CPCR – Collectif des parties civiles pour le Rwanda Pour que justice soit faite
A delegation from Kigali (AERG/GAERG) led by EGAM attends the morning hearing in support of the civil parties. Thank you all.
- Hearing of Pierre PÉAN, journalist/writer, for the defence.
- Hearing of Renaud GIRARD, journalist at the Figaro, professor at the IEP of Paris (Institute of Political Studies).
- Hearing of Mr. Philippe CEPPI, swiss journalist
Hearing of Pierre PÉAN, journalist/writer, for the defence.
The witnesses is heard under the discretion of the president. He is therefore exempted form taking an oath. Mr PÉAN begins by addressing the Court : “You have a difficult task, to judge a man in an unbalanced, largely unjust system”. And he blames the Court for defending a thesis that had been under attack for a long time : that of the conspiracy to commit genocide. “BAGOSORA, considered the brain of the genocide, was cleared of the charge of “agreement to commit genocide”… The attack (against HABYARIMANAs plane) was the triggering factor of the genocide.” And two quote Carla Del PONTE : ”If it is proven that the FPR shot down the plane, it is the whole history of the genocide that should be rewritten.”
Pierre PÉAN, to whom the president pointed out that he should not read his notes, is beginning to lose ground. Long silence … The witness is sit down, he has trouble recovering. The hearing will be suspended for 15 minutes.
Back in the courtroom, the witness repeats: “You have a difficult task, to try a man in an unbalanced defence system, which is largely unjust!” And to reiterate that the thesis supported by the Court does not take into account the attack and its sponsors. This is a key issue. There was no international investigation, “refused by the FPR and the Americans”. And to recall that Judge BRUGUIERE launched nine international arrest warrants against nine people close to President KAGAME: this will create a serious political crisis. And to repeat the history of this crisis by talking about “the MUCYO report” which challenges many French authorities. He also mentioned the witness Émile GAFIRITA who claimed to have transported the missiles from Mulindi to Kigali and who disappeared before being interrogated! (Editors note : Even his lawyer could not manage to locate him. Ghost witness ?). Another witness, Kayumba NYAMWASA, a refugee in South Africa, also wished to testify belatedly: he designates KAGAME as responsible for the attack! The investigation was reopened by the anti-terrorist judges! And he repeats, as if no one had understood: “The thesis you defend does not take account of the attack.”
The genocide pole? “It is a very good idea, it is part of universalism, but to function well, it would require a loyal and frank cooperation between two independent justices. That of Rwanda is not, because Rwanda is a dictatorship.” Rwanda, a dictatorship: even Human Rights Watch says so! “The Rwandan government does not tolerate dissidence … in 2014, several dozen people were victims of disappearance!” And, in support of his thesis, the witness evokes Gérald GAHIMA (Editors note : former general prosecutor dissented after numerous financial malversations), Filip REYNTJENS, who speaks of Paul KAGAME as “the biggest criminal in office, a bloody dictator”, from the GARRETON report. “I knew Victoire INGABIRE who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for wanting to run for the presidential elections” (Editors note : That’s not the real reason!). He had a contact with Patrick KAREGEYA who wanted to come to Paris to testify but was strangled in Johannesburg (Editors note : by the FPR of course!). And he comes back to NYAMWASA who has been the victim of two assassination attempts! (Editors note : by the FPR, of course!)
And he settles his account with the CPCR and its chairman. “The accusatory function of the poke is held by the CPCR. Alain GAUTHIER became a Rwandan for services rendered. He works in fact with the Rwandan Prosecutor : he is the armed wing of the Prosecutor. He spends half his time in Rwanda and is in total agreement with the Prosecutor. Alain GAUTHIER and his wife are FPR militants and the CPCR is an outgrowth of the Rwandan non-independent justice (sic). Alain GAUTHIER is responsible for 28 complaints. Once the complaints are filed, the pole should regain a normal mechanism. No problem to investigate outside Rwanda. But to investigate in Rwanda, one falls back on the fact that it is a dictatorship, with witnesses who are not free!” And to call to his rescue the statements of Louise HARBOR and Carla del PONTE. (Editors note : It is useful to point out that these statements are false and slanderous, and are the same insanities found in his book “Black Furies, White Liars” or in articles that the witness regularly writes).
