U B U T A B E R A (Part 1)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Independent newsletter on the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda
Arusha - February 16, 1998 - No. 30
[All editions of Ubutabera can be found on our web site:]
http://persoweb.francenet.fr/~intermed
In this edition:
A Tribunal holding its breath
-------------------------------
The Tribunal reopened for business, awaiting the new initiatives of the
Prosecutor, with a schedule that remains hypothetical and unpredictable.
No new structures have emerged, and badly needed resources are still
lacking. General perspectives for the future appear good, but are at
present more long term than short term.
The Akayezu Case:
The Final weeks
----------------
The major stages in the defense of Jean-Paul Akayezu seem to have been
well traced. The Tribunal must still rule on the appearance of two
defendants detained in Arusha, as well as on an exhumation procedure and
a visit to Taba.
The convictions of Joseph Matata
---------------------------------
The event of the week was Joseph MatataÆs testimony. Matata, a
well-known human rights activist and investigator in Taba before and
after the genocide, reiterated his conviction that the former
burgomaster was innocent, and denounced the ôsyndicate of informersö.
The Prosecutor raised doubts about the credibility of the defense
witnesses investigations.
Defence witnesses blame Silas Kubimana for the massacres
--------------------------------------------------------
Between February 9th and 11th, four other witnesses gave evidence
favourable to Jean-Paul Akayezu. DCX and DAX have both stated that the
Mayor, despite the reduction in his powers, was opposed to the leader of
the Interahamwes, Silas Kubimana, accusing the latter of being the real
instigator of the massacres.
A Tribunal holding its breath
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
After a nine-week recess, the TPIR reassembled on February 9 to resume
previous cases. The new judicial term is marked by a number of
unanswered questions. The ProsecutorÆs petitions expected at the
beginning of December, aimed at organizing collective trials have still
not been filed. This has plunged the Tribunal into a state of
uncertainty. The actions of the prosecutor and the decision the judges
will take on this issue will have a profound influence on the timetable
of this second year of trials (see Ubutabera N 29). The latter is to
this day uncertain and hypothetical, a factor which can only reinforce,
albeit temporarily, the feeling that international justice is a slow
process. The President of the Tribunal, La ty Kama, acknowledged this in
the reopening of the trial of Jean-Paul Akayezu. ôIt has now been
thirteen months (since this trial began) and throughout this period the
judges have persistently strived to make sure it is a fair trialö.
However, he added that the corollary of a fair trial is ôto give victims
justice promptly. (.) That is why I insist that trials must be
concluded. I would appeal to all parties concerned that justice be
delivered much more rapidlyö. However, the President of the TPIR
strongly rejected the idea of ôexpeditiousö justice, emphasizing that
ôthere is no question of setting a deadlineö for the case, despite what
he described as ôpressure to do so from certain sections of the mediaö.
Concluding ongoing trials
--------------------------
Out of the vagueness of the current situation, a tentative program has
emerged : the four ongoing trials should be completed and the ground
cleared for new trials - the famous maxi-trials advocated by the
Prosecutor. Several elements, albeit incomplete, point to the
probability of such a program. The fact that the public prosecutorÆs
office is taking so long to present its petitions means - de facto -
that dates are pushed back. Furthermore, new arrests are required in
order to achieve this. At the same time, and without imposing deadlines,
the trials begun in 1997 will all last more than a year, whereas the
actual number of trial days is calculated at less than two months for
each trial. They must therefore be completed as rapidly as possible. In
other respects, the TPIR is still waiting for a decision from the
Security Council to authorize the setting up of a third magistrates
court, which in turn would require the appointment of three extra
judges. The debate began in New York on February 12. Such a decision
would inevitably mean building a third courtroom. For the moment there
are two, one of which, although initially said to be temporary, looks
like having the calamitous destiny of being permanent (see Ubutabera
n 23), despite the appalling public debating conditions. The second
chamber was meant to be completed by the end of 1997, but work has not
even begun on it.
