Karenzi Karake at Rwanda day in London

In different pictures taken during the meeting led by President Kagame last Rwanda Day in London, Karake, also known as ‘‘KK’’, is seen sitting calmly in the section of Rwandan officials despite the fact that he is under an international arrest warrant issued by Spanish courts in February 2008 , and should therefore be arrested and delivered to Spain. Yet, to our knowledge, Karake was able to come and go as he pleased on British soil.

This happened in spite of the warrant against KK stating he is the ‘‘highest responsible’’ for the massacres and elimination of the Hutu population in the districts of Nyakinama and Mukingo in Rwanda.

‘‘[Karake] knew of, and had approved, the killings of the [Hutu] civilian population from 1994 to 1997 in the towns of Ruhengeri, Gisenyi and Cyangugu, among which include the killing of three Spanish aid workers from Doctors of the World’’, reads the warrant.

Furthermore, Human Rights Watch (HRW) expressed great concerns regarding KK’s ‘‘military record’’ as a commanding officer of Rwandan troops in Kisangani, DRC, in June 2000, and his role in the killings of nearly a thousand civilians.  Referring to both Rwandan and Ugandan forces, the human rights organization said ‘‘both sides acted with blatant disregard for the lives of the civilians present in Kisangani’’ and asked for ‘‘further investigation into the conduct of General Karake’’. If found guilty, HRW suggested for KK to be removed from his position as a Deputy Commander in the joint Mission in Darfur of the United Nations/African Union (UNAMID).

With such accusations, General Karake would normally not venture to London for he would not be granted a visa. In any case, he would be immediately arrested according to international law.  For these reasons, in 2011, France already refused KK an entry visa prior to a presidential visit.  President Kagame retaliated by saying that the arrest warrants are politically motivated and only serve to limit the free movement of the accused.

Karenzi Karake at Rwanda day in London

Now, it seems the UK has kindly allowed for this alleged criminal’s ‘‘free movement’’, thereby violating international laws and agreements. In fact, KK’s presence at Rwanda Day suggests that even with a curriculum vitae filled with one serious crime after the other, one can still travel to the UK as he pleases. What is Great Britain’s agenda?

KK

KK was named head of the NISS on July 13^th 2011, following several other rearrangements in the Rwandan intelligence services made by President Kagame. In the new position, he gained more contact with the diaspora and the international community through Rwandan intelligence officials in Brussels, Paris and London. Earlier in 2010, during his time in the Rwandan army,  he spent a few months under ‘‘house arrest’’ for ‘‘misconduct inconsistent with the principles that govern the discipline of the Rwandan Defense Forces’’. He was released after being “forgiven” by military authorities.

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

GCRHR says it discovered and catalogued ‘‘various methods used by  the RPF led authorities in coercing young people into taking various actions that cause extreme fear of authorities and psychological destabilization.’’ In doing so, the regime would be attempting to secure its political power and ‘‘minimize any threat to its replacement’’, warns the report.

The report collected several interviews from witnesses and victims, saying the Rwandan National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) and the ruling party RPF have been ‘‘forcibly engaging young people to participate in activities that aim to change and shape their beliefs of the RPF regime’’. Their [the NISS and RPF] aim is believed to ‘‘paint and build a positive image about the country at the international level and spy on its own population’’.

Research conducted by the GCRHR claims that young people who engaged in the mandatory two-month ‘‘civic education’’ camps for secondary school students ‘‘suffered severe distress and downheartedness that cause them to live in extreme fear of authorities’’. Furthermore, many of the participants are also said to have endured ‘‘psychological destabilization’’ after the experience.

In Busogo’s Camps, a Northern province inRwanda, the youth is reported to being separated in groups based on their ‘‘backgrounds or ethnic origins’’. The education given to the Tutsi group talks about unification, patriotism and controlling those ‘‘who are prone to commit genocide’’. In the Hutu group, the message is that any suggestions that RFP has committed crimes against Hutus is considered as genocide denial and if that happens it should be reported and dealt by the law ‘‘accordingly’’. What is more, a person with such beliefs or anyone who suggests that ‘‘many Rwandans are illegally imprisoned or harassed by the authorities’’ is an enemy of the state.

‘‘For young people whose personal, family or close friends’ experiences in hands of RPF controlled authorities, agencies and military have been different from what they are being taught and forced to believe; this training experience leaves them with severe distress. There have been reports of several mental breakdowns, suicides and attempts to commit suicide by youth who participated in these youth camp’’, reads the report.

