Apelación Ruanda

8/11/2019 Apelacin Ruanda

1/438


2/438


3/438

Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A

A07-0137 (E) iii

Translation certified by LSS, ICTR

(a) Appellant Barayagwizas representation at trial .................................................................... 35(b) Appellant Barayagwizas submissions relating to his representation from 23 October 2000

to 6 February 2001................................................................................................................ 37(c) Appellant Barayagwizas submissions relating to his representation after 6 February 2001. 38

(i) The Trial Chambers jurisdiction to assign counsel to represent the Accuseds interests.. 38(ii) The competence of Counsel Barletta-Caldarera and Pognon............................................ 39a. Adjournment of the hearings to allow Counsel Barletta-Caldarera to familiarize

himself with the case .................................................................................................... 42b. Absences and lateness of Counsel............................................................................... 43

i. 21 May 2001 ............................................................................................................ 44ii. 16 November 2001.................................................................................................. 44iii. 20 February 2002................................................................................................... 45iv. 25 to 28 March 2002 .............................................................................................. 46v. Absences in 2003 .................................................................................................... 46

c. Allegation of conflict of interests ................................................................................ 48d. Lack of assistance from a Kinyarwanda speaker ........................................................ 49

e. Failure to investigate and to ask crucial questions; use of information from thirdparties ........................................................................................................................... 50f. Failure to recall Prosecution witnesses heard between 23 October 2000 and

6 February 2001............................................................................................................ 51g. Failure to cross-examine certain witnesses ................................................................. 51h. Decision to call Expert Witness Goffioul ................................................................... 52

(iii) Appellant Barayagwizas submissions concerning the lack of representation between 6and 12 February 2001 ....................................................................................................... 52

(iv) Treatment of Counsel for the Appellant during trial ........................................................ 56a. Applicable Law................................................................................................................ 56

b. Time allowed by the Trial Chamber for the cross-examination of Prosecutionwitnesses....................................................................................................................... 57

B. APPELLANT BARAYAGWIZAS SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING THE TRIAL CHAMBERSASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE .......................................................................................................60

1. Assessment of the credibility of certain Prosecution witnesses.............................................602. Assessment of expert witness testimonies .............................................................................61

(a) Expert Witnesses Chrtien and Kabanda ............................................................................... 63(b) Expert Witness Des Forges.................................................................................................... 64

V. SHOULD THE JUDGEMENT BE ANNULLED BY REASON OF A MISCARRIAGE OFJUSTICE? ...................................................................... ............................................................. ................... 68

VI. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF APPELLANT NAHIMANAS DEFENCE RIGHTS..................... 69

A. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................69B. VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO HAVE ADEQUATE TIME AND FACILITIES FOR THE PREPARATION OF

THE DEFENCE............................................................................................................................701. The Decision of 3 June 2003 allowing the Prosecutor to tender into evidence translationsof RTLM broadcasts............................................................................................................70

2. Admission of the radio interview with Appellant Nahimana of 25 April 1994.....................713. Amendment of the list of Prosecution witnesses ...................................................................714. Allowing Prosecution Witness X to testify............................................................................725. Obstruction to Defence investigations...................................................................................736. Translation of Prosecution Briefs ..........................................................................................747. Right of rejoinder ...................................................................................................................758. Translation of Nahimanas Final Trial Brief .........................................................................76


4/438


A07-0137 (E) iv


C. VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO SECURE THE ATTENDANCE AND EXAMINATION OF DEFENCEWITNESSES UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS PROSECUTION WITNESSES .................................77

1. Restrictions imposed on the testimony of Defence expert witnesses ....................................772. Defence Witness Y ................................................................................................................78

VII. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF APPELLANT NGEZES DEFENCE RIGHTS ............................ 81

A. FAILURE TO TRANSLATE ALL THE ISSUES OFKANGURA...............................................................81B. THE RIGHT TO LEGAL ASSISTANCE ..............................................................................................82C. THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES .........................................................84

1. Prosecution Witness Serushago .............................................................................................842. Prosecution Witness AGX .....................................................................................................853. Prosecution Witness Chrtien ................................................................................................864. Prosecution Expert Witness Kabanda....................................................................................87

D. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE EXPERT WITNESSES .............................................................................871. Prosecution Expert Witness Ruzindana.................................................................................872. Prosecution Expert Witness Chrtien ....................................................................................88

3. Prosecution Expert Witness Kabanda....................................................................................894. Defence Expert Witnesses .....................................................................................................905. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................91

E. REFUSAL TO SUMMON COLONEL TIKOCA AND SEVEN UNDFDETAINEES TO APPEAR ASWITNESSES................................................................................................................................91

VIII. TEMPORAL JURISDICTION .............................................................. ............................................ 92

A. PARTIESSUBMISSIONS...............................................................................................................92B. ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................95

1. Conclusions of the Trial Chamber .........................................................................................952. Provisions of the Statute ........................................................................................................963. Admissibility of evidence on pre-1994 events.......................................................................98

4. Continuing crimes..................................................................................................................985. Credibility and propensity to commit crimes.........................................................................99

IX. THE INDICTMENTS...................................................................... ..................................................... 100

A. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................100B. THE LAW APPLICABLE TO INDICTMENTS ...................................................................................100C. ISSUES RAISED BY APPELLANTNAHIMANA ..............................................................................102

1. RTLM editorials...................................................................................................................1022. Intervention in favour of UNAMIR.....................................................................................1033. Broadcasts made prior to 6 April 1994................................................................................1054. RTLM broadcasts promotingKanguraand the competition of March 1994......................1065. Facts establishing genocidal intent ......................................................................................107

D. APPELLANT BARAYAGWIZAS NEW GROUNDS OF APPEAL ........................................................1081. Broadcasts prior to 6 April 1994..........................................................................................1092. Appellant Barayagwizas position within RTLM................................................................109

(a) Superior-subordinate relationship ........................................................................................ 109(b) Status as number two and active member of the RTLM Steering Committee ................ 111

3. Appellant Barayagwizas position within the CDR.............................................................111(a) The elements of superior responsibility ............................................................................... 111(b) National President and membership in the Executive Committee....................................... 113

4. Distribution of weapons in Mutura......................................................................................1145. Supervision of roadblocks ...................................................................................................117

E. APPELLANTNGEZES SUBMISSIONS ..........................................................................................118


5/438


A07-0137 (E) v


1. Authorization to amend the Indictment ...............................................................................1192. Rejection of Appellant Ngezes motions relating to the Indictment....................................1203. The competition of March 1994 ..........................................................................................121

X. APPELLANT NGEZE'S ALIBI AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE EVENTSOF 7 AND 8 APRIL 1994 IN GISENYI ...................................................... .............................................. 126

A. THE TRIAL CHAMBERS FINDINGS ............................................................................................126B. ERRORS ALLEGED BY APPELLANTNGEZE IN RELATION TO THE DISMISSAL OF HIS ALIBI ..........127

1. Should the Trial Chamber have required the alibi to be investigated?................................1282. Did the Trial Chamber reverse the burden of proof in regard to the alibi ? ........................1293. The finding that the alibi was not credible...........................................................................1304. Did the arrest of Ngeze on 6 or 7 April 1994 preclude his participation in the events as

recounted by Prosecution witnesses? ................................................................................135C. ALLEGED ERRORS IN RELATION TO THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENCE AND PROSECUTION

