rLR- 0o-56- t 6+319 18- ob- ZJ.a L ?u (cusZt- 64ssl) lnternation\lCiiminal Tribunal for Rw6nda Tribunalp6nal international pour le

OR:ENG

TRIAL CHAMBER II

Before: JudgeAsoka de Silva,Presiding JudgeTaghrid Hikmet JudgeSeon Ki Park

Registrar: Mr AdamaDieng

Date: 18June 2007

ThePROSECUTOR v. Augustin NDINDILIYIMAI\A Frangois-XavierNZUWONEMEYE InnocentSAGAHUTU CaseNo' ICTR-00-56-T

CORRIGENDUMToTHEDECISIONONDEFENCEMOTIONSPURSUANTTo RULE 98815

Office of the Prosecutor: Mr Cird Aly BA Mr MoussaSefon Mr SegunJegede Mr. Lloyd Strickland Mr Abubacarr Tambadou Ms FelistasMushi Ms FariaRekkas Ms Anne PaulineBodleY

Counsel for the Defence: Mr Gilles St-Laurentand Mr Ronnie MacDonald for Augustin Bizimungu Mr ChristopherBlack and Mr Patrick De Wolf for Augustin Ndindiliyimana Mr CharlesTaku for Franqois-Xavier Nzuwonemeye Mr FabienSegatwa and Mr SeydouDoumbia for 6\st+ Prosecutorv. AugustinNdindiliyimana el o/ , CaseNo. ICTR-00-56-T

INTRODUCTION 1. By an amendedIndictment dated 23 August2004, the Prosecutorcharged the four accusedpersons with conspiracyto commit genocide(count 1); murderas a crime against humanity(count 4); and murder as a violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions(Count 7). Bizimungu and Ndindiliyimanaare also chargedwith genocide (Count2), or in the altemativecomplicity in genocide(Count 3), andwith exteminationas a crime againsthumanity (count 5). Bizimungu,Nzulvonemeye and sagahutuare filrther chargedwith rape as a crime againsthumanity (Count 6), and with rape,humiliating and degridingtreatment as war crimesunder Article 3 commonto the GenevaConventions'and AdditionalProtocol II (Count8). Thetrial commencedon 24 September2004. On 7 December2006, the Prosecution closedits caseagainst the four Accusedafter presenting seventy-one factual witnesses plus oneexpert witness, and entering120 exhibits. On the sameday, the Chamberheld a Status Conferenceduring which it orderedthe Defenceteams to frle any Motionspulsuant to Rule 98b;sby 15January 2007 and the Prosecution its Responseby 3 I January2007. 3. The Defencefor Bizimungu,the Defencefor Ndindiliyimanaand the Defencefor Nzuwonemeyefiled their respectiveMotions on. 15January 2007.' The Proseculion respondedto the tl[ee Motions on 29 Jantary2007,2 The Defencefor Ndindiliyimanaand the Defencefor Nzuwonemeyefiled Replies on 2 February 20011 the Defencefor Bizimungu,after an extensionwas grantedby the chamber,filed its Reply on 9 February 2002.aThe Prosecutionfiled a Rejoinderto the Repliesof Bizimunguand Ndindiliyimana.' TheDefence lbr Ndindiliyimanasubsequently filed i Sunejoinder.6 4. On 13February 2007, Nzuwonemeyefiled a Corrigendumto his Reply' The Chambernotes that the Corrigendumfiled is a more structureddocument, corrects several typographicalerrors, and doesnot makeany substantivechange to the Reply as originally nGA.fne Chambertherefore accepts Nzuwonemeye's amended Reply.

I Theprosecutor r. A. Bizimunguet al,"Requeteen Acquittment de la Dd.fenseD'Augustin Bizimungu", 15 January2007; "Ndindiliyimana's Motion Pursuart to Rule98bis ofthe Rules",15 Ja tary2007 ' Motionfor AcquittalPursuant to Rule98bis", 15 January 2007' "Nzuwonemeye's 'Requetu , Thnprorn"ito, ,. A. Bizimunguet al, "Prosecutor'sResponse to en Acquittementde Ia Ddfense D'AuglrstinBizimungu" ?9 Jantary2007; " Raponsedu Procureur.rld tequetum$ rtns d'qcquittement priseitde par Augwlin Ndindiliyimana sur lefondement de l'qrticle 98bisdu Rdglementde procddute et de "preuue',, i9 lanuiry 2007;"Prosecutor's Response to Nzuwonemeye'sMotion for AcquittalPursuant to Rule 98bis",29 ranraxy2007. , Thepros"cuto, u. A. Bizimunguet al,,,Responseto Prosecutor'sReply to 986rsMotion MadeBy the 'Nzuwonemeye's Applicant,Augustin Ndindiliyimana', 2 February2007; Replyto theProsecutol's Response toNzuwonemeye'sMotion for AcquittalPursuant to Rule986ri", 2 February2007; "Corrigendum to Nzuwonemeye;sReply to theProsecutor's Response to Nzuwonemeye'sMotion for AcquittalPurcuant to Rule 986is",12 February 2007. a Theprosecutor u A. Bizimunguet al, "Riplique a la Rdponsedu Procureur a la Requ€teen acquittementde la Difensed'Augustin Bizimun4u",9 February 2007. t Thi Pror""utolu. A. Bizimunguet al, "Prosecutor'sRejoindet Io'RApfique a la Rdponsedu Procureura Ia Reqaetuen acquittement de la D'fensed'Augustin Bizimungu', ", 12February 2007'"R'ponse du Ptocureura b iepltqueprisentee par le conseild'Augustin Ndindililinana le 2fdvrier 2007(Requatu en acquittement: qrti;te tSbisdu Reglementde procddure et duprewe)",5 February2007' of i Thnpror""utor rlA. Bizimuiguet al, "Counter-ResponseTo Prosecutor's Second Reply To 98brsMotion ApplicantNdindiliyimana, 12 February2007; "Corrigendum toNzuwonemeye's Reply to the Plosecutor's R"rponseto Nzu-onemeye,sMotion for AcquittalPursuant to Rulew"986is", 12 Febrtary 2007. Prosecutorv. AugustinNdindiliyimana el a/ , CaseNo. ICTR-00-56-T 6tps,t6

DELIBERATIONS

A. GeneralPrinciples under Rule 98Dis 5. Rule98bis, "Motion for Judgementof Acquittal"provides that: If after the closeofthe casefor the prosecution,the Trial Chamberfinds that the evidenceis insufficient to sustain a convictiol on one or more counts charged in the indictment, the Trial Chamber ... shall order the entry ofjudgement of acquittalin respectofthose counts'

i) Scope of the Chambet's Enquiry under Rule 98his 6. The clearly eslablishedlegal standardwhich the Prosecutionmust meet to withstand a motion for judgement of acquittal under Rule 98brs of the Rules is that there must be sufficient evidenceupon which a reasonabletrier of fact could, tf the evidenceis believed, find the Accused guitty of the crime charged.TThe test to be applied'is whether "the evidence,assuming it is true, could not possibly sustaina finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That will only be the casewhere there is no evidencewhatsoever which is probalive ofone or more of the required elementsofa crime charged,or where the only such el'idence is incapable of belief."s In effect, when considering a motion for acquittal, the relevant questionis not whetherthe Trial Chamberwould n fact erter a conviction beyond reasonable doubt on the basisofthe Prosecutionevidence, but whether it could. A finding that sufficient evidencehas been led to deny a Rule 98&ls motion in respectof a particular count in the Indictment,does not preclude the Chamberat the end of the casefrom entering a judgement of acquittal on the same count, where it comes to the conclusion that the Prosecutionhas failed to make out the count beyond all reasonabledoubt.' 7. As statedin Prosecutor v. Enver Hadzihasanovicand Amir Kabura'. "A dismissal of a requestfor acquittal merely shows that the Chamberconsiders that there is in the case somep)osecution eviclencewhich, taken at its highest,could satisfy a Trial chamber i.e. is capab]eof persuadinga Trial Chamberol the guilt of the Accusedof the chargebeing considered.';10It follows that a decisionpusuant to Rule 9861sdoes not require the Chamber to evaluatethe credibility and reliability of the Prosecutionevidence; that comes at the end of the trial taking into accountthe evidenceas a whole. However, where the Prosecution's casehas completely broken down either on its own presentation,or as a result of defence cross-examination,with the effect that the Prosecutionis left without a case,the chamber may considerthat the evidenceobviously lacks credibility and reliability, and thereforeenter a judgementof acquittal."

