THE PROSECUTOR V. GRÉGOIRE NDAHIMANA TRIAL JUDGMENT

THE PROSECUTOR V. GRÉGOIRE NDAHIMANA TRIAL JUDGMENT

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2011-12-30 - Case/document no.: ICTR-01-68-T - Collection: International Tribunal for Rwanda

Text

Page 1

\C:&-or-68J #,#i::,3.?,6,n Trihurral pt'nal intenrarional prrur lr ltranda 3331 UNI I'l1D NA IIONS NAl tt]f,is {lNtlis OIl: Eli(i llefore: ldegistrar: Ilate: t'RIAI UHAptiSEtt tI Judge l'lcuence Rita ,{rre1.', Presiii!ng JLLdge Ilakhtiyar'['uemuhharnedov Juclge A1'diu Se lir Akay Aclarla Dicng i0 Llecenrber ?01 I TH[t Pi{Osnctrt-t}R v, Crdgoire IYDAI{IiIIANA Case No. I{lT[t-{t l -6E-'I' .fUDGE,MA NT,T]!D SNNTNNCE $f{ier of the tsrosecutor: I {okr l',{akxa ia Althea Alixis Wilclsor Segun Jegede Lansana Dunrbuya Ilel'encc Ccunsel: Bharat B. Chailha \! ilfi'ed Ngua.jili r-derirr 'l'harcisse Gataramit Marie-Pie r Barbea* ,\ul-

Page 2

.Jltdge fi € nl qnd,\e, ttel Ee t-'IlAP'['!]R I: IN'IltrtODt.lCTtrON i, l.)ecentb6 :01 I

CONIES 373'8 ?. liumnary of the Cace CIIAPTER II: PRELIMINARY XSSUES !-{ 1.1 1.2 L-3 2 i :7.t 1.? 'I he Prose..ulot i,.:\r/rill*irr;ir.r, Cirse No. lcl R-0 i_6g_.f

Page 4

6

Page 5

CIL{PI'ER IV: LEGT{L lrl}lt}${f;S......

5. Cornplicity in Genocide."".-......,."...... 7, Ex{ernlination {Le }r*}serliar ,,}. It/n/riair.lrrn. Case No. l|l R-0 i-i,li_], 5 i 2 7 4 .'l+

Page 6

.fudgeneM and Sentence 7.2 f)eliberations 81 i82 'l33Kq 8, CurnulaliveConvirtions CI{APTER. V: $ENTT]NCING L intrnduction......,^ 2" I-aw 82 3. Submissions r)lssHN'I'tl{{J OPINTON O['.ttJD{;[ ],.t o]lill\ct i{ITA ARI]Ey ti9 'fhe Prosecutot 1.. lidahinuna, Case Nct lC-fR_01-6g-T 6 l 7 . l .14+

Page 7

'I fur I'rcsrutot r. :\ilalilaano, Cese No, ICT,R,{}l -6g- l 4ul

Page 8

Jt tige h e nt q n d S c, tl e n c e CH.{FTER l: INlllROn}UC't ION ]i) I;ect,nher' )01! 373?: l lt{rOduction l. The accused in this case is Grdgoire Nclahimana (''f.1dahirnana" or"rhe htw.gntestre'o or "Il"te accused"). lle rvas a metrber ofthe h{DR politioal pady an,:l the boargl;vstre of Kivunru comrtune itt ,'\pril 11994. I:le rv*s bom in l9-c2 in Ri:kr:ko .iaclr,lr, Kivrrnu colr*are" liibuye piJicture. Rlvanda' Ndahimana is married and a lather to l1 childrcn. ln 197i. lre gradualed as an igricultural offie'er fi'oln the agricultural technical schi:roi in Butare.l lle rvas electetl. via in<Jirecr eleclions. to the posirion of bourgme: e in June 199i and assurred rhe position in October l9,}j. Ndahimana was baurgnrcsrrt of Kivumu coxnmune throughoLrt the periotl c.vered by rhe lndictmcnt. 2' Ndahirnana ieft Rr,vanda in Jul-v 1994.: I Ie rvas arrersfeci in the llamocratic ftenublio 01. the Coneo on 1l August 2009 and was transferleil to ihe custoriy ot the Inrdrnitional ('rimiual T ribunal fbr R.rvanda ("T'ribunal" or "ICTR',) on l0 September 1009.-' -i. .lhe Prosecution hrs charged him rvith genccide i0runl I). cr.. in the alr.eriiaiire. oomplicity i: g:n:..'d: 1{''uunt llr, a-s r.rell as extenrinati<n "u u .rir,* againsi hunranity (counL lfr). F{e has denicd all thr chatges.* 4. I'he closing argunents r.r,crc, heard otr 2l ant{ l2 Seprcrntrr l0l l.5 2. S lllry*ry qf flle

C-'a$g 5' 'fhe case is based on cvents that took place ovet l0 drys l-ronl 6-16 April l!94. ll is not rn dispule th;rt lbllorving the ijeath of presidenL r{aby,arimana. 1,000-2.000 Tursi civilians sought Tfugg a1 N"v-,ange parish. Only a very snrall number'of'lhese civiliars sulliver{ atlacks on Nyange cirursli that took place on [j an<j 16 Aprir r9!];1.. Nor is it dispurcr,r tJi:rr. rurr*',i,,g *. ,rritr., or President Habl"arimana, a joint crinrinal ellterprise ("JCE,'.) came into e\isre ce in KivurLr c,amtnnne ' The purpose oithis entery:rise lvas to e.\telminate rlle'l\tts;s <tf tbe coutmturc.I lorvcver, the Chamltr emphasises, that the question under considcrarion is not rvhether therc was a JCL to commit genocide in Iiivumu commu e: rathef. it is whelher tha prosecutinn has proven be,l.onr.l reasonablc doubt based on the evitlence in this case that tho accusetl comrnitted thc crime of genocide tlirough a JCi:i. 9:, The Indiornrent arreges that in the days immediately tb oivi:rg thc <iearh oi Fresicjent I ltlj.ll1],],-" : r"orain " rvles[hure \Jungursc (" Nrjrrrigulsr:':) lcd ,larki ir3ainrt lhrcc cir ilriiris lrlclu(rng one urce{)ire Ndahuhana ("NdakLrbana'). The Trial Chamber is satislied f6at Ndungutse Participaled in at least one ol these killings. Ilowever, it is of the "i"ru rh"t trr. prL",,ti* r,", failed to establish that Ndahirxanii r'!'as liab-ie tbr this

kiiling. Thus" fhe {th*lrlbel conslu.Jes,hdt the Prosecution has not proven paragr aph r3 ofthe Indictnrenr feyond reasonarrre tlcubr. ' ,D-ctence closirr€l llrief praras. 2-7, 523;. Deferce PIe-Tfial Briet: prras. 1{.}- i l. l -l: prosccu tion {ilosing Bricf par:Ls. l-.i I '1. 28 September 2009 p. l; l.6Seprentbcrl0l0ir.:. 'T. 2l Septerdrer 3{}l I p. 15. ' 1-. :8 Septernber 2009 F. Z. - Ainettded lndi.rn')enl 18 Ar,:usl :010, p€ra. I (,,lnilictnrent..): I,. 2g Septeml)er Zari.tc) pp" 4-r2.. lj..{,lti(r! llrdjutlit ieUe, 10 Nore;nber 2009 para- l; I. 6 Septenrber:OfO1i. i, i_ti.ranuary:ttt1p.?. ' 'l-. : I Septcmtrc. 201 1; -1. 2? Seprcmber 201 l. The Prosetutur N. Ndoliwono. Cssc No. lLlTl{-{j l -6$-T I / 2i4 1't

Page 9

.ludge le l dttd Senterce 3A L)e&wh€ ',,7'€,2 1 7. The Indictnrent alleges that tirllowing the attacks refbrred to in paragrnptr43 Xl mi I Indictment, Ndahimana and others ortlered that Tutsi civilians be directed to the Kivunlr.l communal otice alrd N"vange irarish in order to c)iterminate them. Tl.re Trial Chaurber finds rhat the Proseci-ltion has i'ailed to prove this allegation beyond reasonable doubt.

8. The Trial Chambet considers that paragrnpi 1,5 of ihe' lndicrilrdnt is rlr; introilucforJ, paragra ph onl3, and rvill ther"efo|e rnake no findings on the allegations c'ontained therein.

9. Ihe trndiclment aileges Lhat, on I t April 199.1" Ndahitnana and membrrs ol'the JCU mer ar the communal oflllce to pian the extennination of the I'utsis. At rhis meetirrg they made ihree decisions itt furlherlnce olthis plan: (l) to reiluest that thc pruile/ *ssign addirianal genrlanre5 ao the cotnnlwnc to pa(icipaie in the liillings: (2) to requisition a vehicle bekxtging to a 'futsi ri:aeier rvhich rurembers olthe JCE used to transport assailants to Nj.ange parish ("the parish,'); anel {3; to move those Tutsi civilians rvho had sought refuge at the couuuunal olfiee to N;-ange parish. Once therc" the Tutsis rvouid be prevented from leaving. The Tlial Chalnber finds ihal l.i,,ai,i,-r,unu did charr a meeting at ths eotnnrunal cfice on 1l April 1994. At this mcctin[i, decisions were raken to requesL n.are gewlarmes fioll the pri.fbt, to move those lutsis lvho had sought retr'uge at the coltmunal ollice to Nyange parish, and to recluisition a vehicle belonging 1tl a local l'utsi frader. Howcver, the 'Irial Cliamber finds that the evidence doss no1 indicalc i.vhether the inte t bchind rhcsc decisiors was to protect rhe rellgees or k) hanx them. 'thus" the prosecLltion has not prcven hevond reasonable ctiuht paragruphs l6- l7 c"tt l8 of,lhe lndictfiefll.

10. Thc Trial Chamber }i:rthel couclu<ies thal the Frosecution has not proven pai.agraph l9 of the Indichnent be3.ond reasonablc doubt. 1l' The lndictmenr alleges that.on or alrout 10-li April 1994, Nclahinrana l.:e11 nleatings at the ;pytlmmal otl'ice anil \.r'ungc prcsbytcn {..rhc pr.e.b_r Ltir..1 *irh m*urbsrr t,f ilic J( L. l-r",11,,r, rni. lhests nlcetljlgs. refugees \\ere disanned a1 fhe parish. The Trial Chaurber linds that lha evidence docs t.tot establish that Ndahjmana participated in meetings at thg comu.lunal offlce. Thc l rial chamber tinds, horvever, rhat on lj earil tl++. he pariicipared in at least one mee{ing rvith members of.the -lcE at the presbylery. rhe Majority, Judge lrrey dissenring. concrudes tiar the subiect of these discLtssiotls is.unknorvn. The Majority. Iuelge Arrey tjissentils, ljnds that the evidence does no1 clcarly cstablish rvher thc re{irgecs iverc rjisarmcd ancl b1. l,-horrr.'l'hc lr4aiorir,v lurther beiieves, Judge Ar.c-1' dissenting, Lhrit the liosecution has n{)t eslal,iished thet rhe decision ro d isann thc relLtgees rvas taken cluring llloss meetings, nor hasi thc pros{jculioir sstahlisheo tnc existence ofa causai link benveen nleotings in wbich Ndahimana parlicipateS ancJ lJre ljsarmalrenl of the refugees. 'I hus. rhe M,r.i,-rrit-v, Judge Arre1, rlisselting in pafl, cone iu*les that the i}roseculrc\l lras ntrt prole n i)aragrafli 2{t

,.11 1.,* ln<.{ictment irel.oncl reasonahlc ckruhl. 12'.. . The Indietme$t alleges rhat on dl'ab()u{ l3-1{}April 1994. Ndahimrna arade several veliicle:i availabie fo his subordinates so that.they coukl traniport assailanrs tn Nyange parish a6J that Ndahirr.rana' as hourgmeslre, knerv or had reason to kfiow ol the acts ot his slbcniinates hut iirileci to prcvent the acts or purrish his sLrborclinates. I he 'l rial Chantbef linds that the llrosecuLion lras *or ptoven paragraph 2l o{'lhe Indictment belond leasonable elcLlbt. ll'- ^ The Indictment alleges trrat Ndahimana met \\,ith menrbers ot'the JCE at NJ-ange ;'esb-r..rer1.. on 13 April 1994 to plan the extemrination ofthe Tutsis. That same c!ay. Ifuhr assaitinti lar-rlched 1u ajlryk on the refirgees at the instigarion otr'casparcl Kanvarukiga (,,Karr-varukiga',), a memrrer ot the 'fCE' Tlie Trial Charrrbel concludis that Ndalritnana met at least once \virh members oi the J{tE at the prcsbytery that dat' b*t no \.vit'esses were prescnt at tilis lneerirlg and no compelring The Prosecutor t'. ltkthitnaxa, Caso No. ICTR-01,6g,7 ,.) i 274

Page 10

.JudE€ me l t]tulSe nte nce eyidence $'as adducad that rvould allow the {thambcr to iufel.that the decision fo Trtsis.was taken during this meeting. In additiou, the Ma,iorir). .ludge Arrey dissenting" is 3f rhe vierv that the evidencc does not establish rvhether the attack rook place be{bre or a{tcr tlie meeting. 'l'he liial Chamher i'urther ctincluiles that Hutu assailants atraclied Nyange church thilf day" $r.r cannot conciusively delermine that this atlack look plece at Kanyaruliga's itisr-igation. 'l-hus, the 'i'rial Chamher finds that the Prosecution has not proven paragr.aph 22 ol'rhe |idicimenL bel,ond reasonable doubt. 14. 'Ilte Indicnr:ent alleges that on l4 April 1994" Ndahimana nret rvith olh*r.meml-.ers ol'the JCE at Nyange presbyrcry. After this rrrceling, relirgees told Nilehitnana about thc attacks agarnsr thern. Ndahitlana siated that 'Lutsis rvere hwenzi v,ltt> hari killcd Presidcnr Habl,arimana anil rcfirsed b assist them.'l'herealier. Ndahimana's subcrdinafes icLrnchc.l an atrsrk on t'hc rc[trgees ar Nyange chLuch As hout'gttt<:sh'e r;/'Kirunru t.lnut?une, Ndahimana knerv or had reason to kiorl ril' |he acis r.rf his s[bi:rdinates but t'ailed to prevenl the ataok r:r punish ihose responsibl: {iy them. The Maloriry', .Iudge Arre-v dissenling, firxls tliat Ndahimana pariicipared in one ineeting during the attenroon rvilh members ol'the JCH lhat day at N)range

parlsli, arrd thal Hutu assailants att[cked rhe parish that da1'. llhe'liial Chamber l'inds tbill the Pnrse,:utie,n has nr)t proven beyond reasoniible doubt that Ndahimana verbally abused the rsfugees at the parish that clay. The Trial Chamber further finds that the Prosersulion has not prorin beyond reasonable doubt that Ndahiftana's subordinates participatecl in tl1e attacli that took place t{iat day anrl that he taited to prevent of punish their pelpetrators. 'fhe Majoriry. Juilge Arrey dissenting, belicves that Nclahinrana's parrial alibi fb. the lare *f iernoon and.eveuing of l+ apriliw+ is reasonablv possibly tnre. The Majrritl.. 1i*ther tinds that its reasonablencss has not bcen overcome by conipell;ng *id.n". ptracing rhe accused at Nyangc church on the evening of l4 April 1994. Tlius" the pr.os-ecurion has'not pr6r,en the allegatioris in paragraph f,l ofthg lndichrient be3,ond reasonabli: doLrbr. ]: The Indictment alleges that on r.{. April 199.i., Ndarri.rana presided over a pubric merring ar Nyange marker s.luare dlal rvas alleuilecl b"v meurbers of the JCE. At thar meeting. Kan).anrkiga instigated the crorvd to kifl the TLrtsis ai N1'ange parisl.,. The Triai {rhantrer finds that this allegation, in paragraph 2:l ol' the Indictnrent, t,* unt l."n lr,ouen be.vond reasonaSlc doubt. l6' Paragraphs 25, 26 ancl 27 ofthe lnclictmrnr allege that on I i .Ap|il I 994.

Ndahinrana anc his suborrlinates had meetings at N;range presbytery, in a iuilcring named cor-)Ej(oKr, and iri fror.u or Kanyanlkiga's phannacr'. Fofiorving these rireerings. Ndjimana orderecr lris associates and subordinates to "s1aft rvorking." The assailants lauichc-tl ein attack against the Tursis seriously injur"ing and killifg many of irrem. one oi NdahimaJ, ,uioroin"tr., jetj one of the gr..ups of assailants' The lndiotnleni tirther alleges tl'lat Nrlahimana and hrs assocrates wgye present. and rvere ::::']:s:jti:i1-:ng and supelvising the assairanrs. Thev provided rhe assailanls wirh rveapoirs and i,cr In an .tlcrllpt h-) brrrn th,, 'fLrtsi ref'ugees i' N;-ange church. lvheu rhese effo*s ftiled. Ndahimana and others met again at the presbytery to plan"firrther attacks. lhe tfidj0trcent flrther charges Ndahitnana lvith having advised assailants to cover th;mselves in banana leaves in ord*r to distinguish themselves fi'om the'T'utsis. lt also allegeil that Ndahinrana kncrv or hae.l reason to knrrlv olthe actions of his subordi'ales and failcd to preri* or, ;"ulirf, thesc ilclion$. t7"" The_Delence has prcsented an alil,ri 1or this da1,, specilicaili, thot l!clahini:rna spc:nt the da"v ar a house in Rlfirngo pr.eparirrg fbr., and atteuding, fhe funcral oi.a close fiiercl. 1le later tavelleel ro see the preJbt in Kibuye town to ask lim to"assign ntor* gentlarnrcs lbr rhe protec.tion',rr ,n. refugees _at Nl.ange parish. The Trial Chanrber ,,,*n;*oruiflii treiieves that parts of the alibi are reasonahll" possibly true and, therefbre, that the Prosecutinu ha. nor provc, bel.oncl rea.sonalte The Prosecutrtr t'. Ndqhiawna. ftase No. ICTR-01-6g_T 1D i 2i4

Page 11

concludds thai the bulk of the alihi is re*sonably possihly tnre; horvever. thc -t'rial Charnber unanimousiy believes that Ndahimcna returned to the parish clruing the evening of l5 r\pril 1994 after the day's attsck and met with urembe.rs c,f the JtlE. The tvlajority. Jutlue ,ln.ey ilissentilg, is unable to inl'er rhat thi onlv reasonatrle conclusion is that the attacks of l6 .April 1994 rvere pl;urnecl al thc nlectillg tllcl cvcninu. l8' Oiven the circumslantial evicletce, holvever, the'l'tial Chamber conciudes thar N<jahimaua had reason to know of the crines perpetrnted by the communal police on l5 ,,1pril 1!)94 and fuiletj to punish thenr' The N4a.iority, Judge Ame,v dissenting, ther*lbre, crlncludes that the pfosecurion has only established bevrxtd reasonablo doubt fhis element of its allegations in paragrir;:hs 25-27 oft6e Indic.tment.

19. Paragraph 28 alleges ihat ntembers oi'the JChl ordered thaL the bodies r:f'l'utsi vicrims ol.the a11ack that day be truried in mass graves.,{s this paraglapl, ofthe lndictlnent slleges no crirnin:ii ttctu't ,€us ot' ftlens re'Q" the Chamher gonsiders this ilrcliolmrnt prla-elapl: trr he supcifluoLrs and x,ill make no finelings on it. i9:. -l'he Def-ence has prescnted an alibi lbr l{r April lf.}9;{, specilically lhaf N6ahinana rvas hiding in a convenl ilom 5 a.rn. until 7 p.m.1hat day.'th.'tiiul Lthamher conclLrdes Lhal rliis alii:i is not reasonabll' possibl,l. tr.ue. ?l 'rhe lndictment allegcs that on 16 April 199.1" Ndahimana and mcnbers ol.the JC)E rner at Nyange presb;'tery. Following this meetirrg. Ndahimana begarr shootirg ar relugees thercir"v signalJilr.g. ths. stralt ol'a large scale altack.'lhe'Irial f"hambcr tin.ts tliar the prosecution has nor proven this allegatio' i'paragraph 2g ofthe rndictmenl beyond leasouarrre crr:,b1.

22. TIre Indictnlent flutlrer alleges that on I6;lpril r994, Ndahinrana and members of die J{.rE llet, plannst ard mutually agreecr ro ki the'futsi rcfugees, Trre N4ajorit1., Jur.rge Arre1. dissenting, ]l]d: *t t\daltirttaaa s rrrere presence during a meetiig does nor necessarilv mean that he shared t1)e crlmlllal lnteilt ()t tll!' metrtbers of'the Jtllr or that he plalned or agreed to till the Tutsi rel'ugees. '1hus. the ,\4ajority conclLrdcs. -ludg* Are), tlisscntingj thai the p;scculion has not p:ovea this allegarion in paragruph 3t) ol'dte lrrdicrmeni be;.ond rcisonable crouor. 73' Paragraph 3l of the lndictmenf aileges that Ndahimana antl members of rhe JlltE onlerecl a$saitra$ts to destloy Nl"ange church using a bulldozer and, rs a result.2,000'lLrtsi civiii,tns rvcrc killed' lt also alleges that Ndahirnana initigated ancl superiiscrt the attacks. The 'iiial cliamber lincls that the Pfosectltion has established rhat Ndahimana r"as present during the 4elroljtior 'f rhe church' The Majorilv. horvever. .Iudge Arrey dissenting, clocs not bejieve that the pr"osecuticln has proven that Nd*himana instigated the assailants or supeivised the atlacl<s. 24' i'he -1[diclnlenl alieges that lbllorvirrg the deslrucliorr of ]{-lange church, Nclahi,rana and melnbers of the JCE lvenl to Nli lgL' presbyter,v ancl celebrated b,v shar.ing tirinlis. l'he Trial Charnber finds tliat the evidence

shorvs ihar N.lohinlonu *o-" pr.rnu, afiet.the attack of l6 April 1994 while members of lhe JCE r'r,ere shariug tlrinlis. I{txrlever" lhe lr4a.jcr.itv concludes, Ju<lge Arey dissentitlg, th.i this Indictrneut paragraph alleges no criminai aci ou,i th*.*for". the N4ajoritv will not tllake a finding cn this allegation. "'rrvlervi url ''rsr .lu,lge Dtenl cnd Sefiiet.ie doubr thal l'{dahitnana was presont during the atrack on the parish that took place L1r that he advised assailants lo dress in lranan* leaves. I'hc i!1a.]ority, htlge Arre;- dissenling. '|he I'roseqttotv. ]itftrhinaQa, Case No. ICT,R_01_lli-l lt i 2'14 1,4 ' \

Page 12

Ju.lgement and Serietae lleygttAi _, 25. Par:rgrph3.1 of theIndictnrcntallcge:that folltningtl)c(['srucli{,n,'f \".S6'f .+N badies of'T'Lrtsis killed ar N1'ange parish r.vere buried in rrass gr.lves a1 N-vange parlsh antl the surrounding areas.'lhis lndiciment paragraph does n(it allege a climinal *ctr$ reus nt tnens rcs. Fufilter' this paragraph is consLr oted in tha passive tense antl does not nafle an inclivi<iual or grcup rvho buried lhe bodies. The Trial Chamber, therefore. concludes that this lnili*nrent paragraph is snperfluous and rvill make no tindillgs ffi it. ?6. 'l'runing to Ndahirnana's individual criminal iesponsibilitv [.rr lhe c:'inres conlmitred al Nyange parish on l-5 anll 16 April l!)9;1" Lhe h{a.iority" Judge Affey dissenting, fintls thar rlie Pmseeuticn has not prclver belotrd reasonable cioubt that Ndahinrana planneel, ilririgated. or4eretl or committed the massag'es of Tutsis. lrr pafiicular. with respect 10 oommissjon thruugh a JCE. the Prosecution has not proven thiit Ndahimlna had the specific genocillal intenf to incur liabilit;- unrier this mode of participadcur. 27- Flowever, the 'lii*l Chamber concludes lhilt Ndahimana had effectivc tltr:rLrol over the communal police.'I'he Ma.ioritv. .ludge Alrey dissenting. th s, linds that he is on13. crimiaally liable lor his lailutc io punish crimes ccmmi ed b1, the conimunal police at Nya:ige paiish cn l5

Aprit 1994 pursuant to A(icle 6 (3) of the Statute of the trntematioiral Cr.imlnal iribLrnal for Rrvanila f'Statute"). 28, The Majority, Judgc Aney dissenti:rg. Iirther finils ihat ie mere prcrrncij o{-thc accuse{j i.tl the soene ol'thr crime on l6;\pril r.994 had an encouraging er.fbct on ihe principar peq)elrarors, paffic[lar]y because tlie accused rvas in a positii:n ot-authorit;-. ;\econlirrgly, ll lut,i,runo aicird ancl abetied genocide under Article 6 (l) ofrhe Sratute. 29^'. . 'fhe Majorit"v llnds Ndahimana guilty of genocide by aicling and abetti*g as rveil as b,v yrrlue ol',his. command responsibilily over the cournrurutl police (-Count 1.1. ln adLlirion. the klajorii-v linils Ndahimana guilr-v r:l'extennination as a crinle against hurnaniry by aiding and abctLing as rreii as ny firtue_ of his co'rmane.l responsibilit3, over-lhe commurral p.rlici {Cou;t lll). .i udgJ:\rre1, agrces with the Majoritl'' that Ndaliitrana is guitty for Counts I an<t'lti bur clissents txr the appropriale mocle Lrf liabiiity. l'he'l'rial Cliamber u.nanimously dismisses Count lf. 30'-. T'urning now 10 senlencing issues, the'lrial Chamber flnils Nilahirlana,s posiliol as {he leading-political authoritv in K irrun u. rt,rnrrr.ire kr b* an aglircvating lirctor. lkir-ever, thc Ma.iorit-r, of.the 'iiiat c'liamber" Judge Aney trissenring, finds tliat iiiis rr"r* il-,,,ririgrr"J t i

iu "1,.5.r *"1 Ndahima'rra riid nct enjo"v the same dcgrcc oi tle f.rtri aLrtherrit5, as tirat exeriiser.i by hots,gntestte.t wllo \!tre melnbers oi tlie h,lRNt) anrl/or had been in olfice longer than Ndahintana. .l,he i,,lalorrr"r, also consiciers as a rnitigaling lacLor the lsct that the scaie ,-,i th" ,',p*irt;"r ,r,"i i..,.1 t..,',rr"',Lri, ,i"ti1,n of N,vange church. anJ the*kiilings cf thousant{s ,,r'riirii civitians, rellecred liroacl coordination alnong various gt'oups" locll and religious alrlhorifies as x,ell as civilian assaijarts. IndaccJ. ir rr.ul.| appesf lhat a number of indivicluals in positions of autl:ority had iln interest in these acts .,1. genocide' such evidence in no rval' exonerate$ Ndahinrana ftrr his nrle in the massacile-ai llio,rg, church ("the chu|clr"J. Ilorvever..it does suggest that his participation thro,gh aiiling and abeting niav have resulted liom duress rather trr*n fi.lin extremism'or erhnic hatred. 3l' 'the Tiial Chambcr notes that Nclahiniarra assisled a nurnber c{"i'utsis iiuring tliis period bur does nct hold this selective assistance io c{}nstitute a m;tigating fastor. 32' The charnber has considered the gravity of each of the crimes 1br rvhich Ndahirnana has been convicted- as rvell as aegravating and mirigating .ir"u*'iun".r. Accordingry, the r,,fajorir).or 'l'he Pto.tei. ttat r ivd.rrirrarir, CJse No. lclR_01_6t- f 12 i 2i:1

Page 13

imprisonment. This senlence supersedes anv oiher senlence imposed on Cirtigoire Nelahirnana b1. any otller Slate or instilu{iot.t.

33. Gligoite }idahinrana shall receive crcdit l-or lirle servcd since his arrgsi on ihe 11 Augus.t 2009, pursuant kr RLrle ll)l iC) of the Rules. l-he abovc sentence shall he served in a Statt: designated b-y the i'resirient of the I'r'ihr.rnal" in consultation wirl: the Cl.letnbcr. 'l he {ioventnent of Itrvanda and the designaled Stlte shall be ntnified ol'such desigaaticn b_v the l{egistrr:r. Llntil his ttansfbr to his designated place of iurprisixrment. Cr6goire Ndahimala shall tre kept in deLentiuu under the present r;onditions. The Prcselrnor t'. Nclohiawna. Case No. lCIR 01-{ig-T 1j i 2'l'l -1+

Page 14

J u(ke oE n{ a n.l Se'rle rE,1 Chapter II: FRELIMINARY ISSUfS Notice 30 llecewlet )01l l.,ary 1.2 i5' 'l'he charges against an accused ancl the material facts supporling those charges lrru.t be pleadecl r.vith sul'ficient precision in an indictnent so as to provi{e n6tice to the aocused.e l.he Prosecution is expected to know its case bef0re pr,:ceeding to trial. and cannot moulil the case against tlie accused in the course of the l iai depenrling on htirv the evicJence unfcrlds. l]efects in an indictmenr nray colne Io ligh1 during the proceedings bicause the eVidence iurns out diiGrentlv rhan expeefed: this calls lbr the Trial Chamber'lri eousitler \,vheihcr a fair trial requires an anrenduent of tltc ind ictltl cnt-,a n_ adjoumntcnt of tlte proceedings. or the exclusion ofcvideirce outside the scope ql' lnc tlldldllllclll ' ltt lcaching its jtrdgcrnr-'nl. a Trirl Charnlrer can onl\ convicl tlre :ccLr.cd ol'ciirncs that aro chat'ged irl thc indietrnent.,, 36' The Appeals C'hanlber has held that crintinal &cts thilt rvere personally and physicallv comntitted b,v- the acc.used musl be set frxth in rha irrlictment specific*l1i,. inclu,Jilg" ,"here ieaslLrl.l. "thc iileniin of the victittt. ths rime anri place ofthe rurutu, un,l rhe means ir; rlhlch the acts were e')tll tll irtcJ -" '- \\'hcre ir is alteged that the accused plannecl, insrigatecl, ,:nlere6 of aitjetl and abefie{, in ttle planllillg. preparation or execulion trf the alleged criures, the Froseclrlion is required tc - Deler(. [ {+tiL'n o. DctiLt. in rhe Aniended hdictment pursuanl to Rr]rc 72, i L{arch 20 r0. r r(jlstol Lln Ndahtnlrn.t's hlotiL,ll un Dsfects ;11 the Arncnded Indi.trnena, 3r) ,{pji :0ll.t (,,Decision on D.tects lil tbe lndictEient",r. " L)et'encr C)osing Hdeli paras. 107-1 10.

531. S-ee alro. l. ll Septel]rbrf .2OlI li. "/3 (jhc [hanrbe. nrtcs ihat rl.te De1'ence puts tbfth tltat alle Prosseuaiot laileii to :pecifl the sllur.ce or sc.Ire 01. the lcgal dut1. gi the rccused rr rts ar€lumellts puf lbrth u der Artir'le 6 (3) oftbe srltule iDeli'nce f-lt'sing ljrief. para. ,l41r.ll'he {thambcr rec,alls lrorrcr,vr thal this irsui has alrcady [-'een addrcssed in tl]e Deciiiion r,n DciJcts in ihE hldiofirreni. lherefrr|e thc Dcferrcc.s objerion is rolriiless), '.11i:'*^t 1(Ac) Judgenrer." paftt 18. set!r tba iAar) Judgemrnl paris. :?. r00: ^\'iirric (,\(,) .l$.rgemcrir. pirrn. 6,ll lluhin.td ( AC) l.tdgclnsllt, par"s. 7(,, 167 " 19, G actutiiLri{,lt-'1 .tir,,igerne n t. parc, 1t}, t\*.iitiddbqhi:i (Au) .ludgilne nr, para. 16. '" ,l/rr??i / (i\O ,ludgement, ?ar.a- 1:\: N{ager.kra e/ .r/. aAc} Judgerrir,tt. p.$a. 27; Kvt.,.:kd ei aL 1,{{,,r .iLrdgerrerr, t,i1::..111.1t; .Yll"rrpla r .\C I JiiLlFcm_cnr,,prrra. 194: driprrr./al er a/. l.rC) Ju.ls.,rrlen1, prrd. 9J. u&r r,J, / (.q( ) lu.i:jrntent. parr. lg:. !,iahin.no e/ ll (AC,).ludltentljrrt. 1rlu. .]16,,tirrgurrrr.!,t a/. (Al.) Judg.nenL para. 28; Arot*.r {:t aL (AC,) Jrdgement" parn. 33. '-^L,lt*inak-a l.A{L tudgemenf. p4r'a.. 76: Gacu,thitsi(AC) .ludgerne nt- pata- 49\ t\-klkh1ltirlr]irn (AC) .ludgenrenr. parn. 32 (c;tin& rfrpr".i4t. sr a/. (AC) Ju,:lgenl€nt. para. g9). 3\zG 1,1 Introduction 34. T'he lrial

Chanrber recalls that on 5 March 2010, Cr6goire Ndahiutana filecl a motion alleging a number of rlefbc,ts in the Anrended lftlicrnrerlt.i' On 30 April 2010. ihe llre.]'rial Chrunbel issued a decision addressing the issues raised b1' the Def'ence.' In iis Cloiing Bricf and /\rgurnenrs, the l)efbnce raised nerv allegations ofdelbctive notice.t The Chambcr has not {ound it neccssan lo address specilic challenges based on noticc rvhere, in ths relcvant sections of the .luclgemcnt, thc Proscculion did not prove its case. 'The Chamber. horvcvcr. llltds it instr.uctive to :ay out id this seclion the legal plinciples it has applicrl n hen considering any norice issues rvhere rclevanr in this J Lrdgernent. 7'he Prosea$ot y. Nduhinano, C{se No_ I{l I:lt.0l_6g_T t1i 2't1

Page 15

JuJp?' rt nnd Slntettr 3tj t,,t!4',t,)!lLn r- identify the "parlicnl:lr acts" or "lhe pamicular course of contlucf' on the p3r.t o, ,n* u"r*{ ktb forlrt the hirsj: ft,r tlrc chargcs in r;Lrestir,rr,l' 37. An indictment lacking this precisicn is defective; horvever" the de fecl ma1, be cured il'the Prosetution provides the accused wiih timely. olear imd cotsisient intbrmati0rr cletailing the lactual basis underpinr,ing the charge.'n 'l'he principle thal a defect in an indictmetrt lnay be cured is not rvithout limits.'' 'I'he Appeals C'hamber has held that a Ple-frial Llrief jn cc*ain ciicuurstances ctll provide such irform;ition.Io ln cenain circumstances, summaries of r.vilriesses annexed 1o the Pre- Trial Brietb can also pul the accused on sulllcient notlre that piuticulsr evcnls are part of the Prosecution's case.' ' 1.3 Alleg*tions Not Pursuetl 38. 'lhe Chamher considers that ihc Proscerutirn rv;thdrcw the allegatiorrs containecl in paragraph l6 ol'thc lntlictment bccausc it did no1 present evidcnce as ta these alloga{iols.lr 2. Aslgssrrl!ol-Elilllsnqe 2.1, llreliminar_vMattcrs 39. For the sake of consisleucv" the Chamber relies Lrpon thc linglish lranslalions o{' all h?tlssripts and exhibits. Horvever, in instances rvhere the French lranslatioll is clearcr. the Chamlr*r will indicale in the relevant ibotno{e its reliance upon the lrrench version of the clocument.

