This month, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda celebrated 20 years after its creation by the UN Security Council. Over the years, there have been mixed feelings among Rwandans in different circles over the work of the tribunal, that has so far consumed a staggering $2 billion on the trials it has so far conducted. The New Times’ Felly Kimenyi interviewed Prosecutor General Richard Muhumuza for an insight into the work of the Tanzania-based court. Excerpts:

A few days ago you attended, in Arusha, Tanzania, a session that discussed the legacy of the ICTR 20 years after it was established. What is your assessment of the tribunal?

The Tribunal succeeded in many ways, but also fell short in a number of areas. First, there was no room for victim participation in the trials. Victims could only participate as witnesses. Secondly, there were no reparations for victims, an essential part of providing justice.

Thirdly, the survivors and Rwandans in general did not "see justice done” because the ICTR was based in another country. Lastly, considering the resources at ICTR’s disposal, I believe many more suspects could have been tried.

You stated in your keynote address that the tribunal’s proximity to Rwandans, especially the survivors was an issue. What difference would it have made had it been on Rwandan soil?

I have no doubt that had the Tribunal been located in Rwanda, victims, perpetrators and Rwandans, in general, would have been able to see the masterminds of the Genocide against Tutsi on trial and this would have contributed toward reconciliation and served as a deterrent to anyone who may still harbour genocide ideology .

As the tribunal closes, issues have been raised over reparations to Genocide survivors. Is this something you have discussed with the UN? And do you think there should have been such?

I believe this is an issue Rwanda has been passionately advocating for in the recent past and still does. For true justice to exist, there must be compensation as well as punishment.

Heinous crimes leave survivors with no family support and they must, therefore, be provided with reparations to help rebuild their lives. However, I am cognisant of the fact that the ICTR Statute, unlike the one for the International Criminal Court, did not have this provision and it was, therefore, impossible to provide reparations to the survivors.

This lesson has, therefore, been learnt and will benefit future generations.

Key suspects, especially former senior government officials, have been acquitted by the tribunal over the years. What do you have to say about this? Do you think justice was satisfactorily dispensed?

It is true that some suspects we believe were key perpetrators of the Genocide were freed by the ICTR Appeals Chamber. But while we can criticise and disagree with the decisions, we must respect the decisions of the court.

For the victims and survivors, there will always be the concern that the persons they believe committed serious crimes against them are free and, therefore, whether justice was done will always depend on the individual concerned.

We would have preferred a different outcome, but we do respect the court’s decision.

What is the progress on the cases that were transferred by the ICTR to Rwanda? Some say that the trail had run cold, given that the indictments were drawn probably over a decade ago and with no indication to where these fugitives could be. How optimistic are you that you will catch these people that the tribunal failed to apprehend?

First, ICTR transferred a total of 55 cases to us. Some of the suspects have been located in different countries and extradition processes are ongoing and are at different stages.

With regard to the nine high profile suspects still at large, six of whom are scheduled to be tried in Rwanda upon arrest, Rwanda is engaged in different strategies to ensure that they are apprehended.

We are pursuing very good leads to where some of them may be located. As I have often stated, there is no time limit on justice for the crimes of which they are sought. They will be apprehended and put on trial.

During the ICTR anniversary event, different speakers lauded the Rwandan judicial system. However, when it got to completion strategy, the tribunal chose not to hand the so-called Big Fish (Kabuga et al) among the files they sent to your office. Is it that you were found deficient of capacity to ably conduct these trials?

There are nine so-called big fish still at large, of these, ICTR has chosen to keep three files and hand over six files to us. ICTR’s Statute categorically states that it has primacy over national courts.

However, ICTR’s work has always been complimentary to ours because we have always been prosecuting the same genocide (crimes) with the same key perpetrators.

In this regard, as the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunal’s (MICT) mandate is not indefinite, should it come to an end before the three suspects are apprehended, there is no doubt the decision to try them at MICT will be revisited and they would then be tried in Rwanda.

The tribunal’s registry has been accused of double standards in the way they follow up on cases referred to national jurisdictions; the two suspects referred to Rwanda and the duo referred to France. Scrutiny has been put on those transferred to Rwanda, with little attention to the cases referred to France...

We have always emphasised that Rwanda is held to a much higher standard than other countries. In 2007, the ICTR transferred two suspects, namely Winceslas Munyensyhaka and Laurent Bucyibaruta, to France.

Seven years later, none of these men has been put on trial in France where they both live. On the other hand, the ICTR transferred two cases, namely, Jean Uwinkindi and Bernard Munyagishari in 2012 and 2013, respectively, to Rwanda.

Both men are currently on trial before the International Crimes Chamber of Rwanda’s High Court. The ICTR always has the option of deferral, recalling cases transferred to national jurisdictions.

This option has never been used in the case of France. We are, however, still hopeful that France will do the right thing by putting the two transferred cases on trial or by extraditing them to Rwanda.

What is your opinion about the contentious issue of who should take custody of the archives the tribunal has accumulated over its 20 years of operation?

As I informed the participants at the ICTR Legacy Symposium, the Archives belong to Rwanda. They are part of Rwandan history which we must reclaim. We will not stop claiming them.

We do understand that while the MICT continues its work, the archives must be located with it. However, eventually, these archives must be transferred to Rwanda when MICT’s work winds down.

When, in 1994, the UN Security Council was debating Resolution 955, Rwanda, among other suggestions, sought to have representation at senior staff level (may be judges and prosecutors), at the ICTR, what difference do you think this would have made?

Rwanda’s position was later found credible because hybrid tribunals such as the one in Sierra Leone and Cambodia were created instead of the purely international ones like the ICTR and the ICTY.

Having senior Rwandan staff at the Tribunal would definitely have served to allow Rwandans be part of the process of dispensing justice and contributed to reconciliation efforts.

What is your comment on the issue of the persons acquitted by the tribunal whom the tribunal is stuck with?These persons are Rwandans. Rwanda has never denied them entry to Rwanda. However, they are former UN detainees and the UN has to take the lead in resolving this issue. Rwanda has always offered cooperation whenever requested.

Concerning other Genocide fugitives that your office is tracking, we have seen little effort by many Africans in facilitating the arrest of the people that were cited to be in African countries. Do you share the same opinion? Why the indifference?

It is true that we have sent many indictments to African countries but have not had much success. I should note that Uganda extradited two suspects.

However, the process of extradition is a very tedious and long process. We have more recently renewed our efforts of engaging our African counterparts and are hopeful that facilitation is and will be provided going forward.