1 TheProsecutor v. zigiranyircao,"Decision on the DefenceMotion pulsualt to Rule 98brs", 21 February 2007,para.8;The Prisecutor v. Rwamakuba,"Decisionon DefenceMotion for JudgementofAcquittal",28 Octo6erZ00j (Rwamakuba98bis Decision), para.5; TheProsecutor I Mpambarz, "Decision on the Defence's 'r. Motion for JudgementofAcquittal", 21 octobet 2005 (Mpanbara 98bis Decision),para. 4; ThePfosecutor Muvunyi,"Decision on TharcisseMuvunyi's Motion for Judgementof Acquittal pursuantto Rule 986ts", l3^ ocrou"r ioos (Muvunyi gtbis Decision),para, 36; TheProsecutor I Bqgosora et al, "Decision on Motions for JudgementofAcquittal", 2 February2005 (Bagosota9SbisDecision), para. 6; The Prosecutor v' ,,Decision Nyiamasuhuko ei a/, on DefenceMotions for Acquittal under Rule 98bis", l6 December2004 (Butare 98bisDecision), Para 7l t Bagosora98bis Decision, paras.6-8. e Thi Prosecutorv. Jelisic Judgement(AC), 5 July 2001, para.37 (Jelisic hdgement (AC))' to Theprosecutor y. Hadzihc&inovic & Amir Kabura,"Decision on Motions for Acquittal Pursuantto Rule 98&lsofthe Rules ofProcedure and Evidence" (TC),27 September2004, para lT' tt Muvunyi 98bis Decision,para 37; Rwamakuba 98bis Decision,para. 7; Butare 98bis Decision, para.Tl; The of prosecuior u. Kamuhanda,"Decision on Kamuhanda'sMotion for Partial Acquittal Pursuantto Rule 98rti the Rulesof Procedureand Evidence" (TC), 20 August 'rfu'2002, pua. 19 (Kamuhanda98bis Decision); Tle btf3fi Prosecutorv. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et a/., CaseNo' ICTR-00-56-T

g. The chamberwill alsonot considerwhether the Defencehas had sulficientnotice of chargesto sustain a convictio.n,or whether there are other legal defects in the Indictment *tti.i .outd leadto acquittal.l2The examinationof whetherthere was clearand consistent noticeadequate to cureany suchdefect is not appropriateat this stageofthe proceedings,nor is theChamber legally authorized by Rule98bis to considerthese matters.l"

(ii) suffrciency of Evidencein Relation to Particular Paragraphsof the Indictment 9. All t}ree Defenceteams submit that the evidenceshould be assessednot only in relationto entirecounts in the Indictmentbut alsoin relationto factsspecifred in individual paragraphs,which are not supportedby sufficienterridence. In this respectthe chamber iecal'isthat the plain languageoiRol. 98birt"quires the Chamberto determheonly whether in the "the evidenceis insuffiiient to sustaina convictionon one or more countscharged indictment,,and to ordera "judgementof acquittalin respectof thosecounts" .r4 As statedin Ihe BagosoraDecision, a paragraphby paragraphanalysis of the Defencemotions would drawG Chamberinto an "unwariantedsubstantive evaluation of the quality of muchofthe prosecutionevidence", an exercisewhich is neither necessarynor appropriatewhen consideringa Rule98brs Motion. " 10. The Chambertherefore considers it appropriateto examinethe evidencein relation to counts,without having to_test the sufficiencyof the evidencein respectof particular paragraphsof the Indictmint.l6The Chamberwill only departfrom this principlewhere the due i"or!"ution announcesits intention to withdraw particularparagraphs ofthe Indictment to lack of evidence.Where that is the case,the Chamberfinds that the Defenceis not requiredto answerto the allegationsin the relevantparagraphs' 72' 1l. The Chambertakes note of the Prosecutionrequest to withdrawparagraphs 11, sz, sq, ss,97 and98 of the amendedIndictment with respectto theAccused Ndindiliyimana on the basisthat it has not led any evidenceon theseparagraphs. The chamber takesfurther which noteof theProsecution's .on."*iion that it hasoffered no evidenceon paragraph79 supportsthe chargeof murderas a violationof Article 3 commonto the Genevaconventions prirsuantto artici=eO1t) of the Statutewith respectto the AccusedBizimungu. The Chamber acc.ptsthe Prosecutionsubmission that no evidencehas been led on theseparagraphs and, to the u.""iaingfy, findsthat the AccusedNdindiliyimana has no caseto answerwith respect allegatiois containedin paragraphs71, 72, 9, 94., 95, 9'1 and 98 and the Accused 79 of Bizinunguhas no caseto answlr with respectto the allegationcontained in paragraph theamended Indictment.

(TC),6 April prosecutotv. Kordicand Cerkez,"Decision on DefenceMotions for JudgementofAcquittal 2000",para. 28. i; p-aras73-75; The Prosecutor t' Semanza' n"iiirro gttit Decision,para. 7, cltingButare 98bis Decision' (rc), 2001, (semanzaeSbis #i;;;";;;; b;"";" uotton ro, a Jidgementof Acquittal 27 seprember '18; Motionfor Acquittal(TC)' 3 July2000' para' Decision)para. TheProsecutor v Kunaric et al , Decisionon

i3 Semanza98bis Decision, Para 18 roRule 986rs ofthe RulesofProcedure and Evid€nc€' \5Basosoro gSbis Decision, paras 8-9' para. 8. )6Se; Mueunyig\bisDecision, para. 39; B agosora 98bis Decision,v Prosecutorv. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al, CaseNo. ICTR-00-56-T 6[sqq

B. Sufficiency of Evidence in Relation to the Counts of the Indictment 12. In the following section,the chamber will examinethe sufficiency of the evidence in relation to eachcount in the Indictment, in light of the legal standardunder Rule 98bri of the Rulesas explainedabove.