40. Numerous rvifuesses ref'erred to the Tntsis r.vho souglrt ref'uge in f,lyange church as "ref'ugees." The Trial Llhanrber notes that they rvould bc more accuralely chnl"cterised gjr "internalll elisplace<i persons.'"le trlorvever, tbl the sake of consisfcncy *,iih the lndictrlent. transcripts. evidence altd other cases.e*!ardiu:l the same incident. rlre Chamber rvill uon(inLre 1o use the term "re1i:gce'' rviren rel'ering to those 'i ulsi civijians r.vl.:r-r were atlacke.l in Nyange parish. '." Nl<tg{.tut a ct al. iAC,t Judgemfft, para.25. '-.\ltnuayi 1 (-{C) Judgetnent, para. 20 ,gertwbo tAC} .tudgcnrefr. pdra. i00: -\.ilrrl,d (ACi Jldc.ement, para. l)+; lhthi,ttttra (AC) Jttdgement, pa s. 76- 195" 217 Gacuubiil (AC] Juclgerrent, par.a. '19: ,1ragr,-ruru oi oi. iaCi Judgcment- paras. 28, 65. '' Bagttrottt el al.. Decision o Aloys Ntabaku:e's l terlocutory Appeal or Quesrions 0f l.arr iLaired bl rhe 21) June ?006'Triat Cha|rrhet I Decision on Mirlir',n fr,r Erclusion of Ericlcnci;, Ili Seplenlrcr 2t{}6- pard. 3{} (,,[j.lh€ "nr:* marerial f-ilcts' shoLlld nol lead to ll'radiijaj trarsfor]naliL" of the prose.lriiojr's caso aga;nsr ihe aeclise,l_ 'l.hr Trial {-llranrber should al|'a1'5 1olta into account lhe risk ahai tlre erpansiou of charges b}. the li.ldition ei. n$\r rlaterial 1$cts may lead to unfailness and pfriudi.e to the accused. Further. if thc ncrv nratcrit ta;ts arl)

Ju.lt that th€J couiLl, on thoif o!r1, sulrpoft sepntate tharBei. thc Plosecution sh1)uld rrck Ieavf ijr:'nr thc'liial {'Lrrn)bel to irrrcnd thc inilictmenr and the-Trial,..Ch0nrbcr shaulcl onlv gmrt leare ii it is !.ltisfied thirt ir \rould not ieijrl tr\ ui1'airljes-c or pre-judice to iire Defcnrc."). 1t ^|uhi,lttaru \iC).t$dgement. pata. 82: Gacuwbit,;i iACl .ludgenre|t. pafas. 57,5lJ; lt|kitlttitlune li{t} .ludgerlerrr^ p.trr..l{i: .\.y'?rilL ,\ '\,r. r'fir, }1']., r A( ) Jr,Llremeni. f,rrJ. +-<. ' '\Jillditi)inhuu cr al. Dccisi,,n ltn Ndindilivirnanr's Extfemc'l) Llrgcra ft4otjon to Frrohjlrit the pnls(:{utio11 tiom Leadinlt Blidcncc on lnF)danl N{a|erilll lracts Not Pieaded in thi lntlicrnrnt. l'hruugh Witncss AFIF. l5 Jsne 200(r. F?r'a. ..2: krx ekzer.} el al, Decision on lJef'ence Ordl j\{otio s for l_.xclusi0n oJ ivifress Xlj\l,s -I,eJtiaton\, l{,f Sanclions Against the Prosccutjon. .rnd lil.E_rclusjon of Eviricucc Outsiclf rhf S.u|g u1 ,1.,. lndicrnrcnl. iO O"toL"l. 2{f0at. paras. 33--14: .Gacumbit.ti (.AC) Judcement. ilffin. SSi },frttflak(r (AC) JuLlgcme|t, para. 20}. '" l\osecution closillg l3riei para. ?Q ('lhe Prorecurior outliner Lhe nreetings ard lelln orl,\' !o nreetings !.)n g, g. lt-16 ,1i \l)ril lv9.l). tht Pr.'sr.ruriun Ji,l rt!'l r<ti.f rn prrr.r3rl;rh ll,,,t rhr In,lictrircr,l irr iL" ( Lrs:n; l]:irt ,,r in ri\ ( .,,,rr! Arguments; theroibte. the Chamber

assunrcs that the alicgtrtion is r.rirlrljrsrvn. " .See e..g.. detlnitian .ri .eflgees in Convention and ])ro{ocol Rel.itirlg to the Slatrs of R*fuge$- Ank,le L)f !9jl Converrtioir and 19(r7 Pr,.rtccol^ anci Llnited Nalions Conmissiorl oi| ti:ulllen ltighls, 54r:h session. iteur 9 (d) (]uidrrs Pfincipies en lntcmal Dispiaccnle.nf, Scope ard purpose, Articlc ?, l l Fchl.uar\r llt9g. 'I lte P|settttc|t. Ntlahiuana, Cu:e No. ICf R-t1-6lt-| 15 i 211

Page 16

..lutlgenr: nt ond lle eucz 2"2 Burden of Ploof :/l Dec,lttb.r ){tl I 33:l4 41. . l'he burden trl'proving each and eve element trf rhs ofllnces ehargcd against the accri*ed bevond reasonable cloubt lies solel;- on the Proseculiou. and never shi{ts tg the befbpce. lt is not sufficient lilr the Chamber to prefer the Prosecution evidence to Defence evidence. The Chamber m|Jst be satistled beyond all reasonable cloubts rhat thc acoused is guilty befeire a verdict may oe entered against him or her.l0 lfthere is anir reasonable explanatir:n for the et iden{re other than hls or her guilt.the Prosecution has fbiled to discherge its burden of proof'and the accssed n*s[ be acqulltci.l.-' :+2 White tlre Detbnce does not have to aclduoe rehuttal eviclence to the Frosecution casc, tire Prosecution rviil fail to discharge its trurden ofproof if thc Delcnce presenls evidence th*t riirses rc{rson.rhlc tloubl. reg:rr.lirru rhc prosectrliorr cuse.Jl 2.2.1 WirnessCredibility +-l',. llroad discretiol: is e,iven lo the Trial Charnber in clroosing ivhich rvitness teslimoriy Lo prclcr. and rn a5scssinB thc irrrp:rct \in \\illlcss cicrJihilitl ol ind{, si:tr:tciLs rritlrin '.,r hctrl.ecn witnesses' testimonies and anv ptior statcrncnts. A \\ iLncss' lestim{lny is rlot *urur*atice}lv re atered unreliable-if'minor inc,:nsisteicies exist. vtinor inclrnsisre"c'ies may include elales irnd timcs

ot meetings.23 l\4crcover, it is within the charnber"s Jir.,.ii"" i" evelrute such inconsistcncies and r* consider rvhethcr dte evid*nce as a whole is credible. lr is not unreaslnable fol tlic Cl.lamher to accdpt.some. but reiect fher, p"fls ora witness' testimony.:a For these rea$olls, rhe {,rhanrber lvijl only adclress eiiscr.epancies rhat it considers signilicant. '+4' Hearsa-v evidencc is eviricnce of f'acts outsicle the lesrilying wilness' r.:lvn Lnolvledge. 'f,he chamber has the discreticn to cautiolrsly consider hearsiqv *uio*n"* ancl to rely o" it. sii"* 1lr" Chamber may adnit any rslevant svi,ignce rvhich it rteelns to t au" probarive \.;i;;r;";;anay evidence is not 7.re,r .re inaclrn issi hle. to ll'..,ru"u.r. hcarsal cvi;ence ma,y bi: all.celed b,y a :.YIO:iilJ,l"S of.rrrors ol pe1L1p1isl'. melnir+... n;rrrarion. ncc|rt\ ;rirt] rccrll. rnd shr_rulcj bi ruLjsrrcu r('| .,arelur Scrut!^\ her(rre {:eing'clicd ('r.r.'' l'hus. tlie rrL.jelrl iintl pf.hrrtirg !Jlrre to l,e a i'lirrded fo hearsay evicrenie *ilr usLra i be tes, ihan ir.,ui u""ora.a a, tt e elr;ctei,ce ,,i-u'r"irrrru, rvho has give* it und*r oath and rvlro has -been ".orr-"-"rrrlln"Cj 2.2.2 l,trgLS&lC!:tCli$ 4i' Rule !)0 (:\) oftire I{ules pruvides that rvitnesses shali tie lreard b3.. the C,lambor. prior our- ot-cotlrt xitness stateHellts are nonrially relevant only as ncccsser.v tor the liial Llhafliber to

asscss :i Ruie 87 (A) oi l;le Rules of Ptoceclure al(i Fr idence of the lDtematio[a] c.imillal rribural ibf t{l\ancb {,,R!les..} (t'rovidirrg rhat a rnajorirl of trre -Iriar chanrber musr be so .";i;'-;;. i;;;;". )\chatr tita {.r{:,) lrdgerrent. para. ,2. '' Kd'tithtu't li lru:indaud i!\cl Juligernenl pata. r17; !\ii"tiregeka rACr lu<jgcmcnl tlaras. 60-{;r; [tekrji tt at. {.A{.j.) Jl]dCelneltl para.,l.srq i,,ll,::i#'i,',1^l:,',,11;lillliili,,: ];r','!c''j'1'|r'{ ) '|uJlcnien, ,,r,, ,i. '-,.1luttJtt i l/ | \l t .trJeentenl. p.]|a. iI " R I( Sq t(') ot thc ltulcs -" Akal'e,su ( \,C) .tueJgeme)ri. pnfas. 284-:109. ;3 ilfl''Jrr {AC) Judgenrent, l$ as. 2114--t re: .\itlt, t t .tl ( I cj .tu{]gulrcrra. para. 22. " l,',tlitnut:ira t 4(', J,r.llcrlLnr. pJ,ir. yt,; ^dri ,i/ I A1 , .,,,,igr,".1,i f.i;'-ir' The Pn)secuh)r ,-. Ndahinayta. Case No. tCTR-tl_6g-T, 15 i 274

Page 17

,ludg€nte totutsenkln.-e X^qr[:z credihilir"v. \4/hile there is no absolutc prohibitlon on accepling prior stalL-ircnis foridrfiTf,otineii contents. the Appeals chamber has held that T'ribunaljurispru<ience discourages this practice.:'r 46. Priclr statemeots oo stiftrle an importa t tool for assessing the cretlibiliry ofa lvitness.30 [n addition. the Clhamber recalls that the record of the flrst interview rvith a rvilness is olieu of the highest value because it is most likel;r to caFtule the r.virness, recollectious accurately,.. being t[:e closesl in tilne 10 el,ents anci less vulnerable to any sutrsequel1t intlucnce.3l 47. In its assessment ol" the evidence, the Chamber has discrelion k.l dete:^nrine lvheiher allesed inc..rnsistsne ics bctrreen pliur sratcrn(nl\ rn(i lflter teitillr{)rr.\ rr'nder rhc re:lirrron-r unrrli..ible. tiJri the other hand. the ;\ppeals Chamber is of the vierv that pricrr cousistenl statements gannot be gsed to Lrolster a rvitness' credibilitv r'\cept tu r('L1uI ir chargc ot rrccnt labr.ic.ttion crf lestimlnv.'li 2.2.".i Asssgplse_I!$!!e!, 48. The flhamber recalls ihet "accomplice rvitncss" testirnon;. must be tfeated with special caution and thus recluires a careful consideratk.rn ofthe tr-rtalit-v ofthe ciroumstances in rvhich si:clr evidence is tentleted rvhen assessing its prcbative value.rl'fhc Appcals Charnber has held that the ordinarv meaning

of the term "accomplice" is "an associate in guiit. a partncr in crine."l5 A r.,u itnrss ttiay be deemed air "accompiice'^ lbr the purposes ol assessing cre.libiliry, 1\,here evidence ol'that rvitness' criminal involvemenl in the e\.enxs giving rise tro tlre charges lirccd h1.. the accused is aclduced dtrling the 1rial.'16'I'he Chanrber recalli that-a r.r'itucss nrav be considerecj an ,,accomplicc,, even iI their critninal invclvement in the relevant crime is vet ro 'be p.,,"*n"- or thel. hrive alreaciv served the duraricr of their seniense.'rt Ho\\,ever, a designation as a:r ,,accr:mpiil* ,"it,orr:"i, unlikeh .,to he .iLlsLified rr-hrlc the u'itness has previousl,v ieen accltiitted of the ielevant criminal conduct.' or rs trleruJ) tncing criminal charges sinrilar.to ihose crfths accuseii"a0 49) " 'llie chamh*r considers that prosecurion witne sses cN'] , {]JR. flDl_.. (.lhlJ. c0K, ctJ l, as well as lJcfence Witncsses N-D6" ND22 and ND2,1 are accomplice witncsses, as each lvitness se*eii 0r is curreniJy sen ing a sentence ior his particip:rti 1 in thc events at Nyange parish in mirJ-Apr.ii 1994. llre chamlrer acknorvledges rhat rhe rnere l-aet that a de{ained ,uitn"r, irru;- tra.,,e an ileenrive to peiure hi,iselr't. gai' leniency fior' tl':e llwanrian aulhorifie$ ".is nci sufi'icienl" bl,. itsell, k) establish that the suspect did in iact lie.,'al 50' The Chamber r'vill

care:l'ully corsider rvhether each accompiice rvitness hael ,'rrotlve r. testify as they' did and 1o lie" rvhen assessing the proharil,e value ol'such tcstim<,n-nlj 16 the :t, f,alrnatri,.u-t,,\t r Ju(lgrmcnt. par,t. 1gA: :lcharrtihig0 (AC) JLrilgerient, para.:111. ' ttrnefr {A( l Ju!i!cntcnt. l1JrJ. lr,9 ll ,\'r;,rle.geta i:\C) rudgc enr. par4, 33. '' Sgrr,rrbn tAC).lnJgen)enl pat t. l l ii; llut{:tgalttk, (ACj .krdgenenl. p:tf.ts. 44:i-44i. ,r .\4! ttttntl!4tt.tt \t,Aitttt;Mtt L! | \( I JUdrLmctri p"rls. ll7.l.l\. . \ r h . ' i u l t . i ' J , ' t . \ f I J d J c < r n e r ) l f i l , d s l ? - + t : 1 / r d ^ i l i j \ ( . t . t u J ! e n , r n t . t , i r r . , . i 2 \ \ + r r P J ( ' ^ , / t A ( ) l u d i J r r n r ' n t . l r r r i t . t , l i \ r L t t l , , ) . \ t . 1 , < e , u r , t t A r ' I t x J . 1 . n 1 1 : n 1 ; r . l 1 1 , 2 r ; r - " ,\'ii.tilegi?i.r ( lCi Judge ent, prrms. 7i. 2:15. " 5//rra (TC) .tudgemeni. psra. 16.1. ' -. | | I ^. I I t t t i t J | 1 \' t,t udgcr rt<.nt. 1rj,u. 1 -1. _ \/,rgcr(rGlACl.lur!::tnrer,r. lrrros. 2ir-i]rJ. "" I?agerua (.{C) .tudgemenr. pams. 239-2.10. '.' .\_t,ol i i t, t i n:, mt,t. \ | o A i I I n I n I t nd I Al', .luJsc l\trl T,ard. | )r l. ,,:r:::,,u.,, {.\('}. J udrcnrinr. paru. 205 iciring (i,lebini I Iq Judgemenr. pitras. 7j9, 7t:t2): Konlii: & (:er/;e: t.tL:) Judgentont" pafa. 6.1{}. Tlp Prosecrior \,. 1t.l.jhi1nat1,r, C-a5e Na. ICTR-01-68-T t7 i 21

Page 18

Jltdgetne nt and :je ttett(: S Deteul)er ) 11 -<2:zl Nchumihigo case, rhe Appcals Chamber listed the fblbwing fect,,rs ns tt"iLrg pcnrdtnriicFfint tbt' the assessmenl of rvhether an accornplicc lvinress had n.rotive or incentive to iabricate tnerr testintonl:43 the sxtenr ro lr,hich iliscrepancir:s in the testimon), were e.r.plainedi'{ u,hether thc accotnpiice r.vitness made t pleir agrecn*nt r.vilh the ltrosecution; lvhelhcr the witncss has alreldt been triecl: r.vhether tlie lvitness has hecn sentenced or is still alvaiting the completion ol'their lrial:fi x'hether the tvitrress ma.v have any other reason firr holding a grLriige against the accusetl:l' anr1 rvheiher the evidence o:f the rvitness is corroboraieel.4T 11 is imporuurt to note lhat this lisl rs not exhaustive--1he 't'rial Clhamber fetairs fuli discretion 10 assess the credibilitv ol- a witness, testimony on a "case-by-case" basis.

51. The julisprudence indicates that d:e most relevarll l'actor in assessing lvherher an accomplice lvilness had motive seems to he rl'hetlicr thcir lcstirnon"v- rvill posiLivel;- ailoct thcir olvn ease. In Ktrdic & {\erke:, the'Iiial (.lhamber noted thar the "prospccr of'obtainLlg a discoglt in s*lrtencc,' lYas relevanl lo n;otive. as r.vas "the exlefit his evidence is crnfinned by oiher cviriena".'*$ Similu, oonsitleraiiotis were eviclent in the Ni"vilegeka oase, rvhere rhe Appeals Charuber na{eC tltat moliye maJ.stem liom ill accotnp)ice's ittcentive "to cratl his testitllott) 10 a{Tect |ris 6rvn case or to ens$re a lighter sentence."a! 52 lherel'rrre" lvhile accomplice *ituesses rvill be consitlered rvith caatign. a lesser degree of cauticn rvill be emplo-ved towards rvitnesses for which no spccial circumslances or nn pai.ricular motive to lie can Lie identificd. z.z.+ A]ibilr_rdeqse_ard suds! oftud' i3 Aithougli the lletluce has ptovided an nlibi lirr 6-9 April 199.4. rhe C6ani[rer rviil makc rir, findings corrcenring the adrluce<l evidence rcl;iting therel{r as it is nat relevant ro the clrarges alainst Ndahirnana.'u The Cthamber is remin,:led that R;le 67 (A) iii) (a) of the Ruies of proceclurc anej Evidence ofrhe lnternational Crinrinal Tribunal for Iii.vantla (',Rules,,) slates fhat rhe Def-ence:;hiritr notil"v the Pros€eutor of its intsnt to raise an alihi "prior to

the ccllnr.rsncemeut rl the trie].,'which incluties the 'hatttes and addresses ol'witnesses and any other evidcnce upon ivhich fhe accurer1 intends to rel1 lo establish thc alib.i." The Deibnce has aiso provitled an alibl fiu. l4-l6 April I994. The first Notice of Alibi u'as liled on the 3 september' 20ll; thc names and ar.ltjresscs of'somc of the rcjevant lvilnesses r'vcre disclosccl on 2l Scptetnber 1010. ln rclation to the alibi lbr l6 Arril 1994, only the namc and addrcss oi'11" ilness IlX3 rvas tjiseloserl on 2l Scpremircr:Of *" kfurirttic eild of the Prose*rtion case. 'Ihe narnes and addresses rrf witnesses ND_:5 and ND I I r.verc disoli:sed respectively on 7 April 201 I and 1.1 April 201 l, ahnosl al the en.i of the llefence cas;. " t,.ll,rrrr4,!., t ACr Ju(lgentent. l1Jrr. Ii '.', Situha \ .].') luJc(ntrnl. Para I2q. ; y. Hux tc,'i d./,'*itt I'L t ., uJircor(r]{. pirrr.2"{. -" .c'"P l,dl. r/"/l ( | ( ) JrrJg*rncrrr. p rru l5 | *, fY;- .t5,iltrlrra" i.\C.rJrJ3(rnent, para.45 (Alrholigh rcle\am cor:tbolalitl is npt fequ;rddl. ,.^nrdt( ( { i/.L:11( } Judgctyturl, nitrs {,:g.6jd ' \iri/.Xc*,/ {.1(lJ.lrrJr,,rr.,nr. p:rra,lij. '' \[irncrs Kltl: I ]-l-li Feh|uarr 20ll: \\iuress \.luus,r.:.f..lg liebru:rn, 1011p.2: Wilncss ll.\3i I,.23 lrebruarv 201 Ip t; w;tness Ruc;-eribuea: 'i. 2l !'ebruar1,20ll pp. a5, +q r,,lir,".i:Ial ccncer.ing N,.iiriiirnana.s jaurnoy lion (ig'1lj fhrorfgh Gitiuama tr; Kiirrnu benveen 6-9 Aprl l'i,141. see t sr:,,r'roscr lion {.losing thier: ir?fiis.2i r-::?. 'fhe P\rsccu!or r. rt-dahinuytn, Clase No. IC.l,R-01-68,7 t8 / 274 'ry-

Page 19

,/udgeme d artl Se nte nce 54. 'I he alibi -covefirg 15 April 1994 was Illed in a tinrely manner, al the Prosecution case.-'I €'\'20 b4l6rrilrf lf tht 55. ln reiation o rhe alibi sovering 16 April t99,1, lire Cl.raniber rccalls that fbilLre 1u rai:s rLl alibi in a timelv manner can imp&ct a'Irial Chamber's finelings,52 as it mav take suclr tlih.ur 1rull account when weighing the crcdibili6, of the alibi.53 'I'he Cliamber rvill take into ;rccounl the L)e{bnce's late sitbmission of the Nolice 0I'Aiibj when asscssing the crcdihiJit,y ol'thc aiibi lbr l6 ,{pril 1994.

56. The Chamber fulther recalls that in raising an alibi, the accused not onlv denies rhat he committed the crimes l',:r which he is charged, but also asseds that he rvas elsewhere than,lr tne scene o{' these crinres rvhen thc.l, were committed. ,:ds tliscusscd above, the onLr.s is 1n the flrosoculion l(J proYe the guill ol'the accused lreyonci reas,:nable doubt. 't'hus, in esteblishing its case' when an alibi delcnce is intrriduced. the Ptoseculion rlrust r.liscredit the alibl deltncc belonrl reasonable doubt.'Ihat is, the Prosecution musi plove that the accr.rsecl was present anr.l crmmitted tfre erimes lbr rvhich he is charged. As reiterated in lhe zigirutryiruzo,,\ppeils .ludgement" an alibi defence does not cany a separetc burelen ol'pr.oo1'. Iiarher" the llnrier ol. itrii-that is, rhe Chatttlrer--rnttst oursider ivhethel the Delbnee piesenred alibi evidence that is.,likely io raise ir reasonable-doirbt in the lirosecution case." and "[i]f the alibi is reasonably possibly n ue" it rnust be accepted'"54 To sustain a convictjon, the Prosecujion nrust {lemonstrate that. regafiiless of the slibi, the faots as alleged ara true bevouel reasc,nable rioLrlrt. either b1.' demonstrirtitrg that rhe ::libi ")id.^|..: trffered does llol nc83te-the presence of rhe accused at the critical place a'nrl time, or that tlle dllbi c\ idcncc is n{it credihlc.r- In sum. thc (

hamher rrra.. rciccr an alibi i.rr{1 il {hc' pr',rseerrrion establishes "beyond a reasonable doubt thal, despile thc uiit i" ttt. lacts allegcd arc ngverfhcless I[Ue_ ' 2.2,5 Celcaca Clourts 57' 'lhe {lhamber is alvare that Ndahimrina was convicted b3- Grx,acu courts prior t6 his trial be l'crre the ICl i{.-'7 'fhe Chamber notes tl.r&t rhe pa{ies ilid not iaise au1, objecri.,n rvith regarrl rrr potentjaj double .ieopanly. .rn an3" evenr, rhe chanrber rccals thai rile ^lucrgeulent in this case supersedes any other ju<lgement imposerl on Grdgoire Ndahimana by an""- otnei srate or. institution. l,ree Cihapter V. Sentencingi" iS Addressing norv the Gac*ca rcctstds, thc Chamher aciinollorlge* that tr{ivarrcian jLriJicial rccords ars a vzrluable tool rvhen. assessing the credibilitv of witness&, parrieularll.. u,hen irsed tluting rvitness eramin*tlons. In the prescnt casr:, lhe Chamber has consicjered tlre Gsccctr court records filed as erhitrits in its determinaticrn ofthe inclividual creilitrility ot the rvitnesses. ''.-ihc charnl-'er rccall$ that nan)lJ and ad.lr€ssc)i o1'witnetsiis Anicsi InLnrliienge. l-hireiir [,lukrlbidir.i, l]ealrice l\'ltikankusi and clldtrlent K3y!shema u'ere disclosed on 21 septemrer:tiio 1;ee suirpLcolenl 10 the Norioc of Alibi tiled ,rn 1rd Se|tcrltber :0Ir). :I S*i-.lenrb(r :n|0L ,. n*ii,.,r!:.\j:" ,.JiLLtgern crit. lir.,ia2. &,e c/sa. pr sccutioIl

Closi g [rriei: parj. ]{r8. ^ah'tritn \ || r.fuct,cnrent. prt?. |6l; j:arn ha .la iTC)Jud$entcnt. para. t2:,lht.*:no i.l{jJ Judgenlgnt. para. |{l7i '\''iliregenc ('1c) Judgenent. para.50; Kayishenu & Ra:irtd,tne'( r'(:1 .tuiig"n,*t. pari. rJ7: ,rrdar:d t-ia-.).rndgeminr, para,82. '.'. Zigirauyirtro (All) JudgcLnrnt. Dal3. I7. ',' Zigittttlritu.o (.i(_:) .ludgemcrt. para. 18. .\tri.rrau r 1( IJl,(lgflncrn. narr. lt:. - -\ee ag. Defen* Erhibit 97. ll'he l)rosecwttt v. t-dahiuaaa Casc No. 1L.l.l{_01,6g-T 19 / 214 'q-

Page 20

JudgeN.Dl aul,reme fice 59. The f,lhamber recalls thar boih fhe Trial Chamber and the Appeals dill'erent occasions, enrphasised that G,x'r{:{r plocecdimgs remain purelv Ru,arrjan ill natirre arcl that the (]ac'aca coul-ts coltstitute a separafe ancl distinct judicial body tiom thc lClR. F-or. this reasot, allhrluglr (i*:ttt:u t'*c<trds tna-v be r.alrrahlr rr'source, rh,: contr.nt o{'lhese rec{rrds is never bintling or authoritatir c helirr* rlri:, Irihunal.)' 60. 'fhe Trial { harnber has a}so cr:nsidered the testimolies e:t twrs Gat:ot:u jrJrlges involved in the G&cuca prcrceedings relatilg to the accused, spccitically witncsses Nlis ind ND9. T he f,lhamber observes that lroth rvitnesses were awale that Ndahimana rvas tried r;: a].rentia.5e ]r-ldher- both rvitnesses testitied that" in the Gtcucu trials. Prosecut;on witnesses CDL. CBR aml CBN all lalsely alleged ihat the accuse.l participated in aLtacks on Nl.yx11gs church. .i'lleir as$crtions rycr* bascd un^ allegatiotts nlade by mcmbers ol' the public at the time llie llrosecLrtiln r.villesscs testifictl."' lhe ('hlmbcr notes that it prcli'fr to l.ch on thc cvidcncr intrrr,,lucctl Jur.ing thc ,..urr.urrl hearing t..r assdjs lhe crcdihilitl ,;l tlrere rr ilrre.ses.r'l 61. The Charrlber. also has some reservari{}lls ahcut \tr/irnesses ND8 and NIJg's credibiiitv. specificall.v''. the Chanrher obssn'es that k is nncle*r exactly

how witness NDg, rvho lvas nor'i i:1d,t"., Ttig""d tti.hctu Nd.rhinrana's case, nianaged tr:r lbllorithe case so closel.v from heginrring ro end '- f Llnher. \\' jlncss NDll erplaincd to this coun thar the.judges in the {.}aciu hearini inrcsLieil to acquit Ndaliimana on the basis that lre rvas innocent oi'the crimes alleged. Whcn askerl io pruvidc fLrrther inlormation aboul this stalemenl in cross exaninalion. Witness ND9 said .ral th* onJV persons who teslified against him were co-peryre!?irirs, lTut rhat thc pufiic an{ all rje'1ince *,itnarr.-' believed Ndahimana rvas innocent.63 ln idrlltion. the Cllramber notes that Wiriiess ND9 iirlsery testilie<l rhat the larv on lhe {hrcat r clrrxls slipulatcd lhrit ull pcrsons erf auilrlritS, irt the comym*e level, had to be lbulrd guilty.6a Fll lheie reasuns. rhc Chamtrer does nol flnci these r+ilnesses credible. '" Rer?:alio-(r\Ci Judgcnreot. pafas. .16{t. 46 (); lJi:imltngL! e.t .11. {T{-t) JLriir(m.rL para. .1r1. - Witncss N[)8. T. ]7 Jan :0 t I t. +8 {tCS): witocss riDg: r. :s .ran iriil r.,. I I t rCS). i, l]^]l,:.::),rf:l 17rrn2{}| pp..sr_s,l.iir_s1;v;u*rrNosi:16.r:n'tirri pp.+_:. ,,,,., K::.,,,,,o ", ,,, (A(.'l JuJgerDenr. pala. li)A^, lJikio.li tAC) Judgenrenl" pa:3. t14a |ichahihiga(,{C) Judgenienr^ paras. 6r T. l? .lanuar) :011 pp. 4?-48 {tCS). - f. 2h -t.rnua11 2t)1 I fp. tr)-:() / l( S). "[.25JJnuar-r ](,1 J| 1,1 (l{':j, fhe Pto.qec ar y i\tlcthittan,t. L'asf r\o. lcTil-0i-63_T 20 / 211

Page 21

.ltulgeneftt dtut Se nte fict CI{APTRR trtr{: FACTTIAI. FINI]INCS l. A{laqls orr (lir ilian Homcr. 6-l l \nril 190{ 30 December 2ltl I 1,1 Intro{i$cti{rn 62. Paragraph l3 ofthe Indictment alleges that lbllorvingihe dealh o{'the Rrrandur Presideut on 6 April 1994. 'l'dlesphore NduriSrutse led afiacks against'lirtsi civilians in thcir horne:i irr KivumLr cowmune, killing h4artin Karekerzi, 'I'honias Mr.vendezi ancl some meltbers of Llre famill ol' Cr6goite Ndakubana in fi.utherance of the.fCE.'l'he Proseculion diel not adclress this lndicnnent paragraph in iLs Closing lJtief or.{.llosing Argumeuts. 63. 'fhe Defince suhmits that no ProsccuLion rvitness linked Ndahirnana i.vith thc attacks alleged in paagraph l3 o1'the I di''tment.'i'In atlditiun, N.{ahimana lras in Kigali rvhen the atracks took plane and therelorc had no knorvledge aboul the incidenls. When inlbrmed about thc inciclenrs upon his retum 10 Kivumu comnune. he immediarely arresled rhose allegecl lo have participnted irr dre-se killings. 'l'he suspects were laler releasecl by the inspector ,;l'rhe .ju<iici*i police i',lpJ"). F'ulgencc Kal ishe rla ("Ka1,ishema" or ,'lP.f Kayishema',).66 64 Although the Dellnce has provideci an alibi fbr 6-9 April 1q9,1, the {.lh;rmher rvill make nr: findings conceming the.add.rcsd evieience relating thereto as ii is not reievant 1o rhe charges against the accused in ihis

casc.67 1.2 -Evidence 1.2.1 PlosecLriion Witness CII)I., 65. Prosecution witness CtlL, a Hutu. lvas a reecher. and livecl in |,lyange serre4r, KivLrrnLi conxt t{ltc in April 199"1.^Fle has beeu convicted in Rrvanda icrr crimcs commitrctl in Kivurnu t$tnmune in April 1994.i! Witness CDl. u,as rvorking in tire conrmunal ctiice rryhen Ndahirrana took cl'fice i' late ()ctober or earlrv N.r'en:ber 1993 and nrer him irt thar tiine.i't 66. on 7 April 1994 Ilutu irttackefs began hiIing Tutsi civfiians in an area .f Kivurr.t &)mlyusg know as l\'ftrranibi. During the night of 7 April 1g94. assailants. led b.v Nciungutse, a I,rr.:iLr teacher and V ice-Clirairnran ol'rire MRlrlD, anacked the Ndakubana lamily kiltirig Lwoihilolr.n arrt{ injunng other Ibmily metribcrs nho lvere taJien lo thr hospital Lhe next da;,. {)nhir'lirtsis killeil dur.iris rhis period inciuiied J'homas Mr.vendezi, rvho liv*d in t<igaii st:ckut," Mtnl.in Karckczi. an agricuitlra! exlension r,vorkcr, and Mr- ivrulrigim,a, a businessman working b,v the starue or'the Virlin ]\.ler;,. Liaspard Gasigu'a r.vas arested in c.nnection rvith the kiIing r1'Mrvendezi. ,4 cerlain (]ir;rt* ur.,t olhers suspecte{i ol- having patxicipated in the killing ol: K*rekezr lvcre slso arresretl. Of er 331g^ " Dttknce ('hrsir:r: Brici. irrru.9l. "" Deldncr ( l.J!ijrF ltfrut. ttirrJr. ')t-t.. '" witness KR-l: T.24 arrd 2j Fdbruary 201r: witness

N.,runs]: r.2g February.20r l p.2; witnels BX.lr'1.2-r rrer;ruarr ;l]1.1, t 'l ))lT::: *:1.::',jl:r.,, L. 11 Februar--r, :o r r pp. is. 4e (rLl rcsriii;d ",,n*,.ning i.;aorii,n"n"'i ;uu,nf r.,,"., N ' lnrr urft'rr1lh (-i [ar an]a ro li i! u Inu bettleen 6-9 Aplil I t)9.]), s{re d/ra" l\osecttior Clirsin! B rie1. pares. 3i 1 .2?i. uu l'. 1i Nol,ernl-.er 2010 p.57 (tCS); prosccurion E:ihjbir.lrj. '" 1. I I N(!€mber 20ltl p. 5? alCS)_ The Prctecldor 1'. Ndahln*u, C.lsr. No. ICTR-0l-6g-T 2t i 2i1 'v+

Page 22

.luJti,uctit r)kl\tnte4& trt))iytbt'],114 pctpct.:-rlors \\crc not detainerl. The suslrccts \\erc r!.Ie3\cd Lhc ,,lar. after lhcl itcrc rrrlstdd1' lrur ' the witne ss did not sa,\. who released the detainees. 1.2.2 ProseoLrrion Witness Cl.!Z 6l . Ptoseculion Witness CDZ, a 'l'Lrtsi, 'rvas a businessman in Kivuntu con$tnlne in Apdl 1994.71 He knew Ndahimana rvell.T?

69. Thc Ndakubana lamil;- lived in Nyange set:tezo.. An 7 Aprii 1994,7:rthe fbnii;- was att cted artd trvt'r children atd a visitcr i.vere killed."' Witness CllZ's n iece q,as r'-ounded clurirrg the attacli. The rvitness then went lo sce IPJ lia-vishema to intbrm hhn that the larniJv had been attacked and ri) rrqui:)r hi) inlcrrenLiOtt 1() s'lrn thc Lilllrrps.r' Ka;isherrra Iulirsc(l tt) arrcst rhc nrrpcrrutrrr\ ar!urni, that orhels might kill the surviving thmil,v rnernbers il'he arreslcJ rhc pepctlarois.r'l - 1.2.3 fuogggutjon Witness CBN 69. Prosecutiott Witness CUN, a'lluLsi latnrer, lived ir KivLlnTu comntune in Aoril lllt)4.11 70' According to the r.vitness, during the night of !),April 1994. tbe Ndakubana iarnill..in N,vangc ,recL',// was attacked- N{embers ol'the l'amil1, rvere killed by atfackers iviclding nrachetes. '[,har samc night a certainThomas i.vas killed.'Ihe suspccls in 'Thelnas' killing wcre rjeleincc{ ar-rq1 r*leased tlre next day.;8 'f he witness provided no lbunclaiion rbr his knorvlectue abour this incidcnt. 1.2.4 Proseeution Witness CNJ 71. Prcrsecution wituess cNJ. a HLrtu, lived in Gasave secle.ur in Kivumu comnrutte nt April 1994'7e I Ie kuerl' thar Ndahimana r,vas lhe 6rlurgire,slr.. of Kivrnnu conutume cluring he oonllicl.io 71. . ,'I'he.rviEress rvould pass in fionl o1, Nclakuhana,s house cvery d;1,r..cn his $,a), t.) fhe marl(ei. l,{arum,narl

.t'arnilv rras rrtfikcd drring the nighr or' ? April t4x u.t. asiairanrs ierJ Lr;. )d.tr)gurse.", i5']:,it.9u,: rhc rvitness rvent t'Ndakub*na's h.use irnd obsened that two pe plc nJd bee[ krlleLl."- JPJ Ka\ishruia cff:ne 1() ihe scene but made no arresis. Hc simplv askecl that a persor who had been iniured in the attack bc $ken to rhe healtlt centre. Subsequently,, Witless CNJ heatd that 1!YO or three persons had been urested and rhar follorving a meeting helcl at lhe communal office nu 11 April 1994, the suspects were releaseci.s: io T. li Nrvember:*10 pp.60-62. " l'. 8 Scprcmlrer ?fiI{} p. 25: proserution Hxhil,lit 4. '' T" E Septemb€r 2010 p. 3?. '' T. 8 Septcmbef 2010 p. :18. '" 1". 8 Septenher' 2lt l() pp- :irl ( las). 38. '''f. E Seprenber 20i0 p. 38. "'1. 8 Septcmbe.20t0 p. i8. ' T. 13 Septernb{r 2010 p. L5; prosecution Elhibit 6. '" l. 13 Sepie ber:()10pp. 1l-l:i. - l. J Noicrrrbcr 2Utrr P J2 p;nsr..rrrir,n Lrhiirir 10. ' ' T { N u \ E r n b c r : u l U F J l . '' L J N,r,q115.'r11110 n hj rl( Sl "' L J Nuverrber 201u p. tj {lcs r, '- '1. ,1 Novr;nber 2fl lr) p. 6,1 flCS)" Ttte Prole.ut{r\'. Ntlahina*a, Ltase No. ICTR-01_63-T 22 i 27.1

Page 23

Jt id ge ne nt u nd Senlt: ut e I .2.5 Prosec_$Jion -]Vigrg.rs e B& Noverntrr 2010 p. 6: Pr.|serution F,rhibh l,l. No!'ernber 201(l pp. 9, jS. 48. \ovember 2{.}i 0 p.

6. Novernber 2010 p.

7. Novembe.20iit p. 7. \'ovelltber :010 p.

8. Novemirer 2(-t l0 p.

7. Novomber 2010 pp. 7-9. November 2010 p.

9. Novenber 20li) irp. t0-l t. -' I. 17lanuary2011pp. I 1.12 {lCS)- 39; De&ncq ltrhibil 8.1. Jl) l):.ratl\t :t)l!

71. Witiess CilIt, a F{utu. liveci in Nv:rnge secleur in Kivumu coru ntuttc in Aptil I 99.1.sa I le has b,eeu ctrttvicted oi padicipathlg in the genocide.s5 l-le knerv thar NCahimura ivas the bourgnrcstre <t{ Kivumu comtnune.n" 74. On 7 April 1994. Ndungutse inf<rnned the rvitn.ss and others that "the heail of starc hari beer killed by ".ln;'en:i," and asked rlrem ro "avenge [the pr.esi<!ent's] dealh."s? Nriungutse hact incited the local populalion against l' isis in a similar miinner in 1990. bu1 tlte bpurgntein.e at tl'tt time had put a srOp iu sLrch activities. 7-{. Ndungulse then saiil he r.vas goirrg io the communal of{icc.sr llpon liis rctLrrn lo g lodatidl knorvn as Karutey'i betr'vecn 2 and 3 p.m." hc addressed a mecting and mel i.,,,jth a crorvri of pe6plc whieh included ihe rvilness. NdLurgutse rvas accornpanied by {bllou, teach*rs. lnnocent Tir;.,iseli*e. Ilosco Lilva1ezr.r. 'I'harcisse Nyiribuga. and l)oninque Hakizirnana, as u,ell as b,v wimesi Klt3'.i' NdungLrtse then "called upon us 10 go lnd kill the T;tsi$ beginning rvith a certain N-dakubana.',!., 76', At dusk. a grr:rrp of assailants, inoludiug le lvitness, gafhered arms ar Ndungutse,s house and left ibr NdakuL:ana's housc. Ndungulsc did not acconlpar1y rhem, Nrlskuhena's-sous sere ar iit'sl able to tepel the attackers. 'l-he atlackqrs repurrecl rheir. iailure t1 irirlungulsc ilho wc l t() Witttess KR3's

housc. Witness KR3 plovided Nclurrgutse lvith reinlbrcernenls liom Ndaro ajld the assailants lelurned to Ndahubana's hr:me wilh thJse lein{brcsrnents. lipon thcir rcilirr] ro ,,h, Nciakubana house' the atttckers killeri tivo of the five remaining mernbers of Ndakr:bana's f'a*ril,v, a'd in-lured the three others.ei Ever-vo'e knew the irJeniries of the *tlackers. '.b,ll the commnnal aLrthorilies incarnaled by Ndahimana did nor bol ber us.,t2 ()n the cortrar"v''. on the rlay fr:llowing the killings, mernhers of the NciakLibana famil.v ccmplainecl to the. .,communal admi*istraticn" aboui Ndu'gurse.. trur rvhen ipi Kayisirema and Joseplr I.Iabiyambere ("1'fabilambere"), a local judge. arrivetl at the scene oithe irime the].only askei the assailanls to hurl' the bodios. onc of thc sun,i'-ing victims then told Kayishema antr r.rabil..anrhe re tnat Ndungutse.led.the atiirek and pointed to cther assailanrs rvho rvere prcsenl at the scenc that da).. lle the* aslied *h.v the assailants were only being askecJ to bury rhe victilris. Kay,ishcrna and Flabiyarnbere replied ". '.if you can shorv us thc fersorr wlro killei the head of sratc, rvc rvill atso sholv -vou the kilJers o{'members ol" your fbmilrv.': .lhcre rvas no tnv.stiiial.ion and ihc pcrperarors suftbred ro repercussio.s lbr this c.ime duri'g ihe time Ndahime.,o ,ror t't,. rr,,,r,.u;r;;.;i' - 1.2.6 prietuqlfd.c$l{D1f, 77. Wiftress NDl3, a F{utu, was an entployee o{ Kibuye 7.riJr:care in April 199-,1..r+ 3Zt< "T. ,t,f. ' 6 T . tt l'. 8e T. ''u l. t ' T . ", T, ot J- The Pt osecuto!. r. Nd.thilt.tu,t, Casc r\-o, ICTR-{i1-6S_T ).3 i 274 44

Page 24

.Jtdgetnenl end Sertetlcr 30 De..ernher;2 1 | 22:lq 78. \\ itrress l\[)1.1 tc:titii\l lhal Ndrrrrgu{sr r\irs communal Vicc-(.hlirrnan,,t- re4tf(fi prinl in April 1994. Nd-ungutse \v*s one of the rlastermincls nf the mass.lcLes conimitted in Kivutnu coluffiune in 1994."' Ndungntse rvas not untter Nriahimanl's authority, in April 1994.e6 Nclungutse's superior was the school inspector-ofthe ,tecteuv Jean tlaptise Kagenza, rvho rvas also Ch:rinnan o1' the IURND parry ifi the ca,nffu]ne.'l 1.2.? Defbnce Witness NDj 79' Witness NDI is a l'lutu. llis fhther was a Kivumu comfiM e curtseiller in April l994.er The witness Ilrst lnet Ndahilnana in lats 199-l tvheu hc cixne to borrorv a vqhicle liom the rvitness' fa tn('r.

