Detainees                                                                                            Arusha, December 15 2000

 c/o UNDF/ICTR

 P.O.Box 6016

 Arusha - Tanzania

 

 

 Mrs Navanethem Pillay

 President of the ICTR

 in Arusha –Tanzania

 

 Messrs Judges of the ICTR Appeals Chamber of

 The Hague –The Netherlands

 

 Madam and Judges of the ICTR Trial Chamber

 Arusha –Tanzania

 

 

 Subject:  Scandalous revelations by Mrs Carla Del Ponte 

 

 

 Madam the President,

 Madam, Judges,

 

 The Detainees at the UNDF, signatories of the present letter took knowledge of  the revelations made by Madam the Prosecutor during her press  conference held in Arusha on December 13, 2000.  The declarations of  Madam the Prosecutor released by the medias corroborate the concerns  many times expressed and carried to the attention of the highest  authorities of the Tribunal through our complaints and our documents of  analysis denouncing the lack of impartiality, equity and independence  by the Judges.  They explain why defense motions are  systematically rejected in spite of their relevance while those of the  Prosecutor are generally approved in spite of the absence or the  insufficiency of evidence to support them.  It is the same  for the judgements so far rendered by the Chambers. 

 

 By addressing the present letter to you, the undersigned wish to  express to you their disappointment and hope that, this time, it will be  possible for you and for all the Judges of the ICTR to take the  measures required by the seriousness of the situation. 

 

 According to the Hirondelle Agency  dispatch of December 13, 2000, Madam the  Prosecutor of the ICTR held an important press conference at the  ICTR Headquarters in Arusha, after a one week stay in Kigali. During her stay, she lengthily discussed with President Paul Kagame  many questions in connection with the activities of her Office   as from the next year. 

 

 We raise hereafter some of her scandalous declarations which,  according to us, require your reaction in the interest of Justice. 

 

 1.  The ICTR judges compensate for the insufficiencies  of the Accusation   

 

 During this press conference of December 13 2000, Mrs Carla Del Ponte again dealt with her constant concern about the " weakness  " of her collaborators in front of the defense Counsels who are  all excellent lawyers, according to her own terms. 

 Answering to a journalist of the weekly magazine " East African  " which had expressed his astonishment to hear Madam the  Prosecutor complain about her collaborators  whereas they always had won their cases and that all judged  cases led to indictments, Mrs Carla Del Ponte declared without  reserve:  " That  means our judges are very good  judges, because they can correct the errors of the Prosecution  ". 

 By this declaration, Madam the Prosecutor confirmed our observation  expressed many times on the absence  of impartiality in our  trials.  She explicitly confirmed that far from being neutral, our  Judges supplement the Accusation and, if need be, compensate  straightforwardly for her insufficiencies.  Moreover, the confirming judges  who until recently could not sit in the trial proceedings on the merits have been just authorized to do so by the amended Rules.  This confirms the bitter observation that the judges remain indifferent to  the Prosecutor refusal to produce, during the  trial on the merits, the evidence having justified the confirmation of the indictment and the trial.  Lastly, the  amendment of rule 94 of the Rules seems  to exempt the  Prosecutor to provide the evidence of her allegations. 

 

 Other cases illustrate this analysis as well.  We can quote by way of  examples :  the authorization in the course of trial of new charges relating to the rape, convictions without evidence for assassination of non identified individuals, amendments of the  Rules pursuant to the Prosecutor proposal when she has  difficulties  and, more recently, the reopening of the debates authorized by the  Judges in the Bagilishema case on September 7, 2000. 

 

 In this last case, it should be noted that after the obviously weak Prosecutor’s closing speech and the richly  documented defense counsels’ pleading, instead of closing the debates and put the Bagilishema  case immediately on deliberation, the Judges of Chamber I, contrary  to the usage, decided to grant an additional time to the Accusation by obliging her to produce more evidence  in spite of her  resistance shared by the Defense. 

 

 Mrs Adong who represented the Prosecutor at this hearing, expressed  herself as follows :  "  Mister President, this  delay is not caused by the Accusation.  We did not ask for an  additional time to proceed to our answer.  We respect the  instruction which was given by this honourable chamber.  This cannot be blamed on us.  " She  was answering to the protest from defense counsel, Me François Roux, expressed as follows :   "  Mister the President, it had been clearly agreed between the  parties that at the latest at the end of this week, the debates were  closed so that the Chamber could undertake its deliberation.  We note, today,  that the debates will be closed only in several weeks.  The Chamber will  thus undertake its deliberation only in several weeks.  I do not see  why this deliberation would be shortened.  "

 

 2.        The untimely amendments of the Rules  imposed by the Accusation are the cause of the delays recorded in the  starting of the trials on the merits. 

