CPCR – Collectif des parties civiles pour le Rwanda Pour que justice soit faite
- Hearing of Mr. René DEGNI-SEGUI, UN Special Envoy to Rwanda in 1994 (videoconference)
- Hearing of Mr. Theophile GAKARA, former “major de la gendarmerie”, teacher in Belgium.
Hearing of Mr. René DEGNI-SEGUI, UN Special Envoy to Rwanda in 1994 (videoconference)
Mr DEGNI-SEGUI began by clarifying his mandates goals : to propose measures to ensure that there was no retaliation after the Tutsi genocide. It was difficult for him to get on the field, but he met with the main authorities and exchanged with numerous witnesses. In his 28th of June report, ha was able to describe the events as “genocide”.
For the witness, three elements constitute a genocide :
– material facts : massacres, murders, assassinations… 500 000 victims at the time, but the number doesn’t matter.
– intent to exterminate : those who committed these massacres did not hide. The intentional element could be recognised.
– the victims : even if the notion of a “targeted group” has caused him some problems, two decisive elements make it possible to say these was indeed a “Tutsi genocide” : the sorting at the roadblocks (Tutsi were executed) and a document from the Ministry of Defence which defined the Tutsi as someone to be eliminated. The Hutu is targeted only as a “traitor”, which corresponds to a “war crime”. Even though he later noted acts of revenge, “there was no double genocide”.
The President recalled the targeted assassinations on April 7th, followed by widespread massacres. As early as April the 6th, all the ingredients of the genocide were there. “There was a plan to exterminate the Tutsi”. (Editors note : On the night of April 6th to April 7th, all the Tutsi living around the President’s residency in Kanombe were systematically eliminated by the Presidential Guard). The witness added that “the attack was the spark”.
Mr DEGNI-SEGUI makes a clear distinction in his analysis between the armed conflict between the FPR and the FAR, and the massacres perpetrated by the militias and the population “forced to participate”. He asked the authorities to stop the massacres, but it was precisely those authorities who had themselves participated : interim government, prefects, burgomasters, the military. Allusion is made to the situation in Butare which plunged into the genocide with the elimination of the prefect, Jean-Baptiste HABYARIMANA, immediately after the President SINDIKUBWABOs speech. “The orders came from above”, the witness added.
Mr. DE JORNA, the president, asks the witness about SIMBIKANGWA (he doesn’t remember hearing his name). As for the Death Squads, the Zero Network, the Akazu, he heard about it in 1993 during the FIDH Commission, but it was difficult to get information. He says he endorses this report : “We found that there were germs of a genocide. We sounded the alarm but we weren’t heard.” The witness does not recall SIMBIKANGWA wanting to had over a document to members of the Commission : “We works in teams of two or three. He may have handed over his document.”
As for the Presidents question, the witness confirms that Mrs Alison DES FORGES, member of the Commission, was a “reference”. “I saw her work methodically, she often went to Rwanda. She knew a lot, for an American !”.
Mrs Safia AKORRI reads a paragraph of the report. The document handed over by SIMBIKANGWA “was not considered credible in so far as it came from someone suspected of serious facts and of the worst human rights violations”. We will discuss this again during Mr. GILETs’ audition.
The witness replied to Mrs Justine MAHASELA, who referred to the “programming of the massacres”, terms used in his 1994 report. He confirmed that there was a weapons distribution, that militia had been trained… “The Belgian Senate also said so !”. The weapons were bought before April 6th 1994.
Mr. HERVELIN-SERRE refers to the witness’s report of the 25th of May 1994, in which he describes the scale of the massacres in Kigali: “In Gikondo, in a single day, Sunday the 10th of April, the road was covered with corpses for 1 km . “” What about the corpses removal? “ The witness states that he received information from United Nations agents. And he mentions “the garbage collection” and “the corpses thrown into mass graves.”
The General Attorney reviews the impunity that has reigned for decades. “There have been successive waves of massacres: the perpetrators have never been prosecuted. People were so sure of their impunity they were killing out in the open. And we eliminate those who want to refuse the massacres (Butare prefect). “
Maître BOURGEOT, quoting REYNTJENS, asks the witness whether he is forbidden to stay in Rwanda. “I’m finding this out now” said the witness. “Until 1996, my mandate was renewed. I was invited to the tenth commemoration but it was the Ivorian authorities who did not let me go”. The defence lawyer would like to pull the witness on to the current situation in Rwanda. The witness says he can not answer but that he “denounced the victors justice.”
Maître BOURGEOT reconsiders the decision of the ICTR not to recognise “the agreement to commit the genocide!” She wants to know what the witness thinks. Mr. DEGNI-SEGUI: “I said that incitement to racial hatred, civil self-defence, training of militia and the climate of insecurity were elements that could create the conditions for genocide.”
Still questioned by the defence, the witness said he trusted GUICHAOUA as an expert. As for REYNTJENS, he met him but “he has opinions that I have not always shared.”
The witness is thanked and the floor is given to SIMBIKANGWA. Would his problems come from the FIDH report? “The cabal came with the Christophe MFIZI booklet against the President. It was a settling of scores because he had been ousted from ORINFOR. I criticized the lie by writing the “Indomptable IKINANI”.” According to him, MFIZI had sullied HABYARIMANA, he who had done everything to solve the problems. But this booklet disappeared at the printer’s. The accused had kept a copy and handed it to MFIZI. In that document, there was no Hutu or Tutsi. As for KUIPERS, the Belgian minister, he had distributed a list of 39 persons as members of the Akazu and the name of SIMBIKANGWA was there. Ten experts had therefore been sent to Rwanda, including CARBONARE and DES FORGES. The accused, unable to be received by the members of the Commission who “stood him up”, went to the airport on the day of their departure and handed the document to Eric GILET. SIMBIKANGWA said he had filed a lawsuit against Janvier AFRICA and another against KUIPERS. This is the origin of the cabal.
