THE INTERNATIONAL CITIZENS’ TRIBUNAL FOR SUDAN
IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER
THE CLOSING STATEMENT FOR THE DEFENSE
By
Mr. Garry MacDonald
There is a saying common to many countries – said different ways in different languages – but the message is the same:
“Who ever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”
This honorable Tribunal has convened under the Rule of Law.
To demonstrate to the world that we believe in its underlying principles such as the presumption of innocence.
That we believe that the accusations and evidence must be tested before a verdict is rendered.
As my learned colleague Mr. Dawson outlined in our opening statement “…you have heard of a country awash in guns and young men in uniform, thousands of them simply bandits or rebels … foreign support of rebel groups.”
We heard from found Sudanese who witnessed and were victims of horrible atrocities. They were honest and credible people. Their testimony was compelling to say the least.
Yet, none of them can testify as the President Bashir’s involvement in what happened to them.
Mr. Elgadi, who, according to his testimony – which we have no reason to doubt – suffered greatly at the hands of armed thugs. He says he has first-hand knowledge of officials in the Sudanese government involved in his detention and torture. But are we convinced beyond doubt that these weren’t a bunch of rogues and renegades?
And Mr. Elgadi is a strong opponent of the Sudanese government. A political activist. Was his treatment a result of his politics or his ethnicity? And was it proved to be sanctioned by the government. Of note, Mr. Elgadi concedes the torture centre was shut down once it came to light.
We heard from professor Robert Collins, who reluctantly agreed that the Sudanese government has been forced to deal with armed rebellion on a number of fronts.
He agreed that no one had control over the Janjaweed.
The same can be said of the other ‘expert’ witnesses, noble people seeking only to provide aid to victims of unspeakable horrors.
Nevertheless they are outsiders – people who no matter how great the empathy – see only black and white in the multitude of shades of grey that characterize the decades and centuries of internecine warfare over small bits of arable land. Centuries of hatred over past grievances among differing peoples.
Tomo Kriznar saw a massacre of the Janjaweed by the SLA.
They must rely on hearsay to come to their conclusions. Their judgment is cloud by the harsh circumstances and foreign environment in which they find themselves. They are determined to find someone to blame for this evil. If they could personify it, that would somehow be more untreatable and easier to deal with.
Ms. Sirkin of the Physicians for Human Rights couldn’t understand how a non-doctor coming in to do social studies under the cloak of medical assistance just serves to feed the suspicions of the host government.
Again, as we said in our opening:
Across Africa you will find rag tag militias and rebels, arming and clothing themselves with whatever is at hand, including the spoils of war, be it the uniforms of their enemies or even their equipment… no credible evidence that they acting members of the Sudanese army. Or acting within the scope or control of the Sudanese government …
Revenge, vengeance and the coveting of precious land. The motive of all wars and atrocities – by no means exclusive to Sudan. But can they really be attributed to any one man?
Let us review the evidence in conjunction with the indictment against President Bashir.
Genocide is defined by the United Nations Convention as “… acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.’
It then goes on to enumerate the type of acts, most, if not all of which, are charged in this proceeding.
Are we convinced beyond doubt – based on the evidence before this Honorable Court – which the atrocities in Darfur are for the purposes of eradicating a national, ethnic racial or religious group?
Or is it tribal conflict – based on the inevitability of the history, relationships, and geography, of the current oppressed and oppressors. In this case, nomadic herders against farmers.
If it is a genocide, is it government-sponsored, or is it an uncontrolled group of vicious thugs and criminals fueled by irrational hatred?
We have heard much of the Janjaweed. A loosely organized group of militia believed responsible for the atrocities. But we have also heard of the omnipotent leader of this group.
His name is not Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir – the person named in this indictment – but Musa Hilal!
Musa Hilal is clearly the leader of this uprising of nomadic Arab tribesmen.
Musa Hilal is not a member of the Sudanese government.
We can speculate on his motives – vengeance, greed, territorial control – but if it is genocide; if it is a coordinated, controlled extermination of a people based on their ethnicity – then the directing hand and the controlling mind is that of Musa Hilal.
If – in spite of this – you still find government involvement in the deaths in Darfur, you may wish to consider that the Sudanese government is faced with an insurrection by a rebel movement comprised of bandits who themselves commit war crimes and other atrocities.
President Bashir came to power by means of insurrection, as have many successive regimes in Sudan and many other nations, on the continent of Africa and elsewhere.
And in Sudan as elsewhere there can be many civilian casualties, often more than that of combatants.
That the Sudan has faced armed insurrection by several rebel and criminal groups is established fact. With limited resources it has attempted to restore public order, while attempting to get aid to the affected region.
Great human suffering has occurred, but the prosecution simply cannot displace the onus upon it in this Tribunal – that the accused played an active role in precipitating any of this suffering.
My learned friend, the prosecutor, will tell you that these are trite and tired arguments, heard before in such trials.
That makes them no less legitimate.
Every day in courts throughout the world people charged with assault or murder say either they didn’t do it, or they were just defending themselves.
And the court does not, and cannot say, “ Well, we’ve heard that one before, so you are guilty.”
And the court does not say that, because it must weight the evidence to see if that is true or not.
And sometimes it is.
In summary, let this Honorable Tribunal apply the Rule of Law.
Let us not become monsters.
Let us look at the hard evidence and see if there is some doubt as to the nature of the killings amounting to genocide; and some doubt as to the guiding hand and mind of the perpetrators.
Let us not be concerned with wreaking vengeance based on hearsay.
Otherwise, what would be the point of a trial?
Why not take the accused out and shoot him and be done with it?
We don’t, because then we would be just like him. |
