OTP Response - Peter Robinson

38a++I'MTED NATIONSNATIONS UMESTribunal P6nal International pour le RwandaArusha International Conference CentreP.O.Box 6016, Arusha, Tanzania - B.P. 6016, Arusha, TanzaniEfel:255272504207-'11 2504367-72or12'129632850 Fax:2552725O4O0O12fi4373ot12129632848149IN TRIAL CHAMBER IIIBefore:Hon. Dennis C. M. Byron, PresidingHon. Gberdao Gustave KamHon. Vagn JoensenRegistrar:Mr. Adama Diengc-E:)Date Filed: 20 October 2008The PROSECUTORo)2rr|i ;.1:.,--f-1 ': .' .-fr11v.fdouard KAREMERAMathieu NGIRUMPATSEJoseph NZIRORERACase No. ICTR-98-44-T11 1',.rrLi. ::'!-!l'iqr()l\)E,Prosecutor's Response to Joseph Nzirorera'sMotion for Remedial and Punitive Measures - Rule 66(8) - MudahinyukaFor the Prosecutor:Mr. Don WebsterMs. Alayne Frankson-WallaceMr. Iain MorleyMr. Saidou N'DowMs. Gerda VisserMs. Sunkarie Ballah-ContehMr. Takeh SendzeFor the Accused:Ms. Dior Diagne and Mr. Moussa F6lix Sow/or Edouard KaremeraMs. Chantal Hounkpatin and Mr. Frederick Weyl/or Mathieu NgirumpatseMr. Peter Robinson and Patrick Nimy Mayidika Ngimbi/or Joseph Nzirorera

1. The Prosecutor files this response to Nzirorera's I9th Notice of Violatio, ^rr"E ttOO +3",Motion for Remedial and Punitive Measures: Jean-Marie-Vianney Mudahinyukn, filed, 6October 2008.2. The Prosecution submits that the motion is unfounded and should be dismissed.3. As Nzirorera rightfully asserts in his present motion, this Chamber denied his previousMotion to Compel Inspection and Disclosure of 13 July 2005 wherein he sought "reports ofall information obtained from Jean Marie Vianney Mudahinyuka".l In that decision thisChamber held that:"The Defence has made a bare assertion that the Prosecution hasobtained a statement from Jean-Marie Vianney Mudahinyuka. Theprosecution has specifically denied its possession of such a statement.No evidence was adduced to supporthe assertion; as conceded by theDefence there is no basis to make an order in this regard. There is nobasis to make such an order."24. Now, after having spoken directly with Mudahinyuka on27 September 2008, Nzirorerarenews his motion and demandsanctions againsthe Prosecution. However, the Prosecutiononce again denies having recorded a statement or any Investigator's Note from Mudahinyuka.5. Admittedly the Prosecution met with Mudahinyuka on three occasions: (i) in 2004,when former Chief of Prosecutions Stephen Rapp met with him in Chicago in the presence ofhis defence counsel; (ii) in July 2006, after this Chamber decided Nzirorera's initial motion,when OTP investigators Jacques Baillergeon and Rejean Trernblay met with him in thepresence of his defence counsel in Pennsylvania; and (iii) in late 2006 or early 2007, whenSTA Jonathan Moses met with him in the presence of his defence counsel in Pennsylvania.6. The undersigned senor prosecution counsel is reliably informed as follows: In everyinstance, Mudhinyuka was represented by defence counsel. All three meetings were in thenature of a "proffer" of information. The objective was to explore matters of cooperationwith the Prosecution and the possibility of entering into a plea agreement. When StephenRapp first met with Mudahinyukain2}}4, Mudahinyuka's defense counsel explicitly warnedhim against taking notes of their conversation. When OTP investigators Baillergeon andTremblay met with Mudhinyuka in July 2006 Mudhinyuka avoided substantive comments inI Decision on Motions to Compel Inspection and Disclosure and to Direct Witnesses to Bring Judicial andImmigration Records (14 September 2005)'Ibid, atpara 16.