80. N{etttbers of Ndakubana's farlil.r u,ere-killed or 7 April 1994. Follorving this artack, rhe securitl" situalion in the coaunwne worsened.'ut' The rvitness could see 1he Ndakubana honre rronr his nwn home. The witness rvas told -by his lhthel that Tdlesphore Ndlngutse ancl Wittrcss {:BR leci the attack oll the Ndaliubana fbmil3,.l0i 8 l . On l0 April 199:1, Ndahirnana \vrote the winless' l-ather a letler slating: "l anr hcreby n''riting rhis leter to requesl tliat you ensure secu:^it;- i.1 tha sftte uv tllal rs undef ).ou or tlie secteur. fbr rvhich ),ou arc fhe con;ei//er.. Mr. conseiller, since it appears that securit.v has beon deleriorating inerr:asinglv in yatr se{:teur, I am hereb3.,urging you to drr the 1.olJr.r1ling: Ttr oontinue 10 eirsure the safbty and secuity'of the popularionl to ai,aiij discoi.el; to ensule ip partioullr. the control o{'h0rders with {he rcighbouting pri:.!br:r*re;, since those sowing lrr:r.rrrre in thtse {)'"{fi\:tt!ftts ma1, inliltrate this t:am-rntyte and disrupt its peace...i12 82. The original letter r.vas kept b1, the rvltness' iather auroug his papers.l,,r 1.2.8 Defence lVitness NIl4 83. Witness ND4, a f {utu. was a l3 ;.ear olil stutlent in Apr.il 199.tr. Ilis lirther rvas a member of the MDR.ro'r 84. When t''-daltinana learne<i of problems in the region, he first sent the rvitness' father',an c*rl message.'' On l1 April 1994. Ndahimana

rvrote the rvitiress' farher n letier in ri,hich he state<i: "s.me persons have started conrnrifting viorence -- or hal,e started crmruilting ethnically rnotivated viorence ag*irst their neighbours. r hr:pe. rvirhout any tlout,i that.you are going 1o address the meuLbers oi ihe MnIt. pariy rliai y*u learr a*ii ri., edvise tliem nor to assauh anyone on trre basis oi'their elhnicit),, rikc r\1r. Ntlungutse sj'1. l7 Jaro$y t{il I l. 3.1. -" 1. I7.lanua.l201 I ir. 3j. " T. 17 .lanuirrr- 2011 p, 15. ' " 1 . l 5 l e h n r a ^ l 0 l l p . l 5 i l c s I l l 7 l c h r u u r . r : 0 l t p . . '- l. ti l-cl]|rrirr.t :U| lr. l5 (lL,S). ' " T. 15 [r(bnrar_. 201 I p lt i ll s) '" T. l7 Fcbnrif\ :01 | pir. 7-8 ljC S). ' ' T. l7 l:cl'ru"r,, lo I t fl. l-i: l)rt<ncc h\hib !ilrH. '"'T. l7 Fehluar.r :rrt I nl. l:_2i. " T . l 7 F e b n r a r - r : 0 1 | p p . 2 . r , { | i l { , s r . l"he Prosei:utor t Ndohinqno, Case No. ICT,R-0 t-{ig_,t :1 , ?71 .V"4,

Page 25

,.lrdgetnent cnd Se leqre is doing in collaboratir:n wi(h his ae:coiiipiices."rrj 3 Deenhe, 20l l 85. On an irnspeoilied date, Ndungulse paid a visir to the wilness'faLhcr and rold hiin. ''We'll end up knowing lvhat yor.r and Ndahimma are doing. If 1'ou are nol In.t*t:rzzis" vou are ilrt accomplices of the lnvenzi, unless vou stafi osscciating with rne in what I arr doing." The ivitliest' father leplied ihar he had uotlring against Tursis, and Ndungul$e then leli.iui' 86. On a 'fuesday. rvhich rvas a nrarkel day" "when calnr hild returned, . . zrller things haij atrated.'" Ndungutse atldressed a crorvd a! IJ*ntbiro market srluate. Ndungutse reatl oul a lisl of persons whom he natned as "corvards" and announcecj the_v rvould hilve.to bul tlririks ltr "lirr*r." i\mong those named as corvards y,ere the rvitness' lkher and Ndahitrana.'"' 1.2.9 Uc-b:rse_\Ll!Lesd!D5. S7. De{bnce Witness ND5. a l{uru. rras a farmer in April 1994.r'ro 88. Ilelrveen I and 10 p.m. on the night of 9-10 April t994, attackers iri the rvitness' cr:llale killed an okl man nanred ll'homas N,lr.ventiezi.lt"tr-)n tirc next cia,v. '10 April 1994, ihe ririress ancl live othels were arrested by policernen named Adrien Ni_vitegekairr i',Niyitegeka") and Tdlesphore h4unyantaralla ("h{unyantaranra") in connection \''ith the killing. Duriug the arrest. the rvilness tried tc erplain to the police otllcers that he bad

not participated in the crime. but Nif itegeka told him *rat he hacl been directed L'1,'Ndahima.na to arresr the suspects. i6clu{ing the rvitness. The suspects were talien by the police to the communal o{}ice r.vhere they ! et with Ndahirnana' \tr/hen the suspects arguetl that thcy had not bsen involved in ivh.vcndeii's hilling. Ndahimana decided that thcl'would spend the night in a comrnBnal l.:olding cell lvhile rvaiting for the inspeclor of the.iudicial police to cond!c1 .tn investigation. l'he nerl day, the suspects met with iPJ Kayishen,a fbr approximatelv 4il minutes, He ther told thenl !he) c,iultl 91 lionre q'hile he compieted,his investigation, 'l'l.re rvitness did not believe Ndaliimana hail pla.vc{ i role i1 his rererse that tlav.' ' ' 1.2. I 0 Dejfqqtqq,Y_!Us:sl!R3 89. Witness KI{1" a Hstu. rvorhecl in Kivumu t:oftr tlrnc in 1994.1i2 q0. Ndrhirnanr rras in, Kigali wh*n l'resirJenr Flebyarimana q,as killer-l. He r*lurned to Kivumu .nmrnlne on 9 .\nlil 1994 ''' 9l 'fhe witness r'vas tolcl that trvo children in the Ndakubana familt rvere killed anil that trvo other members oi rire f'arnily rvere injr,rred in the days lbllora ing the cieath a{. presisesr flabvarimana. The fhmily llved in Nyange .tecrcur not f.ir t"rom the -witness' own home,r I r In 3 3l L{- ' ' ' f . l ? l " l n u a r ; l 0 f f . ] l - j . . i s - ] l , r l t \ ) . , .T. lTlehruarr I'r | | nn. jSil(

St. l t-.ts rt-r.crrLlr tr.i,n\iril\r Hr,;\,7,r\r "'T. |'l-(brLur: .'01| np. j )-+| rlt Sr. jl,-<-q. ' T. -'o Janrrarr 10 | | p. -itJl Dclc Lc F \hil)it ,^ 'u' T. 26 .laroan 2011 p. -s0. '"'Niyilegcka las also knort a-s ''jVlaharulu', or'.Cichadc.', "' T. 26lenurry :011 pp. 50-j:1. "' T. :4.lanuaD' 2011 p. 5:: Defrnce g)ihibil 9j. "" T.2,tr.lanuz.y- 261I pp. 57-Sg (iCSi. "" T. :4 Jr!,1uul.! 201 I pp. 65-66. The Proseliat r. Ndohitttana, Cuse No_ lClR.0i-69-T. 25 i 2'.t1

Page 26

.Judgement u,til Sentence .!-!ey:4!cr,:O I t ,<, <l? trspLrnsc. "ir rrJs Jcuided th.tl co tntun.'falicerncn ltrd itcrnh('r),rl thr ri,/!r1i .nn"nfff rlt?rliunid ensure the protection of the pOpulalion."' '' 92. On or abr:nl I April 199;1, Ndungurse asled the witness to pal'ticipate in the attack on rhe Ndakubana lanlil3," bur the rlitness rellsed. Subsequently. Ndutrgulse soughl t(i havc ihe r.vitness killed "becausc [thc tvitnessl had_.ret'Lrsed to accompany lrirn in thc atti{ck hs interrdcd to lairnch ageinst thc home of Ndakubana.""o The llitrress tlien began travelling accompanictl b,v cominLlr,al police bul rvhen he rsalised this rvas unsustainable. thr rvi:ness told N<iahirniina atrout the prolrlem. \f hen Nclahimana learned of Ndiutgulse's threa(s" "he acted." N<iahim*na asked the crrmmu:ral police brigadier" Jeatl llosco Abzrvisenga ("Aba_visenga'') to clisarnl Ndungutse u.hich z\bayisengir <iid together n'ith an antty reservist nan':ecl tsouiface Kaba.lisa ("Kabalisa"), and "this put an eii.l l.i the problem. ..because Ndungutse no longer had a tlre*rrn." ll7 1.2.1 I Delbnce Witness N034 93. Wirness ND34, a ["Iutu, lived in Kivumu con ,nufie in April 19g4.rr' Ndahimana *-as the witness', neighbour.r re The rvitness iirst sarv Ndahimana at an MDR mecting hcir.1 in N,vange ,rer:/e rur' in 1993 ^r2') 94. The securitl situation ir Kivunu conrmwlt deteriorared inrnrediately

a{ier the <iearh o{ President I lablarimana. 'fhe fbmil;. of a ce:'tain Thouras rvas attaokeLl on 8 A"pril M94. on 9 Airril I99J. a sroui) led I'r Callir,tu ltlttn-r:rnczn- Tlidurreslc. \loriestc lrrd \r(nd5:c artfiali(l \4irrti Karrkezi.'t' ()rr a lunda.r at appro-ximatelv I a.nr.,l:: thc r.vilness saw N6ahinrana ar.rivc ar the Karekczi home in thc conpany of nvc conrurunai policemen" onc of rvhom rvas na:ne{i l-conarrl Iiibylrsa. Ndahiuana asked persons *'ho had gathered. at the scene aboul lhe Liilings. and thel provided the names ol'sttspects in the Karekezi killing.r13 {)n ll ;tpr!i 1g94. thc r.vitness sar ons gl' the suspects rvho lold him that hc and his a.ssociatcs had bilen releaser.l that da,v h,v IPJ Kal.isirema and that l(ay,isherna had lold the suspccts that lie alerne lvas responsible f'lrr conductine inrestilation--l:a 1"3 lleliberalions 9j. l'he Detlnce asserts that Ndahimana was not in KivLrnru roramlr:e on tire clays the killinirs iook place.l:5 As Ndahimana is not accused ofhaving personalll.' panicipated in the attaohs allegc4. his presence in Kivumu cotnfi;z$rc. rvhen the attacks took place is not pertinenr. Vhat is relevant is lvhether Ndahim;ula planned or instigated the attacks, or whetlrer he knerv abour l[e attaoks and.lhe identities ofthe sttspected perpel.rators, and failed lo take adequ.rtc preventire or punitive lrgarsures. 96. 'fhe 'l'rial

Chamtrer observes thal paragraph l-l of the Incticlment re l"efs rml"v to crines irr which T'elesphore Nclungutse is alleged to have partioipated" ehhough it meniioni {hrce sepilr.*Le Iir T. 24.lanuar-,- 2alt I p. 57. "" T. ?5.lanLrall 201I p. 7 rlCS). "' .L :i Jonrff),2011 pp. 7-8 (tCS), "" t . 17 Fcbiuarv 20i I n. fil. "n I. t7 Febnrarl 2il1l pp.60-61. ''" T. I7 Fsbruar),:01I p. .10 (ICS). '"' f. 17 fetrluary 201I p_ 6j. '" The T al Cha'rtrer in{;r.s that rhis was Sunriay, l{l Apdl i99,f. r:r T. l7 Febm.ry 2{}1 tr p. 63. ''- T. 17 Febnrary :01 I p. 6.1" "' D..feroe C-losinE Bricf, par3s. 9-l-94: T. 2i Seprcrnbef 201 L p. {ig. 7'he Ir'oJecutor t:. Ndahit Gtt.t. Casc No. lC.I R-01-6{i-T :6 i 214

Page 27

Judleme*tt,r.rse ten;e j|{^i t* killings. On the basis of tlre direct antl hearsay cvidence providcri h1' Wilrrcsse> egg fi(t.'C;Bn, KR3, ND3 and ND4, the Chambcr is salisiied that Tdlesphore Ndunguise participatcd in the altack ott the Ndakubana famili,. itr rvhich trto childr',en rvere liilled ancl others rverc irrjLlred, Ihc evidence dos$ not support ihc allegation that he ahio participated in the killings o{' h,lartin Karekc:"r irr 'I'homas i\'lr.vcndezi. On the evidencc o1" Witncssos CIll, and CllN. the I'rial {lhamhcr is salisiied that Ndahinlana look m*asutcs to arrest suspects iu the Karekezi nrru'ders anci rhe \,hvenrlezi murders. Witness C'NJ testified that he heard lhat lr.vo or three unnamed persdns h:id been arrcsled and laler releaserl in eonneclion \4'ith the Ndiknbana killings.r:6 tlorvever" rhe {,'hamber notes thirt lhis vague, hearsay evidence rvas unconoborated. In ony evert. no evidence iras Lreen a{Nduced that l{dahimana initi:r1ed elisciplinary or punitive proceedings against Ndungutse" 97 . 'ihe 'l'rial Chamber recalls that lle l"ence Hxhibit I l0C. a letter tiom Ndahimana 1o a lcical represenlative olthe MDR. itrdicates thal on I I April 199'1. Ndahir:rana lvas alvare that i.,ldungutso was respotisible lbr "assault[ingl" persons "on the basis ol'their erhnicity."i2i [n ;rddition, Witnesr ND4 teslified thal his {irther'. to rvhom lhe letter was addressed,

krew tirar rr'elungutse rvas resprrnsible lbr the attack on the Ndakubana fumilv.l:8 ln his lt'lrcr ro \\'ilness NDJ's fhLtr*r. Ndahimana askcJ Witnt:s NI)-l's luthcr t\, 1\ork t., r'cduce irrler-crhnic Lcnriorr...'it I hc lri;l Chamber also cottsiders it relevant that at an unspecifieel tirne around lV{ay 1994. Ndahimaua na<t Ndungutse disr:rmed by the nel Lrrigadier ofthe couruuual pulice when lre leanted that Ndungurse r\irs tlrrcarcnlnJ \\' itness Klt-l.r ' 9E. I.he Majority noles that Ntiahitnana's letter to WitLress ),lD;i's t'ather rioes nor soecific;rllv rcl;r ro tlre killirrgs rrl tlre Ntirrkuhlnn r:unil.r'. The buttrr!ru<.'Jr',';rl:o haLl p,u,r ,,rlaii.ro., ,ritir 'i"ilesphore NCttt:gutse. *ho rvas a member o1'rhe h,IltND. ln fact. Ndungr-rtse thl^ealened to kill the witness for rsfusing-to *ccompanv Ndungutse rvhen he launchecl an attacli ou Nilakr:bana un or. about I April l!)9.1. ''' 99. 'Ihe Chamber {lnds that il c.utnot conclude be-vr:ncl re*sonable douht thai Nclahinrana kni,-rv abcut Ndr.rngulse's nrle in thal particular killing. rrhich rroulci have reclgired Ndahimana to fak{) sttottger puniiive measures against Ndungutse at the time. On this basis, the'l'rial Chamber caruor hold Ndahimana liahle lbr crinres cotumirtecl b.v 'l'dlespho.e Ndungutse. 2. l'Ieeting at the Comrrrunal OSee, l l April 1994 2,1 Introductio* 100. Paragr*ph 16 ol' tlie lncllctment

alleges rhar: "on or abour l0 April I9!)4, Gr.eguire Ndahirnana, Athan*se Serrxlitra {..F'ather Seronrba'' or ,'serturba,'), fulgence kal,ishema. Gasparcl Kanyarukiga and olher memberu of lhe JCFI attended a meeling al the Kivumu conrmunal offioe rn ordet tLr plan the exterminatiut of the 'l\Ltsis and lo request gindarnws ticm Kibuyc pr{ficrutr: ta join in the killings." tOl. Pa|agtaph 17 of tho lncli milni allegcs that: "ou or about 11 April 1994" crcgoirv Ndahimana" [rulgence Kaf ishema" 'l"dlcsphore Ndn:rgutse, vidaste l\,lLrrangrlihugabc," also kiorul r:' 'f . 4 \olembo 2010 p. 6"1 {lCS). '" 1. lT Irebruary ?011 pp. jS-.16 (lt.S). ""T lT Fcbrudr ltilJ 1F.7-5 1 11- 5,. " l. lT leh|uar., -''rl l fp. iJ-.i:. .ri-.jil r t( sr ''' 1.25 JinLrtlr'.v.2,tli i)f. 7-E { lCS). ''" 1- 25 January,?0ll p. 7 (tCS). Tlre Prosecutor \'. Ntlahittta.:rt, Cirsr No. 1C'IR-01-6g-T 27 i 274

Page 28

..lttclge nrent aai Se ntence .\)tg<h,r :t)l / 'a'A | | as Vddzrste lvlLtpende. con:ieiller,g and trt{rers ,lrhose iclentities it'e unknul,\'r. helLl rdler'i# a't tire Kivumu communal oflice at tvhich it rvas decided to rer.luisitiurr ;r vchielr beltrngirrg ru...Ii|itness ClDZ.l. which Fulgence Kayishema and others used lo transpott assailanrs to N_yange parish anci t9 utake announcements encouraging rlre pr:pulation to a$ack Tutsis..' 102. Faragraph l8 cf the Indictmenr alleges that: ,'On or abcut l1-l-t April 1994" Cregoirc Ndahimana. Irulgence Kayishema. 'l'dlesphore Ndungutsc, vidaslc fulurangwahugabo also knoi.vn as Vddaste Mupende irntl others whose iclentilies are unknorvn decidecl to move all the Jufsis ar rne Kivumu communal ol'fice to N;-ange palish. and to senel g€,ll.ldt rtrcs 10 Nyange parish lo confine ihc 'l'utsis in fur'theranoe of rhe .lCllr." 10"i. i'he Prosecuticn relies on rlre evidence of prr:secution witncsses cllR. cDZ. cDl., and CNJ. i0'il. The Defence does nol dispute that Ndahirnana chaired a set:uritl. meeting at the couuruull office on l1 April 199-1. but contends that all decisions laken at the meeting were lbr the purpose of nrainmining security and order in the ,,rrn*une.1tJ) The Def'encc also aigues that .qince .several protninent Tulsis itr the cnmrnune perticipared in the meeting" it is inconirivable thal decisior:s would have been taken at the

ln€eting that were hostile tc the interesfs olJltsis i* ahe tt:1tmu;te.13i Thc De{bnce relies on thc evir.lence ol' \Vitncsses ND2l. KR]. ND I and i}catricc MLriianl<usi to rebLrl the Frosecution's theor-v that ths purposc ol'the mecling lvas to begin planning lhg destruclion ol'the'Iutsi pcpulaLion in lhe contmune. 2.2 Evidence 2.2.1 Prosecution Witrress CDZ 105 wimess cllz, a 'l utsi businessman" residecl in Kivumu {:on1!nune h 199:l_ fle lncrv Ndahimana lvas the boragritesliz of Kivumu cotnrnun(: and somrilmes nlet ald inlcfacicd with n l n l - - i06. Alier, President I'rabvarima*a's creath on 6 ApLir r994" ..peopre [:regan to get riii]ed graduallv."l jj Botrgne;tre Ndah.irrrana nrganiscd ll ,.,iirrlq rneeriug or.| I I April I 9g:l at the Kivumu ctttnmune office atlcndeil b1 the ligion's conseilltis and toitnune tiepartnrentr lr.udr-ili 'l'he rvitness did noi attend the nieeting, but immediatcly lirlblving rlic risetirlg" Ndahimen.l sent him a,.letter d-elivered by IPJ Kafishenra reqr"risitii:nirg his I'o-vota Srour lrick,p ,*t.,irt*.itt According to the liltlcr" because o{'rhe instabiiity in KiiLulLr com rutrc, thc parricipants o1'the seoufltv lneeting held that satlrc day decirled that tlie rvimcss slioukl lur:i nu.ihiu o.hi"l* tu rn. cctturtunal of1lce at ;1: l-5 p.m.li8 '['he wilness irterprete<i this letler as an "orclef .. .nol a mere re.ruest '" Deli'nce Closing

t]fjet: fJara. 124. ''" Det"eocr filosing []riei. para. 122. '1.8 SeFtelri.er 2r ti ir p. :( ' 'T- l{ scnrenri}er' l0 I 0 p 18 (ICS . ''T 8 septe$bcr 2l)l0 pF' 27- 23 ( lcs) {witness cDZ testitled thdt l}e sa\1,rdver:rt c(tt,teill./r ka*1g!he Lommurbl olfir:e on his $'ay there: l-aurent $iuclabyenre3. conseillet of Sun- ,r. r"r., L'Bllixle N'i.,'ibi/i, 1llcsphore Mlirane. Caslud Cahvare- corrylllcr. rif K ir. umu tectdul,, atr{] .lean-Marie Vianney llaLrarlgira , cowe!/ler uf lo"ng, ,rr"*rr", upon alrival 3t the con{r[na] olllce he sar,v Father Baltazar ]Jitinrara. a *ornair lrlrnrecl rhajfcss i\,juklbidene and a'rlr-Jpill'i l\lunti{uLilr.' !,f \ g{ )t.lrolr;} stj.lerf). q., Defenoe l_Lhibil 11" ctr. j_4. ,. L J sel,ierYrhe. 2f) |{l pn. :7. j0. 1 | | lt Sl: i,r.r\s( {i!,n Ii\hihit t. ' " T. U \et'tcrrrirer' lolr,I'i\ t0- { | I l( \1. 7 he J'rosecuor y. \ilahiuana. Case No. IC flt_0l-6g_T 28 / 271 "+

Page 29

.J dgene|1l .Md Sektetce 3()llet.ewher2l)|| 7z-to lor assistance."iie I l* understood the term "securit-v" lo mean the compJete lack cl'"sdrit/aiij "peace" since the iJearh of Ilresiclent I{abyarimana on 6 r\pril 1994.110 107. tjpnn rcceiving l.he letler {iom IPJ Ka.visherna, the rvilness drove his vchisle t6 rhc communal o{}lce. Once there, nsdaliimaner askcd the witness to drive him to the l.wrder be$,,ccn K\hilira t:omnune and l(ivumn culrmr;re in otder to ilispee I ihe si:curit-v situation the re . 'lhe rvi{ncss tcfirsed 1a {bilorv the directivc because hs {bareri he rvouid be killed. Horvever. the rvitness promiseel to g!"t a cedain L.Jwimane .ligom* Lc drive the vehicle fir Nclahinrana. r'rl 108' When the wilness atrived at tlte conlmuual oflice, he sau,three vehicles siu,ila: lo his orvn, all belonging to FlLttus" and the comtnLural vehicle, a red'ft:yota HiiLrx. On this $asis, he conclud*ci that Ndahirnana sgrecilically rvanted the witness" a'l'utsi. fo clrive his vehicle to lhe hordel.because Ndahimana believed thc rvitness rvould be liillecl thcr.e.lar t09. Thc rvitness did not knorv *'hl the l1 April 199,1 neering lvas held. but noted that it coirrcided rvith the beginning of the killings ol'Iutsis in t!rc conmttorc.ta3 2.2.2 Pnrseculion Witness CIlfl 110. Witness CBR, a Hutu, resided in Kivumu co lntune in 1994.i1'r t{e was frii:d nlrd conv:c.tred fbr his partie

ipotiol) in thc crimes conimittcd at Nl,ange parish and elser.r-hcre in Kivumu tot,tl?'uffie ;r Apr;i lqq{.''' He rvas re-al'reslcd a lcr'- nronths bcfore coming to tc.stjl,y in Lhis lrial-1a'l Hc kn*rv that i''idahimanA r.vas the llorrrgrne,rlre and saw him a number ol'times prior ro the evenls of April 1994 a|ound Kivrnllu cafl,ttttne either clriving lhe red c{rr}rmunal vehicle or passing cn ftot.l4? I l l On l0 April 1994, an announcenlenl llas made in Nlange chrlich thar a meeting n'ruld takt: place the llcxt dav at the communal olticr. '[]ris mceting. ,thi.h Ncluhin-rr.,e "convelr:t1.," inciu,:etr tlie "service heads...lcaders of polirical panies and rhe various leac.lers .1, the varrcus denominations."ras'i-he witness iliii not attenrl the mecling but ryas lold ai:aLrt ir by 'l'dlesphore NdLngulse-.rae lmmediately after the neering, the vehicle iit" , t'utrl businessman, a $.eli-knorvn member of the p*pulation. rlas f-,.rcibl-r seieed "urder the-pretexl lhat the vehicle rvas going to help tire lruthuriticr in crrsuring.the- security rl' reftlgees."l50 I'har sarle vehieje '.as usetl -tr, lln;v geud.truk'. tc the clnlch.''' on l:l r{pril 1994. the rvitness sar.v Il}.1 Kayish*ma clriving this pallicular vehicle tlroughttt:t the rvitness' cellule. l.Ising a megaphone. Kayisherna gir.ecrJd the r'' f s S.pteml'q1 :010 tl i0rl('\1. ' l i J S r n l ( m l , r i l 0 l t r p n . : E , i l ( { { S , . "' T, I Septernber lril{} p. 3? (lc[j}. ' ,, '1 . I \(ti(.nihcr ll| lll Ff -] l. i:tltSr. "" t)cf.fi{s L \hil)it I J. ''r l,ros.rcuti0n Eahibit 14. Nolenrber ?010 p.

49. November 20llJ pp. t, i1-J3 fiCS). lJovelrlber ,0 t0 p.

6. Novembcr i010 p.

14. N.1velrll-.fl 2010 p.

14. No!eurbef 201il p.

14. Noventber 2010 p. i ;1. r.15 J.. '* l'. ,0, T, 'ru T, r.{! T. rio l. 'r, T. 1'he Prcse*ttor t. Ndohlnutte, {:ase No. lC.{,R-01-68_I :tt | 211

Page 30

I ll:. Yit"*r1..-DL., a l{'tu' was a teacher in Aprir l994.ria r'[i: ivas a member .f Lhe I!.IDR flll't:lryP,j_ xnd had held a high-ranking position rvithin the Kivumu comrrunal otlice fronr lvud-lvvr"' I Ilt \\'ilness ltas convicted ibr his part!cipation in the crirnes conrnritred at N_vange parish in April .1994. Ile *as pertbrming conutiunilv selvice as part ofhis 2t) year ssntence g.lien he lvas re-alrcsted in 2009 and eonvicted of disnibuting arnrs userj tiuling the atfacks ou Nyangc church, and 01'organising and.chairing. mectings ttur.ing rrhich the attaiks w.ere pranncl. (in 22 ()ctober 2{l0Q hrr rrl15 ';1'111916g.1 trr lil'e irnnrisorimcnt.' "- ll:* *i{rress urs stiil h,:iiirrg his posili,,rl in the comlrunal oflice *hcn Ndahimana rvas eiecte.r hourgnrcsrre of Kivumu hr June r9g:J and rl,hen he took office in latt Octotrer or early Novcmber oi'thai 1..ear.t jt l13 on l{} April 1994. during Surrda'rnsss ar N}rn!,c church. Farher iieromba rcat{ our a lness&ge ar the request of the Arr,griccirz, runouncirg thit a mceting rvoultr he hcrd on 1 l Aprii lq9-+ at thc c.tn;1,,,,to, nlficc.'*'l'r'i(,r lo_lllc nrccting., thc rrirrre*s mcf ,rith jcarr Brptisru Krrit.ric wh' was the c'mmunar head ot li)c I DR prn)".r'"' l'lrc"v Liecidecl not to panrcipatc ir.r the meeting.16; Horvever, llic rvitness H'as rold aucrur ,u.,Lar tcNrk ilace ar the meel;irg b.v wituess KR3 and

Habiyambere. President o|the cantonar cculr.r6:'r-he nieciing was cirairccr i,v N,iolri;,roii", ,n.t those par cipating in the meerirlg include<i t:tnseilk:r.r t{r: se eurs- represerifativejj ol. politie*i ffJjn]],}].*: ?itervices and religicus leaders as rvell as nrher oilici*ls crincemed wilh secLrriry iii I i4' licllowing the dearh or tr'csidr'r Hablarimana" r'ursis had begr:n s*king reluge at the oon lural ol'fice and olher places.r6r Accor.ling Lo \l.iLncss l.,li.3 and uihil,arntere]a ,t..!ujoi, *,*, made at tlie 11 Apr 1g!)4 meetirrg that_'Iir1J .*ruge*r st nur,i be gatheretl l.gether al N).ange p*rish, and thal the)' shoukj be e*couraged to go lo tte parish rather than llee. lt lvas ajsr elecirjed that tbe pr{fbt in Kibuyg should be uot Ja ro p'iuiJe g";;;;;,"t and soldiers 1o Ki'rnru .oturn{t!(, and that conrnrurar porice ofr'icers shr:urcr be sent to the ,ro"rorr,, ,r.,, ensure seguritv tr.:ere. ,l hose present arso resolved to estabrish a nurnber crf roacrbrcrcks. in.r,r..iirrg .r,r. ,,.rr'rrr- irrirl "i,rr. J u.tge de n t dr.l Se tr,e K a. population to save l,ivangd parish lrom popularion to re I'er to thc'l'utsis.l5r 2.2.3 t$eauiro! [ rr]rsrs {ipl_ '': the Krnl,arwancLa uor.j lr1,vrjl means ".coqkroaches,, in Engljih. "" T. I Nolcmbcr ?010 pp. 13- L:1. ' - - I . l l N , . r r c n r h i . r 2 r r l , r p l \ < t - 5 8 , J ( \ l ' Dctcn(1. E\h ibir 1.1 r:6 T. 1 I

Novenrlrer l0l0 p. 57 (LlS). ' . t . l l N o . r ' r n h e r 2 r ' t r r f l , j l _ r J , t ( s j '-' l. I 1 Nt'rclrbcr' ?01{) p. -i7 UCS). ' T. I I No',cnrl-er :01011 (,-t '"" Detbtce h$ibi1 ?,1. 16r l-. I I Novernber :{il0 pp. 61" 67. ' T. 1l Nr,rtnrbcr' l0tti pp. 6i-o"1. **,!,11,11,;:[t*;ii: I l];.,,TilT:i:qxq; i:lp::,,?il ;IlJ;., :1,,?,:,:::,J1,;i,:ll;;1t";iilf: Niyibizi ot'Kigali' onesphi.'re lllairanre of Rukok'. itrai""r,l'rui*:,r*rkaro .t ..-gobrgol.,,i, Laursnr siir.tabyemefa ,,1. {irsartza as ivell as (iaivaza {rf Kivunlu. Wiurr* f.;n:,-*J ;ilffi,i;l witne$s ND23. cor-'teilter of casaye.r".,*r," r.,,"_ii*''. i;::::.':1.-.::.:'.l:l:'".,!', I'ILirocn' or Inc Lrai.raor {JuarleJ" trfi:iifili:T,,,,,i,,i,,:;:;,,ffi;;-i}}l;i:ffiJiffi:iil'::;'#1;'^.:ii:: Llxlli ?'lo .,'" 'lhe Prosenttor.t,. l/dahinara, Clsc No_ lCIR.0l-6g_.I, 3t) i 271 4l+

Page 31

.Iudgeur!1t {Ird Setieacc ,Cyt\g, Virgin lvlarr' apprurimlt,:ly l{)-10 mctres fronr \rlutgc church.'r' firc purpost ,,f t{1('att61,,.k*- rvas 1o check the ideutit_v papers iind luggage o1'ali those passing through.r'n ll5. liollorving the meeting" tlie lvitness no longer sarv rcfugees at the com]runal olfice. but noticed a greal number moving towards Nyange parish ancl at Nyange parish itsel[.r'it I'he rvilness was also told thar imrnediatel"v lbllorving the meering, at apprcxirnately 4 p.m., Ndahinana travelled to Kibtr"e to rncet ?ftlbt Ciinicnl Kayislicma. Gentkrme.s sent by Climclt Kayisliema att'ive<i in Kivumu that same evening because tlre rvitness llrst sarv lhen the nexl r1ay.1'3 2.2.4 P.,r'o_sec_ut-ion .$i-itqe.SS -e NJ I | 6' Witness CNJ, n I'lutu, rvas a student in i1)!).1..r6" lle was mresred in 1997 fcr his Dirdicioarion in the crimes committed at N;.ange pari-rh. At al uns;:recilied tjme hu rvar coiir icr,,,tl r,i cighrveal.s intPri\onment. but ri1; i1n16q41n1rl;.' reieased on the basis of time alreari;., served and is currentlry lrt--e ." ' The lr ittlcss kttc'tr thlt CriSerirc Ndahirnana lvas the &rrlr5,nlc,s/rc u|{ Kivurru coult? t t: during the rvar.rTl 117. l'ollowing the death ol' IlresicienL Habyarimana" Hulus. incluclirg Lhe rvilness. bcgan targeting Tutsis in and-around Kivut"tn counr*re. Clorsequentlv, Tursis began seeliing sani:tuary ai tlre communal

oft'ice.17? I18. T'[re lvittiess did not atrend the meering o1'11 April 1994 at the Kivumu comnulral cl.fice, bu1 wa$ .told ab{rut it by a lamily tnember who was a canseiller nt ihe timc and atterrded the meeti g. "' 'l'hose ai:tencling the meeting inoluclecl: t:onseiller,s de ,sectenrs. lhe hea6s o1' seg,ices iri the comnune ." llourgmestre Ndahinrana. lpJ Kayishema and Ndungutse . the leacher.lra 119. A rlecisicln rvas taken at dre meeling lo move thcrse'l'utsis rvho hati sought reluge at the communal olifice to Nyange parish hccausc .-those.rcsponsiblo jbr their securiL_v. . .lealissd ihot rn*i... coufd not protect them tht u*nrnnr'cttic(--."r" A der:ision qas also taleri tc, ask th* s:r{Jit in Kifruye for gerrrlalrre.s to pfotdct the refugees.i;u Horvever. rvhen the ivitness first ouuy gunrirgi*1r rn his sedeur on t3 April 1994. rhe ge*r)rtrrnes "defined the eneurl'" as "Jutsis cr anr.i rrher arme6 pet son rvho rvls r.rpposed to the Government at lhe time.,,17? 2.2.s Dp&nse.Wil"rc$l!D2j_ l2o' \vitness ND23. a lluru, rvas a cortseiller il Kivumu L(, rfiwp trbr appr.oximately 2{) vears prior to tl':e events of 199;1, and culrently resides in Rr.r.tnda. l"le knerv thai Nclahimana wa.s the hourgme\tre itt 1994 and lccalled that lt$ lvas inaugurated ar the N"varritanga {bcrball lield in t65 T. ll Noveinber 2010 pp.64-67. ''"'T. I I Norerrber 2010 rD. 67-68. r6" T. 1 I Nr,-emb*r

t0t0;;. 67-68. r6i T. I I Nor,enrbei. 2rl l0 r.';. 66. a)8. r6e l,rolecution F.riribit 2L]- 70 T. 4 Novemltr 2010 p.. 64 1163). '" 'li. 4 Novenber. 10i 0 p. 43. "''f. 4 Noveml,.er 2lil0 p, .{:i. "" T. 4 Novenrber 2tJ I0 p" 45 {tCS). "''l'. 4 Novenrbcr. l0t0 p. 4j itCS). ' l . - l N o \ c r n t r r : i r l 0 f f - l l - l h { t r f , r . ' " T. J Nor crr,htr 2|1|| l. .16 {i( : ), '" T. ,1 \orenrbcr. 2010 pp. ;t6-47 (ICS). l'lte Prcseottot v. Nd'hinwa, Ca$e No. lCtR_01_6g_1, -i 1 27.t

Page 32

,ltt4):ptnLol ,tnd .\ttttctt,i Jt] | j\r)t)4\ .'r j t-1 /,. <t1 J l99i.t7! Mtrt'eover. corLst.illers rvere directly under the aulh{rri[ ,1f 1l1s 1r6rn1gr41,.ro*-t-' .{lii,:fqh I the wiiness \.ras not asked. the Chamber inl'els thal this rlitness rvas Wiftess Ci\J's rel:ttive and tlre sorrrce al]oul 1he meeting on tI April 199-1.180 121. lmmediately follorving the tleath of Presiclcnt Ha-b1,arimana, the security situation in the \\,tness' secteur n'as stable and dterclirte 'l ulsis llceing the violencc in l{ibilira sclught refugc t[:ere. Il was not until l0 April 1994, rvhen tlie rl.itnoss rcceived a lettel liom the l;ourgmestre asi,ing aii politicel leaders ensi.tre the scourity"of Lhe population, thal he discovered that the security.' sltLration rvas deleriorating in other sec/grlrr.'n' 122. 'l'lre rvitness alteftded ilic recrir.rg convened by tire hou.gnrcstr"e on I I Apiii l9g4 at lt.:e communal ol-lice Farticipaling in thc meeling lvere the citeirpersons o1' political p*rties, ctlnrnunal scrvice heads, consdller.s c{.r mjutj{tux aad rcligious leaclers. }}oth l{ulus *ncl l ilrsts altended'1s: l\'ior 1tl llresident Habvarimana's death, iivitatirins hacl been llistribute4 icr a development meeling schecluled to take place. 'l'hat meeting w i postpolted when the llresi.lenr died 4nIJ lhe bourl4lie-{lrre' lvas alvay" LJpon his retLrrn, the bourg*x:.ttri isiued a r:ol6;l;lrryrl

lvhich ,.vas fead ort in churc.h on l0 Aplil 199:l inviting members of tht cLtnrmrmri rlevelopnienl ccuncil t9 report to the meeling resoheduled tirr I I Aprii 199;1.r83 l2j. I'lie witfless arived at the communai oifiee.at approrirrialely. I I a.m. on I I .4pri1 1994. Hc noticed that ovcr 30 lirtsis had soughl ret'uge there.rsa Parlicipanrs at the meeling decided that there should lre coliaboratic-rtr belween the ol'ficials ol' the cettule.r and ofl'icials oipr:litical parties ir.r ensure securily in their ser:,errr. 'l'hey also reeluested tbat the &oiirginas tre call the prilit's otfice i1 Kihrrr e,1o rcquis i ti\\n,E(,.lurnp s. Ndahimena did s', cali'g tr.te pii.fe.t t*ice b:.. t p.r'i r, 1-he pr6.fir rcspunded -" b\ scndlng g<ttJurntes rvho rvorked together with the ootrrmunal policenren 1o ensuLe secufrt_\ rn lhtttlhtmtMc.'" Thc tomnutn uas lL, tiikr clrat;t,:.rf thr ytntltrntr., rr,lr!le tlre; r.\rrg in Kivurns convnun .lss rhe rvitness r.r,as of the vierv thar s]nce *E baui,gme,rtre had sent fol rhe gendarmes,, Ndahiniana must have issued instrlctions to rhem at s<-rme point. bul diri not elahoratc- '' ]11 T'he parlicipants al the meeling also decided to reiprisiLinn vehicles belonging to traclers. incjuding_one trelonging to trl'itiress Clf,l.ito 'l'he r.ehicfes irere to be takcn to the rorrrrrrrre oi,fice and guarded by the eottttnttnal policemen.lel A f'urthar

decisiclt \.vas lnken lo transfer ali the "li:isi ref"ugecs at the oommunal of'fice to N1':rnge parish.re2 The rvitness did llor recall a ilecisicn to seek r)i T. 19 April20t I pp. j L-:12 (lCS)l l)cjence E\hihir. L2l. ' " I . l 9 A p r i l 2 0 l l p . 4 l r l ( ' S l . ili I ]? ^p':] i?] I pp. 3 t-j: lICs)i Derbrff Exliilr;l 123. see a/tet. rliirness (rNJr r'. ^.l N()r(,rnbrr 201() p. .f-< {r{.rxr. '"' 'l'. 19 April 201 | p. 33 fiCS); Detbnce Exhilljt t:4_ '"-'f' 19 Apri! 2011 p :17 il(:si ("luts; leadet; in aflenrlance inclucle,.i flonil'are (iataie"a t:onlnnt,t. .vourh ooorrlirreror, Lambert fiirfare' the PL part! represerl:liYe. clh;rrles Nlulreirzi , Lhe rtoetor ct \yangc health litrire, orlr nun lroin lhtl i;]l:er]j: iturll5]1\. tid! iSi th( pnsrrir. r,f Ngungu. and tbr pa-stor of (,lasck. p.u;sh). '" L l9.{pri1 2rrl L 0..17. r34 f, 19 Apfil 2011 p.47. '"'T, t9 Apdt :01I p.49. '"" '1. 19 Aplit ?01 I p. 49. ' - ' 1 . l c , A p r i i l 0 l 1 t n . . \ J i i t ( \ ) t e ''- i. lq ADrii :r,lt D. .19. rre T. l9 April 2ali 1 ;. -i0. r" T. 19 Aprit 201 I ;p, 4t-59. " ' l . l 9 A p r i l 2 0 L l p . J 9 . '" 1'. l9 A1riil :01 i p. 48. 'jha Pros€rutot t. liddhiqetrlt, Case No. ICTit-{rj- ti_l 32 i 211

