Access to Justice as a Human Right in Ethiopia: Challenges and Pathways to Reforms

Author: Telila Berhanu Amenu

January 28, 2026

A Comprehensive Approach

The concept of access to justice extends far beyond the mere ability to access courts or legal institutions.^[1] It encompasses both legal and social dimensions, ensuring that individuals have the means to effectively protect their rights, seek remedies for grievances, and participate in legal processes in a fair and equitable manner.^[2] In both legal and social terms, access to justice represents a broader right that includes not only the physical and procedural access to courts but also the availability of legal resources, information, and fair treatment within the justice system.^[3]

[Image credit: Freepik]

Legal Dimension of Access to Justice

Legally, access to justice refers to the ability of individuals to engage with the formal legal system to resolve disputes and protect their rights.^[4] This includes the right to initiate legal proceedings, defend oneself in court, and obtain legal remedies in cases of harm or injustice. Central to this is the availability of legal representation, often in the form of legal aid for those who cannot afford it, ensuring that the wealthy do not have an unfair advantage over the poor in accessing justice.^[5] Mauro Cappelletti and Bryant Garth describe effective access to justice as the most basic requirement, the most basic human right  of a modern  legal system. ^[6]

Furthermore, access to justice legally involves fair procedures, which include the right to a fair trial, the right to be heard, and the right to an impartial and independent judiciary. These elements are crucial for ensuring that legal decisions are made based on facts and law, not on bias or external pressures. International human rights instruments, such as Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)^[7], emphasize the right to a fair trial and access to legal representation, underscoring the legal framework that should guarantee access to justice.

Social Dimension of Access to Justice

The social aspect of access to justice goes beyond legal representation and formal court proceedings. It recognizes that accessing justice is not just about entering the courtroom, but also about having the resources, information, and support systems necessary to navigate complex legal systems. Many individuals, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, face significant social barriers that prevent them from accessing justice, including lack of legal knowledge, cultural or language barriers, and fear or distrust of the legal system.

The social dimension of access to justice has evolved significantly, expanding to address new types of injustice that were previously overlooked. Issues faced by migrants, asylum seekers, and other marginalized groups are now recognized as critical components of access to justice.^[8] As societal expectations grow, so does the realm of injustice, leading to what Galanter describes as a "moving frontier of injustice."^[9] This concept suggests that as injustices increase, they do not necessarily decrease elsewhere; instead, they grow together, reflecting the expanding complexity of human society and its issues.

Scholars like Cappelletti and Garth recognized early on that legal strategies alone would not adequately address the challenges faced by the poor. They argued that solutions would require a combination of legal and non-legal methods, shifting the focus of access to justice toward a more citizen-centered and community-focused system. In this context, current concerns regarding access to justice go beyond merely providing access to courts. They aim to promote social inclusion by extending the definition of access to justice to include mechanisms that help integrate marginalized groups into society. This evolving approach aligns with Cappelletti and Garth's third wave of access to justice, which focuses on expanding justice beyond formal legal processes to include social inclusion initiatives that better serve the needs of vulnerable populations.^[10]

Along with the recognition of social rights, there has been a growing acceptance of a social dimension to the concept of access to justice. This means that justice must also encompass social justice: the idea that justice is not only about legal procedures but also about addressing the broader social inequalities that hinder true fairness. Equal justice, in most discussions, is thought to imply equal access to the justice system, with the assumption that social justice can be achieved through procedural justice. However, this assumption does not always hold true, and it is argued that it is unrealistic to rely solely on legal processes to achieve social justice.

As Arthurs correctly points out, systemic causes of injustice whether social, economic, or cultural must be addressed to create meaningful change.^[11] Legal remedies, while important, may only offer partial solutions to deeply rooted issues. Instead of focusing solely on individual legal cases, true justice may require broader societal mobilization. Justice, therefore, has come to mean more than just the operation of legal systems; it has evolved into a powerful tool for political and social change. The idea of justice has become a banner for social movements, advocating for systemic transformation rather than merely resolving individual disputes. This reflects a shift towards a more holistic understanding of justice, one that integrates legal and social dimensions to address the root causes of inequality.^[12]

Legal information and education are fundamental in this regard. For people to effectively assert their rights, they must understand the legal options available to them and how to navigate the judicial system. Community-based initiatives, legal literacy programs, and outreach efforts are vital in ensuring that individuals, especially those from marginalized groups, have the tools and knowledge needed to access justice.^[13] Additionally, informal legal structures such as community based dispute resolution mechanisms, mediation, and other alternatives to court can be crucial for providing access to justice in areas where formal systems may be inaccessible or unresponsive.^[14]

Access to justice also requires fair treatment within legal institutions. Discrimination, whether based on race, gender, socio-economic status, or other factors, remains a significant obstacle to justice. For marginalized groups, systemic biases within the legal system may prevent them from receiving fair and impartial treatment.^[15] Therefore, ensuring access to justice also involves addressing these social inequalities, through policies and practices that promote inclusivity, eliminate biases, and foster trust in the justice system.