esponse to their inquiries and simply indicated whether or not he would be able to provideinformation about the matters that interested the Prosecution. When STA Moses met withMudahinyuka a few months thereafter, it quickly became apparent that Mudahinyuka had no5X O+2_serious interest in providing information to the Prosecution and the interview was abandoned.The undersigned senior prosecution counsel has been informed by the aforernentionedcolleagues that Mudahinyuka did not provide exculpatory information during their meetingswith him. Appended hereto in annexure is e-mail correspondence from each of the OTPstaff-mernbers who met with Mudahinyuka which clarifies that they did not documentMudahinyuka's responses to their inquiries.3^^I7. Investigator Jacques Baillergeon filed a mission report at the conclusion of a lengthymission in July 2008 which specifically mentions his encounter with Mudahinyuka inPennsylvania on 11,12 and 13 July 2006. In the interest of absolute transparence, excerptsfrom that mission report are also appended hereto in annexure.a While the topics of inquiryare documented in the mission report, Mudahinyuka's responses are not. This is because theinquiry was simply intended to explore how Mudahinyuka could be of assistance in OTPinvestigations; the interview was not intended to elicit his accounts of events as Mudahinyukainsisted upon concluding an agreement with the OTP and clarifying how his cooperationwould affect his immigration status in the United States before he would provide substantiveinformation. The mission report did not summarize Mudahinyuka's comments.8. The Prosecution maintains there was no violation of Rule 66(8) or Rule 68(4). Firstly,there was no record of any conversation with Mudahinyuka before 2006. This Chamber'sdecision of 14 September 2005 was appropriate when it was rendered because the onlycontact that the Prosecution had had with Mudahinyuka at that time was Stephen Rapp'sfifteen minute conversation, which was never documented. The Prosecution trial team hasbeen informed by the persons who investigated Jean Marie Vianney Mudahinyuka, thatMudahinyuka's comments in the two subsequent encounters with the OTP were tentative, didnot include exculpatory information, and were never documented in a witness statement orInvestigator's Note. The third mission that was planned for STA Jonathan Moses wasintended to last several weeks so that a detailed statement could be recorded. That did nothappen because, apparently, Mudahinyuka was not satisfied with the arrangernents that wereproposed and no statement was taken. Secondly, the Prosecution has never refused to provideinspection under Rule 66(8), which is ongoing.3 See Annexes Al, A2, Bl, 82 and C, appended hereto.a See Annex D, appended hereto.

38 o+lThe issue of timing and completion of inspection9. After much prodding from the Chamber, Nzirorera filed ex parte a list of 241prospective defence witnesses on 2 June 2008, which this Chamber subsequently ordered theRegistry to disclose to the Prosecution on 30 July 2008. Nzirorera's motion for inspectionunder Rule 66(8) was filed the very next day, 31 July 2008. The Prosecution did not opposethat motion, which this Chamber then granted on 22 August 2008. Since then, Nziroreramade a Fifth Rule 73ter Filing on 8 September 2008, wherein he dropped 26 witnesses, butthen added 13 new witnesses and substituted l0 new witnesses to give evidence on similarfacts. At last counto Nzirorera final witness list for the trial consists of 226 witnesses. TheProsecution has undertaken to provide inspection for these witnesses and has madeincremental, continuing disclosure of copies of their "statements, immigration records andjudicial records". The Prosecution has never maintained that this inspection was complete.Nzirorera is simply mistaken when he infers, at paragraph 24 of his current motion, that theinspection was completed on 10 Septernber 2008 and that the Prosecution has violated Rule66(8) because no statement from Mudahinyuka was produced. Although the Prosecutiondisclosed copies of a Rwandan arrest warrant dated 23 April 2004 for Mudahinyuka on 9September 2008, there was no representation that inspection under Rule 66(8) was complete.Indeed, searches that will lead to inspection are ongoing. It is patently unreasonable toexpect that thorough searches for 226 witnesses could be completed in a mere six weeks.The parties, and the Trial Chamber, should be mindful that while the Prosecution endeavorsto assist the Accused in the preparation of their cases, it must also attonpt to prepare theProsecution case and must apportion its finite, and declining, material and human resourcesfor disparate, and often competing, tasks. Given the long delays from the Defence inproviding identifying information for their prospective witnesses,is unreasonable to expectthe Prosecution to search through its voluminous database for the excessive number ofwitnesses that are currently listed in just a few weeks.10. The Prosecution maintains that it has complied with Rule 66(8) for Mudahinyuka. Nostatement or record of Mudahinyuka's statements was offered for inspection because nonewas taken. Should this Chamber view the excerpts from the Septernber 2006 mission reportfiled by OTP investigator Jacques Baillergeon as falling within the ambit of Rule 66(8), thecurrent filing should satisfu the parties. It bears noting that Mudahinyuka was represented by

