PROTECTION OF THE BATWA

From the foregoing, it is clear that the rights of the Batwa continue to be systematically ignored and unprotected. The government has the responsibility to protect the Batwa community not only as human being, but also as indigenous people. The Batwa as indigenous people, can beneficiate both from general and specific protections.

1. General protections

The enjoyment of rights without distinction as to race, sex, religion, language and ethnicity has been elaborated in universal and regional human rights instruments. Therefore, all individuals belonging to indigenous peoples ‘are free and equal to all other…individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity’.[1] The individuals that belong to the Batwa community, like all other individuals in Rwanda, are entitled to universal individual rights such as right to life, right to liberty and personal security, right to privacy, right to education, right to employment, right to fair trial and right to equality and non-discrimination. The question is whether Rwanda provides and protects such universal human rights generally, and whether members of the Batwa community can benefit from these protections.

Under the Constitution, the Government of Rwanda has the duty to defend, respect and protect every human being, who is considered sacred and inviolable according to the Constitution.[2] The Constitution provides for the important principles of universal human rights.[3] The constitution states that ‘[a]ll human beings are equal before the law. They should enjoy, without any discrimination, equal protection of the law’.[4] Like other citizens of Rwanda, individuals that belong to the Batwa community enjoy freedom such as freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom from torture and inhumane treatment.[5] The Constitution provides, from Articles 29 to 50, a wide range of civil and political rights, as well as some economic, social and cultural rights, in particular, the right to freedom of association and freedom of assembly.

In addition, the Law No 47/2001 on Prevention, Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Discrimination and Sectarianism has been influential in the fight against discrimination in Rwanda. The Criminal Code establishes penalties for hate speech, discriminatory acts, employment discrimination and physical attacks. There are also anti-discrimination provisions in the Labour Code, the General Statute of Public Service, Organic Law No 20/2003 concerning Education in Rwanda and legislation relating to the justice sector, including the police.

Despite the normative and moral stature of the non-discrimination and equality principles, discrimination against the Batwa continues to be pervasive and persistent in Rwandan society. The UNPO denounces the exclusion and discrimination of the Batwa from certain development programs and the detrimental effects of some of those programs on them.[6] The discrimination and unequal position before the law are a punitive reality and are clear examples of human rights violations and failure of State obligation to protect the Batwa from discrimination and fulfil their right to equal treatment and equality before the law. The ‘Institute of Research and Dialogue for Peace’, in its study, indicates that ethnic-based discrimination remains a problem in Rwandan society.[7] It is also noticed that the Government’s own research, documented in the ‘Rwanda Reconciliation Barometer’, notes that ‘although ethnic discrimination is banned in Rwanda, it still occurs’.[8] In May 2009, the HRC stated its concern regarding reports that members of the Batwa community are victims of marginalization and discrimination. The Committee recommended that Rwanda ‘should take steps to ensure that members of the Batwa community are protected against discrimination in every field, that they are provided with effective remedies in that regard and that they take part in public affairs’.[9]

It appears from the discussion above that the universal system of protection of individual rights is necessary and can address some of the problems that Batwa people suffer. However it alone cannot ameliorate the Batwa’s particular social, economic and political situation. Therefore, the Batwa, like all other indigenous peoples, must be afforded specific protections.

2. Specific protections

The individual human rights, although necessary, are not sufficient to respond to the specific needs of the Batwa as a community. They must necessarily be complemented by collective rights that are specific for all indigenous peoples. The specific rights are, therefore, based on the importance to survive as a group of people. This can only be achieved by acknowledging and protecting among others, Batwa’s rights to self-identification, rights to self-determination, rights to participation and consultation, rights to lands and natural resources, and rights to culture and traditional institutions as well. The question is whether Rwanda provides for such group protection.

