 |
||||||||
|
1. How the genocide happened ?
LEE JI HYUN
*1994: RWANDA'S GENOCIDE
April 6th: Rwandan president Habyarimana killed in plane explosion
April -July: An estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus killed
July: Tutsi-led rebel movement RPF captures Rwanda's capital Kigali
July: Two million Hutus flee to Zaire, now the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo)
*Rwandan Genocide was the massacre of an estimated 800,000 to 1,071,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda, It was carried out by two extremist Hutu milltia groups.( Hutu killed Tutis) but it also lead to controversy over how the United Nation(particularly, its western members such as the U.S. and France) failed to respond to or were even complicit in the violence.
*History of Rwanda
Among the current inhabitants of the region now known as Rwanda, the earliest are believed to have been the pygmy Twa( ; The Twa are a pygmy people, of short stature, who were the oldest recorded inhabitants of the Great Lakesregion of central Africa that now comprises the nations of Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. They are also known as Batwa.)
*Geography
The Great Lakes region(Great Lakes also refers to the region around these lakes. These include the entirety of the nations of Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda as well as portions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, and Kenya.) has rich volcanic soil. Because of the favorable environment, it is one of the most densely populated parts of Africa. This has led to a great deal of competition for scarce land and resources. Some analysts argue that this overpopulation contributed heavily to the violence.
*Ethnic and Political Roots
In the 15th century, several Tutsi clans merged to establish the Kingdom of Rwanda, Although some Hutus were among the nobility and significant intermingling took place, the Hutu majority made up 82–85% of the population and were mostly poor peasants. In general, the kings, known as Mwamis, were Tutsi.
√Kingdom of Rwanda, In general, the kings, known as Mwamis, were Tutsi.
√The Hutu majority made up 82–85% of the population and were mostly poor peasants.
*Land Ownership
√ 1860~1895 , Mwamis redistributed land to Tutsis.
√ Under Mwami Rwabugiri, the idea that “Hutu” and “Tutsi” were socioeconomic, not ethnic, distinctions.
*German Colonial Policy
√ In 1885, Rwanda were ceded to Germany and administered as a joint colony.
They sought to rule indirectly by appointing an elite class of indigenous inhabitants which could act as functionaries.(Because the Germans did not intend to colonize Rwanda themselves)
Drawing on John Hanning Speke's Hamitic Theory of Races, and recognizing that the Tutsi held political power in Rwandan society, they chose the Tutsi to rule. This development further exacerbated the divide between Tutsi and Hutu both economically and politically
√ World War Ⅱ, Rwanda became a protectorate of Belgium.
√ In 1959, Belgium granted Rwanda self-government. Elections advanced the Hutu nationalist party Parmehutu , which worked to empower the Hutu majority, especially in the western part of the country. In the process, some 20,000 Tutsi were killed and an additional 200,000 fled to neighbouring countries.
2. Prelude to the Genocide
KIM KYOUNG MI
Another source of mounting tensions in 1990 was the grumblings of the Tutsi diaspora in refugee camps ringing the nation, particularly from Uganda.
Rwanda had been given independence before Uganda, and the early Tutsi outcasts saw history played out in 30 years of Uganda's history, from independence from Britain, to a fledgling democracy, and on to Idi Amin and successive military overthrows.
*The mainly Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)
On October 1, 1990 RPF forces invaded Rwanda from their base in neighbouring Uganda. The rebel force, composed primarily of Tutsis, blamed the government for failing to democratize and resolve the problems of some 500,000 Tutsi refugees living in diaspora around the world.[citations needed]
The Rwandan government portrayed the invasion as an attempt to bring the Tutsi ethnic group back into power. International reaction was ambiguous. Habyarimana justified these acts by proclaiming it was the intent of the Tutsis to restore a kind of Tutsi feudal system and thus to enslave the Hutu race.
* Arusha Accords (Peace Contract between Hutu and Tutsis)
Composition
- a set of five accords signed
- by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and the Government of Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania on August 4, 1993, ending the civil war.
