(a) that the 29 officers who are accused of terrorism can still be arrested and prosecuted in Spain. Originally, all were charged with: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity as and terrorism. Because Spain has dropped universal jurisdiction, then Spanish courts have no jurisdiction over other crimes on the charge sheet except terrorism. This means that the arrest warrants are valid against those accused of terrorism.
(b) The court ruled on “prima facie” of the case that ” there is, sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution for all Kagame junta suspects officials on all the crimes charged.This is,contrary to what Kagame junta tells the world that there is no single piece of evidence on file for any crime.
The court underscored that, because Spanish courts have no jurisdiction to try those other international crimes _- genocide , war crimes and crimes against humanity – to the extend these cases came to court under universal jurisdiction theory.
There are 11 officers ( out of 40 officers who were indicated by the French court) who were not charged with terrorism. Those are free, at least for now. The technical issue is that war crimes and terrorism are not essentially different from terrorism. If prosecution had a good case for war crimes against the 11 officials, prosecution could use the same evidence to bring the 11 officers on the hook under terrorism.
I do not know the ” victory” Rwanda is talking about from these ruling.
Dr Charles Kambanda