1. Protection of the Batwa’s rights to self-identification

As it is well-established in international law,[10] self-identification, as a member of indigenous community and acceptance as such by the group, is an essential element of indigenous peoples’ sense of identity. Therefore, the Batwa have rights to freely identify themselves as belonging to a different culture and ethnic group. They have ‘collective and individual rights to maintain and develop their distinct identities and characteristics, including the right to identify themselves as an indigenous people and to be recognized as such.’[11]

There are no specific laws or any other official policies in Rwanda that acknowledge the rights of Batwa to self-identification. The Constitution does not mention anywhere in its provisions the word ‘indigenous people’ or ‘minority’. In fact, the resistance from government to self-identification of the Batwa and their recognition as indigenous people is evident. This is clear from the response of the Rwandan government to the request introduced by the Batwa to organise themselves as an indigenous people. In 1995, after being totally forgotten and ignored in their home country, the Batwa took the initiative to form the Community of Indigenous People of Rwanda (CAURWA). Although this Organisation was aimed at representing the Batwa, who do not have the capacity and resources to represent themselves in all matters affecting them as vulnerable indigenous people, the Government declined to grant legal status to their organization unless it stopped identifying the Batwa as ‘indigenous people’. They changed the name of their organisation to the Community of Rwandan Potters (COPORWA) even if it was against the wishes of members of the Organisation.[12] This indicates that Rwanda is not willing to recognise the Batwa as an indigenous people.

Despite the social reality, the government banned all ethnic identification in Rwanda. Since 1994, neither the Bahutu nor the Batwa are recognized and they are not officially mentioned as ethnic groups in the country. Ethnic identities were replaced by a single Rwandan national identity. The only politically acceptable and legally permissible identity is that of a Rwandan citizen.[13] The Constitution aims at the eradication of ethnic, regional and other divisions and the best way to achieve this, according to the government, is to refrain from providing recognition to the ethnic groups.[14] It is also provided in the Constitution[15] that Rwandans enjoy the privilege of having one country, the same language, the same culture, as well as the same history.

The government’s line of argument for not recognizing the Batwa as an indigenous people is the need to strengthen national unity and reconciliation by encouraging a homogenous Rwandan identity and avoiding the encouragement of divisionism which, in the past, led to genocide. [16] As such, no group of people is allowed to identify themselves under ethnic, culture, regional differences or, even based on indigenousness. According to the government, it cannot recognize a community seeking to identify itself as an indigenous people that claim to have special rights from the rest of the citizens.[17]

The position of the Rwanda government has been criticised by the African Commission. The Commission notes that Rwanda continues to deny the existence of indigenous people in the country.[18] The continuous denial to recognise the Batwa as an indigenous people makes it difficult for the Government ‘to develop appropriate strategies suitable to enhance the welfare of the Indigenous community and this may account for the continuous underdevelopment, marginalisation and discrimination of the Batwa’.[19]

The right of the Batwa to identify themselves as an indigenous people and the government’s version that prohibits the recognition of ethnic groups in Rwanda is also addressed by the CERD Committee. The committee, first, stated that ‘such identification shall, if no justification exists to the contrary, be based upon self-identification by the individual concerned’.[20] It then expressed the regret at the government’s policy of not recognizing the Batwa community as an indigenous people.[21] The Committee advised the government to take into account the needs and specificities of each of the groups that make up its population, including the Batwa.[22]

The self-identification of the Batwa as an indigenous group must not be seen as a threat. It is a means through which targeted measures can be employed to raise their standard of living. It has the additional benefit of reducing the level of inequality in Rwanda, understood by the government itself to be ‘rising and high’.[23] The Batwa are a distinct ethnic group with distinct challenges, the solutions to which are also distinct. In so doing, domestic law relevant to ethnicity, identity, equality and non-discrimination has to recognise such rights to self-identification and ensure that no individual or group suffers from any disadvantage or discriminatory treatment on the basis of their freely chosen identity as belonging to or not belonging to an ethnic, culture or any other group. [24]

In sum, non-recognition of the Batwa as indigenous peoples has led them to being ignored in government programmes. [25] It is very important, therefore, to guarantee the Batwa community the rights to freely express their ethnic and cultural identity. The government of Rwanda is required, therefore, to recognise the Batwa people and to protect them according to their specific rights, including the rights to self-determination, which is the focus of the next section.