The concept of equality plays a central role in this expanded view, strengthened by the recognition of human rights. Both in individual jurisdictions and across entities like the European Union, the right to a fair trial is guaranteed, and this right is often framed within broader human rights provisions. These human rights frameworks, guiding legal practice and procedure, increasingly shape access to justice. Zuckerman underscores that being treated as an equal is a fundamental requirement of justice. This principle demands that no litigant faces procedural discrimination, meaning that all individuals are subject to the same standards of fairness and have equal opportunities to present their case, free from bias or undue disadvantage.

The concept of equality has been significantly reinforced by the acknowledgment of human rights and the growth of a human rights culture. Equal justice, in most discussions, is equated with equal access to the justice system, with the underlying assumption that social justice can be achieved through procedural justice. However, this assumption does not seem to hold true, and it can be argued that it is not a realistic expectation.^[16]

Under the framework outlined by Cappelletti, the concept of access to justice evolved through three waves during the late 20th century. The first wave centered on expanding legal aid services to ensure that individuals with limited financial means could assert their rights within formal judicial systems. This stage focused on correcting economic barriers by improving publicly funded legal representation.

The second wave broadened the scope of access to justice to include “diffuse interests” which are societal interests shared by large, dispersed and often unorganized groups, such as consumers, environmental advocates, and the general public, whose individual stakes are small or indirect to pursue alone. This wave recognized that traditional litigation structures were ill-suited to protect these collective concerns. As a result, it witnessed the growth of public interest law firms and advocacy organizations.

The​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ third wave was a shift in concepts whereby the focus was not just on providing access to lawyers and courts but also on a broader understanding of dispute resolution. It was mainly concerned with the creation of different methods of resolution such as mediation, arbitration, administrative tribunals and community-based processes that could offer more flexible, efficient and accessible ways of justice. This stage recognized that official courts were just one aspect of a whole system of institutions that could resolve ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌disputes.

Taken together, these waves illustrate the transformation of access to justice from a narrow pre-1970s focus on entry into formal judicial institutions to a more inclusive and multidimensional model that recognizes a variety of actors, interests, and mechanisms beyond the traditional government-judiciary framework.^[17]

Barriers to Access to Justice

Access to justice is a fundamental right, yet it remains elusive for many due to a range of systemic, structural, and procedural barriers. These challenges can be broadly categorized into legal, economic, geographical, social, cultural, and political factors, each compounding the difficulties faced by marginalized groups.

1. Legal and Procedural Barriers

Legal systems often appear inaccessible and alienating to those without legal expertise, characterized by complex rules, obscure language, and bureaucratic procedures.^[18] This is visible in Ethiopia, where the use of Amharic as the working language in Federal Courts create significant linguistic and procedural barriers for non-Amharic-speaking, self-represented litigants.^[19] Strict procedural requirements, such as formal representation and rigid deadlines, can overwhelm individuals, particularly the poor or uneducated, who may lack the resources or knowledge to navigate these systems.^[20] Additionally, the absence of adequate legal representation, especially in rural or economically disadvantaged areas, leaves many without the tools to defend their rights effectively.^[21] Judicial delays further exacerbate these challenges, with court backlogs and protracted proceedings eroding public trust in the justice system.^[22] Delays are particularly detrimental in crises or conflict zones, where timely access to justice is critical to resolving disputes or addressing grievances.^[23]

2. Economic Barriers

The cost of pursuing legal action remains one of the most significant obstacles to accessing justice, particularly for low-income individuals. Legal services, court fees, and ancillary costs—such as travel and documentation—are often prohibitively expensive.^[24] In Ethiopia, for instance, legal aid services are severely underfunded, with public defenders unable to meet the demand effectively.^[25] This mirrors global trends, where inadequate funding for legal aid programs disproportionately affects the poor, leaving them unable to assert their rights or challenge injustices.^[26]

3. Geographical Barriers

Geographical isolation creates another critical hurdle, particularly in rural or remote areas where legal services and courts are sparse. In Ethiopia, for example, individuals often have to walk for hours or even days to reach the nearest first-instance court.^[27] Similar challenges are faced in conflict-affected regions, where insecure environments deter individuals from traveling to access justice mechanisms.^[28]

The urban concentration of justice services further marginalizes rural populations, deepening the inequities in access.^[29]Bridging this gap requires innovative solutions, such as mobile courts or digital legal services, to ensure geographical location does not determine one’s ability to seek redress.

