[Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying reality : the Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule, tyranny and corruption in Rwanda. The current government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination with an iron fist, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority of the Rwandan people (85% are Hutus), mass-arrests and mass-murder by the RPF criminal organization.
So long as justice and accountability for RPF past and current crimes are ignored and delayed, Peace and Stability will remain illusive and impossible in Rwanda=>AS International]
-
Rwanda : Dans le plus grand secret. Détention illégale et torture aux mains du Service de renseignement militaire
1. INTRODUCTION
“Nine months at Kami, It is shameful for a state of law.”
Civilian detained at Camp Kami without charge for nine months and alleged to have been tortured. March 2012, Kigali, Rwanda.
“[Eight] months went by without knowing if my husband existed or not.” Wife of man unlawfully detained and alleged to have been tortured by the military at Camp Kami. March 2012, Kigali, Rwanda.
SUMMARY
Progress over the last decade by the government of Rwanda in improving conditions of detention in prisons falling under the authority of the Rwanda Correctional Service (RCS) is being undermined by the parallel detention system run by the military. Scores of people are held in detention in military camps and the safeguards which protect detainees in police stations and other official places of detention are circumvented. Hidden from view, detainees have been unlawfully detained as well as reportedly tortured and otherwise ill-treated.
 |
| Akandoya: Kagame’s Trade Mark |
This report details unlawful detention, torture and other forms of ill-treatment and enforced disappearances, mostly of civilians, at the hands of Rwanda’s military intelligence, known as J2. It is based on information gathered during more than two years of research, including seven visits to Rwanda. The report documents more than 45 cases of unlawful detention and 18 allegations of torture or other ill-treatment by Rwandan military intelligence in 2010 and 2011. Some individuals who were disappeared remain in secret detention in 2012.
Amnesty International believes that the actual number of people who were detained and who were at risk of, or subjected to, torture and other ill-treatment during this period is higher than those documented here.
Amnesty International began to receive reports of enforced disappearances, torture and other ill-treatment by Rwandan military intelligence in March 2010.
This spate of human rights violations happened as military intelligence launched investigations into threats to national security in the run-up to the August 2010 presidential elections. Grenade attacks, rare in recent years, multiplied after February 2010. Some security analysts attributed them to the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), an armed opposition group based in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).1 Growing tensions within the Rwandan Defence Force (RDF) following the departure of the former army chief, General Kayumba Nyamwasa, in February 2010 also allegedly raised the spectre of potential security threats from within the army.
As part of the Rwandan authorities’ investigations into security matters, individuals were arrested, often arbitrarily, by the military, sometimes acting in collaboration with the police.
Those arrested were almost exclusively men aged between 20 and 45. Most of the cases documented here are of civilians, including demobilized military. Other cases include members of the Rwandan army or individuals suspected by the Rwandan authorities of belonging to the FDLR.
arrest, the men were detained incommunicado and interrogated by military
intelligence. For their families, unable to confirm their whereabouts or if
they were still alive, their loved ones had effectively disappeared. The
authorities denied holding those arrested or did not respond to requests for
information from family members or lawyers. During their detention by the
military, often spanning several months, they were denied access to lawyers,
family members and medical assistance. Some were reportedly subjected to
torture or other ill-treatment.
the whereabouts of their relatives had a tremendous psychological impact on the
families of the disappeared. As those missing were almost exclusively men, and
round-ups often included people from the same community, male family members
were forced to live with the constant fear that they might be arrested next.
Women – wives, mothers and sisters – bore the brunt of trying to locate their
relatives.
of writing in July 2012, Amnesty International believes that the number of new
cases of unlawful detention of civilians by the military has fallen over the
last year. However, the absence of investigations or prosecutions for the human
rights violations documented here increases the likelihood that Rwandan
military intelligence will revert to these practices each time that they
perceive national security to be under threat.
