Trial Chamber II

Before: Judge Florence Rita Arrey, Presiding Emile Francis Short Robert Fremr

Registrar: Adama Dieng

Date: 20 April 2011

THE PROSECUTOR

v. • Jean-Bosco UWINKINDI Case No. ICTR-200l-75-Rule 11 bis

PROSECUTOR'S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO:

(1) Defence Response to the Prosecutor's Request for the Referral ofthe case of Jean Uwinkindi to Rwanda Pursuant to Rule 11 bis ofthe Rules of Procedure and Evidence; (2) Amicus Curiae Briefof Human Rights Watch in opposition to Rule 11 bis Transfer; (3) Amicus Curiae Brief ofthe International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) Pursuant to Rule 74 (Rules of Procedure and Evidence); and (4) International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association (ICDAA) Amicus Curiae Brief

• The Prosecution The Defence Hassan Bubacar Jallow Claver Sindayigaya James J. Arguin lain Edwards George Mugwanya Bettina Spilker Inneke Onsea Abdoulaye Seye Francois Nsanzuwera •

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

SUBMISSIONS 3

A. Double jeopardy principles are inapplicable because the Accused's Gacaca Court convictions were vacated in deference to the Tribunal's superior jurisdiction 3

B. Referral pursuant to Rule 11 bis requires a Trial Chamber to be satisfied that the Accused will receive a fair trial in the national jurisdiction; this standard is necessarily prospective and, as such, based on probabilities, not certainties 6

C. Rwanda's judiciary is independent and fully capable of securing the Accused's right to a fair trial, including his right to the • presumption of innocence 8

1. Defence allegations of judicial corruption are wildly exaggerated.....9

a. The Defence distorts the Ombudsman's 2008 Report 9

b. The Defence twists Chief Justice Cyanzayire's statement 11 n. Defence allegations of political interference are unsubstantiated 13 a. No evidence links Rwanda to the alleged assassinations 13 b. No evidence supports Defence allegations of political interference with judicial decisions 15

c. ChiefJustice Busingye's alleged statement about political interference is false, and the statement attributed • to the Bizimungu trial judge is unsubstantiated 20

ui. Rwanda extends the presumption of innocence to all accused 23

D. Rwanda has a proven track record of cooperation with defence teams from the ICTR and other jurisdictions, and its Transfer Law provides defence teams and witnesses with broad immunity from arrest and prosecution 26

-- 1 -- 1. Rwanda cooperates with defence teams and their investigations; Defence allegations of official interference with defence investigations are unsubstantiated 27

11. The immunities available under Rwanda's Transfer Law render the nameless Defence witnesses' alleged fears unrealistic; and, in any event, there are readily-available alternatives for live testimony to address even these unrealistic fears 33

E. Rule 11 bis's monitoring and revocation provisions are meaningful safeguards to the Accused's right to a fair trial. 38

CONCLUSION 42 • ADDENDUM

•

-- 11 -- ~ITl_

INTRODUCTION 1. The Defence and its amici have submitted nearly 2000 pages of materials in opposition to the Prosecutor's application to refer this case to Rwanda for trial. Many of these submissions have been heard before in connection with the prior round of Rule 11 bis proceedings and already have been addressed in the Prosecutor's initial application and Rwanda's amicus curiae brief. Additional submissions relating to an indigent accused's ability to secure free legal assistance and present a full defence in connection with any referred case will be addressed in the amici curiae brief to be filed by the Kigali Bar Association. 2. This consolidated response will not retread the same ground. Instead, the Prosecutor submits this consolidated response to address two threshold issues • raised by the Defence. First, contrary to the Defence submissions, double jeopardy principles do not bar referraL In deference to the Tribunal's superior jurisdiction, the Accused's Gacaca Court convictions were vacated by the higher court and, thus, are no barrier to referral. Second, the standard for referral under Rule 11 bis provides, in relevant part, that the "Trial Chamber shall satisfy itself that the accused will receive a fair trial in the courts of the State concerned ...." Contrary to the Defence submissions, the rule does not say or in any way suggest that referral can only be granted if it is shown - by proof beyond reasonable doubt - that the accused will receive a fair trial in the courts of the State concerned. Indeed, because the rule's focus is on a trial that has not yet occurred, it must be interpreted with reference to likelihoods or probabilities, not absolute certainties or • proof beyond reasonable doubt. 3. In addition, the Prosecutor submits this consolidated response to address three common themes running through all of the opposing briefs. First, contrary to the Defence submissions, Rwanda's judiciary is free and independent. The Defence and its amici's attempts to portray it as a bastion of political influence and corruption are grounded on outright falsehoods, gross misrepresentations, and half­ truths. Second, the broad immunity conferred on defence teams and witnesses under Rwanda's Transfer Law renders the Defence and its amici's professed fears of

-- 1 _. arrest and prosecution under the Genocide Ideology Law unrealistic. The Chamber should not suspend reality by crediting subjective fears of arrest and prosecution where no realistic threat of arrest and prosecution exists. And, even if these subjective fears were credited, readily-available alternatives exist for the Defence in any referred case to obtain live witness testimony. Third, the safeguards for monitoring and revocation of referral provided by Rule 11 bis are not toothless defenders of an Accused's fair trial rights. Indeed, recent amendments to Rule 11 bis give these provisions even more bite by expanding the Referral Chamber's authority proprio motu to appoint monitors and initiate revocation. 4. Before turning to the merits of these issues, however, there is one irony in the Defence submissions that bears particular note. The Defence and its amici have • liberally criticized the so-called "political climate" in Rwanda as being hostile toward free and open debate. Yet, in these proceedings, it has been the Defence that has attempted to stifle free and open debate on the merits of the Prosecutor's application. The Defence, for instance, opposes Rwanda's invitation to the Chamber to conduct a site visit to see first-hand the conditions under which the Accused would be tried and, if convicted, serve his sentence. The Defence offers no reasoned explanation for its opposition; it merely says a site visit would be a "waste of time." 1 5. Additionally, in contrast to the Prosecutor's assent to amici submissions both supporting and opposing referral, the Defence has objected to amici it perceives as supporting referral, including the Kigali Bar Association. The Defence also opposed • Rwanda's attempt to file a limited response to correct false allegations that the Defence lodged against Rwanda's judiciary. Regrettably, the Chamber acquiesced to the Defence request to prevent Rwanda from filing a response. It should not acquiesce to the Defence attempt to prevent the Chamber from conducting a site visit, particularly where many of Defence and its amici's submissions are premised on unsubstantiated and amorphous allegations of an allegedly hostile "political

I The Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-R11bis, Defence Response to the Prosecutor's Request for the Referral of the Case of Jean Uwinkindi to Rwanda pursuant to Rule 11 bis ofthe Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 14 March 2011, para. 429 (Defence Response).

.. 2 .. climate" in Rwanda. The Chamber should see for itself that no such environment exists in today's Rwanda. SUBMISSIONS A. Double jeopardy principles are inapplicable because the Accused's Gacaca Court convictions were vacated in deference to the Tribunal's superior jurisdiction.

6. Contrary to Defence submissions, double jeopardy principles do not bar referral of this case.s In deference to this Tribunal's superior jurisdiction, the Accused's Gacaca court convictions were vacated by the higher court, the Gacaca Courts of Appeal, and, thus, are no barrier to referraL 7. Under Rwandan law, Gacaca proceedings are not initiated by the Prosecutor • General, but by the Gacaca courts themselves.s The Gacaca courts, which are organized both on the administrative level of the cell and the sector.! are comprised of Gacaca lay judges or Inyangamugayo. These judges are authorized by law to carry out investigations, initiate prosecutions, conduct trials, and impose sentences." 8. Gacaca prosecutions are initiated through an information gathering process that takes place at each cell within a sector. Within each cell, lists of persons killed during the genocide are complied, together with lists of the suspected perpetrators of these crimes." Based on these lists, the Gacaca lay judges of the cell place the accused into one of the categories set out in the Gacaca Law, which varies according • to the type of crime committed and the extent of the accused's alleged

2 Defence Response, paras. 32-75. 3 Articles 34, 36, 37 and 39 of the Organic Law No. 16/2004 of 19 June 2004 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca Courts charged with prosecuting and trying the perpetrators of the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity, committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994, Official Gazette, Special No. of 19 June 2004 (as modified and complemented by Organic Law No. 28/2006 of 27 June 2006, Organic Law No. 10/2007 of 1 March 2007 and Organic Law No. 13/2008 of 19 May 2008) (Gacaca Law) 4 Each sector is composed of several cells. Every sector has a Gacaca court, but also every cell has its Gacaca Court. 5 Articles 34, 36, 37 and 39 of the Gacaca Law. 6 Article 33 of the Gacaca Law.

-- 3 -- participation." This categorization process, in turn, determines which Gacaca court (the Gacaca Cell Court or Gacaca Sector Court) will preside over the accused's trial and, ifconvicted, what range of sentence may be imposed.f 9. Pursuant to this procedure, the Accused was identified in two different cells as having planned, organized, and supervised the genocide. He also was identified as a person occupying a position of authority. These charges placed the Accused in the First Category of offenders under the Gacaca Law.? Based on this categorization, the two Gacaca Cell Courts forwarded the Accused's case file to the Gacaca Sector Courts of their respective sectors (both of which are located in the Bugesera District) for prosecution and trial.!? 10. Thereafter, the Accused was tried and convicted by two different Gacaca • Sector Courts: Kayumba and Ntarama Gacaca Sector Courts."! Because the Accused was not present in Rwanda, his trials before the Gacaca Sector Courts were conducted in abeeniia.s» The lay judges of the Gacaca Sector Courts apparently conducted all of these proceedings against the Accused without knowing that the Tribunal already had issued an indictment and arrest warrant against the

Accused. 13

7 Article 34 together with Article 51 of the Gacaca Law. 8 Articles 41, 42, 51, 72 and 73 of the Gacaca Law. 9 Article 51 of the Gacaca Law. 10 Although First Category offenders were initially tried through the regular justice system, an amendment to the Gacaca Law in 2008 authorized the Gacaca Sector Court to try such offenders. Article 42 of the Gacaca Law, as modified and complemented by the Organic Law No. 13/2008 of 19 May 2008. The Gacaca Cell Court of Gatare forwarded the Accused's case file to the Gacaca Sector Court of Kayumba (see Kayumba Gacaca Sector Court Judgement, 7 May 2009, included in Exhibit A • of the Addendum to this Response). The Gacaca Cell Court of Rwankeri forwarded the Accused's case file to the Gacaca Sector Court of Ntarama (see Ntarama Gacaca Sector Court Judgement, 20 August 2009, included in Exhibit A of the Addendum to this Response). 11 See Kayumba Gacaca Sector Court Judgement, 7 May 2009, and Ntarama Gacaca Sector Court Judgement, 20 August 2009 (both copies are included in Exhibit A). 12 Rwanda's Code of Criminal Procedure allows for trials in absentia in certain circumstances, see Articles 196-204, but its Transfer Law prohibits trials in abstenia in connection with any referred case (Article 13(7) of the Transfer Law). Moreover, even when a person is tried and convicted in absentia, Rwandan law provides that, upon arrest, the accused may set aside the judgement and demand trial de novo. 13 See The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-I, Indictment, dated 5 September 2001 and filed 11 September 2001 (initially confirmed on 31 August 2001); The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-I, Warrant of Arrest and Orders for Transfer and Detention and for Search and Seizure, dated 31 August 2001 and filed on 3 September 2001. The

.- 4 -- 11. In connection with these Rule 11 bis referral proceedings, the Prosecutor inquired of Rwanda's Prosecutor General whether the Accused had been tried in Rwanda.t- Rwanda's Prosecutor General learned of the Accused's two Gacaca Sector Court prosecutions and convictions. Because these prosecutions transgressed the Tribunal's supremacy under Article 8 of the ICTR Statute, Rwanda's Prosecutor General wrote to the Executive Secretary of the National Service of the Gacaca Courts, requesting that the Accused's convictions be set aside.P In support of this request, Rwanda's Prosecutor General made three points: • The Accused was included on the ICTR lists of suspects, he had been arrested by the ICTR, and he was currently in the ICTR's custody, thereby demonstrating that the ICTR had primary jurisdiction over the Accused. • Pursuant to Article 2 of the Transfer Law, assuming the ICTR referred the Accused's case for trial in Rwanda, the High Court was the only competent • court to try the Accused in the firet instance. • The Gacaca Sector Court judgments violated Circular No. 1285/DG/2008, which was issued by the Executive Secretary of the National Service of the Gacaca Courts on 10 December 2008. According to this circular, the Gacaca courts should not try suspects who are abroad, particularly when the suspects are former government officials.tv 12. Acting on the Prosecutor General's submissions, the Executive Secretary, pursuant to her authority under Article 50 of the Gacaca Law, advised the Presidents of the Gacaca Courts of Appeal that the Accused's convictions in the Gacaca Sector Courts were improper and inconsistent with the law.!? Thereafter, the Gacaca Courts of Appeal, acting pursuant to their authority under Article 93 of • the Gacaca Law, vacated the Accused's convictions because they contravened

Accused was arrested in Uganda on 30 June 2010 and transferred to the Tribunal's detention facility on 2 July 2010. 14 Letter from ICTR Prosecutor, Hassan Bubacar Jallow, to Mr. Martin Ngoga, Rwanda's Prosecutor General, 22 October 2010 (copy included in Exhibit A of the Addendum to this Response). 15 Pursuant to Article 50 of the Gacaca Law, the National Service of the Gacaca Courts supervises and coordinates the activities of all Gacaca courts. It is tasked with ensuring that judgments issued by Gacaca courts comply with Rwandan law. See Letter from Mr. Martin Ngoga, Rwanda's Prosecutor General, to Executive Secretary of the National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions, 28 October 2010 (copy included in Exhibit A of the Addendum to this Response). 16 Ibid. 17 See Letter from Ms. Domitilla Mukantaganzwa, Executive Secretary of the National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions, to President of the Kayumba Gacaca Court of Appeal, 3 November 2010 (copy included in Exhibit A of the Addendum to this Response).

-- 5 -- 41~

Rwanda's Transfer Law and, by extension, the Tribunal's superior jurisdiction.IS Rwanda's Prosecutor General subsequently informed the ICTR Prosecutor of the vacation of the Gacaca Sector Court judgments to enable the ICTR either to try the Accused or to transfer his case to Rwanda.t? 13. By nullifying the Accused's convictions, the Gacaca Courts of Appeal effectively wiped the slate clean, rendering jeopardy principles inapplicable.s" Accordingly, contrary to the Defence's submissions, jeopardy principles do not bar trial of the Accused before either the Tribunal or, if the Prosecutor's referral application is allowed, Rwanda's High Court. B. Referral pursuant to Rule 11 bis requires a Trial Chamber to be satisfied that the Accused will receive a fair trial in the national jurisdiction; this standard is necessarily prospective and, as such, • based on probabilities, not certainties. 14. The standard for referral under Rule 11 bis is included in the Rule itself, which provides, in relevant part, that the "Trial Chamber shall satisfy itself that the accused will receive a fair trial in the courts of the State concerned.w' By focusing on the fairness of a trial that has not yet occurred, the rule anticipates application of a prospective standard, that is, one based on events that are likely to occur if referral is allowed. Thus, contrary to the Defence submissions.s- the standard for referral under Rule 11 bis (C) must be interpreted with reference to likelihoods or probabilities, not absolute certainties or proof beyond reasonable • doubt.

18 See Kayumba Gacaca Court of Appeal Judgement, 4 November 2010; Ntarama Gacaca Court of Appeal Judgement, 5 November 2010 (copies are included in Exhibit A of the Addendum to this Response). 19 Letter from Mr. Martin Ngoga, Rwanda's Prosecutor General, to ICTR Prosecutor, Hassan Bubacar Jallow, 18 November 2010 (copy included in Exhibit A of the Addendum to this Response). He added that, once transferred, the competent court to try the Accused will be the High Court pursuant to Article 2 of the Transfer Law. 20 See Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147, 152 (1986) (jeopardy does not bar retrial where the accused's "original conviction has been nullified and 'the stale wiped clean"), 21 Rule bis (C) (emphasis added). 22 Defence Response, paras. 9-31.

.. 6 .- 15. This conclusion is supported by Appeals Chamber's jurisprudence, including decisions from the ICTY Appeals Chamber. 23 The ICTY Appeals Chamber has held that, in assessing whether a trial will be fair in the courts of the State concerned, emphasis is placed on what would be the case if the accused were to be transferred.>' In answering this question, the ICTY Appeals Chamber stressed that the legal framework for ensuring the accused's right to a fair trial in the courts of the State concerned is paramount. 16. This focus on the legal framework governing the accused's right to a fair trial in the courts of the State concerned is particularly important where, as here, no cases have yet been referred for trial and, consequently, there is no past experience to draw upon in evaluating whether the accused will receive a fair trial. Under these circumstances, the Appeals Chamber has held that it is sufficient for a Trial • Chamber to satisfy itself that the laws applicable to proceedings against the accused in the courts of the State concerned provide adequate protections to ensure a fair trial. 17. In Mejakic, for example, the ICTY Trial Chamber was satisfied that the accused would receive a fair trial if his case were referred to Bosnia-Herzegovina because legislation in that jurisdiction afforded the accused adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence. According to the Appeals Chamber, the Trial Chamber's satisfaction that the existing legal framework was adequate to protect the accused's right to a fair trial was "all it was required to do pursuant to Rule 11 • bis of the Rules."25 The Defence's suggestion that Rule 11 bis imposes a more

23 The ICTR Appeals Chamber has recognized that the case law of the ICTY Appeals Chamber regarding referrals to national jurisdiction is applicable in the context of this Tribunal as well, because it involves a similar legal framework. See The Prosecutor v. Michel Bagaragaza, Case No. ICTR-05-86-ARllbis, Decision on Rule 11 bis Appeal, 30 August 2006, para. 9. 24 The Prosecutor v. Radovan Stankovic, Case No. IT-96-23/2-ARllbis.l, Decision on Rule llbis Referral, 1 September 2005, para. 28 (Stankovic (AC)); The Prosecutor v. Mitar Rasevic & Savo Todooic, Case No. IT-97-2511-ARllbis.l & IT-97-2511-ARllbis.2, Decision on Savo Todovic's Appeals against Decisions on Referral under Rule 11 bis, 4 September 2006, para. 79 (Todovic (AC)). 25 Prosecutor v. Zeljko Mejakic et al., Case No. IT-02-65-ARllbis.l, Decision on Joint Defence Appeal against Decision on Referral under Rule llbis, 7 April 2006, para. 69 (Mejakic (AC)); see also Todovic (AC), para. 56.

.- 7 .- 416~

onerous standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt that a fair trial will, in fact, occur is, therefore, contrary to the Appeals Chamber's jurisprudence. 18. It also makes no practical sense. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a trial standard. It can be meaningfully applied in a trial setting because the trier of fact is able to draw upon evidence relating to events that already have occurred. Rule 11 bis, in contrast, looks forward to a trial that has not yet occurred. The Rule cannot expect omniscience on the part of Trial Chambers, particularly where, as here, no prior cases have been referred for trial in the courts of the State concerned. Instead, as the Appeals Chamber has held, the best indicator of whether a fair trial will occur is the legal framework that exists in the courts of the State concerned to protect an accused's right to a fair trial. So long as the Chamber is satisfied that this legal framework is adequate to protect an accused's right to a fair trial, Rule 11 • bis's standard for referral is met.26 C. Rwanda's judiciary is independent and fully capable of securing the Accused's right to a fair trial, including his right to the presumption ofinnocence.

19. As demonstrated in the Prosecutor's application and Rwanda's Amicus Brief, judges on Rwanda's Supreme Court and High Court are independent and uniquely qualified to preside over any referred case. They are appointed for life, governed by strict ethical rules, subject to annual evaluations, and highly experienced in genocide prosecutions. Indeed, the Defence concedes that "Rwandan judges are almost certainly more experienced in trying genocide cases than would be the • judges of almost any other jurisdiction in the world."27 The Defence and its amici nevertheless contend that the Rwandan judiciary is not independent in fact because it is allegedly plagued by corruption and subject to political pressure that, according to them, deprives accused persons of their rights to a fair trial, including the presumption of innoccnce.w

26 Mejakic CAC), para. 81; Todovic CAC), paras. 56, 83; Stankovic CAC), para. 52. 27 Defence Response, para. 201. 28 Additionally, the ICDAA mistakenly cites Article 142 of Rwanda's Constitution as support for the theory that Rwandan judges are not appointed for life but only for a "determinate term." See The

-- 8 .- 1. Defence allegations of judicial corruption are wildly exaggerated. 20. The Defence and its amici cite two primary sources in support of their contention that the Rwandan judiciary is rife with corruption.s" (a) the 2008 Ombudsman Report, which allegedly found the judiciary to be the second-most corrupt sector of government and (b) comments made by Supreme Court President Aloysie Cyanzayire on the judiciary being "prone" to corruption.s? But, as shown in the following paragraphs, the Ombudsman's 2008 report studied only the perception of corruption, not actual incidents of corruption. Moreover, Chief Justice Cyanzayirc's statement is indicative of the Rwandan judiciary's zero tolerance of corruption; it is not an acknowledgement that judicial corruption is widespread. a. The Defence distorts the Ombudsman's 2008 Report. • 21. The Ombudsman's 2008 Report did not purport to measure instances of actual corruption; rather, it undertook to study the perception of corruption in all branches of Rwandan government.s! The goal was to make the responsible public officials aware of how their agencies were perceived by the public so that they could develop better outreach programs.V The Ombudsman's 2008 Report stated that, based on preliminary results, there was a 49.6% "perception of corruption" in the judicial sector.33 To combat this perception, the Ombudsman worked with the Ministry of Justice to develop a public education program that places staff in each sector to explain to people how Rwandan law and its legal system work.34

Prosecutor u. Jeon-Bosco Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001·75-I, International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association (ICDAA) Amicus Curiae Brief, 11 March 2011, para. 4 (ICDAA Amicus Brief). • Article 142, however, deals only with administrative offices within the judiciary, such as. the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the Supreme Court and High Court. It does not govern the tenure of these officials as judges. Indeterminate or life tenure is conferred on Supreme Court judges by Article 8 of the Law on Supreme Court and on High Court judges by Article 24 of Law No. 06 bis/2004 of 14 April 2004 on the Statutes for Judges and other Judicial Personnel. 29 Defence Response, para. 214; The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-I, Amicus Curiae Brief of Human Rights Watch in Opposition to Rule 11 bis Transfer, 17 February 2011, para. 74 (HRW Amicus Brief). 30 Defence Response, para. 213. 31 Affidavit of Tito Rutaremara, Chief Ombudsman (Rutaremara Aff.), para. 2 (copy included as Exhibit B of the Addendum to this Response). 32 Rutaremara Aff., para. 3. 33 Rutaremara Aff., para. 4 (attaching Ombudsman's 2008 Report, p. 52). 34 Rutaremara Aff., para. 4.

-- 9 -- 416j

22. More recent studies show that the Ombudsman and Minister of Justice's efforts to combat perceptions ofcorruption are working. According to the 2010 Joint Governance Assessment, Data Analysis Report, which interviewed 3,600 people in all 30 Districts of the country, 60.2% of respondents stated that the Rwandan judicial system was doing an excellent-to-good job in fighting corruption.w In addition, 66.4% of respondents stated that they considered the Rwandan judiciary to be independent.i'" This data is tangible proof that Rwanda has made substantial progress in combating the perception of judicial corruption in the years since the Ombudsman's 2008 report. 23. Moreover, although the 2010 Joint Governance Assessment was coordinated by the Rwanda Governance Advisory Council, a government-funded agency, it was • based on data generated under a framework jointly established by Rwanda and its development partners.e? The study also was conducted under the auspices of a Joint Steering Committee comprised of Chiefs of Missions from the United States, European Union, and several European countries, as well as representatives from major development agencies, including the World Bank.38 Given this diverse partnership, the Chamber should accord substantial weight to the report and its findings. 24. Indeed, the key findings contained in the Joint Governance Assessment report have been confirmed by an independent study conducted by Transparency International.P More particularly, in its East African Bribery Index 2010, • Transparency International interviewed 862 Rwandans about incidents of corruption.w The vast majority of respondents believed that corruption was not a

3. Affidavit of Professor Anastase Shyaka, Executive Secretary of the Rwanda Governance Advisory Council (Shyaka Aff.), para. 2, attaching copy of 2010 Joint Governance Assessment, Data Analysis Report, p. 9 and 32 (a copy of the Affidavit is included as Exhibit C of the Addendum to this Response). 36 2010 Joint Governance Assessment, Data Analysis Report, p. 32, 102. 37 Shyaka Aff., para. 3; 2010 Joint Governance Assessment, Data Analysis Report, p. 7. 38 Shyaka Aff., para. 3; 2010 Joint Governance Assessment, Data Analysis Report, p. 7. 39 Transparency International, East Africa Bribery Index 2010, p. 73-76, available at http://www.tikenya.org/documents/EABI-2010.pdf. 40 Transparency International, East Africa Bribery Index 2010, p. 73, available at http://www.tikenya.orgldocumentslEABI-201O.pdf.

-- 10 -- major problem (84.3%), and that the Rwandan government was committed to stamping out corruption wherever it was found (97%).41 25. Perception, in all events, is not the same as reality. Studies of actual corruption in Rwanda show that it is the least corrupt country in East Africa.w Transparency International, for instance, recently reported that incidents of bribery in Rwanda were "negligible."43 Indeed, the incidents of bribery were so low that Transparency International was unable to formulate an index for Rwanda.e' 26. According to Transparency International, bribery is a "general indicator of other forms of corruption in a particular country."45 Thus, the study's conclusion that incidents of bribery in Rwanda were negligible is further proof that the Defence allegations of widespread corruption, in the Rwandan judiciary and beyond, are • unfounded. The study also provides further proof that the gap between the perception of corruption and actual corruption is closing. b. The Defence twists Chief Justice Cyanzayire's statement. 27. No government or institution is corruption free, however. All governments and institutions must be alert to corruption and take strong measures to prevent and punish instances of corruption when they occur. Rwanda is no exception. It has criminalized all forms of public corruption, including attempted corruption.w extortion." bribery.w and using public money for private gain.s"

41 Transparency International, East Africa Bribery Index 2010, p. 74-76, available at http://www.tikenya.org/documentsIEABI-2010.pdf. 42 Transparency International, Burundi Most Corrupt Country in East Africa as its Revenue • Authority Tops List of Corrupt Institutions, 22 July 2010, available at http://www.transparency.org Inews_roomllatest_news/press_releases_ncl2010/2010_07_22_ti_kenya_eabi (last visited 20 April 2010). 43 Transparency International, Burundi Most Corrupt Country !n East Africa as its Revenue Authority Tops List of Corrupt Institutions. 44 Transparency International, Burundi Most Corrupt Country in. East Africa as its Revenue Authority Tops List of Corrupt Institutions. 45 Transparency International, East Africa Bribery Index 2010, p. 6, available at http://www.tikenya.org/documentsIEABI-2010.pdf. 46 Article 10 of the Law No. 23/2003 relating to the Punishment of Corruption and Related Offences, 7 August 2003 (Anti-Corruption Law). 47 Article 12 of the Anti-Corruption Law. 48 Articles 14 and 19 ofthe Anti-Corruption Law. 49 Article17 of the Anti-Corruption Law.

-- 11 -- 28. Chief Justice Cyanzayire's statement IS illustrative of the Rwandan judiciary's commitment to fighting corruption. Her statement was made at the start of a week-long campaign to stamp out corruption in the justice scctor.w The week included public educational initiatives and trials against persons accused of engaging in acts of corruption (accepting bribes).51 It was in this context that the Chief Justice articulated the Rwandan judiciary's zero tolerance policy for corruption: A judge is appointed to a court and he is accompanied by laws that protect him and allow him to work without any kind of pressure. If one does not understand this then he or she is not fit to be a judge.52

29. The Defence attempts to twist the Chief Justice's stern statement against • corruption into a tacit admission that corruption within the judiciary is rampant. But, this is not true. 30. There is tangible proof that the Chief Justice's zero tolerance policy has practical effect. In addition to the criminal penalties available under Rwanda's Anti-Corruption Law, any judicial official who engages in corrupt practices is subject to disciplinary measures up to and including dismissal.w' 31. The Supreme Council of the Judiciary, which is chaired by the President of the Supreme Court, presides over all investigations and proceedings related to allegations of misconduct by judicial officials.54 From 2005 to 2010, the Supreme Council removed 13 registrars and four judges from office on charges related to official misconduct, including corruption.55 During this same period, there were • usually 281 registrars and 281 judges assigned to all of Rwanda's courts.v Thus,

50 http://www.orinfor.gov.rw/contentview.php?id=2187&type=0 (last visited 19 April 2011). 51 http://www.orinfor.gov.rw/contentview.php?id=2187&type=O (last visited 19 April 2011). 52 http://www.orinfor.gov.rw/contentview.php?id=2187&type=0 (last visited 19 April 2011). 53 The Rwandan judiciary's disciplinary procedure is detailed in the Prosecutor's Rule 11 bis Request at pages 34 to 35 (see The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-200l-75-I, Prosecutor's Request for the Referral of the Case of Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi to Rwanda pursuant to Rule 11 bis of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 4 November 2010). 54 Articles 157 and 158 of Rwanda's Constitution. 55 Affidavit of Francois Regis Rukundakuvuga, Inspector General of the Supreme Court of Rwanda (Rukundakuvuga Aff.), para. 3 (a copy is included in Exhibit D of the Addendum to this Response). 56 Rukundakuvuga Aff., para. 4.

-- 12 -- ~160

the incidents ofofficial misconduct or corruption within the judiciary - while always serious - were committed by only a few rogue officials: 4.6% of all registrars and 1.4% of all judges. More importantly, none of the registrars or judges who has been removed from office was a member of the Supreme Court or High Court - the two courts charged with the trial and appeal of any referred case.V

11. Defence allegations ofpolitical interference are unsubstantiated. 32. Pursuant to Rule 11 bis, the Chamber must be satisfied that the Accused's right to a fair trial will be secured in the courts of the referral State. The Defence and its amici make sweeping assertions that the "political climate" in Rwanda renders it unlikely that, if the Prosecutor's application is allowed, the Accused would receive a fair trial in Rwanda.58 They point, in particular, to (a) three instances of alleged political assassination and (b) several high-profile prosecutions • that, they contend, show that the Rwandan judiciary is subject to political influence, as well as (c) comments allegedly made by High Court Chief Justice Johnston Busingye and a former judge concerning alleged political interference with the judiciary. Each point is addressed in turn. a. No evidence links Rwanda to the alleged assassinations. 33. The Defence and its amici insinuate that Rwanda was responsible for the murders or attempted murders of three people, but they offer not a shred of evidence to support these reckless allegations. Information available from press reports and other public records confirm the absence of any link to clandestine • operations of the Rwandan government. 34. Former Lieutenant General Kayumba Nyamwasa was shot in Johannesburg, South Africa.P? Rwanda denied any responsibility for the attack and called on South Africa to investigate the shooting.w South African authorities subsequently

57 Rukundakuvuga Aff., para 5. 58 Defence Response, paras. 229-53; HRW Amicus Brief, paras. 75-96; IADL Amicus Brief, pp. 9-lD. 59 BBC News, Rwanda Nyamwasa Shooting Suspects in SA Court, 29 June 2010, available at http://www.bbc. co.ukInewsIl0448723 (last visited 20 April 2011). 6{) BBC News, Rwanda Nyamwasa Shooting Suspects in SA Court.

-- 13 -- arrested four suspects from Tanzania, Somalia, and Mozambique.v! "According to the South African Press Association, it was established that the defendants had previous convictions related to possession of stolen goods."62 Given the defendants' prior criminal records, the motive for the shooting appears to be ordinary street crime, not political assassination. 35. Reporter Jean-Leonard Rugambage was shot in front of his home in Kigali.63 Several years earlier, a Gacaca court acquitted Rugambage of genooide.s- Following an investigation, Rwandan police arrested a suspect, Didace Nduguyangu. Nduguyandu admitted killing Rugambage and said he did so at the instigation of Antoine Karemera, who wanted revenge against Rugambage for allegedly killing Karemera's brother during the genocide.w The High Court found Nduguyangu guilty of murder and Karemera guilty of complicity in murder. Both were sentenced • to life imprisonment.s'' Personal revenge, not politics, therefore appears to be the motive for this crime. 36. Lastly, the Defence and its amici point to the murder of Rwandan Green Party Vice President Andre Kagwa Rwisereka. Shortly after his murder, a police spokesman stated that "[p]eople who saw [Mr. Rwisereka] that night said he had a lot of money, so it is suspected it may be a robbery case."67 Senior Green Party officials were quoted as saying that the motive behind the murder was "unclear."68 In July 2010, police arrested one of Mr. Rwiserka's business partners who was the

61 BBC News, Rwanda Nyamwasa Shooting Suspects in SA Court; The Peace Times, Trial Begins for • Rwanda Shooting Suspects, 30 June 2010, available at http://peacetimes.net/201O/06/trial-begins-for­ rwanda-shooting-suspects/ (last visited 20 April 2011). 62 BBC News, Rwanda Nyamwasa Shooting Suspects in SA Court. 63 Prosecutor v. Didace Nduguyangu and Antoine Karemera, No. RP0072/1OIHC/KIG, High Court Judgement, 13 August 2010 (Nduguyangu and Karemera Judgement), para. 1 (a copy is included in Exhibit E of the Addendum to this Response). 64 Nduguyangu and Karemera Judgement, para. 1. 65 Nduguyangu and Karemera Judgement, para. 6. 66 Nduguyangu and Karemera Judgement, para. 30. 67 The New York Times, Rwanda Opposition Figure Found Dead, 14 July 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/201O/07/15/world/africa/15rwanda.html(last visited 19 April 2011). 68 The Independent, Senior Politician Found Hacked to Death in Rwanda, 15 July 2010, available at http://www.independent.co.ukinews/world/africa/senior-politician-found-hacked-to-death-in-rwanda­ 2026766.html (last visited 19 April 2011).

