3. THE DEFENCE CASE

  1. The Accused pleaded not guilty to all counts of the Indictment at his initial appearance on 30 May 1996. The Defence case consisted of two main arguments. The first of these was a general defence. The second was a defence of alibi.

3.1 The Arguments of General Defence

  1. The Defence developed several main lines of argument. The Defence argued that the political activity of the Accused was minimal. The Accused testified and, his Counsel argued, that his involvement in the Interahamwe za MRND was limited to participation in meetings of this organization in its earliest stage, which it was argued was as a "think tank" or "group of reflection"(1). The Defence also argued that the meaning of Interahamwe changed significantly between 1991 and 1994. The Defence argued that the Accused was a member of the Interahamwe za MRND at its embryonic stage, and that the term Interahamwe later included people who were not all members of the Interahamwe za MRND.
  2. The Defence Counsel questioned the credibility and reliability of several Prosecution witnesses. Counsel for the Defence submitted that the case file was "contaminated"(2) by virtue of testimony given concerning the "Hindi Mandal" building in the Amgar garage complex. The Defence further submitted that certain evidence gathered by Captain Luc Lemaire was illegally collected and thus could not be tendered as evidence by the Prosecutor. The Defence argued that the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda ("UNAMIR") contingent, of which Captain Lemaire was a part, had been prohibited from gathering intelligence(3).
  3. The Defence called fourteen witnesses, including the Accused, who testified at length about the role of the Accused as second Vice-President of the Interahamwe. The Chamber notes that a number of Defence witnesses testified that the Accused took action to help others, including Tutsi refugees. The Defence further argued that, contrary to the allegations that the Accused detained Tutsi civilians in the "Hindi Mandal" building at the Amgar garage, that Tutsis actually sought refuge there and that the Accused permitted this and that he provided them with basic foodstuffs and medicine.
  4. The Accused testified before the Chamber that prior to the advent of multiparty politics in Rwanda in 1991, he was a businessman with no interest in political participation. After being released from a presidentially assigned post in June 1991, he stated, he worked for himself, operating an import and distribution business registered as "Rutaganda SARL." The Accused testified that he focused on his business to the exclusion of any other civic, political, or administrative activities.
  5. The Accused stated that he joined the MRND party in September or October 1991, in an atmosphere of increasing political tension in order to benefit from its protection and to safeguard his business interests. This tension was as a result of increasing competition between President Habyarimana's ruling MRND party and new opposition parties as they vied for members. It was in this context, the Accused testified, that he chose to join the MRND party because of the specific protections it afforded. He further submitted that although his father had been a member of the MDR, the strong regional affiliations which the MDR was reputed to have did not seem to him to be beneficial in light of the political climate in Kigali in 1991. It was at his father's urging, he stated, that he joined the MRND party in 1991. The Accused was, he claimed, simply a member of the MRND party - with no time for, or interest in, wielding political influence within the party or among the general population.
  6. Nonetheless, in November 1991,the Accused was invited to attend an initial meeting of intellectuals who sought to find ways to recruit for and promote the MRND party. The Accused told the Chamber that he was also to become an elected representative in the national committee of the MRND in April 1993, as a representative of Gitarama Préfecture.(4) As such, he was one among fifty-five representatives, five from each Préfecture, who met at National Assemblies and voted on party decisions and actions.
  7. A select group of persons, whom the Accused referred to as intellectuals, convened in order to devise strategies for attracting new members and for furthering the MRND party's objectives in the new, multiparty political environment. This group was known as the Interahamwe za MRND. The Accused indicated to the court that this was an embryonic "think tank" for the MRND. The Accused testified that he did not know when this initial "think tank" was organized, but that he was nonetheless involved in the initial impetus behind the creation of this committee. He participated in meetings of this group, he testified, in order to contribute his own ideas to the party. He stated that although more people joined this core group, they were all personally invited rather than publicly recruited. He stated that he attended one of their meetings for the first time in November 1991, at the invitation of Pheneas Ruhumuriza, who was later to become first Vice-President of the Interahamwe za MRND.(5)
  8. According to the testimony given by the Accused, Interahamwe is a Kinyarwanda word that was used frequently by persons in political parties or other associations, which indicated a close relationship between people who did something together. This name was drawn, he explained, from a popular and patriotic song from the 1960s, which was associated with the MDR. Witness DNN gave a similar description of the source of the term Interahamwe.(6)
