Prosecutor v. Kayishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1, Appeals Judgment (Reasons) (June 1, 2001).
Prosecutor v. Kayishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1, Appeals Judgment (Reasons) (June 1, 2001).
APPEALS CHAMBER
Before Judges:
Claude Jorda, presiding
Lal Chand Vohrah
Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Rafael Nieto-Navia
Fausto Pocar
Registry: Adama Dieng
Judgement of: 1 June 2001
THE PROSECUTOR
v.
CLÉMENT KAYISHEMA
and
OBED RUZINDANA
Case No. ICTR-95-1-A
JUDGEMENT (REASONS)
Office of the Prosecutor:
Carla del Ponte
Salomon Loh
Wen-qi Zhu
Sonja Boelaert-Souminen
Morris Anyah
Counsel for Clément Kayishema:
André Ferran
Philippe Moriceau
Counsel for Obed Ruzindana:
Pascal Besnier
William van der Griend
| I | INTRODUCTION | ||||
| A. | Trial Proceedings | ||||
| B. | The Appeal | ||||
| 1 | Kayishema’s Appeal | ||||
| (a) | Appeal on the merits | ||||
| (b) | Appeal against sentence | ||||
| 2 | Ruzindana’s Appeal | ||||
| (a) | Appeal on the merits | ||||
| (b) | Appeal against sentence | ||||
| II. | ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PROSECUTION’S APPEAL AND RESPONDENT’S BRIEFS | ||||
| 1 | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| 2 | Discussion | ||||
| 3 | Conclusion | ||||
| III | ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL | ||||
| A. | Fair Trial | ||||
| 1 | Independence of the Tribunal | ||||
| (a) | Kayishema’s arguments | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 2 | Inequality of arms | ||||
| (a) | Kayishema’s arguments | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 3 | Presumption of innocence | ||||
| (a) | Kayishema’s arguments | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 4 | The adversarial principle | ||||
| (a) | Kayishema’s arguments | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 5. | Timing of disclosure of materials [Rule 66(A)(I)] of the Rules | ||||
| (a) | Kayishema’s arguments | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 6 | Conclusion | ||||
| B. | Specificity of the Indictment | ||||
| 1 | Whether Ruzindana has waived his right to raise the issue of imprecision | ||||
| 2 | Discussion | ||||
| 3 | Conclusion | ||||
| C. | Alibi | ||||
| 1 | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| (a) | Kayishema’s defence of alibi | ||||
| (b) | Ruzindana’s defence of alibi | ||||
| 2 | Discussion | ||||
| (a) | Burden of proof regarding the defence of alibi | ||||
| (b) | Approach adopted by the Trial Chamber to assess the alibi | ||||
| (c) | Trial Chamber’s assessment of the weight of evidence produced within the context of an alibi | ||||
| 3 | Conclusion | ||||
| D. | Genocide | ||||
| 1 | Kayishema’s Appeal: Grounds Four and Six: Allegations of Factual and Legal Errors in Respect of the Crime of Genocide | ||||
| (a) | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| (i) | Challenge to factual determinations relating to the crime of genocide | ||||
| a. | Existence of a genocidal plan, the role of the civil defence programme and the interpretation of the words “ratisser” and “travailler” | ||||
| b. | Mens rea | ||||
| (ii) | Challenge to the Trial Chamber’s interpretation of “killing” (“meurtre”) under Article 2(2)(a) of the Statute | ||||
| (iii) | Alleged error relating to a charge under Article 2(2)(c) of the Statute | ||||
| (c) | Conclusion | ||||
| 2 | Ruzindana’s first and third Grounds of Appeal | ||||
| (a) | Ground one: Allegations of Errors of Law in the Determination of the Mental Element of the Crime of Genocide | ||||
| (i) | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| (ii) | Discussion | ||||
| a. | Lack of explicit manifestations of intent | ||||
| b. | Failure to legally define “persistent pattern of conduct” | ||||
| c. | Failure to provide a reasonable opinion | ||||
| (iii) | Conclusion | ||||
| (b) | Ground Three: The Trial Chamber erred in law in its finding on the role of Ruzindana in respect of the essential ingredients of the crime of Genocide | ||||
| (i) | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| (ii) | Discussion | ||||
