Kanyarukiga - JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE - Refworld
Kanyarukiga - JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE - Refworld
Kanyarukiga - JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE - Refworld
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Judgement and Sentence 1 November 2010<br />
26 April 2001, which dealt specifically with the Accused. 1695 Finally, while the witness referred to<br />
this event in his 2002 statement, he did not attribute any specific comments to the Accused. 1696<br />
610. For these reasons, the Chamber finds that it has not been established that <strong>Kanyarukiga</strong> was<br />
present during the demolition of the bell tower or that he asked Father Seromba if certain Tutsi<br />
intellectuals had taken refuge in the church.<br />
611. Finally, Prosecution Witness CBK testified that, after the church was demolished, Father<br />
Seromba, Kayishema, Ndahimana, <strong>Kanyarukiga</strong> and others met in the presbytery, where they<br />
celebrated by drinking beer and wine. 1697 Again, the Chamber has treated Witness CBK’s testimony<br />
with extreme caution due to its concerns about the witness’s overall credibility, including his<br />
tendency to exaggerate. With respect to this particular incident, the Chamber also finds that there<br />
are a number of inconsistencies between Witness CBK’s prior statements and his testimony at trial.<br />
The witness did not mention any celebrations at the parish presbytery in either his 15 August 2000<br />
or his 26 April 2001 statement. 1698 Further, while Witness CBK said in his 2002 statement that<br />
Father Seromba drank beer, wine and other alcoholic beverages after the Nyange Church was<br />
demolished, he did not mention the presence of the Accused during these celebrations. 1699 Thus, the<br />
Chamber finds that the Prosecution has failed to establish that <strong>Kanyarukiga</strong> and others celebrated<br />
by drinking beer and wine at the presbytery after the church was demolished.<br />
6.4. Conclusion<br />
612. In conclusion, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution has failed to establish beyond<br />
reasonable doubt the allegation in paragraph 16 of the Indictment that, on the morning of<br />
16 April 1994, Gaspard <strong>Kanyarukiga</strong>, Fulgence Kayishema, Télesphore Ndungutse, Judge<br />
Habiyambere, Francois Gashugu, Védaste Mupende, Grégoire Ndahimana and others held a<br />
meeting at the CODEKOKI, at which they mutually agreed and planned to kill all the Tutsi in the<br />
church by destroying it.<br />
613. The Chamber finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that on the morning of 16 April<br />
1994, Gaspard <strong>Kanyarukiga</strong>, Fulgence Kayishema, Télesphore Ndungutse, Judge Habiyambere and<br />
Grégoire Ndahimana and others met Father Athanase Seromba at the Nyange Parish and discussed<br />
demolishing the church. Furthermore, the Prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that<br />
following this meeting, <strong>Kanyarukiga</strong> suggested that another church would be built. The<br />
Prosecution, however, has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that during the meeting, the<br />
attendees “informed [Father Seromba] of their decision to demolish the church in order to kill all<br />
the Tutsi refugees,” as alleged in paragraph 17 of the Indictment. The Prosecution has also failed to<br />
establish that Védaste Mupende or Francois Gashugu attended this meeting.<br />
614. Finally, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that on<br />
16 April 1994, the Nyange Church was destroyed using a bulldozer, killing about 2000 Tutsi<br />
1695 Defence Exhibit D15(A) (Statement of Witness CBK dated 26 April 2001). Witness CBK said that he saw<br />
<strong>Kanyarukiga</strong> twice in April 1994 and that the last time was on the evening of 15 April 1994. When asked about this<br />
statement at trial, Witness CBK denied saying that he saw <strong>Kanyarukiga</strong> only twice. According to the witness, “[i]f the<br />
statements only mentioned two occasions, then that is not the truth.” The witness insisted that he saw <strong>Kanyarukiga</strong><br />
several times and that “the investigators did not take down my statement well by saying that I had seen him only twice.”<br />
T. 4 September 2009, p. 22 (CS). The Chamber does not accept this explanation for the inconsistency between the<br />
witness’s testimony and his prior statement.<br />
1696 Defence Exhibit D14(A) (Statement of Witness CBK dated 24 October and 19 & 20 November 2002), pp. 8-9.<br />
1697 T. 3 September 2009, p. 29. See also Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, para. 189.<br />
1698 Defence Exhibit D15(A) (Statement of Witness CBK dated 26 April 2001); Defence Exhibit D16(A) (Statement of<br />
Witness CBK dated 15 August 2000).<br />
1699 Defence Exhibit D14(A) (Statement of Witness CBK dated 24 October and 19 & 20 November 2002), p. 10.<br />
The Prosecutor v. Gaspard <strong>Kanyarukiga</strong>, Case No. ICTR-2002-78-T 149