
do not check the truthfulness of the requested remand complaint and negligently permits the
remand, these acts of courts do not serve the very purpose of remand and negatively affects
the right to pretrial releases recognized under the international, 257 regional258 and domestic
human right documents.

The interviewed crime investigator260 on the other hand indicated different reasons
which has to be considered in the petition to get permission from the court such as, if the
victim is hospitalized as a result of the injury or if referenced, if we have not collected the

29
 evidence, If the victim's health is uncertain and if released on bail, he/she may be disappeared
from the area.

Also, on interview with investigating police 261 and high court judge,262 in the same
wording raises the issue of none boilable crimes as a condition to remand the suspect in
custody, this means if the alleged crime committed is none boilable the suspects should stay
in custody until the investigation finished. This informs me that the courts and investigators

are confused with the purpose in which the remand is granted and the exceptional conditions in
which bail is rejected, this means none boilable crimes by any means should not be grounds for
remanding the suspect in custody.

In one of the court file analysis the investigator asks the court to remand the suspects
which do not attain the purpose of remand as follows:

One of the remand requests to the federal high court says;

[A]according to a letter written to us by the Chief Executive of the Addis Ababa

kirekose kefel ktma , Temesgen Abebe is suspected of violating the constitutional order
by force, to investigate the crime with the support of in person and documentary
evidence as per article 59(2) of criminal procedure code investigator asked for a 14-
days for investigation.263

It may be difficult to enforce the suspect's human rights in the above-mentioned

remand request letter. First The purpose of the remand is not to detain the suspect with out
any evidence, but to investigate after the pre-trial evidence has been collected without the
suspect being arrested, to collect other remaining evidence and the investigator must make it
clear that the investigation is not possible without arresting the suspect, these conditions are
not specified in the complaint.

Second, the investigating officer did not specify what he would do if the 14-days
remand is allowed to him may lead the courts not to follow up the investigation progress and
not give the necessary orders.

In another complaint police requested to the court that:

[W]e was told that an investigation team is coming from another area to investigate
violation of constitutional order allegedly committed by the suspect called Bereket
Birhanu, and police has requested the ledeta Federal High Court to remand the

30
 suspects for 7 days as per article 59(2) of criminal procedure code until the team
arrives.

In the above police remand request investigators are asking the court merely to detain
the suspect without any purpose. It is clearly grave violation of human rights, particularly
right to liberty, moreover it is clear that remand is requested for criminal investigation as per
FDRE Constitution and criminal procedure code, however in the complaint one week remand
is to wait investigation team until they arrive.

4.2 Execution of orders to be released on bail and abuse of remand

law as a legal trick to reject bail rights
The arrested person is legally entitled to appear in court within forty-eight (48) hours
or two days in accordance with Article 19 (3) of the Constitution and Article 29 (1) of the
criminal procedure code. The court may also order the remand according to article 59 of
criminal procedure code or release a person arrested or suspected of certain crime on bail.

The powers under which the court can release a person suspected of committing a
given offence punishable under the law are provided in two separate circumstances. The
Court has a power to release on bail an arrested person who is not released by the
investigating officer.264 The Court has also a power to release an accused person as per
Article 63 of the CPC and the Revised Anti-Corruption Special Procedure and Rules of
Evidence (Amendment) Proclamation article 3(1).

In the above case, there will be a bail right question in the side of suspect and
remanding the suspect request in the side of police. In accordance with the law during the
above hearing, did the police conduct the criminal investigation? does the detainee's mere
suspicion of certain crime deprive him of bail? Courts have a great responsibility and
obligation to protect the human and constitutional rights of individuals by examining and
considering through impartiality, independence and only based on law.

As per article 9 of criminal procedure code, Police have prescribed to perform

functions such as: Prevent crime by maintaining peace, to bring out the crime and to arrest
the perpetrators. It is well-known that any order, judgment, decision, or judgment imposed by
the courts must be carried out by any one, this order must also be obeyed by the police. One
of the duties of a police officer is to take a person to court on time when he or she is legally
suspected of criminal act in order to remand or release on bail. However, in some cases, after
the court has issued a decision order to release the detainee on bail, the police intentionally
31
Faille’s to comply with court order and illegally keeps him/ her in jail.265

The police have the legal authority to arrest and investigate anyone who suspects or
commits a crime or who has committed a crime; however, when exercising this legal
authority and function, as it is the responsibility of any government institution, it should only

32
do so in accordance with the law and the rule of law. Accordingly, it is illegal and
inappropriate for a person who has been granted bail to be released on bail or to detain a
person who has been granted bail. In case when the police believes that the court's decision is
not fair and a person who thinks bail should be denied have the constitutional and procedural
right to appeal within 20 days other than illegally detaining the suspect.

While this legal system is in place, there is no legal basis for the police not to release a
person who has been granted bail. In this case, the police should release the individual and
appeal the bail in accordance with the law. But, in practice in some cases police do not
enforce the decision of the court.

However, the practice of remanding the suspect in custody is part of the criminal
procedure Code in which serious human rights violations takes place. Even in crimes in
which Investigating officers should be released on bail in accordance with Criminal
Procedure Code as per article 28, however by asking for an unnecessary remand not to
release the suspect on very minor and less harm offenses, it is violating the human rights of
citizens; particularly to repudiate bail rights of suspects illegally puts the suspects in
detention. In addition, the police deliberately misrepresent suspects by creating a variety of
interests and family ties and knowing that the investigation is over, they fraudulently ask for
more remands and courts negligently decides in favour of investigator.

In one of FGD with remands indicates that in no need of remand, the police
intentionally ask remand on simple crimes such as intimidation. The police request of remand
in intimidation crime is purely unnecessary and investigator has to release the suspect in
accordance with article 28 of criminal procedure code, because the crime in nature will be
committed through speaking or signs and no need of remand for further special investigation.
Moreover, even if a suspect is convicted of intimidation crime, the court may impose a fine of
up to 500 Ethiopian birr or up to six months simple imprisonment. However, there are

33
cases where the investigating police officer oppose right to bail and ask for a 14-days illegal
remand after the police have arrested a suspect.

