100 Days of Silence in Rwanda

Aliorde, Mary Ann

Basquiña, Angeles
Coronel, Mitos Cilah E.
Obusan, Jenny
Sta. Isabel, BJ
Block A

September 29, 2018

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

100 DAYS OF SILENCE IN RWANDA

BACKGROUND AND BRIEF HISTORY OF RWANDA

Brief History of Rwanda

Hutu and Tutsi Having inhabited the region for centuries, the majority Hutus formed 84 per cent of the
population while the Tutsis accounted for 15 per cent. The Twa, a cave-dwelling marginalized and
disenfranchised pygmies group that counts for the remaining one percent of the population, were the early
settlers of Rwanda before the coming of the Hutus and Tutsis.

Despite being the minority, for decades the Tutsis ruled and dominated the kingdom under kings named
Mwamis. The country had division structures based on province, district, hill and neighborhood levels
with each sector ruled by appointed chiefs who were mainly Tutsi. The Hutu revolution of 1959 marked a
critical turning point in Rwanda’s history; it saw the end of Tutsi political domination as Hutu chiefs
replaced Tutsi authorities. To restore order the Belgium government that for decades had favored the
Tutsi switched sides and now supported the Hutu. Rwanda gained its independence in 1962 and Gregoire
Kayibanda, became its first elected Hutu president. Social unrest in 1973 saw Kayibanda ousted from
power in a military coup led by Major General Juvenal Habyarimana, who then became president. While
ensuring Hutu political dominance, President Habyarimana‟s two decades reign of terror was marked
with political assassinations and torture. The assassination of Habyarimana on April 6, 1994, marked the
beginning of the Rwanda genocide that lasted for one hundred days.

Oppressed for decades and excluded from power, in 1957, the majority Hutu for the first time politically
challenged the Tutsi oligarchy and published a manifesto demanding their emancipation and majority
rule—this marked the start of political struggle between the Hutu and the Tutsi. To appeal for Hutu
solidarity and ensure a revolution, one of the key ideological ingredients was spreading the belief that
Tutsis were “outsiders” and Rwanda belonged to the Hutus.

In 1988, the Tutsis who had fled the country following the Hutu revolution conflicts and settled in refugee
camps in Uganda formed the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), a group of armed exiles whose agenda was
to secure their repatriation and inclusion in the Rwandan government—using force if necessary. In
October 1990, the RPF invaded Rwanda from the northwest and the ensuing conflict resulted in one
million internally displaced people settling in refugee camps north of Kigali.
President’s Assassination

The Rwandan genocide began on the night of April 6, 1994, after the plane carrying Habyarimana and the
president of Burundi, Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down. Although to this day responsibility of the
assassination is still a matter of speculation, not surprisingly the Hutus publically accused the RPF of the
crime. They are those who suspect Habyarimana was killed by the Hutu extremists. Some radical Hutus in
his party had come to view him as a traitor, because he had signed the Arusha accords and was yielding to
the power-sharing demands by the international community and Tutsi rebels

As if the president’s assassination was the spark the Hutu extremists had been waiting for, they quickly
moved into action. First, moderate Hutu government leaders and political opponents were deliberately
eliminated creating a vacuum in which Colonel Theoneste Bagosora, one of the masterminds of the
genocide and his supporters could take control. By midnight roadblocks were being erected and the
extermination of Tutsis was underway, first in the capital then spreading swiftly to other regions. A day
after the assassinations, the Hutu extremists strategically murdered ten Belgium peacekeepers knowing it
would provoke an international withdrawal from their country. Shortly, the international community
begun its withdrawal from Rwanda sending a clear signal “to the extremists that the international
community would not stop them from carrying out a final solution.

In a breath-taking speed and scale, for the next one hundred days as the rest of the world watched, nearly
a million people were systematically slaughtered, making it, as Shaharyar Khan observes, “a killing rate
five times more intensive than in Nazi Germany The genocide ended in early-July when the advancing
RPF captured Kigali and the Hutu militia fled to the Democratic Republic of Congo and other
neighboring countries— looting and destroying infrastructure on their way out. Not only had more than
10 percent of the population been slaughtered, another 30 percent had gone into exile-leaving behind a
devastated population.

