[It's good to see Dr. John (the Night Tripper) Laughland back on the attack against internation (in)justice. Finally, someone--besides the A-team (and it's good to see Me T back in the game quand même)--has taken aim against the ridiculous renderings of the Arusha Tribunal for Rwanda--a southern affiliate of the murderous ICTY in The Hague.

Of course, Dr. John, like just about everyone working this file, is too young to remember when justice got really ugly: the Summer of Love, forty years ago (1967); draft dodgers abandoning Haight/Ashbury for St Germain/St Michel; Moby Grape at the Avalon; Dr Tim tripping an entire generation out of anything like revolutionary consciousness; the USS Liberty deep-sixed by the gutless Tsahal on the seventh day of the six day war; and Ed Meese and Ron-dog McReagan turning California into the Owsley-lab that would sythesise this New World Justice by distilling out all procedural protections for the defense in criminal trials (e.g., diluting the 4th Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure, such as those guaranteed in the Miranda decision, relaxing the burden of proof on the prosecution, and thereby calling the presumption of innocence into question) with the inauguration of the Victims' Rights Movement. First, it was Mothers Againsts Drunk Driving and Stop Sexual Violence Against Women and Children (if you want to know how well those programs did, ask an Iraqi or someone from Congo); then it morphed into the vague but oh-so mawkish Stop The Fucking Genocide, Save _(wetfe)__!

This subsidiary of the Holocaust Industry would within just a few years come to rival its parent company in accumulated wealth, and by now every state in the Union--and many foreign countries--has a Victims' Rights Amendment in their constitutions. It marked the successful subsumption of criminal procedures under the civil courts (then, as Dr J points out, into internation courts), turing the latter into easy ways to get around the rules against double jeopardy or any troublesome evidentiary codes that might inhibit a full-blown revenge prosecution (see the OJ case for a late example of this phenomenon).

And the Laughland piece is followed by a recent letter from the detainees in the UN prison in Arusha. In French and in English.

You will also see our friend and attorney general (i.e., he's the General's attorney), Chris Black, duly cited at the end of the Laughland piece. Chris' articles can be found on this blog.

So now, get on with your Night Tripping. And don't forget: though it may be too late to Free Slobo or Haby or Saddam; we can still fight injustice by working to free General Ndindiliyimana--AND we shouldn't forget all the Serbs and other citizens of the former-Yugoslavia, like Dr Seselj of the Serbian Radical Party, who are being unjustly held and persecuted for nothing more or less than the defense of their country.

FREE ALL RWANDAN AND YUGOSLAV PATRIOTS!! And, while we're at it: OFF THE TRIBS! --mc]

******************************


Destroying the rule of law

By John Laughland
Jul/05/2006

On 16th June 2006, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda issued a ruling which destroys at it most fundamental level the very concept of due process in a criminal trial. It ruled that the Trial Chambers must ‘take judicial notice’ of the ‘fact’ that ‘between 6th April 1994 and 17th July 1994 there was genocide in Rwanda against the Tutsi ethnic group.’

The goal if this decision is not to make the prosecution's job easier, instead it is designed to prevent the defence from presenting the overwhelming evidence now developed that there were many complex reasons for the events in Rwanda, but genocide is not one of them. This political purpose of the decision is stated outright in the press release when the Tribunal states that this decision by the Appeal Chamber should "silence the rejectionist camp".

Further, not only is the Appeal Chamber decision wrong on the facts, it is wrong in law as in no legal jurisdiction in the world is it possible for a court to take judicial notice of a "fact" which is disputed by one of the parties in the case.

Many opponents of the US-led war on terror rightly attack the US for committing abuses of due process, of which the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay has now become an anti-iconic symbol. The Americans are often attacked for disobeying ‘international law,’ in this case by denying to their prisoners on Cuba the right accorded prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions. Few such opponents, however, disagree with the concept of ‘international law’ itself and instead believe that it embodies a superior morality than the narrow self-interest of nation-states. Recent developments in international law suggest, however, that this is not the case and that, on the contrary, international law is even more corrupt than national.