Recruiting for rebels in the DRC

GCRHR researchers also found that the camps are used as a recruitment reservoir for rebel groups in Eastern Congo.  ‘‘There have been cases of disappearance of young people after they have participated in the training camps (…) Since 2007, it is an open secret that those missing young people were sent to join rebel groups that are supported by the Rwandan government in D.R. Congo.’’ An escapee from the armed groups in DRC told GCRHR that the RPF selects whom to send to Congobased on their Swahili language skills, level of education attainment in secondary school and their social status.

Passing on ideas

Interviews held with ‘‘former and current officials within the Rwandan government’’ reveal the RPF’s strategy to target young people between 16 and 30 years of age because ‘‘this age group has not experienced the civil war of the 1990’s nor the Rwandan genocide of 1994, or experienced these as small children’’. As such, their beliefs on these events are more prone to be shaped through education. Also, the age group constitutes great political power as they represent 40% of the Rwandan population and more than 60% of the voting population.

GCRHR found that the targeted youth is taught about the history of the country and its cultural values in favour of ‘‘the RPF ideology’’ that hails the party’s army forces as heroic leaders who ‘’helped to overturn the bad and discriminating history of Rwanda’’. Those who adhere to this new belief ‘‘become active or potential RPF ideology and leadership supporters, promoters and protectors.’’ Thence, the political ideas are passed on. Moreover, those that question or criticize ‘‘any of the officially approved ideology’’ are said to be ‘‘arrested, harassed, marginalized, forced into exile or made to disappear’’.

Training spies

Harassed to harass in the name of dignity also mentions the secret training of selected ‘‘newly graduated university students’’ in Nasho, in the East of Rwanda. The students are said to be trained in ‘‘advanced military methodology, communication and persuasive skills, various methods to identify an enemy of the state, and spying methodologies’’. Upon completion of the one-year program, the students are employed by the government ‘‘on different levels’’ where, among others, they have ‘‘particular tasks of secretly monitoring their colleagues and produce daily or weekly reports to the RPF secretariat, the Department of Military Investigation (DMI) or the NISS.’’

GCRHR researchers also report on the meetings and trainings organized by Rwandan embassies and High Commissions for the youth in the Diaspora, including those on scholarships. ‘‘During the trainings, meetings and camps that are organized under this program, young people are informed and guided on different activities and methods to use in order to achieve or contribute to the Diaspora youth and students program. They are also required to report to embassies and High Commissions information about any Rwandans who are seeking asylum or refuge in foreign countries. They are also required to report any opposition groups and their activities’’.

GCRHR

Based in London, the Global Campaign for Rwandan Human Rights is a self-proclaimed ‘‘international human rights campaign established to promote and campaign human rights of all Rwandans’’. The ten-months investigation included a total of 43 witnesses, most of them  in the age group of  19 to 35 years and was conducted in order to ‘‘paint the full picture of the current situation in Rwanda as it relates to the youth’’.

For its data collection, the GCRHR interviewed ‘‘young people studying and working in Rwanda’’ as well as ‘‘young international students under the Rwandan or donors’ government scholarships studying in the UK and the USA, young Rwandans seeking asylum in the UK, Belgium, France, Ireland and the USA’’. In addition, former and current officials of the government were also interrogated.

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.ney

Link to report ‘‘Harassed to harass in the name of dignity’’: http://rwandansrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/RWANDA-Harassed-to-harass-in-the-name-of-dignity-APRIL-2013.pdf

A few days into the appeal trial of Ingabire, former FDLR members and co-accused Lieutenant-Colonel Tharcisse Nditurende, Lt Colonel Noël Habiyaremye, Captain Jean Marie Vianney Karuta and Major Vital Uwumuremyi told the Supreme Court that they ‘‘have never been members of such organization [the CDF], because it had never existed’’, according to the press release published on this 29^th of April by Twagirimana Boniface, Acting Vice-President of FDU-Inkingi.

Lieutenant-Colonel Nditurende admitted to have contacted Ingabire for ‘‘financial support’’ but says she ‘‘never responded positively’’. Regarding the prosecution’s evidence of e-mails in which he and Ingabire talked about the CDF, Nditurende revealed to the Supreme Court thatthe Ministry of Justice ‘‘forced him’’ to reveal the password of his e-mail account during his detention, thereby gaining ‘‘free access’’ to amend his messages.

