Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • TPIR, 21 de Febrero de 2003, Ntakirutima

    Uploaded by

    Valentina Barros
    35 views282 pages
    The document is a judgement from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda regarding the cases of Elizaphan and Gerard Ntakirutimana. It finds them guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity for their roles in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Specifically, it finds that they appealed to Tutsis at the Mugonero Complex seeking refuge and then participated in their separation and denial of treatment, which led to their deaths. It also finds that Gerard procured gendarmes and ammunition for the attack and Elizaphan failed to prevent the attack on the refugees at the hospital. Both were present at the complex during the main attack on April 16th.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    TPIR, 21 de febrero de 2003, Ntakirutima,

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is a judgement from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda regarding the cases of Elizaphan and Gerard Ntakirutimana. It finds them guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity for their roles in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Specifically, it finds that they appealed to Tutsis at the Mugonero Complex seeking refuge and then participated in their separation and denial of treatment, which led to their deaths. It also finds that Gerard procured gendarmes and ammunition for the attack and Elizaphan failed to prevent the attack on the refugees at the hospital. Both were present at the complex during the main attack on April 16th.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    35 views282 pages

    TPIR, 21 de Febrero de 2003, Ntakirutima

    Uploaded by

    Valentina Barros
    The document is a judgement from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda regarding the cases of Elizaphan and Gerard Ntakirutimana. It finds them guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity for their roles in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Specifically, it finds that they appealed to Tutsis at the Mugonero Complex seeking refuge and then participated in their separation and denial of treatment, which led to their deaths. It also finds that Gerard procured gendarmes and ammunition for the attack and Elizaphan failed to prevent the attack on the refugees at the hospital. Both were present at the complex during the main attack on April 16th.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 282

    Tribunal

    P6nalInternational
    pourle Rwanda
    International
    Criminal
    Tribunalfor Rwanda
    UNITED NATIONS
    NATIONS UNIES

    Or.: Eng.
    TRIAL CHAMBER I

    BeforeJudges: ErikMose,Presiding
    Navanethem
    Pillay
    Andr6siaVaz

    Registrar: Adama Dieng

    Judgement
    of: 21 February
    2003

    THE PROSECUTOR

    Ve

    ELIZAPHAN and GI~RARD NTAKIRUTIMANA

    Cases No. ICTR-96-10 & ICTR-96-17-T

    JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE

    Counsel
    fortheDefence:
    RamseyClark
    DavidJacobs

    Counsel
    fortheProsecution:
    Charles
    Adeogun-Phillips
    WallaceKapaya
    Boi-Tia
    Stevens
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    INDEX

    CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

    1. The International
    CriminalTribunalfor Rwanda 1

    2. Jurisdiction
    of the Tribunal 1

    3. The Indictments 2

    4. StatutoryProvisions 2

    5. Confirmation
    and InitialAppearance 5

    6. Other Pre-TrialProceedings 6

    7. The Trial 7

    8. EvidentiaryMatters 9

    9. The Accused 10

    CHAPTER II: FACTUAL FINDINGS 12

    1. Introduction 12

    2. Specificity
    of the Indictments 12

    2.1 Introduction
    2.2 Prosecution
    2.3 Defence
    2.4 Discussion 14

    3. The Mugonero Indictment 19

    3.1 Introduction
    3.2 Overviewof Eventsfrom 6 to 15 April1994
    3.3 Appealsto Tutsito Seek Refugeat MugoneroComplex 23

    3.3.1 Prosecution
    3.3.2 Defence
    3.3.3 Discussion
    3.4 Separation
    of TutsifromOtherIndividuals
    at the Complex 27
    3.4.1 Prosecution
    3.4.2 Defence

    3.4.3 Discussion 29
    (a) Attempted
    Confinement
    in NgomaAdventist
    Church 29

    Judgement
    andSentence (i) 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo, ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    (b)Evacuation
    andSelective
    Protection 31
    (c)Discharge
    of Non-Tutsi
    Patients 34
    3.5 Denial
    of Treatment
    to Tutsi
    Patients 39
    3.5.1 Prosecution
    3.5.2 Defence
    3.5.3 Discussion
    3.6 Severance
    ofUtilities 44
    3.6.1 Prosecution
    3.6.2 Defence
    3.6.3 Discussion
    3.7 Procurement
    of Gendarmes
    and Ammunition
    by G6rard 45
    Ntakirutimana
    3.7.1 Prosecution
    3.7.2 Defence
    3.7.3 Discussion
    3.8 Events
    Leading
    up to theAttack
    in theMoming
    of 16 April 52
    1994
    3.8.1 Prosecution
    3.8.2 Defence
    3.8.3 Discussion 57
    (a) TheLetter 57
    (b) Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    Response
    to theLetter 59
    (c) DidElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    Convey
    Attackers? 62
    (d) Did G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Convey
    Attackers? 82
    (e) AlibifortheMoming
    of 16 April1994(8.00- 83
    9.00a.m.)
    3.9 General
    Description
    of theAttack
    on 16 April1994 88
    3.9.1 Prosecution
    3.9.2 Defence
    3.9.3 Discussion
    3.10 Attack
    on Refugees
    at ESIChapel 96

    Judgement
    andSentence (ii) 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGbrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    3.10.1 Prosecution
    3.10.2 Defence
    3.10.3 Discussion
    3.11 Shooting
    of Charles
    Ukobizaba 102

    3.11.1 Prosecution
    3.11.2 Defence
    3.11.3 Discussion
    3.11.4 Alibi
    fortheRemainder
    of 16 April(from9.00a.m.) 106
    3.11.5 Finding
    3.12 Shooting
    of Witness
    SS 109
    3.12.1 Prosecution
    3.12.2 De fence
    3.12.3 Discussion
    3.13 Shooting
    of OtherRefugees
    (Kagemana
    and Macantaraga) 111
    3.13.1 Prosecution
    3.13.2 Defence
    3.13.3 Discussion
    3.14 Sighting
    of Gerard
    Ntakirutimana
    in Basement
    of Hospital 114
    3.14.1 Prosecution
    3.14.2 Defence
    3.14.3 Discussion
    3.15 Evidence
    of Superior
    Responsibility 121
    3.15.1 Prosecution
    3.15.2 Defence
    3.15.3 Discussion
    o The Bisesero
    Indictment 124
    4.1 Introduction 124
    4.2 Overview
    of Alleged
    Events
    in theBisesero
    Areafrom16 April
    Through
    June1994 125
    4.3 TheAccused’s
    AlibiforthePeriod
    17 ApriltoJuly1994 127
    4.3.1 Defence

    Judgement
    andSentence (iii) 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T& ICTR-96-17-T

    4.3.2 Prosecution
    4.3.3 Discussion
    4.4 Shooting
    of Ignace
    Rugwizangoga
    on 17 April1994
    (Witness
    GG) 154
    4.4.1 Prosecution
    4.4.2 Defence
    4.4.3 Discussion
    4.5 Murambi
    Hillon 18 AprilandGitweHillafter19 April
    1994,
    Possibly
    May(WitnessFF) 155
    4.5.1 Prosecution
    4.5.2 Defence
    4.5.3 Discussion
    4.6 GitweHill,a Number
    of Daysafter17 April1994(Witness
    KK) 158
    4.6.1 Prosecution
    4.6.2 Defence
    4.6.3 Discussion
    4.7 GitwePrimary
    School,
    Endof April,
    Beginning
    of May
    (WimessHH) 160
    4.7.1 Prosecution
    4.7.2 Defence
    4.7.3 Discussion
    4.8 Vicinity
    of GitwePrimary
    School,
    EarlyMay1994
    (Witness
    DD) 163
    4.8.1 Prosecution
    4.8.2 Defence
    4.8.3 Discussion
    4.9 GitweHill,Middle
    of May(Witness
    XX) 165
    4.9.1 Prosecution
    4.9.2 Defence
    4.9.3 Discussion
    4.10 Murambi
    Hill,between
    Mayand June1994(Witness
    SS) 166
    4.10.1Prosecution

    Judgement
    andSentence (iv) 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T& ICTR-96-17-T

    4.10.2Defence
    4.10.3Discussion
    4.11 Kidashya
    Hill,between
    AprilandJune1994(Witness
    FF) 168
    4.11.1 Prosecution
    4.11.2 Defence
    4.11.3 Discussion
    4.12 Nyarutovu
    Cellule
    andGitwaHill,Middle
    andSecond
    Halfof
    May 1994 (WimessCC) 170
    4.12.1 Prosecution
    4.12.2 Defence
    4.12.3 Discussion
    (a) Nyarutovu
    Cellule
    (b) GitwaCellule
    4.13 Kabatwa
    andGitwaHills,End of May 1994(Wimess
    KK) 173
    4.13.1 Prosecution
    4.13.2 Defence
    4.13.3 Discussion
    4.14 MubugaPrimarySchool,
    Middleof May 1994(Wimess
    GG) 176
    4.14.1 Prosecution
    4.14.2 Defence
    4.14.3 Discussion
    4.15 MubugaPrimary
    School,
    June1994(Witness
    HH) 177
    4.15.1 Prosecution
    4.15.2 Defence
    4.15.3 Discussion
    4.16 MubugaPrimary
    School,
    June1994(Witness
    SS) 179
    4.16.1 Prosecution
    4.16.2 Defence
    4.16.3 Discussion
    4.17 Muyira(Muhira)
    Hill,Middleof May1994(Wimess 181
    4.17.1Prosecution

    Judgement
    andSentence (v) 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGErardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    4.17.2Defence
    4.17.3Discussion
    4.18 MuyiraHill,13 May1994(Wimess
    YY) 183
    4.18.1 Prosecution
    4.18.2 Defence
    4.18.3 Discussion
    4.19 Muyira
    Hill,Dege,20 May1994(Witness
    II) 184
    4.19.1 Prosecution
    4.19.2 Defence
    4.19.3 Discussion
    4.20 Muyira
    Hill,Ku Cyapa,
    Mayor June1994(Witness
    SS) 188
    4.20.1 Prosecution
    4.20.2 Defence
    4.20.3 Discussion
    4.21 Muyira
    HillandKu Cyapa,
    June1994(Witness
    HH) 190
    4.21.1 Prosecution
    4.21.2 Defence
    4.21.3 Discussion
    4.22 Mutiti
    Hill,
    June1994(Witness
    FF) 192
    4.22.1 Prosecution
    4.22.2 Defence
    4.22.3 Discussion
    4.23 Murambi
    Church,
    End of April(Witnesses
    DD,GG, SS,YY) 193
    4.23.1 Prosecution
    4.23.2 Defence
    4.23.3 Discussion 195
    (a) Removal
    of the ChurchRoof
    (b) Killings
    4.24 Actions
    of theAccused
    at Unspecified
    Locations
    intheBisesero
    Area(WitnessesYY and HH) 200
    4.24.1Prosecution

    Judgement
    andSentence (vi) 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Eliza_phan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    4.24.2Defence
    4.24.3Discussion
    4.25 Planning
    Meetings
    andDistribution
    of Weapons,
    June1994 202
    4.25.1 Prosecution
    4.25.2 Defence
    4.25.3 Discussion
    TheAlibi 206
    Character
    of theAccused
    Priorto April1994 206
    6.1 Defence
    6.1.1 Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    6.1.2 G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    6.2 Prosecution
    6.3 Discussion 208
    6.3.1 Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    6.3.2 G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    7. Was ThereA Political
    Campaign
    to Falsely
    Incriminate
    the
    Accused? 214
    7.1 Defence
    7.2 Prosecution
    7.3 Discussion 216
    CHAPTER Ill: LEGAL FINDINGS 223
    1. Preliminary
    LegalFindings 223
    2. The MugoneroIndictment 223
    2.1 Count1A - Genocide 223
    2.2 Count1B - Complicity
    in Genocide 226
    2.3 Count2 - Conspiracy
    to CommitGenocide 226
    2.4 Count3 - CrimeAgainstHumanity
    (Murder) 227
    2.5 Count4 - CrimeAgainst
    Humanity
    (Extermination) 229
    2.6 Count5 -CrimeAgainstHumanity
    (OtherInhumane
    Acts) 230
    2.7 Charges
    of Individual
    Criminal
    Responsibility
    as a Superior
    Against
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana 231

    Judgement
    andSentence (vii) 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No,ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    No The Bisesero
    Indictment 231
    3.1 Count1 - Genocide 231
    3.2 Count2 - Complicity
    in Genocide 234
    3.3 Count3 - Conspiracy
    to CommitGenocide 234
    3.4 Count4 CrimeAgainstHumanity
    (Murder) 235
    3.5 Count5 CrimeAgainst
    Humanity
    (Extermination) 236
    3.6 Count6- CrimeAgainst
    Humanity
    (OtherInhumane
    Acts) 236
    3.7 Count7 - Violations
    of Common
    Article
    3 andAdditional
    Protocol
    II 237
    4. LegalIssuesRaised
    by the Defence 239
    CHAPTER IV: VERDICT 243
    CHAPTER V: SENTENCING 244
    Io Applicable
    Provisions 244
    2. Purposes
    andPrinciples
    of Sentencing 244
    3. Submissions
    of theParties 246
    3.1 Prosecution
    3.2 Defence
    Discussion 247
    4.1 Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana 247
    4.1.1 Mitigating
    Circumstances
    4.1.2 Aggravating
    Circumstances
    4.1.3 Conclusion
    4.2 G6rardNtakirutimana 249
    4.2.1 Mitigating
    Circumstances
    4.2.2 Aggravating
    Circumstances
    4.2.3 Conclusion
    4.3 Sentences
    Imposed
    in OtherCasesof Relevance
    to thePresent
    Case 251
    So Imposition
    of Sentence 252
    5.1 Sentence
    for Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana 252
    5.2 Sentence
    for G6rardNtakirutimana 253

    Judgement
    andSentence (viii) 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    e CreditforTimeServedand Execution
    of Sentence 254
    ANNEX I: Indictment
    ICTR-96-10
    (Mugonero)
    ANNEX II: Indictment
    ICTR-96-17(Bisesero)
    ANNEX III: Mapof Bisesero
    (Prosecution
    Exhibit
    P7B,p. 5)
    ANNEX IV: Indexof Abbreviations
    (Judgements)

    Judgement
    andSentence (ix) 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    CHAPTER I

    INTRODUCTION

    1. The International
    Criminal
    Tribunal
    for Rwanda
    1. ThisJudgement
    in thecaseof TheProsecutorv. Elizaphan
    Ntata’rutimana
    and
    GdrardNtakirutimanais renderedby TrialChamberI ("theChamber") of the
    International
    Criminal
    Tribunal
    forRwanda ("theTribunal"),
    composed
    of Judges
    Erik
    Mose,
    presiding,
    Navanethem
    Pillay,
    andAndr6siaVaz.

    2. TheTribunal wasestablished
    by United NationsSecurity
    CouncilResolution
    955
    of 8 November1994,1afterofficialUN reports thatgenocideandotherwidespread,
    systematic,andflagrantviolations
    of intemationalhumanitarian
    lawhadbeencommitted
    in Rwanda.
    2 TheSecurityCouncil
    determinedthatthesituationconstituted
    a threatto
    internationalpeaceandsecurity,
    andthattheprosecution of personsresponsible
    for
    seriousviolationsof intemational
    humanitarianlawin Rwandawouldcontribute
    to the
    processof national
    reconciliation
    andto therestoration
    andmaintenance
    ofpeaceinthe
    country.Accordingly,andpursuant
    to Chapter VIIof theUnitedNationsCharter,
    the
    SecurityCouncil
    established
    thepresent
    Tribunal.

    3. The Tribunalis governedby the Statuteannexedto SecurityCouncil


    Resolution
    955("theStatute"),andby theRulesof Procedure
    andEvidence
    adopted
    theTribunal’s
    3 Judges
    on 5 July1995andsubsequentlyamended
    ("theRules").

    2. Jurisdiction
    of theTribunal

    4. UnderArticle1 of theStatute,
    theTribunalis empowered
    to prosecute
    persons
    responsible
    forserious violations
    of international
    humanitarian
    lawcommitted
    in the
    territory
    of RwandaandRwandancitizens
    responsibleforsuchviolations
    committedin
    neighbouring
    Statesof Rwanda.
    Article
    7 of theStatutelimits
    theTribunal’s
    temporal
    jurisdiction
    to actscommitted
    between
    1 Januaryand31 December
    1994.

    5. TheTribunal’s
    material
    jurisdiction
    iscircumscribed
    byArticles
    2,3,and4 ofthe
    Statute.
    TheTribunal’s
    personal
    jurisdiction
    islimited
    tonatural
    persons(Article
    5)and
    to theformsof individual
    criminal
    responsibility
    in Article
    6. Theseprovisions
    are
    reproducedbelow.

    ~UN Doc.S/RES/955(1994).
    2 InterimReportoftheCommission of ExpertsEstablished
    Pursuantto Security
    CouncilResolution
    935
    (1994),
    UN Doc.S/1994/1125;FinalReport oftheCommissionof ExpertsEstablished
    Pursuant
    to Security
    CouncilResolution935(1994),UN Doc.S/1994/1405;andReports of theSpecialRapporteur
    forRwanda
    of theUN Commissionon HumanRights, UN Doc.S/1994/1157,
    Annexes I andII.
    3 Atthetimeof writing,themostrecent amendment
    to theRuleswasapprovedon5 July2002.TheStatute
    andtheRules
    areavailable
    attheTribunal’s
    website:
    <http://www.ictr.org>.

    Judgement
    andSentence 1 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    6. Althoughthe Tribunalandnationalcourtshaveconcurrentjurisdictionto
    prosecute
    persons
    suspected
    of serious
    violations
    of international
    humanitarian
    law,the
    Tribunal
    hasprimacyovernational
    courts,
    in accordance
    withArticle8 of theStatute,
    andmayrequest
    a national
    courttodefer
    tothecompetence
    of theTribunal.

    3. The Indictments

    7. On 22 February
    2001,theChamber
    granted
    theProsecution’s
    motionfora joint
    trial
    pursuant
    toRule48his4
    oftheRules,
    inrespect
    oftwoIndictments:
    (i)Indictmentno.ICTR-96-10-I,
    as amendedon 27 March2000andon
    October
    2000,in the caseof Prosecutorv. ElizaphanNtakirutimana,G6rard
    Ntakirutimana,
    andCharles Sikubwabo
    ("theMugoneroIndictment");
    (ii)Indictment
    no.ICTR-96-17-I,
    as amended
    on 7 July1998,in thecase
    Prosecutor
    v. ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    andG6rard Ntakirutimana("theBisesero
    Indictment").

    8. Thethirdperson namedin theICTR-96-10-I


    Indictment,
    CharlesSikubwabo,
    was
    at largeat thetimeof writing.
    At thepre-trial
    conference
    on 17 September
    2001,the
    ChambergrantedtheProsecution’srequestto havethecharges
    againstMr.Sikubwabo
    5
    severed.

    9. TheIndictments aresetoutin fullin Annexes


    I andII to thisJudgement.
    They
    charge
    the twoAccusedwithgenocide,complicity
    in genocide,conspiracy
    to commit
    genocide,
    crimesagainst humanity,
    andwithviolationsof Article3 commonto the
    Geneva
    6 Conventions
    andof Additional
    ProtocolII.

    10.Individualresponsibility
    fortheabovecrimeswasbrought
    in bothIndictments
    under
    Article6(1)of theStatute.
    Additionally,
    theMugonero
    Indictment
    charges
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    withresponsibility
    underArticle
    6(3)(command
    responsibility)
    for
    countsexceptconspiracyto commitgenocide.
    Thechargesagainst
    the Accused
    are
    considered
    indetailinChapter
    IIIofthisJudgement.

    4. Statutory
    Provisions

    11.Theprovisions
    of theStatute
    defining
    thecrimesandformsof individual
    criminal
    responsibility
    withwhichtheAccused
    arecharged
    in theIndictments
    aresetoutbelow:7

    4 Decision
    of22February
    2001ontheProsecutor’s
    Motion
    toJoin theIndictments
    ICTR96-10-I
    andICTR
    96-17-T.
    Thisandselected
    other
    decisions
    referred
    tobelow areavailable
    attheTribunal’s
    website;
    see
    <http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/cases/index.htm>.
    5 T.17September
    2001p.45.
    6 Therelationship
    between
    theMugonero
    Indictment
    andBisesero
    Indictment
    isdiscussed
    ingreater
    detail
    inChapter
    II.
    7 Thepast
    judgements
    oftheTrial
    Chambers
    ofthisTribunal
    contain
    separate
    chapters
    entitled
    "Applicable
    Law",summarising
    thejurisprudence
    relative
    toArticles
    2 to6 oftheStatute.
    Inthepresent
    casethe
    Chamber
    seesnoneedtorecapitulate
    theapplicable
    lawina separate
    chapter;
    rather,
    itwillconfine
    its
    discussion
    ofthelawtotheconcrete
    circumstances
    ofthis
    case andtoanylegal
    issues
    arising
    fromit;see,
    inparticular,
    Chapter
    III.ForTribunal
    judgements
    see<http://www.ictr.org/ENGLISH/cases/ind

    Judgement
    andSentence 2 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Article
    2: Genocide

    1. TheIntemationalTribunal
    forRwandashallhavethepowerto prosecute persons
    committinggenocide
    asdefined
    inparagraph2 of thisarticle
    orof committing
    anyof the
    otheractsenumerated
    inparagraph
    3 ofthisarticle.

    2.Genocide
    meansanyof thefollowing
    actscommitted
    withintent
    to destroy,
    inwholeor
    inpart,
    a national,
    ethnical,
    racial
    orreligious
    group,
    assuch:

    a) Killing
    members
    of thegroup;
    b) Causing
    serious
    bodily or mental
    harmto members
    ofthegroup;
    c) Deliberately
    inflicting
    on thegroup
    conditions
    oflifecalculated
    tobring
    about
    its
    physical
    destruction
    inwholeorinpart;
    d)Imposing
    measures
    intendedtoprevent
    birthswithin
    thegroup;
    e)Forcibly
    transferring
    children
    ofthegrouptoanother
    group.

    3.Thefollowing
    actsshall
    bepunishable:

    a) Genocide;
    b) Conspiracy
    to commitgenocide;
    c) Direct
    andpublicincitement
    to commit
    genocide;
    d) Attempt
    to commitgenocide;
    e) Complicity
    in genocide.

    Article
    3: Crimesagainst
    Humanity

    TheInternational
    Tribunal
    for Rwandashallhavethe powerto prosecute persons
    responsible
    forthefollowing
    crimes
    whencommitted
    as partofa widespread
    or systematic
    attack
    against
    anycivilian
    population
    onnational,
    political,ethnic,
    racial
    orreligious
    grounds:

    a) Murder;
    b) Extermination;
    c) Enslavement;
    d)Deportation;
    e) Imprisonment;
    f)Torture;
    g) Rape;
    h)Persecutions
    onpolitical,
    racial
    andreligious
    grounds;
    i) Other
    inhumane
    acts.

    Article4: Violations
    of Article3 commonto the GenevaConventions
    and of
    Additional
    Protocol
    II

    The International
    Tribunalfor Rwandashallhavethe powerto prosecute persons
    committing
    or ordering
    to be committed
    serious
    violations
    of Article 3 commonto the
    GenevaConventionsof 12 August1949for the Protectionof War Victims,and of
    Additional
    Protocol
    IItheretoof8 June1977.
    These
    violations
    shallinclude,butshallnot
    belimited
    to:

    Judgement
    andSentence 3 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    a) Violence
    to life,healthandphysicalor mental
    well-being
    ofpersons,
    inparticular
    murder
    aswellas crueltreatment suchastorture,
    mutilation
    or anyformofcorporal
    punishment;
    b)Collectivepunishments;
    c)Takingof hostages;
    d)Actsofterrorism;
    e) Outrages
    uponpersonaldignity, inparticular
    humiliating
    anddegrading
    treatment,
    rape,
    enforcedprostitution
    andanyformofindecentassault;
    f)Pillage;
    g) Thepassing of sentencesandthecarrying outof executions
    withoutprevious
    judgment
    pronouncedby a regularlyconstituted
    court,affording
    allthejudicial
    guarantees
    whicharerecognizedasindispensable
    bycivilized
    peoples;
    h) Threats
    tocommitanyoftheforegoing acts.

    Article
    5: Personal
    jurisdiction

    TheInternational
    Tribunal
    forRwanda
    shall
    havejurisdiction
    overnatural
    persons
    pursuant
    totheprovisions
    ofthepresent
    Statute.

    Article
    6: Individual
    criminal
    responsibility

    1. A person
    whoplanned,
    instigated,
    ordered,
    committed
    or otherwise
    aidedandabetted
    in
    theplanning,
    preparation
    orexecution
    ofa crime
    referred
    toinArticles
    2 to4 ofthepresent
    Statute,
    shallbeindividually
    responsible
    forthecrime.

    2. Theofficial
    position
    of anyaccused
    person,
    whetherasHeadof stateor govemment
    or
    as a responsible
    government
    official,shallnot relievesuchpersonof criminal
    responsibility
    normitigate
    punishment.

    3.Thefactthatanyof theactsreferred toin Articles


    2 to 4 ofthepresent
    Statute
    was
    committedby a subordinate
    doesnotrelieve
    hisor hersuperior
    ofcriminal
    responsibility
    if
    he or sheknewor hadreasonto knowthatthesubordinate
    wasaboutto commit
    suchacts
    or haddoneso andthesuperior failed
    to takethenecessaryandreasonable
    measuresto
    preventsuchactsortopunish
    theperpetrators
    thereof.

    4. Thefactthatan accusedperson
    actedpursuant
    to an orderof a government
    or of a
    superior
    shallnotrelieve
    himor herofcriminal
    responsibility,
    butmaybeconsideredin
    mitigation
    of punishment
    if theInternational
    Tribunal
    forRwanda determines
    thatjustice
    sorequires.

    12. Theelements
    of theabovecrimes
    aresetoutin Chapter
    III.

    Judgement
    andSentence 4 21February
    2003
    !l
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-1?-T

    5. Confirmation
    and Initial
    Appearance

    13. On 20 June1996,the originalICTR-96-10-I (Mugonero) Indictment was


    confirmed
    by JudgeKhan.8 It charged
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana,
    G6rardNtakirutimana,
    ObedRuzindana, and CharlesSikubwabo withgenocide, complicityin genocide,
    conspiracyto commitgenocide, and crimesagainsthumanityfor theiralleged
    involvement in massacresat MugoneroComplexin Gishyitacommune,Kibuye
    prefecture.
    By decision
    of 30 June1998,addressinga motion by theDefencealleging
    thattheMugoneroIndictment
    wastoovague, theChamber orderedthattheIndictmentbe
    amended.
    9 On 10 March2000,theProsecution movedto amendtheIndictment to delete
    chargesagainst Ruzindana,who hadbeenconvicted on a separateindictment.The
    Chamber
    granted theProsecution’s
    requeston 27 March2000.

    14. On 7 April2000,theProsecution filedanothermotion


    forleaveto amendthe
    Mugonero
    Indictment.
    It requested,
    interalia,thatthefirst
    twocounts(ongenocide
    and
    on complicity
    in genocide)
    be charged
    in thealternative
    rather
    thancumulatively;
    and
    thattheallegedindividual
    responsibility
    of G6rardNtakirutimana
    be expanded
    toinclude
    commandresponsibility
    foractsof hissubordinates,pursuant
    to Article
    6(3)of the
    ~0
    Statute.TheChambergranted
    theserequests.

    15. The ICTR-96-17-I(Bisesero) Indictment was confirmedby JudgeSekuleon


    September1996.11 ElizaphanNtakirutimana and G6rardNtakirutimanawerethereby
    jointly
    charged withgenocide,complicityin genocide,conspiracy
    to commit genocide,
    crimesagainst humanity,and seriousviolations of Article
    3 commonto theGeneva
    Conventionsandof Additional ProtocolII. TheBisesero Indictmentdealtwiththe
    allegedinvolvementof thetwoAccused in massacresin theareaof Bisesero,in the
    GisovuandGishyita communesof Kibuyeprefecture. By decisionof 23 March1998,
    concerninga DefencemotionchallengingtheBisesero Indictment
    forvagueness, the
    ChamberorderedthattheIndictmentbe amended.12

    16. G6rard Ntakirutimana


    wasarrestedin theIvoryCoaston 29 October1996and
    transferred
    to theTribunal’s
    detention
    facilityin Arushaon 30 November
    1996.On 2
    December1996,the Accusedmadehis initialappearance beforea TrialChamber
    composed
    of judgesOstrovsky,
    Aspegren,
    andPillay.He pleadednotguiltyto thefive
    counts
    in theMugonero
    Indictment
    andthesevencountsin theBiseseroIndictment.13

    17.Thesecond
    Accused,
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    wastransferred
    to theTribunal’s
    detention
    facility
    fromtheUnited
    States
    on 24 March2000,
    having
    failedin hisattempt

    8 Decision
    of20June 1996ontheReviewoftheIndictment.
    9 Decisionof30June 1998ona PreliminaryMotionFiled
    byDefence
    CounselforanOrder
    toQuash
    Counts
    1,2,3,and 6 oftheIndictment.
    loDecisionof6 October
    2000ontheProsecutor’s
    Request
    forLeave
    toFileanAmended
    Indictment.
    1~Decisionof7 September
    1996ontheReviewoftheIndictment.
    12Decisionof23March 1998ona Preliminary
    MotionFiled
    (on16April
    1997)byDefence
    Counsel
    for
    Order
    13T.to QuashCounts
    1, 2,
    83,6 and7 oftheIndictment.
    2 December
    1996pp. and14.

    Judgement
    andSentence 5 21February
    2003

    t
    9.0
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    tochallenge
    thetransfer.
    14Hisinitial
    appearance
    washeldbefore
    JudgeGunawardana,
    on
    15
    31 March
    2000;
    he pleaded
    notguilty
    toallcounts.

    6, OtherPre-Trial
    Proceedings

    18. On 22 August2000,the Chamber


    granted
    the Prosecution’s
    request
    forwitness
    protection.
    Thedecision
    alsogranted
    protection
    toDefencewitnesses.16

    19.At thepre-trial conferenceon 2 November


    2000,theProsecutionrequested
    leave
    of theChamberto bringtheMugonero andBiseseroIndictmentswithin
    a single
    trial
    pursuantto Rule48 bisof theRules. Thebasisof thisrequestwasthattheoffences
    allegedin theIndictmentswerecommittedin furtherance
    of a commontransaction
    and
    thata singletrial
    would bein thebestinterests
    oftheadministration
    ofjustice.
    On22
    17
    February2001,theChambergrantedtheProsecution’srequest.

    20.On 28 May2001,theProsecution fileda motion forcontemptof courtallegedly


    arisingfroma violationof theChamber’sorderof 22 August
    2000relating to witness
    protection.
    TheProsecution
    allegedthata statement
    of a protected
    witnessin thepresent
    case,whichwas disclosedto theDefence, hadsubsequently beenproduced in appeal
    proceedingsin the caseof Alfred Musema.On 8 June2001,theDefence opposed the
    motion
    forcontempt asan attempttodenytheAccused theirrightsto prepare
    a defence,
    andstatedinteraliathata witnessstatement
    couldfinditswayintothehands ofanother
    detaineeby numerousmeans.

    21.In another
    motion,
    of 5 July2001,theDefence
    raised
    issues
    pertaining
    interalia
    toexpertandfactual
    witnesses.

    22. In its decisionon the two aforementionedmotions, dated16 July2001,the


    Chamber emphasised
    theneedto comply withwitness protectionprovisions.
    However,
    theChamber foundthatin theparticular circumstances
    of thecasethebreach of the
    protection orderwas notserious enoughto be tantamountto contempt
    of court. In
    relationto themotionof 5 July2001,theChamberrequestedtheProsecution
    to clarify
    whetherit intended
    to callexpertwitnessesand,if so,to communicate
    forthwiththeir
    identity
    18 andqualifications
    totheDefence.

    23. By a motiondated16 June2001,the Defencefor ElizaphanNtakirutimana


    requested
    thattheChamber
    direct
    theRegistrarto assign
    Ephrem
    Gasasira
    as co-Counsel
    to leadCounsel
    RamseyClark.
    On 13 July2001,theChamber
    granted
    themotionon the

    ~4SeeElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    v.Janet
    Renoetal.,
    184F.3d419(United
    States
    Court
    ofAppeal,
    Fifth
    Circuit,
    5 August
    1999);
    and528U.S.
    1135(Supreme
    Court,
    24January
    2000),
    certiorari
    denied.
    ~5T.31March2000
    pp.13-15
    and27-29.
    16Decision
    of22August
    2000
    onWitness
    Protection.
    17Decision
    of22February
    2001ontheProsecutor’s
    MotiontoJoin
    theIndictments
    ICTR
    96-10-I
    and
    ICTR96-17-T.
    ~8Decision
    of16July
    2001onProsecution
    Motion
    forContempt
    ofCourt
    andonTwoDefence
    Motions
    for
    Disclosure
    Etc.

    Judgement
    andSentence 6 ]/ 21February
    2003

    L4
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    condition
    thattheDefence
    produce
    sufficient
    additional
    documentation
    relating
    to the
    candidate’s
    a9 qualifications,

    24. On 10 September 2001,the Defenceserveda noticeof alibipursuant to


    Rule67(ii)(a)
    of theRules,to theeffect
    thatbothAccused
    wouldseekacquittalon
    ground
    thattheProsecution’sevidence
    failed
    toestablish
    beyond
    a reasonabledoubtthat
    theywerepresent
    at thetimesandplacescharged.
    TheProsecution
    objectedtothenotice
    ofalibi,allegingthatitwasvagueandprovided
    insufficient
    particulars,
    z° TheChamber
    orderedthe Defenceto furnishfurther
    particulars
    notlaterthanthebeginning of
    December2001.21

    25. On 10 September 2001,the Defence fileda motionseeking to precludethe


    Prosecution
    fromadducingat trialanyevidenceof rapeinvolving
    theAccused,on the
    ground
    thatsinceneither Accusedhadbeenindicted forrape,suchevidence
    wouldbe
    unduly
    prejudicial.
    At thepre-trialconference
    on 17 September
    2001,inresponsetothe
    Chamber’s
    rulingthatthecourt woulddealwiththewitnesseswhosestatements
    included
    evidence
    ofrapeinsucha wayas toavoid unnecessarystigmatisation
    oftheAccused,the
    Defence
    22 withdrewitsmotion.

    7. The Trial

    26. On 16 July 2001,the Prosecution fileda Pre-trialBriefpursuantto


    Rule73bis(B)(i) of the Rules.TheProsecution caseopenedon 18 September 2001.
    Nineteen
    witnesses wereheard,comprising
    16 protected
    witnesses,twoinvestigators,
    and
    oneexpertwitness. TheProsecution
    caseclosedon 2 November
    2001,after27 trialdays.
    The Defencecaseopenedon 4 February 2002,was adjourned on 15 February2002,
    recommencedon 10 April2002,andclosed on 10 May2002.
    23 Itstotalduration was30
    trialdays,during which24 witnesses
    wereheard, including
    thetwoAccused. A totalof
    149Prosecution andDefence exhibitswereadmitted. Finalbriefs werefiledby the
    Prosecution on 11 June2002and by the Defenceon 24 July2002.Closingoral
    argumentswereheardon 21 and22 August2002.TheChamber preparedthe judgement
    in parallel
    withhearingtwoothertrials.Itwasannouncedorallyon19 February
    2003.

    27.Several motionsweredecided in thecourse


    of trial. On 28 September
    2001,the
    Defencemovedto strikeWitness
    DD fromthelistof prospectiveProsecution
    witnesses,
    on thegroundthathisreconfirmation
    statement
    contained
    a seriousallegation
    notpresent
    in hisearlierwrittenstatement.
    On 1 October
    2001theChamber dismissed
    themotion,
    notingthatwitnessstatements
    do notpurport
    togiveexact andfullinformation
    about
    the
    prospective
    testimony,andthata testimony
    oftenexpands uponor provides
    moredetail

    19 Decision
    of13 July2001on theMotionof theDefence
    fortheAssignment
    of Co-Counsel
    forElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana.
    TheRegistrysubsequently
    concluded
    thatsufficient
    additional
    information,
    asrequested
    in
    theorder,hadnotbeenprovided.
    2oT. 17September2001pp.16-18.
    21Id.pp.38-39.
    22Id.pp.40-44.
    23Commencement
    of theDefence casehadto be postponed
    to allowforthereplacement
    of counsel
    for
    G6rardNtakimrimana;
    seepara.30below.

    Judgement
    andSentence 7 21 February
    2003

    l~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    thando earlier
    statements
    recorded
    by investigators.
    Moreover,
    withthecaseat anearly
    stage,the Defence
    had ampleopportunity
    to prepare
    for cross-examination
    on the
    additional
    24 allegation.

    28.In a motiondated8 October2001,theDefence movedto strike in itsentirety the


    testimonyof Prosecution
    WitnessYY,on theground thatthewitness hadmadea serious
    in-courtallegation
    against thetwoAccusednotpreviously
    indicatedin theIndictments or
    in thewitness’searlier writtenstatement.In itsdecision of 5 November2001,the
    ChambernotedthattheIndictmentcontaineda general
    clause coveringallegationsof the
    kindnewlymade.It foundno evidence thattheProsecution knewthattheparticular
    allegationwouldbe made.In theChamber’sview,thefactthatthewitness volunteered
    unexpected information
    didnot justify thedrasticmeasure of striking hisentire
    testimony.TheChambernotedthattheDefence hadnotrequested an extensionof timeto
    prepareitscross-examination
    of thewitness;it remainedentitledto applyto havethe
    witnessrecalled;andthepresentation of itscasewasnotdueto commence until14
    January2002,morethanthreemonths later.TheChamberconcluded thatit wouldretain
    thetestimony
    25 ofthewitness andmakeitsownassessmentof it.

    29. On 22 November 2001,the Chamber decideda Prosecution motionfor judicial


    noticeof adjudicatedfactspursuantto Rule94(B)of theRules. Thealleged adjudicated
    factsincluded thetotalnumber of personskilledin Rwandain 1994,theexistence ofa
    genocidal planto eliminate theTutsiethnic group, andclaims relating to serious
    violationsof Article3 commonto theGenevaConventionsandof AdditionalProtocol II.
    TheChamber stated thattheterm"adjudicated fact"doesnotreferto judgements made
    on thebasisof guilty pleasor admissionsby an accusedin otherproceedings of the
    Tribunal. Moreover,onlyfactsin a judgement thatis notsubject to appeal canbe
    considered"adjudicated".Furthermore,proposedadjudicatedfactsmust"relate" to the
    mattersatissue.Finally,underRule94(B),judicialnotice
    istobetaken atthediscretion
    oftheChamber. In strikinga balancebetween
    theneedforjudicial economyandthefight
    ofan accusedto a fairtrial,theChamber heldthatitwould avoidtakingjudicialnotice
    of,firstly, allegedadjudicatedfactsthatwerethesubject of reasonabledisputeand,
    secondly,
    legal characterisations
    orlegal conclusions
    basedontheinterpretationoffacts.
    At thetimeof thedecision, theProsecution hadclosed itscase.TheChamber wasnot
    inclined,
    at thatstage oftheproceedings,to viewjudicialnoticeashavinga significant
    influence
    26 on judicialeconomy.Themotion wasdismissed.

    30. By letterdated12 December2001,Mr. EdwardMedvene,leadCounselfor


    G6rardNtakirutimana,
    requested
    permissionto withdraw,formedical
    reasons,
    from
    furtherrepresentation
    ofhisclient.
    On 19 December
    2001,theRegistrar
    oftheTribunal,
    upontheadviceof thePresiding
    Judge,withdrewwithimmediate
    effect
    theassignment
    of Mr.Medvene,
    assigning
    in hisplaceMr.DavidJacobs,whofulfilled
    theTribunal’s

    24T. 1 October
    2001pp.149-154.
    25Decisionof5 November
    2001on themotion
    of theDefence
    to strike
    thetestimony
    ofWitness
    YY.
    26Decisionof22November
    2001ontheProsecutor’s
    motion
    forjudicial
    notice
    ofadjudicated
    facts.

    Judgement
    andSentence 8 21 February
    2003

    !l
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    conditions
    of assignment
    andhadbeenformallyaccepted
    by G6rardNtakirutimana.
    27 The
    changeof Counselnecessitated
    postponementof the dateof commencement
    of the
    Defence
    case,from14 January
    2002to 4 February
    2002.

    31.To summarisethetrialphase,a totalof 43 Prosecutionand Defencewitnesses


    wereheardover57 trialdays.Between commencementof thetrial,on 18 September
    2001,and10 May2002whenthelastwitness washeard,theTrialChamberrenderedfive
    writtenandsevenoraldecisions
    on motions.Thisrelatively
    lownumberof motionsand
    corresponding
    decisions
    is attributable
    in partto weekly
    informal
    conferences
    at which
    issuesof concemto thepartieswereresolved.Efficiencywasalsoimprovedby the
    pilotingof simultaneous
    interpretation
    betweenKinyarwanda
    andtheofficiallanguages
    oftheTribunal.

    8. Evidentiary
    Matters

    32. In accordance withRule89(A)of theRules,the rulesof evidence (which


    foundin Section3 of Part6 of theRules) govemproceedingsbefore
    theTrialChambers.
    Pursuant to the samerule,theTrialChambers are not boundby national rulesof
    evidence.Whenconfronted withevidential questionsnototherwiseprovidedforby the
    Rules,theChamber applied rulesof evidence whichin itsviewbestfavoured a fair
    determinationof thematter before it andwhichwereconsonantwiththespirit of the
    Statuteandthegeneral principlesof law,as authorised
    by Rule89(B).TheChamber has
    takenaccount of thecaselawof theTribunal whichhasestablishedgeneral principles
    concerning theassessment of evidence. Forexample, theAkayesuJudgement contains
    importantstatementson,interalia, theprobative
    valueofevidence; theuseof witness
    statements; the impactof traumaon the testimony of witnesses; problemsof
    interpretationfromKinyarwandaintoFrench andEnglish;andcultural factorsaffecting
    the evidence of witnesses.28 Subsequent caselaw of the Tribunal has developed
    principlesrelatingto evidentiary
    matters,themostrecent authority
    beingtheJudgement
    in thecaseof Prosecutor v. Ignaee Bagilishema.
    29 The Chamber
    willretumto these
    principles
    totheextent necessary.

    33.Finally,theChamber
    notesthathearsay
    evidenceis notinadmissible
    perse,even
    whenit is notcorroborated
    by directevidence.
    TheChamber hasconsidered
    hearsay
    evidence
    3° withcaution,
    in accordance
    withRule89of theRules.

    27 Decision
    of 19 December
    2001on Withdrawal
    of Mr.EdwardMedvene
    as LeadCounsel
    of Mr.G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    andAssignment
    of Mr.DavidJacobs
    as LeadCounselof Mr.G6rard
    Ntakirutimana.
    28 Akayesu
    (TC)paras,
    130-156.Theabbreviation,
    Akayesu(TC)standsfortheJudgement
    rendered
    TrialChamberI of theTribunalon 2 September
    1998in theCaseTheProsecutor
    v. Jean-Paul
    Akayesu,
    No.ICTR-96-4-T.Thissystemof abbreviation
    (nameof Accused,
    Judgement
    or Sentence,
    (TC)forTrial
    Chamberor (AC)for AppealsChamber) willbe adoptedeachtimea Judgementor Sentenceof this
    Tribunal
    ortheICTYisreferred to.Please consulttheIndexofAbbreviations
    ofJudgements
    at AnnexIV
    forfullquotationanddetails
    oftheJudgement orSentenceconcerned.
    29Bagilishema(TC);seealsoKayishema andRuzindana(TC)paras.
    65-80;
    Rutaganda(TC)paras.15-23;
    andMusema(TC)paras.31-105.
    3oSeeAkayesu(TC)para.136;confirmed
    on appeal
    (Akayesu
    (AC)paras.
    284-309).

    Judgement
    andSentence 9 21 February
    2003

    ,,~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    9. The Accused

    34. The following


    information
    was compiled
    fromtheAccused’s
    own testimony
    and
    wasnotcontested
    bytheProsecution.

    35. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana wasbornin 1924in Ngomasecteur, Gishyitacommune,


    Kibuyeprefecture,Rwanda.
    31 He startedhisschooling in 1939,at theNgomamission
    of
    theSeventh-Day Adventist (SDA)Church, and became a member of theSDAaroundthat
    time.32 Aftercompletingprimary schoolin 1946,he gained employment
    at themission
    office, wherehe alsoworkedas a teacher.On 22 August1950,he marriedLois(Royisi)
    Nyirahakizimana.He spenta fewyearsteaching in villagesin RwandaandZairebefore
    joiningtheGitweSeminary in Rwmadain 1953.33 Aftergraduatingfromtheseminaryin
    1956,he returned to teachat Ngomamission, wherehe alsoserved as themission’s
    accountantand,fora time,
    acting president.

    36. On 4 August 1961,ElizaphanNtakirutimanawasordained a pastor. Around1962


    he enrolled in a "leadership"
    programme at theSDA’sSalisbury College in Rhodesia.
    Following thathe wentto Nigeria to studyaccountancy. 34 In 1967he was elected
    presidentof theWestRwanda Association of theSDA,a position he helduntil1970.He
    wasto be elected to thatpostthreemoretimes, thelastin 1994. 35 Duringtheperiod
    1970-1994, ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    served theSDAin various capacities,includingas
    secretaryof theRwanda-Burundi SDAUnion(1970-1975), Uniondirector of fundraising
    andlayactivities (1975-1980),
    treasurerof theTrans-AfricaDivision (1985-1989),
    presidentof theSouthRwanda Association(1989-1993). In 1980he waselected to the
    WorldConference, the SDA’s§overning body,but withdrew aftereightmonthsas a
    resultof hiswife’s poorhealth.
    3 In April-July
    1994,which istheperiod coveredbythe
    Indictments, ElizaphanNtakirutimanawaspresident of theWestRwanda Associationof
    theSDA,alsoknownas theWestRwanda "field",andbasedat thefieldheadquarters in
    MugoneroComplex, Gishyitacommune.37 The Accusedandhiswifehadeightchildren,
    includingG6rard Ntakirutimana,
    of whichsevenwerealivein 2002;fourof themearned
    medical
    38 degrees.

    37. G6rardNtakirutimana was bornin 1958in Ngomasecteur, Gishyita commune,


    Kibuye
    prefecture,
    Rwanda.(Bothhe andhisfather,ElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    stated
    that
    theirethnicity
    wasHutu.39) G6rard Ntakirutimanalivedin Ngomauntilthe ageof
    thirteen.
    Aftera yearin Burundi he returnedto Rwandato attendtheSDA’sGitwe
    Secondary
    Schoolin Gitaramaprefecture.In 1979,on a governmentscholarship,
    he
    attended
    theUniversity
    of Butare,
    fromwherehe graduatedwitha degreein medicine
    in

    31Defenceexhibit1D45.
    32T. 6 May2002pp.18-20.
    33Id.pp.22-23.
    34Id.pp.24-30.
    35Id.p.41.
    36Id.pp.42-51.
    37Id.pp.71-73.
    38Id.pp.33-40.
    39Defenceexhibits1D45and2D56.

    Judgement
    andSentence 10 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    1985.
    40 He distinguished
    himselfin hisstudiesandtheuniversity
    retained
    him on the
    staffof theCentreforPublicHealth, wherehe supervised
    final-year
    students
    at the
    faculty of medicine. On 1 January 1989, G6rard Ntakirutimanamarried Ann
    Nzahumunyurwa.They have threechildrenf

    38.In early1990theAccusedleftthe University of Butareto continuehis education


    in theUnitedStates.He studiedEnglishat theUniversityof Illinois
    andcompleted a
    Mastersdegreein publichealthat St. Louis,Missouri (1992).Afterspending a few
    monthsin Laredo,Texas,he returnedto Rwandain March1993with the intention of
    assuminghisformerpostat theUniversity of Butare.
    42 Findingthatthesituation in
    Butarehad become"difficult" as a resultof the on-goingconflictbetweenthe
    governmentand rebelgroups,G6rardNtakirutimana joinedthe staffof the SDA’s
    hospital at MugoneroComplex,
    Gishyita commune,
    in April1993.Therehe workedas a
    medical
    doctor underthesupervision
    of thehospital’s
    director,untilthelatter’sdeparture
    in April1994.
    43

    40T.8 May2002pp.131-137.
    4tId.pp.142-143.
    42Id.pp.150-152.
    43Id.pp.152-161.

    Judgement
    andSentence 11 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    CHAPTER II

    FACTUAL FINDINGS

    1. Introduction

    39.ThisChapter contains
    an assessment
    of theevidenceadduced
    by the Prosecution
    in support
    of itscase.TheChamberwillconsiderthespecific
    eventsalleged in the
    Mugonero
    andBiseseroIndictments
    in approximate
    chronological
    order(seeII.3and4,
    respectively).
    In connection
    withitsdiscussion
    of theProsecution
    evidence theChamber
    willtakeintoaccountthesubmissionsof theDefenceconcerning
    thecredibility of
    wimesses
    whotestified
    against
    thetwoAccused.Itwillalsodiscuss
    theAccused’s alibi
    inrelation
    totheevents
    intheIndictments.

    40.Beforedoingso,theChamberwillconsider whethertheIndictmentsprovide
    the
    Accusedwithsufficient
    information
    on the natureof the charges
    againstthem,as
    required
    bytheStatute
    andtheRulesoftheTribunal(II.2).
    Thisissuewasnotincluded
    theclosing
    briefs
    submitted
    bytheparties.TheChamber
    thereforeinvited
    theparties
    to
    address
    44 theissue
    during
    theirclosing
    arguments.

    41.Theremainingcomponentsof theDefencecaseareconsideredin sectionII.5and


    thefollowing
    sections.
    Aftera briefsectionon thealibisubmissions
    (I1.5)comesthe
    Chamber’s
    assessmentof thecontention
    thattheallegations againsttheAccusedare
    totally
    inconsistent
    withtheirprevious
    lifeandcharacter
    (11.6).
    Furthermore,
    theDefence
    argues
    thatthere
    wasa political
    campaign
    againsttheAccused(II.7).

    2. Specificity
    of theIndictments

    2.1 Introduction

    42.Accordingto Article
    17 (4)of theStatute,an indictmentshallcontain "a concise
    statement
    of thefactsandthecrimeor crimes withwhichtheaccused arecharged".
    Similarly,
    Rule47 (C)oftheRulesprovides thatanindictment,apartfromthenameand
    particulars
    ofthesuspect,shallsetforth
    "aconcisestatementofthefacts ofthecase". It
    follows
    fromcaselawthattheProsecution’s
    obligationtosetoutconcisely thefacts ofits
    caseintheindictmentmustbeinterpreted
    inconjunction withArticles20(2)and(4)(a)
    and(b)of theStatute.Theseprovisions
    statethat, in thedeterminationof anycharges
    against
    him,anaccusedisentitledtoa fairheating
    and,moreparticularly, tobeinformed
    of thenatureand causeof thecharges againsthim andto haveadequate timeand
    facilities
    forthepreparationofhisdefence.Inthejurisprudence
    ofthead hocTribunals,
    thistranslates
    intoanobligation
    onthepartoftheProsecutiontostate thematerial facts
    underpinning
    thechargesin theindictment,
    butnottheevidence by whichsuchmaterial
    factsareto be proven. Hence,thequestion whether an indictment is pleaded with
    sufficient
    particularity
    is dependent
    uponwhetherit setsoutthematerial factsofthe

    44 T.21 August
    2002p. 98andT. 22August
    2002p.122.

    Judgement
    andSentence 12 il 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Prosecution
    casewithenough detail
    to informanaccused
    clearly
    of thecharges
    against
    him so thathe may preparehis defence. Reference
    is madeto the ICTYAppeals
    Chamber’sJudgementin The Prosecutor
    v. Kupreskic
    et al.(henceforth
    Kupreskic),
    whichwasdeliveredon 23 October2001,morethana monthafterthecommencement
    of
    thetrial
    45 inthepresent
    case.

    43. In Kupreskic,the AppealsChamber foundthatthe convictions of two of the


    Accused werebasedon material factsnot specifically
    pleaded in theIndictment.
    Furthermore,
    it concluded
    thatthedefectsin theIndictment
    hadnotbeencured, because
    timely,clearandconsistentinformation
    hadnotbeenprovidedto theAccused.Thetrial
    wasthereforeconsidered
    unfairinrelationto these
    Accused,
    andtheirconvictionswere
    overturned. In the presentcase,someparagraphs of the Mugonero and Bisesero
    Indictments
    arerather generally
    formulated.
    Theseparagraphs
    giveriseto thequestion
    whethertheIndictments
    werepleaded
    withsufficient
    particularity.

    2.2 Prosecution

    44.Counsel fortheProsecution soughtto distinguish


    thefactsdealtwithin Kupreskic
    fromthefacts in thepresentcase.He submittedthatthemainparagraphs of theBisesero
    Indictmentallege, firstly,thatthetwoAccused wenttoBisesero in April,
    MayandJune;
    secondly,thattheywentthere inconvoysofattackers;andthirdly,thattheyparticipated
    inattacks intheBisesero area.According
    totheProsecution,thefirst twoallegationsare
    contained in the Indictment and the supportingmaterial. 46 The Accused had the
    opportunitytochallengetheIndictments
    atthepre-trialstage,aswellasafter thecloseof
    theProsecution’s case(bywayofa motion foracquittal
    under Rule98his),butfailed to
    do so.Certain specificallegations,
    suchas thekillings at Murambi Church allegedby
    WitnessYY, or the killingof IgnaceRugwizangoga at MurambiHillallegedby
    WitnessGG,47 came to theProsecution’s attentionjustpriorto thetestimony of the
    witnessesconcerned. In theProsecution’s
    view,theallegation shouldnothavecomeasa
    surprisetotheDefence becauseitfollows fromparagraph
    4.14oftheBisesero Indictment
    thattheAccused
    48 allegedlyparticipated
    inthekillingofrefugees.

    2.3. Defence

    45. Counsel for ElizaphanNtakirutimanaarguedthatparagraph


    91 of Kupreskic
    (which
    states
    thatwhereitispracticablefortheProsecution
    toplead
    withspecificity
    the
    identity
    ofthevictims,
    etc.,itmustdoso)impactsonbothIndictments,
    butespecially
    on
    theBisesero
    Indictment.
    Novictimsof thekillings
    wereidentified
    bynameandtherewas
    no particularization
    of the timeand placeof theircommission.
    Consequently,
    the
    Indictment
    49 didnotprovidesufficient
    information.

    45Kupreskic
    (AC).
    46T.22.August
    2002
    pp.134-135.
    47This
    isnotentirely
    correct.
    Thekilling
    ofa certain
    "Ignace"
    appears
    inAnnex
    B tothePre-trial
    Brief.
    48T.22August
    2002pp.135-137.
    49Id.
    p.50.

    Judgement
    andSentence 13 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.EIizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    46.CounselforGrrardNtakirutimanasubmittedthatthereis no differencein the


    principles
    governingICTYandICTRindictments.Thestatutory
    provisionsof thetwo
    Tribunals
    arein thisrespect
    substantially
    thesame.Citing
    particularly
    paragraphs114
    and117of Kupreskic,he arguedthattheBiseseroIndictment
    didnotmeetthe high
    standard
    setforIndictments
    inKupreskic,
    as itwasvague,
    wholly
    lackinginparticularity
    anddidnotmentionplaces.Names
    andparticulars
    werenotincluded
    ineither Indictment
    andwerenotgiven
    5° totheDefence
    insufficient
    timetoenable
    ittoprepareitscase.

    47. Accordingto Counsel forG6rardNtakirutimana it followsfromKupreskicthat


    the new allegationsmadeby Witnesses YY and GG duringtheirtestimony mustbe
    excluded.ThatJudgement
    established
    thatmaterialfactson whichtheProsecution’s
    case
    isbasedcannot beallowedto unfold
    during
    trial.TheProsecutionhasto proceed
    without
    them¯Counsel submittedthatthenewinformation hadprejudiced theDefencebecause
    incriminatingevidencehadbeenprovided unexpectedly aftertheheatingof several
    Prosecutionwitnesses,
    whocouldnotbe cross-examinedanew.TheDefencestressed
    that
    bothIndictments
    51 aresilentaboutmanyevents
    on whichtheProsecutionledevidence.

    48. TheDefence madesimilarobservations in itsclosing brief,although without


    reference
    to Kupreskic. Forexample,it wasargued thatWitnessesYY,DD,KK,VV,and
    UU "withheld theirmostextreme testimony for trialto prevent the defense from
    preparing
    to counterit.
    ’’52Inrelationtoa certain partoftheoraltestimony of Witness
    MM theDefence statedthattheintroductionof newandcritical information washighly
    improper,
    violated theProsecution’s
    legal andethical obligation
    to theTribunal andthe
    Accused,
    andthereby improperly
    prejudicedtheadministrationof justice.
    53 TheDefence
    submitted
    thatthetestimony of every
    factual witness conflicted
    withor covered matters
    notmentionedin priorstatements,
    andthatthisviolated thefights of an accused
    to be
    givennotice of thechargesandtheevidence to be presented
    against himsothathe can
    challenge
    54 thecharges andpreparehisdefence.

    2.4 Discussion

    49. As mentionedabove,if followsfromthe Statuteand the Rulesthatthe


    Prosecution
    isunderanobligation
    to statethematerial
    factsunderpinningthecharges
    in
    theIndictment,
    butnottheevidence by whichsuchmaterial
    ¯
    facts
    °
    are
    ° to be proven.
    In
    ’ ¯n
    Kupreskic,
    theAppealsChamber
    interpretedtheProsecutions obhgahon
    I thefollowing
    way:

    89.TheAppeals
    Chamber
    muststress
    initially
    that
    themateriality
    ofa particular
    fact
    cannot
    bedecidedintheabstract.
    Itisdependent
    onthenature
    oftheProsecution
    case.A decisive
    factor
    indetermining
    thedegreeofspecificity
    withwhich
    the
    Prosecution
    isrequired
    toparticularise
    thefacts
    ofitscase
    intheindictment
    isthe

    50Id.
    pp.59-60.
    51Id.pp.155-158.
    52Defense
    Closing
    Brief
    filed
    22July
    2002
    p.44;conceming
    Witness
    YYseealso
    pp.122-123.
    53Id.p.52.TheBrief
    contains
    similar
    statements
    regarding
    Witnesses
    FF(p.62),
    HH(pp.
    78,83,85),
    GO(pp.96,97).
    54Id.pp.163-164¯
    ^

    14 ][] 21February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    nature
    oftheallegedcriminal
    conductcharged
    totheaccused.Forexample,ina case
    wheretheProsecution
    alleges
    thatan accusedpersonally
    committed thecriminal
    acts,
    thematerial
    facts,
    suchastheidentity
    ofthevictim,
    thetimeandplace ofthe
    eventsandthemeansby whichtheactswerecommitted, haveto be pleaded in
    detail.
    Obviously,
    there
    maybeinstances
    wherethesheer
    scale of thealleged
    crimes
    "makes
    it impracticable
    torequire
    a highdegree
    ofspecificity
    insuchmattersasthe
    identity
    of thevictims
    andthedatesforthecommissionof thecrimes"[footnote
    omitted].

    90. Suchwouldbe the casewheretheProsecution allegesthatan accused


    participated,
    asa memberofan executionsquad,inthekillingofhundreds ofmen.
    Thenatureof sucha casewouldnotdemand thateachandeveryvictim be identified
    intheindictment.Similarly,an accused
    maybe chargedwithhaving
    participated as
    a member
    ofa military forceinan extensive
    numberofattacks
    oncivilians thattook
    placeovera prolongedperiodoftimeandresulted inlargenumbersofkillings and
    forcedremovals.
    In sucha casetheProsecutionneednotspecify
    every singlevictim
    thathasbeenkilled or expelledin order
    to meetitsobligationof specifyingthe
    material
    factsof thecasein theindictment.Nevertheless,
    sincetheidentityof the
    victimisinformationthatisvaluabletothepreparationofthedefencecase,ifthe
    Prosecution
    isina position tonamethevictims,itshould
    doso.
    .,o
    92.Itisofcourse possible thatan indictment
    maynotplead thematerialfactswith
    therequisitedegree
    of specificity becausethenecessary
    information isnotin the
    Prosecution’spossession.However, in sucha situation,doubtmustariseas to
    whether
    it is fairto theaccused forthetrial to proceed.
    Inthisconnection, the
    AppealsChamber emphasises thattheProsecution is expected to knowitscase
    before
    itgoestotrial. It isnotacceptablefortheProsecutiontoomitthematerial
    aspects
    of itsmainallegations intheIndictmentwiththeaimofmoulding thecase
    against
    theaccusedinthecourse ofthetrialdependingonhowtheevidence unfolds.
    Thereare,of course, instances in criminaltrialswheretheevidence turnsout
    differentlythanexpected. Sucha situation mayrequire theindictment to be
    amended,an adjournmentto be granted,or certainevidenceto be excluded
    as not
    being
    within thescopeoftheindictment.
    o°.

    1 14.TheAppeals Chamber notesthat,generally,an indictment,


    as theprimary
    accusatory
    instrument,
    mustplead withsufficient
    detailtheessential
    aspectof the
    Prosecution
    case.Ifitfails todoso,itsuffers froma material
    defect.
    A defective
    Indictment,in andof itself, may,in certaincircumstancescausetheAppeals
    Chamberto reversea conviction.TheAppealsChamber, however,
    doesnotexclude
    thepossibilitythat,in someinstances,
    a defective
    indictment
    canbecuredifthe
    Prosecutionprovidestheaccused withtimely, clearandconsistentinformation
    detailing
    thefactualbasisunderpinning
    thecharges
    againsthimorher.Nevertheless,
    in lightof thefactualandlegalcomplexitiesnormallyassociated
    withthecrimes
    withinthejurisdiction
    ofthisTribunal,therecanonlybe a limited
    numberofcases
    5s
    thatfall
    withinthatcategory
    ....

    50. The Chambernotes that the allegations under considerationby the Appeals
    Chamber in Kupreskic
    relatedto theattackon thehouseof a victim
    andformedthebasis
    of the verdictof crimesagainsthumanity(persecution).
    HadtheTrialChamber in that

    55Kupreskic
    (AC)paras.
    89,90,92and114.

    Judgement
    andSentence 15 21 February
    2003
    ’ll
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    casenotconcludedthattheProsecution
    hadsuccessfully
    proven
    thatallegation,
    thetwo
    convictionscouldnothavebeensustained.TheAppeals Chamber
    foundthattheattack
    constituted
    a material
    factin theProsecution
    caseagainsttwooftheAccusedandshould
    havebeenspecifically
    pleaded
    intheIndictment.
    56 Itisfurther
    notedthattheconviction
    wasmadeon thebasisofthetestimony
    ofa singlewitness.

    51.The Indictments
    in thecaseconcerning
    ElizaphanandGrrardNtakirutimana
    are
    distinguishable
    fromKupreskic.Theallegations
    includecharges
    of genocide,
    complicity
    in genocide,
    conspiracyto commit
    genocide
    andcrimesagainst
    humanity
    (murder).
    The
    general
    principles
    laiddownby theAppeals
    Chamber
    in Kupreskic
    are,of course,
    still
    applicable
    tothepresent
    case.

    52.In thisconnection
    theChamber
    doesnotaccept theProsecution’s submission
    that
    the Defence
    saton itsrightsanddidnotchallenge thelackof specificity in the
    Indictments.
    Suchchallenges
    werein factmade,albeitto an earlier version
    of the
    MugoneroIndictment,
    by a Defence
    motionfiledon 17 April1997anddecided uponby
    TrialChamberII,whichincluded
    references
    to a similar
    decision by TrialChamberI
    (differently
    constituted)
    concerning
    theBisesero
    Indictment.
    57 Moreover,irrespective
    of
    previous
    challenges,
    tileChamber
    mustapplyprinciplesexpressedsubsequently
    by the
    AppealsChamber.

    53. The concisestatement of factsof the MugoneroIndictment containsthree


    paragraphsconcerning the attackon the Mugonero
    Complex on 16 April1994.These
    paragraphs
    allege thatthetwoAccused wenttogether
    in a convoy
    witharmedindividuals
    to theComplexon themorningof thatday(4.7)andthattheAccused, along
    withothers,
    participatedin theattack whichcontinuedthroughout
    theday(4.8). Theequivalent
    provision
    in theBiseseroIndictment
    (4.8)addsthattheattackcontinuedintothenight.
    BothIndictments
    allege(4.9) thattheattackresulted
    inhundredsofdeadandwounded.

    54.Accordingto thefirstallegation, thetwoAccused werepartof a convoy of armed


    individualsheading forthe Complex in themorning of 16 April1994.The Chamber
    considers
    thisdescription sufficiently
    precise.Thesecond allegation
    states thatthe
    Accused
    participated
    intheattack onthatdate. Thisislessprecise.Itisnotalleged that
    theykilledor wounded anyone,nordoesit otherwise specifythewayin whichthey
    allegedly
    participatedintheattack. However,theChamber doesnotconsiderthispartof
    theIndictment
    vague or so broadly
    formulatedas tohinder thepreparation
    of theDefence
    case.Theattackwasparticularizedtohaveoccurred on a particular
    date(16April 1994)
    andat a specified location (theMugonero Complex). Largenumbers of persons were
    killedandwounded during theattack. It is theviewof theChamber thatthefactual
    allegations
    in theIndictment, readin conjunction
    withthecharges, providetheAccused
    withreasonable
    notice oftheProsecution’scaseagainstthem.Thisbeingsaid, it follows

    56Id.paras.
    99and
    113.
    57TrialChamber
    II,Decision
    of30June1998ona Preliminary
    Motion
    Filed
    byDefence
    Counsel
    foran
    Order
    toQuashCounts
    1,2,3,and6 oftheIndictment.
    Seealso
    Trial
    Chamber
    I,Decision
    of23March
    1998ona Preliminary
    Motion
    Filed
    byDefenceCounsel
    foranOrder
    toQuash
    Counts1,2,3,6 and7 of
    theIndictment.
    These
    decisions
    predate
    theclarification
    provided
    inKupreskic
    (AC).

    Judgement
    andSentence 16 21February
    2003

    !
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    fromKupreskic
    thatiftheProsecution
    was,whenit drewup theIndictment,
    in a position
    58
    toprovide
    details,
    itshould
    havedoneso.

    55. The Chamber recallsthat,according to Kupreskic,the degreeof specificity


    requiredin indictmentsdependson thenature
    of theallegedcriminal
    conductcharged
    to
    theaccused. Theremaybe instances where"thesheerscaleof thealleged
    crimes"makes
    it"’impracticable"torequire
    a highdegree
    ofspecificity
    insuchmatters
    astheidentity
    of
    thevictims, thetimeandplaceof theevents, andthemeansby whichtheactswere
    committed. According to the AppealsChamber, one exampleis wherethe accused
    participated as a memberof a militaryforce"inan extensive numberof attacks
    on
    civiliansthattookplace overa prolonged
    periodoftimeandresultedin largenumbers
    of
    59
    killings".

    56.Thestatementof factsin theBiseseroIndictment


    contains
    sixparagraphs
    (4.11-
    4.16)
    concerning
    attacks intheBisesero
    area.According
    to paragraphs
    4.13and4.15,
    the
    Accused
    participatedin convoys
    andsearchedfor,attacked,
    andkilled
    Tutsipersons.
    However,
    thereis no specification
    of time,date,location,
    victims,
    or othermaterial
    details
    concerning
    anysingle attack.

    57.Previous judgementsof theTribunal haveestablished thattherewereregular


    attacks
    in theBiseseroregion fromApril1994through June1994.Thevictimsweremen,
    womenandchildren who werepredominantly Tutsiand who hadsoughtrefugein the
    Bisesero
    region.Thousandsof Tutsiwerekilled,injuredandmaimed.6° Similarfindings
    follow
    fromtheevidencein thepresentcase.Ina situation withfrequentattacksinthe
    sameareait maybe difficultfortheProsecution to provide
    preciseevidence, several
    years
    aftertheevents,aboutspecificattacks
    onparticulardates againstnamed
    victims in
    precise
    locations.Survivors, whoduring threemonths wereundergreatdistress and
    subject
    to numerous
    attacks,mayhavedifficultiesin recallingthetimeandplace of the
    alleged
    crimesaswellastheidentity ofthevictims.Insuchsituationsthesheer scaleof
    thealleged
    crimesmaywellmakeit impracticable
    torequirea highdegree ofspecificity.

    58.As statedabove,it followsfromKupreskicthatif theProsecutionis in a position


    to provide
    details,it shoulddo so.In thepresentcase,witness statementscontaining
    specific
    allegationswereavailableto theProsecution
    wellbefore thetrial. Alreadyon
    18 March1997,the Prosecution disclosed30 witnessstatementsto G6rard
    Ntakirutimana.
    On 10 April2000,following theco-Accused’s surrender,it disclosed
    34 witness
    statements to ElizaphanNtakirutimana.
    On 29 August2000,it disclosed to
    eachAccused 67 statementsfrom41 witnesses.By 20 February 2001,theProsecution
    haddisclosedat least83 statementsfrom51 witnesses.
    61 Understandably,
    theAccused
    werenotin a positionto knowpreciselywhichstatementswerebeingrelied uponby the
    Prosecution.
    Howeverthecentral pointis thattheProsecution hadin itspossession a
    58Kupreskic
    (AC)paras.
    89,90and95.
    59Id.para.
    90(quoted
    above).
    60SeeKayishemaandRuzindana
    (TC)paras.
    405etseq.,
    andMusema
    (TC)para.
    363withfurther
    references.
    6~AnnexA to Prosecution’s
    Response
    to Defence
    Motions
    forDismissal
    orforDisclosure
    and
    Investigations
    bytheProsecution,
    20March
    2001.
    t~
    Judgement
    andSentence 17 ]~ 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    wealth
    of detailed
    evidence,
    whichit haddisclosed
    to theDefence
    in a timely
    fashion,
    concerning
    times,
    locations,
    andvictims,fromwhichtodrawforthepurposeof reducing
    theimprecision
    intheIndictments.

    59.The question as to whether the Indictments in the present caseare defective


    dependson a concrete assessmentof eachallegation andinvolves a comparison
    of the
    material
    thatwasavailable totheProsecution beforethetrial andtheevidence adducedat
    trial.TheChamber willaddress thisquestion further
    by wayof a careful examinationof
    theparticularity
    of eachspecificallegation
    inconnection withtheevents wherethisissue
    arises.
    Itisalsoimportant torecallthateven ifanindictmentisconsidereddefective,
    this
    may,in somecases, be cured
    by provisionto theDefence of timely,clear,andconsistent
    information
    detailing thefactualbasisof thecharges. It followsfromKupreskicthatin
    lightofthefactual andlegal complexities
    normallyassociated withthecrimes withinthe
    jurisdiction
    of theTribunal,therecanonlybea limited number of casesthatfallwithin
    thatcategory. In Kupreskic,in orderto assess whether theAccused weresufficiently
    informed of the charges, the Appeals Chamber considered disclosed evidence,the
    informationconveyedin theProsecution’sPre-trialBriefandknowledge acquiredduring
    trial.
    62TheTrial Chamberis oftheviewthata similar approach shouldbeadoptedin the
    presentcase.Itrecalls thattheKupreskicJudgement,which clarifiedthelegalsituation,
    was handeddownafterthe commencement of thetrialandalmostat theend of the
    Prosecution’s
    case.

    60. The Prosecution’s


    Pre-trial Briefwas submitted on 26 July2001.The trial
    commencedon 18 September 2001.The Briefcontainsthreeparagraphs on the
    MugoneroComplex
    attackof 16 April1994.Thefirstalleges thata convoy of attackers
    wentto theComplex
    "invehicles belongingto Pastor
    Ntakirutimanaandothers".It does
    notspecifically
    allege
    thateither Accusedwasintheconvoy.Ofparticularinterest
    isthe
    thirdparagraph,
    whichclaimsthatthetwoAccused werepresentduringtheattack, that
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    was"present" at thekillingof PastorSebihe,andthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana"personallykilled" severalTutsipersons, of whomUkobizaba and
    Kajongiarethetworeferred to by name.Theapproximatetime,location,andmanner in
    whichthenamedpersonswereallegedly killedarenotdiscussed.TheChamber notesthat
    in somerespects
    theBriefprovides moredetailsthantheMugoneroIndictment.

    61.Theeventsin Bisesero
    arecovered by fourparagraphs
    in thePre-trialBrief.It is
    allegedthatconvoysof armedattackers including
    thetwoAccused regularlywentto
    Bisesero;
    thatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    orderedtwopersonsto killan unnamed
    witness,
    whowas laterspared; and thatthesameAccused "pointedouthidingTutsiforthe
    attackers
    tokill".In contrast
    withtheBiseseroIndictment
    (para.4.15),these
    paragraphs
    do notallege
    thateitherAccusedkilledanyone
    in Bisesero.
    IntheChamber’sopinion,
    the
    Briefprovides
    onlylimitedsupplementary
    details.

    62Kupreskic
    (AC)
    para.
    124.
    Seealso
    paras.
    114-120.
    TheAppeals
    Chamber
    considered
    towhat
    extent
    the
    Accused
    wasgivenappropriate
    notice
    byprior
    disclosure
    ofwitness
    statements
    orthrough
    the
    Prosecution’s
    opening
    statement.

    Judgement
    andSentence 18 21February
    2003

    ~
    Poq
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    62. AnnexB to thePre-trial Briefwasfiledon 15 August 2001,onemonthpriorto


    commencementof thetrial.It consists
    of summaries
    of thestatements of 21 witnesses
    whomtheProsecutionintendedto callat trial.
    Sixteenof thosepersonstestified.
    The
    Chamberobserves thattheProsecution,in drawingup thesesummaries,selectedfrom
    eachwitnessstatement
    thematerialallegations
    ithopedtoelicit duringtestimony,
    cross-
    referenced
    themto paragraphs
    oftheIndictments,andappendedtheAnnex to itsPre-trial
    Brief.TheDefence wasentitledto conclude
    thattheallegations in theAnnexwerethe
    allegations
    itwould havetomeetattrial.

    63.Theinformation providedby AnnexB illustrates thatit wasnotimpracticable for


    theProsecution to havebeenmorespecific. However, bearingin mindthatthedetails
    wereexcerpted fromstatements longdisclosed to theDefence, theChamberholdsthe
    viewthatanydefects in theIndictments werecuredby thenotice giveninAnnexB of the
    Pre-trialBrief, andthatno unfairness willbe suffered by allowingtheProsecution’s
    allegationsat thedateon whichAnnexB wasfiled. Consequently,theChamber will
    considermaterial allegations,supplementing thosein theIndictments,whichhavebeen
    providedthrough thePre-trial Briefandknowledge acquiredduring trial,in orderto
    determinethecriminal liability of theAccused, butwillbe cautious in considering
    allegations
    where no,orlate, notice wasgiven totheDefence. A finaldetermination
    will
    be madebelowin connection withthespecific events wheretheissueof priornotice
    arises.In thiscontext, theChamber recallsthatin Kupreskic theAppealsChamber did
    notaccept disclosure of newallegations thatwasmadeapproximately oneanda half
    weekspriorto trialandlessthana monthpriorto thewitness’s testimonyin court.
    Accordingto theAppeals Chamber, it couldnotbe excludedthattheability of thetwo
    Accusedin thecaseto prepare theirdefence, in particular
    thecross-examinationof the
    witness, was prejudiced by the factthatdisclosure tookplaceso closeto the
    commencement
    63 of thetrial andtothetestimony ofthewitness incourt.

    3. Allegations
    Relating
    to theMugonero
    Indictment

    3.1 Introduction

    64.As mentioned,theMugoneroIndictment dealsmainlywitheventsthatoccurredat


    the MugoneroComplexon 16 April1994.The Complexwas run by the SeventhDay
    AdventistAssociationand wassituated in Ngomasecteur,Gishyitacommune,Kibuye
    prefecture.
    In I994,themainbuildings in theComplexwerea nursingschool
    (usually
    referred
    toasthe"6cole desinfirmi~res
    orESI), a chapel
    usedbystudents
    andstaffofthe
    school,
    theoffice of thePresident
    of theWestRwandaAssociation
    ("thefieldoffice"),
    andthehospital.64 WithintheComplexin 1994therewerealsoresidentialbuildings,
    includingtheresidence of G6rardNtakirutimana,whichwas situatednearthemain
    entrance
    totheComplex,opposite
    thefield office.

    63Id.para.120.
    64 Mostof theinformation in thissection comesfromExhibit
    P2,SketchA, B andC, andPartIV:
    Transcriptsof videoof 7 November2000;T. 18 and19September
    2001(investigator
    TonyLucassen);
    and
    T. 9 May2002(G6rard Ntakirutimana).
    //
    and Sentence
    Judgement 19 ]~ 21 February2003
    2g.cro
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    65.In April1994,thehospital consistedof severalbuildings,includingthemain


    hospital
    building,
    themainpharmacy,a building
    containing
    a dispensary
    andconsultation
    rooms,
    a buildingwhichhoused
    single employees,
    a building
    usedas a wardforpatients
    withinfectiousdiseasesandas a storagearea,a buildingwherethe patientswith
    infectious
    diseaseswereadmitted,a boys’dormitoryundertheresponsibilityof the
    nursing
    school,andan administrative
    block.Betweenthese
    buildingswerelawns.

    66.Themainhospital building
    wasa two-storey
    structure.
    Thelowerfloorincluded
    thedeliveryroom,thematernity
    room,andtwosurgical
    theatres.
    A consultation
    room
    usedby G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    wason theupperfloor.

    67.Aboutone kilometre
    to the northof the Complexwas the mainNgomaAdventist
    Church.
    Approximately
    twokilometres southof theComplex wastheEsapanSecondary
    School.
    Theschoolwasestabfished
    by Adventist
    parentslivingintheNgomaarea.

    68. Belowfollowthe relevantparagraphs of the MugoneroIndictment. Theyare


    almostidentical
    to theequivalent
    paragraphsin theBisesero
    Indictment
    concerningthe
    eventsin the MugoneroComplex,
    and the numberingof theparagraphsis the same.
    Differences,
    if any,areindicated.
    ThetwoIndictmentsareappended
    to theJudgement.

    3.2 Overview
    of Eventsfrom6 to 15 April1994

    4.1During
    theeventsreferredtointhisIndictment,
    Rwandawasdivided
    intoeleven
    Prefectures,
    oneof whichwasKibuye.[EachPrefecture
    wasgovernedby a Prefect.
    ThePrefectures
    werefurtherdivided
    intocommunes,
    eachof whichwasgoverned
    bya
    Burgomaster.
    TheBurgomasterwastherepresentative
    oftheexecutivepowerinthe
    communes
    65 andwasincharge of thegovernmental
    functions
    withinthecommune.]

    4.2During
    theevents
    referred
    tointheIndictment,
    Tutsis
    wereidentified
    asmembers
    ofanethnic
    orracial
    group.

    4.3OnApril6, 1994,
    theplane
    transporting
    President
    Juvenal
    Habyarimana
    ofRwanda
    crashed
    on itsapproach
    toKigali
    airport,
    Rwanda.
    Attacks
    andmurders
    ofcivilians
    began
    66 soonthereafter
    throughout
    Rwanda.

    4.4Duringthemonth
    of April1994,a large
    numberofmen,womenandchildren
    from
    various
    placessought
    shelterfromtheattacks,
    whichweretakingplace
    throughout
    KibuyePrefecture.
    ManyassembledinsideMugoneroComplex,
    whichconsisted
    of
    several
    buildings,
    including
    a church,
    aninfirmary
    anda hospital
    (hereinafter
    referred
    toas "theMugonero
    Complex").
    Themajorityofthesemen,womenandchildren
    were
    Tutsi
    67 andwereunarmed.

    69. On 6 April1994,PresidentJuv6nal
    Habyarimana
    of Rwandawaskilled
    whenthe
    planein whichhe wastraveling
    wasshotdownoverKigali.Radiobroadcasts
    informed

    65Thewordsinbrackets
    donotappear
    inpara.4.1oftheBisesero
    Indictment.
    66Para.4.3oftheBisesero
    Indictment
    refers
    to"killings"
    instead
    of"murders"
    inthesecond
    sentence.
    67Para.4.4oftheBisesero
    Indictment
    contains
    someinsignificant
    differences.

    Judgement
    andSentence 20 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    thepopulationof Kibuye of thedeathof thePresident


    on 7 Aprilandrequested
    that
    peoplestayat home.Witness FF andG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    recalledincidents
    of soldiers
    in thestreets beating peoplewho didnot remainat home.Thesecuritysituation
    deteriorated
    as houses in theareawereburntdownor theirroofsremoved. 6s Both
    Witness
    8 andWitness6 testifiedtosleeping
    outdoors
    forfearofattacksonhouses.

    70. Overthenextfewdaystheviolence in Kibuye


    escalated. RoyisiNtakirutimana
    gaveevidencethatthereweredisturbances
    in thecommune of Rwamatamuduringwhich
    houseswereburnt,Witness
    XX testified
    thatpeoplewerekilled in Rwamatamu,
    Witness
    CC reported
    killing
    intheBisesero
    secteur,
    andWitnessFF heardreportsofpeoplebeing
    killedin Gishyita,
    Gisovu,
    andRwamatamu
    communes.On 9 Apriltherewasan attackat
    thehouseof JeanNkuranga,
    director
    of theESINursing School,duringwhicha night-
    watchman
    69 waskilled.

    71. Around9 April,refugees fromthe surrounding areasbeganto arriveat the


    Complex. Estimates provided by the witnessesas to the numberof refugees vary
    considerably.
    Witness32 testified
    thaton9 April about100personshadarrived.
    Witness
    7 indicatedbetween100 and 200 refugeeswere thereby 11 April,and Ann
    Nzahumunyurwa testifiedthaton thisdate,between 200and300refugees hadsought
    refugeat theComplex. G6rardNtakirutimana
    statedthaton 12 Aprilabout1,300people
    hadgatheredthere.WitnessPP didnotprovidean estimate
    butsaidthat"thebuildingsof
    thehospital werefullof people. Thesurroundingbushes or woodswerefilled with
    people.Thechurch, itself,
    wasfull." Witness
    5 statedthatby 14Apriltherewere2,000
    refugees at the Complex,Witness FF testifiedthattherewere5,000refugees not
    includingthewounded, WitnessHH putthenumber at approximately
    5,000to 6,000,and
    Witness KK gavea numberof 6,000.Witness MM saidthattherewerebetween 8,000
    and12,000 refugees at theComplex,andWitnesses YY andXX estimatedthenumber to
    be 50,000.

    72. On 10 April, OscarGiordano,thedirector of MugoneroHospital,andhiswife


    EugenicGiordanoleftMugonerowitha United Nations 7° Overthenextfewdays
    escort.
    increasingnumbers
    ofinjured
    werereceived at thehospital.
    71 Mostofthesepatients
    were
    youngmales, whoweresuffering fromwounds causedby bladedweapons.
    72 Alsoon 10
    April,at leasttwogendarmesarrivedat theComplexandremained there.
    73 Mostof the
    witnessestestified
    theybelieved,
    atthattime, thatthegendarmeswereattheComplex to
    protect 74 Overthenextfewdaysmanymembers
    them. of thestaffat thefieldoffice,the
    ESI,andthehospital
    75 stopped
    comingto work.

    68 T.20September2001p. 119;T. 19September


    2001p.43;T.14 February2002p.72.
    69 T.25 April2002pp.58,146;T.26 April2002pp.4-5;T. 2 May2002p. 46;T. 2 May2002pp.47-48;
    T. 11April2002pp.104-105; T. 11April2002p. 105;T. 9 May2002pp.40-42;T. 24April2002pp.30,
    61,191;T. 6 May2002pp.118-119.
    70T.6 May2002p.116.
    7tT.22October 2001p.8;T.1 October 2001p.8;T.17April 2002p.28.
    72T.9 May2002pp.58,84-87.
    73T.9 May2002p. 51;T. 6 May2002pp.124-125.
    74T.28 September2001p. 11;T. 1 October
    2001p. 79;T. 30October2001p. 80;T. 25September
    2001p.
    97;T. 26 September 2001p. 78;T. 27 September2001p. 143.WitnessesGG (T.20 September2001p.

    Judgement
    andSentence 21 ~ 21 February2003

    1
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    73.Severalwitnessestestified
    aboutan eventwhichoccurredon or around13 April
    whena mobattempted
    to attack
    theComplexbutwasrepelled.Theattackersconsistedof
    approximately
    200peoplewhocamefromthedirectionof thetradingcentrearmedwith
    traditional
    weapons.
    76 Several
    witnesses
    testified
    thatoneof theattackerswasinjured
    whentheattack
    77 wasrepelled.

    74. The Chambernotesthatthe information containedin paragraph4.1 of both


    Indictments on Rwandanadministrative
    structures
    wasadmittedby the Defence.The
    Chamber
    alsoaccepts, on thebasis
    of previous
    Tribunal
    findings,
    thatbourgmestres
    were
    therepresentativesof executive
    powerandin charge
    of governmental
    functions
    in the
    78
    commune.

    75.In relationto paragraph


    4.2of bothIndictments
    theChamberhasalreadyfoundno
    relevant
    disagreementbetween
    thepartiesthat,in 1994in Rwanda,
    Tutsiwereperceived
    79
    as members
    of an ethnic
    group.

    76. The Chambertakesnotethat the Defenceadmittedthe firstsentenceof


    paragraph
    4.3of theIndictments
    (theshooting
    downof theplane).
    Basedon theevidence
    summarizedaboveandprevious
    judgements,
    the Chamber
    alsoacceptsthatmurdersof
    civilians
    began
    soonafter
    theplane
    crash,
    including
    intheareaofKibuye
    prefecture.

    77.Theevidence in thepresent casealsosupports thefinding thata largenumberof


    men,womenandchildren soughtshelter fromtheattacks, andthat"many" assembled
    at
    the Mugonero Complex(paragraph 4.4 of bothIndictments). The Chamberdoesnot
    consider
    it necessary to decideontheexactnumber. However,basedon theevidence
    the
    numberwasmanyhundreds, eventhousands, of people.Theevidence suggeststhatthe
    greatmajorityofrefugees attheComplex wereTutsi, butthattheywerenotexclusively
    so. Witnesses YY, PP, and XX mentioned the presence of Hutuwivesof Tutsimen.
    WitnessesYY andHH referred to twoHutufamilies beingat theComplex priorto the
    attackof 16 April. WitnessesXX andFF recognised a smallnumberof Hutu,including
    HutumenwithTutsiwives. WitnessesFF andHH allowed thatotherHuturefugees may
    havebeenpresent in additionto thosetheyrecognized. WitnessGG knewof onlyone
    Huturefugee at the Complex. Consequently, the Chamber findsin conformitywith
    paragraph
    4.4of theIndictments thatthemajority of themen,womenandchildrenatthe
    ComplexwereTutsi. It followsfromtheevidence in thepresentcasethatthemajority
    wereunarmed;seeinparticular 3.8and3.9below.

    130)andKK(T,3 October2001pp.89-90)bothtestifiedthattheydidnotbelieve
    thatthegendarmes
    were
    attheComplextoprotectthem.
    75T.6 May2002p.133;T.16April2002pp.99-100, 113;T.17April2002p.29.
    76T.26 September
    2001p.13;T.27September 2001pp.1-2,5-6.
    77 r.2 October
    2001p. 61;T.2 October
    2001p. 61;T. 24April2002p. 75,77-79;
    T. 9 May2002pp.71-
    73;T.10 May2002p. 34.
    78SeeforinstanceAkayesu
    (TC)paras.
    54 and77 andBagilishema
    (TC)para.228.
    79 Decision
    of 22November
    2001on theProsecution’s
    motionforjudicial
    noticeof adjudicated
    facts,
    paras.
    11-13,
    50.

    Judgement
    andSentence 22 21 February
    2003

    l
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    3.3 Appealsto Tutsi to Seek Refuge at the MugoneroComplex

    4.5 Manyof thosemen,womenand childrenwho soughtrefugein the Mugonero


    Complex
    didso because
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    instructed
    themto gothere.

    3.3.1Prosecution

    78. The Prosecution’scase is thatin the daysfollowingthe outbreakof attacks,


    ElizaphanNtakirutimanaraisedthehopesof refugees whohadgathered at theMugonero
    Complexby assuring themthatsecurity at the Complexwouldbe enhanced. He procured
    gendarmesfrom Kibuye town ostensiblyto guard the refugees.The presenceof
    gendarmesat theComplexwassignificant in convincingTutsito acceptrefugethere.The
    Prosecution
    reliesforthisproposition on theevidence of Witnesses
    MM,SS,andFF,and
    furthersubmits thattheevidence of Witness HH thathe sawthegendarmes who formerly
    guarded
    8° theComplextakepartin theattack on 16 Aprilbolsters
    theProsecution’scase.

    79. In particular, followingthe arrivalof gendarmesat the Complex,Elizaphan


    Ntakirutimana summonedback to Mugoneroseveralstaffmembersof the association
    who had gone intohidingelsewhere, promisingthem security.Four Tutsistaffwho
    foresawthe dangerand decidednot to remainat the Complexwere Jean Nkuranga
    (Director of theNursingSchool),EzekielRuhigisha
    (Headof Maintenanceat theNursing
    School),SethSebihe (a Pastorattachedto theNursing
    School),andIssacar Kajongi
    (the
    Hospital Treasurer).Theyall leftMugonero becausetheyknewthatas educated Tutsi
    theywouldbe primetargets. ElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    havingnoticedtheirabsence,sent
    messengersto askthemto return,disclaiming
    anyresponsibility
    fortheirwelfareoutside
    theComplex.
    81 ThesefourTutsireturnedandwerelaterkilled.

    3.3.2 Defence

    80. TheDefencesubmitsthatthetestimony of allwitnesses,


    bothfor theProsecution
    and the Defence,
    showsthatpeoplesoughtrefugeat the Complexas theyhad in past
    timesof violence.Therewasno testimony
    thattheAccusedencouraged
    Tutsior Hututo
    flockto Mugonero.AlltheevidenceshowsthatbothHutuandTutsisoughtrefugeat the
    Complex
    82 in thefirstdaysandnoneneededto be encouraged.

    81. The DefenceunderscoresElizaphan


    Ntakirutimana’sconcernfor the safetyof his
    Tutsicolleagues.On 15 April,Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wentto theComplexto findhis
    treasurerKajongi.He warnedhimthatsecurity hadseriouslydeterioratedandthathe
    shouldalertall pastorsand, throughthem,the people.At the Complexhe found
    Kajongi’s wife.WitnessFF claimedthat the AccusedaskedKajongi’swifeto summon
    him to the Complex.
    The Defencerejectsher interpretation.
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    wentto the Complexon 15 Aprilbecausehe wantedthepastorsto knowhe thoughtthe
    Complex
    83 wasno longersafeandthatallwhocouldfinda saferplaceshould flee.

    8oProsecution
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    49-68.
    81Id.paras.
    69-92;
    T.21August
    2002p.148.
    82Defence
    Closing
    Briefp.
    22;T.22August
    2002p.3.
    83Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    p.204.

    Judgement
    andSentence 23 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    82. The Defence deniesthatthe Director of the NursingSchool, JeanNkuranga,


    returned to theComplex upontheadviceof Elizaphan Ntakirutimana.
    84 Witness MM
    testifiedthatNkuranga returnedto theComplexby 12 April.TheDefence suggeststhat
    thisis a fabricationto castElizaphanNtakirutimanain a poorlight.TheAccused and
    Nkurangawereinfactclosefriends andworkedtogether in thesameoffice.Hiswifeand
    childrenweretakento Gisovu by G6rardNtakirutimanaforsafety. TheDefence argues
    thattheProsecution’s
    thesis isinconsistent.
    Havingfailed toprovideevidence
    thathordes
    of refugeeswereluredto theComplex by theAccused,theProsecutionfalls backon the
    evidenceof WitnessVV,whotestified thatElizaphanNtakirutimanasentenvoysto bring
    Nkurangabackon 14 April. Howeverthetestimony of WitnessVV cannotbe reconciled
    withtheaccounts
    85 of WitnessesMM andHH.

    3.3.3Discussion

    83.Thequestionat issueis whether


    "many...men,womenandchildren"tookrefuge
    at theComplex
    becausetheywere,’instructed"
    to do soby Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana.

    84.TheProsecution’sevidence
    suggeststhatmostpersonswho soughtrefugeat the
    Mugonero
    Complexinthedaysafter
    6 April1994didso because
    theybelieved
    thatatthe
    Complextheywouldbe relatively
    safe;
    86 becausetheyhadtakenrefugethereon past
    occasions
    of unrest;
    87because
    relatives
    alreadyat theComplex
    assured
    themthatit was
    safetojointhem;
    8889
    orbecause
    theydidnotknowwhatelsetodoatthetime.

    85. WitnessMM was the onlywitnessto allegethatgendarmes stationedat the


    Complexinquired afterand wentlooking for certainpersons"whoheldimportant
    positions
    in thehospital".9° Therewasno suggestionby thewitness thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    instructedthegendarmesto lookforthoseindividuals.Therewasa small
    numberof gendarmesat theComplex during the period7 to 15 April.According to
    WitnessesFF, HH, KK,and YY, therewerethree;according to GG,two;MM didnot
    specifythenumber. Thegendarmessaidthattheyhadcometo ensure securityat the
    Complex.
    Theyweregiven foodandotherprovisionsby hospital
    staff.

    86. OnlyWitness SS provided


    evidence
    of a connection
    betweentheAccusedandthe
    gendarmes.
    Thewitness
    testified
    thatwhile
    atfirstthere
    wasno security
    attheComplex,
    on an unspecified
    datehe sawElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    bringtwogendarmes
    on theback
    of hispickup.WitnessFF allegedly
    overheard
    theAccused
    saythathe wouldaskfor
    84T.22August2002p.3.
    85Id.pp.31-32.
    86 WitnessFF,T. 1 October
    2001pp.2, 96;Witness
    GG, T. 20 September
    2001pp. 120-121,
    T. 24
    September2001p. 91;Witness HH,T. 25 September2001p. 91;T. 26 September2001p. 75, T. 27
    September
    2001pp.99-100; WitnessXX,T. 19 October
    2001p. 13.
    87 WitnessMM, T. 19 September2001pp. 44-45,T. 29 September2001p. 27; WitnessHH, T. 25
    September
    2001pp.140-141;WitnessPP,T. 5 October
    2001pp.64-65,99-100,
    105;Witness
    SS,T. 31
    October
    2001p.41.
    88Witness
    PP,T.8 October
    2001pp.5,98.
    89Witness
    DD,T.24 October2001pp.17,24-25,92-93.
    90T. 20September
    2001pp.61-65.

    Judgement
    andSentence 24 21 February
    2003
    t
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    more"soldiers" tobe brought to theComplex to reinforcethosewhowerealready there.


    Thereislittle evidence thattherefugees feltthreatened orotherwiseoppressedby the
    presenceof thegendarmes. Witnesses FF,SS,andHH indicated thatthegendarmes were
    wellreceived by therefugees. OnlyWitness KK presentedanyevidenceof a sinisterrole
    forthegendarmes priorto 16 April,namely theiralleged attendanceata meeting on 13
    April,whichinvolved G6rard Ntakirutimana andcommunal officials,afterwhichthe
    gendarmesaskedrefugees to handovertheirtraditional weapons.Thereis someevidence
    to indicatethatthere weresecuritybreaches attheComplex in thedaysprior to16 April
    (see3.2). Witness YYsaidthataround 14 Apriltherefugees wereattackedby a group
    civilians ledby MikaMuhimana, Charles Sikubwabo,and Gisambo. Theywererepelled
    by thegendarmes whoshotin theirdirection. Someconfirmation of thisincident was
    offeredby Witness XX and perhaps alsoby Witness FF, but WitnessKK deniedthe
    incident. Witness HH described an attack(possibly the sameone)in whichabout
    200assailants attempted to attacktheComplex on 14 or 15 April,buthe saidthatno
    fighting
    resulted.

    87.TheChamber doesnotfindsufficient basisto conclude


    thatthegendarmes
    were
    usedby theAccusedto lureTutsitotheComplex.
    However,
    other
    evidence
    indicates
    that
    halfa dozenor so Tutsipersonssoughtrefuge
    at theComplex
    upontheadvice
    of the
    Accused.

    88.Witness HH testifiedthatElizaphan Ntakirutimanaat onepointinquired after


    personsnotpresent attheComplex.TheAccused toldthewitnessandothersto findthe
    absentpersons andtellthemtoassemble at theComplex.
    "Andhe toldus that:’I think
    thebestthing forthosepeoplewouldbeforthemtocomehereinstead ofstayingintheir
    homesor elsewhere,because...theymightbe harmed, andif anything
    happens to them
    whenthey’re
    ’’91 outsidethiscomplex thenI wouldnotbe responsible for that’.
    WitnessHH testified thathe passedElizaphan Ntakirutimana’smessageon to Jean
    Nkuranga and Josu6Rubambana. The samemessagewas,according to the witness,
    conveyedby a different
    (unidentified)
    messengerto twootherpersons,
    Issacar Kajongi
    andhisyounger brother
    EzekielRuhigisha. Thelattertwowerealreadyat theComplex
    whenWitness
    92 HH returned(on12 or 13 April)withNkuranga andRubambana.

    89.WitnessVV,whosometimeafter6 Aprilhadtakenrefuge at GitweHill,testified


    thatshewaspresent whena Tutsiperson namedSegikware,
    accompanied by two young
    Tutsimen,one namedRubambana (who,according to the witness, was Nkuranga’s
    younger
    brother)andtheotherhavingthefirstnameof Witness HH,cameon behalf of
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    to askNkurangaandRuhigishato retumto theComplex where
    theirsafetycouldbe ensured.
    Nkuranga andRuhigishadulyleftGitweHillfor the
    Complex.
    93 WitnessVV’saccountdiffersfromthatof WitnessHH in somerespects,in
    particular
    fromthelatter’sclaimthathe delivered
    theAccused’smessageto Nkuranga
    andRubambana,not Nkuranga
    andRuhigisha.

    9lT.25September
    2001
    pp.98-99;
    T.27September
    2001
    pp.140-141.
    92T.25September
    2001pp.100-102,
    105-106;
    T.26September
    2001
    pp.79-80;
    T.27September
    2001
    pp.
    99-101,148.
    93T.4 October
    2001
    pp.87-90.

    Judgement
    andSentence 25 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    90.According to Witness
    FF,the personwhobroughtIssacarKajongito theComplex
    wasKajongi’swife.Thewitness
    testified
    thatshewasin thecompanyof Kajongi’s
    wife
    on 15 AprilwhenElizaphanNtakirutimana
    askedKajongi’swifeto go and fetchher
    husbandwhoapparentlywashidingin WitnessFF’shouse.
    On receivingtheAccused’s
    message,
    94 Kajongi
    joinedtheotherrefugees
    at theComplex.

    91. WitnessMM testifiedthatKajongiwas one of fourpersonswho cameto the


    Complexon Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’sadvice.The otherthreeincluded Charles
    UkobizabaandWitnessMM’solderbrother.
    95 Thewitnessclaimed,
    moregenerally,that
    "it was mostlyGrrardNtakirutimana and PastorNtakirutimana who wouldsend
    messagesto people
    whohadsought refugein thehills.Theseweremessageswhichwere
    mostlydestinedforthosewhoworked in thehospital.Theywerebeingaskedto come
    backtothehospital,
    ’’96 thatthehospital
    wasunderguard,
    thattheplace
    wassafe.

    92.Of otherwitnesses testifying


    on thismatter,WitnessKK saidthatoneSegikware
    had mentionedto him thatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    hadaskedhimto bringNkuranga
    andRuhigishato theComplex,where
    therewasbettersecurity.
    97 (This accords
    at a basic
    levelwithWitness VV’saccount.) A similar
    account was givenby Witness DD,who
    testifiedthatthemessengershadbeenSegikwareanda personwhosefirstnamewasthat
    of WitnessHH.He addedthat"itwasnecessary to go andcallRuhigisha andNkuranga
    because,accordingto PastorNtakirutimana,
    therewassecurityat theMugonero Complex
    andthatthese twopeople could,
    therefore,
    comeback".
    98 WitnessDD didnotclarify how
    he had obtained thisinformation. WitnessYY testified merelythatElizaphan
    Ntaldrutimanahadsenta message withSegikwareto unspecifiedpersons in Bisesero
    99
    askingthemto return.

    93.In summary,takingtheProsecution’s evidence


    at facevalue,it wouldseemthat
    fivemen(Nkuranga, Rubambana,
    Kajongi, Ruhigisha,
    andUkobizaba)andperhaps a few
    otherpersons, whowereleftunnamed by WitnessesMM andYY, wentto the Complex
    uponElizaphanNtakirutimana’s
    advice.It should
    be notedthathundredsof refugees
    had
    assembledat the Complexby 16 April(see3.2 above). Thereis no doubtfromthe
    evidence
    thattheComplex wasconsidered a relatively
    safeplacein thedaysafter6
    April;as WitnessMM testified:
    "I cansaytherewassomekindof safety. I mademy
    father
    1°° andevenmy mothercome.AndI’mtheonewhobrought theseindividuals".

    94.In viewof theabove,


    theProsecution’s
    evidence
    doesnotsupporttheallegation
    that"many"men,women,and children
    tookrefuge at MugoneroComplexpriorto 16
    Aprilpursuant
    to "instructions"
    of theAccused.
    Thereareno womenor children
    among
    the fivenamedindividuals
    referredto above,all of whomwereemployeesat the
    94 T.28September
    2001pp.14-15,19-20;
    T.1 October
    2001pp.84,87,95.
    95T.20 September
    2001pp.93-95;
    T.19 September
    p. 48.
    96W. 19September
    2001pp.47-48.
    97W.4 October
    2001pp.52-53,
    55.
    98T. 23October
    2001pp.139-140.
    99T.3 October
    2001p.57.
    ~00T.20September2001p.64.

    Judgement
    andSentence 26 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v, Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Complex
    (andtheEsapan 1 101
    Schoo). It appears
    thattheywereencouraged
    by Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    to return
    therefortheirownsafety,
    rather
    than"instructed".
    It therefore
    follows
    thatparagraph
    4.5oftheIndictments
    hasnotbeensubstantiated.

    95. In viewof the Prosecution’s submissions,the Chamber alsoobserves thatthe


    evidence doesnotsupport a findingthatElizaphanNtakirutimanawanted thosepersons
    to return to theComplexso thattheywouldbe killed. Thereis no evidencethatthe
    Accused participatedin meetingswithpersons whowereseenduring theattack of 16
    April.It isalsorecalled thattheProsecutionconceded
    duringitsclosing arguments
    that
    therewasno evidence thateitherAccused
    hadexercised anypofiticalactivityorhadany
    politicalaffiliation
    (see6.1.4and6.1.5below).TheChamberalsoobservesthata letter
    15 April writtenbytherefugeesto ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    (seebelow3.8)supports the
    viewthatatthisjuncture therefugeeswereunaware of anypreviousactivitythatmight
    linktheAccused to anyplanningor conspiracy.
    Theletter containeda requestforhelp
    andwaswritten ina toneofgreat respect.
    Finally,theChamberobservesthatthereis no
    evidence thattherefugees wereprevented fromleaving theComplex (seediscussion
    under3.4.3 below).

    3.4 Separation
    of TutsifromOtherIndividuals
    at theComplex
    4.6Afterthemen,womenandchildren
    gathered
    in theMugoneroComplex,
    G~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    andothersseparated
    theTutsi
    individuals
    fromtheothers.
    Those
    who
    werenotTutsi
    wereallowed
    toleave
    theMugonero
    Complex.

    3.4.1Prosecution

    96.The Prosecution
    submitsthatin preparationfor the attack
    on 16 April1994,
    Elizaphan
    andG6rardNtakirutimana
    attempted
    to confinealltherefugeesscattered
    in
    andaroundthevariousbuildingsof theComplexto themainNgomaAdventist
    Church.
    Preparatoryactsfrom11 Aprilincluded the attemptto disarmany refugeeswho
    happened
    to haveweapons
    intheirpossession.l°2

    97.Accordingto theProsecution,theseparation of Tutsifromotherindividuals


    took
    severalforms.On or about11 April,
    senior Hutuemployeesevacuatedtheirfamilies
    to
    Gisovu,andin thefollowing daysotherHutuemployees movedto houses belonging
    to
    theEsapan School,whichweresituated outsidetheComplex. Moreover,Elizaphan
    and
    G6rardNtakirutimana consistently discriminatedbetween Hutuand Tutsiand only
    protectedHutupersons or Tutsiwomenmarriedto Hutumenor to foreigners.According
    to theProsecution,
    thereis noevidenceofprotectionafforded
    to anyTutsipastor
    atthe
    Complex
    1°3 ortoother Tutsiemployees
    of theassociation
    orthehospital.

    98.TheProsecution
    further
    argues
    thatinfurtherance
    ofthepreparationfortheattack
    on Tutsirefugees
    at theComplex,
    non-Tutsi
    patients
    at theMugoneroHospitalwere
    discharged
    by G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    during
    theperiod
    11 to 15 April.
    On 15 April,
    the

    ~o~
    Withregard
    totheEsapanSchool,
    seepara.67above.
    ~02
    Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    97-106.
    1o3
    Id.para.
    107-118.

    27 21 February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Accusedordered
    theseparationofTutsiandnon-Tutsi
    patientsandthereafter
    orderedthe
    confinement
    ofTutsipatientsto thebasement
    of thehospital.
    Information
    on ethnicityin
    themedicalfilesfacilitatedtheseparation
    of Tutsifromotherindividuals.
    It is the
    Prosecution’s
    casethatno non-Tutsipatient
    remained
    at thehospital
    bythetimeof the
    attackon 16Ag4ril.
    Thepatients andnurseswhoremainedatthehospital
    after14 April
    wereallTutsi.

    3.4.2Defence

    99.The Defence deniesthatthe Accused attempted


    to confineTutsipersons to the
    mainNgomaAdventist Churchor to thehospital’s
    basement.
    It is submitted thatG6rard
    Ntakirutimananeverseparated patientsor otherwise
    discriminated on thebasisof
    ethnicity.
    TheAccused continuedto treatpatients
    atMugoneroHospital until14 April.
    He behaved
    at alltimesin accord withhischaracter
    andvocation.He hadspenttheyear
    priortoApril1994workinginanareawitha large Tutsipopulation,
    treatingmostlyTutsi
    patients,andworking withmostly Tutsistaff.G6rardNtakirutimana testifiedthat
    throughouttheperiod patientswerebeingtreatedandweredischarged on thebasisof
    theirmedicalconditionandnotforanyother reason.
    Fearingforhissafety afterhaving
    beenwarned by a gendarme,
    G6rard Ntakirutimana
    leftthehospital on theafternoonof
    14Aprilanddidnotreturn thenextday.

    100.TheDefence submits thatWitnessesFF and XX testifiedthattherewereboth


    Hutuand Tutsipatientsat thehospitalon 15 April. Therewerefamiliesof mixed
    ethnicity
    attheComplex,according
    to some
    of theevidence,up until
    16 April.
    Ethnicity
    ¯
    wasnotrecorded ’ il
    in hospital S.
    fie105

    3.4.3Discussion

    101.Paragraph 4.6 of bothIndictments


    contains two sentences,the firstalleging
    separationof Tutsifromotherindividuals,thesecond providingthatnon-Tutsi were
    allowedto leave.ThesecondsentencecouldimplythatTutsiwerenotallowed to leave
    theComplex. TheChamber hasnotfoundsufficient evidenceforsucha proposition.
    Witnesstestimoniessuggestthattherefugeeswerenotconfined to theComplex, other
    thanby thedangerous circumstances
    prevailing
    on theoutside. WitnessMM maintained
    thattherefugees hadto obtainthegendarmes’permissionbeforeleavingtheComplex,
    buthe saidthatthiswasoutof a concern
    toprotect therefugees.
    1°6Similarly,although
    WitnessKK saidthattherefugees were"notallowed"to leave,he thenexplained that
    whatprevented the refugeesfromleaving was thewidespread violenceoutside the
    Complex.1°7Witness SS saidthatalthough at firsthe couldcomeand go fromthe
    Complex, fearsubsequentlykepthim fromgoingout.He addedthatno gendarme ever
    preventedhimfromleaving.
    1°8~O¢itnesses
    GG,YY,andHH periodically lefttheComplex

    lo4Id.para.
    119-134.
    to5Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.199-200;
    T.22August
    2002p. 40.
    1o6T.20September
    2001p. 102.
    lO7T.4 October
    2001pp.54,60.
    ~o8T.30October
    2001p.82.

    Judgement
    andSentence 28 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    tosearch
    forfood,tograze
    cattle,orforother
    reasons.
    1°9Therefore,
    theevidence
    does
    notsupport
    theProsecution’s
    assertions
    thattherefugees
    werenotallowed
    to leave
    the
    Complex,
    or thatElizaphanand GdrardNtakirutimana
    wereresponsiblefor their
    confinement.

    102.The Prosecutionhasarguedthattherewereseveral formsof separation.


    The
    Chamber
    willaddress eachformindependently.
    It alsoobservesthatparagraph
    4.6of
    bothIndictments refersto "GdrardNtakirutimanaand"ome
    rs", whereasElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    is notmentioned.

    (a) AttemptedConfinement
    in the NgomaAdventistChurch

    103.TheProsecution
    contendsthatthetwoAccused attempted
    to confine
    theTutsiin
    theNgomaAdventist
    Church,
    alsoreferredto as theparent
    church("~glise
    more"),
    and
    relies
    on thetestimonies
    of Witnesses
    MM,HH,andKK toprovethiscontention.

    WitnessMM

    104.Witness MM saidthatbetween 12 and 16 April,"we wereconstantly askedto


    move,andwe sawthatitwasbecoming morepersistent as timewentby".11°He testified
    thatGdrardNtakirutimana
    andMathiasNgirinshuti,thechief of personnel
    atthehospital,
    wouldoftencometo thehospitalandbehave as if theywerein charge of it.Theyasked
    himandotherrefugees "onseveraloccasions"to leavethehospital andgo to themain
    Church,becausethehospital wasmeantfortreating patients.11~WitnessMM gavetwo
    reasonswhyhe andtheotherrefugees refused to go to themainchurch. He saidthey
    believedthattransferring themfromthehospital to anotherareawas one wayof
    concentrating
    themin oneplaceandthiswasdangerous. Secondly,
    theydidnotwantto
    leavea placewithseveral buildingsandplenty of space, andwheretherewerebasic
    utilities,
    suchaswaterandelectricity,
    fora smallerplace wheretheirsurvival
    wouldhave
    beenmoredifficult.
    ~2Instead,therefugees"accepted" tomovefromthefirst floortothe
    groundfloor.113Thewitness saidthat"itwasG6rard, thatis themanagement of the
    hospital,
    thatdecided
    toclose[thefirst]
    floor".
    114(See (c)below about
    thisallegation.)

    WitnessHH

    105.WitnessHH saidthatbetween12 and 14 April,GdrardNtakirutimana asked


    refugees
    at theComplex
    "several
    times"
    toleave thehospital
    areaandgoto theAdventist
    church
    twentyminutes’
    walkaway.Accordingto thewitness,thereason the Accused

    ~o9T. 20 September
    2001p. 123(GG);T. 1 October
    2001p. 133(YY);T. 25September
    2001pp.114-117
    (HH).
    ~oT.19September
    2001p.60.
    1HT. 19 September
    2001p. 50;T. 20 September
    2001pp.55-58.
    112
    T. 19 September
    2001p. 59.
    L13Id.p.52;T.20 September
    2001pp.43-47.
    H4T.19 September
    2001p. 57.

    29 21 February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    gavewasthattherefugees’livestock
    were"soilingthehospital".
    115Therefugeesrefused
    to goto thechurch:
    "Wecould seethatkillershadcomeandstoppednearthechurch,but
    didnotgo further because therewerenotmanyof them." Therefugeesdidnotobey
    because
    theyfeltsafer at theComplex.
    Becauseof theisolation
    of themainchurch,they
    "decidedto remain
    at thecomplexbecausewe feltsafethereandadministrators
    of the
    complexwerethere".
    116TheChamber notesthatin hiswritten
    statement
    of 2 April1996
    thewitness explained
    to investigators
    thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    askedtherefugees to
    leavethehospital
    on11April.

    WitnessKK

    106.WitnessKK claimedthaton 14 Aprilhe recognized Elizaphan and G6rard


    Ntakirutimana
    amongthepeople whocameto tellthe refugees to leavetheComplex.
    According
    tothewitness,G6rard Ntakirutimana
    said:"Leave thisplace. Go117
    to the church
    ¯ ’ ’ a No reason
    on theotherside".NgomaAdventist Churchwastenminutes walkaw y.
    was given.
    ~18Witness KK toldinvestigators thatG6rardNtakirutimana wantedthe
    refugees
    to leave
    becausetheyinterferedwithhiswork, butin histestimony thewitness
    didnotconfirmthis."Evenif hesentawaytherefugees, it wasnotbecause he wantedto
    continue
    hiswork.Because wherehe wasworking, wherethepatients were,therewere
    no refugees.
    ’’119Thewitnesssaidthatno refugee followedtheinstruction becausethe
    ¯ m.126
    NgomaChurchwastoocoldandnotbigenough to accommodateallof the

    OtherWitnesses

    107.Threeotherwitnesses alsoprovided relevant evidence. WitnessXX did not


    personally
    hearG6rard Ntakirutimana
    requesttherefugees to leavethehospital
    andgo to
    the~glisemore,121
    butshesaidthatthiswaswhat"wentaround amongsttherefugees".
    DefenceWitness7, however,was notawarethatG6rard Ntakirutimanahad evertold
    Tutsipatients
    or refugeesto relocatefromthehospital to themainchurch,or to any
    church.
    122Sheleftherpostat Mugonero Hospitalon 11 April1994anddidnotreturn
    untilMay1994.
    lz3Defence Witness32 testifiedthat"Dr.G6rard askednobodyto leave
    thehospital.
    Eachperson leftthehospital of theirownvolition." Witness
    32 stopped
    going
    to workon 12 April.
    124

    108.The ChamberobservesthatG6rardNtakirutimanadeniedeverhavingasked
    anyoneto leavethe hospital.
    125 However,
    as mentioned
    above,threeProsecution
    ~5T.25September2001pp.92-94;
    T.26September
    2001pp.72-73;
    T.27September
    2001pp.92and
    141.
    ~16T.25September
    2001p.96;T.26September
    2001
    p.77.
    117T.3 October
    2001pp.94-96;
    T.4 October
    2001
    p.58.
    1~8T.5 October
    2001
    p.50.
    119T.4 October
    2001pp.56-57.
    120T.3 October
    2001pp.96-97.
    121T.
    22October
    2001p.51.
    122Y.12February
    2002p.15.
    123
    Id.pp.13-14.
    124T.16April
    2002
    p.88.
    125Y.9 May2002
    p.106.