-- 14 -- 4-158

last person seen with Mr. Rwisereka on the night he died.69 In response, the Green Party issued a press release, stating that it "welcome[d] the National Police's efforts" in making the arrest, which it described as a "good step."70 Despite the results of the police investigation, the Defence and its amici continue to speculate that politics, not money, was the real motivation for Mr. Rwisereka's murder. Speculation of this sort may be suitable for a fictional crime novel, but it is entirely unsuitable for a legal brief. 37. In all events, the Chamber's authority under Rule 11 bis does not extend to making political determinations about Rwanda's internal governance. The Defence and its amici have amply demonstrated their disdain for the Rwandan government, but one is left to guess how any of their unsubstantiated allegations of domestic and international political intrigue have any bearing on the Accused's right to a fair • trial should his case be referred to Rwanda for trial. If anything, these unfortunate incidents show that Rwandan government officials have acted swiftly to investigate and arrest the persons responsible for the crimes that occurred in Rwanda and have called upon South African officials to do the same in connection with former Lt. Gen. Nyamwasa's shooting. These incidents, therefore, serve as further evidence that the Rwandan justice system is fully operational and functional. b. No evidence supports Defence allegations ofpolitical interference with judicial decisions.

38. Equally without merit are the Defence and its amici's allegations of political • interference with judicial decisions."! In support, they point to the arrest and prosecution of certain political, military, and media figures. Because these figures were critical of Rwanda's present government, the Defence and its amici presume that their prosecutions must have been politically motivated. This simplistic syllogism does not withstand scrutiny.

69 The New York Times, Rwanda Opposition Figure Found Dead, 14 July 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/worldJafrica/15rwanda.html (last visited 19 April 2011). 70 Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, Press Release: Democratic Green Party Welcomes Police Arrest of the Suspected Murderer, 16 July 2010, available at http://rwandagreendemocrats. org/spip.php?artic1e85 (last visited 19 April 2011). 71 See Defence Response, paras. 229-53: HRW Amicus Brief, para. 75-97.

-- 15 -- 39. As an initial matter, it is difficult to discern any meaningful link between these so-called political cases and the present case. Neither the Defence nor its amici explain how or why these unrelated proceedings, most of which were not even pending in the High Court or Supreme Court, have any bearing on the trial of this case should referral be allowed. The most that can be said is that, in their view, Rwandan prosecutors should not have filed charges against the accused in these unrelated proceedings. And, because the charges were allegedly groundless, Rwandan judges must have been pressured to allow the cases to proceed. 40. There is, however, a more obvious explanation: the charges were justified under Rwandan law, and the Rwandan judges reached considered judgments based on an impartial application of law to facts. The Defence and its amici certainly have not shown otherwise. The Chamber would not engage in speculation to • 72 It support serious allegations of judicial misconduct against one of its own. should apply no less rigorous standard to sweeping allegations of judicial misconduct against the entire judiciary of a sovereign state. Indeed, it should accord the Rwandan judiciary the same presumption of independence that attaches to the Tribunal's own judges." 41. Moreover, trials in several of the cases cited by the Defence and its amici already have been completed. From the judgements returned in those cases, it is apparent that the prosecutions were not politically motivated but grounded, instead, on serious violations of Rwandan law. Three of the accused, for instance, • were convicted, among other things, of threatening national security based on statements calling for people to rebel against Rwanda's government:

72 See The Prosecutor v. Andre Ntagerura et al., Case No. ICTR-99-46-A, Judgement, 7 July 2006, para. 135 ("sweeping or abstract allegations" of bias that are "neither substantiated nor detailed" are insufficient to rebut presumption of impartiality); see also Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-3-A, Judgement, 26 May 2003, para. 43 (same) (Rutaganda (AC»; The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-A, Judgment, 1 June 2001, para. 92 (same); Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Judgement, 28 November 2007, para. 77 (same) (Nahimana et al. (AC». 73 Nahimana et al. (AC), para. 28.

-- 16 -- • The High Court convicted Bernard Ntaganda for threatening national security based on statements that the court found were aimed at inciting the population to rebel against the Rwandan government.74 Although not mentioned by the Defence or its amici, the High Court acquitted Ntaganda of several other charges based on statements critical of the Gacaca Courts, that amounted to mere insults, or that were not likely to cause any resulting social unrest.75

• The Military High Court convicted former army officers Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, Theogene Rudasingwa, Patrick Karegeya, and Gerald Gahima, of threatening national security and related crimes based on statements calling on the Rwandan people to rebel against the existing government.w One statement, in particular, asserted that it was "unacceptable that the Hutus who are the majority continue to be subjugated by the minority Tutsis and that one day the Hutus will take up arms and remove the Tutsi regime." 77 In accordance with Rwandan law, the accused were tried in absentia because • they had all fled the country prior to prosecution.78

• The High Court convicted Agnes Nkusi Uwimana, a newspaper editor, and Saidati Mukakibibi, a reporter, of threatening national internal security and other crimes for publishing, among other things, what the court found to be unsubstantiated rumors that the government was intentionally starving people and favoring one group to the detriment of othcrs.?v The court found that these statements were made with the intent to cause social unrest and incite people to rebel against the government.s''

42. While the Defence and its amici no doubt will complain that Rwanda's response to these incidents was too harsh, few, if any, sovereign nations would tolerate similar calls for armed rebellion against its duly-elected government.

74 Prosecutor v. Bernard Niaganda, No. RP0071/lD/HC/KIG, High Court Judgement, 11 February • 2011 (Ntaganda Judgement), paras. 32, 50-52, 66-67 (a copy is included in Exhibit F of the Addendum to this Response). 75 Ntaganda Judgement, paras. 40-42, 55, 59, 71-72, 75. 76 Military Prosecutor v. Kayumba Nyamwasa et al., No. RP 0008/0lD/HCM, Military High Court Judgment, 14 January 2011 (Nyamwasa et al. Judgement), paras. 5, 7-9 (a copy is included in Exhibit G of the Addendum to this Response). 77 Nyamwasa et al. Judgement, para. 6(a). 78 As already noted, Rwanda's Transfer Law precludes trials in absentia (Article 13(7) of the Transfer Law). This is another reason why the defence reliance on this Military Court prosecution is inapposite to the present case. 79 Prosecutor v. Agnes Uwimana and Saulati Mukakibibi, No. 0082/1OIHCIKIG, High Court Judgement, 4 February 2011 (Uwimana et al. Judgement), paras.19-30 (a copy is included in Exhibit H of the Addendum to this Response). 80 Uwimana et al. Judgement, paras. 22, 24, 31, 32.

-- 17 -- 4'5~

Rwanda should not be held to a different standard. If anything, Rwanda's history of internal strife and its ongoing struggle for national reconciliation lend additional justification to its prosecution of those who seek to renew armed conflict and social unrest. 43. Even less persuasive is the Defence's reliance on the prosecution of reporters Charles Kabonero and Didas Mbishibishi Gasana on charges of defamation and public insult, and violation ofindividual privacy.s! These charges stemmed from an article accusing two government officials of committing adultery.s- The Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge found that the accusation was unsubstantiated and published without giving the officials any opportunity to respond.fs Accordingly, the court found the reporters guilty of all charges.ss Prosecution of • those who make unsubstantiated defamatory and malicious statements against public figures is not unique to Rwanda.w and Rwanda's prosecution of these irresponsible reporters is not indicative of any alleged political interference with the judiciary. 44. The Defence also cites the ongoing prosecution of opposition leader Victoire Ingabire as evidence, they say, of political interference with the judiciary.w Although the indictment in Ingabire's case remains sealed, press reports reveal that the charges are, based in part, on her wiring money to the Democratic Forces for Liberation Rwanda (FDLR), a predominantly Hutu rebel group operating out of the • 81 Defence Response, para. 246; Prosecutor v. Charles Kabonero, Mbishibishi Gasana et al., No. R.P.0351/09/TB/NYG, Intermediate Court Judgement, 22 February 2010 (Kabonero et al. Judgement), para. 2 (a copy is included in Exhibit I ofthe Addendum to this Response). 82 Kabonero et al. Judgement, para. 6. 83 Kabonero et al. Judgement, para. 29. 84 Kabonero et al. Judgement, para. 34. 85 See, e.g., Austrian Criminal Code, Art. 111(1) ("Anyone who, in such a way that it may be noticed by a third person, attributes to another a contemptible characteristic ... or accused him of behavior contrary to honor or morality ... may be punished by up to six months imprisonment or a fine"); Art. 116 (imposing criminal penalty for those who insult or defame public officials); Denmark Criminal Code, Art. 121 (imposing criminal penalty for directing attacking public officials "with insults, abusive language, or other offensive words"). 86 Defence Response, paras. 234-41.

-- 18 -- Democratic Republic of Congo, so it could wage war against Rwanda.s? Among the evidence the prosecution intends to offer at trial is testimony from Ingabire's alleged accomplices, as well as e-mail and phone messages.88 45. Significantly, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has indicted several senior FDLR leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including acts of murder, rape, torture, and persecution.w Thus, if the Rwandan government's allegations against Ingabire are proven at trial, she will have been shown to have provided material support to an organization that the ICC has charged with serious violations of international law. 46. Evidence uncovered in connection the Rwanda's investigation against Ingabire has implicated others, including Paul Rusesabagina. Rwanda's Prosecutor • General has explained that Rusesabagina also is suspected of providing funding to FDLR, which the Rwandan government regards as a terrorist organization. More particularly, the Prosecutor General explained as follows: We have evidence that Paul Rusesabagina is one of those others who have been financing the same genocidal rebels ofthe FDLR. ... We have the dates of transactions made. Money was sent from San Antonio, Texas, and received in different banks in Bujumbura and Dar es Salaam. The people who received this money told us what the money was for. 90

47. Rusesabagina, however, has not yet been charged with a crime so it is difficult to conceive how his situation has any bearing on the Accused's right to a fair trial should the Prosecutor's application for referral be allowed.

87 Reuters, Rwandan Opposition Leader Ingabire Denied Bail, 17 December 2010, available at • http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/17/us-rwanda-ingabire-idUSTRE6BG4LX20101217 (last visited 19 April 2011); Radio Netherlands Worldwide, Victoire Ingabire Stirs Ethnic Debate in Rwanda, 21 January 2010, available at http://www.rnw.nllinternational-justice/article/victoire­ ingabire-stirs-ethnic-debate-rwanda (last visited 19 April 2011). 88 Radio Netherlands Worldwide, Victoire Ingabire Was Planning Grenade Attacks, 27 October 2010, available at http://www.rnw.nllafrica/article/victoire-ingabire-was-planning-grenade-attacks (last visited 19 April 2011). 89 See ICC, Situations and Cases, available at http://www.icc-cpi.intlMenus/ICC/Situations+ and+Casesl (last visited 19 April 2011). 90 Reuters, "Hotel Rwanda" Hero Implicated With Ingabire-Prosecutor, 27 October 2010, available at http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=UKTRE69Q461201O1027 (last visited 19 April 2010); Radio Netherlands Worldwide, "Hotel Rwanda" Hero Accused of Funding Rebels, 28 October 2010, available at http://www.rnw.nllafrica/articlelhotel-rwanda-hero-accused-funding-rebels (last visited 19 April 2011).

-- 19 -- 48. So too with all the other cases that have been discussed. There is not a shred of evidence to support the Defence theory that political pressure was brought to bear on the judiciary in any of the cited cases. Indeed, the High Court in one of the cases cited by the Defence, involving the reporter Jean-Bosco Gasasira, actually reversed the first instance court's conviction and acquitted Gasasira of all charges."! This result - which the Defence neglects to mention - hardly comports with the Defence and its amici's unsubstantiated allegations of political interference in judicial decision-making. c. Chief Justice Busingye's alleged statement about political interference is false, and the statement attributed to the Bizimungu trial judge is unsubstantiated.

• 49. The Defence attempts to fill the gap in its evidence of political interference in judicial decision-making with statements attributed to two Rwandan judges. The first statement is categorically false; the second statement is without record support. 50. According to the Defence and its amICI, High Court Justice Busingye allegedly told "at least two persons that judges in his court have been subjected to attempts by the executive to influence their decisions."92 Justice Busingye, however, categorically denies making this statement or any similar statement.93 He has been interviewed by researchers from Human Rights Watch several times.v! He does not recall all of the interviews, but knows that HRW researchers frequently asked him questions about political interference with decision-making.95 Justice Busingye consistently told the researchers that he was not aware of any case of • 96 political interference. But, if HRW presented him with concrete evidence of attempted interference with a case in his court, he would call the persons involved

91 Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Gasasira, No. 0043/10/HC/KIG, High Court Judgement, 24 September 201. paras. 19-21 (a copy is included in Exhibit J of the Addendum to this Response). 92 Defence Response, para. 218 (quoting HRW, Law and Reality, p. 52). 93 Letter from High Court Justice Johnston Busingye to Chief Justice (Busingye Letter), p. 1 (a copy is included in Exhibit K of the Addendum to this Response). 94 Busingye Letter, p. l. 95 Busingye Letter, p. l. 96 Busingye Letter, p. 1.

-- 20 -- 4151..

to tell them that their conduct would not be tolerated and, if the allegations were substantiated, report the incident to the appropriate authorities.v? HRW never gave Justice Busingye an opportunity to review or comment on the statement that has been falsely attributed to him, nor did it record his interviews.v" Subsequently, HRW researchers asked Justice Busingye if he would agree to another interview; Justice Busingye said that he would do so only if the interview was recorded.v" He never heard from the researchers again.P? 51. Next, the Defence and its amici look back more than five years to the trial and appeal of Pasteur Bizimungu. In connection with this case, they make three erroneous or unsubstantiated assertions. 52. First, the Defence and its amici contend that the judge who presided over • Bizimungu's trial in the first instance "fled Rwanda."IOI In fact, the judge, Fred Mulindwa, requested une mise en disponibilite or leave without pay to pursue further studies in Canada.tv- The Rwandan judiciary granted his request for leave, and he remains on voluntary leave.I03 To characterize the orderly administrative niceties surrounding Judge Mulindwa's departure as "fleeing" requires more imagination than the Prosecution possesses. 53. Second, the Defence asserts that Judge Mulindwa allegedly told unidentified "journalists" that "there had been no substantial proof of Bizimungu's guilt," and that Judge Mulindwa allegedly convicted Bizimungu because of "political pressure brought to bear on him" from an unidentified person or persons.w! Remarkably, • this explosive allegation is not supported by a single reference to a news report or other publication. The Defence's failure to provide a single reference to support this allegation is all the more surprising given that its assertion that the statement allegedly was made to more than one journalist (hence, the Defence's plural

97 Busingye Letter, p. l. 98 Busingye Letter, p. l. 99 Busingye Letter, p. 2. 100 Busingye Letter, p. 2. 101 Defence Response, para. 224 (citing HRW, Law and Reality, p. 57). 102 Rukundakuvuga Aff., para. 6. 103 Rukundakuvuga Aff., para. 6. 104 Defence Response, para. 224.

.- 21 -- reference to "journalistsI.t'" The Prosecution, for its part, has searched diligently to find any published report of Judge Mulindwa's statement, but its search has been In vam. 54. Moreover, the statement attributed to Judge Mulindwa is, on its face, incredible. It strains imagination to believe that a judge - who remains on administrative leave from his court - would voluntarily implicate himself in falsely convicting a person in a trial over which he presided. And, even if one could accept this unlikely premise, it beggars belief that the same unidentified wielder or wielders of political pressure could have exerted the same extraordinary influence over the three Rwandan Supreme Court justices who comprised the panel that affirmed Bizimungu's conviction. • 55. Third, the Defence suggests that the unsubstantiated and unreliable statements it attributes to Judge Mulindwa are corroborated by Professor William Schabas's testimony in an extradition proceeding before the United Kingdom's High Court of Justice.I06 But, Professor Schabas's testimony was not based on personal knowledge. Indeed, it was triple-layer hearsay drawn from (a) a notation Professor Schabas made in a notebook about (b) a conversation he had with an unidentified source at Avocats sans Frontieres, who (c) related a comment Judge Mulindwa allegedly made about the decision in Bizimungu being "dictated to him."I07 Moreover, when pressed about this testimony, Professor Schabas's explanation was entirely equivocal: I think there probably was executive interference in the Bizimungu case. I don't know the full nature of it, but it certainly smells like a case of • executive interference.t'" 56. A more than five-year old case that - in the opinion of one man based on multiple-layer hearsay - "smells like" executive interference is not, the Prosecutor submits, a reliable or credible basis upon which to deny referral.

105 Defence Response, para. 224. 106 Defence Response, para. 224. 107 Defence Response, Annex 19, para. 103. 108 Defence Response, Annex 19, para. 103 (emphasis supplied).

-- 22 .- Ill. Rwanda extends the presumption of innocence to all accused.

57. Nor should the Prosecutor's application for referral be denied based on the Defence and its amici's criticisms of the presumption of innocence in Rwanda. In connection with previous Rule 11 bis proceedings, three Trial Chambers observed that "the presumption of innocence clearly forms a part of Rwandan law."I09 The Defence contends that this observation is not true in practice because Rwanda's prosecutors and political leaders have (a) publicly commented on the guilt of persons who have not yet been tried and convicted; (b) criticized the Tribunal's acquittals of persons charged with genocide and other crimes; and (c) failed to release a military officer, Col. Diogene Mudenge, despite his acquittal by a military court. no • 58. There is no question that the presumption of innocence is a critical aspect of any accused's right to a fair and impartial trial. It is intended to keep the trier of

fact firmly focused on the ultimate issue III a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt. 59. Judges, of course, are trained and experienced professionals. They are fully capable of separating comments made outside the courtroom from evidence presented inside the courtroom. Indeed, the Tribunal regularly presumes that judges, despite their past involvement in an overlapping proceeding, will

nevertheless follow the law and apply it impartially to facts presented III each • individual case.Ill Only rarely will this presumption be overcome.t--

109 Prosecutor v. Gaspard Kanyarukiga, Case No. ICTR-2002-78-Rllbis, Decision on Prosecutor's Request for Referral to the Republic of Rwanda, 6 June 2008, para. 43 (Kanyarukiga (TC»; Prosecutor v. Jean-Baptiste Gatete, Case No. ICTR-2000-61-Rllbis, Decision on Prosecutor's Request for Referral to the Republic of Rwanda, 17 November 2008, para. 40 (Gatete (TC»; Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-Rllbis, Decision on Prosecutor's Request for Referral of the Case of Ildephonse Hategekimana to Rwanda, 19 June 2008, para. 47 (Hategekimana (TC». 110 See Defence Response, paras. 263-300. 111 Nahimana et al. (AC), paras. 78 and 84; Rutaganda (AG), para. 42. 112 Nahimana et al. (AC), paras. 78 and 84; Rutaganda (AC), para. 42.

-- 23 -- 60. Public comments by prosecutors and other public officials about pending cases do not transgress the presumption of innocence (at least, absent highly egregious circumstances not present here).l13 The public has a right to know who is being prosecuted and why they are being prosecuted. To promote transparency in the prosecutorial function, international and national prosecutors routinely advise the public about the filing of charges against an accused, the evidence that they anticipate will be offered in support of those charges, and their conviction or belief that the charges will be proven.U! Rwanda's practice is no different. 61. Nor is the presumption of innocence diminished by criticisms that some Rwandan officials have occasionally leveled against the Tribunal's decisions. In each case, the trials against the accused had been completed and the judgements rendered. The comments made by Rwanda's officials, therefore, could not have • impacted the presumption of innocence. And, even if the presumption of innocence extended beyond the completion of trial (which it does not), there is no prohibition against persons, including Rwanda's public officials, voicing their disagreement with the Tribunal's decisions. Ironically, in their submissions in this case, the Defence and its amici make plain their disagreement with some of the Tribunal's decisions.t" Rwanda should not be held to a different standard.

113 In its amicus brief, the IADL cites a communication issued by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) as support for a much more restrictive rule. See The Prosecutor v. Jean-Basco Uwinkindi, Case No. lCTR-2001-75-Rllbis, Amicus Curiae Brief of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (lADL), pursuant to Rule 74 (Rules of Procedure and Evidence), 17 March 2001, paras. 5-8 (IADL Amicus Brief). But, that communication was issued with regard to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It did not purport to address fair trial • issues under Article 20 or any other provision of the Tribunal's rules. Furthermore, the situation discussed in the communication involved a concerted propaganda campaign against the accused. See HRC, Communication No. 1397/2005, para. 3.6. The few, sporadic comments identified by the Defence here do not come close to the situation discussed in the HRC communication. 114 See, e.g., ICTR Press Release available at http://69.94.11.53IENGLISH/PRESSRELl2008/551.htm; ICTY Press Release available at http://www.icty.org/sidI7765; ICC Press Release available at http:// www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/BA2041D8-3F30-4531-8850-431B5B2F4416.htm; United States Department of Justice Press Release available at http://www.justice.gov/opalpr/ 201O/June/1O-ag­ 713.html; United Kingdom Crown Prosecution Service Press Release available at http://www.cps. gov.uklnews/press_releases/108_111 (last visited 19 April 2011). 115 See Defence Response, para. 322 (expressing "serious doubt" about previous Referral Chamber determinations that the Rwandan bar's was adequate to meet the needs of the defence); IADL Amicus Brief, paras. 52-55 (criticizing the Appeals Chamber's decision on the scope of immunity for ICTR defence counsel); ICDAA Amicus Brief, para 19 (although Appeals Chamber found no evidence

-- 24 -- 62. The Defence and its amici next point to the military court prosecution of Col. Deogene Mudenge as evidence, they say, of Rwanda's disregard for the presumption of innocence.U'' According to press reports, Mudenge allegedly used his weapon to threaten a private citizen with whom he had an ongoing land dispute.l!" On 3 December 2010, the High Military Court acquitted Mudenge of all charges. ns The military prosecutor and civil parties to the case, however, appealed this judgement.U'' As a result, Mudenge was not immediately released from custody.t-" Mudenge has challenged his continued detention in both the Military Court of

Appeal and Rwandan Supreme Court. 121 On 11 February 2011, the Rwandan Supreme Court resolved a threshold jurisdictional issue and, based on that decision, remanded Mudenge's case to the High Military Court for consideration of his motion for release from custody.W According to a BBC news report, the High Military Court has held a hearing on Mudenge's motion, and a decision is expected shortly.l-" 63. These ongoing judicial proceedings reveal no disregard for the presumption of innocence.124 Mudenge's case, and the other situations cited by the Defence and its amici, show merely that the Rwandan judicial system operates like other judicial systems: prosecutors keep the public apprised of significant cases, public officials

of political pressure of the judiciary, ICDAA urges Chamber to look to the Trial Chamber's decision rejected on appeal). 116 Defence Response, para. 278. 117 News 24, Rwandan Colonel Arrested, 7 July 2010, available at http://www.news 24.com/AfricalNews/Rwandan-colonel-arrested-20100707 (last visited 20 April 2011). 118 Col. Diogene Mudenge v. Prosecutor, Supreme Court of Rwanda No. RPA 0318/10/CS, Appeal Decision, 11 February 2011 (Mudenge Judgement), para. 1 (a copy is included in Exhibit L of the Addendum to this Response). 119 Mudenge Judgement, para. 2. 120 Mudenge Judgement, para. 2. 121 Mudenge Judgement, para. 3. 122 Mudenge Judgement, para. 17. 123 BBC Rwanda, http://www.bbc.co.uk!gahuza/amakuruJ2011/04/110418_colmudenge_case.shtml (last visited 19 April 2011). 124 The same is true of the Defence allegations regarding two witnesses in Prosecutor v. Karamera, who complained about their continued incarceration. Defence Response, para. 280-81. Both of those witnesses acknowledged during their testimony that their convictions and sentences remained under review. T. 19 November 2009, p. 20, lines 30-33; T. 24 November 2009, p. 7, lines 36-37.

_. 25 .. sometimes publicly disagree with court rulings, and cases take time to wind their way through the appellate process. D. Rwanda has a demonstrated record of cooperation with defence teams from the ICTR and other jurisdictions, and its Transfer Law provides defence teams and witnesses with broad immunity from arrest and prosecution.

64. The Prosecutor, in his application, and Rwanda, in its amICUS brief, have identified all of the legal and practical guarantees available to the Defence to conduct investigations and present evidence at trial. The Defence and its amici claim that these protections are not adequate to secure the Accused's right to a fair trial should his case be referred to Rwanda to trial.125 They make two primary arguments in support of this erroneous assertion. • 65. First, the Defence selects a few ambiguous incidents that it characterizes as Rwandan interference with ICTR and other defence teams. Building on this weak foundation, the Defence draws broad conclusions about perceived impediments to the conduct of the defence in Rwanda.l'" Once again, the Defence's allegations are more bluster than fact. 66. Second, the Defence presents affidavits from nameless persons who claim to be unwilling to testify in connection with any case referred to Rwanda for trial because they allegedly fear arrest, prosecution, or retaliation by Rwandan authorities.t-? Acting unilaterally without any prior authorization from the Chamber, the Defence has taken the unusual step not revealing to the Prosecutor • the identities of these affiants.l-" The Prosecutor's ability to respond to these secret affidavits is, consequently, severely hampered.P? Nevertheless, even the limited information currently available to the Prosecutor reveals that the Defence

125 Defence Response, para. 80. 126 Defence Response, paras. 89-96; IADL Amicus Brief, pp. 18-19. 127 Defence Response, paras. 81-88, and Annex VIII. 128 Defence Response, para. 83. 129 The Prosecutor further requests that the Chamber rescind the Defence's ex parte submission of the affidavits and direct the Defence to disclose to the Prosecutor the identities of all affiants so he can formulate a more substantial response to the Defence allegations. A motion to this effect will be filed shortly.

-·26 .. allegations of subjective witness fears are not credible and, in all events, can be readily addressed under Rwanda's Transfer Law.

1. Rwanda cooperates with defence teams and their investigations; Defence allegations of official interference with defence investigations are unsubstantiated.

67. Rwanda's Amicus Brief already has demonstrated its history of facilitating defence investigations, including the production of documents and access to detainees, and travel of defence witnesses and team members to and from Rwanda. This cooperation is not restricted to ICTR defence teams but extends to other defence investigations as well. Based on its years of experience in conducting investigations (a charge as well as a decharge) in Rwanda, for instance, the • government ofthe Netherlands has attested that: "the co-operation of the Rwandan judicial authorities has been found to be exemplary and there are no indications of interference with the investigating teams, nor witnesses for that matter."130 68. Rather than tackle these submissions head on, the Defence and its amici seek to breathe new life into tired allegations that already have been rejected or that remain entirely unsubstantiated. The Defence, for instance, baldly alleges that "[a]s noted by HRW, there are instances in which Defence witnesses were forced to flee the country or in which they simply disappeared."131 But, HRW's statement is far more qualified than the Defence lets on. According to HRW, "[in} rare instances, persons who testified for the defence have decided to flee the country or have disappeared." By omitting the italicized qualifications, the Defence has distorted • HRW's statement into something more than it is. 69. And, on closer inspection, HRW's statement is not much. The only support given for HRW's statement is HRW's own prior submission in the Hategehimana

130 Observations in Intervention of the Government of the Netherlands concerning Application No. 37075179, 27 July 2010, para. 7 (The Netherlands' Observations), filed in the European Court of Human Rights, Ahorugeze v. Sweden, Application No. 37075/09, (a copy is included in Exhibit M of the Addendum to this Response). 131 Defence Brief, para. 91 (citing HRW Amicus Brief, para. 30).

-- 27 .- Rule 11 bis proceedings.132 In its Hategekimana brief filed three years ago, HRW alleged that "numerous ICTR defense teams ... asserted that potential witnesses had decided not to give testimony because of intimidation by Rwandan authorities or unknown persons whom they supposed to be acting in an official capacity."133 Vague assertions by unspecified ICTR defence teams based on the suppositions of unidentified witnesses are not credible or reliable proof of witness intimidation by Rwandan officials. The only "evidence" HRW offered in support of these allegations were (a) its own 2007 interviews of unidentified persons and (b) a 2007 press report in which Renzaho's counsel claimed that defence witnesses refused to come to Arusha to testify because of threats.P! 70. There is no meaningful way for the Prosecutor to directly respond to HRW's allegations based on its 4-year old interviews with unidentified sources. But, in • Retizaho, the Trial Chamber and Appeals Chamber both rejected Defence allegations that the so-called "political climate in Rwanda" deprived Renzaho of a fair tria1.l35 And, with regard to Renzaho's counsel's four-year old allegation of witness threats and intimidation, the Appeals Chamber stated that it was "deeply concerned" that a defence investigator - not Rwanda - may have threatened and intimidated prospective defence witnesses.t'" 71. The Defence attempts to shore up HRW's submissions in Hategekimana with scattered allegations culled from other ICTR cases.1 37 But, these allegations suffer many of the same defects as HRW's discredited submissions. 72. The Defence, for instance, cites a 2005 Hirondelle News report of an • interview with ICTR defence counsel for Shalom Ntahobali.P" According to this dated interview, unidentified witnesses living in Rwanda allegedly were unwilling

132 HRW Amicus Brief, para. 30, fn. 29 (citing Annex V, HRW Amicus Brief in Prosecutor u. Hategekimana, para. 9). 133 HRW Amicus Brief, Annex V, HRW Amicus Briefin Prosecutor u. Hategehimana, para. 9. 134 HRW Amicus Brief, Annex V, para. 9, n. 1l. 135 Tharcisse Renzaho u. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-31-A, Judgement, 1 April 2011, paras. 193-95, 229 (Renzaho (AC». 136 Renzaho (AC), para. 207. 137 Defence Response, paras. 91-96. 138 Defence Response, para. 91 (citing Hirondelle News Agency, JGTR/Defence -Kenyan Lawyer has Uphill Task, Defending genocide suspect, 14 March 2005).

-. 28 -- to travel to Arusha to testify for fear of "potential repercussions."139 Even if taken at face value, this six-year old allegation of alleged witness fears is not a reliable indicator of the situation in Rwanda today. Indeed, in the six-years since this interview was conducted, hundreds of defence witnesses from Rwanda have traveled to Arusha and suffered no repercussions for testifying. 73. The Mugiraneza case, cited by the Defence, actually proves this point. After testifying for the defence, some genocide survivors were summoned to attend a meeting with their local IBUKA representative for Remera Sector, Ngoma District.tw They were accused by other members of the survivors group of having accepted bribes to provide false testimony aimed at exculpating the accused.!" Acting on this accusation, the local IBUKA representative ordered their dismissal from the survivors' group, which resulted in the loss of survivor benefits.l42 • 74. The witnesses complained to Rwanda's Witness and Victims Protection and Assistance Unit (WVSU).l43 Following an investigation, the witness protection unit brought the matter to the attention of the national IBUKA Chairman and requested his intcrvcntion.t-s The national IBUKA Chairman rescinded the local representative's decision and reinstated all benefits, retroactively.tw In explaining his action, the national IBUKA Chairman stated as follows: With regard to testifying before the courts of law, like many other Rwandans, members of the IBUKA act as their conscience dictates and IBUKA does not force anyone to give incriminating or exculpatory testimony as this is not part of its objectives. Therefore, the decisions taken against some members of our association are null and void. 146 • 75. Although it would have been best for all concerned if the local IBUKA representative had acted with more care and deliberation, the relevant point here is

139 Defence Response, para. 91. 140 Affidavit of Theoneste Karenzi, Coordinator of the Witness and Victims Protection and Assistance Unit (Karenzi Aff.), para. 2 (a copy is included in Exhibit N of the Addendum to this Response). 141 Karenzi Aff., para. 2. 142 Karenzi Aff., para. 2. 143 Karenzi Aff., para. 3. 144 Karenzi Aff., para. 3. 145 Karenzi Aff., para. 3 146 Karenzi Aff., para. 4 (attaching national IBUKA Chairman's decision).

-- 29 .- that Rwanda's witness protection unit addressed the problem and assisted in finding a remedy. In all events, this incident appears to have been an isolated occurrence and has not been repeated. 76. Next, the Defence and its amici point to Kamuhanda witness GEXlA7, who they claim was prosecuted by Rwanda because she provided evidence favorable to the defence.t-? This allegation is baseless. Witness GEXlA7 actually provided the prosecution with a statement against Kamuhanda. Subsequently, however, witness GEXlA7 submitted an affidavit in support of Kamuhanda's Rule 115 motion, implicating herself in a conspiracy to falsely incriminate Kamuhanda.t-e 77. On 19 May 2005, following an evidentiary hearing on Kamuhanda's Rule 115 motion, the Appeals Chamber issued an Oral Decision, noting "significant discrepancies in testimony given by the witnesses, which may amount to false • testimony ... [and] reason to believe that there may have been attempts to pervert the course of justice with respect to this appeal in the form of the solicitation of false testimony."149 The Appeals Chamber stated that it: wishes to make it very clear to the parties, to the witnesses, who have appeared before us during the past two days, and to future witnesses, as well as to all others connected to these proceedings, that the Tribunal will not tolerate such occurrences. The giving of false testimony before the Court, as well as the interference with the testimony of other witnesses who may appear before the Court, are unacceptable practices, both for the impact that they have on the trial as well as the impact that they have on the Tribunal's mission to seek justice and establish the truth.F"

78. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber referred the matter to the Prosecutor to • conduct an investigation. The Prosecutor's ensuing investigation resulted, among other things, in the indictment, trial, and conviction of Leonidas Nshogoza, a former

147 Defence Response, para. 92: ICDAA Amicus Brief, Annexure 3. 148 Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-54-A-A, T. 18 May 2005, p. 2, lines 19-24. 149 Oral Ruling, Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-54-A-A, Evid. Hear., T. 19 May 2005, p. 2-3 (Kamuhanda Oral Ruling). 150 Kamuhanda Oral Ruling, p. 2-3.