Another interviewee explained, police officers make unnecessary remand requests for
remanding the suspects, for example, in case of extortion crime as per article 713 of
Ethiopian criminal code police officer asks for remand however in the very beginning the
crime is purely boilable also it does not require time for investigation. In general,
investigative police officers sometimes require a remand with the intention of Prohibition for
bail.

In addition to the above issues, investigating police officers requests remand for
unnecessary matters by creating a benefit relationship with a victim or family they abuses the
law of remands to please the victim and to bring medical evidence from health center where
the damage to the victim is obvious by hiding the health condition of the victim and
sometimes by changing the content of complaint, for example by changing common willful
injury into grave willful injury through legal tactics officers asks the court for remand and in
the side of the court some remand files shows that the courts are negligently decide in favor
of the officer Without a thorough examination of the case.

One of the victims of the remand practice explained to me that Investigators often use
remand law, not to investigate crimes, but to violate the human rights of suspects, in
particular, to deny bail. Also, he explained his case that there was no need to ask remand for
investigating Information that I have talked to and written to someone else through my
mobile.275 The researcher recognizes from his case that the suspects are remanded for
searching for evidences in his phone, a remand for this reason is not justiciable because as the
information he had talked and written with someone else could be obtained from his phone
and Ethio-telecom data base without remanding the suspect in custody because he can't delete
and modify the evidence which are not in his control.

In this case the remand victim appealed to the federal Supreme Court against the
decision of the federal High Court on remand, after the court allow him to be released on
bail. However, investigators without releasing him on bail, founding no new
Interview with Temesgen Abebe, Remand Practice Victim. (June 24, 2021) [herein after interview with
Temesgen Abebe]

34
crime and only by changing the content of the case and preten, requests the court for remand.
What is sad is court ruled in favour of investigator.

At last, the interviewee from the federal high court described that Often-investigating
police officers request for remanding suspect is not acceptable, there are many demands to
meet the needs of the private victim and to punish suspects without trial.

4.3 Independence of justice sectors on pretrial crime investigation

process
4.3.1 Judiciary independence
An autonomous judiciary is significant to the formation of a free and democratic
society. Where there is a high degree of judicial independence, there is also likely to be a
high degree of respect for human rights and civil liberties, political stability, and other
effective democratic institutions.

Judicial independence and impartiality have become international legal norms,

incorporated in many national constitutions and in the principal human rights covenants to
which the great majority of the nations of the world has ratified. 276 ” A judge must enjoy
independence from the legislature, from the executive, from any other body or authority,
which could be tempted to influence his decisions.277

The UN General assembly and European institutions related texts, on the independence
of the judiciary provide a useful starting point, it establishes the principle that judicial
independence must be legally enshrined and universally respected, that judges must be able
to do their duty without pressure or improper influence.

It further protects the decision of judiciary from revision outside appeal and that judge
should have immunity from civil liability. Selection, promotion, removal from office and
disciplining of judges needs extensive safeguards to be put in place to protect the judiciary
from undue influence from other branches of government, the budget allocation to the courts
also needs adequate and legally recognized guarantee.

Ethiopian constitution formally establishes an independent judiciary and bars any state
organ or government authority from interfering in its functions. (Article 78 of FDRE
constitution) Although the courts have more power than any other justice organ to Protect
human rights, in particular the right to bail, due to the implementation of the remand law in
some of crimes in which the executive have interest or political gain, they intervene courts
indirectly in order to change or modify the decision in a way that suits the interest of them,
Therefore, in practice courts are not free from the interference of the executive, this does not
mean that in all crimes the executives are interfering.

As per the preamble of Ethiopian Federal Judicial Proclamation independent judiciary

is a pre-requisite for democratic and impartial administration of justice. It imposes the duty to
maintain judicial independence on the judiciary. Similar principles are found in international
instruments like Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. and UDHR. According to Value 1
of Bangalore Principles of judicial conduct, judicial independence has individual and
institutional aspects.

The individual aspect of judicial independence is called personal or decisional

independence, it refers to state of mind of judges, tenure, financial security and decisional
independence. Security of tenure exists when the other branches of government (executive or
legislature) cannot remove the judge from office in discretionary or arbitrary manner until
retirement or for life.

In the, financial security and tenure the interviewee from lideta federal high court
explains the issue relating with independency of judges, by saying that, in fact if they think a
crime has been committed in government official or if in the committed crime has political
interest or gain, they intervene and forced the court to permit purposeless remand requests
provided by the investigator. “Sometimes the executive puts their hands on the court, but we
keep quiet and even if there is a judge who does not obey the executive orders, he may be
fired by organized and fabricated false evidence.”285 Therefore, sometimes there is a risk of
falling into the hands of the executive.

A judge who has no security of tenure makes the decision that favors the executive or
legislature to retain his position, Such a judge will not make hie/her decision based on law
and evidences before them, financial security implies rights of judges to non-reducible
compensation while they are in office, Judges whose salary is reduced or increased upon the
discretion of the executive or legislative have no decisional independence, they make their
decision under the pain of reduction of their salary. For these judges basing a judgment on
law and evidence is risky.

The FDRE Constitution establishes independent judiciary both at federal and state
level.286 The constitution also declares that judges are free from interference of any kind.
Moreover, under the Constitution the Ethiopian judiciary is immune from interference of the
executive, legislature or any other body, judges enjoy security of tenure. As per Article 79(4)
of constitution judges cannot be removed from their office arbitrarily or at the discretion of
the executive or legislature.287

4.3.2 Prosecutors’ and Police Independence

In their activities, public prosecutors and police shall be independent from any
influence by any other institution or official of neither legislative nor executive branch and
shall obey to laws only.