International urges the Rwandan government to immediately end the unlawful
detention of civilians, disclose the fate or whereabouts of all those subjected
to enforced disappearance, investigate allegations of torture and other
ill-treatment, suspend those security officers alleged to be responsible for
these human rights violations pending the outcome of investigations, and hold
them accountable through criminal prosecutions.
is based on seven research visits to Rwanda in September 2010, February, July
and November 2011, and February, March and June 2012, as well as a trial
observation between September 2011 and June 2012. Amnesty International also
interviewed individuals previously illegally detained in Rwanda and their
family members outside Rwanda at various times between 2011 and 2012. The
report does not take into account developments after the end of June 2012.
METHODOLOGY
This report is based on seven research visits to Rwanda in September 2010, February, July and November 2011, and February, March and June 2012, as well as a trial observation between September 2011 and June 2012. Amnesty International also interviewed individuals previously illegally detained in Rwanda and their family members outside Rwanda at various times between 2011 and 2012. The report does not take into account developments after the end of June 2012.
Amnesty International conducted more than 70 face-to-face interviews for this report, including eight interviews with torture victims previously detained by the military. The organization also interviewed family members of individuals disappeared, unlawfully detained or tortured, as well as lawyers, members of civil society, and individuals who had observed court proceedings. Interviews were conducted in English or French, or from Kinyarwanda with the assistance of interpreters.
Through these interviews, Amnesty International documented more than 45 cases of unlawful detention for periods ranging from 10 days to nine months, primarily of civilians in military camps and other secret detention locations during 2010 and 2011. Two cases of enforced disappearances of more than two years were also documented. Amnesty International was able to cross-check the identities of these former detainees through various sources, including other detainees, lawyers, court documents and news reports. Amnesty International received single source information on tens of other former detainees but because of the lack of corroboration has not included them in this report.
This report documents 18 allegations of torture or other ill-treatment by Rwandan military intelligence and other security personnel. Restrictions on prison access made it impossible to ascertain the extent of torture and other ill-treatment of individuals previously detained by the military and later transferred to civilian prisons. For these reasons, Amnesty International believes that the number of people detained by the military at risk of torture, or who may have been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment, is higher than the number of cases documented.
Amnesty International gathered documentation related to criminal cases in military and civilian courts, including statements of arrest and court decisions and orders. The report also draws on Amnesty International’s observation of the trial from September 2011 to June 2012 of those accused along with opposition leader Victoire Ingabire. They had been unlawfully detained at Camp Kami.
Amnesty International was unable to interview individuals currently detained in Rwanda. Since July 2011, Amnesty International has twice formally requested authorization to interview detainees and prisoners in private. Most recently, the organization requested permission to visit prisons in advance of arriving in the country. They requested private interviews with detainees in Kigali Central Prison, Ruhengeri Prison and Rubavu (commonly known as Gisenyi) Prison in March 2012. The organization’s representatives were informed one working day before leaving Rwanda by the Ministry of Internal Security that they had the
right to request authorization. However, they were told that under Rwandan law they could only interview detainees and prisoners in the presence of a prison guard. Amnesty International subsequently received a letter from the RCS authorizing the delegates to visit prisons on 4 April 2012, six days after leaving Rwanda.
The initial impetus for the report was a number of specific requests from family members for Amnesty International’s help in finding their disappeared relatives. In researching these cases, details emerged of other men who had been subjected to enforced disappearance or who had been previously detained by the military. This report sheds light on the circumstances and conditions of their detention which remain shrouded in secrecy.
Many other individuals who had been detained by the military declined to speak to Amnesty International delegates for fear of retribution. Former detainees and their family members who shared their stories expressed fear of reprisals. To protect their identities, Amnesty International has excluded their names, other identifying details, and some interview dates and locations.
