2 The Rwanda Tribunal's Definition of Genocide

Interpretation and Implementation of Genocide Convention



2.2.2



21



Hate Propaganda by Radio RTLMC and the Newspaper,

Kangura: Genocide



Another case in which the Tribunal gave an extensive legal analysis of

the concept of genocide is the case against Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco

Barayagwiza and Hassan Ngeze; the so-called "Media-case." In this case, the

ICTR had to deal with the question of whether the media's free expression

had developed into genocide. At the Nuremberg Tribunal, there had been two

cases in which the Tribunal had decided upon the role of the media in relation to massive violations of international humanitarian law, but there had

been no cases since. I5

In this case, Ferdinand Nahimana and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, the two

founders of the extremist radio station Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines

(RTLMC), and Hassan Ngeze, the editor-in-chief of the hate-inciting newspaper Kangura, were convicted of genocide for their role in the radio broadcasts

and newspaper issues. I6 Before ruling upon the responsibility of the accused

of genocide. The Tribunal considered "rape" to be a form of genocide, because rape

constitutes "serious bodily or mental harm." The Tribunal noted that because the rapes

were committed only against Tutsi women, this resulted in "physical and psychological

destruction of Tutsi women, their families and their communities." See Akayesu case,

paragraphs 721 and 731-733.

15

The two cases before the Nuremberg Tribunal dealing with media use of hate

speech in connection with massive violations of international humanitarian law were

the so-called Streicher and Fritsche cases. Julius Streicher founded and edited Der

Sturmer [The Attacker], the Nazi anti-Semitic weekly newspaper with a distribution of

500,000 copies in 1937. He was convicted of crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg

war crimes trial and executed in October 1946. In the Streicher case, the Nuremberg

Tribunal did not explicitly note a direct causal link between Streicher's publications and

specific acts of murder, but the judgment characterized his work as a poison "injected

in to the minds of thousands of Germans which caused them to follow the National

Socialists' policy of Jewish persecution and extermination." Fritsche was Head of the

Radio Section of the Propaganda Ministry during the Second World War. Fritsche, who

was charged with incitement as a crime against humanity, was acquitted by the

International Military Tribunal, because he "had not had control over the formulation

of propaganda policies." Walter Laqueur (ed.), The Holocaust Encyclopedia, pp. 613,

614 (2001); see also Gregory S. Gordon, "A War ofMedia, Words, Newspapers, and

Radio Stations "-The ICTR Media Trial Verdict and a New Chapter in the International

Law ofHate Speech, in, Virginia Journal of International Law 45 pp. 139-98 (2004)

(hereinafter Gordon).

16

The three were also convicted for direct and public incitement to commit genocide, conspiracy to genocide, extermination and persecution as crimes against humanity. See Nahimana case (Case No. 96-11) paragraphs 946-1088, the Barayagwiza case

(Case No. 97-19), and Ngeze case (Case No. 97-27). All got life imprisonment. All three

cases, under Case No. 99-52, are now-since December 3, 2003-pending in the Appeals

Chamber.



22



The Failure to Prevent Genocide in Rwanda



for genocide, the Tribunal had an in-depth look at the RTLMC broadcasts and

issues of Kangura.

According to the Tribunal, Kangura s article "The Appeal to the Conscience

of the Hutu" and the therein included "Ten Commandments" published in

December 1990, conveyed "contempt and hatred for the Tutsi ethnic group, and

for Tutsi women in particular as enemy agents, and called on readers to take all

necessary measures to stop the enemy, defined as the Tutsi population."17 The

so-called "Ten Commandments" instructed:

(1) Every Hutu male should know that Tutsi women, wherever they may

be, are working in the pay of their Tutsi ethnic group. Consequently,

shall be deemed a traitor:

(a) Any Hutu male who marries a Tutsi woman;

(b) Any Hutu male who keeps a Tutsi concubine;

(c) Any Hutu male who makes a Tutsi woman his secretary or protegee.

(2) Every Hutu male must know that our Hutu daughters are more dignified and conscientious in their role of woman, wife and mother. Are

they not pretty, good secretaries and more honest!

(3) Hutu women, be vigilant and bring your husbands, brothers and sons

back to their senses.