ANNE XURE38o31

Don Webster1ol15l2oo803:15 PMTo:srol"".li Mission in Canad and Robinson tetterA138ozg--- Fonvarded by Don Webster/ICTRyUNO on 1011512008 03:17 PM ----\r$#J#"iJ,,^"Dear Don,* * t * * * [unrelated matter]To: Don Webster/ICTR/UNO@UNICTRcc:Subject: Mission in Canada and Robinson letterRegarding the letter from Robinson (another copy of which I have attached), Iresponse. I have shared my draft with Zuzu's USA attorney to make sure that itrecollection, and have received no response. What do you think?.drafted a possiblein accord with hisSREI trrobinson.lefter .docjmvm.letter

(@}InternationalCriminal Tribunal for RwandaTribunal P6nal International pour le RwandaOFFICE OF THE PROSECUTORBUREAU DU PROCUREURArusha Intemational Conference CentreP.O. Box 6016, Arusha, Tarr,ania- B.P. 6016, Arusha, TanzaniaTel: 255272504207-ll/2504367-72or 12129632850- Fax: 25527250400014373or 12129632848149A)-lo344 Julv 2005Mr. Don WebsterSenior Trial AttomeyOffice of the Prosecutorlnternational Criminal Tribunal for RwandaArusha. TanzaniaRe: Letter of 27 June 2005 from Peter Robinson, Defense AttorneyFor Joseph NziroreraDear Don:I have received an electronic copy of a letter dated 27 June 2005 from PeterRobinson, Defense Attorney for Joseph Nzirorera, asking for any information subjectodisclosure that I may have been obtained from a meeting with Jean-Marie-VianneyMudahinyuka. I can provide the following professional statement:I met Mr. Mudahinyuka for approximately one-half hour on l6 February 2005 in thepresence of his attorney, Roger Dusberger, at the federal detention facility in Chicago,Illinois, USA. Mr. Dusberger is the attorney appointed to represent Mr. Mudahinyuka underthe U.S. Criminal Justice Act on U.S. immigration and assault charges. The meeting wasconducted with the cooperation of the U.S. Attomey's Office for the Notthern District ofIllinois.At the request of Mr. Dusberger no recording or notes were take4 at the meeting. Itwas also agreed that we would not discuss events that took place after 6 April 1994. I diddiscuss with Mr. Mudahinyuka his activities before 6 April 1994, and, the possibility that hewould be willing to provide a full statement regarding his knowledge of those events inRwanda that are within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda(ICTR). I have had no other meeting with Mr. Mudahjnyuk and he has provided nostatement to myself or any person working with the Office of Prosecutor of the ICTR.

3to3(Nothing that Mr. Mudahinyuka said to me during our brief meeting constitutedinformation subjecto disclosure under ICTR Rule 68.Best regards.Sincerely,Stephen J. RappChief of Prosecutions

Rejean Tremblay1011512008 02:46 PMTo: Don Webster/ICTR/UNO@UNICTRcc: dxyz5O@googlemail.comSubject: Re: Defence Motion re-Zuzu interviewffibL3So3EDear Don,According with your requesthe following is my answer to your questions.Reply to your questions:1. Yes, during a mission to Pensylvania, USA in July 2006, I melZuzu, for two (2) days in the presence ofhis fawyers. However, I didn't meetZuzu in 2007.2. No statements or investigator's notes were taken.Best Regards.Don WebsterDon Webster1ot14l2oo} 06:06 PMTo: dxyz5O@googlemail.com, Rejean Tremblay/ICTFVUNO@UNICTRsuoie"c!, Defence Motion re-zuzuinterviewDear Jacques Baillergeon and Yogi TremblayPeter Robinson, the Defence Counsel for Joseph Nzirorera, met with Zuzu a few weeks ago and has fileda motion alleging that the OTP violated its disclosure obligations by failing to provide copies of anystatements or internal memoranda that include Zuzu's responses to the questions you put to him.The relevant portion of Robinson's motion is excised below:9. On 27 September 2008, lead counsel for Mr. Nzirorera interviewed Jean-MarieVianney Mudahinyuka.Mr. Mudahinyuka advised that he had been interviewed byrepresentatives of the ICTR Office of the Prosecutor on several occasions and believed that someof his interviews had been recorded.10. Mr. Mudahinyuka advised that while held at the Metropolitan Corrections Center inChicago, Illinois, USA in 2004, he was interviewed by Stephen Rapp. He answered numerousquestions about the 1994 Rwandan events, the Interahamwe, and the acts and conduct of JosephNzirorera, Mathieu Ngirumpatse, and Edouard Karemera. He said that at the conclusion of theinterview, Mr. Rapp told him that his information was not of any value to the prosecution.I l. Mr. Mudahinyuka advised that he was contacted by the Office of the Prosecutor a

