More International InJustice Feuling the Insensate Genocide Industry--by Mes Black & Erlinder and the Detainees of Xray, Arusha

More International InJustice Feuling the Insensate Genocide Industry--by Mes Black & Erlinder and the Detainees of Xray, Arusha

[This, another example of how cowardice or idiocy, or both running bow-legged, continue to push the assault by the judicial wing of the war for global domination unto extinction, comes to CM/P from our strong comrades on the ICTR-Arusha Defense team (ADAD), Maitres Chris Black and Peter Erlinder.

We have for some time been very suspicious of the historico-political instrumentalization of Genocide: how it has been used to cover the expansionist manias, the gruesome shopping sprees for primary resources of certain Western financial, commercial and military/industrial and overall criminal interests, and as a sort of back-spin, or black-spin, to blame the ravages of their devastating and very bloody strategies for command, control, occupation, domination and eventual (and inevitable) destruction of targeted peoples, on the very victims themselves.

Genocide is the white noise used to fuzz out foreign aggressions and make them appear as strictly internal civil wars, ancient tribal conflicts, bitter ethnic squabbles or petty national rivalries. This is the primary conceit in the modern geopolitical inversion trope. The most cynical irony of this whole macabre game of quadriplegics' dodge ball is that the 'victimating' of the world's under-powered masses is pulled off by so-called Victims' Courts in the name of an Ed Meesse lucubration, 'Victims' Justice'. --I mean, it says that right on the sign out in front of the Tribs in The Hague and Arusha: These Are UN Victims' Courts--like they proud of that shit!

And the history of Victims' Justice is sordid and fraught with craven duplicity, vicious conniving and good old venal stupidity. One of the mistakes the Defenses made before the Yugoslav and Rwandan Tribunals was to give far too much respect to their opponents. But, I guess they teach that kind of comportment in law school.

I figured Milosevic was taking some bad advice (though most of it was probably his own) when he decided to mount a (self) defense against a non-existent prosecution case. (But, then like so much else in his career, what else could he do?) It was as obvious in 2002 as it is today that they could not prove any of the charges against President Milosevic--why Djindjic traded him off to the ICTY for some magic beans (which later blew his head off), 'cause after some months in Belgrade's Central tank, the compradors couldn't even find an outstanding jaywalking ticket against the president (I've still got a couple those hanging out in CA--so don't tell anyone).

There was certainly no way they were going to prove that Milosevic was in on any Genocide. But one of the early rules of Victims Justice was 'No Evidence, No Problem': if you can't prove the crime took place, just make it out to be too super-bloody to get into in mixed company, and then, when the public is frothing at the butt, just stipulate to it. Badda bing, badda boom. Anyone tries to call you on it, send them to talk to Robert Faurison or David Irving or Roger Garaudy or OJ Simpson, find out just what kinda laws the 'Shoah Business' has generated against Holocaust denial and other kinds of 'hate speech'.

So now, the empty robes on the bench in Tanzania's ad hoc are just cutting right to the money shot. Since the prosecution doesn't have to prove what is already common knowledge, like the sun comes up in the East and Israel has replaced water in Palestine with sulfurous fire: and the prosecution gets to say what's obvious in each case; and everybody knows (though it’s NEVER been proven ANYWHERE) that there was a genocide of 800,000 Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda: ipso facto, post hoctor proct, and yebega, yebeta, everyone charged by the Tribs is guilty of Genocide. This kind of reasoning is quite easy—easier for those who suffer the trans-generational effects of methamphetamine dependency—but it’s dead easy, easy as pissing into the SF bay from the GG bridge—though, be careful, that water can be cold—and deep, too.

Presumption of innocence? Burden of proof? Rigorous rules of evidence? Inadmissibility of hearsay? Impartiality, equality of arms? Man, get on the Love Train! That's sooooooo pre-911—shit's dead, it went out with the Family Dog and Stanley Owsley and the People's Temple.

Yeah, but it still sucks. For my Rwandan friends like General Ndindiliyimana, and George Rutaganda and Dr Leon Mugesera, and all their families and comrades is sucks hard. And it also sucks for all the Yugoslavs who have to watch Naser Oric catch a deuce as 'time served', and for all the heinous shit he got up to, and just roll on out the gate at Scheveningen—three month's after his old boss, the Whitney Houston to his Kevin Costner, left in a body baggie. What really sucks snakes-on-a-mufucking-plane hard is when I start thinking that Jim Jones may have known what Huey Newton knew—they may have known the only place left where people can find real justice: that's right—pass the Kool-Aid. --mc]

*************************************

Dear Friends,

I am forwarding the press release from the ICTR below which is one of the
most shocking statements made by any of the ad hoc war crimes tribunals to
date.

