HOME-ACCUEIL - ENGLISH - FRANCAIS - KINYARWANDA

In this video, you watch and listen to Mark Pursey, head of public relations BTP Advisers, saying that they created an internet “attack site” for the government of Rwanda over accusations it had been involved in genocide.
Here is what James Cusick ‘The Independent‘ writes about it:

Mark Pursey, head of BTP Advisers, was secretly recorded saying that the site was targeted at people who “over-criticised” over “who did what in the genocide”. A 2009 report from the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative said Rwanda’s “excellent public relations machinery” had succeeded in hiding “the exclusionary and repressive nature of the regime”.

Mr Pursey, who was the voluntary head of the Liberal Democrats’ National Media Intelligence Unit during the 2010 election, suggested his firm could create a similar site for the Uzbeks – who were in fact undercover reporters working for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Such a site, he added, could be “aggressive” in terms of putting across figures showing that things were “moving in the right direction”. Also at the meeting was Edward Lord, a member of the City of London Corporation, who attended at Mr Pursey’s request.

As part of its investigation into lobbying for The Independent, reporters from the BIJ posed as agents for the government of Uzbekistan and representatives of the country’s cotton industry, to discover what promises British lobbying and PR firms were prepared to make when pitching to clients. Mr Pursey said his firm was working for the government of Azerbaijan, which he described as having “its own set of very complex issues” and appeared to revel in the controversial nature of his accounts. “We already work for other governments as well … Azerbaijan, Rwanda, we also do work for the Ivory Coast – the new one, not the old one . We also do work for – just started, in fact – the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe.

“The issues of what’s happening for instance in Ivory Coast is very controversial with accusations of genocide on both sides. The government of Rwanda is itself enormously controversial, it’s very uncertain what their role was in the deaths that occurred around the time of the genocide.”

He later added: “If I wanted an easy life I’d do PR for housing associations.”

Mr Pursey suggested setting up an internet site “like an Uzbek fact-check about the industry”, adding that he could also create attack sites aimed at critics. He said: “I think articles saying how marvellous everything is [is] jumping the gun because it’s not true and they [people] won’t accept it. So I think that things such as working through the internet, setting up things like an Uzbek fact-check about the industry, could be a resource for people online that could render better articles.

“Then a separate site, this is a similar sort of work we’ve done with the Rwandans, for instance. We had a very controversial issue over who did what in the genocide. So the second site being much more a kind of attack site on people who over-criticise.”

Mr Pursey suggested recruiting Uzbek students to comment on articles critical of the regime. “What we would need to do is find a group of people who have an interest in this subject that would include us, that would include Uzbek students living in London … who, when an article comes up that’s wrong, could be alerted about it. We could suggest to them what they might want to say in response to an article through a post, a suggestion.” He added that this could affect newspaper coverage. “Once we’ve started to nudge up some of the stories to become not so damning, more positive, then we can start looking at addressing issues such as going to the newspapers and saying that people are saying rather different things about this issue than they were six months ago.”

Contacted by the Bureau yesterday, Mr Pursey said: “We helped create a site that outlined facts about the government of Rwanda, and most governments have them. This [sic] UN published a report that many academics and commentators agreed was extremely poorly researched yet made very alarming allegations … its accusations towards others should be scrutinised.”

On the company’s work in Azerbaijan, he said: “An issue such as the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh that cost 80,000 lives and the internal displacement of over 1 million refugees is one of these very complexities, yet rarely reported. Rebuilding the lives and families of the survivors has been a massive financial and social challenge, and one that should be given the understanding and support it deserves.”

Mr Lord said in a statement: “No payment or preferment of any kind was received by me, or any organisation I have involvement with, as a result of participating in the meeting, nor was any expected.

“I am not now, nor have I ever been, a partner or a non-executive director in BTP Advisers. This can be confirmed by reference to records held at Companies House. I attended the meeting as a personal favour to Mr Pursey.’”