Rwandan Genocide

Rwandan genocide was not a result of two tribes erupting into violence and slaughtering each other and
neither were the killings ignited by the death of president Habyarimana. Rather, the genocide was planned
in advance by a clique which included the Rwandese government, and the Hutu hardliners who wanted to
hold on to power under any means necessary—including exterminating the entire Tutsi population.
Unlike in other parts of Africa where they were clear distinctions between different ethnic groups, the
Tutsi and Hutu spoke the same language, believed in the same God, intermarried and for centuries lived
side by side as neighbors throughout the country. The ethnicity question has led some authors to argue
that “by the 19th century hundreds of years of cohabitation and intermarriage had produced an
“integrated” social system wherein the categories of Hutu and Tutsi were largely occupationally defined.
Despite being about fifteen per cent of a population that was over eighty per cent Hutu, the more
militarily organized cattle-herding Tutsi conquered much of Rwanda and eventually established their rule.
The Tutsis after forming a centralized monarchy state, to administer the provinces the king appointed not
only Tutsi chiefs but a significant number of Hutu and Twa officials. Despite the socio-cultural
differences that existed between the Hutu and Tutsi, “many integrating factors kept them together. For
example, territory was not split into distinct ethnic areas; mixed marriages could take place; and war was
waged in common against neighboring kingdoms.

International Community’s 100 Days Of Silence

Martiz (2012) in an article published in E-International Relations Students presented three different
arguments that would answer as to why the international community remained silent for 100 days. First,
the “shadow of Somalia” was still present and made states as well as the UN Secretariat unwilling to
engage in another Peace Operation in Africa. Second, inaction was due to national interest: the United
States decided not to intervene in Rwanda as there was no national interest at stake. France, which had
national interests at stake, did not try to save Rwandan lives, but actively contributed to the genocide.
Third, due to the media’s failure to report on the genocide there was no internal pressure from citizens
that could have influenced policy makers. The major actors – Belgium, the UN Secretariat, the US and
France – knew that there was genocide underway in Rwanda; therefore, they had an obligation to prevent
and stop the genocide but lacked political will.

KEY PLAYERS

Hutu- led government and Hutu Extrimists

• THEONESTE BAGOSORA (Chief of staff, Ministry of defens)

• INTERAHAMWE MILITIA (1990-present) Hutu Militia Extremists

• RADIO TELEVISION LIBRE DES MILLES COLLINES (1993-1994) Popular

Hutu led Station
 • JEAN-PAUL AKAYESU (Mayor of Taba township in Rwanda during 1994
Genocide)

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

The Genocide violates the following Articles in Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any
kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Rape and Violence against Women

According to the Human Rights Watch, during the genocide of 1994, Hutu militia groups and the
Rwandan military regularly used rape and other sexual violence as weapons in their genocidal campaign
against the Tutsi community.

Human Rights Watch and FIDH call on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR),
convening on September 26 in Arusha, to investigate and prosecute rape and other gender-related crimes.
"The genocide in Rwanda left a population that is 70% female, and the stories told by survivors defy
comprehension. What is clear is that Rwanda will only rebuild itself through these women, and the
international community must do everything possible to help them deal effectively with the past in order
to move productively into the future," said Dorothy Q. Thomas, director of the Human Rights Watch
Women's Rights Project.

Although the exact number of rapes that occurred in Rwanda may never be known, testimonies in the
104-page report confirm that rape was extremely widespread and that women were individually raped,
gang-raped, raped with objects such as sharpened sticks or gun barrels, held in sexual slavery or sexually
mutilated. These crimes were frequently part of a pattern in which women were raped after they had
witnessed the torture and killings of their relatives and the destruction and looting of their homes. Women
from both the Tutsi and Hutu ethnic groups were raped, although most rape and other forms of violence
were targeted against Tutsi women.

SANCTIONS

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was formed in 1994 in Arusha, Tanzania to
prosecute those responsible for the genocide, which tried a total of 65 people and sentenced 38 to long jail
terms. On a national level, traditional community courts called "gacaca" were revived in 2001. Between
2005 and 2012 these courts tried almost two million people across the country.

The first trial started in January 1997, and by December 2011, the Tribunal had completed the trial work
of 80 of the 92 accused. Nine accused were still at large The ICTR’s main body, the court of first
instance, is due to complete its work by the end of June 2012. Appeals are to be completed by 2014.

