In any court in the world, every effort is made to benefit the chambers, to support those with the responsibility of implementing justice, through rulings and judgements. Any court ? Any court except the ICTR it appears. Direct support for the judges, in logistical and staffing terms, has never been a spending priority, and neither the points made in the Paschke report nor the insignificant increases in the 1998 budget have redressed the imbalance. « The steering tool is always the budget ». The ICTR judges may care to mull over this coldly realistic appraisal, as they sit helplessly by. In 1998, the ICTR budget rose by almost 50%. A welcome step forward for an institution which had for a long time been undermined by financial restrictions. Now, the Tribunal is no longer hard up, but for those whose job is dispensing justice, and applying the law, the benefit is difficult to appreciate. Like many others, Judge Lennart Aspegren (who has officially asked for his term of office not to be renewed) has done his calculations: « In the 1998 budget, as far as I understand, the Registry's share went up by 64%, that's almost 15 million dollars more. The chambers on the other hand, the staff working directly with the judges, got 4%. In terms of jobs, that's 180 extra posts for the Registry and 1 for the chambers ».

1 extra post, still empty

As for the chambers, the financial year (exercice) has not been long-term. There are around 20 people working directly for the six ICTR judges, six of whom, are legal assistants and six are secretaries. As the first judgements are made and the workload increases, the workforce of the chambers - whose rulings and legal work is the foundation of the Tribunal's existence - is conspicuous by the lack of priority afforded it. In terms of personnel directly used to support the judges, there is indeed only one new job provided, a second assistant for the President. This position is currently unfilled, although it was advertised in May and the deadline for applications was the end of June. More indirectly, in the budget for the Registry's general legal services, two new positions are provided for : a legal research officer, and a legal librarian. But again, neither of the positions has been filled in Arusha. Regarding the first, the Registry « did not find the right person ». Failing that, three or four interns have been put to work. The outlook for the second post is more hopeful, expected this month as it the start-up of its counterpart in The Hague has been strengthened.

A Library to be created

This is no mean task, since in the realm of documentation and access to legal information almost nothing has been done yet - a source of frustration clearly identified by the last internal audit by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services. « At this time I couldn't tell you that we have the library we ought to? considering the requirements of a Tribunal like this one », says Judge Ostrovsky, vice-president of the ICTR. The few hundred books of varying degrees of relevance available in Arusha are all the product of donations, more from individual voluntary initiatives than a precise policy enacted by the Registry. After Denmark, Canada and France (the bountiful donor of about twenty books), Ireland is the next country to have considerably enriched the Tribunal's shelves with a donation of more than £50,000 (roughly $90,000). Equivalent to nine times the sum set aside for this purpose in the ICTR's budget, this donation has still not been used. The archives are an essential key to legal work. « That is really the way jurists work » observes one of the magistrates, « first, reading the existing literature and then seeing whether a similar case has been heard, and what the ruling on it was. That goes without saying, it's expected. Here it is considered strange. So the court bureaucracy does not let us have a system in which we can look up our rulings or those made in The Hague. This is utterly counterproductive ».

The mirror of The Hague

Although access to the main database of American law has recently been made available in the library, it's still a question of a harmful list of priorities regarding. For example, what Judge Pillay calls « extremely unsatisfactory » access to the Internet. Another notable example is legal dictionaries, whole consignments of which are simply not passed on to the judges. With no up-to-date books of this type, one judge had to open his own during the latest plenary session, causing mirth for one of his colleagues from The Hague. The Dutch-based twin of the ICTR inevitably provokes jealousy regarding support for the Chambers. « The form should be that the Registrar goes to the President every time someone new is to be taken on » stresses one Arusha Judge, « It is not necessary for him to follow the advice of the President or the judges, but he should at least consult them. This seems to be exactly what happens in The Hague ». Also often mentioned is the far less formal system that is said to apply in the ICTY, apparently far less permeated by power struggles. In a context like this, the new deputy Registrar, Imelda Perry, seeks to reassure : « Balance will have been restored by next year. There's a shortage of legal staff at all judicial and legal levels, but it's hard to attract staff. We want the best for this Tribunal ».

Assistants and jurists-linguists

The judges' specifications, however, hardly seem exorbitant. One of them concerns legal assistants. Navanethem Pillay expresses a general desire when she says, « Each judge needs two assistants : one for the daily work linked to the hearings and the other for research ». This view is obviously too revolutionary in those most pragmatic eyes that anticipate little more than one extra assistant per chamber. The second requirement articulated urgently is for some jurist-linguists. « This profession is totally unknown here but in the EU there are around two thousand of them » explains Lennart Aspegren, « They aren't translators, it's a new profession which combines legal skills and at least one language other than the mother tongue. That's what we need here ». Aspegren has suggested the idea, which has since met with unanimous approval. How many are needed ? Two. By any argument one French-speaking and one English-speaking one. The Registrar is apparently prepared to approve only one - despite the fact that the dozens of corrections ratified during the most recent plenary session to harmonise the English and French versions of the rules of procedure clearly illustrates the language problems posed by the officially bilingual nature of the ICTR's work (not to mention the verification of rulings and judgements to come. In the case of Jean-Paul Akayezu's judgement, the judges in the Trial Chamber simply resigned themselves to not having any such help. Only three jurist-linguists candidates have been identified. Once again the diligence of the personnel section is questionable.