No thanks: Firms that rejected the job

During the undercover investigation into lobbying, 10 firms were contacted. Two of these, Morris International Associates and Ogilvy, immediately refused to accept the business from the Uzbek regime, which is responsible for grave human rights abuses.

An hour-long meeting with Ann Morris, director of Morris International, where the undercover reporters tried to convince the company it should represent Uzbekistan, ended in a formal rejection.

No official response to The Independent’s exposé yesterday was made by Morris International. But an account of the meeting by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveals that it took less than 10 minutes for the firm to make it clear that they were unwilling to take on the regime as their client.

It was explained during the hour-long meeting that one ofthe requirements was online “reputational management” – to which Bell Pottinger agreed in its own meetings with the reporters. Morris International made itclear this was something theywere not prepared to engage in.

The approach to a second firm, Ogilvy PR, never turned into an actual meeting. An initial connection was made by email and subsequently followed up with a telephone call. This lasted less than two minutes and the rejection of the request was quick and clear.

The BIJ said that at no point did either of the two companies make it known that they felt a “sting” was in operation. Their rejection was based on what they were being asked to do.

PR firm ‘attacked’ critics of Rwandan government

December 6th, 2011 | by Melanie Newman

A public relations firm whose senior management have close links to the Liberal Democrats said it had created an internet ‘attack site’ for the government of Rwanda to counter accusations that it had been involved in genocide.

Mark Pursey, head of BTP Advisers, was secretly recorded as part of the Bureau’s investigation into lobbying and PR, saying that the site was targeted at those who ‘over-criticised’ over ‘who did what in the genocide’.

A 2009 report from the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative said Rwanda’s ‘excellent public relations machinery’ had succeeded in hiding ‘the exclusionary and repressive nature of the regime’.

Mr Pursey, who was head of the Lib Dems’ National Media Intelligence Unit during the 2010 election, suggested his firm could create a similar site for the government of Uzbekistan.

Such a site, he added, could be ‘aggressive in terms of putting across facts and figures showing that things were moving in the right direction’.

He said: ‘If people are using child labour in Uzbekistan to pick cotton, and it’s true, then there’s no point in denying it. We have to look to show, as you said yourself, how the government is changing the law, is trying to crack down on it, is moving in the right direction and show real, tangible results about that.’

Reporters from the Bureau posed as agents for the government of Uzbekistan and representatives of the country’s cotton industry. In Uzbekistan, child labour is used in cotton fields to fulfil state quotas and the country also has a terrible human rights record.

Mr Pursey said his company was working for the government of Azerbaijan, which he described as having ‘its own set of very complex issues’.

He later added: ‘If I wanted an easy life I’d do PR for housing associations.’

An ‘attack site’

As well as setting up an internet site ‘like an Uzbek factcheck about the industry’, Mr Pursey suggested the firm could also create an ‘attack site’ aimed at critics.

‘We haven’t written you a proposal or anything else but I think there are several things that we would want to do to start,’ he said.

‘I think articles saying how marvelous everything is, is jumping the gun because it’s not true and [people] won’t accept it. So I think that things such as working through the internet, setting up things like an Uzbek factcheck about the industry, could be a resource for people online that could render better articles.

‘Then a separate site, this is a similar sort of work we’ve done with the Rwandans, for instance. We had a very controversial issue over who did what in the genocide. So the second site being much more a kind of attack site on people who over-criticise.’

Mr Pursey also suggested recruiting Uzbek students, ‘a team of people who are genuinely, really blogging. It’s not fictional. It’s real.’ This group would be used to comment on an online article critical of the regime.

He added that this could affect newspaper coverage.

A positive spin

‘Once we’ve started to nudge up some of the stories to become not so damning, more positive, then we can start looking at addressing issues such as going to the newspapers and saying “Look, you can now see, can’t you, that things are – that people are saying rather different things about this issue than they were six months ago”.’

Mr Pursey told the Bureau yesterday: ‘We helped create a site that outlined facts about the government of Rwanda and most governments have them.’

