1117
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’
Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the Great Lakes
Region
Callixte Kavuro
Abstract
This paper reflects on the complex dynamics of the relationship between forced
repatriation of Hutu refugees with protracted refugee situations and insecurity
prevailing in the Great Lakes region, in particular, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (DRC). It critiques misconceived and misguided regional and
international responses to the influx of Hutu refugees. The refugees were initially
stereotyped as fleeing from prosecution and their influx was seen as a source of
friction between Rwanda and its neighbouring countries and as burden to host
countries’ social and economic progress. Viewing them as fugitives and as an
economic burden, host countries forced Hutu refugees to return. This was done
in cooperation with the Rwandan government (i.e. the persecutor) under
auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The
purpose of this paper is to illustrate that the forced repatriation resulted not only
in the resistance of the Hutu refugees, but also in turning the territory of the DRC
into a fully-fledged battlefield for the Hutus and Tutsis. Further, it is argued that
this Hutu-Tutsi conflict gave rise to the recurring cycle of violence in the eastern
DRC.
Keywords Ethnic conflict, genocide, mass murder, Hutu refugees, cessation
clause, mass repatriation, armed resistance, regional insecurity.
Introduction
The eastern DRC has been characterised by recurring and persistent armed
violence since 1996, when the Rwandan Defence Force (RDF) crossed the
border to repatriate Hutu refugees that were viewed as a threat to the newly
established government of the former Tutsi-dominated rebel movement, the
Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)-Inkotanyi. At the time, the international
community supported the RDF invasion of the DRC as the RDF was, ironically,
applauded for putting an end to genocide in Rwanda when, in fact, they
triggered it (Erlinder, 2013; Rever, 2018). The invasion was not viewed as a
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Public Law, Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Email:
callixtekav@gmail.com
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’ Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the
Great Lakes Region
1118
violation of international law, but rather as a noble cause to pursue and
forcefully repatriate Hutu refugees who were believed to have fled from
criminal accountability. Millions of Hutu refugees were viewed not only as
genocidaires but also as a burden to host countries (Whitaker, 2002).
Viewing Hutu refugees as a burden and as fugitives led countries of the Great
Lakes region to expel the refugees from their territories in 1996, which
resulted in Hutu refugees taking up arms to resist their expulsion. Today, Hutu
refugees are symptomatic of the tragedy of ongoing armed conflicts and
political violence prevailing in the Great Lakes region, specifically the DRC. The
nature of the instability of the DRC is both regional and international since it
affects regional peace and stability, thereby involving regional countries as
well as the international community. As a result, African states are committed
to restoring peace and stability and encouraging development under the
Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the DRC and the region. This
document was signed in Addis Ababa on 24 February 2013 under the auspices
of its guarantors, the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN), the
Chairperson of the African Union (AU) Commission, the Chairperson of the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Chairperson of the
International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR).
In light of this context, this paper seeks to explore Rwanda’s invasion of the
DRC for the purpose of forcing Hutu refugees to repatriate, as well as the nexus
between regional insecurity and this forced repatriation. From a theoretical
point of view, the paper works under the presupposition that, today, the Great
Lakes region is marred with violence and armed conflict. The volatile situation
– which negatively impacts the regional economic stability – has attracted
regional and international interventions to restore peace. For instance, the UN
deployed a peace-keeping mission, known as the UN Organisation
Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), and
the SADC deployed troops from Malawi, Tanzania and South Africa under the
Force Intervention Brigade (FIB). Both of these efforts had a mandate to
neutralise and disarm Congolese and foreign armed groups.
Accordingly, this paper focuses primarily on the driving factors causing Hutu
refugees to engage in armed resistance and the implications of such armed
resistance on regional peace and stability. Methodologically, the paper draws
on literature to demonstrate that the Hutu refugees’ protracted situation was
created by consistent and repeated attempts by Rwanda to encourage the
UNHCR to invoke article 1C(5)-(6) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Callixte Kavuro
1119
Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (the 1951 Refugee Convention), so as
to ensure that Hutus are criminally held accountable upon return. In light of
this, the paper explores the relationship between the RPF’s obsession with
controlling all Hutus, resulting in the furtherance of armed violence. In
addition, a critical analysis of the causes and rationale for armed violence is
approached from the standpoint of illuminating the marginalisation and
objectification of Hutu refugees on the basis of collective guilt of genocide,
coupled with their lack of political muscle to voice their views. More
fundamentally, the armed violence is critically analysed through the lens of the
deep-seated Rwandan ethnic conflict.
Rwandan Political Turmoil from a Historical Perspective
Historical Hutu-Tutsi Conflicts
During the pre-colonial era, the Hutu majority was marginalised and
subjugated by the Tutsi minority (14% of the population). The Germans and
Belgians – who held colonial rule – socially and politically intensified this
marginalisation when they positioned Tutsis as superior to Hutus (85% of the
population) and Twas (1% of the population) (White, 2009: 474). This
fragmentation of society engendered ethnic conflict, which manifested itself in
the form of mono-ethnic governance replete with inhumane and
discriminatory practices that continued to subject Hutus and Twas to ill-
treatment (Kintu, 2005: 2). Prior to independence, Hutus and Twas were
treated as secondary citizens and were socially positioned as slaves to their
superiors, the Tutsis (ibid.). This was reflected in the letters and
memorandums sent to the UN Visiting Mission (the Mission) in the 1950s.
When Hutus submitted a memorandum, known as the “Bahutu Manifesto”, to
the Mission, which contained their moral and political views on how the
iniquities of the time could be redressed in order to achieve a just and equal
society, the Tutsis wrote letters dated 17th May 1958 addressed to the same
Mission. In the letters, they emphatically stressed that Hutu and Tutsi were not
related and could never, in any way whatsoever, act in the spirit of
brotherhood (Oppenheim & Van der Wolf, 2000: 31). These letters stated that
Hutu and Tutsi do not share the same ancestors, but only share a slave-master
relationship. The letters had the following implications. Firstly, they were a
true reflection of the institutionalised racism inherent in the assumption that
Tutsis were superior to Hutus because of their non-African roots as per the
colonial master’s view (White, 2009: 474). Secondly, they set out the course of
future Rwandan politics in that they contributed immensely to the 1959 social
revolution that ultimately culminated in deposing the Tutsi monarchy and
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’ Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the
Great Lakes Region
1120
installing the Hutu majority regime as a republic on 28 January 1961 (Ibid:
475; Twagilimana, 2015: 130).
Consequently, when Hutus ascended to power, two historical events occurred.
