In the last article in the serialised narrative, we observed how the country was marred by violence under President Juvenal Habyarimana. The violence was state-inspired as a political strategy by Habyarimana and his affiliates. As we progress in the series, more of the violence and its consequences will be revealed. ALSO READ: A look back at impact of Habyarimana’s use of violence as political strategy At the end of the meeting with parties in government, which was held from November 16-25, 1992, church representatives demanded that insecurity be stopped. Nothing was done. Insecurity even took another turn when large quantities of firearms were distributed among the population. In a meeting of 13 political parties with church leaders held in March 1993, one of the recommendations was that civilians should be recruited and equipped with the necessary tools (weapons) to defend their country. The government was concerned by this development and in one cabinet meeting, it ordered the Minister of Defense to collect (gutahura) all the arms that were given to the population in March 1993. However, this order was disobeyed, leading to a further escalation of acts of armed robbery and assassinations using firearms. The human rights crisis, which the country experienced for some time, was confirmed by a committee of inquiry that was carried out by an International Commission made up of associations defending human rights. This commission was invited by local associations defending human rights in Rwanda. It was composed of 10 members. French historian and rights activist Alison Des Forges was the coordinator of the association's activities. Habyarimana's party, MRND, was opposed to the coming of that mission to Rwanda, but the cabinet meeting ruled otherwise. It arrived in the country on January 7, 1993. Its delegation visited 5 of the 11 prefectures. These were Kigali Rural, Kigali City, Gisenyi, Ruhengeri and Byumba. But it was neither able to visit nor carry out investigations in the prisons. Due to press harassment and the way trials were conducted, the commission also did not have access to military camps or other places of detention, such as those in brigades. The commission found open graves and many mass graves in parts of the country it visited. It confirmed continuous violence, intimidation and massacres. The commission said that there were systematic massacres against Tutsis and Hutus who were against the regime. Concerning the Tutsi, the International Commission concluded “that there had been Genocide per international law”. Eric Gillet, a member of the commission, said: “It can be truly called Genocide against the Tutsis” adding that there was “a real intention to wipe out the Tutsis.” Jean Carbonare of the same commission shared the same view. He said that it was not a matter of ethnic confrontation. It was an organised policy. The incidents were planned. It was ethnic cleansing, “Genocide” and a “crime against humanity”. The responsibility of the Head of State and his close entourage as well as members of his family, was indisputable. At the lower echelons of the administration, the local officials equally shared the responsibility, for example, the burgomaster and local councillors in Kibirira and Bugesera. The international commission report confirmed a climate of insecurity and terror caused by state agents who carried out systematic murder and rape. The population was at the mercy of the Interahamwe militia and indeed there was total paralysis of the judicial system. The President was in charge of the Judicial Council. It can therefore be concluded that President Habyarimana himself controlled his network of killers.