On the company’s work in Azerbaijan, Mr Pursey said: ‘An issue such as the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakhk, that cost 80,000 lives and the internal displacement of over 1 million refugees, is one of these very complexities, yet rarely reported. Rebuilding the lives and families of the survivors has been a massive financial and social challenge and one that should be given the understanding and support it deserves, including in the media.’

During the meeting Edward Lord OBE, a member of the City of London Corporation and Lord Kilclooney’s staff, was introduced by Mr Pursey as another partner in the business. Both men subsequently clarified that Mr Lord was not a BTP Partner and had no financial relationship with the firm, but had been invited by Mr Pursey to support him in making his pitch.  Mr Lord has since said, with hindsight, he should not have attended the meeting.

Ugandan Government Should Ensure Safety of Rwandan Exiles

December 6, 2011 – The persecution of government critics can reach beyond Rwanda’s borders. We fear for the safety of other exiled journalists and government opponents in the aftermath of Ingabire’s murder.

Daniel Bekele, Africa director at Human Rights Watch.

(New York) – The Ugandan authorities should open an effective and transparent investigation into the murder of a Rwandan journalist on November 30, 2011, and identify and bring those responsible to justice, Human Rights Watch said today. The Ugandan government should also provide protection for Rwandan journalists and other critics of the Rwandan government who are living in Uganda, Human Rights Watch said.

Charles Ingabire, editor of the online publication Inyenyeri News and a vocal critic of the Rwandan government, was shot twice in the chest as he was leaving a bar in the Bukesa-Kikoni Makerere area of Kampala late at night. Friends told Human Rights Watch that he frequently went to that bar and had gone there that evening to meet some friends.

A spokesman for the Ugandan police told the media that the police had opened an investigation into Ingabire’s death and that two people were being held for questioning.

“The persecution of government critics can reach beyond Rwanda’s borders,” said Daniel Bekele, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “We fear for the safety of other exiled journalists and government opponents in the aftermath of Ingabire’s murder.”

The Ugandan police should explore every lead in the search for Ingabire’s killers and intensify protective measures for other Rwandan refugees, Human Rights Watch said.

Ingabire, who was 31 years old, was a survivor of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. He had worked as a journalist in Rwanda, but left in 2007 and obtained refugee status in Uganda. While in Uganda, he contributed to Umuvugizi newspaper, one of Rwanda’s most outspoken publications.

Umuvugiziwas suspended in 2010 by the Media High Council, a Rwandan government-controlled institution. Jean-Léonard Rugambage, another Umuvugizi journalist, was murdered in the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in June 2010. Its editor, Jean-Bosco Gasasira, fled Rwanda in 2010 after numerous threats to his safety.

After the suspension of Umuvugizi, Ingabire became the editor of an online newspaper, Inyenyeri News, which often published articles critical of President Paul Kagame of Rwanda and of the Rwandan government and army. Within a short time, the website appeared to have been infiltrated, and its contents suddenly changed, portraying the government in a favorable light. Ingabire’s friends said they suspected it had been taken over by elements close to the government. Ingabire and his colleagues moved Inyenyeri News to a new web location and it resumed its critical reporting.

Ingabire confided to friends that he had been threatened several times in the months leading up to his death, they told Human Rights Watch. About two months before his murder, he was attacked and beaten in Kampala, and his computer stolen. The assailants – whom he did not recognize – told him they wanted him to close down his website. He also received anonymous telephone death threats warning him to stop writing articles critical of the government.

While it is too early to draw conclusions about the motive for Ingabire’s murder, his death takes place in the context of a well documented pattern of repression of independent journalists, opposition party members, and civil society activists in Rwanda, Human Rights Watch said. Several journalists, critics, and opponents of the government in Rwanda have been arrested and detained or prosecuted in 2010 and 2011, and others outside the country have been threatened repeatedly.

Rwandans living in Uganda are at particular risk, given the geographical proximity and close links between the two countries, Human Rights Watch said. Rwandan refugees in Kampala frequently report being threatened and followed by people they believe are Rwandan intelligence agents.

