© As International - Community for SurViVors

Saturday, February 15, 2014

All we want is for the truth to finally come out ! (Part IV) - Mme Louise Uwacu donne quelques conseils à Kagame

[Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule with an iron hand, tyranny and corruption in Rwanda. The current government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority of the Rwandan people (85% are Hutus)and mass arrests of Hutus by the RPF criminal organization =>AS International]

Mme Louise Uwacu donne quelques conseils à Kagame avant que les pays puissants ne se débarrassent de lui.
THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE CIVILIZED WORLD

In "They Think we are stupid !"

But wouldn’t it be terrible if they were mistaken?

Watch out for this Video (All we want is for the truth to finally come out!)

To repeat Kagame's lie and its scenario

about the Rwandan Genocide

is to codify it.

To disparage Rwandans who do question,

is to be complicit in Treason.

Kagame and his protectors spend each year billions of dollars telling the world rubbish and lying about the Rwandan genocide. They want the majority of Rwandans to lose their hope for FREEDOM.

FEAR and TERROR ARE THE TOOLS FOR THE RWANDAN TYRANT.

The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine

Friday, February 14, 2014

All we want is for the truth to finally come out ! (Part III)

[Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule with an iron hand, tyranny and corruption in Rwanda. The current government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority of the Rwandan people (85% are Hutus)and mass arrests of Hutus by the RPF criminal organization =>AS International]

THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE CIVILIZED WORLD

In "They Think we are stupid !"

But wouldn’t it be terrible if they were mistaken?

Watch out for this Video (All we want is for the truth to finally come out!)

To repeat Kagame's lie and its scenario

about the Rwandan Genocide

is to codify it.

To disparage Rwandans who do question,

is to be complicit in Treason.

Kagame and his protectors spend each year billions of dollars telling the world rubbish and lying about the Rwandan genocide. They want the majority of Rwandans to lose their hope for FREEDOM.

FEAR and TERROR ARE THE TOOLS FOR THE RWANDAN TYRANT.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Because Holland has invested millions of dollars in the Rwandese judicial system

Citizen confidence in the judicial system requires that judges, lawyers, court clerks, and others associated with the judiciary maintain the highest ethical standards.

Corruption is the abuse of power by a public official for private gain or any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system's original purpose. The abuse of public offices for private gain is paradigmatic of corruption.

A common belief is that corruption is a judge taking bribes. The definition exceeds this theory. Corruption describes any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system's original purpose.

Corrupt judicial systems not only violate the basic right to equality before the law but deny procedural rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

While corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and mail fraud.; it is not restricted to these activities. In this country, corruption is so common that it is expected when ordinary businesses or citizens interact with government officials. The end-point of political corruption is a kleptocracy, literally "rule by thieves".

N.B.: the As Press has not made changes in the article.

On December 20th Jean Claude I. knows if he can beextradited to Rwanda. He’s accused of being a leader of an armed militia during the genocide (1994) in Rwanda. He would have hunted down Tutsi’s and he’s supposed to have committed mass murders in Nyanza and Kigali. Jean Claude was 18 years in 1994.

Jean Claude lost his residence permit two years ago. In March this year his appeal was judged unfounded. He was arrested in July; Rwanda asked for his extradition because they see him as an important genocidair. Jean Claude is in provisional detention. If the judge says he can go to Rwanda because he can expect a fair trial, he will appeal.

After the world has found out that
Rakia Omaar was the RPF tool
To prejuduce Hutus
she disappeared. Actually she works for
The Somaliland Times !

This trial is important. About 20 other Rwandese are accused of being "genocidairs". If Jean Claude can be extradited, they can expect the same fate even though the Netherlands has no extradition treaty with Rwanda.

Prosecution and defence were very outspoken in court. Prosecution said Jean Claude was a liar and critized the arguments of the defence: old news from specialists who were not really specialists. The lawyer of Jean Claude, Michiel Pestman, told prosecution they were biased and having an agenda of their own. Because Holland has invested millions in the Rwandese judicial system, they could not admit the system was not correct. Also, having a lot of similar cases of genocide, which are difficult to prove in court, prosecution is trying to get rid of them through extradition.

Prosecution reacted in a tired way on arguments that should prove a fair trial in Rwanda is not possible. Manipulation of witnesses, false evidence, politicisation of trials? It’s known, checked and proven untrue in lots of court cases, according to prosecution.

They had a difficult moment when defence came with the lying witness in Canada, July 2013. A Canadian judge discovered discrepancies in his testimony. He admitted in having lied. He also admitted having lied in a Dutch court.

Specialist Filip Reyntjens is not a real specialist. He’s biased and not taken very seriously, according to prosecution. His statements as a witness at the Rwanda tribunal in Arusha (ICTR) were ignored or hidden in a footnote. But defence said it was Reyntjens himself who stopped cooperating with the ICTR. Their mandate was not strong enough: only Hutu’s could be prosecuted, no members of the army of president Kagame. Pestman told prosecution they were committing character murder of a scientist.