Amnesty International does not take a position on the guilt or innocence of those arrested. Our concern is that they were subjected to a pattern of human rights violations: arrests in violation of the law, detention in secret locations, unlawful detention, often for several months, and a lack of access to lawyers, family members or doctors. This string of abuses violates the rights of the detained persons and renders them more vulnerable to torture and ill-treatment.
torture and ill-treatment. A letter summarizing the findings of this report was sent to the Rwandan
Minister of Defence on 29 March 2012, with copies to the Director of Military
Intelligence and the Minister of Justice, and a separate letter to the Minister
of Justice. The letters requested an official response in order to reflect the
Rwandan government’s perspective in this report, as well as a submission to the
UN Committee against Torture. The organization did not receive a reply.
Amnesty International visited Rwanda in June 2012 to
seek an official response to these findings. The organization met with the RDF
Spokesperson, the Rwandan Minister of Justice, a team from the National Public
Prosecution Authority led by the Prosecutor General, an official from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a team from the RCS led by the Commissioner
General.
Amnesty International expresses its profound gratitude
to the individuals who shared their stories, sometimes at personal risk. We
also thank the lawyers who generously shared their legal expertise and their
experiences of representing clients previously detained by the military.
AND SECURITY CONTEXT
The ruling party in Rwanda is the Rwandan Patriotic
Front (RPF), in power since 1994. The military has long played an important
role in the country’s history2 and the RDF (army) currently retains an
influential position within politics and society. While the army is best known
for its involvement in the DRC conflicts or its contribution to peacekeeping
such as in Darfur (Sudan), the RDF began to play a more visible role at home
from 2010 onwards when it became more overt in detaining and arresting
suspects.3
Events during the lead-up to the August 2010
presidential elections also brought the fragility of Rwanda’s security to the
fore. Grenade attacks, rare in recent years, multiplied. Prominent military
officers, as well as soldiers, were arrested or went into exile. Killings and
arrests of opposition politicians and journalists and the closure of newspapers
reinforced a climate of fear.
Kigali was hit by three simultaneous grenade attacks
on 19 February 2010, killing two people and wounding several.4 At first, the
Rwandan government attributed this to the FDLR,5 but after General Kayumba
Nyamwasa, a popular figure within the Rwandan army, fled a week later, the
authorities shifted the blame to him.6 According to Rwandan government
statistics, 18 grenade attacks were carried out between December 2009 and March
2011, killing 14 people and injuring 219.7 Grenade attacks continued after that
Growing divisions emerged within the RPF party, as
well as in the army. The primary catalyst for this was the departure of General
Kayumba Nyamwasa on 26 February 2010. His flight prompted the army to arrest
and detain officers and soldiers suspected of being loyal to him. Exiled in
South Africa, Kayumba Nyamwasa survived an assassination attempt on 19 June
2010.
Tensions also grew in 2009 and 2010 between the
Rwandan government and supporters of Laurent Nkunda, the former leader of the
Congolese armed group, the National Congress for the Defence of the People
(CNDP). Arrested in January 2009, he officially remains under house arrest in
Rwanda without charge or trial.
At the same time as security worsened, a crackdown on the political opposition
and media in advance of the elections was under way. Opposition politicians and
journalists were arrested,
of threatening state security for criticizing government policies. An
opposition leader was beheaded in a gruesome attack in mid-July 2010, for which
no-one was brought to justice. Journalists who covered these events touching on
sensitive issues of state security had their papers closed. They too fled and
one of their newspaper editors was murdered.
It was against this
backdrop that Rwanda’s military intelligence rounded up scores of young men
accused of threatening national security. For their families, unable to confirm
their whereabouts, or whether they were alive, they had simply disappeared. The
torture and other ill-treatment that some of these men reportedly experienced
during their unlawful detention is documented in this report.
APPLICABLE RWANDAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW NATIONAL LAW
Rwanda’s new Penal Code criminalizes torture as a
standalone offence for the first time under Rwandan law. It came into force
after its publication in the Official Gazette on 14 June 2012. Penalties for
torture which range from six months to seven years, unless the torture results
in the death of the victim, are too lenient.This issue was raised by the
Committee on Torture before the law was promulgated.
