Rwanda: Objections to Transfer of Cases to Rwanda ADAD
2007-10-17, Issue 324
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/action/43764
Printer friendly version
ADAD Statement 10/10/07 - Objections to Transfer of Cases to Rwanda ADAD Denounces the Transfer of ICTR Cases to Rwanda as a Violation of the Rights of the Accused to a Fair Trial and Urges the ICTR Judges to Reject the Prosecution's Motions for Transfer The Association of Defence Attorneys at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) unequivocally condemns the transfer of any cases to Rwanda.ADAD
Statement 10/10/07 - Objections to Transfer of Cases to Rwanda ADAD
Denounces the Transfer of ICTR Cases to Rwanda as a Violation of the Rights of the Accused to a Fair Trial and Urges the ICTR Judges to Reject the Prosecution's Motions for Transfer The Association of Defence Attorneys at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) unequivocally condemns the transfer of any cases to Rwanda.
The Prosecution has filed motions to transfer the cases of current detainees Yusuf Munyakazi,Gaspard Kanyarukiga and Ildephonse Hetegekimana, and a fourth unapprehended indictee, Fulgence Kayishema, to Rwanda for trial. under Rule 11 bis of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
As Judge Hunt stated, “This Tribunal [referring to ICTY] will not be judged by the number of convictions which it enters, or by the speed with which it concludes the Completion Strategy. . .but by the fairness of its trials.” To avoid leaving the “spreading stain” of unfairness, ADAD urges the ICTR judges to finally reverse this trend, and reject the motions for transfer of cases to Rwanda. International justice demands no less. Under Security Council Resolution 955, the ICTR, in the interest of reconciliation, is mandated to prosecute all parties in the Rwandan conflict which are accused of crimes. After thirteen years, only one side - the Hutus - have been prosecuted, and no indictments have been issued for the RPF.
The ICTR is creating a legacy as a court of victor's justice. Transfer of ICTR cases to Rwanda will be yet another confirmation of the Tribunal's lack of fairness and impartiality. The ICTR must ensure that the international legal rights of the Accused to a fair trial, by an impartial judiciary are implemented.
Rwanda is not a competent jurisdiction to which to transfer the ICTR cases, because there is no guarantee of fair trial and due process, as mandated under Article 20, ICTR Statute, the ICCPR and other international instruments. Under Rule 11bis, a case may be referred to jurisdictions in which the crime was committed, or another the Accused was arrested or a jurisdiction “willing and adequately prepared to accept such a case.”
Transfer is predicated on the judges' satisfaction that the Accused will receive a fair and that the death penalty will not be imposed.The ICTR detainees, who would be the key potential witnesses against the crimes of the current RPF regime, are considered by the Kagame government in Rwanda, as enemies have already been presumed guilty. The continuing threats, attacks and false charges against the detainee's defence witnesses and defence teams within Rwanda, including arrests of investigators and defence counsel make trial preparation impossible.
Former OTP witness Filip Reyntjens has testified that there is a systematic campaign to “create” and to distort evidence emanating from Rwanda.Prosecutor Carla del Ponte's confident Florence Hartmann wrote, in her recently published book, of the deal that exists to protect the Kagame Regime from crimes known to the UN in August 1994, and which have prevented the ICTR from fulfilling its mandate.
The recent legislative abolition of the death penalty in Rwanda is a tactic by the Rwandan government to make the jurisdiction acceptable, under international standards, for transfer cases. But the de facto death penalty has not been abolished, as illustrated, for example, by the increase in deaths of detainees in police custody.
There can be no fair trial and due process, with an impartial judiciary, in Rwanda, where its head of state, Paul Kagame refuses to submit to the rule of law for crimes committed during the temporal jurisdiction of the ICTR, as requested by judges of France and Spain. In sum, transfer actually means turning UN detainees over to criminals, recognized as such as early as 1997 by OTP-lawyer Michael Hourigan; again in 2003 by Carla del Ponte; in 2006 by French Judge Brugiere, in 2007 by Spanish judges.