    Judgement
    andSentence 30 /
    r~ 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    witnessestestifiedthattheyheardhimasktherefugees to moveto themainchurch


    outsidetheComplex. Accordingto Witnesses MM andHH,the Accused gaveas reasons
    thatthehospitalwasmeantfortreating
    patientsandthatthelivestock oftherefugees
    was
    soilingthehospital. Thereason mentionedby Witness HH is in conformity
    withhis
    writtenstatementto investigators
    of 2 April1996.Witness KK testifiedthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimanagaveno explanation.TheChamber notes,however, thatin his written
    statementof 15 November 1999,Witness KK recalled thattheAccused saidthathe
    neededthehospital to be vacated
    forhimto continue hiswork.TheChamber seesno
    reasonto doubtthatthiswas Witness KK’sexplanation to the investigators.The
    ChamberfindsthatG6rardNtakirutimanadidrequest therefugeesto leavefortheNgoma
    Church.

    109.According to the witnesses,G6rardNtakirutimanamadesuchrequests sometime


    duringtheperiod between12 to 16 April.
    It followsfromtheoverviewprovidedabove
    (see3.2)thatduring thisperiod thelargenumberof refugees
    at theComplexincreased
    fromapproximately1,300to an evengreaternumberof persons.
    Several buildings
    were
    full,including
    thehospital andthechurch.Underthese circumstances
    thereasonsgiven
    by theAccusedformoving therefugees outof theComplexareplausible.However,the
    Prosecution’s
    caseis thattheserequests weremadeforthepurpose of separating
    the
    TutsifromtheHutuwitha viewto preparing fortheattack of 16 April.TheChamber
    cannotmakethisinferenceon theexistingevidence.TheChamber
    alsoobserves thatits
    findings
    inrelation totheProsecution’s
    otherallegations
    regarding
    paragraph
    4.6ofboth
    Indictments
    donotsupport theProsecution’s
    contention.

    110.As stated
    above,Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    is notmentionedin paragraph
    4.6of
    theIndictments.
    InitsClosing
    BrieftheProsecution
    argues
    thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    alsorequested
    thattherefugees
    moveto thedglise
    m~re.TheChamber
    notesthatthereis
    noevidentiary
    basisforthis
    allegation.

    (b) Evacuation
    and Selective
    Protection

    111.TheProsecutionargues thaton or about11 April, seniorHutuemployeesat the


    Complex,including
    G6rard Ntakirutimana,MathiasNgirinshuti,DefenceWitness5 and
    others
    evacuatedtheirfamiliesto Gisovu.
    TheChambernotesthatthisis notindispute
    betweentheparties.AnnNzahumunyurwa,wifeof G6rard Ntakirutimana,
    testifiedthat
    shewasinformedthatthesecurity situation
    at Gisovuwasstillacceptable,andon 11
    April,around5 p.m.,G6rard Ntakirutimana
    droveher,theirchildren, anda numberof
    otherpersons, including MathiasNgirinshuti and Witness5, to Gisovu.G6rard
    Ntakirutimanadidnot stayin Gisovubutreturned to Mugonerothesameday. 126 He
    testified
    thaton 11Aprilhe tookhisfamily to Gisovu,believing
    thatitwouldbe more
    secure.Amongthepersons he tookalongwereNgirinshuti andNgirinshuti’s
    family;he
    leftthemat thehouseof thebourgrnestre
    ofGisovu,Ndimbati.
    127He alsotookalongthe
    wifeof JeanNkuranga, who was a Tutsi,and her threechildren. The Accused
    acknowledgedthaton the wayto Gisovuhe had beenstopped at a roadblockwhere

    126 T.11April
    2002
    pp.119-123,
    128,
    131;
    T.12April
    2002
    pp.65-73.
    127T.9 May2002
    pp.58-64;
    T.10May2002
    pp.123-124.

    Judgement
    andSentence 31 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Ndimbatihad askedhim:"I hopeyou havenot broughtany Inkotanyi


    intothe
    comlTlune".
    128

    112.AnotherDefence witness, Witness24, wentto Gisovuon 10 April.129 Several


    otherpeople
    arrivedin thecourse ofthenextthreedays,including
    thewivesandchildren
    of pastorsGakwerere and Ushizimpumu, DefenceWitnesses 5 and 21, and Enos
    Kagaba.
    13°Witness24 testified alsoto thearrivalof a childnamedEmmanuel,sonof
    JeanNkurangaand C16mentine, on 12 April.
    TM Thewitness wastoldby a person with
    whomshe was staying in Gisovu, thatit was G6rardNtakirutimana’s wifewho had
    broughtthechildEmmanuel to Gisovu.
    132OtherDefence witnessestestifying
    aboutthe
    tripto GisovuwereWitness5,133Witness22 (thewifeof Witness5),134 and
    Witness21.135

    113.In itsClosing BrieftheProsecution arguesthatHutuwereprovided shelterin


    housesoutside theComplex. Referenceis madeto WitnessSS,whoallegedly observed
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana and "Rusudoka" (PastorGakwerere’s nickname)heading for
    theEsapan Schoolat thetimewhenthewitness hadbecome awarethatallHutupastors
    hadgoneto seekrefuge atthatlocation.
    136TheProsecution alsosubmittedthatfrom11
    April,Witness5 movedintoa housebelonging to theEsapan School,andthatWitness
    32,alsoa Hutu,stayed in thathousewithotherHutufrom12 April. TheProsecution
    pointedout thatthishousewas closeto Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s residence.
    Furthermore,
    theProsecution referredto theTutsiwifeandchildren of Pastor Issacar
    Ntakirutimana, a Hutunot related to the Accused, who wereprovided shelterby
    ElizaphanNtakirutimanaat theComplex. In theProsecution’sview,thefactthatthe
    AccusedprotectedonlyHutuandTutsimarried to Hutuis particularly
    evidenced by the
    factthaton 16 April thegroupin ElizaphanandG6rardNtakirutimana’s
    vehiclesheading
    for Gishyita was uniquely Hutu.The Prosecution claimsthatRachelGermaine -
    accordingto the Defence a Tutsi- was in factBelgian. The ChambernotesRoyisi
    Ntakirutimana’sexplanationthat"[t]here wereno Tutsi.Thosewhowentwithus were
    thosewhowerecloseto us".Shelateraddedshedidnotknowtheethnicity of Rachel
    Germaine:
    137 "shecould havebeenTutsibutshewasof mixedrace".

    114.Inaddition
    totheevidence
    referred
    to by theProsecution
    in itsClosing
    Brief,the
    ChamberrecallsthatWitness
    HH mentionedtwoeventsinvolving two Huturefugees
    whomG6rardNtakirutimanaadvisedto leave.One eventrelatedto Gakwerere, a
    preacher.The Accusedarrived,accompanied by MathiasNgirinshuti who was
    responsible
    for personnel
    at the Complexand was related
    to Nbarubukeye.
    13s The
    128
    T.10 May2002p. 4.
    129
    Defenceexhibit1D30.
    130
    Defenceexhibit1D31;T. 25April2002pp.101-102.
    131
    T.25 April2002pp.73-74.
    132
    Id.pp.78-79.
    133
    T. 2 May2002pp.67-76; T. 3 May2002pp.20-23;Defence
    exhibit
    1D44.
    134
    T.30 April2002pp.154-159; 211-212.
    ~35
    T. 23April2002pp.71-77; Defenceexhibit1D25.
    136
    T,31 October2001p.101.
    137
    T,10April 2002p.170;T,11April 2002p.3.
    138
    T. 25September2001p. 112.

    Judgement
    andSentence 32 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Accused "toldtheHutusto leavethisplace becausetheydidnotshare thesameproblems


    as theother refugees".
    139Thewitness saidthatGakwerere acceptedthisandleft,after
    having stayedonlyonenightat theComplex. Thisepisode occurredbefore
    14 April.The
    secondincident involvedNbarubukeye,who,according to thewitness, was either
    a
    preacher or a teacher.
    WitnessHH explainedthatNbarubukeye stayeduntilthemorning
    of 16 April: "[W]henMathiasandGrrard cameandaskedhimto leave, theyhadgiven
    himconditions; namely,thathe shouldleavehis[Tutsi] wife"behind. Thewitnessdid
    notsayhowheobtained thisinformation.HesaidthatNbarubukeye leftwithhiswifeat
    about9.30a.m.,after MathiasNgirinshuticameto himandsaid: "Thistimeyoumustget
    outbecause thingsaregetting
    difficult."Ngirinshuti
    toldNbarubukeyethathecouldtake
    hiswifewithhim"andshecould
    14° dieelsewhere".

    115.WitnessYY testifiedthatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    advisedtwoHutufamilies to
    leavetheComplex.Inthefirstinstance,
    theAccusedtoldpastorGakwerere,
    hiswifeand
    children,
    whowereallHutu, toleavetheComplex
    priorto theattack.
    141Accordingto the
    witness,
    GakwererelefttheComplex"atleasttwoor threedaysbefore"16 April1994:
    "He wassomewhere in thecomplexat thehospital.We sawNtakirutimana approach.
    Theyspokeandthenwe sawPastor Gakwerereleavetogetherwithhisfamily.’’142The
    witness
    testifiedthathe didnotheartheconversation.
    Thesecondepisodementionedby
    thewitnesswaswhenElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    gavethe sameadvice to a Hutuwoman
    andherchildren. WitnessYY saidthathe sawElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    approach the
    womanwhothenlefttheComplex.Again,he didnotoverhearthediscussion
    theyhad.
    143

    116.On the basisof the evidencesummarizedabove,the Chamber findsthatsome


    senior
    Hutuemployees,includingGrrardNtakirutimana,evacuated
    theirfamiliesfrom
    theComplexa fewdaysbefore i6 April.TheProsecutionclaimsthatthisparticular
    evacuationshowshow GrrardNtakirutimana, by removing Hutupersonsfromthe
    Complex,
    effectively
    separatedTutsiindividuals
    fromothers. However,
    theAccusedalso
    tookon boardC16mentine,a Tutsiwomanmarried to JeanNkuranga(a Tutsiwho was
    director
    at theESINursingSchool),andherthreechildren.In viewof thisparticular
    evacuation,
    theChamberdoesnotfindsupportfortheProsecution’s
    allegation.

    117.The submissionthatGrrardNtakirutimana advisedHutupersonnelto leaveis


    supported
    by thetestimonyof WitnessHH,whotestifiedthatMathiasNgirinshuti
    and
    GrrardNtakirutimanaapproachedGakwerereandNbarubukeye
    aboutleaving. Takenat
    facevalue,
    theseincidents,
    asdescribedbythewitness,
    donotprovide
    sufficient
    basis
    for
    concluding
    thattheaimof theAccusedwasto separate
    theHutufromtheTutsiaspartof
    thepreparations
    fortheattack.According
    to thewitness,
    Nbarubukeye
    wasfirst asked
    to
    leavehisTutsiwifebehind. WitnessHH didnotsayhowhe learnedthisinformation.
    LaterNbarubukeyewasallowedto takehiswifewithhim.Theremark that"shecould

    139T.25September
    2001
    p.108;T.26September
    2001pp.83-84.
    ~4oT.25September
    2001pp.107-111.
    141T.
    2 October
    2001
    pp.8-9.
    142T.2 October
    2001
    pp.15-16;
    T.3 October
    2001pp.58-59.
    143T.2 October
    2001pp.16-19.

    Judgement
    andSentence 33 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    dieelsewhere"
    wasallegedly
    uttered
    by Ngirinshuti,
    notby G6rard
    Ntakirutimana,
    andat
    a timewhenthere
    is noevidence
    thattheAccused
    waspresent.

    118.In its Closing Briefthe ProsecutionsubmittedthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana


    providedshelter to variousHutu.As stated above,the Accusedis notmentioned in
    paragraph4.6of either Indictment.
    But,in viewof thesubmissions,
    theChamber notes
    thatthereis no evidencethathemadearrangementsforWitnesses5 and32 tomoveinto
    thehousein hisneighbourhood belongingto theEsapanSchool.Theassistance to the
    familyof PastorIssacarNtakirutimana
    wasof benefit
    toa Tutsiwoman,albeitmarriedto
    a Hutu,anddoesnotgivea basis forgeneralconclusions
    ofselectiveprotection.
    As for
    the advice which, according
    to Witness YY,ElizaphanNtakirutimana gaveto pastor
    Gakwerere and to a Hutuwomanwithchildren, theChamber observesthatthe witness
    didnotoverhear theconversations.

    119.According
    totheProsecution,preparations
    fortheattackdidnotinclude onlythe
    separation
    of Tutsifromotherindividuals
    butalsoattemptsto disarm
    anyrefugeeswho
    hadweaponsin theirpossession.
    TheProsecution
    refersto WitnessKK,whotestified
    thatgendarmesguarding
    theComplex informed
    himof a meetingthattookplacein the
    mainNgomaAdventistChurchon 13 April.
    G6rardNtakirutimana,bourgmestre
    Charles
    Sikubwabo,and the Conseillerof Gishyita(MikaMuhimana) and of Ngoma(Abel
    Bahunde)
    wereamongtheleaders at themeeting.
    Followingthemeeting, thegendarmes
    gathered
    therefugees
    andtoldthemtohandovertheir 144
    weapons.
    traditional

    120.The Chamber observes thatWitnessKK, who was then16 yearsold,did not


    attendthemeetingof 13 April.He testifiedthathe sawCharlesSikubwabo andG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    goingto themeeting, buthisknowledge abouttheirdiscussions came
    fromthe gendarmes.Consequently,thispartof Witness KK’stestimony is hearsay.
    WitnessYY testified thataround13 Aprilhe saw G6rardNtakirutimana and the
    bourgmestreheadingfor a meetingat the mainMugonero Adventist
    Church; following
    themeeting,traditionalweaponswerecollectedfromtherefugeesat theComplex by the
    gendarmes.
    145Thewitness didnotreceive anyinformationfromthegendarmes aboutthe
    substance of the meeting,but the ChambernotesthatWitnessYY’stestimony
    corroboratestheobservation madeby Witness KK.However, theevidence provided by
    thesetwowitnesses is notdirectlyrelated to theissueof evacuationandselective
    protection
    of therefugees. TheChamberseesno needto makea findingat hispointbut
    notesthesetwotestimonies
    aspartofthegeneral context
    in thedaysprecedingtheattack
    on16 April.

    (c) Discharge
    of Non-Tutsi
    Patients

    121.TheProsecution
    argues
    thatin furtherance
    of preparations
    fortheattack
    at the
    ComplexG6rardNtakirutimana
    discharged
    non-Tutsipatientsfromthe Mugonero
    Hospital,
    separated
    Tutsi
    fromnon-Tutsi
    patients,
    andorderedtheconfinement
    of Tutsi

    144T.3 October
    2001
    pp.90-94.
    Witness
    KK’s
    statement
    of15April
    1999
    wasmore
    extensive
    onthis
    point
    than
    thetestimony.
    t45T.3 October
    pp.90-94.

    34 [I 21February
    2003
    andSentence
    Judgement
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    patients
    tothebasement
    ofthehospital.
    InitsClosingBrief,
    theProsecution
    referred
    to
    the testimonies
    of Witnesses
    FF, DD, andXX. Accordingly,
    the Chamber
    willfirst
    summarize
    theirevidence.

    Witness
    FF

    122.WitnessFF testified
    thatHutupatients beganto leavethehospital on 7 April
    and
    continuedto leaveuntil15 April.
    146Shetestified thatfrom7 Aprilonwards, G6rard
    Ntakirutimanagradually
    dischargedHutupatients withoutexplainingwhyhe wasdoing
    so.On 15 April,thewitness
    heardtheAccused say"openly"thatallHutupatients should
    leave.
    147Shetestified thatG6rard Ntakirutimanaandthechiefof personnel, Mathias
    Ngirinshuti,
    "visitedthepatients
    on thebasis of theirmedicalrecords.Theyaskedthe
    Hutusto leaveandgavethemmedicines to take...home." Thewitness statedthatas of
    15 Aprilthereweremorethan70 patients at MugoneroHospital, of whomtherewere
    "morethan20"Hutuand"a bitmorethan50"Tutsi. Thelastgroupof Hutupatients,
    numberingmorethantwenty,lefton 15 April.
    148Witness FF saidthatallHutupatients
    wereableto leavebecause they"could moveaboutandtheycouldgo home,andthey
    tookwiththemthe medicine thattheyneeded". 149 MathiasNgirinshuti andG6rard
    Ntakirutimanathendirected
    thattheremaining patientsbe movedto theground flooron
    orafter15April (seebelow).

    WitnessDD

    123.WitnessDD, who knewG6rardNtakirutimana, aS° saw him around14 Aprilat


    MugoneroHospital.Thewitnesswasin thehospital’s courtyard.
    He heardtheAccused
    speak:"Thereweremanyillpatients,
    andhe saidthattheHutus whowereill,as wellas
    theZaireans,shouldleavethehospitalandgo home."Thewitness estimated
    thatabout
    30 patientsthenleft.He knewthattheRwandan citizenswholeftwereHutu,justby
    lookingat them.
    151Thewitness wasaskedwhyG6rard Ntakirutimana
    should
    makesuch
    an announcement
    in thecourtyard:
    "Allthepatientsin thehospital
    werenotseriously
    ill.
    Someof themwereoutin thecourtyard, and he spoketo thoseones.Andhe saidif
    amongst
    ’’152 themtherewereHutupatients,
    theycouldgo home.

    WitnessXX

    124.Witness XX saidshe had knownG6rardNtakirutimanasince1993whenhe came


    to Mugonero
    Hospitalas a physician.
    153Shetestified
    thatas of 9 ApriltherewereHutu
    andTutsias wellas Zaireanpatientsat thehospital.
    Shewasnotcertain aboutthe
    proportion
    ofTutsipatients to Hutupatients,
    butbelieved
    thatthemajority of patients

    146
    T.1 October
    2001
    p.74.
    147
    T.28September
    2001p.33;T.1 October
    2001
    pp.74-75.
    148
    T.28September
    2001pp.23,29,33-35.
    149
    T.1 October
    2001
    p.105.
    150
    T.24October
    2001
    pp.3-5.
    15~
    T.23October
    2001
    pp.97-101.
    152
    T.24October
    2001
    p.29.
    153
    T.19October
    2001
    p.8.

    Judgement
    andSentence 35 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    wereTutsi: "Duringthatperiod,thenumber of Tutsipatientsincreased


    because we
    received
    woundedpeoplefromtheareaswherethekillingshadstarted."
    Sheheardit said
    thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    madean "announcement",
    possiblybetween
    10 and12 April,
    thatallHutuandforeigners should
    leavethehospital:"[P]eople
    cameandtoldus that
    Dr.G6rardhadsaidthatalltheHutusandstrangers shouldleave,
    andtheytoldmethat
    sincean announcement
    likethatonehadbeenmade,it meantthatsomething abnormal
    wouldhappen, something nobodythought about".
    154 She addedthatfollowingthe
    announcement,
    "thenumberof patients
    in thehospital
    reducedremarkably",
    andthatthe
    remainingpatients
    wereputintoonebuilding, whereasusually
    theyhadoccupied two
    buildings.Shetestifiedthat"aroundthe15thof ApriltherewereneitherHutusnor
    foreigners
    155 orstrangers
    atthehospital".

    125.LikeWitnesses
    FF,DD andXX,Witness
    MM testified
    thatin theweekfollowing
    96
    15
    April,
    allHutu
    patients
    left
    thehospital.

    126.The Defencedisputesthe allegationsagainst G6rardNtakirutimana.


    Witness
    7
    statedthatshewasnotawarethatG6rard Ntakirutimana hadeverattempted
    to separate
    HutupatientsfromTutsipatients,or Huturefugees fromTutsirefugees.
    Norwasshe
    awarethattheAccusedhadevertoldHutupatients to leavethehospital
    duringthis
    period.
    157Thetestimonyof DefenceWitness 32 wasthatshe"never heardDr.G6rard
    asking
    ’’t58peopletoleave
    thehospital,betheypatientsoremployees.

    127.In relationto Witness


    FF,theDefence arguesin itsClosing Brief thatsheoffered
    t59significant
    no or credible
    testimony
    of a criminalactcommitted by either
    Accused.
    TheChamberis oftheviewthatheraccount oftheconditions at theComplexpriortothe
    attackon 16 Aprilandof herexperiences
    onthisdaywasconsistent. Shedidnotappear
    evasiveduringcross-examination. She had previously givenfivestatements to
    investigators,
    ofwhichfourrelated
    tothepresent case.16° Hertestimonywasgenerally
    in
    conformity
    withherprevious statements
    to investigators(seebelow).

    128.As partof itsargumentsagainst


    WitnessFF’scredibility,
    theDefencesubmits
    thatthewitness
    didnotclaiminanyofherpreviousstatements
    tohaveseenElizaphan
    or
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    at theComplex
    on 16 April.
    TheChamberdoesnotconsider
    this

    154French
    version
    reads
    : "Et,ilsm’ont
    ditque,commeunetelleannonce
    avait
    6t6faite,
    c’estqu’une
    chose
    anormale
    allait
    sepasser/t
    l’h6pital
    - unechose/Llaquelle
    personne
    n’avait
    pens6."
    (T.22October
    2001
    p.7)
    t55T.22October
    2001
    pp.5-8.
    t56T.20September
    2001p.46.
    157T.12February
    2002
    pp.12-13,166-167.
    t58T.16April
    2002
    p.89.
    159Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.55-63.
    16oThefirst
    statement
    of10October1995,isa general
    account
    ofeventsattheComplex
    andBisesero.
    The
    second,
    dated
    14November
    1995,consists
    ofresponsestoquestions
    aboutG6rard
    Ntakirutimana.
    Thethird
    declaration
    of10April
    1996 gives
    a description
    oftheeventsattheComplex
    andinBisesero.
    Thefourth
    statement,
    signed
    on21October1999,begins
    with thewitness
    declaring
    thatshehadnotbeenaskedabout
    rapeorsexual
    offences
    inprevious
    interviews.However,
    theinterview
    provided
    nosuchinformation
    but
    contains
    another
    accountoftheComplexandBiseseroevents.Thefifthstatement,
    dated14November
    1998,relates
    toAlfred
    Musemaandmakesnoreference
    toeitherAccused
    inthepresent
    case.

    Judgement
    andSentence 36 21February
    2003

    !
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    significant
    inthepresentcontextbutnotes thatthisfollowsalsofromhertestimony. The
    Defence
    alsoarguesthatWitness FF’scredibility isweakened because
    shegavedifferent
    versionsaboutwhichvehicles
    sheobserved on 16 April.TheChamber disagrees.In her
    first
    threestatements,thewitness claimedto haveseenvehicles belongingto Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    GrrardNtakirutimanaandthehospital. In herfourthstatement, shesaid
    thatthevehicles belongedto thehospital, Grrard Ntakirutimanaand a businessman
    namedAntoine. According to her testimony, she observed the car of Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    a whitepickupbelonging to thehospital which"Grrardhadtaken", anda
    vehiclebelongingto a businessman,which"Ruzindana had taken".The Chamber does
    notconsiderthesedifferencessignificant. TheChamber observesthatit follows from
    threeof herstatements
    andhertestimony thatshesawthevehicles of thetwoAccused
    conveyingattackers
    on themorning of 16 April, butthatshesawneither of themin
    person
    onthatdate.
    ~61

    129.The DefencesubmitsthatWitnessFF was partof a "campaign", allegedly


    orchestrated
    by Assiel Kabera,theprefect of Kibuye in 1995,against thetwoAccused
    (seegenerallybelow,II.7).The Chamber doesnot consider thisargument to
    convincing.
    It is truethatWitness FF appeared in a video,probablyfilmed sometime
    in
    April1995,whichshowscoffins in the chapel andcontains allegations againstthe
    Accused.
    However the witness denied everhaving discussed theeventsof 1994with
    Kabera,
    andexplained thatthefilmwascreated by thesub-prefect of Ngoma.Thefact
    thatshewasinterviewed as oneof thosewhoexperienced theattack on 16 Aprilfora
    filmmadein connectionwiththeburial of bodies doesnotundermine hercredibility.
    Furthermore,
    neitherthefactthatWitness FF wasinterviewed by AfricanRightsnorthe
    substance
    of herstatements to thathumanrights organization supportstheDefence
    contention
    thatshewaspartofa campaign against theAccused.

    130.TheDefencealsoemphasizes
    thatWitnessFF’scredibilityis doubtfulbecause
    shehasovertheyears
    inflated
    theroleplayed
    by Grrard
    Ntakirutimana
    in theattacks
    in
    Bisesero.
    Thisclaimwillbe considered
    in connectionwiththespecific eventsin
    Bisesero.
    In theChamber’
    s viewthewitness’s
    accountoftheeventsin Bisesero
    doesnot
    affect
    hercredibility
    concerning
    thedischarge
    of Tutsipatients
    in thedaysbefore16
    April.

    131.In relation to WitnessXX, the Defencearguesthather claimsconcerning


    Elizaphanand GrrardNtakirutimana wereminor,vagueand not believable.162 The
    Chambernotesthatthewitnessmadetwostatements to investigators,
    dated14 November
    1995and24 October1999,respectively. In thepresentcontext
    it willfocuson her
    evidenceconcerning the MugoneroComplex. The Chambernotesthather testimony
    aboutGrrardNtakirutimana’s
    announcement
    thatallHutuandforeign patients
    should go
    homeis hearsay.
    Theepisode is alsoreflectedin herfirstpriorstatement:"Allthe
    patients
    werecrammedin thebasementof themainbuilding,
    bothHutuandTutsi, butthe

    ~6~TheDefence
    states
    thatina video
    filmed
    probably
    inApril
    1995
    Witness
    FFstated:
    "Some
    ofthe
    vehicles
    belonged
    tothehospital.
    Theother
    onewashis[the
    Pastor’s]
    car."
    Seeexhibit
    1D41A
    and
    Defence
    Closing
    Briefp.
    58.TheChamber
    doesnotconsider
    thisformulation
    asa discrepancy.
    162Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.70-75.

    Judgement
    andSentence 37 ~ 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Hum wereaskedto leavearound12 April."G6rardNtakirutimana’s nameis not


    explicitlymentioned,
    butherbriefstatementcontainsseveralreferencesto himas a
    prominentfigure
    at thehospitalduringtheeventsin 1994,andtheChamber doesnot
    considerthisomission
    significant.
    Duringthesecond interview,thewitness didnot
    mention
    theannouncement
    butsaidthat"influential
    personalities
    evacuatedtheirfamilies
    becausetheyknew"’thattherefugeesat theComplexwouldbe massacred.TheChamber
    concludes
    thatWitness
    XX’sstatements
    andtestimony
    areconsistenton thispoint.

    132.In conformity
    withherprevious statements,
    Witness XX testifiedthatshedidnot
    seeeither Elizaphanor G6rardNtakirutimana
    on 16 April.163Hertestimony concerning
    theleading roleof G6rardNtakirutimana
    at thehospital wasalsoconsistent withpast
    statements.
    Morespecifically,shesaidthatwordwentaround amongtherefugeesthathe
    had askedthemto leavethehospital andgo to theNgomaAdventist Church.164This
    hearsay
    evidenceis corroborated
    by otherwitnesses
    (seeabove). Hertestimony
    thatthere
    wereabout50,000refugeesat theComplexis inflatedbutsheexplained thatthisfigure
    was only"anapproximate one".165TheChamber accepts herexplanation andobserves
    thatthewitness wasclearly in distresswhenrecounting herexperience.TheChamber
    disagrees
    withtheDefence thatWitnessXX’scredibilityis weakenedby thetestimony
    of
    WitnessYY,providing thesameestimated numberof refugees. Theevidence givenby
    thetwowitnessesdifferedinsomerespects,precludinga possibleinference
    of collusion.
    The Chamber considersWitness XX’stestimony concerning the MugoneroComplex to
    becredibleirrespective
    ofhertestimonyrelating
    toBisesero.

    133.Turning nowto Witness DD,theDefence arguesthattheradical changesin his


    testimony,comparedto his statement of 11 November1999to investigatorsand his
    reconfirmationstatements of 28 Julyand 22 October2001,renderhis evidence
    unbelievable.
    166TheChamberwillalsodiscuss thecredibility
    of thewitnesselsewhere.
    In thepresentcontext,
    theChamber observes thattheallegedannouncement
    to discharge
    Hutupatientswasnotincluded in anyof hispreviousstatements.Whenquestioned
    about
    thisissue,thewitnessansweredthathe hadspoken abouttheannouncement,
    butthatthe
    investigators
    "forgotto mention
    it"in hisstatement.167Having observed
    WitnessDD in
    court,wherehe was extensively questioned aboutthe announcement, the Chamber
    acceptsthatthismayhavebeenomitted duringtherecording
    of theinterview,andfurther
    observesthatthewitness cannot read.Several minordifferencesbetweenhiswritten
    statementandhistestimony indicate thatcommunicationbetween thewitnessandthe

    163T. 22 October2001p. 40.Accordingto herstatement


    of 14 November1995,shesawObedRuzindana
    who"wasobviously theleader".
    Shealsoobservedthevehiclesof G6rardNtakirutimana,
    "hisfatherand
    onebelongingto thehospital".
    Thisversionisin conformity
    withthetestimony ofotherwitnesses
    (see
    3.8.3(d)and(e)). ItshouldbenotedthattheFrench
    version,
    which wassigned
    bythewitness,
    is slightly
    different
    fromtheEnglishtranslation:
    "J’aivuenoutre3 vehicules,
    celuideGeral[d]
    Ntakirutimana,
    celui
    de sonpereetceluidel’hopital" (italics
    added).Thestatementof 24October1999refers
    to "several
    vehicles".
    164T.22October 2001p.51.
    165Id.p.92.
    166DefenceClosingBriefpp.133-138.
    167T.24Octoberp. 25.

    Judgement
    andSentence 38 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    investigators
    wasnotoptimal.
    168TheChamberalsonotesthatWitnessDD’stestimony
    about
    theannouncement
    corresponds
    to testimonies
    givenby otherwitnesses.

    134.On thebasisof thesetestimonies andhaving consideredthesubmissions of the


    Defence,theChamber findsthatWitnesses FF andDD heardG6rard Ntakirutimanasay
    thattheHutupatientsshouldleave thehospital.
    Theevidencesuggeststhatthiswasdone
    inconnection
    withvisits tothepatients (Witness
    FF)andinthecourtyard in relation
    patientsthatweregathered there(Witness DD).Thewitnesses provided a similar
    estimate
    of thenumber of Hutupatientswholeftfollowing
    theannouncement. Thisdirect
    evidenceis corroborated by WitnessXX, who did not hearthe Accusedmakeany
    announcement,
    butwholearnt of it fromothers.Thetestimony of WitnessMM that,in
    theweekfollowing9 April, allHutupatients leftthehospital is consistentwiththe
    Chamber’sfinding.Theevidence suggeststhatG6rard Ntakirutimana’sannouncements
    weremadebetween10 and13 April, as therewereno moreHutuor foreign patientsleft
    atthehospital
    afterthatdate.Itistrue thatDefence
    Witnesses
    7 and32testifiedthat
    there
    hadbeenno separation
    ofpatientsonthebasis ofethnicity,butitisto beobserved that
    thesewitnesses
    stopped reportingto workat thehospitalas earlyas 11 and12 April,
    169
    respectively.

    135.TheChamber
    doesnotfindit necessary
    to determine
    whethertheethnicity
    of
    patients
    wasrecorded
    intheir
    files
    inorder
    toreachtheconclusion
    above.

    136.On thebasisof evidence


    providedby WitnessFF,theProsecution
    alsoargues that
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    andotherofficials
    at thehospitalclosed
    downsomeofthehospital
    roomsand"crowded"(or"confined")thepatients intothebasementof thetwo-storey
    building.
    TheChamber notesthattheevidencein thisrespectis limited.
    Thereis no
    indication
    thatanypersonwaspreventedfromleavingthehospital
    basementor anyother
    partof theComplex(seeabove).TheChamberalsorecalls WitnessMM’stestimonythat
    therefugeesagreed
    tomovetotheground floorof thehospital
    (above).Accordingly,
    the
    Chamber
    is notina position
    tomakeanyfindinginthisrespect.

    3.5 Denialof Treatment


    to TutsiPatients

    3,5.1Prosecution

    137.The Prosecution
    alleges thaton or about13 April,G6rardNtakirutimana
    and
    Mathias
    Ngirinshuti
    closed themedicalstoreandthemainwardat thehospital. The
    Prosecution
    alsosubmitsthaton or about15 April,a daybeforetheattackat the
    Complex,
    woundedTutsiwhoweretakento thehospital by theRedCrossfortreatment
    weredeniedtreatmentby the Accused,
    wholockedthemedicine storageroomat the

    168See,forinstance,
    theformulation
    that"there
    weremanywhite
    men"inhisfirst
    statement,
    third
    para.,
    compared
    to histestimony(T.24October2001pp.18-19); statement,
    fifthpara.:
    "Idecidedtoruntothe
    church,
    whichI foundclosed,thenI proceededto thesurgicalward",
    compared
    to T.24 October
    2001pp.
    38-41;
    statement, fifthpara.:"I wasstandingin frontof Mugonero
    nursingschool",
    comparedtoT. 24
    October2001pp.34-35;statement, sixthpara.:"Wewerehidingin oneof thesurgical wardrooms"
    comparedtoT. 24 October2001pp.69-72.
    169Y.12 February2002pp.13-14;T.16April 2002pp.85-87.

    Judgement
    andSentence 39 21 February
    2003

    /~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    hospital
    andclaimed
    thattherewereno materials
    fortreating
    thewounded.17°These
    allegations
    arenotcontained
    in theIndictment,
    butareincluded
    in AnnexB ofthePre-
    trial
    Brief.
    171

    138.TheProsecution argues
    thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    waswellawareof thelikely
    consequences
    of denyingmedicaltreatment at a timewhentheevidencesuggeststhat
    woundedTutsi,having survived
    attacks in othercommunes,hadcometo theComplex
    seekingshelterandtreatment.
    TheAccused couldnotprovide
    anyexplanationas to why
    he decided
    to abandon
    thehospitalon 14 April,otherthanthathe wasasked
    to leaveby
    gendarmes
    172 andhedidnotquestion them.

    3.5.2Defence

    139.TheDefence rejectsthecontentionthatG6rard Ntakirutimana


    withhe!dmedical
    carefromTutsipatients
    by locking
    awaymedicalsupplies,
    orthathe otherwise
    refusedto
    treatTutsipatients.
    According
    to theDefence,theAccused continued
    to treatunknown
    wounded
    patients,whomostprobablywereTutsi,up until14 April.
    It follows
    fromthe
    testimony
    of Witnesses
    7, 32,and11 thatethnicitywasnotrecordedin hospitalfiles,
    contrary
    to theProsecution’s
    submissions.

    140.G6rardNtakirutimanawasin no positionto withhold


    medicinesfrompatients,
    according
    to theDefence.EtienneNiyomugabo,
    a Tutsi,wasin chargeof thesurgical
    department,
    andit washe whohadthekeystothesurgical roomsandoperating
    theatres.
    Ezekiel
    Ruhigisha,
    alsoa Tutsi,hada masterkeyto allhospital
    locks.As forWitness
    FF’stestimony
    thattheAccusedrefusedto treatwounded
    TutsiwhoarrivedinRedCross
    vehicles,
    thiswasrefuted byWitness
    11 ’sevidencethattheRedCrossdidnottransport
    patients
    173 andhadnosuchvehiclesavailable
    intheentireprefecture.

    3.5.3Discussion

    141.TheProsecution
    relies
    primarily
    on thetestimony
    of Witness
    FF.Accordingly,
    the
    Chamber
    willfirstsummarize
    hertestimony,
    as wellas thetestimonies
    of theother
    witnesses.

    Witness
    FF

    142.At the timeof the eventsin question,


    Witness
    FF was employed
    at Mugonero
    Hospital.
    Shetestified
    thataround
    7 or8 April
    Mathias
    Ngirinshuti,
    whowasin charge
    of
    personnel
    at thehospital,
    gaveeveryhospital
    employee
    an identification
    cardto makeit

    ~70Prosecution
    Closing
    Brief
    paras.
    135-152.
    171SeealsotheProsecution’s
    opening
    statement
    (T.18September
    2001p.15):"ItistheProsecution’s
    case
    thatonorabout13April 1994,
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    andMathiasNgirinshuti,
    thechief
    ofpersonnelatthe
    hospital,
    closedthemedicalstoreandthemainwardatthehospital."And"onor about15April1994,a
    daybeforetheattacksatthecomplex,wounded
    Tutsiwhoweretakento thehospital
    bytheRedCrossfor
    treatment
    weredeniedtreatment
    byDr.Ntakirutimana".
    ~72Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    135-152.
    ~73DefenceClosing
    Briefpp.199-203;T.22August
    2002p.104.

    Judgement
    andSentence 40 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    easierforthemto getto work,andthatafterthearrival of thegendarmes


    thevarious
    hospital
    employees
    keptworkingas usual.
    174Thewitnesstestified
    thatfrom7 to 15 April
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    waspresent at thehospital
    complex,butnotworkingin thesurgery
    unit."Hewasvisitingthepatients...normally,
    andhe workedonlyduring
    thedaytime; I
    neversawhimworkat night.
    ’’175

    143. The witnesstestified thatin the courseof the weekleadingup to 14 Aprila


    176 of Tutsiwoundedby shrapnel
    number werebroughtto thehospital by theRed Cross.
    G6rardNtakirutimana allegedly deniedthemtreatment. 177 "Whenthe woundedstarted
    comingin from communeswhichwere afflictedby violence,he stoppedworking.He
    closedthesurgeryand saidthathe didnot havethe toolsand necessary equipmentin
    orderto treatTutsis.’’178WitnessFF heardtheAccused saythiswhileshewasreceiving
    woundedpatientsin thelowerlevelof themainhospital building,in theroomnextto the
    surgeryunit.179 Shewas unableto remember the datewhenthe Accusedallegedly made
    theremark.~8°However sheindicated thatit wason theday"heclosedthatpartof the
    hospital and wentto Gisovuto his brother-in-law, in the companyof his wife."The
    witnesstestifiedthattheAccused camebacklate,whereas hiswiferemained in Gisovu.
    Accordingto thewitness, it wasa weekday, closerto 15 Aprilthan6 April;theAccused
    ¯ ¯ ¯ 181
    hadalready stoppedworkingat thistime.

    144.Witness FF furthertestified
    thatG6rardNtakirutimana"didnotparticipate
    in the
    roundsup to the15thbecausehe leftpriorto that...he participated
    in theroundsfor
    some days,and then he stopped".182 The nursescontinuedworking"in whateverway
    theycouldusingmakeshift means",until15 April,tryingto helpthosewho had been
    woundedby shrapnel.
    ~83WitnessFF maintained thatthenurseswashedthepatients and
    had"somemedication, somematerialin stock;forinstancetheywouldhavesomesutures
    whichtheywouldusein thestitching."
    184

    145.According to WitnessFF,themedical supplieswerekeptin a building nextto the


    hospital,as wellas in a roominsidethehospital. "Whentherewas no moremedicine I
    wouldgo into the placewherethe stockswere kept in the companyof the head of
    stocktakingand he [G6rardNtakirutimana] was the one who gave me the medicationI
    needed."The witnessmaintainedthat"thetwo placeswerelocked.Hadtheybeenopen,
    therewouldn’t havebeenany problem". Shestatedthatthe Accused"hadthe keys[to
    bothstocks]becausehe was the one who lockedup the surgeryroomand he took the
    keys withhim".~85 She deniedthatEtienneNiyomugabo had a key to this room:"The

    174
    T. 1 October2001pp.1-2.
    175
    Id.p.14.
    176
    Id.p.8.
    177
    Id. pp.101,105.
    ~78
    T. 28 September2001p. 22; T. 1 October2001p. 100.
    179
    T. 1 October2001pp.30-31.
    180Id.p.101.
    ~8~
    T. 28 September2001 pp. 31-34.
    ~82T. 1 October2001pp. 12-13.
    ~83T. 28 September2001pp. 22-23,32.
    184T. 1 October2001p. 119.
    ~5 Id.pp.115-119.

    41 21February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence

    !r
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    keysforthesurgeryroomwerewiththedoctorbecause he wasin charge


    of thatroom.
    Etienneworked
    as hisassistant,
    becausehe wasa nurse...he wasjustsupportingthe
    doctorwhowasactuallyoverall
    in charge
    of thesurgery room...Normallyit wasnot
    Etiennewhokeptthekeys,except
    at times
    he couldbe giventhekeyswhenhe hadto go
    and6
    ’’18
    fetchsomething
    fromtheroom.

    146.Withoutindicatingthedateon whichshehadlastchecked thestocks, Witness FF


    saidthatitseemedtoherthatthemedication
    instock
    wassufficient
    totreat patients
    until
    15April1994.Butshealsotestified
    thatEtienne
    would"usethelittle
    materialthatwasin
    stock,buthedidn’t haveauthority
    to gointothesurgicalwardorroombecausehedidn’t
    havethekeys.Furthermore,he didn’t
    haveenoughsuturematerialto be ableto do the
    stitching...he didn’thaveaccessto thesurgery
    andhe wasstitching themup in the
    hospitalward".187 Thepharmacyheldno materialsforstitching, onlytablets and
    188
    syringes.

    Witness
    XX

    147.Witness XX, who in 1994was employed at the Mugonero Hospital, claimedto


    haveseenG6rard Ntakirutimanaat thehospital from9 Aprilonwards,although noton
    13,14,or 15 April:"Heno longerlivedin...hishouse whichwasnearthehospital. We
    didnotevenseehiscararound,anditwassaidthathewasliving athisfather’s.
    ’’189The
    witness
    testified
    thatpriorto13April, "weusedthemedicationavailable
    atthehospital".
    Duringtheperiod of theAccused’s absence,a messagewassentby Etienne Niyomugabo
    requestingG6rardNtakirutimana"tocomeandmakemedication available". Niyomugabo
    was"thehighest authorityamongst thehospitalemployees",accordingto thewitness,
    andwas"thesupervising nurse".WitnessXX saidthatuponbeingaskedformedication,
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    "saidthathehadno medication fortheTutsis".Thewitness further
    stated:"Atthetime, thestockhe hadwaslocked up,andhe wastheonlyofficial whohad
    remained,andhe nevercamebackto findoutourfate." WitnessXX indicatedthatthey
    nevertheless
    usedwhatwasavailable
    atthehospital, butthatthestockwasdepleted.190

    OtherWitnesses

    148.DefenceWitness7, an employeeat MugoneroHospitalfromJanuary1994


    through
    11April1994,andthenagain fromMayto July1994,testified,
    "I never
    hearda
    patient
    complainaboutDr.G6rard,soI thinkhisattitude
    towards
    thepatientswasgood,
    generally
    speaking". As to whether
    theAccused everdiscriminated
    betweenTutsiand
    Hutu,thewitness said,"I neversaw anysuchthingandI neverheardanyonemake
    mentionof anysuch thing".191TheChamber notesthatthiswitnesswasnotpresent
    during
    theperiodwhichisrelevantinthiscontext.
    186
    Id.
    p.6.
    t87
    Id.p.115-118.
    188
    Id.pp.102-103.
    189T.22October
    2001
    pp.97-99.
    ~90Thequotes
    inthis
    para.
    arefromT.22October
    2001
    pp.99-101.
    ~91T.11February
    2002
    p.224.
    DefenceWitness
    32,referred
    tointheProsecution’s
    Closing
    Brief,
    didnot
    testify
    specifically
    onthe
    subject
    ofdenial
    oftreatment.

    Judgement
    andSentence 42 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    149.G6rardNtakirutimana
    testifiedthatduring theperiod11 to 14 April,
    personswith
    woundsrequiringsurgicaltreatment arrived in numbers at MugoneroHospital. He
    surmised
    thattheyweremostly
    Tutsi:"It’s difficult
    forme tosay,andthisisbecause we
    weren’tchecking
    on theidentityof thewounded.Thatwasn’t ourproblemat all....a
    patient
    came,wedidwhatwecould do;we didn’ttrytofindoutwhether thisor that.
    But
    giventhesituation
    ...thatprevailedat thetime,I believe
    thatmostof thepeoplewere
    Tutsis.
    ’’192The Accusedtestified thatEtienneNiyomugabo, who was the nurse
    responsible
    forthesurgery, hadkeysto thesurgery rooms.193 G6rardNtakirutimana
    deniedthathe everrefusedto treata patient priorto 14 April, thedateon which
    gendarmes
    194 directed
    himtoleavethehospital because
    ofincreasinglackofsecurity.

    150.TheChamber observesthatthewitnesses wereuncertain of thedatewhenG6rard


    Ntakirutimana
    allegedlydeniedtreatmenttoTutsipatients.
    WitnessFF testified
    thatthe
    Accused
    continuedvisiting
    thepatients"normally",
    up until
    15April. Yet,shestated
    that
    whenthe Accused commentedabouta lackof toolsand equipment for Tutsi,he had
    already
    stopped working.WitnessFF wasuncertainaboutthedateon whichthisremark
    wasmade.Shetestified thatit wasmadeon thedaywhenG6rard Ntakirutimana
    drove
    hiswifeto Gisovu,whichwas11 April(see3.4.3(b)). Witness
    XX saidthatshedid
    seetheAccusedfrom13 to15 April.
    TheAccusedsaidthathe leftforsecurity reasons
    on
    14 April.
    In lightofalltestimonies heard,
    theChamber findsthattheAccusedleftthe
    hospital
    on14April.

    151.WhetherG6rardNtakirutimana not onlyleftthe hospital, but alsodenied


    treatmentto Tutsipatients by locking awaythemedical suppliesis unclear.It follows
    fromthefindingsintheprevious section thatmostofthepatients atthehospital towards
    theend of thatsecond weekwereTutsi.Theevidence suggests thattherewerefew
    medicalsuppliesleftat Mugonero Hospital during thisperiod.Numerous patients were
    arriving.WitnessFF testifiedthatthere wasno stitchingmaterialinthepharmacy, only
    tabletsandsyringes. Thereis noevidence beforetheChamber as totheactual amount of
    stockremainingin thepharmacy andin thesurgery unit.
    195Underthese circumstances a
    remarkby theAccused to theeffect thathe lacked thenecessary meansto treatTutsi
    arrivingat thehospitalwithshrapnel wounds(according
    to WitnessFF),orthathehad
    medicationforTutsi(according to Witness XX),is notin itself conclusiveevidence
    any discriminatory intent. Consequently, the Chamber mustexercise caution when
    interpreting thisalleged remark, whichonlyWitness FF testified to having heard.
    WitnessXX’stestimony washearsay. Furthermore, theChambernotesthatWitnesses FF
    andXX testifiedthatafterG6rard Ntakirutimana left,thestaffmadeuseof available
    medication.Hence,evenaftertheAccused’s departure,somematerialwasavailable.

    192T.9 May
    2002p.87.
    193
    Id.pp.26-27.
    194
    Id.pp.80-82,
    88.
    ~95Witness
    FFtestified
    thatit"seemed
    tomethat
    themedication
    instock
    wassufficient,
    andit’s
    the
    Interahamwe
    wholooted
    themedication
    after
    they
    hadkilled
    thepeople"
    (T.1 October
    2001
    p.118).
    This
    evidence
    isnotconvincing.

    Judgement
    andSentence 43 ]fl 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    152.In viewof theinsufficient


    evidence,theChamberwillnotmakea findingagainst
    theAccusedthathe deniedtreatmentor medicalsupplies
    to Tutsipatients.
    Moreover,
    thereis no needto consider
    whetheronlyG6rard Ntakirutimana
    keptthekeysto both
    stocks,as statedby WitnessesFF and XX,or whetheralsoEtienneNiyomugabo, the
    supervisingnurseat thesurgery,
    andEzekiel Ruhigisha,thepersonin chargeof the
    technical
    services,
    hadkeys,as suggested
    bytheDefence.

    153.Thisbeingsaid,theChamber notesthatG6rard Ntakirutimana


    acknowledgesthat
    he departedthe hospital leavingtheTutsipatients behind.He explained thatthe
    gendarmes
    haddirected himto leavebecause of increasinglackof security.TheChamber
    isawarethatthesecuritysituation
    wasdifficultandthat, forinstance,
    OscarGiordano
    left
    a fewdaysearlier. However,in theChamber’s viewit is difficultto imaginewhythe
    Accusedwasat particular risk,comparedwiththeremaining persons.Accordingto his
    ownexplanation,
    hedidnotreturn tothehospitaltoinquire astothecondition ofpatients
    andstaff.Theoverall situationleavestheChamber withtheimpressionthattheAccused
    simplyabandonedtheTutsipatients.Thisbehaviouris notin conformitywiththegeneral
    picturepainted by theDefence of theAccused as a medicaldoctor whocaredforhis
    patients.Themembers of hisstaff, whoweremainly Tutsi,werealsoleftbehind. The
    Chambernotestheseelementsaspartofthegeneral context.

    3.6 Severance
    of Utilities

    3,6.1Prosecution

    154.It is theProsecution’s
    casethaton or about14 April,
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    cut
    offutilitysupplies
    to theComplex,
    leavingseveral
    thousands
    ofrefugeeswithout
    water,
    electricity,
    andotherbasicsanitary
    supplies.Thisallegation
    is notmentioned
    in the
    Indictment.
    TheProsecution
    further
    submitsthatutilitysupplies
    wereoften
    disconnected
    atlocations
    196 where
    Tutsipersons
    weregatheredprior
    totheirbeingattacked.

    3.6.2Defence

    155.Thereareno specific
    submissions
    by theDefence
    aboutthisallegation.
    However,
    it follows
    implicitlyfromits general
    submissions
    andexplicitlyfromthecross-
    examination
    of Witness
    MM thattheDefence
    disputes
    thisallegation.197

    3.6.3Discussion

    156.Witness
    MM testified
    thatbetween12 and16 April,watersupply
    and telephone
    connections
    weredisconnected
    at theComplex.He sawthatthewatersupplyhadbeen

    196Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    153-155;
    T.21 August 2002p.14.
    ~97T.20 September
    2001p.71:"Q:Now,isn’tittruethatthewaythewater supplyworks,
    if onewereto
    cutoffthewatersupplytostopwaterfromcomingintothehospitalarea,it would
    alsopreventwater
    from
    comingintothecomplex
    generally,
    tothehomes, forexample,
    ofDr.G6rard,orthePastor,oranybodyelse
    thatlivedinMugonero?
    Allwater
    wouldbeoff;isn’t thattrue?- A:Thatistrue,butthere
    wasa reservoir
    sothattheycouldhavewater
    fora longtime.- Q:Well,thereservoir
    waswhere,sir?A:Italldependedon
    thehouses.Thedoctors’
    residences
    wereequippedwithtanks,buttheemployeesdidnothaveany."

    Judgement
    andSentence 44 21 February
    2003

    I
    77"3
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    disconnected
    at a locationon a hillwherehe passedwhenescaping fromthe Complex on
    16 April.
    Thewitness statedthatduringthenightof 13 April,Ezekiel
    Ruhigisha,a Tutsi
    whowasin chargeof technical
    servicesat thehospital,toldhimthathe hadsecretlygone
    to findout why the waterhad beencut off and was toldby someoneelsethatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    hadgivenorders to thateffect.Ruhigishahadrepairedthepipes,butthe
    waterwasdisconnecteda secondtime.
    198WitnessFF saidthatpipescarrying waterto the
    hospital
    199 hadbeendestroyed, butit wasnotestablishedhowthewitnessknewthis.

    157. The Chamberobservesthat WitnessMM did not hear the Accusedgiveordersto


    cut offthewater,butbasedhistestimony on information
    fromRuhigisha, who hadbeen
    toldby an unidentified
    person thattheAccusedhaddoneso.Theinformation is therefore
    basedon hearsay.
    Thereis no otherevidence
    to connect
    theAccused to theallegedact.

    158. The allegationthat G6rardNtakirutimana orderedthe disconnection of the


    hospital’s
    telephones,
    so thatTutsithereshouldnotcommunicate
    withthe"Inkotanyi",
    is
    also basedonly on hearsay(the son of AbelBahunde,conseillerof NgomaSecteur,
    allegedly
    z°° toldWitnessMM),and involves speculation
    by WitnessMM.

    159.The ChamberfindsthattheallegationthatG6rardNtakirutimana
    cut offutility
    supplies
    (waterandtelephone)
    to theComplex
    is notsupported
    by sufficient
    evidence.

    3.7 Procurement of Gendarmes and Ammunition by G~rard Ntakirutimana

    3.7.1 Prosecution

    160. Accordingto the Prosecution, G6rardNtakirutimana procuredgendarmesand


    ammunition.
    2°1 The Prosecutionsubmitsthatthe Accusedwentto the gendarmerie camp
    in Kibuyetownforthefirsttimeearlyin theafternoon of 15 April1994in thehospital
    vehicle.Witness OO testifiedthattheAccused askedto seethecommander of the camp,
    claimingto havea priorappointment. He thenmet with2nd LieutenantNdagijimana for
    aboutan hour.Witness OO testified
    thattheAccused returnedto thecampan hourlater,
    accompanied by four armed soldiersdressedin camouflage. On this occasionthe
    Accusedmet withLieutenant Masengesho and was laterjoinedby Obed Ruzindana. The
    meetinglastedthreehours,following whichthewitnessoverheard theparticipants say
    thattheyhadan otherappointment at thecampthefollowing day.TheProsecution notes
    thatno witness corroboratedG6rardNtakirutimana’sclaimthaton 15 Aprilhe remained
    at hisfather’s
    2°2 houseanddidnotventure out.

    161.The Prosecution allegesthaton the nextday, 16 April,between6.30and 7.30


    a.m.,G6rardNtakirutimanareturned to the gendarmerie
    campdrivinga whitepick-up.
    WitnessOO saw ten Interahamwein the back of the vehicledressedin uniformsand

    198T.19September
    2001pp.66-68.
    t99T.1 October
    2001
    p.120.
    20oT.19September
    2001pp.72-73.
    201Thisallegation
    isnotmentioned
    inthesummary
    offacts
    intheIndictment,
    butreferred
    toinAnnex
    B
    ofthe
    Pre-trial
    Brief.
    2o2Prosecution
    Closing
    Brief
    paras.
    157-160.

    Judgementand Sentence 45 21 February2003


    ~
    ?
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    bananaleavesandwearing featherson theirhead.TheAccused toldthewitness thathe


    hadan appointment
    with2ndLieutenant Ndagijimana
    aboutflushing outtheTutsiliving
    in thehospitalandthechurch, whichtheAccused couldnotachieve withoutmilitary
    assistance.WitnessOO testifiedthattwoofficers andbetween 15 and30 gendarmes,
    together
    withtheAccused, departed
    thecampinthree vehicles,
    after having
    requisitioned
    twocasesof ammunition and consumed twocasesof beer. 2°3 Thegendarmesreturned
    around5 p.m.,informingthewitness thattheyhadlaunched an attackagainstTutsiat
    Mugonero.ThewitnesswasalsotoldthatG6rard Ntakirutimanahadbeenveryhelpful to
    thegendarmesin thecourse of theattack,as he knewthepremises wellandknewwhere
    theTutsiwerehiding. He hadinvitedthegendarmes to return
    to searchthedeadbodies
    2o4
    formoney.

    162.It is theProsecution’scasethatG6rardNtakirutimana leftMugonero


    forthe
    gendarmerie
    campin thehospitalvehiclebetween
    5.30and6.30a.m.on themorning of
    16Aprilanddidnotreturnuntilsometime
    after7.30a.m.This,intheProsecution’s
    view,
    accountsfor why DefenceWitnesses 16 and RoyisiNyirahakizimana, Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    wife,didnotmentionseeingtheAccusedat hisfather’s
    residence
    early
    thatmorning.The firsttimeWitness NyirahakizimanasawG6rardNtakirutimana
    on
    16April
    2°5 wassometimeafter
    8 a.m.,
    as theyprepared
    toleave forGishyita.

    163.InitsoralargumentstheProsecutionsubmitted
    thattwo"scenarios"
    arepossible:
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimanacouldeitherhaveremainedin Kibuyetownon theevening of 15
    April,
    mindfulofthefactthathehadanappointmentthefollowingday,or he could
    have
    returned
    toMugonero.
    Inanycasethecriticalpoint
    isthatthereisnopositivesightingof
    theAccusedin Mugonerobetween
    noonon 15 Apriland8.30a.m.thenextday.As for
    hisallegedtripto Gishyita
    earlyin themorning
    of 16 April,
    thisis notmentionedin
    G6rardNtakirutimana’s
    summary
    of expectedtestimony
    or in thenoticeof alibiof 10
    September2001.Nor does the summaryof the expectedtestimonyof Witness
    Nyirahakizimana
    2°6 mentionhersongoingto Gishyita
    thatmorning.

    164.The Prosecution addressed the Defence’s argumentthatno witnessat the


    Complexsaw Interahamwe in bananaleavesand feathers,and that therefore
    WitnessOO’ssightingof G6rardNtakirutimanain thecompanyof persons
    dressedin
    thatfashioncannothavebeenaccurate. TheProsecutionresponds
    thatDefenceWitness
    25 testified
    thathesawattackers,sodressed,on 16AprilattheComplex.
    Thisevidence,
    in theProsecution’s
    view,corroboratesWitness
    OO’stestimonyby supplying
    a "nexus"
    between
    2°7 events
    at thegendarmeriecampandevents at theComplex.

    165.The Prosecution
    alsocontendsthatWitnessKK sawthreeconvoysof vehicles
    arrive
    at theComplex
    on 16AprilanddidnotseeG6rardNtakirutimana
    in thefirsttwo
    convoys;
    he saw himonlyin thethirdconvoyat 8.30a.m.WitnessHH alsoplaced

    203Id.paras.
    168-170.
    204Id.paras.
    281-283.
    2o5Id.para.
    486.
    206T.21 August
    2002pp.31-33.
    2o7Id.pp.34-36.

    Judgement
    andSentence 46 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    G6rardNtakirutimana
    in a convoy
    at 8.30a.m.;Witness PP sawhimwithhisfatherat
    around9.00a.m.This,according
    to theProsecution,
    is consistent
    withtheevidence
    of
    WitnessOO,as thatwitness sawtheAccusedat thegendarmerie campbetween
    6 a.m.
    and 7 a.m.Prosecution exhibitP7 showsthe distancebetweenKibuyetownand
    Mugonero
    2°8 to be25 to27 kilometres,
    or 45minutes
    to anhourbycar.

    166.As to Witness OO’sability to identify


    G6rardNtakirutimana,
    theProsecution
    submitsthathe hadknowntheAccused foraboutthreeor fourmonths
    priorto seeing
    himat thegendarmerie camp.He hadvisitedthehospital andhadreceivedtreatment
    fromtheAccused twice.
    In addition,Witness
    OO’sdutyat thecampwasto ascertain
    the
    identityof peopleentering.
    He wasableto account forthetenInterahamwe
    in G6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s
    vehicle
    becausehe countedthem.He alsotestified
    thathe maintained
    a
    logbookin whichhe wouldoftenwritedowninformation aboutvehicles
    enteringthe
    209
    camp.

    3.7.2Defence

    167.TheDefencesubmitsthatthefactthatWitnessOO hadbeenin prison


    ¯in Rwanda
    ........ 210
    forsevenyearsat thetimeof histestxmony
    undermines
    hiscredlblhty.
    During SS-
    cro
    examination
    theDefencesuggested
    thatthewitness
    wastestifying
    against
    theAccused in
    theexpectation
    211 thathe would
    gainanearlyrelease
    fromtheRwandan
    authorities.

    168.The Defence further submitsthatWitness OO’sevidence is inconsistent.He


    testifiedthatthefirsttimehe sawG6rard Ntakirutimana
    wassometimebefore the18
    April1994attack at GatwaroStadium,
    which,he said,tookplaceafterthetransferof
    MajorJaboto Kigali.In theMusema
    caseWitnessOO testified
    thatJabowasstillpresent
    in Kibuye
    during thestadium attack.
    Andin hisstatementto investigators
    thewitness
    saidthatJaboleftwith50or60gendarmesthreedaysafterthatattack.Thisinconsistency
    casts
    212 serious
    doubtonthetruthfulness
    ofhisallegations.

    169.The Defencerefersto WitnessOO’stestimony thatthe thirdtimehe sawthe


    Accused
    at thegendarmeriecampin Kibuyetownwasbetween 6.30and7.30a.m.on 16
    April.
    TheDefence notesthewitness’sadmission
    thatthechronologyof events
    in his
    prior
    statementisproblematic:
    "[o]newouldthinktheparagraphswereputupsidedown",
    according
    to thewitness.WitnessOO testifiedthattheInterahamwe brought
    by the
    Accused
    to thecampthatmorning weredressedin banana leavesandworefeatherson
    their
    heads.Healsotestified
    thatG6rardNtakirutimana
    departed
    thecamptogether
    witha
    khaki-colouredminibusand a blueDaihatsupick-upin whichgendarmes were
    transported.
    TheDefence
    submitsthatno Prosecution
    witnessat theComplex
    claimedto
    haveseena khaki-coloured
    minibus,a blueDaihatsu
    pick-up, or Interahamwe
    in banana
    leaves
    213 andfeathers.
    208Id.pp.36-38.
    209Id.pp.49-50.
    21oDefenceClosing
    Briefp.104.
    2t 1 T.1 November
    2001pp.191-192.
    z~2DefenceClosing
    Briefpp.105-106.
    z13Id.pp.106-109.

    Judgement
    andSentence 47 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    170.TheDefence caseis thatG6rardNtakirutimana


    didnotleavehisfather’s residence
    at any time betweenthe afternoonof 14 Apriland the morningof 16 April)14 The
    DefencesubmitsthatthetwoAccused leftNgomaon theoccasionof theirfirsttripto
    Gishyitaon 16 Aprilat around6.15a.m.,that theydeparted Gishyitafor Mugonero
    between7.10and 7.30a.m.,andthattheyreturned to Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    house
    before8.00a.m.At 8.05a.m.a gendarme directed
    themto leaveimmediately,
    whereupon
    theyset off forGishyita forthe secondtimethatmorning. Theyarrivedin Gishyita
    between8.30and9.30a.m.The Defencerelieson theevidence of Witnesses
    16 and Ann
    Nyirahakizimana,
    in addition
    to thatof theAccused,
    to refutetheallegation
    thatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    21s wasin Kibuyetownthatmorning.

    171. In its oral submissions,the Defencequestioned why the two Accused,if they
    wereinvolved in planning
    theattackat theComplex, wentto Gishyita on themorningof
    16 April.TheDefence arguesthattheProsecution,to support thisallegation,latterly
    proposedthatthepurposeof the firsttripto Gishyita wasnot to intercede withthe
    bourgmestrebut to transportattackersto Mugonero.TheDefencemaintains thatit is
    illogicalto suggestthatthetwoAccused waitedunti!thelastmomentto evacuate their
    family and others,and that G6rardNtakirutimana somehowmanagedto transport
    gendarmes from Kibuyetownto the Complexin the morningof 16 April,evacuatethe
    groupto Gishyita,
    216 thenreturn
    to Mugonero
    to takepartin theattack.

    3.7.3Discussion

    172. The MugoneroIndictmentdoes not allegethat G6rardNtakirutimana acquired


    weapons,ammunition, and gendarmesfrom the gendarmerie camp in Kibuyetown for
    thepurposesof theattackat theComplex on 16 April.However,
    theProsecution’s Pre-
    trialBriefmakesthefollowing allegation:"Between10 and16 April1994,Dr.G6rard
    Ntakirutimanafrequently visitedthe KibuyeGendarme[rie] camp headquarters from
    wherehe procuredarms,ammunitionandgendarmes, for purposes
    of launching an attack
    on Tutsirefugeesgatheredat the Mugonero complex.
    ’’217Therefore the Accusedhad
    sufficient
    notice
    ofthisallegation.

    173.The ChamberfoundWitnessOO to be a crediblewitness.In April1994,he was a


    gendarmewiththerankof sergeant at theKibuyetowncampof the gendarmerie.2a8At
    thetimeof histestimony,andsince1994,thewitness was,accordingto hisaccount,in
    detention
    awaitingtrial(not"inprison",
    as theDefence
    states).Thewitnesstestified:
    am accusedof havingkeptpeoplein my homewhosubsequentlydied.I am alsoaccused
    of givinga pistolto a youngman who was a civilian.
    ’’219Thereis no evidenceto
    contradictWitnessOO’saccountin thisregard.Giventhe presumption of innocence

    z14Id.p.203;T.22August
    2002pp.83-84
    215Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.108-109.
    216T.22August2002
    pp.66-67.
    217Prosecutor’s
    Pre-trial
    Brieffiled
    16July
    2001
    para.
    11.
    218Y.1 November
    2001pp.136,140.
    219Id.pp.188-191.

    Judgement
    andSentence 48 21February
    2003
    ’t’l
    t
    TheProsecutor
    v. EIizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    enjoyed
    by a detained
    personawaiting
    trial,
    theChamberwillnotdrawanyadverse
    inference
    againstWitness
    OO onaccount
    ofhisstatus
    asa detainee.

    174.WitnessOO statedthatat somepointbefore18April1994,or alternatively


    before
    14 April1994,thethengendarmerie commanderJabowastransferredoutof thecamp
    becausehe opposedthekilling of Tutsirefugeeswhoat thetimewerestreaminginto
    Kibuyetownandgathering in thetown’s stadiumandin otherpublic spaces.
    Jabo’s
    successor,LieutenantMasengesho,"collaborated
    withtheInterahamwe,thepr6fetand
    "
    theprefectura
    1 administrationin general".WitnessOO claimed
    to haveseenprefect
    Kayishemacometo the campon "several" occasionsafterJabo’sdeparture.Other
    individualsvisitedthecampduring thistime,including Eliezer
    Niyitegeka
    andAloys
    Ndimbati(respectively,Minister of Information
    andbourgmestreof Gisovu
    Commune,
    accordingto thewitness), ObedRuzindana, AlfredMusema,andG6rard Ntakirutimana
    (whom
    22° thewitness described
    as a doctorat Mugonero
    Hospital).

    175.Thewitness estimatedthathe sawG6rard Ntakirutimana


    at thecampon at least
    fouroccasions(forthefourth occasion,seeII.4.10,below).Thefirstoccasion was
    between
    1.00and2.00p.m.on a dayin April1994, priortothe18th(itmaybe inferred
    fromthewitness’slatercomments
    thatit wason 15April). TheAccusedcamein a white
    pickupandaskedto seethecommander of thecamp.Thewitnesstoldhimto wait."And
    he toldme thathecouldnotwaitbecause he hadalreadyspoken
    to thecommanderon the
    telephone,
    tellinghimthathewascomingto seehim".Thevehiclehadwriting
    on itsside
    indicating
    221 thatitbelongedtoMugonero
    Hospital.

    176.Becausethecommander of the campwas notpresent,theAccuseddidnot stay.


    Whenhe returned
    againhe waswithfoursoldiers. Theywerein therearpartof the
    pickupand werearmed.The Accused met withLieutenantMasengesho.The witness
    testified
    thathe didnotknowwhattheydiscussed, butat thetimetheyseparated,
    he
    heardthemmention an appointmentthenextday.Duringthe courseof the meeting
    betweenLieutenantMasengesho and the Accused,
    whichtookplacein the former’s
    office,Ruzindana
    arrivedin a greenpickup.WhenWitness
    OO reported
    thenewarrival
    to thetwomen,"Dr.Ntakirutimana
    toldme,’Lethimin;he hasthesameproblems as we
    do’."TheAccused, Ruzindana,andMasengeshodepartedthecampat thesametimeon
    thatday,between
    222 5.00and6.00p.m.Themeeting lastedaboutthree
    hours.

    177.Witness OO saw theAccusedreturnto thecampthefollowingmorning,


    between
    6.30and 7.30a.m. 223Thiswas on 16 April1994.
    224 "HecamewithpeopleI would
    describeas Interahamwe... Theywerewearing the Interahamwe
    uniform.
    Theyhad
    feathers
    on theirhead,withbanana leavesaround
    them.Theycarriedmachetes,
    spears
    andclubs.Thereweretenof them.Theyweresinging andshouting,andwhentheygot

    220T. 1 November2001pp.142-145 (inwhichNdimbati’snameis speltNdambatye


    - According
    to the
    FrenchTranscript
    however,theWitness didspellthebourgmestre’s
    nameas "Ndimbati",
    T. 1 November
    2001(Fr)p.162); SeealsoT.2 November 2001pp.48-49.
    221T.1 November2001p. 149-152.
    222
    Id.pp.150-157.
    223
    T. 1 November
    2001pp.158-160; T. 2 November
    2001pp.64,73.
    224
    T. 1 November
    2001p. 167;T. 2 November2001p. 109.

    49 21 February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    closeto thecamptheyaskedforweapons andammunition, sayingthatthegendarmes


    werenotupto thetask....theydidthatafter shootingin theairtwice."
    Someofthese
    Interahamwe alsohad"Kalashnikovs".
    225Theysaidtheywanted thearmsandmunitions
    because thegendarmeshad"failed";
    thewitness didnotknowexactly whattheymeant
    by this.226 GrrardNtakirutimana
    askedthewitness where2ndLieutenant Ndagijimana
    wasandaddedthathehadan appointment withhimto go "tobeattheTutsiswhowerein
    thehospital, inthechurch
    andevenin the[hospital]
    store.’’227TheAccused
    saidthathe
    requiredmilitary
    assistance
    forthispurpose.

    178.Witness OO couldnot remember whatthe Accusedwas wearing at the timebut


    he didrecallthathe wasnotarmed.228SecondLieutenant
    Ndagijimanaaskeda corporal
    namedNkunzurwanda
    to fetchtwocasesof ammunition.
    Thewitness saidthathe didnot
    knowhowmanyrounds werein thecases. "Theyalsoaskedfortwocasesof beer,and
    theyservedthemselves before
    theyleft.Andwhiletheywerethere, a khaki-coloured
    minibuswitha yellow licenceplate,showingthatit belongedto thestate, cameup
    followed
    bya blueDaihatsu whichbelonged
    to [a]trader".
    229Thegendarmes gotintothe
    Daihatsuandtheminibus andtheInterahamwegotintotheAccused’s vehicle,followed
    by 2ndLieutenantNdagijimana andRwabukumba,another2nd Lieutenant.Thewitness
    estimatedthatbetween15 and30 gendarmes
    boardedthetwovehicles. He namedseveral
    ofthem.
    23°

    179.The gendarmesreturned to thecamparound 5.00p.m.thesameday.Witness OO


    approached
    a gendarmecalledNizeyimana to askwhathadhappened: "[H]etoldme that
    theyhadjustlaunchedanattack againsttheTutsis inMugonero,
    thattheTutsis werein
    thechurch
    atthehospitalandalsointhehospital store.
    Hewentontosaythat, evenifthe
    workhad notbeencompleted, theyhad at leastdonegoodwork.He saidthatDr.
    Ntakirutimana
    hadaskedthemto comebackand search thedeadbodies for moneyand
    thatif the gendarmescontinued to takepartin suchoperations, they[would] be
    appropriatelyremunerated."WitnessOO’sinformant allegedlytoldhimthatGrrard
    Ntakirutimana
    waspresent during theattack: "Hedidnotsparepraise whenhe talked
    aboutDr.Grrard, sayinghe hadhelped hima lot,[b]ecause he knewtheplanof the
    premises
    andhe saidtherewererefugees in thestoreandthathadit notbeenforhis
    knowledge
    ’’231 of thepremises,
    theywould nothavebeenableto findthem.

    180.Severalinconsistencies
    betweenthe chronology
    of eventsas represented
    in
    Witness
    OO’sstatementof 6-11August1998andhis testimonybeforethe Chamber,
    including
    thedateof departureof Jabo,wereaddressed
    by thewitness:"Whenthe
    investigators
    werequestioning
    me theyweretakingdownnotesandwhentheywentto

    225
    T. 1 November
    2001pp.15 8-161,
    226
    T. 2 November2001pp.71-73.
    227T. 1 November
    2001pp.161-162,165;T. 2 November
    2001p. 71.TheFrench
    transcripts
    read:"Etil
    m’aditqu’ils venaient
    delancer
    uneattaquecontrelesTutsis
    ~tMugonero,
    quecesTutsis
    setrouvaient/~
    l’intrrieur
    del’rglise,
    g l’hrpital,
    ainsi
    quedanslacavedel’h6pital"
    (p.187).
    zz8T. 2 November2001pp.102-103.
    229T. 1 November
    2001pp.162-163;T. 2 November200190-91.
    23oT. 1 November
    2001p. 164.
    231T. 1 November
    2001pp.164-167;T. 2 November
    2001pp.62-63,74-77.

    Judgement
    andSentence 50 21 February
    2003

    !l
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    typeoutmy statement
    ...theydidnotmaintainthechronologyof events.AndI didnot
    havetheopportunity
    to readthatoverwiththemto be ableto correctthaterror." He
    added:
    "I signed
    thestatement
    allright...AndI saidto myselfthatevenif therewasa
    problem
    withthestatement,
    I wasgoingto solve
    it sinceI wouldbe present
    [before the
    TrialChamber]myself.
    ’’232TheChamberacceptsthisexplanation of thewitnessand
    concludes
    thattheinconsistencies
    arenotso material
    as to affectthesubstanceof his
    testimony.

    181.Thewitness
    wasaskedif he hadre-read
    hispriorstatement
    to refresh
    hismemory.
    He answered
    thathedidnothavetodo so"becausethefacts
    I amtestifying
    on arefacts
    which
    233 arewellknownto me".

    182.WitnessOO wastheonlywitness to allege thatGrrard Ntakirutimana


    wentto the
    gendarmeriecampto procure armsand gendarmes for theattackat Mugonero on 16
    April.WitnessOOtestified
    thattwovehicles described
    as a khaki-coloured
    minibusand
    a blueDaihatsudrove15 to 30 gendarmesoutof thecamp.Thevehicle drivenby the
    Accusedtransported
    tenInterahamwe.
    As discussed
    below(II.3.8),witnesses
    basedatthe
    ComplexallegedthatGrrardNtakirutimanacameto theComplex carrying
    personsin his
    vehiclevariouslydescribedas Interahamwe,gendarmes,
    soldiers,andattackers. The
    description
    of thevehicles
    do notconformto thedescription
    givenby Witness
    OO.

    183.TheChamberdoesnotconsider it important
    thatno Prosecution
    witnesstestified
    aboutseeingthe arrivalof the convoyof vehiclesand personsthatdepartedthe
    gendarmerie
    campon themorning of 16 April.WitnessOO didnotclaimto knowfrom
    hisownexperiencewhathappened
    to theconvoyafteritsdeparture.He relied
    rather
    on
    indirect
    evidence,provided
    by thegendarmeNizeyimana,
    as to whatthegendarmes
    (orat
    leastsomeof thegendarmes)
    didaftertheyleftthecamp.Thisdoesnotdiminish the
    reliability
    oftheobservations
    madebythiswitnessinrelationtotheafternoon
    of15April
    andthemorningof 16April.

    184.TheChamber givesno credenceto GrrardNtakirutimana’s


    alibithathe wasat his
    thther’shousethroughout the afternoonof 15 Apriland accompaniedhisfatherto
    Gishyita
    on themorningof 16 April, namely,
    at thetimewhenWitness OO placeshimat
    thegendarmeriecamp.TheChamber findsit noteworthythattheDefence wasunable to
    leadanyevidence, exceptforGrrard Ntakirutimana’s
    ownclaim,234to provethathe
    remained
    athisfather’s houseon theafternoonof15 April
    andthathe wastherealsoin
    the earlymorningof 16 April. As discussedbelowunder3.8.3(e),onlyElizaphan
    Ntaldrutimana
    supportedhisson’sclaimto havetraveled withhimto Gishyitabetween
    6.30 and 7.30a.m on 16 April.The Chambergivesno credenceto Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    testimonyin thisregard.(Theevidence concerningthefirsttripto
    Gishyitais examinedbelow.)Defence Witness 16,whowasElizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    housekeeper,
    saidthathe didnotseeGrrard Ntakirutimanaat hisfather’shouseon the

    232
    T. 2 November
    2001pp.54-55,59.
    233
    Id.p.3 (closed
    session).
    234
    T. 9 May2002p.90;T. 10 May2002pp.35-37.

    Judgement
    andSentence 51 21 February
    2003
    276
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    morning of 16 April1994:"I didnotseehimthere. I sawonlythepastor. ’’235(The


    witness alsoseemed to suggest thatG6rard
    Ntakirutimanahadlefthisfather’s house
    already on 15 April1994.236)DefenceWitness
    9, a cattleherder,arrived
    at thehouse
    around 7 a.m.on 16 April: "I met[Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana]in thecompanyof hiswife
    in 3
    ’’2the
    7 morning."Thewitnesssaidthatthey"weregettingreadyto board
    thevehicle.
    He alsosaw DefenceWitness16, but did not see G6rardNtakirutimana. Witness
    Nyirahakizimana,wifeof ElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    describedheractivitiesat thehouse
    earlyon 16 Aprilwithout mentioning
    herson.Shedidseethehospital vehicle(which
    wasusually driven by G6rard Ntakirutimana)
    parkedon theroadoutside thecompound
    of herhouse,
    238 butthatwasaround 8 a.m.

    185.The Chamber
    has alsoconsidered the othersubmissions
    of the Defence
    about
    alleged
    discrepancies
    butdoesnotfindthattheyaffect
    thecredibility
    ofthewitness.

    186.Fortheabovereasons, theChamber acceptsWitnessOO’sevidence andfindsthat


    G6rardNtakirutimana attendeda meeting withthecommander of thegendarmeriecamp
    and ObedRuzindana in Kibuyetownon theafternoon of 15 April.The Chamberalso
    findsthaton themorning of 16 April,between
    6.30and7.30a.m.,G6rard Ntakirutimana
    returnedto thegendarmeriecamp.In hisvehicle he wascarrying Interahamwe
    whotold
    WitnessOO thattheywerein needof armsand ammunition. G6rardNtakirutimana
    announcedthathe hadan appointment withthecommanderof thecampto go "tobeatthe
    Tutsiswhowerein thehospital, in thechurch".
    TheAccused departed
    shortlythereafter,
    takingwithhimthe Interahamwe withwhomhe arrived, andaccompanied by a number
    of gendarmesin twoothervehicleswhohadbeenprovisioned withboxesof anlmunition.
    Laterthatday,one of the gendarmes reported to the witnessthathe and G6rard
    Ntakirutimana had takenpartin an attackagainst Tutsipersons at the Mugonero
    Complex.

    3.8 EventsLeadingUp to the Attackon 16 April1994

    187.Therelevant
    partof theMugonero
    Indictment
    reads:

    4.7On or about
    themorning
    of 16April1994,
    a convoy,
    consisting
    of several
    vehicles
    followed
    bya large
    number
    ofindividuals
    armed
    withweapons
    wenttothe
    MugoneroComplex.
    Individuals
    intheconvoyincluded,
    amongothers,
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    & CharlesSikubwabo,
    membersof the
    National
    239 Gendarmerie,
    communal
    police,
    militia
    andcivilians.

    235T.14 February
    2002pp.20,53-54.
    236Id.pp.50-52.
    237T.30April2002pp.89-90.
    238Y.10April2002pp.40,44.
    239TheBisesero
    Indictment
    para.
    4.7isvirtually
    identical,
    butdoesnotcontain
    anyreference
    to Charles
    Sikubwabo.

    Judgement
    andSentence 52 21 February
    2003

    J
    a,’7(,’7
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    4.8 The individuals in the convoy,includingElizaphanNtakirutimana, G6rard


    Ntakirutimana& CharlesSikubwabo, participatedin an attackon the men, women
    andchildren
    24° in the MugoneroComplex,whichcontinuedthroughout
    the day.

    4.9 The attackresulted


    in hundredsof deathsanda largenumberof woundedamong
    themen,womenand children
    241 who hadsoughtrefugeat the Complex.

    4.12Beforeall of the abovementioned attacks,G6rardNtakirutimana knewor had


    reasonto knowthathis subordinates,including variousemployeesof the Mugonero
    Hospitalunderhisauthorityandcontrol, wereaboutto participate
    in attackson the
    men,women,and children, and did not takenecessary and reasonablemeasuresto
    preventsuchattacks.In addition,aftertheattacks, G6rardNtakirutimanadid not
    punish
    theperpetrators.

    3.8.1Prosecution

    188. The Prosecution’s case is that the two Accusedparticipated"in one form or the
    other"in the attackthat took placeat MugoneroComplexon 16 April,actingin concert
    with severallocalauthorities, law enforcementagents,membersof the "Hutu militia",
    242
    and otherarmedcivilians. The attackinvolvedplanningat the highestlevel,confirmed
    by the presence
    243 of localauthoritiesduringtheattack.

    189.TheProsecutiondoesnotdispute ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s
    claimthatbetween
    5.30and6.00a.m.on 16 Aprilgendarmesbroughthimtheletter shownat Appendix
    5 of
    Prosecution
    exhibit
    P2.244 TheProsecution
    neverthelessmaintains
    thattheAccusedhad
    knowledge
    oftheimminentattackat theComplexpriorto receiving
    theletter.While
    the
    Prosecution
    concedes
    thatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    madethetripto visitbourgrnestre
    Charles
    Sikubwabo,
    it claimsthattheAccused wentto thebourgrnestre’s
    residence,
    not
    hisoffice,
    andthatthepurposeofthevisit wasnottodelivera message
    onbehalfofthe
    pastors
    butto arrange fortheevacuation and accommodation
    of Hutucolleaguesand
    relatives
    oftheAccused.

    190.TheProsecution arguedthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana


    leftforGishyita withtwo
    gendarmes, havingcometo theComplex sometimeafter6.00a.m.Thegendarmes acted
    as escorts. The primarypurpose of the Accused’s
    visitto Gishyita was to convey
    attackers fromthatlocation to Mugonero Complex
    in readinessfor an attackthat
    morning.
    ThatwastherolethatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    hadbeenassignedtoplayin the
    eventsof 16April, a roleconsistent
    withhisageandonethatfacilitated, in no small
    measure,
    245 theattack on refugees
    at theComplex.

    240TheBisesero
    Indictment
    para.4.8is almost
    identical;
    thereisnoreference
    to Charles
    Sikubwabo,
    and
    thesentence
    continues
    withthewords"andintothenight".
    241TheBisesero
    Indictment
    contains
    aninsignificant
    difference.
    242
    T. 21August
    2002p. 15.
    243
    Id.p.81.
    244
    Prosecution
    ClosingBriefparas.
    451,480.
    245
    T. 21August
    2002pp.18-19,54.

    Judgement
    andSentence 53 / 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    191.TheProsecution
    doesnotdisputethatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    replied to the
    pastors’
    letter,whether
    orallyorinwriting,
    asking
    gendarmes
    todeliver
    thereply tothe
    pastors
    at theComplex.
    However,
    theProsecution
    contends
    thatthereplywasgivenat
    6.00a.m.thatmorning, whentheAccused
    firststopped
    at theComplexto collect
    gendarmes
    246 on hiswayto Gishyita.

    192.In Gishyita,whileElizaphan Ntakirutimana conversedwithSikubwabo, armed


    attackers
    boarded
    hisvehicleso thatby 6.30or 6.40a.m.,
    accordingtotheProsecution,
    theAccusedwiththeattackersin hisvehicleandin thecompany of twoothervehicles
    withattackers
    on board,includingSikubwabo,
    departedGishyitaforthefive-kilometre
    journey
    backto Mugonero. Thestaging areaat Mugonerowas theKabahinyuzamarket,
    justoutsidethe Complexandcloseto Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’sresidence.At that
    location
    theAccuseddischarged
    hiscargoof attackers,whowaited forotherconvoys to
    arrive.
    247 Theywereoutof theviewoftherefugees gathered
    at theComplex.

    193.It is theProsecution’scasethatafterreturningto MugonerofromGishyitawith


    armedattackers, ElizaphanNtakirutimanamadehis wayto the Complex wherehe was
    seenby Witness SS talkingwithJeanNkuranga. He thenwentto theESIChapeland
    demandedthatPastor Sebihesurrenderto himthechapel’s keys.Fromtherehe headed
    hometo preparefortheevacuationto Gishyita.TheProsecutionsubmitsthatthispre-
    arrangedevacuation includedHutucolleagues and relativesof the Accusedand no
    personswhowereunknown to theAccused. TheProsecutionrejectsas incrediblethe
    Accused’s claimthatno one had giventhempermission to stayat the CCDFPin
    Gishyita,a ploydesignedsimplyto diminishtheirrelationshipwiththebourgmestre,
    Sikubwabo. The Prosecution concedesthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana remained at
    Gishyitaon 16 April,thisbeingconsistentwiththefactthatno Prosecution witness
    claimed
    248 tohaveseenhiminthecourse oftheattackattheComplex.

    194.TheProsecution disputes thatG6rard Ntakirutimana accompaniedhisfatheron


    thefirsttripto Gishyitaon themorning of16 April.249Instead,
    G6rard Ntakirutimana
    droveto the gendarmerie campin Kibuyetown(seesubmissions under3.7).The
    Prosecution
    pointsoutthatneither thealibinotices northeDefence summariesof the
    expectedtestimonyof theAccused stated thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    accompanied his
    father
    onthatfirst triptoGishyita.NootherDefence witnesses
    corroborated
    thisclaimby
    theAccused.Moreover,theaccounts of thetwoAccused arenotconsistent,onesaying
    thatG6rardNtakirutimanawaitedforhisfather on theverandaof thecommune office,
    theotherthathe waited in hiscar.TheProsecution submitsthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    returnedfromKibuye townsometime after7.30a.m.on 16 April, whichexplains why
    neitherRoyisiNyirahakizimana
    norWitness 16 sawhimat hisfather’s residenceearly
    thatmorning.
    25o

    246
    Id.
    pp.24-25.
    247
    Id.pp.
    22-24.
    248
    Prosecution
    Closing
    Brief
    paras.
    463
    ff.,481
    ft.
    249
    Id.paras.
    453ft.;
    T.21August
    2002pp.
    24-25.
    25o
    Id.para.
    486.

    Judgement
    andSentence 54 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    195.Thusthe Prosecution doesnotacceptthatG6rardNtakirutimana waswithhis


    father,
    or indeedin Mugonero,on 16 Aprilanytimebefore8.30a.m.It submitsthat,
    giventhatWitness OO sawtheAccused at thegendarmerie
    campbetween 6.00and7.00
    a.m.,andgiventhatthedistance betweenKibuye
    townandMugonero is some25 to 27
    kilometres,
    if theAccusedhadleftthecampat 7.30a.m.he wouldbe at theComplexby
    8.30a.m.,
    or by9.00a.m.atthelatest, whichmatches
    thetimeProsecution
    witnesses
    first
    sawhimat theComplex.
    251

    196.TheProsecution doesnotdisputethatG6rard Ntakirutimanawasinvolved


    in the
    evacuation
    of family
    andcolleagues
    toGishyita.252However,
    it is theProsecution’s
    case
    thathe returnedto MugoneroComplex
    sometime after9.30a.m.,togetherwithPastor
    Gakwerere,PastorUshizimpumu,MathiasNgirinshuti,andothers. ThereasonG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    assistedwiththeevacuation
    to Gishyita
    wasthattherewasa shortageof
    vehicles
    253 andhiswasneeded toconveytheAccused’srelatives
    andfriends.

    197.TheProsecution submitsthatthereweretwowavesof attacks at theComplex on


    16 April.Therewasan initialwave,whichwasrepelled by therefugees,andtherewas
    themainattack.
    254Astotheprelude to themainattack,theProsecution
    contendsthatthe
    twoAccused wereseenin a convoy of vehiclesamongarmedattackers arriving at the
    Complex.Theattackersarrivedin severalgroups, someby car,otherson foot,between
    7.00and9.00a.m.Thevehiclesferriedtheattackersfroma variety
    oflocations:Gishyita,
    in thecaseof ElizaphanNtakirutimana;
    Kibuye,
    in the caseof G6rardNtakirutimana.Six
    . , . . .
    witnessestestifiedto seeing
    Gerard Ntaklrutlmanaat theComplexwithattackers: Yg ,
    DD,HH,GG,PP,andKK.255 TheProsecution submits thattheuseof PP’svehicle by
    ObedRuzindanais indicative
    of thefactthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    actedinconcert with
    Ruzindanaandotherinfluential authorities
    in Gishyitain theexecution of a planto
    exterminate
    theTutsi at Mugonero.
    It alsosubmitsthat,shortlyafter9.00a.m., thetwo
    Accusedmovedtheirvehiclesfromtheproximityof thefield office.Thishadto be done
    to avoiddamageduringtheinitial attacks.The Accused thenheadedto Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    residenceshortlyafter9.05or 9.10a.m.tocarryouttheevacuation of
    family
    256 andfriends.

    198.The Prosecution arguesthatthe Accusedneededto placethe timeof their


    departurefromMugonero on themorning of 16 Aprilat 8 a.m.because suchtiming
    allowed
    themto contradicttheevidence of thewitnesseswhotestified to havingseen
    themarrivewithattackersin a convoyof vehiclesbetween7.00and9.00a.m.However,
    Defence
    Witness32 sawtheAccused arrivein Gishyita
    at 9.30a.m.Thisaccount of the
    timesuggests
    thattheycannothaveleftMugoneroat8 a.m.foritisunlikely thatitwould
    havetakenthemone-and-a-half hoursto drivea distance of fivekilometres. Even
    Witness32,who walkedto Gishyita, madeit therein lesstime.According to the
    Prosecution,
    thefactthattheAccused haditemsthrown at themas theydrovepastthe
    251
    Prosecution
    exhibit
    P7;T.21August
    2002
    pp.24-25,
    36.
    252
    Prosecution
    Closing
    Brief
    paras.
    495,498.
    253
    Y.21August
    2002
    p.65.
    254
    Id.
    pp.69-70.
    255
    Id.
    pp.39-42.
    256
    Id.
    p.53.

    Judgement
    andSentence 55 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Complexsuggeststhattheydeparted
    the Complexafterthe initialattackshad
    commenced,
    thatis,after
    9.00a.m.

    199.WhenG6rardNtakirutimanaand othersreturnedfromGishyita to Mugoneroafter


    9.30a.m.,theyactivelyparticipated
    in theattackon Tutsirefugeesat theComplex.
    According
    to theProsecution,
    Witness YY established
    thatG6rard Ntakirutimanashot
    andkilledKagemanaandMacantaraga. WitnessesGG and HH established
    thathe shot
    andkilledCharles
    Ukobizabasomewherein thehospital
    courtyard.WitnessSS testified
    thattheAccused
    shotat himsometimeintheafternoonof 16 April.
    Andthreewitnesses,
    DD,MM,andYY,testifiedthatsometimeaftertheattacks hadceased,in theeveningof
    16 April,G6rardNtakirutimanaand otherswalkedamongthe slainrefugees in the
    hospital
    building
    pointingtorchesat theirfacesto identifywhowasdeadandwhowas
    still
    258 alive.
    According
    totheProsecution,
    theyweretakingstock.

    3.8.2Defence

    200.According to the Defence, between 5.00and 6.30a.m.on 16 April,gendarmes


    broughtElizaphanNtakirutimana twoletters, oneaddressed to himpersonallyandthe
    otherto thebourgmestreof Gishyita. ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    awakenedhisson,G6rard,
    and toldhim aboutthe letter. RoyisiNyirahakizimana was stillasleep. G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    movedthehospital vehicle, whichwasblockinghisfather’s car,parkedit
    outsidethehousecompound, anddrovehisfather andthegendarme whohadbrought the
    letterto Gishyita.Theyarrived at thebureau communalbetween6.30and7.00a.m.They
    waitedfor the bourgmestre, who camearound7.00a.m.Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    pleadedwithhimabouttherefugees, buthe didnotchange hisposition. Betweenfive
    and 15 minuteslaterElizaphan Ntakirutimana returned to the car whereG6rard
    Ntakirutimanawaswaiting.Theyarrived backin Mugonerobefore8.00a.m.andstopped
    atthefield office.ThereElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    wrote
    a letterto thepastors,
    informing
    themregretfullythathisintercession withthebourgmestrehadbeenunsuccessful. He
    gavehisreplyto thegendarme to deliver,foras he explainedit wasthegendarmeswho
    broughttheoriginal letter so it wastheywhowoulddeliver theanswer.Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanasaw armedandangrypeoplein theComplex belowthe nursin~sschool.
    BothAccused retumedto Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    houseshortly before8 a.m.

    201.Soonafter, fourgendarmesarrivedat ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s


    houseandspoke
    to G6rardNtakirutimana,
    urginghimto leaveimmediately.TheDefencearguesthatthis
    visitexacerbated
    theAccused’ssenseof insecurity
    stemmingfromsurrounding
    violence,
    fearsof a newwar,theflightof foreignworkers,
    thepastors’ letter,andmanyother
    unsettlingrecent
    events.Therefore,
    uponreceivingthegendarmes’ direction
    to leave,
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    felthe hadto comply.He wentto getthehospital vehiclewhich
    wasparked outside
    thecompound,whileElizaphanNtakirutimana,hiswife,andWitness
    16 packedsomegoodsintotheothercar,whichwithin minutesof theorderto leavewas
    drivenout ontothe road.The two vehicles pausedmomentarily on the roadwhile

    257
    Id.pp.
    55-58.
    258
    Id.pp.
    69-78.
    259
    Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.204ff.

    Judgement
    andSentence 56 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    neighboursandotherpersons,including friendsandcolleagueswhohadearlier taken


    refugein thevicinity
    of thecommercial
    centre wheretherewasgreater
    security,
    climbed
    onboard. TheDefencemaintains
    thattheflight to Gishyita
    wasnotplannedbuthappened
    on thespurof themoment. Noneof thosefleeinghadmadepreparationsor broughtany
    luggage,exceptformeagreprovisionsas wereimmediately
    at hand.Thevehicles,
    driven
    by thetwoAccused, headedforGishyita becauseit wascommonduringtimesof unrest
    toseekrefuge
    26° inadministrative
    andother publicbuildings.

    202.According to the Defence, the two Accused and theirpassengers set out for
    Gishyitaat approximately8.00a.m.or shortly beforethattime.Alongthewaythey
    encounteredan angrycrowdat Mugonero Complex anda tree-trunk blockingtheroad.
    Stonesandotherobjects werethrown at themby thecrowd. Twenty to thirtyminutes
    later
    thetwovehicles arrivedin Gishyita.No onewasthereto greetthem.Theywaited
    forsometimebefore an "officeboy"camewithkeysto openup theplacewherethey
    wereto stay.Theyentered theCCDFPbuilding around 9.30a.m.The twoAccused did
    notleaveGishyitaagainon16 April.In themiddle ofthemorning,atabout thetimethey
    wereletintothe CCDFP,the Accused beganto heardistant explosionsandpeople
    shoutingandsaw peoplerunning awayfromthe location of the MugoneroCom2~lex.
    Later
    in thedaytheysawpeople dressedin ragspassbywithlootfromthehospital.

    203.The Defencesubmitsthatthe Prosecution


    has concededthatthe two Accused
    wentto Gishyitawithfamilymembersand othersin the morningof 16 April.The
    Defence
    contendsthatif theAccusedhadpriorknowledgeof theplannedattackthey
    would
    nothavewaiteduntil
    thelastminute
    fortheevacuation.
    Italsocontendsthatthere
    wasinsufficient
    timeforG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    to havedrivento andfromKibuyetown
    (assuggested
    262 byWitness
    OO)andtohavebeenbackin timefortheflighttoGishyita.

    204.The Defence’s
    submissionsas to why the testimony
    of Prosecution
    witnesses
    should
    notbe believed
    willbe considered
    by theChamber
    in thecourse
    of thefollowing
    discussion.

    3.8.3
    Discussion

    (a) The Letter

    205.It is undisputed
    between thepartiesthatin theafternoonor evening
    of 15 April
    1994,Tutsipastorsat theComplex wrotea letterto Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    in which
    theyinformedhimthattheyhadheardthattheywouldbekilled thefollowingday.They
    askedhimto intervene on theirbehalfby contacting thebourgmestre
    of Gishyita,
    CharlesSikubwabo.Theletter waswritten in Kinyarwanda.
    A copyof theletter was
    entered
    intoevidenceby theProsecution.
    263TheEnglish translation
    reads:
    260
    Id.pp.211ft.
    261
    Id.pp.221ff.
    262
    Id.pp.217ff.
    263Appendix
    A5 of Prosecution
    exhibit
    P2;T. 18 September
    2001pp.96-98.
    TheProsecutorobtainedthe
    letterfromMr.PhilipGourevitch,an authorandstaffwriterat theNewYorkermagazine, whohad
    receivedit fromElizaphan
    Ntakirutmanaduringan interview
    in Laredo,Texas,USAon 25 September

    Judgement
    andSentence 57 21 February
    2003

    ~
    ]
    s
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Ngoma15/04/1994

    Dearourleader,
    PastorNtakirutimana
    Elizaphan,

    Howareyou.
    Wewishyoutobe strong
    inallthese
    problems
    wearefacing.

    We wishto informyouthatwe haveheardthattomorrow we shalldiewithour


    families.
    We therefore
    requestyouto interveneon ourbehalfandtalkwiththe
    Mayor.We believe
    andwiththehelpof Godwhoentrusted youtheleadershipof
    thisflockwhichis goingto be destroyed. Yourinterventionwillbe highly
    appreciated,
    thesamewayas JewsweresavedbyEsther.

    We should
    appreciate
    if youwould
    contact
    theMayor
    as soonas possible.

    We givehonour
    to you.

    1.Pastor
    Semugeshi
    Ezekiel
    (signed)
    2.Pastor
    Rucondo
    Isaka(signed)
    3.Pastor
    Rwanyabuto
    (signed)
    4.Pastor
    Seromba
    Eliezer
    (signed)
    5.Pastor
    Sebihe
    Seth(signed)
    6.Pastor
    GakwayaJ6r6me(signed)
    7.264
    Mwalimu
    Zigirinshuti
    Ezekias
    (signed)

    265 FiveProsecution
    206. witnesses(MM,YY,GG, HH, SS)testified aboutthisletter.
    Accordingto theirevidence,it was prepared in theaftemoon or eveningof 15 April
    1994,readoutto therefugeesin theESIChapel andlatergivento a gendarmeto deliver
    to ElizaphanNtakirutimana.
    It is undisputed
    thatallsevensignatories wereTutsi. The
    letterwas writtenwiththeknowledge thatan attackhad beenplannedagainstthem.
    WitnessHH testified
    thatthe refugees wereinformed by oneof thegendarmes around14
    AprilthattheComplex wasgoingto be attacked
    on 14 or 15 April,
    or on 16 April1994at
    thelatest.266Thethreegendarmessaidthattheywerenotin a position to defendsucha
    largenumberof people.WitnessYY testifiedthathe andotherswereawareof an attack
    before16 April1994,without
    267 specifying howlongbefore.

    1996.Mr.Gourevitch
    subsequently
    referred
    tothisletter inhisbook Wewishtoinformyouthat
    tomorrow
    wewill bekilled
    withourfamilies.
    StoriesfromRwanda(1998).Theinterview
    andexcerpts
    fromthebook
    wereproduced
    asProsecution
    exhibitsP42A andB.
    264Thequotation
    isfromtheEnglish
    translationprovided
    bytheProsecution
    (seeprevious
    footnote).
    Some
    minorerrors
    intheexhibited
    Englishtranslation
    oftheletter have
    beencorrected.
    Thespelling
    ofnames
    variesslightly
    fromtheoriginalletter.
    Theword"Mwalimu"(No.7)means "teacher".
    Theletter
    wasalso
    interpreted
    orally
    incourt,seeT.6 May2002pp.155-156.
    265Incross-examination,
    WitnessGGreferred
    also toanearlierletter
    withsimilar
    content,
    written
    andsent
    toElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    on14April 1994.A personnamedAssiel
    delivered
    thisearlierletter
    (T.24
    September
    2001
    pp.108-110,
    116-117).
    Noother witnesstestified
    thattwoletters
    withsimilar
    content
    were
    senttoElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    onseparatedays.
    266T.25September2001
    pp.112, 117;T.26September 2001p.77.
    267T.1 October
    2001p.128.

    Judgement
    andSentence 58 21February
    2003

    ~
    t
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    207. WitnessesYY, GG and SS explainedthat the letterwas writtento Elizaphan


    Ntakutimana
    becausehe knewCharlesSikubwabo’s father,a Hutu pastor.Togetherthe
    268 WitnessMM testified
    thattheletterwas
    twopastorscouldpleadfortherefugees.
    writtento the Accusedbecausehe had caredfor his congregationand his pastors,
    irrespective
    of whethertheywereHutuor Tutsi.As a respected
    andimportantpersonhe
    °’wouldhavefoundwaysand meansof evacuatingpeopleoverthelakein orderforthem
    togo toZaire".
    269

    (b) Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    Responseto the Letter

    208. The Prosecutionsubmitsthatthe letterfrom the Tutsipastorswas broughtby


    gendarmes to ElizaphanNtakirutimanain the morningof 16 April1994,between5.30
    and 6.00 a.m.27° It is also undisputedthat he went to Gishyitathat morning.
    Consequently,the Chamberaccepts
    the Accused’s testimony thathe lefthishomeabout
    6.15a.m.andarrivedin Gishyita to see bourgmestre CharlesSikubwaboshortlyafter
    6.30a.m.It alsoaccepts thathe wasaccompanied by at leastonegendarme.(Whether
    he
    wasaccompanied by hissonwillbe discussedin connectionwiththeallegationsagainst
    G6rardNtakirutimana,seebelow.)

    209. Whileit is the Prosecution’sview thatElizaphanNtakirutimana met with the


    bourgmestre
    thatmorning it arguesthattheymetat thebourgmestre’sresidence,notin
    his office.The submissions are that 16 Aprilwas a Saturdayand hencea Sabbath
    accordingto the SeventhDay Adventists,not a normalworkingday.The bourgrnestre
    was an Adventist.Accordingto the Prosecution, it is unlikelythat Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    271 wouldwaitforsomeonewhohadno reasonto be at workon a Sabbath.

    210.ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    testified
    thatthelettershattered
    himandthathe started
    to tremble.
    At 6.15a.m.he leftwithhissonanda gendarme
    forGishyitaandwaitedat
    thebourgmestre’s
    officefrom6.35or 6.40a.m.TheAccused
    statedthatthebourgmestre
    cameat 7.00a.m.:

    Hecameat seven andwe gavehimtheletter.After


    readingit,before hesaidanything
    to
    me,he shookhishead.He said,"Icando nothing. Thereis no government;
    thereis no
    authority;I havenopower."
    I saidtohim,"Charles,
    thesearerelatives,relatives
    ofyour
    people.Areyougoing to allowthemto dielikethat?Theyaregoingtodieinnocently,
    andyouaregoing toletthemdielikethat, andyouaretheleader. That’s
    thesituation
    whichyourrelativesor peopleare in and you’regoingto haveto facethe
    consequences".272

    268Witness
    YY(T.1 October2001pp.128,130);Witness
    GG(T.24September
    2001pp.92-93);
    Witness
    ItH(T.25September
    2001p.113;T.26September
    2001p.88).
    269T.20September
    2001pp.98-99.
    270Prosecution
    Closing
    Brief
    paras.
    163and451.
    271Id.para.
    459.(Inthelastsentence
    theword
    "not"seems
    tobelacking.)
    SeealsoT.21August
    2002
    21.
    272Y.6 May2002pp.160-161.

    Judgement
    andSentence 59 ~ 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    211.TheAccusedexplained
    thatthebriefconversation
    in Sikubwabo’s
    officelasted
    until7.10a.m.Bothmenremained
    standingduring
    themeeting. G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    and the gendarme
    waitedoutside.The watchman
    of the communalofficewas also
    outside.
    Other
    employees
    hadnotyetarrived.
    273

    212.The Chamberconsidersit of limited


    importancewhetherthe meeting
    between
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    andthebourgmestre
    tookplacein thecommunal
    office
    or at the
    bourgmestre’s
    residence.
    It observes,
    however,
    thattheProsecution
    hasnotadduced any
    evidence
    to support
    itsclaim.OnlythetwoAccusedtestified
    aboutthemeeting.Their
    version
    wasthatthemeeting
    tookplaceinthebourgmestre’s
    office.

    213.Accordingto theProsecution, thepurposeof themeeting


    wasnotto deliver the
    messagefromtheTutsirefugees, butrather
    to arrangefortheevacuation
    andsubsequent
    accommodationof Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    familyand Hutucolleagues.A second
    purpose,accordingto theProsecution,
    wasto conveyattackers
    to theMugonero
    Complex
    in readinessfor an attack thatmoming.
    274The Chamberobservesthattwo persons,
    ElizaphanNtakirutimanaandCharles Sikubwabo,
    aresaidto havebeenpresent during
    the meeting.The onlyevidence available
    at trialwas Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    testimony.TheChamber willnotspeculateor drawtheinferences suggested
    by the
    Prosecutionconceming the allegedsubstance
    of theconversation.Consequently,
    the
    ChamberacceptstheAccused’s version.

    214.ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    testifiedthaton his waybackto theComplex,
    around
    7.30a.m.,he wasstilltrembling.
    He wentto hisofficewiththegendarme
    andwrotea
    noteforthepastors
    whilehissonwaitedoutside:

    I toldthemthatthebourgmestre
    categorically
    refusedandthatwaswhyI wasverysad,
    butI couldn’t
    doanything.
    ButGodwhoisalmightyknowswhathewasgoing todo.I
    said
    275 thatyoupastors
    have
    notsinned
    against
    Godandthatyouareinhishands.

    215.G6rardNtakirutimana alsotestified thattheresponse waswritten in thefield


    officeon the morningof 16 April1994and handedoverto gendarmes. 276 The
    Prosecution
    doesnotdispute thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    repliedtotheletter fromthe
    Tutsipastors,butleaves openwhether theresponse waswrittenor oral.No written
    response
    wasavailableat trial. TheProsecution
    witnesses
    whotestified
    thattheywereat
    theComplex beforeandduring the attack
    gaveconflicting evidenceas to whenthey
    receivedElizaphanNtakirutimana’s reply,andwhetherit waswritten or oral.Three
    witnesses(HH,MM,and YY)stated thatthe replywasreceived already on 15 April
    1994.
    Oneofthemsaidthatitwasinwriting, anothersaidthatthereplywasoral, andthe
    thirdwitnessdidnot know. 277 Prosecution
    WitnessGG,however,testified
    thathe heard
    PastorSebihe,togetherwithhispastor colleagues,
    readthewrittenresponse aloudin

    273Id.p.165.
    274T.21 August 2002pp.19-20.
    275T.7 May2002pp.165-66.
    276T. 9 May2002pp.96-97.
    277Witness HH (hearsay),
    T. 25 September2001pp.115-116;
    WitnessMM (hearsay),
    T. 20 September
    2001p.104;Witness YY,T.1 October2001pp.130-131
    and2 October
    2001pp.57-58.

    Judgement
    andSentence 60 21 February
    2003

    :~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    public,on the morningof 16 April1994.278 The Chamberobserves


    thatthereis
    considerable
    evidence
    in supportof thetestimony
    of theAccused
    thattheresponse
    was
    written
    andacceptsthisversion
    ofevents.

    216.The partiesdisagreeas to whenElizaphanNtakirutimanawrotehisreply.As


    mentioned
    above,theDefence
    submits thattheAccusedwrotetheletter
    afterhisreturn
    fromGishyita.
    TheProsecution
    argues thatthereplywasdispatched
    beforethetrip,at
    about6.00a.m.TheChamberobserves thattheProsecution
    witnesses
    didnotprovide a
    precisetimeas to whentherefugees received
    thereply. Consequently,
    the Chamber
    accepts
    thetestimonyoftheAccused.

    217.As to thesubstance of thereply, theevidence lacksclarity. Witness GG,who


    testified thathe heard PastorSebihereadoutthereply in themorningof 16 April1994,
    saidthatthereply was"that ourfate[had] beensealedandthateverything wasoverwith
    US". 279 WitnessHH statedthaton15 April, ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    "hadreplied thathe
    could notdoanything forthemandthattheir timewasup ...thattheywereleftto their
    owndevices".28° He alsosaidthataccording to thosewhoreceivedthereply themessage
    wasthattheywere"going todie",buthe addedthathe couldnotknowwhether thiswas
    theactual
    281 contentof themessage or theinterpretationof thepersonwhotoldhim.
    Witness MM testified
    thaton15 April, "thePastorhadrepliedin thenegative ...hehad
    saidthathecould donothing".282Thewitnessalsostated that"thereply didnotsaythat
    we should prepare to diethenextday.Theresponse wasthathe could do nothing;he had
    no wayof helping us.’’283Witness YY,whogaveevidence thatthegendarmes delivered
    thereplyon 15 Aprilanddidnotknowwhether it waswritten or oral,stated that,
    according to thepastors, thereplysaid"thatwe woulddiethefollowing day".He
    testified thattheAccused hadreplied "thatwe shouldprayandputourselves intothe
    handsof God".284 TheChamber findsthattheevidence aboutthesubstance of thereply
    doesnotprovide a sufficientbasisto concludethatElizaphanNtakirutimanacondonedor
    supported
    285 theattack of16April 1994.

    218.Thisbeingsaid,theChamber
    notesthattheAccused
    chosetosendthereplyto the
    Tutsirefugees throughgendarmes
    insteadof answering
    themin person.
    Whenasked
    aboutthishe answered
    thatinviewof theangry,
    armed
    refugees
    in thevicinity
    hedidnot
    daretodeliverhisreply
    personally:

    278
    T. 20 September
    2001pp.130-132 andT. 24September
    2001p. 96.
    279
    T. 20September2001p. 132.
    28o
    T. 25 September
    2001pp.115-116.
    281
    T. 27 September
    2001p. 144.
    282
    T. 19 September
    2001p. 81;T. 20 September
    2001p.103.
    283
    T. 20 September
    2001p. 101.
    284
    T. 1 October
    2001p.131.
    285Consequently,
    theChamberdoesnotfindsufficient
    evidence
    toagreewithCounsel
    fortheProsecution,
    whoinhisopeningstatement
    saidthat"Pastor
    Ntakirutimana’s
    response
    wascontained
    in a brief,
    heartless
    letterwhich
    stated:
    There
    isnothing
    I candoforyou.Allyoucandoistoprepare
    todie,foryourtimehas
    come,orwordstothateffect"
    (T.18September
    2001pp.17-18.)

    Judgement
    andSentence 61 21 February
    2003

    ,~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    IfI were
    togothere
    togivethem
    a negative
    reply
    ...I thought
    that
    theycouldtreat
    me
    inthesamewayastheywould
    havetreated
    thebourgmestre
    hadtheybeenabletogeta
    hold
    286 ofhim.

    219.TheChamber doesnotfindthisexplanation plausible.TheAccused wasa pastor


    andhadoccupied severalimportantpositionswithintheorganizationof theSeventh Day
    Adventists,including theposthe heldin April1994of President of theWestRwanda
    Field.Itisclear fromtheevidencethatthisplacedhimina positionofhighauthority at
    theMugonero Complex. Theletter fromtheTutsipastors addressedhimwiththewords
    "Dear...leader" andstated thatGodhadentrusted himwith"theleadership of this
    287Theletter
    flock". waswrittenina toneofgreatrespect.
    Itisdifficulttounderstandwhy
    the Tutsipastors andthe otherrefugees wouldhaveturnedagainst him - a manof
    authority- if hepersonallyhadconveyedthebourgmestre’snegative
    response.Theletter
    wasa cryforhelp.A person withtheAccused’s authorityandresponsibility wouldbe
    expectedto visithisflockinsucha timeof distress andto conveytheanswer directly.
    Regarding thepossibility thatthenegative messagemighthaveprovoked aggression
    towardstheAccused, theChamber observesthattheAccusedhadat thatjuncture at least
    oneortwoarmed gendarmesat hisdisposalandwouldhavelittletofear.

    220.Theseobservations
    do notinthemselvesprovidea sufficient
    basisfordrawing
    the
    conclusionthatthe Accused acceptedor supported the attacks.
    A personmay,in
    particular
    in momentsof distress
    or chaos, makedecisionsthat,withthebenefitof
    hindsight,
    appearmisguided.ButtheChamber notesthattheAccused distanced
    himself
    fromhisTutsipastorsandhisflock,whichissignificantin thegeneralcontext
    ofthe
    morning
    of 16 April1994.

    221.It is theProsecution’s
    casethattheAccusedhadknowledgeof theattack
    priorto
    receipt
    of theletteron themoming
    of 16 April1994,thathe conveyed
    attackers
    to the
    Complexandthathe participatedin the attack.TheChamber didnotconcludethat
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    hadpreviousknowledge,
    in connectionwithitsdiscussionof
    whetherhe advised
    TutsiandHututo seekrefugeat or leavetheComplex,
    respectively
    (3.3and3.4).Thetworemaining
    issueswillbediscussed below.

    (c) Did Elizaphan


    Ntakirutimana
    ConveyAttackers?

