Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet it cannot be destroyed

By Freethinker
Rwandan SurViVors International
September 30, 2009

For the first time, General Paul Kagame reveals the Truth about the Rwandan genocide:

"The genocide "has its roots somewhere else."

Without naming any individuals or countries, Kagame said most people who organized the genocide were outside Rwanda´s borders, yet none have been held accountable.

Some 63,000 people are suspected of taking part in the genocide.

The Rwandan leader questioned the fairness of the International Criminal Court, the world´s first permanent war crimes tribunal, saying it is widely seen as targeting Africans, developing countries or weak countries and not dispensing justice equitably on a global basis.

For more info, here is the link:
Rwanda and Congo making progress toward peace

According to Wolverine, "The truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet it cannot be destroyed.

Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule, the ruling RPF tyranny and corruption in Rwanda.

It has become public knowledge that the current Tutsi-led government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority Hutu (85%) of the whole Rwandan people by the RPF criminal organization.

© Rwandan SurViVors International

Related Materials:
Paul Kagame Answers Questions From International Peace Instiute Audience
(http://www.ipacademy.org/news/multimedia-gallery/127-video-part-3-paul-kagame-answers-questions-from-ipi-audience.html)

Africa is Reforming, Rwandan President Kagame Tells International Peace Institute Audience
(http://www.ipacademy.org/events/speakers/details/158-africa-is-reforming-rwandan-president-kagame-tells-ipi-audience.html)

"Our Response" aims to make difference in Rwanda











By Rachel Kytonen
rachel.kytonen@ecm-inc.com
Isanti County News
September 30, 2009

Photo:
Upper: Children from Kivuruga, Rwanda were all smiles for this photo taken in 2009. Our Response is a partnership with World Vision to increase awareness of—and support for—the people of Kivuruga. Courtesy of Ellen Harasimowicz

Lower: Bob Jonsson, Mark Holm, Steve Fredlund and Mark Radeke have formed the Our Response organization, and will be going to Kivuruga, Rwanda Nov. 1-13.

An effort to fight global poverty, disease and suffering—and provide basic human needs and create long-term sustainability for the people of Kivuruga, Rwanda—is underway in Cambridge.

Local pastors Steve Fredlund, New Hope Community Church; Mark Radeke, River of Life and Bob Jonsson, First Baptist, have formed a partnership between Cambridge and World Vision for the purpose of increasing awareness of—and support for—the people of Kivuruga.

“Our mission is to ignite a community-wide financial response to global poverty, disease and suffering,” Fredlund said. “Specifically, what we are trying to do in Kivuruga is to both provide basic human needs and create long-term sustainability.”

Fredlund, Radeke and Jonsson felt a “call to action” following their attendance at the 2006 Transforming Church Initiative hosted by Bethel Seminary and featuring World Vision.

In March 2008, the group agreed on its short-term and long-term impacts in Kivuruga, and the local impact of this project.

Over the next few months, the group investigated different potential partners before deciding upon World Vision.

Fredlund explained John Good of World Vision came to Cambridge and shared their vision for assistance, their model for financing and their emerging formula for church/area development program (ADP), the team was convinced it had found its appropriate partner.

World Vision is a Christian humanitarian organization dedicated to working with children, families and their communities worldwide to reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and justice.

“Although Our Response is founded by church leaders, we want people to know it’s a community-wide effort,” Fredlund explained. “We really want to raise awareness. This is an emergency situation. People are dying all the time from preventable causes. There’s a 9/11 happening everyday other there in Africa.”

Radeke, Jonsson and Fredlund, together with East Central Young Life Area Director Mark Holm, will head to Kivuruga on Nov. 1 and return Nov. 13.

Located in central Africa, Rwanda is a small, mountainous country, that generally has a warm climate, though cooler in the mountain regions.

Fredlund explained Kivuruga has approximately 35,000 people, similar in size to Isanti County.

Community support

As far as a community, Fredlund explained Our Response has partnered with World Vision to increase the sponsorships in Kivuruga.

He said the standard sponsorship of $35 per month provides many thing such as clean water, nutritious food, health care, care for sick or dying parents, educational opportunities, spiritual nature and HIV/AIDS counseling.

Fredlund said all administrative expenses for Our Response have been covered by an individual donation.

He said cash donations to Our Response would be allocated based on current needs which may include trips to or from Rwanda, special community projects or used for additional child sponsorships.

The organization is planning an official community launch for Thursday, Dec. 3, where they will talk about their visit to Rwanda, and have representatives on hand from World Vision.

The exact time and location of the meeting has yet to be determined.

For more information on Our Response, or if you would like to get more involved with the organization, contact Steve Fredlund at 651-587-5435 or email steve@newhopecambridge.org.

The organization also has a Web site at http://ourresponse.wordpress.com/ , and can be found on Facebook.

For more information on World Vision, visit http://www.worldvision.org/hope.

Rwanda-Kenya sign extradition treaty

BY NASRA BISHUMBA
The New Times-Kigali
October 1, 2009

KIGALI - Kenya and Rwanda yesterday signed an extradition treaty.

Kenya’s Attorney General Amos Wako referred to the treaty as a historic occasion that will further enhance the diplomatic relations between both countries.

At the ceremony to append signatures to the treaty, Wako said that the cross-border movement of people and goods between the two countries has grown by ‘leaps and bounds’ since the end of the Genocide and continues to grow today.

“We are sometimes hindered by the cumbersome processes we have to go through to get some things done. This historical day marks the beginning of an easier process,” he said.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Tharcisse Karugarama, explained that the first extradition treaty between the two countries was signed in 1990 but a proposal to sign a fresh one arose when both realized it was outdated.

“We (Kenya and Rwanda) realized that there were crimes that had not been included, among them; genocide, terrorism, money laundering among others,” he said.Karugarama added that the treaty was not only good for both countries, but also for the region too.

“This treaty is recognition of human rights. It’s our recognition of the need to put in a place a system that protects its people and their property,” he said. Karugarama revealed that Rwanda would soon have more of these treaties since talks were going on with several countries within the region and globally.

Rwanda has been aggressively urging countries all over the world to sign the treaties.

By June this year, several African countries had reached an advanced stage of negotiations with Rwanda. They include Zambia, Malawi, South Africa and Burundi among others.

It is also seeking to renew the treaty with the Democratic Republic of Congo which is home to thousands of genocide suspects.

Rwanda’s Spokesman for the prosecution; Augustin Nkusi, said that securing the extradition treaty with Kenya will be a major boost to efforts to track down suspects, especially those responsible for the 1994 Genocide.

Rwanda: Elementary school students take classes under a tree

By Jeanne D’arc Umwana
Voice of America News
Kigali
September 29, 2009


In Mutara, a locality in the Eastern Province of Rwanda, elementary school students who take classes under a tree are in crucial need of help.

During our recent visit to Rwimiyaga Elementary School in Nyagatare District, Eastern province of Rwanda, the Voice of America (VOA) found seven Acacia sieberiana trees which serve as classroom walls. Due to a crucial lack of classrooms in Mutara, elementary school students take classes under these trees.

According to elementary teachers in Nyagatare, it has been more than ten years that these children take classes under these trees. Some of these children take classes in classrooms without covered roof tops. They take classes while sitting on the ground while some of them who happen to be fortunate enough take classes while sitting on wooden beams.

When the VOA team got at Rwimiyaga Elementary School, we found children studying under the trees. Their teachers told us that all day long the children follow the tree’s shade [to cope with the heat of the day]. However, when it rains, the children run all over the place toward nearby shelters.

The teachers also told us that such precarious conditions are detrimental to student performances. Over time, these conditions lead to frequent drop outs that are preventable.

Hopefully, if things go as planned, the teachers at Rwimiyaga Elementary School, are confident that some of these children may cease to take classes under a tree and move out in classrooms that are currently under construction.

Disclaimer:
The above article has been translated into English from its Kinyarwanda version. Only the Kinyarwanda version shall prevail.

