ASSEMBLY APPRAISES PROGRESS MADE BY WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS; JUDGES DESCRIBE OBSTACLES

Press Release
GA/9652

ASSEMBLY APPRAISES PROGRESS MADE BY WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS; JUDGES DESCRIBE OBSTACLES

Speakers Generally Praise Historic Achievements, Rwanda Dissatisfied with Pace of Proceedings; Croatia Charges Lack of Balance

One of the fundamental issues facing the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was to determine which of the many culpable individuals in that country should be brought to justice in The Hague, Tribunal President Gabrielle Kirk McDonald told the General Assembly this morning.

As the Assembly took note of the reports of the two United Nations war crimes Tribunals -- the one for the former Yugoslavia and the one for Rwanda -- Judge McDonald reminded Member States that there were not sufficient resources to bring every individual allegedly connected with the atrocities to trial. Difficult choices had to be made. It was the leaders who were charged with instigating the wars, and who now prevented the restoration of peace, who must be tried, she urged.

Judge McDonald and her counterpart, Navenethem Pillay, President of the Rwanda Tribunal, both expressed concern over the length of the Tribunals’ proceedings and the resulting time that those accused were spending in pre-trial detention. While a number of steps had been initiated to speed up trials, more must be done to speed up the process. The President of the Yugoslavian Tribunal said she would propose that her colleagues reconsider the option of conditional release of detainees, under certain conditions. The President of the Rwanda Tribunal urged further administrative reforms. Both stressed that due process required time and resources. Judge Pillay said that it was the quality of the proceedings, not the quantity, that was important.

The representative of Rwanda, however, said that the Rwanda Tribunal's output left his Government with no alternative but to register a vote of no confidence in it. If United Nations tribunals were seen as ineffectual, the international community should reconsider its commitment to creating what would amount to "a permanent version of a temporary failure, and a permanent United Nations failure for Rwanda". Noting that, since its inception, the Tribunal had indicted 48 individuals, only five of whom had been tried and sentenced, he said that Rwanda's own judicial system had rendered more than 20,000 genocide-related indictments. Of those, 17,847 had pleaded guilty, 1,989 had been tried, and 5,760 had been released. Those trials had been monitored by the international community and been found to conform to the highest international standards, he added.

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9652 48th Meeting (AM) 8 November 1999

The representative of Croatia said the report of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was unbalanced. It presented a distorted picture of Croatia’s cooperation and also made offensive characterizations of a political debate on the work of the Tribunal that had been held in the Croatian Parliament. This went beyond the Tribunal’s mandate and departed from established practices of United Nations reporting. Nonetheless, he stressed, Croatia would continue to support the work of the Tribunal.

Most speakers, however, pointed to the historic significance of the work of both bodies, which were sending a message that there would be no more impunity for atrocities.

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said the Rwanda Tribunal's holding that rape and sexual assault constituted acts of genocide was a groundbreaking interpretation that would have far-reaching significance in cases elsewhere. The representative of Finland (on behalf of the European Union) stressed the Tribunal's responsibilities to victims of sexual crimes, both in terms of ensuring that perpetrators of such acts were held responsible, and in providing special post-trial protection measures to safeguard female witnesses.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Norway, Iran, Malaysia, Egypt, Pakistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lesotho, Zambia and Liechtenstein.

The Assembly will meet again at 3 p.m. today, to elect four members of the Joint Inspection Unit.

Assembly Work Programme

The General Assembly met this morning to consider the reports of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, respectively.

International Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia

The report of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (document A/54/187) covers the period from 28 July 1998 to 31 July 1999. It explains that the Tribunal became a fully functioning international criminal court, providing fair trials to the accused, while maintaining a high degree of protection for victims and witnesses. Nevertheless, recent events in Kosovo, and continuing non-compliance by several States in the region, continued to pose barriers to its operations.

According to the report, three judgements were delivered during the reporting period, and nine cases, involving 22 accused, were in the trial or pre-trial stages. In total, 28 detainees are currently in custody in the Detention Unit.

