Authored By: Hewan Solomon
Addis Ababa University
Case Title & Citation:
Equality Now and Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association (EWLA) v. Federal Republic of Ethiopia
Communication 341/2007, African commission on Human and people’s rights (ACHPR)
Merits Decision Adopted: 4–18 November 2015, Banjul, The Gambia
Review Request Dismissed: 19 February–4 March 2020
Legal Citation: [2021] ACHPR 523 (14 October 2021) (ULII)
The Parties Involved:
- The complainants: Equality Now, an international NGO advocating for women’s rights, and the Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association (EWLA), a domestic NGO promoting women’s access to justice. They filed the case on behalf of Woineshet Zebene Negash, a thirteen-year-old Ethiopian girl who had been abducted and raped in 2001.
- The respondent: The Federal Republic of Ethiopia, accused of failing to protect Woineshet, provide justice, and fulfill its obligations under the African Charter and other human rights instruments.
Facts of the Case
Woineshet Zebene was born in 1987 and grew up in the Arsi zone of Oromia, Ethiopia. At the age of thirteen, in March 2001, she was abducted by a man named Aberew Jemma and several accomplices. Abduction for marriage was a common harmful traditional practice in rural Ethiopia at the time, particularly in Oromia and Amhara. During the abduction, she was raped and forced to stay with the perpetrators. Her family, however, intervened and secured her release with the help of local authorities.
Shortly after her release, Woineshet was abducted a second time by the same man and his accomplices. This time, the abductors attempted to force her into a marriage with her rapist, following the then-prevailing legal provision under the 1957 Ethiopian Penal Code, which exempted a man from prosecution for rape if he married his victim. Woineshet bravely refused the marriage. Her rejection of both the abduction and forced marriage was a rare act of defiance against entrenched cultural practices.
Despite her courage, the Ethiopian justice system failed to protect her. Although the perpetrators were initially arrested, they were later released, and local courts dismissed the charges. This failure highlighted both the inadequacy of the legal system and the persistence of cultural norms that undermined women’s rights.
Procedural history of the case
Domestic Proceedings:
After the initial abductions and rape, criminal charges were filed against Aberew Jemma and his accomplices. However, the Ethiopian courts dismissed the case, reflecting both judicial inefficiency and the influence of cultural norms that minimized the seriousness of abduction and rape.
At the time, Ethiopian law was especially problematic. The 1957 Penal Code contained Article 599, which allowed rapists to avoid prosecution if they married their victims. This provision institutionalized gender-based violence and effectively denied justice to survivors like Woineshet. While the Ethiopian Parliament eventually passed the 2004 Criminal Code, which eliminated the exemption and imposed stricter penalties for abduction under articles 586-589, these reforms arrived too late to provide justice for Woineshet in her particular situation.
Proceedings before the African Commission:
Frustrated by the lack of justice in Ethiopia, Woineshet, with the support of Equality Now and other advocacy groups, brought her case before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
She alleged violations of multiple provisions of the African Charter, including:
- Article 2 (freedom from discrimination),
- Article 3 (equality before the law),
- Article 4 (right to life and integrity),
- Article 5 (right to dignity),
- Article 18(3) (protection of women’s rights).
The Commission considered the admissibility of the complaint, finding that domestic remedies had been exhausted or were ineffective. It then proceeded to evaluate Ethiopia’s responsibility for failing to prevent, prosecute, and punish the acts of abduction and rape, and for maintaining discriminatory laws that violated the rights of women and girls.
Issue framed by the court
- Violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination: Woineshet’s treatment reflected systemic gender-based discrimination, as women and girls were disproportionately affected by abduction and rape practices.
- Right to dignity and protection from inhuman treatment: The abduction, rape, and attempted forced marriage amounted to cruel and degrading treatment, violating her fundamental dignity.
- Access to justice and effective remedy: The Ethiopian authorities failed to provide Woineshet with adequate judicial protection, violating both domestic legal obligations and international commitments.