Human and administrative shortcomings
-------------------------------------
If the budget presented to the United Nations General Assembly were to
follow the fine example of the TPIY, Arusha would benefit from a 50%
increase in funds in 1998. Alas, no. The excruciating slowness of the UN
is a very worrying factor. The ProsecutorÆs department has still not
been provided with a sufficient number of researchers. The chambers are
badly lacking in legal assistants and access to documentation, despite
the fact that the TPIR will be judged primarily on the quality of law it
produces. The legal administration also remains flawed : hearings which
could have been planned well in advance are organized at the last
minute, files are prepared in chaotic fashion, etc. Yet, in many
respects, the future of the Rwanda Tribunal looks promising. The
delivery of the first judgments and the opening of trials of key
defendants could allow the TPIR to retrieve some of the limelight which
its geographical isolation, its grave internal defects and its lack of
external support had initially obscured.
The Akayezu Case:
The Final weeks
"""""""""""""""""""""""""
The first week of the new session in the trial of Jean-Paul Akayezu
ended with hope of conclusion in sight. Despite President KamaÆs
statement that the Tribunal would not set a deadline, the completion of
the trial is nevertheless on everybodyÆs mind. Based on available
figures of the day, the case, which began January 9, 1997, could perhaps
come to a conclusion before the end of March. The defense had called
for the appearance of twelve extra witnesses : five of them testified at
the bar this week and the rest were either declared unlocatable or had
decided to desist. However, a few unresolved points remain. Firstly, the
arrival of two Rwandan witnesses whom the Tribunal had summoned to
appear, and the decision of the same chamber concerning two other
well-known witnesses : Jean Kambanda and Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, both
held in the penitentiary centre at Arusha. The court must also rule on
two other requests filed by the lawyers of the former burgomaster : a
medico-legal opinion and a visit to the scene of the massacres. The rest
has been announced : the appearance of General Dallaire, the testimony
of the defendant himself and the final speeches for the defense.
What happened at Murambi?
--------------------------
The petitions were discussed in the first chamber on February 13. The
first concerned the appearances of Jean Kambanda, former head of the
interim government, and Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, minister in the same
government, requested by the lawyers representing Jean-Paul Akayezu.
Any procedure modelled on the defense of General Dallaire is bound to
have a rather spectacular character. However, the approach was not
without its legal obstacles and opposition. Mr Tiangaye, lawyer to the
former burgomaster, declared the evidence of these two personalities to
be ôvital to the pursuit of truthö. All the witnesses are unanimous in
recognizing that the massacres began in almost all the communes in
Rwanda from April 6, except at Taba. Some of them allege that Jean-Paul
Akayezu had changed after the meeting in Murambi on April 18. (It is
there) that the decision to massacre the Tutsis is said to have been
takenö. Mr Tiangaye felt it now to be essential to find out more about
this meeting. Yet in its written statement, the defense claims that
ôJean Kambanda led the meeting and Pauline Nyiramasuhuko was present at
itö. Pierre-Richard Prosper, representative of the Prosecutor, thinks,
however, that what happened on April 18 can be considered as a
subsidiary question ôin the sense that the trial is about whether or not
he committed the actions in Tabaö. Moreover, he pointed out that a
different summons concerns an individual who had been present at the
meeting.
Status of the witness-defendant
---------------------------------
However, the real obstacle remains the fact that the two people
concerned are themselves defendants in the TPIR trial system. This
raises the question of prejudice and thus, according to the Prosecutor,
obliges the Tribunal to study the true justification for the petition,
its relevance to the case and the irreplaceable character of these
witnesses. This request enraged the lawyer for the former minister of
family welfare, who subsequently filed a response to her colleaguesÆ
petition calling for the rejection of this request. She pleaded in court
that ôthe testimony of a defendant cannot be treated in the same wayö,
and that ôone of the consequences (of the appearance of her client)
would be to undermine her credibilityö. She continued, ôBy the time she
appears before you in court, you will have already decided on her
credibilityö. As it happens, the trial of Pauline Nyiramasuhuko is
programmed to take place in the very same Magistrates court. The
Prosecutor suggested enlarging the framework of the testimony, but the
lawyer saw this as taking an ôextremely dangerousö risk.
