ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR No. 7, October 2002 ISSN 1020-9441
« REWARDS FOR JUSTICE » Ad Litem Judges for ICTR C’est le troisième haut responsable normalisation des relations Rwando- Rwandais soupçonné de congolaises, lui qui s’est longtemps On 14 August 2002, the Security participation au génocide de 1994 cru intouchable. Council of the United Nations arrêté depuis la publication par le unanimously adopted Resolution 14 31 Gouvernement des Etats Unis d’une Grande a dû être la surprise de (2002) which enables the creation of a liste de neuf suspects sur lesquels le Tharcisse Renzaho au matin du 29 pool of eighteen ad litem judges. Procureur voudrait bien mettre la septembre lorsque les officiels du Welcoming the adoption of the main. Bien qu’il ne figure pas sur TPIR appuyés par la police resolution, the President of ICTR, Judge cette liste, parcequ’il ne fait pas congolaise sont venus le cueillir. Le Navanethem Pillay said, “This measure encore l’objet d’un acte chant du premier gallinacé n’avait will significantly enhance the capacity d’accusation formel, Tharcisse pas encore retenti, ni les premiers of the Tribunal to dispose of the cases Renzaho a été arrêté en vertu de rayons du crépuscule éclairés le pending before it”. l’article 40 bis du Règlement de fleuve Congo et dissipés la brume Procédure et de preuves qui permet qui recouvrait Kinshasa encore However, the amendments brought to l’arrestation et le transfert d’un endormi, qu’il était à bord de the Statute by Resolution 1431 provide suspect sur lequel pèsent des indices l’avion qui devait le ramener à for only four of the ad litem judges to sit graves et concordants tendant à présent à Arusha. Combien in the Trial Chambers at any one time, montrer que ce dernier aurait éphémères peuvent être les rather than the nine proposed by the commis des infractions qui tombent alliances, a t-il dû se dire. Tribunal. sur la compétence du Tribunal. Depuis le début de l’opération Ad litem judges are special additional Ancien préfet de Kigali-ville «Rewards for Justice» initié par les judges, appointed for a non-renewable présenté par le Procureur comme Américains, plus aucun de ses term of four years in order to increase l’un des acteurs clefs de la tragédie anciens compagnons de cavale ne the Tribunal's capacity to deal with its rwandais, il va méditer à l’ombre doit dormir. Plus aucun d’entre eux case load with due dispatch. The des parloirs du centre de détention ne doit se sentir à l’abri d’une number of permanent judges and their sur sa longue fuite qui l’aura mené dénonciation même s’il ne figure terms of service remain unchanged. de ses vertes collines rwandaises au pas sur la liste des neufs recherchés. bourbier congolais à l’Est de la Il faut dire que la prime ou les Resolution 1431 calls upon the République Démocratique du primes offertes à quiconque aiderait Secretary General to make the practical Congo et à Kinshasa, la capitale. Il à leurs arrestations sont alléchantes. arrangements for the election of the doit très certainement aujourd’hui Elles feraient tourner bien des têtes. eighteen ad litem judges as soon as sa retraite forcée au processus de Cinq millions de dollars. Rien que possible and for Member States to ça. Il y a de quoi susciter bien des cooperate fully with the ICTR. vocations même tardives. Mais CONTENTS autant dire que la tâche ne sera pas The text of the Security Council SOMMAIRE facile pour qui se découvrirait une Resolution and the deta iled provisions News/Actualités...... 1 nouvelle vocation: chasseurs de of the Statute governing the election and Trials in Progress / primes. Seule al coopération des service of the ad litem judges are Procès en cours...... 7 autorités de la République available on the ICTR website Digest / Chronique ...... 9 Démocratique du Congo a permis www.ictr.org Judicial Decisions / l’arrestation de l’ancien Préfet. Decisions judiciaries...... 13 (… suite à la p. 3)
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 2
General Bizimungu and Gatete Bizimungu was promoted to the rank of General and appointed Chief of Staff following the plane crash on 6 Plead Not Guilty April 1994 in which the President of Rwanda, Juvénal Habyarimana, and the then Army Chief of Staff, Two more accused persons were recently arrested and Colonel Déogratias Nsabimana, were killed. transferred to the UN Detention Facility in Arusha to face prosecution for their involvement in the 1994 Charges against Getete allege that despite his dismissal genocide in Rwanda. They are General Augustin as Bourgmestre in 1993 following allegations that he Bizimungu, former Chief of Staff of the Rwandan persecuted Tutsis, the accused continued to exercise de Army who was arrested in Angola on 2 August 2002 facto authority over police, gendarmes and civilian and was transferred on 14 August 2002 and Jean - militias. He is alleged to have led a campaign of terror Baptiste Gatete, former Mayor of Murambi Commune against Tutsi civilians resulting in thousands of deaths in Byumba prefecture, who was arrested in the in Byumba and Kibungo prefectures. “[The accused] Republic of Congo on 11 September 2002 and was killed persons by his own hand, specifically ordered transferred on 13 September 2002. killings by subordinates, and led attacks,” the court was told. Under his command and direction, the On 21 August 2002 Bizimungu entered a plea of not Interahamwe militias are alleged to have massacred guilty to the charges against him when he appeared several thousand Tustsi civilians who had taken refuge before Judge Pavel Dolenc (Slovenia). Bizimungu is in Mukaranga, Rukara and Kiziguro churches. charged with ten counts of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, crimes against humanity and serious At Kiziguro church, for example, Gatete and his group violations of the Geneva Conventions. of Interahamwe are alleged to have broken through the portals of the compound and forced Tutsi refugees to On 20 September 2002 Gatete also pleaded not guilty exit, “First the men, and later a number of the to the charges preferred against him when he appeared remaining women, were forced to lie on their before Judge Yakov Ostrovsky (Russian Federation). stomachs, whereupon Interahamwe and civilian Gatete is facing ten counts charging him with genocide, militias hacked them to death using traditional or in the alternative, complicity in genocide; direct and weapons.” public incitement to commit genocide; crimes against humanity for extermination, murder, persecution and The accused is also alleged to have urged the rape; and serious violations of the Geneva Interahamwe and other civilian forces to rape and then Conventions. kill Tusti women. Addressing a crowd in Kayonza commune Gatete is said to have urged the locals to “rid Bizimungu is one of the most senior former Rwandan themselves of the filth by killing the children and military commanders apprehended by the Tribunal to raping the women before killing them.” Immediately date. He is also the first to be detained of nine principal thereafter a number of Tutsi women were dragged genocide suspects named by the Government of the behind a nearby building and serially raped. A date for United States in its “Rewards for Justice” programme, his trial will be fixed in due course. which is supporting the Tribunal's efforts to apprehend high-ranking fugitives from justice.
