Let lawyers do their work: an analysis of the ICTR’s unfree acquitted and released men dying in detention in Niger
Allison Turner
Turner Legal Services, Montreal
aturner.legal@proton.me
Among the controversies associated with the United Nations (UN) International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and its successor, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (Mechanism), one protracted debacle stands out: the non-relocation of five acquitted and released convicted persons to safe countries (the men) and the non-cooperation with their lawyers who are trying to save the men’s lives.
The men were prosecuted at the ICTR in Arusha, Tanzania in the 1990s and 2000s. When they were on trial, they were held at the UN Arusha detention facility. When they were acquitted or had served their sentence and were released, the men applied for visas to reunite with their families in their countries of refuge outside Rwanda, however, the applications were unsuccessful or yielded no response. Those unable to immediately join their families in their countries of refuge moved into a UN safe house that was also located in Arusha.
It is worthy to note that between 2003 and 2018, ten successful safe relocations occurred when the ICTR and Mechanism cooperated with the men’s lawyers who then played an integral role advocating on behalf of their clients. Even though the Mechanism[1] recognised that such private relocation efforts work, for unknown reasons, since 2018, its Registry stopped cooperating with the lawyers and hindered attempts to safely relocate them.
In December 2015, the Mechanism requested the UN Security Council’s assistance to find a sustainable solution to this issue that challenged “the credibility of international criminal justice”.[2] Some of the men, it was noted, remained in a safe house in Arusha for over a decade, without a place to call home. A year later, the Mechanism anticipated ‘this humanitarian challenge’ would exist until such time as ’all acquitted and released individuals are appropriately relocated or have died’.[3]
When the Mechanism took over the residual work of the ICTR, it adopted a strategic plan[4] that included ‘a number of steps’ to support and expand efforts to relocate the men while limiting the role of the lawyers. It began reporting[5] on bilateral engagement with states that had indicated, in principle, ‘a willingness to accept one or more of the men’. Astonishingly, all these states that were so willing to welcome the men changed their mind after engaging in discussions with the Mechanism that, at this time, reportedly believed that it appeared ‘increasingly unlikely’ its (new) approach would lead to a comprehensive solution for all individuals concerned. One lawyer who later asked the Mechanism why all these states had a change of heart, received no reply.
In November 2017, the Mechanism reported to the UN Security Council that this challenge would persist until all the men ‘are appropriately relocated or are deceased’ and having deploying assistance with private relocation efforts.[6]
In 2018, the year of the last successful relocation, the Council noted with concern that the Mechanism faced problems in the relocation of the men and emphasised the importance of ‘the successful relocation of such persons’ calling upon all states to cooperate with and render all necessary assistance to the Mechanism, for increased efforts towards the relocation of the men. In 2019, the Mechanism reported that the safe relocation issue ’gravely affects the rights of these individuals’.[7]
In January 2021, the Mechanism’s Registrar met the men at the Arusha safe house, one of whom was acquitted of all charges in 2004, to discuss relocation: his ’Plan A’ was to relocate them to the countries they identified, failing which ’Plan B’ was to try to relocate them to the countries he identified, failing which ‘Plan C’ was to return the men to Rwanda. Plan C was rejected outright because it meant certain death.
On 15 November 2021, the UN signed an agreement with the Government of the Republic of Niger to relocate nine acquitted or released persons to its territory (Agreement);[8] the one man who did not give his consent to relocate to Niger passed away six months later.[9]
On 4 December 2021, the Mechanism transferred the remaining eight men from the UN safe house in Arusha to a house in the Nigerien capital of Niamey and left them there with government- issued identification cards and sustenance funds for one year.
At the 13 December 2021 UN Security Council meeting,[10] Rwanda’s ambassador to the UN, presided at the time by the Republic of Niger, issued an uncalled-for warning to Niger to ensure the men would not use its territory ‘for subversive activities that have contributed to the insecurity and instability of the Great Lakes Region for the past decades’.
On 23 December 2021, the Nigerien authorities withdrew the identification cards from the men and ordered armed police officers to surround their residence. Four days later, the Nigerien authorities issued an Expulsion Order, for ‘diplomatic reasons’, requiring the men to leave Nigerien territory within seven days.