As for the remarks reported by ROBARDEY concerning the words that the accused would have uttered in the direction of Monique MUJAWAMARIYA, the latter denies. At the airport, he only spoke with GILET. “ROBARDEY made a report! “(Sic);
The president seeks to know if there were other numbers of the “Indomptable IKINANI” and as usual the accused gets lost in explanations that have nothing to do with the matter. The president is impatient and remarks: “Here, it is not a ”neither yes nor no” game, the accused being unable to answer the questions clearly.
Mrs PHILIPPART pointed out to him that MFIZI may have kept the copy of his pamphlet! Concerning the accuseds’ methods of investigation, Mrs AKORRI suggests that if his document was not retained, it is because “the human rights you represent don’t have much legitimacy!”
Mrs BOURGEOT asks her client what he thought when he learned of the attack on HABYARIMANA. “Unable to give an answer. No immediate opinion,” he begins by saying. He added: “I thought of a coup d’état.” By who ? “NDINDILIYIMANA.”
Last question of Mrs BOURGEOT: “Why are you accused?”
SIMBIKANGWA: “We’re still talking about CARBONARE’s report. This report is false, it’s proved. The only fault I have committed: the sacrilege of having said good things about HABYARIMANA.”
Hearing of Mr. Theophile GAKARA, former “major de la gendarmerie”, teacher in Belgium.
The witness knew SIMBIKANGWA. On leaving the Military Academy, he was transferred to the Gendarmerie Nationale, in the Department of Road Safety. He never saw him again. He later learned that he had an accident, that he was living in a wheelchair and that he had been paid a civilian salary. He knows however that he served as a Presidential Guard (GP). On the other hand, it does not know the recruitment process for the GPs, but he supposes that there are objective criteria, refusing to believe in regional criteria! (Editors note : unconvincing).
The witness then details his various trainings and stays abroad. In 1991, he was recalled because of the war, returned to Belgium, to return in 1992. He acknowledged having participated in the Arusha negotiations but it is difficult to understand at what level. He reveals that his family was massacred by the FPR on the night of 7th-8th of February 1993. Asked by the president, he does not want to acknowledge that there were HABYARIMANA opponents. BAGOSORA? “I have not seen him. He was in favour of the Arusha Agreements!” The witness says he knows nothing about the BAGOSORA case. His own name appears there: he would be part of the group called Amasasu (etymologically, bullets, ammunition!) This group would have fiercely opposed the Arusha Agreements, but he does not want to admit it.
A few questions fly. SIMBIKANGWA? “I did not know he was still alive!” Tutsi genocide? “I am not competent to say it!” Extermination of the Tutsi? “The president insists. “One killed to appropriate property!” The witness is confused, refuses to pronounce the word “genocide”. “We killed children”! Silence of the witness. You studied, you are part of the elite? And the witness said that he attended the meeting on the evening of the 6th of April between the army headquarters and the gendarmerie. Through DALLAIRE, they learn that the GP camp, near the airport, is not calm. For them, it is clear that the FPR shot down the plane.
Asked what he had seen in Kigali: “We were patrolling for peoples safety. On the third day, we asked to meet the FPR to stop the fighting!”
One of the jurors asks whether there was a genocide. “The ICTR said that there was genocide. I am not a lawyer, I do not have a say in this. Genocide or massacres: it’s a tragedy!”
Mrs. PHILIPPART asked the witness about the roadblocks: “Their purpose was to prevent the infiltration of the FPR.” And the dead, all infiltrators, Tutsis? The witness agrees.
As the questions become more precise, the witness is concerned. “They consider me a defendant ! The gendarmerie camp remained under the FPR fire for 4 months!”
“But thousands of Tutsi were slaughtered at the barriers”? Insists the lawyer. Mr GAKARA regrets the lack of means at their disposal to stop what he calls “these slippages”!
When Mrs PHILIPPART referred to the SCRs passage under the Prime Ministers responsibility, she pointed out that the President no longer had an intelligence service. “It’s a tendentious question. The government communicates with the Presidency. SIMBIKANGWA worked for the Rwandan people, not for the President!”
Another question: “Who lived in Kiyovu?” Answer: “Can you tell me who lives in Bobigny?”
Mrs. MAHASELA: “Have you heard of the Ministry of Defence’s memorandum dated on the 21st of September, 1992?” “The enemy is the inside or outside Tutsi. It was a call to vigilance,” the witness said.
Mr. CROSSON DU CORMIER wants to revisit SIMBIKANGWAs personality but the witness is not prepared to say much. “He was a jovial, dynamic man. He was outspoken! “
Mrs BOURGEOT is concerned about how the witness was treated. “Everyone wonders why you were not accused. I wanted to defend you. How do you feel ?”
The President intervened. “Do not see an accusation in the questionsr. It’s not easy to be a witness. But it’s not easy to be victim either, or to swear! “
Mr. GAKARA leaves the courtroom, smiling, making big signs to Pascal SIMBIKANGWA. Perhaps they knew each other better than he had been willing to admit!
Alain GAUTHIER, Chairman of the CPCR
(translated by Leah TSHABALALA)