Count 1: Conspiracy to Commit Genocide 13. All three moving parties seek acquittal on the count of conspiracy to commit genocide.The Indictment allegesthat the Accusedand other named individuals decidedand ixecuted a common schemeto destroyin whole or in part the Tutsi ethnic group of R.wanda. It is further allegedthat through "their actsor obstinaterefusal to mobilize the Forces armdes rwandaises to fulfill their legal mandate to maintain and safeguard public peace," the Accusedconspired together and with otlers to commit genocideagainst the Tutsi' 14. Conspiracyto commit genocideis punishableunder Article 2(3)(b) of the statute. COnspiracyrepresents the agreementOf two or more personsto pursuea commoncriminal l7 obieciive. The actus rezrsof conspiracyto commit genocideis that an agreementhas been reachedthat has, as its common object, the commission of genocide against a protected group; the mens rea is the intent to enter into such an agreement.A conspiracyto commit eenocidecannot exist unless all the perpetratorsshare the specific intent of the crime of perpetratoror by lenocide.l8This intent may be proved either expresslyby the words ofthe ieasonablededuction from his or her conduct.r'It is unnecessaryto show that the criminal object of a conspiracy has in fact materialized; as an inchoate offence, conspiracy exists uoon proof of the agreement itself.20 However, conspiracy cannot be committed by olnirrion." Circumstaitial evidence may be relied upon to prove the existence of the agreement,for example,where evidenceof coordinatedactiOn by the Accusedpersons or the institutions they control, in prrsuit of the unlawful act, supports the inference of an agreemenlto commitgenocide." 15. Although the Tribunal's temporaljurisdiction is limited to crimes committed during 1994,23conspiracy is a crime of a continuing nature.For this reason,evidence of acts that occurredprior to 1994 may be relied upon as evidenceof a conspiracy that culminated in genocidecommitted during the period between1 January1994 and 3l December 1994." 16. The Defence teams for Bizimungu, Ndindiliyimana and Nzuwonemeye algue that there is no evidenceof a formal agleementbetween the Accused and other personsnamed in t7 BagosoragSbisDecision, para. 12, refen'ingto nrc Prosecutor',' Musema' Iudgement(TC)'27 January 2000, para. 190(Musema Judgement(TC)) t8Bagosora gSbisDecision,.para. 12, referring to Mraema Judgement,para. 192: " [W]ith respectto the me/tt rea oithe crime ofconspiracy to commit genocide,the Chambernotes that it restson the concertedintent to commit genocide,that i; to destroy,in whole or in part, a national,ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such" Seealso-Niyitegeka. Judgement (TC), l6 May 2003, paxa.423 (NiyitegekaJudgement (TC))' t" Bagosora 98bisDecisi,on, para. 12, refening to TheProsecutor y. Ndindabahizi,Iudgement (TC), l5 July 2004, para. 454 (Ndindabahbi Jttdgement (TC)) 2oThe'Prosecrtor u. Nqhim.rnqet al. (TC), Judgement,3 December2003, para. 1044 (Nahimana Judgement(TC)). 2t Tlheprosecutor y. C. Bizimungu et a/ , "Decision on DefenceMotions Pursuantto Rule 98bis" 22 November 2005,(Bizimunagu et al 98bis Decision),para 23. 22 Niyitegeka Jtdgement(TC), paras.427-428,as cited in M4himanqJndgemenL para. 1046:"... conspiracyto commit genocidecan be comprisedof individuals acting in an institutionalcapacity as well as or even independentlyoftheir links with eachother." 3 Article I ofthe Statute. 2aNahimana ltdgement (TC), para 1044. Prosecutorv. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al., CaseNo. ICTR-00-56-T 6+s11 the Indictment.Furthermore, the Defencefor Ndindiliyimanaemphatically opposes the notion that a conspkacycan be establishedby inferencefiom subsequentactions of individualspresumed to bepart of the conspiracy. 17. The Defencefor Bizimunguand Nzuwonemeyeboth concedethat an agreement couldbe inferredfrom a vaiety of circumstances,but submitthat no evidencehas been led to justiS suchan inferenceil this case.The Prosecutionsubmits that an agreementcan be infenedftom concertedor coordinatedaction on the part of individualsor the institutions overwhich they exercise control' 19. The chambernotes that the evidenceled by the Prosecutiondoes not seemto establishthe existenceof a formal 01 expressagreement between the Accusedpersons. However,the chamberhas heardthe following evidencewhich it will assessin orderto determinewhether if believed,it could supportan inferencethat an agreementwas concludedbetween the Accusedpersons and othersnamed in the Indictrnentto commit genocideagainst the Tutsi: o The official position of the Accused Bizimungu, Ndindiliyimana and Nzuwonemeyeas Chief of Staff of the RwandanArmy, Chief of Staff of the GendarmerieNationale, and Commanderof the Reconnaissance("Recce") Battalionrespectively, and the fact thatthe institutionsunder their commandand controlengaged in variousactivities^that facilitated the masskilling of Tutsison accounrol theirethnic identillcation;" r In 1991,following the invasionof Rwandaby rebelsof the RwandanPatriotic Front (RPF) the previous year, the governmentof PresidentHabyarimana 'enemy' commissioneda reportwhich definedthe as the Tutsi. This definition waswidely disseminatedamong elements of the RwandanArmed Forces with a view to their indoctrination;" o From as early as 1991, the govemment of Rwanda elaborated an ethnically- oriented civil defence programme, the main components of which included training civilian Hutu men in military tacticsand weaponshandling; the provision of firearms and ammrmition to trained militia; and the preparation of lists of Tutsi to be eliminated;"' . In his capacity as Operational Sector Commander in Ruhengei prefecture between 1992 and 1994, Bizimungu facilitated and supervisedthe training of

25see the evidence of witnessRomeo Dallaire T 20November 2006, pp. 52,56iT.21November 2006, pp. 12 -13,20;AOG/006,T.21 February 2006, p.24 T.22Febtuarypp 30-31;FAV,T.2l September2004' p l?, KJ,T. 2l March2006, pp. 31,32; Witness ANC, T 29Mav 2006'p.43' ,6'fuimess LN, T. l2 September2005, pp, 45; T. t 3 September2005, pp82-83;DP,T.22 September 2005, p. 64 wherethe witness says that in 1992,a telegramin Frenchwas received at camp Kanombefrom Army. Headquartersand read to himselfand other soldiers. He saidthe telegram defined the enemyas the Tutsi insjde or outsidethe county; ExpertWitness Des Forges, T. 19 September2006, pp 55-62' 2?Witnesses AOG/006, t. 20 February2006, pp 39,42 T .21 February2006, pp ' 17,18,22: Franck Claeys, T' 1l October2005, pp .28,2g;DY,T 23January 2006, p. 28,29;GF A, T ' 30January 2006, pp 7l,72' 74'76 77,78,79;OX,T. 14 June 2006, pp. 65, 66; GFD, T. May2005, pp 63'64,65;T'19May2005,p 12; GFV' T.'23May 2005, pp. 14, l5; AlisonDes Forges, T.20 September2006, pp '26'27'28,33,34' At page33' nxpertWitnes bes Forgesnotes that there was an assumption that the civilianself-defence plan would function in areasnot yet touched by the war,that it wouldbe directedagainst an enemythat could be damagedby theuse oi*"upon, ihut *"r" not firearms,together with theprevailing attitudelhat the enemycould be definedas into someoneother than a combatantsoldier, all ofwhich shiftedcivilian self-defence against the militaryforc€ a programmewhich led to the useof armedforce against unarmed civilians in violationsofthe lawsofwar, partiirlarlycivilians defined by theirethnicity and therefore, the realisation of a genocide. h' 6+nt Prosecutorv. Augustin Ndindiliyimana e/ 4/, CaseNo. ICTR-00-56-T

civilian militia in weaponshandling and provided weaponsto them upon completionof training.The evidencesuggests that the militia werebeing trained in preparationfor the masskilling of Tutsi civilians and someof^the weapons distibutedwere in fact laterused to kill thorrsandsofTutsi civilians;28 TheAccused Bizimungu parlicipated in variousmeetings between 1991 and 1994 to discussthe identity of the enemyand how to combat it Thesemeetings 'enemy'. identifiedthe Tutsi asthe andequated members of that ethnicgroup to thelgusura plant that needed to beeliminatedl" Bizimungutold membersof the Hutu populationat severalmeetings including one held on 6 April 1994 at Nzirorera'smother's house,that Tutsi were responsiblefor killing the Presidentand that no Tutsi shouldbe spared These meitingswere also attendedby other seniorHutu political and military figures includingJoseph Nzirorera, Ephrem Setako, and Juvenal Kajelijeli; " Bizimunguand Ndindiliyimana made remarks after 6 Apnl 1994wlrich arguably couldbeinterpreted as threats or exhortationsto kill Tutii civiliansit At somepoint betweenApril and June 1994,Ndindiliyimana issued a general circular from the gendamerieHeadquarters to gendamerieunits throughoutthe countryasking them to collaboratewith the civilians"to fight againstthe enemy", andalso asked that civilianswith writtenattestations from him shouldbe allowed weaponsand other materials from thegendamerie to collect "u-p.;l' On at leastone occasion,Ndindiliyimana gave orders for a seniorgendamerie officer,who wasoppos^gd to the killing of Tutsi,to be transferredfrom Kibuyeto thewar front in Kigali;"' Ndindiliyimanagave informationto Mathieu Ngirumpatse,Chairman of the MRND political Party, about imminent weapons searchesby soldiers of TINAMIR andthereby frustratedefforts to enforcethe Kigali WeaponsSecure Area(KWSA);'" Ndindiliyimanaand Nzuwonemeye both attendedthe meetingheld at the Army Headquartersin Kigali on thenight of 6 April 1994soon after the Presidentof the country was killed in a plane crash. At another meeting held at the Ecole SupdrieureMilitaire (ESM) the following day, they establisheda Crisis Committeecomposed of senior military figwes under the chairmanshipof