j9o311second time in 2007 while he was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution atAllenwood, Pennsylvania. This time he was interviewed by two investigators, who he believedwere Canadians. He did not recall their names.12. During this interviewo which he believed was recorded, and took place over thecourse of two full days, Mudahinyuka answered fheir questions about the Rwandan eventsincluding the Interahamwe, MRND, and the three accused, as well as informationconcerning Prefet Tharcisse Renzaho and Georges Rutaganda. Mudahinyuka was a closefriend of Rutaganda and was with him during much of the time.13. Mr. Mudahinyuka advised that the two investigators returned about three months laterwith trvo other persons who were lawyers with the Office of the Prosecutor. He recalled that onewas named Jonathan and was from New Zealand,. He believes the other may have been fromSomalia. He was then interviewed again by the four individuals and they also offered him a pleaagreement. The interview took place over two or three days, and he ultimately told them that hewas not guilty of killing anyone and therefore could not plead guilty.14. Among the information that Mr. Mudahinyuka said he provided to therepresentatives of the Office of the Prosecutor was the fact that the Interahamwe was neverformed for the purpose of killing Tutsis, that the killing of Tutsis was never discussed inInterahamwe committee meetings, that he knew of no military training or distribution ofweapons to Interahamwe prior to the death of President Habyarimana, that theInterahamwe never compiled lists of Tutsis, that he had attended MRND rallies and neverheard any of the accused call for the extermination of Tutsiso that Georges Rutagandanever distributed weapons and in fact saved many Tutsis after the death of the President,that he knew of no orders by the MRND to establish roadblocks or kill Tutsis, and that he

3Xo33had no contact with any of the accused after the death of the President.Would you kindly reflect on this matter a bit and comment in regard to the fol owing issues:1.Did you meet with Zuzu over a 2-day period? ln 2007?2.Did you make a record of what Zuzu said to you? lf you have any statementnotes that document what Zuzu said to you, kindly provide copies to me.r investigator'sYour response to this inquiry will accompany my response to Nzirorera's mo ion, which must befiled by Friday 17 October 2008. Your prompt assistance in this matter will b greatly appreciated.Thanks and regardsfhl$ Message has been scanned by Syrnantec Antivirus, EDP-UNICTR

"JacquesBaillargeon" To:"DonWebste/'Subject: Re: Defence Motion re-Zuzu interview1011612008 04:05 PMbz3 8o3z-"Dear Don.Following your message, I am responding to you accordingly to your questions of the followingmanner.l.Did you meet with Zttzn over a2-day period? In2007?Answer, yes we met him in 2006.2.Did you make a record of what Zuztt said to you? If you have any statementor investigator's notes that document what Zuzu said to you, kindly providecopies to me.Answer. NoWe have to remember that 'ZUZUU was seen by us in order to establish and explore thepossibility at that time to have him collaborating with the Tribunal. The dealing concerning theconditions and requirements of both party was covered by ex-COP RAPP, our part was to methim and decide if this one was willing to collaborate, to tell us the whole truth, to plead guiltyand to testifu against his accomplices.Our meetings were informal meeting strickly to appraise the capacity and plus value of "ZUZU"for ICTR and it was clearly defined that if he excepto go forward we will come back tointerview him officially and tell us the truth, that he will have the opportunity to tell us his truth,without any restrictions from our part, which is needed for the Tribunal. At that time he wasaccompanied by his two lawyers who if I remember well advised us that it will be no recordingon tape and that every things their client will say during these meetings will not be used againsthim.The note taken were only taken as reference for completing our report who was officially givento our superiors and destroyed after the completion of this one.At that time we were convinced that the dealing with"ZUZU" will go forw4rd and be in positionto obtain his official statement later. However when "ZUZUU realized that the conditions haschanged he refused to collaborate.RegardsJacques BAILLARGEON NOT BaillergeonOn Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at I l:06 AM, Don Webster wrote:

