Kanyarukiga - JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE - Refworld

Judgement and Sentence 1 November 2010
(i) Conclusion
253. For the foregoing reasons, the Chamber finds that the only pieces of evidence for which
sufficient notice was provided are Witness CBY’s testimony regarding a meeting at the Nyange
Parish on 10 April 1994 and the testimony of Witnesses CBN and CBS about a meeting “upstairs”
or on the balcony of the presbytery on 14 April 1994. The Chamber therefore has disregarded all
other evidence of meetings prior to 15 April 1994.
On the Merits
254. The Trial Chamber shall now consider the merits of the Prosecution evidence regarding the
alleged meeting at the Nyange Parish Presbytery on 10 April 1994 and the alleged meeting on the
presbytery balcony on 14 April 1994.
(a) Meeting at Nyange Parish Presbytery “on or about 10 April 1994”
255. Paragraph 11 of the Amended Indictment alleges that, on or about 10 April 1994, the
Accused attended a meeting at the Nyange Parish Presbytery, at which the state of insecurity and
killings were discussed. The Prosecution relies on the evidence of Witness CBY to support this
allegation. 604 The Defence responds that there is nothing in the Prosecution evidence of meetings
between 6 and 11 April 1994 that indicates or proves any criminal activity on the part of the
Accused. 605
256. Prosecution Witness CBY testified that, on 10 April 1994, Kayishema, Ndungutse,
Ndahimana and Kanyarukiga came to the Nyange Parish and met with Father Seromba in the inner
courtyard of the presbytery for approximately 40 minutes. 606 The witness did not say when the
meeting occurred or provide any evidence regarding its alleged content. Nor is there any evidence
that, during this meeting, Father Seromba blamed the “inkotanyi” for the death of the President as
alleged in the Amended Indictment. Defence Witness KG15, who testified that he arrived at the
Nyange Parish around 11.00 a.m. on 10 April 1994, did not mention a meeting at the presbytery on
that day. 607
257. As discussed further below, the Chamber has found that Witness CBY is generally credible
but has trouble recalling dates. 608 With respect to this particular event, however, the Chamber finds
that, without corroboration, it cannot rely on Witness CBY’s testimony to establish that
Kanyarukiga attended a meeting in the presbytery of the Nyange Parish on 10 April 1994. The
Chamber notes that Witness CBY did not mention any meetings at the Nyange Parish in his
statement to ICTR investigators on 2 February 1996. 609 Rather, he told investigators that
Bourgmestre Ndahimana was the only “authority” he saw at the parish prior to the attacks. 610 When
asked about this omission at trial, the witness insisted that he had reported these meetings to ICTR
investigators. 611 The Chamber does not find this explanation persuasive. Furthermore, while
604 The Chamber recalls that a finding of fact may be based on the evidence of a single witness where the Chamber
finds that the evidence is relevant and credible. Karera, Judgement (AC), para. 45; Musema, Judgement (AC), paras.
37-38.
605 Defence Final Brief, para. 121.
606 T. 8 September 2009, p. 35.
607 T 11 February 2010, pp. 7-8 (CS). Compare T 11 February 2010, pp. 11-20 (CS).
608 See paragraph 498.
609 Defence Exhibit D33(B) (Statement of Witness CBY, dated 2 February 1996). See also Prosecution Exhibit D33(A)
(Statement of Witness CBY in Kinyarwanda).
610 Defence Exhibit D33(B) (Statement of Witness CBY, dated 2 February 1996), p. 3; T. 14 September 2009, p. 13.
611 T. 14 September 2009, p. 13.
The Prosecutor v. Gaspard Kanyarukiga, Case No. ICTR-2002-78-T 59