Former Ethiopian Supreme Court Justice Frehiywot Samuel urged concerned people to use every peaceful method to combat communist oppression. (James Fish/The Epoch Times)

Ladies and gentile men and honorable guests, first of I would like to thank everybody who organized this moment and gave me such opportunity. I feel honor to be here and address such special event and audience. I want to present especial thanks to Ms. Oliver whom I met her in parking lot of St. Thomas University and bridged me to Mr. Jian. Lastly had it not been for Jian's effort I wouldn't have been here.

My name is Frehiyowt Samuel Tuloro typical Ethiopian name. For those of you who are new about Ethiopia—it is a county in the horn of Africa neighboring to Kenya, Sudan and Somalia with population of more than 80 Million the biggest in Africa but next to Nigeria. I worked there as I started my career as a legal advisor to the Head of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPR) government, where I drafted laws and advocated for the rule of law.

In March 1998, I became a judge of the Supreme Court of the same regional State. I worked there until I left the Country. In addition to my duty as a judge in the Supreme Court, I had worked as a part-time lecturer at Awassa Beza College, and as a member and head of various committees in the regional State, and head of the Reform Office of the Supreme Court.

In addition to my presidency at the Supreme Court I also served as a Chairperson of the Supreme Court Plenum; Chairperson of the Regional Judicial Administration Commission; President of Constitutional Inquiry of the regional State; Member of Federal Steering Committee of National Legal Education Reform under the Ministry of Capacity Building, and part-time Instructor at the Justice Professionals Training

Ethiopia share some common ground with China and Cuba in terms of failed ideology of communism. We were under brutal dictator ship of communist Darge Regime which was supported by Cuban dictators and mainly Russians communists until they were overthrown by rebels (now they are government) who were also originally pro-communists, but they fine-tuned themselves after they realized it was too late to claim communism in the 1990's. I do not have problem with the way they fine-tuned themselves to the needs of the day.

We know that before the time of President Bill Clinton, the trade and other relation of the USA with China was more or less related to human rights.

We Ethiopians remember how difficult it was to be under dictatorial communist regimes. I remember at the time of communist 'Darge' I used to hear and saw extrajudicial killings, unwarranted search and arrest, and command economy where our neighbors and my Mom used to go to local government shop to get a kilo of Salt for each month. It was a time when farmers(my parents are farmers) were denied to sell their own crops at market price. They had some one to tell them how much and to whom they can sell and pay taxes.

If they didn't pay the tax a group of Militia would come and round up them and send them all to jail with out any due process. As a young boy I was always asking my Dad: " Who is doing this?" His answer was always the same, and short: "the government." I latter realized that the person who caused all those messes was known as 'the government'.

When I went to high school I, more specifically realized that, it is not simply a government but dictatorial communist government that caused all terrible things. It is not the concern of this audience to discuss about the communism as failed ideology. I am just trying to show the relevance Ethiopian human rights situation to Chinese and Cuban oriented human rights discussion.

Ethiopia is now under the leadership of communist mentality but pro-capitalist economy with the transitional democracy by name called "revolutionary Democracy". Like our Chinese friends who are governed by communist mind but pro-capitalist economy, though they are still far away to be called capitalists. For Cubans, it is obvious that they already ironically fall under communist family company—Castro—Castro the elder and his younger brother who owned the government like their private dining table. Having these scenarios, I will brief the human rights situation in Ethiopia and the lesson to be taken to move forward. To this audience it is not what happened in Ethiopia that matters but the lessons, if any. However, we have to know also that in the contemporary world human rights issues are no more the matter of national affairs.

In December 2005, in addition to my presidency at the Supreme Court, I was appointed as a Chairperson of the Independent Inquiry Commission established by law to investigate the disorder and chaos/riot that occurred in Addis Ababa (the capital) and some parts of Ethiopia following the May 2005 elections, which claimed life and loss of property. More than 200 people were killed by security forces, and many more injured.

The reason for the disorder and chaos was that opposition parties and the public at large especially in towns protested against the results of the election. The Ethiopian Federal Police, which initially handled the violence, presented its report on the crisis to the Ethiopian Parliament in October 2005.

However, the Parliament and the international community were not convinced by the police report (which was finally proved by the Inquiry Commission to be not true, and designed to cover up the mishandlings of the problem), and therefore called for an independent panel to investigate the actual nature and incidents of the case. That was why the Commission was established to investigate the authenticity of the police report on the abovementioned election crisis, and disclose the true nature of the government actions against the protesters based on verifiable and valid evidence as stated in the proclamation.

The Commission, which I chaired, conducted its investigation thoroughly for about seven months, the details of which need not be explained here.