In a decision on an urgent motion by one of the men requesting Niger to cooperate, on 31 December 2021, the Mechanism invited Niger to provide written submissions on the validity of the Expulsion Order and issued an order to Niger to stay the execution of the Expulsion Order, and to allow the men to remain on its territory in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, pending final adjudication of the matter.[11]
On 4 January 2022, the Government of Niger sent the Mechanism a note verbale indicating its decision to suspend the execution of the order for 30 days, as of 3 January 2022, to allow the Mechanism to find another Member State to accept the relocated persons. Ten days later, the Mechanism found that Niger should ‘adhere to the rule of law in relation to the Relocated Persons and ensure their fundamental human rights’ and ordered Niger a second time to stay the expulsion indicating the stay ‘should apply until final adjudication of the dispute’ concerning Niger’s compliance with the Agreement.[12]
In a letter to the Security Council reporting on the ‘major turn of events’, the president of the Mechanism said he was troubled by the circumstances and their severe impact on the fundamental human rights of the relocated persons, as well as on the rule of law more generally.[13] It was ‘distressing’ that a Member State of the Organisation could seek to disregard a recently concluded agreement with the UN, which could not be allowed to stand as a precedent.
In a 7 February 2022 decision[14] on motions filed by the men’s lawyers, the Mechanism’s Duty Judge called the situation a crisis that ‘turned the rule of law and the norm where States adhere to treaties on its head’. He ordered ‘the Registrar to immediately take all necessary measures and make the appropriate arrangement for the Relocated Persons to be returned to the Arusha branch of the Mechanism on a temporary basis, until their transfer to another state in line with Articles 23, 30, and 39 of the Headquarters Agreement’. Appropriate arrangements for the men to return to Arusha, however, were not made.
It is worth noting that in July 2021 the Mechanism revised its remuneration policy[15] for lawyers representing indigent convicted persons in post-conviction proceedings. When the crisis began, the lawyers acting for the men would be recognised as pro bono and not eligible for remuneration. As the matter dragged on, motions were filed requesting the application of the Mechanism’s legal aid remuneration system. In May 2022, the Mechanism Appeals Chamber found that the Duty Judge’s description of the situation as a ‘crisis’ and the men’s house arrest in Niger did not ‘demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting the assignment of legal aid at the Mechanism’s expense’.[16]
In June 2022, the Security Council noted with concern that the Mechanism continued ‘to face problems in the relocation’ of the acquitted and released Rwandans and emphasised the importance of finding ‘expeditious and durable solutions to these problems’, reiterating its call upon all states to cooperate with and render all necessary assistance to the Mechanism. The Council then wittingly or unwittingly gave the Mechanism cover when it ‘noted’ that decisions regarding the men’s future should consider inter alia ‘the readiness of the state of origin to accept its nationals’, paving the way to refoulement and spelling the end to the UN protection in place since 2004.[17]
The July 2022 annual report[18] to the Security Council indicated that the Mechanism’s greatest challenge concerned the fate of the eight acquitted or released persons who were relocated to the Niger. Nevertheless, the Mechanism continued to refrain from any meaningful cooperation with the lawyers and the men, whose lives are at stake.
On 5 October 2022, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) Special Rapporteurs on New Communications and Interim Measures urgently requested the Government of the Republic of Niger to refrain from deporting Rwandan men, who are refugees, to Rwanda.[19]
In Communication No 4227/2022, the men outlined how their rights under Articles 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 23 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were violated and explained how all available domestic and international remedies had been exhausted. They requested the HRC to take provisional measures to prevent the foreseeable irreparable harm and/or death if they were to be returned to Rwanda.[20] The Communication was filed by one of the four acquitted persons and one of the four released persons whom the Mechanism relocated from Arusha to Niger.
In June 2023, one of the men living under house arrest passed away at the residence in Niamey after not receiving adequate medical care. The UK permitted his remains to be repatriated to its territory. In its annual address to the Security Council, the Mechanism reported the death and urged the Council to appreciate how the status quo was untenable in every respect.[21]
In May 2024, the man, who had told the Registrar that sending him to Rwanda meant certain death, passed away under similar circumstances. France permitted his remains to be repatriated to its territory.
In a 2025 address to the Council, the Mechanism reported that it continued to seek resolution for the six remaining acquitted and released individuals and the Registrar was said to be continuing high-level engagement to facilitate implementation of the Agreement.[22] Partly based on the Security Council’s 2022 refoulement cue, a Mechanism judge is currently considering whether the men can ‘safely return’ to Rwanda.
In August 2025, a third man passed away. France permitted his remains to be repatriated to its territory. Eerily, the Mechanism’s website currently shows this matter registered under number MICT-22-124 as ‘Completed’.[23]
Despite numerous requests for cooperation, the Mechanism continues to refrain from meaningfully engaging with the men’s lawyers. It also does not help the situation when the UN Office of Internal Oversight (OIOS) audits the work of the Mechanism but not the way the Mechanism has been handling this matter. Today, five of the men continue to live under illegal house arrest in Niger under the constant threat of refoulement.
