PRESS CONFERENCE ON RWANDA TRIBUNAL

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE ON RWANDA TRIBUNAL

Among the features which distinguished the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was that the persons considered by the Prosecutor to be the key players or planners of the killings in Rwanda were in custody, Navanethem Pillay, President of the Rwanda Tribunal, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon.

Almost the entire interim Government of Rwanda was awaiting trial, she continued. The 45 people currently in custody included Government ministers, military leaders and those who controlled the media. The Tribunal hoped to complete its work within the period of its mandate, which expired in 2003.

She said that the Yugoslav Tribunal’s complaint was that they did not have sufficient cooperation from States, particularly those sitting in the Security Council, who passed the resolution establishing the Tribunal. They were not cooperating in the arrest of high-profile accused, such as Slobodan Milosevic. While the Yugoslav Tribunal had a vast number of suspects, they were being blocked by a lack of cooperation.

The Rwanda Tribunal, she noted, had been receiving “spectacular” cooperation from countries all over the world, mainly from Africa. The most recent transfer was of a military commander from the United Kingdom. Once the Tribunal assured him that, if he was acquitted he would be put on a plane back to the United Kingdom, his defence withdrew their opposition to the extradition. The Tribunal was expecting a new detainee from Denmark on 24 November.

More and more the jurisprudence emerging from the Rwanda Tribunal showed that something really dynamic was going on, with the first-ever conviction of genocide and the first conviction in history of rape as constituting genocide.

She said there had been two Appeals Court decisions. In early October, the Court had confirmed the life sentence of the interim Prime Minister Jean Kambanda. It also confirmed the conviction and 15-year sentence of a military official. When the Appeals Court delivered decisions, the Tribunal’s work would be circumscribed in turn, to an extent. For instance, if the Appeals Court found that, on evidence, there had been a genocide in Rwanda, then perhaps that fact did not have to be proved at every trial. The way the Tribunal was currently progressing, all those facts had to be proved afresh in every trial.

She said that she had recently led four judges on a visit to Rwanda to ensure continued cooperation with regard to the transfer of witnesses, visas and the ability of prosecutors to investigate. The visit was also intended to ensure that defence counsel could go into Rwanda, be provided security and be able to interview witnesses and bring their witnesses out. Some of the witnesses whom defence counsel needed to interview were in custody inside Rwanda. The delegation held discussions with the Rwandan President, Prime Minister, Supreme Court President and various ministers.

Rwanda Press Conference - 3 - 21 November 2000

During their stay, the delegation had also visited the official memorial site, she said. Reacting to that, 22 detainees had threatened to go on a hunger strike, claiming that the Tribunal was now being controlled by the Rwandan Government and that the judges were now biased because they saw gravesites. While the detainees had not proceeded with that threat, one of the accused in the media case, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, refused to come to court. The Court ruled that the case would proceed in his absence and that he had a right to come to court at any time.

The “media trial” over which she was currently presiding would be historic, she said, because on trial was the spoken and written word –- alleged hate propaganda. The case consisted of three accused persons, charged with genocide on the allegation that they controlled television and radio broadcasts, or that they published words that incited killings.

Asked what she was doing to address the challenges facing the Tribunal, she responded that the Tribunal had to have the administrative support it required. When the judges of both Tribunals had met in London, they both found that they were plagued by administrative problems. The crux of the problem was the way the Tribunal was structured. In a national jurisdiction, the Registrar was accountable to the Judge President and understood that his function was to support the work of the court. Although that was stated in the statutes of both Tribunals, because of the way they were structured, it was as if there were three independent organs –- the Prosecutor, the Chambers and the Registrar.

The financial and administrative responsibility rested with the Registrar, who was accountable to the United Nations Secretary-General, and thus there were problems, she continued. The United Nations had very strict rules on how it operated, with various staff regulations -- such as the stipulation that interpreters should not work more than four hours a day. The Judiciary and the Registrar were complaining that they were not receiving their staff requirements and resources. Also, the Registrar was determining who got hired by considering geographical representation and staff promotions. That lack of accountability was affecting the quality of the Tribunal’s work.

The Statute of the International Criminal Court had addressed that issue, she went added. The Court, like the International Court of Justice, was structured so that the judges appointed the Registrar. She hoped for some changes that would allow the Tribunals to move forward faster. With regard to the Rwanda Tribunal, the Secretary-General had personally intervened and sent a court consultant, who did a complete report on court management. She hoped that report would be implemented soon.

A Correspondent asked if one of Mr. Barayagwiza’s lawyers, who had returned home, would be replaced or compelled to return. She replied that Mr. Barayagwiza had informed the Court that he would not come to court. He believed the Tribunal was controlled by the Rwandan Government and, therefore, he could not get a fair trial. He was willing to present himself to any impartial, democratic court anywhere in the world. He also instructed his lawyers not to participate in his defence.

She added that lawyers had applied for leave to withdraw from the courtroom because they said their rules of ethics did not allow them to participate in the defence of an accused person when the accused had asked them

Rwanda Press Conference - 3 - 21 November 2000

not to participate. They felt they could not sit in the courtroom and be passive. The Chamber ruled that leave would not be given to the lawyers to withdraw, because they were assigned by, and paid by, the Tribunal. They were assigned not only to defend Mr. Barayagwiza, but also, in the interest of justice, to ensure that he had a fair trial.

With regard to the media case, a question was raised as to the precedent for prosecuting speech and the written word. Judge Pillay responded that, since it was an ongoing case, she could only state what had been alleged, because all the accused had pleaded not guilty. The allegation was that Ferdinand Nahimana controlled the radio station [Radio-Television Libre des Mille Collines], owned it, held shares in it or influenced its programmes. Mr. Barayagwiza was alleged to have been in charge of information and determined policy, and Hassan Ngeze was alleged to be the editor of the Kangura Journal.

The Prosecutor had to make the link between hate speech and what they claimed was a genocide, she said. They did not actually have to prove that the genocide happened. Other than the [Jules] Streicher case in the Nuremberg trials, there were no known precedents for the case. In her own country, South Africa, there had been a great deal of racial propaganda, which was prosecuted not as racial propaganda, but as inciting racial hatred. The media case placed a heavy burden on the Prosecutor to make the link between the words uttered and the crime of genocide. Since there were almost 100 witnesses and mountains of paperwork and tapes, the case could take a year or longer.

* *** *