In the first judgment by an international court on genocide, a former mayor, Jean-Paul Akayesu, was
convicted in 1998 of nine counts of genocide and crimes against humanity. The judgment specifically
held that rape and sexual assault constituted acts of genocide insofar as they were committed with the
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a targeted group. The judges found that, in the case of Rwanda,
sexual assault formed an integral part of the process of destroying the Tutsi ethnic group and that the rape
was systematic and had been perpetrated against Tutsi women only, manifesting the specific intent
required for those acts to constitute genocide.

ICTR Transfers to Rwanda

Since 2011, the ICTR has transferred several genocide cases to the Rwandan courts. The first was that of
Jean Bosco Uwinkindi, who was sent to Rwanda in April 2012. Preliminary proceedings in his trial, as
well as in the trial of Bernard Munyagishali who was sent to Rwanda in July 2013, have begun in the
High Court in Kigali. The ICTR has also agreed to transfer several other cases to Rwanda, including those
of six indicted individuals who are still at large.

These decisions have been controversial. In order to obtain the transfer of cases from the ICTR, as well as
extraditions of genocide suspects from other countries (see below), the Rwandan government has
undertaken a number of legislative reforms aimed at meeting international fair trial standards. Some of
these have been important and positive, for example the abolition of the death penalty in 2007 and the
creation of a witness protection unit. Nevertheless, ICTR judges turned down several earlier requests by
the ICTR prosecutor to transfer cases to Rwanda, notably in 2008, as they did not consider that the
Rwandan judiciary could guarantee a fair trial. In the face of this refusal, the Rwandan government
introduced additional reforms, which eventually paved the way for the ICTR to agree to transfer cases to
Rwanda for domestic prosecution.

Human Rights Watch has documented major legal reforms in Rwanda in the last few years, but maintains
the view, on the basis of its own trial observations and research in Rwanda, that the Rwandan justice
system still lacks sufficient guarantees of independence and that fair trials cannot be guaranteed in all
cases. Although Human Rights Watch and other organizations brought these concerns to the attention of
the ICTR, most recently in 2011, the tribunal ruled that it was safe to transfer these cases to the Rwandan
courts on the basis that legislative reforms in Rwanda had addressed some of its earlier concerns.

Trials in Foreign Countries and Extraditions to Rwanda

Many Rwandans fled their country during and after the genocide in 1994 and sought asylum in various
countries in Africa, Europe, North America, and elsewhere. Among those claiming to be refugees were
individuals suspected of having participated in the genocide.

Over the past 20 years, national authorities in some of the countries where Rwandan genocide suspects
are living have conducted investigations into these individuals’ alleged involvement in genocide-related
crimes, leading to a number of trials before the domestic courts of these countries, under the principle of
universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction refers to the ability of national courts to try people suspected
of serious international crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or torture, even if
neither the suspect nor the victim is a national of the country where the court is located and the crimes
took place outside that country.
Trials of Rwandan genocide suspects have taken place in several countries including Belgium,
Switzerland, Germany, Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and France. Dozens of
criminal investigations are ongoing against other Rwandan genocide suspects in these and other countries.
In some cases, for example in the United States, Rwandan genocide suspects were charged and tried on
immigration-related offenses for concealing their alleged role during the genocide.

In some of these countries, many years elapsed before trials began. For example, in France, a country to
which a number of known genocide suspects had fled after the genocide, it was not until February 2014
that the first Rwandan genocide suspect Pascal Simbikangwa, a former intelligence chief under the
Habyarimana government was tried. This was the first case brought to trial by a newly created war crimes
unit in France. It was a significant moment, as France had backed the former government of Rwanda and
supported and trained some of the forces which went on to commit genocide. On March 14, 2014, a court
in Paris found Simbikangwa guilty of genocide and complicity in crimes against humanity and sentenced
him to 25 years in prison. Just one month earlier, on February 18, 2014, a court in Germany delivered a
guilty verdict in the case of former mayor Onesphore Rwabukombe and sentenced him to 14 years’
imprisonment for aiding and abetting genocide. These cases are important milestones in the
demonstration of international commitment to ensuring that perpetrators of the genocide are held
accountable, wherever they are found.