28Witnesses GFA, T.30 January 2006, pp.71,76,77; GAP, T l5February2006,p'25'26'27;GFD'T l0 ruuviooj, pp.el,eq,es;T.t9Mav206s,p12: GFv'T.23 Mry2005, pp 14,15, l6;AoF,T l6Maxch 2006,pp. 17, 19,20,21. dwitiJ*".bpi, i. 30January 2006, pp. 61, 62,65, 66, 67; GAP, T' 15February 2005, pp' 22'23 '24' 25'33 ' 34,35; AOF, T. 16Maxch 2006, p.28 (ICS). t iv,t"is cep, r. l5 Februaryi005,pp. i:, r+,:s, lo *ttere Bizimungudeclared that "ifthe RPFresumed hostilities,noTutsiwouldsurvive;"witnessGFA,T.30Janualy2006,pp,61,62,65,66'6'7. pp 36' l' Wito"r,aNc, t. 29 May2006, pp 50,52,57,59,60; Witness GAP, T 15February 2005, 33' 12Witness 1(J, T. 2l March2006, pp.31- 32. 3rWitness KJ, T. 21March 2006, p.p l7 ' 18'24. 2006,p 48: "there ,. Witnes,Adc/00 6,T.2l Februiry2006, pp. 24, 25; WitnessDallaire, T. 20 November peoplestoring the wasa sensethat the gendarmeriewas inhltritid by hardlinerswho were tipping offthe weaoonswhich was why no weaponswere ever found'" tu- 6+ggr Prosecutorv. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et 4/ , CaseNo' ICTR-00-56-T

Ndindiliyimana; the Committee was responsible".furthe formation of a new interim iivilian administrationdominated by Hutu;" Soon after the President'sdeath in early Aptil1994, severalopposition politicians and moderate Hutus were assassinatedby members of the Rwandan Armed forces,including the PresidentialGuard and RecceBattalion;36 In an effort to frustrate and ultimately defeat IINAMIR's weapons searchesin implementationof the Kigali WeaponsSecwe Area, Nzuu/onemeyeorganized the concealmentof weapons,including armored vehicles, from the facilities of the Recce Battalion to one of PresidentHabyarimana's residences in Gisenyi. These weaponswere soonto be deployedon 6 April 1994 after the President'sdeath;'' Following his attendanceat the meetingof senior military officers on the night of 6-7 April 1994, Nzuwonemeyeissued instructions for the deplol'rnent of troops and armoredvehicles to blockadePrime Minister Agathe's residenceas a result of which the Prime Minister was subsequentlykilled. The Prime Minister was a fepresentativeof the opposition MDR Party in the Broad Based Transitional Govemmentestablished under the ArushaAccordsl'o o The troopsdeployed by Nzuwonemeyefrom the RecceBattalion to the Prime disarmedand anested ten LINAMIR soldiersof the Belgian Ministerisresidence, re contingentwho weresubsequently taken to CampKigali andkilled The chamberconcludes that if believed,the aboveevidence could leadto an inferencethat the Accusedpersons and othersentered into a conspiracyto commitgenocide at somepoint dwingthe period alleged in the Indictment.

Count2: Genocide D. The AccusedNdindiliyimana requests acquittal on count 2 of the Indictment, charginggenocide, pursuant to Article 2(3)(a)ofthe Statuteboth under Article 6(1) and6(3) ofthe Statute.Genocide is definedas: in whole or in part, a national' [a]ny of the following actscommitted with intentto destroy, ethnical,racial or religlousgroup, as such: (a) Killing membersofthe group;(b) Causingserious bodilyormentalhalmtomembelsofthegroup;(c)Delibelatelyinflictingonthegroup part; conditionsof life calculatedto bring about its physicaldestruction in whole or in (d)Imposingmeasures intended to preventbirths within the group; (e) Forcibly tansfering childrenofthe groupto anothergroup.

T ?9 35Witnesses Dallaire, T. 20 November2006, p. 56;T' 21 November2006, pp' 18-20;Witness ALN' Seprember2004, pp. 42, 43; Witness AWC, T. l8 January2006,pp 29 ' 30' nivtm"tr.rsn,i 15iune 2006, pp. 30, 11,44,46; ANUCJ, T 28June2006'pp20,21'22' 23;LN'T l2 pp' 39;Madame Septernber2005, pp. 55, 60, 6l; FloridaMukeshimana, 6 September 2006, 33'34' 35' Kavaruganda,T. 14November 2006, p.54. 2006' Itwltnirr", pa, r. II January200i,pp.40,41,42and l8January2005,pp 52-53;DY'T'23 lanuary Sepember lt"wii".r*r on, r. I I January2005, pp 39,40; LN, T l2 September2005' p' 70; ALN' T 29 AwC' T' 18Januarv zooi,-i.-is,ii i"at 30 September2bb 4'p 37;DP,T22september 2005' pp 68'73; 2006,pp.31,32;DY,T.23lar|uarv 2006,pp 42,46'53 181oJanuaryr^-..^*..A^r 2006' t' wi|n;sses'Ali.l,T.30 September2001,pp.za-za andT 5 october2004'p35;AWC'T' pp.13, 34, 35; DY, T 23January 2006, pp .39 ' 40,41' trn 6+sqa Prosecutorv. AugustinNdindiliyimana el a/, CaseNo. ICTR-00-56-T

20. Articles 6(l) and 6(3) of the Statute set forth the forms of participation to be consideredby the Chamberin its assessmentofthe sufficiency of evidencein relation to the countscharged against the Accused. 21. Article 6(l) ofthe Statuteimposes individual criminal responsibility upon a person who ',planned,instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abettedin the planning, preparationor execution of a crime referred to in Articles 2 to 4 of the present Statute." irtirt" O1f) provides that where an act was committed by a subordinate,the superioris not relieved of liability, if the superior knew or had reasonto know that the subordinatewas aboutto commit such acts, or had done so, and the superiorfailed to take the necessaryand reasonablemeasures to prevent suchacts or to punish the perpetratorsthereof'

22. To establishan individual's liability for genocide,it is necessaryto adduceevidence not only of the commissionof one or more of tle material acts enumeratedin Article 2(2) of the Staiute,but also evidenceproving an individual's specific intent to commit genocide.To prove specific intent the Prosecution must establish "that the perpetrator target[ed] his victims tecauseoftheir membershipin a protectedgroup, with the intent to destroyat leasta substantialpart of that gtoup."ooThe Accused's intent to commit genocide may be derived from direci evidence such is his spoken words, or deduced from a variety of facts and circumstances,including his conduct.al 23. The Defence for Ndindiliyimana submitsthat the allegationsconceming massacres under the supervision of gendarmes cannot be attributed to him becausethe Prosecution failed to demonstratethat the Accused had effective control over the said gendarmes and civilian militia. The Defence further submits that the Prosecution failed to show that Ndindiliyimana knew or had reasonto know of the alleged criminal acts of the gendarmes. The Deience arguesthat despitehis formal designationas chief of staff of the gendamerie, the Accused did not have any real power or resourcesto make operational decisions, or otherwiseexercise disciplinary control over erant gendamerlemen and civilian militia' The Prosecutiondisputes that thefe is insufficient evidenceto supportthe genocidecharge against Ndindiliyimana. 24. There is evidence that Ndindiliyimana, on specific events after _6^Apri11994' orderedor instigatedmembers of the gendarmerleand militia to kill civilians."' In addition, thereis evidenci that Ndindiliyimana transferreda certaingendamerie majot from Kibuye to the war front in Kigali as punishment for the latter's opposition to the killing of_Tutsi civilians.a3In his capacity as gendameriechief of Staff, Ndindiliyimana issuedcirculars to all gendamerieuniti in tle country asking them to collaboratewith the army and civilians ,,to?ght againstthe enemy", and to provide weaponsand other material support to civilians Due to his command authority over who i."seit"d attestationsissued by the Chief of Staff. thegpndamerie,these instructions were in fact obeyedby his subordinates'aa 25. In addition, the chamber has heard other evidence concerning the Accused Ndindiliyimana which could go to his alleged superiorresponsibility for crimes committed involved bv his subordinates.There is ividence, inter alia, that gendarmesand militia were

