Print This Page

3 Responses

1. I post the following, sent from Professor Peter Erlinder:

   As Lead Defence Counsel in Military I at the ICTR, we have been systematically introducing evidence of the responsibility of Kagame, not only for the assassination of Habyarimana as part of a final offensive to seize power, but long-term planning and stockpiling of materiele…and the cover-up of UN/US knowledge of crimes by RPF that are being charged to the vanquished side in the 4 year Rwandan War.

   We also filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, which has been forwarded to all members of the Security Council, with a supported dossier of several hundred pages of documents and testimony at the ICTR. Without arguing details, most historians would probably agree that crimes are committed in both sides during any war, and that the victors usually “spin” the recounting of the war to place major responsibility on the vanquished. The Rwanda War was no different, but record in Tribunal made telling the other side of the story possible. For anyone interested in doing the research, see exhibits associated with Brief of Major Ntabakuze, filed Monday 4/23 AND the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed in December and rejected by the Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction last Thursday.

   Also, a secret investigative Unit has been established within the ICTR Pros. Office…after filing of Mandamus Petition…BUT, all Prosecutions/Jobs at ICTR depend on a constant stream of witnesses/assistance from Kagame government. IF Tribunal prosecutes Tribunal…the entire edifice ceases to function. Thoughtful persons can work out the political implications of this on their own. BTW, does anyone recall that the US/UK recognized Kagame government on the very day they seized Kigali…or that UNHCR issues reports in Sept 1994 detailing massive killings by RPF during war?

   In short, Bruguiere Report is supported by record in Mil 1…and much more, for those interested in doing the research and connecting the dots.

   Please see documents in the trial record…further information available upon request.

   best regards,
   
   Prof. Peter Erlinder
   
   Wm. Mitchell College of Law
   
   St. Paul, MN

   4.24.2007
   at 3:11 pm EST Peggy McGuinness

2. The decision denying the petition for mandamus can be found here.

   There is absolutely no legal basis for challenging this decision. With all due respect, I cannot fathom why this petition for mandamus was even filed with the Tribunal, as it is so clearly contrary to the basic statutory scheme and organization of both the ICTY and the ICTR. The Prosecutors are entirely independent from the Trial Chambers in whom and when they prosecute - their discretion is indeed unfettered. Additionally, asking for remedies such as the suspension of all proceedings before the ICTR or the appointment of a special prosecutor is so manifestly unfounded (and unrealistic) that I honestly don’t know what to say.

   Also, is it really in the best interest of the defense counsel before the ICTR to pursue the issue of Kagame’s alleged crimes, and for them to do this in such a way? Let’s say that he is in fact guilty of what he is being accused of. How does that have any impact on the criminal responsibility of those now indicted before the ICTR? Last time I checked ‘they did it too’ still wasn’t a defense for the crime of genocide.

   If there is anyone who can deal with the issue of alleged RPF crimes, including the assassination of Habyarimana, that is the Security Council, but I just don’t see the political will there to actively target Kagame. I also must say that though there have been many rumours regarding Kagame’s involvement in the shooting down of the airplane, one would really need ironclad evidence to make these allegations stick, and for there to be any progress on the issue politically. Let’s just say in that regard that the credibility of the French when it comes to Rwanda is rather suspect.

   4.24.2007
   at 3:49 pm EST Marko Milanovic

3. Dear Marko,

   Let me respond in reverse order:

   Before you conclude that Bruguiere should be dismissed because he is French…I would hope that you would read the substance of his report, and the sworn evidence in the record of military I….as well as examining the UNAMIR and USG documents put into the public record as exhibits…I am not asking anyone to take a leap of faith…merely that they do the research.

   Establishing that the killing of civilians was part of the accepted costs of the invasion…rather than a strategy of the side opposing the invasion, puts a very different light on the questions of “planning” “conspiracy” and the specific intent requirements of “genocide”. Perhaps you have not read the testimony of the U.S. Ambassador who told Kagame that, if he started the war again…he would be responsible for civilian deaths on the order of the Burundian massacres of late 1993? The evidence shows that is exactly what he did.

   Also, since crimes committed by the RPF are being charged to the ICTR accused…the parties who actually committed the massacres matters very much…it would be like holding the Japanese responsible for fire-bombing Tokyo or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For political reasons, these might not be subject to prosecution…but it is far different thing to say that the Japanese committed the acts…which is what has happened at the ICTR.

   Finally, there is nothing in the Rules that prevents the filing of a Mandamus Petition….and please note that dossiers were also sent to all Sec. Council members. It is up to the Tribunal/SC to decide how to fulfill the ICTR Mandate in the face of evidence that Gen Kagame has responsibility…it is up to concerned parties who have access to facts/evidence to put the responsible parties on notice….to avoid the claim in the future that…”we did not know….”

   It seems to me the essence of a Tribunal worthy of the name is that ALL major crimes within its Mandate be prosecuted…and that both sides be held accountable, if this is law, not mere politics. But, the point you make is valid….”political will” to fulfill the mandate is probably lacking at the ICTR. However, this does not mean that those of us concerned with establishing a level playing field in international tribunals should not make the imbalance clear.

   But, thanks for your comments. In the future, when the evidence has been digested…and our remaining documentary evidence can be researched by others…we will have a better basis for a dialogue.

   best regards,

   Peter

   4.25.2007
   at 5:41 pm EST Prof. Peter Erlinder

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

1. There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.