2. Protection of the Batwa’s rights to self-determination

The right to self-determination is one of the core claims of indigenous peoples. It offers indigenous peoples the means through which they can assume control of their own lives and destinies and gain a greater recognition of their distinct cultures, traditions and customs as well as greater control over their traditional lands and their own economic development.[26]

Rwanda has an international obligation to respect the common Article 1(1) of the both Covenants, which states that; ‘All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’. This protection is also provided by the ILO Convention, the UNDRIP, the CBD and the African commission,[27] as well as Article 5 of the CERD, which obliges the State of Rwanda to develop legislative means for the protection of traditional collective land rights of the Batwa community, to achieve its rights to complete self-determination. In this regard, it is important to examine whether Rwanda provides for the right to self-determination, both in its internal and external dimensions.

In this regard, the territory of Rwanda is divided into two main administrative entities; the central government and local government. While local government consists of four tiers (i.e. districts, sectors, cells and villages), the central government includes provincial administrative regions and the capital city of Rwanda.[28] Although, the goal of this political and administrative devolution was to empower all Rwandan people to determine their destiny by respecting the principle of local autonomy, identity, interests and diversity,[29] it is almost impossible for the Batwa to enjoy the right to self-determination, in its internal or external dimensions. Given the structure of the Rwandan state, it is clear internal self-determination for the Batwa may not be fully realized. The Batwa community was destroyed and individuals were dispersed in different villages of the country without any consideration of their economic, social and cultural development.[30] In addition, the removal of the Batwa from their traditional lands continues unabated. This is mainly founded on the fact that the Batwa’s right to their ancestral territories and natural resources is not recognized and respected.[31] External aspect of self-determination, which confers on the peoples some degree of economic, cultural and political autonomy in the international community, is a controversial subject for the Batwa, as it requires territories for the creation of indigenous states, regions, provinces or other administrative arrangements.[32]

Furthermore, the Rwandan report to the ICESCR Committee deliberately denies the rights of the Batwa to self-determination. The report interprets the right to self-determination absolutely as the right of the Rwandan State to administer itself without any foreign interference. In addition, it interprets self-determination as requiring a devolution process so that citizens are in charge of their own affairs. Even then, the Rwanda government, as indicated above, does not address the possibility of economic, political, social or cultural devolution of the Batwa, as required under Article 1 of the both Covenants. Their freedom to choose their own government or to define their relationship with an existing one and, to dispose and use the wealth and natural resources found in their territories is denied.

3. Protection of Batwa’s rights of consultation and participation

Consultation and participation are twin-principles. While the right to consultation can be seen as space for indigenous peoples to negotiate and to protect their rights,[33] the right to participation ensures equitable representation in public affairs. It allows indigenous peoples to decide their priorities for the process of development as these affect their lives.[34]

To begin with, there is no specific legislation regulating consultation of the Batwa as indigenous people in Rwanda. This may be one of the reasons why the local authorities continue to pay insufficient attention to the concerns of the Batwa.[35] Hence, the Batwa face systemic marginalization in national planning processes. Often, they are not consulted on major land use policies and on the effects that these policies have on their livelihoods.[36] The Government’s ‘Bye Bye Nyakatsi’ programme, which required demolition of thatched roofed homes (nyakatsi) to be replaced by iron-roofed structures, is a pertinent example of non-consultation of Batwa. Local authorities demolished their houses before any replacement houses or appropriate assistance has been provided. While the program does not particularly target the Batwa people, they disproportionally affected as they commonly live in rudimentary thatched shelters. Furthermore, they exist in conditions of disadvantage and vulnerability, which means they are poorly equipped to respond to difficulties created by the dismantling of their homes.[37]

The right to political participation is generally guaranteed to all Rwandans and is effected through free and fair elections. Article 45 of the Rwandan Constitution guarantees to all citizens the right to participate in the governmental bodies of their country, whether directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the law. The same article also guarantees to all citizens the right of equal access to public service in accordance with their competence and abilities. However, there is no specific law that protects the rights of the Batwa to fully participate in government programs.

