ictr bulletin du tpir - International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

ICTR
BULLETIN
No. 4, April 2002
DU TPIR
ISSN 1020-9441
ICTR Contributes to Realisation of ICC
The lessons learned by the international community through the work of the international
tribunals for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia have taken concrete form with the
realization of the International Criminal Court.
At a ceremony in New York on
Thursday 11 April 2002, instruments
of ratification of the Treaty
establishing the ICC were deposited by
ten countries. Having attained and
passed the sixty ratifications required,
the Statute of the ICC will enter into
force on 1 July 2002, less than four
years after the adoption of the text of
the Treaty. Therefore, despite all the
obstacles and delays since its
conception, the ICC is finally to
become a reality.
It is widely acknowledged that the
successes of the ICTR and its sister
Tribunal in the Hague in carrying out
their respective mandates have
contributed to the favourable climate
of opinion which has allowed for the
rapid ratification of a Treaty of such
importance in the field of international
criminal justice. Although the ICC will
have a different structure and
procedure from the ad hoc tribunals, it
is obvious that the experiences of the
two Tribunals will serve as invaluable
beacons in guiding the ICC during its
formative years.
Prior to the ratification of the Treaty,
the President, Vice-President and
Registrar of ICTR have each addressed
various Preparatory Conferences and
CONTENTS
SOMMAIRE
News/Actualités............................2
Trials in Progress /
Procès en cours............................4
Digest / Chronique........................5
Judicial Decisions /
Decisions judiciaries.....................7
ICTR staff members have made their
technical expertise available to those
responsible for preparing the entry into
force of the Treaty. Most recently,
from 11-15 March 2002, an openended ICC intersessional meeting was
held in The Hague, Netherlands to
review the internal rules and
regulations, including UN rules and
regulations and ICTR/ICTY Registry
directives, which the ICC would need
to employ during its initial months of
operations, prior to the adoption of its
permanent rules. Contributions of
ICTR staff in the fields of finance,
registry organization, prosecutorial
strategy, witness management and
public information were much
appreciated.
One particular area where the
experience of the ad hoc Tribunals has
been drawn upon is in the matter of the
role of victims in proceedings before
the Court. Here the ICC Statute
provides for three possible kinds of
participation of victims: as witnesses,
benefiting from the various protective
measures pioneered by the ad hoc
Tribunals; as “parties civiles”, joining
cases to claim compensation from
persons eventually convicted of the
crimes against them or as claimants for
compensation and support for their
rehabilitation from a fund to be
specially set up for the purpose.
Now that entry into force of the Treaty
is assured, there is a genuine concern
that the Court will be inundated with
countless referrals, requests and
challenges from its very first day of
operation (which may be many months
before its judges, Prosecutor and
Registrar take office). Much work is
therefore being done behind the scenes
to ensure that, come July 1, the ICC
will be in a position to cope fully and
effectively with the anticipated initial
workload. Hopefully the lessons learnt
by the ICTR and the ICTY, are but the
first stepping stones to ensuring that
the ICC attains cruising speed swiftly
so that international justice is rendered
without undue delay.
Budget of the Tribunal
The General Assembly has decided
that the appropriation for the ICTR for
the biennium 2002-2003 shall be
US$197 127 300 gross (US$177
739,400 net). This sum includes
additional resources of US$493 300
gross (US$398 800 net) in order to
strengthen the role of internal oversight
services at the ICTR. A similar sum
was added to the Budget of ICTY for
the same reason.
By way of comparison it is worth
noting that the trial at a special Scottish
court set up in the Netherlands of the
two persons suspected of the bombing
of a Pan-Am plane over Lockerbie, in
December 1988 resulting in the deaths
of 270 victims, cost some US$106
million.
While the complexity of international
justice inevitably makes it an
expensive process it should be borne in
mind that the alternatives of leaving a
culture of impunity to flourish or, in
extreme cases, resorting to armed
intervention, may be even more so.
Vol. 4 April 2002
ICTR
BULLETIN DU TPIR
Page 2
ACCUSÉ, REPENTI, CONDAMNÉ ...TÉMOIN
Il aurait pu être le 4ème accusé dans ce procès dit des
«médias », et pourtant, il n’est pas assis dans le box
des accusés. Il est dans celui des témoins face aux
juges de la Chambre de première instance 1, répondant
aux questions du Procureur.
Décidément ce procès
n’aura cessé de nous surprendre depuis le début. Jean
Bosco Barayagwiza, membre fondateur de le RTLM,
aura le premier créé la surprise. Dès l’ouverture du
procès en octobre 2000, il récuse son avocat et fait la
grève du prétoire. À ce jour plus d’un an après, il
n’est pas apparu une seule fois devant la Cour.