.- 30 -- 4141. defence investigator, for contempt.ts! Additionally, in its September 2005 Judgment, the Appeals Chamber explicitly rejected GEXlA7's testimony at the Kamuhanda evidentiary hearing as being "unreliable."152 79. Two years later, Rwanda charged Nshogoza with bribing GEXlA7 to provide false testimony and GEXlA7 with accepting the bribe.l53 Both offenses are punishable under Articles 11 and 15 of Rwanda's Anti-Corruption Law. In addition, as a result of their alleged fabrication of evidence, both accused were charged with minimization of genocide and destruction or concealment of evidence of crime.154 80. It is absurd for the Defence and its amici to suggest that Rwanda's charges against these conspirators amount to harassment or retaliation of defence team members. The Tribunal itselfimplicated Nshogoza and GEXlA7 in an illicit scheme • to pervert justice, resulting in Nshogoza's conviction for contempt of the Tribunal. Bribery to solicit false testimony is not and cannot be within the legitimate role of defence team members or witnesses appearing before the Tribunal. No immunity from prosecution for such an act exists under the Tribunal's rules.l55 And, Rwanda, for its part, need not stand idle and allow these corrupt acts - committed within its borders - to escape prosecution under its laws.

151 Leonidas Nshogoza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-2007-91-A, Judgement, 15 March 2010, para. 24 (Nshogoza (AC». 152 Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-54-A-A, Judgement, 19 September 2005, para. 226. • 153 See Exhibit 0, filed ex parte because of Witness GEXlA7 Protection Order. See also The Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54-I, Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion for Protective Measures for Witnesses, 10 July 2000 (signed 7 July 2000) (Kamuhanda Decision); The Prosecutor v. Leonidas Nshogoza, Case No. ICTR-2007-91-T, Judgement, 7 July 2009, paras. 167 and 168 (confirming that GEX was a protected Prosecution Witness). 154 See Exhibit 0, filed ex parte because of Witness GEXlA7 Protection Order. 155 Article 29 (4) of the ICTR Statute (immunity for defence counsel extends only "as is necessary for the proper functioning of the Tribunal"). See also Theoneste Bagosora et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Decision on Aloys Ntabakuze's Motion for Injunctions against the Government of Rwanda regarding the Arrest and Investigation of Lead Counsel Peter Erlinder, para. 46 (immunity extends only in the course of performance of their duties as defence counsel). For his part, Nshogoza acknowledged that, at the time of his contact with the witnesses, including GEXlA7, he had no contract or authorization from the Tribunal to work for the Kamuhanda defence. T. 31 March 2009, p. 37, lines 29-35; p. 38, lines 29-35; p. 39, lines 21-25.

_. 31 .- 81. The Defence's remammg allegations of alleged interference with defence teams in the Gatete, Kanyarukiga, and Ngirabatware cases likewise lack merit.l56 Each of these allegations is demonstrably false or grounded solely on rumor and supposition: • Jean Baptiste Gatete's defence counsel, Marie Pierre Poulain, attests that witnesses LA16 and LA32 who allegedly sought refuge in Uganda died under "unclear circumstances."157 During Gatete's trial, his counsel represented that witness LA16 voluntarily fled Rwanda to avoid having to serve a life sentence for a crimes he admitted committing.t-'' Any suggestion that this witness fled Rwanda to avoid retaliation for his testimony in Gatete's case is, therefore, false. Moreover, there is no evidence linking Rwanda to these witnesses' deaths. The deaths took place in another country and under circumstances that, even the Defence admits, remain unclear. 159

• Similarly unclear are the Defence allegations about witness KG24, who testified in the Kanyarukiga case. According to an e-mail exchange between • Kanyarukiga's counsel and WVSS, Kanyarukiga's counsel asserted that the witness "apparently" was forcibly taken from Burundi to Rwanda and no one had been able to trace him since.160 WVSS responded by stating that it had conducted a "preliminary inquiry into the matter and met with relatives of Witness KG24."161 Despite these efforts, WVSS was unable to locate the witnass.w- There is nothing in this hearsay e-mail exchange to confirm the Defence's insinuation that witness KG24 was forcibly removed from Burundi to Rwanda, let alone that Rwanda anything to do with KG24's apparent disappearance. Indeed, there is no evidence that KG24 ever set foot in Rwanda following his testimony.

• The Defence next asserts that it has "credible information" that several witnesses for Augustin Nigirabatware were summoned and detained by Rwandan authorities for a couple of days.l63 The only citation provided in support of this allegation, however, is the brief filed by Nigirabatware's • defence team, which says merely that there was an unidentified security issue concerning some of the defence witnesses and that the matter was "in

156 Defence Response, paras. 94-96. 157 Defence Response, para. 94. 158 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Baptiste Gatete, Case No. ICTR-2000-61-T, Closing Brief of Jean-Baptiste Gatete, 25 June 2010, paras. 50-51. 159 Defence Response, para. 94. 160 Defence Response, para. 96, Annex 14. 161 Defence Response, para. 96, Annex 14. 162 Defence Response, para. 96, Annex 14. 163 Defence Response, para. 96.

-- 32 -- ~ the hands of the WVSS."164 Apparently, the matter was resolved by WVSS because Nigirabatware's defence team raised no further concerns about the unidentified issue.

82. In the same vein is the assertion by one of the Defence's amici that Theogene Muhayeyezu, who it identifies as "the lawyer representing" Victoire Ingabire, was arrested at Rwanda's Supreme Court on 24 June 2010 and detained incommunicado for several days.l65 There are several problems with this assertion. First and most fundamentally, the assertion is made without citation to any source. Second, Ingabire's case is pending in the High Court and has not yet reached the Supreme Court.166 Third, to the best of the Prosecutor's knowledge, Attorney Muhayeyezu is not part of Ingabire's defence team.w? Fourth, Rwanda has no record of this • attorney's alleged arrest or detention,16B which no doubt explains why the Defence's amici fails to provide any citation to support this unfounded accusation. n. The immunities available under Rwanda's Transfer Law render the nameless Defence witnesses' alleged fears unrealistic; and, in any event, there are readily available alternatives for live testimony to address even these unrealistic fears.

83. The Prosecutor and Rwanda have previously detailed all of the immunities available to witnesses under Rwandan law. In addition, they have explained in detail all of the witness protection measures available under Rwandan law. Those measures can, of course, be supplemented by any protection orders the Chamber may choose to issue in this case or any other referred case. It has been common • practice, for instance, for Chambers to include within the scope of protection orders

164 The Prosecutor v. Augustin Ngirabatware, Case No. ICTR-99-54-T, T. 15 November 2010, p. 1, lines 34-36. 165 ICDAA Amicus Brief, para. 42. 166 Affidavit of John Bosco Siboyintore, Prosecutor NPPA and Acting Head of NPPA Genocide Fugitive Tracking Unit (Siboyintore Aff.), para. 3 (a copy is included in Exhibit P of the Addendum to this Response). 167 Siboyintore Aff., para. 3; see also Radio Netherlands Worldwide, Who's Actually Defending Victoire Ingabire?, 19 November 2010 (identifying three members of Ingabire's trial team: two British attorneys, Robert Alan Jones and lain Edwards; and one Rwandan lawyer, Gatera Gashabana), available at http://www.rnw.nllafrical article/whos-actually-defending-victoire-ingabire (last visited 11 April 2011). 168 Siboyintore Aff., para. 3.

-- 33 -- not only the witness but members of witness's family, as well. 169 Pursuant to Rule 11 bis (D) (ii), the Chamber may order that any such protective measures remain in force even after a case is referred. 84. Additionally, the Prosecutor and Rwanda have previously identified all of the alternatives that Rwandan law provides to secure testimony from those witnesses who may be unable or unwilling to travel to Rwanda for trial. Rwanda has implemented state-of-the-art video link facilities to permit remote testimony.t?" It also allows testimony to be taken viva voce before a Rwandan or foreign judge in another country.!"! Alternatively, it permits testimony to be recorded by deposition taken in Rwanda or a foreign country and conducted before a Rwandan or foreign judicial officer.I'" Additionally, Rwanda has introduced new legislation that would • allow the panel for any case referred for trial in Rwanda to include judges from

foreign or international courts'!73 85. The secret affidavits submitted by the Defence are an orchestrated attempt to evade all of the protections and alternatives for live witness testimony that Rwandan law provides. All 49 members of the Defence's chorus of prospective witnesses sing a suspiciously similar tune, with nearly identical refrains: • They are willing to give testimony in favor of the Accused only if the proceedings take place before the ICTR in Arusha.

• They will not give testimony in any case referred to Rwanda for trial because they fear that they or their families will be arrested or prosecuted under Rwanda's Genocide Ideology Law.

• Their reluctance to provide testimony in any case referred to Rwanda for trial • extends to any proceedings that may take place in a foreign country.l"!

169 See Kamuhanda Decision, Measure 3(i). 170 Article 14 bis of Rwanda's Transfer Law (Law modifying and complementing the Transfer Law, Article 3 - Testimony of a witness residing abroad). 171 Article 14 bis of Rwanda's Transfer Law (Law modifying and complementing the Transfer Law, Article 3 - Testimony of a witness residing abroad). 172 Article 14 bis of Rwanda's Transfer Law (Law modifying and complementing the Transfer Law, Article 3 - Testimony of a witness residing abroad). 173 Draft Organic Law establishing the Organization, Functioning and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Article 13. 174 Defence Response, Annex 8.

-- 34 -- 86. Without knowing the identities of these affiants, the Prosecutor cannot probe the veracity of these statements or the circumstances under which the statements were obtained. The Prosecutor also cannot assess whether any of the affiant's professed subjective fears could be ameliorated by carefully-crafted witness protection services or court orders (although that certainly seems likely). But, even accepting these constraints, the positions articulated in these secret affidavits should not be credited. 87. The Tribunal's own expenence reveals that witnesses from Rwanda have testified both in support and against the Accused without incident. The then-Acting President of the Kigali Bar Association, who submitted an affidavit in support of Rwanda's amicus brief, confirms that Rwandan defence counsel have been able to conduct domestic criminal investigations without interference and have had no • difficulties calling defence witnesses at trial.175 And, as noted above, these experiences have been confirmed by the Dutch government.l'"

88. They also are confirmed by the Defence's own submissions III this case. Included in the 49 secret affidavits submitted by the Defence are nine affidavits from persons currently residing in Rwanda, including one or more detainees.t?? The rest of the secret affidavits come from persons residing in neighboring African countries, including Uganda, Zambia, Mozambique, Burundi, and other nations. Thus, in the three months the Defence had to respond to the Prosecutor's application, it had no difficulty locating, interviewing, and obtaining statements • from persons residing or detained in Rwanda. And, despite the Defence and its amici's imaginings of clandestine Rwandan operatives perpetrating acts of violence throughout Africa, the Defence likewise had no difficulty locating, interviewing, and obtaining statements from persons in neighboring African countries.

175 The Prosecutor u, Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-200l-75-I, Amicus Curiae Brief for the Republic of Rwanda in support of the Prosecutor's Application for Referral Pursuant to Rule 11 bis, 18 February 2011, para. 30 (citing Affidavit of Maitre Emmanuel Rukangira, Acting President of the Kigali Bar Association, para. 13) (Rwanda Amicus Brief). 176 The Netherlands' Observations, para. 7. 177 Defence Response, Annex 9, nos. 40-49, no. 46.

-- 35 -- ~ 89. Moreover, as noted in Rwanda's amicus brief, there has not been a single instance where a witness in a criminal case has been arrested or prosecuted for alleged violations of the Genocide Ideology Law.178 This is confirmed by the Hategekimana Trial Chamber's observation that defence concerns about the possibility for abusive application of the Genocide Ideology law were "speculative."179 90. Statistics supplied by Rwanda's National Public Prosecution Authority also show that the Defence and its amici have grossly exaggerated the number of prosecutions brought under the Genocide Ideology law. According to the Defence and its amici, there allegedly have been more than 2000 cases since 2008180 and 435 cases in 2009 alone.t''! Once again, the Prosecutor will endeavor to separate truth • from hyperbole; the actual number of complaints received, cases prosecuted, verdicts returned, and acquittals in genocide ideology cases is as follows:

RWANDAN PROSECUTIONS FOR GENOCIDE IDEOLOGY: 2008 TO 2010182 Complail1ts Cases Percel1t Acquittals Percent Received Prosecuted Prosecuted Returned A uitted 355 229 64% 60 45% 441 234 53% 145 66 45% 340 175 51% 133 49 37% 1136 638 56% 411 175 42%

91. These statistics illustrate several significant points. First, the number of • actual prosecutions (638) is far less than the Defence and its amici's suggest (over 2000). Second, the statistics show that the number of complaints filed far exceeded the number of prosecutions brought. This is concrete evidence that Rwandan prosecutors are weeding out frivolous cases from meritorious cases. Indeed, nearly 60% of complaints filed during 2008 to 2010 were not pursued by Rwandan

178 Rwanda Amicus Brief, para. 55. 179 Hategekimana (TCl, para. 59. 180 HRW Amicus Brief, para. 44. 181 lCDAA Amicus Brief, para. 58. 182 Siboyintore Aff., para. 4.

.. 36 -- prosecutors. Third, the statistics demonstrate that over 40% of the prosecutions that were brought during 2008 to 2010 resulted in acquittals. Although the Defence and its amici quibble with Rwanda's reliance on acquittal rates as evidence of an independent judiciary, they cannot escape the conclusion that this high acquittal rate cannot be squared with their theory that Rwanda's judiciary is a puppet of its political leaders. Afterall, if Rwanda's judiciary were truly under the thumb of its political leaders, as the Defence and its amici suggest, one would expect few, if any, acquittals - certainly not acquittals in excess of 40%. 92. All of this shows that the professed fears of the Defence's secret affiants are divorced from reality. These witnesses are immune from arrest and prosecution. Their family members may be protected by court orders. There is no history of defence witnesses in Rwanda being arrested or prosecuted for genocide ideology. • And, the data relating to other cases that have been prosecuted show that the prospects of unjustified arrest, prosecution, and conviction are remote. 93. Even if these subjective fears of arrest and prosecution are honestly held, there still is no viable reason why the Defence's secret affiants could not present their evidence in one or more of the alternative ways provided by Rwandan law. The alternatives provided by Rwandan law for video-link testimony, deposition, and live testimony in foreign countries address any alleged fear about having to travel to Rwanda to provide testimony. Each of these alternatives has been utilized by this Tribunal and national courts. 94. Furthermore, although there is a preference for live witness testimony over • recorded testimony, this preference is primarily a function of the Accused's right to face the witnesses against him and hear their testimony viva voce. Live testimony also may assist judges in evaluating a witness's testimony, but the primary reason underlying the preference for live witness testimony remains protecting the Accused's right to a fair trial. Judges can, and routinely do, evaluate evidence without the necessity oflive testimony. 95. Each of the alternatives provided by Rwandan law could, with appropriate logistical support, allow the Accused to both face the witnesses and hear their

_. 37 .. testimony vwa voce. The Accused, for instance, could be present at the same location where the witness testifies via video-link or deposition. And, if one or more of the judges hearing the case wished to be physically present when the witness testifies, there is no reason they could not likewise travel to the witness's location. In fact, this is precisely what is envisioned under Rwanda's third alternative, whereby all of the principals (the judge, prosecution, defence, and witness) would be present to hear the witness testify in a foreign courtroom. These alternatives, therefore, address any concerns about the Defence's ability to secure live witness testimony from witnesses who may be unwilling or unable to travel to Rwanda. 96. Moreover, Rwandan law anticipates that foreign or international judges may comprise the panel assigned to the trial of any referred case. This prospect adequately addresses any remaining subjective fear that Defence witnesses may • have about appearing only before a Rwandan judge. E. Rule 11 bis's monitoring and revocation provrsions are meaningful safeguards to the Accused's right to a fair trial.

97. Additional safeguards to the Accused's right to a fair trial in Rwanda's courts are provided by Rule 11 bis'« monitoring and revocation provisions. In connection with previous Rule 11 bis proceedings, the Appeals Chamber acknowledged that Rule 11 bis (D) (iv) and (F) provided meaningful safeguards to ensure a fair trial in any case that may be referred to Rwanda for trial.l83 98. The Defence suggests that these prior decisions are wrong because the Chambers failed to account for the fact that: • • the decision to send monitors is a discretionary one entirely within the purview of the Prosecutor; • the decision to initiate the revocation mechanism remams entirely at the discretion of the Prosecutor; and

183 See The Prosecutor v. Yuesuf Munyakazi, Case No. ICTR-97-36-RlIbis, Decision on the Prosecution's Appeal against Decision on Referral under Rule lIbis, 8 October 2008, para. 30 (independence of the judiciary), para. 44 (availability and protection of witnesses) (Munyakazi (AC»; The Prosecutor u. Ildephonse Hategehimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-RlIbis, Decision on the Prosecution's Appeal against Decision on Referral under Rille lIbis, 4 December 2008, para. 29 (availability and protection of witnesses) (Hategekimana (AC».

-- 38 -- • during the revocation process, the Accused will not be given the opportunity to be heard by the Chamber.tv- 99. The short answer to the Defence objections is that they all have been addressed by recent amendments to Rule 11 bis, adopted during the 23rd ICTR Plenary of 1 April 2011. As a result of these amendments, Rule 11 bis now offers the same safeguards as the Statute of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals.v" More particularly, the following amendments were adopted: • Rule 11 bis D (iv) now provides that not only the Prosecutor but also the Trial Chamber can send observers to monitor the proceedings; and • Rule 11 bis (F) now specifically states that the Trial Chamber may revoke a referral order, at the request ofthe Prosecutor or proprio motu. 100. Therefore, both the decision to send monitors and the right to request a Trial • Chamber to rescind referral no longer lie within the sole discretion of the Prosecutor. The recent amendments equip the Chamber with new authority proprio motu to do so as welL 101. Moreover, the Accused may himself trigger operation of these "remedies" by raising any complaints with the Trial Chamber and asking it to exercise its authority proprio motu. Once the revocation process has been started, the Rule also does not preclude the Accused from being heard, suo motu, by the Chamber. 102. The Defence next contends that implementation of the ICTR completion strategy renders it "highly unlikely" effective monitoring will take place or that any referral will be rescinded.Iw The completion strategy envisions that, effective 1 July 2012, the Residual Mechanism will assume specified functions. Article 6 of the • Residual Mechanism Statute directs that the Mechanism "shall" monitor all cases referred to national courts and that the Trial Chamber may revoke any referral order, either at the request of the Prosecutor or proprio motu. 187 These powers extend to any cases that the ICTR referred to national jurisdictions before the

184 Defence Response, para. 389. 185 See Resolution 1966 (2010), adopted by the Security Council at its 6463,d meeting, on 22 December 2010, Annex 1 - Statute of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (lRMCT), S/RES/1966 (2010), especially Article 6. 186 Defence Response, para. 396. 187 See IRMCT Statute, S/RESI1966 (2010).

-- 39 -- Residual Mechanism takes effect.188 Thus, contrary to the Defence allegations, the completion strategy will not occasion any break in either the monitoring of referred cases or the Chamber's ability to rescind referral iffair trial rights are prejudiced. 103. Furthermore, although it is true that the Residual Mechanism is intended to be a lean structure with only a small core of permanent staff,189 referral of appropriate cases is one of the Mechanism's priorities. Indeed, the Residual Mechanism Statute requires the Mechanism (except those against the most senior leaders) to first exhaust "all reasonable efforts to refer" cases to a national jurisdiction before undertaking to try those cases itself.190 And, as already noted, monitoring of any referred cases is mandatory under the Residual Mechanism's Statute. There is no reason to suspect that that the Mechanism, despite its small staff, will shirk its statutory obligations. The Residual Mechanism Statute, in fact, • anticipates this very concern by directing that monitoring of any referred case "shall" be undertaken "with the assistance of international and regional organizations and bodies."191 104. Equally misguided is the Defence's suggestion that the Prosecutor must work out all the modalities of a potential monitoring and revocation system before a case can be referred.l92 Rule 11 bis confers substantial discretion on the Prosecutor to determine, first, whether to send any monitors and, second, how to conduct the monitoring.t'" The Appeals Chamber has likewise recognized that both of these matters are committed to the Prosecutor's broad discretion and should not be • second guessed.P! 105. The Defence, however, questions the Prosecutor's commitment to effective monitoring. It notes, for instance, that the Prosecutor's understanding with the African Commission on Human and People's Rights to monitor cases referred to

188 Article 6, paras. 5 . 6 of the IRMCT Statute. 189 Defence Response, para. 396. See also HRW Amicus Brief, para. 108. 190 Article 1, para. 3 ofthe IRMCT Statute. 191 Article 6, para. 5. 192 Defence Response, para. 392. 193 Jankovic (AC), para. 56. 194 Stankovic (AC), para. 57.

_. 40 .- Rwanda for trial was reached several years ago.I 95 The critical issue, however, is not when this understanding was reached but that it remains in place, which it does. Moreover, in connection with previous Rule 11 bis proceedings, both the Appeals Chamber and Trial Chambers endorsed the Prosecutor's selection of the African Commission to monitor referred cases.l'" The passage of time has not diminished the Prosecutor's confidence in the African Commission's ability to effectively monitor any case referred to Rwanda for trial. 106. As further proof of what the Defence regards as the Prosecutor's alleged lack of commitment to monitoring, the Defence points to its amici HRW's report about the Kabgayi trial. According to HR'N's report, "the Prosecutor did send observers to proceedings for only a handful of days and yet, despite having received reports to • the contrary, went on to the Security Council that the standards of fair trial had been observed."197 The Defence neglects to mention, however, that the Prosecutor has formally denied HRW's allegations. This omission is all the more surprising, given that HRW acknowledged the Prosecutor's denial in its report, albeit in a footnote. 198 107. Nevertheless, to set the record straight, the Prosecutor recounts below his denial ofHRW's allegations: You allege unfairly, that my office maintained only a "cursory presence" at the trial and that it "did not constitute diligent monitoring". As you are no doubt aware, monitoring of a trial does not require a continuous presence throughout the proceedings. I had one Senior Trial Attorney and one Senior Legal Advisor to monitor the proceedings. Contrary to what you say in your letter, there was an OTP monitor in court every day of the trial. They have • provided me with their reports and attested to the proceedings, which were held in public, as having complied with the standards of fair trial. The monitors' reports have also been supplemented with the written record of the proceedings as well as a full video recording of the trial. Although you admit to HRW monitoring the trial, you have not, seven months since the verdict, brought to my attention any evidence to support your allegation

195 Defence Response, para. 392. 196 See, e.g., Munyakazi (AC), paras. 30, 44; Hategekimana (AC), para. 29; Kanyarukiga (TC), para. 100; Gatete (TC), para. 91. 197 Defence Response, para. 395. 198 HRW Amicus Brief, para. 107, n. 151.

-- 41 -- 4+9€> that the trial "proved to be a political whitewash and a miscarriage1"'31 justice".199 108. The Prosecutor will not stoop to respond further. He remains committed to meaningful monitoring of any referred case, and his selection of the African Commission to fill that role already has been endorsed by the Tribunal. Moreover, the recent amendments to Rule 11 bis bolster pre-amendment determinations that the rule's monitoring and revocation provisions are fully capable of safeguarding the Accused's right to a fair trial in any referred case.zoo CONCLUSION 109. Rwanda meets all of the requirements established by Rule 11 bis for referral of a case for trial. The Defence and its amici's attempts convert the rule's referral • standard into an open-ended referendum on Rwanda's internal politics is far removed from the limited question before the Chamber: whether the Accused's right to a fair trial can be secured if referral is allowed. 110. For all of the reasons articulated in the Prosecutor's initial application and this response, as well as Rwanda's amicus brief, the Accused's right to a fair trial in Rwanda is secure. Rwanda's laws afford all of the requisite legal protections, and those legal protections are honored in practice. The largely unsubstantiated submissions by the Defence and its amici have not diminished this showing. 111. Ifthe Chamber has any lingering questions about Rwanda's commitment and ability to secure the Accused's right to a fair trial, it should take up Rwanda's invitation to evaluate first-hand whether the Defence and its amici's vague • assertions about Rwanda's "political climate" are fact or fiction. The Prosecutor is confident that a site visit will provide additional concrete proof of what Rwanda already has said: it is ready, willing, and able to fairly try this or any other case that the Chambers may refer for trial in Rwanda.

199 Letter from ICTR Prosecutor, Hon. Hassan B. Jallow, to Mr. Kenneth Roth, Executive Director HRW, 22 June 2009 (emphasis added: a copy attached as Exhibit Q to the Addendum). 200 Jankovic (AC), para. 56. The Appeals Chamber's holding in Jankovic was based on ICTY Rule 11 bis, which does not include the same expanded authority for Trial Chamber monitoring and revocation that exits under the amended ICTR Rule 11 bis. Thus, the Appeals Chamber's pronouncement has even greater heft when applied to the amended ICTR Rule 11 bis.

-- 42 -- 112. Indeed, as Rwanda's amicus brief makes clear, its commitment to securing the Accused's right to a fair trial is not some abstract legal concept but, rather, a "crucial step on the path toward national reconciliation and healing."201 The Prosecutor shares Rwanda's conviction that it is prepared and able to take that step. The Chamber should accordingly allow the Prosecutor's application to refer

this case to Rwanda for trial.

Respectfully submitted, 20 April 2011, Arusha, Tanzania

•

201 Rwanda Amicus Brief, para. 136.

-- 43 -- ADDENDUM

Exhibit A Uwinkindi Gacaca Court Records

Exhibit B Affidavit of Tito Rutaremara, Chief Ombudsman

Exhibit C Affidavit of Anastase Shyaka, Executive Secretary of the Rwanda Governance Advisory Council

Exhibit D Affidavit of Francois Regis Rukundakuvuga, Inspector General ofthe Supreme Court of Rwanda

Exhibit E Prosecutor u. Didace Nduguyangu and Antoine Karemera, High Court Judgement

Exhibit F Prosecutor u. Bernard Ntaganda, High Court Judgement

Exhibit G Military Prosecutor u. Kayumba Nyamwasa et al., Military High • Court Judgement Exhibit H Prosecutor u. Agnes Uwimana and Saidati Mukakibibi, High Court Judgement

Exhibit I Prosecutor u. Charles Kabonero, Mbishibishi Gasana, and others, Intermediate Court Judgement

Exhibit J Prosecutor v. Jean Bosco Gasasira, High Court Judgement

Exhibit K Letter from High Court Justice Johnston Busingye to Chief Justice of Rwanda Supreme Court

Exhibit L Col. Diogene Mudenge u. Prosecutor, Supreme Court of Rwanda Decision • Exhibit M Observations in Intervention ofthe Government ofthe Netherlands concerning Application No. 37075/79, para. 7, filed in the European Court of Human Rights, Ahorugeze u. Sweden, Application No. 37075/09 (27 July 2010)

Exhibit N Affidavit of Theoneste Karenzi, Coordinator of the Witness and Victims Protection and Assistance Unit

Exhibit 0 Confidential Witness Protected Material, filed ex parte Exhibit P Affidavit of John Bosco Siboyintore, Prosecutor NPPA and Acting Head of NPPA Genocide Fugitive Tracking Unit

Exhibit Q Letter from ICTR Prosecutor, Hon. Hassan B. Jallow, to Mr. Kenneth Roth, Executive Director HRW

•

• Exhibit A Uwinkindi Gacaca Court Records

l. Kayumba Gacaca Sector Court Judgement, 7 May 2009 2. Ntarama Gacaca Sector Court Judgement, 20 August 2009 Letter from ICTR Prosecutor, Hassan Bubacar Jallow, to Mr. Martin Ngoga, 3. Rwanda's Prosecutor General, 22 October 2010 4. Letter from Mr. Martin Ngoga, Rwanda's Prosecutor General, to Executive Secretary of the National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions, on Ntarama • Gacaca Sector Court Judgement, 28 October 2010 Letter from Ms. Domitilla Mukantaganzwa, Executive Secretary ofthe 5. National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions, to President ofthe Kayumba Gacaca Court of Appeal, 3 November 2010 6. Kayumba Gacaca Court of Appeal Judgement, 4 November 2010 7. Ntarama Gacaca Court of Appeal Judgement, 5 November 2010 8. Letter from Mr. Martin Ngoga, Rwanda's Prosecutor General, to ICTR Prosecutor, Hassan Bubacar Jallow,18 November 2010

• Rcpubulika y'u Rwanda Urwcgo rw'Igihugu rushinzwc Inkiko Gacaca IFISHI Y'lSOMWA RY'uRUBANZA

vonc kuwa ~~ ..' 0.;. ·..i..-~rLJbkoGatacarw'u::i'TIurengcwaC~a "?~*,-,,,-v.·~:;...:.:,:.: ~, .. :"J~,-.~N~ ...... -.-Y<.;<~/y~ c.:..,~./.. nc Mureoge,..va .. Akurcrc ka , ,0'···· Intara'Urnujyiwa Kigali ... Ij 41. ,( I ' V (umazc gusczumo urubanza rwc :;/_ .~:f: ..Ivi. ~'.v_~~wcnc ... .. na " , . t.urcezc kubona ko ycrncyc ibyaha yakozc akabisabi-a irnbabazi: bikakirwa 0 Nribyakirwc n

• ,'y', .

n. s).

i Akaba ahanishijwc igihano cyigifungo cy'jmyaka ~M->.-.'~.h.'""'-' ';u;..:....'...(~~andi azagikoramc igihrmo nsimburagifungo ,/"....-'- 14~.;> cy'jmirirno ifitiyc 19ihugu akamaro mu gihc kingana na ,r<";.. " yarangijc igihungo cyimyaka yakariwc

J Ategciswc kuriha umuiungo yononnyc:

I/J}'O ATEGETSWE KURlllA (guslIbf:.a ibvononwe. f:urjJw tbyononwe nm mlljll}"{JJJS!:{1 /llYO't'ONONNj't: umuoore 1\' 'imrbyizi tzokorwo nJli 1111(1'111I0 ll'O ,.

~------+------+------I .------+------+------1I I

.... Uwakottwc H'O ni!l nvega rwa robin. a!;mvc igihDJJO ~ro kwarnburivo nbvrcngansira (~fjfe /1111 gfJrugu ku b,':Jyo bsneganyijwe lJ!iI ngingo.va 76 v'ltegckc ngcflga II" }6/]004 'YO kuwa 19/6/2004 (gutoru. ginovwo. knba lIiiw!orJgaDuhamva nm bynbntianga, ·'m: bvcmczo Jlt"J 111/1 lII(m::JI, gurll!lga ,W) ,(111'.\'0:'0 fmh/!/lda, kuhn vnnusirikrn:e, hllha !I"wpo!isf, glik()!'(! nnmrinro wrr Lcto. !:/lbo i!1I/)I'igi,;'hll cvongwa IIJliil)'U:;i) 5 Agjzwc un-wcrc Irnpamvu: .

ICVITOXnEHWA:

Kujurira bikorwa 1l1U J!'.in:;i i:) kuva urubcnzn rukirnnra gL~.';on:Y~';L Gucubirishamo bikorvn mu mil'.< 15 kuv;:J igihc uruhauzn -warucnvcshcrc-wc D\V3b1Jr;\:lt:,ll~J\\'C cyJl1g\V,i u-va-ornc-vc ;\l~~\!1a;:

\]\1A7:IN,\, li'>!IKONO CYANGWA IBIKIJMWE BY',\B!\GI/Y I!\;TEKG YTRUKlKG BAF.\SIlE ICYEMElXl I, . I 0 '- I .,;.- I" ~~::";~e::R- I I ,'- -- 1 i I> I , I " i j j ------_/ REPrnrLIKA Y'U RWANDA

URWEGO RW'IGIIlUGC RUSIllNZWE It'\KIKO CAC\CA

ICY!'-ME7A eye GUFATANO GUFUNGA (1) ~.~ ~"irisbi :,'urcg,"n:.

r;. Lh:l'Jr~T,~c \\'<1 . /C4.;J"j"" ;:-q'~I/

: ;blllll~',r( :w..J -« :'\hu ~"u'r:lh' ruban.ova :ill:':l:) I:S~i>,;!" ·\'ul:;;ui l'r..j/~:-:/U:/'-c1.d-A,. Umu-cngc. !:.(-j.;if.I7.t.£~r;..

(3)

\11l;li:in(\ y,i Sc ~~ '.~)\ Abo abm-izv a ubu : ..\k~l~·,lr;_" . •j;i"~7-::"~'··-" .. Umurcngc. Akarcrc .' /~ '/".. ._ i!ll:1Cl iUmujp:.LKiga]; ....-_ -_ .

