PRESS BRIEFING ON INVESTIGATIVE TEAM IN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

Press Briefing

PRESS BRIEFING ON INVESTIGATIVE TEAM IN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

At a Headquarters press briefing Tuesday afternoon, Daniel Michael O'Donnell, a member of the Secretary-General's Investigative Team in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, introduced the team's report to correspondents. He said there had been some positive aspects to the response of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the report, but that the Government had also criticized the team's conclusions.

He said the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had reaffirmed a commitment to respecting human rights and the rule of law. It had recognized the need to put an end to impunity by punishing those who had committed serious violations of human rights in the Congo. It had also agreed that the international community should be involved in pursuing those who were responsible for such crimes, and in judging them.

Another positive point about their response was that they agreed with all the recommendations which the team had made regarding international assistance, he said. The report recommended that the international community should provide assistance in three areas: strengthening of the judiciary in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; rehabilitation of victims of human rights violations and the armed conflict in the country; and that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should support activities aimed at promoting inter-ethnic harmony in the country.

He said the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had also proposed that the recently created Organization of African Unity (OAU) Commission of Eminent Persons, which had a mandate to look into the genocide in Rwanda and related events, should be given the evidence that was collected by the United Nations investigative team in order to continue the investigation. The investigation that was carried out by his team was just a beginning, and it was very important that it be continued by an impartial and objective body. The recommendation regarding the OAU Commission was interesting, and once the OAU Commission had decided how it would interpret its mandate, consideration should be made to responding positively to that suggestion.

There were some affirmations that the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had made that the investigative team agreed with, he added. The Government had pointed out that some Rwandan Hutus who fled to the then Zaire were not actually refugees. The investigative team agreed with that: there were people in the camps that had been established along the border who did not meet the definition of refugees -- they were involved in activities that were contrary to the purposes of the United Nations. The team did not know how many such persons there were, and was careful in its report

not to use the word refugees, except when it was clear that it was referring to groups of unarmed civilians.

He said the team agreed with the Government that it was regrettable that the camps were maintained for a long period of time close to the border, and that persons who were responsible for genocide maintained control over the camp population, at least in most of the camps. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had, on numerous occasions, recommended that the camps be moved away from the border and that a force be put together to separate persons who were responsible for genocide and for many human rights violations in the camps. It was regrettable that nothing had been done to resolve that situation earlier.

However, he stressed that nothing that happened in Rwanda during 1994, or anything that happened in the camps subsequently, justified the serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law which occurred in the then Zaire.

There were several points in the Government's response to the report with which the team disagreed, he said. In the first place, there had been no bias in the team. While they had been quite happy to see the former Government replaced, they had been disappointed that the present Government had not lived up to its responsibilities under international law in cooperating with the investigation and in bringing all of those responsible for violations to justice.

The Government also denied placing any obstacles in the path of the team, he said. There were serious obstacles that had been independent of the Government: there were still armed groups of opponents operating in the east of the country, and there were many areas that could not be visited for genuine security reasons. However, a number of obstacles had been deliberately placed before the team. The most serious such obstacle was the intimidation of the population.

There was clear evidence that government agents warned people not to talk to the team, that they systematically interrogated those who did talk, and in some cases direct threats were made to people who had given information to the team, he said. On at least two occasions interviews were physically interrupted. Government officials had also seized confidential documents in the possession of a member of the investigative team. Demonstrations were organized against the United Nations team in various cities, including the capital, and in some cases there was evidence of government involvement in the organization of such demonstrations. There were also veiled threats that the Government could not guarantee the security of the team.

The Government said that many of the deaths were accidental deaths of civilians that occurred during combat, or were the result of former Rwandan militia members using civilians as shields, he continued. That had certainly happened in some cases, but in compiling the report the team had been careful

O'Donnell Press Briefing - 3 - 1 July 1998

to refer only to deaths where there was direct evidence that people had been deliberately executed.

The scope of the report's conclusions was limited, he said. It was not possible to confirm or disprove most of the allegations that had been made about that period of time. Nevertheless, the team did have evidence that permitted them to conclude that certain types of serious violations did occur, and in most cases they also had information that allowed them to arrive at general conclusions as to which forces had participated directly in the events.

The Government also alleged that most of the report's conclusions had been founded on the testimony of Rwandan Hutus, and that therefore the information was not credible, he said. One third of the persons interviewed, however, had been citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not Rwandans. The team had been more cautious with testimony that came from persons who may have been partial because of the experiences they had had. Most of the testimony had been corroborated by other sources, and all of it had been very carefully screened.

A correspondent asked how, within its limited scope, the team had been able to collect enough evidence, beyond any doubt, to meet the demands of justice? Mr. O'Donnell replied that the team had not been investigating the responsibility of individuals, and was not a court. The Annex to the report contained two parts: a summary of allegations, based primarily on secondary sources; and the findings and conclusions of the investigative team. Comparing the two, it was possible to see that the team had only been able to reach firm conclusions on a part of what was alleged to have happened in the country.

Throughout that period, a number of countries had been collecting information about the movements of the refugees, a correspondent said. Did the team go to those governments and ask for any information they may have? If such requests were made, how had those governments responded? and if such requests had not been made, why not? Mr. O'Donnell replied that certain requests had been made of foreign governments, in particular with regard to satellite or aerial reconnaissance photographs, which would have been useful in helping to locate the sites of mass graves. By the time the Secretary- General decided to withdraw the team, it had not yet received a reply from any of the two or three governments it had asked. A military expert who was part of the team had had some contact with foreign embassies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and neighbouring countries. Perhaps because the work of the team had been cut short, the results of that line of investigation had been extremely limited.