In terms of representation in parliament, Article 82 (2) of the Constitution stipulates that eight members of the chamber of Senate must be appointed by the President of the Republic, who shall also ensure representation of historically marginalized communities. The Batwa have one representative in the Senate at the moment. In contrast, the lower house, the chamber of deputies, has no representative that emanates from the Batwa community. The same is true with other political offices. For instance, under Presidential Order, Land commission was established and operated at all levels of public administration but there was no provision made for Batwa’s participation.[38] Due to the major problem of removing the Batwa from their traditional lands, and their current situation of landlessness, it would seem imperative that, at least, some Batwa representation is included in local level committees. It is clear that the ‘informed consent’[39] of the Batwa community has not been sought.

The Batwa have been locked out of the governing structures of the country. They are largely side-lined from the political process and face challenges in participating in the country’s decision-making procedures. This is related to the fact that they are numerically small and are not recognized as a distinct group, including the fact they often face rampant discrimination.[40] Hence, the concerns of the Batwa community have not been addressed due to their poor participation and representation in political life, including even at the local level. Due to the absence of representation and lack of consultation, some policies and practices caused major risks to the Batwa people, such as displacement from their traditional lands.

The government has a duty to acknowledge the Batwa as a distinct population group by implementing targeted programmes to improve their conditions. This would allow the Batwa to participate in a meaningful way in all stages of policy formulation, programme design and implementation of decisions that affect them. In this regard, the education of indigenous children can contribute both to their individuals and community development as well as to their participation in the wider society.[41] Therefore, good education will strengthen the ability of the Batwa children to exercise and enjoy civil and political rights in order to influence political policy processes.[42] As a result of their marginalization and high levels of illiteracy, active participation in Rwanda’s political life is currently inconceivable for many Batwa.[43]

4. Protection of Batwa from non-displacement from their traditional lands

The protection of rights to land and natural resources is fundamental for the survival of the Batwa community. Similarly, the rights of the Batwa to maintain their various relationships to their traditional territories must be protected, and it is the existence of such relationships that gives rise to the rights of restitution or other remedies.

The Constitution, under Article 29, states that, ‘[e]very person has a right to private property, whether personal or owned in association with others. Private property, whether individually or collectively owned, is inviolable. The right to property may not be interfered with except in public interest, in circumstances and procedures determined by law and subject to fair and prior compensation.’ Generally, the Rwandan laws protect the private ownership of land, and other rights related to land[44] but fail to recognise and protect Batwa’s collective traditional land ownership.

While the Organic Land Law provides legal status for some kinds of customary land ownership,[45] there are no specific references to the Batwa’s traditional land. This means that the Batwa’s collective rights to traditional lands are not recognised under the law. This may be one of the reasons why the Batwa have been pushed out of their traditional areas to give way for the economic interests of other more dominant groups and large-scale development initiatives that tend to destroy their traditional lives rather than improve the Batwa situation.[46]

In addition, the Land Law should settle the land challenges of the Batwa by granting collective rights on their traditional lands. However, the law seems to support land disenfranchisement. Articles 75 to 77 of the Land Law provide for the possibility of confiscation of land temporarily at first but with the potential for permanent confiscation if land is not utilised productively and if measures are not put in place to ensure environmental protection. No compensation is offered when such land is confiscated. This may make the Batwa more vulnerable.