Page 33

.Judgenent dndsenlence -ltt l)tt:enber )ill - 2_eb6 o(ll T uls is irr I hc ir i{ ( /elr'\' :rnd tlrg( lhtm !{' g!) t.: the puri:,lr. }drt hir. u dcL i.iiuil \\ ai liikcrf t t{nsLrrc lJre seculir.v- ol" I'ulsis arid dreir prtrpcrtirs.r"' I'he rr itn.sr left the meeting L,etrvcerr I anil 2 p.mr"1 2.2.6 D*{bnss,,[:!!ryuK]L3 125. Witness KR3. a l'lutu. ivas in a position to observe what rvas taking place in the Kivilmu conrmunal offir,e in 1994, and hac.l been in such a position iirr some time.re5 126. On l0 April 19t)4, a c:ow*tuniqld was read oul in cllurch infonning the Christians rvho hirrl come 10 lllit$s to spread lhe nervs to concerneri individu*ls that the-1, l:ad heen jnvited 10 altend a meeting chaired b1- the bourgnestr? al the communal office on l1 April 199"1,.re6 ]he tvirness <1i<1 llot attend the rnass brit his son lvho attended told him about the meeting, and the rvilness attenclerl the meeting.leT 127' 1'here rvere approximatell" 25 participants at the lneeling rvhich srart*cl at approxinrately l0 a.m. and ended at approxirnatel).' 2 p.*.'on lloth Hutu and 'l\rtsi were present. l'utsis in attenilance included: Chrles [4ugenzi. rvho u,as the head of N-vange health cenrre; l..aniberi fialare. tjrr leader of tlie PI- part,"-; Bonil-ace (iatare, rvho was an officer lir l.outh ancl cooperative aotiviticr: Fran;tr!: Ka.vigi, a pastor fiom the Ngcrrgwe rs;t.l Prrisli

urr.l urr,,rirer l)astor liom Caseke.lee Mosi r,f those attending the Ineetillg either.held positions ot aurhorit.r ur rrcrc ;roliticiams.l00 Kanyar.ukig:1. a rader. in,J(igalirvho olvned a pharmacy in Kivumu dicl ne* attend the meering because he tlitl not hokl an offier. Likewise. Ndungr:tse was not inviterl to attend the meetiug an,1 ,ias nur p.esent.ro' l:l: During the meclir.)g, Ndahimana telephoned rhe priJi:t oi-tribu_r e, anJ rcqursrcd th;lt the pri.fit send gentlamues to th.e utm*une to help ensure securirl..:': hr arltlirion. Ndahimana urgecl communal conseillers to work in conjunolicrn rvith members of ttte cellule cgmmittees to elrsure security' and Kivr'ulu lesidents rvere banned frcm bars at night.:03 The particiri:nts atrso deci6ed that the reiugees ai N)'ange parish lvere to be given ktod ririginall,v d-estinei tor students of the Ntambwe secondary school. and that fbocl stored at thc nutritiirnal centr.e antl the presbyter)' rvas io be dislributed to the rtfugees.2'r'1 [n adc]itian. a clecision lvas rnade that th* brturgtiy,s; coui,..l requisition arry vehicle availablc in rhe ctunmwte in order io provide securit;-. 'f trrii elecision r.vas laken because the communal vehicle, an r'rlcl retl l'oyota llilux, rvas in a garage i:r Girarama awaiting repairs,20s l"lie r.vittrcss noted that .lean tsizimaiia, the driver cl'the conmLrnal vehicle died in .l.a1ulrr or

Iicbruarl' 199:l and lherealier, Nclahirnana ctiove the vehicl* hi:nsrlf. 't he vehiclc rvas slill in the garage in.luly 1994 r.vl.:gn rlrc lvitness leli the criunLrr.:{,o r"j T. 19 April 201I F. 49. "t 1. 19 Aprii 20i I p. jt. ,"' L i"l .l.rnuar. J0l l pp. 5l- i"l r l( t): prLr.et.rrLiUl| t,\hihir ,/5. ' ' J. 25 .larruirrr :{)11 pp I,l. 17. . " T. 25 Jonu3rl 2tll I lr l"l. ' 'T. l.l Januarr 1011 p. 6t. '-- L fJ.tanua^ ?0 | I F. 6t) "" i.15.lanurr'.r 20l l pp. Itr-17. -'' T. 2.1Jafluar.,v )01 I p.60; -f.:5 Janu$y:011 pp. 16_ 17. "" I. :4 laoualy 201I p. ('1. '"' T. :.1 .lanuar-\ 2U I I pl) .hl . 7 L. .'- T.2,l JunrrcL-r -'Ul1 p ul- -' -[. ].1 .l.rnrrerr l0llL1| Ot.6+-rji "" T. :i .lnnu.rr) l0l I pF. ol. 6.1-l,j. 7he Prose<:tttitr t Ndahinaua. Ci$e l\o. lC fl{-01_6g-T. :"'i / 214

Page 34

Jutlgement and Senteucer j{} Dece ber ){)l l 7ZD6 129. The vehicles fi"om trVitness CDZ and a cedain Antc.'ine Twagirayezu 1liere used/trfiur idf security and to lransllofi fbod ta the refugees at Nyange palish. Ihc b<;urgtnarrre uoultl also Lrse tlrese vehicles to luonitor the securiq, situation around tl.te communt.J''1 Firulll. thc. parlicipjnts in the 1i dpriJ 1994 meeting decided that the "['utsi rciugees at the communal ol"{ice sholld be tmns{'erred to lhe patish. lhey^ believed tltc gendurmes s*nt b1.' the prr,fut would be bctter al,le Lr) plotsct all the relirsees thefe.:t's trO' At an unsp-ecified time, Ntlalrimana went to lhe varioLrs.rer'/erlru aud urged con,,;ei!!er.t anrl ciiizens t0 ensure securitv.:oe 2.2.7 Llef'ence Witness NDI l-l1. Wioess NDl. a Hulu, lvot ked at Nyange ircalth cenl.r* in Kivnmu catnt t!/tt i1 Igq'l,2io She knew thar Nclahinrana \yas dle trzrrgn e srre a{ Kivumu rr-,rrrnzlr i* I 99:l bu1 had nc oiner relationship wiLh him.2i I 1:12" Irollciving the death of President ifab,r''arimana, Iiivunru residents lvere advise6 to sray home' I'lolvever. the witness returnetl to u'ork on I I April 199;1. At appr.oxiuratelv l0 a.m. on that da,v" the liead of hqr scrvicc !\ent lo a meeting at rhe communal otlice. When he retilrned" he he lcl a slaU'neetinq at r.vhich he advised rvorkers to cofltinlre rvorking as afu !)Gttrgmestte hacl rcassurccl the-

pafticipants .af the rneeting abo,rrt thc secr ir\ situitiun.,,, She *as rhsrcf(ire surprised rvhcn her 'f'licc rrls attxckcJ dlc rrert dar .:ii 2.2.8 De{bnce W i1rc$.Bg3trice. L,lukqnkusj 133" lVitness Ileatrice Mukaakusi. a Huru businesswoman rvho resiiler! near the Kivumr.r conmunal office in 1994, is Antoine 'f*agir.a3.'ezu's rvi<low. she kneu, NtJ:ihimana, wl.:o rvas ihe bourgtnestre af Kivuntu comr une effective October 1993.21, 114' '['he witness testified that al sorrre rxlspecifiecl time in April ig9.l shc received a lelter fi1ur fhe communal atihorities inli.rrming her that ihe should be prerpared lo sunenclcr her vehicle i1.*ncl rvhen the authoritie.s ,needed it. 'l'he cjr:erument was brought bv a comrnunal policenran who rvas hn\)\rr as }\ tb\ ulslt.'' 2.3 Deliberations JJ5.. :A plain reading ofparagraphs l6 through l8 ai'the lndicrmenl suggcsts that thg prosecutjon is alleging thal Ntlahimana and olher nreniberi ol'the JCbl hekj a series tlinieetir:gs irr the Kivuniii comlnunirl offiee betrveen l0 and l3 April 199,{. At these nieetings" a number r:f i.ritical cleci;ioils, allegedll relui ing,to the gc noc ide. $€fe lake': i I ) "['r']' request gentrtu.nrcs r:rom {.ibLr.,-e ptifictur<: to join in thc killings:"irn (2) To requisition a vehicle balorrgillg to a Tutsi treelcr. r.vhlch Fulgrn.e ---*---- ' I l{ J.rn[.rr.t ]0lt p. bl " " L l i J a n u r r ' t t t l l p .

i A r l C , S r . ' ' J ? - l J a r r u a r r 2 o t l p . i l . -"' 'l'. 20 J3nusry :0t I irp. 2-j i ICS): prosecution EahibiL S?. '' ' T. :0 laruary 2011 pp. 4. 27. - - I-. 20 .la,r uar-i- 2rJ11 pp.'7"2'/-28. "'' l. ?0 Jaruirry 20 | 1 p, 2t. "'T. 7 F€bnrary :01 I pti. ,l-6. '' ' 'f. f l:ebruary 201t pp. 32-33. '" lrdictfient. l'rirfa, 14. The Pr<tsecul<Lt t. I'dahiuant, Case No. ICTIT-{)l-6$,7 34 | 211

Page 35

.ltilge ne n| an.l Se riexie 30 lie*tnher 201 l l.l: \}\tilrldjs NDl r l'.20 J"rnurrl, ?-1ztCI t+ K.tl islrema and orhers LrsL'd [o tranrp(,rt ir\sLril:lnrs t() \]arlue parirh and r,, mrkc arri,rrni.trr-r,eriJ encouraging the papulation 1|' irttauk l'Lrtsis;''r i urrl f -i) I o move ail the 'kLtsis fiom K ivum Lr 1om11na] of{iee to Nyange parish. and then rr absign g<nrhrnws 1t: Nyange parislr "to eonfine the Tutsis,in lirdherance ofthe JCE."rrt l'lc'rvevei, it is clcai iiom rhe evi<ience ofproseculion witnesses *lone,2le that all th-ree paragiaphs refer to a single nreeting chairetl b-v Bourgttiestre Nelahimaria at the conrmunal office r]n I I April 199-,1. Tlre Trial chamber notes that the Defence raiser: no objecrions to the fbr:rn oI'the Indictment. and on this basis conclucjes that it was not preiudleed b], the Prosecution's distr.actiug Ibrmulation. 1-3(r. 'f'he parties cler nerl dispr-rte that Nil*himana chaired a security neetilg at the Kivurnu communal olfice on I I April 1994. Fr.rrther, the Delbnce acc?lrts rhat a 4ecis;onlres made *I that nieelillg to requisititrrr a vehicie belonging to \Vitness CUZ, iind that i] second clecision wits nrnde to move ihe Tutsis r.'ho had t:rken refuge at the commnnal ol'fice to Nyange ;rarish.r:., ,l-he par.ries iitrther agree that the pafticipauts dc-qirleci that Ndahi rana rvould ask tn* 1*flt kr assign a nunber of geru*tnnes to

Kivunru trnumtrne.,21 What remains in conlentiorr is whetl.:er Lhe pani;ipants trck these decisions in or,:ler tc better protect Kivumu's Tursi popLrlationr:, ol. in <rrdir'io i.u.tio1. rr* comtnon pla't clt lile alleged JC[.,.-, 137. The Prosecutiou reries on rhcl hearsa), evidence uf witnesses cDZ, crgR, cDL and LrN.r about the meeting' The Defence relies on lviinesses ND2J and Kft3, rvho werc both irresent fit the meeting, as rvell as ND1 w'hc wits told about rhe meeting.2:{ l)efbnce Witness fJeafrice MukankL:si only added that she rece;ved a lctter liom the courmunal ;ftrice at a r-nspecilied t;nlr3 alefiin!! her to the possibility that her vehicle might be requisitionetJ.::5 138' At rhe outset' the Trial Chamber notes thi{ i1 is reluclanl to reiv orl hearsay evidenoe. and will only do so rvhere such evidence corroborares tirst-hancl evidcnce. 6n this basis alone, it coul.,j find that the Prosecuticu has not proven the alregations in puagr:lphs 16-rg af the Inclictmerr beloncl reasonable doubt. 139' H0rvever, the 'Iri{rl ch*rnher wishes to ad.l ihat even hacr one tu several o1'rhe l)rosecurroll wifnesses actua!fu attewletr the. meeting *f r I ;\prir I9!).r.. their evidence ,"ourtr ,rrri nuur,* ,n" Prosecution's allegations. 'I'he l\'osercution do.s not elispute tiie liellnce oonteliti'n th*l a nunlber of rut-sis rvere invited to, anil attellded, the ureering. ivitit.s

clz rc.stified thzlt irnmediatelv lbllowing .the I 1 Aprir 199,4 rneoting, he receivej o tette. t om the comnunal uurr,orir"i*" requisitioning his vehicle. Ite arklecl rhat Ndahinrana asreaitr" rvitness 10 dril,e rrvclahimaua to the conttltullal boreler to inspect thc securit"v situation there. 'l'he rvitness speculared that Nclahinlana tuade this request to ettsure that the witness rvoukJ be killecl at the border, but rfia nor "rjoin lri, f'eat of Ndahimana that da),. nor dicl he ,-f", to ",U, ttrr*ot, alainst him nade b1..Nciahimane ar a :r7 lndi<1ment. para. 17. "' lndictt't;cn|" para.I 3. .. Pro\rclrio \!iine:scs ( tsR. ( l),/. ( nL rnJ ( \J. , Dclin\ c CJ,,\ir1{ lJ ri*r. faras. t,l l. I?2, llt. ,,, t]::l'-t ld:l' t hxirru ilricr'. p.rru li. ltrti'nut r l',sinx Ilrief. prr r. lt:. -^- rrerenl( Llosln! lJriri. l)',l.il. 1.19. -, Prusr:errriurt( l,,.rin; ltrict. por.r.. :v rl. Ji, '".\\iiurcsr ND: l: t, i,r.AFrii2illl P.37 (lCS): \!ltne.s KRli f.2i Jdrluar.,v 20ti p. 2nl I pp. 7" 27-:s. -," T.7 Februar_r,201 I pp.,12--ll. 'Ihe Plosec kn.'i. Nti{thiktt}ha, Caso \ro. IC I,R_01_6JJ-l 35 | 2t4

Page 36

140" Prosecution Witness CBR. confinns tlrat the decision to requisition Witness CDZ's r:ar rvas made at this nteeting. The rvitness added that the participants of ihe meeting used "the pretext rilal the vehic le uas going to help the authoriries in ensuring the secrritr of refugees,"2:r bur nol*d thar the vehicle rvs.s used severnl days laier to f'srry assailants to N)'alige parisl.r. anci to oali lluru residents of Kivurnu to join the attacks on Nyangc church. Despite the Trial ch+mber,s cleep resen"ations about this rvitness' credibilitv and reliabilit;-, lvhiqh rvill be discussccl in more dotail belorv,2:8 the clhambcr notcs that the r.virness does not al'tege rhat the panicipanls of the meeting spcci{ically requisitioned the vehicle l'or the puryose ol'transporting Hulu assaijants 1o Nyange parish. Although a number oi'Ilroseculion lvitnesses corniroraled Witr:ess CIIR's evidence tl.Lal the rcquisitioned vehicle tvas later used to assist tbe ginaddoires in their mission.2?i'ths Chambcr is unable to in:ler on the basis of this evidence alone lhat the vehicle r,-as requisilioned for this puryose.

141. Witness CDL. another Prosecution rvitness uhose crctlibilir,v an{l rsiiabililv the Cherxi;er finds rvanting":'10 alleged thar a decisictr rvas taken at the lrleeting 1o ask thc prl,lil ro assign gendnvte s 1o Kivumu ior securiL-t' reasons. l-he rvitiress did no1 sa-t, thai. ir rvas evidenl at the lime that these gtndann<:s would later participate in the killings cl"[utsis. '1he rvilness I'urther a]jeqes rhat the participants of Lhe mecling dccided lo eslablish risrjblocks jLrsl outsicie N-"-ange parishi:Jr Holr..ever" this evielence is no1 can.roborated. 142' Finalll''' Witness CIIL also testitied thut the parricip;nts in thc rreetirrg decittreiJ that Tutsi refugees sirould be housed togerh.r_ ar Nlange parish.:': This evitleuce 1s cgroboratecl l,y Ftosecution Witrisss CNJ who testi{ied that a deiision rl,as made to move the N'ursi refugees at the communal olfrce tc N;-ange parish.23r'Ihe chamber no1os, hoivever. that \,Virncss cllj;dded rhal this decisirin was ttken because "those responsible {br [the] security [ol'thc r.el'ugees] . . . r.ealisecl riilt they cuulcl rot prolect them at the tofirtluw ollice." Wilness Clii b;lieved thai the participanrs of llt. ry,::,,;t* dceideti rr.r asl }he ltrdJbt {ar gendurnte,s in order to protect the refagees, not kill therri.--- In eonelttsion" tto I'tusecution rvittress intiniaied th*t the participants of.-lh€ II iXpril meeting

knelv, or suspected. that Tutsi refugees rvoulcl be killed, rathei than prorec.red, as a result of their decisions that da-v. 1trl:l' h considering the context of the 1l Aplil 1994 rnccting, thc Charnber reJi*s hcavil1..op trvl lefiers sent by Ndahimana on I 0 and I I April 199,:t. the aLrLlreiricifl, of lvhich ,"0s uo, ,"nt.*r".| b1.. the .l)rosecuiion . 'lhe first, <Iated i0,,lpril 1994. ivas addresserl to the Kivumu political panv chaimrcn ol'tlie tvlRND, ktDR, pSD ancl IrI_. hr it" Nctahiurana r|tore: "Due to the current rvidespread criminal activities rvhich coutinue throughor.:t ihe stcteursl especially in Nyange ald Ngobagoba .re clctr. wlterc some Tutsis have :26 T. S Septenbcr. 2010 pp. J l- j2 (tcsl. "' L l Nolenbcr 20tU p" 1.1. -'" S.e Chaprer ltl. Section i.2.5. "" T. I Novenbei.2010 p. 14. ""5?e Ch.{ter Ill. Sei:tion i.:.j. "'T. I 1 l\overnber:{}10 p. 6"1. --'T. I I November'2010 pfr" 6.1-68. "' f. i Novembcr 2010 pp" 45-:t6 (tCS). "' T. 4 Novcmbm 2i-il0 pp. :1,1-.16 itUS). Tlp Pr<tsecutot t. Ndahlmttnq, atase No. ICTI{-O1-6*-1- 3{. i 274

Page 37

.Judgenent and ,\erterrct: .;t: !g3n1b4 2A I I 4<o been reportecJ killed an<i cthers have bcen senl &\\at fi()nt tlrcir homes. l-lani/ rcqucsting you the fbllorring: lir request the menbers ol l.our political part!'tlot to invc,lvc themselves in thes$ acts of ag$.ession. tlot to attack anvonc {.lue to thcir polilical or eLhllic leanings. to ccloperate wi{h the comn} nal atthorilics or irrsritLltions in crder to cnriure security for all thc inliabitants wiLlioul an),. discrimination. to notily the members o1' yoLrr. political pafiy thel il anyone is caugirt in the commission oi such lv:r) 'rr Cliuntple. - acts of aggressirn they shall lre punished by -r. 1'14. ln a letter sent the next day h1'Ndahiniana to a local leeder ol'the f,,lDll,rr6 Ndahimana reitemted this therne: "l strongly urgc you to panicipate in maintaining securitl..in yoilr area. lndcerl, some ;:eople surted rlr commir ettrnically motivated vicletce against their neigtbours. I hope rvithout any doubl tha1. conhar/ to rvh*t klr. Ndrugulse may be doing in collahorali,.rn rvith his accomplices. yoi.r rvill recommencl b members af MIIR party of which l,r:u are the leader nol to c.olnnlit violclce againsl aul.body on ethnic basis. ttlr..[recipjent's nanlel, as n memher of my part1,. I uhs('lulel) itanl lo itarn \utt. '''t' 145. Civen these lettcrs indicating Ntlahimana's aversion to inrer-ethnic srrit'e eluring rhis

perild. the Trial Chamber considsrs lar mole plausible the evirlence of Defcrrce Witnesses ND2j an4 l1{3, rvho attended the I I April 1994 rneeting and testill,rd thal the decisions taksn 11 the meeting rvere designetl to plotect the Tutsi refirgees anel improve securif throughoat tlrc {:o,11ttrune. l'16' Thus. the Charnbet conolucles that the Frosecution has not proven beyoncl reasonable riou 5t the allegations sontained in palagraplis l6-lg ofthe In<licrment. 3"1 Introduc{ion 147' - -The Indictment alleges that oll or aboul I I - 1 J April I 994. Ndahimana and other menrbers or the JCIE met at the presbytery or rhe sommunal office and took a der:ision that ali Tuts! refngees l}tl ".f: presentl.v ar J'Jyanee parish shoukl ire rnoved inside Nyange church. -l.he Indi$nrent iufther alleges that Father Seromba ordered rhat ali Tutsis be moved 1o tte churcl: so that comrnun.rl l:T.]i:":. ""!{f rme,s. Interalxrrmlr and }luru civilians could mor.e easill, prevent the retirgrcs lforn cscspllg.' " r I U r t i n . e L r h i b i r t J . l : 1 . l 9 A p r r l : / r l I p . i j ( l ( : r . :.; frc]r_i':e.l rl)ihil ll0( : t. t7 tebruafr tClt Fl tr)-12 tl{ Sl "'117Fchuarllt.tIIpp.J5'36(tcS|:Attial,intrryfet{'r''sbooth,inrerprclinetr.i}r}theorigin;1l d.rcu,nfl1t in Kirl)iifl\'an.ln. Frer'erred rhe folrowiirg tf.nsratjon: -1 | Aprir r99.1, rtcprrbrio of nwancla, Kibufc

preler:r,r;,, Kivurnucoranal.u. S bjecr: Restoring secur.ity_ 'si!" I am slrorlgly urgitlg 1"ou lo.ensure secLlrit! il lour art;a. Somc persais hare st:lrled crrmlr1it1il1g violence o'llave sialte{'l c('mrnilting ethnicail! lnoliratcd r'ielelce ac.iiust their neighhouls. L lrq>e. r.ritlroui any .1cuht. thal ]1lu are g;ring tcr acldress tlre nrcmbers of the N{Dll p:rit;- that 1,ou lead *nd to udlisc thenr aot io uss*uir anlone cn the basis i:j'rheir ethnicitv ljke ll1r. \:clurgutse is rioimg in iolla[ro*r1jt,n rvlfl his acctrnptices. ,,* . ..Mt [ ]' rou helone (n thc srnre pan] as mvseit. linr. therelirg sarorgrt ufgrls )i]Ll rr bc earenl',,' " In'!icLm(nt. lrrn. le. pfr'ir..uli^rr ( lu(rn; Rfict. f.rrd\. ,10-+2. TIE Pt osecutor t. Ndttltimuna, Cesc \o. ICTR-o1-6g-T 37 i 2'7 4

Page 38

,Judgehtetit.t Sentencc t",ZqU| 148. 'lhe Def-ence submils that thc evidence adduced bv rlie l)ruscculiou is unr€fiiblf and ' incredible, kloreover. it attests that the Prosecuiion has not ptoven bel.oncl reasi.intble dtiubt rvhc took the decision" anel rvhether it was taken rvilh nialicious iiltent, or bec*rLlse il r.ras believcd the refugees r.vould be tlelter prolecterl in the church.:lq 3.? [vidence J.2.1 Pnrs-ecution lVitness CIll: 119' Witiiess CIJK. a Hnlu. rvas at N,yange church during the events.l4c 'l he wirness strated thar the refugees who came irr on 7 April 1994 were accommoclated at the catechism haii, ncl reftreecs continued tc corne tr Nyangc parish creryd:l. Alsa- a snall mrmber of the ref"usces r,, cre accolnmodated in other roours ot the prcsbvtcr\.tt' On l2 April 199,4, Father Seromba. \dahinrarra. Kayishema, Ndungutse. Brigadier Clhristophe l\ttrakilirehe ("Mb:rkilirehe") and cther authoritias hatl a nteeting and decided to have the rclirgees rnove inside the church, where the rcfugees rvere told lhe) would be better protected. The authorities could rvitness ihe confusion ihat u,as ireatcd by the reflgees lvho were soattered all over and therefbrs decided that rhe relirgees haei io mi.ive inside the church. Stlbseqr:ently. the Tursis r.vlto rvcre accommodated in rhose var.ious lrlaces rvcre moved into the church. 'l'he dr;ors ol thc church rvere opcned and

remaincd opcncd L, I allrlr' orhcr 'lutqiq who canle 10 ssltle inside the church,'*' Witness CBK admits that ihe relugees werc reloci{ied panr}. because lalhel Seromha ivanted some lieedom.rlr Llorver.cr. lic went on 1o sal,irr cr.oss examinatlon that "I cannot venrure intcr telling ; ou lhe reasons \.vhiuh prurnpted them tr: cpln the d.xrr.":aJ -3.2.2 ProsecuJiorr Wi.tness ClD.l ..50; .I-ill.:lfDJ^ I f Iutu. rvas in a posirir::r 1o observe i1,.ha1 u,as taking p1ace, a1 i\-1..*nge pai.!rh in April 190'f''-' Duling ttrc tLial, the witness testi{ied th*t on Tuesday irj salv F attrier ieronrt a Kanyarukiga anil Ndahimma having a discussion on the upper tloor. l lglr,ever. he cggld not hear lvhat they rverc sarving. 'l"he ccrnversalion continuecl fili one haur after the rvitness arrive,l.?'16 When the lvitness affived at the church the ibllor.ving day he'1ri:ticcd that thc ref'ugees lvho u,ere at the prcstrytery had been mor,-ed inside thc church. Aud rhe otlisr retugc*s,-they rvent to join othor. religees lr'ho lvere in the church. and thcy rvere locketl in thc church." Iie tcslificil that ihis movc rvas due to the fact thal the refugccs,,had caused stnnc disorder.',1a7 3.2.3 Prose{rution Witnass CBy l-51' Ptosecution \Vilriess CllY" a Hutu. was in a position to obsi:rve r.r,hat lvas taking place iusicle Nyange palish in April 1994. Although he did not iive at tlre parish in

r:rrdinary rimeslle spent thc entire period beir.veen I 0 and I I April I -r)94 there because ot sacurit_y ocnditir:ns in the regio;.24s 0!l I I April or l2 April 199;1, the nunrber of re1'ugees had inereased considerahlS zrnd th* ialis c6ull not hold them all. lt rvas decided thar the cloor.s of the chulch shouki be ..,p*nrd ,u thai ihe relititees ^:..'- "'Del'eocc Cilosinli Briei. paras_ i53-159. ""'f. I Novembef :010 p. 64 qtCSi; l,rosecutio, Fahibit l{i. .''T.3Nolember20lr.ip.2. fhe catethis'hall *as locater.l itr the c{,rLrt)atd ot N}angc i'!Eb}.1cr),. ' ' I . J \or r'rnb..r 2ri l0 nn. )-J. J$-S I .]j l'. 3 NovenrUer:010 p.43 (l{.ts): T 3 Novenrber:010 pp.2-.:r. -'- 1. J Noteinl'cr l0l0 p. 5tr. , . ' 1 . l l N , r r e m h e r 2 0 l { , p . : - i { l C S } - ,_,1 l]l-.'"P.ril]ln l!,f he Charnbcr bas dciluced rtre di{e,Jf .,t.ucscay-.as ll.April Igtirti. . l. I I N(,\,:nrl\ef l{)10 f. 18. " - f . ' J N . r t e r n l - c r 2 r r l r r t . . l { r i l ( 5 t i f . l r , \ , r \ ( , t n h ( . r l r t l r ) p . 1 5 { j t S ) . The Prosecurort. N.ldhimat.r. Cale No. lC'fR-01-6g_1. 38,' :74 w

Page 39

lvas to selld the lefiigees there because there rvere verl/ rn:tny. And thc catechism hall was firll of rellgecs." 2a" 1.2.4 lrssssuUar wirryx{Bl l52 Witness C'lll. aTutsi f,amer, rvas living in Kivumu R)tnmrote in April i994.250 [Je amivecl at l'{;'-ange parish on l2 April 1994. When he gollhete. he did nol erilerlhe eliurch because it rvas:l'ull. "la]nd it rvas tinly tbe elderi-v and lhe rvtimen rvho rvere jnsirJe the *hurr,h.,':51 3.2.-5 Prosggllion$ritnsrlCliS l53 witness cBS, & TLrtsi. lived in liivumu conrm!ffie in April l9i)4.rs? lle arrived at Nlarrge parish on Tuesdal, morning, 12 April 1994, and staled uoril Friilay, l5 April 1994. [{e was or.:tside the church bu1 on rh€ prernises olthe parish. As nigh^1i,rll apploachcd" mi:re rel'ugres enter$6 tire chrrrrh. thile others roirtirrucd to flor,, irrto tlre plrish.-.'\.inBc church r\as J vcn hLrge huilJiirg and therc lvere refirgees all over the con4ronnd. 'fherc. rvere about 2.000 r.-fugccs.r'i ,Ar iighr rvhen the refugees rvenl rvilhin the chLrcir. all the re{ilgees eould ntit find space, anri so.thcre ,rir" *o,r.,* rtlto lr cre lell .standrng tlong the aisles ancl around lhc benches ol cirairs on u,h ich other refygees w !'re s.aled. ' \\, hen \['i1ne ss cl3s got to the eliurcli. he n*r pienr]rtrmr,.r there and so i1 rvas irnpossihfe to leavc that locatir:rn. Rcgarding the gentlonnts, hc staleil that,....l cannol sa.y

exacti,v what their dttt"r' rvas lhere" but vhen I got there, I nial relugees ut lhe locarion. l1'oun,J gtttlurwe,s there. l did nrlt know exactly \"-hat their mission rvas trhir.e. ]\iaybe the1, har:l been riisisrled to supervise us. !o rv&tch over us, bLrt rvhat I knor.v is that it rvas not kr nrutect :1s."2-5{, 154' Tuming to the Deience evitlence, the Chamher rec;ills that rro r.vitnesscs restifie.l as to this exact charge. J.3 Delilierations i55 o1l the tlvo r.vihesses rvho restifierj Lhitt a meeting occuned r:n rz April ; 994. neither wituess cllK no' witness CDJ iv,s p'iv1 to rhe acnrir .onrenl of the conveffatiurs rhey *ittiesse<jl.:57 lndeed. Witness CDJ ctrull onlv posirivel;- testify ttrat the rclirgees lvere moveil into the church rvithin a f'l-lii:ur time periocl. I{oriever, he r'uas noi pr*rent r.vhenlhey rvere rnovecl ari4 his, testimonl' cioes not provide any evidence shorving rhat the refirgec: ,rere m.rred tu tl.]e church fcrllorving^a.decision taken by Nelahimana or oflrer iuth,-rr.ities.:'s i|itness cgK Ji,l ,,r, i.",. fl" contcnt of the discussicn either but "decluced" thar Ndahimana ancl other aurhoriries decidcd to htdge u;e n1 * rJ Sr t t t,- nc t Witness CBY the ke1,s and askcd hiru 1o open the church. Witness []BY restilied ttrrat "The intention l ] . I u . a t " ' . ' 0 . , : u l { r n p . + , r , 5 { , \ t ( \ ) : f . l , N o \ c r ) h . f t ) . t ,

{ t ( ' \ r . --, l- IJ Sr|tcrnbcr 2ul0 p. ll. -'' '1. l4 SepteLnber ?{ll0 p. 29. i . T. r' S"0,.'"n. t ,u l0 p. jrr; pr.rsciritinrt I rhihir I "' I . h Scpteml.(r :0 tU p. t i. "'T. 6 Sfptember ?tit0 p. 16. - T 6 septcnber 20i0 pP 15-16. (The \lilild$s cipluined lhat he ?rriled a1 Nraog.' parish a11er iiiliings r"ha1ocsrnr.e.l ol 11, April 1994 *nd tiral he stale{.1 l'rorn -""l umdai t,, t,rid"-''". rt,. ir.,*n ir",. jrr"i"iirrc arsumes ,rrr, i. ,iiy.J'",,n. c.lu:(h_ ltvrx ftrt.srl.rr. l_) \l,il lee{- Lrnril lrr,l,r. t.i.\lrit t,rqlr. - - - l . 6 S e l \ e m b c L 2 r ) l ( r p p l J _ j r ) . '"' T. .i Novernber 20 t0 p. jil (iCS); T. Ndvellber 2010 p. 2$: .1.. ?1 Septetnbrl. ,lrj I I !r. 10. ''" f. II Norernber 2{)l0 p. 2t. 7 |t h os e c u t t t t.,',- dtth i n tt n c, Clase No. ICTR-{i l -6 ii,T 39 i 27.1

Page 40

'tt.tu,n1!,t,t'Ltsintr'hL trryry,q q mr.rrc tlrr,' refugcer inside Iht ilrrr:clr.:' lhu (hrrnhcr nutes tlral in his preriurrs .nrt1n,# rnl" I rvilness explained that rvhen the reflgees firs1 began arriving a1 the crhurch, "Filfher Se'.omtra prevented lhem liom soing inside the churerh..." and thal he opcncd the doors becauss "lhle had realised tllgt lltete rvere mrnl Lefugees, and that those reiugees oouid smash in the <lotu.s in tuder to gt' in....''-''" fhercfi.rre. rhe Chamber bas doubts as tc rvhether Nclahirnana lvas involved in the decision tr.r nlove the refugees inside the ohurch. Ultirnately. it also fin<ls plausitrle thar the refirgecs were simply granted aceess to the church becausc ihey rvere marry a[d iright havc dauraged the cloors tc get in. This version of ths {acts is corroboratec! by prosecution Witness CLly.?{,1 i'i6. ln addition, lhe eviclence ittdicales lhat the fellgees haci come to the parish ancl enrered the church even befor"e the alleged meeting of l2 ;\pril 1994. The cthamber reealls \l,'itness c'BK reslifiod that tire when refugees staned cr:niing to the. paiish on 7 Aplil 1994, thei.'*er-e prir in the cateehism liall anrl in other roolns at the presbytery.2t" Del'ence \\iitness ND?. n 'lursi. tesiifie6 that slte rvcnt to N1 ang!' narish ,rl | 0 Apr.il 1994 anel fbund abour 40 'I utsi refirgees x{ro tvere alrcad}. at the pnrish--''' Theretitrc, the Chamber conclules that the relilgees could har:e g6ne insicle ihe chr-rrch ari early as 7 April 1994 irespective of*nv subsequent orler to dc so.

157. Finall.v, the evidence dr_res not establish that tl.:e retr.rgces rvere ccnfin*cl insiile the church. F.ather, tlrel' coui<J move around aud rvould go inside ttte church at nigtrt an<l wheu attacks wer,e launched because thel'- thought the.r, rvould tre beater protected there. Proseduaion Witnesses CBl, CBY and CIBS testilled thar the refugees couid move aroun<l rvifhin the compound and lvere lot confined inside thc church.r6a The {lhamber recalls Wilness CIlS"claims that beceus,r thgre were getzd*"ntes at the parish it rvas impirssible fbr the refirgees to leave, and that rhese gentlurltts lzat] been assigned to supei"rise rather than pratcct the ref'ugees.:05 l{ou,ever, the Chamber iintis that wilness cllS rvas not ccnain as to why' th* Eendanues ivsre at the parish, and as hc was the 6nr_v rvitness that lestilled on ris issue. ihe chaffber cannot reas{)nahly uonclutlc, sulelr. on this evidtnce, that lhe gtndaftwr were there to ptevenl the r*lirgces I'rorrr csLapilrg.r,," i-58. Seveml r'"'itnesses testilied that. during the attack o1 15 .,\pril 1g94, the relircees refi.eare{j back into the church and locl<ed themselves inside i:r thcir arvn prclcction.:"t ror exanipte^ Wirriess ND22 testilled that during the attacts. man;,Tutsis arlempie^d tci find retuge inside thc church, and tliat those wlto r'vere unabie to enter the church were killei":''s Wihrcss Nll6 testilierJ

thar there rverc over l-000 refugees irr the parish, both in and oirrside of Llic church.26e lntlccrt" in irr i:tno,n* '?:'T. 3 f,Inlembsr 2tll0 pp. ,l^ 50. - lletence llxhibit '11. p. 12; Defencr tirlibit.l0. p. 3 {''At thr b€sinnirg^ Farhii.sen) ba riiii:sed r,: irpcn the rh!|r{l] doors lo lel thrt h, when the nullrber ol lidsi refugees in the clrLricl ec,iipou,rJ gr€ir lorl bjg. l*rler se'omb.i,olicict that lhe rcfugees \!erc t'ling to fbi.:e their way intoihe church rvhich he rvls rel.rising to opeir. lle th.jn .;r.jided to opcr th€ d{rors iitd let tile|n ;n.,'). :ir T. 9 Novenber 20l0 p. 50 (lCS). "" T. 3 rr-ovenr ber. 3010 p. l. '"' T. 24 Januaq 2i) I I p. 3, ' . , , , I t + - r e p r e n r i e ' : , , t | l f : 9 : t . 6 \ r t ) r ! , , r h c r 2 r ] l i / f t < . . 't 6 Sel't.'ml,er 2r)11, pf. 1J-10. -" lnJict|ncnr. f1Jrt. l.)j I'ros(culidn ( l^rjn: lJrift- jla.-r:. ll|-,ll ' 1.\ itncis NDIJ| l. l, Fcbru.rr\ lt,li p.,ll: \titness ND22t T. 2il April 2{}l I lp. {;7; \\iihess NI.}6: T. ??.lnrLuan, ift?ii;iillii,l;,]';ii:*"n'' r''1e'ranuarl 2or1p 7:witnessirDtr:i 18January'10r1p -1'1. " f. ,l? .l.rnu.rn 2r | | I nt. .il-jj ! lr t\ t. I'he Ptotec,r!er\,. Ndahiunttt. Case \-o. ICfi{-oI_fg.I 40 i 171

Page 41

h kf ge hrc rlt 4 n.l,gc r|t e hc e Afgurnents. the Prosecution even relied upon lhe {ict that T'utsis themselves into the clrurch to be pLotected.2T') 159' [n sum. the Prosecution l]its n.)t provdn [re1olrl r'easou:lble doubr t]rat h=da]rlmana shoulil be ireld responsible in relation to the charges set forth in paragraph l9 oflhe Indictrilrtlt; ir also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the refugees lvere forceel lo gr-r inside the chur.ch an<i conlined there so that the Ilutu assailants could more easily ntfack them. .{. Mee€inqs:a$ KjvU&n,tirrn rr:rre.,10-ld Anri!-1994 4.1 Introduction 160. Tl-re Indictment alleges th.it Ndahimana and orher members of the iCE r,rrdered that T.ursi civilians be directecl to the Kivu*iu commulal ollice aud Nyange parish irr order.to extenninat* lltem. T'!e Indiciment also alleges that from l3 tc l6 April 1994 Ndabirnana. Scn:mba, Kayishema, Kanvarukiga" Ndungutse and others attsnded several meetings at various localions in the vLinitr, ol' N3ange parish itt order to plan the cxtcrmin*tion ctr thc Ttrtsis in Kivurnu coltn lultc, lt is also alleged that a1ler some oli thosc meelinqs, the TLrtsis *ere disanned br :nembcrs cf rhe JCE and attaiL\ r\crc larrnchctJ lrt N\angr'chut.e h.r'l l6l ' As a preliminary point, the h'{ajoriry notes that the Defence subrnits tliat oarugranh I 5 of the ltdictmeni is rlefccrirc ur'](l slr(]ul(l hc

considered aj innuJuurorr.j'i ()n rhis ,irarrer r'h. \llj,rrir,r rocalls that allegations conlained in paragraph l5 arc indeed introductory. h1 addition, the {iate unges provided in paragrap'rh 15 rnust he road in coniurletion ri';{h paragraphs 16 to 33, r,vlrich provide tiu'drer details. The Chamhcr_ tras plrviousll hci.l thar "the Indicrrncniis not irnpermissiblv vague with respect to localions and dal.'s."iri 'f he Mrjolitl also notes rhat the prosecLltion did lo,i adtluce any evidence Lo suppon paragraph l{: o1'thc kjictment,:74 16?. ln response to the Prosecution's allegations, the Derenr:e submits ihat the prosecution evidence on lhe meeti gs is contradicrorv and unreliablc. It ad{is that the evidence sholvs that refugees lvere not allorvetl to enter the chriich r,vith u,capons.:;5 ln addirion, the llefbnce arggcs th.rr the Pnisecutiotl <lid not cstablish Ntlahimana's involvenent il any cf the ailegecl meetings*or in tlre subsequent attacks ihat occurred at the parish.:;{, ''"T'-:1 ssptenilrcr ?til l P. l2 ("Nladenr President. Your Hrrnours. lou u,ijl recall rhs e'j,ile'ee 'f \.!hat rotll pixcc c' the l5th of Apr il 199':1. Although the.aalaek wirs an unp|eredente ,.1 rinc in tijrnls of bru|alil'; an,l the rulDbcr $1' F.rsons $'ho died on rhis ddv. it did not kil alr rhe 'futsir. 'the r uLlis lou heard. Niariam Presidena" yaur l.r.rours. :rml rl1 the Iulsi\.\rer. xbl,.lu

rtr.e h:rcl,;rrr.l l,:Lrrii.d<.1 thcm\ul\c, inrirlc'thcchur.l,...). - i n d r \ ' l t 1 l e ' ) 1 . f d r " i j < l l - i : . 2 t ) . : J - 2 : . " - Defence Closing llriei, paras_ 107-1fi9. ''' D€cisirn on lfelici5 i. 1he IndicBnen! para. 16. "* witness cDZ: T 8 seplelnber 201.0 pp. .28-3c, 5B ilcs). (The l\.Jajority arkrol\,tedges thar, accofiiing ro \! i(ncss cDZ,.Ndahim3n3 atiended a ncctiirg in Kibule on i0 April i99,1. orgatrisect bv prtllt clatl)eti t(alishelna. \l itness CDZ learrred of Ndahirnala"s attendarce m tliar nrceting. hr.rt .iirt n,,r iearn llte pur.i:{rse r)f the rneeting. .l,he {lrarnl:er calrnot drar! ar! conclusiorr i'njm rhis hearsa) ,:vidence.ln additjon tho i!.jr.iorjt),recclls that nom of.,f* por"gr,rpno,rf l;i \19.1"1it.,11 .1"tte the.eceuser.l. in. relaJion ro I rneering ar tlrc prtfctture iflici in KibLr"ve), ,, r-reTen(s ( lj)\rn{ Liflel- f"r t.. I6-1. t 72. ' l)r'fencr ( i!,\ini l-lf!ui. nirf,l\. l9t-:.,, I'he Prosecutot' ,-. Ndahinano, Csse No. tC.lR-01-6X-.f 4.1 i 274 .14

Page 42

.JudgeMenl an.l Sefiletv. 4.2 flvidence 4"2.1P..i,p,.1_s",s_,Lr1isln_!l!1n$.s_-eB_S .l i) Dr.(nfut 2 ll 3zq? 163 wilness cBS. a Tutsi. lived in l{ivumu cnr*nu e in Apri} 1994.21'7 }le arriverl at Nl.ange parish with nrembers of his famil;, on Tuesday, l2 r\pril 199;l at appr.oxinrately 6 a.m. Genjetn*es lvere preseut dt 1he church rvhen he arriverl, as rvell as about 1,000 Tutsi refugees.l'-8 164. On l3 ,April l99zl. pr*Euiant rvomen and a number of children rvho hird soi.rghl re luge at the parish died of hr.tuger. Serombt re{'used io distribute lbod ti; the"relirgees, and askeci the gerrlnrmes Lo shoot. any lelugee laking bananas from the brLriana plant;rtion. t65 On thc noniing o1' 'i'hur sda_r.".lj April 1{)r.1. rhc r.uiilgecs uscii stone$ to repel a gtoup ol Flutu assailants who attecked thcm.jEu fhar alicmoon, Ndahimana, IliJ l(a,vishemi" Mbakilirehe. Kanlarirkiga. Ndungutse and ['ilncss ('t)1, c:rure lrr thc parish 1t:r r]roct with ]ralher Seromba. 't'he \ilncrs corild nol hcar $.hal rras saitl chlr.irrg the mycling but ..lthej r,lficierlr lett $ith(,r,t uttctinH a r''orcl 1o the refugeefs]."1s1 ita! evening, N.lahi*aLta, liayishema anrl ir,lbakilirehe returneil to the cliurch in the red ctmmunal vehicle. Nciahimana and a polic,e ol'ficer remained i1 the vefuicle rl{iile Kal"isherna and h4bakilireht *pproache.l the church. Ar the entrance oi the chur.ch.

