Appeal trial of SIMBIKANGWA. Thursday the 3rd of November 2016. D6

Hearing of Mrs Hélène DUMAS, researcher at the CNRS

Preamble : Mrs DUMAS wants to start her hearing by the evocation of the research she is conducting in Rwanda. He work on the archives of the CNLG, kept a the Police headquarters, regarding the former Gisenyi prefecture. A thousand documents that reveal that there was an intellectual preparation of the genocide and that traditional weapons were distributed by the Ministry of Defence. There is also special care given by the government to counting the population, and especially the Tutsi. “We are surprised by the means set up to identify the population”, continues the witness.  He added that since 1990, the population is taught to be wary because “the enemy disguises himself as a beggar, as a madman, as an old woman…” Civilians must invest in the hunt for Tutsis (see BIKINDI songs).

Regarding the “practical preparation of the genocide”, there are traces of massacres in the towns of Kibira dn Giciye, among others. There is also a list of property stolen from the victims drawn up in two parishes in the region. An accurate report covers the weapon distributions to the municipal police. « In this region, the communal police is over-armed ! »

Gacaca. They are criminal courts set up between 2002 and 2012 because of Rwandan prisons being overcrowded but also because the genocide reached the most intimate social ties. « Violence has reached the innermost basis of relationships, even within families. This was to reduce the crimes to the private sphere. »

« Elders, wise men », Inyangamugayo, who experienced the genocide, are designated as judges, whether Tutsi or Hutu. The trials have as a basis to take into account the confessions of the killers. The executioners were led to denounce their accomplices, because they killed in groups (Ibitero), but also to indicate where the victims bodies were dumped.

Around the killers stories will be merged with the victims and survivors stories, when there are any. It is important to specify that the survivors are fragile and a minority in this process for justice.

Another reality will be covered by the Gacaca : rape, recognized as a genocide weapon.

We cannot say that the defendants were disadvantaged in these trials which sometimes take place outdoors (lawn justice), closest to the crimes. The witness gave the example of the Kibuye Gacaca that were held in the same stadium where more than 10, 000 Tutsi were exterminated.

It is also important that the trials could take place in the countrys language, Kinyarwanda. Interestingly , we use an appropriate vocabulary : when we say that children were « dumped » in the latrine, we adopt the same word for « dumping garbage ». It’s enlightening.

Main actors. The witness reported the word of a survivor who always repeats the same haunting question : « Why was it my neighbours that killed my children », and not people from the outside ?

In the Gacaca, people of various social statuses were tried, not only, as is wrongly said, « small killers », a notion we cannot accept. Even if we must recognise that that the ICTR tried the « planners », the « organizers ».

It must be noted that during the Gacaca, more than a hundred people were killed to prevent them from testifying.

At the end of the genocide, in 1994, about 120 000 people are incarcerated in Rwandese prisons. In 2012, there are still 60 000 imprisoned for genocide.

The post-genocide Rwanda is marked by the economic miracle in the city of Kigali. But the witness, who works with survivors, has a less idyllic view of the situation. Despite the security in Rwanda, survivors continue to live in a form of fear. They are afraid to return to family lands.

« The head of household children » have not returned to the hills, because of this fear. During the commemorations in April, « the killers continue to make threats, to kill the survivors cow, to defecate outside his door… ». And at each commemoration there are traumatic reactions. Cries, screams rise from the stadiums tribunes or meeting places : “Baraje! They are coming !”. And this despite the authorities request to ban from the screens images of the killings, to sing less sad songs and more hopeful ones. The Rwandese society is really weakened by the genocide : victims and executioners are condemned to live together, especially on the hills.

The President lists all places of justice : the ICTR, which ran from November 1994 to October 2015 (about 90 people were tried and about 60 convictions), the Gacaca, that covered nearly two million cases, and the national conventional courts. The witness states that until 2008, the Gacaca only tried categories 2, 3 and 4. From that date on, they will also judge the first category and rape crimes. In Rwanda, are also tried those who are extradited. (Editors note : note that the french justice has always refused (about thirty decisions) to send back to Rwanda people suspected of being involved in the genocide under the false pretext that the organic law punishing genocide in Rwanda was post-genocide. Even if we denounce this situation -see the article by Danien ROETS (in french), law teacher at the University of Limoges- the Cour de Cassation keeps its jurisprudence).

The impunity that took over for 30 years has fostered impunity, recognized Mr. DE JORNA. The witness recognizes that indeed, the 50s and 60s crimes were amnestied. The Gacaca have helped many to understand that this impunity was over, “the Gacaca was a legal response to impunity”.

“Confessions ?”  questions the President. “Sincere contrition or circumstantial confession to get a lesser sentence ?” Mrs. DUMAS must recognize that contrition was often absent from these judgments and that “calculation” was the rule.

“Was there phenomenon of false testimonies, of delation ?” continues the President. “In a process of such magnitude, answers Mrs DUMAS,  there have of course been cabals, manufactured evidence. Very often, when it comes to theft, the people sentenced to repay their victims never do. 14% of the people tried will however be acquitted. We must not forgot that in the Gacaca, there were neither lawyers nor judges. The first part consisted in gathering testimonies, which can be likened to an investigation in our judicial system.     The accused appeared in court either free or detained. A large number of suspects were freed for various reasons : age, sickness, confession of their crimes…”. One should not forget the religious context too, in which the killings were conducted, and the fact that all Hutu were not genocidal, and that some were victims.

