SIMBIKANGWA appeal trial. Friday the 4th of November. D7.

• Report from René DEGNI-SEGUIs, UN Special Envoy in Rwanda.
• Hearing of Gaspard MUSABYIMANA, writer/editor, researcher, for the defense.
  

The witness DEGNI-SEGUI, who was to be heard today, resides in Ivory Coast and for logistical reasons was unable to travel to Bobigny : his requirements for transport could not be met. A videoconference was considered but his country was not in a position to organise it. The court decided to proceed without however giving up on hearing him. It was therefore decided, in the meantime, to proceed to read the report he submitted in 1994.

The Court decides to disregard the hearings of Mr. Thierry CRUVELLIER (unreachable) and Mr. Faustin TWAGIRAMUNGU (ill) scheduled for Monday the 7th of November. The defence asks to hear Mr. Pierre PÉAN!

Mr. René DEGNI-SEGUI, UN Special Envoy in Rwanda

Mr. René DEGNI-SEGUI was a member of the FIDH Fact-Finding Mission in 1993 alongside Jean CARBONARE and other human rights activists. In June 1994, he will travel to Rwanda as a United Nations special envoy. The Chairman proposes to read the report he drafted.

28th of June 1994 report. During his stay in Rwanda, Mr. DEGNI-SEGUI met with all sides and visited symbolic sites, such as the Amahoro Stadium.. The attack on the plane is presented as “the immediate cause of the dramatic events” that continue to unfold. The envoy notes a certain frustration of the people encountered, prey to the terror of the militias. Mr DEGNI-SEGUI speaks of massacres “of an unprecedented scale” perpetrated by the Interahamwe. In the area occupied by the RPF, he notes that there have been few deaths. The massacres targeted Tutsis and moderate Hutus, “against naked and defenceless people”. The genocide spread throughout the country following the exhortations of the political authorities. A “house to house manhunt” was organised.

At this stage of the reading, Mr. Régis DE JORNA questions the accused. “Mr. SIMBIKANGWA, you were there. You have just heard the report. How do you explain that you didn’t see anything ?”

Mr. SIMBIKANGWA : “My problem is not to not recognise that there were deaths. I went out a little late, the first time on the 9th of April. The town-hall had already moved the bodies I am lucky to have not seen any dead. Béatrice reminded me of a body burning at Nyamirambo. Because of the curfew of the 7th, I did not go out. The FAR and the FPR were there and I always thought the two were fighting. The  two guards who accompanied me went out on the 8th to accompany my “brother” (Bonaventure MUTANGANA) who had gone to fetch Mr. HIGIRO. It is well knows that the Tutsi were threatened since 1960 !”

To the President’s question, who insists on the outing of the 9th, the accused speaks of “malice towards him”. “I am neither Plato nor Socrates. I’m honest. If I have not seen anything! Haven’t seen bodies on the road!”. He speaks of the “depth of the disaster, so important”, adding that “Rwandans have become liars. What is told comes out of the truth !” (Editors note : not always coherent, reasoning was hard to follow).

Mr. DE JORNA asked the accused if the images we saw (projection the day before of “Tuez les tous”) are fake. “Is it a montage ?”

As usual, the accused did not answer the question : “There were deaths, even in my entourage, in my family. We do not want to know the truth”. He calls to mind his own personal case : “We take the innocent, and blame them !”

The president insists. “We insist because we are incredulous about your testimony. We read in the file that you never saw any dead bodies, that the images were made by American television in Byumba in the zone held by the FPR.” SIMBIKANGWA answered : ”There were deaths in the area held by the FPR. I am a fair man. I have spent 8 years in jail for a fake case. Nothing can prove that I am not saying the truth. I would never have served eight years in prison if we followed the judges !”

The president reminded him that it was the French justice that brought him to the Assize Court, not the witnesses.  “It is a french magistrate who took the decision. The order concerning the grounds for detention was drafted by a magistrate”. The defendant clashes swords again : “This time, I hope that the French justice will not be abused !”

Back to the DEGNI-SEGUI report. We talk of “programmed massacres”, shelf mark D186. There is talk of “the media and governments hatred”, there is talk of “weapons distributions to the population, training of militiamen”. The envoy notes the “speed of the massacres just after the attack !”. Barriers were installed 30 to 45 minutes after the plane crashed. The list of people to execute circulates and one witnesses the assassination of the leaders. People describe “the horror of the killings” and you say you never went out! Before 1994, there was an exhortation to ethnic hatred ! “You, you were aware of this. Was intelligence your job ?”