Deprived of a lawyer, Jean Kambanda has made it known to the ClerkÆs
office that he does not wish to appear before the Tribunal. Despite
having different motives to Nicole Bergevin, the ProsecutorÆs
representative James Stewart found his decision to be just : ôHe is not
an ordinary witness. We must weigh up the probability of prejudice in
the light of the probative valueö. He went on to mention, perhaps rather
disingenuously given the state of secrecy surrounding the defense
strategy of the former prime minister, ôthe problem of the stage of the
proceedings affecting Jean Kambandaö, who has still not been called to
make an initial appearance before the Tribunal. Mr Bergevin reminded the
court that ôthe Chamber may exclude proof whose probative value has not
been establishedö, and on this question the judges asked for more
details from the lawyer representing Jean-Paul Akayezu. ôYou must
convince the court that it is essential for your defenseö, insisted
judge Pillay several times, ôwhat is the defenseÆs version of this
meeting ? Did it take place or not? Was Akayezu present or not? Did he,
or did he not speak?
Clearly reticent to make his request in greater detail, Mr. Tiangaye
limited himself to reiterating his wish to ôprove that Akayezu did not
receive instructions from anybody at all to kill the Tutsisö.
Testimonies and scientific proof
---------------------------------
The second petition appears to deal with logistical problems and
scheduling. Counsel for the defense made two requests to the court :
firstly, to visit the site ôto establish proof of the existence of one
or several communal graves at the communal office between April 19 and
the end of July 1994ö, and secondly, ôto order a medico-legal opinion to
establish the cause of death of the three brothers of Karangwa Ephremö.
The lawyers remind the court of the fragility of human testimony,
exacerbated, in their view, by the Rwandan cultural and linguistic
context. They cited in particular the evidence supplied by Mathias
Ruzindana as an expert used by the defense, February 4, 1997, which
pointed out, among other things, that ôwhen a Rwandan relates something,
for example an eye-witness account, he does not make a difference
between what he saw and what he heard. (.) Generally, when a Rwandan
says something, it is not unusual for him to say he saw something when
in fact he didnÆtö. The Prosecutor had no objection in principle to the
proposal to visit the site, but was against exhumation, arguing that
ôthere is no doubt as to the murdersö of the Karangwa brothers and that
the three witnesses confirmed that they were killed by a bullet at the
back of the head, a fact contested by the defense, based on their
written declarations. ôDoes the defense counsel doubt the death of these
three persons or the involvement of the accused?ö asked Judge Pillay.
ôOnly the involvement, the identity and the nature of the weaponsö,
replied Mr. Tiangaye. ôWhy do you wish to correct the mistakes of the
Prosecutor?ö, continued the South African magistrate, somewhat
sarcastically. The Central African replied : ôIÆm trying to avoid a
judicial errorö. To the frustration of the latter, the prosecutor judged
that such a procedure would ôonly serve to delay the trialö.
The convictions of Joseph Matata
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The highlight of the week in the Akayezu case lasted for three and a
half hours. On February 10, at 3 p.m. the witness DBX came forward. He
began by saying that he wished to testify without the protection
afforded by anonymity, and that the curtains which normally hide
protected witnesses may be pulled back. The Tribunal granted his request
: the public discovered Joseph Matata sitting at the bar. A murmur of
surprise went around the court. Executive secretary of the Rwandan Human
Rights Association (Ardho) from September 1991 to May 1997, exiled in
Belgium since February 1995 where he works as a coordinator at the
æCentre of Information against impunity and injustice in RwandaÆ, Joseph
Matata is a well-known personality. Having left for a training course in
Belgium on March 12, 1994, he returned to Rwanda on July 21. After
carrying out several investigations in Taba at the end of 1993 to the
beginning of 1994, he returned there after the genocide to investigate
charges of extortion committed by the new civil and military
authorities. He explained to the court that it was in Taba that he had
gathered a volley of testimonies on Jean-Paul Akayezu.