There are various examples of land disenfranchisement among the Batwa. In the early 19th century, due to the combination of deforestation for agriculture, development projects or the creation of conservation areas, many in the Batwa community were displaced from their forest habitats.[47] In 1998, the Batwa inhabitants of the Volcanoes National Park were driven out by conservation projects to make a sanctuary for the mountain Gorillas.[48] Finally, the remaining forest-dwelling Batwa were evicted from forests such as the Nyungwe Forest Reserve and the Gishwati Forest.[49]

Despite of the provisions on expropriation, the Batwa have been forcibly removed from their traditional lands and dispossessed of their traditional livelihoods without consent or compensation.[50] Many are living in extreme hardship and poverty on the margins of mainstream society. Irreversible damage has been caused to their distinct lifestyles, livelihoods, cultures and traditional practices. As a result, most Batwa live under deplorable conditions.[51] Many Batwa see their rights in terms of collective rights. However, communal property rights are not recognized under the law and are usually ignored. Therefore, access to forests, clay groves and wetlands are often lost to farmers claiming the land for cultivation.[52] Batwa have been forced into slavery-like conditions and begging to make a living, often working forced labour on farmland of other Rwandans in exchange for food.

The arbitrary displacement of the Batwa and appropriation of their traditional lands without appropriate restitution or compensation constitute a serious violation of various international and regional legal provisions that are binding on Rwanda, including Article 21 of the African Charter, Articles 10 and 17 of the UNDRIP, as well as its Articles 25 and 26. The Batwa have legitimate claims under Article 1 of the ICCPR. Even so, due to the lack of primitive forest in Rwanda, it is highly unlikely that areas similar to their traditional lands can be found. Restitution of their rights to occupy and use their traditional forest territories is arguably the only appropriate form of compensation. [53] Thus, the state and the Batwa people can negotiate specific management issues as part of the restitution process.

5. Protection of the Batwa’s rights to culture, tradition and institutions

The right to culture is one of the core claims of indigenous peoples. Although most of the Batwa traditions and institutions structures have collapsed, their culture has been kept alive. Their traditional culture was respected for its sophisticated knowledge of the forest ecosystem, the uses of different plants for food and medicine, hunting, pottery and orientation skills, which are unique to the Batwa. Their great talent for the performing articles, acrobats, clowns, as singers and dancers, was unsurpassed in the region and widely appreciated.[54] The question is whether these cultural practices receive protection under the Constitution.

Article 51 of the Constitution provides protection for cultural traditions and practices. This clause can be interpreted to guarantee the rights of the Batwa to practice cultural traditions such as those which involve particular natural resources and territorial affiliation, such as hunting and gathering activities. Unfortunately, provisions in the Constitution, which bind the Government to protect the rights of the Batwa, have not been implemented.

By contrast, the culture of Batwa has been treated as a nuisance, and successive governments sought in different ways to weaken and ultimately eliminate the institutions in which these non-dominant cultures are embedded.[55] This governmental concern appears to be adopting a policy of forced assimilation and the loss of cultures.[56] Today in Rwanda, it said that all three ethnic groups have the same culture and speak the same language because these cultural and linguistic ethnic differences between the Batwa and other groups in the country have somehow disappeared.[57] This is not true because the Batwa can be distinguished by their dialect, urutwatwa.[58] Therefore, the government policy to eliminating these distinctive identities of Batwa is against the provisions of Article 2 and 8 of UNDRIP that indigenous peoples have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture and institutions.

Furthermore, the HRC has affirmed that if any activity is an essential element in the culture of an ethnic community, as pottery, hunting and gathering activities are for the Batwa, criminalization of these activities represents a violation of Article 27 of the ICCPR, which guarantees minorities or indigenous peoples the right to enjoy their own culture.[59] Nevertheless, the government continue to impose a ban on hunting and collecting in those traditional forests and anyone entering the forest without prior approval is regarded as a poacher and charged accordingly.[60]

4. CONCLUSION

Rwanda has a history of ethnically-based discrimination promoted by governments that favour specific ethnic group to the exclusion of others. To reverse this situation, one of the proclaimed projects of the current government is the elimination of ethnicity and seeks for unity and reconciliation. However, the Institute of Research and Dialogue for Peace, a Kigali-based social research institution, concluded in its research that ‘it would be nonsense to declare that there are no ethnic groups in Rwanda…[while] every Rwandan is able to tell you his/her ethnic group but on the other side, everybody hesitates to discuss the ethnic issues except within the ethnic group where he/she belongs.’[61]