Extraditions

Until the first ICTR transfer decision, most countries denied extradition requests from Rwanda. Over the
last few years, however, governments have increasingly tended to seek the extradition of genocide
suspects to Rwanda to face trial there, rather than prosecute them in their own courts. Following the ICTR
decision to transfer its first genocide case (Uwinkindi) to Rwanda in 2011, courts in several countries,
including Sweden and Norway, followed suit and agreed to extraditions. A ruling by the European Court
of Human Rights (ECHR) in October 2011 that it was safe to extradite Sylvère Ahorugeze, a Rwandan
genocide suspect arrested in Sweden, reinforced this trend. Prosecutors and judges in extradition cases in
various countries have cited the ICTR and ECHR decisions as precedents when arguing in favor of
extradition.

Extradition proceedings and appeals are currently ongoing in several countries, including in the case of
five Rwandans in the United Kingdom. Four of them had previously faced the prospect of extradition in
2009, but the High Court of Justice had concluded that they should not be sent back to Rwanda because
of the real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. Fresh extradition hearings are proceeding in this case at time
of writing.

One of the most prominent Rwandans to be extradited is Léon Mugesera, a former academic and
government official accused of publicly inciting ethnic hatred and violence against Tutsi in the period
leading up to the genocide. A resident in Canada for many years, Mugesera was extradited to Rwanda in
January 2012. His trial at the High Court in Kigali began in February 2012 and is ongoing at time of
writing. Mugesera faces several charges, including planning of and public incitement to genocide. The
trial has been complex, with Mugesera appearing to deliberately prolong some of the initial stages,
claiming he needed more time to prepare his defense. 16 out of 28 prosecution witnesses have been heard
so far.

In principle, Human Rights Watch agrees that it is best for grave international crimes such as genocide
and crimes against humanity to be prosecuted where they were committed, close to the victims and the
affected population. However, in the case of countries such as Rwanda where the justice system still lacks
full independence and the government can influence the outcome of trials, especially in politically
sensitive cases, Human Rights Watch has concerns about the opportunity for suspects to receive a fair
trial in domestic courts.

The national court system

Rwanda’s national courts prosecute those accused of planning the genocide or of committing serious
atrocities, including rape. By mid-2006, the national courts had tried approximately 10,000 genocide
suspects. In 2007, the Rwandan government abolished the death penalty, which had last been carried out
in 1998 when 22 people convicted of genocide-related crimes were executed. This development removed
a major obstacle to the transfer of genocide cases from the ICTR to the national courts, as the ICTR draws
to a close.

The Gacaca tribunal system

To address the fact that there were thousands of accused still awaiting trial in the national court system
and to bring about justice and reconciliation at the grassroots level, the Rwandan government re-
established the traditional community court system called “Gacaca” (pronounced GA-CHA-CHA), which
became fully operational in 2005. In the Gacaca system, communities at the local level elect judges to
hear the trials of genocide suspects accused of all crimes except planning of genocide. The courts give
lower sentences if the person is repentant and seeks reconciliation with the community. Often, confessing
prisoners return home without further penalty or receive community service orders. Since 2005, more
than 12,000 community-based courts have tried 1.2 million cases throughout the country. The Gacaca
trials also serve to promote reconciliation by providing a means for victims to learn the truth about the
death of their family members and relatives. They also give perpetrators the opportunity to confess their
crimes, show remorse and ask for forgiveness in front of their community. The Gacaca courts are
scheduled to close on 4 May 2012.

Unity and Reconciliation in Rwanda

The reconciliation process in Rwanda focuses on reconstructing the Rwandan identity, as well as
balancing justice, truth and peace and security in the country. Different measures have been taken by the
Rwandan government towards achieving the goal of perpetrators and victims living side by side in peace.
For example, the Constitution now states that all Rwandans share equal rights. And laws have been
passed to fight discrimination and divisive genocide ideology.