- The United States and France orchestrated the talks
- President, Juvénal Habyarimana.
- The Transitional Broad Based Government (TBBG) that would include the RPF as well as the five political parties until proper elections could be held.
* Preparations for the Genocide
During this period the rhetoric of Hutu nationalism escalated.
- Radio stations owned by top government leaders, and newspapers, began a campaign of hate and fear.
- They broadcast and published material referring to the Tutsi as subhuman and making veiled calls for violence.
There is ample evidence that the killing was well organized
- Some militia members were able to acquire AK-47 assault rifles by completing requisition forms.
- Other weapons such as grenades required no paperwork and were widely distributed.
- Many members of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were armed only with machetes, but these were some of the most effective killers.
- The genocide was openly discussed in cabinet meetings and that "one cabinet minister said she was personally in favour of getting rid of all Tutsi; without the Tutsi, she told ministers, all of Rwanda's problems would be over."
Arms shipments and the Rwandan Genocide
- Delivery from France
In the early morning of January 22, 1994, a DC-8 aircraft loaded with armaments from France, including 90 boxes of Belgian-made 60 mm mortars, was confiscated by UNAMIR at Kigali International Airport. The delivery was in violation of the cease-fire clauses of the Arusha Accords, which prohibited introduction of arms into the area during the transition period.
- Mil-Tec Corporation Ltd (UK)
Documents showed that a UK company, Mil-Tec Corporation Ltd, was involved in arms supplies to the Hutu regime at least from June 1993 to mid-July 1994. Mil-Tec had been paid $4.8 million by the regime in return for invoices of $6.5 million for the arms sent.
* Three Tutsi informants told UN investigators that the killing of president Juvenal Habyarimana was carried out "with the assistance of a foreign government" under the overall command of Paul Kagame. The informants told the investigators that the [Rwandan Patriotric] front decided to kill Mr. Habyarimana because the group was not pleased with the slow pace of the talks.[9]
- Others claim that the United States CIA was involved in Habyariman's assassination.
*UNAMIR
For the next couple of weeks, many questionable decisions were made by members of the United Nations Security Council
UNAMIR's Force Commander Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire sent a cable to the then head of UN peacekeeping, Kofi Annan, for authority to defend Rwandan civilians. The UN Security Council repeatedly refused his pleas.
Annan's faxed response had ordered Dallaire to defend only the UN's image of impartiality, forbidding him to protect desperate civilians waiting to die. Next, it detailed the withdrawal of UN troops, even while blood flowed and the assassins reigned, leaving 800,000 Rwandans to their fate.
Following the failed US efforts in Mogadishu, Somalia, the United States refused to provide requested material aid to Rwanda. France, China and Russia opposed involvement in what was seen as an "internal affair".
Only Belgium had asked for a strong UNAMIR mandate, but after the gruesome murder of the ten Belgian peacekeepers protecting the Prime Minister in early April, Belgium pulled out of the peacekeeping mission.[citations needed]
Following the withdrawal of the Belgian forces, General Dallaire consolidated his contingent of Canadian, Ghanaian and Dutch soldiers in urban areas and focused on providing areas of "safe control". His actions are credited with directly saving the lives of 20,000 Tutsis.[citations needed]
The new Rwandan government, led by interim President Théodore Sindikubwabo, worked hard to minimize international criticism. Rwandan Catholic Church, long associated with the radical Hutus in Rwanda, also used their links in Europe to reduce criticism. France, which felt the United States and United Kingdom would use the massacres to try to expand their influence in that Francophone part of Africa, also worked to prevent a foreign intervention.[citations needed]
Finally, on April 29, 1994, the United Nations conceded that "acts of genocide may have been committed." The UN agreed to send 5,500 troops to Rwanda, most of whom were to be provided by African countries. The UN also requested 50 armoured personnel carriers from the United States. Deployment of these forces was delayed, however, due to arguments over their cost and other factors
*Relief efforts
The United Nations, in the absence of any serious military aid from the United States, was forced to open its communication pathways wider than before and urge other countries to join the efforts.