Although unity and reconciliation can, indeed, be an important issue in Rwandan society due to the country’s historical background, ethnicity and self-identify cannot be ignored. It has been also mentioned by the African Commission that ‘finding ways to protect the human rights of particularly discriminated groups should not be seen as tribalism and trouble of the unity of African states’.[62] In the same way, ‘giving recognition to all groups, respecting their differences and allowing them all to flourish in a truly democratic spirit does not lead to conflict, it prevents conflict’.[63]

It is difficult, therefore, to say that one can promote a category of people while denying the status of that category. Unity and reconciliation can only be achieved when legal recognition, equality and favourable inter-ethnic relations have been achieved. Otherwise, it will be a case of fighting the symptoms rather than addressing the root causes. The government may need to be explicit in demonstrating that all people are equal regardless of ethnicity by deliberately including the Batwa in every government decision-making body.

Nevertheless, Rwanda has not ratified ILO Convention No.169. Yet, Rwanda is party to many other international and regional legal instruments that are also applicable to indigenous peoples. Therefore, the lack of recognition of their existence means that the effective implementation of minority or indigenous peoples’ rights provided in both Covenants, CERD, CBD, UNDRIP, African Charter and other many important regional and international instruments has been ignored. This situation left the Batwa community with non-recognition, marginalization and discrimination.

In this regard, it is only after the Batwa people are guaranteed true recognition with specific protection that they can enjoy all fundamental human rights on an equal footing with other members of society. This recognition and protection of the Batwa community is not intended to create a special class of citizens but rather to address historical and present-day injustices and inequalities. Therefore, projects and programs should be developed to help the Batwa and to assist them to fully participate in the construction of Rwanda and its future society.

[1] Art 2 of the UNDRIP.

[2] Arts 10 & 11 of the Rwandan Constitution.

[3] Preamble paras 6, 9 & 10 of the Constitution.

[4] Art 16 of the Rwandan Constitution.

[5] Arts 33-36 of the Rwandan Constitution.

[6] UNPO Alternative Report submitted to the UN Committee on the ESCR Rights for the consideration of the Initial

Report of Rwanda during the 50th Pre -Sessional Working Group (2012) 9.

[7] IRDP (2010).

[8] UNDP-Department for International Development, Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) and the Institute of

Research and Dialogue for Peace, Kigali (2010).

[9] HRC/CCPR/C/RWA/CO/3, para 22.

[10] Supra pp. 21-2.

[11] UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/14, para129.

[12] Barume AK (2010) 44.

[13] However, the Constitution, mentioned the Batutsi ethnic group reference to the genocide committed against them.

See Preamble para 1, 4 & Art 14 of the Rwandan Constitution.

[14] Arts 9 (2) & 33 of the Rwandan Constitution (2003).

[15] Para 7 of the Rwandan Constitution

[16] ACHPR Eighth periodical report of Rwanda 2002-2004 (2005) 42.

[17] Rwanda report to the CCPR/C/RWA/3, UN Doc. (2009) para 289.

[18] ACHPR (2010) para 29-30.

[19] ACHPR (2010) para 30.

[20] General recommendation No 8 (1990) (Art 1, paras 1 & 4).

[21] CERD/C/RWA/CO/13-17 (2011) para 9.

[22] CERD/C/RWA/CO/13-17 (2011) para 11.

[23] MINALOC, National Social Protection Strategy (2010)12.

[24] UNDP-Department for International Development, IJR and the Institute of Research and Dialogue for Peace, Kigali

(2010).

[25] Kagabo & Mudandagizi ‘Complainte des gens d’argile, les Twa du Rwanda’ (1974) 77 Cahiers des Etudes

Africaines No 53: 14 (1) 75-87. See also Report ACHPR/WGIPC: Mission to the republic of Rwanda (2008) 31.

