CPCR – Collectif des parties civiles pour le Rwanda Pour que justice soit faite
- Hearing of Jean-François DUPAQUIER, for the civil parties.
- Hearing of colonel Michel ROBARDEY, in Rwanda from September 1990 to September 1993,
witness for the defense. - Hearing of Mrs FOLL and Mr. JACQUEMIN, policemen in Mayotte during Pascal SIMBIKANGWAs arrest.
Hearing of Jean-François DUPAQUIER, for the civil parties.
Mr. DUPAQUIER arrived in Burundi in December 1971 and, as a young cooperant, saw the events of 1972, which received no media coverage. Editor in chef of “L’Événement du Jeudi”, he has trouble getting his articles through. In November 1992 however, he published “France at the bedside of African fascism” [1]. In 1994, he is sent to Rwanda as part if an investigation carried out by Reporters sans Frontières. Jean-Pierre CHRETIEN accompanies him. He then discovered the Kangura newspaper, n°6, in date of December the 10th 1990 : there is a racist text titled the “Ten Commandments of the Bahutu” : “We were telling things on Tutsi that had been said about jews”.
Twenty-five years ago, Rwanda was a poor country with an efficient bureaucracy and produced many well-documented and well-archived documents. To understand the genocide, one must assimilate the notion of propaganda: a genocide of neighbors that will go as far as the brutal transgression of all the values that make the country. As many witnesses have done, he emphasizes the crucial role of the RTLM.
Mr. DUPAQUIER had heard about SIMBIKANGWA in 1993 with the publication of the International Commission of Inquiry of FIDH / Human Rights Watch report which denounced “a situation that can lead to a genocide in Rwanda”.
This poses a double question for the journalist:
When was it decided to exterminate the Tutsi and how was the propaganda organized? “No definitive answer. As for the Shoah, the issue is controversial. In 1959, as the official thesis in Rwanda would suggest? In 1963 with the massacres of Gikongoro, which killed more than 20,000 people (Editors note : events described as a “small génocide” by Bertrand RUSSEL). “The Tutsi considered themselves as the Jews of Africa”: loss of territory and ethnic identity cards, existence of quotas as under the Vichy regime for Jews. (Editors note : The many references to the Shoah that the witness makes irritates EPSTEIN to some extent. Would he be an adherent of the uniqueness of the Shoah?)
Even if the first years of HABYARIMANA’s “reign” were rather calm, the president was close to lose power with the FPR attack of October 1st, 1990: which will weld the Hutu together. And the witness recalls the words of the accused: “If HABYARIMANA had not died, there would have been no genocide.”
Gradually the power will become radicalized. In 1991, the president gathered a dozen senior military to define the “enemy”. In January 1992, this commission defined the Tutsi as an enemy, whether inside or outside the country. It was then that the idea of exterminating the Tutsi germinated. At the instigation of Ferdinand NAHIMANA, Doctor of History (Sorbonne), and Director of the Rwandan Information Office (ORINFOR), a sort of “trial run” is organized. He produces a false document to heat up the elites of the Bugesera. A force was formed which brought together the peasants, the militia and the students of the Ruhengeri Gendarmerie School. Protests come from the West, a request is made to sack NAHIMANA. At the same time, Agathe KANZIGA, wife of HABYARIMANA, begins to foment against her husband.
The peoples’ anger is then expressed in the newspapers. In the “Indomptable IKINANI” published by SIMBIKANGWA, we relativise these events of the Bugesera. KANGURA is created in response to KANGUKA by Vincent RWABUKWISI. It is common knowledge that the accused terrorized the democratic journalists of the “Messager”. Two of them will even be tortured.
Women are particularly vulnerable to the popular vindictiveness. Tutsi women are denuded and raped: a woman will flee to Uganda, after having electrodes placed on her breasts, and will die there.
(Editors note : Mr EPSTEIN is called to order to stop interrupting the witness).
Mr. DUPAQUIER made the discovery of the “Indomptable IKINANI“, a newspaper that SIMBIKANGWA had requested to be printed and which contained violent attacks against Prime Minister Agathe UWINGILIYIMANA compared to a prostitute, persecuted by clients to make her suffer what she had already suffered four times in Butare (rapes).
