Editor,I’ve closely followed the case of four Rwandan Genocide suspects who stay in the United Kingdom from way back, but from the look of things, a lot has been done between Rwanda and the UK to ensure that these men face justice.But on several occasions I have seen sections of the media attempting to jeopardise the two countries’ mutual efforts of having the suspects either transferred to Rwanda or tried in the UK. For instance, the BBC dug outdated information of 2009 – just three months to an anticipated extradition – designed to thwart the process. What does that mean? It means that either the defence of the suspects used BBC to peddle lies (BBC has always been used and abused on matters Rwandan) or initiated the story itself to malice the Rwandan judiciary.In my honesty view, the UK should transfer these suspects to Rwanda to be tried where they allegedly committed the crimes from. The US, Norway, Canada and the ICTR have all made transfers to Kigali; why can’t the UK do the same?It is also important to recall that these suspects have families back in Rwanda who would freely visit them from prisons in case of convictions.Jean-Claude Rutebuka, GermanyReaction to the story, "Govt refutes UK Genocide case claims” (The New Times, December 16)