Human Rights Brief

Volume 21 | Issue 1 Article 11

2014 Judgment Summaries: International Criminal Tribunal for Jacqueline Niba American University Washington College of Law

Davina Ugochukwu American University Washington College of Law

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief Part of the Human Rights Law Commons

Recommended Citation Niba, Jacqueline, and Davina Ugochukwu. "Judgment Summaries: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda." Human Rights Brief 21, no. 1 (2014): 44-46.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Rights Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Niba and Ugochukwu: Judgment Summaries: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

JUDGMENT SUMMARIES: INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA

War Crimes Research Office: 1994, following the murder of Coalition stating that Ngirabatware was not present Coverage of the International pour la Défense de la République (CDR) at these locations, nor did he encourage the Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Chairman Martin Bucyana, Ngirabatware crowd to kill Tutsis. went to the Electrogaz and Cyanika-Gisa The Prosecutor v. Augustine Dismissing the defense’s arguments, roadblocks to address hundreds of people. Ngirabatware, Case No. ICTR-99-54-T the Chamber found Ngirabatware guilty At the Cyanika-Gisa roadblock, he told the for instigating and aiding and abetting On December 20, 2012, Trial Chamber crowd to “kill Tutsis.” In addition, the pros- under Article 2 of the ICTR II of the International Criminal Tribunal ecution alleged that, following the death of Statute, which states that a person is guilty for Rwanda (ICTR) issued its judgment President Habyarimana on April 7, 1994, of genocide where, inter alia, he or she against Augustine Ngirabatware, who had Ngirabatware distributed weapons includ- commits acts such as killing members of served as the Minister of Planning in ing machetes, firearms, and grenades on an ethnic group with specific intent to the Interim Government during the 1994 two separate occasions at the Bruxelles destroy the group. Notably, although the , as a member of the and Gitsimbi/Cotagirwa roadblocks, where prosecution put forward a series of acts technical committee of Nyamyumba com- members of the were present. that allegedly constituted direct participa- mune, and as a high-ranking member of Ngirabatware stated that he did not want tion in the crime of genocide, the Chamber the Mouvement Révolutionnaire National to see any Tutsis in Nyamyumba com- found that the prosecution only proved pour la Développement (MRND) party. mune. While at the Bruxelles roadblock, one instance beyond a reasonable doubt, The prosecution charged Ngirabatware Ngirabatware also allegedly told Bagango, namely the distribution of weapons at the with several crimes, including genocide, the Bourgmestre of Nyamyumba com- Bruxelles and Gitsimbi/Cotagirwa road- complicity in genocide, direct and pub- mune, to find and kill an individual Tutsi blocks on April 7, 1994. Thus, although lic , conspiracy to named Safari Nyambwega, who was in the Chamber found that, as a general commit genocide, and rape and extermina- fact attacked and killed later that evening matter, the prosecution had successfully tion as crimes against humanity. However, by Interahamwe. in its closing arguments, the prosecu- established that Ngirabatware participated tion withdrew the charge of conspiracy Taken together, the prosecution in a joint criminal enterprise aimed at to commit genocide. In its judgment, the asserted, these facts established that the destroying the Tutsi population, because Trial Chamber found the accused guilty accused had participated in a joint crimi- the prosecution had only alleged in rela- of genocide, direct and public incitement nal enterprise whose purpose was to tion to the particular events of April 7 that to commit genocide, and rape as a crime carry out genocide against Tutsis in the the accused instigated and/or aided and against humanity, while dismissing the Nyamyumba commune, or that he other- abetted genocide, the Chamber convicted charge of complicity in genocide as sub- wise bore direct responsibility for acts of Ngirabatware for genocide only on the sumed within the genocide conviction. genocide in that locale. Furthermore, the basis of these modes of liability. prosecution alleged that Ngirabatware bore It also found Ngirabatware not guilty of As to the charge of direct and pub- responsibility for the rape of a Tutsi named extermination as a crime against humanity. lic incitement to genocide, the Chamber Chantal Murazemariya by members of the The Chamber sentenced Ngirabatware to declined to find the accused guilty in Interahamwe, which was carried out as thirty-five years’ imprisonment. relation to a speech he delivered at the part of a larger attack targeting the Tutsi Electrogaz roadblock to nearly 400 per- The prosecution alleged that under population. Article 6(1) of the Statute of the ICTR, sons, in which Ngirabatware stated, “I Ngirabatware bore individual criminal The defense denied all of the charges have just told the people present here that responsibility for “planning, instigat- and argued that from April 6 to 12, this roadblock is not enough. We need ing, ordering, committing or otherwise 1994, Ngirabatware was in Kigali and another one because Tutsis may easily aiding and abetting” the commission of that, when he learned of the President’s cross this roadblock.” While the Chamber genocide. The prosecution cited a num- plane crash, soldiers escorted him and his determined that this speech was “public” ber of facts to support its theory. First, family to the Presidential Guard Camp in that it was delivered to the 400 people according to the prosecution, in early (PGC) in that city. The defense further gathered at the roadblock and addressed 1994 Ngirabatware attended a meeting at argued that Ngirabatware never visited to this public audience, the Chamber Kanyabuhombo School with a few hun- Kanyabuhombo School after its inaugura- declined to find that the speech constituted dred people in attendance and spoke for tion in 1992 and did not distribute weap- “direct” incitement to commit genocide, at least an hour about protecting Hutu ons there in 1994. Defense also asserted determining that the “context surrounding interests by fighting against the Tutsis. that no women were raped in the Rushubi Ngirabatware’s speech and evidence of Ngirabatware promised to provide weap- secteur during the genocide. Finally, the how the audience understood the speech ons to youths for this fight. The pros- defense disputed the allegations relating [was] insufficient to establish that it was ecution further alleged that in February to the in Electrogaz and Cyanika-Gisa, a direct incitement to commit genocide.”

