Alison Des Forges has finished giving evidence as a prosecution witness in the Media trial. Her expert testimony proved to be mostly general, and was often in response to questions far removed from the genocide. Once Alison Des Forges had taken her oath, the traditional exercise of presenting the witness to the court was an unusually lengthy affair, far longer than most expert witnesses called to testify before the ICTR. The curriculum vitae of the American Alison Des Forges, who holds a PhD in African History and a post as Senior Advisor to the African Division of the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, is not only impressive for its string of degrees earned at the top US universities. More striking is her thirty-five year relationship with Rwanda. Alison Des Forges is clearly a connoisseur of the 1994 genocide. During numerous visits to the « country of a thousand hills », she has amassed countless testimonies and written statements from survivors, assisted with the excavation of mass graves and gained access to often confidential diplomatic documents to support her research. Her book « Leave None to Tell the Story, » published jointly in 1999 by Human Rights Watch and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), which details her conclusions, is today considered a world reference on the genocide. The prosecutor was clearly convinced of her prize witness' ability to testify on the modern social and political history of Rwanda, but was Alison Des Forges qualified to discuss the role of the media in the 1994 genocide?

Lack of Specialisation
The question was quickly raised by the defence team for Ferdinand Nahimana, on the opening day of the expert-witness's deposition before chamber 1, 20 May 2002. Right from the start, Diana Ellis, co-counsel for the founder of the Radio télévision libre des milles collines (RTLM), filed a motion against the appearance of Alison Des Forges. Without calling into question her expert status, the British lawyer pleaded that her lack of specialisation in the field of communication made her unfit to testify on the role of the media during the genocide. The move set the tone for the constant vigilance Ellis was to demonstrate throughout the questioning. Working in tandem with counsel Floyd, defending Hassan Ngeze, she objected to practically every question put by the prosecutor over the origin and relevance of documents filed by the witness, often to the considerable irritation of president Pillay. The latter, more sympathetic to the arguments of the prosecutor Charity Kagwi, denied the defence's application, arguing that « Alison Des Forges' expertise cannot be separated from the domain of the media. » With this official permission to proceed, the questioning lasted nine days, from 20-31 May. Nine days during which both the prosecution and the defence asked questions that often strayed far from the role of the accused and the media during the 1994 genocide.

Impression of Straying From the Subject
With both hands clenched on the table, a concentrated look on her face, Dr. Des Forges appeared ready for her exceptional round of questioning, just as she was when she first testified in the Akeyesu trial in February and May 1997. However, it was not long before the exercise began to sound more like a lesson on the modern history of Rwanda than a prosecution testimony. Prosecutor Charity Kagwi's questions launched the witness into long and complex replies over the general relations between Hutus and Tutsis and the political power relations that were unfavourable to the latter after the 1959 revolution, then under the first and second Republics. It was all far removed from the role of the media during the genocide. After a while the court was under the distinct impression that Des Forges was rarely being allowed to address the real issues. This was not helped by the somewhat inappropriate smile on the face of the prosecutor each time she addressed her witness, which did nothing to make her questions more relevant.

Radios Held Jointly Responsible
The only questions that briefly skimmed the real subject during the morning concerned the role of the radio in Rwandan society, « a central point in Rwandan relations » according to Des Forges. Thanks to the radio, « The State and the MRND (the party of President Habyarimana, ed. note) enjoyed daily access to the life of Rwandans. The radio doubled State control of the home, » she claimed. Apart from this, Charity Kagwi was more concerned with redefining the political context of the period. She focused on the massacre of Tutsis in the early 1990s, most notably that in Bugesera region, which left several hundred dead at the beginning of March 1992. The expert stated that she had gathered at least forty testimonies on this macabre event. « It is the first time that the radio was used to incite people to commit violence, » she pointed out. « Several 'reliable' NGOs held the national radio stations jointly responsible for the massacres, » declared Des Forges. It wasn't until the next day, May 21, that the role of Ferdinand Nahimana, director of the Rwandan Information Office (Orinfor) from the end of 1990 to the spring of 1992, emerged during discussion of a protest letter signed by five NGOs against him returning to teach at the Rwandan National University in 1992. « They criticised the role he played during the Bugesera troubles, » read the expert witness at the prosecutor's request. But the prosecutor chose not to pursue this, preferring instead to focus on the development of political parties in 1992 and on the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic (CDR).

