Programmes Staff Organisational structure Partners

Capacity building Advocacy Protection

Staff Job openings Internships

Burundi Djibouti Eritrea Ethiopia Kenya Rwanda Somalia/Somaliland Sudan Tanzania Uganda

Current members How to become a member

Our publications Members' publications Key documents

Advocacy material Workshop reports & Resources

Organisations Relevant resources

Protection Advocacy Capacity Building

Rwanda

The human rights situation in Rwanda has seen some improvements in recent months, notably with the enactment of legislation abolishing the death penalty and a reduction in the number of cases of torture and abuse in official detention centers. Many improvements must still be made notably regarding the situation of prisons. Despite some improvements within the judicial system in Rwanda, an in-depth analysis by Amnesty International, suggests that the system fails at present to comply sufficiently with international standards so as to be allowed to try cases previously under the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).1 The national human rights movement, although still in its initial phase, is growing; nevertheless, it continues to be shaped and largely influenced by the legacy of the genocide.  Many activists, notably journalists, resort to self-censorship. Restrictions on freedom of expression and the press have increased in recent times and independent journalists, in particular, are faced with harassment and persecution. 

Detention without trial continues to be widespread, the country’s prisons are overcrowded with people awaiting trial for genocide-related crimes and the conditions are extremely harsh. Some efforts have been made by the authorities to improve these conditions and to deal with the large prison population, notably through a series of mass releases since 2003. According to the Rwandan League for the Promotion and the Defense of Human Rights (LIPRODHOR), EHAHRD-Net member, the number of cases of torture and abuse in detention at the hands of the security services and the police has decreased.2 Amnesty International however reports that torture continues to occur in secret ungazetted detention centers in the country.3 Excessive use of force, particularly during arrest, continues to be exerted by the security forces, and in some instances cases of torture have also been reported.
 
Fair trial standards continue to be violated in Rwanda: crimes committed by the Rwandese Patriotic Army (RPA) have not been adequately investigated and the Executive continues to exert significant control over the judiciary particularly over the Gagaca trials and cases relating to ‘genocide ideology’ and ‘divisionism’. Steps aimed at ensuring the transfer of individuals from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha to Rwanda have been initiated, notably with the enactment of legislation abolishing the death penalty; nevertheless there are still many improvements needed before the Rwandese justice system will adhere to international standards of independence and impartiality.4 Furthermore, in July 2008, the Constitution was amended to give former presidents, who have not been charged whilst in office, immunity for life.5 This clearly once again reveals the country’s one-sided accountability mechanisms as this amendment will certainly protect Kagame from ever having to be held accountable, at a national level, for his potential involvement in the crimes committed during and following the genocide by the RPA.
Gacaca trials, a system of community based courts that was established in 2001 has helped to deal to a certain extent with the problem of the massive prison population.  Nevertheless, these courts fail to meet the minimum international standards of impartiality and independence; for example, the courts do not have the mandate to look at human rights violations committed by the RPA during the genocide and are prone to being influenced by the authorities. The trials were supposed to end in December 2007 but Kagame ordered the transfer of thousands of cases from the conventional courts to the Gacaca courts and the gacaca law was amended to allow these courts to impose life imprisonment.6 Furthermore, the protection of victims and witnesses appearing in gacaca trials has not been guaranteed, and reports show that several witnesses and survivors have been killed by unidentified individuals in 2007.7

The current president, Paul Kagame, was elected following a landslide, in what appears to be a rather irregular election in 2003, the first elections since the genocide. Political freedom continues to be restricted in Rwanda both as a result of a rather dismissive political culture linked to the post-genocide climate, the moral and physical dominance of the RPF, its policy of ‘National Unity’  and restrictions on the opposition. Nevertheless, in 2007, some positive steps were taken which have increased the political space:  former President Bizimungu was released, having served 5 years of a 15 year sentence for inciting civil disobedience, criminal association and embezzlement of state funds, when he tried to establish an opposition party in 2002; and, on 1st June a new political party law was passed which lifted a ban on political activities at a local level.8

The 2003 Constitution stipulates that at least 30% of seats in parliament must be filled by women. The law prohibits rape and the government has taken significant measures to put this law into practice. Domestic violence however is not criminalized and is widespread. Women continue to face societal discrimination although efforts have been made to overcome such challenges notably by putting in place measures to increase girls’ access to education and women’s involvement in the workforce.9

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is a problem. Homosexuality is not illegal in Rwanda but the new draft penal code prohibits people from encouraging others to engage in same sex relations, which might inadvertently be used to criminalise a partner in a relationship. Furthermore, recently certain members of the government have called for homosexuality to be made illegal. On the 27th February 2008 two lesbian Rwandese human rights defenders were arrested at the Airport in Kigali on their way to Maputo, Mozambique, to attend the 3rd Leadership Institute of the Coalition of African Lesbians (CAL). They were transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and accused of forging the invitations for the conference. They remained in detention until their trial which started on the 3rd March. They have since been released on bail pending further investigations.