The United States agreed to support these efforts with finance and some equipment. Early in the relief process, American relief planes began to drop large food packages from the air in hopes of alleviating the suffering in the camps below. The opposite effect occurred, however, as people were slaughtered by members of mobs trying to reach the precious food.
By this point, France had established a field hospital at the area of Lake Kivu in an attempt to help the large numbers of refugees.
Israel conducted the largest medical mission in its history, and, although their supplies were not as abundant as those of the other forces, their all-volunteer force of military surgeons was composed both of specialists and sub-specialists, including well-known surgeons.
Netherlands had sent a small contingent consisting mostly of medics and nurses. This force turned out to be beneficial for rehabilitation efforts and ambulatory care after patients left the French-Israeli medical quarters.
CARE Deutschland assisted by supplying ambulances, and Merlin of Ireland assisted by supplying trucks and heavy equipment to distribute food and supplies to the refugee camps.
*Justice, reconciliation, reforms
- 1997 : the government began the long-awaited genocide trials, which got off to an uncertain start in the closing days of 1996 and inched forward in 1997.
- 2001 : the government began implementing a participatory justice system, known as Gacaca, in order to address the enormous backlog of cases.
- The United Nations Tribunal has jurisdiction over high level members of the government and armed forces, while Rwanda is responsible for prosecuting lower level leaders and local people. Tensions have arisen between Rwanda and the United Nations over the use of the death penalty.
- On March 31, 2005, the successor organization to the Interahamwe, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), finally condemned the genocide of 1994.
- In May 2006, the Paris Court of Appeal accepted six courtsuits deposed by victims of the genocide to magistrate Brigitte Reynaud.
*ICTR Statement of 16 June 2006: A "landmark decision"
"Eleven years after its establishment and four years to its closure, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has [finally] recognized that genocide happened in Rwanda in 1994"
In a statement issued on June 16, the UN-backed tribunal legally recognises the genocide that took place in Rwanda between April 6 and July 17, 1994.
This comes two years after the UN officially accepted its failure to stop the genocide, which claimed an estimated one million ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The Rwandan government has welcomed the Tanzania-based tribunal proclamation, but says it has been long overdue. Acting Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga said on Wednesday: “This is a very important ruling. It is a historic landmark and it also proves wrong revisionists of the genocide.” He however observed that the court had made the proclamation rather late, saying that it ought to have done so several years ago as former Prime Minister Jean Kambanda had admitted his government had planned and perpetrated the genocide.
3. Liesbeth Leplae
Rwanda Genocide: The facts of 1994 were the result of much campaigning and systematic events which started long before. In Belgium, many are of the opinion that because the Belgian army retreated from Rwanda, a genocide was possible. We have to bear in mind that conflicts don’t happen out of nothing, they go through a lifecycle. The most efficient way to resolve conflicts is to prevent them of course, but if they do burst out, then we have to see how to resolve them and afterwards, how to give remedy to the victims. The judiciary part is therefore not unimportant. Genocide often happen in failed states so judiciary is weak. Moreover, leaders sometimes flee to other countries. This raises the issue of universality of jurisdiction for such serious crimes as genocide, which can be considered as a crime against humanity.
One of the countries that implemented the universal jurisdiction principle in its national legal system is Belgium (Keller, 2001; Smis & Van der borght, 2003). The genocide law of 1993 makes universal jurisdiction applicable on war crimes and humanity. The basis for the law is to be found in the four Geneva Conventions concerning humanitarian law in internal armed conflicts. The amendments of 1999 added also genocide. Some special features made the Belgian Genocide Law quite a pioneer of the universality principle in domestic law. One of those features is that the law also provides universal jurisdiction in absentia. Literally, this means that the accused person can be absent. So, not only the crime does not have to be committed in Belgian territory or does the nationality of the victim or the perpetrator has to be Belgian, the perpetrator does even not have to be present in Belgian territory (Smis & Van der Broght, 2003). Moreover, the law does not recognized immunities on the basis of the official person of the position.
Afraid of abuse of the law for publicity reasons, the Belgian Parliament however made, after a long and tensed debate, the appliance of the universal jurisdiction in absentia restricted. When no nexus between the crime and Belgium exits, the Federal Prosecutor can normally initiate a criminal investigation but there are some exceptions on that rule where the case can be dismissed on the ground that the crime is not defined as such in international law for example or the case can under certain circumstances be referred to the International Criminal Court (Smis & Van der Broght, 2003).
The first conviction on the base of genocide was the case against the so-called ‘four of Butare’, who played a role in the Rwanda Genocide. However, in this case there was no question of immunity, since the accused hadn’t enjoyed immunity ever. The accused were also in Belgium at the time of their arrest (Keller, 2001).
Legality of ‘no immunity on the basis of the official person in position’
In 2003, a decision of the International Court of Justice brought forth an amendment. There had been a case against the Foreign minister of Congo, Mr. Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi who was not on Belgian territory. The legality of ‘no immunity on the basis of the official person in position’ was questioned and the problem was brought before the International Court of Justice in Den Hague. Although the court supports the universality principles in serious crimes as genocide and war crimes, the court decided the Belgian implementation of the principle was somehow too pioneering and not in line with international definitions of universal jurisdiction.
“[…] the rules governing the jurisdiction of national courts must be carefully distinguished from those governing jurisdictional immunities: jurisdiction does not imply absence of immunity, while absence of immunity does not imply jurisdiction. Thus, although various international conventions on the prevention and punishment of certain serious crimes impose on States obligations of prosecution or extradition, thereby requiring them to extend their criminal jurisdiction, such extension of jurisdiction in no way affects immunities under customary international law, including those of Ministers for Foreign Affairs” (Summary of the Judgment of 14 February 2002, http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2002/ipresscom2002-04bis_cobe_20020214.htm).
In short: the concept of absence of immunity has to be distinguished from universal jurisdiction. The rule immunity of officials remains customary international law and cannot be overlooked. The court decided however that in case of a government official, they can be tried in national courts or an international criminal court.
Diplomatic tensions and a step back for the Belgian Genocide Law
Recent cases where high officials of other states as United States and Israel were accused, gave rise to controversy on the law. Diplomatic relations between US and Belgium grew extremely bad because of a case where US general Tommy Franks was accused of war crimes in Iraq. Threads were made from the US side to move NATO headquarters out of Brussels. Finally, the whole incident resulted in a change of the genocide law, which is now seen by many scholars as void. The revised law does not embrace fully the concept of universal jurisdiction anymore.
Additional amendments now demand an unquestionable nexus between the crime and Belgian. The nationality principle is the base for jurisdiction. Furthermore, details are described that ensure to respect the immunity of officials visiting Belgium.
To the Rwanda case specifically, in 2001 only a Rwanda Business man and two nuns were actually convicted by the law and currently a Rwandan singer is on trial. When looking at the seriousness of the genocide and what pain it caused, this is not so successful. Eventually also the Arusha tribunal should be the most important for conviction. However, it opened the debate on genocide and we cannot forget history and have to learn lessons from this horrid experience. One professor did extensive research on the topic and pointed at the need to detect where genocide might outburst. He concluded that genocide is most likely to occur when following conditions are present:
1. When there is severe political, economical and physical insecurity
2. When an authoritarian government points the finger to a scapegoat and puts the responsibility to a distinct group op people.
3. When a government systematically runs a campaign with or without help of the media to justify its behavior
4. When a government makes plans for killings etc
5. When there is a powerless victim who does not expect the events
6. When the international community has knowledge of the events speaks out its disappointment while however not able to act effectively
Areas with climate for genocide now: Sudan!
Crimes against humanity should be collectively handled during to some, demanding the involvement of the international community as a whole in preventing genocide. However, often they have showed being ineffective.