Clumsy Outbursts
The repeated objections raised by the defence bogged down an already directionless round of questioning. Counsel Floyd expressed doubts over the authenticity of a hand-written paragraph included in one of Barayagwiza's speeches. A grave-looking Biju- Duval, counsel for Ferdinand Nahimana, stood up to reinforce the point, reminding the court that « Dreyfus was convicted on the basis of unworthy expertise. » But the prosecution doggedly continued to focus on the pre-genocide period instead of the events in 1994. Likewise, when a new document referred to Nahimana as being clearly on the side of the Interahamwe militia, the prosecution chose to concentrate on the role of the militias and their history rather then their links with the accused.

The disjointed impression was not helped by a series of clumsy outbursts in response to provocation by the defence to justify the sources of documents. During examination of a letter written on 27 July 1992 by Anatole Nsengiyumva, then head of military intelligence, to President Habyarimana, expressing the vexation of the Rwandan Army over the Arusha Accords and warning him to « prepare for future hostilities, » the defence jumped up when it emerged that the documents were not originals but copies obtained from the University of Wales. « It is impossible to have the originals. We do not have access to the archives. We are not working in cooperation with the Rwandan government, » replied the prosecutor. « Who told you that? » snapped President Pillay. « Withdraw that part of your statement, » she ordered, keen to avoid dragging the court into the politically sensitive issue of cooperation with Rwanda. The lawyer obliged.

In a revealing comment, expert witness Alison Des Forges also qualified the document as « extraordinary », since « it shows how Habyarimana was able to sign the Arusha Accords only later to qualify them as 'scraps of paper'. » But although there seemed to be no doubt over the historical interest of the document, this was not the issue before Trial Chamber 1. « Why is it being used in the Media trial? » asked Hassan Ngeze. He did not get a reply.

« The Bloodiest Three Weeks »
The questioning finally came around to the media and the role of the accused when prosecutor Simone Monasebian stepped in to relive her colleague. The American directed her questions to the first three weeks of the massacre, from 7-25 April, 1994, « the bloodiest » according to the expert. The prosecutor asked the witness to read out the transcript of an interview given by Ferdinand Nahimana to a journalist of Radio Rwanda, dated 25 April 1994. In it, the accused speaks of his meeting in Bujumbura with Marc Nteturuye, the former Burundian ambassador to Rwanda. « I hope that you have not brought your damned radio RTLM with you (...) Or Burundi would disappear tomorrow, » the diplomat told him. Nahimana replied that he was truly satisfied by RTLM's contribution to « raising the awareness of the majority population *Hutu, ed. note+. » This was a new and potentially serious piece of evidence against the accused.

Kaddafi Mosque
Building on her advantage, and speaking plainly, the prosecutor then enumerated a series of examples where RTLM appeared to have played a crucial role in encouraging the killings of the Tutsis. She began with the Kaddafi mosque in Kigali, where the Tutsis were massacred on 9 June 1994. According to the expert, RTLM journalist Kantano Habimana spoke of the mosque before the massacre as a being of refuge for Tutsis. The expert read out the transcript at the request of the prosecutor: « *Habimana+ said that he had gone to see [the refugees] who were 'like cows in a slaughterhouse. I don't know if they have been slaughtered today or will be slaughtered tonight'. » He added that « Rwandan children (...) are right now, in a suicidal manner, facing bullets fired by Rwandan children. I think that they will all perish is they are not careful, » read Des Forges. The expert said that RTLM also mentioned the evacuation of refugees from the Hôtel des Mille Collines to the RPF zone in Kigali on 3 May 1994 by the United Nations Mission (UNAMIR) headed by General Dallaire. The convoy was later blocked by Interahamwe militia and sent back to the hotel.