As sole reply, SIMBIKANGWA recalls that “DEGNI-SEGUI was part of the CARBONARE commission, which made many mistakes. They refused to receive me. Before HABYARIMANAs death, there was nothing !”. When the president asks him if he ever heard hate messages, the accused talks about “Radio Muhabura”, the FPR radio, and the RTLM which he rarely listened to : “It was my radio but it did not provide me with what I wanted” (Editors note : he was a shareholder).

And the mass distribution of weapons ? “I was never a witness to this but I heard of it. The weapons distributed to the Interahamwe were recovered”. What about the barricades ? “There have been barriers since 1990. Civilians did not occupy them until after, to fight robbers and thieves !”.

When the president continues reading the report, highlighting the human rights violations caused by the refusal to alternation, incitement to hatred, impunity.. The appearance of the Hutu Power, the assassination of the Prime Minister…, the accused disagrees with Mr. DEGNI-SEGUIs analysis. For him, the President made too many concessions to the opposition.

Mr. EPSTEIN arises and denounces the fact that can be no “contradictory debate” in the absence of the witness.

Unperturbed, the President continued reading the report. Ethnic incitement and violence, bloodthirsty killers and preparing to exterminate, publication of the Bahutu Ten Commandments, the RTLM, harmless in it’s French programs but very aggressive in Kinyarwanda ! Mr. DE JORNA is surprised to have never heard the accused denounce these abuses. The latter defends himself as best he can. And when a juror questions him on the list of people to execute, SIMBIKANGWA replies that his name is also on the list. But it is pointed out to him that we was not executed ! (Editors note : are we talking about the same list ? At this stage, we get lost in the explanations!)

Mrs Rachel LINDON, for LICRA, asks short question. Must she call him Captain ? “Call me General” ironies the accused. The lawyer refers to the termination of certain investigations at the end of this investigation. The accused pointed out that this was the case concerning Mrs UMULINGA, which was refuted by Mrs PHILIPPART who pointed out that it was because the time-limite has expired that Mrs UMULINGA is not in the case anymore.

Mrs. LINDON continues. “The introductory sheet declares a dismissal for the facts occurring in Kesho. But you did not see a single corpse. Do you have a problem with your sight, your hearing, your sense of smell ? 65 000 dead and you heard nothing, saw nothing, smelt nothing ?” “ The smells I heard them (sic) everywhere !” replied the accused, loosing his ground. The latter, questioned on the RTLM and the notion of “cockroach”, “Inyenzi”, will explain the origine and use of the word? “You had a phone”, continued the lawyer, “you didn’t call anyone ?” The accused acknowledges that he called the Presidency and the Presidential Guard.

It’s the General Attorneys turn to question the accused : he wants to know what the importance of the accused is at that time. “Even if I did not work any more, I was important !”. Mr. CROSSON DU CORMIER also wants to know why he is on this famous 200 list. After evading the question, he declares that it’s because he is close to HABYARIMANA.

Will follow a tense discussion about the various partial termination of investigations contained in the case. The reasons why? Either certain the time limit had passed to prosecute certain facts (torture and barbarism) or  there was a lack of evidence (Kesho, death of the UMULINGO family). Mr. EPSTEIN may well say that it was because there were fake witnesses, and he is told that this is not the official reason : not enough evidence.

Mr. FOREMAN attempted, despite protest from the defence, to explain the CPCR’s approach in it’s constitution of complaints. He attacks the defence that would make one believe the termination of investigation are “patents of innocence”. “It’s FALSE” the attorney hammered, “the accused benefited from insufficient evidence !”.

The General Attorney CROON DU CORMIER embarked on a pedagogical lesson for jurors who must feel a little lost by the turn of the debate. “No one disputed the presence of the CPCR as a civil party. You, the jury, are going to judge. Terminations were pronounced on facts that the judge thinks don’t have enough evidence. I am here to support the accusation. The Public Prosecutor’s Office did not appeal against the terminations. You will be 12 to decide on what has been said. The facts are serious.”

This intervention brings back a little serenity in the debates, which the defense congratulates itself for before questioning it’s client. Mr EPSTEIN wants the accused to clearly say what his status was in 1994. He especially wants to make it clear that SIMBIKANGWA is no longer what he once was. A question on Muhabura Radio gives the opportunity to the accused to clarify that it is a FPR radio, a propaganda radio in oder to take power. The lawyer wants to know why his client did not denounce the killings. The accused referes back to his book  « La guerre d’octobre » (1991) to give attribute responsability of what happened to the FPR. « The FPR knew that with the gerrilla warfare it led would mean tribal hatred. I was worried about the Tutsi. I wanted this war to end. »

The dialogue between the lawyer and his client ends on the report by DEGNI-SEGUI. « War/genocide ? It is a political question rather than an ethnic one. The FPR did everything to sow chaos and take power . »

 

Hearing of Gaspard MUSABYIMANA, writer/editor, researcher, for the defense.