It speaks for itself, however several things must be noted. Despite the
claims of the Prosecutor that this will save them from having to prove a
genocide occurred in each trial, the Prosecutor has, in fact, not tried to
do so in any case yet. There have been cases in which accused have pleaded
guilty and have not debated the issue or cases in which their lawyers have
persuaded their clients not to contest the issue in hope of some favour
from the Tribunal but in not one case yet has any evidence of a genocide
been produced.

Further, the goal if this decision is not to make the prosecution's job
easier, instead it is designed to prevent the defence from presenting the
overwhelming evidence now developed that there were many complex reasons
for the events in Rwanda, but genocide is not one of them. This political
purpose of the decision is stated outright in the press release when the
Tribunal states that this decision by the Appeal Chamber should "silence
the rejectionist camp".

Further, not only is the Appeal Chamber decision wrong on the facts, it is
wrong in law as in no legal jurisdiction in the world is it possible for a
court to take judicial notice of a "fact" which is disputed by one of the
parties in the case. Judicial notice can only be taken of such obvious
facts as the rising and setting of the sun or that the UK is an island.

In reaction to this farcical decision the accused in several of the major
trials have now boycotted the Tribunal and refuse to attend the trials.
They have issued a letter to the Tribunal, Security Council and various
other bodies protesting this gutting of their ability to make full answer
and defence and their ability to present the facts of the war in Rwanda. I
am sending a copy of that letter in a separate message alng with a press
release by the Association of Defence Lawyers at the ICTR (ADAD) which
sets out in more detail the legal and factual situation.

Lastly, it is worth noting that this decision came on the heels of the
demand by the RPF regime, several weeks ago that the Tribunal should not
have to prove there was a genocide and that judicial notice should be
taken of it; Saving the RPF and the ICTR the embarrassment of admitting
that there is no such proof. It also followed closely a meeting between
The President of the Tribunal Judge Mose of Norway and a sitting trial
judge in the Military I case, accompanied by the Prosecutor Hassan Jallow,
with Condaleeza Rice in Washington, in violation of the ICTR statute's
requirement that the Tribunal be independent of any national state.

Never in history have accused had their right to a fair trial so
egregiously violated by stating that they cannot dispute the principal
charge against them. The prisoners at the ICTR now view themsevles in the
hands of the Guantanamo of Africa.

Best

Chris Black





ICTR Appeals Chamber takes Judicial Notice of Genocide in Rwanda


The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on 16
June 2006 ruled that the Trial Chambers must take judicial notice of
the following facts:

(i) The existence of Twa, Tutsi and Hutu as protected groups falling
under the Genocide Convention;
(ii) The following state of affairs existed in Rwanda between 6 April 1994
to 17 July 1994: there were throughout Rwanda widespread or systematic
attacks against a civilian population based on Tutsi ethnic
identification. During the attacks, some Rwandan citizens killed or caused
serious bodily or mental harm to person[s] perceived to be Tutsi. As a
result of the attacks, there were a large number of deaths of persons of
Tutsi ethnic identity;
(iii) Between 6 April 1994 and 17 July 1994 there was genocide in Rwanda
against Tutsi ethnic group.

This land mark decision was delivered by the Appeals Chamber on
Prosecutor's Appeal on Judicial Notice, dated 16 June 2006, in the trial
of Prosecutor v. Karemera, Ngirumpatse and Nzirorera, ICTR-98-44-AR73
(C). The decision will have an immediate impact on the trial proceedings
in the Karemera et al case, and will be felt in all of the current and
pending trials before the Trial Chambers of the ICTR. Judicial notice of
the above matters means that they are to be taken as
established beyond any dispute and not requiring any proof.

This is one of the most significant rulings of the Tribunal, given the
consequences in terms of putting the occurrence of the genocide
beyond legal dispute. It can be recalled that until now the OTP has had to
in each case lead evidence and prove the occurrence of the genocide.
This will no longer be necessary.

In the view of the OTP the ruling should now silence the˜rejectionists"
camp which has been disputing the occurrence of genocide. By relieving
the OTP of a substantial burden of proof the ruling has the potential
to shorten the cases as each will essentially focus on the personal
involvement of the accused person in genocide.



Dear Friends,

Attached are the ADAD press release (English only) and the letter by the
accused to the ICTR and Security Council among others in English and
French.