The accused is jointly indicted with four other accused, Renzaho Arrested in the DRC General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, former Chief of Staff of the Gendarmerie Nationale, Major Francois - Colonel Tharcisse Renzaho, former prefect of Kigali - Xavier Nzuwonemeye, Commander of the ville during the 1994 Rwandan genocide was arrested Reconnaissance Batallion, Captain Innocent Sagahutu on 29 September in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of second in command of the Reconnaissance Batallion Congo (DRC), pursuant to Rule 40bis of the Rules and (who are already in the Tribunal's custody), and Major Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal. Protais Mpiranya, Commander of the Presidential Guard who is also on the “Rewards for Justice” wanted The arrest of Colonel Renzaho is the first of its kind to list. His arrest was effected by the Angolan authorities be carried out in the DRC and is the third arrest since at Luena, in eastern Angola, acting on the basis of an the announcement of the U.S. Government’s Rewards arrest warrant issued by ICTR on 12 April 2002. for Justice campaign identified nine high-profile According to the Angolan authorities Bizimungu had suspects. (See also article on p. 1) been fighting for the Angolan rebel movement, UNITA, and was identified during the process of Under Rule 40 bis, the Prosecutor can request the demobilization of UNITA forces in the context of the arrest, transfer and provisional detention of a suspect in Angola peace settlement. This was the first arrest on the ICTR detention facility if there is reliable and behalf of the ICTR to be carried out in Angola. No date consistent evidence that the suspect may have yet has been fixed for the Trial on the merits. committed a crime over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 3
Within 30 days of the transfer, the Prosecutor must Management Trust [IRMT] has been engaged to provide a submit an indictment for confirmation by the judge. comprehensive training package specifically designed for the The provisional detention can be extended for a period Tribunal and our information managers. 27 staff from CMS, not exceeding 30 days for the needs of the Library, Press and Public Affairs, Language and Conference investigation. If warranted by special circumstances, a Services and the Lawyers and Detention Facilities further extension period not exceeding 30 days may be Management Section took part in the first week of the granted. The total period of provisional detention of a training programme from 16th to 20th September 2002 in suspect under Rule 40bis can in no case exceed 90 Arusha. days. In his opening remarks on 16 September the Registrar of the ICTR, Mr. Adama Dieng said:. Complete Acquittal in Media Case “Our institution is making history. Our commitment is also to Denied keep reliable records of all our proceedings for present generations and for generations to come. We are managers of Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Tribunal the present and the future. We will be judged by the quality for Rwanda on 17 September 2002 denied motions of our work and the services provided to the parties and the filed by the Defence teams for the complete acquittal of Chambers. Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Ferdinand Nahimana and Hassan Ngeze, in what is known as “The Media Case”. As part of the Tribunal’s and CMS’ commitment to the However it acquitted Nahimana on one count and continued enhancement of our operations, this training on Barayagwiza on three counts. ‘Legal Records Management’ comes as a welcome addition to the development of our internal capacity to find our own Both Nahimana and Barayagwiza were acquitted on solutions to difficult circumstances.” counts of crimes against humanity for murder. In (… continued on p. 8 ) addition Barayagwiza was acquitted of two counts of serious violations of the Geneva Conventions for outrages against personal dignity and pillage. «Rewards for Justice» (… suite de la p. 1) The Prosecution had conceded that no evidence was adduced in relation to the counts of crimes against Ils sont encore nombreux les «Wanted» qui se déplacent, qui humanity for murder. It had also moved to have the à la nuit tombée, qui sous des noms d’emprunt, tel Jean counts of which the accused were acquitted withdrawn, Baptiste Gatete, ancien maire de Murambi arrêté mi- saying it did not intend to pursue them further. septembre au Congo-Brazzaville où il vivait sous un pseudonyme, qui comme Augustin Bizimungu, ancien Chef The Defence had filed motions submitting that the d’état major des ex-forces armées rwandaises devenu Prosecution had failed to set out a sufficient case to quelque temps stratège chez les rebelles angolais. Du fond de sustain a conviction of the accused persons on any of leurs cellules onusiennes, ils doivent tous maudire la cupidité the counts, which they faced. humaine.
Following the failure of those motions the Trial then L’ancien Chef d’état major soupçonné d’avoir utilisé des proceed with the hearing of evidence on behalf of the bulldozers pour camoufler les corps de ses victimes quant à accused. Nahimana began testifying in his own lui a dû trouver sa stratégie de camouflage dans les rangs des defence. rebelles angolais bien médiocre. Il doit trouver la réconciliation des forces gouvernementales et l’UNITA bien The remaining charges against the three accused amère, lui qui comptait se fondre parmi les rebelles include conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, démobilisées et couler des jours heureux à Luanda direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide. The accused persons, now left Le souvenir des collines verdoyantes du Rwanda doit, au with six counts each, are also charged with crimes fond leur cellule, les rendre bien tristes. D’Arusha, la against humanity for persecution and extermination. «Genève de l’Afrique», ils n’auront aperçu que les vastes étendues de la Rift vallée qui s’ouvrent à ses portes, et pour les plus chanceux les sommets enneigés du Kilimandjaro. Longue aura été leur exode. Combien de maquis traversés, Legal Records Management combien de résidences changées, combien de noms Training empruntés depuis leur fuite du Rwanda. L’histoire dira plus tard s’ils ont eu le temps durant leur cavale de réfléchir aux The Court Management Section [CMS] of the ICTR, in causes qui ont conduit à la plus grande tragédie qu’a connue cooperation with the Training Unit of the Personnel Section, le continent à la veille du troisième millénaire. has recently embarked on a training program in the management of legal records. The International Records
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 4
APERÇU SUR LES JURIDICTIONS GACACA
A. Gacaca traditionnel ou « juridiction du gazon » Au sein de chaque cellule, 19 juges intègres1 sont élus dans la population, sans aucune discrimination, parmi Le gacaca était jadis une méthode traditionnelle les personnes âgées de 18 ans au moins habitant la rwandaise dont l'objectif était le rétablissement de circonscription de cette cellule. Les personnes élues l'harmonie, le maintien de l'entente, de la cohésion et forment un comité de coordination composé de 5 de la paix sociale au niveau de la communauté. La personnes qui, à son tour, élit un président et deux force de Gacaca reposait sur l’organisation familiale secrétaires sachant lire et écrire le Kinyarwanda. traditionnelle et sur la conviction de son rôle dans le Chaque cellule envoie en outre 5 personnes parmi les maintien de la paix sociale. Durant un procès élus pour la représenter dans l'assemblée de secteur. traditionnel gacaca, les anciens d’une famille ou de Celle -ci élit à son tour en son sein un siège composé de plusieurs familles, lorsque des personnes de différentes 19 personnes qui devra à son tour désigner un président familles étaient en conflit se réunissaient. En général, et deux secrétaires. Il est en plus procédé à l'élection de tout le monde avait la possibilité de parler avant que la 5 représentants par secteur qui siégeront dans décision sur la résolution du conflit soit prise. Quand l'assemblée du gacaca de la Commune. Celle-ci les familles ne se reconciliaient pas, les amis, les procède de la même manière pour constituer une personnes liées par alliance matrimoniales, un pacte de délégation à l'assemblée du gacaca de la Préfecture. sang ou parrainage initiatique intervenaient pour reconcilier les familles en conflicts. Des fois, une des D. Compétence temporelle familles pouvait faire recours au roi qui imposait alors sa décision qui pouvait être une décision prise Poursuites des infractions constitutives du crime de antérieurement par gacaca. génocide ou de crimes contre l'humanité commises à partir du 1er octobre 1990 jusqu’au 31 Décembre B. Gacaca, comme Juridiction pénale 1994.