I{avis}rema called fiom a list the names of three llutrl w.rrren llho were marrierl 1o 'l utsis. l-h,"' ,,, uurcn ernerge,:l f'rom the church, spoke to Ka,r,ishema and h4bakilirehe, anel then wenf to their hornes. lia,"-ishema then returned to rhe vehicle and the r,-ehi{rle then left.2El :1.2.2 Prosecution Wihess CIIN l56 Prosecution Witness CBN, a I'utsi {"nrrael, iived irr Iiivumu conuttun( iir April 199.}.;dl lle and his reiatives sought reflge ai Nyangc parish on l2 April lr)9"1./!1 167'._ ,{t approximatel,v 8 a.m. ou 13 Apri! r994, the relugees at 1he par;sh rvere attacked by l.lurLr assailants bearing traditi.nal r.veapons r,vhcl ha.il eoe"tecl u roadblook o;rpcsite Kan1.arul*ga s pharmac)"' Three alned gendct'mes assisted the assailants h,v opening the roadblosli f'or theur and standing aside. Flowever- at an unspccilied timc. rhr y, ntl,timrs also llred a sirot into thc air as a lvarning to the assailants to back ofi. The retirgees rnanagetl to repel the assail*rts by thros ing stones at them.'I'he altaqk lasted the whole da1, Lrntil approxirnarely; 4 p.r.r5 police oilicerri roor traditir:nal $eapons firim the reflrqe.es on l3 April 199a" ind 1r:ld thcm that the3.' rvould be pfot*c1ed b1' police officcrs and genrlarirrel.'ro l6!. on l4 April 199'{, l{utus raunchcJ arr attac!i orr rhs rctirgees ar approximare l]- g a.m., but the retugees lnanaged to r€psl

tirem.'o'.{cc,rrdir:g ru thc rr irness, ,,lhrougirour thc dai, ,0,r: .on frnnlai.i I'r T. ti Septearbe,r2010 p. 10: pr,rsecutidn l_lhibit i. ' "' 'L 6 Septembu. 20l0 pp. l-1-16. ' T. 6 Se|ternhrr lU [!i ir. Ib. '", L 6 SeJ,te rller li.tl0 p. ln. , ' 1 . U S e f l ( ' r n b , | : , r l o p p . l " - l v . 6 1 . '"-' I 6 soptsmbo.:0i0 pp. l9-:0. 5l-i2, 38 (One {rfthf \\'omen was called }..lyifarlanra- l hc 1liiness dicl n.}t knorl thc rlrnrcrLrl rhct\\,',,thfr..hut Inc\rth11 the.\ \rer.(llulu.rrrrrricLlro lur.;is.t. -" L ll S(pfcmbcr: lU l. L -'- T. 13 Septembcr 2010 p. 15. . i - l - / J S < 1 ' t . r r , h c r : ! r t ' r l , p t { , . t 7 . j j - j o . t . t - l S ( f r ( m l r f : r r t n f l , ? _ k . "'- l. l.l senten'her:ntrrp 8. -"' T. 13 Septcmbor 2010 p. 18. 'fhe I'rcseiutar r. Ndahiwona, Case No. lCfR_01-61,1, t12 i 271

Page 43

Jtdgene t4nd.t.it!.1t..t ,ryrry.rq attackers rvho rvere attacking us. and rve repellcd them."288 Tirr :rtracke rs :rcppc.l tlci#s..crlirfrlll the authorities rvere urecting. No rcfirgee rvas killed dil.ing drat da;-.28e lq? on 14 April 1994. Ndahiinana amived at rhe ohurch betrr.een n6cu and r:i() p.m. ge was rvilh Brigadier \4bakilirehe. IIIJ Kayishema. Kan;,aruliiga, aud rhe r ice presidcnr of a local coun. Gaea Butclezi. l-hc1 ,r.renl [o scr Fiitlrcr S\,t{Jt)lba;rt the plerb_vter.-r,.r'' flre rvitnc.s *" ,fr.* airu.. and then saw the g'oup standing on the balcony ofthe presbj.tery and p*i'ting at the refugees. but he could not hear wliat thel' rvere sa,ving, They did noi stay bng and o.rnn "u,u* bacL doivnstairs. 'rhe relirgees asked Ndahirnana, "'[r]ook, u'e aie being o,tu"k..i, *h.t are 1cu going to drr fbr *s?,' Nlclahimana. responded. "[l]ordi, ]n,eruLr. ttttrtttani,i.t havs ca setl the rvir. io llLrtus havc respondeci," A{ier that Ndahinrarra lcfi.:'r l'olJowing thc dcparlure of the aurirorities. the refirgees had to rr:pcll rlrr:rll scclc srtack.:"1 4.2.3 Prosecutior.r \lritness ClBl 170. lvitness clll, a '['utsi farmer. lived in Kivumu tontnutnt: in ,\prir 199,r..:,' [.1e nit'css kne* \d:rhimrna bcttLr.ie lre r.ras llre Dorri.qrn, .r/rr. rrl. lris ,,,,,,r,i,,,,".j,," iin Z ,fprlt f ,iiU. ,1," '."i,r.r,.. sought retirge at a l'riend's ltonte.2"' Hc then urorcd ro

Nlunge parish after irearing liom .f.u!sis in his 'tecteur that Ndahimana rvas encouraging rhe Tutsis to do so. rndeerr, he rvas tor<j thar ti.:e bourgmestre had already takerr Tutsis tc Nyange parish.in riis red rol,ota ititgx.r;i; li, urri"r,r ot Nyange parish on I 2 April 1994 at approxirnareiv i p m.plt " 171 ' thr 1l Aprir 1 99'r, the rvilness sarv Nrrar,mana. Kayisherna, Kanyarukiga. lVlurangwabugabc,and Ndungutse. ar appri:ximatell, l0 a.m. They rvenl lo meet r.vith F.ather Seronrtra a1 the pfesb-vrer)'.?tt 'l'he autirorities spent abour .,n" t.,ou,l oi ur" pr.esby rer_r,.. .r.he rviiness dould nor |:lt- " ''i'rJrhfl welc sa.ring. but coultr see theni t"rrti"g"'ro each other because rre lvas rn rhe cciudr ard-"' 172 At an rruspecified point that tlay, Seromba asked the ref'ugees rvirethcr therr werc .,anv othcr persons rvho rverc still therr on thc hi[."]{'{'The rvirness g*l,e him rhe na111e5 0f persons fio'r lris localily that had not cotne to the parish, uno s.to*t u IrunSJ itr. lirt to Ntlahinrana. I",t-, irr., a*y. the lvit ess saw tlle lufsis he had tneniionea "*i""- ut fl-t*-i"rish. some ofthepr camc iu a *hite pickLrp belnnging to witness CDZ and driven rr;,.u *un .uir*i'vor,on. r;so;o.:ri' 173. On l3 April 1g94. tolvarrls l0 a.m., I.h.rtu assaila ts carr;,ing traditional rveapons launchecl an atack against trre reI'ugees As rhel'attacked, rtt.y .t,ort*,i, .:1n

i-e a,= kifii,ig ttre'rn_1,"n i.;..t,re lsl l. I i Scptcnrl.cr:trtrt rr. r,:. -* 1 l-l SrpternLr.r 201') p. 6: '' l. ll Srpr(rnhcf joltt p tg- ..,1-1. li \enr.nrl'er:0t0 p J0. l.fl \(prErnh(,r2t,|l FIr. h. lt. -, I I I Srpr( mtl(.r J0lU f,p 10. 5r,. 0:_6-1. -' T. l.l S€preinher:rt10 n :-l '-' t. l+ scpt.nrb{r'1010 p.2e. -'T lt Srptemh(f t0t(';. :5. -'" T l+ Scptftnbcl lr_lll_i n. l?. '-- f. l.l Septelxbcr 20trJ j1 jt. ""ij I I sentenrte' t0trll]t,:.r..rn l-. : t ,qepkrnber 2{Ji I p. 1l:lJet-exceCtosingl}riel, paru. l:9. ,,1 l1 -*:fl-'"r:trlr,trr. r+-.1:: l)(1.,,,1e( t,,,;nd rr,;*r.'1,.r.u. i],,. ' ..,. 1. r+ set)teinller 2{,10 p. .llr. 'I- J.l Srplg6ilrsl 1tr l0 po. j0-j I I I Karrkc xnd his familvi. \mirng the lutsiri that auivcd subsequentl.! at the rhurch, lhc \:ilnl;:-\i sjrlr Antoine The Prosecuktt t'. i\dnhinana, Case No. lLl,I,R-01-{grl 43 ! 1'l.I

Page 44

,trhl+rnettrqqdSt'n.tt:, try,ry 4 tr, refugecs matt:rged lrr rsp*; ,,r" ataekcr\ urlrl no r(fugrr' rrus killed rn thrr artacl.r"iTfii' ffit. ihrl reli.rgees tried to pick birnanas lrom trces near the parish. Father Serotntril thfeatoned th$t *n:' refugee lbund going near the banauas again rvoulel be shot.r,r ,17! On 1"1 April t994. at approxilnaiely I I a.m. cr noon. Nclahirnana, Kavishema, Kanyankiga. N.lungu.tse and Vedaste Nlurangwabugabo returnrd lo 1lre r*urr* and me1 with Falher Seron:ha al the presbytel,v. The meerilrg lasted approximatel"v tx,o hours.r{'+ At an unspecified rir.:re thar ua,"-, anorher itfiack cccurred- The assailants rvere carrying traditional lveapolls and ,,vere gfeater in llumber than thclse rvlro had atfacked th€ previous da-v. but the refugees utanaged to repel ihenr once again The attack lasted approximatell, one houL. and those authorilies lvho had arrivetl earliel rvcre pfesent during rhe attack."'' :1.2.4 ProsecLrtion Witness yALl lT5 Prosecuti{x lVitness YAtl, a I'utsl houservil'c. lived in Kivumu corrlrtire in Alrii li9:1.-:0" Prior to the events of April 199,{. ths lvilness and Ndahimana were ncighbou*.3,,7 I 76' l-he r'vitness and her I'eur ih sDuJht rctilgc af N,!an-qc parish "some r"ia,r,s" afiet rhe deatlr cl' President l'labyaritnana.:'08 She lcrnained tlicre tf,rer ,1"1r.'n' t:h" lvitness arrive4 Lrelbre micltia,v rntl sarv Ndahimara,

Father Sercmba, Kayislrerna, Kanyarukiga and a con:;eilier named viarurey I'Iabarugira ("llabarugira") holdirtg a.inc-cting in f'roni oi tlic parish secreia:.iat. T'hc rvitness rvas several Itretres alvay Iom the ,rltoup.,"'' Ka_t ishcnri: unil Kan., aiukigit rvent looking lbr ,l,utsis whir had not yet come lo lhe parish. 'T'hc mell made several triis ea"h ti*e rcturning rvilh l Lrlsis in Kanyarukiga's lehicie,lll - 177 ' on the lvitless' second day at the lrarish, a sister nametl iVlama .lean atcmptetl tc., 6ring {bod kr the refiru€cs. Shr-'\ras sropped bv lpJ Kayishema anr"i Kanyarul<iga r.vho p6urcti rhe tbod in tle 9lound - l lle sanle dar'. the refitgees asked Seronrba tbr some u,ater. llle r.efirsed, telling the relugees dre-v "wcre condsmnei.l to die anylvay."lll ,{t an unspecified til}rc that day, the r,viftess sarv Ndahirnana" Father Seromba, Ka;'isherna, Kan,rarLrklgl and Habaruriga lhe con'st:iller o{.Nyan;rc r'.Jcterr' meeting in liont ol'rhc scuretarirl.*rr on thc same da1... llather seromba askei the gendarmes ttr confiscate "'sticks" tlral rvere in thc possession of tlie ief'ugees..t, sr-1a l"t*,: -r-," 1.,- salne persons meeting tatgether rvith a group of gendamtes ilr fiont of the secr.etaliat. Ar an unspecifierel time. ll*tn assailartts galhered at Jubilee Square but Father Serom1ra rold the assailalts to rvait as thel' u'ere *urnumbered iry the.

refugees. r'hir gruup or. assqirants obe1..ed ser.mba. I{olvever, a secoitcl gtottp of assailants co*ring f'rirn th* ilireltion of rhe Statue cf ttle virgil tr,tary ;;..--_-'...----.--'-.'------..._'_-'.- '' " T l{ Srph,rnhcr 201'j pp. lj,.t6. ''' T l,l Scrrrcrnbrr f0llt o lir roa f. 14 Septenho :0t0 ;. j(): 1 . 21 seplernl-rr. 2ilI I p. 1t. '-'T. 1.1 September :010 pp.37--r8. "'' Pr.rsecution Exhibit 13. 'D- t. l5 Srpternber lrr lu n. jI I lcs). " l . l5 Sentenrber' ltrt r. .ll- roe T. l5 Septentber ?0I{i fj. 4j. ''u T. I i s(pte'rbEr 2010 pp. 4z-"1:i ('r'he rvlajorit) i,fers rhai thc nirness ilr.ri'ed on r:l .{prir iil,9,1). '" l. 15 Septenrbcr'?010 p!.4,1-4j. ;11' T. 15_ .S-eple.4bcr ?0 t 0 F. 46 (T he lvlxiorir). inf'ers that this \\,as l.{ rlpril 199.?). " T .15. iieplcffbcr ztlltl p. "16 tThe lviajorit,v i'i'ers ihat the * itnc*';-t i"i.'.rng here to c'c.tr that ro{rk plsce iri ll ADfil 1994). I'a L l5 Septeober.20l0 p.46. -'' T. l5 Sc.prember 2010 pp. 4j-46. The llrose,:tbt r. \d ltirt{,rt}, C.trse No. l{l I,R.0i -fig_.t .11i 274 ^w

Page 45

.lttdgeme und ficntcnce j0 Dlccnbe,Al !. z2_'1 U atiacke.l the rsl'ugees. ,,\ccording to the witness. "lt.lhey attacLeJ u:. but rre usrd sterd ff-.iefdncl I ourselves. we pushed them back. but they *'ould come up again :lrd so on and so {irrih."3l6 ]-wlr genr&rrrutis lvere presenl during the atlacks but lhe), did nolhing to assist Llid rel.ugees.lli 4.2.5 lLqpegrltlo!,lliitqsss CllZ 178. witress cDZ. a Tuts!. lived in Kivumu coftlntu,E in 1994.J1s winiess cDZ went 1o Nvense church on l3 Aprii 1994. when he arriver;l, the "church was packed iirll of peoplc.'-'re !le renieinc.t at Nya.nge church tiom his arival al 8 p.m. on 1.i Aprii 1994 unlil the fbllorving night, l4 ApLil l gg4.Jro 17t|- While hiding in a corner inside l'J,r"ange church. ihe witness qverhear"6 noise outside. '"[T]hete rvere some Tutsis outside the church. . .and [lre I hear.d prdplc s,] ing rhiir thcrd wcre attackers rvho had artempted to lhro'l stoiles 4t the refirgees.,'rll the ritncss l& N"i.arrqe church during thc nighr of I'i April laa4 hcc,rtlsc he bclicr.,d rhir tll()sc slat;ns thc,rc \acr!, ri:kin* Jcrth. Gentlurnes had indicated to the rvituess the high risk of staying at the chu-rch.,:i ;tr.2.6 Prosecr.rtiern Witness CBK 180. witness cBK. a llut , \vas at Nyange parish during the events of April lg94.lr l{e testified that on^7 April t994, the first group of rutsis came to se€ii ref'uge at the parish

a;oun6 2 p.ir.. a1d that refirgees continued to arrive every clay. thereafter.l:a on t! :\pril tqq+. the ref'ugees enteled Nyangc ehureh atier Seromba. Nclahimana, Ka;,ishema" NdungLttse. h{bakitirehJ anrl other authorities lold them tho}, r.r,ould be better prutected ther"e. T"he *i0,.u, ,r"s rvatching whiie rhis took nlace."' 1{l {}n the lllofniug ol 13 April 1994, the rvitness sau,seronrba. Ndahimana. Witness LIll,. Kayishema" Mtrakilirehe, Ndunguise. Colonel Nzaphakumunsi. as well ns other aur6:rities .,fiom all categories." arrive at the parish. They we't in the building housing rhc pricsts living quaners r<r ths room that rvas usually' occupied rry rhe bishop of Nyunio ,.rr.,,'j,. .n,,r" to ,r" r,iir.,.ij; rt" same authorities met tlvics on 13 Aprii 1994. The lilsl nieering took place befbre mid<iay anil laste6 for about one holtri the othcr started arounr.l 2 p.m, In betrvee; thc tto mcetings a smali atgrck r"as launched on the re f'ugecs, bgt trre I'utsis managed to repcl Lhe Hutus b1.. uoi,rg rtoo"o and sma traditional lv€apons. '['he witncss bclieved thar dirring rhe second mecling the eurhoritics ele*idscl to bring neapons to the qlrlrch hecause "i! was afler-the meeting rii the aflei.:roern lhat anns lrcrr blought to rhe church." i2i l8?: on 14 April 1994, the authoriries trisarmed those refugees r.vho came ro the chureh with traditional weap.xrs such as horvs and

machetes. they toiLi the lefugees "' .. .give us yo r l'eapous j16 T. 15 Septelrbcr ?0Ii) pp. .47-"t8. - t. I5 ilr'lrenrbcf:Ul(J I) +U. '" Pr, r:ccr rtit,rr [-rhrtrir.l rrr 'L 8 seplemblr 2{l liJ D. j5- r?a T. s Septcrr ber. :{t t 0 p. -16. ''' 1. 3 Scptembef:0t0 p. j7. "'T. 8 S€ptember zi.il0 p, 37. " 1. j NovcnrNr :ul0 t). b-t { lt s r: pro.ecuri,,n Irlrihrr 1,,. " f. i No' umr'cr 2rll0 nl.:. 19 rl( Sl "" T, 3 Nolember 2()10 pp. 3,55-36. '""'f. 3 Nr,rven:6er' 20 i 0 p. 6. "' T.3 No\,enber 2014, p. lir; l-.21 Seftember.?0ll p. I t. Tke Pros<:cutor.v. Nd.thiwafia. dlasc N{,. lcl.R_{il-6g.l 45 / :7.1

Page 46

J dgenent and S.rlte!!(:(, 3{J Decirfibet ;{}lI beeaLrse lve arc het€ to ens.uc ),our salbq.,'.":rzb On that tla1., the iluthorities nlet rr"'.-3-R.?' ? room. Follo'rving the lirst rueering, at approximate !y l I a.m., they began to tlisarm the refirgee-r. 'fhis process lastetl about one hour. Some cf the conliscated capons lvefe loatled onto the communal 1ruck" \1hile bor.vs and anotvs were stored at the chrrch. Ndahinrana rvas presenl al troth rncelings arid r'vhile the tel"ugees i.vere beirg disarmed. Othcrs involved il rhc meerings an{ the confiscatioti cl' lveapons iltcludcd -IaLhcr Scramba, |,a1 ishcma" Kanyarukiga, Ndungutse and ottier authorities" inclurling corr.ralll<.rr.j le lmrrtiliure h ufier ihc \\gollons rvere taken fiom rirc refugces" a gt'ottp of Hutu assailants again altacked the parish, Jhe witness tesriiled thar lvhile Ndahimana. Scromba and Kayishenta rvere meeting fbr rhe seccnd time thar day "lhe Ilul{,s fetre:ridd and thc T'utsis wenl trzrck inlr: the chruch." The'luLsis were aglrin able to repel the assailanls auci "ltlhe elatnage rvas not signiiicant." The u,itness believed that cluriug, rheir meelings the authorities rvere discussing horv to overcome the Tufsis.rrc 4.2.7 Prqseoution Witness Clly 183. Prosectttiot.t Witness f,lBY, a ltrrtu. nas in a position to observe lvhat r.va$ tcl;ing place ai Nl,arige parish in April 1994. AlthoLrgh he did nct

lii.,e at the parish in ordinar_v fimes. hc*spent rhe entire perir.xl belrvecn 10 and 18 April | 99"tr lhere because cl'secru.ity conclirions i1 the region. )rr l le sarv Ndahimana arvjce bel'{}rt ttr1e evenls o{',April 1994: thc tirst rimc during his in.ruiuralion as htru,gxtesrre, antl the sccond lime as the bourgmesrre u,as tralcrJing ar,xg a ro-ail.trl l!1 During the genocide. he saw Ndahlmana on 8.9. ll. r2, li, t4. r5ancl r6April r994.3rJ on 12 April 1994. the rvitness ssrY a grortp ofabout ten "criminals ancl r.uffians" armed rvith clulrs and i T3^clre9s anive at N1'ange parish. 'fhey traded insults rvith tir* rel'ugees ancl lelr.rra On 13 April 199'tr, the aLlthorities, including Ndahimana" arrir ed al t[rc,,parish aliir a group of'assailants. The \4 ,lncss hcurJ \dah ilrrllra d ircct the rssa ilanLs 1o gi, h,rrne . 'r ] l: At approximately 8 a'ur. on 14 Ap|il 199:1" the wihress saw Ndahirnanil lpJ Kayishe&a" Ndunguts{:, a nan naured Thdodcmir' (a.lt.a. "Kiragi") and Kan-varukiga irr the rear court;,ard .n their way to see "the priesi" at the presbytery. 'rhe attack on the r"et'u!e*s starfed ;:n licur or trvo later. The r.vitness explaiued that the ''autirorities"' rvere alread1..gon,: ,i,l,*n the aftack starred. The ?t]Ik that-day lasted apprtixitnately two hours.:)36 The nitucss cousidered the atiack ol l4 April 199'{ the lirsl rcul attack against the r*fugees bccause

a $rar) arrod N,rurrir:i*ta r.vas killecr at approximately 2 p.ni. al ttre roadblock hy the parish on lhat da.r.jr; lhc'.lcrtlcr: .il rhe arrack that iia1.. rvere Knn-v-arukiga. Flaharaniu and Appolinaire Rangira (..R;ri:gira,,;.Ir'lhc ornuitonr* iirro* 5,,r1"n r:3 T. -? Novembc,r 2010 pp. l$ ll. ' - | . .1 Nor (.mi.r.r 2rrlLl pp. l0- 12. St _5 7. ''" I i No\ L' lber ':01{) fp l]-12, 56 (The nanes of the cotl[eillel \\,ers: Hz]barugira ilaniili anc Sindagela. llrc ritness said hc orerheard the auth.Jtitie$. incluriing Ndahirnana. discussing the ncecl io disarm dre '"r"g*";iii';, ".,1 cleai: !\'hether he overheerd this ttrllorviug n meeair; hcld on l3 Apr.iJ l99.ior firilo*,ing rhe tirst nreoin! oi, i+ npflr 1994). r . I 0 " o ' e n r b c r ' l 0 l r ) t l , t 0 L r ( S ) : l . t { , N , , r e n r h c r 2 0 1 0 p . l j l , ( \ j . '.' t. y No\erntrerl0li, p. 3b. '-' T {) N,\trnhcr 2rtl(r p "tfJ1l(.Sr. - 'T. I Norcmhcr'l0ltl f. j2- "' T" l0 Nor'emirer20l() pp 19-20 flC$) f'.,\.: JIe fNdahiniroa] wrs talking kl tire Ilurlrs u,ho had atbolie{i the t.ur!is. Q.:'Srl"corecttnei1.]a!nwft)ngLha|\',||-Ni.laliiLnall;askeda.iux"*,g;-i,n."-|ot.e1urntotheirhonrelj.,{.jYei,|le rold thcm r) go horne. bri I iio rlot kno\l' 1.i'heth€r. rhr: in'tmedicicry obe-v!,.r, rrei:ausc l did nor rilror\.rhar 0p.,.), "" T. l0 Nr:venrber 1010 pp- 27-29 (ICS). - T. 0 No\cml,(r l0l(i p. 5:. t lr) \{1\cn,i,rf l{}lr) l,ir. 1.r. 2? tlaSJ ' | _ L0 N,rl crnhrr 20In p 27 (l(ls). The lr<tsecutor y. .t-dtt!tinttnet. Case No. ICTR-01-6g-f 16 t :74

Page 47

.tttrlyctreut,'nri.\ene'rL A;ayr4 Z at the rel'ugees. rvhr) rc5pondsd by lhrurving stonds baok at the ass:rilarrls. bui "[t lhclfrtuffr ere'not vdn rlany on lhat day and sr,r !hcy' retreated."-t3" ;1.?.8 Proseculioq WitUqs$-C{)J 186. WilnessCDJ, a I lutr:, rvas in a positior rD ot}sefrve rvhat was taking piacr at r*rvange parish ln April 1994.3a0 187.. I'he rvitness rvas ptesellt on the Surda)' that the re1'ugees began to flock io the parish in large nutnbers. but sarv no authorilies that da)'. l'he next day. upon his arrival al 7 p.m." he sarl. Ndahimana, Kayishema *:id Kanyarukiga lalking rvith I'ather serombii on the brlcon_y ol'1he priests' livitrg quafters. The witness could not heat il,hat the men u,ere savins but thou{:ht the meeting lasted for approximatelS one houl afler he arrjved.3al lVhen rhe i"itneis airived ou Tiresrla}, at 7 p.nr., he saw Ndahiutana sittilg rvith Kanyamkiga anrl Father Seromba on the same balcoirr. Agair, he could.not hear \.vhat rhey rvete saying but thclughl the)' stayed for about oae hour aliilr lhe rvitness' arrival.:ia2 l8li. I'he rvilness also r.vcnl 10 the parish on wednesrla,v at 7 p.nr. tJpon his arrival, the q,itne:;s tloticed that refugees who had been in Nyange plesbl'lery had been moved irnd lqcliecl iut6 Nl.rulge chtuoh' The rvilness ttnderstood that the change had taken plac,e because {he refugees hatl car;sed 'disorder" at the

presbytery. That da}.. the witness saw N-dthinana lvith l{an;,aruliiga anrl fialtrer Sercmtra talkiirg on tha same balcony. 'l'hey remainecl rher.e fol. appr,rrirrlafel: an hJur an4 a half after the rvitness' anival.''at 189. .tJpon his arrival al the parish the nert da1'. a ll'hursciay. the witness learned from pers{}ns al the palish thal thele had been "clashes" at the parish that day and thel "peopie had been throrr.ilg, stones at one analther." I{e also sar.v Ndahimana, Kayishema. ancl Kanyamkiga meering *.ith F.ather semtnba. on the balcony. :\gain, he c{rrld not heei u.hat they *ere ia;-ing bur beiierie6 that rhe:, remained t.gether fbr approxirnately trvo and a halfhours aitei his arrivzrl ai that,:ccasion"ila 190' In responser to a De{bnce subrnissi0rr thar Ntlahimana allended a !'uneral Qn 14. li md l* Apt'il 199'l- lhe witrtess ansrvered "fNriahimanal $,enL tt, Rufungo ur the clay lt rvas saicl that Dr. Jul'dnal Nuwuruhunga {"Dr. Ntarvumhunga") htd died in Kig;rli. bul lhej rticl not spend the night in Ruiunpo."'*' 4.2.9 A(')lsry!s!-Ut1rus{14 19l In April 199:1. \\ritness cDr,, a I futlr, '',s a teacher riving in I(ivumu tonrmutte.]a6 tJ. l] April 1994, th* witness wenr to the Mrlanoga market ce'trc betr.vcen r2 and ? p.'r. t)n the way there, he ran into Iiauaui. who rl,as with l{abiyambere, Kayishcma and others or:ho ,r"r* .,r,u,ng fron Nyange church, Kariani said

that he hiid "conipleted his mission,'ane1 it was norv ,'up 1o tir* -'" T. q N,,r.nrber' l0lltpp. <:-i1. " " T . I I N t r c n r h e r . l 0 t 1 ) f t . : , 1 ( l C S ) . "'f l i No'elnber 2{ir fi pr. 24 fics). r8 (The rriar {rharnber infers rhal this !1as ,{})ril r t94). '"'T. Il \orember f0tit pp.2,+ {ICS)" 28. :1i T. I i N.rvenrber:010 pp. 2:t ilCS), 28-:1). '"" T. I I Novenlhef:010 p. 29. "'T, ll Norernb{:t 2{,10 n. 50. r€ Prosecution Exhibit 46 1'lE I'/ose.lttot. r. Ncl.thin!aza, Cdse No. lC.I,R-01_68_l .17 i 211 w

Page 48

ffi;:;."'::;-;"-Kanani explainetl thar he rrad chec*r-d thc r*usces $ ...?#;*J lvere armetl ar1d that in tloing this he rvas exeeuling a decision thal had heen tilkcn al a ne€ting tllar da)' at the Kivuuru ccmrnunal srl]ice. 'l hose wlro attended the ineeting included: Ndahimana, IPJ Ka;'ishema. thc presidenl of the local ccurl Habiyambere, thc brigadier of the communal police, as rvell as the'"icaders ol'the at1acks"" Ndungutsc, Kanlaukiga. and l,ather Setomba.'l'he rvitness was told about the meeting by Kanani and llabivambere. lianani f<ru:rd that sonre of the re1'ugees hari tradirional weapons but lhat nr:ne h*d fireanns.3r8 192. on 14 April 1994, thc witness did not go to the church.iae At around 3 p.m.. he went to rhe Mtltanoga marliet centre anLl rvas sitting ar Nganji's pLrb whcn he sarv a group armed rvith sticl<s and nlachetes coming fiom tlie direction of N;'ange chlrcb.'f'he q,itness learncd thal therc harl been a1 atlssk on the church" led b3, Ndungutse" At thc malkei squa.e, so lo people rlannccl lhc roaclhirrck nexl to the square, and olhers had come to see lhe corpse ol'Dr.. NtrivurLrhanga. Alt|ough the rvihress said lie oould not be certain atioul times, he believecl that a ceftain |elir rvho rvas nrinninE the roaelblock lold the rvilne$s rhat the body had arrived ar the roadblook ar ;lpproximatell, 2 p.m., befor^e tlre witness' a'rival- At the markel sqlrarr,

the rvitness sarv -n-dahimana, Kai'ishena, Habil'arrbere, l!{bakilirehe and Jeat-I}aptiste Kagenza. who rvas a reaoher aud the l.4t{Nl) chairman. Ndahimana had been asked b,v "sorne persons. ..lvho had come lrom Kigaii" to intervcne. The individuals manning the fuadblock rvanted to opeu the rioctor's cofTjn. When Nlahirnana arrived he ensured that rhe cofTin went through the roadilock wilhout further trou[r]e.3-t, 1?3. At appro-ximately 3:30 p.rn.. as Ndahimana rvas speaking lvith Ndrngi.rtse. Kayisl:ema and others. Kanyamkiga arived in a red vehicle.3jl He aske.l whetier the refugies at Lhe church hatj been killed' aud rvas lold lhat the at1{rck had been unsuccessful. Kanl'aruliiga then inibrmeil the group lltat the Inkoturwi had arrireJ. acruss the river^:urci u.ere planningio ]ibeiare tie ref'ugees. and that the)' thelefore had to be exterminatr'd quici.l.v.r': N.juhirnana adcled thal all .,inhabitarrri,, h"c t.;.; come to tl'ie parish and that they should be made to understan*l that the Inlot{rnyi,s lrad killed tlr. Ntawuruhunga' Thdoneste Mu.iyanana, and the President of the Republic. l-le callecj on ali lhose presefit to gather their ncighbours ro talie part in ths attack.3.3 About a half an hour later. the gruirp, inciuding.NdahJrn.rrra, ieli rogcther I'or Ngobagoba sr.r"ur. as they bclievecl the iriur,rrr,,l r"o'uld be anrvrng ironr thet direction.' 'Ndahimana could not

have spent the night.al Dr. NlawLruhunga.s house as the situation was criricaj and he had urgcnl matters trilake cale ii irt 4.?.10 Prosecution Witness CBR 194' l')toseclttion Witness Ctl( a Hu1r.] flarner, was living in Kivuinu c<irnirre,irt iil April 1994.3--'.i He knew that the accused was the bourgme.rrre of KivuJu (:afittrunt. He ciilen sarv Nclahjnrana ra? T. l1 Novernber 2010 o. ri9. 3 r 3 , f . I I N o v c m h e r 2 0 1 i l p p . 6 9 - 7 0 ; ' 1 . l g N o v e m h e r 2 0 1 0 p p . 4 9 , 5 0 ; . 1 . . t 9 N o v e o ] i r e r : 0 1 0 p . 2 0 ; 1 , . l t S e p t i m b e r 2 0 1 | p . t l . 'I l'. | 3 \0\ enrbcf :tll L p. 52. - I | 2 N r + c r c b c r . l U l 0 p r p . 2 , - r : 1 t 3 N l \ c n r b c r l i j j 0 p p . l U . . l 9 - 5 r l - "I. Il Norenrher]-tl0pp J 5. ' - L ll hur <inr,er lir lfr l,l. -.-Jr | . tt \,,. erlbqf lr rlt, p. <,,. . " ' l . l S \ , r \ e m b c r 2 t , l t / p . 5 1 . ". T. t 2 NovenrbeL l0l0 p. i. -' 'l'. l8 Novelrbrr 2010 tr. 51. "'T. I Nove;nber 2()ll) p. 6; plaseqution [xhibir l,l. The ?rosecut<tr t Ndalintuo, Casc No. ICI R-{)l-6g-T 4* i 274