Off balance

From now on, in the analysis of vice-president Ostrovsky, « it is necessary to concentrate on strengthening those units that work for the chambers. I don't think this is actually happening. I'm not sure that we need so many people not directly involved in the chambers' activities ». All in all, things are off balance. Nothing for free

« Person A says to his friend B : 'Can I give you a present ?' 'No', says B, at first. 'I insist. I want to give you a present » says A. 'Yes, but in that case, you'll have to pay me more for my administration costs. I want two presents, not one. I don't really want the present at all, but if I agreed, I will only do so provided that you give me another', replies B. 'But I haven't got the money for another present. I've only got enough for one'. 'That's your problem. That's how it is« . It was in the form of this brief fable that Judge Aspegren summed up the story of an offer from the EU which would have profoundly changed the ICTR two Trial Chambers' capacity for work. A long time ago, the EU had offered to provide about 15 legal assistants for the ICTR, just as it had done in The Hague, under the instigation of the international Committee of Jurists. In late 1997, it was thought that the offer was about to be realised. Alas ! the reinforcements never arrived. They were apparently prevented by frugal UN regulations allowing such gifts only if the donor adds on 13% administration costs. The EU seems to have found this a touch excessive. Some solutions have been put forward, but unsuccessfully. »Staff are like gold dust« we were told in tones of desperation in the chambers. As usual the UN has demonstrated its reluctance to use seconded staff - to which policy the reply is given that an exception should be made for an ad hoc tribunal like this one which, theoretically, has a deadline for the accomplishment of its work. Whereas in The Hague, when EU jurists leave this month after eighteen months' fine and loyal service, precautions seem to be in place with provision made in the budget for their replacement by permanent staff. There is no such provision in the ICTR budget. The Registry recently received a follow-up letter from the EU and negotiations are thus under way. But is the same plan still being discussed ? »What's the point of going on with an idea that the donors have rejected ?« , is the cheerful refrain from the Registry. For a long time the poor relation, the ICTR is now behaving like a spoilt child.

The First Verdict

What will the ICTR leave to posterity ? First and foremost its judgements. The first of these is expected in August and involves the former mayor of Taba, Jean-Paul Akayezu. This will be an historic judgement, since it will be the first to be passed on the crime of genocide, at least the first by an international tribunal. In April, President Kama boasted that »the Registry has placed all the available means« at the disposal of the three judges responsible for drawing up and delivering the judgement. On the eve of the verdict, what has actually been done ? Trial Chamber 1 was able to form a working group composed of six jurists, two interns and a secretary, with the (more limited than hoped-for) assistance of the translation services. The assistance of three experts was also obtained, one for five weeks, another for two months and the third by correspondence. A minimum seems to have been provided: the experience does not signal an organisation capable of taking hold of a situation in the long-term. All the jurists have had to carry on their daily legal work at the same time and while Trial Chamber 1 has had only a few hearings on its timetable over the last three months, that will not be the case in the future. How then, with the same available resources, will future cases be dealt with while the judgements on others are being drafted, particularly considering the legal complexity of each case and the historic significance that each judgement will bear ? With only one senior legal officer capable of supervising the group working directly for the judges, how will the court cope with this issue when several judgements are being made simultaneously ? To use a real life example, before the end of this year the verdicts in the Kambanda, Kayishema/Ruzindana and Rutaganda cases will be delivered, or will enter their drafting phase while other trials will have started as well.

»Akayezu isn't the only one !«

Although those involved in drafting the first judgement did not ultimately have access to a jurist-linguist, they did at the last minute obtain all the corrected and computerised transcriptions of the hearings in the Akayezu case. However, the person responsible for this laborious task was unceremoniously dismissed in June to the disappointment of the parties and chambers, which had begun to take advantage of this new asset. »The harm is done« it is said. In the cases pending, the transcripts are not ready in that form, and the judges in Trial Chamber 2 who see the Kayishema/Ruzindana case coming to a close in September may well be in for a nasty shock - particularly as this case has generated twice the number of pages, about eight thousand. »Akayezu isn't the only one !« is the warning. This is an obvious fact stated by a judge concerned to underline the nature of the ICTR : »You can't say that drafting a judgement is an unusual activity for a Tribunal. That's what we're here for ! And that's all we're here for. We haven't asked for more support for pleasure or comfort, it's to deliver judgements. There is a lack of common platform with the local bureaucracy and the one in New York« . Yakov Ostrovsky is not concealing his anxiety over what will happen after the first judgement : »We're getting to the point where judgements are made. We need a lot of information. From this perspective, the judges cannot be satisfied with the situation. Documents have to be prepared for the judges, and that's not the type of work for legal assistants. There has to be a very efficient group supporting the work of the chambers. But the problem hasn't been solved« . In July 1997, a member of the Tribunal sounded the warning bell : »In less than a year, the whole thing will explode !« The timetable, less full than predicted for the first six months, has perhaps merely postponed a dire outcome. »