HOME-ACCUEIL - ENGLISH - FRANCAIS - KINYARWANDA

by David Barouski.
Adapted from the article “Leaked: Rwandan Secret Services’ Plan to Eliminate Victoire Ingabire” posted on “The Proxy Lake,” blog on 17 October 2010.[1]

Introduction

The Rwandan Department of Military Intelligence (DMI), in collaboration with the Rwandan national police, allegedly masterminded a conspiracy to indict and eventually eliminate Madame Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, Chairperson of an unregistered Rwandan opposition party, the United Democratic Forces (FDU)-Inkingi.  The alleged plan was initiated by leveling a new criminal charge against Madame Ingabire.  The charge claims that she collaborates with a newly formed armed group affiliated with her political party.

This information comes from Umuvugizi, a Rwandan local newspaper that recently had its six-month government-imposed ban lifted after the suspension’s time period expired.[2]  The article containing the allegations was published on Sunday, 17 October 2010.

Rwandan officials also allege that Mr. Paul Rusesabagina, the famous figure depicted in the Hollywood film “Hotel Rwanda,” is also involved, which Mr. Rusesabagina strongly denies.

Based on a tip-off from an informant allegedly inside Rwandan President Paul Kagame’s DMI, Umuvugizi’s exiled Chief Editor Jean-Bosco Gasasira[3] claims the alleged plot against Madame Ingabire was engineered by Colonel Dan Munyuza of the Rwandan Defense Forces (RDF).  He was allegedly assisted by General Paul Rwarakabije, a former senior officer of the Rwandan gendarmerie during the regime of the late President Juvenal Habyarimana.

After fleeing to (then) Zaire in 1994, General Rwarakabije eventually became a senior commander in the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a non-state armed group that opposes the Rwandan government.

After defecting and repatriating back to Rwanda, he eventually became a commissioner in Rwanda’s Demobilization and Reintegration Commission, which deals with repatriating and reintegrating Rwandan citizens who were members of opposing non-state armed groups.

General Rwarakabije was allegedly asked to find people willing to play a role in the alleged plot by acting as witnesses to validate the accusations against Madame Ingabire in court and secure her conviction.  He was allegedly tasked with recruiting Hutu that were once members of the FDLR that could be convinced to collaborate with the Rwandan government.

The article claimed, “General Rwarakabije picked one of his men from FRDL (sic!), a certain Major (Vital) Uwumuremyi, who arrived in Rwanda a few months ago with his group.  Once in Rwanda, he was given a mission to return to Congo to spy on his comrades. He carried out his secret mission on several occasions before they were able to trust him.  Information we have confirms that he received a large amount of money to convince him and be confident.”[4]

Original Targets?

The article said it is believed that after former RDF General Kayumba Nyamwasa and the former head of the external division of the DMI, Colonel Patrick Karegeya, defected and fled Rwanda for South Africa, the DMI decided to accuse them both of being accomplices to acts of terrorism in Rwanda.  These accusations followed a series of grenade attacks in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda.  With domestic criminal charges leveled against them, the Rwandan government demanded they be sent back to Rwanda to stand trial.

Allegedly, the plan was to isolate and demonize them because both men still maintain strong support within the RDF and with some civilian members of President Kagame’s political party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). President Kagame perceives this as a direct threat to his rule because their political influence could divide the RDF and military institutions, presenting the theoretical possibility of an internal coup.  There are soldiers in the army and some civilians in the Rwandan government who have grown disillusioned with President Kagame’s rule and/or cultivated close personal ties with General Nyamwasa and/or Colonel Karegeya from their days as fellow refugees in Uganda and/or by serving with them when they were members of Uganda’s army in the late 1980s and/or when they were together in the Rwandan military.

To try and stop internal divisions from growing, several key RDF officials were arrested.  Other soldiers suspected of having loyalties to General Nyamwasa and/or Colonel Karegeya were shipped away from Rwanda to Darfur.[5]  Leadership positions in the RDF and civilian government posts were reshuffled.  Some civilian government officials related to arrested soldiers and soldiers suspected of collaborating with General Nyamwasa and Colonel Karegeya were removed from their positions.  Most of the civilian government positions were filled by aspiring politicians that were eager to act as proverbial “Yes Men” for President Kagame in order to advance their personal political careers.  The higher-ranking RDF soldiers who were not kept in prison but were suspected of collaboration or dissent were transferred to new appointments that required more administrative work and reduced their direct contact with sympathetic fellow RDF soldiers.  This allowed President Kagame and his loyal members in the DMI an opportunity to keep a closer eye on their activities.  President Kagame also raised the salaries of his presidential guards as extra insurance.

A Recycled Plan?

The Umuvugizi article goes on to say, “When this strategy did not work as planned as South Africa refused to extradite both generals,[6] the plan was redirected at Mme Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza’s arrest, using agent Major Uwumuremyi, especially because her earlier accusations were widely seen as false.”

Other commentators and analysts believe the re-arrest is a case of diversionary scapegoating politics intended to deflect attention away from the recently released UN Mapping Report that details widespread, systematic crimes committed by various state and non-state armed actors in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) over the time period of 1993-2003.  The Rwandan army, allied with the late Laurent Kabila’s Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire (ADFL-CZ), was singled out as committing the most serious international crimes; crimes the report clearly states may constitute genocide.[7]

Another potential factor in the targeting of Madame Ingabire is simply the regime’s long-standing penchant for retaliating against all those who oppose them.

Madame Victoire Ingabire’s Crisis

Very shortly after Madame Ingabire returned to her home country of Rwanda in January 2010, she visited the Gisozi genocide memorial.  Before she left the memorial, she publicly called for the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Hutu in 1994, which is part of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’s (ICTR) mandate.[8]  She also said there should be a commemoration of Hutu victims killed during 1994.[9]

Victoire Ingabire at Gisozi Memorial 16 Jan 2010;

As a result of her comments, she was arrested and accused of genocide ideology, divisionism and genocide denial as well as collaborating with the FDLR.  She was granted bail on these charges but put under strict house arrest and constant surveillance.  She could not leave Kigali by order of the judge.  She also had to report to the local police headquarters regularly for interrogation.

In her re-arrest, the charges against her were amended.  She is now also accused of participating in the formation of a new armed group to oppose the Rwandan government, the Coalition of Democratic Forces (CDF), alleged to be the armed wing of her political party.  Mr. Jean-Bosco Gasasira claims this new charge is fabricated.  He says the DMI conspired to invent the CDF and even issued fake “official” press releases to give the charges perceived legitimacy.  These documents will be used as evidence against her in court.

According to Umuvugizi, “Secret services carefully planned Victoire Ingabire’s case.  When the conspiracy was properly set, the plan was submitted to Kagame who accepted it.  He immediately started to stress that it is not illegal to indict an opposition figure when they are guilty.  He passed on the plan to the police and the prosecutor’s office so that they can start acting on it.  Agent Uwumuremyi was already prepared to falsely accuse Victoire Ingabire of participating in the formation of the army group.”

Umuvugizi’s alleged inside source also stated that, “Victoire Ingabire will be given a slow killer type of poison that will put an end to her political career.  At the same time, agents of special intelligence in diplomatic missions in Rwanda are working hard to convince ambassadors that Victoire Ingabire was part of the terrorist army group.”

Elections, the 2003 Constitution and Rwanda’s Democratic Deficit

Some of the original charges against Madame Ingabire stem from controversial amendments to the 2003 Rwandan constitution.  The RPF has a pattern of consolidating their power during election years.  They accomplish this by passing key legislative initiatives prior to the elections in order to create new laws that can be used as a means to further close off political space.

The 2003 presidential election legitimized Paul Kagame’s position as Rwanda’s president in the eyes of the international community despite numerous elections observers uncovering widespread evidence of various forms of electoral fraud and rigging.[10]

The 2003 elections formally established what some political scientists would term an “illiberal democracy.”  Shortly after the 2003 presidential and parliamentary elections, the RPF replaced the 1991 Rwandan constitution.  The new constitution made “denial” and “minimalization” of the 1994 genocide a crime punishable by law.  It also set forth the crime of inciting “divisionism,” which is often leveled against dissidents and political opponents who talk about or talk in terms of ethnicity in Rwanda.  These terms are all very vaguely defined, allow for a great deal of subjectivity, and provide a potential soft power tool of oppression for the regime.  These laws were legitimized through public diplomacy as part of the regime’s national reconciliation strategy and, they claimed, to help prevent another genocide from taking place.

The new constitution was adopted by referendum during the same general time period the (then) Chief Prosecutor of the ICTR, Ms. Carla del Ponte, was being forced out of her position at the United Nations due to political pressure applied by the United Kingdom and the United States.  She was conducting investigations into crimes allegedly committed by the RPF in 1994 so that she could bring the perpetrators to trial at the ICTR.[11]

In 2008, the RPF scored a resounding victory in parliamentary elections. The RPF-controlled alliance won 42 of the 53 directly elected seats in the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies. The remaining directly elected seats went to the Social Democratic Party, or PSD (seven), and the Liberal Party, or PL (four). Of the 27 seats that are not directly elected, 24 are set aside for women appointed by the National Women’s Council, two to youth representatives appointed by the National Youth Council, and one to represent the disabled chosen by the National Disabled Council. The voting record of the PSD, PL, and the various appointed members of the lower house in matters of presidential policy show consistent voting in lock-step with the RPF-led coalition. Thus, there is no opposition to any legislation designated as important by the president.

The members of Rwanda’s upper house, the Senate, are not directly elected by the citizens.  12 are elected by provincial and sector councils, eight are directly appointed by the president (officially to ensure representation for marginalized communities), four are appointed by the Forum of Political Formations and two are elected by the staff of the Rwandan universities.  Most individuals, members of the organizations and government institution officials that appoint/elect senators are either RPF party members or follow RPF recommendations.  Naturally, the RPF currently holds the majority in the Senate and a democratic deficit is apparent.

Rwanda has a semi-presidential system with a directly elected president and indirectly elected cabinet headed by a prime minister.  However, executive power, officially and unofficially, lies firmly with the Head of State, the president.

The current Rwandan government system is highly authoritarian (some argue totalitarian).  The president formulates legislation with the advice of his cabinet and trusted advisors then introduces it into parliament.  Given the RPF-alliance majority, the fact RPF party members are bound by the Oath of Oneness and some parliament members’ fear the consequences of opposing RPF legislation, RPF power-holders, especially President Kagame, have the ability to push through legislation that tightens their grip on power and erodes the separation of powers with relative ease.

Parliament members are deterred from debating bills and developing their own independent legislation, resulting in a lack of representation for the needs of all the Rwandan people, especially the primarily agriculturalist rural population, which is predominantly Hutu.

2008 Constitutional Amendments

In 2008, the RPF further solidified its grip on power by passing constitutional amendments that created the infamous and vague “genocide ideology” law, a law largely disconnected from the crime of genocide itself. The non-governmental organization (NGO) Article 19 claims the law is rendered illegitimate by international law on the grounds Rwanda ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[12]  However, the treaty’s protection can be restricted if there is a threat to national security, public order, and/or public health.[13]  This is why those who are accused of genocide ideology are also charged with “divisionism” (the prosecutor claims the accused poses a danger of inciting ethnic-based political violence and thus constitutes a national security threat) and/or a charge that pertains directly to national security (aiding a terrorist group, etc.) to prevent the defense from using this argument in court.

Some elements of the international community are very critical of Rwanda’s genocide ideology law because of the fact it can be easily used as a way to stifle political opposition and dissidents. It was this law that was applied to some of the charges leveled against Madame Ingabire, opposition figure Mr. Deogratias Mushayidi,[14] and also against Professor Peter Erlinder, an American defense attorney who went to Rwanda to defend Madame Ingabire and was subsequently arrested.  He was charged with genocide denial and posing a threat to national security.  He was eventually released on medical grounds following enormous international pressure placed on the Rwandan government.  However, Rwanda’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Martin Ngoga, has threatened to call upon Professor Erlinder to return to Rwanda and stand trial for genocide denial now that the exact terms of the immunity extended to him by the ICTR as a defense attorney are known.[15]

Due to international criticism, President Kagame’s government accepted a review of the genocide ideology law by international human rights organizations. Amnesty International, one of the reviewers, wrote a report heavily criticizing it as fundamentally flawed.  Justice Minister Tharcisse Karugarama has stated that the government is going to alter the genocide ideology law, but thus far the Cabinet has yet to follow through.[16]

There is a rapidly growing realization by many countries that some Rwandans who sought political asylum abroad and are now accused of crimes and indicted by the Rwandan government back home are really innocent victims of politically-motivated charges.  In many cases, the Rwandan government’s requests for trial extradition have been refused on grounds that the accused will not receive a fair trial in Rwanda.  For the same reason, the ICTR has, thus far, refused to transfer its cases to be tried in Rwandan domestic courts.[17]

The Rwandan constitution was also amended so that the 1994 genocide must henceforth be referred to specifically as the “Genocide of the Tutsi,” and thus set in law that the Tutsi are viewed as the true survivors and entrenched in constitutional law the government’s version of exactly what they claim happened during 1994.[18]  A rough template for this amendment was provided by the ICTR’s unprecedented judicial notice of 2006.[19]   By defining the events of 1994 and the genocide in such explicit terms, the Rwandan government can stifle differing viewpoints on the subject and deter discussion, effectively preventing anyone from voicing scrutiny of the events of 1994.

The amendment promotes self-censorship and aides in the closure of some political cleavages opposition parties can exploit.  Anyone who claims that anything happened or did not happen according to the Rwandan constitutional version of history can be charged in Rwanda with genocidal ideology, revisionism, negationism, and/or other related charges.  No discussion of any alleged RPF crimes committed during 1994 is allowed as a result of the amendment.  To discuss these alleged crimes could result in being charged. [20]  The amendments also act to deter would-be Rwandan witnesses testifying against the RPF in court.  Additional implications of this amendment on Rwandan society and its effect on the country’s reconciliation efforts are many and beyond the scope of this article.

Another constitutional amendment in 2008 extended diplomatic immunity to all former presidents of Rwanda.  This is intended to protect President Kagame from international prosecution via the French and Spanish arrest warrants that accuse President Kagame of crimes by international law.  The French and Spanish courts are currently unable to try him due to his diplomatic immunity as a sitting president.[21]

Media and Rwandan Law

To augment these constitutional amendments, the RPF also pushed through a media law in May 2008.  It allowed these amendments to be applied in an explicit way to Rwandan media outlets.  The law defined very strict penalties for journalists found guilty of spreading “divisionism” in their writings and/or verbal statements.  It caused self-censorship, restricted opposing viewpoints, led to the suspension of media outlets critical of the Rwandan government, and stifled freedom of speech.  This provides the Rwandan government effective control over the framing and discourse of Rwandan ethnic identity, Rwandan history, reconciliation efforts, and news through pro-RPF and state-owned media outlets that dominate Rwandan communication mediums.  Reporters Without Borders ranked Rwanda 169th out of 178 countries in press freedom for the year 2010.[22]

Rwanda’s Media High Council (MHC), formerly known as the High Council of the Press, was created by a 2002 law and Presidential Decree.  The MHC is mandated to enforce penalties, suspend media outlets, and set the rules that allow media outlets to register and operate in the country. The MHC is comprised of a Board of Directors and an Executive Secretariat appointed by the Prime Minister and is ”supervised” by the Ministry of Information.  Both bodies are comprised primarily of RPF party members loyal to the party’s Chairman, President Paul Kagame.  The MHC’s suppression of the freedom of speech was considered so flagrant and abusive of power that the United Kingdom recently suspended all of its funding for the MHC.[23]  However, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) still provides funding.[24]

Some journalists of government critical media outlets, like Umuseso and Newsline Chief Editor Didas Gasana, fled the country following numerous police interrogations and threats.  His deputy editor, Mr. Jean-Leonard Rugambage, stayed in the country and continued to report news critical of the RPF.  After writing a story alleging the Rwandan government was directly responsible for the attempted assassination of self-exiled General Kayumba Nyamwasa in South Africa, Mr. Rugambage was gunned down right in front of his home on 24 June 2010.  Rwandan police arrested two suspects for the murder.  One confessed in court while the other man who allegedly planned the murder was set free in August following an appeal.  However, some people still believe the arrests and trial were a staged affair and the real killers still roam free with impunity.

The 2010 Election and Recent Legislative Initiatives

In the context of this article, Rwanda’s political climate in 2010 is not much different from 2003 and 2008 as it appears the RPF seeks to deepen its hold on power through the legislative system once again.  In the pre-election period, members of parliament sought to pass a bill that would allow them powers to interpret the law instead of the Supreme Court.  This legislation was tabled after a constitutional amendment was proposed that would allow “the authentic interpretation of laws shall be done by both Chambers of Parliament acting jointly after the Supreme Court has given an opinion on the matter…”[25]

According to research done by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) prior to Rwanda’s admittance into the Commonwealth, few of Rwanda’s judges are independent and a constitutional amendment to Article 162 of 2008 put the National Prosecuting Authority under the Minister of Justice’s purview and allows him to directly intervene in the prosecution process by giving specific orders if he wishes.[26]  Most judges are members of the RPF party bound to loyalty by their Oath of Oneness.  Supreme Court judges are appointed by the cabinet and approved by the Senate.  In 2008, a constitutional amendment removed a Supreme Court judge’s life tenure.  As stated earlier, the Senate majority is held by the RPF.  Rwandan sources claim that President Kagame, in his capacities as Chairman of the RPF and chief executive, is able to push through the cabinet’s nominees with ease.  Additionally, Rwandan sources who wish to remain anonymous claim judicial independence is also often compromised by the outside influence of President Kagame and other influential RPF members, especially when the case is a political-related trial.

The Rwandan parliament currently has a full schedule of legislation. The schedule includes a debate over how to establish Rwanda’s Military University.  There will also be a bill to amend the constitution that will be introduced into the lower house by two deputies of the small Ideal Democratic Party (PDI), Mr. Abbas Mukama and Mr. Omar Hamidou, that will abolish presidential term limits.  His party is also tabling another amendment that would reduce presidential terms from the current seven year mandate to five years.  The PDI is led by Sheikh Musa Fazil Harelimana, who was Vice President of the Electoral Commission during the 2003 presidential polls.  Sheikh Harelimana was eventually appointed Governor of the Western Province and is currently the Internal Security Minister.[27]  PDI member Al Hajj Andre Habib Bumaya fled Rwanda in March after a long-standing falling out with President Kagame.

Other Opposition Parties

The major difference between the 2003 and 2010 presidential elections was the presence of real opposition parties who, although two of them were unregistered because of political maneuvering by Rwandan state institutions,[28] openly challenged the RPF on several key domestic and regional issues.  Following the 2010 election, many Rwandans expected the RPF to retaliate in some way against those who opposed them.  Given the events that occurred during the run-up to the elections, there was great fear about how this retaliation would manifest, especially given that the retaliation is usually carried out with the principles of collective guilt and collective punishment.

The FDU-Inkingi was not the only party to challenge the RPF.  The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, comprised of many former RPF members, has many individuals that allegedly continue to receive threats from Rwandan security forces post-election.  The party’s leader, Mr. Frank Habineza, was forced to publicly appear weak as the result of a plan to humiliate and discredit him and the party.  Rwanda’s Minister of Education, Dr. Charles Murigande, threatened to take legal action over certain statements that were made if Mr. Habineza did not issue a public apology.[29]  Dr. Murigande demanded Mr. Habineza publicly say the statements were false and he also had to ask all media outlets to immediately retract the corresponding statements he gave.  With no political leverage and fearing harsher retaliation against himself and other party members if he did not cooperate, Mr. Habineza complied fully with Dr. Murigande’s request.

Bernard Ntaganda Allegedly Approached by President Kagame

Another opposition leader, Mr. Bernard Ntaganda, Chairman of the Socialist Party (PS)-Imberakuri, is in a similar situation to Madame Ingabire.  He is also in prison charged with genocide ideology, divisionism, terrorism, and organizing illegal public gatherings.  He was denied bail.  As the international community began putting pressure on President Kagame to stop oppressing opposition parties, Umuvugizi’s informant claimed that President Kagame allegedly devised a plan to approach Mr. Ntaganda and convince him to character assassinate Madame Ingabire.  The alleged plan was to lure Mr. Ntaganda to the government’s side as they allegedly did with other opposition politicians such as Senator Stanley Safari, who the paper claimed helped discredit members of their own parties in exchange for government posts.  In the case of Mr. Safari, the RPF eventually turned against him.  He was dismissed from his post as a senator after a gacaca court sentenced him to life imprisonment for allegedly killing Tutsi in Butare during 1994.  He fled before the trial sentencing and is currently in exile.

The article stated Mr. Ntaganda was originally approached while he was in prison.  He was asked to sign official statements apologizing to President Kagame and to publicly disown Madame Ingabire.  The PS-Imberakuri party is allied with the FDU-Inkingi and the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda in the Permanent Consultative Council of Opposition Parties.  In exchange, he allegedly was to be released from prison and rewarded with an important post in the newly elected government.  The informant claimed that Mr. Ntaganda was called to the “1930” prison director’s office one night to meet with those in charge of convincing him.  It is claimed that he was taken outside the prison several times as coercion to try and convince him. However, Mr. Ntaganda categorically refused to sign the statements.  As punishment, he was transferred to solitary confinement under atrocious conditions.[30]  He went on a hunger strike to protest and quickly fell gravely ill.  Sources claim he was admitted to Kigali’s King Faycal Hospital.

Rwandan Politics

President Kagame constantly repeats to the press that it is not illegal to arrest and bring someone before a court of law who allegedly threatens national security.  This statement was heard in his speech during the recent cabinet swearing-in ceremony. President Kagame seeks to convince the international community that the unregistered opposition parties are comprised only of individuals with questionable backgrounds that pose an imminent and serious threat to Rwandan national security and reconciliation efforts.  He also complained that some countries are hypocritical for asking him to allow space for political opposition while they, in their own respective democratic countries, punish politicians who hold certain political views.  Using the example of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, President Kagame said, “We know that they (The Netherlands) arrested a member of parliament because of his anti-Muslim views, but they condemn our arrest of those with genocide ideology?”

In Rwanda’s political arena, one man, the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda’s Vice President Andre Kagwa Rwisereka, paid the ultimate price for his oppositional political beliefs and convictions.  Mr. Rwisereka’s nearly decapitated body was found near Butare on 14 July 2010.  As with Mr. Rugambage’s murder case, a suspect was arrested by Rwandan police but many people are skeptical of the investigation’s integrity.  A number of official statements the Rwandan police made about Mr. Rwisereka’s murder investigation have been soundly refuted.[31]

Whether Madame Ingabire and/or Mr. Ntaganda also end up paying the ultimate price for their respective political beliefs remains to be seen and the outcome is partially dependent on the actions (or lack thereof) taken immediately by individuals of good will, associations, NGOs, multilateral institutions and sovereign governments who categorically value freedom, democracy, and the rule of law for all.  Now that the presidential election is over and the initial fervor caused by the release of the UN Mapping Report has seemingly passed, the so-called mainstream press no longer seems to be much interested in the small African country.  However, political opponents and critics of the regime continue to be oppressed.  It is not just experienced by an American lawyer and professor with the National Lawyers Guild and several law associations behind him. The majority of victims are Rwandan nationals who have limited to no resources.  The international community and Rwanda’s key donor/allied states have been shamefully silent post-election about the situation in Rwanda.  Many donor/allied states still continue to support the regime in various capacities, allowing the state of affairs described in this article (which is the current status quo in Rwanda) to continue with impunity, sending the regime a message that they can continue to engage in these practices out of sight without fear of penalties.  This is very problematic because sustaining the current political climate in Rwanda will sow the seeds for future conflict on a potentially large scale.

[1] http://www.theproxylake.com/2010/10/leaked-secret-services-to-eliminate-victoire-ingabire/.  Accessed 24 October 2010.

[2] The original Umuvugizi article written by Mr. Jean-Bosco Gasasira in Kinyarwanda is available at: http://www.umuvugizi.com/artviewer.php?ArtID=0000000303.

[3] Mr. Gasasira was acquitted by the Kigali High Court in absentia of defamation and invasion of privacy in September following an appeal.  He had already fled the country when the verdict was given.

[4] There have been numerous allegations that the Rwandan government has produced coached witnesses for trials.  For some further information, see: International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda.  “ICTR-ADAD Submissions as Amicus Curiae.”  Case No. ICTR-2000-551.  The Prosecutor vs. Ildephonse Hategekimana.  10 April 2008.  pg. 10-11; Reyntjens, Filip.  “Expert Report for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.”  Case No. ICTR-96-15-I.  The Prosecutor vs. Joseph Kanyabashi.  19 October 2007.  pg. 15-16; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.  “Joseph Nzirorera’s Motion to Recall Witness BTH.”  Case No. ICTR-98-44-T.  The Prosecutor vs. Joseph Nzirorera.  3 March 2008; International Criminal Court for Rwanda.  “Decision on Witness GFR’s Recantation of His Evidence.”  Case No. ICTR-00-56-T.  The Prosecutor vs. Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Francois-Xavier Nzuwonemeye, Innocent Sagahutu and Augustin Bizimungu.  10 February 2010. (Documents available upon request.)