(5) Kllbcra. ko nrcgwa ,by"h! bikurikira : ,?u~--o/!-.u"u;.... v?-<~t..'v..(;-c<-IP'< ~';;f~".;': - .. " .- ZQ"-1~Q..t;"'CD'-""'sl.Lh.4/e'-'}4.t.i!LMJ Jjl;;~' (6) Urwcgc bimushyiramo: . ..-'-- ,_ , " - j...... p (7) Kubcra ko vactr-iwc nr-ubanz.a agnkaurwa igibano cy',gifungo k.ngana na .!0~6~',ilt<'''. ~ • '7 -," ," "> (8) Am.azina n'umllkono by'ab.agizc Inam'l Mpuzabikorwa: (9) itariki y'icycmczo .Or:.,... .I.C.S....·J·f?94 , oJ../, "-

Pcrczida V15\ Pcrczida V.'Z1 \ Vis: Pcrczidu wa 2 Umwanditsi !,4r!.t-

(1) lzina n'umurirno by' uwamufushc, n 'uariki amufatiycuo:

• REPUBULIKA Y'U RWiL~DA 41~* URWEGO RW'IGIHUGU RUSfIINZWE INKIKO GACACA 302

!FISHI Y'UREGWA :1) Izina ry'urukiko : Urukiko rw Akagar: ka.6.prttRt..-,,,

(2) Aho icyicaro cyarwo kin : --!'. . ~" , Akagari '" G,,H,t4.. CR. £. ,.. ... , Urnurenge J\,iA."j.L/.r):n~. Akarere'Umujyi . ,.. ~---fV,~ ... ,... .".L'1tara / Umujyi wa Kigali.. JJiI::., .. C/

(3) Urnwirondoro w'uregwa : .. I izina yahawe n'ababyeyi ,.. t'.vLwit:P26:AL.i;u/. ~-f..~'7-~ T~::Jalz:~'anawekn , 'idi . ;::'~:~+1:n(.AV4:r.J-,J:"."r: """·1 h I'" b . 1 rru nrnm ano <->. __rrrrurimo ya .oraga ""'r'~'''''''''''''''' ..b.ina ya Se .' .... Amazina ya Nyina .. ' I 'bwenegihuzu ...U/YvlU,1.i.'i-£\,\I.';8!/.ig.,itsina r'w"1 gaDO r---l gore - - CJ IU~ ~- L.-l ~ mwaka yavutsemo ,.. , ' .Yavukiye: Akagari ,', .. ,.... . : Umurcnge .. ' i .~.karerelUmujyi . ... _ ,. ..Intara/umujyi wa Kigali. I Subiza Yego cyangwa Oya ku bibazo bikurikira: i (4) mama Rusange izi uregwa? .. ,.{~ " ,., ,.. , , ; .. I (5) Uregwa yari afite munsi y'imyaka 14, mu gihe ibyaha ashinjwa oyakorwaga? i0!f'D''' (6) Ukekwaho icyaha yakoze ibyaha mu tugar; dutandukanye? , ~F..""""'.'" . (7) Niba uregwa afunze, han icyo inarna rusange cyangwa parike imusiiinja? '.:c;;u¢--~ Niba an Oya hila ujya ku ngingo ya (J2)/~ I (8) lbyaha uregwa ashinjwa: (shyira akamenyctso X ku eyaha arcgwa) I ) L Urwego rwa mbere: ,I a. Gucura umugambi wa jcnoside.. ... "lJQ Gufatanya.. o Kuba icyirso o b. Gutcgura jenosidc . ,{2S:l Gufatanya. ·0 Kuba icyitso o c, Gushishikariza gukora jcnoside . ... i2rJ Gufatanya. o Kuba icyitso o d. Kugenzura no kuyobora ibikorwa bya jenoside.. .00 Gufatanya". CJ Kuba icyitso o I c. Gukora ibikorwa bya jenoside un umuyobozi.. .rAJ Gufatanya... o Kuba icyitso o • r. Kwarnamara D1U bwicanyi. ,j\1 Gufatanya.. Kuba icyitso CJ o g. K \\'IC8 urubozo . .{XJ Gufatanya.. o Kuba icyitso o h. Gus2mb01;)/J ku ~

c:J (j'Jti:1wny'l .. Kuba .cyiu.o i I j ~, K,:jY~1 mu biiC!'(, . L-J Gufa.anya. Kuba icyi.so o KUj:"~l ~uk()r;) ~jt"LrJycn GUi'3t[\l~_ya l: f<' » ku r ; ..1 : '. L-J Kuba icy.tso o d KlIgamhir:r~\ h\vic;: ;;':)'0 l:n1'.lgarnb: u;ac.cnvah0., c:=J (Jufal:myrL o Kuba icyitsc I i j c (jukClr~i ib::h.lJ ):))hD;-W3 bib~ bil?g,l:;lL;iriyc 1~:\\,;c.;:, .. ,CJ Cj~113t.anya K'.~ba icyiiso I I o lhilld: j 'CJ KUDJ icynso

j

---__J 302

ilnteko y'urukiko yemeje gushyira uregwa mu rwego: (shyira akamcnyetso X ku rwcgo yashvizwcmc

1 nurukiko) 1 tx I [I] I 3 I I

(10) Aho uregwa ari ubu: (subiza ycgo cyangwa oya ku bibazo bikurikira)

a) ur cgwa arafunze? .D? Niba ari ycgo, hebe? (sobanura niba ari murj gCITZZl, kasbo cyangwa aharidi)

b) Urcgwa ntafunzwc? . . Nihr1 ,11-J ycgo .nuz: aho muyc ubu? Ak8gari Urnurcnuc ,.. Akarcrc/Un-uivi .lntZlm/LmuJ):i \\';:\ Kigali. Mu :-nah8nga (Igihugu) ..~.~V:\ ~.."1..~ .. c) l.~rcgwt1 y8rGpfuyc._ .D.''7-:8D~.~.. .:'libo. ari Ycgojya kuri (14)

(l I) Lire~vn yarirczc ycmcra icyaha? (andika Ycgo CY~lllg\'/a O1'a)

Niba igisubizo ari ycgo, sobanura: ~I) Esc uko kwircua. bVCnLCr2. icvaha, kwicuza no ~L:s~lba i::lb;lb,wi k\VCr;lC\\,C r:"Lirukiko Gacacn • rW'Abgano.~.~.5t:(:1 :.... ~ Nib21 2.ri ycgo: i1.1rtki kWZltangiwcho ' ...1lo"tr:li u-cgvca Y~1,ndiki\vc ku fU101!Jc:

(12) Nyuma y'inama rusange, intcko vUrukiku-Cacuca vcmc]c: an d ik a vego mu k az n karnwc, kaurli unandikc icycrnczo cvUruk ik o mu kuzu kari ku ngingo ya (9)

i \,(.'00 Icvcmczo cvTntcko , ~ i Intcko vUrukiko-Cn cu ca igonlha I I \"L:nlkiko-Gacaca '------. i ~~--~~------~_.-.-.- -_."---,-._-- -~--_.- ----.-,.------I C;u\:;ll~;' • ,<,'(i ,~'\lI-dngl\r:; ~lk,1

C;lii:C1l~~\ i':':Y~'I1~c/'(i :....~'(j _~ll'l·l11-;~'llrl·. :d·;" ;';llI1:::i __'~ "--__ :_)_~~~riki ~_~\~lll' '~~~~1.:.~___ __. __". , , r.:. \ ~ \)":!"'~':'::l "h .1, \'.1' i

"",.",,-., '-c- ,.,

lTU\:;n~::', ',~"li~'/l' '<\1' :..:,,:rl:'I~'.U:-:1 ::~" kl!j" II ''',I.'"l '.l'-'_·~~'.\:I :\Iun/~ il.:lnb 302

(13) 1)'0 uregwa adafunzwe: Ese Inteko y'Urukiko-Cacaca yerneje ko uregwa afungwa by'agateganyo? (Subiza Yego cyangwa Oya): Niba ari Yego: lcyemezo cyo gufata no gufunga gitanzwe n'Inteko y'Urukiko-Gacaca tariki ./ f .

(14) Amazina n'imikono y'abagize Inteko y'Urukiko-Gacaca: (14) Itariki .1 .1.•.•...... •.•

Lisiti y'abatangabuhamya mu rubanza (15) na lisiti yabahohotew

• •ci .:r-- 302 (15),\BAT\NC,\l\liHAI\IYA MU RUBANZA -" Arashinja Arnazina ya Nyina Aho .> Amazina-ya Sc ---- _.-_.- UlllWuga abarizwa Iglt~;in~1 Umwaka ,/.>Arashinjura Amazina yose w,-nnavuko ubu 1.- .- h /.~ • '"1'" J - ..- 7/, ,jJ;, '" -/ -(5 ------"--- J~,~~- 4" 1. r.>o Dr, -'- ~- ~- uTI ------_._--- :'--'------_. _..-i.--\,,~.o;oJ-~~ --:,~'-" f- '\j ..- i , _j.-, ... _·~-c ,,------'---- " ,_~~.l,,_).l~J.;c-'" _.--- -_.- -- \ ":" .-f- .1--- -_.-"'------,-' --- -' ------j------_.~------.-- -,_.- ----_.------_.------.. _.------.------'------~-_.------1----. ------.------_. -_..----1--. ------'" ------._------_. -,------_.- _.------; - .------(Komeza lnyuma) IT ------• • ~ ¥- (16) ABISIIWE CYANGWA BAHOHOTEWE UREGWA ABIFITEMO UlUJHARE 302

, Amazina yose Mwcne Umwaka Igi- Ariho Niba ariho garagaza Izina ry'uhagarariye him/a irvo vahawe n'umutvanqo. yavutsemo tsina yegol uwishwe cyangwa iryo yahJwe n'idini, n'Inhimhano oya Ubumuga yatewe Ubusernbwa ku mubiri Urnutungo wangijwe uwahohotewe ----_. --_. ,f. _._..! . __~-'.- c--..,. _ J, ",.W", ,'J:fi f ,A _____ 1-+ ~L_~'~>'~',fhL- .' , IY 0 .. -if', '-., " -- ---'-'"----'-- --I---- ·l . ',1 ~& ' .:.:-_.:....~.~_!...... , __ ---' ,__ -.1~__~~2_ __~~~ j/..c~ I,,-v,n, / >o/u I't' ---g .,~A-> )J' .. n I;llA--o' '. If ,.; .' . / ". ------._------_. -----I--- 0 ' .. . ·cJ· C- _LL~&.:J. ~ . . _._-.--';._-(,' ! !:._- _ •. _--' ..... J .' _--'.-!-L ~ __. ~~i...J:.~_ . • <.. ' .:. "--i-n+-2 --- ... _----_. ----.. i~/---;-~~ C-:'---r--c-,·rr~".1,,-~ ------_. --- . . -,---- . - -_. . ____ .;.~l._'_ _c .; ,~,._-_, __/.:1 _ ------.

_.. .. ~-_.. I _------_ '-- - I------_.

I ' ._-'------...... •. 1-- ---­ ------1------1---- .' i . -- I . __ .. '--._------1---._-- i , I ------'--' I' - --.-'------1--. ------_.._---1------. .. 1 - -_...._----- I ------_.

------. I - .._------_. 1 !­---,,- .._----_.------

_1 -_.._-- --

(Komeza Inyuma) r:Jf:F • • 'i2r- - 302 J'" (17) Abo bafatanyije

------~ Arnazina yose 19itsina Umwaka Umwuga Amazina ya Se Amazina ya Nyina Aha abarizwa ubu uanza iryo Y~1hClW(' n'umorvanqo. irvo vahawe wamavuko __I_~~!_nL~~.I~U=:~b;:l n(~ __ fV;p--rR~!.I/Mt'4~(D;-? ~; --= L! /l1uLJ..L;.oL('-{: f IfI,,!:unwq tn"7tP'jdtn I ~," ------+-----1 I ._ I'/1-I .., } r. J I '1,,,..'eo,,,.>< __' _; ~..L..L- ,',---t~~; , ---+------I(j-t/U-! 1~, ,e II,6./1-< q,{fb ~W:1"---vt:e'~44'Jm..1MM~y~

----/7~'- --- II)} v I Vi //,·/1-, J, \ ,,,

T I J'; V•.z.. " '-'-+c'--'~--'__'_--.--~"'"LIC"",-'-

,-'-'_.:::~__L.L_L' I' I ~::-"-'."eo1'-, ,11'JI)4~ ~~- r==--~'~\f1iJff>.,'-':R~_i(.ie,l41=~ I ~

___.'-_._._. _~;t.__I ~~ (cI i ! u T~(i--:L-_ ..~ n\ ,'

~-- -5

-:'L\. (:; (' ------

--,._- _._",- -_.'--- "'---'---- -_._------

• • Rcpubulika v'u Rwanda Lrwcgo nv'Tgihl1gu rushinzwc l nkiko Gacaca

1.'\Y:\."DrKO Y'LltLBA:\ZA R\\'ACIVv'E '...;·'LRlKIKO GACACA RWTBc"Il:RI1U:' vn: I!LJLf{]RE.

.. /.> :~J.-:-.k_-.tZ h::-;X. .; ... d. ' C:h:,k:E:::': ~'{~A'.

I (.3)CmWirOI!Uoro w'urcpwe: I I ,(' 1'- '~ ~ .... ·.V.'- . ,,-_.: • -, fer _'.J;: ),1"( .. __

3.KOra

~ ,:/~~~. ~ .~k:~',\...; .~--,.,;':.';}?("':-:t. ~-2"i ~-... ..v-- ',., bwcucgihugu ,;...... ,v:.. ..-x .. 19itsi'12. L. Gene ':-·2\·'.:L~C i-:t!W3 (:ariki) . Aho yavukive: !\k3.gari

... Akarcrc/Lmujyi. lntara/Lrnujyi wa Kig~,ji: , \i urunc rv cgo n'..'GJ11cj\vC' ou-ckiko rw'umurcugc ": .hLL::( .. '--~_ . • '\! ik: nr g ihano U:-Cg\-V3 vakauwc n-u-ukik 0 rw LIlT: L:1'cr.g::::?:

lRUlA:\ZA

(4) E.\c tntet:o y 'urukiko yeme]e gultintlurss urwego ? rego

(5) Esc inteko yeme]e guh in dura ;mi/.: ir"-zc }' 'urubatt za u regwa yakatiwe? Oya Yego

• Nibc IF! Oyo. tyo Jwri .'1~ yo () :\'-,/10 vari yorahowc igiha/1o C.1'() glfrmgwCI kan di okaha adalnnzwe intu 11'V::IC;)

ltyel1le::o (VIJ ,/y,rufa 110 ,\!.lIji/l?,'2,u • kunva. • • i\'ihi) igisuhi:.":o uri }-'eg!) krnnvrv:o kll n.f2(l1gu zikurikiru (6) Ese urcgwa ah utnwe 11 'icyaha? Sob anura impnmvu. L:.'~ .i+;., c.,..~,,;~;:

• 1)'0 igisubizc ]1"; OVA nrcgwa ahonagurwoho iCy:Jho1 Jya ako kanya kt; ngingo va 9 I~U ). '\'ib'l ur::gwa aL117.c >"1\ckn Y"i ,ru\-.::kn ig{)m':~a kwandiks; ;c;.-"ell1Cf.C11..~YO hnnuill.'IgJ:-O 3\-.:0 kenya kc munxi urubanva rusonlL",l'l!ho • Xiba uri \'[(";0: andika ibvaha bvahamyc urcg-va. O~ .\

------,._----- I K\\irci'..l :,:1 k·,\'~'~ll.':';: a;yah,: :~\'il;"':J/_V"~ !iii':..:n:: i {lhV urcgva >~m:i:";\\':l '"U ru.ouuc ~·\\·;~b:u·,.'~.,\:: :'::;;1':'~ ':):,·..:;:,;~1·\\<.1 :: ln ,~<..;o > 'I :'uki:.... \\-C,:::; ~~.

------_._.,--- , • ;",,:,\1'\\: ~,,: " ()Y..,\

i~IIGIIL\\() C\AlA\I.\Vf. I;:il!ll!liJ c:\"igijirll.!;u ('L'(ff!lr1~h'(,': :,.':);:,:";,1,' u.. nnt /'I',c"/(; 1";(/ Auh,'I''; i/.l',:H·C ;:oI!!lhl 'l" c' Ii 'U~,U ;",)hi;-; u,l cb-vu igih~ill(J C', () /. ,U!i·'I!."l\,l "hUf'::i.',:Un:::ll.i ,,{t:T,' I;, ~U hUtTO ."'.'lle'..:U':.' !!';l iJiif n>:.IJ!,!.:.u ....a (, l·'jICg:'j.,U- \,'..:t'II,':((/ 17' /I,'"l(}()·i 1"."\1 br',,, 01 iI6 _:UO-! ~.!.i(",I"U '/,lil,;I"".',1 :,11,':,; , 1 !!lnllhii~.'.!,tih!ihu.!Ji.'. '" /iii: 11.', 'il,hlfh'in,!;U, mil h','Clli(.'c.',; no 1111/ IlItll.'=ll, J!.1!fifl1i2,il i/,) ,'.:.un ,· ,/!'L i!i)i,'undu, klf!>:/ iii ;II\I"-'f~,,,r,' ,,,, • .'-.!.ilKr,r,1 l/11111,",'I'j/) "'d i.,r''''!, .i:!rha Irn!~~'!:.;jshr./ l:'dil,'-.!.l' a UIJil(1'/CI"

/" {)

II) /ClFllfj() ("YO (;U"USGUR.·! .1AO ii,l \Vl

/- s: 1(1', ,j',' ~:'.I .rcs .".,.',' ,i/ll\\ .rc :./.'-.1.4,> (/.4'11./1(,' iJiH ,\2';.17,' '['.'nit·,; "I' 'urllh;il7:d }['go Ova \'ihll uri le,!.'o, t ntvt.o -,"r rllkiho Cuenca igoll1!;a gul/ffU ilal1ga icyemc:» (TO IdlTl1U./iul,!!,!{rrl aJ.o t.anva.

rl':" 1/\'/""i:1' ',/!Ji;i'(' nturt ':.!:'r:'::,1 !'t'.li~:' kUI,~:(i;i'1 iT,lnX~I'U ki,,'"1i/n i,0..//1/I'(';0 ',':lk,/Ii',j:t') l'(:'.!.,' ° (rvn \iha ari )-'c;.,'o, lJl(('(.dJY'( rukikn G{(~'{/ca ig!Jl7Ihll f!.ultira i{(lnga icvemc:o l~;'() kl/f11l(fung£lra afio f(auya ttllS

i ["[[:Ii[ k:O,O CiA,C\VA ICIKL\lWF Bi'lRI:CWA \jgA AIIAJU ------CrarKiPcOTr::p:iT;Jr:;r------: \/1//\' 1 IGfliCMWL

.\ . " '0/1.. t-; !-,_', i\; th ---! --_._------_. -- (/5) 1\11 KOV) CYA\CV,!\ JBI KL \1 WI': BY'ABAC IZE [\TEKO YTRLKI KO C;\CACA •

-_._-~---_...."_._- ..._---_.._---_•..._----

(](,) [BISIIOBOKA KO HABAHO CLSUlJRISIF\\lO LRLBA,ZA

S'uhi-:'rf Vega (yung,,,'u ()ya ku blbu;» bikurikira:

~" ri';! '"I .lor.! (/h,i/"i /7111 )!,i/I~: t,:: 'ihlll'Ji1lSh n 'iego Oya \-lh:1 en YFGO 1fre,~-H'U ntashobor« gllSU{llrlsh,lll1 l) Ul'I{hun~tl

hi l>'v rUh,/lEU!y,'{ISO/lHVe IIreg',l'u ahibercve kr:mdi'I;(I,"ahurOI~l't<'j }-ego L_J Oyo Vi/,(; uri iEGO uregwa niashobora J.:uruslihirishutil0

OJ'a [=~ ,'j (.'/"11 n,h({17:d ,I'tiC/I·t;/! nl'usul,i:'ishi/wt!J1o Ycgo -\'ihu cll"i Vf:.'CO: ul"cg"I'd ntushobora jU)J/geru kurusnbirishumo

• ,\lWA,7XRO \1 ,'WLllE RERO'?

ti:! (;L'SLBIRISlIA.\W lRLBAV",

i.regwa yam hirisilijemo urubuntu eu wa (turiki) .. , r, ./.

liSI" ilil:'!,,, " i;hll/U,~!i:;' ,

- ~ - -

.-~'

•

" .•_~--_. ------

• ------

..---,...-'------. c _ -.~ ~

----.-.

';:: '7 ,; s- - - International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Tribunal Penal International pour Ie Rwanda

Arusba rote-aanona: Conference Centre P_O-Bcx 60-16, Arusha. Tanzania - BP. 6015, Arusta Tanzame l';>;1TEl'NA:10N~ ~ "ATj:)S~(~1H Te,' 255 2725652-47 or 1 2129632850 Fax: 255 27 256 509S or 2129632848/49 OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTORI BUREAU DE PROCUREUR

Ref: OTP/20IOIPIl71 Date: 22 October 2010

Your Excellency,

Re: Rule II his Transfers to Rwanda

I understand that JEAl'i BOSCO UWL'iKlJ\DI, an indictee of the ICTR who was recently arrested by the Tribunal prior to his arrest, tried and convicted in absentia in Rwanda probably • before a Gacaca Court. As you are probably aware. I wanted to apply to the ICTR Judges for the referral of Mr. Uwinkindis case to Rwanda for trial. It is necessary for you to confirm if Mr. Uwinkindi was indeed tried in absentia in Rwanda, on what charges if so and what steps you intend to lake to clear the way for his new trial in Rwanda.

In the same vein, I seck your urgent confmnation as to whether any of the following fugitives whose cases I also intend to request for referral to Rwanda have been tried in absentia in Rwanda:

1. Jean UWINKINDI 2. Phineas MUNYARUGARAM..4.. 3. Charles RYANDlKAYO 4. Ladislas NTAGANZWA Charles SIKUBWABO 6. Fulgence KAYISHEMA 7. Aloys NDIMBATI • 8. Bernard MUNYAGISHARI

Mr. Martin Ngoga Prosecutor General Government ofRwanda Kigali, Rwanda

Copy: Mohammed Ayal. Senior Legal Ad~'isor, OT?, Kigali, Rwallda ... /2 Pagel Mr. Martin ,11lgoga Prosecutor General ofRwallda

I look forward to your urgent action to the foregoing as I prepare to file Rl l bis requests by the end of this month.

With compliments and assurances of my highest consideration.

Sincerely, • C-/~~5( \) Hassan Bnbacar Jallow ~ ChiefProsecntor,ICTR Under Secretarv-General. United Nations

• REPUBLiC OF R\VflJ~D,t; N..!l,TION.A.L PUBUC PROSECUTION AUTHORITY -- ORGANE NATiONAL DE POURSUITE JUDiCAIPE UBUSHlt~JACY.AHABUKURU

Urnu nV2rna b2 nga Nshi ngwa bi korwa Urlvego rw'lgihugu rushinzwe inkiko Gaeaea • Kigali Madam Munyamabanga Nshingwabikowa,

Impamvu: Dossier va UWif'lKiNDI Jean

Hagamijwe kubahiriza Itegeko Ngellga W 11/2007 r vo kuwa ~5/03/2()07 rigena kwimurira muri Repubulika y'u Rwanda imanza zrvuve mu Rukike Mpuzamahanga rwashvriweho u Rwanda n'izivuve rnu bind! bihugu, cvane cvane rnu ngingo varvo va 2 ivuga ko imanza zivuve mu Rukiko rwa Arusha n'izivuve mubindi bihugu ziburanishwa n'Urukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika;

• Dushingiye ko UWINKINDI Jean varasanzwe ari kurutonde rwabakekwaho icvaha eva Jenoside bashakishwa ni urwo rukiko kugira ngo rubaburanislle. ndetse akaba varafashwe ni urwe rukiko akaba arrho afunglve,

i~o k'~.Jv\"a Dushingive nanone kuniabvviriza 128S,,/DG//2008 VO lOl12i/ 2008 verekeranve '10 kutaburanisha arnados.ve v'abaregwa Jelloslce barl hallze y'!:gihugu cvar.e abari abavobc zi rliv,/ahave ba Perezida '~:/inkiko C~;1C2ca z'Ubujurire naba Perezida b'inkiko z'uilluellge bose, arib U',',I 'c;\VliJK:'Ji)' it-w 3 ;-\.',/'JriH... Jean akaba yaburanishij'vve l agarakat n'Urukiko C:aca::a renge wa NT.;RAMA, rr u karere k

ngo U Rukiko !'vlipUZ3rr:ahc1nga lvipanabvaha rwashviriwe ho U ,q'v'/arl,jcj l'iCTR)rushobore kurnuburanisha cvangwa kurnwoherez a rnu R,\.\/and? kuburanishwa nLrukiko Rukuru rwa Repubulika nkuko ltegeko rvavuzwe r;hiteu~n'y~ I,uharucuru'-' ..... ,_ ,~~', _J--,n, I Cl. ~ ~ •

Bimenyeshejwe:

Ivli:lisitiri w'Ubutabera akaba nlnturnwa Nkuru ya Leta KIGALI. • REPUBULIKA Y'U RWANDA SN:2 Teleobone e'Fax581" \ i o~ 3.>: 1874 ·;i::a:i e-:fBil . a.eca:.:aIJJrv,c;ndalei" .rwaroda:.xn \~w'l.in~ Ikc,-q aC3C2 a'J\'.rw

URWEGO RW'IGIHUGU RUSHINZWE INKIKO GACACA B.P,1874 KIGALI

Bwana Pereziaa w'Urukiko Gacaca rwUbujurire rwa Kayumba Umurenge wa Nyamata Akarere ka Bugesera

Impamvu: Gusubiramo Urubanza rwa Bwana UWINKINDI Jean

Bwana Perez,da,

• Dushingiye ku ibaruwa yo ku wa 28/1 012C1 0 twandikiwe n'Urnushiruacyana Mukuru asaba ko isyemezo cyafashwe n'Urukiko Gacaca rw'Umurenge wa Kayumba kuri dosiye y'urubanza ruregwamo Bwana UWINKINDI Jean cyakurwaho, kuko kinyuranije n'icyemezo cy'Urwego rw'lgihugu rushinzwe lnkiko Gacaca nkuko gikubiye mu ibaruwa n'1285/DGi2008 yo ku wa 16/1212008 y'Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w'Urwego rw'lgihugu rusnmzws Inkiko Gacaca, yerekeranye no kutaburanisha amadosiye y'abaregwa Jenoslde ban hanze y'lgihugu cyane cyane abari aoayotozi ,

"Iagamijwe kubahiriza Itegeko Ngenga n'11/2007 ryo ku wa 16103/2008 rigena kwrrurira rnuri Repubulika {u Rwanda irnanza zivuye mu Rukiko Mpuzamahanga Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda n'izivuye mu bindi bihugu:

Dushingiye ku ngingo ya 50 y'ltegeko Ngenga n'1612004 ryo ku wa 1916/2004 rigena imiterere, ububasha n'imikorere by'lnkiko Gaeaea zisnmzwe gUkurikirana no gueira imanza abakoze ibyaha bya jenoside n'ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu byakozwe hagati y'itariki ya mbere Ukwakira 1990 n'iya 31 Ukuboza 1994 nk'uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu;

Tunejejwe no kubasaba kuburanisha urwo rubanza ku ntera yo kurusubiramo hagamiJwe gusesengura no gukosora ibyakozwe ku ntera ya mbere binyuranije narnateqeko ndetse n'amabwiriza;

Tubashimiye ubwitange n'ubushishozi bikomeje kubaranga mu nshingano zanyu . • Mugire amahoro n'akazi keza.

} 1 Domitilla MUKANTAG'AJ:i7;jjA

Umunyamabanga Nshingwab' orw w'Urwego rw'lgihugu rusnir. e , Inkiko Gasaca ,I Bimenyeshejwe: - Swana Umushinjacyaha Mukuru Kigali - Swana Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorvla w'Umurenge wa Nyamata - Swana Perezida w'Uru.kiko Gacaca rw'Umurenge we Kayumba Akarere ka Bugesera - Bwana UWINKINDI Jean Arusha I Tanzaniya Repubulika y'u Rwanda Urwego rw'IgHmgu rushinzwe Inkiko Gacaca

INYANDIKO Y'URUBANZA RWACIWE N'URUKIKO GACACA RW'UBUJURIRE : MU BUJURIRE

(I) No y'ifisni y'Llregwa.. 2 .

Akarere/Um ?! .. intara/Umujyi wa Kigali. &

(3) Umwirondoro w'ur wa: AmaZlnau..W).miaw~:I~~C-:&/'~ . lrihimbano. .J ... lcyo akoraq~ ·I+OEf'.fL,1?C-d/~~ ~

Amazina ya Se.. .. Amazina ya Nyina :

Ubv..'enegihugulJIj', R~..J.o· lntara. ( m'ijV' "" hlgal, ~~ I

'I, uruhe rwego rwemejwe n'urukiko rw' U~ ?(te·4:~)····~·..x. '" . .... I

N, ikihe gibano uregwa yakatiwe n'urukiko rW'umurenge2'? '~l kp7f11l~ ';~~;;;'~i",;O·~~~~fWI".A,"r.hOl~od"-1

URlJBANZA

(4) Ese Inteko y'urukiko yemeje guhindura urwego? Y~IOy~ • Niba art Yego. urwego rushya asbyizwernc ni uruhe:~ LEJ ~ • Niba ari urwegc rwa mbere idosiye ycbererezwa ubushinjacyaha bwIntara/Umujyi wa Kigali. Uzuza n" 9 na 15.

(5) Ese inteko yemeje guhindura imikiriz.e y'urubanza uregwa yakatiwe? Oya [] Yego [::2J • Niba af Oya. jya kuri n" ya 9. Niba yari yarahawe.igihano eye gufungwa kandi akaba adafunzwe. hita wuzuzu lcvernuzo (yo gufa.a no gufunga.

Niba igisubizc ari Oya kandi akaba yari varagjzwe umwere afunzwe hita wuzuza icyemezo (">'(1 kutungura ako kanya Nina igisubizo an Yegu kornereza ku ngfngo zikur.kira

(6) Ese uregwa ahamwe n'icyaha "ego D Oya I X" I ;.'. K I . ,~ Sobanura impamvu: ,..Y(..Llc.J-it,I,.k:k .. fr!..kH.a:ra.,.7U.i.i'" .1/~?J..0;i(':(/,v-Jc4:J-yt'- I- , . .:o'.j,.,nV- ,./1 l. _Itac",,;4. JC :2ifiliUi:..• /l~:'i .. :~JJ:i;.{;lt.ti;j;trf~ .... /7i;;~.<..6 .. j;('t;"~0:&ij.;:,: ,,) I;tJ~·;:";;fr.:(j:,.~ru"l'.4;I»i7l'h .. t/lI'~~44r!~Pi4LrvroL,Yr7U:ft"O.A ~..h'.eo ",j.; .

1:,0 igisubizo ari VYA : uregwa ahanagurwabo IC::UI1l1 Jva aka kanya 1<././ ngingo va 9 na 15. Niba uregwe afuuzc rniekfl ~ 'Llrvkiko igornba kwandika icyemezo eve kumutungura aka kanya ku munsi urubanza -vsomewetio Niba ari YEGO· andika ibyaha byahamve uregwa 4101 Cusobanura Imp amvu togingo uwajur-iye yatanze zitemewe n'{nteko ;

(7) IMPAMVU Y'ICYEMEZO, , Subiza Yegc cyangwa Oya ku bib-are bikurikira: , YEGO OYA 1 I ,) lgihe ibvana byakorwaga. uregwa yari afite kuva ku myaka 14 ariko asarogeza ku myako jS ')

b) Kwirega no Kwernera icyaha Kwirega no xwemera icyaha byakozwe mbere y'uko uregwa yandikwa ku rutonde rwabaregwa kandi byemerwo na In/do , v' Urukiko-Gacaca I 1 Kwirega byakozwe nyurna y'ul';e uregwa yandikwa ku ruronoe rw'abareewa kandi byemerwa n'lnleko v'Urukiko-Gccccc Nta kwirega kwabaye cyangwo kwaranzwe.

c) Han vmoomvu (znon ukwirega no kwemera icyaha) suumo habaho ukoroshya ibihano ? Niba zihan • Sohomlro tzo an:o dl rlari umwanva W'UbUYObOZic::r afire ku rwego rwa Senre cvongwo Uil"Q Segueri igihe ibyaho byakorwaga '! OYA: YEGO: 0 I ,\!ho Uri regc n! Ill' uhe? I ;fiJ;/;t-IlI!:::'l:::f:'1tt:;;!~c ~ I .__1-1__---.1

e) lbindi otsobanuro: (irnpamvu nycroshya gthano, ibisobanur-e ku kutakira ut<·irega. ukwcmera icyana. ukwicuza no gusebn imba bazi, n'ibindi)

(811(~IHANO C'r"AT.o\.~ZWE

latnanc cy'igifungo cy:Han:zl.\.'e:., i/j~

Uwukutiwe wo 1711/ rwego ;'1-\'0 kabiri a#ce ka mbcre n 'oka kabrt obubwo tglhano lyO kwcunburwa l/hlfrel7g'.1I1:iru ufi/I.! 11m gihugu ku buryo bvseganyijwe mu ngingo yo 76v 'ttegeko.ngerga nO .I6/2004 1)/0 kuwo l f)/6/200.J(gu(O;U, gU{()/'H'U kUDo umntangabunamya mu tvubunonga. mu bvcmezo 170 11711 manza. gutungu 170 gutworo imbunda, kUDU umusirikare • knbu nmupolisi. ~gllKora umurimo wa Leta, kuba U!n'l'igi.<,-/W cyon.g-·wo umuvl.I::l)

(9) ITARlh:1 Y'liRl'BAi\Z,:.