WITNESSES..............................................................................................................................1351. Alleged differential treatment of Defence and Prosecution witnesses ................................136

2. Credibility of Witness EB....................................................................................................137(a) Developments on appeal ...................................................................................................... 138(b) Arguments of the Parties...................................................................................................... 143(c) Analysis................................................................................................................................ 144

D. IMPACT ON THE VERDICT ..........................................................................................................147

XI. MODES OF RESPONSIBILITY ................................................... ..................................................... 150

A. RESPONSIBILITY UNDER ARTICLE 6(1)OF THE STATUTE ..........................................................150B. RESPONSIBILITY UNDER ARTICLE 6(3)OF THE STATUTE ..........................................................152C. THERE CAN BE NO CUMULATIVE RESPONSIBILITY UNDER ARTICLE 6(1)AND (3)IN RESPECT OF

THE SAME COUNT....................................................................................................................154

XII. THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE............................................................. .............................................. 154

A. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................154B. THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE ..........................................................................................................155

1. Applicable law .....................................................................................................................1552. Submissions of Appellants Nahimana and Ngeze concerning the group protected ............156in the definition of the crime of genocide................................................................................156

(a) Arguments of the Parties...................................................................................................... 156(b) Analysis................................................................................................................................ 156

3. Instigation of acts of genocide by RTLM,Kanguraand the CDR......................................157(a) Arguments of the Parties...................................................................................................... 157(b) Analysis................................................................................................................................ 158

(i) Causal link between RTLM broadcasts and the acts of genocide................................. 159

a. Broadcasts before 6 April 1994 ................................................................................. 160b. Broadcasts after 6 April 1994.................................................................................... 163(ii) Link between articles inKanguraand the commission of acts of genocide................ 164(iii) Link between CDR activities and the acts of genocide.............................................. 165

C. GENOCIDAL INTENT OF THE APPELLANTS.................................................................................1661. Applicable law .....................................................................................................................1662. Appellant Nahimana ............................................................................................................1673. Appellant Barayagwiza........................................................................................................167

(a) Use of the terms tubatsembatsembe, gutsembatsemba and tuzitsembatsembe.......... 167(i) Appellant Barayagwizas submissions ............................................................................. 167(ii) Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 168


6/438


A07-0137 (E) vi


(b) Humiliation and death threats against the Bagogwe Tutsi................................................... 171(i) Appellant Barayagwizas submissions ............................................................................. 171(ii) Witness AFXs credibility ............................................................................................... 171(iii) Examination of the alleged errors of fact ....................................................................... 173

(c) Exculpatory evidence ........................................................................................................... 174(d) Temporal jurisdiction of the Tribunal.................................................................................. 176(e) Conclusion regarding Appellant Barayagwizas genocidal intent ....................................... 176

4. Appellant Ngeze...................................................................................................................176(a) Writings inKangura............................................................................................................. 177(b) Appellants statements ......................................................................................................... 177(c) Exculpatory evidence ........................................................................................................... 178(d) Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 180

D. CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANTS FOR GENOCIDE .......................................................1801. Individual Criminal Responsibility of Appellant Nahimana under Article 6(1) of the

Statute................................................................................................................................180(a) Findings on the involvement of Appellant Nahimana based on facts prior to 1 January

1994 .................................................................................................................................... 180(b) Conviction for the crime of genocide .................................................................................. 181(i) Arguments of the parties................................................................................................... 181(ii) Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 186

a. The Appellants satisfaction....................................................................................... 187b. The Appellants Role in the creation of RTLM ............................................................ 187c. The Appellant was the ideologist of RTLM and used it as his weapon of choice ........ 188d. Appellant Nahimana set the course for RTLM.......................................................... 189e. Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 189

2. Appellant Barayagwiza........................................................................................................190(a) Individual criminal responsibility for RTLM broadcasts under Article 6(3) of the Statute. 190

(i) The law ............................................................................................................................. 190(ii) Responsibility of Appellant Barayagwiza for RTLM broadcasts.................................... 192

a. Arguments of the Parties ............................................................................................... 192b. Analysis......................................................................................................................... 195

i. Superior responsibility before 6 April 1994............................................................... 196ii. Appellant Barayagwizas responsibility for RTLM broadcasts after 6 April 1994.. 199iii. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 201

(b) Appellant Barayagwizas individual criminal responsibility resulting from CDR activities201(i) The CDR was not a party exclusively reserved for Hutus................................................ 201(ii) The CDR had no militia................................................................................................... 202(iii) The Appellant had no authority to organise public meetings and rallies ....................... 203(iv) The Appellants role in the distribution of weapons and participation in the planning of

massacres........................................................................................................................ 205(v) Supervision of roadblocks................................................................................................ 205

(vi) Shouting Match with the US Ambassador .................................................................. 207(vii) Causal link between the Appellants acts of instigation and the killing of Tutsis......... 208(viii) Conclusion on Appellant Barayagwizas responsibility under Article 6(1) of the

Statute ............................................................................................................................. 211(ix) The Trial Chamber could not convict the Appellant under both paragraphs (1) and (3)

of Article 6 of the Statute................................................................................................ 2123. Individual criminal responsibility of Appellant Ngeze on account of his personal acts in

Gisenyi................................................................................................................................ 212

XIII. CRIME OF DIRECT AND PUBLIC INCITEMENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE.................... 214


7/438


A07-0137 (E) vii


A. CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF DIRECT AND PUBLIC INCITEMENT TO COMMITGENOCIDE ...............................................................................................................................215

1. Arguments of the Parties......................................................................................................2162. TheAmicus CuriaeBrief and the responses of the Parties................................................... 220

3. Analysis................................................................................................................................221(a) Hate speech and direct incitement to commit genocide....................................................... 221(b) Speeches that are open to several interpretations................................................................. 223(c) Reliance on the intent of the speechs author, its potential dangers and the authors

political and community affiliation .................................................................................... 225(i) Intent ................................................................................................................................. 225(ii) Potential dangers.............................................................................................................. 227(iii) Political or community affiliation................................................................................... 228(iv) Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 229

B. IS INCITEMENT A CONTINUING CRIME?...................................................................................... 2291. Submissions of the Parties and ofAmicus Curiae ............................................................... 2292. Analysis................................................................................................................................ 230

(a) Inchoate and continuing crimes............................................................................................ 230(b) Is direct and public incitement to commit genocide a continuing crime?............................ 231(c) The acts constituting direct and public incitement to commit genocide must be specified . 232

C. APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE .......................................2321. The RTLM broadcasts ......................................................................................................... 232

(a) Submissions of the Parties.................................................................................................... 232(b) Broadcasts prior to 6 April 1994.......................................................................................... 234

(i) Historical context and editorial policy up to 6 April 1994 ............................................... 235(ii) The broadcasts ................................................................................................................. 235(iii) The witness evidence...................................................................................................... 243(iv) Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 245

(c) Broadcasts after 6 April 1994............................................................................................... 245

2. Direct and public incitement by the CDR............................................................................2463.Kangura ...............................................................................................................................247(a) Arguments of the Parties...................................................................................................... 247(b) Analysis................................................................................................................................ 248(c) Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 251

D. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPELLANTS ......................................................................................2511. Responsibility of Appellant Nahimana................................................................................251

(a) Responsibility pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute.......................................................... 251(b) Responsibility pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute.......................................................... 251

(i) Errors of law ..................................................................................................................... 252a. The Appellants submissions......................................................................................... 252

b. Analysis......................................................................................................................... 253i. Superior position and effective control...................................................................... 253ii. The mental element................................................................................................... 255iii. Necessary and reasonable measures ........................................................................ 255

(ii) Errors of fact.................................................................................................................... 255a. Superior position and effective control ......................................................................... 255

i. The Appellants submissions ..................................................................................... 256ii. Effective control before 6 April 1994....................................................................... 259iii. Control after 6 April 1994........................................................................................ 266

b. Mental element .............................................................................................................. 269i. The Parties submissions............................................................................................ 269ii. Analysis..................................................................................................................... 270

c. Reasonable and necessary measures to prevent or punish commission of the crime.... 271


8/438


A07-0137 (E) viii


i. The Parties submissions............................................................................................ 271ii. Analysis..................................................................................................................... 271

(c) Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 2742. Responsibility of Appellant Barayagwiza ...........................................................................274

(a) RTLM broadcasts................................................................................................................. 274(b) CDR ..................................................................................................................................... 275(i) Responsibility pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute ...................................................... 275(ii) Responsibility pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute ..................................................... 276

a. Elements to be established............................................................................................. 276b. Analysis of the Appellants submissions....................................................................... 277

i. National President of the CDR................................................................................... 277ii. Head of the CDR in Gisenyi ..................................................................................... 279iii. Membership of the Executive Committee of the CDR............................................ 279iv. Effective control over CDR militants andImpuzamugambi .................................... 281

3. Responsibility of Appellant Ngeze ......................................................................................283(a)Kanguraarticles ................................................................................................................... 283

(b) Acts of the Appellant in Gisenyi.......................................................................................... 284XIV. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT GENOCIDE....................................................... ............................ 285

A. ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT GENOCIDE ............................................285B. ALLEGED ERRORS .....................................................................................................................285

1. The Parties submissions......................................................................................................2872. Could a criminal conspiracy be inferred from the personal collaboration between the

Appellants?........................................................................................................................2883. Could a criminal conspiracy be inferred from the interaction between the institutions? ....2904. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................292

XV. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ...................................................... .............................................. 292

A. HEADER TO ARTICLE 3OF THE STATUTE ..................................................................................2921. Meaning of as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population...293

(a) Attack ................................................................................................................................... 293(b) Widespread and/or systematic ............................................................................................. 294

2. Existence of a plan or a policy and the use of substantial resources ...................................2943. Multiplicity of victims .........................................................................................................2954. Was there a systematic attack before 6 April 1994, and did the Appellants acts form part

thereof?..............................................................................................................................295B. EXTERMINATION ......................................................................................................................298

1. Convictions on account of RTLM broadcasts ....................................................................298(a) Did the RTLM broadcasts instigate extermination?............................................................. 299(b) Responsibility of Appellants Nahimana and Barayagwiza.................................................. 300

2. Responsibility of Appellant Barayagwiza for the activities of the CDR.............................300(a) Responsibility for having ordered or instigated extermination............................................ 300(b) Responsibility for having planned extermination ................................................................ 301

(i) Distribution of weapons.................................................................................................... 301(ii) Participation in the planning of killings........................................................................... 303(iii) Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 305

3. Responsibility of Appellant Ngeze for acts in Gisenyi........................................................305(a) Submissions of the Parties.................................................................................................... 305(b) Analysis................................................................................................................................ 305

4. Responsibility of Appellant Ngeze on account ofKangurapublications............................306C. PERSECUTION ...........................................................................................................................307

1. Can hate speech constitute the actus reusof persecution as a crime against humanity?.....307


9/438


A07-0137 (E) ix


(a) Submissions of the Parties.................................................................................................... 307(b)Amicus CuriaeBrief and responses thereto ......................................................................... 310(c) Analysis................................................................................................................................ 310

2. The Trial Chambers conclusions in the present case..........................................................314(a) Responsibility for RTLM Broadcasts................................................................................... 314(i) Arguments of the Parties................................................................................................... 314(ii) RTLM broadcasts in 1994 .............................................................................................. 315

a. Broadcasts prior to 6 April 1994 ................................................................................... 315b. Broadcasts after 6 April 1994........................................................................................ 315

(iii) Responsibility of the Appellants..................................................................................... 315a. Appellant Nahimana...................................................................................................... 315

b. Appellant Barayagwiza ................................................................................................. 316(b) Appellant Barayagwizas responsibility for CDR activities ................................................ 316

(i) Responsibility pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute ...................................................... 316(ii) Responsibility pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute ..................................................... 317

(c) Appellant Ngezes Responsibility........................................................................................ 317(i) Responsibility for the content ofKangura ....................................................................... 319(ii) Responsibility for acts in Gisenyi.................................................................................... 320

XVI. CUMULATIVE CONVICTIONS ................................................................. ................................... 320

A. APPLICABLE LAW IN RESPECT OF CUMULATIVE CONVICTIONS ..................................................320B. CUMULATIVE CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 2OF THE STATUTE .............................................321

1. Cumulative convictions for genocide and direct and public incitement to commit genocide3212. Cumulative convictions for genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide ........................321

C. CUMULATIVE CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 3OF THE STATUTE .............................................322D. CUMULATIVE CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLES 2AND 3OF THE STATUTE.................................323

1. Cumulative convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity.......323

2. Cumulative convictions for genocide and persecution as a crime against humanity ..........3233. Cumulative convictions for direct and public incitement to commit genocide andpersecution as a crime against humanity...........................................................................324

XVII. THE SENTENCES........................................................... .......................................................... ...... 324

A. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................324B. SINGLE SENTENCE ....................................................................................................................326C. APPELLANTNAHIMANA ...........................................................................................................327

1. Comparison with other cases ...............................................................................................3272. Impossibility of intervention................................................................................................3283. Attitude of the Appellant towards the Tribunal...................................................................3284. Representations by Defence witnesses ................................................................................328

5. Consequences of the findings of the Appeals Chamber ......................................................329D. APPELLANT BARAYAGWIZA .....................................................................................................3291. Gravity of the offences and Appellants degree of responsibility .......................................329

(a) The Appellant did not personally commit acts of violence.................................................. 329(b) Purposes of the sentence ...................................................................................................... 330(c) Categorization of offenders.................................................................................................. 330(d) Practice of courts and tribunals............................................................................................ 331

(i) Practice of the Rwandan courts ........................................................................................ 331(ii) Practice of international criminal tribunals...................................................................... 332(iii) The Statute of the International Criminal Court............................................................. 332

2. Mitigating circumstances .....................................................................................................333


10/438


A07-0137 (E) x


3. Lack of reasoning.................................................................................................................3344. Excessive delay in rendering the Judgement .......................................................................3345. Grounds of Appeal relating to the Decision of 31 March 2000...........................................336

(a) Alleged errors in the Decision of 31 March 2000................................................................ 336