LEE JI HYUN
*1994: RWANDA'S GENOCIDE
April 6th: Rwandan president Habyarimana killed in plane explosion
April -July: An estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus killed
July: Tutsi-led rebel movement RPF captures Rwanda's capital Kigali
July: Two million Hutus flee to Zaire, now the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo)
*Rwandan Genocide was the massacre of an estimated 800,000 to 1,071,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda, It was carried out by two extremist Hutu milltia groups.( Hutu killed Tutis) but it also lead to controversy over how the United Nation(particularly, its western members such as the U.S. and France) failed to respond to or were even complicit in the violence.
*History of Rwanda
Among the current inhabitants of the region now known as Rwanda, the earliest are believed to have been the pygmy Twa( ; The Twa are a pygmy people, of short stature, who were the oldest recorded inhabitants of the Great Lakesregion of central Africa that now comprises the nations of Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. They are also known as Batwa.)
*Geography
The Great Lakes region(Great Lakes also refers to the region around these lakes. These include the entirety of the nations of Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda as well as portions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, and Kenya.) has rich volcanic soil. Because of the favorable environment, it is one of the most densely populated parts of Africa. This has led to a great deal of competition for scarce land and resources. Some analysts argue that this overpopulation contributed heavily to the violence.
*Ethnic and Political Roots
In the 15th century, several Tutsi clans merged to establish the Kingdom of Rwanda, Although some Hutus were among the nobility and significant intermingling took place, the Hutu majority made up 82–85% of the population and were mostly poor peasants. In general, the kings, known as Mwamis, were Tutsi.
√Kingdom of Rwanda, In general, the kings, known as Mwamis, were Tutsi.
√The Hutu majority made up 82–85% of the population and were mostly poor peasants.
*Land Ownership
√ 1860~1895 , Mwamis redistributed land to Tutsis.
√ Under Mwami Rwabugiri, the idea that “Hutu” and “Tutsi” were socioeconomic, not ethnic, distinctions.
*German Colonial Policy
√ In 1885, Rwanda were ceded to Germany and administered as a joint colony.
They sought to rule indirectly by appointing an elite class of indigenous inhabitants which could act as functionaries.(Because the Germans did not intend to colonize Rwanda themselves)
Drawing on John Hanning Speke's Hamitic Theory of Races, and recognizing that the Tutsi held political power in Rwandan society, they chose the Tutsi to rule. This development further exacerbated the divide between Tutsi and Hutu both economically and politically
√ World War Ⅱ, Rwanda became a protectorate of Belgium.
√ In 1959, Belgium granted Rwanda self-government. Elections advanced the Hutu nationalist party Parmehutu , which worked to empower the Hutu majority, especially in the western part of the country. In the process, some 20,000 Tutsi were killed and an additional 200,000 fled to neighbouring countries.
2. Prelude to the Genocide
KIM KYOUNG MI
Another source of mounting tensions in 1990 was the grumblings of the Tutsi diaspora in refugee camps ringing the nation, particularly from Uganda.
Rwanda had been given independence before Uganda, and the early Tutsi outcasts saw history played out in 30 years of Uganda's history, from independence from Britain, to a fledgling democracy, and on to Idi Amin and successive military overthrows.
*The mainly Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)
On October 1, 1990 RPF forces invaded Rwanda from their base in neighbouring Uganda. The rebel force, composed primarily of Tutsis, blamed the government for failing to democratize and resolve the problems of some 500,000 Tutsi refugees living in diaspora around the world.[citations needed]
The Rwandan government portrayed the invasion as an attempt to bring the Tutsi ethnic group back into power. International reaction was ambiguous. Habyarimana justified these acts by proclaiming it was the intent of the Tutsis to restore a kind of Tutsi feudal system and thus to enslave the Hutu race.
* Arusha Accords (Peace Contract between Hutu and Tutsis)
Composition
- a set of five accords signed
- by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and the Government of Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania on August 4, 1993, ending the civil war.