(AC), l9 April 2004, o,N,lindobahi"i ludgement (TC), para. 4 54, cttingThe Prosecutor v. Krstic,Jndgement 4 ofthe statuteis thereforesatisfied where piri ti t"in" intent"requirem"ntof genocideunderArticle U6TYI part of tbe ptotected iuiJ"n"" sf,o\^/Sttrut the allegedperp-etrator intended to destroyat leasla substantial group."). (AC)' para 47' 7l C.'Biri.rngu o/ 98brsDecision, para.46; Jelisic ltdgement pp u'witn.$". i.t'tc,"t z9 May2006, pp.50,57,58; FAV,T 23 September2004' 51-53' 43Witness KJ, T.21 March2006, pp lT'18'24 44Witness KJ, T. 21 March2006, pp 31,32' 6ry?1 Prosecutorv. AugustinNdindiliyinana e/ a/,, CaseNo' ICTR-00-56-T

in rheattack on SaintAndr6-College in Kigali on or about13 April 1994during which Tutsi in .luiiiunr werekilled.as There is also evidencethat gendarmes and militia were involved of the massacrescommitted at KansiParish on or about21 April 1994resulting in the death , iurg. ,ru^b., of Tutsi civilians.a6Furthermore, the Chamberhas heard evidencethat .",o6"r, of the gendarmeriehanded-over about 40._Tutsirefugees to the militia who subsequentlykilled them on or about22 Aptil lgg4.417n addition,there is evidencethat membirsoi thegendarmerle (and.militiamen) were involved in the massacrescommltted at Murambion 20 and21 April iSgai;Ny"b"bare communeon or abortt22 Aptil l994ae,x at"*" parist on 21 April i-qS+tdu;a tn KaramaHill at the beginningof May i994-5I Finally, there is evidencethat on or about 21 April 1994, gendarmeson duty at Ndindiiiyimana'shouse handed-over two grenadesIo an Interahqmwemilitiaman who used rhemin anatl.ack on Tutsi the lollowing day." 26. Thefact that Ndindiliyimana issued instructions to thegendamerie that werein fact of obeyed,is sufficientindication of his authorityor conffol over them for the purpose decidinga Motion pufsuantto Rule 98bri. With regald to Ndindiliyimana'scriminal ,"rponr'ibilityfor the actsof the militiamen,the Chambernotes that the evidencedescribed providesa ubou" .on".mittg-ut collaboration between the gendamerieand the Interaharnwe suffrcientn"ro, this stageof the proceedingsto waffant a denial of the Motion for the acquiftalin respectof crimes allegedlycommitted by Interahdmwemilitia under influence of NdindiliYimana. 27. on the basisof the evidencediscussed in this sectionand underthe conspiracy count,along with all reasonableinferences arising therefrom, there is evidencewhich, if believed,cJuld leada reasonabletrier of fact to concludethat the AccusedNdindiliyimana incursresponsibility for orderingand instigatinggenocidal killings pursuantto Article 6(1) andas a superiorunder Article 6(3)of the Statute'

Count 3: ComPlicitYin Genocide genocide' 28. The Accused Ndindiliyimana requestsacquittal for complicity in pursuantto Articles 2(3)(e)of the statute.Due to lack of evidence,the Prosecutionalso which i"qu.r* that it be altowedio withdrawthe complicitycharge against Ndindiliyimana is'supported exclusivelyby the allegationsin paragraphs71 and 7?' The Chamber to u""otaiogtyenters a judgementof acquittalfor the AccusedNdindiliyimana with respect count3, complicitYin genocide.

Count 4: Murder as a Crime againstllumanity 29. TheAccused Ndindilif imanaand Nzuwonemeye request acquittal on count4 ofthe Statute' Iodi.*"nt, murderas a crime againsthumanity, pursuant to Article 2(3)(e)of the while Ndindiliyimanarequests acquittal under both Articles 6(1) and 6(3) of the statute, 'ffith to Nzuwonemeyerequests acquittal only under Article 6(3) of the statute respect

p' 62'63' a5Witnesses WG,T.6 June2005, pp.36,37,38; GCB,T 14September 2005' pp'47'49' tuWitnesse, GFM, T. l9 September2005, p58; GFS' T 28 September2004 4rWitness ATW, T 12June 2006, pp.22-23,26-29' pp 22' 23' aEwitnesses ANiKEI, T. 26 January2005, p. 22; ANG' T 30 May 2005' 4eWitness ANH, T 19October 2005, pp. 49-50' 50witness ANJ/KTB, T. 2 June2005, p 10. 5rwitness ANF, T 13September 2006, pp.29, 30' 2005'p 20' tt ivior.tt", Cfn, f.29 March2005, pp. 8,9; witnessGFT, T' 10January

10 Prosecutolv. Ausustin Ndindiliyimana et .r/., CaseNo' ICTR-00-56-T 6+*s paragraphl08oftheAmendedlndictmentwhichdealswiththeallegedkillingofTutsi .iuiti*t atthe CHK Hospitalin Kigali. Article 3 30. In orderto qualify as a crime againsthumanity, a specificoffence under of a widespreador systematicattack", i"l-tO the Statutemusi be committedas "part iir.lla "f uguinrt"any civilian populationon national,political, ethnic,racial or religious gfo*dr.,, :.Wid"spread,,refers to the scaleof the attackand the multiplicity of victims; ;systematic"refleits the organizednature of the attack,excludes acts of randomviolence unddo". not requirea policy or plan.s3The perpetrator must have knowledge that his action is part of a *idespreador systematicattack against civilians on discriminatorygrounds, thoughhe or sheneed not necissarilyshare that &scriminatory intent'54 grievous 31. Murderis the intentionalkilling of a person,or intentionalin{liction of bodily harm with knowledgethat suchharm will likely causethe victim's deathor with recklessnessas to whetherdeath will result,without lawful justificationor excuse.ssWhat distinguishesmurder as a crime againsthumanity from genocide,is that the latterrequires group ttret iiting to be perpetratedwith the specificintent to destroy,in wholeor in part' the to whichthe victim belongs. a 32. Ndindiliyimana'sdefence submits that either there is no evidenceto support itnaingttrat the Accusedwas directlyresponsible for the murdersalleged in the Indictment, to or thuit the evidencetendered constitutes hearsay and is unreliable.With respect in Ndindiliyimana'ssuperior responsibility for murdersallegedly committed by gendarmes variousparts of the ;ountry,the Defencerelies on dictain Bizimunguet aL to the effectthat tillings in the Accusedcannot be foundguilty of murderbased on allegationsof generalised a specific Rwandawithout sufficient evidence establishing a link betweenthe commissionof whomhe lirringor - identifiableindividual and the Accused of oneor morepersons over exercisedcontrol. to the 33. The chambernotes that the first part of Ndindiliyimana'ssubmission relates not take credibilityor reliability of evidence,an issuewhich the.chamber ordinarily does part of the into *.o*t whenconsidering a motionfor acquittal.with respectto the second group o[ submission,there is evidencito suggestthat the AccusedglY" o,ti:lt.^to-a is also Interahamweto kill two Tutsi in Nyaruhengerion or about5 May 1994" There 17April evidencethat the Accusedinstigated militiamen to kill a Tutsi civilian on or about iSgait purrh..-ore, there is evidencethat on specific occasionsafter 6 April 1994, grrior*r, who were subordinatesof Ndindiliyimana,in collaborationwilh irilitiu. klll.d t rtsi civilians.ss

(TC))l Ndindabahizi 53Mwunyi ludgement(Tc), 12 September2006, para 512, (MuvuryiJ]udgemellt Judgement(TC), 15 luly 2004'para.477 i;rt*""y,ij"ai**t(ic),paro.5t4,citingTheprosecurorv.Ak!4)esu,Judgement(AC),2septemberl998, para464-465i Bagosora 98bis Decision, paxa 24' Bagosora98 bis Decision' \i idindobon'uitiragment (Tc), para.481; Muhimana ludgement (TC)' para'5 68 para.25. T 21 September2004' iiiii,1..r., cnf, f. 10Januarv 2005, pp.28,29; GFR, T 29March 2005' p 13;FAV' p.33. i7 WirnessAMW, T,2l February2005. pp.22-24 5swimessesCFT,T.t0January2005.ppze.ze;GLJ.T.l5-June200!:pl^6::8:9;'l'?9,*11'l**l- ,rt.oi"'"i"Jo*,pp-.iiii,'zt-tziir, r i1i"1,y.r-z.oo6:ll;25t 2.e::o;.t];?i'::1lTXHf1'j;T ;;,"tr:ffi;i.;; il""*vioos,pi.ts',43;z^r-ziMav^2d06'pp'4-5;ANH'{,it-^?:19':"lt9i;1L11; ;;:,;;',;2,;;,;;,-;-ii-icri,'flzs uu,ct' zoos, pp.5, s,e, 10, includinggendarrnei, *"1: 11:llll,*i,',1Y:]1"'f,:l""To*'*' ;;';;;;"; ;r;;;'"p Yh: 9Y:dli*-t*\ll'y-'lllli ::'*p5' " ;il"it-itt"a"i "o".r.*', turdiiand persecutedPersons see T' 29 March2005' i-;;*,irfi;i ",ton'