Avec plus ou moins 110.000 personnes toujours E. Qui sont jugé ? Trois catégories de détenus détenues sous l'accusation de génocide, le gouvernement rwandais a décidé d’apporter un souffle - 2ème catégorie : les personnes qui ont tué mais qui ne nouveau dans son système judiciaire, en mettant sur sont pas des concepteurs; pied des juridictions populaires à côté des juridictions - 3ème catégorie : les personnes qui ont commis des existantes. En effet, selon le rapport (mars 2001) du crimes de sang mais qui n'ont pas tué, par exemple qui Représentant spécial pour le Rwanda de la Commission ont mutilé; des droits de l'homme de l'ONU, M. Michel Moussalli, - 4ème catégorie : les personnes qui ont commis des depuis fin 1996 jusqu’ au mois de mars 2001, 5 300 atteintes aux propriétés. personnes seulement avaient été jugées, ce qui - Les suspects placés dans la première catégorie de représentaient moins de 5 pour cent des personnes criminels, c'est à dire les planificateurs et les détenues (± 110,000 en 2001). Face à ce dilemme le organisateurs du génocide seront jugés par les gouvernement a fait preuve d'innovation en juridictions ordinaires. Les viols et autres crimes encourageant la participation de la population. C’est sexuels sont aussi placés dans la première catégorie ainsi que le 15 mars 2001, une loi qui met en place les juridictions gacaca a été adoptée. Contrairement au gacaca traditionnel, Ces nouvelles juridictions jugent conformément à la loi. Elles doivent C. Organisation et Fonctionnement des Juridictions entendre les témoins, qualifier les infractions et Gacaca déterminer définitivement la catégorie dans laquelle le prévenu doit être classé. Elles décident aussi du renvoi Les élections des juges des juridictions gacaca se sont des dossiers aux juridictions compétentes et statuent déroulées au mois d’octobre 2001. 260 000 juges ont sur les infractions de leur compétence. été choisis pour siéger dans les 11 000 juridictions gacaca. Celles-ci comprennent quatre niveaux : le En cas de condamnation, les juridictions gacaca gacaca de la cellule, le gacaca du secteur, le gacaca du prononcent les peines prévues par la loi du 30 août district et le gacaca de la province. Chaque cellule, chaque secteur, chaque district ou ville est représenté au sein de l'Assemblée Générale de la juridiction 1 Est intègre, tout Rwandais satisfaisant aux conditions suivantes: a. être de bonne conduite, vie et mœurs ; b. dire toujours la vérité ; gacaca immédiatement supérieure. Un département c. être honnête ; d. être caractérisé par un esprit de partage de la des juridictions gacaca à la Cour Suprême s'occupe de parole ; e. n'avoir pas été condamné par un jugement coulé en force la coordination des activités relatives aux gacaca et de de chose jugée à une peine d'emprisonnement de 6 mois au moins; l'établissement du règlement intérieur de ces nouvelles f. n'avoir pas participé à la perpétration des infractions constitutives du crime de génocide ou de crimes contre l'humanité ; g. être exempt juridictions. de l'esprit de sectarisme et de discrimination. (art 10 de la loi organique portant creation des jurisdictions gacaca)
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 5
1996. En principe la moitié de la peine est passée en du degré de responsabilité dans le drame rwandais et prison, l'autre moitié sera utilisée à l'exécution des que cela peut avoir des conséquences sur la peine à travaux d'intérêt général. Les personnes classées dans prononcer. Il risque d’y avoir une difficulté la quatrième catégorie seron t condamnées seulement à d'application des règles de droit -par des personnes réparer le dommage causé. Les décisions rendues dont la seule exigence de formation n’ est que de savoir seront en principe susceptibles d'appel devant la lire et écrire. juridiction directement supérieure sauf les cas où la loi - Dans le passé, le contrôle social était assez fort pour exclut toute possibilité d'appel. obliger les gens à agir en conséquence. L'anonymat actuel risqué de couvrir des fautes jadis inexistantes. F. Gacaca, comme juridiction pénale, pose quelques problèmes G. Conclusion
- Le Gacaca traditionnel était un moyen d’assurer les Il est évident qu'il existe encore une volonté de la imperatives de sécurité collective et d’harmonie population de renouer des rapports sociaux sociale. Dans la situation actuelle où les tensions entre harmonieux. Gacaca peut constituer une alternative à les membres de la société sont toujours vives, la peur l'inadéquation des solutions proposées par les droits collective présente, il est difficile de prédire l’avenir de importés, mal adaptés à la vie des populations locales, ces juridictions. La méfiance entre les gens est telle que dans la mesure où il est réclamé par ces populations la confiance a été ébranlée. Pour certains rwandais, ces elles-même s. Encore faut-il établir des règles fixes pour juridictions viseraient à banaliser le génocide et à éviter l'arbitraire qui pourrait provenir de la dislocation pardonner les coupables. Pour d’autres, elles rendraient de la famille traditionnelle et de la mise en cause des impossible le jugement impartial, en mettant la justice valeurs de référence, notamment le respect de la vie, le "aux mains des victimes", et de surcroît sans aucune respect de la parole donnée et le sens de l'honneur. connaissance juridique. En outre, compte tenu des modifications intervenues dans l'organisation sociale et En outre, il faudra que ces juridictions soient suivies de des conséquences des violences, il est de plus en plus près pour écarter tout risque de banalisation du difficile de retrouver des personnes sur lesquelles il génocide et les crimes contre l'humanité. Ces crimes existe un consensus, mais il en existe. sont tellement graves qu'il faut les faire juger par une - La possibilité du ministère d’avocat n’existe pas. juridiction de l'ordre judiciaire. - Le classement en catégories suppose la determination
THE APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL NOTICE BY THE ICTR
At its ninth Plenary Session, held on 3 November 2000, Rule 94 (A) the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) adopted an additional paragraph (B) to Rule 94 of the Rule 94(A) reads “A Trial Chamber shall not require Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) to enable it to proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take take judicial notice of “adjudicated facts or judicial notice thereof”. This formulation, which is documentary evidence from other proceedings of the identical to that used in the Statute of the Nuremberg Tribunal relating to the matter at issue in the current Tribunal, makes it clear that it is mandatory for a trial proceedings”. Coincidentally, on the same day, Trial Chamber to take judicial notice of facts of common Chamber III issued a decision on judicial notice in the knowledge. What then may be regarded as “common Semanza case (“the Semanza decision”) based upon knowledge”? In the Semanza Decision Trial Chamber Rule 94 prior to its amendment (the text of the former III, referring to authorities from several common law Rule is now Rule 94(A) but is otherwise unchanged). countries and international fora, concluded first that it Subsequently Trial Chambers I and II have each included facts which were “not subject to reasonable adopted two decisions2 based upon Rule 94. This note dispute” or were “capable of accurate and ready will briefly review that case law and comment upon the determination by resort to sources whose accuracy Application of the Rule. cannot reasonably be called into question”. Such facts would include the sequence of the Calendar, basic geographical information and the laws of nature. 