Amanuel Adise v. Public Prosecutor of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional Government

Amanuel Adise v. Public Prosecutor of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional Government 

Criminal Cassation File No. 93762 

Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench of Ethiopia 

Yekatit 28, 2006 E.C. (March 7, 2014 G.C.) 

Court Name & Bench 

• Court Name: Federal Supreme Court of Ethiopia — Cassation Bench
• Judges: Tegene Getaneh; Almaw Wole; Reta Tolosa; Adane Neguse; Mustefa Ahmed
• Bench Type: Cassation Bench (Five-Judge Division Bench) 
• Judgment Date: Yekatit 28, 2006 E.C. (Ethiopian Calendar) – which corresponds to early March 2014 (Gregorian Calendar) 
• Appellant (Petitioner): Amanuel Adise – the defendant in the original criminal trial, convicted of rape and now seeking review on cassation. 
• Respondent: Public Prosecutor of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional Government – the state prosecutor representing the government (the prosecution in the criminal case). 

(Note: The private complainant/victim in the case was a minor named Betelhem Gebre, but the formal party in the appeal is the Public Prosecutor.) 

Facts of the Case 

• Background: The case arises from a criminal charge of rape and abduction of a minor. On Tir 05, 2005 E.C. (around January 2013 G.C.), the appellant Amanuel Adise, together with two other co-accused (Tafese and Temesgen Ayele), was alleged to have forcibly abducted a child victim, Betelhem Gebre, and raped her at a place called “Mari Wora” around 6:00 p.m. 
• Trial Proceedings: The Public Prosecutor filed charges in the Sodo City First Instance Court (SNNPR) under Article 627(1) of the Ethiopian Criminal Code, which criminalizes sexual intercourse with a female child under 13 years of age. During the trial, Amanuel Adise initially stated he had no defense and confessed under oath to having committed the act. The prosecutor nonetheless proceeded to call the listed witnesses to support the charge. The defense also presented witnesses afterward. 
• Conviction and Sentence: After evaluating the evidence from both sides, the First Instance Court found Amanuel guilty as charged under Criminal Code Article 627(1)(sexual outrage against a child under 13). In sentencing, the court considered aggravating and mitigating factors and applied the Federal Sentencing Guideline. The appellant was sentenced to 19 years of rigorous imprisonment. 
• Appeals: Amanuel Adise appealed to the Wolaita Zone High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence (affirming the First Instance Court’s decision). He then sought a further review (cassation) by the SNNPR Regional Supreme Court, but that cassation petition was dismissed (not admitted). 
• Federal Cassation Petition: The appellant subsequently filed a cassation application to the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench (File No. 93762), claiming a fundamental error of law in the lower courts’ decisions. The Federal Cassation Bench admitted the case for review, noting a potential legal error regarding the application of the correct criminal law provision given the victim’s age. Both parties were directed to submit written arguments for the cassation review. 

Issues Raised 

The key legal issue identified for determination by the Cassation Bench was: 

• Proper Legal Provision & Proof of Victim’s Age: Did the lower courts commit a fundamental error of law by convicting the appellant under Criminal Code Article 627(1) (sexual offenses against a child under 13) without definitive proof of the victim’s age being under 13? In particular, was the victim’s age established on the record to justify conviction under Article 627(1), or should the appellant’s conduct have been charged and assessed under a different provision of the Criminal Code (such as Article 620 or 626, which address rape/sexual offenses against minors above 13)? 

(The Cassation Bench’s review focused on whether the correct criminal law provision was applied in light of the victim’s age, since this determination affects the legality of the conviction and the applicable punishment.) 

Arguments of the Parties 

• Appellant (Amanuel Adise): The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction was reached in error because the prosecution had not proved the victim’s age with reliable evidence to meet the requirements of Article 627(1). The appellant contended that the victim’s age was not as stated in the charge (which alleged she was under 13), and despite the defense raising this objection, the courts failed to properly ascertain her age. He maintained that convicting him under Article 627(1) (child sexual outrage) was inappropriate without proof that the complainant was under 13. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the evidence of rape itself was insufficient or not credible – claiming that the victim’s testimony was unreliable and that the medical evidence was weak (noting that the medical report contained information simply recorded from whatthe victim said). Essentially, he asserted that no forceful rape was convincingly proven and that he was wrongly influenced into a confession. Finally, he argued that the sentencing was improper and not in accordance with the law or the evidence (since it was based on the wrong charge), and he urged the Cassation Bench to thoroughly review and correct these errors. 
• Respondent (Public Prosecutor of SNNPR): The state, through the public prosecutor, argued in support of the lower courts’ decisions. The prosecution maintained that sufficient evidence demonstrated the appellant’s guilt in forcibly abducting and raping the minor victim. This included the appellant’s own sworn confession in trial, along with witness testimonies and the victim’s account, which together satisfied the required standard of proof for rape. Regarding the victim’s age, the prosecutor had proceeded on the basis that the victim was a young minor and treated the case under Article 627(1). It was argued (implicitly) that the victim’s age was within the range justifying the charge – the charge sheet identified her as a child, and the prosecution did not present a separate medical age verification, instead asserting the age to be about 13. The prosecutor contended that given the victim was clearly a minor and the sexual act was non-consensual, the appellant’s conduct fell under the intended scope of Article 627(1) (sexual outrages against a child) or at least under the provisions protecting minors from rape. The Respondent thus submitted that no legal error was made in applying the law, and the 19-year sentence (within the 15–25 year range provided by Article 627(1)) was appropriate considering the gravity of the offense. All in all, the prosecution urged that the conviction and sentence be upheld, arguing that the appellant’s claims were merely factual disagreements not subject to review on cassation, since the Cassation Bench is limited (by Article 80(3)(b) of the FDRE Constitution and Proc. No. 25/1988 Art. 11) to correcting fundamental errors of law rather than re-assessing evidence. 