4. Social and Cultural Barriers

Social norms, cultural practices, and systemic discrimination often exclude certain groups from the justice system. Women, ethnic minorities, and indigenous populations frequently face biases that prevent them from seeking or receiving fair treatment.^[30] In patriarchal societies, women may be discouraged from pursuing legal remedies, especially in cases of domestic violence or inheritance disputes.^[31]

Language barriers further complicate access to justice. Many individuals, particularly those from marginalized communities, struggle to understand legal proceedings conducted in unfamiliar or dominant languages.^[32] Although Amharic is the federal working language, many Ethiopians especially those in Afar, Somali, Gambella and Benishangul-Gumuz regions are unable to effectively follow court proceedings conducted in a language they do not speak fluently. The limited availability of translation services and legal materials in local languages further entrenches exclusion.^[33]

 

5. Political and Institutional Barriers

Political interference and corruption within the judiciary undermine its independence, jeopardizing the fairness of legal outcomes.^[34] Biased rulings and decisions influenced by external pressures erode public confidence in the justice system and often leave vulnerable groups at a disadvantage.^[35] Corruption compounds these issues, with those unable to pay bribes or navigate patronage networks denied justice.^[36] In Ethiopia, declining public trust in the judiciary further reflects the impact of political interference and corruption. A 2024 national survey reported that only about one in four Ethiopians trust the courts, citing perceptions of executive influence and inconsistent judicial independence.^[37] Although the FDRE Constitution formally guarantees judicial autonomy, multiple assessments show that courts and prosecutors often operate under political pressure, limiting their ability to protect rights or deliver impartial outcomes.^[38]

Furthermore, restrictions on civil liberties, such as limitations on freedom of expression or assembly, weaken individuals’ ability to advocate for their rights or hold authorities accountable.^[39]

Overall, the barriers to accessing justice are multifaceted and often intersect, amplifying the challenges faced by vulnerable populations such as women, children, and ethnic minorities. Addressing these barriers requires comprehensive measures, including judicial reforms, the expansion of legal aid services, public awareness campaigns, and the harmonization of formal and informal justice mechanisms.^[40] Ensuring access to justice for all is essential to fostering equality, safeguarding human rights, and promoting societal trust in the rule of law.

[Image credit: TJC Ethiopia]

Strategies for Improving Access to Justice

Addressing barriers to justice requires a multifaceted approach that includes legal reforms, improved access to representation, technological advancements, community-driven initiatives, and international collaboration. This section outlines key strategies to ensure justice systems become more inclusive and equitable.

1. Reforming Legal Systems

Reforming justice systems is essential to dismantling systemic barriers and promoting inclusivity. Key reform strategies include:

• Simplification of Legal Procedures. Reforming Ethiopia’s justice system requires simplifying complex procedures and addressing linguistic barriers that disproportionately affect non-Amharic-speaking and self-represented litigants. ^[41] Ensuring that court forms, notices, and judgments use plain language and are available in regional working languages would significantly improve accessibility

• Gender-Sensitive Reforms. Judicial reforms must address systemic gender biases. Initiatives such as appointing women as assessors in local courts, as seen in Tanzania, have improved women’s representation in judicial decision-making.² Gender-sensitive judicial training also equips judges and court personnel to handle cases involving gendered violence more effectively.^[42]

• Judicial Independence and Anti-Corruption Measures. Strengthening judicial independence safeguards impartiality and public trust. This includes appointing judges based on merit rather than political affiliation. In Ethiopia, efforts to combat corruption within the judiciary have been identified as critical to restoring confidence in the legal system. Anti-corruption strategies must include oversight mechanisms to hold judicial actors accountable.

• Reducing Court Backlogs. Expediting case resolution through digital case management systems and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods can alleviate delays and ensure timely justice.