Federal attorney general establishment proclamation and federal general attorney

proclamation in the same wording assure that, public prosecutor shall discharge its powers
and duties based on law independently free from any person or body’s interference. Also, the
federal attorney general proclamation strengthens the issue of independency under sub article
3 by saying that, without prejudice to accountability of public prosecutors provided for in the
provisions of the Proclamation or other law, the Federal Attorney General and public
prosecutors shall not be held legally accountable for damages caused as a result of
performing their power and duty in accordance with law.

The prosecution area requires the public prosecutor not to act in the interest of any
individual, party or group in performing the public duty. Such independence is definitely the
prerequisite to render impartial official decision.

Political independence is the attribute of an institution which is entirely autonomous

and not subject to the government control or dictation of any exterior, it refers to the freedom
and ability to make institutional decisions, without having to ask political powers for
permission to perform police duties.

When comes to practice in case area, police and public prosecutors as part of the
executive branch of the government, individuals and groups in political positions try to make
the prosecutor, police and even the courts do what they want, Not only try they do. They also
create direct pressure and give illegal orders, disrupting the work of all three justice
institutions (police public prosecutor and courts) and distort the decisions of the court.

The above act is often reflected in corruption crimes, it is also when they believe that a
crime has been committed against the government indirectly ordered by the executive by
pretending that the two crimes were committed or attempted; deliberately opening an
investigation file for the purpose of remanding the innocent.

They also filed only complaint pretending that as if the crime were committed and
orders the investigating police to investigate crime without any human, documentary or any
other evidence which shows that the crimes were committed. in order to deliberately deny
bail rights to the suspects various requests were made to the courts by the investigating police
to make a decision or order as requested by the police even if the request did not comply with
the law the court decides in favor of investigator because of executive interventions in justice
institutions, this indicates that all three branches of justice institutions are not free from the
interference of the executives.

Moreover, another interviewee explains in closely related manners, there are times
when political officials intervene and put pressure on the justice system. If they believe that a
crime has been committed against the government officials, they only file a complaint to the
investigators without any evidence, creating pressure and Individuals arrested by the police
and repeatedly requests courts for unnecessary remanding in custody in order to reject right to
bail. At last contrary to the clear law which regulates the autonomy of judicial sectors,
Particularly the court, the intervention of higher official from the executive wing is apparent
in the study area.

4.4 Pros and cons of limiting the period of remand

Whether or not determining total period of time required to crime investigation has its
own advantages and disadvantages. The Criminal Procedure Code of Ethiopia makes it clear
that police may request a 14-days remand for an investigation, this law often deprives
suspects of their human rights, especially the right to bail. In essence, the problem with this
provision is how many rounds of a 14-days can be asked by the investigating police? It has
no end.

From the point of view of the suspects, if it is determined by law, it will create an
opportunity for them to claim their rights at the end of the term. Enforcement of remand law
paves the ways for problems such as; investigators keep the suspect in custody for as long as
they want as punishment by providing unreasonable reasons to the court to remand the
suspect, opened the way for investigators to use the law for illegal purposes such as torture
and forced confession, it prevented police from actively investigating. 299 If time was limited,
they could use their abilities to complete the crime investigation before times runs out, in
addition, lack of restriction on occasions of investigating time has led to negligence and
human rights abuses on the sides of police.300

However, from the point of view of investigators, it comes with its own problems, for
example, all types of crimes have their own severity and complexity as a result, it is difficult
to conclude all types of crime investigation will be completed at the same time. A suspect
who has committed a crime may escape from the justice only by objecting the end of
investigation time limit.301

Determining the absolute maximum period of investigation may have an unavoidable

adverse effect on the interest of the public because no additional time for investigation should
be allowed after the expiry of the fixed period. It may happen that the investigation is not
completed within determined time despite the diligence and responsible effort of the
concerned investigating police officers due to the complicated nature of the crime. 302
 If, the law clearly fixes the period of total investigation time and when the time
elapsed, the court could not allow additional time for investigation, Because of this
conclusive evidence might remain undiscovered as a consequence of which dangerous
criminals may escape from justice, A system that allows real criminals to escape justice
simply because of elapsing of the investigation time could not be fair.303

One of the interviewees304 explains the issue that, some crimes involve many
participants in their behavior, if the deadline is set for the completion of the investigation
within a certain period of time, the investigation period will end and the real offender may
escape from accountability.

To reconcile the above-mentioned problems, time for crime investigation should be

determined based on the complexity and severity of the crime and nature of crime, so that the
suspect may not be escaped from responsibly and on the other side the suspect's human rights
are respected.

4.4 Human rights that are often violated by outlawed remand practice
4.4.1 The Right to Fair Trial
Human rights of suspects must be observed from the moment the investigation starts
until the criminal proceedings have been completed as violation of rights during one stage has
an effect on another stage.

When individuals face a criminal trial, they are confronted by the machinery of the
state, they come into contact with the police, the court system, the prison system and the
judiciary, in this case bargaining power of suspects are less. In these issue remanded suspects
in FGD explains they are not given a chance to reflect an opinion in the court to the officer‟s
request to remand and we will be told not to talk to the court finally, the court orders us to be
harmed only by listening the opinion of the investigating police without a fair trial and they
block us even from asking for bail rights. The above acts clearly shows that the fair trial
rights of suspects are clearly violated.306
 Fair hearing means that an individual will have an opportunity to present evidence to
support his or her case and to discover what evidence exists against him or her. 307 The
risk of human rights abuse starts at the first moment that official suspicion is raised against a
person, through the arrest, in pre-trial detention, during the trial, during all appeals, right
through to the imposition of any punishment.308

Right to a fair trial regarding a criminal proceeding, consists of set of guarantees for
every person under investigation, trial, punishment, appeals and application for a
reexamination.309 The right to a fair trial is a basic human right. It is one of the universally
applicable principles recognized in the UDHR adopted by the world‟s governments in
1948.310 The right to fair trial has been reaffirmed and elaborated since 1948 in legally
binding treaties such as the ICCPR.311 Moreover the right to a fair trial is enshrined in
the African Charter on Human and peoples' Rights.312 And Ethiopia as a signatory member of
the above human rights instrument has responsibility to respect as per article 9(4) of the
FDRE constitution.

