You are here

HRW / Africa

Subscribe to HRW / Africa feed
Updated: 1 month 3 weeks ago

Uganda: Lethal Response to Killings

Sat, 16/07/2016 - 13:12

The Ugandan government should investigate the killings of at least 50 people in the Rwenzori region, 17 of them by security forces, between February and April 2016, and make the findings public, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to the police inspector general.

Expand

A protestor holding a poster held in memory of Kule Munyambara Obed, who was allegedly shot by the Ugandan military in Kasese district on April 3, 2016.

© 2016 Human Rights Watch

A Human Rights Watch investigation found that members of the Bakonzo and Bamba ethnic groups in Uganda’s western Rwenzori region clashed following contested local elections and political infighting, resulting in at least 30 deaths. During the subsequent law enforcement operations, the Ugandan police and military killed at least 17 people. One police officer and two soldiers were also killed.

“The Ugandan government should account for what happened between February and April in the Rwenzori region, so that those responsible, whether government security forces or civilian, can be prosecuted and punished,” said Maria Burnett, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. “To end the retaliatory violence, the government needs to fulfill its role in maintaining neutrality and ensuring justice.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed 111 people, including survivors, victims’ relatives, witnesses, community members, medical staff, police, and journalists in April and May, in Bundibugyo and Kasese. Human Rights Watch also gathered and viewed evidence such as post-mortem reports, photographs, medical and mortuary records, and video footage, and visited camps for internally displaced people and sites of killings, burials, and destroyed homes.

The recent wave of violence began in Bundibugyo district on February 27, following contested local elections. The Bakonzo cultural kingdom has historically had tense relationships with both the neighboring Bwamba kingdom comprised of ethnic Bamba people and the central government. A group of armed men – all allegedly of Bamba ethnicity – attacked two ethnic Bakonzo households in Busengerwa 4 village, in Bundibugyo district, shooting and killing one person and critically injuring another with machetes. This attack sparked the latest in a series of retaliatory, inter-ethnic killings in the district until early April, leaving at least 30 people dead, seven of them children. Hundreds of houses of both ethnic groups were burned, and hundreds were displaced as a result of the violence.

  Expand

The grave of Anna Kuguma, who was killed in Katumba, Kirumya sub-county in Bundibugyo district, Uganda, around February 27, 2016.

© 2016 Human Rights Watch

According to media reports, police and military initially arrested a total of more than 150 people in February and March for various crimes, but it is not clear how many remain in custody. The New Vision, a government newspaper, reported that police charged at least 13 men with murder, attempted murder, and arson, on April 7.

In the wake of the violence in Bundibugyo, armed people in neighboring Kasese also clashed. On March 10, following contested local sub-county elections, a group of people – allegedly Bakonzo – attacked a group of soldiers in an area known as Kikonzo, in Hima Town Council, stabbing and injuring four. In response, the soldiers fatally shot two people. This violence led to four more incidents between the government and Royal Guards of the Obusinga bwa Rwenzururu (Bakonzo) kingdom, resulting in the deaths of six Royal Guards, three government security forces, and an individual not affiliated with either security force. Royal Guards are volunteers who provide security to the customary king.

The central government responded by deploying security forces to both Bundibugyo and Kasese districts in March. In Bundibugyo, the army carried out large-scale cordon-and-search operations in villages, and in April, assumed the name “Operation Usalama Rwenzori [Bring Peace to Rwenzori].” In Kasese, the police deployed a unit called the Flying Squad, whose officers typically operate in civilian clothes, drive unmarked cars, and are most often deployed in response to alleged armed gangs. Human Rights Watch has previously stated concerns that police has given them a shoot-to-kill mandate.

The Rwenzori region is the site of past violence; in July 2014, members of the Bakonzo ethnic group attacked police and army posts, resulting in reprisal killings against Bakonzo civilians. Local media reports suggest that over 100 people were killed during that period. Community members of both ethnicities told Human Rights Watch that they believed that at least some of the recent violence was attributable to unaddressed violence in 2014.

Human Rights Watch investigations into the killings by security forces indicate that police and the army killed at least 13 people during alleged arrest attempts. Multiple witnesses said that in all of those cases, the victims were unarmed when shot and killed. In all but one case, witness accounts suggest that security forces shot people at close range who were not threatening them or others at the time of the arrest.

In one instance, security forces responded to a man running toward them holding a stick by shooting him dead. This and other accounts raise serious questions about use of lethal force during arrests. No member of the security forces has yet been charged with any killings.

Some government officials, including a parliamentary committee on defense and internal affairs and the Uganda Human Rights Commission, have conducted investigations that are understood to be completed, but their reports have not been published and it is not clear if they will be issued publicly.

The prosecuting authorities should investigate all instances of lethal use of force by security forces, Human Rights Watch said. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials require law enforcement officials, including military units responding to national emergencies, to apply nonviolent means before resorting to the use of force, to use force only in proportion to the seriousness of the offense, and to use lethal force only when strictly unavoidable to protect life. The principles also provide that governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offense under their law.

According to humanitarian aid agencies, approximately 23,000 people were displaced at the height of the violence in Bundibugyo, many fleeing to about 11 camps. An indeterminate number remain displaced, with approximately 600 people, gathered in Bubukwanga camp, while some of the remaining internally displaced people are in 10 informal “reception centers” based in trading centers. All the camps are ethnically homogenous. Many of the displaced are not in camps, but have been staying with relatives or in sub-county offices, schools, churches, or markets.

Some displaced people are unable to adequately access necessary goods and services, causing some to return to areas they consider unsafe to harvest crops for food. Aid workers cited the lack of health supplies, shelter, schooling for children, and household items as enduring concerns. Displaced people interviewed said that the government has urged them to return home, but many said that they considered it too dangerous. Some said that neighbors had burned down homes they had lived in for decades and that they have nowhere to live now.

“The killings of unarmed people has fueled sentiment that the government is not a neutral party between ethnic groups in the Rwenzori region,” Burnett said. “Ensuring protection for everyone, no matter their ethnicity, and holding security forces to account for their conduct, is critical to preventing recurring cycles of violence.”

Recommendations

The Ugandan government should:

  • Investigate the killings in Bundibugyo and Kasese districts, including a specific investigation into the use of lethal force in the cases of the 17 people killed by state security forces, and make any findings public.
  • Conduct investigations and maintain dialogue with communities and victims about ongoing efforts to investigate and prosecute suspects from both the public and government security or intelligence forces.
  • Cooperate with aid organizations to ensure that displaced people have access to assistance.
  • Abide by the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms and use lethal force only when strictly unavoidable to protect human life.
Categories: Africa

Map of Kenya

Sat, 16/07/2016 - 13:12
Categories: Africa

UN Committee Against Torture: Submission on Burundi

Sat, 16/07/2016 - 13:12

Human Rights Watch welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the United Nations Committee against Torture (“the Committee”) July 28 special review of Burundi.

This memorandum highlights areas of concern Human Rights Watch hopes will inform the Committee’s consideration of the Burundian government’s compliance with the International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the Convention”). It proposes specific measures that we hope the Committee will recommend to the Burundian government.

This submission focuses on torture and ill-treatment by the Burundian state security forces and members of the youth league of the ruling party, the Imbonerakure, between April 2015 and June 2016.

During this period, Human Rights Watch also documented numerous extrajudicial executions, other killings, disappearances, and arbitrary arrests in Burundi, which are not described in this submission.

Torture by Intelligence Services and Police

The Burundian intelligence services have a long history of torture, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, and other human rights abuses against suspected government opponents, going back many years. However, torture and ill-treatment appear to have become more widespread, and torture techniques more brutal and frequent, following a failed coup in May 2015.

The Committee’s 2014 concluding observations on the second periodic report on Burundi on November 26, 2014 expressed concerns about “credible, corroborative and persistent reports of a large number of acts of torture and extrajudicial killings committed by members of the Burundian National Police and the National Intelligence Service.”

Throughout 2015 and the first half of 2016, the Burundian intelligence services (Service national de renseignement, SNR) have continued to use torture to force detainees to confess to alleged crimes, incriminate or denounce others, and to intimidate them. The majority of victims were suspected government opponents. These practices directly contravene Article 1 of the Convention and Article 251 of the Burundian Criminal Procedural Code.  Members of the Burundian police and Imbonerakure have also committed serious abuses, often in collaboration with the intelligence services.

Human Rights Watch documented more than 148 cases of alleged torture or ill-treatment, mostly by intelligence and police officials, between April and July 2015 in four provinces and in the capital, Bujumbura. Since then, Human Rights Watch has talked to scores of other victims of torture and ill-treatment in 2015 and 2016, from nine provinces and Bujumbura. The actual number of torture and ill-treatment cases in Burundi in 2015 and 2016 is likely much higher than the sample Human Rights Watch was able to document and confirm. 

Between April and June 2016, Human Rights Watch interviewed more than 40 torture victims. Victims and other sources said that members of the security forces or intelligence services had hit people repeatedly and slammed gun butts into detainees’ faces or limbs, in some cases breaking their bones or smashing their jaws so that some of their teeth fell out. SNR agents have also beaten detainees with steel construction bars, driven sharpened steel rods into their legs, tied cords to detainees’ genitals and pulled them, used electric shock, and poured liquid on detainees, which burned them.

In early 2016, a justice official told Human Rights Watch confidentially that some detainees arrived at police detention centers with their teeth knocked out, bloody, swollen faces and in great pain. Some detainees were then beaten again by high-ranking national or provincial police officials with steel bars, rocks or bricks.

One victim described in mid-2016 how a police official pulled out his tooth with pliers, because he allegedly worked for “human rights”.

Despite Burundi’s Criminal Procedural Code guaranteeing detainees access to a doctor and legal assistance, lawyers told Human Rights Watch that the intelligence services prevented them from entering their headquarters in Bujumbura where people were detained.

In November 2014, the Committee noted that Burundi’s Constitution prohibited torture, but were concerned that there were “numerous shortcomings of the organization and command structure of the country’s security services, particularly the Burundian National Police (Police nationale du Burundi) and the National Intelligence Service (Service national de renseignement).”

Former detainees and a judicial official who had long-term access to the intelligence headquarters in Bujumbura confirmed to Human Rights Watch that the head of the SNR (administrateur général) is aware that torture is taking place. In addition, intelligence agents who report directly to him have frequently tortured perceived opponents in the SNR headquarters in Bujumbura and in SNR provincial offices.

Provincial intelligence agents and senior officials who suspect detainees possess information about hidden weapons or armed opposition activities have tortured them in provincial intelligence offices and frequently transferred them to Bujumbura for further torture or ill-treatment there.

One victim said a provincial intelligence agent smashed bones in his legs with a hammer in April 2016 and then sent him to the intelligence headquarters in Bujumbura where he spent 13 days. A judicial police officer questioned him and accused him of being an opposition member who allegedly helped combatants cross into Rwanda. Intelligence officials frequently assigned judicial police officers known to be loyal to the ruling party to question detainees suspected of collaborating with the opposition.

One 22-year-old victim told Human Rights Watch that unidentified men arrested him in February 2016 in Bujumbura’s Ngagara neighborhood and bundled him into a truck. The student believed they were intelligence agents. As they drove off with him, one of the men said to him: “Turn over the weapons that you have.” They stomped on his chest as he lay in the back of the truck and asked him about the identity and whereabouts of others in his neighborhood. They ordered him to undress and told him: “When we hit you enough times, you will end up talking.” They beat him on the legs and back with an electrical cable.

The victim attempted to escape but was caught. The perpetrators sliced him on the chest with a hot knife and asked him questions about the location of hidden weapons and the people who allegedly had guns in the neighborhood. When the man was unable to respond, they pushed a sharpened steel bar into his leg until he passed out.

In March 2016, a taxi driver in his early 30s said someone knocked on the door of his house. When he opened it, an unidentified man was standing in front of him, pointing a gun at his head. Three pickup trucks escorted the taxi driver to a military position in Bujumbura. The perpetrators tied his arms behind his back and tied his legs, then tied his legs to his hands. The men hung him from a nail in the wall and beat him, while telling him to hand over the weapons he allegedly possessed.

The taxi driver estimated that the soldiers suspended him for three hours, then took him down and beat him for several more hours. They told him to reveal the location of hidden weapons. The next day, they took him to the SNR headquarters in Bujumbura, where an agent said: “That dog [name withheld] has returned.” An SNR agent, made him lie down on his stomach in a gutter and beat him with a thick stick on his feet and rear end. Then another person poured liquid on him. He said: “I felt like I was burning. I begged them to kill me. They said: ‘You, you criminal, you are going to die slowly.’”

He said he was beaten twice more. He was in such pain he asked to be killed again. A policeman who worked at the SNR told him: “Who would dirty themselves with your blood?” The taxi driver said he can no longer sit down because of his injuries.

Several former detainees said they were locked in a small toilet room at the SNR headquarters in Bujumbura. Others said they stayed locked in cells for long periods. An official with access to the SNR said that senior intelligence officials, demobilized rebel fighters, and Imbonerakure members beat detainees and hid them from international monitors.

The Burundian Criminal Procedure Code in article 34 states that detainees can be held for a maximum of seven days, renewable only once, before judges decide whether they should be provisionally released or remain in detention. A delay of seven days after detention appears to violate article 9 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that states all detainees should be brought before a judge or equivalent “promptly.” In any event, this period is routinely disregarded, with many detainees held in police or SNR custody for longer than the maximum period provided by the law, and with no due process. 

Abuses by Imbonerakure

The ruling party and intelligence services have often used Imbonerakure members to identify suspected government opponents. Despite having no legal powers of arrest, some Imbonerakure have frequently arrested people, beaten them, and handed them over to intelligence agents who tortured some of them.

Victims in several provinces told Human Rights Watch in 2015 that Imbonerakure hit them with sticks and clubs, forced them to roll in muddy pits, and punched them in the face. Imbonerakure often handed those they arrested directly to intelligence officials, who transferred them to the SNR offices.

A former detainee said an intelligence agent interrogated him in February 2016 while an Imbonerakure dripped melting plastic on him. They also used pliers to cut his genitals, while an Imbonerakure told him: “You will end up revealing the secrets of [opposition leader Alexis] Sinduhije.”

Residents from some provinces told Human Rights Watch that Imbonerakure often gave orders to the police and that low-level police appeared powerless to stop Imbonerakure abuses.

In one northern province in early 2016, Imbonerakure told a policeman who asked them why they were beating a man: “What are you doing here? Get out of here!” The policeman left. Imbonerakure beat the victim with cables that resembled fiber optic cables. A pickup truck belonging to the SNR provincial commissioner arrived and four policemen put the man in the back. The policemen beat him as he was driven to the SNR office, where a senior official accused him of collaborating with the armed opposition.

Events of December 11, 2015

On December 11, 2015, armed opposition members attacked four military installations in and around Bujumbura. From about 8 a.m., police and military pursued the alleged attackers into Nyakabiga and Musaga, two of the Bujumbura neighborhoods where there were widespread demonstrations against Nkurunziza’s third term in 2015. In both neighborhoods, armed opponents engaged the security forces in a sustained gun battle.

After the gun fight, police and military forced their way into some homes and accused residents of having weapons and harboring opposition fighters. Residents recognized some Imbonerakure wearing police uniforms. Soldiers from Camp Muha and Camp Muzinda, two large military camps in Bujumbura, provided reinforcements.

One man told Human Rights Watch that he heard someone yell at him to come out of his house. Outside, he saw almost a dozen police from the unit responsible for guarding state institutions (Appui pour la protection des institutions, API). Three of them had machine guns, three had rocket launchers and others had Kalashnikovs with grenades. Some had what looked like an ax a butcher might use. They were drunk. He said:

“They made us lie down on our backs and spread our arms and look at the sun. One of them cocked his gun and put it to my temple. Then he asked another (if he should kill me). I thought I was finished. Another said: “Wait.” Then another one came and cut me (on my arm) with an ax. I had a wide wound and blood was shooting up like this into his face. I said: “You’re killing me! You’re killing me!” He said: “I didn’t know it was so sharp.”

On the same day, a 39-year-old man from Musaga left his house during a lull in the gunfire. Imbonerakure in police uniforms cut him on the head with a bayonet and he lost consciousness. The API and the police anti-riot brigade (Brigade anti-émeute, BAE) tied him up and made him and some of his neighbors lie down on their backs. The police were drinking beer, and when they finished, they balanced the bottles on the men’s throats. The victim said: “When the bottle fell, they either kicked us or hit us with their gun butts. It was a form of punishment. They knew good and well that when you are tied up and looking at the sun, you can’t hold out. Men came and kicked me. All of them kicked me like it was a game of soccer.”

Scores of people were killed and many others seriously injured on December 11 in what was the single deadliest episode since Burundi’s crisis began in April 2015.  The Prosecutor General, Valentin Bagorikunda, set up an inquiry into the December 11 events on December 17, 2015. Summarizing the inquiry’s main conclusions on March 10, 2016, he did not mention killings or abuses of Bujumbura residents by the security forces. He claimed that those killed on December 11 were armed “combatants” wearing police or military uniforms.

Impunity for SNR and Police Torture

In 2014, the Committee noted with concern the “slow pace and limited scope of the investigations and judicial proceedings” and found it “regrettable that no information about cases that have gone to trial or the outcome of those trials has been forthcoming”. Human Rights Watch is not aware of any intelligence agents who have been arrested, prosecuted or convicted for torture since the crisis began in 2015.

Judicial officials, lawyers and human rights activists told Human Rights Watch that SNR and ruling party officials continued to heavily influence judicial decisions and overrule decisions by prosecutors and others. Cases involving opposition party members were often allocated to judicial officials known to be sympathetic to the ruling party.

This lack of independence in Burundi’s judicial and prosecutorial system contravenes Article 12 of the Convention. Human Rights Watch is not aware of any torture victim who has been compensated or received redress for their treatment. This violates Article 14 of the Convention.

A high-ranking justice official who spoke anonymously for fear of reprisals said: “The Imbonerakure arrest people and take them to the police after beating them and injuring them seriously. Instead of taking them to the hospital, the police imprison them because of political pressure.”

