TITLE I. PHYSICAL PERSONS
Chapter 1. Personality and the Rights Inherent to Personality
The foundational premise of any jurisprudential system is predicated upon the concept of “persons.” Within the purview of legal doctrine, a person constitutes an entity endowed with the capacity to possess both rights and obligations. BOOK I. PERSONS of the Civil Code meticulously delineates the intricacies pertaining to “physical persons”—specifically, human beings—and the fundamental legal personality, along with the inherent rights, that delineate their existence within the established legal framework. A comprehensive comprehension of these concepts is indispensable, inasmuch as they establish the very substratum upon which individuals engage with the law, interact reciprocally, and interface with the sovereign state.
Section 1. Attribution of Personality
The genesis of legal personality commences precisely at the juncture when an individual receives recognition as a subject of rights. This section undertakes an exhaustive examination of the precise legal determinants governing the commencement and cessation of personality, alongside the evidentiary principles that regulate the substantiation of existence.
Article 1: The Principle of Legal Personality The seminal principle underpinning legal personality is characterized by its elegant simplicity: a human being assumes the status of a subject of rights from the moment of birth until the moment of demise. This stipulation signifies that, from the initial respiration, an individual is inherently endowed with the capacity to acquire, exercise, and receive protection from rights, and concurrently, to be bound by obligations. This legal status, frequently denominated as status personae, is universally applicable and intrinsically inherent, thereby constituting the basis for all subsequent legal interactions, ranging from the proprietorship of property to the formation of contractual agreements and the enjoyment of fundamental liberties.
Article 2: The Unborn Child (Nasciturus) While the attribution of legal personality generally commences at birth, legal systems frequently incorporate specific provisions for the nasciturus—the child merely conceived but not yet delivered. For the express purpose of safeguarding potential interests, particularly in matters pertaining to inheritance or bequests, the law employs a legal fiction: a child merely conceived shall be considered as having been born whenever such consideration demonstrably serves its interest, provided that said child is subsequently born alive and viable. This principle, succinctly encapsulated by the Latin maxim nasciturus pro iam nato habetur quotiens de commodis eius agitur, ensures that an unborn child is not subjected to prejudice by the temporal aspect of its birth when beneficial legal outcomes are at issue. For instance, should a grandparent predecease, bequeathing an inheritance to their grandchildren, an unborn child, if subsequently born alive and viable, would be deemed eligible for said inheritance as though its birth had transpired at the time of the grandparent’s decease.
Article 3: Establishing the Date of Conception For the sake of legal certitude, particularly in instances where the interests of the unborn child are paramount, the law establishes a presumption concerning the date of conception. A child shall be legally presumed to have been conceived on the three hundredth day immediately preceding its birth. This specific temporal framework furnishes a clear, albeit presumptive, point of reference. Significantly, this presumption is generally irrebuttable, implying that no evidence to the contrary shall be admitted to challenge this specific legal date of conception for general purposes. Nevertheless, this stringent rule does not supersede provisions specifically formulated for paternity disputes, wherein the actual biological date of conception may necessitate establishment through alternative means to ascertain the child’s paternal lineage.
Article 4: Defining Viability The concept of “viability” assumes critical importance for the full attribution of legal personality to a child considered born under the nasciturus rule. A child shall be legally deemed viable if its existence persists for forty-eight hours subsequent to its birth. This temporal interval serves as a pragmatic threshold to differentiate between a live birth possessing a reasonable prospect of survival and a birth wherein life is ephemeral due to fundamental constitutional deficiencies. Should a child expire within forty-eight hours of birth, it shall be presumed not viable. This presumption, however, is rebuttable: it may be controverted by adducing proof that the child’s demise was attributable to an extrinsic factor (e.g., an accidental occurrence or medical complication) rather than an inherent constitutional inadequacy. This distinction may bear significant implications for inheritance rights or the legal status of the child’s brief existence.
