For black Americans, OJ Simpson did not kill his wife Nicole. For white Americans, he killed Nicole. When the verdict was made public it was clear to everyone that whites and blacks see justice in America very differently primarily because both groups experience justice differently.
But for lawyers, it was very simple. The evidence against OJ was entirely circumstantial. There was no stone, cold, HARD evidence implicating him in her murder.
I think this is similar for the Congolese. It seems so obvious that their people experienced a genocide. But unfortunately, there has not been an effort to gather HARD evidence to justify the claim- the mapping report, as its authors note, is not evidence seeking to prove a genocide.
The threshold to proving genocide is very high and rightly so given it is a most serious charge.
It would require finding proof and/or verifiable evidence at the highest of levels in the governments of Rwanda, the Congo, Angola, Uganda, and Zimbabwe that explicitly calls for the extermination of an unarmed group of people by virtue of their identity as a group.
The Germans, Cambodians, Serbian, and Rwandan examples meet that threshold because their bureaucrats left plenty of evidence proving they sought to exterminate a specific group of unarmed people.
Not the case for the American (against the natives), Australian (again, against the natives) Armenian, Japanese (against the Chinese in Nanjing), and Congolese examples. Plenty of circumstantial evidence but nothing verifiable unfortunately.