- The United States and France orchestrated the talks
- President, Juvénal Habyarimana.
- The Transitional Broad Based Government (TBBG) that would include the RPF as well as the five political parties until proper elections could be held.
* Preparations for the Genocide
During this period the rhetoric of Hutu nationalism escalated.
- Radio stations owned by top government leaders, and newspapers, began a campaign of hate and fear.
- They broadcast and published material referring to the Tutsi as subhuman and making veiled calls for violence.
There is ample evidence that the killing was well organized
- Some militia members were able to acquire AK-47 assault rifles by completing requisition forms.
- Other weapons such as grenades required no paperwork and were widely distributed.
- Many members of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were armed only with machetes, but these were some of the most effective killers.
- The genocide was openly discussed in cabinet meetings and that "one cabinet minister said she was personally in favour of getting rid of all Tutsi; without the Tutsi, she told ministers, all of Rwanda's problems would be over."
Arms shipments and the Rwandan Genocide
- Delivery from France
In the early morning of January 22, 1994, a DC-8 aircraft loaded with armaments from France, including 90 boxes of Belgian-made 60 mm mortars, was confiscated by UNAMIR at Kigali International Airport. The delivery was in violation of the cease-fire clauses of the Arusha Accords, which prohibited introduction of arms into the area during the transition period.
- Mil-Tec Corporation Ltd (UK)
Documents showed that a UK company, Mil-Tec Corporation Ltd, was involved in arms supplies to the Hutu regime at least from June 1993 to mid-July 1994. Mil-Tec had been paid $4.8 million by the regime in return for invoices of $6.5 million for the arms sent.
* Three Tutsi informants told UN investigators that the killing of president Juvenal Habyarimana was carried out "with the assistance of a foreign government" under the overall command of Paul Kagame. The informants told the investigators that the [Rwandan Patriotric] front decided to kill Mr. Habyarimana because the group was not pleased with the slow pace of the talks.[9]
- Others claim that the United States CIA was involved in Habyariman's assassination.
*UNAMIR
For the next couple of weeks, many questionable decisions were made by members of the United Nations Security Council
UNAMIR's Force Commander Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire sent a cable to the then head of UN peacekeeping, Kofi Annan, for authority to defend Rwandan civilians. The UN Security Council repeatedly refused his pleas.
Annan's faxed response had ordered Dallaire to defend only the UN's image of impartiality, forbidding him to protect desperate civilians waiting to die. Next, it detailed the withdrawal of UN troops, even while blood flowed and the assassins reigned, leaving 800,000 Rwandans to their fate.
Following the failed US efforts in Mogadishu, Somalia, the United States refused to provide requested material aid to Rwanda. France, China and Russia opposed involvement in what was seen as an "internal affair".
Only Belgium had asked for a strong UNAMIR mandate, but after the gruesome murder of the ten Belgian peacekeepers protecting the Prime Minister in early April, Belgium pulled out of the peacekeeping mission.[citations needed]
Following the withdrawal of the Belgian forces, General Dallaire consolidated his contingent of Canadian, Ghanaian and Dutch soldiers in urban areas and focused on providing areas of "safe control". His actions are credited with directly saving the lives of 20,000 Tutsis.[citations needed]
The new Rwandan government, led by interim President Théodore Sindikubwabo, worked hard to minimize international criticism. Rwandan Catholic Church, long associated with the radical Hutus in Rwanda, also used their links in Europe to reduce criticism. France, which felt the United States and United Kingdom would use the massacres to try to expand their influence in that Francophone part of Africa, also worked to prevent a foreign intervention.[citations needed]
Finally, on April 29, 1994, the United Nations conceded that "acts of genocide may have been committed." The UN agreed to send 5,500 troops to Rwanda, most of whom were to be provided by African countries. The UN also requested 50 armoured personnel carriers from the United States. Deployment of these forces was delayed, however, due to arguments over their cost and other factors
*Relief efforts
The United Nations, in the absence of any serious military aid from the United States, was forced to open its communication pathways wider than before and urge other countries to join the efforts.