2. Legal Aid and Pro Bono Services

Accessible legal representation is fundamental to ensuring equality before the law:

• Expansion of State-Funded Legal Aid. Ethiopia’s legal aid landscape is characterized by underfunded and unevenly distributed services, limiting access for rural and low-income populations. Studies underscore that the expansion of state-funded legal aid, supported by justice bureaus and university legal clinics, is necessary to close these gaps.^[43]  Countries like South Africa and Kenya have established legal aid commissions to assist vulnerable groups. In Ethiopia, however, underfunded legal aid services continue to hinder access to justice for economically disadvantaged populations.

• Encouraging Pro Bono Services. Law societies and bar associations globally encourage lawyers to provide free legal assistance. Pro bono work has proven effective in cases of domestic violence, asylum applications, and land disputes. ^[44]

• Public Legal Education. Legal literacy programs empower individuals to understand their rights and navigate the judicial system effectively. Civil society organizations play a pivotal role in organizing workshops and disseminating simplified legal information to rural and underserved communities throughout Ethiopia.

3. Technological Solutions

Technology has the potential to revolutionize the delivery of justice:

• Online Legal Services. Web-based platforms offering legal resources, document preparation, and advice provide low-cost alternatives to traditional legal consultations. Technological innovation has already begun to transform Ethiopia’s courts. TheSmart Court and wider digital-justice platforms launched by the Amhara Regional Supreme Court and Ethio Telecom demonstrate the feasibility of digitization in improving access and reducing delays, particularly by enabling e-filing, digital document management, and remote hearings.^[45] These initiatives show promise for rural litigants who traditionally face significant travel and financial burdens.

• Virtual Hearings. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of virtual courtrooms. In Ethiopia, smart courtrooms facilitated virtual hearings from regions such as Bahir Dar and Harar, significantly reducing travel costs and delays. Institutionalizing such measures could benefit individuals in rural or conflict-affected areas.

• AI-Powered Legal Assistance. AI tools like Do Not Pay democratize access to legal information by offering automated assistance for simple legal issues, such as contesting fines or drafting documents. Developing such AI models tailored to our legal system would be hugely beneficial.

• Digital Case Management Systems. Implementing electronic case management systems enhances transparency and efficiency, particularly in overburdened courts.

4. Community-Based Approaches

Community-driven initiatives are critical to addressing justice gaps at the grassroots level:

• Community Paralegals. Paralegals trained to provide basic legal advice bridge the gap in regions where lawyers are scarce.

• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Mediation and arbitration offer quicker, less formal mechanisms for resolving disputes. In Ethiopia, ADR has proven effective in settling land disputes and family conflicts, particularly in rural areas where formal courts are inaccessible.

• Grassroots Advocacy. Local NGOs and advocacy groups play a vital role in addressing systemic barriers. For example, gender-focused organizations in Ethiopia have successfully campaigned for the repeal of discriminatory laws and the implementation of gender-sensitive policies.

5. International Cooperation

Global collaboration is essential to addressing justice gaps and promoting human rights:

• Role of International Courts. Institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC) hold state actors accountable for crimes against humanity and war crimes, addressing justice gaps where domestic systems fail. ^[46]

• Support from International Organizations. International partners, including UNDP and other technical agencies, have supported Ethiopia’s justice-sector reforms through institution-building, digitalization funding, training for prosecutors and judges, and peace-linked justice initiatives.^[47] UN agencies, including UN Women, provide technical assistance and funding to support justice reforms worldwide. Their advocacy and capacity-building initiatives have been instrumental in improving access to justice for vulnerable populations. ^[48]

• Cross-Border Legal Assistance. Networks coordinated by organizations like the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) provide legal aid to refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers, ensuring their protection across borders. ^[49]

Recommendations

To overcome aforementioned challenges the following recommendations are made in order to guarantee access to justice and protection of human rights.

1. Strengthen Legal Aid Services

   Ethiopia should expand and sustainably fund state-supported legal aid through the Ministry of Justice, regional justice bureau and university legal clinics. This includes increasing budget allocations for free legal representation in rural and low-income areas. Bar associations should institutionalize pro bono obligations to encourage private-sector participation, especially for land, family, and gender-based violence cases.

2. Simplify Legal Processes

   Federal and regional courts should simplify procedural rules, reduce excessive paperwork, and translate core legal documents into regional working languages. Technological tools such as guided e-forms, SMS updates, and help-desk in courts should be used to make processes more accessible for self-represented litigants.

3. Promote Inclusion and Address Cultural Barriers

   Translation services and localized legal-awareness campaigns should be provided to overcome Ethiopia’s linguistic diversity. Gender-sensitive reforms such as increased recruitment of women judges, training on gender-based violence, and review of discriminatory customary practices are essential to ensure equal access to justice for women and other marginalized groups.