11 Prosecutort). Augustin Ndindiliyimana el a/, CaseNo ICTR-00-56-T c'+gT

reasonable 34. On the basisof the evidencediscussed in this section,along with all which, if inf"."n"", arising therefrom,the chamber concludestlat there is evidence Accused believed, could lead a reasonableTribunal of fact to conclude that the as NAi"Aivi.*" bearssuperior responsibility for killings committedby his subordinates *"riur ior orderingor instigatingkillings. The Chambertherefore denies Ndindiliyimana's of both motionfor acquittalon the countof m.rrd"rut u crimeagainst humanity on the basis Articles6(l) and6(3). 35'WithrespecttoNzuwonemeye,srequestforacquittalonthechargeofmurderasa crimeagainst humanity under Article 6(3) on the basisthat paragraph108 of the Indictment of the i, ,ripp"n"a by the evidence,the Chambernotes that there is evidencethat soldiers at Recce"oi Battalion were present at the residenceof PrimeMinister Agathe uwilingiylmana t"ut..iul timesbefore and after she met herviolent death,and that RecceBattalon disarming "riti.uirysoldiers, in collaborationwith men from the PresidentialGuard. were involvedin the andsubsequently killing ten membersof the UNAMIR Belgiancontingent.se In,addition, were on Chamberhas heard euidettce which sugg^eststhat soldiersof the RecceBattalion soldiers guurJu,,h. CHK hospitalin April 1994,60and that Tutsi patients were abducted by that f.,,, tfr.i. hospitalbeds and neverseen again.6t Other Prosecution evidence suggests leastone ,ofJi"i, g"*Aing the hospitalcarried a list of peopleto be killed, a9{ that on at o"*ionlu yo.tn-gTutsi giil wastaken away and kifea uy ttresoldiers'62 conclude 36. The aboveevidence, if believed,could leada reasonatrletrier of fact to Indictment. that Nzuwonemeyebears superior responsibility for murderas chargedin the the count The chambertherefore denies Nzuwonemeye's request for acquittalin respectof ofmurderas a crimeagainst humanity pursuant to Article 6(3) ofthe Statute'

countT:MurtlerasaviolationofArticle3CommontotheGenevaconventionsand Additional ProtocolII ST.TheAccusedBizimunguandNdindiliyimanarequestacquittaloncounl.Tofthe and indi"t .nt, murder as violations of Article 3 commonto the GenevaConventions acquittal AdditionalProtocol II, pursuantto Afiicle 4(a) of the Statute.Bizimungu requests 6(1) and6(3) *i.i e.ti.t. 6(1) of the Statute.Ndindiliyimana requests acquittal under both ofthe Statute. of 3g. Aticle 4(a)prohibits "violence to life, healthand physical or mental.well-being or any p..,on,, ln particular.murder as well as crueltreatment such as torture,mutilation mustbe iorm of corporalpunishment." The jurisprudence requires that threepre-conditions first, there ..i in ora"i to f-d un individualresponsible for war crimesunder the Statute: state;second, ;;;t;" ; non-intemationalarmed conflict on the tenitory of the concerned and third, the theremust be a nexusbetween the allegedviolation and the armedconflict; taking pat in victims musthave been non-combatants ln the sensethat they were not directly thehostilities at thetime of thealleged violation'" 39.Thefactthatanon-intemationalarmedconflictprevailedinRwandafromAprilto that large-scale Junel99a is no longersubject to dispute.Similarly, it is beyonddispute

T l September2005' pp 7' 8' 9' 5ewitnesses DY. T. 23 Janruty2006, pp 39,41,42,46,53; ANMAF' 60witness DCJ, T.2 MaY2Oo6,P24' u'witness ZA,T.24 May2006,pp19'21'22(IcS)' 62 WitnessDAR, T. 3 May 2006,pp' 7 4,7 5' 76' February2004' para 766; The.Prosecutor v' ut ThnProrn"uto, u. Ntagerura et al , Judgement(TC)' 25 512(Semanzc Judgement (Tc))' Sn^on*,iud,e"^""t (Ta), l5 tuay 2oo3iparas'3 54-371'

T2 6tt3ig$ Prosecutorv. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al', CaseNo ICTR-00-56-T

amountingto. war crLmes'wete violationsof internationalhumanitarian law, potentially - ot crvllrans committedduring the conflict,resulting in thedeath of largenumbers paragraph66 of 40. The chamber notes that the Prosecutiononly relies on .the AmendedlndictmenttosupportBizimungu'sresponsibilityformurderasawarcrime- submitsthat even assuming, ;^;; to Afiicle 6(1) of ihe Statute.65The Prosecution containedin ffiil;"";;;;;, trtut'it aia not tead sufficientevidence on the allegation on OOof itt" Indictment,it is inconceivable Bizimunguto ask for acquittal Or*.*n -for to find that Z u, a whole. The Prosecutionsubmits that thereis sufficientevidence ni"irnunglt"ouoi tttould defend count ? on thebasis of his commandresponsibility' on count7 on 41. Thechamber notes that Bizimungu's defence is not seekingacquittal thereforelimited to the basisof commandresponsibility. The chamber'sconsideration is could lead a reasonable whethe^uffici"nt evidencehas beenadduced which, if believed, murderas_ war trie. or fa"t to find that Bizimungubears Article 6(1) responsibilityfor -a .'i."oothebasisoftheallegationcontainedinparagraph66ofthelndictment'Havingthe the evidenceof \iitnes, GFD, the only *itn"t, to testify on the issue, a reasonabletrier "onride.edchamberfrnds that evenifbelieved, this evidencewould be insufficientfor Article 6(l).66Accordingly, offact to find Bizimungugrtiiy t.yonA reasonabledoubt under to of the Chamberenters a judgementof acquittalfor Bizimunguwith respect jhe 99y1t and Additional In*de, a, violationsor A*icte 3 commonto the GenevaConventions ProtocolII under6(1) ofthe Statute. 6(1) against 42. with respectto tlle count of murderas a war crime under Article has led no evidenceon NJiodiliyi.*u, iie Chamber recalls that the Prosecution paragraphsupporting this charge'the Chamberenters a ;;;cr"ph 92. Sincethis is the only for Ndindliyimanawith reipectto the chargeof murderas a violation i;;;il;".quinal'oi ProtocolII underArticle i.tl.f. 3 commonto the GenevaConventionJ and Additional 6(1) of the Statute. chamberlinds that 43. with respectto Ndindiliyimana'ssuperior responsibility, the crimeagainst humantty may muchof the evidencediscussed above in respectof murderas a of Article 3 commonto the ulro-t. protutiueof the requirementsof murderas violations chamber therefore denies c.n.uu' conventions and Additional Protocol II. The murderas a violation of Article 3 Nainaitivinruou,smotion for acquittalon the charse_of protocolII pursuantto Article 6(3) of commonto the Genevaconventions and Additional the Statute.

Count 5: Exterminationas a Crime againstHumanity

para (Semanzaludgement (tC)\: 6osemanza v. TheProsecutor, lndgement (AC), 20 M ay 2005, .l92 llre- ptor."utor's Appealof Decisionon Judicial prosecutory. Karemeraet al, (ACi-,iO".irionon interlocutory Notice,16 June 200 6", P?ias.,28-29' meetingheld at EGENA,Augustin 65paragraph 66 ofthe Amenoeornclictrnent reads: "On 16June 1994, at a In,tolazyiwho hadhidden among Hutu fleeing Bizimungutold militia-en to s"t up r-ououiocksto unmaskthe ofTutsi civiliansand Hutu mistakenfor Tutsi thecombat zones. A, u r"auttofti,J'" otA"t', a largenumber werekilled in thatarea in the followinghours and days"' on l6 June1994, Bizimungu addressed a group tr witnessGFD T. 1oMay zoos,p. 6i wherehe tesiified that g" ndamerie:ampirlRuhengeri Bizimungu told those ofwoundedpersons at a hospitaltotot"d ut EGENA '"tu'i to th" battleftontand others should go andman the eatheredthat people *fro f-r"a,."oi""0 'h'*ld left the.hospital and proceeded on dutvto a il;;l;;k;. A";;tult of Bizimungu\ r€marks,witness GFD- at theroadblock until 13 July 1994when he went roadblocklocated opposite te fuu[arniracamp' He stayed killingsat the saidroadblock' into Witnesscho did not sayanything about "*1t".