Prosecution used the trial of opposition leader Victoire Ingabire to show politics doesn’t meddle with trials. There can be held fair trials in Rwanda. Ingabire was found not guilty on the heaviest charges. And the judge even said Ingabire could play a positive role in Rwanda after her imprisonment. Off course not everything is perfect in Rwanda, but there is no such thing as a perfect country.

Defence talked about the hard conclusion of Amnesty International: the trial of Ingabire was not fair. According to postman, Ingabire’s trial was a comedy, which could never be staged in Europe. So why use lower standards for a trial in Rwanda? Pestman also referred to a letter of Iain Edwards, the English lawyer of Ingabire. He said her lawyers were harassed, intimidated and were not always able to hold a cross-examination. Rwanda had given to times over a guarantee Ingabire’s trial would be fair. Obviously Rwanda had not kept her promise.

Pestman asked for a postponement of the provisional detention. With an electronic transmitter around his ankle there should be no risk of an escape. The judge thought otherwise. She was afraid of an escape and found the accusations too heavy for a postponement.

Outside court

Behind the battle of lawyers lies a world of misery. Jean Claude’s wife (J.) lost everything; husband, income, but most of all: safety. ‘They came to our house very early in the morning to arrest my husband and to search the house. They made a lot of noise. They scared the hell out of my children. They were afraid to go back home afterwards and we stayed for three weeks with my sister. My children are changed. They are withdrawn and silent and are not doing well at school. That worries me a lot.’

J. speaks Dutch very well. She has an internship; she wants to become a nurse. With Jean Claude in prison she to get by with the money she gets for her study, impossible with two children and a baby to be born in February. She’s in dire straits because she also got a claim from the tax service: because her husband is illegal, she has to pay back around 11.000 euro.

The couple met in Kinshasa. Jean Claude was a representative of the Rwandan community and was often at the refugee office. They got married in Kinshasa. J. and her sister moved to Norway in 2002, she was pregnant of her first child. Jean Claude went on invitation to The Netherlands in 2003. J: ‘We went to different countries because that was better considering our different procedures. When my daughter became one year old, I went to Holland as well.’

Jean Claude became a plumber, but could no longer do his work because of a bad back. He wanted to become a security officer, got a certificate, but was never employed. J: ‘I don’t know why. There were some problems, but they never told us which problems.’

In 2012 Jean Claude starts working as a cab driver. J: ‘He needed an affidavit of good conduct and got one. Very strange considering the situation he was in.’

J. doesn’t know what she’ll do when her husband has to go back to Rwanda. ‘He taught me to laugh, to live. When I met him I had no real wish to live. I had seen so much. I became an orphan when I was four. My sisters and I had to go to an orphanage. We were there when the bombs started falling. We had to flee for the soldiers of the RPF. We saw a lot of dead people. A lot of blood. We started with 800 children, in the end we were with 200. I took care of a four-year-old girl. I carried her on my back, but one day she died. I was very sorry because I was used to her and she had such a beautiful smile. But I couldn’t help her. I was so tired.’

J. compares herself with a caged animal. ‘We have no money; I cannot work, because I have to be home for my children. In February I’ll have a new baby. We cannot go to Rwanda. I’ll die there.’

Monday, February 10, 2014

Stephen Rapp: Whitewashed Rwandan Genocide to absolve US culpability

By Daya Gamage - Asian Tribune News Analysis

Washington, D.C. 12 January (Asiantribune.com):

The United States' Global war crimes investigator Ambassador Stephen Rapp, head of the State Department's Office of Global Criminal Justice, was in Sri Lanka last week on a fact finding mission in preparation of the UN Human Rights Commission session this March which will scrutinize Sri Lanka's military engagement during the final months of its battle with separatist Tamil Tigers.

Ambassador Stephen Rapp

Mr. Rapp released a bombshell using Colombo's American Embassy Twitter Account to post in its web portal identifying an area as the location that Sri Lanka military used it firepower to kill thousands of Tamil civilians during those final battle with the LTTE.

This statement in the official American Embassy web portal was in fact a declaration that Sri Lanka committed war crimes and genocide.

Ambassador Rapp's visit comes ahead of the UN Human Rights Council Session due in early March in which the United States is expected to move a resolution on Sri Lanka possibly asking for an international probe.

Mr. Rapp used ambiguous and conflicting information and data to accuse Sri Lanka of violating International Humanitarian Laws (IHL) in a report released to the US Congress in October 2009 about the military battle between the government forces and the Tamil Tiger fighting cadre during final - January to May 2009 - stages of the Eelam War 4.

Ambassador Stephen Rapp undertook his official tour in Sri Lanka in search of answers to what happened during those five months and the government's accountability and reconciliation process with a very heavy baggage;his own culpability of covering-up Rwanda's 1994 genocide as an attempt to white-wash the United States involvement in that episode as the Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-appointed International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR).