Page 49

Judge,ne al aytd S.rttence drive past injhe comrnune vehicle, a red rnrck to rvhich he rvas cntitlcd after his htrurgwe strc,"' 195. Tlte .,vitttess ]r-ent to Nlange parish,rn 13 April 1994 to bring iiiotl to his bt.other-in-larv. it Trrtsi rvho had sctrght reluge ther*. Befbre goirig to the parish N<lurrgulse inlbrmed ihe witness lhai a meeting lrad takeu place at the rtrrnmunal olJice and hail included Ndungutse. the bot*gffiestre Ndahimana. vddaste f,"luragrvabugabo, the assistant baurgme,stw. ciilbe* Kanani Rugrvizangoga. Gatsha Buthelezi, Kanyarukiga and Senior Warrant Olijcer I labarugira. At the meeting. decisioris l'vere taken to {tltack the lef'r"lgees and to asccrtain whether the refugecs rvere armqd or not. When the lvilrress arrived at tlie parish he told his brother-in-laq, ahaL an attacl! u,as imminent. Tl.re q'itness' brother-in-law terld him that Rirgrvizangr:ga" Father Seromba and Habi,yambcrc liad alre;ru1. secrehi'J thc relugccs-'j' 196. on 14 April t!)94. Ka.vishema drove a vehicle belongir,g to wiirless cDZ through the co tntu e. Using a megaphone, Kayishema informed the local population Ihat "lnyenzis" Itac) attacked the {\}rrtmttne and that the ft)ftunune had to be savcd. The tvitness rinderstood fhe rvord In!"enzi to ref'er to Ttrtsis. Ndungufse" Kay'isherrra and a gloup of assailants. inclurling the 1vit1ess. gathered at the Slalue ol'the Vilgin folaly

at approximately 11 a,m. Ndungulse anrl Ki-yishema 6rer tvilh the gendtrnnes' \.vho told the trvo tnen that the1.' waulil be +r,erlvhelrricd bl rhe largc numbers ol' reftgecs. Ndungulse and Kayishen.ra rcplicd "r.ve'll rlo rvhat we oan,' and convinccd rl.:e ge.ndunne s to fet the assailants carry ou1 tirc attack. 'fhe getdurnes then cut a rope wfuich served as a roaclblock al]al retrealed. 'l1telealier, llte assailanls. inciucliug the rvi|ne:;s, began rhrgrving s?ones al the refugees" rvho responclerl in kind. l here $€re benveen j00 and 1"000 aisaiiants th;i <iai... but thel' rvere oulnumberec{ i.ly the lefirgees. the assailants soon realisecl lhat lherc ,"*ra fu,, ionl, telhgees and retlirned lrome. No one n'as kilied that da,v-.'Ihe rvitness L-|elieved that he and olher assailalts arrived at the cltlr.clr at approxi lateilj ll a.m., tl.:ar tha attack rvas launched in lhe *fternoon and that it did not last long. Althougg ihe r.virness could not be sure:rbcut thc time. he believed that the assailants retreaterl at about 3 p.m.35e 1.q7. (Jn his u,ay honre rvith the odier assailants, the rvilness saw Ndsngults slop to taik t{l sonreorle in a vehicle along the r.oad. Ndungutse subsecluelitll, told the assailints thai ire haci been talking r'vith Kanyarukiga, rvho had told hin that the hrien:i were close and that rey ,o,ere bdngmg assistance. to the ref'ugees at the parish, I'lrtr

arukiga iirecre(i the assailants to rctur.rr to tl.re church unrl prom isud rc in lorucrlcn ts.io' 4.2.11 l,rosecution Witness CNJ 198. witrress cN.l, a I'lutu student, lived iu casave ,rc.le,rr'., Kivumu contfl.tltne in April 1994.-'o, lIe panicipatrd irr killirrg: in {l)ril 19q4. inclLrJirrg tltL,sc at N)nr}ge ehuleh.,^r Th. ,,,'it,,e., 1,,.,, Nrlahimana because he tvas Ihe bourpnestre of Kir unu "o rnrrn".''{, r!7 '1 . I Norcmt-rer 2010 r.r. (r. r5! T. I November 2rJ10;p. 1l-13; T.2 ^lovrrnber 2{)t0 p. t6; T.. ll Seplcmb,jr ?0n p. i t. .', l.lN,,rcnrbcr:ol i,i' ir-ri, i.jrn,..n,r",,:{,rufn t.t-ti. t7. - " ' I . l N 0 \ c r r t b c r l l , l U p . l ( r " J. + \"r(,rnh(r 2{il{, p. Jji l,l],{i(urruil 1..\ltihil 2rl 'T JN"\{rnher:illlr}r' 43 ("Q-: \\itre }ou oni: i}fThesc Hulus rNhl) lvere urri}eting lutsis, Mf.wibli:ii/A.: lwi|s.,,); l' i Noveml-1er 20llr p. ll ilcs) {lhe i'ituess- ilecliu ed rhar "l also plaryed a role in ihe killiug olother perso s, b r tlre !l( \ cn Pc|sorls .rrc p(r.,, : I l)hl siL,rlll lilkJ..r. ' ' T . - l N o r e m l r c r 2 r r l L r p . 7 1 . I'he hosecutor r. *-<Jr inana, Cesc No. ICIR-0l-6g-T 19 i 274 ,+

Page 50

J"Tffi;",n* on ,o Aprir i99:i. Kayishema oame ri, Kanrre),i anrt *sked'n#gKq population to go to Nyalge chtueh rr _l.i .^prii l9,lJ in ()rdL-r Lo kill the Tulsis beca$se lhey s,ere thc r..ines rrho hatl t illcd I Hutg ddclor.'"' .l .? . I 2 Detlnce W itness I'hS.r3g9 l.l1k]1d91l 200. Thdrese ivlukabideri. a Ilutu, rvas married to Dr. Nlaw[nrhungir. She rvcxked at tft Batryue continentale ,,1/i"icu ine and rvas a member of the MRND par.ty in l9gJ.:t65 Shs rvas intbrrned on l4 April 1994 that her husband, Dr. Ntal.vuruhr-urga. r.vas killed dLring the night of l3 .,\prll 1994 b"v tr{P}'soldisrs. l{is body rvas brought. to Rul"r.rngo around ,:tr p.rn. on 1.1 April 199'1 acconrpanicd b!. Ndahirnana" Irerdinand and others.'"" Ndahimana stayed at RLrfrurgc until past nridnight crganisrnv Ihe ceremonv fbr the bur.ial to ulke pi&ee the ne:rt da), l5 April l9(i"l.16l 4.2. l3 Defence Wt!:S$_trgiqiSg_XifqkgllkUl 201. tseatrice lVlukankusi" a Flutu. lived in N-vange i..(-'tcrrr aboLlt ,c0 to 100 metrcs alvay from the ttl tmwrc ollice in 1994. She sold I'ood and heveragers in rhe local market.r6r 102. .91 Thursciay. 1'1 April 1994, a1 approximatel-v 2 or 3 p.m,, the rvitness loaned Nriatlirnana her vehicle. a b-lue D*ihatsu pickup, to attencl the f'uneral ai I)r. Ntal,uruhunga of Ru{irngo in Rukoko st'ctelr-36') 4.1. I + 203.. .I-€onif le Murekey'isoni, a Hutu. liverl in Ngr:ma in gularc

prtfecture in l<)94. she rvrs maried to a Jr"rvdnal ltwanzegushira rvho *,as rlrc hon.gnrcstrc of Kivumu c6,nmturc 1,ritm september I990 until 1993.r70 'rhe l\,iajority notes th,t rler l.*rsba'cl a'ti Ndahimana rvere fi.iends, rvhich must be considered in evaluating her testimony. i'-1 l0'1. on 14 April 199,1. tlre rvitness learnecl thal Dr. Ntawuruhunga hael dicii. she rye1t ro l.:is h-ouse. She a*ived at approrimeteJy 5 p.m. anir reri and at abrLrt 6 p"rn. Ndahimana was presenr.rr I)r. NfawurulrLnga's house *,hen the winress itrrived.iTrl 4"2.15 De_fb_n c.,e-. \t'itnSr_$ NDll ?0j ' \\'itness ND24, a lIutu. rva-s. a tracrer riving in l(ivunu eo ,tne in Aprij r 994.r?3 T1e rvitness first hecatlle aware of Ndahirnana *heu hJ became the bourgrT*'tre in ctctober iqg,l.iii The rvitness x'as arresrecl it 1996 fbr his participalion in the genocicle; he congsse.j io havrnc ur T. { \1,\errrbcr 2{,lt} p j0. '"'T 7 fehRro|v 2Lil | ll. 51. '"" 1'- 7 Febru.t,20l I p. 67" "' T. 7 Fehfuary 2011 D. 6i 368'f. 7 irebruar:,, :{,1 i pp. .4-5. '"' f. 7 february :011 p. n. "' f- l0 Fdbruary 201 t p. j_ "' T. l0 Febluar) ?(,11pp, j-6. 17. ''"1. l0l;ebnraf) J0l I pp. B, lj-l7. '." 1. 21 lebrufy ?01 I pp. :1, 5-6; Deterce Exhibit 1tj. "" T.21 Febtuarl 2{}t i p.6. The Ptosecutcyt Ndahi*tqt.t, Case No, IC,I'R_01_6g--f i$ i 111

Page 51

,Judgeflent ond Settewe 30 Decewbt -za''A lliattlcd r roxdbl('ck. lliltlic iputirlg irr killing a I ulsi namcrl Innoecnt Muhigii'rrri ,'n l)'dpril-I,rW and parlicipating in *ttacks on lrlyanga churc.h on l4-tr 5 April 19<r.1. y1* \\as releasrrl in lutij."" 206 (!n 13 ,April 1994. Witness CDI-. Kal.ishe rla. Ndrurgufse anc.l thcr local couri. presirlent Cacatrr"rterezi ordered the rvitness and others lo erect a roadblock bv Ny-angc pdl'ish just acri:ss t'i.or-rr Kimaranzara's hciuse, and approxinatel.v one and a hall'ntinules ,rwa.v cn firot fioLn !{ulancga nrarkct square. k) '?tei,ent the infillralion of the lnkotan y-i."17{' 'l'lic rOadblock rumainc{l thcrc Iirr thlee days. No'I'ursis were killeti at the roadblclck.3Tr'Ihe ,r,itness testified lhat hc lvou kl have nearq tf rhe bourg*e-rrtr had gone through lhe roadblock even if the r.vitness hintself hacin't been thcrc- -{ Person like lNdahimana] eouldn't have passed through such a place without people knr:lving." )47" On l"{ April 199.1, the lvitness airivsd at the roaclblock at 8 a.n'r. At apFroxi$ately l1 a.{ii." assaila ts led by Ndungutse arrived et lhe roadblock, arniecl u,ith chrbs. 'l he gentlart*i shoL inro the air' and the attackers. inr,luding thr:se rnannina the ro:tdblock. ran arvay. fhe entire inc:ident lasted about firenty minutes, and tha roaclblock wrs re-estalrlished arorrnd rr,r,.rn.tt" I'he rrilness

saw Ndahim*na pass lbrough the roaclLrk:ck r:n his rvay to the presb-vtery betrveen i anri 2 p.m. crr: 14 April 1994. Ile was driving a blue Daihatsu belonging to a local tracier nanert Antoinc and rvas tcoompanied b-r" two local pc,licemc,n. Whell Ndahimana arriveil at the prcsby.lef,\,..,evervtitre lincludirrg the Tutsisi m.ove<I torvarels him, even the ger;tlcrnrcs" Lrur the rvifrless co ld nol heaf :thr,,ll .*.. r\cre )dling.i'R'J \tJahimairir rcruned rii'm lrlc preshr tcn lpprr;rirrrarcrr -r{r luirrrirer iater.-- rlrc wrtncss sa1\, Ndahimana again later that day. Betrveen 3 and 4 p.m.. those malr ios the rr:adblock searched the vehicle can'yilg the "mortal remaius" of a man rvho r.vas killcd !n liigali. An iudividual in the car said rhat the body rvas going to fhe home ol'thc deceascd. Iiimaranzara, t{rc leader of those tnannirg the roadblock, personallyl searchcd thc vehicle. Kayishema h:rtl instrLrctert those [lanning the roadblock lo.search all vchioles going through rhc roadliiock, incluriing 1ie bau|4tre stre.'s. .Approximatel,v 20 rninLrlg^s taler. Nclahim;sa .,passod by therc" in rhe Daiitars, vehicle and his vehicle too was searched.isz N.'I'ursis rv*r* kilrei rn l4 A;ri1 19q4.3lll a.Z. 16 DsfbncqlVitls:ss Xp-6 208' lvitness Nll6. a H,tu. Iived in Nyange r.'.,rerr', Kivrxru co ,mun(. in r994.rda He pafiicipated in the attacks o N,vange thurch, nraking him an

accomplice n,ifitess.lrs-l:le ;estified that he did rlot see the bourgrnestre att 14, l5 or l6Apiil 1994,386 209' on 14 April 199"1' NdLrngutse rlirected a smafl group oi aboul 20 persons, i cruding gic rritness'.ttt 8t) k) N\lngc p Iish ttl kill the.retugces thcre. llrr $rtncss leli h(,mcJt jrhorrt ttu n Jnrl Jorned \rlungutsr ur a hrir in Karureri.'' \\'hcn tlrr gr,iup lrrir.r'ti ar \,';rn{c pirri:{r. Ndrrrrguirr rri l. 21 Febr.uarl 2011 pp. 3-,1. ''' 1.2l lrebnraf: 201 I pp. J, 2l. "' 1.11 Felrnrary ?01 I pp.2t-ll" -'" T.2l Fcbruary 201 1 p. 27. '" t. 2l trrhr u.rr. :irt I np --! " 'f.2| F(brrB!\ l0! I p. B- ""' if. 11 fcbmary l01l pp" 8-9. ' l'.ll Fehruar.r 2 tI fp rr. l. '' T.2l Febnrrrr'.v l0 t1 1p. 20-21, '"'lletrn, e E*Ih;i v9 '^' I. l?.t:rnur..r lol I pf. l-+. ,', I. :T.lanuarl 2r)l I np l?. :a ' " ' T . 2 7 J a n u a r l : i ) 1 | p . L 'J'he Prosecutot .tt. lduhima,$, Casc No. IC,IR_01_Og;1, sr I ?74

Page 52

',::;:,::;:';':;;:-es..the se d,r ler rord the g,oup ro r€t,car wh:,r rr,c ,,,,r")'uffi,F? lhe geularmes shot in the air. Nclungu$e then decide<i it r.vould be rviser 10 reluflt 10 fhe parisil the next da-v rvith reinforcements. {Jn the rva-v back fnrm the church, tlie gfoup I *.n inio L}rig;rdicr Mbakilirelre. When he learned of rvhat had taken pl;rce, Mbakilirehe said "lt is tlw botu'gnttste wlta has cotrplicated matiers lor us because he broughr in tltose gendarnte^c."388 l-Ie too thought it rvould be best I'J seeli reittlbrcettients and retum the ne-rt clay. The rvitness did not hear rhe ccnversatiou betiveen Ndungutse and I\4bakilirehc but,fvas rold aboltt it later by Ndungutse.rs'r 210. 'l'he witness saw Witness CiDl. taiking t.l Ndungutse at a bar ar Kanlte),i on fhe rvav back hom the attask. \t itne$s CD[, said hc would provi<ie reinlirrcements fiom Kilibilira in order to "dislodge" the ge ndarmes, Witness ND6 sarv neither Kauvarukisir n,.rr N<lahiman;r on that tjar.3"t' a.:. I 7 D,e!'eu!-e*Ivrlnss$lDl2 211. lvitness NDl2. a Tutsi farmer. lived in KivumLr o)ntn?urc in April 1994.3e' I.le kn"rn Ndahimana when N.lahimana was an agronomist in Giseny!.:re2 I !e- r.vent to seck refuge at Nr..3sgg parish. lle arrived there hetrvecn l0 and 1l p.m. on 13 April l99,l.iel 212. ;tt approximately 10 a.m. on 1,{ i\pril i99.tr, Ndungutse arrived at ldyange parish litir 3 group of

attaokers. There u'ere thtee ge ndarme,s at the parish rvho were able to cha.satlie attacke6 arvay. The attackers did not leturn that day. The wiiness sarv Ndahimaua at the presbyret_a ar apprlrximatelv 2 p.m. ihat afietrtoon. 'fhe rvitness testified that Ndahimana spoke to two Tuisis" one teacher nalned Ljatare arrd the other a metiical assistanr alned Charies h{ugenzi. l:le asked thc rcl'ugees lrho had led the attack. Thc)'replied thal it r.vas Ndungutse. Ndahhnann told thern that he "did not have pou'ers" but that he had askerl the y;entktrmes to-keep protecting the refr.tge*s.:]e:1 lle alsc told them thal cne ol-his relatives haci died in Kigali and that iie was goiiig to the iuperai. t{e tlten asked the ge ntlarne't r<i keep the Interulumnt,e ar,vay llom 1he church.3lli 'I"il,: lvitness 3lso salr Ndahimana at N_vange pirrish on rc ei,cniug of i4 April tO9_.1.'e. 4.2.l8 Qel'e.{qe, R itryss_}r{*pl_L 2l'l' . Witress NIll I, a'i'utsi, lived in Kivumu contnt&ne in ;\pril 1994. f le kntr,- tl.:at ldr.liihinra;ra x,es the lrcrzlglrc.rt.tr olKivumu nurrrn rr!r,.t", 211, on 1;l April 1994, the rvitness rvenr to seek rer.Lrge ar Nyange church" Irc arrir,cd ,t approximately 10 p rn." ancl had to circumlent roaLl blocks tJ ge t to ihe par;str. Snme relirgce s hai-i tj:d,t hllu,::opon, i'rilh rhcm irto Nyange church" bur thev hai bee' conris,rotei-b), rhc geltLtor)lttt \\'irelr the

tritness amived al the chulch, sorne of his relalives inftirLled hirn th:it Ndungutse lrad laulrehed an attatk.on. the refugees that e1*y but th*t l1'te gerttlarmes hail repellert Ltre ass*ilanls. tr'hey also said that n-clahirnana h;rrr come ro ihe presb_vter,,.- ar abaut r p.m. after rrie rlx T. )7 J:rnrrar; i0l ) p. j. ''- f. l7.lanubr) l0ll pp.5-r'. "' l 27 .lanua^ :l,t I np. 7-a '-r T. lq.lJ,r!tafv :01 | I1 l: Urt(,r,..c F\llrbil N6. '-. T. l9.lt1nxn1v '61 1 a. ' ' I l 9 l r r r L | a n : | l l l n . i . t ] c J i , n J r ( l , ^ i n - 3 r . . t p a r r . t - t X '-'T lq lirLrur'l f0lt p :. "' l'. lq ianu.r'r,:01I p.6. "'''f. 19 .Januafv :011 o, 7. l " 1r ten* | \hil,ir ffj. t. tri.trlurr) --0|I ll 10. '- l l8Jrrrrrrr :tril lI) jt"r:. JE-+a: D(li,nir ( lo.in; tsrict. pJrr. l.tr,. 'I ltt lJt{}seuio1 ,-. }it}tltinata, Case Xo, lC-fR_01_6lt-l 52 i 2'11

Page 53

man narned Catare. Ndahinlana then lcft to attend the lirneral of a relative rr,ho had been killerJ in Kigali.:"re :1.2" l9 lfef'ence S itness ND7 l1j. wibess lrlllT" a 'rutsl lhrner'. ]ivcd^in Kivumu ce'umut?a in ;\pril 1994.a00 she \\,enl to seeti. reluge al Nyange parish ori 10 April i994.aur ll6. On 14 April 1994. l'luhr assailauts led try Ndungutse" Kayishema and Witness CnL aflacked N;'ange clrurelr, but the ganrlcwncs rvere able to repel th* attack, Ndahinrana arrived a1 the psfish a11er fie attack iit approximalely 2 p.m. t{e spolc u,ilh Anicct Gatarc and Llharles h4ugenzi, hut the rvitness cortld ntrt lrear rvhat they werc saviug. Horvever. she tlicl hear hinr talking to ti,e gentlarwes because shc had gone to letch watef and the tap rvas close to rvhsr.c the gtndcines were. Ndahimana told thi: gend.rrurss thal the"v were 10 proiecl the relugees and that theylould fire ou 3n1. atlackers if necessarv-aoz 4.3 Delitrerations 4.3.1 Credibilitv of Wilnesscs 1.3.1 .1 Pru.:;etution l[it ess CRS 2.17. The N{ajoritl recalls that nranv ol' the lvitness' *rrnily mernbers rver.e killetl at Nr,angc clturch. and,..,therefbre his memcrv ntay have been irnpactcd by the chaoric ancl lraumatic nalurc ot til e cve|]tN- 118. The lviajoritl' has also considerecl the fbc thal Wirlcss CBS' stamrnrnt to Tribunal inr"estigators ol' February 1996 lvas recordeEl at the Kivumu tribuual and th&t

his statement of'Marcn 2003 was recorded al rhe i'esid€nee or"the assistant haurgmestre.4ci Tl," il;j;;y l*, ot.o considered that the rvitncss ra'as clislantly related to !l1e htlurgmcstre aI ihe linre oi the attacks and held an adnrinisirative posirion in Ih* commutrc llom ar least igss to zgo:l jos Hn*"r*r, 1H*i. p.l"r* do not necessaril,y render his swilrn tcstim{rn.y in this proceecjing unreliable. ll9' Considcring tlte rvitness' previous statenenls. the l{ejoritv finds that lhe wilness !\,as evasive in his answers to quesrions nrrt to hirn regardrng tlresJ staierrents,.** u,1J il t"it,:"'!1,-a o ncSative impact oll the fo{ajorit}-'s assessment oi'[is dcireanour at trial.'1r]7 rn. itri",-""i, art*a November 1995 and August 2000 suppoit the wilness' evidence {hat on T}rursda;- atlernrx.rn, 'u'T. l8.t"r,u"r) lol t tp jl-.t1, 19. '" ' Delcrrut Erbitit 9-1. lj,l1- i+:*r*:':Or I p. } Ller'ence Cl.r$inu Ilrieti para. t4j. " _ | 2 L j r r r u . r r ) 2 t , l I n l . J , 5 . . ; t i l ; p . ; 1 ' , . , o , . . , , , i , r r : , r l I | ; t . - " [. ri \qp1q1$1.c1 rngq f1f :,1- ]U. ,,-- T' sef rcniber .20 l l, np. l 5- l l: Det;rr.e Lrli;bir l. ti(j(n(r t rhihir o. , ,r ' I reptcnrLrer'2'11{' l. ls (fclir; }\'oseculior Exhibit l: llefcnse !.rhibit -1: Drfcncrr rxhibir.l: Defonge Lxhibit it f)efiincc Exhihif fi. jll.t:,:-",-t t n u l"tte'rber 2010 pp. .14-17 (Ti1d $.ihess tricd io

uvoi{l anserring the rt esliolls pur r., hjln b;,aiiegrnii that th€ stalement lvas recorded s long tirne sgo. that h€ is na1 the on€ rvlo ltfote it do\rn, 11at ahi stetenrent !\:as nq properly rccord€d alrd that ir *'as o'1ry,read becri 10 hior.): I. 7 septemb{rr ,a0t1l p!.6-?. (*r oirn see that thcre is a siSnatrue orl this docunent 'ihiclr is sinrilar ro nrirr.j. bua it's rnr-,rii: ri,nil3l.,,.r I r{ould ra_v it is ;iorneone eise *lrii .i=ncd tlri" d.x r.,rnerri dn,lnut m\5clt.'-l: lJilclfc ( l(,jin! U,i.f . p"ra.;. ;i_rl .\afluna dctat. {,4L)JU\lgelnrnt. para.194; giki*li { tC1lurjgeir]en|, para. :]l. fhe Proicctt,Jr t, Ndthi!/tald, aase No. ICTR-01-6g_T 53 i 2.74,

Page 54

JlrJgenent and Settetre Jl) Dtceutbt,r 2 l I 2?,^ Ndahimaru Kalisheml. l\'lbakilirehe anrl Kan_v:rrukiga lveni to N-yange grresbl.ter;' to:nder Setotttbr.*"' ln the l9q5 statcntenl. the rviuress explained that three Hutu women r.vho lvere marriccl to'I[isis rvete taken out of the church but did nol provide delails on rvhi: loiik out those llulu lvomen.tt'e I lorvever" in neitlter of his previrlrs starements did the witness refer to rhe t'act dral Ndahimana catrte back to Nyange parish a second tinie and remained in lhe car rrJrile three Tutsi rvomen r,vere called out trom dre chr.uch. 2)A ' 'l'he rvilriess pravided further explanation$ in his 1996 stalement.'l'he r.vitless saiil that ire sau' Ndahimana arrive *t the chiuch in a vehicle r:n "'l'hulsday" together lviih IPJ Kayishcma, Ilrigadier Mbakilirehe, and a police ofl'icer named A kr3.'s Nishirintbdre. Specificatly, the i.vitrress stated that "Kayishema caute in the churc,h and took the l.-lutu lvouten that rvere married to Tutsi nren oul of the ohurch...The b,)urgtneste Ndahlmura stal,ed in the car.""ll'r ln this stalemeff the $'itness ilid nol rnention the occurence of :l neeiing eulier that riay. The Majority notrs tha1. this accr:unt diilbrs frorn his trial testinony, in which he srated that Ntlahiurana came to Nyange parish twice that da.v. 2.?l I'he rvinress attempted to explain the omissions in liis previous

statements iry starilig that he did not write dourt the stateme{ris hirnself and he onl"v respomlerl to the quesiian. ihut ,".t put r.., him.lr I Nonetiteless, the Nlajority finds rhese omissions c,o,rcerning. 222, Furthcnnote" ln his 1996 slalement, tire q,itness stated that he hati iri:t seen FkNahimane on "the day of the atraok [ 1 5 ,,\prii 1994],"1r: u,hile al lrial he tesrilied thar he sarv Niiahiman* ar Nyattge parish on thai .la)' (Chaplel' tll. Section 5.2.1{Jt.'l'he Llajoriry noles liisi rhis discrepalr:y tends to 'shora'that the rvitneso- might have tried to exaggerale Nrlaliinrana's resp6nsi6ilir-v iu redarion to the 19q4 evetrts. [n those cifcuJxstances, rhe L{ajoritl. ua-v rely on rhe rvitness" lesiimol,v onty rvhere corrobonfed. 4.3.1.2 Prosecution ll itness CIIN 223' The Majority has considered the w:itness' previor.rs statemenls. In his statsurcat pmvidccl to ICTR investigators on | 5 Novernber 1995, he tlid not refer 1o Ndahimana in relation to the events of I:t.April 1994.i13 l-lor'vever" in an addendiuu 10 thar statemcnt clared 2 February 1996, the r.vitncss relbrred 1o a rreeiing held on a..'lhLrrsday,,.:ittended brv !ht: ltcturgmestre .,l.he Majoriiy inibr.s tnar thi-s nloeling rook place on l4 April 199.{.-i}e' lvitness neicd Lhat. rire rel.ugees askej Ndahinrana lor hclp and Ndahirnana rcsponded ,'lhere is nothing I can do lbr -r,'.ou.., I.,urther in thc

adclenelu:n" rhe wrtness stated that "[t]he next.la-"-" ljrida3., the big attack occnried. l.ni sLue tlc !,r,urg,t,rrrre k,e* about everyrhing. He ancl the priestrlidnl do cnlihing tc, hclp us. 'l'his rvas the i;niy iime r saw the b,urguestre aruund the church.'tlt in his iou0 -staremcnt. the $,itness also indical$d that 85 r0r l)eience Lxhib]t i awitness cBS nreulioled rhat hs saw tlie accu:ed tio]n Monda! 1r- Ihursdav arriving in a ca' tiom the co|tt'tlt'te ld fhat h€ trlkcd {'ith policenicn anJ gee.lorbles); Def"ence Brhibjt 5 (Tke $itness ,lso r.€i.crrccl lo tbal meclin!)" alr Defbnce l-:hibit J" pp. 3. 5. "' Defence Bxhibit 4. p..1. '" T.7 Septe0rbfr 2010 pp.2li-29. "'- Defelce Erhibit ;1. p. r+. "'' Defence Erhibit 16l]. 4'4 Defcnce Exlibit 178, p.4. 'I he Ptosecfior \,. t\\lahinklna, {.,ase ^-o. ICI"R{ l-68_.I, 54 i 21,1

Page 55

J1dgeuent .:tkd Se le ce Ndahimane..aJtendetl a meeting at N-,r,ange pesbyterl, rvith April 199.1.'''' seromba anrr .rlrer "-rffi# tf 224. Tlte L'{ajority notes a oertain evolirtion in Witness CBN's recgunting of Nrlghintana s alleged rvords to the refugees. In his 1996 statement. the witness allegrtl that Nilahimana sakl "lt]here is nothing I ran do fbr yoir."*'o In his 2000 slatema t the wirneis stared thar r-dahimana said 'this wat was launched by rhe *ryenzi rvho killed our Flesident I laLrr nrimnna."al7 Finall;,. in tlre r.vitness' testiluony at bar. he stated; "l-ook, Inyvttzis, Inka*nf i.t have c.aused the war, so lluius have respcntled."ars The A.{a.lorit1 r}ot.s rhat Witness CBN's early statenlents podray Ndahimana as someone nther po""-cr'less" rvhereas his trial testimony reveals the acc!'scd as a fethgr villilictiye characler.

225. The rvitness seenls to bear a grudge against tho accuser-l bec.ause ire ditl not provide assistance to lhe tefugees despite the high position he hel<J in the L.(t ttntlnt.'l heretbre. thr ful;riru.itv ma.v rel.v on the witues$' testimony onlv rvhere sorroborated. 4.3.1.3 Prcsecution ll'irne.ss CIj!

726. At.the -ou1sel, rhe h{ajority notes lhat llie u,itness gave his sratemenr cial*tl April ?il0l at the comnrunai oflice o1- Kivuuu and his statement dated lrcbruary and March 2001 at tie residence ol ,1, l:.y.'.I,,.!{,,,1i:. rhe la rr hcin3 lisrctl as a conracr ir*r.si,n in alj rhc ,. irncrs. pre vious rtarcmcnls l..r tltc I('l'R "'- l'he tl i1nr"'ss contlrmctl in crcss examinalion that he r.vas nou, a menrbei.ol, the Rl)tr and that lre iriibrmcJ the puny lhat he rvoulel be absent l.rom lhvaricla wirile testi:l1,ing in the insianr procecdings."" For rhis rtas,rn. the klajorit.,v cernsicjers it pi:ssible thar rhe wiuiJss rniglrt lack impanialit;- rvhile teslitying against 1994 authorities. Hrtwevir. *s the Deterlci riicL not que s:ticn the witness itl$hcr rxr this ntal1er. the h4ajority sannot colrclude that ahe ivitness mig6t ilave hari a moJive 1o testifv against the accttsed. Fu$hermore, the w;tngss, as *ell as other per.sons, sefves its a guirie tor people iuterested in.knowing r.vhat happeneil at Nl,ange church.al, Taking th;s inril accounl the lr'iajority notes it is possible that thc rvinress' testimony reflects ui.)t on[,. lvhar ite witnessed hinlself at the time af the evcnts in April 1994, but also infbmrafi.n that he fras srnce gathered {br the putposes o.l.his role as a guicle "lt t'he church.s site. 727 ' . The Majoritl finds the follol'ing an oxaurple olthe

rvitness" attemp* ro ertenil Ndallimana's l'r_bilitl in his testirnony relateil to 7 .lpril ttlll+. lnitially. tne wirness tesrified that he sarv Ndahinran^a on that that day, tvhen violence started ro erupt. iu the communal red c.ar. 1lgrve'er, rvhen confionted rvith the evidence that the accused rvas in kigalithat ilay, the rvitness r.etractea nis siatement arrd said that he ernlv saw the red vehicle and that "iursis" told iirn il.:at the brxr.gmestre i'vas there,i22 _The s'rajoritl'has doubts about this alregation, as it is not convinced that the recj communal vehlule was functiotling in April 1994 lChapter lII. Secrion j.3.1.26). 228' 'l'urning ro rhe witness' teslimony regarding the atacks on Nl,ange churoh" the L,iai.riry notes that the Deli:nce p0intetl to discrepancies in rire rvit*ess' prior stirtements regalling rhc date r15 l)el'enre ll. hibit lt. p. 3. a16 Defcoce Erh;b;r l78. '-' D"tcrr.e L\hihit lx r Non{'lfi.iul Lran.t"rrrlnr. - T. lj Sentenrbcr :010 r'r. 10. ,'" Dcf.ni. L,,hilrt li: ljcti.nce I rlribrL 2r,: Dilene,, l:\hrhir l?. -"'l-. l5 Sel\ternber 2t,l0 pf. I5-lh. "'' f. l5 SepLcnrh{r 2{}t(, I lL). '-'T. 15 Septenber.?010 pf. l-4.

39. The Prosetuto( t. n-drtJiawnq, Case No. ICTR-01_6g;l

Page 56

Jtld+enent un.l,9.t7t.tce tO trW,,*B on which he arrivetl at Nyange parish::ud rire dales 01'subsequL'nf cncrrrr.*it Ilrc rr itnesst'rairir:ained in his trial testimor:"".'-' that lte arrived on i 2 Aplil 1994 and that the altack on r-yange church tooli nlace on l5 Anril l994.ara 22g ' The lr4ajorirl' notes tha1 in his first statement to ICTR inyestigarors daterl 30 Auglst 2i)00. the witness provided no daies for the incidents he alleged. Nevertheless. he ilid derail Seronrba's request for the nantes of1'utsis, his orvn role in provlding ihe nanies. Ndahinana's rcccipl trfthc list anr.l tlte arrival at N)jange parish later that day of sone ofthese Tutsis.a:i 210. lhe lv{ajoriry also notes that the rvitness did not rep{.}rl tho meetings ol lJ anil l.{ Aprii 1!}94 in his p'evioirs written stalemcnrs or in his testiinoni in the kt'o;b( L:4se.425 "rhe Delbncc questiolie<i the lvitness regarding liis srirtcmcrls drted February anci f"{arch 200,1. in rvhich he did not reterence anv meetings involving the authorities and Seromba. Lt response. the lvilness recanled any assertion of nreetiugs: "Q.: so 1ou have ncr knowledge trf anl rnectings htjl(l orr l-trh, ir+th" l5rh. Do -r"ou agree rlith me? A.: N<t. I'm not aware of mcetings which rnigirt have been held at thar period. I simply saw those authorities pass hy there and so ro Father serourha's plaee. I saw thcm speali to one anothcr.

But I cannot describe that convers; ion as a 'mectiug.' I ;idnt talli about a nreeting."l:7 231. Ultimately. the Majority has reservations about relying on Wilness {tBI,s tesrlntonr- lor the purposes of suppcxting findings be1'ond reasonable <toubr. ln adciition ro doubts relatecJ lo tt:e witness' possible ittterest in charging the accused. ir did not find his acccunt sulllcleutll. compclling and_detail'rd rvith lcgard to the meetings Ntlahiurana allegedll.attended.'l'here1'ore, it ma".,o61",- reli, an this testimonf if corroboratcd. 4.3.1.4 Prosecutint ll/itne:;s )7U 232' Having considere.l the tolality of her cvidence, the N4ajorit,v concludes ihal vitncss yAt.l arrived at Nyangc parish cur l.i April 199.,{; that she rcniainecl iherer on l4 anr"i 15 ,April 1g9.1: anrl that she t'led during rhe night oi l5 and l{r :\pril 199:}. 2li The Maioritl" observes that the rtitncss rlid not mention the presencc, of Ndahimala at Nyange parish iri her first staleinenl to ICTR investigators irr 1000. Whcn questioneLl about this" the witness explained that she only ansrvcred questions put to hcr ltrt did not eiabcrate,'t,u i t . t .roy,.ir1, considers. this response plausible. Despite thc witiress' cxplanation, ihe Majority lotes lhct the witness. it.t her stalcment. did describe the er€nts prcccding the attack-lhai:ieromba relused tc give $a1er to the refugees. that he came to disaln ttrim

ancl tirat he came again i.vith Ka"l.ishema a64 Kanyarukiga to take m{}ney l'i'r:lnr the rel'ugees-but she nevef relirred to -Nelahimetna. i['he rr,,itness staled that she knew Ndahinrana" urxretheiess. she also specilically stare<{ that.,ltlhe only official I --'T. 14 Septenrllef :01(i pp.46-52. J6-jTi 1,. l5 Seprenber 2010 FF.9-il. -"- T. 1.1 Scpterhl.rer .201{r pp.46-.i8. '- Det'elrce Erhibit 25A, F. 3. "'' Def'ence Exhilrir 26 (lllc h'tBi{rritv nlli:is that, ii1 his statcincnl,]ated,{pril l00l- the \.tih]css rcl"drred io Kai.rlr1]ukiga cLri'jlitig to N-vang€ parisb itrgsflier r',lith Ndungursi:, ](ayishenra. Ndrili',.r;;x; -., " r'-.i*". ",,r" ""iiJ.:i"l;i* *. allemoon ofthe.lay that seelns to be 13 Aprii 1g94. Bul ihe rvitnr.ss zrlso menhoncd ahat the same dal an a*acr occurcd-a^nd -he heat d a grenacle explosion. lt fiillo\rs from rhc $ltnsss' r"r,i,nr.1 ",,r.r.r.i .ir",."i.r.-.irra," rrr. secfior 5-2.l l.i dr:$ the grenade w.s ahro$?r cu 15;{prir 1194. Gil€n faiaf fhe skr;nlcrr is vagrre. an,j gi;int rhe u'ltne$s_ rcpofled sev€:ol meetings, thc Nlajitrity is unsure *hcthcr th;s e'e l rcpoltcd in thc slaterteni sup;xrrLs thc 1!itness'trstirnonr). a?7 T. 14 septernbei 2tilo p.52. '"" T. 1.5 Septeftber X0l0 F. j8. 'fhe P&)secur$ y. li&iiuon4 Casc No. tC IR-l,r l -a}$-,I 56 i 274

Page 57

'Jr([l(!r(tu,tr,|\.nhnn' :!t 1,.,r&!,.ryl)--) rcc.rgnised ar thc N\iingc elirrreh rrls (.ot\rillt,t. Vianne_r...,:o lhus. thc [u{uilritl mlr '.,OA.f-J5 this r', ilnesr' lcsl.imi)n_r rrherc it is curfohorated 4.3.1.5 Prasecuti*tt lYitnes.s CDZ- 234' .4.s the rvitness only sr:perlicialll, coroborates the fbcl that l.lutu assailatits afiached I'utsi refugees on l4 ;lpril r994. a fact that ij nr,* in dispute. the M.uoriB.rvilr not <hven on the w;tness, credibility at th;s.ilrncture. In an)' everrt, the Ma.ioiit.v rlotes th;t lVitness {lDZ does nnt l.epor.. an_v :tlee{tng 01 that any alrthoritv enterer{ Nyange church to searclr the relugees rvhile he ,uu, hidi,rg tnei'e. 4.3.1 .6 Pro,secutiort ll'ittte s,y CBK 23-5. _'fhe Majorit"r, recalls that Witiicss CIIK rvas oul1.. t:t -vears old rJuring dre cvc'is.ali) Accordingl)', his,vo1pg age at the tir.ne i.vill be taket inlo'consideration. I"he wiinrss gou",j.,n." pflor sBrenlerts to the IC]I1. J'hose dated Augusr 2000 and ocioberl November 2002 seeir ro fircus primaril;- .n ser'nr [ra, rvhire the one cratecr Aiirir 200 i rvas mainlv ,.*lut*,r t ., sunyur"ti*, ir i 236' 'rhe statement daterl August 2000 is quite detaileci and covers the evelts thai occurre.i at Nyange parish ftom the arivai .of the_lirst ieiugees until the days fbllor.ving r6e ,lestr.t,ctjon o: Nyangc church' H.wever, rhe r.vitress.did nor r"{b, to onf"pun;"uru, "".nt,

ori i+ ,+pii'io,i+ *r.i onll' me'tioned Ndaftimana in connecrior r.vir'h a meeting ihit took prace iin rbe evcning of li Aprii 1994 '432 trt:t his statenlent claled octotrerlNo'em t er z0o2lrviiiress cnK $ated ihat seronrba enrer.ecr I he. church. rviih Ndahirnana" Kaf ishema, Kanyanrkigo a,rct u,tratii;retre aner rhaL the men came out with traditi'nzrl lveitpons. se.:mba kepr ' .''e'bo;, ;;t;;;;;,,"r, and somc spears,,ani.i rhe i.esr oi. th€ lveapons 'oele taken to the cunmunaf nftice t r. -frfcf r*inrana ancj Ilr"l Kay-isliema.ar:r T.he stalelrent is consistent with rhe,witness' testinicny cirr the point thal ihe aufh;i1i€s" includlng hidahirli*r.la' disarmeii the Tutsis. llowever, tlr* rtorr**i ,i.ri. not r.eti, tu anv meetings that *oulti have occuFed on 1'1 .'1prir 1994. Given that trre statemen, oo* u"..u tietairecr (t r pages). 1..et failad tr-r lt:ill:: t. two meerings incluiled in rhe u,irness. iestinrony in oourt. rhe l!,tajori1_v fincls rhis om tsston troublin{r. 237' ln atldition, witness cFlK te$tified in the [ieromht.tcase thar trvo meetings look place *n l.:l April 1994' l'le further said tl.:at the tefirgees rvere clisanr:eJ "at some p.)ir.]t" brt th.rt he did uirt knorv rvlro nracle the deoision ro^ rio so."* i:ro*"""., i.,'lil'r' i)r,ynnr*igocase rre said that the Tirtsis rvere disamred r-rrr r i April r 994 b,' authoriti.. i,,.tt,Jing iiahimana. Kayisherna,

