Justice in south wollo zone law and practice i suth wollo zone | страница 12

CHAPTER THREE:
THE GAP BETWEEN THE LAW AND PRACTICE
The Ethiopian criminal procedure code is silent about the possibility of
putting leading question at the time of re-examination. In the court that I have
worked the externship there is no uniform practice in this regard. In some cases the
courtprohibit the parties from asking leading question at the time of
re-examination by referring the draft criminal procedure code. In other cases the
court allowed the parties to put leading question.
Moreover, in my theoretical knowledge I conceived that to prosecute the accused
person the public prosecutor should proof the commission of the crime beyond
reasonable doubt. But practically I have observed that sufficient evidence 9 is
enough to prosecute the accused. According to judge Ayalew Asfaw;
“there is no any provision that obliged the prosecutor to provide evidences
which can prove beyond reasonable doubt because Article 42/1 /a of the
criminal procedure code provides that no proceeding shall be instituted
where the public prosecutor is of opinion that there is not sufficient
evidence to justify a conviction. In the same manner we convict the accused
if the public prosecutor provides sufficient evidence i.e with out the need to
proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
For me the term sufficient evidence is something difficult to define or explain and it can never be the
standard to evaluate the weight of a given testimony. But as Judge Ayalew Asfaw told me sufficient
evidence(beki masreja) is to mean something which is a little greater than preponderance of evidence (50+1)
but much less than beyond reasonable doubt” . Based on the words of the judge shall we equate sufficient
evidence with the third mode of standard of proof which is called “clear and convincing evidence”?
9