Parcels in a courier company.
Photo
eWak
Que la France quitte toute l'Afrique. Les Français sont pauvres et corrompus. Il faut voir comment ils se comportent à l'égard du Rwanda et de la RDC. Ce sont les Français qui alimentent le conflit entre ces deux pays.
Ma chère Mushikiwabo, Mon cher Paul. C'est comme ça que Macron se comporte à l'égard des Africains alors que le Français a pratiquement disparu au Rwanda. Macron a du même financer des faux rapports sur le Rwanda pour avoir de bonnes relations avec ce pays. Ces rapports ont été rédigés pour promouvoir la discrimination des hutus par les Tutsi de Kagame.
Le Tchad met fin à l'accord de coopération en matière de défense signé avec la France, et révisé en 2019. Sans, pour le moment, donner plus de précisions sur ce qu'implique la rupture de cet accord. L'annonce n'a pas été faite pendant la visite de 24 heures du ministre français des Affaires étrangères Jean-Noël Barrot dans le pays, mais quelques heures après son départ.
« Le Gouvernement de la République du Tchad informe l'opinion nationale et internationale de sa décision de mettre fin à l'accord de coopération en matière de défense signé avec la République française », a déclaré Abderaman Koulamallah dans un communiqué publié sur la page Facebook officielle du ministère.
Le ministre tchadien des Affaires étrangères estime que le Tchad veut évoluer, mais que la France reste un partenaire essentiel, rapporte notre correspondant à Ndjamena, Carol Valade. Pendant sa visite, le ministre français Jean-Nöel Barrot n'a pas abordé le sujet. Lors de la déclaration commune à l'issue de la rencontre, son homologue tchadien Abderaman Koulamallah a simplement glissé que « la France doit considérer désormais que le Tchad a grandi et mûri ».
Ndjamena assure que les modalités prévues pour la résiliation de l'accord, y compris le délai de préavis, seront respectées. « Le Gouvernement tient à souligner que cette décision ne remet en aucun cas en question les relations historiques et les liens d'amitié entre les deux nations », ajoute le communiqué du ministère, qui espère « une transition harmonieuse » et reste « ouvert à un dialogue constructif pour explorer de nouvelles formes de partenariat ».
Des diplomates à la société civile, en passant par la sphère politique, absolument personne n'avait anticipé cette annonce. Et les spéculations vont bon train à Ndjamena : s'est-il passé quelque chose lors de la rencontre entre le chef de la diplomatie française et le président du Tchad, Mahamat Idriss Déby ? Non, répond le ministre tchadien des Affaires étrangères.
Joint par RFI, le chef de la diplomatie tchadienne évoque une décision « mûrement réfléchie ». L'annoncée a été faite très symboliquement le 28 novembre, qui marquait le 66e anniversaire de la proclamation de la République au Tchad.
Qu'implique cette déclaration ? S'agit-il d'un départ de tous les soldats français du sol tchadien ? Le ministre laisse entendre qu'elle pourrait entraîner un départ du millier de soldats français stationnés dans le pays, suivant les modalités et dans les délais prévus par l'accord de défense.
Est-ce un appel à revisiter la coopération ? Certaines interrogations restent pour l'heure sans réponses : rien n'a filtré à la sortie de l'entretien le jour-même entre le président tchadien Mahamat Idriss Déby et le chef de la diplomatie française Jean-Noël Barrot. Aucune des deux parties n'a semblé montrer de signe d'une dégradation des relations. Côté français, il n'y a pas eu de déclaration dans la soirée.
Mais le Tchad laisse donc la porte ouverte à un « dialogue » pour « explorer de nouvelles formes de partenariat ». C'est un tournant historique dans une longue histoire de co-dépendance marquée par un siècle de présence militaire française au Tchad : il s'agit du pays qui a connu le plus grand nombre d'opérations militaires françaises sur son territoire.
C'est aussi un nouveau coup dur pour la diplomatie française, qui a vu son armée chassée du Mali, du Niger et du Burkina Faso ces dernières années. Mais c'est aussi une décision très politique de la part du président tchadien Mahamat Idriss Déby, qui marque ainsi des points auprès d'une opinion publique largement défavorable à la présence française. Cela à tout juste un mois des élections législatives.
### "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few; and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence", George Washington. ### |
Brussels, 18 December 2015
Dear High Representative,
After 16 years of exile in the Netherlands, Ms. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, president of the
Unified Democratic Forces FDU-Inkingi, a coalition of Rwandan opposition parties, returned
to Rwanda to run for presidential elections scheduled for August 2010. On 14th October she
was arrested after weeks of police harassment, intimidation and media lynching, charged
with genocide ideology, genocide denial, and conspiracy against the regime. Charges
commonly used to silence any opposition in a country where freedom of expression is
severely curtailed.
