A/HRC/44/49/Add.3 whereas when the same request is made there is a categorical rejection and failure to handover suspects under the pretext of many shields. Third, it goes without saying that the reforming government of Ethiopia is least criticized for repression against human rights. To begin with, protection, promotion and fulfillment of human rights and fundamental freedoms are the bedrock of the reform. Second and most importantly, rule of law is also one of the tenets of the reform and it is against this backdrop that a lot of suspects were detained across the nation in pursuit of serving justice. Had it not been for these actions of the government, some of the violence could have spiraled into a major setback. Fourth, the flagship creeds which are very close to the hearts of the of the government in Ethiopia are peace, reconciliation and realizing prosperity within the auspices of dialogue and mediation. Widening the political and democratic space while ensuring justice have been a daunting task yet all resources are mobilized for its realization. Lawful and proportional measures were taken, are being taken and will be taken in order to ensure peace and stability in the country. No doubt shall prevail with regards to the government’s capability, readiness and determination to take all necessary measures. It has to be recalled that law enforcement personnel and civil servants have paid the highest sacrifices while in service. It is therefore with these premise that we find the reference above and the statement claiming ‘repressive practice from the past had not completely disappeared and that the government is not taking measures’ to be hastily generalized and fails to take the full context onboard. In another note, we would also like to highlight an editorial error while mentioning a number which we think is a year. We therefore suggest for it to be corrected. 6. Paragraph 13 lines 7-8– while Ethiopia concurs with the special rapporteur on his assessment of the key place given to media outlets, broadcasting networks, civil society, and technology, the preamble of the FDRE constitution does not make specific refence to the above. We recommend reconsideration of the use of the word “preambular”. 7. Paragraph 14 lines 1 and 2– it is stated “for nearly three decades, the Government of Ethiopia tortured and jailed journalists and human rights defenders, labeling them as terrorists.” We find the phrase “for nearly three decades” unjustified. The Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No.652 was adopted in 2009 and it is after that the concept of terrorism was legally introduced in Ethiopia. Therefore, we cannot refer to what is nonexistent while there was no probability that the said category of persons could have been incarcerated under the realm of terrorism which automatically makes the reference to ‘the last three decades’ as factually incorrect. Ethiopia enjoyed improved press freedom and freedom of expression and opinion in general in the period that followed the fall of the Dergue Regime in 1991. Making a generalized statement that labels the past three decade in their entirety is not justified and is not supported by our UPR report and other Communications referred to in the footnote. 8. Paragraph 15 lines 8-9- the statement “the Council has a three-year term to address a critical range of issues, including ………improving judicial independence” is factually incorrect. The task of improving judicial independence falls with another separate Advisory Council established under the Federal Supreme Court. 9. Paragraph 16–The Justice and Legal Affairs Advisory Council was, as its name indicates, established to play an advisory role. While the Council has drafted a number of laws on its own, it is not mandated to present the laws directly to the Council of Ministers or the House of Peoples Representatives. All laws drafted by the Council have been subjected to review by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). Similarly, the OAG did not forfeit its legal drafting mandate to the Council; hence the fact that the new law against Hate Speech and Disinformation as well as the Gun Control law being drafted by the OAG itself is a standard practice. That said, the regular legal drafting mechanism allows experts, civil society and others (including members of the Advisory Council) to participate in law-making through consultations organized by the OAG and in public-hearings organized by the Parliament before each law is tabled for adoption. 3