Firstly, Tutsi fled the country to defy being governed by their servants, the
Hutus. Secondly, they used every means necessary to depose the Hutu
majority government. They formed a rebel movement known as INYENZI, an
acronym for “Ingangurarugo ziyemeje kuba ingenzi,” literally meaning “those
who attack first and who have vowed to be the best” (Kaarsholm, 2006: 84;
Thompson, 2007: 84; Twagilimana, 2015: 114). INYENZI instigated sporadic
insurgencies between 1961 and 1967, waged for the purpose of restoring
Tutsi supremacy in Rwanda (Banton, 1995: 5). Fearing Tutsi oppression and
subjugation, Hutus retaliated mercilessly to any incursion. Each Tutsi
incursion was followed by outbursts of reprisal killings against Tutsi civilians,
which, in turn, uprooted them to seek asylum in neighbouring countries
(White, 2009: 475). The combination of governmental military operations and
civilian retaliatory attacks brought the INYENZI’s insurgencies to an end in
1967 (Ibid.).
The acts of aggression were, however, revived on 1 October 1990 under the
banner of the RPF-Inkotanyi. This was after the Tutsi refugees’ objection to a
voluntary repatriation programme, initiated and encouraged by the Hutu
regime. Rather, they opted to return through military actions, which later
resulted in instability first in Uganda, then Rwanda, and now the DRC. Regional
instability is rooted in the Tutsian understanding that leadership belongs to
them and that every means necessary should be used to protect their
leadership. The instability is exacerbated by Hutu refugees who are not willing
to accept defeat and surrender themselves to Tutsis, as this would imply that
Tutsis are superior to them. Put briefly, the current political struggle and
armed conflict is embedded in two contrasting beliefs: one belief holds that
Hutus should be under control of Tutsian authoritarian leadership, while the
other belief holds that there should be a Hutu majority rule through
democratic processes.
Roots and Causes of Hutu Refugees
The fall of President Obote of Uganda can be said to be the root cause of Hutu
becoming refugees. Although it may sound unusual to make such an assertion,
the reality is that Tutsi refugees engaged in Museveni’s armed rebellion that
ousted the Obote government in 1986. Despite their major role in establishing
Callixte Kavuro
1121
the Museveni regime, it did not sit well with Ugandans to see Tutsi refugees
assuming powerful positions and ranks in the newly established government.
This led Museveni “to support their return to Rwanda by force of arms”
(Erlinder, 2013: 65). On 1 October 1990, Tutsi refugees invaded Rwanda
under the RPF movement. As a result, Rwanda experienced armed violence,
massacres and atrocities that uprooted a large percentage of the population
during the course of the civil war (Ndagijimana, 2009). The RPF army is wholly
to blame for initiating and carrying out a systematic genocide of Hutus as part
of a campaign of cleansing intended to clear certain areas for Tutsi habitation
or, more clearly, to establish Tutsiland (Deme, 2010: 157; Erlinder, 2013: 42).
The RPF’s military tactics were centred on causing terror in the mind of the
Hutus in that the RPF army deliberately targeted Hutu civilians. It is reported
that, between 1990 and 1998, shell and mortar were deliberately fired into
densely populated villages, centres and towns, as well as in camps housing
internally displaced people (IDP), killing many Hutu civilians (UN Security
Council, S/1994/1157, para 31). In addition, the RPF, prior to the fall of the
Kigali capital, managed to carry out assassinations of Hutu elites countrywide
through infiltration of the Hutu regime. Assassinations included the Hutu
presidents Juvenal Habyarimana of Rwanda and Cyprien Ntaryamira of
Burundi. Their deaths remain at the centre of conflict today.
These facts are still unknown to many because the official narrative of the
victors, the Tutsis, disregards them. This official narrative blames Hutus for
planning and carrying out the genocide of Tutsis. The alternative narrative,
however, recognises that both warring parties engaged in wanton killings and
thus defined the tragedy, which hit the country as from 1990 as the Rwandan
genocide. The alternative narratives take into account three theoretical
assertions. The first assertion considers that there was the “genocide against
the Tutsis”, implying that there was a genocidal mass killing of Tutsis by Hutus.
The second assertion acknowledges that there was a “counter genocide
against Hutus”, implying that the RPF’s troops were responsible for a litany of
atrocities and massacres against Hutus, especially after the Tutsi genocide
ended (Pean, 2005; Davenport & Stam, 2009; Collier & Strain, 2014: 72; Wells
& Fellows, 2016: 61). The third assertion considers that the RPF systematically
murdered thousands of people – overwhelmingly Hutus, along with Tutsi, Twa
and others – as it advanced across the country in 1994, thousands more in
gruesome massacres and summary executions after coming into power, and
tens of thousands during the 1996 military campaign to destroy Hutu refugee
camps and neutralise the defeated Forces Armée Rwandaise (FAR) combatants
(Longman, 2009: 309).
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’ Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the
Great Lakes Region
1122
When the Tutsis retained control of the country on 4 July 1994, many Hutus
defied governance by Tutsis. Due to the vivid memories of the pre-
independence Tutsi autocracy, coupled with the RPF’s campaign of terror,
Hutus fled Rwanda to neighbouring countries en mass. In response to this, the
RPF troops immediately initiated “the hot pursuit operation”, aimed at forcing
Hutu refugees to return. In 1995, this operation launched an unprovoked
military assault on civilian refugees at Kibeho IDPs Camp, who had been fearful
of returning home due to the RPF’s terror (Khan, 2000: 106; Binet, 2016: 107).
Military assault resulted in the killing of tens of thousands of Hutus. The
assault was morally justified on the basis of reprisal attacks, as Hutus were
collectively accused of committing genocide and fleeing from prosecution
(MSF, 1995). These atrocities followed the June 1994 mass killings of
Gakurazo, in which Roman Catholic Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Brothers
and Sisters (of Hutu backgrounds) perished along with their congregations
(Reyntjens, 2013: 57). The gruesome assassination of Hutu preachers served
as a strong message to Hutus that the RPF government would spare no one. It
was also compelling evidence of the intent to instigate fear in the minds of the
Hutu community. Throughout the occurrence of these events, there was a
deafening silence from the UNHCR and international community. This silence
marked the start of the RPF government’s campaign to force Hutu refugees to
return en mass. Forced repatriation started at home and gradually extended to
include Hutu refugees who sought asylum in neighbouring countries. The RPF
pursued them not only to ensure their return but also to destroy them (UN
Mapping Report, 2010: paras 191-193, 495). It is this hot pursuit of Hutu
refugees in the deep forests of the DRC that created instability and the collapse
of the country, as the invading army left destruction and insecurity in their
wake, thereby further weakening the sovereignty of the DRC. Consequently,
the fervent pursuit of Hutu refugees resulted in the overthrow of the Mobutu
regime and the establishment of Laurent Kabila’s regime. Despite their efforts
to escape from the RPF attacks, a large number of Hutu refugees had no
alternative but to return. When they did, Hutu elites were selected from
returnees and were either killed or jailed (Erlinder, 2013; Rever, 2018).