4. Strengthen Judicial Independence and Integrity

   Ethiopia should adopt and enforce robust anti-corruption measures across the judiciary, including transparent judicial appointments, asset-declaration systems, and independent oversight bodies. Insulating judges and prosecutors from political influence is vital to rebuilding public trust in the courts and ensuring impartial decision-making.

5. Leverage Technology for Access to Justice

   Expand the Smart Court system already piloted in regions like Amhara to additional federal and regional courts. Digital case-management systems, electronic filing, and virtual hearings should be scaled to reduce case backlogs and improve access for remote or conflict-affected communities.

6. Empower Community-Based Justice Mechanisms

   Train and support community paralegals to provide basic legal assistance in rural and underserved areas. Strengthen and regulate alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems such as customary and community mediation while ensuring they comply with human-rights standards and remain linked to the formal justice system for complex or rights-sensitive cases.

7. Enhance International Cooperation

   Ethiopia should continue partnering with UN agencies, the African Union, and development partners to access technical support for judicial reform, digitalization, and capacity-building. Cross-border legal-assistance programs should be strengthened to protect refugees, migrants, and individuals displaced by internal conflict.

Conclusion

Access to justice is one of the cornerstone principles of the rule of law and human rights, yet systemic barriers continue to undermine this right in the lives of many people especially among the marginalized groups. This paper has identified a number of different economic, procedural, cultural, and geographic barriers to access to justice. These are not only increasing inequality but also eroding confidence in judicial institutions and perpetuating injustices within society. In Ethiopia, implementing these recommendations would significantly advance a more inclusive and efficient justice system. Reforms should prioritize empowering vulnerable groups, addressing systemic biases, and improving linguistic and cultural accessibility. Expanding digital tools and community-based support can also help remove long-standing barriers, ensuring that justice is accessible to all Ethiopians. The pursuit of universal access to justice is not only a matter of legal obligation but also a moral one. It reflects commitment to equality, fairness, and protection of human dignity. Such would be critical in guaranteeing social cohesion, full respect for human rights, and the advance of global justice in today's increasingly interdependent world.

---

Glossary

• ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution): A collective term for methods of resolving disputes outside of the formal court system, such as mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. It is valued for being quicker and less formal.

• Diffuse Interests: Societal interests (like environmental protection or consumer rights) shared by large, dispersed, and often unorganized groups. These are difficult to protect through traditional, individual-centered litigation.

• Institutionalizing: the process of embedding a policy, practice, or norm into an organization’s or system’s formal and routine structures such as laws, regulations, procedures, budgets, dedicated units, and oversight mechanisms so that it becomes standardized, durable and less dependent on individual actors or temporary initiatives.

• Interdependent World: A global system in which countries, communities, and economies are closely connected and rely on one another for resources, trade, technology, security, and problem-solving.

• Judicial Backlogs: A high volume of accumulated cases in the court system that remains unprocessed, leading to significant delays and protracted legal proceedings.

• Legal Aid: The provision of free or subsidized legal services (advice, representation, and assistance) to individuals who lack the financial means to hire a lawyer.

• Patronage Networks: Informal, often corrupt, systems where individuals in positions of power distribute resources or appointments in exchange for political loyalty or personal gain, bypassing formal merit-based processes.

• Pro Bono Services: Professional legal work that is undertaken voluntarily and without payment as a public service, often coordinated through bar associations.

• Self-Represented Litigants: Individuals who choose to conduct their legal case in court without the assistance of a lawyer; also known as pro se litigants.

• Smart Court: A term for the digitalized court systems (e.g., e-filing, virtual hearings) being implemented in Ethiopian regions to improve efficiency, transparency, and accessibility, particularly for remote populations.

---

References

1. Cappelletti, M., & Garth, B. (1978). Access to Justice: The Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective: A General Report. Milan: Giuffrè.

2. Galanter, M. (1974). "Why the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change." Law & Society Review, 9(1), 95–160.

3. Golub, S. (2003). Beyond Rule of Law Orthodoxy: The Legal Empowerment Alternative. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

4. Sepúlveda, M., et al. (2004). Human Rights Reference Handbook. University for Peace..

5. UNDP. (2004). Access to Justice: Practice Note. United Nations Development Programme.

6. Wojkowska, E. (2006). Doing Justice: How Informal Justice Systems Can Contribute. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Oslo Governance Centre.

