The prosecution of alleged Genocide suspects more than three decades after the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi presents challenges, particularly around evidence, witnesses, and the ability to reconstruct events, according to genocide scholar Dr Alice Uwagaga Urusaro Karekezi.
Karekezi, a lawyer, genocide scholar, lecturer at the University of Rwanda (UR), and co-founder of UR’s Centre for Genocide and Conflict Studies, formerly known as the Centre for Conflict Management, outlined these challenges during an interview with The New Times’ The Context Podcast.This particular episode was about the UK case involving Dr Vincent Bajinya, also known as Vincent Brown. Bajinya was charged in the UK on September 21 with one count of conduct ancillary to genocide and six counts of conduct ancillary to murder as a crime against humanity.
ALSO READ: Genocide: What to know as Bajinya returns to UK court on October 9
The charges followed a seven-year investigation by the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Team, which began in September 2019 after a request from the Rwandan government. The Crown Prosecution Service said the case is the first time charges relating to the Genocide against the Tutsi have been brought in the UK.
For Karekezi, however, the case's significance goes beyond the charges themselves. It illustrates some of the difficulties that arise when alleged international crimes are investigated and prosecuted many years after they were committed.
ALSO READ: How long must justice take? Britain, Rwanda and the Genocide against the Tutsi
Evidence becomes harder to establish
One key challenge, Karekezi explained, is the availability and reliability of evidence.
Genocide cases often depend heavily on witnesses who experienced, observed, or participated in events. But after 32 years, witnesses may have died, become difficult to locate, or have memories affected by the passage of time.
"We have seen, in one case, an investigation has lasted seven years. If you think about that, people who could testify age; they die. And that weakens the case,” she said.
"Even for the fugitives themselves, by the way. We have seen that in the Kabuga case – being a fugitive until you cannot be judged, and justice is not being served,” she added.
Karekezi pointed to the importance of testimony in earlier international genocide proceedings, including the case of Jean-Paul Akayesu before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
The Akayesu case became a landmark in international criminal law after the tribunal recognised rape and sexual violence as acts of genocide.
For Karekezi, cases such as Akayesu also demonstrate why preserving testimony and documenting events are critical to the pursuit of justice.
The challenge is not simply establishing that atrocities occurred. Prosecutors must also connect specific individuals to specific conduct and meet the legal threshold required for a conviction.
Reconstructing events after decades
Another challenge is reconstructing the circumstances surrounding alleged crimes after such a long period.
In the Bajinya case, the Metropolitan Police said its investigation involved extensive international cooperation and lasted seven years before charges were authorised.
The CPS alleges that Bajinya directed and incited acts of murder and genocide carried out by others in April 1994.
However, those allegations remain to be tested in court. Bajinya is entitled to a fair trial, and the charges do not amount to a finding of guilt.
Karekezi said the length of time involved in such cases should therefore be viewed alongside the thorough work required to establish evidence that can withstand scrutiny in court.
The cost of waiting
For survivors and families of victims, however, the passage of time has a dimension beyond legal procedure.
Karekezi emphasised that justice is not simply about reaching a verdict. It is also about how justice is experienced by those who have waited for accountability.
The longer proceedings take, she argued, the more difficult it can become for survivors and families to see the justice process as something connected to their own lived experience.
The issue is particularly pressing as the generation that experienced the Genocide ages, while potential witnesses and people with first-hand knowledge of events become fewer.
Still, Karekezi stressed that the passage of time should not eliminate the responsibility to pursue cases.