Reaction on Dr Kambanda’s Genocide Statement
Inyenyerinews readers have continously bombarded the news room with emails texts, twitter and whattsapp messages, demanding for answers on how Dr Kambanda was allowed to publish such a statement on our onlinenews. Dear readers bare in mind that inyenyerinews is open for all ideas and debates, that focus mainly on the region and our beloved nation in particular, you are all welcome to exchange views. Today one of the individuals who requested to stay anonymous decided to express his views, a bit different from Dr Kambanda’s ideas though. Scroll down and follow the writting which clearly enlights the understanding of intellectuals alone.
Dear Readers,
After reading Dr Kambanda’s post regarding his judgment on what
happened in Rwanda in 1994, and why he believes that it should not be
called a genocide, I decided to respond and show that his conclusion
is not supported in law. When I started to read Dr Kambanda’s post , I
expected a sound legal analysis and argument supporting his
submission. Unfortunately, most of the statements he made are either
false (number 7) or legally irrelevant ( 1,2,3 and 6). Moreover, Dr
Kambanda’s statements at point 4 and 5 are hardly justifiable under
the Genocide Convention. Here is how:
1. False Statement:
Dr Kambanda states that at the time of massacres, the then Rwandan
government troops were disarmed by the UN forces. This is false. The
UN withdrew the majority of its troops at the hight of the massacres.
There is no instance where the UN forces disarmed the FAR neither
before the death of president Habyarimana nor after. The FAR resisted
the APR forces for at least three months before retreating into the
Democratic Republic of the Congo with most of their weapons. I
challenge Dr Kambanda to cite the sources. In fact, he is the first
person to mention this, even among those who do not believe in the
genocide against the tutsi.
2. Irrelevant statements
Dr Kambanda talks about tutsi, hutu and twa who killed each other,
tutsi who killed tutsi, tutsi who were members of the interahamwe. I
refer him to the basic legal instrument about genocide, i.e the
Genocide convention. The convention defines genocide from the
perspective of the victim: As long as the victim is a member of a
protected group (ethnic, religion, racial or national group), and the
author of any one of the acts enumerated in article 2 of the Genocide
convention acted with the intent to destroy in whole or in part that
group; elements of the crime of genocide have been established. There
is an established jurisprudence by the United Nationas International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and other tribunals to the effect
that, in 1994, tutsi were killed, as members of an ethnic group, with
the intent to destroy in whole or in part the said ethnic group. That
some perpetrators of the criminal acts belong to the protected class
has no bearing. What would Dr Kambanda say of individuals who have
been found guilty of genocide even when the court found that same
individuals have saved some other members of the tutsi ethnic group?
This has been raised in several cases before the ICTR but the court
found it to be irrelevant, or non dispositive to the culpability.
3. the issue of planning
I agree with Dr Kambanda that genocide, in practice, supposes a plan.
However, in law, there is no such requirement. This is why the ICTR
has found several individuals guilty of genocide, but acquitted them
of the charge of conspiracy to commit genocide. More so, Dr Kambanda
knows well that insufficient evidence does not mean absence of
evidence. In many cases brought before the ICTR, the prosecutor could
not establish beyond reasonable doubt that defendants conspired to
commit genocide. But again, the court decides on specific cases, i.e
specific individual defendants. Finally, the fact that the prosecutor
did not have enough evidence may be a result of several factors, such
as lack of insider’s testimonies which is very helpful to establish
charges of conspiracy in domestic criminal cases.
So the readers deserve a health, truthful and honest debate.
Dear friends of Inyenyerinews, keep my name anonymous please.
I would like to make also a short comment about the \\\”Reaction on Dr Kambanda\\\’s Genocide Statement\\\” published on your website on 19/05/2014.
I am not specialist in any law as such. I am a simple Rwandan Citezen who is thinking about how Rwanda can recover from genocide and massacres we have known in our history. My interest is not in determining if in Rwanda we have had genocide or not. Only facts talk to us once we are Rwandans. I do not have pleasure of confirming if in Rwanda there was genocide or not, I am only terrified by the lost of a such life of our brothers and sisters.
