Kigali – Less than 24 hours after he publicly announced withdrawal of his party from the �Permanent Consultative Council� of Rwandan opposition parties, the chair of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda retracts his statement and re-joins the two other opposition parties FDU-Inkingi and PS-Imberakuri.
He writes:

Press Release : We have not accused, judged or abandoned Ms. Victoire INGABIRE

After the publication of our Press Release on the Withdrawal of our membership from the Permanent Consultative Council (PCC), dated 15th June 2010, we have noted with great concern that several media houses have misinterpreted our message by assuming that we have accused, judged and abandoned Ms.Victoire INGABIRE. We would like to make the following clarifications :

1. We are not accusing, judging or abandoning Ms.Victoire INGABIRE, we believe that she is still innocent in the eyes of the law. We have not said that she is the one behind the Coalition of Democratic Forces �CDF. No one should misinterpret us.

2. Withdrawing from PCC did not mean that we are accusing or convicting FDU Inkingi on any criminal activity, we wanted these accusations which kept on coming in different forms to first be made clear.

3. We call upon the Rwandan Government to accord her a quick and fair trial.

4. We still stand with all the statements we signed while still in the PCC and have retracted the previous statement. In that case we have resumed our membership in the PCC after the three Parties have sat down and fully discussed and resolved the previous concerns.

5. More details will be availed soon in a joint communiqu� to be signed by all the three parties.

Done at Kigali, 16th June 2010

Frank HABINEZA
Founding President
Democratic Green Party of Rwanda

To the Editor
Guardian Newspaper
London
15 June 2010

Dear Sir/Madam: I was stunned by the recent ill informed remarks of Dr. Andrew Wallis, University of Cambridge in your newspaper on 14 June 2010 regarding Rwanda’s arrest and prosecution of American lawyer Peter Erlinder for alledgedly denying the Rwandan genocide contrary to Rwanda’s domestic criminal code.

I am a former Investigations Team Leader with the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (‘ICTR’) from 1996-1997. I and my colleagues were charged with investigating and arresting those persons involved in the widespread slaughter of countless thousands of civilians in Rwanda between January-December 1994. I was also charged with investigating those persons responsible for the fatal rocket attack on the Rwandan Presidential aircraft.

I feel qualified to speak in defence of Dr. Erlinder.

He is a UN defence lawyer. I am a former UN investigator and prosecutor. We effectively sit on opposite sides of the bar table before the international community. But we are one in our search for the truth about the real causes of, and culprits responsible for, the Rwandan Genocide.

I join the many lawyers and human rights advocates from around the world who now come to his defence.

I can tell you from personal experience that the ICTR has totally failed to investigate fully and impartially the real causes of the Rwandan genocide. It has failed to hold accountable all those responsible for the slaughter of an estimated 1,000,000 men, women and children in Rwanda in 1994. It has prosecuted only the losers of the genocide. It has buckled to international pressure to keep secret the involvement of foreign powers in the events which led up the to slaughter.
There is overwhelming credible evidence suggesting prima facie that Paul Kagame and his armed forces were involved the in slaughter of many thousands of civilians in Rwanda in 1994 and 1995.
There is significant credible evidence on the public record linking President Kagame with the shooting down of the Rwandan presidential aircraft in 1994 killing the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi and all others on board.

Paul Kagame and his regime in Rwanda has for many years now successfully denied these allegations in the press accusing any and all who touches on them as ‘genocide deniers’. What Kagame and his administration are saying, in effect, is that anyone who points the finger at Kagame and his RPF regime alleging their complicity in the violation of international law (no matter how credible the evidence) is a ‘genocide denier’. The net effect is, a ‘genocide denier’ under Rwanda law, is someone who challenges the carefully crafted victor’s history in Rwanda that only one side slaughtered civilians and assassinated political opposition.

I am stunned at the way the West now embraces Kagame and how universities flock to award him for his leadership in Rwanda. Quite apart from the serious allegations leveled at Kagame and his troops for their involvement in war crimes in 1994, many respected human rights advocates have for years complained of his repressive regime and its intolerance of policitcal opposition. One need only look at the recent events concerning the arrest of prosecution of Rwandan opposition leader, Victoire Ingabire, the leader of the United Democratic Forces, who had been attempting to register her party and is now under house arrest for allegedly denying the 1994 genocide.