The witness testified that he knew the accused when he himself worked at the Inteligence Service as Director of Human Resources. « He was a civil servant like any other. I know him as someone brave. I have nothing reprehensible to say against him. » He was surprised that SIMBIKANGWA could be blamed for committing the genocide. « In a wheelchair ? It’s like saying the slug burned down the forest ! ». The spontaneous testimony of the witness ends there and we quickly realise that we will not know much more, even with the series of questions that will follow.

The president wanted to know the organisation of the Central Intelligence Service and whether the witness had special ties with the accused. The witness described the organization chart : four sections (immigration/internal intelligence/external intelligence/human ressources). The witness is director of the latter sector. Nothing more about the accused.

Mr. DE JORNA reffered to the fact that the witness went to the ICTR in two cases : Casimir BISIMUNGU and Protais ZIGIRANYIRAZO, aka Mr. Z, brother of Mrs HABYARIMANA. Mr MUSABYIMANA admits that he went to the ICTR at the request of Mr PHILIPPOT that wanted him to interviene as an expert. His report is entitled « The Akazu and it’s political instrumentalisation » (August 2006). Will follow explanations on the notion of Akazu, Réseau Zéro and the Death Squadrons .

Akazu

According to the witness, this word entered politics in 1991 with the birth of multiparty politics and this to the discredit of HABYARIMANAs discredit. Being a member of the Akazu was dangerous and accusing someone belonging to it was meant to sully them. Relatives to Agathe HABYARIMANA are cited as part of the Akazu (Élie SAGATWA, ZIGIRANYIRAZO…(Editors note : Not to mention Seraphin RWABUKUMBA hardly mentioned and never prosecuted!) The witness presents himself as a researcher and not as close to power. He was a member of the MRND. The witness also mentionned the existence of « infiltrated ennemies », these FRP members that hold the economical power.  To quote Valens KAJEGUHAKWA, « infiltrated fighters » !

The president noted that the ICTR used the word Akazu as a basis for it’s allegations, the witness did not fail to point out in turn that « Z, accused of being a member of th Akazu was aquitted » (Editors note : Z was aquitted on appeal but the witness was careful not to give the reasons why. The five judges of the Appeals Chamber found that their colleagues had « seriously misled themselves in the processing of the evidence » and that they had no other choice but to acquit).

The witness will conclude on the subject by stating that the Akazu never existed. He opposed to this Mrs Alison DESFORGES that « made many mistakes » . The witness takes the opportunity to scratch the researchers who feed each other without even confronting their research. He added that there are « blatant flaws » in the 1993 FIDH report.

Network Zero

The notion was invented by Christophe MFIZI, then adviser to the president. Having been in trouble with Mr. Z, he was dismissed from the ORINFOR (Rwanda Information Office). He then published a report that opened the doors to the MDR party. It is therefore a vengeance against Z. For the witness, MFIZI practiced « belly politics ».

Death Squadrons

This term is not unique to Rwanda and was invented or even imported by Janvier AFRICA. This airport porter created a newspaper, UMURAVA Magazine. He had been hired as an indicator by SIMBIKANGWA and was recovered by Édouard KARAMIRA from the MDR. Then the FPR will take him in turn. But the FPR having killed his parent, he fled the country. It is alledged that the Death Squadrons met at SIMBIKANGWAs at the place called The Synagogue. The witness concludes the subject by saying that the Citizen Survey was in turn abused by Janvier AFRICA. For MUSABYIMANA, « everything was demonized to discredit the HABYARIMANA regime in oder to seize power ».

« MUSABYIMANA, researcher or defender of ZINGIRANYIRAZO ? » asks the president , who refers to an article published by the witness entitled « The misuse of the concept of judicial notice before the ICTR » (May 2010), a text shared at a conference in Brussels.

The witness explains. « This document does not concern the notion of genocide but concerns the fact that it is a conflict comming from Uganda ». Mr. MUSABYIMANA contests « the abusif ICTR judgments, the biased reports by the experts, the genisis of Rwadas aggression by Uganda, the facts and testimonies about Rwandas aggression by the neighbouring country ». For him, in 1990, « it is Uganda that attacks Rwanda ! ».