The United States agreed to support these efforts with finance and some equipment. Early in the relief process, American relief planes began to drop large food packages from the air in hopes of alleviating the suffering in the camps below. The opposite effect occurred, however, as people were slaughtered by members of mobs trying to reach the precious food.
By this point, France had established a field hospital at the area of Lake Kivu in an attempt to help the large numbers of refugees.
Israel conducted the largest medical mission in its history, and, although their supplies were not as abundant as those of the other forces, their all-volunteer force of military surgeons was composed both of specialists and sub-specialists, including well-known surgeons.
Netherlands had sent a small contingent consisting mostly of medics and nurses. This force turned out to be beneficial for rehabilitation efforts and ambulatory care after patients left the French-Israeli medical quarters.
CARE Deutschland assisted by supplying ambulances, and Merlin of Ireland assisted by supplying trucks and heavy equipment to distribute food and supplies to the refugee camps.
*Justice, reconciliation, reforms
- 1997 : the government began the long-awaited genocide trials, which got off to an uncertain start in the closing days of 1996 and inched forward in 1997.
- 2001 : the government began implementing a participatory justice system, known as Gacaca, in order to address the enormous backlog of cases.
- The United Nations Tribunal has jurisdiction over high level members of the government and armed forces, while Rwanda is responsible for prosecuting lower level leaders and local people. Tensions have arisen between Rwanda and the United Nations over the use of the death penalty.
- On March 31, 2005, the successor organization to the Interahamwe, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), finally condemned the genocide of 1994.
- In May 2006, the Paris Court of Appeal accepted six courtsuits deposed by victims of the genocide to magistrate Brigitte Reynaud.
*ICTR Statement of 16 June 2006: A "landmark decision"
"Eleven years after its establishment and four years to its closure, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has [finally] recognized that genocide happened in Rwanda in 1994"
In a statement issued on June 16, the UN-backed tribunal legally recognises the genocide that took place in Rwanda between April 6 and July 17, 1994.
This comes two years after the UN officially accepted its failure to stop the genocide, which claimed an estimated one million ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The Rwandan government has welcomed the Tanzania-based tribunal proclamation, but says it has been long overdue. Acting Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga said on Wednesday: “This is a very important ruling. It is a historic landmark and it also proves wrong revisionists of the genocide.” He however observed that the court had made the proclamation rather late, saying that it ought to have done so several years ago as former Prime Minister Jean Kambanda had admitted his government had planned and perpetrated the genocide.
3. Liesbeth Leplae
Rwanda Genocide: The facts of 1994 were the result of much campaigning and systematic events which started long before. In Belgium, many are of the opinion that because the Belgian army retreated from Rwanda, a genocide was possible. We have to bear in mind that conflicts don’t happen out of nothing, they go through a lifecycle. The most efficient way to resolve conflicts is to prevent them of course, but if they do burst out, then we have to see how to resolve them and afterwards, how to give remedy to the victims. The judiciary part is therefore not unimportant. Genocide often happen in failed states so judiciary is weak. Moreover, leaders sometimes flee to other countries. This raises the issue of universality of jurisdiction for such serious crimes as genocide, which can be considered as a crime against humanity.
One of the countries that implemented the universal jurisdiction principle in its national legal system is Belgium (Keller, 2001; Smis & Van der borght, 2003). The genocide law of 1993 makes universal jurisdiction applicable on war crimes and humanity. The basis for the law is to be found in the four Geneva Conventions concerning humanitarian law in internal armed conflicts. The amendments of 1999 added also genocide. Some special features made the Belgian Genocide Law quite a pioneer of the universality principle in domestic law. One of those features is that the law also provides universal jurisdiction in absentia. Literally, this means that the accused person can be absent. So, not only the crime does not have to be committed in Belgian territory or does the nationality of the victim or the perpetrator has to be Belgian, the perpetrator does even not have to be present in Belgian territory (Smis & Van der Broght, 2003). Moreover, the law does not recognized immunities on the basis of the official person of the position.