Kagame’s fingerprints are all over so much suffering in Rwanda and the Great Lakes Region and Dr. Wallis had the real opportunity to join the international struggle to properly document what really happened in Rwanda in 1994, as well as, call for a full independent international inquiry into Kagame’s involvement in the murders of Rwandan President Habyarimana, his counterpart Burundian President Cyprien Ntaryamira, and the many countless others who have perished in Rwanda.

If to speak of these topics is to be a genocide denier then I am one too.

Michael Hourigan
Attorney
Australia

Kigali – Following advice from the United Nations’ Office of Legal Affairs, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on Tuesday 15th June urged Rwandan authorities to immediately release Prof. Peter Erlinder, a US lawyer accused of supporting “genocide ideology”.

The United Nations’ Office of Legal Affairs “advised the ICTR to formally assert immunity for Professor Erlinder without delay and request his immediate release accordingly.

The ICTR hereby notifies the Rwandan authorities that Professor Erlinder enjoys immunity and requests therefore, his immediate release,” writes the Tanzania-based court.

Here is the ICTR letter to the Rwandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation:

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
Tribunal P�nal International pour le Rwanda

Arusha International Conf�rence Centre

P.O.Box 6016, Arusha, Tanzania – B.P. 6016, Arusha, Tanzanie

Tel: 255 27 2564207-11 2564367-72 or 1 212 963 2850 Fax: 255 27 2564000/4373 or 1 212 963 2848/49

Office of the Registrar Cabinet du Greffier

ICTR/RO/06/10/175

NOTE VERBALE

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Government of Rwanda and has the honour to refer to its previous Note Verbales of 31 May 2010, 9 and 10 June 2010 as well as the response from Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga of 2 June 2010 concerning the arrest in Kigali, on 28 May 2010, of Professor Peter Erlinder on allegations of genocide denial. Professor Erlinder is an American lawyer in charge of the defence of Mayor Aloys Ntabakuze before the ICTR.

Following the arrest of Professor Erlinder, the ICTR sought clarification from the Rwandan authorities on the motives of this arrest through its Note Verbale of 31 May 2010. This request drew from the need for the ICTR to ascertain the applicability of any immunity or privilege which Defence Counsel assigned to cases before this Tribunal enjoy in the context of their mandate.

In his response, Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga indicated that Professor Erlinder’s arrest was “not at all related to his assignments at the ICTR”.

Having subsequently learned that Professor Blinder underwent a hearing before the High Court of Gasabo, the Tribunal requested, on 9 June, the Rwandan authorities to provide a formal copy of the charges leveled against Professor Erlinder. On 10 June, the ICTR transmitted another Note Verbale to the same end in compliance with an order of the Appeals Chamber sitting in the case of Mayor Ntabakuze. The Chambers’ decision was attached to that Note Verbale.

In the meantime, the ICTR received the decision on the bail hearing for the Erlinder’s case held on 7 June 2010 before the High Court of Gasabo. The ICTR notes that the Prosecution appearing before the High Court made specific references to words Professor Erlinder spoke and statements he made in his case before the ICTR. Excerpts of those submissions read as follows: “Carl Peter Erlinder denied and minimized the genocide by stating that the soldiers he was defending neither planned nor carried out the genocide. The Accused affirmed that his clients were rather defending national integrity. Prosecution Counsel submitted that the Accused did not end there, as he denied and minimized the genocide in other cases” [...] “While he was Defence Counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Carl Peter Erlinder submitted that what happened was a massacre of members of the population” [...] “the Accused considers the genocide as a war and, even in the Military I case, he submitted that the killings committed against the Tutsi in 1994 did not constitute genocide. He further states that in Rwanda, this issue is being used as a hurdle against those who want to challenge Kagame during the 2010 elections”.

Although no formal copy of the charges brought against Professor Erlinder has been received yet, the ICTR takes the view that the decision of the High Court constitutes a sufficient basis to identify a link between the nature of the accusations against Professor Erlinder and his mandate with this Tribunal.