Kanyarukiga, Mtrakilirehe ancl Wir'esi C:Dt..ri5 _ilre f"l"i,r.i*. ;il;: ,l* o,, ,f," va'iances mentioned abovc are not significant b-v- themselves" but. taken t rg"tl"r,;;i;-';ubt *ith respect t, \4rir,ess {1JK.s account in reiatior to lv'rether meetirrgs were riel'd on r+ afriiim+ u,,,r ,rrrJJL.,rrJ,1" *t n*r. n'u Ltel;nre E\i)ihir _lir Ir. -i. - ' Pi osrruri,,n Erhihit 1 r,. "' Defence llxhibit 40: Delcnre Llxhihir .]9. p. 4: Dctence E\tribit 42, pp. f_7. ,",T*ilT,::*lij,li;,lo,l'tXi,X1" ,:-ness did not r€rer ro a f,,.,i,ii, a*,". r,. ,,ared rl,ar hi sa1! r'.iahin,ana .,, the cuurr. rt)irr Jar rr ould lrrr c bcen ,. a,,liloilii" firc flrchlJiurit'rcunsiJer.,rhJlrcc"rdinrr"lh\'t,;,,,.r..i,iJ,,,."1n ' Dcren(c L\hit)jt "l:. pp. o_7 '-' IJelc|r.e L \hihir -Jl. tf. I i. I 7. - 'lr(rsecuriLl|l F\ltihit lir. D. 70. 7'he Prctecutor y. ;\'.lahilxanL1. {li}se No, te L.il4l-6g_.1. 57 i 214

Page 58

r dsenentondseate,(e otr"qfl,kl 2-18 'l'urning to tbc assessment r:f tlle rvitness' testimonv in courr, lhe l\.1iljr:rity recalg6ar t6e u,itness could move Ileel_v beeausc hc, H.il\ il Hutu rind Llrar he was closel to irather Selr)rnna. J'helclbre. he rva-'i $'ell plaoeJ t.tr.dercribe sho rras rrlc'eliJlg lvith Sercmba, although it is clear tlr*t he clid nol attencl the meelings.{r6 AccorrJing ro the rvitleis. iwo meetings took piace on 14. r\pril 1994. The rneeting th t took ilace inrhe moining r.vas alleg,edly firllowed b1,.the disarmament of the Tuisi refugees. I'iorvevcr the decision to do so was takeriduririg a meeting rhat oociured thr d:ry before' on I3 April 199'tr 437 Thele{bre the purpcse o{'the meeriug that rooli placc on the rnolriug ol t4 April 1994 is unclear. Thus, the h{a.jorit-v r:ra5, only rcly on ihis rvitnesi, tesrimo:r1. rvhere it is corcborated. 4.i.7 "7 Prr.tsecuti6n W'itness (.'BY 119,., witness f,iBY gave statemtnt$ ro lc'[R investigarors in 1996 anir in i000.a,]! I.hc &laj.riiy l'ecalls that when assessing the collsisleuc:' ol'a v,itne.-ls' accounls ol, cvcnls, !1 atlaches purriruto,, impix'tance to those statcments preividecl. bl ivitnesses pricr to tho indiclrnent of thc arcused tly this liibunal' l-he &laiority has arkiressed elslhere certaiu concenls regarcling discrepancies lren;eeri the evidence given by.the witness at.f{ial and his prior

siatemenls rvith respJct t,:, the dales r:n rvLich he sar.v Ndahimana at Nl,ange parish. (Chaptei lll. Section 5.-1.1.7). !n his 1996 siatement the wittiess only said lhat he had sein Nilaliimana meet rvith Father Seromba a felv rlays bettlre ttr+ main attack'4:q In cortrast- in his trial. testimonv. lle *id rhut he sa,is Ndahimarla al the parisb meering rvith Ser0nba on several oecasitxrs beibie thi ot olr.r. rrr. Major.ity llnds rlis discrepa'cv to be ofconcem. Irorvever. the N{ajr:rity n.tes that the r996 statement rv*s generalr.y racklng in lt"il'y9 {bcused prirnarill' on seromba. The *itness' 1000 statenierlr is substantiallv morc detailed than his 1996 statenlent and is generarl.. .onoirt*nt ,r,itt i1.,.'.,.ri"r*: ."ja-"ri'i, u,-r, except with respcct to dales. 2''t0'" The Majoritl- is of ihe vierv that the'infbnnation provicle4 rhrougl the rvltness' testimonv iri relariou to meetings p'i*r to the anacks is rluite trrief"arid croes not iddress th" ;";p;';;rJ; meelings As the r'vitness saitl: "r merel.v sec tliem -- ."; ;r;;,r, going t() see trre priesr,.,.u, Nor is his xilff ru;r;rx"l;:::F;:"l:,*_iJ:::J:i:injgx*;11"" rvitness' testimon,v is no1 very compelling on rlre alteg*,I ,n"etirrgs, the fu1ajcrit3, mav rely,or his evidence wlren ccr.roborared. 4.3.1 .8 Prosecfiiott l{itness C[]J 2:41' -fhe fi'lajcrity noles that rhe.r.vihess' testimony was vague rcgarding ihe

.ra1es antr hours r:1 the cvenrs he rep.rted, an.l he c*urri rror pr,vide an1: iar,,rmui;on on the puryose of $e, nieetirgs. 'rhe ivlajority notes that in his April :ooi sLatern"lni"lj;'ii.' tiirn*r, said that rhc relLsees rvcre a1 l-=_--_% ".'f -1 No'em|,gr 2010 p. '1r (rcs) (Th..: \lilness knee ser0n1l1a-i: r" 2 Nor,elnbef ?ilro rp. 6/t-66 rtcs):-r. -1 l{.vember 2010 p. 5 ir're arso described, scromba iis it"i"g r-h; }rrili'i clr:n.ge oJ N:.arg, par.ish irr !994}; l. ri Novernber 1010 pp' 3-'1' I I { Tbe \\'ilncss .lescr it cu x,:ahiirai" -"r ri.'nglr- btmr{lmertL.e ot Kivr\mu co u}kt1t,1 ,994 and lirfihrr said that |ulgence Kayishema *as iurlic;al police :,spect,-i trdrngulse \!as a triicher ind he B.as:]lso llre prcaldent ofthe l\4liND part! iu Kirumu cotunune. Mbttkihrehe rvas the brigaclier 0f Kivunru ..1:?rrlufle and {iaspard f;1nllukiga riras a tradei. a businessrnlrr. rvho had f,f, l"r"rer, ,,t'fr":L:1,L'g" ,,""L*r ""nt "i. - ' l. -l No\ (rnbcr 2r)10 n- 5h. ..''f aNe'rcmbcr :'tltl Ir -s7. "'Dct€tr.e E\hihil h? ari I' lu N.,r enrL'cr lu lI tr. ltJ (lcst. ;l J. lr, \'x cinhEr ir, t,, fn. :?-:v , tC\/ --' Dej'rnre F riitrr 71. 'lJte Pt'osei:utctr .t;. NtJohinana. Case No. ICI,R-01-ti,!-f, 5ri,, 2?4

Page 59

,ludgt'nett uti,l 5e flr nce -"2 Nyange parish tbr about three days. but eurphasisecl that he coulcl not be speciflc aUout il6ltcs. ine rvitness also said in this statemenl that during this period. Gaspard Karryaruliiga u,oultl come in the evenings to have discr.tssions u,ith Father Seromba and thal he had never seeu th€ two nlen iogether belore the arrival o1'the rellgees. Hc described Kanyanrkiga's a11ire and added thal he "woLrkl usually be acctimpanied by a third man, rhe bourgntc.stre, Ndahimana. crigoire."aa3 'fhc !v11ress added tliat rvhen he lvas close to the rnen Lhey r.vould begin tr: speak in lrrench, r.vhich thc rvitness 0to llol Unuersnnd- 212. The [4a.iorit1" believes that the lvilness' firs1 slater ent is gen*rall1' consistent rvith his evidence at trial. The $4ajoritl notes that it u,as his habir ro bc present at Nyange parish b1' 7 p.r-rr. each evening, and accepts that he rvas liLci.vise there try.. ? trr.nr. on 12, 13 ancl l-1 April 1914. I'hereibre, the l\'ls.ioril), lirids the witness credible *,hen his testiurony corroboratcs n<ire precise inlbmration on the allegcd firceiings. 4.3.1.9 flr.ssctutintt Witness CDL 243" As iviil be discussecl iri mr:re delail elservhere (Chapler lll. Secrion 5.3.1.-i), Witness C'DL i-r an accotnplioe witness, and appeaN to have been am.)ng the leaclers cf the a$acks on Nlalge qhurch ilr Aprll 1994. tn ad<.jition, as earlv as 1999. he infoimed the Kibuve Proseoutor,s oiJlc.e that he had some personal aniutosity against Ndahimana (Chapter lll" Section 5.j.1.3).

244. At the oulsef, llie l\4aicritv observes that the rvitncss' sleps to lesti$' sgsinst Scrombe. Kanyarukiga ancl r-dahimana were most likel-v m0rivatecl by his <lesire to'establish the truth regarding the everts ol'199it. i'hat said, the l{aiority consiclers rhat those steps arc Lrnlikei;. t9 be devr;id o1'any persoltal interesr. As shonn by thi evidence in this case, the witnrss 6ray harlc 1piec.t to minimise his orvn role in events. f)uring cross-e-xaurination the r.r.ituess explaine<i that i1 relati6ll to the meeting on l4 April 1994. Kanyarukiga had crxne fronr his house to inlbnr rhe authot.ities that the inkottmyl lvere alreaely on th€ other sicle of the rivel and that they rvere oomilg to release the "lirtsis *'hr: had sought relirgc ar Nyange parish.als 'fhe Majoritl.. *ir"ru*u that: iirsti,r, this inibrmation fegarding ttre allegecl putpoo. nf tl,* meeting is hearsay: an<i sec,lntlly" other evidgnoc rvas brought befbre the court through witness NDlr, rvho teititied that on 1l April 199,1, Kal"isltema, Cacabuterezi and Witness CllL sent a letter to an Inttaluut|.'e requesting that hiliings tf T'utsis sta|1 in the arca.'rrt' 'I'hcLcfc,rc" the lr,,lajority is not convincerj that the u..,ilness was n1r arnong thosc parricipants thai bear responsibility fuf rhe slorl 0lthc killings in the area. 2;15'. Also, the testiinorry r;f other rvitnesses mises t'loubts conoerring

Wilness CDL's statel ent thal he dj-l nol 8o tD Nlange parish on 1,{ April 1g94. Witness CllS saiel thar Witness {tDL attencled lnc,.lllectlng. al tht parish togclhcr $ith Ntlahin:arra. Kan.rrirLrki;a. S.'r.orrrba arrJ i,llrcrs.'r In (rtlilllron' ullile \\ itness CDL testilied thlrl hc rvus u "sp(ctalor" 3( tlre mccril;:rt llle mtrl,et 5qutre after.the afiack on 14 April 199'r,rrs Deibnce witness ND6 L.xplained that *it'e'ss CDt, not orty xatched i*1rat r',as happening' but also told NrJirngut-se, "[]ou iarurot succ*ed rvitli sr-.r fbr.v people', and promiseci that he rvould bring re in{il.cemcnts.r t', Tt,us, thc Nlajority bclieves that the ivitness" r4r Detence Exhibir ?1. o. 3. tii flcllncc Lv}iL,ir:1. u. -1. - - T . l 8 N o r r r r r b r r ' : n i U p . i 0 . ''" 'f. I ij Jdnrur) :rr | | | JLI --' -l-. 6 sentenrher :010 11,. 17- I 9. ,rr, , ; , I l j n , ' . " " b . r i { r t { ' F p . : - J r L t ) t N u r , . . n r h c r . j r , t r } t . n t , } . + v , r r . '"' T. :7 ianua.y:01I pp.7-8. The Pro.teclrtor \'. i\-ttthhrall;t, (_-rnc No. tC"fR-01-6g-T BO 59 i 271 'r

Page 60

Judseneut dtrd sentente t0"|X.35,#. rrsponsihilin irr lhc cvc'nls lhfll ()cculrc(l ar lh!- pari\h rnight irnpact his t lrrrle ,*Sn#onilonlt thefeiore commards cauti0n. 246' The Majoritl- has closely considered the rvitness' previous statements. It finds that his stateolents. particularly liis 16 April I999 oonl"ession, guiltl,plea, and request tbr lorgiveness take:r at the Kibu\e Pfu\ecttlur's trlllte- ir consislent rvith his testimon-r in ccurl *ith rctarrj to the InJin fbatures ot'the events that took place on ii and l4 April 1994.45" h) that (locumcnt. thc rr iflrers sai4 that the decision to launcl.t an attack on n*yange church was taken during a nieering heicJ on l3 April 1994 that Ndahirnarra attentled as u'ell as crher authoritics and gendunne,t.I.le aiso explaineil that follorving the meeting. Rttgwizangoga auci Seromba went into the church to see whether the re t'ugees were armcli.€' I'he Majoritl' observes howcvcr. that while thr lvitness, eviele rce rvas liearsay acccrriinli to his teslimony in ccurt, in his slatemcnt he inclicatecl that he '.*,as atrle ro recognise" Ndalimana alrd others. r'.-hich implies that lic sttended the meeting.aj: It is also nored that rlle prior staie,nenl does nol coffoborate the lvitness" testimony rcgarding ihc iileniity ol tnrse who went to check rvhether the retlgees were armed.+il 247. trn his 1999 statelnent, the tvitness explained

that during the attiick of l:{ April 1994, alfacker$ r'verc rcpelled by the refugees" and the gentlanne,s advised tl..l* iittacker; t) seek reinfbrcements. Ndahimana. Kayisherna. Habi-yarnbere, I{bakilirche" Kagenza and the rvilness rvcrt: tt Y,'t.1:]3:, T1',kcl ecrttrc. KunSartrkila thcn rrrirctl and inlbnncri rhc !r.t,rrp lhrir thc /4;t.rr:i rrgyg ,lnming."-- Ndahinrana askcd rhose gathcred to "spreacl thc lvord,. that,ihey rvere goirrg to mcet at tlie.church very early the next day fo 'kill tliose-['irtsi'.,nij Ndahimana I'urrl.rer ad*led" .,.Muk* ttl"* understand that il\\us the lnkotan),1...u,ho killeci the Iren l or. srxte...Thdo esle Mu jyana*.ra...lanri.l [)r. Juv6nal N{u* uruhrrrrga'." l'" 248 The lv{aiority noles Witness CDL's leariing rolc in the altacks or Nyenge church. his rivalr3, rvith Ndahimana" as .rvell as his tendenc_v to clistort rhe truth in relalion to cr,rnrs rhat involve his responsibilily require lhis rvitness' testimony 1o be consiciereil witlr cautinn.'Ihe Llaicr.itv may rcl;,. on this rvitness' lestimonv on ly if <!ul.v con.eihoratcd. 4.3.1,14 Prose uttion Winrcss CBR 249' . The Malorit,v recalis that Witness llBR is an accornplice llitness because he activr:r-v patis\)tted^in ihe killings et Nyange churr3h. I'Ie testifiecl that the Kibu,ve px.,secutr.,rls ott'i., urlor him to tesrify ar the Tribunal and inrroduced him to ICTR investigatorsJ,r

i;;i;i..:;;'N;"j"rq. recalls its observations and serious concerns expressed elseivhere in relation tg cre4ible evi<'i"n"" alleging that Wimess CBR oxened pressul'e on othel derainecs to implicate Ntlahimana irr their conftssions' Jhese cifctlmstances requirc the 1\'lajorit1'to vie\.v the rvirnr:ss' testiuroly with cautir:1 (Chapter IlI. Section 5.3.1.,i). ar0 Dei'enre Exhit-.it 7?. aJ' l)crtnce lixhibit 7?. p. 9. -'Deftnce E)ihibit 77. n.9. r! DcJ'ence F'xlibit 77. p. 9 (\uitness identilied Rug.*izan*oga and seroniba]. (I 'L t I No\('mber Zillil p. a)g {wjnless identified Kanani). *" Dct'e ce Erhibit ??" F. 9. l. tt"f.et.." | \hitrit 77. T. ir. ,-_ Dcltncr t\hiLriL 77 [ e "' 'L: Novcftbe.:010 p. -i4. ?lu Prutsectlto, 1'. Nclohtrrana, Ctase No. lC].li.-tl i -6g-T 6t i 2i4

Page 61

.Jltdgnmeat dtltl,Strte qce _i(t Decqw(tet|: I 250. . The J\'{iriority nores rhi}t lhe wirness plear,red guiity and providetr a conrbssiol ,,, #*,6,'' authorifies in 1999 |n that conl'ession. he riamed NJahimana, inter alic- as a or)-perperraror. and conlbssed- in^te I alin, r'r ha'- ing parlicipared in an auack on Nyange church 6" r + ,ifrii'i lvi.;;r r lr. \'vifite'ss' tesii:n 1y regarding the attack cn l4 April 1994 is ccnsistent \.vith the accriunt. h6. provi<lec in this confession. Ite did not. hotvever. rnention the meeting a1 the comuirural ut-io* ,rro, Ndungutse told him precer.led lhe attack.on.the chru.ch. nor riid iie menrion tr" aii-*.;"g "r,n" ::tusr*f o,l I I ,fllril 1994.45e In his irririar state menr rc IC'fR invest;garors ii-, a,g;,ri *a September 2000.'R"' the rvitness did not mention thc meeting of l.i April l g9.l: but his acror-]nt of {he ettack on l'l Aprii 199-4 is consisteut rvith his evidence at-rrial. I-le did not nreution Ntialiimana"s preserce on rhat day.a('r The furajorilv lotes that the rvitnessl evicjence regardjng the meeting. as rveJl as tlre allegation th,{ tho assistaftt bu,rgt rcsrle can.rc to check \.!hether tic ,.dg..r rol*,* u,.n ",r on the er''ening oi' 13 Aplil I gg'1" is hearsal' eviclence. wliich the Maiority r,,,ill trirerelirre assess rvilh oaution' tJiLimaLcly' the rvitntss <iid nor ic{'er to Ntlahimana in conneclron lvith the

attack ol. l4 April 1994 .considering rhese lhcls logether. the lvl;r.jorirl. r,ierys his testimony r.vith cauticn anii may only rely on his teslimony lvliere lvlll corloborllei. ' 4.3.1,1 | P rosc c ut i on llti tne.s s C N../ 252' I)Ltting eross examilration' the rvimess nrade it,rlear that none ol.the aulhorilies '.came 1o 'ur secteur t:alling upon us to g0 tr) Nyiinge" uut tnat the int.lrmation hatr beeli transmit!*d bv Ka,vishenra antl NdungLrtse. n,hicr, i. tritl, ilr" ouit,rrr, ,*a ,rthers aecirlecr t.i r" a*' 253-... In two statements prcvided prior 1o 200l. the rvilness said that the cornmunal authorities n*o mob.iliscJ the' populari'* to arack the refugces "t ilr-;;g" churcli, r'rt he did ncl nainr: Ndahimar*'*"' ,ltr.'r guiltl plca dated August zooqirr. "i*t* spccitietl that the assaiiants were ldii bv Ndungutse. wiiness cDL and the con]nrunal p.ii.:elrt*n" oru rnadc no meniion ol- Ndahimana.ai,) 254' The Majority is troubled by rhe ibet rhat the witness did nor mention Ndahimaue untir a staternert datcd Novemr-rer 200r , afrer r.*\t{ahir'ana's tirut ;nJictrr,"nr ,;";fiil.;:;.'til;"'iir-'uulj*,r, may only re ly on th i..i lvitness u,herer eorobolated. 4'3'1'12 De/ence l;r"itr*s,es Thdrtt.ce Mufubideri, tseatt ice r,Iukrznku'i ,ttd .eanifte rhrtzhelis<tni 25-r'. 11]t N4ornrit1"lound these. witttessss to ir ge,erally credilrle despite their r,ar'iJics, crcise relarions

"vi1h the accused. ll'he ]\'tajolit3, hos adul:nsJ-il1,-iL't i.l.r;,, links rvith other l)ei.e'ce rvitnesses elservhere and further reoalls ilrar, because af N4rikant<usi.s cotltfad;otio,r ihrri'g cross examination, it crnsiders her fesrimony rviltr *rri"i, iil.,rpi., iit, S*rri.u, 5.i. L l4l. 25 l. )lll:::.-9.i-j. *':icipareri in rhe attack oi .l5 April 199"1 ,n Nyauge chur"ch anct is, lirer*firre. an accomplice rvitness. l{e spent cight .reals in prison onJ*nr r*l*ur*.| .f 169g.r;: t53 Dcl'rirce Exhibit 3.1, p. 27 (.rhe rlc flglid"Jblrlrerrir,rcssir,..o,."u..ril,li'ittsun'lurr''\lLhouglr J1 rnperh r(1 h' d:rr('l 2inri rr fr l('rJ ru r contc\\;on ' - Detince F.r,hibir 3-1, p. 17. ''' I)*li'nr-c L\h;hir Il *"' D€fence f,i),lribjt:i2. p. -1. "- f. { No\ cmber l0lt) t. r}+ tlCS). '"- T. i Nelembcr:rll{)o. lt. ].] 1"1."* l\]11!ll ++. F l.DrlL.n..6 1,1gr,r0.p.t.,!??r/Io.T.5Nolemb{x.::(il0|p.,l-j{lr.sj. -. Delen.e li\hibjr J-l | : -* ncllnc< F-{rbit .lrr- 7-he lj r os ecut o y,-. \ d t; h i ncwtt, Case No. lL. Tll-0 l -6g_.1. 6 1 t 2 U -44Fr

Page 62

.hd4enent 4nd ,gerietice i{} L}rqth{;t:0Jq A ,<, / -r -T 256. .r\ddressing in particular rhe creclibility of Lionill€ h,lurekelisoni. thc vla.ioritrdu;A-he/ accou t l'eiativel-y-' curscry.'Ihe lr4ajoriry horvever notrs that N{tuekeyisoni was not listed as an alibi rvitness. which must be considered in evalr"rating her lestirnony. 4.3.1.13 Delbnce l;ltitnes.s ND2 "l 257. T'he witness pafiicipared in the a acks on Nyange cburch on l-l and 15 Apr.il 1994 anLi conGssed 1o having killed one'fursi civilian on l2 April l9r)4.r(' { he witness rnas ;tlsi, foun,l guilt;- of having rnalned the rr.radbk:ck dreoted just outsirie Nyange parish.a6s 'I}e rvitness is :ul aooomplice; lteiwevet the irlajority cotisiclers thar he does not seem to have anr.,Darticular tltotive to teslif,r' i|i {avcur ofthe accused (Chapter lll. Seclion 5.j.1.I g). 258. 'I-he 1\4ajority acknorvledges thet Witness NUl,l sarv the accused pass rhrough the roa<Jblock three times on l4 April 199.1: iirst, r.vlien lhe accuscd wenL to Nyelige presb).rcr), ajier thc altack altempt" nextr when he lel't the prcsbl tel an,J, finrll,r'. Larer. in the afternoon :lbilir.ving the {uneral convoy tlial had passed the roadblock.+'"' The u-itness' tL-slimon_y that the aocused nns cjliving a blue Daihatsu pickup is ccn'oborate<I b;' Witness Reatli*e lr4ukankusi, rvho said lhat she loaneti Ndahirnana her vehiole, a blue Daihalsu pickup"

t, atten.l the funerai ol. l)r. N,rarvuruhunga ol. Rufungo in Rukoko \( (1clr/..1:n 2-59., 'lhs Lla.iorit"v is not ccnvincetl thal tlrc rl'itness rvoulti liave recelvecl inslructions to search the bouri4mestr?' s cat in particuliir', holvever, it linds plausible thar he woukl have been askecl to search any car and thal because the bourgnestrc '',vas drivirg a prjvilte car, rre rvould have 6een searched as rvell. Ib ccticlude, the Nlajorit)' recalls that the witreis rvas marrling his roadblock so hs was not at N-r.'ange parish itself anrl cculd olllv provicie general infbrmatitu on the adtivities ot. tlte b a tr gwe st re thet e. 4.3.1.11 Dejtnce lyitness n-D6 260' The rvitress acknorvicdged_ that. he pamicipated i' kilrings at Nyange church i* Aprir 1994'411 Ile is theref'ore att accomplice r.vitness. I{e was trieJin 1996 and conjbssetj to the crinie-r he comnlitted. lle served his sentertce and rvas cloing communitl' service at the time ol'his test;alon"y befble this'lribunai. f72 ?61' The Majorirl' recalls that the main question rvhen assessing rlre creelibility of suclr r.vitnesses is ttot I'hetiter or not the lvilness is cleia ine<l. blt ratlrer rvherher thi ,"itness concerne; ;igh;;"". u p€rsoxrlrit)tcrest. in irnplitating the acousedlTi (chapter li, Seotion 2.2.3). -r'he haajorir;,'cc.,nsiilrrs tnar rt d$cs n\rt appear hcrc that the rvitness migtrl have ruorirre to

iraplicate N,juhi,11ono. Considering that the ltitncss admits his pa*icipatioir iu the crure and has a6eady serveil his sentence, it does not seell that testifying in fuvour ol the accused would errxrerate him liom tris responsibili0" The N'{ajority therefirre finds the rvitness' testimony crecliblc. Nonethetess. the Ma-iority notes that the lvitness ditl not actually hear thc conr,ersaric,ns bctween Nlir'gutse and lhe gentlcrrues $or thc cot]vcYsation bctlvecn Ndungutse and Mbakilirehe: thus, his testiiuon_r, on this ,"- T. ll Febrrrur.-r :{}|] pL). j-j. -" T. :l [ehluan :Uj I t] j '- T 2l FRh' uirrl 2ttl I I,p. _i.l-tS. +0. " l . 7 F e l , r , . r n f r 2 0 j I I , n . j 2 - L + "" '1. :7 Jtunl'rr_v :01 1 p. 18. ''' 1. :7 January 201 I F. 20. ' " Nahimana et .t/. (AC) .,udgcnrent- p3r.i). 43!1. The Prosecutor v Nduhinqwt. Casc No- l(lTR-o1_(rg-I 62 i 27.1

Page 63

httfg,nent oad Se ntutce ":t) l,)e.:e/,b.{tJ Lh /^ 7',L'+ b point amounB 10 heafsa)' evklence. Lr additicrn. it would appear thal Ndullgutse hintsolr{,feporteri bctir conversatiolts to the witness. lrr that inslance. thr Nla-iority considers this hearsa1.. evidenci with caulion. 1.).1.15 De./euce l{itness NDI ) 262' The N{ajority finds this rvitness' eviclence credible. Neveftheless, it notes thar he stated thar he remained in irll"ange chulch during his time at the parish" and tliat he olll. went once io Nyaage p|esbyterl'on l'l April 1994 to hear r.vhat Ndahimana had to sa_v. Thus, he ma1, no1 have becn in a position to observe lvhat other witnesses salv. For example, the wihress said he did not see liather Seromba at N)ange parish during his stay there because he was in the church and Scromba rvouli:l staf in the backyard aflhe presh,vterl,.ar'r l,inall:, as nolecl eiscivherc in the .luclgenrent (Cliapter lll" Scclitx 5."1.1.24), the lv'lajorig is mindl-ul of the risk oi'collusion rvirh Wirness NDI I a;d x{,.ill address thar issue belorv. 4.3.1.16 fselbrce Witness N/)l I 263. 'l'he l\4;rlorit-v noles tJlat during cross examination. the llroseout;on suggesreri ihal l.iarl the \'littless participated in the meeting that took plaoe on l2 April 1994. h: ls douGi'ul that .leau B..!scr], rvho kllew that the witness was a'futsi. rvould have let hirr, leave

'pear:eiull1.'. l.iorvevor, 1he lvitriess explained that Jean Bosco rvas his neighbour and that thel- knelv eac,h other perstinaily. I.le arl4eC that being an Inlerulnmwe did not mean that one could not sal.e or warn so'ie peopre..tlt T"lre Ma.jorit"v fi nds this exirlanation plau si ble. Z!;J' fle |!'la"jorirl' recalls thal, accorcliug to the wilness, NtJehirnana rescuecl hinr on l5 Apfi] 1994' Therefore, it is possible that,the wihr€ss may have had motive to plovi4e an aecounl rvhich casl Ndaltitnana in a positir'e liglrt.a76 Fufiher. the ivitness acknonledged that he arriyed at Nyange. parish.late in the evening of l4 April 1994. and. therefore, his eviden,i abour thar 4ay wai hea.rr;,. tn aaa-i!11i. rhe Maiority tloles thai the r\ ;tne5s' ae counr ol rhe evenrs on I 4 April 1994 is sinr ilar to that of Witness NDl2. The vla.iarit)'is nrindfLl of the risk ol'sollusion benreeu ihe trvo rvitncsses. In any event, both tesrimcnies are ol'little probative valuc. 4.3,1.17 Defe nce ll,itnss.,t ND7 26-i' 'fhe Majority notes thal, in its Pre-'l'rial Bricl the Delbnce said th*t rhe rvitness sarv )jrli*.1* lulkirig to rhe rcfugi'cs on l{ April lagl hrlr rhar shc ei,uld 1,)t lrrar \\h.r [.,rtas sar inr.1. 'Ihe Defbncer tlid not indicate thal the u,itness xoulci te$tifi'that $he hearil Ndahimana speakiri! ivith tlte grrdrl'nrr,r. Ihe Pr,rsecurirrri otrjeetctl that the l)elcnec r,jiri

r:r,t 1;11r1.iJg rhii inf,or.rnrtioir in I tinely mainer'a7? ln response to rii objecrion, the Chamber rule.i that it would not disregaril the reievant evidenoe but that the Delence rvould not be pelrni[ed 1d ask any ti^rrthel quesriolir>n this matler'.ln an)' event, tlie Majoril.v is irr:uhled by llre u,itness' lale recollecl.iolr of ]dclahiniar:a-s discussion with lhe gendnrme.{ at Nyafige church on t4 ,,\pril I 994. I'he lvlar joritv rvill consider this infonnation r,'ith c:aution; hor.vever, nofes tlrat it fcLurel oiirer parts c|t the lvilness. ,cc.unt oi hci. experiences at Nvange ehurch on l4;\pril 1994 to be credible. " * l - l g . l a n u a n 2 1 1 l l p . I l . - 'T. t11 Junirulr 20l1ptr -t7-.irJ_ ' ' l. l8 lrLrrrr:rq, -rirll l\f. J7-jX. _i7-:,,, -' f. ?4 .lanuarr 20I1 pp. 5-6. The ['roie{:utor r. liatind1,,a. CaseNo. l{"I.i{_o1_68- f 63 | 271

Page 64

,)tttgeme nt ond Setre*.e 266. Having {irund thaf none of the l}roseculion rvitnesses can be ,-t,-OrmK# ",Yffigi coroboration, the lvl;rjoriry i.viil norv cursirjer.ivherher rhe p,or..uti,,n,"ru* ;;i;J;;;;;;;"r"" evidence supporting findirrgs bey.n<! reascxiable doubt regarding tne aceuserl's guirr. 4.3.2 Prqliniiply-!4agsn 267 ' The Defbnoe subtrits that rhe allegations of an attack on r.,\1.ange chursh clu 12 April 199,1, as put {brth by witnesses CBy and cBN" r.vcre not propsrl}. pleadecl. iud,rrr. ,rr"rra t"'"""rro-.r f:g.:::',rry,$;' l;: ih;f$i:1$:l ,iiJ:".:il..T:iL"{li.,efr:i.il;;::Jmi}"-X cBY reported that on l2 April 1994, he sarv a group o{ aboLrt t",t ;:.ii,"i""i, .rjlr1i**.llrr"a X].ti.ll]b:11ii::chcte.s a'ive ar Nyange. parishl 'r hey rrailed insutrs rviLt*t,. ,r,i.rg;*.i ;"d [*i'; :,.,:]:: r?ll,llit Ndatrimana ca'rc ro visit Seronrba ot nyung* f;.iu;--,;"1tfi;il'i;4:;':f t" addition, Witness CISN repofi-' .'- .' - -' ;' t_,,_.^t_.......-.... ^- 1. ^ ., ,^^.:ii rntr.r \\ofi]a,t ccllctl .lurlith rvas afiacl;eel and ntLrnderj ov J |,j lnlerahuntue on l2 April ri9,t.tir As thcsc a egatious J<, n,,t retote to anl,crinrinal action or.rhe ij^..":]ld;.th,iy cannot be cansidered to be charges against hirn. .t.herefore.l that the rer-e'ce .bj;"i;;;ffi;r:.1-':":iuil:lf:i ,l-tJi:j# *.l.l.-fj:re. the

N'rajr:,rir,v c.ncruejes 4.i.3l.-{-e,_e,!-irgi.alNya"ry-e--grsril:.rsr::,1_l,Ap,rr!.-lg9:{(P q$$spblli 2ti8 , Auc(rfding to pa,ragr.rph 22 of the luclictment, on or about l:i April 1994. t-dahirnana. Seronrba. Kn1 ishema. Kan.varukiga and others held a meeting:rt Nyange presb3,t"ry,,, fiun,t.,* extermiuation of the Tutsis. on that sanle irali assailanrs raunciied uu"umolt ugrr;nri ,ri" ,*ri,g.*, "t the instigalion of Kanyarul<iga. 269' 'fhe Majffity consicrered the evidence oi llroser:ution witresscs cflN. cBI, yALJ. {l$K. CBy, CDJ, C]DL and CBR anri Derbnce Wirress", Nnii ""Jf,iD:,l. 111".,i,::1.:T Nloj:ij,y norcs rhar. fiom t3 Aprit re9.t, rhc siluariofr ar N"vailg* trraristr becaiiie rncreasngly lense and tlre rel'Lrgees laced sporatlic attacks ol'li'riteci scalc. ',11, Tl" Majorirl' nor rurro kr revierv the evidence based on anegetions rhat Ndehimana rvas involved in mr:etings aud subsequent atfacks on Nyang. clru..h. 212' 'Ihe lvlaiority acknowledges rhat witness cllN resiilled Rrroul one aoack rhat ria1., but he di6 not testify that a nleetins ocourred" nor did he ,"r., to -rv.ioiiuluna in itraricrr to lj Aprir l9q;!. witness cBI reported thi ooct|ffellce r:f botlr a meering betrveen Ntlahinrana and other :rurhorilies and an a$ack that stalted simurtaneousll, arotind 10 ;i.*. u,itness cDJ, rvh. :rrive, ar Nyange 1"11:lt 1-t" in rhe day. repofted thar u ,n""ting

o."u*,t"oiornrn,J t p.;.1v;;;;r; ,"i,i*,ir.u" testilied about a mseling thar day but did noi,ott ubnut "n'atracr. rinaUy" witness cBK expiaineti that tivo diflbrcnt llleetings occurred rhlt dal invorving it,"'iiuun,u arthoritics auii thar the atrack occurred in belween the trvo nreetiugs.n" "r'ric evit{ercJ n,, *h.rh*, onc or rlvo ;;;d;;; i"pp**a at the parish o' 13 April 1994 and ,i'hetl,*, ,,ue ;;;;;i u,rurL* oo*.. rar.urchcrj that same day is ]llij-T:. !l:': r!," passage o{'rinre sirce the euenrs, ,L" rviq;""rv consi.rers rle uiinor variances, lvltn respecl to tlte precise tirnings immaterial. That being said, a cefiaiu le'cl oi- consistr|',;"r. remairrs nccessar-v to enabre trie Nlajoriry 10 draw c"roirr;n"J'rior the evidence_ r'8 Deierce L--iositrg Br;eL n. 5?2. '' T. q N(^cnrl^_r:0ll) il.5: '-" f. 'r No\ cmhrr :0ll, f . Ji., I ICS ): f. lC N.,. emhcr 2r,l (r p. I 1lCS7. " f l3 Seprenrher l0lo t\ li '" l I \orr:mb..r' l0lB F I|l f. 2 | S",prc tbgr 2{r 1, ll 'l'he I't r.:secutor,;. Nduhinalo, C,rre No. tC |R_0 i_6g_,1 64 ! 2tl

Page 65

JuJqe'ntnt,tn4,\, nteu:e tlt l\"\ t rBJ Zi4! . . 27.i. .Al lhe ()ui\ct. the l\{r.iclitr nt'ler rhrt \!itncsses ( lJl. anrl (tJR bdth r..riti.,L r#t,ff4 of the J{-'H nlel at the cotnmunal ofllce on the urcilning of i3 April 11i}9;}. Ptr;rgraph 22 ot'rhe lndictment does nor lefur to such a mereLing at the co| tnunal officc, and thus the h,lajoriry will not consider this evidence. 271' Wihesses CilK. Cl]l and CllN teslitifd Lhat Hutu:rssaiiants atiached the ref'ugees rhat dav.rsr Witn*ss CtlN repofled thal the attack sta(ed al around lJ a.m. antl that it lasted until + n.n. Witness C'lJli" re ferred to a small altack rhat took place betrveen rnoming and 2 p.m.rl' N4orer:vcr. i1 fulls Som Witness tlI]1's evidence lhal l'utsis mrrnagcd 10 r'('peJ the assailanls anrl no one rvas killed that day,a8'5 a l"act thar rvas oonll rmecl b.r' rrl itness C 6 Y.'*o In uny evert. the evidence cloes nof slrow tlmt an-y:ltlacks lvere a result ot" or follorved, a meeting atteuded b1, the Ndahimana. 175' Several rviLtt*sses reported thal a mceting occur red in thc moming rvith Nclalrimana. seromba. Kayishema, Kanyarukiga and other authorities at N"r--ange parish. Ar thc outset, rh{ Majoritl"llotes a lack oiconsistenuy rvith regartl to rhi: location ofthai meeling.atT ln ad4iiion, none of the witnesses were able lo report the specitric oonreuts^of1he rneefing, neir ol;uld they confirm that its

purpose 1v*s ti) plan tlie extermination ol.the Tutsis.ass 276. Witness CIIJK rvas the only \^,itncss k] lepo{ that two lreelinrs occurrsd that da-v-. 1le testilied that the second meeting started a.()und 2 p.m. and involved Scroinba, Nr1ahinrlla. 14iirless Clll,, Kayish.ema. hlbakiilrche. Ndtingutse" {ioionel l\izaphakumunsi anil r;1hcr authoriiies ,,lnrm a1 calegories."*8lt He $lated rhat the aulhirrities *iecidecl thai the refugees should be tjisa:me<J anri fhev rrere stlbrequenlh disllmcd on l.l April 199..1. lhe titncss tlirl rr.;r irclualll alcnd thc rn*cti1,:. hui. noted th&l afler it ended. the authorities publiely stated that refueces ltad ro bc iliiarm.',1.io" Liven that lhe rvitness' accounl is not corroboriited anii Lhat the eviclenoe srrrcuntiing tbe riis*rmarnent ol. the refugees is ccufirsing. the [,Iajorify rvill uot rely on witness cBK,s eviclonce alone. 27"/. wirness clDJ is the onl.v rvitncss rep.rting that on 13 April 1994 ar arornd 7;30 p.nr., Ndahimana. K:uryar'kiga and seromba ha<i a coriversation at seromba's resitie'cc.*er tn ariy, evenl no evidence *as addlrced regarding the purpose .r e'e.tua1 conse.luences or d1e1 meeting. 278. 'fhe tv{a.jodll. acjinorr,ledges that it is a difficult rask fbr the prosecution to bring r,viruesses s'ho ale able to repLxt llie conlr:tlt cl^a rneeting that was restricled 1o a seleclcd audiencc compose.l of figures of

authority. I'his being the case, th; Majorit,v noics that circumstantial cviclcnce may be ls \\'irncss crlN: 'r" t3 sqprenbcr 2{)r{, r 1j::17, I. 14 s€ptenblr 2010 p. ?; wirre$s (.n}: i.. 14$crrcnrtrdfl0r0Fp. 1.4".10, J-t- r6: \\ rLn(\\ CBli I I . j \ 'rcnrni, :tJ lr r f,f. f,-?. 5i '"" \f ihrcss L ttN- T. t-1 lcpternhcr llr10 p. I 7; Witriess CI,|K: .1.. 3 L\ovcmbcr. l0I f) f . l {}. r''l/itnrssfBl r. rl Scpicnrber' !0 r0 1r. r j: witness cBy: T. l0Nevcnrbcr2{}r0p.r iiLrs}. "" l-, l0 Novenrber' :Ut0 F. :t (tCSr. '" \t itnesll YAtir l.15 septemhe.2nlil pp.42-4-l {wilnesr lestilied that Ndahirrran:r. li'a1her scrrrnr6a. lia-"-issi j, l-u.\ilrLrki{. iutd il (,,,r,sil/c,. namr.J !jallrr} 'lJi.-uLrrirJ hcltl a r.tr.c.irr;: i" I,"", ,,, ,ir" f.r,rr, r_"r.,*.,i, t";,".r. Clll: T. 1.1 SePsgllib.r 2010 pp. 2il-30 (Ndahirnana. KJvishona. Konl,nrul,gr" Murangrrabu!:irbo and Ndun-gutsc ''renl l{r,-rnL'-t seronrlra ar N}anae pre-rb.r'tery): witirss cBK: T.3 Noveraber)0to pp.-o-z- 5i (ser<,rnta. Niarri,,,.na. \Vitll'\'i ct)L Kirl irheina' \'{hikrlirch€" f,ihtistophe Ndungutse. coloncl Nzaplrukumursi- .s \rell ds cther authonler "from. ali.categ$jes" h3d a ll]ectillg in rhe builtling where tlre priests livcd arid up:crirs in t1. room thal rvas usulltv o1'cul\i!,J b\ thehishop\'f \\Lrndo rrhtn lrcc:rme tci,, i5ir \13ngq: p11i.6r ' " \\';tness cL]\ : l 'i N'r\crl)t)ef 2(11* p 49 {l(ls)