If the UN Human Rights Committee can urgently request the Republic of Niger to refrain from deporting Rwandan men in October 2022, the Security Council and the Mechanism can be held to the same standard – even if they did not sign the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted in 1984 by the UN General Assembly.
During the Nuremberg Forum 2025, hosted by the International Nuremberg Principles Academy, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel indicated that the Secretariat would be providing the Security Council with a set of options to conclude the work of the Mechanism. These options can rule out refoulement to Rwanda, and rule in, inter alia:
- requesting the Mechanism to resume support for and cooperation with the men’s lawyers, the only legal representatives who can advocate on their behalf, in all efforts vis-à-vis potential relocation states;
- requesting the Mechanism to share with the lawyers the information dating back to the bilateral discussions of 2015, including the names of states it engaged with that expressed an interest to relocate one or more of the men, and to initiate contact and meet with the several dozens of safe states it has not yet contacted;
- requesting the Mechanism to, alongside the lawyers, engage with those states that already accepted convicted persons to serve sentences on their territory;
- modifying the Statute of the Mechanism to include a process of its design to relocate the men to a safe country;
- requesting its 15 members to discuss and decide who, among them, will safely relocate one or more of the men; and,
- referring the cases of the men to the UN High Commission for Refugees and with the meaningful participation of the men’s lawyers.
Safe relocations occurred when the men’s lawyers played a meaningful role in the relocation process because they can advocate for their clients. If the substantive support which the UN once extended resumes, so will the safe relocations.
It is time for the Mechanism to again recognise that private relocation efforts work by including the lawyers’ meaningful participation in all efforts toward the successful relocation of their clients.
Notes
[1] See www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2020_309.pdf (UN Security Council. April 2020).
[2] International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals: https://unictr.irmct.org/en/news/address-united-nations-security-council-final-report-completion-strategy-international-criminal.
[3] See www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/documents/161117-progress-report-en_0.pdf (UN Security Council, November 2016).
[4] See www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2015_341.pdf (UN Security Council, May 2015).
[5] www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2016_453.pdf (May 2016).
[6] www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/documents/171117-progress-report-en.pdf (November 2017).
[7] www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/documents/190801-seventh-annual-report-en.pdf (August 2019).
[8] Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Niger and the United Nations on the relocation of persons released or acquitted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda or the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. Niamey, 15 November 2021 (No 57108). Available at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/No%20Volume/57108/Part/I-57108-08000002805cc97e.pdf.
[9] www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/documents/220728-10th-annual-report-A77242-S2022583-en.pdf (UN General Assembly Security Council, July 2022).
[10] https://docs.un.org/en/S/PV.8927.
[11] See www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/case_documents/31122021_MICT-12-26_Order_Stay_Explusion_Order.pdf.
[12] https://www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/case_documents/31122021_MICT-12-26_Order_Stay_Explusion_Order.pdf.
[13] See https://docs.un.org/en/S/2022/36.
[14] https://docs.un.org/en/S/2022/36.
[15] www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/documents/210731-9th-annual-report-A76248%E2%80%93S2021694-en.pdf.
[16] www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/case_documents/2022-05-27-EN-NZUWOMENEYE-FRANCOIS-XAVIER-ET-AL-Decision-on-Motions-to-Appeal-Decision-Denying-Assignment-of-Counsel.pdf.
[17] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3978081?v=pdf.
[18] www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/documents/220728-10th-annual-report-A77242-S2022583-en.pdf.
[19] Reference: G/SO/ 215/51 NER (1), Communication: 4227-2022. Human Rights Committee Procedure of Individual Communications under the Optional Protocol letter dated 5 October 2022 signed by Hélène Tigroudja and Arif Buklan, Human Rights Committee Special Rapporteurs on New Communications and Interim Measures.
[20] Communication: Urgent Request for Intervention and Interim Measures of Protection to Prevent Irreparable Harm of Deportation to Rwanda, Torture and/or Death filed under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights dated 22 September 2022.
[21] www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/statements-and-speeches/PR319e-ANNEX-President-address-to-the-UNSC_0.pdf.
[22] www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/statements-and-speeches/FINAL-2025-06-11-President-UNSC%20Remarks-ENG.pdf.
[23] www.irmct.org/en/cases/nzuwonemeye-francois-xavier-et-al-mict-22-124.