Lack of resources and bureaucratic bungling have caused major delays in the Rwanda genocide tribunal, reports Chris McGreal
THE start of the long-delayed international Rwanda genocide tribunal ran into new difficulties this week after the lawyer for the first Hutu scheduled to appear in the dock said he will boycott the trial because he has been prevented from putting together a case and is owed expenses.
The trial of Jean-Paul Akayesu, a Hutu former mayor charged with genocide and crimes against humanity for his part in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis across Rwanda in 1994, is still expected to take place in Arusha, Tanzania. But it looks increasingly likely to be put on hold, further undermining confidence in a tribunal plagued by inadequate funding, infighting and charges of incompetence.
The tribunal has indicted 22 Rwandans, of which four are in custody in Arusha, and another six are held in Cameroon, Belgium and Switzerland awaiting extradition. The court on Wednesday rejected an appeal to release one of the men in its custody on humanitarian grounds because he is seriously ill, reportedly with Aids. But the court did agree to postpone the trial of Georges Rutaganda, a businessman who allegedly organised massacres, until next March, by which time he is likely to be dead.
Akayesu’s Belgian lawyer, Johan Scheers, alleges that his efforts to build a credible defence have been frustrated by inadequate information from the prosecution which has provided only 20 pages of evidence with large sections blacked out to protect the identity of witnesses. He says he has been unable to question witnesses in Rwanda and Zaire, and has not been paid the more than 10 000 in expenses owed by the tribunal.
Scheers said he would appear before the court on Thursday to argue that the trial be postponed until these problems are resolved. But if the judges refuse to agree to a delay of several weeks, he would return to Belgium and leave Akayesu without a defence.
“I’m sorry, but in my opinion I am wasting my time here,” Scheers said. “I am prepared to attend the preliminary hearings and ask for a postponement. But I am not prepared to undertake a defence of this case if I cannot put it together. I will leave next week and the court can decide what to do with the case.”
The tribunal’s spokeswoman, Beatrice la Coste, dismissed the lawyer’s claims.
“These defence lawyers have been paid their expenses. It cannot be said their work has been hampered because they have not received their expenses. I think these are just delaying tactics,” she said.
If Scheers carries out his threat, it would leave Akayesu without a lawyer and the judges would have little choice but to put on hold a trial whose impact has already been diminished by long delays among a series of other problems.
The Rwanda tribunal was born in the guilt- filled aftermath of the genocide with promises that it would help build reconciliation by forcing recognition of the scale of the crime against Tutsis while dividing the organisers of the slaughter from the broad Hutu population. Some also hoped that it might serve to restrain extremists in neighbouring Burundi who have embarked on their own ethnic slaughter.
While the international community gave strong vocal backing to the creation of the tribunal, the chief prosecutor, Judge Richard Goldstone, said it failed to follow up with cash. He complained that investigations were retarded by lack of resources, especially personnel.
The tribunal’s critics say funding was a major obstacle and they also portray Judge Goldstone as part of the problem. Some accuse him of subordinating Rwanda to the more politically sensitive Bosnia trials. Others say he took on Rwanda because he wanted to put his name to the foundation of a permanent international tribunal.
But inexperienced young human rights lawyers quickly became disillusioned by turf wars, lack of leadership inside Rwanda and a dispersed decision-making structure that took in four cities – New York, Arusha, the Hague and Kigali.
The tribunal’s investigations were complicated when a number of the most notorious Hutu killers fell into the hands of various foreign governments. Cases had to be put together much more rapidly than planned before the wanted men were released, forcing established investigations to be abandoned in favour of a more haphazard pursuit of witnesses.
Besides its internal problems, the tribunal was undermined by the obstruction of its investigations by several governments. France continues to harbour readily identifiable killers. But the largest pool of known leaders of the genocide are still free in Zaire, Kenya and parts of West Africa.