ôEveryone was unanimousö
------------------------
At the end of 1993, bloody events occurred in the commune of Taba,
notably the explosion of a grenade which killed seventeen schoolchildren
and a brawl between supporters of the MDR and the MRND. The witness told
the court that he had had the good fortune to work with a decent
burgomaster, who did nothing to obstruct the investigations. He avoided
a bloodbath where all the circumstances had pointed towards this
happening. Questioned by Mr. Tiangaye on the conclusions of the
investigation carried out after the genocide, Joseph Matata replied :
ôThe conclusions were that Akayezu was willing to prevent the killings
until he was neutralized by the militias, particularly Silas Kubimana.
(.). Everyone was unanimous on this point, whether they were Tutsis or
Hutus. Akayezu did everything he could until he was neutralized and the
fact that he remained behind caused many people to be saved.(.) The
killings began on April 19 from the moment that Akayezu was neutralized.
If Akayezu had supported the massacres, the survivors say that they
would not have escaped alive. At the time, the community strength
couldnÆt hold off the militias. The power struggle was so unequal that
it was impossible to resist. The fact of having stayed shows exceptional
courage.ö The witness also revealed information collected on Pierre
Ndereye. ôI heard about AkayezuÆs attempts to save him. He had been
placed in the communal office when, taking advantage of AkayezuÆs
absence, the military came to drive him outö.
Informers syndicates
---------------------
For this human rights activist, the gap between his own conclusions and
the investigations of the TPIR can be explained thus : ôat the time (in
October 1994), denouncement was not an organized affair. (.) The
informers syndicates are a plague on our country. People can lie in
public and be supported in public. I expressed my condemnation of this
in 1994. Since then denunciation has worsened with the emergence of
associations of genocide survivors. These associations were created for
a good cause, but have been hijacked and manipulated.ö The Prosecutor
began his cross-questioning : ôI am James Stewart and I am seeking the
truth, as you areö. His approach was to attempt to invalidate the
investigation carried out by the Rwandan investigator after the genocide
and to raise doubts about the value of cross-checking as well as the
sources used.
ôYou claim to have gathered ôsome testimoniesö on the massacres and on
the behaviour of Akayezu. ôSomeö, is not very muchö.
ôThat doesnÆt mean there were not many of them. I met many people who
knew of lots of other witnesses because of their positions. I consider
them to be sufficient to (judge) the behaviour of Akayezu. No-one, I say
no-one, seemed to accuse him. They said they all agreed that if he
hadnÆt been there, many other people would have been slaughtered.ö
ôHave you heard talk of sexual services?ö
ôAt the time, no-one, either in the prosecutorÆs office or in the
general population, spoke of rapes.ö
ôCould it have been cultural reticence ?ö
ôNo, because the term ôtake a woman by forceö is used. I have often
heard it in my work. I think that this phenomenon was added afterwards,
for denunciation purposes.ö
ôWhat about sexual violence in the communal office?ö
ôNo.ö
ôAnd in the rest of the country?ö
ôIn Kigali, in the northern sector of Nyarugenge, near to the Nyamirambo
stadium, we were told of cases of rape. I also discovered that Tutsi
women were being carried off to exile as a form of booty. But the
militias were much more interested in killing than in raping. I think
that the rapists were in greater need of satisfying their bestial urges.
They were spontaneous actionsö, explained Joseph Matata, who did not
believe the rapes were aimed at ethnic groups.
Who is the ôenemyö?