l3 Prosecutorv. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al., CaseNo. ICTR-00-56-T 4ae{

44. The Accused Bizimungu and Ndindiliyimana seek acquittal on count 5, extermination as a crime against humanity, pursuant to Articles 3(a) of the Statute. Bizimungu seeks acquittal pursuant to Article 6(l), and Ndindiliyimana seeks acquittal pursuantto Article 6(3) of the Statute. 45. Extermination has been defined as participation in a widespread or systematic killing or systematicallysubjecting a widespreadnumber of p-eopleto conditionsof living that;uld inevitably lead to death,\Mith intent to causedeath.o' It is inelevant to a chargeof extermination that the accuseddid not kill any particular individual and that the victims were not named in an indictment. Extermination differs from murder in the sense that the actus reas is directedat a group or collectivity resultingin masskilling.68 46. The Prosecutionconceded that it has not led evidence on paragraph79, the only allegationsupporting the chargeof exterminationas a crime againsthumanity under Article 6(1) ofthe Statutein respectof Bizimungu. The Chamberaccepts the Prosecutionconcession and, accordingly,enters a judgement of acquittal for Bizimungu with respectto the count of extemination as a crime againsthumanity under 6(1) of the Statute. 47. With respectto the Ndindiliyimana, the chamber finds that much of the evidence discussedconceming his superior responsibility for genocideabove, may also be probative of the requirementsof exterminationas a crime againsthumanity. Ndindiliyimana's motion for acquitlzlregarding the exterminationcount under Article 6(3) is thereforedenied.

Count 6: Rape as a Crime against llumanify 4g. The Accused Bizimungu and Nzuwonemeyerequest a judgement of acquittal on count 6, rapeas a crime againsthumanity, pursuant to Articles 3(g) and 6(3) ofthe Statute. 49. Rapeis the non-consensualpenetration, however slight, ofthe vagina or anusofthe victim by thi penisofthe perpetraroror by any other object usedby the perpetrator,or of the mouth of the victim by the penis of the perpetrator.o'Consent must be given freely and voluntarily and is assessedwithin the context of the surroundingcircumstances. The mental element of rape is the intention to effect the prohibi.led sexual penetration with the knowledgethat it occurswithout the consentof the victim''" 50. Bizimungu and Nzuwonemeye are charged only with superior responsibility for rape wrder Arlicle6(3). A personis a superiornot only to those over whom he is a superior

u, (AC), Thepror""uto, u. Gacumbitsi ltdgement, (AC), 7 July 2006, para. 86, cit\ng Ntakirutimaza Judgement l3 December2004. para.522 (Ntqkitutimara Judgement(AC)). 68 Ntakirutimana ludgement(AC), para. 522. un TheProsecuto, y. kunarqc et al., Judgement(TC), 10 Decembel 1998,para. 387; The Prosecutor v. Kunarqc et o/., Judgement(AC), 12 June2002 para. 128 ("The AppealsChamber concurs with the Tdal Chambel's aefinition-ofrape';;; Muvunyi l\dgement (TC), para 5l8-522; Muhimana Jud'gement(TC), para 544-551;, by Seman"aJ,tdgimeit(TC), para. 345 ("Whit€ this rnechanicalstyle ofdefining rape was originally rejected the this iribunalihe Chamber'frndsthe comparativeanalysis in Kunarac to be persuasiveand thus will adopt (TC), I definition ofiape approvedby the ICTY AppealsChamber"); TheProsecutor tt. Kaielijeli Jndgement December200i, paru.9l s ("div"n thu ofthe law in this area,culminating in the endorsernentofthe "voiution FurundZgcr/Kuniracapproach by the ICTY AppealsChamber, the Chamberfinds the latter approachof persuasiveauthority and tterebyidopts the definition as given in Kunarac"); The Prosecutorv. Kamuhanda Judgement-Ruraruc'(TC), 22 lanuary 2004, pala' 709. ,o Jud,gement(Ab), 12 June2002, para. 127;Mwunyi lrdgement (TC), para 521: " . the underlying penaliseserious violations ofsexual autonomy.A obl"ctiv" ofth" i'rohibition ofrape at internationallaw is to genre listed in violation ofsexual autonomy ensueswhenever a personis subjectedto sexualacts ofthe Kaielijeli Kunarac to whichhe/shehai not consented..."; Semanzaludgement (TC), paras.344,346l' Judgement(TC), Para.915.

14 6494 Prosecutorv. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al ' CaseNo' ICTR-00-56-T

he exercisesde in a traditionalchain of rnilitary command,but alsoto thoseover whom facto y. it U",ft hstances,liability as a superioris basedupon proof that the gulo1{iytes to "",tt"ti effectivecontrol of the ,..p.riot, in the senseof the latter'smaterial ability wereunier the ' preventor punishtheir criminal behaviour" 5l.Bizimungu,sdefencearguesthatthePfosecutionfailedtoprovethattheAccused committed,the knew or had reasonto know thatiis subordinateswere involved in, or had in the Indictment.Since nens rea is an essentialingredient of the crime prove direct or constructive charged,"", "ir# th" "if.ged d"ien"e arguesthat the Prosecution'sfailure to the alternative,the r.norir.ig" on Bizimungu,spart mustprove fatal to the mpe charge.In "i"ui with respectto O*f.n"" the Ch;be; to find thatthe Accusedhas no caseto answer "r theallegation contained in paragraph1 I 1 ofthe Indictment' 52.Foritspart,theProsecutionmaintainsthatithasledsufficientevidencetoshow 'hu,,up"wascommittedbysoldiersrrnderthecommandofGeneralBizimunguona 6 April and *ii.rpi*a systematicbasis at variousplaces throughout Rwanda between ""a TN' DEA'EZ' lufy f'qq+.ff't. Prosecutionrelies on the evidenceof DBA, DBD' LAV' QBP' amonsthese' twelve iide, xi, DBE, DBH, LBC, LN, DAR, GFC,and GFV andnotes that submitsthat *.r. ul"tin,, ofiape and/orinhuman and degrading treatrnent. The Prosecution reasonsto know that Jo" o tt" widespreadnature of theseacts,-Bizimungu knew or had committedor wereabout ,"rai.rr*a., his command,or militia subjectto his authority.had perpetntors' to lommit th"secrimes and failed to preventthe actsor to punishthe 53.TheChamberhasheardtestimonyfromvariouswitnessesthatactsofrapewere evidence by *"-b.., of the RwandanArmy and trre Interahamw''" T1'" committed of sugleststhat betweenApril and Jdy i994, soldierswho were subordinates womenat variousplaces throughout the ;]i1]|;*"alr*a fifuatically selected^andraped Tutsi "S# groupof soldiers;at othertimes, ;;rr.y. of the incidentsinvolved multiple rapes by a is also evidencethat RTLM the soldiersacted in concertwith Intetahamwemilitia. There 'uaioi*i,"a,r'.populationtorapeTutsiwomen.AccordingtoGeneralDallaire-,hebrought includingGeneral the issueof RTLM broadcaststo the attentionolsenior military officials taken togetherwith the St"ilr"gr, tJ tn.V failed to take any action.l3This evidence, Rwanda,if believed, *i].ro."la out*" of the actsof rapeailegedly committed throughout couldshow that Bizimungu had reason to know oftheir occurrence' the Chamberis of 54. With regardto the actsof rapecommitted by the Interahamwe' betweenthe Army and th. ui"* thatthe ividence discussedaiove regardingthe relationship at this stage of the li" t r"rlolro re could, if believed,prouild" u sufficient nexus