To the presidents question, who wants to know if the witness disputes the existence of a genocide in Rwanda, the latter answers quite bluntly : « You mix up a lot of things ! I am simply saying that judicial notice has cut short any discussion.»

Anger from Mr EPSTEIN : « What we are doing is nonsense. Fortunately the witness defends himself well ».

An assessor seeks to know how one was recruted by the SCR. The witness answered that he was a civil servant and that he was appointed to that position. As for SIMBIKANGWA, he was also appointed, perhaps in his capacity as a disabled person.

SIMBIKANGWAs reputation ? Obviously, the witness does not want to say anything. He simply knows that he « published a book when he was crippled ».

Another question for the witness will again anger the defense attorney. « You are a researcher, but in what area ? » Mr EPSTEIN rejects the fact that it’s the first time we ask this question to a context witness. He will remember this lesson ! Mr. MUSABYIMANA admits that his position is contrary to those of other researchers, but confirms that, for him, it is Uganda that is at the origin of the war started in October 1990. Minority thesis or not, it’s his.

Mrs Justine MAHASELA, for LICRA, questions the witness. « Mrs Alison Des FORGES had the status of expert at the ICTR. And you ? » The witness tries to explain, but the lawyer stops him and tells him that he had been denied the status of expert in order to recognize him as a « factual witness ».

Mr FOREMAN, for the CPCR, starts by saying that he feels « frustrated » because the witness had been presented as a witness on facts but had actually hardly known SIMBIKANGWA ! (Editors note : I think he knew more abour the accused. Everyone knew SIMBIKANGWAs reputation. He didn’t?)

Mr FOREMAN continues « Your blog, Mr MUSABYIMANA, is research or controversy ? » and he referred to a tendentious article entitled :  « Would France be ready for a new humiliation in Rwanda ? » (Editors note : the witness comments the fact that the former Minister of Justice was sent to represent France at the 20th commemoration of the Tutsi genocide).

« As the French Minister of Justice, TAUBIRA can still chalk up as one of her credits the recent Pascal SIMBIKANGWA trial and make this assessment in Kigali. This trial is so flawed that the Appeal made by the convict’s lawyers was retained ». These are the word of the witness in this article published on April 4th, 2014.

(Editors note : Mrs TAUBIRA will end up not going to Rwanda. The French ambassador in Kigali, appointed to represent France, will be dismissed by the Rwandan authorities. On the other hand, the witness knows full well that Appeal is a right and does not prejudge the innocence of the accused. It is ridiculous and dishonest for an educated man to argue that the trial was « flawed »).

The General Attorney, Mr CROSSON DU CORMIER, rebounds on the question. First of all, he draws the attention of the witness that there is no mention anywhere of him being a former member of the SCR. He then pointed out to him, he who is not a lawyer, that he did not apprehend the notion of « judicial notice », which was a legal term. He continues : « Do you know the authority of res judicata ? » Did the Rwandans who left in 1959 lose their Rwandan nationality ? You, you live in Belgium. You are Belgian. (Editors note : the witness is no longer Rwandan because Belgium would not accept dual nationality). In 1990, Rwandans returned to Rwanda. And you claim that this a war of Uganda against Rwanda ! » And to drive home his point : « We are in an Assize Court that judges serious facrs, sir, crimes committed in a particular context. Why are you talking about international conflict ? »

Mr EPSTEIN flies once again to the witnesses rescue whom he had summoned. « This is nonsense ! The challenge of the judicial notice concerns the international character of aggression and not the recognition of genocide ! ».

The Attorney General hardly appreciates the words of the defense « I heard that I was ridiculous, that this is nonsense ! » and pointing the finger at the lawyer « I’d rather speak nonsense than be anybody else ! » That’s said !

Mr EPSTEIN then thanks the witness to be « holding out in this difficult environment » before adding « You were a witness for BIZIMUNGU and ZIGIRANYIRAZO. Both were acquitted ! » Which needed to be demonstrated. (Editors note : The lawyer will go as far as to say that the two accused owe their salvation to the witness?)

And to conclude, he’s surprised a witness could be interrogated as if he were accused !

Hearing is adjourned at 6:45 pm.

Reminder : it is indeed Pierre PÉAN, with the ideas we know him to have, that will be heard Monday morning instead of Mr CRUVELLIER and Mr TWAGIRAMUNGU. Pierre PEAN is the author, amon other things of the book « Noires fureurs, blancs menteurs » and numerous false articles about the CPCR and it’s officials.

Alain GAUTHIER, Chairman of the CPCR

(translated by Leah TSHABALALA)