Published by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College44 of Law, 2014 1 Human Rights Brief, Vol. 21, Iss. 1 [2014], Art. 11 In contrast, the Chamber did convict charged Callixte Nzabonimana with five upon finding that the evidence of the single Ngirabatware of direct and public incite- counts – genocide, conspiracy to commit witness was either not credible or was ment to genocide on the basis of a speech genocide, direct and public incitement to insufficient to support a finding beyond a he gave at the Cyanika-Gisa roadblock. commit genocide, and extermination and reasonable doubt. In that incident, the accused addressed a murder as crimes against humanity – in rela- The defense also raised an alibi in group of 150 to 250 people, telling them tion to events occurring from April to July relation to allegations by the prosecution to “kill Tutsis.” Once again, the Chamber 1994 in Gitarama prefecture in Rwanda. that Nzabonimana participated in meetings determined that the instruction was “pub- The Trial Chamber found Nzabonimana and distributed weapons in Nyabikenke lic,” given the large group to which it guilty of four of the five charged counts: Commune between April 8 and 12, 1994. was delivered. It also determined that the genocide, for instigating the killing of Specifically, the defense countered these incitement was “direct,” as the “instruc- Tutsis taking refuge at the Nyabikenke allegations by stating that Nzabonimana tion to ‘kill Tutsis’ objectively and unam- Commune Office; conspiracy to commit could not have committed the crimes with biguously called for an act of violence genocide, for entering into an agreement which he was charged because he was in prohibited by” the ICTR Statute. Lastly, with members of the Interim Government Kigali from April 6 to 12, 1994. The pros- the Chamber observed that it had “no on April 18, 1994 to kill Tutsis in Gitarama ecution submitted that the alibi evidence doubt” that Ngirabatware made the state- prefecture and for entering into an agree- was not credible and did not show that ment with the requisite intent to directly ment with Jean Damascene Ukirikyeyezu Nzabonimana was not actually present incite genocide. in May 1994 to kill Tutsis in Gitarama during the crimes alleged. It also pro- prefecture; direct and public incitement to Turning to the rape charge, the vided a witness who placed testified that commit genocide, for statements inciting Chamber found Ngirabatware guilty of Nzabonimana was at or near the scene of the killing of Tutsis at the Butare Trading rape as a crime against humanity based on the alleged crimes. Centre, at Cyayi Centre, and at a meeting his participation in a joint criminal enter- at the Interim Government’s headquarters While the Chamber determined that prise formed with the purpose of destroy- in Murambi; and extermination as a crime Nzabonimana was in fact in Kigali dur- ing the Tutsi population in Nyamyumba against humanity for instigating the killing ing certain intervals between April 6 and commune. Although the Chamber found of Tutsis taking refuge at the Nyabikenke 12, it had doubts as to the credibility of that the rape of Chantal Murazemariya Commune Office. The Chamber dismissed key parts of Nzabonimana’s alibi. Further, by members of the Interahamwe was not the charge of murder as a crime against the Chamber determined that the defense part of the initial joint criminal enterprise, humanity based on a finding that the had failed to comply with Rule 67(A) it determined that the rape was a natural charge was cumulative to the charge of (ii) of the ICTR’s Rules of Procedure and and foreseeable consequence of the enter- extermination as a crime against humanity. Evidence, which requires that an accused prise. The Chamber further concluded that The Chamber sentenced Nzabonimana to provide notice of an alibi defense to the Ngirabatware significantly contributed