In the first instance trial, the four witnesses pleaded guilty to conspiring with Victoire Ingabire to form the CDF armed group and affirmed that her aim was to ‘‘cause insecurity in Rwanda and force the government into peace talks by waging war’’.All four received ‘‘lenient’’ sentences for co-operating with the court: Vital Uwumuremyi was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months, Tharcisse Nditurende and Noël Habiyaremye to 3 years and 6 months, and Jean Marie Vianney Karutato to 2 years 7 months.

Controversial detention

In March 2013, Human Rights’ organization Amnesty International released its report Justice in jeopardy: The first instance trial of Victoire Ingabire in which it expressed concerns about the ‘‘prolonged incommunicado detention’’ of Ingabire’s co-accused, stating that it had ‘‘documented allegations of the use of torture to coerce confessions’’ in the detention Camp Kami where Nditurende and Habiyaremye were held before appearing in court. A defence witness also said that he and Uwamuremyi were held together at Camp Kami and the ‘‘terrorism-related accusations against Victoire Ingabire were fabricated under coercion from state security’’.

On the 25^th of March this year, Victoire Ingabire started her appeal trial after being sentenced to 8 years in prison for ‘‘genocide ideology’’ and ‘‘conspiracy against the government by use of war and terrorism’’ on the 30^th of October 2012. In its conviction, the High Court relied greatly on the confessions of the four witnesses.

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

Since the beginning of the national commemoration of the Rwandan genocide on April 7^th in Rwanda, 42 people are said to have been arrested for “harboring the genocide ideology” and “uttering inflammatory speeches that negate the genocide”, informs the Rwanda Bureau of Information and Broadcasting (ORINFOR).

The Rwandan police, however, insisted it has  gathered sufficient evidence for 33 of the arrests for  prosecution, while the remaining 11 are being further investigated for “suspicion of inflammatory speech» based on the genocide ideology law of the post-genocide period in Rwanda.

The country’s Commander in Chief, President Kagame called, in his annual commemoration speech, for a collective fight “against those who continue to deny or trivialize the Genocide against the Tutsi whether they are Rwandans or foreigners”. He added that there would be zero tolerance for “those with plans to propagate genocide ideology”.

“Genocide ideology”

Yet, to this day, because of the vagueness of the law at issue, it remains unclear as to what precisely defines and constitutes “genocide ideology”. Article 2 of Low No 18/2009 defines genocide ideology as follows:

“The genocide ideology is an aggregate of thoughts characterized by conduct, speeches, documents and other acts aiming at exterminating or inciting others to exterminate people basing (sic) on ethnic group, origin, nationality, region, color, physical appearance, sex, language, religion or political opinion, committed in normal periods or during war.”

Article 3 describes the characteristics of the crime of genocide ideology:

 “The crime of genocide ideology is characterized in any behavior manifested by acts aimed at dehumanizing (sic) a person or a group of persons with the same characteristics in the following manner:

1. Threatening, intimidating, degrading through diffamatory (sic) speeches, documents or actions which aim at propounding wickedness or inciting hatred;

2. Marginalizing, laughing at one’s misfortune, defaming, mocking, boasting, despising, degrading, creating (sic) confusion aiming at negating the genocide which occurred, stirring (sic) up ill feelings, taking revenge, altering testimony or evidence for the genocide which occurred;

3. Killing, planning to kill or attempting to kill someone for purposes of furthering genocide ideology.”

Rwanda has been criticized for violating its international human rights obligations and commitments to freedom of expression through this law, notably through its lack of a clear definition on what behavior is punishable and what is not, and the broadness of the terminology used for different conduct in article 3.

Furthermore, Amnesty International, in its 2010 report Safer to stay silent: The chilling effect of Rwanda’s laws on “genocide ideology” and “sectarianism”, found that “many Rwandans, even those with specialized knowledge of Rwandan law including lawyers and human rights workers, were unable to precisely define genocide ideology” and, remarkably, “even judges, the professionals charged with applying the law, noted that the law was broad and abstract”.

Up for review

In January 2011, the international criticism led to the Rwandan government committing itself to review the law at the United Nations Human Rights Council. However, now, two years later, very little has changed. Rwandans continue to be prosecuted based on the vague act, mostly resulting in convictions of opposition members and journalists. They are mostly found guilty of  “marginalizing the genocide” and “altering testimony or evidence” of the genocide whenever they refer to the atrocities allegedly committed by the current ruling party RPF.