[26] ILO Convention: A Manual (2003).

[27] Supra p. 21-23.

[28] Art 2 the Organic Law No 29 of 2005 determining the administrative entities.

[29] Bericht, Right to Adequate Housing. The Destruction of Batwa houses in Rwanda, at

http://www.kigalicity.gov.rw/IMG/pdf/National_Decentralization_Policy.pdf (accessed 22 August 2013).

[30] UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 52nd Session, 31 July-18 August 2000,

available at: http://www.minorityrights.org/787/advocacy/un-subcommission-on-the-promotion-and-protection-of

human-rights-52nd-session-31-july18-august-2000.html#sthash.YNDqDseL.dpuf (accessed 11 May 2013).

[31] Tauli-Corpuz V ‘Self-Determination & Sustainable Development’ in Ann Loreto Tamayo, et.al., Reclaiming

Balance: Indigenous Peoples, Conflict Resolution and Sustainable Development (2004) 46.

[32] CERD General Recommendation No 21 (48), UN Doc A/51/18126, para 4.

[33] Saugestad S ‘Developing Basarwa Research and Research for Basarwa Development’ 10 Anthropology Today

(1994)20-22.

[34] Art 7 (1) of ILO Convention No 169.

[35] UN Doc A/HRC/19/56/Add (2010)18.

[36] MRGI (2000) 6.

[37] Bericht, Right to Adequate Housing. The Destruction of Batwa houses in Rwanda, available at

http://www.gfbv.de/inhaltsDok.php?id=2143 (accessed 22 August 2013).

[38] Presidential Order No 54/01 OF 12/10/2006 determining the structure, the responsibilities, the functioning and the

composition of land commissions.

[39] Xanthaki A (2007) 256.

[40] UN doc A/HRC/19/56/Add. (2010) 18.

[41] General comment No. 11, CRC/C/GC/11 (2009).

[42] Art15 of UNDRIP. See also Art 30 of ILO Convention No 169.

[43] UNPO Mission Report, Investigating the situation of the Batwa People of Rwanda, The Hague, the Netherlands,

(1995) 41.

[44] See Law N° 18/2007 of19/04/2007 relating to Expropriation in the Public Interest.

[45] Art 7 of 2005 Organic Land Law.

[46] Des Forges A Land in Rwanda: Winnowing Out the Chaff. L ‘Afrique des grands lacs, Annuaire 2005–2006, (2006).

[47] Des Forges A (2006). See also Maquet J and Naigiziki S ‘Les Droits Fonciers dans le Rwanda Ancien’ (1957) 4.

[48] ACHPR (2005) 22.

[49] Jackson D (2003) 6. See also ACHPR (2005) 22.

[50] Republic of Rwanda (2007) Law No 18/2007 of19/04/2007 relating to Expropriation in the Public Interest.

[51] Civil society, Alternative Report on the Universal Periodic Review of Rwanda, (2011) at

http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session10/RW/JS1_JointSubmission1_eng.pdf (accessed12 June

2013).

[52] IWGIA, The Indigenous World, Rwanda, 2011, at

http://www.iwgia.org/images/stories/sections/regions/africa/documents/IW2011/rwanda_the_indigenous_world

2011. p d f (accessed 20 June 2013).

[53] Huggins C Land rights and the forest peoples of Africa (2009) 15-16.

[54] Lewis J (2006) 3.

[55] UNPO (2011).

[56] NEPAD Country Review Report of the Republic of Rwanda (June 2006) 51.

[57] Huggins C (2009) 2.

[58] Urutwatwa is an accent of Batwa which considered as ‘language of Batwa’, but in reality is a different accent from Kinyarwanda.

[59] Xantheki A (2007). See also Art 30 of the UNCRC.

[60] AWGIP (2010) 38-39.

[61] The IRDP, ‘Ethnic identity and social cohesion in Rwanda: Critical analysis of political, social and economic

challenges’ (2010) 10.

[62] ACHPR (2006) 12.

[63] ACHPR (2005) 88.