Related Materials:
The Two Faces of Rwanda

Rwanda: Kagame Launches One Laptop Per Child

Rwanda: One laptop per child

Rwandan peasants on the brink of extinction

On The Myth of Economic Prosperity in Rwanda

Striving for growth, bypassing the poor?A critical review of Rwanda’s rural sector policies

Rwanda: Economic Growth Sustained Through Free Labor

Rwanda Today: When Foreign Aid Hurts More Than It Helps

Rwanda and its ghosts

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

ICTR/HATEGIKIMANA - WITNESS CLAIMS COMMANDERS DID NOT CONSPIRE TO RAPE, KILL ETHNIC TUTSI

By Hirondelle News Agency
September 24, 2009

Arusha, 24 September 2009 (FH) - A former soldier with the Rwandan Non-Commissioned Officers School (ESO), Thursday denied that the commanders of the neighboring military camps attended a meeting at the school where soldiers were later ordered to rape and kill Tutsi women on April 7, 1994, just a day after the death of the former Rwandan President, Juvenal Habyarimana.

The witness, code-named ‘'BTN'' to conceal his identity, was testifying for the defence of the former Commander of Ngoma Military Camp in Butare prefecture, southern Rwanda, Idelphonse Hategekimana, who is facing charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and direct and public incitement to commit genocide, before the UN Tribunal.

The prosecution alleged, among other things, that commanders of the neighboring camps, including Tumba, Nyanza and that of Ngoma, attended the ESO meeting and thereafter issued orders to rape Tutsi women then to kill them.

‘'I did not see the Commander of Ngoma Camp,'' the witness responded to the Togolese lead defence counsel, Ahlonko Dovi, as he was leading the accused in the examination in-chief.
Most part of the evidence of the witness, the second for the defence in this session, was held behind closed doors.

When the trial was adjourned on July 13, the defence of Hategekimana had already fielded 12 witnesses out of the expected 25. The prosecution rested its case on May 4 after presenting 20 witnesses.

The trial continues.

Related Materials:
Rwanda: Conspiracy to Commit Genocide, Important Missing Puzzle Piece

More Missing Puzzle Pieces for Inquiring Minds or Possibly Trolls

ICTR/ANALYSIS: Witnesses who are accomplices are not ‘a priori’ liars

By Hirondelle News Agency
September 25, 2009

Brussels: The use of testimonies of “genocidaires” in cases tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) happens very frequently for the prosecution as for the defence. The latest todate were called last week for the prosecution in the Gaspard Kanyarukiga case and for the defence of Yussuf Munyakazi.

The witnesses have a fundamental role in the prosecution of the persons responsible for grave violations of international humanitarian law before the ICTR as well as before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

In fact, they are the main source of information which the parties have because, as Rwanda is concerned, the genocidaire organization left little written evidence. Moreover, common law criminal procedure, which dominates at the international tribunal, largely has recourse for their participation.

Among the direct witnesses of the genocide committed against Tutsis in Rwanda there are survivors as well as génocidaires. The latter, “persons with a questionable morality”, according to Jean-Pierre Fofe Djofia Malewa, a lawyer having argued before the ICTR, are the people who were convicted by the Rwandan courts for acts of genocide.

It is recognized “that the jurisprudence of both ad hoc Tribunals does not a priori exclude the testimony of convicted persons”, points out the Appeals Chamber in its ruling of 18 November 2007 in the media case.

However, certain “genocidaires”, as in the Simba case, acknowledged their acts before the ICTR before having done so in Rwanda. It was sometimes thought that it was a strategy on their part to try, in exchange of their co-operation, to obtain a more lenient sentence. Witness YH in the abovementioned case does not hide this fact. Another one even hoped to be able to be “forgiven and pardoned”. It is thus that the credibility of these witnesses is regularly questioned.

In their decisions, the ICTR Chambers never spent much time on the question. Nevertheless, they regularly took care of demonstrating all the precautions which they used to consider the testimony of “genocidaires”.

The judges of the ad hoc tribunals have sometimes been more suspicious when the witnesses are proven accomplices. The ruling of the ICTR Appeals Chamber in the Ntagerura et al. case recapitulates in a concise manner the positions already taken by the ICTR and by the ICTY.

The judges must have a “critical eye”; the testimony, just like the circumstances in which it was made, must be studied “with the upmost caution” or “with all the desired circumspections”; did the witness have “precise motives to testify as they did and to lie?” Specifying that the corroboration of a testimony, even of an accomplice, was not obligatory, the however judges have regularly recourse to it.

The Appeals Chamber concluded, in the Andrea Ntagerura case, by reminded that “it is within the discretion of the Trial Chamber to evaluate the evidence and to consider whether the evidence as a whole is credible, without explaining its decision in every detail”.

In the judgement of Callixte Kalimanzira, on 22 June of this year, the Trial Chamber considered that it “would not appear that his judicial proceedings could be enhanced by giving false testimony against Kalimanzira” neither that he “might have had an interest in diluting his own responsibility for committing killings by blaming Kalimanzira”. It will accept in the same manner granting credit to the following testimony, also delivered by a person convicted by a Rwandan Gacaca court.

Lastly, it should be considered that “accomplice evidence is not per se unreliable, especially where an accomplice may be thoroughly cross-examined”.

Among the “genocidaires” there are people who repented, who confessed during the procedure, new at the time, planned by the Rwandan institutional act of 1996. The introduction of the guilty plea aimed to shorten the trials, to reduce the work of the investigators and to favour the process of reconciliation of the population.

The full confession (detailed description of the committed infractions, information on the co-authors and accomplices, excuses presented for the acknowledged misdeeds) provided before the communication of the repressive file to the president of the Tribunal led to, except for the defendants of category 1 which relates to the most serious facts, to a reduced sentence. The procedure was a big success.

There are positive and important points in the recourse to such witnesses. Indeed, they often know the inner workings of the criminal organization or the hierarchy often so difficult to establish. A Chamber of the ICTY admitted indeed in the sad case of the Celebici camp that the accomplice witness was, in connection with the defendant, “well placed to know the exact statute of the latter”.

Rwanda: More than 300 flee to Burundi

By RNA Administrator
September 29, 2009

Up to 300 Rwandans are camped in the northern Burundian province of Kirundo – but officials in Burundi refused to detail what they are fleeing from, RNA reports.

The BBC great lakes service reported that the refugees were running away because of the Gacaca courts – traditional courts trying thousands of suspects of the Tutsi Genocide.

However, the provincial head declined to give the reasons which the refugees had given when they arrived. The official said the refugees had been received and will be handed to the appropriate authorities.

Over the years, thousands of Rwandans repeatedly fled to Burundi citing the Gacaca courts deliberately targeting them.

Some have also left blaming poverty and hunger. However, several hundred Burundians have moved to Rwanda running away from famine.

Related Materials:
Rwanda: The Gacaca Courts Still Pose Problems

The Power of Horror in Rwanda

Response to The New Times Article on Rwandan Genocide

Rwanda: Testimony on Kagame’s death squads

The Two Faces of Rwanda

Rwanda: Economic Growth Sustained Through Free Labor

Rwanda and Congo making progress toward peace

By EDITH M. LEDERER
The Associated Press
September 29, 2009

(AP) NEW YORK - Rwanda’s president said Monday his country and neighboring Congo are making "very good progress" in restoring peace to war-torn central Africa.

Paul Kagame said a January offensive by forces from both countries aimed at disarming Rwandan Hutu fighters in the Democratic Republic of Congo achieved a "major breakthrough" by drastically decreasing fighting and seriously weakening the command of the Hutu rebels.

But Kagame said both countries recognize "that there is still a lot of work to be done."

"We’re making very good progress," he said in a speech to the International Peace Institute. "The major problems have been resolved. That’s the starting point."

Central Africa’s Great Lakes region has been a hotbed of political instability and fighting since the 1994 genocide in Rwanda saw more than 500,000 people, most of them from the country’s Tutsi minority, slaughtered by a regime of extremists from its Hutu majority.

After Tutsi rebels led by Kagame ended the genocide, the extremist Hutus fled into neighboring eastern Congo.

Since then, Rwanda has, together with neighbor Uganda, twice invaded Congo -in 1994 and 1998. During each invasion Rwanda has said it was chasing down the Rwandan militias. The second invasion sparked a five-year, six-nation war in Congo that killed some 3 million people.

Congo, known as the DRC, cut off diplomatic relations with Rwanda over its support of a rebel movement whose mission was to hunt the Rwandan Hutu fighters in eastern Congo after the genocide.