Callixte Kavuro
1123
Regional Responses and Their Contribution to the Conflict
Massive Expulsion
The first regional response to the influx of Hutu refugees was expulsion. The
RPF’s invasion of the DRC in 1996 triggered the wave of expulsion or forced
repatriation of Hutu refugees. Fear of being invaded by the RPF led the
government of Tanzania to unleash its heavily armed troops to repatriate Hutu
refugees by force under a military operation dubbed “Operesheni Rudisha
Wakimpizi”, in English “Operation Return Refugees” (Whitaker, 2002: 330).
The Ugandan and Burundian governments used similar force. This mass
expulsion angered the Hutu refugees and thus motivated them to take up arms
and defend themselves against the injustice, vindictiveness, cruelty and
repression. When Hutu refugees took up arms to defend themselves, Rwanda
and its neighbouring countries initiated joint military operations – dubbed
Umoja Wetu, Amani Leo, Kimya I and Kimya II – aimed at compelling Hutu
refugees to return under the façade of combatting, neutralising and
eliminating Hutu militia elements (Trefon, 2011: 64; Levine, 2013: 260, 266).
Forced repatriation practically and fundamentally impairs and undermines
the human dignity of refugees. The use of force or duress to induce refugees’
return is not only contrary to international refugee law, but also deprives
refugees of their humanity, as they are treated like objects. This objectification
deprives them of their human dignity, individual autonomy and freedom of
choice. What pained Hutu refugees, and still pains them, is that this
objectification spurred the UNHCR to surrender them to their oppressor, the
RPF. Objectification of Hutu refugees is one of the reasons that Hutu refugees
resisted their oppression through violence in the DRC. In turn, the violence
fuelled insecurity in the region as the resistance levelled up.
Contribution to Criminal Justice
From the outset, Hutus who took flight from the RPF’s litany of atrocities and
massacres were not viewed as refugees but as outcasts due to the perceived
belief that they had committed genocide in Rwanda, with an estimated
800,000 Tutsi and Hutu civilians dying in the space of 100 days. In the eyes of
the UNHCR and host communities, they were seen as cold-hearted fugitives
undeserving of the right to seek and obtain refuge, not to mention unworthy
of being treated with dignity. They are not what they portrayed to be.
However, as fugitives, they were not afforded refugee and human rights
protection as no country was prepared to be a hub for criminals. As alleged
criminals, they were deprived of liberties to participate in decision-making,
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’ Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the
Great Lakes Region
1124
including voicing their views, deciding their destinies and making moral
choices about their futures. The societies of the Great Lakes region that should
have provided them with a safe haven instead reacted by expelling them en
mass back to Rwanda to account for their alleged crimes. Proceeding from this
premise, forced repatriation was employed as a strategy to ensure that Hutu
refugees, as genocidaires, were returned home to receive punishment for
fictitious crimes. It was believed that they should not evade justice. However,
nothing was done to separate suspects from genuine refugees. This purposeful
absence of separating the bad elements from the good elements ensured that
the burden of protecting the refugees as a collective group was lessened. As
such, the forced repatriation was based on the premise of collective guilt,
which consolidated and fuelled Hutu-Tutsi conflict that turned the territory of
the DRC into a zone of fully-fledged armed conflict.
Abandoning Refugees to Their Own Fate
Viewing Hutu refugees as criminals, the UNHCR turned its back on them. This
resulted in their exposure to serious violations of international humanitarian
law, including murder, torture, beatings, rape and other forms of ill-treatment,
such as the denial of medication, food and water. The RPF committed these
crimes against humanity in an effort to force Hutu refugees to return.
Surprisingly, during forced repatriation processes, the UNHCR offered
financial, technical and logistical assistance to the RPF and host countries.
Nevertheless, all refugees did not return. Today, there are approximately 245
000 Hutu refugees in the forests of the DRC, who do not receive any
humanitarian relief or assistance from the UNHCR or any other humanitarian
organisation.
Forced repatriation was characterised by the criminal and vengeful spirit of
the RPF troops as President Kagame himself affirmed. At the swearing-in
ceremony of his army officers on 13 April 2010, President Kagame stated: “We
have done all we promised […] Those who preferred repatriation were safely
brought into the country, but those who chose otherwise were shot. That is
what we did” (Rwandainfo, 2010). Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the
findings of the 2010 UN Mapping Report (2010: paras 22-33) demonstrate
that the vast majority of the 617 most serious incidents committed in the
territory of the DRC by the RPF and its allies included war crimes and crimes
against humanity committed against Hutu refugees and Congolese people.
Callixte Kavuro
1125
In particular, the 2010 UN Mapping Report notes with concern that there were
crimes of genocide committed against the Hutu population. The report states
that Hutus – Congolese citizens and refugees alike – were targeted by the RPF
as an ethnic group under multiple attacks. It further indicates that in the First
Congo War (July 1996 - July 1998), Laurent-Désiré Kabila’s Alliance des Forces
Démocratiques pour la Libération du Congo-Zaire (AFDL) campaign to oust
the regime of Mobutu with the support of the RPF troops was characterised by
the RPF troops’ relentless pursuit of Hutu refugees across the entire Congolese
territory (ibid: paras 191-193). After the destruction of their refugee camps,
Hutus began their long trek across the country from the eastern DRC westward
towards Angola, Congo-Brazaville and the Central African Republic (CAR). In
this desperate journey, they were rounded up and either shot or bombed by
the RPF troops. Accordingly, there were widespread incidents of planned and
systematic massacres and killings, which targeted Hutu refugees, resulting in
the death of men, women, children, the sick and the elderly. The UN Mapping
Report (2010: para 515) notes that “if they were proven before a competent
court, [these actions] could be classified as crimes of genocide.”