June 2012, Rwanda did not specifically criminalize torture as an autonomous
offence in its national law, but it was possible to prosecute perpetrators of
torture for offences such as murder or assault. Rwanda’s constitution
guarantees the right to integrity and prohibits the use of torture without
defining what torture is. 12 Past failure to criminalize all acts of torture as
offences under national criminal law violated Article 4 of the Convention
against Torture to which Rwanda is a state party.
Torture, outside the context of war crimes, crimes
against humanity and genocide, is subject to a 10 year statute of limitations
under Rwanda’s code of criminal procedure.13 This may impede justice for past
cases of torture and may limit the ability of victims to seek reparations.
Enforced disappearance is not yet defined as a crime under national law.
Confessions or evidence coerced through torture are inadmissible in court under
Rwanda’s evidence law. “Confessions or evidence obtained by torture or
brainwashing” are prohibited in all courts, including specialized courts, such
as military courts.
evidence law states that “a person cannot retract a judicial admission unless
it can be proved that the admission was a result of physical torture or it
was a mistake of fact.” This provision should
be amended in line with international standards, including by covering mental
torture and ensuring that the
burden is on the State to prove beyond reasonable doubt that such statements have been given of the
person’s free will.
criminal procedure law guarantees a person who is arrested and detained several rights, some of which are not followed
by the military and military intelligence during arrests and detentions. Judicial police
officers have 72 hours to transfer a criminal case file to the prosecution or release the individual
arrested.17 The accused should then be charged by the prosecution and brought before court
to review the legality of detention within seven days or be released. Detainees should be
informed of the reason for their arrest and are entitled to access a lawyer and to inform another
person of their arrest.
in Rwanda prohibiting detention in secret places and regulating detention of
civilians in military custody are
ill-defined. The Code of Criminal Procedure states that “persons on remand in custody shall not be subject
to a release in a place other than the custody availed for that matter and located within the
area the National Police or Military Police office is located. As for soldiers and their
accomplices, that place shall be located near the office of Military Prosecution.”20 It does not
define “accomplices” and so may leave civilians at risk of being detained in military
facilities. Furthermore, it does not regulate the type of places
“soldiers and their accomplices” can be detained.
counter-terrorism legislation goes beyond what is foreseen by the Rwandan Code
of Criminal Procedure.
Under Article 45 of the law on counter-terrorism “A police officer, a security agent or any other authorized
person may arrest without warrant in case of clear reasons for suspecting such a person
to have committed or attempts [sic] to commit acts of terrorism and shall hand him/her over
to the nearest police station in a period not exceeding forty eight (48) hours.”This
facilitates the likelihood of individuals suspected of crimes under this law being placed in
unofficial and/or secret detention for periods of up to 48 hours. It effectively denies them
access to legal counsel in the early stages of detention when they are at the greatest risk of
torture or other ill-treatment. Detention in unofficial and/or secret places violates Rwanda’s
obligations under international law. As
well as numerous shortcomings in Rwandan legislatio n, the human rights
violations documented in this
report also stem from a failure to respect existing laws.
INTERNATIONAL
LAW
is a party to international and regional treaties that prohibit torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, and that otherwise protect the rights of individuals arrested or detained.
These include the Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).The
prohibitions on torture and other ill-treatment and on enforced disappearance are
absolute and non-derogable; they apply in all
without any exception.The UN Security Council, General Assembly, and Human Rights Council have all
repeatedly affirmed that all measures taken to counter terrorism must comply fully with
states’ obligations under international law, including particularly international human
rights law, international refugee law, and where applicable, Rwanda is yet to
ratify the International Convention for the Protection of
Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the Optional Protocol to the Convention
against Torture and
Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In response to its
Universal Periodic Review before the Human Rights Council in January 2011,
Rwanda stated that it was in the process of ratifying both conventions.26
Following Rwanda’s initial review by the Committee against Torture, Rwanda’s
cabinet approved ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention
against Torture on 13 June 2012.27 At the time of writing, no progress had been
made towards ratification of the Convention on Enforced Disappearances.