Threat Against Ngeze
The prosecutor narrowed down her questions. « Do you know whether Hassan Ngeze ever spoke in the media? » asked Simone Monasebian. « Yes, on RTLM. He was defending himself against what he perceived as a threat made against him, » replied Des Forges. The prosecutor waited no longer before handing the witness the transcript of a programme broadcast during the genocide that quoted Ngeze's comments. The expert began reading in French, « If you stop someone, ask for their identity card. Go and get the bourgmestre and ask him what you should do. » She continued to quote Ngeze's highly ambiguous statements: « It is not all Tutsis who must suffer. (...) the people against whom we are fighting are members of the RPF and those who are working for the RPF. (...) Even if you are with the RPF and you are a genuine Hutu with a large nose, if you are an enemy, you will suffer for your actions. If you are a Tutsi with a long nose but you are a patriot, you should not suffer for that. No-one should suffer from their physical appearance. » Then, in another broadcast during mid-May 1994, « If it is too complicated to tell whether a person is a Hutu or a Tutsi, take them to the authorities. »

Impact
To end her prosecution evidence, Simone Monasebian asked her witness about the impact of the radio during the genocide. True to her strategy, Diane Ellis objected that the expert was not competent in that area. To no one's surprise, President Pillay overruled, allowing Alison Des Forges to reply. « The impact of the media depends on the social context. This is primordial in order to understand the genocide. At the time, I discussed this with General Dallaire and NGO representatives. The vast majority of them agreed that RTLM should be silenced. RTLM played a primordial role in the murder campaign. Everyone took the radio seriously. The killings were announced on it and the authorities urged the population to listen to the radio. And people took what it said as the truth. The radio had a huge impact in encouraging the murder of Tutsis and those protecting them, » she declared, irrevocably. In the light of her comments, Simone Monasebian had no further questions.

Legal Marathon
Monday 27 May 2002. President Pillay appeared in a much better mood than the previous week, taking the time to thank her two colleagues and the interpreters for their « excellent cooperation ». She then announced that Chamber 1 would be sitting for an additional two hours that week. The defence, led by counsels Ellis and Floyd, criticised the « pressure *put+ on the defence to finish cross-examination by the end of the week. » But their protest was purely a formality, since President Pillay had no remedy. The debates then started to resemble a legal marathon, as the defence began its cross-examination.

Counsel Floyd had the honour of opening the hostilities. The word is no exaggeration. Right from the start, Hassan Ngeze's lawyer sought to call into question the expert's presumed impartiality, and to present her as being pro-Tutsi and involved in the setting up of the ICTR. « I encouraged its creation », rectified the expert. Did her experience as a teacher in a Tutsi refugee camp in Tanzania in 1963 not contribute to forging pro-Tutsi sentiments? « My value system was shaped by my parents, » retorted Alison Des Forges cautiously. Continuing in the same vein, the defence lawyer, like the prosecutor the previous week, strayed far from the media during the genocide. Gesticulating, and vociferating into the microphone in a direct, if not aggressive manner, counsel Floyd played the game of provocation. Unfortunately for him, the expert did her best to keep calm, never losing her faint smile that showed a degree of self-assurance that was either genuine or feigned. The defence lawyer also paid a price for his frequent outbursts, which left him incapable of focusing on one precise subject. « I'm looking for a common thread, » he explained to the president who asked him where his questions were leading. He seemed quite unable to find one.

Theatrical Duo
The first questions concerning Hassan Ngeze did not emerge until late in the morning. Using several issues of the extremist newspaper Kangura, of which his client was chief editor, he sought to present Ngeze as a veteran investigative journalist who had paid the price for his freedom of expression. His client stepped in to correct errors made by the interpreters over his legal past. « I was convicted 20 times and held in police custody 36 times » he told the court, as he stood twiddling with the black tassel hanging from his red cap. It is well known that the two men do not get on outside the courtroom. But inside, it was undeniable that the two men formed a complementary, if not theatrical, duo.