Article 5: Proving Life or Death The legal system mandates unequivocal substantiation of an individual’s life or demise, particularly when exercising rights contingent upon such status. The burden of proof rests upon the litigant who asserts that a particular person is or was alive on a specified date, or has deceased. This aligns with the overarching legal principle that “he who asserts must prove.” To substantiate that a person is or was alive, the most direct methodology involves the physical presentation of the individual themselves. Absent such presentation, the sworn testimony of three witnesses or any other demonstrably reliable evidence may suffice. The substantiation of death, constituting a definitive cessation of legal personality, is subject to specific, more stringent requisites, typically involving official death certificates or judicial pronouncements in strict accordance with detailed provisions (such as those delineated in Article 47 of this Code).
Article 6: Simultaneous Deaths (Commorientes) A complex exigency arises when multiple individuals succumb to death in the same incident, and the determination of which person survived another proves impossible. This circumstance, denominated as “commorientes,” holds particular relevance in the domain of inheritance law, inasmuch as the sequence of deaths can profoundly alter the distribution of estates. In such cases, the law provides a pragmatic resolution: should the order of death prove unascertainable, all involved persons shall be legally deemed to have expired concurrently. This presumption obviates protracted disputes concerning transient inheritance, thereby streamlining the legal process of estate distribution.
Article 7: Establishing Identity Beyond mere existence, the legal system necessitates reliable substantiation of an individual’s identity. This is indispensable for all legal transactions, ranging from the execution of contracts to the exercise of suffrage or the accessing of public services. The primary methodology for proving identity involves the presentation of official documents issued to said person by the administrative authorities, such as national identity cards or passports. In the absence of such documentation, identity may be established through the sworn testimony of two witnesses. The law imposes a significant onus upon these witnesses, holding them liable to third parties for any damages that may be occasioned by the inaccuracy of their declarations or evidence. This provision underscores the imperative of veracious and diligent testimony in matters pertaining to personal identification.
Section 2. Rights of Personality
Legal personality transcends mere existence; it encompasses the array of rights and liberties that define a human being’s autonomy, dignity, and societal standing. This section undertakes an exploration of the fundamental “rights of personality”—frequently synonymous with inherent or fundamental human rights—and the principles governing their exercise and protection.
Article 8: The Scope of Personality Rights Every physical person is intrinsically endowed with the rights of personality and the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Ethiopian Constitution. This constitutes a declaration of universal entitlement, emphasizing that these rights are not conferred by the state but are inherent to the human condition. A cornerstone of this principle is non-discrimination: in the enjoyment of these rights, no distinction shall be drawn based upon an individual’s race, complexion, religious affiliation, or gender. This reflects the constitutional commitment to egalitarianism and human dignity, ensuring that legal personality translates into equitable protection and opportunity for all.
Article 9: Limitations and Extra Commercium The rights of personality and constitutional liberties are jurisprudentially classified as extra commercium—signifying their exclusion from the ambit of commercial transaction. They are inalienable, non-transferable, and generally incapable of being waived or subjected to private contractual strictures. This principle serves to safeguard the core facets of human dignity from commodification or undue restriction. Any voluntary limitation imposed upon the exercise of such rights and liberties shall be devoid of legal effect unless its imposition is explicitly justified by a legitimate interest. For example, while the right to freedom of speech cannot be alienated, a contractual agreement might legitimately restrict an employee from divulging proprietary information, which constitutes a circumscribed and justifiable restriction upon their freedom of expression.
Article 10: Protection Against Unlawful Molestation The law provides a robust mechanism for the protection of personality rights against infringement. Any unlawful molestation or interference with an individual’s personality confers upon the aggrieved person the right to demand the immediate cessation of such disturbance. This preventative or injunctive remedy is indispensable for halting ongoing detriment. Furthermore, this right to cessation is stipulated as being “without prejudice to the liability of the author of such molestation,” implying that the perpetrator of the harm may also be held financially accountable for damages incurred by the victim. This dual protection ensures both the termination of the wrongful act and pecuniary compensation for its consequences.
