François Roux's Defense in Prosecutor v Bagilishema

Editorial

Stan Starygin


In Bagilishema the prosecution brought charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II against Bourgmestre of Mabanza Commune Ignace Bagilishema.

In the course of framing of the indictment against Bagilishema the prosecution argued the necessity of amending the original indictment by incorporating charges mounted against Bagilishema's subordinates which Roux opposed calling this proposal "a grave injustice" and was quoted as saying that "it is out of the question that this Tribunal should charge someone on the basis of generalities and in the midst of confusion" and further continued that in his opinion "in reality, the prosecution has no evidence against Bagilishema himself. Instead it [the prosecution] is trying to judge him as responsible for acts committed by others. It has nothing against Bagilishema, so it is trying to widen the case to other people. That's not my concept of justice." (can be viewed at http://www.hirondelle.org/hirondelle.nsf/caefd9edd48f5826c12564cf004f793d/a5b92a5b19fc040cc125682d0080772c?OpenDocument)

Roux persuasively argued that one of the original charges brought against Bagilishema, conspiracy to commit genocide, had to be thrown out by the court since the same had been dropped earlier by the prosecution and against Bagilishema's alleged co-conpirators. Roux maintained that "if there is conspiracy, there must be more than one person [...] if you withdrew the conspiracy for one, you should do so for the other."

In the court's verdict Bagilishema was found not guilty on all counts and was ordered to be immediately released.