6/9/08

Rwanda: British Judge Prefers Trials for Fugitives At Home

Rwanda: British Judge Prefers Trials for Fugitives At Home


 

Email This Page

Print This Page

Comment on this article

Visit The Publisher's Site

Kigali

Despite the recent setback from the UN court against transferring Genocide suspects, a British judge has brought back what officials here have described as 'confidence in the painstaking judicial reforms', RNA reports.

In the dock was Dr. Vincent Bajinya, 47 - who changed his names to Dr. Vincent Brown since securing asylum in Britain and worked for a refugee charity there; Mr. Charles Munyaneza, 50, former local mayor in Rwanda; Mr. Celestin Ugirashebuja, 55, former mayor; and Mr. Emmanuel Nteziryayo, a former local mayor.

Judge Anthony Evans - of the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court ruled on Friday that "the enormity and scale of the killings in the Genocide and the prosecution of those involved would not be appropriately dealt with in any other jurisdiction."

"Apart from the logistical and practical difficulties involved with bringing witnesses both for prosecution and defense from Rwanda, it is the correct course of action for the trials to take place in Rwanda and that is not a disproportionate response", Judge Evans said in the 129-page ruling.

The four have been in jail for about a year and are to remain there as the British government decides whether to extradite them.

Bitter critics such as the family members - as well as academics and campaign organizations, meanwhile, say the battle is not over yet. Amnesty International described the ruling as "outrageous". The accused are most likely to force through an appeal.

However, though the public in Rwanda has been made to understand that all is over by an interview on state radio by a senior government official, the ruling - though significant - is just a small step. Even those that were in court did not seem to have understood the position of the Judge.

Wife of Dr. Vicent Bajinya told the BBC on Friday that they 'did not understand' what the judge said and had asked their lawyers to 'give us more detailed and clear explanation'.

Judge Evans said: "In all these circumstances, all these cases (detailed in the lengthy ruling) will be sent to the Secretary of State for her consideration and decision". For the meantime, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith now holds the key to their fate.

The ruling strongly doubts testimonies by renowned Belgian academic Professor Filip Reyntjens, Mr. Paul Rusesabagina and rights campaign organizations - particularly Human Rights Watch, a profound review of the multiple-page ruling indicates.

In one of his submissions, Professor Reyntjens - a bitter critic of the Kigali government and the UN Court for Rwanda - said Rwanda's judiciary and executive is ruled by "Tutsis". This according to him makes judges here biased against "Hutus". Judge Evans said "it is not clear on what this (assessment) is based".

Professor Reyntjens also authoritatively asserted to the court that the application for the four accused - was being made because of the closure of the ICTR. He also claimed that the ICTR Prosecutor had been under pressure from Rwanda.

"He (Reyntjens) had himself refused to cooperate with the ICTR and give evidence because no RPF members were being prosecuted by it. His view must, therefore, be regarded as biased", ruled Judge Evans.

"Implacable opponent"

The Judge outrightly rejects significant parts of Mr. Paul Rusesabagina's testimony and put to doubt his résumé. The Defense had brought him in as an expert.

"I do not agree that this witness (Rusesabagina) may be regarded as an expert witness", said Judge Evans.

"His evidence is that of an implacable opponent of the regime (in Rwanda) and cannot in any way be regarded as that of an expert."

In another case, the Judge describes statements that Mr. Rusesabagina made about the human rights situation in Rwanda as "wild and general allegations" which were made "without any supporting proof".

Relevant Links

In his April 03 testimony, Mr. Rusesabagina also hit hard at the prison situation in Rwanda, but the Judge ruled that Mr. Rusesabagina "produces no supporting evidence for any of those allegations".

Interestingly, as Judge Evans narrates, during his cross-examination, Mr. Rusesabagina denied he spoke to defendant Dr. Bajinya which was proved otherwise. He had greeted the defendant in Kinyarwanda - as the dock was closer.

Mr. Rusesabagina also told court that he knew defendant Mr. Ugirashebuja but it was discovered he could only remember his Christian name.

He was also questioned on his life story in which he claims to have saved about 1200 people during the Genocide at a hotel in Kigali. His detractors allege that he forced all those in the hotel to pay their bills - which he denies. But again, Mr. Rusesabagina also dismissed fax messages that indicate otherwise - saying they were "faked".