(4) Every Hutu male must know that all Tutsis are dishonest in their business dealings. They are only seeking ethnic supremacy. "RIZABARA

UWARIRAYE" (Only he who spent a sleepless night can talk about

the night). Shall be consequently considered a traitor, any Hutu male:

(a) Who enters into a business partnership with Tutsis;

(b) Who invests his money or State money in a Tutsi company;

(c) Who lends to, or borrows from, a Tutsi;

(d) Who grants business favors to Tutsis [granting of import licenses,

bank loans, building plots, public tenders...].

(5) Strategic positions in the political, administrative, economic, military

and security domain should, to a large extent, be entrusted to Hutus.

(6) In the Education sector, (pupils, students, teachers) must be in the

majority Hutu.

(7) The Rwandan Armed Forces should be exclusively Hutu. That is the

lesson we learned from the October 1990 war. No soldier must marry

a Tutsi woman.

(8) Hutus must cease having any pity for the Tutsi.



17

According to the Tribunal, this article summoned the Hutu to "wake up," to

"cease feeling pity for the Tutsi," to "take all necessary measures to deter the enemy

from launching a fresh attack." Furthermore, the article warned that the enemy was "still

there, among us" and waiting "to decimate us." The article ended with the so-called "Ten

Commandments."



Interpretation and Implementation of Genocide Convention



23



(9) The Hutu male, wherever he may be, should be united in solidarity and

be concerned about the fate of their Hutu brothers. The Hutus at home

and abroad must constantly seek friends and allies for the Hutu Cause,

beginning with their Bantu brothers. They must constantly counteract

Tutsi propaganda. The Hutu must be firm and vigilant towards their

common Tutsi enemy.

(10)The 1959 social revolution, the 1961 referendum and the Hutu ideology must be taught to Hutus at all levels. Every Hutu must propagate the present ideology widely. Any Hutu who persecutes his brother

for having read, disseminated and taught this ideology shall be deemed

a traitor.



This cartoon originally appeared in January 1992 (No. 16), in a moderate,

"democratic" paper, Rwanda Rushya, as ridicule of the extremism of ideologues

like Hassan Ngeze, who was the producer of Kangura. It depicts Ngeze being

psychoanalyzed by the democratic press. Ngeze says, "I am sick Doctor." The

Doctor asks, "What is your ailment?" Ngeze replies, "The Tutsis ... Tutsis ...

Tutsis!"18

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that other editorials and articles echoed

the contempt and hatred demonstrated in the "Ten Commandments" and were

intended "to fan the flames of ethnic hatred, resentment and fear against the

Tutsi population and Hutu political opponents who supported the Tutsi ethnic

group." The Tribunal judged that the cover of Kangura No. 26 of November

1991 (see the illustration below), promoted violence by conveying the message

that the "machete should be used to eliminate the Tutsi, once and for all."

18



See http://www.onemancult.com/rwanda/rwandaprop2.html.



The Failure to Prevent Genocide in Rwanda



24



According to the Tribunal, this was a call "for the destruction of the Tutsi ethnic group as SUCh."19

Cover of Kangura No. 26, December 1993: This allusion to the revolution

for independence in 1959 (i.e., the muyaga) appeared on the cover of Kangura

in December 1993 (No. 26). The heading to the right of "SPECIAL" reads:

"Tutsi: Race of God!" The inscription to the right of the machete asks, "What

weapons will we use to win over the inyenzi (cockroaches) for good? What if

the 1959 revolution was brought back in order to beat the Tutsi inyenzi?" The

man photographed is Dominique Mbonyumutwa, a Hutu under-chief (souschefs) in the Gitarama prefecture whose death, supposedly caused by an attack

of a Tutsi mob, was influential in sparking Hutu mobilization and the movement by force for independence. 2o

According to the ICTR, RTLMC's broadcasts "engaged in ethnic stereotyping in a manner that promoted contempt and hatred against the enemy,"

which was defined as the Tutsi ethnic group. The broadcasts called for the extermination of the Tutsi. Both before and after April 6, RTLMC broadcasted names

ofTutsi individuals, their families and Hutu political opponents who supported

the Tutsi ethnic group. In some cases, these persons were subsequently killed.

According to the Tribunal, a "specific causal connection" between the RTLMC

broadcasts and the killing of these individuals was established. 21

The cartoon below appeared on the cover of Zirikana in March 1993 (No.

6). Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) insurgents have captured a family of three

Hutus. The soldier in the foreground is cutting the throat of a baby, after slicing

off its hands and lower legs. He announces, "This piece of meat is very small.

19

20

21



Nahimana case, paragraphs 950, 136-188.

