Report of Proceedings - International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

have an increased awareness of policies and activities in other countries. For example, the arms
dealers who are involved in massacres in Sierra Leone are probably doing business in other
situations.
PARTICIPANT AND AUDIENCE MEMBER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Ms.Barbara Mulvaney, ICTR Senior Trial Attorney, agreed with the need for increased
co-operation, noting that currently there is not even co-operation on logistics. For example,
getting witnesses to come to Arusha and testify can be a challenge because there is no uniform
system. She agreed that global standards, pulled from various traditions and mutually agreed
upon, must be set for the ICC to operate effectively.
Mr. Bernard Muna, Former Deputy Prosecutor, ICTR, expressed his concern with the
term, “global standards” because many different societies—with different beliefs and
traditions—are involved. Instead, he argued, the international justice system should move
towards a set of global values. These could be used as a reference for societies as they create
their own standards.
Mr. Ocampo responded by supporting his initial comments, asserting that “global values”
are not enough. The ICC needs “global standards,” because “global standards” implies
agreement. The court has to respect, understand, and learn from, different traditions. By
finding a way to develop a common, or global, standard, the ICC demonstrates that is it not just
a Western court. Many panellists reiterated the need to stay focused. It was noted that this is
also necessary to prevent becoming overwhelmed by the enormity and mass nature of the
crimes before the courts.
However, Mr. Adama Dieng, ICTR Registrar, was concerned with Mr. Ocampo’s
assertion that litigation must be very focused, fearing that limiting investigations might
preclude re-considering a case when new information is uncovered.
Hon. Judge Erik Møse, President, ICTR, responded to comments made about judicial
administrative activism. He noted that it is subsidiary and only comes into play when there is
both a deadlock and a purpose of being efficient. It is a remedy that should be applicable to
both parties.
Mr. Charles Adeogun-Philips, ICTR Senior Trial Attorney, asked for clarification on
Rwanda’s motivation to re-classify rape as a Category 1 offence when it was originally, in
1996, categorised as Category 4 under the Organic Law.
Mr. Martin Ngoga, Deputy Prosecutor General, Rwandan Government, responded by
explaining that there was existing jurisprudence from the ICTR that clearly stated that rape is a
tool of genocide. It was a fundamental error to have ever placed the crime of rape in Category
4. The government realised that it was undermining rape victims by placing the crime in
Category 4. Mr. Ngoga also believed that initially the government did not realise how
widespread the crime had been. Furthermore, there was also a lot of pressure from NGOs and
32