Ever since the end of the Cold War, there has been a tendency to ‘criminalise’ international relations and to bring the methods and philosophy of the criminal law into a legal structure which used to be based only on consent between sovereign states. Ever since President George H. W. Bush proclaimed the ‘new world order’ on 11th September 1990, and ever since the UN Security Council approved the First Gulf War and reproached Saddam Hussein’s regime for the way it was allegedly mistreating its Kurds and Shiites, international law has become increasingly coercive. This, indeed, was precisely what Bush Senior meant when he used that pregnant phrase. Prior to that, broadly speaking, international law had consisted only of the treaty agreements between states, while national sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states were considered the cornerstones of the international system.

The new approach to international law quickly led to important institutional changes at the international level, in particular to the creation of international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in 1993 and 1994. Although the new International Criminal Court, which was created in 1998 and whose jurisdiction may one day cover the whole planet, was not imposed by the Security Council in the way the ICTY and the ICTR were, it will doubtless draw on the practices of these two ad hoc tribunals. It is essential, therefore, to observe their practices to see whether a future regime of coercive ‘international law’ with universal reach would be desirable or dictatorial.

Two recent developments suggest it would be the latter. On 16th June 2006, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda issued a ruling which destroys at it most fundamental level the very concept of due process in a criminal trial. It ruled that the Trial Chambers must ‘take judicial notice’ of the ‘fact’ that ‘between 6th April 1994 and 17th July 1994 there was genocide in Rwanda against the Tutsi ethnic group.’[1]

Taking judicial notice of a fact is a recognised procedure in many jurisdictions. It is a rule in the law of evidence which allows a fact to be formally accepted by the court if its truth is so well known that it cannot be refuted. The rule is customarily used for matters which really are beyond dispute, such as the locations of streets in a court’s jurisdiction or the day of the week on a certain date. When a court takes judicial notice of such facts, the parties in the trial cannot contest them. Superior courts can instruct lower courts to take judicial notice of facts like federal laws and other government regulations.

It is obvious that this procedure is strictly limited to facts which are really not in dispute, and that it is intended to prevent defendants from wasting the court’s time by disputing everything. It has never been used to take as given the very thing which is at issue in the trial. The Rwanda Tribunal has therefore done something which does not exist in any civilised jurisdiction in the world. It has imposed mandatory judicial notice on the Trial Chambers of the ‘fact’ that genocide occurred in Rwanda in 1994, whereas many of those who are accused of committing genocide or of complicity in it are basing their defence on their denial that genocide occurred at all.

No wonder that, according to the official ICTR press release, the Office of the Prosecutor welcomed the ruling because it would ‘silence the “rejectionist” camp which has been disputing the occurrence of genocide’. The ruling does indeed remove at a stroke the central plank of the case of many defendants. The word ‘rejectionist’ is presumably intended to translate the French term ‘négationniste’ which refers to those who deny the Holocaust and therefore to tar defendants at the ICTY and their lawyers with the same brush. But the Appeals Chamber ruling goes to very heart of what criminal trials are all about. This is because ‘genocide’ has a specific meaning in international law, as formulated by the 1948 Genocide Convention and by the ICTR Statute itself.

That Statute defines genocide using the following words and phrases:

‘acts ... committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such’ [including] ‘deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,’ and ‘imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.’

In other words, the legal definition of genocide in international law contains repeated and crucial references to the all-important concept of mens rea . According to the statute, therefore, it should be impossible to be convicted of the crime of genocide without mens rea being established. You cannot commit genocide by mistake. Yet the Appeals Chamber ruling says that mens rea has been established, and it has required the Trial Chambers to take judicial notice of this ‘fact’ and therefore to treat it as established in all the trial pending before them.

All criminal trials turn on the question of mens rea (guilty mind): once the actus reus (guilty act) has been established, if it has, then the court must establish whether the defendant intended to commit the act or whether it was an accident or had some other cause. Only if mens rea is established can a criminal conviction be obtained on the full charge. By ruling that Trial Chambers must take judicial notice of the ‘fact’ that genocide occurred, the Appeals Chamber of the Rwanda Tribunal is ruling as proven the very thing which criminal trials are supposed to establish and which, in this case, the defendants deny, namely that they desired or organised the events in question.

