The recent accusations by Human Rights Watch, widely reported by several international media outlets, regarding the treatment of prisoners in Rwanda in a report published on Tuesday, October 15, require a well-argued and documented response. These criticisms often overlook the historical context and the efforts of the Rwandan government in terms of human rights, thus providing a distorted view of reality.
It is worth recalling that in 2007, Rwanda marked a turning point by abolishing the death penalty, a decision praised by the international community, symbolizing peaceful reconstruction following the 1994 genocide. While the victorious European powers, after World War II, opted for the Nuremberg Trials, leading to the execution of Nazi criminals, Rwanda chose a different path, favoring reconciliation and forgiveness in its quest for justice.
The Rwandan judicial system then resorted to Gacaca courts, which judged between 2001 and 2012 nearly two million individuals related to the genocide. Many offenders were released after serving their sentences or participating in rehabilitation programs. Although this approach has not garnered unanimous support within the international community, several observers have praised it for its unique approach to restorative justice.
Evidence of the Rwandan justice system’s compliance with international standards is reflected in the acceptance by several European countries – including Norway and the Netherlands – of the transfer of genocidal fugitives to Rwanda, affirming that conditions of incarceration respect human dignity standards.
Moreover, to improve post-genocide prison conditions, the government has invested in expanding and modernizing penitentiary infrastructure to meet new challenges. According to a 2013 report from the International Committee of the Red Cross, progress has been made in hygiene, particularly with the installation of biogas systems in some prisons, thus improving sanitary conditions. Today’s Rwandan prisons are significantly different from those after the genocide.
These examples demonstrate that the Rwandan government has integrated respect for human rights into its reforms, illustrating its commitment to establishing a fair and equitable justice system, even under challenging conditions. Therefore, rather than perpetuating unfounded criticisms, it is essential to recognise Rwanda’s significant efforts to restore justice while respecting fundamental rights.
This would not be the first time Human Rights Watch has spread allegations based on hasty conclusions and a lack of objectivity concerning Rwanda. In a report dated October 10, 2023, titled “Join Us or Die,” the NGO claims that “the United Nations and international partners have consistently failed to recognise the scope and severity of the country’s dismal human rights record.”
Yet, over the past few decades, Rwanda has made significant strides in human rights. Here is a non-exhaustive list:
Promotion of gender equality:
– Over 60% of parliamentary seats held by women, an unprecedented level of parity.
– Strengthened laws against domestic violence, support centers for victims.
Access to education and health services:
– Free education, steadily increasing enrolment rates.
– Universal healthcare, improved vaccination and reduced infant mortality.
Access to electricity and water:
– Access to electricity increased from 6% to 75% (2009-2024), 86% for drinking water (2023), a steadily increasing figure.
Children’s rights:
– Laws against child labor and early marriage, family support initiatives.
Refugee rights:
– Leading country in welcoming refugees, particularly from the Great Lakes region and Libya.
Rights of people with disabilities:
– Inclusion of people with disabilities, enhanced access to education and employment.
Despite these advancements, some voices continue to spread misleading narratives that do not reflect either reality or Rwanda’s efforts. These narratives, often propagated by misinformed or biased sources, ignore the hard work undertaken over more than two decades to rebuild a nation torn by violence. It is crucial that these accusations are counterbalanced by concrete and verifiable facts.
Human Rights Watch continues what can be described as advocacy against Rwanda by stating that the United States “should use their close ties to pressure the Rwandan government to improve its human rights record”. However, given the positive Rwandan record outlined above, it is reasonable to think that the lecturing party would do well to step aside. Should we remind that the death penalty is still in force in 27 states, as well as at the federal level for military crimes, not to mention the recurring police violence and the accompanying impunity?
While HRW criticises the judicial inaction in the face of abuses committed by prison service officials, the NGO itself mentions that the High Court of Rubavu sentenced Innocent Kayumba to 15 years in prison for the assault and murder of an inmate, along with two other officials from the Rwanda Correctional Service and seven prisoners.
However, Clémentine de Montjoye concludes that “Kayumba’s case not only exposes serious and grave problems in Rwanda’s correctional services, but critical failings in the judiciary and the national human rights institution.”
A sign of dysfunction according to the researcher, while an irrefutable proof that Rwandan justice cannot be deemed complicit, let alone a perpetrator of these actions, according to our analysis.
On Thursday, October 17, the Rwandan government responded to the accusations through its spokesperson, Yolande Makolo. She stated that the NGO “has repeatedly shown itself to be neither serious nor credible. They continue to target Rwanda with fabricated stories”.
In conclusion, due to its role on the international stage, Rwanda attracts excessive attention and criticism for alleged transgressions, often within a very technical framework, regularly preventing the acknowledgment of the country’s remarkable progress, especially in comparison to its neighbors where human rights violations are severe and evident.
Dominant narratives in international media and human rights organizations influence how certain countries are perceived. The criticisms directed at Rwanda, often exaggerated, should be counterbalanced by recognition of the progress made, particularly in the areas of human rights, justice, and national reconciliation.
RADIOTV10