Next, he addresses the theme of negationism. He underlined the financial imbalance between the accusation and the defence, “defense assigned ex officio and taxed of negationists !”. The civil parties also call him a negationist since the publication of his work. The complaint filed against him by SOS Racisme for “incitement to racial hatred” seems to have profoundly affected him, he is one of the sponsors of this association! SOS Racism, which he later described as a “false nose of power in Kigali”, his lawyers Lef FORSTER and Bernard MAINGAIN, are the two lawyers of the Rwandan government in the affair of the attack. The president will acknowledge a little further that no legal offense will be held against him. PÉAN has not yet digested that someone has dared to compare his work with Mein Kampf!
The witness hopes that the Court will see the BBC documentary, “An untold story”, denial documentary that has spilled a lot of ink and which, adds the witness “defends a thesis opposite to yours.” (Editors note : The President will note that this documentary will be presented the next day at Court, just before the hearing of Linda MELVERN who spent a lot of time challenging this version of the story of the genocide on English radio). The witness outlines the role of Uganda in the outbreak of the war in 1990, recognises that the French army flew to the rescue of the FAR (Rwandan Armed Forces): “FPR massacres, counter-massacres of Hutu extremists, war, massacres on both sides.. It was a civil war, even though after the 6th of April we could talk about genocide.”
And to conclude. “I repeat. I do not know SIMBIKANGWA or why he is being prosecuted. I am a Democratic and Republican citizen who has a high notion of justice.”
The President, Mr DE JORNA, begins by pointing out that the Court has no thesis connected with the first decision. “The Court is seeking the truth and in the end it will forge its conviction. We must not deceive ourselves.” The only question is: “Is SIMBIKANGWA guilty on the ground of the facts held against him?” The president returns to the three pages of “Noires fureurs, blancs menteurs”, that has earned him his trial and wants to know if today he would say the same thing. Given what happened to him, Mr. PÉAN admitted that he would probably change the form, but on the content, he would not change a thing.
“You have defined the CPCR as an outgrowth of justice in Kigali. You say it in front of to the CPCR representatives?” asked Mr. the President. Pierre PÉAN confirms.
Attorney for the CPCR, Simon FOREMAN, said he was “embarrassed to ask questions”. “You are a context witness. Is your approach one of an objective investigator? You are in the process of defending the role of France. You have chosen your side!”
Pierre PÉAN answered: “My approach? I have to go back quite far. I’ve been going to Africa for 54 years. I was a Gabonese official, but I did not know the Great Lakes Africa. In 1993, my daughter was living in Burundi, which triggered my interest in the region. And I saw, with horror, what had happened. Rwanda was invited into my life because I participated in the rescue of Agathes children (Editors note : UWILINGIYIMANA, murdered prime minister) I relayed GUICHAOUAs call! (Editors note : one almost wants to smile!) In 1996, he met a revolutionary pan-Africanist who was buddy with one of the missile launchers, who’s name he obviously can not reveal ! In 1998, “Everyone in Kigali recognises that the FPR was responsible for the attack.” The witness reveals that Le Monde diplomatique refused an article of his: preference is given to Colette BRAECKMAN. “I am accused of not going to Rwanda for my investigations?” He continues. “What could have been learned in a dictatorship? The truth can only be found outside Rwanda, with the dissidents. I investigated as I always investigate. I also went on the role of France. My conclusions are the same as those of the parliamentary mission: France is not responsible for the genocide. MITTERRAND can not be compared to HITLER! (Editors note : which the witness did not deprive himself of doing concerning KAGAME in the first pages of his book). And he adds: ”It is difficult today to carry out investigations when a complaint is filed!” (Editors note : He’s wrong ! The witness does not have to speak on behalf of the investigating judges and gendarmes who, to my knowledge, say quite the opposite when they go to Rwanda on rogatory commissions.)
Simon FOREMAN: “The CPCR is the armed wing of Rwandan justice? The civil parties have the same difficulties as the defence to find witnesses. And what would it change if the plane was shot by one or the other?”
Mr. PÉAN stammers and apologizes. He puts his discomfort on the account of his anxiety at the thought of being heard! Faced with the silence of the witness, Mr FOREMAN continues: “Two theses coexist. Should all trials be stopped pending the conclusions concerning the attack? Can we judge SIMBIKANGWA? Can we hear the witnesses? What does it change?”