In October 1990, the Ugandan army and the Rwandan Patriotic Front/Army (RPF) led by Major General Paul Kagame (who is now the president of Rwanda) invaded Rwanda from Uganda. The guerrillas who violated international laws and committed massive war crimes were backed by Britain, Belgium, the United States and Israel, according to many investigators and researchers. By July 1994, the RPF completed its coup d'etat and consolidated its power in Rwanda.

On April 6, 1994, the governments of Rwanda and Burundi were decapitated when the plane carrying the two presidents and top military staff was shot down over Kigali, Rwanda's capital.

The well-planned assassinations of Juvenal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira sparked a massive escalation of warfare that is falsely portrayed as the result of meaningless tribal savagery. These assassinations were major war crimes, and the RPF was largely responsible, but almost every attempt to honestly investigate the double presidential assassinations has been blocked by the U.S. and its allies.

Professor Peter Erlinder, of the William Mitchell College of Law in Pennsylvania (USA) who was very much involved in defending some at the ICTR which was functioning in Arusha in Tanzania has come out with an array of evidence and interpretations of the direct culpability of the current Rwandan president Paul Kagame in the Rwandan genocide, how he and his colleagues were given military training in the U.S., how Kagame as the head of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), a proxy force of the Pentagon according to Erlinder, invaded Rwanda to unleash a genocide with tacit approval of the United States, and in the following years how the United States took covert and overt steps to cover up its involvement in the Rwandan mass massacre.

It is here that Ambassador-at Large Stephen Rapp's name emerge. Mr. Rapp who was in Sri Lanka last week and also in 2012 as the head of the State Department's Office of Global Criminal Justice, in his previous position as the chief prosecutor of the Rwandan genocide, according to Peter Elinder, and many other investigators, was one of the main person who was involved in the cover up of US involvement in the Rwandan Genocide.

Prof. Elinder outlined the United States endeavor in the cover up of its own culpability in the Rwandan genocide, and the role played by Stephen Rapp as the Chief Rwanda Prosecutor of the United Nations.

He said: "The July 9, 2009 New York Times reported that the Obama administration had selected Stephen Rapp to replace the Bush administration Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, Pierre Prosper. Rapp began his international career at the UN Security Council Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 2001, while Carla Del Ponte was Chief Rwanda Prosecutor. Rapp's nomination just a few months after Del Ponte's of her memoir of her years as Chief UN Prosecutor, Madam Prosecutor: Confronting Humanity's Worst Criminals and the Culture of Impunity was published in English.

"Del Ponte's book describes in detail the systematic U.S.-initiated cover-up of crimes by the current Rwandan government, a U.S. ally, committed during the Rwanda Genocide, and how she was removed from her ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) position in 2003 by U.S. Ambassador Prosper, himself, when she refused to cooperate with the U.S.-initiated "cover-up."

According to Del Ponte, her ICTR Office had the evidence to prosecute Kagame for "touching-off" the Rwanda Genocide by ordering the assassination of Rwanda's former President Juvenal Habyarimana, long before 2003.

She also details the dozens of massacre sites, involving thousands of victims, for which the current Rwandan President, Paul Kagame and his military, should be prosecuted. The well-publicized canard, that "the identity of the assassins of Habyarimana is unknown" is a bald-faced lie, well -known by ICTR Prosecutors, according to Ms. Del Ponte, writes Prof. Elinder in a popular/well read web site Global Research.

Two years after Del Ponte was removed from office, Stephen Rapp became "Chief" of ICTR Prosecutions with access to all of the evidence known to Ms. Del Ponte, and more that has been made public in the past few years. During his four years at the ICTR, Ambassador Rapp like Del Ponte, also was in a position to prosecute Kagame and members of the current government of Rwanda but, not one member of Kagame's military has been prosecuted at the ICTR, to date...and the "cover-up" revealed by Del Ponte, continues today. And, unlike, Ms. Del Ponte, who was fired by the U.S., Mr. Rapp was first rewarded with an appointment as Chief Prosecutor at the U.S.-funded Sierra Leone Tribunal and now, a coveted ambassadorship by the Obama administration as the chief of the Office of Global Criminal Justice at the United States Department of State.

In February 2009, the ICTR issued its Judgment the Military-1 case, that main case at the ICTR, in which Mr. Rapp personally appeared for the Prosecution. Although massive violence did occur in Rwanda, the court certainly recognized that blaming only one side WAS a falsehood, when it acquitted all of the "architects of the killing machine" (as Mr. Rapp called the defendants in court) of conspiracy or planning to kill civilians. The highest ranking military-officer was acquitted of all charges.

And, although it is now clear from Ms. Del Ponte's memoirs that Mr. Rapp had the evidence to clear the ICTR defendants of the assassination charges and only the losing side has been blamed for all crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994. Simply put, Mr. Rapp and other ICTR prosecutors have withheld evidence that would be beneficial to the defense, contrary to Tribunal Rules; have prosecuted defendants for crimes they knew were committed by Kagame's forces; and, have created a system of "judicial impunity" that has permitted Kagame to kill millions in the eastern Congo.