We heard more than 1,300 witnesses, and collected, as well as examined 16,990 documents about the crisis. And finally, while eight of us including me decided that the Government had used excessive force, whereas two members of the commission decided in favor of the Government saying the action was not excessive. However, we all agreed that the human rights handling of the Ethiopian Government was not in conformity with the constitution and rule of law, thus we proved that Government was not respecting accepted human right standards.

We disclosed that 193 civilians were killed and 763 were wounded, mainly by live bullets. We also found that property valued at about 4.5 million birr was destroyed. On the other hand, the riot was partly peaceful and partly violent. Both during investigation of the government and after we gave decision I, as a chairperson in charge of investigating sensitive case, was under high pressure by government officials and intelligence. And I received more and more threatening phone calls.

After we gave the decision in July 2006, government officials and securities forces harassed my colleagues and I to force us to change the decision. As the pressure worsened, I fled the country to Germany for fear of persecution by the Government. After I fled the country, the remaining members of the Commission were forced to reverse the original decision.

At this time, I, as a Chairperson of the Commission, received international requests to speak about the original decision and how it was reversed. To this effect, I got an official invitation letter from Congressman Donald M. Payne, requesting me to testify before a U.S. Congressional Committee about the real situation and our findings.

On November 16, 2006 I testified before the United States Congress for more than an hour on how the Commission came to the conclusion that the Ethiopian Government had used excessive force, disregarded human rights standards and on how the government altered our original conclusion Due to such detail investigation and its results and pressure from Europe and the USA, the human rights situation in Ethiopia is moving bit forward, though not as fast as it should be, thus I feel the whole process of investigation have had some positive impact to help democracy and human rights move.

I know that to stand for justice and democracy costs a lot. In my case through my professional and ethical obligations to the rule of law and justice as a lawyer and a judge, and through my personal commitment to human rights, I realized that I have become a target of some Government officials.

I faced a clear, real and direct threat to my life.

I lost not only my job, through which I supported my elderly parents who are not able to work for themselves, but also my income through which I paid for the education of my siblings and hosted them. I also lost several opportunities to further my education, putting my entire career at risk.

Irrespective of the cost I incur, emotionally and financially, I don't regret rather I am proud to get proper cause to live and to die for it. The cause of justice and democracy, the cause of human rights, as the common denomination of all human race.

Again I would like to say that what we learn from the above case is that what matters. I imagine how much it would be difficult to our friends in China or Cuba to have discussions like this. To have human rights NGOS like this. China follow the policy of keeping away NGOs form their way and ironically speaking they shake the chair before NGOs be sited. In its 2005 report about Chinese government, Center for Applied Studies in International Negotiations stated:

" Besides repressing NGOs are perceived as dangerous for social stability, the Chinese government has been trying to incorporate less "threatening" NGOs with existing party-state structures. Incorporation is aimed at maintaining strict control of the registration and administration of NGOs. It has been achieved by applying restrictive legal requirements for the establishment and management of NGOs."

This report analyses how the Government of China is aware and concerned about the power base of NGO and how to control them. Thus, 'the government's main concern is to prevent the emergence of autonomous NGOs that could challenge the authority of the Chinese Communist Party'. For example, in China, "the government has deemed independent human rights reporting to constitute counterrevolutionary propagandizing and disclosure of important state secrets. Even mere reporting of events unfavorable to the government is considered disclosure of State secrets."

Actually the Chinese government has sued regional justification to negate universal application of human rights. On the days of Cold war the ideology cal difference between the East and West caused a lot of obstacles to the application of human rights in its Universality. After the end of the Cold War, still Asians under the coordination of China emerged with regional justification to resist the universal values.

Promotion of values of fundamental human right, according to the world conference on human rights, is universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, where non-western world, especially Asians, lead by Chinese government have clearly reserved from embarking on such standards rather they attempted to develop their own Asian values. I have no problem with Asian values but I would like to question Chinese government position and it political motive of trying to get cover under the regional value.

I strongly question the why Chinese government tempted to deny the Universality of human rights, though I am not of the opinion that the application of human rights should not consider regional particularities. For pro-Chinese position of Asian value proponents any criticism of their violation of Civil and political rights are considered as a criticism "based on specifically Western concept of human rights alien to and incompatible with the core values embedded in Asian culture and tradition and the west attempt to impose its own concept of human rights on Asia constitutes cultural imperialism."

They also argue that civil and political rights are not universally valid but peculiar to Western political culture and alien to Asian culture. They also 'claim that the top priority of developing countries is to assure their people of the Scio-economic rights to basic means of subsistence and that civil and political rights are luxuries that only the developed countries can afford to enjoy. However, according to World Human Rights Conference of 1993 all rights (say it civil, political, economic, social, or cultural) are equal, interdependent, indivisible.