3so3 IDear Jacques Baillergeon and Yogi Tremblay:I was recently informed that you undertook a mission to Pennsylvania tointerview J-M-V Mudakinyuka l" Zvzu"I in 2007 .Peter Robinson, the Defence Counsel for Joseph Nzirorera, met with Ztnt afew weeks ago and has filed a motion alleging that the OTP violated itsdisclosure obligations by failing to provide copies of any statements orintemal memoranda that include Zuan's responses to the questions you putto him.The relevant portion of Robinson's motion is excised below:9. On 27 September 2008, lead counsel for Mr. Nzirorera interviewedJean-Marie Vianney Mudahinyuka. Mr. Mudahinyuk advised that he had beeninterviewed by representatives of the ICTR Office of the Prosecutor onseveral occasions and believed that some of his interviews had beenrecorded.10. Mr. Mudahinyuka advised that while held at the MetropolitanCorrections Center in Chicago, Illinois, USA in 2004, he was interviewed byStephen Rapp. He answered numerous questions about thel994 Rwandanevents, the Interahamwe, and the acts andconduct ofJosephNzirorera,Mathieu Ngirumpatse, and Edouard Karemera. He said that at the conclusionof the interview, Mr. Rapp told him that his information was not of anyvalue to the prosecution.I l. Mr. Mudahinyuka advised that he was contacted by the Office of

38 o3othe Prosecutor a second time in 2007 while he was incarcerated at theFederal Correctional Institution at Allenwood, Pennsylvania. This time hewas interviewed by two investigators, who he believed were Canadians. Hedid not recall their names.12. During this interview, which he believed was recorded, and tookplace over the course of two full days, Mudahinyuka answered theirquestions about the Rwandan events including the Interahamwe, MRND, and thethree accused, as well as information concerning Prefet Tharcisse Renzahoand Georges Rutaganda. Mudahinyuka was a close friend of Rutagandand waswith him during much of the time.13. Mr. Mudahinyuk advised that the two investigators retumed aboutthree months later with two other persons who were lawyers with the Officeof the Prosecutor. He recalled that one was named Jonathan and was fromNew Zealand. He believes the other mav have been from Somalia. He wasthen interviewed again by the four individuals and they also offered him aplea agreement. The interview took place over two or three days, and heultimately told them that he was not guilty of killing anyone and therefore

3so21could not plead guilty.14. Among the information that Mr. Mudahinyuka said he provided tothe representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor was the fact that theInterahamwe was never formed for the purposeIof killing Tutsis, that the IIIkilling of Tutsis was never discussed in Interahamwe committee meetings,iIthat he knew of no military training or distribution of weapons toInterahamwe prior to the death of President Habyarimana, that theInterahamwe never compiled lists of Tutsis, that he had attended MRNdrallies and never heard any of the accused call for the extermination ofTutsis, that Georges Rutaganda never distributed weapons and in fact savemany Tutsis after the death of the President, that he knew of no orders bythe MRND to establish roadblocks or kill Tutsis, and that he had no contact;with any of the accused after the death of the President.Would you kindly reflect on this matter a bit and comment in regard to thefollowing issues:l.Did you meet with Ztzu over a 2-day period? ln 2007?2.Did you make a record of what Zuzu said to you? If you have any statemer{tor investigator's notes that document what Zttzu said to you, kindly providecoples to me.

BozsYour response to this inquiry will accompany my response to Nzirorera'smotion, which must be filed by Friday l7 October 2008. Your promptassistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.Thanks and regardsThis Message has been scanned by Symantec Antivirus, EDP-LINICTRJacques Baillargeon