The right to a fair trial is essential for those accused of criminal offences. Since it
guarantees public hearing before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established
by law.313 The fair trial right protects the rights of both the suspect and the accused from the
beginning of an investigation up to the level of sentencing and appeal.314

4.4.2 Right to appeal on remand orders

Structure of courts in all legal systems is pyramid shape; there are many trial courts at
the lower level; there are few appellate courts and almost always there is one supreme organ
at the top.315 The right to appeal is a guaranteed right that is found in the provision of UDHR,
which states that “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by
law”.316

Appeal is a constitutional right; and is an essential part of due process of law. 317 Its purpose is
to give second thought to the case and to avoid incorrect outcome and thereby unnecessary
damages.

One of the high court judges explains: Often, we have never encountered a suspect who
is appealing on remand order, but there is no law against the appeal. 318 On the other hand,
the remanded suspects in FGD 319and one of public prosecutor320 assure that even they want to
appeal on the order of remand in order to release on bail often lower court which entertain the
remand proceeding refuses to grant a copy of the decision as a result, they lost their right to
appeal. Therefore, even if most of remanded suspects knew the right to appeal, first instances
courts refusing to grant copy of decision and the expire of dates determined by law cause of
the improper acts of the court blocks the ways to appeal.

However, in case of refusal of bail in lower courts the suspects have the right to appeal
as per Criminal Procedure Code that states where bail has been refused by a lower court, the
accused may apply in writing within twenty days against such refusal to the court having
appellate jurisdiction.321

In similar fashion in ICCPR ,recognizes the appeal rights. Moreover, under the
Ethiopian Criminal Procedure Code that, principle of appeal in criminal cases is provided
under Article 181 of the Code, which allows an appeal only from a judgment convicting,
discharging, or acquitting an accused person. Also, criminal procedure code, by expressly
prohibiting appeals on interlocutory matters of any kind. Which indicates that appeal is to be
lodged only where the case is finally disposed of. Appeal from a bail ruling, can be seen as an
exception to the principle governing appeal in interlocutory maters of criminal case.
 4.4.3 Practice of forced confession on remanded suspects
Unlike other human rights, the right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane, or
degrading treatment is an absolute right, this means that under no circumstances can a
person‟s right to freedom from torture be violated.323

However, things on practice are different from the law, the data gathered from 8
members of FGD assured me that the practice of forced confession is being takes place in
order to get plea of guilty without reservation, what is surprising here is, before we started the
discussion, the suspects on remand asked me that if the police heard what we are discussing,
they would beat us after you leave, after arranging a safe place according to what they told
me they summarizes the facts as follows: some detectives by bullying with the guard police
forces us to go to court and believe the case, In addition, if we do not believe the charge, they
will ask the court unnecessary remand to keep us in a custody in which nothing basic need is
complete and Sadly, we know that we will be beaten and abused when we return to the
detention centre without believing the case.324

Whereas, there are international and domestic legal frame works in which forced
confession is prohibited. The right not to be compelled to testify against one self and the right
not to confess guilt are expressed in ICCPR.325

The FDRE Constitutional provision explicitly requires prohibition of confession

obtained through coercion.326 The Constitution provides, “Persons arrested shall not be
compelled to make confession or admissions which could be used in evidence against them.
Any evidence obtained under coercion shall not be admissible.” The first statement of Article
19(5) of the Constitution prohibits compelling an arrestee to make confessions or admissions,
while the next sentence provides for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the
prohibition articulated in the first sentence. It is interesting to note that the Constitution
excludes confessions, whether made before a court of law in accordance with Article 35 of
criminal procedure code or before a police officer under Article 27 of criminal procedure
code insofar as they are obtained through coercion. The constitution makes it clear that an
arrested person shall not be compelled to admit any evidence or confessions obtained
involuntarily through torture, threat or promise shall not be used as evidence.

)
 4.5 Implication of remand practice towards the enjoyments of the right to
bail (In line with court file analysis)
The practical problems of the remand in federal police crime investigation bureau
justice institutions can be seen from various perspectives. The major task of the
criminal justice system is to investigate the crime and reveal the truth through its
machineries. In the criminal justice system of Ethiopia, the major actors of the system, i.e.,
the police, the prosecutor and the courts are in one or other way infringe the very purpose and
procedure of remand, this is either due to the misunderstanding of the rule or due to
misconduct of the actors while applying the rule.

The major aim of the rule of remand is to help the crime investigator and at the same
time to formulate a known rule for the custody of the suspect while investigating the suspect.
In other word the practice of remand in the care area, particularly the investigators, revealed
that it is the way to wrongly legalizing the stay of the suspect in the police custody for the
mere fact of investigating the crime.327

The major practical problems arise when the police officer bring the suspect to the ding
the new fact is created court for the request of remand. Here the ultimate power is rest up on
the discretion of the court. But most of the time the court practically failed to look the police
investigation file to reach at a reasonable and legal decision. 328 The courts rather simply
accept the request of the police officer and send the suspect to remain in custody, in this
course of action the suspects who are legible for bail right is being sent to detention centre.329

The police officer on the other hand look that permitted remand period as mandatory
time in which the tasks should be finished or may look the end of the period as a reporting
time for the court rather than trying to finalize the task at most diligently and has not given
due attention to report before the end of the investigation period. Moreover, even if the
investigation is completed earlier than the allowed time investigator does not take suspects to
the court or they will not pass over finished record to the public prosecutor.330

One of the interviewees explains, police has requested 12 times remand to the court
which is total of 132 days, moreover what is sad is the court confirms all remand requests, the
problem is the failure of the courts to assess whether or not the police officer has diligently

worked for finalizing his task during the remand period and the court allows unnecessary
remand period for the second or for more time since there is no limit under the criminal
procedure code of Ethiopia.331

The other aggravating problem here is that, most of the time the suspects at the pre-trial
period present without a legal advocate or lawyer for this reason suspects at the pre-trial stage
is not well heard or represented to request their right and challenge the legal actors like
police, public prosecutor and judge, 332

The other major problem is misunderstanding of the purpose of the rule of remand.
Most of the police officers look the rule of remand as not the legally necessary time for the
investigation, rather they consume a period to calm down the victims of the crime or the
victim‟s family, the time which uses to negotiate with the victim‟s family especially corrupt
officials negotiate to make the suspect to remain custody in return for some extra illegal
benefits, for this reason the police officer illegally requests for the remand. for example, in
case of bodily injury until they bring medical evidence, in case of car accident until the traffic
plan brought and in case of the crimes committed by group the police may request remand
until some of the suspected group members arrested or in case of the theft until the stolen
property found moreover, failure of the public prosecutor to monitor the remand requests and
to put the feedback on every request. All this shows that justice institutions are not working
in line with the purpose of remand. Thus, unnecessary remands limit the right to exercise bail.

