{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010824313072439634, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006661115736885929, 'mean_word_length': 5.040201005025126, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comment: The Preliminary Inquiry in Ethiopia and Its Adverse Impact on the Rights of the Accused

Whether preliminary inquiry should be conducted following completion of criminal investigation was one of the issues that arose in criminal proceedings of leaders of some opposition parties who were arrested (in June and July 2020) following the assassination of Hachalu Hundessa. The Court accepted the request of the Office of the Attorney General for the holding of preliminary inquiry. While the request of the Office of the Attorney General and the ruling of the court are consistent with the 1961 Criminal Procedure Code, in view of the unique nature of the Ethiopian Preliminary Inquiry, both the request and the ruling adversely affect the right of the accused to a fair trial. The application of the law regulating preliminary inquiry would be a departure from the principle of equality of arms and the right of the accused to confrontation, both of which are elements of the right to a fair trial. It is argued (in this comment) that using evidence obtained during preliminary inquiry against the accused is inconsistent with the FDRE Constitution and relevant international legal instruments.