Rwanda: Ms. Ingabire’s defense to the Supreme Court: serious mistakes of the High Court are the basis of the denial of justice to their client

http://www.fdu-rwanda.com/en

Rwanda: Ms. Ingabire's defense to the Supreme Court: serious mistakes of the High Court are the basis of the denial of justice to their client

APRIL 19, 2013  

Press release 18th April 2013

The defence lawyers of Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza show serious flaws in the trial process including the violation of the constitution and demand her full acquittal.

Mrs Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza continued her submission in the Supreme Court on Thursday 18 th April 2013, demonstrating how her sentence was based on matters that were not brought before the High Court during her trial.

In her appeal Mrs Ingabire, political prisoner since 2010, continued her argumentation against the sentence passed by the High Court on the charge of genocide denial (negationism/revisionism). She condemned the judge of the High Court for passing a sentence based on sentiments rather than solid evidence. The judgement was based on the reports that Mrs Victoire Ingabire had submitted to the Court including UN documents. The documents analysed the root causes of genocide against Tutsi, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The judge purported that Mrs Victoire Ingabire had distorted the content of those reports.

Mrs Victoire Ingabire told the court that the judge's position to only acknowledge the crime of genocide and ignore other crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are recognised by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, can only be based on sentiments than facts. This is highly regrettable, she pointed out. She added that there were many other independent reports that have been written about the issue of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda.

Mrs Victoire Ingabire told the court that some legal provisions had been trampled on including the violation of article 17 of the National constitution which stipulates that "criminal liability is personal". To illustrate this point she said that no one would understand how she would be sentenced on the basis of crimes allegedly committed by someone else for example FDLR and other people who are said to have sent money to FDLR. The High Court was keen to accuse her of sending money without any shred of evidence, at least showing her name on the money transfer forms. Mrs Victoire Ingabire once again showed contradictions in the decision of the judge of the High Court particularly in places where the judge claims, without any shred of evidence that there was a plan,other through an electoral process, to change the regime.

Mrs Victoire Ingabire concluded her plea by asking the Supreme Court to give her justice denied to her by the High Court.

The plea of Mrs Victoire Ingabire which ended at 12:30 was followed by the submission by her lawyer Mr Gatera Gashabana. Mr Gatera pointed out that his client never had a fair trial in the High Court. He highlighted the fact that during court hearings and before the Prosecution, the most basic of tenet of fair trial that "someone is innocent until proven guilty" was never applied. The biased conduct of the judge who, at times played the role of the Prosecution, became so exasperating that his client was forced to abandon the whole process on the 16th of April 2012. It became very clear to Victoire that she could not expect to get a fair trial in that Court.

Mr Gatera also gave examples that highlighted that partiality of the judge of the High Court. For instance defence lawyers were harassed to the point that they were searched like any suspect something that does not happen to the staff of the Prosecution. This is in contravention of the legal practice that the staff of the prosecution and of the defence enjoy the same rights particularly the right not to be searched during the execution of their work. Mr Gatera pointed out to the court that during the process of the trial at the High Court, the defence had drawn the attention of the Supreme Court the legal provision regarding the non reactivity of criminal laws and lack of authority of the High Court to try Mrs Ingabire for some crimes that she client was accused of. The High Court did not respond to this request from the defence team. The decision was not communicated in Court as expected. It was the spokesperson of the Courts and Tribunals who gave directives to the High Court through the media. The defence was shocked when the High court resumed, only seeing that the High Court was acting in line with the directives that were published in the papers quoting the spokesperson of Courts and Tribunals. This was a clear indication of lack of independence of the judge.

Mr Gatera pointed out that the partiality reached its paroxysm when the judge swore at the defence lawyers and threatened to end their mandate to represent Mrs Victoire Ingabire. This was again demonstrated when the defence witness was harassed and the judge simply ignored it. Such behaviour is clear testimony of lack of equal opportunity and of equal treatment of the prosecution and the defence.

Mr Gatera again pointed out the partiality of the High Court was again demonstrated when his client was sentenced on the basis of matters which were not brought before the court. This done simply because the prosecution was unable to make its case on the initial six charges that had been accused of. He highlighted the fact that the new charges of negationism/revisionism (genocide denial) and high treason did not appear anywhere in the charge sheet. His client was never interrogated about these charges by either the prosecution or the criminal investigation department. According to Gatera this is quite evident that the judge used powers that are not provided for in the Rwandan law.

Court hearings will resume on Monday 22nd April 2013.

 

FDU-Inkingi

Boniface TWAGIRIMANA

Interim Vice President