Article 11: Restrictions on Freedom and Searches The liberty of an individual and the sanctity of their person are meticulously safeguarded. No person may have their freedom restricted (e.g., through apprehension or detention) or be subjected to a search (of their person or possessions) except in strict accordance with grounds explicitly provided by law. This principle constitutes a fundamental aspect of due process and the rule of law, ensuring that governmental authority is exercised within precisely defined legal parameters and preventing arbitrary infringements upon personal liberty and privacy.
Article 12: Freedom of Residence A pivotal aspect of personal liberty is the prerogative to select one’s place of residence and to alter it at will. This right reflects an individual’s autonomy over their domiciliary arrangements. Consequently, any undertaking by a person to reside in a specific location, or to abstain from residing in or frequenting a particular place, is generally rendered nugatory under civil law. This provision precludes individuals from being contractually bound to fixed locales, thereby preserving their mobility. Nevertheless, akin to other personality rights, such undertakings may possess validity if justified by a legitimate interest, such as an employment contract mandating residence within a certain proximity to a workplace for operational exigencies.
Article 13: Inviolability of Domicile The domicile, or permanent abode, of a physical person is accorded the status of inviolability. This signifies that an individual’s dwelling constitutes a private sanctuary, shielded from unauthorized intrusion. No individual may gain entry to the domicile of another against the will of said person, nor may a search be conducted therein, save for instances specifically provided by law. This right constitutes a direct extension of the right to privacy and serves as a crucial safeguard against arbitrary state or private intrusion into one’s personal sphere.
Article 14: Freedom of Thought and Expression The liberty to conceive and articulate one’s ideas stands as a cornerstone of a free society. This fundamental liberty empowers individuals to formulate their own opinions, convictions, and beliefs, and to communicate them without undue interference. However, this liberty is not absolute. It admits of restrictions deemed necessary to uphold the rights of others, to preserve public morality, and to ensure compliance with the law. These limitations typically address matters such as defamation, incitement to violence, or expressions of hatred, thereby balancing individual freedom with the imperative for social order and the protection of the rights of others.
Article 15: Freedom of Religion Religious freedom receives explicit protection, permitting residents to observe the rites of any religion or creed in accordance with legal prescriptions. This ensures that individuals may practice their faith without governmental interference. Nevertheless, this freedom is not devoid of limitations. Such rites must not be exploited for political objectives, nor should they be prejudicial to public order or morality. This provision aims to prevent religious practices from subverting the stability of the state or contravening fundamental ethical norms.
Article 16: Freedom of Action Beyond the spheres of thought and residence, every person is at liberty to undertake any activity deemed appropriate concerning their vocation (profession) and their leisure. This expansive freedom of action encompasses the prerogative to select one’s profession, pursue avocations, and engage in personal development. Analogous to other liberties, it is subject to restrictions imposed by the imperative to respect the rights of others, morality, and the law. Furthermore, any act by which a person obligates themselves to undertake or refrain from undertaking a specified activity is generally rendered ineffectual unless its imposition is justified by a legitimate interest. This precludes individuals from being perpetually bound by restrictive covenants that unduly circumscribe their professional or personal choices, absent a clear and justifiable rationale for such a restriction (e.g., a reasonable non-compete clause within an employment agreement).
Article 17: Autonomy in Marriage and Divorce The law acknowledges the profoundly personal nature of marriage and divorce, treating them as matters of fundamental personal autonomy. Consequently, any undertaking by a person not to enter into matrimony or not to remarry, or to seek divorce or to abstain from divorce, is considered devoid of civil legal effect. This ensures that individuals retain the liberty to make these pivotal life decisions unencumbered by prior agreements that might infringe upon their personal liberty and evolving circumstances.
Article 18: Integrity of the Human Body The integrity of the human body constitutes a paramount personality right. The law renders ineffectual any act by which a person disposes of the entirety or a portion of their corporeal being if such act is to be executed prior to the person’s demise and would result in a serious impairment to the integrity of the human body. This provision aims to prevent self-mutilation, deleterious contractual arrangements, or any act that significantly diminishes a living person’s physical integrity. A critical exception exists where such an act is demonstrably justified by the established rules of medical practice, such as necessary surgical interventions or medically supervised organ donations that do not inflict serious, enduring harm upon the donor.