This ruling recalls but goes beyond a doctrine adopted in 2004 at the Rwanda tribunal’s sister court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which has invented a doctrine of criminal liability known as ‘joint criminal enterprise.’ It uses this concept, which is so contentious that it is unconstitutional in many jurisdictions, in order to convict people of crimes when even the Tribunal accepts that they did not, in fact, commit them or that the proof is lacking to show that they did. The reasoning is that people can be convicted of crimes if they were associated with the actual perpetrators in a joint criminal enterprise. To be sure, all criminal jurisdictions recognise the criminal liability of aiding and abetting — the man who keeps a look out while his friend burgles a house is as guilty as the burglar himself — but the Yugoslav Tribunal casts the net of ‘joint criminal enterprise’ so widely that it allows convictions as primary perpetrators even for people who neither committed nor intended to commit the acts in question. On 19th March 2004 the Appeals Chamber ruled that

‘The third category of joint criminal enterprise ... does not require proof of intent to commit a crime...’.

In June of the same year, it specifically applied the same doctrine to genocide, in spite of the fact that its statute also defines the crime in the same way as the Rwanda Tribunal’s statute does.

In other words, international tribunals have abolished the very thing which criminal trials are supposed to be about. If you can be convicted of a crime as a primary perpetrator for something which you neither committed nor intended to commit, and if mens rea can be ‘established’ by judicial ruling, then while it may be true that nation states sometimes abuse their criminal justice systems for political ends (such as when they lock up or execute enemies of the regime) the danger is even greater with international tribunals. Detached from any of the potentially moderating influences which exist in all national courts, such as popular pressure, culture or precedent, international tribunals are a law unto themselves. The collective professional belief of their officials and judges that they are engaged in forging a new and superior judicial order has led these two courts to tear up the established rules of civilised criminal justice systems, introducing into the heart of their systems measures which are the very hallmark of dictatorships.[2]

[1] ICTR Appeals Chamber takes Judicial Notice of Genocide in Rwanda

The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on 16 June 2006 ruled that the Trial Chambers must take judicial notice of the following facts:

(i) The existence of Twa, Tutsi and Hutu as protected groups falling under the Genocide Convention;

(ii) The following state of affairs existed in Rwanda between 6 April 1994 to 17 July 1994: there were throughout Rwanda widespread or systematic attacks against a civilian population based on Tutsi ethnic identification.

During the attacks, some Rwandan citizens killed or caused serious bodily or mental harm to person[s] perceived to be Tutsi. As a result of the attacks, there were a large number of deaths of persons of Tutsi ethnic identity;

(iii) Between 6 April 1994 and 17 July 1994 there was genocide in Rwanda against Tutsi ethnic group.

This land mark decision was delivered by the Appeals Chamber on Prosecutor's Appeal on Judicial Notice, dated 16 June 2006, in the trial of Prosecutor v. Karemera, Ngirumpatse and Nzirorera, ICTR-98-44-AR73 (C).

The decision will have an immediate impact on the trial proceedings in the Karemera et al case, and will be felt in all of the current and pending trials before the Trial Chambers of the ICTR. Judicial notice of the above matters means that they are to be taken as established beyond any dispute and not requiring any proof.

This is one of the most significant rulings of the Tribunal, given the consequences in terms of putting the occurrence of the genocide beyond legal dispute. It can be recalled that until now the OTP has had to in each case lead evidence and prove the occurrence of the genocide. This will no longer be necessary.

