Since 1994, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has been seeking to end the legacy of impunity associated with genocide and crimes against humanity. There have been somewhere around 40 people tried, and only six people acquitted. Still, after 15 years there are MANY outstanding indictments. The tribunal was supposed to close first in 2007, but even now 11 trials are taking place. How do you shut down a court of law that was established as temporary but has not completed its task?
As interns we have been tasked with several interesting (though tedious, of course) projects. The one we have been working on most immediately is an assessment of a major multifaceted project that attempts to strengthen the impact of the tribunal within Rwanda. This is really important since the ICTR is physically removed from Rwanda and much of the Rwandese population is illiterate and unable to access internet. The financial and narrative report that we produce is to be handed over to the European Union, who has generously funded these activities.
The workload has been interesting since both of our supervisors are now off site and my computer continues to shut off at random intervals. We also had one day last week that the UN network crashed on our floor. The obstacles seem to be an interesting mix of overstretched Tanzanian infrastructure (i.e. power supply) and overly ambitious bureaucratic tactics of a large organization.
Upon frustration with set backs, we have been frequenting the downstairs library and the courtrooms. Last Tuesday we sat in the public gallery for the sentencing of one of the accused; Renzaho. I have never seen anything like it. The man was in front of us, though we sat separated from the courtroom by glass windows, receiving all this information totally straight faced. A couple of times I watched him shake his head in disagreement with the evidence presented- I was just picturing him thinking, no no you got that one wrong. Puts the truth in interesting perspective as you realize that one, the accused was the only one in the courtroom who knew what he had and had not done, and two, that the laws heralded in the court necessarily attempt to get at this knowledge through witnesses. Quite an indirect procedure.
As we watched, Renzaho was convicted of five counts of genocide, murder and rape as crimes against humanity and in regards to the Geneva Conventions. He was sentenced to life in prison for these “blunders”. And we all left the tribunal for lunch. Talk about surreal!
The experience has already generated a lot of questions for me that I am hoping to consider further. For example, I have seen evidence that when someone is brought to the tribunal they are (unfortunately) assumed guilty. The only way they may be acquitted is if the defence can discredit the witnesses (which is potentially easier in the case of genocide as the “good” witnesses are often being threatened and scared into silence). The reversal of the notion of innocent until proven guilty may be a simple issue of humanity. An accusation of genocide is quite heavy compared to theft; it may be difficult for a person to remain objective in the face of such a charge.
No comments:
Post a Comment