Ensuite Hassan Ngeze, l’ancien rédacteur en chef de
Kangura, qui au gré de ses humeurs, accepte ou récuse
ses avocats. Il en aura usé cinq principaux et autant
d’adjoints depuis le début de son Affaire. Il a beau
s’élever contre les procédures, mais pour rien au
monde, il ne manquera un jour de son procès. Il faut
dire que l’homme est un «personnage». Souvent coiffé
de son keffieh à la manière des fedayin, il aime les
médias et ne dédaigne pas la publicité.
Enfin Ferdinand Nahimana, l’ancien
directeur de la
RTLM surnommé «le professeur ». Toujours serein,
concentré sur ses dossiers, Il écoute, prend des notes et
de temps à autre échange quelques mots avec son
avocat. Rien ne lui échappe. Intelligent et froid, il est
présenté par l’accusation comme un personnage central
de ce procès. C’est sur lui que va porter l’essentiel du
témoignage d’aujourd’hui.
Mais du témoin que dire? Seul non rwandais accusé à
ce jour par le Tribunal, Georges Ruggiu, ancien
journaliste à la RTLM est cité à comparaître par
l’accusation. Le moins que l’on puisse dire est qu’il
n’est pas à l’aise. Il est plutôt tendu, dans ses petits
souliers. À aucun moment son regard ne croisera ceux
des accusés. Il cherchera souvent et vainement appui
du coté du Procureur. Il est le deuxième repenti appelé
à témoigner dans ce procès. Avant lui, Omar Sherusago
avait été cité à comparaître. Ruggiu, lui, après avoir
longtemps nié une quelconque participation au
génocide avait fini par se confesser. Pris de remords ou
touché par la grâce, (il s’est converti à l’Islam lors de
sa cavale), il a fini par reconnaître sa participation au
génocide même s’il la met sur le compte de
l’endoctrinement et des rencontres sentimentales.
C’était il y a environ 2 ans. La grâce pour lui s’est
accompagnée d’une certaine clémence: Il a écopé de 12
ans d’emp risonnement. Peine la moins sévère imposée
jusqu’ici par le Tribunal.
L’interrogatoire du Procureur va tourner autour des
supposées déclarations de Nahimana sur «la
problématique des droits de l’homme », série de
conférences qu’il aurait animées en Belgique, il y a
quelques années; Des rencontres du témoin avec des
personnalités
rwandais,
dont
l’ancien
Président
Juvénal Habyarimana, Ferdinand Nahimana et avec
d’autres responsables de partis politiques.
Le
Procureur veut tout savoir. Il veut savoir comment
Georges Ruggiu a intégré la RTLM, de quel appui a t-il
bénéficié pour devenir journaliste ? Pour étayer ses
accusations et
soutenir le témoignage l’ancien
journaliste de la RTLM, le Procureur produit des
documents versés comme pièces à conviction. L’un est
relatif à l’organigramme de la RTLM et l’autre
concerne la propagande.
Ces documents rédigés par Ruggiu en 1999, et qui
tendraient à décrire la RTLM comme une machine à
propagande sont contestés comme pièces à conviction
par les avocats de la défense.
Pour l’avocat de
Nahimana, Me Biju-Duval, ils ne sauraient avoir la
même valeur probante que les déclarations faites sous
son serment par le témoin devant la Chambre. Me
Biju-Duval s’oppose alors à leur utilisation pour, dira
t-il, «rafraîchir la mémoire du témoin ». D’après le
témoin, il existait à la RTLM une direction de fait à
laquelle appartenaient, entre autres responsables,
Nahimana et Barayagwiza. Pour ce qui est des rapports
de la RTLM avec l’armée, les parties politiques et le
Gouvernement intérimaire, que le Procureur a voulu
décortiquer, le témoin les qualifiera de «soutiens
mutuels ».
En dernier ressort, la Chambre décidera sur le sujet de
retenir ces dits documents comme pièces à conviction.
Elle jugera plus tard de son utilisation pertinente ou
non.
Pour très certainement sa dernière apparition
devant ce Tribunal, Georges Ruggiu nous aura appris
qu’à Mombassa au Kenya où il s’était réfugié, il s’était
consacré à la rédaction d’un ouvrage sur cette période
tragique de l’histoire du Rwanda. Ouvrage destiné en
grande partie à le dédouaner et à dédouaner ses
anciens compagnons. Il est reparti, pour sa longue
retraite, escorté par ses geôliers, et toujours pas un seul
regard pour ses anciens confrères de la Radio
Télévision des Mille Collines.