The witness resumed: “It changes everything! Carla Del PONTE tried to say that it was a civil war, she wished to investigate the crimes of the FPR : she could not! The FPR has a co-responsibility in the genocide.”
Mr Rémi CROSSON DU CORMIER, the General Attorney, will be satisfied with only one question. “Between April and July 1994, do you recognise that there was the Tutsi and moderate Hutu genocide ?” Mr. PÉAN says he never denied it. (Editors note : We are used to talk about genocide for the extermination of Tutsi and crimes against humanity for the massacre of Hutu opponents, the Hutu not being killed because Hutu but as political opponents. A distinction made during the first trial at the Paris Assize Court.)
The defence refrains from asking the witness questions. Mr. EPSTEIN seems in a hurry to finish with a witness who has not rendered him the expected services.
Hearing of Mr. Renaud GIRARD, journalist at the Figaro, professor at the IEP of Paris (Institute of Political Studies).
Mr. Renaud GIRARD describes how he knew that serious events were taking place in Rwanda, a country he could not even place on a map in 1994. All the editorial offices in France were obsessed by the events in Bosnia. Having learned of the fall of the plane, his newspaper, Le Figaro, dispatched him on the spot. With a lot of details, he will tell of his entry to Rwanda by the border with Burundi, along with five other people including his cousin Eric GIRARD and journalist Nicolas POINCARÉ. The group arrives in Butare, the southern city where, the witness tells us, calm reigns. (Editors note : the Tutsis present at the time do not say as much, even if the presence of the prefect Jean-Baptiste HABYARIMANA succeeds in calming the ardors. Contrary to what the witness says, the prefect will not be assassinated two months later but on April 19th, after the speech of President SINDIKUBWABO. Mr. GIRARDs testimony will contain many approximations, even errors!) On his way, he is surprised to meet many white people who are fleeing Rwanda, NGOs that usually assist victims. Only Michel GAILLARD, of the ICRC, will remain on site.
Before arriving at the capital, his convoy was stopped at a barrier. To prove he wasn’t Belgian, he starts the Marseillaise ! (Smiles go through the room!) In Kigali, he moved into the Hotel des Milles Collines. Accompanied by a Rwandan MSF nurse, he will travel Kigalis districts : many dead in the gutter, dump trucks full of corpses… He goes by the École Française Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, at the bottom of Kiyovu where he writes his first article. His newspapers director asks him to come back : he won’t.
Did he see anything significant ? The witness spends more time telling little anecdotes in which he will almost be the hero, than actually describing the situation. A few bombings, his encounter with a barrier where he takes a riffle butt to the head that makes him roll in the dust while his companion, the nurse Isidore, taken for a Tutsi, barely escapes death. The second time he passes the barrier, he sees three bodies, freshly murdered. The belgian soldiers gathered at the École française think of only one thing : to reach the airport. The witness is part of the convoy. And to quote the words of Mr. GAILLARD on the road : « Don’t shoot ! We are neutral ! » Arrived safely, he must threaten the Belgian ambassador who refuses to evacuate to Kenya a couple whose wife is pregnant : if he does not execute his demand, he will be entitled to an avenging article in the Figaro the next day. The witness will succeed.. The airport is bombed and UN soldiers send him on the track to try and figure out where the shots are coming from (Editors note : Surprising to say the least!)
The witness will return to Rwanda twice, in May and June, will meet KAGAME in the North, Marc VAITER in his orphanage where he will save many people, Father BLANCHARD, a priest that he will later say was wounded in his parish (Editors note : the german collegue of the priest from the Nyamirambo parish, Otto MAYER, who will be wounded. Father BLANCHARD will leave Rwanda after an attack on his parish begining of june).
The witness is somewhat proud to say that Bernard KOUCHNER will call MITTERAND with his satellite phone. He recognises that without the intervention of the french army, the FPR would have taken Kigali much earlier and that if the french paratroops of Operation Amaryllis had stayed in Rwanda, the genocide would not have taken place ! (Editors note : How must we understand these two comments?) Still, cohabitation does not favor decision-making in the french government. Only General QUESNOT seems to have understood the situation ! The witness scatches at the french and belgian ambassadors and stressed their lack of courage. Their flight shows they have chosen a side. His articles alerted the public : it is almost as if it’s thanks to him that Operation Turquoise was decided.
