PRESS CONFERENCE BY REGISTRAR OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE BY REGISTRAR OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA

It was time to put the negative image of the Rwanda Tribunal aside, the Registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Agwu Ukiwe Okali, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this morning.

As the first trial of only two ad hoc tribunals in the world comes to a close, Mr. Okali said, the latest audit report on the Rwanda Tribunal, just released by the Internal Oversight Committee, showed improvements in every area since the previous report, when no area was found to work effectively. Those improvements were not an accident but the result of systematic work carried out by the new management, which took control a year ago because the previous one did not work.

Little was known about the Rwanda Tribunal's work because there was no constant information flow, Mr. Okali said. In part, that was because the small town of Arusha, Tanzania, where the Tribunal was based, was not a "global media station". However, both the Rwanda and the Yugoslavia Tribunals were important experimental developments of an old idea that had taken long to find expression, that those responsible for genocide could be apprehended, tried and brought to justice.

The main work of the Tribunal was trying cases, he said. Thus far, 35 persons had been indicted, meaning that the Prosecution's request for indictment had been confirmed by judges. Of those, 23 were in custody in Arusha and the others were in custody elsewhere, including one detained in the United States. In addition, another indictment containing many more names had been submitted by prosecutors and was being considered by judges.

At present, four trials were on-going, and of those, two were in the advanced stages. Judgement on one of those would be coming down during the first half of the year, and judgement on the other would be coming later in the year. That was not a bad record, Mr. Okali said, pointing out that the other Tribunal's process was not going any faster. But because of the revolting nature of the atrocities in Rwanda, people wanted to see something done quickly. It had to be done the right way, and for the Rwanda Tribunal, the year 1998 would be a turning point.

Both Tribunals, he said, had so far demonstrated how not to conduct Tribunals. But as a result of these first two Tribunals, people were now used to the idea that perpetrators of crimes could be apprehended, and the world now knew how to carry out a Tribunal. Running a prison, for example, was not something the United Nations had done before, nor did the Organization have experience with setting up a witness protection programme.

Rwanda Tribunal Briefing - 2 - 20 March 1998

In the Rwanda Tribunal, Mr. Okali said, much had been learned about protecting witnesses, which was more difficult with defense witnesses than with those of the prosecution. That was not something that could be learned in books and it entailed involvement with the affairs of individuals, for example, by relocating them nationally. In addition, because not many cases of genocide occurred or were prosecuted, a legal basis for the issue was being built by the Tribunal, which was a legally complex matter. Common law and civil law, two legal systems each with a completely different conduct, were being married in the Tribunal. The judges in the Tribunal came from both systems, and the lessons learned were being applied in the Preparatory Committee for an International Criminal Court presently in session at Headquarters.

In response to a question on an appeals process for Tribunal decisions, Mr. Okali said the mechanisms for both the Rwanda and Yugoslavia Tribunals were the same. Each had a Trial Chamber and an Appeals Chamber, and the same five Appeals judges would handle the appeals for both Tribunals.

When asked where financing and staffing problems mentioned in previous reports had been addressed, Mr. Okali said significant progress had been made with the adoption of the 1998 budget. Understaffing was due to a number of factors. First, more staff could always be used because there was so much to do, at the same time that it was not always easy to recruit qualified people to Arusha if they had the alternative of working in New York. Secondly, such inconvenience of location was usually compensated by financial incentives, but those had not yet materialized for the Rwanda Tribunal. Finally, there was a problem with languages, since English and French were the main languages used, but Kenyan and Rwandan languages also came into use during the trials. Thus, a staff of 620 was authorized for the Tribunal, but the actual number of staff was 480, operating in two locations; at the seat of the Tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania, and at the prosecution headquarters in Kigali, Rwanda.

Asked about alleged irregularities cited in the audit report, such as overly large payments to defense counsel, Mr. Okali said the function of an audit was to point out areas needing improvement. The precedent-setting Tribunal was not defensive and it wanted to improve. It had no vested interest in running an inefficient operation, but the question had to be asked, are the allegations valid?

With regard to defense counsel, for example, the Tribunal could have laid down a strict law setting limits, but a person facing life imprisonment deserved to choose the right defense for himself. That imposed limitations on what could be imposed regarding defense counsels, but from a purely management view, it was understandable how an auditor would come in and ask, "how can you pay so much?". The overall context had to be looked at.

Finally, asked how the present Government of Rwanda viewed the Tribunal, Mr. Okali said the Government had requested the Tribunal but it did not agree with it. It had asked the Tribunal to meet in Kigali, with the death penalty as a possible penalty. Other states without death penalties in their jurisdictions did not go along with that, and the Rwanda Government was right to go along with the present system. The Tribunal was more important than having all demands met. * *** *