The president comes back to the notion of “killer/savior” : we save, but we kill !

About this notion, Mrs DUMAS talks about what she calls “parody marriages” : we welcome Tutsi women during the genocide, we save them but we rape them. They become “sexual objects”. But the argument that consists in saying “I saved a Tutsi” may turn against the one who says it. They may be accused of not saving others. Other people were sentenced for complicity, even in rape cases : one designates the “prey”, the other denounces her, another encourages the rape. This is an opportunity fot the witness to highlight the role of women in the genocide : 6% of the people that participated in the genocide were women, they “closed off the political place of refuge” according to the witness.

The President, probably to lighten the mood, talks about the book “Petit Pays” runner up for the Goncourt (Editors note : which since then it did not get), as an event likely to open up free speech. The witness explained that in Rwanda people rapidly felt free to express themselves. Support groups exist. It is the IBUKA (“Remember” in Kinyarwanda) association that tries to help survivors. As to whether or not it is a political force, the witness answered that it depended on the current  presidents personality.

Mr. DE JORNA asks whether the trials taking place outside Rwanda have an impact on the country. If we are talking about the ICTR trials, that Rwanda wished would take place in Rwanda, they had little impact. All the documents weren’t translated in Kinyarwanda, there was no monitoring of the victims who testified. About this present trial, Mrs DUMAS admit that there was but one television covering it. In Rwanda “one does not always understand the way french justice works. It is more the extradition refusals that have an impact”. (Editors note : national radios have broadcast interviews of the CPCR chairman, and the Newtimes also published articles).

Regarding the relationship between Hutu and Tutsi, even if in Rwanda everyone is Rwandan, everyone knows everyone. “Imagine a survivor of the Holocaust married a Nazis child!” The composition of the Gacaca juries did not consider “ethnicity”. On the other hand, there was a concern for parity between men and women. The Gacaca could not give out death sentences, a sentence abolished in 2007.

Mrs Domitille PHILIPART examines the witness on the notion of negationism. “There is an official vulgate that places the beginning of the genocide in 1959. Several types of negationism are mentioned : the one that comes from the outside (PÉAN for example), the one that defends the french army and the one from the killers themselves. The ICTR convicts, for their part, often only recognize one genocide, the Hutu genocide !” Other example of negationism, the one we find in books published by the editor “Les Sources du Nil”. The Bisesero survivors are presented as being part of the FPR army ! In some cercles, we continue to attribute the attack against HABYARIMANAs plane to the FPR ! But no matter the author, what does this change to the fact that the Tutsi genocide happened ?

To the question asked by Mr Ludovic HERVELIN-SERRE, who would like to know if there is in Rwanda a submission to authority, the witness replied that it is not a cultural trait. There is no systematic obedience. One only need to see the freedom the killers took in the atrocities committed. “Working” meant “killing”. A “routinization of massacres” was operated. And it is clear that the génocide was well prepared : weapon distributions, implementation of a “civil defense”… If Kigali was the “nerve center” of the genocide, there were mass murders very early in Cyangugu, for example, on the other side of the country. Asked whether the prefet RENZAHO has his city cleaned, the witness advises us to watch a documentary by Jean-Christophe KLOTZ : “Images for a massacre” that shows dump trucks collecting bodies from the second week. It was therefore impossible, if you were in Kigali, to not see corpses. Worse, “its reeks of death”. “Could there be a loss of time markers for the victims ?” asks the General Attorney. It is a constant in the testimonies to have witnesses lose spatiotemporal marks. “Days were nights, nights were days” admits the witness. A Witness can give various versions of the same facts considering the intensity of the trauma.

Mr CROSSON DU CORMIER is surprised that people in Rwanda do not know the french judicial system (Editors note : amazing indeed. The CPCR chairman, on each of his trips to Rwanda, explains how the french courts work, especially when there are extradition refusals!).

Mr FOREMAN, lawyer for the CPCR, would like the witness to enlighten the jurors on the Kangura newspaper and it’s publication in many “rags” of which we can see many examples in the Dominican archives. And alluding to the newspaper Ikinani, newspaper that SIMBIKANGWA participated in.

Mrs BOURGEOT, lawyer for the defense, spoke in turn, but to ask questions already raised, such as the media coverage of the french trials in Rwanda. However, on the contrary of what she said, the Gacaca did not only address the rural genocide. There were many trials in Kigali. The lawyer reminds us that the relationship with the ICTR were often strained. The witness then reports the example of a woman that testifies to the rape she suffered and a judge will ask since when she had not washed (Editors note : which resulted in smiles in the audience and the anger of the Rwandan authorities). Hence Rwandas decision to not collaborate with the ICTR anymore.

Mr SIMBIKANGWA, to whom the floor was given last, made no comment.

Screening of the documentary by Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, David HAZAN and Pierre MEZETETTE, released on the 17th of November 2004.

Hearing is adjourned at 4pm.

Warning ! On the morning of Monday the 7th of November, Mr CRUVELLIER and Mr TWAGIRAMUNGU initially planned to come will not. They will be replaced by Pierre PÉAN also for the defense.

Alain GAUTHIER, CPCR Chairman

(translated by Leah TSHABALALA)