[5] Rwanda is the second largest troop contributor to the joint African Union/United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID).  They have over 3,200 soldiers and police on the ground.  Rwandan General Patrick Nyamvumba is the mission’s Force Commander. (African Union – United Nations Mission in Darfur.  “Rwandan President Receives UNAMID JSR.”  Press Release.  UNAMID PR/010-2010.  2 March 2010.  http://unamid.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=899&ctl=Details&mid=1072&ItemID=7929.  Accessed 25 October 2010.

[6] South Africa does not have an extradition treaty with Rwanda and both individuals have official refugee status in South Africa.

[7] The “leaked” and “official” versions of the report, along with the official responses of the governments of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, can be found at http://www.friendsofthecongo.org/resource-center/united-nations-report.html.

[8] United Nations Security Council.  “Resolution 955 (1994).”  S/RES/955.  8 November 1994.  pg. 2.

[9] “Rwanda Urged to Ensure Opposition Leader Receives Fair Trial.”  Amnesty International.  28 April 2010.  http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/rwanda-urged-ensure-opposition-leader-receives-fair-trial-2010-04-28.  Accessed 24 October 2010.

[10] The following are important reports on the 2003 presidential/parliamentary or the 2008 Rwandan parliamentary elections:

A. Darby, Orrvar and Ingrid Samset.  “Rwanda: Presidential and Parliamentary Elections 2003.”  Norwegian Institute of Human Rights (NORDEM).  December 2003.  http://www.cmi.no/publications/file/1770-rwanda-presidential-and-parliamentary-elections.pdf.

B. “Rwanda: Run-up to Presidential Elections Marred by Threats and Harassment.”  Amnesty International.  AFR 47/010/2003.  21 August 2003.  http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AFR47/010/2003.

C. “National Democratic Institute (NDI) Assessment of Rwanda’s Pre-election Political Environment and the Role   of Political Parties.”  National Democratic Institute.  22 September 2003.  http://www.ndi.org/node/14548.

D. “Preparing for Elections: Tightening Security in the Name of Unity.”  Human Rights Watch.    May 2003.  http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2003/05/08/preparing-elections.

E. “Republic of Rwanda – Final Report: Legislative Elections to the Chamber of Deputies 15-18 September 2008.”  European Union Election Observer Mission to Rwanda.  26 January 2009.  http://www.eueomrwanda.org/EN/Final_Report.html.

[11] Del Ponte, Carla and Chuck Sudetic.  “Madame Prosecutor: Confrontations with Humanity’s Worst Criminals and the Culture of Impunity.”   2009.  Other Press: New York, NY.  pg. 223-239.

[12] The full text of the Convention can be viewed at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm.

[13] Article 19.  “Comment on the Law Relating to the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology in Rwanda.”  September 2009.   http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/rwanda-comment-on-the-law-relating-to-the-punishment-of-the-crime-of-genocid.pdf.

[14] Mr. Mushayidi was acquitted of genocide ideology, divisionism, revisionism, and collaborating with a terrorist group (FDLR).  However, he was convicted of being a threat to national security, inciting violence, and using forged documents.  He was sentenced to life in prison on 17 September 2010.

[15] International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.  “Decision on Aloys Ntabakuze’s Motion for Injunctions Against the Government of Rwanda Regarding the Arrest and Investigation of Lead Counsel Peter Erlinder.”  Case No. ICTR-98-41-A.  The Prosecutor vs. Theoneste Bagosora, Aloys Ntabakuze and Anatole Nsengiyumva.  6 October 2010.  (Document available upon request.)

[16] “Rwandan Cabinet Reviews Genocide Ideology Law,” Radio France Internationale.  11 August 2010.

[17] The Amnesty International report is available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/vague-laws-used-criminalise-criticism-government-rwanda-2010-08-31.  An earlier report on the current shortcomings of the Rwandan judicial system written by Human Rights Watch can be found at: http://www.hrw.org/node/62098.

[18] Government of the Republic of Rwanda.  “Genocide.”  http://www.gov.rw/page.php?id_article=19.  Accessed 24 October 2010.

[19] International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.  “ICTR Appeals Chamber Takes Judicial Notice of Genocide in Rwanda.”  Press Release.  ICTR/INFO-9-2-481.EN.  20 June 2006.  http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2006/481.htm.  Accessed 24 October 2010.

[20] Some of the Rwandan national ICTR defense investigators carrying out their official mandates were either intimidated or arrested and rendered unable to continue their work. (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.  “ICTR-ADAD Submissions as Amicus Curiae: The Prosecutor vs. Ildephonse Hategekimana.”  Case No. ICTR-2000-551.  10 April 2008.  Pg. 9-10.)  Document available upon request.

[21] Government of the Republic of Rwanda.  “Ex-presidents Given Immunity.”  18 July 2008.  http://www.gov.rw/sub.php?page=print&id_article=23.  Accessed 24 October 2010.

Note: Mr. Gasasira’s positive comments were made while he was not in exile and feared for his life if he challenged the regime.

[22] “Press Freedom Index 2010.”  Reporters Without Borders.  October 2010.  http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html.  Accessed 24 October 2010.

[23] House of Commons Debate.  7 July 2010.  c353.  http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-07-07a.353.1.  Accessed 24 October 2010.

[24] United Nations Development Programme.  “Rwanda: Programme for Strengthening Good Governance.”  2007.  http://www.undp.org.rw/Democratic-project46259.html?id=112.  Accessed 24 October 2010.

[25] “MPs Seek Powers to Interpret the Law,” Edwin Musoni.  The New Times.  11 February 2010.

[26] Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.  “Rwanda’s Application for Membership of the Commonwealth: Report and Recommendations of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.”  August 2009.  pg. 46.  http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/hradvocacy/rwanda’s_application_for_membership_of_the_commonwealth.pdf.

[27] “PDI Wants Presidential 7-year Term Reduced.”  Rwandan News Agency. http://www.rwandagateway.org/spip.php?article797.  Accessed 24 October 2010.

[28] The PS-Imburakuri is an officially registered political party in Rwanda.

[29] Permanent Consultative Council of Opposition Parties in Rwanda.  “Rwandan Opposition Calls for a Transitional Government of National Unity.”  Press Release.  31 August 2010.  http://rwandagreendemocrats.org/spip.php?article103.  Accessed 25 October 2010.

[30] For further information on conditions inside Rwandan prisons, see: Tertsakian, Carina.  “Le Chateau: The Lives of Prisoners in Rwanda.”  2008.  Arves Books: London, UK.

[31] “Rwanda: Allow Independent Autopsy of Opposition Politician.”  Human Rights Watch.  21 July 2010. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/07/20/rwanda-allow-independent-autopsy-opposition-politician.  Accessed 24 October 2010.

by IRIN.

London – The recent arrest in Europe of a senior Rwandan militia leader is a welcome step in the fight against impunity in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) but real progress in the protection of civilians depends on the apprehension of commanders on the ground, according to analysts.

Acting on a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), French police arrested Callixte Mbarushimana, vice-president of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), on 11 October in Paris. He stands charged of 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity in DRC in 2009.

Almost two million people are internally displaced in eastern DRC’s Kivu provinces, in large part due to the activities of the FDLR.

International and local human rights groups applauded Mbarushimana’s arrest which comes after a long and controversial military campaign to stamp out the Hutu-dominated group that formed in DRC after the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

But they suggest impact on the ground – where a brutal campaign of murder and rape allegedly committed by FDLR soldiers has blighted the lives of civilians – will be minimal.

“It is clear from the latest military operations that the FDLR is weakened, and the arrest of individuals in Europe just weakens them even further,” said Anneke Van Woudenberg, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch.

“But will it stop them attacking civilians? I fear not. I think that we’ve seen in the past that it doesn’t have an immediate impact on behaviour on the ground, because there has been this division between the political movement [in Europe] and the military leadership in the field.”

Mbarushimana took over the FDLR’s political wing following the November 2009 arrests of FDLR President Ignace Murwanashyaka and his deputy Straton Musoni in Germany. They remain in German custody charged, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, with bearing command responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by FDLR troops eastern DRC.

ICC allegations

The ICC alleges that Mbarushimana planned a series of crimes from his base in France with the intention of creating a humanitarian catastrophe, then extorting concessions of political power from the international community.

“After 16 years of continuous violence, this could be an opportunity to finally demobilize the group,” said ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo in a press release. “Their leaders are gone.”

But not everyone is convinced that FDLR will give up their fight so easily. Fidel Bafilemba, the eastern DRC field researcher for the Enough Project, says the soldiers on the ground care little for international warrants for European leaders. “Why should this [latest] arrest make a difference that the arrest of Ignace Murwanashyaka didn’t make?” he said.

