Human Rights Brief Volume 21 | Issue 1 Article 11 2014 Judgment Summaries: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 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- genocide 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 Rwandan genocide, 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 Interahamwe 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 incitement to genocide, 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.