Justice4Survivors

Making survivors’ voices count

Tag: Arusha

  • UN/ICTR: Residual Mechanism Could Finish Judicial Work Before Rwanda Tribunal

    ictr-logo

    Arusha (FH) – The Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT), set up to handle the residual tasks of the UN tribunals for Rwanda and ex-Yugoslavia, currently has only one case pending before it. That means that unless there are new arrests, it is likely to finish its judicial work before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

    The Arusha branch of the MICT, in charge of the residual tasks of the ICTR, started work on July 2, 2012, while the branch for the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) started operating at the beginning of July this year.

    The MICT was established by UN Resolution 1996 of December 22, 2010, which divides tasks between this new residual structure and the two ad hoc tribunals. The tribunals must complete their work by the end of 2014 at the latest. With regard to strictly judicial work, each tribunal must complete cases they had pending before the relevant MICT branch became operational, including appeals. Any new cases or appeals filed after that date are to be handled by the MICT, which was set up for an initial period of four years.

    Former minister’s appeal
    One year after it started working, the MICT Arusha branch currently has only the appeal of former Planning Minister Augustin Ngirabatware referred to it. Ngirabatware  was sentenced to 35 years in jail on December 22, 2012. Because the judgment was handed down five months after the MICT Arusha branch began operating, the MICT is to handle the appeal. Ngirabatware’s appeals hearing has yet to take place, but the depositions of the parties are well advanced, which, according to a member of the Registry, means a judgment could be expected by the end of the first half 2014.

    After that, the Arusha branch of the MICT will only return to the courtroom if there are new arrests. Nine accused persons are still on the run, including three “big fish”: rich businessman and alleged financier of the genocide Félicien Kabuga, former Defence Minister Augustin Bizimana, and former head of the Presidential Guard Protais Mpiranya. For Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow, who obtained the transfer of the six other fugitives’ cases to Rwanda, the three big fish should be tried by the MICT. But they must first be arrested, which the ICTR has not managed to do in 18 years of existence and with more resources than the new residual structure.

    ICTR steps up its pace
    Meanwhile the ICTR is redoubling its efforts to meet the UN’s closure deadline. Six appeals are currently pending before it, involving 15 convicted individuals. The most complex is that of former Minister of Family Affairs Pauline Nyiramasuhuko and five others. According to sources close to the case, the appeals hearing is unlikely to be held before summer 2014. “It seems unlikely that a judgment will be handed down before the first half of 2015. In other words, after the deadline set by New York,” say these sources.

    The mandate of the MICT nevertheless goes beyond judicial activities. It is also charged with managing the archives of the ICTR, supervising the implementation of sentences, examining requests for provisional release, ensuring the protection of victims and witnesses, and continuing cooperation with national jurisdictions seized with cases related to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

    Posted by Al.G

    First appeared http://www.hirondellenews.com

    Related articles

  • Le négationnisme onusien dans l’indemnisation des rescapés selon Ibuka.

    Le collectif des organisations et associations œuvrant pour les intérêts des survivants du génocide, Ibuka, s’insurge contre l’ONU, accusant l’organisation des nations unies de ne pas injecter de subsides substantiels dans le fonds d’assistance des rescapés du génocide, FARG.

    Ban-Ki-moon

    Le collectif Ibuka nuance toutefois son propos et rappelle qu’il a salué la reconnaissance par l’ONU dès 1995 que le crime perpétré en 1994, était bel et bien un crime de génocide et crime contre l’humanité commis contre les batutsi du Rwanda. Ibuka s’indigne à nouveau lorsqu’il faut voir dans quelle moindres proportions l’ONU s’investi dans la réparation des victimes dudit génocide. Albert Gasake, juriste et membre du conseil d’administration du collectif Ibuka monte au créneau en dénonçant ce constat qu’il qualifie d’injuste :
    « Lorsqu’on fait des calculs, l’Onu a alloué aux rescapés du génocide a peu près 30 millions de dollars, ce qui est l’équivalent juste d’un dollar par rescapé ; et en le comparant au budget que l’ONU dépense pour les génocidaire détenus à Arusha, l’ONU dépense plus de 180 millions de dollars chaque année, ce qui veut dire 30 millions pour chaque génocidaire ; nous trouvons ça injuste ! »                                                                                                          Pour ce collectif de droit Rwandais, le principal garant des droits de l’homme qu’est l’ONU se devait plutôt d’être à l’avant-garde de la communauté internationale à s’investir dans l’indemnisation des survivants du dernier génocide du 20eme siècle.                                                                                                                                        IBUKA en appelle donc à l’organisation des nations unies à faire des allocations exclusives et consistantes au FARG, dans lequel, elle n’intervient que dans certains de ses programmes de soutien aux vulnérables, alors que dans ses maigres moyens, constate encore le collectif, le gouvernement Rwandais contribue à hauteur de 5% de son budget annuel.                                                                                                                                                 Ibuka dénonce cette prise de position onusienne qu’il qualifie de plus deux poids deux mesures                                                                                                                                               Des statistiques officielles datées de 2002 dénombraient les survivants du génocide commis contre les batutsi du Rwanda en 1994 à plus ou moins 374 mille, mais jusqu’à ce jour il n’y a jamais eu de chiffres à etre rendus public par le collectif.Ibuka