Tell me Dear, does a young hutu or tutsi who has lost the entire members of his/her family think about genocide/massacre or only just death, killings? What do these vacabularies of genocide/massacre add or change to his/her situation? What he/she sees is the fact of being alone! And for him/her his/her situation is the fruit of human hatred and violence (from hutu or tutsi). What is the difference between a surviver of the killings of hutu (members of interahamwe-RAF) or the tutsi (members of Inkotanyi-RPF)? Do you think the word \\\’genocide\\\’ is enough to make the difference? I need to learn more about this, please.
In your first point, you suggest that the RAF have never been desarmed. But there was an ambargo of ammunitions and weapons against them. Can we call that desarmement?
In your second point, you argue that in law there is not need to proof the plannification of genocide in order to determine the perpetrators. But, you say also that genocide is determined by the intention of its perpetrators. That is to say that the law against genocide is contradicting itself; because to have a plan and to intend to are equal. Am I correct?
These are the questions I would like to ask you. May be this can help us as Rwandans to understand each other. Hopefully.
If we accept the argument made in the reactions one thing stands out. The writer states: More so, Dr Kambanda
knows well that insufficient evidence does not mean absence of
evidence. In many cases brought before the ICTR, the prosecutor could
not establish beyond reasonable doubt that defendants conspired to
commit genocide. But again, the court decides on specific cases, i.e
specific individual defendants. Finally, the fact that the prosecutor
did not have enough evidence may be a result of several factors, such
as lack of insider’s testimonies which is very helpful to establish
charges of conspiracy in domestic criminal cases.\”
Why has no RPF member or Paul Kagame been tried since there is plenty of evidence available to the tribunal for their crimes? We have insider testimony, testimony of the survivors, etc. The ICTR was not formed just to judge Genocide, it was also to prosecute crimes against humanity. Until those who we know are culpable for the same crimes of murder, rape and torture are brought to book, reconciliation will not be possible. The next step is to quit blaming all Hutu collectively, lastly, get the criminal Mafia that is the RPF, and their boss out of power.
It is hard to give a name of what happened in Rwanda. Is it a genocide against Tutsi, or a genocide against Hutu, or both, I can\’t say it depends, but I would just say, it was a genocide. In my opinion the killing of Tutsi was not planned on paper, it was planned in people\’s mind (defacto). Since 1959 Tusi became like enemies of the country, not officially but each time there was a problem, there were Tutsi to blame. Those who persecuted Tutsi were most of the time rewarded. In 1990, it was almost considered a heroic action to persecute Tutsi. For those who were inside Rwanda know how highly were regarded bourgmestres who had many Tutsi killed in their commune! Since people were already prepared in their mind, really it did not need a written (or meeting) planning to kill Tutsi.
By 1994, it was clear to everyone that if anything happens to Habyarimana, many Tutsi were going to be killed. RPF was aware of that, all Tutsi and Hutu inside were aware of that. In my opinion, the killing of Tutsi was clearly a genocide against Tutsi. It may have been planned on paper/meeting by the one who shoot the plane, but it was committed by Hutu.
How about the killing of Hutu, was is it a genocide or not! If killing of a group with intent to eliminate part or entire group if called genocide, therefore the killing of Hutu in Rwanda is as well a genocide. From the time RPF invaded Rwanda, it started killing selectively Hutu who were educated or in business. It was a planned killing, and the reason why I say it was a well planned killing, is because the killer made sure that no witness is left. In most cases they buried their victims immediately after they killed them. They intention was not to eliminate all Hutu, as was intention of Interahamwe, but to eliminate the elite class of Hutu (intellectuals, business people, politician,…), and any witness of their crime. This explains why RPF killed Tutsi, because they opposed to their killing or they showed emotions while they were killing Hutu. RPF planned the genocide of Tutsi and planned and executed the genocide of Hutu.
People can try to find a way to deny both genocide, but at least people who were inside Rwanda, they know what happened. You may be an law expert, history expert, military expert, acoustic expert, but most Rwandan are pain/tragedy experts! We know what happened to us, and we are the answers, we will find our solutions not from different spectrum of experts, for from us, because we are pain experts, widow/er experts/ orphans experts….
Thank you Inyenerinews!