Hategekimana - JUDGEMENT & SENTENCE - Refworld

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T 541. The Chamber observes that Father Rudahunga not only referred to the presence of armed civilians and soldiers but also described their acts during the massacre. The Chamber is satisfied that Mpakaniye informed Father Rudahunga that Hategekimana had ordered him to kill the refugees. The Chamber finds that, after Hategekimana’s departure, the massacre started immediately. It was led and supervised by the same Mpakaniye who had, on orders from Hategekimana, led the search for Father Masinzo. He assembled the refugees in groups of five, forced them from the church and delivered them to the armed civilians who had accompanied the Accused to Ngoma Parish. 542. Although the parties do not agree on the identities of the attackers, the Chamber notes that the manner in which the 30 April massacre was carried out does not seem to be disputed by the parties. Indeed, the testimonies of Father Rudahunga and of Defence Witnesses ZML, BYQ and MZA corroborate the fact that the attackers led the Tutsi refugees from the church in small groups, took them to the fields adjoining the parish and killed them with traditional weapons. 1029 543. Witness BYQ also testified that Ngoma Camp soldiers were involved in the 30 April attack on Ngoma Parish. BYQ did not participate in the attack and did not provide a first hand account. However, while working in the Ngoma Camp canteen, he heard soldiers talk about the crimes they had committed, on their return from the parish. The date of his conversation at the canteen with the soldiers who perpetrated the massacre coincides with the date of the massacre perpetrated at the parish. He heard them boasting about their exploits. He was an eyewitness to the looted property. He personally saw Rutarihubwoba return with a motorcycle and other soldiers with watches taken from the victims of the massacre. Witness BYQ specifically identified the soldiers who admitted participating in the Ngoma Parish massacre as Corporals Rutarihubwoba, Rugumire, Rutareka and Butera as well as soldiers Pacifique Niyozima, Gaspard Harerimana, Mahoro and Bitorwa. 544. While Witness BYQ was not an eyewitness to the massacre, he provided a credible and consistent testimony that Ngoma Camp soldiers, - some of whom were his subordinates – were involved in the Ngoma Parish attack. 545. The Chamber, however, notes that Witness BYQ was convicted by the Gacaca courts although he was acquitted in February 2007. The Chamber holds that this incident does not affect his testimony, which it found credible. 546. Defence Witness BYR provided a corroborative account that both soldiers and civilians were involved in the Ngoma Parish massacre. Like Witness BYQ, he named Pacifique Niyozima as one of the participating Ngoma Camp soldiers. He also stated that Fabien Niyonteze, Gatwaza, Pacifique Niyonzema and Chinani Nsambimana participated in the attack. 547. The Chamber notes that Witness BYR did not indicate the source of his information. Furthermore, he is currently detained in Rwanda for distributing weapons, erecting roadblocks and participating in the attack on Ngoma Parish. Witness BYR is still in prison awaiting trial. He is a potential accomplice of the Accused, and the Chamber will assess his testimony with caution. The Chamber will therefore assess his statement with the necessary caution. While Witness BYR did not 1029 According to Father Rudahunga, a survivor reported that the soldiers handed over the refugees to armed civilians. Witness BYQ testified that he heard soldiers from Ngoma Camp say that they had tricked the refugees into leaving the church one by one, and that the Interahamwe subsequently killed them with traditional weapons. Witness MZA testified that the refugees were killed outside the church by civilians and Interahamwe. According to Witness ZML, Jacques Gatera had promised Father Rudahunga that he would take the refugees to the Préfecture office, where they would be secure. The refugees were, however, killed by the civilians and Interahamwe with traditional weapons. Judgement and Sentence 132 of 201 6 December 2010
The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T directly implicate Hategekimana in the attack on the parish, he stated that, as commander of Ngoma Camp, the Accused should have known about the acts perpetrated by the soldiers from his camp. The Chamber finds Witness BYR’s testimony to be sincere and credible. 548. The testimonies of Father Rudahunga, BYQ and BYR are corroborated by Laurien Ntezimana’s account. Ntezimana also testified that he saw both civilians and soldiers when he visited the parish, following the massacre, to find his two friends, Father Masinzo and Innocent Samusoni. 549. On the basis of his background, the Chamber finds that Laurien Ntezimana, a Hutu, is a neutral witness who is above suspicion. He tried to save the refugees at the Matyazo Health Centre by helping Father Masinzo to find them a safe haven. He provided the refugees with food and also hid Tutsis in his home. 1030 550. The Defence denies any involvement by soldiers from Ngoma Camp and by Hategekimana in the attack on the Ngoma Parish without, however, contesting the participation of armed civilians and Interahamwe. Defence Witnesses ZML and MZA, who both acknowledged having witnessed the attack, claimed that no soldiers were involved. Witness ZML contended that the soldiers from Ngoma camp could not fight because they were all handicapped. The Chamber has already determined that there were many able-bodied soldiers at Ngoma Camp and accordingly discounts this assertion. 551. Witness ZML acknowledged having attended a meeting in preparation for the massacre of refugees at Ngoma Parish. In his detailed account to the Chamber, he maintained that the attacks had been perpetrated solely by civilians from Ngoma, Matyazo, Huye and Mpare, as well as by Robert Kajuga’s Interahamwe led by Jacques Habimana. He named other Interahamwe, such as Édouard Murekezi, Mbilizi Rubeni and Marc. The Chamber does not believe his argument that he was forced to participate in the Ngoma Parish attack out of fear of being branded an enemy. 552. Witness ZML was a self-acknowledged accomplice in the Ngoma Parish massacre. In addition to his role in the massacre, his testimony raised other questions as to his credibility. For example, he denied awareness that his brother was charged with genocide and died in prison. 1031 He was evasive when questioned about seeing or hearing about the involvement of Ngoma Camp soldiers in the killing of Jean-Bosco Rugomboka. 1032 He said that he did not notice any dead bodies in the area between April and July 1994. 1033 For all these reasons, the Chamber views Witness ZML’s testimony with caution and does not find his testimony sufficiently credible to cast doubt on the Prosecution’s evidence as to the involvement of soldiers in the 30 April 1994 attack on Ngoma Parish. Moreover, the Chamber observes that his testimony is not corroborated by any other reliable testimony. 553. Defence Witness MZA, while corroborating the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses in nearly all respects, stated that no soldiers participated in the Ngoma Parish attack. He testified that he heard about the failed attack of 29 April on the parish, led by Jacques Habimana, from Laurien Ntezimana. However, Laurien Ntezimana, who testified before the Chamber, did not refer to the attack of 29 April and did not witness the attack of 30 April. Rather, Ntezimana arrived at the parish only after the attack, although in time to see several of the assailants. Contrary to Witness MZA’s 1030 His sister is a national heroine who chose to die with her Tutsi sisters. 1031 T. 22 June 2009 p. 48. 1032 T. 22 June 2009 p. 45 et seq. 1033 T. 22 June 2009 p. 47. Judgement and Sentence 133 of 201 6 December 2010
Page 1 and 2:
International Criminal Tribunal for
Page 3 and 4:
The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
1.1.2 General Challenges to the Ind
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Prosecution Witness Laurien Ntezima
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 123 and 124: Prosecution Witness Laurien Ntezima
Page 131: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 181 and 182: DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MASANCH
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
ANNEX B: CITED MATERIALS AND DEFINE
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
DEFINED TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CDR
Page 201:
show all

Hategekimana - JUDGEMENT & SENTENCE - Refworld

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?