In one of the remand case file, on suspect Sintayehu Geremew police asked for a
remand in Wereda Court file no. 16089 as police request the court also allowed additional
days for the investigation to be carried out on those permitted days, The suspect was charged
with negligent homicide the fact of the case is, when the driver arrived at a place called
Shilansha on the asphalt road from Addis Ababa to senedafa the driver of a car killed two
people negligently, The driver was arrested at the time and taken to a police station, Accident
plan was drawn up after crime committed, Regarding autopsies the deceased was buried
without Corpse examination.

During this process, however, no human evidence was collected on the days in which
Wereda courts allowed over and over, Again, the remand request of the police was always

allowed by the court without any correction. In the meantime, with the help of a lawyer, the
suspect asked the Addis Ababa e High Court to grant him the right to bail in file number
22331, The court also directed Addis Ababa Prosecutor to comment on this bail application,
according to the zonal prosecutor comment, the suspect killed two people in a vehicle and
pointed out the court to deny the bail rights of suspects according to article 63 of criminal
procedure code, the court denied bail and ordered the prosecutor to make a decision on
investigating file within 15 days, this means after 15 days which is allowed to prepare charge
is over, the detective cannot request additional time for remand.

In the above case, it is important to note that the remand file is not closed in the
Wereda Court and the court rejection to the bail and ordering the prosecutor to file the charge
is better decision, in response public prosecutor after the end of 15 days informed the court
that the investigation record had not been forwarded to us, then the court confirmed that
investigating police officer had not handed over the record to the prosecutor on the orders of
three consecutive remands, The prosecutor did not provide a charge on the suspect until the
end of fourth remand and Defendant's bail was denied, finally the court ordering the remade
to be transferred to the zonal police custody from prison and closed the remand file. This
shows that how much the courts are negligent, infidel and carless in enforcing
constitutionally recognized suspects bail rights.

Meanwhile, while the detainee was denied bail on one side and the Police did not
collect any evidence, they apply again to the lidia high Court on file No.22717 to release him
on bail because the police had not found any evidence. However, after public prosecutors
giving a strict order, the investigator finished the investigation within five days and the
Prosecutors charged the suspect.

The main point to pay attention in this case is that when a remand is allowed, the court
did not carry out any follow-up except to give the required time, As the remand is to gather
the remaining evidence the court should properly check what investigator done in the allotted
time however often the court did not implement this and the police did not do any real work
other than asking for unnecessary and repeated remands.

On the other hand, in the above case, it is important to note that while remand was
allowed in lower court, approaching the right to bail in higher court and the prosecutor's
reminder to deny bail stating that two people had died without evidence was not fair, because
even if he convicted the punishment for negligent homicide shall be simple imprisonment
Chapter five
5.1 Conclusions and recommendations
5.1.1 Conclusion
Everyone has liberty, in exceptional conditions lawful arrests and detentions are
allowed in various international, regional and domestic human right instruments. In principle,
the arrest of a suspect is the last step in a criminal investigation, and it is well known that a
suspect cannot be arrested before the investigation is completed. Even if arrested, the basic
right to bail, must be protected by international human rights conventions, the constitution,
and the procedural laws. As mentioned above, the investigating police arrested the suspect
and took him to court during the investigation. In principle, the suspect's right to bail is
temporarily extended, and he is required to provide the court with sufficient grounds for the
suspect to remain in custody for a limited period of time. The justifications for denying bail
to the arrestee that has connection with the investigative activity is the possibility of her
tampering with evidence, absconding and interfering with witnesses and thereby obstructing
the investigation process in other words, the investigating police officer must present to the
court the convincing case that the suspect is not on bail and will not conduct the
investigation. In principle remanding the suspect should not be considered as a best option,
before remanding the suspect justice organ has to look in to alternatives such as a promise to
submit to the proceedings and not to obstruct the investigation, periodic presentation before a
judicial authority or a designated authority, subjection to the care or supervision of a given
person or institution, prohibition on leaving a given area without authorization, withholding
of travel documents, Immediate separation from domicile in cases of domestic violence, Bail
bond, house arrest, electronic monitoring mechanisms in criminal matters and restorative
justice programs in criminal matters.

However, the data collected through interview, FGD, observation and court file
analysis clearly indicated that the most remand decisions do not attain the very purpose of
remand. The courts failure to consider the left-right wing argument, especially the police
has duty to show the possible interference or obstruction to the investigation and the
outcome of the investigation if the suspect is released on bail, in addition to this the police
has to state the specific time limit needed for investigation, the courts failure to monitor the
police's diligence in carrying out the details and lists of permits to investigate in order to meet

the purpose of remand, failure to listening to the suspects side of arguments before deciding
on remand and most importantly courts failure to present and examine a police investigation
file. Moreover, the courts failure to close the appointment record if the investigating police
negligently or unreasonably misuses the investigation deadline, giving appropriate discipline
and warning in advance not to jeopardize the public interest.

