Foreign indictments are fraudulent, experts reveal

Three experts summoned by Parliament last Friday to help shed more light on the principal of international jurisdiction revealed gross defects in the indictment issued against senior government officials by French and Spanish judges. The three international legal experts; Dr. Jean- Damascène Bizimana, Umurungi Providence and Prof. Jean- Baptiste Mvano, pointed out a number of procedural and legal shortcomings in both cases. They revealed that no thorough investigations were conducted and the little that was done is defective due to its secrecy and poor quality of witnesses. The judges are said to have relied on hearsay and did not conduct field investigations. It was argued that Bruguiere’s report does not give proof of any field investigation yet procedural regulations require him to do so. The indictment should have taken place during the trian an issue to do with justice, he said. The Pan-African Parliament Thursday also voted to condemn the French and Spanish judges’ actions and urged African Heads of State to denounce what they considered was an attempt at derogating on the well established standards of international justice and self determination of a sovereign state. Accordingly, the Pan-African Parliament is, dismayed by the recent surge in incidences of such fragrant abuse of international law principles as evident in the form of indictments by a French judge – Jean LOUIS BRUGUIERE and much more recently, a Spanish judge – Andreu Fernando Merrelles against some forty civil and military leaders of the republic of Rwanda. Incurable defects Characterization of witnesses is a major defect since these were selected by the two judges only. The experts pointed out that people implicated in the genocide or opposed to the current Rwandan regime were relied on as witnesses. Are they bonafide or trustworthy witnesses? Mvano asked the judge should respect the moral aspect of witnesses. Why did they rely on people who are already implicated in genocide? Also surprising was that, in the French procedural code, investigation details are conducted in secret, yet the judge violated that rule, before his investigation was out, some French and other European media had published the information Mvano remarked. Bruguiere reportedly did not follow procedure since he published and indicted before investigations were completed – a serious breach in legal matters. Furthermore, an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty but here the presumption of innocence was violated. Bruguiere violated Ambassador Nyamwasa’s immunity which the Geneva Convention prohibits, Said Bizimana, referring to Rwanda’s Ambassador to India, Kayumba Nyamwasa, one of those indicted. He went on to show that Merrelles’ errors start right from the beginning of his document where he says RPF planned the genocide. The verdict relating to the planning and implementation of the genocide with the shooting of the plane in which president Habyarimana died was highlighted. Saying that the attack on the plane caused genocide is denying genocide, which is questionable, said the lawyer. This went hand in hand with labelling the RPF as terrorist group. The experts stressed that RPF was an internationally recognized political liberation movement signatory to the Arusha accords. Did governments want an accord between the then government and a terrorist organization? Bizimana asked. He explained that both during and after the war, the RPF agreed to respect international law. It was a movement fighting for political determination. International law recognizes people’s right to nationality, referring to fact that Rwandans had spent more than 30 years in exile. The Spanish judge is accused of confusing collateral deaths in war with murder, crimes against humanity and genocide. Let’s be practical, they say RPA killed foreigners, did these foreigners have special protection unlike many Rwandans? Mvano asked. Justice Minister Karugarama also noted that universal jurisdiction should have been used as a last resort since it was not an only option. It is very rare for judges to use the independence of the judicial authority where they reside and where it is applied, he stated. How can they be given value yet they violate basic international legal procedures even in their own countries? Karugarama wondered. He pointed out that Interpol, a competent international organ, has refused to respect the warrants because it deems them more political in character than judicial. Rwanda accepts the principle of universal jurisdiction because it is a good principle, Karugarama said if it was well applied, everyone would receive it well. He went on to explain that the problems Rwanda was experiencing today were not because the judges mentioned are incompetent, but because there is an unusual abuse in procedure. They are doing it deliberately with the intention of destabilizing this country.Ends

National

Foreign indictments are fraudulent, experts reveal