The lawyer forged ahead, arguing that Ngeze had spent a great deal of time in the United States, that he believed in freedom of the press and that he had paid tribute to Kayibanda, the only democratically-elected president in the history of Rwanda, but all to no avail. The expert remained wary. « Ngeze was loyal to many people in his career who could have put him in prison, » she said. At the close of the day's session, counsel Floyd gave his own summary of the first day's cross-examination: « We have been dancing a dance in which she was a reluctant partner. » Was this a criticism or a regret?

Puppet of Power
On 28 May, counsel Floyd attempted to move closer to the issue of the media than on the previous day. Referring back to a paragraph in Kangura where his client criticised the regime, he asked; « For someone who has been imprisoned several times for writing articles that criticised the Habyarimana regime, how can you explain that he was part of the regime? » The expert replied unhesitatingly. « Mr. Ngeze was a very cunning person who could easily negotiate complex situations. He was known for moving between different influential people, to such an extent that many Rwandans wondered whether he actually worked for two different people. Although it's true that he was sent to prison, there were cases when he was able to gain access to high-ranking officers. » She then quoted Anatole Nsengiyumva, who was former head of military intelligence and then head of the military region of Gisenyi, and President Habyarimana. « The passage taken from this newspaper leads me to believe that he was extremely well informed and had a highly perceptive analysis to defend his own interests. »

When Judge Gunawardana asked the expert if it could be said that Ngeze was a member of the Akazu, Alison Des Forges delivered an uncompromising portrait of the defendant. « That would be too strong a word. In the Rwandan system, the powerful have always been surrounded by others. Ngeze is someone who served their interests but could be arrested if he let them down. Someone who they could turn to carry out their orders. » Sitting on the defence bench, his head in his hands, Ngeze listened to the expert portray him as a puppet of power at the head of the newspaper Kangura, created in 1991, like « a baby that cried its heart out to attract attention. »

« No one is Perfect »
Then in an attempt to destabilise the witness, counsel Floyd brandished a new weapon: a photo of President George Kayibanda on the front page of Kangura dating back to 1991. The headline asked « What weapons can we use to beat the Inyenzi for good? » The photo had been used in Des Forges' book « Leave None to Tell the Story » but the caption read that this was taken from an issue of Kangura in December 1993. The lawyer suggested that this was a sign that the expert had tried to sow confusion by showing that it had been published shortly before the 1994 genocide. Judge Mose's sudden harsh glance at Alison Des Forges did not bode well. She was obliged to justify herself. « The photo is taken from the book by Jean-Pierre Chrétien, » she explained. « Is there anywhere in your book where you say this? You criticise people who do not have the same resources as you. How can you have the audacity to do that given the error that you yourself have made? » raged Floyd. « No one is perfect, » admitted the expert. « I do not claim never to make mistakes. »

However, by the end of the day, the expert had managed to turn the situation around. Her comment that RTLM had been founded for ideological reasons stunned the lawyer. Hardly believing his ears, he demanded that she provide evidence of this. The following morning Des Forges obliged by quoting from a copy of Kangura issue n° 46 and the book written by Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, « The Truth About the Rwandan Massacres ». « All the private press was first and foremost ideologically motivated, » wrote the founder of the CDF in 1995.

