PRESS CONFERENCE BY PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF RWANDA

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE BY PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF RWANDA

"The ends of justice are not served by penalizing once again the people of Rwanda for the shortcomings of a United Nations prosecutor", Joseph W. Mutaboba, Permanent Representative of Rwanda to the United Nations, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this morning.

Referring to a decision by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to release a suspect, he said the people of Rwanda felt "outrageously betrayed" that internal misunderstandings within the Tribunal continued to frustrate the pursuit of justice for the crimes committed in Rwanda. It was another way of telling the Rwandan people that the United Nations had failed them once again.

Noting that Carla del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor for the International Tribunals, planned to visit Rwanda, a correspondent asked if that would make a difference. He answered that Ms. del Ponte's visit could be a second step. The Tribunal must provide a written explanation of its decision and a reversal of that decision first. Otherwise, there would be no point in the visit. "It would be a waste of money, energy and money", he said.

In a related comment, a correspondent said that Ms. del Ponte had said the Tribunal could not continue without Rwanda's cooperation. Mr. Mutaboba said that was true, but on the other hand, Rwanda could not render justice to its people without the Court. It was a two-way street but Rwanda was the most injured. What the Tribunal had done "was a stab in the back", he said.

Reading out a statement, Mr. Mutaboba said that his Government was shocked last week by the surprising decision to release one of the most notorious suspects ever to be arrested and handed over to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Jean Bosco Barayagwiza. He had expressed concern to the Deputy Secretary- General, the President of the ICTR and to the new Prosecutor. The alleged reasons for the release of Mr. Barayagwiza were that the Prosecutor's office had failed to inform him of the charges against him, had not insisted on his prompt transfer from a jail in Cameroon and had not presented him before the ICTR. The ICTR Appeals Chamber had then directed the Registrar to arrange to have the appellant delivered to the authorities of Cameroon, from where Mr. Barayagwiza had been transferred nearly two years ago.

His Government condemned that decision in the strongest possible terms, he said.

He said Mr. Barayagwiza had founded the Coalition pour la Defense de la Republique party which had promoted an extremist political ideology calling for the extermination of the Tutsi and carried out horrendous atrocities across Rwanda. Mr. Barayagwiza had admitted his role in organizing the party's militia and in the genocide. With all respect to the decisions of classic courts of justice, there was no justification for the ICTR to dismiss a person like Mr. Barayagwiza. The delay in transferring him from Cameroon had not prejudiced his ability to prepare his defense. The hardship he allegedly suffered in Cameroon jails was negligible compared to the suffering his victims endured. According to the Appeals Chamber, the cause of the prejudice occasioned was due to the negligence of the ICTR Prosecutor.

The assertion that the only remedy available for the prosecutorial inaction and the resultant denial of the appellant's rights was release and the dismissal of charges against him was wrong and should be reversed, Mr. Mutaboba said. He reminded correspondents that Mr. Barayagwiza had been found guilty in a suit against him in the Southern District of New York.

He said his Government had suspended cooperation with the ICTR until it provided an adequate explanation and reversed the decision. That decision had set a precedent for other planners and perpetrators of genocide who were now able to refer to that new jurisprudence to apply for their acquittal.

To add insult to injury, he continued, the same institutions would ask the Government to reverse its position or face sanctions. It was the usual threat. On the other hand, big brother could make a mistake and get away with it.

Emphasizing that "there are no burning bridges" between Rwanda and the Organization and its agencies, he reiterated that his Government was requesting to see a full explanation of the decision and to have it reversed as a first step to any other logical steps, including direct talks with the United Nations on the issue.

A correspondent asked whether a double standard was being employed. Would that case have been thrown out in the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, he asked?

There was definitely a double standard, Mr. Mutaboba replied. Today, when there was talk about non-cooperation of States, referring to Croatia and other States in Europe, nothing much was said about the lack of cooperation by those States which were Members of the Security Council. They were the first to violate the Council's resolution.

In reply to a correspondent who asked if Rwanda's decision meant that Rwanda would not cooperate in providing witnesses and suspects for trial, Mr. Mutaboba said the answer was yes. The ICTR must explain what had happened because Rwanda did not understand the decision. Once the decision was reversed, cooperation would be resumed.

Asked to comment on his meeting with Navenethem Pillay, President of the Rwanda Tribunal, he said that he had met with her at his request to express his concerns. She had not mentioned the case.

Was it possible for the Tribunal to reverse its decision? asked a correspondent. Mr. Mutaboba repeated that his Government would not be satisfied until it had a better explanation in writing of how the Tribunal had reached its decision.

On the scale of people who had been responsible for the genocide, where was Mr. Barayagwiza? a correspondent asked. He was number one, Mr. Mutaboba replied.

What about the 30 other individuals awaiting trial? If Rwanda did not cooperate with the Tribunal, there was a risk that they would go free, a correspondent said. Mr. Mutaboba asserted that it would not depend on Rwanda anymore. A new jurisprudence had been created. Pointing to the slowness of the Court, he said that if after two years they had not been tried, they could refer in legal terms to the Barayagwiza case. Already prisoners were applying for acquittal.

Asked if his main objection was the precedent being set or the way that the court handled this particular case, he said it was a combination.

If Mr. Barayagwiza ended up in another State, would Rwanda ask to have him extradited? a correspondent asked. Mr. Mutaboba responded affirmatively. He said the Government had already sent out an international arrest warrant. It could take Mr. Barayagwiza to trial on the basis of what the Tribunal had already filed. Rwanda was seeking access to that file. If the Tribunal did not have the courage to follow through, Rwanda or any other country could do it. This was the second blatant case in which the Tribunal had released a war criminal.

In response to another question, he said his Government would keep trying to obtain custody of Mr. Barayagwiza.

He reminded correspondents that Rwanda had applied for the establishment of the Tribunal. The Council had set up the Tribunal through resolution 955 (1994). Rwanda, a member of the Council at that time, had opposed the adoption of the resolution because the Council had diluted the message behind the creation of the criminal court. If the Rwanda Tribunal had had an independent prosecutor, not someone running all over, it would be more cost-effective and would have made considerable progress by now. For reasons which his Government did not know, the Council had failed to provide each Tribunal with an independent prosecutor.

All the decisions of the Tribunal were the result of heavy bureaucracy and lack of coordination. That played an important role in what had happened.

What countries were supporting the Tribunal? he was asked. There were criminals in many countries the world over but the African countries were doing better in handing them over, he replied. The first convict came out of Zambia. Cameroon and Kenya handed over many. There were still many in Togo, Senegal, Benin, Congo and even the United States.

A correspondent said something had to move; if the Court was not going to move, what would be the consequences? he asked. How could the impasse be resolved?

Mr. Mutaboba said this situation was the result of negligence and internal misunderstandings. His Government was asking for a solution. The Tribunal arrested the criminal, transferred him and then dismissed his case without judgement. Rwanda had no control over the internal misunderstandings of the court. Responding to a question, he said that incompetence was also a factor.

In reply to a further question, he said two special courts had been created to bring the criminals to book and to break the cycle of impunity. Then they said, "Let's work as a classic court". Legally, he concluded, that was wrong.

He was hopeful that an agreement with United Nations could be reached.

* *** *