An truly independent investigation into Ethiopian abuses is needed Human rights

A pig and a chicken together open a breakfast restaurant, and their specialty is bacon and eggs. What is it between a chicken and a pig? The chicken is involved, but the pig is compromised. For the chicken, the easy job of the day is just laying a few eggs. But for the pig, it’s a lifelong commitment to give up bacon.

This well-known business fable is perhaps the best illustration of the dynamics behind the investigation by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OCHHR) and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) into “international human rights, human rights and alleged human rights violations”. “Refugee law made by all parties to the conflict in the Tigray region of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.”

Like the chicken, the UN human rights office was only “involved” in this investigation. He had a lot to gain – he was apparently doing something to do justice to the victims of the bloody conflict – but little to lose. The EHRC, on the other hand, was really committed. After all, although it is a legally “autonomous” federal organization, the EHRC is part of the Ethiopian government; its existence depends on federal funding and its commissioners share the vision of the Ethiopian government. In other words, for the EHRC, arguably, defending the Ethiopian government in this investigation was a lifelong commitment.

Because of this perception, many in Ethiopia and abroad — especially those who do not support the Ethiopian government’s accounts of the war — opposed from the outset the UN’s decision to involve the EHRC in its investigation into the Ethiopian war. In response to questions about why he chose to collaborate with EHRC Tigray, the OHCHR said it agreed with this agreement because it was the only way for its researchers to enter Ethiopia and assess the situation on the ground.

This argument, however, did not alleviate the concerns. People reasonably questioned what the use of cruelty research with the help of alleged perpetrators and under established conditions could be. Some went so far as to argue that an investigation into the EHRC was nothing more than a whitewashing exercise for the Ethiopian government. Releasing reliable reports of systemic sexual violence, hunger, widespread looting and infrastructure destruction coming from Tigray, critics said an investigation into the EHRC could not get uncensored testimonies from victims fearing government reprisals and therefore would not be approached. to establish the truth even less to name the perpetrators.

Joint Research Report published on November 3, unfortunately, gave reason for criticism.

The report inevitably found evidence of serious abuses, some of which could be war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, he did not come close to learning about the full extent of the catastrophe suffered by the Tigris at the hands of Ethiopian government forces and their allies since last November.

The report spoke of “killings and executions, widespread sexual violence, torture, forced displacement, arbitrary detention, violations of economic, social and cultural rights and denial of access to assistance,” but largely did not establish the details and broad scope of these crimes. .

There was a reason behind the inability to talk in detail and certainty about the alleged atrocities committed in Tigray: the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), despite the involvement of the EHRC, had no access to the alleged geographical area. cover and where most crimes are believed to have been committed.

In fact, as the report calls it “challenges and restrictions,” JIT was unable to access most sites of cruelty. As a result, he did not take into account all the credible reports of savagery from areas such as Axum, Abi Addi, Hagere Selam, Togoga, Irob, Adwa, Adigrat, Hawzen, Gijet and Mariam Dengelat.

And even in the areas where JIT had access, the victims were reluctant to speak out; they did not believe in the impartiality of the investigation team and were afraid that they might suffer government compensation if they mentioned the crimes committed against them. EHRC staff.

In fact, the report itself cites, as one of the challenges JIT had in gathering evidence, “the perception of bias against the EHRC in some parts of Tigray.” The report explains that “potential interviewees refused to be interviewed by JIT because of the presence of EHRC staff.”

In addition, extensive interviews with UN refugees in the Sudanese refugee camps in November-December 2020 have not been included in the latest UN / EHRC report. The UN has mentioned these talks in its regular regional updates, but has so far given no explanation as to why it decided to exclude these important testimonies from the UN / EHRC report.

Without visiting all the sites of atrocities, interviewing a large number of victims from different places, and without including the testimonies of Tigrinya refugees in Sudanese camps in its latest report, the UN violated the main principle of focusing research on victim abuse and cruelty.

The main intentions of independent investigations into cruelty should be to establish the truth of what happened, to give a voice to the victims, to create conditions for accountability to the perpetrators, and to end impunity.

However, the UN / EHRC’s investigation into human rights abuses in Tigray did not achieve any of these objectives. In addition to not giving a word to the majority of the victims of this conflict, the Ethiopian government laid the groundwork for its forces and allies to avoid accounts of the atrocities committed in Tigray.

In fact, more paragraphs in the latest UN / EHRC report call for the suspension, reconciliation and capability of enemies, rather than an impeachment and an end to impunity.

Moreover, it seems that the report takes the word of the Ethiopian government to hold all its perpetrators, including the government itself, accountable for the atrocities committed in Tigray. “International mechanisms are complementary to national mechanisms and do not replace them,” the report says. “In this regard, JIT was told that national bodies such as the Office of the Federal Attorney General and military justice bodies have started proceedings to hold the perpetrators accountable, some of whom have already been tried and punished.”

It is strange that the UN believes that the Ethiopian National Defense Forces and the Attorney General of the Ethiopian government can hold them accountable. The Ethiopian National Defense Force is the main party in the war, and the chief prosecutor, like the EHRC, has no independence from the prosecution to hold Ethiopian government officials accountable.

The UN lacks the experience to conduct independent and balanced research on wild, complex and diverse conflicts. He has set up numerous independent research committees and international missions around the world and commissioned them to investigate atrocities and recommend corrective actions based on their findings. From Burundi, South Sudan and Gaza to Syria, Libya and Lebanon, such investigations allowed victims to express their truth, and ensured the legal and political responsibility of the perpetrators. Moreover, extensive reports from these investigations served as historical records of serious crimes, stood the test of time, and prevented revisionist tendencies.

In the Ethiopian conflict, however, the UN’s efforts to clarify the truth and hold it accountable did not meet all established standards. The UN / EHRC report not only established the truth of Ethiopia’s ongoing bloody conflict, but also caused many of those affected by these atrocities to lose confidence in the UN.

But it is not too late for the UN to address the many shortcomings in Ethiopia.

The joint report itself emphasizes the need for more research and accountability. Now, the UN should start working to establish and support a fully independent international investigative mechanism that can conduct meaningful research, listen to all victims, not some, to store evidence for future trials, and facilitate real accountability.

Tigris and Ethiopians in general deserve nothing less.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.