« De-mystifier »
On 30 May, Jean-Marie Biju-Duval, counsel for Ferdinand Nahimana, began his cross-examination with the obvious intention to discredit Alison Des Forges. From the very start of the trial he had openly declared that she had no place there. Avoiding RTLM altogether, he attempted to kill two birds with one stone by using his client's history doctorate to discredit Des Forges' own thesis. In 1986, Ferdinand Nahimana defended his dissertation on the Hutu kingdoms in northwest Rwanda who escaped Tutsi influence before a jury at the University of Paris (Paris VII). He was awarded the highest honours from the jury and earned a comment from the expert Jean-Pierre Chrétien that he was the student who « de-mystified Rwandan history. » Visibly tense, the French lawyer began an aggressive jousting match. « It is true that Nahimana is one of the historians who challenged the ancient historical truism that Rwanda had originally been a powerful united kingdom led by a Tutsi dynasty? And that he called into question a false notion of the past? » he asked. The expert conceded the point. « Yes, along with other historians, she said. » Biju-Duval informed the court that in her 1972 dissertation, Des Forges had argued the opposite. But before the lawyer could continue much further, he was interrupted by an incident in court. « Could we conclude from this that during the 1970s, Des Forges was a historian... » suddenly, a tiny nervous giggle resounded in the chamber. The lawyer bristled, stopping in mid-question. « Your Honour, did you hear Ms. Des Forges burst out laughing! » he exclaimed. « We heard no laughter, » she replied, denying the obvious.

Counsel Biju-Duval resumed. « This is a question that I am asking you without laughing. On the one hand, you defend a false version of the past and on the other, Ferdinand Nahimana is said to be the de-mystifier of ancient Rwandan history, » he stated. « My interpretation is the same as Nahimana's. I am sorry if I offended you by smiling. I found it amusing of you to portray me as an American historian trying to defend the Hamitic hypothesis and Ferdinand Nahimana a young indigenous *Rwandan+ defending the other idea, » said Alison Des Forges.

Retort
The following day, the expert witness retorted by bringing documents to try and show that Ferdinand Nahimana did support the ethnically based theses. In an article written by the accused in 1979, she claimed to have found 33 references to Hutus in 3 pages. In response, Jean-Marie Biju- Duval tried to catch her at her own game by comparing the article to Des Forges' own thesis. Quoting from the title of chapter V « Let a Tutsi man into your house and you'll soon find him in your bed », he commented « you are highlighting the hostility between the Hutu and Tutsi communities. » « The proverb you quoted is a common saying among the people of the north. I used it to illustrate the contents of the chapter, » she replied. « Which illustrated the hostility, » insisted the lawyer. « Which is what Ferdinand Nahimana does not do in his 1979 article. You seemed to be more interested in this hostility. (...) By trying to use the article to show signs of an ethnically-based attitude, you are trying to mislead the court and you are not demonstrating the objectivity expected of an expert, » he snapped. « It is not surprising in the nature of your work that you should form such a judgement. For my part, I stand by what I said, » retorted Des Forges, ignoring the provocation. It was a lively exchange of historical analysis, but nevertheless took the court miles away from Nahimana's role in the media.

Dialogue of the Deaf
When Biju-Duval sat down to allow Diana Ellis, co-counsel for Ferdinand Nahimana, to question the witness, she also strayed from the real issue. Like her predecessors, she was intent on discrediting Alison Des Forges' status as an expert witness. But unlike them, she did so without historical detours, using « simple questions for someone who is not simple » as she put it. This was one way of saying that she did not appreciate the length and complexity of the expert's replies. But using her intellectual rigour to counter the lawyers' repeated attacks on her objectivity was evidently part of Alison Des Forges' defence mechanism.

At times, this created a veritable dialogue of the deaf. At one point, for example, counsel Ellis came very close to tripping the expert up over why NGOs had felt the need to criticise the international human rights violations after the RPF invasion on 1 October 1990. « Why not condemn those who used armed force to invade a country, in contravention of international humanitarian law? » asked the British lawyer. « Our work requires us to stick to precise allegations of human rights violations. Justifying the war is not a part of it, » said Des Forges. « Is it not part of your mandate to comment on clear violations of international treaties that result in human rights violations? » insisted the lawyer, pertinently. « We could continue like this for a long time, » replied Des Forges, putting an end to the delicate line of questioning.