See http://www.onemancult.com/rwanda/rwandaprop 11.html.

Nahimana case, paragraphs 949,342-619.



Interpretation and Implementation of Genocide Convention



25



You and your wife will eat the arms and legs while we will take the liver and

chest, O.K.?" The mother screams in horror. The RPF soldier in the background

asks, "Mam, what's your problem? You didn't give yourself to us. Here we share

everything, right?" The caption on the bottom left reads, "The RPF democracy

in full function: equal shares for all."22

One of the important aspects of this case is the ICTR's judgment on the

required "causation" with respect to the media. The Tribunal decided that "the

nature of media is such that causation of killing and other acts of genocide will

necessarily be effected by an immediately proximate cause in addition to the

communication itself." However, as the Tribunal stated, "this does not diminish the causation to be attributed to the media," or "the criminal accountability of those responsible for the communication."23 In other words, the ICTR

decided that those in control of the media are responsible for its consequences,

and if these consequences comprise genocide, those in control are responsible

for genocide. With respect to this case, the Tribunal decided that there was a

causal relationship: the killing of Tutsi civilians had resulted, at least in part,

from the message of incitement to ethnic killings that was clearly and effectively disseminated through RTLMC and Kangura before and after April 6,

1994. 24 The two cases set out above have shown that the International Tribunal

for Rwanda has given a very wide interpretation to the concepts of genocide

and direct and public incitement to genocide, by which the definition seems to

have broadened. In the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR in 2007 the defense argued

22

23

24



See http://www.onemancult.com/rwanda/rwandaprop 12.html.

Nahimana case, paragraphs 952, 953.

Nahimana case, paragraphs 952-953. For more information, see Gordon.



26



The Failure to Prevent Genocide in Rwanda



that the definition of incitement has been expanded beyond the existing international law. Whereas the prosecutor argued that incitement was synonymous

with instigation, he stated that there is no actual need for the crime to occur in

the case of "incitement to commit genocide."25

Another important aspect of this "media-case" is that the three accused

were largely held accountable for their role in the media prior to the genocide.

In order to make a judgment with regard to Hasan Ngeze, the editor in chief of

Kangura, the Tribunal looked into the content of issues of Kangura published

before the start of the genocide. 26 Furthermore, the verdict of genocide was

largely founded on the article "The Appeal to the Conscience of the Hutu" and

the therein included "Ten Commandments," which were published in December

1990, and on the cover of Kangura No. 29, published in November 1991. 27 In

their verdict on Barayagwiza's case, the ICTR explicitly noted that he was held

responsible for genocide for his active role before the start of the genocide and

his failure to intervene after the start of the genocide. 28 Making a judgment in

Nahimana's case, the Tribunal admitted that Nahimana was less actively involved

in RTLMC after April 6, 1994, the moment when the broadcasts intensified and

called explicitly for the extermination of the Tutsi population, but according to

the Tribunal, the programming ofRTLMC after April 6, was built on the foundations created before that date. As the Tribunal stated, after April 6, RTLMC

did "what Nahimana wanted it to do."29 For these reasons, the Tribunal held

Nahimana responsible for genocide.

It was in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda that convictions

were based on genocide for the first time in history. The hate speeches broadcasted on the radio and printed in newspapers were addressed during the trials,

and it was concluded that the people responsible for hate propaganda broadcasted or published prior to the genocide, but functioning as an incentive to

genocide, must be held responsible for genocide. Such incitements to hate and

to kill an ethnic group were clear "early warnings" of the genocide that followed, and, in retrospect, these radio broadcasts and newspaper articles have

been considered as such. The judgment makes clear that these "early warnings"

can fall under the concept of genocide. Though at the time they were neglected

by the bystanders, after the genocide they were taken extremely seriously by

the court, as these early warnings were classified as genocide.

25

See Press Release, ICTR/INFO-9-2-510.EN, Arusha, January 19,2007: Appeals

Chamber Concludes Hearing in the Media Case, available at http://69.94.11.53/default.

htm.

26

Nahimana case, paragraphs 122-257,950. Note: Kangura's first issue was

published in May 1990 and its last in 1995; during the genocide, no issues were published: Kangura No. 59, published in March 1994, was followed by No. 60 in September

1994. Nahimana case, paragraph 122.

27

Nahimana case, paragraphs 950, 977A.

28

Nahimana case, paragraph 973.