Another senior justice official said that in some cases, ruling party members controlled the fate of detainees and gave orders to the police to fabricate accusations against certain people. Some prosecutors collaborated with intelligence agents to determine what charges to file against individuals arrested by the SNR or by Imbonerakure and whether to keep them in detention.

The same justice official told Human Rights Watch: “The justice system is not independent. Judicial authorities can’t act independently according to their conscience. We can release someone, then we get a call immediately and [ruling] party members give an order. When Imbonerakure arrest people, we watch powerlessly. We can’t do anything about it.”

The administrateur général of the SNR reports directly to President Pierre Nkurunziza.

The police reports to the minister of public security, Alain Guillaume Bunyoni. Despite numerous cases of police torture, ill-treatment and other abuses documented by Human Rights Watch and other organizations, Bunyoni wrote, in a letter to Human Rights Watch in June 2016, that it was “unthinkable” that police could have tortured or ill-treated detainees and that it would be a “serious error to assert gratuitously” that the police arbitrarily arrested, tortured, or ill-treated suspected government opponents. He denied categorically that the police collaborated with the Imbonerakure. He said that the police received human rights training.

However, the minister conceded it would be “illusory” to claim that police never make mistakes and wrote that more than 70 police officers had been prosecuted since 2015, some for “abuses committed during the management of the insurrectional movement” before and after the 2015 elections and others for common crimes. He did not provide details of these prosecutions.

Recommendations:

  1. The Burundian authorities should urgently investigate torture and ill-treatment at the SNR headquarters in Bujumbura and in provincial SNR detention facilities, as well as in police custody. Intelligence agents and police officials involved in ordering, supervising or carrying out torture and ill-treatment should be immediately suspended and investigated, and where there is sufficient evidence, prosecuted for these crimes.  The Committee should ask the Burundian authorities for specific information on the progress of these investigations. The investigations and prosecutions should be fully independent of the individuals being investigated and of their chain of command.
  2. The Burundian authorities should cooperate with international investigations into serious human rights abuses in Burundi, including any international commission of inquiry that might be set up by the UN.   
  3. The Burundian government should accept the deployment of a substantial international police presence in Burundi, with a strong protection mandate.
  4. The Burundian authorities should develop a robust, independent National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) as set out in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The NPM should include members of civil society and government officials who would regularly visit detention facilities and make recommendations to Burundian authorities.
  5. The Burundian authorities should seek the assistance of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and humanitarian agencies to identify victims of torture and ill-treatment who need medical assistance, and provide the necessary assistance, including specialized medical care outside their detention site.
  6. The Burundian authorities should allow detainees regular access to lawyers at all intelligence, police, and other detention facilities across the country.
  7. UN and African Union human rights observers in Burundi should intensify their visits to SNR and police detention facilities to deter and document torture. They should publish frequent detailed reports on their findings, including on any attempts by the authorities to obstruct or restrict their full access to detention centers.   
Categories: Africa

Ban Forced Anal Exams Around World

Sat, 16/07/2016 - 13:12

(Geneva) – Forced anal examinations on men and transgender women accused of consensual same-sex conduct have been reported in at least eight countries in the last five years, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. These examinations lack evidentiary value and are a form of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment that may in some cases amount to torture.

The 82-page report, “Dignity Debased: Forced Anal Examinations in Homosexuality Prosecutions,” is based on interviews with 32 men and transgender women who underwent forced anal examinations in Cameroon, Egypt, Kenya, Lebanon, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, and Zambia. The examinations, which have the purported objective of finding “proof” of homosexual conduct, often involve doctors or other medical personnel forcibly inserting their fingers, and sometimes other objects, into the anus of the accused. Victims of forced anal testing told Human Rights Watch that they found the exams painful and degrading; some experienced them as a form of sexual violence.

Countries around the world should ban the practice of conducting forced anal examinations on men and transgender women accused of consensual same-sex conduct.

“Forced anal exams are invasive, intrusive, and profoundly humiliating, and clearly violate governments’ human rights obligations,” said Neela Ghoshal, senior researcher in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights program at Human Rights Watch. “No one, in 2016, should be subjected to torturous and degrading examinations that are based on invalidated theories from 150 years ago.”

The exams are rooted in discredited 19th century theories that homosexuals can be identified by the tone of the anal sphincter or the shape of the anus. International forensic medicine experts have found that the exams are useless, in addition to being cruel and degrading. The conclusion was shared even by several medical professionals Human Rights Watch interviewed who themselves had conducted anal exams.

Expand

English translation of poster text: Is it possible to refuse an anal test? From a legal point of view: It is possible to refuse an anal test when examined by a forensic doctor. But the reality is different. The victims often “accept” the test for fear of being tortured, because of their young age, or because they are unaware of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 

(c) Shams 2015

International human rights law prohibits torture as well as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Those prohibitions are explicitly reflected in the domestic laws of countries that have nonetheless allowed forced anal exams to take place. The United Nations special rapporteur on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment has found that the exams are “intrusive and degrading” and “medically worthless,” amounting to “torture or ill-treatment.” The International Forensic Expert Group describes them as “a form of sexual assault and rape.”

Medical personnel who voluntarily conduct forced anal exams violate international principles of medical ethics, including the prohibition on medical personnel participating in any way in acts of torture or degrading treatment.

“I felt like I was an animal. I felt I wasn’t human,” said “Mehdi,” a Tunisian student subjected to an anal exam in December 2015. “When I got dressed, they put handcuffs on me and I went out, feeling completely in shock. I couldn’t absorb what was going on.”

“Louis,” who underwent a forced anal examination in Cameroon in 2007, at age 18, told Human Rights Watch nine years later: “I still have nightmares about that examination. Sometimes it keeps me up at night when I think about it. I never thought a doctor could do something like that to me.”

July 12, 2016 Report Dignity Debased

Forced Anal Examinations in Homosexuality Prosecutions

Some countries where authorities have used forced anal exams in the past, most notably Lebanon, have taken steps to end the practice. But others, including Egypt and Tunisia, rely on them with great frequency in prosecutions for consensual same-sex conduct. The use of forced anal examinations appears to be a recent phenomenon in Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia.

No one, in 2016, should be subjected to torturous and degrading examinations that are based on invalidated theories from 150 years ago. Neela Ghoshal

Senior LGBT rights researcher

In Kenya, a disappointing High Court decision in June 2016 upheld the constitutionality of the exams. The judge found that the petitioners, two men who had been arrested on “unnatural offenses” charges and subjected to anal exams while in police custody, had consented to them. Petitioners said they were not informed about the tests and agreed only under duress while in police custody. The decision has been appealed.

All countries should ban the practice of forced anal examinations, and international and domestic human rights and health institutions should vigorously and vociferously oppose their use, Human Rights Watch said.   “No one should be arrested in the first place because of their private sexual conduct, but where such arrests do occur, forced anal exams add an extra layer of pointless brutality and abuse,” Ghoshal said. “Every country should guarantee basic rights and dignity to people accused of homosexual conduct, and recognize that the prohibition on torture extends to everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”   Launch Map Expand Share

 

Categories: Africa

Arvind Ganesan

Tue, 05/07/2016 - 00:25

Arvind Ganesan is the director of Human Rights Watch’s Business and Human Rights Division. He leads the organization’s work to expose human rights abuses linked to business and other economic activity, hold institutions accountable, and develop standards to prevent future abuses. This work has included research and advocacy on awide range of issues includingthe extractive industries; public and private security providers; international financial institutions; freedom of expression and information through the internet; labor rights; supply chain monitoring and due diligence regimes; corruption; sanctions; and predatory practices against the poor. Ganesan’s work has covered countries such as Angola, Azerbaijan, Burma, China, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, India, Indonesia, the United States, and Nigeria. His recent research has focused on predatory lending practices and governance issues on Native American reservations in the United States. He has written numerous reports, op-eds, and other articles and is widely cited by the media.

Ganesan has also worked to develop industry standards to ensure companies and other institutions respect human rights. He is a founder of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights for the oil, gas, and mining industries and is a founding member of the Global Network Initiative (GNI) for the internet and telecommunications industries, where he also serves on the board. Ganesan has helped to develop standards for international financial institutions such as the World Bank, and regularly engages governments in an effort to develop mandatory rules or strengthen existing standards such as the Kimberley Process. He serves on the board of EGJustice, a nongovernmental organization that promotes good governance in Equatorial Guinea, and is a member of the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR)’s steering committee.

Before joining Human Rights Watch, Ganesan worked as a medical researcher. He attended the University of Oklahoma.

Categories: Africa

Graeme Reid

Tue, 05/07/2016 - 00:25

Graeme Reid, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program, is an expert on LGBT rights. He has conducted research, taught and published extensively on gender, sexuality, LGBT issues, and HIV/AIDS.

Before joining Human Rights Watch in 2011, Reid was the founding director of the Gay and Lesbian Archives of South Africa, a researcher at the Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research and a lecturer in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies at Yale University. An anthropologist by training, Reid received an master’s from the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, and a PhD from the University of Amsterdam.

Categories: Africa

Habré's Survivors Fight For Justice

Tue, 05/07/2016 - 00:25
Categories: Africa

Kenya: Investigate Killings of Lawyer, Two Men

Tue, 05/07/2016 - 00:25

(Nairobi) – Kenyan authorities must urgently investigate the killing last week of three men, including a human rights lawyer, and ensure that those found responsible are held to account in fair trials, 34 Kenyan and international human rights organizations said today. Human rights activists will today hold demonstrations in Nairobi and other parts of Kenya to protest the heinous killings.

The shocking abduction, enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings of lawyer Willie Kimani, as well as his client and their taxi driver that day, whose bodies were recovered from a river 73 kilometres northeast of Nairobi, should be cause for alarm over the state of human rights and rule of law in Kenya, especially in the face of reports suggesting that police officers were involved.
Expand

The perpetrators of the killing of Willie Kimani, Josephat Mwenda and Joseph Muiruri should face justice for this horrific crime.


“These extrajudicial killings are a chilling reminder that the hard-won right to seek justice for human rights violations is under renewed attack,” said Muthoni Wanyeki, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes. “The Independent Policing Oversight Authority must initiate and lead prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigations into the abduction, enforced disappearance and extrajudicial execution of these three people with a view to bringing criminal charges against all those reasonably suspected of responsibility.”

The bodies of Willie Kimani, who was employed by International Justice Mission, a Christian legal aid charity, his client Josephat Mwenda, a motorcycle taxi rider, and Joseph Muiruri, a taxi driver, were recovered on June 30, 2016 from Ol-Donyo Sabuk River in Machakos County, eastern Kenya, a week after the three went missing in circumstances suggesting they were victims of enforced disappearance. Initial reports immediately suggested that Administration Police (AP), officers, one of whom Mwenda was defending himself against in court that day, may have abducted them.

The three were last seen as they left Mavoko Law Courts, in Machakos County, on June 23, 2016 where they had attended a hearing of a traffic case against Mwenda. Police officers from Syokimau AP Camp preferred traffic charges against Mwenda in December 2015, months after he had lodged a complaint with IPOA against a senior officer at the camp who had illegally shot him in April 2015 as he dismounted a motorcycle after the officers had waved him down to stop. Human rights organisations in Kenya have evidence indicating the three men were briefly held at Syokimau AP Camp soon after they were abducted. The men’s whereabouts after that remained unknown until their bodies were recovered seven days later.

“That these killings are coming before numerous similar allegations in other parts of the country have been adequately investigated is a matter of serious concern of the willingness of the Kenyan authorities to stem cases of police killings,” said Henry Maina, regional director at Article 19, Eastern Africa. “President Kenyatta must take decisive steps to assure Kenyans and the international community that the government is serious about addressing police killings.”

The Kenyan agencies responsible for investigations, including IPOA and police should ensure that all those reasonably linked to the killings are investigated and all available evidence properly preserved to ensure the credibility of the investigations, the organizations said.

“A transparent process of investigating and prosecuting those responsible is what is now needed to reassure shocked Kenyans of their safety and restore their faith in the national police,” said Kamau Ngugi, National Coordinator at Kenya’s National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders. “That a lawyer working for an international organisation and his client could be abducted and disappeared in broad-day light only to be found dead is a matter that cannot be taken lightly.”

It is, however, encouraging to note that in the early hours of July 1, before news of the bodies being found was publicly known, Inspector-General of Police Joseph Boinett ordered the arrest of three AP officers attached to the Syokimau AP Camp and further directed that all their colleagues at the camp be questioned about the disappearances.

On July 2, the Inspector General said three officers – Frederick Leliman, Stephen Chebulet and Sylvia Wanjiku – were being held over offences relating to the killings.
It cannot be business as usual when cases of police killings are emerging from many parts of the country each year. The government should urgently conduct a thorough investigation to ensure that perpetrators are held accountable and that these killings stop Otsieno Namwaya

Africa Researcher at Human Rights Watch


“The Inspector General should now clarify whether the AP officer accused of shooting Mwenda in April 2015 is one of those under arrest,” said Otsieno Namwaya, Africa Researcher at Human Rights Watch. “It cannot be business as usual when cases of police killings are emerging from many parts of the country each year. The government should urgently conduct a thorough investigation to ensure that perpetrators are held accountable and that these killings stop.”

These outrageous crimes should not only be the concern of the police and IPOA, but should be addressed by all levels of Kenya’s leadership, including the national assembly and the head of state.

“The killing of these three young Kenyans in cold blood should concern President Uhuru Kenyatta,” said George Kegoro, Executive Director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission. “The head of state must immediately institute a full judicial commission of inquiry into the appropriation and misuse of the institution of the police and its resources for personal and criminal ends including, as in this case, extrajudicial killings.”

Kenya’s international partners – in particular Sweden, the UK and USA – that are currently providing financial support to the Kenya police units implicated in extrajudicial killings, should urge Kenyan authorities to ensure effective investigations into these killings and prosecution of those responsible. Supporting Kenyan security agencies without insisting on accountability for human rights violations makes donor countries complicit in those violations.

Signed hereunder:
Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR)
Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC)
National Coalition on Human Rights Defenders (NCHRC)
Independent Medico Legal Unit (IMLU)
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
Freedom House
Article 19, Eastern Africa
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
Defend Defenders
International Commission of Jurists (Kenya Chapter)
InformAction
Chapter Four, Uganda
Pan African Human Rights Defenders Network, Uganda
Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, Uganda
Rights Promotion and Protection Centre
Muslims for Human Rights
Haki Africa
Coalition for Constitution Implementation
Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice
Centre for Reproductive Rights
Bunge La Mwananchi
Coalition of Grassroots Human Rights Defenders
Kenyan Peasants League
Pan African Grassroots Women Liberation
World March of Women Kenya
Mathare Social Justice Centre
Bunge La Mwananchi, Kangemi
Kamukunji Human Rights Defenders Network
Women Arising
Dandora Must Change Social Movement
The Change Movement Kenya
Sauti Ya Umma, Kenya

Categories: Africa

Kenya: Rights Lawyer, Client, Driver Missing

Tue, 05/07/2016 - 00:25
UPDATE (July 1, 2016): On Friday, July 1, International Justice Mission announced the  deaths of staff member, Willie Kimani, client, Josephat Mwenda and taxi driver, Joseph Muiruri. Their bodies were found in a river in Ol-Donyo Sabuk, Machakos County after an extensive search. Human Rights Watch extends sincere condolences to IJM and the families.   (Nairobi) – Kenyan police should urgently locate a human rights lawyer, his client, and their driver who have been missing since June 23, 2016. There is credible evidence the men were, at some point, in the custody of Kenya’s Administration Police and may be victims of an enforced disappearance.   Expand

Human rights lawyer Willie Kimani was last seen on June 23, 2016. There is credible evidence that Kimani, as well as his client and taxi driver, may be victims of an enforced disappearance.

© International Justice Mission

The lawyer, Willie Kimani, his client, Josphat Mwenda, and their taxi driver, Joseph Muiruri, were last seen returning from a traffic court hearing at Mavoko Law Courts, Machakos county, on June 23. Kenyan and international human rights organizations have stated that the three were abducted and that they may have been held at Syokimau Administration Police Camp.

“The three men have been missing for over a week,” said Otsieno Namwaya, Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch.” The police inspector general should be ordering his officers to urgently find out where the men are and ensure their safety and well-being.”   Any police officers involved in the men’s disappearance should be held to account for what would be a very serious crime.   Kenyan lawyers held a protest on June 30 and petitioned the police inspector general for information regarding the men’s whereabouts.   Human Rights Watch understands that officers from the police unit known as the Flying Squad, along with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, are investigating. But after eight days, there is still no clarity as to the men’s whereabouts. Should police officers, or other government agents, be involved with or implicated in depriving the men of their liberty and concealing information about their whereabouts, their actions would constitute an enforced disappearance, a serious violation of human rights for which there is no justification.   Kimani, a lawyer working with the International Justice Mission (IJM), has been representing Mwenda in his legal problems stemming from an April 10, 2015 incident in which an Administration Police officer from Syokimau Administration Police Camp shot him during a traffic stop.   An IJM official, Wamaitha Kimani, told Human Rights Watch that Mwenda received medical treatment for his injuries but was then taken into custody at Mlolongo Police station, in Machakos county. Mwenda was charged with “being in possession of narcotic drugs,” “gambling in a public place,” and “resisting arrest.” IJM believes that the officers fabricated the charges in an attempt to justify the shooting.   “What surprised us is that four other officers who were not at the scene recorded statements to support the charges,” Wamaitha Kimani said. “That is why IJM decided to defend Mwenda.”   Mwenda later filed a complaint over the shooting with Kenya’s Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), a civilian police accountability institution, against a senior Administration Police officer in Machakos county.   Police later charged Mwenda with six traffic offenses, including riding a motorcycle without a helmet, on December 13. On February 16, Wamaitha Kimani said, two men claiming to be officers from the police’s Directorate of Criminal Investigations arrested Mwenda again, alleging that he was a suspect in a violent robbery. Willie Kimani represented Mwenda and insisted on being present during any interrogations. Wamaitha Kimani told Human Rights Watch that these charges appeared to be an effort to intimidate Mwenda and compel him to withdraw his complaint against the police.   Willie Kimani had previously worked with Release Political Prisoners, a Kenyan pressure group now known as Rights Promotion and Protection Centre (RPP), Independent Medico Legal Unit (IMLU), and IPOA.   “Police should not hesitate to interrogate and arrest their own officers when there is cause,” said Namwaya. “This case stands as a clear threat to the legal profession and all those who push for police accountability in Kenya.”
Categories: Africa

Dispatches: Angolan Activists Conditionally Free

Tue, 05/07/2016 - 00:25

The Angolan Supreme Court on Wednesday provisionally released 17 members of a book club who were jailed after they discussed peaceful protest and democracy at a meeting last June, inspired by Gene Sharp’s book, From Dictatorship to Democracy.