2 “Decisions of 22 November 2001 in Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana However the Chamber pointed out that there was “no (Trial Chamber I), hereafter “the Ntakirutimana Decision”; of 16 requirement that a matter be universally accepted in April 2002 in Prosecutor v. Juvénal Kajelijeli (Trial Chamber II), order to qualify for judicial notice”, in other words, a (“the Kajelijeli Decision); 15 May 2002 in Prosecutor v. party’s objection to the Chamber taking judicial notice Nyiramasuhuko and Others (Trial Chamber II), (“the Butare Decision”) and of 4 September 2002 in Prosecutor v. Eliézer of a certain fact could be ignored if the Chamber felt Nyitigeka (Trial Chamber I), (“the Nyitegeka Decision”). that the objection was not a reasonable one.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 6
Importantly in the context of the work of the ICTR the so far have revolved around events in the Kibuye Chamber also found that the notion of judicial notice Prefecture during April 1994. could cover facts which were “generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court”. Those tests Nonetheless, despite repeated invitations by the have been upheld in other Decisions, in particular in Prosecutor to make extensive use of Rule 94(B) (for the Kajelijeli and Butare Decis ions. As a result the example her application in the Butare case, while Chambers have taken judicial notice of the ethnic failing to distinguish between facts to be noticed under classifications of Rwandan citizens in 1994, of the Rule 94(A) and those to be noticed under 94(B), listed death of President Juvénal Habyarimana in a plane no less than eighty facts to be noticed), the Chambers crash on 6 April 1994 and of Rwandan legislation in have so far been circumspect in its application, in force in 1994 governing the administrative structure of particular in order to ensure that the right of the the country and the creation of the army and accused to a fair trial is not prejudiced. gendarmerie. First it should be noted that, by distinction with Rule While the facts judicially noticed in this manner have 94(A), the Chamber has a discretion whether to take generally been put forward by the Prosecutor and judicial notice of adjudicated facts or documentary agreed to by the defence they should not be confused evidence from other Tribunal proceedings. Such a with formal admissions of fact made by the defence. discretion will invariably be exercised by any criminal The limits of judicial notice (whether under Rule 94(A) court in favour of the accused. or 94(B)) are that the facts concerned must be relevant in the context of the trial concerned and that by taking Second, the Chambers have taken a restrictive view of judicial notice, rather than by requiring them ot be the notion of “adjudicated facts”. Thus in both the proved by the Prosecutor, the defence must not be Ntakirutimana and Kajelijeli Decisions the Chambers unduly prejudiced. Seeking the defence’s agreement is concerned adopted the reasoning of the ICTY Appeals a convenient way for the Chamber to be sure that this is Chamber in Kupreskic (Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic, in fact the case, but, as already noted, such agreement decision of 8 May 2001) that only facts in a judgement, is not indispensable. from which there has been no appeal, or as to which any appellate proceedings have concluded, can truly be By contrast formal admissions made by the defence deemed "adjudicated facts" within the meaning of Rule may go further than judicially noticed facts and include 94(B). Moreover, presumably following the logic of personal information about the accused or admissions the Semanza Decision, those two Chambers declined to concerning the existence of some of the elements of the take judicial notice of facts admitted in the context of crime with which he is charged. In the Semanza guilty pleas or formal admissions such as those in Decision the Trial Chamber pointed out that the fact Musema. “that an accused admits a fact pursuant to a plea agreement reveals nothing about the nature of those Conclusion facts as either common knowledge or as indisputable”. Given that the facts concerned under Rule 94(A) are Rule 94(B) “of common knowledge” as now defined by the jurisprudence of the ICTR, and the mandatory The adoption of Rule 94(B) not only brought the RPE character of the rule, strictly speaking a motion to take into harmony with the RPE of the Tribunal for the notice of them is otiose. Furthermore it is clear from former Yugoslavia but was also consistent with the the decisions so far that the list of such matters is not a rationale of judicial notice, namely, on the one hand to lengthy one. In those circumstances consideration expedite trials by absolving the Prosecutor from having might usefully be given to adopting a Practice to prove the same issues repeatedly (and thereby to Direction summarizing the considerations at issue and avoid wasting resources) and, on the other hand, “to with a (non-exhaustive) list of facts of which judicial ensure consistency and uniformity of decisions on notice is taken. factual issues where diversity in factual findings would be unfair”. Such a measure would not of course cover applications made under Rule 94(B). However as the number of The latter consideration is particularly important in the “adjudicated issues” steadily increases it is to be case of the ICTR given that its jurisdiction covers a expected that the Prosecutor will wish to make more relatively small geographical area and a limited period use of it. She will nonetheless still have to prove that of time. It is therefore inevitable that many of the cases such facts “relate” to the case at hand. Given the will overlap to a greater or lesser degree – for example reticence so far shown by ICTR judges in deploying the cases of at least eight of the accused to go on trial Rule 94(B) it seems unlikely that they will have recourse to it proprio motu, as the text permits.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 7
Trials in Progress Procès en cours (as at 30 September 2002)
Overview
On 30 September 2002 seven trials concerning 19 accused were in progress before the Trial Chambers of the ICTR. In addition, the Semanza and Ntakirutimana cases are under deliberation by the Third and First Chambers respectively. Judgements in those cases are expected later this year. In the Cyangugu trial, 33 defence witnesses have been heard, while in the Kajelijeli, Media, Niyitegeka and Kamuhanda trials, the Prosecution has closed its case and the respective defence cases opened during the period under review. Thus, of cases in progress, two are at the prosecution stage, five are at the defence stage, two are under deliberation and one appeal on the merits is pending.
