Hategekimana - JUDGEMENT & SENTENCE - Refworld

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T genocide. 538 The Chamber considers that the witness’s ability to identify the soldiers whom she observed prior to the attack as being from the Ngoma Camp may, therefore, lack reliability without adequate corroboration. 334. In this respect, the Chamber notes that Witness BRU, in her prior statement of 11 March 2003 given to Prosecution investigators, identified the soldiers whom she saw at the primary school on 21 April 1994, as coming from both the Ngoma and ESO Camps. 539 Similarly, contrary to her testimony at trial, in her prior statement, Witness BRU did not mention that she had recognised Ngoma Camp soldiers by the black berets they wore, as distinct from the red berets worn by Tumba gendarmes. Nor did she mention hearing the soldiers identify themselves as coming from the Ngoma Camp. 540 Rather, in her prior statement, the witness claimed that the Ngoma and ESO Camp soldiers whom she saw at the primary school on 21 April 1994 wore red or “spotted” berets. 541 Thus, although the Chamber does not doubt Witness BRU’s sincerity, it does not consider her testimony to be reliable without further corroboration. 335. Both Father Masinzo and Witness BRS testified that they heard from Ngoma Camp soldiers of Hategekimana’s orders to kill Tutsis “in Matyazo.” Although their testimonies lend some support to Witness BRU’s trial account, they do not corroborate her identification of Ngoma Camp soldiers at the Matyazo Primary School prior to the attack. Moreover, the Chamber considers that the reference to killings “in Matyazo” lacks specificity as to location. Indeed the inference that killings “in Matyazo” included the killings at the primary school is not the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence presented. Notably, the Chamber heard testimony of other killings, targeted and large-scale, in other parts of the Matyazo area, including the Matyazo Health Centre around 21 or 22 April 1994. 542 Indeed, Witness BRU testified that in the morning of 21 April 1994, Tutsis were abducted from their Matyazo homes and killed. 543 She also stated that, after leaving her colleague’s home on the evening of 22 April 1994, she found corpses, including her mother’s, throughout the area. 544 336. In view of the evidence provided, an equally reasonable inference exists that the killings that were allegedly perpetrated “in Matyazo” by Ngoma Camp soldiers on Hategekimana’s orders were perpetrated in certain areas of Matyazo, but not in others. A reasonable inference also exists that even if Ngoma Camp soldiers were present prior to the attack on the primary school, they left before the attack was launched. In this regard, the Chamber notes that on 11 March 2003, Witness BRU stated that in the morning of 21 April 1994, she spoke with two soldiers, one from the Ngoma Camp and the other from the ESO Camp, both of whom told her that “their superiors had ordered them to kill Tutsis but that they had refused to do so.” 545 337. Accordingly, in view of the paucity of relevant and reliable evidence, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt Hatgekimana’s criminal responsibility for the killings at the Matyazo Primary School. The Chamber, therefore, dismisses the allegations in paragraphs 14 and 26 of the Indictment. 538 T. 31 March 2009 pp. 17, 22, 23. 539 Rule 66(A)(ii) Disclosure, Witness BRU statement of 11 March 2003, K0266193. 540 T. 30 March 2009 p. 37. 541 Rule 66(A)(ii) Disclosure, Witness BRU Statement of 11 March 2003, K0266193. 542 See below, Massacre at Matyazo Health Centre. 543 T. 30 March 2009 pp. 36-39; T. 31 March 2009 p. 12. 544 T. 30 March 2009 pp. 41, 44; T. 31 March 2009 p. 7. 545 Rule 66(A)(ii) Disclosure, Witness BRU Statement of 11 March 2003, K0266193. Judgement and Sentence 82 of 201 6 December 2010
The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-T 9. Massacre at Matyazo Health Centre, Ngoma Commune, Butare Préfecture, on or about 21 April 1994 9.1 Overview of the Parties’ Accounts 338. The Indictment alleges that Hategekimana is criminally responsible, both individually and as a superior, for the killing of Tutsis at the Matyazo Health Centre, on or about 21 April 1994. According to the Prosecution, Hategekimana ordered Ngoma Camp soldiers, Interahamwe and armed civilians, who were members of a joint criminal enterprise, to launch this attack. The Prosecution relies on Witnesses BYP, BYR, QCL, Father Masinzo and Laurien Ntezimana. 546 339. The Defence acknowledges that refugees were killed at the Matyazo Health Centre on or about 21 April 1994 but denies the involvement of Hategekimana or Ngoma Camp soldiers. Relying on the evidence of Witnesses BMR, CBJ and MZA, the Defence asserts that the perpetrators were armed civilians, over whom Hategekimana exercised no authority. 547 9.2 Evidence Prosecution Witness Jérôme Masinzo 340. Father Masinzo was a Tutsi priest at the Ngoma Parish in 1994. He testified that by 14 April 1994 approximately 300 persons had fled from attacks in their home areas to seek refuge at the Matyazo Health Centre. 548 About the same date, Father Masinzo met with local officials, including Hategekimana and Bourgmestre Kanyabashi, at the Matyazo Health Centre to assess the refugee situation. During this meeting, Father Masinzo requested and was granted permission to provide the refugees with food and health care. 549 The witness recalled that “there were soldiers, particularly soldiers from the Ngoma Military Camp” who guarded the refugees at the health centre. 550 On 15 or 16 April 1994, Father Masinzo met again with Hategekimana, Bourgmestre Kanyabashi and other local officials at the Matyazo Health Centre. At this meeting they decided to evacuate the refugees, whose numbers were increasing daily. 551 The Bourgmestre enlisted the witness and Laurien Ntezimana for this task because the refugees trusted them, 552 and he instructed Hategekimana to provide soldiers to escort the group. 553 In response to a question from the witness about the refugees’ security, Hategekimana stated that the selected areas of relocation, Runyinya and Simba, were safe. 554 According to Father Masinzo, the number of persons at the Matyazo Health Centre had swelled from approximately 300 on 14 April 1994 to more than 1,500 on 17 April 1994. 555 341. Father Masinzo stated that Laurien Ntezimana made an exploratory trip to Runyinya to determine whether the area was actually safe, before evacuating the refugees. 556 After travelling 546 Indictment paras. 15, 27; Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief paras. 75, 76, 109; Prosecution Closing Brief paras. 295-321. For the sake of consistency, the Chamber designates the location of this event as the “Matyazo Health Centre” although witnesses also refer to it as the Matyazo “dispensary,” “centre,” “clinic,” or “health clinic.” 547 Defence Closing Brief paras. 251-428, 435, 436. 548 T. 19 March 2009 p. 47. 549 T. 19 March 2009 p. 3. Father Masinzo recalled that the first meeting with the local officials was held between 13 and 14 April 1994. 550 T. 18 March 2009 p. 58. 551 T. 18 March 2009 p. 72; T. 19 March 2009 pp. 43, 46. 552 T. 18 March 2009 p. 73; T. 19 March p. 43. 553 T. 19 March 2009 pp. 43-44. 554 T. 19 March 2009 pp. 43, 48. 555 T. 19 March 2009 p. 47. 556 T. 19 March 2009 pp. 44, 47. Judgement and Sentence 83 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: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 77 and 78: Prosecution Witness Laurien Ntezima
Page 81: The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hatege
Page 123 and 124: Prosecution Witness Laurien Ntezima
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?