Mengistu Convicted of Genocide in Absentia

Ethiopia’s former dictator, Mengistu Haile Marian, has been convicted in absentia of genocide following a 12-year trial involving 72 defendants. All but one were found guilty; 34 defendants were present in court, while 25 were tried in absentia. Sentencing, which will almost certainly result in a death sentence for Mengistu, is set for December 28. Regardless, the exercise is academic: Zimbabwe has categorically refused to extradite Mengistu to Ethiopia.

There is little question that Mengistu is guilty of many of the atrocities with which he was charged. Here, for example, is Human Rights Watch’s description of the “Red Terror” that was at the heart of the case:

In 1976 Col. Mengistu gave a dramatic send-off to a campaign of terror that he officially dubbed the “Red Terror.” He threw to the ground before a huge crowd in the capital Addis Ababa bottles filled with a red substance representing the blood of enemies of the revolution: the “imperialists,” and the “counter-revolutionaries,” as members of rival leftist groups were labeled by the Dergue. In particular, the campaign targeted students and young people suspected of membership in the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP). Thousands of young men and women turned up dead in the streets of the capital and other cities in the following two years. They were systematically eliminated mainly by militia attached to the “Kebeles,” the neighborhood watch committees which served during the Dergue period as the lowest level local government and security surveillance units. The Kebeles required families to reimburse the administration for the price of bullets used to kill victims when they reclaimed their bodies for burial.

The process of eliminating the “counter-revolutionaries” was quite organized. Each neighborhood committee would meet to discuss how to eliminate individual suspects, and each member would sign on documents to confirm the decision reached at the meeting. Copies of the document would be sent to different levels of the administrations and the party apparatus. The centralized killing enterprise thus left mountains of documentary evidence of its crimes.

Cold war rivalries helped the Dergue to flourish and tighten its hold on power. It became the main client of the Soviet block in Africa, and received massive shipments of arms to help it counter serious challenges from several armed insurgencies by ethnic and regional liberation movements seeking to break away from centuries of centralized hegemony by Ethiopia’s ruling elite. The counter-insurgency campaigns unleashed by the Dergue were characterized by widespread violations of international humanitarian law. Civilians were deliberately targeted and fell victims by the hundreds of thousands as a result of the indiscriminate violence against them.

When famine in 1984 hit areas in northern Ethiopia partially held by rebels of the Tigray and Eritrean People’s Liberation Fronts (TPLF and EPLF respectively), Mengistu’s government for a while blacked out information about the famine. It later used the disaster as a pretext to forcibly relocate hundreds of thousands of villagers from northern Ethiopia to areas in the south. The Dergue argued that its “villagization” campaign, as it came to be known, was meant to relocate people from food deficient areas to the fertile plains of the south. In reality, the move was meant to empty rebel-held areas form potential supporters. Again, victims of government action during the forced relocation were in the hundreds of thousands. A 1991 Human Rights Watch report, “Evil Days: 30 years of war and famine in Ethiopia,” gives a detailed account of this dark period in Ethiopia’s recent history during which it is estimated that at least half a million civilians were killed as a result of the Dergue actions.

That said, Ethiopia’s decision to prosecute Mengistu in absentia is troubling. Although Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR — which Ethiopia has ratified — provides that “[i]n the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled… [t]o be tried in his presence,” the Human Rights Committee has said that trials in absentia may be held “exceptionally for justified reasons.” Such trials, however, require “strict observance of the rights of the defence.” In particular, the burden of proof must be on the Prosecutor to prove that the defendant did not appear because he was trying to evade justice, and the defendant must be entitled to a new trial once he is located (Colozza v. Italy).

The first requirement is unproblematic, because there is no question that Mengistu fled to Zimbabwe to avoid being brought to justice. The second requirement is a different story. There has been no suggestion that Mengistu would receive a new trial if Zimbabwe extradited him, and the Human Rights Committee also held in Colozza that appellate review of a conviction obtained in absentia does not satisfy the ICCPR.

I would like nothing more than to see Mengistu tried, convicted, and punished (though not by death) for his crimes. And I am glad that the Zimbabwean opposition has called for his extradition. But Mengistu’s right to international due process must be respected. Zimbabwe should extradite him — but only after obtaining a written guarantee from Ethiopia that he will receive a new trial.