05 May ICTR “Disowns” Human Rights Watch
How desperate is the ICTR to fulfill its completion strategy by dumping cases on Rwanda? Enough to disavow the NGO on which it has relied on for nearly 14 years:
The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) when presenting last week his motion in favour of transfer of genocide accused Yusuf Munyakazi to Rwanda, clearly distanced himself from the Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) Human Rights Watch (HRW), on which, however, the UN Court has relied on for the last 14 years for expert testimony.
Presenting his arguments before the Chamber, the prosecutor accused HRW of lack of credibility and having confused the collection of information on the violations of human rights in general and international criminal proceedings in an apparent attempt to rebuff HRW’s contention not to send 1994 genocide accused persons to stand trials in Kigali.
He also affirmed that the HRW’s sources were in fact “inadmissible and not very reliable”.
Since the first indictment presented at the ICTR, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has relied mainly on the collective investigation carried out by HRW and the book titled “Leave None to Tell the Story”, which it presents as evidence in the majority of the trials.
The prosecution, moreover, has called in almost every trial as an expert witness, Dr Allison des Forges, official in charge of Africa for HRW, who is also a historian and specialist in Rwanda.
By “lack of credibility,” the prosecutor really means “not letting us get away with allowing ICTR defendants to receive unfair trials in Rwanda.” Which they will, as I have argued and as HRW has documented in detail.
Not suprisingly, HRW rejected the prosecutor’s allegations:
Responding to the Prosecution’s allegations, Ms Reidy informed the Chamber of their systematic compilation of reports, method applied and categories of people interviewed in their investigations of the Rwandan judicial system.
For example, among people questioned, she affirmed, were four current or former ministers of justice, 14 current or former judges, 11 current or former prosecutors, three current or former bar association presidents, 15 national or international NGO representatives and more than 100 Rwandan victims of various abuses of the legal system.
I understand the Security Council’s eagerness for the ICTR to close up shop. But that eagerness cannot be allowed to override the rights of ICTR defendants.
Responding to the Prosecution’s allegations, Ms Reidy informed the Chamber of their systematic compilation of reports, method applied and categories of people interviewed in their investigations of the Rwandan judicial system.
One hopes the judges see this for the obvious ploy that it is.
By making a motion on such ridiculous grounds, doesn’t he open prior judgments based on HRW evidence to the proverbial slippery slope of new appeals?
And is the prosecutor violating Paragraph 2(e) of the Prosecutor’s Regulation No. 2 (1999), Standards Of Professional Conduct of Prosecution Counsel, of 14 September 1999? (Is this still binding on the OTP?) The regulation states that the prosecutor shall “demonstrate respect and candor before the Tribunal, and not knowingly to make an incorrect statement of material fact to the Tribunal, or offer evidence which prosecution counsel knows to be incorrect of false – should prosecution counsel become aware that a statement made to the Tribunal is incorrect, or that evidence presented to the Tribunal is false, he or she shall take all the necessary steps to inform the Tribunal as soon as possible.” To disavow HRW’s credibility now, when it formed the foundation for so many prior cases, smells to me like a shocking lack of candor to the tribunal.