Judge Evans however, says in the ruling that he is "satisfied" about the fax that was sent to Mr. Rusesabagina by Sabena Hotels in Brussels as "genuine".

The Judge also found disturbing behaviour by people that had been recruited as Defence investigators. Each defendant had a team of investigators working for their defense.

Just one example: Judge Evans says of Mr. Ralph Lake - who actually came to Rwanda - that "his evidence is indicative of a lack of certainty in his own position". The Judge also makes very strong sum-ups of the other investigators.

"Authoritative and respected"

Along with Professor Filip Reyntjens, Judge Evans was also not convinced with the human rights assessment of University College of London law Don Professor Philippe Sands and another academic Mr. Fitzgerald.

The three legal minds had shared the understanding that racial distinctions still remain the order of the day in Rwanda instigated by government institutions.

Basing his knowledge on the latest US State Department worldwide annual report on human rights - issued in March this year, Judge Evans says this "authoritative and respected" report "clearly emphasizes the actions of government in eradicating racial and ethnic divides".

Human Right Watch - which President Paul Kagame himself has previously attacked, was in the Judge's firing line as well. The American campaign group has bitterly contested any suggestion of transferring the Genocide fugitives to Rwanda - arguing for trails in the west.

It has maintained that the judiciary has been compromised by the powerful executive. However, legal practitioner from the Kigali Bar did not take any of that - they strongly rejected Human Rights Watch views. The Judge accepted their position.

"Although there is concern quite properly that the attitude of the Executive is such in its approach to the questions of the independence of the Judiciary, there appears to be no real objective evidence that this is affecting the Judiciary", the Judge said.

"The brief from HRW, which I am sure, reflects the views of other NGOs working in Rwanda does not quote any other examples, only anecdotal evidence".

Neutral

Despite concerns from campaign organizations indicating that there are no sufficient mechanisms to monitor any trials that could be transferred to Rwanda, Judge Evans was not moved.

He expressed his confidence with assurances made by the ICTR Chief Prosecutor Hassan Jallow to the UN Security Council that the African Commission on People's Human Rights would do just that. Campaign organization African Watch has also taken up the responsibility.

The British Judge is also convinced with comments by the U.S., Russia and Britain - all Security Council Permanent Members - showing support and recognition of the changes in Rwanda.

The comments (from U.S., Russia and Britain) can at best be described as neutral, ruled Judge Evans.

"Not acceptable"

The Defence had also submitted its objection to having suspected Genocide journalist Valerie Bemeriki - lined by Rwanda - as witness for the prosecution should the defendants come to Rwanda. She is in jail in Kigali.

The issue at the centre of the storm is that she testified at the ICTR as an anonymous Defense witness. The UK Defense team says because Rwanda did not disclose the statements she made to the ICTR - this was "evidence of lack of good faith on the part of the Rwanda authorities".

"This submission is not acceptable, as it was (ICTR) Defence statement and was a case in which the Rwandan authorities had no part - the only difference here being that the witness had waived her right to anonymity and so her identity known", Judge Evans ruled.

James Lewis, QC, was the brain behind the prosecution case.

The Home Office has already stated that those suspected of the Genocide should answer charges in Rwanda, the Times Online reported.

No press freedom

Relevant Links

In the closing arguments, the Defense pinpointed a number of issues including the stand that there was no media freedom in Rwanda. The court put the claim to its experts including Professor Filip Reyntjens. They all seemed to confirm the submission but Judge Evans puts to questions the analysis from Professor Reyntjens.

"As mentioned earlier caution must be exercised in the case of Professor Reyntjens even allowing for his expertise on Rwanda because of his close connection with the previous regime", said the Judge.

"He drafted the (former) constitution, but was at pains to point out that the politicians had the final say; he had the ear of the President (Juvenal Habyarimana); he is non persona grata as far as the present regime is concerned and his opposition to it was clear when he gave evidence".




--
Jean-Louis Kayitenkore
Procurement Consultant
Gsm: +250-08470205
Home: +250-55104140
P.O. Box 3867
Kigali-Rwanda
East Africa
Blog: http://www.cepgl.blogspot.com
Skype ID : Kayisa66

No comments:

Post a Comment