For up-to-date information on the progress of trials, please consult the Judicial Calendar and the Status of Detainees on the Tribunal’s website: www.ictr.org
“Cyangugu-Case” (Bagambiki, Imanishimwe, 2001 after 29 days of hearings during which 14 Ntagerura) prosecution witnesses were heard. On 10 April 2002, Trial Chamber III, Judges Williams (presiding), (Trial Day 31) the Prosecution closed its case. A Pre- Ostrovsky and Dolenc. Trial opened 18 September 2000; Defence conference and status conference was held on 15 Prosecution case closed on 21 November 2001after 73 April. The Defence case opened on Monday 16 days of hearings during which 40 witnesss were heard. September. By 30 September (Trial Day 40), nine By Thursday 25 July 2002 there had been a total of 107 Defence witnesses had been heard. This session will days of hearings and 33 Defence witnesses had been continue until Thursday 10 October 2002. heard. Hearings resumed on Monday 30 September. “Kamuhanda Case” “The Media Case”, (Barayagwiza, Nahimana and Trial Chamber II, Judges Sekule (presiding), Maqutu and Ngeze) Ramaroson. Trial opened on 17 April 2001. On 14 May Trial Chamber I, Judges Pillay (presiding), Møse and 2002 the Prosecution closed its case subject to calling one Gunawardana. Trial opened on 23 October 2000. On additional witness before the opening of the Defence Friday 12 July 2002 the Prosecution closed its case after case. There had been 35 days of hearings during which 163 days of hearings during which 47 Prosecution 28 prosecution witnesses were heard. The Defence witnesses were heard. The case was adjourned until opened its case on Monday 19 August 2002 with a Rule Monday 16 September for the opening of the defence 98 bis application which was partially successful. case. All three defendants made applications for acquittal Hearings continued until Thursday 12 September (Trial uner Rule 98 bis. These were all rejected (see p. 2 above). Day 51), by which time seven Defence witnesses had The Defence began with the hearing of Ferdinand been heard. The case was adjourned until 13 January Nahimana in his own defence. The case was adjourned on 2003. 27 September after 172 days of hearings. Hearings will resume on 14 October. “Butare Case”, (Nyiramasuhuko, Ntahobali, Nteziryayo, Nsabimana, Ndayambaje and Kanyabashi) “Semanza Case” (Laurent Semanza ) Trial Chamber II, Judges Sekule (presiding), Maqutu and Trial Chamber III, Judges Ostrovsky (presiding), Ramaroson. Trial opened 12 June 2001. By 6 June 2002 Williams and Dolenc. Trial opened 16 October 2000. the there had been 63 days of hearings involving 14 trial was completed on 25 April after 80 days of hearings Prosecution witnesses. Between 11 June and 27 June during which 54 witnesses testified. Closing argument 2002 the case was adjourned five times as a result of was heard from 17 to 19 June 2002 since when the case difficult ies encountered in bringing witnesses from has been under deliberation. No date has yet been set for Rwanda. On 19 June the Chamber gave an oral decision delivery of the judgement. referring to the obligation of cooperation incumbent upon UN Member States and asking the Rwandan authorities “Kajelijeli Case” to meet their legal obligation to facilitate the work of the Trial Chamber II, Judges Sekule (presiding), Maqutu and Tribunal. No further witnesses being available the trial Ramaroson. Trial opened 13 March 2001, restarted 2 was adjourned on 27 June until Monday 14 October. July 2001. The case was adjourned on 13 December
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 8
“Ntakirutimana Case”, (Elizaphan Ntakirutimana presented 12 witnesses, the Prosecutor closed her and Gérard Ntakirutimana) case, subject to the possible future availability of one Trial Chamber I, Judges Møse (presiding), Pillay, and more detained witness. Hearings will resume on 14 Vaz. Trial opened 18 September 2001. Prosecution October 2002. case closed on 2 November 2001 after 27 days of hearings during which 19 Prosecution witnesses were Appeals Chamber heard. Trial resumed with Defence case from 4 to 15 February 2002 and then from 10 April to 10 May Rutaganda 2002, a total of 30 hearing days during which 24 Appeals Chamber: Judge Jorda, presiding and Judges Defence witnesses were heard, including the two Shahabuddeen, Pocar, Güney and Meron. Georges accused. In summary, the hearing of all evidence Rutaganda’s appeal against his conviction and sentence by from 43 witnesses was completed in 14 trial weeks. Trial Chamber I on 6 December 1999 was heard on 4 and 5 Closing arguments were heard by the Chamber on 21 July 2002. No date has yet been set for delivery of the final and 22 August 2002 and the case is now under judgment in this case. deliberatin.
“The Military Case”, (Bagosora, Kabiligi, Legal Records Training Ntabakuze, Nsengiyumva) (… continued from p. 3) Trial Chamber III, Judges Williams (presiding), The training was therefore required to be flexible to meet Dolenc and Vaz. This case against Colonel the needs of the Tribunal and the final course design took Théoneste Bagosora, formerly Director of the the form of a three-phased programme. The first week of Ministry of Defence and three other senior military training was delivered during face-to-face seminars and figures opened on 2 April. The three other accused workshops. It gave an overview of the principles governing are Gratien Kabiligi, a former brigadier in the recordkeeping theory, legal terminology, ju dicial systems, Rwandan army, Aloys Ntabakuze, commander of a ethics in recordkeeping, the concept of documentary Para -commando battalion and Lieutenant. Colonel evidence, the ‘records continuum’, as well as other related Anatole Nsengiyumv a. Hearings resumed on topics. The second phase will begin the week of 30th Monday 2 September with testimony by Dr. Alison September and will consist of on-line distance learning Des Forges. Her testimony continued until 26 with detailed activ ities to be completed in pre -arranged September (Trial Day 19). The case was adjourned groups. This second phase will be completed by the end of until 18 November 2002. November to be followed by a one week wrap-up session in early December 2002. Niyitegeka
Trial Chamber I, Judge Navanathem Pillay Since the first week of the training took place when all (presiding), Judge Eric Mose and Judge Andrésia three of the ICTR Trial Chambers were sitting, the judges Vaz. The Trial of Eliezer Niyitegeka, former and parties showed support for the programme by their Minister of Information in the interim Government of understanding that the normal range of CMS services was Rwanda in 1994, opened on 17 June 2002. It was not available during that busy period. However, the training adjourned on 26 June after six days of hearing due to was seen as vital to the Section’s continued commitment to difficulties encountered in bringing witnesses from improvement of its work. The work of CMS is becoming Rwanda. Hearings resumed on Tuesday 13 August increasingly technology based and it is essential to keep and continued until 29 August (17 trial days). Having abreast of new developments to assist the judicial process.
SUMMARY OF DETAINEES (Situation as at 30 September 2002)
Detainees on Trial 22 Awaiting Trial 31 Awaiting Transfer (Ruggiu) 1 Pending Appeal (Arusha) (Rutaganda) 1 Total Detainees in Arusha 55 Awaiting Transfer 0 Serving Sentences (Mali) 6 Total Detainees 61
For the full lis t and details of all ICTR Detainees, please consult our Website: www.ictr.org
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 9
Digest of ICTR Decisions, Judgements and Orders Chronique de decisions, judgements et ordonnances du TPIR The full texts of decisions summarized in this section are available on the Tribunal’s Website: www.ictr.org
Subject: Decision on Ntahobali's Motion to Rule 2. Circonstance aggravante : intention de faire obstacle au Inadmissible the Evidence of Witness TN, 1 July cours de la justice (Outrage au Tribunal, Article 77 du 2002 Règlement).