I don't know if anyone can publish this material or a summary of it but in
any event if you could distribute as widely as possible to inform the
world of the injustice taking place at the ICTR, it would be very much
appreciated as the mass media appear to want to hide this embarrassment. I
asked that my trial be suspended until we could take some action to
reverse this decision or determine whether the accused and I could
continue to take part in a trial which has now completely descended into
farce. The motion was rejected. Several accused are now preparing motions
to have this finding reversed without much hope as it was a purely
political decision. But the Tribunal has now demonstrated in dramatic
fashion its political nature and its use as a tool of war agaisnt the
people of Rwanda and all of Africa.



Best,

Chris Black

Dear Colleagues,

Please forward as appropriate to professional colleagues, organizations,
or press outlets you think might be interested. Sorry, no French transl.
yet for News Release.

best regards,

Peter Erlinder
ADAD President


NEWS RELEASE:
ADAD-ICTR , Arusha TZ

Contact: Prof. Peter Erlinder, ADAD President/
perlinder@wmitchell.edu/0744-251-460 [Eng]
Me. Chris Black, ADAD Counsellor/
bar@idirect.com/ 0744-666-972 [Eng/Fr]

____________________________________________________
Improper ICTR “Appellate Judicial Notice” Decision Makes Current Trials Nearly Meaningless: ICTR “Completion Strategy” Apparently Outweighs Universal, Fundamental Fair-Trial Principles.
____________________________________________

June 26, 2006, ARUSHA TZ. – A June 20 ICTR Press Release quotes the ICTR Prosecutor stating that the “appellate judicial notice” Karemera Decision of June 16, “[puts]…the occurrence of the genocide beyond legal dispute.” If correct, the Appeals Chamber Decision has done grave damage to the integrity of the ICTR as a juridical body.

It appears that the publicly announced ICTR “completion strategy,” rather than sound juridical principles, may now be driving proceedings at the ICTR. As the communique of the Detainees states, “The Appeal Chamber has underlined in red its denial of justice in this Tribunal.”

Evidence in current trials completely contradicts the Decision’s “judicial notice” factual findings:

• No International Armed Conflict? The RPF/RPA invaded Rwanda in 1990 with the support and guidance of the Ugandan military, of which most of the RPF/RPA were former members, which is undisputed by OTP witnesses. OTP witnesses also have confirmed that Burundian troops were also active in Rwanda in 1994.

• Existence a “widespread and systematic….genocide of Tutsi?” Evidence questioning whether “genocidal intent” OR the predicted results of the 4-year RPF war of invasion being the main factor in the Rwanda tragedy is pending before ICTR trial chambers, NOW…these factual issues have never been litigated before and are NOT a settled question, either within the Tribunal or as a matter of historical fact.

With the last 3 months, eye-witness testimony established that the RPF assassinated former Pres. Habyarimana, and resumed its war-to-seize-power knowing that war-related civilian massacres would result and was the major cause of the violence now called “genocide.” UN documentary evidence shows that the winning RPF/RPA triggered the civilian killings and used its troops to seize power, rather than protect civilians …at a time when the RPF was the only military force in Rwanda that could both stop the war, and the killings that the RPF war intentionally triggered.

Procedurally, “appellate judicial notice” precludes defence challenges to major factual issues, and makes certain defenses impossible, in complete contravention universal, Fair Trial principles, such as the presumption of innocence and the right to present a defence, at all. The Decision will also increase Defence problems in locating witnesses willing to testify for the defence, knowing that the ICTR, itself, has labeled such evidence “rejectionist.” Further, a decision with broad implications, taken in proceedings in which all parties are not before the Court is completely contrary to universally recognized juridical fairness principles.

The ADAD Bureau calls for the Appeals Chamber to: permit the parties to seek Reconsideration of the Decision; permit ADAD and other interested parties to appear as Amicus Curiae; permit parties affected by the Decision to intervene as parties; and, to limit this expansive use of “judicial notice” which supplants ongoing trial proceedings. Insofar as the Decision has varying impact in each case, Defence Counsel and the Accused will respond appropriately in each case, including suspending participation in trial proceedings which can no longer serve their proper fact-finding purpose.


Arusha, 25 th June 2006.

The Detainees,
ICTR,
Arusha, TANZANIA.

The Honourable President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Arusha.

The Honourable President of the Appeals Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,
The Hague.

Subject: Response to the decision issued by the Appeals Chamber on 16 th February 2006 and to the ICTR press release dated 20 th June 2006.

Honourable President,

The detainees signatory to this letter are sorry to inform you that they were deeply shocked by the Appeals Chamber decision of 16 th June 2006 in the Karemera et al. (ICTR-98-44-T) vs. Prosecutor trial and by its exploitation by the ICTR in the media. They firmly denounce this manipulation by the Information and Press Services of the ICTR for obvious political purposes. They find unjust and inopportune this decision that does not take into account their right to the presumption of innocence and to just and fair trials.