With IKINANI, we transgress the taboo of nudity. This is the first time we dare to publish a caricature of naked people. We will find these caricatures in Kangura. The genocidal ideology is accompanied by the multiplication of pornographic cartoons. The witness also referred to the report of Ambassador SWINNEN, which had already been discussed, and said that the 1993 FIDH report delayed the genocide agenda. And he specifies that the accused had a particular hatred for the Hutu democrats. Reminder also of the KAVARUGANDA case. For the witness, it was the Hutu extremists who killed HABYARIMANA: they published a false document of the FPR in 1992 and a false accusation against the FPR in 1994. The witness, referring to the solitude of the accused, put it on the account of him probably knowing the assassins of the president, to whom he very much is devoted.
About the attack on the president’s plane, the witness affirms his belief: the people responsible are the Hutu extremists. He has been saying this since 1994, seeing as to where the shots started, close to the Presidential Guard camp. Who benefits from the crime? Not to the Tutsi, but to BAGOSORA who wanted to make a coup. The hearing then turns to the book “The Media of Genocide”, which has earned two of its authors to testify at the ICTR. If part of their expertise has been withdrawn from the accusation, it is because France has succeeded in ensuring that the trials relate only to the year 1994. “A way to protect the moral interests of the “Mitterrandie” . The primary accused was undoubtedly Ferdinand NAHIMANA. Hassan NGEZE was a cover. But there was also Edouard KAREMERA, NGIRUMPATSE. “The propaganda was carried out by intellectuals who use the rules of Nazi propaganda to do the same in Rwanda.”
The president returns to the RTLM, which gives the witness an opportunity to say that we are witnessing a gradual drift: a commercial and cheerful radio that was supposed to bring money back to the shareholders. NAHIMANA had the genius to regroup an amazing team where everyone had his role to play. We also talk about the attack on NDADAYE in Burundi and its consequences on Rwanda.
HABYARIMANA, actor or hostage? The witness talks of an anecdote that happened during HABYARIMANAs’ visit to Paris. The journalist questions the president about the Ten Commandments of the Bahutu. The latter replied: “In Rwanda, it is called freedom of expression”. “HABYARIMANA was trying to last, he was a lonely man. He had only two friends left: SAGATWA and SIMBIKANGWA. He had two burning irons: the extremists on one side, the moderates and the FPR on the other.” Hence his hesitation to sign the Arusha Agreements. He will be assassinated the day of the signature. Some remarks are made on the in-laws, on the love-affection of the accused for his president. As for the attack, the accused was probably aware of it SIMBIKANGWA found himself alone, miserable, unable to react, cut off from his old friends.
The killers found themselves in very favourable conditions in Nairobi (see Mr. CEPPI and his article « The Golden Exile of the Hutu Dignitaries »). Where does the money come from? “They robbed the banks before they fled, took their revenues from the FDLR who plundered Congo and sent them resources … But at one point SIMBIKANGWA did not go any further!” And the witness added: “What isolated him is to have been the last HABYARIMANA faithful”. Mrs. HABYARIMANA? “An abominable character”! According to the witness. If we no longer see SIMBIKANGWA after 1992, “perhaps he belonged to a parallel organ. They existed in Nazi Germany.”
When the witness stated that “the extermination of the Tutsi race is a form of madness, like the extermination of the Jews”, Mr EPSTEIN began to stamp and protest.
Mrs PHILIPPART wishes to know under what conditions the witness obtained the “Indomptable IKINANI“. It was the director of the Imprimerie Nationale who showed him a number. But this newspaper circulated only in the form of a photocopy, and of poor quality. The newspaper was not broadcast because of how violent it was.
Mrs. Justine MAHASELA. In 1994, the FPR was instrumentalized? “Exact”, the witness answers. The lawyer asks: “It is a form of moral equivalence”? Using the words of Mrs. MELVERN. Witness: “Great effectiveness of a propaganda among the population is marked by manipulation”.
Mr HERVELIN-SERRE asked whether there was a censorship of the press. “There were indeed arrests of Tutsi journalists in 1990 but this practice has decreased. We were more into a form of intimidation. Caricatures spread in the press, and even in the form of leaflets. “KANGUKA was a huge success and we tried to destroy it.” “In Rwanda, you had to be brave to run an opposition newspaper.” A plan for Tutsi colonization? It was a false document that suggested that the Tutsi wanted to take power in the 1970s. It was a counterpart to the “Protocol of the Elders of Zion.”
The General Attorney wishes to know the importance of KANGURA number 6. “There will be 15,000 copies printed and distributed in large numbers to the students of Butare”.