Was it likely that the team would be able to go back and finish what it started? a correspondent asked. Mr. O'Donnell said the recommendation was not that the same team go back, but that the events they were mandated to investigate needed to be investigated further. They had recommended three

O'Donnell Press Briefing - 4 - 1 July 1998

options: that an international tribunal should investigate the events; that a commission like the Secretary-General's team should continue its work; and if it became clear that the national tribunals were prepared to investigate crimes that occurred with full independence and impartiality, that should go ahead. He hoped it would be possible to follow at least one of those courses in the future.

Responding to a question on documentation, Mr. O'Donnell replied that the team had been able to bring out the documentation it needed.

Did the United States try to help the investigative team to overcome any of the obstacles that had been placed in its path? a correspondent asked. Mr. O'Donnell replied that it was known that the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, went to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1997 and convinced the Government there to make certain provisions that would allow the work of the team to go forward. He did not know of subsequent help received from the United States.

Did the team have evidence that the obstacles placed in its path were coming "directly from the top"? a correspondent asked. When one of the team's investigators was seized at the airport in Kinshasa, the people responsible for that said they answered directly to the President. There was definitely a pattern in the type of obstacles that had been encountered; the time lags that often occurred seemed to indicate that a decision had been made at a relatively high level.

Had the report been edited or rewritten by the Secretariat? a correspondent asked. Mr. O'Donnell replied that the report had two annexes. The team had recommended that the report and the first annex be published, but that the second annex, a report by the forensic team, was too technical to be published. It was not that it needed to be kept confidential, just that it was very technical. He said he had only just received the edited report a few hours ago, and was not aware of any edits that had been made, although he had been told no substantive changes had been made.

Why were the requests for assistance from other governments limited to satellite imagery? and why were the Americans not asked if any of their contacts in the country had information? asked a correspondent. The military expert who was a member of the team did have contact with military attachés in several embassies in the country, replied Mr. O'Donnell. However, he could not explain why more information was not received. The reports from the military expert were rather general. Perhaps the military expert had encountered a lack of willingness to provide more information, or perhaps he had been working up to making more specific requests later on, but the mission had been cut short.

Did the Arusha Tribunal already have the authority to consider some of the cases in the report? a correspondent asked. Mr. O'Donnell said that he believed the competence of the Tribunal would have to be expanded for that to

O'Donnell Press Briefing - 5 - 1 July 1998

happen. There was presently a limitation on the Tribunal's competence related to the nationality of the accused; if they were to investigate violations in Zaire by persons who were not of Rwandan nationality, the Tribunal would need to be expanded in that regard. The competence of the Tribunal would also need to be extended further in time.

A correspondent asked whether the team planned to keep in touch with the witnesses it had interviewed, and whether there were provisions for the protection of witnesses. That was a very sensitive question, replied Mr. O'Donnell. He regretted that there was a risk to some people because the documents in possession of one of the investigators had been seized. A damage assessment had been done immediately, and all of the people it was thought might be at risk as a result were notified. However, it would be unwise to comment about any other efforts that had been made since then.

Had the investigation uncovered any evidence, allegations or information about the possible presence of United States military personnel in the vicinity of any of the incidents? a correspondent asked. Mr. O'Donnell replied that there had been rumours to that effect, but no testimony.

A correspondent asked whether the commission was operating totally on its own, without any input of data from governments. It was, replied Mr. O'Donnell. Why? the correspondent asked. Mr. O'Donnell said he was not sure. Perhaps it was because it had originally been thought that the work of the commission would take less than six months, so a greater effort had not been made to get more information from other governments.

Was enough support received in terms of resources from the United Nations? a correspondent asked. During the time that he was involved, no requests for material assistance had been denied, replied Mr. O'Donnell. In terms of political support, he could not think of anything additional that could have been done.

A correspondent asked whether the officials who had obstructed the investigation seemed to feel they could do so without any consequences from the international community. Mr. O'Donnell said that compared to some other United Nations investigations, the obstacles presented in the Democratic Republic of the Congo were not the worst. However, sometimes the explanations for things that were happening were quite incredible.

From the information that had been collected, would it be possible to indict any individuals? a correspondent asked. Mr. O'Donnell replied that in a couple of cases information had been obtained that referred to individuals who were directly involved in violations, but before an actual criminal investigation more sources would have to be found. If a criminal prosecutor were to try to take up where the team left off, additional investigation would be required in order to build a solid case. It may be feasible to do that.

O'Donnell Press Briefing - 6 - 1 July 1998

Had the mission been a failure? asked a correspondent. It was a failure in a sense, replied Mr. O'Donnell. It did not achieve everything it had set out to. Looking at the magnitude of allegations that had been published by many sources, the team was able to find original, credible information about only a relatively small part of what allegedly occurred in the country. On the other hand, given the obstacles that the team had encountered, it was surprising that they were able to put together as coherent a picture. Their findings were well grounded in solid evidence.

There were many rumours about efforts on the part of the United States ambassador in Kinshasa to undermine the team's ability to carry out its work, including intense criticism of its work, said a correspondent. Had the Americans caused any trouble for the team? He was not there from the beginning of the mission, replied Mr. O'Donnell. During the time that he had been there, he was not aware of any interference by any foreign missions in the work of the team.

Regarding individuals whose names the team had come up with, a correspondent asked whether those individuals had been primarily Rwandans. Mr. O'Donnell replied that the number of names was relatively small. Since a policy decision had been made not to include the names in the report, he could not remember how many there were, or what nationality they were.

* *** *