200 1 para 196: "The showing of.effective 11The Prosecutor v. Delacic et al J\tdgement(AC), 20 February ' jwe superiors";The Prosecutor v Blaskic' *"ir"i J*qtrca ln casesinvolving b"orh de ind-def:cro 2004' pari-67; BagosoragS6isDec.ision' para 30' i"J*.t.", teCl.:s July andat ;r"iii,"irr.l orib, r, + epritztios. pp. 6o-2"0. z: 1rap.by roldiers al a roadblockin Mukinini Stadiumand at a"i"i,guyt1;LeV, r. i?'luneZ0OS, pp. 5-O-irape by soldiers at Kamarampaka TRAF;-riO gendarmesatKamg-utpjku C"n,'pl,Le'C, t. t o o"tou"r 2005,pi'11,13 [rape by soldiers and N"-"tir;rnl ,.Habyarimana'sarmy" at EERin Butarej; il;i"p1llnu", zooi,ip. +2,+ii*pJ uv,"liiers of ;##j;a;r, in Butaresometime after 21 April 19941; TN.T. 20september 2005, pp. 16, 'f."r,ipte1i,"1'S lrnlttipi" iupri ty roldiers DBB,r. 26 January2006,rp 43 #:i' ;"dd;;d;i, ppi ii -ie rapesby sordieisat Kabgayil .4l, l5' 16'l7'andr' r4March2006'pp46'47: '#t.;1;'r;;;;;oii.i'i;.0;;"i;;;; ;;niiipnot, iv.il rl uu"t'zooo'pp ppo+.'os.'oi uy*ldiers atrRAFrpRol: DBH, r.20 June 299s.pp r.rrripr.,up., r' 4Mav 2006' pp' 3-5' 8 frapeor ;."r;l t;ilfii;i;;"p"i["v *ih".l il"'u'iul,ub"'i'"n"Iorfice];DAR' "i 2005.pp 29-31lrape by lnterqhamwear va(tous i"iri' girirfJ tirfai.rs at iH K tlotpiiuq,Ooe, f . | 7 March . soldierson 10April 19941 ,fr.r f?lt 7'to9 April t9941;and pp' i5-36' lrape by iiwitn"r. Ro..o Il,allaire,T 21 November2006' p 26'

15 Prosecutorv. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al.' CaseNo. ICTR-00-56-T 6+3at proceedingsto warrant a denial of the Motion for acquittal in respect of rapes allegedly Lommittedby 1nterahamwe militia underthe influenceof Bizimungu' 55. The Chamber therefore concludesthat sufficient evidencehas been led which, if believed,could lead a reasonabletrier of fact to find Bizimungu responsibleas a superiorfor rape as a crime against humanity. Bizimungu's motion for acquittal on rape as a crime againsthumanity on the basisof Article 6(3) responsibilityis thereforedenied' 56. With respect to the Accused Nzuwonemeye. the chamber notes that only paragraphI l2 ol the Indictmentsuppons this charge.'"The Delence for Nzuwonenteye suU1n;tJttrut the Prosecutionhas failed to lead evidencein support of the alleged rapes at cHK hospital,or that Nzuwonemeyehad commandresponsibility over those allegedto have committedsuch raPes. 57. The chamber recalls that it has heard evidencewhich suggeststhat in April 1994, soldiersof the Recce Battalion were on guard at a roadblock located in front of the cHK hospital.T5Other suggeststhat soldiers on guard at CHK raped Tutsi girls on _erzidence'" severaloccasions. 5g. This evidence, if believed, could lead a reasonable trier of fact to find Nzuwonemeyeresponsible as a commanderfor rape by soldiers at CHK hospital in Kigali. Nzuwonemeye'smotion for acquittal on fape as a crime agahst humanity on the basis of Article 6(3) responsibilityis thereforedenied' count 8: Rape as a violation of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II 59. The Accused Bizimungu and Nzuwonemeyerequest a judgement of acquittal on count 8, rape as a violation of Article 3 common to the GenevaConventions and Additional Protocol II, pursuantto Article 4(e) of the Statute.The two Accused requestacquittal under 6(3) of the Statute. 60. In light ofthe evidencediscussed above in respectofthe chargeof rape as a crime againsthumaiity, the Chamber is satisfiedthat there is some evidence which, if believed' c;uld support a finding by a reasonabletrier of fact that Bizimungu and Nzuwonemeye bear .onllnuod r"rponsibility for rape, as well as humiliating and degradingtreatment, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. Bizimungu and Nzuwonemeye's motions for acquittal on rape as war crimes on the basis of Article 6(3) responsibility are thereforedenied.

F'ORTHE ABOVE REASONS, THE CHAMBER

ENTERS a judgementof acquittal for the AccusedAugustin Ndindiliyimana as follows:

Count 3: ComPlicitYin Genocide;and

,o puagraphI l2 0fthe AmendedIndictment reads: "During the monthsof April, May andJune 1994, sold,iers of Maior fro, ifi" a rquuOofthe ReconnaissanceBattalion, led by InnocentSagahutu and under the command Interahamwe i.ungoir-XauierNruwonemeye, who guardedthe Centre hospitaliet de Kigdli, ard their s"veraiTutsiwJmen ftom thehospitalwho had come to seektreatment or simplyto seek at the entranceto the ,"Gl-rt.y"ii"ltpifiigUO*ied tap.a tlem or mistreatedthem, Those rapes often took place inside the kiosk hosoital." 75Witness DCJ, T, ZMaY2006,P 24. 76Witness DAR, T. 4 May 2006,pp. 3, 5 andT. 1l May 2006'p 28'

l6 bBn Prosecutor\). Augustin Ndindiliyimana el a/ , CaseNo' ICTR-O0-56-T

Conventions and Count 7: Murder as a violation of Article 3 commonto the Geneva AdditionalProtocol II underAfiicle 6(1)ofthe Statute; as follows: ENTERS a judgement of acquittal for Augustin Bizimungu the Statute;and Count 5: Exterminationas Crime againstHumanity under 6(1) of Geneva conventions and iooot z, Murder as a violation of Arti"l" 3 common to the AdditionalProtocol II underArticle 6(l) ofthe Statute;

DENIESthe Defence Motions in all otherrespects'

Arusha,18 June 2007

SeonKi Park A-sokade Silva d Hikmet Judge Judge

lseal of theTribunal]

'r' ])'-;- i i",u 'u ', 'j,,' t-;r;.,, . ' (t\ i' ,ti \;::i;s''

l'7 TRANSMI$SIOTIISHEET FOR FILING OF OOCUIUIENTSWITH CMS

.''.']::',]1]:i]i]]:l]:i.:@i]]l]]]i:.]]]]]]]]:i]:.]i]... COURTMANAGEMENT SECTION (Art.27 ofthe Dkectiveforthe Registry)

/ Flll - INFORIf,ATIOI{ obe the Chambers I GEiIERAL chamber/ Arusha TrialChamber ll ffi;r.b"t lll I n Appeals I triatcnamuer t Talon I Kouambo C. K. Hometowu I F A. To: I N M Diallo R. N. Chief,JPU, CMS AppealsChamber/ The Hague K. K. A. Afande R. Burriss

Prosecutor'sOffice I Ll Other;

ci5E Nimber: lcTR-00-56-T Th eFro:e Jtorvs. ATa-n di I iv i m a n a et al' June2007 18June 2007 OocunrerLtSdate: 18 OriginalLanguage: lursuant to Rule98bis Corrigendumto the

DocumentTYPe: Ilassification Level: non-panles n Indictment I Warrant ! Correspondencef1 ! StrictlyConfidential / Under Seal of APPeal parties B Decision E Affidavit I Notice tr n Confidential Book ! Disclosure ! order n Appeal tr E Pubtic obe II - TRANSLATION STtrUS OT T@ cMSffiLfaffiecefit actionregarding translation' original'and will not submit anytranslated E FilingParty hereby submits only the translation' f'l Referencematerial is providedin annexto facilitate TargetLanguage(s): ! English @egarding translation the orig n FilingParty h"r"by subtit" BoTf

ffiLiffi-ffi;rAion regardingtranslation indue course in the following language(s): Filingparty will be submitting tn:- - transtateo- version(s) n " F*-l"l fl Kinvarwanda fl English -! -.-..- I(I DLY FILL I THE BOXESBELOW fTDEFENeE isover-seeing translation submittedtoan accredited service for is submittedfor translation to: i-n"-oo*t"ntit fre Jocument transiation(fees will be submittedto DCDMS)j of theICTR / Arusha ! TheLanguage Services^Section of contact ServicesSection of the ICTR / TheHague Name Person: Fi rn. L"nouao! Nameof service: iervicefor translation;see details below: H il;ffiit;J Address: Nameof contactPerson: E-mail/ Tel./ Fax: Nameof service: Address: E-mail/Tel, /Fax: r^Elrriaa,rrr^l Enr Offlclal uSe ol{L III . TRAII:'LA ffi fl Requireddate: [Top priority fl Hearingdate: flUrgent D otherdeadlines: n Normal

CMSI (UPdatedon 04 FebruarY2004) NB:Thisformisavai|ab|eon:http://www'ictr.org/ENGL|SH/cms/cms1'doc