Transfer amounts to the UN acting as a bounty hunter for the Kagame Regime's efforts to destroy its opposition, anywhere in the world. The Judges of the ICTR should not make themselves complicit in this further distortion of the ICTR mandate by delivering UN detainees to the control of those who should be in the dock at the ICTR themselves.CONTACT:ADAD President: Prof. Peter Erlinder[Eng.] -0787295177 peter.erlinder@wmitchell.edu ADAD V.Pres: Me. Otachi [Fr/Eng] 0754378415:gershomotachi@yahoo.com ADAD Press Cons.: Me. Chris Black 0754666972: bar@idirect.com
ISSN 1753-6839 Fahamu
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/action/43764
2007-10-17, Issue 324
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/action/43764
Printer friendly version
ADAD Statement 10/10/07 - Objections to Transfer of Cases to Rwanda ADAD Denounces the Transfer of ICTR Cases to Rwanda as a Violation of the Rights of the Accused to a Fair Trial and Urges the ICTR Judges to Reject the Prosecution's Motions for Transfer The Association of Defence Attorneys at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) unequivocally condemns the transfer of any cases to Rwanda.ADAD
Statement 10/10/07 - Objections to Transfer of Cases to Rwanda ADAD
Denounces the Transfer of ICTR Cases to Rwanda as a Violation of the Rights of the Accused to a Fair Trial and Urges the ICTR Judges to Reject the Prosecution's Motions for Transfer The Association of Defence Attorneys at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) unequivocally condemns the transfer of any cases to Rwanda.
The Prosecution has filed motions to transfer the cases of current detainees Yusuf Munyakazi,Gaspard Kanyarukiga and Ildephonse Hetegekimana, and a fourth unapprehended indictee, Fulgence Kayishema, to Rwanda for trial. under Rule 11 bis of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
As Judge Hunt stated, “This Tribunal [referring to ICTY] will not be judged by the number of convictions which it enters, or by the speed with which it concludes the Completion Strategy. . .but by the fairness of its trials.” To avoid leaving the “spreading stain” of unfairness, ADAD urges the ICTR judges to finally reverse this trend, and reject the motions for transfer of cases to Rwanda. International justice demands no less. Under Security Council Resolution 955, the ICTR, in the interest of reconciliation, is mandated to prosecute all parties in the Rwandan conflict which are accused of crimes. After thirteen years, only one side - the Hutus - have been prosecuted, and no indictments have been issued for the RPF.
The ICTR is creating a legacy as a court of victor's justice. Transfer of ICTR cases to Rwanda will be yet another confirmation of the Tribunal's lack of fairness and impartiality. The ICTR must ensure that the international legal rights of the Accused to a fair trial, by an impartial judiciary are implemented.
Rwanda is not a competent jurisdiction to which to transfer the ICTR cases, because there is no guarantee of fair trial and due process, as mandated under Article 20, ICTR Statute, the ICCPR and other international instruments. Under Rule 11bis, a case may be referred to jurisdictions in which the crime was committed, or another the Accused was arrested or a jurisdiction “willing and adequately prepared to accept such a case.”
Transfer is predicated on the judges' satisfaction that the Accused will receive a fair and that the death penalty will not be imposed.The ICTR detainees, who would be the key potential witnesses against the crimes of the current RPF regime, are considered by the Kagame government in Rwanda, as enemies have already been presumed guilty. The continuing threats, attacks and false charges against the detainee's defence witnesses and defence teams within Rwanda, including arrests of investigators and defence counsel make trial preparation impossible.
Former OTP witness Filip Reyntjens has testified that there is a systematic campaign to “create” and to distort evidence emanating from Rwanda.Prosecutor Carla del Ponte's confident Florence Hartmann wrote, in her recently published book, of the deal that exists to protect the Kagame Regime from crimes known to the UN in August 1994, and which have prevented the ICTR from fulfilling its mandate.
The recent legislative abolition of the death penalty in Rwanda is a tactic by the Rwandan government to make the jurisdiction acceptable, under international standards, for transfer cases. But the de facto death penalty has not been abolished, as illustrated, for example, by the increase in deaths of detainees in police custody.
There can be no fair trial and due process, with an impartial judiciary, in Rwanda, where its head of state, Paul Kagame refuses to submit to the rule of law for crimes committed during the temporal jurisdiction of the ICTR, as requested by judges of France and Spain. In sum, transfer actually means turning UN detainees over to criminals, recognized as such as early as 1997 by OTP-lawyer Michael Hourigan; again in 2003 by Carla del Ponte; in 2006 by French Judge Brugiere, in 2007 by Spanish judges.
Transfer amounts to the UN acting as a bounty hunter for the Kagame Regime's efforts to destroy its opposition, anywhere in the world. The Judges of the ICTR should not make themselves complicit in this further distortion of the ICTR mandate by delivering UN detainees to the control of those who should be in the dock at the ICTR themselves.CONTACT:ADAD President: Prof. Peter Erlinder[Eng.] -0787295177 peter.erlinder@wmitchell.edu
ISSN 1753-6839 Fahamu
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/action/43764
Comments
Post a Comment