Kagame disputed claims that Rwanda intervened in Congo to exploit the country’s rich natural resources, using the hunt for perpetrators of the genocide as a pretext.

"Rwanda does not have capacity to exploit our own mineral resources," he said, so "how can we take advantage of those in the DRC?"

The United Nations established a peacekeeping force in Congo in November 1999 which Kagame said was very costly and did not achieve "corresponding results," because fighting continued and the Hutu rebels were not disarmed.

Rwanda and Congo normalized relations in 2007, and in January, both armies teamed up and conducted a successful joint offensive in volatile eastern Congo.

"The situation has now changed fundamentally because Rwanda and the DRC both now recognize that we must work together to find answers to peace for Congo," Kagame said.

"On the political and diplomatic front, we have now exchanged ambassadors with the DRC, paving the way for further efforts in the more important realms of economic growth and development including joint projects in energy, environment, trade and investment," he said.

Kagame said both countries also need to do things in their own countries to manage the remaining problems.

"How effectively they are able to manage these complex problems they have to deal with may be different than how we manage to deal with our own problems within our borders," he said. "But these collaborative efforts are very important and they ... have made a huge difference."

Kagame urged the international community to continue supporting peace efforts in eastern Congo and to tackle the root causes of the conflict.

"Genocide in Rwanda _ the causes of it are not Rwandan, are not African," he said. The genocide "has its roots somewhere else."

Without naming any individuals or countries, Kagame said most people who organized the genocide were outside Rwanda’s borders, yet none have been held accountable.

Some 63,000 people are suspected of taking part in the genocide.

The Rwandan leader questioned the fairness of the International Criminal Court, the world’s first permanent war crimes tribunal, saying it is widely seen as targeting Africans, developing countries or weak countries and not dispensing justice equitably on a global basis.

Related Materials:
Africa is Reforming, Rwandan President Kagame Tells IPI Audience

Paul Kagame Answers Questions From IPI Audience

UN: The Joint Military Operation Against The FDLR Has Failed

Rwanda: Pressure for FDLR-Government Talks Mounting

United States Remembers 1994 Rwandan Genocide

The conquest of Rwanda (1990-1994): Recognizing the international conspiracy

UGANDA-RWANDA: FINALLY UGANDA’S MUSEVENI OFFICIALLY ACCEPTS HIS ROLE IN THE MASS KILLINGS IN RWANDA FROM OCTOBER 1st, 1990 to DECEMBER 31st, 1996

Rwanda: Paul Kagame Sacrificed The Tutsis

Former RPF Fighters in Uganda Demand Compensation from Rwandan Government

Rwanda: Museveni, Zenawi, Nyerere to Receive National Honours

Uganda: Rwanda to Decorate Museveni

Habyarimana was “asleep” when RPF attacked Rwanda

Paul Kagame's Mockery Of Genocide

Honorific Distinctions of Royal Rwanda

The honours: Rwanda decorates foreign dignitaries

Uganda-Rwanda: Museveni’s untold role in RPF war

We stood with Rwanda during the hard times

UK-Rwanda: Habyarimana’s assassination was a coup, said UK Defense Ministry

Rwanda's President Recipient of 2009 Clinton Global Initiative Award

Another Blow to the People of the Africa Great Lakes Region.
By Augustin Dukuze, Ph.D.
Spokesperson
RUD-Urunana
September 29, 2009

Urunana rw'Abaharanira Ubumwe na Demokarasi
Ralliement pour l'Unité et la Démocratie
Rally for Unity and Democracy

Tel: 001-201-794-6542 /001-506-461-3919
Email: urunana@optonline.net
url: www.rud-urunana.org

The Rally for Unity and Democracy (RUD-Urunana) has learned that Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, has been honored with one of the Clinton Global Citizen Awards. Such awards are given to outstanding individuals for their leadership in improving the lives of their fellow human beings.

Our organization praises and welcomes the remarkable work accomplished by the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) around the world in general and in Africa in particular. CGI actions to eradicate diseases such as Malaria and advocating for HIV/AIDS victims, providing safe drinking water to the poor, are to be strongly commended and supported. However, honoring Paul Kagame has made a lot of Rwandans wonder how CGI is really committed to the advancement of good governance and to fostering strong democratic institutions without which CGI stated goals will never be sustainable in countries like Rwanda.

Contrary to what was stated in the CGC brief, Paul Kagame was not elected in 2000. While assuming the vice-presidency, he did everything possible to undermine the authority of the then President Pasteur Bizimungu who was subsequently pushed aside to let the office of the President in the hands of Paul Kagame.

When subsequently Pasteur Bizimungu and his friends tried to set up an independent political party, Kagame threw them in prison where they languished for several years. Due to his health, the former president was released from prison and sent home where he is under constant persecution and invasive surveillance; he is practically under house arrest.

Meanwhile, Bizimungu's companions are still serving harsh prison sentences for having had the courage to challenge Paul Kagame and his cronies. Despite the image projected by Paul Kagame and his regime supporters, fifteen years after the rwandan tragedy and the ongoing situation in the Eastern Congo (DRC), reliable information has come to light painting Kagame as one of the most notorious criminals the world has ever known.

After several years of painstaking investigations, two independent judges have come to the conclusion that it was Paul Kagame who gave the order to gun down the presidential jet on April 6, 1994 killing two african presidents, Juvenal Habyarimana of Rwanda and Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi, their respective aides and the jet crew.

It is this terrorist act that sparked one of the horrendous human tragedies the world has ever known. It is important to remind CGI selection panelists that Paul Kagame and forty officers among his top and closest military commanders have been indicted by a spanish judge for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed both in Rwanda as well as in the DRC.

Paul Kagame's regime has invaded DRC several times and current estimates provided by human rights organizations have estimated the death toll to at least four millions of congolese citizens and rwandan refugees. It is not understandable that CGI would honor an individual who has been the main architect of such loss of lives; unless, we are brought to believe that the lives of some human beings are more important that others.

The economic progress trumpeted by the rwandan regime supporters is more a mirage than real and substantial progress. Reliable information from the country paints a very dark picture of the rwandan society of today.

In rural areas, hunger has become endemic due to ill-thought policies. The human rights situation is desperate. While the regime tries to justify the repressive measures by which it governs, the great majority of rwandan citizens does not and can not enjoy its basic fundamental rights and freedoms such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, and the right to lawful dissent.

The freedom of press is inexistent and/or forcefully repressed. Above all, rwandans are not equal before the law. This dire situation has been denounced by several impartial observers and independent organizations including the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative that recently recommended that Rwanda's application to join the Commonwealth should be rejected.

While supporting CGI mission statements to help the poor and the needy around the globe, our organization strongly deplores CGI honoring Paul Kagame among its award recipients and hope that it would be reconsidered.

By giving such outstanding award to a dictator that has brought death and suffering to millions of people in central Africa, it has dashed in the eyes of the great majority of people of central Africa all hope to see CGI genuinely fulfill its goodwill missions around the world.

It is our firm conviction that instead of honoring Paul Kagame, CGI should help all rwandans irrespective of their respective backgrounds to engage in a constructive Dialogue that would foster genuine reconciliation and an impartial justice. Such process would ultimately lead to lasting peace and development that would benefit all the people of the Great Lakes region.

Related Materials:
Former President Clinton Announces Winners of the Third Annual Clinton Global Citizen Awards

Wilson School of Hospitality tapped to help develop college program at Rwandan university

By Michael Sheffield
Memphis Business Journal
September 25, 2009

The University of Memphis is working with Little Rock-based Bridge2Rwanda on the creation of a hospitality and resort management program at Muhabura University in Rwanda that will send some University of Memphis professors overseas to help the school’s program get off the ground.

Bridge2Rwanda was founded by Dale Dawson, former head of investment banking at Stephens, Inc., and founder of TruckPro, a heavy duty truck parts distributor that he later sold to AutoZone, Inc.

