A/HRC/44/49/Add.3 10. Paragraph 23- It is reported that the SR had met the Attorney General. However, the fact is that he had exchanges with H.E the Deputy Attorney General and other officials. Therefore, this has to be amended as such. 11. Paragraph 26 line 3, as the proper designation of the institution is ‘The National Intelligence and Security Services’, we request for the document to take onboard this amendment. 12. Paragraph 27- Regarding the concern raised in the report about the definitions of “terrorism” and “incitement” contained in the new law which the SR considers potentially stifle legitimate expression, Ethiopia notes the concern but stresses that utmost precautions have been taken to provide clear definitions for these words in as much as possible so that their interpretation will not go beyond the intention of the legislator. Although there is no universally comprehensive definition of terrorism, the Proclamation to Provide for the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism Crimes No. 1176/2019 defines “terrorist act” as an act which causes serious bodily injury to a person; endangers the life of a person; hostage taking or kidnapping; causes damage to property, natural resource or environment; or obstructs public or social service with the intention of advancing political, religious or ideological causes for terrorizing, or spreading fear among the public or section of the public or coercing or compelling the government, Foreign Government or International Organization. Accordingly, all acts are punishable only if they are committed to pursue ideological or political objectives using violence. It is the primary purpose of the legislation to punish the intent of the offender to use violence to advance political objectives, not the act in and of it. We believe the concern that the legislation could be used to criminalize acts of peaceful political dissent that result in disruption of public services is erroneous as the legislation clearly states that the mental element behind the commission of any of the acts constituting terrorism should be done with intent to advance a political or ideological cause by coercing the government and others provided under Article 3 paragraph one of the legislation. Moreover, taking such criticisms which were raised on the former anti-terrorism proclamation, the new legislation clearly provides under Article 4 that where the obstruction to public service resulted from a legal strike, peaceful demonstration, assembly or similar exercise of a legal right, the act shall not be considered an act of terrorism. As per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005), incitement to commit a terrorist act is prohibited by Article 10 of the Proclamation to Provide for the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism Crimes No. 1176/2019 which defines “incitement” as: (a) Whosoever to cause the commission of one of the crimes provided for in this Proclamation, intentionally incites another person by inducing, promises, money, gift, threat or any other means shall be punishable with a punishment provided for the offence provided that the crime was attempted or committed. (b) Notwithstanding the provision of Sub-article (1) of this Article, whosoever in clear manner incites by statement, writing, using image or by any other conduct to cause the commission of any of the acts provided for under this Proclamation or publish, produce, communicate, distribute, store, sell, or make available to the public through any means anything with substance of such kind shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment from one year to five years, provided that the crime was attempted or committed. (c) Notwithstanding the provision of Sub-article (2) of Article 36 of the Criminal Code, where the act mentioned has been committed as provided for in Sub-article (1) or (2) of this Article but the intended crime has not materialized or attempted, the person who commits the acts mentioned in the sub-articles shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment from one year to five years. An individual seeking to express political dissent or expressing comments cannot be penalized on the pretext of incitement of terrorism. Any opinion expressed will have to constitute an actual incitement of a terrorist act beyond mere expression. As a matter of fact, the prosecution of incitement has to be aligned with paragraph 1 of article 3 of the legislation. Unless the mental element of intent to advance a political or other cause to coerce the 4