Vol. 4 April 2002
ICTR
BULLETIN DU TPIR
American Senator Praises Tribunal
Russ Feingold, United States Senator for Wisconsin,
has commended the improvements made in the
functioning of the UN International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda, especially its legal aid programme. The
Senator issued the commendation during his visit to the
Tribunal in Arusha on 19 February 2002.
The Senator, who is also Chairman of the Africa SubCommittee of the US Senate for Foreign Committee,
said he also supported ICTR’s request for 18 ad litem
(supplementary) judges to speed up the trials for
suspects of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
During his visit Senator Feingold, who was
accompanied by Robert Royall, US Ambassador to
Tanzania also held talks with the President of the
Tribunal Judge Navanethem Pillay and the ICTR
Deputy Registrar Mr. Lovemore Munlo.
Judge Pillay and Mr. Munlo emphasized the need for
approval of the additional judges by the UN Security
Council, and stressed that this was crucial to speed up
the trials at the Tribunal.
“I have more than a theoretical interest in the work of
this Tribunal and appreciate the impact of its profound
judicial precedents in establishing a culture of
accountability in Africa and the world as a whole,”
Senator Feingold said.
Public Judicial Records Database
The public access module of the TRIM 1 judicial
records system is now operational. By early April 2002
the system had recorded over 1100 hits or inquiries
which equates to approximately 35 inquiries per day.
The final switch over of the e-Drawer system to the
Tribunal’s website was made possible by the
cooperative efforts of CMS staff, the Press and Public
Affairs Unit, the EDP Section and also the Kampala
office of ComputerLand, Tower Software’s African
partner. The unforeseen delay in the switching on of
the system was due in part to the fact that the Tribunal
is one of the very few sites anywhere in the world to
use this system for public access via the Internet. The
relatively unprecedented nature of this endeavor has
meant many hours of tailoring the system to the
Tribunal’s IT infrastructure.
Being one of the few sites to use the system for public
access to an electronic records database it has
generated a degree of interest in information
management circles. One message posted to a listserv
described the Tribunal’s developments as a ‘bold move
from East Africa’2 . Another described it as a best
practice recordkeeping decision, which addressed
accountability and transparency issues that many
organizations can at times neglect.3
The system currently contains all public judicial
records up to 30 September 2001. This amounts to
some 9000 records. The next phase of the
implementation project will be to import the post 30
September 2001 records into the database and then on a
weekly basis refresh the database with new records.
The Tribunal’s Court Management Section, which has
invested great effort in this project, acknowledges the
limitations that the e-Drawer system has in terms of
searching, structure of search results, and the interface
being only in English. It is hoped that the next version
will have significant improvements. The information
pages on Searching, Help, etc. will be made available
in French in the near future.
2
1
The Tribunal uses the TRIM recordkeeping system developed by
Tower Software, Canberra, Australia. The Internet based remote
access module of TRIM is called e-Drawer.
Page 3
Message posted to [email protected] titled “A
Bold Move from East Africa – Public Scrutiny” dated 12 March
2002.
3
Message forwarded from UN HQ ARMS dated 13 March 2002
titled “Internet Access to Judicial Records - www.ictr.org :
trustworthy electronic record keeping with public access,
transparency” it stated in part “I'd recommend that the UN HQ
Working Group – Archives and Records Management [WG-ARM]
members take a look at the site--it's innovative and real
'recordkeeping'”.
Vol. 4 April 2002
ICTR
BULLETIN DU TPIR
Page 4
Trials in Progress
Procès en cours
(as at 31 March 2002)
For up-to-date information on the progress of trials, please consult the Judicial Calendar and the Status of Detainees on
the Tribunal’s website: www.ictr.org
“Cyangugu Case” (Bagambiki, Imanishimwe,
Ntagerura)
Trial Chamber III, Judges Williams (presiding),
Ostrovsky and Dolenc,
Trial opened 18 September 2000; Prosecution case
closed on 21 November after 73 days of hearings
during which 40 witnesses were heard. Defence case
opened on 4 March 2002 and was adjourned on 28
March 2002 until 14 May 2002 after 88 days of
hearings and 18 defence witnesses.
“The Media Case”, (Barayagwiza, Nahimana and
Ngeze)
Trial Chamber I, Judges Pillay (presiding), Møse and
Gunawardana.
Trial opened 23 October 2000, resumed on 18
February 2002. Case adjourned on 28 March 2002
after 139 days of hearings involving 43 prosecution
witnesses. Trial will resume on 13 May 2002.
Semanza,
Trial Chamber III, Judges Ostrovsky (presiding),
Williams and Dolenc.