The ICTR recalls that Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, to which the Republic of Rwanda is a party, provides that: “experts (other than officials coming within the scope of Article V) performing missions for the United Nations shall be accorded [...] in particular [...] [i]n respect of words spoken or written and acts done by them in the course of their performance of their mission, immunity from legal process of every kind. The immunity from legal process shall continue to be accorded notwithstanding that the persons concerned are no longer employed in the mission for the United Nations.”

Under the circumstances, the ICTR seized the Office of Legal Affairs in the United Nations Secretariat in New York which is ultimately responsible for providing advice on immunity related matters. In light of the above, the Office of Legal Affairs advised the ICTR to formally assert immunity for Professor Erlinder without delay and request his immediate release accordingly.

The ICTR hereby notifies the Rwandan authorities that Professor Erlinder enjoys immunity and requests therefore, his immediate release.

The ICTR avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Esteemed Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Republic of Rwanda the assurances of its highest consideration.

Arusha,15 June 2010

Copies:

• Honorable Martin Ngoga, Prosecutor General of the Republic of Rwanda
  Office of the Prosecutor-General, Kigali, Republic of Rwanda
• His Excellency, Honorable Tharcisse Karugarama, Minister of Justice Kigali, Republic of Rwanda

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Coop�ration
Attention: Her Excellency, Honorable Louise Mushikiwabo
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Kigali, Republic of Rwanda

Frank Habineza

The Chair of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, Frank HABINEZA, has announced the withdrawal from the ‘Permanent Consultative Council’ (PCC) of Rwandan opposition parties on Tueday 15th June.
The PCC was created in Kigali on 19th February 2010 by three opposition parties: FDU-Inkingi represented by Mrs. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, Democratic Green Party of Rwanda represented by Mr. Frank Habineza and PS-Imberakuri represented by Mr. Bernard Ntaganda.
Here is the Green Party’s statement:

Withdrawal from The Permanent Consultative Council

After careful analysis and consideration of contents of the information published on 10th June 2010, on a website known as : http://rwandaises.fr/ titled : FDU INKINGI AND VICTOIRE INGABIRE UMUHOZA, describing the nature of issues raised by FDU Inkingi and Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza.

After having seen a letter, claiming to come from CDF- Coalition of Democratic Forces, dated 21st May 2010, addressed to the President of the Republic, mentioning that if President Kagame does not resign before the August 9th Elections, they will resort to using force and that the country will go back into blood shed, also asserting that, they hope the President has seen enough evidences.

Considering that these are the same issues raised by the Rwandan Prosecution on the on-going case of Ms.Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza and understanding that she has not given her defense yet.

The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, is unable to continue with its membership in the Permanent Consultative Council of Opposition Parties in Rwanda (PCC), we are therefore withdrawing our membership from PCC until the exact truth in this case is made clear to all Rwandans.

The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, would like to inform, its members, the media fraternity, the Rwandan Public and the International Community, that it has decided to take this decision, because this case is compromising the fundamental principles which the party is built on.

We would like to emphasize that we are still an opposition party ; we declared this on 14th August 2009 at Hotel Laico (Ex-Novotel) in Kigali. We joined the PCC in February 2010. Therefore, this withdrawal of our membership from PCC does not mean that we have changed our political line of being an opposition party.

Done at Kigali, 15th June 2010

Frank HABINEZA
Founding President
Democratic Green Party of Rwanda

Diplomacy Briefing Series Conference on Sub-Saharan Africa

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 14, 2010

QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary Clinton, for being here today. My name is Beth Tuckey. I�m with Africa Action. And you mentioned in your presentation that you would speak out on behalf of democratic governance in Africa, and I know that the U.S. has been a strong supporter of Rwanda for many, many years. And I�m just wondering what you�re doing to address the recent oppression of political candidates in Rwanda and if you�re doing anything to address attorney Peter Erlinder, who is currently under arrest in Rwanda.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I know that we have addressed those concerns. We�ve made them known to the Rwandan Government. We really don�t want to see Rwanda undermine its own remarkable progress by beginning to move away from a lot of the very positive actions that undergirded its development so effectively. We still are very, very supportive of Rwanda. The kind of development that has taken place in Rwanda is really a model in many respects for the rest of the continent. But we are concerned by some of the recent actions and we would like to see steps taken to reverse those actions.

