But when Rwanda's Tutsi-dominated government voiced outrage and threatened to withdraw cooperation with the tribunal if Barayagwiza was freed, awkward politics intruded. The judges insisted that their decision was based purely on the facts and the law. I'm not clear which of these changed between the two rulings. What I do know is that the political heat increased considerably, Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte said that if Rwanda withdrew its cooperation the tribunal might as well shut down, and that many impartial observers suspect that this was taken into account by the chamber. I find it particularly distressing that neither the Western press nor NGOs took a principled stand on the case.
Technicalities are the basic rights of bad people.
More generally, I have not come across a single editorial in the English-language press questioning the second appellate decision. The same applies to NGOs. Human Rights Watch rightly condemned the prosecutor's office for bungling the Barayagwiza case, but did not applaud the appeals chamber for doing the right thing in its first ruling. Let me now turn to the points we agree on. For the new field of international justice to work, it is vital to have tribunals that are strong and effective.