Public prosecutors charged the group members with “preparatory acts of rebellion” and “plotting against the president and state institutions.” The latter charge was dropped during their trial, and a new charge of “criminal conspiracy” added.

Expand

Book-club activists walk through the streets of Luanda after their provisional release.

© 2016 Katya dos Santos

After six months in pretrial detention, the activists were put under house arrest in December. In March 2016 they were convicted and received sentences of between two and eight years in prison – and returned to jail.  Their lawyers appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court, arguing they were unconstitutional and in violation of the activists’ fundamental rights. Under Angolan law, they should have been freed pending a decision of the Supreme Court. But instead they  languished in jail for another three months, while their relatives and friends held several protests outside the courts.

In its ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court ordered the group’s conditional release pending a final decision on their case. They will not be allowed to leave the country, and must check in with the authorities every month.

The first group of activists left the Sao Paulo Hospital-Prison in Luanda that afternoon. As they walked through the streets of the Angolan capital for the first time in more than a year, they shouted: “Reading is not a crime!”

Wednesday’s ruling could be a light at the end of the tunnel for many other people who have been denied justice in the Angolan judicial system, which has often been an instrument of the government to target its critics. The Supreme Court may want to restore public trust in state institutions. While the ruling does not acquit the activists, who never should have been arrested or charged, it gives hope that the review of their sentencing will be fair, thorough, and prompt. 

Categories: Africa

Dispatches: Ethiopia Ascends to UN Security Council Despite Dismal Rights Record

Tue, 05/07/2016 - 00:25

Ethiopia has a horrendous human rights record – but that didn’t stop its election this week to the United Nations Security Council as a non-permanent member. It’s worth noting too that Ethiopia – implicated in the deaths of hundreds of peaceful protesters in recent months – is also a member of the UN Human Rights Council.

Expand

The UN Security Council votes on a resolution at UN Headquarters in New York on March 2, 2016.

© 2016 Reuters

Ethiopia, among Africa’s leading jailors of journalists, has decimated independent civil society and misused its counterterrorism law to stifle peaceful dissent. Arbitrary arrests and torture continue to be major concerns. The ruling coalition won 100 percent of parliamentary seats at federal and regional levels in the 2015 elections, after years of restrictions on opposition parties and supporters.

Two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch published a report into the government’s handling of the largely peaceful Oromo protests, where security forces killed an estimated 400 people, many of them students. Thousands have been arrested. The use of excessive force to stifle peaceful protest has occurred frequently, but Ethiopians have few outlets to criticize the government that won’t get them arrested. This has created a volatile internal security situation. The investigation by Ethiopia’s national Human Rights Commission fell short of international standards and concluded that security forces used “proportionate force” against protesters. A credible, independent investigation with international support is needed into these killings.

Despite the dire human rights situation, Ethiopia is a now a member of both the Security Council and the Human Rights Council. Its track record on the rights council has been poor: it has consistently blocked cooperation with UN special mechanisms, not permitted access to a single special rapporteur since 2007 – other than the special rapporteur on Eritrea, unsurprising given the ongoing “cold war” between the two countries. UN special rapporteurs on torture, freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly, the right of food, and the independent expert on human rights and international solidarity all have outstanding requests for visits.

Ethiopia should stop hiding its own human rights record from international scrutiny, and as a member of both the Human Rights Council and the Security Council, cooperate fully with UN special mechanisms, in particular the rapporteurs on peaceful assembly and torture to further investigate the human rights situation. Moreover, Ethiopia’s international partners should be supporting a credible, independent investigation into abuses during the Oromo protests.

 

 

Categories: Africa

Condamnation historique de Hissène Habré pour atrocités

Mon, 30/05/2016 - 21:20
L'ex-dictateur tchadien a été reconnu coupable de viol, crimes de guerre, torture et crimes contre l’humanité

Les temps forts du procès à Dakar de l’ex-dictateur du Tchad, Hissène Habré, qui a débuté le 20 juillet 2015 et s’est achevé le 30 mai 2016, lorsqu’il a été reconnu coupable de torture, crimes de guerre et crimes contre l’humanité lors de ses années au pouvoir (1982-90).

(Dakar) – La condamnation de Hissène Habré, l’ancien président du Tchad, pour de graves crimes internationaux, est l’aboutissement d’une campagne de plusieurs décennies menée par les victimes, a déclaré Human Rights Watch aujourd’hui. Hissène Habré a été reconnu coupable de torture, crimes de guerre et crimes contre l’humanité, et notamment d’avoir lui-même violé une femme, par les Chambres africaines extraordinaires et condamné à la réclusion à perpétuité le 30 mai 2016.

« C’est une immense victoire pour les victimes de Hissène Habré qui ont lutté sans relâche depuis 25 ans pour le traduire en justice», a déclaré Reed Brody, conseiller juridique à Human Rights Watch qui travaille auprès des victimes depuis 1999. « Cette condamnation envoie un signal d’alarme aux tyrans leur rappelant que s’ils commettent des atrocités, ils ne seront jamais hors de portée de leurs victimes ».  

Le procès de Hissène Habré, qui a dirigé le Tchad de 1982 à 1990, a commencé le 20 juillet 2015. Habré, qui n’a jamais reconnu l’autorité des Chambres, a gardé le silence tout au long du procès.

Un résumé de la décision a été lue en audience par le Président de la Chambre, le juge burkinabé Gberdao Gustave Kam, qui était entouré de deux juges sénégalais. Le Procureur avait requis une peine de réclusion à perpétuité.  

La décision finale écrite sera prochainement publiée. Human Rights Watch a préparé un résumé non officiel à partir des notes prises lors du verdict.

Expand

Des survivants des atrocités commises par Habré marchent vers le tribunal pour assister au verdict, 30 mai 2016 

© 2016 Andrew Stroehlein / Human Rights Watch

Habré a fui au Sénégal en 1990, après que son régime a été renversé par l’actuel président du Tchad Idriss Déby Itno. Bien qu’il ait été arrêté et inculpé une première fois au Sénégal en 2000, une campagne de longue haleine a dû être menée par ses victimes avant que les Chambres africaines extraordinaires ne soient inaugurées par le Sénégal et l’Union africaine en février 2013, pour juger des crimes internationaux commis au Tchad sous le régime de Hissène Habré.

« J’attends ce jour depuis que je suis sorti de prison il y a plus de 25 ans », a déclaré Souleymane Guengueng, qui faillit mourir de mauvais traitements et de maladie dans les geôles de Habré, et qui a fondé l’Association des victimes des crimes du régime de Hissène Habré (AVCRHH). « Aujourd’hui, je me sens dix fois plus grand que Hissène Habré. »

C’est la première fois que les tribunaux d’un État jugent l’ancien dirigeant d’un autre État pour des supposées violations des droits humains. Quatre-vingt-treize personnes ont témoigné au procès, la plupart d’entre elles ayant fait le voyage du Tchad au Sénégal pour y participer. Les survivants ont livré des témoignages bouleversants sur la torture, les viols, l’esclavage sexuel, les massacres et les destructions de villages.

La Cour a notamment condamné Hissène Habré pour des crimes de violence sexuelles, dont le crime de viol et le celui d’esclavage sexuel pour avoir envoyé des femmes servir d’esclaves sexuels pour son armée.

La cour a également reconnu Hissène Habré coupable d’avoir lui-même violé Khadidja Hassan Zidane à quatre reprises. Les juges ont estimé que le témoignage de Hassan était crédible et corroboré par ce qu’elle avait raconté à ses codétenues.

« La condamnation d’un ancien président pour crimes sexuels envoie un message clair : aucun dirigeant – aussi puissant soit-il – n’est au-dessus de la loi ; et aucune fille ou femme n’est en-dessous » a déclaré Reed Brody.

Une deuxième série d’audiences se tiendra en juin ou juillet au sein des Chambres afin d’évaluer les dommages et intérêts à attribuer aux parties civiles et aux autres victimes.

Il semble possible que les avocats commis d’office à la défense de Hissène Habré puissent encore faire appel en son nom, même sans son consentement. Si un tel appel était déposé, une Chambre africaine extraordinaire d’Appel serait constituée pour l’examiner plus tard dans l’année.

Expand

Hissène Habré lors de la première phase de son procès à Dakar, en novembre 2015.
 

© 2015 Radiodiffusion Télévision Sénégalaise

Le procès de Hissène Habré souligne aussi l’importance de la compétence universelle, a déclaré Human Rights Watch. Ce principe de droit international permet à des tribunaux nationaux de juger des crimes les plus graves même lorsqu’ils ont été commis à l’étranger, par un étranger, et contre des victimes étrangères. 

En mars 2015, une cour criminelle tchadienne avait condamné 20 anciens agents de la police politique du gouvernement de Hissène Habré pour des faits de torture et de meurtre.

Le régime à parti unique de Habré a été marqué par des atrocités massives et généralisées, dont des vagues de répression ethnique. Les documents de la police politique de Habré, la Direction de la documentation et de la sécurité (DDS), retrouvés par Human Rights Watch en 2001, ont révélé les noms de 1 208 personnes exécutées ou décédées en détention, ainsi que de 12 321 victimes de violations des droits humains.

Les États-Unis et la France considéraient Habré comme un rempart contre la Libye de Mouammar Kadhafi, et l’ont donc soutenu durant tout son règne, malgré les preuves indiquant clairement que Habré commettait des abus contre son propre peuple. Sous la présidence de Ronald Reagan, les Etats-Unis apportèrent en secret, par le biais de la CIA, un soutien paramilitaire à Habré pour l’aider à prendre le pouvoir en 1982

Habré avait été inculpé une première fois par un juge sénégalais en 2000, mais suite à des immixtions politiques, les tribunaux sénégalais ont statué qu’il ne pouvait pas être jugé au Sénégal. Les victimes avaient alors porté plainte en Belgique. En septembre 2005, après quatre années d’enquête, un juge belge avait alors inculpé Habré et demandé son extradition. Le Sénégal avait refusé d’extrader Habré en Belgique, et ignoré la demande de l’Union Africaine (UA) de juger Habré. La Belgique avait alors porté plainte contre le Sénégal devant la Cour Internationale de Justice (CIJ). Le 20 juillet 2012, la CIJ a ordonné au Sénégal de poursuivre Habré « sans autre délai » à défaut de l’extrader.

Après l’élection de Macky Sall à la présidence du Sénégal en avril 2012, le Sénégal et l’Union africaine ont signé un accord pour la création des Chambres africaines extraordinaires pour la tenue du procès au sein des juridictions sénégalaises, en vertu du principe de compétence universelle.

Les Chambres ont inculpé Habré en juillet 2013 et l’ont placé en détention provisoire. À l’issue d’une instruction de 19 mois, les juges ont conclu qu’il existait suffisamment de preuves pour que Habré soit jugé.

Suite au refus des avocats de Habré de se présenter à la barre, conformément à ses instructions, la Cour a nommé d’office trois avocats pour le représenter et a ajourné le procès pour 45 jours afin de leur donner le temps de préparer leur défense. Au premier jour de la reprise du procès, le 7 septembre 2015, Habré a été amené dans la salle contre sa volonté, criant et se débattant. Par la suite, il fut amené dans la salle au début de chaque journée d’audience, avant que les portes ne soient ouvertes au public.

----------------------------------------------------

DANS LES MÉDIAS

Le Monde‎ - L'ex-président tchadien Hissène Habré condamné à la prison à perpétuité
Le Monde - Hissène Habré, dix mois de procès pour huit ans de crimes
L’Express -  "Le procès d'Hissène Habré peut servir de modèle pour juger d'autres tyrans"
Le Point - Procès Hissène Habré : retour sur les temps forts
Libération - Habré condamné à la perpétuité : un procès pour l'histoire, mais des parts d'ombre
DW - "Un procès exemplaire en Afrique" (interview de Reed Brody - audio)

Topic
Categories: Africa

Chad’s Ex-Dictator Convicted of Atrocities

Mon, 30/05/2016 - 21:12
In landmark case, Hissène Habré found guilty of rape, war crimes, torture and crimes against humanity(Dakar) – The conviction of Hissène Habré, the former president of Chad, for serious international crimes, is a vindication of the decades-long campaign waged by his victims, Human Rights Watch said today. Habré was convicted of torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including having raped a woman himself, by the Extraordinary African Chambers in the Senegalese court system and sentenced to life in prison on May 30, 2016.

“This is an enormous victory for Hissène Habré’s victims, who for 25 years never gave up fighting to bring him to justice” said Reed Brody, counsel at Human Rights Watch who has worked with the survivors since 1999. “This conviction is a wake-up call to tyrants everywhere that if they engage in atrocities they will never be out of the reach of their victims.”

The trial against Habré, who ruled Chad from 1982 to 1990, began on July 20, 2015. Habré does not recognize the chambers’ authority and sat silently throughout the trial.

A summary of the decision was read out in court by chief judge Gberdao Gustave Kam of Burkina Faso, who shared the bench with two senior Senegalese judges. The prosecutor had requested a life sentence.

The written decision will be distributed at a later date. Human Rights Watch has prepared an unofficial summary from notes taken in court.

Expand

Survivors of Habré's atrocities walk to the court to hear the verdict, May 30, 2016

© 2016 Andrew Stroehlein / Human Rights Watch

Habré fled to Senegal in 1990 after being deposed by the current Chadian president, Idriss Déby Itno. Although Habré was first arrested and indicted in Senegal in 2000, it took a long campaign by his victims before the Extraordinary African Chambers were inaugurated by Senegal and the African Union in February 2013 to prosecute international crimes committed in Chad during Habré’s rule.

“I have been waiting for this day since I walked out of prison more than 25 years ago,” said Souleymane Guengueng, who nearly died of mistreatment and disease in Habré’s prisons, and later founded the Association of Victims of Crimes of the Regime of Hissène Habré (AVCRHH). “Today I feel ten times bigger than Hissène Habré.”

Habré’s trial is the first in the world in which the courts of one country prosecuted the former ruler of another for alleged human rights crimes. Ninety-three witnesses testified at the trial, the majority travelling from Chad to be there. Survivors presented powerful testimony about torture, rape, sexual slavery, mass executions, and the destruction of entire villages.

Notably, the court convicted Habré of sexual crimes, including rape and the sexual slavery of women to serve his army.

The court also found Habré guilty of having raped Khadidja Hassan Zidane on four occasions. The court found Hassan’s testimony credible and supported by an account she gave at the time. It is the first time that an ex-dictator is found personally guilty of rape by an international court.

“Found guilty of sex crimes, including his rape of one woman, Hissène Habré’s conviction signals that no leader is above the law, and that no woman or girl is below it” said Reed Brody.

The chambers will hold a second set of hearings in June or July on damages for the civil parties and other victims.

It appears possible that Habre’s court-appointed lawyers could lodge an appeal without Habre’s consent. If an appeal is lodged, an Extraordinary African Appeals Chamber will be constituted to hear the appeal later this year.

Habre’s trial underscored the importance of universal jurisdiction, Human Rights Watch said. That principle under international law allows national courts to prosecute the most serious crimes even when committed abroad, by a foreigner, and against foreign victims. 

In March 2015, a court in Chad convicted 20 top security agents of Habré’s government on torture and murder charges.

Habré’s one-party rule was marked by widespread atrocities, including waves of ethnic cleansing. Files of Habré’s political police, the Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS), which were recovered by Human Rights Watch in 2001, reveal the names of 1,208 people who were killed or died in detention, and 12,321 victims of human rights violations.

The United States and France viewed Habré as a bulwark against Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, and so supported him throughout his rule despite clear evidence of his abuses against his own people. Under President Ronald Reagan, the US gave covert CIA paramilitary support to help Habré take power

Habré was first indicted in Senegal in 2000, but after political interference, the country’s courts said that he could not be tried there, so his victims filed a case in Belgium. In September 2005, after four years of investigation, a Belgian judge indicted Habré and Belgium requested his extradition. Senegal refused to send Habré to Belgium, and spent the next three years stalling on a request from the African Union (AU) to prosecute Habré. Belgium then filed a case against Senegal at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). On July 20, 2012, that court ordered Senegal to prosecute Habré “without further delay” or to extradite him.

After Macky Sall’s election as president of Senegal in April 2012, Senegal and the AU agreed on a plan to create the Extraordinary African Chambers to conduct the trial within the Senegalese judicial system

The chambers indicted Habré in July 2013 and placed him in pretrial custody. After a 19-month investigation, judges of the chambers found that there was sufficient evidence for Habré to face trial.

After Habré’s lawyers, following his instructions, failed to appear at the opening of the trial in July 2015, the court appointed three Senegalese lawyers to defend him and adjourned for 45 days so they could prepare. The first day back, on September 7, Habré was brought in to the court against his will, kicking and screaming. After that, he was taken into the courtroom for each session before the doors to the public opened.

Topic
Categories: Africa

At Ex-Dictator’s Trial, Women Reveal Dark Secrets

Sat, 21/11/2015 - 17:06
Expand

Khadidja Hassan Zidane testifies during the trial of the former dictator of Chad Hissène Habré in Senegal on October 19 and 20, 2015. She and other women described their experiences in the desert camp at Oudi-Doum, where nine women and girls were allegedly forced to serve the soldiers of Hissène Habré’s army. 

