time in pursuing Ephrem. On 19 April, Akayesu, assistant bourgmestre Mutijima and acommunal policeman, Mushumba, went to Kamonyi to look <strong>for</strong> the IPJ of the commune,Ephrem Karangwa, saying that he was a great accomplice of the RPF. Akayesu and histeam came back in the afternoon'". Witness DCC confirmed that Akayesu had not wastedany time in pursuing Karangwa, but denied having spoken of Kamonyi, of Akayesu'sreturn or that Akayesu had called Karangwa an accomplice of the RPF.294. Witness DZZ <strong>for</strong> the Defence, a Hutu policeman in 1994 detained in <strong>Rwanda</strong> at thetime of his appearance be<strong>for</strong>e the Chamber, testified manning barriers in the commune ofTaba and guarding the bureau communal at the time of the events alleged. He saidmassacres had become widespread in the commune of Taba after 18 April 1994 and thathe had heard of massacres at the bureau communal. He said he went to the bureaucommunal on a regular basis and manned a barrier nearby, but asserted that he did notpersonally witness any crimes at the bureau communal. He testified that he had not heardof Akayesu participating in the massacres, and that the accused had preached peaceamongst the refugees. The witness said that Akayesu saved certain Tutsi, namely witnessK and Karangwa, during the massacres. In his mind, they had been saved because, hadAkayesu supported the killings, Akayesu would also have targeted Karangwa and witnessK.295. Akayesu testified going to the bureau communal on 19 April 1994. On his arrivalwithin the vicinity of the bureau communal, he said he saw the refugees runningeverywhere. In the courtyard of the bureau communal, according to Akayesu, theInterahamwe were killing the refugees who had fled from Runda and Shyorongi. He saidhe parked the car and saw the cashier, witness K. Akayesu said he was perplexed atseeing her and wondered from where she had come. He testified that he called out to her,ordering her to go into her office. He said he had to stop someone with a machete fromattacking her and subsequently escorted her personally into the office of the bureaucommunal. According to Akayesu, he went back into the courtyard and saw refugees whohad been killed, and noted that others had managed to escape. However, at a later stageduring his examination-in-chief, when asked whether anyone had ever been killed in thecourtyard of the bureau communal, Akayesu stated that when he was at the bureaucommunal or when there had been Interahamwe attacks during his absence, no one hadbeen killed in the courtyard. After these events, Akayesu said he departed with thecommunal police in the direction of Mbizi, consequent upon receiving in<strong>for</strong>mation thatsome of the killers had gone to Mbizi.2<strong>96</strong>. During cross-examination, the Prosecutor presented tape recordings of interviews ofAkayesu carried out by the Office of the Prosecutor on 10 and 11 April 19<strong>96</strong> inZambia75. The Prosecutor questioned the credibility of Akayesu's testimony be<strong>for</strong>e theChamber regarding answers he had given about the refugees at the bureau communal on18, 19 and 20 April 1994. During his testimony, Akayesu stated he was unable todistinguish intellectuals from the rest of the refugees on the basis that there was nocriteria to make it possible to tell an intellectual apart from other persons. However, inthe said interviews, the accused said he was surprised not to have seen intellectuals of thecommune amongst the refugees who, in his opinion, appeared to be farmers, old women,
