Hategekimana - JUDGEMENT & SENTENCE - Refworld

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T 83. Nevertheless, the Chamber considers that such a defence is implied in the testimonies of at least four Defence witnesses as well as in the Defence Closing Brief. The Accused is in effect denying that he was in a position to commit the crimes with which he is charged, since according to these four witnesses he was not present in the Ngoma Camp during the period of the alleged crimes. 84. The Defence challenges the Prosecution witnesses’ identification of the Accused because they did not mention his prominent beard. 82 It relies on Witnesses CBM2, BJ3, CKB, MZA, ZML and RGF. 83 Nevertheless, apart from Witness BJ3 who stated that Hategekimana had a beard in April 1994, 84 the Chamber notes that none of these Defence witnesses testified to having seen him with a beard during the period alleged in the Indictment. As for Witness BJ3’s testimony, the Chamber considers it not to be relevant as he admitted not knowing anything about what happened in the Ngoma area and stated that he could only talk about what happened in the ESO Camp. 85 The Chamber also notes that his testimony mainly concerns the ESO Camp meeting which was held on 7 April 1994 and, therefore, does not apply to the events that followed. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber dismisses the Defence’s submission on this point. 85. The Chamber concludes that even if this does not constitute a proper alibi within the meaning of Rule 67, the evidence that the Accused was elsewhere at the time of the crime was committed must be considered in conjunction with the Prosecution’s evidence that he was at the alleged crime scenes at the time and that he allegedly committed the crimes. Therefore, the Chamber will deal with this issue in the course of its preliminary factual findings. 3. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 86. The Defence emphasises the presumption of the Accused’s innocence and the burden of proof to be met by the Prosecution. The Defence argues that, in light of the credibility issues relating to the evidence of the 20 Prosecution witnesses in this case, there is clear doubt about Hategekimana’s guilt. It submits that Hategekimana has a right to benefit from even the slightest doubt, leading to an acquittal, and requests the Chamber to rigorously evaluate the evidence. 86 3.1 Admission of Evidence 87. Rule 89 sets out the general evidentiary guidelines of the Tribunal. In accordance with this Rule, a Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value. The Chamber observes that in this case prior written statements of witnesses were not systematically tendered into evidence in their entirety. Rather, when the Parties used such statements during examination, they generally read the relevant portions of the statements into the record. When inconsistencies were raised between the content of a prior statement and the testimony during trial, the Chamber’s point of departure was the account given by a witness in his or her testimony in court. When assessing the evidence, a Trial Chamber has broad discretion to determine the weight to be given to discrepancies between a witness’s testimony and any prior statements. 87 The Chamber notes that differences between prior statements and testimony in court may be due to 82 Defence Closing Brief paras. 586, 676: the Defense alleges that “the only visible characteristic that could distinguish him from the others” was that he had a beard. 83 Witness CBM2, T. 9 July 2009 pp. 20, 30-33; Witness BJ3, T. 24 September 2009 pp. 26-34, 39; Witness CKB, T. 8 July 2009 pp. 5-12, 58; Witness MZA, T. 23 June 2009 pp. 16-22, 33; Witness ZML, T. 22 June 2009 pp. 10-17, 19; Witness RGF, T. 2 October 2009 pp. 20, 23-27. 84 T. 24 September 2009 p. 33. 85 T. 24 September 2009 p. 73. 86 Defence Closing Brief paras. 731-733; Defence Closing Argument T. 26 April 2009. 87 Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement para. 74; Kajelijeli Appeal Judgement para. 96. Judgement and Sentence 24 of 201 6 December 2010
The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T various factors, including the lapse of time, the language used, the questions addressed to the witness, the accuracy of interpretation and transcription and the impact of trauma on the witness. However, when the inconsistencies cannot be explained to the satisfaction of the Chamber, the probative value of the testimony may be questioned. 3.2 Standard of Proof and Assessment of the Evidence 88. Article 20(3) of the Statute guarantees the presumption of innocence of each accused person. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rests solely on the Prosecution and never shifts to the Defence. The Chamber must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty before a verdict may be entered against him or her. 88 89. While the Defence does not have to adduce rebuttal evidence to the Prosecution case, the Prosecution will fail to discharge its burden of proof if the Defence presents evidence that raises a reasonable doubt regarding the Prosecution case. 89 An accused person must be acquitted if there is any reasonable explanation for the evidence other than his or her guilt. 90 Refusal to believe or rely upon Defence evidence does not automatically amount to a guilty verdict. The Chamber must determine whether the evidence that it accepts establishes the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 91 90. The general principle enshrined in Rule 90(A) of the Rules is that witnesses should be heard directly by the Trial Chamber. 92 However, there are well established exceptions to the Chamber’s preference for direct, live, in-court testimony, including the taking of witness testimony by deposition 93 and the admission of written statements, in lieu of oral testimony, which do not go to proof of the alleged conduct of the accused as charged in the Indictment. 94 3.3 Hearsay Evidence 91. While direct evidence is preferred, hearsay evidence is not per se inadmissible. 95 The Trial Chamber has the discretion to treat such hearsay evidence with caution, depending on the circumstances of the case. 96 In certain circumstances, hearsay evidence may require the Prosecution to adduce other credible or reliable evidence in order to support a finding of fact beyond reasonable doubt. “The source of information, the precise character of the information, and the fact that other evidence corroborates the hearsay evidence are relevant criteria in assessing the weight or probative value of hearsay evidence.” 97 88 See also Rule 87(A) of the Rules: “[…] A finding of guilty may be reached only when a majority of the Trial Chamber is satisfied that guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.” 89 Kayishema Appeal Judgement para. 117; Niyitegeka Appeal Judgement paras. 60-61. 90 Čelebići Appeal Judgement para. 458. 91 Nchamihigo Trial Judgement para. 13. 92 Simba Appeal Judgement para. 19. 93 Rule 71 of the Rules. 94 Rule 92bis of the Rules. 95 Muvunyi Trial Judgement para. 12; Rutaganda Appeal Judgement para. 34. 96 Rule 89 of the Rules; Rutaganda Appeal Judgement para. 34; Aleksovski, Decision on Prosecutor’s Appeal on Admissibility of Evidence (AC), 16 February 1999 para. 15. 97 Karera Appeal Judgement para. 39 (internal citations omitted). Judgement and Sentence 25 of 201 6 December 2010
Page 1 and 2: International Criminal Tribunal for
Page 3 and 4: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 17 and 18: 1.1.2 General Challenges to the Ind
Page 23: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 75 and 76:
The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
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:
Page 123 and 124:
Prosecution Witness Laurien Ntezima
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?