Case: Arsène Shalom Ntahobali et al. En cause: Case No.: ICTR-98-42-T Force obligatoire des ordonnances du Tribunal & régime Chamber: Trial Chamber II de protection des témoins (non-divulgation de leur Date of Decision: 1 July 2002 identité)
Relevant extracts: " the Chamber finds that the Contre request for suppression of the evidence given by Witness TN is not a timely objection.[..]The Liberté de la presse (la personne concernée est un Chamber considers that the challenge to both the journaliste de l'Agence de presse Diplomatie judiciaire, credibility of Witness TN and the probative value of site internet
La Chambre n’a pas entendu la personne mise en cause avant de rejeter unanimement ces allégations. L’on peut Subject: Décision (Requête non contradictoire du comprendre du paragraphe 10 (notamment eu égard à la Procureur portant violation d’ordonnances relatives à formule suivante : « Il … revient à ce stade [à la la protection d’un témoin à charge et outrage au Chambre] de considérer si le Procureur [lui] a donné des Tribunal). raisons de croire à la violation des ordonnances
concernées. ») qu’il eût d’abord fallu que le Procureur Case: Théoneste Bagosora et al. apporte un commencement de preuve laissant à penser Case No.: ICTR-98-41-T que les allégations pouvaient se révéler fondées (en Chamber: Chambre de première instance III d’autres termes, ceux de la Common law, la Chambre a Date of Decision: 5 juillet 2002 appliqué un prima facie standard of proof). Tel n’a pas été le cas, ce que la Chambre souligne encore en évoquant Fondement de la requête: certains autres points, comme suit.
1. Violation d'ordonnances portant non-divulgation du Autres arguments (§20), nom et des données permettant d'identifier un témoin figurant à la liste des témoins à charge du Procureur (a) le Procureur lui-même a divulgué les fonctions du (divulgation des fonctions du témoin en 1994); témoin en question « qui apparaissent très spécifiques », dans son mémoire préalable à l'instance ;
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 10
(b) « Il apparaît à la lecture de l’article que son signataire aurait contacté le témoin et que ce dernier aurait dit Case: Sylvain Nsabimana et al. ignorer que le Procureur entendait l’appeler à Case No.: ICTR-97-29-T comparaître. Ceci laisse à penser, d’une part que le Chamber: Trial Chamber II témoin savait qu’un article allait être publié à son sujet et Date of Decision: 23 August 2002 d’autre part que, s’il a jamais eu l’intention de témoigner à charge en l’espèce, il n’a pas semblé soucieux de garder The Decision was filed on 23 August 2002. The l’anonymat. » Chamber held that the Defence of Nsabimana had failed to demonstrate that the remaining items held Nota: by the Registry, which were seized upon the arrest of Le Procureur demandait à la Chambre de rendre sa the former Investigor for the Defence Nzabirinda, décision sous scellés. Cette requête a aussi été rejetée, contained information which - if disclosed to the puisque la décision a été rendue publiquement. Prosecutor - would violate the Chamber's orders on witness protection, and, therefore, all remaining items should be transferred to the Office of the Prosecutor. Subject: Decision on Kamuhanda’s Motion for Partial Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence Subject: Decision on Kamuhanda's motion for disclosure of witness statements and sanction of the Case: Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda Prosecutor Case No.: ICTR-99-54A-T Chamber: Trial Chamber II Case: Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda Date of Decision: 20 August 2002 Case No.: ICTR-99-54A-T Chamber: Trial Chamber II Trial Chamber II rendered a Decision in the case Date of Decision: 29 August 2002 against Kamuhanda granting a Judgement of Acquiital for the Count of Conpiracy to Commit Warning to the Prosecutor pursant to Rule 46 (A) of the Genocide, as requested by the Defence under Rule Rules: 98bis of the Rules. For this Count, as in other Counts in the Indictment against the Accused, the Trial "The Ch amber finds that, given the fact that the Chamber opined that the charge as framed should be Prosecution was on notice that those individuals were read together with the paragraphs in support of it, Defence witnesses, the Prosecution acted in violation of the which do mention some of the Accused co- Court’s Order pertaining to the contacting of Defence conspirators. Having considered the evidence witnesses. Moreover, the Chamber is not convinced by the adduced by the Prosecution, at the end of its case, the reasons advanced by the Prosecution to justify the contacts Chamber found that it was not sufficient, if believed, made. The Chamber affirms that the letter and the spirit of to enter a conviction against the Accused. Decision for Protective Measures for Defence Witnesses of 21 March 2001must be respected and decides, in terms of Regarding the Defence request, pursuant to Rule Rule 46(A) of the Rules, to warn the Prosecution to desist 98bis of the Rules to enter a Judgement of Acquittal from a conduct that violated a Court’s Order, which to the Count of Crimes Against Humanity (Rape), the conduct is contrary to the interests of justice.” Chamber denied the said Defence request. For this Count, both the Defence and the Prosecutor were in Proprio motu Order by the Chamber pursuant to Rule 66 agreement that there was evidence in support of the (B) to allow inspection by the Defence: said Count, but that the said evidence was hearsay. The Chamber opined that, at this stage of the The Chamber observes that the Prosecution admits proceedings, it would not determine the credibility possessing the said documents but indicates that those and relaibility of the hearsay evidence adduced in documents are not intended for use by the Prosecution as support of the said Count. The Chamber thus ruled evidence at trial insofar as the Prosecution’s case is closed. that since the evidence was admitted under Rule Nonetheless, the Chamber is of the opinio n that the 89(C) of the Rules, then it is sufficient to sustain the Defence has demonstrated that such documents could be Count. material to the preparation of its case as they relate to Defence witnesses whereas the Prosecution did not apply to the Chamber in accordance with Rule 66 (C) of the Subject: Decision on Nsabimana's Extremely Urgent Rules or Rule 70 (A) of the Rules to be relieved of its Motion for the Implementation of the Decision of 16 obligation pursuant to Rule 66(B) when the Chamber April 2002, in the presence of the former Investigator invited Counsel for the Prosecution to comment upon the with the Defence of Joseph Nzabirinda applicability of the said Rule to the instant case.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 11