  9. The Accused testified that the Interahamwe za MRND quickly grew from its embryonic form and gained both senior members and young recruits. The five members who were to compose the National Committee of the Interahamwe za MRND were selected by a larger assembly. The Accused was appointed as second vice president even though he declined to be a candidate in elections. He testified, however, that the five official positions comprising the National Committee, as those of ensuing committee heads and organizers were really only formalities, with no attached responsibility or authority.
  10. The Accused stated that although the Committee had a clear structure and its members had titles which suggested a hierarchy of responsibility and authority, his position as second vice-president was a mere formality, and he did not act in a capacity commensurate with the responsibility such a title might suggest. The Accused testified that there was no real leadership structure, budget, or autonomy - but that the titles, communiques, and meetings simply reflected a hope for future actions of the Interahamwe za MRND. The Accused also testified that as second vice president and member of this National Committee, he acted as a mediator and liaison between the National Committee of the MRND party and the young members who joined the party, quite possibly as a response to the organization and initiative of the Interahamwe za MRND.
  11. According to the testimony of the Accused, the size and character of the Interahamwe za MRND changed significantly between its inception and the events which followed the death of President Habyarimana in April 1994. During his testimony, the Accused described a transformation in the popular usage and understanding of the word Interahamwe, as well as an increase in the number of people who joined the MRND, and in particular the Interahamwe za MRND. The Accused testified that the Interahamwe za MRND was initially composed of a small number of men who were mostly between the ages of thirty and forty. The Accused later referred to the Interahamwe as "the youth", and also stated that increasing numbers of Rwandan youth were drawn to the party and were subsequently organized. The Accused testified that by 6 April 1994 the Interahamwe had become an entirely different organization than the one in which he was originally involved. The Accused stated that the organization had already changed by mid-1992, and continued its transformation through 1994.
  12. The Accused testified that the evolution of the Interahamwe as a youth wing of the party was an organic development, which he did not foresee when he joined this committee at its inception. Responding to questions concerning President Habyarimana's opinion of the Interahamwe, the Accused testified that in May 1992 President Habyarimana expressed his approval and encouraged "the youth" to join the organization.
  13. The Accused stated to the court that the Interahamwe was popularly understood to encompass many more people than the Interahamwe za MRND. The word Interahamwe, and even Interahamwe za MRND, gained a pejorative, or negative meaning in popular usage and was used to describe a large and loosely organized militia which is said to have fought against the RPF(7), as well as to connote certain persons who had committed acts of banditry and violence(8). While stating that popular understanding of the word Interahamwe had changed, the Accused added that the way in which this term was used after 6 April 1994 had little to do with the MRND, and that he had little knowledge of the persons perpetrating such acts, much less any political, social, or ideological connection with them.
  14. Testifying about roadblocks that Interahamwe members were alleged to have manned, and where the Accused was alleged to have been, the Accused stated that roadblocks were initially set up and manned by civilians, largely through efforts of the civil defence, which was a multi-ethnic corps of citizens rallying together against the Rwandan Patriotic Front (the "RPF") army. Some confusion may have arisen, he suggested, because some people wore clothing falsely said to be a uniform of the Interahamwe. He further testified that the Interahamwe did not create or monitor roadblocks, and was not officially or unofficially involved at the roadblock sites, or in criminal acts allegedly committed there and therefrom.
  15. Testifying about special clothing worn by Interahamwe and alleged Interahamwe members, the Accused submitted that there were both official and unofficial clothing and accessory items which were worn and promoted by the MRND. He also stated that there was no official uniform as such. He further stated that impostors wore clothing which had been associated with the MRND or Interahamwe when committing "evil" or criminal acts. This was the subject of a communiqué issued by the National Committee of the Interahamwe za MRND, addressed to the International Community and signed by the Accused, which discouraged members from wearing their "uniforms." According to the Accused, this communiqué was intended to dissociate the Interahamwe from Rwandan youths who were not members of, but who were publicly perceived as being members of and acting under the auspices of, the Interahamwe za MRND and who committed criminal or violent acts.
  16. Witness DNN testified, to the contrary, that Interahamwe za MRND members did have a uniform, made out of kitenge fabric in yellow, blue and black colours. However, some wore clothes of the same colour as the party flag, that is black, yellow and green. This uniform was needed to distinguish the members of Interahamwe from members of the youth wings of other political parties.(9)
  17. Finally, the Accused testified that although he did not officially resign after 6 April 1994, his position in the Interahamwe za MRND was effectively rendered irrelevant, in what he described as "chaos", both within the organization and throughout Rwanda.