Notably, one of the charges against Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, President of opposition party FDU-INKINGI, was “genocide ideology and divisionism”. She challenged the rules before Rwanda’s  Supreme Court in in March 2012 in which she demanded a constitutional review of the genocide ideology laws because these were “threatening freedom of expression and the rule of law”. However, in October of  the same year, the Supreme Court dismissed the case  “on grounds of lack of merits” because Victoire “failed to add copies” of certain Rwandan laws mentioned in her case.

Yet in November 2012, shortly after the verdict, Rwandan Minister of Justice Tharcisse Karugarama proposed several amendments to the parliament that would make the law “definitive” by «clearly defining constitutive elements of the offences». The major change in the new draft is that the crime of genocide ideology, is characterized with speeches, documents, threatening words and other public acts aimed at exterminating or inciting others to exterminate a group of people based on tribe, religion, color, sex, among others. Furthermore, the punishments for the manifestation of a genocide ideology now varies between fines of 100,000 Rwandan francs and 9 years in prison, thereby lowering the maximum sentence of life. The characteristics of the crimes at stake were not further amended and the official law has yet to be approved by the parliament.

As such,  Amnesty International’s outcry in its report Rwanda: unsafe to speak out: restrictions on freedom of expression in Rwanda published in June 2011 still stands. Indeed, up until today Rwandan authorities are called to «accelerate the review of the genocide ideology law» because through its broad drafting it «criminalizes expression that does not amount to hate speech, including legitimate criticism of the government».

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

Officially launched, on Monday April 15, 2013 by the Foreign Secretary, William Hague; the report of Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), acknowledges Rwanda’s impressive progress on social and economic rights as well as continued progress in advancing the rights of women and girls. Nevertheless, the UK expressed concerns about Rwanda’s constrained political space and the freedom of association and expression in general.

According to the report, “unregistered political parties experience harassment and the ability of political parties to secure registration ahead of the 2013 parliamentary elections will be a key test.” The UK says to be studying last year’s (October, 2012) conviction of opposition leader Victoire Ingabire who was sentenced to eight years by the High Court of Kigali, for conspiracy to undermine the country’s government and genocide denial. Her initial trial was denounced by renowned human rights organizations as “unfair and marred by irregularities”. Victoire Ingabire’s right to a fair trial is still in jeopardy, Amnesty international said in a report published last month. The UK says it will continue to follow the Ingabire case on the appeal, which started on March 25, 2013 and is still ongoing.

In 2009, Rwanda’s request to join the Commonwealth, although strongly supported by the British government, was heavily criticized by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). The NGO, mandated to ensure the practical realization of human rights in the countries of the Commonwealth, was very skeptical about President Paul Kagame’s Rwanda membership in the commonwealth community. The reasons for this were, among others, the lack of political space and the RPF led government’s record on human rights. These were qualified as “very poor“.

The CHRI’s report presided by Professor Yash Pal Ghai, a Kenyan constitutional expert, concluded by stating that Rwanda does not merit the inclusion into the Commonwealth community: “It does not make sense to admit a state that already does not satisfy Commonwealth standards. This would tarnish the reputation of the Commonwealth and confirm the opinion of many people and civic organizations that the leaders of its governments do not really care for democracy and human rights, and that its periodic, solemn declarations are merely hot air.”

Rwandan support to DRC rebels M23        

The report also pins Rwanda for its involvement in the DR Congo conflict. “There is credible and compelling evidence of Rwanda’s support for the M23 militia who have committed human rights abuses in Eastern DRC, including the recruitment of child soldiers, sexual violence, murder and displacement of civilians” reports FCO.

Prior to FCO findings, the 2009 CHRI Report had also warned the Commonwealth about Kigali’s meddling in the bloody conflicts that have been going on for almost two decades in Eastern DRC.

Already in 2009, the CHRI declared that “President Kagame has used his power to give immunity from prosecution to some of those suspected of being perpetrators of the most serious human rights abuses. The Rwandan government’s ongoing activities in the DRC and its support for  Tutsi militias in Kivu have raised serious concerns, and indeed recommendations that senior figures in the RPF ought to be brought before international and foreign tribunals.”

The 2012 FCO report provides no new elements into what is widely known for years on the state of human rights and democracy in Rwanda. The report lacks sufficient concrete recommendations on how to improve the situation. However, the report gives a fair account of the events that occurred in that region and that alone makes it highly valuable.

