On the ICTR, ‘Enduring Lies’ authors keep denying own claims

In the ongoing conversation, or lack of it, between Herman and Peterson on the one hand and I, on the other, the two authors have adopted a strategy of denying what they write and revising their narratives as they go along. I refer to a few falsehoods, for illustrative purposes only. In their latest posting, Herman and Peterson wrote:

“For the record, we have engaged in no ‘legal analysis’ per se of the ICTR jurisprudence contrary to what Obote-Odora assets, and have committed no ‘errors of law’ with respect to the same.”[1]

To jolt Herman’s and Peterson’s memory, this is what they earlier wrote:

“In Appendix I to our book ‘Enduring Lies’, we reviewed the judgements and/or judgements on appeal in not fewer than 24 major cases in which the defendants faced the ‘Conspiracy to commit genocide’ charge. In 23 of these cases, the defendants were either acquitted of the charge or previous guilty verdict was reversed on appeal; and in the one case in which the defendant was found guilty (i.e. Pauline Nyiramashuku) this verdict will likely be reversed on appeal (which is pending)”[2]

Arising from the above, it is absolutely clear that Herman and Peterson made a ‘legal analysis’ on the jurisprudence of the ICTR in cases of conspiracy to commit genocide and they misstated the law as I explained in my response. It is sad that the two authors claim that they did not make a ‘legal analysis’ and made no ‘errors of law’ despite the above quote and my analysis. The Pambazuka readers are encouraged to check what the two authors wrote and make their own conclusions.

Second, on the shooting down of Habyarimana’s plane, Herman and Peterson made two interesting but false statements. First, the duo wrote:

“… [But">, since the accumulated credible evidence points at Paul Kagame’s RPF, the Prosecutor ‘made the correct decision to not proceed with investigations into the matter’, Obote-Odora concludes.”[3]

For the record, nowhere in my writing did I allege or conclude that “the accumulated credible evidence points at Paul Kagame’s RPF”. On the contrary, my submission is that there are no credible and conclusive evidence that point at any possible perpetrators, including at the RPF and FAR or the Hutu leadership, as Herman and Peterson prefer to call them. The Prosecutor “made the correct decision to not proceed with investigations in the matter” because the evidence against any and all possible suspects was not credible and/or inconclusive. The decision had nothing to do with availability of evidence against Paul Kagame’s RPF as alleged by Herman and Peterson. Again, Pambazuka readers are encouraged to read my earlier correspondence on the matter and make their own conclusion.

Further, Herman and Peterson falsely alleged that I tried to legitimize the assassination of President Habyarimana. This is wrong for I have never, in any of my publications, made such allegations. The two present their falsehood thus:

“…But while trying with this puny effort to legitimise the assassination of president of Rwanda, Obote-Odora also feels obliged to deny the evidence that Paul Kagame ordered it, and that Rwanda Patriotic Front carried it out. For Obote-Odora, there is ‘no evidence’ that the RPF shot down the jet. Case Closed.”[4]

This is an absurd distortion of my submission. I repeat: I never, in any of my writings legitimized, or attempted to legitimize the assassination of the President of Rwanda. Nor did I deny any evidence that Paul Kagame ordered the shooting of the plane because I never saw such evidence. One cannot possibly deny a document or evidence that he has never had access to, seen, read or reviewed. My position is simple and straight forward. Having reviewed the available evidence from different public and open sources, namely, from James Lyons, Michael Hourigan Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, Judge Fernando Andreu Merelles, Judges Trevidic and Poux, and the Report of the Rwanda Commission, including critical comments by Filip Reyntjens and Barrie Collins, I find no conclusive evidence that provide identity of the perpetrators or those who ordered the shooting of the plane. In a nutshell, the available evidence, obtained from public sources, does not meet the high threshold required for drafting an indictment for the purpose of criminal prosecution. This conclusion is supported by many legal practitioners and experts; and it is not evidence of legalising the unfortunate assassination of President Habyarimana; or providing a defence for Paul Kagame’s RPF, or indeed a cover-up. What Herman and Peterson describe as ‘cover-ups’ is in fact call due process in a judicial system, and particularly in the conduct of criminal prosecutions. If however, Herman and Peterson have evidence, it would be helpful if they made it public so that interested parties can independently review it.

* Dr Obote-Odora Alex is an Independent Law Consultant.

END NOTES

[1] See Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, “Rwanda 1994 and the ICTR: A Reply to Alex Obote-Odora” at http://www.pambazuka.net/en/category/features/93914/print), para.1.
[2] See, Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, “Obote-Odora’s dishonest response to us on the ICTR and BBC”, at http://www.pambazuka.net/en/category/feature/93793/print), page 2, para.6 of the printed article.
[3] Ibid, para.4.
[4] See Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, “Rwanda 1994 and the ICTR: A Reply to Alex Obote-Odora” at http://www.pambazuka.net/en/category/features/93914/print), para.6.

* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR/S AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.