On September 5, 2024, Venant Rutunga, a former deputy director of the ISAR-Rubona research institute during the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The High Court Chamber for International Crimes in Nyanza, Southern Rwanda, found Rutunga guilty of being complicit in the genocide, which saw Tutsi employees at ISAR and refugees who had sought shelter on Gakera Hill killed by members of the gendarmerie.
During the court session, Rutunga, 75, showed no visible emotion when the verdict was read. He denied the charges throughout the trial, claiming that his involvement with the gendarmes, whom he had summoned, was purely for the protection of the institute. According to Rutunga, ISAR’s leadership had convened and agreed that the gendarmerie was necessary for maintaining security, and he should not be held accountable for the subsequent violence.
However, the court ruled otherwise. Testimonies presented suggested that Rutunga had facilitated the arrival of the gendarmes, who then killed Tutsi workers and refugees. While the court did not find evidence of Rutunga directly participating in the killings, such as wielding a weapon, it concluded that his role in bringing the gendarmes constituted essential complicity in the murders. The presiding judge labeled his actions as providing the necessary support for the genocide, even though it was accepted that Rutunga did not personally commit acts of violence.
Despite inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly regarding Rutunga’s role in arranging transportation for the gendarmes, the court maintained that Rutunga’s actions contributed to the massacre. Some witnesses claimed he rewarded the gendarmes with a slaughtered cow and alcohol after the killings, but the court found no conclusive evidence to support this claim.
Crucially, the court dismissed the idea that Rutunga had directly supplied weapons such as machetes, hammers, or other tools used in the massacres. It concluded that his culpability lay solely in inviting the gendarmes, knowing that their likely purpose was to kill the Tutsi.
The prosecution had initially sought a life sentence for Rutunga. However, the court considered mitigating factors, including Rutunga’s cooperation during the trial and his lack of previous convictions. These led to the imposition of a 20-year prison sentence.
Rutunga was extradited to Rwanda from the Netherlands in 2021 to face trial. His lawyer, Me Sophonie Sebaziga, respected the court’s decision, though he stated they would review the ruling and decide whether to appeal. Sebaziga remarked, “We respect the court’s ruling, which is delivered in the name of the people, but we will consult with my client on possible next steps.”
The case has garnered significant attention due to concerns of potential judicial overreach. One security expert argued that Rutunga was being unfairly targeted, as he had merely requested protection for ISAR, and the gendarmes’ subsequent actions should be attributed to them and their commanders, not Rutunga. The expert noted that Rutunga’s intention in calling the gendarmes was unclear, and there was no direct evidence proving that he anticipated the violence that would ensue. In several instances during the 1994 genocide, gendarmes were known to protect Tutsi civilians, which complicates the argument that Rutunga knowingly invited them to commit atrocities.
This case raises important questions about the extent of individual responsibility during the genocide and how justice is administered in cases involving alleged complicity. While Rutunga’s sentence reflects the court’s belief in his indirect involvement, the absence of clear evidence regarding his intent continues to fuel debate about the fairness of the trial and the broader pursuit of post-genocide accountability.