3.2 Defence of Alibi

  1. The Defence case included submission of a defence of alibi. In his testimony, the Accused stated that he was in locations other than those alleged to be crime sites, or involved in activities other than those alleged during the times at which the crimes enumerated in the indictment were allegedly committed.
  2. In her closing argument, Defence Counsel stated that a notice of alibi. The Chamber notes that no record of a notice of alibi was filed at any time, and that there is no record of such a notice in the judicial archives or within the judicial record. Notwithstanding this, the Trial Chamber finds it appropriate and necessary to examine the defence of alibi, pursuant to Rule 67(B) of the Rules which states that "Failure of the defence to provide such notice under this Rule shall not limit the right of the Accused to rely on the above defences."(10)
    3.
  3. The Accused, Witness DF, Witness DD, and Witness DDD testified regarding the whereabouts of the Accused between the evening of 6 April 1994 to 9 April 1994.
  4. The Defence submitted that in the first days following the crash of the aeroplane carrying President Habyarimana, the Accused was busy seeking protection for his family, trying to obtain news, and searching for food and other goods. The Accused testified that on the night of 6 April 1994, he and his friends were taken out of a car at a location close to the Kimihurura roundabout. They were first told to sit down and later they were told to lie down on the road. They were finally released, the Accused testified, at 3:00 a.m. on 7 April 1994. They were then stopped at another roadblock manned by gendarmes in Kicukiro. At that time, they were asked to get out of the car, to show their identity cards and to sit on a hill by the side of the road before being allowed to continue on their way. The Accused testified that he then passed "Sonatubes," the airport, Bugesera and the town before reaching his home. The Accused stated that he remained at home on 7 April 1994.(11)
    5.
  5. Witness DF stated that he had a drink with the Accused on the evening of 6 April 1994, and that DF left the Accused at 9:00 p.m. that night. (12)
    6.
  6. Witness DD testified that he had a drink with the Accused on the evening of 6 April 1994. Witness DD further testified that he and the Accused separated on the night of 6 April 1994. Witness DD stated that he telephoned the home of the Accused on the morning of 7 April 1994 and the Accused's wife told DD that the Accused had not yet returned. Witness DD stated that at about 1:00 p.m. he contacted the Accused. During this conversation, the Accused told DD that he had encountered problems at Kimihurura on the night of 6 April 1994. Witness DD testified that the Accused told him that members of the Presidential Guard had stopped him there, and that he had spent the night sleeping on the ground.(13)
  7. Witness DDD testified that she saw the Accused at 3:00 am on 7 April 1994. At this time, the Accused told DDD that many roadblocks had been erected. Witness DDD testified that the Accused told her that he was stopped at a roadblock at Kimihurura roundabout at 9:00 p.m. on 6 April 1994 and left that roadblock after 12:00 a.m. on 7 April 1994. Witness DDD testified that she and the Accused stayed at home together on 7 April 1994.(14)
  8. The Accused stated that on 8 April 1994, he walked towards the city from Kicukiro neighbourhood with a friend in order to find out whether his family should remain at home or leave. The Accused testified that he and his friend were shot at by the RPF as they neared a gendarmerie squad. After this, he decided to move his family. He stated that he took the road towards Rebero and left his family at the Rebero hotel. The Accused testified that he returned back in the evening and went to the parish mission by car. At the mission, he testified, he found a number of people whom he stated to the Chamber were seeking refuge from the RPF. The Accused proceeded, he testified, to visit the Conseiller to inquire where these refugees would spend the night. He testified that at his suggestion, some of these people followed him to his home where they spent the night.
  9. The Accused testified that he went to the Rebero hotel on the morning of 9 April 1994, passing through roadblocks in front of the ETO school and around the air station. He testified that he returned with his family along the same route by which he had come. Arriving home, the Accused testified that he called his father, who informed him that his friend Jean Sebagenzi and his family had been killed. The Accused testified that he then went to see the Conseiller to get permission to move within the sector, in order to follow his father's wishes and bury the Sebagenzi family. The Accused testified that he was denied this permission by the Conseiller.
  10. Witness DDD stated that she and the Accused went to the Rebero hotel, located on Rebero hill behind Kicukiro Sector on 8 April 1994. DDD testified that she next saw the Accused on 9 April 1994, at which time they left the Rebero hotel and returned to their house. Witness DDD stated that at that time a curfew had been imposed, and that the Accused went to the Sector office seeking special permission to move freely. DDD further testified that the Accused was denied such permission at the Sector office.
  11. The Accused, Witness DD, Witness DF, and Witness DDD testified as to the whereabouts of the Accused on 10 April 1994.
  12. The Accused testified that he returned to see the Conseiller on Sunday 10 April 1994. At this time he was granted a permit allowing free movement and exempting him from the curfew which was in place. The Accused testified that he reached the home of a friend in Muyima, where caskets containing the bodies of the Sebagenzi family were being loaded into a pickup truck. The Accused stated to the Chamber that he continued along with these people as they made their way to Nyirambo to bury these people. En route, he testified, they passed through many roadblocks - where the caskets were even opened to verify that they contained only dead bodies.
  13. Witness DDD testified that the Accused received permission to move on 10 April 1994. Witness DDD learned of this when the Accused returned home in order to take a vehicle to go to the abovementioned burial. DDD testified that the Accused returned at 7:00 p.m. on the evening of 10 April 1994. Upon his return he explained to DDD that it had taken a long time because they had been stopped at many roadblocks, they had been searched, and that the caskets were even searched at the Agakingiro roadblock, where also that there were six people to bury.
  14. Witness DF stated that he saw the Accused at this burial, which DF thought took place on 10 April 1994. Witness DF further testified that people manning the roadblock at Agakingiro wanted to open the caskets being transported for burial, and that they were also stopped close to a mosque at Biryogo and at a roadblock close to St Andrews school in Nyirambo.
  15. Witness DD provided a detailed description of the day of the burial of 7 people in 5 coffins. He testified that they were detained at the Agakingiro roadblock, 10 metres from Amgar, while the coffins that he and the Accused were transporting were searched. Witness DD could not remember if the date was April 10; however, he thought that it took place on a Sunday afternoon.
  16. The Accused, Witness DDD, Witness DF, and Witness DS gave testimony concerning the whereabouts of the Accused between 11 and 14 April 1994.
  17. The Accused stated that at 7:30 a.m. on 11 April 1994, he left Kicukiro along with thirteen other people in a "505" sedan. They stopped at the house of an acquaintance where, the Accused testified, he wished to leave his family. Since this was not possible, they returned to his house. The Accused stated that they drove to Masango Commune instead, and that they arrived in Karambi in Masango at around 5:30 p.m. The Accused testified that he remained in his house in Karambi on the night of 11 April 1994. He stated that he had never been into the ETO compound, and was not near the premises on 11 April 1994. The Accused testified that early in the morning of 12 April 1994, he began thinking about how to finish construction of his house in Karambi. He testified that he drew up a contract with a trader and a mason for the construction work. He supervised the commencement of this work on 13 April 1994. The Accused stated that he returned to Kigali on the evening of 14 April 1994. He further testified that he could not reach Kicukiro because of the danger involved. Instead, he stated, he remained at the Amgar garage complex. The Accused testified that he found people hiding there. He stated to the Chamber that he took pity on these people and fed and cared for them. He also began to think of a strategy to evacuate them.
  18. Witness DDD stated that she arrived in Kiyovu with the Accused at 9:00 a.m. on 11 April 1994 and stayed with a friend who was living there until about midday on that same day. DDD testified that they did not receive any special treatment at the roadblocks. Each of the adults had to show their identity card at the roadblocks. Witness DDD stated that the officials manning the roadblocks did not have a special reaction to any of the occupants of the vehicle she traveled in. They crossed Nyabarongo and arrived in Masango at about 6:00 p.m. Witness DDD testified that the accused remained there for three days, departing for Kigali on 14 April 1994. Witness DDD testified that over the course of these three days, the Accused did not participate in any meetings.
  19. Witness DF testified that the Accused left after the burial on 10 April 1994, and came back after two days. Witness DF stated that he saw the Accused at the Amgar garage. DF further stated that all of the people at the Amgar garage were there willingly, and had not been taken there by force.
  20. The Accused, Witness DDD, Witness DEE, and Witness DS gave testimony concerning the whereabouts of the Accused from 15-18 April 1994.