children, and old people. The Chamber questioned Akayesu as to the differences in theanswers given in court, on the one hand, and be<strong>for</strong>e the Office of the Prosecutor, on theother. Akayesu said he had not seen anyone who could be categorized as anintellectual/teacher, but that he was able to find out by speaking with the refugeeswhether or not there were any intellectuals/teachers amongst them.297. Furthermore the accused confirmed that in the context of the events in 1994, had hetold the population to fight the enemy, this would have been understood as meaning fightthe Tutsi. He also asserted not having control of the population after 18 April 1994. Hesaid witness KK was at the bureau communal on 19 April 1994. Questioned as to thekillings at the bureau communal on 19 April 1994, Akayesu said he did not see anyonekilled with a machete because he was in the courtyard of the bureau communal attendingto witness K. Akayesu added that he never saw any bodies either outside or inside theperimeter of the bureau communal and never went behind the primary school. Further,Akayesu testified never personally seeing cadavers save <strong>for</strong> the bodies of two deadchildren in his sector. In answer to questions on the fate of the schoolteachers whom hesaid he knew, Akayesu stated only hearing of their killings near the bureau communalthree days after their deaths.298. In support of its case, the Defence recalled that at least 19 witnesses in this case hadnever seen Akayesu either personally kill or order killings, and that only one witness,witness K, had been called to testify in relation to the events in paragraphs 19 and 20 ofthe Indictment. The Defence questioned the credibility of witness K on the grounds thatAkayesu, during the said interviews of 19<strong>96</strong>, had cited this particular witness as apotential defence witness. If witness K had really lived through all the events she testifiedon, argued the Defence, why would Akayesu have named her as a defence witness.Factual Findings299. The testimonies of witnesses K and KK evidenced, on the one hand, events whichboth K and KK witnessed, and on the other hand, events that only one of the two hadwitnessed. The Chamber recalls that the requirement of corroboration of a witness'testimony unique to certain events, i.e. the principle of unus testis nullus testis, is notapplicable under the Rules of the <strong>Tribunal</strong>76. The Chamber found both witness K andwitness KK to be credible. Their testimonies were not marked by hostility and wereconfirmed under cross-examination. The Defence attempted to discredit witness KK onthe basis of her inability to remember specific dates and times. However, the Chamberconsiders that these lapses of memory were not significant and an inability to recall datesand times with specificity - particularly in the light of the traumatic experience of thiswitness - is not by itself a basis <strong>for</strong> discrediting the witness77.300. Further, the Defence contested the credibility of witness K on the premise thatAkayesu had indicated to the Prosecutor in April 19<strong>96</strong> that she was a potential defencewitness. The Chamber finds this to be a mere affirmation by Akayesu of his intent to calla certain witness, and that it does not constitute a defence per se as to the allegationscontained in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Indictment. Further the Defence claimed the
- Page 2 and 3:
1.2. The Indictment1.3. Jurisdictio
- Page 4 and 5:
eports2 which indicated that acts o
- Page 6 and 7:
3. Jean Paul AKAYESU, born in 1953
- Page 8 and 9:
16. Jean Paul AKAYESU, on or about
- Page 10 and 11:
Counts 7-8(Crimes Against Humanity)
- Page 12 and 13:
c) Deliberately inflicting on the g
- Page 14 and 15:
1.4. The Trial1.4.1. Procedural Bac
- Page 16 and 17:
y the opening statement for the Def
- Page 18 and 19:
y the Tribunal for crimes related t
- Page 20 and 21:
38. Regarding the Gishyeshye meetin
- Page 22 and 23:
witness was lying because he or she
- Page 24 and 25:
in the commune. His de facto author
- Page 26 and 27:
70. Apart from asking the prefect t
- Page 28 and 29: 84. According to the testimony of D
- Page 30: Scores of political leaders were im
- Page 33 and 34: his listeners to avoid the error of
- Page 35 and 36: 111. The killing of Tutsi which hen
- Page 37 and 38: killed on the grounds that the foet
- Page 39 and 40: 128. In conclusion, it should be st
- Page 41 and 42: Witness statements137. During the t
