The government has moved to defend the local judicial system after successfully winning a bid to try two genocide suspects locally, saying the trials will meet international standards.

The two suspects, Leon Mugesera and Jean Bosco Uwinkindi, will face trials locally despite oppositions by a section of international institutions, which claim the suspects will not get fair hearings.

Mr Mugesera, a former National University of Rwanda lecturer and member of then ruling party MNRD, is accused of inciting the masses to participate in distribution of arms, while Uwinkindi, then a pastor of an evangelical church, is accused of being one of the principal planners of the 1994 genocide.

Mugesera’s case started on June 5 at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha but has been transferred to the country to the local judicial mechanism.

READ: Kigali court rejects Mugesera's appeal to be tried in French

Justice Minister Tharcisse Karugarama said trying the suspects locally will confirm the government’s on commitment to delivering justice to surviving victims.

Mr Karugarama said the government’s main aim is to prove to the whole world that it has the capacity and ability to try the suspects and deliver justice to the victims of the 1994 mass killing.

“The government’s foremost task is to prove that we have the competence to conduct a trial that meets international standards” said Mr Karugarama.

He said that the country’s critics are keen on poking holes in the judicial system that will try the suspects.

“Our detractors will go all out to point out any error, so that they can discredit our judicial system,” added the minister.

Pundits acknowledged that the government must establish a special witness protection system for witnesses who will be reluctant to come face-to-face with the suspects to provide crucial evidence once the trials begin.

Dr Jamil Mujuzi, a senior lecturer in law at South Africa’s University of the Western Cape, who has studied the steps Rwanda has taken to try runaway genocide suspects like Mugesera at home, said that the government must put in place a system that meets international standards of trying genocide suspects.

“One of the biggest challenges is that some reputable international human rights organisations have no confidence in Rwanda’s criminal justice system and that is why they have opposed every application to transfer offenders to Rwanda to stand trial,” Dr Mujuzi told Rwanda Today.

“They believe that the Rwanda criminal justice system will not guarantee the accused the right to a fair trial. So the government will has to conduct trials in full compliance with international human rights standards for it to dispel the fears of these organisations,” he added.

However, the government has established a witness protection mechanism to convince the reluctant tribunal to allow the trial of the two suspects in Rwanda.

Rwanda’s judiciary has in the recent past witnessed accelerated reforms with Prof Nick Johnson of the Nyanza-based Institute of Legal Practice and Development saying the sector has recorded positive results in a short time.  

“A lot of earlier views about Rwanda’s justice system were formed in a very difficult period, immediately after the genocide, which the prisons were overwhelmed by those who were involved in the genocide,” observed Prof Johnson. 

“But really since about 2005-2006, there has been real improvement in the prisons, in the developments in courts and the Arusha-based International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda judges were fully satisfied with the independence of the Rwandan judiciary.

“Overall it’s a good picture, but like I’ve said, increasing trust is the key,” he added. In January, the ICTR agreed to transfer its first case to Rwanda and the court’s prosecutor, Hassan B. Jallow, said the decision was made following positive transformation of the country’s judicial system.

“The referral reflects our acknowledgement of the important advancements Rwanda has made in terms of law reform and capacity building within the justice system.

These measures ensure that the legal system is consistent with international standards,” Mr Jellow said.

Gerry Caplan, a Canadian academic, said the endorsement of the country’s judicial system by the tribunal made it easier for other countries to co-operate in extradition of suspects.

“Given that both ICTR and Gacaca courts are on their last legs, countries now need to decide whether to try suspects themselves, which I think they mostly would rather than release them. What is the choice? Send them back and get them out of your hair?” asked Caplan. 

The country in 2007 abolished death penalty and enacted provisions for life imprisonment of ICTR convicts.

As Article 4 of the law that abolished the death penalty provided, life imprisonment with special provisions meant that a convicted person wouldn’t be entitled to any kind of mercy, conditional release or rehabilitation, unless he or she had served at least 20 years in prison, during which the convicted person would be kept in isolation.

According to Dr Mujuzi, ICTR’s trial chamber had declined any transfer requests fearing the life imprisonment provision violated Rwanda’s international human rights obligations.

The ministry of Justice is currently reviewing the genocide law to address criticisms it has generated of the laws against denying the genocide and revisionism for posing potential landmines for defence teams.

“Any smart lawyer will not want to start out on that footing (questioning the genocide),” noted an observer, who requested anonymity.

“In Rwanda, genocide happened and there is no debate about that. It is like going to Germany and arguing against the Jewish holocaust, or even in France (about the Armenian genocide). Any lawyer who does that will break the law and will certainly be jailed.”

Last year, Rwanda jailed American lawyer Peter Erlinder for denying the 1994 genocide. A defence attorney at the ICTR, Erlinder had come to Kigali to advise Victoire Ingabire, who is charged with facilitating the FDLR.

“What the defence team can do is question the competence of the court in handling genocide cases,” advised the observer.