\ 'r!1 rur.ann: rv. asomc we ruu rubame \..:U wa Itariki I ill'~4///2-eI_'- /b

i!O\ IC\"E.~IEZO ('YO GUFATA:"'JQ CC'FlINGA

II) InEMEZO eyO GUFU,VGURA AKG KA:\'},1. 4fo=r (12) lMENYESHARUBANZA

Ese ushinjwa arahfbcreye mu isomwo ry'urubanza ';-\"ego 0 Oya 0 -c.ba ari Oya, lr.tekc y'Lrukfko igomba kumwohe-e-cza inyandiko vimenyesharubanza

(\3) ABISHWE CYANGWA ABAHOHOTEWE lJREGWA ABIFITEMO URLCHARE

Urutonde rw'abahohotewe n'ibyangijwe rwakcawe mu gihe cy'iburanisha. rwometse kur:" iyi nyundiko.

(14) UMUKONO CYANGWA IGIKUMWE BY'UREGWA NIBA AHARI

'AMAZINA i UMUKONO ClANCWA IGIKUMWE

~ • (15) IMIKONO CYANGWA IBIKUMWE BY'ABAGIZE INTEKO y'URUK1KO-GACACA

Amazina. imikono cyangwa ibikumwe by'abagize lnteko y'Urukiko-Gacaca bafashe icveme:o

9

(16) B OBOKA KO HABAHO GUSUBIRISHAMO URUBANZA

Subizl'. Yean ryBngw~ Ova ku bibazo bikur-iku-a:

~I 00,·,0 Nrou arr YEGG urcgwa ntasbobora gosubinsuarno urubanza

h I I 'ru -ubanza ,\\,I~O)1l\\'e uregwa ah.oereye kandi yaieburaoyc? "ego Doy,D Ntha an YE,t;O lIrc-~'-W,1 mashobora kurusubiristcmo

':1 I 0ru rubauzu rucrwc rwaslihinshY1H'!1I0 Yego 0 OY:l 0 • 'i\~;! ill"! YE(;() LlIc.;.cWd ntashobora kongera kurusubinsnamc

D ch ,, ! i

(I", (; L'Sl' B!I{]SH AMO URUBA'iZA

:, :il"L:~IJI1(\ \\\ll:\\~jl1d!!."1 \', j k i1"11 liht,iLii"li\: \0 " o .:t-

(I J) ABlSIIWE CY ANGWA J\AHOHOTEWE IJREGWA ARIFITEMO URUHARE.

.._-_. lzrnn ry'uhagaranyc Arnazina yose Mwene Umwaka 19l Arihol Niba ariho garagaza U\'.'dlWC cyungwa benz a iryo vahawe n'umuryanqo. uyo yavutsemo tsina yego/ vahawe n'idini, n'frthunbano ova Ubumuga yatewe Ubusembwa ku mu,:?iri 11imufun~~~glJwc uwahohotewc .- J~''::>LL 71-.t.F?,p.>In; A ~~-_._-- __CL_:. J. ~ - ---- . , T--=JEz:F6.yM A=-' _.-'t'~-J~" ~~_':"~ ., __ .__ l __.U!LI:..,~c..-,Q_. '--~L1:n.

:I,~j\:exi!nJJ:I)J!)7WS H-I_ .\ ..._ ~.._--- --'- r'l'11 G·,) '1 & 10! .,.. ------

l;f}f1Jl~ ~- f!.-AJ. btZ:fJ. ,j2..w )01- ---- _. ---+-~~

_--- .. - --_. ..:it?'J ?J)i2.._til1JAPt i'~D -.--- .. --_ _\fP:=J H-#rP-~t:-o...~ __

TL!jT '0"'\ I II/V\/..A -~~- LI . ~ntibl G-;,- ttiJr .Y= -- -- . /';1-·' I (-~ "~~G~~) _-----"-'-_LLL. __ I __ ...!. _ S' 'irfL%A-th!'T0 -;) . fr ~N ,_~Ll:-2~2 If ~~m.(,.~ __ __ tI2_J2Jc _ (;.-~-(-A1J.tf{l4 A= (kpl ~ .-- "-'- ~--- C .tI'lv (, II P If .-:;:-:~. rb~1trhJh16~ fl1---'l IV 1ft71J.Qfft1'~ TS ---

----~- , ··-··-----/r- --- _. f------

MA~'n{vl ~.4 -_.-_.~--- _=m p ;; :1_'11t r fr.L, I't . - -t::- ~~l7~~:lit~~:~!~<·C"-_'1~, .--fr1 .. f6:V--:f..@:;1LA~L1:tJ-6.-l.- .. I I _..• -' --f- ;~-F'!'"\..I I or! r~' I.' 1 fn-rvJW_ ---I .-...- II, =~-- \i~ r;[v~t1iJj i2._ I.l vJ'ft'i-i -----f--

-~_._---- -I \--Jll-~"~o _, ~ AdJ'rJLi. fr1{7tJit8= --- - ., t, 1 1 j)Q'------­ I I\, \~ i ~_. ~~-- _. ------\2c._b:7~1 ----"---- iJ L I O+_-+--­ i --- , 1<'-_ rJ(J=::&1;.LGL f----1~ .- ·1------1-----

_ILLN'J11p}Jt!l:b-'- I - .. ~- {[rt:/IJ j (Ii 7iJ Tf. ft1 &'tv )b frl1,A- n(VI'\- ub 71-\1\) c) A !LD 1-b9-ill.f tTf2r7t (., g;.f2J1 ~ "'--I 1).-v • Repubuli ka y'u Rwacc a Lrwego rw'Igihugu rusbinzwe i nkiko Gac~2.L:~~

I:\" y,'\:'\DIKO Y'LRLBA:,\-ZA RWACIWr: '-'LRCKji{O GACACA R\V'CBCjLRIRE ; :vIL BL.J'~:RE(E.

):'<'G y'!fi:~hi y'Lrcgwa .. . I L

I(3)Cm)-\'irondoro w'uregwa: 2. ,r-, . .;.~' Amazin a.... ,r..:...\.<>.,;:.\ ~ .J:";.Y.~. \.l~ ..~:::::~ .. .. ~ ..••.J; ,~::.'.i:---:A'..:": •••• ..-.-.

..... ~ . lrihimoanc. .... ,.~...... leyo akcra

Amazina ya se . Amazina ya Xyina .

Lbwenegjhugu Gore

Yavutse kuwa (tanki) '" .../ .... Aha yavukiye: Akagari ._ ..

Lmurcnge .Akarerc/Urrtujyi: . ... Intara/Lmujyi \Va Kigali: • :\i uruhe rwego rwernejwe n'urukiko rw'umurcnge 7: :\i ikihe gihano urcawa yakatiwe n"urukiko rw'umurenge": ..... ,.,.'".c".....,...,..~,·,.,.,...

lmpamvu cyangwa ingingo ujurira eshingiraho ajurira :

LRUlA,\;ZA

(4) Ese lnteko y'urukiko yeme]e guhindum lIrwego ? tego Oya

• Niba ari fe-gO. urwego rushya ashyizwemo ni uruhe: _._~ • Niba ari urwa mbere idosiye yohererezwa ubushmjacyaha bw 'lntaru/Umujyi wa Kigali. Uzus:a nog na 15

(.f) Ese lnteko yeme]e guhitutura lmtkirize y'urubanza uregw« yakatlwe? Oya Yego

• Niba ari Oya. jya kurt nO ya 9. Niba yari yarahawe igihano ,":1,'0 gufungwa kandi akobo adafunzwe. hila wUZ-UZQ

icyemezo (.)10 gufato no gl!funga. • Nibo igisubizo ari Oya kandi akabo yart yaragizwe umwere ofunzwe hila wusuea icyemezo cyo kufungura aka • kanya. • Nibo igisubizo ari rego komerezo ku ngingo zikurikira

(6) Ese uregwa anumwe n'icyaha? Jego Oya

• 11'0 igisubizo uri OVA: uregwa ahanagnrwaho icyaha Jya ako xanya ku ngingo ya 9 na 15. Xibe uregwa afunze, lnteko y'Urukiko igomba kwandika icyernezo eye kuruufungura aka kanye ku munsi urubanza rusomeweho. • Xiba ari YEGO: andika ibyaha byaharnye uregwa. Gusobanura rmpamvu ingingo uwajuriye ya-anze ziternewe nIn.cko :

OVA I Subtza Yego cyangwa Ova ku bibazo uikurikira: \'EGO .... _~J a) 19ihe ibyal13 byakorw1!g~ urcgW2 yari BAte kuva ku myakfi .If ariko a:al-ngeza ku mvaka l8" Kwircga nc kwemera icyaha byakozwe mbere yuko uregwa yandikwa ku nuondc ovabaregwa K.an,L byemerw2. tdnleko y"l.;rukiko-Gacdca

Kwircgahvakozwenyuma y"d,o uregwa vandikwa ku rutondc rwabaregwa xanc: byernerwa n'lmeko y' Lrukiko-Gaceca

Xta kvvirega kwabave cyangwa k-varanzwe , ._~,

c) Heri impamvn (zitari ukwrrega no kwernera tcyaha) zituma babaho ukoroshyaibthano? Xiba zihari Scbanuraizo arizo I

• .·•· ••• · 1 ~~~~~~~--i

0) Pari umwanya w'ubuyobozi yari afue ku rwego rwa Se-ire cyangwa urwa Segiteri igihe ibyaha

byakorwaga ? OVA YEGO -,

c) lbincli bisobanuro: (impamvunvoroshya gibano. ibisobanuro ku kutekira ukwirega. ukwemeru icyaha. ukwicuza no gusabe imbaoezi nIbindi)

(8) IGIJ[A~O C\'ATA~ZW~ Igilulilo cy'igifwlgO cyutrl1lzwe: Uwakatiwe H'D mu rwego rwa kobiri. agace ka mbere n 'aka kubiri ahobwa igihono C:Y(J kwamburwa uburenganziro afire mu • gibngu ku buryo buteganyijwe mu ngingn yo 76y 'Itegeko-Ngenga n" l6.12004 ryo kuwo 19/6/2004 (gutora, gutorwa, kuba umvumgabuhomya mu by'ubuhonga. mu byemezo no mu monza. gutunga no gutwaro tmtnmda, kubu umusirikare. kuba umupolist, gukora umurimo wa Leta, knba umwtgisho C)'cmgwa wnuvuzt),

(9) ITAIUKI Y'LRCllA"ZA Lru ruoanza rwasomcwc mu ruharne kuwa (rariki)

(10) ICYEMEZa era GurAT.4 NO GUrDNGA

LI'euregwa akattwe igihano (}'O guftmgwa adofuo:e? Ora

Niba ari Yego Inteko J' 'Urukiko igomba guhito nanga icvetnezo (.}'O gufoto no gufungu. 11') rCrEMEZa eyO GUrUNGURA Alia /C1NrA

Ese uregwaa agizwe nmvrere ariko akobo afunze mu gihe "J!'iclbwa IT 'urvbunzu Yego O;'(l Nibfl art f'ego, lnteko y'Urukiko Cacru.:a igomba gultita itangu icyeme:o £'yo ktiim~l!l!lgur(/ ako j.;lII~~a.

Ese ushinjwa ama:::e nnm gerezo igihe kingano (.yang"va kirura ,rf!/fungo yakatiwe? Yego Oy(( Niba uri }-ego, tntcko y Urukiko Gococa igombu guJrita itangu icyemero cya kumufungura uko Krwyll (12) 1\1E"\YESHARCBA:-'JA

Escrshinwz arahibereye mu rsomwa r)"urubanza '! '/cgo 0','3 v.be ari Oy,L inteko yLrukiko .gcmbakurnwonerereza invancii,o yuucrvcsharubanza

(13) ABISHWE CYA\CWAABAHOHOTEWE LREGWA AflIFITEYLO ""f:

Urutonde rwabahohotewe nibyangijwe rwakozwc l1TJ gihc cy'jburanisha, rwometse kurt iyi nyundil,o

(14) J;:I1LKO:\O CYA:\GWA IGIKC:I1WE BYTREGWA :\IBAM!AR:

(IS) I:vJIKO\O CYA:\GWA !BIKFVIWE BY' ABAGIZE r:\TEKO YTllU;';Kn GACACA • Amazina imikono cyangwa ibikumwe bv'obagize Intct:o y 'Urukiko-Gocnca bafoshe icyemezo.

(16) IBlSllOBOKA KG IIABAIIO GCSCBlRISJlA:I10 LRUlA:XZA

Subitu Vega cytmgwa Oya ku biba:o bikurikim:

a) Uregwa yar! ahari mu gthe cy'lburanisha? rego l__! Oya Nibo or; YEGO ureg1'.'o ntashobora gusubirishamo uruban:a

bJ Uru rubanzo rwasomwe uregwa ahibereye kandi yarabutanye? Yego ~ OyaD Niba art YEGO ure&'l1!(l ntashobora kurusubirishamo

c) Uru rubanza ruciwe rwasubinshijwemo Yego r--I Oya r---, Niba ari YEGO: ureg;-va mashoboro kongera kzwusublrish;;--;;:;O- • C:vJWAI"ZCRO :\1 CWCHE RERO'? ~ Ese uregwa ashobora gusubirishamo urubanza? Yego=:=J

Gusubirishamo urubanus btkorwo mIl minsicumin'iumu iborwa uhereye ku munsiuregwa amenyesheiweho imikirize y 'wubanza

(17) GliSliBlRISHA"IO CRCBA>iZA

Uregwa yasubirtshijem« urubullW ku wa(tariki) f ../ .

Izina n Umukono cyangvNl igikum".:e byuregwa. Umukono 11' 'umwonditsi '<1-' Urukiko washvikiriiwe ubuiunre. • •

(lJ) ;\BASIHNZWE CYANGWA BAIIOJIOTF.WE UHl<:GWi\t\FITJ<:MO URUHA1U;

l\ri1amJaYuS·C-· lzinu Mwcnc Uruwaka gilSll1:l Ariho Niba nriho garaga/.a llan"!.a iryu yahawe n'umuryungo.iryo yahawc Il I ry'uhagaranyc yavutsctuc Yegol uwixhwc cyangwa n'Idini, n'inhnnuano nyu uwahcbotcwc Ub u rn ug a j UbUSl.mbW~'lUm u ruug o (J~b e:Q~\" Je;~;::e", ·C:...J,,1-6~;" il

_J ---r-I I

! ._. ­ I ·1 --~_. ~ _.--..,,_._- -Q .' r-' ...... -. REPUBLIC OF RWANDA NATIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTiON AUTHORITY ORGANE NATIONAL DE POURSUITE JUDICIAiRE UBUSHINJACYAHA BUKURU

P.O Box: 1328 K!GALI-RWA~!DA- Phone: +2500252589500- Fax: 250025258950·, E-mail: [email protected] Website:"vw,,;::;::,ppa.gov.rw

Kigali,.,;Z.../ :.(;L.jZOlO N° .i.. [t~:*{/J:i.!L /;-

Justice Hassan Bubacar Jallow Chief Prosecutor, ICTR-Arusha • Under Secretary General, United Nations

Re: Rule l1bis Transfers to Rwanda

Hon. Chief Prosecutor,

Reference is made to your letter W OTP /2010/P/171 of 22 nd October 2010 concerning the case of Uwinkindi Jean, an indictee of the ICTR who was tried and convicted in absentia in Rwanda by Gacaca Court.

The suspect was tried by two different Gacaca courts in Bugesera (Kayumba and Ntarama) and each court convicted him to a life imprisonment sentence for his role and participation in 1994 genocide • in BugeserajNyamata where he lived during genocide. Each Gacaca court has nullified the sentence passed against him in order to allow the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda(ICTR) either try him or transfer him to Rwanda under Rule 11 bis, and once transferred. the competent court to try him will be the High Court of the Republic, according to article 2 of organic law 1\1".11/2007 of 16/03/2007 concerning transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from other states.

1 Attached herewith, is the judgment decision and a letter from the Executive Secretary of Gacaca National Jurisdiction informing us the nullification of the sentence.

Please accept, Honorable Prosecutor, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Sincerely,

Mar:!lnNtaJliA • ProsecutorGe·ns~r'" Cc:

Hon. Attorney General/Minister of [ustice Dr. Mohamed AYAT, Senior Legal Advisor, OTP, Kigali, Rwanda. KIGALI.

•

2 • Exhibit B Affidavit of Tito Rutaremara. Chief Ombudsman

• International Criminal T:db\'HI:Ed

Trial Chamber II

Before: Judge Florence Rita Arrey, Presiding Emile Francis Short Robert Fremr

Registrar: Adamo. Dieng THE PROSECUTOR

v.

Jean-Bosco UWINKINDI

Case No, lCTR-2001- • ------_._--- AFFIDAVIT OF TITO RUTAREl\iARA

T, Tito Rutaremara, hereby depose and state as follows: 1. I am the Chief Ombudsman in the Office the Ombudsman for the Republic of Rwanda. Unless otherwise indicated, the statements contained in this affidavit are based on my own personal knowledge or belief. I submit this affidavit in support of the Prosecut.or's Consolidated Response filed in the captioned case. 2. The 2008 Report of Activities for the VJiJm:e of the Ombudsman included a section on corruption in the country as "- mh~ln The report did • not purport to measure instances of actual ooYTUption; rather, it undertook to study the perception of corruption in branches of Rwandan government. 3. The goal of this study was to make the responsible public officials

aware of how their agencies were perceived by the public 80 that they could develop better outreach programs. @ I' .. 1 -- 4. The report, a true and correct copy or which is attached, stated that, based on preliminary results, there was a 49.6% "perception of corruption" in the judicial sector. To combat perception, my office worked with the Ministry of Justice to develop a public education program that places staff in each sector tDexplain to people how Rwandan law and its legal system work. I believe this program has been successful in reducing the perception of corruption.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury l'i day or April

2011

Tito Rutaremara • Chief Ombudsman

•

•• 2 .. I I I I I I I I ..I REPORT OF ACTIVITIES I OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN I 2008 I I ..I I I I I I I I TABlE 8'F OOITEITS ~~ I TABLE OF CONTENTS...... 3

PREFACE . 5 I

INTRODUCTION...... 7 I

I. Prevention and Fighting Against Injustice, Corruption and Other Related Offences in Public and Private Institutions...... 8 I 1.1 Preparation and Distribution of Training Manuals 8 I I.1.1 Manual on Land Law and Expropriation 9 1.12 Manual on the law no 22/99 of 15/11/1999 governing Matrimonial Regime, Liberalities and Successions...... 9 eI 1.1.3 Manual on criminal and civil procedures and the execution of judgments 10

1.2 Preventing and Fighting Injustice, Corruption and Other Related I Offences among the Population 10 1.2.1 Training of the population at Sector and District Levels 10 1.2.2 Training of Representatives of NGOs and Opinion leaders 11 I 1.2.3 Training of local Leaders in Kigali City 12 1.2.4 Training Students in Secondary schools and institutions of higher learning 12 I 1.2.5 Training of the media (Private and Public Journalists) 13 1.2.6. Sensitizing Citizens to playa role in Preventing and Fighting Against Corruption 13 1.2.6.1 Fixation of the Billboards and Sign Posts 14 I 1.262. Showinq the theatre in all districts as means of Sensitizing Citizens to Fight Corruption 14 12.6.3 Conferences and other activities aiming at sensitizing and mobilizing I Local Leaders and Citizens to Denounce Corruption 15

1.3 Preventing and Fihting Corruption in Public and Private Institutions 15 .. 1.31 The evaluation of ministries...... 16 1.3.1.1 Ministry of Internal Security (MININTER) 16 I 1.3.1.2. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (MINAFFET) 16 1.3.13 The Ministry of Public Service and Labour (MIFOTRA)..... 17 1.3.14 Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA)...... 17 I 1.3.1.5 Ministry of Local Govenrment (MINALOC)...... 18 1.3.1.6 Ministry of Justice (MINIJUST)...... 19 I 1.31.7 Ministry of Trade and Industry(MINICOM) 19 I. 3.2. Evaluation of Public Institutions 20 13.2.1 Evaluation of Rwandan Office of Touarism and National Parks I (ORTPN)...... 20 1.3.2.2 executive secretariat of national committee of tig (SETIG ) 20 I I I I !

, j ... " e ' I '~~, ,1. , '.. "1'32.3 Rwanda Tea Authority (OCIR THE) 21 I 13.2.4 Rwanda Coffe Authority ( OCIR CAFE). . 22 1.3.2.5 National Agriculture Research Institute (ISAR)... . 22 1.32.6. Rwanda Civil Aviation Authority (RCM)...... 23 I 1.3.3. Evaluation of Provinces 24 1.3.4. Evaluation of Prisons 25 1.3.5 Evaluation of Local Adm inistrative Entities...... 25 I 1.35.1 Laws...... 25 1.3.5.2 The functioning; collaboration and governance of Local Administration...... 26 I 1.3.52.1 Advisory CouneiL...... 26 1.3.52.2 Executive Secretariat 27 1.3.5.3 Management...... 28 I 1.3.5.4 Service delivery...... 28 1.3.55 Internal auditing...... 28 1.3.56 Nature of corruption in local administrative entities.. 28 Ie 1.357. Recommendations...... 29

II. RECEIVING COMPLAINTS OF INJUSTICE, CORRUPTION AND OTHER I RELATED OFFENCES IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS 30

I 11.1. Receiving and resolving complaints received during outreach programmes30 11.2 Receiving Complaints of Injustices, Corruption and other related I Offences in Public and Private Institutions 34 III. DISTRIBUTING, RECEIVING AND VERIFYING DECLARATION OF ASSETS 41 I III. 1 Distributing and Receiving Declaration of Assets 41 III.1.1 High Officials, Senators, Deputies and ministers 42 I 111.1.2 Directors and Accountants 42 111.12.1 Employees of the Parliament...... 42 111.12.2 Prosecutors and JUdges .. 42 .. 111.1.2.3 Employees in the President's Office and in Ministries 43 111.12.4 Public Institutions and other Institutions where the State has Shares.... 44 111.1.2.5 Employees of Provinces, City of Kigali, Districts and Sectors 46 I 111.1.2.6 Higher Institutions of Learning and Secondary Schools 46 111.1.2.7 Recognized Political Parties in Rwanda...... 47 I 111.2 The Activity of Verifying the Declared Assets 47 IV. MEANS USED TO ACHIEVE THE OBLIGATIONS ASSIGNED TO I THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN 50 IV.1. Corruption in local government administration 50 IV.2. Corruption in the country as a whole 52 I IVA. Budget and logistic 55 V. CHALLENGES 58 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 59 I CONCLUSiON 61 I I , •

I Annuall , the Office of t e Ombudsman prepares annual report its activities whic is presented to His Excellency the I Preside t of the Republic 0 Rwanda and to the two chambers of Parli ment. I The Go ernment and the upreme Court are given copies of the port as it is stip lated in article 23 of the law N° 25/20 3 of 15/08/2003 establishing the organization and I the fun tloning of the Offi e of the Ombudsman as modified and co plemented to date. I

The Offi e of the Ombuds an was accorded the mission of reinforc ng good governan e in public and private institutions eI by the nstitution of the r public of Rwanda in its article 182 as ame ded to date. I The 0 ce accomplished he aforementioned obligation in the yea 2008 by receivin and examining complaints from I individu Is, independent a sociations and public institutions. There as mediation of litigants as means of solving cornplai ts. I

In prev ntion and fighting injustice and corruption, the Office of the mbudsman carrie out various trainings in different I levels 0 administration, pu Iic institution were monitored and advised to provide better s rvices. I The Offi e of the Ombuds an continued to distribute, receive and verfy the declared as ets of those persons that the law .. obliges odeclaretheirasse sasmeansofpreventingcorruption as well s enhancing them to work in transparency. I The Offi e of the Ombudsm n sincerely expresses its gratitude to all p blic and private In titutlons, all Rwandans as well as partner who contributed t wards achieving its goals. I I Chief 0 budsman Tito RU AREMARA I I I • I ~oqt Introduction I In the year 2008, the Office of the In preventing injustice, corruption Ombudsman continued to carry out its and other related offences in public I assigned obligations as accorded by institutions, the Office monitored whether the law n " 25/2003 of 15/08/2003 such institutions respect laws governing establishing the organization and the them, whether such laws do not have I functioning of the Office of the Office loopholes that can give room for injustices, of the Ombudsman as modified and corruption and other related offences and complemented to date. Such obligations if such institutions have mechanisms I include: acting as a link between the of control and accountability. There was citizen and public and private institutions, monitoring of 8 Ministries, 6 government prevention and fighting against injustices, institutions,all provinces, 16 districts, I corruption and other related offences in 74 sectors and 322 cells. The Office of public and private institutions, receiving Ombudsman too investigated 462 cases and investigating complaints of injustices, of corruption and other related offences. eI receiving, keeping and verifying the faithful declared assets of public official and The activity of distributing, receiving and I other public servants as provided by the verifying declaration of assets to all was Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of also carried out by the Office, it is in this 04/06/2003 as amended to date. perspective that 4929formsof decla ration I of assets were distributed, 4478 were In prevention of injustice, corruption and returned to the Office equivalent to 91% other related offences, the Office of the whereas 451 equivalent to 9% did not I Ombudsman organized trainings for local return them. The Office of Ombudsman leaders, committee of mediators,citizens, verified the declared assets of 227 youth, non govermental organizations and persons in the year 2008. I the media. They were sensitized to reject, denouce injustice and corruption and To be more efficient, the Office of the rendering better services accordingly. Ombudsman carried out research work I aiming at evaluatingthe nature and rate of The Office of the Ombudsman in corruption in local levels of administration collaboration with local administration and country wide as well as evaluating the resolved citizens' complaints in public and role of its activities. Such research done -­ the citizens played a vital role in solving will help the Office to know which sector them. needs more efforts. I

The Office of the Ombudsman received In order for the Office to render better 1569 complaints among which 1314 services, its staff was provided with I were solved and 255 are pending. various study tours and trainings relevant to their daily duties. The Office has also participated in international. I I I I • I ~

I t"'>'~tr. , I I I I I Ie I I I I , I -­ I I I I I, }, I I Prevention And Fighting '4"'0 I Against Injustice, Corruption And Other Related OOences In I Public And Private Institutions I

he Ombudsman Office has a significant 1.1. Preparation Rnd Distribution I and principal mission of preventing Of Training Manuals Tand fighting against injustices in public and private institutions in order to promote The Ombudsman Office prepared training .. good governance and good administrative manuals basing on complaints frequently behaviour. During the reporting year, the received. Most of suer, complaints concerned mission was accomplished through training of property, the adjudication of cases as well as I different groups of people. Thus, participants the execution of judgements. included; the local leaders, opinion leaders, NGO's, Civil society, the media, students in In this regard, the Ombudsman Office prepared I secondary schools and higher institutions of three training manuals, which clearly explain; learning. Training manuals used were prepared the land law, the law governing matrimonial and distributed to participants. The objective regimes, the law relating to criminal and civil I of such trainings was to emphasize the role procedures and the execution of judgements. of each of these groups in the prevention and I fight against injustice and corruption. I I I • 1.1. Preparation Rnd Di tribution Thi law makes itclearthatonlythe Governmen Of Training Manual car ies out expropriation, and it should be done with prior and just compensation. The I The Ombudsman Office prepa ed training just compensation approved by the Land manuals bas~g.,o~. c~mplaint frequently • .. ~ •.- ttl..·· Co mission should be paid within a period received. Most.of'StJch'"ao~plaint concerned not exceeding one hundred and twenty (ll0) I property, the adjudication of cas as well as day from the day of approval of the just the execution of judgements. co pensation. No person can hinder the imp ementation of the program of expropriation I In this regard, the Ombudsman Off ce prepared on retext of self centered justifications. three training manuals, which cle rly explain; I the land law, the law governing matrimonial 1.1 2 Manual on the law n° regimes, the law relating to crimi al and civil 22 99 of 15/11/1999 gouerning procedures and the execution of j dgernents, Ma rimonial Regimes, liberalities I an Successions 1.1.1 Manual on land aw and Expropriation "Du obanukirwe n'arnategeko agenga imic ngire y'umutungo w'abashyingiranywe, .. The Manual on Land law and E propriation imp no n'izungura" is a training manual that (Dusobanukirwen'amategekoagen aubutaka), was repared bythe Ombudsman office with an I clearly gives the historical backgro nd of land aim f putting into simple and understandable use and management in Rwanda si ce colonial terms the law n° 22/99 of 15/11/1999 era, where land was managed com unally, until sup lementing book 1 of the Civil Code and I to date where its management is exclusively insti uting part five regarding matrimonial ensured bythe government. In this anual, the regi es, liberalities and successions. Ombudsman Office explained the I nd law in a I way to answer questions frequent y asked by The bove law governs the agreement between different persons received by the 0 budsman spouses on the management of their property. Office. This manual equally explains he Organic It m inly gives a right to persons to make a I Law W. 08/2005 of 14/07/2005 etermining choi e of a suitable matrimonial regime to the use and management of land i Rwanda. gove n the management of their property upon their marriage. Hence, Rwandans are not I The above law gives every land own r (physical boun to one matrimonial regime. The above or moral person) the right to use he land in law estows spouses with equal rights in the accordance to its provisions. Land wners also man gement of their property and of their .. have a right to use it in a productive ay and for child en thereafter (either natu ral or adopted) its intended purpose. However, the and owner in ca e of succession. risks loosing it or incurring sanctio s if he or I she fails to respect the obligation t efficiently Amo g cornplaints received bythe Ombudsman conserve the land and productively xploit it. Offic , there is a big number concerning I succ ssion. Most of such complaints concern The aforementioned training man at equally mismanagement of property belonging to explains the law W 18/2007 of 1 04/2007 orph ns. The law sets out ways of managing I relating to expropriation in the publ c interest. prop rty of orphans who have not attained An actofpublic interest is an act of G vernment, majo ity age. It should be managed either by public institution, non go ernmental tutor hip or guardianship. Therefore, the right I organization, legally accepted a sociations to m nage property of orphans is acquired or operating in the country or of an individual, revok d in accordance to the law. with an aim of a public interest. I I I Manual on criminal and 1.2 PREUENTI NG RND FIGHTI NG I " ciuil procedures and the INJUSTICE, CORRUPTION RND OTHER execution of judqments RElRTED OfFENCES RMONGST THE POPULRTION. Like the prior mentioned manuals, this manual I entitled "Dusobanukirwe n'arnategeko agenga 1.2.1. Training ofthe population at Sector imiburanishirizey'imanza" puts in lesstechnical and District Levels I and understandable terms the principles guiding the adjudication of cases, both civil During the reporting year, the Ombudsman and criminal, and appeal procedures. Office visited 120 sectors and 30 districts to I sensitise the population about the fight against The manual first and foremost high lights injustice, corruption and other related offences. principles governing the settlement of Two criteria were applied in the selection of I disputes between individuals by the mediation sectors to be visited; the first was the location committee. Such principles that govern the criterion. This is where sectors visited were settlement of disputes by mediators are set supposed to be located far from the district. out under the Organic Law N° 31/2006 of The second criterion based on the number -. 14/08/2006 on Organization, Jurisdiction, of complaints received by the Ombudsman Competence and Functioning of the Mediation Office. I Committee. The Mediation Committee is an organ meant for providing a framework of In selection of sectors to be visited, the obligatory mediation prior to submission of a Ombudsman Office, particularly the Unit I case before the first degree courts. charged with preventing injustices considered complaints received during the reporting year, The manual also includes rules governing hence giving a priority to sectors with a large I the adjudication of civil, commercial and number of complaints. administrative matters as laid down in the law n " 18/2004 of 20/6/2004 relating to The object of the training was thus double I the civil, commercial, labor and administrative folded; to enhance the fight against injustices, procedure. This law sets out the procedure corruption and related offences amongst the applied by courts in civil, commercial, labor population and to respond to complaints which I and administrative cases. The manual also had not been resolved at Sector level. discusses persons that are competent to execute judgments (civil or criminal), such as Further explanations were given on the rights .. the executive secretary of the Cell, executive of persons to be expropriated. Participants secretary of the sector etc. Lastly, the manual aired out their complaints regarding their rights I discusses the procedure applied in criminal to private property in relation to expropriation. cases as well as organs competent to They emphasized that their rights are not investigate and prosecute such crimes before respected during expropriation as some I courts of law, which include; the judicial police individuals have been forced to move from their and the prosecution. private property without a just compensation. A similar problem that was raised during I As prior noted, the purpose of these training the training session concerned delays in the manuals was to put the law into less technical payment of compensation. terms, which makes it easy and simple to I understand, hence indirectly answering most Other problems highlighted were concerning complaints received by the Ombudsman Office land sharing. Theyargued that land sharing was and acting as a preventive mechanism as well. not conducted in the same manner throughout I the country. Some leaders have not adhered to land sharing principle that was carried out I I • in some parts of the countryu der the pretext dministratlve procedure. W I that there is no Ministerial Ord r governing the modalities of land sharing. Th y equally said fter trainings, the officials of the Ombudsman '7­ that some individuals own bi piece of land ffice received complaints of injustice. and are not willing to share, hich is quite a omplaints received shall later be discussed in big challenge to those who do ot own even a etails under chapter two of this report. I small piece. 1.2.2. Training of Representatiues of I Participants also highlighted the problem 60s and Opinion leaders concerning managementofprop rty of orphans. They said that there is still a big number of he Ombudsman Office also trained I orphans who are still minors. hose children r presentatives of differentNGOs, Associations, are either under tutorship or gu rdianship, but ooperatives operating in different parts of the their property is mismanaged or ometimes sold c untry, and Opinion leaders. Representatives I by their tutors or guardians. Th Ombudsman o non-government organizations and Office responded to this by e phasizing that A sociations, collaborate with citizens in their such property should be used and managed d y to day activitiies, hence they should ensure taking into consideration the int rests of those g od administration and avoid bad practices of .. children. i justice. I With respect to the adjudica ion of cases, ctures given particularly concerned the participants were encouraged t always settle wers ofthe Ombudsman Office in preventing their disputes within their families, and only a d fighting corruption and related offences. I proceed to seize the Mediation Committee or U der this issue, we highlighted that the Courts of Law in case the former ails. However, o budsman Office alone can hardly fight the before the seizure of courts, he defendant a ove mentioned offences and practices, being I should first analyse the type Of ase as well as t e reason it calls upon different organs to give the evidence to prove the case. a upper hand and cooperate in the fulfillment o this important mission. I Participants were told of diff rent levels of courts and their hierarchy. Thi was to help R presentatives of Non -government I them understand the hierarchyo courts, appeal o ganizations and Associations were also urged procedures as well as principles underlying the t respect good administration principles and execution of judgements (final r provisional) h man rights in their day to day activities. A in order to avoid confusion. With his, they were si nificant element high lighted in this regard .. called upon to respect defini ive decisions is that "service delayed is equivalent to service taken by courts of law and im lement them d nied". Since their services are of utmost I within the time limit. portance to the Rwandan society, they s ould be timely. We also highlighted different a thorities with I the powers to execute judgem nts such as; Li e the above representatives, opinion leaders the Executive Secretary of the ell, Executive a e also a very influential group of people in Secretary of the Sector and others. Local th Rwandan society. They were th us urged to I leaders, particularly the Executi e Secretaries c operate with the Ombudsman Office in the ofthe Cells and the Executive Se retaries of the fi ht against such bad practices by promoting Sectors were requested to fulfll heir duties as g od governance and good administrative I provided by the law and to contr ry to this, they b haviours in local authorities. are sanctioned in accordance w n Article 200 of the Organic law n° 18/2004 f 20/6/2004 hlights about laws governing iand use. I relating to the civil, cornrnerct I, labor and nagement, expropriation, Matrimonial I I UotS

regimes and succession, and law governing the to give better services to their clients (citizens). Civil and Criminal procedure, were also given An element that was highlighted in this regard I to the above mentioned leaders. Since such concern the modern ways of admnistration, persons are influential in the Rwandan society, where a citizen should be received as a client I having a good knowledge of the laws into force and treated courteously. is an important tool to enhance awareness of such laws in our society. 1.2.4 Training Students in Secondary I schools and institutions of higher To this end, these leaders were very grateful for learning the trainings and promised to put into practice I the theory they acquired, hence helping to The Rwandan society treasures much in settle disputes that may arise amongst citizens the youth. In order to fight against injustice, and advising them where necessary. They also corruption and other related offences in a lasting Ii added that they shall be exemplarly in the manner and ensure that the youth adopts and respect of other people's in their day to day maintains the same culture, Ombudsman Office activities. continued its activities of sensitizing students. Students trained were from different seconday .. 1.2.3 Training of local Leaders in schools and higher institutions of learning in Kigali City the entire country. This activity was begun by I the Ombudsman Office in 2005 and it's done A three day training for local leaders in Kigali on annual basis. City was also organised and conducted by the I Ombudsman Office. Participants included; Participants in the training were given Executive Secretaries of Sectors, Executive explanations regarding different kinds of Secretaries of Cells, officials in charge of injustices that can be analysed in schools I social affairs at Sector level, Officials in charge like student-student discrimination, award of social affairs at District level from three of little marks that is baseless, teachers­ districts of Kigali City: Nyarugenge, Gasabo and student torture due to various reasons like I Kicukiro. discrimination. They were equally urged to participate in finding lasting solutions to such I The training concerned three significant topics, problems. Some of such solutions may include; which are asfollows; expropriation, adjudication abstaining from any kind of discrimination and of cases and execution of judgements and other malpractices like cheating exams and service delivery. The training for these leaders other bad characters. .. was also prepared in response to specific complaints received by the Ombudsman Office: The Ombudsman Office also encouraged I complaints concerning expropriation and land students to form anti-corruption clubs that related complaints. will facilitate the fight against injustice and corruption in schools. The call was made I The participants were urged to sensitize during the youth training. In this training, each the population about the law governing secondary school and high institution was expropriation, particularly what the act of public represented by two students. I interest entails as well as their rights. The Ombudsman Office also visited students Secondly, these leaders were also urged in solidarity cam ps preparing to join Higher I to actively participate in the fight against institutions of learning. Those students were injustices,corruption and related offence in also inspired to fight corruption and injustice both Public and Private institutions. Another in the society where they belong and in their I signifacant issue that was dicussed concerned respective institutions they are to join. delivery of services. Participants were requested I I • 1.2.5. Training of the media (Priuate and Public Journalists)