Apart from what happened in the Congolese territory, it is reported that forced
repatriation, especially in Uganda, Tanzania and Burundi, included serious
violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. These
violations manifested in the form of arbitrary arrests, detentions, abductions
and deportations of Hutu refugees, in addition to the refusal to distribute food
parcels to them as a means of encouraging them to return (Rever, 2013). By
its very nature, involuntary mass repatriation constitutes a crime against
humanity and is at odds with the principle of peace and security (Kamanga,
2008: 168-169). The campaign to repatriate Hutu refugees using force did not
only negatively affect the regime of Mobutu, which was deposed in the process,
but also engendered an unending spree of violence in the DRC that continues
to this day. The violence has cost the lives of more than 6 million people and
left millions more as either IDPs or refugees (Bellamy & Dunne, 2016: 734).
The Nexus between Forced Repatriation and On-Going Regional Violence
Impulse to Defend the 1959 Legacy
As noted, the 1959 social revolution emanated from the radical need to oppose
the institutionalised discrimination and degradation of the Hutu population by
the Tutsis. Social denigration and discrimination are an invasion of an
individual or targeted group’s human dignity as they intrinsically inflict
emotional and psychological harm in the form of trauma, humiliation and
debasement. These social pathologies are sustained through physical violence.
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’ Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the
Great Lakes Region
1126
Physical violence, in turn, maims people and, in cases, deprives them of their
lives. The physical violence perpetrated against the Hutu population prior to
the 1959 social revolution was again perpetrated against them beginning in
1990. Armed violence, which involved the intentional use of physical force to
cause greater damage and deaths to Hutus as a group, was employed as a
mechanism to repatriate Hutu IDPs and refugees. Considering the devastating
effects of prolonged and intensive violence against Hutu refugees as well as
unhindered killings and massacres, coupled with continual humiliation and
debasement, Hutu refugees were compelled to find ways to defend and
preserve themselves, as their fathers did in 1959. There was a radical need to
show resistance. The resistance started with counter-attacks perpetrated by
the FAR combatants through military infiltration of Rwanda between 1995
and 1998 (UNHCR, 2011: para 26).
In 2000, Hutu elites (including FAR combatants) who were still in the forests
of the DRC, established a Hutu resistance movement, the Forces
Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR) that combined armed
struggle and political aspirations. The FDLR employs protectionist measures
that ensure that Hutu refugees are free from the RPF’s retaliation attacks. It is
at the forefront of fighting against forced repatriation, advocating for the plight
of Hutu refugees, and calling for political transformation in Rwanda that will
allow for dignified voluntary return (FDLR, 2000). Viewing the armed and
political struggle of the FDLR as a hope of restoration of dignity, some Hutus
fled Rwanda to join the FDLR. Those who were forced to return and later re-
escaped Rwanda to seek asylum in the DRC, also joined the FDLR.
Given that the RPF government pursues repressive policies and applies state
sponsored persecutions to gain control over the Hutu majority populations
and to silence real or perceived opponents regardless of their ethnic
backgrounds, Rwandans flee the country and feel urged to join the resistance
movement. The RPF governance, characterised by autocracy, despotism and
totalitarianism, drives not only Hutu refugees but also Tutsi refugees to seek
ways to oust the RPF regime. The return of Tutsi totalitarianism gradually
urges Hutus to resist the neo-oppression and to defend the legacy of the 1959
Social Revolution.
The move of Hutu refugees to self-defend through physical violence has been
a constant source of insecurity and instability in the eastern part of the DRC.
The insecurity is, firstly, caused by the desire of the RPF government to
suppress the FDLR forces. However, the FDLR appear to be strong as it has not
Callixte Kavuro
1127
been neutralised or eliminated by the joint military operations, mentioned
earlier. Secondly, the listing of the FDLR as a terrorist group by the UN has
caused insecurity and instability, as the MONUSCO and the FIB were jointly
deployed to dismantle the FDLR and other armed groups (Levine, 2013: 267).
Thirdly, the birth of the FDLR has led many national and foreign opportunistic
groups to capitalise on it in forming their own armed groups in the eastern
DRC, escalating the war that attracted various African and western countries
to intervene and resulting in the so-called “scramble for Congo” (Turner,
2007) or Africa’s World War. Fourthly, some of these Congolese groups have
been cooperating with the RPF government to facilitate the pursuit of its
economic objectives, including looting the DRC’s natural resources. It follows
that Rwanda used the FDLR as a scapegoat to create further proxies to
legitimise the renewed political conflict. The RPF government is in fact a
hawkish state that has become the epicentre of successive invasions and
economic crises in the region, the last being the creation and support of the
M23, which drove the economic sanctions that some western countries have
taken against Rwanda (UN Security Council, S/2014/42).
Moral Justifications of Return by Armed Force
There is a moral force behind refugees preparing to wage a war against their
home country for their rights and freedoms rather than live in a country where
their hosts constantly remind them that they have no place. The desire of
refugees to fight to find their way back home and to topple the government
from which they had fled can be morally linked to the host country’s refusal to
treat refugees with dignity. Their desire to return home by any means
necessary is motivated by the fact that they are reduced to the scum of the
earth, especially when they are forced to return or dumped in camps where
they are viewed as human waste with no useful role to play in the host
country’s economy. There is no intention on the part of the host community to
integrate them into the social and economic order and, as such, for refugees
living in the camps there is no hope of return (Pinson et. al., 2010: 9). Hutu
refugees were left to their own miserable fate and ultimately forgotten in the
dense forest of the DRC. Likewise, Hutu refugees who live in urban cities find
it difficult to gain access to basic public services, given that they are – like other
refugees – excluded from the socio-economic order. As a result, they live in
intolerable conditions. When refugees are both impoverished and
experiencing the ills of the host country, they are persuaded to return. To Hutu
refugees, return through military campaign is the only option since the
Rwandan government has opted to hunt them down. They are pursued by the
RPF army and spies in their respective host countries where, in addition to
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’ Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the
Great Lakes Region
1128
living under protracted refugee situations, they are killed, abducted and
abandoned to their own fate by the international community.
Furthermore, Hutu refugees’ moral desire to return by means of force is
strengthened by the fact that (i) the RPF have re-installed apartheid policies
in Rwanda that exclude the Hutu majority from socio-economic designs and
political participation, (ii) the RPF government has objected to any political
dialogue or negotiations that would lead to voluntary and dignified
repatriation and (iii) Hutu refugees see no future in the host countries. It has
now been more than 20 years since the onset of the Rwandan crisis, and the
Hutu refugee situation remains unresolved even though host countries have
and continue to periodically apply forced repatriation under the auspices of
the UNHCR. Today, it is estimated that there are more than 300 000 Rwandan
refugees around the world.