Attacks on opponents and critics have also taken place further afield. In June 2010, General Kayumba Nyamwasa narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in South Africa. Nyamwasa is a former chief-of-staff of the Rwandan army and was once a close ally of Kagame, but is now an outspoken government opponent in exile. In May, two Rwandans living in the UK were warned by the London Metropolitan Police that there were threats to their safety emanating from the Rwandan government.

“The Rwandan government frequently states its commitment to democracy and free speech,” Bekele said, “but such statements are hollow when critics are threatened and attacked. The Rwandan judicial authorities should cooperate fully with their Ugandan counterparts in unearthing the truth about Ingabire’s murder.”

Watch these Lantos 2011 Award Videos to understand why Paul Rusesabagina was awarded the Lantos Human Rights Prize 2011.

“Paul Rusesabagina’s heroic efforts to shelter those in harm’s way changed the life stories of more than 1,200 Rwandans.”
- Katrina Lantos Swett, president of the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice.

“In the midst of unimaginable darkness, there is always room for a hero. Albeit reluctantly, Rusesabagina earned that distinction during the Rwandan Genocide. Using his position as manager of the Hôtel des Mille Collines, this self-described “ordinary man” used every stratagem and connection he could muster to shelter desperate refugees at his hotel, protecting them from the brutal slaughter occurring just outside the gates. What began as a quest to protect his family and a handful of neighbors quickly snowballed into a three-month ordeal that saved the lives of more than 1,200 Tutsis and Hutus.”
- Katrina Lantos Swett.

[Lantos Foundation]

Related:

• Understanding why Paul Rusesabagina was a Hero during Rwandan Genocide – Lantos 2011 Award Videos
• Lantos Prize 2011 awarded to Rwandan Hero Paul Rusesabagina
• Rwandan Hero Paul Rusesabagina Deserves The Lantos Human Rights Prize

Yesterday 16 November 2011 in Washington, DC, Paul Rusesabagina was awarded the 2011 Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice Human Rights Prize.

Lantos Human Rights Prize

In an effort to draw attention to human rights violations across the globe and to alert the media and governments to the importance of making human rights a priority on equal footing with other policy decisions, the Lantos Human Rights Prize is awarded annually to raise awareness about human rights violations and the individuals committed to fighting them throughout the world.

Paul Rusesabagina: Recipient for 2011

“We are so proud to award this year’s Lantos Prize to Paul Rusesabagina. I was raised on the idea that we are all our brothers keepers’, and Paul is the living embodiment of that idea. My father, Congressman Tom Lantos, survived the Holocaust in one of Raoul Wallenberg’s safehouses and understood all too well that the actions of one man can change the arc of one’s life story. Nearly 50 years later, Paul Rusesabagina’s heroic efforts to shelter those in harm’s way changed the life stories of more than 1,200 Rwandans. We look forward to honoring his historic humanitarian actions.” – Katrina Lantos Swett

Related:
Rwandan Hero Paul Rusesabagina Deserves The Lantos Human Rights Prize

by Aimable Mugara

November 1, 2011 – Imagine if you were on trial for crimes punishable with up to 30 years in jail. Imagine if the judges then told your lawyers that the lawyers have no right to cross-examine the state’s so-called witnesses. This is what happened this week in the capital city of Kigali, Rwanda where opposition leader Mrs. Victoire Ingabire is on trial. Mrs. Ingabire is on trial for charges widely considered by human rights activists worldwide as politically-motivated. Originally, when the defense lawyers asked for time to do cross-examination of the state’s witnesses, the judge had granted this wish. In fact, the judge called up the first witness to take the stand.

As the witness approached the stand to be cross-examined, something quite strange happened. The prosecutor protested. The exchange between the prosecutor and the judge made it clear who is the boss in that court. In order to placate the prosecutor, who is clearly the one in charge, the judge asked the defense to submit written questions to the judge in advance. Once the judge has had time to review the questions (days, not hours), the judge will then decide which questions the defense can ask the witnesses and which questions should not be asked. If you are thinking that the judge will pass these questions over to the so-called witnesses during that period, you are probably right. After all, for politically-motivated charges we need to make sure that the so-called witnesses have enough days to rehearse their answers.

