Two genocide suspects will not be extradited to Rwanda after a court in The Hague, Netherlands, last week ruled against sending them to face justice back home on the assumption that a fair trial cannot be guaranteed in the country.

But Ibuka president Jean Pierre Dusingizemungu said the decision was based on sentiments drawn from an earlier "unfounded report” made by Martin Witteveen that he published on June 3.

Witteveen is currently an appeals prosecutor specialising in international crimes and human trafficking at the Public Prosecution Service Netherlands.

Dusingizemungu said: "We believe that some of these foreigners fear that they will lose jobs once the Genocide suspects are extradited to Rwanda to be tried by the Rwandan justice system.”

He said Tanzania-based International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and Western countries, including Canada, have referred related trials to Rwanda based on their confidence in Rwanda’s judicial system but other European states continue to refuse extradition because of hidden agendas.

"There are also political reasons behind. Countries that were friends with those who planned and masterminded the Genocide are still supporting them (the genodidaires). Eventually, these (countries shielding Genocide suspects) should as well be held responsible,” Dusingizemungu said.

Media reports in the Netherlands say the judge of the court in The Hague decided that two genocide suspects – who now have Dutch nationality – could not be extradited to Rwanda because legal support in Rwanda couldn't be assured sufficiently.

Jean Claude Iyamuremye of Kicukiro and Jean Baptiste Mugimba, former Secretary General of the CDR party on a national level were indicted for Genocide. Mugimba is alleged to have committed Genocide in Nyakabanda, Kigali whereas Iyamuremye is alleged to have participated in Genocide around ETO Kicukiro.

Earlier in 2014, the Supreme Court in the Netherlands had reportedly ruled that there was no objection to their extradition.

But Witteveen’s report later prompted a reassessment.

In the report, while alleging that the suspects could not expect a fair trial in Rwanda, he ironically also praised the very same legal system.

Witteveen wrote that Rwanda had a well-functioning judicial system that was able to investigate genocide cases and treat and evaluate them according to international standards.

However, among his concerns, he queried the status and quality of the lawyers who defended Genocide suspects, stating that attorneys in Rwanda were incapable of conducting a proper defence in complex Genocide cases.

Like Ibuka, Prosecutor-General Richard Muhumuza also believes the extraditions were halted simply because of Witteveen’s report.

"We disagree with his assessment on two counts: he was not involved in the trials to know all attorneys’ capacities, and he made sweeping generalisations of defence attorneys’ abilities,” Muhumuza said.

"He was not cross-examined in the Dutch proceedings in order to elicit from him the basis of his summations. I believe the veracity of his report was not properly tested before the decision was made. It is my office’s hope that this decision will be appealed.”

Meanwhile, Minister of Justice Johnston Busingye told The New Times that the Dutch court put too much trust in a report that does not completely reflect the reality about Rwanda today.

"I think the court relied on a report that might not, alone, reflect the actual situation regarding the capacity of lawyers in Rwanda. There are over 1,200 of them. I am aware the ICTR examined it (Witteveen’s report) a while ago. It would be of interest to see the judges’ opinion on it,” Busingye said.

editorial@newtimes.co.rw