I strongly question the Chinese lead agenda of "Asian Values" and the regional conference held to this effect in 1993 in Bangkok and adopted "Bangkok Declaration" just before abovementioned world human rights conference, which Chinese government used it as shield to defend itself from any human rights criticism. It is too late for Chinese government to challenge the Universality of Human rights. As 1993 Human Rights Conference stated it "The universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question."

As opposed to the idea of universality the following Chinese reply to UN Secretary General's (1992) request for regional promotion and protection of human rights speaks a lot about how much Chinese government is resistant to human rights as our common heritage and denominator. Part of the letter reads as"… a pattern of human rights safeguards evolving in any one region will only suit that region, and can't be treated as a standard to be imposed on other countries and regions. The Asian region has its own characteristics. Hence the Asian region neither should nor can slavishly imitate the regional human rights protection mechanisms of other regions…"

Now we have big question in front of us—What can we do?

It is not what we know that only matters but what we intended to do with our knowledge and our commitment to change the status quo that matters. It is our determination to shape the world, and an action to towards our common goal that matters. I am not undermining the knowledge we have rather I am asking one-step ahead for a cause of human rights. What can we do now? Knowing about human rights violations? Again knowing about human rights abuse? Knowing, knowing, knowing … I call for small step of action. Then we will let the action speak for itself as loud as our voice. I don't want to leave the audience with question what to do. Let me suggest few ideas that pump my mind. What can we do? When we answer this question we have to realize that there is no need to be a lawyer for human rights advocacy. There is no need of abstracting ideas surrounding human rights beyond the mind of ordinary citizens. I admit that sometimes we lawyer do that. Sometimes law is passed by ordinary men and abstracted by lawyers. Let us jump over the fence of abstraction and claim that every body is the lawyer to human rights cause. When we deal with such kind of cases of human rights abuse in China or somewhere else, we have to realize that, from the outset, human rights lawyering is not only legal matter, or sole advocacy, but it is paternalism, it is human rights activism which needs deep compassion and commitment than mere profession.

And to tackle the problem it needs to act in multiple range of ways. We have to be patient and compassionate enough to listen to the victims of human rights abuse in both China and elsewhere. And we have to identify who is the direct and indirect players on the case? Where and how these players can be accessed? What are the problems? and by which kind of strategy we do challenge them? What moral and legal imperatives do we have ?

In case of human rights law, every State has an obligation to respect, which means to abstain from any sort of interference with the free enjoyment of human rights; secondly they have obligation to protect citizens from being third party non-governmental interference to their human rights and finally States have obligation to insure/promote human rights.

We have to be sure whether we are requesting Chinese government to respect or protect or promote or all. Also we have to know that which actor does act that way, and for what reason? What the possible legal, political, social, and economical justification do the human rights violators have? We know that as mentioned above Chinese government uses Asian Value as fictitious cover for noncompliance to human rights standards.

We have to realize that also China is the fast growing one of super power that the can play positive role both in the region and in the world public order. We have to know that power matters, but for sustainable public order of human dignity it is the value that matters. Therefore, no one of us question the power of the Chinese government, but the inherent value in exercising the very power is subject to critics. We remember how the human rights concern of Darfur is undermined by Chinese government.

Today having these in mind we have to proceed to our specific goal to be achieved in a flexible and creative way. We have to have concrete cases against Chine's government to tell the world community. General condemnation is not enough, and generality have the risk of politicization. We know that all of us have been quoting ample of time the Tiananmen Square incidence for more than a decade, but it is not enough.

The major Players/actors/ both negative and positive around the problem of human rights in China and their respective role should be identified. Of course, the government of China is the main actor, but those governments around the world who kept silent are also responsible.

We have to analyze the position of the USA too. We know that before the time of President Bill Clinton (1994) the trade and other relation of the USA with China was more or less related human rights handling. Still the USA has strategic economic interest on China and vise versa. We have to analyze how to use such strategic interests to our advocacy.

We have to build alliance with other human rights bodies and activists.

We have to use every possible formal and informal communication mechanisms such as internet and postal messages. Any sort of Mass medias, journalists at even personal level and local and international news papers can be used as means for advocacy. Information dissemination to University and College students in all over the world, if not in the USA (in the USA yearly there are more that half million International Students attend their higher education) i.e. in short we can mobilize students and academicians, and human rights activists; technically such method of advocacy is called 'Shame Mobilization'.

Hollywood actors and athletes can have big voice more than some leaders of nations.

Direct protest at Chinese embassy allover the world can be an option also.

Informal and formal talks to government officials who have access to Chinese government should be always on the table.

To proceed any of the options above we have to be time conscious; everything and every plan has time factor. Now the whole world has given attention to China not for the case of human rights, but for the Olympic Sport. But we can make our agenda of human rights cause stand in front of every camera devoted to Olympic.

Thank you!!

Frehiywot Samuel Tuloro