    222.A mainallegationin the MugoneroIndictmentis paragraph4.7,according to


    whicha convoyof several
    vehicles,followedby a largenumberof individuals
    armed
    withweapons,wentto theMugoneroComplex.It is allegedthatindividualsin that
    convoyincluded,amongothers, the twoAccused and CharlesSikubwabo,
    members of
    thegendarmerie,
    communal
    police,militiaandcivilians.Thisallegation
    canbe divided
    intotwostages:thetransportof attackers
    fromGishyita to theKabahinyuza
    trading
    centre
    closeto theComplex;andthetransportofattackersfromthetradingcentreand
    surrounding
    areasto theMugoneroComplex.

    286Y.7 May2002
    pp.166-167.
    287
    See3.8.3
    (a),
    where
    the
    letter
    isquoted
    inits
    entirety.

    Judgement
    andSentence 62 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T& ICTR-96-17-T

    223.It is theProsecution’s
    casethatElizaphanNtakirutimanaconveyed
    attackers
    from
    Gishyitato theMugoneroComplex on the morningof 16 April1994.TheProsecution
    submitsthattheAccused’s meetingwiththebourgmestre lastedjustenoughtimeto
    gather
    people andboardthemon theAccused’s vehicle
    underthesupervisionof thetwo
    gendarmesthathadescorted himthere. Thenhe leftGishyita forthefive-kilometre
    journeybackto Mugonero,
    in a convoy of threevehicles,oneof whichwasdriven by
    Sikubwabo. According
    to the Prosecution, the meeting pointwas the Kabahinyuza
    tradingcentre, closeto the Accused’s residence.288 The Defence
    rejectsthese
    submissions.

    224.TheChamberobservesthatthereis no evidencein thecasethatattackerswere


    assembled
    andboarded ontovehicles
    in Gishyita.Furthermore,noneof thewitnesses
    observed
    attackersbeingtransported
    fromGishyitato Mugonero.Consequently,
    thereis
    no basisfor the Prosecution’s
    allegation. Evenif somewitnesses saw Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    later withattackers
    (seebelow)
    thisdoesnotprovide a sufficient
    basis
    for
    concluding
    thathe transported
    attackers
    fromGishyita.
    Thepossibilitythattheattackers
    mayhavegathered
    atthetrading
    centreclose
    to theresidenceof theAccused
    isoflimited
    significance.

    225.The secondquestionis whetherElizaphan


    Ntakirutimana
    conveyedattackers
    to
    the Complexon the morningof 16 AprilI994.Belowthe Chamberwillassessthe
    testimony
    of thesevenwitnesses
    thattestified
    aboutthisperiod.
    It willthenconsider
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    alibifortherelevant
    period.

    WitnessMM

    226.WitnessMM testified
    thatattackersarrivedat theComplexat around
    8 a.m.on 16
    April1994.2s9Theyconsistedof Hutufarmers,members of theCDRparty,Interahamwe
    in uniforms
    madeoutof kitengecloth,
    soldiers,
    Gishyita policemen,
    military
    reservists,
    and gendarmes.29° WitnessMM saw Elizaphan Ntakirutimana bringfouror five
    gendarmesto theComplexin hiscar,whichhe saidwasa beech-colouredToyotaHilux
    pickup.Theywerein militaryclothing
    andredberets andwerecarrying
    firearms.The
    gendarmesincludedthosewhohadpreviously watched overtherefugees.Accordingto
    thewitness,Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wasin thefront cabinatthesteeringwheel.
    Other
    carsfollowed thatof the Accused.
    291 ApartfromElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    and the
    gendarmes,
    292 Witness
    MM didnotseeanybody elsein theAccused’s car.

    227.Accordingto WitnessMM, theAccused


    stopped
    at theintersectionof theroad
    leading
    to thehospitalandtheroadtowards
    hisresidence.Thegendarmes
    alighted
    and
    started
    shootingat thepeople
    whowerethere,
    aswellas at those
    whowerecloseto the

    288
    Y. 21August2002p. 22.
    289
    T. 19 September
    2001pp.114,135.
    290
    Y. 20 September
    2001pp.65-66.
    291
    T. 19 September
    2001pp.82-88.
    292
    Id.p.140.

    Judgement
    andSentence 63 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    office of theassociation
    andthenursing 293 Thewitness
    school. wasin theworkshop
    near
    themainhospital building,
    at a distance
    he estimatedas between
    50 and100metresfrom
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s vehicle,whenhe saw it comingup the roadto the
    Complex. 294At thetimehe sawthegendarmes descend fromtheAccused’svehiclethe
    witness hadmovedtowards
    theparking lotofthehospital.295After
    theattackers
    alighted,
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    droveaway,pastGrrard Ntakirutimana’s
    house,taking
    theroad
    towards Gishyita.
    296At thatpoint, Witness MM allegedlysawFARsoldierswhoalso
    started shooting.
    297WitnessMM didnotseeElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    at anyothertime
    on 16 April
    298 1994.

    228. The ChambernotesthatWitnessMM observedElizaphanNtakirutimana in


    daylight
    at a distanceof50 to 100metres.
    Thisdistance doesnotrender identification
    unreliable,
    evenif theAccusedwasatthesteering wheel
    of hiscar.Thewitnessobserved
    himfromtwodifferent positions,theworkshop andtheparkinglot.Witness MM gave
    consistent
    evidenceandappeared credible
    in court. Histestimony
    relatingto Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wasgenerallyin conformity
    withhisprevious statements
    to investigators.
    Someminordiscrepancies betweenhisfirstandsecond statementscanbe explainedby
    translation
    orcommunicationproblems.
    299It is truethatthereis a discrepancy
    between
    thestatements andthetestimony concerningtheroleof Grrard Ntakirutimanaon 16
    April1996.However, in theChamber’s view,thisdiscrepancy doesnot reducethe
    credibility
    ofhistestimonyrelatingtoElizaphanNtakirutimana.

    229.The Defencehas submitted that WitnessMM actedin concertwithother


    witnessesto falselyincriminate thetwoAccused andhasdrawntheChambers attention
    to thefactthathewasthebrother of a victim
    of the1994events.
    3°°TheChamber does
    notfindthisargument convincing. Manywitnesses appearing
    before theTribunal have
    lostcloserelatives. Witness MM didnotappear biasedor emotional.Forinstance,he
    testifiedthatElizaphan NtakirutimanadidnotdiscriminateagainstTutsipriorto the
    eventsof April1994.
    3°1Moreover, he statedthatGrrardNtakirutimana
    tooka number of
    persons,includinga Tutsiwoman, C16mentine,andherchildren to Gisovuon 11 April
    2001fortheirsafety. 3°2Furthermore, theChamber is notpersuadedby theDefence
    contentionthatWitness MM is biasedbecauseof hisappearance
    in a "propaganda"video
    filmedin 1995at theMugonero Complex(seemoregenerallyII.7).

    293Id.pp.88,141.
    294Id.pp.87,135-140.
    295Id.pp.139-140.
    296Id.pp.83,89,140-141.
    297Id.pp.88-89,142.
    298Id.pp.93,141.
    299WitnessMM’sstatementsweredated12 September
    1995,11 April1996and15 April1996.Thefirst
    statementdoesnotstateexplicitly
    thatheconveyed
    attackersinhiscar,butthat"soldiers"
    camebehind
    himin othervehicles.Thesecondstatement
    refers
    to fouror five"soldiers"
    inthebackofhiscar,as
    testifiedto duringthetrial(consistently
    referred
    toas "gendarmes"
    duringhisevidence).
    TheChamber
    notesthatWitness MM’stestimony
    wasalsogenerally
    inconformitywithhisstatement
    toAfrican
    Rights,
    ChargeSheetNo.3 (exhibitP29and1D5).
    300DefenceBriefpp.46-55.
    3o~T. 20September2001p.98.
    3o2Id.pp.88-89.

    Judgement
    andSentence 64 21 February
    2003
    d~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    WitnessGG

    230.WitnessGG testified thaton 16 April1994he saw Elizaphan Ntakirutimana


    arrivein hiscarat theComplex as partof thesecond waveof attackers; he alsosaw
    Ruzindana,Mika,Sikubwabo,
    and"other Interahamwe" arrive at thattime.
    3°3Thesecond
    attackstarted"a shorttimebeforemidday".
    3°4Witness GG claimedto haveobserved the
    arrivingattackers
    froma distance
    of about30 metres; "itwasnearenough forme to hear
    whattheyweresaying". Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanawasdriving a whiteHiluxwithshiny
    colouredstripes.
    3°5Thewitness saidhe knewthecar,fortheAccused washisneighbour.
    TheAccused wastransportingInterahamwein therearholdof theHilux. According to
    thewitness,someof theattackers
    woremilitary uniforms withredberets, butothers did
    notwearmilitary uniforms.Witness
    GG sawanother personsitting in theenclosedpart
    of the vehicletogether withthe Accused. The secondvehicle he saw belonged to
    Ruzindana. The witnesstestified thatthe vehiclesstoppedbeforeElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    office. Whentheattackers realized thattherefugees werethrowing
    stones
    3°6 theymoved thevehiclesandwentelsewhere.

    231.TheChamber notesthatWitness GG allegedly saw Elizaphan Ntakirutimana at


    thesteering
    wheelfroma relativelyshort
    distance
    - 30metres - indaylight.
    Itacceptsthat
    thewitnessrecognizedtheAccused’s whitecar,whichhe knewbecause theAccused was
    hisneighbour.Thefactthatthewitness alsomentionedthattherewerecoloured stripes
    on thevehicle,withoutspecifying, forexample,thesizeof thestripes, haslimited
    significance.
    Likewise,thefactthatWitness GG characterizedthepassengerson board
    the Accusedvehicleas being"Interahamwe", of whomonlysomeworeuniforms with
    redberets,doesnotconstitute a significant
    discrepancy fromthetestimony of,for
    instance,
    Witness MM,whoobserved onlygendarmeswithuniforms andredberets in the
    backrearof the vehicle. Suchvariations can be explained by the circumstances
    surroundingtheevents andtheelapsed time.The Defence arguedthatthewitness’s
    recognition
    of ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s
    vehicleis unreliablebecausehe saidthatthe
    word"Hilux" waswritten on it despitethefactthathe couldnotread.However, it
    followsfromthetestimony thatthewitness wasrelying on whatpeople hadtoldhim
    about
    3°7 themakeof thevehicle.

    232.Thewitness linkedthetimeof theobservation to "thesecondwave"of attackers


    or "ashorttimebeforemidday".Healsostatedthattheattack started"when
    thesunhad
    risenforquitesometime".
    3°8These expressions
    areimprecise.TheChambernotesthatin
    hisfirststatement
    to investigators,
    dated30June1996,WitnessGGestimatedthetimeat
    9.00a.m.Basedon theavailable evidence,theChamberfindsthatthewitness madehis
    observation
    on themorningof 16 April1994,butis unableto reachanyfirmconclusion
    astoexacttimeoftheobservation on thebasisofWitnessGG’sevidencealone.
    303
    T. 20 September
    2001pp.135-136;
    T.24 September
    2001pp.36-37,
    97.
    304T.24 September
    2001p.100.
    305T. 20September
    2001pp.138-139.
    306Id.pp.136,140-142.
    307W. 24September
    2001pp.165-167;
    DefenceClosing
    Briefp.
    93.
    308Id.pp.99-100.
    A~

    Judgement
    andSentence 65 21 February
    2003

    /
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    233. The Defence submitsthat the Chamber should disregardthe testimonyof


    WitnessGG becausein the Kayishemaand Ruzindanajudgementthe TrialChamber
    foundthesamewitness (thentestifying underpseudonym FF)unreliable.
    3°9Thepresent
    Chambernotesthatthe testimony of the witnessin Kayishema and Ruzindana was not
    relevantto thepresent caseanddidnotrelate to ElizaphanandG6rardNtakirutimana.On
    thesereasons alonetheDefence argumentsfail.Butevenmoreimportantly in relationto
    theDefence contention is thefactthatonlyoneelement of thetestimonyof thewitness
    was rejected in Kayishema and Ruzindana. The reasonwas thatthe TrialChamberwas
    notsatisfiedthathe hada clearviewof theevents at MuyiraHillfromthepeakof Gitwa
    Hill,a distance of aboutthreekilometres (para.426).Consequently,
    thefinding of that
    TrialChamber related to thereliabilityof thatparticular observation,
    notthegeneral
    credibilityof thewitness. In relation
    to allotherevents theTrialChamber in Kayishema
    andRuzindana foundthewitness
    31° credible.

    234. The Chamberhas also consideredthe discrepancies allegedby the Defence


    betweenWitness GG’stestimony andprevious statementsto investigators.
    31aIt follows
    fromhiswritten statement of 30 June1996thattherefugees senttwoletters to Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana, on 14 and16 April,respectively. In histestimonythewitness indicated
    thatthe lettersweresenton 14 Aprilandon "theeveof theSabbath" (whichin the
    context means15 April). 312Another differenceis that,in thesamewritten statement,
    WitnessGG said that ElizaphanNtakirutimana repliedto both letters,whereashe
    testified thattheAccused responded onlyto thesecondletter. WitnessGG wasexamined
    extensively aboutthesetwoletters andmaintained thattherefugees didnotreceive any
    responseto theletter of 14 April.He statedthatthesecondletterwaswritten on 15 April
    andthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana repliedon 16 April.
    313TheChamberacceptsthatthe
    statement to investigators contains a mistake,as claimedby thewitness. TheChamber
    notesthatthe witnesscannotreadandhas littleacademic education.It is truethat
    Witness GG wastheonlywitness whotestified abouta letterof 14 April.However, even
    if he should be mistakenon thispoint, theChamberdoesnotfindthatthisrenders himan
    unreliable witnesswhoseobservation of ElizaphanNtakirutimanain the morningof 16
    April1994shouldbe doubted.

    235.It is alsopointed
    outby the Defence
    thatWitness GG’sstatement
    of 30 June1996
    containedallegations
    thathe saw Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana shooting
    at people.This
    incidentwas notmentioned
    in his testimony.
    3~4 The Chamberclearlyaccordsgreater

    309Defence
    ClosingBrief
    pp.92-93.Infact,theDefence
    isrevisiting
    itsmotion
    of24September
    2001to
    strike
    thetestimony
    ofWitnessGGbecauseofhistestimony
    intheprevious
    case.TheChamber
    rejected
    themotion
    (T.24September
    2001pp.48-54).
    310KayishemaandRuzindana
    (TC)paras. 414,456,461and466,where WitnessFF wasconsidered
    credible.
    311Defence
    ClosingBrief
    pp.93-97.WitnessGGgavethreestatements
    toinvestigators,
    dated30June
    1996,10July1996and12November1999.
    Thesecondandthirdstatements
    concern
    theidentification
    of
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    andsexualcrimes,
    respectively.
    312Itisnotcorrect
    that
    WitnessGGtestified
    to"athird
    letter"
    asstated
    intheDefence
    Closing
    Briefat
    p.94.
    3~3T.24September
    2001pp.108-121;T.25September
    2001pp.60-65.
    3~4Defence
    Closing
    Briefp.
    94.

    andSentence
    Judgement 66 //~ 21February
    2003

    /
    9.,7S3
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG&ard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    weight
    to evidence
    givenby thewitnessundera sworndeclaration
    in court.Thewitness
    testified
    generally
    thattheattackers
    wereshooting.
    315He wasnotasked whetherhesaw
    Elizaphan
    Ntaldrutimana
    shootat people,
    or to commenton hisclaimsin thestatement
    abouttheroleof theAccused. Underthesecircumstances,theChamber is unableto
    conclude
    thatthere
    isa contradiction
    between
    thetestimonyandtheearlierstatement.

    236.The DefencearguesthatWitnessGG is unreliable becausehis testimony


    contained incriminatingevidence
    aboutthe secondAccused, G6rardNtakirutimana,
    whichdidnotappear inhisearlierstatements.
    316However,theChamber observes
    thatthe
    statementof 30 June1996containsa general
    declaration
    thatthewitness sawG6rard
    Ntakirutimanakillingpeople,including
    CharlesUkobizaba,during theattack
    at the
    MugoneroComplex. The statement
    alsoincludes two generalremarks aboutG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    beingpresentamongst
    attackers
    at various
    locationsin theBisesero
    area.
    Consequently,theDefence submissions
    fail.WhethertheChamber canmakeuseof new
    evidence,aboutwhichtheDefencehasnothadpriornotice,is a different
    questionand
    willbe discussedinconnection
    withthespecific
    events(seegenerallyII.2.4).
    Thesame
    is trueof newallegationsmadeby Witness
    GG against
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    whois
    alsomentionedinthestatement
    ashavingparticipated
    inattacks
    intheBiseseroarea.

    237.According to theDefence, WitnessGG is nota credible witness becausehe knew


    AssielKabera
    andwasevenrelated to him(seegenerally 11.7).317 The witness
    denied the
    Defence’s
    contentionthathe wasa relative
    ofKabera, andthere isno evidencetosupport
    thisclaim.It maywellbe,as contended by theDefence, thatDefence Witness
    9 observed
    the witnessduringa meeting withKaberain early1995.However, thisdoesnot
    contradict
    thetestimony of Witness
    GG,whoduring cross-examination answered
    thathe
    hadknownKabera "fora longtime"andthattheyhadmetseveral times,butthatthey
    hadnotdiscussed "thewar".318No evidence is available aboutthesubstance of the
    discussions
    at thealleged meetingin 1995.TheChamber doesnotfindanybasisforthe
    submission
    thatthewitness wasdeeply involvedin a politicalcampaign against
    thetwo
    Accused.Similarly,it is of limitedsignificance thatWitness GG wasinterviewedby
    AfricanRights. Manyvictims wereinterviewedby humanrights organisations
    afterthe
    eventsin1994.

    238.On thebasisof theaboveconsiderations,andhaving


    assessed
    histestimony,
    the
    ChamberfindsthatWitness GG is a credible
    witness.TheChamberacceptsthatthe
    witnesssawElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    driveto theMugoneroComplex
    in themorning
    of
    16Aprilwithattackers
    intheholdofhisvehicle.

    3~5
    T.20September
    2001p.143.
    3~6
    Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.95-97.
    317
    Id.pp.91-92,
    97-98.
    318
    T.25September
    2001pp.50-54.
    Thewitness
    claimed
    nottoknow
    whether
    Assiel
    Kabera
    wasmember
    oftheorganization
    Ibuka.
    i~
    Judgement
    andSentence 67 21February
    2003
    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Witness
    PP

    239.WitnessPP testified thatthe attackon 16 April1994commenced around


    9.00a.m.There
    werea largenumberofassailants,
    mostlycivilians,
    butalsoa number
    of
    gendarmes
    wearing
    redberets. Someof theattackerscamein vehicles.
    319Thewitness
    saidthathewas"veryfar"fromthearrivingvehicles
    anddidnotknowtheirnumber,
    but
    he recognized
    thecommunalvehiclein whichhe sawbourgrnestre
    Sikubwabo,
    thecarof
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana,and ObedRuzindana who was drivingthe witness’s
    own
    vehicle
    32° (seebelow).

    240.Witness PP saidhe wasstanding in frontofthehospital,in thehospital’s parking


    lot,whenhe saw Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s vehicle. It was "twoor threehundred
    metres" awayfromthe witness, parkedverycloseto the Accused’s office.321 He
    describedit as a "notverywhite" Hiluxpickup. ElizaphanNtakirutimana wasstanding
    nextto hiscar.322TheAccused hada small or medium-size
    firearm, of thekindthatcan
    becarried
    323 onthebelt, accordingto thewitness. He wasunableto describeit further.
    Thiswasat thetimewhentheattackers hadjustarrived, at around9.00a.m.or a few
    minutes
    324 after.WitnessPP didnotseeElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    again on 16 April1994.
    Therewereno buildings between himandtheAccused. Moreover,theevents tookplace
    a longtimeagoandthedistance of 200-300metres"wasonlyan approximation, andit’s
    possiblethatthedistance wasinfactless." Thewitnessstatedthateventhough hewasin
    theparking lotof thehospital thevehicles werenotso farawaythathe couldnot
    recognize
    325 themorpersons inside them.

    241.Witness PP explained why Ruzindanawas usingthe witness’s


    car.On 7 April
    1994,Witness PP travelledto theComplex in hiswhiteToyotaStoutpick-up. G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    gavehimpermissionto placeitin thehospital
    garage,
    andthewitness left
    hiscarkeyswithhim. 326Thewitness madethisrequestbecause,accordingto him,
    G6rardNtakirutimana wasthemedical officer
    responsible
    forthehospital,andbecause
    onpastoccasions
    327 whentherewasviolence,refugeesusually
    feltsafeatthehospital.
    WitnessPP wished to havehisvehicle concealed
    because
    he wasconcerned
    thatit would
    be recognised,andhencethathiswhereabouts wouldbecomeknown,especiallyto Mika
    Muhimana,whohadcomelooking forhimat theComplex.328He speculatedthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    hadgiven Ruzindanathevehicle,
    buthedidnotknowthisfor329
    a fact.

    319
    T. 8 October
    2001pp.12-16.
    320
    Id.pp.16,115.
    321
    Id.pp.18,25,75.
    322
    Thewitnessdidnotremember
    howtheAccused
    wasdressed;
    T. 8 October
    2001p.79.
    323
    T. 8 October
    2001pp.19-23,
    123-124.
    324
    Id.pp.20,22,24.
    325
    Id.p.77,115,120.
    326
    Id.pp.36-37.
    327
    Id.2001p.49.
    328
    Id.pp.54-55.
    329
    Id.pp.38-42,61-62.

    Judgement
    andSentence 68 21 February
    2003
    ,751
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    242.TheChamber observes thatWitness PP estimated the distance between himself


    andElizaphan Ntakirutimanato be about200-300 metres. Whenaskedhow he couldbe
    confident
    abouthisobservationat thatdistancehe answeredthatthedistance couldhave
    beenless,andinsisted thathe hadseentheAccused. TheChamber notesthatthewitness
    claimedto haveseentheAccused oncehe hadgotoutof hisvehicle, thathe knewthe
    Accused
    wellandthattheobservation wasmadeinbroad daylight.It alsoaccepts
    thatthe
    witnessrecognizedtheAccused’s vehicle,in additionto hisowncarandthecommunal
    vehicle.
    Accordingto theDefence,it followsfromtheProsecution’ssketch ofthelayout
    oftheComplexthatifthewitness werestandingat theparkinglotinfront ofthehospital
    building, therewereseveralbuildings obstructing the viewtowardsElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s 33° Whencross-examined
    office. aboutthis,thewitness emphasizedthat
    therewereno buildings between him and the Accused. The Chamber observesthat,
    according
    to thesketch, theparking lotcoversa considerablearea.It doesnotfollow
    fromtheevidence thatWitness PP wasstanding "closeto thehospital" andtherefore
    behindbuildings,as arguedby theDefence. Hisobservation wascorroboratedby other
    witnesses.

    243.Witness PP gavefivewritten statementsto investigators beforehe testified.


    Accordingto theDefence, thetiming andcircumstances of thestatementsmakeit clear
    thatthewitness waspartofa political efforttocharge andconvict ElizaphanandGrrard
    Ntakirutimana.
    331TheChamber doesnotshare thisview.According to thewitness’s first
    statement, dated18 October 1995,the attackat the Mugonero Complexoccurred on
    Saturday 16 April1994.The witness listedbourgmestre Sikubwabo, Ruzindana and
    ConseillerMikaMuhimana as leadersandstated thatElizaphan Ntakirutimana wasalso
    presentandarmedwitha gun.Grrard Ntakirutimana,"formerlya friend",wasmentioned
    brieflybecause he hadthekeysto Witness PP’scar.TheChamber doesnotagreewith
    the Defence thatthisstatement impliesthatthewitness didnot consider Grrard
    Ntakirutimana as oneof the attackers at Mugonero. He mentioned thisAccused very
    brieflyimmediately afterhaving listedattackers.Thewitness alsomentioned thecar
    keys,whichheexplainedfully in court.
    Theparts ofthestatementrelatingto Bisesero
    do
    notmention Elizaphanor GrrardNtakirutimanaas participants
    in theattacks there.The
    Chamberobserves, however, thatthequestions posedby theinvestigators focusedon
    Kayishema and Ruzindana, and thatthe witness was askedwhether he had seenthe
    prefect,thebourgrnestreand"other leaders"in Bisesero.Thestatementdoesnotcontain
    anyquestionsspecificallyaboutthetwoAccused in thepresentcase.

    244.Thesecondstatement
    of 4 April1996alsoreferred to attacks
    at Mugonero
    andin
    Bisesero.
    ElizaphanandGrrard Ntakirutimanaarementioned together
    withSikubwabo
    andcertain
    otherbourgmestres
    andconseillersinrelationtotheattackat theComplex.
    Ruzindana
    wasdescribedas thechiefleading thatattack.Thedateis notexplicitly
    mentioned.
    332Regarding
    Biseseroit is briefly
    addedthathe saw"only"thecarsof the
    twoAccused
    there.Inhisthirdstatementof4 May1996he statesthatthecorrect
    dateof

    330Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.68-69
    andExhibit
    P2.
    331Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.63-67,
    69-70.
    332Inhisthird
    statement
    (below)
    hecorrected
    a declaration
    inthesecond
    statement,
    which
    could
    interpreted
    asiftheattack
    tookplace
    on13April,
    andspecified
    that
    itoccurred
    on16April
    1994.
    t~
    Judgement
    andSentence 69 I~ 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    theMugonero
    attack is16 April1994.Theinterviewis mainly
    concerned
    withtheroleof
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana.
    Consequently,
    itis notsurprising
    thathisroleandinfluence
    are
    emphasized
    in thatstatement.
    It doesnotcover onlyMugonero,butalsoBisesero,
    where
    Elizaphan
    Ntaldrutimana
    isallegedto havebeendriving
    in hiscar,shooting
    at people.

    245.The fourthstatement
    of 24 September1998focused on Ruzindana’s
    mostactive
    associatesin Bisesero.
    Elizaphan andG6rardNtakirutimana werelistedamongthe
    leaders.
    Thefifth statement
    of 13 February
    2000alsocontainsa brief
    reference
    to both
    Accusedin connectionwiththe Mugonero attacks,but focusesprimarilyon Mika
    Muhimana.

    246.On thebasisof a carefulreading of Witness


    PP’sfivewritten statements,the
    Chamberfindsthattheyareconsistent.Variations
    betweenthemcanbeexplainedby the
    questionsaskedby investigators.Thereareno importantdiscrepanciesbetweenthe
    statements
    andthetestimonyofthewitness.Itcannotbeheldagainsthimthathe wasnot
    askedanyquestionsin courtabouttheinvolvement
    of thetwoAccused in Bisesero.
    The
    otherobservationsin the Defence ClosingBriefdo not alterthe Chamber’sview,
    including
    thesubmissionsrelating
    tothevideothatwasmadein1995(allegedly as part
    of a "campaign"
    333 against
    theAccused,seegenerally
    II.7).

    247.On thisbasisthe ChamberconsidersWitnessPP as a credible


    witness.
    Cross-
    examinationdidnotundermine
    hisaccount
    or hischaracter.TheChamberconcludes
    that
    he saw ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    amongstthe attackersat the Mugonero
    Complex
    on
    Saturday16 April
    1994at around
    9.00a.m.,
    priorto thecommencement
    oftheattack.

    WitnessHH

    248.Witness HH testified
    to seeing
    attackers arrive at theComplexin themorning of
    16 April1994.He saidthatthekillingsstartedbetween8.30and9.30a.m. 334Thefirst
    attackersto arrivewerelightly
    armed.Therefugees wereableto defend themselvesand
    repelled
    thisgroup. Later,theattackerscamebackandwerestronger.335Witness HH saw
    thearriving attackers
    fromhishiding placebehind a wallof a smallbuildingnextto
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    office,at a distance thewitness estimatedat 13 or 14
    metres.
    336Theyconsistedof"civilians,
    farmers or traders,andamongst
    them, therewere
    formersoldierswhohadbeendemobilized,either becauseof badconductor becausethey
    hadretired fromthe army".
    337Someof theformer soldiers werearmedwithguns,while
    thecivilians
    338 werearmedwithtraditional
    weaponssuchasmachetes, clubs,
    andspears.

    249.Thewitnessstatedthatsixvehiclesarrived
    at theComplex.He recognized
    the
    carsof Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    G6rardNtakirutimana,
    thehospital
    vehicle(a Toyota
    Stout),ObedRuzindana’s
    vehicle,
    a fifth
    vehicle
    saidto belong
    to Ruzindana
    (although
    333
    TheChambernotesthatWitness
    PPdidnotgiveanyinterview
    toAfrican
    Rights
    (exhibit
    P29and1D5).
    334
    T. 25 September
    2001p. 110.
    335
    Id.p. 119;T.26September
    2001p.13.
    336T.25 September
    2001pp.123-124;
    T. 27 September
    2001pp.113-115,
    116-117,
    121-122.
    337T.25September2001p.136.
    338Id.pp.119,
    137.
    r0
    Judgement
    andSentence 70 21 February
    2003
    1
    ,v
    /
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    thewitness was notsurethathe wasin facttheowner), andthe Gishyitacommune


    vehicle,an open-backedwhiteToyota.
    339 Thevehicles,whicharrivedat different
    times,
    34°parkedin front
    of Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    office.Thewitness
    identifiedthe
    officein a photograph
    shownto him.
    341Witness
    HH saidthatwiththeexceptionof the
    hospital
    vehicle,whichhe sawonlyafteritwasalreadyparked,
    therestwereconveying
    attackers.
    Usingthecarrying
    capacity
    ofthevehicles
    ashisreference
    (rather
    thanwhathe
    saw and counted)he estimated thatbetween100 and 120 attackerswerebeing
    transported.
    342343
    TheGishyitacommunevehicle
    conveyed
    gendarmesandsoldiers.

    250.According to WitnessHH,ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s vehicle wasa whiteToyota


    Hilux.It camefromthedirection of themainKibuye-Cyangugu roadandwasdriven by
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    himself.
    344Thewitness couldnottellwhether therewereother
    people
    in thedriver’scabin,as theAccused
    wastheonlyperson hesawcoming outof the
    cabin.In theholdof theAccused’scarwerebetween 15 and20 persons.
    345Theyincluded
    gendarmesand "civilianswhohadreceived military training" in militaryclothing,
    includingsomewhowerefriendsof thewitness. Theattackerswerearmedwithfirearms,
    machetes, clubs,andotherkindsof weapons. Thecivilians woreblackberets. The
    gendarmesworeredberets andsomewerein military uniformsof severalmixedcolours;
    othergendarmes werein khaki-coloured
    clothing.346Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    remained
    standing
    besidehiscarinfront ofhisoffice.347 Thewitness
    didnotseetheAccused again
    on16 April
    348 1994.

    251.The Chamber observes thatWitness HH, likeWitness GG, maintains thatthere


    weretwowavesof attackers, thefirst, lightlyarmed,having beenrepelled by the
    refugees.
    According to Witness HH,theassailants commencedthemainattack between
    8.30and9.30a.m.Thisis in conformity withthetimeindicated by otherwitnesses.
    Witness
    HH claims to haveseenthemainwaveof arriving attackers at a distance of
    about13-14metresfromhis hidingplacebehinda smallwallnextto Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    office.He explained
    thathe wasso closebecause he hadbeenentrusted
    thetaskof determining fromwhichdirection theattackers werecoming, so thatthe
    refugees
    could flee.TheChamber notesthatthiswitnessappears to havebeenverywell
    placed
    to observetheevents. He claimed
    to haveseensixvehicles, twoofwhich, thatof
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana andthecommune vehicle,werealsomentioned by several other
    witnesses,
    whoalsoalleged thatObedRuzindana arrivedin a vehicle(hisownor that
    belongingto WitnessPP).Thisevidence is alsoin conformitywiththetestimony of
    severalotherwitnesses thatthedrivers parked thevehicles in frontof Elizaphan
    Ntaldrutimana’s
    office.
    Asfortheother vehicles,theevidenceof theotherwitnesses is

    339Id.T. 25September 2001pp.119-120,


    137;T.27 September
    2001pp.7-8.
    340T.25September 2001p.133.
    341 Prosecution
    exhibitP2,Photograph
    7;T. 27September
    2001pp.116,119-120,
    121.
    342T.25 September
    2001p. 135;T. 27 September
    2001p. 147.
    343Id.pp.146-147.
    344T. 25 September
    2001p.121;T. 27September2001pp.111-112,115-116.
    345T. 25 September
    2001pp.122,125;T. 27September2001p.113.
    346T. 25 September2001pp.121,126-128.
    347Id.p. 128;T.26September 2001pp.14,22;T. 27September
    2001pp.111-112.
    348T.26 September2001p. 22;T.27 September
    2001p. 112.

    71 ]~ 21 February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    limited,
    buttheChamber
    notes
    thatthewitness
    explained
    thatthevehicles
    didnotarrive
    atthesametime.
    349

    252.Of particularimportanceis WitnessHH’sobservation


    ofElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    standing
    beside hisvehicle.
    As statedabove,he estimated
    thedistancebetween
    themto
    be 13-14metres. Thisis powerful evidencethatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    conveyed
    attackersto theComplexon 16 April.It is corroborated
    by otherwitnesses
    of whom
    somealsoobservedtheAccusedstandingnextto hisvehicle.

    253.TheDefence disputesthereliability of Witness


    HH.35°It points out thathis
    cousin,whowasgivenas a contact personin hiswrittenstatement of 2 April1996to
    investigators,
    wasa brotherof Assiel
    Kabera(seeII.7).TheChamber notesthatwhenthe
    witnesswascross-examinedwhetherhe was"blood-related"
    to Kabera,he firstanswered
    in thenegativebutthenimmediatelysaidthattheywere"related".351He thenexplained
    thathe hadknownKabera fora longtime.He stated thathe hadheardKabera on the
    radiobutrecalled seeing
    himno morethanthreetimesafterJune1994(probably notin
    1994,possibly in 1995butnotin 1996).
    352TheChamberrecalls thatKabera wasprefect
    of Kibuyeat thetimeandthereforea prominentpublic
    figure.Thereis noevidence that
    Witness HH and Kaberaactually heldconversationsrelating to the presentcase.
    Consequently,theChamberhasnobasisforconcludingthatthelimited contact,if any,
    thewitnesshadwithKabera hadanyinfluence whatsoever
    on hiswrittenstatementor his
    testimony.

    254.The Chamber notesthatWitness HH’sbriefallegations


    in the "ChargeSheet"
    published by AfricanRightswerenot toucheduponby eitherpartyduringhis
    testimony.
    353Similarly, thewitness
    denied
    havingknowingly
    talked
    toanyrepresentative
    oftheorganizationIbuka,andthere
    isnoevidence
    thatheeverdiscussed
    matters
    relating
    to theAccused withmembersof theRPF,as suggested
    by theDefence.
    354Thereis,in
    otherwords,no support for theDefencecontention
    thatWitnessHH was partof a
    political"campaign"to falsely
    convict
    andaccusethetwoAccused
    (seemoregenerally
    II.7).WitnessHH in hiswrittenstatement
    mentioned
    thatWitness
    MM wasat thattime
    livinginKigali, butthisreference
    alonecannot
    possibly
    support
    thecontentionbythe
    Defencethatthese witnesses
    cooperated
    withtheaimof incriminating
    theAccused.

    255. Accordingto the Defence,WitnessHH’s testimonyis "riddledwith


    improbability,
    inconsistencies,
    contradictions
    and completely
    newclaims".
    355The
    Chamberdisagrees.
    Forthemostpartthetestimonyis consistent
    withhisprevious
    statement.
    However,
    somediscrepancies
    callforfurther
    scrutiny.
    In particular,
    unlike
    the

    349T,25September
    2001p.132-134.
    350Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.75-86.
    35~T.27September200Ipp.
    132-133.
    TheFrench
    expressions
    are"desliens
    desang"and"liens
    de
    parent6"
    (p.116).
    352T.27September
    2001
    pp.131-136,
    138-139.
    Itfollows
    from
    theFrench
    version
    (pp.
    116-117)
    that
    "saw"
    Kabera,
    notthathe"met"
    him.
    353Exhibit
    P 29and1D5.
    354W.27September
    2001pp.136-137.
    355Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.76.

    Judgement
    andSentence 72 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    testimony,the statementdoesnot contain any allegationthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana


    conveyedattackerson 16 April1994.When the witnesswas askedto explainthis
    omission,he answered:"Thisstatement doesn’tcomefromme, and if it did comefrom
    me,it wasnotproperlytranscribed,sinceI didseethepastor-president.
    ’’356Moreover,
    he
    explainedtheabsenceof referencein hispriorstatement of 2 April1996to thevehicles
    of thetwoAccused and to theGishyita communevehicle by sayingthat,at thetime,he
    was answeringonlyquestions thatwereput to him.357Furthermore, he addressedthe
    absenceof any mentionin his priorstatement of G6rardNtakirutimana transporting
    attackersto theComplexin thefollowing terms:"Youshould notthinkthatthreemonths
    of eventscouldbe recordedon a documentof a fewpages";and"ifat a certain pointin
    time I spokeaboutthepresence of G6rardwithoutmentioning hisvehicle, thenit’s
    because
    358 I wasnotaskedhowhe gotthere".

    256. While the Chamber does not find Witness HH’s responses to questions
    concerning
    thecontentof hispriorstatement
    entirelysatisfactory,
    thoseresponses
    arein
    theChamber’sviewnotsufficient to castdoubton histestimony.The statement
    does
    placeG6rardNtakirutimana
    amongthepersonspreparing forthe attack.TheAccusedis
    mentioned
    in connectionwithlootingof thehospitalandconfiscationof WitnessPP’s
    vehicle
    "shortlybefore
    themassacres".
    359Thestatementcontinues:

    As soonas theyfinished,
    ObedRuzindana
    gavetheorderto attackus.It musthavebeen
    9 o’clockin themorning,
    whichis onlyan estimate,
    becauseI didnothavea watch.The
    attackers wereverymany.Thereweremorethan20 soldiers, reservist[s]
    andHutu
    population.Amongothers ...[fivenamedpersons]andDoctorG6rard Ntakirutimana
    werearmedwithguns.It wasObedRuzindana whotransported thesoldiers in his
    vehicle.I sawRuzindana
    lifthishandanddirecttheattackersto different
    places.He
    couldeasilyseetheother
    refugees
    andmyself.Hedirected
    theassailants
    toward[s]
    us.

    257.In the Chamber’sview,it followsclearlyfrom thequotedtextthatduringthe


    interviewWitnessHH did not exhaustivelylist all attackers or vehiclesconveying
    assailants. Apparently,Ruzindana’svehiclewas mentionedbecausehe was observed
    transporting soldiers.
    Furthermore, he was perceivedto be a leaderof the attack.
    Ruzindana’sprominentroleis corroboratedby thetestimony of otherwitnesses. This
    followsalsofromthe Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement.
    36° In the Chamber’s
    viewit
    does not reducethe credibility of WitnessHH that the statementprovidesless
    informationaboutElizaphanandG6rardNtakirutimana thanhistestimony. WitnessHH’s
    accountof Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    actions conformswiththatof otherwitnesses.

    258.WitnessHH testifiedthathe didnot knowwhowas drivingthe hospital


    vehicle,
    but thathe did knowthatG6rardNtakirutimana
    was drivinghisown vehicle,
    a Peugot
    356
    T.27September2001p.113.
    357
    T.26September2001pp.108-110.
    358
    Id.p.111.
    359
    Duringhistestimony
    Witness
    HHwasnotaskedwhether
    hehadseenG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    looting
    the
    hospital
    before
    theattack
    oraboutthealleged
    confiscation
    ofWitness
    PP’s
    car.Consequently,
    theChamber
    cannot
    consider
    theseasdiscrepancies
    which
    reduce
    hiscredibility,
    assuggested
    intheDefence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.76-77.
    360Kayishema
    andRuzindana
    (TC)paras.543-545.

    Judgement
    andSentence 73 ~ 21 February
    2003
    /
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    pickup.
    361No other witnessestestifiedto seeingG6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s
    personal vehicle
    arriveat theComplex on 16 April. WitnessesYY andKK mentionedseeing thehospital
    vehiclearrive, andthelatter allegedthatG6rardNtakirutimana
    wasdrivingthisvehicle.
    TheAccused’s wife,Ann,testified thatherhusband hadinformedherthathispersonal
    vehicle hada mechanical problem andthathe hadtakenit to thegarage of a person
    namedPinto. On16April, while it wasstillatPinto’sgarage,thecarwasdamaged inthe
    fighting whena grenadewasthrown in itsdirection.
    362G6rard Ntakirutimanaconfirmed
    hiswife’s evidence.
    363Inviewof theabove, therearisesa doubtas to whetherWitness
    HH correctly identified
    thevehicle drivenby G6rardNtakirutimana.
    However, thisdoes
    notrender therestofhisevidence unreliable.

    259.According to thewritten statement,therefugeeswrotetheletterrequesting


    protectionon 15 April1994"topastor Ntakirutimana,
    to Doctor G6rardNtakirutimana
    andto bourgmestreSikubwabo".
    It is theviewof theDefencethatagainWitnessHH is
    unreliable,
    becauseno other
    witness
    everallegedthatthere
    wasa letterwritten
    to G6rard
    Ntakirutimana.Whencross-examined
    aboutthismatter,thewitness explainedthatthe
    referenceto G6rard Ntakirutimana
    wasa mistake,eitherbecause he didnotexpress
    himselfclearlyor becausetheinvestigators
    misunderstood
    whathe wassaying.He could
    neitherconfirmnor excludethatthe lettercontained any referenceto G6rard
    Ntakirutimana,
    as he hadnotreadtheletterhimself.
    364TheChamberconsiders
    thatthis
    referencein thestatementhasbeenadequatelyclarified
    by HH anddoesnotaffectthe
    credibility
    365 ofthewitness.

    260.In the Chamber’s view,Witness HH gavethe impressionof a crediblewitness


    duringexaminationandcross-examination.
    TheChamberobservesgenerallythatit gives
    higherconsiderationto swornwitnesstestimonybeforeit thanpriorstatements.The
    Chamberalsonotesthatthewitness’s statementwasabout"themassacres whichtook
    placeat thehospitalinMugonero"generally,
    andnotspecifically
    aboutthetwoAccused.
    Therefore, the Chamberdoesnot acceptthatwhatamountsto omissions fromthe
    statementcansubstantially reducetheweightof WitnessHH’stestimony.TheChamber
    has alsodetermined thatthealleged discrepanciesbetweenthestatement andthe
    testimonyhaveno bearingon thewitness’s
    reliability.
    Consequently,
    theChamber finds
    that,around 9.00a.m.on thedayof theattack, froma shortdistance,Witness
    HH saw
    ElizaphanNtakirutimanaarriveat theComplextransporting
    attackers.Thesubmissions
    of theDefence concerningtheallegedkillingof CharlesUkobizabaandEsdras, which

    361
    T. 25 September
    2001pp.124,129.
    362
    T.11April 2002p.137;T.12April 2002p.16;T.15April 2002p.14.
    363
    T. 9 May2002pp.64-65, 130.
    364
    Y. 26 September2001pp.85-91.
    365A mistake
    ofa different
    nature
    isfoundintheEnglish
    versionofthetranscripts,
    according
    towhichthe
    refugees’purpose
    inwritingtheletterwastoensurethatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    consulted
    "withhistwo
    sonswho were in chargeof the hospital"and that theywouldthen contactthe bourgmestre
    (T.25 September2001p. 113;DefenceClosing
    Briefpp.79-80). Clearly,
    theFrenchversion
    hasbeen
    wronglytranslated
    intoEnglish("L’objectif
    6taitdefaireensortequelepasteurNtakirutimana
    discute
    avecsonills- lesdeuxpersonnes&antresponsables
    ducomplexe-,etquedecettediscussion,
    il pouvait
    contacter
    lebourgmestre
    ...";p.126oftheFrench
    transcripts).

    Judgement
    andSentence 74 21 February
    2003
    ~
    L
    /v
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    alsoconcern
    thecredibility
    of Witness
    HH,willbe considered
    below(see3.11and4.7,
    respectively).

    WitnessKK

    261.Witness KK,whowas16 yearsoldduring theevents in 1994,testifiedthatearly


    in themorningof16April thelastprayerswereledby PastorSebihein thechapelofthe
    ESINursingSchool.366Thewitness leftthechapeljustbefore 6.00a.m.He encountered
    gendarmesoutsidethechapel, oneofwhominformedhimthattherefugees weregoingto
    be attackedduring thedayandsuggested thatthewitness leave. However,WitnessKK
    andthosewithhimstayed andgatheredstones
    fortheir defence.367Fromhispositionat
    thenursingschool (ESI)justbefore7.00a.m.,thewitnesssawtwovehicles, onedriven
    by ObedRuzindana, the otherdrivenby bourgmestre CharlesSikubwabo, who was
    accompanied by ConseillerMikaMuhimana, and a motorcycle riddenby a gendarme.
    Theywerecoming froma branch of themainKibuye-Cyangugu Road,climbing pastthe
    homeof ElizaphanNtakirutimana,in thedirectionof theKabahinyuza tradingcentre,
    along
    368 theroadonthelower sideofthehospital.

    262.Between7.00and7.30a.m.,thewitness sawthevehicles returning; thevehicleof


    ElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    drivenby theAccused himself,wasamongthem. 369On board
    withtheAccused werea communal workerfromGishyita commune (Daniel,sonof the
    Ngomaconseiller)who hada gun in his belt;Habimana (alsoknownas Nyamwanga)
    whoalsohada gunin hisbelt;oneNgabonzima; twogendarmes, whoWitness KK could
    notidentify,
    as their
    beretswerecovering
    their faces;andtwoother personswhoWitness
    I~ alsodidnotrecognise.
    37°Thewitnesssaidthatsomeof thepeople on boardtheother
    vehicleswerewearing
    redtrousers andredshirts, otherswerein white, andsomewere
    armed.
    371 WitnessKK claimedthattherewereabout10 to 15 peoplein Ruzindana’s
    vehicle and,whilehe did not recognizeany of them,theyincluded Interahamwe,
    gendarmes,
    andpersons
    in militaryuniform
    carrying 372 In thevehicle
    firearms. driven
    by
    Sikubwabo,Witness
    KK wasableto recognisetwopolice officersby theiruniforms,as
    wellastwootherpersons
    standing
    inthebackofthecar.
    373

    263.At around8.30a.m.,approximately thirtyminutesafterseeingthe groupof


    vehicles
    retumfromtheKabahinyuzacentre,WitnessKK,stillfromhisposition
    at the
    nursing
    school, sawthesamegroupof vehiclesapproaching
    froma branchoffthemain
    roadleadingup to theComplex.
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    vehiclewasin front.
    It was
    followed
    by thehospital vehicle,
    driven
    by G6rardNtakirutimana.
    Twotrucksbelonging

    366T.3 October
    2001
    pp.97-99.
    367T.3 October
    2001
    p.100;T.4 October
    2001pp.59,65,69-71.
    368 Y.3 October
    2001
    pp.101-103,
    110,
    113;T.4 October
    2001pp.70-71,
    77;T.5 October
    2001pp.10-
    1t.
    369
    T.3 October
    2001
    pp.104-105,
    111-114;
    T.4 October
    2001p.71;T.5 October
    2001pp.10,13-18.
    37o T.3 October
    2001
    pp.105-107,
    114;T.5 October
    2001
    pp.17,26.
    371 T.3 October
    2001
    p.108.
    372 T.3 October
    2001
    p.107;
    T.4 October
    2001p.76;T.5 October
    2001
    pp.19-20.
    373 T.3 October
    2001
    p.108;
    T.5 October
    2001p.21.

    Judgement
    andSentence 75 ]1 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96,10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    to the COLASroad-construction
    companyhad alsojoinedthegroup.
    374 The truckswere
    "full"of Interahamwe and policeofficers;the othervehicles,includingG6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s,were transportingarmedInterahamweand soldiers.
    375 WitnessKK
    testified
    376 to seeing
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    nextat theESIChapel(see3.10.3below).
    Thewitnesswentto thechapelat around
    9.00or 9.30a.m.

    264. The Chamberobservesthat,according to WitnessKK, he was at the ESI Nursing


    Schoolwhenhe firstsawthetwovehicles andthemotorcycle heading
    in thedirection of
    thetrading centrejustbefore7.00a.m.Ruzindana droveoneof thevehicles. According
    to thewitness,it belonged
    to a personwiththesameprofession andfirstnameas Witness
    pp.377Sikubwabo drovethe othercar in whichthe witnessobserved Muhimana. Between
    7.00and 7.30a.m.theyreturned in the companyof Elizaphan Ntakirutimana,who was
    drivinghisowncar.Thewitnesstestified thattwo of the persons
    in therearof the
    Accused’svehiclewere armed;he couldnot see whetherthe otherpassengershad
    weapons.He maintainedthathe madehisthreeobservations of theAccusedfroma place
    neartheESINursingSchool, andthatthe roadpassedverycloseto theschool. 378The
    availablematerialdoes not allowthe Chamberto form an opinionon the distance
    betweenWitnessKK andElizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    car,as thewitnesswasnot ableto
    usethesketch (exhibit
    P2).

    265. Submissionsof the Defenceconcerningthe credibilityof WitnessKK are


    considered
    elsewherealso.However,
    onepassage
    in thewitness’s
    writtenstatement
    is of
    relevance
    in thiscontext:

    At around
    8 a.m.I wasstandingoutsidetheESIChurch
    neartheeucalyptus
    treeswhenI
    sawObedRuzindana’scardrivinginthedirection
    ofPastorNtakirutimana’s
    house.
    I saw
    a motorcycledrivenby a gendarme armedwitha gun andI saw MikaMuhimana and
    CharlesSikubwabo in a car.The gendarmeandthevehiclewithMikaMuhimana and
    CharlesSikubwabostoppedin frontof Dr.G6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s
    houseandtheyall
    wentinside.

    AroundthirtyminuteslaterObedRuzindana
    camebackfromthedirection of Ngoma
    commune.PastorNtakirutimana
    wasin thecarwithhim.Theydroveto Dr.G6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s house.CharlesSikubwabo,Mika Muhimanaand Dr. G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    werestanding
    outside
    thehouse.
    Theyallleftintheir
    carsin thedirection
    ofGishyita.

    374
    T.3 October
    2001pp.104-105,113-115;
    T.4 October
    2001p.71;T.5 October
    2001pp.10-11,17.
    375
    T.3 October
    2001pp.104,109,115.
    376
    T.4 October
    2001p.65.
    377
    Thispartofthetestimonywouldseemtocorroborate
    thetestimony
    ofWitness
    PP.TheChambernotes,
    however,thatin Witness
    KK’swritten statementof 15 November
    1999thevehicleis described
    as
    "Ruzindana’s
    car".Thismaybea mistake
    ora meresimplification
    (also
    during
    histestimony
    heusedthat
    expression
    ononeoccasion
    eventhoughhehadexplainedthattheowner
    ofthecarwassomeone
    otherthan
    Ruzindana).
    378T.4 October
    2001pp.71-72
    ("notinthesame place"),
    77-79
    (first
    sighting
    oftwocars
    andmotorcycle,
    observedfromeucalyptus
    treeat ESI); T. 5 October
    2001pp.18-19(sighting
    including
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’
    s vehicle).

    Judgement
    andSentence 76
    ,0 21February
    2003
    ~
    Ni
    /
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    266.TheChamber agrees withtheDefence thattheseportions of thestatement


    differ
    fromthetestimony of Witness KK.379TheChamberis of theviewthatthevariation in
    timeisoflittlesignificance(8.00 instead
    of7.00-7.30a.m.),inviewofthelapseoftime
    sincetheevents.It notes thatin histestimony
    thewitness didnotmentionthevisitof
    threepersonsto G6rard Ntakirutimana’shousebeforeRuzindana allegedly
    cameto the
    housewithElizaphanNtakirutimana. TheChamberdoesnotholdthisagainst thewitness
    ashe wasnotquestionedabout thisdiscrepancy,
    butstill findsit noteworthy
    thatnowhere
    in histestimonydidhe makeanyreference to G6rardNtakirutimana’shouse.
    However,
    of someconcernin relation to thecredibility
    of thewitness is thedeclaration
    that
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana wasin Ruzindana’scarwhentheyreturned fromthetrading
    centre,
    whereasinhistestimony, thewitness
    saidclearlythattheAccusedwasdriving
    his
    owncar.

    267.TheChamber findsthatthetestimonyof Witness


    KK corroborates
    theevidence
    provided
    by otherwitnessesthatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    was conveying
    attackers.
    However,
    it willnotplacegreatweighton WitnessKK’stestimonybecause
    of doubts
    created
    by thediscrepancies
    between
    thetestimony
    andhispreviousstatement.

    Witness
    YY

    268.WitnessYY testified thatbetween7.30and 8.00a.m.on 16 April,Obed


    Ruzindana arrived at theComplex in a whiteToyotapickup. Thewitness
    wasstanding
    closeto theroad"going towardsNgomacentre whereNtakirutimana
    lives".Ruzindana
    parked hisvehicle. "Thegendarmes werecalled,
    andtheyleftwithhim. ’’38°At another
    pointin histestimony WitnessYY described
    whatwouldseemto be thesameincident,
    stating therewasalsoanother carwhichbelonged to bourgmestre
    Charles
    Sikubwabo,
    in
    whichthe witnesssaw Conseiller MikaMuhimana. The vehiclesheadedwiththe
    gendarmesto Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    house.
    381It wasabout8.00a.m.andthewitness
    wasstanding nearthehospital building,about250metres awayfromthescenehe was
    observing.38a "Whenyouare at the Mugonero Hospital, youcanclearlyseetheroad
    leaving thehospital towardsNgomacentre. Now,whentheyleftthehospital, theywent
    towards Ntakirutimana’shouse,andproofof thatisthatwhentheycameback,theywere
    in 8
    ’’3the
    3 companyof Ntakirutimana.

    269.As suggestedin thelastsentence,a shorttimeaftertheaboveincident, Witness


    YY sawa numberof personsarrive
    at theComplexin vehicles.He wasableto identify
    a
    vehiclebelongingto a "trader",
    as wellas theGishyita commune
    vehicle,thehospital
    vehicle, and Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’svehicle.384 Sikubwaboand Muhimanawere
    aboardthe communevehicle, according to the witness. Ruzindanawas aboardthe
    trader’svehicle. Thecardriven by ElizaphanNtakirutimanawasa whiteor whitish
    379
    Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.148-149.
    380
    T.2 October
    2001pp.63-64.
    381
    Z.1 October
    2001pp.134-136.
    382
    Id.p.135;
    T.2 October
    2001
    p.68.
    383
    T.2 October
    2001p.70.
    384
    T.1 October
    2001p.140.Thereference
    totheowner
    ofthevehicle
    would
    seem
    tocorroborate
    Witness
    PP’s
    testimony.

    Judgement
    andSentence 77 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Hilux.WitnessYY claimed to haveseenthreegendarmes in it."At thebackof the


    [Accused’s]
    vehicle thereweremanypeople.In fact,thatis thevehicle
    whichbrought
    backthegendarmes whohadearlier beentakenawayby Ruzindana’svehicle
    ....The
    approximatenumberof peopleat thebackof thatvehicle wasnotlessthan20."The
    witnessat thatpointwas abouttwenty metresawayfromthe Accused’s car butwas
    unable
    to determine if anyonewasridingwiththeAccused in thefrontcabin.
    385The
    Accusedwas unarmed. 386 This was the only time WitnessYY saw Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    387 on 16 April1994.

    270.The Chamberobserves thatWitness YY claimsto haveseenthe trader’s car


    drivenby ObedRuzindana,thecommunevehicle withCharlesSikubwaboat thesteering
    wheel(inthecompany of MikaMuhimana)andElizaphanNtakirutimana’scardriven
    theAccusedhimself.Theywereconveying
    attackersa shorttimeafter8 a.m.Thewitness
    claimsto havebeenapproximately
    20 metresawayfromtheAccused’scar,in whoserear
    sectionhe sawat leasttwenty persons,includingthreegendarmes.Thetestimonyis
    generally in conformitywiththe evidence providedby otherwitnesses, and the
    observation
    wasmadeata relatively
    shortdistance.

    271.TheDefencechallenged
    thecredibility
    of Witness yy,388andmadereference,in
    particular,
    tothewitness’s
    onlystatement
    toinvestigatorsof 25October
    1999,whichis
    saidto containnumerous
    discrepanciesin comparison to histestimony.
    Whilethe
    questions
    putto thewitness
    arenotreproducedin histhree-pagestatement,
    it canbe
    inferred
    thathe wasaskedto describe
    theattacks, at boththeMugoneroComplexand
    Bisesero,
    andnamepersons
    connected
    withtheattacks.

    272.Witness YY’sstatement mentionsElizaphan Ntakirutimana


    as therecipientof a
    letterwritten by the pastorsat the Complex. Gendarmesallegedly conveyedthe
    Accused’sreplyat around9.00p.m.on 15 April(asmentionedabove,at 3.8.3(b),this
    timingof thereply, whichwasalsoreflected in Witness
    YY’stestimony,deviatesfrom
    theevidence generally
    givenin thecase). Thestatementthenexplains thaton the
    morningof 16 April
    Ruzindanaarrivedin a whiteToyota
    pickup
    withsixsoldiers andsix
    civiliansandcollectedthegendarmesat theComplex.A fewminuteslater"thousandsof
    thousands"of armedattackerssurrounded theComplex."Manyattackers gatherednear
    PastorNtakirutimana’soffice."Forabout30 minutes therefugees managedto resist
    them.Thestatement continues:

    Immediately
    Ruzindana’s
    carcamefullofsoldiers
    theywereabout
    twelve
    innumber,
    all
    armedwithguns.Behind
    thatcarI sawMikaMuhimanaandSikubwabo
    Charles.
    They
    camewithtrained
    Interahamwe
    whowerehaving
    guns.OtherInterahamwe
    whowerenot
    trained
    hadmachetes
    andclubs.
    Theystarted
    opening
    fire
    atus.

    273.It is noteworthy
    thatthispartof thestatement
    doesnotcontainanyinformation
    thatElizaphanor G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    playedanyrolein connection
    withtheattack.
    385
    T.1 October
    2001
    pp.141-145;
    T.2 October
    2001
    pp.72-74.
    386
    T.3 October
    2001
    pp.74-75.
    387
    T.2 October
    2001
    pp.19-20.
    388
    Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.113-123.

    Judgement
    andSentence 78 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGSrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Thereis no reference
    to ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s
    vehicle or thehospital
    vehicle
    conveyingattackers.
    (SikubwaboandMuhimana
    arementioned,butnottheirvehicle.)
    However,
    thelastparagraph of thestatement,
    aftera longdescription
    of events
    in
    Bisesero,
    contains
    thefollowing
    declaration:

    I sawDr.G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    inallattackswhenI wasatMugonerocomplexandBisesero
    hill.I sawhimrunning
    afterrefugeesandshootingthem.Also,I sawPastorElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    onseveral
    occasions.
    Hewasarmed witha gun.AllthetimeI sawhimhewas
    transporting
    killers
    inhiscar.I alsosawhimwhensupervising
    Interahamwe
    totakeoffthe
    ironsheetsofMurambi
    Adventist
    Church.Thechurchwasusedbyrefugeesto takeshelter
    during
    thenight.
    Whilehiding
    onBiseserohillsI sawdeadbodies
    without
    hands.

    274.Thispassage seemsto indicatethatat theendof theinterview WitnessYY was


    specifically askedaboutthe two Accused. He statedthathe had seenElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    "onseveraloccasions",
    andthat"allthetime"thewitness sawhimhe was
    "transporting
    killers".
    Thedeclarations
    areverygeneralandmayinclude
    theattack at the
    MugoneroComplex. The Chambernotesin thisconnectionthatthereference in the
    passage
    to G6rard Ntakirutimana
    includestheMugoneroattack.Consequently,
    evenif it
    is somewhatremarkable thatthe eventstestifiedaboutarenot summarized in the
    statement,theChamber findsthatthislackof detail doesnotin itself reducethe
    reliability
    ofhisoraltestimony.

    275.In thiscontext the Chamber makesa moregeneral observation. As mentioned


    above, theDefencesubmits thatthetwoAccused weresubject to a "political campaign"
    whichstartedin connectionwiththevideo recordedin 1995(seegenerally II.7). Witness
    YY is saidto haveleda "second waveof politicallymotivated witnesses". TheChamber
    notesthatWitness YY’sstatement of 25 October1999wasdrawnup aboutfouranda
    halfyearsafterthevideo. Thisdoesnotsupport theDefence theory of an organized
    campaign.Secondly,if thewitness’s intentionwasto incriminate Elizaphan andG6rard
    Ntakirutimanait couldbe expectedthathe wouldhaveemphasized, if notembellished,
    theircentral rolein his statement. However,as observed above,Witness YY only
    mentionstheAccused in passingandat theendof thestatement, possibly afterhaving
    beenaskedspecific questionsaboutthem.Thirdly, it is truethatWitnesses DD,KK and
    VV namedWitness YY as theircontact person,whereas Witness YY designated Witness
    KK forthatpurpose. However,at thetimehe gavehisstatement Witness YY heldpublic
    office at thelocalleveland,consequently, waseasyto contact. Finally, theChamber
    notes thatthereis no evidenceto supporttheDefence contentionthatWitness YY comes
    fromtheranksoftheRPAandhasfabricated evidencewithanyRPFagents.

    276.TheChamber findsthatthetestimony
    of WitnessYY supports
    theallegation
    that
    ElizaphanNtakirutimanatransported
    attackers on 16 April1994to the Mugonero
    Complexin the companyof ObedRuzindanaand CharlesSikubwabo.Otherpartsof
    WitnessYY’stestimony relating
    to Mugonerowillbe assessedelsewhere(see,for
    instance
    3.10.3).

    Witness
    SS

    Judgement
    andSentence 79 /L/y 21February
    2003
    / |
    274eo
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    277.WitnessSS saw Elizaphan


    Ntakirutimanathreetimeson 16 April1994priorto
    theattack.
    On thefirstoccasion,
    sometimeafter
    6.00a.m.,theAccused
    camealoneto the
    Complexin his vehicleand collectedtwo gendarmesfromthe parkinglot of the
    MugoneroComplex:"He did not spenda longtime.He tookthe gendarmesand they
    left.
    ’’389
    WitnessSSwasstandingclose
    to thehospital
    parking
    lot.
    39°Theyleftalongthe
    roadtoGishyita.
    39x

    278.Thewitness saw ElizaphanNtakirutimana forthesecond timelessthanan hour


    anda halflater,whentheAccused returned
    withthetwogendarmes.392On thisoccasion,
    fromhisposition belowthehospital laboratory,WitnessSS sawtheAccused stopand
    speak"fora while" withNkuranganearthehospital carpark,afterwhichhe sawthe
    Accusedgetintohisvehicle andleave.LaterNkurangatoldthewitnessthattheAccused
    hadsaid"thatweweregoingto be killed on thatday".Pressedformoredetail on what
    was said,Witness SS responded:"Wedid not needtoomanydetails because it had
    alreadybeenrumouredthatwe weregoingto be killed
    on thatday...Allhetoldus was
    thedecisionto killus hadbeenreached." WitnessSS addedthat"allthepeople who
    spoketo thegendarmesupontheirreturnlearned fromthegendarmes
    thata decision had
    beenreached:
    Thedecisiontokillusonthatday.
    ’’393

    279.WitnessSS sawElizaphan
    Ntakirutimanaforthethirdtime"lessthanonehour"
    afterseeinghimwithNkuranga.Thewitness wasat thefieldofficewhenhe sawthe
    Accusedpassin a car,aboutsix metresaway.He was accompanied by "Mathias"
    Gakwerere,
    a Hutupastor,
    whomhe had"justpickedup...fromhishomeneartheparent
    church".
    394In latertestimony,
    WitnessSS explained
    thisassumption:
    "I sawthemcome
    together
    fromthatdirection,
    andI thoughtthattheywerecomingfromhishousetogether
    becauseI sawthemtogether
    in thevehicle.
    ’’395He saidthatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    drovein hiscarwith"Mathias"
    in thedirection
    of Esapan
    Secondary
    School.Hethought
    theyweregoingto Esapanforsafety becauseon themorning
    of 16 April1994he had
    heardreportsthatallHutupastorsresidingin thevicinity
    hadsought refuge
    at the
    396
    school.

    280.As willbe discussedelsewhere


    (3.12.3,4.10.3,
    4.16.3),theChamberconsiders
    WitnessSS to be a crediblewitness.It observes
    thathe did not see Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    conveyattackers,
    butnotesthathisversion
    of theevents
    contradictsthe
    testimony
    of ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    thatimmediately
    afterreturning
    fromGishyita he
    wrote
    theresponseto therefugees,
    returned
    tohishouse
    andheadedforGishyitawithhis
    family
    andfriends.

    389T.30 October
    2001pp.82-83,
    88;T.31 October2001pp.95-96.
    390Id.p.136.
    391T.30 October
    2001p.89;T.31October2001p.95.
    392W.30Oct.200Ip.89;T.31Oct.2001p.96.
    393T. 30October
    2001pp.90-93;
    T.31October2001p. 98.
    394 T.30October2001pp.95-100;
    T.31October2001p.101.
    395T. 31October2001p.101.
    396T.30 October2001pp.97-103;
    T.31 October
    2001p.103.

    8O 21 February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    gT q
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Concluding
    Observations
    aboutthe Witnesses"
    Testimonies
    Concerning
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana

    281.The ChamberobservesthatsevenProsecution witnesses(MM,GG, PP, HH, KK,


    YY,andSS)testifiedthattheysawElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    driving
    hiscarwithin the
    areaof the MugoneroComplexon the morningof 16 April1994,albeitat various
    locationsandtimes.Sixof thesewitnesses (allexcept SS)allegedlyobservedhim
    transporting
    attackers.
    Fiveoutof sevenProsecution
    witnessestestified
    thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wasdrivinghiswhiteor whitish ToyotaHiluxpickupin themorningof
    theattack.Of theremainingtwowitnesses,WitnessGG statedthatit waswhitewith
    shining
    colouredstripes,
    whereasWitness
    MM testified
    thatitwasbeechcoloured.
    397As
    explained
    above,theChamberdoesnotconsiderthesedifferences,
    takentogether,
    to be
    significant.

    282.The six witnesses allegedly saw ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s car withother


    vehicles.Fiveof the witnesses (GG,PP, HH, KK, YY) saw the car Ruzindana was
    driving
    (threeofthemsaidthatthecarbelonged tothetrader).
    Fourofthemobserved the
    communalvehicle(PP,HH, KK,YY).Twoof themalsosawthe hospital vehicle (see
    below).
    Thewitnesses gavesimilar,
    butnotidentical accounts
    abouttheattackers that
    werein therearof ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s
    vehicle.WitnessMM mentionedfour-five
    gendarmes withuniformand red berets;WitnessHH observed between15 and 20
    personsincluding
    gendarmesandciviliansin militaryclothing;
    Witness GG referredto
    Interahamwe,somein militaryuniforms withred berets,otherswithout uniforms;
    WitnessKK was ableto identifytwo gendarmes,twoarmedcivilians and two other
    persons;andWitnessYY claimed
    to haveseennotfewerthan20 persons includingthree
    gendarmes.WitnessPP didnot particularizetheattackers, buthe saw theAccused
    standing
    nexttohisownvehicleafteritwasparkedveryclose
    tohisoffice.

    283.Whiletherearesomevariations amongthewitnesses,theChamber findsthatthey


    corroborate
    oneanother in materialrespects.Thedifferencesmaybe explainedby the
    passage
    of time,observationsmadeat differentstagesof thetransport,anddiffering
    personal
    knowledgeof theattackers (withtheexceptionof theleaders, twowitnesses
    wereableto identifynamedindividuals or previousfriends).Thewitnesseswerenot
    observingfroma common vantagepointor time.TheChamber thereforeconcludesthat
    thereis considerableevidencein support of theProsecution’scasethatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    conveyed attackersto theMugonero Complexon themorningof 16 April
    1994.

    284.The ChamberalsonotesthatWitnessSS saw Elizaphan Ntakirutimana


    on 16
    April1994at Mugonero
    in hisvehicle
    in thecompanyof twogendarmes
    andconversing
    withJeanNkuranganearthecarparkat a timewhenrefugeeshadgatheredbecauseof
    therumourthatimpending
    killings
    onthatdaywasrife.Seenin thecontext
    of themany
    personsthatwerekilled, including
    Nkuranga,
    the evidenceof Witness
    SS provides
    corroboration
    ofElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    activities.

    397T.19September
    2001
    p.85(Witness
    MM);T.20September
    2001pp.138-141
    (Witness
    GG).
    t~

    Judgement
    andSentence 81 )~ 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    285.TheChamberdoesnotfindsufficientevidence
    thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    was
    wearing
    a gunat thetimewhenthevehicles transported
    attackers.
    OnlyWitnessPP
    testified
    aboutthis,andhisobservation
    wasmadefroma considerable
    distance.
    The
    Chamber
    willmakeitsfinding
    as to whether
    theAccused
    conveyed
    attackers
    afterhaving
    considered
    hisalibi
    forthis
    period(see3.8.3
    (e)below).

    Did G~rardNtakirutimana
    Conveyattackers?

    286.SixwitnessesallegedthattheysawG6rard Ntakirutimana
    at theComplexon the
    morning
    of 16 April1994priorto or duringthecommencement
    of theattack.Witness
    HH testified
    thathe saw G6rardNtakirutimana cometo the Complexthatmorning
    conveying
    attackers
    in hiswhitePeugeotpickup.
    398As mentioned
    under3.8.3(c)above,
    theChamber
    isnotconvincedthathisobservation
    is accurate.
    No otherwitness
    testified
    to seeing
    399 G6rardNtakirutimana
    drivehisPeugeotto theComplex.

    287.WitnessKK testifiedthatat around8.30a.m.on 16 April,fromhispositionnear


    theESINursing Schoolhe sawa groupof carscoming towardstheComplex.Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    vehiclewasin front;
    it wasfollowed
    by thehospitalvehicle,drivenby
    G6rardNtakirutimana, and two trucksbelongingto the COLASroad-construction
    company.4oo
    The vehicledrivenby G6rardNtakirutimana was transportingarmed
    Interahamwe
    andsoldiers.4°1Thewitness explained
    thelackof anymention in hisprior
    statementof 2 April1996of G6rardNtakirutimana
    driving a caron themorningof 16
    April,sayingthattheinvestigatorsdidnotaskhima question onthatpoint.
    4°2As the
    Chambernotedearlier, thedistancebetweenthewitness andthegroupof carswhenhe
    madehisobservation of G6rard Ntakirutimana
    is unclear.Thesefactorscreate some
    doubtandtheChamber willnotplacegreatreliance on WitnessKK’stestimony
    on this
    point(seeabove).

    288.Witness PP testified thathe firstsawG6rardNtakirutimana on 16 Aprilwith


    ElizaphanNtakirutimana, whowasstandingby hisvehicle,200or 300metres awayfrom
    ¯, 403
    thewlmess. "ThePastorandhisson,G6rard,camein thesamecar,in thePastor’s car,
    becauseonthatday,I didnotseetheDoctor’scarandevenifitcame, hemusthaveleftit
    somewhereelse,butI didnotsee it".4°4 Thisdeclaration indicatesthatthewitness
    seemedto draw an inferencefrom his observation of Elizaphanand G6rard
    Ntakirutimana concerning
    thewayin whichthelatter arrived.
    Thiscreatesdoubtsas to
    whether Witness PP actuallysawG6rardNtakirutimana
    in a vehicle
    and,consequently,
    whether he wasconveying attackers.
    TheChamber notesthatno otherwitnesstestified
    thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    arrived
    in hisfather’s
    car.

    398
    T.25September
    2001
    p.129.
    399
    T.26September
    2001
    pp.102,
    111.
    4oo
    T 3 October
    2001
    pp.104-105,
    113,
    115;
    T.4 October
    2001
    p.71;T.5 October
    2001
    pp.10-11,
    17.
    401T.3 October2001pp. 104,109,115.
    402T. 4 October
    2001p. 80.
    4o3T.8 October2001p. 27.
    4o4Id.p.123.

    82 21February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    l~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    289.TheremainingthreewitnessesdidnotclaimthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    conveyed
    attackers.
    WitnessYY testified
    thathe sawG6rard Ntakirutimana
    at theComplex"right
    fromthebeginning;I sawhimwhenthe attackers arrived.
    He wasamongst thosewho
    participated
    in theattack. He was armedwitha gunand he wouldshootat us."The
    witness
    confirmed
    thathe sawtheAccused "assoonas thevehicles
    reachedthelocation
    andassoonas theystarted
    to shootat people".
    He didnotknowin whichvehicle
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    4°5 hadarrived.

    290.Anotherwitness,DD, testified thatan attackon refugees at the Complex


    commencedearlyin the morningof 16 April.Amongthe assailants the witness
    .... un 406
    recognized
    G6rardNtaklrutlmana,armedwitha bigg . The witness was positioned
    close
    tothehospital.
    4°7Laterinhistestimony, whenhewasaskedabout
    thefirst timehe
    hadseenG6rard
    4°8 Ntakirutimana
    on16 April, thewitnessdidnotmention
    thisincident.

    291.Finally,WitnessGG claimedto haveseenG6rardNtakirutimana twiceon 16


    April.
    On thefirstoccasion
    theAccusedwaswithMathiasNgirinshuti
    andEnosKagaba:
    "They
    wereplacing
    theattackers
    in sucha waythattheysurrounded
    thehospital.
    ’’4°9The
    witness
    didnotsupplyfurther
    detailsor mention
    a vehicle
    in thisconnection
    (Forthe
    second
    occasion,
    see3.11.3).

    292.The Chamberfindsthat of the six witnesseswho allegedlysaw G6rard


    Ntakirutimanapriorto or during
    thecommencementof theattack
    onlythree, Witnesses
    HH, KK and PP, claimedthathe arrived in a vehicle.Thesewitnessesgavethree
    different
    versionsof howhe arrived
    (inhisowncar,inhisfather’scar,in thehospital
    car),andtherearesomedoubts relating
    to twoof theseobservations.
    Theevidencedoes
    notprovide a sufficiently
    detailed
    or coherent
    pictureto conclude
    beyonda reasonable
    doubtthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    conveyedattackersto theComplex
    on themorning of
    16April1994.

    (e)AlibifortheMorning
    of 16 April(8.00to 9.00a.m.)

    293.TheChamberhasconsideredanddismissedG6rardNtakirutimana’s
    alibiforthe
    early
    morning
    of16April,thatis,theperiod
    6.30to7.30a.m.,approximately
    (seeII.3.7).
    Thenextalibiperiod,
    whichconcerns
    bothAccused,
    is between
    8.00and9.00a.m.of the
    sameday,whenProsecution witnesses
    placethe Accusedat theComplex,conveying
    attackers
    (inthecaseof Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana)
    or beingpresent
    amongattackers
    (in
    thecaseofG6rardNtakirutimana).

    294.It follows
    fromcaselawthatwhentheDefencerelies
    on alibi,theProsecution
    mustprove,beyond
    a reasonable
    doubt,
    thattheaccused
    waspresent andcommitted
    the
    crimes
    forwhichheis charged
    andtherebydiscredit
    thealibi.
    If thealibiis reasonably

    405T. 2 October2001 p. 21.


    406
    T. 23 October2001 pp. 79-83.
    407Id. p. 93; T. 24 October2001 pp. 32-33.
    408T. 24 October2001 p. 32.
    409T. 24 September2001 p. 125.

    Judgement and Sentence 83 21 February 2003


    "I,736
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    possibly
    true,it mustbe successful.
    SevenDefence
    witnesses
    gavetestimony
    relevant
    to
    thealibi
    period
    inquestion.Theyincluded
    thetwoAccused,
    whotestified
    last.

    295.Witness 16 wasElizaphan Ntakirutimana’s


    housekeeper.The witness testified
    thataround7.00a.m.on 16 Aprilhe was summoned by Elizaphan Ntakirutimana: "I
    wentto theliving roomandhetoldme:takethismattress andthisbag,which contained
    clothing,andhe askedme to putthemin a vehicle",
    namelya Hiluxwhichwasparked at
    itsusuallocation insidethecompound.Thewitnessproceededto puttheitemsin the
    backof thecar."After that,theycameoutand[ElizaphanNtakirutimana]toldme to stay
    at homeand informed me thattheyweregoingto thecommune office", in Gishyita.
    Witness 16 opened the gatesof thecompoundandElizaphan Ntakirutimana droveoff
    withhiswifeon theseatbeside him.Itwasa fewminutes after7.00a.m.,according to
    thewitness.41°411
    He didnotseeG6rard Ntakirutimana
    onthemorning of 16 April.

    296.The timegivenby Witness 16 for the departureof theAccusedand his wife


    cannotbe accepted.
    Thereis no disputethatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    firstwentto
    Gishyita
    (without
    hiswife)earlyinthemorning of16 April
    (seeabove).
    According
    to
    Accused’s
    ownaccount,
    he didnotreturn to Mugonerofromthatfirsttripuntilaround
    7.30a.m.

    297.Witness 9 testified thaton 16 April,at 7.00a.m.,he arrived at Elizaphan


    Ntakirutimana’s houseto takethe Accused’s cattle. "Whenwe arrived we didn’t
    immediatelytakethecows.We greeted thosewhowerethere. We tarriedaround fora
    while".Thewitness claimed
    thathe leftthecompound at7.30a.m.In thecourse of that
    halfhour,Witness 9, whowasaccompaniedby hisfather, conversedwithWitness 16;he
    testified
    thathesawnooneelseat thecompound. Whenit waspointed outtothewitness
    thata summaryofa statementhe hadgivento Defence
    investigatorsindicatedthathe had
    seenElizaphan Ntakirutimanaat his houseon the morning of 16 April,Witness 9
    explainedthata longtimehadpassed andhismemory hadfailed him.He thengavethis
    account:"Onthe16th,theSabbath day,as I explained
    to theinvestigators andas I am
    goingto repeatto you...I met[ElizaphanNtakirutimana]in thecompanyof hiswifein
    themorning.""I greetedthem....Theyweregetting readyto board thevehicle." Except
    forgreetings, no otherwordswereexchanged betweenthewitness andtheAccused. The
    witness
    412 departedwiththeherd,leavinghisfatherbehindwiththeAccused.

    298.Witness9’s evidence
    on thispoint, evenif it wereto be accepted,
    doesnot
    establish
    thetimeat which
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    finallylefthisresidence
    withhis
    wifeto makethejourneyto Gishyita.
    Therefore
    thiswitnessdoesnotprovide either
    Accused
    withanalibiforthe8.00-9.00
    a.m.period.

    41oT. 13February
    2002pp.144,147-150;
    T.14February
    2002pp.21-22,
    25-29.
    411T.14February
    2002pp.20,53-54.
    412T.30April2002pp.82-91,
    93.
    f0

    Judgement
    andSentence 84 21 February
    2003
    ~~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    299.Witness 4 testifiedthaton 16 April, "betweenfiveand eighto’clock in the


    morning
    ’’413, he,hisfamily,andseveralothers,including
    hospital
    employees - in total,
    between
    4a4 20 and30 personsboarded twovehiclesandsetoutforGishyita township.
    Later,thewitness said:"I do notrecallthe time.In anyevent, we leftbefore 8
    o’clock.
    ’’415Thewitnessboarded"thehospitalvehicle",
    a whiteToyotaStout.416It was
    417G6rard Ntakirutimanadrovethis
    parkedin frontof Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    house.
    vehicleto Gishyita.
    41sThesecond vehicle,
    whichwascloseby,belonged to Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana.
    419Accordingto thewitness,
    it tookthetwovehicles 20 to 30minutes to
    reachGishyita.Therethegroup,including
    thetwoAccused, tookshelterin a large empty
    building, about50 metres’ distancefromtheGishyita bureaucommunal. Witness 4
    testified
    42o thatneitherAccused
    leftthevicinity
    ofthatbuildingon16April 1994.

    300.Takenat facevalue,andwithout referenceto the testimonyof otherDefence


    witnesses,
    Witness4’stestimonymayofferbothAccusedan alibiforthe8.00-9.00a.m.
    period.
    However,Witness4 wasremarkablyuncertain
    aboutthetimethetwovehicles
    departed
    for Gishyita,
    saying onlythattheywereboarded sometimein a three-hour
    period,
    between5.00and8.00a.m.,andthatactual departurewasbefore 8.00a.m.The
    Chamber
    doesnotfindit plausible thatWitness4 should be so uncertainaboutthe
    boarding
    timeyetsocertainabouttheupper
    limitof thedeparture
    time.

    301.Witness32 testified that"onthe16th,whenI gotup ...my fathercameandtold


    me thatwe hadto go to Gishyita
    ....He toldus thatpeoplehadinformedhimthatthe
    hospitalwasgoingto be attacked".Thewitnessleftthehousein whichhe wasstaying
    (nextdoortothatofElizaphan Ntakirutimana)
    at 7.00a.m.,
    andwithhisbrother went
    footto Gishyita,wheretheyarrived at 8.00a.m.Othermembers of hisfamily joined
    themlater.
    421Witness 32testified
    thatat9.30a.m."IsawthevehiclebelongingtoPastor
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana andthehospitalvehiclein whichhissonwas.Andtheycame
    withotherpeople,
    someoftheminthefront partofthevehicle
    andothersintherear.
    ’’422
    Theseotherpeople included ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s
    wifeandWitness 4.423 "I was
    standingat theGishyita centre,
    andwhenI sawthevehicles go towardsthecommunal
    office,
    ’’424 myolderbrotherandI wenttoseewheretheywere.

    302.It followsfromthe evidence


    in the casethatin April1994the drivefrom
    Mugonero
    to Gishyita
    took30 minutes,
    at most,to complete.
    Therefore,
    Witness32’s

    413T. 7 February2002p.73.Thewitness answeredasfollows: "WhenI sayitwasinthemorning,


    I mean
    as fromseven...between fiveinthemorning andseven."Q: Betweenfiveandsevenin themorning?"
    A:
    "Tobemoreprecise, let’ssayitwasbetweenfiveandeighto’clockinthemorning."
    4t4Id.pp.61,63-66, 68-69,
    169-172.
    415Id.p.159.
    416Z.7 February
    2002pp.66,175;T.11February 2002pp.27-28.
    417T.7 February2002pp.67,163-164;T. 11February2002pp.10-11, 21-22.
    418Z.7 February
    2002p.72.
    419Id.pp.69,72;T.8 February 2002pp.10-12;T.11February 2002pp.11-12.
    420T. 7 February
    2002pp.83-84,86-87;T. 8 February
    2002pp.17-23.
    421T.16April 2002pp.115-117;T.17April2002pp.44,54-55.
    422T.16April 2002p.118.
    423Id.pp.118-119; Defence
    exhibit
    2D28(namesof persons
    onboardvehicles toGishyita).
    424T.16April 2002p.128.

    85 21 February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    testimony
    doesnotprovide
    theAccused
    withanalibi
    fortherelevant
    period.
    Moreover,
    it
    undermines
    Witness
    4’sassertion
    thatthetwovehicles
    leftMugoneroforGishyita
    before
    8.00a.m.anddoesnotaccord
    withWitness
    16’saccount
    ofa 7.00a.m.departure.

    303.Royisi Nyirahakizimana,
    wifeof Elizaphan Ntakirutimana,testifiedthatwhenher
    husbandreturned homefromGishyita in themorning of 16 Aprilhe informed herthat
    theywereleaving Mugoneroandinstructed herto pack. 425Thereasonfortheirleaving
    wasthat"wewereaware thatthesituation wasnotgood", lateradding
    thatit wasbecause
    thegendarmeshadsaidthattheycould no longer provideprotection,
    426According to the
    witness,
    427 thegendarmes informedElizaphan Ntakirutimana of thisaround 8.00a.m.
    The witnesspackedcookingimplements and mattresses, whichtheirhousekeeper
    (Witness16)loaded intotherearpartof Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    Hilux, whichwas
    parkedin thecompound. (Itis notclearif thepacking tookplacebefore or afterthe
    gendarmesspokewiththeAccused.) Whentheloading hadbeencompleted, herhusband
    "tookthevehicle outof thecompound andstopped furtherabovebecause he wanted to
    provideme withspaceto be ableto climbintothevehicle." ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    thenpulledup infrontof thehospital vehicle, whichwasparkedfurtherdowntheroad.
    Otherpersons begantoboardthetwocarsat thisstage. Approximately
    eightpeople got
    intothebackof their
    428 car;shecould notrecall howmanyboarded thehospital vehicle.
    ThecarsallegedlyleftforGishyitaat8.00a.m., althoughthewitness
    specifiedthat"itis
    [only]on ourwaythatwe tooktheposition to go to Gishyita".
    Shesawmanypeople by
    theroadside alongtheway."Afterhaving gonesomedistance towardsthemainroad...
    we hadstones thrownat us".Thedriveto Gishyita tookhalfan hour.At 9.30a.m."we
    wentintoa building whichwasusedas a reception roomwhentherewerevisitors", and
    whichwas located "sixmetres" awayfromthe bureaucommunal.429 "Wewerethere
    waiting. We couldnot haveimmediate accessto the building becausewe had not
    preparedthat."Thegroupentered thebuilding whenwatchmen openedit upforthem.
    43°

    304.The Chamber notesthatRoyisiNyirahakizimana changedheraccount of events


    fromonedayof testimony to thenext,
    firstallegingthatherhusbandinformedher,as
    soonas he returnedfromhisfirsttripto Gishyita,thattheywereleaving
    Mugoneroand
    instructed her to pack,thenalleging thatgendarmescame,around8.00a.m.,and
    informedherhusband thattheycouldno longerprovide
    protectionandthattheyshould
    leave.It alsonotesthatherevidenceof a 8.00a.m.departure
    contradicts
    the7.00a.m.
    departurementioned by herhousekeeper,
    Witness16,as wellas theaccountof Witness
    9. Moreover,hertestimony thatboththedecision andthedeparturetookplacearound
    8.00a.m.doesnotallowfortheintervening timewhenshesaidthatobjectswerepacked
    andloaded intothecarandpassengerspickedup.

    305.G6rardNtakirutimana
    testified
    that"a few minutes"
    afterhe andhis father
    returned
    fromtheirtripto Gishyita
    (a contention
    already
    rejected
    by theChamber)
    425
    T.10April2002p.38;T.11April2002p.15.
    426
    T.10April2002p.38,164;T.11April2002pp.20-22.
    427
    T.11April2002p.26.
    428
    Y.10April2002pp.39-40,
    44-45.
    429
    Id.pp.48-52,
    55-56,
    T.11April2002p.7.
    43o
    T.10April2002p.166;T.11April2002p.10.

    Judgement
    andSentence 86 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    "someoneknocked at thedoor...AndwhatI sawwasa gendarme. In fact,it wasthe


    othergendarmewhohadbrought thethreegendarmesthatwe sawon the10th...he told
    me,’Youhavetoleave, youhaveto leaveimmediately.’...Hesaid,’Yes, yes,youleave
    rightaway.’He didn’teventelluswherewe should be going ....So, fightaway,I went
    backintomy father’s compound andI saidto my father thattherewasa gendarme who
    wassayingthatwemustleave. So it’satthatpointin timethatwe began to puttogether
    thefewbelongings we hadin orderto leave." Thegendarme didnotexplain whythey
    hadto leaveat shortnotice, andtheAccused did notaskfor an explanation. The
    Accused’sparents loaded someitemsontoElizaphan Ntakirutimana’svehicle,thenthe
    latter"drovefromthecompound, andwhatI didwasto takethehospital vehiclewhich
    wasparked outside,opposite a building
    whichwasquitecloseby ourplace.... There
    werepeople whoweretherewhohadsought refuge withneighbours ....So whenthey
    sawus comeout,theyweresurprised, andtheysaid,’Canwe leavetogether withyou?’,
    andwe said,’Well, if youcanfindroom,whynot?Justgeton andlet’sgo.’"It was
    around8.00a.m. 431"Atthejunction on theroadfromKabahinyuza centre andtheroad
    goingto thehospital ... there
    . weremanypeople,. many
    ,,~oung
    m 32 refugee men,and they
    startedto throwstones [and]bitsof woodon ourvehMes.

    306.The Chamberobserves thatG6rardNtakirutimana’s accountof beingat his


    father’s
    housewassupported by his fatherbutnotby hismother. No otherwitness
    observed
    himat thehouseon thatmorning. Witnesses
    4 and32 saidthathe wasdriving
    thevehicleon itswayto Gishyita.Moreover,whereas
    G6rard Ntakirutimana’s
    evidence
    wasthatthegendarmesspokewithhim,hismother testified
    thattheyinformedElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana.
    TheChamber observesalsothatshesaidthatthegendarmes informedher
    husband
    "around 8.00a.m.",whereasG6rardNtakirutimana
    testifiedthathe spokewith
    thegendarmes
    "a fewminutes"
    afterheandhisfatherreturnedfromtheir
    triptoGishyita.

    307.Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    testifiedthatfiveminutes or so afterhe andhisson
    returnedfromGishyita,G6rardNtakirutimanainformedhisparents thata gendarmeat
    thedoorhadsaid:"[G]oawayfromhere.Leavethisplaceimmediately". Thegendarme
    hadnotgiven a reason
    forhisinstruction.Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    asked hiswifeto load
    someessentialsintothecar,whichshedidwithWitness 16’sassistance,andtheyleft.
    Abouteightotherpeople cameaboardthevehicle outsideof thecompound.Hissonwas
    in thehospitalcar,following
    behind."I wenton theroadtowardsGishyita.I passedby
    thebureau communal
    ....Therewasanother building
    nextdoor,andI parked my vehicle
    betweenthetwobuildings.
    ’’433
    Itwasbetween 8.30and9.30a.m.Authorizationto stayat
    a buildingbelongingto thecommunewasnotobtained fromthecommunal authorities;
    rather,
    434 a "messenger"
    camebyandsaidtheycould place their
    belongingsthere.

    308.TheChamberobservesthatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wasnotclearas to thetime
    ofhisfinal
    departure
    forGishyita.
    Hetestified
    thatthegroup
    arrived
    inGishyita
    between
    8.30and9.30a.m.,which
    doesnotexclude
    thepossibility
    thatthegroup
    departedNgoma

    431
    T. 9 May2002pp.99-102.
    432
    Id.p.104;T. 10May2002pp.48-50.
    433
    T. 6 May2002pp.73,169-176.
    434
    T. 7 May2002pp.5,10.

    Judgement
    andSentence 87 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    aslateas9.00a.m.TheChamberisthusleftwithsixtestimonies
    onwhichto findthatan
    alibihas beenmadeout:Defence Witness 4’s dubiously
    confidentassertion that
    departure
    wasbefore 8.00a.m.;Witness32’sclaimthathe sawthe grouparrive in
    Gishyitaat 9.30a.m.;Witness16’s accountof a departure at 7.00;G6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s
    evidenceof a departure
    around8.00a.m.;Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    wife’s
    allegation
    thatthegroupleftNgomaat 8.00a.m.butwasnotadmitted intothe
    building
    before9.30a.m.;and ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s
    testimony
    thatarrival in
    Gishyita
    wasbetween8.30and9.30a.m.

    309.The Chamberdoesnot findthatthisevidence,considered


    togetherwiththe
    evidence
    of Prosecution
    witnesses,
    raises
    a reasonable
    possibility
    thatthetwoAccused
    werenotpresentin thevicinity
    of theMugonero
    Complex
    between
    8.00and9.00a.m.on
    16April.

    310.Havingthusconcluded,
    withreference
    to paras.
    283-285
    in 3.8.3(c)above,the
    ChamberfindsthatElizaphanNtakirutimanaconveyed
    attackersto the Mugonero
    Complex
    on themorningof16April1994.

    3.9 GeneralDescription
    of the Attack

    4.8Theindividuals
    in theconvoy,
    including
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    & Charles
    Sikubwabo,
    participated
    inan attack
    onthemen,women
    and
    children
    intheMugonero
    Complex,
    which
    continued
    throughout
    the day.
    435

    4.9Theattack
    resulted
    inhundreds
    ofdeaths
    anda large
    number
    ofwounded
    among
    the
    men,women
    andchildren
    whohadsought
    refuge
    atthe Complex.
    436

    3.9.1Prosecution

    311.The Prosecution
    submitted
    thatthe"interim government"
    formedfollowing
    the
    death
    of thePresident
    of Rwanda
    on 6 April1994adopted
    a policy
    whichcalled
    uponthe
    country’s
    Hummajority
    ethnicgroupto murdereveryone
    in theTutsiminority.
    Themass
    killings
    throughout
    Rwandafollowed.

    312.In supportof its casethata genocide ("a singlegenocide") aimedat the


    extermination
    of theTutsipopulationwascommitted in Rwanda
    betweenAprilandJune
    1994,the Prosecutioncitesthe Akayesu Judgement’sfindingto thateffect. The
    Prosecution
    alsorelieson Akayesuforitsargument thatthegenocidewasmeticulously
    organized
    andthattheTutsiweretargeted because
    theywereTutsiandnotbecause they
    werefightersfortheRwandan PatrioticFront(RPF).TheProsecutionaccepts
    theview
    expressed
    in theKayishemaandRuzindanaJudgementthatwhilea planis notan element
    ofgenocide,
    itis"noteasy"tocarry outa genocide
    withouta plan.
    R further
    relies
    onthat
    Judgement
    fortheviewthat, given
    themagnitudeof theunderlying
    crimes,
    itisvirtually

    435Para.4.8oftheBisesero
    Indictment
    makes
    noreference
    toCharles
    Sikubwabo
    andadds
    thewords
    "and
    intothenight"
    attheendofthesentence.
    436TheBisesero
    Indictment
    isvirtually
    identical.
    ~
    Judgement
    andSentence 88 21February
    2003
    ~
    73t
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    impossible
    forgenocide
    to be committed
    without
    someinvolvement
    on thepartof the
    state.

    313.TheProsecution submitsthatthe attack at the MugoneroComplexwas partof a


    pattern
    of attacksbeingexecutedin otherlocations
    in Kibuyeat around16 April1994,
    suchas at MubugaChurch,HomeSt.Jean,and Gatwaro Stadium.Refugeesarriving at
    thoselocationsfoundgendarmespresent. Thegendarmes controlledthecongregation,
    maintainedlawand order,and,in somecases,prevented refugees fromleaving by
    warning
    ofpossibleattacksoutsidethosesupposedly
    safelocations.Utility
    supplieswere
    oftendisconnected priorto the attacks. The massacres werecarried out by law
    enforcementagents,includinggendarmesandcommunal policemen.Theywerejoined by
    Hutumilitiaknownas Interahamwe.
    Moreimportantly, according
    to theProsecution,the
    attacks
    wereperpetratedunderthewatchful eyeof localauthoritiesandprominentHutu
    ¯ ¯ 437
    civilians,
    whoparticipated
    toa greater
    orlesserextent.

    314.TheProsecution’scaseis thatGrrardandElizaphan Ntakirutimana


    wereneeded
    at Mugonero
    to keeptherefugeesthere.
    Theirpresence at Mugonero
    madetherefugees
    feelsecure.
    As wasthecaseelsewherein Kibuye,certain
    individuals
    whowerelocally
    powerful
    masterminded,
    supervised,
    andencouraged thecommission
    of attacks
    in their
    localities.
    ThusAlfred MusemadealtwithGisovu; ClementKayishema
    "tookcareof"
    Gitesicommune,and CharlesSikubwabo "" It
    aea with"Gishyita,whichwas alsothe
    Accused’s
    hometerritory.TheAccused
    hadto "takecare"of Mugonero,
    according
    to the
    438
    plan.

    315.As to thenumberof people


    killedon 16 April, theProsecution reliesprimarily on
    WitnessQQ.He testified thatin March1995,whenhe returned to Mugonero, he saw
    massesof bodiesthinlycoveredwithsoil,remains of bodiesscatteredin dormitories,
    classrooms,toilets,
    andon thelawnsof theComplex. Therewerealsomassgraves. The
    witness
    participated
    in theburialofthebodies lyingaboutandin thereburial of bodies
    exhumedfromthemassgraves. He believedthatallthebodies belongedto Tutsi, as it
    washisviewthatonlyTutsi weretargetedin 1994. Thewitnesstestifiedthattheremains
    wereputin fortycoffins measuringaboutthreemetres longandonemetrewide.He
    estimatedthatbetween7,000and8,000 bodies werereburied.TheProsecution notes that
    whenaskedto explainhowhe arrivedat thosefigures, WitnessQQ said:"ifyouwereto
    lookatthesizeofthecoffin, andduringtheburial atleast10people wouldlifta coffin.
    AndI would saytherewouldbe 150skeletons in eachcoffin.So if youtake150andyou
    multiplyby 45 youseeyoucometo ...6,650... Buttherewereotherbodies ...which
    werefoundin the graveswhichwerenot ... exhumed. Therefore, one can makean
    estimate
    439 ofbetween6,000to 7,000,
    givenmycalculations".

    437
    T. 21August2002pp.5-14.
    438
    T. 22 August
    2002pp.125-126.
    439
    Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    290-297;
    T.18October
    2001p.16.

    89 21 February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    3 16.TheProsecution
    rejectsas "preposterous"
    whatit understands
    as theDefence
    theory
    thattheattackers
    werebandits
    whotookadvantage
    ofthePresident’s
    death
    toloot
    440
    ortosettle
    oldscores.

    3.9.2Defence

    317.TheDefence arguesthatthetruenature of theRwandanconflict


    waspolitical not
    ethnicandrelies on thetestimony of WitnessFaustinTwagiramungu,
    whowaschosen as
    PrimeMinister in theBroadBasedTransitional GovernmentundertheArusha Accords
    andwasPrimeMinister in thenewRPF-controlled governmentsetup on 19 July1994.
    According
    to theDefence, thewitness testified
    forcefully
    thatthecontinuingstrugglefor
    politicalcontrol between theRPFandthegovernment of Rwandawastheoverwhelming
    causeof the1994conflict. He described thedestabilizationof Rwandacaused by the
    majorinvasions of thecountry by theRPFin 1990and1993whichcreated morethana
    millioninternal exilesandrendered thecountry almosttmgovernable.
    441Thegovernment
    wasincapable undertheseconditions of protectingthepeople,whowerevictimized by
    criminalgangs, werevulnerable to insurgencies,andsufferedfromfearandinsecurity
    broughtaboutby thehistory of RPF invasions. WitnessTwagiramunguexpressed the
    opinionthatmoreHututhanTutsimayhavebeenkilled in the1990-1994 period.
    442The
    Defenceemphasizes theinjustice thatwouldresult to thepeopleof Rwanda werethe
    Tribunalto reinforcethe"fiction"propagatedbytheRPFthattheconflict wascaused by
    simpleethnic hatred, withonegroupintending to annihilate
    theother.443 TheDefence
    alsorelies on thetestimonyof Father Sergede Souter,
    whotheDefence considersa pre-
    eminent scholar on Rwanda,in support of itsviewthatthestruggle in Rwandawas
    political.

    318.Withrespect to theevents in andaround Ngoma,theDefence’s positionis that,


    followingthedeathof thePresident, fear,banditry,andgeneral violence
    gripped the
    region.HutuandTutsialikespontaneously sought refugeat MugoneroComplex. [The
    Defencecitesevidence thatsomeof themwerearmedandmay nothavehadpeaceful
    intentions.
    444]Patrol groups
    wereformed comprising
    bothTutsiandHutu.On 10 April,
    G6rardNtakirutimana telephoned theauthorities in Kibuyetownto reporta grenade
    attack
    against thehouse ofJeanNkuranga,a Tutsi,
    andtoaskforgendarmes tobesentto
    restoresecurity.
    445On 11 April, G6rard Ntakirutimana
    drovehiswifeandchildren, as
    wellas a Tutsiwomanandherchildren, to Gisovuforsafety.On thenightof 12 April,
    persons armedwithfirearms attacked shopsat the Kabahinyuza centre.Theywere
    repulsedanddisarmed by gendarmes.
    Whena mobattempted to attackthehospital on 13
    April,G6rard Ntakirutimanaassisteda gendarmeto chasethemob away.
    446On 15 April,
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana witnessedanother actof violenceat theKabahinyuzacentre.
    Thisdrove himto warnIssacarKajongi,a Tutsi,of thepoorsecuritysituation.
    He asked

    440T.21 August
    2002pp.5-6.
    441T. 22August2002pp.70-71.
    442T.4 February2002pp.164-165.
    443Defence
    ClosingBriefpp.172-174;
    T.22 August
    2002pp.7-8.
    444DefenceClosingBriefp.
    186.
    445Id.pp.188-189.
    446Id.pp.197-199.

    Judgement
    andSentence 90 21 February
    2003
    /
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTRo96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Kajongi
    toalertallthepastors,
    andthroughthemthepeople.
    447Alsoon15 April,
    local
    thugs,
    including
    a well-known
    criminalknownas Reuben,
    had beenboasting
    of their
    intentions
    448 tomount
    attacks
    against
    theComplex.

    319.In thisperiod,according
    to theDefence,whentherewasa breakdown
    of state
    authority,
    neitherAccused
    hadanyauthority
    to suppresstheviolence.
    Witha million
    refugees
    havinglosttheirhomesandlivelihood
    as a result
    of theRPFinvasion,with
    newsthatthePresident
    hadbeenkilled,
    withno possibility
    of theArusha
    Accordsgoing
    forward,
    449 unplanned
    andchaotic
    violence
    wasinevitable.

    320. TheDefence
    submitsthattheProsecution
    wasprecluded
    fromrelyingon facts
    inother
    45°
    proven casesandabout
    whichnoevidence
    wasledinthepresent
    case.

    3.9.3Discussion

    321.The Chamberwillconsiderthe evidence


    givenby Prosecution and Defence
    witnesses
    onthemethodsandnature
    of theattack
    on 16 April,
    as wellas on thenumber
    ofpersons
    killed
    attheComplex
    inthecourse
    oftheday.

    322.WitnessGG was not ableto givea timefor the commencement


    of the attack
    exceptthatit gotunderwayon themomingof 16 April.The attackers
    consistedof
    civilians
    armedwithtraditionalweapons.
    Therewassomedefence putup by refugees
    hurling
    stones.
    Theattackcontinued
    until
    nightfall,according
    tothewitness.Thosewho
    hadtakenrefuge
    inthehospital’sbuildings
    weretracked
    downandkilledthere.Witness
    GG (likeWitnesses
    MM and DD)survived
    by hidingamongdeadbodiesandpretending
    tobedead.
    451

    323.WitnessHH testifiedthattheattackbeganbetween8.30and9.30a.m.He spoke


    ofa defenceputup by therefugees,
    andclaimedthathe himself
    usedpieces
    of woodas
    wellas stones
    forthispurpose.Whenthedefence
    failed,somerefugees
    soughtrefuge
    in
    buildings
    ofthehospitalwhileothers
    fledtonearby
    hills.Intheearlyhours
    of 17April
    theattackhaddieddown.
    452

    324.Witness FF saw "soldiers"


    on boardvehiclesandInterahamwe
    on footarrive
    at
    the Complexat 9.00a.m.The latterwerearmedwithspears and othertraditional
    weaponsandwerechanting.Thekillingsprogressedfromopenareasto theESIChapel,
    andthencetothehospital,wheregrenades
    wereusedbytheattackers.
    Witness
    FFleftthe
    Complex
    453 intheearly hours
    of 17April,whenfighting
    hadceased.

    447Id.pp.203-204.
    448Id.p.215.Thedeteriorating
    security
    situation
    anditsconsequences
    arealsoreviewed
    onpp.211-213.
    449
    T. 22August2002pp.73-74;pp.152-153.
    4so
    Id.p.69.
    45~
    T. 20 and24 September
    2001.
    452
    T. 25,26 and27 September
    2001.
    453T,28 September
    and1 October
    2001.

    Judgement
    andSentence 91 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    325.Witness
    YY testified
    thattheattack startedataround9.00a.m.It waslaunchedby
    Humwithtraditionalweapons.
    Theattackers werebriefly
    repulsedby therefugees,who
    defended
    454 themselveswithstones, buttheattackers camebackin greater numbers.
    Another
    Prosecutionwitness,
    Witness SS,saidthattheattack commencedsometimein
    themorning.Thewitnessthrewstonesat theattackers,
    thenfledtheComplex forGitwe
    Hill.
    455WitnessMM continued
    to defendhimselfwithstonesoveran extendedperiodof
    time.Theattack ended,accordingto him,at around10 p.m.
    456Witness PP alsomade
    reference
    to therefugees’
    resistance.He suggested
    thattheattackconcludedsometime
    before
    457 10p.m.on 16April.

    326.DefenceWitness
    8 wasat herhouseon 16 April,
    about50 minutes’walkfromthe
    Complex.Fromthereshe had a viewof EsapanSecondarySchool,
    thoughnot of the
    Complex.
    In theafternoon
    thewitnesssawpeople("bandits"),
    coming
    fromthedirection
    of Esapan,
    passalong
    theroadin frontofherhouse.Theywerecarrying
    beds,mattresses
    andclaairs.
    458

    327.On 16 April,DefenceWitness5 wasin a housebelongingto Esapan.On hisway


    to church
    people
    warned himnotto gothere.He turnedandheardpeople
    shouting;later,
    grenadeexplosionsandshooting
    wereaudible. He stayed
    in thehousebecause, as he
    said,manypeoplehadrunaway,others werescreaming,peoplewerebeingslain,andit
    wasfrightening.
    459

    328.On 16 April,
    Defence Witness
    7 wasliving in Mpembe
    Secteur,at somedistance
    fromtheComplex.At aboutmidday
    shesawpeople passingon theroadcarrying
    objects
    (bed,mattresses)
    whichhadbeenlooted fromthehospital. Shealsoobserved
    other
    persons
    whohadin theirhandsmachetes
    or clubs.
    46°

    329.DefenceWitness 6 was alsoin Mpembe.


    Earlyin the morningof 16 Aprilhe
    heardpeoplepassby andwastoldthaton other
    hillspeople couldbe seengoingtoward
    Ngoma.Thewitnesslaterheardexplosions
    fromthedirection of Mugonero.
    He couldsee
    peoplecarryingobjects(beds,mattresses)
    lootedfromthehospital. Theywereangry,
    influencedby drugsand armedwithmachetes and weapons. Amongthemweretwo
    robbersof somenotoriety, AlexisandSekagarama(nicknamed Rucekeli).The group
    returning
    fromMugoneroin theafternoon
    andevening
    wasverylarge; it "tookanhourto
    pass by wherewe were". 461 Witness6 went back to Ngomaaround18 April:
    "Everywherewe wentby,we realisedthatwheretherehadbeenTutsihousesmostof
    themhadbeendestroyed. Thehouseswhichwerecoveredby grasshadbeenburntdown.
    We couldseepeoplewhowerecarrying ironsheetswhichhadbeenremoved fromroofs,

    454T.1 October2001.
    455T.30 and31 October2001.
    456T. 19 September
    2001.
    457T.8 October2001.
    458T.14 February2002.
    459T. 2 May2002.
    460T. 12 February
    2002.
    46tT.24April 2002p.94.

    Judgement
    andSentence 92 21 February
    2003
    2,7
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    fromschoolsandfromplaceswherepeople
    hadfled.’’462Thewitness
    lateradded:
    "I also
    saw housesbelongingto Hutuswhichweredestroyed. For instance,
    at theMugonero
    Hospital
    or intheneighbourhood
    ofthefieldandintheresidencesoftheworkers
    allthe
    houseshadbeenlootedanddoorshadbeenbroken down."Thewitnessfurther
    stated:"It
    wastheTutsiswhoweretargetedin particular.
    Theywerea specifictarget
    buttherewere
    alsoother
    ’’463 people
    whoweretargeted.

    330.Between 10.00a.m.and noonon 16 April,Defence Witness32,who was at the


    CCDFPbuildingin Gishyita,
    heardnoises fromthedirection
    of Mugonero
    (shoutingand
    noisesthatresembledthose"madeby ironsheets").
    Around
    4.30p.m.,thewitnesssaw
    largenumber of peoplecomingfromMugonero carrying
    lootedproperty
    (forinstance
    mattresses).
    Theywerealsocarryingspearsandmachetes.
    464Hestatedthatthehospital
    hadbeenattacked
    465 by "bandits
    of thesamecalibre
    as Reuben".

    331.On 16 April,
    around10.00a.m.,Defence Witness
    9 wasminding
    a herdof cattle
    about15-minutewalkfromtheComplex.He claimednotto haveheardanygunshotsor
    explosions
    orcriesfromthedirection
    of theComplex
    (which
    wasoutof sight)
    butrather
    to haveheardpeople
    gatheredin thehospitalarea"singing
    thesamesongswe sungin
    church",
    andinparticular
    "YouaretheLord’sArmy".
    466

    332.G6rard Ntakirutimanatestifiedthaton themorningof 16 April,fromhislocation


    at theCCDFPbuilding in Gishyita,he sawpeoplebeingchased fromtheComplex. (Itis
    notclearwhothesepeople were,or whowaschasing them.) Sometimelater, between
    10.30and11.30a.m.,"wecouldhearexplosions suchas grenadeexplosions.Theywere
    reallyvery,veryloudpowerful explosions...Thesenoisescontinued
    until about2 p.m.,
    andat around 3:00in theafternoon thenoises hadsignificantlydiminished.""Inthe
    afiemoon we alsosaw peoplewhowereleaving Mugonero ... someof themwho were
    goingtowards Kigarama,othersweregoingtowards Gishyitaandtheneighbouring hills.
    Theywerecarrying belongingson theirheads- mattresses,sacks,things likethat...
    whichtheyweretaking awayfromthehospital ....themattresses belonging to the
    hospital...arecoveredby plasticsheets,andonecouldrecognisethehospitalmattresses
    becauseof thesewaxedcloths thatcovered them".Theywere"peasants andmostly very
    able-bodiedyoungpeople. I wouldsaythatthat’s whattheywere,andI couldseethat
    [theirclothes were]intatters, soonecouldevencallthemvagabonds". TheAccused did
    notindicate thedistancefromwhichhewasableto observe thisdegree of detail,
    except
    thathe wasafraidtogetnearthem. 467Inlater testimony,
    theAccuseddistinguished
    three
    categoriesof perpetrators:"Therewerepeople whowereattackingothers forpolitical
    reasons....Therewereothers whowereattackingpeopleto enrichthemselves,to take
    overtheirwealth. Andtherewasyetanother groupthatwasattackingothers whowanted

    462
    Id.p.100.
    463
    T.25April2002
    pp.16-18.
    464
    T.16 April
    2002pp.120-123.
    465
    T.17April
    2002p.36.
    466
    T.30April2002
    pp.42-44,
    76-80.
    467
    T.9 May2002pp.109-113.

    Judgement
    andSentence 93 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    totakeadvantage
    of thecrisis,
    theconfusion
    toattack
    people
    forethnic
    reasons.
    Sothere
    was8
    ’’46
    thatinter-ethnic
    conflict
    aswell,
    which
    waspartofthewar.

    333.Elizaphan Ntakirutimanatestifiedthatfromhislocation closeto theCCDFP


    building
    in Gishyita,
    around11.00a.m.on 16April,"I could
    seepeople
    goinguptowards
    Ngoma,launchingattacks.I couldseeotherpeople whoweregoingtowardsMagarama
    ...I heardsomethinglikegrenade
    explosions,
    andallthese things
    mademe afraid.So I
    saidto myselfthatpeoplewerebeingdecimated."And:"’Isawpeoplerunningat th[e]
    WestRwandaschool.I couldhearexplosions,
    and...I wasseeingpeople
    runninghelter-
    ’’469
    skelter.

    334.Fromtheaboveevidence of Prosecution
    andDefencewitnessesit follows
    thatthe
    allegation
    in theIndictments
    thaton16 April1994there
    wasa general
    attackon refugees
    at theComplexwhich"continuedthroughout
    thedayandintothenight" (asworded in
    theBisesero
    Indictment) hasbeenmadeout.Largenumbersof attackers
    assembledfrom
    manydirectionsandattacked therefugeesusingtraditionalweapons,firearms,and
    grenades.
    Manyengagedin lootingtowards
    theendof theattack.

    335.It followsfromtheevidencethatthepersons killedincludedthefollowing named


    individuals:Pastor Sebihe,
    Pastor Semugeshi, Ukobizaba,Kajongi, Nkuranga, three
    membersof WitnessMM’sfamily,fourmembers of Witness KK’sfamily, Kagemana,
    Macantaraga,Iminadad,sevenmembers of Witness YY’sfamily, Ruhigisha,Nkuranga’s
    younger brother, Evelynand fourotherwomenin hidingwithWitnessFF, one of
    WitnessSS’sbrothers, morethanfivemembers of Witness PP’sfamily, andthreeor
    moremembersof WitnessDD’sfamily.It is alsoclearthatmanypersons werewounded,
    forinstancethefollowing identifiedpersons:Witness KK,Witness XX,threepersons
    withwhomWitness YY washiding, Witness YY’sfather, Segikware, andWitness FF.
    (TheChamberdid not receiveinformation aboutthe ethnicity of eachof these
    individuals,
    butis leftwiththeclearimpression thatmostof themwereTutsi.) In
    addition,WitnessMM estimated
    thathe hidin a roomcontainingup to 30 bodies.G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    statedthattherewerefourorfivedeadbodies in thevicinityof a Tutsi
    child
    47° herescued,buthe didnotknowwhotheywere.

    336.Thisevidence of about70 killed and eightwounded mustbe augmentedby the


    other
    evidenceon record concerning
    refugeesbeingkilledor bodies
    lyingon thegrounds
    andin thebuildings of theComplex.Defencewitnessesalsogavean indicationof the
    largenumberof persons killedon 16 April.Witness Natakisawsignsof two mass
    graves,oneapproximately 50 metres
    fromthefieldoffice, theotheron thehospital
    grounds.He didnotknowhowmanybodies theycontained.471On 20 April,Witness 5
    walkedfromEsapan School to thefieldoffice at theComplex:"from[a]farI saw,in
    front
    ofthefield, a pileofdeadbodiesandthere weretractorswhich
    wereinreadinessto
    digthegravessothatthebodies could
    beburied infrontofthe...field office".
    Thepile

    468
    T.10May2002 pp.20-21.
    469
    T.7 May2002pp.11-13.
    470
    T.9 May2002pp.119-120.
    47t
    T.5 Feb.2002
    pp,227-228.

