Hategekimana - JUDGEMENT & SENTENCE - Refworld

The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T
2.3 Deliberation
165. There is no dispute that rapes were committed in Butare as part of a series of attacks
perpetrated against Tutsis and moderate Hutus during the 1994 events in Rwanda. Indeed, the
Chamber has heard evidence from both the Prosecution and the Defence that such rapes were
notorious. 240 The issue before the Chamber is whether Hategekimana participated in these rapes, or
whether his subordinates over whom he exercised effective control participated in the rapes with his
knowledge, and without his taking preventative or punitive action.
166. In support of these allegations, the Prosecution presented only Witnesses BUR and BUQ.
Witness BUR testified about rapes which allegedly occurred at Hategekimana’s house and at Queen
Gicanda’s house, whereas Witness BUQ testified about being raped in the house of her employers
and in a nearby house. Witness BUR also testified about the abduction of a young Tutsi girl by
Hategekimana from the Benebikira Convent. The witness could only speculate, however, that
Hategekimana took the girl away in order to rape her.
Rapes at Hategekimana’s Residence
167. Witness BUR testified about the alleged rapes of the Préfet’s wife and four Tutsi girls at
Hategekimana’s home. Although the witness was physically present at the site of the alleged
crimes, while he was on patrol in the Taba neighbourhood, he did not see any victim raped. Rather,
Witness BUR’s testimony that Hategekimana raped Préfet Habyarimana’s wife and other Tutsi girls
was based on accounts that he received from members of Hategekimana’s escort, as well as
inferences drawn from his own observations. His evidence about the actus reus of these rapes is
therefore hearsay. The Chamber considers that such evidence should be treated with caution.
168. In this respect, the Chamber notes inconsistencies in Witness BUR’s evidence regarding his
stated reason for being at Préfet Habyarimana’s house when he saw Hategekimana abduct the
Préfet’s wife, Joséphine. The witness, an ESO Camp soldier, testified that he and other soldiers in
his unit had been instructed to watch the house of the Préfet, who was a Tutsi, in order to ensure
that the Préfet did not leave. 241 However, on cross-examination, the witness denied having been
assigned to guard the Préfet’s house, claiming rather that he happened to pass by the Préfet’s house
while patrolling the neighbourhood. 242 Later, the witness contradicted himself again, stating that he
left the Préfet’s house as soon as Hategekimana abducted the Préfet’s wife because “our mission
was accomplished […] so we didn’t have any reason to remain there.” 243
169. The Chamber also observes an inconsistency in Witness BUR’s testimony in relation to his
identification of Hategekimana’s house and his knowledge of the officers’ residences. When the
witness was asked during trial how he knew that the Préfet’s wife had been taken to
Hategekimana’s house, he first stated, “All the residences of the officers were in Taba and I knew
those houses.” The witness specified that he was able to identify the home as Hategekimana’s
because he “saw the Préfet’s wife” and “members of his escort there.” 244 In the Chamber’s view,
240 See e.g., Witness Laurien Ntezimana, T. 20 March 2009 pp. 18, 19; Witness CBA1, T. 13 July 2009 p. 10.
241 T. 6 April 2009 p. 58; T. 7 April 2009 pp. 36, 39.
242 T. 9 April 2009 p. 73.
243 T. 7 April 2009 p. 44.
244 T. 6 April 2009 p. 61. Witness BUR testified, “All the residences of the officers were in Taba and I knew those
houses. And I confirmed that it was the residence of Hategekimana because I saw members of his escort there and I also
saw the Préfet’s wife, and I had seen her abducted from the Préfet’s house so I knew that it was the residence of
Hategekimana.”
Judgement and Sentence 42 of 201 6 December 2010