Victor's Justice Revisited: The Prosecutor v. Kagame

Abstract

Introduction The contentious relationship between the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the Tutsi-led Rwandan government came to a head when Rwanda blocked Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte's imminent indictments of Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) military officers. The ability of the government to avoid significant international censure as it thwarted Del Ponte undermined a foundational principle upon which the contemporary international war crimes tribunals was founded: that individuals from all sides of an armed conflict suspected of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law should not enjoy immunity from prosecution. This chapter focuses on the period beginning in April 2002 and ending in August 2003 – from Del Ponte's first public criticism of Rwandan non-cooperation with her probe of RPF atrocities, to the government's successful move to have the Security Council dismiss her as chief prosecutor of the ICTR. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the way Del Ponte's replacement, Hassan Jallow, has approached the question of RPF atrocities and why, after nearly four years, he has refrained from indicting RPF suspects. The tacit backing of Rwanda's closest Western allies – the United States and Great Britain – played a crucial role in enabling the Kigali government to outmaneuver Del Ponte's efforts to prosecute RPF officers for war crimes against Hutu civilians. The role of the West during this period underscores a recurring theme in this study: without strong and consistent international political support, tribunals will rarely succeed in prodding recalcitrant states to cooperate in the prosecution of members of their own national or ethnic groups.