April 6th, 1994. I do not recall much of what happened on that day. Personally, I was probably running around the school yard and worrying about fractions. There was no way I could have known that on the other side of the world, events were being set in motion that would be felt to this very day.
The next two months would see massive amounts of blood shed in the African nation of Rwanda. The number of deaths ranged anywhere from 500,000 to more than a million. It can still boggle my mind.
As I already stated, we are still feeling the effects of what is indisputably a genocide. On October 6th, Indelphonse Nizeyimana was arrested by Ugandan and Interpol officials. Nizeyimana is being charged in connection with the genocide, including the death of Queen Rosalie Gicanda. In a quote from Interpol's executive director of police services, Jean-Michel Louboutin, determination is the name of the game;
"It shows that even if fugitives go on the run for years, the international law enforcement community will keep on searching for them until they are located and arrested, no matter how long it takes," 1
Nizeyimana is just the most recent in a list of fugitives who are being apprehended by law enforcement officials. Gregoire Ndahimana was captured in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in August. As of September 22nd, he had been successfully transferred to Anusha, Tanzania. Anusha is the site of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and it is here that Ndahimana will be tried for his connection to the genocide. 2
Canada's first convicted war criminal was detained and charged for his involvement in the Rwandan Genocide. Desiré Munyaneza has been sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole. 3 This is remarkable in its violation of Article 6 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 6 states;
“Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.” 4
This means that the trial is supposed to take place in the country where the crime occurred (in this case, Rwanda) or by an international tribunal whose mandate is to prosecute those accused of the crime. However, as the Crime of Genocide is taken to be a part of international law, any nation who has ratified the UN convention is well within their rights to try and convict anyone breaking that law. This may be turn out to be a preferable option.
It has recently been proposed that a regional court be established amongst Eastern African nations to specifically preside over cases involving human rights abuses. As the Anusha-based ICTR's mandate is set to expire in 2012, there is worry that many detainees and fugitives yet to be captured will ever have to face justice. In an article on the East African website, it is stated that the ICTR has only tried 40 cases so far. 5 With some suspects still on the run, and a backlog of cases still to fall before the ICTR this is a legitimate concern. Perhaps of more concern is this startling statistic; Rwanda itself has tried over 300,000 cases. 6
One must ask the question as to the legitimacy of those tried and convicted within Rwanda. There must certainly be pressure on to see many perpetrators answer for their crimes. Are these just kangaroo courts established to give the mere illusion of justice being served? When you are going through 300,000 cases relating to the Genocide, surely a fair and accurate trial can not be conducted. If the tribunal whose single purpose is to try war criminals can only go through 40 cases in the intervening years, what is so different in Rwanda itself?
Perhaps the answer lies in the creation of a regional court. Another part of the answer is to follow the path that Canada has taken. Allow third-party nations to prosecute war criminals who were arrested within their borders. When such a thing as a genocide occurs, it is in the best interest of humanity to see that justice is served in the best manner as possible.
This is the Watchdog, watching the news for you!
References
1 (Tuesday, October 6th, 2009). CBC News. Rwandan genocide suspect caught in Uganda. Retrieved Monday, October 12th, 2009, from http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/06/rwanda-genocide-intelligence-chief-arrested-uganda.html.
2 Alan Boswell. (September 22nd, 2009). Voice of America News. In Tribunal Receives Rwandan Genocide Suspect from DRC. Retrieved October 12th, 2009, from http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-22-voa27.cfm.
3 Les Perreaux. (September 16th, 2009). Rwandan war criminal faces life sentence in Canada. In Globe and Mail. Retrieved October 12th, 2009, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rwandan-war-criminal-faces-life-sentence-in-canada/article1289326/.
4 (August 16th, 1994). Human Rights Web. In Convention on Genocide. Retrieved October 12th, 2009, from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html.
5 Fred Oluoch. (October 12th, 2009). Bid to let EA Court of Justice try genocide and human rights suspects. In East African. Retrieved October 12th, 2009, from http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/-/2558/670854/-/item/0/-/hnoklcz/-/index.html.
6 Ibid
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You raise some interesting concerns regarding the international jurisdiction to try such matters.
ReplyDeleteThe approach of prosecuting the perpetrators of genocide based on enforcment jurisdiction has certainly become the new trend these days. There have been a number of decisions both at the ICJ and in domestic courts indicating that once a fugitive enters the jurisdiction of another state they are subject to their judicial processes regardless of the manner by which they entered, subject to certain restrictions regarding soverign state immunity for official acts. Being that Genocide is considered a crime against humanity, that seems to grant Canada and any other nation that is comprised of humans the authority abd perhaps the duty to prosecute the perpatrators. The question then becomes to what extent s.6 of the convention applies when a duly convened tribunal is simply unable or doesn't wish to prosecute?
I had the chance to speak with the head prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda recently, and he indicated quite emphatically that his role was to go after thd 10's. Essentially the big fish... He made no qualms about the fact that this was a time consuming task, and that if other countries were willing to prosecute some of the smaller fish that was perfectly understandable.
So it would seem that perhaps Canada breached an oblgiation under the convetion by prosecuting Munyaneza, but as seems to be the case, a breach only matters when somebody actually cares to call it such. I think in this case that appropriate solution is if a nation happens to detain a suspect suspected of genoicde they should submit that suspect to the ICC, and if they indicate they do not wish to prosecute, then it is reasonable to begin domestic prosecution.