Appeal trial of SIMBIKANGWA. Wednesday the 2nd of November 2016. D5

• Hearing of Mr. Stéphane AUDOIN-ROUZEAU, study director at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS).
• Hearing of Mr Jacques SEMELIN, research director at the CNRS and teacher at Sciences Po.

Hearing of Mr. Stéphane AUDOIN-ROUZEAU, study director at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS).

The witness starts by recognising that hi si not a specialist of the Tutsi genocide, that he encountered this genocide belatedly, in 2008 : he regrets it. In 1994, he did not see this genocide that stayed outside the scope of his investigation. It was only later that he realised what happened in Rwanda and that he should have connected this genocide to the Armenian and Jewish genocide. He therefore wishes to “adopt a humility posture”.

Mr. AUDOIN-ROUZEAU realised then this it was in fact, a genocide in Rwanda. The definition he gives of this is not a legal one. What proves it is a genocide are the practices : “When we kill men, women, children and foetuses.. and throw them in a latrine, there is a genocide.” He added: “It wouldn’t have taken much more for this project to succeed”.

Moreover, “this genocide is absolutely linked to the other two genocides of the twentieth century, the genocide of the Armenians and the European Jews”. The ideological root is the same, it is european. This is a “late twentieth century-beginning of the twenty-first century racist and racialist” thought. Concerning Rwanda, this racialist though is also “colonial” : the settlers “classified” the Rwandese population, “they applied their ethnic way of thinking on Rwandan society”. The highlight of this policy : the creation of an identity card with a mention of the ethnic group in 1931, this identity card which will mean an immediate death sentence on the 1994 barriers !

There are prerequisites to talk about genocide : the war and the participation of the State. There is no genocide without war and the anxiety of defeat, the one triggered by the FPR in October 1990. The war is important because “it lowers the tolerance levels of violence”. No genocide either without a State, “Only a state can support such a massive crime”, a State with all it’s political and administrative apparatus. However, there is a specificity to the Tutsi genocide : the role played by the neighbours. “We cannot understand how quickly this genocide went without taking into account that it is a neighbourhood genocide”. Not to mention the central role of the media, such as the Kangura newspaper and RTLM (Radio Television Mille Collines). It is therefore absurd to speak of spontaneous pogroms.

Mr. AUDOIN-ROUZEAU completes his hearing by quoting Raul HILBERG, who wrote in 2006, in the latest edition of his book, “The destruction of the Jews of Europe” : “In Rwanda, history restarted where it left off in 1945”. The witness concluded : “The Tutsi genocide is an event that is not yet recognised at it’s fair mesure. We need to look at this genocide : if not, we murder the victims a second time.”

The questions asked by the President DE JORNA will give the witness an opportunity to provide some clarification. In Rwanda, we do not speak if “racial purity” because Hutu and Tutsi are not races. We can talk, like Sigmund FREUD said, of “narcissism of the little differences”. It is this minor difference that exacerbated the anxiety and was behind mass murders.
On the other hand, “there is no genocide without negationism” and those who commit it know they have to deny it (see Turkey currently). One form of the Tutsi genocide is the “double genocide” theory, an attempt to put things into perspective what happened in Rwanda between, April and July 1994 (Editors note : this notion of double genocide was echoed repeatedly by political french officials).

And it cannot be a “spontaneous revolt” in late April, there were 65 000 deaths in Kigali, a quarter of the population of the capital. The genocide will spread in the country according to the Governments movements or according to the intervention of this same government (See the beginning of the genocide in Butare after a speech from the Président SINDIKUBWABO): the genocide will spread into the hills and the “people will feel legitimised to commit genocide”.
As to dating the beginning of the genocide in 1959 like was “the tendency to do in Rwanda in political speeches or in the comments of the guides at memorials”, it’s “a bad way to address the question”. In 1994, we can see a change of scale and a change of nature in relation to the massacres that happened years before the genocide (see the churches place of refuge once, massacre sites in 1994).

In this genocide, we must emphasise the important role of the elite (teachers, doctors, priests…), as with the SS. “Intelligence and culture go hand and hand with the extermination thought”.
In Rwanda, there is a sense of having been abandoned by the international community in 1994. The departure of the UN force opened up new possibilities : “An area of deadly freedom opened.”
About reconciliation ? “I’m pretty wary of the Westerners requirement to seek reconciliation”, said the witness. “Most killers are released from prison and come back to live among their victims. In the countryside, survivors do not live peacefully, hostility is still present. The Tutsi population remains in danger in Rwanda : the fire is still under the ashes”. The witness then brought the words of a survivor he met : “ I ask God everyday for forgiveness to not be able to forgive !” As for the Gacaca, this “lawn justice”, they were important not for the reconciliation but for peace.”

The last question of the president concerns the “international disinterest” for this genocide. Even historians have been slow to understand what was happening. Would this be “a racism of the West, a general indifference” ? Mr AUDOIN-ROUZEAU comments : “Many of us here are distraught with regret. If Westerners could not understand the Armenian and Jewish genocide, in Rwanda however, it was possible to prevent it”. One consolation though ? The lesson learned in Rwanda may have served elsewhere, as in Ivory Coast !