Rwanda has ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, it
will have an obligation to establish a National Prevention Mechanism, an
independent national body to
regular visits to places of detention. They may also receive occasional visits
from the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment, who can provide concrete recommendations on how to prevent
torture and ill-treatment.
WHAT WOULD RWANDA’S OBLIGATIONS BE UNDER THE
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM ENFORCED
DISAPPEARANCE?
Enforced disappearance is defined in Article 2 of the
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance which the UN General Assembly adopted in December 2006, as:
arrest, detention, abduction, or any other form of deprivation of liberty by
agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the
authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by a refusal to
acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts
of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of
the law.”
The Convention came into force on 23 December 2010
after it was ratified by 20 countries. States that ratify the Convention commit
themselves to conduct investigations to locate the disappeared person, to
prosecute those responsible and to ensure reparations for survivors and their
families. Under Article 17, which includes the prohibition of secret detention,
they must implement numerous safeguards to prevent enforced disappearance,
including through keeping detailed records of persons deprived of liberty. Any
judicial or other competent authority or institution authorized for that
purpose by the law of the state party concerned or any relevant international
legal instrument to which the state concerned is a party should be able to
consult these records. The records should note:
( a ) The identity of the person deprived of liberty;
 |
| The unspeakable RPF weapon for TORTURE In Rwandan prisons |
( d ) The authority responsible for supervising the deprivation of liberty;
( e ) The place of deprivation of liberty, the date and time of admission to the place of deprivation of liberty and the authority responsible for the place of deprivation of liberty;
( f ) Elements relating to the state of health of the person deprived of liberty;
destination of the remains;
time of release or transfer to another place of detention, the destination and
the authority responsible
for the transfer.
addition, according to Article 18 of the Convention, and subject to the
requirements mentioned in Article 19 and 20 of the Convention, relatives of the
person deprived of liberty and their legal counsel should have access to at least
information on:
that ordered the deprivation of liberty;
and place where the person was deprived of liberty and admitted to the place of
deprivation of liberty;
The authority responsible for supervising the deprivation of liberty;
The whereabouts of the person deprived of liberty, including, in the event of a
transfer to another place of deprivation of liberty, the destination and the
authority responsible for the transfer;
and place of release;
Elements relating to the state of health of the person deprived of liberty;
In the event of death during the deprivation of liberty, the circumstances and
cause of death and the destination of the remains.
have a responsibility to submit to the Committee on Enforced Disappearances a
report on the measures taken to give effect to its obligations under the
Convention. The Committee can also receive and investigate individual
complaints, and may conduct a visit to the country when it receives reliable
information indicating that a state party is seriously violating the provisions
of the Convention.
is still bound by the prohibition of enforced disappearances, as a rule of
customary international law, and since any act of enforced disappearance
inherently involves violations of a range of obligations under the ICCPR and
the ACHPR.28 Rwanda should adhere to the standards set out in the 1992 UN
General Assembly’s Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearances, which reflects the consensus of the international community
against this human rights violation.
3. MANDATE AND LEGAL POWERS OF ARREST AND
DETENTION BY THE MILITARY
Rwanda has several bodies responsible for ensuring national security. The RDF
under the Ministry of Defence ensures external security. It is headed directly
by President Kagame, who is Commander-in-Chief of the Army, seconded by the
Chief-of-Defence Staff. The Rwanda National Police (RNP), led by an Inspector
General of Police, maintains internal security.
the police and the RDF have their own intelligence branches, as does the
President’s Office. Within the army, this is the Department of Military
Intelligence (DMI), known more commonly in Rwanda as J2.