---

Footnotes/

^[1] Mauro Cappelletti and Bryant Garth, Access to Justice: A World Survey (Vol 1, 1978)

^[2] UNDP (2004): Access to Justice Practice Note

^[3] Sepúlveda et al. (2004): Human Rights Reference Handbook.

^[4] Cappelletti & Garth (1978): Access to Justice: The Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective.

^[5] Galanter, M. (1974): Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead

^[6] Mauro Cappelletti and Bryant Garth, Access to Justice: A World Survey, vol 1 (Sijthoff & Noordhoff 1978) 6.

^[7] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art 14.

^[8] Hazel Genn, Paths to Justice (Hart 1999).

^[9] Marc Galanter, ‘Justice in Many Rooms…’ (1981) 19 Journal of Legal Pluralism.

^[10] Cappelletti, M., & Garth, B. (1978). Access to Justice: Theories and Practice

^[11] Harry W Arthurs, Without the Law (1985).

^[12]Arthurs, H. W. (1996). Access to Justice and the Role of the Legal System.

^[13] Golub, S. (2003). Beyond Rule of Law Orthodoxy: The Legal Empowerment Alternative. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

^[14] Wojkowska, E. (2006). Doing Justice: How Informal Justice Systems Can Contribute. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Oslo Governance Centre.

^[15] Stanford Law School Immigrants' Rights Clinic, Bias in the Criminal Legal System: A Report Aggregating Social Science Research and Reporting on Racial Bias in the Criminal Legal System (Stanford Law School, 2024

^[16] Deborah L Rhode, Access to Justice (Oxford University Press 2004).

^[17] M Cappelletti, Access to Justice: A World Survey (Sijthoff 1975).

^[18] Kokebe W Jemaneh, Reconsidering Access to Justice in Ethiopia: Towards a Human Rights-Based Approach (2014) 10.

^[19] Ibid

^[20] Ibid.

^[21] Ibid. 11

^[22] Ibid. 12

^[23] Ibid.

^[24] Ibid.

^[25] Jemaneh (n 24) 13.

^[26] American Bar Association, The State of Legal Aid in America (ABA 2017).

^[27] Jemaneh (n 1) 11.

^[28] Ibid.

^[29] Access to Justice Lab, Rural Access to Justice (2021) https://www.access2justice.org accessed 15 December 2024.

^[30] Jemaneh (n 1) 12.

^[31] UN Women, Progress of the World’s Women 2015-2016: Transforming Economies, Realizing Rights (2015).

^[32] Jemaneh (n 1) 12.

^[33] UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Mission to Ethiopia (A/HRC/33/50/Add.2, 2016).

^[34] Jemaneh (n 1) 15.

^[35] Ibid.

^[36] Ibid. 16

^[37] Centre for Human Rights, Addis Ababa University, Access to Justice in Ethiopia: National Survey Report (2024) https://chr-aau.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Access-to-Justice-in-Ethiopia.pdf accessed 8 December 2025.

^[38] UK Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note: Ethiopia – Actors of Protection (November 2023) https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/2104890/ETH_CPIN_Actors_of_protection.pdf accessed 8 December 2025.

^[39] Ibid.

^[40] Jemaneh (n 24) 16.

^[41] Kokebe W Jemaneh, Reconsidering Access to Justice in Ethiopia: Towards a Human Rights-Based Approach (2014) 10.

^[42] UN Women Africa, 'Impact of COVID-19 on Access to Justice for Women and Girls in East and Southern Africa' (UN Women, 2023) https://africa.unwomen.org accessed 15 December 2024

^[43] United Nations Development Programme, “Reviving the formal justice system for peace and stability” (Ethiopia Peace Support Facility).

^[44] Oxfam Policy & Practice, 'Access to Justice for Women in Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Yemen: Overcoming Legal Fees and Procedural Barriers' (Oxfam, 2023) https://policy-practice.oxfam.org accessed 15 December 2024.

^[45] ‘Ethio telecom and Amhara Supreme Court Launch Digital Justice Platform’ Telecom Review Africa (2025).

^[46] International Criminal Court, 'About the Court' https://www.icc-cpi.int accessed 15 December 2024.

^[47] United Nations Development Programme, Support to Judicial Reform in Ethiopia (Project Summary, 2019–2024).

^[48] Ibid

^[49] United Nations Development Programme, 'Access to Justice and Legal Aid' (UNDP) https://www.undp.org accessed 15 December 2024.