 

 At the time of her press conference, Madam the Prosecutor  declared herself satisfied with the amendments made in the  Rules and recognized that the Judges did everything to facilitate  the task of her Office to the detriment of the Defense.  Madam the  President of the Tribunal confirmed this appreciation in her work  report presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations and to the  Security Council last November.  After having presented an exhaustive  inventory of the motions examined by the three Chambers of the Tribunal  during this year, especially distinguishing those emanating from  the Accusation from those introduced by the Defense, generally qualified as  frivolous, the ICTR President seized this occasion to  reassure the UN authorities of the measures taken against  the Defense  by declaring :  "  The ICTR Rules of procedure and  evidence  was modified at the time of the plenary session held  in February 2000 in order to make it possible to the judges to impose  sanctions to the counsels who, to the opinion of the Chamber, present  motions which are futile or constitute abuse of proceedings.  ".   

 

 It is important to stress that the Prosecutor takes part in the  debates of the plenary sessions whereas the Defense is not represented  there. 

 

 It is significant to note that this same report omits to  mention the amendments made to the Rules at the request of the  Prosecutor to help her regularize irregular detentions (article 40  bis) or make succeed her strategy of joining the accused (article 48 bis). 

 

 The report does not even refer to delays in proceedings caused  by motions introduced by the Prosecutor to obtain  authorization to amend confirmed indictments, in order to  carry out joined trials.  All these attempts having been strongly  disputed by the Defense, article 48 bis of the Rules again has been just  amended last November, in order to help Madam the Prosecutor  who had difficulties in explaining the legal basis of the joined trials.   

 

 Encouraged by all the successes recorded to the detriment of  the Defense, Madam the Prosecutor does not hide any more her certainty of  being able soon to convince the Judges to hold certain hearings of  the Tribunal in Kigali in order to meet the Rwandan  Government demands. 

 It is obvious that in front of the deficiency of the material evidence  to support her allegations, Madam the Prosecutor wants to rely on  the pressure of the street to compensate for it. 

 

 3.  The independence of the ICTR sacrificed to the  demands of the Kigali Government. 

 

 At the time of her press conference of December 13, 2000, Mrs Carla Del Ponte admitted and declared  publicly that the activities of the  ICTR depend on the Government of Kigali.  According to her, it is by  realism that she had discussions with President Paul Kagame on the  activities programmed by its Office of Kigali for the year 2001.  But, it  is not all. Always during this press conference, Carla Del Ponte  acknowledged her incapacity to prosecute recognized criminals,  currently on power in Kigali, without prior agreement of  their leader, namely, General Paul Kagame.  As a result of their recent discussions, Paul Kagame would have promised to her access to the information collected by the Rwandan  authorities in connection with the investigations carried out against certain  RPF soldiers.

 

 Concerning the possible incrimination of the General Kagame, regularly  denounced as the principal assassin of President Habyarimana, Mrs Carla  Del Ponte limited herself to affirm, to the general surprise, that  she " does not work on presumptions ". This  answer is all the more surprising that her Office did not wait to collect as many material evidence to arrest the undersigned,  detained for long years by the Tribunal. 

 

 How can she proceed differently to open a criminal case against Kagame  and his principal accomplices if she refuses to take into account  presumptions as serious as those contained in the declaration of J.P  Mugabe of April 21, 2000, that of Hakizabera Christophe made on  September 9, 1999, that of Steven Edwards published in the National Post  referring to the report made on 1 August 1997 by the investigator Michael Hourigan, or that more  recent of the former member of Parliament and RPF officer, Kagiraneza Deus, dated on December 7, 2000?  Article 6 of the ICTR Statute, in its item 2,  is however very clear : “The official position of any accused person , whether as Head of State or Government; or as a responsible government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment". 

 

 The attitude of Madam the Prosecutor of the ICTR  with respect  to the suspect Paul Kagame is an irrefutable evidence that she prefers to  close the eyes on the crimes committed by RPF in general, on those  of  President Paul Kagame, in particular, to avoid the closing of her Office in Kigali. 

 When one knows with which eagerness, the Prosecutor launched her  international warrant for arrest against President Milosevic, one can  only be astonished by the arguments put forward to justify inaction against Kagame and his accomplices. 