    par Par Jean Jill Mazuru

    Apparue Igihe.com Juillet le 24/ 2013

    Related articles

  • New impetus in Genocide reparation cases

    ReportCoverFinal-195x255

     

    From the New Times By Jean de la Croix Tabaro June 06, 2013

    The Government is designing a new strategy to ensure that all issues related to compensation of Genocide survivors are sorted by December.

    The process has started with an assessment of the Gacaca judgments that were not executed, according to Pascal Bizimana Ruziganintwari, the deputy attorney general and permanent secretary in the Ministry of Justice. Speaking to The New Times on Tuesday, Bizimana said the decision was reached after consultative meetings with various stakeholders, including associations of Genocide survivors.

    Of the 599,025 Gacaca judgments related to properties, 158,095 were not executed, according to the Special Justice Taskforce commissioned this year by Prime Minister Pierre Damien Habumuremye to analyse injustice faced by Genocide survivors. In another report, the Justice ministry established that this year alone, 200,000 Gacaca cases that involves reparation out of which around 300,000 were enforced. “After ascertaining the number of property cases that were not enforced, we will support local entities and court bailiffs so that we execute all the remaining cases by the end of the year,” said Bizimana.

    In an  October 2012 discussion paper, the associations of Genocide survivors issued various recommendations to government on the need for a reparation fund.

    Restitution mooted

    Referring to UN basic Principles and Guidelines 19-23, 10 associations, including Ibuka, Surf, AERG, Redress and Duhozanye, recommended restitution. They defined this form of reparation as a legal practice that aims at restoring a victim to their situation before the tragedy. Restitution includes return to one’s place of residence, restoration of employment and return of property, among others. They also requested compensation for physical or mental harm, lost opportunities, moral damage and costs required for legal or expert assistance, medical services, psychological and social services. “Compensation is central to the right to an effective remedy and to reparation, particularly when restoring the victim to the situation before the gross violation took place,” reads the document.

    Quoting the document, Albert Gasake, the legal advisor of the Survivors Fund, Surf, said the majority of survivors are yet to have receive compensation and/or restitution awarded by courts, despite promises to the effect in the last 18 years. The document blamed the State, saying even though it was declared jointly liable with the accused in several cases, and compensation awards were made against the State, none of these civil verdicts against the State were enforced. It also faults the idea of alternative punishment (TIG)for culprits who fail to get compensation  “because it benefits only the State and not the survivors.”

    Mode of reparation

    However, Bizimana said reparation exercise should be seen in Rwandan context before relying on foreign experiences. He said reparation can be addressed by either looking at the general context, or on individual point of view.

    “The government, within its financial capacity, opted to look at the general interests as of reparation of Genocide survivors rather than looking at it from individual point of view. It’s in that context that we established the Fund for Assistance of Genocide Survivors,” he said. “Through this Fund, the government provides shelter, school and medication to the most vulnerable survivors such as children, the elderly and the disabled.” Bizimana said crime is a sole responsibility of the offender, which means that the State cannot help culprits to pay damages for their crimes. Nevertheless, if someone is found guilty, the Rwandan law gives the survivors the right to appeal for reparation on individual basis, he said.

    He added that even the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, based in Arusha, Tanzania, has a clause which allows Genocide survivors to file in Rwandan courts reparation cases against convicts it tries.

    Naftali Ahishakiye, the executive secretary of Ibuka, said more efforts are needed in compensation.

     

    Posted by Albert G

     

    Related articles