Plenary 8 December 1997

66th Meeting (AM)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS TOLD RWANDA TRIBUNAL, SMALLER THAN COUNTERPART FOR FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, IMPORTANT FOR NATIONAL RECONCILIATION

Delegates Contend Work of Both Bodies Should Presage Permanent International Criminal Court.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda played an important role in national reconciliation in Rwanda and in the political stabilization of the Great Lakes region, the General Assembly was told this morning as it considered the report of the Tribunal.

Introducing the Tribunal Is second annual report, its President, Laity Kama, said criticism following the office of Internal Oversight investigation of the Tribunal overshadowed its good work. In 1997, three trials had begun and the first verdicts were expected by early next year. Twenty-four detainees, including those who had held administrative and military posts in Rwanda, had been indicted.

Compared with the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Rwandan Court was "a cottage industry", he said. Although the holding of two trials simultaneously since September had sped up proceedings, the Tribunal needed more judges as well as space, computerized library facilities and access to the most advanced forms of communication and research, including the Internet.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries, the representative of Luxembourg welcomed the implementation of internal control measures, although the Tribunal's functioning was still not fully improved. Public awareness in Rwanda and in the donor community had to be raised on the Tribunal's mandate, and the Court must be given adequate financial backing.

A number of speakers said the work of the Rwanda and Yugoslavia Tribunals should be the prelude to the establishment of a permanent international criminal court.

Statements were also made by the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Malaysia, Dominican Republic, Japan, Brazil and Spain.

Rwanda Tribunal

The Assembly had before it a note by the Secretary-General (document A/52/582), transmitting the second annual report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994, submitted by the Tribunal President in accordance with article 32 of its statute.

According to the report, the Tribunal consists of two Trial Chambers and an Appeals Chamber, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Office of the Registrar. The Secretary-General on 1 October 1996 appointed Judge Louise Arbour as the new Chief Prosecutor for both the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, replacing Judge Richard Goldstone.

Since the submission of its previous report to the Assembly, the judicial activities of the Tribunal have increased substantially, the report states. So far, 14 indictments against a total of 21 individuals have been confirmed and warrants of arrest have been issued against the accused, with some accused featuring in more than one indictment. Twelve out of those indicted are currently in custody in the Tribunal's Detention Facility in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania, while one is being held in the United States. Two suspects are in custody in Cameroon, awaiting transfer to the Tribunal's Detention Unit. From January 1997 onwards, the two Trial Chambers began trials in three cases. in addition, both Trial Chambers have adjudicated a large number of motions.

In response to a request by the Assembly and following complaints from Member States and staff members, auditors of the Office of Internal Oversight Services undertook an extensive investigation into affairs of the Tribunal. As detailed in its report (document A/51/789, annex), the Office uncovered serious operational deficiencies and mismanagement in the Tribunal's administration. Further, it found a lack of cooperation between the Registry and the Office of the Prosecutor, and stated that the Tribunal's effectiveness had been affected by short-term funding and lack of a proper infrastructure in the Arusha and Kigali offices.

The oversight report puts forward 26 recommendations for improving the situation, some of which have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. Based on its findings, the Secretary-General on 26 February appointed Agwu U. Okali as the new Registrar, replacing Andronico Adede. On 20 March, he appointed Bernard Muna as Deputy Prosecutor, replacing Judge Honore Rokotomanana. Further measures for reorganization of the Tribunal's administrative structure and the replacement of staff members were undertaken by the new Registrar.

The report of the Tribunal states that, in order to strengthen its relationship with the Rwandan Government, the President of the Court, Laity Kama -- accompanied by Vice-President Yakov Ostrovsky and Judge Lennart Aspegren -- travelled to Kigali and met with the President of Rwanda, Pasteur Bizimungu, and apprised him of the current judicial activities of the Tribunal and the difficulties faced by it. In addition, the Tribunal continued to receive a large number of visitors, reflecting the growing public interest in its activities. Among the most prominent visitors were then President of the General Assembly, Ismail Razali, First Lady of the United States, Hillary Clinton, the Prime Ministers of Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania, and the Ambassador of Rwanda to that country.

