The Netherlands is lobbying the European Court of Human Rights to allow the extradition of genocide suspects living in Europe to Rwanda, International Justice Tribune has learned.
By Mark Schenkel, Amsterdam
Officially the Dutch government does not consider the Rwandan legal system fit for extraditions. Human rights organizations and Dutch legal experts, asked for their reaction, criticise the Dutch initiative at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Rwanda does not yet have a judiciary that is fully independent, they say.
"In theory, Rwanda is reforming its judiciary, but in practice those measures are still insufficient'', said Carina Tertsakian from Human Rights Watch. Amnesty International and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) are also surprised by the Dutch government's initiative. Rwanda-expert Frederick Cowell: "In Rwanda, politicized processes still take place, without adequate rights for suspects.''According to the Dutch ministries of Foreign Affairs and Security & Justice, extraditions are not to be considered until Rwanda provides "the necessary guarantees'' for independent legal procedures, regardless of a positive decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). A possible extradition treaty has to be voted on first by Dutch parliament.
Debate on the issue began when The Netherlands became involved in a legal case currently being considered by the ECHR. Its judges will have to decide whether or not to allow the extradition to Rwanda of Sylvère Ahorugeze, who is wanted for genocide and crimes against humanity. Ahorugeze, the former head of the Rwandan civil aviation authority, is suspected of having killed twenty-eight Tutsis in April 1994 in the Rwandan capital Kigali. He denies the charges.
Ahorugeze was arrested in July 2008 in Stockholm and the Swedish government decided he could be extradited to Rwanda. Ahorugeze's lawyer is challenging this decision at the ECHR, but it is unclear when the court will give a ruling.
Dutch advice
The Netherlands is putting its weight behind the Swedish opinion that the extradition should go ahead, despite its criticism of Rwanda's legal system and the official Dutch position that Rwanda is not ready for extraditions. The International Justice Tribune has come into the possession of the written intervention of the Dutch representative at the ECHR, dated July 27th 2010. She writes, Rwanda has, "over the years (made) substantial and fundamental progress in furthering the rule of law''. Since the mass killings of 1994, Rwanda has – through Dutch financial support – built new court houses and the "state-of-the-art-prison "Mpanga", and has trained judges. Among the "most relevant developments'' are the abolition of the death penalty and of life imprisonment in isolation.
Extradition floodgates
If the ECHR approves extradition, a flow of genocide suspects living in Europe could begin. Many of these people received asylum status after 1994 but in recent years suspicions have been mounting about the involvement of some in the 1994 events. Still, to this day not a single suspect has been extradited. Judges, including in Germany, France, Great Britain and Finland, have always blocked extraditions in appeal cases. Critics argue that in Sweden it was not the judiciary that decided to extradite Ahorugeze, but the government.
Larissa van den Herik is professor of Public International Law at Leiden University. She presumes that The Hague believes it will be useful if the ECHR has already cleared all legal obstacles, ready for when the Netherlands reaches a bilateral extradition treaty with Rwanda at a later date. In addition to that she believes political motives are in play, "The Netherlands is a driving force behind the reforms in the Rwandan legal system. If the ECHR approves extradition, that will also be seized on as confirmation of Dutch policy. The Dutch authorities clearly have an agenda.''
Law not politics
The departments of Foreign Affairs and Security & Justice deny that the Netherlands is lobbying the ECHR because of political reasons. The Hague argues it is promoting extradition on a European level merely to draw attention to the positive effects of Dutch investments in the Rwandan legal system. "If the ECHR disapproves of extradition, that will also be a valuable verdict. Such a verdict (…) will refine the insight of the areas on which Rwanda still needs assistance to reach the level required by Europe.''
Roelof Haveman, a Dutch legal consultant, believes Rwanda is ready to handle extradition cases. Haveman assisted the Rwandan government in setting up a training institute for the judiciary. He points out that in June this year the Rwanda-tribunal handed over the case of Jean Uwinkindi to Kigali, the first time this has happened.
Critics argue that the Netherlands already encouraged the ECHR last year to allow extradition, well before the Rwanda-tribunal handed over the Uwinkindi-case. "But back then it was clear already that the Rwandan legal system was moving in the right direction'', Haveman said.
Haveman points out how aware Rwanda is of the outside world's watchful eyes on its proceedings. "Kigali realises that any genocide case will be closely followed and therefore needs to be flawless. Otherwise, European countries might put a hold on further extraditions.'' Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the CHRI do not share Havemans opinion.
They point to the case against Victoire Ingabire, the opposition leader who is on trial in Rwanda for alleged ties to a terrorist organisation. The case of Ingabire is high profile, but nevertheless president Paul Kagame has publicly stated that Victoire Ingabire belongs behind bars. A fair trial is therefore impossible say critics, improved judiciary in Rwanda or not.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
