Statement on the UK High Court Judgement
against the extradition of genocide suspects to Rwanda
by:
Action Group for Peace and Justice in Rwanda
A Community Interest Company
PO Box 49993, London SE5 5DJ
Email: agpjr6@yahoo.co.uk
Web: www.agpjr.org
PRESS RELEASE 4/AGPJR/April 2009
London 11 April 2009
Action Group for Peace and justice in Rwanda (AGPJR) has welcomed the judgement of the High Court of 8 April 2009 which dismissed the request of the Rwandan Government to extradite Messrs Vincent Brown, Charles Munyaneza, Emmanuel Nteziryayo and Celestin Ugirashebuja to Rwanda on allegations that they were involved in the genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994.
The judges of the High Court, after consideration of the argument and evidences from the defence lawyers of the defendants and statements from the prosecutors representing the Rwandan Government and the UK Home Office, concluded that the accused would not have a fair trial if they were returned to Rwanda. The judges ruled that “if they were extradited to face trial in the High Court of Rwanda, the appellants would suffer a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice by reason of their likely inability to adduce the evidence of supporting witnesses.” In addition, the judges found that the persistent interference of the Government of Rwanda in the judiciary does “not promise well for the judiciary’s impartiality and independence.”
This ruling is a clear example of the independence of the UK judiciary system. One should remember that the appeal at the High Court came after Mr Anthony Evans, a District judge at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court, had recommended, in June 2008, the extradition of the defendants to Rwanda, despite the overwhelming evidence which clearly showed that the accused would be denied a fair trial if they were tried in Rwanda. After reviewing this case in August 2008, the Home Secretary ordered their extradition to Rwanda and based her decision on the only willingness of the Rwandan government to comply with the obligations in the Memorandum of Understanding between Rwanda and the United Kingdom. The latter was forged just before the arrest of the defendants in December 2006.
AGPJR condemns the genocide and other acts of genocide committed against the Rwandan people in and around 1994. Those and ONLY those who were involved in those horrendous crimes, whether they are Hutus or Tutsis, should face trial. Unfortunately, the post-genocide Rwandan justice system seems to have been put in place as retaliation instrument with a strong Hutu bias. It is there to administer punishment to only Hutus without proving beyond doubt that they were involved in the Rwandan genocide. After 15 years since the Rwandan genocide, more than a hundred thousand people are still kept in prison. Most of them are without charges and have been denied justice.
Those who tell the truth about the genocide or come to the defence of the genocide suspects are all labelled by the Rwandan government as ‘genocidaires’, revisionists, ‘negationists’ or supporters of a genocide ideology, whether they are Rwandans or foreigners. What is more troubling is that these vague concepts have been incorporated in the Rwandan law and are used to track down or undermine those who do not share the views of the current Rwandan government.
The UK High Court has extensively documented that there is no prospect of a fair trial for the defendants in Rwanda. During the hearing process of this extradition case it appeared that most of the written accounts presented by the prosecution witnesses in support of the Rwandan government request were fabricated and often contradictory or exaggerated to fit the purpose sought by the Rwandan government that these defendants were highly ranked and were politically involved in the planning and the execution of the genocide.
Rwanda needs an independent and impartial justice which can address the long lasting problem of impunity and promote peace and reconciliation among the Rwandan population. There is an urgent need for a judicial system with an objective to search for the whole truth surrounding the Rwandan tragedy and find those responsible, irrespective of their ethnic background.
AGPJR believes that a proper administration of an independent and impartial justice, where the presumption of innocence and the absolute right to challenge, without fear, the prosecution witnesses are guaranteed, can open up the horizons of a durable peace in Rwanda.
AGPJR also remains optimistic that the truth about the Rwandan genocide will be revealed and that justice will prevail.
Dr Alexis Ndibwami
Secretary
against the extradition of genocide suspects to Rwanda
by:
Action Group for Peace and Justice in Rwanda
A Community Interest Company
PO Box 49993, London SE5 5DJ
Email: agpjr6@yahoo.co.uk
Web: www.agpjr.org
PRESS RELEASE 4/AGPJR/April 2009
London 11 April 2009
Action Group for Peace and justice in Rwanda (AGPJR) has welcomed the judgement of the High Court of 8 April 2009 which dismissed the request of the Rwandan Government to extradite Messrs Vincent Brown, Charles Munyaneza, Emmanuel Nteziryayo and Celestin Ugirashebuja to Rwanda on allegations that they were involved in the genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994.
The judges of the High Court, after consideration of the argument and evidences from the defence lawyers of the defendants and statements from the prosecutors representing the Rwandan Government and the UK Home Office, concluded that the accused would not have a fair trial if they were returned to Rwanda. The judges ruled that “if they were extradited to face trial in the High Court of Rwanda, the appellants would suffer a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice by reason of their likely inability to adduce the evidence of supporting witnesses.” In addition, the judges found that the persistent interference of the Government of Rwanda in the judiciary does “not promise well for the judiciary’s impartiality and independence.”
This ruling is a clear example of the independence of the UK judiciary system. One should remember that the appeal at the High Court came after Mr Anthony Evans, a District judge at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court, had recommended, in June 2008, the extradition of the defendants to Rwanda, despite the overwhelming evidence which clearly showed that the accused would be denied a fair trial if they were tried in Rwanda. After reviewing this case in August 2008, the Home Secretary ordered their extradition to Rwanda and based her decision on the only willingness of the Rwandan government to comply with the obligations in the Memorandum of Understanding between Rwanda and the United Kingdom. The latter was forged just before the arrest of the defendants in December 2006.
AGPJR condemns the genocide and other acts of genocide committed against the Rwandan people in and around 1994. Those and ONLY those who were involved in those horrendous crimes, whether they are Hutus or Tutsis, should face trial. Unfortunately, the post-genocide Rwandan justice system seems to have been put in place as retaliation instrument with a strong Hutu bias. It is there to administer punishment to only Hutus without proving beyond doubt that they were involved in the Rwandan genocide. After 15 years since the Rwandan genocide, more than a hundred thousand people are still kept in prison. Most of them are without charges and have been denied justice.
Those who tell the truth about the genocide or come to the defence of the genocide suspects are all labelled by the Rwandan government as ‘genocidaires’, revisionists, ‘negationists’ or supporters of a genocide ideology, whether they are Rwandans or foreigners. What is more troubling is that these vague concepts have been incorporated in the Rwandan law and are used to track down or undermine those who do not share the views of the current Rwandan government.
The UK High Court has extensively documented that there is no prospect of a fair trial for the defendants in Rwanda. During the hearing process of this extradition case it appeared that most of the written accounts presented by the prosecution witnesses in support of the Rwandan government request were fabricated and often contradictory or exaggerated to fit the purpose sought by the Rwandan government that these defendants were highly ranked and were politically involved in the planning and the execution of the genocide.
Rwanda needs an independent and impartial justice which can address the long lasting problem of impunity and promote peace and reconciliation among the Rwandan population. There is an urgent need for a judicial system with an objective to search for the whole truth surrounding the Rwandan tragedy and find those responsible, irrespective of their ethnic background.
AGPJR believes that a proper administration of an independent and impartial justice, where the presumption of innocence and the absolute right to challenge, without fear, the prosecution witnesses are guaranteed, can open up the horizons of a durable peace in Rwanda.
AGPJR also remains optimistic that the truth about the Rwandan genocide will be revealed and that justice will prevail.
Dr Alexis Ndibwami
Secretary
Comments
Post a Comment