1. The lack of depth of the report and the anxiety of the commission of finishing the report in a record time of less than two weeks leaves one to think that the term of reference was to whitewash the Kigali Government, whose image and credibility had been seriously undermined by the KIBEHO massacres;

and to create a right atmosphere before the donor's conference for the funding of the international tribunal to judge hutu suspected of having committed the crime of genocide.

By hastening to plead against the maintenance of economic sanctions against the Kigali Government and playing down its responsibility in the massacres, the commission clearly showed that its mission was political rather than judicial.

2. The commission deliberately avoided to go into one of the crucial facts of the enquiry, namely establishing the numbers of the people killed, which had been a serious point of contention between Kigali Government and UNAMIR as well as humanitarian agencies.

Could one conclude that it was a deliberate move by the commission no to shock the international opinion by giving the right number of people killed and to give enough time for the evidence to disappear and eyewitnesses, among others military officials of the Australian and Zambian contingents who were at the scene of the massacres to go away. Indeed, the latter had pointed out that they had decided to stop counting when they had reached the figure of 4050 dead.

3. Putting the responsibility of the KIBEHO massacres on the shoulders of a few individuals of RPA is part of a well established policy to avoid against all odds, tarnishing the image of RPF, eroded by its bad record with regard to the respect of human rights.

In fact, on the second day after the Army had carried out the massacres, the Minister of Defence and Vice-President, Major General Paul KAGAME, defended the action of his army and even ordered the operation to continue under the same command structure and he never retracted his statement.

Furthermore, no national Army, worthy of the name, can fire into unarmed civilians, using heavy artillery without a prior clearance from higher authority.

It is surprising that the commission does not establish how the orders passed through the chain of command in order to pinpoint the culprit and leaves it to the accused namely the Rwandan Government to identify and punish him. The commission has indeed tried to defend the government more than its officials who up to now justify their action.

4. In light of the non repentance of the Kigali Government, ( refusal to workers to evacuate the wounded, maintaining of a blockade to deny food and water to the refugees, forcing the starving and wounded people to walk kilometers, refusing ICRC officials to reach the area of disaster ), to ask the same government to carry out an investigation against members of its own Army is going back to square one.

Indeed, after the results of the commission had come out, the Director of ORINFOR, office of information, Major RUTAYISIRE, while congratulating himself on the report, maintained that the Army acted in self-defence. Hence, is it not strange to ask a regime that clearly maintains that its army is innocent to punish members of the same army?

5. Consistent and converging reports from various eyewitnesses point out that firing into the crowd started on 19^th April 1995. On the fateful day of April 22, 1995, the firing started in the morning till evening. If it was an isolated military action, the government would have intervened before the victims of the carnage had reached such catastrophic proportions. Furthermore, the government could not stop the carnage on the return journey. Not only were refugees attacked, beaten up or stoned on the way but were also butchered on arrival in their villages. Press reports mentioned among other incidents, those that took place in the communes of MUGANZA, RUSATIRA, HUYE, NYABISINDU and elsewhere.

6. Since RPF took power in July 1994, the blame of all cares of violations of human rights is always put on isolated elements of the RPA, which is yet considered as a very disciplined force. However, when, last year, misguided elements of the National Army and militia were implicated in inter ethnic massacres, not only the whole cabinet of KAMBANDA and the army were held responsible for the massacres, but worse still, all hutu were considered killers before even any verdict was passed. Is this not a clear case of double standards?

7. Another serious omission of the commission is having failed to point out that dismantling camps and forcing people out against their will was in itself a violation of human rights. Condemning aid agencies of not having done enough to make people go out before they were killed by RPA betrays a deep seated justification of methods used by the Kigali Government namely denying refugees of food and medical care.

If " isolated elements " ( ie. a group of more than two thousand men who had surrounded KIBEHO camp ) can have the courage to shoot at people under the nose and beard of UNAMIR, pressmen and humanitarian agencies, were those refugees not justified to fear going to their villages, away from any witness? Was it not legitimate on their part to refuse going back without any guarantee for their safety, a right that should be guaranteed to a refugee anywhere in the world? What would the Commission have said if, during the regime of the late President HABYARIMANA, tutsi who had taken refugee in KIZIGURO Parish, Murambi commune or in the parliamentary buildings in Kigali had been forced out by firearms?

In short, instead of doing justice, the commission has put a serious doubt on the impartiality of the international community in the rwandan crisis. Such an attitude can only exacerbate passions and render national reconciliation more difficult.

8. The RPF has so much benefited from its policy of lying that it has institutionalised it. This behaviour is reinforced by the fact that the aggression, assassination, tortures and massacres imposed on the Rwandese population since October 01, 1990 has not only led the RPF to a military victory but also to other unforeseen disturbing results.

The international community has come to consider the aggressed as aggressor and the aggressor as the aggressed; the main killers who in fact launched the war in October 1990 are today considered as victims of a genocide.

Just to illustrate how the RPF has developed in a refined manner the art of lying, I invite you to look at the following examples:

- Between April and August 1994, the Rwandese Patriotic Army organised people meetings in conquered zones of Kibungo, Byumba, Bicumbi (Kigali), Butare and Gitarama pretending that the agenda was to provide them with food, blankets and basic commodities .What really happened is that the RPA packed the population in halls ( classrooms, health centres,...) or in huge ditches to physically eliminate them with grenades mainly. Later on, the corpses were incinerated with gasoline. But, the RPF attributed those deaths of innocent civilians to massacres by INTERAHAMWE and this was for international public consumption. Luckily, eyewitnesses to these horrendous events exist!

- Reliable information from various sources indicate that Dr Pierre Claver RWANGABO, Prefect of Butare was killed by RPA soldiers when he was coming back to Butare from a meeting in Kigali. He was killed because he was a HUTU who dared say the truth to the RPF by inviting them to stop genocide which unfortunately is still under way. But the RPF tells foreigners that inquiries are under way and that probably the Prefect might have been killed by armed rwandese elements coming from Zaire.

- On May 19, 1995, Radio Rwanda, RPF,s mouthpiece, insinuated by way of a naked lie that UNAMIR was collaborating with Rwandese exiles.

Radio rwanda declared that a young boy by the name of NGABO BIZIMUNGU, presumably had been arrested in MUKAMIRA and the UNAMIR was trying to take him to Zaire. This is a pure lie given that the former Rwanda Health Minister lives in exile with his wife and all his children. This statement can be biologically verified.

RPF must cease looking for sensational stories in order to keep the sympathy ( which is quickly waning ) of their allies and friends in the international community.