Trial opened 16 October 2000. The case resumed on
28 January 2002 for the hearing of expert witnesses
for the Defence. Case adjourned sine die on 28
February 2002 after 73 days of hearings. 27 defence
witnessed heard. By a decision of 27 March 2002 the
Chamber granted the Prosecutor leave to call rebuttal
evidence and directed that those witnesses appear
between 15 and 30 April 2002.
Kajelijeli,
Trial Chamber II, Judges Sekule (presiding), Maqutu
and Ramaroson.
Trial opened 13 March 2001, restarted 2 July 2001.
The case was adjourned on 13 December after 29
days of hearings during which 14 prosecution
witnesses were heard. It will resume on 8 April 2002.
Kamuhanda,
Trial Chamber II, Judges Sekule (presiding), Maqutu
and Ramaroson.
Trial opened 17 April 2001. Case resumed on 28
January 2002.On 19 February 2002 the case was
adjourned until 6 May 2002 after 28 days of hearings
during which 24 prosecution witnesses were heard.
“Butare Case”, (Nyiramasuhuko, Ntahobali,
Nteziryayo, Nsabimana, Ndayambaje and
Kanyabashi)
Trial Chamber II, Judges Sekule (presiding), Maqutu
and Ramaroson.
Trial opened 12 June 2001, adjourned on 4 April
2002 after 50 days of hearings. The case will resume
on 20 May 2002.
“Ntakirutimana Case”, (Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
and Gérard Ntakirutimana)
Trial Chamber I, Judges Møse (presiding), Pillay and
Vaz.
Trial opened 18 September 2001, Prosecution case
closed on 2 November 2001 after 27 days of hearings
during which 19 prosecution witnesses, including two
investigators and one expert witness were heard.
Trial resumed on 4 February 2002 and was adjourned
on 15 February after 10 further days of hearings
during which 9 Defence witnesses appeared. Trial
will resume on 10 April 2002.
“The Military Case”, (Bagosora, Kabiligi,
Ntabakuze, Nsengiyumva)
Trial Chamber III, Judges Williams (presiding),
Dolenc and Vaz.
This case against Colonel Théoneste Bagosora,
formerly Director of the Ministry of Defence and
three other senior military figures opened on 2 April.
The three other accused are Gratien Kabiligi, a
former brigadier in the Rwandan army, Aloys
Ntabakuze, commander of a Para-commando
battalion
and
Lieutenant.
Colonel
Anatole
Nsengiyumva. All are charged with genocide,
conspiracy to commit genocide, crimes against
humanity and violations of the Geneva Conventions.
The case was adjourned on 3 April until 28 June
when a status conference will be held.
Arrests and Transfers
Five accused persons were transferred to the UN
Detention Facility in Arusha in March 2002 and
appeared before the Tribunal where they all pleaded
not guilty to the charges preferred against them. A
sixth is still being held in Yaoundé, Cameroon where
he was arrested. Another accused, Father Athanase
Seromba, surrendered to the Tribunal on 7 February
2002 and pleaded not guilty to charges preferred
against him on 8 February 2002 when he made his
initial appearance before the Tribunal.
Vincent Rutaganira; the accused, a former
Councillor of Mubuga, Gishyita Commune, Kibuye
Prefecture, who surrendered to the Tribunal in
Kigoma, Tanzania was transferred to the UN
Detention Facility in Arusha on 4 March 2002.
Vol. 4 April 2002
ICTR
BULLETIN DU TPIR
Page 5
On 28 March, the accused appeared before Judge
Andr¾sia Vaz (Senegal) and pleaded not guilty to
seven counts charging him with conspiracy to
commit genocide, genocide, crimes against humanity
for murder, extermination and other inhumane acts
and violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Joseph Nzabirinda; the former organiser of youth
movement in Ngoma Commune, Butare Prefecture
was on 20 March 2002 transferred to the UN
Detention Facility in Arusha from Brussels, Belgium
where he was arrested and detained since 21
December 2001.
Lieutenant Colonel Aloys Simba; the former senior
officer of the Rwanda Armed Forces was transferred
on 11 March 2002 to the UN Detention Facility in
Arusha from Senegal where he had been arrested and
detained since 27 November 2001.
On 27 March 2002, Nzabirinda appeared before
Judge Lloyd G Williams and pleaded not guilty to
four counts charging him with genocide or in
alternative, complicity in genocide, and crimes
against humanity for extermination and rape.
The accused, who was also former member of
Parliament and President of Movement for the
Republic for National Development (MRND)
political party in Gikongoro Prefecture appeared
before Judge Lloyd G Williams (St Kitts and Nevis)
on 18 March 2002 and pleaded not guilty to four
counts charging him with genocide, or in the
alternative, complicity in genocide, and crimes
against humanity for murder and extermination.