    94 21February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    consisted
    ofaboutfifty bodies.
    472Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanasawa "verybiggrave",
    three
    by fourmetres
    across,in frontofthefieldoffice.
    473 He sawanothergrave
    whichcould
    havecontainedone or twobodiesneartheprimary school.474 G6rardNtakirutimana
    testified
    that,
    towardstheendof April1994,theburial ofthebodiesattheComplexhad
    alreadybegun,
    "andI sawthattherewasa massgravein frontof the...office of the
    association.
    Andtherewasalsoanothermassgravebytheparking 475
    lot".

    337.Fromthe aboveevidence of Prosecution and Defencewitnesses,the Chamber


    concludesthatwhileit isnotpossibleto be exactaboutthenumberofcasualties,
    eye-
    witnessevidence indicates hundreds of deadand a largenumberof woundedas a
    consequence
    oftheattack on16April.476Thisfindingisconsistent
    withtheallegation
    in
    theIndictmentsthattheattack resultedin "hundredsof deathsanda largenumberof
    wounded".Thecasualty estimatesbasedon alleged exhumations
    of massgravesat the
    Complexsupports thisfinding. TheChamber seesno needto analyze thisevidence
    477It follows
    further. thatparagraph
    4.9oftheIndictmentshasbeenmadeout.

    338.Regardingtheethnic identityof thepersons whowerekilled andwounded,the


    Chamberrefersto theevidence aboveandrecalls thefollowingevidence.WitnessMM
    identified
    allbutoneoftherefugees asTutsi.Atanunspecifieddatepriortotheattack
    on
    16 Aprilthisperson of Hutuethnicity wasevacuated.478According to WitnessHH,
    almostalltherefugees wereTutsi, withtheexception of twoHutu(JoseNbarubukeye
    and ManasseGakwerere) who bothworkedat the Complexand had comewiththeir
    families.Thewitness concededthatamongtherefugees therewereHutuwhomhe did
    notknow.Witness YY describedtherefugees as Tutsiwhohadgoneto theComplex to
    seekrefuge, andsaidthatthereweresomeHutuwomenamongthemwhoweremarried
    toTutsi.TwoHutufamiliesleftbeforetheattackon16April. Thewitnesssaidthatthere
    wereHuturefugeesattheComplex alsoduringtheattack,althoughat leastsomeof them
    wereaskedbytheattackerstoleave.

    339.Witness
    PP testified
    thatthemajority
    of therefugees
    at theComplex
    wereTutsi,
    exceptfor Hutuwomenmarriedto Tutsimen.WitnessGG knewof onlyone Hutu
    (Nbarubukeye)
    whohadsoughtrefuge
    at theComplexwithhisfamily.Similar
    evidence
    wasgivenby WitnessSS,whosaidthatHutupastorswentto EsapanSecondary
    School
    withtheirfamilies.
    Witness
    XX recognized
    a fewHutu,including
    a manwhohada Tutsi

    472T. 2 May2002p. 98;T. 3 May2002pp.38-41.


    473T. 7 May2002pp.29-30.
    474T. 8 May2002p. 29.
    475T. 9 May2002p. 129.
    476G6rard Ntakirutimana
    statedthatby 12Apriltherewere1,300refugees
    at theComplex,
    T. 9 May2002
    p. 105.According
    to DefenceWitness
    5 therewere2,000refugeesgathered
    thereby 14 April,
    T. 2 May
    2002p.86.
    477Seetestimoniesof Witnesses
    HH andQQ.TheChamber is notconvinced
    by theestimates madeby
    WitnessQQ,whichranged from6,650to 8,000bodies.He wasa layperson withno claimed
    expertise
    in
    datingmassgravesor distinguishing
    andcounting
    victims on thebasisoftheirdecomposed
    remains.
    His
    estimates
    appearto bebasedon thenumberof coffins
    usedand,morecritically, onthenumber
    ofpeople
    required
    tolifta coffinafter ithadbeenfilled.
    Nevertheless,
    hisevidencedidestablish
    massgraves
    and
    largenumberof skeletonsat theMugonero
    Complex.
    478T.20September2001p.96.
    /1

    Judgement
    andSentence 95 /~ 21 February
    2003
    !
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG&ard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    wife.Witness
    FF knewonlytwoHutuwhoweretherewiththeirfamilies.
    Sheaddedthat
    itwaspossible
    thattherewereotherHutuat theComplex,
    butthatshecouldonlyspeak
    aboutthepeople
    sherecognized
    andsawatthelocation
    shewasat.

    340.On the basisof the evidenceconsideredabove,the Chamber findsthatthe


    majority
    of thepersons
    whosoughtrefugeat theComplexup to 16 AprilwereTutsi.
    The
    Chamber
    alsofindsthattheoverwhelmingmajorityof therefugees whowerekilledand
    wounded
    duringtheattackat theComplex on 16 AprilwereTutsi. Accordingly,
    the
    Chamber
    finds thatTutsi
    refugees
    weretargetedsolely
    onthebasis oftheir ethnic
    group.

    3.10Attackon Refugeesat ESI Chapel

    3.10.1
    Prosecution

    341.It is theProsecution’scasethattheAccused wereinvolved in theattack on the


    refugees
    attheESIChapel. Thisisnotreferred toin theIndictments,butdealtwithin
    AnnexB of thePre-trial Brief.Accordingto theProsecutionElizaphanNtakirutimana
    wentto theESIChapel around9.00a.m.on 16 April, demandedthekeysto thechapel
    fromPastor SethSebihe,threatening
    to makean exampleof him.TheProsecution relies
    primarily
    on Witness KK,whowasin thechapel. (Thewitness saidtheeventoccurred
    around10.00a.m.,butaccording to theProsecution’soralsubmissions he musthave
    beenmistakenas to time.)AftertheAccusedleft,theattack at theComplexcommenced.
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana headedto his residenceto prepare for the evacuation to
    Gishyita.
    479In relationto theevents
    attheESIChapel theProsecution
    refersalsotothe
    testimoniesof Witnesses
    DD,YY,andSS.48o

    3.10.2Defence

    342.The Defencerejects the aboveallegations, contending thatthe two Accused


    departed
    forGishyitaat around 8.00a.m.on 16 Aprilanddidnotreturn to Mugonero
    again
    on thatday.
    481According to theDefence,
    WitnessKK is nota credible
    witness. In
    relation
    totheevent at theESIChapel there
    isa contradictionbetween
    histestimonyand
    hiswrittenstatement
    to investigators,accordingto whichit wasMikaMuhimana, not
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    whosaidthattheyshouldstartwithPastorSebihe as an
    example.
    This,accordingto theDefence,showsthatthewitness triedto "demonize"
    the
    Accused.
    TheDefencerejectsthewitness’sassertion
    thattheattack ontherefugeesat the
    ESIChapelbegan
    at 10a.m.andcontinued until
    dark, allegingthatitconflictswithall
    other
    482 descriptions.

    3.10.3
    Discussion

    343.TheChamberwillfirstsummarize
    thetestimonies
    of thewitnesses,
    in particular
    thatof Witness
    KK.
    479
    Prosecution
    Closing
    Brief
    paras.179-182,
    226,
    463;
    T.21August
    2002
    pp.30-31,
    38.
    48o
    Id.paras.
    220(DD);
    225and271(YY);
    241(SS).
    481
    Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.22lff.
    482
    Id.pp.149-151.
    /!
    Judgement
    andSentence 96 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Witness
    KK

    344.Thewitnesstestified
    thatafterthecommencement
    of theattack he wenttotheESI
    Chapelat around9.00 or 9.30a.m. on 16 April. 483 Therehe saw Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana, CharlesSikubwabo,MikaMuhimana,and Interahamwe carrying
    firearms;theyincludedDanielthe sonof theConseiller Bahunde,Ngabonzima,and
    Nyamwanga.Thesepersonsenteredthe chapel,thoughnotall camethrough thesame
    door.(Itisnotclearwhethertheyenteredat thesametime.)WitnessKK specified
    that
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    enteredthroughthesidedoorat theleftof thebuilding.
    Sikubwabosaidthat"anyHutuswhohavecomein hereby mistake" or "Hutuwomen...
    marriedto Tutsis"
    should
    leavethechapel.In response,
    oneJosiahleftthechapelwith
    his Tutsiwifeandchildren,as dida womanleaving herchildren andTutsihusband
    behind.(Asto whetherElizaphanNtakirutimana
    wasin thechurch at thisstage,the
    witness
    484 didnotanswerclearly.)

    345.Witness KK testifiedthat,following theaboveincident, at around10.00a.m.,


    ElizaphanNtakirutimanawentup to PastorSebiheandsaid:"Giveme thekeysbecause
    yourhourhascome". PastorSebihe camedownfromthepodium, threwthekeystowards
    theAccused andthenwentintoa smallroomin thechapel andclosed thedoorbehind
    him.Muhimana thenapproachedElizaphan Ntakirutimana,andthe latter said:"Let’s
    startwiththisonefirstso thathe can be seenas an example." TheAccused and
    Muhimana thenknockedon the doorof the roomwherePastorSebihewas,but he
    refusedto open.So theyforcedthedoor"withthegunsthattheyhad;thedoorbroke
    down,so theybrought outPastorSebihe to ...wherepastors normallystandwhenthey
    preachat thealtar". Witness
    KK concededthathe hadtoldinvestigators thatMuhimana
    wastheonewhobroke downthedoorwiththebuttofhisgun,affirming thislaterin his
    testimony:"ItwasMikawhowascarrying a gun,andhe is theonewhohitthedoor". He
    maintainedthat,nevertheless,Muhimana andElizaphan Ntakirutimana were"standing
    together"at thetimethedoorwasforced open.WitnessKK wasableto seeallthisand
    hearwhatwassaidfromhisseatin thefirst pewof thechurch;he wasthus"quiteclose"
    to ElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    Muhimana,andPastor485
    Sebihe.

    346.According to WitnessKK the Accusedthenleftthechapelthrough a sidedoor


    whileMuhimana exitedthrough the maindoor.486 WitnessKK heardMuhimanatell
    Sikubwabo:"I thinkthatwe needto start"; and Sikubwabo
    thentoldtheattackers
    surrounding
    theareato "startto workandto workhardsothatno oneescapes".
    Fromhis
    positionby thedoorof thechapel, WitnessKK heardElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    whowas
    outside,tellG6rardNtakirutimana
    to"goupso thatthosewhoarein thehospital
    cannot
    fleeor getaway".WitnessKK explained
    whyhe hadnotgiventhisinformation
    beforeto

    483T.3 October
    p.116;T.4 October
    2001p.65.
    484 T.3 October
    2001
    pp.116-117;
    T.5 October
    2001pp.31-33.
    485T.3 October
    2001
    pp.119-123;
    T.5 October
    2001pp.34-35.
    486T.3 October
    2001p.120;T.5 October
    2001
    pp.36-37.

    Judgement
    andSentence 97 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    theinvestigators:
    "Theywanted
    to knowif I hadseenNtakirutimana.
    Theydidn’t
    askme
    anything
    ’’487 about
    G6rard.

    347.The attackat the chapel


    proceeded, according
    to the witness,withattackers
    throwing
    grenades
    andfiringshots
    at thedoorsof thechapel;
    theythenenteredthechapel
    andshotat people inside,includingWitnessKK,whotooka bullet in thearm.The
    witnesssmearedhimselfwithbloodso as to maketheattackersbelievehe wasdead.
    Aftertheshootingceased,assailants
    armedwithtraditional
    weapons"finishedoffthe
    woundedandtheyclubbed thechildren".Thewitness saidthattheattack continued
    throughout
    theday,andthatgunshotscouldbe heard
    untilafternightfall,
    at which
    time
    theattackers
    said:"Let’sleave.Wewillcomebacktomorrowtofinishoffthosewhoare
    notyetdead." WitnessKK testified
    thathe leftthechapel duringthenightof the
    488
    attack.

    OtherWitnesses

    348.WitnessDD testified thatas soonas thekillingsbeganon theSabbath morning,


    "weran...towards thechurch, andit’stherethatI sawKagaba andMathias. Mathias
    wasmakingMbarubukeye ...a Hutu,andwhowasmarried to a Tutsiwoman...as well
    as hischildrenandhiswife...comeout".Because Mbarubukeye’swifewasTutsi, he
    was refusingto leavethe schoolchapel. Nonetheless,according to the witness,
    Mbarubukeye
    andhisfamily eventuallyleft."Itwasalsoat thattimethata womanfrom
    Mpembawasbroughtout....ShehadHutuchildren. I believeherhusband wasHutu....
    Thatmanwasn’tliving in Rwandaat thetime".489Later,WitnessDD said:"I didnotgo
    closetothechurch.I sawthekillers atwork.Theywerekillingpeople,
    gettingpeople
    out
    of~
    ’’4
    the
    ° church,
    andI changed directions
    andI wentelsewhere.

    349.Witness YY testifiedas to a numberof Hutuwomenwho,alongwithmembers of


    theirfamiliesandotherrefugees,soughtrefugeattheESIChapel aftertheattack had
    commenced.He witnessed
    thefollowing event,whichhe timedto between 2.00and3.00
    p.m.:"Whenthe refugees gotintothe various buildings, the bourgmestre
    of the
    commune,
    Mr.Sikubwabo,came.He stoppedat theentrance of thechapelandsaidthatif
    thereis a Humin thisbuilding, he shouldcomeout....I knewsevenwomenwhoall
    cameout,withtheexception ofoneof themwhorefused to comeout,sayingthatif her
    husbandandherchildren weregoingto be killed, shewasgoingto diewiththem."
    Accordingto WitnessYY,thesixHutuwomenwho finally leftthechapel lefttheir
    childrenbehindbecause,beingof Tutsifathers, theywereconsideredTutsiandwould
    havebeenkilled onthespotby theattackers.Thewitness,whowasnotinside thechapel
    at thetime,addedthathehadnotactually heard Sikubwaboissuetheinstruction
    to the
    Huturefugeesinsidethechapel:"Icouldnothearhimbecause I couldnotgetcloser to

    487T. 3 October
    2001pp.120-124;
    T. 4 October
    2001pp.125-126;
    T. 5 October
    2001pp.50-51.
    488
    T.3 October2001pp.121-123;
    T.4 October2001pp.4,65-66.
    489
    T.23 October2001pp.94-97;
    alsopp.44-45.
    49o
    T. 24October2001pp.39,46.

    Judgement
    andSentence 98 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    him.If I hadtriedto do so,he wouldhavekilled


    me."Thewitness
    didnotseethealleged
    attack
    491 on thechapeltakeplace.

    350.Anotherwitness,WitnessSS,testified that,havingrealizedthatstoneswerenot
    effectiveagainst
    theattackers,
    he decided
    to runaway.He testified
    thathe triedto enter
    theESIChapel butsawthatpeoplewerebeingkilledtheretoo.He changed directionand
    fledintoa forest.
    492

    351. Afterhavingreviewedthe evidence,the Chamberobservesthat WitnessesKK,


    DD and YY alltestified
    aboutattempts
    to evacuateHutufromthe chapel.WitnessesKK
    and YY said thatSikubwabo
    instructedHutu personsto leavethe chapel(the former
    witnesstimingtheincident
    to themorning,
    thelatter to theafternoon).
    WitnessDD said
    that Enos Kagabaand MathiasNgirinshutidid the same.The Chamberacceptsthis
    evidence.

    352.Regarding the roleof the two Accused,the Chambernotesthat onlyWitnessKK


    testified
    thathe saw boththeAccused at theESIChapelon 16 April.TheChamberdoes
    notregardit as significantthatneitherWitnessYY nor WitnessDD mentionedeither
    Accusedin connectionwiththe chapel.Thesetwo witnesses testifiedthattheywere
    passingby the chapelor observing from a distance.
    WitnessKK, on the otherhand,
    testified
    thathe wasinsidethechapel andthathe hada goodviewof theeventswhichhe
    described.The Chamber’sfindingas to the presenceof the two Accusedtherefore
    dependson WitnessKK’stestimony alone.

    353. BeforeaddressingWitnessKK’s evidence,the Chamberobservesthat Witness


    YY’stestimonydoesnotcorrespond
    to hiswrittenstatementof 25 October
    1999,which
    contains
    thefollowingpassages:

    We triedto defend
    ourselvesbutwe weredefeated
    andmanypeoplewereimmediately
    killed.
    Somepeople r[a]nintothehospital roomsandotherswentin thechurch.Sikubwabo
    came
    intothechurch andsaid,if there
    is anyHutu,heshouldcomeoutof thechurch.
    Somewomen
    whoweremarried to Tutsimenandhousemaids whowereworkingto Tutsihospitalstaffs
    [sic]cameout.Thereaftertheythr[e]w grenades
    intothechurch.Thosewhosurvivedwere
    killedby machetes.I survived
    becauseI hi[d]underdeadbodies.Thechurchwasfullof
    refugees,
    aboutfourthousand
    inall.

    Lateinthenight,
    I wentoutofthechurch.
    I passed
    nearthehospital
    I heard
    myfathercalling
    me.He wasseriously
    injured.I metfewsurvivorswhohelpedme to carryhimto Bisesero
    hills
    ....

    354.Thisstatement appearsto locatethe witnessinsidethe church,attributes


    his
    survivalto hishavinghidunderdeadbodies, presumably
    insidethechurch,andsuggests
    thathe remainedin thatpositionuntilnightfall
    whenhe leftthechurch,heading
    in the
    direction
    of thehospitalwherehe foundhisfather.However,
    WitnessYY testified
    thathe

    491T.2 October
    2001
    pp.3-6,10-11.
    492Prosecution
    Closing
    Brief
    para.
    241.

    Judgement
    andSentence 99 ,~ 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    himselfwasnotinside thechapel at thetime,andhe didnotactually hearSikubwabo


    issuetheinstruction
    to theHuturefugeesinside thechapel.Nordidthewitness seethe
    allegedattackon thechapeltakeplace. Witness YY testified
    that"fromthetimewhen
    theyattackedin themorning up to thetimewhenI ranto go andseekrefuge at the
    hospital
    ...I continually
    sawG6rard Ntakirutimana".
    Thewitnessindicated
    thisperiodof
    observation
    oftheAccused asextendingfrom9.00a.m.to 2 or 3 p.m.
    493"Icould seehim
    becausetheplacewherewe werelocated in an attemptto protectourselveswas not
    covered,therewereno bushes
    ....So I couldseewhenwe werethrowing stonesat them,
    andwhenwe weretryingto hidebehindthesetrees, butI couldseehim,becausesincehe
    was4
    ’’49
    shooting,
    hewasn’thidinghimself.

    35 5. Allthissuggests thatWitness YY wasnotin anychurch andwasnothiding under


    anydeadbodies. Ratherhe wasoutin theopen,hiding behindtrees, andstoning the
    attackers whenhecould.WitnessYY testifiedthatafterpassingby thechapel,he sought
    ¯ " "Itis themainbuilding
    refugeinthehospital: ofthehospital
    I’mreferring to,butit was
    in a smallroombelow, nearthetheatre. ’’495"Westayed in thesmallroomwhichI
    referred to.Theattackerscontinued
    tokillandatonepoint in timetheygotto theroom
    wherewe were.Theytriedto openthedoor,butwe prevented themfromdoingso.And
    theyattacked us withteargas,butwe survived. Theyeventried to shootbelowthedoor
    andoneof themenwhowaswithus wasshot[in]theankle, butwe stayed inside the
    room,andduring thenighttheattackers ’’496Thus,according
    left. tothisaccount,Witness
    YY remained withanother fiverefugeesin a lockedroomin thehospital basement from
    about2 or 3 p.m.untilabout10 or 11 p.m.497 Again,thisaccount doesnotcorrespond
    withtheassertion in hiswritten
    statementthathesurvivedbyhiding underdeadbodies.

    356.Witness YY wasaskedto explain why,in hisOctober 1999statement, he saidthat


    he hadsought refugein thechurch andnotthehospital. He answered: "I wouldsaythat
    theperson whotookdownthestatement wasmistakenbecause I saidI ranpasttherebut
    I didn’tgo in becausetheattackerswerethere;I continuedandI wentandsought refuge
    insidethehospital.’’498Referring
    tothose whotookhisstatement: "thereisa confusion
    betweenthechurch andthehospital. I wastalkingaboutthehospital andtheyputdown
    thechurch".499 Helater addedthathiswritten statement,whichwasbrought to himfor
    signaturein earlyDecember 1999,hadnotbeenreadbackto him. 5°°He alsosaid:"If
    thereisa passage in Kinvarwanda
    sayingthatthatis a complete andtruthfulstatement,
    I
    signed
    ’’5°1 it becauseI trustedthem.I didn’tthinkthattheywould changewhatI said.
    However,as thewitness admittedin cross-examination,
    he alsosigned everypageof the
    writtenstatement. Andundera section at theendof thedocument headed"Interpreter
    Certification",
    thereappearsa signed
    declaration
    bytheinterpreter stating:"Ihaveorally

    493
    T. 2 October
    2001pp.23,24.
    494
    Id.p.61.
    495
    Id.p.10;pp.116-126.
    496Id.p.12.
    497T.2 October
    2001p.73;T. 3 October
    2001pp 3-4.
    498T.2 October
    2001pp.13,79-83.
    499Id.p.83.
    500T.3 October
    2001pp.48-50.
    5olId.p.51.

    Judgement
    andSentence 1 O0 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    translated
    theabovestatement
    fromthe[E]nglishlanguage
    intothe[K]inyarwanda
    language
    in thepresence
    of [Witness
    YY] whoassured
    me thathe/she
    had heardand
    understood
    mytranslation
    ...".

    357.TheChamberis notentirelysatisfied withtheexplanation


    givenby WitnessYY
    about
    thismaterialinconsistency
    andnotes thisaspartof itsgeneral
    assessment
    of this
    Witness.
    5°2Thisdoesnothaveanyimpact on itsfindings
    in thepresentsection,as
    Witness
    YY didnotseetheAccused at theESIChapel. However,
    theChambernotesthis
    discrepancy
    as partofitsgeneral
    assessmentofWitness
    YY’scredibility.

    358.Turning now to WitnessKK, who claimedto haveseenElizaphanNtakirutimana


    at theESIChapelat 10.00
    a.m.,theChamber notestheProsecution’s
    submission
    thatthe
    witnessmusthavebeenmistakenasto thetime,becauseat thatpointtheattackat the
    Complexhad alreadybegun,and the Prosecution doesnot allegethatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    participated
    in theattack. TheProsecution
    therefore
    submitsthatWitness
    KK wasdescribing
    an incident
    thatoccurred at9.00a.m.

    359.In histestimony,Witness KK wasnotaskedto describe theattack. Thefocuswas


    on hissightingsofthevehicles,whicharrivedwithattackers, see3.8.3(d)above.The
    Chamber recallsthewitness’s testimony thataround 8.30a.m.he wasneartheESI
    Nursing Schoolwhenhe sawa convoy of carsmoving alonga road,at an unspecified
    distance.Witness
    KKwastheninvited todescribetheallegedeventsatthechapel,setout
    above,starting
    withtheassertionthathe arrived
    atthechapel ataround9.00or9.30a.m.
    Moreover,in hisstatementof 15 November1999,Witness KK declared:
    WhentheysurroundedtheMugoneroComplexon the16thApril 1994theywerechanting
    a song,"WearetheHutuwearehere. Letusexterminatethem."Theattackers
    started
    shooting
    atuswhentheyreached Pastor
    Ntakirutimana’s
    office.
    Wewenttomeetthemand
    triedtopushthembackbythrowingstones.
    Wepushedtheattackersbacktwice
    butonthe
    thirdoccasiontheyusedmachine gunsandmanyof us werekilled.Whenwe sawthat
    manywerekilledwedecided tofallback. Manywerekilled instantlyandthosethat
    weren’t
    werefinished
    offbythecivilian
    population
    withtheirmachetes.
    Wetriedtodefend
    ourselves
    butwewerenotsuccessful.
    WetookrefugeintheESIChurch.

    360.The statement thencontinues withthe incident insidethechapel, whichwas


    testified
    to andis summarizedabove.It is clearfromtheNovember1999statementthat
    WitnessKK fledto theESIChapel to takecoverfroman attack thatwasalready well
    underway.
    Underthese circumstances,
    theevidence suggests
    thattheeventsin thechapel
    clearly
    tookplaceafter 9.00a.m.anddoesnotsupport theProsecution’s
    theorythatthe
    witness
    waswrongaboutthetime.Thewitness testifiedthatit washalfan hourto an
    hourafterreaching thechapel thathe sawElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    enterthebuilding
    (seeabove).WitnessKK wastheonlywitness toclaimthathesawhimaftertheattack
    theComplex hadcommenced. Moreover, thereis no evidence,apartfromWitness KK’s
    testimony,placingElizaphanNtakirutimanain theproximityof thechapelat anytime
    duringthemorning of 16 April,seegenerally 3.8.3(d).Theproblem withtheexact
    timing,
    combinedwiththelackof corroboration, callforextremecaution.
    Therefore,
    the

    502Seealso
    Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.119-120.

    Judgement
    andSentence 101 ~ 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Chamberis not in a positionto findbeyonda reasonable


    doubtthatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wasinvolvedin theepisode
    at theESIChapel.

    361.Finally,whilein his statement WitnessKK declaredthat"I saw Pastor


    NtaldrutimanaandDr.Ntakirutimanacometo thesmallsidedoorat thefrontleft-hand
    sideof theChurch", in histestimony
    thewitnessallegedthathe hadheardElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,whowasoutside thechapel, tellG6rardNtakirutimana
    to headforthe
    hospital"sothatthose [there]
    cannotfleeorgetaway".Thewitnessdidnotclaim,
    inthe
    courseof histestimony,
    tohaveseenG6rardNtakirutimana
    at thechapel,
    soitisnotclear
    to the Chamber on whatbasisthewitness assumed
    thatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    was
    directingthealleged statement
    to hisson.In these
    circumstances,
    theChamber
    declines
    to findG6rardNtakirutimana
    present
    attheESIChapelpriorto theattack
    there.

    3.11Shootingof CharlesUkobizaba

    3.11.1
    Prosecution

    362.TheProsecution
    submits
    thatin thecourse of theattack at theComplexon 16
    April,G6rardNtakirutimanashotand killedCharlesUkobizaba, the hospital
    accountant.
    5°3TheProsecution
    relieson thetestimoniesof Witnesses
    HH andGG and
    submitsthatthesetwo witnessesare reliable.Theirtestimonies are mutually
    corroborative
    5°4 in material
    respects
    andareinconformity
    withtheirprevious
    statements.

    3.11.2Defence

    363.According to theDefence, theevidenceof WitnessesGG andHH is notcredible.


    Therearediscrepancies betweentheirtestimonies andtheirprevious statements to
    investigators,
    as wellascontradictions
    betweenthetestimonies
    of thetwowitnesses. The
    Defenceargues thatthesewitnesses formpartof a political
    campaignagainst thetwo
    Accused.TheDefence alsosubmitsthattheonlyotherProsecution witnessesclaiming to
    haveseenG6rard Ntakirutimanaat theComplexin thecourseof theattack on 16 April,
    namelyWitnesses YY andSS,placed himat different locations
    duringthetimeperiod
    whenUkobizaba is saidto havebeenshot(i.e.around noon).
    Moreover,it follows from
    theevidence of severalDefence witnessesthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    wasin Gishyita
    township
    5°5 at aroundnoonon 16 April.

    3.11.3
    Discussion

    364.Theallegation
    thatG6rardNtakirutimanashotCharlesUkobizaba,
    a Tutsiwho
    wasthe hospital
    accountant,
    relieson the testimony
    of Witnesses
    GG and HH. The
    Chamber
    willfirst
    summarize
    thetestimony
    ofthewitnesses
    referred
    tobytheparties.

    503Thisevent
    fallswithin
    thegeneral
    allegations
    inparas.
    4.8and4.9in thestatement
    offactsinthe
    Indictments,
    butisnotspecifically
    mentioned.
    504Prosecution’s
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    253-258
    and260-262;
    T. 2iAugust2002pp.73-76.
    505Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.80-83,
    95-96.
    (TheDefence
    madeno oralsubmislions
    on Ukobizaba.)

    Judgement
    andSentence 102 f~ 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    WitnessGG

    365.Witness GG testifiedthathe saw G6rardNtakirutimanashootUkobizaba in the


    hospital
    courtyard.Althoughthewitnesswasunsure as to thetimeof daytheincident
    occurred,
    he saidit wasin themiddle of theday,"whentherewasa lotof sunshine"¯
    Uponreturningfromthechapel, Witness GG heardtheAccused calloutto Ukobizaba.
    G6rardNtakirutimanawas aloneat thetime,and he wascarrying a pistol.He shot
    Ukobizaba
    in thechest,andthevictim fellon hisback.He thentooka setof keysfrom
    Ukobizaba’s
    waistbelt.Followingthis,thewitness "immediately"wentto hidein the
    surgery
    5°6 roomanddidnotseeanything thathappenedsubsequently.

    WitnessHH

    366.Witness HH testifiedthatbetween noonand1 p.m.,fromthe"bigroom"of oneof


    the buildings belonging to the hospital, whichfacedUkobizaba’s office, he saw
    Ukobizabastanding withG6rard Ntakirutimanaabout20 metres
    away,in thehospital
    courtyard,neartheparking lot.5°7Thewitness estimated
    thatUkobizabawasbetween 15
    and20metres fromthemainentrance tothebuilding housing
    hisoffice.Hetestified that
    theAccused andUkobizaba werefacing andtalkingto eachother,although thewitness
    couldnot hearwhattheyweresaying. The Accusedhad a pistol. WitnessHH saw
    Ukobizabagivesomething to G6rardNtakirutimana,whichthewitness presumedwasthe
    keytothevictim’s office.Thewitnesstestifiedthatheobserved
    Ukobizabastandingstill
    fora veryshorttimebefore hehearda gunshot andsawUkobizabafall,althoughhelater
    saidhe didnotknowhowmanytimesUkobizaba wasshot.WitnessHH concludedthatit
    wasG6rard Ntakirutimanawho shotUkobizaba "becausetherewasnobody elsenearor
    closebytothese people,and...I hadjustseenDr.Ntakirutimana witha gun,andhewas
    aiming at him".5°8At thetimeUkobizaba was shot,therewereotherpersons in the
    hospitalcourtyard, accordingto thewitness,whowerealsoengagedin killingrefugees,
    butthoseothers werenotshooting whenUkobizaba wasshot.However, Witness HH did
    heargunshots at thetimeof theincident, althoughhe wasnotclearwhether theycame
    fromfarawayor fromnearby buildings.He testifiedthattheAccused wasdressed in
    trainingclothes wornovera T-shirt. AftershootingtheAccused
    headed inthedirection
    of the victim’soffice.The witnessdid not knowwhy the Accusedhad goneto
    ¯
    Ukoblzabaoffice,
    ’S thoughhe testifiedthatwhenhe visitedtheofficeat nightafterthe
    killings
    5°9 hadstopped hefound itransacked.

    OtherWitnesses

    367.WitnessYY testified
    thathe sawtheAccused shooting
    at people
    between
    8 a.m.
    and2.00or 3.00p.m.
    51°Witness
    SS claimed
    to haveseenG6rardNtakirutimana
    shooting

    506T.20 September
    2001pp.143-146;T. 24September
    2001pp.124-153.
    507Thewitness
    identified
    thebuilding
    asH 10onSketch
    B ofexhibit
    P2,butwasnotsurethatthiswasthe
    building
    wherehehid.Healsoreferredtophotographs
    24and25in thesameexhibit.SeeT.25September
    2001pp.141-149;
    T. 26September2001pp.3-4.
    508T.26September2001pp.8-9.
    509Id.pp.6-11; T.27September2001pp.18-57,
    148-149,
    151-153.
    51oT.2 October
    2001pp.23-24.

    103 21 February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    at himin theforestsometimebefore noon,on theeastemsideof theComplex.


    511The
    DefencesubmitsalsothatG6rardNtakirutimana
    wasin Gishyitatownship
    at around
    noon
    on 16 Aprilandrefersto thetestimonies
    of Witnesses
    25,4, 32,Nyirahakizimana,
    and
    thetwoAccused.Theirtestimonies
    willbe considered
    in connection
    withthealibiofthe
    Accused (seebelow).

    368.The Chambernotesthatthereare some minordiscrepancies betweenthe


    testimonies
    of Witnesses
    GG andHH.Forexample, whileWitnessGG testified
    thatthe
    Accused
    shotthevictim,
    thentookthekeysfromhim,Witness HH maintained
    that:"The
    Doctor to givehimthekeysandthenhe shothim.
    askedtheaccountant ,,512

    369.TheChamber furthernotesthatin hiswritten statement


    of 20 June1996Witness
    GG gavea different
    account of howtheAccused
    shotthevictim. ("Isawthattheywere
    holding
    theaccountantof thehospital....After
    thatI sawthatDr.G6rard Ntakirutimana
    killedUkobizaba
    witha gun.") Moreover,
    WitnessGG testified
    thathe wasin theopen
    whenhewitnessedtheshooting,thenwentto hide,whereas
    hisstatement
    suggeststhathe
    observedtheincident
    through a window.
    Incourt,thewitnessdistanced
    himselffromhis
    priorstatement, saying thatit musthavebeenrecorded improperly. Afterhaving
    observedthewitnessgiving evidencetheChamberaccepts
    histestimony thathe wasin
    theopenairwhenhe observed theeventandthatno oneheldUkobizaba beforehe was
    killed.Itnotesthatthewitness maintained
    thattheshooting
    tookplace before
    thekeys
    weretakenaway.513

    370.As forWitness HH,theChamber notesthatin hiswritten statementof 2 April


    1996,heobservedtheAccusedshootthevictim froma hidingplaceinthe"ceiling of the
    lasthospital building".
    In apparent contrast, duringtestimonyhe saidthathe had
    witnessed
    theshooting fromtheroomin thisbuilding priorto hidingin theceiling.
    WitnessHH testified thattherehad beena misunderstanding on the partof the
    investigators,not inconsistency on his part.514 Thewitness was cross-examined
    extensively
    on thisissue.He explained thathe hidin thebuildingfromaround noonon
    16 Aprilto 2 a.m.on 17 April,thatsomeof hisobservations weremadethrough the
    perforated
    holesin theceiling, whereas otherobservations,including
    theshooting of
    Ukobizaba,weremadefromtheground floor.The Chamber hasassessedthetestimony
    of WitnessHH carefullyanddoesnotconsider thatthedeclaration in thewritten
    statement
    reducesthecredibilityof thispartof histestimony. Moreover,
    theChamber is
    notpersuadedby theDefence’ssubmission thatit is unlikelythatWitnessHH wouldbe
    ableto see,fromthespecified window in thebuildinghe identified,
    theareawherehe
    claimstheshootingtookplace.Thewitness insistedthatnothingobstructed
    hisview, and
    theincident
    tookplaceinthehospital courtyard
    andnotintheparking lot.

    5~T.30October 2001,
    inparticular
    pp.108-116.
    5~2
    T. 27 September
    2001p.148.
    513According
    to WitnessGG’sstatement,
    dated30 June1996,Ukobizaba
    wasshotafterthekeyswere
    takenaway.Thisversion,
    whichinvestigators
    recordedcloser
    totheevent,
    isin conformity
    withWitness
    HH’stestimony.
    514T.27 September
    2001pp.20-23,26.

    Judgement
    andSentence 104 21 February
    2003
    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    371.TheChamber findsthatevenif therearesomevariations between theaccounts


    of
    WitnessesGG andHH,thereareoverwhelming andconvincingsimilarities thatcannot
    be overlooked.Bothwitnesses are in agreementas to the approximatetimeof day
    (around
    noon)andlocation of theshooting(thehospital courtyard);
    bothwitnessed
    Accused
    witha pistol immediatelybeforetheshooting;bothmaintainedthattheAccused
    wasnotin thecompany of anythirdperson at thetime;bothobserved theAccusedand
    thevictim in closeproximityto oneanother,facingeachother; bothsawtheAccused
    shootthevictim whilefacinghim;andbothsawtheAccused takea setof keysor other
    objectsfromthevictim. Theobservationalconditionsweregood:theeventhappenedin
    daylightandtheAccusedandthevictim wereknown to thewitnesses.

    372.In theChamber’s view,minordifferences


    in thetwowitnesses’accountsof the
    Ukobizaba
    incidentdo nothingto detract
    fromthestriking
    corroboration.
    TheDefence,
    whileclaiming
    thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    wasin Gishyita
    at thetimeof thisincident,
    doesnotcontest
    thatthehospital accountant,
    Ukobizaba,
    wasshotandkilledaroundnoon
    atthehospital
    on 16April1994.

    373.In the Chamber’s view,the testimonies of Witnesses


    GG and HH concerning the
    killing
    of Ukobizaba
    appeared credible.Other issuesrelating
    to thecredibilityofWitness
    HH donotreducehiscredibility inthepresent context.
    515Inassessing thecredibilityof
    WitnessGG,theChamber is awarethata numberof allegations, mainlyrelating to
    Bisesero,werebrought up by thewitness duringhistestimonyandnotmentioned in his
    previousstatements.
    These issues arediscussed elsewhere.
    5a6In thepresent contextthe
    Chamberobserves
    thatthenumber of newallegations arelikelythefault of thescopeof
    theinvestigator’s
    questions andshould notbe a significant
    factor in determiningthis
    witness’scredibility.
    Anyminorvariations thatwerepresent inhiswritten statements
    wereadequately
    explainedby thewitness at trialandappeared
    reasonable,in lightof the
    circumstances
    surrounding theseevents, difficulties
    withtranslation, andtheelapsed
    time.WhethertheChamber canmakeuseof newevidence, aboutwhichtheDefence has
    nothadpriornotice, is a different question andwillbe discussed below. Overall,
    WitnessGG remained consistent in his description of eventsgivenundersolemn
    declaration
    andwasabletodescribe hisproximity totheAccused (albeitwithoutalways
    beingpreciseas to thedistance) whenaskedabouttheevents at theComplex,Murambi,
    andMuyira.

    51sSee3.4.3
    (a)concerning
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    telling
    refugees
    togotothemain
    church;
    3.4.3(c)about
    Witness
    HHhearinghimtellHumrefugestoleave
    thehospital
    complex;
    3.8.3
    (c)and(d)regarding
    Accused
    arrivingattheComplexintheirvehicles
    transporting
    attackers,
    and3.14relating
    toG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    inthe hospital
    areaatnightfall.
    Reference
    ismade,
    inparticular,
    tothegeneral
    discussion
    in
    Section
    3.8.3(c),
    paras.
    253-260.
    Astoeventsthat
    occurred
    after
    16April
    1994,
    see4.7(Gitwe
    Hill,
    end
    April/beginning
    ofMay1994 andshootingofEsdrasbyG6rardNtakirutimana);
    4.15 (Mubuga
    School),
    and4.21(MuyiraHillandKucyapa).
    516See3.8.3(a)and(b)(appealforintervention
    madebyseveral
    pastors
    andElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    replyinthemorningof16April 1994);3.8.3
    (d)(arrival
    ofElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    witha group
    attackers;
    see,inparticular,
    thegeneral
    observations
    atparas.
    230-238).
    Inrespect
    ofevents
    after
    16April,
    see4.4(Murambi,shooting
    ofIgnace Rugwizangoga),
    4.14(Mubuga
    Primary
    School,
    shooting
    ofThomas
    Habayo),
    and4.17 (Muyira
    Hill)and4.23(Murambi
    Churchroofremoval).

    Judgement
    andSentence 105 21February
    2003

    it
    Tsq,
    TheProsecutor
    v, Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    374.Beforemakinga finalfinding
    theChamberwillconsider
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s
    account
    thathe remained
    in Gishyita
    throughout
    16 April.

    3.11.4
    AlibifortheRemainder
    of 16 April1994(from9.00a.m.)

    375.As discussedabove(see3.8),the Prosecution concededthatElizaphan


    Ntakirutimana
    leftthe Complexbeforethe attackcommenced.
    The Prosecution
    also
    conceded
    thatG6rardNtakirutimana
    drovewithhisfather,othermembers
    of hisfamily,
    anda numberof otherpersons
    to Gishyitatownship,
    wheretheytookshelter in the
    CCDFPbuilding.
    However,theProsecution’s
    caseis thatG6rardNtakirutimana
    returned
    to theComplex
    "sometimeafter9.30a.m."on 16 April.
    TheProsecutionallegesthat
    other"Hutuemployees"
    alsoreturned
    to theComplexafter9.30a.m.,including
    pastor
    Gakwerere,
    517 pastorUshizimpumu,
    andMathias
    Ngirinshuti.

    376.The aboveconcessionsby the Prosecution


    implythatif G6rardNtakirutimana
    tookpartintheattackattheComplex,itwasnotuntil"sometime
    after9.30a.m.",when
    he allegedly
    returnedto theComplexfromGishyita.
    Therefore,
    theAccused’salibifor
    theremainder
    of 16 April(forhisalibiconcerning
    theearlymorningof thatday,see
    3.8.3(e)
    above)needonlycovertheperiodfrom"sometime
    after9.30a.m."onwards.

    377.G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    testifiedthatafterarrivingin Gishyita
    he remainedthere
    throughout
    theday.518He alsoclaimedto haveremained
    in Gishyita
    on 17 April.
    It was
    onlythenextday,18 April,thathe wentto Mugonero
    to assessthesituation.
    5a9The
    evidence
    of other
    Defencewitnesses
    hasbeenintroduced
    in support
    ofthisalibi.

    378.Witness 4 testifiedthathe travelledwiththetwoAccused andothers to Gishyita


    on 16 April. There thegrouptookshelter in a communalbuilding.52°Neither Accusedleft
    thevicinity of thatbuildingon 16 April,according to thewitness. Moregenerally, the
    witness testified thathe sawElizaphan Ntakirutimana andG6rard Ntakirutimana"every
    day":"itwouldbe a goodnumber of times. I sawthemallof thetime....We were
    always together." He claimedthatneither Accused leftthevicinity of thecommunal
    building in Gishyita beforetheendof April 1994.Moreover, "I sawthevehicles [ofthe
    Accused] thereallof thetime". 521TheChamber notesthatWitness 4 wasincorrect to
    claim thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    never leftthevicinity ofGishyita townshipuntiltheend
    of April. According to theAccused,
    he leftGishyita forshort periods oftime, takinghis
    vehicle, thefirstsuchdeparture occurring on 18 April.522OtherDefence evidence
    contradicts Witness 4. Therefore,
    theChamber findsWitness 4 to havegivenunreliable
    testimony. Thewitness didnottestify to theamount of timehe allegedly spentwith
    G6rard Ntakirutimana on16 April.
    There is a completelackofdetail onthispoint. Inthe
    Chamber’s view,Witness 4’stestimony doesnotcreate a reasonable possibility that

    5 ~7Prosecution’s
    Closing
    Briefpara.
    498.
    518T.9 May2002pp.112-113.
    519Id.p.116.
    520T.7 Feb.2002pp.83-84;
    T.8 Feb.2002pp.17-23.
    5zlT.7 Feb.2002pp.85-87.
    522T. 9 May2002pp.120-140.

    Judgement
    andSentence 106 21 February
    2003
    9,,’
    t3
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    remained
    in Gishyita
    throughout
    theremainder
    of thedayof 16
    April.

    379.Witness32 testifiedthathe stayed in theCCDFPbuilding in Gishyitawiththe


    twoAccusedand20 to 30 otherpersons
    from16 Apriluntiltheendof themonth. 523"I
    saw PastorNtakirutimana and his son everyday.We weretogether every
    ,525 day in
    Thewitness
    Gishyita.
    ’’524"Theyneverleftthatplace,ifmy memorydoesnotfailme.
    alsospenttimewithhisfriends:"Sometimeswhenwegotbored sittingin oneplacefora
    longtime,youngas we were,we movedaround, we wentto thecentre[ofGishyita]and
    we retumed.
    ’’526Laterhe conceded thathe simplydid not knowwhetherG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    hadeverleftGishyita during thisperiod.
    527In theChamber’s opinion,
    Witness
    32’stestimonydoesnotsupportG6rard Ntakirutimana’s
    alibifor16 April.

    380.RoyisiNyirahakizimana,
    wifeofElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    testified
    thatthegroup
    withwhomshehadleftMugonero stayed
    in theGishyita"reception
    hall"fortwoweeks,
    from16 Apriluntilthe endof themonth. 52s Duringthattime,otherthancooking
    outdoors,
    no onewentmuchfurtherthanthe"threshold
    atthedoor".
    529 Shetestifiedthat
    shesaw G6rard Ntakirutimana
    everyday during thetwo weeks.
    53°However, she also
    conceded
    thathe leftGishyitatwicetogetfood.TheAccused wasabsentalsoon a third
    occasion,
    forthirtyminutesto anhouronan unspecified
    day"abouta weekafterthewar
    started", when "a soldiercameand tookhim alongin a vehicle". TM Witness
    Nyirahakizimana
    didnotspecificallyaddressG6rardNtakirutimana’s
    whereaboutson 16
    April;
    thereforenoreasonable
    doubtisraisedbythetestimony
    ofthiswitness.

    381.ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    testifiedthathe remainedin Gishyitauntilthegroup’s
    departure
    at theendof themonth.532During theperiod16 Aprilto 27,28,or 29 April
    1994,"G6rardwentto Ngomain orderto lookforprovisionsthere.He went...withtwo
    pastorswhowent...forthesamepurpose"; and"G6rard onceagainwentto Ngoma".
    Thewitnesssaid:"I do notrememberwhenhe left;however,I do rememberthathe came
    backwithtwoyoungboyswhomhe hadfoundnearthebodies of theirmothers....It was
    a fewdaysafterourarrivalin Gishyita.
    ’’533"Thefirsttimehe broughtprovisionsand
    brought
    thechildren, andthenhe leftforthesecond time...to bringprovisions.And
    afterthathedidnotleave again.
    "534Bothtrips tookplaceinthefirst weekaftertheir
    arrival
    inGishyita.
    535Likehiswife, Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    didnotspecifically
    address

    523
    T. 16 Apr.2002pp.124-125.
    524
    Id.p.127.
    525
    T.16Apr.2002p.133;T.17Apr.2002pp.73-74.
    526
    T.16 Apr.2002pp.126-127.
    527
    T.17Apr.2002p. 71.
    528
    T.10Apr.2002pp.54,79.
    529
    Id.p.62.
    530
    Id.p.68.
    531
    Id.pp.71-73,77-78.
    532
    T. 7 May2002p.134.
    533
    Id.pp.20-22.
    53~
    Id.pp.23-24.
    535
    Id.pp.25-26.

    Judgement
    andSentence 107 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s
    whereabouts
    on 16 April;
    therefore
    no reasonable
    doubtis raised
    byhistestimony
    either.

    536 Witness
    382. 25 testified
    thaton 15 Aprilhe drovefromhisvillage to Kibuyetown.
    Thenextday,around noon,he leftthetownto retumto hisvillage9 7 ReachingGishyita
    townshipbetween 1.00and1.30p.m.,he wasstopped at a roadblockandthenpermitted
    to proceed,butthewitness didnotleaveimmediately. He sawthetwoAccused, pastors
    Gakwerere and Ushizimupumu, as wellas otherpeoplehe knew:"[I]twas on the
    Sabbath,whichis a dayforprayers....So,I wassurprised to seemorethantwopastors
    at thecommuneofficeon theSabbath.
    ’’538Thewitness furtherspecifiedthathehadseen
    thosepersons froma distance of between80 and 100metres. 539He claimed to have
    continuedtoobserve themovera periodof a fewminutes,before goingon hisway.54°He
    explainedwhyhe didnotapproach thegroupwhichincluded thetwoAccused: "I had
    consumedsomealcohol. Thatis forbiddeninourreligion. Therefore,I didnotwantthe
    pastorsto knowthatI hadbeendrinking. ’’541Underthecircumstances described,the
    Chamber findsWitness 25’salleged observationof G6rard Ntakirutimana at Gishyita
    between1.00and1.30p.m.on 16April to beunreliable.

    383.Thereis no otherevidence
    to supportG6rardNtakirutimana’s
    claimthathe did
    notleaveGishyitafortheremainderof 16 April.
    TheChamberdoesnotfindthatthe
    Accused’s
    wordon thismatter
    makesit reasonably
    possiblytruethathe wasnotat the
    Complex
    at thetimewhenWitnesses GG andHH placedhimthere.

    3.11.5
    Finding

    384.On the basisof theevidenceadducedby theProsecution and havingconsidered


    thesubmissionof alibifor16 Aprilafter9.00a.m.theChamber findsthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    killedCharlesUkobizababy shootinghimfroma shortdistance in the
    chestin theMugoneroHospital
    courtyardaroundmidday on 16 April1994.
    542Thefact
    thattheAccused wasobserved
    in otherlocationsby WitnessYY (between
    8.00a.m.and
    2.00or 3.00p.m.)andSS (sometimebeforenoon)doesnotexclude hispresenceduring
    theshootingof Ukobizaba.

    536T.15Feb.2002pp.14-15.
    537Id.pp.16-17.
    538Id.pp.18-19.
    539 Id.pp. 20,23. CCDFPis the acronym
    for "Centrecommunal
    de d6veloppement
    et de formation

    spermanente"
    -2002
    40T.15Feb.seeT.
    pp.12 Feb.2002p.47 (Witness
    24-25. 7).
    54~Defence
    exhibit2D14.
    542NotethatWitnessMM confirmed thatUkobizaba
    was one of the personsmentioned
    by G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    as beingdead,whentheAccused
    waspassing
    through
    thehospital
    basement
    in theevening
    of16 April
    1994,T. 20September
    2001p.67.

    ,1
    Judgement
    andSentence 108 ~ 21 February
    2003
    !
    9.3tt
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    3.12Shooting
    543 of WitnessSS

    3.12.1
    Prosecution
    385.TheProsecution’scaseis thaton theafternoon
    of 16 AprilWitnessSS wentfrom
    theESIChapelpastthegirls’ dormitory
    andintoa forest lookingforsafety. Upon
    entering
    theforest he cameacross G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    in thecompanyof otherarmed
    attackers,
    someofwhomhe wasableto identify.Thewitness
    testifiedthathe wasshotat
    by theAccusedas he ran away.He was not,in viewof thecircumstances, ableto
    estimate
    thedistance between
    himself andtheAccused,
    explainingthathe wasnotin a
    stateofmindto takesuchmeasurements.
    TheProsecution
    submitsthatthisexplanationis
    reasonable
    andnotesthewitness’s claim
    thatthetrees
    oftheforest didnotblockhisview
    andthatthewitness
    544 knewtheAccused well.

    3.12.2Defence
    386.TheDefencesubmits
    thatWitness
    SS’stestimonyis notbelievable.
    Hisevidence
    wascontradictory.
    Hetestified
    first
    thatnoneof thethirty
    attackers
    hesawwithG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    hadguns,thenstatedthattheywerearmedwith"guns, machetesand
    clubs"and afterquestions
    finally
    assertedthatthosechasinghim werearmedwith
    traditional
    weapons.

    387.The Defencealsoobserves that,according to Witness SS’saccount,he was


    running
    forhislifethrougha forest.
    Inorder
    tobolsterhisstory,
    thewitnesstestified
    that
    afterhe wasshotat he sawtheAccused’s gunsmoking; thisis howhe claimed
    to have
    beencertain thatit wastheAccused whoshotat him.However, in an interview
    with
    African Rightspublished ten monthsbeforehis firstinterview withProsecution
    investigators,
    WitnessSS madeno mention
    of thisincidentwithG6rardNtakirutimana
    or
    indeedof theAccused’spresence at theComplexon 16 April.
    TheDefence arguesthat
    WitnessSS is notcredibleandmaintainsthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    wasin Gishyitaat
    thetimeoftheattack.
    545

    3.12.3
    Discussion

    388.WitnessSS described how he fledthe Complexbeforenoonon 16 April.He


    wantedto go intothe"church" wherepeoplehadbeenkilledbuttherewereassailants
    there.
    Thewitness decidedtoturnandpassbytheESI’sgirl’sdormitory
    intoa forest.
    At
    firsthe wasalonein theforest andheadingtowards
    Kukanyinya
    (tenminutes’ walkfrom
    theComplex). Thenhe cameacrossG6rardNtakirutimana.
    546q’hewitnesswasnotableto
    estimatethedistance betweenhimselfandtheAccused
    eitherin metres
    or by thenumber
    oftreesseparatingthem:547"Icannotgiveyouanestimate
    usingthisroom,becausethere

    543Thiseventfallsunderparas.
    4.8and4.9of theIndictments.
    It isnotexplicitly
    mentioned
    in the
    Indictment,
    butisreferred
    tointhePre-trial
    Brief.
    544Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    238-244;
    T.21August
    2002p.76.
    545Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.161-162.
    546T.30October2001pp.108-109,
    112-116,
    121;T.31October
    2001pp.58-59,
    63-64,
    66-67.
    547T.31October
    2001p.68.
    ~t

    109 21 February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    arenotrees,there
    areno bushes
    in thisroom.It’simpossible
    forme."He explained
    that
    "[a]tthatpoint
    intimeI wasn’t
    ina state
    of mindofbeing
    abletojudge
    distance
    because
    I5
    ’’
    was
    48fleeing.

    389.WitnessSS testifiedthattheAccused wasin frontof a largegroupof attackers


    amongwhomhe recognized oneNgabonzima andan artistnamedJacques. 549Theywere
    comingfromthedirection of Kukanyinya
    andheading fortheComplex. WitnessSS said
    thathe sawG6rard Ntakirutimana’s
    "faceandI recognisedhim".He testifiedthatthe
    treesdidnotblock hisview"butI wasgoingthroughthetreesbecauseI wasfleeing,and
    I wastrying
    tohidebehind thetreeswhileI waslooking
    ...toensure thattherewasno
    dangerwhichcouldsurpriseme ...thetrees werenotveryclosetogether andonecould
    runveryeasilythroughtheforest".TheAccusedwasholdinga gunin hishand.Itwas"a
    longgunbecause I couldseethatgunfroma distance",buthe didnothavetimeto see
    whetherthe othertwomen he recognized werearmed.55° He couldnotremember what
    theAccused
    551 waswearing.

    390.Thewitnessfaced theattackersonlybriefly:"I justtooka lookat them...and...


    I turned
    leftandfled". 552As hewasrunning, G6rard Ntakirutimanaallegedly
    shotathim
    butmissed,forcing himtochange direction;thewitness turned leftandreacheda place
    knownas Mubyisibefore goingto Nganzo andon to GitweHill. 553Questioned as to why
    he believed the Accusedwas the one who shotat him,WitnessSS replied: "My
    testimony
    is thatI sawhisgunsmoking afterhe shot.I neversaidthatI sawtheother
    assailants
    carrying... guns.
    ’’554Inreferenceto hisprior statementof18December 2000,
    accordingtowhichhesawthattheattackers had,in plural, "guns, machetes
    andclubs",
    Witness
    SS explained: "I wassaying thattheattackers hadgunsbecause Dr.G6rard was
    carrying
    a gun".
    555Hisprior statementto investigatorsgavea distanceofapproximately
    40 metresbetween himself and theAccused at thetimeof theshooting. Thewitness
    explainedthattheinvestigators conducting theinterview wereseated by a window: "I
    showedthemoutside thewindow...theapproximate distance. Thatwasmucheasier
    becauseI wasshowing themsomewhere outside.In oursituation nowwe arein a room
    and6
    ’’55
    itismoredifficult.

    391.WitnessSS saidhe hadknownG6rardNtakirutimana


    fora longtime."I knewthat
    hewasa doctor
    at thehospitalandthathe wasthesonof Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    ....I
    wouldsaythatI hadseenhimmanytimesbecause thereis a placethroughwhichhe
    passed
    whenhe wasgoingto workandthat’s whereI wouldseehim."Thewitness would
    alsoseetheAccusedat thehospital
    whenmembers
    of hisfamilywentthere
    fortreatment,

    548T.30October 2001p.111-112,116-117.
    549Id.pp.109-111;T.31October2001pp.63-64,69-70.
    s50T.30October 2001pp.111-117;T.31 October2001pp.59,70-71.
    551T.30 October2001p.146.
    552T.31 October2001p.70.
    553 2001pp.108-109,
    T. 30 October 112,114-116,
    120-121;T. 31October
    2001pp.57-58,
    64,70,72.
    554T. 31 October
    2001pp.72-73.
    555Id.p.75.
    556 2001p.118;T. 31October
    T. 30 October 2001p.68.

    Judgement
    andSentence 110 21 February
    2003
    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    although
    he himself
    wasnevertreated
    by theAccused.
    557 TheChamber
    accepts
    that
    Witness
    SS knewG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    by sight.

    392.The ChamberobservesthatWitnessSS did not claimto haveseenG6rard


    Ntakirutimana shootat him.The witness’s testimonyis thataftercoming uponthe
    Accusedin a forest,allegedlyleadinga groupof attackers,
    WitnessSS "turned
    ...and
    fled"through thetrees.As he wasrunning,he wasshotat.Thewitness’spriorstatement
    containsthewords: "I sawhe [theAccused] shotatme."Butthatwasnotthewitness’s
    testimonyin court,wherehisaccount wasthataftera shotwasfiredhe glimpsed back
    andsaw theAccused’s weapon"smoking". At thatpointthewitness wouldhavebeen
    morethan40 metres’ distance fromtheAccused. TheChamberis notconvincedbeyond
    a reasonabledoubtthattheevidence showsthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    shotat Witness
    SS,evenif thewitness insistedthattheAccused wastheonlypersonin thegrouparmed
    witha gun.Thewitness didnotclaimhe sawtheAccused aiming at himwithhisgun.
    Nordidhe describe whatotherpersons in thegroup weredoingat thetimetheshotwas
    fired.TheChamber is notpersuaded thatthewitness reliably
    observed "smoke"
    coming
    fromtheAccused’s gun.

    393.It follows
    thattheProsecution hasnotproved thatG6rardNtakirutimana
    shotat
    WitnessSS.However,theChamber is convinced,on thebasisof theobservation
    made
    by Witness
    SS,thattheAccusedparticipated
    intheattack, thathe wasarmed
    andthathe
    wasin thecompanyof otherarmedattackers.Thisfindingfallsunderparagraph
    4.8of
    theIndictment,
    accordingto whichtheAccused is allegedto haveparticipated
    in the
    attackat theMugoneroComplexon 16 April.

    3.13Shootingof OtherRefugees(Kagemana
    and Macantaraga)

    3.13.1
    Prosecution

    394.TheProsecution
    reliedon WitnessYY’stestimony thaton 16 April1994he saw
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    shootone Kagemanaat theComplex. Thewitness testified
    that
    Kagemana
    didnotdieimmediately,
    butwastransferredto thehospitalandkilled
    there.
    TheProsecution
    further
    submits thatWitness YY saw G6rard
    Ntakirutimanashootand
    killoneMacantaraga.
    558 BothvictimswereTutsi.

    395.In its oralsubmissions the Prosecution observed


    thatwhenWitnessYY was
    cross-examined
    onhisomissiontoreferto thiseventinhisprior statement,
    he explained
    thatduringhisinterviewwithinvestigatorshe wasmostlyaskedquestionsaboutMika
    Muhimana.Onlyat the trialwas he askedfor namesof persons killedby G6rard
    Ntakirutimana.
    TheProsecutionreiterateditspositionthata witnessis notprecluded
    fromtestifying
    to an eventwhichhe or shedidnotmention in a priorstatement,
    nor
    should
    559 thisbetakentomeanthatthewitnessisunreliable.

    557T.30October
    2001
    pp.109-110;
    T.31October
    2001
    pp.14-15.
    558Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefpara.
    277.
    559T.21August
    2002
    pp.70-73.

    Judgement
    andSentence 111 21February
    2003
    9.,7og"
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    3.13.2Defence

    396.TheDefence
    submittedthattheProsecution didnotinform G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    before
    trialthatWitnessYY wouldtestifythattheAccused shotandkilledKagemana
    andMacantaraga
    at theComplexon 16 April.
    Thislackof notice
    constitutes
    a violation
    oftherights
    56° oftheAccused
    tobe informedindetail
    aboutallegations
    against
    him.

    397.TheDefencemadeno furthersubmissions
    on thisparticular
    event.
    According
    to
    thealibievidence
    ledbytheDefence,G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    wenttoGishyita
    township
    at
    around
    8.00a.m.on 16AprilanddidnotreturntoMugonero
    thatday.

    3.13.3
    Discussion

    398.WitnessYY testified
    that,on 16 April,fromthetimewhentheattack started in
    themorningup untilthetimewhenhe "ranto go andseekrefuge at thehospital" he
    "continually"
    sawG6rard Ntakirutimana.Thewitnessindicatedthathe observed the
    Accusedfrom9.00a.m.to 2.00or 3.00p.m.
    561"I couldseehimbecause theplacewhere
    wewerelocatedinan attempt
    toprotect ourselves
    wasnotcovered,therewereno bushes.
    ...So I couldseewhenwe werethrowing stonesat them,andwhenwe weretrying to
    hidebehindthesetrees,butI couldseehim,because sincehe wasshooting,he wasn’t
    hidinghimself.
    ’’562He explainedthattheAccusedwaswearinga whitehat,a whiteT-
    shirton whichwaswritten"ADRA",whiteshortsandwhitesandals. Thewitness stated
    thattheweapon theAccusedwascarrying wasof "medium"
    size,85 centimetres or one
    metre
    563 long.

    399.WitnessYY saidthathe recognizedseveral peopleshotby G6rardNtakirutimana:


    "Therewas,forinstance,a manknownas Kagemana ....Thispersonwasshotat,buthe
    didnotdieimmediatelyandhe wasmovedto thehospital where...he waskilledlater.
    There’sanother
    personwhowasshotat ...knownas Macantaraga ...andmanyothers."
    Macantaraga
    died.AllwereTutsi. "I waspresent andI saw himdo it."Whileother
    attackers
    withgunswerephysically
    proximate to theAccused,
    they"were notin thesame
    lineoffire.Theywereshooting
    inother directions.ThisishowI cameto seethatit was
    G6rardwhohadshotatthesepeople,because theywerein thelineof firehe wasaiming
    ,,564
    at.

    400.Witness GG testified
    thathe wasin "roomthree"of themainhospital
    building,
    whenhe sawattackerswithtraditional
    weaponskillrefugees.
    565Thewitness
    wentfrom
    thereto thesurgeryunit.Uponentering
    thedeliveryroom,
    he sawdeadbodies,
    including
    two on the deliverytable:Kagemana, who had beenshotin the stomach,
    and one

    560
    DefenceClosing
    Briefp.123.
    561
    T.2 October2001pp.23-24.
    562
    T.3 October
    2001p. 61.
    563
    T.2 October
    2001pp.24-25;T.3 October
    2001p.62.
    564
    Y. 2 October
    2001pp.25-26,
    28-29.
    565
    T. 20September
    2001p.146;T. 24 September
    2001p. 144.

    Judgement
    andSentence 112 21 February
    2003
    7o7
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Iminadad.
    566Neither
    WitnessGG norWitness
    YY provided
    thefirstnameor anyother
    identifying
    information
    abouttheperson
    eachcalledKagemana.

    401.The Chambernotesthatthe shootingof Kagemanaand Macantaraga


    was not
    mentioned
    either
    in theIndictment,
    thePre-trial
    Brief
    or thewitness’s
    statement.
    This
    raises
    theissuewhether
    theDefencereceived
    sufficient
    noticeof theallegation.
    The
    requirements
    concerning
    thespecificity
    of Indictments
    havebeendiscussed
    generally
    above
    (see3.2).

    402.The Chamber recalls thatthe MugoneroIndictmentdoesnot allege thatGdrard


    Ntakirutimanakillednamedpersons, but states(paragraphs 4.8 and 4.9)that
    participated in an attackin whichlargenumberswerekilledor wounded. The
    Prosecution’s
    Pre-trialBriefstatesthat"Gdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    personally killedseveral
    Tutsiindividuals including the hospitalaccountant,Charles Ukobizaba, and one
    Kajongi".AnnexB to thatbriefincludes a summaryof the expected testimony of
    WitnessYY. It statesthatthe "attackers" on 16 April"included Dr. Gdrard
    Ntakirutimana,PastorElizaphan Ntakirutimana,CharlesSikubwabo, MikaMuhimana,
    gendarmes, Interahamwe and armedHutucivilians". AnnexB doesnot containan
    allegationthatGdrardNtakirutimana shotKagemanaor Macantaraga. Witness YY’s
    priorstatementof October 1999indicatesthat"manypeoplewereimmediately killed"
    afterthecommencementof theattack,andthatthewitness sawGdrard Ntakirutimana
    "in
    allattackswhenI wasat Mugonero complexandBiseserohill.I sawhimrunning after
    refugees
    andshooting them."In itsopeningstatement
    theProsecution didnotmention
    Kagemanaor Macantaraga, but allegedthatGdrardNtakirutimana "orchestrated the
    assaultsat thecomplex by leadinggroupsof attackersanddirecting themto attack
    refugees
    in boththechurch andinthebasementofthehospital;personally,[he]shotand
    murdered
    Tutsirefugees"; andthattwowitnesses"sawGdrardNtakirutimanakillCharles
    Ukobizaba,
    thehospital accountant".567

    403.Underthesecircumstances, the Chamber holdsthe viewthatthe Defence did


    receive
    noticeof allegationsthatGdrardNtakirutimanakilledpersons,in additionto
    Ukobizaba,
    duringtheattackon 16 April.It is true,however,thattheAccused wasnot
    informed
    abouttheidentityof thetwovictims untilWitnessYY gavehistestimony.The
    question
    is whethertheChamber is precludedfromconsideringthisallegation because
    theAccusedwasinformed
    toolate. TheChamber observesthatthereis noindicationthat
    the Prosecutionwas in possession of material aboutthesenamedindividuals.
    Consequently,
    itwasinnoposition toprovidesuchdetails.It alsorecallsthat,
    according
    toKupreskic,
    thesheerscaleofthealleged crimes maymakeitimpracticabletorequirea
    highdegree
    of specificity
    in suchmattersas,forinstance,theidentity ofthevictims.
    UnlikeKupreskic,WitnessYY’stestimony concerning theshooting of Kagemanaand
    Macantaraga
    wasnota dramatic transformation
    of theProsecution’scasebutwassimply
    an instance
    ofthewitnessrecallingtheidentityof twospecific
    victimsduringtheattack.
    TheDefencecouldhaveaskedformoretimeforcross-examination or recalled
    witnesses,

    566T.19September
    2001
    pp.146,147.
    s67T.18September
    2001
    pp.21,40.

    Judgement
    andSentence 113 ~~ 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    and had sufficient


    timeto investigate
    thesepreciseallegations
    priorto the
    commencement
    of theDefence
    case.

    404.Having foundthatit is notprecludedfromexamining


    theincidentof Kagemana and
    Macantaragabecause
    of lackof noticeto theDefence,theChamberfindson thebasisof
    WitnessYY’stestimonythatG6rardNtakirutimana
    participated
    in attacks
    on 16 April, as
    allegedin paragraph
    4.8of theIndictment, andthathe shotat refugees.
    (TheChamber
    has rejectedG6rardNtakirutimana’s alibifrom 9.00 a.m.on 16 April,see
    3.11.4).However,
    thereisnotsufficient evidence
    to conclude
    thattheAccused killedthe
    personsmentionedby thewitness.It followsclearlyfromthetestimonythatKagemana
    was killedlaterby unknown personsat thehospital.Moreover,Witness YY did not
    provide
    sufficientdetailto establish
    thatitwasactuallyG6rardNtakirutimana
    whokilled
    Macantaraga.

    3.14Sighting
    of G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    in the Basement
    of theHospital

    3.14.1
    Prosecution

    405.TheProsecution contendsthatG6rard Ntakirutimanawasseenat theComplex late


    on16April taking stockofthepersonskilledatthehospital.Forthisitprincipally
    relies
    on WitnessesMM andDD.Whiletheallegation is notreferred
    to in theIndictment,some
    reference
    toitisincluded inthePre-trialBrief. TheProsecution
    alsoreliesonWitnesses
    HH andYY to support thehospital sightings.
    568In itsoralsubmissionstheProsecution
    arguesthattheevidence of WitnessesMM,DD,YY,andHH indicates thatat somestage
    afterthe attacks had stopped, in the earlyor lateevening of 16 April,G6rard
    Ntakirutimanaandothers camewalking amongdeadbodies, aimingtheirtorches at the
    thoselying deadandinjured, tryingto identify whowerestillalive.WitnessesMM and
    DD werelocated in thesameareaandgaveessentially thesameaccount. Witness YY,
    alsopositioned in thebasement, overheardtheeventbutfromhishiding spot,andwas
    notableto recognise thosepresent.Witness HH observed
    theeventbutfroma different
    perspective. According to theProsecution, G6rardNtakirutimanaandhiscompanions
    weretakingstock. Thepurposeof theexercisewastoleave noonetotellthetale, which
    meant
    569 thateveryone hadtobe accountedfor.

    3.14.2Defence

    406.TheDefence caseis thatthetwoAccused leftMugonero on 16 Aprilbefore the


    fighting
    begananddidnotreturn to Mugonero
    on thatday.570 According
    to theDefence,
    WitnessMM’sevidence is unreliable.In his threepriorstatements and in the
    "propagandavideo"(exhibit 1D41A)he did not mentionG6rardNtakirutimana
    relation
    to 16 April.
    In hisApril1996statement WitnessMM statedthatit wasObed
    Ruzindana
    whowalked amongthe cadaversin thehospital roomwherethewitness was
    located.
    Reconfirmationstatementsrequestedby theDefence werenot produced. The

    568
    Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    245-249,
    227-236,
    259,272-275.
    569
    To 21 August
    2002pp.77-79.
    57oDefence
    Closing
    Briefpp.82-83.

    Judgement
    andSentence 114 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Defence
    contendsthatthe Prosecution
    hadpriorknowledge
    of thisnewallegation;
    otherwise
    the witnesswouldnot havebeenaskedat trialif he had seenG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    571 on 16 Aprilat theComplex.

    407.TheDefence argues thatthe evidence of WitnessesHH andDD shouldbe wholly


    rejected
    because it lackscredibility.TheDefencedoesnotspecifically addressthe
    witnesses’
    allegationspertainingto thehospitalbasement.
    572As forWitness YY,the
    Defence
    disputesthathe waspresentat theComplexat allon 16 April,
    implying
    thatall
    hisallegations
    concerningthatdaywerefabricated.In histestimony,Witness
    YY stated
    thathecouldnotenter thechurch sohe soughtrefugein thehospitalwherehehidin a
    smallroomnearthesurgery unit.Yetin hisOctober1999statement,thewitnessclaimed
    tohavesurvived
    573 byhiding undercorpsesinthechurch.

    3.14.3
    Discussion

    408.TheChamber
    willfirstsummarize
    theevidence
    of thefourwitnesses
    relied
    on by
    theProsecution.

    WitnessMM

    409.WitnessMM testifiedthathe didnotseeG6rard Ntakirutimana


    duringtheattacks,
    andthathe never
    574 saidthattheAccused hadparticipatedintheattack ontheComplex.
    However,the witnessclaimed to haveseenG6rard Ntakirutimanaon the nightof 16
    Aprilin thecompanyof Ruzindana,Mika,andSikubwabo, walking
    in thecorridor of the
    lowerfloorofthemainhospital buildingamongbodies.575Thewitness hadbeenlying on
    hisbackunder thedeliverytableinthematernityroomsince 4.00or 5.00p.m.
    576Bodies
    werelyingon topofthedelivery table.
    577Accordingto thewitness,therewasa distance
    578
    of lessthmnfivemetres betweenhimandtheAccused. Thewitnessdidnotindicate the
    orientation
    of hisbodyinrelation tothedoorwaybutsaidthathe was"looking towards
    thecorridor".579Thelights in thecorridor
    wereon.He wasnotableto describe the
    Accused’sclothing:"[I]twasin semi-darkness;I couldn’tseeveryclearly whathis
    clothes
    58° [were]".

    410.Accordingto Witness
    MM,G6rard Ntakirutimana
    was "sortof drawingup a list
    saying’such-and-such
    person
    is dead.Such-and-such
    personis dead.We’vefoundhis
    body,butwe don’tknowwheresuch-and-such
    personis.
    ’’’581 Theywerereferringto

    571Id.pp.50-52.
    572Id.pp.75-86,
    133-138.
    573Id.pp.119-120;T.22August2002pp.44-45.
    574T.20September2001p.34.
    575T. 19September
    2001pp.95,104,107
    s76Id.pp.148-149;20September2001p.114.
    577T.19September 2001pp.105,113-114,
    146,148;T.20 September
    2001p. 114.
    578
    T.19 September2001p. 111.
    579
    T. 20September2001p. 114.
    58o
    T.19 September2001pp.106,113.
    581
    Id.p.104.

    Judgement
    andSentence 115 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    "important
    people"
    whoworkedat Mugonero
    Hospital.
    582Thewitness
    saidhe remained
    in thematernity
    583 roomuntil
    sometimebetween
    11.00p.m.andmidnight.

    41 I. WitnessMM didnotmention G6rard Ntakirutimanain connection


    withtheattack
    of 16 Aprilin hispriorstatements.
    584Thestatement of 11 April1996statesthatthe
    witness didnotseeSikubwabo after10.00a.m.on 16 April. Thewitnessacknowledged
    thathe hadmadethisdeclaration.
    585Thestatementalsoindicatesthatthewitnessheard
    MikaandRuzindana "takean inventory
    of thecadavers withgreatsatisfaction,while
    citing thenamesof someof thedead", includingthenameof thetreasurer Issacar
    Kajongi.586 The witnessattempted to explainthe absence of referenceto G6rard
    Ntakirutimanain relation
    to thisevent,sayingthattheinvestigators askedhimabout
    Ruzindana
    587 andMika,notabouttheAccused.

    412.Thewitnessalsotestifiedthat,justbefore
    he entered
    thematernityroom,he and
    Kajongi
    weretogether, at whichmomentKajongi
    wasshotin hisfoot:"Hefell,andI
    immediately
    wentintotheroom. ’’588Thewitness’sstatement
    of 15 July1996makes
    reference
    to macheteblowsto Kajongibutnotthathe wasshot.In thecourseof his
    testimony,
    WitnessMM reiteratedtheclaimmadein thepriorstatement,
    thatKajongi
    was"finished"
    589 withmachete blows.

    WitnessDD

    413.Witness DD testified
    thatin thecourse of theattackon 16 Aprilhe wentto the
    basementof thetwo-storey
    hospitalbuilding
    to hideamongbodies.
    59°He enteredthrough
    thedoorleadingdirectlytothebasement:
    "Iwentstraightahead,
    infront of me....Along
    bothsidesof thecorridor werepatients’rooms...Thedoorswereopen,andtherooms
    werefullofpeople....I wasinthecorridor,
    closetotheentrance
    totheoperatingtheatre.
    ... I wasnotin a room." The witnesscontinued:"I wasnextto theroomwhichwas
    attachedtothesurgicalward,butI couldseeintothatroom.’’591"Ilaydownfacing the
    operationroom.Therewereotherroomsnearme andI couldseewhatwashappening in
    thatplace.’’592Thewitness described
    howhe endedup covered withbodies: "Wewent
    intothisbuildingaswe fledtheattackers...attackerspursued
    us intothebuildingand
    werekilling us,using
    bullets andclubs.Andwhentheyhitsomeone andthevictim fell,
    youwouldfalldownwiththevictim andthatvictim wouldfalluponyou.At thattime
    whenithappened
    ’’593 tomeI heldmyselfstill
    sothatI wouldn’tbenoticed.

    582
    Id.p.107.
    583
    Id.p.156.
    584
    Id.p.100.
    585
    T. 20 September
    2001p. 69.
    586
    Id.pp.67-68.
    587
    Id.p.112.
    588
    T. 19 September
    2001p. 153;T. 20September
    2001pp.75-76.
    589
    T. 20 September
    2001pp.79-80.
    590
    T. 23October
    2001pp.103,105,107.
    59t
    Id.pp.107-108.
    592Id.pp.105-106.
    593
    Id.pp.110-111;
    T.24 October2001pp.57-61.

    Judgement
    andSentence 116 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    414.WitnessDD testified thathe waslyingon hisside.594Twobodies wereon topof


    himandhiseyeswere"wideopen". 595It wasfromthisposition thatthewitness claimed
    to haveseen,"a verylongtime"afterhe hadentered thebuilding, "towardsevening",
    G6rardNtakirutimana"withtheothers. Theyweremoving aboutamongst thebodies and
    thosewhoweredying.’’596"Itwasstilla bitlight ....allthewindows hadbeenbroken;
    butwhenthesepeoplecameintheyhadtorches,butitwasstilla littlebitlight.
    ’’597There
    wasnoelectricity
    598 (andbyimplication
    no artificial
    lighting),
    accordingtothewitness.
    The Accusedwas carrying a gun;"he was in the companyof Mikaand an old man
    knownas Kanyabungo,whowaswithhissons....Together withhim,therewerea lotof
    otherpeople. Theyhadtorches andtheyweremoving aboutandtheyweresaying that
    therewerestillsomepeople whohadn’t died,andI couldhearandseeallthis.
    ’’599
    WitnessDD estimatedthathe sawtheAccused froma distance of lessthantwometres:
    "Thedistance betweenus wasveryshort. Therewerejustheapsof bodies betweenus."
    TheAccused
    6°° "stayedtherebriefly,andthentheytookoff".

    415.Laterin his testimonyWitnessDD added:"Hewaswearingordinaryclothes. He


    didnotgetintoanyroom.He stoodtherecloseto thedoorwhichleadsto thesurgery
    room....I didnotseehimusingthegun....Hestoodthereandthenheleft.
    ’’6mAnd:"he
    remainedstandingneara roomthere.He waswaitingforpeople...because whenthey
    cameout,theyallwentawaytogether....AllI heardhimsaywas,’Comeandgetout;be
    fast’.Andtheyleftwithhim." (Thewitness
    saidthattheAccused’swords
    weredirected
    at MikaandKanyabungo.
    6°2)Muchlater, at around
    1.00a.m.on 17 April,whenit had
    become
    6°3 quiet,thewitnesslefttheComplexforMurambi.

    416.WitnessDD repeatedly
    insistedduringhistestimony
    thathe didnotwishto be held
    to thecontent
    of priorstatements
    he hadmadeto Prosecution
    investigators;
    rather, his
    testimonywasto be regarded
    as theauthoritativeaccount.
    6°4At thesametime,the
    witnessconfirmed
    thatthefirstof histwostatements
    (dated11 November
    1999)wasread
    backto himinKinyarwanda
    6°5 andthathe hadsigned eachpage.

    OtherWitnesses

    417.WitnessYY testified
    thaton 16Aprilhesought
    refugein thehospital
    mainbuilding
    "ina smallroombelow,
    nearthetheatre.’’6°6
    Theattackers
    continued
    tokillandat one
    point,theyreachedtheroomwherehe andtheotherrefugees
    werehiding.
    Theattackers

    594T.23October2001p.111;T.24 October2001p. 62.


    595T,25 October
    2001pp.95-96.
    596T.23 October
    2001pp.103-104, 109.
    597Id.p.104;T.24October 2001pp.55-56,
    64-66.
    598T.25October2001p.90.
    599T.23 October
    2001pp.106,114.
    6o0Id.pp.119-120.
    601T.25 October
    2001p. 90.
    602Id.pp.96-97.
    603T.23 October
    2001p.120.
    604 T.24October2001pp.19-22,38,47,51,73-75,
    78,86,88,90;T.25October
    2001pp.69-70.
    605T.24October 2001p.22.
    606W.2 October
    2001p.10;pp.116-126.

    Judgement
    and Sentence 117 21 February
    2003
    -I
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    triedto openthedoor,buttherefugeesprevented
    themfromdoingso.Theattackersshot
    at therefugees
    throughthelowerpartof thedoorandoneof therefugees
    wasshotin the
    ankle.However,the refugees
    remainedin theroom,andduringthenighttheattackers
    left.607Witness
    YY remained
    in thatroomfromabout2.00or 3.00p.m.untilabout10.00
    or 11.00p.m.Withhimwereanother
    6°8 fiverefugees.

    418.Witness YY testified
    thatthehospital roombecamedarkeras nightfell,andwhen
    pressedto explainhow nightfallcouldhave beennoticedin a basement room withno
    windows,thewitnessputit downto thedisappearance
    of a rayof lightthatat firstcame
    in underthedoor."Between 8:30and 9:30p.m.,therewerepeoplewhowalkedpastthe
    corridor wherewe were.I heardtheirvoicesand theywereusingsomething thatgave
    light.Theywerelookingat bodiesof peopleandtheyweresayingthisis so-and-so’s
    body,and theywere wondering whetherthiswas this person’s body or thatperson’s
    body.’’6°9The witnesswas ableto leavetheComplexbetween10.00and 11.00p.m.on
    16 April,
    6x° by whichtimetheattackhadended.

    419.Witness HH testifiedthathe sawG6rardNtakirutimana


    at thehospitalat nightfall.
    He had comedownfromthe ceilingwherehe hadbeenhidingto seewhatwas happening
    outside.611 "Thereweresomeattackers who weregoingfromroomto roomlooking...
    forsurvivors. Thisis howcomeI wasableto seeDr.G6rardNtakirutimana passingnear
    the laundryplace.He enteredthe main buildingof the hospital,and he was ...
    accompanied by some otherpeopleand they weresearching in theserooms... of the
    building.
    ’’612Laterin histestimony,
    he said:"Ididn’tsaythatI sawDr.G6rardenterthe
    mainbuilding. I saidthatI sawhimon thewaytowards themainbuilding. ButI sawhim,
    rather,go into...another smallerbuilding,notthemainbuilding."He didnotseewhat
    happened insidethesmallbuilding; he onlyheardshots.He saidthatwhentheAccused
    leftthesmaller buildinghe tookthepathleadingto themainbuildingof thehospital.
    Witness HH did notseeG6rardNtakirutimana’sultimatedestination,
    nordidhe seehim
    do "anything whatsoever".
    Thewitnessindicatedthetimingof theincident to havebeen
    "still
    613 duringtheday".

    420.TheChambernotesthatfourwitnessesgaveevidence relating
    to theincident in the
    hospitalbasement.
    One of them,WitnessYY, didnot mention the Accusedin connection
    withthisevent.Thewitnesssaidthataround9.00p.m.he heardvoices fromthecorridor
    in thehospital’s
    basement.Thepersons"wereusingsomething thatgavelight"andwere
    talkingaboutthebodiesbeforethemin thecorridor. Therefore,
    theevidence of Witness
    YY at mostconfirms
    thata groupof personstalkingaboutdeadbodiespassedthrough
    thehospital’s
    basement
    sometimeafternightfallon 16 April.

    607
    T.2 October
    2001p.12.
    608
    Id.p.73;T.3 October
    2001
    pp.3-4.
    609
    T.3 October
    2001pp.5-9.
    61o
    T.2 October
    2001p.30.
    611
    T.26September2001pp.16-17,
    23.
    612
    Id.pp.17-18.
    613
    Id.pp.23-24.

    Judgement
    andSentence 118 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    421.WitnessHH’stestimony is relevant
    insofaras he claimedto haveseenG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    enterthemainhospital
    building
    at nightfall.
    However,
    thereisverylittle
    information
    aboutthisalleged
    observation,
    suchasthedistance of thewitnessfromthe
    person
    he saw,thedirection thepersonwasfacing,etc.TheChamber willtherefore
    exercise
    cautionin relation
    to theevidence
    provided
    by thiswitness.It is notedthat
    Witness
    HH madenoreference
    tothiseventinhispriorstatement.

    422.Twoof thefourwitnesses
    testified thattheyobservedG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    in the
    hospital
    basement. TheChamberwillfirstconsider theevidenceof WitnessMM,who
    claimedhe saw G6rardNtakirutimana withRuzindana, Mika,and Sikubwabo in the
    corridor
    outside thematernity
    room,at a distance
    of lessthanfivemetres;theAccused
    wastalkingaboutpersonswhoweredeador missing. Thewitnesswaslyingon hisback
    onthefloor of thematernity
    roompretendingtobe dead.It wasnight,
    andthelights in
    thecorridor wereon. WitnessMM did not provideany detailsabouttheAccused’s
    appearance.

    423.TheChamber recallsthatWitness MM gavethreestatements to investigators.


    The
    firsttwodescribetheeventson 16 April.Inthestatementof 12 September
    1995thereis
    no reference
    to anystock-takingof deadbodiesin thehospitalbasementandno mention
    of G6rardNtakirutimana
    at Mugonero, onlyof hisfather conveying attackers.
    G6rard
    Ntaldrutimana is, however,mentioned in connectionwithBisesero. The second
    interview,
    dated11April1996,contains thefollowingpassage:

    I sawObedRuzindanaamong
    theattackers.
    Itwashewhodirected thekillings.
    Heeven
    encouraged
    thedestruction
    ofthehospital,
    becauseheclaimed
    thathehadthemoneyto
    buildanother one.I sawhimthrowteargas.Then,I alsosawhimmoveamongthe
    cadavers in theroomwhereI waslocated. He hada pistolin hishandandwas
    accompanied
    bytheConseiller
    oftheGishyita
    sector,Mikka,
    whocarried
    a rifle.
    I heard
    themtakeaninventoryofthecadavers
    withgreatsatisfaction,
    whileciting
    thenames
    of
    someofthedead, such
    asthehospital
    accountant,
    Charles
    Ukobizaba;
    thetreasurer,
    Issacar
    Kajongi;thedirector,JeanNkuranga;
    pastorSethSebihe;pastorEz6chiel
    Semugeshi.
    Theycontinued tolookforthebodies
    ofpersons of interest
    to them,including
    the
    secretary,
    AmosKarera;thenurse,
    Etienne
    Niyomugabo;andparticularly
    thebusinessman,
    614
    AntoineNzamurambaho....

    424.The Chamberobserves that,in the statement, G6rardNtakirutimana is not


    included
    amongthepersons allegedto havemadean inventory of deadbodies. Hisname
    isnotmentioned
    in anyincidentthatallegedlytookplaceon16 April,whereashisfather
    is againsaidto havetransportedattackers on thatdate.Thestatement onlymakes
    referenceto G6rardNtakirutimana in connection withincidents at the Mugonero
    Complexon 9 and10 Aprilandin Bisesero from17 Aprilonwards. WhenWitness MM
    wasaskedwhyhe hadnotmentioned G6rard Ntakirutimanain connectionwiththeevent
    in thehospital
    basement,he answeredthattheinvestigators askedhimaboutRuzindana
    andMika,laterabouttheCDR,thenaboutElizaphan Ntakirutimana.He alsoexplained
    thattheinvestigators
    didnotgivewitnessestimetotellwhattheyknow, andthatevenhis

    614Thespelling
    andtypography
    inthecitation
    as wellasthesequence
    of firstnamesandsurnames
    have
    beenadapted
    tothestyle
    ofthepresent
    Judgement.

    Judgement
    andSentence 119 ~ 21 February
    2003
    Yl
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICl’R-96-17-T

    testimonydid not contain


    everythinghe knew.Askedwhy G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    was
    mentioned
    in thesamestatement
    threeparagraphs
    laterthewitness
    stressed
    thathe was
    telling
    thetruth.

    425.TheChamberaccepts
    thatstatements to investigators
    do notalwaysgivethefull
    account
    of theevents
    andareinfluenced by factorssuchas thetimeavailable forthe
    interview,
    thequestions
    askedby investigators,andcommunication
    problems. However,
    in relation
    to Witness
    MM’sstatement of 11 April1996,hisanswer wasnotentirely
    convincing.
    Thestatement
    containsan introductoryparagraph,accordingto whichthe
    witness
    "willtell...everything"he witnessedduringthemassacresin Ngoma, Gitwe,
    andBisesero.Itsstructureis mainlychronologicalanddoesnotfocuson specific
    individuals.
    TheCDRis mentionedin thebeginning andthemiddle of thestatement.
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    is mentionedbefore Ruzindana
    andMika.Alsothereferences
    to G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    appearin chronologicalorderin connection
    with9, 10,17 and
    18April.

    426.Thetextof thestatementgivestheimpressionthatthewitnesswasanswering a
    question
    aboutpersons,
    possibly
    leaders,
    whoparticipated
    intheattackson16 April.It
    followsbothfromthewitness’s
    testimony
    andhisstatements
    thathe didnotseeG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    during
    theattackson thatdate.Thiswouldexplainwhythewitness did
    notincludetheAccused
    in thepassageaboutthebasement.
    However,
    theresponseof the
    witness
    wasdifferent.
    Underthese
    circumstances,
    andinviewof thefactthatthepassage
    aboutthehospitalbasementwasrecordedwithconsiderable
    detail,theChamber will
    placelimited
    reliance
    onthispartofthetestimony
    evenifitgenerally
    considersWitness
    MMa credible
    witness,
    see3.8.3(d).

    427.TheChamber willnowconsiderthetestimony of Witness DD,whotestified that


    he waslyingon hissidein thecorridorof thebasement, closeto theentrance to the
    operatingtheatre.Twocorpseswereon topof him.Hiseyeswereopen.Though it was
    eveningtherewasstillnatural lightin thecorridor. Thelights werenoton.Froma
    distanceof lessthantwometres,WitnessDD claimedto haveseentheAccused, wearing
    "ordinary clothes"and armedwitha gun,in the companyof MikaMuhimana, one
    Kanyabungo, and manyothers.The personsWitnessDD claimedto haveseenhad
    torches."They"weresaying thatsomepeople hadnotyetdied.Witness DD heardthe
    Accusedspeakonceonly,whenhe toldMuhimana and Kanyabungo:"Comeandget out;
    be fast".TheChambernotesthatWitness
    DD’sstatement of 11 April1999alsorefers to
    deadbodiesand the witness’s observation of Muhimana, G6rardNtakirutimana and
    Kanyabungoandhistwosons.Therearesomedifferences between thestatementandthe
    testimonybutthereisnoneedto pursue
    themhere.

    428.Witness DD claimedto haveseenG6rardNtakirutimana froma shortdistance


    (lessthantwometres). TheChamber notes,however,
    that,accordingto WitnessDD’s
    account,
    thepersons passingthrough
    thecorridor
    wereusingtorches
    to seein thesemi-
    darkness
    andtheywereactively lookingforpersons
    stillalive.Evenif Witness
    DD had
    hadthecourage to stareat suchpersons
    froma distance
    of lessthantwometres, the
    Chamberis notconvincedbeyonda reasonable
    doubtthatthewitnesswouldhavehada

    Judgement
    andSentence 120 21 February
    2003
    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    clearviewof thefacesof personsshiningtorches


    toward
    thegroundwherehe lay.There
    is evidencethatWitness DD knewof G6rardNtakirutimana
    ("Iknowthathe workedat
    thehospital.
    615 It wassaidthathewasa doctor.I’mnotsurewhathisfunctions
    were"),
    butnotthathe wasfamiliar withhimor evenknewhimpersonally.
    Forthese
    reasonsthe
    Chamberis notconvinced beyonda reasonabledoubtthatWitnessDD couldrecognize
    G6rardNtakirutimanain semi-darkness,
    or fromhisvoicewhentheAccusedis saidto
    haveuttered,"Comeandgetout;be fast".

    429.TheChamber notesthatthe testimoniesof Witnesses MM and DD bothreferto


    G6rard
    Ntakirutimanaallegedly
    beingseenin thehospital basement at nightfall
    on 16
    April.Thewitnesses werein closeproximity.However, therearealsosignificant
    differences
    between thetwoaccounts.Accordingto WitnessDD,G6rard Ntakirutimana
    didnotengage in a discussion
    aboutpersonskilled (asalleged by WitnessMM),but
    uttereda briefinstruction.Moreimportantly, Witness DD did notmention seeing
    Ruzindanaand Sikubwabo;and he saidthatthe lightsin the corridor wereoff,
    contradicting
    WitnessMM who,moreover,
    didnotmention anytorches. Furthermore,
    as
    alreadyindicated,
    theChambercannotoverlook
    theextreme conditionsunderwhichboth
    witnessesmadetheirobservations, underdeadbodies, at nightfall. Underthese
    circumstances
    theChambermustexercisecaution
    in itsassessmentof theevidence.

    430.In previoussections
    theChamber hasfoundthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    procured
    armsandammunitionfromthegendarmeriecampin Kibuye
    (3.7),participated
    in armed
    attacksat theComplex
    on 16 Aprilandkillednamedindividuals
    during
    thoseattacks
    (3.11-3.13).However,
    for thereasons explainedabove,theChamberhasnot found
    sufficientevidence
    to concludebeyonda reasonable
    doubtthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    tookstockofdeadbodies
    inthehospitalbasement
    atnightfall
    on16April.

    3.15Evidence
    of Superior
    Responsibility

    4.12Before
    alloftheabovementioned
    attacks,
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    kneworhadreason
    toknowthathissubordinates,
    including
    various
    employees
    of theMugonero
    Hospital
    underhisauthority
    andcontrol,
    wereabout
    toparticipate
    inattacksonthemen,women,
    andchildren,
    anddidnottake
    necessary
    andreasonable
    measures
    topreventsuch
    attacks.
    616
    Inaddition,
    after
    theattacks,
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    didnotpunish
    theperpetrators.

    3.15.1
    Prosecution

    431.It is theProsecution’s
    casethatfollowingthedepartureof Dr Giordano
    andhis
    wifefromMugoneroHospitalon or about10 April,
    G6rardNtakirutimanatookchargeof
    theoperations
    andadministration
    ofthehospitalandacted
    asa defacto director
    until
    his
    departure fromRwandain July1994.In viewof the Accused’s testimony thatDr
    Giordano
    didnotinformhimwhowould actasdirector,
    theProsecution
    submitsthatit is
    immaterialwhether
    a formalofferof appointmentwasmadeto theAccused because
    his
    conductduringtheperiodmanifested allthepowersandfunctions of director.
    The

    615T.23October
    2001p.82.
    616TheBisesero
    Indictment
    doesnotcontain
    anyparagraph
    relating
    tocommand
    responsibility.

    Judgement
    andSentence 121 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Prosecutionsubmits
    thatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    attended
    a meeting
    of 3 Mayin Kibuye
    townin hiscapacity
    617 asthedefactodirector
    ofMugonero
    Hospital.

    432.TheProsecution
    argues,in particular,
    thatG6rard Ntakirutimanahadeffective
    control
    overMathias
    Ngirinshuti,
    thedirectorof personnel at thehospital.
    Thiscanbe
    surmised
    fromevidenceconcerningtheattack on 16 April. TheProsecutionrelieson
    Witnesses
    GG,YY,HH,andDD.It follows fromtheProsecution’s Closing
    Briefthatthe
    allegation
    of G6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s
    superiorresponsibility foractsof subordinates
    primarily
    relatestocrimessaidto havebeencommitted by Ngirinshuti
    at theComplex
    on
    16April.
    618 Thisfollows
    alsofromtheProsecution’s
    final oralsubmissions.

    3.15.2Defence

    433.TheDefence denies theProsecution’sclaimthatG6rard Ntakirutimana"hadboth


    de factoandde jureauthority overMathiasNgirinshuti,
    KagabaandElizaphan Gakwere
    duringtheperiod 9thto 30thApril1994"andthatitwaswithin theAccused’spowerto
    preventthesesubordinatesfromattacking
    TutsirefugeesgatheredwithintheComplex on
    16 April.TheAccusedwasonlya doctor at thehospital.TheDefence submits
    thatEnos
    Kagabawas a director of studiesunderJeanNkuranga at the ESINursing School,
    ManasseGakwerere was a pastorand one of the threedirectors underElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    at theSDA,andMathias Ngirinshutiwasthedirector of personnel
    at the
    hospitalandindependent of,if nothigher in administrative
    authority,thanG6rard
    Ntakirutimana.The Defencecontendsthatthereis no evidence to suggestthatthe
    Accused
    619 hadanyauthority overthethreenamedpersons.

    3,15.3
    Discussion

    434.Itis established
    caselawthatcivilian
    leadersmayincur
    responsibility
    inrelation
    to actscommitted by theirsubordinatesor otherpersonsundertheir"effective
    control".
    62°In thepresentcase,
    thisimpliesthattheProsecution
    mustprovethatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    had"effectivecontrol"
    overMathiasNgirinshuti
    (andanyotherpersons)
    beforeit canarguethattheAccused
    shouldbe heldresponsible
    forNgirinshuti’s
    actions
    (ortheactionsof anyotherpersons).
    TheProsecution
    acknowledged
    thisduring
    itsfinal
    oralsubmissions.
    621

    435.Evidencesuggests
    thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    tookcharge of thehospitalafter
    Giordano’s
    departure.
    WitnessXX testified
    thattheAccused "immediately"
    becamethe
    "necessary"
    replacement
    and"tookovertheresponsibilitiesas medicaldirector".
    She
    identified
    theAccused
    asbeing theperson
    "incharge"ofthehospitalduringtheperiod7
    to 16April.
    622Witness
    FF statedthatprior
    to theeventsofApril,Dr Giordano
    actedas
    thesurgeon
    at thehospital,
    whileG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    wasa consulting
    physician
    only.
    617
    Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    763-769.
    618
    Id.paras,304-306,1073-1078,
    1089-1093;
    T. 22August2002pp.139-141.
    619
    Defence
    ClosingBriefpp.24,192-193;
    T.22 August2002pp.79-80.
    620
    Delalic(AC)paras.196-198.
    Bagilishema
    (AC)paras.49-62.
    621
    T. 22August2002p.140.
    622
    T. 19October2001pp.9-10.

    Judgement
    andSentence 122 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Aftertheformer’s departure,"it wasDr.G6rard whowasresponsible forallthese


    tasks".623 Theevidence of WitnessMM was thatit was theAccused andNgirinshuti
    "whoseem[ed] to bein chargeofthehospital. Andon several
    occasions,
    theyaskedusto
    leavethehospital becausetheysaidit wasa placewheretheyweresupposed to be
    treatingpatients.’’624TheAccused
    testifiedthatthere werenohospitalstaff
    underhis
    direction: "WhenI didthehospital roundsI wouldhavethenurses whowouldmention
    examinationsto be givenor themedicationto be given,so I didn’t
    superviseanyone.
    Evenwiththe nurses, theywereunderNgirinshuti, Mathias,who wasthe chiefof
    ’’625
    personnel.

    436.TheChamber observesthatevenif theevidence established


    thatin the days
    leadingup to 16 AprilG6rardNtakirutimana
    assumedthedirectorship
    of thehospital
    (whetheror notby wayof formalappointment),
    thiswouldnot,alone,
    demonstratethat
    hehadeffectivecontroloverNgirinshuti
    orother hospital
    staff.
    Conversely,
    thefactthat
    G6rardNtakirutimana wasnot in anykindof administrativerelationship
    withEnos
    Kagaba
    (whowasan employee of thenursing
    school)doesnotin itself
    precludethat
    hadeffectivecontroloverKagaba.Regardmustbe hadto theevidence
    adduced.

    437.In thepresent casethereis verylittle evidence aboutG6rard Ntakirutimana’s


    relationship
    withMathias Ngirinshuti,andcertainly notenough to establishbeyonda
    reasonable
    doubtthatthelatter wasundertheeffective control oftheformer.Itis not
    established
    whetherNgirinshuti
    wasacting on hisown,orunderanother person’scontrol,
    or as another
    person’saccomplice,or in someothercapacity. WitnessHH testified
    that
    amongthe attackers at the Complexon 16 Aprilhe saw G6rardNtakirutimana
    "accompaniedby"Ngirinshuti.626 He alsoidentified EnosKagaba, a teacherat the
    nursingschool,as oneof theattackers.627Witness YY recognisedstaffof theComplex
    amongtheattackers: Kagaba,Ngirinshuti (whomhe mistakenlyidentifiedas a "doctor"
    at thehospital),
    Pastor Gakwerere,
    andPastor Ushizimpumu.
    628WitnessDDtestifiedthat
    amongtheattackers on 16 Aprilhe sawG6rard Ntakirutimana andKagaba, botharmed,
    and Ngirinshuti, who was unarmed.629 The witnessalsoallegedthatKagabaand
    Ngirinshuti
    weretogether at theESIChapel, whenNgirinshutiwasasking a Hutuperson
    630Witness
    to leavethe chapel. GG claimed he sawG6rard Ntakirutimana in thecompany
    of Ngirinshuti
    andKagaba: "Theywereplacing theattackers in sucha waythatthey
    surroundedthehospital.’’631Noneof thesewitnesses provided anyinformationthat
    G6rard Ntakirutimana
    hadcontrol, letaloneeffective control, overtheothernamed
    persons.

    623
    T.28September
    2001
    p.22.
    624
    T.19September
    2001
    p.50;T.20September
    2001
    p.56.
    625
    T.8 May2002
    p.198.
    626
    Y.25September
    2001p.108.
    627
    Y.26September
    2001p.14;T.27September
    2001
    p.6.
    62s
    T.2 October
    2001pp.29-30.
    629
    Y.23October
    2001pp.80-83;
    T.24October
    2001
    pp.42-43.
    63o
    T.23October
    2001pp.93-95;
    T.24October
    2001
    p.37.
    631
    Id.
    p.125.

    Judgement
    andSentence 123 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    438.In viewof the factthatthe Prosecutionhas failedto provethatG6rard


    Ntakirutimanahad effective
    control
    overany personduringthe periodup to and
    including
    16 April1994andeventhereafter,
    theChamberdoesnotfindit necessary
    to
    consider
    evidenceinrelation
    totheother
    elements
    ofsuperiorresponsibility.

    4 TheBisesero
    Indictment

    4.1 Introduction

    439.Above(II.3)theChamber consideredeventsrelating to theMugonero Complex


    (paragraphs4.4to 4.9and4.12of theMugonero Indictment)
    as wellas certaingeneral
    issuescommon to theMugoneroandtheBisesero Indictments(paragraphs4.1to 4.3of
    bothIndictments).Below(II.4)followstheChamber’sdiscussion
    of allegations
    against
    theAccused relating
    to theBiseseroareaof Kibuyeprefecture
    (hereinafter"Bisesero")
    throughoutthemonthsof Aprilto June1994.Theseeventsarecoveredby paragraph4.10
    to 4.16of theMugoneroIndictmentandparagraph4.10of theBiseseroIndictment.As a
    general
    rule, theeventsarediscussed
    in chronological
    order.Insomeinstances,incidents
    allegedto haveoccurred at thesamelocationor in closeproximitywereconsidered
    together,
    forpractical
    purposes.

    440.TheBisesero areaconsistsof partsof GishyitaandGisovu communes.It follows


    fromtheevidence
    inthecasethattheBisesero areadoesnothavedistinctborders,orthat
    personsresidingwithintheareado notdefineit uniformly.
    632Theterm"Bisesero" is
    usedalsoto referto Biseserosecteur
    or Biseserocellule,bothof whicharein Gisovu
    commune.Themainfeature of theBiseseroareais itshills. Thereareveryfewlevel
    areas.Theaverage altitude
    of thewholeareais between 1,500and2,500metres above
    sealevel.It isa relatively
    wetareawithseveralstreamsinthehills andriversin the
    valleys.
    Thevegetationconsists
    ofsmall-scale
    farmingcrops,forests,
    andareasofscrub.
    A mapof theBiseseroareawithsitesof relevance to thepresentcaseis attached as
    Annex
    633 III).

    441.TheChamber willrevert to theselocations


    in connection
    withthespecificevents
    consideredbelow.
    In thepresent contextitnotesthattheremains oftheMurambi
    Church
    (markedasnumber 1 on theBisesero areamap)aresituatedaboutfourkilometres,
    or
    minutesby car,fromtheMugonero Complex,alonga veryroughroad.Thedistance is
    onlytwokilometres in a straightline.FromMurambiHill,froma position
    of100metres
    to onesideof thechurch, theComplexcanbe seenclearly.
    634WitnessBaghelspecified
    that,in 2000,thechurch hadfourouter walls,
    no roof,nodoorframe,andthatweedsand
    scrubweregrowing in whatoncewastheinside of thechurch.Thewitnessestimated
    that
    thestructure
    63s wasfivemetres wideandtenmetreslong.

    632See,
    inparticular,
    T.18September
    2001
    pp.
    234,251.
    633Seemapwasprovided
    asProsecution
    Exhibit
    P7,seePart
    I,MapoftheBisesero
    Area(1988).
    Most
    theinformation
    inthis
    para.comes
    from
    Prosecution
    Witness
    Tony
    Lucassen,
    ICTR
    investigator,
    seeT.18
    September
    2001pp.234-248,
    255,257;
    T.19September
    2001
    pp.23-24,
    29-30.
    634T.18September
    2001
    pp.90-92,
    138.
    635
    Id.pp.161,163.
    /~
    ,.jV
    Judgement
    andSentence 124 /~ 21February
    2003
    /- y
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR,96-17-T

    442. There are anotherthree kilometresby road from Murambito neighbouring


    GitweHill(number2 on themap),about600metresin a straight
    line.
    636 According
    to
    somelocalresidents, interviewedby WitnessLucassen,
    GitweHill liesoutsidethe
    Biseseroarea.637 From Gitwe Hill,Ngomasecteurand the buildingsof Mugonero
    Complex
    638 arevisible,
    although
    notdistinctly.

    443.Thesitesin thiscasewhichare mostdistantfromtheMugonero Complexinclude


    MubugaPrimarySchool(number23 on themap),whichlies10 or 12 kilometres by road
    fromtheComplex,
    andfivekilometres in a straight
    line.
    639It is situated
    about50 metres
    backfromthe road.
    64° Two roadsbranching off the mainGishyita-Gisovu
    roadleadto
    theschool,aboutsixkilometres downeachroad.MutitiAdventist Church(number25 on
    themap)is surrounded
    by a forestat a distance
    of about50 metres.
    64xFinally,Uwingabo
    andMuyiraHills(numbers14 and18,respectively)areaboutsixkilometresin a straight
    line fromMugoneroComplex.
    642

    4.2 Overviewof Alleged Events in the Bisesero Area From 16 April Through
    June 1994

    444.TheBisesero
    Indictment
    readsas follows:

    4.10Manyof thosewhosurvived themassacres at MugoneroComplexfledto the


    surrounding
    areas,oneof whichwastheareaknown as Bisesero.
    4.11Theareaknownas Bisesero spansthetwocommunes of GishyitaandGisovu
    in KibuyePrefecture.
    FromAprilthrough June1994,hundreds of men,womenand
    childrensoughtrefuge in various
    locationsin Bisesero.Thesemen,womenand
    childrenwerepredominantly
    Tutsisandwereseekingrefugefromattackson Tutsis
    whichhadoccurred throughoutthePrefectureof Kibuye.Themajority of these
    men,womenandchildren wereunarmed.
    4.12FromAprilthrough June1994,convoys of a largenumber of individuals
    armedwithvarious weapons wentto theareaof Bisesero. Individuals in the
    convoy included,amongothers,t~lizaphanNtakirutimana and G6rard
    Ntakirutimana,
    members of theNationalGendarmerie,communal police,militia
    andcivilians.
    4.13Theindividuals in theconvoys, includingl~lizaphan Ntakirutimanaand
    G6rardNtakirutimana,
    participated
    in theattackson themen,women andchildren
    in theareaofBiseserowhichcontinued
    almost
    ona daily basisforseveralmonths.
    4.14 The attacksresultedin hundredsof deathsand a largenumberof
    woundedamong the men, women and childrenwho sought a refuge in
    Bisesero.

    636
    Id.pp.94,256.
    637
    Id.pp.236-237.
    638
    T.18September
    2001pp.150,
    237;T.19September
    pp.17,23.
    639
    I&p.5.
    640
    T.18September
    2001p.260;T.19September
    2001pp.25-26.
    64t
    T.18September
    2001p.265.
    642
    T.19September
    2001p.11.

    Judgement
    andSentence 125 21 February
    2003

    /
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    4.15During
    themonthsof theseattacks,
    individuals,
    including
    l~lizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    andG6rard Ntakirutimana,
    searched
    forandattackedTutsi
    survivors
    andothers,
    killing
    orcausing
    serious
    bodily
    andmental
    harm
    tothem.

    445.The Mugonero
    Indictment
    contains
    one paragraph
    of relevance
    in the present
    context:

    4.10Duringthe monthsthatfollowed
    the attackon the Complex,Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    & Charles
    Sikubwabo,
    searchedforandattacked
    Tutsi
    survivors
    andothers,
    killing
    andcausing
    serious
    bodilyormental
    harmtothem.

    TheChamber
    observes
    thatparagraph
    4.10of theMugonero
    Indictment
    is covered
    by the
    morespecific
    paragraphs
    4.10to 4.15in theBisesero
    Indictment
    andwillfocuson the
    latter.

    446.TheChamber findsthattheevidence in the present casesupports the general


    description
    in theIndictmentthatmanypersons soughtrefugein theBisesero
    area.Most
    witnesses,
    bothfromtheMugonero Complex
    andelsewhere,testifiedthattheyarrived in
    643Itisdifficult toestimate
    thetotalnumber
    Bisesero
    in thedaysfollowing 16 April
    1994.
    of refugees.However, on thebasisof the evidence, the Chamberfindsthata large
    numberof men,womenandchildren whowerepredominantly Tutsisoughtrefuge in the
    areaof Bisesero fromAprilthrough June1994.Somewitnesses estimatedthenumber of
    refugeesto be in thethousands644Moreover,WitnessesKK,YY,GG,HH,FF referred to
    dozens,hundreds, "many"
    or "verymany"refugees at specificlocations
    withinthearea
    ofBisesero
    645 atdifferentpointsintime.

    447.The evidence
    in the present casealsosupports the findings
    thattherewas
    widespread
    violence
    in theareaofBisesero betweenApril
    andJune1994,thattheattacks
    against
    Tutsioccurred
    almoston a dailybasis.Witnesses
    XX,II,andHH testified
    about
    daily
    attacks,
    andWitness
    HHstated thatveryfewattacks
    didnotresult
    inlossoflife.
    646
    Several
    ofthewitnesses
    testifiedthatthenumber ofvictims
    of theattacks
    was high.
    647
    Based
    on thetotality
    oftheevidence, theChamberfinds
    thatthemajorityofthevictims

    643 T.19September2001 p.120;T.20September2001pp.149-150;T.26September2001p.29;T.2


    October2001p.32;T.4 October2001pp.4-5;T.22October
    2001 pp.37-38;
    T.23October2001p.120;
    T.30October 2001p.122.
    644Witnesses XXandWitnessesFFevenmentioned
    thenumberof30,000and50,000,respectively,
    see
    T.22October 2001p.12andT.28September2001p.71.
    645 Y.4 October2001pp.16,18;T.3 October 2001p.16;T.25September 2001pp.6,13;T.26
    September2001p.30;T.28September2001pp.66,69,71.
    646Y.22October 2001pp.38,41-42,108;
    T.26September
    2001pp.49-50.
    647Biseserosurvivorstestified
    uponattacks
    whichclaimed
    "many"livesofrefugees
    atGitwePrimary
    School inearlyMay1994 (DD,T.23October
    2001p.138),atMubuga Primary
    School
    attheendofJune
    1994 (SS,T.30October 2001 pp.140-142);
    atRwiramba,nearby
    MuyiraHill,inmid-May1994(GG,
    24September2001 p.30);atMuyiraHill
    onanunspecified
    day(FF,T.28September2001p.73),during
    night attacks
    against
    housesinBisesero
    where
    Tutsirefugees
    were seeking
    shelter
    (YY,T.2 October
    2001
    pp.102, 104).Askedwhether
    hesawthebodiesoftherefugees
    whodiedduringanattack
    atMuyiraHill,
    WitnessYYspecified
    thattheylooked
    like
    "grass
    onthehills"
    (T.2 October
    2001
    p.53,readinthelightof
    T.inFrench atp.63:"lorsqu’on
    regardait
    lescorps,
    onsemblait
    regarder
    lesherbes
    surlacolline,
    dans
    la
    brousse").

    Judgement
    andSentence 126 21February
    2003
    /
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    wereTutsi.
    Theattackers
    consisted
    of Interahamwe,
    gendarmes,
    soldiers,
    andcivilians.
    The Interahamwe,
    gendarmes,and soldiers wereusually
    armedwithgunsand wore
    uniforms.
    Thecivilians
    wereusuallyarmedwithclubs,machetes,
    bows,arrows,
    spears,
    hoes,knives,
    sharpened
    bamboosticks,andothertraditional
    weapons.
    648Someof the
    attackers
    arrived
    invehicles;
    others
    came649
    on foot.

    448.TheChamberobserves
    thatitsfindings
    arein conformity
    withtheconclusionsin
    previous
    caselawof thisTribunal.TheTrialChamberin Musemafoundthatregular
    attacks
    occurred
    in theBisesero
    region
    from9 April1994untilabout30 June1994,
    and
    thatthousandsof Tutsiwerekilled,injuredand maimedthere.In Kayishemaand
    Ruzindana,
    theTrialChamberfoundthatthousandswerekilledin theBiseseroarea
    between
    650 AprilandJune1994.

    449.Before
    considering
    thespecific
    Bisesero-related
    allegations
    against
    bothAccused
    theChamber
    TM willaddress
    theiralibi
    fortherelevant
    period.

    4.3The Aeeused’s
    Alibiforthe Period17 Aprilto July1994

    4.3.1Defenee

    450.The Defencesubmits thattheallegations madeby Prosecution witnesses


    were
    generally
    vagueas to timeandplace.TheDefence further submitsthatwhileit is not
    possible
    toprovide alibievidence
    fortheAccused toaccount forevery hourofeveryday
    between
    AprilandJuly1994,thecumulative effectof allDefence testimonyconcerning
    thewhereaboutsof Elizaphan
    andG6rard Ntakirutimanais to excludetheirpresenceat
    Murambi
    or Bisesero.TheDefenceargues thatit wouldhavebeenimpossible foreither
    Accused
    to slipawayunnoticed at any timebetween Apriland July1994,travel to
    Biseseroand returnundetected.Thenumberof credible witnesses whosaw the two
    Accused
    regularlyat Mugonero
    duringthatperiod of timeandtheir explicittestimonies
    concerning
    thefewoccasions thateither AccusedleftMugonero do notaffordtimeor
    opportunity
    652 fortheAccused tohaveengagedin theactivitiesalleged.