And UMURAVA? “It was a replica of KANGURA, the second hate-newspaper. When you owned a Newspaper, you became an important man. ”
“An article talks about the Bugesera massacres. It talks of the deaths of “35 small cockroaches” when there actually were 350 deaths and many wounded, without mentioning the destruction of property !” The witness adds : “We took away a zero. We even said that they had committed suicide : a way to scorn the victims, minimize the crimes, to deny them.” DUPAQUIER has a copy of the Newspaper. He swore to tell the truth, he isn’t lying.
Mr. CROSSON DU CORMIER points out the “exceptional life potential of the accused”. His flight at the end of the genocide proves it. And he wonders “How could a man in his condition could commit acts of torture ?” The witness has not investigated that matter.
Mr. EPSTEIN opens fire, ironic “You’re more than a journalist ; specialist on photocopies, on the Shoah ! Have you written on the Shoah ? “Non, i’ve read, which made it possible for me to make comparisons”.
“Hervé DEGUINE considers you as militant writer !” throws the lawyer “It’s like saying a lawyers shares his clients convictions !” answers the witness.
“Why can’t we find racial hate in the accused’s books ?” “Ask your client !” and when the lawyer insists, he gets a scathing response “You question makes no sense !”
“You quote Hannah ARENDT carelessly ! SIMBIKANGWA could be part of a secret structure ? ZIGIRANYIRAZO and SAGATWA stay on the political scene ?” DUPAQUIER answers “SIMBIKANGWAs’ name is quoted by M. SWINNEN and by the American State Department !” “My source, on the SWINNEN document, is Jean BIRARA, a respectable man who lives at the heart of the regime. He gives a list of 1 500 Tutsi to kill !”.
And the attack ? The witness has his convictions : it’s the Hutu extremists ! There are two theses? “Yes, there are two theses on the attack : there is the truth and there is the lie !”
Follows a series of questions that will not bring much more information.
Mr. EPSTEIN changes the subject : “You are friends with Alain GAUTHIER !” The witness answers “It’s thanks to the GAUTHIER family that we are here. We call them the KLARSFELD for Rwanda. Alain GAUTHIER, I respect him and admire him. I consider him a friend. Never has Alain GAUTHIER talked to me about this case. I was even mistaken for him during RWAMUCYOs arrest, which lead to him being threatened during a hearing at the Versailles Appeal Court.”
If the witness was a civil party in the MUNYESHYAKA case, it is because a family member of his wife was in the Sainte Famille church in Kigali. Since it was a rape case, she did not want them to be in the files !
M. EPSTEIN returns to the case. “In 2009, the judges will have the CPCR suit in their hands. They ask information of the civil parties. Alain GAUTHIER is summoned” (Editors note : We can’t really see were the lawyer is going with this !) DUPAQUIER hedges. “I am of those journalists that we sometimes call “dirt digger”. If it’s to uncover the truth, i’m ready to go through garbages.”
Mrs. PHILIPPART intervenes in turn “Alain GAUTHIER is criticized for not having called Jean-Pierre CHRETIEN to obtain a copy of “L’indomptable IKINANI !” It was the judges who should have done it !”
Mrs BOURGEOT intervenes in turn, obviously in bad faith : “Beacause Mr. GAUTHIER is not an investigator ? He went to prisons to investigate !” And she continues, talking about TWAGIRAMUNGU who came to make a statement as a witness in favor of SIMBIKANGWA during the first trial. “There was a fake in the files ?” enquires Mrs Rachel LINDON, surprised. “You could sue for defamation the publication of this fake !”
We will stay there ! It will be Colonel ROBARDEY’s turn to be heard in the beginning of the afternoon, a “friend of the CPCR”. There will be strong exchanges seeing as to what he said at the Paris Assize Court in 2014, during the first SIMBIKANGWA trial.
Hearing of colonel Michel ROBARDEY, in Rwanda from September 1990 to September 1993, witness for the defense.
The colonel starts by wondering why it was necessary to specify that he was summoned at the request of the defense : this changes nothing to his testimony.
The colonel ROBARDEY delcares not knowing SIMBIKANGWA : he never met him, he never spoke to him. He will then explain at length the mission he had been entrusted with. He was appointed to Rwanda to modernize the judicial police services. Since he arrived a couple days before the FPR attack, he will have to delay his intervention with the gendarmerie unit that was sent to the frontline. He will be content, initially, to make audits.