In the view of the OTP the ruling should now silence the rejectionist camp which has been disputing the occurrence of genocide. By relieving the OTP of a substantial burden of proof the ruling has the potential to shorten the cases as each will essentially focus on the personal involvement of the accused person in genocide. (Comment by Chris Black)

[2] It is worth noting that this decision came on the heels of the demand by the RPF regime, several weeks ago that the Tribunal should not have to prove there was a genocide and that judicial notice should be taken of it, thus saving the RPF and the ICTR the embarrassment of admitting that there is no such proof. It also followed closely a meeting between The President of the Tribunal Judge Mose of Norway and a sitting trial judge in the Military I case, accompanied by the Prosecutor Hassan Jallow, with Condaleeza Rice in Washington, in violation of the ICTR statute's requirement that the Tribunal be independent of any national state. (Chris Black)

The editor wishes to thank Chris Black for bringing this key decision to our attention. For related stories see Who Killed Agathe? - The Death of a Prime Minister View from Rwanda: The Dallaire Genocide Fax: A Fabrication[1]

Chris Black is a trial Lawyer with over 25 years experience and active involvement with many anti-war and anti-poverty groups. Since 2000 to the present, has been the lead counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda representing General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Chief of Staff, Rwandan Gendarmerie. From 2001, he has been Vice Chair and Chair of the Legal Committee for the International Committee For the Defence of Slobodan Milosevic. Mr Black is a Member of the Association of American Jurists, National Lawyers Guild (USA), International Assocationa of Democractic Lawyers, Member of the Defend the Cuba Five Committee and a Member of the combined US-Canadian legal delegation to North Korea and co-author of their report re North Korea-200.


Appendix:

Statement from Roland Weyl, head of the IADL, International Association of Democratic Lawyers condemning the Tribunal genocide decision:

Droit-Solidarité vient d’être informé de l’arrêt rendu le 16 juin par la Chambre d’Appel du Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda, qui déclare que l’existence du génocide doit être considérée comme un fait de connaissance acquise, que donc le Procureur n’a pas à le démontrer, et que les accusés ne sont pas en possibilité de le discuter.

Nous n’entendons pas ici prendre position sur la question de fond ( savoir si la tragédie du Rwanda relève de la qualification juridique de génocide). La seule question est de savoir si des accusés peuvent se voir interdire de débattre de quelque aspect que ce soit des bases juridiques de la qualification pénale dont ils sont appelés à répondre. L’exigence du droit au procès régulier garanti par la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme et le Pacte de 1966 sur les Droits Civils et Politiques implique un respect absolu des Droits de la Défense, comportant le droit pour tout accusé de discuter non seulement la matérialité des faits qui lui sont reprochés mais leur qualification juridique, ceci incluant le cas échéant le droit de critiquer et de contester la valeur juridique des textes de référence comme contraires aux principes fondamentaux du Droit.

La décision du 16 juin susvisée ne peut être appréciée que comme gravement contraire à ces principes essentiels relevant des garanties fondamentales en matière de Droits de l’Homme

***************************************************


Lettre des détainées en UN prison à Arusha, Tanzania]

[version anglaise suivi]

Arusha, le 08 juillet 2007

Les Détenus du TPIR, Arusha

Monsieur le Président du Conseil de Sécurité de l'ONU,
Mesdames et Messieurs les membres du Conseil de Sécurité de l'ONU,
Monsieur le Secrétaire Général de l'ONU,
Monsieur le Président du TPIR,

Objet : Déplorer la fausse déclaration du Greffier du TPIR au sujet de la compétence du Tribunal sur l'attentat contre l'avion du Président Habyarimana

Mesdames, Messieurs,

Les détenus du TPIR signataires de la presente ont l'honneur de s'adresser à votre haute autorité pour déplorer la dernière déclaration de Monsieur Adama Dieng, Greffier du TPIR, sur les antennes de la Radio France internationale (RFI), le 27 juin 2007, selon lesquelles l'attentat contre l'avion du Président Habyarimana ne rentre pas dans le mandat du Tribunal. Ils déplorent la falsification de la vérité sur les causes réelles de la tragédie rwandaise et l'impunité assurée par le TPIR aux véritables planificateurs et déclencheurs de cette tragédie que sont les dirigeants du Front Patriotique Rwandais (FPR) actuellement au pouvoir à Kigali.

