Donald J. Horowitz: Is there anything that’s happened that’s s-, really surprised you?
There’s been many things that has happened that has surprised me. I think, depends on what level.
DJH: You know, obviously we don’t want to (_________) surprised.
No, it’s difficult to say. I mean both on a personal professional . . .
DJH: Yes, yes, personal and professional, yeah.
Yeah, I don’t think I should talk about that.
DJH: Either personal or professional?
DJH: Okay. Are there anything that you’re specifically really proud to have been involved with?
DJH: You mentioned that one witness, the way she . . .
Yes, I can say generally I’m very proud to be a, to have been a part of the Military One prosecution team.
I felt that the whole team did extraordinary work, for most part tried to be very collegial with one an-, an-, another, maybe not always so. Well, we probably looked a little bit weird the rest of the office just going back and forth, you know, to, from court over all those years but no, I’m very proud of that part of my work.
DJH: Okay. Anything specifically that you’re disappointed with or wish you’d done better or had happened better?
You know I always feel that you can perform better in the courtroom.
DJH: Sure, every one of us thinks that including the judges.
Yeah, yeah. But I try to forgive myself for that and try to do better next time.
No, and you know, we all act for different reasons and I wish (_), well, I like not to judge others and I like not to judge myself too hard either. It’s obviously more difficult not to judge yourself but I wouldn’t say disappointed, no. You know it’s part of life.
DJH: Okay. There’s been some criticism of the fact that this wasn’t – the prosecutions weren’t conducted in Rwanda or at least, at least partially so and, and that justice has just not been quite as present . . .
DJH: . . . for the Rwandan people. Do you have any thoughts on that?
I think that’s a va-, very valid criticism and if you’re going to talk in terms of reconciliation, what we discussed before, and this tribunal actually being set up for Rwanda. I think perhaps more effort should have been made to ma-, ensure that there wasn’t so much of a distance between Rwanda and the tribunal. I think in many ways there are close ties, definitely.
You know, but it’s difficult also because Rwanda is a very poor country. It has, you know, certain level of illiteracy so the modern judicial system may be difficult to explain to someone who has little education and can’t really read and write very well. And so there’re obviously, you know, a lot of problems associated with making sure that Rwandese feels that this is actually something that is also for Rwanda.
And it is for Rwanda. It’s not just for the “international community” feeling that, you know, we have to do something after it happened. But one of the, my pet projects that I haven’t really been acting on, but it’s been on my head for a while and I talk with people loosely about it from time to time is the fact that our judgment get translated into Kinyarwanda.
As it is now, I understand, it’s not a matter of course which I think is not right. And i-, at The Hague, the judgment do get translated into I think they call it BC, BSC, Bosnian-Serbian-Croat which is, you know, the combined language that they like to call it now, because that is the language of the accused so they can read the judgment.
However, most of our accused speaks and reads French perfectly so the, a translation is not necessary. I think two judgment in terms of Semanza and Muhimana have been translated so – for purposes of the accused, but I feel they should be translated for purposes of the witnesses, for purposes of, of the Rwandan population generally.
Of course, absolutely, yeah.