It is in this context that Prof. Peter Elinder writing to Global Security questioned President Obama's wisdom in appointing Stephen Rapp as the head of the Office of War Crimes Issue (as was known before) at the State Department in this manner: "This 'inconvenient-African-truth,' raises an uncomfortable question regarding President Obama's nomination of Mr. Rapp, in the first place: Are Obama and his advisors ignorant of the public record regarding Rapp's complicity in the ICTR Cover-up....or do they just not give a damn?"
Ambassador Stephen Rapp was also privy to the following information when he was the Chief Prosecutor of the ICTR:

The US Ambassador to Rwanda, and declassified US documents from 1994, establish that:

(a) the assassination of the President of Burundi in October 1993 triggered a "genocide of 150,000 Burundian Hutus;"

(b) hundreds of thousands of Burundian Hutu refugees then poured into Rwanda;

(d) the Rwandan Patriotic Front assassinated the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi in April 1994.

And, that these were the actual causes of the Rwanda Genocide.

The U.S. Ambassador to Rwanda personally warned Kagame in November 1993 that, if he resumed the war, he would be responsible for mass violence in Rwanda in 1994, like that in Burundi in 1993. This was confirmed by cables from the State Dept on April 7, 1994;

UN documents show that the RPF was militarily dominant as of February 1993 and, according to UN Gen. Dallaire's cables to the UN in April-June 1994, Kagame refused to stop the violence because he was winning;

Former ICTR Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte's 2009 memoirs document then–Gen. Kagame's culpability for the assassination of the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi of April 6, 1994 that began the Rwandan Genocide, as does the 2008 indictment issued by Spanish Judge Fernando Abreu Merelles and the 2006 indictment of French Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière;

The Spanish indictment also describes, prefecture-by-prefecture, 325,000 murders of Hutus and Tutsis for which Kagame and the RPF are responsible, not including the massive killing after 1994, in both Rwanda and neighboring Congo;

In 2009 published Edward S. Herman and David Peterson's investigative/research book The Politics of Genocide said: "The United States and its allies worked hard in the early 1990s to weaken the Rwandan government, forcing the abandonment of many of the economic and social gains from the social revolution of 1959, thereby making the Habyarimana government less popular, and helping to reinforce the Tutsi minority's economic power. Eventually, the RPF was able to achieve a legal military presence inside Rwanda, thanks to a series of ceasefires and other agreements. These agreements led to the Arusha Peace Accords of August 1993, pressed upon the Rwandan government by the United States and its allies, called for the "integration" of the armed forces of Rwanda and (Kagame's) RPF, and for a "transitional," power-sharing government until national elections could be held in 1995. These Peace Accords positioned the RPF for its bloody overthrow of a relatively democratic coalition government, and the takeover of the Rwandan state by a minority dictatorship."

The chief of the U.S. State Department's Office of Global Criminal Justice Stephen Rapp knew this entire Rwandan episode, the U.S. interests in Paul Kagame, the UN concealment of the 1994 report at the behest of the Clinton administration, the U.S. military assistance to Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front and the entire exercise of the 'Rwandan cover up' to conceal the U.S. culpability in the Rwandan genocide when he focused his attention elsewhere; Sri Lanka.

Friday, February 7, 2014

All we want is for the truth to finally come out ! (Part II)

YEARS,

THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE CIVILIZED WORLD

In "They Think we are stupid !"

But wouldn’t it be terrible if they were mistaken?

Watch out for this Video (All we want is for the truth to finally come out!)

To repeat Kagame's lie and its scenario

about the Rwandan Genocide

is to codify it.

To disparage Rwandans who do question,

is to be complicit in Treason.

Kagame and his protectors spend each year billions of dollars telling the world rubbish and lying about the Rwandan genocide. They want the majority of Rwandans to lose their hope for FREEDOM.

FEAR and TERROR ARE THE TOOLS FOR THE RWANDAN TYRANT.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

All we want is for the truth to finally come out !

All we want is for the Truth to finally come out from the darkness

Bernard Lugan présente "Rwanda, un génocide en... par BernardLugan

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Statement by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Statement by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association at the conclusion of his visit to the Republic of Rwanda

Kigali, 27 January 2014

I would like to thank the Government of the Republic of Rwanda for inviting me to carry out a visit to the country. I commend Rwanda for being the first country in Africa to extend an invitation to my mandate since its establishment by the Human Rights Council in October 2010. I thank the Government for its excellent cooperation before and during the conduct of this mission. I am most grateful to all interlocutors I have met. I had fruitful exchanges with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Internal Security, the Minister of Local Government, the Minister of Public Service and Labour, the Minister of Trade and Industry, the Minister of East African Community, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Inspector General of Rwanda National Police. Moreover, I had the opportunity to meet with the Governor of the South Province and the Mayor of Huye.