Events in Kosovo dominated the work of the Prosecutor. Violence in Kosovo and the continuing refusal of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to permit Tribunal investigators into that region slowed the investigation of potential crimes committed there that was within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Non- compliance by the Federal Republic with respect to its obligations to assist the Tribunal hindered the Prosecutor in fulfilling the terms of Security Council resolutions. Meanwhile, the President of that country, Slobodan Milosevic, and four others were indicted for crimes against humanity in Kosovo on 22 May 1999.

The report states that 35 individuals named in public indictments remained at large during the reporting period, many in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Despite the best efforts of the Tribunal, certain States, such as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia and the Republika Srpska, continued to obstruct the Tribunal's work. Moreover, because the Tribunal lacks effective enforcement powers, it continued to rely on the international community to bring such States into compliance with their obligations under international law.

However, the report suggests that the Tribunal's development be measured on three levels. First, the Tribunal exceeded its creators' expectations, in that it had developed to the point of regularly holding trials and appellate proceedings. Second, it had laid the foundation for the establishment of a practical and permanent system of international criminal justice. Third, it was beginning to have an impact on the former Yugoslavia, contributing to the emergence of a vigorous civil society throughout the region.

However, the report notes, the Tribunal depends on the international community to ensure that its mandate is fulfilled. Events in Kosovo have demonstrated the need for continued vigilance. The Tribunal needs continuing and increased support from the States that created it; extra resources will continue to be required in order for it to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the grave crimes perpetrated in Kosovo. International Tribunal for Rwanda

The Assembly also had before it (in document A/54/315-S/1999/943) the fourth annual report of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, which was established to prosecute persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda during 1994. Based in Arusha, it can also prosecute Rwandan citizens charged with such crimes committed in neighbouring States during the same period.

The report says that the past year has been a historic one, as it delivered its first four judgements during that time, beginning the “process of transforming aspirations for international criminal justice into reality”.

Among those judgements was the first-ever conviction for genocide delivered by an international court: Jean Paul Akayesu, the former Mayor of the Taba commune, was found guilty of nine of 15 counts proffered against him, including genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the nine counts, with sentences to run concurrently. The Trial Chamber found that Mr. Akayesu had initially tried to stop the killing of Tutsis in Rwanda, but later stopped trying to maintain law and order. He had been present during the killings and sometimes gave orders himself for bodily or mental harm to be caused to certain Tutsis, and endorsed and even ordered the killing of several persons from that tribe.

The former Prime Minister of the Interim Government in Rwanda, Jean Kambanda, was also convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to genocide and crimes against humanity, the report notes. Also convicted, and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, was Omar Serushago, a local leader of the Interahamwe militia. In May 1999, the Tribunal convicted and sentenced Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana –- charged jointly -– to life and 25 years imprisonment, respectively.

Another development, established by Security Council resolution 1165 (1998) at the Tribunal's request, was the creation of a third Trial Chamber, increasing the number of trial judges from six to nine. The report states that this should enable the Tribunal to begin expeditiously the trials of all the accused currently detained, of whom there are currently 31. The judges are determined to complete as many trials as possible before the expiration of their mandate in 2003. Nevertheless, the report notes, they are mindful of the due process requirements of international law and of the Statute of the Tribunal, which will inevitably result in some delay in the proceedings.

The report further states that during the reporting period nine accused persons were arrested and transferred to the Tribunal’s Detention Facility in Arusha where they are awaiting trial. All of them had occupied positions of authority in the Government of Rwanda and had been detained between 1998 and 1999 with the cooperation of Togo, Namibia, Mali, Benin, Kenya and South Africa.

The report credits the Office of the Prosecutor with moving towards ending the impunity of the perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda. The Office has presented four amended indictments, which have been confirmed, against 14 persons. Preliminary motions, most of them concerning the protection of witnesses, amendment of indictments and the joinder of accused, have been filed in pending matters.

The report indicates an improvement in the allocation of funds to the Tribunal’s budget. It notes that, after a careful analysis of the expenditure trends and the Tribunal’s overall needs for the 1998 fiscal year, the General Assembly (see resolution 53/213) decided to provide it with over $75 million for 1999. Meanwhile, the Tribunal has continued to accept offers of gratis personnel, audio and video equipment, and other resources from States.