(b) The Appeals Chamber should have specified in the Decision of 31 March 2000 theremedy to be provided ........................................................................................................ 337

(c) The remedy granted in the Decision of 31 March 2000 was unlawful ................................ 338(d) The Decision of 31 March 2000 did not grant any remedy for the unlawful detention after

3 November 1999 ............................................................................................................... 339(e) Excessive delay in granting a remedy.................................................................................. 339

6. The remedy granted in the Judgement.................................................................................3397. Consequences of the findings of the Appeals Chamber ......................................................340

E. APPELLANTNGEZE ...................................................................................................................3411. Gravity of the crimes ...........................................................................................................3412. Mitigating factors.................................................................................................................341

(a) The Appellants position in Rwanda.................................................................................... 342

(b) Assistance to a number of victims ....................................................................................... 343(c) Family Situation ................................................................................................................... 343(d) Fair trial violations............................................................................................................... 343

3. Deduction of the period of provisional detention ................................................................3434. Consequences of the findings of the Appeals Chamber ......................................................344

XVIII. DISPOSITION ..................................................... ..................................................................... ...... 346

XIX. PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FAUSTO POCAR .. 348

XX. PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN. 350

A. THE NATURE OF CONSPIRACY 350

B. THE TRIAL CHAMBER HAS NOT EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF PERSECUTIONAS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY ...............................................................................351

C. THE CRIME OF DIRECT AND PUBLIC INCITEMENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDEIS A CONTINUOUS CRIME . 356

D. A PRE-JURISDICTIONAL ACT CAN EXTEND INTO THE LATER JURISDICTIONALPERIOD SO AS TO COEXIST WITH AN ATTACK ON THE CIVILIAN POPULATIONDURING THE LATER PERIOD 359

E. THE PRE-1994KANGURA PUBLICATIONS CONSTITUTED ENOUGH EVIDENCE OFINCITEMENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE ... 360

F. IN ANY EVENT, THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT, IN THE JURISDICTIONALYEAR OF 1994,KANGURAPUBLISHED INCITING MATERIAL . 362

G. THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT, IN 1994, RTLM BROADCAST INCITINGMATERIAL 3631. 1 January to 6 April 1994 ... 3642. The period after 6 April 1994 ..364

H. THE TRIAL CHAMBER HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THE APPELLANTSPERSONALLY COLLABORATED WITH THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OFCOMMITTING GENOCIDE . 365

I. WHETHER ANY INCITEMENT WAS DIRECT AND PUBLIC 367J. CONCLUSION .. 369

XXI. PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GNEY ................. 372

XXII. PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MERON . 374


11/438


A07-0137 (E) xi


A. THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMANDED .. 374B. NAHIMANAS CONVICTION FOR PERSECUTION (RTLM BROADCASTS) ... 374

1. Mere Hate Speech is Not Criminal 375

2. Why Hate Speech is Protected 3773. Mere Hate Speech May Not Be the Basis of a Criminal Conviction .. 3784. Nexus Between Nahimana and the Widespread and Systematic Attack . 3795. Nahimanas Sentence .. 380

ANNEX A: PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 382

ANNEX B: GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES .. 403


12/438


A07-0137 (E) 1


I. INTRODUCTION

1. The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of

Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of InternationalHumanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens responsiblefor genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States

between 1 January and 31 December 1994 (respectively, Appeals Chamber and Tribunal)is seized of appeals lodged by Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza and Hassan

Ngeze against the Judgement rendered by Trial Chamber I on 3 December 2003 in the case ofThe Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza and Hassan Ngeze(Judgement).

A. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza and Hassan Ngeze

2. Ferdinand Nahimana (Appellant Nahimana) was born on 15 June 1950 in Gatonde

commune, Ruhengeriprfecture, Rwanda. From 1977, he was an assistant lecturer in historyat the National University of Rwanda; he held different positions in this University until1984. He was appointed Director of ORINFOR (Rwandan Office of Information) in 1990 andremained in that post until 1992. In 1992 Ferdinand Nahimana and others set up a comitdinitiative (Steering Committee) to establish a company known as Radio tlvision libredes mille collines (RTLM), S.A. He was also a member of the Mouvement rvolutionnairenational pour le dveloppement(MRND).1

3. Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza (Appellant Barayagwiza) was born in 1950 in Muturacommune, Gisenyi prfecture, Rwanda. A lawyer by training, Barayagwiza was a foundingmember of the Coalition pour la dfense de la Rpubliqueparty (CDR), which was formedin 1992. He was a member of the Steering Committee responsible for the establishment of the

company RTLM S.A. He also held the post of Director of Political Affairs at the Ministry ofForeign Affairs.2

4. Hassan Ngeze (Appellant Ngeze) was born on 25 December 1957 in Rubavucommune, Gisenyiprfecture, Rwanda. From 1978 he worked as a journalist, and in 1990 hefounded the newspaper Kangura, where he held the post of Editor-in-Chief. He was afounding member of the CDR.3

B. The Indictments and the Judgement

5. The Judgement was rendered on the basis of three separate Indictments. The initialIndictment against Ferdinand Nahimana was filed on 22 July 19964 and last amended on

15 November 1999 (Nahimana Indictment). The initial Indictment against Jean-BoscoBarayagwiza was filed on 22 October 1997 and last amended on 14 April 20005

1Judgement, para. 5.2Ibid., para. 6.3Ibid., para. 7.4Signed on 12 July 1996.5Signed on 13 April 2000.


13/438


A07-0137 (E) 2


(Barayagwiza Indictment). The Indictment against Hassan Ngeze was filed on6 October 19976and last amended on 22 November 19997(Ngeze Indictment).

6. The Trial Chamber found the three Appellants guilty of conspiracy to commitgenocide, genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution andextermination as crimes against humanity.8 All three were acquitted on the counts ofcomplicity in genocide and murder as a crime against humanity. 9Appellant Barayagwiza wasalso found not guilty of serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventionsand of Additional Protocol II.10

C. The appeals

7. In his Notice of Appeal, Appellant Nahimana adopts a thematic presentation of hisgrounds of appeal: in the first place, he challenges all of the interlocutory decisions renderedon issues relating to the validity of the proceedings;11he then alleges errors of law and fact in

connection with the rules of a fair trial,12

and errors of law and of fact in the decision on themerits.13His Appellants Brief does not follow this categorisation,14and the grounds relatingto the interlocutory decisions are addressed mainly in that part of the Brief relating to theright to a fair trial.15

8. Appellant Barayagwiza raises 51 grounds of appeal.16He first identifies five groundswhich would allegedly justify annulment of the Judgement, then he enumerates the groundsrelating to errors which are claimed to render the Judgement defective: Grounds 6 to 15 thusfocus on errors relating to his conviction for genocide; Grounds 16 and 17 focus on errorsconcerning CDR; Grounds 18 to 22 identify errors relating to his superior responsibilitywithin CDR; Grounds 23 to 29 identify errors relating to instigation of genocide; Grounds 30and 31 concern errors relating to conspiracy to commit genocide; Grounds 32 and 33 concern

errors relating to direct and public incitement to commit genocide; Grounds 34 to 41 identifyerrors relating to his convictions for crimes against humanity; Grounds 42 to 51 identifyerrors affecting the sentence.