Human rights defenders
The genocide and its consequences continue to influence the human rights community in Rwanda and to shape the discourse used by the authorities to restrict and repress critical defenders. The government, for example, continues to use ‘divisionism’ as a justification for its oversight and restrictions on human rights activities. The movement is still in its early phases and remains rather reluctant to overtly criticize the government. NGO regulations are constraining. The authorities tend to see human rights organisations as political entities and deal with them as such.
As a result of the post-genocide climate and in particular as a result of significant repression against human rights organizations in 2004, during which a number of NGOs, notably LIPRODHOR, were accused of propagating ‘genocide ideology’10 by a parliamentary commission who called for these organizations to be banned,  self-censorship remains widespread amongst the human rights community. Certain issues have been made more or less taboo by the authorities. The gacaca courts are one of these taboo issues.  HRDs who have denounced the failings of the gacaca trial proceedings have been subjected to harassment and have been accused of treason or ‘genocidal ideology’.11 Defenders seeking to raise awareness amongst witnesses, defendants and victims involved in the trials of their rights, have been assaulted.12

The recent case of Mr Francis Xavier Byuma has generated significant concern amongst human rights organizations. Mr Byuma is the President of Turengere Abana, an NGO working on child rights’. Mr Byuma was investigating the rape allegations made against a Judge of a gacaca tribunal when he was himself placed on trial and accused by that very same court. He was sentenced to 19 years imprisonment for complicity to genocide. The law establishing the gacaca courts specifically states that the accused and the judges could not have had personal conflicts in the past.13 By going ahead with this trail despite the conflict of interest, the court denied Mr Byuma his right to a fair and independent trial. A gacaca appeals court upheld the decision in August 2007.

Mistrust amongst individual defenders and organizations, as a result of the prevailing situation in the country, is rife and undermines collaboration amongst human rights defenders. Reports suggest that the government has in fact put pressure on certain NGOs to keep them informed about the activities of other NGOs.14 This mistrust has been further accentuated by the recent Byuma trial.

Minority rights activists, notably those seeking to promote the rights of indigenous minorities, have often fallen prey to government claims of divisionism given that since the genocide all references to ethnic groups are banned.15 This has had a particular impact on the Community of Indigenous Peoples in Rwanda (CAURWA), an organization that seeks to promote the rights of the Batwa minority who have been forced to remove the word ‘Indigenous’ from the name of the organisation.16

NGO registration and reporting requirements are extensive and time consuming. Domestic NGOs have to, for example, register on a yearly basis at the Ministry of Justice; they must also present significant documentations to the authorities in all the districts in which they work in. Such regulations place significant burdens on their human resources. A recent NGO Bill also grants the government significant oversight over the activities of foreign NGOs.

Freedom of expression and media
Freedom of expression and media continued to come under threat as the government increases its attacks on independent media outlets and its harassment and persecution of independent and critical journalists.
Given the involvement of the press in the Genocide the press continues to be viewed with suspicion. The authorities have at times used this fear as a justification for their crackdown on critical reporting and have on numerous occasions accused journalists of treachery and inciting ethnic hatred.17 Laws on divisionism and genocide ideology are often used as a powerful tool to restrict freedom of expression.

The State-run media has been used as a forum through which to attack and pressure independent media outlets and workers. In September 2007, government ministers and security service officials, warned journalists, on the State-run Radio Rwanda, that the security services would take measures against those who undermined or criticized the President. In the same period Finance Minister Musoni accused certain journalists and papers, notably the independent papers Umuseso and Umuco, of supporting external rebel groups.18 In October the editors of Umuco and Umuseso temporarily suspended their publications following these accusations.19

Journalists, notably those working for independent outlets such as Umuseso and Umuco, have faced harassments, threats, intimidation, violent attacks and persecution.20 Journalists who have dared to criticize the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) have faced harsh consequences.

Most recently, on 14th July 2008, the deputy editor of Umuseso,  Furaha Mugisha , who had already been interrogated in July 2007 by the security services, was expelled from Rwanda on claims that he had fraudulently sought Rwandese identify papers when he was in fact a Tanzanian national. Mr Mugisha has a Rwandese mother and previously held a Rwandese identity card yet the authorities refused to renew it in 2005.21

In April 2008, Robert Mukombozi, a journalist who had been working for the Ugandan newspaper, the Daily Monitor, was declared persona non grata by the Rwandan authorities after he was accused of having written articles which were defamatory to the Kigali government. Mr Mukombozi had previously been a reporter for the pro-governmental New Times in Rwanda until he was fired for having published information which supposedly placed the relations between Rwanda and Uganda in jeopardy.22

In March 2008, the founder and editor of Umuco, Bonaventure Bizumuremyi , went into hiding the day before a police raid was carried out on his house . The police spokesperson then made a statement in which he claimed that Bizumuremyi was wanted for defamation charges; the spokesperson subsequently went on went on Radio Rwanda and called on citizens to help the security services track him down. The High Press Council, which is a partially independent regulatory body, subsequently suspended Bizumuremyi’s press card for six months following a petition by other journalists who also called for the suspension of Umuco. Bizumuremyi had already been charged in 2006 with defamation and divisionism for having supposedly insulted Kagame.23 The most recent harassment and attacks came after Bizumuremyi published an editorial and a series of articles in which he questioned the future of Kagame, claiming his path lay either in front of the International Criminal Court, in exile or that he would commit suicide as Adolf Hitler. The other articles pointed at the role of the army and the ruling party in the death of a group of Spanish priests.
As a result journalists are forced to resort to self-censorship; given that the country suffers from a lack of trained journalists this self-censorship further undermines the role journalists can play in promoting both their own rights, as defenders, and human rights in general.

The government, as many other governments in the region, has increasingly sought to use restrictive legislation as a means of undermining freedom of expression. The Press law in Rwanda imposes criminal sanctions which continue to be used to limit freedom of expression.