A combination of the these difficulties motivates Hutu refugees not only to
fight for their survival, respect and dignity in their host countries but also to
establish an armed rebellion against the draconian regime instated in Rwanda
by the RPF. From their point of view, the military campaign for repatriation is
seen as a viable solution to their never-ending misery and suffering.
Proceeding from this premise, armed violence is viewed as a mechanism to
limit the power of the RPF government in various ways: by coercing the RPF
to enter into political negotiations with Hutu refugees, abandon its apartheid
policies in order to open a political space, compromise its political ideologies
and stance on the nature of genocide and encourage it to make concessions.
Historically, the use of armed violence is a political strategy that has been
employed by refugees to induce a fundamental change in their home countries.
For example, the same methodology has been successfully used by the Tutsi
refugees from Rwanda and Hutu refugees from Burundi (Ndarishikanye, 1998:
140-56; Pontzeele, 2004: 19-21). Similarly, it was employed by South African
refugees during the liberation struggle against the apartheid regime that
oppressed black people in South Africa and forced them to flee (Yousuf, 1985:
65-66).
It follows that it is morally and legally just for individuals or groups who are
victim(s) of physical attacks or violence to resort to force to mitigate or repel
such violence. This moral understanding is recognised under Article 20 of the
1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Article 20 clearly states
that “colonised or oppressed peoples shall have the right to free themselves
from the bonds of the domination by resorting to any means recognised by
Callixte Kavuro
1129
international community.” Furthermore, it states that nothing justifies
domination of one by another. In this context, Hutu refugees resort to armed
resistance so as to exercise their right to self-determination, which includes
free participation in democratic processes and the pursuit of economic and
social development.
That said, in a country such as Rwanda, where power is not derived from the
people or from the consent of the governed, or in a country where people are
oppressed and subjugated, people will indeed resort to violence to voice their
dissatisfaction and to bring about the desired socio-political change. The
oppressed will use violence to remind the rulers that the powers they possess
derive from the people, and to compel an authoritarian regime to accept the
conditions put forward by leaders of the liberation. An armed liberation
struggle is a mechanism used to depose the despotic regime or to bring it to
the negotiation table (Shaw, 2009: 97). In resorting to armed struggles, Hutu
refugees are exercising their right to self-determination, and through it, they
claim the human dignity afforded to others. They seek to make the regional
and international communities hear their voices and sympathise with their
suffering, and they aim to compel the RPF government to accept their
conditions relating to their peaceful return and participation in Rwandan
affairs.
The Hutu refugee survivors created the FDLR in line with the spirit of fighting
against the bonds of Tutsi domination and oppression and for the realisation
of several components of the concept of self-determination. The moral intent
of the RPF to carry out a campaign to combat and eliminate all Hutu refugees
is substantive enough to justify the moral demand and appeal for the Hutu to
resort to any means necessary to fight for equal rights and freedoms. The onus
rests on them to liberate themselves from unfair geopolitics that result in their
oppression, subjugation and humiliation. The statements of President
Kagame, holding that refugees are human waste, useless species, criminals and
terrorists sheltered by host countries, are provocative enough to induce and
entice Hutus to wage a war against such denigration and debasement (Salem-
News, 2011). What is apparent from the president’s description of Hutu
refugees is a radical need for Hutus to restore their pride, glory and dignity
through resistance and armed struggle.
The Impact of the UNHCR Declarations of Cessation Clause On Regional
Insecurity
As from 1996, the UNHCR has been cooperating with persecutors to assist
them in locating their victims. In this respect, the UNHCR employed a
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’ Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the
Great Lakes Region
1130
mechanism referred to as the Declaration of the Cessation Clause. In
September 2012, the UNHCR declared Rwanda a safe country, which enabled
distant host countries to turn Hutu refugees away. The declaration was
intended to ensure that the RPF gained control over them or otherwise
silenced their dissenting voices in an attempt to strengthen and enhance the
RPF’s exclusive power. The declaration led to negotiations and tripartite
agreements between the UNHCR, Rwanda and a number of African countries
hosting Rwandan refugees. These countries included CAR, Burundi and
Tanzania in 2002; then Zambia, Congo-Brazzaville, Uganda, Malawi, Namibia,
Mozambique and Zimbabwe in 2003; and South Africa in 2004 (Amnesty
International, 2004: 2). Implementing these tripartite agreements was
incorporated under the 2004 Dialogue on Voluntary Repatriation and
Sustainable Reintegration in Africa, which focused on massive repatriation of
refugees in nine African countries: Angola, Burundi, the DRC, Rwanda, Eritrea,
Somalia, Sudan, Liberia and Sierra Leone. However, the date of return for
Rwandan refugees was initially and officially set to commence on 31
December 2011 and all aspects of the cessation of refugee status for Hutu
refugees were to be implemented throughout 2012 so as to enable their status
to cease by latest 30 June 2013. The date on which refugee status would cease
was later set for 31 December 2017. These declarations have severe
implications on the recognition of Hutu refugees as people genuinely seeking
asylum in distant host countries.
The UNHCR declarations are, accordingly, regarded among Hutu refugee
communities as the international community’s final betrayal, whereby they
have sided with the perpetrator when the victims have not been consulted as
stakeholders or given a platform to voice their concerns. Within this
understanding, recommendations by the UNHCR to host countries to apply the
cessation clause have led many Hutu refugees in countries implementing it –
in African countries in particular– to prepare to flee anew. Some have targeted
the Great Lakes Region, especially the DRC, as a point de rappel in the hopes of
losing themselves in the chaos there. Others, especially the youth, have given
up on the peaceful resolution of the protracted uncertainty of their future and
have opted to join the FDLR resistance movement to fight for their cause so
that they can one day go home in peace and dignity. Still others have chosen
to press forward and aim for Europe and America in an effort to find lasting
peace in a sanctuary that is perhaps better than their previous one. Whatever
choice Hutu refugees make, it will undoubtedly contribute to the already
existing protracted insecurity and instability in the Great Lakes region.