  21. The Accused testified that he arrived at the Amgar complex on 14 April 1994 and remained there on 15 April 1994. He also tried to collect money before returning to Masango Commune, where he told the Chamber he remained during the night of 16 April 1994. The Accused stated that he returned to Kigali early in the morning on 17 April 1994. The Defence Counsel submitted that the Accused organized the evacuation of vulnerable persons from the Amgar garage complex. The Chamber notes that the Accused did not specify a date on which the said evacuation occurred. The Accused stated that he met his mother and sister at the Red Cross in Kiyovu. He took them to the Amgar complex, he testified, and later a convoy was organized to move them. This was done with great difficulty. The Accused testified that they were sent back during their first attempt. The Accused testified that he remained in Kigali from 17 April 1994 until 29 April 1994.
  22. Witness DEE testified that on 12 April 1994, she went to CHK hospital in Kigali. DEE stated that she then spent two days there and on the third she went to the Amgar complex. DEE stated that she spent two days there, and that she saw the Accused there on both days. Witness DEE testified that when she saw the Accused there, he was wearing civilian clothing. DEE further testified that she never saw him enter the house carrying a weapon. Witness DEE testified that she spent two days at the Amgar complex and that on the third day the Accused organized the departure for their respective préfectures.
  23. Witness DEE testified that she, the Accused , and four other people, departed in a vehicle which the Accused drove. Witness DEE testified that they were stopped at roadblocks. On 9 February 1999, DEE stated to the Chamber that at the first roadblock everyone in the car, including the Accused, was asked to produce their identity cards. However, on 10 February 1999, during her second day of testimony, she stated that they were not even asked for their identity cards(15). This Witness testified that there was no special recognition or relationship between the Accused and the roadblock controller, and that this was evident because the Accused was asked to produce his identity card.
  24. At a second roadblock which the witness stated was near the petrol station at Nyabugogo, the Accused was asked again to show his identity card. The people manning the roadblock also demanded the identity card of Witness DEE. Upon seeing it, these people told the witness that they should kill her. At this point, Witness DEE testified, the Accused begged them not to do so and gave them money. The Witness testified that the people at the roadblock did not know the Accused, which surprised her. DEE stated that she found this surprising because she thought that the Accused was well known throughout the country as he was an official of the MRND party.(16)
  25. At a third roadblock, which was not far from the second, and was situated along the road, in the direction of the road to Gitarama, there were many people who had been stopped. DEE testified that on the evening before this trip, the RTLM had broadcast that the vehicle in which they were traveling was being sought because the vehicle was said to have been used to find Tutsi and hide them. The witness testified, however, that the owner alleged by the RTLM was not the Accused, but was a person who was at the Amgar garage. This car was identified at the roadblock, but its passengers were not required to produce their identity cards. They turned around and went straight back to the Amgar complex. Witness DEE testified that the Accused organized another trip the next day. They traveled in a different car and reached Masango that night, 17 April 1994. They stayed in Masango at the house of the Accused's father.
  26. Witness DDD stated that the Accused returned to Masango on 16 April 1994. DDD testified that the Accused left for Kigali again on the evening of 17 April 1994. Witness DDD further testified that the Accused did not do anything special when he was at Masango, and that all he did was bring back food.
  27. The Accused testified that he remained in Kigali without leaving between 17April 1994 and 29 April 1994. He testified that he was very busy selling out his stocks of beer during this time. The Accused testified that he was approached by the Red Cross during the week of 17 to 24 April 1994. The Accused testified that the Red Cross asked him to draw up a communiqué appealing to MRND members, and in particular to members of the Interahamwe za MRND, if they were involved in killing, to stop, and to facilitate the transport of the wounded. The Accused stated that he left Kigali on 29 April 1994 and went to deposit his money at a bank in Gitarama. He then went to Masango to visit his family and stayed the night there. The Accused stated that he returned to Amgar on the following day and stayed there for about a week. On 8 May 1994, the Accused returned to Masango. He stated that he tried once again to deposit money in Gitarama before leaving. This did not work, so he asked his wife to deposit this money. He testified, without providing a date, that he went immediately back to Kigali and tried to shut down his business. The Accused testified that he could not state that he remained at Amgar permanently during the month of May 1994. Rather, he testified, he moved around a great deal and tried to attend to many matters.