On the other hand, investigating police officer by using legal tricks asking for an unnecessary
remand not to release the suspect on very minor and less harm offenses and failure to enforce
the courts decisions to release the remands’ are apparent in the study area. In addition to the
above practical challenges deep rooted intervention of higher officials from executive wing in
some selected criminal cases in which the executives have interest are considered as
challenges on administration of bail rights, the interventions are reflected by giving direct or
indirect order to justice organ to unnecessarily remand suspects in custody. Finally, the
overhead practical problems on implementing remand law have clear implication on
exercising bail rights, which limits or n Recommendations

After critically analyzing the legal and practical issues concerning the practical
implication of remands on exercising the right to bail, the researcher suggests the following
recommendations towards reforming the remand practice and law in the study area. These
are:

 Outside of the police complaint letter to remand suspect in custody lideta High and
First Instance Courts have to decide on issues such as: Ensuring that the remand
intended to allow achieves its purpose, provide an investigation record and verify the
status, carefully determine why the remand is needed and how many days are
required, verify that there are no alternatives other than remanding, ensuring that it is
not based on improper trust in the police and the courts and is based solely on the law
and lastly the courts has to verify the person in which the remand requested is a real
suspect.
 Measure should be taken to reduce number of pre-trial detainees by applying
alternative measure to detention such as release on bail and strictly follow the law of
remand. Pre-trial detention must be last resort in criminal proceedings.
 Criminal justice system has been a long-standing trend of "arrest and investigate" as a
regular criminal investigation mechanism hence, the justice institution has to Strive
 to change this practice. In particular, the recent "prosecutor-led" criminal
investigation process by closely following criminal investigations, by providing the
necessary training to the investigating police is very important to attain the purpose
of remand.
 This study has found out that almost all of criminal suspects in the study area did not
know the right to appeal on remand orders. Therefore, awareness creation training is
crucial for society, particularly, to the suspect at least to exercise the right to appeal
on the lower court’s decision on remand.
 To ensure impartial and independent investigations are carried out, the one who
arrests and detains the suspects arbitrary in remand and cause any other violations of
rights of suspects must be subjected to disciplinary measures and criminal
proceedings as appropriate.
 The local justice institutions such as Police, Court and Public Prosecutor has to
recognizes the importance and purpose of a remand and strive to properly implement
the rules and regulations in an appropriate manner by practically developed practices
that do not conflict with the philosophy of law in order to fill the gaps.
 Regarding the law of remands in order to provide a lasting solution the provisions of
the Criminal Procedure Code and other laws Legislative reforms are needed to make
them more detailed and clearer.
 5.2 Bibliography
Books:
 A., Bryan Garner, black’s law dictionary 11th ed. (2019)
 C., Mike M.C. Conville and Wing Hong, Research Methods for Law (2nd edn,
Edinburgh University Press 2017) 51.
 D., Wondwossen Demissie; Ethiopian Criminal Procedure Text Book, (2012) (School
of Law, Addis Ababa University
 E., Dominguez Redondo, Role of the UN in the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights‖ in Rahman Chowdhury and Hossain Bhuiyan (eds.) An introduction to
international human rights law, (2010)
 F., Brown, M. F. (2001). Criminal Investigation: Law & Practice.2nd edition.
Butterworth-Heinemann,
 G., D Pascual, et al; Compensating acquitted pre-trial detainees; University of
Valencia Law School
 ICCPR Commentary, 2nd edition, Kehl/Strasbourg/Arlington, (2006)
 K., Darryl Brown, Jenia I. Turner, and Bettina Weisser, The Oxford Handbook of
Criminal Process, (April 2019)
 Pre-Trial Release and the Right to be Presumed Innocent: A Handbook on Pre-Trial
Release at International Law Lawyers Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) (March 2013)
 QC., Ben Emmerson QC and 2 more, Human Rights and Criminal Justice, 3rd edition,
sweet and Maxwell publisher, (July 2012)
 R., Ashworth and Mike, The Criminal Process, 4th edition, Oxford University Press,
(2010)
 V., Bottomley, 1970; Bottoms & McClean, 1976; Davis, 1971, defendants in the
criminal process
 W., John Walker, the outcomes of remand in custody orders, (1984)
 Z., Pieter van Dijk/Fried van Hof/Arjen van Rijn/Leo (eds.), (2006)
Journal articles and thesis:
 Addisu Gulilat, The Human Rights of Detained Persons in Ethiopia Case Study in
Addis Ababa, LLM thesis, Addis Ababa university, (2012)
 Awol Alemayehu Dana, Due Process Rights of Suspects During Pretrial and the
Existing Challenges Under the Legal Frameworks of Ethiopia, wolaita sodo
university, Vol.8, No.12, (2018)
 Chrisje Brants and Stijn Franken, The protection of fundamental human rights in
criminal process General report, utrecht law review, Vol.5, No.2
 David Bamford, Sue King and Rick Sarre, Factors Affecting Remand in Custody: A
Study of Bail Practices in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, (1999)
 Dr. Nilanchala Sethy, Right to Bail: A Jurisprudential Approach, International Journal
of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI), vol. 09(3), (2020)
 Ferede, A. N. (2019). Duration of Crime Investigation Quandary under Ethiopian
Criminal Justice System. Beijing Law Review.
 Fisaha Getachew, the respect for human rights in pre-trial criminal investigation,
LLM thesis, Addis Ababa university, (2015)
 Habtamu Tadesse, Arbitrary Pre-trial Detention: An Appraisal of the Practice and Its
Underlying Causes in Awi Nationality Administrative Zone, LLM thesis, Bahir Dar
university, (2019)
 Kelli Kilos, the Bail Justice in Ethiopia: Challenges of Its Administration, LLM
thesis, Addis Ababa University, (2011)
 Mikiyas Berkeley, Pre-Trial Proceedings of Post-Hatchel Detentions (Analysis of
Selected Cases)
 Reknit Katia, Limits of Preventive Detention, M.C. George Law Review, Vol. 40,
(2009)
 Roba Tsegaye, The Role of Federal Attorney General in Ensuring the Protection of
Pretrial Rights of Criminal Suspects in Ethiopia: The Law and Practice in Addis
Ababa. (2020)
 Simenon Kilos Assefa, Criminal Procedure Law Principles, Rules and Practices,
(2009)
 The Granting of Bail: Principles and Practice, modern law review vol. 31
 Tom Smith, Rushing Remand? Pre-trial Detention and Bail Decision Making in
England and Wales, the Howard Journal of Crimes and Justice, Vol. 60, No. 1 (2020)
 Domestic legislations:
 Criminal Code of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Negarit
Gazzeta, Proclamation No. 414/2004.
 Criminal Procedure Code of Ethiopia, Proclamation No 185/1961, Negarit. Gazzeta,
(1961)
 Federal Attorney General Proclamation Number 943 /2016, Federal Negarit Gazzeta
(2016)
 Federal Judicial Proclamation Administration Proclamation No. 1233(2021), Federal
Negarit Gazzetta (2021)
 Prevention And Suppression of Terrorism Crimes, Proclamation No. 1176/2020,
Negarit Gazzeta, (2020)
 Revised Anti-Corruption Special Procedure and Rules of Evidence (amendment),
Proclamation No. 882/2015, federal Negarit Gazzeta, (2015)
 federal Attorney general proclamation number 177/2018, SNNPR Negarit Gazzeta (2018)
 The Constitution of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation
No.1/1995, federal Negarit Gazzeta, (1995)