| 3 | Conclusion | ||||
| E. | ARTICLES 6 (1) AND 6 (3) OF THE STATUTES | ||||
| 1 | Ruzindana’s Responsibility under Article 6(1) | ||||
| (a) | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| (i) | Error in finding Ruzindana individually responsible for committing killings within the meaning of Article 6(1) by reason of the Prosecution’s failure to establish a resulting death | ||||
| (ii) | Error by failing to provide a clear definition of the concept of common intention and to apply the criteria thereof to Ruzindana’s personal situation | ||||
| (c) | Conclusion | ||||
| 2 | Kayishema’s Responsibility under Article 6(1) | ||||
| (a) | The intent of the Accused | ||||
| (i) | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| (ii) | Discussion | ||||
| (b) | The issue of the overall assessment of the Accused’s effective participation | ||||
| (i) | The issue of the Trial Chamber’s approach in assessing the evidence presented | ||||
| a. | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| b. | Discussion | ||||
| (ii) | The issue of the credibility of witnesses | ||||
| a. | The issue of the overall credibility of testimonies | ||||
| i. | Credibility of witnesses | ||||
| Arguments of the Parties | |||||
| Discussion | |||||
| ii. | Credibility of testimonies and the issue of corroboration | ||||
| Arguments of the Parties | |||||
| Discussion | |||||
| b. | Identification of the accused | ||||
| i. | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| ii. | Discussion | ||||
| (iii) | The issue of assessment of testimonies with regard to the different massacre sites | ||||
| a. | Mubuga site | ||||
| i. | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| ii. | Discussion | ||||
| b. | The attacks at Bisesero | ||||
| i. | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| ii. | Discussion | ||||
| c. | The Catholic church and Home Saint-Jean | ||||
| i. | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| ii. | Discussion | ||||
| d. | Kibuye Stadium | ||||
| i. | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| ii. | Discussion | ||||
| (c) | Conclusion on Kayishema’s responsibility under Article 6(1) | ||||
| 3 | Kayishema’s responsibility under Article 6(3) | ||||
| (i) | Interpretation of the concept of subordinate | ||||
| a. | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| (ii) | Discussion | ||||
| (b) | The issue of the préfet’s power to punish and prevent crime | ||||
| (i) | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| (ii) | Discussion | ||||
| (c) | Conclusion | ||||
| F. | EVIDENTIARY MATTERS | ||||
| 1 | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| 2 | Discussion | ||||
| 3 | Conclusion | ||||
| G. | APPEALS AGAINST SENTENCE | ||||
| 1 | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| (a) | Kayishema’s arguments | ||||
| (b) | Ruzindana’s arguments | ||||
| 2 | Discussion | ||||
| (a) | Relevant Provisions of the Statutes and the Rules | ||||
| (b) | Standard of Review in an Appeal against Sentence | ||||
| (c) | Preliminary Points Regarding Appeal Filed by Ruzindana | ||||
| (d) | Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances | ||||
| (i) | Treatment of Aggravating Factors | ||||
| (ii) | Treatment of Mitigating Factors | ||||
| (e) | Gravity of the Offences | ||||
| (f) | General Appeal Against Sentence Imposed on Kayishema | ||||
| 3 | Conclusion | ||||
| IV | DISPOSITION | ||||
| DECLARATION OF JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA | |||||
| DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN | |||||
| ANNEXE A: HEARING ON APPEAL | |||||
| 1 | Motions relating to the filing of briefs | ||||
| 2 | Motions for leave to present new evidence | ||||
| 3 | Filings by the parties | ||||
| 4 | Hearing on Appeal | ||||
| ANNEXE B: GLOSSARY | |||||
| A. | FILINGS | ||||
| 1 | Clément Kayishema’s Appeal | ||||
| 2 | Obed Ruzindana’s Appeal | ||||
| 3 | Prosecution’s Appeal | ||||
| (a) | Prosecution’s First Appeal | ||||
| (b) | Prosecution’s Second Appeal | ||||
| B. | REFERENCES RELATED TO THIS CASE | ||||
| C. | CITED CASES | ||||
| D. | OTHER REFERENCES | ||||