I also met the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the Prosecutor General, the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament, and the Chair of the Committee on Unity, Human Rights and fight against Genocide of the Chamber of Deputies and its members. I had meetings with the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission, the Director of the Directorate General of Immigration and Emigration, the Chief Executive Officer of the Rwanda Governance Board, representatives of the Rwanda Human Rights Commission, and national and international non-governmental organizations, leaders of political parties, the Private Sector Federation, and representatives of diplomatic missions.

As Rwanda, and indeed the world, prepare to honour the memory of the victims of the Genocide 20 years since 1994, I would like to extend my best wishes and strength to the people of Rwanda, all of whom have been touched by this most egregious of human rights violations. Bon courage. I was humbled when I visited Rwanda during the 10th and 15th commemorations of the Genocide against the Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

As a Special Rapporteur, I am independent from the United Nations and I work voluntarily in my personal capacity. The overarching purpose of my visit to Rwanda is to contribute to the efforts it has undertaken in its path towards democratization, greater protection of human rights, and development with recommendations as to how Rwanda can better respect, promote and implement international human rights law and standards as it applies to the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.

Rwanda has come a long way since 1994. There has been remarkable progress in developing infrastructure, building institutions and ensuring stability and security. Twenty years is a short time in the life of a nation, which makes the achievements all the more outstanding. Indeed few could have predicted that the reconstruction of the Rwandan State could have reached such broad and deep levels in 1994. I am truly impressed by the resilience of the Rwandan people, the vibrancy of the economic sector, the relatively low levels of corruption, efforts at providing universal healthcare and social safety nets, and the neat and clean environment. This must be recognized, and applauded.

In the spirit of constructive dialogue, I wish to make some preliminary observations and recommendations. The Government has assured me that it sees this as an opportunity to consolidate the progress made over the years towards the realization of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the country.

Rwanda has ratified key international human rights instruments and committed itself to observe them. Moreover, in 2011 during the Universal Periodic Review Rwanda accepted all recommendations pertaining to the freedoms I am mandated to monitor. My assessment is guided by these principles.

Freedom of peaceful assembly

The Constitution guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly. Law No. 33.91 provides for prior notification for demonstrations on public roads and public assemblies. But it also then requires prior authorization for assemblies in open air, on public roads or in a public space in the interests of public safety, tranquillity or health. This creates an inherent contradiction in requiring both prior notification and authorization, paving the way for arbitrary decisions by the concerned authorities.

I firmly believe that the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly should not be subject to authorization by the authorities. At most, a prior notification procedure is sufficient, in order to facilitate peaceful assemblies and to take measures to protect public safety and order and the rights and freedoms of others. Moreover, spontaneous assemblies should be recognized in law and exempted from prior notification.

I was informed that in practice only peaceful assemblies which authorities favour are allowed to take place, such as the commemorations marches organized by Ibuka, which are also facilitated by the authorities. Peaceful protests voicing dissent and criticizing Government policies are reportedly not allowed.

For instance, students who presented a petition to the Prime Minister protesting against the reduction of scholarships were arrested for illegal demonstration. Similarly, members of a religious group who staged a peaceful protest to submit a petition to the President were arrested on the same ground. In addition, Mr Sylvain Sibomana, Secretary General of the Unified Democratic Forces FDU-Inkingi, was arrested with a fellow party member outside a courtroom while attending the trial of Ms Victoire Ingabire, Chair of the same party. They both wore T-shirts with the inscription “democracy and justice”. Mr Sibomana was injured by law enforcement officials in the course of his arrest.

According to the authorities, peaceful protests do not occur because there are other avenues to express criticism and solve contentious issues. That is well and good. However, not only are such avenues limited, but as illustrated by the aforementioned cases, the fear of being targeted has contributed to individuals and associations refraining from exercising their right to peaceful assembly to voice their grievances.

From my meeting with the Inspector General of the Police, it came out clearly that law enforcement officials view peaceful assemblies solely as an issue of ensuring public order, instead of adopting a human rights based approach that would facilitate assemblies as an integral right of every person in Rwanda to be protected robustly.

Let me emphasize that peaceful assemblies should not be feared. Rather they should be encouraged for there is value in expressing disagreement and differences peacefully and publicly. Indeed, there is no better gauge of what citizens think than peaceful protests. And it is in the interests of the state to allow public and peaceful assemblies as a “release valve” in order to avoid recourse to other means of dissent and disagreement that are not desirable. As stated by the Human Rights Council, “everyone must be able to express their grievances or aspirations in a peaceful manner, including through public protests without fear of reprisals or of being intimidated, harassed, injured… arbitrarily arrested [and] detained…” (resolution 22/10).

The undue restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly have also impacted negatively on the enjoyment of freedom of association as several associations have been prevented from holding general assemblies, a key requirement for forming a political party or a non-governmental organization. Indeed, several political activists, holding dissenting views, have been arrested for holding meetings to recruit members even in bars.