The report notes that many of the witnesses called before the Tribunal have neither legal status in the countries where they are residing, nor valid travel documents. While several States have provided temporary documents and waived immigration procedures, the Tribunal still seeks further cooperation from Member States in this regard. Without such cooperation, it will be impossible to produce witnesses in a timely manner, thus, slowing the entire judicial process. Also, the report continues, the work of the Tribunal highlights the urgent need for further cooperation with respect to the imprisonment of convicted persons. The lack of availability of national prison facilities where these sentences can be served remains a serious concern.

Statements

GABRIELLE KIRK McDONALD, President of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, reviewed the stages of the Tribunal’s development into an effective operating court, and then focused on the principal issues that the Tribunal was now facing.

The length of the Tribunal’s proceedings and the resulting time that detainees were spending in detention was a primary concern. There were many reasons for lengthy trials, including the fact that the trials gave rise to complex legal issues, which took time to resolve, and created voluminous records. Due process required time and resources. Due process required time and resources.

A number of steps had been initiated to speed up trials, including the establishment of a Working Group on Trial Practices, she said. However, there was a limited number of judges; more radical measures were needed. One of the fundamental issues the Tribunal faced was the difficulty of determining which of the many culpable individuals in the former Yugoslavia should be brought to justice in The Hague. The Tribunal had only limited resources and could not bring to trial every individual allegedly connected with the atrocities. Difficult choices had to be made. In her view, as the Tribunal’s principal responsibility was to bring to justice those individuals whose presence impeded the establishment of a civil society in the former Yugoslavia, it was the leaders who were charged with instigating the wars, and now prevented the restoration of peace, who must be brought to trial.

To reduce the length of detention, she favoured the proposal to have ad hoc or temporary judges who would be assigned cases on an as-needed basis and paid a per diem rate. Given the egregious offences charged, and the difficulty encountered in obtaining custody of those charged, care must be taken in granting provisional release. Nonetheless, it must be considered in the light of the length of time some individuals were spending in custody. The Expert Group established by the Assembly had recommended that the Trial Chamber informed the accused that if he were provisionally released and failed to return, he would waive his right to be present, and his trial would proceed without him. She would urge her colleagues to examine that proposal.

There were, however, other difficulties that could only be resolved with the assistance of the international community. She stressed the non-compliance of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with respect to its obligations relating to the Prosecutor’s investigation into possible violations in Kosovo and the refusal of Croatia to cooperate with the Tribunal on two grounds. Those two States and the Republika Srpska previously had been the subject of non- compliance reports to the Security Council. She urged the international community to give those reports the attention they deserved.

IVAN SIMONOVIC (Croatia) said the report of the Tribunal was partly outdated, as many relevant developments had occurred since it had been finalized in July. If included, they would have provided a more balanced picture, particularly in the segment that pertained to cooperation of States with the Tribunal. One example was his Government’s transfer of Vinko Martinovic to the custody of the Tribunal, which had been effected. The report was unbalanced because it emphasized the difficulties the Tribunal had faced in dealing with States, while excluding those positive developments. It was unfortunate that the alleged difficulties were not placed in the overall context of Croatia’s cooperation with the Tribunal and its efforts to resolve problems in a mutually satisfactory manner. The report presented a distorted picture of Croatia’s cooperation and had made offensive characterizations of a political debate on the work of the Tribunal that had been held in the Croatian Parliament, singling out Croatian officials by name. This went beyond the Tribunal’s mandate and departed from established practices of United Nations reporting.

He said that while Croatia had an obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal, it was clear that the Tribunal should undertake its work, including its reporting within its mandate, objectively and impartially. Genuine cooperation could only be based on mutual respect and understanding between the Tribunal and relevant States. In a region where a common interpretation of historical events had never existed, the work of the Tribunal was of paramount importance in bringing about conditions of lasting peace and stability. For the said of future generations, its judgements should represent not only a record of committed crimes, but also an objective historic account of the developments that had occurred during the violent process of the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It was vital that the Tribunal reflect in its work the extent and level of involvement of the various sides in the war crimes committed. The breakdown of indictees still did not reflect what had actually taken place.