Article 19: Revocability of Bodily Dispositions Even when an individual executes a valid disposition concerning their corporeal being, such as pledging organs for post-mortem donation, the law confers upon them the prerogative to revoke such an act at any time, irrespective of whether its intended execution was during their lifetime or subsequent to their death. This underscores the continuing autonomy an individual possesses over their own body. While the act remains revocable, the person to whose benefit the disposition was made (e.g., a medical institution that incurred expenditures in anticipation of a donation) is entitled to indemnification for any expenses legitimately incurred consequent to the promise.
Article 20: Medical Examinations and Treatment – Principle A fundamental tenet of bodily autonomy and informed consent is the right of an individual to decline medical or surgical examination or treatment at any juncture. This fundamental right ensures that individuals retain control over their own healthcare decisions. Nevertheless, this principle is balanced against broader public interests and the welfare of legally incapacitated individuals. It does not abrogate laws or regulations providing for compulsory physical examinations or vaccinations in the public interest (e.g., during epidemiological outbreaks). Furthermore, it does not circumscribe the authority of a guardian to subject a minor or an interdicted (legally incapacitated) person to examinations or treatments that are demonstrably conducive to their health, inasmuch as the guardian acts in the best interests of the ward.
Article 21: Medical Examinations and Treatment – Restriction While the right to refuse treatment is broadly construed, it carries significant legal ramifications in certain circumstances. Should an individual decline to submit to an examination or treatment that does not entail any abnormal risk, said individual forfeits the right to subsequently avail themselves of the illness or infirmity which the treatment could have prevented, ameliorated, or eradicated. This implies, for instance, that claims for damages stemming from a condition exacerbated by the refusal of a simple, low-risk intervention may be precluded. This provision serves as a deterrent to unreasonable refusal, encouraging individuals to undertake prudent measures for their health without coercing them.
Article 22: Evidentiary Implications of Refusal Within the context of legal proceedings, should an individual decline to submit to a medical examination that poses no serious peril to the human body, the court may deem the facts which the examination was intended to ascertain as having been established. This constitutes an evidentiary presumption, not a compelled examination. For example, if a defendant in a personal injury action refuses a medical examination capable of confirming the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, the court might presume the injuries to be as severe as asserted by the plaintiff, rather than compelling the examination.
Article 23: The Right to Keep Silent The law rigorously safeguards against coercion in the procurement of admissions or manifestations of will. Any admission or declaration of will obtained through methodologies that inflict molestation upon the personality (e.g., torture, undue duress, psychological manipulation) shall be rendered devoid of legal effect. This principle is fundamental to the protection of individual autonomy and to ensuring that legal declarations are freely and genuinely rendered, thereby safeguarding against coerced confessions or agreements.
Article 24: Professional Secrecy Professional secrecy, or privilege, constitutes a vital concept within numerous professions, fostering trust between practitioners and their clientele. An individual cannot be compelled to disclose facts that have come to their knowledge by virtue of their professional capacity if such disclosure would betray or risk betraying the confidence reposed in them by a third person specifically due to that professional relationship. This applies to professions such as medicine, law, and religious ministry. The individual who confided the information also possesses the right to ensure that the professional in whom confidence was placed does not reveal it. Nevertheless, this right is not absolute and is subject to specific exceptions, particularly those delineated in criminal law (e.g., the reporting of certain felonies, as referenced in Articles 267 and 344 of the Penal Code).
Article 25: Funeral Arrangements – Will of Deceased An individual’s autonomy extends even beyond their demise, particularly concerning the disposition of their corporeal remains. Any person possessing the legal capacity to execute a will may prescribe the conditions pertaining to their funeral. Such person may also designate one or more individuals to ensure the execution of these provisions. Should the appointed persons fail to act, or in the absence of such appointment, any person demonstrating a material or moral interest (e.g., a proximate family member or associate) may petition the court situated at the place of death to enforce said provisions. This ensures that a deceased person’s ultimate wishes regarding their interment or cremation are duly honored.