The General Attorney, Mr Ludovic HERVELIN-SERRE, tries to compare the genocide and Rwanda and the Holocaust to the extent that, in 1940, the gas chambers was not the only way to exterminate the Jews (referring to the Holocaust by bullets in eastern Europe). The witness confirmed while stressing once again the role of the neighbours in Rwanda, as was the case in Poland, Ukraine and Belarus.
“In Rwanda, they had to prevent escape”, continues the General Attorney. The witness recognized that in Rwanda there were few places of refuge. The country is covered in barriers, control spots. The geography of the country imposed places of passage : very difficult to escape.
“Could an ordinary citizen not know what was coming ?” asked the Attorney General. The witness explained that there were lists of opponents; militia had been trained and militarized. Every citizen knew.

“What should we expect of the appel trial of SIMBIKANGWA ?” asks the Attorney General. Mr AUDOIN-ROUZEAU answered : “The French society remained very unconscious. The courtroom is empty. Would this have been the same had it been about TOUVIER ? French society is not interested in the (Tutsi) genocide. It does not want to know. This is a status of denial, with perverse forms of negationism. This is a trial with no immediate impact, but a trial for History”.
Mr CROSSON DU CORMIER admits that the fact of saying that the notion of genocide is a european importation is for him a disgrace. The witness is questioned on the existence of “specific causes in Rwanda in 1994”. The witness explained that in Rwanda were stories of murder, rape, but also predation. The killers stole the victims properties (metal sheets, cows, land…). These “windfalls” were tried by the Gacaca. It is even a “festive predation” : we eat meat from stolen cows, we waste… (Editors note : we could add “feasting” on return of the killings).

“We have talked of a lack of space in Rwanda to clarify the genocide ?” asked the General Attorney. Witnesses answer : “We find this phenomenon in Germany, with the notion of the need for living space. How to measure the lack of space ? Any right to return for exiles children was forbidden, and idea hammered into the populations mind since 1973… Today, Rwanda has more than 11 million inhabitants!”.

The floor was given to Mrs BOURGEOT for the defence. She reported the words of Raul HILBERG who said that in the “Rwandese disaster, there was no war”. She tries to oppose Mr GUICHAOUA, a true expert, to the witness who is a specialist of World War One ! What does Mr Filip REYNTJENS witness think, a well know, expert that refused to testify ?
The witnesses answer : Mr. HILBERG was old when he made those remarks! As for Mr. GUICHAOUA, “one can be an expert and not be right! I do not totally agree with GUICHAOUA on the chronology of the genocide, for example! “GUICHAOUA sets the beginning of the genocide on April 12? The witness did not agree.

Another defense issue: judicial time and the time of History?

“This is a fundamental issue. The passing of time is a disaster in the field of justice. For the historian, 22 years is nothing, and it is too much for justice. For historians, there is still much work to do. The social sciences are in the first phase of their work, while the legal time will be over! “ These were the comments of the witness.
Mrs BOURGEOT would like to lead the witness on ”the resentment that would be maintained by the incursions of the FPR” responsible therefore for the repercussions on the Tutsi inside! The witness will have to clarify that he is not a defender of the FPR and added that the attitude of the current government does not justify the violence of 1994!
And always the theme of “manipulation of witnesses” according to the defence! Answer by Mr. AUDOIN-ROUZEAU: “What strikes me in Rwanda is that the victims continue to feel threatened. The survivors are afraid and are an endangered minority.” The human rights associations say otherwise? GUICHAOUA talking about a genocide committed by the FPR in Zaire? This is not the opinion of the witness. In Zaire, it’s mass murder. But in any case there is no hierarchy in mass killings!

Mr. SIMBIKANGWA to whom the floor is given resumed the same ”chorus” we have known for a week now. He recognised that there was a genocide in Rwandan only later ? Even the UN was slow. And there were many forces in Rwanda (UN, FAR, FPR …). And he concludes, imperturbable: “It is through the procedure I learned that people have lost their family!” (Editors not. At the first trial, he confessed that he became aware of the genocide by reading a book by RUZIBIZA while in Mayotte!)

 

Hearing of Mr Jacques SEMELIN, research director at the CNRS and teacher at Sciences Po.

The witness starts by qualifying the Tutsi genocide of a “monstrous phenomenon”. And he questions the interpretation we will make of his remarks. He admits to being here in memory of Raphaël LEMKIN, inventor of the concept of genocide. He talks about his triple training as a psychologist, a historian and a sociologist but refuses to consider himself a specialist of Rwanda. He is a “general analyst of mass crimes”. He added that “wanting to understand does not mean to excuse the perpetrators”. It’s showing the logic that will be implemented by involving many people. “Understanding everything ?”. Impossible, but the witness asks “How can we get there ?”. There is what he calls “the black hole of our barbarism”. He added that the word “genocide” has seen a great “inflation because of the competition of remembrance. All mass killings aren’t a génocide.” Need here to weigh the meaning of words.

To understand the génocide, we must start with the notion of “massacre” : “a collective action of destruction of non-combatants. There is a multiplicity of causes, it is impossible to know the cause of this event”. The genocide is a slow process that knows inflections and then a strong acceleration.

