Hategekimana - JUDGEMENT & SENTENCE - Refworld

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T 6. On 7 September 2007, the Prosecution filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 11bis of the Rules, for the referral of the case against Hategekimana to the courts of the Republic of Rwanda. 5 The motion was denied on 19 June 2008. 6 7. The trial of Ildephonse Hategekimana commenced on 8 March 2009 and closed on 28 April 2010. Over the course of 22 trial days, the Prosecution called 20 witnesses. The Defence case opened on 22 June 2009 and was conducted over two trial sessions. The first session ended on 13 July 2009, and the second commenced on 23 September 2009, running until 6 October 2009. During 21 trial days, the Defence called 20 witnesses. The Chamber and the Parties visited sites in Rwanda related to the charges against Hategekimana from 2 to 6 November 2009. The parties filed their Closing Briefs on 1 February 2010 and presented their Closing Arguments on 26 and 28 April 2010. 8. The Chamber delivered the oral summary of its Judgement on 6 December 2010 and filed the written version on 14 February 2011. The procedural history of this case is set out in full in Annex I to the Judgement. 2.2 Synopsis of the Parties’ Allegations and the Chamber’s Findings 9. The Prosecution has alleged Hategekimana’s criminal responsibility, both as an individual and as a superior, for crimes of genocide, complicity in genocide and murder and rape as crimes against humanity committed in Butare Préfecture between 7 April and 31 May 1994. The Defence disputes all charges. Below follows an overview of the main allegations. (i) Meeting on 7 April 1994 at the ESO Military Camp 10. The Prosecution alleges that Hategekimana attended a meeting of Butare Préfecture military officials at the École des Sous Officiers (“ESO”) Camp on 7 April 1994, the morning after the death of President Habyarimana. The Prosecution also asserts that, in accordance with a decision taken at the meeting, the Accused ordered Ngoma Camp soldiers under his command to kill Tutsis and to rape Tutsi women before killing them. The Defence denies that Hategekimana attended the meeting or that such a meeting was ever held. 11. One Prosecution witness, a soldier from ESO Military Camp, testified that Hategekimana attended a meeting with named military officers on 7 April 1994 at ESO Camp. However, the witness presented no direct or reliable evidence regarding the subject matter of the meeting. The witness did not attend this meeting and did not hear Hategekimana ever issue the alleged order to soldiers under his command to kill Tutsis or to rape Tutsi women before killing them. The Chamber does not find that this allegation has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and dismisses it. (ii) Rapes of Tutsi Women in Butare Préfecture 12. The Prosecution submits that Hategekimana, as well as soldiers, Interahamwe and armed civilians under his military command or effective control, raped Tutsi women at Hategekimana’s residence and at other places in and around Butare town. The Defence denies these allegations. 5 Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for the Referral of the Case of Ildephonse Hategekimana to Rwanda Pursuant to Rule 11bis of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence (TC), 7 September 2007. 6 Decision on Prosecutor’s Motion for the Referral of the Case of Ildephonse Hategekimana to Rwanda (TC), 19 June 2008. Judgement and Sentence 8 of 201 6 December 2010
The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T 13. The Prosecution relies on two principal witnesses, one of whom was a Tutsi victim of a series of gang rapes. The witness stated that among the unidentified soldiers who raped her was a soldier from the Ngoma Camp. However, the Prosecution did not establish either the clear identity of the alleged soldier or his affiliation with Ngoma Camp. The Chamber doubts the reliability of both witnesses and finds that the Prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt Hategekimana’s involvement in these crimes. Therefore, the Chamber dismisses these allegations. (iii) Roadblock Outside of Ngoma Camp 14. The Prosecution alleges that, from 7 April until 31 May 1994, Hategekimana instructed soldiers stationed at the Ngoma Camp to erect a roadblock outside and opposite the main entrance into the camp to intercept, identify, arrest and kill Tutsis. According to the Prosecution, this roadblock was manned by soldiers from the Ngoma Camp under the supervision of the Accused. Many Tutsi civilians were arrested at this roadblock and killed or seriously injured. The Defence does not dispute the existence of the roadblock but argues that the roadblock, common to all military camps, had no criminal purpose. 15. On the basis of the evidence presented by twelve witnesses, the Chamber finds that Hategekimana bears no criminal liability for establishing and manning a roadblock outside of the Ngoma Camp. Therefore the Chamber dismisses this allegation. (iv) Distribution of Weapons 16. The Indictment asserts that, from 7 April until 14 July 1994, Hategekimana distributed weapons to Ngoma Camp soldiers, Interahamwe and civilians. According to the Prosecution, these weapons were used to kill Tutsi civilians. The Chamber finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish this allegation and, accordingly, dismisses it. (v) Issuance of Laissez-Passer to Assailants 17. The Prosecution argues that Hategekimana provided laissez-passer to facilitate the movement and equipping of soldiers, Interahamwe and armed civilians who participated in the killings in Butare Préfecture. The Chamber has heard testimony from one witness that he received a laissez-passer, signed by Hategekimana, to conduct his private business. No other evidence was presented linking the issuance of laissez-passer to the Accused. The Chamber has not found that Hategekimana is criminally liable for the issuance of laissez-passer and dismisses this allegation. (vi) Murder of Jean Bosco Rugomboka 18. The Prosecution alleges that, on or about the night of 8 to 9 April 1994, Hategekimana led an attack on the home of the Rugomboka family. During the course of this attack, Hategekimana allegedly ordered soldiers, Interahamwe and armed civilians to arrest, torture and kill Jean Bosco Rugomboka on the basis of his identification as a member of the Tutsi ethnic group. The Defence claims that the Prosecution evidence is not credible. Specifically, the Defence asserts that members of the Interahamwe killed Rugomboka because of his political affiliation with the Rwandan Patriotic Front (“RPF”). 19. The Chamber has heard a detailed and credible eyewitness account of Hategekimana’s authoritative conduct during the abduction of Jean Bosco Rugomboka from his home by Ngoma Camp soldiers. The Chamber has also heard direct accounts about the threatening presence of Judgement and Sentence 9 of 201 6 December 2010
Page 1 and 2: International Criminal Tribunal for
Page 3 and 4: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 7: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 17 and 18: 1.1.2 General Challenges to the Ind
Page 59 and 60:
The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
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:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?