In fact, one of the most shocking incidents in DRC’s recent history occurred long after Murwanashyaka and Musoni were taken into custody – the rape of hundreds of women near Walikale in August, allegedly by FDLR soldiers and their Congolese Mayi-Mayi allies.

Many recent atrocities attributed to the FDLR have come in apparent response to the military campaigns against them by the Rwandan and DRC armies assisted by the UN peace-keeping force in DRC, known as MONUSCO (formerly MONUC).

“What I fear with FDLR is that they have shown when under military pressure they attack Congolese civilians,” said Van Woudenberg. “The recent rapes in Walikale are a prime example of the FDLR and their Mayi Mayi allies punishing Congolese people for their perceived support for these military operations against them.”

Independent DRC analyst Jason Stearns describes the military approach to date as clumsy and says it has worsened the humanitarian catastrophe in the east. He is also unconvinced that targeting Europe-based FDLR will stamp out the rebels.

“We should crack down on the diaspora, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that in the larger scheme of things it’s not going to be by any stretch of the imagination the key factor in dealing with the FDLR,” said Stearns, the former head of the UN Group of Experts on Congo. “There are other much more important issues to deal with than the diaspora.”

He believes that MONUSCO and others should be reaching out to the commanders on the ground who were not involved in the Rwandan genocide – many of whom are tired of life in the forest and the constant military pressure. “There has been relatively little outreach to them,” he said.

“We need to find out who the genocidaires [those who took part in Rwanda's 1994 genocide] are in the FDLR, but we just don’t know. It’s hard to engage in this outreach to commanders if you are operating with this lack of information.”

Stearns proposes third country exile for FDLR members found not to be involved in violations of international law and who do not want to return to Rwanda.

“Powerful signal”

International Crisis Group’s central Africa senior analyst, Guillaume Lacaille, agrees that military offensives alone will not end the violence and that FDLR military leaders in the field should be given the opportunity to relocate, but within the DRC.

“Those who accept to leave the FDLR could be relocated in a western province of the Congo in exchange for disarmament, rather than accept immediate repatriation to Rwanda,” he said.

Lacaille, however, insists the arrest of Mbarushimana and the others is also an important part of the process of bringing peace to eastern DRC.

“It sends a powerful signal that directing from Europe a criminal group operating in Congo will have serious consequences,” he said. “In the past, leaders of armed groups were led to believe that they could operate safely from comfortable Western capitals. The ICC and the governments of Germany and France demonstrated clearly that it is not possible any more.”

Enough’s Bafilemba also sees the new ICC case as a positive step towards ending impunity in DRC, but expects more from the court. That means warrants for crimes committed by all sides in the conflict including the national army which this week came under pressure from Margot Wallstrom, the UN envoy on sexual violence in conflict, who accused its soldiers of murdering and raping villagers in Walikale.

Van Woudenberg, meanwhile, is calling on the Rwandan government to do its part in ending the violence.

“As long as the political space in Rwanda is not opened up to the Hutu, the problem of the FDLR will continue,” she said. The lasting solution to this problem of Hutu and their political space is Rwanda and Rwanda will need to open this political space.”

Rwandan President Paul Kagame responded to this oft-voiced view in his 6 October swearing-in speech that followed his 93 percent landslide victory in an August election:

“…That there is no political space … what do you mean? The political space is well and fully occupied by the people of this country. And if the people of this country has spoken in such numbers and freely, who are you to question anything they have said? Where do you come from? From Mars?“

by Aimable Mugara.

UN accuses Rwandan government of genocide, Rwanda reacts by arresting innocent opposition leader

On October 1st, 2010 the United Nations Human Rights Commission released a report on crimes that were committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 1993 and 2003. The UN report said that “The extensive use of edged weapons (primarily hammers) and the apparently systematic nature of the massacres of survivors after the camps had been taken suggests that the numerous deaths cannot be attributed to the hazards of war or seen as equating to collateral damage. The majority of the victims were children, women,elderly people and the sick, who were often undernourished and posed no threat to the attacking forces. Numerous serious attacks on the physical or mental integrity of members of the group were also committed, with a very high number of Hutus shot,raped, burnt or beaten. If proven, the incidents’ revelation of what appears to be the systematic, methodological and premeditated nature of the attacks listed against the Hutus is also marked: these attacks took place in each location where refugees had allegedly been screened by the AFDL/APR over a vast area of the country. The pursuit lasted for months, and on occasion, the humanitarian assistance intended for them was allegedly deliberately blocked, particularly in the Orientale province, thus depriving them of resources essential to their survival. Thus the apparent systematic and widespread attacks described in this report reveal a number of inculpatory elements that, if proven before a competent court, could be characterized as crimes of genocide.”

Less than 2 weeks later, in what appears to be an attempt to distract the world’s opinion from the UN’s findings, the same Rwandan government accused of genocide by the UN arrested opposition leader Mrs Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza on October 14, 2010. This is the second time in less than a year that this opposition leader has been arrested by the Rwandan government. The first time in April 2010, she was released on bail and was under virtual house arrest. It is very suspicious that out of the only 3 real opposition leaders in Rwanda, two of them are now in jail and the third one is in exile.

The current Rwandan government’s abuse of prisoners has been documented by many human rights groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Mrs Ingabire is currently at risk of torture, or even death while incarcerated.

This is a very sad moment for Rwanda because the current Rwandan government which is accused of genocide by the UN is continuing to send a message that if you participate peacefully in the country’s political process, there is a price to pay. If the government thinks that the people may vote for you, you will be jailed. This disrespect for human rights and democracy is exactly what caused the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the 1996-1997 genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The extremists’ belief that the only way to resolve political issues is through violence is exactly what caused those genocides. For 50 years, there has never been a peaceful transfer of power in Rwanda. Every president of Rwanda who has ever lost power lost it only by being killed or by being jailed. Mrs Victoire Ingabire believed in a new Rwanda. A new Rwanda where power can be changed peacefully, at the ballot box.

This year marks a turning point in Rwanda’s future. What happens from now on will determine whether the 50 year curse of using violence to make political change in Rwanda remains the only way possible. Whether genocides committed by extremist Tutsis and genocides committed by extremist Hutus continue to be the only way to change power. Or whether non-violent peaceful democratic ways championed by Mrs Ingabire remain a viable option to create political change in Rwanda.

Below are 4 examples of actions you can take to help the Rwandan people in this very dark moment of Rwandan history:

1. Donate to Mrs Ingabire’s Legal Defense Fund at http://ww.fdu-rwanda.org/donation

In the Comments field, please note “Ingabire’s Legal Defense Fund”

2. Contact your local Human Rights Watch office and let them know of today’s injustice and how Mrs Ingabire is at risk of torture and assassination.

Contact info can be found at: http://www.hrw.org/en/contact-us

3. Contact Amnesty International Secretariat and let them know of today’s injustice and how Mrs Ingabire is at risk of torture and assassination.

Contact info can be found at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/contact

4. Contact any other organizations you can think of such as media, human rights organizations, international aid groups, embassies.

[Rwanda Human Rights and Democracy]

Victoire Ingabire Re-arrested, Bernard Ntaganda in Serious Condition

(New York) – The Rwandan government should fully respect the rights of opposition party members and allow them to carry out their legitimate activities without fear for their safety, Human Rights Watch said today.

Human Rights Watch issued its statement in response to the re-arrest of Victoire Ingabire, president of the opposition party FDU-Inkingi, and the transfer from prison to a hospital of Bernard Ntaganda, president of another opposition party, the PS-Imberakuri, both on October 14, 2010. Both parties have been critical of the Rwandan government and were prevented from participating in the presidential elections in August.

Ntaganda was arrested on June 24 and has remained in detention awaiting trial. He had been on a hunger strike to protest his treatment in prison. On October 14, he was rushed from Kigali Central Prison to the Centre Hospitalier de Kigali (CHK), Kigali’s main hospital.  His relatives and friends reported that he was in intensive care, but were not given specific information on his condition. Some of them were able to see him briefly in hospital and reported that he was very weak. That evening, he was transferred to King Faysal Hospital, also in Kigali.

“We are worried about Bernard Ntaganda’s condition,” said Rona Peligal, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should ensure he has access to appropriate and prompt medical treatment and that family and friends are allowed to visit him.  They should also ensure that if his condition suggests evidence of abuse, for example that he has been ill-treated or attempts have been made to force feed him or retaliate against him for his hunger strike, this is immediately investigated.”