As Jennifer G. Cooke of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) puts it: “In the coming decade, the greatest vulnerability that Rwanda will confront is the unyielding nature of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front and its inability—or unwillingness—to allow and manage genuine political competition and debate.”

Jack Mugabo
Jambonews.net

Kazarama told AFP that although M23 has no right to attack the latest expansion of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), he and his men reserved the right to “respond” and ” defend” themselves. He added that the consequences of such a battle would not be attributed to his military movement.

“The Kinshasa government and the Security Council of the United Nations will be held responsible for everyone who becomes displaced and all the disasters that will occur because of the deployment of the brigade,” he said.

Earlier, the military group denounced the creation of the brigade by the Security Council by stating that the UN was choosing for ‘’the option of war” instead of “encouraging a political solution”.

“Now, the forces of the peace organ [The United Nations] will fight citizen groups that demand good governance  in our country” declared Bertrand Bisimwa, the movement’s political President.

M23 has been terrorizing the eastern part of the DRC since its creation in April 2012, leading up to the take-over of the regional capital city of Goma in November 2012. MONUSCO has been heavily criticized for its lack of an offensive mandate that prevented UN peacekeepers from drawing unless they were attacked themselves.   The long-awaited approval came on last March 28^th, when the mission was strengthened by more than 3000 peacekeepers in order to “neutralize the armed groups,  including the M23, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), the Allied Democratic Forces, the Alliance of Patriots for a free and sovereign Congo (APCLS), the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Mayi-Mayi.”

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

The witness, whose identity has been hidden for safety purposes, explained his experiences in an episode of the Flemish TV show Terzake that was broadcasted on the TV station Canvas last Friday, April 5^th. He reports the “preparation” of Rwandan witnesses before testifying in Belgian court hearings and claims he was instructed by Rwandan authorities to lie in his accusations of the defendant.

“Rwandan judicial authorities are involved in it [the preparation of witnesses]. The Public Prosecutor drove me to the [Kigali] airport himself before I boarded the plane to Belgium (..) Rwandan authorities do not want to lose genocide cases abroad (..) If all witnesses were prepared in the same way that I was, then maybe all who were found guilty were actually innocent”, he declared, before adding that he did not want the Rwandan government to know who he is, because if they knew “they would hurt his loved ones in Rwanda”.

In the same emission, Filip Reyntjes, professor at the university of Antwerp, comments on the preparation of witnesses by Rwanda and confirms the existence of a tight cooperation between Ibuka and local prosecutors that aims at “preparing witnesses and serving them with scenario’s and scripts to memorize before sending them off to the trial hearings”. He also adds that witnesses who differ from telling the story as they were instructed to do by the regime risk ‘’sanctions and revenge’’, not only for themselves, but also for their families.

On his part, the Cameroonian journalist, Charles Onana, is quoted saying that the prompting of witnesses is a “well-organized system’’ that uses real victims of the genocide to testify against innocent defendants by acting as if the defendant was the actual perpetrator of the crimes committed against them. He concludes by noting that this system “will continue to exist as long as the RPF stays in power” and says he is “absolutely sure that witnesses will come to give false testimonies at the next Rwandan trials in Belgium”.

Belgium is said to host around 30 000 Rwandans and has, like many other European countries, trialed several Rwandans for their role in the Rwandan genocide. Up until now, twelve cases have been dealt with by the Belgian Public Prosecutor, most of them resulting in a conviction of the defendant. Witness statements have been known to play a key role in every case.

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

Link to broadcast  :  http://www.canvas.be/programmas/terzake/server1-4fb24d04:13d7c2bafba:-79f9

(from 32minutes onwards)

This brigade, consisting of nearly 3 069 peacekeepers, includes three infantry battalions, one artillery and one special forces and reconnaissance company who will  be responsible for neutralizing the armed groups,  including the M23, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), the Allied Democratic Forces, the Alliance of Patriots for a free and sovereign Congo (APCLS), the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Mayi-Mayi.

Moreover, ‘’the Council will consider the continued presence of the Intervention Brigade in light of its performance and whether the DRC has made sufficient progress ​​in implementing its commitments under the PSC Framework [Framework Agreement for peace, security and cooperation in the DRC and the region] as well as the establishment and implementation of a national security sector reform roadmap for the creation of a Congolese “Rapid Reaction Force ” able to take over responsibility for achieving the objective of the Intervention Brigade,’’ reads the dispatch of the information Service of the UN.

