Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-A, Appeals Chamber Judgement (Nov. 16, 2001).
ENGLISH
Original: FRENCH
APPEALS CHAMBER
Before Judges:
Claude Jorda, presiding
Lal Chand Vohrah
Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Rafael Nieto-Navia
Fausto Pocar
Registry: Adama Dieng
Judgement of: 16 November 2001
ALFRED MUSEMA
(Appellant)
v.
THE PROSECUTOR
(Respondent)
Case No. ICTR-96-13-A
JUDGEMENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
Steven Kay, QC
Michail Wladimiroff
Sylvia de Bertodano
Office of the Prosecutor:
Carla Del Ponte
Norman Farrell
Mathias Marcussen
Sonja Boelaert-Suominen
| I. | INTRODUCTION | ||||
| A. | Trial Proceedings | ||||
| B. | Appeal | ||||
| II. | MUSEMA’S FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL: ALLEGATION OF ERRORS OF LAW AND OF FACT IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER’S ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE AND IN ITS FACTUAL FINDINGS | ||||
| A. | Standard for Appellate Review | ||||
| 1. | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| 2. | Discussion | ||||
| B. | The Burden and Standard of Proof at Trial: General principles governing assessment of evidence by the Trial Chamber | ||||
| 1. | Burden and standard of proof | ||||
| (a) | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 2. | Corroboration of witness testimony | ||||
| (a) | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 3. | The Trial Chamber’s treatment of documentary evidence | ||||
| (a) | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 4. | False testimony and Rule 91(B) | ||||
| (a) | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 5. | The impact of trauma | ||||
| (a) | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 6. | Protected witnesses | ||||
| (a) | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| C. | Application to the facts of this case | ||||
| 1. | Background to the findings made by the Trial Chamber | ||||
| 2. | Challenge to the credibility of Prosecution witnesses | ||||
| (a) | Gitwa Hill, 26 April 1994 | ||||
| (b) | Rwirambo Hill (end of April – beginning of May) | ||||
| (c) | Muyira Hill, 13 May 1994 | ||||
| (i) | Inconsistencies between in-court testimony and prior statements | ||||
| (ii) | Insufficient identification by Witnesses F, T and N | ||||
| (iii) | The improbable nature of Witness N’s testimony | ||||
| (iv) | Violation of the right to effective cross-examination of Witness F | ||||
| (d) | Muyira Hill, 14 May 1994 | ||||
| (i) | Witness AC | ||||
| (ii) | Witness D | ||||
| (e) | Mid-May attacks (Muyira Hill and Mumataba Hill) and Nyakavumu cave (end of May attack) | ||||
| (i) | Witness H | ||||
| (ii) | Witness S | ||||
| (f) | Sexual Crimes | ||||
| (i) | Rape and murder of Annunciata Mujawayezu on 14 April 1994 | ||||
| (ii) | Rape of Nyiramusugi on 13 May 1994 | ||||
| 3. | Challenge to the Trial Chamber’s assessment of Musema’s alibi | ||||
| (a) | Introduction | ||||
| (b) | General allegations of the parties and general findings of the Appeals Chamber | ||||
| (c) | Errors in the assessment of the alibi with regard to specific locations | ||||
| (i) | Gitwa Hill (26 April 1994) | ||||
| (ii) | Rwirambo Hill (end of April, beginning of May 1994) | ||||
| (iii) | The two mid-May 1994 attacks at Muyira Hill and Mumataba Hill, and the Muyira Hill massacre on 13 and 14 May1994 | ||||
| (iv) | Nyakavumu Cave (late May, early June 1994) | ||||
| D. | Conclusion | ||||
| III. | THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND, FOURTH AND FIFTH GROUNDS OF APPEAL) | ||||
| A. | Second Ground of Appeal: Late notice of Witnesses | ||||
| 1. | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| 2. | Discussion | ||||
| B. | Fourth Ground of Appeal: Amendment of the Indictment | ||||
| C. | Fifth Ground of Appeal: Service of the Indictment | ||||
| IV. | SIXTH GROUND OF APPEAL: MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS BASED ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS | ||||
| A. | Arguments of the Parties | ||||
| 1. | Musema’s Arguments | ||||
| 2. | Prosecution’s Arguments | ||||
| B. | Discussion | ||||
| C. | Conclusion | ||||
| V. | MUSEMA’S APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE | ||||
| A. | Introduction | ||||
| B. | Relevant Provisions of the Statute and Rules | ||||
| C. | Musema’s Arguments | ||||
| 1. | The Trial Chamber failed to take into account the need to develop a range of sentences based upon his relative role in the broader context of the conflict in Rwanda | ||||
| (a) | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 2. | The Trial Chamber erred by failing to pass a sentence commensurate with other sentences passed by ICTR for the crime of genocide | ||||
| (a) | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| 3. | The Trial Chamber erred by failing to take due account of the mitigating factors in this case | ||||
| (a) | Arguments of the parties | ||||
| (b) | Discussion | ||||
| D. | Conclusion | ||||
| VI. | DISPOSITION | ||||
| DECLARATION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN | |||||
| ANNEX A: PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL | |||||
| ANNEX B: GLOSSARY | |||||