- Page 43 and 44: protection of witnesses issued by t
- Page 45 and 46: covered anyone who had anti-Tutsi t
- Page 47 and 48: Tutsi and the Tutsi were accused of
- Page 49 and 50: as "two armies", "two belligerents"
- Page 51 and 52: "The primary criterion for [definin
- Page 53 and 54: 180. Many witnesses testified regar
- Page 55 and 56: stated in that Decision, it did not
- Page 57 and 58: deeds. For these reasons, the Chamb
- Page 59 and 60: Concerning the allegation that at l
- Page 61 and 62: turned over alive to Akayesu, and t
- Page 63 and 64: younger brothers. He stated that he
- Page 65 and 66: 237. Karangwa testified under cross
- Page 67 and 68: three brothers lie on their stomach
- Page 69 and 70: known as Usuri (phonetic spelling)
- Page 71 and 72: Karangwa's explanation for the inco
- Page 73 and 74: Count 3, Crimes against Humanity (e
- Page 75 and 76: those killed were professors from R
- Page 77: 290. Witness DCC for the Defence, d
- Page 81 and 82: further that he had not heard of Ak
- Page 83 and 84: to fetch the one who remains', a pr
- Page 85 and 86: sector councillors called on the cr
- Page 87 and 88: According to witness A, the bourgme
- Page 89 and 90: present took it to mean that the Tu
- Page 91 and 92: 355. The Accused himself confirmed
- Page 93 and 94: 364. Paragraph 15 of the Indictment
- Page 95 and 96: The witness said a certain Françoi
- Page 97 and 98: has not been proved beyond reasonab
- Page 99 and 100: who had come to his house. He said
- Page 101 and 102: Interahamwe at the entrance, carryi
- Page 103 and 104: ack to the bureau communal and on t
- Page 105 and 106: Victim Y (Witness N), a [68] year o
- Page 107 and 108: which were at times committed by mo
- Page 109 and 110: communal into a forest in the area
- Page 111 and 112: clubbing a young teacher who had be
- Page 113 and 114: 434. Two days after arriving at the
- Page 115 and 116: he went into hiding during the mass
- Page 117 and 118: ureau communal, but he insisted tha
- Page 119 and 120: taken away from the bureau communal
- Page 121 and 122: The Accused himself testified that
- Page 123 and 124: 464. In that case, when the matter
- Page 125 and 126: "A person who planned, instigated,
- Page 127 and 128: involve facilitating the commission
- Page 129 and 130:
493. In accordance with the said pr
- Page 131 and 132:
Deliberately inflicting on the grou
- Page 133 and 134:
y a psychological relationship betw
- Page 135 and 136:
Chamber notes that, as stated above
- Page 137 and 138:
• complicity by procuring means,
- Page 139 and 140:
547. Consequently, where a person i
- Page 141 and 142:
underscoring their commitment to se
- Page 143 and 144:
character134. In fact, the concept
- Page 145 and 146:
575. The definition of crimes again
- Page 147 and 148:
grounds mentioned in Article 3 of t
- Page 149 and 150:
accepted definition of this term in
- Page 151 and 152:
adopted primarily to protect the vi
- Page 153 and 154:
610. Whilst the Chamber is very muc
- Page 155 and 156:
description, namely, what constitut
- Page 157 and 158:
forces to plan and carry out concer
- Page 159 and 160:
635. There is no clear provision on
- Page 161 and 162:
7.2. Count 5 - Crimes against human
- Page 163 and 164:
663. The definition of crimes again
- Page 165 and 166:
677. The Tribunal notes that eviden
- Page 167 and 168:
685. In the light of its factual fi
- Page 169 and 170:
692. The Tribunal finds, under Arti
- Page 171 and 172:
determine, as far as each proven fa
- Page 173 and 174:
the Tutsi in general. Akayesu who h
- Page 175 and 176:
722. As regards the allegations in
- Page 177 and 178:
732. The rape of Tutsi women was sy
- Page 179 and 180:
Chamber finds beyond a reasonable d
- Page 181 and 182:
Footnote 11. Decision: Order for Co
- Page 183 and 184:
Footnote 41. Article 104 of the Loi
- Page 185 and 186:
Footnote 68. Dictionnaire Rwandais-
- Page 187 and 188:
Footnote 103. "Principles of Intern
- Page 189 and 190:
Footnote 134. Secretary General's R
- Page 191:
Footnote 171. See General Legal Fin