Concluding, he said that the Tribunal represented a crucial experiment to determine whether the international community was prepared for a permanent International Criminal Court of wider jurisdiction; therefore, its interpretation of international humanitarian law was of great importance. The Tribunal had achieved a partial success in many respects, and Croatia would continue to give its full support in the future.

OLE PETER KOLBY (Norway) said the existence of the Tribunal would act as a deterrent against new atrocities, as well as contribute to the long-term process of national reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia. The indictment of President Milosevic and other high officials of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had shown the irrelevance of official capacity when prosecuting grave breaches of international law. This principle, which had been identified during the Nuremberg trials, was critical in combating the most serious crimes known to humankind.

He said the Tribunal had responded professionally and promptly in accordance with its mandate during the Kosovo crisis and thereby had a direct impact on the crisis. It had confirmed its ability to take expeditious action when confronted with a challenging situation. The existence of a “watchdog” in the shape of an international tribunal had become a widely recognized element for maintaining international peace and security and helping in the rebuilding of civil society under the rule of law. He regretted, however, that in the global context the existence of international criminal justice was the exception rather than the rule.

While acknowledging the achievements of the Tribunal, he said it was important to remember that the main perpetrators of the atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia still enjoyed their freedom with the semblance of impunity. The international community should, therefore, not waiver in its long-term commitment to the mandate of the Tribunal. In this regard, Norway had declared its willingness to consider any applications from the Tribunal concerning the enforcement of sentences and subsequently to receive a limited number of convicted persons to serve their sentences in Norway.

MARJATTA RASI (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the report gave proof of the Yugoslavian Tribunal’s relentless efforts to meet the challenge it had faced. However, it was still far from completing its task. Too many of those indicted were still at large, particularly those in leading positions in the Yugoslav conflict. It was essential that law and order be effectively restored in the area, so that those suspected of serious violations against humanitarian law would be brought to justice. The Union deeply regretted that certain States and entities in the regions had continuously failed to meet their responsibilities to cooperate with the Tribunal.

She urged the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to cooperate with the Tribunal. While noting that Croatia had a better record of cooperation and compliance than the Federal Republic, she expressed concern, nonetheless, over that country’s failure to comply with requests from the Tribunal’s Prosecutor to hand over an indictee and documents on operations "Flash" and "Storm". The deteriorating record of cooperation by Croatia remained a matter of vigilant attention and concern for the European Union. The Republika Srpska had also continuously refused to execute arrest warrants against indictees believed to be residing there.

She stressed the importance the Union attached to the Tribunal’s witness assistance programme. The European Commission had provided financial support to the programme and some member States had volunteered to relocate witnesses and their relatives whose safety was at risk. The Union also appreciated the Tribunal’s efforts to publicize its work, particularly in the former Yugoslavia, where a large section of the country’s population held a negative view of its work.

HADI NEJAD HOSSEINIAN (Iran) praised the Yugoslavian Tribunal for measures it had adopted to ensure full respect for the rights of victims, as well as of those of accused persons. He also noted that it had been able to establish a close and productive working relationship with the pertinent international organizations, and had embarked on an outreach programme to improve understanding of its work and disseminate precise information.

The report's account of increased support and cooperation by States and international organizations reaffirmed that the Tribunal continued to enjoy wholehearted support of Member States and the United Nations, he continued. It was regrettable, however, that in spite of several demands by the President and in defiance of calls by the Security Council, certain States had continued to refuse to arrest and transfer persons who had committed inhumane crimes, and who were on their territories. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had been responsible for obstructing investigations of serious breaches of international humanitarian law, as well as for the recurrence of a humanitarian tragedy in Kosovo.

He expressed satisfaction, however, that in the favourable atmosphere following the end of the Kosovo crisis, the Prosecutor had been able to dispatch inspection teams throughout the territory, and they had been able to conduct extensive on-site investigations.

JASMI MOHAMMED YUSOFF (Malaysia) also expressed satisfaction that the Tribunal had evolved into a fully operational international criminal court that provided fair trials to the accused, while maintaining a high degree of protection for victims and witnesses. The continuing existence of the Tribunal was a reflection of the sustained support of the international community; he hoped that support would be further manifested through the exertion of pressure on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to fully comply with its obligations to cooperate. He was seriously concerned that 35 accused still remained at large, most of them the former Yugoslavia.