The signatories to this letter think that when taking judicial notice of “genocide”, constituting a charge against almost all the accused before the ICT, the Appeals Chamber has deliberately opted for the denial of justice. It has trampled underfoot the principle of presumption of innocence sanctioned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it has deliberately violated their right to just and fair trials as guaranteed by the Charter on Civil and Political Rights and by the ICTR statute as well as by all legal systems recognized in the world.

As far as we are concerned, the Appeals Chamber decision is neither more nor less a recognition by your Tribunal that the Prosecutor has failed to prove his thesis of planned genocide which came to constitute a basis for pronouncing systematic heavy sentences against the accused whose trials have ended. It crowns the dilatory strategy of the Prosecutor who will erroneously claim that he has been exempted from providing evidence for the allegations made against those whose trials have been postponed until now because the said Prosecutor was not sure he would prove his case against them. The latter incur a double prejudice because, besides being deprived of getting tried within a reasonable period of time, they are henceforth the object of a treatment different from the one that prevailed upon those accused who have already been tried by the ICTR.

The Appeals Chamber decision instructing Trial Chamber III to take judicial notice of genocide, of the systematic and generalized character of the attacks against Tutsis in Rwanda because of their ethnicity and of the non international character of the war waged against Rwanda by the RPF/NRA coalition with the assistance of certain international powers brings to an end the fruitless investigations undertaken by the Prosecutor since the ICTR was founded. The said investigations were intensified when former ICTR President, Honourable Navanethem Pillay made a commitment in that direction before the Security Council and the UN General Assembly in 2000. She declared then: “According to the Prosecutor, the systematic, generalised and methodical character of the crimes perpetrated all over Rwanda in 1994 implies that there might have been coordination and therefore conspiracy in view of destroying partially or entirely the Tutsi ethnic group as such. That is why the Prosecutor’s Office orientates, as a matter of priority, his investigations towards finding out material evidence that there was indeed conspiracy. He has set up new teams of investigators targeting especially political, military and administrative institutions that existed when genocide was committed. Investigators are busy doing their work in Rwanda, Europe and on the African continent looking for evidence and information leading to the arrest and sentencing of the architects of genocide”.

The Appeal Chamber has come once again to the rescue of the Prosecutor who, contrary to his numerous claims, had failed to come up with evidence to prove his allegations of a planned genocide. The Prosecutor is in the same situation as six years ago when “answering to a question raised by a journalist of the weekly “The East African” that had expressed astonishment to hear the Prosecutor Carla del Ponte complaining about the poor performance of her staff even though she had always won her cases and that all concluded trials had resulted into condemnations, Madam Carla del Ponte had declared without reservation: “That means our Judges are very good Judges because they can correct the error of the Prosecution”.

But the Appeals Chamber has this time gone beyond a mere rescue thus comforting the Prosecutor who will be in apposition to claim that he is exempt from the obligation of proving his theory since genocide, the non international character of the war that ravaged Rwanda since October 1990 and the attacks that Rwanda Tutsi populations were victims of have been excluded from contradictory debates during trial and have simply been adopted as matters of common knowledge for which no proof is required or admissible.

The media campaign that was given to the Appeals Chamber decision by way of an ICTR press release dated 20 th June 2006 confirms, once again, the absence of independence of the ICTR which is literally under the thumb of its financial backers and under the control of the Government of President General Kagame. Like in the year 2000, it is for purely political reasons that the Appeals Chamber has rescinded the 09 November 2005 decision of Trial Chamber III which had made a correct application of article 94 (A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (1).

It is for political reasons that, after having been challenged by President Kagame over the use of one and a half billion (1.500.000.000 U$) american dollars, the ICTR is under the obligation to reassure him that the business that the “genocide” of Rwandan Tutsis has been transformed into will remain untampered with and, if need be, that RPF political and military leaders will enjoy impunity in spite of their implication in the massacre of Hutu populations inside and outside Rwanda as well as in numerous political assassinations including that of Presidents Habyarimana Juvenal and Ntaryamira Cyprien, their delegations and the French crew of the President’s plane.

The signatories to this letter would like to draw your attention to the pertinent content of their letter of 14 th January 2005 that, in their view, contradicts totally the arguments given by the Appeals Chamber Judges in their decision on judicial notice. The detainees had given their opinion in the following terms:

“The detainees would like to stress the fact that, in the opinion of numerous wise observers and experts, eight years after the foundation of the ICTR, genocide has not yet been proven. On 14 th September 1994, presenter Jean Francois Lépine asked General Dallaire a question on a TV programme «Le Point». The question was to know whether, in his opinion, there had been genocide in Rwanda; whether there had been implementation of a plan to exterminate the Tutsi ethnic group in Rwanda. He answered as follows:

“I would say that there was a national genocide, but a genocide of political philosophy, not a purely ethnic genocide. Many Hutus and many Tutsis were killed. I think that the outburst of violence that we saw was beyond something imaginable. But I think that nobody could have planned the scope of the violence “ (2).