Indeed, on February 24th, 11 countries in the region, including Rwanda and Uganda who according to a UN report support M23, signed the PSC Framework that commits them to protecting the territorial sovereignty of the DRC and to preserve peace and stability in the country.

The Special Envoy to the Great Lakes region, Mary Robinson, will be appointed by the Council to ‘’lead, coordinate and assess the implementation of national and regional commitments under the PSC Framework’’. She is also ‘’encouraged to lead a comprehensive political process that includes all relevant stakeholders to address the underlying root causes of the conflict’’.

‘’ The Secretary-General hopes that the strengthening of MONUSCO mandate, which also provides for the creation of an Intervention Brigade to address the problem of armed groups, will contribute to the restoration of state authority and long-term stability in the eastern DRC,’’ said his spokesman.

South Africa, Tanzania and Malawi will be contributing to the formation of the brigade.

“An opportunity for the Democratic Republic of Congo to enter a period of lasting peace”

The United Kingdom welcomed the adoption of resolution 2089 and thanked France ‘’for her leading role in reaching an agreement on this issue.’’

This resolution, adopted by unanimity, is “an opportunity for civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo, especially women and girls, to go about their lives in safety. Renewing MONUSCO’s mandate, with the inclusion of a specialized brigade, would contribute to the broad vision of peace and stability in the DRC. Implementing the accord should result in a world where justice is done and seen as such. A world where women of Eastern DRC no longer need to fear sexual violence and children are protected against the effects of conflict. This resolution is an important step in this direction, “said the Ambassador of the United Kingdom to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant.

Eugène-Richard Gasana, Rwanda’s UN envoy, said his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution because of its importance as an instrument for implementation of the Peace and Security Framework Agreement.

A turning point in the UN’s mission in the DRC

This is the first time that the Security Council endowed MONUSCO with an offensive mandate. Until now, the role of peacekeepers was essentially a defensive role aimed at the protection of civilians. Often, they would not have the right to draw unless they were attacked themselves.

In November 2012, the 17 000 peacekeepers of MONUSCO that cost about a billion dollars a year were accused of standing by and doing nothing when M23, which has been sowing terror in eastern DRC since April 2012, took over the city of Goma.

Origanal article in French by Laure Uwase

Translated by Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

Sylvain Sibomana

Sylvain Sibomana, the interim Secretary for the Rwandan opposition party FDU-Inkingi, is said to have been heavily assaulted by the Rwandan police when trying to gain access to the Supreme Court hearing of the party’s president, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, that took place last 25^th of March.

FDU’s External Relations Commissioner, Sixbert Musangamfura, called for “urgent action” in a following press release on the 25^th of March.

“The opposition figure was assaulted today by police officers within the Supreme Court premises while waiting for the opening of the appeal hearing of political prisoner Madame Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. He was taken to Kicukiro police station (Kigali city) where he was thoroughly beaten. Eye witnesses claim that he is in critical condition with severe injuries and broken bones. The Rwanda National Police has denied FDU-Inkingi delegation access to the ailing colleague still on the floor of the police cell. We call upon the government of Paul Kagame to ensure that Sylvain Sibomana receives adequate medical care; to allow visits from family members, party colleagues, human rights activists and journalists. Police officers involved in this brutality together with the Inspector General of the Police should be held accountable,’’ he said.

A day later, in an update on Sibomana’s condition, Musangamfura informed that the interim Secretary had been rushed to Kacyiru police hospital because of bleeding and shortness of breath. According to him and his colleague Alice Muhirwa, the party’s Treasurer, Sibomana’s condition has significantly deteriorated since the time of his arrest. “Our colleague who briefly saw him in the station [Kicukiro police station] noted severe bruising to his head and body and a broken tooth: his head and lip are swollen, and he can’t either walk or stand normally. We don’t know whether there is a reason to fear for a fractured skull, cracked ribs or worse,” declared Musangamfura.

The External Relations Commissioner also noted that Barrister Iain Edwards, Ingabire’s lawyer, was denied contact with Sibomana after waiting for several hours at the Kicukiro police station in the afternoon of the 26^th of March.

According to the interim Vice President of FDU-Inkingi, Boniface Twagirimana, Sylvain Sibomana and other opposition party members were arrested “in an attempt to deter” opposition members who were going “to pledge support to the political prisoner Madame Victoire Ingabire”  at the opening of her appeal trial.