He noted that, despite the Tribunal’s best efforts, certain States, particularly the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republika Srpska, continued to obstruct its work. He urged that more serious and determined efforts be undertaken to apprehending those war criminals, so that the wrong message would not be sent to them and to others who might contemplate committing similar acts. The arrest of relatively minor characters was no substitute for apprehending the leaders responsible for the atrocities. The arrest and prosecution of the indicted war criminals would make a substantive contribution to the process of healing and reconciliation.

AHMED H. DARWISH (Egypt) welcomed the fact that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was being applied to the massacres and atrocities committed in Kosovo. During the reporting period, the Tribunal had improved its performance, particularly in shortening the duration of trials and the time of detention of detainees. It had always performed its task with total impartiality. He also applauded progress was in protecting witnesses and in ensuring their safety. He also welcomed the establishment of the Outreach Programme to better inform the people of the former Yugoslavia of the Tribunal’s work. However, he reviewed some difficulties that the Tribunal was facing, including the fact that 35 individuals remained at large, and the lack of cooperation of some countries. He urged compliance with the requests of the Tribunal.

He said challenges faced by the Tribunal were also a function of technical problems and the need to improve its financial resources. The General Assembly should reconsider increasing the budget for the Tribunal. He concluded by welcoming its collaboration with the Rwanda Tribunal.

ALAMGIR BABAR (Pakistan) called the establishment of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia a landmark event for the United Nations. In its short period of existence, the Tribunal had transformed itself into a full- fledged international criminal judicial institution.

He supported the extension of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the crimes committed in Kosovo. The systematic genocide of ethnic Albanians by the Serb occupation forces highlighted the important role the Tribunal had to play. Moreover, the events in Kosovo demonstrated the continuing need for a high degree of vigilance. The indictment of Milosevic and four others by the Tribunal had been a historic decision.

Continued non-cooperation on the part of certain States was a matter of great concern, he said. Productive working relationships with organizations in the former Yugoslavia remained critical for the success of the Tribunal. Since 35 accused continued to be at large, mainly in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, he called on that country to comply with the decisions of the Tribunal and hand over the people indicted by the Tribunal.

MUHAMMED SACIRBEY (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said his country was much better off because of the efforts of the Tribunal; those who had supported its creation and work had been proved right. Reconciliation and the peace process had been strengthened on the whole, although much still remained to be done.

He said that some had argued that, for the sake of peace and pragmatism, deals should be made with the Mladics, Karadzics and Milosevics of this world, but that following such a policy would have been disastrous. Political expediency could be practical in the long term, but it did not contribute to a stable peace, reconciliation or the restoration of normalcy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And it would mean that the status of the Tribunal would be lowered to that of an imperial court. It would no longer be seen as a sincere effort to help the people in the region in achieving real justice, real reconciliation and real peace, but rather as a manipulated cynical attempt at imposed diplomacy, with a few trials for the politically irrelevant.

Justice, he insisted, was sometimes not politically discriminating. That was its disadvantage, as well as its most valuable asset.

NAVANETHEM PILLAY, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, reviewed the progress made by the Tribunal in the five years since its establishment. The Tribunal’s judgments had had a significant impact on the development of international humanitarian law, she continued. It had rendered the first interpretation and application by an international court of the 1948 Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Its decisions on rape and sexual violence and crimes against humanity also constituted important judicial precedents for the international protection of human rights. She hoped that the establishment of the two ad hoc tribunals would effectively deter future atrocities. However, while the progress the Tribunal made was laudable, its achievements were modest when viewed in the light of the backlog of cases awaiting trial. There was deep concern over delays in the administration of justice. Accused persons had been in custody for lengthy periods. They must be tried as soon as possible, in compliance with their right to a speedy trial.

She said that, although the Tribunal had overcome many of the logistical and administrative difficulties it had faced during its first two years, judicial work had not progressed, as well as had been expected. The pace of trial proceedings must be expedited, particularly in the light of the increasing volume of work. Currently, the Office of the Prosecutor was engaged in approximately 90 investigations, and expected to produce 20 new indictments in 2000. Experience showed that trials lasting one to two years were not uncommon in both national and international jurisdictions. It was not the pace, but the quality, of the proceedings that must be paramount. “The course of justice, conducted in scrupulous compliance with fair trial procedures, is often by nature a slow process”, she noted.