Freedom of association

Non-governmental organizations

The Constitution guarantees freedom of association. This right is further elaborated in the recently enacted laws governing the organisation and functioning of local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Although the legislation is an improvement from previous laws it nevertheless has maintained onerous and burdensome conditions for registration.

Local NGOs are required to hold a general assembly in order to appoint their legal representatives and office-bearers. Among other requirements, the minutes of these meetings including the signatures of all those who attended the general assembly should then be submitted to the regulatory authority, the Rwanda Governance Board (RGB). In my discussions with representatives from various organizations, it was apparent that while some organizations were not required to notify local authorities prior to holding their general assemblies, others - particularly the ones more critical of government – reported that they had to get prior authorization for these meetings. I urge the Government to ensure that prior notification or authorisation is not required for associations to hold private meetings.

To organise a general assembly means expending considerable financial and human resources, which many organizations can scarcely afford. Both local and international NGOs are required to provide letters of collaboration with authorities in the districts in which they operate. Again the financial cost, time and energy it takes to obtain these letters, from all districts in which the organizations wishes to operate, constitutes a serious drain on the resources of organizations. The Directorate of Immigration, which is responsible for the registration of international NGOs, requires that in addition, they provide evidence of funding for the period which they seek registration, up to 5 years. Most funding sources are unable to guarantee funding for multiple years. Many international NGOs are therefore forced to seek annual registration as they can only provide proof of financial resources for a year at a time. The enormous time and energy necessary to put together the registration requirements could be devoted to activities benefitting the community.

The contrast between the registration process for NGOs—a non-state actor--and that of businesses—also a non-state actor--in the private sector is striking. The business environment in Rwanda is notable for the ease with which businesses can be registered and operate. It is one reason for Rwanda’s economic transformation. A similar approach to the civil society sector will yield significant economic, social and political dividends, allowing for innovation and creativity.

As I have stated in my first thematic report to the Human Rights Council on best practices, registration procedures should be simple, non-onerous and expeditious. I consider that the right to freedom of association protects associations that are not registered and, in fact, registration should be by choice of association members and not a pre-requisite for the operation of associations.

Many of the interlocutors I met highlighted the role of the RGB in the life of local NGOs and faith-based organizations. Apart from registering local NGOs, RGB also has the responsibility of monitoring whether local NGOs and FBOs conform with domestic law. This broad language provides unjustifiable room for RGB to interfere with the internal affairs of local NGOs.

The case of the Rwandan League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LIPRODHOR) was brought to my attention in this regard. Of particular concern is the partisan role that RGB reportedly played in changing the leadership of LIPRODHOR under questionable circumstances. Similarly, RGB was implicated in determining the leadership at the Rwandan Collective of Leagues and Associations for the Defense of Human Rights (CLADHO).

The independence and ability of associations to run their internal affairs without external interference is of paramount importance in the exercise of the right to freedom of association. I see no justification for RGB involving itself in leadership wrangles within local NGOs. Resolution of such conflict should be the responsibility of the membership of the organization and ultimately the courts, with RGB’s role purely to endorse the leadership determined by the NGOs themselves or the courts. As a general principle, Government’s role in the civil society sector should mirror the role it plays in the private sector--solely that of registering entities within the sector.

It is abundantly evident to me that the Government of Rwanda has a clear vision of where it wants the country to be by 2020. This vision of development is inclusive and creates various spaces for interaction amongst the different stakeholders. At the local level, interactions take place in the context of Joint Action Development Forums (JADF) and plans, and I understand that these collaborations have been fruitful.

Nevertheless, I am concerned that the development partnerships between the Government and local and international NGOs are of a compulsory nature. This is evidenced by the necessity of collaboration letters, action plans that must align with the development objectives of the district, down to the level of activities, and in some cases demands for performance contracts to be concluded between local authorities and all NGOs. In fact, the perception of some in Government and in the civil society sector appears to be that NGOs are implementers of Government policy.

In order to protect the autonomy and independence of NGOs, I recommend that any partnerships between Government and civil society be voluntary rather than compulsory. In the development field, NGOs should be able to determine and operate within their priority areas of concern without interference or direction by authorities. This does not preclude areas that authorities do not consider to be a priority. The power of innovation is enhanced through openness. A multiplicity of interventions and approaches will serve to strengthen the capacity of the sector to respond to the needs of their beneficiaries and ultimately, to Rwandans as a whole.

I am also concerned by the stigmatization of local and international NGOs that has persisted in State-controlled media, and from Government officials, especially following the decisions of some donor agencies to channel funding for development through NGOs. While there should be transparency between donors and the State with regard to the sectors they are supporting and how much, the same approach the State takes to the private sector—which is regarded as a key actor in development—should obtain. Moreover, labelling of civil society actors who are critical of the Government as enemies of the State compromises their safety.

