RWANDA TO CRITICS OF ITS JUDICIAL REFORM - "GIVE

C O N F I D E N T I A L KIGALI 000450

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/25/18
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM RW
SUBJECT: RWANDA TO CRITICS OF ITS JUDICIAL REFORM - "GIVE
US A BREAK"

REF: A. KIGALI 369

B. KIGALI 325

C. KIGALI 203

Classified By: Ambassador Michael Arietti for Reason 1.4 (b) (d)


1. (C) Summary: The Rwandan Ministry of Justice, with
financial support from the World Bank and Belgian Technical
Cooperation, hosted a conference June 16-18 on the state of
the Rwandan judicial system since the 2003 implementation of
reforms. During the conference, officials from the
Government of Rwanda (GOR) as well as members of prominent
human rights NGOs including Human Rights Watch (HRW) and
advisors from the U.S. judiciary described important
post-2003 accomplishments of the Rwandan justice sector, as
well as the many challenges that remain. The GOR responded
positively to an HRW presentation on universal jurisdiction
and reaffirmed its general support of the principle, while
invoking opposition to its "abuse." Harsh reactions by some
GOR officials to a presentation by HRW's Alison Des Forges,
including the suggestion that she was a "spokesperson for
genocide ideology," however, demonstrated a continuing
unwillingness by some GOR officials to accept criticism of
its judicial system from sources it does not believe are fair
and balanced. End summary.


2. (SBU) During the June 16-18 "International Conference on
the Impact of Judicial Reforms for the Justice Sector in
Rwanda," several GOR officials including Minister of Justice
Tharcisse Karugarama, Vice Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Sam Rugege, Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga, National Gacaca
Service head Domitilla Mukantaganzwa, and National Unity and
Reconciliation Commission Executive Secretary Fatuma Ndangiza
and other presenters from NGOs and international bodies made
presentations on progress in the justice sector and problems
that remain. Prominent American jurists, who were key
advisors during the restructuring of the Rwandan judiciary
and the rewriting of the Rwandan judicial code, including
Judges Paul Magnison and Vicki Miles-LaGrange, played
important roles during the conference. Among the positive
accomplishments cited were the restructuring of the court
system to increase its efficiency and speed, a substantial
reduction in the case backlog, the recent establishment of
commercial courts, and introduction of several pieces of
commercial legislation to improve the business environment
and increase investor confidence in Rwanda. Rwandan
commentators also claimed success in adapting the
"traditional" Rwandan system of village-level adjudication of
disputes for the "gacaca" trials of genocide suspects. As
previously reported (ref C),the Gacaca Service had rendered
judgment in 1,509,298 or 94 percent of a total of 1,127,706
cases by the end of the year. and is making preparations to
hear cases previously left to the classic court system.
(Note: A Gacaca Service officer told us during the conference
that only "two percent" of gacaca cases now remained to be
tried by gacaca courts). The release of tens of thousand of
genocide prisoners in 2007, and their participation in
community service ("TIG") activities has relieved prison
overcrowding and accomplished important public works, such as
"radical" terracing of steep hillside farmland.
Reconciliation and reintegration of those convicted has also
been furthered, said several commentators.


3. (SBU) Other panelists outlined several challenges still
facing the Rwandan judicial sector. One speaker pointed to a
lack of a formal coordinating structure for legal reform.
Another described the case backlog, though much reduced since
the introduction of reforms, as a continuing strain on the
court system. According to another official, funding
constraints made the training of judges and prosecutors in
the classical court system difficult and the provision of
legal aid, guaranteed in the constitution, a practical
impossibility. Continuing harassment of and violence against
genocide survivors and gacaca witnesses were further examples
of obstacles the GOR judicial system needed to overcome.


4. (SBU) An HRW researcher based in London presented the
commonly accepted legal basis for universal jurisdiction, the
prosecution of crimes not connected to the prosecuting state,
calling it a "complement to sovereignty" and a "last resort
for victims." She pointed out that the GOR benefited from
the principle through prosecution of genocidaires by several
nations that had no connection to the 1994 genocide. She also
acknowledged that controversies had arisen from its

application in a number of cases over the years. Regarding
GOR dissatisfaction with French and Spanish indictments of
senior Rwandan officials (ref A),she explained that the
principle did not apply in the former case (the officials
were indicted for the deaths of French citizens),and was
combined with Spanish domestic law in the latter (as some
allegations in the sweeping Spanish indictments concerned the
death of Spanish citizens). She also noted that
international bodies such as the International Criminal Court
practiced a variety of universal jurisdiction unattached to
any national courts.