In the days preceding Ntaganda’s transfer to the hospital, friends had been refused permission to visit him in prison. On their most recent attempt to visit on October 13, prison officials reportedly told them that they would be able to see him on October 15 – by which time he had been transferred to the hospital.

The authorities should ensure that proper medical information about the condition of his health and the treatment he is receiving is available to his family, Human Rights Watch said.

The arrest of Victoire Ingabire came after police had surrounded her house for several days. Then on October 14, they came to her house and took her to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID), where she was questioned in the presence of her lawyer. She was then transferred to Kicukiro police station, where she remains. Colleagues who brought her food and water on the morning of October 15 were not allowed to see her.

According to police statements, Ingabire’s interrogation relates to testimony from a former commander of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (Forces démocratiques pour la libération du Rwanda, FDLR). The FDLR is an armed group active in the Democratic Republic of Congo, some of whose members took part in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The commander, who was arrested on October 13, allegedly implicated Ingabire in activities to form a new armed group.

“The police should grant Ingabire access to visitors and should respect her rights to due process,” Peligal said. “If she is to be charged, it should be on the basis of solid evidence, not as a punishment for her criticisms of the government.”

Background

Members of the PS-Imberakuri and the FDU-Inkingi were subjected to persistent harassment and intimidation in the period leading up to presidential elections in August.  Neither party was able to field candidates in the elections, which the incumbent, Paul Kagame, won with 93 per cent of the vote.

On June 24, police arrested Ntaganda, raided his house and the party office, and took away documents and other belongings. Ntaganda was accused of several offenses, including endangering national security, and inciting ethnic divisions (in relation to his public statements criticizing government policies) and organizing demonstrations without official authorization.

Ingabire was questioned by the police numerous times in the first half of the year. In March, police stopped her at Kigali airport and prevented her from leaving the country.  In April, she was arrested and brought before a court to face accusations of “genocide ideology,” “divisionism,” and collaboration with the FDLR. She was released on bail, with charges still pending, and is not allowed to travel outside the capital.

Several other members of the PS-Imberakuri and the FDU-Inkingi were arrested in June and July, some when they attempted to hold a demonstration on June 24.  Some were released; others remain in detention. Several were ill-treated by the police.  They were beaten and kicked, and were kept handcuffed to other prisoners, even while eating and going to the toilet.

Members of a third opposition party, the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, also received threats in the pre-election period. The party’s vice-president, André Kagwa Rwisereka, was brutally murdered in July; his mutilated body was found outside the town of Butare. The circumstances of his death remain unclear. Police arrested a suspect but released him a few days later. No further judicial action has been taken.

by the Permanent Consultative Council of Opposition Parties in Rwanda.

The Permanent Consultative Council of Opposition Parties in Rwanda-PCC, which brings together the United Democratic Forces-FDU Inkingi, Democratic Green Party of Rwanda and the Social Party Imberakuri, is calling for an immediate release of Ms. Victoire INGABIRE UMUHOZA with no more conditions and the release of all other political prisoners.

Yesterday, 14th October 2010, Ms. Victoire INGABIRE UMUHOZA was arrested and incarcerated in KICUKIRO police custody on seemingly politically motivated charges of forming a terrorist organization (Coalition of Democratic Forces-CDF as an alleged military wing of FDU-Inkingi). She was imprisoned in April 2010, she was later released on bail but has since then been under extended house arrest. She has never been given a chance to be fairly confronted in a court of law. She has never been a flight risk or a threat to the community.

All the three opposition parties that challenged the RPF-Led Government have undergone serious and dangerous trials.

The Government refused to register the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda after a whole year of risky peaceful struggle that was started on 14th August 2009. Its Vice President Andre KAGWA RWISEREKA was found beheaded on 14th July 2010.

They also refused to register the United Democratic Forces-FDU Inkingi and many of its members have been imprisoned or released on bail.

The Social Party Imberakuri had managed to get registered in July 2009, but was later broken up into several factions, one of them now in the Government’s Political Parties Forum. Its Founding President, Maitre Bernard NTAGANDA is in prison since 24th June 2010, he is reported to be in a very critical health situation at King Faycal Hospital after Kigali Central Hospital was unable to treat him.

URGENT CALL FOR ACTION :

• We urgently call for the immediate release of Ms. Victoire INGABIRE UMUHOZA with no further conditions.

• We demand an immediate release from Prison of Mr. Bernard NTAGANDA, who was detained since 24th June 2010 and is now facing serious health conditions, which may claim his life.

• We demand an immediate trial of the killers of the Late Andre KAGWA RWISEREKA (Vice President of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda) and we still call for an international independent inquiry and an independent autopsy as Human Rights Watch has already requested.

• We also demand an immediate release from Prison of Ms.Seraphine MUKAMANA, Green Party’s Kigali City Coordinator

• We call upon the International Community, especially USA, UK, all EU Member States and all Friends of Rwanda to continue seriously engaging the Government of Rwanda to open up political space and allow democracy take root in Rwanda.

Issued at Kigali, 15th October 2010

Mr. Frank HABINEZA
Founding President, Democratic Green Party of Rwanda

Mr. Sylvain SIBOMANA
Secretary General, United Democratic Forces, FDU INKINGI

Mr. Theobald MUTARAMBIRWA
Secretary General, PS Imberakuri

No Two Acts of Genocide Are Dealt With the Same Way by the UN

There seems to be no precise standard procedures on how to recognize and deal with acts of genocide. Since the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, there have been crimes that were officially characterized as genocides. In places like Rwanda, Yugoslavia or Sudan, conclusions were formally reached by different entities.

An example is the case of Rwanda. In July 1994, a Commission of Human Rights Experts handed a 30-page report to Boutros-Boutros Ghali. The then General Secretary of the UN was bold enough to state that [a]cts of genocide against the Tutsi group were perpetrated by Hutu elements in a concerted, planned, systematic and methodical way. “These acts of mass extermination against the Tutsi group as such constitute genocide within the meaning of article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”.

The conclusion was reached without a competent court involvement.

After they launched their attack in April 1994, The RPF issued communiqués stating the Rwandan government was committing genocide against Tutsis. This was its justification for resuming fighting and breaking away from the Arusha Accords. Also at this time, no one contested the findings of UN experts, their methodology or their competence.

Two months later, the Rwandan tribunal (ICTR) was established by the United Nations Security Council by its resolution 955 of 8 November 1994. ICTR creation was a result of the genocide conclusion drawn from recommendations by the UN experts, backed by a Special Rapporteur for Rwanda of the Commission of Human Rights, Mr Rene Degni-Segui.

Although the report concluded that, in addition to the genocide of the Tutsi, war crimes and crimes against humanity had been committed by soldiers of the RPA, as well as by forces of the Rwandan government, the BBC and CNN did their propaganda duty and only repeated the genocide claims as facts and have been doing so ever since. The rest of the servile mass media in the west have simply repeated death figures without question.

ICTR’s mandate was not to establish whether genocide crimes occur in Rwanda first. The court was only tasked to prosecute the perpetrators. At ICTR, the prosecution team did bother to provide evidence of genocide crimes, they brought no RPF officers to testify which is what the defence teams was expecting, no UN officers, no NGO witnesses. No one was brought to say we were in such and such a place and we saw this happen.

The only “witnesses” they brought to testify against suspects were from two groups. Most of them (90%) were Hutu prisoners held by the RPF for over ten years, without charge, all tortured and who were sent to the ICTR by the RPF with stories they had been told to repeat about supposed killings. But everyone one of them fell apart when questioned and all had been promised release if they testified. Several later contacted the tribunal and defence to retract their testimony (some escaped prison, some were released and fled the country) and stated they had been threatened that if they did not give false testimony they were never getting out of prison. This happened in a recent case just a few months ago. An example is a code-named “Witness GFR “whose testimony was droped by the court after he sent a letter denouncing his own testimony.

The second group of witnesses came from two RPF front groups, IBUKA and AVEGA, the “genocide survivor” support groups. It was proved during the trials that these groups were funded by the RPF, were controlled by the DMI (Directorate of Military Intelligence) and were meeting together to decide on the stories they were to give when they testify.

Outside court, several ex-RPF officers testified that they had been involved in providing these “witnesses” with prepared scripts they had to memorise and repeat in the trials and that all the testimony from prosecution witnesses was false. One Major in the RPF who had fled the regime back in 2001 once met with an ICTR Lead Counsel in Brussels and confessed to him that he had scripted all the witnesses in a certain Akayesu’s trial.