Considering the vital role played b the media in fighting corruption, the Ombud man Office organized training for both public nd private I journalists. The training was dou Ie folded; to inform the media about co plaints of I injustices received and the mann r in which they are examined and resolved as well as Concerningcasesofcorruption,theOmbudsman anti-corruption measures in place. he training Offic has powers to carry out investigations I was also to encourage their collab ration with and n case evidence is discovered, the case the Ombudsman Office in the fi ht against is tr nsferred to the judicial police to conduct corruption. furth r investigations about the crime or to the I pros cution. .. 1.2.6. SENSITIZING CITIZEN TO PLAY Duri gthis activity, the Office of the Ombudsman R ROLE IN PREUENTING RND IGHTING emp asized on the following aspects: RGRINST CORRUPTION fi ation of the billboards and sign posts; I s owing out the theatre sensitizing citizens Inmobil izingand sensitizingRwanda residents, on combating corruption in different the Office of the Ombudsman emp asized on districts; I refusing, denouncing and fighting corruption anti- corruption broadcasting and other awful habits harbouring i iustice and p ograms on Rwanda Television and I corruption. d fferent radio stations; c mmemoration of the International A ti- corruption day of 9th December by I ' ~~":=~.....:- -..'"'- -. '.--:-:~":;;---_' - ..I I~ ".S~'~. ~';.J'c.... "'iR{),.ll' '- .. GUlJRA Ni UMUSINGi WAMAJYAMBERE I I I I

This is one of he places where e sign Posts I Sensitising popula 'on to denounce c rruption are fixed I • I providing a weekly anti- corruption activities with the message of sensitizing people who aiming at preventing and fighting any form are entering and going out of the country I of corruption. to prevent and fight corruption. Such boarders include the following: Rusumo, I 1.2.6.1 Hxatinn of the Billboards Kagitumba, Gatuna, Cyanika, Rubavu, and Sign Posts Rusizi and Akanyaru. In this category only 4 billboards were fixed on the main roads I Corruption has been identified as one of the of Kigali City like in Nyabugogo market, at evils, which if not curbed, would undo all the the International Airport Kanombe and at developmental gains.Thereforethefightagainst Chez Lando. I corruption is now on every citizen's agenda and is a component of all policy pronouncements 3. In third category, only 5 billboards were made. fixed at the premises of some of the I government institutions like in Kacyiru It has also been integrated into programmes with the message of sensitizing residents of good governance within local government on the evil of corruption. structures. .. 1.2.6.2. SHOWING THE THEATAE IN It is in this regard that the Office of the ALL DISTRICTS AS MEANS OF I Ombudsman sensitized citizens on the evil of SENS IIIZING CIII ZENS TO FIGHT corruption by fixing billboards and sign posts CORRUPTION with the messages of preventing, reporting, I denouncing and fighting corruption in all levels In this activity, the Office of the Ombudsman of administration. prepared and showed theatre in all districts of the country. I This activity was done in the following ways: The objective of this theatre was to make 1. In first category, the Office of the the citizens aware of the evils and effects of I Ombudsman fixed 325 sign posts in all corruption. sectors and the districts of the country, I with the message that corruption delays After the show, people were impressed with the development of the country. theatre and requested the Office to continue showing it to the sectors because it contains a­ 2. In second category only 7 billboards in vital issues of preventing corruption. different boarders ofthe country were fixed I I I I

I ·'Dramin1ioIN in different ateas ofthe countiY I Sensitising citizens to partici_he fight against corruption I •*'. ",' t,.· ,,,,, ,;- -: -f. !t .. •

1.2.6.3 Conferences other actiuities aiming at ensitizing "' the ,"0" activities we" done ;0 ,"~~.3 I and mobilizing local l aders and co ruption week based on the International Citizens to Denounce C rruption An i- corruption day of 9th December, which wa established by the UN resolution n " 58\4 These conferences were aiming at mobilizing of the General Assembly of the UN which I all people in administration entities and wa held on 31st Octomber 2003 in Merida citizens about the nature of c rruption, they were encouraged to denounc and prevent I it at their working places as II as in their Th main issue of anti- corruption week is homes. to sensitise different categories of people I ab ut the dangers of corruption as well These conferences were held in the following as encouraging them to playa vital role in institutions: pr venting and fighting corruption. The theme I of nti- corruption week was" uruhare rwa buri • High Court; we e ni ingezi mu kurwanya ruswa" which can • Supreme Court; be iterallytranslated in english as "each citizen • Mutobo solidarity camp; ha to playa vital role in fighting corruption". .. • Western RDF HQS; • Ngororero District; In general, the methods used to prevent and I • Nyamasheke District; fig t corruption have been well understood by • 307 RDF Bde Hqs; the population and all levels of administration • Burera District; the efore there is high hopes of collaboration I • National Police; an cooperation with the Office of the • Trasparency Rwanda; Ombudsman in fUllfiling this obligation. • Immigration Office; I • Gisagara District; 1.3Preuenting and Fihting Corruption • Rulindo District; n PUblic and Priuate Institutions • Rwanda TVand different radio tations. I In preventing and fighting injustice and There were other activities that cor uption, the Office of the Ombudsman the above endeavour as shown b eva uated local Administration, Ministries I and public Institutions so as to verify if • Rewarding Districts that were fund to have their functioning does not create room for established strong mechanis s of fighting cor uption. .. injustice and corruption, they include the following: Rulindo, Musante a d Gisagara The following local government, Ministries and I respectively; Public Institutions were evaluated: • Distributing arts and crafts wi messages of fighting corruption and injus ice; inistry of Internal Security (MININTER); I • various anti- corruption roadcasting inistry of Public Service and Labour programs on Rwanda Tel vision and ( IFOTRA); different Radio stations; ecretariat of Execution of Public Interest ( I • various anti-corruption pub: cations in IG); newspapers; inistry of Local Government (MINALOC); • putting up posters of fightin corruption inistry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation I alongside Kigali roads. ( INAFFET); inistry of Justice (MINUJUST); inistry of Commerce and Industry I ( INICOM); I • I - Rwanda Tea Authority (OCIR THE); - some employees occupy posts that do not I - Rwanda Office of Tourism (ORTPN); correspond to their qualifications; - Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA); - absence of performance contracts between - Rwanda Institute of Research in Agriculture the ministry and different departments; I (ISAR); - some tender procedures are not respected. - Rwanda Civil Aviation Authority (RCM); - Rwanda Coffee Authority (OCIR CAFE) In order to accomplish its assigned attributions I - National Prisons services; the Office of the Ombudsman made the - Local government institutions. following recommendations:

I The evaluation aimed at verifying if the - signing performance contracts between the established policies and laws do help these ministry and its departments; institutions to accomplish their assigned - recruitment should be based on merit;

, attributions. - all tender procedures should be respected.

- 1.3.1 THE EUAlUATION OF MINISTRIES 1.3.1.2. MI NISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND COOPERATION (MINAFFETl -. In 2008the Office of the Ombudsman continued its obligation of evaluating Ministries. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation I is in charge of international cooperation and The Office of Ombudsman was aiming at collaboration aiming to develop and maintain verifying the following: good relationships with other countries and I international organisations. - establishment of policies; - cooperation and collaboration of different The Ministry has established the policy and I departments and levels within the the action plan which help it to achieve its ministries; assigned attributions. I - coordination, following up and evaluation of activities; The Ministry has tried to carry out its assigned - effectiveness and efficiency in managing attributions like delivering better services to I resources; the population, though after the evaluation service delivery. done by the Office of the Ombudsman areas of improvement have been identified as shown 1.3.1.1 Ministry of Internal Security below: (MININTERl -­ - not paying contributions of its employees in I The MinistryofInternal Security was established Social Security Fund of Rwanda since the to coordinate all activities related to internal second semester of 2005: security issues. During the evaluation exercise - un cleared arrears; I the Office of the Ombudsman verified if the - the stock is not properly controled and Ministry fulfills its assigned attributions. Such managed; would help the government in general and the - tender procedures are not respected; I Ministry in particular. - mismanagement of some embassy resources; Although the Ministry is assigned with different - auditors' recommendations are not I missions due to peculiarities some problems respected. were noted which should be corrected in order to enable the Ministry to achieve its objectives The Office of the Ombudsman made the I as will be shown below: following recommendations that would be vital I in achieving its assigned attributions: I • - to make follow up of th contributions of its em ployees which a supposed to be submitted to Social S curtty Fund of I Rwanda; - tender procedures should e respected as instability in salaries; the law obliges them to do; salary differences in some government I - to solve the problem of un p id arrears; institutions which have led to instability - proper management f embassay of some employees searching for better I resources; payment. - tomakesurethatauditors're mmendations are implemented. he Ministry has redeployed selected retained I nd maintained public servants, reconversion 1.3.1.3 THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC no lor reintegration of retrenched public SERU I CE RND LRBOUR (M I OTRR) s rvants and giving them good service of I financing them for further studies though it is The Ministry of Public Service and Labour is f clng some problems as listed below: assigned with the following maj r attributions: insufficient budget line of financing studies .. - establish standards of work, ethics, of the retrenched employees; competency and organizatio ; the real number of those to be financed is I - promote employment creati n; not known; - promote capacity buildin and skills some tender procedures are not respected. development in the publi and private I sectors; - strengthen public service an leadership; the evaluation; the Office of - promoting good governance; t e Ombudsman has provided some I - eliminate all forms of corru tlon in public r commendations like respecting salary policy servants. g idelines and increasing the capacity of the t sk force in charge of helping the retrenched I Ministry of Public Service and Labour has e ployees. in its attributions to promote jo creation and institutionalize an efficient and odern public 1 3.1.4 MINISTRY OF INFRRSTRUCTURE I service management of gover ment assets, ( ININFRR) that will enable private and public sector organizations to perform at t eir best and T e missions of the Ministry of Infrastructure is .. effectively contribute to improvi g the lives of to create favourable conditions that allow the the Rwandan population and r suit oriented p pulation equitable and sustainable access I public administration, deliv ring prompt to transport; infrastructure, communication services which are responsive to the basic fa ilities, housing, reliable energy and needs and problems of the pop lation, within e sure sustainable urban development while I the framework of good governan e. pr tecting the environment

The Ministry of Public Servic and Labour T e Ministry established a policy for sustainable I has put in place public labour eform aiming communication technology development, at determining and harmonisi g the salary tr nsport infrastructure and services in order guidelines policy on differe t levels of to increase mobility and develop a network of I employment and its calculation echanisms. tr nsport infrastructure which will allow the o ening-up of inaccessible areas. In general, the evaluation of Ministry of public I service and labour found out t at they have I I ~ ... :~ (1~~' Ministry has three categories of good governance (decentralisation, • employees: democratisation), community development I statute employees; and social protection; contractual employees; follow up and evaluation of the functioning consultants. of decentralised administration units and I reinforcement of their capacities; Ministry of Infrastructure has done alot to coordination of the process of restructuring achieve its assigned attributions though there decentralised administrative units in order I are some areas of improvement In human to improve their functioning, synergy and resource management: their partnership with other institutions; I implementation and coordination of employees with same duties are differently community development mechanisms paid for example directors of some in order to improve the well-being of the I departments: population; the ministry does not respect the criteria of implementation and coordination of recruiting consultants; assistance and auto-promotion for incomplete files of employees like notified vulnerable groups, especially survivors of -. academic transcripts, appointment letters the genocide. and police records. In order to achieve the above objectives, the I Ministry of Local Government has based on In finance management there are some areas the following policies: of improvement too: policy of good governance; I leT Policy in local administration; • the ministry has a contractual internal policy of assistance and auto-promotion for auditor whose efficiency and effectiveness vulnerable groups; I is critica I; development policy, • delaying to pay advances to its clients in charge of constructing Nyamata-Nyange In the follow up and evaluation of the I road hence leading to the payment of functioning of decentralised administration damages totalling to 104517.305 Frw; units and reinforcement of their capacities, • Mismanagement of finance. they have been identified areas which require I improvement for better performance: After evaluating this Ministry, the Office of the Ombudsman has made the following some reports regarding implementation of .. recommendations: decentralisation policy are not submitted to the concerned at the right time; • employees should be treated fairly; the awareness of some government policies I • the Ministry should establish the policy of like Community work and Gacaca is lowthus recruiting consultants; the role of citizens being low; I • proper managing of resources; poor management of district projects; • recruiting a permanent internal auditor. some tender procedures are not respected: improper stock control. I 1.3.1.5 MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOUENRMENT(M INALOC) After evaluation, the Ministry was given the following recommendations in order to achieve I The main missions of the Ministry of Local its objectives: Government are the following: o the Ministry should make follow up on the implementation of Districts strategic plans; I elaboration, follow-u p and evaluation of o Ministry should increase training of local , national policies and programs regarding leaders which will help them in managing • , •• . ..•

funds oriented for development; d partments; 4o~" o proper management of assets; speeding up service delivery. o respect of all tender procedures I .7 MINISTRY OF TRROE RNO 1.3.1.6 MINISTRY OF JUSTICE STRY(MINICOM} (MINIJUST) I The ore functions of the Ministry of Commerce The attributions of the Ministry of Justice and I dustry are: include the following: I s pervision of all activities related to elaborating laws and establishin equitable el boration, monitoring and evaluation of justice that matches with good overnance n tiona I policies and programs as regards I that is based on constitutional p inciples; c mmerce, industry, tourism, investment serving as a legal adviser of the g vernment pr motion and cooperatives; I and its different institutions in Ie al issues. inI iating national strategies for protection of consumers; Though the Ministry has done its b t in order d veloping of management systems forthe to achieve its assigned attributions but some q ality of products; .. areas of improvement were foun as listed ini iating and management of the process of below: re ional economic integration for Rwanda I an conducting regional, international and some services are poorly delive ed mostly m Itilateral commercial negotiations; in execution of final judgement: su ervision of conception and updating of I absence of some policies thus a ecting the In estment Code; stardard of strategic plan; ori ntation and supervision of functioning the permanent secretary has no perfectly of ubllc agencies under the Ministry; I coordinated all activities of the mi istry as it su ervision of partnership and resources is provided bythe law. This weake ess is due m bilization for the sectors of commerce, to some special and technical assi nements in ustry, investment promotion, tourism I belonging to the departments whi h are not an cooperatives. directly under his/her supervision not respecting some tender proc ures; inistry of trade and industry is generaly I lack of well and hamornize training ing its objectives through different programs; s like: absence of internal auditor; lack of particular action plans or some inv stment promotion policy; -- departments; na ional indusrty sector promotion policy; absence of means of sharing in ormation ex cutive policy; I between government institutions on legal ha dcraft policy. issues. I Howev r,those opportunities can not effectively After the evaluation made by the Office of succe d without sorting out some problems the Ombudsman, the Ministry was iven the and challenges like: following recommendations: I law governing trade and commerce is not respecting all tender procedures; ma ching with current stituations and some I to do their best in harmon isin training of i s articles are not being respected; programs; lac of competitive policies in business recruiting internal auditor; whi h causes fluctuations of prices and I action plan ofthe Ministry should i elude all ind fference in prices of different shops • J around Kigali City; family members are killed by animals; not respecting laws by some business men absence of permanent internal auditor. and not abiding with the rights of clients; unavailability of the law governing petroleum After the evaluation, the Office of the products ; Ombudsman has recommended the following mismanagement of materials and improper in order to improve their performance: store keeping; not doing the inventory of the whole improving ressource management; Ministry's assets; respecting all tender procedures as well as not doing the handover of asset keeping documents; management; recruiting internal auditor; not respecting some tender procedures. training their employees in the field of tourism. After the evaluation made by the Office of the Ombudsman, the ministry was given the 1.3.2.2 EHECUTlUE SECRETRRIRT OF following recommendations: NRTlONAL COMMITTEE OF T1G (SETlG) business law should be revised in order to meet the current business situation; The Executive Secretariat of National making more efforts in the follow up and Committee of TIG is assigned to follow up all establishing action programs in different the activities and community service as an ministry' policies that are not yet adopted; alternative penalty to imprisonment. resource management should be improved; The execution of such penalty is provided by tender procedures should be respected as Article 32 of the Presidential Order no 10/01 the law obliges them to do. of 07/03/2005 determining the modalities of the implementation of community service I. 3.2. EURLURTION OF PUBLIC as alternative penalty to imprisonment as INSTITUTIONS modified and complemented to date.

1.3.2.1 EURLURTION OF AWANDRN SETIG is under the Ministry of justice and has OFFICE OF TOUARISM AND NRTIONRL the following attributions: PRRKS (ORTPN) putting in action decisions of Gacaca The ORTPN is an institution in charge of juridictions; developing tourism and national parks. In gathering the numbers of people who have general ORTPN plays a big role in generating been sentenced by Gacaca Juridictions foreign currencies. and seek and put them in different needed works; Though ORTPN generates foreign currency and Follow up the end of punishment; plays a role in the national budget balance, it giving lessons and debate conference forthe has some problems to be sorted out related sentenced persons aiming to change their to human and finance management. some of attitude and behaviour leading to prepare them are: their future returning in the society; lack of skilled employees in the field of advising Government on any necessary touarism; changes or issues to be highlighted in order loopholes in asset management; to increase production. unavailability of tender documents; not paying damages to those whose crops As it has been observed SETIG has been are destroyed by animals as well as not achieving so many objectives through it is paying damages to the families whose important and productive camping works and • &-:'4', •.• •

activities such as: he end of punishment to those who 851 of radical terraces 0 ave finished It without being reta~ined amount of 398. 037.379 F nnecessarily; I 851.000.000 Frw when it waul ETIG should improve services rendered t done through tender process; igistes; construction of 427 houses at quivalent to TIG should respect all the tender I 946.114.280 Frw; rocedures; construction of 39 Km of road equivalent ETIG and other institutions working together to 240.000.000 Frw. ith it should improve and harmonise their I ork Interaction system in order to know However, some constraints are s ill blocking t e exact number of convicted people and the momentum of SETIG In acco plishing its t e nature of their punishment. I goals. Such constraints are:

the National Committee of TI on country 1.3.2.3 RWRNDA TEA AUTHORITY I level, district level and sector I vel are not (UCIR THE) working as It Is provided for by he law; poor working conditions due to the squized Rwanda Tea Authority is charged with the .. space and lack of working mat rials; dev lopment of the tea sector in the country, lack of Information regarding t e accurate the main activity is the production and I and effective number of ondemned com ercialisation of tea. "tigistes" who should e dure the punishment; The organization owns tea plantation around I Some districts are not respecti g contracts its ix remaining factories and help private they made with SETIG; tea ooperatives, tea growers and private tea lack of store control and manag ment; com anies produce and commercialize their I irrespect of tender procedures; teas lack of internal auditor; over estimation of product supp ies done by The ompany coordinate all the tea activities In I compromising camp centres st es: the ountry such as purchase and distribution not providing necessary servi es to the of f rtilizers among all the growers, training camp centres like hygienic a d medical tea rowers on the good agriculture practices, I equipements; help tea farmers organize themselves Into tea inequity In "Tigistes" getting pe issions of coo eratlves for better management. caring about their households. .. Though OCIR THE achieves Its attributions, It After earring out the SETIG eval ation, the has he following hinderances : Office of the Ombudsman has rec mmended a sence of tea policy; I the following: n t respecting tender procedures; a large figure of casual labours who work I Organs of management and upervision In some industries and they have not yet of the Implementation of the alternative sl ned job contracts; penalty to Imprisonment sho Id respect s me industries are old and they do not have I the meeting time table as provl ed by the e ough capacity to process the products as law; pi nned. Tigistes who are not earring out ommunity I service in labour camps should e Included Ther are some problems that were identfied due to the lack of their effectiv follow up In th purchase of green leaves as follows: and loophole of corruption; • tr nsporting green leaves from garden to I SETIG should deliver papers certifying th factory; I • I .. ~ ~-. .. ' .' 4it, • ~ \ , • '. tea measurements; commercialisation...... • quality control; In general, OCIR CAFE has properly managed I • bonus of the tea growers who sell their tea its finance though it has some problems that to the privatized factories; may be a hinderance for attaining its goals as I • assets of the cooperatives. shown below: Some of the strategic plans that OCIR THE had not knowing the number of coffee trees and I some were not achieved, examples are as hectares of coffee planting in the country; follow: low capacity of coffee growers of the purchase of coffee ferterlizers because I • attain the monetary unit from 23.000.000 they are costly. in 2003 to 91.000.0000 in 2010 up to 2007 it has only attained 34.000.000 US; After evaluation made by the Office of the I • increase the hectors of tea production has Ombudsman the following recommendations not yet been achieved as planned. were provided to OCIR CAFE: not respecting some tender procedures OCI RCAFE shouId make census ofthe coffee ~ at headquarter of OCIR THE include the trees and the hectares of coffee around the following: country; • there are tenders that are offered through OCIR CAFE should look for means of I profoma invoices which are offered by distributingand spraying of pestcides as well logistics officer; as distributing fertilizers to coffee growers. • not justifying the procedures used in tender I offers; 1.3.2.5 NRTIONRL RGRICULTURE • absence of some tender documents. RESERRCH INSTITUTE (lSRR)

I After evaluation, the Office of the Ombudsman ISAR is an independent public institution which recommended the following; was established to conduct research in forestry, soil conservation, agriculture and related field. I OCIR The should establish tea policy; OCIR The should work hard in the Since the establishment of ISAR in 1930 to I implementation of 2003 -2007 Tea 1962 during the colonial period, the Institute strategies; was managed by the foreigners; there was no OCIR The should respect procedures of Rwandan who was working with ISAR. transporting green leaves; .. OCIR The should respect all tender After the independence, ISAR remained in procudures; the hands of the foreigners up to 1982, I OCIR The should solve the problem of casual when Rwandans acquired top administrative labours and tea cooperatives who work with positions ofthe Institute. Till 1994, the Institute the privatized industries. had a very challenging problem of employees in I order to meet its objective of making research 1.3.2.4 RWRNDR COFFE RUTHORITY! and give the required positive output. In 1994, OCIR CRFE) ISAR also like the rest of other institutions I lost its workers, researchers, equipments Rwanda Coffe Authority is charged with and machines. After 1994, the Institute was the development of the coffe sector in the rehabilitated and trained other researchers. I country, the main activity is improving its The step which has been taken is very positive, quality, production,coffe processing and its but even if ISAR is tryingto achieve its objective, I there are still some challenges. I I • ~~'l\ • f "". ~"1', •

Some of the challenges are as foil ws: Afte the evaluation of ISAR, the Office ~!?1-$ Om udsman made the recommendations In terms of research; there are t e following I whi h can help ISAR to develop and advance in challenges; its ork and proper management:

there is no national policy relate to research I AR should coordinate with responsible in agriculture, livestock, fores ry and soil stitutions and establish research policy; conservation; AR should think and formulate a way of I there is no Ministerial de ree which aking profits from the research activities establishes the council respon ible for the a d try to find its financial sustainability and confirmation of results from th research a oid depending on external donors; I conducted; I AR administration should speed-up there is a small number of the establishment of internal rules and because their education and re ulations as well as the code of conduct I very expensive and even the f fo the employees and it should be trained, they do not work for th institution c mmunicated to all workers; for a reasonable period of tim because a dit department should be re-enforced they leave to other institutions where the .. a d all audit reports be communicated to salary is higher; th board of directors; research activities can not su tain itself IS R should respect tender procedures as I financially, the large part of resea ch work is th law oblige them to do; sponsored by donors, so it would become a IS R should set-up the proper ways of debt very serious problem as long as d nors stop I re overy and if necessary its debtors should or suspend their donations, be taken to courts of law; IS R should formulate the ways of how it The evaluation also indicated that in SAR there I ca utilise many houses in its fixed assets. is poor management of Institute res urces and such poor management is shown bel w: • poor management of resourc at the I 1.3.2 6. RWRNDR CIUIL RUIRTION research centres due to the fact t at, those RUTH RITY (RCRR) who are responsible have no ca acity and I skills in resource management; ReM as established by the law n" 21/2004 • embezzlement of funds in ISAR research of 10 08/2004 regarding the functioning, centres; organi ation of civil aviation authority. After • poor management of fixed a sets (no two ye rs, that law was amended by the law n 0 payment of house rent, no ren vation of -­ 44/20 6 of 05/10/2006 regarding the role, houses...); organ: ation and functioning of Rwanda Civil I • no respect of rules and regul tions of Aviatio Authority. accounts in giving out money and eeping a lot of money as "petty cash"; As it i stated in the article 3 of the law n " I • some tender procedures are not r spected; 44/20 6 of 05/10/2006, the functions of • no respect ofrules related to the di tribution RCM are as follows: of funds obtained from research ctivities • to anage and organise air transport I (30 % of funds from research ctivities ser ices; remain at research centres, 70% is • to anage and make use of all airports and deposited on ISAR's account) all t is is not air f elds; I done. • to ooperate and collaborate with other regi nal or international institutions which I I • I ,I

have the same or related responsibilities. activities; I RCM design a short term plan which helps In RCM should speed up a draft project of execution and achievement of its objective, code of conduct; it supervises the work of other companies RCM should stop lending money to its I which deal with air transport issues and other employees because that task belongs to agencies which facilitate passengers in the other institutions like banks; management of their luggage. RCM should find proper management of I resources; RCM provides services which facilitate RCM should respect all tender procedures: aeroplanes to land safely on the air field and RCM should make codification of its laws I take off and also provides services to air which would be easy to ali that would need hostages and air passengers. to consult them.