© 2015 Radiodiffusion Télévision Sénégalaise

Khadidja told me she had been repeatedly tortured, and imprisoned in Hissène Habré’s presidential palace in N’Djamena. She had promised me that the day she came face-to-face with the former president, whose brutal rule in Chad lasted from 1982 until he was ousted in 1990, she would reveal what she had really experienced. Khadidja kept her promise.

Some reveal it openly, others indirectly. The alleged crimes took place over 25 years ago, but for these women the effects have lingered. Taking the witness stand, they all recounted how they were held prisoner, transported, raped, or tortured. Humiliated, degraded, stigmatized. Still, they had the courage to come to Dakar to testify at  Habré’s trial. Habré is being tried for crimes against humanity, torture, and war crimes by the Extraordinary African Chambers, a special Senegalese court established with support of the African Union.

Each victim called to the stand had trodden the same path: first the wait in a drab Dakar hotel, then the wait in a small windowless room in the Palais de Justice in the Senegalese capital. A bailiff comes for you. You enter the courtroom. The lights are bright and harsh. The courtroom is filled with cameras; the trial is being broadcast via streaming over the internet and on Chadian television.

To the left: the public, at times as many as several hundred onlookers, some there in support of the accused. To the right: the court officials; two clerks, three judges, four prosecutors, all in long red robes, all looking down at you. All are men, with the exception of one prosecutor. The bailiff walks you toward someone wearing a large white tunic, his head wrapped in a white turban, sunglasses pressed to his nose. There sits the defendant, Hissène Habré, in a leather armchair,

All eyes are riveted on you. Everyone in the room hangs on your every word. You are placed in the middle of the courtroom, eye–level with the former president of Chad, about 15 feet away, also facing the president of the chamber.  He asks you to proceed with your deposition.

Many of the voices are faint as the women begin, trembling, broken. Some cry. The more one has suffered, it seems, the more difficult and painful is the exercise. Until now, sexual crimes have yet to be mentioned at the trial.

In an open letter dated October 16 addressed to the president of the chamber and the chief prosecutor, the representatives of 17 organizations—including the winner of the 2014 Sakharov prize, Dr. Denis Mukwege, known as “the man who repairs women” for his surgery to repair damage from rape—criticized the lack of attention to sexual violence at Habré’s trial. They hadn’t counted on these four impressive women of courage.

Each woman stated that she had been arrested by agents of the regime and held for several months in N’Djamena prisons run by the DDS (Directorate of Documentation and Security), Habré’s dreaded secret police. Some were raped there. Merami testified that she had been subjected to electric shock and tortured upon arrest. “I was practically dying by the time they put me in prison. They gave me no treatment, except for a few pills.”

Speaking in a melodious, Chadian-accented Arabic, her voice firm, Khadidja described her multiple arrests, the appalling conditions of her imprisonment, the times she was tortured. She showed no sign of being intimidated. As soon as she began speaking of sexual assaults the chief judge offered to hear her in closed session. The witness refused. “No, I’m not going to hide a thing. They slept with me. I’ll even take my clothes off to show you.” Several times she declared that she was prepared to display where she had been stabbed with a pen in the legs and genitals.

Questioned by the prosecutors, she answered unhesitatingly. “Habré raped me four times.” When Habré’s court-appointed lawyers challenged the veracity of what she alleged, she countered: “I’m ashamed to say it, it’s shameful for my family. Even here, I feel ashamed to say it. I’m telling the truth, Allah knows ... Habré asked me to sit down and when I did he pulled me onto the floor by my hair,” she said, miming how it happened.

Like Khaltouma, Haoua and Merami, who testified afterward, Khadidja was sent to Ouadi Doum, in the northern Chadian desert. “It was a military base, no civilians were there. We lived in a hangar and ate dried okra and uncooked rice,” said Haoua, arrested at age 14 by the DDS in an effort to trap her mother, then living in Nigeria. “The soldiers’ wives weren’t there. We washed their uniforms and cooked their meals.”

Khaltouma, a former flight attendant for Air Afrique who was arrested while her plane was making a stop in N’Djamena, provided more details on life in the military camp. “At night in Ouadi Doum two out of the six women were used in rotation as sexual slaves for the soldiers. It’s shameful. They planned it. They gave us pills so we wouldn’t get pregnant.” Merami, who was transported with her daughter, told the court that, “she was raped a number of times, even though she was only 12 years old.”

When they were finally freed, they were taken to the office of the head of prisons in N’Djamena. On the wall was a picture: “There was one monkey with his hands over his eyes, one monkey with his hands over his mouth, and another with his hands over his ears. They made us swear an oath in front of this picture, on the Quran, never to speak of it all,” Khadidja said. All these women, like almost all prisoners of the regime, were made to take the same oath. Committed to seeking justice, they decided to break it.

The women’s determination overcame their fear of the scrutiny of Chadian society, for which this subject remains taboo. They came to Dakar to tell the court and the world of the horrors they experienced. “Now that I see him there, silent, when he was so strong, so powerful before, I feel no more hatred,” said Khaltouma to the court, speaking of Habré. Habré’s defense team, which is boycotting the trial, issued a communiqué calling Khadija a “nymphomaniac prostitute.” But she said, simply, “I was very afraid in the beginning. Then I felt a strength inside that pushed me to complete my testimony. I feel a weight off my shoulders.”

Henri Thulliez is coordinator at Human Rights Watch for the Hissène Habré case.

Categories: Africa

RD Congo : Les victimes d’atrocités méritent une meilleure justice

Thu, 01/10/2015 - 06:01
Le procès des viols de Minova montre la nécessité de mener des réformes de toute urgence

(Kinshasa) – Le gouvernement de la République démocratique du Congo devrait de toute urgence réformer le système judiciaire du pays afin de mieux juger les atrocités commises dans ce pays, a déclaré Human Rights Watch dans un rapport publié aujourd’hui.

October 1, 2015 Report La justice en procès

Enseignements tirés de l’affaire des viols de Minova en République démocratique du Congo

Ce rapport de 117 pages, intitulé « La justice en procès : Enseignements tirés du procès des viols de Minova en République démocratique du Congo », montre comment, malgré une attention et un soutien internationaux de grande ampleur, le procès dit des viols de Minova n’a pas réussi à rendre justice, que ce soit pour les victimes ou pour les accusés. Le rapport décrit comment la justice militaire a réagi aux viols d’au moins 76 femmes et filles par des militaires qui, après avoir battu en retraite, ont envahi en novembre 2012 la petite ville de Minova, située dans l’est de la RD Congo, ainsi que les villages voisins.

« Le procès des viols de Minova a été une énorme déception pour les victimes de l’un des pires incidents de viols de masse que la RD Congo ait connu ces dernières années », a déclaré Géraldine Mattioli-Zeltner, directrice de plaidoyer au sein du Programme Justice internationale à Human Rights Watch. « Les autorités congolaises doivent tirer des enseignements de cette affaire et veiller à ce que justice soit véritablement rendue à l’avenir. Elles le doivent aux victimes. »

Le tollé général provoqué par les viols de masse commis à Minova a conduit à la mise en accusation et au jugement par une cour militaire de 39 soldats pour crimes de guerre (viols et pillages) et violations des consignes militaires. Mais, cinq mois plus tard, lorsque le procès est arrivé à son terme, seuls deux soldats de rang ont été condamnés pour viol. La plupart des soldats de rang ont été condamnés pour pillage, malgré la faiblesse des preuves et d’autres violations de leurs droits à un procès équitable. Les commandants de haut niveau responsables de l’ensemble des troupes présentes à Minova n’ont jamais été inculpés. Les juges ont ordonné que des réparations soient versées par l’État congolais aux victimes de viol et de pillage ainsi qu’à une victime de meurtre, mais celles-ci n’ont pas encore été payées.

Le dossier de l’accusation était fragile, notamment en raison du manque d’expérience en matière de scènes complexes de crimes de masse et de violence sexuelle, de l’absence de stratégie pour rassembler les preuves, et d’erreurs au niveau des poursuites, a expliqué Human Rights Watch. Le fait que l’accusation ait sélectionné principalement des accusés de moindre rang sème le doute quant à la volonté de l’armée de demander des comptes à ceux qui portent la plus grande responsabilité. La représentation légale de mauvaise qualité accordée à certains des soldats de rang condamnés pour pillage a été aggravée par l’impossibilité en droit congolais de faire appel des décisions rendues par le type de cour militaire qui a jugé l’affaire.

Share Le procès des viols de Minova montre la nécessité de mener des réformes de toute urgence.

Les problèmes survenus dans le cadre du procès Minova sont représentatifs des lacunes du système de justice militaire en RD Congo en matière de poursuite des graves crimes internationaux, lacunes qui persistent malgré des années de soutien international, a ajouté Human Rights Watch.

« Pour démêler une structure de commandement militaire et poursuivre ceux qui exerçaient la responsabilité du supérieur hiérarchique, il faut avoir des compétences particulières et du courage politique, deux éléments qui ont fait défaut dans l’affaire Minova », a déclaré Géraldine Mattioli-Zeltner.

Human Rights Watch a identifié certains aspects positifs dans la gestion de l’affaire Minova. Le gouvernement a débloqué des fonds pour le procès, les juges et les procureurs ont directement appliqué le Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) pour compenser les lacunes du droit national, et des pressions diplomatiques soutenues ont permis que l’affaire soit portée devant la justice. La protection et la participation des victimes et des témoins, deux défis de taille dans le cadre des procès pour graves crimes internationaux tenus dans des zones de conflit, ont bénéficié d’un large soutien international. Grâce à l’aide d’organisations non gouvernementales, les victimes de viol ont pu être accompagnées par des psychologues pendant l’enquête et durant le procès. Cependant, ces éléments positifs n’ont pas suffi à faire en sorte que le procès rende justice aux victimes, a souligné Human Rights Watch.

Expand

Une femme —voilée pour protéger son identité du public— témoigne sur le viol qu’elle a subi pendant le procès Minova. Une avocate tient le microphone pour elle. Les soldats inculpés sont assis derrière elle. 

© 2014 Diana Zeyneb Alhindawi

Au cours des dix dernières années, la RD Congo a mené un nombre croissant de procédures judiciaires pour crimes de guerre et crimes contre l’humanité, avec environ 30 procès menés à terme devant des cours militaires. Le procès Minova a bénéficié de cette expérience, ainsi que de projets mis en œuvre par des partenaires internationaux et par la mission de maintien de la paix des Nations Unies en RD Congo pour renforcer les capacités du système judiciaire militaire et mettre un terme à l’impunité des auteurs de crimes graves.

Toutefois, ce procès a montré que la qualité des procédures judiciaires, et pas seulement leur nombre, devrait être examinée de près et améliorée. Les autorités congolaises et les partenaires internationaux doivent encore travailler pour surmonter les obstacles qui entravent une justice véritable pour les violations des droits humains, a déclaré Human Rights Watch.
 

Le procès des viols de Minova a été une énorme déception pour les victimes de l’un des pires incidents de viols de masse que la RD Congo ait connu ces dernières années. Les autorités congolaises doivent tirer des enseignements de cette affaire et veiller à ce que justice soit véritablement rendue à l’avenir. Elles le doivent aux victimes. Géraldine Mattioli-Zeltner

directrice de plaidoyer au sein du Programme Justice internationale

Human Rights Watch a adressé un certain nombre de recommandations au gouvernement congolais. Parmi celles-ci figurent la création d’une unité d’enquête spécialisée chargée de centraliser et de mobiliser les compétences de fonctionnaires de la justice nationale en matière de prise en charge des crimes graves, y compris ceux comportant des éléments de violence sexuelle ; l’adoption des réformes en attente visant à améliorer le cadre juridique, notamment d’une loi de mise en œuvre du Statut de Rome de la CPI ; l’amélioration des droits des accusés relatifs à un procès équitable, et l’examen de pistes pour améliorer l’indépendance et l’impartialité du système judiciaire. Afin de mieux rendre la justice dans les affaires de violence sexuelle en particulier, Human Rights Watch préconise l’utilisation par les centres de santé soignant les victimes de viol de formulaires médico-légaux améliorés ; le recrutement et la formation d’enquêtrices et de procureurs de sexe féminin, ainsi que l’inclusion des cas de violence sexuelle dans une stratégie nationale en matière de poursuites.

La proposition du gouvernement de mettre en place, au sein du système judiciaire national, un mécanisme judiciaire internationalisé temporaire regroupant des fonctionnaires judiciaires nationaux et internationaux reste essentielle pour renforcer les compétences et protéger la justice contre toute ingérence.

En 2004, la CPI a ouvert une enquête sur des abus commis en RD Congo. À ce jour, cette enquête a abouti à deux condamnations, à un acquittement et à un procès encore en cours. L’un des suspects recherchés par la CPI continue d’échapper à la justice. La CPI ne peut enquêter que sur les crimes commis après 2002, et son travail ne peut déboucher que sur une poignée d’affaires, a précisé Human Rights Watch.

« Les affaires ouvertes par la CPI en RD Congo sont très importantes, mais elles ne font qu’effleurer la surface quand il s’agit de l’impunité qui règne dans le pays depuis plusieurs décennies », a conclu Géraldine Mattioli-Zeltner. « Le gouvernement congolais devrait faire davantage pour qu’une justice digne de ce nom soit rendue aux victimes, et pour démontrer que personne n’est au-dessus des lois. »

------

À lire aussi :

BBC Afrique 01.10.15

VOAAfrique.com 01.10.15

Romandie / AFP 01.10.15

Adiac 01.10.15

RadioOkapi.net 02.10.15

Deutsche Welle 02.10.15 (itw G. Mattioli-Zeltner)

Jeune Afrique 02.10.15

Le Matin 02.10.15

Courrier int. / Afrikarabia 04.10.15

JournaldeKin.com 05.10.15

 

 

Topic
Categories: Africa

Senegal: Dictator on Trial

Fri, 04/09/2015 - 09:50
Hissène Habré Trial to Resume

(Dakar, September 4, 2015) – The trial of the former Chadian dictator Hissène Habré on charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture will begin in earnest on September 7, 2015.

Expand Share The long-awaited trial of Hissène Habré, was adjourned almost as soon as it was opened, as an outburst from the former dictator of Chad caused a scene in the courtroom.

When the landmark trial before the Extraordinary African Chambers in the Senegal court system formally opened on July 20, Habré had to be removed from court after an outburst. Habré’s lawyers then refused to appear and the trial was adjourned, giving new court-appointed lawyers time to study the case.  

“After 25 years of campaigning and 45 days waiting patiently, the survivors will finally get their day in court,” said Reed Brody, counsel at Human Rights Watch who has worked with the victims since 1999. “Hissène Habré may try to create more disturbances, but he does not get a veto on whether he should be tried, or if the victims get justice.”

Habré has refused to communicate with the court-appointed lawyers, and it is expected that he will try to have them taken off the case. The president of the court, Gberdao Gustave Kam, has made clear, however, that in keeping with Senegalese law and international practice, the lawyers are needed to safeguard the rights of the accused and the integrity of the proceedings.

Habre is accused of tens of thousands of political killings as well as systematic torture during his rule, from 1982 to 1990. The trial is the first in the world in which the courts of one country prosecute the former ruler of another for alleged human rights crimes.

Habré is standing trial before the Extraordinary African Chambers in the Senegal court system. The chambers were inaugurated by Senegal and the African Union in February 2013 to prosecute the “person or persons” most responsible for international crimes committed in Chad between 1982 and 1990, the period when Habré ruled Chad. Judge Kam, of Burkina Faso, president of the Trial Chamber, will hear the case along with two senior Senegalese judges.

The trial is expected to last two months, with about 100 witnesses and victims expected to testify.

“If I get a chance to look Hissène Habré in the face, I will do it without fear,” said Fatimé Sakine, 53, a secretary who was subjected to electroshocks and beatings during 15 months in prison from 1984 to 1986 and who is in Dakar for the trial. “I want to know why we were kept rotting, why so many of my friends were tortured and killed.”

“This case is a milestone in the fight to hold the perpetrators of atrocities accountable for their crimes, in Africa and in the world,” Brody said. “It's taken many years, and many twists and turns, but in the end a group of tenacious survivors have shown that it was possible to bring their dictator to justice.” 

Topic
Categories: Africa

Sénégal : Reprise du procès de Hissène Habré

Fri, 04/09/2015 - 09:50

(Dakar, le 4 septembre 2015) – Le procès de l'ancien dictateur tchadien Hissène Habré, poursuivi pour crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre et torture va reprendre pour de bon le 7 septembre 2015.

Expand Share Les deux premières journées mouvementées du procès de l'ex-dictateur du Tchad Hissène Habré, à Dakar, avant son ajournement jusqu'au 7 septembre.

Lorsque le procès historique devant les Chambres africaines extraordinaires au sein des juridictions sénégalaises s'est officiellement ouvert le 20 juillet, Habré a dû être sorti du tribunal après avoir déclenché des échauffourées. Ses avocats ont ensuite refusé de venir à l’audience et le procès a été ajourné pour donner aux nouveaux avocats commis d’office le temps de prendre connaissance du dossier.

 « Après une lutte de 25 ans et après avoir patiemment attendu 45 jours, les survivants vont enfin pouvoir se faire entendre devant un tribunal », a déclaré Reed Brody, conseiller juridique à Human Rights Watch, qui travaille avec les victimes depuis 1999. « Hissène Habré peut toujours essayer de provoquer d’autres perturbations, il ne dispose pas d’un veto sur l'opportunité de son jugement ou sur le droit des victimes à obtenir justice. »

Habré a refusé de communiquer avec les avocats commis d'office et il est presque certain qu’il essaiera de les récuser. Le président de la Cour, Gberdao Gustave Kam, a cependant clairement indiqué que conformément au droit sénégalais et à la pratique internationale, les avocats sont nécessaires à la sauvegarde des droits de l’accusé et au bon déroulement de la procédure.