About the arrests following the FPR attack on October the 1st 1990, he recognizes that 8 000 people were locked up in the Nyamirambo stadium and he adds that they were from the political opposition, 2/3 were Hutu. From 1973 to 1990, the witness presents HABYARIMANA as a “protector of the tutsi” ! He was the first to warn the french authorities about the possibility of a genocide, since 1991.
During his stay, he met people from all sides. He will speak at length, and several times, about a Human Rights activist, whom he is surprised has not been summoned by this Court : it’s Monique MUJAWAMARIYA (Editors note : She lives in South Africa and goes around the world to meet members of the a womens association she created, the Leading Women of Africa). The witness will quote her several times, this woman still being his friend.
About the Kibilira and Bagogwe massacres, his opinion is made. Jean-Marie NDAGIJIMANA demonstrated that they were the work of the FPR !!!
The BUGESERA massacres ? The witness went to the scene. The killers were bands of young drunk people who had traditional weapons and told him: “When we are attacked, we defend ourselves.” He admits that “the inaction of the Rwandan authorities was inadmissible”. 450 people will be arrested, apparently thanks to his intervention. But he forgets to say that they will not be prosecuted!
To train members of the Judicial Police, the witness prefers to send them to the field and providing methods of investigation. Three directions:
– the attacks perpetrated at the time: one analyzes the debris of explosives, one reconstructs the traceability. The weapons were of Belgian and Russian origin. The mines were delivered to KADHAFI and then to Uganda via Burundi. It was the FPR that was responsible for these blind massacres. Quod erat demonstrandum.
– the massacres committed in the north, in Byumba in 1992, and then in Ruhengeri: the RPF gathered the population and opened fire. The FPR did not want to keep adversaries on its back lines. It was necessary to make room for Tutsi refugees returning from Uganda.
– the Akazu / Zero Network? It is clear that Janvier AFRICA was in no way credible: he was a liar. SIMBIKANGWA is accused of being a cousin of HABYARIMANA, of being a member of the AKAZU ? “One of the civil parties is a cousin of KABAREBE (Editors note : Current Minister of Defense), member of the KAGAME Akazu! The witnesses word is fragile! “
– The Death Squadrons ? “We did not find any victims! If there are no victims, no Death Squadron! “(Editors note : A very military reasoning !)
The witnesses testimony continues with an exchange with the president about the identity of those who attacked in October 1990. “They were troops coming from Uganda to attack Kigali and they were wearing Ugandan uniforms and had Ugandan identity cards. Who was under these uniforms? We made about 20 prisoners: the majority was attached to the Tutsi diaspora who had helped MUSEVENI take power in Uganda.”
Rwanda at the time? “An authoritarian government that supervises the population, with the practice of Umuganda, these Mao type yards. I am grateful to HABYARIMANA for bringing peace. In Burundi, ruled by the Tutsi, periodic massacres took place.”
“Your role in Rwanda: to eradicate bad methods?” Asks the president. The colonel seems embarrassed to answer. He himself did not notice these bad methods. “My work was educational. I was in charge of cleaning the stables of Augias. As for the accused, he never intervened in the “Fichier Central”. “
The president questions the witness about the investigations he has had to conduct. Mr. ROBARDEY insists on the arrests that followed the Bugesera massacres: more than 400 people, who will be later freed. As for the massacres in the FPR zone, it highlights the difficulty of investigating on the spot. So he has to rely on the witnesses. But he also relies on his personal findings: in Byumba and Ruhengeri in particular, he was able to pick up weapons on the victims. He mentions the massacres perpetrated at the Court of Appeal by the FPR (Editors note : other witnesses attribute these massacres to the FAR!) Mention is then made of the testimonies of the displaced of the North: still FPR massacres who wanted to empty the North and “send the population under the feet of the government”.
It is impossible to avoid Janvier AFRICA. For the witness, “we are at the heart of the quarrels in this Rwandan case. Swindler held in custody in 1992, he claims to be responsible for intelligence services.. Some of the civil parties have “statufied” him as a god just as Jean-Pierre TURATSINZE. All this is a construction, a FPR political manipulation”. Since Janvier AFRICA never attended the meetings he talks about, these meetings did not exist! The accident in which Monique MUJAWAMARIYA evokes the name of SIMBIKANGWA allows the witness to say that, “in Rwanda, a disabled person is not sympathetic. A disabled person in a wheelchair is suspicious in Rwanda, even if the chair has been paid by the insurance!” Later, the witness will come back on this accident. MUJAWAMARIYA had “accused” SIMBIKANGWA of not being a stranger to this. The latter, met at the airport, told her : “Stop saying bullshit, otherwise next time you won’t escape.” Words spoke in the presence of Mrs. Alison DES FORGES.