After a flawed trial, condemned among others by Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch and the Foundation Jean Jaurès, she was sentenced in first 8 years in prison. On
appeal, the sentence was increased to 15 years. Yet, the Supreme Court had invalidated
some of the evidences used to convict her in the first place.
Having lost all confidence in the justice of her country led by an authoritarian regime, she
filed an application with the African Court of Human Rights and Peoples based in Arusha,
Tanzania.
Nominated for Sakharov Prize in 2012, the fate of this mother, nicknamed by her followers
as the Rwandan Aung San Suu Kyi, should challenge us. Pursuant to the resolution of our
Parliament 2013/2641 (RSP) of 25 may 2013, we ask the European Commission to officially
request the immediate release of Madam Ingabire. In the meantime, we urge the
Commission to take action to improve her prison conditions by ensuring, among others, a
free and easy access to legal counsel and her recognition as a political prisoner. We stress
the urgent need of periodic visits of EU observers to evaluate the situation.
The case of Ms Victoire Ingabire is just the tip of the iceberg. On Friday 4th December 2015,
her party deputy, Boniface Twagirimana, narrowly escaped a kidnap attempt. Thanks to the
quick reaction of bypassers, he was taken to a police station where he spent 24 hours
before being released without charges, since the kidnap attempt had been thwarted. This
crackdown on opposition comes in the wake of a constitutional review referendum
scheduled on 18 December 2015 that will allow the incumbent president to stay in power
for another 17 years at least, contrary to the constitution which limits his term in office to
two terms.
Lola Sánchez Caldentey
Rosa Estaràs Ferragut
Jordi Sebastià
Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal
Estefanía Torres
Miguel Urbán
Xavier Benito
Fabio de Masi
Tania Gonzalez
Reinhard Bütikofer
Maria Heubuch
Yanick Jadot
Ernest Urtasun
Ernest Maragall
José Bové
Karima Delli
Josep-Maria Terricabras
Julia Reda
Jean Lambert
Bart Staes
Marie-Christine Vergiat
Pascal Durand
Ian Hudghton
Tatjana Zdanoka
Bronis Ropè
Stelios Kouloglou
Ana María Gomes
Norbert Neuser
Barbara Spinelli
Luis de Grandes Pascual
Kostadinka Kuneva
Michèle Rivasi
Terry Reintke
António Marinho e Pinto
Gabi Zimmer
Ivo Vajgl
Laura Ferrara
José Inácio Faria
Dimitrios Papadimoulis
Marlene Mizzi
Beatriz Becerra
Izascun Bilbao
Liliana Rodrigues
Malin Björk
Teresa Gimenez barbat
Hilde Vautmans
Kostas Chrysogonos
Doru Frunzulica
Santiago Fisas Ayxelà
Claude Rolin
Jean-Luc Schaffhauser
Elly Schlein
Merja Kyllönen
Stefan Eck
Nathalie Griesbeck
Ignazio Corrao
Fabio Massimo Castaldo
Ramona Manescu
Brando Benifei
Javier Nart
María Teresa Giménez
Francesc Gambús
Nessa Childers
Johannes Cornelis Van Baalen
### "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few; and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence", George Washington. ### |
On Nov 23, 2024, at 8:21 AM, Nzi Nink <nzinink@yahoo.com> wrote:
Police Discover Skull Inside Nairobi-bound Bus - Kenyans.co.ke Police Discover Skull Inside Nairobi-bound Bus - Kenyans.co.ke
A standoff was on Thursday witnessed at the Busia border after a human skull was discovered inside a passenger bus.
According to eyewitnesses, the bus, which was coming from Rwanda and headed for Nairobi, stopped at the border for a routine check.
It was at this point that a human skull was discovered inside, neatly packed as a parcel.
The bus driver and conductor were interrogated following the discovery, then they proceeded to the Busia Police Station to record statements.
Parcels in a courier company.
Photo
eWak
Locals got wind of the bizarre incident and rushed to the scene demanding an explanation.
"We do not know who was carrying the skull and for what use. We also want to know where the said person was heading. Police should investigate this matter and give a comprehensive report," said one of the residents.
"The skull was well-packed and at first you would have thought it was a parcel. Killing a fellow human being is unacceptable," added another.
After the driver and conductor had recorded their statements, they were given a green light to proceed with the journey.
The skull was left at the police station as officers as investigations commenced on the matter.
According to the locals, the discovery should serve as a wake-up call to authorities to tighten the noose at all border points to ensure there is no trafficking of human organs.
"There is a possibility that some people in Busia or the surrounding regions are engaging in such dirty businesses. Security agencies should crack the whip and prosecute those who will be found guilty," said a Busia resident.
In September this year, long-distance truck drivers also lamented cases of insecurity at the Busia border saying thugs take advantage of traffic snarl-ups to rob them of their valuables.