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

“Justice in Jeopardy: The first instance trial of Victoire Ingabire”, as the report is titled, covers the proceedings in Ingabire’s first trial and specifically reports on Amnesty International’s concerns regarding the impediment of international fair trial standards at numerous occasions throughout the case.

For instance the report says that “(..)Comments by President Kagame relating to Victoire Ingabire’s culpability and the prosecution’s evidence against her, raised concerns around her right to the presumption of innocence. Such statements may have shaped the context in which the trial was conducted and indicated that the authorities had prejudged the outcome of the trial (..) The prosecution’s speech-related charges against Victoire Ingabire lacked a clear legal basis because some of the charges were based on imprecise and broad pieces of Rwandan legislation. Rwandan law currently criminalizes vast swathes of speech and writing, including the legitimate exercise of one’s freedom of expression. Problematic laws were used to underpin the prosecution’s case including the 2008 “genocide ideology” law and the 2001 law on “discrimination and sectarianism’’.

Furthermore, Amnesty evaluates the court’s failure to test the evidence of the prosecution. “The prosecution’s case against Victoire Ingabire rested in large part on confessions made by the co-accused after spending months in unlawful and incommunicado military detention. Amnesty International has documented how normal safeguards, which protect detainees in police stations and other official places of detention, are circumvented in these detention facilities. Scores of people were held in such conditions in 2010 and 2011 and some detainees reported torture and ill-treatments. When it came out during the trial that testimonies of two of the co-accused were made after prolonged unlawful and incommunicado military detention, the judges failed to ask questions to test the circumstances in which the confessions had been made.”

In the same report, the human rights organization also emphasizes the lack of impartiality of the Rwandan judges. “During judicial proceedings, the judges’ treatment of Victoire Ingabire appeared at times rather confrontational. They often spoke in a raised voice, reprimanded or argued with Victoire Ingabire, while not acting with the prosecution in the same way. On occasions, the judges invited the defendant to speak and immediately interrupted when she began. These interruptions to challenge the admissibility of evidence were often made when the defence was seeking to present information on sensitively perceived subjects, including reports from international human rights organizations and the United Nations. The judges did not constantly challenge or undermine the evidence submitted by the prosecution in the same way that they treated evidence put forward by the defence.”

These and more irregularities are discussed in the 40-page report and Amnesty International concludes by stating that “the accused was not treated in a fair and impartial way’” and calls for “strict compliance with international fair trial standards” from now on. Moreover, regarding the defendant’s charges related to the speech she delivered at the genocide memorial, Amnesty argues that “evidence heard in the trial, despite touching on sensitively perceived subjects within the Rwandan context, fell within the framework of what constitutes legitimate freedom of expression. Victoire Ingabire should not be convicted in relation to her legitimate and peaceful exercise of freedom of expression.”

Sarah Jackson, Amnesty International’s Acting Deputy Director of the Africa Programme, in a press release regarding the report added: “Looking at the evidence in the trial, Amnesty International cannot see how Victoire Ingabire intended to incite ethnic hatred or violence.”

Attacks on supporters

However, the appeal trial seems to have made a turbulent start as opposition members heading to the Supreme court are said to have been attacked, harassed and arrested according to today’s press release by Boniface Twagirimana, the interim Vice President of Ingabire’s political party FDU-Inkingi. “Since this morning, the police and other security forces are screening all paths to the supreme court in order to deter opposition members going to pledge support to the political prisoner Madame Victoire Ingabire as her hearing opens today. Mr. Sylvain Sibomana, FDU-Inkingi interim secretary general and other members have been beaten before their arrest’’. In his indignation, he calls “upon the government of Paul Kagame to release those arrested in today swoop, and ensure that police officers and their hierarchy are held accountable for their actions.”

Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza is the president of the Rwandan opposition party FDU-Inkingi who returned to Rwanda in January 2010 from the Netherlands, wanting to participate in the presidential elections. She was arrested and sentenced to eight years in prison on October 30, 2012 on charges of conspiracy to harm the authorities using terrorism and minimizing the 1994 genocide. Amnesty International observed her trial from September 2011 to April 2012.

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

Report ‘Justice in Jeopardy’: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR47/001/2013/en/52dac84e-b937-4540-8907-14cb398202d2/afr470012013en.pdf