The word genocide is mentioned 193 times

In the case of violence in Congo, a similar commission of Human Rights Experts was established. It produced a 566-page report, where the word genocide is mentioned 193 times. However, despite all evidence, the commission failed short to conclude that genocide against the Hutu group were perpetrated. Instead the authors took a safer stand and preferred to say that “the apparent systematic and widespread attacks described in this report reveal a number of inculpatory elements that, if proven before a competent court, could be characterized as crimes of genocide.” (Paragraph 31 on page 14 of the Mapping report).

The commission shifted on someone-else’s shoulder the responsibility to categorize what happened in Congo. And they added a clause to it: A competent court must prove, approve or decide. Which competent court is referred to here? Only God knows.

While the UN Mapping Report stated that its findings in Congo, if proven before a competent court, could be characterized as crimes of genocide, we know that in Rwandan case no court was used to prove atrocities as genocide. As far as we know, the Tutsi genocide was first determined and, as a result, ICTR tribunal was created, not the other way round.

Who is supposed to call for formal or legal investigation into the killing of Hutu and Congolese people in Congo? Since there is no competent court today, which body is going to take action to decide or conclude that there has been (or not) genocide on Hutu ethnic group and seek justice for the millions of Congolese deaths?

The only glimpse of hope is that the reported atrocities by the UN mapping report happened in the DRC territory and the government of the DRC refused to sideline with Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi. Congolese government “believes in the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal for the DRC to deal with the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, including the use of rape as an instrument of war, and massive violations of human rights.” The DRC government has the right to put up a case for an international court to prosecute. But Kinshasa has to abandon its condition that the international court has to be part of its judicial system. Knowing how corruption is rampant in Congo, it wouldn’t be a good idea.

“They’re never going to charge the RPF, because it would be too dangerous. If you start charging the RPF, RPF officers, to save their necks, are going to start talking about others. And then you’re going to get up to the Americans and the British and the Canadians and the Belgians. The whole thing would fall apart. They don’t dare do that” said ICTR defence lawyer Christopher Black

[Proxy Lake]

Kigali – The UN envoy that has campaigned for action over the past months on FDLR and Mai Mai rebels for gang raping hundreds of women, men and babies, says the arrest of Callixte Mbarushimana is a “signal” that impunity in eastern DRC will be punished.

Margot Wallstrom, the UN envoy for sexual violence says the arrest of Mbarushimana on an ICC sealed warrant is “welcome” news but that more FDLR commanders on the ground must be apprehended.

“We now need to engage all the resources at our disposal to apprehend other individuals allegedly involved in orchestrating the mass rapes which occurred in Walikale, including following the trail of ‘Colonel’ Serafim,” said Wallstrom in a statement, referring to the FDLR commander directly suspected.

The Mbarushimana arrest comes following comments she made on September 27 to a session of the UN Human Rights Council that her office has names of FDLR and Mai Mai rebels that committed the rapes over a 4-day period in early August. The rebels rampaged in more than 13 villages.

“We already have some names, such as Colonel Mayele, the Mai Mai Cheka chief of staff, and Colonel Serafim of FDLR,” she reportedly said in the meeting.

Last week, Mayele was taken into custody by a joint MONUSCO-Congolese operation. With the latest nabbing of Mbarushimana, the UN envoy calls it a “very important signal to all perpetrators in the DRC that crimes of sexual violence are not tolerated.”

“…we hope to finally see the beginning of the end of impunity for crimes of sexual violence in the DRC,” said Wallstrom.

According to ICC indictment papers, Mbarushimana and other FDLR leaders are accused of “having used violence against civilians as their main bargaining tool” in an international campaign to extort from Rwanda and the international community political power for the FDLR.

In a statement summarizing allegations against Mbarushimana, the court said the rebels deliberately sparked “a massive humanitarian catastrophe,” then offered to end the atrocities in exchange for political power.

“As a result of this deadly blackmail, victims were killed, raped and forcibly displaced, and entire villages were razed to the ground,” the court alleges.

No date has been set for Mbarushimana to be transferred from Paris to The Hague.

The French Foreign Ministry said in a statement the arrest “shows France’s constant will to fight impunity.”

Alain Gauthier, who heads a French advocacy group for Rwandan genocide survivors (CPCR), praised the arrest but said Mbarushimana also should be tried for the 1994 Genocide against Tutsis.

The court said he was charged with 11 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, rape, persecution based on gender and extensive destruction of property committed by the FDLR in 2009.

With Mbarushimana now off the scene, the FDLR do not have any know civilian leadership. The other top heads Dr. Ignace Murwanashyaka and Straton Musoni are in detention in Germany since mid this year on war crimes.

[ARI-RNA]

by Evelyn Leopold, Veteran reporter at the United Nations.

The United Nations officially released an explosive report on massacres of desperate Hutu men, women and children who trekked across vast expanses of the Congo to escape Rwanda’s Tutsi-led army, which kept catching up to them.

The first motive is revenge against the majority Hutus in Rwanda who in 1994 had slaughtered Tutsi civilians (at least 800,000 by most estimates), a genocide that has shamed the United Nations and its major powers since then. Another motive is money — exploitation of the Congo’s resources and the killing of any civilians in the way. In 2002, the United Nations released a report (PDF) that showed a plunder of the Congo’s gems and minerals by Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Congolese officials as well as naming and shaming the Western firms that profited from them. Not that much seems to have changed since then.

Eight nations, including Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, were cited in the new 550-page report along with 21 armed Congolese groups. It documents 614 of the most serious violations in the former Zaire over a 10-year period, ending in 2003. Tens of thousands of people were killed and numerous others were raped and mutilated and at least 30,000 children were recruited by the various groups. The report, called a “Mapping Exercise,” is a two year effort, begun in 2005 when mass graves were discovered. The Hutus, (1.2 million had fled to the Congo), were not the only victims but the study outlines how men, women and children were chased across the country and then killed.

The question of whether the numerous serious acts of violence committed against the Hutus (refugees and others) constitute crimes of genocide has attracted a significant degree of comment and to date remains unresolved. In practice, this question can only be decided by a court decision on the basis of evidence beyond all reasonable doubt

In a forward to the report, Navi Pillay, the Geneva-based UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said, “No report can adequately describe the horrors experienced by the civilian population in Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where almost every single individual has an experience to narrate of suffering and loss.”

However, the New York Times maintained that another group of UN investigators concluded that the Rwandan rebels, mainly Tutsis who stopped the genocide, had killed defenseless civilians. The report, by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (then led by Sadako Ogata of Japan) was squashed after pressure from both Rwanda and Washington, fearing another civil war. It said that 20,000 to 30,000 Hutus, including women and children, had been rounded up and killed in Rwanda. While the killings were not equated with the slaughter of Tutsis, their lack of exposure might have emboldened the Rwandan army to act with impunity in the Congo.

During the period under investigation, the country experienced two wars over five years. Dictator Mobutu Sese Seko was overthrown by Laurent Kabila with the help of Rwanda, which invaded Congo, presumably to chase Hutu fighters who had taken part in the genocide. But they did not stop there, the report said.

The massacres in Mbandaka and Wendji, committed on 13 May 1997 in Équateur Province, over 2,000 kilometers west of Rwanda, were the final stage in the hunt for Hutu refugees that had begun in eastern Zaire, in North and South Kivu, in October 1996.

The report lists some perpetrators but says the Congo has to launch an investigation and gave several recommendations how this could be done. But it noted the weak judicial system in Kinshasa and says reforms were needed to seek justice for the millions of victims or risk encouraging further atrocities. Congo President Joseph Kabila has suggested an international criminal tribunal for the DRC.

Rebels groups allied with neighboring countries continue abuses. In eastern Congo atrocities — like the recent gang-rapes of 150 women — are attributed to rebels as well the Congolese army, a nightmare for the United Nations troops, which are supposed to be allied with the government and its forces.

It’s the natural resources

The fighting is largely over mineral wealth and the recruitment of cheap labor or forced labor to exploit it, says the report.

The abundance of natural resources in the DRC and the absence of regulations and responsibility in this sector has created a particular dynamic that has clearly contributed directly to widespread violations and to their perpetuation and both domestic and foreign state-owned or private companies could bear some responsibility for these crimes having been committed.

Congo has diamonds, gold, copper, cobalt, cassiterite (tin ore) and coltan as well as timber, coffee and oil, little of which has benefited the Congolese, since the brutal rule of Belgium during colonial times. The Kinshasa government recently imposed a new ban on mining in the eastern part of the country, North and South Kivu and Maniema, rich in coltan and cassiterite, used in mobile phones and other electronic items.