6Signed on 30 September 1997.7Signed on 10 November 1999.8Judgement, paras. 1092-1094.9Idem.10Judgement, para. 1093.11Nahimana Notice of Appeal, pp. 2-6.12Ibid., pp. 6-10.13Ibid., pp. 10-17.14In violation of the Practice Direction of Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement, para. 4 in fine.15Nahimana Appellants Brief is divided into two parts; the first part concerns the right to a fair trial (paras. 11-185), while the second alleges errors in the Judgement (paras. 186-652). The grounds identified in the first partare as follows: violation of the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal (Ground 1); violation oftemporal jurisdiction (Ground 2); violation of the right to be informed of the charges (Ground 3); violation ofthe right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (Ground 4); violation of the rightto secure the attendance and examination of Defence witnesses under the same conditions as Prosecutionwitnesses (Ground 5). The second part comprises the following chapters: (1) Errors on the crime of direct andpublic incitement to commit genocide; (2) Errors on persecution as a crime against humanity; (3) Errors on thecrime of genocide; (4) Errors on extermination as a crime against humanity; (5) Errors on the crime ofconspiracy to commit genocide; (6) Errors on cumulative charges and convictions; (7) Errors in sentencing.16See Barayagwiza Notice of Appeal.


14/438


A07-0137 (E) 3


9. Appellant Ngeze raises eight grounds of appeal.17In his first ground he contends thatthe Trial Chamber exceeded its jurisdiction ratione temporis, in violation of Article 7 of theStatute of the Tribunal (Statute). His second ground relates to his right to a fair trial and to

equality of arms. The third ground relates to errors of law and of fact related to the dismissalof his alibi defence and the credibility of witnesses. From his fourth to seventh ground, theAppellant identifies errors of law and of fact relating to Articles 2, 3, and 6(1) of the Statute,as well as errors relating to cumulative convictions. His eighth ground concerns sentencing.

D. Amicus CuriaeBrief

10. On 12 January 2007, the Appeals Chamber allowed the non-governmentalorganization Open Society Justice Initiative (Amicus Curiae) to file a brief (AmicusCuriae Brief) on (1) the distinction between hate speech, direct and public incitement tocommit genocide and genocide (including a section on the temporal jurisdiction of theTribunal); and (2) the issue of whether hate speech could amount to persecution as a crime

against humanity.18

In that Decision the Appeals Chamber allowed the parties to respond totheAmicus CuriaeBrief,19which they subsequently did within the prescribed time-limit.20

E. Standards for appellate review

11. The Appeals Chamber recalls the requisite standards for appellate review pursuant toArticle 24 of the Statute.Article 24 of the Statute addresses errors of law which invalidate thedecision and errors of fact which occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

12. The party alleging an error of law must advance arguments in support of its claim andexplain how the error invalidates the decision. However, even if the appellants arguments donot support his claim, the Appeals Chamber may on its own initiative uphold on other

grounds the claim that there has been an error of law.21

Exceptionally, the Appeals Chambermay also hear arguments where a party has raised a legal issue which would not lead to theinvalidation of the judgement, but which is of general significance for the Tribunals

jurisprudence.22

17See Ngeze Notice of Appeal.18Decision on the Admissibility of the Amicus CuriaeBrief Filed by the Open Society Justice Initiative andon its Request to Be Heard at the Appeals Hearing, 12 January 2007 (Decision of 12 January 2007).19Decision of 12 January 2007, p. 4.20 The Appellant Jean-Bosco Barayagwizas Response to the Amicus Curiae Brief filed by Open Society

Justice Initiative, 8 February 2007 (Barayagwizas Response to the Amicus Curiae Brief); Rponse aummoire de lamicus curiae, 12 February 2007 (Nahimanas Response to theAmicus CuriaeBrief); AppellantHassan Ngezes Response to Amicus CuriaeBrief Pursuance sic to the Appeal sicChambers Decision of12.01.2007, 12 February 2007 (Ngezes Response to theAmicus CuriaeBrief); Prosecutors Response to theAmicus CuriaeBrief inFerdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza and Hassan Ngeze v. The Prosecutor,12 February 2007 (Prosecutors Response to theAmicus CuriaeBrief).21See for example Halilovi Appeal Judgement, para. 7; Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 9;MuhimanaAppeal Judgement, para. 7; Blagojevi and Joki Appeal Judgement, para. 7; Branin Appeal Judgement,para. 9.22 See for example Halilovi Appeal Judgement, para. 6; Blagojevi and Joki Appeal Judgement, para. 6;Branin Appeal Judgement, para. 8; Simi Appeal Judgement, para. 7; StakiAppeal Judgement, para. 7; TadiAppeal Judgement, para. 247.


15/438


A07-0137 (E) 4


13. If the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber applied a wrong legal standard:

it is open to the Appeals Chamber to articulate the correct legal standard and to review therelevant findings of the Trial Chamber accordingly. In doing so, the Appeals Chamber notonly corrects a legal error, but applies the correct legal standard to the evidence containedin the trial record, in the absence of additional evidence, and must determine whether it isitself convinced beyond reasonable doubt as to the factual finding challenged by [one ofthe parties], before that finding is confirmed on appeal.23

14. With regard to errors of fact, it is well established that the Appeals Chamber will notlightly overturn findings of fact made by a Trial Chamber. 24Where an error of fact is alleged,the Appeals Chamber must give deference to the assessment of the Trial Chamber whichreceived the evidence at trial, since the Trial Chamber is in a better position to evaluatetestimony, as well as the demeanour of witnesses. The Appeals Chamber will only interferewith the findings of the Trial Chamber where no reasonable trier of fact could have reached

the same finding, or where the finding is wholly erroneous. An erroneous finding will be setaside or revised only if the error occasioned a miscarriage of justice.25

15. As for the standard of review where additional evidence has been admitted on appeal,theNaletiliand MartinoviAppeal Judgement recalled that:

[t]he Appeals Chamber in Kupreki established the standard of review when additionalevidence has been admitted on appeal, and held:

The test to be applied by the Appeals Chamber in deciding whether ornot to uphold a conviction where additional evidence has beenadmitted before the Chamber is: has the appellant established that noreasonable tribunal of fact could have reached a conclusion of guiltbased upon the evidence before the Trial Chamber together with the

additional evidence admitted during the appellate proceedings.The standard of review employed by the Appeals Chamber in that context was whether areasonable trier of fact could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the findingin question, a deferential standard. In that situation, the Appeals Chamber inKupreki didnot determine whether it was satisfied itself,beyond reasonable doubt, as to the conclusionreached, and indeed, it did not need to do so, because the outcome in that situation was thatno reasonable trier of fact could have reached a finding of guilt.26

16. Arguments of a party which stand no chance of causing the impugned decision to bereversed or revised may be summarily dismissed by the Appeals Chamber and need not beconsidered on the merits.27The appealing party is expected to provide precise references torelevant transcript pages or paragraphs in the judgement to which challenges are being

23 Blaki Appeal Judgement, para. 15. See also Halilovi Appeal Judgement, para. 8; Limaj et al. AppealJudgement, para. 10;Kordiand erkez Appeal Judgement, para. 17.24 Halilovi Appeal Judgement, paras. 9-10; Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 12; Muhimana AppealJudgement, para. 8;Blagojeviand JokiAppeal Judgement, para. 9.25See for example Halilovi Appeal Judgement, para. 9; Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 13; MuhimanaAppeal Judgement, para. 8;Blagojeviand JokiAppeal Judgement, para. 9.26Naletiliand MartinoviAppeal Judgement, para. 12 (footnotes omitted).27See for example Halilovi Appeal Judgement, para. 12; Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 14; MuhimanaAppeal Judgement, para. 9; Blagojevi and Joki Appeal Judgement, para. 10; Branin Appeal Judgement,paras. 16-31.