Other key persons have expressed their opinions on the Rwanda genocide particularly on its planning. Hence, historian Bernard Lugan writes the following:

“As evidence disappears bit by bit, the assumption of a planned genocide becomes less and less documented” (3)

On 14 th September 2004, Professor Filip Reyntjens, ICTR Expert for the prosecution, challenged the Trial Chamber in the case of Bagosora et al in the following terms:

“I sincerely hope that that this trial is about genocide. Bourgmestres, Businessmen have been arrested and judged and I believe that this Tribunal is judging genocide. I believe that a genocide trial should be the first trial at the ICTR because, before bringing in a Mayor accusing him of genocide, it must first be established that genocide occurred” (4).

Among the arguments given by the Appeals Chamber for deciding on judicial notice are the reports by René Degni Ségui and the judgments of Akayesu, Kayishema & Ruzindana and Musema. The Judges know well that those arguments are fallacious. René Degni Ségui’s reports were essentially political and recommended that more thorough investigations be carried out by the Tribunal whose creation René Degni Ségui was proposing. As for the judgments that the Judges referred to, it must be pointed out they were not the result of a true contradictory debate on the crime of genocide.

The decision by the Appeals Chamber is especially incomprehensible since it goes against all the stands taken by the specialists who have expressed their views on the issue of the Rwanda tragedy. Among them, one can note Expert witnesses for the ICTR Prosecutor namely Filip Reyntjens, Bernard Lugan and André Gichaoua, just to mention a few. The Chamber gives a miss on recent publications regarding the Rwanda tragedy. We shall mention namely those of Charles ONANA, Pierre PÉAN, Jean Pierre FOFE, Thierry CURVILLIER and Abdul RUZIBIZA. It deliberately ignores the confessions one cannot get away from made by high UN Representatives Jacques Roger Booh Booh, Roméo Dallaire, Shaharyar Khan and Ralph Zacklin. It doesn’t give a fig for the recommendations of the “Carlsson Commission” set up by the UN, the recommendations of Eminent Personalities mandated by the OAU and of the recent report by the French Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière. Leaks of the latter’s report were made public in the press. It is pursuing its policy of a two-speed justice depending on whether it is dealing with ICTR cases or cases from the ICTY. We denounced this practice in our letter dated 31 October 2005. By so doing, the Appeals Chamber Judges have abdicated their mission of acting solely on the basis of the law, thus compromising their credibility and that of the Tribunal.

The signatories to this letter denounce wholeheartedly the denial of justice that will result from this incomprehensible decision by the Appeals Chamber on judicial notice of the main charge made against the accused. They consider that the decision deprives the accused of the possibility to defend themselves. They request from their Defence Counsels to start discussions with the officials in charge of the ICTR as soon as possible in order to know whether the Prosecutor is no longer required to provide evidence of his allegations and if the detainees are no longer authorized to defend themselves against some of the allegations put forward against them.

By way of a protest, those signatories whose trials are under way, have decided not to show up in court as long as Counsels will not have gathered all useful information shedding light on the consequences of the Appeals Chamber heavy decision and on what possibilities they are left with to defend their case adequately.

Sincerely yours,

The signatories: see annexed list.


Copy to:

- His Excellency the President of the Security Council, New York.
- His Excellency the UN Secretary General, New York.
- The Appeals Chamber Judges, ICTR (all).
- The Trial Chamber Judges, ICTR (all)
- The ICTR Registrar, Arusha.
- The ICTR Prosecutor, Arusha.
- Defence Counsels (all).
- The ADAD President, Arusha.
- United Nations Council for Human Rights, Geneva.
- International Commission of Jurists, Geneva
- American Association of Jurists.
- International Association of Democratic Jurists, New Delhi.
- African Union, Addis Ababa.
- African Commission for Human Rights, Banjul.
- Centre for Fighting against Impunity and Injustice in Rwanda.
- Amnesty International.
- Human Rights Watch, New York
- DUKOMERE Association, Brussels.
- Action for Impartial International Justice for Rwanda (AJIIR)
- Rwanda Diaspora: Political Parties and Organisations.
- International Centre for Human Rights, Montreal.
- International Crisis Group.
- The Press.


Notes:
1 Article 94 A of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence stipulates that : « A Trial Chamber shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof”.