The entire charade was a stark reminder of the show trials that took place in the Soviet Union in 1936 to 1939. In an essay by Gudrun Persson, it is said that “Stalin had won the struggle for power and was now dealing death blows to the opposition by organizing uncontrolled terror at every level of society. The purges carried out within the party, the army, among members of the scientific community, artists and prominent cultural figures came to be known as the Great Terror. The term is actually bizarre; terror is hardly a rank great or small but absolute: once it has taken root in a social system it spreads and acquires a life of its own.”

Paul Kagame: “I don’t care”

You can easily replace the word Stalin with the words General Kagame and the above context will remain accurate while describing today’s Rwanda. Rwanda’s society is so terrorized and in order to keep the masses terrorized, General Kagame’s regime makes it a point of crushing every single opposition leader that dares speak out against the government. It is in this context that the Stalin-style show trials have been taking place, with each opposition leader being locked up one after another despite their glaringly obvious innocence.

But then again, the self-proclaimed president of Rwanda, General Kagame recently told BBC that “any elections are better than no elections at all.” He was referring to last year’s so-called presidential elections where all real opposition political parties were banned from participating and all opposition leaders jailed. Elections that were preceded by the beheading of the Rwandan Green Party’s Vice-President. Elections that were preceded by the killing of a journalist, the jailing of several other journalists, the shutting down of the few remaining independent newspapers and the expulsion from the country of a Human Rights Watch researcher. According to General Kagame, such elections are better than no elections at all. So, by the same logic, Mrs. Victoire Ingabire should apparently be grateful that she had any “trial” at all, instead of being summarily executed like the millions of Rwandans and Congolese that have been killed by General Kagame’s soldiers in the past 21 years. The question on General Kagame’s mind today seems to be a very simple one. Why can’t opposition leader Mrs. Victoire Ingabire quietly go to jail where all opposition leaders belong, pretty please?

[Rwanda Human Rights]

Related:

Rwanda: Ingabire’s Defense Counsel Denied Cross-Examination Right

Question by Claude Bakari:
What is your point view on Rwandan Constitution in one of its articles which states that the Rwandan genocide started on 1st October 1990?

Answer by Theogene Rudasingwa:
While there had been serious human rights abuses over several decades, I do not agree that genocide began on 1st October1990. There were serious human rights violations in Bigogwe, Kibilira, Bugesera, etc… targeting Tutsi. On the RPF side there were equally serious human rights abuses targeting Hutu in areas controlled by the rebel RPF. Kagame and RPF would not wish the latter to be investigated and perpetrators brought to account, and the international community leans biased towards Kagame’s manipulations.
It may take time, but one day Kagame and those he has corrupted into these crimes will have their day in court. It all depends on us Rwandans, how far we are willing to struggle for justice for everyone?

Question to the reader: Did Theogene Rudasingwa answer the question to your satisfaction? Comments welcome below.

by FDU-Inkingi and Rwanda National Congress.

(from joint open letter of FDU-Inkingi and Rwanda National Congress to members of the US Congress – 14th September 2011)

Potential consequences of the policies of the Rwanda Government

Rwanda, as demonstrated, still faces many difficult challenges in its experience of nation- building in the aftermath of, and continuing, violent conflict. It is generally acknowledged that Rwandan society remains deeply divided along ethnic lines. The country’s transition to democracy has been unsuccessful. The human rights situation in the country remains a matter of grave concern. Citizens lack access to fundamental human rights. State security agencies commit grave human rights abuses with impunity. The country on the surface look peaceful, but many observers are of the view that recurrence of very violent conflict may be inevitable, at least in the medium to long term. President Kagame claims to have made progress in developing Rwanda, and argues that human rights, including rights relating to political participation, are not a priority for the development process.