Simon Bikindi; the former popular Rwandan music
composer and singer and former director of the
performance group Irindiro Ballet was on 27 March
2002 transferred to the UN Detention Facility in
Arusha from The Netherlands where he was arrested
and detained since 12 July 2001.
Paul Bisengimana; the former Bourgmestre of
Gikoro, Kigali Rural was on 11 March 2002
transferred to the UN Detention Facility in Arusha
from Mali where he was arrested and detained since 4
December 2001.
The accused appeared before Judge Lloyd G
Williams on 18 March 2002 and pleaded not guilty to
twelve counts charging him with genocide, or in the
alternative, complicity in genocide, conspiracy to
commit genocide, direct and public incitement to
commit genocide, crimes against humanity for
murder, extermination, rape, torture and other
inhumane acts, and violations of the Geneva
Conventions.
On 4 April 2002, the accused, who was also an
official in the Ministry of Youth and Sports and
member of the Movement for the Republic for
National Development (MRND) political party,
appeared before Judge Pavel Dolenc (Slovenia) and
pleaded not guilty five counts charging him with
conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, direct and
public incitement to commit genocide, and crimes
against humanity for murder and persecution.
Hormidas Nsengimana; the former priest and Rector
of Christ-Roi College in Nyanza, Nyabisindu
Commune in Butare Prefecture was on 21 March
2002 arrested in Yaounde, Cameroon by the
Cameroonian authorities on the basis of an arrest
warrant submitted by the Tribunal.
The accused faces charges of genocide and crimes
against humanity for murder and extermination.
Digest of ICTR Decisions, Judgements and Orders
Chronique de decisions, judgements et ordonnances du TPIR
The full text of decisions summarized in this section are available on the Tribunal’s Website: www.ictr.org
Subject: Decision on the Defence’s Request to have
the Report and the Testimony of Expert Witness Jean
Pierre Chrétien Declared Inadmissible
Case:
Case No.:
Chamber:
Date of Decision:
Nahimana, Ngeze, Baragwiza
ICTR-99-52-I
Trial Chamber 1
31 January 2002
Counsel for Nahimana argued that the Prosecutor
filed the report of expert witness Chrétien on 18
December 2001, whereas the Chamber, in a 21
November 2001 decision, ordered the Prosecutor to
file the said report by 15 December 2001. The
Defence therefore requested the Chamber to declare
the testimony and the report of Chrétien inadmissible.
The Prosecutor contended that she had no other
choice than filing the report on Tuesday 18
December 2001, since the 15 was a Saturday and
Monday 17 December a Public Holiday.
In a rebuttal, the Defence added that Prosecution
could have used other means (fax, e-mail) to send the
documents to them before filing it with Registry,
given that no texts stipulate that the filing has to
precede the disclosure and that the disclosure has to
be made with the Registry.
Vol. 4 April 2002
ICTR
BULLETIN DU TPIR
The Chamber considered Rule 7 ter (B) of the RPE,
as amended on 31/5/01, which states, "Where a time
limit is expressed in days, only ordinary calendar
days shall be counted. Weekdays, Saturdays and
public holidays shall be counted as days. However,
should the time limit expire on a Saturday, Sunday or
public holiday, the time limit shall automatically be
extended to the subsequent working day" and the fact
that the Tribunal's confirmation to the effect that
Monday 17/12 was a public holiday was dated as late
as 12 December 2001. The Judges concluded that,
under these circumstances, it couldn't reasonably be
held against the Prosecution that it did not file the
report on Friday 14 December.
Page 6
the evidence presented by the prosecutor and not to
revisit questions relating to the Indictment. The Trial
of Imanishimwe continued on the remaining 7
charges.
Subject: Trial Chamber II Oral Decision on the
Disclosure of Information
Case:
Case No.:
Chamber:
Date of Decision:
Butare
ICTR-98-42-T
Trial Chamber II
21 March 2002
Furthermore, the Chamber considered that it is a well
established practice of this Tribunal for documents to
be filed with the Registry before disclosure to the
other party and article 25 of the Directive for the
Registry, in fact provides "All documents which the
Parties wish to serve on a Judge or Chamber must be
first submitted to the Court Management Section,
which shall be responsible for the distribution of
certified copies of the documents to Judges, the
Parties and the Press and public Affairs Unit".
Defence was suprised during the course of the
Prosecutor's examination-in-chief to learn of one
important day of events that had not been covered in
any of the disclosed witness statements. The
Prosecutor argued that since there was no witness
statement they had covering the events, they need not
have disclosed it. The Chamber was unhappy with
this position and made an oral ruling to the effect that
Parties should make disclosure to each other, whether
it be in writing or by other means, prior to witness
testimony, where they come by relevant information
that will be dealt with during examination of that
witness.
