NEWS RELEASE – Dec. 6, 2006

UN ICTR- ADAD
Arusha, TZ
[Association de Avocat de la Defence]

ARUSHA, TZ, Dec. 6, 2006 – Following conclusion of testimony from UNAMIR second-in-command, Belgian Col. Luc Marchal, the Bureau of ADAD re-iterates its call for the investigation and prosecution of members of the RPF/RPA and Rwandan President Kagame by the ICTR Prosecutor as required by the mandate of the UN Security Council Resolutions 955 (1994); 1503 (2003) and 1534 (2004).

The Bureau of the ADAD notes with alarm the November 23, 2006 Press Conference of ICTR Deputy-Registrar, Everard O’Donnell, and an ICTR Press Statement of November 30, 2006 [both of which are available as e-mail attachments], which further call in to question the impartiality of the Tribunal These public statements from the ICTR, itself, both appear calculated to discredit ADAD, and the defence more generally, for the offense of calling attention to facts that are in the public record…and which are an open secret to all those who have followed the history of the ICTR.

The fact remains that the ICTR was mandated by the UN Security Council to prosecute crimes international level that occurred in Rwanda in 1994, and that this mandate has NOT been carried out during the 12 years ICTR’s existence. The fact also remains that it is ONLY recently discovered evidence which confirms that RPF/RPA crimes had been known to the UN since at least October 1994, and that sufficient evidence to prosecute Kagame for the assassination of former President Habyarimana has been known to the Prosecutor since at least 1997.

Col. Marchal has added his testimony to the eye-witness evidence already in the ICTR record, and confirmed by French Judge Bruguiere, that Kagame’s assassination of Habyarimana was the first phase of a war of aggression that began on the night of April 6, 1994. Col. Marchal also testified that, from a military standpoint, the rapid RPF/RPA advance between April and July 1994 could only have been accomplished as the result of a well-organized and executed military plan.

By attempting to distract attention away from this growing body of evidence, the public attacks on ADAD by organs of the Tribunal, and representatives of the Rwandan government, merely confirm that ADAD’s concerns regarding the lack of impartiality at the ICTR are well-founded.

The November 23, 2006 Press Conference (which Hirondelle News Service noted was held with the Rwandan Representative to the ICTR); the public attack on ADAD by the Rwandan Representative to the Tribunal himself on the same day; and, the November 30, 2006 ICTR Press Statement (which attempts to put a benign face on a completely improper position by the Tribunal, itself)….ALL call into question the fundamental impartiality and integrity of the ICTR process. [copies available as e-mail attachment].

The obviously one-sided character of the operation of the ICTR is detailed in the Statement issued by ICTR Detainees in response to the November 23 Press Conference of the Deputy Registrar.

Unlike either the Prosecution or Defence, the Tribunal is obligated to adhere to principles of impartiality and fairness which are seriously compromised when Tribunal administrators and spokespersons publicly comment upon the substance of cases currently pending before the Tribunal. This impression of partiality or bias is of particular concern when only one side in a war-time situation has been held to account, which is the unfortunate history of the ICTR to this date.

The demand of ADAD to investigate and prosecute all crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994 is nothing more than insistence that the ICTR adhere to the mandate of the Security Council which established the Tribunal. There is nothing in the Rules of the Tribunal that would prevent the President, or the Chambers, from requiring that the Office of the Prosecutor fulfill the mandate of the Tribunal.

First: The Report of Judge Bruguiere is merely an example of the new evidence from a wide range of sources, including the testimony of Col. Marchal, as well as previously classified UN and US documents that are part of the record in Military 1, but have not been available in any previous trials.

Second: IN July 2005, former U.S. Ambassador to Rwanda 1990-1993, Robert Flaten, as well as Col Marchal and others have testified that there was no plan for a “Genocide” of which he or US, European or UN intelligence sources were aware. Marchal also testified that the FAR response to Habyarimana’s assassination was “not planned” and had none of the indications of a “coup”.

Third: Massacres Hutu civilians on a huge scale by the Tutsi military had occurred in Burundi in late 1993 and 1988…and former U.S. Ambassador Flaten testified that he personally warned Kagame in early December 1993 that he would be responsible for predictable massacres of civilians, like those which had just occurred in Burundi after the assassination of Pres. Ndayi in October 1993.

Fourth: In addition to the findings of Judge Bruguiere, the sworn testimony of Col Marchal and sworn testimony of former RPF officers, who were members of the 1994 assassination team, as well as, former former attorneys and investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor Michael Hourigan and Amoudou Deme [who independently investigated the assassination of Habyarimana and recommended prosecution to Prosecutor Louise Arbour in 1997] establish that Kagame’s order to assassinate Habyarimana was transmitted by April 1, 1994.

Fifth: According to Gen. Dallaire’s testimony, it was he who blocked the investigation of the crash site by a team of French investigators, who were already in Africa and could have been on site in a matter of hours because he decided the investigation would not be credible (even though French nationals were also victims of the missile attack).

Sixth: The military superiority of the RPA/RPF as of February 1993 is not subject to dispute. Contemporaneous Code Cables of April 24, 1994 from Gen. Dallaire to the U.N. report that the RPA/RPF was not concerned with civilian casualties, but with winning the war.

Seventh: Every military expert to examine the capabilities of each side, has testified that the military superiority of the RPF/RPA meant that the refusal of the RPA/RPF to negotiate a ceasefire until the civilian killings stopped was an impossible condition for the over-stretched FAR troops, which has further been confirmed by Col Marchal.

Eighth: On May 25, 1994, a formal legal opinion from the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs reported that the Interim Government, based on the 1991 Constitution, was a legal government with which the RPF should negotiate, since the proposed Arusha Accords structure had been made obsolete the by resumption of hostilities by the RPF.

Even if it were proper for spokespersons for the Tribunal to comment on evidence in ongoing trials, which it is NOT, ADAD invites all representatives of the international press to examine the new documentary evidence and testimony in the Military 1 Trial, to make an independent evaluation of these issues, as have Judge Bruguiere and Col. Marchal.

- 30 –

Prof. Peter Erlinder, ADAD President [Eng.]
peter.erlinder@wmitchell.edu
U.S. phone: 1-651-290-6384
ICTR phone: ext. 5073 [TZ cell: 075-425-1460

Me. Christopher Black, ADAD Press Counseilier [Fr.]
bar@idirect.com
ICTR phone: ext. 5288 [TZ cell: 075-266-6972]