The report states that several Governments have made very valuable contributions to the Tribunal's Trust Fund and donations in kind, including the Tribunal's library, which has been established through a donation from the Danish Government. Also, in June, the Tribunal issued its first newsletter, containing information about the activities of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also has a monthly update of events.

The Tribunal's victims and witnesses Protection Unit, which is primarily engaged in providing protection to witnesses during the period of their testimony at the trials, became fully operational in November 1996 with the recruitment of its staff. Following their testimony, the Unit also monitors the security situation on their return to Rwanda.

Under the Headquarters Agreement signed on 21 August 1995 between the Tribunal and the United Republic of Tanzania, the Registrar has held regular meetings with representatives of the Tanzanian Government concerning matters such as the security of the premises of the Tribunal, communication, privileges and immunities, the report states. Further, the Registrar maintained close contact with governments on which the Tribunal's warrants of arrest have been served and with those States which were able successfully to identify, arrest and transfer the accused to the Tribunal - notably Belgium, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Switzerland and Zambia.

There are a number of appendices annexed to the report, including one on cash contributions by governments to the Trust Fund and another containing crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Also listed are appendices on details of offences with which the detainees are being charged, a list of assigned counsel, and recent developments since the drafting of this report.

Rwanda Tribunal: Statements

LAITY KAMA, President, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, said that last year the Tribunal had been the subject of severe criticism following the Office of Internal Oversight investigation. Those accusations had been largely unfounded, he said, but regrettably they overshadowed the good work that had already been done. The Tribunal's administrative services had been improved, thanks to the new administration named in February. The working conditions of the judges had been improved. There had been quantitative and qualitative growth in the Tribunal's legal activities. Since 9 January three trials had begun. The first verdicts were envisaged by early next year. The 24 detainees who had been indicted included those who had held administrative and military posts in Rwanda.

He went on to outline the difficulties facing the Tribunal since it began its work in Arusha. In the beginning, the Tribunal had only one temporary Hearings Chamber and lacked proper equipment. The present Chamber was still inadequate, given the number of detainees. There had been delays in the progress of the trials because of the lack of space. The Tribunal's two Chambers had been forced to take turns because the United Nations administration could make only one room available. Since September, the holding of two trials simultaneously had made it possible to speed up proceedings. The Secretary-General had made that progress possible by giving the necessary instructions to the Secretariat.

He said it was time to increase the number of judges. A third trial Chamber might later be located in the second permanent hearing room, whose construction was about to begin. If that solution were not possible, ad hoc judges could be appointed to review indictments. Some detainees had been held for more than two years and they had to be brought to trial soon, and in any case before the end of the judges' first mandate in May 1999. A new prosecution strategy to combine trials was no guarantee that the judicial process would be speeded up. An increase in the number of judges was the only solution, if justice were to be successfully concluded.

The Tribunal needed computerized library facilities and access to the most advanced forms of communication and research, including the Internet, he said. Compared with the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Rwanda Tribunal was "a cottage industry". It needed more legal assistance for the judges. The United Nations could not do everything, States should help. Some had provided the Tribunal with technical assistance. There had been strengthened cooperation with States, particularly with Rwanda which had transferred detainees to Arusha. Cameroon had also agreed to transfer two detainees. Belgium, Switzerland and Cote d'Ivoire had all arrested and transferred accused persons. He said Kenya deserved special thanks for organizing with the prosecutor's office the "Na-Ki" operation which had made it possible to arrest important figures presumed to be connected with the Rwanda genocide, including the former Prime Minister of the Interim Government. Tanzania had constantly supported all Tribunal activiti

es. Many States were adapting their internal legislation to conform to the mandate of the Tribunal.

He said Article 26 of the Tribunal's statute stipulated that prison sentences would be carried out in Rwanda or in a designated State. So far, fewer than a dozen States had indicated their intention to house those sentenced. Norway and Sweden were among them. The matter was urgent because the first verdicts were expected next year. The security conditions in which the Tribunal operated were still not adequate. The Tribunal played an important role in national reconciliation in Rwanda and in the political stabilization, of the Great Lakes region.