5. (SBU) African Rights head Rakiyah Omar further discussed
universal jurisdiction and called for more African nations to
integrate the principle into their legislative frameworks.
Minister of Justice Karugarama reaffirmed GOR support for the
principle, but noted that problems arose in its "imperfect
application" and condemned its abuse and use for "political
ends." Expressing frustration over the "judicial stalemate"
caused by the indictments, he labeled them "trash," and said
the indicted Rwandans were "victims whose rights are
curtailed" by the practical travel restrictions they faced.
Karugarama called for a regulatory mechanism to prevent abuse
of universal jurisdiction and to provide a body for review
and appeal of cases, a sentiment codified in the final
recommendations of the conference.


6. (SBU) Long-time HRW researcher Alison Des Forges presented
an analysis of the state of the Rwandan judicial system,
beginning her discussion with an acknowledgment of the
specific difficulties posed to it by the 1994 genocide and
the gains it had achieved since that time, including the
abolition of the death penalty and the establishment of a
right to counsel. In her more critical comments, Des Forges
focused on legislation, judicial independence, and equal
access to justice in Rwanda. She cited vague terminology in
a draft law on "genocide ideology" as problematic for
prosecutors and judges trying such cases, calling the draft
law "ripe for misinterpretation and possible abuse." (Note:
Among the evidence of genocide ideology cited in the draft
law are "wicked speech, defaming, mocking, speaking ill of
someone, causing confusion, and stirring up ill feelings."
End note.) Des Forges said revision to legislation was "not
a transparent process" in Rwanda, and that laws drafted by
more experienced jurists were often amended by less
experienced legislators, compounding legislative
difficulties. She reiterated HRW's goal of supporting equal
access to justice for all, emphasizing the need to provide
protections to people accused of genocide in the gacaca
courts, to witnesses, and to victims of revenge killings by
the Rwandan Patriotic Army in the days following the
genocide, as well as to survivors. Human Rights Watch also
circulated at the conference a study it had done, which was
even more critical of the Rwandan judicial process. This
study, which relied heavily on anecdotal information and
comments from unnamed sources, was seen by the GOR as another
example of unbalanced criticism by Human Rights Watch which
regularly cites problems but does not acknowledge GOR efforts
to correct these problems.


7. (SBU) Des Forges' remarks and the circulation of the HRW
report drew harsh criticism from GOR officials in attendance,
the most vocal of whom was Minister of Justice Karugarama,
who said HRW presented a false image of Rwanda to the world,
one that was "bad, bad, bad" and which consisted of "wild,
unresearched condemnation." He said HRW conclusions were
based on poor sources and were at times "professionally
dishonest." He cautioned HRW to avoid "being perceived as
negationist, and a spokesman for genocide ideology" and said
that, by not helping the GOR, HRW was "making itself an
opponent." He concluded his remarks by asking HRW to "give
us a break. Give us a chance to build on our core values,
develop our system, heal our wounds." In response, Des
Forges highlighted the long-term interest and presence of HRW
in Rwanda and her own extensive experience. She argued that
HRW was not a "public relations arm of the GOR," and said
HRW's primary obligation was not to promote a positive image
of Rwanda, but "to list human rights abuses accurately and
honestly; not to be sympathetic to governments, but to
people."


8. (C) Comment: While the conference rightly highlighted
Rwandan achievements in the judicial sector, and GOR and
other participants gave clear-eyed accounts of the many

remaining challenges to progress, the harsh reaction to
Allison Des Forges' remarks also showed the continued
unwillingness of some GOR officials to hear polite but
pointed criticisms of key GOR objectives from sources it does
not respect. HRW, in particular, has become a lightening rod
for GOR resentment of what it sees as unfair and unbalanced
criticism of the current situation in Rwanda. Although the
GOR permits HRW to maintain an office in Kigali, the GOR does
not see it as a partner and has not sought its help in
implementing reforms. The GOR does need assistance in many
areas, for example, in legislative drafting. The last
genocide ideology law, for one, has been on a swift
legislative trajectory compared to most pending legislation,
it has been not publicly debated, and consultation on its
provisions within Rwandan society, or with the international
community, has been minimal at best. End comment.


ARIETTI