Habré est accusé de dizaines de milliers d’assassinats politiques et de torture systématique sous son régime entre 1982 et 1990. Avec le procès de Hissène Habré, pour la première fois, les tribunaux d’un État jugent l’ancien dirigeant d’un autre État pour des supposées violations de droits humains.

Habré est jugé par les Chambres africaines extraordinaires au sein des juridictions sénégalaises pour crimes contre l’humanité, torture et crimes de guerre. Ces Chambres ont été inaugurées par le Sénégal et l’Union africaine en février 2013 afin de poursuivre « le ou les principaux responsables » des crimes internationaux commis au Tchad entre 1982 et 1990, quand Hissène Habré était au pouvoir. Le président Kam, du Burkina Faso, siégera aux cotés de deux juges sénégalais expérimentés.

Le procès devrait durer deux mois, au cours desquels environ 100 témoins et victimes sont attendus à la barre.

« Si on me donne la possibilité de regarder Hissène Habré dans les yeux, je le ferai, et je n’aurai pas peur », a déclaré Fatimé Sakine, une secrétaire âgée de 53 ans qui a été torturée par électrochocs et battue pendant les 15 mois qu’elle a passés en détention de 1984 à 1986. « Je veux savoir pourquoi on nous a laissé pourrir en prison, pourquoi mes amis ont été torturés et tués. »

« Cette affaire est un tournant dans la lutte pour que les auteurs d’atrocités rendent compte de leurs crimes, en Afrique et dans le monde », a déclaré Reed Brody. « Après des années de campagne et de péripéties, un groupe de survivants tenaces a montré qu’il était possible de traduire un dictateur en justice. »

Topic
Categories: Africa

Questions et réponses sur l’affaire Hissène Habré devant les Chambres africaines extraordinaires au Sénégal

Mon, 31/08/2015 - 12:00

Le 20 juillet 2015, le procès de l’ancien dictateur du Tchad, Hissène Habré, a commencé devant les Chambres africaines extraordinaires au sein des juridictions sénégalaises. Il est jugé pour crimes contre l’humanité, crimes de guerre et torture. Les Chambres ont été inaugurées par le Sénégal et l’Union africaine en février 2013 pour poursuivre « le ou les principaux responsables » des crimes internationaux commis au Tchad entre 1982 et 1990, quand Hissène Habré était au pouvoir au Tchad. Ap rès deux jours d’audience, le procès a été suspendu quand les avocats de Habré ont refusé de se présenter à la barre. La Cour a nommé d’office trois avocats pour représenter Habré et leur a donné 45 jours pour préparer la défense. Le procès reprend le 7 septembre. 

Avec le procès de Hissène Habré, pour la première fois, les tribunaux d’un Etat jugent l’ancien dirigeant d’un autre Etat pour des supposées violations des droits de l'Homme. C'est aussi la première fois que l’utilisation de la compétence universelle aboutit à un procès sur le continent africain. La « compétence universelle » est un concept de droit international qui permet à des tribunaux nationaux de poursuivre l’auteur ou les auteurs des crimes les plus graves commis à l’étranger, quelle que soit sa nationalité ou celle des victimes. Le journal Le Monde a décrit l’affaire comme un «  tournant pour la justice en Afrique ».

Les questions et réponses suivantes fournissent de plus amples informations sur cette affaire et sur les étapes à venir. 

  1. Qui est Hissène Habré ?
  2. Quels sont les chefs d’accusation contre Habré ?
  3. Quels crimes relèvent de la compétence de la Cour ?
  4. Pourquoi les efforts pour traduire Habré en justice ont duré si longtemps ?
  5. Quel a été le rôle du gouvernement tchadien dans le déclenchement des poursuites contre Habré ?
  6. Comment les Chambres africaines extraordinaires mènent-elles leurs enquêtes ?
  7. Quelles ont été les conclusions des experts désignés par la Cour ?
  8. Pourquoi Hissène Habré est-il le seul à faire l’objet de poursuites par les Chambres africaines extraordinaires ?
  9. Qu’en est-il de l’actuel président du Tchad Idriss Déby Itno ?
  10. Quels sont les droits de l’accusé ? 
  11. Habré refuse de coopérer avec les Chambres. Quelles en seront les conséquences ?
  12. Les avocats de Habré disent que leur client ne comparaitra pas. Que peut-il se passer ?
  13. La Cour a commis trois avocats d'office pour défendre Habré, et ce contre sa volonté. Etait-ce approprié ? Que va-t-il se passer si Habré cherche à les révoquer ? 
  14. Quelle est la peine maximale à laquelle Habré pourrait être condamné ? 
  15. Comment les Chambres africaines extraordinaires sont-elles structurées et administrées ?
  16. Comment les Procureurs et les juges ont-ils été nommés ? 
  17. Comment se déroulera le procès ?
  18. Combien de temps durera le procès ?
  19. Quel sera le rôle des victimes durant le procès et percevront-elles des réparations ?
  20. Quelles dispositions seront prises pour rendre le procès accessible au peuple tchadien ?
  21. Qu'en est-il du procès des agents de la police politique du régime Habré ? 
  22. Comment les Chambres sont-elles financées ? 
  23. Quelles ont été les étapes clés dans la campagne pour traduire Habré en justice ?
  24. Quelle est l'importance du procès de Habré pour la compétence universelle ?
  25. Comment ce procès repond-t-il aux critiques qui dénoncent le rôle de la justice internationale en Afrique et affirment que les recours à la compétence universelle ciblent les Africains ?
  26. Pourquoi était-il nécessaire de créer des chambres spéciales avec un élément international ?
  27. Pourquoi Hissène Habré n'est-il pas jugé au Tchad ?
  28. Pourquoi la Cour pénale internationale ne peut-elle pas poursuivre Habré ?

 

1. Qui est Hissène Habré ?

Hissène Habré était le président du Tchad, de 1982 jusqu'à ce qu’il soit renversé en 1990 par Idriss Déby Itno, le président actuel. Habré s’est réfugié au Sénégal en 1990 où il vit en exil depuis lors.

Une étude de 714 pages de Human Rights Watch établit que le régime de Habré s’est rendu responsable de milliers d’assassinats politiques et d’arrestations arbitraires et d’un usage systématique de la torture. Ce régime prit régulièrement pour cible les populations civiles, notamment au Sud (1983-1985), et différents groupes ethniques, comme les Hadjeraïs (1987) et les Zaghawas (1989-90), tuant et arrêtant en masse des membres de ces groupes lorsque leurs leaders étaient perçus comme des menaces au régime de Habré.

Une Commission d'Enquête tchadienne a accusé en 1992 le régime de Habré de quelque 40 000 assassinats politiques et de l’usage systématique de la torture. La plupart des exactions furent commises par sa redoutable police politique, la Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS), dont les directeurs rendaient des comptes exclusivement à Habré. Tous appartenaient au cercle étroit des proches de Habré et certains étaient issus de la même ethnie (Gorane anakaza), voire de la même famille.

Les États-Unis et la France ont soutenu Habré, le considérant comme un rempart contre la Libye de Mouammar Kadhafi qui avait des visées expansionnistes sur le nord du Tchad. Sous Ronald Reagan, les Etats-Unis apportèrent en secret, par le biais de la CIA, un soutien paramilitaire à Habré lors de sa prise du pouvoir en 1982. Ils fournirent ensuite à son régime une aide militaire massive. À la fin des années 1980, les États-Unis utilisèrent également une base clandestine au Tchad pour organiser une force anti-Kadhafi composée de soldats libyens capturés. Malgré l'enlèvement par Habré et ses hommes de l'anthropologue française Françoise Claustre en 1974 et le meurtre du Capitaine Pierre Galopin venu négocier sa libération en 1975, la France soutint également Habré avant et après son arrivée au pouvoir, en lui procurant armes, soutien logistique et renseignements, et en lançant les opérations militaires « Manta » (1983) et « Épervier » (1986) afin d’aider le Tchad à repousser les forces libyennes.

2. Quels sont les chefs d’accusation contre Habré ?

Habré a été inculpé le 2 juillet 2013 par les quatre juges d’instruction des Chambres africaines extraordinaires pour crimes contre l’humanité, crimes de torture et crimes de guerre puis placé sous mandat de dépôt. Le 13 février 2015, après une instruction de 19 mois, les juges ont conclu qu’il y avait suffisamment de preuves pour que Habré soit jugé pour crimes contre l’humanité et torture en sa qualité de membre d’une « entreprise criminelle commune » et crimes de guerre sur le fondement de sa responsabilité en tant que supérieur hiérarchique.

Habré a été spécifiquement renvoyé pour :

  • homicides volontaires, pratique massive et systématique d’exécutions sommaires, enlèvement de personnes suivi de disparition et torture constitutifs de crimes contre l’humanité commis sur les populations civiles, les Hadjeraï, les Zaghawa, les opposants et les populations  du sud du Tchad ;
  • torture ; et
  • crimes de guerre d’homicide volontaire, de torture et traitements inhumains, de transfert illégal et détention illégale, d’atteinte à la vie et à l’intégrité physique. 

​3. Quels crimes relèvent de la compétence de la Cour ?

En vertu du Statut des Chambres, ces dernières sont compétentes pour traiter des crimes de génocide, des crimes contre l’humanité, des crimes de guerre et de torture tels que définis dans le Statut. Ces définitions reprennent généralement celles utilisées dans les statuts de la Cour pénale internationale et des autres tribunaux internationaux. Les crimes doivent avoir été commis sur le territoire tchadien entre le 7 juin 1982 et le 1erdécembre 1990, période où Hissène Habré était au pouvoir.

4. Pourquoi les efforts pour traduire Habré en justice ont duré si longtemps ?

L’avènement du procès, près de 25 ans après la chute de Hissène Habré, est entièrement dû à la persévérance des victimes du régime de Habré et de leurs partenaires au sein d’organisations non-gouvernementales. Lorsque Habré a été arrêté en juillet 2013, le Toronto Globe and Mail a salué « une des campagnes les plus patientes et tenaces au monde en faveur de la justice ». Le New York Times a écrit que « l’affaire [Habré] s’est révélée inhabituelle du fait de la ténacité de ses victimes, et de Human Rights Watch, pour tenter de l’amener devant la justice ». Habré a été inculpé une première fois par un juge sénégalais en 2000, mais pendant 12 ans, le gouvernement sénégalais de l’ancien président Abdoulaye Wade a soumis les victimes à ce que l’archevêque Desmond Tutu, lauréat du Prix Nobel de la Paix, et 117 groupes de 25 pays africains ont appelé un « interminable feuilleton politico-judiciaire ». Peu de progrès a été réalisé dans l’affaire jusqu’en 2012 et la victoire de Macky Sall face à Abdoulaye Wade lors de l’élection présidentielle et  la décision de la Cour internationale de Justice ordonnant au Sénégal de poursuivre ou extrader Habré en justice.

5. Quel a été le rôle du gouvernement tchadien dans le déclenchement des poursuites contre Habré ?

Les avocats de Habré affirment que l’actuel gouvernement tchadien d’Idriss Déby Itno est derrière les efforts visant à poursuivre Habré. Cependant, depuis la première plainte des victimes en 2000, ce sont les victimes et leurs défenseurs qui ont fait avancer le dossier, surmontant les obstacles les uns après les autres. Le gouvernement tchadien a depuis longtemps exprimé son soutien à la poursuite de Habré et en 2002 a levé l’immunité de poursuite à l’étranger de Habré, mais il n’a pas participé à l’avancement du dossier avant de contribuer au budget des Chambres et de coopérer avec les juges d’instruction durant leurs quatre commissions rogatoires au Tchad. Récemment, le gouvernement tchadien s’est de toute évidence montré plus réservé à l’égard des Chambres, particulièrement en refusant de transférer deux autres suspects.

6. Comment les Chambres africaines extraordinaires mènent-elles leurs enquêtes ?

Les juges d’instruction ont eu accès à un nombre considérable d’éléments de preuve rassemblés par différentes sources durant les années qui suivirent la chute de Habré, notamment les résultats des enquêtes belge et tchadienne.

En 1992, une Commission nationale d'enquête au Tchad a accusé le régime de Habré d’usage systématique de la torture, a estimé à 40 000 le nombre d’assassinats politiques  et a documenté les méthodes de torture employées. L’un des premiers témoins entendus par les juges d’instruction était le président de la Commission nationale d’enquête, un éminent juriste tchadien. De plus, les juges ont eu accès au dossier préparé par les juges d’instruction belges durant quatre ans, comprenant des témoignages de témoins et « d’insiders » qui travaillaient avec Habré, et des documents de la DDS.

Les quatre juges d’instruction ont surtout mené leur propre enquête approfondie durant 19  mois,  et se sont basés principalement sur des preuves qu’ils ont eux-mêmes recueillies.

Le 3 mai 2013, le Sénégal et le Tchad ont signé un « Accord de coopération judiciaire » pour faciliter l’enquête des Chambres au Tchad.

Les juges d’instruction ont effectué quatre commissions rogatoires au Tchad en août-septembre 2013, décembre 2013 et mars 2014 et mai-juin 2014. Ils étaient accompagnés par le Procureur général et ses adjoints, ainsi que par des officiers de la Police judiciaire. Pendant leurs visites, les juges ont entendu près de 2 500 victimes directes et indirectes et des témoins-clefs comme des anciens membres du régime de Habré. Bien que l’Accord de coopération judiciaire permettait aux juges d’instruction sénégalais de procéder à des auditions en l’absence de représentants des autorités tchadiennes, les juges ont choisi de ne pas le faire.

Les juges ont pris possession des archives de la DDS retrouvées en 2001 par Human Rights Watch, et en ont fait des copies. Parmi les dizaines de milliers de documents trouvés figurent des listes journalières de prisonniers et des décès en détention, des comptes rendus d’interrogatoires, des rapports de surveillance et des certificats de décès. Les dossiers détaillent comment Habré a placé la DDS sous son contrôle direct et comment il maintenait un contrôle étroit sur les opérations de la DDS. Une analyse des données pour Human Rights Watch, a révélé les noms de 1 208 personnes exécutées ou décédées en détention, et de 12 321 victimes de violations des droits humains. Rien que dans ces fichiers, Habré a reçu 1 265 communications directes de la DDS l’informant de la condition de 898 détenus.

Les juges ont également nommé des experts en analyse de données, en anthropologie médico-légale, en graphologie, sur le contexte historique du régime de Habré et sur la structure de fonctionnement et de commandement de son armée.

7. Quelles ont été les conclusions des experts désignés par la Cour ?    

Patrick Ball du Human Rights Data Analysis Group a mené une étude sur la mortalité dans les prisons du régime de Habré. Selon ses conclusions, la mortalité dans les prisons pour la période étudiée était « des centaines de fois plus élevée que la mortalité normale des hommes adultes au Tchad pendant la même période » et « substantiellement plus élevée que celles des pires contextes du vingtième siècle de prisonniers de guerre » tels que les prisonniers de guerre allemands détenus dans les geôles soviétiques et les prisonniers de guerre détenus au Japon.

Les experts de l’équipe argentine d’anthropologie médico-légale ont mené des exhumations sur un certain nombre de sites susceptibles d’abriter des charniers. A Déli par exemple, au sud du Tchad, lieu d’un supposé massacre de rebelles non armés en septembre 1984, les experts ont localisé 21 corps, presque tous des hommes en âge d’être des militaires, majoritairement tués par balle. A Mongo, au centre du Tchad, les experts ont découvert 14 corps résultant d’un autre massacre survenu en 1984.

Un graphologue désigné par les juges a analysé les documents supposément écrits ou signés par Habré. Il a par exemple confirmé que c’est bien Habré qui a répondu à la demande du Comité International de la Croix Rouge de procéder à l’hospitalisation de certains prisonniers de guerre, en écrivant « Désormais, aucun prisonnier de guerre ne doit quitter la Maison d’arrêt  sauf en cas de décès. »

8. Pourquoi Hissène Habré est-il le seul à faire l’objet de poursuites par les Chambres africaines extraordinaires ?

L’objectif des victimes tchadiennes dans leur quête de justice au Sénégal depuis 2000 a toujours été le procès de Hissène Habré, le chef de l'Etat, principal responsable des actions de son administration et qui contrôlait directement l'appareil de sécurité. Les victimes ont également porté plainte au Tchad en 2000 contre d'autres fonctionnaires du régime de Habré qui y vivaient encore.

En vertu de l’article 3 du Statut des Chambres, les Chambres africaines extraordinaires sont « habilitées à poursuivre et juger le ou les principaux responsables des crimes et violations graves du droit international » commis au Tchad pendant la période du régime Habré. En juillet 2013, le Procureur a requis l’inculpation de cinq autres officiels de l’administration de Habré suspectés d’être responsables de crimes ou de violations graves du droit international. Ces personnes sont :

  • Saleh Younous et Guihini Korei, deux anciens directeurs de la Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité. Guihini Korei est le neveu de Hissène Habré.
  • Abakar Torbo, ancien directeur du service pénitencier.
  • Mahamat Djibrine dit « El Djonto », l’un des « tortionnaires les plus redoutés du Tchad » selon la Commission d’Enquête nationale.
  • Zakaria Berdei, ancien conseiller spécial à la sécurité de la présidence et l’un des responsables présumés de la répression dans le sud du Tchad en 1984.

Aucun d’entre eux n’a cependant comparu devant la Cour. Saleh Younous et Mahamat Djibrine ont été jugés au Tchad sur la base de plaintes déposées par les victimes devant les tribunaux tchadiens (voir ci-dessous), le Tchad ayant refusé de les extrader au Sénégal. Zakaria Berdei semble également être au Tchad, bien qu’il ne se trouve pas en détention. Abakar Torbo et Guihini Korei sont toujours recherchés et ils n’ont pas été arrêtés suite aux inculpations formulées par les Chambres. Par conséquent, seul Hissène Habré a été renvoyé pour jugement.