2 Robin Philpot. Ça ne s’est pas passé comme ça à Kigali, page 65.

3 Bernard Lugan, Rwanda, le génocide, l’Eglise et la démocratie, page 189.

4 In his letter dated 11 January 2005, Filip Reyntjens withdrew his collaboration with the ICTR Prosecutor because of the Prosecutor’s persistent refusal to prosecute recognized RPF criminals.


******************************************
[version française]

Les Détenus du Tribunal Pénal 25 juin 2oo6
International pour le Rwanda (TPIR)
Arusha TANZANIE

Monsieur le Président du Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda à Arusha.

Monsieur le Président de la Chambre d'Appel du TPIR à La Haye

Objet: Réaction à la décision de la Chambre d'Appel du 16/0612006 et au Communiqué du TPIR du 20/06/2006.

Monsieur le Président.

Les détenus signataires de la présente ont le regret de porter à votre attention qu'ils sont profondément choqués par la décision prise par la Chambre d'Appel, le l6 juin 2006, dans l'affaire le Procureur contre Karemera et al (ICTR-98-44-T) et son exploitation médiatique par le TPIR. Ils entendent dénoncer fermement la manipulation pour des visées politiciennes évidentes à laquelle s'est livré le Service d'information et de presse du Tribunal. Ils trouvent injuste et inopportunité cette décision qui fait fi de leur droit à la présomption d'innocence et à des procès justes et équitables.

Les signataires de la présente estiment qu'en dressant le constat judiciaire du , pourtant retenu comme chef d'accusation contre la quasi-totalité des accusés du TPIR, la Chambre d'Appel s'est inscrite dans la ligne rouge du déni de justice. Elle a foulé au pied le principe de la présomption d'innocence consacrée par la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme, a violé délibérément leur droit à des procès justes et équitables tels que garantis par la Charte sur les droits civils et politiques et le Statut du TPIR, ainsi que par tous les systèmes de droit reconnus dans le monde.

Pour nous, la décision de la Chambre d'Appel est, ni plus ni moins, une reconnaissance par votre Tribunal de l'incapacité du Procureur d'administrer la preuve de la thèse du génocide planifié sur la base de laquelle des condamnations systématiques à de lourdes peines ont été prononcées contre les accusés dont les procès sont terminés. Elle couronne la stratégie dilatoire du Procureur qui ne manquera pas de prétendre, erronément, qu'il a été dispensé d'apporter la preuve des accusations portées contre ceux des accusés dont les procès ont été différés jusqu'ici parce que le Procureur n'était pas sûr de son dossier contre eux. Ceux-ci subissent ainsi un double préjudice dans la mesure où, outre le fait qu'ils ont été privés de procès dans des délais raisonnables, ils sont désormais soumis à un traitement différent par rapport aux autres accusés déjà jugés par le Tribunal.

La décision de la Chambre d'Appel faisant injonction à la Chambre de Première Instance III de dresser le constat judiciaire du génocide, du caractère systématique et généralisé des attaques contre les Tutsis rwandais en raison de leur appartenance ethnique et du caractère non international de la guerre d'agression menée contre le Rwanda par la coalition FPR/NRA assistée par certaines puissances met fin à des recherches infructueuses entreprises par le Procureur dès la création du Tribunal, mais plus intensivement depuis l'engagement souscrit par la Présidente du TPIR, Navanethem Pillay, devant le Conseil de Sécurité et l'Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies en l'an 2000. Elle s'était alors exprimée en ces termes :

< De l'avis du Procureur, le caractère systématique, généralisé et méthodique des crimes qui ont été perpétrés sur toute l'étendue du territoire rwandais en 1994 implique qu'il a pu y avoir coordination et donc entente en vue de détruire en tout ou en partie le groupe tutsi comme tel. C'est pourquoi, le bureau du Procureur donne par priorité aux enquêtes une orientation susceptible d'apporter la preuve matérielle qu'il y a eu entente. Il a constitué de nouvelles équipes d'enquêteurs ciblant particulièrement les institutions politiques, militaires et administratives qui étaient en place au moment du génocide. Des enquêteurs sillonnent le Rwanda, l'Europe et le continent africain à la recherche d'éléments de preuves et de renseignements qui permettent de faire arrêter et condamner les architectes du génocide>

La Chambre d'Appel vient une fois de plus de voler à la rescousse du Procureur qui, contrairement à ses prétentions maintes fois avancées, ne parvenait pas à apporter les éléments de preuve pour soutenir les allégations de planification du génocide imputées aux accusés. Le Procureur se retrouve aujourd'hui dans la même situation qu'il y a six ans lorsque, répondant à un journaliste de l'hebdomadaire < East African> qui avait marqué son étonnement d'entendre Madame le Procureur se plaindre des prestations de ses collaborateurs alors qu'ils ont toujours eu gain de cause et que toutes les affaires jugées ont abouti à des condamnations, Madame Carla Del Ponte avait déclaré sans réserve :

.