29

Nahimana case, paragraph 974.



CHAPTER 3

RWANDAN HISTORY



3.1 GERMAN COLONIAL RULE



Germany did not playa very active role in the negotiations for the Arusha

Peace Accords, though it was Germany who had arrived in Rwanda as the first

colonial power exactly 100 years before. l

During the division ofAfrica among the European powers in 1884, Rwanda

was ascribed to Germany and consequently Count von Giitzen went to the

African country known as "Ruanda." The Germans were amazed by Rwanda's

well-organized and structured monarchy. In pre-colonial times Rwanda was

already a highly controlled and hierarchical country. The structure was based

on divisions between Province, District, Hill and Neighborhood levels. For

every level, a chief was appointed who ruled that sector. 2 The Rwandan population was divided into three groups: The Twa, who compromised only 1 percent of the population, the Hutu, who were the vast majority, and the Tutsi who

made up 17 percent of the population. These groups could, however, not be seen

as different tribes; they spoke the same language, shared the same religion, told

the same myths and lived in the same places, but they did have different appearances. The Twa were pygmies and thus very small, the Hutu had typical Bantu

features: They were broadly built and short, and the Tutsi were taller and thinner with sharp, angular features. 3 The monarchy was Tutsi, as were most of the



Germany functioned, together with Belgium, France and the United States, as

an observer state during the peace process, meaning that they were present at several

sessions. Howard Adelman and Astri Suhrke, Early warning and conflict management

genocide in Rwanda, p. 12 (1995); Joel Stettenheim, The Arusha Accords and the failure of international intervention in Rwanda, in, Words over war: Mediation and arbitration to prevent deadly conflict, p. 17 (M.C. Greenberg, et al. (eds.), 2002) (hereinafter

Stettenheim).

2

Linda Melvern, A People Betrayed. The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide,

pp. 7-8 (2000) (hereinafter Melvern, 2000); Linda Melvern, Conspiracy to Murder. The

Rwandan Genocide, pp. 7-8 (2004) (hereinafter Melvern, 2004).

3

There is no consensus among historians and anthropologists on the origins of

the divisions between Hutu and Tutsi. Many anthropologists are of the opinion that the

27



28



The Failure to Prevent Genocide in Rwanda



king's army and the provincial, hill and district chiefs. 4 The neighborhoods were

mostly run by Hutu who obeyed the orders of those above them in the hierarchy, thus predominantly Tutsi. The Germans, who were only present in a very

small number, followed a policy of indirect rule and allowed Rwanda's monarchy to continue. German colonial rule continued the Tutsi dominance and reinforced the position of power of the Tutsi's.5



3.2 BELGIAN COLONIAL RULE

The German rule in Rwanda was taken over by the Belgians after the First

World War. From 1926 Belgium began to implement their colonization policy.

The Belgian policy measures reinforced further the Tutsi dominance in the

authoritative functions and supremacy over the Hutu population in daily life.

The above-mentioned provincial, hill and district chiefs under the original

Rwandan regime were merged into one, and these new positions were almost

always given to Tutsis. One chief only, often a Tutsi, now controlled the rural

Hutu who, under the previous system, had been able to maintain some influence by manipulating the chief of one level against the chief of another level. 6

The result of the Belgian rule was therefore that the Hutu were systematically

removed from positions of power.

A second Belgian policy measure was the introduction of new rules regarding land division, which meant that "the state" could gain control of the traditional Hutu landholdings in the Northwest and the Southwest of the country.7

Since the Tutsi were those holding the positions of "chief" in "the state," it was

the Tutsi who gained power over these landholdings. 8 Another development that

accelerated the supremacy of the Tutsi over the Hutu was the foundation of the

privatization rules. In this context too, it was predominantly the Tutsi who gained

from these rules; because they were closest to the people in political control in



distinction is caused by a difference in class or caste. The Tutsi are said to originate from

the northern part of Africa and have migrated south. For more information, see Gerard

Prunier, The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide (1959-1994), p. 12 (1995) (hereinafter Prunier); Antoine Lema, African divided: the creation of Ethnic Groups, p. 53

(1993) (hereinafter Lema); Peter Verlinden, Hutu en Tutsi, Eeuwen strijd, p. 27 (1995)

(hereinafter Verlinden); Alison Des Forges, Leave None to Tell the Story, Genocide in

Rwanda, pp. 32-33 (1999) (hereinafter Des Forges).

