In its current state, the law does not seem to us appropriate in its content. The concern around this law is not only in respect of criminal law. It is a societal challenge in the sense that, twenty-three years after the fact, tens of thousands of Belgian citizens of Rwandan origin living in Belgium, are still living together in a fragile state. Despite the continued existence of wounds caused by the events that have bloodied the region, especially Rwanda in 1994 and the Democratic Republic of Congo in the years that followed, Rwandans aspire to rebuild and reconcile and it would be a pity if Belgium, for lack of awareness of the impact of the law it is about to adopt, makes matters worse. This is how we believe that the words "moderate Hutus" that appear in the bill are absolutely damaging. The expression "moderate Hutus" implicitly but necessarily implies that the "Hutus", without any form of context, would not have been moderate or, worse, would not have been victims. The explanatory memorandum of the bill even defines "moderate Hutus" as those who would have refused to participate in the massacres, thereby inferring that Hutus who were not victims are those who agreed to participate in the genocide of Tutsis. As for the term "Hutu Power", which is also used in the bill, we believe that it is just as damaging if not more damaging. Indeed, this expression, in addition to stigmatizing an ethnic group by labelling them the perpetrators of a crime, associates this ethnic group with a term laced with political propaganda in order to refer to a regime that has never existed and certainly never under this name. On this point, we refer to the second annexure, which is an unpublished document by Advocate Rudatinya MBONYUMUTWA dated September 2017: "Rwanda: What crimes did Hutus and Tutsis suffer" (Annex 2). ----------------------Home---------------------- 1. Who are we and what are our objectives? 2. Is the law appropriate in principle? 4. What would be the objectives in case of adoption of the law?