At the end of the Brussels trial of the two Rwandan businessmen accused of war crimes, the outcome was far from cut and dried. While the die was cast for Etienne Nzabonimana after the defence wrapped up its case on 24 June, lawyers representing Samuel Ndashyikirwa were still waiting to plead on the 27th. The verdict is expected on June 29. The week began with submissions from 16 lawyers representing about a hundred plaintiffs, whose complaints had been lodged both before and during the trial of the two Rwandan brothers, accused of participating in the genocide in Kigungo [see IJT 27 and 28]. The first counsel to take the stand, Melanie Uwamaliya, refused to comment on the growing number of accusers. "It's the dead who count, after all" she said with a smile. Huge numbers of people died in Kibungo between 6 and 22 April, 1994. By then, "the machine was well-oiled, effective and worked perfectly", claimed deputy prosecutor Alain Winants, who referred in lyrical terms to "this extraordinary trial" in the history of Belgian justice. This time, he did not brandish a machete in court, as in the first Rwandan case in 2001, contenting himself with a graphic description of scenes such as a woman carrying a child whose back was pierced by an arrow, or a Tutsi whose legs have been "shortened" by a machete. His aim being to engrave into the jury's minds the fact that "Nzabonimana and Ndashyikirwa, with their attitudes and political opinions and ideological choices, which left no room for doubt, did everything in their power and possession to ensure the genocide went ahead as planned."

For counsel Philippe Lardinois, there were no doubts either. "The argument that the accused were relatively small scale perpetrators is like trying to put the word humanity back into inhumanity." Indeed, if "the witnesses do not all say the same things, their different stories are proof that they are telling the truth," he argued. "Not one person committed genocide, it was a compilation of small acts of complicity that constituted the crime" added his colleague Luc Walleyn. "Once you got on the train, it was difficult to get off," said the lawyer. "When the situation deteriorated, you no longer drove people to meetings, but to military training. And when the killing started, you drove them to the killing sites." Pursuing his metaphorical approach, Walleyn said: "Adolf Eichmann was convicted in Jerusalem for having organised the trains going to Nazi Germany. Here, we are talking about driving trucks, and these trucks were perhaps just as important to Rwanda for the genocide of Tustis."

As the plaintiffs' cases unfurled, the doors seemed to be closing one by one for the defence. The lawyers for Nzabonimana tried their best to sow doubt. Cédric Vergauwen began by questioning the independence of the Belgian rogatory commission vis a vis the Rwandan government, casting aspersions on the role played by local prosecutor Didace Nyilinkwaya in the trial. Damien Holzapfel attempted to highlight gaps and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. He reminded one witness deposition that had sparked a comment by a member of the jury. The juror had mentioned that one of Nzabonimana's vehicules could not have been in two places at the same time. His over-insistent questioning caused him to be disqualified. Several members of the jury nodded at the lawyer's comment and turned towards the public, where the former juror sat, showing signs of solidarity.

Faced with the imbroglio of testimony presented 11 years after the crimes, the defence attempted to impose a measure of clarity and precision. Counsel Vergauwen took the gamble of addressing his client, Nzabonimana: "Like many others, I have the feeling that you have not always been telling the truth, and that hardly makes you very nice. I am convinced that during the events you did not want to know or see or hear about what was going on. You are not a torturer but a coward. Obviously you rubbed shoulders with the regime's dignitaries, but you have no taste for politics. Because you are a businessman to the core." His approach to the witnesses was more conciliatory. "I do not believe that Mr Nzabonimana was at the site of the massacres. Some witnesses have exaggerated the crimes, not out of a desire to lie, but because they think that they are doing the right thing. I believe, on the contrary, that they are telling the truth when they say that you had close ties with the leadership."