16/438


A07-0137 (E) 5


made.28Furthermore, one cannot expect the Appeals Chamber to give detailed considerationto submissions of the parties if they are obscure, contradictory, vague, or if they suffer fromother formal and obvious insufficiencies.29

17. Finally, it should be recalled that the Appeals Chamber has inherent discretion inselecting which submissions merit a detailed reasoned response in writing.30 The AppealsChamber will accordingly dismiss arguments which are manifestly unfounded without

providing detailed reasoning.31

II. INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE TRIBUNAL

A. Introduction

18. The Appellants contend that the Trial Chamber violated their right to be tried by anindependent and impartial tribunal and, hence, their right to a fair trial as provided in

Articles 19 and 20 of the Statute.

32

19. The Appeals Chamber recalls that independence is a functional attribute whichimplies that the institution or individual possessing it is not subject to external authority andhas complete freedom in decision-making; independence refers in particular to themechanisms aimed at shielding the institution or person from external influences. 33

28Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement, para. 4(b)(ii). See also, for example,Halilovi Appeal Judgement, para. 13;Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 15; MuhimanaAppeal Judgement,para. 10;Blagojeviand JokiAppeal Judgement, para. 11;Branin Appeal Judgement, para. 15.29 VasiljeviAppeal Judgement, para. 12. See also, for example, Halilovi Appeal Judgement, para. 13;Limaj et

al. Appeal Judgement, para. 15; Muhimana Appeal Judgement, para. 10; Blagojevi and Joki AppealJudgement, para. 11.30Halilovi Appeal Judgement, para. 12;Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 16; MuhimanaAppeal Judgement,para. 10;Blagojeviand JokiAppeal Judgement, para. 11;Branin Appeal Judgement, para. 16.31Halilovi Appeal Judgement, para. 12;Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 16; MuhimanaAppeal Judgement,para. 10;Blagojeviand JokiAppeal Judgement, para. 11;Branin Appeal Judgement, paras. 18-31.32Nahimana Notice of Appeal, p. 6; Nahimana Appellants Brief, paras. 11-41; Barayagwiza Notice of Appeal,p. 1; Barayagwiza Appellants Brief, paras. 10-45; Ngeze Notice of Appeal, paras. 22-27; Ngeze AppellantsBrief, paras. 109-114.33See Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, UN Doc. A/CONF.121/22/Rev. 1 at p. 59 (1985),adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,Milan, 26 August to 6 September 1985, and confirmed by the General Assembly in its Resolutions 40/32 of29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985, paras. 2-4:

2. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordancewith the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats orinterferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.

3. The judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusiveauthority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined bylaw.

4. There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shalljudicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision. This principle is without prejudice to judicialreview or to mitigation or commutation by competent authorities of sentences imposed by the judiciary,in accordance with the law.


17/438


A07-0137 (E) 6


Impartiality is a personal attribute which implies lack of bias and prejudice; 34 it addresses theconduct and frame of mind to be expected of the Judges in a given case.35

20. The Appeals Chamber will first examine the allegations relating to independence.B. Independence of the Tribunal

21. In support of his first ground of appeal, Appellant Barayagwiza alleges that politicalpressure was exerted on the Tribunal in order to have the Decision of 3 November 1999reviewed,36 and that, in the circumstances, the procedure that led to the Decision of31 March 200037amounted to an abuse of process.38The Appeals Chamber takes this to meanthat the Appellant is asserting that the Tribunal, and in particular the Judges of the AppealsChamber, lacked independence in the conduct of the proceedings between the Decision of3 November 1999 and the Decision of 31 March 2000.

1. Procedural history22. On 17 November 1998 Trial Chamber II dismissed the preliminary motion filed bythe Appellant contesting the legality of his arrest on 15 April 1996 and his detention until histransfer to the Tribunals Detention Facility on 19 November 1997.39 In its Decision of3 November 1999, the Appeals Chamber granted the appeal lodged by the Appellant againstthis decision. It found that there had been a violation of the Appellants right to be brought totrial without delay (pursuant to Rule 40 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence(Rules)) and of his right to an initial appearance without delay upon his transfer to theTribunals detention unit (Rule 62 of the Rules).40The Appeals Chamber further found thatthe facts of the case justified the application of the abuse of process doctrine, in that theAppellants right to be informed without delay of the general nature of the charges brought

against him and his right to challenge the legality of his continued detention had beenviolated.41 Finally, the Appeals Chamber found that the Prosecution had failed in itsobligation to prosecute the case with diligence.42The Appeals Chamber accordingly rejectedthe Indictment, directed a definitive halt to the proceedings, ordered the immediate release of

34Final Report by the Special Rapporteur, L.M. Singhvi, The administration of justice and the human rights ofdetainees: study on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independenceof lawyers, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection ofMinorities, 38th Session, Item 9(c) of the provisional agenda, Doc. UN E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/18/Add.1,31 July 1985, para. 79.35Seeinfra section II. C. 1.36 Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Decision, 3 November 1999(Decision of 3 November 1999).37Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Decision (Prosecutors Request forReview or Reconsideration), 31 March 2000 (Decision of 31 March 2000).38Barayagwiza Appellants Brief, paras. 22-32; Barayagwiza Brief in Reply, paras. 9, 11 and 13.39 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Case No. ICTR-97-19-I, Decision on the Extremely UrgentMotion by the Defence for Orders to Review and/or Nullify the Arrest and Provisional Detention of the Suspect,17 November 1998.40Decision of 3 November 1999, para. 100.41Ibid., para. 101.42Idem.