A photo of human skulls
Photo
The Independent
###
"Be courteous to all, but intimate with few; and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence", George Washington.
###
A standoff was on Thursday witnessed at the Busia border after a human skull was discovered inside a passenger bus.
According to eyewitnesses, the bus, which was coming from Rwanda and headed for Nairobi, stopped at the border for a routine check.
It was at this point that a human skull was discovered inside, neatly packed as a parcel.
The bus driver and conductor were interrogated following the discovery, then they proceeded to the Busia Police Station to record statements.
Parcels in a courier company.
Photo
eWak
Locals got wind of the bizarre incident and rushed to the scene demanding an explanation.
"We do not know who was carrying the skull and for what use. We also want to know where the said person was heading. Police should investigate this matter and give a comprehensive report," said one of the residents.
"The skull was well-packed and at first you would have thought it was a parcel. Killing a fellow human being is unacceptable," added another.
After the driver and conductor had recorded their statements, they were given a green light to proceed with the journey.
The skull was left at the police station as officers as investigations commenced on the matter.
According to the locals, the discovery should serve as a wake-up call to authorities to tighten the noose at all border points to ensure there is no trafficking of human organs.
"There is a possibility that some people in Busia or the surrounding regions are engaging in such dirty businesses. Security agencies should crack the whip and prosecute those who will be found guilty," said a Busia resident.
In September this year, long-distance truck drivers also lamented cases of insecurity at the Busia border saying thugs take advantage of traffic snarl-ups to rob them of their valuables.
A photo of human skulls
Photo
The Independent
### "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few; and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence", George Washington. ### |
Today, on 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court ('Court'), in its composition for the Situation in the State of Palestine, unanimously issued two decisions rejecting challenges by the State of Israel ('Israel') brought under articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute (the 'Statute'). It also issued warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant.
Decisions on requests by the State of Israel
The Chamber ruled on two requests submitted by the Israel on 26 September 2024. In the first request, Israel challenged the Court's jurisdiction over the Situation in the State of Palestine in general, and over Israeli nationals more specifically, on the basis of article 19(2) of the Statute. In the second request, Israel requested that the Chamber order the Prosecution to provide a new notification of the initiation of an investigation to its authorities under article 18(1) of the Statute. Israel also requested the Chamber to halt any proceedings before the Court in the relevant situation, including the consideration of the applications for warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant, submitted by the Prosecution on 20 May 2024.
As to the first challenge, the Chamber noted that the acceptance by Israel of the Court's jurisdiction is not required, as the Court can exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of territorial jurisdiction of Palestine, as determined by Pre-Trial Chamber I in a previous composition. Furthermore, the Chamber considered that pursuant to article 19(1) of the Statute, States are not entitled to challenge the Court's jurisdiction under article 19(2) prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thus Israel's challenge is premature. This is without prejudice to any future possible challenges to the Court's jurisdiction and/or admissibility of any particular case.
The Chamber also rejected Israel's request under article 18(1) of the Statute. The Chamber recalled that the Prosecution notified Israel of the initiation of an investigation in 2021. At that time, despite a clarification request by the Prosecution, Israel elected not to pursue any request for deferral of the investigation. Further, the Chamber considered that the parameters of the investigation in the situation have remained the same and, as a consequence, no new notification to the State of Israel was required. In light of this, the judges found that there was no reason to halt the consideration of the applications for warrants of arrest.
Decision on Israel's request for an order to the Prosecution to give an Article 18(1) notice
Warrants of arrest
The Chamber issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024, the day the Prosecution filed the applications for warrants of arrest.
The arrest warrants are classified as 'secret', in order to protect witnesses and to safeguard the conduct of the investigations. However, the Chamber decided to release the information below since conduct similar to that addressed in the warrant of arrest appears to be ongoing. Moreover, the Chamber considers it to be in the interest of victims and their families that they are made aware of the warrants' existence.
At the outset, the Chamber considered that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Chamber recalled that, in a previous composition, it already decided that the Court's jurisdiction in the situation extended to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Chamber declined to use its discretionary proprio motu powers to determine the admissibility of the two cases at this stage. This is without prejudice to any determination as to the jurisdiction and admissibility of the cases at a later stage.
With regard to the crimes, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu, born on 21 October 1949, Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the relevant conduct, and Mr Gallant, born on 8 November 1958, Minister of Defence of Israel at the time of the alleged conduct, each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.
The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.
Alleged crimes
The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that during the relevant time, international humanitarian law related to international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine applied. This is because they are two High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and because Israel occupies at least parts of Palestine. The Chamber also found that the law related to non-international armed conflict applied to the fighting between Israel and Hamas. The Chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory. For these reasons, with regards to war crimes, the Chamber found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict. The Chamber also found that the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.
The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024. This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of international humanitarian law and their failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal. The Chamber found that their conduct led to the disruption of the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods to the population in need in Gaza. The aforementioned restrictions together with cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care.
