Case No. ICTR-96-4-T - International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

The Accused himself testified that killings took place at the bureau communal. WitnessDCC, who is currently in detention in Rwanda, also testified that killings took place atthe bureau communal. Witness DCC was the driver of the commune during this time, andhe testified that he never heard that violence was perpetrated against women in Taba. Hedenied bringing Alexia, the wife of Ntereye, in the communal vehicle to the bureaucommunal and then to Kinihira, and he testified that this vehicle had broken down beforethe massacres started Yet Defence Witness DAX testified that the communal vehicle wasin use between April and June. Witness PP also testified that she saw the driver in thisvehicle within this time frame. For these reasons the Chamber does not accept thetestimony of Witness DZZ and DCC with regard to sexual violence.458. Most of the Defence witnesses did not go to the bureau communal during the periodfrom 7 April 1994 to the end of June 1994. Witness DCX , who testified that he did nothear any mention of sexual violence, only went to the bureau communal two times duringthis period, for personal reasons, and passed by the bureau several times. Witness DEEX,a Tutsi woman, who testified that she went once to the bureau communal, did hear thatwomen were being raped by the Interahamwe before they were killed. The other Defencewitnesses who testified that they had not heard any mention of sexual violence stated thatthey did not go to the bureau communal at any time after the killings started. WitnessDBB, Witness DAX, Witness DAAX, Witness DIX, Witness DJX, Witness DFX andWitness Matata never went to the bureau communal during this period. Witness DAAXand Witness Matata, who was called as an expert, were not in the commune of Tabaduring this period, and Witness DBB was in hiding after 17 April 1994. The Chamberconsiders that these witnesses were not in a position to know what occurred at the bureaucommunal. By their own accounts none of them, with the exception of Witness DAAX,had any conversation with the Accused regarding what was happening there. WitnessDAAX, a prefet, testified that he lost contact with the Accused after 18 April 1994,before the killings began. The testimony of these witnesses therefore does not discreditthe evidence presented by the Prosecution witnesses.459. With regard to the testimony of the Accused, the Chamber finds very little concreteevidence or argument on sexual violence other than his bare denial that it occurred. Theonly specific incident referred to by the Accused on direct examination was the forcedundressing and parading of Chantal, which he denied. On examination by the Chamber,the Accused subsequently referred to other incidents and a statement he was said to havemade outside the cultural center, suggesting that it would be difficult for a personstanding at the entrance to see what was happening inside, and that it would be difficultfor a person inside lying down to see who was at the entrance. The Accused did not assertthat this was impossible, and these comments were made in an offhand manner ratherthan as a serious defence. The Accused simply stated that there was very little to sayabout the allegations of sexual violence, that unlike the killings this was impossible andnot even for discussion.460. Faced with first-hand personal accounts from women who experienced andwitnessed sexual violence in Taba and at the bureau communal, and who swore underoath that the Accused was present and saw what was happening, the Chamber does not