18/438


A07-0137 (E) 7


the Appellant, and point 4 of the Disposition directed the Registrar to make the necessaryarrangements for the delivery of the Appellant to the Cameroonian authorities.43

23. On 5 November 1999 Appellant Barayagwiza filed a Notice for Review and Stay ofDispositive Order No. 4 of the Decision of the Appeals Chamber dated 3 November 1999,arguing that he could not be delivered to the Cameroonian authorities and requesting theChamber to grant him the liberty to choose his final destination. 44The Appellant withdrewthis request on 18 November 1999, when he asked the Appeals Chamber to direct that itsDecision of 3 November 1999 be implemented in toto without any further delay.45 On19 November 1999, the Government of Rwanda requested leave to appear as amicus curiaeon the issue of delivering the Appellant to the Cameroonian authorities. 46

24. On 22 November 1999 the Prosecutor informed the Appeals Chamber of her intentionto file a request for review, or alternatively for reconsideration, of the Decision of3 November 1999.47On 25 November 1999 the Appeals Chamber ordered that execution of

the 3 November 1999 Decision be deferred pending the filing of the Prosecutors Request forReview or Reconsideration.48 On 1 December 1999 the Prosecutor filed her Request forReview or Reconsideration of the Decision of 3 November 1999.49

25. On 8 December 1999 the Appeals Chamber issued an Order maintaining the stay ofexecution ordered on 25 November 1999 and setting dates for the parties filings. 50It furtherstated that the Appeals Chamber would hear the arguments of the parties on the ProsecutorsRequest for Review and Reconsideration, and provided for the Rwandan authorities to appearas amicus curiaewith respect to the modalities of the release of the Appellant, if this question

43Ibid., para. 113.44 Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Notice of Review and Stay ofDispositive Order No. 4 of the Decision of the Appeals Chamber dated 3 November 1999, filed on5 November 1999, paras. 1-3.45 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Withdrawal of the DefencesNotice of Review and Stay of Dispositive Order No. 4 of the Decision of the Appeals Chamber dated3rdNovember, 1999, dated on sic5thNovember 1999, filed on 18 November 1999, para. 24.46 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Request by the Government of theRepublic of Rwanda for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae pursuant to Rule 74, filed in English on19 November 1999 (Request by Rwanda for leave to appear as amicus curiae).47 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Notice of Intention to File Requestfor Review of Decision of the Appeals Chamber of 3 November 1999 (Rule 120 of the Rules of Procedure andEvidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda), dated 19 November 1999 but filed on22 November 1999.48 Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Order, dated 25 November 1999

but filed on 26 November 1999 (Order of 25 November 1999), p. 3. The Appeals Chamber also specified thatthe release of Appellant Barayagwiza be subjected to the directive to the Registrar to make the necessaryarrangements for the delivery of the Appellant to the Cameroonian authorities.49 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Prosecutors Motion for Review orReconsideration of the Appeals Chamber Decision rendered on 3 November 1999 in Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v.The Prosecutor and Request for Stay of Execution, filed on 1 December 1999 and corrected on20 December 1999 (Prosecutors Motion for Review or Reconsideration). See also The Prosecutor v.Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Brief in Support of the Prosecutors Motion for Reviewof the Appeals Chamber Decision rendered on 3 November 1999 in Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v. The Prosecutorfollowing the Orders of the Appeals Chamber dated 25 November 1999, filed on 1 December 1999.50Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Order, 8 December 1999 (Order of8 December 1999), p. 3.


19/438


A07-0137 (E) 8


came to be addressed.51 The Government of Rwanda filed its Amicus Curiae Brief on15 February 200052and the Prosecutors Request for Review and Reconsideration was heardin Arusha on 22 February 2000.

26. On 31 March 2000 the Appeals Chamber reviewed its Decision of 3 November 1999in light of the new facts, which diminished the role played by the Prosecutions failings andthe extent of the violation of the rights of Appellant Barayagwiza,53 although such violationwas confirmed by the Chamber.54It considered that the new facts presented by the Prosecutorcould have been decisive in the decision, in particular as regards the remedy which had beenordered.55As a consequence, the Appeals Chamber replaced the Disposition in the Decisionof 3 November 1999, rejecting the Appellants application for his release and deciding tomodify the remedy ordered by providing either for financial compensation if the Appellantwas found not guilty, or for reduction of his sentence if he was convicted.56

27. Thereafter, Appellant Barayagwiza filed a motion for review or reconsideration of the

Decision of 31 March 2000,57

and that motion was dismissed on 14 September 2000 withoutexamination of the merits.58 On 23 June 2006, the Appeals Chamber dismissed a furthermotion by Appellant Barayagwiza which inter alia requested the reconsideration andannulment of the Decision of 31 March 2000, as well as examination of the abuse of processallegedly committed by the Trial Chamber since the Decision of 3 November 1999; theChamber held that the proper place for such requests was in an appeal against the Judgementon the merits.59 The Appeals Chamber will consider below the arguments in this respectdeveloped by the Appellant in his submissions on appeal.60

2. Examination of the Appellants arguments

28. The right of an accused to be tried before an independent tribunal is an integral

component of his right to a fair trial as provided in Articles 19 and 20 of the Statute.61

Article11(1) of the Statute provides that the Chambers shall be composed of sixteen permanentindependent judges, no two of whom may be nationals of the same State, and a maximum atany one time of nine ad litemindependent judges appointed in accordance with article 12 ter,

51Order of 8 December 1999, p. 3.52 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Amicus Curiae Brief of theGovernment of the Republic of Rwanda, filed pursuant to Rule 74 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,15 February 2000.53Decision of 31 March 2000, para. 71.54Ibid., para. 74.55Ibid., para. 71.56Ibid., para. 75.57Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Appellants Extremely Urgent Motionfor Review and/or Reconsideration of the Appeals Chambers Decision rendered on 31 March 2000 and Stay ofProceedings, 28 July 2000.58Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Decision on Motion for Review and/orReconsideration, 14 September 2000 (Decision of 14 September 2000).59Decision on Appellant Jean-Bosco Barayagwizas Motion Requesting Examination of Defence Motion dated28 July 2000 and Remedy for Abuse of Process, 23 June 2006, as amended by the Corrigendum to the Decisionon Appellant Jean-Bosco Barayagwizas Motion Requesting Examination of Defence Motion dated28 July 2000 and Remedy for Abuse of Process, 28 June 2006.60See infraII. B. 2. and III.61 Gali Appeal Judgement, para. 37; Kayishema and Ruzindana Appeal Judgement, paras. 51 and 55;Furundija Appeal Judgement, para. 177.


20/438


A07-0137 (E) 9


paragraph 2, of the present Statute, no two of whom may be nationals of the same State. Theindependence of the Judges of the Tribunal is guaranteed by the standards for theirselection,62the method of their appointment,63their conditions of service64and the immunity

they enjoy.65

The Appeals Chamber further notes that the independence of the Tribunal as ajudicial organ was affirmed by the Secretary-General at the time when the Tribunal wascreated,66 and the Chamber reaffirms that this institutional independence means that theTribunal is entirely independent of the organs of the United Nations67 and of any State orgroup of States.68 Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber considers that there is a strong

presumption that the Judges of the Tribunal take their decisions in full independence,69and itis for the Appellant to rebut this presumption.

29. The Appeals Chamber observes that the Appellant provides various illustrations ofwhat he terms pressures, which allegedly prevented the Judges from reaching their decisionin full independence; it will set these out, and then consider each of them in turn.

