Hategekimana - JUDGEMENT & SENTENCE - Refworld

The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T
paragraphs of the Indictment. 42 In addition, chapeau paragraphs 6, 21, 34 and 42 of the Indictment
provide the details that the Defence alleges are lacking, and introduce the specific events described
in paragraphs 7-20, 22-33, 35-37 and 43-45. 43 Accordingly, the Chamber considers that the
Indictment is neither vague nor defective regarding the identity of the alleged perpetrators.
61. The Defence also asserts that, apart from the rape of Nura Sezirahiga in Ngoma on 23 April
1994, the allegations of rape in paragraphs 8, 32, 33, 44, 47 and 48 are imprecise in relation to the
location of the crimes, the identity of the victims and perpetrators as well as the time frame in which
the rapes occurred. 44 In the Chamber’s view, the identification of the alleged locations and
perpetrators of the rapes are sufficiently precise, within the context of the entire Indictment, for the
Defence to pursue investigations. 45 While the time frame of the alleged rapes spans a two-month
period, 46 the Chamber reiterates that a broad date range, in itself, does not invalidate a paragraph of
an indictment. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber has stated that, in certain circumstances, the
sheer scale of the alleged crimes makes it impracticable to require a high degree of specificity in
such matters as the dates of the commission of the crimes and the identity of the victims. 47 One
example, according to the Appeals Chamber, is where the accused participated as a member of a
military force “in an extensive number of attacks on civilians that took place over a prolonged
period of time and resulted in large numbers of killings.” 48 In light of the large scale of the alleged
rapes in and around Butare town, the Chamber accepts that the Prosecution was not necessarily in a
position to provide greater specificity about either the dates or the victims of the crimes.
62. Therefore, the Chamber considers that the Indictment is not defective with respect to the
time frame, the location and the identification of the perpetrators or the victims of the rapes alleged
in paragraphs 32, 33, 44, 47 and 48 of the Indictment.
Notification of the Form of Joint Criminal Enterprise
63. The Defence argues that the Prosecution erred in merely alleging that Hategekimana
participated in a joint criminal enterprise, without specifying the object of the enterprise, the clear
identity of all the participants, the form of joint criminal enterprise alleged, or the “effective nexus
between the Accused and his co-participants.” 49 The Defence also contends that the Prosecution’s
Opening Statement failed to mention the events linked to a joint criminal enterprise, as well as the
intention to adduce evidence on this mode of liability, thereby “severely test[ing] the jurisprudential
42 See Indictment paras. 16-18, 28, 36, 45, 49.
43 Chapeau paragraphs 6 and 21 introduce alleged criminal responsibility, 6(1) or 6(3) respectively, for events relating
to the charge of genocide. Chapeau paragraphs 34 and 42 introduce alleged criminal responsibility, 6(1) or 6(3)
respectively, for events relating to crimes against humanity.
44 Defence Closing Brief paras. 17-19, referring to paragraphs 32, 33, 44, 47 and 48 of the Indictment.
45 The rapes are alleged to have occurred either at “the house of Ildephonse Hategekimana alias Bikomago” (see
Indictment paras. 8, 44), or “in and around Butare Town” (see Indictment paras. 33, 47, 48). The Chamber notes that
paragraph 32 of the Indictment omits a location, but the Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief clarifies that the rapes alleged
therein also occurred “in and around Butare Town” (see Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief para. 122). The rapists were alleged
to be the Accused himself (see Indictment paras. 8, 44), or Ngoma Camp soldiers, Interahamwe, and/or armed civilians
(see Indictment paras. 32, 33, 47, 48).
46 The rapes are alleged to have occurred “[o]n diverse unknown dates between 6 April and 31 May 1994” (see
Indictment paras. 8, 33, 44, 48), “[o]n or between 7 April and 31 May 1994” (see Indictment para. 47), or “at diverse
unknown dates from or after 7 April 1994” (see Indictment para. 32).
47 Muvunyi Appeal Judgement para. 58; Muhimana Appeal Judgement para. 79; Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement para.
50; Kupreškič et al. Appeal Judgement para. 89.
48 Kupreškič et al. Appeal Judgement paras. 89, 90, 95; Ntakirutimana Trial Judgement para. 55.
49 Defence Closing Brief para. 22.
Judgement and Sentence 18 of 201 6 December 2010