On the one hand, I understand the anxiety of the Rwandan leadership over what they view as genocide denial or genocide rejectionism. There are many countries that have been in a similar historic position, so I do understand that and I know that they are hypersensitive to that, but � because, obviously, they don�t want to see anything ignite any kind of ethnic conflict again. So I�m very sympathetic to that.

But I think that there are ways of dealing with that legitimate concern other than politically acting against opposition figures or lawyers and others. So on the one hand, I understand the motivation and the concern. On the other hand, I want to see different actions taken so that we don�t see a collision between what has been a remarkably successful period of growth and reconciliation and healing with the imperatives of continuing to build strong democratic institutions.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/06/143134.htm

Watch video – Rwanda on 30 min.

With water and toilet paper at hand, Erlinder consults with the lawyer on his way back to the Kigali Central Prison, known in Rwanda as �1930�, awaiting his bail verdict

Kigali – Citing depression, attempted suicide, a previously-unreported hospital visit and poor health, American law professor and accused Tutsi Genocide denier Peter Erlinder recanted all his publications in a desperate appeal for bail Monday in the High Court.

�I do want to clear my name, but I want to clear my name in a way that allows me to be healthy, that allows me to be mentally clear, that allows me to respond in ways that I will not be able to respond if I don’t get the medical treatment that I need now,� he said in the Nyamirambo High Court.

Erlinder was wearing pink prison robes and a short haircut, both new since his public appearance last Monday when he was denied bail. He was arrested 17 days ago in Kigali for allegedly denying the 1994 Tutsi Genocide.

Since then, Rwandan media had only announced two hospital visits. The first was on May 31, when Erlinder experienced what he described in court today as a panic attack caused from stress and high blood pressure, which felt to him like a heart attack.

His second trip to hospital was the morning of June 02, when police found him partly unconscious in his cell. Even Kennedy Ogetto, one of Erlinder’s Kenyan lawyers, told BBC Kinyarwanda the next day he could not confirm the news as had not been able to consult with his client.

�Your honour, I lost all hope to live,� Erlinder revealed in today’s nine-hour court session. �That is the product of the depression I’ve been struggling with for 25 years.�

The third hospital visit, unreported until now, happened after Erlinder was denied bail last week.

�On the Monday of the court proceedings a week ago I couldn’t hear what was going on in court,� he explained to Judge Johnson Busingye. �In the detention facility … it simply is noisy. In addition, there are no screens and no mosquito nets and I was sleeping on the floor for more than a week without a blanket. In order to try and get some sleep, I tried to use what I could to block out the noise and prevent mosquitoes from getting into my ears.�

Erlinder said he put tissue papers and cotton into his ears, but he pushed them in too far and couldn’t remove them until prison staff brought him to King Faisal hospital two days later. He said the problem is now solved for good, as the American embassy, which already supplies him with food, brought him plastic earplugs.

While Erlinder and his lawyers appealed to the judge that he should be released on humanitarian grounds until the Genocide denial hearing begins, the prosecution rebutted, calling him �incorrigible.�

�Releasing him would be sad and tantamount to granting him a blank cheque to continue denying that over one million innocent Rwandan Tutsi citizens of this country were butchered in a grand and organized Genocide not seen anywhere on Earth before 1994,� prosecutor Jean Bosco Mutangana, told the judge.

Erlinder prepares a response while prosecutor Jean Bosco Mutangana explains why he should be denied bail

Erlinder, 62, is a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minneapolis in the United States and he works as lead defence counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

His defence has led to the acquittal of top Genocide suspects, and he recently filed a suit against President Paul Kagame in America on behalf of the widows of dead Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundian counterpart Cyprien Ntaryamira. Erlinder alleges that President Kagame, Rwanda’s current leader, is responsible for the assassinations which sparked the 100-day Tutsi Genocide.

Erlinder’s defence team handed the judge documents, forwarded by United States secretary of state Hillary Clinton, from three American medical clinics outlining his health conditions and recommending he return to the United States for medical monitoring.