In addressing administrative procedures conducted by the Registrar, she acknowledged its accomplishments, including the completion of a third courtroom. However, a better organized and more supportive court management system was urgently needed to resolve problems that were leading to constant adjournments of the court’s proceedings. Those were related to case scheduling, translation and court reporting services, and lack of adequate staff and facilities for the chambers. The judges had repeatedly stressed that the focus of administrative services should be on the needs of investigation, trial and the delivery of judgments as was the norm in all their national systems. The structure of the Tribunal did not allow for one direct accountability that a Judge President could expect from the registry of a national court. Furthermore, the autonomy asserted by the Registrar sometimes had a grave impact on the ability of the Judicial Chambers and the Office of the Prosecutor to conduct their work independently and control its pace and quality.

More than 200 pre-trial motions had been filed by the prosecution and defence counsel in the past two years; that had delayed the commencement of trials, she stated. Another difficulty encountered was the entering of interlocutory appeals on the Tribunal’s rulings. However, with the advent of joint trials and a commitment to accelerate proceedings, it would be possible to conclude trials of those now in custody by 2003.

The cooperation of Member States had made it possible to arrest, detain and transfer suspects and accused persons, thus, enabling the Tribunal to fulfil its mandate, she said. However, it sought further support from States; without timely cooperation, it was impossible to produce witnesses in court as scheduled, and that slowed the entire judicial process. The Tribunal also sought more support for its witness relocation programme. MARJA LEHTO (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said that the atrocities leading to the first judgement by the Rwanda Tribunal marked a dark phase in history, but the judgements delivered were proof of the commitment of the international community to put an end to impunity with respect to such crimes. The Tribunal faced many challenges, in terms of caseloads and management. Over the years, it had also been faced with a series of administrative problems. There had been some corrective actions, but the Union was still concerned that important administrative issues, including those of financial control and accountability, were still unresolved. If the Tribunal were to function securely, it was important that recommendations made for the improvement of its administration be fully implemented.

She said there should be no opportunity for those responsible for genocide to remain at large and not be brought to justice. It was particularly essential that the Tribunal discharge its responsibilities to victims of sexual crimes by ensuring that perpetrators of such acts were held responsible. There was also a need for greater gender sensitivity and special post-trial protection measures, to safeguard female witnesses.

More Member States needed to cooperate in providing prisons for the incarceration of persons convicted by the Tribunal, she said. Mali had assumed a pioneering role in that respect, as the first State to sign an agreement to provide prison facilities for the enforcement of the Tribunal's sentences. The Outreach Programme established during the reporting period to inform the Rwandan people of the Tribunal's activities should be encouraged to continue and develop its efforts.

HANS BRATTSKAR (Norway) noted that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda had delivered the first-ever judgements on the crime of genocide by an international judicial institution, 50 years after the adoption of the Genocide Convention. Those precedent-setting cases provided the legal confirmation that genocide had actually occurred in Rwanda in 1994, and represented important new building blocks in the international jurisprudence with regard to the prosecution of the most serious international crimes. Thus, the experience obtained by the Rwanda Tribunal was a stepping stone towards the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

He welcomed efforts made to improve working conditions in Arusha and Kigali. Nevertheless, he recognized a potential for further administrative improvements within the Tribunal.

He called on other States to take all legislative steps necessary in order to ensure effective cooperation with it. Concrete support to the Tribunal should be shown through financial and material contributions. He said that the Norwegian Government had declared its willingness to receive a limited number of convicted persons to serve their time in Norway. He welcomed the fact that some other States had undertaken to consider similar requests.

Mr. DARWISH (Egypt) welcomed the progress in the work of the Tribunal and hoped it would continue to bring those responsible for the genocide in Rwanda and neighbouring States to justice. The creation of a third Trial Chamber and the increase in the number of judges would help the Tribunal to deal with the large number of trials that it had faced. The building of the third chamber and the modernization of existing buildings would speed up proceedings. The opening of the library was vital for the smooth functioning of the court, as it provided the only reference sources for research. Amendments to the rules of procedure and closing of loopholes were also welcome.