38oe>+Jonathan Moses101071200810:58 AMTo: websteresq@yahoo.comcc: frankson-wallace@un,org, Hassan Bubacar Jallow ,Richard Karegyesa , Don WebsterSubject: ZuzuHello DonRichard has forwarded to me your email. There was no statement taken from Zuzuin prison when I wasthere, and I am certai none was taken by Yogiand Baillergeon when they visited him on an earlieroccasion.I went to see him as it was believed that he was willing to cooperate in providing information againstRenzaho. This was on the basis of the earlier visit by investigators. Not only did we believe this to be thesituation, but his pro bono lawyers from Chicage also thoughthis. They flew to Pennsylvania to meet us,as arranged by Steve Rapp, where we had planned to debrief him over a 2 week period. During the firstmeeting it became apparent that he was not prepared to make any admissions regarding his owninvolvement despite the numerous witness statements we had regarding this. He also indicated he hadonly seen Renzaho I believe once at a roadblock but it did not add to our case and after a secondmeeting where his lawyer spoke to him separately, and where Baillergeon spoke to him in French in thepresence of his lawyer, it became apparent he would not be willing to provide any useful information andwe left.So in summary there was no statement and no Rule 68 material provided by him.I trust this helps. Perhaps Yogi could confirm that no statement was taken during the course of his firstvisit. As I say Zuzu had his own layer present as I believe he was during the first meeting and you can besure if a statement had been taken Zuzu and his lwayer would have had a copy of it.Let me knw if I can assist further. I am presently away from Arusha also and do not have direct access tomy file onZuzu but i am sure the mission report would have set out what had happened.RegardsJonathan

D 3xo24FIJIGHT AF /PIIIIJADEI.PIIIA366: 13.15hrs: Time deparEure frfm Paris'IINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT: 15' 35hrsl:Timearrivalto PHILADELPHIA. (I,OCAI tiTNE). JL2.3 HERTZ RENT A CAR: 16'Oohrs' - 16'45hrs:According with insEructions recelved' we hafre rent a carfor this US miseion' Claim by R TREMBLAYL2.4TRANSPORT: 16.45hrg ' - 23 '55hrs'By l.and, travel from PhiladelPhia' co lwil]iamsporE,Pennaylvania.12.5HOL,IDAY Inn:23 .55hrs :Time arrivalto the hotel& Check in'PART IIDTISSION I}I UgADfi'DIEINTUKA ir'u'v'13.IIOI{IDAY oa 10 -07 -2005 t13.1!3.2HAMPTON HILL HOTEL: OB'OOhrE' - 09'00hre:According with lhe ineEructions receirled about theeubject above mentioned, we trave met the $efence CouncilAssistant, M8. Heather I'EWIS' and we delriefed her onthe main objectiveEfixed'TRANSPORTT Og.OOhrB' - 09'30hrs:By land, uranEport from Hampton Hilt uofel Eo FederafBureau of Prisons, to ALLENWOOD Detentionlcenter'I

38 6zg-15.5 FEDERAIJ BI,REAU OF PRISONS;AIIDITION: 09.3Ohrs. - 15.00hrs:First audition with the potential insider, Mr.MUDAHINYUI(A .t.M,V. The main points diecuesed:Conditionof detention;Family contacts;Collaboration with ICTR' Authority;FPR attack on lst October L994;Crealion of TNTERAHAMWE ZA MRND,t99I;inDecemberRelations with RUTAGAIIDA Georges;P.S. At the end of thiE first audition, the potential insider,Mr. Mt DAHINfLIKA ,Jean-Marie-Vienney has agreed to continue theaudit,ione on 11-07-2006.13.4 TRANSPORT: 15.15hrs. - 15 .45hrs :By car, EransportHolidayInn.from Federal Bureau of PriEons to13 .5 HOLIDAY Inn HOTEL: L5.45hrs. 1.7.00hrs:Debriefing with colleaguee M8. Heather IJEWIS & OTPInvestigator,Mr. ,facques BAILIJARGEON & myeelf .14 TITESDAY ou 11-07-2006 :1_4.1TRANSPORT: 08.3Ohrs. - 09.0Ohrs:By car, traneport from Hot,el to Federal Bureau otPrisons,AIJIJENWOOD, Pennsylvania.L4.2AUDTTION: 09.15hrs. - 14.30hrs:During the second audition with our potentsial inEider,Ehe foLlowingmain poinEs have been discuseed:

3&oz*PoliEic siEuation in Rweuoe in 1991-92;MRMD' Power in 1991- t994;NGIRIJI{PATSE MaIhiCU;NZIRORERA .ToEePh;Oppoeition Parties (t'tDR-PL-PSD-CDR) in L992;negionalism Eituation in RWAI'IDA in 1991-92;MUDAHINn'I(A' career before & after 1990;BIZIMUNGU Cyrille, former General Director / Bankof Kigali;Creation of INTERAHAMWE Za MRMD of GfTARAMA, inL992INTERAITA}TWE ZA MRND Of GITAXAI'IA & KIGUFIThOMAS;PrefectoralPresidentComm. of GITARAIiIA:: IIABOLAHAI'IAN;Vlce President: MPAI'IO EsdrasGeorges) ;(FaEher of RutagandaSecretary:KIGUFI Thomae;Members : BIZIMUNGU CYrille,RUHtll,tULf ZA Pheneas,KAYONDE Pierre,MUDNIINYUI(A J.M.V;ECc, eEc.P.s, At the end of Ehis second audltion, ourinsider wast feeling more comfortabfe and haecomprehension of his tuture role like ae collaboraEorAuthorities.potenEiala betsterof ICTR'l-4 . 3 TRANSPORT: 15. 00hrs.- 15.4Ohre:

3&o23By road, transport from Federal Bureau of Prisons,AITIJENWOOD, to HOLIDAY Inn Hotelto WILLIAIiISPORT.15.WEDNESDAY on 12-07-2006 :L5.LDEBRTEFING: 08.00hrs. - 09'15hrs:We have met the Defence Council, Mr. Thomas DURKIN andMs. Heather LEWIS. We have debriefing him on thesituation and our human approach' Also we have gualifiedthe comportment, the attitude and the knowledge of theirclient.we have mentioned Eo them Ehe main objectives of ICTRAuthorities and our relations with Mr. MITDIIINYUKA ,I'M.V'were very good until now. Mr. DURKIN and Ms LEWEIS, hasconfirmed to us his Bupport and collaboration in thiEfile.La,zTRANSPORT: 09.15hrs.09.40hrs;By car, transpor! from Hotel to Federal Bureau ofPrisoneat AIJLENWOOD.15 .3 FEDERATJ BITREAU of PRISONS: 09.40 . - 1.3 .30hrs :Third audition of MttDHIlfY,-UKA .I .M.V. and the maln poinEsdiscussedhave been:RENZAI{O Tharcisse;FuncEion & responsibilitiesbetween L99o-L994iThe pgwer,'The Becurity in Kigali between l99O'L994;The rel,ations with Interahamwe National Comm. OfKigali, Between !992-\994iThe actsivities,Int,erviewto Radio Rwanda & RTLM;

Theroadblocks3gozzinKigali o *"*r{*o Tharcigeereeponslbi I it ies ;ILaissez-PaBserissuedby RENZAIIO thalrcisse;IThe poPular meetsinge In KtgPli & hieIparEiciPation;ReIaEionsbeEweenIGJUGAnobertlRENZAIIOTharclege,'iKIBUNGO & RENZAIIo TharcisseiPrefectoralComm. Of KIBIINGO &Tharcisse;RENZAITO ThATCiSEC & I(ARERArelationsbetween 1990 - L994iFra is & closedRENZAIIO ThATCiESE 6G ITABYARIMANAPreE. of Nationaf Comm. Of MRND toifean,gali,'formerRENZAIIO Tharciese& MANIRAGABA BerIdent,iticaEionOfIhE..ENNEMY.byRENZNIOTharcigee;The ingtructloneidentificaEion,ofRENZAIIO Tharcilocation, arrest &(Vigifance,imination) .P. S. Before to close this audition, the detarelaEe the circumslances and Ehe murderinl4ASAl.lGO Commune, named SIRAGE, Buapectfamily members of MuDAltIlmJKA around 28-assiste by Ehe former Body-guard of Majore J.M.v. hasf InEerahamweto kill some-L994. He wasThe relatlons with tshe detainee areEeema to reallze that he hae Evto choRwanda in the Jail for the reet ofcollaborate with ICTR and telL the trutwill be not an eaBY job to have him toinvolvement.good and. Go backLife ar. llowever,admit hisheinEOirownAccording wlEh the information received^'zUZtJ.^Iawyere,admitted to E] hem thaEaware of thie caEe and he has noI choicetrutsh and he Eeate to them that heconfidencein us.j from the twoII we were wellto tell us EheI hae a great