    451.TheDefence caseis thatthetwoAccused stayedin Gishyita from17 Apriluntil


    theirreturnto Mugoneroat theendof April.ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    wasunwellduring
    thisperiod,anddepressed by theeventsat Mugonero,
    overwhichhe hadno control. He
    neverleftGishyitaatall.G6rard Ntakirutimana
    alsoremainedin Gishyitafrom17April,
    untiltheendof April, excepton twooccasionswhenhe wenton shorttripsto Mugonero
    andon oneotheroccasion whenhe wasapproached by a soldierwho commandeered
    his
    vehicleandmadetheAccused go withhimto retrievea body,eventually forcingthe
    Accused
    to drive himandother soldiers
    allthewayto Kibuye town.653Defencewitnesses

    648T.26 September
    2001pp.34,42,58;T. 28September
    2001pp.66-67;
    T.4 October
    2001pp.8-10;T.
    22 October
    2001pp.18-20;T. 30October2001p.132.
    649T.26September2001p. 31;T.4 October
    2001pp.8-10;T.22October2001p. 14.
    650
    KayishemaandRuzindana (TC)para.471;Musema(TC)para.363.
    651See,onthecontext
    andgeneralallegations,
    Prosecution
    Closing
    Brief
    atpp.86-90.
    652Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.182-183.
    653Id.pp.226-228.

    ]0

    Judgement
    andSentence 127 21 February
    2003

    /
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    wholivedin Gishyita
    during
    theperiodin question
    eitherconfirmed
    theseparticular
    absences
    or statedthatin theirexperienceneither
    AccusedleftGishyitaat all
    (demonstrating
    how unusual
    thosefew absenceswere).Defencewitnesses
    who made
    unannounced
    visitsto Gishyita
    duringthistimetestified,
    without
    exception,
    thatboth
    Accused
    654 werepresent.

    452.TheDefencemaintainsthatat no timewhilein Gishyita


    didanypublic authority
    or political
    or militaryfigure,apartfromsoldiers who commandeered
    thehospital
    vehicle,
    visiteither
    accused.
    Inparticular,ObedRuzindana
    wasnota visitor
    inGishyita.
    The Defence
    deniesthatRoyisi Nyirahakizimanatestifiedto havingregularly
    seen
    Ruzindana
    in Gishyita.
    Rather,accordingto theDefence,
    sheneversawhimin Gishyita
    butsawhimpassing by herhouseon hiswayto "thecentre", meaningtheKabahinyuza
    centre.
    655 Shedidnot"changeherstory",as alleged
    bytheProsecution.

    453.In thisconnection,theDefence submits thatthepurported priorstatement made


    by Rachelle
    Germaine(seebelow) should be afforded no weightbecause theProsecution
    didnotintroducethiswitness in itscase-in-chief, whenherstatement couldhavebeen
    testedundercross-examination.
    As it stands,thealleged statementby Rachelle
    Germaine
    is unverified
    andis unreliablehearsay.According to theDefence,theTrialChamber has
    receivedno evidenceon whichto findthatthisstatement was,in fact,madeby the
    purported
    authororthatitwasimpossible forRachelle Germaine
    tobe present to testify
    beforetheChamber.
    Theconclusion to bedrawn, asserts theDefence,isthatthewitness,
    if called
    to testify,
    would havecontradictedthepurported priorstatement.
    Moreover, the
    Prosecution
    hadpossession of thealleged statementbefore thecommencementof trial.
    To enterthestatement intoevidence, without callingthepurported author
    to testify
    beforetheChamber,theProsecution couldhavemadean application underRule89,and
    if theapplication
    weregranted, theDefence couldhavehadtheopportunity, before the
    commencement
    of itscase, to preparea fullanswer anddefence.Instead, theProsecution
    effectivelyre-openeditscase,during thelaststages of theDefence case.Thatthe
    documentin questionwasdisclosed priorto trialis immaterial. At theclosure of the
    Prosecution’s
    case,theDefence should be assuredthattheProsecution’s caseis closed,
    andthatno newProsecution
    656 witnesseswillbe called orevidenceintroduced.

    454.TheDefence caseis thatElizaphanNtakirutimanaspentthefirstperiodafterhis


    returnto Mugoneroputtingthefieldoffice backin order.From4 Mayonwards he went
    backto hisformerdaily
    routine:goingto hisoffice fiveorsixdaysa weekbetween6.00
    and7.00a.m., returning
    homeforbreakfast, thenbackto hisoffice,thenbackhomefor
    luncharoundmidday,returningto hisoffice around2.00p.m.,wherehe remaineduntil
    4.30or 5.00p.m.He spentevenings withhiswifeandoftenwithhissonsJ6r6me and
    G6rard.Dueto a chronic
    ailmenthe wasobligedto takemedicine
    at regular
    intervals.He
    leftMugonero on oneor two tripsto Kibuye town,and on otheroccasionsto visit
    Adventist churchesin Rubengera, Gihomboin Rwamatamu, Mpembe,Mubuga,and
    Cyangugu duringMay andJune.Elizaphan Ntakirutimanawouldusually leadSabbath

    654Id.pp.228-230.
    655Id.pp.230-231.
    656Id.pp.233-234.

    128 21 February
    2003
    Judgement
    andSentence
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    services
    at the@lisemorein Ngoma, buton someSabbaths he wouldpreach at other
    churches.Accordingto the Defence,thesewerethe onlyoccasions whenhe left
    Mugonero.
    He was neverin Bisesero.Thecumulativeevidence provided by Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    andhisfamilymembers,including
    hiswife,hissons, hisdaughter-in-law,
    hishousehold-helpWitness16, hisco-workerWitness 5, and othermembers of the
    Adventistcommunitywho werein MugonerofromAprilthroughJuly1994,clearly
    demonstrates,
    accordingto theDefence,thatElizaphan Ntakirutimananeverwentto
    Bisesero,
    or neartheMurambiChurch,Gitwe,or GitweHillduring theperiod fromMay
    toJuly1994,
    657 andthathedidnotcommitanyoftheatrocitiesascribedtohim.

    455.In relationto G6rardNtakirutimana,theDefence submitsthatuponreturning to


    Mugoneroandfinding thehospitallooted anddamagedtheAccused organized a clean-up
    whichlasted approximatelytwoweeks. Followingthat,around themiddle of May,the
    hospital
    partiallyresumedoperations.Fromthenon,G6rard Ntakirutimana
    worked at the
    hospital, Mondayto Saturday,maintaining a disciplinedschedule whichstarted at
    7.00a.m.whenhe lefthomeforwork.He wouldreturn homeforluncharound noonand
    againgo backto workat 2.00p.m.In theevenings, afterwork,he wouldreadat home
    andspend timewithhiswifeandchildren. He wastheonlydoctor at thehospitalandwas
    alwayson call.Whennotat workhe remained homeso thathe couldbe foundeasily. On
    Sabbathshe regularlyattendedchurch at Mugonero.SomeDefence witnesses testified
    thaton occasionG6rard NtakirutimanaleftMugonero to purchasemedicine, go to the
    market,fetchhis brother, or repair the watersystem. Exceptfortheseverybrief
    departures,welldefined andwellknownto theAccused’s familyandco-workers, the
    Accusedwas alwaysat Mugonero. For instance, Witness 11 foundhim at Mugonero
    Hospital
    658 whenhe travelledthereon an unannounced
    visitfromKibuye townin May.

    456.In short,accordingto theDefence, G6rard


    Ntakirutimana
    couldnotpossiblyhave
    beenin theplacesallegedby Prosecutionwitnesses,
    committing
    thecrimesalleged.Not
    onlyarethoseallegationscompletelyinconsistent
    withthelifeandworkof thedoctor,
    theyarealsowhollyimpossibleon theevidence.He hadneither
    motivenoropportunity.
    Whenthealibievidence fromthosewholivedwith,worked with,wereassociated
    with,
    or otherwise
    cameintocontact withG6rard Ntakirutimana
    is readin itsentirety,it
    followsthattheAccusedwas,during theperiodfromMayto July,
    workingat theclinic,
    or praying
    inchurch,or remainingathome,forsucha proportion
    ofthetimein question
    thatitisnotcredible
    659 tocontemplatethathewascommitting
    theactsalleged.

    4.3.2Prosecution

    457.The Prosecution
    notesthe admissions by DefencewitnessesthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    wasabsent
    fromGishyita
    at various
    times in thetwo-weekperiod
    after16
    April.
    66°However,
    theProsecution
    submitsthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    wasabsentmore
    often
    thanheadmitted.
    In support
    ofthisargument,it relieson a statement
    purportedly

    657
    Id.pp.234-241.
    658
    Id.pp.241-253.
    659
    Id.p.254.
    660Seegenerally
    Prosecution’s
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    563-589.

    Judgement
    andSentence 129 21 February
    2003
    6qO
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    madeby oneRachelleGermaine,andallegedlytakenby Prosecution


    investigators
    on 28
    November1995.TheProsecutionsubmitsthatGermaine, whotravelledto Gishyita
    with
    thetwoAccused on 16 April,
    declaredin thatdocument:"I usedto seeMr.Ruzindana
    comepickhimup veryofteninGishyita
    togo toa destination
    I didnotknow.
    ’’661

    458.In relation
    to RoyisiNyirahakizimana,
    wifeof ElizaphanNtakirutimana,the
    Prosecution
    argues
    thatsheappeared
    tobe "fumbling"
    whenshetestified
    thatno oneleft
    theCCDFPbuilding
    in Gishyita
    fortheentiretwoweeksshewasthere; yetlatershe
    changed
    herstory
    andstatedthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    andotherpeoplehad,in fact,
    left
    on occasion.
    Againshetestified
    thatshesawObedRuzindana
    quiteoftenat theCCDFP.
    Undercross-examination,
    shechangedherstoryandsaidthatsheusedto seehimat
    Mugonero
    andnotat Gishyita.
    In anycaseshedoesnotprovide
    a "watertight"
    alibifor
    hersonforthetwo-week
    662 period.

    459.TheProsecution’sgeneralsubmission
    in relation
    to thealibifortheperiod 17
    Aprilto theendof thatmonthis thatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    admittedly
    leftGishyita on
    occasion
    andthatno Defencewitnessobserved
    thetwoAccusedforthedurationof their
    stayinGishyita.
    Therefore,
    their
    alibievidence
    fortheGishyita
    period
    is"nottight".The
    factthatsomeDefence witnessesmaintainedthatbothAccusedalwaysremained in
    Gishyita,whereas
    otherstestifiedthatG6rardNtakirutimana
    didleave,showsthatthe
    testimony
    663 oftheformerwitnesses
    isunreliable.

    460.TheProsecution submitsthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana"couldnot havehadmuch


    to do to keephimin Mugonero"
    afterhe returnedthereat theendof April.TheAccused
    exaggeratedthedamage doneto thefieldoffice on andafter16 April.
    TheProsecution
    thusimplies thattheAccusedhadplentyof timeavailable
    to participate
    in theBisesero
    attacks. ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    alsoadmitted thathe travelledoutof Mugoneroon
    variousoccasionsduringthe periodfrom May to July 1994.So did G6rard
    664
    Ntakirutimana.

    461.The Prosecution
    refersto evidence of otherDefence witnesses
    thatthe two
    Accused
    periodically
    leftMugonero
    fromMayto July.665TheProsecution
    alsonotesthat
    thevarious
    alibiwitnesses
    werenotin thepresence
    of thetwoAccused
    except
    forlimited
    periods
    of time;outsidethosetimesthewitnesses couldhaveonlyassumedthatthey
    kmewthewhereabouts
    of thetwoAccused.666Mostof thewitnesses
    didnottravel with
    theAccused
    on their
    frequentexcursions.

    462.Moreover,
    according
    to theProsecution,
    manyof theDefencewitnesses
    cannot be
    considered
    reliable.
    667Theywererelations,
    closefriends,
    or former
    employees
    of the
    Accusedwho werelikelyto benefitfromshieldingthe Accusedfromcriminal
    661Id.paras.
    551and552
    662Id.paras.
    560-562.
    663Id.paras.
    563-573,580,
    590.
    664Id.paras.
    541,594-598,
    604,608,612,614.
    665Id.paras.618,620,626,629,631,650,651,691,696-699,
    714-723,727,
    732.
    666Id.paras.
    619,621,632,
    636,639,667,670,730,735,749.
    667Id.paras.633,648,
    660,737-739,745,754

    Judgement
    andSentence 130 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    responsibility.
    Theythusmayhavehada motiveto givefalsetestimony.
    668It isfurther
    submitted
    thattherelevantlocations
    in Bisesero
    wereapproximately
    20 to 25 kilometres
    fromMugoneroandthatdaytripswouldhavemorethansufficed fortheAccused to
    reachmassacresitesand returnto Mugonero.
    669TheProsecutionconcludes thatthe
    Accused’s
    alibifortheperiodfromMaytoJulyis "flawed"
    and"porous"
    andthatit does
    notcastanydoubt
    67° on theevidence
    of Prosecution
    witnesses.

    4.3.3Discussion

    463.TheChamberreiterates thatan accused


    whoraisesan alibiis merely
    denying
    that
    he or shewasin a position to committhecrimewithwhichhe or sheis charged.
    By
    raisingtheissue,an accusedsimplyrequires
    theProsecution
    toeliminatethereasonable
    possibility
    that
    thealibiistrue.
    671

    464. Prosecutionwitnesses
    allegedthattheysaw:
    (i) G6rardNtakirutimana, at Murambion 17 April(GG), at Murambi
    Hill/Ruronzi
    around19April(FF),at GitweHillin Aprilor May(FF), at Kidashya
    betweenAprilandJune(FF),at GitweHill"before" 15 May (DD),at Rwiramba
    MuyiraHillin mid-May (GG),at Muyira Hill"before" 15 June(HH),at Mubuga School
    towards
    theendof June(SS),andatMutiti Hillin June(FF);
    (ii)Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, at Nyarutovu Cellulein mid-May(CC),
    Nyarutovuaroundthethirdweekof May(CC),at Dege/Muyira Hillon 20 May(II),
    MurambiHillbetween Mayand June(SS),at Kucyapa between Mayand June(SS),
    Kucyapain June(HH),andhiscar(though nottheAccused himself)at MurambiChurch
    "afewdaysafter"16 April;
    (iii)BothAccused together,at MurambiHill"a number of daysafter"17 April
    (KK),at MurambiChurch towardstheendof April(GG),at Murambi Churchat the
    of April
    or beginningofMay(YY),atGitweHillattheendof April or beginning
    of May
    (HH),at Murambi Churchin earlyMay (DD),at MuyiraHillon 13 May (YY),
    unspecified
    locationin Biseseroon 14 May(YY),on a HilloppositeGitweHillin mid-
    May(XX),at Mubuga School in mid-May (GG),at Kabatwa Hilltowards theendof
    (KK),andat Mubuga Schoolin June(HH).

    465.ApartfromMurambi, the othernamedlocations werein Bisesero. The Chamber


    notesthatinmostcasesthewitnesses
    werenotabletodatetheir observations
    precisely.
    WitnessesGG,DD,SS,and YY appeared to be referringto one andthesameincident
    whentheytestifiedabouttheremoval of theroofof Murambi Church
    (see4.23). It
    possiblethatotherobservationsby twoor morewitnesses concernoneandthesame
    incident,
    buttheevidence
    isnotsufficient fora finding
    onthispoint.If theindividual
    observations
    areconsidered
    as referring
    to separateincidents,G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    was
    allegedlyseenseventimesin theBisesero areain theApril-Juneperiod,Elizaphan
    668Id.para.
    758.
    669Id.para.
    759.
    670Id.para.622;T.21August
    2002pp.93-97
    and137-146.
    671 See,for example,Kunarac(TC)paras.463,625;Kayishema
    and Ruzindana
    (AC)para.106;
    Musema
    (TC)para.200;Vasiljevic
    (TC)para.15.

    Judgement
    andSentence
    131 ~ 21 February2003
    t
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Ntakirutimana
    wasseenin Biseserofivetimes,
    and thetwoAccused
    wereseenthere
    together
    seven
    times.
    Thisis notcounting
    sightings
    atMurambi.

    466.Therefore,
    thequestionfortheChamberis whether
    theAccused’salibievidence,
    considered
    in conjunction
    withtheProsecution’s
    evidence,
    raises
    a reasonable
    possibility
    thatthetwoAccused,or either
    of them,wasnotat Murambior Bisesero
    at thetimes
    alleged,
    forthesimplereason,
    astheDefencewouldhaveit,theywerenotat Murambi
    or
    inBisesero
    atallduring
    therelevant
    period.

    467.TheChamber is awareof thedifficulty for theDefence wheretheallegations


    againsttheAccused arenotalways preciseas to dateandtimeandwherean alibiis put
    forthfora period as longas threemonths.Nevertheless
    theChamberobserves
    thatthere
    weremanygapsin theAccused’s alibi,detailed below.Moreover,theChamberdoesnot
    acceptmuchoftheevidence ofthealibi witnesses.Allthealibiwitnesses
    werefriendsor
    acquaintances of theAccused, andthe Chamber believesthattherewasa degreeof
    fabrication
    on thepartofmostofthese witnessesinan endeavour
    toassisttheAccused.
    TheChamberalsonotesthatthetwoAccused chose to testify
    attheveryendof thecase,
    andthusdidso withthebenefit of having heardtheevidence presented
    by theother
    Defencewitnesses. TheChamber hastakenthisfactor intoaccountin consideringthe
    weightto be accordedto theevidence
    givenby theAccused.

    468.A finalgeneralobservation
    is thatsomeof theevidencethatwasintroducedby
    theDefencereferred
    to thewhereaboutsof thetwoAccused
    on specific
    dates.However,
    mostof theevidencewasintendedto provetheAccused’sdailyroutine.
    Thepossible
    value
    ofestablishing
    a strict
    dailyroutinefortheAccused
    isthatanydeviationfromthat
    routinewouldmostlikelybe noticed
    by thoselivingandworkingin closeassociation
    withthem.

    (a)TheGishyita
    period:
    17 April
    toendof April
    1994

    469.SevenDefencewitnesses
    (4, 32, 16,7, 6, 12, and5), the wifeof Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    andthetwoAccused,provided
    evidence concerning
    theGishyita period
    ofthealibi.

    470.Witness 4, son of a colleagueof thetwo Accused, testifiedthatduringthe


    Gishyita
    period he sawElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    andG6rard Ntakirutimana
    "everyday":
    "itwouldbe a goodnumber of times.I sawthemallof thetime.... We were always
    together."
    Witness 4 testifiedthatneitherAccusedleftthevicinity of thecommunal
    building
    in Gishyitabeforetheendof April1994.Moreover,"I sawthevehicles[ofthe
    Accused]thereall of the time".The witnessdescribed the moodof Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana:
    "Iwasableto notice thatPastorNtakirutimanadidnotknowwhatto do.
    He seemed
    to me to be sad."As for G6rardNtakirutimana: "I didn’tsee G6rarddo
    anything.
    He satthere, notknowing whatto do.In a word,I wouldsaythathe gaveme
    the2
    ’’67
    impression
    ofa sadpersonwhowasjustsittingthere.

    672T.7 February
    2002p.85-87,
    90.

    Judgement
    andSentence 132 21 February
    2003
    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    471.Witness32,sonof anothercolleagueof thetwoAccused,testified


    thatduringthe
    Gishyitaperiodhe sawthe two Accused everyday."Weweretogether everydayin
    Gishyita."
    "Theyneverleftthatplace,if my memorydoesnotfailme."Thewitnessalso
    spenttimewithhisfriends:"Sometimes
    whenwegotbored sitting
    in oneplace
    fora long
    time,youngas we were,we movedaround, we wentto thecentre[ofGishyita]andwe
    returned."
    Laterhe concededthathe simply didnotknowwhetherG6rard Ntakirutimana
    673
    hadeverleftGishyita
    during
    thisperiod.

    472.RoyisiNyirahakizimana, wifeof Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, testified thather


    husband,whowasnotin goodhealth, didnotmovebeyond theimmediate vicinityof the
    communalhallforthewholeof theGishyita period. Shesawhimthereeveryday:"he
    couldsitdown,reada book,or liedown".Shetestified thatshe alsosawG6rard
    Ntakirutimanaeverydayduringthetwoweeks. He leftGishyita twiceto gettbod,once
    ,,674
    alone,and the secondtime
    "in"
    the companyofpastors andtheirchildren . On thefirst
    occasion,theAccusedwentto Ngomato fetchmilkfromhisfather’s house: "Itdidnot
    taketime.Themilkwasready whenhegotthere ....He returned immediately.
    ’’675Onthe
    secondoccasion,G6rardNtakirutimana
    wasgoneapproximately onehour.
    676He wasalso
    absenton a thirdoccasion,
    forthirtyminutesto an houron an unspecified
    day"abouta
    weekafterthewarstarted",
    677 when"a soldiercameandtookhimalongin a vehicle".
    Thewitness
    678 hadnotaskedhersonwherehe hadbeentaken.

    473.Witness16, who was Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s housekeeper,was visitedby


    G6rardNtakirutimana
    on 18 April.He arrived
    between9.00and9.30a.m.in thehospital
    vehicle;he explained
    thathe hadcomefromthecommunal office.He instructedthe
    witnessto deliver
    milkandfoodto thecommunaloffice. He lefttakingsomefoodstuffs
    withhim.Hisvisithadlasted abouttwohours.
    679Twodaysafterthisvisit, at around
    10.00a.m.,Witness16 leftElizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    housewitha loadof milkand
    potatoesand headedfor Gishyita.6g° There,he saw G6rard, Elizaphanand Royisi
    Ntakirutimana
    amongotherindividuals anddeliveredthefoodandmilkhe addbrought
    priorto goingbackto Ngomabetween 1.40and2.00p.m.on thesameday68aHe went
    backto Gishyita
    twodayslater,andthenagainonanother occasion(orpossiblytwo),
    intervals
    of twodays,to bringmilk.
    682He gavefewdetails concerning
    thesesubsequent
    683
    visits.

    474.Witness
    7, a Mugonero
    Hospital
    employee
    in 1994,testified
    thaton 19 Aprilshe
    wentto Gishyita’s
    communal
    office
    to replace
    herlostidentitycard.Thereshesaw

    673 T.16 April


    2002pp.126-127,
    133;T.17April2002p. 71-74.
    674 T.10 April
    2002pp.65-66-68,
    71.
    675 Id.p.168;
    T.11April
    2002p.11.
    676 Y. 10 April2002pp.71-72,
    168-169.
    677 Id.pp.72-73,
    77-78.
    678 Id. p.76.
    679 Y. 13 February2002pp.152-153;T.14 February
    2002pp.33-37,
    56.
    680 Y. 13 February2002pp.154-155;T. 14February
    2002p.40.
    681 Y. 13 February2002p. 159-160.
    682 Id.p. 163;T. 14February2002p. 40
    683 Id.pp.54-56.

    Judgement
    andSentence 133 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    G6rardNtakirutimana at the CCDFPbuilding,in the companyof Elizaphan


    Ntakirutimanaand others.Noneof thepersons whomshe sawwasarmed.684Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana seemedto be in deepthought and verysad.Witness 7 had a brief
    conversationwithG6rard Ntakirutimana,
    whoalsolooked sad;"Hesaidwhathappened
    in Ngomawassad,thatpeople hadbeenkilled,thatthehospitalhadbeendestroyedand
    looted.He saidhe wasoverwhelmedby whatwashappening."
    Witness7 agreed
    to assist
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    to makethehospital
    operational
    again.Shetestified
    thatshewasin
    thepresenceof thetwoAccused fromnoonuntil2.00p.m.on 19 April.
    Thereaftershe
    returned
    tohercellule.
    685

    475.Witness 6, brother of Witness 7, testifiedthathe wentto Gishyita "around


    the
    22ndand23rd"of April, although histestimony showsthathe wasnotsureaboutthe
    dates.He foundthe two Accused at the CCDFPbuilding. His reasonfor goingto
    Gishyita was,"I became curious andI wanted to go and seethem.Apartfromthat,
    there’sno otherreason". He heardElizaphan Ntakirutimanaspeakabouthischurch: "He
    wassaying thatin Ngomatherehadbeenlooting andpeople hadbeenkilled ....He was
    saying
    thatthere hadbeenveryfewpastors leftanditwaspossible thattheTutsipastors
    hadbeenkilled or hadfled.He wassaying that,in ourchurch, we hadlostmanyofour
    faithful."Moreover, "thepastor as wellas theotherpastors whowerewithhimwere
    sayingthatwe theyoung peopleshould remainat homeandtryto sensitize thefaithful
    andtellthemnotto participate in thesethings, thatChristians whohadfollowedthe
    church’steachings,we shouldtellwhomsoever we meetthattheyshouldn’t participate
    in
    thesethings" Amongthepeople listeningwasG6rard Ntakirutimana.No onewasarmed.
    Witness6 saidhe hadarrived in Gishyita in theaftemoon andstayed foroneor two
    hours,
    686 thenretumed to Ngoma.

    476.Witness12 testified
    t haton 15 Aprilhisparents senthimto borrow Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    bull.687Thewitness laterheardthattheAccused andhisfamily had
    soughtrefugeat thecommunaloffice in Gishyita.
    On "theSabbathwhichfollowed the
    weekduringwhichI hadgoneto fetchthebull"(byinference,on 23 A~ril),Witness
    wassentto Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanatoaskaboutreturningtheanimal.68 Whenhe gotto
    Gishyita,around11.00a.m.,he sawthetwoAccused. Elizaphan
    Ntaldrutimana toldhim
    thathe hadnotbroughthislivestock withhimandthathe should inform hisfatherto
    keepthebulluntilthesituation returnedto normal.
    Thewitnessspentabout30minutes
    withElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana;
    he didnotspeakwithanyotherpersons he sawthere;and,
    having
    accomplished
    hismission,he left.
    689

    477.Witness5, a colleague of ElizaphanNtakirutimana,


    testifiedthathe wentto
    Gishyita
    "onSunday or on thefollowingday...aftertheSabbath
    followingtheSabbath
    of the16th"(by inference, 24 or 25 April1994).
    He foundthe twoAccused there.
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana"saidthathe didnotknowexactlywhenhe wouldbe ableto go
    684
    T. 12February2002pp.43-48,
    61,63,216-218.
    685Id.pp.49-54.
    686
    T. 24April2002pp.102-103,
    107-112;
    T.25April2002pp.25.
    687W.13February2002pp.24-34,
    60-68.
    688Id.pp.40-42,
    77-88.
    689Id.pp.42-47;Defence
    exhibit
    1D16.

    Judgement
    andSentence 134 21 February
    2003
    !
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    back.However
    ...in ourconversation
    he toldme thathe wasthinkingaboutwaysof
    relaunching
    theactivities
    of themission."G6rardNtakirutimana
    spokeofhisdesireto
    restore
    hospital
    services.
    Witness
    5 remainedin Gishyita
    fromaround11.30a.m.until
    "theevening".
    69°

    478.Elizaphan NtakirutimanatestifiedthatduringtheGishyita period G6rardleft


    Gishyitatwicein thefirstweekaftertheirarrival.
    Thefirst time,G6rardwentto Ngoma
    withtwopastors to lookforprovisions.Thesecondtime,he alsowentto Ngoma. His
    fatherremembered that,on the secondoccasion,
    he camebackwithtwoyoungboys
    whomhe hadfoundnearthebodies of theirmothers,
    andthatthiswasa fewdaysafter
    theirarrival in Gishyita.Afterthisoccasion,
    G6rard didnotleaveGishyita again,
    accordingto hisfather.69~TheAccusedmaintained
    thathe neverleftGishyita or the
    immediatesurroundingsof theCCDFPbuildinguntilhisreturn to Mugoneroat theend
    of April:"I wasn’twell;I wassad.I wasn’tcapableof doingmuch.I wasreading the
    Bible
    ’’692andI waspraying.

    479.G6rard Ntakirutimanatestifiedthaton 17 Aprilhe remained in Gishyita.


    693The
    nextday,18 April1994,"I wentto Mugonero toseewhatthesituation waslikethere. I
    tookthatopportunityto passbymy father’s houseto collect someprovisions".694From
    theretheAccused allegedlydroveto thehospital; "I sawdeadbodies whichwerequite
    closetotheparkinglotonthelower side, andbythese bodies
    I found twolittleboys.
    ’’695
    He stated
    thatthetwochildren stayedwithhimin Gishyita fora week,approximately,
    " " " " : toldthatI shouldn’t
    be
    deUre~gghleChe
    t~i~hebtham;22uCeer~hde;bw°UtetheltrsS2
    ’f’e~6y 222s afterabouta week(the
    Accuseddidnotfurther specifythedate,except to saythatit wasduring theirsecond
    weekin Gishyita),he tookthembackto Mugonero. At another time,whentheAccused
    wasin Gishyita,he wasapproachedby a soldier:
    "Thiswastowards theendof thefirst
    week... And thiswas afterthe mealat lunchtime, and we werejustin frontof
    theCCDFP,andsuddenly I sawa soldierarrive,andthiswasa second lieutenant.Hetold
    me, ’Come,comewithme; comewithme in yourvehicle’ ... So we wentdownfrom
    the CCDFP,andwhenwe gotto the mainroad,whichcomesfromKibuyeandgoesto
    Cyangugu,I foundanother groupof soldiers whohadanother vehicle ...In theother
    vehicletherewereabouteightgendarmes ...Somecameintomy vehicle, thevehicle I
    wasdriving,andthentheysaid,’Let’s go’.So theypointedthedirection where I should
    go. Theotherone wentin frontof us andhe said,’Youfollow us’ ....Forabout
    15 minutes,20 minutes,somethinglikethat.We tooktheroadgoingto Gishyita, and
    there’sanotherroadbranching,goingto Bisesero.We tookthatroadandcontinued about
    20 minutes,andtheytoldme to stop,so I stopped. Aboutsixgendarmes gotoffthe
    vehicleand left.I was withabouttwogendarmes ....Afteraboutsomething like
    30 minutestheycameback...with,I wouldsay,a body,a deadbodythatwaswrapped
    690
    Y. 2 May2002pp.109-115.
    691T.7 May2002p. 20-26.
    692Id.pp.16,17,134.
    693
    Y. 9 May2002p. 116.
    694Id.p.116.
    695Id.pp.118-119;T.10May2002pp.84-85.
    696T. 9 May2002p. 127

    Judgement
    andSentence 135 / 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    in a covering,andtheyloadedit on my pickup.Andthenwe turned around,andwhenwe


    gotto thejunction betweentheroadwhichcomesfromBisesero andthemainroad,the
    soldiers whowerein theothervehicle goton my vehicleandtoldme to takethemto
    Kibuye. Withthedeadbodyandthesmallgroupof soldiers we wentto Kibuye.
    ’’697The
    Accuseddidnotspecifythedateofthisincident or thepartsof Bisesero
    hewentthrough
    or whathe sawalongtheway.At Kibuye towntheAccused wasdirected to thecampof
    theGendarmerie, wherethegendarmes unloaded thebodyfromhiscar;he thendrove
    backto Gishyita.698Thewholeepisode lasted from1.00to 5.00 p.m.699TheAccused
    stated thathe didnotknowwhyhehadbeenapproached forthismission,v°°He testified
    thatexcept
    7°a forthetimesmentionedabove he wasneverabsentfromGishyita.

    480.G6rard Ntakirutimana’stestimonyis contradicted by Witness4 and32,whosaid


    thatthetwoAccused andtheir vehicles
    never leftGishyitaduringtheperiod inquestion.
    ApartfromtheAccused, theonlyotherwitness forthewholeGishyita period is his
    motherRoyisi Nyirahakizimana,wifeof ElizaphanNtakirutimana. Sheclaimed thatthe
    thirdtimehersonwasabsent fromGishyita waswhena soldier tookhimawayforhalf
    an hourto anhour,notfourhoursas testified by G6rardNtakirutimana.TheChamber is
    thuspresentedwithvarying
    versionsofthealibi giving
    risetothedistinct possibility
    that
    Witness4 and 32 and Royisi Nyirahakizimanawereeither notawareof allof G6rard
    Ntakirutimana’smovementsor wereminimising hisabsences to assisthisdefence. The
    Chamberdoesnot findRoyisiNyirahakizimana’s testimony on the two Accused’s
    whereaboutscredible.Herclaimthatherhusband wasillduring theGishyitaperiod was
    notcorroborated by Witnesses16,7, 6, 12,or 5, whomadeday-trips to Gishyita.The
    evidenceof thesewitnessesdoesnotcreate a reasonable
    possibilitythatthetwoAccused
    werealwaysinGishyita outsidethetimeswhenthefivewitnesses visited.
    Itis admitted,
    afterall,thatG6rard NtakirutimanaleftGishyita threetimes. No Defence witness
    accompanied theAccused on anyof theseoutings, oneof whichwasto Bisesero. The
    ChamberfindsthatthetwoAccused hadtheopportunity andthemeansto leaveGishyita
    duringtheperiod theylivedthere. Theevidence doesnotraise a reasonablepossibility
    thattheywerenot at thoselocations in Murambi and Bisesero whereProsecution
    witnessestestifytohavingseentheminApril.

    (b)TheMugonero
    period:
    Endof Aprilto July1994

    481.Thirteen
    Defencewitnesses(4,32,5, 22,16,9, 8, 25,24,21,23,7, and6),not
    countingthe two Accusedand theirclosefamilymembers, gaveevidencebroadly
    covering
    theMugoneroperiodof thealibi.In addition,
    Witness
    11 gaveevidence
    on two
    specificsegmentsof theperiod.Thisevidence is summarized
    andevaluatedin the
    paragraphs
    thatfollow.

    697
    Id.pp.130-133.
    698
    Id.pp.135-136.
    699
    Id.p.140.
    700Id.p.135;T.10May2002pp.86-88.
    7o~T.9 May2002p. 138;T. 10 May2002pp.88-89.

    Judgement
    andSentence 136 t 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    482.Witness 4 testified
    thatafterreturningfromGishyitahe observedthehospitalstaff
    re-establish
    thehospitalservicesandthathestayed atMugonero, without
    everleaving the
    place,until hefledto Zaireinmid-July1994.7°2He testifiedthatduringthatperiod he
    sawthetwoAccused "allof thetime...I onlysawthemat theirplaceof work, whenI
    walked around, whenI wentto thehospital; forexample, I oftensaw G6rard at the
    hospital. And thesamewastruewhenI wentto thefieldoffice. I sawthePastor,
    especiallysinceI livedinthevicinity."7o3As forG6rard Ntakirutimana,
    "I usedtosee
    himbothinthemorning andin theafternoon...Almost everydayof theweek.’’7°4Also,
    "I tooka walkallthetime. WhenI reached
    thehospital I wouldseethedoctor.’’7°5Also,
    "therewasnota single daywhichwentby without me seeinghim.’’7°6Witness4 sawthe
    Accused,forexample, "intheconsultationroom"; however,thewitness added,"I do not
    recallwhere theroomwaslocated"and,"Ionlypassed through.I didnotpayattention to
    thatkindof detail. ’’7°7On theSabbaththewitness wouldseethetwoAccused at the
    NgomaChurch. 7°8Thewitness laterclarified thathe hadnotattended churchon every
    Sabbathduring thisperiod:
    "Iwent...about threetimesa month ....it wouldmeanthat
    duringthatperiod I wentto churchsixto seven times.
    ’’7°9Nevertheless,evenon those
    occasions whenhe didnotattend, he wouldseethetwoAccused returnfromchurch, for
    he livedcloseto G6rard
    71° Ntakirutimana’s
    housethroughout theMay-July 1994period.
    Witness 4 saidhe neversaweither Accused armedwitha weapon or in thecompany of
    711
    armedmen.

    483.In theChamber’sopinion,
    Witness 4’sclaimthathe sawthetwoAccused allof
    thetimeis improbably
    exaggerated.
    Thewitness didnotprovide
    a plausible
    explanation
    aboutwhyhe spentas muchtimeas he claimswalking
    in thegroundsof theComplex,
    noticing
    theAccused’s
    presence
    manytimes eachday.Hisaccount
    waslackingin detail.

    484.Witness 32 testified thatwhenhe returnedto Mugoneroat theendof Aprilhe


    tookpartin theclean-up of thehospital,
    whichcommencedafteraboutthreedaysand
    lastedabouttwoweeks. 712"I wouldgo thereeverydayexcept ....In the
    on Saturdays
    morning
    I wouldarrive at eight...EachtimethatI wenttoparticipateinthehospital’s
    clean-up
    operationI wouldseeDr.G6rard ....During thisperiodof time...we’dclean
    up thehospitaluntilaboutnoonandthenwe wouldgo home...whenwe weretoldwe
    couldleave, sometimes he wouldleavebeforeme,sometimes he wouldleaveafterme.
    ...Itwasn’t always
    thesame".713Aftercleaninghadbeencompleted, by mid-May,
    tento
    20 employeesreturnedto workandlimitedservicesresumed.
    714Therewerefewpatients

    702T.7 February
    2002pp.94,100-101;T.8 February
    2002p.65.
    703T.8 February
    2002p.95.
    704Id.p.53.
    705id.p.64.
    7o6Id.p.69.
    707Id.pp.56-63.
    708T.7 February
    2002p.96.
    709T.8 February
    2002pp.36-37.
    710Id.pp.38-43, 87-88;
    Prosecution
    exhibits
    P35andP36.
    7tlT. 7 February
    2002pp.99-100.
    712T.16April 2002pp.137,139.
    713Id.pp.142-143;T.17April2002p.33.
    714T.16April 2002pp.144-146.

    Judgement
    andSentence 137 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    comparedwithearliertimes: "Thedispensary wouldn’thavemorethan20 patients, and


    to thatyouwouldaddapproximately fiveinpatients. ’’7a5Surgery casesweresentto
    Kibuyetown.
    7a6Witness32 describedhisdayshift hours: "Iwouldgo to workat 7:00and
    ... I would,firstof all,go to prayers." The witnesswouldalwayssee G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    at morningprayers.YlV"AfterprayersI wouldgo to my department
    [then]I
    wouldgo forlunchat noonandcomebackat 2 p.m.I worked from2 p.m.to 4:30p.m.
    andat 4:30p.m.someone wasto comeandreplace us.
    ’’718"I wouldsaythatDr.G6rard
    workeddayandnight. By thatI mean,he wasworking everydayfrom7 o’clock andhe
    wouldgo forlunchat noonto return at 2 p.m.Andif therewasa problem duringthe
    night,it wasDr.G6rardwhowould be called uponbecause he wastheonlyone.’’719Even
    whenWitness 32 wason nightshift, anddidnotseetheAccused duringtheday,the
    witnessknewthatG6rardNtakirutimana had beenat workthatday becausehe
    recognizedtheAccused’s handwriting
    on thepatient treatment sheets.
    72°However,the
    witnessdidalsohaveregular daysoff,whenhe wouldnotgo to thehospital. 72~Andhe
    didnotruleoutthatG6rard Ntakirutimanahadtravelled to Kibuyetownduring
    theperiod
    betweenMayand July1994to acquire medicines. 722Duringthisperiodhe alsosaw
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    at church
    or at thefieldoffice. 723 Thewitnessstatedthathe
    724
    neversaweither Accusedcarryingarmsor associating witharmedmen.

    485.TheChamber findsWitness 32’sevidencealsoto be exaggerated,


    andtherefore
    unreliable.
    In anycaseit is clearfromthewitness’s
    testimony
    thattherewerelarge
    chunksof timewhenhe didnotseetheAccused,forexample,whenhewason nightshift
    or off work.The Chambernotesitsearlier observationthatWitness4 and 32 are
    overzealous
    in minimizing
    theabsenceof theAccused.

    486.Witness5 testifiedthatElizaphanNtakirutimana’s
    firstdaybackatworkafterthe
    Gishyita
    ’’725 period was2 Mayandthat,"[t]he pastorwasalways there,everyday.
    "Accordingto ourtimetable at thefield, we wouldworkfivedaysa week,apartfrom
    publicholidaysor on theSabbath day,andon Sundayswe didn’t workeither.’’726In
    May-July,ElizaphanNtakirutimana would"sometimes... go to visitotherchurches,
    sometimes
    alsohe would go toattend meetings,
    andsinceitwasdifficult to obtainfuel,
    sometimeshe wouldgo to fetchpetrolfromKibuyeand he wouldcomeback.Other
    timeshe wouldgo andpreach on theSabbathday.’’727He estimated"thatit waseight
    daysaltogetherin totalwhenhe wasn’t at Ngoma...fromthesecond of Mayuntilthe
    timewe fled"and"wecanaddto theseeightdaystheSabbath dayson whichhe wentto
    715Id.p.151;T.17April 2002pp.42-43,
    60-61.
    716T.16April 2002p. 152;T,17April
    2002pp.81-83.
    717T.16April 2002p.152.
    718Id.p.148.
    719Id.p.150;T.17April 2002pp.40-42.
    72oT.16 April2002pp.I50-151.
    721T.17April2002pp.75-77.
    722Id.pp.83-85.
    723W. 16April2002pp.165-166.
    724Id,p.165.
    725T. 2 May2002pp.125-126.
    726Id.p.128.
    727Id.p.129.

    Judgement
    andSentence 138 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    preach
    elsewhere".
    728Witness 5 wouldalsoseeG6rard
    NtakirutimanaduringMay-July:
    "Iwouldseehimattimespassat thehospital,
    sometimes
    I wouldseehimgoto work, but
    ...mostof thetimesthatI sawhimwaswhenhe cameto prayat thechurch.’’729The
    witness
    73° claimed
    tohaveseenhimonnineSabbathsduring
    thatperiod.

    487.TheChambernotesthatit is clearfromWitness5’stestimony
    thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    lefttheMugonero vicinity
    on numerous
    occasions
    duringtheMugonero
    period.
    OnlyoncedidWitness5 accompany
    theAccused.Thewitness
    didnotprovide
    a
    concrete
    alibiforG6rard
    Ntakirutimana.

    488.Witness 22,wifeof Witness 5, returnedto Mugoneroin thefirstweekof May.


    Shetestified to seeing G6rardNtakirutimana at church
    "onalltheSabbath days." She
    addedthat,on oneSabbath theAccused calledon thecongregationto return property
    takenfromthechurch andtoassist himwiththecleanup ofthehospital.TM "I wouldalso
    seethepastor at thechurch, butI wouldn’t seehimon alltheSabbath daysbecause
    pastorshadprograms of preaching elsewhere,andwhenhe had travelled he wouldn’t
    cometo praythere.
    ’’732 Butwhenhe cameto prayat theparent church,I would seehim.
    Thewitness wouldseethetwoAccused on various otheroccasions.Concerning G6rard
    Ntakirutimana,"I wouldn’t saythatI spokewithhimafterwhathappened at Mugonero.
    We didn’thavetimeto chator discuss, butI wouldseehimat home.I wouldseehim
    whenhe wentfromhishometo go to work. ’’733Witness22’sobservations of G6rard
    Ntakirutimana werenotregular. "Sometimes therewouldbe weeks...whichwentby
    withoutme seeinghim. ’’734Herobservations of ElizaphanNtakirutimana werenot
    preciseas to time.Forexample: "thepastor wouldcomefromtimeto timeto go round
    theschool [where thewitness worked] andthechapel. Otherdayshe wouldcomeand
    greettheteachers andhewouldgo in.AndI wouldalsoseehimfromtimeto timeat the
    officewhenI wentto seemy husband. ’’735 Thewitnesstestifiedthatshehadnever seen
    eitherAccused in possessionof a weapon or associatingwitharmedmen,norhadshe
    heardsucha thing saidabout 736
    them.

    489.Witness22 doesnot significantly


    contribute
    to theAccused’s
    alibifor the
    Mugonero
    period.SheadmittedthatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    traveled,
    andthathe was
    notalwayspresentat Sabbath
    services.
    It appears
    shesawG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    only
    veryirregularly.

    490.Witness16 testified
    thatuponhisreturnto Mugonero
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    tookup hisformer
    routine.
    However,
    thewitness
    didindicate
    variations:
    "hewould
    come

    728
    Id.pp.133-134;T.3 May2002p.62.
    729
    Id.pp.139-140.
    730
    Id.p.143.
    73l
    T.30 April2002pp.167-168,172-173.
    732
    Id.p.172.
    733
    Id.p.177.
    734
    Id.p.181;("jenelevoyaisqu’uneseule
    loisparsemame,
    oum~me,
    quelquefois,
    ily a dessemaines
    qui
    sepassaient
    sansqueje
    nel’aivu";p.196).
    735Id.pp.183,185,
    188.
    736Id.pp.196-198.

    //)

    Judgement
    andSentence 139 21 February
    2003
    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    homeforlunchexcept on daY3swhenhe wentout...to far-away areasformeetings as


    partofhischurchactivities","Andbefore leaving
    in themorning hewouldtellus not
    towaitforhimforlunch becausehe wouldbe travelling
    to far-away
    areas as partof his
    religiousduties.’’738Also,"[o]nsomeof theSabbath dayshe wouldgo to theNgoma
    Church. On otherdaysof theSabbath he wouldgo to otherchurches located in the
    Ngomaarea".
    739Moreover,thewitnesswouldregularly
    visit hisparentsforbrief periods,
    during whichhe wouldbe absentfromElizaphan Ntakirutimana’shouse.740 Witness 16
    testifiedthathe wouldseeG6rardNtakirutimana
    threeor fourtimesa week. "Heusedto
    cometo the house....In theafternoons on theSabbath he wouldcomeand eatwith
    members of the family.On otheroccasions I wouldsee him whenI wentto their
    741 (Later
    home". thewitness
    alsostated thatG6rardNtakirutimanawouldovernightat his
    father’shouseon "manynights".
    742) The witnessknewof no weaponsin hisemployer’s
    houseanddidnotseeElizaphan G6rardNtakirutimanawithanykindof weapon.
    743

    491.TheChambernotesthatWitness16 referred
    to Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    travels
    to "far-away
    areas". Thewitness
    didnotaccompanytheAccusedon histravels.
    He saw
    G6rardNtakirutimanaperiodically.The Chamberdoesnot findthatWitness16’s
    evidence
    amounts
    to a strong
    alibifortheMugonero
    period.

    492.Witness9,a studentin1994,testified
    thathe would
    takehisfather’s herdoutto
    pasturein theneighbourhood
    of hishouse,
    whichwasoutside theComplex,fromtheend
    ofApriluntil earlyJuly.HedidnotclaimtohaveseenthetwoAccused inthecourse of
    cleaningactivities.
    However,
    duringtheperiodfromMayto July,he wenttochurchfour
    times,forprayersfrom8:30to midday,beginning
    withthefirstSabbath inMay.He saw
    thetwoAccused andtheir
    familiesat church
    on those
    occasions.
    TM

    493.Witness
    8,a relative oftheNtakirutimana
    family,testified
    that, atthestart ofthe
    secondweekof May,shemovedintoG6rard Ntakirutimana’s
    house, to takecareof his
    children.
    745Sheremained thereuntilJuly.
    746Sheprovidedanaccount of thedailyroutine
    in thehousehold,of churchservices,Biblestudiesandworkandmealtimes. 747G6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s
    dailyworkschedule, accordingto Witness8, wasthathe wouldleave
    forworkbetween 7.00and8.00a.m.everydayexcept 748 He returned
    Saturday. homefor
    lunchat noonor 1.00p.m.andwentbackto workat 2.00 p.m. 749He wouldfinish work
    andbe homeby 4.30p.m."every day".He wouldnevergo outat nighty ° Thewitness

    737T.13February2002p.168;seealsoId.p.167.
    738Id.pp.173-174;T.14February2002pp.47-48.
    739Id.p.168.
    74oT.14February2002p.44.
    741r.13February 2002p.172;seealsoT.14 February
    2002pp.44-45.
    742Id.p.50.
    743T.13February 2002p.179.
    744T.29April 2002pp.29-32,36,39-40;T.30 April
    2002p.48,Defence
    exhibit
    2D36.
    745
    T.14 February2002pp.79-80,135.
    746
    Id.pp.65,78,80.
    747
    T. 14February2002pp.81,83-86,151,153,171.
    748
    Id.p.92.
    749
    Id.pp.93,146.
    750Id.p.97.

    Judgement
    andSentence 140 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR,96-17-T

    testified
    thatG6rardNtakirutimana
    did notown a gun andshe had neverseenhim
    carrying
    one.
    751752
    Shetestified
    thatshesawElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    fromtimetotime.

    494.The ChamberbelievesthatWitness 8’s evidencedoesnot advance the alibi


    outsidethe timesshe observedthe Accused.She was categorical thatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    neverleftthe houseat night.Yet Witness 32 statedthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    wason nightcallat thehospital.Herevidence
    in thisregardwasalso
    contradicted
    by Witness24. Evenif G6rardNtakirutimana
    did abideby the daily
    timetable
    described
    by Witness
    8, sheonlyassumedthattheAccusedwasat workduring
    thehourswhenhe wasnotat home.

    495.Witness25 testified thatoneafternoon in thefirstweekof May1994,whenhis


    daughter
    wasill,thewitness wentto Mugonero Hospital.(Laterin histestimony the
    witness
    said:"or,otherwise it wouldbeat theendof April. I don’t
    really remember
    very
    wellwhattimeof yearit was".) G6rard Ntakirutimana
    gavethewitness medicine,which
    he obtained
    fromhishouse. He didnotaskthewitness formoney. Witness 25 alsomet
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,whowasdriving a vehicle.
    Theyhada conversation: "Thelast
    thinghe toldme is as follows: he saidonlyGodcansaveus."In addition to this
    encounterwiththetwoAccused in thefirstweekof May,Witness 25 sawG6rard and
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana at othertimesin May-July, but provided scantdetails
    concerning
    thesemeetings.753He added: "I havenever,
    neverin allmy lifeseenPastor
    Ntakirutimana
    or hissonG6rard carryinganythingthatcanbedescribed asa weapon".
    754
    Witness
    25’ssightingsdo notexclude thepossibility
    of theAccused’spresence outside
    Mugonero
    as allegedby Prosecution witnesses.

    496.Witness24,daughterof a colleague
    ofthetwoAccused,testifiedthatshereturned
    to Mugonero
    "during thefirstweekof May.Witness24 testified
    to seeingbothAccused
    duringthe periodof May to July.Whileat Gloria’s house,she oftensaw G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    goingto,or returning fromwork,"andsometimeshe visited
    us at home.
    And I saw him in the eveningwhenhe cameand conversedwithmy fatherand
    others.
    ’’755Sheclaimed to haveseenbothAccused "eachtimethatI wentto church"
    duringtheperiod fromMay to July,claiming thatshewentto church everySabbath
    withoutfailY6 In summary,she testifiedthaton average she wouldsee Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanafivetimesa weekandG6rard Ntakirutimana
    sixtimesa weekoverthe
    periodin question.
    757According to thewitness,neither
    Accusedeverlefttheareaof
    Mugonero:"I didnothearit saidon anyoccasion duringanydaythattheywerenot
    ,,758
    there.

    751Id.pp.95-98.
    752Id.p.148.
    753T.15February
    2002pp.3 8-51.
    754Id.p.62.
    755T.25April2002pp.88,110-113,
    157.
    756Id.pp.119-120.
    757Id.pp.129,158-160.
    758Id.pp.129-130.

    Judgement
    andSentence 141 21 February
    2003
    IZ6
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    497.TheChamber findsWitness24’sevidence
    to be exaggerated
    andunreliable.
    It is
    contradicted
    by otherDefenceevidence,forinstanceJer6me
    Nataki’s
    evidence,
    that
    ElizaphanNtakirutimanawas not presentat everySabbathserviceconducted
    in
    Mugonero
    duringtheperiod,as wellas Witness
    8’sevidence
    thatG6rard
    Ntakii’utimana
    washomeat 4.30p.meverydayandneverwentoutat night.

    498.Witness 21,sonof a colleague of thetwoAccused, testified thathe returned to


    Mugoneroin earlyMay.759 He movedintoGloria’s house, whichwaslocated nearthe
    houseof G6rardNtakirutimana andwascloseto thefieldoffice. Duringtheensuing two-
    weekperiod, he wouldseeDr. G6rard everymorning whenhe was goingto work,and
    whenhe wentbackhomeforlunchin theafternoon, andin theevening. He wouldalso
    seeElizaphan Ntakirutimanaat thefieldoffice or as theAccused wentto,or returned
    fromwork,as wellas at church on theSabbath. 76°Fromthemiddle of Mayuntilthe
    beginning of Junethe witness livedat the houseof EnosKagaba, wherehe began
    mindinghisfather’s cattle.761Thewitness indicated thathe wouldseebothAccused
    whengrazingthecattle. 762However, he providedfewdetails aboutthecircumstances in
    whichhe sawthem.763In thebeginning of June,Witness 21 movedfora thirdtimeto a
    house"veryclose to thehospital" andremained thereuntilhe leftthecountry in mid-
    July.
    764Alsoat thattimethewitness returnedtoschool atEsapan, leavinghishouse at
    7.00a.m.andreturning fromschool at 5.00p.m.(Theschool wasthirty minutes’ walk
    fromMugonero.) He wouldreturn to Mugoneroforlunch. 765Whenwalking to schoolhe
    "couldeithertaketheroadthatwentclosebythehospital; otherwise...theonewhich
    wentbelowthehospital". He wouldsee"Dr.G6rard wherewe lived in thewhitepeople’s
    quarters.I wouldseehimwhenhe wasgoingto workor coming backhome." Frommid-
    Mayto mid-July he wouldseebothAccused at church on theSabbath.766He addedthat
    evenon thoseSaturdays whenhe didnotattend church he sometimes sawbothAccused
    "whentheycameoutof thechurch". 767 "WhenI wasgrazing theherdcloseby thechurch
    orin thesurroundingsof thechurch I couldseethem, because ...I wouldbeclose bythe
    paththattheywouldfollow ...whentheycamebackfromchurch".768 FromearlyMay
    untilmid-July thewitness wouldseeG6rard Ntakirutimana aboutfivedaysperweek,
    includingon theSabbath, andon thosedayshe wouldsometimes seetheAccused more
    thanoncea day.Duringthe sameperiodhe wouldsee Elizaphan Ntakirutimana an
    averageof threedaysperweek,and"sometimes ...threetimesa day". 769He wouldsee
    himat thefieldoffice, at thechurch, andat themillwhichwas"infrontof his[the
    Accused’s]house".77°Thewitness testified thathe neversaweither Accused leave
    Mugonero.Nordidhe seeeither of themwithweapons or in thecompany of soldiersor
    759
    T. 23April2002pp.91-92,
    95-96,
    108,120.
    760
    Id.p.122-123.
    761
    Id.pp.110,113-114.
    762
    Id.p.125-126.
    763
    Id.p.161;T.24April2002p.6.
    764
    T. 23April2002pp.115,119-120.
    765
    Id.pp.115,164-167.
    766
    Id.pp.121-124.
    767
    Id.p.171.
    768
    T.24April2002p.6.
    769
    Y.23 April2002pp.125-127.
    77o
    Id.p.121.

    Judgement
    andSentence 142 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakJrutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    armedpersons.
    He alsodidnotseeanyarmedpersons
    heading
    fortheBisesero
    areaor
    anywounded
    771 beingbrought
    to theComplex.

    499.TheChamber
    findsWitness
    2 l’sevidence
    to be exaggerated
    andunreliable.

    500.Witness 23,sonof a colleague of thetwoAccused, testified that,beginning in


    earlyJune, he taughtattheESINursing Schoolforthreeweeks, twodaysperweek,from
    8.00a.m.to noon;buthe couldnotrecall on whichweekdayshe taught.
    772Frommid-
    MaytoJuly,he wouldvisitthehospital fourto fivetimesa week. 773Thishewoulddo
    evenon dayswhenhe wasnotteaching, because "itwasa placeI lovedto go". 774He
    wouldgo to the"olddispensary"ofthehospital to playtabletennis.775Hewouldvisit
    GrrardNtakirutimana andvarioushospital employees,includinga relative.
    776Grrard
    Ntakirutimanawasat thehospital andwasworking mostof thetimewhenthewitness
    wenttothe hospital.
    777He wouldspeaktotheAccused about
    theconditionof thehospital
    andthedifficulties in treating
    patients.Thewitness attendedSabbathservicesat the
    @lisemorethreetimesbetween mid-May andmid-July and saw Grrard and Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanaon allthreeoccasions.He wouldvisitGrrard Ntakirutimanaat homeand
    comeacross theAccused "ontheroad". He alsosawElizaphan Ntakirutimanaandspoke
    withhimon various occasionsbetween mid-May andJuly.He claimed neverto have
    seeneither
    778 Accusedgoto Bisesero
    nortohaveheardofthemgoing to Bisesero.

    501.TheChamber findsWitness
    23’sevidenceto be exaggerated
    andunreliable.
    He
    gaveno plausible
    explanation
    whyhe wouldvisitthehospital
    withsuchfrequency
    and
    providedno account
    of thetimeswhentheAccused themselves
    acknowledged
    leaving
    Mugonero.

    502.Witness7 testifiedthatat theendof AprilshesawthetwoAccused andothers


    returning
    in vehiclesfromGishyita to theComplex.Also,at theendof thatmonththe
    witnessattendeda Sabbathservice at theMugoneroAdventistChurch,
    at whichGrrard
    Ntakirutimanaspoke:"hetoldthepopulation thatwhathadhappened wasabominable
    andshouldnotbe repeated. He urgedeveryone whohadhospitalproperty,
    whetherthey
    hadboughtit ortakenit,theyshould returnit.’’779Witness
    7 assisted
    inthehospital
    clean-upoperationsin the second weekof May.During thisrestorationperiod,the
    witnesswouldgo to workin the morning and returnhomeat noonor 1.00p.m.She
    would
    seeGrrard Ntakirutimana
    atthehospital everyday.
    780Oncethehospitalre-opened
    andit wasfunctioning,Witness 7 workedat thehospitalsixdaysperweek,frommid-
    MayuntilJuly.Shewouldsetoffto workat 7.30a.m.,takea breakat noon, returnto

    77tId.pp.129-131,171-173;
    T.24 April
    2002pp.18-19.
    772Z.22April2002pp.87-88,118-119,
    125.
    773Id.p.69.
    774T.23April2002p.14.
    775Z.22April2002p.121.
    776Id.pp.70-73;Defence
    exhibits2D40,2D34.
    777Id.p.79.
    778Id.p.80-82,
    84-86,
    88,92.
    779T.12February2002pp.56-60.
    vs0Id.pp.68-71.

    Judgement
    andSentence 143 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    workat2.00p.m., andfinishhershift at4.30or5.00p.m.781Shetestified thatfrommid-


    Mayonwards therewereprayer sessionseverydayat thehospital before work.About30
    to 40 personsattended,including,"quiteoften",G6rardNtakirutimana.782During this
    period,accordingto thewitness,thehospitalwouldreceivebetween 15 and40 patientsa
    day.Dependingontheircondition, someof thepatientswouldbe sentto seetheAccused.
    Fromheroffice shecould seethecorridor leadingto theoffice wheretheAccused would
    seehispatients.783Thewitness claimedto havebeenawareof theAccused’s presenceat
    thehospital during workinghoursandalsoto haveknownwhenhe was absent.784 "He
    leftononeoccasion ...andhetoldus thathewasgoing to thehealth officein orderto
    askformedical assistance.At anothertimehe wentto retrieve medicationwhichthe
    members of thepopulationwereselling at theMugonero market. He alsoleftanother
    time and on thatoccasionI went withhim.And he went to fetchmoneythat
    BORNEFONDENowedthehospital.’’785"I thinkthathe wasabsent fromthehospital ...
    fewer thansixtimesaltogether, includingthetimesI havealready mentioned.’’786She
    neversaw G6rardNtakirutimana armedor associating witharmedmen.787 As for
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana,
    shesawhim"almost everyday"in theFieldoffice duringthe
    period fromMayto July.788"Every day,eachtimethatI wentto workor whenI came
    backfromworkI wouldpassby...thepastor’s office",andthatis whereshewouldsee
    him.789She heardhimpreachat the~glisemorein Ngoma, 79°G6rardNtakirutimana
    attendedtheseservices.Sabbathservices
    would runfrom8.00a.m.to1.00or 2.00p m 791
    The witness neversawElizaphan Ntakirutimanacarrying armsor in thecompany of
    armedmen.
    792

    503.Witness7 notedG6rardNtakirutimana’s
    absencefromthe hospital"fewerthan
    sixtimesaltogether".
    Thewitnessaccompanied
    theAccused
    on onlyonetripawayfrom
    thehospital.
    TheChamberdoesnotbelieve
    thewitness’s
    testimony
    thattheAccusedwas
    present
    at thehospital
    at allother
    timesduring
    working
    hours,or thatthewitness
    saw
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    atthefieldoffice
    everyday.

    504.Witness6 testifiedthathe visited


    MugoneroHospital
    on thefirstdayit resumed
    operations,
    in thesecondhalfofMay."Irememberthatonthefirst daythatI wentback
    ...I wentto cleanthepharmacy".793He wastakenthereby G6rardNtakirutimanaand
    wouldcontinue to seetheAccusedon thosedays(notspecified)whenthewitnesswas
    engagedin cleaning thepharmacy.
    794A fewdayslater, on a Wednesday,
    theAccused

    vslId.pp.77-78.
    782Id.pp.73-74.
    783Id.pp.79-81,173.
    784Id.pp.78,181-182.
    785Id.pp.78-79.
    786Id.pp.79,214-215.
    787Id.p.93.
    78sId.pp.82-83,181-182.
    789Id.p.83.
    790Id.pp.84,215-216.
    791Id.pp.198-199.
    792Id.p.84.
    793T.24April 2002p.118.
    794Id.p.128.

    Judgement
    andSentence 144 21 February
    2003

    /
    f
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T& ICTR-96-17-T

    askedthewitness to accompany himto a placeknownas Muramba to visita person who


    reputedlysoldmedicines stolenfromthehospital. 795Theydidnotfindanything there,
    andwentto Mugonero market: "There is somemedication thatwe foundthere...We
    werelooking forantibiotics andantimalarial tablets".
    796Witness 6 testifiedthathe
    remainedunemployed duringtheperiod fromMayto July."Atleastthreetimesa week"
    he wouldpassby thehospital to requestworkor to visitpeoplehe knew.On thosedays
    he wouldseeG6rard Ntakirutimanagoingabouthistasksat thehospital: "I saidthatI
    wouldseehim,butthatdoesn’t meanthatI wouldsee himeachtimeI wentto the
    hospital....mostof thetimeswhenI wentto thehospital I wouldseehim.As forthe
    workloadof hospital staff:"There wasa greatdealof workto be done,andwhenI went
    to thehospitalitwasn’t alwayspossibleforme to seetheemployees I waslookingfor.
    Onecouldseemanypatients whowerewaiting to go intotheconsulting room...to be
    seenby[G6rard Ntakirutimana].
    ’’797 Thewitnessalsohadoccasiontovisit thefieldoffice
    wherehe assistedKagaba,thenursing schooldirector,to reorganize
    hisoffice andschool
    files;therehe sawElizaphan Ntakirutimana.
    798On severaloccasionshe heardsoundsof
    fighting
    fromthedirection ofBisesero.799Hetestifiedthathedidnotseeorhearofeither
    Accusedgoingto Bisesero during theperiod fromMayto July.8°°Nordidhe seeor hear
    of their
    8°1 owning or carryinganykindof weapon ortheirmixing witharmedmen.

    505.Witness 6 testifies
    to seeing
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    go abouthistasksat the
    hospitalon thosedayshe saw him.The Chamber
    findsthathis evidence
    doesnot
    significantly
    contribute
    to Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    andG6rardNtakirutimana’s
    alibi
    fortheperiod.

    506.The above-mentionedwitnesses addressed the Mugonero periodas a whole.In


    additionto theirevidence,
    Witness
    11,whowasa senior healthadministrator
    in Kibuye
    prefecturein 1994,testifiedthathe attended a meetingin Kibuyetownon 3 Mayat
    "around11 a.m.,midday".The chairperson of the meetingwas PrimeMinister
    Kambanda.G6rardNtakirutimana
    waspresent.8°2Afterthemeeting, thewitness andthe
    Accusedspokeforonlya fewminutes becausepeople werewaitingfortheAccused to go
    backto Mugonero.Regarding
    thepurpose of themeeting, thewitnesssaid:"Thepeople
    wereremindedhowtheyshouldbehave,theywerenotto tearoneanother apart,andthat
    our3
    ’’8°
    enemywasnottheTutsi or theHutu;rather,ourenemy wastheRPFcollaborator.
    Witness11 testified
    to having
    metwiththeAccused againtwoor threeweekslater:"He
    hadcometo talktome aboutdifficulties
    thathe wasfacing ...especially
    withregard to
    theequipment whichhadbeenstolen." Thewitness gavetheAccused a microscopeand
    sterilization
    materials.
    "Ipromised
    himthatI would go andseehimin thecomingdaysto

    795Id.,
    131.
    796Xd.p.131;seealsoId.pp.129-130.
    797Id.pp.133-136.
    798Id.pp.143-145;
    T.25April 2002p.17.
    799r.24April 2002pp.137-138.
    80oId.pp.140-141.
    801Id.pp.169-170.
    802T.26April 2002pp.39-41.
    803Id.pp.48-49,
    120.

    Judgement
    andSentence 145 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    provide
    himwithfurtherassistance."804Witness11 didso "tenor sodays"later.
    8°5He
    maintainedinhistestimonythatthedatewassometime inMay,at "theendof thesecond
    weekor at thebeginning
    ofthethirdweek. ’’8°6"I tooktenbedsandtenmattresses, as
    wellas medication
    ...I didthisbecause he hadbeencourageousenoughto wantto have
    thehospital resume
    itsoperationin thesedifficulttimes.
    ’’8°7Thewitness arrivedat
    MugoneroHospital aroundnoon;G6rardNtakirutimana, wearing a doctor’scoatand
    stethoscope,cameoutto greethim.Theyoffioaded theprovisionsandthewitness, who
    wasm a hurry,
    8°8 returned
    "immediately"to Kibuyetown.

    507.The evidencepresentedby Witness11 establishes an alibifor G6rard


    Ntakirutimana
    forthreeto fourhourson 3 Mayandcorroborates
    G6rardNtakirutimana’s
    testimony
    withregard
    tohisefforts
    torestore theHospital.

    508.The Chamber willnow tum to the evidence


    provided by Elizaphan
    and G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    and theirclosefamily membersaboutthe whereabouts
    of theAccused
    during
    theMugonero period.
    Asstated above,
    thefactthatbothAccusedchose
    to testify
    lastin theirdefencehasbeentakenintoaccountby theChamberwhenconsidering
    the
    weight
    oftheir evidence.

    509.Witness Nataki, brotherof G6rardNtakirutimana,testified thathe arrived in


    Mugoneroaround10 May,broughtby G6rardNtakirutimana fromGikongoro. 8°9 He
    movedintohisfather’s house,wherehe remained untilmid-July. 81° Thehousewas
    locatedin the commercial centreof Ngoma,about500 metersfromwhereG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    lived.811He sawhisfather at homeon 10 May.812He further described
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s dailyactivitiesandroutine during theperiod fromMayto
    July.Hetestified toseeinghisfather "inthemomingwhenhe wasleaving, and...[at]
    hisplaceof worknoteveryday, but...veryoftenaround 11,12".813Moreover, "almost
    everyday,
    I wouldgo to thehospital to seemy brotherwhowasworking overthereand
    ...sometimes go to my father’s 814 Thesewerenotpre-arranged
    office". or announced
    visits,
    forthere wasnotelephone;henever foundhisfatherabsentfromhisoffice.815On
    theSabbath,Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    preached"atchurch at Mugonero,buthe wasmost
    of thetimegoingin thechurches surroundingMugonero".
    816Thewitness’s fatherhada
    Toyotapickupwhichhe "always" leftat homeon weekdays.He usedthevehic!e "mostly
    on Saturdaysbecause he wouldgo to thesurroundingchurches withotherpastors to

    804Id.pp.52-53.
    805Id.pp.53,113-114.
    806Id.p.57.
    8o7Id.pp.53-54,84-85.
    8o8Id.pp.57-58,117-118.
    8o9T.5 February 2002pp.150-151,219.
    81oId.p.157.
    811Id.pp.158,220-221.
    sl2Id.pp.159,222.
    813Id.p.234.
    814Id.p.163.
    ~15T.6 February2002p.17.
    816T.5 February2002p.159.

    Judgement
    andSentence 146 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    preach’@
    7 He visitedtheparishesof"Kigarama, Gishyita, [and]thesurrounding parishes
    aroundNgoma" (thewitness couldnotrecall thenamesof otherparishes, or thenumber
    ofparishes inthearea).Hetestifiedthatonthose occasionshisfatherleft"aroundeight,
    nineinthemorning" andreturned"intheafternoon, likefour, five".Heestimatedthathis
    father
    818 spent a totalofonlytwoorthreeSaturdays in Mugonerobetween
    MayandJuly.
    On twooccasions at theendof Mayor thebeginning of June,thewitness accompanied
    hisfather to Kibuyetownto runerrands. 819Regarding G6rard Ntakirutimana,Witness
    Nataki"wasseeing himeveryday"during daytime at unannounced visits.
    82°Thewitness
    testified
    821 thatG6rard Ntakirutimana wasalways at theclinic on suchoccasions.
    Sometimes thewitness wouldhavelunchwithhisbrother or helphim withclean-up
    activities. G6rardNtakirutimanaworked sixdaysa weekandattended churchwithhis
    fatheron Saturdays.WitnessNataki testifiedthatG6rard Ntakirutimanagenerallywalked
    betweenhomeandworkbutoccasionally usedthehospital vehicle.Thewitness saidthat
    hisbrother, whentreatingpatientswithserious injuries, "wouldmostlytryto stabilize
    themandtakethemto Kibuye". 82zTheAccused transported thepatientsto townin a
    pickup.823Witness Natakicouldnotremember the number of suchtrips.824 Oneday
    betweenmid-May andJune,thewitness accompanied hisbrother in thehospital vehicle
    to Kibuye townto collectmedical suppliesthattheRedCrosswasdistributing. 825He
    testified thathe heardgunshotsin Bisesero in Maybutdidnotknowwhowereinvolved
    in theshooting.826He "neversawor heard" either Accused goingintoBisesero in May-
    July.827He saidthat,as faras he knew,during theperiod fromMayto July,neither
    Accused owneda gun,andhe hadneverseeneither of themwitha gun.Moreover, no
    onecarrying armsevervisitedG6rard Ntakirutimana, andhisbrother wasneverin the
    company of armedindividuals.Thewitness hadneverseeneither Accusedattend any
    meetings
    828 witharmedmen.

    510.In theChamber’s view,Witness Natakiwentto greatlengthsto casthisfather


    and
    brotherin thebestlight. He wasguardedandevasiveon manymatters.Forexample,
    the
    Chamberfindsit difficult to believethatthewitness knewnothing aboutwhowere
    involvedin theshooting heardcomingfromthedirection ofBisesero.TheChambernotes
    WitnessNataki’s testimony thathisfather wasabsent fromMugonero everySaturday
    excepttwoor three, betweenMayandJuly.Thewitness didnotaccompany hisfather
    on
    thesetrips. It is alsoevidentfromWitnessNataki’stestimonythathisbrotherG6rard
    travelledon numerous occasions outof Mugoneroandthatthewitness wasnotalways
    awareof his brother’s destination(though he assumedit was Kibuyetown).The

    817 Id.
    pp.163-164,
    167-168.
    818Id.
    pp.236-237.
    819 Id.
    pp.166-168,249-250.
    820 Id.
    p.170,255;T.6 February
    2002p.18.
    821 W.
    6 February
    2002p.18.
    822 W.
    5 February
    2002p. 170-173,
    177.
    823 W.
    6 February
    2002p.25.
    824 W.
    5 February
    2002pp.177,260.
    825 Id.pp.175-176,257.
    826 T.6 February
    2002pp.4-5.
    827 T.5 February2002p. 198.
    828 Id.p.186-188.

    Judgement
    andSentence 147 21 February
    2003
    ,2
    ¢,
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    witness’s
    testimony,
    therefore,
    doesnotprovidean alibiforthe timesthatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    andG6rardNtakirutimana
    travelled
    out of Mugonero.

    511. RoyisiNyirahakizimanatestifiedthat her husband,ElizaphanNtakirutimana,


    remained
    at homeon thefirstdayof theirreturnto Mugonero,
    as he hadbeenfeeling
    ill
    forsometime.
    829

    512. Once,in May, accordingto the witness,her husbandtravelledto Gihomboin


    Rwamatamu "to go and see whatthe situation was likethere".He returnedthe same
    day.830 The witnesssaw Elizaphan Ntakirutimanaseveraltimesa day in May;whenhe
    leftfor workat 7.00a.m.;when"he wouldcomebackto the houseat around8:00in
    orderto takesometea"and his medicine; at middaywhen he camehome forlunchand
    restbeforereturning to theofficeat 2.00p.m.;andwhenhe finallyreturned homeat
    4.00p.m.TM She statedthat Elizaphan Ntakirutimana returned
    home afterchurchand
    remaintherefor the restof the day. He "wouldn’t go anywhereon the Sabbathday,
    unlesshe wasinvited to a church
    in orderto preach".
    832Thewitnesstestified
    that,except
    for twooccasions, shesaw herhusbandeveryday in JuneandJuly,as he followed his
    dailyschedule, as described aboveforthemonthof May.On bothoccasions, theAccused
    leftMugonerowithcolleagues, to preachin otherareas.On the firstoccasion, he
    travelledto Rubengera approximatelyin themiddleof June.On thesecondoccasion, in
    thefirstweekof July,he wentto Cyangugu wherehe spentthenight. 833Thetripsto
    Rwamatamuand Rubengerawere on Saturdays, and to Cyangugu,on a workday."Apart
    formthosethreetrips,I do notthinkthathe wentfar fromthe complex." And,with
    greatercertainty:"I alsoknow,myself thathe neverlefttheareaapartfromtheoccasions
    of tripsthatI mentioned". ThewitnesssaidthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    practice
    was
    to informher if he was aboutto travel.She had neverseenthe Accusedreturnhome
    looking
    TM as if he hadbeenin thebush.

    513.The Chambernotesthatthe evidencepresented


    by the Defence,consideredabove,
    suggeststhatElizaphanNtakirutimanaleftMugoneroduringthe Mugoneroperiodmany
    moretimesthanhiswifeallowed in hertestimony.
    It is noted,fromherown evidence,
    thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    hadnottoldherof histripto Gishyita beforehe undertook
    thetravel.

    514. As for G6rardNtakirutimana,


    WitnessNyirahakizimana testifiedthat,starting
    fromthelastdaysof April, shesawhimat hishome"earlyin themorning or lateafter
    work...otherwise,I wouldseehimbeforehe wouldgo to thehospital".
    835Shetestified
    thatherson’shousewas a 15-minute walkfromherhome. 836 DuringMayshe wouldsee
    theAccusedwhenshepassedby hishouse,"whenI wentto the churchveryearlyin the

    829
    T.10April2002p.90.
    830
    Id.pp.94,107-108.
    83~
    Id.pp.94-97,
    179.
    83z
    Id.p.98.
    833
    Id.pp.99,103-105,
    107-108.
    834
    Id.pp.108-112.
    835
    Id.p.126.
    836
    T.11April2002p.36.

    Judgement
    andSentence 148 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    mornings,and I wouldseehimwhenI camebackfromthechurch at around seven...


    alreadydressed and...goingto thehospital". 837In Maysheattended churchtwicea
    week,on Thursdays andSaturdays.838ShesawG6rard Ntakirutimana on theSabbathfor
    onehourof church service in themorning.Hissoncameto herhouseon theSabbath at
    around2.00p.m. to sharea meal. 839 The witnessalsowentto her son’shouse
    approximately
    twicea weekto visitor to collect vegetables.
    84°G6rard Ntakirutimana
    stoppedby herhousetwicea weekin May.Thewitness alsosawhimon twounspecified
    daysin May,whenhe wenttopickup hischildren fromherhome. 841He alsocameto her
    housetwoor three timesin Juneto seehisbrotherJ6r6me.842Thewitness neverwentto
    MugoneroHospital afterreturning fromGishyita,and therefore did notseeG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    at work. 843 ShestatedthattheAccused leftMugonero oncein Junefor
    "aboutan hour"withJ6r6me anda plumberto repairwaterpipes. TM Thewitness also
    referredto an occasion whenhe travelledwithJ6r6me to Kibuye town.Shecouldnot
    recall
    theprecise dateexceptthatitwasinJuneorJuly. 845Shetestified thatnooneever
    suggested
    toherthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    participated
    inviolent846
    acts.

    515.TheChambernotesthatRoyisiNyirahakizimanaappears
    to havehadlittledirect
    knowledge
    of G6rardNtakirutimana’swhereabouts, exceptwhentheymet at their
    respective
    homesorat church.
    Itis alsonotedthatG6rardNtakirutimana
    didnotworkon
    Saturdays
    andcouldnothavebeendressedto go to thehospital
    asassumed
    by hismother
    (seepreceding
    paragraph).

    516.AnnNzahumunyurwa, thewifeof G6rard Ntakirutimana,testified


    thaton theday
    after theirreturn
    to Mugonero,"a meeting
    wasannouncedon theradio.It wasscheduled
    to 4
    ’’8take
    7 placein Kibuye,andeverybodywhocouldmakeit to theplacewasinvited.
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    andherhusband bothattended themeeting,accordingto the
    witness.848Theyreturnedfromthemeeting at around
    3.00p.m.on thesame day.849On
    thefirstSabbath of the monthof May(whichthewitness agreedwouldhavebeen
    May),herhusband madean appeal to church-goers
    to assisthimin cleaning up the
    hospital.
    85°Duringtheclean-up period,
    whichcontinued
    until themiddleofMay,G6rard
    Ntakirutimanawaspresent at thehospitalsixdaysperweek.Fromthemiddle of May

    837
    T. 10April2002p. 128-130.
    838
    Id.p.133.
    839
    Id.pp.186-188.
    840
    Id.p.130,151-152.
    84t
    Id.pp.135-139.
    842
    Id.p.145,152.
    843
    Id.pp.123,126.
    844
    Id.pp.141-142.
    845
    Id.p.181-182.
    846
    Id.p.153.
    847
    T.12April 2002p.2.
    848
    Id.pp.2-3;T.15April 2002p.18.
    849
    T.12April 2002p.3.
    850
    T. 11 April2002pp.156-158,162-163.

    Judgement
    andSentence 149 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    "thehospital
    wasfunctioning
    moreor lessas a dispensary".
    851Thewitness
    described
    G6rard
    852 Ntakirutimana’s
    routine
    fromthemiddleof Mayonwards.

    517. Ann Nzahumunyurwa describedher own work schedulefor the period.She


    continuedto workfourdaysperweekat the Esapan Secondary School, leaving home
    around
    853 10.00a.m.,returningforlunch,thenworkingagainat Esapanuntil 5.30p.m.
    Fromtimeto time,duringtheperiod fromMay to July,G6rard Ntakirutimana would
    leavethehospitalto acquireequipment
    andmedicines.
    TM TheAccused regularlyvisited
    themarket,whichreopened abouta weekafterhisreturn to Mugonero.855Thewitness
    estimatedthatherhusband wenttheretwicein Mayandtwicein June. 856TheAccused
    alsotravelled to Kibuyetownat the end of Mayor thebeginning of June,and to
    CyanguguwithElizaphanNtakirutimana
    in June,to acquiremedicine,according to the
    witness.
    857G6rardNtakirutimana
    leftMugoneroalsoaround theendof Mayto bringhis
    brother
    858 J6r6mefromGikongoro.

    518.As for her father-in-law,WitnessNzahumunyurwaclaimedto haveseenhim


    "eachtimehe wasgoingto work"during
    theperiodfromMayto July.
    859Sheclaimed to
    haveseenElizaphanNtakirutimanaalsoeverySabbathduringthesameperiod at the
    Ngoma~glise
    more.86°"Aftertheserviceon Sabbath
    daysometimes
    we ....wentto visit
    Dr.G6rard’s
    parents.
    ’’861Thewitnessaddedthatherhusbandneverownedor carrieda
    gun,andshehadneverseenherhusband
    862 associate
    witharmedmen.

    519.As was the casewithotherDefence witnesses, Ann Nzahumunyurwa soughtto


    establishthatthedailylifeof thetwoAccused conformedto an unchanging
    patternof
    workandchurch whichunfolded accordingto a precisetimetable. Butalsolikeother
    witnesses,Ann Nzahumunyurwa referredto exceptions to and deviations fromthe
    pattern.TheChamber observes
    thatthecumulativeeffect ofexceptionsanddeviationsis
    suchthatfinally the Accused’salibifor the Mugonero periodcomesdownto the
    followingproposition:thetwoAccusedwereattheirrespective workplaces
    on weekdays,
    andat church on theSabbath -- exceptwhentheywerenot.Thisdoesnotamount to
    muchof an alibi. In anycase,AnnNzahumunyurwa, on herownaccount, workedalmost
    full-timeat Esapan SecondarySchool,whichwassomedistance fromtheComplex, for
    muchof theMugonero period,so shecouldhavehadlittle direct knowledge
    of theday-
    timeactivitiesof thetwoAccused. Moreover,otherDefence witnessescontradicther
    contentionthatElizaphan Ntakirutimanawas in Mugonero everySabbath duringthe
    period.
    851
    Id.pp.166-168.
    852
    Id.pp.170-171,172-174,
    T.12April2002pp 19-20.
    853
    Id.pp.20-34.
    854
    T.11April2002p.161.
    855
    Id.p.163.
    856
    T.15April2002p.16.
    857
    T.11 April
    2002pp.156-158,175;T. 15April2002pp.17-18.
    858
    T. 11April2002pp.174-175.
    859
    T.12April2002p.6.
    860
    Id.pp.9-11.
    861
    Id.p.12;T.15April 2002pp.20-23.
    862
    T. 12April
    2002pp.14-15.

    Judgement
    andSentence 150 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    520.Finally,
    theChamber
    tumsto thetestimony
    of thetwoAccused.

    521.Elizaphan Ntakirutimanatestified thatthe groupthathad soughtshelter in


    Gishyitareturnedto Mugonero
    at around 10 a.m.on a daytowards theendof April. On
    thedayof hisreturn, between11.00and11.30a.m.,theAccused wentto hisoffice,
    whichhe founddestroyed,thenreturnedto hishouse, wherehe remained fortherestof
    theday.863He preachedat the@lisemoreon thelastSabbath of themonth, i.e.on 30
    April.
    864In thefollowing weekanda half,theAccused worked to refurbishthefield
    officeandcollectedandrefiled
    scattereddocuments.
    865After 3 May,"Istartedtogo back
    to workregularly...I wouldleavethehouseat 6:00or 7:00in themorning andwhenI
    gotto theoffice. I would
    readmy bibleandI would prayalone. At 7 o’clock,
    theother
    workerswouldgetto theiroffices,we wouldpraytogether ....I looked outfora mason
    anda carpenter
    sothattheycould comeandrepair thedoors,theshelves ....Atmidday,I
    wouldgo backto thehouseandI hadmedicines withme in my coatpocket. So,I would
    takemy lunch,I wouldrestforsometime,thenI wouldgo backto work, ’’866 "AsI
    worked,I plannedmy activities,
    my visits to thedistricts. I wouldplanhowI would
    collectmoneywithin theunionsso thatwe couldpurchase furniture."TheAccused
    wouldleavethefieldoffice in theafternoon between 4.30and5.00p.m.He claimed he
    wouldworksixdaysperweek,fromSunday to Friday. 867

    522.WhileElizaphanNtakirutimana
    claimedto havebeensickduringtheGishyitaand
    Mugonero
    periods,
    thereis verylittle
    evidence
    to support
    thisview.
    TheAccuseddidnot
    namehisailment.TheChamberobserves
    thatwhateverthecondition
    he mighthavehad,
    it didnotseemto preventhim,according
    to hisownaccount,fromgoingto worksix
    timesperweek,
    or traveling
    to places
    outside
    Mugonero.

    523.ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    testified alsoin supportof hisco-Accused.
    He claimed
    to haveseenG6rardNtakirutimana
    veryoftenbetweentheendof Aprilandmid-July:"I
    usedtoseehimallthetimewhenI wasin theoffices ofthedepartmentheads
    or infront
    of thethresholdoftheoffice;I usedto seehimgo to workor gobackhome.Sometimes
    he wouldcometo thehousein orderto visitus.Sometimeshiswifewouldpreparefood
    and8
    ’’86would
    bringthefoodhomeandallofus would sharethemeal.

    524.ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    further testified
    thatduring the Mugonero
    periodhe
    wouldusuallyleadSabbathservicesat theOglisemorein Ngoma."Normally,
    [church
    services]
    wouldbeginat 8 a.m.andwe wouldfinishat noon.
    ’’869Sometime
    in Mayor
    June,the Accusedwentto Rubengerato visita Seventh-DayAdventistChurchand
    School.
    87°On 3 May,theAccused,hissonG6rard,
    and(possibly)EnosKagaba,
    wentto

    863T.7 May2002pp.28-31.
    864Id.p.16.
    865Id.p.32;T.8 May2002pp.49-52.
    866Y. 7 May2002pp.51-52.
    867Id.pp.76-78.
    868Id.p.96.
    869lid.
    p.69.
    87oId.p.63.

    Judgement
    andSentence 151 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    meetingin Kibuye town,heldat theoffice of theprefecture andattended by civiland


    politicalleaders inthearea. TheAccused leftafter about anhourbecause thebalance of
    themeeting wasrestricted to governmentofficials.871"Towards theendof May",the
    Accused, withG6rard Ntakirutimana, "wentto Cyangugu to see...whether ...pastor
    [JosephRukirumirami]wasstill alive ....I foundhimalive andI metother pastorsthere,
    too.I askedthemabout newsfromthenative areas...I spent thenight thereandI came
    backthenextmorning." He alsopreached on thatoccasion andspoke"withleaders ...
    aboutthenewpolicies to be adopted."Onemorning in June,Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    paida shortvisitto Nyakanyinya PrimarySchool,in GihomboHill,Rwamatamu
    commune, 17 kilometres fromMugonero, "toaskwhether therewerestillorphans or
    workerswhowerestillalive....theyresponded in thenegative. So,I wentto [Abel
    Furere,theassistant bourgmestre].He toldme thathe didn’t knoweither. I wasin the
    companyof Kagoyire ...At noon,I wasalready backat Mugonero. ’’872Towards theend
    of June,theAccused wentfora second timeto Cyangugu, withPastor Gakwerere. There,
    he metwiththeSDAheadof Weyeye district andtheleaders he hadseenduring hislast
    visit.The purpose of thistripwas to enquire aboutthefateof pastors who had
    disappeared. He spentthenightat theInyenyeru Hotelin Cyangugu andreturned to
    Ngomathe nextday.In the beginning of July,Elizaphan Ntakirutimana departed
    Mugoneroagainin thecompany of Kagoyire, whohadsought refugeat hishome,to visit
    MubugaChurchin theMpembedistrict, located approximately at 11 kilometres from
    Mugonero. His objective wasto seewhether EramNturagarira, whomhe hadappointed
    headof theSDAdistrict thatyear, wasstillalive. "Ididnotfindanyone alive in that
    place....It hadnotbeena prayer day....it didnottakeme thewholeday". 873The
    Accusedmentioned alsogoingto "Mpembewhichis aboutsevenkilometres from
    Ngoma",wherehe preached either at theendof Juneor thebeginning of July.He had
    gonetherein the company, again, of Kagoyire whopreached thatdaytoo.Theyleft
    Mugonero
    874 at 8.00a.m.andwerebackat around 1.00p.m.

    525.Thetestimony
    of Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    confirms
    thetestimony
    of a number
    of
    otherDefence
    witnesses,
    namely,
    thathe wasfrequently
    absent
    fromMugoneroduring
    theMugonero
    period
    of thealibi.

    526.The lastDefence witness,G6rardNtakirutimana, described


    the stateof the
    hospitaluponhisreturn fromGishyita: "I wentto thehospital, andtheyhadtaken
    practically
    everything.It was...desolation ....theyhaddestroyed almostallthe
    buildings:thedispensary, themainbuilding, the basement...[Windows] hadbeen
    broken.Therewasno mattressremainingat thehospital. Everything
    thatpeople could
    takewiththemeasily...wastakenaway.’’875 He beganto restore
    thehospital:"I asked
    people
    whocametoprayatthechurch to comeandhelpus bycleaning thehospital...It
    wasin themainchurch. I alsomadeannouncements thatwerepostedup in placeswhere
    manypeople couldsee themaskingpeople to bringbackstolenequipment". 876"The
    871Id.pp.33,34,144,145;T. 8 May2002pp.32-361
    872
    T. 7 May 2002 pp. 52-58.
    873Id.pp.64-66.
    874
    Id.pp.67-69.
    875
    T. 9 May 2002p. 146.
    876][d.p.149.

    Judgement
    andSentence 152 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    clean-up
    of thehospital
    started at thebeginning
    of themonthof Mayandit continued,
    andtowardsthemiddleof themonthof Maywecouldreceive patients at thedispensary,
    andthengradually
    we wereableto organise a maternity
    wing". During thisperiod,"I
    wasthereeveryday,except on oneoccasionwhenI wentto Gikongoro in orderto bring
    my younger
    brother,
    butmosttimesI wasthere. FromMonday to Friday I wasthere....
    OnSundays
    ...I wasatmyhouse ....inparticular,
    I tried
    torepair mycarthathadbeen
    damaged.
    ’’877Regularworkinghourswererestored,theworking daybeginning withearly
    prayersledby PastorUshizimpumu. However,duringtheperiod fromMayto July,"I
    wastheonlydoctorthere. I wasalways on call."Andso,"after my work,I wouldgo
    backhomeandI wouldstayat homewithmy wife.I hadto be ... at homeso that
    anybody
    ’’878 whoneededme couldfindme thereeasily.

    527.G6rardNtakirutimana
    furthertestifiedthatin thisperiodthehospital didnothave
    driversforthevehicles;
    "forexample, iftherewasa casethatneededsurgery, I couldnot
    performsurgery.
    If therewasa needfora Caesareanoperation,I hadto refer thecaseto
    Kibuye,andI hadto,personally, drivetheperson toKibuye". (Hedidnotindicate how
    manytimeshe haddrivenpatientsto Kibuyetown.)Patientsreceivedatthehospital once
    operationsresumed "werepatients who had malaria,gastric problems, respiratory
    diseases,whichwerethenormal diseases,except thatat timeswe wouldalsoreceive
    peoplewhohadbeenattacked". Therewerefewhospital staffduring theperiod from
    May to July.BesidestheAccused, therewerefournurses (compared with15 nurses
    before)andsomesupportstaff.As to thenumberof patientsreceived,
    hedeclared, "[A]t
    thebeginning...we hadveryfewpatients. Buttowardstheend,thenumber of patients
    increased.
    ’’879 SoI couldsaythat,onaverage,wecould receive
    20,30patients a day.

    528.G6rardNtakirutimana wouldattendchurchat Mugonero everySabbathwith


    ElizaphanNtakirutimanaalthoughthelatterwouldat times"goto otherchurches which
    werenearMugonero".88°He testified thathe attendeda meeting in Kibuyetownon 3
    May:"itwasannounced thatrepresentatives
    of departments,
    be theyprivate, publicor
    religious,
    should bethere at themeeting.
    ThatishowI cameto beableto go there with
    my father" andwithEnosKagaba. TheAccused departedKibuye townafterone or one
    anda halfhours, whilethemeeting wasstillunderway.
    TM He testified, "[T]owards
    the
    middleof the monthof MaywhentheMugonero marketwasreopened, I wentthereto
    buymedicine andthenI wasabletogo toKibuyeinorder to informthehealthauthorities
    thereof thesituation andtheproblemsthatwe facedat Mugonero,andI askedthemfor
    ,, 882
    assistance . G6rardNtakirutimanasaidhe wentto Cyangugu towards theendof June
    to acquire medicine;he spenta nightthereandreturned to Mugonero thefollowing
    day.

    877Id.pp.152-153.
    878
    Id.pp.153-157.
    879Id.pp.156-161.
    880
    Id.p.157.
    88lId.pp.142-143,
    145.
    88zId.p.151.
    883Id.p.156.

    Judgement
    andSentence 153 21 February 2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    529.TheChamber hasconsidered allthe alibievidence introducedby theDefence,


    bothwitness-by-witnessand as a whole.The Chamber has strongdoubtsaboutthe
    sincerity
    of manyDefencewitnesses,whopresentedan implausiblysanitizedaccountof
    thetimes,withlifeatMugoneroexisting
    in a kindof vacuum,isolated
    fromtheevents in
    Bisesero
    exceptfortheoccasionalreportof gunfire
    whichdisturbedthelocalpeace. The
    Accused,
    theirfamilies,
    andfriends apparentlyresumedthenormalcyof theirpre-April
    lives,goingandcoming fromworkat fixedhours, attending church
    regularly, never
    seeingor associatingwithany armedmen,and almostneverinteracting withthe
    governmental
    authorities,despitethemassive attackat theComplex on 16 April,
    the
    subsequent
    fighting
    intheneighbouringdistrict
    of Bisesero,theoverallbreakdown
    oflaw
    andorderandthefactthatRwanda wasat war.

    530.In theend,theChamber needonlyconsider whetherthealibievidence createsa


    reasonable
    possibility
    thattheAccusedwerenotat locations
    at MurambiandBiseseroat
    certaintimesallegedby Prosecution
    witnesses,as summarized
    at thebeginningof this
    discussion.
    TheChamberfindsthatno suchreasonablepossibility
    hasbeenestablished.
    Duringthe periodin question,
    bothAccused frequentlytravelled- in eachother’s
    company,alone,or in thecompanyof others- to destinationsoutsideof Mugonero,
    about
    whichthereislittle direct
    evidence
    otherthanthewordsoftheAccused.

    4.4 Shooting
    of IgnaceRugwizangoga
    on 17 April1994(Witness
    GG)

    4.4.IProsecution

    531.Thiseventis notmentionedin theProsecutionClosing


    Brief,butwasaddressed
    in oralsubmissions.
    Witness
    GG testified
    thaton Sunday,
    17 April1994,he sawG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    amonga groupof attackerschasingTutsirefugeesdownMurambiHill.
    TheAccusedshotat Tutsirefugeeswitha firearm
    andkilledIgnace Rugwizangoga.
    The
    Prosecution
    acknowledges
    thatthisincident wasnotmentionedin anyof Witness
    GG’s
    priorstatements
    butarguesthattheTribunalplacesgreater
    weightonin-courttestimony
    thanon prior
    statements.
    Underthecircumstances,
    it isreasonable
    thatinvestigators
    did
    notaskthewitness
    884 aboutthisincident.

    4.4.2Defence

    532.TheDefence objectsto thelatenotice of thisallegation andarguesthatthe


    shootingof IgnaceRugwizangogawas neverreferred to in WitnessGG’sthreeprior
    statements.
    Hisevidence
    inthisrespect is uncorroborated.
    AccordingtotheDefence,the
    testimonyof thewitnesswasincredible and untruthful,as shownin Kayishemaand
    Ruzindana.Further,Witness GG’sevidence was fabricated as partof a political
    campaign
    orchestrated
    againsttheAccused.
    885TheDefence recallsthat,priorto Witness
    GG’scross-examination
    in thepresentcase,it hadmovedforthestrikingofhistestimony
    initsentirety
    886 butthemotionwasdismissedbytheChamber.

    ss4T.21August2002pp.104-105.
    885Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.pp.91-98,
    inparticular
    p.96;T.22August
    2002pp.155-157.
    886T.24 September
    2001pp.48-54.
    t~
    Judgement
    andSentence 154 12 21 February
    2003
    yv
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    4.4.3
    Discussion

    533.TheChamberobservesthatduring theexamination-in-chief
    WitnessGG testified
    abouttheremoval
    of theroofat MurambiChurchattheendof April(4.23below)butdid
    notmentiontheshootingof IgnaceRugwizangoga.
    Askedby theProsecution whetherhe
    sawanyoftheAccusedaggaininthatareaaftertheremoval
    ofthechurch roofthewitness
    answered
    in thenegative.
    During cross-examination
    thewitnessconfirmedthatafter16
    Aprilhe onlysawG6rardNtakirutimanaon threeoccasions,
    onceat Murambi, onceat
    Mubugaandonceat Muyira.CounselfortheDefencethenputto Witness GG thathe had
    neverseenthe Accusedshootsomeone named"Ignace".Thewitness answered thathe
    saw GrrardNtakirutimana
    shootIgnaceRugwizangoga in Murambion Sunday17 April
    1994,thedayaftertheattack at theComplex.Thewitnesswaswithothers wholeft
    Mugonero
    Hospitalat nightandwentto Murambitogether.
    On thefollowing day,G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    camewithsomeInterahamwe and chasedthemdownMurambi hill.When
    IgnaceRugwizangoga
    triedto hidein thebush,GrrardNtakirutimana
    triedto stophim
    andmadehimgo backwards
    888 intoa smallforest,whereheshotandkilledhim.

    534.The Chambernotesthatthe shootingofIgnaceRugwizangoga


    cameintoevidence
    because
    theDefencereferredto a certain
    "Ignace"
    duringitscross-examination.
    This
    individual
    wasmentionedin AnnexB of the Pre-trial
    Briefas partof Witness
    GG’s
    anticipated
    testimony
    (see2.4).Underthesecircumstances,
    theDefencecannot
    complain
    ofinsufficient
    notice
    oftheevent.

    535.TheChamber considersWitness GG as generallycredibleandrejects theDefence


    argumentsrelatingto histestimony in KayishemaandRuzindana.It alsorejects the
    argument
    thatthewitness waspart:ofa politicalcampaign
    (seeDiscussionatparas.233-
    238under3.8.3.(c)
    andII.7).In theChamber’sview,hiscredibility
    isnotaffectedby
    factthathe onlymentioned the shooting of IgnaceRugwizangoga duringcross-
    examination.
    Theexamination-in-chief focused on theremovalof theMurambi Church
    roof,
    an eventwhichtookplacelater, andthewitness explained
    thathe hadforgotten
    the
    shooting.However, theChamber notesthatthe evidence of GrrardNtakirutimana’s
    allegedkillingof IgnaceRugwizangoga wasnotledby theProsecution andcontained
    limiteddetailsabouttheconditions of observationduringthealleged shootingand
    killing.
    Consequently,
    theChamber is notsatisfiedbeyonda reasonable
    doubtthaton 17
    April1994in Murambi, Grrard
    Ntakirutimana shotandkilled IgnaceRugwizangoga.

    4.5 Murambi
    Hillon 18 Apriland GitweHillafter19 April,Possibly
    May 1994
    (Witness
    FF)

    4.5.1Prosecution

    536.In itsClosing
    BrieftheProsecution
    recallsbrieflythatWitness
    FF sought
    refuge
    at Murambi
    Hillon 18 Aprilandat GitweHillon 19 April1994.Itsoralsubmissions

    887Id.p.11.
    888T.24September
    2001pp.62-67.

    Judgement
    andSentence 155 ~ 21 February2003
    /
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    focusedon thewitness’s
    subsequent
    observations
    of G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    at GitweHill
    andhercredibility,
    s89

    4.5.2Defence

    537.TheDefence contendsgenerally
    thatWitness FF is a participant
    in political
    campaignagainstbothAccusedandthathertestimony wasnotcredible. Thisspecific
    eventwasnotincluded inherfirst
    writtenstatement
    or inhertestimony
    in Musema.
    Only
    hersecondstatement mentions
    anyroleby G6rard
    Ntakirutimanain Bisesero.
    According
    to herthirdstatement theincident
    tookplacein June,whereasshetestifiedthatit
    occurred
    in May.TheDefence submits
    thatthewitness’s testimony
    aboutGitweHillwas
    manufactured
    as it is improbable
    thattherefugeeswouldhaveactedas sheclaimedand
    exposedthemselves to gunfire.Her versionrevealsan animustowardsG6rard
    sg°
    Ntakirutimana.

    4.5.3Discussion

    538.Witness FF testifiedthataround18 April1994,quitelatein themorning, but


    before noon,sheandotherrefugees wereattackedat MurambiHillby,amongst others,
    G6rardNtakirutimana. He was accompaniedby MathiasNgirinshuti. The Accused
    arrived in thehospital vehicle,
    fromwhichhe alighted andwalkedtowardsa groupof
    Interahamwe. Thewitness wasa shortdistance
    away,hiding in a bushcloseto a water
    source. G6rard Ntakirutimana
    waswearingshorts
    anda longcoat,andhe wascarrying a
    gun,strapped to hisshoulder.
    G6rardNtakirutimana,
    MathiasNgirinshuti,
    andthemany
    Interahamwe accompanying
    them,ranafterTutsiwhowereon thehill.Thewitness could
    heargunshots, butcouldnotidentify
    thepersonsfiring theguns.Thewitnessremained
    in
    hidinguntil4.00p.m., whentheattackers
    left.
    891Itwassuggested toherthatthelocation
    of thewater source shereferred
    towasnotat MurambiHillbutatRuronzi. Sheclarified
    thatthesetwoareaswerein thesameplaceandthatshemeanttheareaof Murambi,
    which
    s92 comprises Ruronzi.

    539.Thefollowing day,on 19 April1994,WitnessFF wentto GitweHillwhereshe


    encounteredanother groupof Tutsirefugees,someof whomwereMugonero Hospital
    employeeswhohadsurvived thekillingsat theComplex.Onedayin Aprilor possibly
    May1994,Witness FF sawG6rard Ntakirutimana
    amongstattackersat GitweHill.The
    witness
    saidthathe wasusingthevehicle thathe normally
    drove.At thetimeof the
    attack,
    thewitness andotherrefugeeswerehigherup thehillthantheAccusedandthe
    attackers.Theformer hospital
    employees
    calledhimandaskedhim:"You,thesonof a
    pastor,
    youareassociating withthesekillers?"
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    said:"Stop; stop
    whereyouareandI am goingto proveto youthatI am thesonof a pastor.".He then
    startedto shootat them.Theyranandwentaround thehill.
    893Witness FF claimed
    to

    889
    Prosecution
    ClosingBriefparas.
    310and323;T. 21August
    2002pp.104-111.
    890
    Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.55-63,
    inparticular
    pp.60-61.
    89~
    T. 28September
    2001pp.52-56.
    892
    T.1 October
    2001pp.29-30.
    893
    T. 28September
    2001pp.56-60;
    T. 1 October
    2001pp.45-48.

    Judgement
    andSentence 156 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    havebeentogetherwiththeperson whosaidthisto theAccused. TheAccused wasnot


    theonlyonewhohada gun;manyotherpeople wereshooting.
    Shecouldnotidentify
    whowereshotas manypeople wereshootingat thetime.
    894Witness FF explained
    that
    shesaidinherstatementof10 April1996thatshecould
    notdescribe theattackbecause
    theywerebeingattackedby different
    persons
    fromdifferent
    communes.
    895Shecouldnot
    be specific
    aboutthedateof theGitweHillattack, placingit sometimein Aprilor
    May1896Aboutthe discrepancy betweenher testimonyand her statement dated
    15 November
    1999,whereshestated thattheincident
    tookplacein June,shesaidthat
    thiswasnotwhatshetoldtheinvestigators.
    897

    540.TheChamber notesthattheIndictmentallegesthatattackswerecarried
    outin the
    areaof Bisesero, wherein MurambiandGitweHillsare located,therebyputtingthe
    Defenceon noticeof theseallegations.
    Moreover,
    it followsfromthesummaryin Annex
    B thatWitnessFF observedseveralattacksbetweenAprilandJune1994in thehillsof
    Bisesero,including in MurambiandGitweHillswhereshesawG6rard Ntakirutimana.
    Someindicationswerealsogivenin herwritten
    statements.
    In court,
    thewitness
    wasable
    to providesomedetails whenaskedquestionsbutcouldnotprovide thedateof her
    observationat GitweHill.TheChamber considers
    thattheDefence received
    sufficient
    notice
    oftheallegation(see2.4).

    541.TheChamber hasno basisto conclude


    thatotherwitnessestestified
    aboutthetwo
    specificsightingsof G6rardNtakirutimana
    at Murambi
    andGitweHills. Witness FF’s
    testimonyis thereforeuncorroborated.
    TheChamberfoundhercredible in relation
    to
    events
    at theMugoneroComplex(see3.4.3
    (c)atparas.127-130).InrelationtoBisesero,
    theChamber notesthatalreadyherfirstwrittenstatement
    of 10 October
    1995included
    Dr.G6rard amongattackersin Bisesero
    ("IsawDr.G6rard Ntakirutimanain thehills
    also.")
    Hersecond, thirdandfourthstatements
    weremoreexplicit.
    898Consequently,
    from
    October1995and in hertestimony thewitness hasconsistentlystatedthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    participated
    in Bisesero
    attacks
    andshotatpeople.

    542.In the Chamber’s


    view,theinformation aboutBisesero in WitnessFF’swritten
    statements
    andin hertestimonydoesnotindicatethatsheformed partof a campaign
    to
    ensure
    hisconviction.On someoccasions,
    thewitnessavoidedincriminatinghimbecause
    shewasuncertainas to whethershehadsufficientbasisto involvehim.Sheappeared
    credible
    in thecourtroom.TheChamberacceptsheraccountof theremarks uttered
    by a
    refugee
    whenhe observed thesonof a pastor
    amongtheattackers. Herexplanationsof
    894
    T. 1 October2001pp.46-48.
    895
    Id.pp.49-50, 57-58.
    896
    Id.pp.38,55.
    897
    Id.p.57.
    898Accordingto WitnessFF’ssecondstatementof 14 November1995,G6rardNtakirutimana"hada gun
    andwasshooting peoplefromthetopofa hill"in thecompanyof,amongothers,Mathias
    Ngirinshuti.
    The
    witness"sawhimseveral times".
    Itfollowsfromherthirdstatementof 10April1996thatshesawG6rard
    Ntakirutimanain "severalattacks
    in Bisesero.He wasalwaysarmedwitha rifleandin company with
    MathiasNgirinshuti",
    andshesawhimin "oneattackactuallyshooting
    atpeople".Thefourthstatement
    of
    21 October
    1999,which provides
    mostdetails,
    refers to twoBisesero
    events,
    oneinMurambi andoneclose
    to "springof water"nearGitwePrimarySchoolGitwe(includingtheexchangebetweentheAccused and
    therefugeesabouthimbeingthesonofa pastor).
    .lq
    Judgementand Sentence 157 ~ 21 February2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    minordifferences
    betweenher testimony
    and her previousstatementsappeared
    plausible.
    899Consequently,
    theChamberaccepts
    WitnessFF’stestimony
    aboutevents
    in
    Bisesero.

    543.The Chamberfindsthaton or about18 April1994G6rardNtakirutimana


    was
    withInterahamwe
    in Murambi
    Hillpursuingandattacking
    Tutsirefugees.
    TheChamber,
    alsofinds
    thatinthelastpartofApril orpossibly
    inMay,G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    waswith
    attackers
    inGitweHillwhere
    he shotat refugees.

    4.6 GitweHill,a Numberof Daysafter17 April1994(Witness


    KK)

    4.6.1Prosecution

    544.TheProsecutionrelies
    on Witness
    KK,whotestified
    thata numberof daysafter
    17 April1994he sawElizaphan
    andG6rardNtakirutimana
    driving theirvehiclesin a
    convoynearGitweHill.
    Thevehicles
    transported
    attackers,
    whoattacked
    Tutsirefugees.
    In itsoralsubmissions
    theProsecution
    argued
    thatWitness
    KKwascredible andthatlack
    of references
    toG6rardNtakirutimana
    in thewitness’s
    written
    statement
    toinvestigators
    wasofnosignificance.
    9°°

    4.6.2Defence

    545.TheDefenceargues
    generallythatWitnessKK’stestimony
    wasfabricatedas part
    of a politically
    motivated
    campaign
    againsttheAccused.
    Inrelation
    to thisspecific
    event
    theDefence submits
    thathis priorwrittenstatementdoesnotmention thatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    9°1 waspresent
    atanyattack atGitweHill.

    4.6.3Discussion

    546.WitnessKK testified
    thathe arrivedat GitweHillearlyin themorningof 17 April
    1994.He remainedtherefora "fewdays". Thewitnessobserveda daytimeattackwhich
    occurred
    "anumber ofdays"afterhisarrivalintheareabutitwas"notyettheendofthe
    monthof April".He sawElizaphanNtakirutimana
    drivinghisToyota Hilux;thehospital
    vehicle,a whiteToyota,driven by G6rardNtakirutimana;
    a Toyota ownedby a Gishyita
    trader,drivenby Ruzindana; and the Gishyitacommune vehicle, drivenby Charles
    Sikubwabo.Thecarswentup towards Murambiandparkedabout100metres fromwhere
    WitnessKK andtheotherrefugees were.Thewitness saidthatallthevehicles were
    transportingInterahamwe
    andsoldiers carrying
    guns,except forthecommunal vehicle
    whichwas transporting armedpoliceofficers and Interahamwe. He noticedthat
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimanawas wearing a blacksuitand was not carrying a weapon;
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    waswearingwhiteshorts,a whiteT-shirt,anda whitehat,andwas
    carryinga "bigSMGgun".Afterthecarsparked, "theoccupants...continued to trek

    899See,
    forinstance,
    aboveabout
    herfourthstatement,
    which
    dated
    theGitwe
    Hillevent
    toJune
    andher
    explanation
    ofwhy
    inher
    thirdstatement
    shesaidthat
    shecould
    not
    describe
    one
    specific
    attack.
    9ooT.21August
    2()02
    pp.111-112.
    Theeventwasnotincluded
    intheProsecution’s
    Closing
    Brief.
    9o~Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.144-153,
    inparticular
    p.151.

    Judgement
    andSentence 158 21 February 2003

    ~
    !
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    towards
    wherewe were".Theattackers"surroundedus andstartedshootingon themen
    andwomen".Thiswasbefore noon;theshooting intensifiedat around
    12.30p.m.It
    lasted
    foraboutthreehours. At around6.00p.m.,thewitnesssawthecars,withthe
    attackers
    on board,leaving.
    9°2Questionedas to thelackof reference
    in hiswritten
    statement
    to an incident
    at MurambiHillinvolvingG6rardNtakirutimana,
    thewitness
    responded:
    9°3 "That question
    wasnotputto me".

    547.Regarding theissuewhether theDefence wasgivensufficientnoticetheChamber


    recallsthattheBisesero Indictmentdoesnotmention thiseventspecifically
    butstates
    generallythatthetwoAccused participatedin attacks
    in theareaof Biseseroduringthe
    monthsof Aprilthrough June"almost on a dailybasis" (see2.4).According to the
    Prosecution’sPre-trial Brief,Witness KK "sawpastorNtakirutimana,Dr G6rard and
    Sikubwaboat thehills, in thecompany of attackers,almostdaily."WitnessKK’sonly
    written statement to investigators,dated15 November 1999,containsan explicit
    referenceto an event
    at KabatwaHill(see4.13) anda generalstatement
    thatattackers,
    including thetwo Accused, wouldcometo "thehills" everyday.GitweHillis not
    specificallyreferred
    to.However, theDefence knewbeforethetrialstarted
    thatWitness
    KK wouldallege thattheAccused participatedin severalattacks.
    Duringhistestimony
    thewitness indicated
    thetimeandlocation of theattackat Gitwe
    Hillbuthe could only
    providelimited details.TheChamber hasno information thattheProsecution wasin
    possessionof theinformation concerning theincidentat GitweHillbefore thetrial
    started.In theChamber’sview,thisis an example wherethesheerscaleof thealleged
    crimesmakesitimpracticableto require a highdegreeofspecificityandconsidersthat
    theDefencereceivedsufficient
    notice.

    548.Turning to thereliability of WitnessKK’stestimony, theChamber is convinced


    thatheobserved theattack at Gitwe Hillandthecarshementioned. Thequestionatissue
    is theidentification of thetwoAccused. He explained thathe observedthemfromhis
    hidingplaceabout100metres fromwherethe carswereparked. Evenif it is quite
    possibleto recognizepersons at sucha distance thereisa needto exercisecaution,in
    particularbecauseWitness KK’stestimony isuncorroborated.
    9°4Apartfromthefactthat
    it wasbroaddaylight, thereis no information abouttheconditions of observation,
    whetherthewitness hada clearlineof sight, etc.TheChamber notesthathe wasableto
    describetheclothing ofthetwopersons hedescribed butthisisnotinitself sufficient.
    Laterin histestimony, he stated thattheattackers trekked towards
    himandthatthey
    surroundedthem.However, it doesnotfollow fromthetestimony thathe observed the
    twoAccused ata closer distance than100meters. He didnotclaimtohaveseeneither of
    theAccused shooting at therefugees anddidnototherwise specifytherolethatthe
    Accusedplayedin theattack afterthevehicles hadarrived.Lackof particularssuchas
    theseleaves roomfordoubt. TheChamber findsthattheProsecution hasnotproved
    beyonda reasonable doubtthatWitness KK saw Elizaphan NtakirutimanaandG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    during theattack at Gitwe
    Hill.

    902
    T.4 October
    2001pp.5-13.
    903
    Id.pp.126,128-129.
    904
    Seegenerally
    Kupreskic
    (AC)paras.
    33-41.

    Judgement
    andSentence 159 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    549.TheChamber addsthatthisfindingdoesnotaffectthegeneral credibility


    of
    Witness
    KK,whichis alsodiscussedelsewhere
    (see3.8.3(c)paras.261-267,3.11.3,
    4.13.3
    and4.6.3).Inparticular,
    theChamber
    doesnotconsider
    it significant
    thathedid
    notmention
    thespecificattack
    at Gitwe
    Hillto theinvestigators.
    Itfollowsgenerally
    fromhiswrittenstatement
    thatthewitnessobserved
    numerousattacks
    in theBisesero
    areaandthathe sawElizaphan
    9°5 andG6rardNtakirutimana
    on manyoccasions.