9. Qu’en est-il de l’actuel président du Tchad Idriss Déby Itno ?

Idriss Déby Itno était le Commandant en Chef des forces armées de Habré pendant la période connue sous le nom de « Septembre Noir », au cours de laquelle une vague de répression meurtrière se déchaîna pour intégrer le Sud au gouvernement central. En 1985, Déby fut remplacé et, après une période d’études en France à l’Ecole militaire, il revint en tant que conseiller à la Défense avant de fuir le Tchad en avril 1989.

Il est important de souligner que l’article 10 du Statut des Chambres dispose que « La qualité officielle d’un accusé, soit comme Chef d’État ou de Gouvernement, soit comme haut fonctionnaire, ne l’exonère en aucun cas de sa responsabilité pénale […] ». Les juges d’instruction étaient ainsi libres de poursuivre le président Déby pour des crimes internationaux présumés avoir été commis entre 1982 et 1990, mais ne l’ont pas fait.

10. Quels sont les droits de l’accusé ?

Hissène Habré bénéficie du droit à un procès équitable tel que garanti par le droit international. Il est actuellement représenté par des avocats qu’il a choisis. Le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ainsi que la Charte africaine des droits de l’Homme et des Peuples définissent les garanties minimales dont doivent bénéficier les accusés dans le cadre de procédures criminelles.

En accord avec ces standards, le Statut des Chambres prévoit expressément un certain nombre de droits à la Défense :

  • Le droit d’être présent lors de son procès
  • La présomption d’innocence
  • Le droit à une audience publique
  • Le droit de préparer sa défense dans des conditions de temps et de moyens acceptables
  • Le droit à un avocat et à l’assistance juridique
  • Le droit d’être jugé dans un délai raisonnable
  • Le droit d’interroger et d’appeler des témoins.

11. Habré refuse de coopérer avec les Chambres. Quelles en seront les conséquences ?

Beaucoup d’accusés faisant face à un procès relevant du droit pénal international – comme Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić et Charles Taylor – ont commencé par déclarer qu’ils ne reconnaissaient pas l’autorité du tribunal ou qu’ils ne coopéreraient pas. En pratique, ils ont voulu utiliser le procès comme une tribune pour présenter leur propre version des faits.

Quoi qu’il arrive, la non-coopération ne modifie pas les garanties de procès équitable et les règles gouvernant l’administration de la preuve, en particulier le fait que la charge de la preuve pèse sur l’accusation qui doit prouver la culpabilité de Habré. La Cour ne pourra condamner Habré que si elle a l’intime conviction qu’il est coupable des faits qui lui sont reprochés par l’accusation. Néanmoins, lorsqu’un accusé adopte une position de non-coopération, il compromet inévitablement sa propre capacité à contester les éléments à charge retenus contre lui et l’opportunité de remettre en cause les arguments du Procureur quant à sa culpabilité.

Les juges des Chambres ont la responsabilité de s’assurer que le procès de Habré se déroule en conformité avec ses droits à un procès équitable, mais aussi que la justice soit rendue avec diligence et sans manipulation, y compris de la part de l’accusé.

12. Les avocats de Habré disent que leur client ne compaitra pas. Que peut-il se passer ?

Selon le code de procédure pénale sénégalais, qui est appliqué par les Chambres, si Habré refuse volontairement de comparaitre, le Président de la Cour peut soit continuer les audiences sans sa présence, soit ordonner qu’il soit amené par la force. Lors de son audience préliminaire le 3 juin, la présence de Habré était exigée par la Cour. 

13. La Cour a commis trois avocats d'office pour défendre Habré, et ce contre sa volonté. Etait-ce approprié ? Que va-t-il se passer si Habré cherche à les révoquer ?

Selon le droit sénégalais, la présence d’un avocat pour défendre l’accusé est nécessaire. Quand les avocats de Habré ont refusé de se présenter à la barre, la Chambre d’Assises a nommé des avocats pour défendre les intérêts de Habré et ainsi garantir un procès équitable.

Des juridictions nationales et internationales ont déjà nommé des avocats d’office contre la volonté des accusés pour représenter les intérêts de la défense pendant le procès. Dans le cas de Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza devant le Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda (TPIR), l’accusé refusait de donner des instructions aux avocats commis d’office considérant que le tribunal était politiquement biaisé. Le TPIR, rejetant la demande des avocats commis d’office de se retirer, avait considéré que « le conseil a pour obligation de défendre activement son client, à l’effet de préserver au mieux ses intérêts ». La Cour avait ajouté que l’avocat « étant commis d’office et non pas nommé, il en résulte non seulement une obligation vis-vis du client, mais également vis-à-vis du Tribunal, dont l’intérêt est d’assurer à l’accusé un procès équitable ». Le but est que « la défense soit efficace et la procédure contradictoire ». Devant le Tribunal spécial pour la Sierra Leone, l’accusé Augustine Gbao demandait que son avocat commis d’office soit révoqué car il considérait que la Cour était illégitime. La Cour avait refusé en relevant que « les intérêts de la justice ne seraient pas servis si elle laissait M. Gbao ne pas être représenté devant la Cour ». Cette dernière considérait qu’elle devait « protéger les droits de l’accusé et l’intégrité de la procédure ».

Il est fort possible que Habré cherche à récuser ses avocats commis d’office, mais selon le droit sénégalais, seulement le président du Tribunal peut les révoquer. Les avocats commis d’office qui refuse de coopérer encourent des sanctions disciplinaires.  

14. Quelle est la peine maximale à laquelle Habré pourrait être condamné ?

Si elles reconnaissent la culpabilité de Habré, les Chambres peuvent le condamner à une peine de prison allant jusqu’à la perpétuité selon les circonstances et la gravité du ou des crimes. Elles peuvent également lui ordonner de s’acquitter d’une amende ou elles peuvent confisquer toute propriété ou avoirs qui proviendraient directement ou indirectement du ou des crimes. 

15. Comment les Chambres africaines extraordinaires sont-elles structurées et administrées ?

Les Chambres africaines extraordinaires ont été créées au sein des juridictions sénégalaises, à savoir le Tribunal régional hors classe de Dakar et la Cour d’appel de Dakar. Les Chambres sont divisées en quatre niveaux : une Chambre d’instruction composée de quatre juges d’instruction sénégalais, une Chambre d’accusation composée de trois juges sénégalais, une Chambre d’assises et une Chambre d’appel. La Chambre d’assises et la Chambre d’appel sont toutes deux composées de deux juges sénégalais et d’un président ressortissant d’un autre pays membre de l’Union africaine. 

Le Procureur général est Mbacké Fall. Les Chambres ont un administrateur – Aly Ciré Ba – chargé de garantir le bon fonctionnement des activités des Chambres et superviser tous les aspects non-judiciaires de leurs activités. Les responsabilités de l’Administrateur comprennent la gestion financière du personnel, le travail de sensibilisation et l’information des médias, la protection et l’assistance aux témoins et la coopération judiciaire entre le Sénégal et les autres pays, comme le Tchad. 

16. Comment les Procureurs et les juges ont-ils été nommés ?

Les Procureurs et les juges d’instructions ont été nommés par le ministre de la Justice du Sénégal et par le Président de la Commission de l’Union africaine. Le Président de la Chambre africaine extraordinaires d’Assises est Gberdao Gustave Kam du Burkina Faso.  

17. Comment se déroulera le procès ?

Le procès sera mené conformément au Code de procédure pénale sénégalais qui s’inspire essentiellement de la procédure « inquisitoire» du droit civil français, plutôt que de la procédure « accusatoire » utilisée par les juridictions anglo-saxonnes de droit coutumier (« common law »). Le Président de la Cour a un rôle direct en interrogeant lui-même les accusés et les témoins. Le Procureur et les avocats de la défense et ceux des parties civiles peuvent également poser des questions aux accusés et aux témoins, par l’intermédiaire du Président. Le mode d’administration de la preuve est libre à l’inverse des systèmes de droit coutumier où il existe des règles strictes de la preuve. Les plaidoiries finales des avocats revêtent une importance particulière dans ce modèle. 

18. Combien de temps durera le procès ?

Selon un calendrier provisoire, la première étape du procès durera environ deux mois (jusqu’au 30 octobre). Pendant cette période se tiendront les audiences au fond qui détermineront de la culpabilité ou non de Habré. Si Habré est condamné, il y aura une deuxième étape pendant laquelle la Cour se penchera sur les questions liées aux parties civiles et aux réparations.  Le budget des Chambres prévoit le transport de 100 témoins et parties civiles en provenance du Tchad. 

19. Quel sera le rôle des victimes durant le procès et percevront-elles des réparations ?

Les victimes sont autorisées à participer à la procédure en qualité de parties civiles, représentées par un ou des avocats. Plus de 4 000 victimes se sont constituées parties civiles.

Le droit procédural sénégalais régit la participation des victimes. Les avocats des victimes ont participé à l’enquête préliminaire et à l’instruction y compris aux confrontations avec Habré. Durant le procès, les avocats des victimes seront en mesure de poser des questions aux témoins ou à l'accusé et de demander réparation. Il est peu probable, cependant, qu’un grand nombre de victimes témoignent pendant le procès.

En vertu de leur Statut, dans le cas d’une condamnation, les Chambres peuvent ordonner que l’indemnité accordée à titre de réparation soit versée par l’intermédiaire d’un fond qui peut également être alimenté par des contributions volontaires de gouvernements étrangers, d’institutions internationales et d’organisations non gouvernementales. Les indemnités provenant du fonds peuvent être attribuées aux victimes individuellement ou collectivement, qu’elles aient ou non participé au procès de Hissène Habré. Ce fond n’a cependant toujours pas été créé par les Chambres.

La Commission d’Enquête nationale du Tchad a accusé Habré d’avoir vidé les caisses de l’Etat dans les jours précédant sa fuite au Sénégal, et il est largement admis qu’il détient des millions de dollars. Les Chambres ont gelé deux petits comptes bancaires lui appartenant ainsi qu’une propriété dans un quartier chic de Dakar.

En juillet 2013, après l’arrestation de Hissène Habré par les Chambres, le président Déby a déclaré que le gouvernement tchadien indemniserait les survivants et les familles des victimes décédées. Au regard du droit international, la responsabilité du Tchad d’apporter réparation aux victimes de violations flagrantes de droits de l’Homme est séparée et distincte des réparations incombant à l’accusé.

20. Quelles dispositions seront prises pour rendre le procès accessible au peuple tchadien ?

Le Statut des Chambres prévoit que les audiences seront enregistrées et filmées aux fins de diffusion, comme ce fut le cas dans les autres procès internationalisés. L’accès public au procès pour les journalistes et les organisations non-gouvernementales est aussi garanti. L’Accord de coopération judiciaire de 2013 engage le Tchad à autoriser la diffusion des enregistrements des audiences par les radios publiques et la télévision, et à autoriser les médias privés à faire de même. Les ministres de la Justice des deux pays se sont accordés en novembre 2013 pour que le procès soit retransmis.

Les deux premiers jours du procès ont été enregistrés et diffusés en streaming, et retransmis au Tchad. Les enregistrements sont disponibles sur le site des Chambres africaines extraordinaires

Human Rights Watch estime que l’enregistrement de la totalité du procès est essentiel pour sa valeur historique. En outre, la retransmission du procès, au Tchad en particulier - soumise aux  mesures appropriées qui pourraient être nécessaires pour assurer la sécurité des témoins -  ainsi que la préparation de résumés du procès et de vidéos, poursuivent un objectif primordial : s’assurer que le procès soit suivi et compris par le peuple tchadien et qu’il participe à la construction de l’Etat de droit, au Tchad comme au Sénégal.

Etant donné le caractère jurisprudentiel de ce procès, il est d'autant plus important de le rendre disponible au plus large public possible. Cela signifie que les images et le son doivent être librement disponibles pour les médias, les cinéastes et le public.

Par l’intermédiaire d’un consortium d’organisations non gouvernementales venant du Sénégal, de la Belgique et du Tchad, les Chambres ont mis en place des programmes de sensibilisation au Tchad et au Sénégal. Le consortium a formé des journalistes dans les deux pays, a organisé des débats publics, a créé un site internet et a produit des documents expliquant le procès.

Le Tchad et le Sénégal ont également accepté de coopérer afin de faciliter à la fois les déplacements des journalistes tchadiens au Sénégal et les déplacements au Tchad de toute personne impliquée dans le déroulement du procès. 

21. Qu’en est-il du procès des agents de la police politique du régime de Habré ?

Le 25 mars 2015, une Cour criminelle tchadienne a reconnu coupables de meurtre, torture, enlèvements, détention arbitraire, coups et blessures et actes de barbarie, 20 anciens agents de la police politique du régime de Habré, à la suite de la plainte déposée par les victimes en 2000 mais qui se trouvait dans une impasse avant la création des Chambres par le Sénégal.

La Cour a condamné sept anciens agents à la perpétuité parmi lesquels figurent Saleh Younous, un ancien directeur de la DDS et Mahamat Djibrine dit « El-Djonto » qui était, selon la Commission nationale d’enquête de 1992, l’un des « tortionnaires les plus redoutés » du Tchad. Ils étaient tous les deux également visés par les Chambres africaines extraordinaires, mais les autorités tchadiennes avaient refusé de les transférer.

La majorité des 20 inculpés avait témoigné devant les juges sénégalais lors de leurs visites au Tchad, et il est probable que les Chambres cherchent à les faire venir au procès à Dakar, ce qui est permis par l’Accord de coopération judiciaire de 2013. La Cour tchadienne a acquitté quatre autres inculpés et a ordonné que les condamnés et l'État versent 75 milliards de francs CFA (environ 125 millions de dollars ou 114 millions d’euros) en réparation aux 7 000  parties civiles. La Cour a également ordonné que le gouvernement édifie un monument pour les victimes du régime Habré et que l’ancien siège de la DDS soit transformé en musée. Ces deux mesures faisaient parties des revendications de longues dates des associations de victimes.

Au cours du procès au Tchad, quelque cinquante victimes ont décrit les actes de torture et de mauvais traitements perpétrés par des agents de la DDS.

22. Comment les Chambres sont-elles financées ?

Les Chambres sont financées en grande partie par des pays donateurs.

En novembre 2012, le Sénégal et un certain nombre de pays donateursse sont mis d’accord autour d’un budget de 8,6 millions d’euros (11,4 millions de dollars à l’époque) pour financer le procès de Habré. Des promesses avaient été faites par : le Tchad (2 milliards de francs CFA ou 3  743 000 dollars), l’Union européenne (2 millions d’euros), les Pays-Bas (1 million d’euros), l’Union africaine (1 million de dollars), les Etats-Unis (1 million de dollars), la Belgique (500 000 euros), l’Allemagne (500 000 euros), la France (300 000 euros) et le Luxembourg (100 000 euros). De plus, le Canada, la Suisse, et le Comité International de la Croix-Rouge ont  fourni une assistance technique. Un Comité de pilotage composé du Sénégal, de pays donateurs et d’institutions, reçoit et approuve les rapports périodiques soumis par l’Administrateur des Chambres.

23. Quelles ont été les étapes clés dans la campagne pour traduire Habré en justice ?

En janvier 2000, un groupe de victimes tchadiennes a porté plainte contre Habré au Sénégal. En février de la même année, un juge sénégalais a inculpé Habré pour torture, crimes contre l’humanité et actes de barbarie. Cependant, suite à des immixtions du nouveau gouvernement sénégalais d’Abdoulaye Wade dénoncées par deux rapporteurs des Nations unies pour les droits de l’Homme, des juridictions d’appel ont annulé les poursuites sur le fondement de l’incompétence des tribunaux sénégalais à juger des crimes commis à l’étranger.

D’autres victimes de Habré, dont trois ressortissants belges d’origine tchadienne, ont alors déposé une plainte contre lui en Belgique en novembre 2000. Les autorités belges ont enquêté pendant quatre ans avant de l’inculper pour crimes contre l’humanité, crimes de guerre et torture, et ont demandé son extradition en 2005. Un tribunal sénégalais s'est déclaré incompétent pour statuer sur la demande d’extradition.

Le Sénégal s’est alors tourné vers l’Union africaine (UA) qui, en juillet 2006, a appelé le Sénégal à poursuivre Habré « au nom de l’Afrique ». Le président Wade a accepté le mandat de l’UA et fait amender le droit sénégalais afin d’investir expressément les tribunaux nationaux de la compétence extraterritoriale nécessaire pour juger les crimes internationaux. Toutefois, le gouvernement sénégalais exigeait le versement d’un budget de 27,4 millions d’euros (36,5 millions de dollars) de la part de la communauté internationale avant d’ordonner le commencement de toute enquête ou poursuite. Trois ans de négociations pointilleuses s’en sont suivis au sujet du budget du procès jusqu’à ce qu’en novembre 2010, le Sénégal et les pays donateurs s’accordent finalement sur un budget de 8,6 millions d’euros (11,4 millions de dollars) pour le procès de Habré.

Quelques jours avant l’accord sur le budget, la Cour de Justice de la Communauté économique des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (CEDEAO) a décidé que Habré devrait être jugé par « une juridiction spéciale ad hoc à caractère international ». (La décision de la CEDEAO est examinée plus en détail ci-dessous). En janvier 2011, l’UA a répondu à l’arrêt de la CEDEAO en proposant un projet pour des chambres spéciales au sein du système judiciaire sénégalais comprenant des juges nommés par l’UA. Le Sénégal a rejeté le projet et en mai 2011, s'est retiré des négociations avec l’UA sur la création du tribunal.

En juillet 2011, le ministre des Affaires étrangères sénégalais a exclu l’option de juger Habré au Sénégal. Le gouvernement tchadien a alors annoncé son soutien pour l’extradition de Habré vers la Belgique afin d’y être jugé.

En août 2011 et en janvier 2012, une cour d’appel sénégalaise a refusé de statuer sur deux autres demandes d’extradition de la Belgique, concluant que les documents joints à la demande n’étaient juridiquement pas conformes. Dans ces deux cas, le gouvernement sénégalais n’avait apparemment pas transmis les documents juridiques belges intacts au tribunal. La Belgique a soumis une quatrième demande d’extradition aux autorités sénégalaises en janvier 2012.

