not be ignored while considering those of the accused . The HRW , as an activist organization , is free to oppose both national and international practices , but we cannot allow it to manipulate international public opinion by claiming that Rwanda acted abnormally . Therefore , we can only hold HRW credible when it is applying the right reasoning to correct facts based on the same standards applied in dealing with all governments , whether western or African .
It is worth noting that there is an ongoing appeal process . The prosecution , civil parties , and some co-accused appealed against the decision of the High Court Chamber for International Crimes . Generally , one may argue that there is nothing interesting to discuss about this appeal since the law allows all those that appealed to do so . However , the issue that needs some reflection is whether the Public Prosecution needed to appeal . In other words , since the prosecution had obtained convictions for all the accused persons , was it necessary for it to engage more public resources in this case . In response , I would like to highlight some plausible ideas a prosecution may have put into consideration before filing for the appeal .
It is important to recall that the prosecution has a mandate of impartiality and service to the law . In order to achieve this mandate , two considerations may come into play . First is the fact that the prosecution has a duty to ensure that those responsible for serious crimes are given proportional sentences . This goes well together with the obligation to prevent crimes through punishment . The prosecution may have seen this as an opportunity for deterrence , a warning to potential future perpetrators . Second is the fact that the court of appeal is believed to be more competent with more experienced judges capable of providing a more nuanced interpretation and sounder judgement .
It is also worth stressing that the suspect that forfeits their right to participate in the court proceeding , as Rusesabagina did , should understand that they are undermining the court ’ s ability to access the truth and administer justice . The law is clear on the fact that the trial should proceed . The criminal procedure was never intended to create a situation where justice can be hijacked through stubborn dilatory tactics . Neither should HRW ’ s constant bullying undermine its precepts . This is exactly what we expect from an independent judicial system , as one American lawyer noted , ‘” judicial independence ” embodies the concept that a judge decides cases fairly , impartially , and according to the facts and law , not according to whim , prejudice , or fear , the dictates of the legislature or executive , or the latest opinion poll .’
The prosecution serves best its mandate of impartiality and service to the law when those responsible are given appropriate punishments based on correct charges using the correct interpretation of laws , including respecting victims ’ rights . Human Rights Watch , on the other hand , has betrayed its professed mandate .
❧ ❧ ❧
Dr Alphonse Muleefu is a Rwandan academic .
49