jMali
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 9, 2010
- 8,412
- 5,013
One of the Rwandan Academics used their mouth piece New times inadvertently or inadvertently to mislead the Rwandan people that, the Rwanda's Head of the National Intelligence and Security Services, Lt. Gen Karenzi Karake, has or had immunity at the time of his arrest in London on 20th June while on spy mission in UK.
The UK has an overwhelming legal obligation derived in the European solidarity to arrest any person who is wanted or legally suspected of any wrong doing by their European counterparts as long as is on their soil. It is in this regard that Gen. Karenzi Karake was arrested by the UK Police on the European arrest warrant following a request issued by a Spanish judge.
Gen. Karenzi Karake is one of the 39 senior Rwandan officials who were indicted in 2008 by a Spanish court on charges of war crimes and the killing of three Spanish nationals working for Medicos del Mondo.
The author in the New times is not only confused but also confuses immunity accorded to foreign diplomats accredited to other countries with any person in special mission abroad. However, he might be misinterpreting the Vienna Convention with intent to please his ignorant dictator or die another day.
According to this Rwandan academic Karenzi Karake's arrest, detention and prosecution raises questions regarding the immunity of foreign officials from criminal prosecution in foreign domestic courts. The particular question at issue in the Karenzi's arrest is: was he entitled to personal immunity? Was it lawful for UK to arrest a senior Rwandan official who was on official duties in the UK? Or was Karenzi Karake within that category of officials who are entitled to personal immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign States for so long as they serve in their official capacity?
He further says that, there are two types of immunity which may prevent the prosecution of a State official in a foreign domestic court. First, international law confers upon certain State officials personal immunity (or ratione personae immunity) that attach to the office or status of the official. These immunities are accorded only as long as the official remains in office. The predominant justification for such immunities is that they ensure the smooth conduct of international relations and, as such, they are accorded to those state officials who represent the state at the inter-national level. The second is functional immunity (or ratione materiae immunity), which is attached to official acts, rather than private acts. As this type of immunity attaches to the official act rather than the status of the official, it may be relied on by all who have acted on behalf of the state with respect to their official acts. Thus, this conduct-based immunity may be relied on by former officials in respect of official acts performed while in office as well as by serving state officials.
I will argue that Karenzi Karake does not have any Immunity simply because he is Spy Master of Rwanda coming to UK. The author defeats his argument by saying that, international law confers upon certain State officials personal immunity (or ration personae immunity). The word certain is enough to the readers of his article to know that Karenzi is not in those who are in that certain group to be accorded the above immunity, neither should any official of any country who is on official duty be accorded immunity under international law.
Furthermore, the crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes do not have any immunity that's why even today the Sudan President is wanted by the ICC and recently narrowly escaped an arrest in South Africa while attending the African Heads of State Summit. Indeed, some of the Crimes that this Rwandan Suspect is being indicted were committed while he was a rebel reader not a government.
Another dictator the Chilean former President Augusto Pinochet was arrested by the UK Police in 1998 .General Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator who presided over a 17-year reign of terror and ordered foreign assassinations, was arrested at a London hospital by police acting on a request from Spain.
The only defense for Gen. Pinochet was that he was not fit to stand trial because of his old age, the UK Judges dismissed the defence that he had immunity as a former Head of State.President Kagame although he survived an arrest in USA again on crimes against humanity in Rwanda and Congo, this should not be translated into legal immunity but rather a political immunity that would be wavered any time he misbehaves and falls out with his backers in both USA and Some European nations or leaves power.
On the Immunity accorded to foreign officials accredited to other countries are enshrined in Vienna Convention in particular Article 29 1969, the personal immunity of state officials on special missions which provides that: "the persons of the representatives of the sending State in the special mission and of the members of its diplomatic staff shall be inviolable.
This is where my learned colleague either does not grasp the interpretation or deliberately omits the facts of this Article for the sake of making Kagame and some Rwandans happy. This Article is clear and precise on who is covered by the Immunity. It's only the persons representing other countries in the host state, in simple language diplomats or ambassadors. Was Karake an ambassador or a diplomat accredited to UK? In fact before any country accepts a diplomat, he is vetted by the receiving state, if it finds that he is not clean, the receiving state reserves the right to decline him/her.
Indeed, no country on this planet Earth would allow Karenzi Karake on its soil as a diplomat except North Korea or China.
The problem in the Rwandan academic system today under the RPF they lack critical analysis and all the facts are left out for either die another day or deliberately missed out because the system inherits the same semi- professionals who are half- baked in the same oven and recycled academics system
Finally my legal advice to the Rwandan officials is that, at no time they should invoke the defense of Immunity Karenzi Karake, because he does not have one and the crimes that he committed do not have that status and as such are not covered by Article 29 of Vienna Convention 1969.
