C-

(^

REACTION TO MSF-BRUSSELS COMMENTS ON TIIE RECONSTRACTIONRE PORT B UKAW.SIIAB UNDA

Amsterdam, 22 April 1997

Before reacting in depth on the comments made by -Peter Casaef on the content of theReconstruction Report Bukavu-Shabunda, we would ltke to explain briefly how thereconstruction was done and the subsequent report was written. We hope that this will clariffpossible misunderstandings that have risen and add to the understanding that the report waswritten with due consideration of (field) security, confidentiality and coherence.

The report was written on the basis of an operational and human rights debriefing ofthe two expats involved. The first debriefing was done by the desk, the latter by an extemalhuman rights lawyer with working experience in conducting a human rights debriefing andthe subsequent writing ofa report on the basis ofthis. Moreover, during both the operationaland human rights debdefing a member of the humanitarian affairs departrnent and thepsycho-social team were present.

The purpose of the report was to reflect what the MSF expats had seen and heard andto provide a testimony of this with as much accuracy as possible. Already during theexploratory mission information on what was seen and heard was carefully written down andalso whether it was possible to get confirmation for these visual and oral reports. Informationwhich was too vague or could not be confirmed has been left out of the report. Mostinformation in the report is based orL at least two different sources. However, because of theseriousness of the allegations receicved during the trip (systematic mass killings) and theurgency of action to stop any further abuses, also less 'strong' (i.e. confirmed) informationwas put into the report when the allegation was very serious and similar to information thatcould be confirmed.

During the whole of the process of the writing of the report the expats involved, aswell as several other people, gave their feedback on drafts ofthe rcport to avoid mistakes andto carefully select the words in which this sensitive report would be written. This report doesnot discuss the decision making process between the desks.

Regarding 'security'

The reports 4.llegation of the involvement of the Rwandan sovernment in the alleeedmass_killings is stated in sucn a way -imtsit is-notfaitf ôy ivlSF duectly but bj olÂers ,r-ivisrtturing its mission ('il r,r,as pointed out to MSF...'). Moreover, MSF on two occasions directlymet with the Rwandan commander Jackson, which supports the allegation of Rwandaninvolvement. This allegation is not new and stated before by Human Rights Watch (HRW) inits report 'Zaire: Auacked By All Sides' (March 1997, Vol. 9, nr. 1) and by the UN SpecialRapporteur for Zaire Mr Robert Garretôn in its reports to the UN Commission on HumanRlghts (E/C N. 4 / I 9 9 7 / 6, 28 January I 997 and E/CN. 4/ I 9 9 7 / 6/A dd. 2, 2 Apil 1997 ).

Putting the findings on paper instead ofonly verbally communicating the confidentialissues raised in the report, was done to facilitate the discussion on the alleged mass killings

and to provide information as detailed as possible to relevant persons who might contribute tothe facilitation of a quick and effective investigation into the reported human rightsviolations. Of course there is always the risk of confidential reports 'leaking' to people whowere not inilially targeted, which might create security risks. However, this risk is presentwith both written and vetbal information.

However, the advantage of a written report (however confidential) in such a case isthat it gives MSF a better ground for defending possible accusations made by others. Ifcountered successfirlly, it even contributes to the credibility of the report and reinforces theseriousness of the alleged human rights violation(s), which in its tum enhances theprobability ofthese allegations to be investigated. Moreover, as you know, verbal informationtends to become distorted once it changes from person to person and in the worst case startsleading 'a life on its own'. Since such stories tend to be exagerated this may even lead togreater and less controlable security risks.

Regarding'counterintelligence agency?'

Regarding the 'militarv information' we would like to stress that MSF did not activelygather any such information. Most information which can be considered as'military' weretold to MSF during the trip or witnessed directly by the expats. Any such information servesno other purpose than to provide the report with a context in which the alleged killings tookplace. Moreover, it confirms the fact that AFDL is in control over the area described and assrrch under intemational humanitarian law bears legal responsible lbr the human righle âhusesthat took place, for avoiding further abusçs ano ro onng mose responsible to justice. w r^,..çrthe human rights abuses are perpetrated by the AFDL themselves or not.

Regarding'indirect witnessing/sources'

The people who talked to both MSF and LJNHCR during the explo mission were tooscared to state their names, fearing reprisals upon discovery. And even if we would havenames of witnesses we would not have put them in to protect their identity. This explains the

ltn*i"g of the report and the more general indication in the begirming of the report on thesources of the information. However, also the UN Special Rapporteur, Amensty Intemationaland Human Rights Watch use such pbrasing in their reports when the identity of witnesses.

We feel that the allegations made regarding human rights abuses in combination withthe things directly seen and/or heard by the team duriag the explo mission give strong reasonsto conclude that human rights abuses took place and still taking place. Moteover, the actualpresence of MSF and UNHCR il the area by means of this explo mission in our viewprovides suffrcient bsis for the credibility of MSF and this report. For remarks on direct/firsthand witnessing please see below.

rlegarding'direct witnessing'

In principal it is very rare to direct witness human rights abuses such as mass killings,since they accur mostly when there is no intemational presence (hence the need for suchpresence). Indeed direct witnessing is the strongest form of witnessing/advocacy one could

3

wish for, but in this case was not available. Still we all agree that we cannot remain silent onthe serious allegations made by refugees and the local population who claimed to havewitnessed these abuses. Moreover, the indirect accounts seemed to be confirmed by locations,events and people encountered during the explo mission.

Regarding 'on MSF internal procedures'

The Reconstruction Report Bukavu-Shabunda was written as of Monday the 14 April.fThe reportwhich was requested for 'for several weeks' is therefore probably mistaken with

I the Reconstruction Report on Masisi which is not yet finished, because more additional infoI from the field was needed to complete the reconstruction. Therefore no other organisations orI persons have gotten any information on Masisi.v

Finally

We hope this reply clarifies most of your questions and provides constructivefeedback on your comments so that they can be used in the teleconference at the end of theweek. We also hope that this reply has convinced you of our intention to treat this wholeissue very seriously, correctly and coherently.

Kind regards,

MSF-Holland

C-