Alors qu'il est de notoriété publique que l'attentat qui a coûté la vie aux Présidents Juvénal
Habyarimana du Rwanda et Cyprien Ntaryamira du Burundi ainsi qu'à leurs suites respectives, le 6 avril 1994, constitue l'élément déclencheur du drame rwandais, les autorités du Tribunal ne cessent de se livrer non seulement à la falsification des faits autour de la planification des massacres au Rwanda mais aussi à la manipulation du Statut du Tribunal en soutenant que cet acte terroriste aux conséquences dramatiques est en dehors de sa compétence. Or, l'article premier du Statut du TPIR, stipule que

<< Le Tribunal international pour le Rwanda est habilité à juger les personnes présumées responsables de violations graves du droit international humanitaire commises sur le territoire du Rwanda et les citoyens rwandais présumes responsables de telles violations commises sur le territoire d'États voisins entre le ler janvier et le 31 décembre 1994, conformément aux dispositions du présent statut. )).

D’autre’part, les actes de terrorisme comptent parmi les violations poursuivies par le TPIR en vertu de l'article 4 du Statut. I1 n'est donc pas nécessaire d'être juriste ou familier de ce Tribunal pour se rendre à l'évidence que cet article premier du Statut du TPIR couvre be1 et bien ce crime odieux. L'attentat contre l'avion du Président Habyarimana est un acte délibère, prémédite et planifié de longue date par le FPR. En fait, cet attentat n'est pas un acte de terrorisme isolé mais fait plutôt partie d'un vaste plan de déstabilisation du pays en vue de prendre le pouvoir dans le chaos et le bain de sang. Le FPR était bien conscient des conséquences de ses actes et avait même été mis en garde notamment par l'Ambassadeur américain au Rwanda, M. Robert Flaten, contre les risques d'implosion du pays en cas de reprise de la guerre par sa branche armée. Des preuves au sujet de cette planification du drame rwandais par le FPR ont été introduites aux dossiers devant le TPIR. Dans sa lettre ouverte, ‘Déposition de M. 1'Ambassadeur Robert Flaten dans 1'Affaire Bagosora et alia, Transcrit du 30/06/2005, p. 74.’ au Conseil de sécurité, le 26 mars 2007, le Professeur Peter Erlinder, Président de l'Association des Avocats de la Défense devant le TPIR (ADAD) en a fait un tableau éloquent avec preuves a l'appui. I1 n'est donc pas étonnant que les prétendues preuves de planification des massacres par l'ancien régime aient fondu comme neige au soleil car, face a l'evidence, elles ne resistent pas a un examen sérieux devant le TPIR.

I1 importe de souligner que la manoeuvre visant à exclure l'attentat du champ de compétence du
TPIR n'a commencé qu'en 1997 alors que le Bureau du Procureur disposait déjà de preuves sérieuses impliquant les membres du FPR, particulièrement le Général Paul Kagame, dans cet attentat. Cela est bien démontré avec preuves a l'appui dans la lettre du Professeur Peter Erlinder évoquée plus haut.

Les propos du Greffier sont d'autant plus choquants qu'ils proviennent d'un responsable du TPIR
Supposé être neutre vis-à-vis des parties au procès devant ce ‘Tribunal’ ait très bien que des preuves sur l'implication du FPR dans l'attentat ont été introduites au dossier par plusieurs témoins, y compris le Lieutenant Ruzibiza, ancien officier du FPR. I1 sait pertinemment que lorsque la Chambre 1 dans l'affaire Bagosora et alia a tout récemment demandé au Procureur d'expliquer le fondement de sa position selon laquelle l'attentat contre l'avion du Président Habyarimana ne rentrait pas dans le mandat du Tribunal, celui-ci a été incapable de fournir le moindre fondement juridique de sa position. I1 a tout simplement soutenu, en ces termes, que le Bureau du Procureur a renoncé à la poursuite parce qu'il y aurait improbabilité pratique d'obtenir la condamnation des suspects :