Article 26: Funeral Arrangements – Unexpressed Will In circumstances where the deceased has not formally articulated their will concerning funeral arrangements, the law establishes a hierarchical framework for decision-making. The conditions of the funeral are primarily determined by the surviving spouse or, in the absence thereof, by the nearest relatives. Should neither the spouse nor known relatives be present at the time of death, the responsibility devolves upon the individual who undertakes the initiative for the funeral arrangements. In the event of a contestation among family members or other interested parties, the matter may be submitted before the court of the place of death by the most diligent party, thereby allowing for judicial resolution of disagreements.
Article 27: Image of the Person – Principle The right to one’s own image constitutes a significant facet of personality rights, encompassing both privacy and control over one’s likeness. As a general principle, the photograph or image of an individual may not be exhibited in a public venue or offered for commercial sale without the explicit consent of the person concerned. This provision safeguards individuals from unauthorized commercial exploitation or public display of their likeness.
Article 28: Image of the Person – Exceptions While consent is generally requisite, there exist critical exceptions wherein the reproduction of an individual’s image is legally permissible without their express consent. These exceptions serve to balance individual privacy with legitimate public interest. Consent is not mandated if the reproduction is justified by:
- The notoriety of the person (e.g., public figures, celebrated individuals).
- The public office occupied by the individual (e.g., political officials, judicial officers in their official capacities).
- The requirements of justice or police (e.g., identification of suspects, evidentiary material in judicial proceedings).
- A scientific, cultural, or didactic interest (e.g., historical photographic records, educational resources).
- The image being produced in connection with facts, events, or ceremonies of public interest, or those that have transpired in a public domain (e.g., journalistic coverage of a public demonstration, a gathering at a sporting event). These exceptions acknowledge that, in certain contexts, the public’s entitlement to information or the advancement of knowledge outweighs individual privacy considerations pertaining to one’s image.
Article 29: Sanctions for Unlawful Use of Image When an individual’s image is exhibited or offered for sale without their consent, and none of the aforementioned exceptions are applicable, the aggrieved person is afforded specific legal remedies. Such person may demand the immediate cessation of the exhibition or commercial offering of their image. Furthermore, should equity so dictate, the court may award damages to the person, with such damages being limited to the unjust enrichment derived by the party who unlawfully utilized the image from its exhibition or commercial offering. This provision aims to prevent undue financial gain. Additionally, damages for moral prejudice (non-pecuniary harm) may be awarded if the exhibition or commercial offering does not cease forthwith upon demand, thereby emphasizing the urgency of safeguarding personal dignity.
Article 30: Rights of the Family Regarding Image The protection afforded to one’s image extends to the family unit under specific circumstances, particularly subsequent to the individual’s demise or if said individual is incapacitated and unable to articulate their will. In such instances, the right to demand cessation and seek damages (as stipulated in Article 29) shall vest in the relatives of the deceased or incapacitated person, provided that the exhibition or commercial offering is of a nature prejudicial to the honor or reputation of the deceased individual. To preclude a multiplicity of claims and ensure clarity, the law specifies the individuals competent to represent the family:
- The surviving spouse.
- In the absence of the spouse, the nearest descendant (child, grandchild).
- In the absence of a descendant, the nearest ascendant (parent, grandparent).
- In cases of equal degrees of consanguinity (e.g., multiple children or siblings), the eldest descendant or ascendant shall be the sole competent representative of the family. This structured approach ensures a clear line of authority for safeguarding the collective interest of the family in the reputation of the deceased or incapacitated person.
Article 31: Inviolability of Correspondence The privacy of communication constitutes a fundamental right. The recipient of a confidential missive is generally precluded from divulging its contents without the express consent of its author. This provision safeguards the intimacy and trust inherent in private correspondence. Nevertheless, this right to confidentiality is not absolute. The recipient may produce the missive in judicial proceedings if they can demonstrate a legitimate interest in doing so. This exception balances the right to privacy with the exigencies of justice, permitting private communications to be utilized as evidence when necessitated by a fair legal process.