ICTR concurs with survivors’ appeal

The Prosecution at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has welcomed a joint Ibuka and British NGO Survivors’ Fund (SURF) application to review sentences imposed by the court on two former Rwandan military officers claiming they are “grossly inadequate”.

Thursday, February 16, 2012
IBUKA head, Jean Pierre Dusingizemungu.

The Prosecution at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has welcomed a joint Ibuka and British NGO Survivors’ Fund (SURF) application to review sentences imposed by the court on two former Rwandan military officers claiming they are "grossly inadequate”.The officers are Gen. Augustin Bizimungu, former army chief of staff, and former chief of the gendarmerie Gen. Augustin Ndindiliyimana. Ibuka, is the umbrella organisation of Genocide survivors’ organisation whereas SURF represents and supports survivors of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in the United Kingdom and Rwanda.Bizimungu was sentenced by the trial court to 30 years in jail, while Ndindiliyimana was sentenced to time served and instantly released. Speaking to The New Times yesterday, Dr. Jean Pierre Dusingizemungu, the president of Ibuka, said that they wrote to the ICTR prosecution seeking to appeal the sentences of the former military men because they were not satisfactory owing to the atrocities they committed during the Genocide."Given the nature of the crimes committed, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, and mass killings of the Tutsi, they were supposed to be sentenced to life imprisonment because the former military men had the capacity to stop the Genocide,” he maintained."We were not satisfied by the rulings and ICTR didn’t gather the oral testimony from some of the victims who had first hand information pinning the former army officers for their key roles”.Dusingizemungu stated that survivors welcomed ICTR prosecutor’s stance to consider appealing against the sentences of Bizimungu and Ndindiliyimana.He said that the prosecutors at the Arusha based court agreed that the victims’ collective voice was lacking at both the trial process and the ruling.