Afraid of abuse of the law for publicity reasons, the Belgian Parliament however made, after a long and tensed debate, the appliance of the universal jurisdiction in absentia restricted. When no nexus between the crime and Belgium exits, the Federal Prosecutor can normally initiate a criminal investigation but there are some exceptions on that rule where the case can be dismissed on the ground that the crime is not defined as such in international law for example or the case can under certain circumstances be referred to the International Criminal Court (Smis & Van der Broght, 2003).
The first conviction on the base of genocide was the case against the so-called ‘four of Butare’, who played a role in the Rwanda Genocide. However, in this case there was no question of immunity, since the accused hadn’t enjoyed immunity ever. The accused were also in Belgium at the time of their arrest (Keller, 2001).
Legality of ‘no immunity on the basis of the official person in position’
In 2003, a decision of the International Court of Justice brought forth an amendment. There had been a case against the Foreign minister of Congo, Mr. Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi who was not on Belgian territory. The legality of ‘no immunity on the basis of the official person in position’ was questioned and the problem was brought before the International Court of Justice in Den Hague. Although the court supports the universality principles in serious crimes as genocide and war crimes, the court decided the Belgian implementation of the principle was somehow too pioneering and not in line with international definitions of universal jurisdiction.
“[…] the rules governing the jurisdiction of national courts must be carefully distinguished from those governing jurisdictional immunities: jurisdiction does not imply absence of immunity, while absence of immunity does not imply jurisdiction. Thus, although various international conventions on the prevention and punishment of certain serious crimes impose on States obligations of prosecution or extradition, thereby requiring them to extend their criminal jurisdiction, such extension of jurisdiction in no way affects immunities under customary international law, including those of Ministers for Foreign Affairs” (Summary of the Judgment of 14 February 2002, http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2002/ipresscom2002-04bis_cobe_20020214.htm).
In short: the concept of absence of immunity has to be distinguished from universal jurisdiction. The rule immunity of officials remains customary international law and cannot be overlooked. The court decided however that in case of a government official, they can be tried in national courts or an international criminal court.
Diplomatic tensions and a step back for the Belgian Genocide Law
Recent cases where high officials of other states as United States and Israel were accused, gave rise to controversy on the law. Diplomatic relations between US and Belgium grew extremely bad because of a case where US general Tommy Franks was accused of war crimes in Iraq. Threads were made from the US side to move NATO headquarters out of Brussels. Finally, the whole incident resulted in a change of the genocide law, which is now seen by many scholars as void. The revised law does not embrace fully the concept of universal jurisdiction anymore.
Additional amendments now demand an unquestionable nexus between the crime and Belgian. The nationality principle is the base for jurisdiction. Furthermore, details are described that ensure to respect the immunity of officials visiting Belgium.
To the Rwanda case specifically, in 2001 only a Rwanda Business man and two nuns were actually convicted by the law and currently a Rwandan singer is on trial. When looking at the seriousness of the genocide and what pain it caused, this is not so successful. Eventually also the Arusha tribunal should be the most important for conviction. However, it opened the debate on genocide and we cannot forget history and have to learn lessons from this horrid experience. One professor did extensive research on the topic and pointed at the need to detect where genocide might outburst. He concluded that genocide is most likely to occur when following conditions are present:
1. When there is severe political, economical and physical insecurity
2. When an authoritarian government points the finger to a scapegoat and puts the responsibility to a distinct group op people.
3. When a government systematically runs a campaign with or without help of the media to justify its behavior
4. When a government makes plans for killings etc
5. When there is a powerless victim who does not expect the events
6. When the international community has knowledge of the events speaks out its disappointment while however not able to act effectively
Areas with climate for genocide now: Sudan!
Crimes against humanity should be collectively handled during to some, demanding the involvement of the international community as a whole in preventing genocide. However, often they have showed being ineffective.