Since
early 2010, the role of the military and the police in arresting individuals
suspected of threatening national security became increasingly blurred.
In February 2010, Rwandan authorities created a Joint Operational Centre to
facilitate information sharing between the RDF, RNP, National Intelligence and
Security Service and the RCS.29 The following month, March 2010, Amnesty
International began to receive reports of enforced disappearances, torture and
other forms of ill-treatment in military detention facilities. These joint
operations may reduce oversight and confuse reporting lines, rendering
accountability for abuses less likely.
 |
RPF symbol of terror |
Rwandan legislation give rise to the arrests of civilians by the army and
military intelligence, as well as the unlawful detention of civilians in
military detention facilities. Rwandan counter-terror legislation, introduced
in September 2008, provides for investigations on terrorism suspects to be
conducted by the police, army, National Security Service or any other competent
organ. It allows “security agents or any other authorized person”, as well as
the police, to conduct impromptu arrests and searches of
individuals suspected of committing or attempting to commit terrorism.
Under this law, the arresting official has 48 hours to hand over the suspect to
the nearest police station. It defines terrorism in a broad way to include
“being in the company of members of a terrorist group” as complicity in
terrorism. This legislation came into force in April 2009 when it was published
in the Official Gazette.
International requested information about the mandate and legal powers with
regard to arrest and detention by the Ministry of Defence and its relationship
to the DMI, the police and the Ministry of Justice, in a letter to the Minister
of Defence in March 2012. The organization did not receive a response. In a
June 2012 meeting the Military Spokesperson told Amnesty International that the
RDF is supporting the police in the maintenance of law and order, including
through joint patrols, but denied that the military detain civilians.
4. SECRET AND INCOMMUNICADO DETENTION
SECRET AND INCOMMUNICADO DETENTION
JOURNEYS TRAVERSING J2’S PARALLEL SYSTEM OF DETENTION
The Department of Military Intelligence (DMI), J2, operates a parallel system
of arrest and detention. This system within a system is largely reserved for
individuals suspected of threatening national security.
Detainees’ detention journeys typically involved them being held in multiple
locations. This made it harder to trace their whereabouts and rendered them
more vulnerable to torture and other ill-treatment. Former detainees reported
that they were blindfolded when transported from one location to another, and
such transfers largely took place at night.
One man described his transfer from the Ministry of Defence to an unknown
location, which he later found out was Camp Kami: “They put me in a vehicle.
After about an hour, they stopped the vehicle, and they took off the fabric
from my eyes. They took off all my clothes and gave me a military uniform. I
was handcuffed and put in a house.”32 Usually suspects were shunted between
different locations at the start and end of their military detention, but held
for a prolonged period in one place in the middle.
DMI agents tried to conceal the location of some
detention centres to detainees. A number of detainees developed relationships
with their captors, eliciting information from them about where they were
detained.
MINADEF
The Ministry of Defence (MINADEF) is a modern
multi-story building in Kimihurura surrounded by swathes of neatly manicured
gardens. Some of the men who were unlawfully detained passed through MINADEF
for interrogations before being transferred to Camp Kami.
CAMP KAMI
Camp Kami is a newly renovated military camp situated
in Kinyinya Sector on the outskirts of Kigali. The surrounding area is
predominantly residential and overlooks the new housing developments of
Nyarutarama. The area is known for the tall radio antennae of Deutsche Welle
which dominate the local landscape.
Camp Kami had a notorious reputation for the torture and ill-treatment of
detainees in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.33 Its name continues to instil
fear among Rwandans. Officially, the camp now serves as an army barracks and a
detention centre for Rwandan soldiers subject to disciplinary action, but
Amnesty International has also documented several cases of civilians unlawfully
detained there. The facility is used by the DMI for questioning individuals
accused of threatening state security.