Subject: Decision on Samuel Musabyimana’s Motion because of the Defence's alleged violation of a to Exclude Anonymous Prosecutorial Witness witness protection order to the effect that disclosure Statements and to Review the Decision on of identities of witnesses be made to them 21 days Confirmation of the Indictment prior to a witness' testimony. The Prosecution alleged that such disclosure was not made for the Case: Samuel Musabyimana witnesses scheduled to appear during the current Case No.: ICTR 2001 -62-T session. The Defence made objections to the Motion Chamber: Trial Chamber II for being misguided because in fact such a disclosure Date of Decision: 9 September 2002 was timely made in respect of at least 6 of their witnesses comprising the alibi witnesses. The The Decision in the case of Musabyimana denied Chamber, noting that the Prosecutor did not contest inter alia the Defence request for a review of the the Defence submission with regard to disclosure of Decision on the confirmation of the Indictment. In identities of at least 6 witnesses, thus found that the this Decision, the Chamber, agreeing with the alleged violation was not committed by the Defence. Prosecutor, was of the opinion that just because the Nevertheless, The Chamber urged the Defence to witnesses relied upon by the confirming Judge during ensure that disclosure of identities of subsequent the confirmation procedure bore pseudonyms in place Defence witnesses be made in a timely manner so as of their identities, it did not make them anonymous prevent the violation of the Chamber's orders. witnesses as the Defence alleges. The Chamber also found that, although the Prosecution did not disclose the supporting material accompanying the Indictment Subject: Decision on Sagahutu’s Preliminary, in a non-redacted form, it did not do so intentionally Provisional Release and Severance Motions as to warrant the suppression of the 21 witness statements forming part of the said supporting Case: Innocent Sagahutu et al. material Case No.: No. ICTR-00-56-T Chamber: Trial Chamber II Date of Decision: 25 September 2002 Subject: Decision on the Defence's motion on prosecutorial misconduct and on the Prosecutor's Extracts: counterclaim On Rule 72 (A) of the Rules in French: Case: Elizaphan & Gerard Ntakirutimana Case No.: ICTR-96-10-T and ICTR-96-17-T The Chamber acknowledges that the French version Chamber: Trial Chamber I of Rule 72(A) states that Preliminary Motions must Date of Decision: 12 September 2002 be brought within 30 days of the Prosecutor’s disclosure of supporting material under Rule 66(A)(i) Whereas a prosecutor's making of baseless criminal “et en tout cas avant l’audience au fond” (“and in any allegations against a witness in cross-examination case before the hearing on the merits”), and that the constitutes sanctionable misconduct, and whereas no English version of the Rules, as amended on 21 basis was demonstrated in this case, the Chamber February 2000, and not 31 May 2001, deleted this took into account the brevity of the exchange and phrase. Nonetheless, the Chamber agrees with the nonchalance of the witness as well as the Prosecutor's Prosecutor that a plain reading of the provision in assurances that the allegations were made in good French indicates that the 30-day time limit is the faith based on confidential intelligence reports whose ultimate deadline to bring Preliminary Motions so accuracy he believed in at the time; motion and that, should the hearing on the merits begin prior to countermotion dismissed. the expiration of the 30-day time limit, Preliminary Motions must be brought prior to the commencement of the hearing on the merits, i.e., within a period Subject: Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion to shorter than 30 days. Strike Out Defence Witnesses On the Indictment: Case: Juvénal Kajelijeli Case No.: ICTR-98-44A-T ORDERS the Prosecutor to delete the words “By the Chamber: Trial Chamber II acts or omissions described in paragraphs 5.1 to 6.74 Date of Decision: 13 September 2002 and more specifically in the paragraphs referred to below" from each count and to mention in each count Trial Chamber II has recently issued a Decision only the specific paragraphs of the Indictment which denying the Prosecutor's request to strike out the directly concern the allegations against the Accused, testimony of Defence witnesses to be called during throughout the Indictment and for all accused. the current trial session in the case against Kajelijeli. In her Motion, the Prosecutor makes the said request INSTRUCTS the Prosecution to verify the official position occupied by Sagahutu in the Rwandan Army
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 12
Reconnaissance Battalion at the time of the events The Defence requested that a Prosecution non- and to amend the information provided in Paragraphs protected witness be barred from giving testimony 1.16 and 1.17 of the Indictment, if necessary. due to the Prosecutor's failure to comply with her disclosure obligation under Rule 66(A)(ii). The ORDERS the Prosecutor to amend Count 1 so as to Defence also requested a delay for the testimony of complete the phrase “conspired with others” and to two protected witnesses due to the late or non- precisely indicate some of the names of the people disclosure of identifying data of the witnesses in with whom Sagahutu and the other Accused are regard to previous Chamber's decisions on witness alleged to have conspired to commit Genocide. protection. The Prosecutor opposed the Defence Motion. On the request for severance of the trial: With respect to the non -protected witness, the The Chamber notes that the identities of two co- Pros ecutor elaborated about the rationale underlying accused were not disclosed pursuant to Rule 53 of the 66 (A)(ii) to end up suggesting that the spirit of that Rules and the standing order for non-disclosure when Rule had been complied with. The Chamber rejected the Motion was heard. The Chamber does not find the Prosecutor's proposal and held that when a Rule is that the absence of co-accused is prejudicial to clear enough to be understood as it stands, it has to Sagahutu at this stage in the proceedings. However, complied with straight away without any need to visit the Chamber will remain apprised of the situation and the rationale behind it. The Chamber censured the will again consider the request for severance of trial Prosecutor for its failure to abide by the Rules. when a trial date has been established. However, the Chamber did not bar the witness from giving testimony as requested by the Defence. The Chamber considered that giving the defence Subject: Reasons for Oral Decision of 17 September sufficient time to prepare would be a sufficient 2002 on the Motions for Acquittal remedy.
Case: Nahimana, Barayagwiza, Ngeze As for the late disclosure of identifying data of Case No.: ICTR-99-52-T protected witnesses, one of the Defence requests was Chamber: Trial Chamber I declared moot because of the rescheduling of the Date of Decision: 25 September 2002 testimony which will now give the defence sufficient time to prepare. The second defence request in this Seized of three 98 bis motions for full acquittal and respect involved the interpretation of a previous the Prosecutor's response moving to have one count Chamber's decision allowing the Prosecutor to against Mr Nahimana and three counts against Mr withhold from disclosure forever, the current Barayagwiza withdrawn, the Chamber acquitted on whereabouts and personal particulars of the witness. those four counts but found that for each remaining The Prosecutor relied on this holding of the Chamber count in the three indictments there was evidence to justify her refusal to disclose the witness's identity. which, if believed, could lead a reasonable Trial The Defence relied on another paragraph of the Chamber to convict. decision denying the Prosecutor's request to shorten the time period within which the anonimity of the witness should be unveiled. Subject: Decis ion on the Defence for Bagosora’s Motion for Postponement or Quashing of the The Chamber, in interpreting its previous decision, Testimonies of Witnesses Ruggiu, XAM and ZF held that only the current whereabouts and personal particulars were to be withheld forever; hence the Case: Bagosora, Kabiligi, Ntabakuze, Defence right to know the former identity of the Nsengiyumva witness. Case No.: ICTR-98-41-T Chamber: Trial Chamber III Date of Decision: 30 September 2002
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 13
JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF ICTR ADOPTED BETWEEN 1 AUGUST 2002 AND 30 SEPTEMBER 2002 DECISIONS JUDICIAIRES DU TPIR ADOPTEES ENTREE 1 AOÛT 2002 ET 30 SEPTEMBRE 2002