Next is discussed the theme of the opposition press. “I have seen freedom of expression grow”, adds the witness. “Freedom of speech? In Rwanda, the strong power is that of KAGAME. Free speech? Truth? This is what will allow the speaker to feed his family, to live from day to day. It is unimaginable to tell an authority anything other than what it wants to hear”. And he mentions the death CORNEILLEs parents ! (Editors note : To avoid any controversy, we will not report this!)
The president resumed the hearing on Death Squads; The Akazu, the Zero Network! Nothing new will come of it. The witness gives the names of the people he is accustomed to meeting. As for BARRIL, he only saw him one day at the airport! He does not seem to want to talk about it. He continued by referring to the presence of the French soldiers: “We were the first to warn of the possibility of a genocide, since 1990. The genocide started when the French army left.” He is shocked: the notions of genocide and crimes against humanity are differentiated only after investigation. “Why did KAGAME refuse to allow the ICTR to work in Rwanda? We have qualified the facts of genocide without an investigation!” Colonel ROBARDEY also expresses his fears: “I am afraid that this Assizes Courtwill take the opposite of what the ICTR said. I am afraid that we convict SIMBIKANGWA for genocide and therefore say that there was planning”!
The 1993 FIDH report ? “I was amazed to read all these lies carved into marble when it had just been proved that the attacks were committed by the FPR! Of the 100 pages, 10 are devoted to the massacres of the FPR. They spent only one day in their zone where there were 10 times more deaths than in the governments zone!” GATABAZIs assassination ? “The investigation was conducted by Pascal KAYIHURA, a very honest person who will be assassinated by the FPR in 1995 for refusing to testify against France. For me, he knew too much about political assassinations!” (Editors note : It should be noted that the witness systematically attributes all the misdeeds to the FPR. With evidence?) And he continues by drawing Courts attention to the fate that would have been reserved for a witness who had come to testify at the first trial. We will not say more.
On the question of the French investigators’ freedom during the letters rogatory, the witness uttered a manifest contradiction. The French judges and investigating gendarmes seem to be investigating freely, with no member of the Rwandan prosecutor’s office attending the interrogations.
Mr. FOREMAN addresses the witness. “You are talking about a trial that goes beyond the accused! You don’t know him? We are here to examine the facts of which he is accused. You have nothing to say about him during the genocide.” The witness replied: “It’s not me who is talking about this trial on the internet. Others do. I have the right to read the reports!”
Assessment of Colonel ROBARDEYs mission ? “The French parliamentary mission issued a moderate judgment. General VARLET said that the mission had failed because what the Rwandans were seeking was to show the Tutsi”, says the CPCR’s lawyer. Mr ROBARDEY referred to the “sinking of old age” about his colleague. “I sent an insult letter to this General VARLET!” “And not to the ambassador MARTRE who said the same thing?” Continues the lawyer. Colonel’s reply: “MARTRE’s mission was to get France out of Rwanda.”
The president: “You worked with PÉAN, did you paid tribute to him?
Mr. ROBARDEY: “He reproduced what I said.”
The president : “According to PÉAN, your mission was to make propaganda!”
ROBARDEY: “My mission was to appease the country.”
The president insists: “PEAN says “counter-propaganda activity! “”
Mr. ROBARDEY: “I thought it was in Rwanda’s interest.”
The president: “A few molested people”, you wrote in an open letter to Ambassador SWINNEN, talking about the Tutsi massacres! “
ROBARDEY: “While I wrote that, 40,000 Hutu were killed in the north.”