The TC therefore considered that there was no
prejudice to the Defence since the Prosecution
disclosed the documents on the first available day
following the date fixed in the Order. The Chamber
denied the motion and denied costs pursuant to Rule
73(E).
Editor’s note: For the exact wording of this decision
reference should be made to the official transcript of
proceedings before Trial Chamber II on 21 March
2002.
Subject: Acquittal of Imanishimwe on the count of
conspiracy to commit genocide
Subject: Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion for
Leave to Call Rebuttal Evidence and the
Prosecutor’s Supplementary Motion for Leave to
Call Rebuttal Evidence
Case:
Case No.:
Chamber:
Date of Decision:
Imanishimwe, Bagambiki,
Ntagerura
ICTR-99-46-T
Trial Chamber 3
6 March 2002
On 6 March 2002, Trial Chamber 3 acquitted
Accused Imanishimwe of the count of conspiracy to
commit genocide. This decision was reached by a
majority of the Chamber (Williams and Ostrovsky),
with each judge giving a separate opinion. Judge
Ostrovsky gave his majority reasons orally, stating
that the evidence produced by the prosecutor was
insufficient to sustain the count. Judge Williams
agreed with the decision to acquit, but indicated that
he would put his reasons in writing at a later date. In
his reasons, delivered on 13 March 2002, he stated
that although the Prosecutor presented some indirect
evidence of conspiracy, no reasonable trier of fact
could convict on this evidence. In his oral dissenting
opinion, Judge Dolenc concluded that although he
thought that the Indictment was flawed, Rule 98 bis
permits the judges only to consider the sufficiency of
Case:
Case No.:
Chamber:
Date of Decision:
Semanza
ICTR-97-20-T
Trial Chamber III
27 March 2002
By this decision, the Judges of TC III granted the
Prosecutor leave to present rebuttal evidence through
six witnesses, as requested in the Prosecutor's Motion
for leave to Call Rebuttal Evidence. The Chamber
denied the Prosecutor's Supplementary Motion to call
additional rebuttal evidence through one expert
witness.
The Chamber's position on presenting evidence in
rebuttal follows:
Rule 85(A)(iii) of the Rules envisions the possibility
of presentation of prosecution evidence in rebuttal.
Contrary to the Defence argument, Rule 85(A) does
not limit rebuttal evidence to instances when
presentation of such evidence would be in the
interests of justice.
The “interests of justice”
Vol. 4 April 2002
ICTR
BULLETIN DU TPIR
provision in Rule 85(A) goes to altering the sequence
of presentation of evidence, not to determining
whether a particular category of evidence may be
presented at all. Of course, granting leave to the
Prosecutor to present rebuttal evidence does not give
rise to reopening the case de novo. It is axiomatic
that rebuttal evidence is limited to matters that arose
out of defence evidence. ( See, e.g. Prosecutor v.
Delalic et al, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Decision on the
Prosecution’s Alternative Request to Reopen the
Prosecution’s Case, Tr. Ch. (ICTY), 19 August 1998,
para. 23.)
Where however the defence adduces
evidence of a fresh matter that the prosecution could
not have foreseen, rebuttal evidence may be called.
Essentially because the Defence did not give notice
of alibi to the Prosecution, the Chamber granted the
Prosecutor's request to present rebuttal evidence to
attempt to refute the alibi.
The Chamber explained its decision:
Page 7
The Defence of alibi goes directly to the issue of guilt
or innocence of the Accused in this case and is
therefore a central matter for determination.
The
Chamber notes that despite the express provision of
Rule 67(A)(ii)(a) that the Defence shall notify the
Prosecutor of its intent to enter the defence of alibi as
early as practicable and in any event prior to the
commencement of the trial, the Defence in this case
failed to give such notice. While Rule 67(B)
stipulates that failure of the defence to give notice of
alibi does not limit the right of the accused to rely on
such defence, Article 19(1) of the Statute of the
Tribunal mandates Trial Chambers to ensure that
trials be fair. Fairness requires that Prosecution be
granted leave to attempt to refute the alibi, a key
issue that arose for the first time during the Defence
case. (Para. 10.)