Dawson founded Bridge2Rwanda after establishing Sonrise School, a 1,000-student boarding school in 2006. Half of Sonrise’s student body are orphans from the wars of the late ’90s. Muhabura University will begin classes next fall with 100 students, eventually growing to 1,500 students and 120 faculty members. Bridge2Rwanda is working with private donors to raise $1.6 million to get the school open, with a master plan to completely build out the school budgeted at $15 million, which will also be raised through donors. The students will get student loans from the government and scholarships will be provided to the best students. Dawson says Bridge2Rwanda is also looking to create its own student loan fund.

The university will be located on a 26-acre Rwandan air force base donated by the Rwandan government. Dawson says he became involved with Kemmons Wilson School of Hospitality and Resort Management through Kemmons Wilson Jr. of the Kemmons Wilson Cos. who works with him on an organization called Halftime.

About Dale Dawson:
Dale Dawson is Founder & CEO of Bridge2Rwanda, an organization committed to creating tomorrow’s leaders by building schools and businesses in Rwanda.
He serves on Rwanda President Paul Kagame’s Presidential Advisory Council as well as the Boards of Urwego Opportunity Bank of Rwanda and the Sonrise Primary/High School in Musanze, Rwanda.

Saddleback Forum Addresses Role of Gov't, Church in Reconciliation

By Jennifer Riley
The Gospel Herald
September 28, 2009

[Jennifer Riley asserted in her article below that after he successfully stopped the genocide, Kagame brought back the vice president and reinstalled him..... In my opinion, this another fly in the face of histrorical evidence. According to the Free Encyclopedia Wikipedia, political offices occupied by Kagame are as follow:
-Minister of Defence of Rwanda: 1994 – 2000; Preceded by Augustin Bizimana; Succeeded by Emmanuel Habyariman

-Vice President of Rwanda: 1994 – 2000; Preceded by N/A (Office created); Succeeded by N/A (Office abolished)
-President of Rwanda: 2000–present; Preceded by Pasteur Bizimungu; Succeeded by N/A (Incumbent).

Please let Jennifer Riley know that this is not responsible journalism but simply another kind of RPF propaganda. Thanks.==MK/HTPJ].

*****************************

Saddleback Forum Addresses Role of Gov't, Church in Reconciliation
By Jennifer Riley
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Sep, 28 2009 02:09 AM PT

Rwandan President Paul Kagame shared with Pastor Rick Warren on Friday that the role of the government is to embrace everyone and “bring them together.”

He was reflecting on the roles of the government and the church in the area of national reconciliation based on his own country’s experience with genocide as he spoke at the Saddleback Civil Forum on reconciliation, according to The Orange County Register.

Kagame became president of Rwanda in 2000 after the country’s 1994 genocide that left 800,000 to 1 million people dead within about 100 days.

After he successfully stopped the genocide, Kagame brought back the vice president and reinstalled him. Under his leadership, Rwanda has been lauded as Africa’s “biggest success story” and a model example of reconciliation.

The much-praised African leader said the role of the church in Rwanda’s reconciliation process is to be a voice to point out when the government is wrong. But during the genocide, the church and government “were almost one and the same” so the church could not distance itself from the action of the government, he explained.

Today the role is significant and the church has grown back to play its role,” Kagame said.

During the civil forum, Kagame was joined by prominent Yale theologian Milaslov Volf from Croatia.

Volf, who lived through the Bosnian conflict, said there was “always a deep rage” down in his soul during the conflict because of the injustice being done. But he said loving one’s enemies is the truly Christian response in such a situation.

“To forgive is an act of power. When I forgive, I’m in charge,” Volf said. “I’m releasing you from the wrong.”

Both Kagame and Volf have seen their “nearly destroyed” countries get back on the path of reconciliation and were at Saddleback Church in southern California to share their wisdom.

Pastor Warren said though the United States has not experienced a genocide, the stories of reconciliation are relevant because the country is also hurting from division on many issues.

Friday’s event was the fourth Saddleback Civil Forum, which involves high-profile figures speaking on sensitive issues. Last fall, the megachurch hosted then presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain who spoke about such issues as religious persecution, AIDS, abortion, marriage and stem cells.

Related Materials:
Saddleback Church to Host Civil Forum on Reconciliation on September 25, 2009

Rwanda: Testimony on Kagame’s death squads

Rwanda/USA: The exact nature of the relationship between Paul Kagame and Rick Warren

The San Antonio Declaration by the Rwandan Civil Society in Exile with Regard to Human Rights Situation in Rwanda

Sunday, September 27, 2009

The San Antonio Declaration by the Rwandan Civil Society in Exile with Regard to Human Rights Situation in Rwanda






By Antoinette Uwimpundu
Spokesperson for WTRR
Women for Truth and Reconciliation in Rwanda
E-mail: auwimpundu47@yahoo.com


San Antonio, Texas
September 19, 2009

Also available in Français.

Texas (San Antonio) - Representatives of the Rwandan civil society in exile met in San Antonio, Texas, on September 19, 2009 at the initiative of WTRR – Women for Truth and Reconciliation in Rwanda – and carefully examined the recent testimony by Ms. Claire Uwamutara as well as the on-going catastrophic human rights situation in Rwanda.

They are profoundly dismayed by the level of cruelty of Rwanda’s state security apparatus, and unreservedly condemn the on-going process of planned elimination of a part of Rwanda’s population as alleged in the testimony, including the widespread violation of human rights by the current regime. That’s why they request an immediate act of salvation by the international community and all those who champion peace, justice and freedom, and submit the following recommendations with a view to rescue the Rwandan people:

1. The allegations brought forth in Ms. Claire Uwamutara’s testimony are so scandalous that they provoke feelings of deep horror and dread. They add to an already long list of alarming elements compiled in multiple reports by human rights defense organizations, independent experts and journalists, all of which show that ethnic discrimination has been set up into a system of government by the Kigali regime, and that genocide continues unabated .

In the face of the monstrosity of these alleged crimes, how can the world afford to remain idle? The Rwandan civil society in exile begs all partners of Rwanda and the western superpowers that continue to support the Rwandan regime to stop turning a blind eye and to put an end to their support without delay.

In addition, given the gravity of its crimes, the Kigali regime under dictator Paul Kagame should no longer be granted membership or a seat within several highly respected international institutions such as the United Nations, the British Commonwealth, the Corporate Council on Africa, the Community of East African Countries, etc. The international community cannot afford to be neutral in the face of crime: it is either for or against the victims.

In other words, it cannot pretend to be unmoved by the horrible crimes under way in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region of Africa, or by the underlying moral teaching in famed Albert Einstein’s wise remark that “the world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing”; it must finally resolve to change the vow “never again” into reality.

2. The secretive and skillfully executed ethnic cleansing holding sway over Hutus inside Rwanda as well as the persecution of all who oppose it pose a direct challenge to the moral conscience of all of humankind. It is these inhuman practices that continue to swell the number of Rwandan refugees and to keep millions outside of Rwanda. The Rwandan civil society is grateful to all countries that have welcomed Rwandan refugees on their soil, and urges them to continue to extend to them their brotherly humanity. It calls on them not to give in to pressure brought to bear by the regime in Kigali, and send the refugees back to their killers in Rwanda.

3. The women of WTRR are appalled by the singularly brutal fate awaiting women and children targeted by the Kigali regime as described by Ms. Uwamutara – at a time when the Great Lakes region of Africa especially in North and South Kivu in the DRC is in the throes of a vicious sexual violence flare up that targets the same vulnerable groups – and by lack of action on the part of the international community in front of such barbarity.

These sexual mistreatment acts, which lay bare the extreme sadistic and bestial nature of the criminals, offer yet again added evidence that urgent action is needed to protect vulnerable groups. The Rwandan civil society in exile implores the leaders of the world, most especially women in positions of power, such as Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama and other First Ladies of the world’s superpowers, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay, and the president of Amnesty International Irene Khan, to treat as their own not only the scourge of sexual violence in the Great Lakes region of Africa but also the issue of crime that targets a part of Rwandan women in their very essence of procreation.

Compassion towards victims will always be incomplete as long as concrete and exemplary sanctions are absent against the Rwandan regime which, while indulging in self-glory as having the only parliament in the world with women in the majority, has nonetheless launched an all-out war against the woman’s body as denounced by Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton during her recent visit to Goma in DRC, and that’s in addition to availing a safe heaven to perpetrators of those horrible crimes such as ex-rebel leader general Laurent Nkunda.