 

 4.  Madam the Prosecutor takes refuge behind Judge Bruguière  to avoid investigation of the assassination of  President Habyarimana

 

 At the time of her press conference, the ICTR Prosecutor, Mrs Carla Del Ponte finally recognized that the assassination  of President Habyarimana is indeed related to the massacres which took  place in Rwanda.  But, she always seeks to avoid her  responsibilities to make an exhaustive investigation into the subject  preferring to rely on French Judge Bruguière who however does not  work on behalf of the Tribunal.  In addition, it is advisable to recall  that her predecessor at the head of the Office of the Prosecutor,  Mrs Louise Arbour, had stopped the investigations in progress on this  assassination in 1997 and had hidden Mr. Hourigan’s report which contained the first elements of evidence implicating the RPF and its  leader Paul Kagame. It remains however obvious that without  clarification on the authors of this assassination, whom are besides identified, by serious witnesses, as being RPF men, it would  be unjust and inequitable to continue to make the opinion  believe that it is Hutu who have planned the tragic events which  shook Rwanda since 1990 until today. 

 

 5.  Madam the Prosecutor acknowledged to have no evidence of the  conspiracy to commit "genocide  "

 

 In the working report presented to the General Assembly of  the United Nations and to the Security Council, Mrs. Pillay, President of  the ICTR declared :  "  According to the Prosecutor’s opinion,  the systematic, generalized and methodical character of the crimes  which were perpetrated on the whole Rwandan territory in  1994 implies that there could have been coordination and thus conspiracy to destroy in whole or in  part the tutsi group as such.  This is  why, the office of the Prosecutor gives by priority to the  investigations an orientation likely to bring the material evidence that  there was conspiracy.  It constituted new teams of investigators  targeting particularly the political, military and administrative  institutions which were in place at the time of the genocide.  Investigators furrow Rwanda, Europe and the African continent in the  search of elements of evidence and information which will make it  possible to arrest  and condemn the architects of the genocide.  " 

 

 The same working report indicates the " the  declarations of witnesses are the cornerstone on which the accusation directly bases  its argumentation ".  There is something to worry about as pursuant to this observation when it is known that the Prosecutor’s witnesses are selected in consultation with the governmental  authorities of Kigali which rely primarily on the association IBUKA,  commonly called trade union of informers.   Selected, involved  and framed well by IBUKA, these witnesses receive in return to pay  their false testimonies very substantial material rewards  financed by the Tribunal    The Prosecutor’s new strategy consisting of using as witnesses in the trials detainees on standby for trials related to "   genocide  " and who are ready to make confessions before  the Rwandan Tribunals, is based on the same philosophy.  To accept to  testify before the ICTR constitutes a major asset to benefit from  the reduction of sentence registered in the Rwandan law relating to the "   genocide  "  and encouraging defendant to plead guilty and to  denounce themselves mutually. 

 

 Under these conditions, how not to put questions about the behavior of  the Judges who guaranteed the arrests made until now and  rendered judgements for "  genocide  " without material evidence nor  debate on this question.  It is clear that the judgements rendered  under these conditions lack legal basis and are considered null and void. 

 

 The Undersigned estimate that the Judges should put an end  to their prolonged detention since the Prosecutor recognized that she  did not gather yet evidence to justify their  arrest and their prosecution by the ICTR. 

 

 They estimate that the declarations of Mrs Carla Del Ponte, at her press conference of December 13 2000, are sufficiently  serious not to leave indifferent the ICTR Judges who are all blamed, the President of the Tribunal in particular.  As for Madam the  Prosecutor of the ICTR who automatically disqualified herself by  inducing the Judges in error knowingly, she should resign or dismissed. 

 

 Should it be otherwise, the Undersigned would have nothing more but  the following alternative :  to support the parody of justice resulting from  the general activity of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda or to  refuse to subject themselves to its jurisdiction.  In any event, the  Undersigned invite their Counsels to handle this question urgently.    

 

 Please accept, Madam the President, the Judges, the assurance of our  very high consideration. 

 

 

 Detainees (see list of the signatories in appendix)

 

 

 Cc :      -  Mister the Secretary-general of UN, New York, 

 - Mister the Registrar of the ICTR, Arusha,

 - Defense Counsels (All),

 - Rwandan Diaspora,

 - Amnesty International, London,

 - Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme, Paris, 

 - Human Rights Watch, New York,

 - Africa Direct, London,

 - Medias.