The Chamber then denied the Prosecutor's request to
call additional rebuttal evidence because, in its view,
such evidence would not be relevant to the
determination of the case.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF ICTR ADOPTED BETWEEN 1 FEBRUARY 2002 AND 31 MARCH 2002
DECISIONS JUDICIAIRES DU TPIR ADOPTEES ENTREE 1 FEVRIER 2002 ET 31 MARS 2002
Date
Case Name(s)
Document Number
01/02/2002
Nahimana, Barayagwiza,
Ngeze
ICTR-99-52-0736
AC
Décision (Appel interlocutoire de la décision de la
chambre de premier instance I du 5 juillet 2001)
01/02/2002
Nahimana, Barayagwiza,
Ngeze
ICTR-99-52-0737
AC
Décision (Appel interlocutoire contre la décision
orale de la chambre de premier instance I 27 août
2001
01/02/2002
Nahimana, Barayagwiza,
Ngeze
ICTR-99-52-0738
AC
Decision (Interlocutory Appeal Against the 27
August 2001 TCI Oral Decision )
01/02/2002
Nahimana, Barayagwiza,
Ngeze
ICTR-99-52-0735
AC
Decision (Interlocutory Appeal of the Decision of
TCI Rendered on 5 July 2001)
01/02/2002
Bizimana, Karemera,
Nzabonimana,
Rwamakuba,
Ngirumpatse, Nzirorera,
Kabuga, Kajelijeli
ICTR-98-44-0542
AC
Décision (Appel interlocutoire contre la décision
de la chambre de premier instance II du 3 october
2001 concernant la requête en retrait de la
commission d'office de conseils)
01/02/2002
Bizimana, Karemera,
Nzabonimana,
Rwamakuba,
Ngirumpatse, Nzirorera,
Kabuga, Kajelijeli
Kamuhanda, Jean De
Dieu
ICTR-98-44-0541
AC
Decision (Interlocutory Appeal Against the 3
October 2001 TCII Decision on the Motion for
Withdrawal of Assignment of Counsel)
ICTR-99-54-0135
TC2
Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion for an Order
to the Registrar to Furnish the Prosecutor with a
Copy of the Photograph of the Accused
01/02/2002
Chamber
Record Title
Vol. 4 April 2002
Date
Case Name(s)
ICTR
BULLETIN DU TPIR
Document Number
Chamber
Page 8
Record Title
05/02/2002
Bizimana, Karemera,
Nzabonimana,
Rwamakuba,
Ngirumpatse, Nzirorera,
Kabuga, Kajelijeli
ICTR-98-44-0543
Registrar
06/02/2002
Semanza, Laurent
ICTR-97-20-0661
TC3
Decision on Defence Motion for Judicial Notice
and Presumption of Facts Pursuant to Rules 94(B)
and 54
06/02/2002
Bagilishema, Ignace
ICTR-95-1A-0554
AC
06/02/2002
Nahimana, Barayagwiza,
Ngeze
ICTR-99-52-0794
TC1
Décision («Requête en de demande de revision de
l'ordonnance du president de la chambre d'appel »;
«Requête article 73 du RPP afin que la chambre
ordonne au procureur de communiquer a la
defense les cassettes d’enregistrements de la radio
Muhabura » ; « requête en demande de révision de
l’ordonnance du president de la chambre d'appel»)
Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for
Continued Temporary Redaction of One Portion
of the Transcripts of Witness X Pursuant to Rule
66 (C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
06/02/2002
Kamuhanda, Jean De
Dieu
ICTR-99-54-0137
TC2
Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion to Add
Witnesses GKI, GKJ and GKL
11/02/2002
Nahimana, Barayagwiza,
Ngeze
ICTR-99-52-0798
TC1
Decision on the Defence's Motion In Lime to
Disallow Witness X Testimony.
15/02/2002
Kamuhanda, Jean De
Dieu
ICTR-99-54-0139
TC2
Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion to Add
Witness DAL
15/02/2002
Nteziryayo, Alphonse
ICTR-97-29-0277
Registrar
Decision of Withdrawal of Mr. Richard Perras as
Co-Counsel of the Accused Alphonse Nteziryayo
15/02/2002
Kamuhanda, Jean De
Dieu
ICTR-99-54-0143
TC2
Décision relative à la requête du procureur aux
fins d'être autorisé a ajouter le temoin DAL à liste
de temoins
15/02/2002
Kajelijeli, Juvenal
ICTR-98-44A-0111
TC2
Decision on the Defence Motion Seeking a
Request for Cooperation and Judicial Assistance
From States Pursuant to Article 28 of the Statute
19/02/2002
Musabyimana, Samuel
ICTR-01-62-0064
TC2
Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion for Protective
Measures for Victims and Witnesses
20/02/2002
Bagosora, Theoneste,
Kabiligi, Gratien,
Ntabakuze, Aloys,
Nsengiyumva, Anatole
Nahimana, Barayagwiza,
Ngeze
ICTR-98-41-0252
ICTR-99-52-0800
TC1
Decision on the Prosecutor's Request for
Extension of Time inwhich to File and Disclose
Report of Expert Witness Allison Des Forges.