Nevertheless, concerns over the country’s progress in engendering reconciliation and creating a democratic system of government raise questions about the sustainability of Rwanda’s social and economic advances and the potential for renewed conflict. The situation that prevails raises serious questions about the country’s future. Are the country’s development achievements broad-based and sustainable? Can Rwanda continue to be peaceful while the government continues to be repressive and the majority of the people consider the government illegitimate? How do we balance individual freedoms and the requirement for a stable community? How should citizens respond when rulers mistake the state to be their personal estate and deprive their subjects of their inalienable rights?’

We firmly believe that the violent conflicts that Rwanda has experienced over the past half century are rooted in issues revolving around governance. The RPF government, we assert, has failed to effectively address the root causes of conflict in Rwandan society. As a result, Rwanda is in a situation of serious crisis.

The only path to sustainable peace and development in Rwanda is a system of government that has popular legitimacy, includes all communities of Rwanda and is committed to the respect of fundamental human rights, especially the integrity of the person and the right to political participation. This, we believe, well reflects the stated approach of the United States government itself to supporting societies in political transition. Economic development in post conflict societies that is not rooted in democratic values, respect for human rights, and broad inclusion is not sustainable. We are convinced that violent conflict is virtually certain to return to Rwanda if the present government does not heed calls for dialogue and agree to a process of peaceful political reform leading to democracy. The results of the substantial development assistance that your government and others have extended to Rwanda since the end of the genocide could be very swiftly undone in the event of such conflict, with grave implications for the whole Great Lakes region and for international peace and security.

Next:

The U.S. Assistance to Rwanda Enables Ruling Party RPF To Destroy Legitimate Political Opposition

by FDU-Inkingi and Rwanda National Congress.

(from joint open letter of FDU-Inkingi and Rwanda National Congress to members of the US Congress – 14th September 2011)

The status of governance in Rwanda

The people of Rwanda have for a very long time been exposed to repressive government, leading to recurrent violent conflict. This violence reached its peak with the genocide of 1994, with grave consequences for Rwanda and the whole region till today. We have no doubt that members of US Congress, your party and the U.S. government in general are well aware of the deprivation and immense suffering that recurrent conflict has occasioned to millions of Rwandans till today. We also acknowledge that the Government of Rwanda has, with the assistance of the international community, made some progress in restoring public order, re-establishing functioning, yet repressive, state institutions, and rebuilding the country’s economy during the period since 1994.

Unfortunately, the reconstruction efforts that Rwanda has undertaken since the genocide are not rooted in democratic values, respect for human rights and broad inclusion. As stated in the “Rwanda Briefing’ document that several former colleagues of Rwandan President Kagame published in August 2010, ” there is more to Rwanda and Paul Kagame than new buildings, clean streets, and efficient government than President Kagame’s famous friends in high places in Europe and America care to admit. Rwanda is essentially a hard-line, one-party, secretive police state with a façade of democracy’. The ruling party, the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), has closed space for political participation. The RPF does not tolerate political opposition or open competition for power. President Kagame does not allow opposition parties to be registered, let alone operate freely. Media outlets that are critical of the government are either shut down by the government or forced to close operations as a result of attacks against their journalists. President Kagame has now closed down all the independent media outlets the country once had.

Civil society organizations independent of the government operate under draconian restrictions that make the exercise of their role as watchdogs over government impossible. The people of Rwanda have no liberty to discuss, nor decide, how they should be governed. The Rwanda Government is controlled by a small group of Tutsi military officers and a few civilians from behind the scenes. The political system marginalizes the majority of the population from political participation.

President Kagame relies on severe repression to stay in power. The RPF government relies on a wide range of laws, administrative practices and terror to restrict citizens’ enjoyment of political freedoms. Institutions of the state continue to subject real and imagined critics of the government to a wide range of human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests and detentions and involuntary disappearances and extrajudicial killings. The security services that are responsible for keeping President Kagame in power enjoy absolute impunity for grave human rights abuses. Many members of opposition parties, civil society groups, independent media outlets and individuals suspected of being opponents of the regime have been hunted down, arrested, tortured, imprisoned or killed by agents of the state.