4. The crimes against humanity and other serious violations of human rights still unfolding in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region of Africa are due to the blanket impunity that has been extended to the war lords at the top of the current Rwandan regime who, ironically, are suspected of having committed war crimes, crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and acts of terrorism, and are under international arrest warrants.

These crimes are an eloquent reminder of the stinging failure of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) which has become a tribunal for the vanquished, and unfortunately, a part of the Rwandan tragedy rather than a part of its solution.

That’s why the Rwandan civil society in exile in general, and Rwandan women in particular, request the U.N. Security Council which created the ICTR with Resolution 955 of November 8, 1994, to own up to its responsibilities and ensure that this tribunal fulfills its assigned mission. They also demand that ICTR Prosecutor Boubacar Jallow put an end to his practice of ethnic discrimination against victims to be defended and the suspected criminals to be apprehended. It is only by way of truth, equitable justice, and the respect of human rights that the Rwandan people will achieve genuine reconciliation and build their nation on a solid foundation.

5. In light of Ms. Claire Uwamutara’s overwhelming testimony and on account of the unending recurrence of crimes of war, crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, and acts of terrorism that have aggrieved Rwanda for the last 19 years, the Rwandan civil society in exile is dismayed that the Rwandan people are still having to grapple with a combination of social, humanitarian, political and economic crises, all of which are the making of the RPF regime of general Paul Kagame and are rarely seen in other parts of the world. It finds that here is a situation that requires originality and audacity of approach for a solution.

That is why it feels compelled to make its position known without ambiguity on the leadership issue in our country. In many respects Rwanda today is similar to South Africa during the time of the contemptible Apartheid regime. Just as it took a special leader named Nelson Mandela to lead South Africans into a new era without racial confrontation, the Rwandan civil society in exile is firmly convinced that it will take no less than such a figure to bring about needed political change in Rwanda without bloodshed.

So it has asked Mr. Paul Rusesabagina, whose heroism during the 1994 Rwandan genocide has won worldwide acclaim, to come to the rescue of the Rwandan people one more time and consider contesting the presidential elections of 2010, thus giving Rwandans the chance of a choice, hope, peace and reconciliation. Mr. Rusesabagina, who attended the conference as president of “Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation”, thanked the attendees for their trust, and promised to give the idea deep thought before making a public announcement in the coming days.

Related Materials:
The state of governance and human rights in Rwanda does not satisfy Commonwealth standards

Uwamutara's testimony

Rwanda: Testimony on Kagame’s death squads

Rwanda: Damning testimonies against the Rwandan Patriotic Front

The Legacy of The Crematoriums of Rwanda

The Grinding Machine: Terror and Genocide in Rwanda

On The Myth Of Collective Responsibility In Rwandan Genocide

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Comment on the Law Relating to the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology of Rwanda

By Article 19

September 2009
London


[ARTICLE 19 is alarmed by the Genocide Ideology Law principally because the central concept of “genocide ideology” is extraordinarily broad and would catch a whole range of forms of expressions concerning genocide. Indeed, the definition of “genocide ideology” violates international law on genocide and “hate speech” in multiple ways. Furthermore, the system of penalties also breaches international human rights law, particularly with respect to children. We contend that law is so fundamentally inimical to international human rights law and humanitarian values that it is fatally flawed. We also consider that the Genocide Ideology Law is counterproductive to its apparent objectives. Its current application suggests that it presents a catalyst for, rather than a barrier against, future human rights atrocities in Rwanda. In our view, therefore, Rwanda’s state organs should simply repeal the law in its entirety, refrain from adopting a similar law in the future and fully implement Rwanda’s actual obligations under international human rights treaties, in particular the ICCPR, but also the Genocide Convention and the CRC].

I. Introduction

1. In this Comment, ARTICLE 19 sets out its concerns about the Law No. 18/2008, the Law Relating to the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology (hereinafter the “Genocide Ideology Law” or “Law”) that was adopted on 23 July 2008 by the Rwandan Parliament.

2. ARTICLE 19’s Comment of the Genocide Ideology Law is informed by international human rights law, in particular the right to freedom of expression as encompassed by Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter “ICCPR”), a core international human rights treaty to which Rwanda acceded on 16 April 1975. It is recalled that Article 19 of the ICCPR states:

1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

3. Article 20 of the ICCPR then states:

1) Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2) Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

4. As a result of ratifying the ICCPR, Rwanda is not only bound as a matter of international law by the provisions of the ICCPR, but is obliged to give effect to that treaty through national legislation. ARTICLE 19 also notes that Rwanda has ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on 15 July 1983 which also guarantees freedom of expression.

5. Although ARTICLE 19 relies on international human rights provisions on the right to freedom of expression in particular, this Comment is based on a comprehensive and coherent understanding of international human rights law as contained in other provisions of the ICCPR, including its provisions on equality, as well as those contained in other key international human rights instruments, notably the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 (hereinafter the “Genocide Convention”) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 (hereinafter the “CRC”). Furthermore, ARTICLE 19 relies on relevant jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on the crime of genocide. In addition to such international human rights authorities, ARTICLE 19 also relies in particular on The Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality (hereinafter the “Camden Principles”), a progressive interpretation of international law and standards prepared by ARTICLE 19 in consultation with high-level inter-governmental officials, civil society representatives and academic experts.

6. ARTICLE 19 is alarmed by the Genocide Ideology Law principally because the central concept of “genocide ideology” is extraordinarily broad and would catch a whole range of forms of expressions concerning genocide. Indeed, the definition of “genocide ideology” violates international law on genocide and “hate speech” in multiple ways. Furthermore, the system of penalties also breaches international human rights law, particularly with respect to children. We contend that law is so fundamentally inimical to international human rights law and humanitarian values that it is fatally flawed. We also consider that the Genocide Ideology Law is counterproductive to its apparent objectives. Its current application suggests that it presents a catalyst for, rather than a barrier against, future human rights atrocities in Rwanda. In our view, therefore, Rwanda’s state organs should simply repeal the law in its entirety, refrain from adopting a similar law in the future and fully implement Rwanda’s actual obligations under international human rights treaties, in particular the ICCPR, but also the Genocide Convention and the CRC.


II. Analysis of the Genocide Ideology Law

A. The context of the Genocide Ideology Law

7. At the outset of this Comment, ARTICLE 19 acknowledges the particular context within which this law emerged. That context obviously encompasses the historical legacy of the Rwandan genocide in the early months of 1994 in which over eight hundred thousand people, overwhelmingly Tutsis, were systemically and viciously killed, but also the role that certain media played in creating the conditions that gave rise to the genocide. That role was especially acknowledged in the landmark case of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on the use of hate propaganda to provoke the Rwandan genocide, that of Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Boso Barayagwiza and Hassan Ngeze, three media executives who were found guilty of genocide, as well as conspiracy and incitement to commit genocide, and the crimes of persecution and extermination. ARTICLE 19 notes that the Trial Chamber emphasised that “freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination are not incompatible principles of law” and in doing so reflected the fundamental premises of The Camden Principles. (The judgment of the Appeals Chamber is discussed further below.)

8. Yet to properly understand the context of the Genocide Ideology Law, it is also important to understand the significance of the so-called “campaign against genocide ideology” that has recently been launched in Rwanda. Reports of authoritative media and human rights non-governmental organisations indicate that the legacy of genocide is being manipulated by the Rwandan government to suppress political dissent and opposition in a range of ways, but most significantly through the cases involving the crime of genocide ideology. According to available information, about 1,300 such cases were initiated in the Rwandan courts in the 2007-2008 judicial year, even before it was defined by the Genocide Ideology Law itself. Rwandan authorities have used prosecution, or the threat of prosecution under the law to trample opposition, including calls for justice for war crimes committed by the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). A range of Rwandan and foreign individuals and media organisations have been caught as actual or potential violators of the Genocide Ideology Law. Most notoriously the BBC’s local language radio service was suspended in the country following the station’s feature of its weekly of a programme that was to include a debate on forgiveness among Rwandans after the genocide. Moreover, teachers and pupils at schools have been directly warned by prominent political figures that children “found guilty of harbouring the genocide ideology [can] be denied admission in any school in the country … [and] also be prosecuted in the courts of law when he or she turns the prescribed age”. Such reliance on the Genocide Ideology Law in itself has had a chilling effect on the spectrum of expression, from political to juvenile speech – but comes at a time of a more broader crackdown on media organisations who are targeted with suspension for such activities as comparing the current government to that which was in power in the run-up to the genocide in 1994, and on individual journalists being imprisoned without any legitimate cause. The situation of media in Rwanda was taken up within the recent Concluding Observations on Rwanda, the UN Human Rights Committee, which stated:

While taking note of the State party’s explanations with regard to the role of the press in the 1994 events, the Committee notes with concern reports that journalists who have criticized the Government are currently subjected to intimidation or to acts of aggression by authorities of the State party and that some have been charged with “divisionism”. International press agencies are reported to be under threat of losing their licences by employing certain journalists (art. 19 of the Covenant).