Mais cette fois-ci, la Chambre d'Appel est allée au-delà d'un simple secours pour conforter le Procureur qui pourra prétendre qu'il a été exonéré de l'obligation de prouver sa thèse car, le génocide, le caractère non international du conflit qui a ravagé le Rwanda depuis octobre 1990 et les attaques dont ont été victimes les populations rwandaises d'ethnie tutsi sont exclues du débat contradictoire au cours des procès et adoptés comme des faits de notoriété publique pour lesquels aucune preuve n'est plus requise ni admissible.

La médiatisation de cette décision de la Chambre d'Appel par le communiqué de presse du 20 juin 2006 confirme, une fois de plus, l'absence d'indépendance du TPIR qui est littéralement sous la coupe de certaines puissances qui financent ses activités et sous le contrôle du Gouvernement du général Président Paul Kagame. Comme en l'an 2000, ce sont des raisons purement politiques qui viennent de pousser la Chambre d'Appel à annuler la décision de la Chambre de Première Instance III du 9 novembre 2005 qui faisait une bonne application de l'article 94 (A) du Règlement de Procédure et de Preuve (1).

C'est toujours pour des raisons politiques qu'après avoir été mis en cause par le Président Paul Kagame qui lui reproche d'avoir englouti un milliard et demi de dollars américains (1.500.000.000 $), le TPIR est obligé de le rassurer sur l'intangibilité du scandaleux fonds de commerce qu'est devenu le des Tutsis rwandais et, accessoirement, sur l'impunité des dirigeants et des militaires du FPR malgré leur implication dans le massacre des populations Hutu à l'intérieur et à l'extérieur du Rwanda ainsi que dans de nombreux assassinats politiques dont celui des Présidents Habyarimana Juvénal et Ntaryamira Cyprien, leurs suites et les français membres de l'équipage de l'avion présidentiel.

Les signataires de la présente voudraient rappeler à votre particulière attention les éléments pertinents repris dans leur lettre du l4 janvier 2005 qui, selon eux, contredisent sur tous les points, les arguments avancés par les Juges d'appel pour dresser le constat judiciaire du génocide. Ils s'étaient alors exprimés en ces termes :

< Les détenus voudraient encore insister sur le fait que, de l'avis de plusieurs observateurs avisés et des experts, huit ans après la mise en place du TPIR, ce génocide n'est pas encore prouvé. Ainsi le 14 septembre 1994, le Général Dallaire répondant à une question, lors de l'émission < Le Point>, animé par Jean François Lépine, de savoir si selon lui, il y a eu génocide au Rwanda, c'est-à-dire l'exécution d'un plan pour éliminer l'ethnie tutsi du Rwanda, s'est exprimé en ces termes :

< Moi je dirais qu'il y a eu un génocide national, mais un génocide de philosophie politique, non pas purement ethnique. Beaucoup de Hutu, comme beaucoup de Tutsi ont été tués. Je pense que le débordement qu'on u vu a été au-delà de pouvoir être conçu. Mais je pense, personne n'aurait pu planifier l'ampleur du débordement >(2).

D'autres personnalités ont exprimé leur avis sur le génocide rwandais, particulièrement sur sa planification. Ainsi l'historien Bernard Lugan écrit ce qui suit :

< Au fur et à mesure que s'envolent les < preuves >, le postulat du complot génocidaire programmé devient de moins en moins documenté> >(3).

Le 14 septembre 2004, le professeur Filip Reyntjens, expert du Procureur du TPIR, dans sa déposition devant le Tribunal, dans l'affaire Bagosora et alia, a déclaré en interpellant la Chambre en ces termes :

< J'espère sincèrement qu'il s'agit du procès de génocide. On a jugé, on poursuivit des bourgmestres, des hommes d'affaires, des commerçants et je crois que ce tribunal est en train de juger le génocide. Je crois que cela devrait être le premier procès du TPIR, parce que, avant d'appéter le maire ici pour l'accuser de génocide, il faut d'abord établir que le génocide a eu lieu.>(4)

Parmi les arguments brandis par la Chambre d'Appel pour dresser le constat judiciaire du génocide figurent les Rapports présentés par René Degni Ségui ainsi que les jugements intervenus dans les affaires AKAYESU, KAYISHEMA & RUZINDANA et MUSEMA. Les Juges savent bien que ces arguments sont fallacieux. Les Rapports de René Degni Ségui étaient essentiellement politiques et recommandaient des enquêtes judiciaires plus poussées à mener par le Tribunal dont le Rapporteur spécial René Degni Ségui proposait la mise en place. Quant aux jugements dans les affaires citées, il convient de relever qu'ils sont intervenus sans qu'il y ait eu un véritable débat contradictoire sur le crime de génocide.

