Court of Remorse: Inside the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

13. The Principle of Ignorance

131 13 The Principle of Ignorance I wonder what makes those people tick, to have done what they did. In our culture, I thought to myself, it is not possible to behave in such a way on this earth, but unfortunately, that is the daily lot in that region. Judge Laïty Kama, interview in Nouvel Horizon, December 31, 1998 I: Hmmm. O S: I never saw that because he is not mushiru, he is a Mungogo. I: Mungogo? What does that mean? S: Someone who comes from Kingogo. I: Someone who comes from Kingogo? S: Uh-huh. I: Where is Kingogo? S: It’s in Satinsi and Remba [phonetic] commune. I: OK. S: But like Bahufite, he wasn’t mushiru. I: Hmmm. Yes? S: Bahufite, he was from Byumba. He was kiga, well, a Mukiga. I: Mukiga? S: Uh-huh. Someone who comes from the North. I: Yes. interrogation of Omar Serushago by an investigator with the OTP, February 11, 1998 The universalist ideal was a powerful, and no doubt sincere, force behind the establishment first of the international
tribunals in The Hague and Arusha and later the ICC. Since the nature of these crimes obligates the universal human community, it seemed natural that anyone who is a member of this community, regardless of origin, would be able to render justice. The premise, which seems convincing at first sight, was that judges, lawyers, legal experts, and police officers would have no problem performing their duties of investigating, prosecuting, defending, or judging, thanks to their professional expertise, which would be especially reliable since the court was to draw from the best and brightest in every nation. Following close on the heels of the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the tribunal for Rwanda would derive its independence from internationalization and its impartiality from its extranational makeup, which could include nationals of every country except the one where the crimes occurred. Just as the tribunal was not set up in Kigali in order to shield it from pressure or direct threats to the security of the proceedings, its legal structures are staffed solely by nonRwandans to guarantee its impartiality. It would have been difficult not to use the services of Rwandans for translation, witness assistance, and to a lesser extent , public-relations matters, so an exception was made in these areas. However , no Rwandan was ever supposed to appear to be in a position to influence the trials, much less the judgments. This foreigner-run court system, which bases its legitimacy on the fact that the crimes were against humanity, was intended to ensure the fairness and integrity of this nascent international justice. Many have highlighted the disconnect between Rwandans and the tribunal created on their behalf. Everyone recognizes that the geographical distance has had an impact. Also, the Rwandan authorities have managed to use, shake up, manipulate, and intimidate the ICTR. In a nutshell, they have had no qualms about subjecting the tribunal to their interests, and these policies have considerably weakened the institution in the eyes of the Rwandans. Another illustration of the tribunal’s eroded credibility is the disdain with which many Rwandans who have been following the trials recollect and evaluate what they have seen, read, or heard. To understand better, there is a simple but relevant way to portray how a Rwandan might perceive the proposed judicial process. Suppose you are a U.S. citizen. Imagine for one awful moment that a comparable mass crime has been committed in the United States. Everyone has been dragged into it, willingly or not, and questions about what led to the government and society’s downward spiral into crime are directly related to the most complex foundations of the country’s history as well as its most recent and obscure events. A tribunal is set up in Mexico City to try the main perpetrators. Three judges—a Congolese , a Chilean, and a Dutchman (the only English speaker)—conduct the 132 T h e P r i n c i p l e o f I g n o r a n c e proceedings on the basis of evidence gathered by Turkish, Senegalese, and Venezuelan investigators and presented by Italian, Korean, and Lebanese prosecutors . (If you are not American, simply “regionalize” the scenario to fit your own country.) Question: would we believe that “they” are capable of accurately understanding and interpreting our history...