Callixte Kavuro
1131
Hutu refugees’ asylum has never been secure and this uncertainty is mainly
caused by the UNHCR. For that reason, refugees lament about the UNHCR’s
chosen methods in trying to end their asylum, which has deleteriously affected
their lives and impaired their dignity. They have never enjoyed peace, freedom
and justice in exile. Although the Rwandan refugee communities and
independent international institutions and organisations have voiced much
criticism and concern regarding the declarations of the UNHCR, the UNHCR, in
cooperation with some African countries, was undeterred and proceeded to
implement the cessation clause for Rwandan refugees, rendering them
informal and illegal refugees in Africa. So far, Zambia, Uganda and Malawi have
responded to the cessation clause by indicating that they will consider other
legal status as an alternative to repatriation for the purpose of ending the
protracted limbo and uncertainty of Hutu refugees. The European Union also
took the decision to not abide by the UNHCR’s recommendation to invoke the
cessation clause (Harrell-Bond & Cliché-Rivard, 2012). Other countries
cannot, therefore, justify the implementation of the cessation clause which
implicitly targets Hutu refugees who fled Rwanda between 1994 and 1998.
The cessation clause is discriminatory by its very nature because it does not
apply to the Tutsi refugees who fell out of the Kagame regime as from 2000.
The message is very clear: the cessation clause actually targets Hutu refugees
as those Tutsi who fled Rwanda prior to 1994 have retained ruling power in
Rwanda. From this perspective, one cannot hesitate to point out that the
UNHCR contributes to regional insecurity when it takes a biased decision
aimed at suppressing Hutu refugees.
Impact of Partial Transitional Justice on Regional Instability
The official narrative of the RPF on genocide holds that all Hutus are
responsible for the 1994 Rwandan calamity and that Hutus from all walks of
life should be prosecuted. They were prosecuted by either the Gacaca courts
or the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The ICTR had
prosecuted almost a hundred former Hutu leaders, and not a single Tutsi.
Likewise, the Gacaca courts have prosecuted more than 1.2 million Hutu
elements without calling any Tutsis to account (UN, 2014). The absence of
justice for Hutu victims is another important factor that logically and morally
legitimises the belief that the Hutu need to rise up and claim criminal justice
for themselves and their rightful place in Rwanda. Undoubtedly, it has always
been the duty of the living to seek justice for the dead. If Hutus remain without
voice in post-genocide Rwanda, the impunity will prevail on the side of Tutsi
counterparts and their oppression will never end.
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’ Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the
Great Lakes Region
1132
The 1994 tragedy remains elusive and difficult to define because the voices
and narratives of Hutus on the genocide are missing. It remains debatable
whether the tragedy should be recognised as Rwandan genocide as to
accommodate all victims – that is Hutus, Tutsis and Twas – or whether it
should be recognised as Tutsi genocide so as to restrict it to Tutsi victims only.
Social and political injustice are embedded in the establishment of the RPF
regime around the political rhetoric of the collective guilt of Hutus without
distinguishing between the guilty and the innocent. The RPF’s insistence on
collective guilt is to entrench and consolidate an exclusive power in its hands
and, in that respect, justice is used as an instrument of repression to achieve a
political goal. Any aspiring Hutu politician is thus silenced through accusation
of having a genocide political philosophy. Genocide has become a political
weapon used by the Tutsian governance to reduce Hutu majority to second-
class citizens, blocking the avenues of reconciling a divided and fragmented
society. A great deal has been written on the genocide, particularly illustrating
its genesis, discrediting the Hutus’ collective guilt and expounding the reasons
behind the international community’s reluctance to hold the Tutsis to account
(Ndagijimana, 2009; Erlinder, 2013).
For example, Kintu (2005), a UN researcher, dismisses the argument holding
that Hutus have an extensive plan to eliminate Tutsi civilians. This argument
holds that if they had such a plan, they would not have been defeated by the
Tutsi minority. His view was confirmed by the findings of the ICTR, in
Prosecutor v Bagosora and Others, Case No. ICTR-98-41-T of 18 December
2008 (paras 1996, 2258); Bagosora and Another v The Prosecutor, Case No.
ICTR-98-41-A of 14 December 2011 (paras 730, 740); Ndindliyimana and
Others v The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-00-56-A of 11 February 2014 (paras
253, 278, 322, 388); and Karemera and Another v The Prosecutor, Case No.
ICTR-98-44-A of 29 September 2014 (para 643), which stated that there was
no evidence to support the contention that Hutu leaders were involved in any
plan or conspiracy to destroy Tutsi civilians given that the ICTR prosecutorial
team failed to discharge the onus to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Testimonies provided by senior leaders of the RPF – who fell out of the RPF
regime – attest that the RPF planned and executed the shooting down of the
former President Habyarimana’s plane, which triggered Hutus’ reprisal
attacks against Tutsi (Ruzibiza, 2005; Erlinder, 2013: 25-6). The Tutsi elites’
testimonies and confessions state that the RPF, after assassinating the
President, immediately launched attacks in which mass killings and ethnic
Callixte Kavuro
1133
cleansing were perpetrated. The ICTR describes this situation as the Hutu and
Tutsi civilians being caught up in war-time violence. Despite such recognition,
international justice has done nothing to call Tutsis to account. Judges
Bruguiere of France and Merelles of Spain have made an attempt to indict and
issue arrest warrants for the RPF leaders, including President Kagame, for
crimes committed by the RPF (Erlinder, 2013: 152). In this regard, the one-
side justice has become a major problem that contributes to the reluctance of
Hutu refugees to return home. Politically, the Hutu refugees’ refusal to return
is used to judge and condemn them without regard for their victimisation by
the RPF.
Relying on the justice system to exclude and silence Hutus does not appease
the anger caused by the 1990s invasion of Rwanda and the crimes of the RPF
against the Hutu community; rather, it augments such anger and strengthens
the desire to fight back. What actually saddens and pains the Hutus is that
evidence clearly indicates that a higher number of Hutus than Tutsis perished
in the horrendous events of 1990-1994. The number of genocide victims
during the 1994 genocide is often stated as 800 000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus
by the UN reports, and is often stated as more than one million Tutsi by the
RPF Government (Turner, 2013: 300). This narrative is contested by many
researchers who have developed a counter narrative asserting that if the total
number of the Tutsi victims ranged from 800 000 to one million people, “the
majority of the victims must have been Hutu and Twa Rwandans, because
there were not enough Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994 to yield victim numbers of this
magnitude” (Erlinder, 2013: 63; Wells & Fellows, 2016: 61). This implies that
most of those accused and brought before Gacaca courts were in fact victims
of RPF atrocities, whom the RPF was able to silence through criminalising any
claim, narrative, view or opinion holding that Hutus were the majority victims
of the genocide. Any person who challenges the official genocide narrative is
charged with the crime of minimising or denying the Tutsi genocide. According
to Human Rights Watch (2011: 32), the genocide law creates criminal tools
such as “revisionism,” “negationism,” “genocide denial” and “gross
minimisation of genocide” that are used to quash debate on the responsibility
of the RPF in Rwanda. Suppressing debate and invoking collective guilt are, as
Kintu (2005: 18) puts it, intended to protect the true designers of mass murder
and ethnic cleansing. The fight of Hutus also includes a struggle to expose the
true culprit behind the Rwandan tragedy. In other words, the twisting of facts
and truth, which degrades and humiliates Hutu, strengthens their conviction
to emancipate themselves from institutionalised moral degeneration.
