Kanyarukiga - JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE - Refworld

Judgement and Sentence 1 November 2010
KG15’s testimony was evasive, internally inconsistent and inconsistent with his testimony during
the Seromba trial. 623 The Chamber recalls, for example, that Witness KG15 testified in this case that
it would have been impossible for people to enter the presbytery without his knowledge, 624 whereas
he admitted that, he said largely the opposite during the Seromba trial. 625 Further, while Witness
KG15 suggested in this case that he was present during every conversation that Father Seromba had
with visitors to the presbytery, he said during the Seromba trial that he was “not an umbilical cord
and [that he] could not be with Seromba at all times”. 626 In light of these irregularities, the Chamber
finds that Witness KG15’s testimony does not cast doubt on the Prosecution evidence.
263. The Chamber has also considered the Defence submission that Witnesses CBN and CBS
could not have seen a meeting on the presbytery balcony from the courtyard in front of the church,
where both witnesses said they were standing. 627 The Chamber is aware that, from the courtyard
where Witnesses CBN and CBS said they were standing, the view of the presbytery balcony is
largely obstructed by the secretariat. 628 The Chamber has no further evidence before it as to how
these witnesses could see the balcony from where they were standing. Thus, while the Chamber is
satisfied that Witnesses CBN and CBS provided a truthful narration of the events as they remember
them, it is reticent to make a finding beyond reasonable doubt that these men specifically met
Father Seromba on the presbytery balcony. 629
264. As discussed further in paragraphs 456 to 458, the Chamber has found that Witnesses CBN
and CBS are both generally credible and reliable. The witnesses identified Kanyarukiga in court,
and Witness CBS testified that he owned property near the Accused’s and lived near a member of
Kanyarukiga’s family in Kivumu commune. 630 Accordingly, the Chamber accepts that Witnesses
CBN and CBS could recognise the Accused on 14 April 1994 and saw Kanyarukiga and others
arrive at the presbytery around 1.00 p.m. on that day and/or depart from there. Furthermore,
notwithstanding certain minor inconsistencies between their accounts of the persons who visited the
parish on 14 April 1994, the Chamber is satisfied that at least Kanyarukiga, Kayishema, Ndahimana
623 In addition to the inconsistencies mentioned below, the Chamber notes that Witness KG15 testified in this trial that
he was stopped at a roadblock near the Nyange Parish on 10 April 1994 and that his identity card was checked. T. 11
February 2010, pp. 7-8, 38-40 (CS). However, in the Seromba trial, Witness KG15 denied that his identity card was
checked at the roadblock. T. 11 February 2010, pp. 40, 42 (CS), citing Prosecutor v. Seromba, Case No. ICTR-01-66-I,
T. 20 April 2006, p. 68 (CS).
624 T. 11 February 2010, pp. 33, 34 (CS).
625 T. 11 February 2010, p. 34 (CS), citing Prosecutor v. Seromba, Case No. ICTR-2001-66-I, T. 21 April 2006, p. 24
(CS). When asked about this discrepancy at trial, the witness said he would not have known if someone arrived at the
presbytery after midnight or came to the door of the presbytery without coming inside. T. 11 February 2010, p. 34 (CS).
626 T. 11 February 2010, p. 31 (CS).
627 Defence Final Brief, paras. 183, 186-187. Witness CBN, T. 1 September 2009, p. 57; Witness CBS, T. 16 September
2009, pp. 51, 53, 61; T. 17 September 2009, p. 10.
628 Registry Exhibit R1 (DVD Site Visit Day, 1, 2, & 3), at Day 2, 30:45-32:00, 54:00-54:19; Registry Exhibit R3(II)
(T. 20 April 2010, pp. 19-21, 33-34 (CS)); Prosecution Exhibit P19 (Photograph K027-1665 Secretariat Building);
Prosecution Exhibit P20 (Photograph K027-1715 Secretariat Building 2); Prosecution Exhibit P62 (Colour Photocopy
of Photo K027-1715 the Secreteriat as marked by Witness CBS); Prosecution Exhibit P36 (Colour Photocopy of Photo
K027-1715 as marked by Witness CBK). The Chamber notes that, when asked to indicate the presbytery on this
photograph, Witness CBK remarked that, “[t]he presbytery is not quite visible on this photograph.” T. 3 September
2009, p. 15. Accord Registry Exhibit R3(II) (T. 20 April 2010, pp. 25-30 (CS)) (discussing whether the front of the
church could be seen by someone on the balcony of the presbytery).
629 Given the events in question were extremely traumatic and occurred almost 16 years prior to the witnesses’
testimony, the Chamber acknowledges that Witnesses CBN and CBS’s recollection of the events is likely to be
imperfect. The Chamber does not believe, however, that the irregularities in their testimony are a product of deliberate
fabrication.
630 Witness CBN, T. 1 September 2009, pp. 65-66; Witness CBS, T. 16 September 2009, p. 58; T. 16 September 2009,
pp. 65, 66 (CS). Witness CBN estimated that he had seen Kanyarukiga three times prior to April 1994. T. 1 September
2009, p. 65.
The Prosecutor v. Gaspard Kanyarukiga, Case No. ICTR-2002-78-T 61