Let me also urge the Government to urgently complete its investigations, in a transparent way, into the death of Mr Gustave Sharangabo Makonene from Transparency International-Rwanda murdered in July 2013. As long as the circumstances of his death remain unclear, this case has a chilling effect on the NGO community in Rwanda.

Political parties

Concerning political parties, I have observed a lack of space for individuals to express dissenting views. The Government of Rwanda favours “consensus politics” and discourages public criticism and dissent. I am concerned that there is no genuine pluralistic society.

Indeed it appears that every dissenting political leader who rejects this consensus approach gets into legal trouble, with negations of the genocide, divisionism, sectarianism, and even spreading rumors being the favoured charges. In other cases, corruption charges for those who leave the RPF are preferred. And in all such cases, these politicians are accused of violence or having links with violent groups. This sends a chilling and unacceptable message that peaceful public disagreement with the Government is equivalent to criminality. The legitimate combat against terrorism, and other security considerations, should not be used as a bogeyman to restrict the right to freely associate.

This is the case of Ms Victoire Ingabire, Mr Sylvain Sibomana and Mr Anselme Mutuyimana from the FDU Inkingi, an opposition party denied registration to date, as well as of Mr Bernard Ntaganda from the PS Imberakuri. They were all sentenced from 4 to 15 years on similar charges. The sentences of 5 years and more will ban them from ever holding leadership positions in any political organization, according to the Law governing political organizations and politicians. And in all these cases, I was informed that they were being pressured to leave their parties and join the RPF or its allied parties.

History teaches us that not allowing peaceful dissent and branding a criminal every politician who resists the consensus approach, increase the attractiveness of alternative ways of dissent that are not helpful to Rwanda, or its people. I was therefore heartened to hear the Justice Minister’s assurance which I hope can be implemented that: “if you are dissenting peacefully, please go ahead.”

Rwanda favours a political order based on consensus led by the ruling party. The Government and Parliament seem to agree that Rwanda needs to be more cautious with political parties than with NGOs, given its recent history. But 20 years since the Genocide, the successful reconstruction of the Rwandan State should provide confidence to the Government that it can and should allow peaceful dissent and disagreement. Whether political parties decide to align with the Government is their choice, but this should not be compulsory in law or in fact.

On registration of parties, in addition to the barriers opposition political parties face when required to hold general assemblies to define their status, the overall process is long, laborious and, in far too many instances, arbitrary. Technical reasons can never justify a 4-year delay to register, as it has been the case for the Green party.

In addition, it is crucial that individuals exercising the right to associate, including opposition party members, are able to operate freely and without fear. State officials’ public comments celebrating the killing of an opposition politician inculcate fear within the opposition.

Now turning to the National Human Rights Commission of Rwanda, I note the work it has undertaken in promoting and protecting human rights in the country. However, relevant stakeholders should take adequate measures to enhance the independence and capacity of the Commission.

I call on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights and the United Nations Development Programme to continue their efforts to strengthen the capacity of civil society to engage on human rights issues, without using State bodies as intermediaries. I also urge them to continue their work capacitating State officials to meet their obligations under international law. I further call on the international community to especially continue providing political and financial support to genuinely independent NGOs.

To conclude, once again, I wish to state that the above preliminary conclusions and recommendations are shared as a friend of Rwanda. I have offered, and the Government has accepted, my help to further strengthen the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

I thank you for your attention.

END

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sur ce même sujet, le communiqué du haut commissariat de l'ONU pour les droits de l'homme: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14204&LangID=E

Twenty years after genocide, Rwanda should pave the way towards peaceful dissent – UN expertKIGALI / GENEVA (28 January 2014) – United Nations Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai commended the Rwandan Government on its economic development in the 20 years since the 1994 genocide, but urged that undue restrictions on the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association be lifted so that the country can expand its achievements to the fields of multiparty democracy and human rights.

“I commend Rwanda for its remarkable progress in developing infrastructure, building institutions and ensuring stability and security over the past 20 years,” Mr Kiai said* at the end of his first official visit to the country. “These efforts have laid the foundation for a bright future for Rwanda.”

“The next step is to build upon that foundation by developing a true multiparty democracy and allowing space for peaceful dissent,” stressed the independent expert charged by the UN Human Rights Council to monitor and promote the realization of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association worldwide.

Freedom of peaceful assembly

The Rwandan Constitution guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly, but the Special Rapporteur said he found that in practice, peaceful protests criticising government policies were generally not allowed. He also noted a “contradiction in requiring both prior notification and authorisation, paving the way for arbitrary decisions by the authorities.”

“Let me emphasize that peaceful assemblies should not be feared,” the human rights expert said. “Rather they should be encouraged. There is value in expressing disagreement and differences peacefully and publicly.”

Freedom of association

Rwanda’s constitution also guarantees the right to freedom of association, but Mr Kiai said that in practice, there are onerous obstacles to registration, limits on civil society’s freedom to operate in certain fields, and government interference in the internal affairs of groups deemed too critical of official policy.