---------------------
A close-fought debate ensued on the famous meeting of April 19 held by
the burgomaster, which came just a few hours before the beginning of the
large scale massacres. According to the report made by the Rwandan
investigator, which speaks of a ôsombre toneö, Jean-Paul Akayezu is said
to have asked the population to prevent ôthe enemy from penetrating its
bosomö.
ôIs this not a reiteration of extremist propaganda of the time?ö asked
James Stewart.
ôI donÆt think so, not necessarilyö
ôBut then who would have infiltrated the ôinyenziö, if it wasnÆt the
Tutzisö, inquired the Prosecutor, reminding the court of the coded
vocabulary used by the Hutu extremists.
ôThose who infiltrated were strangers to the commune. (.) Knowing
Akayezu, I cannot interpret his words in the same way that you do today.
(.) It is impossible that he can have meant that.ö
ô But in speaking in this way, did he not realise that he could be
interpreted as anti-Tutsi?ö continued Judge Aspegren.
ô It is difficult for me to reply as I wasnÆt there. I am saying that
Akayezu, given his previous behaviour, is incapable of delivering such a
speech in the knowledge that it would provoke such disastrous
consequences.ö
ô Mr Akayezu was unable to understand the (impact) of the term ôenemyö?
Do you really expect us to believe that? argued the Swedish Judge .
ôI said that Akayezu has two enemies : the Hutu militias and the FPR
soldiers. It is absolutely out of the question that he provoked Hutu
people to attack their neighbours.
So, who is the enemy?
ôHe can reply himself. ItÆs a long speech.ö
ôDo you think that it was a coincidence that the massacres began just
afterwards?ö
ôThat was the day the militias neutralized Akayezu. Otherwise, the
killings wouldnÆt have begun. I am absolutely convinced of that. (.) For
the population of Taba, there is no link. (.) The ôsomber toneö is an
unfortunate coincidence. The massacres began the same day in the
evening.ö
Portrait of an extremist
-------------------------
James Stewart went back on the offensive to tackle the issue of
ôinformant syndicatesö. In a tense atmosphere, he asked :
ô Do you put into question the good faith of witnesses who have given
evidence before this chamber?ö
ô I donÆt know them. What shocked me is that they didnÆt exist at the
timeö.
The President Kama intervened and forbade the witness to question the
good faith of people who had come to testify in Arusha. ôWithout wishing
to offend the witnesses, I was surprised because they were not to be
found in October 1994ö, replied Joseph Matata. A while later he
maintained that he was convinced they had been ômanipulatedö. Meanwhile,
James Stewart declared himself ôunable to judge the credibility of
(MatatatÆs) witnessesö, who amount to around fifteen people. For Joseph
Matata, ôif Akayezu were to be judged, he should be judged as
politically responsible and not as an architectö. If the Prosecutor
detected a small recognition of responsibility there, the witness
explains this by the fact that ôin all the testimonies (that he
gathered) not a single one said he had collaboratedö.(.) A number of
clues allowed me to take the responsibility to testify in his defenseö.
For the investigator, the accusation remains on the same man, Silas
Kubimana, ôan immoral man, incapable in his own cell of living with his
neighboursö.
ôAn extremist?ö asked James Stewart
ôAn extremist coupled with a sadistö, replied Joseph Matata.
ôWhy is it that this sadistic Silas, graced with superior strength, did
not try and eliminate(Akayezu) ? ôconcluded Judge Kama.
ôI did ask that question. But the militias knew that Akayezu had the
support of virtually the entire population. That is the extraordinary
side of the Akayezu case. I donÆt know if (this reply) is plausible.
ItÆs the one I received and the one I wish to maintain.ö
A final, rather curious question was put to Matata about why he was
ôready to return and testify in his defenseö, to which the investigator
quipped ôI could come as his accuser, if you like.ö
Defence witnesses blame Silas Kubimana for the massacres
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
DCX lives in Europe. When the presidential plane was brought down, he
was living in Kigali. he got back to Taba a week later and stayed there
until the middle of June. ôThe place was quiet. When I say æquietÆ, it
wasnÆt usually like that because there were rumours going around. people
were afraid and we got the impression that what had happened in Kigali
would happen in Tabaö.