But there are fears that illegal mining goes on. Despite large amounts of money spent on UN peacekeeping, there is no worldwide movement (the United States is an exception) to hold companies to account and making international aid conditional on reforms in the mining center, says Global Witness, the London-based group which has been tracking natural resources in Africa for years. Until the root cause is tackled, atrocities and crass exploitation will continue.

Rwanda reacts

After a draft of the report was leaked last month, Rwandan President Paul Kagame, the leader of the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Army, threatened to pull his troops out of Darfur. He withdrew the threat after UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon flew to Kigali and said all the neighboring countries cited in the report would have a chance to answer. But Rwanda was reported to have secured a promise that none of its officials would be prosecuted by the United Nations.

Still the document serves as a stinging rebuke to Rwanda, which has made enormous financial and educational strides, and is backed by Washington and London.

[The Huffington Post - October 2, 2010.]

by Jean-Roger Kaseki.

Following the UN report on Rwanda’s possible involvement in genocide in DRC, the international community must strengthen human rights mechanisms through the creation of an International Criminal Court on DR Congo.

The United Nations has accused Rwanda of wholesale war crimes, including possibly genocide, during years of conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. An unprecedented 600-page investigation by the UN high commissioner for human rights catalogues years of murder, rape and looting in a conflict in which hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. This UN report published on 1 October by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights confirms a draft version of the report leaked earlier. The report says gross human rights violations and abuses over a period of 10 years (from 1993 to 2003) and two invasions by Rwanda, amount to ‘crimes against humanity, war crimes, or even genocide’ because the principal targets of the violence were Hutus, who were killed in their tens of thousands.

Among the accusations is that Rwandan forces and local allies rounded up hundreds of men, women and children at a time and butchered them with hoes and axes. On other occasions Hutu refugees were bayoneted, burned alive or killed with hammer blows in large numbers. It is the first time the UN has published such forthright allegations against Rwanda, a close ally of Britain and the US. The Rwandan government reacted angrily to the report, dismissing it as ‘amateurish’ and ‘outrageous’ after reportedly attempting to pressure the UN not to publish it by threatening to pull out of international peacekeeping missions. Rwanda’s Tutsi leaders will be particularly discomfited by the accusation of genocide when they have long claimed the moral high ground for bringing to an end the 1994 genocide in their own country. But the report was welcomed by human rights groups, who called for the prosecution of those responsible for war crimes.

The report covers two periods: Rwanda’s 1996 invasion of Congo, then called Zaire, in pursuit of Hutu soldiers and others who fled there after carrying out the 1994 genocide of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, and a second invasion two years later that broadened into a regional war involving eight countries, and more than six million innocent Congolese were killed during this disastrous war dubbed ‘Africa’s first world war. Rwanda’s attack on Zaire in 1996 was initially aimed at clearing the vast UN refugee camps around Goma and Bukavu, which were being used as cover by Hutu armed forces to continue the war against the new Tutsi-led government in Kigali. Hundreds of thousands of the more than one million Hutus in eastern Zaire were forced back to Rwanda. Many more, including men who carried out the genocide but also large numbers of women and children, fled deeper into Zaire. They were pursued and attacked by the Rwandan army and a Zairean rebel group sponsored by Kigali, the AFDL. The two Rwandan invasions led to a complete collapse of state institutions in Congo then called Zaire. There was power and political vacuum and therefore human rights became a key issue.

While focusing on human rights protection, international human rights instruments can be classified into two categories: declarations, adopted by bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, which are not legally binding although they may be politically so; and conventions, which are legally binding instruments concluded under international law. International treaties and even declarations can, over time, obtain the status of customary international law.

International human rights instruments can be divided further into global instruments, to which any state in the world can be part of, and regional instruments, which are restricted to states in a particular region of the world.

Most conventions establish mechanisms to oversee their implementation. In some cases these mechanisms have relatively little power, and are often ignored by member states; in other cases these mechanisms have great political and legal authority, and their decisions are almost always implemented. Examples of the first case include the UN treaty committees, while the best example of the second case is the European Court of Human Rights.

Mechanisms also vary as to the degree of individual access to them. Under some conventions – eg the European Convention on Human Rights (as it currently exists) – individuals or states are permitted, subject to certain conditions, to take individual cases to the enforcement mechanisms; under most, however (eg the UN conventions), individual access is contingent on the acceptance of that right by the relevant state party, either by a declaration at the time of ratification or accession, or through ratification of or accession to an optional protocol to the convention. This is part of the evolution of international law over the last several decades. It has moved from a body of laws governing states to recognising the importance of individuals and their rights within the international legal framework.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are sometimes referred to as the international bill of rights.

The following are human rights mechanisms regarding the Africa region:

• African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples’ Rights

• African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the child

• Maputo protocol

• International Criminal Court on Rwanda established in Arusha ( Tanzania ) following the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

This historic UN report tackling impunity in Congo describes ‘the systematic, methodical and premeditated nature of the attacks on the Hutus, which took place in all areas where the refugees had been tracked down’. The pursuit lasted months and, occasionally, humanitarian aid intended for them was deliberately blocked, notably in the eastern province, thus depriving them of things essential to their survival, the report said. The extent of the crimes and the large number of victims, probably in the several tens of thousands, are demonstrated by the numerous incidents detailed in the report. The extensive use of non-firearms, particularly hammers, and the systematic massacres of survivors after camps were taken prove that the number of deaths cannot be put down to the margins of war. Among the victims were mostly children, women, old and ill people. The report goes on to say that ‘the systematic and widespread attacks have a number of damning elements which, if proven before a competent court, could be described as crimes of genocide’.

The UN also adds that while Kigali has permitted Hutus to return to Rwanda in large numbers, which did not ‘rule out the intention of destroying part of an ethnic group as such and thus committing a crime of genocide’, the Zairean army collapsed in the face of the invasion and Rwanda seized the opportunity to march across the country and overthrow the longstanding dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko. Laurent Kabila was installed as president. He promptly changed the name of the country to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Rwanda invaded again in 1998 after accusing the new regime of continuing to support Hutu rebels. The following five years of war drew in armies from eight nations (Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Chad on the side of the then Congolese government and Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi on the rebels’ side) as well as 21 rebel groups in a conflict that quickly descended into mass plunder of the DRC’s minerals as well as a new wave of war crimes.

The UN report accuses Angolan forces of using the cover of the war to attack refugees from Angola’s conflict-plagued Cabinda province who had fled to the DRC. Angola is accused of executing all those they suspected of colluding with their enemies. Angolan soldiers also raped and looted, the UN investigation said. The same accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity are made by this UN report against Uganda, Burundi, Angola and Chad.

That is why it is imperative for the international community, especially the current British coalition government (ConDem government between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats) to ensure that these serious and shocking allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes against Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Angola and Chad committed in the DRC are investigated through an International Criminal Court on DR Congo to be set up and supported by the world community for justice to be done. We need to tackle the culture of impunity worldwide as no one is above the law, thus no one is above international law. A case for the creation of an International Criminal Court on DR Congo to investigate, arrest suspects and bring the perpetrators of these horrible and horrendous crimes to justice is compelling. That is the way forward and I appeal to the international community to support this recommendation from the UN report as there is no peace without justice.

Jean-Roger Kaseki is Labour councillor for Tollington ward in the London Borough of Islington, works at the Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute Associate/London Metropolitan University and Congolese for Labour Chair.

Contact: Tel: 07903 610 138, email: Jean.Kaseki@Islington.gov.uk

[Progress Online]

As a new UN report into the most appalling atrocities committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo is released, Lindsey Hilsum looks into the details of “the worst war in the world”.

The United Nations report on the Congo looks at more than 600 of the worst human rights abuses which happened in the country between 1993 and 2003, when tens of thousands of people were killed and many others raped and mutilated by both armed Congolese groups and foreign forces.

Over the period, the region was torn apart by political crises, wars and conflicts.

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ report examines the actions of a number of foreign countries, including Uganda, Burundi and Angola, in the region, but singles out Rwanda as having committed alleged potential “acts of genocide” in the Congo.

The Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) took power in Rwanda by bringing an end to the genocide of the Tutsi people in 1994. However the new report suggests the RPF then committed appalling atrocities in the neighbouring Congo as they pursued Hutus who had committed the Tutsi genocide.

The report suggests these acts, in the forests of the Congo, may have constituted a second genocide.

All of the countries involved have reacted angrily to the report and condemned its contents. Rwanda described the report as “flawed” and said it could threaten regional stability.

In a statement, the High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said the evidence points to potential crimes against humanity, war crimes and acts of genocide. However, he stressed that these definitions could only be addressed by a court.