  28. Witness DDD stated that the Accused went to Kigali from Masango on the evening of 17 April 1994 and did not return for a period of two to three weeks.
  29. Witness DEE testified that she saw the Accused in Butare once but that they did not have any interaction. DEE stated that this was either at the end of April or the beginning of May 1994. DEE testified that Rutaganda did not stay in Butare for the month or so that followed. Witness DEE believed that the Accused was in Masango staying either with his parents or at his home. However, DEE never actually saw the Accused in Masango.
  30. The Accused, Witness DDD, Witness DS, Witness DD, Witness DF, and Witness DEE gave testimony concerning the whereabouts of the Accused from the end of May 1994 to the beginning of July 1994.
  31. Defence Counsel submitted that the Accused left Kigali on 25 May 1994 and that he did not return there again. The Accused stated that he left the Amgar complex in Kigali on 27 May 1994. The Defence further stated that the Accused reached Cyangugu on 31 May 1994. The Accused testified that one week later, around 10 June 1994, he left Rwanda. He further testified that he returned to Rwanda twice to see his family. He stated that he did not return to Rwanda after the end of June 1994.
  32. Witness DDD testified that the Accused arrived at Masango on the evening of 27 May 1994. According to her testimony, DDD and the Accused departed for Gitarama together on 28 May 1994. DDD stated that they then went to Ngange, in Kivumu Commune before returning to Masango. According to the testimony of DDD they then departed for Cyangugu on the following day, 29 May 1994. They passed through roadblocks. At each one they had to present identity cards. DDD testified that the people manning the roadblocks did not recognize the Accused. DDD testified that they reached Cyangugu on the night of 31 May 1994. DDD testified that they stayed there together for a month, before leaving on 1 July 1994, and that the Accused did not return to Kigali.
  33. Witness DS testified that he and the Accused left Kigali on 27 May 1994 and that they went to Gitarama.
  34. Witness DD testified to having left the Amgar complex in company of the Accused on 27 May 1994. They experienced difficulties crossing roadblocks, and had to pay people who were manning the roadblocks. Witness DD testified that their trip lasted three days, and that this was due to the difficulties they encountered trying to cross the roadblocks. DD stated that he saw the Accused often when the Accused came to visit his family in Cyangugu.
  35. Witness DF stated that DF and the Accused left the Amgar complex on the same day, on 27 May 1994. DF testified that the Accused was at first not allowed to pass through the Gikongoro roadblock, and that if he had been able to do so they would not have spent so many days there. DF stated that they reached Cyangugu on 31 May 1994. Witness DF stated that DF left Rwanda on 17 July. DF thought that the Accused departed two weeks earlier. DF testified that when the Accused reached Cyangugu, the Accused did not go to Kigali or Gikongoro.
  36. Witness DEE stated that around 17 to 19 June 1994, she left Gikongoro for Cyangugu with the Accused and others. At a roadblock the Accused's vehicle was searched. DEE testified that the Accused's attitude was not that of someone in control when they were at the roadblocks. DEE testified that other people were supervising and controlling the roadblocks. DEE testified that on the following day the Accused suggested that he should take them to Bukavu, Zaire. They went to Zaire at some point not later than 26 June 1994.(17)
  37. The Chamber considers the defence of alibi, after having reviewed the Prosecutor's case in the factual findings on the relevant paragraphs of the Indictment.(18)

1. See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcript of 08, 09, 22 April 1999.

2. See Closing Argument of the Defence, transcript of 17 June 1999.

3. Ibid.

4. See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcript of 22 April 1999.

5. See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcript of 08 April 1999.

6. See Testimony of Witness DNN, transcript of 16 February 1999.

7. See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcript of 23 April 1999.

8. See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcript of 22 April 1999

9. See Testimony of Witness DNN, 16 February 1999.

10. See Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 67.

11. See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcripts of 21 and 22 April 1999.

12. See Testimony of Witness DF, transcript of 17 March 1999.

13. See Testimony of Witness DD, transcript of 16 March 1999.

14. See Testimony of Witness DDD, transcript of 15 February 1999.

15. See Testimony of Witness DEE, transcripts of 9 & 10 February 1999.

16. See Testimony of Witness DEE, transcripts of 9 & 10 February 1999.

17. See Testimony of Witness DEE, transcripts of 09 & 10 February 1999.

18. See Chapter 4 of this Judgement.

1. Introduction | 2. The Applicable Law | 3. The Defence Case | 4. Factual Findings | 5. Legal Findings | 6. Verdict | 7. Sentencing