�You also had my recantation,� Erlinder concluded to a silent courthouse. �Since the court has my admissions of recantation and mental illness, I’m not sure what value it would be to have me come back, but I’m pleased to come back.�

�If for some reason I were to misrepresent this to the court here, the court could seek my dismissal from the ICTR and disciplinary proceedings back in the United States.�

The court session started at 8:45am (0645GMT), but there had to be an immediate hour adjournment as Erlinder said the prosecution had not granted him timely access to crucial documents. Court went into recess again for lunch after four hours of presenting submissions.

The afternoon session dragged four more hours as Erlinder pleaded to be released and the prosecutor Mutangana demanded he be maintained in jail for 30 days as the state prepares his charge sheet.

The high court judge will decide whether to grant bail to the controversial lawyer on Thursday at 3 p.m. in Kigali.

[ARI-RNA]

Kigali – The American lawyer Peter Erlinder jailed in Kigali is back in Court this Monday.

At the start of the High Court sitting in Nyamirambo this morning, Prof. Erlinder raised serious concerns against the prosecution. He complained that he had not been able to see his lawyers, and that he just had been given the necessary documents requested from the prosecution. He said he had not been allowed enough time to prepare his case.

The High Court ruled that the hearing be adjourned for an hour.

Rwanda�s Ombudsman Should Apologise to Rwandans or Resign

The Leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, would like to express its great sadness and astonishment on the verbal statements made by the Rwanda�s Ombudsman/ Information Commissioner of RPF Inkotanyi, Mr.Tito RUTAREMARA, broadcasted on Saturday 5th June 2010 on BBC Gahuzamiryango�s talk show, Imvo n�Imvano and calls him to apologise to Rwandans or else resign.

We are greatly saddened and surprised to hear someone of a high caliber like Tito RUTAREMARA, whom we respect, expected constructive advice from, whom we have been expecting to fight for the disadvantaged and be the voice of the voiceless, to have spoken so abusively on the Person of the President of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, Frank HABINEZA, that he is a street-kid (mayibobo).

Frank Habineza is a Rwandan, staying in Rwanda, playing a role in the sustainable development of the Country. He worked in the same Government Tito RUTAREMARA is working in. His appointment as Personal Assistant to the Minister of Lands, Environment, Water, Forestry and Mines was confirmed by the cabinet chaired by the President of the Republic of Rwanda in 2005.

He is the President of the African Green Parties Federation, and also represents Africa on the Global Greens Coordination Committee. For someone like Tito RUTAREMARA, to say that he does not know Frank Habineza, who is playing a role in both continental and international politics, and calls him a street-kid (mayibobo), is indeed a big problem and a shame !!, unless if it is true that some people are intentionally refusing to recognize the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, otherwise, the rest of the people know it very well and know him as its Founding President.

The Leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, would like to remind Mr.Tito RUTAREMARA, that among its leadership they are also other outstanding men and women, elders like him, who have contributed a lot to RPF�s development and ascension to power, whom now he is calling ‘mayibobos’, simply just because they have left RPF and joined an opposition party to RPF.

We would also like to remind him that all the members of the national committee are able to feed themselves and are not beggars, so calling them mayibobos is something out of context.

Frank HABINEZA, is playing his role in the political development of Rwanda, its now over TEN months ever since him and fellow colleagues publically declared this. For Tito RUTAREMARA to say that he doesn�t know him and that he is a mayibobo, it�s something non-factual. These statements are destructive, and also undermine the credibility and honor of the National Ombudsman.

If Rwandans are in agreement that we should all join hands in the betterment of our country, then our elders like Tito RUTAREMARA do the opposite by giving us such a bad example, then there is no guarantee for a better future of our country.

We are wondering, whether the articles on multi-party politics are no longer in our National Constitution – which Rwandans voted for (to remind you, we are not foreigners, we voted for it)

We also wonder, if Rwandan politics no longer accept democracy as a founding principle, and if this has become a reason for those starting opposition parties in Rwanda, which give constructive criticism, to be called criminals and mayibobos.

Rwanda�s Ombudsman, also alleged that the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is lost and does not know what it should be doing, that instead of taking care of forests, floods, landslides and so on, that it is only abusing RPF, we would like to clarify the following :

A. The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda does not abuse any one, it says the truth about what is happening in Rwanda and will continue to do so.