to life imprisonment. prosecution in a timely manner. Although the enterprise by distributing weapons and Rule 67(B) makes clear that the defense encouraging Interahamwe to kill Tutsis During the relevant time, Nzabonimana cannot be precluded from presenting a and, in so doing, willingly took the risk was the Rwandan Minister of Youth and defense of alibi on the basis of untimely that rape would be committed. Finally, the Associative Movements, and also served as disclosure, it does allow the Chamber to Chamber found Ngirabatware not guilty of the chairman of Mouvement Révolutionnaire consider the failure of an accused to file extermination as a crime against human- National pour la Développement (MRND) his notice of alibi within the prescribed ity after determining that the Prosecution party in Gitarama prefecture. According time limit when assessing the credibility of had failed to establish beyond a reasonable to the prosecution, Nzabonimana used his the alibi. In light of this provision, and the doubt the accused’s responsibility for any positions of authority within the Interim Chamber’s doubts as to the overall credibil- of the incidents alleged in support of the Government and in Gitarama prefecture ity of alibi defense, the Chamber dismissed charge of extermination in the indictment. to wield influence over the local popula- Nzabonimana claim that he was in Kigali tion by planning, instigating, ordering, or Jacqueline Niba, a J.D. candidate continuously from April 6 to 12, 1994. committing the alleged crimes, or other- at the American University Washington wise aiding and abetting in the planning, As noted above, one of the charges College of Law, wrote this summary for preparation, and execution of the crimes. against the accused was that he was the Human Rights Brief. Katherine Cleary The defense disputed the charges by chal- responsible for genocide. Specifically, Thompson, Assistant Director of the War lenging the credibility of the prosecution’s the prosecution alleged, inter alia, that Crimes Research Office, edited this sum- evidence and pointing to alleged contradic- Nzabonimana bore responsibility for the mary for the Human Rights Brief. tions, omissions, and untruthful statements crime of genocide based on events that in the prosecution’s witnesses’ testimonies. occurred on April 14, 1994 at the Cyayi The Prosecutor v. Callixte Centre, just before an attack on Tutsi While the Chamber did note several Nzabonimana, Case No. refugees, who had gathered to seek shel- instances in which a factual allegation was ICTR-98-44D-T ter at the Nyabikenke Commune Office. supported solely by the uncorroborated According to the Prosecution, the accused On May 31, 2012, Trial Chamber III testimonial evidence of one witness, the held a meeting at this location on the after- of the International Criminal Tribunal for defense arguments failed to persuade the noon of April 14, which was attended by Rwanda (ICTR) issued its judgment in Chamber. Where evidence was uncorrobo- approximately thirty to forty people. At the Nzabonimana case. The prosecution rated, the Chamber dismissed the evidence http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/vol21/iss1/11 45 2 Niba and Ugochukwu: Judgment Summaries: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda the meeting, Nzabonimana told his audi- Civil Defense in Gitarama prefecture to incitement to commit genocide involve ence they should not “continue to eat the distribute weapons in Tambwe Commune. speeches made to large, fully public cows of Tutsis who have sought refuge at In addition, the Chamber found that in assemblies, messages disseminated by the communal office. What really matter[s] May, the two men encouraged the killing the media, and communications made are . . . the owners of the cows.” That of members of the Tutsi population in through a public address system over