4

The word Hutu means "servant" or "subject," and the word Tutsi means "those

rich in cattle."

5

Prunier, pp. 24--45; Verlinden, pp. 34, 37.

Prunier, p. 27.

For more information, see Prunier, pp. 27-28.

For more information, see Prunier, pp. 27-28.



Rwandan History



29



governmental service, they therefore gained control in the public administration of these previously private, mostly Hutu-owned lands. 9 Furthermore, the

Hutu were excluded from higher education, which was education mostly necessary for careers in positions of public authority.Io



3.2.1



Belgian Introduction of Identity Cards



As a result of the favoring rules regarding administrative posts and education for Tutsi, the Belgians needed to know who was a Tutsi and who was not.

Therefore, in 1933, all Rwandans were given an identity card by which they

were classified as Hutu, Tusti or Twa. II Depending on their appearance, looking like a Tutsi, Hutu or Twa, they were classified as belonging to one group

or the other. As a result of inter-marriages that in certain parts of Rwanda were

very common, it was impossible to divide many Rwandans into certain groups

on the basis of their physical features alone. Wealth could also be a decisive

factor in gaining one identity card or another. People who had a lot of money

or many cows were often able to obtain a Tutsi card. The cards caused discrimination against the Hutu population in all aspects of daily life, which forced

hundreds of thousands of Hutu to flee to neighboring countries. I2

Whether the European colonization incited the violence between the Hutu

and Tutsi, eventually leading to the genocide, is highly debated among critics.

However, Prunier has formulated the following generally agreed view: "Rwanda

was definitely not a land of peace and bucolic harmony before the arrival of

the Europeans, but there is no trace in its pre-colonial history of systematic

violence between Tutsi and Hutu as SUCh."I3 Colonial rule vested feelings of

superiority in the Tutsis. Destexhe has summarized the colonial rule as follows:

"Thus, in short, if the categories of Hutu and Tutsi's were not actually invented

by the colonizers, the policies practiced by the Germans and Belgians only

served to exacerbate them. They played an essential role in creating an ethnic

split and ensured that the important feeling of belonging to a social group was

fuelled by ethnic, indeed racial, hatred."14



Prunier, p. 28.

Des Forges, p. 35.

11

Des Forges, p. 37.

12

Melvern, 2004 p. 6; Des Forges, p. 37.

13

Prunier, p. 39.

14

Alain Destexhe, Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, p. 41 (1996)

(hereinafter Destexhe).

10



30



The Failure to Prevent Genocide in Rwanda



3.3 HUTU DOMINANCE AFTER INDEPENDENCE

The killing of hundreds of thousands ofTutsi in the genocide of 1994 constituted by far the worst massacre between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwandan history.

However, this massacre was certainly not the first.

Under pressure of the U.N. Trusteeship Council, the Belgians started to

slowly increase the number of Hutu in positions of public authority during the

1950s. More Hutu were placed in important administrative positions and admitted to education. Despite this first initiative, the process did not go fast enough

for the Hutu. To end their subjugated position under the Tutsi elite, the Hutu

started a violent political combat in 1957. A Hutu mobilization published a

"manifesto" calling for majority rule and emancipation. They encouraged the

belief that the Tutsi were not Rwandans but invaders from the North who had

gained power and enslaved the HutU. I5

In 1959, following a number of incidents, grave violence of the Hutu against

the Tutsi broke out. 16 The Hutu, who had gained more control over the last years,

started to hunt down the Tutsi minority. The violence spread rapidly from one

hill to another. How many people were killed is unclear. Different estimates

have been made, but it is clear that thousands of Tutsi fled. I7 A special U.N.

mission to Rwanda came back with a report talking about "Nazism against Tutsi

minorities" and "artificially engineered hostility between the ethnic groups that

led to the murder of around 2,000 people."18 Despite the ongoing violence, local

elections were held in June and July 1960, which resulted in a victory for the

Parmehutu party. 19

15

Since 1945 the United Nations has been focused on the Belgian role in Rwanda.

Belgium was criticized for their causation of the predominant status of the Tutsi population. Between 1948 and 1962, the U.N. Trusteeship Council sent five visiting missions

to Rwanda, all of whom produced very critical reports. Belgium then started, though

very slowly, to introduce electoral procedures. Melvern, 2000 p. 13; Prunier, pp. 41-52.