French politics were a « historical failure » but it cannot be said that France was an accomplice to the genocide. No complicity either from the French military. Renaud GIRARD admits that he calls Matignon « to illuminate the situation distorted by the military, that he saw at the Elysee the letter in which the FPR thanks France for it’s rôle in the Arusha Agreements, that DE SAINT QUENTIN told him of his certainty as to the perpetrators of the attack »… (the FPR)
And to conclude by speaking of Paul KAGAME, an « elightened despot ». For him, « Rwanda is not a democracy or the Hutu would take power » (Editors note : We will have heard it all ! Funny notion of democracy!) « Rwanda is the only country in Africa where you can’t hear the BBC !!! KAGAME has decided to change the countrys official langages because he does not speak French… » and he continues « This being said, he is an impressive man who is not corrupt and fights corruption. He is devoted to his country but he is not a democrat. We can worry about the post-KAGAME… » And to cap it all « In their heart, the Hutu will seek vengeance ! »
Through his questions, the President wishes to return to the facts. The witness said that there were many corpses in Kigali, but especially in the peripheral areas. The barriers were held by soldiers or militiamen? “The French army had taught the FAR to make war. If the French had returned, they could have brought the Rwandan army back to reason. At the barriers there were people in army clothes but it was impossible to know who they were”. And did it stink of death? “Yes, a terrible odor, it stunk!” But to clarify at once, as if to exonerate the accused: “A wheelchair reporter would have had trouble seeing ... (Editors note : another question could have been asked : “And trouble smelling?” No one dared to.) “If we stayed at the Milles Collines we couldn’t see anything!”
The witness acknowledges the hate speech in the media, especially on RTLM. “Mein Kampf presented the Jews as vermin. We were talking about Tutsis as cockroaches!” But the population felt a sense of hatred and fear of the FPR. As proof, people had fled the areas occupied by the FPR. The witness eventually acknowledged, on a question by Mr FOREMAN, that “the population was ignited by the State propaganda” which contradicts his previous remarks when he spoke of a “spontaneous” revolt.
Mr. HERVELIN-SERRE asks the witness to give the dates of his stay. Arrived on April 11, he will remain a dozen days and will be evacuated by a Belgian Hercules to Nairobi.Barriers in Kigali? “Not very many”. Controls? “For a Frenchman, no problem, for a Belgian it was more complicated. Hutu you pass, Tutsi you were massacred! “On what criteria? “Sometimes it shows. They are quite different people. And Africans know how to recognize each other!” (Editors note : no comment!) If the criterion is ethnicity, the witness admits that “he never heard that they were asking for the identity cards!” (Editors note : He is the only one! ) But he admits that “the Tutsi were massacred as such, they were not fighters. There was no fifth column inside Rwanda.” He added that “the victims were killed essentially with a machete. There was a propaganda system that caused the genocide to be committed by the population itself. There was little shooting.”
Mr EPSTEIN has little time to ask questions because the next witness is impatient: he has to go back to Geneva and the hearing of Renaud GIRARD took too long (Editors note : we could have gained some time if the witness was a little less staged). The French ambassador was afraid of the FPR ? The witness confirms. The genocide was committed mainly in the lower-income neighborhoods? The witness confirms again. Around the École Française, no body in the gutters! (Editors note : We know through other witnesses that the corpses had been picked up when the witness arrived). What is the significance of the events in Burundi? Affirmative!
The witness concludes: “KAGAME wanted to create an illusion by putting BIZIMUNGU (Editors note : a Hutu) at the head of the State. Where is he now? In prison. (Editors note : False. He’s been released for a long time).
Mr. EPSTEIN, sharp « You were summoned by the Prosecution or the Defense? ». The witness hesitates to say, “By the Prosecution.”
Hearing of Mr. Philippe CEPPI, swiss journalist
It was past 5pm when we were advises that the witness had to be freed at 5:30pm. The hearing will therefore be limited in time.
