Righting Wrongs: The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

By Hanna Morrill '12

There is no doubt that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) continues to play an important role in the development of international humanitarian law. ICTR, which was established in 1995, was at the beginning of its 16th year when I arrived there at the end of this past May to start my summer internship.  I spent two and a half months living and working in Arusha, Tanzania.
Working in Trial Chamber III, I was assigned to the case of Jean-Baptiste Gatete (ICTR-00-61), a single-accused. His trial had been completed at the beginning of the year and we were awaiting the submission of the final briefs from both the prosecution and defense teams. As the only intern on the case, I performed duties that ranged from researching precedent with regard to admissibility of witness testimony post-trial to preparing points for observation while in Rwanda. Site-visits in Rwanda were delayed until July after the submission of briefs, due to the prevalance of discrepancies in witness testimony. The delay prompted both parties to attempt to add more testimony to the case file in order to bolster their arguments.

Much of my time was spent summarizing and determining the credibility of witness testimony. It was quite harrowing to read horrifying descriptions about their family, friends, and neighbors being pursued and slaughtered. It was even harder to then step back and take a critical look at someone’s traumatizing experience to determine whether or not they were telling the truth. But it is not as simple as asking for the truth as to whether they saw a friend killed; it is about whether their testimony changed from the initial prosecution or defense interview to now include charges against the accused. Discrepancy in witness testimony is a significant problem at the ICTR and it is no wonder, after 16 years, memories still fail regardless of how traumatic the experience may have been. Besides unreliable memory, sometimes the reasons they have for testifying change. It is imperative to verify that when a witness testifies that the accused, in this case Gatete, stopped by and incentivized the militia to kill thousands, it was actually Gatete that they saw. When a witness failed to mention an accused’s name in the initial intake years before, it is vital to look at the details of the testimony to see if others corroborate this sighting.

Over the course of the summer, I attended a few days of trial and observed two judgments being passed down. Both Dominique Ntawukulilyayo (ICTR-2005-82) and Yussuf Munyakazi (ICTR-97-36A) were found guilty of genocide. It was frustrating bearing witness to the moment when Munyakazi, who the court found liable for the deaths of over five thousand people, was only sentenced to 25 years in prison, six of which had already passed as he awaited judgment. It is somewhat unfathomable that sentences for such horrible crimes can be so low. Meanwhile, during the summer, the ICTR was also faced with a new challenge when Joseph Nzirorera, one in a joint-accused trial, passed away before the trial’s conclusion. This was the first time that a party in a joint-accused case had died before the end of trial.

It was gratifying to work for and be a part of the ICTR. Exposure to the daily challenges made it possible to see how many obstacles international humanitarian law faces. At the same time, my experience with the ICTR also gave me a greater appreciation for ICTR’s work and contribution to international criminal law, given that the smallest problems can become major hurdles. Despite the criticism that the tribunal has been slow and inadequate, it is undeniable that as a result of this, justice has been delivered to many of the major perpetrators of some of the worst crimes in history.

A version of this article appeared in print in the October 2010 issue of the Bridge.