International Human Right Instruments:

 African charter on human and people’s rights (ACHPR), organization for African
unity, CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21, (1981)
 Convention against torture and other cruel, in human or degrading treatment or
punishment, (CAT), united treaty series, vol. 1465
 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, As Amended by Protocols Nos. 11 And 14, 4 November (1950)
 European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
 General assembly, united nations standard minimum rules for none-custodial
measures (Tokyo rules), Adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/110 of 14
December 1990
 Inter-American commission on the right of persons deprived of liberty
 International covenant on civil and political rights and fundamental freedoms,
(ICCPR), united nations, treaty series, vol.999, (1966)
 Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, (OPCAT) GA Res 57/199, UNCATOR, 2003,
UN Treaty Series, vol. 2375
 Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, (OPCAT) GA Res 57/199, UNCATOR, 2003,
UN Treaty Series, vol. 2375
 Pre-Trial Rights in Africa A Guide to International Human Rights Standards,
September (2016)
 The United Nations Minimum Rules of Non-Custodial Measures

Recommendations, communications, cases and others:

 ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Pre-trial Release, Standard 10(1), (10), the Role
of the Pre-trial Services Agency
 African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, Principles and Guidelines on
the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, para. M (1) (e).
 CAT, General Comment No.2, UN Doc. CAT/C/GC/2, p.3
 Communication No. 305/1988, H. van Alphen v. the Netherlands (Views adopted on
23 July 1990), in UN doc. GAOR, A/45/40 (vol. II), p. 115, para, 5.8
 Communication No. 458/1991, A. W. Mekong v. Cameroon (Views adopted on 21
July 1994), in UN doc. GAOR, A/49/40 (vol. II), p. 181, para. 9.8
 Communication No. 458/1991, A. W. Mekong v. Cameroon (Views adopted on 21
July 1994), in UN doc. GAOR, A/49/40 (vol. II), p. 181, para. 9.8
 Communication No. 754/1997, A. v. New Zealand (Views adopted on 15 July 1999),
in UN doc. GAOR, A/54/40 (vol. II), p. 254, para. 7.2.
 Communication No.759/1997, p. 254, para. 7.3
 Corbett Maori, Presentation to the South African Truth and Reconciliation
Commission (Truth and Reconciliation Commission Regular meeting, Port Elizabeth,
27 November 1996) [1998] SALJ 115,20
 Council of Europe, Recommendation on the Use of Remand in Custody, the
Conditions in which it takes place and the Provision of Safeguards against Abuse, No.
13, para.6 (2006)
 Council of Europe, Recommendation on the Use of Remand in Custody, the
Conditions in which it takes place and the Provision of Safeguards against Abuse,
No.13, para. 8(2); ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Pre-trial Release, Standard 10-
5.10(f) (2006)
 ECHR, Case of Chit Demerol v. Turkey (App No. 18623/03), para, 24-25
 ECHR, Case of Gratin v. Russia (App No. 14807/08), at para. 139
 ECHR, Case of Muller v. France (App No. 21802/93), at para. 44.
 Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention in
Africa (the Luanda Guidelines), Article, 11(a) (2), (2014)
 Hill and Hill vs. Spain (526/93), para. 9.7
 HR Committee: Communication No. 1178/2003, Alexander Smantser v. Belarus, at
para, 10.3
 HR Committee: Communication No. 526/1993, Hill v. Spain, at para. 12.3.
 HR Committee: Communication No. 66/1980, Schweizer v. Uruguay, at para. 18.1.
 HRC Communication No.1128/2002, Marques de Morays v. Angola, at para, 6.3-6.4
and HRC Communication No.1096/2002, Kurbanova v. Tajikistan, at para 7.2
 HRC Communication No.1787/2008, Kovsh v. Belarus, at para 7.3-7.5
 HRC Communication No.1914/2009, Musaev v. Uzbekistan, at para 9.3
 HRC General Comment No 13 para 7. See for example the case of Barbara, Message
and Jabardo v Spain, ECtHR Series A, No. 146, 6 December 1988, para 77
 HRC General Comment No 13, para 7. See also UDHR art 11(1).
 HRC General Comment No.20, dated 10/02/93, p.12
 Human Rights and Pre-trial Detention A Handbook of International Standards relating
to Pre-trial Detention, professional training series No.3, New York and Geneva,
(1994)
 Human rights committee decision, Hill v. Spain, Communication No. 526/1993, para.
12.3
 ICCPR General Comment No. 8: Right to liberty and security of persons, (30 June
1982), at Para, 3 Article. 9,
 International Standards relating to Pre-trial Detention, Para 42
 Mike M.C. Cornville and Wing Hong Chui, Research Methods for Law (2nd edn,
Edinburgh University Press 2017) 51.
 Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in association with the
International Bar Association (Human Rights and the Administration of Justice: A
Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers (United Nations),
(2003), p. 194
 Pretrial Detention and Torture: Why Pretrial Detainees Face the Greatest Risk a
Global Campaign for Pretrial Justice Report, (2011)
 Pre-Trial Rights in Africa A Guide to International Human Rights Standards,
September (2016)
 Pre-Trial Rights in Africa A Guide to International Human Rights Standards
September, (2016)
 Principles on Detention, Principle 36(2)
 Tokyo Rules, 84(2); Principles on Detention principle 36(1). HRC General
Comment No 13 para 7.
 UN Body of Principles on Detention, Principle 32, sentence 2, at para 2 and UN Body
of principles on detention, Principle 11, sentence 1, at para 1
 World Organization Against Torture and Others v Zaire (25/89, 47/90, 56/91 and
100/93) ACHPR, (March 1996)