(( En ce qui concerne l'avion présidentiel, il y a au moin huit theories en concurrence. Il y a tellement d'informations et de désinforrnation et de manque d'informations que, tres
frânchernent, le Procureur n 'est pas d'avis que qui quoi ce soit pourrait être condamné au delà d'un doute raisonnable pour ce crime. Donc, cela ne rimerait à rien de faire des charges s'il y a peu de chances qu 'il y ait condamnation. Donc, en dehors du problème d’incompétence, il y a une improbabilité pratique en ce qui concerne le Procureur. ))


De toute évidence, cette explication ne tient pas puisque des preuves accablantes contre les membres du FPR en rapport avec l'attentat existent depuis 1997. Bien plus, la condamnation certaine n'est pas une condition << sine qua none >> pour engager les poursuites contre un suspect avec des indices sérieux de culpabilité. Mais, pendant que le Procureur refuse de poursuivre les dirigeants du FPR manifestement responsables de graves crimes contre l'humanité et de crimes de guerre, il n'a pas hésité d'arrêter, sur commande du même FPR, les membres de l'ancien regime et de les maintenir en détention préventive pendant plusieurs mois sans acte d'accusation faute de preuves.

Avec la complicité de ceux qui sont charges de les poursuivre, les membres du FPR comptent ainsi échapper à la justice internationale. Mais le FPR ne se contente pas seulement de cela. En effet, il s'active actuellement pour s'emparer des archives du Tribunal dans le cadre de la fermeture prochaine de cette institution. Le FPR qui sait très bien que des preuves contre ses membres sont effectivement disponibles au sein du Tribunal veut mettre la main sur ces dossiers pour les faire disparaître définitivement. En outre, il vise à régler ses comptes contre les témoins qui ont déclaré la vérité sur les crimes commis par ses membres et qui, par crainte pour leur vie, ont fait leurs témoignages à huis clos. C'est également dans ce cadre que le FPR s'acharne pour obtenir le transfert au Rwanda de tous les accusés et condamnés du TPIR. Il veut à tout prix effacer tout indice pouvant conduire à des poursuites judiciaires contre ses membres et faire disparaître tous les témoins gagnants. Nous osons espérer que les autorités de l'ONU et du Tribunal en particulier ne tomberont pas dans ce piège.

Nous estimons que le Conseil de Sécurité qui a mis en place ce Tribunal et adopté son Statut devrait veiller à ce que le mandat assigne soit scrupuleusement respecte et qu'une justice équitable et impartiale soit rendue conformément a ce Statut. I1 devrait également veiller à ce que le TPIR ne se comporte pas comme un Tribunal des vainqueurs car cela compromettrait irrémédiablement la réconciliation du peuple rwandais. Au lieu de servir à rapprocher les Rwandais, ce Tribunal risquerait de les diviser davantage. En effet, il n'est pas normal que 1’assassinat de deux Chefs d‘Etat en exercice dans un attentat terroriste se situant dans la cadre d'un vaste plan de conquête du pouvoir par la force soit considéré comme un fait anodin.
Le Greffier du TPIR, Monsieur Adama Dieng, sait parfaitement que 1'ONU vient de décider de la
creation d’un Tribunal international charge de juger les assassins de Rafik Hariri, ancien Premier Ministre du Liban alors qu'il a été tué longtemps après avoir quitté ses fonctions. Sa déclaration est non seulement en contradiction avec la démarche actuelle du Conseil de Sécurité mais témoigne également de son degré de parti pris en faveur du FPR et de sa volonté de piétiner le Statut du TPIR. Elle le disqualifie en tant que responsable de 1’administration du Tribunal.
Pour sauvegarder l'intégrité du TPIR et de la justice internationale en général, le Conseil de
Sécurité devrait expressément rappeler au Tribunal que l'attentat contre l'avion du Président
Habyarimana rentre be1 et bien dans son mandat et que les crimes commis par les membres du FPR, vainqueur de la guerre, ne doivent pas rester impunis. Même sans la tragédie que cet attentat a déclenchée, ses auteurs devraient être poursuivis pour terrorisme international en raison du fait que cet attentat a visé un avion civil qui atterrissait sur un aéroport international.