night, between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., Tambwe Commune through the creation a broad public area.” Among the inci- Hutu civilians and Commune policemen of a “Crisis Committee” for the commune. dents found by the Chamber to meet the launched an attack upon the Commune As the Chamber explained, the Interim definition of direct and public incitement Office, which resumed during the day on Government adopted a policy throughout to genocide in this case was a speech April 15. The Chamber found beyond Rwanda of creating such Crisis Committees made by the accused on or about April a reasonable doubt that, during these in an attempt to “disguise” the killing of 12, 1994 at the Butare Trading Centre attacks, between fifteen and sixty Tutsis Tutsis from the international community. in Rutobwe Commune. Specifically, the were killed. The Chamber also found that Considering the concerted and coordinated Chamber found that, at an impromptu the prosecution proved beyond a reason- actions of Nzabonimana and Ukirikyeyezu, meeting attended by about twenty people, able doubt that, through his words and the Chamber was convinced beyond a rea- Nzabonimana told those gathered to kill actions at Cyayi Centre the day before, sonable doubt that an agreement between Tutsis and to take the Tutsis’ belongings. Nzabonimana had instigated this attack Nzabonimana and Ukirikyeyezu material- He also instructed those gathered at the upon the office, and that he acted with ized in May 1994, with the specific intent meeting to pursue two specific Tutsis who genocidal intent in doing so, convicting to destroy the Tutsi population, in whole had fled the scene in fear after the accused him on the charge of genocide. or in part, in Gitarama prefecture, and that asked if anyone present was a Tutsi. this finding supported the charge of con- Although the prosecution failed to prove The prosecution also successfully spiracy to commit genocide. that any Tutsis were in fact killed as a result proved the charge of conspiracy to commit of the words spoken by Nzabonimana at genocide. In particular, the Chamber found The Chamber found beyond a reason- this meeting, direct and public incitement that, beginning on April 18, 1994 at a meet- able doubt that the accused committed is an inchoate crime, and thus the accused ing at the Interim Government’s headquar- direct and public incitement of genocide. could be convicted on his words and intent ters in Murambi and through subsequent As an initial matter, the Chamber reiterated alone. discussions, Nzabonimana agreed with that, to establish the crime, the prosecu- other members of the Interim Government tion must establish that the accused engage Davina Ugochukwu, a L.L.M. candidate to encourage the killing of members of the in “direct” incitement, meaning that it at the American University Washington Tutsi population, with the specific intent to must be “a direct appeal to commit an College of Law, wrote this summary for destroy the Tutsi population, in whole or in act” of genocide, as opposed to a “vague the Human Rights Brief. Katherine Cleary part, in Gitarama prefecture. The Chamber or indirect suggestion.” Furthermore, the Thompson, Assistant Director of the War further considered that, in late April or Chamber explained, the incitement must Crimes Research Office, edited this sum- early May 1994, Nzabonimana worked be “public,” recalling that the Appeals mary for the Human Rights Brief. HRB with Jean Damascene Ukirikyeyezu who Chamber has noted that “all convictions was in charge of training members of the before the Tribunal for direct and public

Published by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College46 of Law, 2014 3 Human Rights Brief, Vol. 21, Iss. 1 [2014], Art. 11

Copyright of Human Rights Brief is the property of American University Washington College of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/vol21/iss1/11 4