The President: “Boniface tortured by SIMBIKANGWA! The facts are in the files! ”
Mr. ROBARDEY: “I have not read CHRÉTIEN” ( “You are right” intervenes mr. EPSTEIN). “I investigated SIMBIKANGWA and what Janvier AFRICA, commissioned by the FPR, said. Afterwards, I was no longer interested in him.” To the question of whether he read the ” CARBONARE “(FIDH) report : “I said 10 pages on the FPR and 100 on other crimes. Kibilira and the Bagogwe? NDAGIJIMANA says that it is the FPR!” (Editors note : If NDAGIJIMANA says it then ! One more pack of lies won’t change anything !) And to FOREMAN who protested : “You say anything to make a melting-pot . Your position is ridiculous! “
To Mr Jean SIMON, who is surprised by the witness’s remarks ( “I investigated and found no traces of planning!”), the colonel repeats that after the Bugesera, 400 people were arrested. “My presence stopped the massacres at Bugesera. Having noticed the shortcomings of the Rwandan government in Bugesera, I investigated: it was the FPR instigated it!” (Editors note : We will have heard it all ! The FPR would have killed the Tutsi in Bugesera !) He adds : “The Tutsi genocide but also the massacres in Zaire which are a genocide (see the Mapping report). It would require a court decision. “
Mr. HERVELIN-SERRE goes back on the Bugesera massacres, noting that the 400 people arrested were released and remained at large, with total impunity.
Witnesses answer: “I did not intervene because it was not my domain. I am not responsible for the mistakes of the Rwandan judiciary.”
Concerning the re-establishment of parallel intelligence networks when the SCR moved from the Presidency to the Prime Minister, the witness said that he understood that SAGATWA had attempted to re-establish an intelligence service in the Presidency.
Mr. CROSSON DU CORMIER remarked to the witness that he had read the internet and that he was influenced by what he had read before appearing. Witnesses answer: “That is why I am surprised that the CPCR can report. To influence witnesses?”
Then follows a brief debate on the conditions under which the French rogatory commissions in Rwanda toke place, the defense claiming that the investigators are always accompanied by a local judicial police officer. It’s NOT TRUE.
A final question is put to the witness. “What value do you attribute to the trial?”
“I would not continue to testify if I did not believe in it, out of respect for the Courts work. I have consideration for the people who question me”, continues Mr. ROBARDEY. (Editors note : we could sometimes doubt this!). And he mentions an “ethnic justice” in Rwanda. He adds that he is afraid that it is like this in France too. As for the FIDH report, “It’s a manipulation.”
Does the witness acknowledge the Tutsi genocide? “Did you heard me deny it?” answers the witness.
The worst is yet to come. Turning to the civil parties’ bench, he dares to speak these indecent words: “In this room, I may be the one who has lost the most friends during this genocide!”
The hearing ends with a dialogue between Mrs BOURGEOT and the witness. We talk about Pierre PEAN‘s intervention, the fact that Jean CARBONARE became adviser to President KAGAME, the assassination of GATABAZI, “the assassination attributed to the FPR today, which no one disputes”. The witness complains of the pages of insults he was subjected to and that were published on Google after his testimony at the first trial. (Editors note : He does not speak of his own calumnies, those of his friends PEAN, NDAGIJIMANA, Emmanuel NERETSE or other MUSABYIMANA against the CPCR and its officials!)
Hearing of Mrs FOLL and Mr. JACQUEMIN, policemen in Mayotte during Pascal SIMBIKANGWAs arrest.
They will be heard separately but their statements are of little interest to the case concerning the Assizes Court of Bobigny. SIMBIKANGWA was arrested for making false documents. This resulted in custody and the defense lawyers want to know under what conditions their client was detained. It should be noted that the accused was not able to obtain the assistance of any lawyer. Information obtained from the President of the Bar : SIMBIKANGWA had debts to his lawyer and he did not wish to appoint a new lawyer. No one wanted to defend him! The president also wants to know in what state of mind the accused was during the interrogations to which he was subjected. He collaborated, usually calm, but he sometimes got upset, trying to both minimize his role while refusing to be considered an insignificant figure. One gets a little lost in the procedure maze. The president pointed out that the case was not the one heard before the Court.
While Mr SIMON asks the defense to ask questions rather than rehear the case on the false documents, Mr EPSTEIN reviewed the detention conditions of their client.
Mr. CROSSON DU CORMIER asked a final question and asked why there had been two proceedings in this case of false documents. The last witness points out that in Mayotte the trafficking of forged papers is “a national sport”. He adds that “this is the first time he saw fakes so well done.” The question of the General Attorney will not really get an answer.
Alain GAUTHIER, Chairman of the CPCR
(translated by Leah TSHABALALA)
- Pdf file, in french, : “La France au chevet d’un fascisme africain“ .
[Back to text]