Date Case Name Record Number Record Title 14/8/02 Mpambara ICTR-01-65-0045 Order for the Extension of Time Limits Pursuant to Rules 54 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence 14/8/02 Rusatira ICTR-02-80-0019 Decision on the Prosecutor's Ex Parte Application Motion for Leave to withdraw the Indictment 14/8/02 Niyitegeka ICTR-96-14-0233 Decision (Requête de la défense aux fins de mésures de protection des témoins a décharge) 16/8/02 Kajelijeli ICTR-98-44a-0141 Requête en extreme urgence de la défense de Monsieur Juvénal Kajelijeli en vue de l’obtention de la Chambre II du Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda l’autorisation de faire citer Monsieur Joseph Nzirorera detenu au quartier 19/8/02 Joseph Nzabirinda ICTR-01-77-0029 Decision of withdrawal of Mr.Bernard Charest as Lead Counsel of Joseph Nzabirinda 20/8/02 Kamuhanda ICTR-99-54-0184 Decision on Kamuhanda's Motion for Partial Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence 20/8/02 Kamuhanda ICTR-99-54-0185 Decision on the Extremely Urgent Motion to Summo n a Witness Pursuant to Rule 54 23/8/02 Sylvain Nsabimana ICTR-97-29-0296 Decision on Nsabimana's Extremely Urgent Motion for Implementation of the Decision of 16 April 2002 in the Presence of the former Investigator with the Defence Joseph Nzabirinda 27/8/02 Bagosora - Kabiligi - ICTR-98-41-0505 Décision de retrait de la Commission d'office de Me Nsengiyumva - Ntabakuze Clemente Monterosso, conseil principal de l’accusé Aloys Ntabakuze 28/8/02 Bagosora - Kabiligi - ICTR-98-41-0464 Decision of withdrawal of Mr. Clemente Monterosso Ntabakuze - Nsengiyumva as Lead Counsel of the accused aloys Ntabakuze 29/8/02 Kamuhanda, Jean de Dieu ICTR-99-54-0186 Decision on Kamuhanda's Motion for Disclosure of Witness Statements and Sanction of the Prosecutor 2/9/02 Hormisdas Nsengimana ICTR-01-69-0026 Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion for Protective Measures for Witnesses 3/9/02 Niyitegeka ICTR-96-14-0238/1 Decision on the Prosecutor's Notice of Intention to withdraw Motion 3/9/02 Niyitegeka ICTR-96-14-0238/2 Decision on the Prosecutor's Notice of Intention to withdraw Motion 3/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1003/1 Decision on the Defence's Motion for Provisional Ngeze Release of Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza 3/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1027/1 Decision sur la requête de la défense aux Fins de la Ngeze mise en liberté provisoire de Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza 3/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1027/2 Decision sur la requête de la défense aux fins de la Ngeze mise en liberte provisoire de Jean -Bosco Barayagwiza 4/9/02 Niyitegeka ICTR-96-14-0239/1 Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion for Judicial Notice of Facts 4/9/02 Niyitegeka ICTR-96-14-0239/2 Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion for Judicial Notice of Facts 4/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1003/2 Decision on the Defence's Motion for Provisional Ngeze Release of Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza 5/9/02 Bizimungu C. - Mugenzi - ICTR-99-50-0468 Decision on Bizimungu's Motion for Protective Bicamumpaka Measures for Witnesses 5/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1004/1 Decision on the Defence Motion for the Release Or Ngeze alternatively Provisional Release of Ferdinand Nahimana
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 14
Date Case Name Record Number Record Title 6/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1004/2 Decision on the Defence Motion for the Release or Ngeze alternatively Provisional Release of Ferdinand Nahimana 9/9/02 Musabyimana, Samuel ICTR-01-62-0070 Decision on Samuel Musabyimana's Motion to Exclude anonymous Prosecutorial Witness Statements and to Review the Decision on Confirmation of the Indictment 12/9/02 Elizaphan & Ntakirutimana ICTR-96-10-0504/1 Decision on the Defence's Motion on Prosecutorial Misconduct and on the Prosecutor's Counterclaim 12/9/02 Elizaphan & Ntakirutimana ICTR-96-10-0504/2 Decision on the Defence's Motion on Pr osecutorial Misconduct and on the Prosecutor's Counterclaim 13/9/02 Kajelijeli, Juvenal ICTR-98-44a-0151 Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion to Strike Out Defence Witnesses 13/9/02 Kajelijeli, Juvenal ICTR-98-44a-0152 Decision on Kajelijeli's Motion for Partial acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis 16/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1021/1 Decision on the Ngeze Defence's Motion to Strike the Ngeze Testimony of Witness FS 16/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1021/2 Decision on the Ngeze Defence's Motion to Strike the Ngeze Testimony of Witness FS 19/9/02 Kajelijeli, Juvenal ICTR-98-44a-0156 Decision on Kajelijeli's Motion to Summon Joseph Nzirorera a Detainee at UNDF as a Witness 23/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1029/1 Decision on Hassan Ngeze's Urgent Motion for Orders Ngeze for Protective Measures for Defence Witnesses and Co-Operation and Judicial assistance from States 23/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1029/2 Decision on Hassan Ngeze's Urgent Motion for Orders Ngeze for Protective Measures for Defence Witnesses and Co-Operation and Judicial assistance from States 24/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1031/1 Request for Cooperation By the Government of the Ngeze Republic of Rwanda Pursuant to Article 28 of the Statute 24/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1031/2 Request for Cooperation By the Government of the Ngeze Republic of Rwanda Pursuant to Article 28 of the Statute 25/9/02 Bizimungu, Augustin - ICTR-00-56-0141 Decision on Sagahutu's Preliminary Provisional Ndindiliyimana - Sagahutu - Release and Severance Motions Nzuwonemeye - Mpiranya 25/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1032/1 Reasons for Oral Decision of 17 September 2002 on Ngeze the Motions for Acquittal 25/9/02 Nahimana - Barayagwiza - ICTR-99-52-1032/2 Reasons for Oral Decision of 17 September 2002 on Ngeze the Motions for Acquittal 30/9/02 Bagosora - Kabiligi - ICTR-98-41-0532 Decision on the Defence for Bagosora's Motion for Ntabakuze - Nsengiyumva Postponement or Quas hing of the Testimonies of Witnesses Ruggiu, XAM and ZF
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/ Vol. 7, October 2002 ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Page 15
ICTR BULLETIN DU TPIR Published by ICTR Press and Public Affairs Unit
Reproduction of all or parts of th is bulletin is authorized CONTRIBUTORS provided that the source is acknowledged.
The “ICTR Bulletin du TPIR” is compiled and edited by The Editors are grateful for contributions to this the Press and Public Affairs Unit of the Tribunal for issue from: general public information purposes. It is not an official document and contributions have no legal status or Tom Adami, Laurel Baig, Tom Kennedy, Alice effect. Any opinions expressed are not attributable to Leroy, Sia Mawalla, Danford Mpumilwa, the Tribunal, its judges, the Prosecutor or the Registry. Straton Musonera, Mandiaye Niang, William ISSN: 1020 -9441 Romans, Bocar Sy, Stephane Wohlfart, Editor: Tom Kennedy Alexander Zahar Layout: Rani Dogra Contact: [email protected] Website: www.ictr.org Contributions for consideration for inclusion in PO Box: 6016, Arusha, Tanzania the next issue should be submitted in word Telephone: +1 (212) 963 2848 or format to: [email protected] marked FAO Rani +255 (27) 250 4367-72 Dogra no later than noon on Friday 15 Fax: +1 (212) 963 2848 or +255 (27) 250 4000/250 4373 November 2002.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/68004d/