Veuillez agréer Mesdames, Messieurs l'expression de notre haute considération.

Les signataires : voir liste en annexe copies pour information
- Messieurs les Juges de la Chambre d'Appel du TPIR (Tous)
- Messieurs les Juges des Chambres de Première Instance du TPIR (Tous)
- Monsieur le Greffier du TPIR, Arusha
- Monsieur le Procureur du TPIR, Arusha
- Mesdames et Messieurs les Avocats de la Defense (Tous)
- Monsieur le Président de 1'ADAD, Arusha
- Commission Internationale des Juristes, Geneve
- Association Américaine des juristes
- Association Internationale des juristes démocrates, New Delhi
- Centre de lutte contre l'impunite et l'injustice au Rwanda, Bruxelles
- Association Dukomere, Bruxelles
- Amnesty International, Londres
- La presse


[version anglaise]

Arusha, 08 July 2007.

ICTR Detainées, Arusha.

The UN Security Council President,
Members of the UN Security Council,
The UN Secretary General,
The ICTR President,

Subject: Deplore the ICTR Registrar's wrong statement regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction on the attack on the plane of President Habyarimana.

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The ICTR detainees signatory to this letter are writing to deplore the recent statement made by M. Adama DIENG, ICTR Registrar, on Radio France International on 27 June 2007, saying that the attack on the plane of President Habyarimana is not a crime that falls under the mandate of the ICTR. They deplore the misrepresentation of the truth about the real causes of the Rwanda tragedy and the impunity granted by the ICTR to the actual planners and instigators of that tragedy who are none other than the RPF (Rwanda Patriotic Front) leaders currently in power in Kigali.

Whereas it is a fact of common knowledge that the attack which led to the deaths of Presidents
Juvenal Habyarimana of Rwanda and Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi and their respective delegation members on 6 April 1994 is the element that triggered the Rwanda tragedy, ICTR officials have continually misrepresented the facts concerning the planning of massacres in
Rwanda and have consistently manipulated the Tribunal's statute by declaring that that terrorist act with dramatic consequences is not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. But article 1 of the ICTR statute stipulates that "The International Tribunal for Rwanda shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for such violations committed in the territory of neighboring states between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, in accordance with the provisions of the present statute".

On the other hand, acts of terrorism are part of the crimes prosecuted by the ICTR in accordance with article 4 of the statute. It is not therefore necessary to be a lawyer or to be familiar with the ICTR to understand that the first article of the ICTR statute covers that odious crime. The attack on the plane of President Habyarimana was a deliberate, premeditated act that had been planned for a long time by the RPF. In fact, that attack was not an isolated terrorist act but was part of a vast plan to destabilize the country in order to grab power through chaos and blood shed. The RPF was well aware of the consequences of its acts and had been warned, namely, by the
American Ambassador, Robert Flaten, against the risks of implosion of the country if its armed forces were to resume fighting. Evidence concerning the planning of the Rwanda tragedy by the RPF has been entered in various trials at the ICTR. In his open letter to the Security Council on March 26, 2007, Professor Peter Erlinder, President of ADAD (Association of Defense Lawyers at the ICTR), presented an eloquent picture of this problem with evidence to support his arguments. It is not, therefore, surprising that the so-called evidence of the planning of massacres by the former regime has melted like snow in the sun in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary before the ICTR Chambers.

It is important to underline that maneuvers to try and exclude the attack on plane from the ICTR's mandate go back to 1997, just after the Prosecutor's office had received serious clues implicating RPF members, particularly General Paul Kagame, in the attack, as demonstrated (with supporting evidence) in Professor Peter Erlindrer's letter alluded to above.