According to the witness a genocide cannot be committed in any country. There needs to be a socio-economic crisis, an institutional crisis, a crisis of the elites. All this was set up in Rwanda in the 80s.

There is also a need to emphasise the role of ideology. The “identity entrepreneurs” will offer a reading go people’s misfortune. We will appoint a “THEM” (Tutsi) and a “WE” (Hutu), victims of History. “This time they won’t get us !”. We must defend ourselves against “THEM”, the Tutsi, these foreigners that came after the Hutu! These “THEM” are many : therefore we will animalize them (snakes, cockroaches..). As for the “figure of the suspect”, it’s a Hutu, but a traitor, an enemy too.

The witness added : “We begin to kill with words, words pre-from mass crimes. Small violence precedes great violence. If this type of ideology takes power, we cross a new line when the war happened (starting 1990). When war is there, the individual behaves differently, he defends his group. What changes, is the way they see others. You’re with me or against me ? Are you Hutu or Tutsi ? We attack non-combatants.”

The international context is central. The massacre is a co-product of a local situation and international situation. This is a fundamental factor. He quotes TACITE, historian and roman senator, to illustrate this situation : “ Some wanted it, some did it, all let it happen”. The politician should be there to “calm the unruly horse”. In Rwanda, the politician lashed the unruly horse!” He added : “The planners do not kill, the organisers kill little and the implementer kills.” Expression that will be used by the president and will bring the witness to clarify that “he who does not kill is responsible. Mass crime aims to the massification of crime” : a lot of victims and a lot of killers.

“You wan switch to crime for career reasons, compliance to others, because they believe in it. Even those who are forced must find reasons, they must be justified in doing what they do, whether they are men or women.”

The witness mentions the “pathetic future of the killer/saviour” : “Who wants to save a Tutsi (friend, neighbour, family…) must kill others to give a sort of compliance pledge to the others.” This notion of “killer/saviour” is distinct from that of a “Just”. In Rwanda, à Just is a Hutu that takes considerable risks to save a Tutsi. But this was rare. This notion of “killer/saviour” is similar to that of Primo LEVIs “gray area”, a moment of humanity from executioners in the camps for example. Few “killer/saviours” in Rwanda : everyone is invited to participate in the Tutsi hunt, even the children !

To conclude, Mr SEMELIN names two types of mass criminals :

1. One wants to conquer a territory, destroy to submit an the FPR is not free of this type of practice.
2. One wants to destroy to eradicate, uproot the other like a poisonous plant, like an infectious virus. That is what happened in Rwanda.

A question from the president give the witness an occasion to clarify his thought. In Rwanda, we did everything to make the Westerners leave so that there is the least possible witnesses… At the UN, we decided to withdraw the international troops, a gesture that is considered by the Rwandan authorities as a green light to commit the genocide.

Mr FOREMAN, lawyer for the CPCR, wants to know if the witness worked on Mr SIMBIKANGWAs writings, especially on a letter of the 6th of August 1962 that can be found in his book “The October War”. The witness answered in the negative. We shall later return to this document.
Intervention of the General Attorney, Mr HERVELLIN-SERRE. He would like clarification on the fact that in Rwanda, people were prevented from fleeing. Mr SEMELIN clears that in Rwanda, we went further than in ex-Yugoslavia that practiced an “ethnic cleansing”. The Tutsi are prevented from fleeing to exterminate them : “This time they will not escape us !”

The rapid implementation of the barriers is clearly evidence that this was organised, not improvised. However, it is not sure that the scale of the killings was planned ! Since 1993, we have seen a massive purchase of machetes, information that reaches the United Nations who does not take action.
The General Attorney asked the witness what importance he attaches to the trial. For him “it is essential for remembrance, for History, for Justice. It is essential that this trial is taking place in France; essential procedure for our humanity”.

In response to a question of Mr CROSSON DU CORMIER, attorney general, the witness explained : “We must distinguish the crime of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The crime of genocide is to eradicate a group according to criteria set by the ideologues. There is a compelling need for security that lead the killer to eliminate someone. But all individuals are not held by the dominants speech. All Hutu did not become genocidal. To specify that the first victims were the so-called ‘moderate Hutu’, traitors.”

Mrs BOURGEOT, as usual, would like to lead the witness on a path that does not concern the present case : Frances responsibilities, a subject matter the witness wrote about in an article of Le Monde in 2008. She also referred to the latest twist in the case of the attack against President HABYARIMANA : a former head of the FPR, Kayumba NYAMWASA, refugee in South Africa, wants to give his testimony in which he accuses President KAGAME of having shooting down the plane. The president intervenes by asking to not have discussions between proffeionnals in order to not lose the jury, who probably did not know anything about the latest twist.

The day ends with the screening of a documentary aired in late 1994 as part of the show “La marche du siècle” by Jean-Marie CAVADA : “State of emergency : Rwanda, autopsy of a genocide”.

Hearings are adjourned at 6:40pm.

Alain GAUTHIER, Chairman of the CPCR

(translated by Leah TSHABALALA)