I After the evaluation, some hindrances were 1.3.3. EURlURTlON OF PROUINCES identified as follows: The province is an administrative organ with ~ there is no policy that regulates air space autonomy in both administration and finance. and aeroplanes which would be vital in The province coordinates districts strategic management of air and aeroplanes in plans and follows- up the implementation of I Rwanda; national policies in districts its as well as its there is no long term plan made by RCM security. I hence proving if it has achieved more or less can not be easily identified; Provinces have put more efforts in achieving some regulations are not established which their assigned attributions though insufficient I would be fundamental in its activities and budget has been a hindrance in making follow­ monitoring; ups of developmental projects established in laws regulating RCM are scattered hence districts. I consulting them is not easy; some regulations issued by international With regards to the management of finance in organizations regarding Civil Aviation are provinces, some problems were identified as I neither published in the Official gazette nor follows: on the website, yet it is its obligation; some job appointments in RCM are not entrepreneurs do not respect tender .. based on any law; contracts; some tender procedures are not respected delay of payments by the districts leads to in RCM; some activities to be left un completed; I insufficient budget leads to non attainance insufficient budget in the provinces leads of vital activities as indicated by the activity to some projects established in districts reports of RCM and even the little they be followed on phones or even basing on I have, they lend it to the employees thus reports done which is not effective; worsening the situation. incomplete and disorder in filing tender documents. I After the evaluating of the functioning of RCM, the Office of Ombudsman made the following Provinces are still receiving complaints from recommendations to RCM so as to improve citizens which complaints are supposed to I their functioning: be solved by sectors and districts; this is due to their little knowledge on decentralization RCM should remind MININFRA to establish poiicy. I the policy regulating civil aviation; I RCM should set-up long term pian for its In order for the provinces to acnieve their • ------..-• objectives, the following aspec s should be taken into account: Affairs in prisons is not enough becaug°=fJ I the budget of the province should be in 2005 only 4 prisons were evaluated, in increased Which will facilitate hem to carry 006 no evaluation was done and in 2007 out their assigned attributions nly one prison was evaluated. tender documents should be ompleted as well as proper filing; Aft rtheevaiuation,theOfficeoftheOmbudsman I provinces should set up clea policies of ma e the folloWing recom mendations to the pris ns: how entrepreneurs should be unished in I case of failure to execute their ontracts; r specting what is provided by the law provinces should work hand i hand with 038/2006 establishing the organisation other institutions that are in charge of and functioning of Rwanda National Prison S rvice; I sensitising citizens about dec ntralization policy. T e Ministry of Internal Affairs (MININTER) s ould always fUlfil its obligation of I 1.3.4. EURLURTION Of PHISO S e aiuating prisons; p isons should respect all tender p cedures; Evaluation was carried out in 8 differ nt prisons in order to verify if their functioning r spect laws pr sons should employ secretaries who .. and if there are no loopholes for cor uption. at east have some notions of the law; th re should be collaboration of all I The prisons services are facing th foliowing co cerned institutions to solve the problem challenges: of ersons Who are illegally imprisoned; Ou put of prisons should be properly I prisons are governed bythe law n 38/2006 m naged so as to reduce all kinds of establishingtheorganisationandf nctioning co uption tendencies. of Rwanda National Prisons Servi e. One of I the impact is that, employees f Prisons 1.3.5 Eualuation of Local Rdmi istratiue Entities Service continued to be paid sala ies which they were getting before the refor in public I service in 2006; Evalua ion made in local administrative entities prisons employees are few and s me have by the ffice of Ombudsman in 2008 aimed at low skills like secretaries; evalua ing the folloWing: I lack of enough training and capacity building; law, functioning, governance and insufficient equipments that woul help in coli borating With other institutions; .. achieving their duties; plan ing; prisoners' rights are not reSpected like: how hose levels of administration achieve their obligations; I some are in prison Without c pies of judgement; finance management; servi e delivery; • some prisoners do not have case fil s. audit ng; I some tenders procedures are not re pected in prisons; natur of corruption. poor management of prisons' out ut and I stock; 1.3.5.1 aws financial committees meetings are n t held twice a month as it is provided; Some Or ers which are provided for by the law I those Who have embeuled funds re not n° 08/2 06 of 24/02/2006 that determines followed byjustice; the struc ure and functioning of the districts evaluation done by the Ministry of I ternal are not y t established as Shown below: I Order of the Minister of local government I • • ((011

establishing the nature of the district budget It was found out that some vulages: cells and •• provided article 121; sectors do not have the Presidential Order n" <:t"-·1·1A ; ; Order of the Minister of local government 57/01 of 15/10/2006 estabiishing duties; I I" .. estabiishing general regulations regarding structure and functioning of viliages; celis and how districts finance should be audited sectors; and those which have it do not apply I provided in article 141; it because they were not sensitised on that Order of the Minister of local government Order. establishing regulations of howactivities and I employees of districts should be evaluated as it is provided by article 151. 1.3.5.2 The functioning; collaboration and gouernance of Local I Rdministration I-. 1.3.5.2.1 Rduisory council I I I The Deputy Ombudsman Mr. NZINDUKIYIMANA Augustin presenting the Operational Audit I Report on Rubavu District to the District Councila month. Due to ignorance of this Order, sector I In District councils of some sectors do not meet as it is provided. Two years after the decentraiisation policy; the evaluation done by the Office of Ombudsman In the year 2007, the evaluation revealed that t' found out that local authorities carry out their the minutes of the sector councils in some attributions though some services require sectors do not indicate if it is ordinary or extra some improvement as wili be shown below. ordinary meeting whereas in others they meet I when the required quorum is not met. This In ali districts evauated the advisory councils weakness was not corrected as it is found carry out their duties effectively. out by the evaluation made in 2008 in local I In general the decisions of the advisory administration. council are respected and implemented by I administrative councils. In some sectors the minutes of the sector council were not found at the sector. This may In sector be caused by: I the minutes to have not been taken; Thepresidentiai order no57/01 of15/10/2006 absence of filing; establishing duties, structure and functioning the original minutes to be sent without I of villages, celis and sectors provide that the making a copy of it; advisory council of sector meets once in a I • • ------c -, ",' '. J

the executive secretary do not respect e ectively and it meets as it is provided by the his duty of taking the minute of the sector I council meeting. la but its minutes are not available. 40~f

In Cell order to promote good governance, the ex cutive committee collaborates with The cell councils do not meet as it is provided dir ctors of various departments of districts I by the law because of the str cture of the ai ing at establishing the action plan as well cell which is worsened by low p rticipation of as monitoring its implementation. citizens in cell the governance. I In ell

The Executive Committee Th executive committee of cell is assisted by I In district two committees namely CPA, this is in charge of ood governance and policy making and CD which is in charge of development. The I The executive committee is the or n in charge eva uation discovered that these two of coordinating all activities ofth district. In general, the executive committe committees do not respect their duties as functions pro ided. .. I I I I I

The staffofthe Office oft e Ombudsman dur. g the operational Audit Activity -­ in Musanze Dist 'ct I 1.:5.5.2.2 [Hecutiue Secretari t

In district I r level; there is still need of employees with hi h skills especially those in charge of The executive secretariat in district is t e organ making planning; budget and projects follow I which is in charge of coordinating al district up. activities. The executive secretary s bmits a quarterly and annual reports to the ayor of In ceil the district. I

The evaluation of 2008 discovered that the cells stil face the following constraints; I I • • . .. • .,. 1.3.5.5 Internal auditing , • • absence of offices; lack of basic materials; In general, auditors of districts have done I some local leaders do not carry out their a lot in order to achieve their goals. In that duties at all. regard. they have audited sectors, schools and dispensaries. I As regards to complaints solving; some complaints are left un solved especially Though it was found out that some local entities judgement execution because some executive do not have internal auditors. The results ofthe I secretaries have not yet taken the oath that reports done by these auditors identified the gives them the quality of executing judgement. following weaknesses:

I 1.3.5.3 Management some tender procedures are not respected; poor management of resources; The evaluation done by the Office of the embezzlement of funds. I Ombudsman found out that the budget was properly made and managed. The government Differentexecutivecouncils haveacknowledged has increased the budget of the districts as these reports of auditors and have made -. compared to the period before 2008. Though follow ups in order to find out if they are some issues of mismanagementwere identified implemented. I as shown below: 1.3.5.6 Nature of corruption in local employees' salaries take big part of ordinary administratiue entities I district budget; many complaints of arrears; The evaluation made by the Office of not respecting laws governing district Ombudsman in local administrative entities I assets; revealed that there is embezzlement of not respecting some tender procedures; funds and rooms for corruption based on not mismanagement of district equipments; respecting some of the tender procedures. I unfair treatment of human resources like not giving their annual leave on time; Not respecting some of the tender procedures incomplete files of their employees and not and embezzlement of funds have both been I paying their employees' contributions to observed in local administrative entities such RAMA and Social Security Fund of Rwanda. as Gacaca and the Committee of Mediators.

t' 1.3.5.4 Seruice deliuery In different parts of the country corruption is given different names as will be shown in the Local administrative entities have tried to following table. I achieve their assigned attributions. Complaints receiving and solving have been improved when compared to 2007 evaluation result. Though I a lot has been done but some problems were identified as shown below:

I citizens have not yet understood the role of guichet unique and other employees do not have offices where to work from; I some local leaders do not have registers. I I • ------_• .. , . e ' • •

Table n° 1 showing differe t given names of Given names I Intego Inzoga y' integano do and Surera Districts I \Nino y' ikaramu Ngo orero District Inzoga y'eburizi Rutsiro District Inzoga y'abagabo I Inzoga y'ebeyobozi Guca umurizo I Essence y'umuyobozi Kayo ltike Kayo I Mituelle Nya asheke and Huye Districts Akabindi k'abunzi Sure District ~ Gukanda amaguru y'umuyo ozi Nyobozi (inzoga ya Mutz 9 ihabwa abakuru b'utugari) I Njyanama (inzoga ya Prim s abayobozi bo mu midugudu) I

1.3.5.7. Recommendations he executive secretary of sector should at­ I ays make the minutes of the sector coun­ After carrying out the evaluation n local ad­ il as it is provided for by the Presidential ministrative entities, the Office of t e Ombuds­ rder; I man made the following recomme dations: istricts should do their best in providing of- fices for the cells and villages which do not the ministry in charge of local overnment h ve them; I should speed up the establish ent of Or­ districts where embezzlement of funds ders and regulations that provi e the func­ s identified should take the suspects to tioning of local administrative e tities; curts of law; .. all local leaders and citizens sh Id be sen­ 10 al administrative entities should always sitized on the Presidential Orde no 57/01 in orm the citizens all the necessary require­ of 15th October 2006 determining the ob­ m nts to get proper service. I ligations; structure and functio ing of vil­ lages; cells and sectors so that t ey can be In th year 2008, the Office of the Ombudsman I aware of their role and obligatio in gover­ cond ctec trainings and programs in prevent­ nance; ing a d fighting injustice, corruption and other districts should respect all ten er proce­ relate offences. Surveys on corruption were I dures and those who violate th m should also ade. be punished; districts should empower intern I auditors Administrative evaluation in government insti­ I as well implementing their rec mmenda­ tution helps to enhance good governance like tions; respe ting laws and regulations as well as de­ districts should always inform s ctors the liverin good services. I decisions taken by the district co ncils; I • I Receiving complaints 01 I injustice, corruption and other I related oUences in public and private Institutions

I The Ombudsman Office has an important received during the reporting year with local mandate of preventing and fighting against leaders, opinion leaders and citizens. The injustice, corruption and other related offences Ombudsman Office also received and worked I in public and private institutions. Complaints together with citizens as well as their leaders to received are different; some are individual, find suitable solutions to such complaints. I whilst others are of a general character. Most complaints received concerned Examples of latter complaints include; unexecuted judgements, improper execution complaints relating to expropriation for general of judgements rendered by Gacaca Courts,and interests, complaints relatingto the execution of complaints related to expropriation. The .. judgements. complaints relating to Corruption Ombudsman Office realised that despite the in mediation committees etc. fact that trainings concerning the execution I of judgements were given to local leaders, During the reporting year, some complaints particularly; the Executive Secretaries of Cells were received during outreach programmes, and Sectors, complaints relating to the matter I while other written complaints were brought are still enormous. The Ombudsman Office directly to the Ombudsman Office. appealed to those leaders having execution of judgements into their attributions to regularly I 11.1. Receiuing and resoluing implement it in time. complaints receiued during outreach programmes Additionally, there is a big numberof complaints I relating to inappropriate execution of Gacaca In addition to trainings, the Ombudsman judgements. Most complainants said that conducted outreach programmes in the four there is quite a big number of cases where an I Provinces of the country and Kigali City. This individual bought property from a genocide programme was meant to discuss complaints suspect in accordance to the law and in good I I • faith prior to the establishment of Gacaca t e activities carried out t.hereon d J1~t L courts, but when a Gacaca cou renders a I~~~; . ~O~ judgement requesting the perpe ator (seller • ersons relocated without a just I in sale contract) to pay backth rooted or ompensation forinstance individuals who destroyed property, the executio is usually wned plantations besides Nyungwe Game enforced by selling the buyer's pr perty if the ark that were granted to ORTPN and those I authorities can't locate the seller ( erpetrator) esides Nyakinama Military Academy; or in case the former has no prope to execute • he transfer of the right to exploit state land judgement, f om one individual to another by districts, I ithout prior notification to remove their The Ombudsman Office advised I aders that private property thereon. the execution of judgements shoul be done by I the perpetrator themselves beca e criminal The mbudsman Office requested local leaders responsibility is individual. It was added that to al ays inform persons to be expropriated of I the situation would be different if he buyer is the eginning of the process of the land survey in bad faith. and he inventory of the properties thereon, in orde to avoid such complaints and ensure the The Ombudsman Office also received resp ct ofthe latter's rights duringexpropriation .. complaints concerning corrupt rned ators. They exer ise. said that some mediators ask for pa mentfrom I parties in dispute before receiving isputes or To a oid interference with the day to day giving their decisions afterthe settle ent ofthe func ioning of other institutions and taking dispute. The Ombudsman Office enounced deci ions on their behalf, the Ombudsman I such bad practices and requested leaders to Offic received only complaints which had been make a proper follow up in order to prevent pres nted to relevant organs and had not been injustices. resol ed as well as those which are not within I the c mpetence of local administrative organs The Ombudsman Office made a follow up likeS ctors. Some examples of such complaints of complaints concerning land i sues and inclu e; Complaints concerning social I expropriation for public intere s. These secu ity, labour cases etc. Such complaints complaints were in three categories were received to later investigate them and find ossible solutions in collaboration with I • Persons who are relocated pr or to the instlt tions having them in their attributions. payment of a just compensation especially if the person expropriated is n satisfied The aforementioned complaints received .. with the value determined for th land and durin the outreach programme are arranged in a t ble beiow according to the Province of origin I I I I I I • I I

I .COMPLAINTS RECEIVED DURING OUTREACH PROGRAM I,

50 13 o 37 : 17 8 9 ~ 79 50 5 24 82 54 8 20 I 56 21 o 35 I z. Eastern Province I Bugesera 61 26 3 32 I I t' I I I I I I • • I I I 9 3 4 2 43 3 4 16 I 29 o 6 3 18 6 3 I 49 1 o 28 23 1 4 8 ~ I 4. Northern Province I Burera 21 1 5 2 I I ..I I I I I I I • I ~..• ~' I ~ ...~ .\ received at the office two days a week: 'NB: The participation in the Outreach program Monday and Wednesday. During the reporting conducted by the Ombudsman Office was year, the Ombudsman office received 5907 *" very impressive, except in some few districts complainants. like Nyanza, Ruhango, Huye, Nyaruguru, Nyamagabe, and Nyarugenge. The sole reason Officials in the office charged with fighting was that participants (citizens) were not injustices take care of the complainants and informed of the program by their leaders. * discuss about their grievances. Some simple complaints are usually solved by phone calls The outreach program of the Ombudsman ~ to the concerned institutions. For complaints , Office was highly appreciated by the local which can't be solved immediately, the admnistration because it helps them to work complainant is requested to put the complaint I! together with citizens and the Ombudsman to in writing and submit it for further inquiries to find suitable solutions to most complaints. be conducted. Citizens also said thaHhis program is important However, the complaint that is investigated because it brings the Ombudsman closer to * by the Ombudsman office has to meet both citizens, such that those who can't afford competence and admissibility tests. For J. bringing their complaint at the Office can complaintswhich are notwithinthe competence submit them. ofthe Ombudsman, the complainant is advised I of the Competence institution. 11.2 RECEIUING COMPLRINTS OF INJUSTICES, CORRUPTION RND OTHER The complaints that are received in writings RELRTED OFFENCES IN PUBLIC RND I are followed in various concerned institutions PRIURTE INSTITUTIONS that are supposed to solve them, thereafter the complainants are also replied in writing. I The Ombudsman Office regularly receives complaints of injustice brought directly Complaints of injustice that are shown in the individuals or independent associations tables below are those that were received in I against public officials, government institutions writings. or organs. Complainants are particularly I t' I I I I I I I • --,---+----I------=--;06~ I

Karon i I Ngororero Nyabihu Nyamasheke I Rubavu Rusizi Rutsiro I I ~ I I

SOUTHERN Gisagara 20 Huye 38 I Kamonyi 55 Muhanga 38 N amagabe 27 I Nyanza 26 Nyaruguru 21 I Ruhan 0 37 .. I I I I I I • I ;~ , In the year 2008, 1569 written complaints were received by the Ombudsman Office, of which 117 were received during outreach program. The aforementioned complaints are * arranged in a table below in a descending order and in accordance to their categories. I NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS ACCORDING TO THEIR I CATEGORIES , 1. Administrative cases 444 28.29

I I- 2. Cases decided by courts 406 25.87 Ie 3. Land and settlement cases 374 23.83 4. Cases pending in courts 128 8.15

I 5. Property management and 97 6.18 succession I 6. Other cases 44 2.80

7. Social security fund of Rwanda 22 1.40 I (N5SR) I 8. Commercial cases 19 1.21 I 9. Welfare 18 1.14 10. Other insurance companies 17 1.08

.. TOt2~ 1559 1.~"': I NB: • The Ombudsman Office also received • Accordingto the table above,the big number complaints regarding iudgements rendered I of complaints received are those regarding by courts at different levels. Among these Administrative matters. Among complaints complaints,1203 (50%) are related to the I received, 114 (25.67%) concern arrears, dissatisfaction of the complainant with 108 (24.32%) related to illegal suspension the judgement rendered, 163 (40.14%) of employees and civil servants, 208 related to non-executed judgements and I (48.84%) related to dissatisfaction with 40 (9.85%) related to improper execution of administrative decisions, 10 (2.25%) relating judgements. to recruitment errors and irregularities, • Complaints regarding dissatisfaction with I and 4 (0.90%) related to social security the rendered judgement, the Ombudsman I matters. I • •

Officeadvised them aboutap al procedures those cases to be speeded up and to avoiiJ basing on the rendered judge ent. Although un necessary delays. the Ombudsman does not ha ethe powerto • The Ombudsman Office equally received I control judicial activities of curts, when the Commercial, Social security, social affairs aforementioned complaints are received, and insurance related complaints, and I they are recorded and co plainants are advocated In the concerned institutions or advised accordingly. This i the reason organs for such complaints to be solved. why they appear in the ategories of • The Ombudsman Office also mediated I compiaints received and xamined by parties with disputes relating to property the Ombudsman Office. F r complaints management and succession, in order to I relating to non-execution 0 judgements, find an amicable solution to the problem. the Ombudsman Office reque ts authorities Where mediation failed, parties in dispute having execution of judge ent in their were advised to seize competent courts. I competence to respect thei attributions. • Othercomplaintsareacategoryofcomplaints Lastly, when the Ombudsma Office finds which entails all other complaints which that a judgement was improp rlyexecuted, does not in any of the above categories. .. the complainant is advised t take a legal Amongst them, there are complaints action challenging the impro er execution regarding sexual violence, destruction of of judgement. The Ombud man Office one's property, ...when such complaints are I sometimes recommends a cor ection action eceived, the Ombudsman Office advise to the concerned authority. hem about com petent institutions. When I • Regarding Land and setti ment, 374 complaint is not solved by the institution complaintswerereceived bythe moudsman r no opinion is given on the same, the Office. Among them, 300 (80. 1%) related mbudsman begins investigations into the I 0 to land disputes, 74 (19.78 ) related to atter in order to find a solution. plots and settlement. In all thes complaints, • heOmbudsma nOfficefound outthatamong there are also complaints rei ting to land II complaints regarding administrative I and farms sharing disputes res ectively. atters, rendered judgements and land • Complaints regarding cases pe ding before isputes, 422 (26.89%) involved Instances I courts, the Ombudsman Offi e conducts f maladministration and corruption. advocacy in the concerned in titutlons for ea INTS ACCORDING TO THEIR I I

255 16.25 I

,"~.~,'...... ,.' "_, >'~c" " ~~_ 7:'c~' ~::~:; '.:: I I I • I f:" 1 \ • • --;\~' '. ivtr~t of the complaints received by the of the complainant and notify the Ombudsman, • Ombudsman Office were solved to the but the complaint was not solved and the I satisfaction of complainants, Among concerned institution hasn't given its opinion. In completed complaints, there are some which the category below, there are some complaints were transfered to the concerned institutions received in 2007, the Ombudsman Office sent I or bodies. Such institutions include; Ministries, written requests to the concerned institutions, government bodies, provinces, Kigali city and but the latter have not responded yet. districts. I In accordance to the powers granted to the I There are however some complaints which were Ombudsman, reaction to that, the Ombudsman still under investigation by the Ombudsman Office submitted a list of such complaints to I office at the end of the reporting year, hence the Prime Minister, attached to the letter N° pending. OMB 03/0786/04/08/BF of 17/04/2008, requesting him to request for explanations from WR ITTEN REQUESTS NOT REPLI ED government institutions in question, and warn them about such bad administrative behaviour, * The following category shows complaints by informing them that timely responses are of which written requests were sent to other paramount to success of the Ombudsman Je government institutions or organs to solve the significant mission. matter and notify the Ombudsman or give an I opinion on the same • but no response was In the category below, there are also complaints furnished to the Ombudsma n. where written requests were sent by the Ombudsman to the concerned institutions or Among complaints stiil under investigations, organs in 2008, but no response yet. There are I there are some complaints of which written also written reminders which were sent to the requests were sent to government institutions concerned institutions. Concerned institutions or bodies in question for an opinion on the that will be shown in the table below include; I same or solve the problem to the satisfaction ministries, government institutions and bodies, Kigali city, Provinces and Districts. I 1. MINISTRIES MINISTRIES A list of letters written by A list of letters written by I Ombudsman Office in 2007, Ombudsman Office in 2008, which were not replied which were not replied .. MININFRA 1 2 MININTER 3 I MIGEPROF 2 MINAlOC 3 MINADEF 3 9 I MINIJUST 6 MINIRENA 1 I MINEDUC 2 1 MINISPOC 2 MIFOTRA 4 4 I MINISANTE 1 1 MINAGRI 2 I MINECOFIN 1 ~-~-~~-~~-~ -- ~----~------"'~ ~ -~_._-_. ~~~~ ~~~~~-...... ~ ~~~" ~~_f-. I __ __ . I • , .~ '" ~ "

2, GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION

ORTPN 2 POLISI 2 UBUSHINJACYAHA 1 BRD 1 RRA 1 OCIRTHE 1 IMMIGRATION 1 UBUSHINJACYAHA BWA 1 GISIRIKARE ElECTROGAZ 1 PDRCIU 2 RCAA 1 __ _ _ -T-~'-" O~_" _..,.,,_=~~,~_ ~"="",_~",,",,"""""""""' __ ~~"""'" r_.,-p ~ "" '""'"'"~~" ~_=~~~~~""'~~______~_~""'" ,~ ~~_~~ ~ .c.o.~._~ .'-'""~."".- __ , ~~~__ • ~ ,--",~~ ~_~~"__ "',_i>=~~[':'~~~--,,",,,,,_~~_I

3, 2, PROVINCES AND KIGALI CI

CITY/PROVINCE A list of letters written by A list of letters written by Ombudsman Office in 2007, Ombudsman Office in 2008, which were not replied which were not replied

KIGALI crN 5 11 EASTERN PROVINCE 1 WESTERN PROVINCE 2 SOUTHERN PROVINCE NOTHERN PROVINCE

4, DISTRICTS

• I EASTERN PROVINCE 2 I I 1 • I * t I I :l5]lJ I ::1)1):) :500 a Total .of .I.iJ'J I Cl'llllpl"ill ts 50) • Compl"int, ,,,,slIlved o Wrill~n -­ Curnplnuus Cl Or,,,lllNI I Cr,m 1.I1'11t5. I

In general, there are 64 and 112 written requests which were not replied in 2007 and 2008 I respectively.

The Ombudsman thus appeals to all government institutions and bodies in question, and all others I not listed in the above table to respect good administrative behaviour of taking decisions on every request or complaint within a shortest time, without delays and to furnish responses promptly. If a request or complaint is complex and is likely to take much time, the Ombudsman or the concerned I institution should be informed, and the decision taken thereafter should be notified to him/her as I soon as possible. • • I ~I I I I I ~ ""-.,

III. istributi g, Receiving And I Ve irving De laration Of Assets I

Receiving and verifying declared as ets from I all government officials and others that the I". 1 Distributing and Receiuing Decl ration of Rssets law obliges to do so is among the 0 ligations attributed to the OfficeoftheOmbuds an as it is In yea 2008, the Office of the Ombudsman provided for by law n 0 17/2005 of 18/ 8/2008 -­ which modified and complemented t e law n " distrib ted forms of declaration of assets to I 25/2003 of 15/08/2003 Establis ing the all con erned government officials and to all Organization and Functioning of the ffice of others s the law stipulates with in the country the Ombudsman in its article 3 par graph 4 and ev n those liVing abroad so as to fill and I aiming at reinforcing good governanc return hem to the Office as the law obliges them to do.

The above obligation was fUlfilled by carrying I out the following activities in the year 008: The foil wing tables illustrate the number of persons who were given forms of declaration I 1. Distributing and receiving for s of of asset , those Who returned them and Who did not. declaration of assets; 2. Verifying the origin of the declared assets. I I • I I I I

"""" •. ,,,,-••..,,, •• ~.'. ',', ...,..,,,,,~~,,,. ~,,:-< High officials (the President of J Republic, the President of Senate, the Speaker of I Chamber of Deputies, Prime Minister and the I President of Supreme Court) 2. Senators 26 25 1 3. Deputies 116 111 5 4. Ministers and Parmanent 28 28 o Secretaries I TOTAL 175 169 6 I 3.1.2 Directors and Accountants

I 3.1.2.1 Employees ofthe Parliament

,.: Abayobozi n'abacungamutungo bomu Nt~~o Ishinga I t~:: -:'. .:: ,'"',"-::": :/:..-',"' .. ," ,,::.: : _"':',' ',:.0 .. \-:. <'0" ..:.: -','.'..:., '..:.,.:'.,.Co.'. :..: :::.-.< .• i···.:..-,'''-.·~:;;:',,'_:_1+"'::,..ii.:~'$::',·:··,.:/,·.::::'i'~<>::;i:y>:,',:! ",~(t..,:'; " <::,",~~';~:A~·:;".·:~-~;,j'J,i;j,\:~~'; I a­

I 3.1.2.2 Prosecutors and Judges I I .'• . I TOTAL 447 437 10 I I I • .••,

Ministries 3.1.2.3 Employees in the Pr sident's Office ondi I I

2. Prime Minister's Office 21 19 2 I 3. Ministry of Defence 299 235 64 4. Ministry of Public service 13 7 6 I and Labour

5. Ministry of Health 43 43 0 I

6. Ministry of Finance and Econo Ic Plannin 74 71 3 , 7. Ministry for local govern ent 12 11 1 .. I

8. Ministry of Youth 1 1 0 I 9. Ministry of Trade and Ind stry 8 7 1 I

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 59 54 5 Cooperation I

1I. Ministry of Infrastructure 26 26 0 I 12. Ministry of Education 43 41 2 13. Ministry of Natural Resou ces 27 21 6 ea 14. Ministry of Gender and Fa i1y 8 8 0 Promotion I

15. Ministry of Justice 22 22 0 I I 16. Ministry for Internal 5ecur 135 132 3 I 17. Ministry of Agriculture and Animal esources 10 10 0 I I I • I- c;.:, 3.1.2.4 PublicInstitutions and other Institutions where I . the State has Shares '!l'~'!' '''t~~O,MOmf o~~'l"t~"~~ I . . . •• ~. _ ._ ...... 44 1. CNER 11 11 a I 2. FPP 4 4 a 3. TIG 8 8 a I 4. ORTPN 30 28 2 5. CNJ 5 5 a I 6. IMPRISCO 16 12 4 7. OCiR - THE 39 38 1 8. OCIR-CAFE 12 10 2 9. CAPMER 4 4 a ~ 10. PRIVATISATION 5 4 1 11. REMA 15 12 3

. I 12. MAGERWA 16 16 a 13. ONATRACOM 13 11 2 I 14. ORINFOR 18 17 1 15. CHU/CHK 27 22 5 I 16. CHU/BU 13 13 a 17. C.F.P. Kavumu 5 5 a I 18. LABOPHAR 9 9 a 19. C.R.R 31 27 4 .. 20. RAMA 45 42 3 21. C.N.l.S 34 33 1 I 22. TRAC PLUS 20 19 1 23. C.N.L. GENOCIDE 1 1 a I 24. N.E.C 13 13 a 25. RITA 17 14 3 I 26. C.N.D.P 7 7 a 27- R.D.R.C 39 29 10 I 28. N.U.R.C 11 11 a 29. RURA 15 15 a 30 RBS 15 13 2 I 31. S.N. JURIDICTION GACACA 13 13 a I I • t·• ! .,' .. , ' j '.. ,. 1

32. ELECTROGAZ 255 227 28 33. R.C.A.A. 17 15 2 I 34. CEPEX 11 11 0 35. o.c.r.r 6 6 0 I 36. C.S.R 95 95 0 37. RPPA 44 40 4 I 38. OAG. 72 64 8 39. R.R.A 537 492 45 I 40. SONARWA 8 8 0 41. FARG 20 20 0 I 42. RIEPA 11 7 4 43. O.N.P 45 29 16 .. 44. N.S.S 27 26 1 45. RIAM 12 9 3 I 46. RADA 8 8 0 47. RARDA 12 12 0 I 48. R.S.S.P 22 22 0 49. PADAB 7 7 0 I 50. PDRCiU 10 10 0 5l. ISAR 18 18 0 I 52. I.R.S.T 20 19 1 53. N.I.S.R 14 11 3 I 54. FGA 6 5 1 55. N.M,R (National Museum of R anda 10 9 1 56. CAMERWA 18 17 1 -­ 57. B.N.R 42 42 0 I 58. B.R.D 43 43 0 59. B.P.R 11 11 0 60. B.K 1 1 0 I 6l. B.H.R 18 18 0 62. Office of Mines and Geology 4 4 0 I 63 NIP (N ti lid tit P . t) 13 9 4 I I I • I I 3.1.2.5 Employees of Provinces, City ofKigali, Districts and Sectors I I 168 140 28 I Eastern Province 204 201 3 I 211 186 25

Southern Province 217 190 27 Northern Province 181 173 8

I

I I 3.1.2.6 Higher Institutions ofLearning and Secondary Schools I l:iigher .Institutions of Leilrning and Sef:Qllclilry ~f:!'!QQI.~

,..• j,.;. l.UNR 29 I 2. KIST 31 24 7 3. KHI 13 13 0 I 4. KIE 19 18 1 5.ISAE BUSOGO 22 20 2 6.SFB Mburabuturo 10 9 1 .. 2. SECONDARY SCHOOLS 390 327 63 I I

I NOTE: 2. Chief Ombudsman, two deputies Ombudsman, Permanent Se~retary I 1. In the year 2008, the Office of and other employees ot'th'e'Off'ice of Ombudsman received declared assets Ombudsman that the law bbliges to of only 25 persons who left their offices declare their assets to theSe~ate did it at I from different institutions. the right time. The number sums up to 35. I I • ., ': . •

111.1.2.7 Recognized Politi al Parties in Rwanda ad I As provided by article 25 of theO anic law n° me t 16/2003 of 27/06/2003 gover ing political parties and politicians, as it sti ulates that In eaction to the above request, different I every year not later than 31st arch of the inst tutions notified the Office of Ombudsman following year, political parties sh uld present the reasons as to why 109 their employees to the Office of Ombudsman th ir books of I did at declare their assets in the year 2008, accounts. Out of 9 recognized pol tical parties so e were on official missions abroad and in the country, 7 parties managed to fulfill this oth rs had resigned by the time they had to I responsibility and 2 did not. fill t e forms of declaration of assets. On the oth r hand, out of 342, 227 explained why Political Parties that brought th ir books of they did not declare their assets to the Office I accounts in 2007 at the Office of mbudsman of 0 budsman whereas 115 did not give any are: expl nation to the Office of Ombudsman as to why hey did not declare their assets. .. 1. Front Patriotique Rwandais (FPR ; 2. Parti Social Democrats (PSD); "I. The Rctiuity of Uerifying the I 3. Parti Liberal (PL); Dec ared Rssets 4. Union Democratrqus du Peupl Rwandais (UDPR); In ye r 2008, the Office of Ombudsman verified I 5. Parti du Progres et de la Concord (PPC); the eclared assets of 227 persons from 6. Parti Democrats Ideal (PDI); diffe ent levels as shown below: 7. Parti Socialiste Rwandais (PSR). I

• Directors and accountants of prisons; Political Parties that did not bring th ir books of •E ployees of Ministry of Infrastructure, accounts in year 2007 are: I e ployees of a project in Ministry of Internal 1. Partie Democrats Centriste (PDC) S curity and Public Service and Labor; 2. Partie de la Solidarite et de la Prosperite •D puties in parliament; I (PSP). • Ju ges and Prosecutors.

In the year 2007, the Office of 0 budsman In eral the activity of verifying declared .. received 8 copies of reports fro political was done in three phases: parties regarding the use and m nagement of their property as the law oblige them to I The first phase is getting more and specific do apart from PSP which did no fulfill its expla ations from concerned persons obligation. regar ing the origin of their declared assets I and t e task of the Office of Ombudsman is to In the year 2008, the Office of 0 budsman verify f they were legally obtained. distributed 4929 forms of decl ration of I assets and 451 persons did not r urn their The s cond phase is verifying the declared declarations as the law obliges th m to do. assets from the place where they are located to It is in this perspective that thos persons I find 0 t if they exist as declared. In this phase from different institutions who w re found also t e value of declared assets is verified to to have not declared their assets, he Office check f the information given is true regarding I the val e. I • I ~,.J'( 1}~rd phase is done in financial institutions like not clearly justify the origin of their possessed banks which operate in Rwanda where those assets thus the Office of Ombudsman handed I who declare their assets have accounts. Banks them to other concerned institutions to make playa vital role in assisting the agents of the further and extensive investigations. Other I Office of the Ombudsman to know how much employees clearly justified the origin of the credits acquired, when they were acquired, possessed assets. means of paying back the credits as well as I duration of payment and also verifying if the In generaI, the activities of distributing, reason for requesting the loan was respected. receiving and verifying the origin ofthe declared Such is done to affirm if the information assets was carried out successfully. Though I declared is true and relevant. the number of verified persons is decreasing as shown by table below is due to very few I The verification of the declared assets done by employees who have to carry out this duty the Office of Ombudsman in the year 2008 on alongside with other duties all through. 227 persons found out that 12 persons could

Table n' 2: Showing how the activities of Distributing, Receiving and Verifying the declared ~ assets were done from 2004-2008. I I I l. 2004 3267 2770 = 84 % 497 = 16% 497 317 11% 2. 2005 3490 2523 = 72% 967= 28% 731 450 18% I .3. 2006 4132 3679 = 89 % 453 = 11% 432 316 9% 4. 2007 4023 3526 = 88% 497= 12% 447 157 4% .. 5. 2008 4929 4477 = 91% 452 = 9% 342 227 5%

I E1.Abakorewe igenzura ~ • Abasabiwe I ibihano mu 7 lWego rwakazi

oAbataragaruye I inyandiko

Mbagaruje I ~ 9 inyandiko

• Abaha-we inyandiko I BL, ...J I I • . ~ ••

NOTE: ~ T e above explains why the number of verified A. Between the years 2006-20 , the number I p rsons is low between 2006-2008 because of persons whose declared asset were verified th activity was done extensively which was is low because verification was done in three w rsened by very few employees in the Unit of extensive phases as shown bel w: I D claratlon which is In charge of carrying out th t activity alongside with other duties. The first phase is getting more and specific I explanations from concerned per ons regarding B. In the annual report of 2Q07, The Office the origin of their declared asset and the task of Ombudsman identified 8 persons from of the Office of Ombudsman is t verify if they I di erent public services who could not justify were legally obtained. th origin of their declared assets. The Office of Ombudsman handed over those persons I The second phase is to verify fr m the place to he Police to make further and extensive where such declared assets are I cated to find Inv stigations so as to get more and helpful out if they really exist. In this ph se also the inf rmation. The investigation made by the fA value of declared assets is verif ed to check Na ional Police found out that only 2 persons if the information given is true r garding the value. could not justify how they accumulated the I we Ith in question and handed them over to the pro ecution whereas 6 persons according to Third phase is done in financial institutions the reports of the Policejustified the source. like banks which operate in Rwa da where I those who declare their assets ha e accounts. Tho gh the Office of OmbUdsman will gather Banks playa vital role in assistin the agents all t e information at hand for those 6 persons I of the Office of the Ombudsman t know how to v rify if there would be any other necessary much loans acquired, when they we e acquired, inve tigation. means of paying back the loans as well as I duration of payment and also ver fying if the reason for requesting the loan wa respected. Such is done to confirm if the nformation I declared is true and relevant. .. I I I I I I • I " " . ••• ... '.~ !

