Confession by torture in Rwanda that FBI had to have been aware of justified suppression of confession in U.S. prosecution

Rwandan nationals indicted in the U.S. for murder of U.S. citizens in Rwanda during the Rwandan genocide challenged the voluntariness of their confessions while in Rwandan custody before they were handed over to the FBI, which was dispatched two days after the murders to investigate. In a 252 page long opinion, issued after a three week hearing, the court concludes that the pattern of coercion and torture at the hands of the Rwandans required suppression of some confessions because the FBI was aware of it and turned a blind eye. United States v. Karake, 443 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D. D.C. August 17, 2006):

7. Conclusion

While the Court has thoroughly explained its reasons for rejecting Kibingo’s testimony and for its finding that defendants’ statements were the product of coercions, there is one further observation that convinces the Court of the correctness of its credibility determinations and its ultimate finding of involuntariness. Over the course of the defendants’ detention at Kami, an unmistakable pattern continually repeated itself. Each defendant initially denied his involvement at Bwindi, but was then held incommunicado at Kami until Kibingo extracted statements that he believed were wanted either by his superiors or the Americans and were needed in order to solve the murders, close the investigation, or support a prosecution. With the exception of Nyaminani, the Rwandans did not even inform the U.S. investigators that they had a suspect in custody until they were informed that a defendant had confessed, and each initial confession was obtained only by Kibingo while no one else was present. He would then deliver the information to his superiors who, in turn, several days later, would contact Kayumba, at which point Bachmann would conduct an interrogation. If the defendant [*222] provided less information than was expected, as happened with respect to each defendant, he was returned to Kami and subjected to further interrogation and mistreatment. Only after Kibingo announced to the Rwandans that he had obtained further information, was the defendant returned to the Americans for more questioning. n107
_________

n107 The Americans in fact became accustomed to this routine. For instance, Bimenyimana was sent back to Kami after his first interview with RSO Bachmann with the expectation that if investigators were to “give him some time” before they “talk to him again,” as explained by Bachmann, “[m]aybe his story will change like the last one.” (5/11 p.m. tr. at 50.) Similarly, when Nyaminani refused to confess to the rape of one of the three women, but instead confessed to killing two non-Americans, he was “instructed to think hard about his situation and [he] was taken away into military custody” with the “Rwandan national police believ[ing] that he is near confession.” (Gov’t Ex. 30, tab 2 at 3.)
__________

While it is unclear whether the specific information that Kibingo sought from the defendants correctly reflected what the Americans needed or, alternatively, what the Rwandans believed was necessary to solve the murders, it is clear that they were relentless in their efforts to obtain this information. For instance, even though Karake confessed to the murder of Richard Haubner on February 5 and 6, the Rwandans (unlike the Americans) were not satisfied with the extent of his confession, so Karake was returned to Kami for several days and was interrogated by only the Rwandans on February 12 until he confessed to two additional killings.

. . .

This striking similarity in the course of events, relating to each defendant’s statements, just like the scarring on their bodies, cannot be chalked up to mere coincidence. Rather, the inescapable conclusion is that defendants’ statements to the Rwandans were the product of coercion. Indeed, based on the totality of circumstances, the Court finds that the conditions under which defendants were held at Kami and the abuse and mistreatment they endured while being interrogated shock the conscience and therefore render the statements involuntary and inadmissible.

The fact the FBI had to be aware of what was going on made the conduct attributable to the prosecution.