Victims of state sponsored terror who have lost their lives over the recent past include Andre Kagwa Rwisereka (Vice-President of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda), Jean Leonard Rugambage (Deputy Editor of Umuvugizi Newspaper) and John Rutayisire. The Rwanda Government has deployed a very large number of intelligence operatives in countries across Africa, Europe (including the United Kingdom) and North America to hunt down and kill opponents of the regime.

Many members and leaders of opposition parties, including Hon. Charles Ntakirutinka of Ubuyanja Party; Bernard Ntaganda, President of the Social Imberakuri Party; Victoire Ingabire, President of the FDU-Inkingi Party; and, Deo Mushayindi of PPD Imanzi Party, remain in detention and so do some innocent relatives of opposition leaders. The Rwanda Government continues its relentless persecution of government critics.

The most recent victims of this persecution include independent journalists and opposition leaders, all of whom have been sentenced to long prison terms, some after trials in absentia that did not meet international standards of fair trial. The climate of repression that prevails in Rwanda has forced many government officials, including two former Prime Ministers, two former Speakers of Parliament, and a host of former Ministers, former Judges, senior government officials, Military officers, Journalists and Human rights activists to join hundreds of thousands of their compatriots in exile, who include Paul Rusesabagina, the hero of the movie, Hotel Rwanda.

As a result of the repression that security services helping President Kagame are responsible for, Rwanda is a country engulfed by fear. Not since the days of Idi Amin of Uganda have the security services of a state terrorized a nation to the extent to which Rwanda’s security services have visited fear and terror upon the country’s citizens. The climate of fear and terror that prevails in Rwanda does not permit Rwandan society to freely discuss the very grave problems facing the country and to find solutions to those problems.

Next:

Paul Kagame’s Leadership: Relentless Pursuit of Absolute Power

Human Rights Council adopts Universal Periodic Review outcome on Rwanda

Amnesty International welcomes Rwanda’s support of the majority of recommendations made during the review, in particular all the recommendations to protect and respect freedom of expression, including by reviewing and revising existing legislation.

In this respect, the organization urges Rwanda to publicly announce a timeframe for revising the genocide ideology law as well as for the consideration of amendments to the media law by Parliament. It also strongly encourages Rwanda to review related laws and amend the sectarianism law in line with international standards.

Amnesty International is concerned that despite Rwanda’s recognition of the shortcomings of the genocide ideology law, the authorities continue to use it to prosecute government critics, including journalists. It urges Rwanda to ensure that legislative changes are accompanied by prompt reviews of past cases – including of opposition politicians and journalists convicted to lengthy prison sentences for merely expressing their opinions without advocating violence.

Amnesty International also urges Rwanda to uphold its commitment to undertake credible investigations into reports of harassment of journalists and to prosecute where the evidence warrants. Rwanda could demonstrate this commitment by re-opening investigations into the killing of journalist Jean-Leonard Rugambage on 24 June 2010 and by following all leads.

Abductions, enforced disappearances and incommunicado detention – rare in Rwanda in recent years – increased in 2010 as the authorities investigated a spate of grenade attacks. Amnesty International deeply regrets Rwanda’s rejection of the recommendation to investigate cases of arbitrary arrest and detention, and enforced disappearances. Rwanda states that it intends to ratify the Convention on the Protection of Enforced Disappearances, yet remains unwilling to investigate such cases.

Amnesty International urges Rwanda to determine the whereabouts and fate of any individual subjected to enforced disappearance. Anyone arbitrarily detained should be granted access to a lawyer and charged with a recognizable criminal offence, or released. Those held incommunicado should be given access to relatives and lawyers. It also calls on Rwanda to respond promptly to communications from human rights organizations and family members regarding such cases.

Amnesty International welcomes Rwanda’s acceptance of recommendations to issue a standing invitation to the UN Special Procedures and urge the government to act on this without delay.

Background

The UN Human Rights Council adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Rwanda on 7 June 2011 at its 17th session.

[Amnesty International]