Joseph Ruhumuriza
Legal Counsel, Great Lakes Human Rights Link.
The UK has an overwhelming legal obligation derived in the European solidarity to arrest any person who is wanted or legally suspected of any wrong doing by their European counterparts as long as is on their soil. It is in this regard that Gen. Karenzi Karake was arrested by the UK Police on the European arrest warrant following a request issued by a Spanish judge.
Gen. Karenzi Karake is one of the 39 senior Rwandan officials who were indicted in 2008 by a Spanish court on charges of war crimes and the killing of three Spanish nationals working for Medicos del Mondo.
The author in the New times is not only confused but also confuses immunity accorded to foreign diplomats accredited to other countries with any person in special mission abroad. However, he might be misinterpreting the Vienna Convention with intent to please his ignorant dictator or die another day.
According to this Rwandan academic Karenzi Karake's arrest, detention and prosecution raises questions regarding the immunity of foreign officials from criminal prosecution in foreign domestic courts. The particular question at issue in the Karenzi's arrest is: was he entitled to personal immunity? Was it lawful for UK to arrest a senior Rwandan official who was on official duties in the UK? Or was Karenzi Karake within that category of officials who are entitled to personal immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign States for so long as they serve in their official capacity?
He further says that, there are two types of immunity which may prevent the prosecution of a State official in a foreign domestic court. First, international law confers upon certain State officials personal immunity (or ratione personae immunity) that attach to the office or status of the official. These immunities are accorded only as long as the official remains in office. The predominant justification for such immunities is that they ensure the smooth conduct of international relations and, as such, they are accorded to those state officials who represent the state at the inter-national level. The second is functional immunity (or ratione materiae immunity), which is attached to official acts, rather than private acts. As this type of immunity attaches to the official act rather than the status of the official, it may be relied on by all who have acted on behalf of the state with respect to their official acts. Thus, this conduct-based immunity may be relied on by former officials in respect of official acts performed while in office as well as by serving state officials.
I will argue that Karenzi Karake does not have any Immunity simply because he is Spy Master of Rwanda coming to UK. The author defeats his argument by saying that, international law confers upon certain State officials personal immunity (or ration personae immunity). The word certain is enough to the readers of his article to know that Karenzi is not in those who are in that certain group to be accorded the above immunity, neither should any official of any country who is on official duty be accorded immunity under international law.
Furthermore, the crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes do not have any immunity that's why even today the Sudan President is wanted by the ICC and recently narrowly escaped an arrest in South Africa while attending the African Heads of State Summit. Indeed, some of the Crimes that this Rwandan Suspect is being indicted were committed while he was a rebel reader not a government.
Another dictator the Chilean former President Augusto Pinochet was arrested by the UK Police in 1998 .General Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator who presided over a 17-year reign of terror and ordered foreign assassinations, was arrested at a London hospital by police acting on a request from Spain.
The only defense for Gen. Pinochet was that he was not fit to stand trial because of his old age, the UK Judges dismissed the defence that he had immunity as a former Head of State.President Kagame although he survived an arrest in USA again on crimes against humanity in Rwanda and Congo, this should not be translated into legal immunity but rather a political immunity that would be wavered any time he misbehaves and falls out with his backers in both USA and Some European nations or leaves power.
On the Immunity accorded to foreign officials accredited to other countries are enshrined in Vienna Convention in particular Article 29 1969, the personal immunity of state officials on special missions which provides that: "the persons of the representatives of the sending State in the special mission and of the members of its diplomatic staff shall be inviolable.
This is where my learned colleague either does not grasp the interpretation or deliberately omits the facts of this Article for the sake of making Kagame and some Rwandans happy. This Article is clear and precise on who is covered by the Immunity. It's only the persons representing other countries in the host state, in simple language diplomats or ambassadors. Was Karake an ambassador or a diplomat accredited to UK? In fact before any country accepts a diplomat, he is vetted by the receiving state, if it finds that he is not clean, the receiving state reserves the right to decline him/her.
Indeed, no country on this planet Earth would allow Karenzi Karake on its soil as a diplomat except North Korea or China.
The problem in the Rwandan academic system today under the RPF they lack critical analysis and all the facts are left out for either die another day or deliberately missed out because the system inherits the same semi- professionals who are half- baked in the same oven and recycled academics system
Finally my legal advice to the Rwandan officials is that, at no time they should invoke the defense of Immunity Karenzi Karake, because he does not have one and the crimes that he committed do not have that status and as such are not covered by Article 29 of Vienna Convention 1969.
Joseph Ruhumuriza
Legal Counsel, Great Lakes Human Rights Link.