The State party should guarantee freedom of expression for the press and the media, as well as for all citizens. It should make sure that any restriction on the exercise of their activities is compatible with the provisions of article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant and cease to punish so-called acts of “divisionism”. The State party should also undertake investigations into the above-mentioned acts of intimidation or aggression and punish their perpetrators.

9. The Human Rights Committee also more generally “expressed its concern about the instability of the current situation in regard to the reconciliation within Rwandan society”, notwithstanding the ongoing period of “reconstruction”. . The lack of political rights and freedoms has undoubtedly hindered the fight against poverty, including the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, and stunted economic growth. More seriously and with specific regard to the Genocide Ideology Law, although it is apparently directed at preventing genocide in Rwanda, the current climate of silencing and fear generated around the law only makes such a massive human rights violation more likely.

B. Legal Basis and Purpose

10. ARTICLE 19 notes that the Genocide Ideology finds its legal basis in a number of provisions of the Rwandan Constitution, including Article 9 which commits the state to the promotion and enforcement of “fighting the ideology of genocide and all its manifestations”, whilst not defining the scope of that term. The Preamble also refers the law establishing the gacaca jurisdictions, the community-based courts which were created in 2001 to provide a speedy and informal way to resolve a backlog of cases involving many thousands of alleged genocidaires. ARTICLE 19 notes these gacaca jurisdictions as well as the convention courts, which together comprise a single judicial system, have come under increasing criticism recently from human rights organisations and also the UN Human Rights Committee for lacking independence and fair trial guarantees.

11. Article 1 states that the purpose of the Genocide Ideology Law is to both prevent and punish the crime of genocide ideology. The purposes of the law are further revealed through the assertion in the final preambular paragraph which makes a causal connection between the existence of the law and the elimination of any future threat of genocide. It states that “it is necessary to prevent and punish genocide ideology in order not for genocide to be committed again in the country”. Whilst this is presented as an underlying premise for the law, ARTICLE 19 submits that it is questionable as to whether such a belief actually exists or whether it is simply an excuse to explain why prosecutions under the law have been pursued with such vigour. Moreover, we also question whether the claim – that a law on genocide ideology must be adopted to ensure that there will never again be a genocide – can be really substantiated. We believe that if such really were the best method of prevention, surely the international community would have agreed to include a requirement on states to adopt such a law within the Genocide Convention itself. Consider also the vast majority of states which neither have legislation resembling the Genocide Ideology Law nor have suffered genocide as suffered by Rwanda in 1994. Whilst it is difficult to claim that the adoption of any legislation can serve as an absolute guarantee against genocide, it may be argued with considerable support that it is the adoption and implementation of human rights guarantees, including protections of freedom of expression, by a state are the best protection against genocide.

C. The definition of “genocide ideology”

12. The central provisions of the Genocide Ideology Law are Articles 2 and 3 that define the concept of “genocide ideology” and set out the characteristics of the crime respectively. Genocide ideology is considered to encompass the following: “an aggregate of thoughts characterized by conduct, speeches, documents and other acts aiming at exterminating or inciting others to exterminate people basing on ethnic group, origin, nationality, region, color, physical appearance, sex, language, religion or political opinion, committed in normal periods or during war”. The characteristics of genocide include “any behaviour aimed at deshumanizing [sic] a person or a group of persons with the same characteristics” by (1) “threatening, intimidating, degrading through diffamatory [sic] speeches, documents or actions which aim at propounding wickedness or inciting hatred”; (2) “marginalising, laughing at one’s misfortune, defaming, mocking, boasting, despising, degrading createing [sic] confusion aiming at negating the genocide which occurred, stiring [sic] up ill feelings, taking revenge, altering testimony or evidence for the genocide which occurred”; (3) “killing, planning to kill or attempting to kill someone for purposes of furthering genocide ideology”.

13. Overall a very broad, imprecise and even confusing array of activities and expressions is covered by the notion of genocide ideology. Article 3 encompasses terms which are wide open for abusive interpretation – such as “marginalising”, “laughing”, “mocking”, “boasting”, and “creating confusion aiming at negating the genocide which occurred” and “stirring up ill feelings” – or which very obviously have no place in any law – such as “propounding wickedness”. Also certain behaviour covered by Article 3 of the Genocide Ideology Law, most obviously killing, should be covered by ordinary criminal law anyway notwithstanding the added dimension of genocide ideology.

14. ARTICLE 19 has a number of more specific comments about these provisions – first through the lens of the Genocide Convention and second through that of the ICCPR.


i. The relevance of the Genocide Convention

15. The fact that the Genocide Ideology Law seeks to combat genocide ideology rather than genocide suggests that this law suffers from any connection with international law on the crime of genocide. Whilst the law’s target of “genocide ideology” is not found in the Genocide Convention or any international human rights instruments, genocidal acts covered by the Genocide Convention – such as the assistance or facilitation of genocide, awareness of any planned or actual genocide – are absent from the law. Articles 2 and 3 of the Genocide Ideology Law however mirror Articles II and III of the Genocide Convention in terms of setting out the definition and types of acts covered, though are far broader than the narrowly tailored prescriptions contained in the latter which state:

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

16. From this perspective, if the law is intended to target any genocide related form of expression, it should be directed at the “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” which Rwanda is required to prevent and punish as a state party to the Genocide Convention. ARTICLE 19 notes that the key provisions of the Genocide Convention are reproduced in the relevant context of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide through Articles 2(2) and (3) of the State of the International Criminal Court for Rwanda. The interpretations given to these provisions by the International Criminal Court for Rwanda are especially pertinent for they allow a probing into the reach of the Genocide Ideology Law.

17. In the leading judgment on issue of incitement to commit genocide, the Appeals Chamber in Nahimana considered that a person may be found guilty of the crime of direct and public incitement to genocide if he or she directly and publicly incited the commission of genocide and had the intent directly and publicly to incite others to commit genocide. It emphasised:

… there is a difference between hate speech in general (or inciting discrimination or violence) and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Direct incitement to commit genocide assumes that the speech is a direct appeal to commit an act referred to in Article 2(2) of the Statute; it has to be more than a mere vague or indirect suggestion. In most cases, direct and public incitement to commit genocide can be preceded or accompanied by hate speech, but only direct and public incitement to commit genocide is prohibited under Article 2(3)(c) of the Statute. This conclusion is corroborated by the travaux préparatoires to the Genocide Convention.

18. In this way, the Appeals Chamber decision in Nahimana judgment supports the contention that the scope of Article III(c) of the Genocide Convention does not apply to hate speech that does not directly call for the commission of genocide. At the same time, in upholding the view of the Trials Chamber, the Appeals Chamber held that the specific context is a factor to consider in deciding whether discourse constitutes direct incitement to commit genocide. It found that the appellate court also indicated that crime is an inchoate offence, punishable even if no act of genocide has actually resulted from it. Finally, the Appeals Court found that acts of direct and public incitement to commit genocide must be clearly identified. None of these standards on the direct and public incitement of genocide are met by Article 3 of the Genocide Ideology Law. The law’s definition of genocide ideology therefore cannot find any legal basis in international law on the crime of genocide, but in fact contravenes that law.


ii. The relevance of the ICCPR

19. Even if the Genocide Ideology Law is intended to catch a broader range of expressions than direct and public incitement to commit genocide, it should still meet the thresholds contained within Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR. It is recalled that Article 20 imposes an obligation on states to prohibit only the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. In terms of the meaning of this in practice, Principle 12 of The Camden Principles offers helpful guidance on the interpretation of Article 20. It states:

12.1. All States should adopt legislation prohibiting any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (hate speech). National legal systems should make it clear, either explicitly or through authoritative interpretation, that:

i. The terms ‘hatred’ and ‘hostility’ refer to intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards the target group.
ii. The term ‘advocacy’ is to be understood as requiring an intention to promote hatred publicly towards the target group.
iii. The term ‘incitement’ refers to statements about national, racial or religious groups which create an imminent risk of discrimination, hostility or violence against persons belonging to those groups.
iv. The promotion, by different communities, of a positive sense of group identity does not constitute hate speech.