I Means used to achieve the I Obligations assigned to the OUice Of The Ombudsman ,I In the year 2008, the office of the Ombudsman - sector and cells' in service delivery and carried out 2 different surveys aiming at administration; verifying the nature, impact and the main - Gacaca jurisdiction procedures; I reasons causing corruption. One survey to - local defence; verify corruption in local administration and an - Mediators. I other one to verify corruption in the country as a whole. Mostly corruption is appearing under many forms but both converging on the aspects of I IU .1. Corruption in local gouernment service delivery. administration Some of them are: I Corruption in local administration has been - delivery of different attestations; observed on different organs working on the - delivery of construction and reha bilitation I levels like: authorisation: - inscription in FARG; I I • - urgent contracts; - absence in community works (u uganda); - drug traffics; absence in Gacaca jurisdiction - cutting trees; I - Charcoal production.

80 r------+------+---, I 70 ~,T-----

60 !!!J Leaders of Cells I 50 -Gacaca 40 D Local defence 30 I 20 D Mediators 10 o fA Kigali Cityi Southem Nothem Eastern Western Average province Province Province Provine I

Considering the results, regardless of the area I on which the survey was carried out the causes of corruption are; I - lack of probity; - low saiaries; - ignorance; I - poverty; - low levels of education. ..I

~ Kigali City I I Southern province Northern province I Eastern Province I Western Province I I Lack of Low salaries Illiteracy Povert Lack of moral Integrity I I • I .., . .,J' tu.z.corruptten in the country as a - Custom services; whole - Tender procedures; I - Taxation services; The Office of the Ombudsman has also carried - Construction services; out the survey on corruption aspects in public - Educational services; institutions and private sectors through the - Political parties; consultancy service which is still going on. - Attestations' delivery services; - Health institutions; Although the survey is not yet completed but - Non Governmental Organisation; perception of corruption is observed in the - Religious service delivery; following descendant degree: - Press.

- Traffic police; Corruption rates in the above mentioned - Justice sector; institutions will be illustrated on the next page. - Land service;

Press

Churches

NGOs I Hea~hln5titution5 Parliamentarian campaigns

I In charge Civil Status I Political Parties Education Sector

t' Construction Services I Taxation Services Public Procurement

I Customs Services I lands Services Officers Justice sector

I Traffic Police

I o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 I I • ,Cooperation of the Offi¢e of the Ombuds 40'6 I I I I ..I I I I In order to promote cooperation with ' other institutions in other countrie ,the Chief Ombudsman and two de uties I Ombudsman attended diff rent meetings within various cou tries like Germany, Chine, Tanzania and I Indonesia. Chief Ombudsman VI ited the Office of the Ombudsman of Ethiopia in the way of promoting cooperati n .. The staff of Ombudsman atte ded different meetings in various cou tries like Uganda Tanzania and Burundi I

The Office of Ombudsman also rec ived distinguished visitors from I -" different countries like those who The mbudsman team with a delegation of the came for study tour, the delegation C nstitutional council from Burkina Faso of constitution law of Burkina so, I Sudan and members of parliame t of Burundi I I I • I , The Office of Ombudsman hosted the second annual general meeting of the East African , .! .. ''"., 'Association of Anti-Corruption Authority (EAAACA) member countries on 18-19September 2008. I The headquarter of this Association is located in Uganda. • • I - I, I ~

Heads of different Institutions in charge of Fighting Corruption in a meeting

I In capacity building of its employees. the Office of Ombudsman carried out I the following trainings: • Gender mainstreaming; • Political Sciences; I • Organisational behaviour; • Public administration; , , Conflict resolution; • Ombudsman Law; Group Photo during a training in Hong Kong in • Performance evaluation; which the staff of the Ombudsman participated I , Languages (French and English) • Administrative auditing; • postgraduate Certificate in Corruption Studies; I Study tour in Botswana, Ills Maurice, South Africa, Germany and Tanzania. • Fighting Corruption (postgraduate Certificate in Corruption studies) from Hong Kong I I I I I • ,'~ '. \. , '"' ...... I f I I I I ..I I

Group Photo at the closing c remony of the traini g on fighting against corruption in Hong I Kong in which the staffof the Office of he Ombudsman Participated I IVA-Budget and logistic

The Office of the Ombudsman chieved its I The e was aiso publication of magazine objectives using the financial re ources that "U UVUNYI MAGAZINE" No 5, No 6, No 7, No were provided by the Governme t budget of 8, N 9 in the way of sensitarisation citizens to 2008. Another financial support came from I figt against corruption, those magazine were partners (UNDP/UNDEF and UNDP DFID). dist ibuted wherever within the country The Office of Ombudsman provided to it's The Office of the Ombudsman p rchased 39 em loyees enough office equipments that are books; some of them are concerni g history of .. vital to fuifil the day to day duties, genocide, corruption, dictionaries nd others. There also 17 books received as gr nt, All those In echnology, the Office of Ombudsman books are used by the staff of the ffice of the I intr duced a new database of keeping Ombudsman, staff from different nstitutions, doc ments, such documents are declarartion students from universities and r searchers. doc ments, complaints from citizens, financial Not only the books purchased or eceived as doc ments and other differents documents I grants but also the Office prepared nd printed wer computerized. following manuals: 1. Manual on Land law and Ex ropriation; rer to publicise the activities of the Office I 2. Manual on governing atrimonial of mbudsman, different methods were Regimes, Liberalities and Successi ns; used like conference on radio stations and 3. Manual on criminal and civil rocedures Rwa da television, distribution of UMUVUNYI and the execution of judgrnents. I MAG ZINE, different news papers and also Those manuais were used by the staff while Inter et was used to give information regarding training the citizens on issues regarding different laws. the activities of the Office in the country and outsi e the country. I I • I I

I Opening Balance /Bank II Opening Balance /Cash 57,998 Cash transfers from Treasury-recurrent 348,263,832

I. Direct payments-recurrent budget 358,523,377 Arreas from Minecofine 14,942,085

II Other income 2,119,500 I TOTAL 723,848,794 '.. I Money used to buy computers 13,776,835 II Water and Electricity costs 1,003,307 Allowances for missions with in the country 19,709,001 Money used in transport costs outside the country 17,434,308 I Money used in official missions outside the country 5,128,149 Domestic travel 68,152,485 I Money used to hire conference halls 2,663,640 Other consumption costs 17,246,994 I Money used to repair office equipments 6,563,937 Maintenance and repair of technical equipments 30,980,906 Money used to buy text books and newspapers 6,260,110 Money used to print and advertise some office docume s 10,746,804 Costs for seminars and trainings 12,006,454 "I Staff training costs 8,866,195 Consultancy charges 14,574,120 Money used in celebrating public holidays 14,627,966 I Post office costs 7,406,836 Communication costs 30,591,399 I Translation costs 37,011,489 Sports and leisure costs 947,310 I Advertisments costs 12,822,329 Salaries for state attorneys and sub-statutes 305,867,595 I NSSR contributions for the state attorneys the staff 21,769,194 I I I I Salaries 402,795,420 358,523,377 44,272,043

Recurrent Budget 348,263,832 348,263,832 I I TOTAL 751,059,252 706,787,209 44,272,043 I ~ I g the contribution of Donors I I DFID 156,369,086 2,048,585 I TOTAL 20.501.112 271,319,455 6,661,362 I The Office of the Ombudsman chieved its objectiv s using the budget that were provided by the Government budget of 2008 and other funds ca e from partners. Training and study tours helped the staff ofthe Office ofth Ombudsman to att in their objectives because of different skills obtained from those training and tudy tours. -­

Cooperation with other Ombuds an offices of vari us countries was improved and our staff I acquired knowledge from other c untries as illustrate by survey that had been done. I I I I I I I v. OHALLENGES

I The Office of Ombudsman did its best to achieve the assigned attributions but it met the following I I chaIlenges: The number of staff is small when compared to duties that were provided bythe law. The Office has only 38 employees in its four units. These employees have to carry their duties country wide like verifying the declared assets, solving complaints of injustice, corruption and other related offences. Such complaints are received by the Office of Ombudsman on a permanent basis.

; There are some complaints that the Office of the Ombudsman receives that have to be solved by I other institutions. When the Office of the Ombudsman submits such complaints to the concerned institutions so as to give appropriate solutions, they delay to give feedback thus being a challenge in accomplishment of the assigned attributions to the time provided.

There are some cases that are handed over to some government institutions like the National r Police to make further and extensive investigations so that they get more proofs but they either , delay carrying out that task or even do it but not sufficiently. I I ,I I I I I I I I • .-. ~ , .

o The Office of the Ombudsm n found out omplaints on a regular basis from persons that the principle of land sha ing was not ho were civil servants regarding their conducted in the same mann r throughout alaries. These are persons who were the country. Some leaders hav not adhered ivil servants prior to 1994, but were later to land sharing principle that was carried pprehended and imprisoned as genocide out in some parts of the coun ry under the uspects, Some have been proven innocent pretext that there is no Mini terial Order y courts of law and released. Following governing the modalities of I nd sharing. heir release, they request the Ombudsman The Ombudsman Office reco mends the ffice, claiming for the payment of their I Ministry of Naturai Resource 0 speed up alary since their imprisonmentto date. Their the enactment of the Min iste ial Order to omplaint is particularly based on Article 20 ~ enforce the principle of land sharing as fthe Decree law of 19/03/1974 governing it is provided for under Articl 87 of the ivil servants which stipulates that: a civil Organic law n" 08/2005 of 4/07/2005 ervant who is temprarily suspended from I governing the use and manage ent of land ork, which is not a penalty, continues to in Rwanda. et his or her salary and other employment enefits, and the letter NO 483/11.23 of I o The Ombudsman Office freque tly receives 6/07/1996 from the Ministry of Public complaints concerning the dea h of persons ervice, Skills development and labour, to I and the destruction of prope caused by he Minister of Agriculture, where it was animals from Akagera nation I park and tressed that: if a civil servant is provisionally Birunga National park. The mbudsman etained, his or her salary is suspeded, I Office recommends the concerned hen proven innocent, they regain it with all institutions to take measures 0 solving this ther employment benefits, but if he or she big problem. i convicted of the offence, he or she losses I is or her salary and all other related benefits o The Ombudsman Office recjeved many or the dutration of their detention. On complaints concerning arrear of teachers ctober 16, 2008, the Ombudsman Office .. and employees from differen goverment rote a letter n° OMB.03/2088/10.08/ institution. Some of these rrears are LK to the Ministry of Public Service, I supposedto bepaid bythe Minis ryofFinance kills Development and Labour. The and Economic Planning, while 0 hers should forementioned letter was a reminder be paid by Districts. The Ombu man Office f the letter n " OMB.03/0319/0406/ I recommends the concerned in titutions to F of 20/04/2006, which requested the pay those concerned individual or put up a oncerned Ministry to give its opinion mechanism of solving it. I n the same or find a suitable solution o The Ombudsman Office receiv numerous t the problem. The Ombudsman Office as however not received any response. I he Ombudsman Office finds that this is o longer an individual complaint, but it as rather become of a general structure, I t us it requires a general solution to solve I • I '/ it in a lasting manner. The Ombudsman more especially article 5 which provides the Office requests the government of Rwanda secretary of the committee of mediators. I in general, and the above mentioned institution in particular to find a solution to o There are some Orders that are suppossed this complaint. to complete some laws that governs local I levels of administration which are not o The Executive Secretatries of celis yet established, this has affected the hightighteo one of the challenges they meet functioning of these levels thus the Office while carrying outtheir duties like combining of Ombudsman is requesting the concerned the two issues of receiving complaints from institutions to speed up this issue of citizens as well as solving them, when establishing these Orders. the citizen is not satified with the solution provided, he/she has the right of taking the o TheOffice of Ombudsman has various duties ~ compiainttothemediatorsand where he/she as provided for bythe law but the Office has I finds that the secretary of the committee of only 38 employees to carry out those duties mediators is that very executive secretary of country wide. The Office is requesting the cell whose solution was not satistifyingthus Ministry of public service and labour to making the complainant doubt the fairness anatsye this problem so to get appropriate of that committee. In this regard, the Office solution. I' of Ombudsman is requesting the Ministry of Localgovernment and the Ministry of Justice o The Office of Ombudsman takes this to analyze thit problem so that ifthey found opportunity to remind all institutions that it it reasonable to modify the Organic law n° hands over complaints that need feedback ­ to do it accordingly hence respecting the I 31/2006 of 14/08/2006 establishing the structure, organisation,competence and laws. I functioning of the committee of mediators I t' I I I I I I I • r·~)~. •• (.~ :" •.J. I 403J I CONCLUSION Annual report of the activitie of the Office of th Ombudsman of 2008 indicates what was I achieved in relationto the a signed attribution

The Office of the Ombudsrn n played a vital r Ie in solving different kinds of complaints I that were received either a the Office or ev n those received by the employees of the Office of the Ombudsman w ile on different vis ts in the country. I To link the citizens with the Public and Private institutions is one of the means that the Office uses in solving diff rent complaints hat may raise between individuals hence I being vital in preventing an fighting injustice, orruption and other related offences. The Office of the Ombuds an monitored various Public institutions to verify if their .. service delivery does creat room for injustice, corruption and other related offences. The monitored institutions inclu e: Ministries, Public institutions, Provinces and local levels of administration. To be mo efficient, the Offi e of the Ombudsman carried out research I work on corruption aiming t evaluating the n ture and rate of corruption in local levels of administration and coun ry wide as well as evaluating the role of its activities. Such I research work done will hel the Office to know which sector needs more efforts.

The Office of the Ombudsm n acknowledges al those institutions that greatly contributed I to the accomplishment of it attributions in sol ing complaints of injustice and corruption as well as giving advice that were imperative in the accomplishment of its mission. I ..I I I I I I I I 4036 I I I I I I ..I I I I I ..I I I I I I I I ~ I "",;.'~ '....,, \ I I I I

I I I Ie I I I I I t' I I I I I I I • Exhibit C Affidavit of Anastase Shyaka, Executive Secretary of the Rwanda Governance Advisory Council

• ., !t •,

•

• Rwanda International Criminal Tribunal

Trial Chamber

Before: Judge Florence Rita Arrey, Presiding Emile Francis Short Robert Fremr

Registrar: Adama Dieng THE PROSECUTOR

v.

Jean.Bosco l,T\VINKINDl • Case No. ICTR-2001-75-I

AFFIDAVIT OF ANASTASE SHYAKA

I, Anastase Shyaka, hereby depose and state as follows:

1. I am the Executive Secretary of the Rwanda Govern.ance Advisory Council. Unless otherwise indicated, the statements contained in this affidavit are based on my own personal knowledge or belief. I submit this affidavit in support of the • Prosecutor's Consolidated Response filed in the captioned case.

2. Attached is a true and correct copy of the 2010 Joint Governance Assessment

(JGA), Data Analysis Report.

3. This report was

~-'. ,,,j ,~ 4 .,. •

•

• •

established by Rwanda and its development partners. In addition. the study was conducted under the auspices of a Joint Steering Committee which comprised of Chiefs of Missions from the United States, European Union. as well as representatives from major development agencies, including the World Bank.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury 18 day of April 2011

•

• •

• • •:*'.... ." ". .. "(. ;... ", .•

Rwanda joint Governance Assessment -Data Analysis Report

Source: Lwanga & Lemeshow, 1991

The formula" of Underson et al (2003) can be used when considering representation of different strata that are included in the sample size such as: type of residence (rural and urban), provinces (5 strata) and districts (30 strata). The following formuia gives a sample size of only one stratum. •

e'

Where n is the sample size, Z at 95 % of desired confidence ievel = 1.96, e is the desired level of precision (4 %), p is the estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population (0.5), and q is 1-p, = (0.5), D is the cluster effect to adjust the sample size which is equal to 2.

With e = 2%, n= 4800, which Is a big size for one strata and that Is why 4% has been retained for the desired level of precision, With this, the size for one strata equal to 1200, According to the study population, the following presented the strata situations:

• Strata by provinces • Strata by rural or urban areas • Strata by district

The following table shows the sample size according to the above mentioned strata' • NO STRATA NO OF STRATA MINIMUM SAMPLE SIZE

0 none 0 600 1 Residence 2 2400 2 Provinces 5 3416 3 District 30 10947 Source: KISH, 1965 0 65 N= nx 0 .

13 Anderson et ai, 5totistiques pour L'Economie et Gestion } E.d. De Boeck, Bruxelles, 2003 10 ~ •,) •I*:j ,'. .':t'" • .. •• •

RWQ de joint Governance Assessmenr -Data Analysis Report

format, and interviewing styles d encourage thoughtf I and accurate responses. Finally, concerted efforts are required to encourage II sampled individuals t complete the interview or questionnaire.

The process undertaken by RGAC in the development 0 the research instruments (methodology and questionnaire) followed these rigo ous steps required for uch an undertaking, given the elaborate time dedicated to the development of t e methodoiogy inelud ng the questionnaire. After the SC had tasked RGAC to develop draft research in truments (methodolo y and questionnaire') for dat~ collection, the latter was presented to the TC in September 2009 a a meeting officiated by the WB Country Representative.' The methodolog was discussed at the meeting and thereafter through a series of exchanges that brought in substa ial inputs from anum er of DPs" before eventual validation by the TC and approval by the Steering C mmittee.

In the run-up to the survey exerei e, RGAC set both desk research and field survey teams to carry out the study. The Team was lead by Coordinator, and com rised of Researchers, Supervisors, Field Team Leaders and Enumerators". The Fi Id Supervisors and the Enumerators were trained by the Researchers for three days" before embarking n a pilot test survey in Kicyukiro, one of the Districts in Greater Kigali • City. The District was chosen beca e it has both the characteristics of rural and urban settings.

Perception Survey: Scope and Res arch Sample size

The sample size for the Survey wa computed using diffe ent scenarios to make it possible to choose a size taking into consideration sam critical issues such as ime and budget. The approach also sought to ensure that the survey had both terna! and internal va idity such that the research findings could be generalized to people and or situ tions other than thos observed. The survey covered 360 villages throughout all the 30 Districts in th country. A total of 3, 00 people were interviewed.

The research employed stratified andom sampling such hat each unit in the population is identified, and each unit has a known, non-z ro chance of being in t e sampie. This was used in recognition of the strata emerging from the decentra ized form of governanc currently existing in Rwanda.

According to Raosoft sample size c Iculator, with a confid nce level of 95%, the estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the opulation (p) of 0.50 nd an absolute precision of 2%, the minimum sample size is equal to 2400. It is orth noting that this s mple size is used globally and does not allow any strata inference consideratio like type of residenc , province or district. The formula used by • Raosoft is also valid using the folio ing formula:

8 The draft questionnaire was in both English an Kirtvarwanda. ~ The meeting was held at sccrtsvtew HotelKig Ii

laThese included substantive inputs from both SAID and DFID (london Office) nd the National Institute of Statistics (NISR). 11 The Team Coordinator was Prof. Anastase S aka, Executive Secretary RGAC SupervisocWllfv Gasafari, RGAC Researcher assisted by Albert Kavatiri and NISR Experts, 12 Field Team Lead s [Universltv Researchers) and 60 Enumerators (selected from amongst University graduands with previous experience in survey work with RGAC and NISR. The =ieid Te m leaders and the Enumerators were selected competitively through adve-rlsernerr; in the New Times. Th "earn was later joined by a -otess.onel Stattsrlc'ar, who conducted data entry vnde- the suoervislcn of RGAC and NISR. Desk Survey w conducted by Dtoas Kavthura nd Ge"ald Nvabutsttsi. 'T',;€. data analvsis was conducted by Dr Frank Okuthe-Ovugi after verification of data en ry and cross-tabulation. 12 The training was conducted ir: Kigalitrcm.sto 10 11th October 2009, and t~e s ntey from 12: 0 to zs" October 2009. 9 Q......

Rwanda Joint Governance Assessment -Data Analysis Report

As part of the JGAprocess, a monitoring framework was developed to assist in monitoring and reviewing progress against identified indicators. The monitoring framework identifies sub-indicators and provides guidelines for disaggregation of data, frequency of review, sources of data, baseline information as well as broad methodology for sourcing of information (perception, hard data).

Background to the Analysis: The JGA Review Process

In order to ensure the implementation of the JGA, the RGAC was assigned the task of coordinating the monitoring of the indicators'. Subsequentiy, RGAC drafted a proposal seeking support for the exercise and on the 18th of December 2008 a meeting was convened between RGAC and the DPs under the chairmanship of the then World Bank Country Manager, Victoria Kwakwa to discuss the way forward in the implementation of the JGA. It was at this juncture that it was agreed to structure the review in two phases, namely:

• Phase 1: Data collection and Analysis (ToRs developedfor Local Consultants and an International Consultant by RGAC and UNDPon beholfofJGA Stakeholders as tasked by the SC); ... • Phase 2: Review of Monitoring Framework; Funding Mechanism for the JGA; Feedback from the • DPs and Overall Recommendations (ToR developed for International Firm by JGA TC based on a draft presented by RGAC and approved by key DPs Including USAID, OF/D, UNDP, WB, Netherlands and EC. The SC had mandated the TC to develop and validate the ToR). 7

The selection of the Consultants was subsequently done through competitive bidding by Panels as follows: • UNDP (representing DPs) & RGAC (on behalf of GoR) for the International Consultant (Data Analysis); • 4x4 Panel (4 delegated representatives from GoR [RGAC, MININFOR, MINECOFIN and MINAFFEn and 4 delegated from DPs [UNDP,WB, EC and DFID].

The contract process was managed by the UNDP Rwanda Country Office.

Methodology of the Survey

Development of Research Instruments

For a high-quality survey to be undertaken, special attention is requfred in order to reduce as much as • possible any major source of error that can bias the results. For example, the target population needs to be completely enumerated so that important segments or groups are not unintentionally excluded from being eligible to participate. The sample should also be selected in a way as to be representative of the population of interest, which is best accomplished through the use of probability sampling as was the case in the survey. Substantial time is equally necessary for the development of survey questions, pilot testing them, and training interviewers so as to ensure that item wording, question presentation and

6 SeeToR of lstJGA, Scope of Work -3.1 in Rwanda Joint Governance Report, op.cit. p. 91 and the report of the DP meeting of November 2008.

7 The first phase was funded by GaR, UNDP and Sida, whereas phase two has been funded by GaR and UNOP. It will be recalled that the first JGAdid not address the issue of funding of the subsequent JGAs., particularlv RGAC as the coordinating bDdy. 8 • • "

••

Rwanda joint Governance Assessment -Data Analysis Report

Introduction and Backgrou d

Introduction: Contextualising the J A

This report is based on the analys s of data generated u der the Joint Governance Assessment (JGA) Framework that was established b tween Rwanda Govern ent and her Development Partners !DPs) in November 2006. The fundamental bjectives of the initiati e of the JGA are threefold:

1. To develop a common ( overnment and dono s) understanding of governance issues on Rwanda: 2. To reduce transaction cost by consolidating differ nt donor governance assessment activities; 3. Provide an objective, evid nee-based assessmen that reflects Rwanda's specific governance history! its current conte and realities that pro ides indications for future programmes and actions"

The genesis of JGA was the multi licity of assessments f various aspects of governance in Rwanda, • "several of which were externally riven with limited gro nding in objective evidence and analysis/,4a phenomenon which the Governm t of Rwanda decided 0 counter with a stakeholder driven initiative that provides a framework for 'common understandi g and mutual confidence with regard to governance practices in Rwandan,

in order to drive the process..» igh level Joint Steerin Committee was set up to coordinate and oversee all the activities pertainin to the implementatio of the JGA. The Committee is composed of the Heads of the missions and insti utions as indicated bel w:

• USA • World Bank (co-chet ) • Office of the President • Ombudsman's Forum for Political • UK • AfDB • Local Gover ment Office Parties Belgium UNDP (Chair) • Auditor General's RALGA Netherlands USAID • Finance and Planning Office International NGO • Switzerland Sida Information NEPAD Network • European • CIDA Public Servic Rwanda Human • Rwanda Civil Society Union DFID Interior Rights Commission Platform • , , • Germany • Belgium "ecnnical C -operatton • Justice Rwanda Rwanda Private • • GTZ Commerce Governance Sector Federation Advisory Council

The Steering Committee is suppor ed by a Technical Co mittee that looks at technical matters of JGA and makes recommendations f r consideration by th Steering Committee. Both the Technical Committee and the Steering Com ittee meet on a regular basis, although in practice the SC meeting is usually preceded by the TC meetin "

\ee Government of Rwanda, Rwanda Joint Go monee Assessment Report. Oct ber 2008, p. 3. 4 ibid., c. 3 no S Duringthe January 2Z 2010 session .. the $C r solves to meet on a cuerter'v b sis, wlth "extraordinary" sessions during the Reviewto provide the necessary 'neuts into the process. 7 1 , , L,;"--. •..... - • • • • qolk

Rwanda joint Governance Assessment -Data Analysis Report

Executive Summary

This analysis report is divided into four sections. The first three deal with core areas of governance as identified in the Rwanda JGA, namely:

• Ruling Justly • Government effectiveness • Investment Climate and Corporate Governance

The fourth part contains the condusion with recommendations from the study.

In the first section, Ruling Justly, the report engages the core issues of security, transitional justice and the rule of law. The first part of this section is concerned with the levels of confidence and trust the people have in various state institutions, groups and processes as expressed in the perception survey. It also deals with the performance of various state institutions responsible for delivering on the indicators and sub-indicators linked to the RulingJustly section of the JGA. • The second section is concerned with Government effectiveness and focuses on (anti)corruption, decentralization and service delivery. Here, the report presents data analysis based on both perception and hard data on the performance of government institutions based on from the sources recommended by the JGAFramework.

Third, the report looks at the investment dimate and state of corporate governance as a pointer to good governance in general. This section focuses on the ease of doing business in Rwanda in terms of government performance on JGA indicators in the eyes of the public, on laws related to corruption, investment and disputes related to business.

On the whole, this analysis combines a descriptive account with evaluative statements about the indicators and presents an opportunity to multiply the voices represented in the governance assessment process. It condudes with some recommendations aimed at strengthening both the governance process in Rwanda and the Monitoring Framework developed by the JGA. •

6 .. . ~t~ . • • ~ iI' ..

Rwa da Joint Governance Assessment -Do;a Anal.vsis Report:

Preface

According to the JGA, Governanc refers to lithe exerci e of economic, political, and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels, omprislng the mechanisms, processes} and institutions through which that aut ority is directed".' It evolves around a number of significant policy considerations, the leadership rna ners, processes, relatio ships and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interest exercise their civillibe ies and mediate their differences.

In post-genocide Rwanda, fundam ntal changes in govern nce and enhanced competitive performance in the economy are being pursu d as the vehicles for reconstruction, reconciliation and economic development. These processes h ve been anchored on good governance which is not "a matter of government only but a situation multiple criss-crossln relationships in which different and various actors in the public and private se ors at national and int rnationallevels play various roles, sometimes mutually reinforcing and compi entary, sometimes onflicting, but always following the same • principles and practices that are ag eed as constituents of ood governance." Drawing on the three main areas f governance identifie in the Rwanda Joint Governance Assessment (RGA) of 2008, this analysis rep rt seeks to provide i ormation on governance drawn from both perception surveys and hard da a. As such, the anal sis provides information and data on key governance issues in the hope that the GaR and DPs and 0 her JGAStakeholders wouid use it to not only to assess progress but also eng ge in a review of th JGA Monitoring Framework based on the effectiveness of the instrument to rovide data and infor ation that are most relevant in demonstrating whether Rwanda is moving in the r ght direction.

•

] Gcve-nment of Rwanda, Joint Governance Ass ssrnent (JGA) rleport, 2008, pi ;: Government of Rwanda, National Programme For Strengthening Good eove once for Poverty Rea'uetion In .Rwcnda, March 20C2 available on the web at: ht:o:/lwww.g-andsl

Rwanda joint Governance Assessment -Data Analysis Report

Acknowledgements

We would like to appreciate the support of various institutions and individuals who in their different capacities contributed to the successful conclusion of this data analysis.

We are grateful to the Government of Rwanda, UNDP and SIDA for their financial support for the JGA data collection and analysis phase. We are indebted to the JGA Steering and Technical Committees for invaluable input at the various stages in the preparation of this report and we appreciate the DPs' critique of the Final Draft Report which enabled usto refine the document.

We acknowledge the contribution of RGAC Research team and local consultants for data collection through field and desk surveys.

Finally, we wish to express our profound gratitude to Dr Frank Okuthe-Ovugi, the International Consultant for JGA data Analysis, for the work well done in undertaking the analysis and producing this report. •

Rwanda Governance Advisory Council Kigali, Rwanda, June 2010

•

4 •

•

Fr.-INa, de Joint GovernanceAssessment -Dotc Anaiys~'s Report

Acronyms and Abbreviatio 5

AfDB African Devere ment Bank BGI Broad Govern ee tndtcato-s BTC-eTB Belgian iechni a! Cooperation CIDA Canadian Inter .anona! Development Agency eso ovn Society0 anisation OFIO Department to International Deveiopment (U DPM Development artners Meeting DPR Development artners Retreat EC European Com 15510n Delegation EDPRS Economic Dev lopment & Poverty Reduction 5 rategv • FFRP Rwanda Worn n Parliamentary Forum GAC Governance A vtscrv.ccuncu GoR Government 0 Rwanda GMC Gender Monit ring Commission GTI German Coop ration Agency lGA Joint ecveme ce Assessment MIGEPROF Ministry of G der and Famiiy Promotion MINAlOC Ministry of La I Government, Good Governan e, Community Development nd Socia! Affairs MINECOFIN Ministry of Fin nee and Economic Planning MINEDUC Ministry of Ed cation MINAFFET Ministry of Fa ign Affairs MINUUST Ministry of Jus ice MININFRA Ministry of Inf astrucrure MoU Memorandum of Understanding NGO Non-Governm nteloreantaettcn NISR Nationallnstit te of Statistics of Rwanda NURC National Unity and Reconciliation Commission PEM P'"lblic Expendl ure Management PFM Public Finance Management PMEP Performance onitoring and Evaluation Plan PRS Poverty Redu ion Strategy PSGG Programme fo Strengthening Good ccvernen e RALGA Rwanda Assccanon of Local Government Auth rities RGAC Rwanda cove nance Advisory Council • RNE Royal Nether! nds Embassy RPSF Rwanda priva Sector reoeranon RRB Rwanda Reeo ciliation Barometer SC (JGAI Steering Committee soc Swiss Agency r Development and Cooperation Sida Swedish Inter ational Devetoomerrt Agency ToR "erms of Refe ence TC (JGAl7echnic I Committee U' United Kingdo UN United Nation UNDP United Natto s Development Programme USAID United States .geney for tntematicna! Devere ment WB wend Bank

3 ... -..tr-

Rwandajoint Governance Assessment-DataAnalysisReport

Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations 3 Acknowledgements 4 Preface 5 Executive Summary 6 Introduction and Background 7 Introduction: Contextualising the JGA _ 7 Background to the Analysis: The JGA Review Process ...... ••..•.•...... _ 8 Methodology of the Survey 8 Development of Research Instruments•...,.•,...... •.•.••...... •...... •.••••••••••••••.•..••.....•••, 8 Nature of Data and Data Collection Methods ...... •..., , 11 Desk Research , _•...... 14 1. Ruling Justly 17 Establishment and Maintenance of Security 17 Level of Confidence in Security Organs ...... •...... 17 • Level of Satisfaction for Citizen, Personal and Property Security 20 National Reconciliation and Transitional Justice 25 Trust between Different Categories ofPeople at the Community Level 2S The Rule of Law...... •..•...... , , 32 Human Rights and CivilUberties , _ 37 Women in Positions ofPower , ", 39 Institutions of Accountability 42 Ruling Justly: Summary of Percentile Ranking 46 Summary Matrix Analysis of Ruling Justly , 52 2. Government Effectiveness 63 Public Financial Management , 63 Anti-Corruption 67 Decentralization 7S Public Service Delivery 77 Government Effectiveness Centile Ranking 84 Summary Matrix Analysis of Government Effectiveness 86 3. Investment Climate and Corporate Governance 92 Ease of Doing Businessin Rwanda 92 Investment Oimate and Corporate Governance Centile Ranking 97 • Summary Matrix Analysis for Investment Climate and Corporate Governance " _•.•.•...98 4. Conclusion and General Recommendations 102

2