38 | P age b pardon as provided by other laws. 177 This proclamation too does not clearly prohibit grant of pardon for war crimes and use of improper method. It just provides that without prejudice to prohibiting provisions of other law. The term law, the researcher believes that, include the FDRE Constitution. It is only the Constitution domestic law that prohibit grant of pardon for torture. However, the CC did not criminalized torture as independent/separate crime. Rather the CC subsumed torture under crime of use of improper method. Thus it indicates that a person who is sentenced of use of improper method is eligible for the benefit of pardon proclamation. In contrary, international jurisprudences which define international laws shows that granting pardon for person sentenced for violating laws against torture is contrary to state obligation under both ICCPR and UNCAT. Accordingly, CAT in the case of Urra Guridi vii Spainii178iconsidered that the pardons granted to the civil guards had the practical effect of allowing torture to go unpunished and encouraging its repetition. The Committee concurred in this case that pardons, therefore, constituted a violation of Article 2(1) of the UNCAT, which requires that states take effective measures to prevent torture. 179 This shows that the Ethiopian Pardon law does not exclude torture from its application while it is expected to do sounder UNCAT and ICCPR. 3.3.3. Immunities Although States are obliged to prosecute torture committed within their territory, as discussed in section 2.3, there is an exception to this principle of duty to prosecute - state immunity. 180 There is no internationally agreed definition of immunity. But from the legal point of view the concise Blacks law dictionary defines immunity as exemption or protection from an obligation or penalty. 181 There area variety of forms of immunity that are granted to government officials in order to enable them to carryout their functions without fear of being sued or charged ibid Art. 15 (What is law means to the purpose of this proclamation is not provided under the definitional part. 178 Kepa Urra Guridi v Spain, Communication No. 212/2002, CAT, judgment of 17 May 2005, Para 6(6). ibid. L. M. Caplan, State Immunity, Human Rights, and Jus Cogens: A Critique of the Normative Hierarchy Theory (2003) 97 AmJIL741. Blacks Law Dictionary (8 th ed. 2004) 778.