La décision de la Chambre d'Appel est d'autant plus incompréhensible qu'elle va à I'encontre des positions actuellement soutenues par les spécialistes qui se sont exprimés sur le dossier de la tragédie rwandaise, parmi lesquels figurent des témoins experts du Procureur dont, notamment, Filip REYNTJENS, Bernard LUGAN et André GUICHAOUA pour ne citer que ces quelques cas. Elle fait l'impasse sur les récentes publications sur la tragédie rwandaise dont, notamment, celles de Charles ONANA, Pierre PEAN, Jean Pierre FOFE, Thierry CRUVELLIER et Abdul RUZIBIZA. Elle ignore délibérément les aveux incontournables des hauts représentants de l'ONU, Jacques Roger BOOH BOOH, Roméo DALLAIRE, Shaharyar KHAN et Ralph ZACKLIN. Elle fait fi des recommandations de la créée par l'ONU, de celles des Eminentes personnalités mandatées par l'OUA et du Rapport récemment déposé par le Juge français Jean-Louis Bruguière dont des fuites ont été faites dans la presse. Elle s'inscrit dans la ligne de la justice à deux vitesses pratiquée par la Chambre d'Appel selon qu'elle est saisie des dossiers des accusés du TPIR ou du TPIY, eus nous avons dénoncé dans notre lettre du 31 Octobre 2005. En agissant ainsi, les juges d'appel viennent d'abdiquer de leur mission de dire le droit, compromettant ainsi leur crédibilité et celle de votre Tribunal.

Les signataires de la présente dénoncent avec la dernière énergie le déni de justice consécutif à cette décision incompréhensible de la Chambre d'Appel, de dresser le constat judiciaire du principal chef d'accusation porté contre eux. Ils estiment que cette décision prive les accusés de la possibilité de se défendre. Ils demandent à leurs avocats de commencer les discussions le plus rapidement possible avec les responsables du TPIR pour savoir si le Procureur ne doit plus fournir la preuve de ses accusations et si les prévenus ne sont plus autorisés à se défendre sur certaines des allégations portées contre eux.

En guise de protestation, ceux qui sont parmi les signataires dont les procès sont en cours ont décidé de ne pas se présenter aux audiences tant que leurs avocats n'auront pas recueilli toutes les informations utiles pour les éclairer sur les conséquences de cette grave décision et les possibilités qui leur restent de présenter adéquatement leurs causes.

Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Président, l'expression de notre haute considération

Les signataires : Voir la liste en annexe.

Copie pour information à :

-Son Excellence Monsieur le Président du Conseil de Sécurité, New York
-Son Excellence Monsieur le Secrétaire Général de l'ONU, New York.
-Messieurs les Juges de la Chambre d'Appel du TPIR (Tous)
-Messieurs Les Juges des Chambres de Première Instance du TPIR (Tous)
-Monsieur le Greffier du TPIR à Arusha
-Monsieur le Procureur du TPIR à Arusha
-Mesdames et Messieurs les Avocats de la Défense (Tous)
-Monsieur le Président de l'ADAD à Arusha
-Conseil des Nations Unies pour les Droits de l'Homme à Genève
-Commission Internationale des Juristes à Genève
-Association Américaine des Juristes
-Association Internationale des Juristes Démocrates, New Delhi
-Union Africaine, Addis Abéba
-Commission Africaine des Droits de l'Homme- Banjul
-Centre de Lutte conte l'Impunité et l'Injustice au Rwanda, à Bruxelles
-Amnesty International
-Human Rights Watch, New York
-Association DUKOMERE, à Bruxelles
-Action pour une Justice Internationale Impartiale pour le Rwanda (AJIIR)
-Diaspora rwandaise : Partis politiques et Organisations
-Centre International des Droits de l'Homme à Montréal International Cris Group.
-La Presse


Notes:

1 L'article 94 A du Règlement de procédure et de preuve stipule que :
< La Chambre de première instance n'exige pas la preuve de ce qui est de notoriété publique, mais en dresse un constat judiciaire >.

2 Robin Philipot, Ça ne s'est pas passé comme ça à Kigali. page 65.

3 Bernard Lugan, Rwanda. Le génocide. l'Église et la démocratie, page 189.

4 Dans sa lettre datée du 11 janvier 2005, Filip Reyntjens a retiré sa collaboration au Procureur du TPIR, à cause de son refus persistant de poursuivre les criminels avérés dans les rangs du FPR.