    4.7 GitwePrimary
    School,End of April,Beginning
    of May 1994(Witness
    HH)

    4.7.1
    Prosecution

    550.Thetestimony of Witness
    HH concerningthetwoAccused’sallegedroleat Gitwe
    Primary
    School is notmentionedin theProsecution’s
    Closing
    Brief,whichcontains
    only
    a briefreferenceto thewitnessspendingthenightsat theschooltogether
    withother
    refugees.Its oralsubmissions containedno reference
    to thisschool.However,
    the
    Prosecution
    emphasizedthatit standsby everything
    theProsecution
    witnesses
    havesaid
    andthateverything
    thatisinthetranscriptsispartofitscase,irrespective
    ofwhether
    an
    eventhasbeenmentioned in itsClosingBriefor oralsubmissions,
    whichonlyinclude
    a
    selection
    9°6 oftheevidence.

    4.7.2Defence

    551.TheDefence submits,in general, thatWitness HH is notcredibleandthathis


    testimony
    againsttheAccused is partof a political
    campaignmounted
    against them.His
    credibility
    is affected
    in relationto allBiseseroandMurambirelatedallegations.In
    respect
    of thealleged
    attack at Gitwe,theDefencesubmitsthatitis notcrediblethat,
    morethansixyearsaftertheevents, thewitness couldspecifythenameof a victim
    allegedlyshotby G6rardNtakirutimana, namelyEsdraswho was the son of pastor
    Munyandinda.
    Thewitness’
    priorstatement to investigators
    contradicts
    thisallegation.
    Witness
    9°7 HH’stestimonyis uncorroborated.

    4.7.3Discussion

    552.Witness
    HH arrivedatGitwehillin themorningof 17 Aprilandstayedthereuntil
    theendof May.Refugees wouldovernightin theclassroomsof Gitweprimaryschool,
    located
    atthelower partofthehill;atothertimestheyhidintheforests.Somerefugees
    stayedwithlocalinhabitants. WitnessHH claimedto haveseenthe twoAccused at
    GitweHillon an unspecified
    daytowardstheendof Aprilor beginning of May.There
    weremanyrefugeesat theschoolat thetime.ThetwoAccused camefromthedirection
    of Murambi
    Hill.Theydidnotdriveallthewayto theschool, rathertheyparkedtheir

    905Thestatement
    contains
    thefollowing
    general
    formulation:
    "Every
    daytheInterahamwe
    wouldcome
    to
    thehills
    around
    7 a.m.
    or8 a.m.
    Ourdailyroutine
    wastorunfrom
    hill
    tohilltoavoid
    being
    captured.
    Thosethatwerecaughtwerekilled immediately.
    MikaMuhimana,
    CharlesSikubwabo
    , Pastor
    Ntakirutimana
    andDr.Ntakirutimana
    wouldcome
    withtheattackers
    every
    day."
    (Thequotation
    hasbeen
    aligned
    tothewriting
    style
    inthis
    Judgement.)
    906Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefpara.
    313; T.21August
    2002pp.134-135.
    907Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.75-86,
    inparticular
    p.83.

    Judgement
    andSentence 160 ~ 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    carsina valley
    which
    thewitnesscould
    notsee,andascended 908 Other
    on foot. attackers
    involved
    in thisincident
    camefromthesecteurs ofMuramba,Mpembe,andGishyita,
    and
    fromGisovucommune.The witnessrecognized the following persons: Sebahire,
    a
    policeman
    fromGisovu;
    Musema,director
    of a factory;Ernest,a teacher;thepresiding
    judgeof the Gishyitacourt;AmielNyirnkindi; and Ngerageze, the assistant
    9°9
    bourgmestre.

    553.The witnesstestified
    thatwhenhe andthe otherrefugees saw theattackers
    approach,
    theylefttheschool,
    ascended
    thehill, andprepared
    themselves
    fortheattack.
    Theattackerswerecarrying
    clubs,machetes,andothertraditionalweapons;somewere
    carryingfirearms.
    Therefugeesthrewstonesandpartsof treesat them;a fewof the
    refugees
    hadspears
    andsickles.
    In thecourseof fighting,
    therefugees
    weredrivenfurther
    up thehill;"eventually,
    theyremovedus fromthatplace".
    91°GerardNtakirutimana
    was
    amongtheadvancingattackers.
    9tlElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    "wasfarbehind theothers".
    Thewitness
    didnotclaimtohaveseenthelatterreach
    thelocation
    ofthefighting,nordid
    heseehimkillanybody.
    912

    554.Witness HH allegedthatGrrard Ntakirutimana


    shotoneEsdras, a Tutsiaged35
    to 40 years,who workedat a nutritional centreand whosefatherwas Pastor
    Munyandinda.
    913 He did not knowEsdras’ssurname. The incident occurred sometime
    before1.00p.m.Thewitness saidthatGrrard Ntakirutimana
    haduseda "biggun", larger
    thanthegun he had seenhim useat theMugonero Complex. Witness HH was abovea
    cliff,abouteightto tenmetresfromGrrardNtakirutimana
    andlessthanfourmetres from
    Esdras.ThewitnesssaidthatwhentheAccused shotEsdras,
    the4Ywerefacing eachother
    andthere wasa distanceof eightto tenmetresbetween
    them.91 Therefugees werestill
    fightingtheattackers,andnotyetfleeing. WhenEsdraswasshot,he hadbeenthrowing
    stones.Thewitness couldnotstatehowmanyshotshadbeenfiredby theAccused at
    EsdraS.Uponseeing Esdras fall,WitnessHH ranaway."Allof us fledandhe [Grrard
    Ntakirutimana]
    continuedfiringat us".Therewereotherpeople in thevicinity at the
    time,butit wouldhavebeen"impossible foranybodyelseto shoothim[Esdras] without
    me seeing
    915 him".

    555.WitnessHH explainedthe absence


    of reference
    to thekilling of Esdrasin his
    written
    statementof 2 April1996andhisreconfirmation
    statement
    of 25 July2001:"I
    knowthatI spokeaboutEsdras.However,
    I’mnotsurewhether
    I mentioned thatnamein
    thefirst
    orthesecond statement
    ....itshould
    bepointed
    outthatthestatements
    mayvary
    depending
    onthequestions puttome.’’916
    Thewitness
    alsosaid:"Itis alsopossible
    that

    908T.26September 2001pp.28-30,
    44-45.
    909T.26September 2001p.31;T.27September
    2001p.61.
    9~oT.26September 2001pp.30-42.
    911ld.pp.36-37.
    912Id.p.31,45.
    913Id.pp.37,41.
    914Id.pp.38-39,43-44.
    915T,26 September2001pp.37-40.
    916T.27September 2001p. 69.

    Judgement
    andSentence 161 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    sucha question
    wasputtome,butI wastaken
    by surprise
    to thepoint
    thatI didnotgive
    suchintZormation.
    ’’917

    556.The Chamberobserves thatWitnessHH did not see ElizaphanNtakirutimana


    participate
    in theattack.Hisonlyobservation
    of theAccusedwasbeforetheattackwas
    underway.Thewitnessmerelyexplained
    thattheAccused was"farbehind"theattackers.
    Thereis no information
    aboutthedistance
    between
    thewitness andtheAccused,
    whether
    he hada clearlineof sight,etc.Thistestimony
    is uncorroborated.
    Consequently,
    the
    ChamberdoesnotfindthattheProsecution hasestablishedbeyonda reasonable
    doubt
    thatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    waspresent
    duringthisattack in thevicinity
    of Gitwe
    PrimarySchool.Thisfinding
    doesnotreducethecredibility
    ofWitnessHH.

    557.Regardingtheissuewhether G6rardNtakirutimanawasgivensufficient notice,


    theChamber
    recallsthattheBiseseroIndictmentdoesnotmentionthisevent specifically
    butstates
    generallythatthetwoAccusedparticipated
    in almostdailyattacksinthearea
    of Biseseroduringthe monthsof AprilthroughJune(see2.4).The summary
    Witness
    HH’stestimonyinAnnexB of thePre-trialBriefdoesnotreferto thiseventat
    GitweHill.However,Witness HH’swrittenstatementto investigators, dated2 April
    1996,containsa reference
    to threeattacks at Gitweafter20 April1994andgivesa
    description
    of thesameattack as theonetestifiedto by thewitnessduringthetrial.
    According
    to thestatement, G6rardNtakirutimana hada gunin his handduringthe
    attack,
    andhe wasamongthepersons in Gitwe"whochased afterus to killus".This
    statement
    was disclosed to the Defenceon 10 April2000and on 29 August2000in
    redacted
    andunredactedformrespectively.

    558.Consequently, theDefence knewwellbefore thecommencement of the trialthat


    Witness HH wouldallegethat,abouttheend of April1994,G6rardNtakirutimana
    participated
    in anattackatGitwe Hillwherepeople werekilled.Duringhistestimonythe
    witnesswasnotableto provide moreprecise informationaboutthelocation andtimeof
    theattack.Theimportantnewelementwashisreference toa specific victim,
    Esdras.This
    informationwasnotavailableto theProsecution beforethewitness gavehistestimony.
    Underthesecircumstances,
    theChamberfinds it difficulttodisregardtheevidenceabout
    G6rardNtakirutimana’sparticipation
    in theattack. Therewasno transformationof the
    Prosecution’scase.In theChamber’sview,thisis an example of a situationwherethe
    sheerscaleof thealleged crimesmakesit impracticable to requirea highdegree of
    specificity
    in suchmattersastheidentity ofthevictims andthedates of thecommission
    of thecrime. Consequently,
    theChamber considersthattheDefence receivedsufficient
    noticeof G6rardNtakirutimana’s
    participationin theattackandthatitis notprecluded
    fromfindingthathekilledoneparticular
    individualiftheevidenceisconsideredcredible.

    917Y.26September
    2001p.37.
    91sTheChamber hasnotedthatWitnessHH’sstatements
    of2 April1996contains
    thefollowing
    formulation:
    "InBisesero,
    I didnotseepastor
    Ntakirufimana
    among
    thegroup
    ofattackers
    from
    Ngoma."
    Inhisstatement
    of25July2001andincourtthewitness
    denied
    thathehadever
    saidthat.
    IntheChamber’s
    view,
    this
    hasnosignificance
    inrelation
    tothepresent
    event.
    Itfollows
    fromthestatement
    of2 April
    1996
    thatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    "wasalsopresentinGitwe"andheldsomething
    inhishandwhich
    "resembled
    a gun.
    I didnotseehimkill,
    butI believe
    that
    hisrole
    wastolook
    forpeople’s
    hiding
    places
    andtoshowthem
    tothekillers".

    Judgement
    andSentence 162 ~ 21 February
    2003

    2
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    559. The ChamberconsidersWitnessHH as generallycredible(see 3.8.3(c)


    paras
    253-260,3.11.3 paras.370-373,3.14.3
    and4.21.3)anddoesnotaccept theDefence
    submission
    thathe formedpartof a campaign
    againsttheAccused.
    In thepresentcontext,
    theChamberacceptsthatWitnessHH sawG6rardNtakirutimana
    participate
    in theattack.
    Thewitnessobservedhimata shortdistanceandinbroaddaylight.Histestimony wasin
    conformity
    withhisstatement of 2 April1996,twoyearsaftertheevent. As forthe
    shootingandkilling of Esdras,theChamberis awarethatthestatementcontains the
    formulation
    that"itwasdifficult toseewhokilled who".However,
    thisgeneral sentence
    followsimmediately
    aftera passage specifically
    abouttheAccused,who"wasamongthe
    personswhochased afterus to killus".Thisis in conformity withhistestimony.
    Consequently,
    theChamber findsthatduringtheattack G6rard
    Ntakirutimana shotand
    killed
    oneEsdras.

    4.8 Vicinity
    of GitwePrimarySchool,EarlyMay 1994(Witness
    DD)

    4.8.1Prosecution

    560.TheProsecution’sClosingBriefdoesnotreferto WitnessDD’stestimony about


    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s
    alleged
    roleduringan attack
    at GitweHillin thefirsthalfof
    May1994.In itsoralsubmissionstheProsecution
    mentioned
    thisevent, whichincludes
    thekilling
    of twopersons,as an example
    of evidence
    whichwaspartandparcel of the
    Indictment
    andcouldbe relied uponat trialnotwithstanding
    theAppealsChamber’s
    finding
    inKupreskic.
    919

    4.8.2Defence

    561.TheDefence
    opposesthelackof notice
    of theseallegations
    andnotesthatthis
    issuewasraised
    at trial,onlyonedayaftertheProsecution
    disclosed
    WitnessDD’s
    reconfirmation
    statement
    of 22October
    2001containing
    thenewallegations.

    562.Accordingto theDefence,Witness DD is notcredible.Theradical changesin the


    threewrittenstatements
    givenbefore histestimony makesit unbelievable.
    Particularly
    strikingwerethevariationsconcerning hisallegations, notmentioned in thefirst
    statement,thathiswife,children, uncleanda childwerekilled at MubugaPrimary
    School,firstby oneAccused,
    thenby theother. In relationto thepresent
    event, the
    Defencesubmitsthatthe Chambershouldnot relyon his evidencethatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    killedtwopersonsat Gitwehill, an allegation
    which wasnotmentionedin
    hisfirst
    92° statement.

    919T.22August
    2002
    p.137.Theallegation
    ofthekillings
    first
    appeared
    inWitness
    DD’s
    reconfirmation
    statement
    of28July
    2001(seebelow).
    920Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.133-138,
    inparticular
    p.137,
    seealso
    p.83.

    Judgement
    andSentence 163 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    4.8.3Discussion

    563.Witness DD referredto an attackin thevicinity of GitwePrimary Schoolin the


    beginningof Mayandin anycasebefore 15 May1994.He testified thathe sawG6rard
    Ntakirutimanain the company of manypersons "armedwithmachetes, clubsand who
    weredoingtheirjob". TheAccused wasleadingtheattack "becausehe was...physically
    in frontof the others". He wasthe onlvone witha gun. 921 He was wearingwhite
    shorts.
    922Witness DDalleged thattheAccused shotat onePastor Munyandinda,
    a Tutsi.
    "Munyandindawasin frontof him.He wascertainly notfarfromhim.Andhe wasthe
    veryfirstpersonthathe dealtwith".Munyandinda was goingup thehillwhenhe
    encounteredtheAccused, whowasheading down.Munyandinda’s daughter, Erina,who
    wasproximateto herfather, wasallegedly also"attacked"by theAccused (thewitness
    didnotspecify whatwasdoneto Erina). 923Thewitness claimedto haveobserved these
    eventsfroma distanceof aboutsixmetres. He didnotknowif G6rard Ntakirutimanahad
    attacked
    anyoneelsethatday.Hefled, later returning
    tothescene of theattack,
    where he
    foundmanydead.
    924

    564.NeithertheIndictment northeProsecution’sPre-trialBriefmakereferenceto the


    allegedattackat Gitweschool or theassaulton Pastor Munyandindaandhisdaughter
    Erina.AnnexB of thePre-trial Brief,in summarizing
    Witness DD’sexpectedevidence,
    statesonlythatthewitness sought refugeat the GitweAdventist Church,wherehe
    allegedly
    sawElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    directtheremoval of thechurch’s roof.
    Thereis
    nomentionof G6rardNtakirutimana
    in connection
    withBisesero. Thisis truealsoof the
    witness’s
    statement of 11 November1999.Theonlyplacewheretherelevant in-court
    allegation
    isforecastis inWitness DD’sreconfirmation
    statementof 28July2001.There
    he claims
    to haveseenG6rard Ntakirutimana,
    in thevicinity of GitwePrimarySchool,
    shootandkillPastor Munyandindaandhisdaughter.925Thisstatement wasdisclosedto
    theDefenceon 16 September 2001.

    565.The Chamber observes


    thatwhenthe Prosecution received the reconfirmation
    statement of 28 July2001it hadavailablenewinformation abouta specific event
    involving two identifiedvictimsat a specific location.The trialstartedon
    18 September2001.Consequently,
    theProsecution
    wasin a positiontoprovide details
    by
    filing a motionfortheamendmentof theIndictment,whichis theprimary accusatory
    instrument(seegenerally
    2.4).Moreover,
    AnnexB of thePre-trial
    Brief, whichwasfiled
    on 15 August2001,approximatelythreeweeksafterthereconfirmation statement
    was
    taken,makesno reference to WitnessDD’sallegations concerning GitwePrimary

    921T.23 October
    2001pp.132-135.
    922Id.p.135;T.24October2001pp.80-81,T.25October
    2001p.91.
    923T.23 October
    2001p.132,134,136-137;T.25 October
    2001p.91.
    924T.23October2001p.133,138.
    925Therelevantpara.reads:
    "I wantto addtomy statement
    thatoneday,I wasabout75meters
    upfrom
    GitwePrimarySchoolon GitweHill.FromthereI sawDoctorG6rardneara deadtreeat aboutthesame
    height.I sawthathe shotandkilled Pastor
    Munyandinda,
    whowascloseto me.I alsosawthatDoctor
    G6rardshotandkilledMunyandinda’s
    daughter,
    a girlcalledErina.
    Erinawasshota little bitdownfrom
    meonthehill.Manymorepeople wereshotbyDoctorG6rard
    onthatday,butI cannotrecalltheirnames.
    I
    fledandcouldseenomore."

    Judgement
    andSentence 164 21 February
    2003
    A/~
    //vl
    /
    £ 65 "
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    School,eventhoughthatstatementnot onlyreconfirmedbutalsosupplementedthe
    earlierstatementof 11 November
    1999,in whichtherewas no mentionof G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    intheareaof Bisesero.
    Finally,
    theChambernotes
    thattheallegations
    in
    questionwereabsentalsofromthe Prosecution’s openingstatement.Underthese
    circumstances,
    theChamberdoesnotfindthatG6rardNtakirutimana
    receivedsufficient
    notice
    abouttheallegationsagainst
    himrelating
    to an attack
    in earlyMay1994inthe
    vicinity
    of Gitwe
    PrimarySchool.

    4.9 GitweHill,Middleof May (WitnessXX)

    4.9.1Prosecution

    566.TheProsecutiondid notreferspecifically
    to WitnessXX’sallegationin its
    Closing
    Brief
    or oralsubmission
    butstated
    generally
    thatit stands
    by thetestimonies
    of
    theProsecution
    926
    witnesses.

    4.9.2Defence

    567.The Defencesubmits thatWitness XX’sclaimsconcemingthe two Accusedare


    minor,vagueandnotbelievable. Shedidnotseethemat theMugonero Complex
    on 16
    April1994andhertestimony aboutthemat Bisesero
    is negligible,if believed.
    She
    formedpartof thecampaignagainst theAccused.
    Therewereseveral inconsistencies
    between
    herpriorstatements
    andhertestimony
    attrial.
    Ofallthewitnesseswhotestified,
    sheevidenced
    theeffects of traumamostdramatically.
    According
    to theDefence,this
    makes
    thereliabilityof herevidenceverydifficult
    to evaluate.
    Herobservationofthe
    Accused
    927 fromthehillopposite
    GitweHillisnotreliable.

    4.9.3Discussion

    568.Witness XX testifiedthat,onemoming in themiddle of May1994,sheobserved


    bothAccused amongattackersat theoccasion of oneofthemostserious attacksshehad
    survivedin Bisesero.At thetimeof thesighting, shewasat thetopofa hillopposite
    GitweHillwithotherTutsirefugees. As was usual, theystoodthereto see where
    attackerswerecoming from.At around8.00a.m.thatmorning, shesawfroma distance
    bothAccused, on theroad,alight fromthevehicle theyhadcomein.TheAccused were
    witha groupof manyattackers whohadbeenbrought in manyvehicles or hadcomeon
    foot.AmongthemweremanyInterahamwes. The witnessrecognised one Ngabonzima
    and"otherregional authorities", suchas conseiHer MikaMuhimana andbourgmestre
    CharlesSikubwabo. Amongthevehicles, sherecognized thewhitehospital pick-upwith
    largeblackletteringon theside, in which,shespecified, G6rard
    Ntakirutimana"usually
    cameto theattacks with".Shealsosawthevehicle whichbelongedto a traderwhichhad
    beenseizedbytheattackers.

    926T.22August
    2002
    pp.134-135.
    927
    Defense
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.
    70-75,
    inparticular
    pp.
    73-74,
    seealso
    p.15.

    Judgement
    andSentence 165 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    569.As far as Witness XX couldtell,t~lizaphan Ntakirutimana


    wasnotarmed,but
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    wascarrying a longgunon hisshoulder.
    Shespecified
    thatallthe
    otherattackerswerearmedandthatallthe"important" personswerecarrying
    guns.The
    attackers
    wereholding a kindof meetingpriorto theattack.
    Thewitnessobservedthat
    scenefor1 to 5 minutespriorto hidingin a marshy
    areaimmediately
    afterhearingthe
    firstgunshots.
    Sheremained in hiding
    duringtherestof theattack,
    which
    endedat about
    5.00p.mthatday.
    928

    570.The Chamberis convincedthatWitness XX is a survivorwho witnessed


    several
    attacks
    in theBiseseroarea.It alsoaccepts thatonemorninginthemiddleofMay1994
    sheobserved
    vehicles
    arrivingwithattackers.Thecrucial
    question
    isthereliability
    ofthe
    witness’s
    alleged
    observationof thetwoAccused. Itfollows
    fromhertestimonythatshe
    didnotseethemduringtheattack butonlyinconnectionwiththearrivalofthevehicles.
    Thewitnessestimatedthedistance to be "notveryfar"and"quite close";
    it wasa
    distance
    atwhichit waspossibleto recognizea person.
    Askedtobe moreprecise
    shesaid
    that"asthecrowsfliesit would
    beabout onekilometre"
    or1,000meters.

    571.TheChamberisaware thatbecauseofthedensityofhillsin theareaofBisesero it


    maybepossibletoobserveeventsat another
    hill.
    It alsorealizes
    thatWitnessXX didnot
    purport
    to giveprecise information
    aboutthedistancebetween
    herandthetwoAccused.
    However,
    herestimateofabout onekilometercreates
    a doubtasto thereliabilityofher
    observation,
    evenif sheknewElizaphan andG6rardNtakirutimana
    well.Shecouldnot
    describe
    theirclothesbutrecalled
    thatG6rardNtakirutimana
    hada longgun.Thisisa not
    a distinctive
    featureas several
    personshadweapons
    duringtheattack.
    Moreover,itis not
    quiteclearforhowlongshewasableto observe thepersons involved.Thewitness
    testimony,
    thatit was"forapproximately between
    oneto fiveminutes",appearsvague.
    Herobservationwasmadeunderstressful conditions,
    immediately
    beforean attack,and
    shehad already experiencedmanyattacks. Her testimonyconcerningthiseventis
    uncorroborated. Underthesecircumstances the Chamberdoesnot find,beyonda
    reasonabledoubt,thattheWitness XX observed
    thetwoAccused at GitweHillin the
    middleof May1994.

    572.TheChamber
    addsthatitsfinding is basedon doubts
    aboutWitness
    XX’sability
    to recognize
    thetwoAccusedat theindicated
    distanceanddoesnotaffect
    heroverall
    credibility,
    whichis discussed
    elsewhere.

    4.10MurambiHill,betweenMay and June1994(WitnessSS)

    4.10.1
    Prosecution

    573.The Prosecution
    relieson thetestimonyof Witness
    SS,whostatedthathe saw
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    amongattackers
    at MurambiHillbetween
    MayandJune1994.
    TheProsecution’s
    Closing
    Briefandoralsubmissions
    do notrefer
    tothisevent.

    4.10.2
    Defence
    928 T.22 October
    2001pp.9-22;
    33-44;
    73-76;
    83-86and92.

    Judgement
    andSentence 166 21 February
    2003
    //~
    /
    J
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    574.As mentionedpreviously,
    theDefence disputesthegeneralcredibility
    of Witness
    SS.Thisspecificeventat MurambiHillis notmentioned
    in theDefence
    Closing
    Briefor
    in itsoralsubmissions.
    929 However,
    it followsfromthecross-examination
    ofWitnessSS
    thattheDefence
    disputesalsothispartofhistestimony(seebelow).

    4.10.3
    Discussion

    575.Witness SS declaredthathe sawt~lizaphan Ntakirutimanabetween May andJune


    1994,at Murambi Hill.Thewitness wasamonga groupof Tutsirefugees on therun.
    Theyrealized thattheroadwasblocked anddecided to headforLakeKivuto "commit
    suicide".Whilethegroup wasabouttocrossa roadin theMurambi area,thewitness saw
    t~lizaphanNtakirutimana’s vehicle at a distance of eightmetres. According to the
    witness,theAccused sawtheirgroup, stopped hisvehicle andalighted. Witness SS saw
    himclearly. Thereweremanyattackers withhim,somecarrying gunsandothers armed
    withmachetes. Theystartedchasingthe Tutsirefugees whilesingingsongsin
    Kinyarwandaaboutexterminating theTutsi. Afterabouta minute, as thewitness was
    fleeing, he tumedaround. He was stillverycloseto the road.He saw]~lizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    standingcloseto hisvehicle parkedbeside theroad.Hewasabletoseehis
    face.Amongtheattackers thatday,he recognised, besides theAccused, oneSamuel,
    whomhe described as a Hutuandthesonof oneSerinda. At onepoint, theattackers
    started
    shooting on thefleeing refugees.Thewitness hearda number of themcryout.He
    sawtheattackers go up to themandstrike themwithmachetes. Therewerecriesand
    victims
    died. Thewitness hidin a valley anddidnotseeElizaphan Ntakirutimanaduring
    thatattack.However,he heardattackersnearby sayingthatPastor Ntakirutimanahadsaid
    thatGodhadordered
    93° thattheTutsi should be killed
    andexterminated.

    576.TheChambernotesthatthisparticulareventis notmentioned
    in theIndictmentor
    in thePre-trial
    Brief.However, thesummaryof WitnessSS’stestimonyin AnnexB to
    theBrief,
    filedon15 August2000, contains
    a reference
    tothisevent.TheChambernotes
    thattheeventwasalsodescribedin hisstatement
    toinvestigators
    of 18 December
    2000.
    ItistheviewoftheChamberthattheDefencehadsufficient
    notice
    ofthisallegation.

    93~ As mentioned
    577. above,
    theChamber foundWitnessSS to be generally credible.
    Theobservational conditions
    weregood.It wasdaylight, thewitness firstsawthe
    Accused
    parking hiscarwhileandalight fromit.TheAccused stoodapproximately
    eight
    metersawayfromhim.Fromthatdistance the witness alsosaw a groupof armed
    individuals
    alightfromElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    vehicle,
    thusleavingno doubtasto his
    involvement
    in thetransportation
    of theseattackers.
    TheChamber alsoobservesthatthe
    witnessheardtheattackers,
    whohadbeentransported by theAccused,sangsongsabout
    exterminating
    theTutsiwhilechasing thegroupof refugees. Thewitness thencaught
    sightoftheAccused standing
    by hiscarabout a minute
    after he started
    runningtoescape
    theattackerswhowereby thenchasing himandotherrefugees, whilelookingbackat

    929DefenceClosing
    Briefpp.158-163.
    930Y.30 October
    2001pp.126-133;T. 31October
    2001pp.118-124.
    931See,
    inparticular,
    3.8.3(c),
    3.12.3,
    4.10.3,
    4.16.3,
    4.20.3.

    Judgement
    andSentence 167 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    themwhenhe wasstillcloseto theroad.The witness


    sawtheAccused’s
    face.The
    Chamberobserves
    thatWitness
    SS,whowasa studentat theESINursing
    School,
    knew
    theAccused.
    932

    578.Duringcross-examination, the Defenceput to WitnessSS that,although he


    declaredthathe was close-by the roadwhereElizaphan Ntakirutimanaparkedhis
    vehicle,he didnothearthevehicle approaching.
    Thewitness repliedthatthiswas
    because
    he waswalkingamidsta thickbananaplantation,
    on drybananatreeleaves,the
    noise
    of hisstepscoveringthatof thecar.TheChamberacceptsthisaccountas wellas
    hisexplanationthathe did notmention thisfactduring the Prosecution’s
    direct
    examination
    becausethatquestionwasnotputto him.933 However,theChamber
    doesnot
    relyon thewitness’saccountthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    haduttered wordsto the
    effect
    thatGodorderedthattheTutsi should
    be killed
    andexterminated.
    Thewitnessdid
    notheartheAccused makesucha remark.

    579.Thetestimony of WitnessSS is uncorroborated.


    However,
    he appeared
    consistent
    throughout
    histestimony aboutthisevent,whichwasin conformity
    withhisstatement
    to
    investigators
    of 18 December2000.Thefactthatthisstatement
    wasgivenmorethansix
    yearsaftertheevents doesnotreduce hiscredibility.
    Consequently,
    theChamber
    finds
    thatonedayin Mayor June1994,Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    transported
    armedattackers
    whowerechasingTutsisurvivorsat MurambiHill.

    4.11Kidashya
    Hill,between
    Apriland June(Witness
    FF)

    4.11.1Prosecution

    580.It is theProsecution’s
    casethatWitnessFF sawG6rardNtakirutimana
    transport
    attackers
    inthehospital vehicle
    alongtheroadthatrunsfromMugonero
    Hospital
    through
    KidashyaHillsto Gisovu.Whenhe sawTutsirefugees
    he stoppedthevehicleto chase
    andshootat them.In theProsecution’s
    viewthewitnessiscredible
    evenif shedidnot
    mention
    934 thisspecific
    attackinanyofherprevious
    statements
    toinvestigators.

    4.11.2Defence

    581.TheDefence disputesthegeneral
    credibilityof WitnessFF andargues thatshe
    waspartof a propaganda
    campaignagainstbothAccused.In relationto thiseventthe
    Defence
    pointsoutthatit wasnotincluded
    in anyofherstatementsandthatshehadnot
    mentioned
    beingatKidashyaHillwhenshetestified
    in Musema.
    935

    932
    SeealsoT.30 October
    2001pp.143-144.
    933
    T. 31October
    2001pp.121-124.
    934
    Prosecutor’s
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    323-234.
    93s
    Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.55-63,
    inparticular
    pp.61-62.

    Judgement
    andSentence 168 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    4.11.3
    Discussion

    582.Witness FF testified thatsheremained in Murambi andGitweforabouttwodays


    butdidnotremember themonthin whichshearrived in theBisesero hills.936Before
    arrivingin Bisesero,sometimebetweenApriland June1994,she saw G6rard
    Ntaldrutimana
    at Kidashya Hill,Gitabura secteur,wherethereweremanypeople seeking
    refugeon allthedifferent hills. FromKidashya Hill,shesawG6rard Ntakirutimana’s
    vehicleascending theroadleading to MugoneroHospital andGisovu through Kidashya
    Hill.Shesawhimcarrying a gun.Amongotherpersons in thecompany of theAccused
    thewitnessrecognised MathiasNgirinshuti,chiefof personnelat theMugoneroHospital,
    and oneNdayisaba, who wasinspector at Mugonero PrimarySchool. The Interahamwe
    peasants werearmedwithspears,machetes, clubs,sharpened bamboosticksand
    firearms.Whenever theysawa groupof Tutsi, theywouldstopthevehicle, andwould
    chasetheTutsiandshootatthem.Sheexplained thatthehills wereclose enoughtoeach
    otherso thatshecould recognizehimon thenexthill.According to thewitness,G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    wasdressed in a longcoatandshorts.
    937

    583.The Chambernotesthatthe Indictment allegesthatG6rardNtakirutimana


    participated
    inattacks intheareaofBisesero,inwhich Kidashya
    Hillislocated.
    Thathill
    is notexplicitlymentionedintheIndictment,
    in thePre-trialBrieforin thesummaryof
    WitnessFF’sevidence in theannex
    tothatBrief. Fourof Witness
    FF’sfivestatementsto
    investigatorsplaced G6rardNtakirutimanain Bisesero,participating
    in attacks.
    The
    precise referenceto Kidashya Hillappeared in WitnessFF’stestimonyandwas not
    availableto theProsecutionbefore
    thetrial started.TheChamberfindsthatDefencehad
    sufficientnoticeof theallegation
    in viewof thesheer scale
    ofkillingsinthehills of
    Bisesero.

    584.TheChamber considers
    Witness
    FF generallycredible.In relation
    to thepresent
    event,shewasableto describetheclothesof G6rardNtakirutimana
    andidentify two
    personswithwhomhe arrived.Shewas not ableto giveprecise informationabout
    distance
    betweenherandtheAccusedbutstressed thatshewasat a distancesuchthat
    onewouldbe ableto recognize
    individuals.
    Theywerein anareaof small
    hillswhere it
    waspossibleto recognize
    personson a neighbouring
    hill.WitnessFF’stestimony is
    plausible
    totheChamber.

    585.It is true,as argued by theDefence, thatWitnessFF didnotmentionKidashya


    Hillspecificallyin anyofherpriorwritten statements.
    938However,
    asmentioned
    above
    shetoldinvestigators in fourof herstatementsthatshesawG6rardNtakirutimana
    on
    severaloccasionsin Bisesero.
    TheChamber considers
    heridentification
    ofKidashya
    Hill
    as a resultofmoreextensiveandprecisequestioning
    duringhertestimony.
    Thefactthat
    shesaidin oneof herstatements thatit wasdifficult
    forherto describe
    onespecific
    attack in Biseserodoesnotaffect hercredibility.Thewitnessexplained
    thatthe
    investigators
    didnotaskherspecifically
    aboutthelocation
    oftheattack.

    936
    T. 1 October
    2001pp.35-38.
    937
    T. 28 September
    2001pp.60-68.
    938
    T. 1 October
    2001p.22,

    Judgement
    andSentence 169 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    586.Consequently,
    the Chamber
    findsthatsometimebetweenApriland June1994,
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    wasin Kidashya
    Hilltransporting
    armedattackers,
    andthathe
    participated
    inchasing
    andshooting
    atTutsirefugees
    inthehills.

    4.12 NyarutovuCelluleand GitwaHill in Middleand SecondHalf of May


    (WitnessCC)

    4.12.1
    Prosecution

    587.On the basisof WitnessCC’stestimonythe Prosecutionsubmitsthat,in the


    middleof May1994,Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    transported
    attackersin hisvehiclenear
    theGishyita-Gisovu
    roadin Nyarutovu
    celluleandinstructed
    themtosearchforrefugees.
    He wasalsoseenin thesecondhalfof May1994at GitwaHillin thecompanyof armed
    attackers,
    close-by
    hisvehicle,
    acting
    astheirleader.IntheProsecution’s
    view,
    Witness
    CCwasa crediblewitness.
    Inconsistencies
    between
    histestimonyandpriorstatements
    to
    investigators
    939 werenotsignificant.

    4.12.2Defence

    588.The DefencecontendsthatWitnessCC’stestimonyis insignificant and


    incredible.
    He claimed
    to haveseentheAccusedverybrieflyon onlytwooccasionsas
    opposedtothefourreferred
    to in hispriorstatement.
    In respectoftheeventatGitwa
    Hill,he didnotseetheAccused do anything.
    Thewitnesswasnotcredible because
    of
    discrepancies
    betweenhistestimonyandhispriorstatements
    andin viewof hisevidence
    in 94°
    Kayisherna
    andRuzindana.

    4.12.3
    Discussion

    (a) Nyarutovu
    Cellule

    589.Witness CC testified aboutan eventwhichtookplaceone morning in mid-May


    1994at around 11.00a.m.in Nyarutovucellule,whichis closeto GitwaHillin the
    Biseseroarea.He andotherTutsirefugeeswerefleeingfromattackers whenhe decided
    to takecoverin bushes. Fromhishidingplace,
    he sawElizaphanNtakirutimana’soff-
    whitevehicleapproaching downthe Gishyita-Gisovuroad.Interahamwe in white
    uniformsandsoldiersin military
    uniforms,
    allof themcarrying
    guns, machetes,spears,
    andnail-embedded clubs, descended
    fromtherearhold.The Accused cameoutof the
    frontcabin.Hewasunarmed. Thewitness
    thenheardhimaddresstheattackers, pointing
    at fleeingrefugees andsaying: "Theretheyare!"The attackersthenchased these
    refugees,singing
    "Exterminatethem;
    lookforthemeverywhere;
    killthem; andgetit over
    with,inalltheforests." Thewitness
    explained
    thatheobservedthisscene fromhishiding

    939Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    330,339,341;T. 21August
    2002pp.117-119.
    94oDefence
    Closing
    Briefpp.86-91.
    /q
    Judgement
    andSentence 170 AY 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v, Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    place
    ata distance
    of approximately
    100meters
    andfora couple
    of minutes
    or so,before
    hewentfurther
    941 downthehilltohideinother
    bushes.

    590.Thisincidentis notspecifically
    mentionedin theIndictment
    butis summarized
    as
    partof WitnessCC’santicipated evidence
    in AnnexB of theProsecution’sPre-trial
    Brief.
    942TheBriefwas filedabouta monthandthreeweekspriorto the witness’
    testimony
    andaboutsixmonths priorto theopening of theDefence
    Case.Theeventis
    alsodescribed
    in hisstatementto investigators
    of 12June1996,whichwasdisclosed
    to
    theDefenceon 29 August2000.TheChamber is of theviewthattheDefence received
    sufficient
    andtimelynotice(seepara.2.4above).

    591.Regarding thecredibility of WitnessCC, theChamber notesthathe testified


    abouttwoevents in theBisesero area.Histestimony wasgenerally consistent. The
    DefencehasreferredtheChamber to allegeddiscrepancies
    withhispriorstatement. The
    Chamberis notconvinced
    bythese submissions.
    Itis truethathiswritten statement
    of12
    June1996didnotinclude ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    in a listof tenattackershe hadseen
    in Bisesero.However,
    it followsclearlyfromthewording of thestatement thatthelist
    wasnotexhaustive.
    943Later thewitness statedto investigatorsthathe sawtheAccused
    "atleast" fourtimesin Bisesero anddescribesan event"ontheroadbetween Gishyita
    andGisovu".Thisclearly refersto hissightingoftheAccused at Nyarutovu.
    Similarly,
    in theChamber’s
    viewit doesnotaffect thecredibilityofthewitness thathisstatement
    describes
    theattackersin thevehicleasarmedcivilianswhereasincourthetestifiedthat
    theywerearmedInterahamwe andsoldiers. Thesamestatement’s general description
    of
    attackers
    inBiseseroincluded soldiers,
    civilians,Interahamwe
    andpolicemen.

    592.Witness CC testifiedthathe wasnot ableto identifythe makeof Elizaphan


    Ntakirutimana’s
    vehiclebecause he didnotknowhowto read.TheDefence points
    out
    thatin hisstatement
    of 1996he described
    itas a Toyota
    pick-up.
    TheChambernotes
    that
    thewitnessdescribedtheAccused’scarin a waywhichcorresponded
    to thedescription
    byotherwitnesseswhoobserved
    it onotheroccasions.

    593.According
    to thestatement, Witness
    CC saidthatthedailyattacks in Bisesero
    started
    almosteverydayat 4.00a.m.,whereas in courthe deniedhavingsaidthisto
    investigators.
    TheDefence observesthedifferenceto histestimonyin Kayishemaand
    Ruzindana
    wherehe testified
    thattheattacksstartedat 9.00a.m.TheChamber doesnot
    findthissignificantandnotesthatduringcross-examination
    in thepresent casethe
    witness
    stated
    thattheattackers wouldnotcomeat anyfixedmoments in timeandwould
    arrive
    at 7.00,8.00or 9.00a.m.Similarly,
    theDefence submissions
    aboutWitnessCC’s

    94tT.9 October
    2001pp.10-17,
    42,53-57,
    68-70.
    942WitnessCC’ssummaryof expected
    evidence
    reads:"Thewitness
    willtestify
    further
    thaton one
    occasion,
    he sawthePastoron theroadbetween
    Gishyita
    andGisovu in hiswhiteToyotapick-up.
    In the
    carwerearmedcivilians,Whenthecarstopped thePastor andtheattackersdisembarked.
    ThePastor
    pointed
    outgroupsof Tutsirefugees
    totheattackers.
    Theattackerswenttothesaidrefugeesandkilled
    them."
    (Italics
    omitted.)
    943Thisfollowsinparticular
    fromthefollowing
    formulation:
    "Almost
    everydaytherewereattacks
    onus.
    Thereweremanyattackers.
    I sawmany,manyattackers
    ....I recognizedthefollowing
    personsamongthe
    attackers"
    (followed
    bythelistoftennames,
    italics
    added).

    Judgement
    andSentence 171 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T& ICTR-96-17-T

    different
    estimates
    of the distances
    between
    his homeandNgomaChurchandMuyira
    Hill,respectively,
    do notrelateto theinvolvement
    of theAccused
    andareof little
    importance.

    594.TheChamber recallsthatWitness CC madehisobservation in broaddaylightfor


    twominutes.He testified
    thathe hadknownElizaphan Ntakirutimanasince1977,having
    seenhimat thechurch in Gisiza wheretheAccused cameduring religiousgatherings,
    andfromtheAdventist church in Ngomasecteur.It is quitepossible to recognizea
    person
    ata distanceof about100meters. Evenifthewitness wasnotabletodescribe the
    clotheswornbytheAccused he explainedthathe wasnotarmed, thathecameoutof his
    vehicle,andthathe heardtheAccused’s statement
    quoted above.Thereis no evidence
    thattherewereanypersons or vegetation between
    thewitness andtheAccused thatmay
    haveobstructedhisview.In hiswritten statement
    of 12 June1996to investigatorshe
    statedthathe wasstandingon theslopeof a mountainandcould seetheAccused andhis
    carwiththearmedcivilians veryclearly. Hisevidencewascoherent andconsistent
    with
    thewritten statement.TheChamber accordinglyfindsthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    broughtarmedattackers
    in therearholdof hisvehicle to NyarutovuHillonedayin the
    middleof May1994,andthatthegroupwassearching forTutsirefugees andchasing
    them.Furthermore,theChamber findsthat,at thisoccasion, ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    pointedoutthefleeingrefugees totheattackerswhothenchased theserefugeessinging
    "Exterminate
    them;lookforthemeverywhere; killthem; andgetitoverwith,inallthe
    forests."

    (b) Gitwa Cellule

    595.Witness CC testifiedaboutseeingElizaphan Ntakirutimanain the company of


    individualshe described
    as assailants
    carryinggunsin thesecond halfof May1994,
    abouta weekafterhisfirstsighting
    oftheAccusedin Nyarutovucellule.
    Thisoccurredin
    Gitwacellule,aboutten-minute
    walkfromNyarutovu. Thewitness estimatedthathe was
    about50 metres awayfromtheAccused whenhe sawhim.Thereweretreesand bushes
    in between.Thesightinglasteda fewmoments.He further sawtheAccused’svehicle,
    whichwas parked. He lefta momentafterwards and wentto hidein otherbushes.
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    wasnotcarryinga gun,buthe was,according to thewitness,
    "leadingtheattackers".
    He specified
    that:"Hedidn’t do anything,
    as such;buthe came
    withtheattackersandtheattackers
    werecoming
    to 944
    ... work".

    596.Thiseventis notspecifically
    referred
    to in theIndictment.
    However,
    AnnexB of
    theProsecution’s
    Pre-trialBriefgivesa summary of Witness
    CC’stestimonywhich
    includes
    foursightings
    ofElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    inBisesero,
    andreference
    tothefacts
    thaton alloccasionsthewitness
    sawtheAccused withattackers
    andthathe directed
    themtoattackTutsirefugees.
    Eventhough
    thedateandplaceofthisparticular
    sighting
    werenotspecified,theChamberfindsthattheDefencereceived
    timelyandsufficient
    noticeof thepresentallegation,
    considering
    thesheerscaleof themassacres(see
    generally
    2.4).

    944T.9 October
    2001pp.17-20,
    62,72-73.

    Judgement
    andSentence 172 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    597.As alreadynoted,the ChamberfoundWitness CC to be generally


    consistentand
    reliable.
    It istruethatinhisprior statement
    of12 June1996he didnotmentionseeing
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    at Gitwacellule.However,
    thegeneral formulation
    accordingto
    whichthewitnesssawtheAccusedat leastfourtimesduringtheattacksin theBisesero
    areacouldwellincludetheincidentat Gitwa.
    Thewitness testified
    thathe didmention
    thisincident
    totheinvestigators
    butthattheymaynothaveputitdown.

    598.Eventhough thewitness declaredthatthereweretreesandbushes between him


    andtheAccused,theChamber notesthatthedistancebetween ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    andhim,atthetimeoftheobservation,wasnotfar--about 50 meters
    -- andconformsto
    a positive
    identification
    of theAccused.TheChamberis therefore
    satisfiedbeyond a
    reasonable
    doubtthatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    waspresentamongarmedattackersat the
    occasion
    of anattack
    againstTutsirefugees
    atGitwacellule,andthathiscarwasparked
    nearby.
    Althoughthisevidence is limitedin respect
    of theAccused’s exactroleor
    conduct
    in connection
    withtheattack,it corroborates
    othersightingsof theAccusedin
    Bisesero,
    in thecompanyof attackers,
    duringthetime-periodrelevant
    to theBisesero
    Indictment.

    4.13Kabatwaand GitwaHills,End of May 1994(WitnessKK)

    4.13.1Prosecution

    599.TheProsecution,relying
    on Witness KK,alleges
    thatbothAccused wereseenas
    partof a convoy
    of attackers
    at Kabatwa
    Hill,Nyarutovu
    cellule,at theendof May1994
    andthatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    waslaterobserved
    closeto hisvehiclebetweenGitwa
    andKabatwa
    945 Hills
    withattackers,
    wherehe instructed
    themto attackrefugees.

    4.13.2Defence

    600.TheDefencesubmits
    generally
    thatWitness KK’sallegations
    arenotcredibleand
    partof a campaign
    against
    theAccused.
    In relationto theincident
    at Kabatwa
    Hill,the
    Defencepointsoutdiscrepancies
    between his evidenceand hiswrittenstatementof
    15 November
    946 1999.

    4.13.3
    Discussion

    601.WitnessKK testifiedthat,oneday beforenoontowards theend of May1994he


    sawseveralcarsfollowingeachotherat Kabatwa
    Hill,Nyarutovucellule.Thedistance
    betweenthevehicleswasabout10 meters.Thevehicleswereapproachingfromwherehe
    stood,hiding
    witha groupof 31 Tutsi
    refugees.
    He observed
    thevehicle of bourgmestre
    CharlesSikubwabo,ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s
    ToyotaHilux,the Mugonero Hospital
    vehicledriven
    by GrrardNtakirutimana,
    andanothervehiclewhichthewitness didnot
    describe
    further.Armedindividuals
    wereaboard
    thevehicles,someofwhichstoppedat a
    placecalledNgendombu,andothersat Kabatwa,
    belowtheGitwaroad.About20 metres

    945Prosecution
    Closing
    Brief
    paras.
    334-337;
    T.21 August
    2002p. 112.
    946Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.144-153,
    inparticular
    pp.151-152.

    Judgement
    andSentence 173 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    awayfromthewitness,he sawattackers
    climbdownthecars(thewitness
    didnotspecify
    whichcarsthesewereamongthosehe previously saw),searchingforTutsirefugees
    hidingin thebushes
    andshootingat them.Thewitnessdescribed
    theassailants
    as Hum
    individualscarrying
    machetesandclubs.Amongthem,he recognised
    theconseillerof
    Gishyita communeMikaMuhimana.

    602.Theshootinglasted foraboutfourhours. Duringtheattack Witness


    KK andother
    Yutsirefugeesclimbedup andreached
    theGitwaroad.On GitwaHill,on theotherside
    of theroad,he saw,20 metersaway,individuals
    he describedas Hutuharvesting
    peas
    and placingthemin Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    vehicle.MikaMuhimana wasstanding
    nearby,shooting
    at refugees.
    Thewitnesstestified
    thatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    sawtheir
    groupandshoutedto "soldiers"
    whowereabovetheAccusedon thehill:"theretheyare,
    downbelow.Catchthem". Thesoldiers thenchasedthegroupof refugees,shootingat
    them.Theythrewa grenade whichwoundedthewitness in the legandarmandkilled
    threeothers.Atthisstage, thewitness
    hidfurtherdownthehill. Hespecified
    thatthe
    attack
    947 atKabatwa
    hilllasted thewhole
    day.

    603.According to the testimony of WitnessKK it was broaddaylight whenhe saw


    ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s car arriving towardsKabatwa Hill,on the Gitwaroad,
    transporting
    armedindividuals, 20 metersawayfromhim.Althoughhe didnottestifyto
    seeing
    theAccused driving
    it,hedidseehimintheafternoon thatdayduringan attack
    on
    neighbouring
    Gitwa Hillclose by hisvehicle.According
    to thewitness,thisobservation
    alsotookplacefroma relatively shortdistance, about20 metersfromElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    vehicle,theAccused standingnearbyhiscar.Thewitnessheardhimtell
    attackers
    nearby to "catch"theTutsirefugees. Witness
    KK wasableto provideprecise
    details
    aboutthescene of theincident,suchas theposition
    of Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    vehicle
    andthefactthatitwasbeing loadedwithpeas.

    604.TheChamber willnowconsider whetherthispartof thetestimony of Witness KK


    is credible.
    Certainaspects of hiscredibilityhavebeendiscussed elsewhere.
    948The
    ChamberdoesnotaccepttheDefence submissionsthatthewitness formedpartof a
    campaign
    against theAccused. It doesnotconsider it importantthatthewitness only
    acquiredknowledgeto identify weaponsaftertheevents in 1994,apparently during
    training
    sessions in 1998.Furthermore,theChamber accepts thattheWitness KK knew
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana.
    He testifiedthathe wasveryyoung, only12 yearsold,whenhe
    firstsawtheAccused about1990buthe observed himnotonlyon twooccasions at the
    churchbutalsoon otheroccasions "during otherassemblies of thefaithful". The
    Chamberdoesnotconsider it significantthatthewitness hadproblems duringhis
    testimonyto identifytheexactperiods during whichhe sawtheAccused. It hasalso
    consideredthe otherDefence submissions concerning the general credibility of
    Witness
    KK anddoesnotconsider thattheycastreasonable doubton theevidenceof the
    witness.

    947T.4 October
    2001pp.14-25;T.5 October
    2001pp.39-49.
    948See,
    inparticular,
    3.8.3(c),
    3.10.3,
    4.6.3,
    4.13.3.

    Judgement
    andSentence 174 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    605.In the presentcontext, the Defencesubmits,


    in particular,thatWitnessKK’s
    account
    of thiseventis inconsistent withhispriorstatement
    of 15 November
    1999.In
    particular,
    theDefencearguesthatin hisprior
    statement
    thewitnessdeclared
    thathewas
    at Kabatwa towardsthe end of Apriland thatthe attackduringwhichhe saw the
    Accused’scarbeingloaded withpeastookplacearound the4 May,whereasin courthe
    estimatedthedateto be at theendof May.TheChambernotesthatduringhistestimony
    the witness was not askedto explain thisdifference.It furtherobserves that
    WitnessKK’stestimony included
    dramaticeventsthathe experienced
    during
    a periodof
    about90 days.

    606.TheDefencealsopointsoutthatin hispriorstatementthewitness
    attributed
    the
    sighting
    ofthegroupofTutsi refugees
    on Kabatwa
    Hilltoa groupofattackers
    onthehill
    oppositeElizaphanNtakirutimana’s
    car,andthatit wastheseattackers (andnot
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanaas testified
    in court)
    whothenshouted, "Catchthem;catch
    them"priorto chasingthemdownthehill. 949Undercross-examination,WitnessKK
    explained
    thatwhathe saidwas"notproperly takendown"and"notexactly what[he]
    said.
    ’’95°TheChamber
    notesthat,ingeneral,
    theotherdetailsinthewitness’s
    statement
    relating
    tothisincident
    areconsistent
    withthosegivenin histestimony,
    andaccepts
    the
    explanation
    given
    by thewitnessabout
    theinconsistency.

    607.On the basisof WitnessKK’scredible testimony,


    the Chamberfindsthat
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    participated
    in a convoyofvehicles
    carrying
    armedattackers
    to
    KabatwaHillat theend of May1994,and that,lateron thatday,at neighbouring
    GitwaHill,he pointed
    outthewhereaboutsof Tutsirefugees
    to attackers
    whoattacked
    therefugees
    causinginjury
    to Witness
    KK.

    608.Turningto WitnessKK’ssightingof G6rardNtakirutimanaat KabatwaHill,the


    Chamber
    observesthatthewitnessdidnotmention himin connectionwiththiseventin
    hispriorstatement.TheChamberacceptshisexplanation thathe wasonlyanswering
    questions
    aboutgivenindividuals
    whichdidnotincludetheAccused.
    951Italsonotes his
    general
    remarkin thestatementthathe wouldcomewiththeattackers to theBisesero
    area"every
    day".However,considering
    thatthewitness provided
    nodetails as toG6rard
    Ntakirutimana’s
    presenceandrole,ifany,atKabatwa Hill(otherthanthathearrivedin
    thehospitalvehicle),Chamberfindsthatthe Prosecution hasnot proved beyond
    reasonable
    doubtthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    waspresent at Kabatwa
    Hill.

    949Therelevant
    passage
    of thewitness’
    written
    statement
    of 15November
    1999reads:
    "Meanwhile
    Pastor
    Ntakirutimana
    wasstandingnearhiscarwhichwasparkednearSikubwabo’s car.MikaMuhimana was
    standing
    nearhim.Hewassupervisinga groupof Interahamwe
    whowereharvestinga fieldof greenpeas
    andplacing
    theminthePastor’scar.On thehillopposite,there
    wasanothergroupofattackers.Theysaw
    usandshouted,
    "Catchthem;catchthem".Thena groupofmilitary
    camedownthehillafterus.I waswith
    thirty-one
    (31)otherrefugees.
    Charles
    Sikubwabowasonanoppositehillfarfromhiscar."
    95oT.5 October
    2001p.46.
    951T.4 October
    2001p.127.

    Judgement
    andSentence 175 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtaMrutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    4.14MubugaPrimarySchool,Middleof May 1994 (WitnessGG)

    4.14.1Prosecution

    609.Relyingon Witness GG,the Prosecution


    submits thatbothAccused participated
    in attacks
    perpetratedagainst
    Tutsirefugeesat or nearMubugaPrimarySchoolin the
    vicinityof GitwaHillin May 1994.DuringthisperiodElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    allegedlyshotandkilleda TutsicalledThomasHabayo. The Prosecutiondoesnot
    consider
    it significantthatnoneof Witness
    GG’sthreepriorstatements mentionthis
    killing,
    andit stressestheprimaryimportance
    of evidencegivenin court.WitnessGG
    testified
    thathe hadtoldinvestigators
    about
    HabayoandtheProsecutionsubmitsthatthe
    witness
    952 "shouldnotbe blamedforomissions
    doneby otherpersons".

    4.14.2Defence

    610.TheDefenceobjectsgenerallyto Witness
    GG’scredibility.
    Thewitnessis partof
    thecampaign
    againsttheAccusedandherevidenceis fabricated.
    Morespecifically,
    itis
    submitted
    thatWitness GG nevermentioned
    thisepisode in anyof hisstatements.
    The
    Defence
    alsoargues thatwhenthewitness testifiedaboutMubuga School
    in Kayishema
    andRuzindana
    he didnotclaimthatanyof theAccused
    953 werepresent.

    4.14.3
    Discussion

    611.The ChambernotesthatWitnesses HH and SS alsotestifiedthattheysaw both


    Accusedor onlyG6rardNtakirutimanaparticipate
    in attacksagainstTutsirefugeesat
    MubugaPrimarySchool in June1994(see4.15and4.16below). Witness GG saidthat
    theeventconsideredin thepresentsection
    (4.14) tookpartin themiddle of May1994.
    Moreover,
    therearecertain variations
    betweenthethreetestimonies.TheChamber will
    therefore
    considertheseattacksat Mubuga
    PrimarySchool asthreeseparateeventsdealt
    within uncorroborated
    testimonies.
    954AlsoWitness DD mentioned
    an eventrelatingto
    MubugaPrimarySchool. He statedfirstthatoneof theAccused, thenthattheother
    Accusedshotandkilled hiswifeandtwochildren. TheProsecutionchosenottorelyon
    thisevidence,
    andthisincident isthereforenotpartoftheProsecutioncase.Theevent
    wasmainlyusedby theDefence in itsargumentagainstthecredibilityof thiswitness
    (see4.8above).

    612.WitnessGG testifiedthataroundthe middleof May 1994,he saw Elizaphan


    Ntakirutimana
    arriveat MubugaSchool
    in hisHiluxvehicle
    andG6rardNtakirutimana
    in
    thehospital
    vehicle.Theywerein a convoywhichincludedtwobuses.Allvehicles
    transported
    attackers.
    Theywereparked lessthantenmetres
    awayfroma treewherethe
    witness
    wasroastingpotatoes. Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    was holding
    a firearm.The
    attackers
    werealsoarmed.At thetime,about
    30 refilgees
    weresheltered
    at theschool.
    Theattackers
    started
    tosing"Letus exterminate
    them"
    andproceeded
    tokillpeopleuntil

    952
    Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    342-345;
    T. 21August2002pp.119-120.
    953
    DefenceClosing
    Briefpp.91-98,
    inparticular
    pp.96-97.
    954Somewitnesses
    usethename"Mumubuga"
    or Mu Mubuga".
    Thisis notsignificant.

    Judgement
    andSentence 176 21 February
    2003

    /
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T
    theevening.According
    to thewitness, G6rard Ntakirutimana
    wasdirecting theattackers
    andtoldthemto search in thebushes forrefugees in hiding.At onepointduring the
    attack,oneThomas Habayo,a youngmanwhohadbeenhiding on thelowersideof the
    road,wasflushed outofhishiding placeby theInterahamwe.Trying to escape, heranby
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana’svehicle.WitnessGG declared that,seeing Habayo, Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    tookouthisgunandshothim.In theevening thewitness returned to the
    schoolpremisestogetherwithsomeotherrefugees andburied thev" " ’
    1chin
    955 s body.
    613.TheChamber observesthatneither theIndictment northeProsecution’s Pre-trial
    Briefmakesreference to thisattack at MubugaSchool or to the killing of Thomas
    Habayo.Noneof Witness GG’sthree statementsto Prosecution
    investigators specifically
    relatesto thisincident. Thesummary of WitnessGG’santicipated evidence in Annext3
    of thePre-trial Briefonlyindicates thatthewitness oftensawElizaphan andG6rard
    Ntakirutimanaandthe Prefect in "Mumubugabetween
    ,, Apriland June 94, without
    furtherparticularization.
    In itsopeningstatement theProsecutionmadeno reference to
    theattackat MubugaSchoolor tothekilling of Habayo.

    614. It is theChamber’ viewthattheDefence


    s forElizaphanNtakirutimanadidnot
    receive
    sufficientnoticethatWitnessGG wouldallege
    thattheAccused shotandkilled
    ThomasHabayoat MubugaPrimary Schoolin mid-May1994.It consequentlydisregards
    thewitness s testimonyof the killingof Habayoby ElizaphanNtakirutimana.The
    Chamberhoweverfinds,on the basisof WitnessGG’sevidence, thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimanawaspresentin themidstof thekilling of Tutsiat Mubugain mid-May,
    thathe wasin hisvehicle
    transporting
    armedattackers
    as partofa convoywhichincluded
    twobuses, allcarryingarmedattackers.Theattackerssang"Letus exterminatethem"
    andproceeded
    to killpeopleuntil
    theevening.

    615.In relationto G6rard


    NtakirutimanatheChambernotesthepaucityof evidence
    and findsthatthe Prosecutionhas not provedbeyonda reasonable
    doubtthathe
    participated
    in thesameattack
    at MubugaPrimary
    Sclaool.

    4.15 MubugaPrimarySchool,June1994 (WitnessHH)

    4.15.1Prosecution

    616.TheProsecutionsubmits
    thatbothAccusedparticipated
    in attacksagainst Tutsi
    refugees
    at MubugaPrimary
    School
    alsoin June1994.Reference
    is madeto WitnessHH,
    whoaccording
    to theProsecution
    is reliable
    becausehe observed
    theAccused at a short
    distance.
    Therewerenoobstacles
    toprevent
    identification.
    956

    4.15.2
    Defence

    617.TheDefence
    alleges
    generally
    thatWitnessHH formed
    partof a campaign
    against
    theAccused.
    Inrespect
    ofthisevent,
    thewitness
    didnottestify
    tohaveseeneither
    ofthe

    955
    T.24 e_,,_~,er,
    temoer
    2001
    pp.11-25;
    T.25September
    2001pp.6-45.
    956-r~ ,.
    vrosecutlon
    Closing
    Briefpara.
    327;T.21 August
    2001pp.115-116.

    Judgement
    andSentence
    177 21 February
    2003
    .9.6
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Accused
    actuallyparticipatein the attack.He couldnot say whetherElizaphan
    Ntaldrutimana
    hada gunor not.WitnessHH contradicted
    evidenceby several
    Defence
    witnesses
    thatweapons
    wereneverkeptin family houses.Accordingto theDefence,
    there
    957 werediscrepancies
    between
    histestimonyandhiswitness
    statement.

    4.15.3
    Discussion

    618. WitnessHH testifiedthat betweenthe end of May and 15 June 1994he


    occasionallystayedin thevicinityof MubugaPrimary
    Schoolwhilehe sought refugein
    Bisesero.Onedayin June,he observed an attackagainstTutsirefugees who sought
    shelterat theschool. Amongtheattackers,whomostlycarried machetesandclubsbut
    alsofirearms, he sawthe two Accused. G6rardNtakirutimanawas carrying a gun.
    Regarding
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana,
    thewitnessfirstdeclaredthathe couldnotclearly
    seewhether he wasarmed,thenthathe couldseethathe hada weapon in hissuit,but
    thathe didnot knowwhatthisweapon was.WitnessHH testifiedthatwhilehe was
    hidinghe observed Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanafroma distanceof "about"30 meters.The
    witness
    didnotseeeither Accusedkillanyone atMubuga
    School butsaw"lotsofbodies"
    strewn
    958 intheschool yard.

    619.The ChambernotesthatWitness HH did not see eitherAccusedkillanyone.


    RegardingElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    he estimatedthedistance between himself
    andthe
    Accusedto be "about30 meters".
    Yet,he alsostated thattheAccused was"faraway",
    thatthedistance was"quitelong"andfirstsaidthathe didnotknowwhether hecould
    estimateit butwouldsaythatitwas"above 30meters".
    959He alsosaidthathe wasnot
    ableto seeclearly whattheAccusedwascarrying "because
    he wasfar".TheChamber is
    leftwiththeimpression thatthedistancemayhavebeenconsiderable. Moreover,
    evenif
    thewitness statedthattherewereno obstacles
    betweenhimandElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    it follows
    fromhistestimony thattherewerepersonsmovingaboutand"atonepoint...
    whentherewasnobody" betweenthemhe couldseetheAccused. It is unclear
    howlong
    thewitness observedhim.TheChamber is awarethatit wasbroaddaylight butalso
    recallsthestressfulconditions
    underwhichtheobservationswasmade.Consequently,
    it
    does not findbeyonda reasonable doubtthatWitnessHH observedElizaphan
    Ntakirutimanaparticipating
    in theattackatMubuga Primary
    School in June1994.

    620.Turningnowto Witness HH’sallegedobservation of G6rardNtakirutimana, the


    Chamber
    notesthattheevidence concerning
    hispresence androlein theattack is even
    sparser
    thanthatgiven
    inrespect ofhisfather.
    Thewitnesssimplytestifiedthathecould
    seeG6rardNtakirutimana
    andthathe wasarmed.No furtherinformationwasgivenabout
    thedistance
    betweenthewitness andtheAccusedor thetypeof weaponhe wascarrying.
    TheChamberhasconsidered thewitness’sreconfirmationstatementof 25 July2001,
    wherereference
    is madeto an undated
    incidentat MubugaPrimarySchool. Accordingto

    957
    Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.75-86,
    inparticularpp.84-85.
    958
    T.26September
    2001
    pp.45-48,57-65; T.27September
    2001
    p.126.
    959
    T.26September
    2001p.60.TheFrench version
    reads(p.69):
    "I1y avait
    uneassez
    longue
    distance
    entre
    moietlepasteur,
    jenesaispas comment
    l’estimer,
    mais
    jepense
    qu’elle
    6tait
    sup6rieure/t
    30m6tres.
    ¯
    Q:Avez-vous
    dit:
    "sup6rieure
    g 30metres.
    "7A:"Oui,
    auxenvirons,
    ils’agit
    d’une
    estimation."

    Judgement
    andSentence 178 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    thestatement,
    thewitnessmadehisobservationat a distance
    of about100metres.96°Such
    a distance
    wouldnot necessarilyprecludea reliable identificationof the Accused.
    However,WitnessHH did not specifywhetherhis view of the Accusedwas generally
    unobstructed.
    TheChamber is therefore
    notsatisfied beyonda reasonable
    doubtthatthe
    witness
    observedGrrardNtakirutimanaduringthisattackat MubugaPrimarySchool.

    4.16 Mubuga Primary School,June 1994 (WitnessSS)

    4.16.1Prosecution

    621.WitnessSS testified
    aboutan attackagainstTutsirefugees
    at MubugaSchoolin
    June1994and statedthatG6rardNtakirutimana
    was amongtheparticipants.
    Duringits
    oralsubmissions
    theProsecution
    arguedthatthewitnesswascredible
    andhisobservation
    96~
    reliable.

    4.16.2Defence

    622.TheDefencesubmitsgenerally thatWitnessSS is partof a campaign againstthe


    Accused.In respect
    of thiseventtheDefencepointsoutthataccording to histestimony
    he didnotknowhowthe Accused andtheotherattackers arrivedat Mubuga,andthathe
    did not seeany vehicles,despitehis claimthathe was nearthe classroomswhenhe
    observed
    962 thealleged
    attack.

    4.16.2Discussion

    623.WitnessSS testifiedthatone dayin June1994,towardsdawn,he wentto hidein


    bushesnearMubugaSchoolafterhavingsleptat the schoolpremises. Later,before
    10.30a.m.,he sawbetween 20 and60 attackersapproachtheschoolon foot.He didnot
    see any vehiclesand did not knowhow the attackershad arrived.Accordingto the
    witness,G6rardNtakirutimana
    wasin frontof theattackersandcarried a weapon,which
    he describedas a "longgun".He saw theAccusedshootat Tutsirefugees withinthe
    schoolfromthe doorof the classroom,andat someotherstryingto fleethroughthe
    schoolwindows.The witnessthensawhim pursuerefugees who weretryingto fleefrom
    the school.Afterthe attackers’ departure,WitnessSS returnedto find"manydead
    bodies,
    963 stackedoneon topof theother"bothinsideandoutsidetheschoolbuildings.

    624.The Chambernotesthat in AnnexB of its Pre-trial


    Brief,filedon 15 August
    2001,the Prosecution
    indicatedthat WitnessSS wouldtestifythat he saw Grrard
    Ntakirutimana
    afterthe attackat the Mugonero
    Complex,attacking
    Tutsiindividuals

    960Therelevant
    passage
    ofthisstatement
    reads:
    "WhenI hadseenthem
    [which
    appears
    torefer
    tothetwo
    Accused,
    Ruzindana
    andMika],
    I wasinfrontofoneoftheclassrooms.
    I sawthemata distance
    ofabout
    100metres."
    Itfollows
    fromthestatement
    thatthetwoAccused
    werewith
    "alotofattackers".
    961Thereisnoreference
    tothiseventintheProsecutionClosing
    BrieforinitsClosing
    arguments
    of
    21August2002.
    However,
    theProsecution
    declared
    thatitreliedonallevidence
    ledagainst
    theAccused.
    (T.21August2002
    p.134).
    962Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.158-163,
    inparticular
    pp.162-163.
    963T.30October2001pp.139-146;
    T.31October2001pp.76-86
    and92.

    Judgement
    andSentence 179 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    hiding
    in Mubugain theBiseseroarea.Moreover,
    accordingto thewitness’s
    written
    statement
    of 18 December2000the AccusedchasedTutsirefugeesand shotat them
    "MuMubuga"PrimarySchool.TheChamberaccordingly
    findsthattheDefencereceived
    sufficient
    noticeaboutthis
    event.

    625.The Chamber has acceptedthatWitness SS knewG6rardNtakirutimana and was


    ableto recognizehimduringtheevents fromAprilto June1994. It considers
    thewitness
    generallycredible
    (see3.8.3(d)and3.12.3).Inrelation tothepresent event,
    theChamber
    notesthatthewitness observedtheAccused during an attack whichtookplacein the
    middleof themorning.Thewitness saidthatthedistance betweenhimandtheattackers
    was"notthatmuch"butwiderthanthedistance of thecourtroom.TheChamber accepts
    thatthe witness observed theAccused eventhough he was notableto estimate the
    distancebetweenthematthetimeofhisobservation.964Thewitness specified
    thatG6rard
    Ntakirutimanawasstandingin frontof thegroupof 20 to 60 attackers,
    andthathe saw
    thattheAccused wascarrying a longgun.Moreover, Witness SS observed
    theAccused
    shootingat refugeeswhenhe wasat thedoorof theclassroom andsubsequently
    pursuing
    them.Thewitness observedtheattackersfromthebushes wherehe remainedbecausehe
    wasafraid to be seenif he lefthishiding place.TheChamber doesnotconsiderit
    significantthatthewitnesswasunableto recallhowtheAccused wasdressed.

    626.Duringcross-examination the Defencepointedout thatWitnessSS’sprior


    statement
    of 18 December
    2000doesnotindicatethathe sawG6rardNtakirutimanakill
    anyoneat MubugaPrimarySchool.
    Thewitnessansweredthata questionto thiseffect
    wasnotputto himby theinvestigators, andthathe wasonlyasked"whether I saw
    him".
    965In theChamber’sview,
    thisdoesnotaffectthecredibility
    of thewitness.It is
    noted
    thataccordingto hisstatement
    he sawtheAccused"shooting
    at thepeoplehiding
    intheschool".

    627.Finally,theChamber
    doesnotconsider it significant
    thatWitness
    SS didnotsee
    theattackers,
    including
    theAccused,arriving
    in vehicles
    beforetheattack,
    andthathe
    didnotobserve theirvehiclesbeingparkedby theschoolduring
    theattack.Evenif
    vehicleswereobservedin thevicinityof theschoolon otheroccasions
    (see4.14,
    WitnessGG),thereliabilityof Witness
    SS is notaffected.
    TheChamberrecalls
    that
    WitnessHH madeno referenceto seeing
    vehiclesduringtheattackat Mubuga
    School
    (see4.15).

    628.On the basisof theevidenceprovided by Witness SS, the Chamberfindsthat


    G6rardNtakirutimana
    participated
    in an attackat MubugaPrimary School
    in June1994
    andshotat Tutsirefugees.
    He wasleadinga groupof 20 to 60 attackers
    andcarrying
    a
    longgun.Heandtheattackersshotat TutsirefugeeswithintheschoolandTutsifleeing
    throughschoolwindowsandthereafterpursuedthefleeing refugees.
    Manybodieswere
    leftbothinside
    andoutside
    theschool.

    964According
    toWitness
    SS’s
    witness
    statement
    of18December
    2000thedistance
    wasabout
    40meters.
    965Y.31October
    2001
    p.88.

    Judgement
    andSentence 180 21February
    2003

    ~
    g3q
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    4.17Muyira(Muhira)Hill,Middleof May (Witness

    4.17.1
    Prosecution

    629. The Prosecution


    submitsthat in mid-May1994,WitnessGG saw Grrard
    Ntakirutimana
    leading
    attackers
    in Muyira
    Hillduring
    an assault
    launched
    against
    Tutsi
    966
    refugees.

    4.17.2Defence

    630.TheDefencegenerallyobjects,in regardof allMuyira-relatedallegations,that


    theydidnothavesufficientpriornotice to meettheparticular issuesbroughtby the
    witnesses
    in thecourseof theirtestimonyin court.
    As faras Witness GG is concemed,
    theDefence
    submitsthatheis partof a campaignagainst
    theAccused. Morespecifically,
    theDefencecontendsthatthiseventis notmentioned in any of thewitness’ prior
    statements
    orin histestimonyintheKayishema967
    case.

    4.17.3
    Discussion

    631 Witness GG testifiedthat, one day in mid-May1994, he saw Grrard


    Ntakirutimanaat a placecalledRwiramba in Bisesero.GrrardNtakirutimanawas
    arriving
    in hisvehicle. A numberof othervehicles,
    includingbuses,
    werepartof the
    convoyapproachingMuyira Hill.Allthevehicles werefullof individuals
    armedwith
    clubsandmacheteschanting, "Let’sexterminate
    them;letus flushthemoutof allthe
    bushes;
    letus flush themoutof allthecaves." Theattackers
    lefttheirvehicles
    atthe
    bottomof MuyiraHillandmovedup the slopeflushing outrefugeesalongthe way.
    Individualshe described as the leaders,amongwhomthe Accused, sentthe other
    attackers
    to pursuetherefugeesup a steephillcalledRugona.
    GrrardNtakirutimana
    was
    seenwithC16mentKayishema, ObedRuzindana, CharlesSikubwabo, Musema,Mika
    Muhimana,
    andAloysNdimbati. Thewitnessspecifiedthatmanypeoplewerekilledas a
    result
    968 ofthisattack.

    632.TheChamber willfirstconsiderwhether theDefence received sufficientnotice.


    Exceptfortheeventat MurambiChurch, theIndictment is silent as to theplaces in
    Bisesero
    wheretheAccusedallegedly
    participated in attacks,or thespecific dateswhen
    theysupposedlytookplace.Thisis truealsoin respect of thepresent eventat
    MuyiraHill,whichis locatedin Bisesero. Thesummary of Witness GG’santicipated
    evidence
    in AnnexB of theProsecutionPre-trial Briefrefers to several locationsin
    Bisesero
    butdoesnotspecificallyindicatethatthewitness wasexpected to testifyto
    eventsat Muyira.Hisstatementof 20 June1996to investigators containsa general
    formulationaccording
    to whichthewitness sawGrrard Ntakirutimana "manytimes" in
    Bisesero.Histwootherpriorstatements of 10 July1996and12 November 1999do not
    refer
    toeventsinthatarea.

    966
    Prosecutor’s
    Closing
    Briefpara.
    347.
    967
    DefenceClosing
    Brief
    pp.91-98,inparticular
    p.97.
    968
    T. 24 September
    2001p. 26-38.

    Judgement
    andSentence 181 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    633.Thisbeingsaid,the Chamber observes thatWitness HH’spriorstatement of


    25 July2001,whichwasdisclosed to theDefence priorto trial,refers to G6rard
    Ntakirutimanaas havingparticipated
    in an attackon MuyiraHill(speltMuhira in the
    statement).It alsofollowsfromthesummary of WitnessHH’santicipatedevidence in
    AnnexB ofthePre-trialBrief
    thattheProsecutorwould
    relyon thiswitness
    toallege that
    G6rardNtakirutimanaparticipated
    in variousattacksinBisesero. Muyira
    Hillislocated
    in the Bisesero area.Furthermore,duringits opening statementthe Prosecution
    announcedthatthe"evidencewillprovethatElizaphan andG6rard Ntakirutimana
    caused
    thedeathof Tutsis ...at numerous
    places in BiseseroincludingMuyira
    ...,,.969 The
    Chamberisof theviewthattheDefence
    hadsufficientnoticeofthisallegation.

    634.The Chamber foundWitnessGG generally credible and dismissed


    the Defence
    allegation
    thathewaspartof a politicalcampaignagainst
    theAccused(see,
    in particular
    3.8.3
    (c)and(d),4.4). Inrespectof thisspecific
    event,
    theChamberdoesnotconsider
    significant
    thatthewitness didnotgivethespecificlocalityofMuyira
    Hillasa place
    where
    hesawG6rard Ntakirutimana
    participating
    in anattackbutratherstated
    in hisfirst
    statement
    of 20 June1996thathe sawG6rard Ntakirutimana
    "manytimes"in Bisesero.
    Histwosubsequent interviewswithinvestigators onlydealtwiththeattack at the
    Mugonero
    Complex and his identificationof ElizaphanNtakirutimana.The witness
    further
    explainedincourtthathehadmentioned theincidentbutthattheinvestigators
    maynothavewrittenitdown.
    97°

    635.Thereis evidenceof numerous


    attacksoccurring
    overa period
    of timein thehills
    of Bisesero.As willbe seenbelow, Witnesses
    HH,CC andYY alsotestified about
    attacks
    on MuyiraHill,albeitatother time-period
    or withdifferent
    details.
    TheChamber
    acceptedtheirevidence. Thereis therefore
    corroborativeevidence thatG6rard
    Ntakirutimanawas in the companyof leadersnamedby WitnessGG. The Chamber
    accordingly
    findsthatsometime in mid-May
    1994in MuyiraHill,G6rardNtakirutimana
    ledarmedattackersin an attack
    on Tutsirefugees,
    as a result
    of whichmanyTutsiwere
    killed.

    636.WitnessGG observedthe Accusedfor the secondtimewhenthe attackers


    alightedfromtheir vehiclesandstartedchasingtherefugees.He declared:"Wewerenot
    at a fixedplacebecause we wereon therun.People werecoming across eachother’s
    path. Theywererunning awayfrompeople whoweretrying to killyou.’’971Thewitness
    didnotspecifically describe theAccused,andhe didnotsaywhether he wasarmedor
    not.There is verylittleinformationconcerning
    hisallegedactionsat thetime. On the
    other hand,theevidence beforetheChambercorroborates
    sucha sighting of theAccused
    participating
    inattacksagainstTutsirefugees
    atBiseseroand,specificallyinMuyiraHill
    (aswillbe seenbelow). TheChamber accordingly
    findsthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    took
    partin theattack. On thebasisof theevidence,theChamber is notconvincedthatthe
    Accusedwasoneof theleaders of theattack
    at MuyiraHill.Thewitness didnotmention

    969
    T. 28September
    2001p. 33.
    970
    T. 24September
    2001p.90.
    97l
    Id.pp.32-33.

    Judgement
    andSentence 182 21 February
    2003
    637
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    whyhe consideredtheAccusedto be a leader.


    He explained
    that,whileattackerschased
    a groupofrefugeesupa steephillcalledRugona,"the...leaders
    didn’t
    takethetrouble
    of goingthere.Theysent...people, whowerearmedwithclubsandmachetes; whereas,
    they,theleaders, remainedcomfortablyat thetopof thehill.
    ’’972Theleaders held
    positionsof authority,
    suchas a prefect.G6rardNtakirutimana’s
    association
    withsuch
    persons persuadestheChamber thathe wasactingwithknowledge of the widespread
    attackagainsttheTutsi.However,thereis noevidence
    thattheAccused
    issued anyorders
    orhadeffectivecontrol
    overtheattackers.

    4.18MuyiraHill,13 May 1994(WitnessYY)

    4.18.1
    Prosecution

    637.TheProsecution
    relieson Witness
    YY’sevidence in support
    of itsallegation
    that
    Elizaphan
    andG6rardNtakirutimanaparticipated
    in attacksagainstTutsirefugeeson
    MuyiraHillon 13 and 14 May 1994.The witnessmadehis observation undergood
    con~titions
    andhistestimonyiscredible.
    Ina prior
    written statement
    hementioned
    seeing
    G6rard
    duringattacks
    in theBiseseroareagenerally,eventhoughthepresenteventwas
    nots~ecifically
    973 mentioned.

    4.18.2
    Defence

    638.As mentionedpreviously,
    theDefence disputes
    thegeneralcredibility
    of Witness
    YY.In respect
    of thisevent,it issubmitted
    thattheDefence
    didnotreceivenoticethat
    thewitnesswouldallege thattheAccused participated
    in an attack
    on MuyiraHill.A
    similar
    objection
    ismadeinrespect ofthedateoftheattack
    andinrelation
    tothespecific
    allegation
    thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    killedthewifeof oneNzamwita.
    Accordingto the
    Defence,
    thisconstitutes
    a violation
    of thefights
    oftheAccusedtobeinformed
    indetail
    ofthechargesagainst
    974
    them.

    4.18.3
    Discussion

    639.WitnessYY testified thathe sawG6rardNtakirutimana at "large


    scaleattacks on
    the13thand14thof Mayon theBisesero hills."He particularlydescribed
    thatof 13 May
    1994,duringwhichhe saw Elizaphan Ntakirutimana and G6rardNtakirutimana’s
    vehiclesparkedat Ku Cyapa,between Gishyita andGisovucommunes, withnumerous
    othervehicles.
    Thesehadcomeearlier inthemorning thanusual.Hedidnotseewhowas
    at thesteeringwheelwhentheyarrived. ElizaphanNtakirutimanawasstanding,unarmed,
    nextto hiscarat Kucyapa. Thewitness wason topof Muyira Hillwhenhe sawG6rard
    Ntakirutimana,
    at 50 metersdistanceat thebottom of thehill,in frontof a groupof
    attackers,shooting at refugees.He specifically sawhim shootat thewifeof one
    Nzamwitawho waspassing on stonesto thewitness andotherrefugees whotriedto
    opposesomeresistanceto theattackers.Thewitness statedthatshewaskilled, thathe

    972
    Id.
    p.38.
    973
    Prosecution
    Closing
    Brief
    paras.
    352-358;
    T.21August
    2002
    p.122.
    974
    Defence
    Closing
    Briefp.
    123.

    Judgement
    andSentence 183 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    sawherbeinghitandfalling
    infrontof him.Thegroup of refugees
    thenranawayamidst
    gunshots
    andgrenadeexplosions,
    whilethewounded were"finished off"by machetes,
    spears
    andhoes.He identified
    thetwoAccused as theleadersof theattack,alongwith
    bourgmestre
    Ndimbati(heading
    a groupof attackersfromGisovu), Eli6zer
    Niyitegeka,
    AlfredMusema,
    975 CharlesSikubwabo,
    ObedRuzindana and MikaMuhimana.

    640.The Chamberhas previously foundthiswitness to be generally


    credible.As
    already
    indicated,
    theChamber considers
    thattheDefencereceived
    sufficient
    noticethat
    theywouldhaveto meetallegationsrelating
    to bothAccused’s
    participation
    in attacks
    against
    Tutsirefugees at MuyiraHill.Thefactthattheinformationreceived
    didnot
    specify
    theexactdateat which thepresent
    attackwasalleged
    to haveoccurred
    doesnot,
    intheChamber’s
    view,justifya dismissal
    oftheentireallegation.

    641.As to WitnessYY’sotherevidencein respectof G6rardNtakirutimana’s


    involvementin theattack of 13 May1994at MuyiraHill,theChamber notesthatthe
    observational
    conditionsweregoodandparticularly
    conclusive.
    Thewitnessobservedthe
    Accusedshooting at refugeeswitha gunas he was standing
    abovehimandwhilethe
    Accusedwasin frontof thegroupof attackers climbingthe hill,at a distanceof
    50 metersin daylight.Thewitness didnotspecifythedistance at whichhe wasfrom
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana whenhe saw him at Kucyapa, nearbyMuyira,wherethe
    attackers
    hadparkedtheir vehicles.

    642.Consequently, theChamberfindsthatG6rard Ntakirutimana


    participatedin the
    attackagainstTutsirefugeesat Muyira
    Hillon 13 May1994andthathe shotandkilled
    thewifeofoneNzamwita, a Tutsi
    civilian.
    However,itis notsatisfied
    beyond reasonable
    doubtthatWitness YY positivelyidentified
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    in Ku Cyapafrom
    wherehe stoodon MuyiraHill.

    4.19MuyiraHill(Dege),
    20 May 1994(Witness

    4.19.1Prosecution

    643.TheProsecution relieson Witness II andarguesthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana


    playeda leading roleduringan attackagainstTutsirefugees
    on MuyiraHillon 20 May
    1994.It is submittedthatthewitnesswasreliableandhistestimonyin conformity
    with
    hispriorwrittenstatement
    toinvestigators.
    Theinitialfailure
    ofthewitnessto identify
    theAccused in courtshould notbe heldagainst hiscredibility.
    Hisexplanation was
    plausibleandsubsequently he identified
    theAccused in thecourtroom.Thefactthat
    someonebearing thewitness’snamegavean interviewto African
    Rightsdoesnotaffect
    thecredibility
    976 ofthewitness.

    4.19.2Defence

    975T. 2 October
    2001pp.42-44,
    48-53,
    89;T.3 October
    2001pp.64-65,
    75-77.
    SeealsoFr.T. 2 October
    2001pp.60-61.
    976Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefparas.
    359-370;
    T.21August
    2002p.128.

    184 /~ 21 February2003
    Judgement
    andSentence

    o"
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    644.Defence submitsthatWitness II was untruthful.


    He was unableto identify
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    in courtwhenfirstrequested
    to do so.He contradicted
    himself
    as to whetherElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    couldseerapesbeingperpetratedon Tutsiwomen
    by attackers.Thewitnessdidnotsayto investigators
    thatanyof thewomenhadbeen
    killed after
    therape.He denied
    havinggivenan interview
    to AfricanRights,inwhichhe
    allegedlygaveanother
    accountofa sighting
    of Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    in June.Thisis
    notin conformity
    977 withhisdeclaration
    thathesawtheAccusedonlyoncein Bisesero.

    4.19.3
    Discussion

    645.WitnessII soughtrefuge
    in Bisesero
    after7 Aprilthrough May1994.He testified
    thaton 20 May1994he sawElizaphanNtakirutimana amongattackersat Dege,whichis
    partofMuyiraHillintheareaofBisesero.Hetestified thathewashiding in a bushwith
    threewomenwhen Interahamwe discovered them.A Twa was amongthe groupof
    attackers.
    Heseriously
    injuredhimtotheleftoftheheadandtothechest witha spear,
    andto hishipsby a sword.Thefourcaptives weretakento theGisovu-Gishyita road.
    Therehe sawElizaphanNtakirutimana
    standingverycloseto hisvehicle, dressed in a
    blacksuitandwearing spectacles.
    Thewomenwerethentakenapproximately 15 meters
    awayandraped, outof viewof thewitness, by thebourgmestreof Gisovu commune and
    by AlfredMusema.Twoof thewomenwerekilled. At onepoint, theAccused addressed
    oneof theattackers,
    a HutucalledRwambimbiwhoknewthewitness, telling himto kill
    thewitnessandto takehimlowerdown"sothatthere wasn’tanystencharound theplace
    wheretheywereparking theirvehicles."TheAccused allegedlyalsosaid:"Takehim
    furtheraway.Don’twasteyourbullets on himandgo andcuthimup."Rwambimbi and
    the Twa tookthewitness away.Rwambimbi promised a goatto theTwa so thatthe
    witnesscouldbe spared.
    Thewitnesswasadvised to screamout,pretendingtiaathe was
    beingkilled.
    978Laterhe soughtrefugein a holeuntilthearrival of theFrench, who
    broughthimto Ngomaformedicaltreatment.

    646.TheProsecutor doesnotallege thatElizaphan Ntakirutimana


    wascomplicit,aided
    or abettedin connectionwiththerapesof thethreecaptured women.
    979TheChamber
    observes,however,thatthetestimonyof WitnessII doesnotgiveanybasisto conclude
    thattheAccused sawor wasin anywayinvolved in theseacts.He wascloseto hiscar
    andtherewasa distance of about15 metersto theplacewherethewomenwerebrought.
    Furthermore,thewitnessexplainedthattherewasa number of treeswhichblockedthe
    viewin thearea.ThequestionstheChamberis confronted
    witharewhetheritissatisfied
    beyonda reasonable
    doubtthattheAccusedparticipatedintheattack,andthatheordered
    Rwambimbito killthewitness.

    647.Witness
    II testifiedthathe hadknownElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    fromthe"ageof
    reason",
    theagewherehe couldtellthedifference
    between
    onethingandanother,
    and
    977
    DefenceClosingBriefpp.153-157
    and173-174.
    978
    T. 22October2001pp.106-112,
    116,122-129;
    T. 23October
    2001pp.7,32-33.
    979
    DuringthePre-Trial
    Conference,
    theProsecution
    clarified
    that,"theissue
    ofrapewould
    notarise
    inthe
    testimony
    of ourwitnesses.
    I donotintend
    toleadanyevidence,
    neither
    do my colleagues,
    of rape".
    (T.17February2001p.42- closed
    session).
    TheProsecutor
    confirmed
    thisduringWitness
    II’stestimony.
    See22 October
    2001p.121.

    Judgement
    andSentence 185 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    recognize
    people.He further
    statedthattheAccusedhadbeenhispastor andthathe had
    baptized
    himin 1986.However,
    at theendof hisfirstdayin courtWitness II failedto
    identify
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana.
    %° Thefollowingday,thewitness explainedthathe
    hadbeensufferingfromproblems
    withhiseyesdueto thelength of histestimonyon the
    firstday.
    981Onthethird trialday,he correctly
    identified
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    and
    explained
    furtherthat,atthetimeofthefirstattempt
    atidentifying
    theAccused,thelatter
    wasduckinghishead"butwhenwe allstoodup,I recognised him.I saidthatto the
    interpreter
    butthePresidenthadalready closed
    thesession.’’982Havingobserved the
    witness
    theChamber doesnotconsiderthattheepisodeon thefirstdayof histestimony
    affects
    hiscredibility.
    TheChamberacceptsWitness
    II’sexplanation.

    648.Turningnowto thereliabilityof thetestimonytheChambernotesthatWitnessII


    wasaggressiveandobstructive,especiallyduring cross-examination.
    Havingobserved
    himin thecourtroom
    theChamberis convincedthatheis a Bisesero
    survivor
    andthatthe
    events
    havelefttraces.Hisemotionsduringhistestimonyshould
    beseenin thislight
    and
    arenotindicativeof untruthfulness.
    Thewitness wasconsistent
    in describing
    whathe
    knewandobserved.He didnotwantto speakof events he hadnotpersonallyseenbut
    merelyheardabout,
    forexample,theallegation inhiswrittenstatement
    thattheAccused
    waspresentatalltheattacksat Bisesero.
    983Itistruethatheemphasized thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimanawas a powerfulpersonand had a caseto answerbut it is not the
    impression
    of theChamberthathe soughtto incriminate
    himto a widerextent
    thanwhat
    followedfromthewitness’sownobservations.

    649.Theobservationalconditionsappearto havebeengood.According to WitnessII


    he wasstanding
    984 closeto Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    andat hearingdistancefromhim.
    Hislineof vision
    wasunobstructed,
    sincehe testified
    thathewasontheGishyita-Gisovu
    roadandthattheAccused wasstandingon theroad,nearbyhisvehicle. It wasbroad
    daylight.Hisaccountis generallyconsistent
    withhispriorwitness statementof 28
    January2000.Hedistancedhimself
    fromhispriorstatement
    inrespectof thedatesgiven
    forattacks otherthanthatof 20 May.TheChamber considersthesediscrepanciesas
    minor(notablythefactthat,whenhe andthethreewomenhe hadbeenhiding withwere
    discovered
    by theInterahamwe,
    he washitbyoneTwaandnotseveral individuals,
    as his
    statement
    reads,orthefactthathe didnotseetheAccusedin hisvehicle,
    butoutsideof
    it).

    650.Priortohisappearance
    in thepresentcasethewitnesstestifiedbeforetheAppeals
    Chamberin Musemaaboutthe rapeof a womanby MikaMuhimana duringan attack
    against
    Tutsirefugeeson MuyiraHillon 13 May1994.In thepresentcase,theDefence
    suggested
    to himthathewasin factreferringtothesameattack of 13 May.Thewitness
    maintained
    thattheseeventswerenotthesame,explaining thathe wassureaboutthe
    dateof 20 May 1994becausehe heardthe Accusedask Ndimbatiwhatdayit was and

    980T.22 October
    2001p.132.
    98tT.23October
    2001p. 2.
    982T.25 October
    2001p.39.
    983T.22 October
    2001p.110.
    984Id.p.123.

    Judgement
    andSentence 186 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    thattheresponse
    was20 May.According
    to thewitness,
    theAccused
    thensaidthatthey
    hadtohurry
    985 astheFrenchweregoing
    toarrivesoon.

    651.TheChamber has consideredthisexplanation carefully.It notesWitness II’s


    statement
    thattherefugeeshadlosttheirsenseof time,andthathisonlybasis fordating
    thepresenteventto 20 Mayistheremark allegedlyutteredby Elizaphan Ntakirutimana.
    On theotherhand,it is a matter of public
    record thatOperation Turquoisereached
    Kibuyeonlyat theend of June1994.Underthesecircumstances, the Chamberhasto
    assesswhetheritappearscrediblethattheAccused,overa month priorto thearrival
    of
    theFrenchbattalion, wouldbe awarethatthiswouldhappen. TheChamber findsit
    surprising
    thattheAccusedwouldbe ina position
    to makesucha statementso early.
    Itis
    alsopuzzling,as theDefencesubmits,thattheAccused should askforthedatein the
    midstofan attackandthatthewitnessshouldoverheartheconversation,therebybeing
    in
    a position
    torememberthedateofonespecificattack intheBisesero area.Thiscreates
    a
    certaindoubtin theChamber’smind.

    652.TheDefence disputes
    thecredibilityof Witness
    II on thebasisof an interview
    he
    allegedlygaveto AfricanRightsin November1999.Excerptsof suchan interview
    are
    foundin a documentpublished
    on 1 February2001.
    986In thatdocument thepersonwho
    is beinginterviewedgivesan accountof an encounter
    withElizaphan Ntakirutimana,
    ObedRuzindana andotherattackers in mid-June1994.According to theinterviewed
    persontheyofferedmedicalsupplies
    to therefugees,whofearedan ambush andtriedto
    attack,encircle
    andcapturetheattackers.
    Thefollowingdaytheattackerscamebackwith
    a "hugehordeof killers".
    Thisinterview,if given
    by WitnessII,wouldcontradictthe
    witness’testimony
    thathe sawtheAccused onlyonceon 20 Mayin Bisesero.

    653.In court,
    thewitnessdenied thathe hadevergivensucha statement.
    He explained
    thatthepersoninterviewed couldhavebeensomeone fromthe sameareaas his and
    bearingthesamename.Bothhissecteur andcommunewerequitebig.He addedthatin
    June1994,he hadleftRwanda forNgomain Zaireandwasbeingtreated thereafter
    havingbeenevacuatedby the French,andthathe onlyreturned to Rwandaon 3 July
    1994.
    987TheChambernoteshiscomplete denialandthepossibility
    ofa namesakehaving
    giventhe interview
    but findshisexplanation aboutNgomaconfusing.As mentioned
    above,
    theFrencharrivedin Kibuyeattheendof June.Thisimplies
    thatthewitness was
    still
    inBisesero
    until
    that
    time.

    654.TheChambernotesthatthewitnessandtheperson interviewed
    by African
    Rights
    bearthesamefirstnameandsurname,arebothfarmers fromBisesero
    bornin thesame
    year,andbothsustained
    a machetewoundto theleftof thehead.Thesearestriking
    similarities.
    On theotherhand,it hasnotbeenprovidedwiththefullstatement
    of the
    person
    interviewed
    byAfrican
    Rights.Neitherdoesit haveclear
    andconclusive
    evidence

    985T. 23October
    2001pp.18-19.
    986"ChargeSheetNo.3 Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    U.S.Supreme
    CourtSupports
    Extradition
    to Arusha",
    DefenceExhibit
    1D5(underseal).
    987T. 25October
    2001pp.9 and13.SeealsoT. 23October
    2001pp.19-20.

    Judgement
    andSentence 187 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    thatWitness
    II andtheperson
    interviewed
    by African
    Rights
    arethesameperson.
    Still,
    theevidence
    isnotquiteclear.

    655.TheChamber accepts thatWitnessII waspresent duringan attackat MuyiraHill


    involving
    thekilling of womenandthattheorderwasgiven to killhim.It is,however,
    notcertain
    thatthewitness account
    is correctinalldetails. TheChamberobserves
    that
    thewitnessmadehisalleged observationof ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    afterhavingbeen
    seriously
    wounded. He thenspentseveral weeksin Bisesero,hidingin a holeandin
    miserable
    condition.Theaccount of theconversation betweentheAccusedandNdimbati
    aboutthedateof 20 Mayas wellastheinterview in theAfricanRightspublication
    with
    someone
    having strikingsimilarities
    withWitnessII arequitesurprisingelements.The
    witness
    explained thathismemory hadbeenaffected by theeventsandtheinjuries he
    sustained
    as a result.Histestimony is uncorroborated.
    Underthesecircumstances,
    the
    Chamberis notin a position to conclude beyonda reasonabledoubtthatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    participated andbehavedas alleged
    by theProsecutionduring thisattack
    at Muyira
    Hill(Dege).

    4.20MuyiraHill,Ku Cyapa(WitnessSS)

    4.20.1Prosecution

    656.Accordingto WitnessSS, ElizaphanNtakirutimana was at Ku Cyapanear


    MuyiraHillonedayin Mayor June1994.On thatdaytherewas a wide-scale
    attack
    against
    theTutsi
    refugees
    gathered
    inthisareaofBisesero.
    TheProsecution
    didnotmake
    anyexplicit
    reference
    tothiseventinitsClosing
    Brief
    ororalsubmissions.

    4.20.2Defence

    657.TheDefenceobjects
    to allallegations
    in respectof Muyira
    Hillandmaintain
    its
    generalobjections
    to Witness
    SS’ credibility.
    No furthersubmissions
    weremadein
    respect
    988 ofthispart
    ofthewitness’s
    testimony.

    4.20.3
    Discussion

    658.Witness SS testified
    thathe sawElizaphanNtakirutimana nearby Muyiraoneday
    in Mayor June1994,notlongaftertheincidenthe testifieduponatMurambi (see4.10
    above).Beforenoonon thatday,the witness was on his way froma placecalled
    Kazirandimwe,and preparing
    to crosstheGishyita-Gisovu roadin thedirection of
    MuyiraHillwhen,at a distanceof approximately14 or 15 metres, he sawElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    in hissinglecabinHilux,parkingthevehicle at Ku Cyapa.Thewitness
    sawothervehiclesfollowing
    thatoftheAccused.He firstsawObedRuzindana’s car(but
    notRuzindana). He thensaw,at a distance,
    two biggreenbuseswhichwerefullof
    attackersandhad justpassed thehouseof oneKwakambanda, towards Ku Cyapawhere
    theAccused wasparking hisvehicle.Thewitness didnot seemanyattackers in the

    988Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.158-163.

    Judgement
    andSentence 188 21 February
    2003

    J
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    vehicles
    of theAccused
    or Ruzindana
    butexplained
    thatattackers
    wereon theirwayin
    buses,
    climbingthehill.

    659.Thewitness didnotremain to ascertainwhethertheAccused gotoutof thecar


    onceit wasparked.He explained
    thathe hadno otheroption butto immediately
    flee,
    towards
    MuyiraHill.Oncethere,he saw"a lotof individuals"
    standingnearbytheparked
    vehiclesof theAccusedand Ruzindanain Ku Cyapa.Theyweretoofarforhim to be
    ableto identifyanyof them.Thebuseswereparked further behindin Ku Cyapa,
    at a
    placehecouldnotseeverywell. Thewitnessconfirmed
    that,on thedayof thesighting,
    there
    989 wasa wide-scale
    attack
    launchedinthatareaofBisesero.

    660.TheChamber hasalreadyfoundWitness SS to be generallycredible.


    99°In relation
    tothepresent eventhistestimonywasquite consistentandhisanswersappearedtruthful.
    TheChamber considershisobservation reliable.Thewitness sawtheAccused’s carfrom
    notmorethan15 meters beforenoonin fulldaylight.Hewasableto describethevehicle.
    Hispriorwritten statementof 18 December2000generally conforms
    to hisaccount in
    court,saveforminordetails. Forinstance, accordingto thestatementthewitnesssaw
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana"going in thevehicle". Duringcross-examinationtheDefence
    understoodthisto meanthatWitness SS declaredto investigators
    thathe hadseenthe
    Accusedboarding thevehicle. Thewitness maintainedthathe hadnotsaidso to the
    investigators
    andinsistedthathehadonlydeclared thathe hadseentheAccused driving
    his vehicle and parkingit. The Chamber accepts the explanationof the witness.
    Furthermore,he gavedetailswhicharein conformity withotherevidence, suchas the
    arrivalofbigbuses carrying
    attackers,thefactthatthevehicles parkedatKu Cyapaprior
    totheattack ontheMuyira Hillarea, andthatattackersassemblednearthevehiclesprior
    totheattack.

    661.Witness SS didnotprovide anydescription of thepersonsin thevehicles of the


    Accusedor Ruzindana, forinstancewhethertheywerearmed. Furthermore, thewitness
    observed
    Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    drivinghisvehicle butdidnotseehimdo anything. In
    theChamber’s viewtheevidencemustbe viewed in context.
    It followsfromtheevidence
    in thecasethatvehicles wereoften followedby buseswithattackers.Moreover,on the
    daythatWitness SS madehisobservationtherewas,according to thewitness, a wide-
    scaleattack at Ku Cyapa.He saidthatthebusesweretransporting persons whowere
    "perpetratorsof thegenocide".Consequently,
    theChamber findsthatonedayin Mayor
    JunetheAccused wasseenarriving at Ku Cyapain a vehiclefollowed by twobusesof
    attackers. The Chamber is convincedthatthe Accused was partof a convoywhich
    includedattackers. The evidence establishes thattheseattackers amongothers
    participated
    inthekilling ofa largenumber ofTutsi. Witness
    SS declared:"Onthatday
    thekillingswerebeyond comprehension,
    andthatis thedaymostpeople werekilled."

    989T.30 October2001pp.134-138;
    T.31 October
    2001pp.124-132.
    990See3.8.3
    (c),3.12.3,
    4.10.3,
    4.16.3,
    4.20.3

    Judgement
    andSentence 189 21 February
    2003
    //~~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    4.21MuyiraHilland Ku Cyapa,June1994(WitnessHH)

    4.21.1Prosecution

    662.Relying
    on Witness
    HH,theProsecutionallegesthatonedayin June1994G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    wasseenon Muyira
    Hillcarrying
    a bigfirearm,
    firingon Tutsi
    refugees
    in
    thecompany
    of otherattackersarmedwithtraditional
    weapons. On another
    day,the
    witnessobservedElizaphan Ntakirutimanaat Ku CyapanearMuyiraHill.The
    Prosecution
    arguesthatomissions
    or absence
    of information
    in thetestimony
    compared
    tothewitness’s
    991 prior
    statements
    toinvestigators
    donotaffecthiscredibility.

    4.21.2Defence

    663.Generally, theDefence submitsthatWitness HH was partof a campaignagainst


    theAccused. In respectof thepresentevent, theDefence submitsthatin hisprior
    statementsthewitness nevermentionedthathe sawG6rardNtakirutimana
    at MuyiraHill.
    It is further submitted
    thatthewitness admittedin courtthathe didnotseeG6rard
    Ntakirutimana fireat anyoneat MuyiraHill.Accordingto theDefence, thewitness’s
    account of hissightingsof Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanaat MuyiraHillandin Bisesero in
    generalareincontradictionwithhisfirststatement,
    which reads:
    "InBisesero,I didnot
    seePastor Ntakirutimanaamongthegroupof attackersfrom Ngoma.
    ’’992

    4.21.3
    Discussion

    664.WitnessHH testified
    thathe stayed at MuyiraHillat certaintimesbetween the
    endof May and15 June.One dayin Junehe was withotherrefugees on the sideof
    Muyira
    Hill,throwing
    stones atseveral
    groupsof advancing
    attackers,
    eachwitha leader.
    Therehe saw G6rardNtakirutimana,who carried a bigfirearm and firedit as he
    approached
    therefugees.
    TheAccused washeading a groupof attackers.
    Therestof the
    groupremainedslightlybehind becausetheywerewaiting fortherefugees to start
    runningawayto advance. 993 WitnessHH furtherdeclared generallythathe saw
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    oncenearKu Cyapa, at somepointafterhissighting of the
    Accused
    994 at MubugaSchool,whichhe datedto June1994(see4.15above).

    665.TheDefenceobjectson thebasis
    of lackof noticebecause
    thereisno referencein
    anyof WitnessHH’spriorstatements
    thathe sawG6rard Ntakirutimana
    at MuyiraHill.
    TheChambernotesthattheAccused wasmentioned whilethewitnesssought refugefor
    aboutonemonthatGitweHillbutnotinthefollowing period
    in Bisesero.
    Itfollowsfrom
    theanticipated
    summaryofthewitness’stestimony
    in Annex
    B tothePre-trialBriefthat
    in "May1994he fledto Bisesero
    wherehe sawthatDr.G6rardNtakirutimana"andother
    persons"for[m]partof the contingentof attackerswhoattackedthemalmost daily
    betweenthenandJune94".TheAnnexwasfiledon 15 August 2001.Consequently,the

    991
    Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefpara.
    348-350;
    T.21August
    2002
    p.121.
    992
    Defence
    Closing
    Brief
    pp.75-86,
    inparticular
    p.85.
    993
    T.26September
    2001
    pp.45-48,
    58,64-70.
    994
    T.27September
    2001pp.126-127.

    Judgement
    andSentence 190 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Defence
    knewthatit wouldbe allegedthattheAccused committed
    attacksin theareaof
    Bisesero,whereMuyiraHillis located. Moreover, WitnessHH’sreconfirmation
    statement
    of 25 July2001,whichwasdisclosed to theDefence on 14 September2001,
    specifically
    refers to Witness
    HH’sobservationof G6rardNtakirutimana"attackingus
    witha rifle"at Muhira Hill,"at somestage".Witness HH gavetestimony on 25 to
    27 September
    2001.It followsthattheDefence wasawarethatWitness HH wouldallege
    specifically
    thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    wasinvolvedin anattackat Muyira
    (speltMuhira)
    HillfromMay 1994onwards. TheChamber is of the viewthatthe Defence received
    sufficient
    notice
    (seegenerally
    2.4).

    666.TheChamberhaspreviously
    foundthiswitness to be credible.
    995Thisconclusion
    extends
    tohisaccountof thepresent
    event. In theChamber’sviewit is notsignificant
    thatG6rard Ntakirutimana,
    whowasmentioned elsewhere in thestatementof 2 April
    1996,wasnotlistedamongtheattackers
    in Bisesero.It is notedthattheAccused was
    included
    in thewitness’s
    reconfirmation
    statement.

    667.Turning to the conditions


    duringwhichWitness HH madehis observations the
    Chamberobservesthatin courthe testifiedthattheAccused stoodat about40 meters
    awayfromhim.996 Theformulation
    in hisreconfirmation
    estimatesthedistance to "less
    than100meters".Thewitnessfurthertestified
    thatthisdistance was"long", whichalso
    suggeststhatit mayhavebeengreater than40 meters.
    997However, evenassuming that
    the distancebetweenthe witnessand the Accused was in factbetweenthesetwo
    estimates,
    thewitness wasstandingin thefrontlineofrefugees throwingstonesat the
    assailants,abovethe armedindividuals advancingtowards the group, whereas the
    Accusedwasheadingthegroupof attackers.Thewitness furtherdeclared
    thattherewas
    nothingin the waybetween himand theAccused. The observation was madein broad
    daylight.The witness knewthe Accused and identifiedhim in court.The Chamber
    acceptsthatthewitnesssawG6rardNtakirutimana
    duringtheattack.

    668.TheDefencerightlynotesthatthewitnessdeclared,"I cannotsaythathe[G6rard
    Ntakirutimana]
    wastheonewhowasshooting at us [therefugees]".
    998In theChamber’s
    view,
    thisstatementdoesnotcastdoubtontheAccused’sparticipation
    inthisattack.
    The
    factthattheAccused mayhavebeenfiring elsewhere thanat thegroupof refugees
    comprising
    theAccuseddoesnotmeanthattheAccused didnotparticipatein theattack.
    Thewitnessstated unambiguously
    thattheAccused washeading theattackers,armed
    witha gun.The Chamberaccordingly findsthat,one day in June1994,G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    headeda groupof armedattackersat MuyiraHill.He carrieda gunand
    shotat Tutsirefugees.
    It is however
    notedthatthereis no evidencethattheAccused
    killed
    anyone.

    995Seeparticularly
    3.8.3(c),4.7,4.15,
    4.24.
    996T.26 September
    2001p. 66.
    997Thewitness
    specified
    that"Thiswasa longdistance
    because
    theywerestillinthevalley
    whenthey
    startedshooting".
    T.26September2001p.66.
    998SeeWitnessHHin T.26 September
    2001p.68.

    Judgement
    andSentence 191 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v, Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    669.Regarding
    WitnessHH’ssightingof Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    at Ku Cyapa,the
    Chamber
    notesthatthisevidence was provided
    duringcross-examination
    and only
    mentioned
    verybriefly.No further
    information
    wasgiven.Accordingly,
    the Chamber
    disregards
    999 thispartoftheevidence.

    4.22MutitiHill,June1994(Witness
    FF)

    4.22.1
    Prosecution

    670.The Prosecution’s
    caseis thatWitness FF saw G6rardNtakirutimana
    in the
    companyof Interahamwe
    in the MutitiareaaroundJune1994,whenhe entered an
    Adventist
    churchpreviously
    occupiedby Tutsirefugees.Subsequently,
    shesawG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    andtheInterahamweshootat theseTutsirefugees.
    Thewitness
    explained
    thatthiseventisnotmentioned
    in herprior written
    statements
    because
    shehadnotbeen
    asked
    1°°°aboutit.

    4.22.2Defence

    671.TheDefencesubmitsthatWitness
    FF is partof a propaganda
    campaign
    against
    bothAccused.
    Thisincident
    wasnotmentioned
    to investigators
    or whenshetestified
    in
    Musema.
    Hertestimony
    1°°1 isnotcredible.

    4.22.3
    Discussion

    672.Witness FF testifiedthatshearrived at Mutiti


    Hillin June1994whereshesaw
    G6rardNtakirutimanawithmanyInterahamwe. Fromherpositioncloseto a church,she
    observedtheseattackers in a forestbelowthechurch. Theywerelooking forrefugees
    hidingin thechurch.In order to seekrefugefromtheseattackers,
    WitnessFF andother
    refugeeswentto thebackof thechurch, crossedtheroadandentereda bigforestby the
    road.Shestatedthatthere wasa biggroup of refugees
    atMutiti,butcould notprovidean
    estimateof thenumber.Thewitness testifiedthatG6rardNtakirutimana
    wascarrying a
    firearmandthatheandtheInterahamwe wereshooting
    at therefugees.
    Shelater clarified
    thatshedidnotactually seehimshoot at therefugees,
    as shewasfleeingwiththeothers
    at 2
    1°°thetimeandcould notidentify whowasshootingatthem.

    673.TheChamber
    recallsthatit generally
    foundWitness
    FF to be a credible
    witness,
    andthatitrejected
    theDefencesubmissions
    thatWitness
    FFispartof a campaignagainst
    theAccused.
    1°°3Withrespectto thepresent
    event,
    theChamber acceptsthewitness’s
    explanation
    thatshehadnotmentionedthisincident
    beforebecause shewasnotasked
    about
    it.Hertestimony
    in court
    wasclearandconsistent
    andwasnotshaken undercross-

    999Witness
    HH’sreconfirmation
    statement
    of 25 July2001contained
    onlyonesentence
    ("IsawPast[or]
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    alsoapproaching
    toattack
    us,buthewasmorefar").
    toooProsecution
    Closing
    Brief paras.
    325-326.
    loolDefence
    Closing
    Briefpp.55-63,
    inparticular
    p.62.
    loo2T.28September
    2001pp.68-72;T.1 October
    2001pp.120-121.
    lOO3
    Seeparticularly
    3.4.3
    (c),II.7

    Judgement
    andSentence 192 21 February
    2003

    /
    9.,&2,7
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    examination.
    TheChamber
    accordingly
    findsthatWitness
    FF is credible
    alsoin the
    present
    context.

    674.TheChambernotesthattheIndictment allegesthatattacks werecarriedoutin the


    areaofBisesero,in whichMutitiHillis located.
    InAnnex B to thePre-trial
    Brief,the
    summaryof heranticipated testimony
    makesreference "several attacks
    between April
    and June1994in the hillsof Bisesero, includingRwakamena, Muyira,
    Murambi and
    Gitwehills"whereshe saw G6rardNtakirutimana. It follows fromher fourprior
    statements
    thatsheobserved theAccusedparticipating
    inattacks several
    or manytimes.
    In court
    sheexpanded on thedetails
    andspecificlocationswhenaskedtodo so.There is
    therefore
    noissueof a lackof notice
    totheDefence. TheChamber accordingly
    findsthat,
    sometimein June1994,G6rard Ntakirutimana
    wasat Mutiti HillwithInterahamwe and
    thatthey
    shotatrefugees ina forest
    bya church.

    4.23MurambiChurch,End of April(Witnesses
    DD, GG, SS, YY)

    4.16At onepointduringthistimeperiod,Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wasinMurambi
    withintheareaof Bisesero.Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wentto a church
    located
    in
    Murambi
    wheremanyTutsis wereseeking
    refuge
    fromtheongoing
    massacres.
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    orderedtheattackers
    todestroy
    theroof
    ofthischurchsothat
    itcould
    no
    longer
    beusedasa hiding
    place
    fortheTutsis.

    4.23.1
    Prosecution

    675.The Prosecution contends thatWitnesses GG, DD, SS, and YY are unanimous
    that,at onepointin timein thesecond halfof April1994or in earlyMay1994,both
    Accusedparticipated
    in theremoval of theMurambi Church
    roofin Bisesero. It is the
    Prosecution’s
    casethatthesewitnesses ledconclusive evidence
    thattheAccused arrived
    at MurambiChurchin oneor twovehicles fullof attackers,afterwhichElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    orderedtheattackersto climbontotheroof,remove theironsheeting and
    placeit inhiscar.Itissubmitted thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    waspresentat thescene and
    thathe transported
    attackersin theMugonero Hospitalvehicle.
    TheProsecution further
    submitsthattheremoval of thechurch roofwaspartof an attack againsttheTutsi
    refugeesin thevicinityof thechurch andaimedat denying thema shelterfromrain,
    snakesor anynocturnaldanger.This,according to theProsecutor,
    "goesto genocidal
    intent"
    oftheperpetrators’removaloftheroof. Thusisexcluded
    anyother interpretation
    forthisaction, forinstance,thatthoseinvolved in theremovalof theroofsought to
    prevent
    1°°4 therooffrombeing stolenby thievesorthugs.