12.2. States should prohibit the condoning or denying of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, but only where such statements constitute hate speech as defined by Principle 12.1.

12.3. States should not prohibit criticism directed at, or debate about, particular ideas, beliefs or ideologies, or religions or religious institutions, unless such expression constitutes hate speech as defined by Principle 12.1.

12.4. States should ensure that persons who have suffered actual damages as a result of hate speech as defined by Principle 12.1 have a right to an effective remedy, including a civil remedy for damages.

12.5. States should review their legal framework to ensure that any hate speech regulations conform to the above.

20. The Genocide Ideology Law clearly fails to meet the standards in Article 20 of the ICCPR and Principle 12 of The Camden Principles: Article 3 does not spell out the requirement for an intention to promote hatred publicly or an imminent risk of discrimination, hostility or violence. Also, the criminalisation of “confusion aiming at negating the genocide which occurred, stirring up ill feelings, taking revenge, altering testimony or evidence …” is clearly at odds with Principle 12.2 of The Camden Principles.

21. Finally, given that any law on hate speech is direct interference with the right to freedom of expression, it must also meet the conditions of the three part test contained in Article 19(3). The Genocide Ideology Law, however, fails to meet these standards for restrictions on freedom of expression that are reflected in Principle 11 of The Camden Principles which reads:

11.1. States should not impose any restrictions on freedom of expression that are not in accordance with the standards set out in Principle 2.2 and, in particular, restrictions should be provided by law, serve to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security or public order, or public health or morals, and be necessary in a democratic society to protect these interests. This implies, among other things, that restrictions:

i. Are clearly and narrowly defined and respond to a pressing social need.

ii. Are the least intrusive measure available, in the sense that there is no other measure which would be effective and yet less restrictive of freedom of expression.

iii. Are not overbroad, in the sense that they do not restrict speech in a wide or untargeted way, or go beyond the scope of harmful speech and rule out legitimate speech.

iv. Are proportionate in the sense that the benefit to the protected interest outweighs the harm to freedom of expression, including in respect to the sanctions they authorise.

11.2. States should review their legal framework to ensure that any restrictions on freedom of expression.

22. In summary, the Genocide Ideology Law’s central concept of “genocide ideology” violates international human rights law and standards, particularly those contained in Article III of the Genocide Convention and Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR, in a multiple ways. ARTICLE 19 therefore considers that the law is fatally flawed from the perspective of international human rights law. Nevertheless we continue to consider the remainder of the provisions to highlight its other problematic features.

D. Penalties

i. General penalties

23. As indicated earlier, the Genocide Ideology Law provides for very severe penalties for individuals convicted of genocide ideology. Pursuant to Article 4, anyone convicted of the genocide ideology as defined by Articles 2 and 3, shall be sentenced to an imprisonment of 10 to 25 years and a fine of 200,000 to 1,000,000 Rwandan francs (approximately €245 to €1,230). In the case of recidivism, that penalty is doubled. Article 5 requires that anyone found guilty of genocide ideology who was also convicted of genocide shall also be sentenced to life imprisonment. Under Article 6, current or former leaders in public or private administrative organs, political organisations or non-governmental organisations, or religious leaders convicted of the crime of genocide ideology shall be sentenced to harsher sentences than ordinary people, 15-25 years and a fine of 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 Rwandan francs (approximately €2,460 to €6,145). Under Article 8, those who are convicted of disseminating genocide ideology in public through documents, speeches, pictures and other media shall be sentenced to 20-25 years imprisonment and a fine of 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 Rwandan francs (approximately €2,460 to €6,145). The level of fines is extremely high for the vast majority of individuals to pay in Rwanda, a country whose GDP per capita estimated at only €687 or US$1,000 for 2008.

24. Article 11 also provides anyone who kills another, conspires or who attempts to kill basing on the ideology of genocide shall be sentenced to a life imprisonment. For this crime there are no mitigating circumstances. This is extremely harsh for a “crime” that is so poorly defined and itself illegal under international law.

25. ARTICLE 19 is seriously concerned about the severity of these penalties because they are likely to have the effect of silencing individuals in relation to forms of expression which fall within the scope of “genocide ideology”. It should be noted that in cases involving any form of expression, the imposition of a penalty – whatever the character of that sanction – engages the right to freedom of expression. This restricts the type of penalties or sanctions that may be imposed, their amount in the case of fines or length in the case of custodial sentences. Under international law, it is well established that an excessive sanction, even for otherwise legitimate restrictions, represent a breach of the right to freedom of expression. The European Court on Human Rights, for example, has noted that excessive sanctions exert an unacceptable chilling effect on freedom of expression. In view of this, ARTICLE 19 considers that the system of penalties is not in compliance with international standards concerning the protection of the right to freedom of expression.

26. Under Article 13, anyone found guilty of making false accusations of genocide ideology is liable to punishment under the Penal Code. Presumably this provision had been added to allay concerns that the law would be abusively applied. Yet, the provision has not prevented the high number of cases on genocide ideology, as noted earlier.

ii. Associations and organisations

27. The law also imposes harsh penalties for associations and organisations, which nevertheless should be and are liable under international criminal law for acts of genocide. Article 7 provides that any association, political organisation or non-profit making organisation convicted of the ideology of genocide shall be punished through its dissolution or a fine of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 Rwandan francs (approximately €6,145 to €12,290) without prejudice to individual liability of any participant in the commission of the crime. Many such associations and organisations, including non-governmental organisations in Rwanda, would be bankrupted if they were levied such a fine for overstepping the low threshold for “genocide ideology”.

28. ARTICLE 19 considers that the system of penalties as it applies to associations and organisations, as the system of penalties in relation to individuals, is not in compliance with international standards concerning the protection of the right to freedom of expression.


iii. Children

29. The Genocide Ideology Law contains several provisions that relate to children found guilty of genocide ideology and their parents, guardians and teachers. Article 9 provides that a child found guilty of genocide ideology shall be taken to a rehabilitation centre for up to 12 months, if he or she is under 12. If he or she is between 12 and 18 years, he or she shall receive half the sentences referred to in Article 4 of the law. Part or whole of the sentence may be served in the rehabilitation centre. The follow-up procedures for children sent to such rehabilitation centres would be governed by a government minister for the centres.

30. ARTICLE 19 is deeply considered about these provisions which impose harsh sentences on children upon conviction for genocide ideology. It is especially troublesome that Article 9 suggests criminal responsibility can be attributed to someone below the age of 12. Also, those between 12 and 18 only have the possibility of serving their sentence at a rehabilitation centre; they may go to an adult prison for a conviction under the law. Although the provisions take some account of the age of children, under the CRC all those under the age of 18 are entitled to be treated within the criminal justice system in a manner that due account of their age. This entails, among other things: the right to be detained separately from adults, except where this is not in the child’s best interests; the right to privacy at all stages of the criminal proceedings; and the right to be detained or sentenced to imprisonment as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate time. The regime of penalties vis-à-vis children, therefore, depends on a proper functioning system of juvenile justice system, including special laws, procedures and institutions for determining the criminal liability of children. Furthermore, children have to basic guarantees against arbitrary detention and procedural protections ensuring fair trial. This is especially important as special juvenile justice laws, procedures and practices can result in reduced protection as compared to adult criminal justice.