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’ Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the
Great Lakes Region
1134
Conclusion and Recommendations
The regional instability cannot be separated from the Tutsi’s struggle for
political domination and supremacy and Hutu’s defiance against being
governed by the Tutsi minority in Rwanda. To ensure that the Hutus are
subjugated and controlled, they were collectively blamed for committing
genocide and the collective blame has been used as a weapon to unleash
reprisal attacks against them. The RPF government has been invoking the
collective blame to call upon host countries to deny or deprive Hutu refugees
of asylum or to cross the borders to attack them in their shelters. Whilst the
international community has abandoned Hutu refugees to their own
despondent, it has been supporting the RPF to attack Hutus at home and
abroad with impunity.
Killing Hutus with impunity angers and pains Hutus. They have been killed
from 1990 to this day. In an attempt to defend themselves, Hutus – especially
refugees – have taken up arms. As Hutu refugees are forced to return through
military means and as attacks on Hutu refugees continued unabated, the Hutu
resistance blossomed into an armed rebel movement. As the Hutu citizens are
subjugated, and as the armed resistance gains wide support among the Hutu
population, the territory of the DRC is becoming a fully-fledged battlefield for
Hutus and Tutsis.
It has been demonstrated that the Hutu-Tutsi conflict is historically deep-
rooted and has led both Hutus and Tutsis to engage in wanton killings during
different periods. The Tutsis desire to destroy Hutus in order to maintain
exclusive power and the battle has been transferred to the DRC. What this tells
us is that, in finding durable solutions to armed violence in the DRC, regional
and international actors should grasp the inherent Hutu-Tutsi conflict and
thus find ways of reconciling them. Durable solutions should be devised with
regard to the significance of the legacy of the 1959 Hutu emancipation from
Tutsi oppression and enslavement; the RPF’s invasion of Rwanda in 1990 and
the rationale behind it; the litany of atrocities committed by the RPF since
1990; and the RPF’s shooting down of the presidential plane that triggered the
reprisal attacks against Tutsi civilians. Considering the 1959 legacy is key to
any durable solution of the Rwandan ethnic tension. The Rwandan Republic is
constituted on the 1959 legacy, including the recognition of democratic
governance based on the will of the people.
Callixte Kavuro
1135
Because Hutus constitute the majority, discussions of power-sharing as well
as watchdog institutions are crucial to safeguard any proposed power-sharing.
Restoring democratic governance is possible through negotiated political
settlement, which will introduce the compromised leadership whereby Hutus
and Tutsis will have equal political voice and participation. Compromised
leadership will protect the interests of every citizen regardless of his or her
ethnic background. It follows that peace and stability in the region will ensue
if the regional and international actors have the willpower necessary to
consider the killings of the Hutus by the RPF soldiers and to investigate the
assassination of President Habyarimana and prosecute the perpetrators.
Finding an effective solution to armed conflict in the DRC is a political question
that requires political response by addressing the Rwandan ethnic conflict.
First of all, the UNHCR and other regional and international actors need to
inform themselves of the politics of Rwanda to grasp the political problems
that have uprooted the Hutu refugees, which resulted in the Hutus’ resistance
to return unless their desired political changes are met. In finding viable
solutions, the UNHCR must treat refugees as autonomous individuals able to
choose their own destinies, make independent moral choices, shape their
identity and participate in the decisions that may adversely affect their lives.
Both the UNHCR and host countries must desist from viewing all Hutu refugees
as criminals, and rather see them as human beings whose inherent dignity and
equal worth must be respected at all times. In respecting their human dignity,
authorities must adhere to the fairness and justice principles, including the
presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Refugee status cannot diminish
these principles. Therefore, the UNHCR should meaningfully engage with all
stakeholders with a particular focus on the protection of Hutu refugees who
are the victims of the RPF’s persecutions. It is unfair to return individuals to
their persecutors without evidence that they are criminals.
As a UN agency mandated to protect refugees, the UNHCR must use its power
to influence regional countries to initiate an inclusive dialogue between Hutu
refugees and the RPF government in an effort to establish peace, security,
harmony and tolerance. It has been shown that unilateral, non-democratic,
and non-transparent decisions to force Hutu refugees to repatriate will, for
example, breed further internal and external violence as such decisions will
simply work to intensify the need to repatriate by force of arms. Regional
countries should also be at the forefront of initiating and mediating an
inclusive dialogue to discuss the alleviation of ethnic Hutu-Tutsi conflict
before it spills beyond the region under the pretext of hunting down Hutu
genocidaires. International community intervention is needed to put an end to
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’ Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the
Great Lakes Region
1136
the collective guilt card that the RPF uses to violate the territorial integrity of
other nations. Violence is the only weapon that can be used by Hutu refugees
to express their dissatisfaction or to compel or induce the totalitarian regime
to accept some of the conditions put forward by the oppressed. If there is to be
enduring peace in the Great Lakes region, refugee voices and actors must be
included in the determination of their fate. Failure to do this will result in
protracted conflict and insecurity for the unforeseeable future, or worse, a
spread of violence in the region as other state actors are drawn in.
References
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights ("Banjul Charter"), 27 June
1981, CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58.
Amnesty International. 2004. Protecting their Rights: Rwandese Refugees in
the Great Lakes Region. AI Index: AFR 47/016/2004, London: England.
Bagosora and Another v The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41-A of 14
December 2011.
Banton, M. 1995. Ethnic Hatred: Genocide in Rwanda. London: ASEN.
Bellamy, A.J. and Dunne, T. 2016. The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to
Protect. Oxford: Oxford Press.
Binet, L. 2016. The Violence of the New Rwandan Regime 1994-1995.
Australia: Medicin Sans Frontieres.
Collier, E.W. and Strain, C.R. 2014. Religious and Ethical Perspective on Global
Migration. London: Lexington Books.