Promoting economic progress

The government in Kigali is also counting on economic progress to help the country achieve lasting
reconciliation. A poverty reduction program, with measures such as the introduction of health insurance
for all, the targeted improvement of educational opportunity as well as a promotion of the private sector
had already yielded results, according to Daniela Beckmann, the head of Germany's state-owned
development bank, KFW, in Kigali. Rwanda had reduced its poverty rate by 12 percent within 5 years. It
now stood at 45%, Beckmann said, adding that in comparison to other African countries that was an
extremely good result. But this did not mean there were no challenges ahead, she warned. After all,
Rwanda needs foreign aid to meet half of its budgeted expenses.

Ceasefire

A number of ceasefire agreements were signed by the RPF and government, including one signed on 22
July 1992 Tanzania that resulted in the Organization of African Unity (OAU) establishing a 50-member
Neutral Military Observer Group (NMOG I) led by Nigerian General Ekundo Opaleye. The negotiations
for a peace settlement continued in Arusha, interrupted by a massive RPF offensive in early February
1993. Rwanda continued to allege Ugandan support for the RPF, which both the RPF and Uganda duly
denied, but resulting in both countries sending letters to President of the United Nation Security
Council (UNSC) requesting that military observers be deployed along the border to verify that military
supplies were not crossing.

This resulted in the United Nations Observer Mission Uganda-Rwanda (UNOMUR) being approved by
the UNSC on 22 June 1993 to deploy along the Ugandan side of the border. Seven days later, UN
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali announced that Brigadier-General Dallaire was to be appointed
the Chief Military Observer for UNOMUR, which reached its authorized strength of 81 observers by
September. NMOG I was deployed inside Rwanda.

Arusha Accords

Talks in Arusha had reconvened on 16 March 1993, resulting in the signing of the Arusha Accord, a
comprehensive agreement to create a power-sharing government, on the fourth of August. Both the RPF
and Rwandan government requested UN assistance in implementing the agreement. In early August,
NMOG I was replaced by NMOG II, consisting of about 130 members, in preparation for a UN-led
peacekeeping force.

Five-point action plan

a. Preventing armed conflict.

Genocide almost always occurs during war. Even apparently tolerant individuals, once they engage in
war, have categorized some of their fellow human beings as enemies, suspending the taboo which forbids
the deliberate taking of human life. And in almost all cases they accept that civilians may also be killed
or hurt, whatever efforts are made to limit so-called “collateral damage”.Unless we are very careful, this
can be the beginning of a swift descent into a different moral universe, where whole communities are
designated as the enemy, and their lives held to be of no account. And from there, it is only one more
step to the actual and deliberate elimination of these communities: one more step, in other words, to
genocide. So one of the best ways to reduce the chances of genocide is to address the causes of conflict.
The plan will therefore embrace, and expand, the recommendations already made in my report on
Prevention of Armed Conflict, which have been endorsed by both the Security Council and the General
Assembly. We must help countries strengthen their capacity to prevent conflict, at local and national
levels. We must do more at the regional level, to prevent conflict spilling over from one country to
another. We must give greater attention to environmental problems and tensions related to competition
over natural resources. We must work together with the international financial institutions, with civil
society, and with the private sector, to ensure that young people get the chance to better themselves
through education and peaceful employment, so that they are less easily recruited into predatory gangs
and militias. We must protect the rights of minorities, since they are genocide’s most frequent targets. By
all these means, and more, we must attack the roots of violence and genocide: hatred, intolerance, racism,
tyranny, and the dehumanizing public discourse that denies whole groups of people their dignity and their
rights.

b. Protection of civilians in armed conflict.

Wherever we fail to prevent conflict, one of our highest priorities must be to protect civilians. The parties
to conflict not only States but also non-State actors need to be constantly reminded of their responsibility,
under international humanitarian law, to protect civilians from violence. This has now been accepted by
the Security Council, and the UN system is working on a platform of action for the protection of
civilians. But translating it into concrete results will not be easy. In more and more conflicts we see that
civilians, including women and children, are no longer just “caught in the crossfire”. They become the
direct targets of violence and rape, as war is waged against a whole society. Wherever civilians are
deliberately targeted because they belong to a particular community, we are in the presence of potential, if
not actual, genocide. We can no longer afford to be blind to this grim dynamic. Nor should we imagine
that appeals to morality, or compassion, will have much effect on people who have adopted a deliberate
strategy of killing and forcible expulsion. That is why many of our United Nations peacekeepers, today,
are no longer restricted to using force only in self-defence. They are also empowered to do so in defence
of their mandate, and that mandate often explicitly includes the protection of local civilians threatened
with imminent violence. A current example is the Congolese province of Ituri, where ethnic conflicts
clearly have the potential to escalate into genocide. Last year the situation was stabilized by the timely
intervention of the European Union, authorized by the Security Council, and today UN peacekeeping
forces are holding the local militias in check.
But the situation remains precarious, and it is by no means unique. The plan calls for both the Secretariat
and the Security Council to keep the mandates and resources of all our peacekeeping forces under
constant review, particularly with the threat of genocide in mind, and to be ready to reinforce them
promptly when the need arises.