- Conflict between domestic law and international standards: The exemption clause in the 1957 Penal Code, which allowed rapists to escape punishment through marriage, directly contradicted Ethiopia’s obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
Argument of the parties
Complaint’s Argument:
Equality Now and EWLA argued that Ethiopia’s justice system failed Woineshet. The appellate courts ignored medical evidence, contradicted the Penal Code presumption that minors cannot consent, and acquitted perpetrators in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner. They cited obligations under Article 1 of the African Charter to give effect to Charter rights. They also referenced Article 5 of CEDAW, requiring states to abolish harmful customs, and the Maputo Protocol, obligating measures against violence against women. They demanded compensation, systemic reforms, judicial training, and preventive strategies against marriage by abduction.
State’s Argument:
Ethiopia responded that abduction and rape were already criminalized under its Penal Code, showing compliance with its obligations. It argued no discrimination had occurred without proof of differential treatment. The State claimed that remedies had been provided, such as housing and employment opportunities for Woineshet, and that disciplinary actions had been taken against officials. Ethiopia further argued that EWLA had previously reached an amicable settlement with the government, rendering the matter resolved.
The Decision of the African Commission
In 2015, the African Commission delivered its decision, holding Ethiopia in violation of the African Charter. The Commission found that Ethiopia had failed to protect Woineshet’s rights to dignity, freedom from discrimination, equality before the law, and protection of women against harmful traditional practices. It emphasized that cultural traditions cannot justify violations of fundamental human rights.
The Commission ordered Ethiopia to:
- Provide adequate compensation to Woineshet for the harm suffered,
- Take steps to align domestic laws with international human rights obligations,
- Implement measures to eradicate abduction and forced marriage practices,
- Strengthen the capacity of the judiciary and law enforcement to handle cases of sexual violence effectively.
By framing the decision in this manner, the Commission underscored the principle that the rule of law and human rights protections must prevail over cultural or traditional practices that endanger individuals, particularly children and women. This ruling marked a watershed moment in African human rights jurisprudence, establishing a clear precedent that States cannot invoke customary practices to evade their obligations under the African Charter and must actively protect the rights and dignity of all citizens.
Impact and Significance
The Woineshet case had several important consequences both domestically and internationally.
First, it highlighted Ethiopia’s shortcomings in protecting women’s rights and compelled the government to revisit harmful provisions of its Penal Code. Although the 2004 Criminal Code had already abolished the marital exemption for rape, the Commission’s ruling reinforced the need for strict implementation and accountability.
Second, the case sent a powerful message across Africa about the obligation of states to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, even when such violence is rooted in cultural practices. By holding Ethiopia accountable, the Commission underscored that cultural relativism cannot justify violations of human rights.
Third, the case had symbolic importance for survivors of sexual violence in Ethiopia and beyond. Woineshet’s courage in rejecting forced marriage and in pursuing justice, despite systemic barriers, made her a role model in the fight against gender-based violence. Her story inspired advocacy campaigns and contributed to greater public awareness about the need to end abduction for marriage.
Finally, the case contributed to the development of African human rights jurisprudence. It demonstrated the African Commission’s willingness to hold states accountable for gender-based violence and set a precedent for future cases involving the intersection of law, culture, and women’s rights.
Critical Analysis
The Woineshet Zebene case underscores the complex interaction between law, culture, and human rights in Ethiopia. On the one hand, Ethiopia had ratified key international treaties protecting women and children, including CEDAW and the CRC. On the other hand, domestic laws and practices lagged behind these commitments. The failure of Ethiopian courts to deliver justice to Woineshet revealed a gap between formal legal reforms and their implementation.
The case also exposes the limitations of relying solely on international or regional human rights bodies. While the African Commission’s ruling was a victory, enforcement mechanisms remain weak, and compliance depends largely on the goodwill of states. In Ethiopia, implementation of the Commission’s decision has been inconsistent, raising questions about the effectiveness of regional human rights mechanisms.
Nevertheless, the symbolic and jurisprudential value of the case cannot be overstated. It provides a framework for activists, lawyers, and policymakers to push for further reforms. It also illustrates the power of individual cases in advancing broader social change.
Conclusion
The case of Woineshet Zebene Negash v. Ethiopia is a landmark in the struggle for women’s rights in Africa. It shows both the deep challenges posed by harmful traditional practices and the potential of international human rights mechanisms to bring about change. While Ethiopia has made progress by reforming its laws, the case highlights the ongoing need for effective implementation, cultural transformation, and accountability.