The Registrar's statement is all the more shocking because it has been uttered by an ICTR official who is supposed to observe neutrality in respect to the parties concerned in the trials at the Tribunal. He knows very well that evidence implicating the RPF in the attack was given by numerous witnesses, including Lieutenant Abdul Ruzibiza, a former RPF military officer.
He knows for a fact that when Trial Chamber I in the Bagosora and al. case recently asked the
Prosecutor to explain the foundations of his position that the attack on President Habyarimana's plane was not within the Tribunal's mandate, the Prosecutor was unable to bring forth any legal foundation for his position. He simply said, in the following terms, that the Prosecutor's office had abandoned prosecution for that crime because of the practical improbability to obtain a conviction of the suspects:

''And, with respect to the shooting down of the president's plane, there are at least eight competing theories. There is so much information, disinformation, and lack of information that, quite frankly, the Prosecutor does not believe that anyone could ever be convicted, beyond a reasonable doubt, of that crime. So there is no point in bringing a charge if you have no substantial likelihood of conviction. So, aside from the mandate issue, it's a practical improbability for prosecution. "

This explanation holds no water because damning evidence against RPF members in regard to the attack has existed since 1997. Furthermore, ensured conviction is not a "sine qua none" condition for prosecution of a suspect against whom serious indications of guilt exist. But while the Prosecutor refuses to pursue RPF members who are clearly responsible for crimes against humanity and for war crimes, he has not hesitated to arrest, on orders from the RPF, members of the former regime, and to keep them in preventive detention for many months without indictments because he had no charges against them.

In complicity with those who are supposed to prosecute them, RPF members thus hope to evade international justice. But the RPF is not satisfied with this. It is currently actively seeking to get possession of the ICTR archives in light of the imminent closure of this institution. The RPF knows well that evidence against its members is available at the Tribunal and wants to get hold of it to make it disappear permanently. Furthermore, it intends to settle accounts with witnesses who have declared the truth regarding crimes committed by RPF members and who, fearing for their lives, have testified behind closed doors. It is also in this spirit that the RPF is set on obtaining the transfer to Rwanda of the ICTR detainees and prisoners. The RPF wants by all means to destroy all evidence likely to result in prosecution of its members, and to get rid of all embarrassing witnesses.

We hope that the UN authorities and the Tribunal, in particular, will not fall into that trap. We are of the view that the Security Council, which instituted the Tribunal and adopted its statute, should see to it that the mandate is scrupulously respected and that equitable and impartial justice is administered in accordance with the statute. It should see to it that the ICTR does not behave as a victor's Tribunal because this would irreparably compromise reconciliation among Rwandans. Instead of playing the role of bringing Rwandans closer, this Tribunal risks dividing them further.

In fact, it is abnormal that the premeditated assassination of two Heads of State in office by way of a terrorist attack within the framework of a vast plan to seize power through the barrel of the gun be considered as an insignificant event.

The ICTR Registrar, M. Adama DIENG, knows perfectly well that the United Nations has just set up an international Tribunal to judge the assassins of Rafik Hariri, former Prime Minister of
Lebanon, who was killed long after having relinquished his position of Prime Minister. His statement is not only in contradiction with the current approach by the Security Council, but demonstrates the degree of his bias in favor of the RPF and his will to trample underfoot the
ICTR statute. It disqualifies him as an official in charge of the Tribunal's administration.

To safeguard the integrity of the ICTR, and of international justice in general, the Security
Council should specially remind the Tribunal that the attack on President Habyarimana's plane is well and truly within its mandate, and that crimes committed by RPF members, winners of the war, must not be left unpunished. Without even taking into account the tragedy that was sparked by the attack, the authors of this crime should be prosecuted for international terrorism because the attack was carried out on a civilian plane that was about to land at an international airport.

Sincerely yours,

The signatories: see annexed list.

copy to:
- The Judges of the Appeal Chamber, ICTR (all)
- The Judges of Trial Chambers, ICTR (all)
- The Registrar, ICTR, Arusha
- The Prosecutor, ICTR, Arusha
- Defense Lawyers (all)
- ADAD President, Arusha.
- International Commission of Jurists, Geneva.
- American Association of Jurists.
- International Association of Democratic Jurists, New Delhi.
- Center fighting against Impunity and Injustice in Rwanda, Brussels.
- Dukomere Association, Brussels
- Amnesty International, London.
- The press.