    676.TheProsecutor furtherrelieson WitnessYY’stestimonythatimmediatelybefore


    theremovalof thechurchroof,fromhishidingplaceina forestclose
    to thechurch, he
    sawbothAccusedinsidethechurchshootingwithgunsat Tutsirefugees
    shelteredthere,
    who hadbeentooweakto runawaywhentheattackers arrived.WitnessYY couldnot
    seewhichof the Accused had killedwhom,but he did see Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    shootinga pregnant womanfromNyacyiabo who wasunableto movebecause her feet

    1004
    T.22August
    2002
    pp.132-133.

    Judgement
    andSentence 193 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    wereswollen.
    Aftertheattack,
    thewitness
    identified
    thebodyofa child
    called
    Antoine,
    whohadbeenhisneighbour,
    1°°5 andthebodyof a mancalled
    Vianney
    Ntaganira.

    4.23.2Defence

    677.The Defenceobjectsto the lackof noticeof the allegationthatG6rard


    Ntakirutimana
    was present
    duringtheremoval of the MurambiChurchroofwouldbe
    made.TheDefence
    alsoobjectsto theProsecution’s
    failure
    to provide
    noticeof the
    allegation
    thatthetwoAccused
    shotandkilledTutsirefugees
    at Murambi
    Church.l°°6

    678.The DefencecontendsthatWitness DD’stestimonywas fabricatedand should


    havebeenwithdrawnby theProsecutor.
    TheProsecution’s
    decision
    notto relyon the
    witness’s
    allegation
    thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    killed
    thewitness’swifeandchildat
    Mubuga
    1°°7 Schoolconstitutes
    an implicit
    acknowledgement
    thatWitnessDD waslying.
    TheDefencefurther
    challenges
    thecredibility
    of Witness
    SS,noting
    thatheindicatedto
    investigators
    thatthe distanceat whichhe observedElizaphan
    Ntakirutimanawas
    250metres.
    1008

    679.In respectof WitnessYY’sallegationof a shooting committedby bothAccusedat


    Murambi Church,the Defence questions how the witnesscouldhavementioned the
    removalof thechurch’sironroofsheets in hispriorstatement andnotthedramatic
    episode
    of bothAccused’s
    shootingattherefugeesinthechurch. It isalsoarguedthatin
    hispriorstatement, thewitnessneverplaced G6rard Ntakirutimanaat Murambi
    Church.
    Moreover,thewitness gavedifferent estimatesof thedistance he wasfromtheroad
    nearbythechurch. Thus,theDefence expressesdoubtaboutthewitness’s abilityto
    identifytheAccusedandmaintainsthathisdescription of theshootingwasexaggerated.
    Noneof theotherthreewitnessesto theevent(Witnesses DD,SSandGG)testified about
    murders committedby the Accusedat MurambiChurch. The Defenceconcludes that
    Witness YY’stestimony of murder,whichrevealed ignorance of people,placesand
    events,
    1°°9 isuncorroborated
    andshouldnotberelied uponby theChamber.

    680.TheDefencefurtherrefersto a statement
    givenby WitnessUU to investigators
    on
    10 November
    1999,according to whichG6rardNtakirutimanapreparedandparticipated
    in attacks
    on Murambiin June1994.Thisaccount contradicts
    theProsecution’stheory
    thattheattacks on Murambi occurredat the end of Aprilor in May 1994.
    l°1°The
    Prosecutor
    respondsthatWitnessUU’spriorstatementisin accordwiththeProsecution’s
    caseandthatWitness FF,amongotherwitnesses, testifiedthatattacks wereindeed
    perpetrated
    1°11 betweenAprilandJune1994at Murambi Hill.

    ~oo5Prosecution
    Closing
    Briefpara.372-390;T. 21August
    2002pp.100-107.
    ~oo6T.22August2002pp.6 and7.
    too7DefenceClosing
    Briefpp.24-26,133-135.
    ~oo8Id.pp.158-163,
    inparticular
    p.159.
    1oo9DefenceClosing
    Briefpp.117-118;T. 22August2002pp.46-48.
    loio
    Id.p.131.
    ~o~lT.21August2002p.107.

    Judgement
    andSentence 194 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    N,:akirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    681.In anyevent,theDefence
    argues, shouldtheChamberconsider
    thattheevidence
    establishes
    theAccused’s
    participation
    in theremoval
    of thechurch
    roof,
    theProsecution
    has not provedthatthe removalwas a criminalact as suchunderthe Statute.
    Furthermore,
    theDefence
    contends,
    theProsecutorhasnotprovedthattheremoval
    of the
    roofwaspartofanattack
    against
    Tutsirefugees.
    1012

    4.23.3
    Discussion

    (a) Removalof the ChurchRoof

    WitnessGG

    682.Witness GG testified thatonemorning towards theendof April1994he sawthe


    twoAccusedarrive at MurambiChurchin ElizaphanNtakirutimana’s
    Hiluxvehicle,with
    otherpeoplein theback.Theywalked aroundthechurch beforeElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    toldtheindividuals accompanyinghim"togo up andremove theroofof thechurch so
    thatTutsiscannolonger finda place
    fromwheretheycanshelter fromtherain."At the
    time,Tutsirefugees werein factusing thechurchas a shelter.He described
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    as wearing a jacket,trousers,
    a shirt,andspectacles.
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    waswearinga whiteT-shirt andwhiteshorts.
    1°a3Pursuant to Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    order,theironsheets of the roofwereremoved andtakenaway,together withthe
    windows.Thewitness observed theeventat quitesomedistance buthe couldseeand
    hearwhatwas said.1°14 HethoughtthatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimanathentooktheironsheets
    to hishome.
    1°15TheChamber foundWitnessGGto be a crediblewitness
    (see3.8.3(d)).

    WitnessDD

    683.WitnessDD testified
    thathe stayedat MurambiHillfrom17 April1994until
    earlyMay1994,duringwhichtimetheAdventistChurchin whichhe hadsoughtrefuge
    cameunder
    attack.1016Theattack
    occurredsometime
    beforenoon.Gera"rd Ntakirutimana
    andElizaphanNtakirutimana
    arrivedin twovehiclesfullof Interahamwe armedwith
    machetes,
    clubs,andspears.
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    drovehiswhiteHilux, whichwas
    followed
    by thehospital
    vehicle,
    a Toyota
    van,drivenby G6rard
    Ntakirutimana.
    1°17The
    vehicles
    camefromthedirection
    of Ngoma.

    684.WitnessDD leftthechurch
    andfledacrossa brookto a pineforest
    nearby,
    about
    12 metres
    away,fromwhichhe hadan unobstructed
    viewof thechurch.
    1°18Thevehicles
    parkedcloseto thechurch,
    about4.5metres
    fromitsentrance. Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    stoodcloseto hisvehicle
    nearbythechurch.
    He ordered
    thetwenty ormorepersons
    who

    1012Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.24-25;
    T.22 August2001pp.6,145.
    t0~3T.24September
    2001pp.4-10.
    ~o14Inhiswritten
    statement
    of30June1996thewitness
    estimated
    thedistance
    tobeabout
    20meters.
    101S
    Id.pp.163,
    165.
    1o16T.23 October
    2001pp.120-121.
    ~017T.25October
    2001pp.75-76.
    1018T. 23October
    2001pp.123-124,
    127-128.

    Judgement
    andSentence 195 /~2 21 February2003

    /
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    hadcomein hisvehicle to removethesheetingof thechurch’s


    roof.1°19 Thewitness
    observed
    theentire operation,untiltheattackers
    departedwiththeroofing material,
    whichwasplacedin oneof thevehicles.
    1°2°TheChamberhasaccepted
    thecredibilityof
    thiswitness
    in someotherrespects,
    andalsofindshimcredible
    inthepresent context.
    It
    doesnot considerit significantthathe wasunableto identifyMurambi Churchon
    Photograph
    No.55 in Prosecution
    ExhibitNo.2 whenit waspresented
    to himduring his
    testimony.The witness was ableto describethe church,and he was not usedto
    identifying
    1°21 photographs.

    Witness
    SS

    685.WitnessSS reached GitweHillduringdaytime on 16 April1994.He wasat a


    place
    abovetheprimary school.
    He testified
    thatbefore noonon a certain
    dayin April
    1994,a fewdaysaftertheattack at theComplex,theassailants wenton to attack
    Murambi.WitnessSS couldnot identifyindividuals, but he saw Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    vehicle
    stopnearthechurch.1°22He declared
    thatheobserved thescene
    from"a shortdistance
    ’’1°23(inlatertestimony, he declaredthatthedistancewas
    average1°24),
    on a smallhillbelowGitweHillfacingMurambiChurch.He sawthepeople
    inthevehicleproceed
    toclimbtheroofof thechurch toremovetheironsheets.1°25The
    witness
    leftimmediately
    thereafter.

    686.TheChamber generallyfoundWitnessSS to be credible(see3.8.3(d)and3.12.3


    above).In respectof thisevent, theChamberobserves thatin thewitness’sprevious
    written
    statement theinvestigatorsassessed
    thedistance hehadto runbefore he looked
    backat the attackers to about250meters. 1°26The Chamber accepts thewitness’s
    explanationthatthiswasa mereestimate. In courthe describedthedistance firstas
    "short",
    thenas"average,...notveryfar,norveryshort, butthedistance
    wassuchthat
    one wouldn’t be ableto recognize somebodyfromthatdistance". 1°27Thisis in
    conformitywithhiswritten statement,
    according te whichhe didnotseeElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    butrecognized hiscar.ConsideringthatWitnessSS declared
    thathe was
    standingon a smallhilloverlookingMurambiChurch andthatthesightingoccurred one
    morning
    before noonin broaddaylight,theChamberis satisfied
    thathe wasin a position
    to identify the Accused’s vehiclewhichwas knownto the witness and to observe
    individualsremovingtheChurch roof.WitnessSS’spriorstatement doesnotcontradict
    histestimony
    incourtinthis respect.

    1019Id.pp.121-122.
    to2oT.25October2001p.71.
    lO2~T. 24September
    2001pp.6-7andT. 25October
    2001pp.64-68.
    1°22T.31October
    2001p.104.
    5023T.30October
    2001p.125.TheFrenchversionp.144reads:"Ladistance
    n’6taitpasgrande".
    1o24T.31October
    2001p.106.
    5025T.30 October
    2001pp.123,124-125.
    lo26Thestatementreads:"Whenwe hadnm a distanceliketheonefromhereto theroadoverthere
    (investigators:
    we estimate
    thisto be a distance
    of about250meters),we lookedback.We sawmany
    attackers."
    lo27T.31October
    2001p.106.

    Judgement
    andSentence 196

    /~ 21 February 2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    687.Witness YY testified thathe reached Murambi Churcharound3.00a.m.on 17


    April1994.Otherrefugees,
    allTutsi, weresheltered there,
    x°28Thewitness testified
    that
    onedaytowards theendof Aprilor beginning of May1994,between 8 and9.00a.m.,
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    vehiclearrived. At thetime, 50 to 70 refugeesweresheltered
    in thechurch,withmorerefugees inside surrounding buildings, withoutroofs.There
    wereapproximately150refugees in thevicinity of thechurch.1°29Whenthevehicle
    arrived,
    therefugeesstarted
    running away.Thewitness hidina forest closetothechurch,
    about30 metres away.He hidthereforaboutthreehours. BothAccused shotat the
    refugees(see(b) below),afterwhichthe peoplewithG6rardNtakirutimana
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    climbedup theroofof thechurch, removed theironsheets and
    placedthesheets in Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s vehicle,whichwasthesamevehicle he
    had seenon the morning of the attackat Mugonero Complex.1°3°The vehicle then
    returnedalongtheroadon whichit came.Witness YY’sopinion wasthattheroofwas
    removedto denyshelterto refugees. ~°3~The Chamber has accepted WitnessYY’s
    testimony
    in relation
    to several
    events. Inthepresent context,theChambernotesthathis
    observationof thetwoAccused in connection withtheremoval of thechurch roofis
    corroboratedby threeotherwitnesses. The factthatonlyhe,amongwitnesses who
    testified
    aboutthisincident,witnessedtheshooting (see(b)below), doesnotrender
    accountimplausible,
    insofaraseachas eachwitness observedthescene froma different
    vantage
    pointandfora different
    length oftime.

    688.The Chamber notesthatparagraph 4.16is the onlysection


    of the Indictment
    which
    specificallyrefersto Murambi
    and,inparticular,totheremoval
    ofa churchroof.
    Theparagraph mentionsElizaphanNtakirutimana
    only.Thereis no mentionof G6rard
    Ntaldrutimana.The questionat issueis whether thislackof noticewas curedby
    subsequenttimely, clearandconsistent information(see2.4above).Theevent
    Murambi
    Church is referred
    to in theProsecution’sPre-trial
    BriefanditsAnnexB.
    Paragraphs
    16 and17 oftheBriefreadas follows:

    ...Someoftherefugees
    whosurvived
    theattackattheMugonero
    Complex
    on16April
    1994,escaped
    totheSeventh
    DayAdventist
    Church,located
    atMurambi,
    aroundGitwe
    hill.
    Dr,G6rardNtakirutimana
    andPastor
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    conveyed
    attackers
    andpersonally
    pursued
    therefugees
    at thislocation.
    Several
    refugees
    wereeither
    wounded
    orkilled
    byDr.G6rard
    Ntakirutimana.

    ...Some
    ofthesekillings
    were
    doneinthepresence
    ofPastor
    Elizaphan
    Nakirutimana.
    In
    thecourse
    ofthesaidattacks
    andkillings
    Pastor
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    ordered
    the
    destruction
    oftheroofoftheSeventh
    DayAdventist
    church
    atMurambi
    andordered
    that
    theiron
    sheets
    there
    from,
    beloaded
    inhisvehicle.

    689.AnnexB of thePre-trial
    Briefreferred
    to G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    in thesummaryof
    WitnessGG’stestimony. Thatsummarywas basedon the witness’sstatement to
    investigators
    of 30 June1996,whichwasdisclosed
    to theDefenceon 10 Apriland

    1028T.2 October
    2001pp.32-33.
    1029T.3 October
    2001p.16.
    ~o3oT.2 October
    2001p.36.
    1o31
    Id.pp.40-41.

    Judgement
    andSentence 197 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    29 August
    2000(inredactedandunredactedform,respectively).
    However,
    theprevious
    statements
    of Witness
    DD,SS,andYY andthesummariesin thePre-trial
    Briefof their
    testimonies
    madeno reference
    to G6rardNtakirutimana
    in connection
    withtheMurambi
    Church.Moreover,WitnessDD includedtheAccusedin thiseventonlyin histhird
    statement,
    producedthedaybeforehe commenced
    histestimony.

    690.TheChamber observesthattheremoval of theroofwasa specificallegation of


    whichthe Prosecution had knowledgesinceWitnessGG gave his statementto
    investigators
    in1996.Thisisnota situationwhere"thesheer
    scaleofthealleged crimes"
    makes
    it "impracticable"
    torequire a highdegreeofspecificity
    aboutthemeansbywhich
    theactswerecommitted.ThattheIndictment didnotallegethatG6rardNtakirutimana
    waspresent,
    onlyElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    isa moreseriouscaseof lackof noticethan
    omissions
    relatingto detailsof actsalleged. Therefore,
    andin viewof itsgeneral
    discussion
    under2.4above,theChamber findsthattherewasinsufficientnoticeto the
    Defence
    thatit wouldbe alleged thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    was present at Murambi
    Church.

    691.As fortheinvolvement of ElizaphanNtakirutimanain theremovalof thechurch


    roof,the Chamber notesthatWitnesses DD, GG andYY all identifiedhimas having
    participatedin theremovalof theroof,andWitnesses DD andGG testified thathe
    personally
    gavetheorder fortheremoval.Witness SS’stestimony
    regardinghissighting
    of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    vehicle supports theotherwitnesses’ testimonies.
    WitnessesGG andYY testifiedthatthechurch wasbeingusedby Tutsirefugees as a
    shelter,
    andWitness DDtestified
    thathe washimself seeking
    refugein thechurch atthe
    time.Thewitnessesconcurthatthisincident tookplacebetween
    17 April1994andearly
    May 1994.Witnesses GG and YY saw the ironsheetsbeingremovedand placedin
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’scarwhileWitness DD sawthesheetingbeingplaced in oneof
    thetwocars.TheChamber findsthatthere is evidence,
    beyonda reasonabledoubt,that
    sometimebetween17 Apriland earlyMay 1994,Elizaphan Ntakirutimana was in
    Murambiwithin theareaof Bisesero,thathe wentto a church in Murambiwheremany
    Tutsiwereseekingrefuge
    andthatheordered attackers
    todestroytheroofof thechurch.

    692.TheChamberwillproceed to considertheissueof thecriminal character


    of this
    actand,specifically,
    whethertheProsecutionhasestablishedbeyond a reasonable
    doubt
    thatthedestruction
    of theroofwasdone"sothatit could no longerbeusedasa hiding
    placefortheTutsis" (paragraph
    4.16of theIndictment). Witness GG testified
    that
    heardElizaphan
    Ntakirutimanasaythatthepurpose of theremoval of theroofwasto
    denytheTutsirefugees a shelter.WitnessesGG andYY testified thatthechurch was
    indeedbeingusedby Tutsirefugeesas a shelter,andWitness DD testified
    thathe was
    himself
    seeking
    refugeinthechurch atthetime.

    693.TheChambernotesthatthisactof removing therooflefttheTutsis unprotected


    fromtheelements
    andvisibleto attackers.
    TheChamber hasconsideredotherreasonable
    interpretations
    ofthisact;forinstance,thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    tooktheironsheets
    forhimself
    or removed
    themto preventlooting.However,if he hadbeenconcerned
    about
    possible
    theftoftheroof,it couldbe postulated
    thathe wouldalsohaveremoved
    theroof

    Judgement
    andSentence 198 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    sheetingfromhisownhomeor fromNgomaChurch, andit is difficult to understandwhy


    theAccused wouldconcernhimselfwiththeprotection of property at a timewhenlives
    werein danger.He musthavebeenawarethattherewerepeople seeking shelter
    inside
    thechurch.Alsoofnoteis WitnessDD’sdescriptionof theindividuals whoarrivedatthe
    churchin the Accused’s vehicles,as Interahamwe armedwithmachetes, clubs,and
    spears.
    Of furthernoteisthatallfourwitnesses wereconsistentin their descriptions
    of
    theindividualsreferred-toaboveas attackers
    or in characterizing theincident as an
    attack.
    Furthermore,thewitnessesconsistently
    related howthose hiding inthechurch or
    itsvicinity fleduponsightof theapproaching attackers. TheChamber is therefore
    satisfied
    thatthose takingpartin these
    events,including ElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    could
    nothavehadpeaceful intentions.
    Inlightof theabove, andhavingregard to thecontext
    of the eventsin Rwandaat the relevanttime,the Chamberrejectsany other
    interpretations
    oftheactofremoval oftherooforofthetransportation oftheindividuals
    involved. The Chamberaccordingly findsthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana conveyed
    attackersto MurambiChurchandorderedtheremoval of thechurch roofso thatit could
    nolongerbeusedasa hiding placeforTutsi.In sodoing, he facilitatedthehuntingdown
    andkilling oftheTutsi refugees
    hidingnearbyMurambi Churchin Bisesero.

    (b) Killings
    at the Church

    694.WitnessYY testifiedthatthetwoAccused werearmedwithgunsat thechurch.


    BothAccusedandtheindividual accompanying
    themshotat therefugeeswhocouldnot
    flee,for example,children,thewounded andsomewomenwho wereweak.A totalof
    abouttenrefugeesweretooweakto flee.Thewitness testifiedthathe sawElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    shootrefugees in thechurch.In particular,WitnessYY statedthat
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    shotthefollowing persons:
    a pregnantwomanwhowasa native
    of Nyacyiabo,
    a childnamedAntoinewhowasthewitness’s neighbouranda mancalled
    Ntaganira.
    However,
    thewitnesslatersaidthathecouldnotbe certain
    oftheidentity of
    theindividualskilled
    by Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana.
    1°32Oncetheattackers left,he and
    otherrefugeescameoutof hidingandwentto thechurch,wheretheysawthebodies of
    people
    1°33 whohadbeenkilled.

    695.Paragraph 4.16of the Bisesero Indictment,whichis the onlyreference to


    MurambiChurchin theIndictment,addressestheremovalof thechurchroof.It doesnot
    includeany allegation thatbothAccused killedTutsirefugees on thisoccasion.
    Paragraphs4.13and4.15 of the Indictment refergenerally to the two Accused’s
    participation
    in almostdailyattacks againsttheTutsipopulationin Bisesero.These
    paragraphs
    furtherrefertotheir searchingforandattackingmembersofthatpopulation,
    theirkilling
    orcausing themserious bodilyandmental
    harm, without
    furtherdetail.Even
    if Murambi
    Church is consideredto be withintheBiseseroareatheChamber findsthat
    theProsecution’s
    omission ofallegationsofkilling
    inparagraph4.16constitutes
    a failure
    to provide
    propernoticetotheDefence.

    1032T.2 October
    2001p.37-38;
    T. 3 October
    2001pp.66-67.
    ~033T.3 October
    2001p.27.

    Judgement
    andSentence 199 21 February
    2003

    //~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    696.Turning nowto theissueof whether thisdefectin theBisesero Indictment was


    subsequentlycuredby timely, clearandconsistent information
    (see2.4above), the
    Chamberrecallsthewordingof paragraph16 of theProsecution’s
    Pre-trialBrief, which
    statesthatbothAccused "conveyedattackersandpersonallypursued therefugees" at
    MurambiChurch,andthat"[s]everal refugees wereeitherwounded
    or killed" by G6rard
    Ntakirutimana.
    Accordingto paragraph17 of theBrief,"[s]omeof thesekillings were
    doneinthepresence of ElizaphanNtakirutimana",
    who"inthecourse ofthesaidattacks
    andkillings"orderedthedestructionofthechurch roof.Witness
    YY’sprior statementof
    25 October1999to Prosecution investigators
    containsa general
    paragraph concerning
    bothAccused (quotedat para.273 above).1034Thewitness stated thathe sawG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    "inallattacks"whenhe wasat "Biseserohill",runningafter
    refugees and
    shootingat them.ElizaphanNtakirutimanawasseen"onseveral occasions",armedwith
    a gun,transporting
    killers in hiscar,andthewitness "alsosawhimwhensupervising
    Interahamwe
    to takeofftheironsheets of MurambiAdventist
    Church".

    697.TheChamberconcludes
    thatneither
    thePre-trial
    BriefnorWitness
    YY’sprevious
    statement
    contains
    anyexplicit
    allegation
    thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    killed
    persons
    at
    MurambiChurch.This was firstraisedby WitnessYY duringhis testimony.
    Consequently,
    thedefect
    in theIndictment
    wasnotcuredbysubsequent
    timely
    notice.

    698.Withrespect to G6rardNtakirutimana,theChamber foundabovethattherewas


    insufficient
    noticethatitwould be alleged
    thatG6rardNtakirutimana
    waspresentatthe
    removalof theMurambi Churchroof.Moreover,as stated
    above,paragraph
    4.16didnot
    containanyallegation thathe killedanyoneon thatoccasion.Thiswasan important
    omission.
    Theproper wayto addsuchallegations
    wouldhavebeenfortheProsecution to
    seekan amendment of the Indictment,whichis theprincipalaccusatoryinstrument
    againsttheAccused (see2.4).Theadditionof theseallegations
    in paragraph
    16 of the
    Pre-trialBriefamountedto a transformation
    of theProsecution’s
    caseagainstG6rard
    Ntakirutimanain relationto theeventat Murambi Church.
    Consequently,
    theChamber
    doesnotconsiderthatthedefectintheIndictmentwascured
    bythenoticeinthePre-trial
    Brief.

    4.24.Actions
    of theAccused
    at Unspecified
    Locations
    in theBisesero
    Area

    4.24.1Prosecution

    699.Prosecution WitnessesYY and HH testifiedaboutattacksinvolving G6rard


    Ntakirutimana
    at unspecified
    locationsin Bisesero.
    TheProsecutiondidnotrefer in its
    writtenor oralsubmissions
    to Witness
    YY’sallegationsin thisregard,
    it didreferto
    WitnessHH’stestimonythatattackswerelaunchedat Biseseroalmost
    everydayandthat
    he 5
    1°3sawG6rardNtakirutimana
    witha firearmeachtimetherewasan attack
    atBisesero.

    1034Theunredacted
    statement
    wasdisclosed
    on29 August
    2000.Theredacted
    version
    wasdisclosed
    prior
    tothat
    date.
    lo35Prosecution
    Closing
    Brief
    p.65.

    Judgement
    andSentence 200 ~ 21 February 2003

    J
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    4.24.2Defence

    700.TheDefence,whiledenying thatG6rardNtakirutimana
    tookpartin anyfighting
    at Bisesero,
    didnotrespond specifically
    to theallegations
    of Witnesses
    YY or HH on
    thesepoints,
    except to state
    thatWitness
    HH spokeproudly
    of losses
    on theattackers’
    1036
    sideas well,
    andof "kamikaze"
    attacks
    by therefugees.

    4.24.3
    Discussion

    701.WitnessYY testifiedaboutattacks
    directedagainsthouseswithoutroofsin the
    Biseseroarea.Occasionally,he sawG6rard
    Ntakirutimanaamongsttheattackers who
    cameat night.The witness listednighttimeattacksin Murambi on the housesof
    Ngendahayowhereninepeoplewerekilled, of Habimana,
    and of Kanyamigandawhere
    14 peoplewerekilled.Attacksthatoccurred
    in thedaywerelaunched fromGisovu and
    the attackerswouldleavefromMurambi. He testified
    thatat Murambi Church, the
    attackers
    calledoutto someof therefugees
    thattheyknewandtoldthemto go andeat
    thespoiltmeatwhichwasatHabimana’s
    house,
    referring
    to thefleshofpersons thatthey
    had killedthere.Whenaskedwhyhe hadnot mentionedtheseincidents before,the
    witness
    1°37 answeredthathe hadnotbeenasked
    therelevant
    questions.

    702.WitnessHH stayedin variouspartsof Bisesero, including MuyiraHill,


    Mumubugaand Kucyiha,until15 June1994.He testifiedthatduringhisstayin the
    region,attackstookplacealmost everyday.
    Therewereveryfewdayswhentheywere
    attackedthatlossof lifedidnotresult. Refugees
    werearmedwithtraditional
    weapons
    likespears, machetesandstones, andlaterobtained
    gunsthatwereabandoned by the
    attackers,butthemagazineshadalreadybeenremoved
    by theattackers.
    Thewitnesssaid
    thathe sawbothAccused wheretherefugees werebutsawonlyG6rardNtakirutimana
    involvedin actual
    fighting.He sawhimwitha firearm
    eachtimethere wasan attackin
    Bisesero.As forElizaphanNtakirutimana,thewitnessclaimedto haveseenhimonly
    twicein Bisesero: at MubugaSchooland at Ku Cyapa.Whenaskedwhy he had not
    mentionedtheseincidentsbefore,thewitnessanswered
    thatthequestionshadnotbeen
    puttohim.1038

    703.The ChamberacceptsWitnesses YY and HH’sexplanation


    thattheydid not
    mention
    theseevents before
    as thesespecificquestions
    werenotputto them.Their
    testimony
    in courtwasconsistent
    undercross-examination,
    andtheChamber
    findsthat
    Witnesses
    YY andHH arecredible.

    704.TheIndictmentalleges thatattacks
    werecarried
    outin variouslocations
    in the
    areaofBisesero
    almoston a dailybasis
    forseveral
    months.
    In theirstatements,
    Witnesses
    YY and HH mentionedseeingbothAccusedduringattacksin Bisesero and later
    expandedon the detailswhenaskedto do so in court.The Defence
    thereforehad

    1036Defence
    Closing
    Briefp.86.
    1o37T.2 October
    2001pp.102-108.
    103sT.26 September
    2001pp.47-56;
    T. 27September
    2001pp.126-128.

    Judgement
    andSentence 201 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    sufficient
    notice
    thatsuchallegations
    wouldbe made.TheChamber
    accordingly
    finds
    thatGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    participated
    in attacks
    inBisesero.

    4.25Planning
    Meetings
    and Distribution
    of Weapons,
    June1994(Witness
    UU)

    4.25.1Prosecution

    705.The Prosecutionsubmitsthatin June1994GdrardNtakirutimana attended


    meetings
    whereattacks againstTutsiin Bisesero
    werecoordinatedand armswere
    distributed
    for thispurpose.The Prosecutionreliesmainlyon WitnessUU and
    additionally
    l°39 on Witness
    00.

    706.In oralarguments the Prosecution submittedthatWitnessUU’stestimony


    regarding
    attacksin Murambiin June1994accordswiththeProsecution’s
    theory
    of the
    case,as Witness
    FF testified thatattacks in Murambi
    tookplacebetween
    Apriland
    June1994.In addition,paragraph4.16of theIndictmentindicates
    thattheMurambi
    attacks
    1°4° occurred
    duringthisperiod.

    4.25.2Defence

    707.TheDefence submits
    thatWitness UU is notcredible forthefollowing reasons.
    Thewitness claimed notto be a member of theRPFnoritssupporter, norto haveany
    political affiliation.However, he repeatedlyplacedhimselfin dangeroussituations,
    taking risksonlyan RPFspywouldtake.TheDefence refers to DefenceWitness21’s
    testimony thathe andWitness UU wereclassmates at Esapan schoolandthatthelatter
    waspolitically partisan,
    bragging openlythathe wasan RPFsupporter. Thewitness
    claimed to havemademiraculous escapesfromhazardous situations,to haveparticipated
    in an attack in Bisesero
    andto haveattended meetingsin Kibuyetownin mid-Junein the
    presence of Interahamweandotherpersons whocouldhaverecognized himas a Tutsi.

    708.TheDefence
    notesthatin Witness
    UU’slengthy
    priorstatementhe doesnotstate
    thatGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    madea request
    forfirearms
    at themeetingof 10 June1994,or
    thattheAccusedwaswearingwhiteshorts,
    or thatNiyitegekamadea sketch on the
    blackboard.
    TheDefence
    notesthatthewitness
    explained
    thathe recalledcertainfacts
    after
    1°41being
    asked
    totestify.

    709.The Defence’sgeneral submissionsas to WitnessOO wereconsidered earlier


    (II.3.7.3).In relation to the specificallegationthatWitnessOO saw Gdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    attenda meeting
    at theprefectural
    officein Kibuye
    townin June1994,the
    Defence
    arguesthatthe witness was inconsistent
    whenhe testified thatPrefect
    Kayishema
    didnotattend thatmeeting,incontradiction
    withhisprior statementandhis
    testimony
    in theMusema case.TheDefence notesthatWitnessOO referredto onlyone

    ~o39Prosecutor’
    s Closing
    Briefparas.
    391-408.
    1o4oT.21August
    2002p.107.
    loalDefence
    ClosingBriefpp.123-133;
    seealsop.115.

    Judgement
    andSentence 202 21 February
    2003
    617
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    publicmeeting,
    at whichG6rardNtakirutimana
    saidnothing,
    without
    anymention
    of the
    other
    1°4z Junemeetingsalleged
    by Witness
    UU.

    4.25.3
    Discussion

    710.WitnessUU testified
    thathe knewG6rard Ntakirutimana
    fromabout1992-1993
    in hiscapacity
    as a doctor.
    Priorto April1994,he wouldseeG6rardNtakirutimana
    betweenthreeand fivetimesper weekat the Mugonero......... 1043G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    wasthusknownto thewitness
    priorto theeventsof June1994discussed
    below.

    711.Witness UU testified abouthavingattended threemeetings convened in Kibuye


    townin June1994.Thefirsttookplacearound 10 Junein theconference roomof the
    prefecturaloffice. He attended withOmarandanother friend. To disguisehimself,he
    worea militarycap,darkglasses, andan overcoat.Themeeting startedbetween 10.00
    and11.00a.m.It wasattended by Interahamwe
    andvarious officials, includingPrefect
    Kayishema,Ruzindana (a trader), Musema(themanager of Gisovu teafactory), Eli6zer
    Niyitegeka(a member of parliament andgovernmentminister), G6rard Ntakirutimana,
    andthebourgmestres of thecommunes surrounding
    Bisesero, seated in thefrontrow.
    Morethan50 otherpersons werepresent, andsomegathered outside theconference room
    becausetherewasnotenough roomfortheminside. Thewitness waspositioned towards
    thebackoftheroom,about 25 to 40 metres
    fromthefrontrow.Ruzindana tookthefloor
    andexplainedto theparticipants thatthemeetingwasaimed at evaluatingtheirprogress
    in killing
    Tutsi in theBisesero areaandtodecidewhatstill needed tobe donetofinish
    thattask.G6rard Ntakirutimanaalsotookthefloor,saying thattheproblem theyfaced in
    completingtheworkwasthattheyhadinsufficient gunsandammunition. Likeother
    speakersat themeeting, G6rard Ntakirutimana
    spokethrough a microphone connectedto
    loudspeakers. Witness UU estimated thathe observed G6rardNtakirutimana froma
    distanceof 20 to 30 metres. Whenthe meetingended,between 1.30and 3.00p.m.,
    G6rardNtakirutimana leftin a whiteToyotapickupbelonging to the Mugonero
    Hospital.
    1044

    712.WitnessUU testifiedabouta second


    meetingthattookplaceabouta weeklaterat
    thesamevenue.It alsostartedbetween
    10.00and11.00a.m.andlastedaboutfourhours.
    Thesameofficials whoattendedthefirstmeetingalsoattended
    thesecond. Manyother
    persons,including Interahamwe,werepresent,
    insideandoutside theroom.G6rard
    Ntakirutimanawascarrying a longgun.Theobjective of thesecond meetingwas to
    distributefirearms,a taskthatwasperformed by Niyitegeka
    andRuzindana. G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    received weaponsfortheareaof Murambi.G6rardNtakirutimanawasat
    thefrontof theroomandthedistance separating
    himfromWitness UU wasroughly
    the
    sameas at thefirstmeeting. G6rardNtakirutimana
    wasdressedin whiteshortsanda
    whiteshirt.Witness UU heardG6rardNtakirutimana
    speakwithRuzindana’s younger
    brother
    andsaythattheweapons thattheyhadobtainedwereinsufficient.Niyitegeka

    1042
    Id.
    pp.111-112.
    1043
    T.25October
    2001
    p.108.
    1044
    T.25October
    2001
    pp.115-129;
    T.29October
    2001
    pp.84-95.

    Judgement
    andSentence 203 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    thenannounced a programme
    of attacks thatwereto be launched thefollowingday.He
    drewa circleontheboard andwithinthatcircle he wrotetheword"Bisesero".
    Using this
    circle
    he indicatedwhere
    theattacks bydifferentgroupsofattackers
    should
    start,andthe
    leadersof thevariousgroupsof attackers.G6rard Ntakirutimana
    wasnamedas a member
    of the"Ngoma group",whichincluded EnosKagaba andMathias Ngirinshuti
    andwasto
    attackMurambi. On his way out of the room,the witnesswas ableto studythe
    blackboard
    closely,forfivetotenminutes as therewasa bottleneck
    around
    theexitand
    alsobecause he didnot wantto moveawayfromhisfriend Omar.Witness
    UU readon
    theboardthatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    wasoneof theleaders of theattackers,
    andsawthat
    G6rardNtakirutimanawouldtakethefloorwhenever he wanted,leading
    thewitness to
    conclude
    1°45 thatG6rard Ntakirutimana
    heldan influentialleadership
    role.

    713.The thirdmeeting at whichWitness UU saw G6rardNtakirutimana was heldin


    thecanteen of theprefectural
    officearound 18 June1994atdusk.Theobjective of that
    meeting wasto recapitulate
    theevents. G6rardNtakirutimanaandalltheleaders of the
    attacks werein thecanteen. Witness UU wasoutside, abouta metreawayfromthe
    canteen windows,whichwereopenandfreeof curtains. Thedistancebetweenhimself
    andG6rard Ntakirutimanawas3 to 5 metres. He heardG6rard Ntakirutimana
    makethe
    following pronouncement
    in French,thenrepeat it in Kinyarwanda:
    "Thethornsmustbe
    uprooted because,
    otherwise,theywillgrowagain andcankillyouor disable you.There
    shouldbe no pityforTutsiwomenand children because theyare theoneswhowill
    reproduce in future,andwe willbe facedwiththe exactsameproblems thatwe are
    having now."G6rard Ntakirutimanasaidthattheresults of theMurambi attack were
    satisfactory.Towards
    theendof themeeting, Niyitegeka announced
    thatit wasnecessary
    to go backto Biseseroto killthesurvivors. Witness UU thensawG6rardNtakirutimana
    go to a canteenwindowandannounce to certain persons outsidethattheattacks would
    continue
    1°46 thenextdayatthesametime.

    714.TheChambernotesthatthisallegation
    wasnotcontained in theIndictment
    but
    wasreferred
    to in theanticipated
    evidence
    of Witness
    UU in AnnexB of thePre-trial
    Brief.
    Therefore
    anylackofnotice
    would
    be curedasindicated
    above(see2.4).

    715.Withrespect to Defence’s
    submissionthatit wasincrediblethewitnesswouldput
    himselfinsuchdangeroussituations,theChamberconsiders
    thatin extraordinary
    times,
    whentheriskof deathto a person is veryhigh,hisclaimto havetakenextraordinary
    stepsto survive
    cannotbetreatedas inherently
    implausible.
    Whateveritsrelevance,
    there
    is no evidence
    thatWitness UU wasassociated withtheRPF.Withrespect to Defence
    Witness2 l’sallegationthatWitness UU braggedabouttheRPF,theChamber considers
    thatwhilethismightsuggest thatWitness UU supported
    theRPF,it certainly is not
    evidencethathe wasan agentof theorganizationin 1994.Witness21’sevidenceabout
    WitnessUU allegedlybragging
    of RPFwasnotputto Witness UU in cross-examination.
    Thus,giventhecircumstances in whichWitness UU foundhimself, theChamber does
    notagreewiththeDefence thatit is implausiblethathe choseto conceal
    himself by
    associating
    withpeople whomighthavekilled himhadtheyrealized histrueidentity.

    1045T.29October
    2001pp.5-38;
    pp.106-108;
    T. 30October
    2001pp.54-55.
    1046T.29October
    2001pp.30-51,

    Judgement
    andSentence 204 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Riskythoughthestrategywas,thewitnesscalculated
    thatit wasa strategy
    thatwould
    keephimaliveat a timewhenTutsichoosing othermethods of concealment
    or escape
    -were
    alsoatgreatrisk. WitnessUU wasnotunassisted
    in hisstrategy,
    forhereliedon
    friendsandpastassociates,
    whoadvised himthathe wouldattractattention
    shouldhe
    remainin houses,
    andthatinordertoavoidsuchattentionheshouldassociate
    withyoung
    Hutuor Interahamwe.
    HisHutuprotectorOmaractivelydirected
    thisschemeto keepthe
    witnessbeyondsuspicion.

    7t6.Regarding WitnessUU’spriorstatement madein November 1999,whichdoes


    notcontaincertain
    allegations
    madeagainstGrrardNtakirutimana
    during histestimony,
    theChamberaccepts
    thewitness’sexplanation
    thathe hadjustrecalled thesefacts.The
    Chamberconsiders
    thediscrepancies
    to be inconsequential
    andtheydo notcontain new
    allegations,
    merelyadditional
    detailsthatemergedin responseto questionsaskedin
    court.TheChamberhasconsideredallthediscrepancies,althoughit doesnotseethe
    needtoaddresseachof themindividually.
    Noneof themcanbe saidtobe so material as
    to diminish
    thewitness’scredibility
    or reliability.
    TheChamber observesthatWitness
    UU gavea consistent
    accountin hisevidence-in-chief
    andcross-examination. He was
    subjected
    to thorough
    cross-examination,
    fromwhichhe emergedas a crediblewitnessin
    theChamber’sview.

    717.Witness OO testified to seeingGrrardNtakirutimana towards


    the endof June
    1994,notat thecampof theGendarmerie, butat a navalpostnearLakeKivu,whichpost
    wasneartheprefectural office. He sawGrrardNtakirutimana
    amongabout400peoplein
    carsheadingfortheoffice, someincivilian attireandothersinmilitary
    clothes,with
    varioustypesof weapons and dancing and singing "Let’sexterminatethem.Let’s
    eliminatethemfromtheforests. We willexterminatethem,we willconquer them".
    WitnessOO followedthecrowd. He testifiedthatat theprefecturaloffice,Elirzer
    Niyitegeka,Minister
    of Information, tookthefloorandspokethrough a loud-speaker.
    According
    to thewitness,
    he saidthattheyshould continue
    to worktogether
    andthatthey
    hadalreadydonea goodjob.He thanked them,butsaidtheyshould continueanddouble
    theireffortsin orderto continuethework.Themeeting lastedfromabout2.00to 6.00
    1047
    p.m.

    718. Althoughthisevidencedoesnot establishthatWitnessOO saw Grrard


    Ntakirutimana
    at oneof themeetings
    referred
    to by Witness
    UU,it provides
    additional
    evidencethatGrrardNtakirutimanaattended
    a meeting in June1994at whichthe
    Bisesero
    attacks
    werediscussedandencouraged.

    719.GrrardNtakirutimana
    doesnothavea specificalibi
    foranydatein June1994.His
    general
    alibifortheperiodwasassessed in section4.3 above, wheretheChamber
    concluded
    thattheevidence
    presented
    in support
    ofthealibidoesnotmakeit reasonably
    possibly
    truethattheAccused
    wasnotpresentin Kibuye
    townor in Bisesero
    at thetimes
    alleged.

    1047T. 1 November
    2001pp.175-184;
    T,2 November
    2001p, 95-97.

    Judgement
    andSentence 205 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    .2
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    720.On the basisof theabovediscussion, theChamber findsthatWitness UU knew


    GrrardNtakirutimana
    andwasin a positionto identify
    him.TheChamber alsofindsthat
    theAccused attended
    threemeetings in Kibuyetown,heldbetween10 and18 June1994
    (approximately),
    at whichhe madestatementsabouttheneedto eliminate allTutsiand
    calledformorearmsandammunition. Thedetailsaresetoutin thediscussion above.At
    thosemeetingsGrrardNtakirutimanaalsoparticipated
    in thedistributionof weapons,
    discussed
    theplanningof attacksatBisesero,
    wasassigneda rolein suchan attack,and
    reportedbackon itssuccess.Witness UU’sevidence,
    takentogether withthewholeof
    WitnessOO’sevidence(see,in particular,
    II.3.7above)leadstheChamber to conclude
    thatGrrardNtakirutimana
    playeda prominent
    roleinsomeattacksin Bisesero duringthe
    period
    ofApril toJune1994.

    5, Alibi

    721.An important
    partof theDefence
    caseis thatthetwoAccusedhavealibiforthe
    periods
    wheretheyareallegedto havecommitted
    criminal
    offences.
    In connection
    with
    theseallegations
    theChamberdiscussed
    whethertheAccusedhadalibiforthemoming
    of16April,see3.8.3
    (e);fortheremainder
    of16April,see3.11.4;
    andfrom17April
    July1994,
    see4.3.

    6. Character
    of theAccused
    priorto April1994

    6.1 Defence

    722.Throughoutthecase,the Defenceemphasizedthatthe Accused werepersons


    of
    highmoralcharacterandreputation,
    andthattheaccusationsagainstthemaretotally
    inconsistent
    withtheirpreviouslifeandcharacter.
    Accordingto theDefence,their
    character"mustbe weighedagainst
    theinflated,erraticandfalsecharges against
    them".
    1°48Forthisreason,theChamber
    willconsider
    theevidenceon goodcharacter
    and
    itssignificance,
    ifany,inweighingtheevidence
    adduced
    by theProsecution
    against
    the
    Accused.

    723.According to theDefence,theAccusedhavedevotedtheirlivesto pastoralcare


    andmedicine.Theyhaveconsistently
    avoidedanypolitical
    affiliation
    or activity.
    When
    violencebrokeout in April1994,theAccused’s goodcharacterprevailedand their
    conductremainedconsistent.
    Theyshunned
    thefighting butalsoworked
    ferventlyto re-
    establish
    pastoralandmedicalservices
    thathadbeendestroyed
    intheviolence.Belowthe
    Chamberwillconsiderthesubmissions
    ontheAccused’scharacter
    andreputation
    priorto
    the eventsof April1994.Evidenceconcemingtheconduct of theAccusedduring the
    periodApril-July
    1994willbeexamined
    later(II.4and5).

    6.1.1Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana

    724.The Defence
    submits
    thatforfiftyyears, Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    servedthe
    Seventh
    DayAdventist
    Church
    (SDA)as a teacher,
    office
    worker,
    accountant,
    treasurer,
    1048Defence
    Closing
    Briefp.
    1.

    Judgement
    andSentence 206 21 February
    2003
    , 613
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    auditorandGospel Minister.He waselected President


    of theChurch in WestRwanda
    andSouthRwandaa totalof fourtimes.He wasknownas a moderateman,a conciliator.
    Nota singleProsecution
    witness alleged
    thathe hadeverevidenced anybiasagainst
    TutsibeforeApril1994.Of WitnessGG,whotestifiedthattheAccused hadalways been
    a "wicked"
    man,theDefencepoints outthatthewitnessprovidedno evidenceto support
    his claim.
    Leaders whoserved in theSDA in Africa
    havespoken highlyof Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    character and reputation.The Chamber heardtestimonies and was
    provided
    withwritten
    statements
    tothiseffect(see2.3).

    725.In supportof Elizaphan


    Ntakirutimana’s
    goodcharactertheDefencealsorelieson
    thetestimonyof FaustinTwagiramungu,
    PrimeMinister Designate
    in theBroadBased
    TransitionGovernmentundertheArushaAccords, whoservedas PrimeMinister from
    JulyuntilAugust1994.Reference
    is alsomadeto a sealed
    affidavit
    by DefenceWitness
    33,whodidnottestify.According
    totheDefence,thiswitness,
    whofora periodinApril
    1994managedto save manylivesin Kigali,"praisedPastorNtakirutimana’s
    character".
    1049

    6.1.2G6rardNtakirutimana

    726.The Defencesubmitsthatthe lifeof the Accusedis "anchored by three


    unshakable
    rocks";
    devotion
    to family,to religion
    andto hiscallingas a physician.
    He
    wasa brilliant
    student,
    religious,
    andhisclosefriends included
    bothHutuandTutsi.
    According
    to theDefence,
    theofficiatingminister
    at G6rardNtakirutimana’s
    weddingin
    1989wasPastorAmonIyamuremye, a Tutsi;hisbestman,Augustine Mutijima, wasa
    Tutsi;andoneof hisgroomsmen,
    Josu6Kayijaho(brotherof Assiel
    Kabera),wasalso
    Tutsi.

    727.Afterhavingobtainedhis Master’sdegreein the UnitedStates,G6rard


    Ntakirutimana
    declinedto practicehisprofessiontherebecause hisgoalin lifewasto
    practice medicinein hisowncountry. In Rwanda,he was attractedby thevision of
    integrated healthcareexpounded by Dr OscarGiordano, directorof the Mugonero
    Hospitalin Ngoma. Thus,theDefencesubmits, "Dr.G6rard decidedto go to Mugonero,
    an areawherethepopulation is mostlyTutsi,to a hospitalwherethestaffwasmostly
    Tutsi,in orderto embarkon a project
    to providepreventativeholistic
    medicineto the
    community.He didthisnotforpower, or wealth,butto careforandworkwithRwandans
    as a doctor."
    Accordingto theDefence,theaccusationsagainstG6rardNtakirutimana
    are
    totallyinconsistent
    withhislifeandcharacter.l°S°

    6.2 Prosecution

    1049Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.1-6.Thepersonshownas Witness
    33 on thelistof Defence
    witnesses
    produced
    an affidavit
    whichwassubmitted
    bytheDefence
    on23 July2002,aspartof a documents
    entitled
    "DefenceClosingBrief.Confidential
    SealedExhibits".
    TheProsecutionhadno objectionsto their
    admission,
    seeT.22August2002p. 121.According
    to theaffidavit,
    thetwoAccusedwereneverinvolved
    inpolitics
    anddidnothavetheauthorityormeans
    topreventthelossoflivesinMugoneroin April
    1994,
    seeDefenceexhibitID52(B).
    1o5oDefenceClosing
    Briefpp.
    6-12.Thequotes
    arefrompp.11-12.

    Judgement
    andSentence 207 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    728.TheProsecution
    arguesthatcharacter
    evidence
    isirrelevant
    inthiscaseandthatit
    hashad no intentionof makingthecharacter
    of accusedpersonsan issue.
    1°51The
    Prosecution
    witnesses
    testified
    to criminal
    involvement
    or participation
    by theAccused.
    Duringtheclosingarguments,theProsecution
    concededthatit hadnotbeenableto
    demonstratethatthetwoAccused hadanypoliticalaffiliationor werepolitically
    active.
    1052

    6.3 Discussion

    6.3.1Introduction

    729.Whileevidence of priorgoodcharacter is commonlytakenintoaccount at the


    sentencing
    stage,itsacknowledgmentat earlierstagesof judicialreasoning
    is rare.Ina
    decisionin thecaseof TheProsecutor v. Kupreskicet al.,theICTYTrialChamber
    stated:
    ....generallyspeaking,
    evidenceoftheaccused’s character
    prior totheeventsfor
    whichheisindictedbeforetheInternationalTribunal
    isnota relevantissue
    inasmuch
    as(a)bytheir natureascrimescommittedinthecontext ofwidespreadviolence
    and
    duringa national
    orinternationalemergency,warcrimesandcrimes against
    humanity
    maybecommittedbypersonswithnoprior convictions
    orhistory ofviolence,
    andthat
    consequently
    evidence
    ofpriorgood, orbad,conductonthepartoftheaccused before
    thearmed conflict
    began israrely of anyprobativevaluebeforetheInternational
    Tribunal,
    and(b)asa general
    principleofcriminallaw,evidence
    astothecharacter
    an accusedis generallyinadmissibleto showtheaccused’s propensityto actin
    conformity
    therewith...1053

    730.In itsjudgement
    in thesamecase,theTrialChamber,
    beforeconsideringthecase
    involving
    eachaccused,
    statedthat"dueweight"
    hadbeengivenin eachcaseto thefact
    thatalltheAccusedwereof goodcharacter
    andhadcalledevidenceto thiseffect.
    Five
    of 4
    1°5theAccused
    wereconvictedbytheTrialChamber.

    73 1. At theICTR,onejudgementcontainsan explicit
    discussion
    of thesignificance
    of
    previous goodcharacter.In Bagilishema,
    theTrialChamberquotedtheabovestatement
    in Kupreskic
    andstated:
    Thepresent Chamber
    concurswiththeabovestatement,
    particularly
    inthecontext
    of
    seriousviolationsof international
    humanitarian
    law,where
    evidenceof prior
    good
    characterisof littleorno probative
    value.
    However,
    weresuchevidence
    shown
    tobe
    to51Prosecution’s
    Sentencing
    Briefpara.
    56.
    1052T. 21 August2002pp.50-51.In itsopening
    statement,
    theProsecution
    alleged
    thatElizaphan
    Ntakiturimana
    wasa keyfigure intheopposition
    party,theMDR(T 18September
    2001p. 9).
    1053Decision
    of 17 February
    1990on Evidence
    of theGoodCharacteroftheAccusedandtheDefence
    of
    Tu Quoque(TC),in TheProsecutor v. ZoranKupreskicet al.,CaseNo. IT-95-16-T (ICTYTrial
    Chamber
    II).
    1054Kupreskic
    (TC).In para.339,previous
    goodcharacter
    wasoneofseveralfactors
    thattheTrial
    Chamber
    "keptat theforefrontof itsconsideration".
    Thiswasrecalledin paras.
    372,421and462,beforethe
    Chamberwenton to findthatfiveof thesixAccused hadcommittedcriminalacts.(IntheAppeals
    Chamber,
    threeofthefiveAccused wereacquitted
    because
    ofdefectsintheIndictments
    (seeII.3)
    andlack
    ofevidence.

    Judgement
    andSentence 208 21 February
    2003

    f
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    particularly
    probative
    to thecharges
    at hand,
    thentheburden
    willbe upontheProsecutor
    todispel
    anyresulting
    doubtsthere
    mayberegarding
    itscase.
    1055

    732. The Chamberconcurswith the above statements.Case law at the ICTR has
    illustrated
    thatpersons withno criminalrecordor whoshowedno previousanimosity
    or
    hostileattitude
    towards the Tutsipopulationbefore1994nonetheless committed
    crimes
    in RwandafromAprilto July1994. l°56But as indicatedin the two statements
    quoted
    above,this does not mean that previousgood characteris necessarilywithoutany
    significance
    whatsoever.In thepresentcase,theDefencehasstressed thattheprevious
    goodconductof the Accusedis of particular relevance.The Chamberwilltherefore
    examinetheprobative
    valueof theevidence.

    6.3.1 ElizaphanNtakirutimana

    733.Severalwitnesses testifiedaboutthegoodcharacter of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana.


    DefenceWitnessMerleMillswaspresident of theTrans-AfricaDivision of theSeventh-
    DayAdventistChurchfrom1966to 1980. l°57He testifiedthatas a corepolicy, theSDA
    "believesin and promotesthe conceptof separationof churchand state,whichmeans
    thatthechurchdoesnotinvolve itselfwithpolitics".
    1°58Thewitness describedElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    as "oneof ourmostcapable leadersamongtheAfricans".1°59 TheAccused
    occupiedseveralleadershippositionswithintheorganization of thechurch, including
    fieldpresidentandauditorin theunion. Hisre-election
    to variousleadership positions
    indicated
    a trackrecordconsistentwiththecorepoliciesof thechurch.1°6°Witness Mills
    neverreceived complaintsaboutElizaphan Ntakirutimanaviolatingchurchdoctrine on
    anti-discrimination.
    ThePastorwas"heldin highesteemanddidhisjobwell". 1°61The
    witnessalsoemphasisedthattheAccused didnotbecomeinvolved in politics duringthe
    14 yearsthewitness waspresident of theTrans-Africa
    Division.1°62WitnessMillshad
    notseenElizaphan
    l°63 NtakirutimanasinceleavingRwandain 1980.

    734. Shortlypriorto his testimony,


    WitnessMillshad askedseveralSeventh-Day
    Adventists
    whohadworkedwiththeAccusedoverthe yearsfor their"opinion
    of their

    1o55Bagilishema
    (TC)
    para.116.
    1056See,forinstance,Akayesu
    (TC),
    according
    towhich
    theAccusedwasconsidered
    a manofhighmorals
    andintegrity,
    appeared
    tohavethetrustofthelocal
    community
    andwasconsidered
    a father-figure
    ofthe
    commune
    (paras,53and55).Thesignificance
    ofprevious
    goodcharacter
    inrelation
    tothequestion
    ofguilt
    wasnotanexplicit issueintheJudgement,
    theChamberhaving
    foundthatAkayesuhadchanged
    course
    andchosetocollaborate withthegenocidalcampaign
    againstTutsi.InRuggiu (TC),theChamber
    considered
    asa mitigating
    forthepurposes
    ofsentencing,
    thattheAccused
    hadnopreviouscriminal
    record
    andthat,until hecommitted
    theactstowhichhepleadedguilty,
    "hadalways
    conductedhimself
    asan
    honest
    andrespectablecitizen"
    (paras.
    59-60).
    Italsoaccepted
    that"theaccused
    wasa person
    ofgood
    character
    imbuedwith
    idealsbefore
    hebecameinvolved
    intheeventsinRwanda"
    (para.67).
    t057T.15April2002pp.150-152.
    1058
    Id.p.158
    1059
    Id.p.170.
    1060
    Id.pp.170-171.
    1061
    Id.p.174.
    1062
    Id.p.177.
    lo63
    Id.p.229.

    Judgement
    andSentence 209 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T& ICTR-96-17-T

    relationship
    toPastor
    Ntakirutimana,
    ifhe still
    heldtruetotheprinciples
    ofthechurch
    anditspolicies".
    1°641°65
    Sixsuchstatements
    werereceived
    by theChamber.

    735.The firststatement is fromPastorRobertG. Peck,who was RwandaUnion


    MissionPresidentfrom 1984 to 1990.When he arrivedin Kigali,Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wasdoingauditing workfortheRwandan UnionMission.Whenhe found
    irregularities,
    heshowedcourageirrespective
    oftheworkers
    ethnicalaffiliation
    (Humor
    Tutsi).
    Because
    of hisadherenceto principle,
    he wasappointed
    to thepostof mission
    President
    at Mugonero.
    He was"truthful,honest,
    fair,andreliable".Hischaracter
    was
    "impeccable
    andabovereproach". To Mr.Peck’sknowledge,
    theAccused continued
    as a
    trusted
    workerforyearsafterhisdepartureinDecember
    of1990.1°66

    736.Mr.DeWitt S. Williamswaspresidentof theCentralAfricanUnionfrom1979to


    1982,whenhe livedin Burundi withresponsibilityfor thatcountryand Rwanda.
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanawasthenpresidentof theNorthRwanda
    Field.According
    to the
    statementof Mr. Williams, ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    was "alwaysa kindChristian
    gentleman"who worked wellwiththeHum andtheTutsi.Mr.Williams neversaw him
    makeany distinction betweenthem,or heardanyonespeakabouthimdiscriminating
    against
    another person. TheAccusedwasnominatedseveraltimesforhisposition as
    president.He was a "loyalChristian,faithfulchurchmember,
    and kindfather and
    1°67
    husband".

    737.Mr. Don H. Thomas,who becameacquainted with Elizaphan Ntakirutimana


    around 1958,wrotethatovertheyearstheAccused built"a reputationof honesty,
    fairness anddedication to hiswork".WhenMr.Thomas workedin Rwandain 1960he
    observedthat,in a timeofpolitical andsocial strifewhen"themajorityHutubeganto
    discriminateagainstanyone suspected of beingTutsi", theAccusedremainedalooffrom
    thisunrest andtheensuing violence. Duringtheperiod 1990-1993,whenMr.Thomas
    was treasurer of the African-Indian OceanDivision. On a numberof occasions he
    observedtheAccused participatingas a fieldpresidentat executive
    meetingsin Kigali.
    He neverperceived anything whichwouldindicate thatElizaphan Ntakirutimanawas
    involvedin thepolitics of thetime.TheDivision hadto dealwitha number of serious
    issuesinvolvingdiscrimination
    andevenkilling ofTutsi students
    at itsuniversity
    college
    in Bugoyi,but"never oncedidthenameof Ntakirutimana surfaceas havingbeenparty
    to,or sympathetictowards, theviolence metedoutby Hutumobsandthemilitia against
    defenselessTutsis". According to thestatement, ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    "served His
    Lordfaithfully all hisworking life,lovinghis fellowmen regardless of their
    I°68
    ethnicity".

    738.Mr.BurtonWendell
    wasauditor
    of theRwanda-Burundi
    Mission
    forelevenyears
    andhadcontact
    withtheAccused
    manytimes,
    in particular
    during
    Unioncommittees
    and

    1064Id.pp.179-180.
    106sDefenceexhibit
    1 D21(1)-(6).
    t066Defenceexhibit
    1D21(1),
    1o67Defence
    exhibit
    1 D21(2).
    lo68Defenceexhibit
    1D21(3).

    Judgement
    andSentence 210 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo, ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    theannualFieldyear-end
    committees.
    Accordingto Mr.Wendell’sstatement,
    he never
    hearda wordfromthenational
    1°69 workerscomplaining
    aboutany"Hutu-Tutsibias".
    Witness
    Millsrecalled
    Mr.Wendell
    statingorally
    to himthathe marveled
    howElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    1°7° gotalong
    withtheethnic
    groups.

    739.Mr.HarveyL. Sauder, whofirstmetElizaphan Ntakirutimana


    in August
    1973,
    andworkedwithhimseveral weekseachyearforfiveyearsthereafter,
    wrotethat"I
    neveroncefoundhimto be guiltyof anyethnic
    biastowardhisfellow
    workers
    andtheir
    congregations".
    In thehundredsof hourstheytraveled
    together
    theAccused
    "neveronce
    alliedhimselfto anypoliticalpartyor ethnicgroupbutalways
    considered
    himself
    a
    servantof Godandhischurch". Mr.Sauder consideredElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    oneof
    themostoutstanding
    pastors
    in theRwandafield.
    1071

    740.TheChamber was alsoprovided witha letterfromPastorBarryBurtonto Ms


    JanetReno,United StatesAttorneyGeneral,writtenon 30 September
    1999,beforethe
    Accusedwastransferredto theICTR.In the1950sand60s,Mr.Burton wasa missionary
    andan internal auditorof theSDAin Rwandaandbecame rather
    wellacquainted
    with
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana.
    In theletter,Mr.Burtonwrotethat"[h]avingobserved
    this
    maninaction inthepastandrealizing
    historically
    thathe hasnever
    during
    thepastforty
    or so yearstakensidesin theconstant upheavals
    in thatunfortunate
    country,
    it is
    impossibleforme to entertainunderanycircumstancesthethoughtthathe mightbe
    guiltyofthechargesthathavebeenbroughtagainst
    ’’1°72
    him.

    741.Apartfrom WitnessMills,otherDefencewitnessesspokefavourably of
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s priorcharacter.Accordingto Witness23,"politicswas
    somethingwhichwas taboo"to him.1°73The Accusedappointed to churchposts
    individuals
    belongingto bothethnicgroups.
    1°74Witness
    7 testifiedthattheAccused
    was
    nota memberor supporter
    of anypolitical
    party.
    ~°75He "wasa respectedman,firstly,
    because
    ~°76 he was a memberof the clergy.Secondly,he was an elderlyperson".
    According
    to Witness4, bothAccused"hadverygoodrelationswiththe[ir]neighbours.
    Theywerepeoplewho wereverydevoted in theirworkand theywereveryproper,
    upright
    ineverything
    they’’1077
    did.

    742.SeveralProsecution
    witnesses,
    allTutsi,alsogavea positive
    account
    of the
    Accused
    priorto April1994.Witness
    QQ testified
    thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    was"a
    respected
    man".
    1°78In Witness
    MM’sview,"everybody
    hadgreatrespect"
    forElizaphan

    1069Defence exhibit1D21(4).WitnessMillscouldnotrecallwhenMr.Wendell
    wastheauditor
    of the
    Rwanda-Burundi
    UnionMission (T.15 April2002pp.198-200).
    lO7OT.15April 2002pp.184-185.
    1o71Defenceexhibit1D21(5).
    1o72Defenceexhibit1D21(6).
    io73T.22April 2002p,101.
    lO74
    Id.p.103.
    to75T.12February 2002p.87.
    lO76Id.pp.88-89.
    1o77T.7 February2002pp.14-15.
    1o7sT.18October 2001p.49.

    Judgement
    andSentence 211 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    Ntakirutimana
    priorto thealleged
    events.1o79WitnessXX agreedthattheAccusedwasa
    "veryrespectedperson". 1°8° WitnessFF confirmedthat her and Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    families
    hadbeenveryclose,andthatthefamilies"trustedandrespected
    eachotherandwerefriends".
    1°81Shealsoconfirmed
    thatIssacarKajongi,
    a Tutsirelative
    of thewitness,wasa particularly
    closefriendof Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanabefore
    the
    war.1°82WitnessHH testified
    thathe didnotknowof anyconflict between Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    l°83 or G6rardNtakirutimana
    andTutsipeoplepriorto April1994.

    743.Witness II saidthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana"wasourpastor, andhe taught me


    religion...I knewhimsinceI gotto theageof reason ...besides, he is theonewho
    baptized
    me.’’1°s4(Thewitnesswas34years’ oldatthetimeofhisbaptism in 1986.1°85)
    He alsostatedthatthePastor was"someonein whomwe hadplaceda greatdealof hope.
    We hadthoughtthathe wasgoingto protect us.He hadeducatedus,brought us up as a
    parentandhe taughtus in hischurch." Butat thesametimethewitness saidthatthe
    Pastorwassomeone who"participated in allthemajormeetings andwouldevenmeet
    withthepresident".
    1°86Thiscould beinterpreted
    asanindication
    ofpoliticalactivity. In
    laterquestioning,
    however,it transpired
    thattheremarkaboutthepresident waswithout
    foundation.
    1°s7IntheChamber’s view,andin viewof theircontext,theremarks of the
    witnessmustbe interpretedas a wayof expressing
    thattheAccused wasan influential
    personality.

    744.WitnessGG agreed thatpriorto the deathof President


    Habyarimana,
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wasa respected
    man.Buthe alsotestified,
    without
    giving
    reasons,
    thatthe
    Accused"wasa wickedman.He had beena wickedman for a longtime". 1°88When
    askedabout
    thebasisforthisstatement,he madean allegation
    against
    theAccusedwhich
    related
    toApril1994.
    l°89Thetestimony
    wasnotclear,andtheallegation
    isnotpartofthe
    Prosecution’s
    case.TheChamberalsonotesthataccordingtothestatement
    ofthewitness
    to investigators
    on 30 June1996hisviewwasthatthepeople trusted
    theAccused.
    Consequently,
    theChamber disregards
    thispartof WitnessGG’stestimony.

    745.Finally,theChamber
    hasnotedtheletter
    dated15 April1994,addressed
    to the
    Accused
    by theTutsipastors
    whohadtaken
    refuge
    at theComplex
    (see3.8.3forthefull
    text).
    1°9°Itiswritten
    ina tone
    ofgreat
    respect.
    Apparently,
    itsauthors
    believed
    that,
    even
    inthoseverytenseanddangerous
    times,
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wouldintervene
    to the

    1079T. 19September
    2001p. 124.
    lO8OT.22October2001p.27.
    lo81T.1 October
    2001pp.79-80.
    1o82
    Id.p.80.
    1o83T.26September2001p.76.
    los4T.22October2001p.107.
    ~o85T.25October2001pp.25-26.
    ~o86T.22October 2001pp.130-131.
    1o87T.25.October2001pp.32-35.
    to88T.24September2001p.160.
    lo89Id.pp.157-162.(Duringcross-examination,
    thewitness
    alleged
    thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    senthis
    olderbrother’s
    sontokilla certain
    IsaacNbarubukeye.
    Nofurther
    details
    wereprovided.)
    lo9oProsecution
    exhibit
    P2,AppendixA5;T. 18September
    2001pp.96-98.

    Judgement
    andSentence 212 21 February
    2003

    ///~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    extenthe couldto savethem.The letterwas preserved


    by the Accused,
    who handeda
    copyofittoa journalist
    years
    later.

    746. On the basisof the availableevidence,the Chamberacceptsthat untilthe


    outbreakof theevents in April1994,ElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    then70 yearsof age,was
    considereda trustedandrespected religious
    leader.Thereis evidence
    thatpriorto that
    time he did not show any ethnicbias, even in periodsof Hutu-Tutsiconflict.
    Furthermore,and as conceded by the Prosecutor,
    no evidencehasbeenled thathe was
    everengaged
    1°91 inpoliticsor hadanypolitical
    affiliation.

    747.The Defencestressed thatElizaphan Ntakirutimana,beinga prominent memberof


    the Seventh-Day
    AdventistChurch,couldnothaveactedas alleged by theProsecution.
    The Chambernotes,however, that it followsfromestimates led by the Defencethat
    thousandsof Churchmembersparticipated in the killings.
    Therefore,evenreligious,
    devout
    a°92 followers,
    maychangein criticaltimes,

    6.3.3 G6rard Ntakirutimana

    748. ProsecutionWitness PP testified about the good character of G6rard


    Ntakirutimana.The witness,a Tutsi,regularlyvisitedthe MugoneroHospitalfor
    treatment,
    at whichtimeshe wouldseeG6rardNtakirutimana.
    1°93The witnessspecified
    thatbothhe and hisfamilyweretreatedby the Accusedon a numberof occasions.The
    Accusedwouldalwaystreathimandhisfamilywithcare,concern, andrespect:"I think
    thatgenerallythatis theresponsibility andhe didthat....If you
    of everyphysician,
    decide
    ’’1°94
    to go andseehim,it isbecause
    youhavetrustinhim.

    749. SeveralDefencewitnessesspokehighlyof G6rardNtakirutimana. Witness11


    studied medicinewiththeAccusedat theUniversityof Butare.
    1°95"Hewassomeone full
    of integrity,
    andhe is amongthecategoryof persons
    thatwerereferred to as ’thegents’
    of the university.Evenduringhisstudiesandafterhe becamea doctor,he didn’tdo
    anythingthatwouldtarnish hisimage.
    ’’1°96G6rardNtakirutimana
    taught at theUniversity
    of ButarewhileWitness23 was in attendance.1°97Accordingto the witness, he was a
    lecturer thatmanystudents respected
    andadmired.1°98Witness7 testified thatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana was not affiliated
    with any political partyand was not involvedin
    politics.
    1°99He saidof theAccusedthat"I wouldn’t
    considerhimas a manwithauthority

    109~InChargeSheet No.3,a publication


    of1 February
    2000whichwasproduced
    byAfricanRights
    in
    connection
    withthesurrenderofElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    fromtheUnitedStates
    totheTribunal,
    one
    person
    interviewed
    bytheorganization
    saidthat
    thePastorwasa politician,
    used
    toparticipate
    inMDR
    meetings
    andreceivedvisits
    frompoliticians.
    Another
    personsaidthatheneverwenttoanypolitical
    rallies,
    butreceivedMDRpropagandists
    (p.4;Exhibit
    P 29,1 .D5).
    Nosuch
    evidence
    wasledattrial.
    1092
    T.15April 2002pp.210-211.
    lO93
    T.5 October
    2001p.59.
    mo94
    T.8 October2001pp.47-48.
    to95
    T.26April2002p.23.
    lo96
    Id.
    p.61.
    iogv
    T.22April2002 pp.25and29.
    io98
    Id.
    p.31.
    ~o99T.12February2002pp.92-93
    and197-198.

    Judgement
    andSentence 213 21February
    2003

    ~
    .2,(,O6
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    within
    thecommunity
    because
    ...he hadbeenthere
    forlessthana year.
    ,,::°°
    Thewitness
    saidhehadneverheard
    la°l GdrardNtakirutimana
    express
    anyanimosity
    towards
    Tutsi.

    750.TheChamber acceptsthatGdrardNtakirutimana
    wasa personof goodcharacter
    prior
    to theevents inquestion.
    [Ithasattached
    dueweight
    tothisfactorwhenassessing
    theevidencein support
    of theallegations
    against
    him.]TheChamberhasalsonotedthe
    evidenceby theDefencethattheAccusedhadcloseTutsifriendsanddecidednotto
    remainin the UnitedStatesbut to go hometo Rwandaand practicemedicine in
    Mugonero.

    7. WasThereA Political
    Campaign
    to Falsely
    Incriminate
    theAccused?

    7.1 Defence

    751. The Defenceclaimsthatthe two Accusedare victimsof an "organized


    propaganda
    effort"
    thattookrootin Rwandainlate1994,seeking
    to falsely
    incriminate
    theAccusedforpolitical
    gain.WitnessesGG andFF,amongothers,
    wereagentsof that
    campaign,whichwas conceived and directed by personscloseto the new,RPF-
    ::02
    controlled
    government.

    752.TheDefencerelies,firstly, on Witness
    9, whotestifiedthatoneAssiel Kabera,
    a
    politician
    whobecame Prefectof Kibuye underthenewgovernment, togetherwithhis
    brother
    JosueKayijaho, wasinstrumental in establishing
    thesurvivors’organization
    IBUKA.According to the Defence,Witness 9 remainedin Rwandafor several months
    afterJuly1994.BetweenNovember I994and March1995,the witnesspersonally
    observed
    thatAssiel Kabera,WitnessesGG andFF,andothers participated
    in "political
    meetings"
    to secureindictmentsagainst theAccused.Thewitness alsosawa manbeing
    beaten
    becausehe refusedto makefalseaccusations
    againstGdrardNtakirutimana.::°3

    753.TheDefence relies,inaddition,onthetestimonyof Witness31 that,


    in late1994,
    AssielKabera providedtheMinisterof Justice
    in Kigali
    witha listof people fromhis
    regionto be accusedofgenocide,"butwithoutanydocumentation
    tosupport theclaim".
    Otherofficialsalsosupplied
    suchlists totheMinister,
    butneverwasa listsupportedby
    anydocumentation. Thefinallist,typedby Witness31,wasusedby theMinister at a
    press
    conference intheNetherlands
    forthepurposeofsolicitinginternational
    support
    for
    Rwanda’seffort to pursuethoseit claimed hadcommittedgenocide.WhileWitness 31
    didnotclaim thattheAccused’snameswereon thefinallist,orevenonKabera’s earlier
    list,theDefence contends
    thatthisevidence
    provesthatthelists"werea purely
    political
    meansof attackingenemies
    oftheRPF". 1:04

    :1ooT.12February
    2002pp.90-91.
    11ol
    Id.p.94.
    11o2See,generally,
    Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.33-44;
    andT. 22August
    2002pp.1-118.
    1:03Id.pp.180-181;
    T.22August
    2002pp.22-23.
    1t04Defence
    Closing
    Briefp.
    34.

    Judgement
    andSentence 214 21 February
    2003
    zbos
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    754.TheDefence relies,thirdly,on a film(exhibit1D41A)narrated by Assiel


    Kabera.
    Itsubmitsthatthefilmwasmade"probably" inApril1995at thetimeofthereburial of
    bodiesat Mugonero Complex.
    Thiseventwas described by Witness QQ, whotestified
    thatit was filmed.11°sThe filmopensinside theESI Chapel at Mugonero,andthe
    narrator,
    AssielKabera,declaresthatpeople whohadgathered at theChapelwerekilled
    in thepresence"ofthepresident of theField,Ntakirutimana"(exhibit1D41B).
    Moments
    laterthe narrator mentionsthenameof Witness FF,who appears andspeaksto the
    camera.WitnessMM alsoappears andspeaks. (A translationof whattheysaidwasnot
    tended;theDefence relied
    onlyon thenarrator’s wordsin thefirst70 secoJadsof the
    film.)Whilereferenceismadein theopening of thefilmto ElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    no
    mentionis madein thefilmto G6rard Ntakirutimana.
    YettheDefence concludes
    thatthe
    filmis politicalpropaganda,
    unsupported byevidence,intendedtodefame andsecurethe
    prosecution
    of thetwoAccused.:106

    755.Fourthly, the Defence


    citesa publication (exhibitP29)by the humanrights
    organization
    African Rights,
    dated1 February2000andentitled "ChargeSheetNo.3:
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana".
    TheDefencestatesthat"[t]hepamphlet
    is a crudeattempt
    to
    smearPastorNtakirutimanaand Dr.Gerardwithfalseinflammatory propaganda.
    The
    entiremagazinereekswithpropagandaagainsttheaccused.
    ’’11°7TheDefencedoesnot
    provideexamplesof thealleged
    "propaganda",
    although
    it doespointoutthata number
    of Prosecution
    witnesses
    wereinterviewed
    by African
    Rights,andreferstoexcerptsfrom
    thepublicationin whichallegationsare madeagainstElizaphanNtakirutimana.
    The
    Defencefindsit significant
    thata numberof Prosecution
    witnesses
    wereinterviewed
    by
    AfricanRightsaroundthe sametimeas theywereinterviewed by Prosecution
    investigators.
    TheDefencesubmitsthatAfrican Rights
    "workedcloselywithIBUKAand
    theRPFandwaspartof thecampaign
    11°8 to securetheconvictions"
    of thetwoAccused.

    756.TheDefence furtherarguesthatProsecution witnesses werecoached to lie.For


    example,theDefence submitsthatalleged inconsistenciesin theevidence of Witness
    DD
    "clearlyshowthathe wasunderpressure by someone to makeclaims thatwerenottrue"
    as partof a "politically
    motivatedeffort".1:°9 "Prejudice"by certainotherwitnesses
    establishesthattheywerepartof thecampaign. "Whywouldit be otherwise?",asksthe
    Defence.11:°Elsewhere, however, the Defenceseessignsof a campaign, not in
    inconsistencies,butinthe"uniformity"of evidence and"tactics" of certainwitnesses:
    "Therelationship amongthesewitnesses [YY,UU, DD,VV,KK, II,SS, andXX],the
    strikingsimilaritiesin theirstatementsandtheirtactics, discloseda concerted
    and
    directed
    political effort
    toconvict[theAccused]withwildly concoctedstories.
    ’’1111Asan
    illustrationofthereasoning behindthisproposition,theDefence claimsthat"[Witness]
    YY couldonlybe a public authoritywiththeapproval of theRPF,if notby itsactual
    appointment. He probably
    served in theRPA.He obviously headed a groupof witnesses
    ::o5However,
    Witness
    9 datedthefilmto"after
    July"
    1995:
    T.29April2002pp.162-163.
    ::o6Defence
    Closing
    Briefpp.36-37.
    1107
    Id.p.40.
    :108
    Id.p.42.
    1109
    Id.p.138.
    ::ioDefence
    Closing
    Briefp.36.
    :::l
    Id.p.44.

    Judgement
    andSentence 215 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    intended to convict[thetwo Accused]


    by falsetestimony,
    severalof whom,including
    YY,1
    ’’11
    UU2 andKK appearto havebeensoldiers.

    7.2 Prosecution

    757.WhiletheProsecution
    doesnotdirectly or systematically
    refutethispropaganda
    argument
    advanced
    by theDefence,
    it is clearthattheProsecution
    seesno meritin it.For
    example,
    theProsecution
    statedin closingarguments:

    The Defencewouldhaveyou believethatmany of the Prosecution witnesses are


    propaganda
    toolsof theRwandangovernment
    or havebeenputup to provide
    testimonyby
    pressuregroups
    andNGOssuchas AvegaandIbuka. Well,I submitto YourHonoursthat
    ifthatisindeed
    thecase,youwillbeamazed
    atthesortofevidence
    thatpeoplethatfitsuch
    a description
    havegivenbefore thisCourtaboutthesetwoaccused persons.Onesuch
    evidence
    is testifying
    thatallthesoldiers
    haddoneon theevening ofthe16thwaswalk
    arounddeadbodies.
    We submit
    to YourHonours
    thatissimplynotthesortof ~ccount that
    witnesses
    whoareallouttoimplicateaccused
    persons
    giveincriminaltrials.
    Thisiswhat
    theysaw,andtheysimply testified
    to whattheysaw.Oneof suchwitnessesis Witness
    MM.He’shighly
    criticised
    by theDefence
    forbeinga propaganda
    tool. Well,
    allhesaysis
    thathesawG6rard
    1113 looking
    arounddeadbodies.

    7.3 Discussion

    758. In the Chamber’sopinion,the Defenceargumentof an organisedpropaganda


    effortdirected againstthe Accusedcouldsucceedonlyif the Defencewere ableto
    demonstratethatit is reasonably
    possibly
    truethattheProsecution’switnesses,
    whether
    as leadersor as personscoerced,
    wereparticipants
    in a campaign
    to falsely
    incriminate
    theAccused, forwhatever reasons.

    759. The Chamberobserves,however,thatsuch demonstration cannotproceedsimply


    fromevidence thattherewerepersonsin Rwandawhomadecriminal allegationsagainst
    theAccused or whosought
    outpotentialwitnesses
    to consolidate
    evidencein establishing
    an organisedpropaganda
    programdirected
    againsttheAccused,or to initiateprosecution
    againstthe Accused.For the Defenceto succeed,it mustproducereliableevidence
    tendingto showthattherewas,first,a campaign
    of deceitagainsttheAccused,intended
    to ascribeto themcrimeswhichtheydid not commitand, second,thatthat campaign
    influencedthecasemountedby theProsecutor.

    760.Addressing
    firstthe testimony
    of Witness9, the Chamberwillconsider
    whether
    theDefence
    submissions
    meetthistwo-foldtest.

    761.Witness9 testified
    thatin early1994he wasa student
    at theESINursing
    School
    in Mugonero
    wherehe beganteachingin September1994.1114
    At thattime,WitnessQQ

    ll12Id.
    p.44.
    ~113T.21August
    2002
    p.77.
    llt4T.29April
    2002
    pp.9-10
    and49-50.

    Judgement
    andSentence 216 21February
    2003
    :Zg 3
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    wasthedirectorof theschool.
    1115Witness 9 remained
    in histeachingpostuntilMarch
    1995butalsoengagedin trade.
    1116He testifiedthathe sawthePrefectof Kibuye,
    Assiel
    Kabera,four timesbetweenNovember1994 and March1995.1117On theseoccasions,
    Kabera held meetingswith WitnessesFF and GG, among others, at the Ngoma
    CommercialCentre.
    1118 Witness9 saw peoplegatherfor the meetings,
    but he did not
    personally
    attend
    anymeeting.He testified
    as follows:

    A.Yes,I wasdisturbed
    about
    theholdingofthesemeetings.
    Q. Anddidyoucometolearnwhatit wastheyweretalking
    about
    andplanning
    to do?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Canyoutelluswhatthatwas?
    A. Theyhadplanned
    thearrestof people
    theydidnotlike,people
    the[y]
    werenothappy
    withwithin
    thatregion.
    Q. Andhowdidyou-you sawthemeetings, buthowdidyoucometo learnwhatthey-
    whattheywereabout?
    A. After
    drinking,
    somepeople
    cameandthreatened
    usandtoldusabout
    their
    plan.
    Q. Whatpeoplecameandthreatened youaftertheyweredrinking,
    andwhatdidthey
    1119
    say?

    [Atthispoint
    it transpired
    thatonlyoneperson
    cameto threaten
    Witness
    9. Thisperson
    wasneither
    WitnessFF norWitnessGG.]

    Q.Canyoutellus whathedid;whathisworkor positionwas;whohewas?


    A.He wasa farmer,
    a breeder.
    Q. Andwashe-approximatelyhowolddo youthinkhe was?
    A. Over30.
    Q. Washe a well-knownperson?
    A. No.
    Q. AndI believeyouhavesaidhe hadbeendrinking.Do youknowwhereandwhathe had
    beendrinking?
    A. Yes.
    Q.Pleasetellus.
    A. Hewasdrinkinga localbeercalled
    urwagwa...
    Q. Andwhatdidthisperson whois thesecondnameunderNo.2 [ofexhibit1D37]sayto
    youon thatoccasion?
    A.He saidthatwehadto givehimmoney to goandbuybeer,andthatif wedidnotdo so,
    he woulddowhathehaddoneto othersto us,andhecitedthenameoftheoldman,Pastor
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana.
    ..°

    A. I didnotunderstand
    whathe meantverywellbecause
    I hadnotheardanything
    about
    thepastor
    a12° ontheradio
    orreadanything
    forthatmatter,

    1115
    Id.
    p.53.
    II16
    Id.pp.
    53-54.
    1117
    Id.pp.
    59-62.
    1118
    Id.pp.56,63-81;
    andexhibit
    1D37.
    1519
    T.29April2002p.83,emphasis
    added.
    ~12o
    Id.pp.86-88;
    T.29April
    2002
    p.68.

    Judgement
    andSentence 217 21February
    2003
    260
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    762.Witness9 was thenaskedif he knewwhatwas discussed at the meetings.He


    replied:
    "I’min no positionto knowwhatwasdiscussed
    duringthosefourmeetingsfor
    thesimple
    reasonthatI didnotattend anyofthem.
    ’’1121
    Counsel
    fortheDefencerepeated
    thequestion,
    andthewitness thensaid:"Itoldyouthattheideawastoarrestpeople
    they
    were2
    ’’112
    nothappy
    with, andthatindeedhappened,
    at least
    fora number
    ofthem.

    763.In additiontothefourclosed meetings,Witness9 testified


    abouta public
    meeting
    he attendedin March1995.WitnessFF waspresent.1123Certain
    peoplefromKigali
    also
    participated.
    1124Threenameswerediscussed at themeeting:PierreRudasimbukanwa,
    G6rardMuhayimana,andoneSamuel. It appears,fromthewitness’stestimony,
    thatthe
    purposeof themeeting wasto submit
    accusations againstindividuals
    whohadcommitted
    crimesin 1994,andto compile "lists"of suchpersons.1125Somewerethenarrested:
    "WhatI’msaying inregardto thismatteris thatit wasnecessary
    andthatthese
    persons
    shouldbeaccused sothattheguiltor otherwise
    could beestablished.
    Inotherinstances,
    someof thesepersons whowereblaming thepersonwhohas beenaccused, afterthe
    accusation,
    ’’1126 thepersonwastransferred
    fromNgoma prisonto Kibuye
    prison.

    764.Finally, Witness9 referred


    to oneEdison Munyamulindawhohadbeenassaulted
    in September1994.1127
    "Hesaidthat[thebeating] wasbecausehe hadnotaccepted that
    hisnamebe on thelistof persons whowereto accuse otherpersons.,,1128
    Witness 9
    alleged thatMunyamulinda
    hadbeenaskedto accuseG6rardNtakirutimana,
    buthe stated
    thathe didnotknowwhohadsolicited theaccusation.1129Witness
    9, whenaskedagain
    about thisincident
    on theseconddayoftestimony,
    offereda different
    explanation
    of the
    assault on Munyamulinda:
    "Now,comingto details, thefactthathe wasbeaten up in
    public,thatwasnottoldtome because
    I myselfwaspresentatthespot. Now,as forwhat
    he toldme regarding
    thereason forhisbeating,he toldmethatbecausetheperson whom
    he hadwrongedhadpardonedhiminpublic,butlateron he wasbeaten
    upin public using
    the3°
    ’’11samepretext.

    765.Forthepurposes
    of thissectiononly,theChamber
    willsuppose thatWitness
    9 is
    credible
    andthathisevidenceis reliable.
    Yet,evenon thebasisof thisassumption,
    Witness
    9’sevidence,
    consideredin isolation,
    doesnottendto showthattherewasa
    campaign
    of deceit
    againsttheAccused and,ipsofacto,it doesnotshowthatsucha
    campaign
    influenced
    thecasemounted by theProsecutor.

    766.Witness
    9 asserted
    thattheobjective
    of thefourmeetings
    attended
    by Kabera
    and
    Witnesses
    FF andGG wasto plan"thearrest
    of people
    theydidnotlike,peoplethe[y]

    112lT.29April
    2002p.95.
    1122
    Id.p.96.
    1123
    Id.p.111.
    1124
    Id.pp.101-102.
    ~125Id.pp.108-110,
    112-113.
    1126
    Id.p.114.
    1127
    Id.p.119.
    1t28
    Id.p.118.
    1129
    Id.p.118.
    113oT.30April2002p.69.

    Judgement
    andSentence 218 21 February
    2003
    ff,6ot
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    werenothappywithwithin thatregion".Yet,thisallegedpurposeof themeeting would


    seemto exclude the two Accused,who had leftthe country in July1994.Evenif
    ElizaphanNtakirutimanawerea target, thereis verylittleto suggesta campaign of
    deceit.Theonlyevidence suggestinga possible
    falseaccusationagainstG6rard is the
    reported
    threat utteredby themanseekingtoobtainbeer(whoprior to thisincidenthad
    spentaboutthirtyminutes
    drinkingatthebar,accordingtothewitness
    1131),namely
    thatif
    Witness9 didnotgivehimmoneyto buybeer,"hewoulddo whathe haddoneto others
    to us",as he haddoneto Elizaphan Ntakirutimana.
    Thisreportedremarksuggests that
    accusationsleveledagainst theAccusedat themeeting(supposingtheyhadbeen)were
    groundless.A vaguesuggestionof falseaccusation
    doesnot,in theChamber’s opinion,
    amountto a reasonable probability thatthe Accusedwas a victimof a propaganda
    campaign.

    767.The assault on Munyamulindaoccurred, accordingto the witness,in September


    1994,andtherefore is notconnected, fromthewitness’s ownaccount,withthefour
    Kaberameetings,thefirstof whichwasheldin November 1994.Indeed,no connection
    hasbeenasserted betweenMunyamulinda andWitnesses FF andGG,whoarereported to
    haveattendedtheKaberameetings. Munyamulinda wasnot a Prosecutionwitness.He
    may havebeenpressured to accuseG6rardNtakirutimana (Witness9 did not say
    "falsely"accuse). Yet,the accusation by one individualdoesnot demonstrate
    reasonable
    possibility
    thattherewasa campaign againsttheAccused
    -- thatis,morethan
    an isolatedact of coercion.In any case,thedecisive considerationis thatthe
    Munyamulinda
    incident reveals
    no connection withtheProsecution’scase,leaving the
    second
    armofthetestunfulfilled.

    768.As a finalword,theChamber seesnothing remarkable


    in the suggestionthat,
    shortly
    aftertheeventsof 1994,meetings
    wereconvenedbyauthoritiesat which
    listsof
    suspectsweredrawnup withthe helpof ordinary citizens.
    Assuming Witness9’s
    evidence
    is true,
    theChamberis notinclined
    to find,
    onthisbasis,thatthere mayhave
    beena campaign
    of deceitagainstthetwoAccused whichinfluenced
    theProsecution’s
    case.

    769.The Chamber willnow considerthe evidence of Witness 31. Accordingto her


    testimony,
    thewitnessfirstjoined
    theRwandanMinistryof Justicein 1991.1132
    Sometime
    after19July1994,shehelda position
    closeto theMinisterof Justice.
    1133Oneday,she
    metwithAssielKabera,thePrefect
    of Kibuye,whowasvisiting theMinister.1134Kabera
    handedhera filewitha listofnameswhichsheglancedat briefly:"WhenI openedit,I
    sawthetitle’Listsofg6nocidaire[s]’.
    ’’1135Laterthatday,theMinistergaveWitness31a
    largerfile,containing
    thepapers
    fromKabera,amongstothers,andasked hertotypethe
    listofnames.
    1136Thewitness
    testified
    that,whentypingthelist, shecouldnotdistinguish
    whichpaperswereKabera’s.
    They"allhadalmost thesametitle, witha fewdifferences:
    ll31T.30April2002p.67.
    1132T.15April2002p.48.
    ll33Id.pp.68-69,
    71.
    1134Id.pp.73-77,
    80.
    1135Id.pp.81-82.
    1136Id.pp.82-83.

    Judgement
    andSentence 219 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    ’Listsof g6nocidaire[s]’,
    or ’Listsof peoplewho wereinvolved
    in genocide’,
    ’who
    killed’,
    ’whoraped’,
    ’wholooted’,
    ’thosewhoatecows’.’1137

    770. The informationfrom the list about each individualwas limitedto basic
    identificationdetails."Hehadaskedme to adda lastcolumn wherethecharges wouldbe
    placed....I didnotknowwhatcharge to puttherebecause
    thereweredifferent
    titles,so I
    turnedaroundandaskedhimthequestion. He reflectedfora while,andhe saidto me,
    ’It’strue,it’sodd.We should notdo thatbecausethatis theprosecutor’s
    job.’Thenhe
    toldme, ’Remove thatlastcolumnandput onetitle,A listof allegedg6nocidaires’,
    whichis whatI did.’’1138Witness31 furthertestified thatthelistwhichshetyped
    consistedof names she recognised: "formerauthorities, ministers,membersof
    parliament,secretaries-general,peoplewhoareknownfortheirdutiesin theministry,
    formerpr6fets,soldiers,formersoldiers".
    1139Shedidnotclaimto havenoticed thenames
    of thetwoAccused. Shefaxedthelistto theMinister who,in themeantime,hadtravelled
    to theNetherlandsto raisefundsforthejudicial infrastructure
    andto seekinternational
    cooperationin thearrest of personswhosenamesappearedon thelist.114°At theendof
    her testimony, Witness31 was askedif she knew whetherKaberahad been dismissed
    fromhisposition as prefectfollowingaccusations
    thathe hadfalselyimprisonedcitizens
    of Kibuyeprefecture. She answered,simply,thatshe didnotknow.1141Thewitnessdid
    notclaimor evensuggest thatKabera or anyone
    elsehadfalsely accused
    a listedperson.

    771.The Chamberobserves that the Defencecontention,that the evidence presented


    by Witness31 provestheliststo be "a purely
    politicalmeansof attacking
    enemies of the
    RPF",is completelyunfounded.Thereis no indicationthatthelistfromAssielKabera
    was theproductof a campaign of falseincrimination;thereis no evidenceconnecting
    Kabera’slistto thetwoAccused;andthereis no evidencethatthecompilationof listsby
    the RwandanMinister of Justicein late1994,as describedby Witness31, hassomehow
    taintedsubsequentinvestigations
    by theProsecutor
    of theTribunal.Therefore,thesecond
    argumentof theDefencealsofailsto raisedoubt.

    772.The thirdargument raisedby the Defenceconcerns the filmof whichthe opening


    sequenceis apparently
    narratedby AssielKabera.
    Thenarrator is heardto say,according
    to a translationprovidedby theDefence,thatpersonsgathered at theESIChapelwere
    killedin thepresence of ElizaphanNtakirutimana.
    Thecamerathenpansto Witness FF,
    who appearsto givean interviewin Kinyarwanda.
    No translationof thewitness’swords
    was provided.TheDefencesubmitsthatthefilmis a propaganda instrument.However,
    the testimonyof Witness9 undermines thatclaim.This Defencewitnesstestified to
    havingviewedthe filmjustpriorto his testimony. 1142 He statedthatone of the
    intervieweesin thefilm,whenaskedwhatElizaphan Ntakirutimanahaddone,"replied by
    sayingthat,Pastor Ntakirutimana
    haddonenothing in regardto theeventsof 1994,that

    1137
    Id.
    p.83.
    1138
    Id.pp.
    85-86.
    1t39
    Id.pp.
    87-88.
    i~4o
    Id.
    p.92.
    1141
    Id.
    p.137.
    1142
    T.29April2002
    pp.136-155.

    Judgement
    andSentence 220 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    hehadno roleduring
    thoseevents.’’1143
    TheChamber
    observes
    that,
    hadthefilmreally
    beenintended
    as partof a smearcampaign
    directed
    against
    theAccused,
    thisinterview
    wouldnothavebeenincluded.

    773. Even assumingthat AssielKaberaallegedin this filmthat Elizaphan


    Ntakirutimana
    participated
    in killings
    at Mugonero,
    andinvited WitnessFF to speakon
    thesubjectin thefilm,thisdoesnotin anywayamount to evidence
    of a campaign of
    falseincrimination.
    Insofar
    as no other
    evidencehasbeenadducedon thepurpose of the
    film,theChamberconcludes
    thattheDefence hasfailed
    to makea casethatthetestimony
    of Witness
    FF,andby inference
    theProsecutor’s
    allegations,
    weretaintedbya campaign
    of deceit
    inwhichAssielKabera
    assumeda role.

    774.Theremainingargumentsof theDefence alsofailto raisea doubt. Thefactthat


    theorganization
    AfricanRights publisheditsinterviewswithpersonswholater testified
    fortheProsecutor
    inthiscasedoesnotindicate a campaign
    of deceitagainst theAccused.
    Nordoesthepublication
    indicate an intent
    to ascribeto theAccused crimes whichthey
    didnotcommit.
    Nordoesit reasonably suggest
    thatthecasemounted by theProsecutor
    hasbeentaintedby anysuchcampaign. Inconsistencies
    in thetestimony of witnesses,
    whichtheChamber
    hasevaluated in thischapter,area common featureof trials andmay
    bearonthecredibility
    of a witness.However,
    in thisinstance, theDefence hasnotshown
    thatanyalleged
    inconsistencyis symptomatic
    of a concerted
    effort to fabricateevidence
    against
    theAccused.

    775. In closingarguments,theDefence wasaskedwhythetwoAccused, in particular,


    should
    be thetargetsofa politicalcampaign.
    Theanswer wasentirely speculative:
    it’sveryhardforanybody,
    andcertainly
    forustoknow--I knowtheyfinditstillhard to
    believe;
    whoandwhy?ButI thinkclearly
    ithastodoinpart atleast,andI believeina
    verymajor part--[with]
    theoverallattackon thechurches ...Weknowwhathappened
    wheretenbishopsandthearchbishopwerekilledoneday[in1994] byRPFsoldiers...
    TheAdventistchurchisthesecond largestchurch...in Rwanda ....A newgovernment
    thatrepresented
    a verysmallminority
    ofthepeople ...notthekindthatcanwinina
    democratic
    election
    ...Andthechurcheswouldbeindependent....SoI havetothink that
    itwasprimarily
    thechurchandithadtomean, too,that atleastthepastorwasseenasan
    independent
    humanbeing,
    notmanipula[ble],
    notcoercible,notconformist,
    a moderateand
    a conciliator
    anda peaceful manbutnotonethatwouldparticipate in violence or
    repression
    oranythinglikethat.AndthenwhyG6rard?Inpart,I think,because
    it’sa very
    neatwayofgettingata fatheranda verycruelwayofgetting ata father,andinpart,
    perhaps...thattheysawhimasyounger andstronger andmorevigorous anda greater
    threat
    inthefuturethanhisfathermight
    be.I goback tosaythat thetwoweretargetedis
    undeniable
    andwe’dhavetoaskthose whotargeted
    them why...1144

    776.The Defenceincludes
    a similarspeculativeargumentin its Closing
    Brief:
    "TheRPFneededto eliminate
    all Church
    leadershipfrom1994to maintainevenits
    precarious
    control
    of Rwanda.
    ’’1145However,
    neither
    in itsfinalargument
    norelsewhere

    1143Id.p.156;seealsopp.30April
    2002pp.96-97
    andexhibit
    1D40.
    1144T.22 August
    2002pp.143-145,
    ~45DefenceClosing
    Briefp.19.

    Judgement
    andSentence 221 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    in itscasedoestheDefence
    offeran explanation
    whytheRPFwouldinitiate
    a campaign
    offalseaccusations
    against
    a church
    leader
    whowasnot,apparently,
    politically
    active
    at
    anytimepriortoleaving
    thecountry
    inJuly1994,andwhoisnotalleged
    tohaveposed
    a
    threat
    totheregime
    thereafter.

    777.In conclusion,
    theargumentsadvanced
    by theDefenceunderthissection,
    taken
    individually
    or collectively,
    failtocreate
    a reasonable
    possibility
    thattheAccused
    were
    subject
    toa campaign
    of false
    incrimination,
    havinganybearing
    onthiscase.

    Judgement
    andSentence 222 21 February
    2003

    ~
    2eYq7
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    CHAPTER III

    LEGAL FINDINGS

    778.In thepresentChapter,
    theChamberwillmakelegalfindings
    basedon thefactual
    findingsmadeabovein Chapter
    II.TheChapteris divided
    intotwomainsections. One
    dealswiththeMugonero Indictment
    (Section2) and the other,withthe Bisesero
    Indictment(Section3).In addition,theChamber willaddresspreliminaryissues
    (Section
    1) andsomelegalissues
    raised
    bytheDefence(Section

    1. Preliminary
    Issues

    779.Priorto addressing
    thelegalfindings
    on thespecificcounts
    alleged
    in the
    Mugonero
    Indictment,
    theChamber
    willmakepreliminary
    legalfindings
    applicable
    to all
    counts
    alleged
    in bothIndictments
    against
    thetwoAccused.

    780.It is notdisputed
    thatin Rwanda
    in 1994,theTutsiwereperceived
    as members
    of
    anethnicgroup
    (seeII.3.2,
    para.75).

    781.It is admitted
    by the Defencethat,on 6 April1994,theplanetransporting
    PresidentJuv6nalHabyarimanaof Rwandawas shotdownas it approached
    Kigali
    Airport,
    Rwanda.
    TheChamberaccepts
    thatsoonafterthisincident,
    attacks
    andmurders
    ofcivilians
    began,
    including
    inKibuyePrefecture
    (seeII.3.2,
    para.
    76).

    782.TheChamber
    notesthatthealibiraised
    by thetwoAccused
    wasfoundnotto raise
    a reasonable
    possibility
    thattheAccused
    werenotpresent
    during
    theevents
    alleged
    inthe
    Mugonero
    Indictment
    (seeII.3.7,II.3.8.3(e)
    andII.3.11.4
    above)andtheBisesero
    Indictment
    (seeII.4.3
    above).

    2, Mugonero Indictment

    2.1 Count 1A- Genocide

    783.Count1A of the MugoneroIndictment chargesbothAccusedwithgenocide


    pursuant
    toArticle2(3)(a)oftheStatute.
    TheIndictment
    alleges
    thatduring
    themonth
    April1994,in Gishyitacommune,
    Kibuye
    Prefecture,
    theAccusedareresponsible
    forthe
    killingandcausingof serious
    bodily
    or mentalharmto members
    of theTutsipopulation
    withtheintent
    todestroy,inwholeorinpart,anethnicorracial
    group,assuch,andhave
    therebycommittedgenocide.

    784.Theelements
    of genocide
    withinthemeaning
    of Article
    2 of theStatute
    arewell
    established.
    1146In order
    fora conviction
    on thiscount
    to be entered,
    theChamber
    must
    findthatthefollowing
    twoelements
    havebeenproved
    beyonda reasonable
    doubt:

    t 146
    Seee.g.Kayishema
    andRuzindana
    (AC)paras.
    135-173.

    Judgement
    andSentence 223

    / 21 February 2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    (i) ThatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    or G6rardNtakirutimana killedor caused
    serious
    bodilyormental
    harmtomembers
    ofan ethnic
    or racial
    group; 1t47 and

    (ii)Thatthekilling
    or causing
    of serious
    bodilyor mental harmwascommitted
    with
    intent
    todestroy,
    inwholeorinpart,
    thatethnic
    orracial
    group, assuch.

    785. The Chamberfoundthata largenumberof men,womenand children,the


    majorityunarmed Tutsi,sought shelterfromviolence
    andattacks around Mugoneroin
    thedaysfollowing 6 April1994andthatmanyassembled at theMugonero Complex
    for
    thatpurpose. TheChamber furtherfoundthattheattackof 16 Aprilat theComplex,
    whichlasted throughoutthedayandintothenight, claimedhundredsof livesamongthe
    refugees at the Complex and leftmanywounded.It further foundthatthe attack
    specifically
    targeted theTutsipopulation
    -- irrespective
    of ageor sex--forthesole
    reasonof their ethnicity.In theChamber’s
    view,
    themassiveandsystematiccharacter
    of
    theattack andensuing onslaught,asdescribed
    above,
    leavesno doubt
    as tothefactthat
    theviolentassault proceededonthebasisofanintenttodestroy,initswhole,theTutsi
    population
    1148 at theComplex.

    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana

    786. Article6(1)oftheStatute
    provides
    that:
    "Aperson whoplanned,
    instigated,
    ordered,
    committed
    orotherwise
    aided
    and
    abettedintheplanning,
    preparation
    orexecution
    ofa crime
    referred
    toinarticles
    2 to4 ofthepresent
    Statute,
    shall
    beindividually
    responsible
    forthecrime."

    787.Theelementsof"aiding
    andabetting"withinthemeaningof Article
    6(1)arewell
    established.
    1149In order
    fortheChamber
    toenter a conviction
    on thiscount,
    itmustfind
    thatthefollowing
    threeelements
    havebeenproved beyond
    a reasonable
    doubt:.
    (i) ThatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    provided to personspracticalassistance
    ("aiding"),
    or facilitated
    thecommissionof thecrimeby beingsympathetic
    thereto
    115°
    ("abetting");
    (ii)Thattheactof aiding
    orabetting
    contributed
    substantially
    tothecommission
    of thecrimeof genocide;
    and
    (iii)ThattheAccusedprovided
    suchassistance
    or encouragement
    withtheintent
    to commit
    genocide,
    thatis,theintent
    todestroy,
    in wholeorinpart,
    an ethnic
    or racial
    group,assuch.

    788.At para.
    310inSectionII.3.8.3
    (e)above(seealsoparas.283-285
    in II.3.8.3(c)),
    the ChamberfoundthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    conveyed armedattackersto the
    MugoneroComplexin his vehicle
    on the morningof 16 April1994,and thatthese
    1147
    Otheractsaredeliberately
    inflicting
    conditions
    oflifecalculated
    tobringaboutthegroup’s
    physical
    destruction,preventing
    births
    within thegroup,
    andforcibly
    transferring
    children
    ofthegroup toanother.
    TheStatutealsoincludes
    "national"
    or"religious"
    groups,
    butthisisnotpartoftheProsecution’s
    case.
    1148
    Seeinparticular
    II.3.2
    paras.69-77,II.3.9.3
    paras.
    334-339,
    II.3.10.3
    para.350.
    1149SeeAkayesu (TC)paras.484-485;Furundzija
    (AC)paras.124-127.
    115oEither "aiding"
    or"abetting"alonewouldsuffice
    forthiscount,seeAkayesu
    (TC)para.484.

    Judgement
    andSentence 224

    ~ 21 February 2003
    Z,,Sq,
    Y
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    attackers
    proceeded to killTutsirefugees at theComplex.
    Considering
    hisposition
    of
    authority
    in the community as a seniorpastor, theChamberfindsthathisact of
    personally
    driving armedattackers in hisownvehicleto thesceneof theattack,
    his
    association
    withthesearmed attackers,
    andhispresenceatthesceneof theattack
    atthe
    Complex,
    constituted practicalassistanceandencouragement
    to theseattackers,
    which
    substantially
    contributedtothecommissionof thecrimeofgenocide
    bytheseattackers.

    789.Fromhispresence andactionsin relation


    to theattack at theComplex,fromthe
    letterhe receivedon theeveof theattack, in whichtheTutsiPastors pleadforhis
    assistanceadding, "tomorrow
    we shalldiewithourfamilies", ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    knewthatTutsi, in particular,
    werebeing targetedforattack,andthatby transporting
    attackersto theComplex,he wouldbe assisting in theattackagainsttheTutsi. The
    Chamberhasalsotakenintoaccount hisactionsin Bisesero,forinstance,transporting
    armedattackersto various
    partsof Bisesero
    andpointing outTutsirefugees
    to thearmed
    attackerswhothenattackedtheserefugees,andordering attackers
    to remove
    theroofof
    MurambiChurchso thatit couldnotbe usedas a hiding-placeforTutsi. Basedon the
    totality
    of theevidencebeforeit,theChamberfinds thatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    hadthe
    requisite
    intenttocommitgenocide,
    thatis,theintent todestroy,
    inwhole theTutsi
    ethnic
    group.

    790.TheChamber findsthat,in conveyingarmedattackers to theComplex, Elizaphan


    Ntakirutimana
    isindividually
    criminally
    responsible
    foraidingandabettingin thekilling
    andcausingof seriousbodilyor mentalharmto theTutsirefugees at theComplex on
    16 April1994,pursuant
    to Article6(1)of theStatute.Accordingly,theChamberfinds
    thatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    is guiltyof genocide as charged in Count1A of the
    MugoneroIndictment.

    G~rardNtakirutimana

    791.TheChamber found,
    in II.3.13.3
    above,thatG6rardNtakirutimanaparticipatedin
    attacks
    on 16April1994at theComplexandshotat refugees.Whilst
    participating
    in the
    attackon therefugeesat theComplex,G6rardNtakirutimanakilledCharlesUkobizaba
    by shootinghimin hischest, froma shortdistance,in MugoneroHospitalcourtyard
    aroundmiddayon 16 April1994(seeII.3.11.5 above). G6rardNtakirutimanaalso
    procured
    ammunition andgendarmesfortheattackon theComplex(seeII.3.7.3 above).
    In addition,he participated
    in theattack
    on WitnessSS (a refugeein theComplex),
    duringwhichtimehe was armedand in the company of otherarmedattackers (see
    II.3.12.3
    above).

    792.The Chamber
    recalls
    thatCharlesUkobizaba,Witness
    SS, and findsthatthe
    refugees
    whomGrrard
    Ntakirutimana
    shotat in theComplex
    wereof theTutsiethnic
    group.

    Judgement
    andSentence 225 A£~ 21 February
    2003

    J
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    793.Considering
    hiskillingof Charles
    Ukobizaba
    andhisshootingat Tutsi
    refugeesat
    the Complex,his participation
    in thisattack,
    includingprocuringammunitionand
    gendarmesfortheattack, together
    withhiskillingof Esdras,
    sonof Munyandinda(a
    Tutsi)andshootingat Tutsirefugees
    duringattacks
    in various
    partsof Bisesero,
    the
    ChamberfindsthatG6rardNtakirutimana
    hadtherequisite
    intentto destroy,
    in whole,
    theTutsiethnic
    group.

    794.TheChamber
    findsthatin killing
    Charles
    Ukobizaba
    andshooting
    at therefugees,
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    is individually
    criminally
    responsible
    forthedeathof Charles
    Ukobizaba,
    pursuant
    toArticle6(1)oftheStatute.

    795.Accordingly,
    theChamber findsthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    is guilty
    of genocide
    as charged
    in Count1A of theMugonero
    Indictment.

    2.2 Count1B - Complicity


    in Genocide

    796.In lightof thefinding


    abovein relation
    to Count1A,thealternative
    Count1B -
    Complicity
    in Genocide,ceases
    to applywithrespectto bothElizaDhan
    Ntakirutimana
    andG6rardNtakirutimana.

    2.3 Count2 - Conspiracy


    to CommitGenocide

    797.Count2 of the MugoneroIndictment


    charges bothAccused withconspiracyto
    commitgenocide
    pursuant
    to Article
    2(3)(b)
    of theStatute.TheIndictmentalleges
    duringthemonthof April1994,in Gishyita
    commune,KibuyePrefecture,
    bothAccused
    didconspire,
    witheachotherandwithCharles
    Sikubwabo,
    to killor cause
    serious
    bodily
    ormentalharmto members
    oftheTutsipopulation
    withintentto destroy,
    in whole
    or in
    part,an ethnicor racial
    group,as such,and havetherebycommittedconspiracy
    to
    commitgenocide.

    798.In the Tribunal’sjudgements to datetherehavebeenoneconviction and one


    acquittalon conspiracy to commitgenocide. The conviction was in the Kambanda
    Judgement,
    whichfolloweda guiltyplea.Thelawrelating to conspiracy
    hasso farbeen
    consideredonlyin theMusema Judgement (paras.184-198),in whichtheAccused was
    acquittedon the conspiracy count.The TrialChamber interaliaconcluded that
    "conspiracyto commit
    genocide is to be defined
    as an agreementbetweentwoor more
    persons
    tocommit thecrimeofgenocide" (para.191).

    799.The Chamber notesthatthe Prosecution’scaseis thatthe two Accused and


    CharlesSikubwaboconspired"witheachother"to commitgenocide.
    In orderforthe
    Chamber
    toentera convictiononthiscount,
    itmustfindthatthefollowingtwoelements
    havebeenprovedbeyonda reasonabledoubt:
    (i) ThatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    and G6rardNtakirutimana
    agreedbetween
    themselves
    andCharlesSikubwaboto commit
    genocide,
    thatis,to killor causeserious
    bodily
    or mentalharmto members
    of anethnicorracial
    group;and

    Judgement
    andSentence 226 21February
    2003
    :zgq
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    (ii)Thatthekilling
    or causing
    of serious
    bodily
    or mental
    harmwascommitted
    withintent
    todestroy,
    inwhole
    orinpart,thatethnic
    orracial
    group,
    assuch.

    800.Itwasfound, inII.3.3.3 above, thatElizaphanNtakirutimana


    didnotparticipate in
    meetingswithpersons whowereseenduring theattack of 16 April.TheChamber also
    observedthattheletter of 15 Aprilwrittenby therefugees to Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    indicatesthattherefugees wereunaware of anyprevious activitythatmightlinkthe
    Accused
    to anyplanning or conspiracy.In II.3.7.3above,theChamber foundthatGrrard
    Ntaldrutimana attended a meeting withthe commander of the gendarmerie campand
    ObedRuzindana in Kibuye townon theafternoon of 15 April,butthesubstance of the
    meetingis notknown. Further, neither ElizaphanNtakirutimananorCharles Sikubwabo
    is allegedto havebeenpresent, or provedto havecollaboratedor cometo an agreement
    withGrrardNtakirutimana, to commit genocide.TheChamber is unable, basedon the
    evidence,to drawanyinference thatthetwoAccused werepartof a plan,together with
    CharlesSikubwabo, to commit genocide.

    801.Therefore,the Chamberdoesnot findthatElizaphanNtakirutimana or Grrard


    Ntakirutimana
    planned, instigated,
    ordered,
    committed
    or otherwise
    aidedandabettedin
    the planning,preparationand execution of a conspiracyto commitgenocide.
    Accordingly,
    theChamber findsthatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    andGrrardNtakirutimana
    arenotguiltyof conspiracy
    to commit
    genocideas charged
    in Count2 of theMugonero
    Indictment.

    2.4 Count3 - CrimeAgainstHumanity(Murder)

    802.~ Count3 of theMugoneroIndictment


    chargesbothAccusedwitha crimeagainst
    humanity(murder)
    pursuantto Article
    3(a)of theStatute.
    TheIndictment
    alleges
    duringthemonthof April1994,in Gishyita
    commune,KibuyePrefecture,
    bothAccused
    areresponsible
    forthemurder ofcivilians,
    aspartofa widespread
    orsystematic
    attack
    againsta civilianpopulation
    on political,
    ethnicor racial
    grounds
    andhavethereby
    committeda crimeagainst
    humanity(murder).

    803.Theelementsof a crimeagainsthumanity
    within themeaningof Article
    3 of the
    Statutearewellestablished.
    ~51In orderfortheChamberto entera conviction
    on this
    count,it mustfindthatthe following threeelementshavebeenprovedbeyonda
    reasonable
    doubt:
    (i) Thattherewas,at therelevant time,a widespread
    or systematicattack
    against
    a civilian
    population
    onpolitical,
    ethnic,
    orracialgrounds;
    (ii)ThatElizaphan Ntakirutimanaor GrrardNtakirutimanamurderedone
    morecivilians;
    and
    (iii)ThattheAccused knewthattheiractor actsof murder werepartof the
    widespread
    orsystematic
    attackagainstcivilians
    on discriminatory
    grounds,although
    the
    Accusedneednothaveanydiscriminatory
    intent.