His father told him that Akayezu was then controlling ôlawless
unbelievers. These were the people we were afraid of normally, and who
could make everything unsafe. Since the election of Jean-Paul Akayezu, a
group of Interahamwes was opposed to him. They began to attack people,
protected by Kubimana Silas, and were combated by Jean-Paul Akayezuö.
The same story is told again, of a community which at first resisted the
Interahamwes, whose leader had to flee to Kigaliö. In the end, he came
back with people armed with guns, and they started to pillage, kill and
set up blockades (...) This group said that Akayezu was preventing them
from workingö. The witness, an MDR member, revealed the creation of the
security council. According to him, this council ôlet up for a while,
but it didnÆt last. The Interahamwes became stronger than the community.
They terrorised us. ô
Members of the security council could not sleep in their own homes
because the Interahamwes prevented them. (They) had become powerful, and
said that Akayezu ought to be removed and replaced by Silas. The town
of Kicukiro, where the Mayor had been replaced by an Interahamwe, was
referred to.
We thought Akayezu would be afraid and flee, but he stayed. he continued
to calm the people, going round at night to see people and saying ôif
youÆre intimidated, come and see meö.
ôAkayezu didnÆt changeö
------------------------
Then began the hunting down of Tutsis. ôPeople wanted to kill themselves
by jumping in the river Nyabarongoö, stated DCX, somewhat strangely.
ôAkayezu tried to surrender everywhere violence was taking place. The
Interahamwes were wondering : how come this Tutsi is still here ?ö. Just
like the previous defence witnesses, DCX testifies that Akayezu neither
took part in nor ordered the massacres, and that he tried to save
Tutsis. However, according to him, he had no means of opposing the
massacres, considering the number of local policemen available - a
dozen or so - and the fact that their weapons were so old. Regarding
Pierre Ndereye, DCX explained that he ôknew Akayezu had hidden Ndereye.
So I thought Akayezu was going to be killed. When [Akayezu] wasnÆt
there, [the Interahamwes] came to kill himö . When asked by the former
mayorÆs counsel, Me Tiangaye, DCX said that he had never heard anything
about violence of a sexual nature.
ôMost testimonies say that Akayezu had been a very good mayor, but that
later on, when the Interahamwes had got the upper hand, he changedö
continued Judge Kama. ôAkayezu didnÆt change. I have always admired
him. The Interahamwes were scared to kill him because they didnÆt know
how people would reactö.
ôBut once he couldnÆt control the situation any more, what did he do ?ö
ôAll he could do was talk. He used to say : donÆt do what the
Interahamwes tell you. Protect yourselves
and [ if youÆre threatened] come and see meö.
ôWhy would you go and see him ? ô
ôThatÆs a difficult question. He couldnÆt do anything elseö.
Indirect testimony
---------------------
The defence went on : ôWho do you think instigated the Taba massacres ?ö
ô Anyone from Taba would give you the name of one person : Sila
Kubimana. He really hated the mayor. He blamed having been forced to
leave [the town] on Akayezuö. Eventually questioned by Nicolas Tiangaye
about the reason why he had come to testify, DCX replied :
ôWe know the TPIR is a chance for Rwandans to catch the murderers. With
this in mind, I agreed to give evidence on Akayezu æs behalf because I
know he has to be proven innocent, that he is being unfairly
prosecutedö. During the cross-examination, the links behind the
accusation was revealed, implying that there had been a political
agreement between the mayor and the Interahamwes along the following
lines : ôEither you let us do what we want or you lose your position as
mayorö. ôThe real questionö, replied the witness, ôwas getting rid of
the mayor so that the Interahamwes could do what they liked. But they
couldnÆt do it because Akayezu stood up to themö. The deputy Prosecutor
then pointed out that from April to June, the militia had indeed done
exactly what they wanted. ôIf hadnÆt stood up to the Interahamwesö
insisted DCX, ôthey could have worked round the clock. [Akayezu]
couldnÆt have stopped them doing everything, but he at least triedö.