JEAN-LOUIS WOLZFELD (Luxembourg) spoke on behalf of the European Union, as well as Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Romania and Cyprus. He said the report on the office of Internal Oversight Services investigation had revealed serious operational deficiencies and mismanagement in the Tribunal's administration, as well as frequent violations of United Nations rules. The Union welcomed the strong measures taken in conformity with the recommendations of the auditors, including strengthened communication between the Tribunal's organs and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. It also welcomed the implementation of adequate measures of internal control in order to oversee the application of United Nations rules -- namely, those applicable to personnel, financial and procurement issues, and the reorganization of the Registrar's Office. However, the goal of improving the Tribunal's functioning had not been fully achieved, and serious personnel problems remained. More than 20 per

cent of the vacancies were in core sectors. The implementation of a dynamic recruitment policy was crucially important for the Tribunal's future.

He said the Union was concerned that 10 accused persons had been detained without judgment for more than a year, and in certain cases for more than two years. A quick remedy was needed. In order to carry out its task with impartiality, the Tribunal must conduct its activities in a way that was totally independent. The Union, which had been providing important legal and logistical assistance to the Tribunal would, therefore, refrain from commenting on the cases before it. All States and parties should cooperate with the Tribunal, so it could fulfil its mandate efficiently. Substantial progress had been made, but much remained to be done. Individuals against whom arrest warrants had been issued remained free and would have to be apprehended. It was of paramount importance that the Tribunal continue its efforts to inform the public about its work. Public opinion -- first in Rwanda, as well as in the donor community -- had to be made aware of the Tribunal's mandate. The Tribunal must also be given adequ

ate financial backing.

JAAP RAMAKER (Netherlands) said the serious financial and managerial problems which had threatened to jeopardize the implementation of the Tribunal's mandate had become all the more clear in February of this year with the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services. It had spoken of serious operational deficiencies in the management of the Tribunal, as well as the negative impact of short-term funding arrangements, the geographical separation between its various offices and the lack of adequate infrastructure. The future of the concept of the universality of international criminal jurisdiction could be called into question at a time when it was finally taking shape in the form of a proposed international criminal court. He said universal crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes must be met with universal adjudication. The Netherlands, as the host country of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and also of the joint Appeals Chamber and Prosecutor of that Tribunal and the

Rwanda Tribunal, actively monitored developments in efforts to improve the functioning of the Rwanda Tribunal and of its offices in Kigali and Arusha. Serious efforts had been made by all parties involved to redress the deficiencies hindering the full and effective fulfilment of the Tribunal's mandate.

He said closer coordination had been established among the substantive departments at United Nations Headquarters, and between those departments and the Tribunal. The process of reshaping the Registry had started putting the Tribunal back on track. However, in view of the magnitude of problems in Kigali, not all problems had yet been solved. Unless the Tribunal were allowed to operate in the best possible way it could lose its credibility. Its ultimate success would be measured by its ability to show that justice prevailed, that inhumanity did not occur with impunity, that civilization would be preserved, and that the international community did care. He said the report of the Tribunal did not set itself clear and well defined targets for finalizing its reorganization. Its draft 1998 budget, however, did contain "performance indicators". It was his delegation's view that such indicators should have been included in the report as well, to allow for an assessment of the progress made. He also wondered

why the main body of the report was issued at such a late date.

The Netherlands, he went on, wanted to draw full attention to the question of cooperation of States with the Tribunal. Only a few had passed legislation enabling such cooperation. The location of many of the leaders responsible for the horrible crimes committed were well known, but only a limited number were imprisoned and only a few were in the hands of the Tribunal. His country attached great importance to breaking the circle of crime and impunity which had reigned in Rwanda and recognized the importance of arrests indicated in the report. Every effort should be made by all States in a position to do so to arrest suspects and enable the Tribunal to act in accordance with its mandate. Financial support for the Tribunal was needed, and Member States must be prepared to share that responsibility, both on the international and domestic level.

M. JAKKEN BIORN LIAN (Norway) said the international community could not have remained silent about the genocide in Rwanda. The Security Council had acted to create the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda -- the second such ad hoc body created by the United Nations. Norway also lent its full support to the creation of the international criminal court. It was vital for the international community to provide for the success of the Tribunal in Rwanda. His country had acted promptly with necessary legislation required for its full cooperation with the Tribunal and also contributed to its Voluntary Fund. It was now crucial to examine and evaluate the judiciary activities of the Tribunal. The measures taken to implement the recommendations proposed by the Office of Internal Oversight Services were welcome.

The question to be asked now was what contributions Member States could make to help overcome the Tribunal's difficulties, he said. There had to be trust in the Tribunal's capacity to establish sound management so as to utilize all of its resources. In addition, States could actively cooperate with the Tribunal, providing assistance in such areas as the identification and pursuit of individuals, and their detention and transfer to it. The sound functioning of the Tribunal also depended on cooperation with the Rwandan authorities. There was also a need to construct a network to disseminate information to those in Rwanda and the rest of the international community.

FRANCESCO PAOLO FULCI (Italy) said that both the Rwandan and Yugoslav Tribunals were to be considered fundamental laboratories, and their experience and achievements remained essential for the establishment of a permanent international criminal court. When the institutional framework to dispense international criminal justice was complete, the permanent court should replace the ad hoc Tribunals.

He commended the progress of the Rwanda Tribunal in carrying out its judicial activities; the positive developments demonstrated the hard work and dedication of the Tribunal members and the Office of the Prosecutor. The adequate protection of witnesses during their testimony at the trials, and on their return to Rwanda, was essential for the Tribunal's functioning. He noted that the Tribunal's Victims and Witnesses Protection Unit had become fully operational,

He welcomed measures adopted following an investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services to improve the administrative management of the Tribunal, and to ensure that relevant United Nations rules and regulations were fully respected. The Tribunal's credibility must not be put at risk by failure to operate in accordance with the most rigorous standards of good administration. Despite progress, the Tribunal still faced various difficulties, arising especially from insufficient resources, equipment and staff. Additional investigators were needed in the Prosecutor's office. The cooperation of States was also crucial, both at the level of enacting legislation to implement the statute and of complying with the Tribunal's requests. He said Italy was confident the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda would continue to operate in an effective manner, and to meet the expectations that persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law be bro

ught to justice.

MARZUKI MOHD NOOR (Malaysia) said that for a body which had been confronted by a range of problems, the positive developments in the collective

efforts through the Rwanda Tribunal to bring to book the perpetrators of genocide was welcome. He commended those countries which had rendered their full cooperation and assistance to the Tribunal to bring about the arrest and transfer of key figures suspected of having participated in the Rwanda genocide. Those developments demonstrated that the Tribunal was determined to reinforce its credibility and achieve its goal of bringing justice with respect to those involved in the genocide. The Tribunal must mete out justice rapidly to facilitate national reconciliation between the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda.

In Rwanda, as in most countries emerging from conflict and oppression, reconciliation was impossible without justice, he said. while the Tribunal could not repair the damage, it could help prevent another genocide by ensuring that there was an end to wanton bloodletting with impunity. Fair trials of those deemed to have been the intellectual authors of the genocide, conducted in accordance with international standards of due process, would have a liberating effect within Rwanda, while breaking important new ground internationally.

It was Malaysia's hope that the problems pertaining to the lack of cooperation between the Registry and the Prosecutor's office, and the lack of a proper infrastructure for the offices in Arusha and Kigali would be effectively addressed, he said. In addressing inefficiencies and operational deficiencies, it was hoped that efforts would be made both in the field and at headquarters. Administrative impediments should not be allowed to deter the Tribunal's important work. The Rwanda Tribunal and the country's somewhat reconstituted criminal justice system were at a critical point. They must receive the full financial, political and moral support of the international community. Malaysia unequivocally supported the work of the Tribunal and stressed the need for it to be given the necessary support to carry out its task.