It was important to protect witnesses from reprisals, he said. It was, therefore, important to provide the Tribunal with the material support for that purpose.

Cooperation between the Rwanda and Yugoslavia Tribunals was important and should be pursued, he continued. The provision of financial and technical resources were important; he thanked those States and non-governmental organizations that had helped in that regard. The Outreach Programme was also important; he welcomed the role of the mass media and called on them to give the Rwanda Tribunal more attention. He commended the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia for their role in ensuring that criminals did not escape punishment.

PERCY METSING MANGOAELA (Lesotho) said, that while the tremendous increase in the judicial activities of the Rwanda Tribunal was commendable, the need for speedy trials of the people already indicted could not be overemphasized. He hoped that the creation of a third Trial Chamber and the election of additional judges would facilitate the expeditious prosecution and conclusion of trials. Joint trials would enable optimal use of the court's judicial resources. More importantly, joinder would avoid witnesses having to testify repeatedly about the same facts in different cases, thus, minimizing their trauma. He stressed that the Prosecutor should only resort to joinder when there was clear evidence of conspiracy and participation with others in committing crimes, and that the rights of each accused must be respected at all times. The latter’s rights to equality before the Tribunal should be scrupulously observed by affording each of them the freedom to retain counsel of their choice, and if unable to do so, to be assigned counsel by the Court.

He said the conviction of the former Prime Minister of Rwanda and other high-ranking officials was conclusive proof that genocide had been committed. The importance of those convictions lay not only in their historic significance as the first-ever pronouncements by an international court on the crime of genocide, or their determination that sexual assault constituted part of that crime, but also in their contribution to the jurisprudence of international humanitarian law and international criminal justice. It would no longer be possible for those who committed such crimes to escape punishment. "As we await the outcome of the deliberations in the other two cases, it is our hope that these convictions will spur the international community to cooperate with the Tribunal in tracking Rwandese genocide suspects wherever they might be", he said.

He said that the Tribunal would require increased cooperation from States for the incarceration of convicted persons. Mali and Benin had been the first to rise to that challenge; he hoped other countries would soon follow suit. He also stressed the importance of the Rwanda Tribunal to Africa. Strong moral, political and financial support for the court would not only ensure that future dictatorial regimes would be effectively prosecuted for their actions, but that there would never be a repeat of genocide on the continent. The success of the Tribunal also augured well for the future International Criminal Court. PETER KASANDA (Zambia) said that the most critical part of the whole trial process was the actual carrying out of the sentence once it was delivered. Zambia called on countries that were able to do so to provide prisons for the incarceration of persons convicted by the Rwanda Tribunal and appealed to other countries to assist African countries, that were willing to make their prisons available but were limited by inadequate resources. Zambia was one such country; it had agreed in principle to make its prisons available for the incarceration of persons convicted by the Tribunal. However, that had not been possible due to inadequate facilities. His Government had met with Tribunal officials to determine what assistance could be given to make it possible to receive prisoners.

Zambia and neighbouring countries had indirectly been affected by the genocide in Rwanda, he said. Apart from the influx of refugees, some genocide suspects had also fled into Zambia. His country had been the first to deliver arrest warrants and to carry out arrests, detention and transfer of suspects and accused persons to the Tribunal's seat. Zambia had also assisted in making it possible for witnesses to appear before the Tribunal, by issuing them temporary travel documents.

MUSINGA T. BANDORA (United Republic of Tanzania) said that as host to the Rwanda Tribunal, his country had a fundamental interest in its success. The court had a vital role to play. Without sufficient accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity, collective guilt would remain, which would, in turn, fuel continued intra-society conflict. Drawing attention to the first conviction handed down by the Court, he welcomed the inclusion in the judgement the first interpretation and application of the 1948 Convention against Genocide to the effect that rape and sexual assault constituted acts of genocide. That was a groundbreaking interpretation and expansion of scope that would have far- reaching significance in cases elsewhere.

