(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Charles Bandora was arrested at Gardermoen in June 2010 when he came to Norway to seek asylum. He was then called by Interpol in Rwanda, accused of participating in the genocide of 1994. Norwegian authorities handed Charles Bandora to Rwandan authorities 9. March 2013. This happened after the Oslo District Court thought there was reasonable cause to suspect that he had participated in the genocide, based, among other things, on Kripos' investigation and questioning of witnesses in the case. The Oslo District Court also believed that there would be no danger to his human rights under European human rights law.
the rights convention if he was sent to Rwanda. The same was true of both
right, Supreme Court and finally
Norwegian authorities extradited Charles Bandora to Rwanda, where he was sentenced to 30 years in prison – despite several witnesses saying he was innocent and that they had been pressured to lie.
Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Both Norwegian law and the Norwegian government's conclusion now face strong opposition from independent legal experts and witnesses who have previously accused Bandora.
Witnesses turned. The lawsuit against Bandora, which started in the fall of 2014, has also garnered attention in Rwandan media, which normally support coinage.
the talents and President Paul Kagame. The Rwandan newspaper Umukelle writes that the prosecutor's witnesses usually reinforce the charges against one accused, but that this was not the case for two of the prosecutor's witnesses against Bandora. The two brought in by the prosecution to accuse Bandora of cleaning him instead. Umukelle also writes that the two witnesses said they had lied under pressure from the police and authorities before the trial against Bandora. This is also confirmed by the Dutch legal expert and adviser Martin Witterveen, who was present at the trial. Witterveen followed the lawsuit on behalf of Rwandan authorities to assist and advise in the lawsuits against several genocide defendants in 2014 and 2015. Witteveen has worked for many years as a prosecutor in the Netherlands and for international tribunals who have investigated genocide in Rwanda and Sri Lanka. In addition, he led the international investigation into the wanted warlord Joseph Kony in Uganda.
Counterfeit. Martin Witterveen wrote the report Additional Expert Report in 2015 based on what he had observed in several genocide lawsuits in Rwanda. He asks many questions about the case against Bandora. Among other things, he notes that his defense attorneys were several times late to the trial, or did not show up at all. In addition, they did not follow up on important questions for witnesses, and generally provided poor defense. What he is most critical of at the trial is that two of the prosecutor's witnesses turned around completely and said they were pressured to lie and falsely accuse Bandora. In the report, he writes that both witnesses themselves were previously convicted and jailed for participating in the genocide. Both stated rightly that the prosecutor had visited them in jail and promised them shorter jail time if they accused Bandora. One should receive a 75 percent penalty reduction, while the other, who served a life sentence, should be released almost immediately. The newspaper Umukelle writes that one of the witnesses explained that at the same time that he was being promised, he was also threatened by both the prosecutor and the police for lying about Bandora. In court, the witness said: "When you are put under pressure every single day, you end up agreeing to what you are being pressed for."
"I have no doubt that Rwanda is an authoritarian oppressive state."
The properties. The two witnesses who say that Bandora is innocent say that they lied about him for the first time in a lawsuit in 2003, and that they were picked up by the prosecution for lying again in 2014. When someone is convicted of the Rwanda genocide, the state right to take all the convicted owner. The properties are to be distributed to survivors as compensation for loss of life or assets. In 2003, Bandora was charged with participating in the genocide, but was acquitted by a local gacaca court. After the acquittal, a new lawsuit started against him, and new charges came in. This time he was convicted in absentia, ie without being present and having the opportunity to respond to the accusations. Both of the two who testified before the prosecution in 2014 also testified against him in the second round of the Gacaca court, and were behind the new accusations that led to him being convicted. The report to Witterwveen states that both witnesses said that businessmen were looking for Bandora's assets in 2003 – and that this was the motivation for several who came with the accusations against him. Bandora's family tells Ny Tid that he owned two houses with properties in sought-after areas in Kigali Town and Ruhuha City.
According to the Umukelle newspaper, one of the witnesses to the prosecutor in the 2014 case against Bandora said: "I have accepted to be used as an instrument against Bandora. In 2003, I was jailed on the basis of testimony from survivors who had lost their family members and had their belongings looted. I had a role in this. These survivors asked me to testify against Bandora since they had not received compensation from me for everything I had done to them. " This witness also said that it was the prosecutor who had visited him in prison and asked him to make false charges against Bandora, instructing him on how to respond. The witness sentenced a life sentence, but escaped from jail if he lied, he told the court. Dutch Witteveen writes: “When asked by these two witnesses why they testified against Bandora in the gacaca courts, they explained that they were pressured by businessmen to testify against Bandora. These businessmen would take Bandora's assets. ”
Has stopped extradition. Martin Witterveen points to major shortcomings in the Rwandan legal system. He describes a partial system with no or poor opportunities to defend himself. The legal expert recommends extradition of genocide accused to Rwanda as the situation is now. The Dutch Supreme Court set foot in December 2015 and refused to extradite two men who were accused of participating in the genocide. They justified this because the two men would not get a fair trial, and the conclusion was partly based on Witteveen's report. In 2009, English court stopped extradition of two Rwandan refugees who were also accused of genocide, both because they would not get a fair trial and because there was a danger of abuse. Also in December 2015, English court stopped the extradition of five men accused of genocide, with the following statement from the judge: "I have no doubt that Rwanda is an authoritarian oppressive state, probably more oppressive now than it was in 2009. It is a a state that suppresses opposition in many ways. ” Furthermore, the judgment states:
"It has been proven that the Rwandan state has threatened and killed those the state sees as opponents. It has been proven that suspects can be tortured in secret camps, where fundamental human rights are ignored. " French law has also stopped extradition to Rwanda by several genocide accused.
Charles Bandora was sentenced to 30 years in prison on May 15, 2015. The case is appealed and is scheduled to reappear in the Rwandan court this fall.