The Special Rapporteur also noted concern from many people that the body charged with regulating local NGOs, the Rwanda Governance Board (RGB), interfered in the internal affairs of some organizations.

“The independence and ability of associations to run their internal affairs without external interference is of paramount importance in the exercise of the right to freedom of association,” he said. “I see no justification for RGB involving itself in leadership wrangles within local NGOs.”

The independent expert drew attention to the “striking difference between the registration process for NGOs and businesses.” Civil society groups can take months to register, while businesses can be formed in six hours or less.

“The ease with which businesses can be registered and operate in Rwanda is notable. It is one reason for the country’s economic transformation,” Mr Kiai said. “A similar approach to the civil society sector would yield significant economic, social and political dividends, allowing for innovation and creativity.”

The Special Rapporteur observed “a lack of space” for individuals to express dissenting views in the political realm, due to the Government favouring a type of “consensus politics” that strongly discourages public criticism. Registration of political parties, he said, is also “long, laborious and, in far too many instances, arbitrary.” The Green Party, for example, spent four years securing its registration. Other key opposition parties remain unregistered.

“Every dissenting political leader who rejects this consensus approach appears to get into legal trouble, with the most common charges being denying the genocide, sectarianism, corruption, and even spreading rumours,” Kiai said. “In all such cases, these politicians are accused of violence or having links with violent groups. This sends a chilling and unacceptable message that peaceful public disagreement with the Government is equivalent to criminality.”

The human rights expert highlighted the cases of Ms Victoire Ingabire, Mr Sylvain Sibomana and Mr Anselme Mutuyimana from the FDU Inkingi, an opposition party that has been unable to register to date, as well as of Mr Bernard Ntaganda from the PS Imberakuri. They have all been sentenced from four to fifteen years in prison on similar charges.

During his eight-day visit, Mr Kiai met State officials, members of the judiciary and of Parliament, representatives of the National Human rights Commission, members of civil society, and the diplomatic community.

The Special Rapporteur will present a final report on his visit to the Human Rights Council during its 26th session in June 2014.

(*) Check the full end-of-mission statement by the Special Rapporteur: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14201&LangID=E

ENDS

Mr Maina Kiai (Kenya) took up his functions as the first Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association on May 2011. Mr Kiai has been Executive Director of the International Council on Human Rights Policy; Chair of the Kenya National Human Rights Commission; Africa Director of the International Human Rights Law Group; and Africa Director of Amnesty International. As Special Rapporteur, he is independent from any Government or organization and serves in his individual capacity.

Learn more, log on to: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/AssemblyAssociation/Pages/SRFreedomAssemblyAssociationIndex.aspx

UN Human Rights, Country Page – Rwanda: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/AfricaRegion/Pages/RWIndex.aspx

For more information and media requests, please contact Guillaume Pfeifflé (+41 797 520 485 / gpfeiffle@ohchrg.org) or Karen Blanc (+41 22 917 94 00 / kblanc@ohchr.org) or write to freeassembly@ohchr.org.

For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts:
Xabier Celaya, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 9383 / xcelaya@ohchr.org)

A Candle For Remembering

Rwanda: Cartographie des crimes

Let us remember Our People

You can't stop thinking

Welcome to Home Truths

Everybody Hurts

KAGAME - GENOCIDAIRE

Paul Kagame admits ordering...

Why did Kagame this to me?

RPF committed the unspeakable

Inzira ndende

Search

Hutu Children & their Mums

Rwanda-rebranding

Ways To Get Rid of Kagame

Almighty God :Justice for US

Killing Hutus on daily basis

RPF Trade Mark: Akandoya

The Torture in Rwanda flourishes

Fighting For Our Freedom?

KAGAME VS JUSTICE

All we want is for the truth to finally come out ! (Part IV) - Mme Louise Uwacu donne quelques conseils à Kagame

All we want is for the truth to finally come out ! (Part III)

Because Holland has invested millions of dollars in the Rwandese judicial system

Stephen Rapp: Whitewashed Rwandan Genocide to absolve US culpability

All we want is for the truth to finally come out ! (Part II)

All we want is for the truth to finally come out !

Statement by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

AS International

Profile

Genocide masterminded by RPF

Human and Civil Rights

Rwanda: A mapping of crimes

KIBEHO: Rwandan Auschwitz

Mass murderers C. Sankara

Stephen Sackur’s Hard Talk.

Prof. Allan C. Stam

Prof. Christian Davenport

The killing Fields - Part 1

The killing Fields - Part II

Daily bread for Rwandans

The killing Fields - Part III

Time has come: Regime change

Drame rwandais- justice impartiale

Sheltering 2,5 million refugees

Latest videos

Rwanda's Untold Story

Rwanda, un génocide en questions

Nombre de Visiteurs

Pages

Popular Posts - Last 7 days

Archives

Everything happens for a reason

Hutus didn't plan Tutsi Genocide

Your comment if you LIKE IT. All for Human rights