What legacy is the ICTR leaving behind?

Bongani Majola, the Registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), while in Kigali this week said that the ICTR had no role in facilitating an interview mid this year of Genocide convict, Jean Kambanda, with a major British broadcaster. Under the Tribunal’s watch, ITV News, a British television network, got an exclusive interview with Kambanda from a prison in Bamako, Mali. The convict cunningly used the interview to negate, deny and trivialize the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, a Genocide he particularly orchestrated. But in an attempt to defend the tribunal, Majola said: “I am aware it has vexed many people. But from the ICTR’s point of view, we had no jurisdiction whatsoever on manners and conditions that was granted. Since 1 July, 2012, the court had no party in the enforcement of the sentences.” “However, it is the ICTR that negotiated the agreement for the enforcement of the sentence imposed on Kambanda with the enforcing state, and terms of agreement did not make any provision for any right of the convicted person on access for media.” In December, the ICTR plans to host a series of events including a formal closing ceremony at its headquarters in Arusha, Tanzania. Its main closing ceremony is expected to feature remarks from high-level officials to honor “the many victims of the genocide” and mark the completion of the ICTR’s mandate. But as the Tribunal finally shuts its doors, scars will be left, unhealed. As guests sip on pricey wines and feast, in this multicultural city of northern Tanzania, many within and outside Rwanda will shed tears because of sadness, rage, or pain. For survivors of the Genocide, one of the unrelieved causes of anguish is the unanswered question as regards how, and why, Kambanda got the interview. Standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners accord Genocide convicts some rights. But these rules also prohibit such prisoners from accessing media platforms to influence the public negatively. According to the National Commission for the Fight against Genocide (CNLG), a 1999 agreement between Mali and the UN does not allow ICTR Genocide convicts to access a media platform to deny the crimes for which they were convicted and imprisoned. The agreement forbids convicts from spreading the same hateful propaganda used during the preparation and execution of the Genocide. In the infamous interview put on air on July 21, Kambanda does not only backtrack on his guilty plea claiming he was manipulated by the prosecution. He also has the nerve to say, to the annoyance of many, that he is innocent. The man who, during the Genocide, was captured in an infamous footage, armed in military fatigue, while inciting the public to kill, claimed that he was tricked by prosecutors into confessing. What the world needs to know, though, is that even after Kambanda pleaded guilty, the Chamber, actually verified the validity of the guilty plea. The Chamber asked him, among other questions, if his guilty plea was entered voluntarily, or if he did so freely and knowingly, without pressure, threats, or promises; and he confirmed entering a guilty plea of his own accord. Back then, Kambanda confirmed that he clearly understood the charges against him, along with the consequences. He was also aware that his guilty plea could not be refuted by any line of defense. In September 1998, the convict was given a life sentence soon after pleading guilty to six counts – genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, complicity in genocide, and crimes against humanity – contained in his indictment. The Tribunal established that as Prime Minister of the interim government from April 8 to July 17, 1994 he exercised “de jure” and “de facto” authority and control over the members of his government, senior civil servants, senior officers in the military, and local government officials. He did not only fail in his duty, as Prime Minister, to ensure the security of all Rwandans. Apart from supporting Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLMC) which lauded the massacres and extermination of the Tutsi and moderate Hutu, Kambanda distributed weapons and, incited people to commit massacres. Facts of The Prosecutor vs Jean Kambanda case, which are online, include that Kambanda acknowledges that he participated in meetings of the Council of Ministers, cabinet meetings and meetings of prefets where the course of massacres were actively followed, but no action was taken to stop them. He acknowledges that, on or about June 21, 1994, in his capacity as Prime Minister, he gave clear support to RTLM, with the knowledge that it was a radio station whose broadcasts incited killing, the commission of serious bodily or mental harm to, and persecution of Tutsi and moderate Hutu. On this occasion, speaking on this radio station, as Prime Minister, he encouraged the RTLM to continue to incite the massacres of the Tutsi civilian population, specifically stating that the radio station was “an indispensable weapon in the fight against the enemy.” Among others, Kambanda acknowledges that on May 3, 1994, he was personally asked to take steps to protect children who had survived the massacre at a hospital and he did not respond. On the same day, after the meeting, the children were killed. He acknowledged that he failed in his duty to ensure the safety of the children and the population of Rwanda. Dr. Jean-Damascène Bizimana, the Executive Secretary of CNLG previously noted that questions posed by ITV journalist John Ray were predetermined for the world’s first head of government to plead guilty to the crime of genocide to assert his revisionist agenda and undermine the current Rwandan government. This observation is not doubtful, if you have watched the interview, but that is a story for another day. What is more, if, perhaps, Malian authorities were to blame for granting ITV permission to interview Kambanda, the story still does not end there. Why? All sentences of imprisonment are served under the supervision of the Tribunal. Questions also abound as to how, or why, the Tribunal did not call enforcing States, including Mali, to impose restrictions on media access to genocide convicts. The ITV incident was not the first. In 2004, the Tribunal looked away when a BBC journalist was given access to Genocide convicts, again in Mali, to air hateful ideologies. That survivors are saddened, angered, or pained by the ICTR’s inadequacies, and these are many, does not imply that the former are unmindful of the fact that the Tribunal did some good work. No. Survivors especially appreciate that the Tribunal’s activities proved to the entire world that a Genocide was committed in Rwanda. Also noteworthy is the fact that its activities proved that during that Genocide, rape was actually used as a weapon of war and Genocide. But, on closer examination, it is clear that the negatives outweigh the positives. And there is no cause for celebration. But genocide masterminds in UN detention facilities getting access to international media so that they openly propagate Genocide ideology, is no light matter.