Hategekimana - JUDGEMENT & SENTENCE - Refworld

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T 4.2.3 Murder of Solange Karenzi on 30 April 1994 Deliberation 717. Paragraphs 37 and 41 of the Indictment charge Hategekimana with murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to Articles 6(1) and 6(3) of the Statute, respectively, for the killings of three children, who were among the Tutsis abducted from the Maison Généralice. 1299 In its Factual Findings, the Chamber determined beyond reasonable doubt that Hategekimana was criminally responsible for the killing of one of these named children, Solange Karenzi. 718. In its Legal Findings, the Chamber found Hategekimana to be guilty of genocide for his participation in a joint criminal enterprise, under Article 6(1) of the Statute, for killing at least 25 Tutsi refugees, who were abducted from Maison Généralice. In this section, the Chamber will consider the charge of murder as a crime against humanity for the killing of an identified individual among these Tutsi refugees, Solange Karenzi. 719. The Chamber has already determined that the separation, abduction and killing of at least 25 Tutsis, which included Solange Karenzi, constituted genocide. On the same basis, the Chamber finds that her murder was conducted on ethnic grounds. Further the Chamber considers it inconceivable that Hategekimana and other perpetrators in the joint criminal enterprise -- Ngoma Camp soldiers, Interahamwe and armed civilians – did not know during the abduction and killing of Solange Karenzi that their actions formed part of a widespread attack against the Tutsi civilian population. Given the manner in which the attack on Maison Généralice was conducted, the many assailants involved, the weapons used, the Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that Hategekimana, as well as the co-perpetrators in the joint criminal enterprise, intentionally participated in the abduction and mass killing of members of the Tutsi group, including Solange Karenzi. Finding on Crime Against Humanity 720. The Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that Hategekimana is criminally responsible, under Article 6(1) of the Statute, for the murder of Solange Karenzi as a crime against humanity, based on his participation in a joint criminal enterprise to kill Tutsi refugees at Maison Généralice on 30 April 1994. 4.3 Conclusion 721. Accordingly, the Chamber finds Hategekimana guilty of murder (Count III) as a crime against humanity for ordering the murder of Jean Bosco Rugomboka on 8-9 April 1994, under Article 6(1) of the Statute; for his joint participation with Ngoma Camp soldiers, Interahamwe and armed civilians in the murders of Salomé Mujawayezu, Alice Mukarwesa and Jacqueline Mukaburasa on 23 April 1994, under Article 6(1) of the Statute; and for his joint participation with Ngoma Camp soldiers, Interahamwe and armed civilians in the murder of Solange Karenzi on 30 April 1994, under Article 6(1) of the Statute. Therefore, he is guilty on Count III of the Indictment for murder as a crime against humanity. consider his position as a superior in determining the sentence. See Kajelijeli Appeal Judgement para. 81, Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement para. 487. 1299 Indictment paras. 37, 41. Judgement and Sentence 172 of 201 6 December 2010
The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T 5. COUNT IV: RAPE AS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY 722. Paragraphs 45 and 49 charge Hategekimana with rape as a crime against humanity, pursuant to both Articles 6(1) and 6(3) of the Statute. The Prosecution also seeks to establish Hategekimana’s criminal liability for the rape of Nura Sezirahiga under Article 6(1) based on joint criminal enterprise. 5.1 Legal Principles 723. According to the Tribunal’s established jurisprudence, rape is a “physical invasion of a sexual nature, committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive.” 1300 In Kunarac, the Appeals Chamber articulated the parameters of what would constitute a “physical invasion of a sexual nature.” 1301 724. The mens rea for rape as a crime against humanity is the intention to effect the prohibited sexual penetration with the knowledge that it occurs without the consent of the victim. 1302 The Kunarac Appeals Chamber observed that circumstances that prevail in most cases charged as crimes against humanity will be almost universally coercive, thus vitiating consent. 1303 5.2 Application 725. The Chamber has found that Nura Sezirahiga was singled out, raped and killed on the night of 23 April 1994. Within the context of the crimes established by the evidence in this case, the Chamber finds that the rape was part of a discriminatory, widespread and systematic attack against Tutsi civilians and Hutu moderates. Nura Sezirahiga was Hutu, but she was raped and killed because of the perceived political affiliation of her father. The evidence establishes that the assailants who attacked the Sezirahiga home were searching for firearms or other objects to show that her father, Sadiki Sezirahiga, was an Inkotanyi accomplice. 1304 726. The Chamber has already found that Hategekimana was present during the attack on Sezirahiga’s house, following which his wife and son were brutally assaulted and left for dead and his daughter raped and killed. Sadiki Sezirahiga, the one eyewitness to the crime, whom the Chamber found credible and reliable, did not see Hategekimana during the rape of his daughter Nura Sezirahiga. However, on the basis of his evidence, the Chamber found that one of the four Ngoma Camp soldiers who accompanied Hategekimana to the site raped Nura Sezirahiga. The soldier raped her in the presence of other soldiers and the same Interahamwe and armed civilians who had attacked the residents of the Sezirahiga home. 727. Hategekimana came with his subordinates, four Ngoma Camp soldiers, to attack Sezirahiga’s house. He was present when Nura and her family were forced from their home and when the Interahamwe and armed civilians brutally attacked the residents. The rape was perpetrated 1300 Akayesu Trial Chamber para. 688. 1301 Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement paras. 127-128; Bagosora et al. Trial Judgement para. 2199; Semanza Trial Judgement para. 344. Semanza concisely articulated the Kunarac Appeal Chamber’s definition as: “the non-consensual penetration, however slight of the vagina or anus of the victim by the penis of the perpetrator or by any other object used by the perpetrator, or of the mouth of the victim by the penis of the perpetrator.” See Muhimana Trial Chamber paras. 537-551. 1302 Bagosora et al. Trial Judgement para. 2200, citing Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement paras. 127; Semanza Trial Judgement para. 346. 1303 Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement para. 130. 1304 T. 2 April 2009 pp. 64-65. Judgement and Sentence 173 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:
Page 121 and 122: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 123 and 124: Prosecution Witness Laurien Ntezima
Page 171: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?