The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of America. In any event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population's access to essential goods.
Furthermore, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that no clear military need or other justification under international humanitarian law could be identified for the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian relief operations. Despite warnings and appeals made by, inter alia, the UN Security Council, UN Secretary General, States, and governmental and civil society organisations about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, only minimal humanitarian assistance was authorised. In this regard, the Chamber considered the prolonged period of deprivation and Mr Netanyahu's statement connecting the halt in the essential goods and humanitarian aid with the goals of war.
The Chamber therefore found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.
The Chamber found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration. On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met. However, the Chamber did find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of murder was committed in relation to these victims.
In addition, by intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anaesthetics and anaesthesia machines, the two individuals are also responsible for inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of treatment. Doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics, and/or were forced to use inadequate and unsafe means to sedate patients, causing these persons extreme pain and suffering. This amounts to the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts.
The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that the abovementioned conduct deprived a significant portion of the civilian population in Gaza of their fundamental rights, including the rights to life and health, and that the population was targeted based on political and/or national grounds. It therefore found that the crime against humanity of persecution was committed.
Finally, the Chamber assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza. In this regard, the Chamber found that the material provided by the Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians. Reasonable grounds to believe exist that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant, despite having measures available to them to prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities, failed to do so.
Background
On 1 January 2015, The State of Palestine lodged a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute accepting jurisdiction of the Court since 13 June 2014.
On 2 January 2015, The State of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute by depositing its instrument of accession with the UN Secretary-General. The Rome Statute entered into force for The State of Palestine on 1 April 2015.
On 22 May 2018, pursuant to articles 13(a) and 14 of the Rome Statute, The State of Palestine referred to the Prosecutor the Situation since 13 June 2014, with no end date.
On 3 March 2021, the Prosecutor announced the opening of the investigation into the Situation in the State of Palestine. This followed Pre-Trial Chamber I's decision on 5 February 2021 that the Court could exercise its criminal jurisdiction in the Situation and, by majority, that the territorial scope of this jurisdiction extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
On 17 November 2023, the Office of the Prosecutor received a further referral of the Situation in the State of Palestine, from South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, and Djibouti, and on 18 January 2024, the Republic of Chile and the United Mexican State additionally submitted a referral to the Prosecutor with respect to the situation in The State of Palestine.
For further information, please contact Fadi El Abdallah, Spokesperson and Head of Public Affairs Unit, International Criminal Court, by telephone at: +31 (0)70 515-9152 or +31 (0)6 46448938 or by e-mail at: fadi.el-abdallah@icc-cpi.int
You can also follow the Court's activities on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, YouTube, Instagram and Flickr
### "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few; and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence", George Washington. ### |
DRC: more than $970,000 per month earned by the M23 - MINES.CD - First Congolese media in the mining sector
https://mines.cd/rdc-plus-de-970-000-par-mois-gagnes-par-les-m23/
Watch "Paul Kagame & Yoweri Museveni Must Go! | A Good Dancer Knows When To Leave The Stage | PLO Lumumba" on YouTube
Search for all messages with label InboxRemove label Inbox from this conversation
Genocide mu Rwanda yarateguye cyangwa se ntiyateguwe?
Reka nibarize Musangamfura Sixbert.
Ko ibimenyetso afite byo gutegura genocide ari liste yahawe n'indi yabonetse mu modoka, ese ibyo birahagije gutegura genocide? Ese ufite liste y'abakinyi b'umupira wa Football, ibyo birahagije kugira ngo bazatsinde irushanwa? Kugira ngo utegure kujya muri iryo rushanywa hari ibindi byinshi bisabwa: kwitoza, budget, abafasha, ikibuga, guhemba abakinnyi, imyambaro, transport n'ibindi. Urundi rugero: Ese ufite liste y'abo watumiye mu bukwe, ubwo ubukwe buba bwabaye? Uko si uko niko gutegura ubukwe? Iyo niyo mpamvu ibimenyetso nk'ibyo bya Mukenzamfura bidahagike kugira TIPR ya Arusha ibe yarashoboye kwemeza ku buryo butaziguye ko genocide yateguwe mu Rwanda.
Mukezamfura ibyo avuga byerekana ko atazi planning icyo bivuga. Niyegere ba economistes bamusobanurire.
-“The root cause of the Rwandan tragedy of 1994 is the long and past historical ethnic dominance of one minority ethnic group to the other majority ethnic group. Ignoring this reality is giving a black cheque for the Rwandan people’s future and deepening resentment, hostility and hatred between the two groups.”
-« Ce dont j’ai le plus peur, c’est des gens qui croient que, du jour au lendemain, on peut prendre une société, lui tordre le cou et en faire une autre ».
-“The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.”
-“I have loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore I die in exile.”
-“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”