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

640. For Akayesu to be held criminally responsible under Article 4 of the Statute, it isincumbent on the Prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Akayesu acted foreither the Government or the RPF in the execution of their respective conflict objectives.As stipulated earlier in this judgment, this implies that Akayesu would incur individualcriminal responsibility for his acts if it were proved that by virtue of his authority, he iseither responsible for the outbreak of, or is otherwise directly engaged in the conduct ofhostilities. Hence, the Prosecutor will have to demonstrate to the Chamber and prove thatAkayesu was either a member of the armed forces under the military command of eitherof the belligerent parties, or that he was legitimately mandated and expected, as a publicofficial or agent or person otherwise holding public authority or de facto representing theGovernment, to support or fulfil the war efforts. Indeed, the Chamber recalls that Article4 of the Statute also applies to civilians.641. Evidence presented during trial established that, at the time of the events alleged inthe Indictment, Akayesu wore a military jacket, carried a rifle, he assisted the military ontheir arrival in Taba by undertaking a number of tasks, including reconnaissance andmapping of the commune, and the setting up of radio communications, and he allowedthe military to use his office premises. The Prosecutor relied in part on these facts todemonstrate that there was a nexus between the actions of Akayesu and the conflict.Further the Prosecutor argued that reference by Akayesu to individuals as RPFaccomplices was indicative of Akayesu connecting his actions to the conflict between theGovernment and the RPF.642. It has been established in this judgment that Akayesu embodied the communalauthority and that he held an executive civilian position in the territorial administrativesubdivision of Commune. However, the Prosecutor did not bring sufficient evidence toshow how and in what capacity Akayesu was supporting the Government effort againstthe RPF. The evidence as pertains to the wearing of a military jacket and the carrying of arifle, in the opinion of the Chamber, are not significant in demonstrating that Akayesuactively supported the war effort. Furthermore, the Chamber finds that the limitedassistance given to the military by the accused in his role as the head of the communedoes not suffice to establish that he actively supported the war effort. Moreover, theChamber recalls it has been proved that references to RPF accomplices in the context ofthe events which occurred in Taba were to be understood as meaning Tutsi.176643. Considering the above, and based on all the evidence presented in this case, theChamber finds that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the actsperpetrated by Akayesu in the commune of Taba at the time of the events alleged in theIndictment were committed in conjunction with the armed conflict. The Chamber furtherfinds that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Akayesu was a member ofthe armed forces, or that he was legitimately mandated and expected, as a public officialor agent or person otherwise holding public authority or de facto representing theGovernment, to support or fulfil the war efforts.644. The Tribunal therefore finds that Jean-Paul Akayesu did not incur individualcriminal responsibility under counts 6, 8, 10, 12 & 15 of the Indictment.