URISDICTION AND PROCEDURE OF SETTLING IDENTITY CLAIM UNDER ETHIOPIA LAW: THE CASE OF WOLKAITE

Abstract

First of all it should be clear which group in a state has the status of a minority. If a treaty confers a right to a minority, other treaty or other groups cannot accept this definition. There is no one accepted definition of minority in international level. Holders of the rights under article 27 of ICCPR are; persons belonging to ethnics, religious or linguistic minority. It is the most well-known provision in international law regarding minorities. There are two type of protection mechanism in UN standards for the protection of minority rights. These are charter- based and treaty- based mechanism. The decline in the international concern for the protection of minorities were clearly visible. Neither the UN charter nor the Universal Declaration of Human rights did make any reference to minority rights. African charter does not provided about minority rights but the charter incorporate both individual and collective rights, so these rights can be applied minorities. The requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted prior to filling a compliant with the commission all available domestic judicial procedure must be used and completed. When we come Ethiopian legal system, identity claim has not clarity under FDRE constitution and proclamation number 251/2001 regarding jurisdiction and procedure, even if proclamation number 251/2001 try to indicate which organ entertain and what type of procedure is needed but it is not adequate to address all kinds of identity claim. Proclamation number 251/2001 concern identity claim within a region for self- administration propose. But wolkait Amhara identity claim is restoration and rejoin with Amhara regional state from separate Tigray regional state. This type of claim never entertain by proclamation 251/2001. So Tigray regional state has no jurisdiction to see the case of wolkait amhara identity claim. HOF has original jurisdiction to see the case of wolkait.