Bagilishema, Ignace
ICTR-95-1A-0562
AC
Décision («Requête en urgence du procureur aux
fins de prorogation de delais et d'outorisation
d'outtrepasser les limites fixées pour le nombre de
pages de son memoire en replique»)
21/02/2002
21/02/2002
Decision of the Withdrawal of Mr. Andrew
McCartan as Lead Counsel and Mr. Martin
Bauwens as Co-Counsel of the Accused Joseph
Nzirorera.
Bureau of Determination of the Bureau Pursuant to Rule
the Judges 15(B)
Vol. 4 April 2002
Date
27/02/2002
Case Name(s)
ICTR
BULLETIN DU TPIR
Document Number
Chamber
Page 9
Record Title
Nyiramasuhuko,
Ntahobali, Nsabimana,
Kanyabashi, Nteziryayo,
Ndayambaje
Mpambara, Jean
ICTR-98-42-0321
TC2
Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion to Modify
the Sequence of Appearance of Witnesses on Her
Witness List
ICTR-01-65-0019
TC1
Décision (Requête de la défense aux fins de
communication de documents et objections
relatives à la legalité des procedures).
01/03/2002
Ntagerura, Bagambiki,
Imanishimwe, Munyakazi
ICTR-99-46-0427
TC3
Decision on the Prosecutor's Request for a Status
Conference and Prosecutor's Urgent Application
Opposing Defence Applications to Delay
Proceedings
06/03/2002
Nyiramasuhuko,
Ntahobali, Nsabimana,
Kanyabashi, Nteziryayo,
Ndayambaje
ICTR-98-42-0330
TC2
Decision on Ndayambaje's Motion to Inter Alia
Order the Prosecutor and the Rwandan
Government to Obtain Statements and to Suspend
Hearing of Detained Witnesses
07/03/2002
Ntakirutimana, Gerard,
Ntakirutimana, Elizaphan,
Ruzindana, Obed,
Sikubwabo, Charles
ICTR-96-10-0377
TC1
Decision on the Motion for Disclosure of Defence
Witness Statements.
08/03/2002
Nyiramasuhuko,
Ntahobali, Nsabimana,
Kanyabashi, Nteziryayo,
Ndayambaje
ICTR-98-42-0332
TC2
Decision on Kanyabashi and Nteziryayo Motions
for Inter Alia Disclosure of Information on the
Cover Sheets of Prosecution Witness Statements
13/03/2002
Ndayambaje, Elie
ICTR-96-8-0337
TC2
Decision of Withdrawal of Ms. Isabelle Lavoie
Co-Counsel of the Accused Elie Ndayambaje
20/03/2002
Bagilishema, Ignace
ICTR-95-1A-0572
AC
Décision (Requête en demande d'autorisation de
produire un duplique au memoire en replique du
procureur)
26/03/2002
Nyiramasuhuko,
Ntahobali, Nsabimana,
Kanyabashi, Nteziryayo,
Ndayambaje
ICTR-98-42-0339
TC2
Decision on the Defence Motions for Disclosure
of Information on the Cover Sheets of Prosecution
Witness Statements
27/03/2002
Nyiramasuhuko,
Ntahobali, Nsabimana,
Kanyabashi, Nteziryayo,
Ndayambaje
ICTR-98-42-0340
TC2
Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion to Stay
Disclosure Until Protection Measures Are Put In
Place
28/02/2002
Vol. 4 April 2002
ICTR
ICTR
BULLETIN DU TPIR
Page 10
BULLETIN DU TPIR
Published by ICTR Press and Public Affairs Unit
Reproduction of all or parts of this bulletin is authorized
provided that the source is acknowledged.
The “ICTR Bulletin du TPIR” is compiled and edited by
the Press and Public Affairs Unit of the Tribunal for
general public information purposes. It is not an official
document and contributions have no legal status or
effect. Any opinions expressed are not attributable to
the Tribunal, its judges, the Prosecutor or the Registry.
ISSN:
Editor:
Layout:
Contact:
Website:
PO Box:
Telephone:
Fax:
1020-9441
Tom Kennedy
Rani Dogra
[email protected]
www.ictr.org
6016, Arusha, Tanzania
+1 (212) 963 2848 or
+255 (27) 250 4367-72
+1 (212) 963 2848 or
+255 (27) 250 4000/250 4373
CONTRIBUTORS
The Editors are grateful for contributions to this
issue from:
Tom Adami, Laurel Baig, Roman Boed, Tom
Kennedy, Danford Mpumilwa, William Romans,
Bocar Sy, Jamie Williamson
Contributions for consideration for inclusion in
the next issue should be submitted in word
format to: [email protected] marked FAO Rani
Dogra no later than noon on Friday 17 May
2002.