Le 20 juillet 2012, la Cour internationale de Justice, dans l’affaire « Questions concernant l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrader (Belgique c. Sénégal) » a statué que le Sénégal avait manqué à ses obligations découlant de la Convention des Nations unies contre la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants et a ordonné au Sénégal de poursuivre Habré « sans autre délai » à défaut de l’extrader.

Aucun progrès n’a été réalisé dans l’affaire jusqu’à la victoire de Macky Sall face à Abdoulaye Wade lors de l’élection présidentielle en mars 2012. Le nouveau gouvernement sénégalais a indiqué rapidement qu’il projetait de poursuivre Habré au Sénégal plutôt que de l’extrader vers la Belgique. Les négociations reprises entre le Sénégal et l’Union africaine ont finalement conduit à un accord pour créer les Chambres africaines extraordinaires chargées de mener le procès au sein du système judiciaire sénégalais. Le 17 décembre, l’Assemblée nationale sénégalaise a adopté la loi établissant les Chambres spéciales. Le 8 février 2013, les Chambres africaines extraordinaires ont été inaugurées à Dakar. 

24. Quelle est l’importance du procès de Habré pour la compétence universelle ?

Comme l'a démontré l'affaire Habré, la compétence universelle est un important filet de sécurité pour s’assurer que les personnes suspectées d'atrocités ne puissent jouir de l’impunité dans un Etat tiers quand ils ne peuvent être poursuivis devant les tribunaux du pays où les crimes auraient été commis ou devant un tribunal international.

Au cours des 20 dernières années, l’usage de la compétence universelle, notamment – mais pas exclusivement - par les juridictions de pays européens, est en progrès. Pour renforcer la lutte contre l'impunité pour les crimes les plus graves, il est essentiel que des tribunaux de tous les continents aient recours à la compétence universelle. L'Union africaine a encouragé ses Etats membres à adopter une législation donnant à leurs tribunaux nationaux une compétence universelle pour les crimes de guerre, les crimes contre l'humanité et le génocide et a pris des mesures pour initier un réseau de procureurs nationaux travaillant sur des cas de crimes de guerre. Plusieurs enquêtes ont été ouvertes en Afrique du Sud et au Sénégal sur le fondement de la compétence universelle.

25. Comment ce procès répond-t-il aux critiques qui dénoncent le rôle de la justice internationale en Afrique et affirment que les recours à la compétence universelle ciblent les Africains ?

Le procès de Habré est une avancée cruciale dans la démarche de pays africains prenant la responsabilité de poursuivre les crimes internationaux les plus graves. Toutefois, le procès Habré ne dénigre pas l'importance de la CPI ainsi que  l'utilisation de la compétence universelle par les États non-africains, y compris par les tribunaux européens, pour juger des crimes commis en Afrique. Ces outils sont souvent le seul espoir dont disposent les victimes africaines demandant justice.

Il est vrai que la justice internationale a été appliquée de façon inégale. Les Etats puissants et leurs alliés ont souvent pu échapper à la justice alors même que des crimes graves sont commis sur leur territoire, notamment en s’abstenant de ratifier le traité de la CPI et en jouant de leur influence politique au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies.

Les organisations non gouvernementales ont activement fait campagne pour que les gouvernements africains travaillent pour améliorer la justice internationale et sa portée – et non pour la saper - afin de limiter l'impunité lorsque des atrocités sont commises.

26. Pourquoi était-il nécessaire de créer des chambres spéciales avec un élément international ?

Habré a déposé une plainte auprès de la Cour de Justice de la CEDEAO en octobre 2008, affirmant que son procès au Sénégal, sur la base des changements législatifs opérés au Sénégal en 2007-08, constituerait une violation du principe de non-rétroactivité du droit pénal.

Le 18 novembre 2010, la Cour de Justice de la CEDEAO a rendu son arrêt dans lequel elle déclare que, afin d’éviter de violer le principe de non-rétroactivité, Habré devrait être jugé devant « une juridiction spéciale ad hoc à caractère international ». Des experts en droit international ont mis en doute cette décision car le principe de non-rétroactivité ne s’applique pas à des actes qui, au moment de leur commission, étaient déjà interdits par le droit international conventionnel et coutumier (comme, dans le cas présent, la torture, les crimes de guerre et les crimes contre l’humanité). Dans sa décision de 2012, la Cour internationale de Justice a précisé que le Sénégal, qui a ratifié la Convention des Nations Unies contre la torture en 1987, était dans l'obligation d'enquêter et de poursuivre les allégations de torture contre Habré.

Néanmoins, le Sénégal s’est conformé aux prescriptions de la Cour de Justice de la CEDEAO en mettant en place les Chambres africaines extraordinaires, « juridiction spéciale ad hoc à caractère international ».

En avril 2013, les avocats de Habré ont déposé une nouvelle requête devant la Cour de Justice de la CEDEAO, afin d’obtenir la suspension des activités des Chambres. Dans une décision du 5 novembre 2013, la Cour a jugé que les Chambres africaines extraordinaires étaient un tribunal à caractère international et qu’elle n’était pas compétente pour statuer sur la requête de Habré car les Chambres furent créées sur la base d’un accord conclu entre l’Union africaine et le Sénégal.

27. Pourquoi Hissène Habré n’est-il pas jugé au Tchad ?

Le Tchad n’a jamais cherché à extrader Habré et il existe de sérieux doutes quant à la possibilité pour lui d’avoir un procès équitable au Tchad, où il a déjà été condamné à mort par contumace pour son rôle supposé dans la rébellion de 2008. En juillet 2011, le président Wade a menacé de renvoyer Habré au Tchad avant de se rétracter, quelques jours plus tard, face au tollé international qu’aurait entrainé le risque que Habré puisse y  subir de mauvais traitements ou même y être tué.

28. Pourquoi la Cour pénale internationale ne peut-elle pas poursuivre Habré ?

La Cour pénale internationale a une compétence temporelle limitée aux crimes commis après le 1er juillet 2002, date à laquelle son Statut est entré en vigueur. Or les crimes reprochés à Hissène Habré auraient été commis entre 1982 et 1990.

    Topic
    Categories: Africa

    Q&A: The Case of Hissène Habré before the Extraordinary African Chambers in Senegal

    Mon, 31/08/2015 - 12:00
    Questions and Answers

    On July 20, 2015, the former dictator of Chad, Hissène Habré, will stand trial on charges of crimes against humanity, torture and war crimes before the Extraordinary African Chambers in the Senegal court system. The chambers were inaugurated by Senegal and the African Union in February 2013 to prosecute the “person or persons” most responsible for international crimes committed in Chad between 1982 and 1990, the period when Habré ruled Chad. After two days, the trial was adjourned when Habré’s lawyers refused to appear and the court appointed three lawyers to represent him and gave them 45 days to prepare the case.  The trial will resume on September 7.

    Habré’s trial is the first in the world in which the courts of one country prosecute the former ruler of another for alleged human rights crimes. It is also the first universal jurisdiction case to proceed to trial in Africa. Universal jurisdiction is a concept under international law that allows national courts to prosecute the most serious crimes even when committed abroad, by a foreigner and against foreign victims. The New York Times has called the case “a Milestone for Justice in Africa.”

    The following questions and answers provide more information on the case and what lies ahead.

    1. Who is Hissène Habré?
    2. What are the charges against Habré?
    3. What crimes fall within the jurisdiction of the court?
    4. Why has it taken so long to bring Habré to justice?
    5. What has been the role of the Chadian government in bringing about Habré’s prosecution?
    6. How did the chambers carry out their investigation?
    7. What did the court-appointed experts find?
    8. Why is Hissène Habré the only person standing trial?
    9. What about Déby, Chad’s current president?
    10. What are the accused’s rights?
    11. Habré is refusing to cooperate with the chambers. What effect will that have?
    12. Habré says he will not appear in court. What will happen?
    13. The Court has appointed counsel to represent Habré against his wishes. Was this proper? What will happen if Habré objects to the lawyers?
    14. What is the maximum punishment Habré could receive? 
    15. How are the Extraordinary Chambers structured and administered?
    16. How are the prosecutors and judges assigned?
    17. How will the trial be conducted?
    18. How long will the trial last? 
    19. Will victims have a role in the trial, and will they receive reparations?
    20. How will people in Chad know about the trial?
    21. What about the trial in Chad of Habré-era security agents?
    22. How are the chambers funded?
    23. What were the key steps in the campaign to bring Habré to justice? 
    24. What is the significance of Habré’s prosecution under universal jurisdiction?
    25. How does this trial fit into critiques of the role of international justice in Africa and claims that universal jurisdiction cases target Africans?
    26. Why was it necessary to create special chambers with an international element?
    27. Why isn’t Habré prosecuted in Chad?
    28. Why can’t the International Criminal Court prosecute Habre?

     

    1. Who is Hissène Habré?

    Habré was president of the former French colony of Chad from 1982 until he was deposed in 1990 by Idriss Déby Itno, the current president. Habré has been living in exile in Senegal ever since.

    A 714-page study by Human Rights Watch found that Habré’s government was responsible for widespread political killings, systematic torture, and thousands of arbitrary arrests. The government periodically targeted civil populations, including in the south (1983-1985), and various ethnic groups such as Chadian Arabs, the Hadjerai (1987) and the Zaghawa (1989-90), killing and arresting group members en masse when it was perceived that their leaders posed a threat to Habré’s rule.

    A 1992 Chadian Truth Commission accused Habré's government of 40,000 political murders and systematic torture. Most abuses were carried out by his dreaded political police, the Documentation and Security Directorate (DDS), whose directors reported directly to Habré. The directors all belonged to Habré’s inner circle, and some belonged to the same ethnic group, Gorane anakaza, or even the same family as Habré.

    The United States and France supported Habré, seeing him as a bulwark against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, who had expansionist designs on northern Chad. Under President Ronald Reagan, the United States gave covert CIA paramilitary support to help Habré take power in 1982 and then provided his government with massive military aid. The United States also used a clandestine base in Chad to organize captured Libyan soldiers into an anti-Gaddafi force in the late 1980s. Despite Habré’s abduction of the French anthropologist Françoise Claustre in 1974 and the murder of Captain Pierre Galopin, who went to Chad to negotiate her release in 1975, France also supported Habré after he arrived in power, providing him with arms, logistical support and information, and carrying out military operations “Manta” (1983) and “Hawk” (1986) to help Chad push back Libyan forces.

    2. What are the charges against Habré?

    Habré was indicted for crimes against humanity, torture and war crimes by the chambers’ four investigating judges on July 2, 2013. On February 13, 2015, after a 19-month investigation, the judges found sufficient evidence for Habré to face charges of crimes against humanity and torture as a member of a “joint criminal enterprise” and of war crimes on the basis of his superior responsibility. Specifically, they charged Habré with:

    • The massive practice of murder, summary executions, kidnapping  followed by enforced disappearance and torture, amounting to crimes against humanity, against the Hadjerai and Zaghawa ethnic groups, the people of southern Chad and political opponents;
    • Torture; and
    • The war crimes of murder, torture, unlawful transfer and unlawful confinement, and violence to life and physical well-being. 

    3. What crimes fall within the jurisdiction of the court?

    The chamber’s statute gives it competence over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture as defined in the statute. The definitions generally track those used in the statutes of the International Criminal Court and other international tribunals. The crimes must have taken place in Chad between June 7, 1982, and December 1, 1990, which corresponds to the dates of Habré’s rule. 

    4. Why has it taken so long to bring Habré to justice?

    The advent of the trial, almost 25 years after Habré’s fall, is entirely due to the perseverance of Habré’s victims and their allies in nongovernmental groups.  When Habré was arrested in July 2013, the Toronto Globe and Mail  lauded “one of the world’s most patient and tenacious campaigns for justice.” The New York Times wrote that the “case has proved unusual for the tenacity of his victims, and of Human Rights Watch, in seeking to bring him to justice.”  Habré was first indicted by a Senegalese judge in 2000, but for the next 12 years the Senegalese government of former President Abdoulaye Wade subjected the victims to what the Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu and 117 groups from 25 African countries described as an “interminable political and legal soap opera.” It was only in 2012, when Macky Sall became president of Senegal and the International Court of Justice ordered Senegal to prosecute or extradite Habré that progress was made toward the trial. 

    5. What has been the role of the Chadian government in bringing about Habré’s prosecution?

    Habré’s lawyers claim that Deby’s government is behind the effort to prosecute him.  However, since the victims’ first complaint in 2000, it has been the victims and their supporters who have pressed the case forward, overcoming one obstacle after another. The Chadian government has long expressed its support for Habré’s prosecution, and in 2002 it waived Habré's immunity from prosecution abroad, but it did not otherwise contribute to advancing the case in a meaningful way until it agreed to help finance the court and cooperated with the investigating judges during their four missions to Chad. More recently, the Chadian government has seemingly cooled toward the chambers, particularly in its refusal to transfer additional suspects.

    6. How did the chambers carry out their investigation?

    The investigating judges began with access to a considerable amount of evidence collected in the years since Habré’s fall, including prior Belgian and Chadian investigations into Habré’s alleged crimes.

    A 1992 National Truth Commission in Chad accused Habré’s government of systemic torture and an estimated 40,000 political assassinations, and documented the methods used to carry out torture. One of the first witnesses the chambers’ investigating judges interviewed was the former Truth Commission president, a leading Chadian lawyer. In addition, the chambers’ judges obtained the extensive file Belgian investigators prepared on Habré during four years, which contains interviews with witnesses and “insiders” who worked alongside Habré, as well as DDS documents.

    Most important, the chambers’ four investigating judges conducted their own thorough 19-month investigation, and for the most part relied on evidence they developed themselves. 

    On May 3, 2013, Senegal and Chad signed a “Judicial cooperation agreement” to facilitate the chambers’ investigation in Chad.

    The investigative judges conducted four missions (“commissions rogatoires”) to Chad - in August - September 2013, December 2013, March 2014, and May - June 2014. They were accompanied by the chief prosecutor and his deputies as well as police officers. During their visits, the judges gathered statements from 2,500 direct and indirect victims and key witnesses, including former officials of the Habré government. Although the Judicial cooperation agreement allowed the Senegalese investigative judges to interview people with Chadian authorities not present, the judges chose not to.

    The judges took copies of DDS files that Human Rights Watch had uncovered  in 2001. Among the tens of thousands of documents were daily lists of prisoners and deaths in detention, interrogation reports, surveillance reports, and death certificates. The files detail how Habré placed the DDS under his direct control and kept tight control over DDS operations.  Analysis of the data for Human Rights Watch revealed the names of 1,208 people who were killed or died in detention and 12,321 victims of human rights violations. In these files alone, Habré received 1,265 direct communications from the DDS about the status of 898 detainees. 

    The judges also appointed experts on data analysis, forensic anthropology, handwriting, the historical context of Habré’s government and the functioning and command structure of Habré’s military.

    7. What did the court-appointed experts find?

    Patrick Ball of the Human Rights Data Analysis Group conducted a study of mortality in Habré’s prisons.  His conclusion was that, for the period he studied, prison mortality was “hundreds of times higher than normal mortality for adult men in Chad during the same period” and “substantially higher than some of the twentieth century’s worst POW contexts” such as German prisoners of war in Soviet custody and US prisoners of war in Japanese custody.

    Experts from the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team carried out exhumations at a number of potential mass grave sites. In Deli, in southern Chad, for instance, the site of an alleged killing of unarmed rebels in September 1984, the experts located 21 bodies, almost all military-age men, most of whom were killed by gunshot. In Mongo, in the center of Chad, the experts uncovered 14 bodies from another 1984 massacre.

    A handwriting expert appointed by the judges looked at documents allegedly written or signed by Habré. He confirmed, for instance, that it was Habré who responded to a request by the International Committee of the Red Cross for the hospitalization of certain prisoners of war by writing “From now on, no prisoner of war can leave the Detention Center except in case of death.”

    8. Why is Hissène Habré the only person standing trial?

    The Chadian victims’ goal in seeking justice in Senegal since 2000 has been a trial of Habré, the head of state who directly controlled the security apparatus and had primary responsibility for his government’s actions. The victims also filed cases in 2000 in Chad against other officials of Habré’s government who were still in Chad.

    Under article 3 of the chambers’ statute, the Extraordinary African Chambers can prosecute “the person or persons most responsible” for international crimes committed in Chad during Habré’s rule. In July 2013, the chief prosecutor requested the indictment of five additional officials from Habré’s administration suspected of being responsible for international crimes. These are:

    • Saleh Younous and Guihini Korei, two former directors of the DDS, Habré’s political police.  Korei is Habré’s nephew;
    • Abakar Torbo, former director of the DDS prison service;
    • Mahamat Djibrine, also known as “El Djonto,” one of the “most feared torturers in Chad,” according to the National Truth Commission; and
    • Zakaria Berdei, former special security adviser to the presidency and one of those suspected of responsibility in the repression in the south in 1984.

    None of them have been brought before the court, however. Younous and Djibrine were convicted in Chad on charges stemming from the complaints filed by victims in the Chadian courts, and Chad has refused to extradite them to Senegal.  Berdei is also believed to be in Chad, though he is not in custody. The location of Torbo and Korei is unknown, and they have not been arrested under the chambers’ indictments. As a result, only Habré was committed to trial.

    9. What about Déby, Chad’s current president?

    President Déby was commander in chief of Habré’s forces during the period known as “Black September,” in 1984, when a murderous wave of repression was unleashed to bring southern Chad back into the fold of the central government. In 1985, Déby was removed from this post, and after a period of study in a military school in France, was appointed a defense adviser until he left Chad in 1989.

    It is important to note that Article 10 of the chambers’ statute provides that “[t]he official position of an accused, whether as Head of State or Government, or as a responsible government official, shall not relieve him or her of criminal responsibility….” The chambers were thus free to pursue charges against President Déby even though he is currently a head of state, but they did not.

    10. What are the accused’s rights?

    Habré is entitled to the right to a fair trial in accordance with international law. He is represented by legal counsel of his own choosing. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights outline the minimum guarantees that must be afforded to defendants in criminal proceedings. 

