LONDON: It is eight years this week since Rwanda was engulfed by genocide. Prosecutors at the international court trying Hutu extremists who started the slaughter planned to mark the anniversary by laying bare the political conspiracy behind it. They wanted to use the trial of Theoneste Bagosora, the army colonel who masterminded the murder of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis over 100 days, to blow away myths about the killing and draw attention to the true nature of one of the 20th century’s last great crimes. But, after fleetingly opening Bagosora’s trial last week, the judges postponed it for six months — for the want of a translation of two simple documents.

It was a fitting letdown for a tribunal that has vainly raised so many expectations and become a potent argument for and against the international criminal court, which is soon expected to come into force. Some say Rwanda’s tribunal lays bare why international justice doesn’t work. Others claim it is evidence of why a standing court is required. The Rwanda tribunal, like the international court trying Slobodon Milosevic at the Hague, is an ad hoc creation of the UN security council. They share the same chief prosecutor, but the Rwandan court has been very much the poor relation. At least twice as many people died in Rwanda as in the former Yugoslavia, but the tribunal trying Bagosora and his cohorts has had neither the Hague’s resources nor political clout.

Milosevic was brought to trial within a few months of his arrest for alleged war crimes in the Balkans. Bagosora has been in custody for six years and Rwandans are still waiting to hear the case against the man who brought them so much misery. Or not. Tellingly, while Belgrade is gripped by Milosevic’s performance in the dock, many genocide survivors are indifferent to the fate of Bagosora at the hands of the international court. They have simply lost faith in the ability of the tribunal to deliver justice.

Too many years of delays, incompetence and a perception that the court is soft on the accused have severely undermined the tribunal’s standing in the place it was supposed to make its mark - Rwanda. And when the court does catch public attention it is for the wrong reasons, such as the incident late last year in which three judge