The part of Camp Kami where detainees are held is just a small section of the
larger military barracks. It is comprised of different “houses” which former
detainees called different “prisons” within Kami. Some detainees were kept in
isolation for several days, but the vast majority were detained with a few
others in small rooms. Former detainees reported to Amnesty International that
approximately 60 detainees were held at Camp Kami in late 2010 and 2011. They
based their estimates on conversations with their guards, as well as detainees
who were responsible for preparing food for other prisoners; a task they said
was
for RDF deserters.
Mukamira military camp lies between Gisenyi and Ruhengeri.35 Some suspects
detained at Mukamira camp were brought over from the DRC, while others appear
to have been arrested near Gisenyi. It houses a mix of civilians, demobilized
FDLR fighters and FDLR apprehended in the DRC.
Amnesty International has reviewed judicial files of some former detainees of
Mukamira military camp and interviewed their lawyers. The organization was
obstructed in gathering detailed information on the camp though restrictions on
visiting individuals formerly detained there and subsequently transferred to
Gisenyi prison.
Amnesty International also received reports of a network of safe houses used to
detain suspects in Kigali. Safe houses are not permitted under Rwanda’s code of
criminal procedure.36 They appear to be used to detain and interrogate higher
profile personalities, including Rwandans with links to the DRC or dual
Rwandan-Congolese nationals. Suspects were kept in secret detention in private
houses, sometimes in bathrooms and handcuffed for extended periods of time. Two
detainees reported to Amnesty International or their families that they had
been interrogated by high-ranking officials from the DMI in safe houses.
Specific conditions were more difficult to verify than in military camps
because detainees were isolated and typically did not have contact with
co-detainees.
INCOMMUNICADO
DETENTION
All former detainees told Amnesty International that they were held incommunicado in military custody for long periods of time – in many cases for more than two months and, in some cases, up to eight or nine months – before being presented to a prosecutor or court or being transferred to a civilian prison. During military custody, they were unable to contact a lawyer or relatives and their cases were not subject to judicial review. Such incommunicado detention, which includes no access to lawyers, doctors, and relatives
TORTURE AND OTHER ILL-TREATMENT
For most detainees, interrogations by military intelligence officers focused on knowledge of threats to national security. Many were questioned about the 2010 and 2011 grenade attacks and funding of the FDLR. Others were asked questions about their personal, social and family relationships, including their relationships with other detainees.
SERIOUS BEATINGS DURING INTERROGATIONS
All individuals formerly detained in military facilities and their family members interviewed by Amnesty ernational reported that they were severely beaten by military officers during interrogations. One former detainee of Camp Kami said, “The interrogation, it is beating” and described his time at Camp Kami as a “living death”.
Some family members and lawyers reported seeing marks from beatings on their relatives or clients. One family member described the first time they saw their relative after a month’s unlawful detention at Camp Kami, “His face, hands and legs were all swollen. We couldn’t easily recognize him”. 40 The individual concerned had not been charged by the prosecution or brought before a court during his time at Camp Kami.41 The vast majority, however, said that no visible signs were left due to the months that had elapsed since the beatings took place, shortly after their arrest and in the immediate months that followed.
ELECTRIC SHOCKS
Three former detainees from Camp Kami recounted to Amnesty International that they were subjected to electric shocks during interrogations. Two of these detainees described that this happened to them on one occasion each. Both of them reported that military intelligence had used these devices during interrogations at MINADEF shortly after their arrest and prior to their transfer to Camp Kami. Both interrogations took place at night. The other man had been electrocuted after his transfer to Camp Kami.
Read more on http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR47/004/2012/en/ca2e51a2-1c3f-4bb4-b7b9-e44ccbb2b8de/afr470042012en.pdf
The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a “time”, yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine
Keep on working, great job!
My website – hostgator 1 cent coupon (hostgatr1centcoupon.Blogspot.com)
Excellent post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed!
Very useful info specially the last part 🙂 I care for
such info much. I was seeking this certain information for a
very long time. Thank you and best of luck.
Feel free to visit my web site; google sniper 2.0 review