Davenport, C. and Stam, A.C. 2009. What Really Happened in Rwanda? From <
https://bit.ly/2Jf9eaY > (Retrieved March 10, 2016).
Deme, A. 2010. Rwanda 1994 and the Failure of the United Nations Missions:
The Whole Truth. Toronto: Xlibris.
Erlinder, P. 2013. The Accidental… Genocide. Chicago: Penknife Press.
FDLR. 2000. Manifeste-Programme et Status des Forces Démocratiques de
Libération du Rwanda of 2000. From < https://bit.ly/2M3do3s> (Retrieved
June 05, 2014).
Callixte Kavuro
1137
Harrell-Bond, B. and Cliche-Rivard, G. 2012. Rwandan Refugees Face No
Choice But Repatriation. From <https://bit.ly/2kQc7kd> (Retrieved March 11,
2016).
Human Rights Watch. 2011. Justice Compromised: The Legacy of Rwanda’s
Community-Based Gacaca Courts. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Kaarsholm, P. 2006. Violence, Political Culture & Development in Africa. Oxford:
James Currey.
Kamanga, K. 2008. Human Rights, the Use of Force, and Displacement in the
Great Lakes Region. In: Hollenbach, D. (Ed.). Refugee Rights: Ethics, Advocacy,
and Africa. Washington: Georgetown University Press, pp 163 - 175.
Karemera and Another v The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44-A of 29
September 2014.
Khan, S.M. 2000. The Shallow Graves of Rwanda. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.
Kintu, R. 2005. The Truth Behind the Rwanda Tragedy. Paper prepared upon
request and presented to the U.N. Tribunal on Rwanda, Arusha, Tanzania,
March 20, 2005.
Levine, D.H. 2013. The Morality of Peacekeeping. Edinburg: Edinburg
University Press Ltd.
Longman, T. 2009. An Assessment of Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts. Peace Review: A
Journal of Social Justice, 21: 304-312.
MSF. 1995. Report on Events in Kibeho Camp. From <https://bit.ly/2kNJN1C>
(Retrieved April 10, 2014).
Ndagijimana, J.M.V. 2009. How Paul Kagame Deliberately Sacrificed the Tutsi.
Orléans Cedex: Edition la Pagaie.
Ndarishikanye, B. 1998. La Conscience Historique des Jeunes Burundais.
Cahiers d'études Africaines, 38: 135-171.
Ndindliyimana and Others v The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-00-56-A of 11
February 2014.
Oppenheim, J. and Van der Wolf, W.J. 2000. Global War Crimes Tribunal
Collection. Holmes Beach: Global Law Association.
Pean, P. 2005. Noires Fureurs, Blancs Menteurs. Paris: Les éditions Fayard.
Exploring the Relationship between Hutu Refugees’ Protracted Situation and Insecurity in the
Great Lakes Region
1138
Pinson, H., Arnot, M. and Candappa, M. 2010. Education, Asylum and the ‘Non-
Citizen’ Child: The Politics of Compassion and Belonging. Hampshire: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Pontzeele, S. 2004. Burundi 1972/Rwanda 1994: L’ Efficacite Dramatique d’une
Reconstruction Ideologique du Passé sur le Present. PhD Thesis. (Unpublished).
Lille: France.
Prosecutor v Bagosora and Others, Case No. ICTR-98-41-T of 18 December
2008.
Rever, J. 2013. What is Happening to Rwandan Refugees in Uganda?. From
<http://mondediplo.com/blogs/what-is-happening-to-rwandan-refugees-in-
uganda> (Retrieved June 02, 2014).
Rever, J. 2018. In Praise of Blood. Toronto: The Cooke Agency International.
Reyntjens, F. 2013. Political Governance in Post-Genocide Rwanda. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Ruzibiza, A.J. 2005. Rwanda, L’Histoire Secrete. Paris: Panama.
Rwandainfo. 2010. President Kagame Proud to have Killed Hutu Refugees in
DRC. From <https://bit.ly/2kT5AF7> (Retrieved March 10, 2016).
Salem-News. 2011. Stop Killing Rwandans or Resign: RNC Tells President
Kagame. From <https://bit.ly/2JoQsNZ> (Retrieved August 11, 2016).
Shaw, M. 2009. Conceptual and Theoretical Framework of Organised Violence.
International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 3: 97-106.
Thompson, A. 2007. The Media and the Rwanda Genocide. London: Pluto Press.
Trefon, T. 2011. Congo Masquerade: The Political Culture of Aid Inefficiency and
Reform Failure. London: Zed Books Ltd.
Turner, E. 2013. Documenting Genocide: The Record of Confession, Guilty Plea,
Repentance and Apology in Rwanda's Gacaca Trial. Technical Communication
Quarterly, 22: 285-303.
Turner, T. 2007. The Congo Wars: Conflict, Myth and Reality. London: Zed Books
Ltd.
Twagilimana, A. 2015. Historical Dictionary of Rwanda. Lanham: Scarecrow
Press.
Callixte Kavuro
1139
UN. 2004. Background Information on the Justice and Reconciliation Process
in Rwanda. From <https://bit.ly/1oXoyq7> (Retrived April 15, 2014).
UNHCR. 2011. Implementation of the Comprehensive Strategy for the
Rwandan Refugee Situation, including UNHCR’s Recommendations on the
applicability of the ‘Ceased Circumstances’ Cessation Clause of 30 December
2011. From < https://bit.ly/2LoCtEW> (Retrieved May 15, 2016).
UN Mapping Report. 2010. United Nation Human Rights: Democratic Republic
of the Congo, 1993-2003: Report of the Mapping Exercise Documenting the
Most Serious Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
Committed within the Territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Between March 1993 and June 2003, released on October 01, 2010. From <
https://bit.ly/2LZpvPh> (Retrieved May 16, 2016).
UN Security Council, S/1994/1157: Situation of Human Rights in Rwanda:
Note by the Secretary-General.
UN Security Council, S/2014/42: Letter dated 22 January 2014 from the
Coordinator of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo
addressed to the President of the Security Council.
Yousuf, H.S. 1985. The OAU and the African Liberation Movements. Pakistan
Institute of International Affairs, 38(4): 55-67.
Wells, M. and Fellows, N. 2016. History for the IB Diploma Paper 1 Conflict and
Intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, K.R. 2009. Scourge of racism: Genocide in Rwanda. Journal of Black
Studies, 39: 471-481.
Whitaker, B.E. 2002. Changing Priorities in Refugee Protection: The Rwandan
Repatriation from Tanzania. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 21: 328-344.