However, he said accountability for the crimes committed on such a wide scale in Rwanda had been delayed for too long. The success of the Tribunals and significance of their reach was important not only to the territories where the crimes were committed, but reached further to such areas as the Great Lakes region, Sierra Leone, Angola and East Timor. Perpetrators of crimes against humanity must be made aware that they would be sought out and brought to justice. The work of the Tribunal was also critical in the process of national reconciliation and healing in Rwanda. It was, therefore, important that its efforts be made known to the victims of genocide so that they felt confident that justice was being done and that such actions could not be committed with impunity.

He said it had not always been possible to respond in time to all the office space needs of the Tribunal within the Arusha Conference Centre. That had been due to circumstances beyond his Government's control, including lawsuits instituted by sitting tenants who either refused to vacate or sought unreasonable compensation. The Tanzanian Government was, however, continuing its efforts to settle those lawsuits as expeditiously as was legally possible.

CLAUDIA FRITSCHE (Liechtenstein) said that when the Rwanda Tribunal had been established five years ago, its task had seemed impossible. In addition to dealing with acts of genocide that would never be fully revealed, it also faced a lack of political support, most notably from Rwanda itself. The Office for Internal Oversight Services had issued a report severely criticizing the Tribunal, which had made its future seem unclear. However, it had engaged in a recovery process. Although it needed to address the areas of accountability and financial control, it had already achieved important results and delivered on its promise to make a contribution to the process of reconciliation in Rwanda, as well as its commitment to the international community to put an end to rampant impunity.

The Tribunal’s caseload was enormous, she continued. Therefore, it required the support of the international community. The report had mentioned the cooperation extended by the Government of Rwanda. The addition of the third Trial Chamber had also enhanced the Tribunal’s effectiveness and contributed to expediting its proceedings.

She said that the magnitude of the genocide that had taken place in Rwanda was beyond comprehension; it must be recognized that there could be no compensation for, or remedy of, the situation. Rather, a healing process must be striven for; it was to that process that the Tribunal could make an important contribution. Simultaneously, there should be a learning process. Another area to be enhanced was accountability. To that end, work remained to be done regarding both Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

JOSEPH MUTABOBA (Rwanda) said that the International Criminal Tribunals were a less-than-perfect response to mass atrocities. Only a relatively small number of people could be tried, and trials were unavoidably lengthy because of the requirements of judicial proceedings. That could raise questions about the court's deterrent effect. However needed an international criminal court might be, its probability of success should be evaluated in the light of those two Tribunals. If they were ultimately viewed as ineffectual, the international community should reconsider its commitment to creating what would amount to “a permanent version of a temporary failure, and a permanent United Nations failure for Rwanda”.

He recalled his Government's opposition to the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda by Security Council resolution 955 (1994), as its mandate had not adequately met Rwanda's expectations. Today, the Tribunal's behaviour and output left Rwanda with no alternative but to register a vote of no confidence. In its protest over the Tribunal's structure, Rwanda had argued that the establishment of so ineffective an international tribunal would appease the conscience of the international community without responding to the expectation of the Rwandan people, and the victims of genocide in particular.

Among the primary reasons for Rwanda's opposition to resolution 955, he said, was the fact that the strongest punishment available to the Tribunal was life imprisonment, whereas the Rwandan legal system permitted capital punishment. Since its inception, the Tribunal had indicted 48 individuals, 36 of whom were detained in Arusha. Five had been tried and sentenced. The Rwandan national judiciary, with its highly limited resources, had brought more than 20,000 genocide-related indictments; 17,847 of the defendants had pleaded guilty, 1,989 had been tried and 5,760 released. Those trials had been closely monitored by the international community and had been found to conform to the highest international standards.

He drew particular attention to his Government’s recent revival of an ancient traditional system known in his native language as gacaca. The gacaca courts would have jurisdiction to decide prosecutions brought against lower- level offenders. There would be 180,000 judges selected at the level of cells, 30,000 at the level of sectors, and 2,000 at the level of communes. Prisoners would be tried in public before the entire community. Drawing on recollections of the accused and the villagers, the judges would compile a list of those who died in the genocide, and those responsible. The accused would then be judged and sentenced. The innocent would be released and the guilty punished in accordance with the severity of their crimes.

* *** *