31. Beyond these concerns, ARTICLE 19 also emphasises the especially harmful impact that the Genocide Ideology Law has had and will continue to have upon classroom discussions and debates on historical events and personal experiences in Rwanda and beyond – and the right of every child to express themselves freely about them. In this regard, the Genocide Ideology Law contravenes the child’s right to freedom of expression as contained in Article 13 of the CRC, but also the child’s right to education as contained in Article 28 and 29 of the CRC.

32. Article 11 concerns penalties awarded to parents and to other guardians of children found guilty of genocide ideology. The provision states that “[i]n case it is evident that the parent of the child referred to in Article 9 of this Law, the guardian, the tutor, the teacher or the school headmaster of the child participated in inoculating the genocide ideology”, these individuals shall be sentenced to 15 to 20 years imprisonment. Furthermore, a teacher or a director referred in the preceding paragraph cannot be reintegrated into his teaching career.

33. This provision raises a number of concerns, besides the excessive sentences for parents, guardians and teachers of children found guilty of genocide ideology. First, the words “in case it is evident” suggest a very low standard for determining whether such an individual has “inoculated” a child with genocide ideology, which would not meet the standard of proof in criminal trials (such as “beyond reasonable doubt”) or even civil cases (such as “on a balance of probabilities”). Second, this provision criminalises parents, guardians and teachers for actions including encouraging children to think for themselves in the exercise of their freedom of thought, arguably one of the features of a “good education”. In doing so, it goes against Article 14(2) of the CRC which states:

States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents, and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.


III. Recommendations

• The Rwandan Legislature should immediately repeal the Genocide Ideology Law in its entirety.
• To facilitate the ongoing process of reconstruction following the 1994 genocide, the Rwandan government should implement fully its international human rights obligations, under the ICCPR, the Genocide Convention and the CRC.

• The Rwandan government should protect and promote the right to freedom of expression as defined in international human rights law and The Camden Principles.

IV. Text of Law Relating to the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology

LAW N°18/2008 OF 23/07/2008
RELATING TO THE PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IDEOLOGY

We, KAGAME Paul,
President of the Republic;

THE PARLIAMENT HAS ADOPTED AND WE SANCTION, PROMULGATE THE FOLLOWING LAW AND ORDER IT BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA.

THE PARLIAMENT:

The Chamber of Deputies, in its session of May 20, 2008;

The Senate, in its session of April 25, 2008;

Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 4 June 2003 as amended to date, especially in its articles 9, 62, 66, 67, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 108, 118, 152 and 201;

Pursuant to Organic Law n° 16/2004 of 19/6/2004 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca Courts charged with prosecuting and trying perpetrators of the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity, committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994 as modified and complemented to date, especially in Article 14;

Pursuant to the Law n° 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes;

Pursuant to Decree-Law n° 21/77 of 18/8/1977 instituting the Penal code; Considering the fact that after the genocide of 1994, the crime of genocide ideology is still persisting in the country;

After considering the fact that it is necessary to prevent and punish genocide ideology in order not for genocide to be committed again in the country;

ADOPTS:

CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article One: Purpose of this law

This Law aims at preventing and punishing the crime of genocide ideology.

Article 2: Definition of “genocide ideology”

The genocide ideology is an aggregate of thoughts characterized by conduct, speeches, documents and other acts aiming at exterminating or inciting others to exterminate people basing on ethnic group, origin, nationality, region, color, physical appearance, sex, language, religion or political opinion, committed in normal periods or during war.

Article 3: Characteristics of the crime of genocide ideology

The crime of genocide ideology is characterized in any behaviour manifested by facts aimed at deshumanizing a person or a group of persons with the same characteristics in the following manner:

1° threatening, intimidating, degrading through diffamatory speeches, documents or actions which aim at propounding wickedness or inciting hatred;

2° marginalising, laughing at one’s misfortune, defaming, mocking, boasting, despising, degrading createing confusion aiming at negating the genocide which occurred, stiring up ill feelings, taking revenge, altering testimony or evidence for the genocide which occurred;

3° killing, planning to kill or attempting to kill someone for purposes of furthering genocide ideology.

CHAPTER II: PENALTIES

Article 4: Sentencing the crime of genocide ideology

Any person convicted of the crime of genocide ideology as mentioned in Articles 2 and 3 of this Law shall be sentenced to an imprisonment of ten (10) years to twenty five (25) years and a fine of two hundred thousand (200.000) to one million (1.000. 000) Rwandan francs

In case of recidivism, the penalty provided for in the preceding paragraph shall be doubled.

Article 5: Penalty awarded to a genocide ideology convict found guilty of the crime of genocide

Any person found guilty of the ideology of genocide who was convicted of the crime of genocide, shall be sentenced to life imprisonment.

Article 6: Penalties awarded to current and former leaders

In case the perpetrator of the crime of genocide ideology is a leader in public administrative organs, political organisation, private administrative organs, or a non governmental organs, a religious leader, or a former leader in such organs, he/she shall be sentenced to an imprisonment of fifteen (15) years to twenty five (25) years and a fine of two million (2,000,000) to five million (5,000, 000) Rwandan francs.

Article 7: Penalties awarded to associations, a political organization and non profit making organization

Any association, political organization or non profit making organisation convicted of the crime of the ideology of genocide shall be subject to a punishment of its dissolution in accordance with legal provisions relating to dissolution of associations, political organisations and non profit making associations and a fine of five million (5.000.000) to ten million (10.000.000) Rwandan francs without prejudice to individual liability of any participant in the commission of the crime.

Article 8: Penalties for disseminating genocide ideology

Any person who disseminates genocide ideology in public through documents, speeches, pictures, media or any other means shall be sentenced to an imprisonment from twenty (20) years to twenty-five (25) years and a fine of two million (2. 000. 000) to five million (5.000.000) Rwandan francs

Article 9: Penalties awarded to children guilty of the crime of genocide ideology

In case a child under twelve years (12) of age is found guilty of a crime of genocide ideology, he or she shall be taken to a rehabilitation centre for a period not exceeding twelve (12) months

In case a child who is found guilty of the crime of genocide ideology is between twelve (12) and eighteen (18) years, he or she shall be sentenced to a half of the penalty referred to in Article 4 of this Law, without prejudice to the possibility that a part or whole of the sentence may be served in the rehabilitation centre.

Article 10: Follow up of a child who is in or was in a rehabilitation centre

An Order of the Minister in charge of rehabilitation centres shall determine procedures through which children referred to in Article 9 of this Law are followed up while in rehabilitation centres and during their social reintegration.

Article 11: Penalties awarded to parents and to other guardians of the child

In case it is evident that the parent of the child referred to in Article 9 of this Law, the guardian, the tutor, the teacher or the school headmaster of the child participated in inoculating the genocide ideology, they shall be sentenced to an imprisonment of fifteen (15) years to twenty five (25) years.

A teacher or a director referred to in the preceeding paragraph cannot be reintegrated into his teaching career.

Article 12: Penalty awarded to a murderer, a conspirator or attempted murderer

Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 4 of this Law, any person who kills another, one who conspires or who attempts to kill basing on the ideology of genocide shall be sentenced to a life imprisonment. There shall be no mitigating circumstance regarding this crime.

Article 13: Penalties against false accusers

Any person found guilty of false accusations of the crime of genocide ideology referred to in Article 4 of this Law shall be liable to the punishment provided for by the penal Code.

Article 14: Damages

Damages awarded to victims of the crime of the ideology of genocide shall be determined in accordance with provisions of civil procedure.

CHAPTER III: FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 15: Abrogating provisions

All prior legal provisions contrary to this Law are hereby repealed.

Article 16: Commencement

This Law shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda.

Kigali, on 23/07/2008

The President of the Republic
KAGAME Paul
(sé)

The Prime Minister
MAKUZA Bernard
(sé)

Seen and sealed with the Seal of the Republic:

The Minister of Justice/Attorney
General
KARUGARAMA Tharcisse
(sé)

FURTHER INFORMATION:
• For more information please contact: Dr Sejal Parmar, Senior Legal Officer, sejal@article19.org, +44 20 7324 2500

• ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech.

Copyrights ©ARTICLE 19, September 2009.
Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Road,
London EC1R 3GA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7324 2500. Fax: +44 20 7490 0566.
info@article19.org; http://www.article19.org/

Related materials:
The Power of Horror in Rwanda

Response to The New Times Article on Rwandan Genocide