    In accordance with those standards, the chambers’ Statute provides a number of rights to defendants, including:

    • the right to be present during trial;
    • the presumption of innocence;
    • the right to a public hearing;
    • the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense;
    • the right to counsel and legal assistance;
    • the right to be tried without undue delay; and
    • the right to examine and call witnesses.

    11. Habré is refusing to cooperate with the chambers. What effect will that have?

    Many defendants facing trial before tribunals for alleged crimes under international criminal law – such as Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić and Charles Taylor– asserted that they did not recognize the authority of the tribunal or that they would not cooperate, or have sought to use the trial as a platform to present their version of events. 

    The burden always remains on the prosecution to prove Habré’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if an accused decides to not cooperate in his own trial, he inevitably undermines the exercise of his right to an effective defense, which includes the ability to challenge the evidence against him and his opportunity to call into question the prosecution’s case.

    The judges of the chambers have the responsibility to ensure that the trial against Habre proceeds in accordance with his rights to a fair hearing, but also that justice is dispensed expeditiously and without manipulations, including by the accused.  

    12. Habré says he will not appear in count. What will happen? 

    Under Senegalese procedural law, which is applied by the Chambers, if Habré refuses to appear willingly, the court president has the choice of either going forward with the trial in his absence or of ordering that he be brought to court by force. At his preliminary hearing on June 3, and at the trial itself Habré’s presence was ordered by the court.  

    13. The Court has appointed counsel to represent Habré against his wishes. Was this proper? What will happen if Habré objects to the lawyers?

    Under Senegalese law, the presence of defense counsel at trial is necessary.  When Habré’s lawyers refused to appear, the Chambers appointed counsel to act on his behalf to ensure a fair trial.

    Both national courts and international criminal tribunals have appointed counsel against the will of defendants to represent the interests of the defense during trial. In the case of Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the defendant refused to give instructions to the appointed defense lawyers, claiming that the tribunal was politically biased. The ICTR refused the appointed counsel’s request to withdraw, stating that “Counsel are under an obligation to mount an active defence in the best interest of the Accused,” and that the lawyers also “represents the interest of the Tribunal to ensure that the Accused receives a fair trial. The aim is to obtain efficient representation and adversarial proceedings.”  The  Special Court for Sierra Leone refused a similar request by Augustine Gbao to have his appointed counsel dismissed because he considered the court illegitimate, noting that “the interest of justice would not be served by allowing Mr. Gbao to be unrepresented before this Court. ... [The court] must safeguard the rights of the accused and the integrity of the proceedings.”

    It is possible that Habré may seek to recuse his court-appointed lawyers but under Senegalese law only the presiding judge can remove a court-appointed lawyer. Appointed lawyers risk disciplinary sanctions under Senegalese law if they refuse to cooperate.

    14. What is the maximum punishment Habré could receive?

    If Habré is found guilty, the chambers could impose a sentence of up to life in prison, depending on the circumstances and the gravity of the crime(s). They could also order him to pay a fine or forfeit any of the proceeds, property or assets derived directly or indirectly from the crime(s).

    15. How are the Extraordinary Chambers structured and administered? 

    The Extraordinary African Chambers have been created inside the existing Senegalese court structure in Dakar, namely the Dakar District Court and the Appeals Court in Dakar. The chambers have four levels: an Investigative Chamber with four Senegalese investigative judges, an Indicting Chamber of three Senegalese judges, a Trial Chamber, and an Appeals Chamber. The Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber each have two Senegalese judges and a president from another African Union member state. 

    The chief prosecutor is Mbacké Fall. The chambers have an administrator – Aly Ciré Ba – to ensure the smooth functioning of their activities and to handle all non-judicial aspects of the work. The administrator’s responsibilities include financial management of personnel, outreach and media information, witness protection and assistance, and judicial cooperation between Senegal and other countries, such as Chad. 

    16. How are the prosecutors and judges assigned?

    The prosecutors and investigative judges were nominated by Senegal’s justice minister and appointed by the chairperson of the AU Commission. The President of the Trial Chamber is Gberdao Gustave Kam of Burkina Faso.

    17. How will the trial be conducted?

    The trial will be conducted in accordance with the Senegalese Code of Criminal Procedure, which essentially follows the French civil law “inquisitorial” model rather than the “adversarial” model used in Anglo-Saxon common-law systems. The presiding judge assumes a direct role, examining the accused and witnesses. The prosecutor and the lawyers for the defendants and the victims may also have questions put to the accused and witnesses. There are no strict rules of evidence as in common-law systems. The lawyers’ final summations, or plaidoiries, assume a particular importance in this model.

    18. How long will the trial last?

    A provisional calendar envisages that the first stage of the trial, to determine Habre’s guilt, will last approximately two months, until October 30. If Habré is found guilty, there would be a second stage to look at the question of civil parties and reparations. The Chambers’ budget provides for transportation from Chad of 100 witnesses. 

    19. Will victims have a role in the trial, and will they receive reparations?

    Victims are permitted to participate in proceedings as civil parties, represented by legal counsel. More than 4,000 victims have registered as civil parties.

    Senegalese procedural law governs participation by the victims. The victims’ lawyers participated in pre-trial proceedings, as when victims’ accounts were contrasted with Habré’s. At trial, the victims’ lawyers will be able to have questions put to witnesses or the accused, and to seek reparations.  It is unlikely, however, that more than a small number of victims will testify during the trial.

    Under its statute in the event of a conviction, the chambers may order reparations against the accused to be paid into a victims’ fund, which can also receive voluntary contributions by foreign governments, international institutions, and non-governmental organizations. Reparations from the victims’ fund will be open to all victims, individually or collectively, whether or not they participated in Habré’s trial. The chambers have not yet created such a fund, however.

    Chad’s truth commission accused Habré of emptying out the national treasury in the days before his flight to Senegal, and it is widely believed that he has millions of dollars. The chambers have frozen two small bank accounts belonging to him and a property in an upscale Dakar neighborhood.

    In July 2013, after the chambers arrested Habré, President Déby said that the Chadian government would compensate survivors and relatives of those who died. Chad’s responsibility under international law to provide reparations to victims of gross human rights violations is separate and distinct from reparations against the accused.

    20. How will people in Chad know about the trial?

    The chambers’ Statute provides for filming and recording trial proceedings for broadcasting purposes, as with other internationalized trials, and for public access to the trial by journalists and non-governmental organizations. The Judicial Cooperation Agreement commits Chad to broadcast the recordings of proceedings on public radio and television and to allow private media entities to do the same. The justice ministers of both countries agreed in November 2013 that the trial would be broadcast.

    The first two days of the trial were recorded and streamed, broadcast in Chad and are available on the Chambers’ web-site.

    Human Rights Watch believes that filming the entire trial is critical for the historical record. In addition, subject to appropriate measures that may be necessary to ensure security of witnesses, retransmission of the trial, to Chad in particular, as well as the preparation of abstracts of the trial and video summaries, serves the key purposes of ensuring that the trial is meaningful to, and understood by, the people of Chad and helps to build the rule of law in both Chad and Senegal. The landmark nature of this trial makes it all the more important to make it available for viewing by the widest possible audience. This means that the footage and sound should be freely available, to media, filmmakers and the public.

    The chambers, through a consortium of non-governmental organizations from Senegal, Belgium and Chad who received a contract from the court, have undertaken outreach programs to both Chad and Senegal. The consortium has trained journalists in both countries, organized public debates, created a website and produced materials to explain the trial.

    Chad and Senegal have also agreed to cooperate to facilitate both the travel of Chadian journalists to Senegal and the travel to Chad for all those involved in the trial proceedings.

    21. What about the trial in Chad of Habré-era security agents?

    On March 25, 2015, a Chadian criminal court convicted 20 Habré-era security agents on charges of murder, torture, kidnapping and arbitrary detention, based on complaints filed by the victims in 2000 but that were stalled until the Senegal created the chambers. The court sentenced seven men to life in prison including Younous, a former director of the DDS, and Djibrine, described as one of the “most feared torturers in Chad” by the Truth Commission. Both men were also wanted by the chambers, but Chad declined to transfer them.  Most of the 20 gave their testimony to the chambers when they visited Chad, and it is likely that the chambers will seek to have them come to Dakar for the trial.  The Chadian court acquitted four others and ordered that the Chadian government and the convicted persons each pay half of US$125 million in reparations to over 7,000 victims. The court also ordered that the government within a year erect a monument to those who were killed under Habré and that the former DDS headquarters be turned into a museum. These were both among the long-standing demands of the victims’ associations. During the Chad trial, about 50 victims described their torture and mistreatment at the hands of DDS agents.

    22. How are the chambers funded?

    The chambers are funded in large part by donor countries. In November 2012, Senegal and a number of donor countries agreed to a budget of €8.6million (US$11.4 million at the time) to cover Habré’s trial. Commitments were  made by: Chad (2 billion CFA francs or US$3,743,000), the European Union (€2 million), the Netherlands (€1 million), the African Union (US$1 million), the United States (US$1 million), Belgium (€500,000), Germany (€500,000), France (€300,000), and Luxembourg (€100,000). In addition, Canada, Switzerland, and the International Committee of the Red Cross have provided technical assistance. A Steering Committee consisting of Senegal and the donor countries and institutions receives and approves periodic reports from the administrator.

    23. What were the key steps in the campaign to bring Habré to justice?

    In January 2000, a group of Chadian victims filed a complaint against Habré in Senegal. In February of the same year, a Senegalese judge indicted Habré on charges of torture, crimes against humanity, and “barbaric acts”. However, after political interference by the new Senegalese government of President Abdoulaye Wade, which was denounced by two UN human rights rapporteurs, appellate courts  dismissed  the case on the ground that Senegalese courts lacked jurisdiction to try crimes committed abroad.

    Other Habré victims, including three Belgian citizens of Chadian origin, then filed a case against him in Belgium in November 2000. The Belgian authorities investigated the case for four years, then indicted Habré in 2005 and sought his extradition. A Senegalese court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to decide on the extradition request.

    Senegal then turned to the African Union (AU), which in July 2006 called on Senegal to prosecute Habré “on behalf of Africa” before its own national judicial system. President Wade accepted the AU mandate and Senegalese law was amended to give the country’s courts explicit universal jurisdiction over international crimes, including torture and crimes against humanity. However, Wade contended that Senegal needed full up-front international funding of €27.4 million (US$36.5 million) before beginning any prosecution. Three years of halting negotiations over the trial budget ensued, until Senegal and donor countries finally agreed in November 2010 to a budget of €8.6 million (US$11.4 million) for Habré’s trial.

    Just days before the budget agreement, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) ruled that Habré should be tried before a “special ad hoc procedure of an international character.” In January 2011, the AU responded to the ECOWAS court ruling by proposing a plan for special chambers within the Senegalese justice system with some judges appointed by the AU. Senegal rejected the plan, and in May 2011, withdrew from negotiations with the AU over creation of the tribunal.

    In July 2011, Senegal’s foreign minister ruled out holding Habré's trial in Senegal. The Chadian government then announced its support for extraditing Habré to Belgium to face trial.

    In 2011 and 2012, Belgium issued three more extradition requests, which were not properly transmitted to the courts by the Senegalese authorities.

    On July 20, 2012, in response to a suit brought by Belgium, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s highest judicial organ, found that Senegal had failed to meet its obligations under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and ordered Senegal to prosecute Habré “without further delay” if it did not extradite him.

    The new Senegalese government of Macky Sall reacted quickly to the ICJ decision, expressing regret that Habré’s trial had not taken place sooner and reaffirming its commitment to begin proceedings quickly. Negotiations resumed between Senegal and the AU, which ultimately led to an agreement to create the Extraordinary African Chambers to conduct proceedings within the Senegalese judicial system. On December 17, the Senegalese National Assembly adopted a law establishing the special chambers. On February 8, 2013, the Extraordinary African Chambers were inaugurated in Dakar.

    24. What is the significance of Habré’s prosecution under universal jurisdiction?

    As demonstrated by the Habré case, universal jurisdiction is an important safety net to ensure that suspects of atrocities do not enjoy impunity in a third state when they cannot be prosecuted before the courts of the country where the crimes were allegedly committed or before an international court. There has been an increase in the use of universal jurisdiction over the past 20 years, notably but not exclusively by courts in European countries. To strengthen the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes, it is critical for courts on all continents to use universal jurisdiction. The African Union has encouraged its member states to adopt legislation to give their national courts universal jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide and has taken steps to initiate a network of national prosecutors working on war crimes cases.  Several investigations have been open in South Africa and Senegal on the basis of universal jurisdiction.

    25. How does this trial fit into critiques of the role of international justice in Africa and claims that universal jurisdiction cases target Africans?

    Habré’s trial is an important step forward in African states taking responsibility to prosecute serious international crimes. However, the Habré trial does not negate the importance of the ICC and the use of universal jurisdiction by non-African states, including European courts, for crimes committed in Africa. These tools are often the only available hope for justice for African victims.

    It is a reality that international justice has been applied unevenly. Powerful countries and their allies have often been able to avoid justice when serious crimes are committed on their territories, notably by failing to ratify the ICC treaty and wielding their political influence at the UN Security Council.

    Nongovernmental organizations have actively campaigned for African governments to work to improve international justice and its reach —as opposed to undermining it— to limit impunity for atrocities.

    26. Why was it necessary to create special chambers with an international element?

    Habré’s complaint with the ECOWAS Court of Justice in October 2008, contended that his trial in Senegal, on the basis of Senegal’s 2007-08 legislative changes, would violate the prohibition against retroactive application of criminal law.

    On November 18, 2010, the ECOWAS court ruled that to avoid violating the principle of non-retroactivity, Habré would have to be tried before a “special ad hoc procedure of an international character.” International law experts have questioned the ECOWAS court decision because the prosecution of acts that, at the time of their commission, were already prohibited by international conventions and customary law does not violate the principle of non-retroactivity. In this case, examples include torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In its 2012 decision, the ICJ made clear that Senegal was under an obligation to investigate and prosecute torture allegations against Habré since it had ratified the UN Convention on Torture in 1987.

    Nonetheless, Senegal complied with the ECOWAS court ruling by creating the Extraordinary African Chambers, a “special ad hoc procedure of an international character.” 

    In April 2013, Habré’s lawyers filed a new application with the ECOWAS court seeking the suspension of the chambers’ activities. In a November 5, 2013 decision, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the application because the chambers were established under a treaty between Senegal and the African Union. 

    27. Why isn’t Habré prosecuted in Chad?

    Chad never sought Habré’s extradition, and there are serious doubts that Habré could get a fair trial in Chad, where he has already been sentenced to death in absentia for his alleged role in a 2008 rebellion. In July 2011, President Wade threatened to expel Habré to Chad but, days later, retracted his decision in the face of an international outcry over the risk that Habré would be mistreated or even killed.

    28. Why can’t the International Criminal Court prosecute Habre?

    The International Criminal Court only has jurisdiction over crimes committed after July 1, 2002, when its statute entered into effect. The crimes of which Hissène Habré is accused took place between 1982 and 1990.

    Topic
    Categories: Africa

    Senegal: Trial of Chad Ex-Dictator Begins

    Fri, 17/07/2015 - 07:50
    Hissène Habré Accused of Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Torture

    (Dakar, July 17, 2015) – The trial of Chad’s former dictator Hissène Habré is a victory for the victims of his government. The trial began in Senegal on July 20, 2015, almost 25 years after he was overthrown.  

    Share The trial of Chad’s former dictator Hissène Habré is a victory for the victims of his government. The trial will begin on July 20, 2015, almost 25 years after he was overthrown.   “The opening of Hissène Habré’s trial, 25 years after he fled Chad, is a tribute to the survivors of his brutal rule who never gave up fighting for justice,” said Reed Brody, counsel at Human Rights Watch who has worked with the victims since 1999. “This case warns despots everywhere that if they engage in atrocities they will never be out of the reach of their victims.”

    Habré is charged with crimes against humanity, torture, and war crimes. The trial will be the first in the world in which the courts of one country prosecute the former ruler of another for alleged human rights crimes.

      Habré will stand trial before the Extraordinary African Chambers in the Senegal court system. The chambers were inaugurated by Senegal and the African Union in February 2013 to prosecute the “person or persons” most responsible for international crimes committed in Chad between 1982 and 1990, the period when Habré ruled Chad. Judge Gberdao Gustave Kam of Burkina Faso, president of the Trial Chamber, will hear the case along with two senior Senegalese judges.

    The trial is expected to last three months, with about 100 witnesses and victims expected to testify.

    Habré, through his lawyers, has said that he does not want to appear in court. Under Senegalese law, however, the court president can require his appearance. 

    “I have been waiting for this day since I walked out of prison almost 25 years ago, “ said Souleymane Guengueng, who nearly died of mistreatment and disease in Habré’s prisons, and later founded the Association of Victims of Crimes of the Regime of Hissène Habré (AVCRHH). “I want to look Hissène Habré in the face and ask him why I was kept rotting in jail for three years, why my friends were tortured and killed.”

    Habré is accused of thousands of political killings and systematic torture. After he was deposed by the current president, Idriss Déby Itno, in 1990, Habré fled to Senegal. Habré was first arrested in Senegal in February 2000, but Senegal refused to prosecute him then or to extradite him to Belgium in 2005. It was only in 2012, when Macky Sall became president of Senegal and the International Court of Justice, acting on a suit by Belgium, ordered Senegal to prosecute or extradite Habré that progress was made toward the trial with the creation of the Extraordinary African Chambers. The chambers indicted Habré in July 2013 and placed him in pretrial custody. After a 19-month investigation, judges of the chambers found that there was sufficient evidence for Habré to face trial.

    “This case is a milestone in the fight to hold the perpetrators of atrocities accountable for their crimes, in Africa and in the world,” Brody said. "It's taken many years, and many twists and turns, but in the end a group of tenacious survivors showed that even a dictator can be brought to justice." 

    On March 25, a court in Chad convicted 20 top security agents of Habré’s government on torture and murder charges. 

    Topic
    Categories: Africa

    Pages