B. The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is not lost, it follows the Laws of the Land. You cannot build a permanent house without a foundation.
Protection of the Environment is just one of the different principles of the party and the Rwandan Citizens are our number one priority and are part and partial of the environment.
The people are the foundation, they are the basis of everything and are the ones who protect or destroy the environment.

We would like to inform Mr.Tito RUTAREMERA, that besides our Principle on ECOLOGICAL WISDOM, which has something to do with protecting the environment, we have other principles which are :

1. Participatory Democracy

2. Social Justice

3. Non-Violence

4. Sustainable Development

5. Respect for Diversity

6. Respect for Human Rights.

Mr. Tito RUTAREMARA also mentioned that he is aware of other Green Parties around the world, we would like to remind him that these are the same principles which the Global Greens follow and the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda has subscribed to all of them.

Whenever the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is requesting for freedom of speech, freedom of association, participatory democracy, sustainable development, it is fulfilling its constitutional and fundamental rights.

We are just waiting for the party registration from the Government of Rwanda, so that we are able to do other developmental activities. We have constructive programs for Rwandans, we shall start implementing them as soon as we get registered.

We would like to request all Rwandans to respect and give credit to all those who have constructive ideas, this way, we can all be happy staying in our mother land.

The Leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, requests the Rwanda�s Ombudsman who is also one of the powerful advisers to the President of the Republic of Rwanda, to apologize to Rwandans and in particular to the Leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, in order to regain his honor or else resign.

Issued at Kigali, 10th June 2010

Frank HABINEZA,

Founding President, Democratic Green Party of Rwanda

Kigali: Ombudsman Tito Rutaremara is under fire for referring to one of the opposition politicians as �mayibobo� (literary meaning street kid) in a BBC interview, RNA reports.

Mr. Rutaremara, who also doubles as the Information Commissioner for the RPF, spoke on the regular Saturday IMVO N�IMVANO program on BBC last week, where he attacked the three opposition critics Victoire Ingabire, Bernard Ntaganda and Frank Habineza.

With specific reference to Frank Habineza of the yet-to-be registered Green Party, the Ombudsman called him �mayibobo�, who was not up to the job of leading this country.

Detailing the roles he is playing on the local and international green movement, the troubled Habineza says the Ombudsman �spoken so abusively� of him.

�The Leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, requests the Rwanda�s Ombudsman who is also one of the powerful advisers to the President of the Republic of Rwanda, to apologize to Rwandans and in particular to the Leadership of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, in order to regain his honor or else resign,� the group says in a statement.

[ARI-RNA]

On Monday, June 7, 90 law school deans from across the United States signed a letter calling for the release of Professor Peter Erlinder to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to Rwanda W. Stuart Symington, and Rwandan Ambassador to the United States James Kimonyo.

Deans letter to Sec. Clinton

Deans letter to Ambassador Symington

The letter to Ambassador Kimonyo follows.

June 7, 2010

His Excellency
James Kimonyo
Ambassador of Rwanda

1714 New Hampshire NW
Washington, DC 20009

Dear Ambassador Kimonyo:

We are deans of American law schools. As legal educators, we believe we have an obligation to nurture in our students the core values of the legal profession. These core values are threatened by the arrest in Rwanda of William Mitchell College of Law Professor Peter Erlinder. We are writing to respectfully request your assistance in ensuring his safety and release.

The U.N. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers state that lawyers �shall not be identified with their clients or their clients� causes as a result of discharging their functions� and that �governments shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.� These principles also provide that �lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly.�

As you know, Prof. Erlinder was in Kigali to pursue a legal defense for Madame Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. We believe that he has been arrested, interrogated, and imprisoned unjustly and for simply doing the work of the lawyer: advocating on behalf of his client.

Ambassador Kimonyo, we respectfully urge the government of Rwanda to abide by these principles, to refrain from harassment of lawyers practicing law consistent with their professional obligations, and to release Prof. Erlinder forthwith.

Very truly yours,

(Affiliations are listed for identification only and do not represent institutional endorsement.)

R. Alexander Acosta, Florida International University

William E. Adams, Jr., Western State University College of Law

John B. Attanasio, Dedman School of Law Southern Methodist University

Martin H. Belsky, University of Akron School of Law

Paul Schiff Berman, Sandra Day O�Connor College of Law, Arizona State University.