In 1957 the U.N. Trusteeship Council published a report that stated that it found "little

hope for rapprochement between the races." The report called upon the Belgians to

replace the Tutsi authorities with Hutu. Melvern, 2000 p. 13; Prunier, pp. 41-52.

16

In 1959 the Tutsi king, Mutara Rudahigwa, who had always tried to keep the

situation calm, died in mysterious circumstances. The Tutsi elite blamed the Belgians

and the Hutu extremists. His half-brother, Kigeri Ndahindurwa, who was influenced by

the most conservative Tutsi group, succeeded the King. In November 1959, a Hutu leader

was attacked by several Tutsi, which led to an eruption of violence. Prunier, pp. 48--49;

Verlinden, p. 81 states that 160,000 Tutsis fled to neighboring countries.

17

Dozens of Tutsi petitions were sent to the United Nations stating that the

killings had been planned and organized. Melvern, 2004 p. 7; Prunier, p. 51.

18

GA Res. 1743 (XVI) (A/5l26) May 30, 1962, Question of the Future of

Ruanda-Burundi. For more information, see Melvern, 2004 p. 7.

19

Parti du Mouvement de l'Emancipation Hutu was a Hutu party that called for

the end of the Tutsi colonisation before ending the Belgian colonization. Prunier, p. 51;

Melvern, 2000 pp. 14,240. For more information, see Prunier, pp. 49-59.



Rwandan History



31



On July 1, 1962, Rwanda became independent. The Hutu Gregoire Kayibanda won the presidential election with a large majority, and he immediately

abolished the monarchy. Kayibanda is understood as the founding father of

"Hutu nationalism."20 He installed a quota system providing that only 9 percent of Tutsi were allowed access to education and employment. Many Tutsi

were thrown out of their jobs. Hutu students started to check the bloodlines of

students to see whether someone was Hutu or Tutsi. Lists ofTutsi students were

put up on the wall. During the first years of Kayibanda's rule, the thousands of

Tutsi living in neighboring countries, who were denied entry to Rwanda, tried

to fight their way back into Rwanda. These invasions led to reprisals by the

Hutu authority on the Tutsi still living within Rwanda. 21 The only Tutsi attack

that seriously threatened Kayibanda's regime took place in December 1963. 22

As a result, Kayibanda started a campaign to kill the Tutsi, starting with the

elimination of political opponents. An estimated 10,000 Tutsi were killed between

December 1963 and January 1964. 23 In 1964 Kayibanda spoke the words: "if

the Tutsi ever seek to obtain political power again they will find that the whole

Tutsi race will be wiped out." There was total impunity for the perpetrators of

these killings. 24 Des Forges states that 20,000 Tutsis were killed and 300,000

were made refugees. 25

With Juvenal Habyarimana's coup, Kayiabanda was removed in July 1973.

Habyarimana was the most senior officer in the army. He was welcomed by the

Tutsi population because he promised to unite the country, and indeed under

his rule violence against the Tutsi ceased, and peace and stability arrived in

Rwanda. However, this stability came with the price of living in a totalitarian

regime. Rwanda became a strict one-party country.26 Habyarimana's party, the

Mouvement Revolutionnaire National pour Ie Developpement (MRND), was

the only party allowed, and everyone, including babies, had to be a member.

Despite the termination of the violence, the Tutsi were still being discriminated

against. Habyarimana kept the identity card and the quota system for education. However, compared to Kayibanda's regime, life for the Tutsi minority was

now livable. Some Tutsi had even managed to become prosperous businessmen,

but the "unspoken rule" stated: "Stay out of politics: that is Hutu preserve."27



Melvern, 2000 pp. 17-18; Melvern, 2004 pp. 8-10; Prunier, p. 57.

Kayibanda used the horrific events in Burundi in 1962, where an estimated

200,000 Hutu were killed, to wash out the Tutsi population. Melvern, 2000 p. 21; Melvern,

2004 p. 10.

22

Around 1,500 men recruited from the refugee camps in Burundi tried to oust

Kayibanda, but failed. Prunier, pp. 56-57.

23

Melvern, 2004 p. 8; Prunier, p. 56.

24

Peter Uvin, Aiding Violence, The Development Enterprise in Rwanda, p. 37

(1998) (hereinafter Uvin).

25

Des Forges, p. 40.

26

Des Forges, p. 40; Melvern, 2004 p. 11; Prunier, pp. 75-77.

27

Melvern, 2004 p. 12.

20

21