Then Pierre-Richard Prosper attempted to deny the substantiative value
of DCXÆs testimony, since he was not an eye-witness to the actions with
which the defendant was accused, and that his testimony relied on
hearsay. In a brief and incisive series of questions, Judge Pillay took
pains to do the same thing :
ôYou say you never saw any instance of rape in or around the mayorÆs
offices ?ö
ôI never heard anything about any rapeö.
ôDid you see any killings in the mayorÆs offices ?ö
ôI know there were massacres, but the killers were very well-organised.
I canÆt tell you when they happened (.) I didnÆt see anything of it
personallyö. ôDid you see people thrown into the river or throwing
themselves in the river ?ö
ôI didnÆt see people jumping in with my own eyes. I know people threw
themselves in and were thrown in from a reliable sourceö.
ôSo you saw very littleö.
ôOutside Taba, I saw things, but in Taba I never saw any dead or
wounded. I donÆt know how they managed it but I saw nothingö.
Far from the mayorÆs office
---------------------------
The next day, the witness DAX came to the witness box. He had been
living in Taba until around the 20th of June 1994, before fleeing, and
returned around mid-August. He now lives abroad and confirmed this
sequence of events. ôIf people got killed, you have to talk about
Kubimana Silas, who got money from the government. When he arrived in
his home town, he worked very hard. We wondered why he was working so
frenetically. He must have liked money so much. The authorities were
much weaker ô.
ôDid Jean-Paul Akayezu save any Tutsis ? ô asked the defence counsel ôI
heard about it from a neighbour who said it was a real shame that
someone who had much such an effort to save lives had been arrested.
This person lives in Taba, and she is a Tutsi ô.
The witness was certain that Akayezu had not been involved in the
destruction of Ephrem Karangwaæs house, since he had ômet the people
who had done it and who were boasting about itö. Pursuing the same
cross-examination procedure, the Prosecutor forced the witness to admit
that he lived ô45 minutes from the mayorÆs office, if you walk quicklyö
and he not been there personally between April and June.
Having seen the mayor in a military uniform the witness went on to say
that ôthe Interahamwes had forced him to wear it under the threat of
death. ThatÆs public knowledge.
ItÆs really lucky that he survivedö.
ôWhat would have happened to Akayezu if he hadnÆt worked with the
Interahamwes?ö asked Navanethem Pillay.
ô I wouldnÆt say that Akayezu submitted to the InterahamwesÆ threats. He
escaped by using the tactic of diplomacy, among other things to save his
lifeö.
Teenagers
--------------
On February 11, two other witnesses, DIX and DJX, gave evidence. They
are brother and sister, and now live abroad. She is in her early 20s,
and he is 16, and was 12 at the time of the events. Questioning by the
defence lasted less than 15 minutes. The two teenagers lived about six
kilometres from the mayorÆs office and did not leave their district
during this period. Their written statements, emphasised President Kama,
are identical, word for word. The boyÆs testimony took three quarters of
an hour.
They had seen none of the events dealt with in this case.
__________________________________________________
Ubutabera is published by Intermedia association
with the support of the European Commission
____________________________________________________
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I n t e r m e d i a
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://persoweb.francenet.fr/~intermed
ARUSHA: PARIS:
intermed@habari.co.tz intermedia@micronet.fr
AICC Complex, Kilimandjaro wing 46, rue Meslay
3rd Floor, room 318 75003 Paris, FRANCE
Arusha, TANZANIA Tel: + 33 1 48 04 89 76
Tel: + 255 57 4207 (ext. 5160) Fax: + 33 1 48 04 87 23