    1151
    Seeeg.Akayesu
    (AC)paras.
    447-469;
    Bagilishema
    (TC)paras.
    72-95.

    Judgement
    andSentence 227

    ~ 21 February 2003
    ~--.q,g
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtaMrutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    804.Theactmustbe committedas partof a widespread


    or systematic
    attack,
    andneed
    notbe a partofboth."Widespread"
    is defined
    as massive
    or large-scale,
    involving
    many
    victims;"systematic"
    refersto an organizedpatternof conduct,
    nota mererandom
    1152
    occurrence.

    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana

    805.TheChamber is notsatisfiedthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana


    planned,
    instigated,
    ordered,committed or otherwiseaidedand abettedin theplanning,
    preparation
    and
    executionof a crimeagainst humanity(murder).Accordingly,
    theChamberfindsthat
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanais notguiltyof a crime
    againsthumanity
    (murder)
    as charged
    Count3 of theMugonero Indictment.

    GOrardNtakirutimana

    806.In II.3.11.5
    above,
    theChamber
    foundthatG6rardNtakirutimana
    killedCharles
    Ukobizaba,
    a civilian
    Tutsi,
    during
    theattack at theMugonero
    Complex
    on 16 April
    1994.

    807.TheChamberfindsthattherewasa widespreadandsystematicattack against


    the
    civilian
    Tutsipopulation
    at theComplex
    on 16 April1994,in whichTutsirefugees,
    in
    particular,
    wererepeatedlyattacked
    throughoutthedayandintothenightby many
    groups
    of armedattackers
    arriving
    oneaftertheother, leavingmanyhundredsof Tutsi
    killedand wounded.The Chamberfindsthatthe conductof G6rardNtakirutimana
    formed
    partofthisattack.

    808.GivenG6rardNtakirutimana’s participation
    in the attackagainstTutsi,his
    shootingof Tutsirefugees at the Complex,his procurementof ammunitionand
    gendarmes
    fortheattack andhisassociation
    withthearmedattackers,
    theChamber
    finds
    thatin killing
    CharlesUkobizaba,
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    hadtherequisite
    intentto kill
    himandknewthatitwaspartof a widespreadandsystematic
    attackagainst
    thecivilian
    Tutsipopulation
    on ethnic
    grounds.

    809.The Chamber
    findsthatin killingCharles
    Ukobizaba,
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    is
    individually
    criminally
    responsible
    forhisdeath,
    pursuant
    toArticle
    6(1)oftheStatute.

    810.The killing of Charles Ukobizabaconstitutes


    murdercommitted as partof a
    widespread
    andsystematicattack on thecivilian
    Tutsi
    population
    on ethnicgroundsand
    assuchconstitutesa crimeagainsthumanity.
    Accordingly,
    theChamber findsthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    is guiltyof a crimeagainsthumanity
    (murder)
    as chargedin Count3
    theMugoneroIndictment.

    1152
    Seeeg.Akayesu
    (TC)paras.
    579-580.

    Judgement
    andSentence 228 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    2.5 Count4- CrimeAgainstHumanity(Extermination)

    81 1. Count4 of the MugoneroIndictmentchargesbothAccusedwitha crimeagainst


    humanity(extermination)
    pursuantto Article
    3(b)oftheStatute.TheIndictmentalleges
    thatduringthemonthof April1994,in Gishyita commune,Kibuye Prefecture,both
    Accusedareresponsible fortheextermination
    of civilians,
    as partof a widespread
    or
    systematic
    attackagainst a civilian
    population
    onpolitical,
    ethnicorracial grounds
    and
    havetherebycommitted a crimeagainsthumanity
    (extermination).

    812.In orderfortheChamber
    to entera conviction
    onthiscount,
    it mustfindthatthe
    followingthreeelements
    havebeenproved beyonda reasonable
    doubt:
    (i) Thattherewas,at the relevant
    time,a widespread
    or systematicattack
    against
    a civilian
    population
    onpolitical,ethnic
    orracialgrounds;
    (ii)ThatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    or G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    participated
    in the
    extermination
    of individuals;
    and
    (iii)ThattheAccused
    knewthattheiractor actsof extermination
    werepart
    thewidespread
    or systematic
    attackagainst
    civilians
    on discriminatory
    grounds,
    although
    theAccused
    neednothaveanydiscriminatory
    intent.

    813.TheChamber notesthatin Akayesu,


    exterminationwasdefined as "a crimewhich
    byitsverynatureis directed
    against
    a group
    of individuals.
    Extermination
    differsfrom
    murderin thatit requires
    an element
    of massdestruction,
    whichis notrequired for
    murder.
    ’’~53Akayesufurther
    notedthatanelement
    oftheoffence is the"killingofcertain
    namedor described
    persons".
    "54TheTrialChamberin Vasiljevic
    heldthatextermination
    wouldbe foundwheretheAccusedwereresponsible
    forthedeaths of a largenumberof
    individuals,
    eveniftheirparttherein
    wasremote
    orindirect.
    ~55Vasilj’evictooktheview
    thatextermination
    ’’~56 "supposes
    thetakingofa large
    numberoflives.

    814.TheChamber foundabovethekillingof onlyonenamedor describedindividual,


    thatis,Charles Ukobizaba.TheChamberis notpersuadedthattheelement of "mass
    destruction"
    or"thetakingofa largenumber
    oflives"hasbeenestablished
    inrelationto
    theAccused, or thattheAccused wereresponsible
    for themasskilling of namedor
    described
    individuals.There
    is insufficient
    evidence
    as toa large
    numberof individuals
    killed
    as a result oftheAccused’s
    actions.
    Therefore,
    theChamber
    is notsatisfiedthat
    1153
    Para.591.
    1154Para.592.Thisdefinition
    wasnotsubject
    to appeal
    in Akayesu,
    andhassincebeenfollowed
    in
    Musema(TC)andRutaganda (TC)(pending appeal).
    1155Para.227.Thediscussion
    statesinpara.222:"Itisworthnoting thatinnoneofthereviewed cases
    wereminorfigures chargedwith"extermination"
    as a crimeagainsthumanity.Thosewhowerecharged
    withthatcriminaloffencedidin factexerciseauthorityor powerovermanyotherindividualsor did
    otherwise
    havethecapacitytobeinstrumental
    inthekilling ofa largenumber
    of individuals.
    Those,such
    as executioners,
    whowerenotinsuchpositionbutwhohadparticipated
    inthekillingof oneora number of
    individuals
    weregenerallychargedwithmurderor related
    offenceswhilstthechargeof "extermination"
    seemstohavebeenlimitedtoindividuals
    who,byreasonofeithertheirposition
    orauthority,coulddecide
    uponthefateorhadcontrolovera large
    numberofindividuals."
    1156Para.
    232.

    229 /~:21February2003
    Judgement
    andSentence

    /
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    ElizaphanNtakirutimana or GrrardNtakirutimana planned, instigated,ordered,


    committed
    or otherwiseaidedandabetted in theplanning,
    preparationandexecution
    of a
    crimeagainsthumanity (extermination).
    Accordingly,theChamber findsthatElizaphan
    NtakirutimanaandGrrardNtakirutimana arenot guiltyof a crimeagainsthumanity
    (extermination)
    as chargedin Count4 of theMugonero
    Indictment.

    2.6 Count5 - CrimeAgainstHumanity(OtherInhumaneActs)

    815.Count5 of theMugonero Indictment


    charges bothAccused witha crimeagainst
    humanity(other
    inhumane acts)pursuantto Article3(i)of theStatute.TheIndictment
    allegesthatduring themonthof April1994,in Gishyita commune,KibuyePrefecture,
    bothAccuseddidcommit otherinhumaneacts,includingbutnotlimited to,thecausing
    of serious
    bodilyharm,thecausing of seriousmentalharmandthepersistentsearching
    forandkillingof individualsinthemonthsfollowing
    theattack,aspartofa widespread
    orsystematic
    attackagainsta civilian
    population
    onpolitical,
    ethnic
    orracialgrounds
    and
    havetherebycommitteda crimeagainsthumanity(otherinhumaneacts).

    816.In orderfortheChamber
    to entera conviction
    onthiscount,
    itmustfindthatthe
    followingthreeelements
    havebeenprovedbeyonda reasonable
    doubt:
    (i)Thattherewas,at therelevanttime,a widespread
    or systematic
    attack
    against
    a civilian
    population
    onpolitical,
    ethnic
    orracialgrounds;
    (ii)ThatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    or GrrardNtakirutimana
    committed
    acts
    similar
    seriousness
    to theother
    actsenumerated
    intheArticle
    againstcivilians,
    suchas
    would
    causeserious
    physicalormental
    suffering
    or constitute
    a serious
    attack
    on human
    dignity;
    and
    (iii)ThattheAccusedknewthattheirotherinhumane
    actswerepartof the
    widespread
    or systematic
    attack
    against
    civilians
    ondiscriminatory
    grounds,
    although
    the
    Accused
    1157 neednothaveanydiscriminatory
    intent.

    817.TheChambernotesthattheProsecution
    submitsthatGrrardNtakirutimana’s
    acts
    ofclosing
    themedicalstore,
    denyingtreatment
    toTutsi
    patients
    andcutting
    offutility
    supplies
    constitute"otherinhumaneacts".TheProsecution
    submitsthatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    is responsible
    fortheseactsby virtue
    of hisposition
    as headof the
    Complex.
    However,theChamberdidnotfindtheseallegations
    to havebeenproved(see
    II.3.5
    andII.3.6
    above).

    818.Therefore,the Chamberdoesnot findthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana


    or Grrard
    Ntakirutimana
    planned,instigated,
    ordered,committed
    or otherwise
    aidedandabetted
    in
    theplanning,
    preparation andexecutionof a crimeagainst
    humanity(other
    inhumane
    acts).Accordingly, the ChamberfindsthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    and Grrard
    Ntakirutimana
    arenot guilty of a crimeagainsthumanity(otherinhumane
    acts)
    charged
    in Count5 of theMugoneroIndictment.

    1157SeeBagilishema
    (TC)paras.
    91-92.

    Judgement
    andSentence 230 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    2.7 Charges Against G~rard Ntakirutimana of Individual Criminal


    Responsibility
    as a Superior

    819.G6rardNtakirutimanais additionallychargedpursuant
    to Article
    6(3)of the
    Statute
    withindividualcriminalresponsibility
    asa superior
    withrespect
    to Counts
    1A,
    1B,3, 4 and5 of theMugoneroIndictment.
    Article
    6(3)provides
    thatcivilian
    leaders
    mayincurcriminalresponsibility
    foractscommitted
    bytheir
    subordinates
    orothersunder
    their
    "effective
    control",
    ~158although
    thecontrol
    exercised
    neednotbeofthesamenature
    as9
    115
    thatexercised
    bya militarycommander.

    820.ForG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    to be heldcriminally
    responsible
    underArticle
    6(3),the
    Prosecution
    has to provebeyonda reasonabledoubtthatG6rardNtakirutimana
    had
    "effective
    control"
    overpersons
    attherelevanttime,
    likeMathias
    Ngirinshuti.

    821.As discussed
    in II.3.15.3
    above, thereis someevidencethatG6rardNtakirutimana
    tookchargeof Mugonero
    Hospital
    in thedaysbefore 16 April1994andeventhereafter.
    Additionally,
    thereis evidence
    thatG6rard
    Ntakirutimanaplayeda prominent
    roleduring
    someattacksat Bisesero
    duringtheperiod Aprilto June1994.However, it doesnot
    followfromanyof thetestimonies
    thatG6rardNtakirutimana
    hadeffectivecontrol
    over
    anyperson.In particular,
    thereis littleevidenceon thecapacityin whichMathias
    Ngirinshuti
    wasacting,whether
    aloneorpursuantto another’s
    orders.

    822.Therefore, theChamber didnot findthatG6rardNtakirutimana had effective


    control
    overanyperson during
    theperiodupto andincluding
    16 April
    1994or thereafter.
    Inviewof thefactthattheProsecution
    hasfailedto prove
    thatG6rardNtakirutimana
    had
    effective
    control overanypersonin therelevant
    period,theChamberdoesnotfindit
    necessaryto considerevidencegoingto theotherelements of individualcriminal
    responsibility
    underArticle6(3)of theStatute.Accordingly,
    theChamber findsthat
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimanadidnotincurindividualcriminalresponsibility
    as a superioras
    charged
    in Counts1A,1B,3, 4 and5 of theMugoneroIndictment.

    3. TheBisesero
    Indictment

    823.TheChamber
    willproceed
    to makelegalfindings
    on thespecific
    counts
    alleged
    in
    theBisesero
    Indictment.

    3.1 Count 1 - Genocide

    824.Count1 of theBiseseroIndictment
    charges bothAccusedwithgenocide pursuant
    to Article2(3)(a)
    oftheStatute.
    TheIndictmentalleges
    thatduringthemonthsof April
    throughJune1994,in theareaknownas Bisesero, in GishyitaandGisovu communes,
    KibuyePrefecture,theAccused
    areresponsibleforthekilling andcausingof serious
    bodilyor mental
    harmto members
    of theTutsipopulationwiththeintentto destroy,
    in
    wholeor inpart,an ethnic
    orracialgroup
    as such,andhavetherebycommitted
    genocide.
    1158
    SeeDelalic
    (AC)
    paras.
    196-198.
    1159
    SeeBagilishema
    (AC)
    paras.
    54-56.

    Judgement
    andSentence 231 21 February 2003

    /
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    825.Theelements
    of theoffence
    weredealtwithin paragraph
    784above.

    826.In Section
    II.4above,theChamber foundthata largenumberof men,womenand
    children,
    whowerepredominantly
    Tutsi,sought
    refugeintheareaofBisesero fromApril
    through
    June1994,wheretherewaswidespread
    violenceduringthatperiod,in theform
    ofattackstargeting
    thispopulation
    on analmostdaily
    basis.Witnessesheardattackers
    singing
    songsreferring
    to theextermination
    of theTutsi.TheChamber concludes
    that
    theseattacks
    werecarriedoutwiththespecific intent
    to destroyin wholetheTutsi
    population
    116° inBisesero,
    forthesolereason
    ofitsethnicity.

    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana

    827.The elements
    of Article
    6(1),in relation
    to aidingandabetting,
    havebeen
    considered
    inparas.
    786and787above.

    828. TheChamber haspreviously madethefollowing findings:


    (i) Sometime between 17 AprilandearlyMay 1994,Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    conveyedattackers to Murambi Church andordered theremoval of thechurch roofso
    thatit couldno longer be usedas a hiding placefortheTutsi, andin so doing, he
    facilitatedthehunting downandthekilling of theTutsirefugees hidingin Murambi
    ChurchinBisesero(seeII.4.23.3 (a)above);
    (ii)One day in the middleof May 1994,Elizaphan Ntakirutimana brought
    armedattackers in therearholdof hisvehicle to NyarutovuHill,andthegroupwas
    searchingforTutsirefugees andchasing them.Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    pointed outthe
    fleeingrefugees to theattackers whothenchased theserefugeessinging:"Exterminate
    them;lookforthemeverywhere; killthem; andgetit overwith, in alltheforests" (see
    II.4.12.3
    above);
    (iii)At theendof May1994,Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
    participatedin a convoy
    of vehicles carrying armedattackers to Kabatwa Hill,and laterthe sameday,at
    neighbouringGitwaHill,he pointed outthewhereabouts of Tutsirefugeesto attackers
    whoattacked therefugees,causing injurytoWitness KK (seeII.4.13.3
    above);
    (iv)In mid-May,Elizaphan Ntakirutimanawaspresentin themidstof thekilling
    of Tutsiindividuals at Mubuga, theAccused was in hisvehicle transporting armed
    attackersaspartofa convoy which includedtwobuses, allcarryingarmedattackers,the
    attackerssang"Letus exterminate them"andproceeded to killpeopleuntiltheevening.
    (seeII.4.14.3 above);
    (v) Oneday in Mayor June1994,Elizaphan Ntakirutimanatransported armed
    attackerswhowerechasing Tutsisurvivorsat MurambiHill(seeII.4.10.3above);
    (vi)Onedayin Mayor June1994,Elizaphan Ntakirutimanaarrivedat Ku Cyapa
    in a vehicle followed by twobusesof attackers and he was partof a convoy, which
    includedattackers(seeII.4.20.3above).

    1160See,
    II.4.4
    to4.25inconjunction
    withII.4.2
    supra.

    Judgement
    andSentence 232 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    829.By transporting
    attackers
    in hisvehicle
    to thesceneof theattacks,
    instructing
    themto pursueTutsirefugeesandpointingoutthelocations of Tutsirefugees
    in
    Bisesero,Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    provided
    practicalassistance
    andencouragement
    to
    thearmedattackers,
    whichsubstantially
    contributedto thecommission
    of thecrimeof
    genocide
    bytheseattackers,
    asestablished
    atpara.826above.

    830.Fromhispresence andparticipation
    in attacks
    in Bisesero,fromthefactthatat
    certainoccasions,
    he waspresentwhenattackers
    he hadconveyedsetuponchasing Tutsi
    refugeesnearby,singingsongsaboutexterminating
    theTutsi, Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    knewthatTutsiin particularwerebeingtargetedforattack,andthatby transporting
    armedattackers
    to Biseseroandpointing
    outTutsirefugees
    to theattackers,hewouldbe
    assisting
    in thekillingoftheTutsiin Bisesero.
    TheChamber
    hasalsotaken intoaccount
    hisactof conveying to theMugoneroComplexattackers
    whoproceeded to killTutsi.
    Havingconsideredalltheevidence,theChamberfindsthatElizaphanNtakirutimanahad
    therequisite
    intenttocommitgenocide,
    thatis,theintent
    to destroy,
    inwhole, theTutsi
    ethnicgroup.

    831.TheChamber
    findsthat,in conveyingarmedattackers
    to Bisesero
    andin acting as
    described
    above,
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana is individually
    criminallyresponsiblefor
    aiding
    andabetting
    inthekilling andcausingof serious
    bodily
    or mental
    harmtoTutsi in
    Bisesero,
    pursuant
    to Article6(1)of theStatute. Accordingly,
    theChamber findsthat
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    is guilty of genocideas charged
    in Count1 of theBisesero
    Indictment.

    G~rardNtakirutimana

    832. TheChamberhaspreviouslymadethefollowingfindings:
    (i)On or about18 April1994,G6rardNtakirutimana
    waswithInterahamwe
    Murambi
    Hillpursuingandattacking
    Tutsirefugees
    (seeII.4.5.3
    above);
    (ii)In thelastpartofAprilor possibly
    in May,G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    waswith
    attackers
    atGitweHillwhereheshotatrefugees
    (seeII.4.5.3
    above);
    (iii)Aroundthe end of Aprilto the beginningof .... 1994,G6rard
    Ntaldrutimana
    shotandkilled oneEsdras during
    an attackat GitwePrimarySchool(see
    II.4.7.3
    above);
    (iv)On 13 May1994,G6rard Ntakirutimana
    participatedin theattackagainst
    Tutsi
    refugeesat MuyiraHillandshotandkilledthewifeof oneNzamwita (seeII.4.18.3
    above);
    (v)Sometime in mid-May1994,at MuyiraHill,G6rard Ntakirutimana
    tookpart
    inanattackonTutsirefugees(seeII.4.17.3
    above);
    (vi)SometimebetweenApriland June1994,G6rardNtakirutimana was
    Kidashya
    Hilltransporting
    attackers,andheparticipated
    in chasing
    andshootingatTutsi
    refugees
    inthehills(seeII.4.11.3
    above);
    (vii)In June1994,G6rard Ntakirutimana
    participatedin an attack
    at Mubuga
    Primary
    Schoolandshotat Tutsirefugees(seeII.4.16.3
    above);

    Judgement
    andSentence 233 21 February
    2003

    /
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    (viii)One day in June1994,G6rardNtakimtimana headeda groupof armed


    attackers
    atMuyira
    Hill,whereheshotatTutsi refugees
    (seeII.4.21.3
    above);
    (ix)Sometimein June1994,G6rardNtakirutimana was at MutitiHillwith
    Interahamwe
    wheretheyshotat refugeesin a forest
    by a church
    (seeII.4.22.3above);
    and
    (x)Duringtheperiod Aprilto June1994,G6rard Ntakirutimana
    participated
    attacks
    inBisesero
    (seeII.4.24.3
    above);

    833. The Chamber


    foundthatEsdras,the wifeof Nzamwita
    and the refugees
    whom
    Ntakirutimana
    G6rard shotat inBisesero
    wereof theTutsi
    ethnic
    group.

    834.TheChamberfindsthatin shooting
    andkilling Esdrasandthewifeof Nzamwita,
    in pursuing
    andshootingattherefugees,
    in transporting
    andleadingarmedattackers
    in
    theattacks,
    andconsideringhisparticipationin attacks
    againstTutsirefugees
    in
    MugoneroComplex,in particularhis murderof CharlesUkobizaba,G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    hadtherequisite
    intent
    todestroy,inwhole,theTutsi
    ethnic
    group.

    835.In shooting
    at therefugees
    andparticipating
    in theattacks,
    G6rardNtakimtimana
    is individually
    criminally
    responsible
    forthedeath
    of Esdrasandthewifeof Nzamwita,
    andtheharmcaused
    tothese Tutsi
    refugees,
    pursuant
    toArticle6(1)oftheStatute.

    836.Accordingly,
    theChamber
    findsthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    is guilty
    of genocide
    as charged
    inCount
    1 oftheBisesero
    Indictment.

    3.2 Count2 - Complicity


    in Genocide

    837.In lightof thefinding


    abovein relationto Count1, thealtemative
    Count2 -
    Complicity
    in genocide,
    ceasesto applywithrespectto Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    and
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana.

    3.3 Count3 - Conspiracyto CommitGenocide

    838.Count3 of the Bisesero Indictmentcharges bothAccused withconspiracy to


    commit
    genocide
    pursuant to Article
    2(3)(b)of theStatute.TheIndictmentalleges
    during
    themonthsof AprilthroughJune1994,in theareaknown as Bisesero,
    in Gishyita
    andGisovucommunes,Kibuye Prefecture,theAccuseddidconspire witheachotherto
    ldllandcause
    serious bodilyor mental
    harmto membersof theTutsi population
    withthe
    intent
    todestroy,
    in wholeorin part,an ethnicorracialgroupas such,andhavethereby
    committed
    conspiracyto commitgenocide.

    839.Theelements
    of theoffence
    weredealtwithin paras.
    798and799above.

    840.TheChambernotesthattheProsecution’s caseis thatthetwoAccused conspired


    "witheachother"
    to commitgenocide.In II.4.25.3
    above,
    theChamberfoundthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    attendedthreemeetings in Kibuyetown,heldbetween 10 and18 June
    1994(approximately),
    at whichhe madestatements
    abouttheneedto eliminate
    allTutsi

    Judgement
    andSentence 234 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    andcalled
    formorearmsandammunition. At thosemeetingsG6rardNtakirutimana
    also
    participated
    in thedistribution
    ofweapons,discussed
    theplanning
    ofattacksatBisesero,
    wasassigned
    a rolein suchanattack,
    andreportedbackonitssuccess.Itis notalleged
    thatElizaphanNtakirutimanawas presentat thosemeetings, or provedthathe
    collaborated
    withor enteredintoan agreementwithG6rard Ntakirutimana,
    to commit
    genocide.
    Consequently,theChamberis unable,basedon the evidence,to drawany
    infer,;nce
    thatthetwoAccusedconspired
    witheachothertocommit genocide.

    841.Therefore,
    theChamberdoesnotfindthatElizaphan Ntakirutimanaor G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    planned,
    instigated,
    ordered,
    committed
    or otherwise
    aidedandabetted in
    the planning,
    preparation
    and executionof a conspiracyto commitgenocide.
    Accordingly,
    theChamber
    findsthatElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    andG6rardNtakirutimana
    arenotguilty
    of conspiracy
    to commit
    genocide
    as charged
    in Count3 of theBisesero
    Indictment.

    3.4 Count 4- Crime AgainstHumanity(Murder)

    842.Count4 of theBisesero Indictment


    charges bothAccusedwitha crimeagainst
    humanity
    (murder)pursuantto Article3(a)of theStatute.
    TheIndictmentalleges
    during
    themonthsofAprilthrough June1994,intheareaknown as Bisesero,
    in Gishyita
    andGisovucommunes,KibuyePrefecture,theAccusedareresponsibleforthemurderof
    civilians,
    as partof a widespread
    or systematic
    attackagainst
    a civilian
    population
    on
    political,
    ethnicor racialgrounds,andhavetherebycommitted
    a crimeagainsthumanity
    (murder).

    843.Theelements
    of theoffence
    weredealtwithin paras.
    803and804above.

    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana

    844.TheChamber is notsatisfiedthatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    planned,instigated,
    ordered,committedor otherwiseaidedandabetted in theplanning,
    preparationand
    execution
    of a crimeagainst
    humanity(murder).Accordingly,
    theChamberfindsthatthe
    Prosecution
    hasnotproved thatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    is guilty
    of a crimeagainst
    humanity
    (murder)as charged
    in Count4 of theBisesero
    Indictment.

    G~rard
    Ntakirutimana

    845.TheChamber
    foundthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    killedEsdras,
    a civilian
    Tutsi,
    at
    Gitwe
    Primary
    School
    during
    theattacks
    inBisesero
    (seeII.4.7.3
    above).

    846.The ChamberfoundthatG6rardNtakirutimanashotand killedthe wifeof


    Nzamwita,
    alsoa civilian
    Tutsi,
    whilst
    participating
    intheattack
    against
    Tutsi
    refugees
    at
    Muyira
    Hillon 13 May1994.

    847.TheChamber
    foundthattherewasa widespread
    andsystematic
    attack
    against
    the
    civilian
    Tutsipopulation
    in Bisesero,
    in whichTutsirefugees
    wereattacked
    almost

    Judgement
    andSentence 235 21February
    2003

    ,/
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    everyday
    overa periodof timefromApril1994to June1994by groupsof armed
    attackers,
    leaving
    many,possibly
    thousands,
    of Tutsikilled
    andwounded.
    TheChamber
    finds
    thattheconduct
    of G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    formedpartofthisattack.

    848.ConsideringG6rard Ntakirutimana’s
    participationin theattacksagainstTutsi
    refugees
    in Biseseroby pursuing
    andshootingat them,andleadingarmedattackers
    in
    attacks
    againstthem,theChamberfindsthatin killing
    Esdrasandthewifeof Nzamwita,
    G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    hadtherequisite
    intentto killthemandknewthatitwaspartof a
    widespread
    andsystematic attack
    against
    thecivilianTutsipopulation
    onethnicgounds.

    849.In killingEsdrasandthewifeofNzamwita,G6rardNtakirutimana
    is individually
    criminallyresponsible
    fortheirdeaths,
    pursuantto Article
    6(1)of theStatute. The
    killingsof Esdrasandthewifeof Nzamwita
    constitute murders
    committedas partof a
    widespread
    andsystematicattack
    on thecivilian
    Tutsipopulation
    on ethnicgrounds and
    as such,constitute
    crimesagainst
    humanity.
    Accordingly,
    theChamberfindsthatG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    is guilty
    of crimes
    against
    humanity
    (murder)aschargedin Count4 of the
    BiseseroIndictment.

    3.5 Count5 - CrimeAgainstHumanity(Extermination)

    850.Count5 of the BiseseroIndictmentchargesbothAccusedwitha crimeagainst


    humanity
    (extermination)
    pursuant
    to Article
    3(b)of theStatute.
    TheIndictment
    alleges
    thatduringthemonths of Aprilthrough
    June1994,in theareaknownas Bisesero,
    in
    Gishyita
    andGisovu communes,KibuyePrefecture,
    theAccusedareresponsible
    forthe
    extermination
    of civilians,
    aspartofa widespread
    or systematic
    attack
    against
    a civilian
    population
    on political,
    ethnic,or racial
    grounds,andhavethereby
    committed
    a crime
    against
    humanity(extermination).

    851.Theelements
    of theoffence
    weredealtwithin paras.
    812and813above.

    852.TheChamber foundabovethekilling of onlytwonamedor described individuals,


    thatis,thekillings of Esdras andthewifeof Nzamwita, by G6rard Ntakirutimana.
    The
    Chamberisnotpersuadedthattheelement of"mass destruction"
    or "thetakingof a large
    numberof lives"hasbeenestablished in relation to theAccused, or thattheAccused
    wereresponsible forthe masskilling of namedor described individuals.Thereis
    insufficient
    evidence as to a largenumber of individualskilled as a resultof the
    Accused’sactions.TheChamber is notsatisfied thatElizaphanNtakirutimanaor G6rard
    Ntaldrutimana
    planned,instigated,ordered,committedor otherwiseaidedandabetted in
    theplanning,preparation andexecutionof a crimeagainst humanity (extermination).
    Accordingly,
    theChamber findsthatElizaphan NtakirutimanaandG6rard Ntakirutimana
    arenotguilty of a crimeagainsthumanity(extermination)as chargedin Count5 of the
    BiseseroIndictment.

    3.6 Count6- CrimeAgainstHumanity(OtherInhumaneActs)

    Judgement
    andSentence 236 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    853.Count6 of theBisesero IndictmentchargesbothAccused witha crimeagainst


    humanity(other
    inhumaneacts)pursuant
    to Article3(i)of theStatute. TheIndictment
    allegesthatduringthemonths
    of April
    throughJune1994,in theareaknown as Bisesero,
    in Gishyitaand Gisovucommunes,KibuyePrefecture,the Accused did commitother
    inhumaneacts,includingthecausingof serious
    bodily harm,thecausing of serious
    mentalharmandthepersistentsearching
    forandkillingof individualsin theBisesero
    area,as partof a widespread
    or systematic
    attackagainst a civilianpopulationon
    political,
    ethnic,or racial
    grounds,
    andhavetherebycommitteda crimeagainsthumanity
    (otherinhumane
    acts).

    854.Theelements
    of theoffence
    weredealtwithin paragraph
    816above.

    855.TheProsecutionsubmits thatthe actof removal of theMurambiChurchroofby


    thetwoAccused constitutes
    an "otherinhumaneact".TheChamberfoundthattherewas
    insufficient
    notice
    to GrrardNtakirutimana
    thathe would
    be alleged
    tohavebeenpresent
    at MurambiChurch,and theallegation wasconsequentlydisregarded(seeII.4.23.3
    above).As forElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    theChamber foundthathe conveyed
    attackers
    to thesceneandordered
    themtoremove theroofsothatTutsi could
    notusethechurch as
    a hiding-place,
    andthatthisactfacilitatedthehunting
    downandkillingoftherefugees.
    Howeverit hasnotbeenproved thatthisactresulted in seriousphysical
    or mental
    suffering,
    oramounted
    toa serious attackon human
    dignity,
    oftherefugees.Further,
    the
    Chamberisnotsatisfiedthatthisactamounts to anactof similar
    seriousness
    to other
    enumerated
    actsintheArticle.

    856.Therefore,
    the Chamber doesnot findthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    or Grrard
    Ntakirutimana
    planned, instigated,ordered,
    committed
    or otherwise
    aidedandabetted
    in
    theplanning,
    preparation andexecutionof a crimeagainsthumanity
    (other
    inhumane
    acts).Accordingly, the ChamberfindsthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    and Grrard
    Ntakirutimana
    are notguilty of a crimeagainsthumanity(otherinhumane
    acts)
    charged
    inCount6 of theBiseseroIndictment.

    3.7 Count7 - Violations


    of CommonArticle
    3 and Additional
    Protocol
    II

    857.Count7 of theBiseseroIndictment
    chargesbothAccusedwithseriousviolations
    of Article
    3 commonto theGenevaConventions
    andof Additional
    ProtocolII pursuant
    to Article
    4(a)of theStatute.TheIndictment
    allegesthatduringthemonthsof April
    throughJune1994,in the areaknownas Bisesero,
    in GishyitaandGisovu communes,
    KibuyePrefecture,
    theAccused
    areresponsible
    forviolence
    to life,
    healthandphysical
    or
    mentalwell-being
    of persons,
    including
    murderandseriousbodilyandmentalharm,and
    havetherebycommitted seriousviolations of Article3 commonto the Geneva
    Conventions
    andofAdditional
    Protocol
    IIthereof.

    858.In orderfortheChamber
    to enter
    a conviction
    on thiscount,
    it mustfindthatthe
    followingelements
    havebeenprovedbeyond
    a reasonable
    doubt:

    Judgement
    andSentence 237 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    (i)ThatElizaphanNtakirutimanaor G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    committed violence
    to life,
    health
    andphysical
    ormental well-being,
    inparticular
    murder
    andcrueltreatment,
    ofpersons
    nottaking
    anactivepartinhostilities;
    (ii)Thatthealleged actor actswerecommitted
    in thecontextof an internal
    armedconflict;
    and
    (iii)
    Thatthereisa nexusbetween
    thealleged
    actoractsandthearmed conflict.

    859.Theprovision
    seekstoprotect
    persons
    nottaking
    anactive
    partin thehostilities
    in
    armedconflicts
    notofan international
    character,
    andthestatement
    "violenceto life,
    healthandphysical
    or mental
    well-being
    ofpersons"
    encompasses,
    at least,actssuchas
    murderandcruel
    treatment.

    860.To date,no findings


    of guilthavebeenmadeon thisprovision
    by theTribunal.In
    theICTY,in Vasiljevic,
    itwasheldthatcustomaryintemationallawdoesnotprovide a
    sufficiently
    precise definition
    ofa crimeunder
    thisprovision.Therefore,
    basedon the
    principleof nullumcrimensinelege,the Accused was acquitted
    on thiscountin
    Vasiljevic
    (paragraphs
    193-204).

    861.Apartfromthelackof clarityaboutthisprovision,theChamber is notsatisfied


    thatthesettledelementsof theoffence,suchas theexistence
    of a nexusbetweenthe
    allegedactor actsand thearmedconflict, havebeenproved in the presentcase.
    Therefore, the Chamberdoesnot findthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana or G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    planned,
    instigated,
    ordered,committed
    or otherwise
    aidedandabetted in
    theplanning,preparation
    andexecutionof serious
    violations
    ofArticle 3 commonto the
    GenevaConventions
    andof Additional
    Protocol II.Accordingly,
    theChamber findsthat
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    andG6rardNtakirutimana
    arenotguiltyofserious violationsof
    Article3 common
    to theGeneva Conventions
    andof Additional
    Protocol II as chargedin
    Count7 oftheBisesero
    Indictment.

    3.8 CumulativeCharges/Convictions

    862.Finally,the Chamberwilladdressthe issueof cumulative


    chargesand
    convictions,
    which
    is applicable
    tobothIndictments.

    863.Cumulative
    charging
    is generally
    permissible,
    as it is notpossible
    to determine
    whichcharges
    willbe provenagainst
    an Accused
    priorto thepresentationof the
    evidence.
    1161

    864.Cumulative
    convictionsarepermissibleonlyif thecrimesinvolved comprise
    materially
    distinct
    elements.
    ~162Inthiscase,G6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    is guilty
    of genocide
    anda crimeagainsthumanity
    (murder).TheChamberconsiders
    thatthetwooffences
    comprise
    materially
    distinct
    elements.
    Forexample,themensreaof genocide
    istheintent
    todestroy,
    inwhole
    orinpart,anethnicorracial
    group,
    whichelementisnotrequired
    for

    1161
    Seeeg.Musema
    (AC)
    paras.
    346-370.
    1162
    Id.;
    Delalic
    (AC)
    para.
    400.

    Judgement
    andSentence 238 21February
    2003

    //@
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    a crimeagainsthumanity.
    Themensreaof a crimeagainst
    humanity
    (murder)is the
    knowledge
    thatthemurder
    ispartofa widespread
    orsystematic
    attack
    against
    a civilian
    population
    on discriminatory
    grounds.Accordingly,
    convictions
    on bothcounts
    willbe
    entered
    againstG6rard
    Ntakirutimana.

    4. LegalIssues
    Raised
    By theDefence

    865.Section V of the DefenceClosing Briefis entitled "TheDefence Renewsits


    Motionto DismisstheIndictment".
    ~163Thereference is toa motion filedon 26 February
    2001,1164whichwasheardanddismissed by oraldecisionon 2 April2001.1~6sSection V
    of theBriefreproduces
    allbutoneoftheseven subheadings
    oftheearlier motion. Itasks
    theChamber to reconsideritsdecisionin lightof "newevidence andexperiences". The
    ChamberconsidersSectionV to be nota separatemotionappended to theBriefbuta set
    ofargumentsforacquittalforming
    partoftheBrief. NeitherParty specifically
    referredto
    SectionV initsoralclosing arguments.

    866.Underthesubheading "A trialunderexisting circumstances willviolate the


    fundamental
    rightsof theaccusedtopresenttheirdefenceandconfront witnesses
    against
    them",theDefence maintains
    thatit faced"enormousdifficulty"findingwitnessesand
    was unableto obtaina singlewitness fromwithinRwanda. The Chamberwouldhave
    giventhisargument seriousconsiderationhadtheDefence suppliedanyevidence that
    witnessesit had locatedwereintimidated by theRwandan authorities or otherwise
    improperlyprevented fromcomingto Arushato testify for the Defence. No such
    evidence
    wasputbefore theChamber.Instead,Section
    V statesthat:
    Pastor
    Ntakirutimana
    andDr.Gerardinsisted
    thatnoonebeplaced injeopardybecause
    theywerecontacted,
    ortestified
    forthedefence.
    Somealibiwitnesses
    wereinprisonand
    therisktothemifcalled totestifywastoogreat.OtherswereinMugonero,butthe
    dangerof evenapproaching
    themdirectlywastoogreat...Others werein Kigali,
    Gisovu,Gishyita,
    Kibuye
    Ville,butagainnodirectapproachcould
    besafely made.The
    defencehada righttothetestimony of suchwitnesseswhichwasviolated by the
    Govemmentof Rwanda.]
    166

    867.The aboveremarks assumethatpotential Defence


    witnesses
    who areso muchas
    contacted
    bytheDefenceareimmediately
    putindanger.Ifthere
    isa factual
    basisto this
    assumption
    it is notstated
    in SectionV. TheDefence
    nevertheless
    concedes
    thatit did
    makecontactthroughintermediaries
    withtwo"veryimportant"
    potential
    witnesseswho
    "agreedto testifyin Arusha
    if conditions fortheirsecurity
    [inRwanda]couldbe
    arranged",
    lt67TheTribunalhasa specializedwitness-protection
    programforDefence
    witnesses.SectionV provides
    no evidencethattheDefence
    attempted
    to utilizethis
    program
    toarrange fortheon-going
    safetyof these
    twopotential
    witnesses.

    1163
    Seepp.256-268oftheBrief.
    1164
    Motionto Dismiss
    or in theAlternative
    Supplemental
    Motion
    fortheProduction
    andDisclosure
    of
    Evidence
    andOtherDiscoveryMaterials.
    1165T.2 April2001pp.126-136.
    t 166
    DefenceClosing
    Briefp.
    257.
    1167
    Id.p.258.

    Judgement
    andSentence 239 21 February
    2003

    A
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    868. Section
    V alsocomplains
    abouttheunavailability
    of certain
    Defencewitnesses
    fromoutsideRwanda,suchas Dr Giordano who,accordingto the Defence,wasunableto
    traveloutof Madagascarbecause
    of thepoliticalcrisisthere.TheChamber observes
    that
    both Prosecutionand Defencewill not alwayssucceedin securing the attendanceof
    witnessesfromallpartsof theworld.In thepresent case,theDefence wasableto have
    admittedas exhibits
    threeaffidavitsfromwitnesseswhoforvarious reasonswereunable
    to6
    "11
    travel
    8 toArusha

    869. The finalargumentof the Defenceunderthe firstsubheading is that it was


    "deprivedof theright"to obtainevidence
    fromwithinRwandato provethattheRwandan
    PatrioticFront, the Rwandan victims’organisationIBUKA, the human rights
    organisation AfricanRights,and others,"frameda politicalcase"againstthe two
    Accused.
    ~169As theDefence
    doesnotclaimthatit evenattemptedto obtain
    theevidenceit
    alludesto fromtheaforementioned
    sources,theChamberfindsno meritin theargument.

    870. Under the secondsubheadingthe Defenceallegesthat the Tribunalhas not


    indicteda singleofficial of theRwandanPatriotic
    Front,the Rwandan PatrioticArmy,
    thepresentgovernmentof Rwanda,or a personofTutsiethnicity.Thissupposedly shows
    theTribunal’s "discriminatorypurpose",
    whichis to "inflictvictors justice"on the
    survivingleadershipandmilitary of the formergovernment
    of Rwanda.~17°The Chamber
    understandstheargument of theDefence,
    whichis verysketchy,to be a complaintabout
    selectiveprosecution. Thistopichas beendealtwithby the AppealsChamberof the
    ICTYin itsJudgementin theDelalicCase.1171

    871.Article15(2)of the Statuterequires the Prosecutor to act independently and


    preventsher from seekingor receiving instructions froma government or any other
    source.According to thestandard articulatedby the ICTYAppealsChamberin Delalic,
    wherean appellant allegesselective prosecution he or shemustdemonstrate thatthe
    Prosecutorimproperlyexercisedherprosecutorial
    discretion in relationto theappellant
    himselfor herself.
    1172It followsthattheAccused in thepresent casemustshowthatthe
    Prosecutor’sdecision to prosecutethemor to continue theirprosecution was basedon
    impermissible
    motives, suchas ethnicityor politicalaffiliation,andthatshefailed to
    prosecute
    similarlysituatedsuspects
    of different
    ethnicityor politicalaffiliation.
    In view
    of thefailureof theDefenceto adduceanyevidence to establishthattheProsecutor hada
    discriminatoryor otherwiseunlawful or impropermotivein indicting or continuingto
    prosecutetheAccused, theChamberdoesnotfindit necessary to considertheadditional
    questionof whethertherewereothersimilarly situated persons whowerenotprosecuted
    or againstwhomprosecutions werediscontinued.

    1168
    Seeid.p.259andexhibits
    1D52(A),
    (B),
    and
    1169Defence
    Closing
    Briefp.
    259.
    1170
    Id.
    p.260.
    1171
    Delalic
    (AC),Part
    X,Selective
    Prosecution.
    1172
    Id.paras.
    607,611.

    Judgement
    andSentence 240 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    872.The thirdsubheadingrelatesmainlyto the administration


    of the Tribunal.
    Allegations
    havingto do withbureaucratic
    impediments,
    latepaymentof fees,and
    mismanagement
    of protected
    witnesses
    shouldhavebeenreferred
    to theRegistrar,if
    anyone.
    Theydo not demonstrateany resultingdisadvantage
    or unfairnessin the
    presentation
    of theDefencecase.TheChamber
    willbrieflyaddresstwootherissues
    under
    thissubheading.

    873.The firstconcerns Mr. EphremGasasira,who was Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s


    preferred candidateforco-counsel.Mr.Gasasira
    wasnotappointed to thepost,because
    theDefence wasunable to providetheRegistrar
    withadequateproofthatthecandidate
    "hadacted asvisitingprofessorata certain
    levelandwithsufficient regularity"
    overa
    minimum period of tenyearsat academicinstitutions,
    whichaccording to theChamber
    would havesatisfied therelevantcondition
    of appointment
    in Rule45 of theRulesthen
    in force.1173 TheDefencedisparagesthe"acceptance
    of patently falseinformation
    from
    theJustice Ministerof Rwandaconcerning
    theteachingrecord of JudgeGasasiraat the
    National UniversityandJudges’ College
    [inRwanda]",
    yetprovides no evidence
    thatthe
    information
    1174 wasinaccurate,
    letalonefalsified.

    874.TheDefencequestionsthequality of translations
    at theTribunal.
    In particular,
    "[c]ourtroom
    translationwasa constant concernandfrequent problemin thiscase,
    assumingthebestefforts andintentions of all.Alltoofrequently,difficultywith
    translation
    causeduncertaintyas to whata witnesssaid,or meant.
    ’’1175TheChamber
    observes
    thatsimultaneousinterpretationfromKinyarwanda
    throughFrenchintoEnglish,
    thoughinherentlydifficult,generally proceedssmoothly.TheDefencernultilingual
    assistant,whoswitched betweenthe channels, periodicallyintervenedtbroughhis
    Counsel
    toproposecorrections
    to theinterpretation.
    Intheinterests
    ofanaccuraterecord
    theChamberalwaysgaveconsideration to thoseinterventions.
    TheKinyarwandachannel
    is recorded
    andthesoundtrack is availableto theParties.Theconcern
    of theDefence
    aboutoccasionson whichundetectederrors "mayhavebeenmade"whichgavea wrong,
    ormisleadingmeaning
    to thewitnesses’ actualwords,doesnotestablish
    thattherecord
    oftheproceedings
    contains
    anysignificanterror.~176

    875.Thelastsubheading of SectionV of theDefence


    ClosingBrief,entitled"The
    Charterof theUnited NationsDoesNotEmpowertheSecurity
    Councilto Establish
    any
    Criminal
    Court",revisitstheissueoftheTribunal’s
    legality,
    already
    dealtwithinthe
    Chamber’s
    decisionof 2 April2001.
    ~77TheChamberisnotpersuaded
    thattheadditional
    remarks
    oftheDefenceonthesubjectrequireittoreconsider
    itsdecision.

    1173 Decision
    of13July2001ontheMotion
    oftheDefence
    fortheAssignment
    ofCo-counsel
    for
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,
    para.
    19.
    1174
    Defence
    Closing
    Briefp.
    261.
    1175
    Id.
    p.265.
    1176Id.
    p.265.
    1177
    T.2 April
    2001
    pp.126-130.

    Judgement
    andSentence 241 21February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    876.In conclusion,
    thearguments
    givenby theDefence
    in its"renewal
    of itsmotion
    to
    dismiss
    theindictment",
    viewed
    whether
    individually
    or collectively,
    failto demonstrate
    anyunfairness
    justifying
    therelief
    soughtbytheDefence,
    oranyrelief.

    Judgement
    andSentence 242

    ~ 21 February 2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    2,-77
    NtaMrutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    CHAPTER IV

    VERDICT

    FOR THE FOREGOINGREASONS,havingconsideredall of the evidenceand the


    arguments,

    THE CHAMBERunanimously
    findsas follows:

    877. In respect
    of Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana:
    (i)Count1A Mugonero & Count1 Bisesero:
    GUILTYof Genocide;
    (ii)Count1B Mugonero & Count2 Bisesero:
    NOT GUILTYof Complicity
    in
    Genocide;
    (iii)Count2 Mugonero& Count3 Bisesero:NOT GUILTYof Conspiracy
    to
    CommitGenocide;
    (iv)Count3 Mugonero& Count4 Bisesero:NOT GUILTYof CrimesAgainst
    Humanity
    (Murder);
    (v) Count4 Mugonero& Count5 Bisesero:NOT GUILTYof CrimesAgainst
    Humanity
    (Extermination).
    (vi)Count5 Mugonero & Count6 Bisesero:
    NOT GUILTYof CrimesAgainst
    Humanity
    (OtherInhumaneActs).
    (vii)Count7 Bisesero:
    NOT GUILTYof SeriousViolations
    of Article
    Common
    to theGeneva
    Conventions
    andof Additional
    Protocol
    II.

    878. Inrespectof G6rardNtakirutimana:


    (i)Count1A Mugonero & Count1 Bisesero:GUILTYof Genocide;
    (ii)Count1B Mugonero& Count2 Bisesero: NOT GUILTYof Complicity
    in
    Genocide;
    (iii)Count2 Mugonero& Count3 Bisesero: NOT GUILTYof Conspiracy
    to
    CommitGenocide;
    (iv) Count3 Mugonero& Count4 Bisesero:GUILTYof CrimesAgainst
    Humanity
    (Murder);
    (v) Count4 Mugonero& Count5 Bisesero: NOT GUILTYof CrimesAgainst
    Humanity
    (Extermination);
    (vi)Count5 Mugonero & Count6 Bisesero:NOT GUILTYof CrimesAgainst
    Humanity
    (OtherInhumane Acts);
    (vii)Count7 (Bisesero): NOT GUILTYof SeriousViolationsof Article
    Common
    to theGeneva Conventions
    andof Additional
    ProtocolII.

    Judgement
    andSentence 243 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo,ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    CHAPTER V

    SENTENCING

    1° Applicable
    Provisions

    879.The provisionsof the Statuteand the Rulesrelevantto the Chamber’s


    consideration
    ofan appropriate
    sentence
    fortheAccused
    areArticles
    22,23and26ofthe
    Statute
    andRules
    102,103and104of theRules.

    880.Pursuant
    to Article
    23 of theStatute andRule101(A)
    of theRules, theTribunal
    mayimposeonlya termof imprisonmenton thepersonconvicted,
    up to andincluding
    imprisonment
    fortheremainderof thatperson’s
    life,andtherestitution
    of property
    or
    proceeds
    acquired
    by criminal
    conduct.

    2. Purposes
    and Principles
    of Sentencing

    881.BothAccused havebeenfoundguilty of genocide


    andcrimesagainst humanity.
    Thesecrimesareofan utmost
    gravity;
    theyareshocking
    to theconscience
    of mankind,
    in
    viewof thefundamental
    humanvalues
    deliberately
    negated
    by theirperpetrators
    andthe
    sufferings
    inflicted.
    Thesecrimesthreaten
    notonlythefoundationsof thesocietyin
    which
    theyareperpetratedbutalsothose
    oftheinternational
    community
    asa whole.

    882.Thegravityof theoffencesshall
    thereforebe reflected
    primarilyintheChamber’s
    decision
    onthesentence tobe inflicted
    upontheAccused,inorderto serve
    suchprimary
    purposes
    as retribution,deterrence,
    protectionof society,stigmatization
    andpublic
    reprobation
    ofinternational
    crimes.
    General
    deterrenceisparticularly
    emphasized
    inthis
    respect,
    so asto demonstrate
    "that
    theinternationalcommunity
    [is]notreadytotolerate
    serious
    1178 violationsof international
    humanitarian
    lawandhumanrights".

    883.Article
    23 of the Statuteand Rule101(B)of theRulesalsorequirethatthe
    individual
    circumstancesof the Accused
    and theexistenceof anyaggravatingand
    mitigating
    circumstances
    in theircasebe thoroughly
    considered.
    Application
    of these
    principles
    allows
    theChamberto fulfill
    its"overriding
    obligation
    toindividualize
    [the]
    penalty",
    withtheaimthatthesentencebelproportional
    tothegravity
    of theoffenceand
    thedegree
    ofresponsibility
    oftheoffender.

    884.The Chamberemphasizes in thiscontextthe importanceof the principleof


    gradation
    in sentencing,
    which
    enablestheTribunals
    todistinguish
    betweencrimeswhich
    areof themostheinous nature,
    andthosewhich,although
    reprehensibleanddeserving
    severepenalty,
    shouldnotreceivethehighest
    penalties.
    Theimpositionof thehighest
    penalties
    uponthoseat theupperendofthesentencing
    scale,suchasthosewhoplanned
    or ordered
    atrocities,or thosewhocommitted
    crimes withespecialzealor sadism,
    1178Kambanda
    (TC)para.28,endorsed
    inAleksovski
    (AC)para.66.
    t179Delalic
    (AC)para.717;Akayesu
    (AC)para.
    407.

    Judgement
    andSentence 244 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    enables
    theChamber
    to punish,
    deter,andconsequently
    stigmatize
    those
    crimesat a level
    thatcorresponds
    to theiroverall
    magnitude
    andreflects
    theextent
    of thesuffering
    inflicted
    118° uponthevictims.

    885.Thisprinciple is apparent in therelevantdispositions


    of theRwandanCriminal
    Codeand the practice of the Rwandancourtsin respect of sentencing,whichthe
    Chamberdulyconsidered
    in itsdecision.Specific
    referenceismade,inthisregard,
    tothe
    differentcategories
    of gOnocidaires
    or perpetrators
    of other
    crimesagainst
    humanityand
    thecorresponding
    sentencesto beimposedby thecourts ofRwanda
    in theirrespect
    in the
    theRwandan OrganicLawon theOrganization of Prosecutions
    forOffencesconstituting
    Genocide or Crimesagainst Humanity, committedsince1 October 1990.Theserange
    froma deathsentenceto lifeimprisonmentor a termof imprisonment,
    depending
    on the
    criminalbehaviour
    considered andtheexistenceor notof aggravating
    circumstances
    such
    as theconvictedpersons’positionsas leaders,theparticular
    crueltywithwhichtheir
    crimes
    1181 werecommitted,
    or their beingfound
    guilty ofsexualviolence.

    886.Article23 of theStatute andRule101(A) of theRulesareconsonant withthe


    principle
    of gradationin sentencing.
    Theyprovideforflexibilityin thedetermination
    of
    thesentenceto be imposed.
    Thus,individualsconvicted of genocide,
    of crimes
    against
    humanityor of Violations of Article3 commonto the GenevaConventions and of
    Additional
    Protocol II pursuant
    to Articles
    2, 3 or 4 of theStatutemayeachfacethe
    highest
    sentenceif thecircumstances
    ofthecase, after assessment
    ofanyindividual
    and
    mitigating
    factors, aredeemedtorequireit.Bythesametoken, notallpersonsconvicted
    of genocide,
    to namebutthe"crime of thecrimes", are boundto servethehighest
    sentence.

    887.Bearing
    theaboveconsiderations
    in mind,regard
    willbe hadto a further
    purpose
    1182
    ofthesentence,
    thatofa possible
    rehabilitation
    ofthe
    convicted
    person.

    ~8oTheprinciple
    of gradation
    in sentencing
    wasfirst
    acknowledged
    in theICTYas reflecting
    therelative
    roleof theindividual
    accused
    in theoverall
    contextof theconflict.
    SeeDelalic(AC)para.849and
    Aleksovski(AC)para.184.It wasendorsedby theAppealsChamberin theMusema(AC)paras.381
    and382.
    ~181SeeOrganicLawNo.8/96of 30 August
    1996,publishedin theGazette
    of theRepublic
    of Rwanda,
    35thyear.No.17,1 September
    1996.ThefulltextoftheOrganic Lawis available
    ontheofficialWebsite
    of the Embassy of the Republic of Rwanda in Washington, D.C at
    <http://www.rwandemb.org/prosecution/law.htm>.
    Priorto theOrganicLaw,including in 1994,the
    relevantlawin forcewastheRwandan PenalCodeof 18 August1977.UndertheCode,thepenalty for
    murderwaslifeimprisonment,
    or deathin casesinvolvingpremeditation
    or ambush(Article
    311and312,
    respectively).
    WhileRwandaratifiedtheGenocideConventionon12 February1975,theCodedoesnotlist
    genocideorcrimesagainst
    humanityas separate
    criminalcategories.
    SeeCodeP6nal(18August 1977),
    FilipReyntjens
    andJanGorus(eds.), Codeset Loisdu Rwanda (Butare:Universit6Nationale
    du Rwanda,
    1995).
    1182Blaskic(TC)para.761;Kunarac (TC)para.836;Serushago (TC)para.39;Kayishema andRuzindana
    (TC)para.2,upheld
    in Kayishema
    andRuzindana
    (AC)para.389and390.

    Judgement
    andSentence 245 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecu
    torv.Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    3. Submissions
    of theParties

    3.1 Prosecution

    888.In itsSentencing
    Brief,
    theProsecutionsubmits
    thattheextreme
    gravity
    of the
    crimes
    committed
    by theAccusedcallsfora highsentence,
    especially,
    considering
    the
    following
    aggravating
    circumstances,
    interalia:
    (i)As forElizaphanNtakirutimana,he was theoverall headof theMugonero
    complexand wasrespectedas an "intermediarybetweenthe peopleandGod";he
    personally
    ferriedattackersto theComplex as wellas theBisesero area;he is
    responsible
    for thedestruction of the roofof the MurambiChurchwhereTutsi
    persons
    soughtrefuge.
    Finally,
    after theevents,he decided
    to fleeRwanda
    andfailed
    toperform
    anyburialsfortheTutsikilled, orto holda remembrance
    service
    forthe
    dead.
    (ii)As forG6rardNtakirutimana, theAccused wasthe de factoheadof the
    MugoneroHospitalbetween10 and17 April1994as wellas a respected
    personin the
    community; he tookpartin meetingsto planthe attackon the Complex; he
    dischargedHutupatientsfromthehospital justpriorto theattack;he wentto the
    Kibuyegendarmeriecampto procureweaponsfortheattack; he personally
    tookpart
    intheattack ontheComplexaswellas intheattacksin Bisesero;after
    theevents,he
    decidedto fleeRwandaandfailed to perform
    anyburials fortheTutsikilled or to
    holda remembrance
    serviceforthedead.

    889.The Prosecution
    maintains
    thatthereareno mitigating circumstances.
    Neither
    G6rardNtakirutimana
    norElizaphanNtakirutimana
    co-operatedwiththeProsecutor,
    nor
    havetheyshownthatin thecommission of thesecrimes theyweremerely following
    orders.Also,
    whilecharacter
    evidenceis irrelevant
    to thiscase,theAccused
    havenot
    shownanyremorsefortheircrimes(althoughit is acknowledged
    thata TrialChamber
    may consider
    evidenceof background,
    character,priorcriminalacts,andanyother
    information
    thatitdeemsrelevant
    in determining
    an appropriate
    sentence).

    890.The Prosecution
    concludesthatbothof the AccusedfallunderCategory 1 of
    Rwanda’s
    OrganicLawandthattheywouldhavereceived thedeathpenaltyif theyhad
    beentriedandconvicted
    in Rwanda;
    thata separate
    sentence
    shouldbe applied
    foreach
    ofthecountsonwhichtheAccusedhavebeenfoundguilty
    and,finally,thattheyshould
    eachservethemoresevere sentence,
    imprisonment
    fortheremainderof theirnatural
    1183
    lives.

    3.2 Defence

    891.TheDefence
    madeno specificsubmissions
    on sentencing.
    Itscasebeingthatthe
    Prosecution
    failed
    to prove
    theguiltof theAccusedandthattheAccusedareinnocent
    of
    thecharges
    against
    them,theDefencerequests
    thattheAccusedbe setfree.TheDefence
    alsocalled
    several
    witnessesandsubmitted
    manystatementsof friends
    andcolleagues,

    ~183Prosecutor’s
    Sentencing
    Brief
    of4 July2002para.
    44-57,
    67,81,85.

    Judgement
    andSentence 246 21 February
    2003
    ~
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    whoemphasised
    thegoodcharacter of bothAccused,
    theirintegrity,andtheservices that
    theyrenderedto the community.It is furthersubmitted
    thatElizaphan Ntakirutimana’s
    lifeworkwasdedicatedto saving
    soulsandhisson’s, to healing
    thesickandsaving lives.
    Furthermore,
    bothAccused testifiedabouttheirmanyyearsof dedication to churchand
    community.Finally,it is submitted thatneitherof the Accusedwas in a positionto
    preventor stop the massacres,and that they were themselvesvictimswho became
    refugees.1184

    4. Discussion

    892. The Chamberhas alreadynotedthe gravityof the crimesof whichthe Accused


    havebeenfoundguilty. It nowturnsto thepersonal
    andindividualcircumstances
    of the
    Accused,priorto reviewingthepractice
    of theTribunal
    in respect
    of sentences
    in cases
    withsimilarities
    tothepresent one.

    893.TheChamber recallsat theoutsetthegeneral principle thatonlymattersproveda


    beyonda reasonabledoubtagainst the Accused areto be considered againstthemat the
    sentencingstage.
    Thisprinciple extendsto theassessment of anyaggravating
    factors.
    1185
    Anotherstandardappliesto theChamber’s assessmentof mitigatingfactors.Theseshall
    be takenintoconsiderationif established on a balanceof probabilities.
    1186Also,the
    Chamberagreeswith the VasiljevicTrialChamberof the ICTY that a particular
    circumstanceshallnotbe retainedas aggravating if it is included
    as an element
    of the
    crimein consideration.
    1187

    4.1 ElizaphanNtakirutimana

    894.It is recalledthatElizaphanNtakirutimana
    was bom in 1924 in Ngomasector,
    Gishyitacommune,
    Kibuyeprefecture,Rwanda.

    (a) MitigatingCircumstances

    895. The Chamberhas foundthat the Accusedwas a highlyrespectedpersonality


    withinthe Seventh-DayAdventistChurchof the West-Rwanda
    Fieldand beyond,in the
    Kibuye prefecture. It heard and reviewedmoving testimonyfrom colleaguesand
    supervisorsof the Accusedwithinthe Seventh-Day AdventistChurch.Thisevidence
    consistently
    describedthePastor’sexemplary
    lifeas a church
    leader,a highly
    religious
    andtolerantperson,whodid notshowethnicbias,evenin timesof unrestandethnic

    t184SeeT.22August2002pp.57and58andDefenceClosing
    Brief
    pp.1-12.
    1185
    Delalic
    (AC)para.763;Vasiljevic
    (TC)
    para.272.
    1186Kunarac
    (TC)para.
    857,Sikirica
    (TC)para.
    110;
    Vasiljevic
    (TC)para.
    272.
    i187Specifically,
    theVasiljevic
    Trial
    Chamber
    ruledthattheperpetrator’s
    discriminatory
    intentinthe
    commission
    ofthecrime "canonly[constitute
    anaggravating
    factor]
    where
    thecrime
    forwhich
    anaccused
    isconvicted
    doesnotincludea discriminatory
    state
    ofmind asanelement."
    Hence,
    one’s
    discriminatory
    intent
    wasnotdeemedanaggravatingfactor
    inrespectofa count
    ofpersecution
    considered
    asa crime
    against
    humanity
    (Article5(h)oftheICTYStatute).
    Itwashowever
    considered
    anaggravating
    factor
    respect
    ofa countofmurderconsidered
    asa violation
    ofthelawsandcustoms
    ofwar(Article
    3 ofthe
    ICTY
    Statute).
    Vasiljevic
    (TC)para.277-278.

    Judgement
    andSentence 247 /~ 21February
    2003
    /,
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG&ardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    tension,
    foroverhalfa century.
    Significantly,
    onesuchcolleague praised
    "afaithfuland
    honestworkerwho manifested
    couragein confronting irregularities
    withworkers of
    eithertribalaffiliation"
    whilean otherdescribed PastorNtakirutimana
    as "a kind
    Christian
    gentleman",
    an outstanding
    workerwhomhe foundto be fairandtrustworthy,
    whomhe neversawlosehistemper, who"worked wellwiththe Hutusandthe Tutsis"
    andwhomhe neversawmakinganydistinctionin theirrespect.As already
    stated, the
    Chamberaccepts
    thisevidenceandfindsthatElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    wasessentiallya
    person
    of goodmoralcharacteruntiltheevents of Aprilto July1994duringwhichhe
    wassweptalongwithmanyRwandansintocriminalconduct.1188

    896.The familysituationof the Accused


    hasbeentakenintoaccount (Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    is married
    witheightchildren
    ofwhomsevenwerealivein 2002).

    897.In respectof hisconduct during


    theevents
    of 1994,theChamberhasconsidered
    thatElizaphanNtakirutimanadidnotplaya leadingrolein theattacks.He didnot
    personally
    participatein thesekillings,
    norwashe found
    to havefiredon refugees
    or
    evento havecarrieda weapon.

    898.Finally,78 yearsof ageat thetimeof sentencing,


    theAccusedhasspentmore
    thanfouryears
    in detention.
    Hiswife,
    amongother
    witnesses,
    hastestified
    about
    hisfrail
    health,dueto a condition
    fromwhichhe hassuffered
    foryears.Hispoorhealthwas
    evidentthroughout
    thetrialproceedings.
    Considered
    together,
    theChamber
    findsthat
    theseareimportant
    mitigatingcircumstances
    inElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana’s
    case.

    (b) Aggravating
    Circumstances:

    899.The Chamber
    now turnsto the circumstances
    considered
    as aggravating
    in the
    Accused’s
    case.

    900.As a highly
    respected
    personality
    anda manwieldingcertain
    authority
    within
    the
    Seventh-DayAdventist
    Churchof theWest-Rwanda
    Fieldandin theKibuye
    prefecture,
    theAccusedwasdeemed
    to haveabused
    thetrustplaced
    in him.

    901.Theletterwrittento himby theTutsiPastorson behalf


    of therefugeesat the
    Mugonero
    Complexwas found,amongotherevidence,to be a symbolof hisperceived
    authority
    amongthegeneralpopulation.
    Itis recalled
    thattheMugonero
    refugees
    trusted
    that,
    ontheeveoftheattack, Pastor
    Ntakirutimana
    would
    intercede
    intheir favor
    beforea
    municipal
    authority
    suchas bourgmestreSikubwabo,and thathisinterventioncould
    prove
    instrumental
    insaving
    their lives.

    1~88In thewordsof,respectively,
    Robert
    Peck,former
    President
    oftheUnionMission
    oftheSeventh-Day
    Adventist
    Churchin Rwanda
    from1984to 1990andPastorDe WittS. Williams,
    formerPresident
    of the
    Central
    AfricaUnionof theChurchfrom1979to 1982.Thiscorrespondenceis included
    in Defence
    Exhibit
    1D21.SeealsoII.6supra(Characterof theAccused
    PriortoApril1994)andparticularly
    the
    Chamber’s
    findings
    atII.6.3.1.
    t5
    Judgementand Sentence 248 ~ 21 February2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    902.Manyamongthe refugeesat the MugoneroComplexon 16 April1994were


    parishioners
    andpastors of theWest-RwandaFieldof theSeventhDayAdventistChurch
    forwhichPastor Ntakirutimana
    wasresponsible.Thesepersonswerein hiscare.They
    werehis"flock",to recall
    thewordingofthePastors’letter.
    On hisretumfromGishyita,
    he failedto go in person
    before thePastors andtherefugees to informthemof the
    bourgmestre’snegativeresponse to theirplea.As notedearlier, the Accused
    thus
    distanced
    himselffromhisTutsipastorsandhisflockinthehouroftheir need.
    1189This,
    whichmaybe characterised
    as dishonourable
    fora manof thecloth, wasconsidered
    as an
    aggravating
    factor.

    903.Later,
    on thesameday,he further
    abusedthetrusttherefugees
    placedin himby
    conveying
    individuals,whomhe knewweresetuponattackingthem,to theComplex.
    Thesameabuseof trustwasconsidered
    an aggravating
    circumstance
    in respect
    to his
    association
    withattackers
    inBisesero.

    904.Furthermore,considering
    hisauthority,
    as emphasized
    above, hispresence
    at the
    sceneof the attackagainst theComplex,
    not to mentionhis association
    withthe
    g~nocidaires
    he ferriedin hisown vehicle,
    couldonlyhavebeenconstrued by the
    attackersas an approval
    of theiractions,
    if not an incitementthereto.
    Thesame
    circumstance
    wasconsidered aggravating
    in respectof theAccused’sinvolvementin
    attacks
    launchedonTutsirefugees
    inBisesero.

    905.Anotheraggravating
    circumstance
    in respect
    of hisassociation
    in theattackof
    16 April1994is thattheMugonero
    Complexwasconsidered
    a safehaven.
    Similarly,
    in
    Bisesero,he wasfoundto haveassociated
    himself
    withattacksagainsta church
    and
    schools
    orother buildings
    wheretheTutsi
    refugees
    wereseekingshelter.

    (c) Conclusion

    906.Having
    reviewed
    allcircumstances
    in theAccused’s
    case,individual,
    mitigating
    andaggravating,
    theChamber
    declares
    itselfsympathetic
    totheindividual
    andmitigating
    circumstances
    of Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana.
    Special
    weight
    hasbeengiven,inreaching
    its
    decision
    onthesentence,
    tohisage,hisstateofhealth,
    hispastgoodcharacter
    andpublic
    service.

    4.2 G~rardNtakirutama

    907.The Chamber
    now turnsto the AccusedG6rardNtakirutimana,
    bornin 1958in
    Ngomasector,
    Gishyitacommune,
    Kibuye prefecture,
    Rwanda.

    1189Seesupra
    II.3.8.3
    (b).

    Judgement
    andSentence 249 21 February
    2003

    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    (a) Mitigating
    Circumstances

    908.TheChamber notesthat,at thetimeof sentencing,theAccused was44 yearsold,


    thathe is marriedandthathe hasthreechildren. To hiscredit, theAccuseddidnot
    professor showethnic biaspriorto theevents. Furthermore,
    the Chamber hasmade
    statements
    on hisgoodcharacter.t19°
    TheChamber particularly
    bearsin mindhow,during
    histestimony, GdrardNtakirutimanarelated whatprompted his returnto Rwandain
    1993,namely hishopeto contribute to developmentandto promote peacewithinhis
    country.However,theseconsiderations
    do notdetract fromthefactthat,in timesof
    ethnic
    biasandtension intheprefecture,he associated
    withtheg~nocidaires
    inhisarea
    andbecame oneof them.Thesecircumstances wereaccordinglydeemed to carrylittle
    weight.

    909.TheChamberfurtherconsidered
    as mitigating
    factorsthefollowingactions
    of the
    Accused,
    whichwerenotcontradictedby theProsecutor,
    in AprilandMay1994:
    (i)Thenightof 7 April1994,theAccusedprovided
    shelterin hishouseto the
    wife,daughter
    andtwograndchildren
    of Isra61Nsengimana,
    a Tutsicolleague
    andfriend
    of1
    119
    his;
    (ii)On 8 April1994,he proposed
    toCatherine,
    hisTutsihouse-help,
    to stay
    their
    1192family
    home,ashefearedforhersecurity;
    (iii)A fewdaysbefore 16 April1994,he droveCldmentine,theTutsiwife
    JeanNkuranga,himselfa Tutsiandthedirectorof theESINursing School,to Gisovu,
    andtheirchildren,aspartoftheevacuationfromtheComplexof families
    of senior
    Hutu
    employees;
    1193
    (iv)Duringan entireweek,whilein Gishyita,
    he tookin hiscaretwoorphaned
    andinjured Tutsichildrenhe hadfoundamongscattered bodies,nearbytheMugonero
    Hospital,
    on18 April1994.1194

    (b) Aggravating
    Circumstances

    910.Turningnow to the aggravating circumstances in the Accused’scase,the


    Chambernotesthat,althoughnotto thesameextent as hisfather,GdrardNtakirutimana
    was a prominent personality
    in the Mugoneroarea.A doctor, he wasone of thefew
    individualsin hisareaoforiginto haveachieved
    a highereducationandoneoftherare
    schooledin Western
    universities.
    Itisparticularly
    egregiousthat,asa medical
    doctor,
    he
    tooklivesinstead of saving
    them.He wasaccordingly foundto haveabusedthetrust
    placedin himin committing
    thecrimes of which
    he wasfoundguilty.

    119o
    SeeII.6.3.2
    supra.
    119lSeeT. 9 May2002pp.33-34(Gdrard
    Ntakirutimana);
    T. 11 April2002pp.76-77and97-98(Ann
    Nzahumunyurwa).
    1192SeeT. 9 May2002pp.33-36(Gdrard
    Ntakirutimana)and T. 11 April2002pp.76 and77 (Ann
    Nzahumunyurwa).
    1193Seepara.
    116supra.
    1194T.9 May2002pp.118-119
    and124-127;
    T. 10 May2002pp.84-85. GdrardNtakirutimana’s
    testimony
    wascorroboratedby his mother,RoyisiNtakirutimana
    (T.11 April2002p. 5),and his father
    (T.7 May2002pp.21-24).

    Judgement
    andSentence 250 ~ 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    911. Furthermore,
    in several
    instances
    theAccused
    wasfoundto haveledattackers
    Tutsi
    against refugees.

    912.Otheraggravating circumstances
    takenintoconsideration are:thathiscrimes
    werecommitted withunabatedzealovera lengthy period of time(approximately two
    months
    anda half);thathepersonally
    shotat Tutsi
    refugees andthathe thusdirectlyand
    personallycontributedto thesheerdeathtollamongthe mainly defenseless Tutsi
    populationat the MugoneroComplexand in Bisesero (as evidenced in the caseof
    CharlesUkobizaba,
    Esdrasandthewifeof Nzamwita);thathe participatedin theattack
    againsta safehavensuchas theMugonero
    Complex,includingtheveryhospital in which
    he wasa doctor,notto mention
    thespecificattacks in Bisesero
    of whichhe wasfound
    guilty,
    thattargetedschools
    andother
    buildingsinwhichrefugeessoughtnightlyshelter.

    (c) Conclusion

    913.Having
    reviewed
    allcircumstances
    in theAccused’s
    case,individual,
    mitigating
    andaggravating,
    theChamberfindsthattheaggravating
    circumstances
    outweigh
    the
    mitigating
    circumstances
    in Grrard
    Ntakirutimana’s
    case.

    4.3 SentencesImposedin OtherCasesof the Tribunalof Relevance


    to the
    PresentCase

    914.C16ment Kayishema,the formerPrefect of KibuyePrefecture,AlfredMusema,


    the formerDirectorof the Gisovu Tea Factoryin theKibuyePrefecture, and Obed
    Ruzindana,
    a successfulbusinessman fromKibuye, havebeenconvicted andsentenced
    by theTribunal
    forgenocide and(asfaras Alfred Musema
    is concerned)
    crimes against
    humanity,
    committed
    againstthemainly Tutsipopulation
    in Bisesero
    or elsewherein the
    Kibuyeprefecture betweenApriland June1994.C16mentKayishema and Alfred
    Musemaareservingsentences of imprisonment
    fortheremainder of theirlives, while
    ObedRuzindana was sentenced to 25 yearsof imprisonment. Theirnamesoften
    resurfaced
    in thetestimonyof witnesseswhendescribing
    attacksduringwhichtheysaw
    theAccused
    in thepresentcase.

    915.Kayishema,MusemaandRuzindana wereallfoundguilty, interalia,of leading


    assailants
    against
    Tutsirefugees
    inBiseseroandofpersonally
    attackingandoffiring on
    these
    refugees.Thegravityof theirdirectinvolvement
    in theexecution of genocide
    or
    crimesagainsthumanitydoesnotcompare withthecrimes retainedagainst Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    in thisChamber’s Verdict.
    Theparticularindividual, mitigatingand
    aggravatingcircumstances
    in thesentencingof thesethreeAccused, as wellas the
    balancestruckby theconcernedChambers,
    afterweighingallcircumstances, arealso
    distinct.
    TheChamber,accordingly,hasdetermined
    thatthesentencing in thecasesof
    Kayishema,MusemaandRuzindana shouldhavelittleimport on the present decision
    regarding
    thesentenceforElizaphanNtakirutimana.

    Judgement
    andSentence 251 ~
    6" 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGdrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    916.The crimesof whichtheywerefoundguiltydo compare, in somerespects, to


    thoseretained againstGrrardNtakirutimanain theVerdict. TheAccused, likeAlfred
    Musema,C16ment Kayishema and ObedRuzindana, wasfoundto haveled attackers in
    theBisesero hillsandto havepersonally shotat Tutsirefugees.However, amongother
    considerations,C16ment Kayishema’spositionof authority as Prefectof theKibuye
    Prefecture was held not to comparewiththe AccusedGrrardNtakirutimana’s
    circumstances.Similarly, theChamber notesthatAlfred Musema wasfoundguilty of
    bothdirectresponsibilityunderArticle6(1)of theStatute andcommand responsibility
    underArticle6(3)of theStatute
    forhiseffectivecontroloveractions ofemployees
    ofthe
    GisovuTeaFactory in Bisesero.Grrard Ntakirutimana,on the otherhand,wasfound
    guiltyof hiscrimes pursuantto Article6(1)of theStatute only.Furthermore,
    Alfred
    Musemawasfoundby the concemed TrialChamber to haveassumed leadershipduring
    attacksto a widerextent thanGrrardNtakirutimana.
    Lastly, ObedRuzindana’scasewas
    deemedto havemoresimilarity to thatof theAccused,eventhough notin allrespects
    andwithaltogetherdifferingindividual,
    mitigating
    andaggravatingcircumstances.

    5. Imposition
    of Sentence

    917.As a preliminary
    matter, theChamber notesthewell-establishedpractice
    in this
    TribunalandtheICTY,as confirmed by theirrespective Appeals
    Chambers,whichhave
    confirmedthatRule87(C)andRule101(C)of theRulesare worded withsufficient
    liberalityfora singlesentenceto be imposedon theAccused.
    1195TheChamberrecalls
    that,evenwherethecrimes maybe characterizedin differentways,theimposition
    of a
    singlesentence willusually be appropriatein casesin whichtheoffences maybe
    recognizedas belongingto a single criminal
    transaction.1196However,thedecision
    whether
    to imposea singlesentenceis leftentirelyto thediscretion
    oftheChamber,so
    longasthefundamentalconsiderationinimposingsentenceisthetotalityofthecriminal
    conduct
    oftheaccused.1197

    918. FOR THE FOREGOINGREASONS,having consideredall of the evidence


    andthearguments
    oftheparties,
    theStatute,
    andtheRules,theTrialChamber
    imposes
    sentence
    asfollows,
    delivering
    itsdecision
    inpublic,
    interpartes
    andinthefirst
    instance,
    andnoting
    thegeneral
    practice
    regarding
    sentencing
    in Rwanda,

    5.1 Sentencefor Elizaphan


    Ntakirutimana

    919. Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanawas foundguiltyof Genocide(Count1A of the
    Mugonero
    Indictment
    andCount1 of theBisesero
    Indictment).

    920. Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wasfoundnotguiltyof:
    (i) Complicityin genocide
    (Count 1B Mugonero
    Indictment
    and Count2
    theBisesero
    Indictment);

    1195Kambanda
    (AC)para.103;Kunarac(AC)para.344.
    1196Blaskic
    (YC) para.
    807;Krstic
    (TC)para.
    725.
    1197Delalic
    (AC)para.771;Kunarac
    (AC)para.
    343.

    Judgement
    andSentence 252 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andGdrard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    (ii)Conspiracy to commitgenocide (Count2 of theMugonero Indictment


    Count
    3 of theBisesero
    Indictment);
    (iii)Murderconsidered as a crimeagainst humanity(Count
    3 of theMugonero
    Indictment
    andCount
    4 of theBisesero Indictment);
    (iv)Exterminationconsidered as a crimeagainst humanity(Count4 of
    Mugonero
    Indictment
    andCount5 of theBisesero Indictment);
    (v) Otherinhumane actsconsidered as a crimeagainst
    humanity(Count5
    theMugoneroIndictment
    andCount6 of theBisesero Indictment);
    (vi)Serious
    violations
    of Article3 Commonto theGeneva
    Conventions
    and
    Additional
    Protocol
    IIthereto(Count
    7 oftheBisesero
    Indictment).

    921.For the crimeuponwhichconviction


    was enteredagainstthe Accused,
    the
    ChamberSENTENCESElizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    to:

    IMPRISONMENT FOR 10 YEARS.

    5.2 Sentencefor G~rardNtakirutimana

    922. G6rard
    Ntakirutimanahasbeenfoundguiltyof:
    (i) Genocide (Count1A of the Mugonero Indictment
    and Count1 of
    Bisesero
    Indictment);
    (ii)Murderconsidered as a crimeagainst
    humanity(Count3 of theMugonero
    Indictment
    andCount4 of theBiseseroIndictment);

    923. Grrard Ntakirutimana


    hasbeenfoundnotguiltyof."
    (i) Complicity in genocide(Count1B Mugonero Indictment
    andCount2
    theBiseseroIndictment
    (ii)Conspiracy to commitgenocide (Count2 of theMugoneroIndictment
    Count
    3 of theBiseseroIndictment);
    (iii)Extermination consideredas a crimeagainst humanity
    (Count4 of
    Mugonero
    IndictmentandCount5 of theBisesero Indictment);
    (iv)Otherinhumane actsconsideredas a crimeagainsthumanity(Count5
    theMugoneroIndictmentandCount6 of theBiseseroIndictment);
    (v) Serious violationsof Article3 Commonto theGeneva
    Conventions
    and
    Additional
    ProtocolII thereto(Count
    7 oftheBiseseroIndictment).

    924.For the crimesuponwhichconviction


    was entered
    against
    the Accused,
    the
    ChamberSENTENCESG6rardNtakirutimana
    to:

    IMPRISONMENT FOR 25 YEARS

    Judgement
    andSentence 253 21February
    2003
    ~
    TheProsecutor
    v.Elizaphan
    andG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    Cases
    No.ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    6. Creditfor TimeServedand Execution


    of Sentence ~6"~IP~l~

    924.ElizaphanNtakirutimanawas firstarrestedin Texas,USA,on 29 September


    1996.He wassubsequently
    releasedandthenrearrestedon 26 February
    1998.He was
    transferred
    to the Tribunal
    on 24 March2000andhas beendetained in theUnited
    Nations
    Detention
    Facilities
    at Arusha
    (UNDF)eversince.

    925.G6rardNtakirutimana
    was arrested
    on 29 October1996in the IvoryCoastand
    transferred
    totheTribunal
    on 30November
    1996.He hassincehistransfer
    beendetained
    in theUNDF.

    926.Pursuant
    to Rules101(D)and102(A)of the Rules, the sentences
    imposed
    theAccused
    shallbeginto runfromtoday.Thefullamountof timespentin custodyby
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimanaand G6rardNtakirutimanapendingtheirsurrender to the
    Tribunal
    andwhiledetainedin theUNDFshallbe deducted
    fromthetimeto be servedby
    them.

    927.Theabovesentences
    shallbe served
    in a Statedesignated
    by thePresidentof the
    Tribunal,
    in consultation
    withthe TrialChamber.TheGovernment of Rwanda
    andthe
    designated
    Stateshall
    be notified
    ofsuchdesignation
    by theRegistrar.

    928.Untiltheir
    transfer
    totheirdesignated
    place
    or places
    ofimprisonment,
    Elizaphan
    andG6rard
    Ntakirutimana
    shall
    bekeptindetention
    underthepresent
    conditions.

    929.Pursuant
    to Rule102(B)
    of theRules,on notice
    of appeal,
    if any,enforcement
    theabove
    sentences
    shall
    bestayeduntil
    a decision
    hasbeenrendered
    on theappeal,
    with
    theconvicted
    persons
    nevertheless
    remaining
    in detention.

    Arusha,

    21 February
    2003

    ErikMose
    Presiding
    Judge Judge

    Judgement
    andSentence 21February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rard
    Ntakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    2,$&5
    ANNEX I

    IndictmentICTR-96-10(Mugonero)

    Judgement
    andSentence 21 February
    2003
    ZaTx

    ."oz.,a,°,
    INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR t~[WANDA
    CASE No. ICTR-96-10,T

    THE PROSECUTOR OF THE TRIBUNAL


    AGAINST
    ELIZAPHAN NTAKIRUTIMANA, GERARD NTAKIRUTIMANA,
    & CHARLES SIKUBWABO

    INDICTMENT
    (Amended
    pursuant
    to theOrderof 27 March2000)

    TheProsecutor
    of theInternational
    Criminal
    Tribunal
    forRwanda,
    pursuant
    to his
    authority
    underArticle
    17 oftheStatute
    oftheIntemational
    Criminal
    Tribunal
    for
    Rwanda
    ("theStatute
    of theTribunal"
    charges:

    ELIZAPHAN NTAKIRUTIMANA
    GERARD NTAKIRUTIMANA
    CHARLES SIKUBW.ABO

    with GENOCIDE, COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE, CONSPIRACY TO


    COMMIT GENOCIDE, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY as set forth below:

    o Thepresentindictment
    chargespersons
    responsible
    forseriousviolations
    of
    international
    humanitarian
    lawcommittedin theTerritory
    of Rwanda
    duringthe
    monthof April1994 at MugoneroComplexin Gishyitacommune,Kibuye
    Prefecture,
    wherehundreds
    of men,womenandchildren
    werekilled
    anda large
    numberof persons
    wounded.

    3. THE ACCUSED

    3.1 ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    is believed
    to havebeenbornin 1924in
    Ngomasector,
    Gishyitacommune,
    Kibuye
    Prefecture.Duringthetimeof
    theevents
    referred
    tointhisindictment,
    he wasthePastor
    of theSeventh
    DayAdventistChurch
    in Mugonero.

    3.2 GerardNtakirutimana
    is believed
    to havebeenbornin 1957in Ngoma
    sector,Gishyita
    commune,
    KibuyePrefecture
    .......the timeof the
    events
    referred
    to in thisindictment,
    he wasa physician
    at Mugonero
    hospital.

    3.3 CharlesSikubwabo
    is believed to havebeenin theearlymid-1940s
    in
    Gishyitasector,
    Gishyita commune,KibuyePrefecture.
    During
    thetime
    of theevents
    referredto in thisindictment,
    he wastheBurgomaster
    of
    Gishyitacommune.

    0
    A CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS

    4.1 During
    theeventsreferredto inthisindictment,
    Rwanda
    wasdivided
    into
    elevenPrefectures, one of whichwas Kibuye.EachPrefecturewas
    governedby a Prefect.The Prefectures werefurtherdividedinto
    communes,each of which was governedby a Burgomaster.The
    Burgomasterwas the representativeof the executive
    powerin the
    communes
    andwas in chargeof the governmentalfunctions
    withinthe
    commune.

    4.2 During
    theeventsreferred
    toin theindictment,
    Tutsis
    wereidentified
    as
    members
    ofan ethnic
    orracial
    group.

    4.3 On April6, 1994,theplanetransportingPresident


    Juvenal
    Habyarimana
    of Rwanda
    crashedon itsapproachto Kigali
    airport,
    Rwanda.
    Attacks
    and
    murders
    of civiliansbegansoonthereafter
    throughout
    Rwanda.

    4.4 Duringthe monthof April1994,a largenumberof men,womenand


    children
    fromvarious
    placessought
    shelter
    fromtheattacks,
    whichwere
    takingplacethroughoutKibuyePrefecture.
    Manyassembled inside
    Mugonero
    Complex,whichconsisted
    of several
    buildings,includinga
    church,
    an infirmary
    anda hospital(hereinafter
    referredto as "the
    MugoneroComplex").
    The majority
    of thesemen,womenand children
    wereTutsiandwereunarmed.

    4.5 Manyof thosemen,womenand childrenwho soughtrefugein the


    MugoneroComplexdid so because
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    instructed
    themtogo there.

    4.6 Afterthemen,womenand children


    gatheredin theMugonero Complex,
    GerardNtakirutimana
    andothersseparated
    the Tutsiindividualsfrom
    theothers.
    ThosewhowerenotTutsiwereallowedto leavetheMugonero
    Complex.

    4.7 On or aboutthemomingof 16 April1994,a convoy,


    consisting
    of several
    vehiclesfollowedby a largenumber of individuals
    armedwithweapons
    wentto the Mugonero Complex. Individualsin the convoyincluded,

    /
    amongothers,ElizaphanNtakirutimana, GerardNtakirutimana
    &
    CharlesSikubwabo,membersof the National
    Gendarmerie,
    communal
    police,
    militia
    andcivilians.

    4.8 The individualsin the convoy,


    including
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana,
    GerardNtakirutimana& Charles
    Sikubwabo,
    participated
    in an attack
    on the men, womenand childrenin the MugoneroComplex,which
    continued
    throughout
    theday.

    4.9 Theattack
    resulted
    in hundreds
    of deaths
    anda largenumber
    of wounded
    amongthe men,womenand childrenwho had soughtrefugeat the
    Complex.

    4.10 During
    the monthsthatfollowedtheattack
    on theComplex,
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana,Gerard Ntakirutimana& Charles Sikubwabo,
    searched
    foran attacked
    Tutsisurvivors
    andothers,
    killing
    andcausing
    serious
    bodily
    ormentalharmtothem.

    4.11 Beforethe attackon the Complex,CharlesSikubwabo


    knewor had
    reason
    to knowthathissurbodinates,
    including
    members
    of theNational
    Gendarmerieand communal
    policeunderhis control,wereaboutto
    participate
    intheattackonthemen,women,
    andchildren,
    anddidnottake
    necessary
    andreasonable
    measures
    toprevent
    theattack.
    Inaddition,
    after
    theattack,
    CharlesSikubwabo
    didnotpunish
    theperpetrators.

    CHARGES
    ,

    Bytheir
    actsin relation
    to theeventsreferred
    toabove, eachof theaccused
    are
    individually
    responsible
    forthecrimes alleged
    below
    pursuant toArticle6(1)
    theTribunal
    Statute.In additionor alternatively,
    Charles Sikubwabo,
    in his
    capacity
    as Burgomaster,
    is individually
    responsible
    as a superiorfortheactsof
    hissurbodinates
    forthecrimes allegedbelowpursuantto Article6(3)of the
    Statute
    oftheTribunal.

    Count1: ElizaphanNtakirutimana, GerardNtakirutimana & Charles


    Sikubwabo,duringthe monthof April1994,in Gishyita
    commune, KibuyePrefecture, in the Territory of Rwanda,are
    responsible
    forthekilling andcausingof serious
    bodilyor mental
    harmto membersoftheTutsi population
    withtheintent to destroy,
    in wholeor in part,an ethnic
    or racialgroupas such,andhave
    thereby committed GENOCIDEas recognizedby Article 2(3)(a)
    andpunishablein reference
    toArticles22 and23 oftheStatuteof
    theTribunal.
    Count2: ElizaphanNtakirutimana, GerardNtakirutimana & Charles
    Sikubwaboduringthemonthof April1994,in Gishyita commune,
    KibuyePrefecture,
    in theTerritoryof Rwanda,
    werecomplicitin
    the killingand causingof seriousbodilyor mentalharmto
    membersof theTutsipopulationwiththeintent to destroy,in
    wholeor in part,an ethnicor racialgroupas such,and have
    thereby committed COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE as
    recognizedby Article2(3)(e)and punishablein reference
    Articles
    22and23oftheStatuteoftheTribunal.

    Count3: ElizaphanNtakirutimana, GerardNtakirutimana & Charles


    Sikubwabo,duringthemonthof April1994,in theareaknownas
    Bisesero,
    in GishyitaandGisovu communes,KibuyePrefecture,
    in
    theTerritoryofRwanda,
    didconspire, witheachother,
    to killand
    causeof seriousbodilyor mental harmto membersof theTutsi
    population
    withtheintent
    todestroy, inwholeor inpart,anethnic
    or racial group as such, and have thereby committed
    CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT GENOCIDE as recognized by
    Article
    2(3)(b)andpunishable
    in reference
    toArticles22 and23
    theStatute
    oftheTribunal.

    Count4: ElizaphanNtakirutimana, GerardNtakirutimana & Charles


    Sikubwabo,duringthe monthof April1994,in Gishyita
    commune,KibuyePrefecture,in the Territoryof Rwanda,are
    responsible
    forthemurderofcivilians,
    aspartof a widespread
    and
    systematic
    attack
    againsta civilian
    population
    on political,
    ethnic
    or racialgroundsand havetherebycommitted CRIMEAGAINST
    HUMANITYas recognized by Article3(a)and punishable
    reference
    toArticles
    22and23oftheStatute oftheTribunal

    Count5: ElizaphanNtakirutimana, GerardNtakirutimana & Charles


    Sikubwaboduringthemonthof April1994,in Gishyita commune,
    KibuyePrefecture,
    in theTerritory
    of Rwanda,
    areresponsible
    for
    the exterminationof civilians,as partof a widespreadand
    systematic
    attack
    againsta civilian
    population
    orpolitical,ethnic
    or racialgrounds and havethereby committed CRIMEAGAINST
    HUMANITYas recognized by Article3(b)and punishable
    reference
    to Articles
    22and23oftheStatuteoftheTribunal

    Count6: ElizaphanNtakirutimana,GerardNtakirutimana & Charles


    Sikubwabo,duringthe monthof April1994,in Gishyita
    commune,
    KibuyePrefecture,in the Territory
    of Rwanda,did
    commit
    otherinhumaneacts,includingbutnotlimited to,the
    causing
    ofserious
    bodilyharm,
    thecausingof serious
    mental
    harm
    andthepersistent
    searching
    forandkillingofindividuals
    in the
    monthsfollowingthe attack,as partof a widespread and
    a..rl;o
    systematic
    attack
    against
    a civilian
    population
    orpolitical,
    ethnic
    or racialgrounds
    and havethereby committed
    CRIMEAGAINST
    HUMANITYas recognizedby Article3(i)and punishable
    reference
    toArticles
    22and23oftheStatute
    oftheTribunal.

    AT AI~USHA, TI:IIS ~-NINTI-I DAY OF MAI~CH 2000


    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    ANNEX II

    Indictment
    ICTR-96-17(Bisesero)

    Judgement
    andSentence 21 February
    2003

    !
    I %0.0

    IC~
    ~IMINA~L
    REGISTRY
    ....
    RECEIVEO

    INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL


    FOR RWANDA

    CASE NO: ICTR 96-17.T

    THE PROSECUTOR
    OF THE TRIBUNAL

    AGAINST

    ELIZAPHAN NTAKIRUTIMANA
    GERARD NTAKIRUTIMANA

    AMENDED INDICTMENT

    1. TheProsecutor
    of theInternational
    Criminal
    Tribunal
    forRwanda,
    pursuant
    to her
    authority
    under
    Article
    17 oftheStatute
    oftheInternational
    Criminal
    Tribunal
    for
    Rwanda
    ("the
    Statute
    of theTribunal")
    charges:

    ELIZAPHAN NTAKIRUTIMANA
    GERARD NTAKIRUTIMANA

    with GENOCIDE, COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT


    GENOCIDE, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF
    ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF
    ADDITIONALPROTOCOLII as set forthbelow.

    2. Thepresent indictment
    chargespersonsresponsible
    forserious
    violations
    of
    international
    humanitarian
    lawcommittedin theTerritory
    of Rwanda
    during
    themonths
    of Aprilthrough
    June1994in theareaknownas Bisesero
    in Gishyita
    andGisovu
    communes,KibuyePrefecture,
    wherehundredsof men,womenandchildren
    werekilled
    anda largenumberof personswounded.

    3. THE ACCUSED

    3.1 Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    is believed
    to havebeenbornin 1924in
    Ngomasector,
    Gishyita
    commune,KibuyePrefecture.
    Duringthetimeof
    theevents
    referred
    tothisindictment,
    hewasthePastoroftheSeventh
    day
    Adventist
    Churchin Mugonero,
    whichis located
    in Kibuye
    Prefecture.
    He
    iscurrently
    inthecustody
    oftheUnitedStates
    ofAmerica.

    3.2 Gerard
    Ntakirutimana
    is believedto havebeenbornin 1957in Ngoma
    sector,
    Gishyita
    commune,Kibuye
    Prefecture.During
    thetimeof the
    events
    referred
    toin thisindictment,
    he wasa physician
    atMugonero
    hospital.
    Heiscurrently
    inthecustody oftheInternational
    Criminal
    Tribunal
    forRwanda.

    A CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS


    .

    4.1 During
    theevents
    referred
    to inthisindictment,
    Rwanda
    wasdivided
    into
    eleven
    Prefectures,
    oneofwhichwasKibuye.

    4.2 During
    theevents
    referred
    tointheindictment,
    Tutsis
    wereidentified
    as
    members
    ofan ethnic
    orracial
    group.

    4.3 On April6, 1994,theplanetransportingPresident


    Juvenal
    Habyarimana
    of Rwandacrashedon itsapproachto Kigali
    airport,
    Rwanda.
    Attacks
    and
    killings
    ofcivilians begansoonthereafter
    throughout
    Rwanda.

    4.4 Duringthemonthof April1994,a largenumber of men,womenand


    children
    fromvariousplaces within
    KibuyePrefecture
    sought
    shelterfrom
    attackswhichweretaking placethroughout
    thisarea.Manyassembled
    insideMugoneroComplex,whichconsisted
    of severalbuildings,
    including
    a church,
    an infirmary
    andhospital,
    (hereinafter
    referred
    toas
    the "MugoneroComplex").Themajorityof thesemen,womenand
    childrenwereTutsiandwereunarmed.

    4.5 Manyof thosemen,womenandchildren


    whosoughtrefuge
    in the
    MugoneroComplexdid so because
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    instructed
    themtogo there.

    4.6 Aftertheman,womenandchildrengathered
    in theMugoneroComplex,
    GerardNtakirutimana
    andothersseparated
    Tutsiindividuals
    fromthe
    others.ThosewhowerenotTutsiwereallowed
    to leavetheMugonero
    Complex.

    4.7. On oraboutmorning
    of 16 April1994,
    a convoy,consisting
    ofseveral
    vehiclesfollowed
    by a largenumber
    of individuals
    armedwithweapons
    wentto theMugoneroComplex.Individuals
    in theconvoyincluded,
    amongothersElizaphan Ntakirutimana
    and GerardNtakirutimana,
    membersof theNationalGendarmerie,
    communal police,
    militiaand
    civilians.
    4.8 Theindividualsin theconvoy,
    including Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    and
    GerardNtakirutimana,
    participated
    in an attack
    on themen,womenand
    childrenin theMugoneroComplex
    whichcontinuedthroughout
    theday
    andintothenight.

    4.9 Theattack
    resulted
    in hundreds
    of deaths
    anda largenumber
    of wounded
    amongthemen,womenandchildren
    whohadsoughtrefugeat the
    MugoneroComplex.

    4.10 Manyof thosewhosurvived


    themassacre at Mugonero
    Complex
    fledto
    thesurrounding
    areas,
    oneof whichwastheareaknownasBisesero.

    4.11 Theareaknownas Biseserospansthetwocommunes of Gishyitaand


    Gisovuin KibuyePrefecture.
    FromAprilthroughJune1994,hundredsof
    men,women,andchildrensought
    refugeinvariouslocations
    in Bisesero.
    Thesemen,womenandchildren werepredominantlyTutsisandwere
    seekingrefugefromattacks
    on Tutsiswhich
    hadoccurredthroughout
    the
    Prefectureof Kibuye.
    Themajorityof thesemen,womenandchildren
    wereunarmed.

    4.12 FromAprilthroughJune1994,convoysof a largenumber


    of individuals
    armedwithvarious
    weaponswentto theareaof Bisesero.
    Individuals
    in
    theconvoy included,
    amongothers, ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    and
    GerardNtakirutimana,
    members of the NationalGendarmerie,
    communal
    police,militia
    andcivilians.

    4.13 Theindividuals
    in theconvoys,
    including
    ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    and
    Gerard
    Ntakirutimana,
    participated
    in attackson themen,womenand
    children
    intheareaof Bisesero
    which
    continued
    almostona daily
    basis
    forseveral
    months.

    4.14 Theattacks
    resulted
    in hundreds
    ofdeaths
    anda large
    number
    of
    wounded
    amongthemen,womenandchildren
    whohad sought
    refuge
    in
    Bisesero.

    4.15 During
    themonthsoftheseattacks,
    individuals,
    including
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    and Gerard
    Ntakirutimana,
    searched
    for andattacked
    Tutsi
    survivors
    andothers,
    killing
    orcausing
    serious
    bodilyormental
    harmto them.

    4.16 At onepointduringthistimeperiod,Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wasin
    Murambiwithintheareaof Bisesero.Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    wentto
    a churchlocatedin Murambi
    wheremanyTutsis
    wereseekingrefugefrom
    theongoing massacres.
    Elizaphan
    Ntakirutimana
    ordered
    theattackers
    todestroytheroofofthischurch
    sothatitcould
    nolonger
    beusedasa
    hiding
    placefortheTutsis.
    Q
    CHARGES

    Bytheir
    actsinrelation
    totheevents
    referred
    toabove,
    eachoftheaccused
    are
    individually
    responsible
    forthecrimes
    alleged
    below
    pursuant
    to Article
    6(1)
    theTribunal
    Statute.

    Count1: Elizaphan Ntakirutimanaand GerardNtakirutimana,


    during
    themonths of AprilthroughJune1994,in theareaknownas
    Bisesero,
    in GishyitaandGisovucommunes,Kibuye Prefecture,
    in the
    Territory
    of Rwanda,areresponsible
    forthekillings andcausing
    ofserious
    bodily
    or mentalharmtomembersoftheTutsipopulation withtheintent
    todestroy,
    inwholeorinpart, anethnicorracial groupassuch,andhave
    therebycommittedGENOCIDE in violationor Article 2(3)(a)
    punishable
    inreferencetoArticles22and23 oftheStatute ofthe
    Tribunal;

    Count2: Elizaphan Ntakirutimanaand GerardNtakirutimana,


    during
    themonths of Aprilthrough
    June1994,in theareaknownas
    Bisesero,
    in GishyitaandGisovucommunes,
    Kibuye Prefecture,
    in the
    Territory
    ofRwanda,werecomplicit
    in thekilling
    andcausing ofserious
    bodily
    or mentalharmtomembersoftheTutsipopulation withtheintent
    todestroy,
    inwholeorinpart, anethnicorracialgroupassuch, andhave
    thereby committedCOMPLICITYIN GENOCIDEin violationof
    Article
    2(3)(e)
    andpunishableinreference
    toArticles22 and23 of
    Statute
    oftheTribunal;

    Count3" Elizaphan Ntakirutimanaand GerardNtakirutimana,


    during
    themonths of Aprilthrough
    June1994,intheareaknownas
    Bisesero,
    in GishyitaandGisovucommunes,
    KibuyePrefecture,
    in the
    Territory
    ofRwanda,didconspire
    witheachothertokillandcause serious
    bodily
    or mentalharmto members
    of theTutsipopulation
    withtheintent
    todestroy,
    inwholeorinpart, anethnicorracial
    groupassuch,andhave
    thereby committed CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT GENOCIDE
    inviolation
    ofArticle2(3)(b)
    andpunishable
    inreference
    toArticles
    and23oftheStatuteoftheTribunal;

    Count4: ElizaphanNtakirutimanaand GerardNtakirutimana,


    during
    themonthsofAprilthroughJune1994,in theareaknownas
    Bisesero,
    in Gishyita
    andGisovucommunes,
    KibuyePrefecture,
    in the
    Territory
    ofRwanda,areresponsible
    forthemurderof civilians,
    aspartof
    a widespread
    orsystematic
    attackagainst
    a civilian
    population
    onpolitical,
    ethnicor racial
    grounds,andhavethereby committeda CRIME
    AGAINSTHUMANITYin violationof Article3(a) and punishable
    inreference
    toArticles
    22and23oftheStatuteoftheTribunal;
    Count5" ElizaphanNtakirutimana
    and GerardNtakirutimana,
    duringthemonths
    ofAprilthroughJune1994,intheareaknownas
    Bisesero,
    in Gishyita
    andGisovu
    communes,KibuyePrefecture,
    in the
    Territory
    ofRwanda,
    areresponsible
    fortheextermination
    of civilians,
    as
    partofa widespread
    orsystematic
    attackagainst
    a civilian
    population
    on
    political,
    ethnic,
    orracialgrounds,
    andhavetherebycommitted
    a
    CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY in violationof Article 3(b) and
    punishable
    inreference
    toArticles
    22and23 oftheStatute
    ofthe
    Tribunal;

    Count6: ElizaphanNtakirutimanaand GerardNtakirutimana,


    duringthemonthsof Aprilthrough
    June1994;in theareaknownas
    Bisesero,in Gishyita
    andGisovucommunes,
    Kibuye Prefecture,
    in the
    Territoryof Rwanda,
    didcommitotherinhumaneacts,including
    the
    causingof serious
    bodilyharm,
    thecausingof seriousmental
    harmandthe
    persistent
    searching
    forandkilling
    ofindividuals
    intheBisesero
    area,as
    partofa widespread
    orsystematic
    attackagainst
    a civilian
    population
    on
    political,
    ethnic,orracialgrounds,
    andhavetherebycommitted
    a
    CRIME AGAINSTHUMANITYin violationof Article3(i) and
    punishable
    inreference
    toArticles
    22 and23of theStatuteofthe
    Tribunal;

    Count7" ElizaphanNtakirutimana and GerardNtakirutimana,


    during
    themonths of AprilthroughJune1994,in theareaknownas
    Bisesero,
    in GishyitaandGisovucommunes,KibuyePrefecture,
    in the
    Territory
    of Rwanda,didcommitor orderothersto commit,
    violence
    to
    life,
    healthandphysicalandmental well-being
    of persons,
    including
    murderandseriousbodily andmental harm,andhavetherebycommitted
    SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO
    THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL
    PROTOCOLII thereof, as recognizedby Article4(a)and punishable
    inreference
    toArticles22and23oftheStatute oftheTribunal.

    J,6April
    1998
    Arusha,
    Tanzania
    FortheProsecutor

    Mr.JamesK. Stewart
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andG~rardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    ANNEX III

    Map of Bisesero
    (Prosecution
    Exhibit
    P7B,p. 5)

    Judgement
    andSentence 21 February
    2003
    TheProsecutor
    v. Elizaphan
    andGOrardNtakirutimana
    CasesNo. ICTR-96-10-T
    & ICTR-96-17-T

    ANNEX IV

    Indexof Abbreviations
    (Judgements)

    Judgement
    andSentence 21 February
    2003
    ANNEX IV

    INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS FOR JUDGEMENTS

    1. ICTR Judgements

    1.1 ICTR Appeals Chamber

    TheProsecutor
    v. OmarSerushago,CaseNo. ICTR-98-39-A, Serushago
    (AC)
    Judgement
    on Appeal,6 April2000
    TheProsecutor
    v. JeanKambanda,
    CaseNo.ICTR-97-23-A, Kambanda(AC)
    Judgement
    on Appeal,19 October
    2000
    TheProsecutor
    v. JeanPaulAkayesu,
    CaseNo.ICTR-96-4-A, Akayesu(AC)
    Judgement
    on Appeal,1 June2001
    ClementKayishema
    andObedRuzindana
    v. TheProsecutor,
    Case Kayishema
    and
    No. ICTR-95-1-A,
    Judgement
    on Appeal,
    1 June2001 Ruzindana
    (AC)
    TheProsecutorv. AlfredMusema, JudgementMusema (AC)
    CaseNo.ICTR-96-13-A,
    on Appeal,
    16 November2001
    TheProsecutorv. Ignace
    Bagilishema,Case.ICTR-95-1A-A,
    Motifsde Bagilishema
    (AC)
    l’Arrat
    [du3 juillet2002],
    13d6cembre2002(Reasons
    forthe
    Judgement
    delivered orally
    on 3 July2002,
    English
    translation
    pending
    asofwritingof thisJudgement)

    1.2 ICTRTrialChambers

    TheProsecutor
    v. JeanKambanda,
    CaseNo.ICTR-97-23-S,
    Trial Kambanda(TC)
    Chamber
    I, Judgement
    andSentence,
    4 September
    1998
    TheProsecutor
    v. Georges
    Ruggiu,
    CaseNo.ICTR-97-32-I,
    Trial Ruggiu(TC)
    Chamber
    I, Judgement
    andSentence,
    1 June2000
    TheProsecutor
    v. Alfred
    Musema,
    CaseNo.ICTR-96-13-T,
    Trial Musema(TC)
    Chamber
    I, Judgement
    andSentence,
    27 January
    2000
    TheProsecutor
    v. Clement
    Kayishema
    andObedRuzindana,
    Case Kayishema
    and
    No.ICTR-95-1-T,
    TrialChamber
    II, Judgement,
    21 May1999 Ruzindana
    (TC)
    TheProsecutor
    v. Jean-Paul
    Akayesu,
    CaseNo.ICTR-96-4-T,
    Trial Akayesu(TC)
    Chamber
    I, Judgment,2 September
    1998
    TheProsecutor
    v. IgnaceBagilishema, Trial Bagilishema
    CaseNo.ICTR-95-1A-T, (TC)
    Chamber
    I, Judgement,
    7 June2001
    2. ICTY Judgements

    2.1 ICTY Appeals Chamber

    TheProsecutor
    v. Zlatko
    Aleksovski, Judgement Aleksovski
    CaseNo.IT-95-14/1, (AC)
    on Appeal,
    24 March2000
    TheProsecutor
    v. Zejnil
    Delalic,
    Zdravko HazimDelicandEsad Delalic
    Mucic, (AC)
    Land~o,
    CaseNo.IT-96-21,Judgement
    on Appeal,
    20 February
    2001

    TheProsecutor
    v. DuskoTadic,CaseNo.IT-94-1,
    Judgement
    in TadicSentencing
    (AC)
    Sentencing
    Appeals,26 January
    2000
    TheProsecutor
    v. DragoO’ub
    Kunarac,
    Radomir ZoranVukovic, Kunarac(AC)
    Kovac,
    CaseNo.IT-96-23
    andCaseNo.IT-96-23/1,
    Judgement
    on Appeal,
    12
    June2002

    TheProsecutor
    v. Furundzija,
    CaseNo.I IT-95-17/1-A,
    Judgement, Furundzij’a
    (AC)
    21July
    2000

    2.2 ICTY Trial Chambers


    TheProsecutor
    v. Drazen
    Erdemovic,
    CaseNo.IT-96-22,
    Trial Erdemovic
    (TC)
    Chamber
    II, Sentencing
    Judgement,
    29 November
    1996
    TheProsecutor
    v. Radislav
    Krstic,
    CaseNo.IT-98-33, I, Krstic
    TrialChamber (TC)
    Judgement,
    2 August2001
    TheProsecutor
    v. ZoranKupreskic,
    Mirjan
    Kupreskic,
    Vlatko Kupreskic
    (TC)
    Kupreskic,
    DragoJosipovic,Dragan
    Papic,
    Vladimir
    Santic,
    Case
    No.IT-95-16,
    TrialChamberII,Judgement,
    14 January
    2000
    TheProsecutor
    v. Tihomir
    Blaskic,
    CaseNo.IT-95-14,
    TrialChamber
    I, Blaskic
    (TC)
    Judgement,
    3 March2000
    TheProsecutor
    v. Milorad
    Krnojelac,
    CaseNo.IT-97-25,
    Trial Krnojelac
    (TC)
    Chamber
    II, Judgment,15 March2002
    TheProsecutorv. Dragoljub
    Kunarac,
    Radomir
    Kovac,
    ZoranVukovic,Kunarac(TC)
    CaseNo.IT-96-23andCaseNo.IT-96-23/1,
    TrialChamber
    II,
    Judgement,
    22 February2001

    TheProsecutor
    v. GoranJelisic,
    CaseNo.IT-95-10,
    TrialChamber
    I, Jelisic
    (TC)
    Judgement,
    14 December1999
    TheProsecutor
    v. Mitar
    Vasiljevic,
    CaseNo.IT-98-32-T,
    Trial Vasiljevic
    (TC)
    Chamber
    II, Judgment,
    29 November
    2002
    TheProsecutor
    v. Stevan
    Todorovic, TrialChamberTodorovic
    CaseNo.IT-95-9/1, (TC)
    I, Sentencing
    Judgement,
    31 July2001
    TheProsecutor
    v. DuskoSikirica,
    DamirDosen,
    Dragan
    Kolundzija, Sikirica
    (TC)
    CaseNo.IT-95-8-S,
    TrialChamber
    III,Sentencing
    Judgment,
    13
    November2001
    TRANSMISSION SHEET FOR OFFICIAL FILING OF DOCUMENTS WITH CMS
    (Art.
    27oftheDirective
    fortheRegistry,
    Court
    Management
    Section,
    International
    Criminal
    Tribunal
    forRwanda)

    To: [] Chief.CMS let TrialChamberI


    I J.-P.Fom6t6 K. Afande
    U TrialChamberII [] TrialChamberIII r-l AppealsOfficer
    R. Kouambo F. Talon F. Talon/A.N’Gum

    Date: Transmitted:
    ~.. C(, iC’~,~¢~.~ ~ Document’sdate: ~) ~~’~P~’~,-~:~0~
    I No. of Pages:~

    /Transl.
    - is a(n): I~ ORIGINAL:Fill sectionsbelow VI TRANSLATIONinto [] Eng [] Fr [] Kinyar.
    ~ Eng [] Fr [] Kinyarwanda (original
    wasfiledon )
    Doc. ""

    TRIMDocType:I’1Indictment r-IwarrantI~’Orderr-IMotion[~’Judgement
    Strictly
    Confidential
    / Under
    Seal r-]Decision I-1Correspondence
    r-IDisclosure
    r--]Submission
    fromparties
    Confidential
    ~]Public [] Submissionfromnon-parties~ Affidavit ~ Accused
    particulars
    0 Noticeof Appealr--IAppealBookr-!Bookof Authorities

    TRANSLATION
    STATUSON DATEOF FILINGOF ORIGINAL
    (completed
    by Chamber/Filing Party)

    INo actionrequiredby CMS regarding


    translations: Pleasetakeactionwithregardto translation:

    | [~ FilingParty/Chamber
    herebysubmitsBOTH the ,J~ Party/Chambers
    herebysubmitstheoriginal,and
    originalandthe translation
    to CMS forfiling willNOToverseetranslation.
    Ignorethe b~x,es below.... F
    E} Filing
    Party/Chamber
    willbe submitting
    translation
    to I
    /CMS in due course, details are provided below. Fill in ~,~-.~~ ~ ". "(~’~. (/v(~.,7_~"
    [.the boxes below. Jfacilitate Ueerence
    translation material
    isprovided
    inanne~x
    to

    I-1Defenceis overseein~ranslation:
    D OTP Nameof contactperson:~;~ .
    isover-seeing
    translation.
    (copyof translation
    requisition
    The documentis submit~to thefolt.(~ng
    slipis attached
    forreference) accreditedtranslation,~ice
    (Transla~bn
    feeswill
    Nameof contactperson: be submittedto LDFM~i ~ ~’
    Thedocumentis submitted
    fortranslationin:
    D Arusha r-] Kigali r-] The Hague N~:o:service:r;;i,~i! ~J ~
    Email/ tel/fax: i5~ii~ :J~
    ~
    U Number of Pages Tr~’ slationrecededby CMS on"
    I-]Expecteddateof translation:

    [~ Kinyarwanda

    FOR OFFICIALUSE ONLY (TRIM DATA ENTRY/TRANSLATION


    PRIORITISATION)
    completed
    byCMSinconsultation
    withChambers
    / LCSS) 1-’]Required
    Date:
    COMMENTS
    I
    r-]HearingDate:

    IE] Otherdeadlines:

    C:~ig~FORMS~CMS
    E ng.d¢~
    CMS1 (0311212002)

    You might also like