Internet source:
 Catherine Heard and Helen Fair, Pre-Trial Detention and Its Over-Use Evidence from
Ten Countries (November 2019), available at https://prison studies.org>pre-trial
detention and its over-use, visited at March 29, 2021
 General assembly, united nations standard minimum rules for none-custodial
measures, (Tokyo Rules): resolution / 2 April, A/RES/45/110, available at:
http://www.refword.org/docid/3b00f22117.html [visited at 2 march 2021
 Liberty Human Rights, Extension of Pre-Trial Detention (PDF), retrieved 15
February 2021
 Liberty Human Rights, Terrorism Pre-Trial Detention: Comparative Law Study
Executive Summary retrieved 15 February 2021
 Pre-trial Detention (London: Penal Reform International), www.penalreform.org/pre-
trial-detention.html, visited at February 20, 2021
 Sampson Yao Akligoh, The Tax Base and the Dependency Ratio in the Less
Developed World, http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/tax_base.htm,
visited at February 16, 2021
 United nations, charter of the United Nations, 24 0ctober 1945,1 UNTS XVI,
available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3930.htlm [visited at 6 march
2021]
 Annexe-1 Data Collection Tools

1.1. English version of the Interview questions for respondents

I abebe worku is now conducting thesis research to earn the generic degree on the title of
„‟the An Assailment of the particles remand and custody ‟‟ from Ethiopian university school
of law. For this purpose, I guarantee you that the information’s collected through this
interview are confidential and shall only be used for academic purpose and shall not be given
or transfer to any other individual or organization.

Name (not mandatory) age work experience

---------------work responsibility---------------------- the time and place of conducting
interview educational status

Interview questions for public prosecutor

1. What are the practical An Assailment of the criteria to remand a suspect in custody?
2. Often the criminal suspects bring complain which says “the police officers are
banning our bail rights by making the court to decide on unnecessary remand” What
are the practical reasons for this?
3. As a public prosecutor, how do you observe the law and practice of remand? What
about from the perspective of investigative police officer? And the court?
4. Do the suspects who are aggrieved by the remand decision of the court request for
appeal? What are the rights frequently requested?
5. How do you see the advantages and disadvantage of determining total period of
remand period?
6. Do the investigative police officers request for unnecessary and repetitive remand?
What are the roles of public prosecutor at this time?
7. How do you see the personal familial impacts of making the suspect remain in
remand?
8. Do the executive organs from higher position intervene with regard to remand? In
which crimes?

9. Is there any occasion in which the police officers become unwilling to release the
suspect after the court has decided the suspect to be released on bail? What will be the
role of the public prosecutor in case of unwillingness by the police to release?
 Interview questions for judges

1. What kinds of criteria’s do you take to decide the criminal investigation to be

conducted while the criminal suspect remains in remand? How do you reconcile with
the right to be released on bail?
How does court What would it look like the request of compensation for the individuals whose
rights has been violated as a result of remand?
2. Do the courts bring and investigate the police officers file in addition to the remand
request complaints?
3. Under article 59(3) of the criminal procedure code, it says the court may grant 14
days of remand in each remand request by the police officer. How do you implement
this provision?
4. How do you see the personal familial impacts of making the suspect remain in
remand?
5. Do the police officers request remand by invoking those criteria‟s for banning bail
under the criminal procedure code? How do the courts look this?
6. Is there any occasion in which the police officers become unwilling to release the
suspect after the court has closed the remand file and decided the suspect to be
released on bail? What will be the remedy of the court in case of unwillingness by the
police to release on bail?
7. The FDRE constitution under article 19(4), it says the court may grant remand only
for the necessary time for the purpose of crime investigation. How do the courts
implement this provision?
Interview questions for attorneys

1. Most of the times the criminal suspects bring complain which says “the police officers
are banning our bail rights by requesting the court for remand.” What is your opinion
on this issue?
2. How do you evaluate the practice of remand laws by the police, public prosecutor and
the courts?
3. How do you evaluate the interference of the executive body and remand?
4. How do you see the advantage and disadvantage of limiting the remand time?
5. Is there a time in which courts grant remand for the mere fact of police request?
6. Is there a time in which the police officers become unwilling to execute the decision
of the court when the court close the remand file and decide the suspect to be released
on bail?
Interview questions for police

1. What are the prerequisites you brought to the court for crime investigation while by
making the suspect remain in remand?
2. Do the suspects in the police station request for the bail when they appear to the
court? What grounds does the police officer who needs additional time for
investigation invoke to oppose the bail request by the suspect?
3. Do the courts release the suspect on bail by rejecting the remand request by the
police?
4. Do the suspects always appear to the court when you bring the remand request?
5. What kinds of reasons do the police officers raise to the court to bring the remand
request?
6. Under article 59(3) of the criminal procedure code, it says the court may grant 14
days of remand in each remand request by the police officer. How do you implement
this provision?
Interview questions for the individuals whose rights are violated due to the
implementation of remand laws

1. How do you express the practice of remand laws by the police, public prosecutor and
the courts? And how do you evaluate the pressure by the executive organ?
2. Is there any right violated due to the enforcement of remand?