Correspondent to Nairobi, the witness will enter Rwanda with Jean HÉLÈNE on the night of the 8th-9th of April 1994. On the morning of the 9th, the streets of Kigali are strewn with corpses, some already devoured by the dogs. In the city hospital, more than 400 corpses are piled up, the morgue overflows. The witness reports that a doctor has collapsed: soldiers have come to finish the wounded with the bayonet! “It’s an indescribable chaos!” Mr. CEPPI reports other facts that take place in Gikondo, a hill close to Kiyovu. He also mentions a rescue participated in at Lake Muhazi: wounded are removed from a well where they had to jump before the killers throw grenades! We evacuate the Europeans, we abandon the Rwandans! He did not see any executions and was protected by his Swiss passport.
In reply to Mr. Ludovic HERVELIN-SERRE, the witness confirms that the bodies were taken by the ICRC and then by the Kigali road network. The bodies remained there for a long time. There were many in Gikondo. The cries of the victims mingled with those of the killers. But also cries of joy when rescuing the wounded! The killers stank of alcohol. Questioned by the witness who asks him if he realizes what he is doing, a killer just says: “What a waste!”. “Collective madness,” admits the witness, obviously marked. We also heard shots: bursts of submachine guns, mortar fire …
Role of the media, radios? The witness went to RTLM and met an “obese and aggressive” journalist, Valerie BEMERIKI. “This radio was very much listened to”. The witness says he investigated after the genocide: he has recovered RTLM archives at the Belgian embassy.
Mr. CROSSON DU CORMIER asks the witness if he has heard of SIMBIKANGWA. “I heard about him very early after the capture of Kigali. I went to the Central Intelligence Center where I seized some documents. SIMBIKANGWAs name returned in a loop, it inspired terror. During an investigation in Kenya, I published an article after meeting SIMBIKANGWAs driver : “L’exil doré des dignitaires hutu“ on April 6, 1995.
The witness confirms that during the interview and meetings, the name SIMBIKANGWA returns in a loop. He would have been part of the Akazu. He inspired terror, and was among the hardliners of the regime, those who had supposedly shot down the plane. SIMBIKANGWA eventually joined Kenya. “I was not investigating him but we were talking to me about this man in a wheelchair who was practicing torture.”
Mr EPSTEIN lost it. “This is the first time we hear of a driver for SIMBIKANGWA in NAIROBI. What are your sources?” Calmly, the witness retorted that the person told him,” I am SIMBIKANGWAs driver. “
Questioned, SIMBIKANGWA, obviously said that he did not have a driver and that he was taking the taxi (Editors note : He lived in a “crested neighborhood” and was traveling by taxi, so he had a certain standard of living. Providing he tells the truth !)
The defense attorney resumed the attack. “The Akazu does not exist and you are told that SIMBIKANGWA belongs to the Akazu! If you consider him a dignitary, it is false.” The witness insists. Mortar fire came from the airport where the FAR were. “Were you ever in a war zone?” The witness said. Mr EPSTEIN replies: “Iam the one asking questions!” . He continues: “You can not understand without going there. The jury can not understand …” The witness continues his reasoning: “I do not want to seem like an idiot but I can not distinguish where the shots came from. The FPR stayed for a while in Parliament (Editors note : and not in barracks close to Parliament as the previous witness said) and between the 9th and the 12th the FPR was not in a position to fight.”
The president then proceeds to read the article « L’exil doré des dignitaires hutu (The golden exile of the Hutu dignitaries) » that the witness gave him. After the reading, the accused wants to speak: he challenges the witness, reminding him that he was no longer working in 1994. The President pointed out that the article is dated 1995! SIMBIKANGWA gets angry again, tired that we keep coming back on the question of corpses! President’s response: “If there are no deaths, there is no genocide!”
SIMBIKANGWA, speaking of himself in the third person: “SIMBIKANGWA never said that there were no deaths. We’ve been coming back on this subject for two weeks! We are here to know whether Mr. SIMBIKANGWA participated in a mass massacre. We must not dismiss the content ! “.
The witness must leave. The President adjourns the hearing.
Tomorrow we will hear Mr SWINNEN, Belgian ambassador, by videoconference, before viewing the documentary of the BBC “An untold story”. The afternoon will be devoted to the hearing of Mrs. Linda MELVERN and Mrs. Esther MUJAWAYO.
Alain GAUTHIER, Chairman of the CPCR.
(translated by Leah Tshabalala)