c. Ending Impunity
We have little hope of preventing genocide, or reassuring those who live in fear of its recurrence, if
people who have committed this most heinous of crimes are left at large, and not held to account. It is
therefore vital that we build and maintain robust judicial systems, both national and international, so that,
over time, people will see there is no impunity for such crimes. Working in parallel with a Rwandan
justice system that has prosecuted many people who committed acts of genocide, the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has handed down landmark verdicts, which send a message to those who
may be contemplating genocide in other countries. It was the first international court to convict anyone
for this crime; the first court of any kind to hold a former head of government responsible for genocide;
the first to determine that rape was used as an act of genocide; and the first to find that journalists who
incite the population to genocide are themselves guilty of that crime. The plan calls for a review of the
work of this tribunal and others, both national and international, in punishing and suppressing genocide,
so that we can learn lessons for the future. It calls for special attention to countries that have experienced
conflict or are at risk from it. And it calls for greater efforts to achieve wide ratification of the Rome
Statute, so that the new International Criminal Court can deal effectively with crimes against humanity,
whenever national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.

d. Early and clear warning

One of the reasons for our failure in Rwanda was that beforehand we did not face the fact that genocide
was a real possibility. And once it started, for too long we could not bring ourselves to recognize it, or
call it by its name. If we are serious about preventing or stopping genocide in future, we must not be held
back by legalistic arguments about whether a particular atrocity meets the definition of genocide or
not. By the time we are certain, it may often be too late to act. We must recognize the signs of
approaching or possible genocide, so that we can act in time to avert it. Here, civil society groups can play
a vital role. Often it is their reports that first draw attention to an impending catastrophe -- and far too
often, they are ignored. The United Nations human rights system, too, has a special responsibility. This
Commission, through the work of its Special Rapporteurs, independent experts and working groups, as
well as the treaty bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner, should be well placed to sound the
alarm. Indeed, your Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings described many warning signs in
Rwanda the year before the genocide happened. Alas, no one paid attention. The challenge is to bring all
this information together in a focused way, so as to better understand complex situations, and thus be in a
position to suggest appropriate action. At present there are still conspicuous gaps in our capacity to
analyse and manage the information we have. The plan seeks to correct this. One decision I have already
taken is to create a new post of Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, who will report through
me to the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as to this Commission. This adviser’s
mandate will refer not only to genocide but also to mass murder and other large-scale human rights
violations, such as ethnic cleansing. His or her functions will be: (1) to work closely with the High
Commissioner to collect information on potential or existing situations or threats of genocide, and their
links to international peace and security; (2) to act as an early-warning mechanism to the Security Council
and other parts of the UN system; (3) to make recommendations to the Security Council on actions to be
taken to prevent or halt genocide.

e. Swift and decisive action

When, despite all our efforts, we learn that genocide is happening, or about to happen.
Too often, even when there is abundant warning, we lack the political will to act. Anyone who embarks
on genocide commits a crime against humanity. Humanity must respond by taking action in its own
defence. Humanity’s instrument for that purpose must be the United Nations, and specifically the
Security Council.

Working to Support Survivors

Since 1994, many organizations have been established within and outside of Rwanda to support the needs
of Rwandan genocide survivors. The work of such organizations ranges from assisting victims in their
quest for justice through the local, national or international judicial processes; providing financial
assistance; providing medical and psychological assistance; managing orphanages and employment
programmes for youth in Rwanda.