Douglas Blaze, University of Tennessee College of Law

Jeff Brand, University of San Francisco School of Law

David A. Brennen, University of Kentucky College of Law

Shelley Broderick, University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law

Doris DelTosto Brogan, Villanova University School of Law

Penelope Bryan, Whittier Law School

Judge John L. Carroll, Cumberland School of Law, Samford University

James Ming Chen, University of Louisville

Annette E. Clark, Seattle University School of Law

Jay Conison, Valparaiso University School of Law

John Corkery, The John Marshall Law School

George Critchlow, Gonzaga University School of Law

Mary A. Crossley, University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Marianne B. Culhane, Creighton Univ. School of Law

Kenneth B. Davis, Jr., University of Wisconsin Law School

Samuel M. Davis, University of Mississippi School of Law

Nora V. Demleitner, Hofstra University School of Law

R. Lawrence Dessem, University of Missouri School of Law

Matthew Diller, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

John M. A. DiPippa, University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Allen Easley, University of LaVerne College of Law

JoAnne A. Epps, Temple University Beasley School of Law

John J. Farmer, Jr., Rutgers School of Law | Newark

Daisy H. Floyd, Mercer University School of Law

Alfredo Garcia, St. Thomas University School of Law

Bryant G. Garth, Southwestern Law School

Arthur R. Gaudio, Western New England College School of Law

Victor J. Gold, Loyola Law School

Peter Goplerud, Florida Coastal School of Law

Ken Gormley, Duquesne University School of Law

Stephen M. Griffin, Tulane Law School

Claudio Grossman, American University, Washington College of Law

Donald J. Guter, South Texas College of Law

Jack A. Guttenberg, Capital University Law School

Phoebe A. Haddon, University of Maryland School of Law

Lawrence K. Hellman, Oklahoma City University

Dennis R. Honabach, Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University

Scott W. Howe, Chapman University School of Law

Eric S. Janus, William Mitchell College of Law

Robert H. Jerry, II, Levin College of Law, University of Florida

George R. Johnson, Jr., Elon University School of Law

Bernard V. Keenan, Suffolk University Law School

Robert Klonoff, Lewis & Clark Law School

Don LeDuc, Thomas M. Cooley Law School

Donald M. Lewis, Hamline University School of Law

David A. Logan, Roger Williams University School of Law

Richard A. Matasar, New York Law School

Philip J. McConnaughay, Penn State The Dickinson School of Law

Joyce E. McConnell, West Virginia University College of Law

Thomas M. Mengler, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Veryl Miles, Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law

Blake D. Morant, Wake Forest University School of Law

Charles I. Nelson, Faulkner University, Jones School of Law

John O�Brien, New England Law | Boston

Maureen A. O�Rourke, Boston University School of Law

Jeremy Paul, University of Connecticut School of Law

Raymond C. Pierce, North Carolina Central University School of Law

Freddie Pitcher, Jr., Southern University Law Center

Peter Pitegoff, University of Maine School of Law

Lawrence Raful, Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center

Drucilla S. Ramey, Golden Gate University, School of Law

Robert H. Rawson, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Douglas E Ray, University of Toledo College of Law

Richard L. Revesz, New York University School of Law

Jim Rosenblatt, Mississippi College School of Law

Irma Russell, University of Montana School of Law

Lawrence Sager, University of Texas at Austin School of Law

Brad Saxton, Quinnipiac University School of Law

Kurt L. Schmoke, Howard University School of Law

Lloyd Semple, University of Detroit Mercy School of law

Michelle S. Simon, Pace Law School

Steven R. Smith, California Western School of Law | San Diego

Rodney A. Smolla, Washington and Lee University School of Law

Rayman L. Solomon, Rutgers University School of Law � Camden

Mathew D. Staver, Liberty University School of Law
Athornia Steele, Nova Southeastern University

Dennis Stone, Charlotte School of Law

Ellen Y. Suni, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law

Kellye Y. Testy, University of Washington School of Law

William M. Treanor, Fordham Law School

Kevin Washburn, University of New Mexico School of Law

John Valery White, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Patricia D. White, University of Miami School of Law

Rebecca H. White, University of Georgia, School of Law

David Yellen, Loyola University Chicago School of Law