Compromising Relations
But counsel Ellis kept her hardest attacks for the end. Des Forges had made several trips to Rwanda during the 1990s and the lawyer asked her to tell the court more about her contacts with members of the U.S. State Department, most notably with a member of the State Department investigation committee, whom she met briefly at a breakfast and then at a dinner in California in December 2000. The expert was requested to give an account of the meeting. « We spoke about Rwanda. He wanted logistical information, » explained the expert. Pressured by the lawyer's questions, she felt obliged to point out that she was « not employed by the United States ». Although Diana Ellis was unable to prove the contrary, she was clearly keen to cast doubt over the subject.

On the prosecution bench, prosecutor Charity Kagwi looked slightly worried. The lawyer continued: « In your CV, it appears that you have been extremely committed to providing top-level information to the United States. (...) You also helped the first ICTR prosecutor in the investigations he carried out, » said Diana Ellis. « I did not assist him, » replied Des Forges, defensively. « But you gave him advice and information, as you did to Judge Vandermeersch. » « Yes, » admitted the expert. Diana Ellis likes to have the last word. Her insinuations came to a head over the question of Des Forges' sources, in particular, over the microfilms prepared for the ICTR by the State Department. These were fact-finding documents prepared by US teams sent to Rwanda in August and September 1994, and used by the prosecutor during her questioning. Des Forges explained that she had scanned parts of them at the libraries of Georgetown University in Washington and New York University (Buffalo) in December 2001, after asking Carla Del Ponte to write to the U.S. Ambassador for War Crimes, Pierre-Richard Prosper, and request his authorisation. Prosper was « a former ICTR prosecutor, » Diana Ellis told the court emphatically, and Des Forges was forced to concede that she had met him at the time. The exchange could not have been a more blatant illustration of the expert's compromising relations with the ICTR office of the prosecutor, raising real doubts over her impartiality. Diana Ellis would doubtless have wanted to twist the knife even further, but the president did not allow her the time to do so. The session ended, but the matter has merely been postponed. The defence is due to complete its cross-examination during the final prosecution hearing from 2-12 July. « Your damned Radio RTLM »

Transcript of the interview with Ferdinand Nahimana by Orinfor journalist André Nambaje, 25 April 1994.
André Nambaje: « In the countries you have been to, whether in Bujumbura in Burundi or Bakavu in Zaire, if you have managed to speak to people, how would you assess their understanding of the war in Rwanda that was launched by the Inkontanyi of the RPF? »
Ferdinand Nahimana: « The people we talked to were involved in the Bujumbura administration, especially Tutsis. I'd say that the first person who came to see me after being informed that Rwandans had arrived aboard a French plane is a man called Marc Nteturuye, the former Burundian ambassador in Kigali. He greeted me with the words 'I hope you haven't brought your damned RTLM radio with you. I can't see any other way of describing it because...I even regret saying the word RTLM. I hope you haven't brought the RTLM with you.' I asked him: 'Your Excellency, why do you seem so afraid of RTLM?' He replied: 'If it had been brought to Burundi, I think that Burundi would disappear tomorrow.' So I said to him: 'I am very happy because I take this to mean that RTLM has contributed to raising awareness of the majority population. Because what you have said, your Excellency, comes from your own mind, and I know that you are speaking on behalf of the minority.' Then he laughed and so did I. »
Barayagwiza and the Financing of RTLM

After the discussion of RTLM's ideological roots, the question of financial control of the radio was raised on 29 May in a cross-examination led by Alfred Pognon, counsel for Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza. « He was one of three people authorised to supervise the station's finances. He who plays the music calls the tune, » said Alison Des Forges. Baffled by this somewhat mysterious comment, the lawyer asked the expert to be more precise, but without much luck. Instead, Des Forges spoke vaguely about « paying bills, salaries and financial receipts relating to the running of the radio. » « You have not said how Barayagwiza supervised the presenters and journalists of the RTLM radio, » remarked Alfred Pognon. But the sound of his mobile telephone interrupted his crucial question. The incident caused so much embarrassment that the lawyer did not pursue the point any further...