On September 11, the Court of Assises in Brussels awarded 575,070 euros in reparation to 21 Rwandan civil parties out of nearly 150 represented at the trial of Major Bernard Ntuyahaga. On July 5, Ntuyahaga was sentenced to 20 years in prison [IJT-70] for the murder of 10 Belgian UN peacekeepers at the start of the genocide in Kigali. However, the Rwandan victims are not about to receive their compensation award any time soon. In 2001, during the first trial held in Belgium for Rwandans accused of genocide, the Court of Assises did not make any rulings on compensation. "The lawyers were not ready to present the case," explains one of them. However, one judge offered a more cynical interpretation: "The lawyers had little interest in a civil action, which would be less lucrative than going before the Court of Assises." In 2005, during the second Rwandan genocide trial in Belgium, 15 victims were awarded a total of 570,000 euros.

To date, nothing has been paid to them. The first reason is the defendants' supposed insolvency. However, Etienne Nzabonimana, a merchant from eastern Rwanda sentenced to 12 years in prison in 2005, is rumored to have wealth in Rwanda. "With this wealth, we could begin to make compensation," recognizes Vincent Lurquin, who represented the other defendant in 2005, Samuel Ndashyikirwa. But, clarifies Luc Walleyn, a lawyer familiar with these trials, "the Belgian decisions [would have to be] accepted in Rwanda." Efforts in this direction are underway.
"The crime has been acknowledged," points out André-Martin Karongozi, lawyer to the civil parties in these trials, "but many victims believe that if the Belgian government has created a law that cracks down on crimes committed abroad, it should carry through its thought process to guarantee their compensation." Following this reasoning, certain lawyers in the Ntuyahaga trial requested compensation based on the highest amounts recognized under Belgian law, even though the Court reminded them that the law on civil liability the law explicitly defers to the law of the country where the crimes were committed.

"Why should a State which prosecutes crimes on the basis of universal competence have to compensate the victims itself?" wonders Walleyn. According to Lurquin, this could have a counter-productive effect, "If the country that commits to hold a trial must also pay, it's simple: no one will hold a trial." Now others, like Karongozi, who speaks of a "political gesture," express the "wish" that a specific fund be put into place "funded by the international community."

In Rwanda, the post-genocide government has acknowledged the responsibility of the state several times, particularly when it comes to crimes committed by the military. Yet, despite international obligations on states to provide reparations to victims of serious violations of human rights on their soil, the Rwandan government has not paid any legal reparations to survivors. Rwandan courts have supposedly already awarded around 70 billion Rwandan francs (130 million dollars) in compensation. But, like that awarded in Belgium, it is yet to be paid. What's more, Rwandan law makes clear that "all civil actions brought against the State must be declared inadmissible" on the grounds that the State has acknowledged its responsibility and contributed to a trust fund for survivors. Yet, 14 years after the genocide, that fund still does not exist. Rather, the government has only created a limited assistance fund for needy survivors.

Luc de Temmerman, Ntuyahaga's lawyer, wanted to take legal action against Rwanda (which was a civil party). After all, wasn't Rwanda Ntuyahaga's "employer" at the time? For Lurquin, that raises the question of the continuity of the State. "On one hand, Rwanda believes it has the right to demand damages for the crimes committed in 1994, which indicates that it recognizes this continuity. On the other, de Temmerman says, 'since you recognize this, you should guarantee the sums owed by Ntuyahaga, a former major in the army.'" The Court has postponed arguments on this subject.