Victims of Sexual Violence

An estimated 100,000-250,000 women were raped during the three months of genocide in Rwanda in
1994. Rape committed during war is often systematic and intended to terrorize the population, break up
families, destroy communities, and, in some instances, change the ethnic make-up of the next generation.
Sometimes it is also used to render women from the targeted community incapable of bearing more
children.

Sexual violence during war creates multi-fold challenges for survivors:

  The shame and stigma of public rape can often force a rape survivor and her family to flee their
community, leaving behind land, property and resources. This often leaves women poorer and
more vulnerable to further abuse and in need of financial assistance to get back on their feet.
 The women and their families also face lasting psychological trauma. War typically destroys the
very infrastructure needed to help such women, leaving few properly trained counsellors and
psychologists. Health centres lack resources and skilled personnel.
 They have medical needs, especially for reconstructive surgeries and may need HIV/AIDS
treatment.
 And they want justice – legal redress to ensure that the attackers are caught and punished.

Orphans

 According to the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), there are more than one million orphans in
Rwanda. The highest proportion of these were orphaned as a result of the genocide in 1994,
however since then, increasing numbers of children are being orphaned as a result of HIV/AIDS.
 It is common to see older children raising younger ones by themselves in post-genocide Rwanda
today. After the genocide, Rwanda had among the highest proportions of child-headed families in
the world — some 42,000 households struggling to raise an estimated 101,000 children.
Many of these children do not go to school or eat regularly. Some, as a result of the widespread rape
during the genocide and the increased spread of HIV/AIDs, are now falling ill themselves. Many are at
risk of exploitation and abuse. It is a generation that has lost its childhood and whose future is very much
at risk.

Widows

Among the survivors of the Rwandan genocide were thousands of women — both Hutu and Tutsi — who
were widowed in the course of the conflict. All traumatized, many had suffered rape, some were infected
with HIV/AIDS and many had witnessed the killing of family members.

Since 1994, these women and organizations that support them have been fighting to change attitudes
towards women in Rwanda and to change laws regarding the property, marital and inheritance rights of
women

 The enforcement of laws upholding their rights

  Medical and counseling services
 Financial support and compensation
 Educational programmes to promote awareness of the value of equal rights for women.

Warning Signs of Genocide

The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, working with other genocide experts, has compiled a
list of warning signs that could indicate that a community is at risk for genocide or similar atrocities. It
includes:

 The country has a totalitarian or authoritarian government where only one group controls power;
 The country is at war or there is a lawless environment in which massacres can take place without
being quickly noticed or easily documented.

CONCLUSION

It is said that history repeats itself, and the Rwandan genocide is just another example of how humanity
tends to fall into a pattern of war and elucidation Eight hundred thousand dead is not enough to define the
wretchedness Rwanda experienced in the three months following the Habyarimana plane crash. What
followed included a mass exodus of huge proportions. We can say that the Rwandan genocide of 1994
was one of the most brutal events in modern history. Everything from the tactics the murderers used to
kill their victims to the mass participation of thousands of Hutus caused the genocide to be an especially
brutal incident. Indeed, one of the most horrifying aspects of the genocide is the way the international
community chose to respond to it. The international community physically abandoned Rwandans and left
thousands vulnerable to the attack of the genocidaires. In addition to leaving thousands of Rwandans
unprotected, through their nonuser of diplomatic pressure and refusal to call the conflict a genocide, the
international community selfishly and shamefully turned a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of
people being brutally murdered. All things considered, in its reaction to the genocide during 1994 the
international community failed the Rwandan people dismally.