38ozt13. TIIURSDAY on 13 -07'2005 z13 .1ADMINISTRATION: 0?.4Shrs. - 08.30hrs:Debriefing with the MUDAIIfNYUKA' Councilr Mr'Bt RROWS.ThomasL3 -2TRANSPORT: 08.30hrE.By road,transPortBureau of Prisone '* 09.00hrs:from ttoliday' fnnJ.J.5FEDERAL BITREAU OF PRISONS: 09.00hre. - 14.OPhrs:Fourth audition withMI]DAHINII KA .I.M.V.aliasdiscueeed have been:Ehe Potential lcollaborator,"zuzu". TheSETAKO Ephrem & Ingerhamwe Za MRIiID'RelatSETAKo Ephrem & MANIRAGABA Bernard,'KARERA FTANCOiE;His potential collaboration like.^INSfDER'withHis credibility;The agreemenb;The testimony;13 .4TRANSPORT: 14 . 00hrs .- 14 .30hrs :By road, uransportHotel.from Federal bureauof Prison tso13. sLUNCII TIME: 14.3OhrB.- 15.00hrs:Perkins-Restaurant13.5 ADMINISTRATIONT 15.00hrs.* 17.00hre;E-mailmessageE Proceed.

w@l'latio$a UnieeTRANSMISSION SHEETFOR FILING OF DOGUMENTS WITH CM$COURT MANAGEMENT SECTION(An.27 of the Directive for the Registry)I . GENERAL INFORMATION be conpleted by the Ghambers , r-..t,ll TrialChamber I ll TrialChamber ll X TrialChamber lll ! friatChamber lllTo:N. M. Diallo R. N. Kouambo C. K. Hometowu A. N'Guml_lChief, CMS LJ Appeals Chamber / ArushaLJ Appeals Chamber / The HagueJ.-P. Fom6t6 Chamber llK. K. A. AfandeF. A. TalonR. Muzioo-MorrisonFrom: ll Chamber ll Defence I Prosecutor's Office Ll Other:Webster(names)(names)(names)(names)Gase Name:Dates:No. of Pages:Title ofDocument:The Prosecutor vs. Karemera et al.Case Number: ICTR-98-44-TTransmitted: 20 October 2008 Document's date: 20October 20086 pages and lNp OriginalLanguage: X English n French flKinyarwandaannexesProsecutor's Response to Joseph Nzirorera's Motion for Remedial and Punitive Measures -Rule 66(8) - MudahinyukaClassification Level:fl Ex Parte! Strictty Confidential / Under Seal! ConfidentialX puuticTRIM Document Type:E Indictment tr WarrantI Decision f]Affidavitn Disclosure ! orderflJudgement ! Motionfl Conespondence! tlotice of Appeal! Appeal BookE Boof of Authoritiesll . TRANSLATIOI{ ETATUA Oll THE FILINC DATE (To be completed byCMS SHALL take necessary action regarding translation.rv'cl,[t filing Party hereby submits only the original, and will not submit any translated versiori-',:::7C)n Reference material is provided in annex to facilitate translation. ,-ti N)Target Language(s):f] English n French ! Kinyarwandat}$uuridon from non-parties&Submifron from partiesff$ccusfrarticulars'-i'.tF\)/ FlllngCMS SHALL NOT take any action regarding translation.I fiting Party hereby submits BOTH the original and the translated version for filing, as follows:Orioinal in E English E French El KinyarwandaTranslation in E English E French ! KinyarwandaCMS SHALL NOT take any action regarding translation.I fiting Party will be submitting the translated version(s) in due course in the following language(s):n English n French n KinyarwandaKIIIDLY FILL II{ T}IE BOXES BELOIYThe OTP is overseeing translation.DEFENCE is overseeing translation.The document is submitted for translation to:The document is submitted to an accredited service forn fne Language Services Section of the ICTR / Arusha. translation (fees will be submitted to DCDMS):n The Language Services Section of the ICTR / The Hague. Name of contact person:n nn accredited service for translation; see details below: Name of service:Name of contact person:Address:Name of service:E-mail lTeLlFax:Address:E-mail/ Tel. / Fax:lll . TRANSIATIOI{ PRIORIT|EATION (For Ofticlal use OIILY)flTop priorityCOMMENTSnUrgent! Requiredate:! Hearing date:f] Normal fl Otner deadlines:NB: This form is avai lable on : http ://www. ictr.org/ENGLIS H/cm s/cms 1 .docGMSI (Updated on 01 August 2008)