On June 8, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) convicted France of failing to prepare its case against the Rwandan priest Wenceslas Munyeshyaka within a reasonable timeframe. The initial complaint, implicating him in the 1994 genocide, was filed nine years ago in July 1995. Although this is the first time such a case has been heard before the ECHR, the situation is not unique. Complaints filed between 1995 and 2001 against four Rwandans suspected of genocide who are residing in France are still pending in the French courts.
Sosthène Munyemana, a former doctor, Laurent Bucyibaruta, the ex-prefect of Gikongoro, and Laurent Serubuga, a former officer of the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) are all wanted for their alleged participation in the genocide. Indictments were issued in 1995 for the former and in 2000 for the two other suspects. A fourth, Cyprien Kayumba, another ex-FAR officer, was accused in 2001 of supplying arms to those who carried out the genocide. The complaints, which were filed by individuals and backed by the International Federation of Human Rights, the Human Rights League and the association Survie (Survival), have still not been heard by the courts.
The plaintiffs are demanding to know why the cases are taking so long, pointing to the fact that France has a legal obligation to prosecute those suspected of such crimes. In 1996, France incorporated the UN Security Council's Resolution 955 into its national legislation. This stipulates that all states must cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The law also granted the French courts universal jurisdiction. Some plaintiffs allege that political obstacles are blocking the legal proceedings. «There is no political commitment to the trials in France, despite the declarations of past and present leaders. France's position was unclear during the genocide. Both the left and right wing are unwilling to face the issue,» says Alain Gauthier, who chairs the Plaintiffs' Collective for Rwanda. Sharon Courtoux, citing the findings of the «citizens' enquiry» into the subject completed in March 2004 by her association Survie, goes even further. She says that the French government provided concrete, «undeniable» backing to the former Rwandan regime during the genocide. «All the proceedings filed in this country evoke France's responsibility. Do you know of any nation willing to confess to its crimes?» she asks.
William Bourdon, a lawyer working on the cases, believes that «there are obviously ulterior political motives but this is difficult to prove». Above all, he criticises the «lack of dynamism on the part of the judges, who initially found it hard to accept the primacy of international law». The lawyer also points to the complete lack of resources available to the examining magistrates. «They are asked to investigate massive crimes, while already being overloaded on a daily basis,» he laments. Not to mention the general «apathy» or «time wasted» redirecting the complaints that were initially filed in the provinces to the higher level court in Paris. For example, it took almost a year for the Paris Court of Appeal to include the Munyeshyaka case in the court calendar in the spring of 1999. «At the time it was hoped that the ICTR would take up the case, but this did not happen,» recalls counsel Bourdon. There were also distinct hopes of shifting the burden onto the UN jurisdiction in at least one more case, that of the prefect of Bucyibaruta.
When questioned about these highly unusual delays, the Ministry of Justice offered the vague reply that «the problem of genocide is of a complex legal nature». He then suggested that the answer might lie with... the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The latter, represented by its director of legal affairs, concurred. Yet this same argument failed to convince the judges of the Strasbourg court in the Munyeshyaka case, who ruled that it was «not enough in itself to justify the length of trial proceedings».