Drawing this case to a conclusion is a difficult exercise as in many ways it is still on going. Internal
investigations and legal proceedings continue in Rwanda. The UNSC created the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) by Resolution 955 of 8 November 1994. It was established for the
prosecution of persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian
law committed in the territory of Rwanda between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994. The Tribunal
may also deal with the prosecution of Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such
violations of international law committed in the territory of the border states during the same period. To
date the tribunal completed 50 trials and convicted 29 accused persons. Another eleven trials are in
progress. Fourteen individuals are awaiting trial in detention. Thirteen others are still at large, some
suspected to be dead. The ICTR's Completion Strategy established in UNSCR 1503 required all first-
instance trials to be complete by the end of 2008. This date was later extended to the end of 2009. All
work was to be completed by the end of 2010. Recent discussions held that these goals were not realistic.
The United Nations Security Council then called upon the tribunal to complete its work by 31 December
2014, and to prepare for its closure and transfer of responsibilities to the International Residual
Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals which will begin functioning for the ICTR on 1 July 2012. However,
the lack of funding has greatly diminished the Tribunal’s ability to run the trials smoothly and efficiently.
In addition, the question remains as to whether ordinary Rwandans support the mission of the ICTR or if
they would rather lay the past to rest and allow their country to heal. Therefore, perhaps the success of the
international community’s response to the genocide after its conclusion is still unanswered. However, it is
clear that the international community has made an effort to amend its mistakes and bring Rwandans
closure.
All in all, the genocide of 1994 is something that will live in Rwandans’ hearts forever. The scope of the
effect the genocide had on the country will be felt for generations to come as Rwandans try to come to
terms with the brutality that took place on their soil and begin to rebuild. What is clear is that after the
Holocaust the world made a promise that something so inhumane and horrific would never be allowed to
happen again. Yet, just over a decade ago the international community stood aside as another genocide
unfolded. The promise of “never again” most likely rings flat in Rwandans’ ears. However, it is a promise
that must be defended.

Rwanda itself successfully emerged from this dark history. Under the presidency of Paul Kagame it now
enjoys an annual seven percent economic growth, almost universal health insurance and aggressive anti-
corruption laws. No African country has done more to curb corruption; ministers have been jailed for it.
Transparency International ranks Rwanda 49th in the world in its corruption index, ahead of Italy and
Greece ; however, participation in the economy by companies owned by the ruling party is far greater
than others. In addition, the elections that keep Kagame in power are widely regarded as a sham. Yet,
Kigali is remarkably clean and relatively safe. Some 40 percent of Rwandans own cell phones. National
identity cards now identify people as "Rwandan," and not Hutu or Tutsi.
A lot has been done in Rwanda to recover from the devastation of the genocide but there is still a long
way to go. It is only hoped that the present generation and generations that follow will not make the same
mistakes as in the past.

Comparison to other Reports

Title Victims Forms of killings/ Offenders Reasons

Violations
Indonesian 100, 000 East  Naval Indonesian To invade East Timor
Invades East Timorese bombardment Forces
Timor  Killed by military
 Starved to death

Joseph Cony  Used biblical Lord To overthrow president

references to Resistance and create a state based
explain why it Army under on Kony’s interpretation
was necessary to Joseph Cony, of the biblical ten
kill his own Children commandments.
people
 Children forced to
kill adults
 Mutilated many
people

Martial Law 70,000 imprisoned  Harassment Military For him to become the
34, 000 tortured  Massacre under the law and to become the
3, 240 killed  Demolition control of absolute leader that
 Violent dispersal Marcos nobody could oppose

 Etc

Effects
Effects of the 1994 Genocide today

Most of the children lost their parents, families and relatives in the Rwandan Genocide, now Rwanda is
having a very big number of orphans. These children meet a lot of problems in their lives, and mostly are
never happy. Some other children are living alone and are responsible for their younger sisters and
brothers. Most of these children saw how their parents were killed as well as their relatives, and some
have been traumatized by those scenes.

Problems Orphans Meet

A big number of these orphans are incapable of getting school fees for their education, and at the same
time, they are in -charged of taking care of their sisters or brothers. They have a lot of difficulties in their
education, because school is expensive in Rwanda.

Some of these children had rich families before the genocide, but now are living in a very poor life.

Widows

A lot of women lost their husbands Most of these women were not well educated
It is hard for them to get school fees for these children, and as well feed, and get them clothes, or rent a
house. This is one of the great effects of the Rwandan genocide.

A Big Number of Aids Victims

800, 000 were killed

Destruction of Infrastructure

During the genocide a lot of houses were destroyed including schools, hospitals, roads, homes, business
centers and other very important buildings.

Poverty

After the above problems listed, many people are suffering. Children can’t get school fees, clothes,
medication, food, and were to live. People live in very poor conditions. Most of the things in Rwanda are
expensive, including treatment, school fees, transport, rent, and food.
This makes life hard for people in Rwanda.

Trauma And Mental Problems

Many people in Rwanda are having mental problems and are traumatized.