Why did Rwandan War Lord Accused of Crimes in Congo, Give Himself Up to the ICC?


Rwanda hands over one warlord to ICC and props up others as it continues plunder of Congo’s resources.



JAY: Bosco says […] he gave himself up, but he also says he’s not guilty. He says, I’m just a soldier. So isn’t Rwanda a little worried that when Bosco gets in front of the ICC he’s going to point the finger at Rwanda?

CARNEY: […] there is no dearth of evidence in terms of Rwanda’s complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, the destabilizing, the pillaging of the Congo. […] What is the issue is that in spite of Rwanda’s crimes in the Congo, it continues to get cover from the United States, from the United Nations, from the United Kingdom. And this is where the problem lies. There’s a lack of political will on the part of the world powers that are protecting Rwanda to act against Rwanda. When I say act, I mean sanctioning Rwanda at the UN. Rwanda’s violated UN embargoes. Putting high-level officials, Rwandan officials, on the sanctions list–they’ve been identified and named for their role in destabilizing the Congo.

1 thought on “Why did Rwandan War Lord Accused of Crimes in Congo, Give Himself Up to the ICC?”

  1. This brings to mind a reaetld issue that the Tribunals struggle with: the competing interests of restorative and retributive justice. Restorative justice would argue in favor of more comprehensive proceedings that establish a comprehensive and accurate historical record of the crime. Retributive justice argues in favor of swift justice narrowly tailored to deliver maximum verdicts. The two issues are not unreaetld of course, but on occasion tribunals have yielded to public pressure (Milosevic comes to mind) in regards to a historical record at the expense of efficient justice. The ICTY mandate to “contribute to the restoration of peace by holding accountable persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law” has been interpreted by some to a broader definition to “contribute to the restoration of peace” by establishing an accurate history of the events as well as a forum for victims to tell their stories. Hence one of the policy debates at the ICTY from its inception was always what is the obligation of the Prosecution with its indictments to the bigger picture of criminal activity, versus its obligation to be efficient. The Prosecution was left to draft indictments without any guidance or precedence on what is the proper balance between these two principles.I’d note that the ECCC is embarking on a model that greatly favors victim participation based on French domestic model. Many Cambodian victims groups are represented by counsel and have an expectation of full participation as parties to the proceedings. It will interesting to see what effect this will have on the efficiency of the proceedings and their perceived legitimacy conpared to the Ad Hocs.David Akerson


Leave a Comment