A story published by The Citizen Tanzania under the title, “Archiving the Rwanda genocide material in Tanzania,” on August 13, raises questions as to why there should be a tag of war as to where the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) archives should be hosted.

 

First, the author, Zephania Ubwani, can be reminded that there was a genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994. The naming of “Rwanda genocide” or “horrific killings in Rwanda” are inappropriate and misleading.

 

The story gives an impression that there is a contest between Tanzania, Rwanda, and the United Nations as to who should be the custodian of millions of court documents, videos and audio recordings used by the ICTR, when the tribunal closed doors.

 

It should be recalled that after the Genocide against the Tutsi, the ICTR was established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 955 of November 8, 1994, with the mandate to prosecute individuals believed to be most responsible for the genocide. The UN Tribunal facilities were subsequently established in Arusha, Tanzania at the Arusha International Conference Centre (AICC).

 

For a brief background, on December 31, 2015, the United Nations officially dissolved the ICTR and the remaining cases were transferred to the jurisdiction of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT), with branches in The Hague, Netherlands, and Arusha, Tanzania.

 

The term of the prosecutor and the IRMCT’s are expected to expire on June 30, 2024, as per Security Council resolution 2637.

 

What will happen after the expiry of the mandate of IRMCT?

 

According to the Citizen Tanzania story, the Tanzanian Minister of Foreign Affairs revealed that the ICTR archives will be handed over to Tanzania.

 

 “Dr Tax said to the best of her knowledge both the classified and declassified materials on the genocide would be handed over to Tanzania. That is when all the cases on the 1994 horrific killings in Rwanda are concluded at the UN Tribunal’s facilities in Arusha and The Hague in The Netherlands.”

 

It is at this point that questions arise as to the reasons Tanzania would be the appropriate custodian of these valuable archives that will for generations act as a reference to the trial of cases on genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda.

 

The fact that Tanzania was the seat of the ICTR is not much convincing for the documents to be hosted there. This would mean that even any other country in the region can claim to be given the mandate to host the archives consisting of bulky documents, video and audio tapes.

 

For example, in Uganda, there are two genocide sites: one in Mpigi district and another in Rakai district, where hundreds of bodies from Rwanda recovered from Lake Victoria in 1994 were buried. This would be a point of argument to allow Uganda to host the ICTR documents since the country has a close connection with the history of the genocide against the Tutsi.

 

Tanzania having hosted the ICTR is good enough, but the archives relating to the cases should be left to the UN and Rwanda to agree on how best the archives can be kept and preserved for future generations.

 

It is well known that in Rwanda there are genocide memorials in every part of the country and other exhibits that were not handed over to ICTR. It makes more sense for the ICTR archives to be kept in Rwanda where the crime of genocide against the Tutsi was committed, just as the archives related to the Jews Holocaust are located at Auschwitz, which acted as a killing center in German-occupied Poland during World War II.

 

The survivors of the genocide against the Tutsi and their siblings, researchers, journalists, and other interested parties from all over the world would find all this bitter history in one country. It would be problematic to make good use of the valuable archives which serve both as evidence and history of the genocide against the Tutsi, when they are scattered in different countries. 

 

Again, if there are conditions that make the UN as the custodian, we know that there is no country called UN. And therefore, it would be more appropriate for the UN to establish a center, or Museum, in Rwanda where the archives are jointly preserved.

 

The most fundamental question that the UN should make clear before the closure of IRMCT is the procedure that will be used to handle the remaining cases of high profile genocide fugitives still at large.

 

Although the mandate of IRMCT will expire, the crime of genocide does not expire and legal proceedings against suspects must continue beyond the IRMCT mandate.