Judgment 

The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench found that the lower courts committed a fundamental legal error by convicting the appellant under Criminal Code Article 627(1) (sexual outrage against a child under 13) without reliable proof of the victim’s age being under thirteen. 

After carefully examining the record, the Cassation Bench held that the evidence established that the victim was between 13 and 18 years old, not below 13. 

Accordingly: 

• The appellant’s act did not fall under Article 627(1) or Article 626 but instead constituted rape under Article 620(2)(a) — rape aggravated because the victim was between 13 and 18 years of age and the act was committed by force. 
• The previous conviction and sentence of 19 years were modified.
• Applying the Federal Supreme Court Sentencing Guideline, considering one mitigating factor (no prior criminal record), the Cassation Bench determined the appropriate punishment to be 11 years of rigorous imprisonment. 

Final Orders 

1. The prior decisions of the Sodo City First Instance Court (File No. 011023), Wolaita Zone High Court (File No. 2449), and Regional Supreme Court Cassation Bench (File No. 01940) are amended. 
2. The appellant is declared guilty under Criminal Code Article 620(2)(a), not under Articles 32/1/a and 627/1. 
3. The appellant is sentenced to 11 years’ rigorous imprisonment. 
4. The Gamo Gofa Zone Correctional Administration is ordered to execute the sentence accordingly. 

Legal Reasoning 

• Scope of Cassation Power: 

The Bench reaffirmed that its jurisdiction is limited by FDRE Constitution Article 80(3)(b) and Proc. No. 25/1988 Art. 11 to reviewing fundamental errors of law, not to re-assessing factual matters or evidence. 

• Proof of Age as a Legal Element: 

Because Article 627(1) applies only to children under 13, the victim’s age is a constitutive element of the crime. The prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish that fact with credible evidence. Failure to prove the victim’s age renders conviction under Article 627(1) legally unsustainable. 

• Re-classification of the Offense: 

The Cassation Bench found that, although the evidence confirmed forced sexual intercourse without consent, there was no proof the victim was under 13. Thus, the conduct falls within Article 620(2)(a), which criminalizes rape committed against a person aged 13–18, punishable by 5 to 20 years. 

• Sentencing Principles: 

Using the Federal Supreme Court Sentencing Guideline, the Bench identified the offense as grave (Rank 32), acknowledged a single mitigating factor (no prior record), and applied the required three-rank reduction (to Rank 29), yielding a sentencing range of 10–12 years. Exercising judicial discretion, the court imposed 11 years. ● Doctrine Applied: 

The court invoked the principle of legality (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege)—a person cannot be punished under a statute unless every legal element of that statute is proven.

Conclusion 

The Cassation Bench’s decision in Amanuel Adise v. Public Prosecutor (File No. 93762) holds major significance in Ethiopian criminal jurisprudence for several reasons: 

1. Clarification of Legal Provisions: 

The judgment draws a clear distinction between Article 627 (sexual outrage against children under 13) and Article 620(2)(a) (rape of minors aged 13–18). It emphasizes that courts must accurately determine the victim’s age before applying the relevant provision of the Criminal Code. 

2. Burden of Proof on the Prosecution: 

The Court reaffirmed that it is the prosecutor’s duty to prove the victim’s age with reliable and independent evidence, such as medical certificates, school records, or birth documents. Unsupported estimations are insufficient for conviction under Article 627. 3. Scope of Cassation Review: 

The Cassation Bench reaffirmed its limited jurisdiction—its role is confined to correcting fundamental errors of law, not reassessing facts or re-weighing evidence established by lower courts. 

4. Proportionality and Sentencing Correction: 

By reclassifying the offense under the appropriate provision (Article 620(2)(a)) and reducing the sentence from 19 years to 11 years, the Bench demonstrated the principle of proportional justice—ensuring that punishment aligns with both the law and the proven facts. 

5. Judicial Guidance for Future Cases: 

This decision serves as an important precedent for trial and appellate courts in Ethiopia, reinforcing the importance of legal precision, evidentiary integrity, and fair sentencing within the framework of criminal justice.