29-06: Guilty until proven innocent? Rwandans in The Netherlands accused of genocide

Around 30 Rwandans living In The Netherlands are accused of participating in the genocide of 1994. There seems to be very little substance to the accusations: it is unclear on what kind of information they are based and how it has been obtained.Flyer_Rwanda Meeting-01

Other countries in Europe have previously refused to send Rwandans back to their country. But even though the consequences might be disastrous for the ones accused and their families, The Netherlands appears to be eager to cooperate with Rwanda by pushing towards extradition or eviction. It is high time to discuss in a public setting what could be behind this seemingly odd cooperation between The Netherlands and Rwanda.

Speakers:
With a.o. Joris van Wijk (associate professor criminology, Vrije Universiteit, genocide-law specialist, Marieke van Eik (Prakken d’Oliveira, lawyer, migration specialist) and Victor Kwihangana (son of one of the accused Rwandans).

Join us on Wednesday 29 June at 19:30 in Humanity House, prinsegracht 8, The Hague.
Entrance is free, but registration required!

2 replies
  1. Jos van Oijen
    Jos van Oijen says:

    The assumptions made in this article have already been refuted in Dutch courts on multiple occasions and are just a repetition of the lawyers’ failed defense strategy.
    This is no surprise because one of the two ambassadors of The Hague Peace Projects is a journalist who has cooperated with defense lawyers of genocide suspects inside and outside the courtroom for several years now. Not only do they try to influence public opinion by messing with factual information, their suggestion of political motives behind the 1F cases is deceiving as well.
    According to Human Rights Watch who investigated Dutch immigration and War Crimes Units: “The Netherlands has devoted tremendous resources to ensuring its immigration service plays its part in fighting impunity for grave international crimes and offers a rich source of lessons for other countries to consider.” High praise all around and the few recommendations of HRW have already been implemented.
    The aim of the proposed debate, to supposedly find out “what could be behind this seemingly odd cooperation between The Netherlands and Rwanda?” is therefore tendentious. But since the ambassador of THPP is connected to a Rwandan political movement with an extremist history and the director of THPP promotes a documentary with revisionist content (according to most scholars) elsewhere on this website, it appears that this debate was never meant to facilitate an honest discussion, but merely serves as a vehicle for a political message.

    Reply
  2. Jos van Oijen
    Jos van Oijen says:

    The assumptions made in this article have already been refuted in Dutch courts on multiple occasions and are just a repetition of the lawyers’ failed defense strategy.
    This is no surprise because one of the two ambassadors of The Hague Peace Projects is a journalist who has cooperated with defense lawyers of genocide suspects inside and outside the courtroom for several years now. Not only do they try to influence public opinion by messing with factual information, their suggestion of political motives behind the 1F cases is deceiving as well.
    According to Human Rights Watch who investigated Dutch immigration and War Crimes Units: “The Netherlands has devoted tremendous resources to ensuring its immigration service plays its part in fighting impunity for grave international crimes and offers a rich source of lessons for other countries to consider.” High praise all around and the few recommendations of HRW have already been implemented.
    The aim of the proposed debate, to supposedly find out “what is behind this seemingly odd cooperation between The Netherlands and Rwanda?” is therefore tendentious. But since the ambassador of THPP is connected to a Rwandan political movement with an extremist history and the director of THPP promotes a documentary with revisionist content (according to most scholars) elsewhere on this website, it appears that this debate was never meant to facilitate an honest discussion, but merely serves as a vehicle for a political message.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *