Hategekimana - JUDGEMENT & SENTENCE - Refworld

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T the various sites, the Chamber finds that in April 1994 there was a widespread attack against the civilian Tutsi population in Ngoma Commune on ethnic grounds. 1295 706. The Chamber finds that Hategekimana and the other participants in the joint criminal enterprise must have been aware, during the events of April 1994, that their actions formed part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Tutsi civilian population. Hategekimana was familiar with the situation in Rwanda nationally; due to his position as the commander of a military camp, he must have received regular intelligence reports about the situation not only in the Butare Préfecture but around the country. In addition, he was a member of the Butare Préfectoral Security Council and must have attended meetings together with other participants in the joint criminal enterprise. The assailants who physically perpetrated the killings also must have been aware of the broader context, particularly given the scale of the atrocities. 707. The evidence supports the conclusion that there were widespread and systematic attacks against the Tutsi population in Ngoma Commune, Butare Préfecture, in April and May of 1994. The Chamber has considered the totality of the evidence, in particular concerning the ethnic and political affiliations of the individuals who were targeted and killed during the events in this case. Not only were Tutsis singled out, but Hutus perceived to be sympathetic to the Tutsi cause, or opposed to the MRND régime, were also targeted. The Chamber is convinced that there was a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population on ethnic and political grounds. Given the specific nature of the killings, as well as Hategekimana’s rank and position in the military, the Chamber finds that he and the co-perpetrators in the joint criminal enterprise knew that their actions formed part of this widespread and systematic attack. 4.2.1 Murder of Jean Bosco Rugomboka on 8-9 April 1994 Deliberation 708. Paragraph 35 of the Indictment charges Hategekimana with individual criminal responsibility, under Article 6(1) of the Statute, for murder as a crime against humanity. Paragraph 39 of the Indictment also charges Hategekimana with superior responsibility for the same crime, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute. 709. In its Factual Findings, the Chamber determined Hategekimana to be criminally responsible for ordering the murder of Jean Bosco Rugomboka, which was committed by Ngoma Camp soldiers on 8-9 April 1994. The Chamber has already discounted the possibility that Rugomboka was specifically targeted on ethnic grounds, insofar as other Tutsis, including the victim’s close relatives who were present during his abduction, were spared. 710. The evidence in this case supports the conclusion that in the immediate aftermath of President Habyarimana’s death, political opponents of the MRND régime were targeted and that there was a systematic attack against the civilian population on political grounds. Hategekimana must have known that opponents of the régime were being targeted throughout Rwanda, including in various parts of the Butare Préfecture. 711. On the night of 8-9 April 1994, Hategekimana and soldiers under his command forced their entry into Rugomboka’s home and demanded to see the residents’ identity documents. Other 1295 See The Prosecutor v. Karemera et al., Decision on Prosecutor’s Interlocutory Appeal of Decision on Judicial Notice (AC), 16 June 2006, para. 25; Semanza Appeal Judgement, para. 192. Judgement and Sentence 170 of 201 6 December 2010
The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T assailants remained outside the home. While searching the premises for weapons or other objects indicating the residents’ affiliation with the Rwandan Patriotic Front, the soldiers found a T-shirt bearing the image of a political martyr named Rwigema. Evidence of Hategekimana’s orders to and supervision of the soldiers, as well as evidence of the soldiers’ forcing of Jean Bosco Rugomboka to wear the T-shirt before he was abducted from his house and the traces of torture whereby Rwigema’s effigy was carved through the T-shirt into Jean Bosco Rugomboka’s chest are strongly indicative that Jean Bosco Rugomboka was killed for his political opinions and not because of his Tutsi ethnicity. Finding on Crimes Against Humanity 712. The Chamber finds Hategekimana guilty of murder as a crime against humanity, based on Article 6(1) of the Statute for ordering the abduction and killing of Jean Bosco Rugomboka on 8-9 April 1994. The Chamber further finds Hategekimana responsible of murder as a crime against humanity, as a superior based on Article 6(3) of the Statute, for the killing of Jean Bosco Rugomboka. The Chamber will take into account Hategekimana’s liability as a superior in sentencing. 1296 4.2.2 Murders of Salomé Mujawayezu, Alice Mukarwesa and Jacqueline Mukaburasa on 23 April 1994 Deliberation 713. Paragraphs 36 and 40 of the Indictment, respectively, charge Hategekimana with individual criminal responsibility, under Article 6(1), and superior responsibility, under Article 6(3) of the Statute, for the murders of three Tutsi women as crimes against humanity. 714. In its Legal Findings on genocide, the Chamber has already determined beyond reasonable doubt that the separation, removal and killing of Salomé Mujawayezu, Alice Mukarwesa and Jacqueline Mukaburasa constituted genocide. On the same basis, the Chamber is satisfied that these intentional murders were conducted on ethnic grounds, and accordingly also constitute murder as a crime against humanity. 1297 715. The Chamber has already determined that Hategekimana bears responsibility under Article 6(1) of the Statute, based on his participation in a joint criminal enterprise. Finding on Crime Against Humanity 716. The Chamber finds Hategekimana guilty of murder as a crime against humanity, on the basis of Article 6(1) of the Statute, for ordering the killings of Salomé Mujawayezu, Alice Mukarwesa and Jacqueline Mukaburasa on 23 April 1994. The Chamber will not make a finding on Hategekimana’s responsibility, as a superior under Article 6(3), for these crimes. 1298 1296 Kajelijeli Appeal Judgement para. 81, Nahimana and al. Appeal Judgement para. 487. 1297 Renzaho Trial Judgement para. 787. 1298 The Chamber recalls that according to the jurisprudence of the ICTR and ICTY Appeals Chambers, it is a reversible error of law to aggregate a finding of guilt based on individual criminal responsibility pursuant to Articles 6(1) of the Statute and a finding of guilt as a hierarchical superior pursuant to Articles 6(3), for the same counts and based on the same facts. Therefore, in determining the individual criminal responsibility of an accused on the basis of Articles 6(1) and 6(3) of the Statute, and if all the criteria are met, the Trial Chamber should enter a finding of guilt based on Article 6(1) alone and view the accused’s position of authority as an aggravating factor. In light of these criteria, the Chamber will proceed to consider only the Accused’s individual criminal responsibility on the basis of Article 6(1) and will Judgement and Sentence 171 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:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 123 and 124: Prosecution Witness Laurien Ntezima
Page 169: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 181 and 182: DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MASANCH
Page 191 and 192: ANNEX B: CITED MATERIALS AND DEFINE
Page 199 and 200: DEFINED TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CDR
Page 201: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
show all

Hategekimana - JUDGEMENT & SENTENCE - Refworld

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?