(a) Pressures exerted by the Government of Rwanda30. The Appellant includes in the pressures allegedly exerted by Rwanda following theDecision of 3 November 1999: the official and public condemnation of this Decision by theGovernment of Rwanda; the subsequent suspension of its cooperation with the Tribunal;70therefusal to allow the Prosecutor to visit her office in Kigali;71the refusal to receive her and the

62See Article 12 of the Statute, which provides that the Judges of the Tribunal shall be persons of high moralcharacter, impartiality and integrity, who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries forappointment to the highest judicial offices.63See Articles 12 bisand 12 terof the Statute. In particular, the Judges of the Tribunal shall be elected by theGeneral Assembly from a list submitted by the Security Council, which prevents abusive or discriminatorynominations and ensures that no State or group of States shall play a dominating role in the nomination of

Judges.64 The conditions of service and compensation for Judges of the Tribunal are established by the GeneralAssembly (see for example, Questions relating to the programme budget for the biennium 19981999 , UN Doc.A/RES/53/214, 11 February 1999, section VIII). These ensure that Judges have financial security during andafter their mandate.65The Judges' privileges and immunities set out in Article 29(2) of the Statute guarantee their independence byprotecting them from personal civil suits for improper acts or omissions in the exercise of their judicial functions.66 Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 5 of Security Council Resolution 955 (1994),13 February 1995 (U.N. Doc S/1995/134) (UN Secretary-Generals Report, 13 February 1995), para. 8.67Kayishema and RuzindanaAppeal Judgement, para. 55.68UN Secretary-Generals Report, 13 February 1995, para. 8.69The Appeals Chamber notes that the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Naletiliv. Croatia(European Court of Human Rights, Decision as to the Admissibility of Application No. 51891/99, 4 May 2000,para. (1) on the impartial and independent character of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons

Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the FormerYugoslavia since 1991 (ICTY), and found that ICTY was an international court which, in view of the contentof its Statute and Rules of Procedure, offers all the necessary guarantees including those of impartiality andindependence, in view of the content of its Statute and Rules of Procedure. It should be emphasised that thesesame guarantees were reproduced in the Statute and Rules of the Tribunal, the Statute of the Tribunal being anadaptation of that of ICTY and the Rules of the Tribunal being based on those of ICTY (see paragraphs 9 and 18of the UN Secretary-Generals Report of 13 February 1995 and Article 14 of the Statute which provides that theJudges would adopt the Rules of Evidence and Procedure of ICTY (ICTY Rules) with such changes as theydeemed necessary).70Barayagwiza Appellants Brief, para. 23.71Ibid., para. 24. Barayagwiza refers in the footnote to a sentence which has as its sole reference: "World Africa.Thursday, November 11, 1999".


21/438


A07-0137 (E) 10


continued suspension of its cooperation after the filing of the Prosecutors Request forReview and Reconsideration,72and the statements akin to threats according to the Appellant

made by the Attorney General of Rwanda at the hearing of 22 February 2000.73

31. The Appellant submits that the political pressures exerted by the Government ofRwanda resulted in the refusal by the Registrar, in violation of the Decision of 3 November1999, to release him,74and in the subsequent decisions rendered by the Appeals Chamber: (1)the stay of execution of the Decision of 3 November 1999, and the continued detention of theAppellant;75(2) the leave to appear as amicus curiaegranted to the Government of Rwanda;76

and (3) the review, on 31 March 2000, of its Decision of 3 November 1999. He furtheralleges that this review and the prior proceedings violated his right to a fair hearing oramounted to an abuse of process.77

32. The Appeals Chamber notes that certain official statements from Rwanda, followingthe Decision of 3 November 1999, may be regarded as an attempt to exert pressure on the

Tribunal in order to prevent the release of the Appellant as ordered by that Decision. Thesame applies to the suspension of cooperation of Rwanda with the Tribunal. However, theAppeals Chamber considers that the fact that pressures were exerted is not enough toestablish that the Judges who ruled in this context on the Prosecutors Request for Review orReconsideration were influenced by those pressures.

33. Concerning the release of Appellant Barayagwiza ordered by the Decision of3 November 1999, the Appeals Chamber observes that such release could only have taken

place after the Registrar had taken the necessary measures for delivering him to theCameroonian authorities.78 The Appeals Chamber notes that the Appellant produces noevidence capable of convincing the Appeals Chamber that the Registrar violated the terms ofthe Decision of 3 November 1999.79

34. As to the decision to order a stay of execution of the Decision of 3 November 1999,the Appeals Chamber observes that the Appellant merely makes a vague allegation withoutdemonstrating how the Government of Rwanda influenced that order. The Appeals Chambertherefore rejects this contention.

35. Lastly, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the purpose of the request by theGovernment of the Republic of Rwanda for leave to appear as amicus curiae was to stateRwandas position as to the choice of location for the release of the Appellant.80The Appeals

72Ibid., para. 28. The Appellant further contends that Rwanda maintained this attitude until the Appeals Chamberreviewed the Decision of 3 November 1999, and that the Tribunal failed to issue any official protest against this.73Ibid., paras. 29-30.74Ibid., para. 25.75Ibid., para. 26.76Ibid., para. 31.77Ibid., paras. 31-32.78This condition had in fact been expressly reaffirmed in the Order of 25 November 1999.79Moreover, Appellant Barayagwiza can hardly argue that the Registrar violated the Decision of 3 November1999, since on 5 November 1999 he himself filed a "Notice for Review and Stay of Dispositive Order No. 4 ofthe Decision of the Appeals Chamber dated 3 November 1999 (Dispositive Order No. 4 instructed the Registrarto take the necessary measures to transfer the Appelant to the Cameroon authorities), and only withdrew this on18 November 1999.80Request by Rwanda for leave to appear as amicus curiae, para. 2.


22/438


A07-0137 (E) 11


Chamber observes that Rule 74 of the Rules makes provision for a State to appear as amicuscuriaewhen the Chamber considers it desirable for the proper determination of the case. TheAppeals Chamber considers that the Government of Rwanda had a legitimate interest to be

heard on the issue of the choice of location for the release of the Appellant, given that aninternational warrant of arrest had been issued against him by Rwanda, that that country hadtried unsuccessfully to obtain his extradition from Cameroon,81 and that it had concurrent

jurisdiction to prosecute the Appellant.82 The Appeals Chamber accordingly finds that theappearance of the Government of Rwanda as amicus curiaewas consistent with Rule 74. TheAppeals Chamber cannot accept the Appellants submission that the Order of8 December 1999 was the result of political pressure.

36. The Appeals Chamber finds that the Appellant confines himself to listing thepressures which, in his view, were exerted on the Tribunal by the Government of Rwanda,and to asserting that those pressures led to the annulment of the Decision of3 November 1999.83 However, at no time does he show that the Judges who rendered the

Decision of 31 March 2000 were influenced by those pressures.

(b) Alleged statement by the spokesman for the United Nations Secretary-General

37. The Appellant asserts that the spokesman for the United Nations Secretary-General, inreaction to the Decision of 3 November 1999, expressed direct support for the Government ofRwanda, stating: what about the human rights of his victims?, thereby compromising theindependence of the Tribunal.84

38. The Appeals Chamber notes first that Appellant Barayagwiza has produced noevidence in support of this allegation, since the newspaper article he cites has never beentendered or admitted into evidence. The Appeals Chamber is further of the opinion that, even

if these words had been said, that would not suffice to show that they played a role in theJudges decision.85

(c) The statements by the Prosecutor at the hearing of 22 February 2000

39. The Appellant submits that the Prosecutors statement at the hearing of22 February 2000 that the Tribunal would be closed down if the Decision of3 November 1999 was not reversed increased the pressure exerted by the Government ofRwanda on the Tribunal. He also argues that, by these statements, the Prosecutor failed in herduty to act independently.86 Thus he appears to intimate that the

Documents

Apelación Ruanda