{'restiiiealtat t,e saru 'those perr,ons coming ,rnd dirc.:sing r",ria dre pticst- bu t di''l not sec dren doitg xnything else): witn ess cB l: I . t.:1 scptom trei ?ti l {.1 pp. l+-j j I ltstilicd thai he ruuldnurheirrt\lt,ttth(J\\clc!il-\in-g.butcouldsecthetJrtelhingtoea.:hoihctbecaLrseher,visinthcr,ourtyanJ). " T. i Nor rorber lt,ll) 00. 6-7 1'o t i Norcrnhcrlrl{t r}. 5f,. lurT iI Novenbet 20ldpp' 28-:9 (Tlie Chamher assurles thar the \\.itncis must havc bcrr relcrfiirg to L3 April l!r9q). 7he Prosecttor.t. Ndahintano, Case No. lCT,ll-01{r8_l- h5 i 274

Page 66

.luds€n'etta dseftten.e ttyy\tb uset'ul to indicate the eventual cousequences of the nlecting anJ thc sratc of r)lind uf ilf,scFrsops in aftendancc. 27q. Irl rhat regard, Witness CBI testified that ar an unspeciiier.l tiure on l3 April 1994" Sercxrba asked the ref'ugees \,vhether there r.vere "an1'other persons rvho rvere still there an the hill.',a'r1 The rvitness gnve Seromba the names of the persons from his localit3, that had n.)t ciltne b N"vange parish, anrl Serr:mba subsequently h;urded the list to Ndahimana. Later that da). the rvitness sar.v rtre Tutsis he had ntentioned arrive al the parish, noting that somc of.them arived in a uhite pickup belonging to Witncss CDZ. driven by s nran called yohata Jigoma.n', 2B0. The Majoritl' assumes that the Plosecution relies on this evidence to sliilrv that the accused acted in conced r'vi1h metnbers of rhe JCE in a shared genocieial intent.aea 'l'ire h.1a.iot ir1' finds that the rvitness plovided a substantial amount of eletail about tlris incieient. naming bcth the refugeer lvho lvere brought to Nyange parish that day ard cletails of the vehicle in which some arrivel.anj Nonetheless, this evidcnce does noi prove beyond rqasonahle doubt ihat the purpose of rhe list .,vas lo gather ths Tutsis at the chtttch so rhat dlel rvould be e)iterminated. Wherr asked rvhat bccane or Antoine l{arake. one of'tlre Tursis lhrt \\,.r\

rranspor.ted to the par!sh, the.tr,,itness respondcd,.l've never seen hirn again. And I clon't l,now anvrhirrg."1"^ l, r rrrl,clrnore, the klajorit.v has ni iiouSt as t1 the good I'aitlr of'the witttess ther hc providecl the names 1o Scromha. irven i,. N4ahimala iiact actualll been given thal list ol'names, no evidencc shows that at thal time Ntlrhimana was spulctl on hy oriminal intentions. ln addition, no evidence s ggesls tliat the 'l ulsis rvere brpught to N-vange parish ftrllorving Ndahinrana's inslructions. 281.. The h{ajoriq, lras elso eonsidered Witness }ALI.s cvldence" ivho resrified that ipJ Kal"isfienra and Kanyarukiga br(lughtoJursis to N"r.angc par.ish in Kanl.arultiga,s Llar that cray follorving a meeting with Ndahimala.," I hc Maiorit;, tj-ocs'nr,1 consider it to be be}ond the realnr ot'possibility that sonre'tr'utsis lvere brtught to the parish by authru.ities r.vho latcr partic;parert in ttre kiliings' Horvever. other evidencc also ihriris thai T'ursis decicierl 1o go ro rhe parish volunrarii3., because lhe,r".hacl ni: other place to go or thoughr rhey r.vould he pr-ur.:ctr,.r ,"rJ.;';i,i r,.-ii,iirriry, notes that while there ate various possible expllnaLic,ni regarding the presence gi sri mm,v relbgee:i at the church, none o:f these erpkut.rLions denronsrate thai the accuserl plal,ed a cenlral iole in lhe presence ofthe Tutsis, or rhat he plalned or ordered

'lursis to be nrovecl ro N).ange parish. and larer, into Nyange chyc-!, f9r the purpose cf their extermination. Nor does the evjdence of tl.re casc slrpport paragraph 18 of the lndictuent.aee a': L l.l se|terrrbcr 2o lU p. t0 - T. l-l stptcmhcr:rllrr I)p ll--t-l lwitrle$s aestiiic.l that anrong the Tutsis iat subiequcl1ti,,, arrirc.i iit \1,arrgc (hrrrijr. lt(.s.r\\ Ant,rin(. KrrJkc nll Lis J"!nil] ,. l,' l.losecuti^n t t".i ! trfiet. pirrir. l.li: | 2|Srlrrnrtrcrl0lIf.9. " T. I.i Scprcnrh(.r l0t(r l\f jii"1.t. -- T i"l Septenrl}3f l0lr) 1|.31-tJ. '-' -f. l5 Scpt(mL-er 101,j pt'..1+--15. '-' $ itr)ess cBs: r' o sept€nrlr(r 2010 p. t:ll]:xplained that he fled io Ntlrgc church becaLrsc hc ihaLrshl they !!ouli] be sale, becatse lvhert sinrilar events occurrcd ln 1990 it, Kibirara thcse *iho lled to the chulrh survived the fliLssacrr): I'il'l::ll t-!rl' T' l4 sepl€n1bsr 2010 p i'l {werl &} rhr church o1'his o!v!1 \'olilrort, bcr:ause peoplr hati bcen $aft therel in 1993); Wit ess NDl2: '1. t9 .ta.nuiry.:0l l pp. :-+ i..f aeciaeaio 91, ," N},ung" ,)arisli trecause ir 19?-1 r.r.hen urere :"11_: t::. lll Rwando. $iople had solgh1 refugc ar Nlrngc par.islr. .ihat is irhy:*:cry.ne ,ur.,r,i,, .,nr".' ,rgrri,.,. i;* .'rn'- 0rtke out, lvetit toturils Nyange palish.. - No itoe fiu ced nre to g! there. lte.pie wer.e useil l , seeking ."llgi i,., "I,.o"h". ;tll\l lh() \\erc sjrlb tlr(n. S" tlris \..cr i pursunJl dc.ri\ior) nlr nl\ fl,rrL..J. Pnr iLgfafhs 1[i ard r 9 t,r trrc lndi rnr:nr arc f'unher disousseii in chaprer III. serl;ons ?.,i. i. The Prosecutorr. Ndlhitnaxu, Lt:l'c No. ICTR-o1_6g-T 6 6 , 2 7 +

Page 67

Jxd?emest and Se te ce 30 Decenbetr$ ln -42,'+ Z 282. Considering the totalir)... of the evidcnce. the \4ajoriq- is saristi*rl tir.lt,,11e nlgsfi ET'ccu**d at N.varge presbyterl' rvith t{dahimcna. Seromba antl orhsts in attendanse on 13 April 19g4. Ilorvever, the evidence does nor establish that the purpose of that meetirrg lvas to plan fhe sxtenninalion of the 'I'ulsis. In l'act. Other evidence aet ally suggests that Ndahimana dio nor hatllrrur ncgatirr' l-cclings t'l inrcrttitins rL,rrards thc rclirr:r'rs. irrJcci.-W iin.rs ( IIY fcf(,tl*(l lltilr(ln 13 Aptil 1994 he heard Ndahiniana direcr thc assailants to go homc.''r' I.'inlll,r. rhile several rvimesses reported that an allack took place on l3 April 1994, it is nol prov*n that the aftack was launched at the instigation ofKanyarukiga. 28:l The Def'eflce evidence is of little assistance iu rhe prcsent case; nons ol tlie rvitussses rvli{) participattd in thc killings rcporlcd any al1ack ol meeting on 13 April 1994.51rlAmong the wilnesses lhal rvera a1 N),"*lge church, Wilness ND12 lestified that rhe lirst attacl on tlie church liappencd o:r 14 April 1994''''r Witness ND2:1 did not report thal Ntlahimana passcd tirrough the nrarlhlock thar he rvas manning on l3 A,pril 1994. Other Defence witnesses rJirl nLlt report arry pan;cular event on l3 Aprit 1994. 28'l' Ultimately. the Ma.iorit-v does nc;t lind paragraph 2: of the

Inclictrnent to be esrablishcd l'nyond reasonablc doubt. 4.i "4 4,3.1.1 Prtliminqrj, Aiirticrs 285. lhe Defence advanced a parlial {rlihi ibr 14 April 1gg4 5tatilg thar iiom i p.n}. tha1 day. tl.}e accused was rvith the tamily of the tlcceased Dr'. Ntarvuruhulga.j"r li its Cl,r:inp tiricl. tlrc [rcfince sta1e.l thar liom appruximatel-v 2;30 p.m.. l'1 April 1<]g4 until appn,xilratciy 1 p.:r}.. I-s ArrriJ 1994, Ndahima.a was preparing l-cr, an1.i ailen.ling, the t-uner*l of Dr. iit,.,rvu r uhr, ri,la.'i,- ?86' {}n 14 April 1994, evidence shorvs that the corpse of l)r. Nlaivuruhunga was rransporle4i fiom Kigalito Rulurrgo, passing thnrugh_the rnatlblock loeated near the N{utanoga nrarket square iq Kivtmu c,nmune in the afternoon.;(tj Bearrice Ivrukankr-rsi said thar on i4 epr.il t gqq, at apf roxirnatei.'- 2 or'3 p.rn.. she loaned Ndahimana hcr vehiclq to aftend the t'uneral oi llr. Ntr tr u1fl11l11g;1 rn Rukoko.'"" Thdrese N{ukabiclcri tesrificd thal her husband's body arrivetl at her home in_ Rufirngo at appnrrimateri,4 p.m. on 14 Aprir 1994. accor'pani*d bv rldahimana and others. She reponed rat Ndahirlana sl l,ed at hcr hi,n)c unLil pasr rnidriighr organising the luneral lltal u,as I,, takc pliruc thc ngt {:;.in' 287" Wirnesses ND24 and ND12 explailred that ai'ter going to thc prcsbytery" rhe accusc.l 11ent ro the residencc of the deceased. witness ND12 saw Ntiali"imaia ar rhc

pr-estytery at approximater),2 p.n:.: Witttcss ND24 snrv him rvhile he rvas on his q,ay to Ru tr,urgo beir.r,ecri : aud + p,m.ton Wirness io l l0 Nor,cnrber 2i)10 pp. I9-?0 (lCS) ('..A.: Hc lNd.rhirrara] ,,r,as laiki g r{r the Ijutus \,-fto had atttlckcrl tiic.lr|lsjs_ Q':,so' cofiett nle jf I $n] wrollg lhat Mr. Ndahinr;rna askecl attaclers 1(' go hcme 1(' return til their hoires? A.: \'es- ile l3l1:ll::),:".i" l:1: hur I !o. nol Ln{)\!. l\h{rhcr the} irnmediarerr. ,rbeyid. becausd i did ror li ow that up.,,). 'J(c \\rtnes5 Nt)lJ;'T 2l lrebnr.rrr l0ll;Witness\D6: .1..26J]rlluary:0ll, l. 17.tarruirr\r 2tlll. :{'r T. l,) Jrrruolr lul I p i. -' \niics {.t ^lihi- j S.plcnrl'cr:Ujrr. p. .:. "'l)cience ( lorlng Bfiel, txrJ- 2_i. "'\.\itncts(-lll:I l:Nr)rember2{tl0pp.2-3;Witnessl\4ukairidrrir-I.Tlchruar}2011pp.67_6iJ. "'T. ; FeL,rr,ir-, :nl I f't'. l2-ll. '"' 'l'. 7 |chruur) jOl I I. h8. ''"\f itncsr ND2J: l.2J Fubr{r r f{}li p.9i Wihess NDl2r'f. I 9 .l,iruar_\, :0I I p. J. The Ptosecutot r. Nd,thimana Case Nlr. I{]TR-01-6B-T tii | 274 '?4

Page 68

Jh,l.cr rnt ond sc tr'ltL. y4c>4,(df I tl ( t)l rcstificJ thar th,r acctrsc{l rrerrt Lo Rutilirg' that (la\, $hcn irc lelt thc nr.rrrr.r".*,,fn*I,J not sleep lhere.50t Ths evidence varies lega:cling the tirne Ndahirnanu airivei at irur-,,ngn" l-,,,t rl.re N'lajority relies on Defi--nce Witnesses 'Ihdrese lriukabitleri anti ir-D24 Jo conclude that i<.lahirnana arrived at tlie house ol'Dr. Nlawuruhunga al appfoxiniaiely. 4 p.m_ on 1"1 Apr.il l9g;-l_ .Ihis evitjence is con'oborated b1' witness Ir{ ureke-v-is.n i.- rvho rcported that shc sa}v the accuscd at Ntau,uruhunga's house rvhsn she rvent there. betrveen 5 inrl 6 p.m.5r,, .the NlaioLitf not*, ,i*r rfr* lact that the accused $'enl 1o the funeral does not necessarily- eicluele the possiirit;t! dral he \vas {t l{yange presbr.terl, eerlier on that sanie day. 288' " Similarll, lhc ir'{ajorit;' ackno'rvleclges that the f'act that },ldahimana arriverl at the house ot Dr' Ntawuruhungfl al around'1 p.rn. anr{ sta;ed there unlii late rloes not cxclLrde rhe possibilil_v that lr3, slopned b)' Nyange prestiylerl on his rva.v back. rndeeel. witness cD.I reponed th*t h., sarrr Ndahiniana" Kal"ishema and Kanyarukiga meeting rvith Father ser"ornba on rie 6alcl,ny. Alihorgn he could n|'t-heal' l'drat thc-v rvere talking about.-nor criukl he provide the time of this evenl tl.le u'itness iestif ied elservhere that.he hirnseli slayed .rt the

par.ish fron T p.m. Llrtit 6 a.m.;, i ivlr,r*rn NDl2 also sarv Ndahir'ana at Nl,ange parish on the evenirig oi- r4 ap.ii-i,-l,]i.;1 q,'ii""r, irnjq a;.r not repofi that evint, but it is possible that Ndahirnana carie to the parish ver} late in tJre erening. after the rvitness rven* back horne fcrr the night. ,qs the wit,ess lri'rself ndmitted. he rvas not at the madblock all dav lons.5lr i.t?-: ,11 :trrsion" the Mnjoriry colsiders thar Lhe ascused coutrt have rravelled rn horh rhe I::::1,":::j fran'e parish on'rhe s.ame rta-v-. given.t;;];-;;i;;;;il;;':'i;Jffi11: ,t.lJ-.-,,-.f::,'l N),rnl: r^o Rufurrso (Chaprer. Iti liecLion,5"3.3). lrrerefbre. r,,hite rhe . ._ .r*^.sv \r,ri.ri,rcr ,J- .'ec,on )""J,-JJ. liierelore. \,,hile the partfui alibi :::lji:1.::,*:...t]:Y':" is reasonar,ty possibty. true" ir is nonethetess cc,nrpr,rtibte n,irh orherl n'i'.li olher evidence in relation to the presence of thc acc,usecl at the paristr ttrat rta1,. 290,. 'Ihe N4ajorir.r' recafis, hoivever, that Nciahimana is not chargcd in rcration t e secon.i rneeti'g on 14 April I 994, hut only fbr the one meeting me nti{.}nsd in paragraph 2.1 o{. rhc Iudiotrneut' ln an,v event. the evidelce does not streu t;ltrr'cn the purpose of. the iillegecl seccrlxl meeling. i,l.\;,,',Tli Ma.iorir-v wilt norv assess rhe evidence broughx in suppofi o1. paragraph 23 ot the 4.3.1.? Discustirnt 292' Paragraph 2-1 o| the

Indicirnent afieges Lhat on tx. abour 14 ;\pril 1994. N,;r.rrrirnana, seromba, Kayishema' Kan-varukiga and olhers-i,-.el at I'i.r,ange presb!'1ery. Atier rrris rneeting, sonre T'ufsi retlgees toid Nejahimala that aLracks bacl been tauncr,ict 'against rhe1r. Ndahirrana stale.l lhii{ the 'l'ursis were lnlznzt rvho hacl killecl the pre*ict"nt, unJlr" refused ro help drerrr..i.hereafier. I{clahirnana's sulx-rrdinates raunched an -a11ack agu;nst'rt,e- iuis,s in j!],angc church. N6;rhinana knew or had reason 1o knorv of the acrs of his rrr,,ciJ;"rt"r,-Ltr, re ii:rired to prei,ent or punish thenr. i " I 1 l N e ' g 1 n h g 1 2 q ; 1 1 1 t r 1 1 '" I. IU Frh,rr.,r-r :irli !p. S_,1, ji. . ' T. I I Nor t'nrLrer ln l0 fp. :.1 i l( S), 1,,. ' . T. lq J.rnudn ltrll l\. i ' [.21 I ehflrar) 2rrll pl :6_27. I'he Prosecutor y. Nddlinuna. Case No. tCI,R-01-6B-T 6S I 274

Page 69

Jttdgenenr undSetlettct' ,nryrlry y lqi. The evidcncc shorrs rhar fl,) a{nuk \ras lannch(,d 0t \r.34gg pcr.ish cn rl," nro**fir ft+ April 1994. but that the a*empt fbiled. The Majority lvill now adch.ess the evidence relatin! to the purpose of Ndahimana's presence ar Nyange parish on this date. 2?,a: In doing so. the Majoritl'will consider the evidence o{ Prosecution \\,'itnes6es CfjS. {tttN. t'Bl. cDK. cllJ. Y AtJ cnd cDL- as \\,..'I as Dclbnce \i. irncsscs \D7. ND r r. \r)]J. u"i xu iz. - 4.3..1.2.1 Furpose ofthe Alleged L..leering 295' Witn*sses CllS' CllN. Cfll. CIIK" CllJ and YAl..l teslitled thar |Jtl.:Iinana, tog*lhcr wilh other membcrs ol' tlre J(llj. inc,h:dir,g Kanyaruliiga and Kayishenia, liari a nrccring ,iith l,utl.,.1 Seronba at Nyange presbltef) on l:.t April 1994.Jri Witnesses CllS ancl CtBN crnrld-noi hoar lvhiif ]:1t hti"l;ltij. juring th-c _trteeting. Witnesses CIJK" CIl I and YAIJ di<1 ntr proviile in1irrmarion on lnls poliit \l llnesc (-US tc\iificd llrrt rlhcn thL, mectit$ clJcrl. N.lahirnrrnu ud thc dlhrr5 ,cil rv'thout talking to the refugecs.' r6 [ his evidcnce is *onrrad]cled b;-- Witness CBN who said thar th,: reiugees requested assistance lionr- N<lahimana" rvho responrred tetrr.e reaving: .,Irlook. lnven:r.r. Inkotanfis have caused the rvar. so Iiutus have resp.ndecr."5l7 Ir'wever. the Ma"iorii;.:,ron5ide rs that this inconsistertcl' could be

er<plained by the dillerent vantiige points of the witnesses. 1'hc othei Yillt*"u^t!.|o1 provide any infbnnation on this aspect. Tire siajoriry,- recalls its assessment of witness cBN's inLlividual credibilily and its decision thar ir mav not relv on rhe rvitness unress c{tn:bo.rated: Tlre lVlajoriry also recalls its caution as to thc witncss' inconsist.n.i*u ,"gurjing 1r* *'ords. Ndahimarra's afiegeifi1, seid to thc re|ugees lchaprcr lI|" scction +.:.t.2;. t"tre"re tixe, rnc l'4ajolily wili no1 rely on his teslimonl, alone tbr.lts fin{i;ngs on this matter. 296' The Defb'ce evidence suppofts the l?rct that N,alrirnar'ra went to N).aoge preibttery/ on l4 April 1994. witness n-Dr4 tesriiied that aner the attack, Ntra.rrirnana wentr to the pres[:.vrer1, ancr *,as escorted b1" trvo policemen. The rritrress nrrted that c\erlone llloved to$rrd lhe htturgntert*. including the gentlurmts and thc futsis. but thar hc cuuirJ not hear what the accused rvls sal,ing.!l witness NDI I x'as toll rhat the. accuscd oarne to tire presbytery antl rarked to the reflgeei.ir,l Ndahi,rana's prcsense at the parish is-c_.noborateo u,r' wiiness ND12, rvho r,vas among rhc rcrigecs present on tliat day. She said that "[a]lr re I'ugecs courd hear,'rvha1 rvas bcing suiii an6 thar rn* fetugees loid Ndahimana thal Ndungurse had lecl ar atlack against thern, ro lvhicli the aciuseij responded rhat "he did lol

havc porvers"" but.Jre had asked the g:ndarme,, to oontinue to prote't Lhd rcflgees jl witness ND7, rvho wes also a rel'i.rgee al the cburch, clid nct hear.rvhal. Ntiahirnana rvas saying 10 the refugees, but heard him asking tJ. gendarnnzs'to ensure the salety ol.lhe.I-utsis anrl ro open fire if necessar_v''.s?l 291. l'lie Ma.iority finds that it has heen esratrlished thar Ndahimana went ro N).anae on l4 April 1994' Ilorvever' the Prosecutioll did not prove rnat xcalrimana leit anrl ret scd to assist llrc rellgces. In addirion, the prosecutirn rJij not pnrve r,.y,ino ,.u*n,utrrq erollbt that en attack rra witness cBsj T 6 seirtenrber 20r0,pf..-l7. 62; lvirDess {]B\r '1. r,1 sejrternbcr:010 pp. r8-20,6?; \litnrrls cBr: i. 14 Septenrber 2010 p. 36: \! itness CIJK: f " j r-oremlu :Olu f,,p. lu_f jl _i7: Witness t_,JJ.t: .I.. I I l\:o\,enbe. :010 p. lo:-\ljtneii \'.\1. t- l5 St,fr\ thcr lr ()n lrl "'\uitnessCllS: '1'.6 Seprernber2010pp. I7_lS.61; \\itncssCJIN; .1.. i:.i Sdprenrbc.:0t0 pt_._ iS-20: Witnenj C .r:.I l,l Nu\ cl nbci" 2i'10 p.2{/. '' T 6 Seprernbtr lr|]0 np_ le, h2. " T. l.i Senten)l'er:o]li l. :0. ". T. 2l I ehrunr-! :t,l 1 l. g - ,'J. lR.tllnllilr\ :01 I I J,l " 'T. l.l lanuar\ :Ll I p. i. - ' 1".24.laruary 2rllt pp. 5,3?. The Prosecu!or.s. Ndtthiwuwr, aase No. ICTR"0l-6Il-T 69 i 27'I

Page 70

,ladgefiteti.,xd Senlence -18 D(.cenlEr :ttL\ oruhestraled b-t the irce useJ's subortlitutes occuncr.l ultel thc nrcerirrg. ()rt thiu ,"",,-rR G,fr, notes that although the evidenee is vague regarding the idcntiLy tri'tl,e assailants. none oi the ivitnesses invoh'e the conrrnullal poli0e in ttre atlack. R.ather, it lalls liom Witness CDf .": evidrnce that communal policemen rvere rrol arnong the attackers that clay. Indeed, the r*,itness fepo(ed tl'lat on l4 April I9!)4. afler the attack took phce. Kanlanrkiga lclt rvith others because they wauted to cnrol policcmcn tu'take 1.n1 in the opcratiorr,""' .{.3.4.2.2 Clonsequences ol- the d lleged foleetil g )9B The Majori4, l'inds tire Ptosect:tion evidence ou the consequenccs of the alleged meeting r* be vague and irreonclusive, \\rituess CIIN is the onlv person ro testi{-v that (.}n 14 April 19!}4. lollol'ing the meeting at Nyange presbl'tcry and the depadure ol the authoritjes, tt)e r.etirsees had to repel a srnall scale aLlack. I'hc rritncss hcard rvhistlcs an{ people werc askcd to prepi.c lbr arl cttack cn \5ange chrrch thc li'll.rrving d.d). I: April Ic,q-l.':i- 299. The 1\'{ajr,rri1-r, nc'tes fhat, in order "to prove Ndahimala's genocidal intent." the Prosecutiorl relies upon evidence alleging that l lutu wolrren ,ivho were rnarried to Tutsi men wsre reurove4 {i.o1r Nyange church. The Pfosecution subnrits that Ndahimana "rvas

so bent on the exlefli.]inatio:t oi specifically 'futsi that he ensurei.l thar no Hulus i.ver,:. accidentall)-killed."i:r'Ihe De{i:nce rcquesrs that the Charntrer disrcgard tltese allegalions because of a lack of: n<i.ice.s:i As clearly stated lry g]e Prr:sceulicn" this allegation ${oes 10 the mer$ rca cf thc accused: there{irre, bccause ihe fi:dicl:nent pleads as a rllaterial lhct the specilic slate of mind allege.1" the 'thcts b_v rvbioh h\s ntens rerr is 16 be estsblislxcd are matters ofevidence and neerd not Lre plea*1ed_"''2{' 300. Prosecutiotr Witness CBS repofied ihat Ndahimaua came back in the evrning thai same elav in the retl cor ttrune veliiclc with Kavishema ancl Mhakilirehc. 'llie rvilncss staled thai Nclahinrana remained in tlre car while Ka,v-ishema rcad aloud the names ot- thrcc Hutu r.vomen. r.vho were mamied to'lu1sis. tkrnr a list. Subscquenlly. the rvomen left Nyange chr.lrch ancl retumed homc.i:t 301. At t[]e outset. evidence alleging that Ndahimana stayetl bach in the car, 1rhile three l:lutus were being called t.rLlt fiom Nyange chtuch by Ka-visherna ciuld, at rrostr, shou,that he knelv alour Kayisherla's e|irninal intent to sepafate Ilutus frcm T'ursis iu anticil,alion of gttacks but does nol necessarily mean tllal hc sharcd it. 'flrc Majoritl.' is of'the vierv that irad he hatl animus againsl thcr 'Iulsis. be probably u'ould havc played a more activc

role in the removal ol'lhe Hutu woiren than the.single descr"iption by the Prosecution rvitness ol'Ntlatrimana su1.'ing passivoly in the vchicle, indicates. 102. . in addition to its previous linr{ing thar it rvcultl not rely on Witness CI}S, tesrimon_v untess coroborated; the lr{ajoritl" is troubled h1' the f'act that, among all thc rvitnccscs thrr 1er.t' pi"r"nr or Nyange parish on lhc evening of l4 April 1994, 'rVitness Cni is the only one rvho reqalls thur.,-.rn* l:{utus rvere removed liom N-r,ange chtrch. The Majority has also cxpiesser.N cl,lubts clssrvhere 61 tt? f. 12 Noreniber l0l0 p. 5. "' l. l.l Sdptenber -:011) pp.20-2t, j(.61-6.3. ' l'nrrc!rl;on ( lrrs; l:i ltrict. ldra.,. 6l-a,.1. '" T.:l Seprerrber:rtllt p. ?j. ]'.s.ee tr'g ' Katyorttkigtt. Decisiun on Oasparr.i Kruryanltiga's lrlerlorutory Appeal rrf a llrcision on rhc Erclusion oj Eriderce. 2ll h{arch 20ri}, paras. 8-loi. r;k&t}bari .t }it'irL,ru,rrioli, Iiecision on thc .{ppeals "ll'pou,'n" Nvimmasuhuko and Arsine Shal,rn \itahobtrli cq the ,,Drcisi,ln on Del.dnre Lj.gont Mot;un to l]oclare pa!1s arf tbe lrrdencr of Wirres,ses 1lV and elJZ ln:rdmissible^" 2 July 20t)4., pffas. 14_ I j. " T. 6 Sepfembcr:0l0 pp. 1.r20.5l-52.58. The ]'rovcutor t'. Ndahi$tana. Crsc Nc. iC-fl{-0,_6g_T It) / )'71

Page 71

4.3.5 Meeline at N*vange Marliet Square. 1.4 April 1994 LP*ragfaph 24J '103'. 'lhe Indictment alleges that or or aboiit l4 April 1994" Nclaliirnana presideil over a public 304.. . 'llle Det"ence argur:s thatno.merling was held on l4 April l gg.l ar tho I\4uta!1oge ntarket. that Ndahimana was on his rvay to Rufirngo lt; attend e firneral and thar thc irrosecurioridid not priive that Kanyarukiga instigaled the population at Mutanoga market square.jre 30:' The iv{ajoriry- rvill nor'v consiclel the eviclence brought by Prnsecution Witnesscs CBR CN.l and CIDL, and Defence Witrress ND2,tr. 4.3.5.1 i,reliminct), li tters 306' 'lhc N4ajoriry has decided that Ndahimana's alilii rvas reasnnablv possiblv tme. as eviclencc i'vas adduced to sholv r.hat he bo'olved liealrice lr,rukanrusi.s "o, on i+ April 1994 at approximately 2 or 3 p.nr.: thal he amite.l at Rufungo at approximatel;- 4 p.m. anA sra1,'eti rtrere uxit late belirre rerurning ro r',r,v-ange. (chaprer llr, sJ-ion 'i.:.l r l. 'm* Majoritl.. ,"iri no* ru.n ro consider rvhether the reasonabrenr:ss .f rire aribi was overcome try convincing evicrencc. - 4.3.5.2 Di:sculsian 307' Wihress CBt{ was alnong the ass*ilants. IIe tesrified thar on l'tr April l!194" lpJ Kayisherna drrrve a'ehicle belonging to witness cDZ arcx'rd the carnntme. {Jsing a nregaphour. rior-irl,rrnu infbnned the local popuiation that "'rnyenzis" had invadetl rhe

comnnne. Ndungutse and Kal..isrrenra ircited the assailants to rauuch an attack against the refugees. -fhc rvitncss pan'i"ipu,rJ i,, ,i" ut*"r. thal subseque'tly occurreci. Ih: ":TTu:. gioup did not filt a'1br:a,r..rhat da1.r,', fn. l,lo'tnrit"n,rr", that the.witness did not relro$ that Ndahirirana presided iirer a puutic rnecting that da]... lle reiroried that Ndungulsc and Kayishema .incired thc populatio'. # oia not ,.r'.r o ru,ryurr*;gu o, mentioned in the lndictmenr. 'r'he Nrajority rnayrery on $,jitness cBR,s evicrence nn r;', f.,ini nnru to suppon evidencc rhar trre popuraticn rvas inciled Ly rocar readcrs ro go 10 Nyargc pari$i'. 308. witness cNJ was arnong the assaira'ts.rir l,re restified that hs rvent to Nvarge par.ish because llre cotuntunal authoritics had askerJ_the pop,,rutio,1-io go there and klll tlre rutslietiigees. More precisell". he explained that on r4lprir 199.{." at around,{ p.rn., Kayishema came to Karutevi andaddressedmemberso1'thepopulation.askingiheni,ogo,ott"parishaltikilthc;ulris.5j? l'lo'o,ev.er, rhe N.la.ioritl. nctes that riiis allcgatio" OJ*. noi ir*Jloe rhe accuserJ. ,,1 tnA;., n*n'. l.rrr.,',1: I'iuiecurion ClL,jinF ttficll n1r!s. rq-erj, lJl, l+j. < ,. r/rr(tlce ( rL1Stn.r2. UrrCl. pall..r,. l5;-li.)e. , . i f l \ u r e i n h < r : r i l ' r T n . t t - t . , r f . 2 N , , , e i y r h E r : r ] t 0 n f . l - t - t 5 J

7 ..I+Nr'\crnb'r2()1()F-ll("Q\\treJ-ouoncoftheseilutusu-irorrr.retargelinsl.ursis,Ltr.witness,.,A. l\,,..ns...). ' ' T -l No\ rm Lrer ru 1t'| f . j0 rK sr i\h cmo $.!s ac:{{!sing tile 'r-uis;s ti,. ttre ,nuroE. ot.a g uru doctor in Kisari). Jadgemettt atd Sente nce whetiref the red vchiclc of tbe ctnnnu*e 5.3. I .26). There{bre, the Ma-iorit-v- is testimony cn that poiut, rv;rs functionirg during the -".,,r. U.,*j*3,r,?*K I tneeting held al lhe N,vluge lnarkrt square thst was auentled by Rugrvizangoga. N'lbakilirehe, l{abiy*mbere. lpJ Kaf ishema and .rthers r.vhose identiiics are rinlioirn. meetin_u. Kanyarukiga ilistigated the crorvcl io kill the,l-uisis at Ny*ngc church.5rE not convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the uirness' Kanani. At ulat fhe Prosecdor y |itlahitnana, Casf Ne. ICTR-o1-6g_T 71 i 271

Page 72

Ju.lge tent a$d Seqtence 3:t l2*n*}r, n , :jtl(,. fl,e i\ta.joritr hus also consiclcrcd \\ irncss ( l)l 's e\ id('rrc( lhai on rJ .lprir r# '*.F t Ndahimana, Kayishcma anil,.{.anl amliiga at the lvlutanoga rrarke! squar€ alter thc attack, at some point betrveen 2 and "l p.m's13 ['le reported that Ntlahinrina staree] thit all inhabitants ha4 t. go ro Nyange parish;1hat tho-v had lo.untlcrsland rhul tlte Inkrttunli: had killcd Dr. NtawuruhLrnga. as well as. the.Presidont of the Republic.ito l{orvcrcr, \l'itncss cl_ll, is thc only witncss supp-orling Lhc, allegation thar Ntrdahimana presic.red over a pLrblic meering he/cl ar trie N.vangc ,oorr*i *quuir'., alleged in paragraph 24 of the .lndicrnrent. i'he n4alorir..,ias expressecl befbre that. iirr fin{ringir be3'ond reasonable doubl" it lvould not rely on wit'es.i cdl's tcstini.ny aione. ,r10. in rnv. c'e,r. rhe luajDrit)' notes that according to witness cDL, Nirahinrana rracl comc -D!!]tlsc rcl]11e manning rhc roadbrock qanred to open Dr. Nlarvururrturga,s q..r.n,,,.i:]s vy'irncss ND24 1es1ified that Ndahinrana passed through lhe roaiiblock airout trventy uringtes alier llie c.'r,o). can-ving Dr' Ntawun tunga.536 Givcn that \i"itness cul., rcporred hearsa! evielence c6ntrap..to 1he testinoll)' of witness ND24, who ivas ac,tualry present ai the roadbrock, the J!{ajorilv ,*ri*, o, Witness ND24's evidence ern this noint. ? i 1

, t.lltirnarr; ly, otlier cvicleuce inrJicares that Witness \./,ru!,xrvrJ! u*re. uvr.Ellce lnorcafes that wrtness cDL nright have an infcr.est irr inclirriinating Ndaliimana in orcler to minimisc his or.vn responsibility in those cvents. llr comi]r,r ro ibility in those cvents. lll comils r{} this conclusir:n, the h.{alority acknorl rc(rgcs ttrnt accurJinj in ii.ri"J, ll,:lirr.*;il:' fi#;r1.E;t- l.::"rl*ily 11:r {e a:ja:k.and.thaihe.promised Nclirngutse rtraf he rvriuLt ge1 reiul.ori:ements lff Tlt.'.,:*,'l,"rcter to..rtislorlge tt.," gur./nrr,;" una -il;?;h; ffi;;.;;'i'fili,ffi:'r;d:;: lll l:rlif,-l that he dict nor go to r.r-yange chu'ch,," r+..tprif ioo,i.rril'ii*";tui";.;r';_ *::ll:f*::ith N..a.himana, Kanyarukiga, s;;;t- r-J,un;.i,;;;;ft;;'wir,.rl'ijilutzi ",,,, testified that witness cDL part;cipare<t ;n thJaita"t o,r N3.ong" churoh on l4 Arrr.il r 994.r{i 312' civen these cit cumstances.. the f'4aiority conclutles lhaf Lhe prosecution has not ovcrsorne the reasonableness of'Derbnce evidence irr"*ing ih"i ;i:^p.r., ,, the ratesl, the ac,used lsfi N.vange in the direqrion of llurungo. Accorclingryl the prosecuii,x has nor prove; p-rrgrp], l+ ,,; thc [ndictmenl treyond reasorable cloubt. 4.i"6 313' The Inilictment aleees thar.. in fudherance of the;rran to ki rhe Tursis. refugees rvere disarmed by lr'ltraliirirehe, Kanani an<J orhers ";ru,i,"oioery fo orving., 'eerings hero

n-r. ii:filllft.l*"rnba' Kavishema, Kan-varukiga ..dutt';'";; the etrnmrilal .,ni." i,,o Nir"g* 3 l4'-- I'he Majoriry rvill nor'v consider the eviclence of Pnrsecutron wilnessf,s CIIK, cDl, ancl CliR aird Delence Witnesses ND7, NDl I and NDl2 ' r l . l 2 N r \ . r n b c r l | l l r l p n . 2 - . t : l l d N , , \ c r L , e r 2 , ) l ( r p f I , r . J 0 . " ' l t 8 \ o \ c D r b e r : 0 l D p - j L '' T. ll Ncr emher _l0lir n. .1. "' T.2l FrbrLrarl 201I po v- Zr. -'. L l?.hnuer.r l0l t fl. 7-B " ' l'. 18 Noveorbcr lU lU p. 5). -' l. 6 Septenrber l0l0 f. I i. .- L 2l l;cbrii.rr', :rI I p. j. "' fudiclmcnt, pa.a. 20. 7'h{ Prcsecxtor t, Ntittlthuata, L_-asc \kr, ICTR-01-68-T t'2 i )"!.1

Page 73

,ludtenk't uni S(nt.,n,( Jt) Uttnri!'f 17 I15. Acccr<Jing to \L itncss CBK. rhc aurhcritics. inclucling Nciahinrarra. S.ro*fr..G,.rfuF Kanyarukiga, Ndu gufse and others. lvent into Nyange church c,n ths tnorninli of 14 Aprii 1994 to confiscate r\,eapons.54r Witness CIJK sleted that the decision to d isann thg relirgees rvas taken on i3 Aptil l9a4 duling a meetirlg. 'I'he \\'itncss did not a11ent{ the metting. bur e1lcr it ended, thc aulhorities publicl)' stated tlial re{ugees had to be disa ned ihe next da.}'.'o' 3t6. While the Defence did not raise env objecti(rn on this point. the Lla.lotitl recalls howevef that "[t]he spe-citicitl of the notiee required is proporlional io lhe exterlt ol'1he le]ccused's ilirect involveurent."'"' The N{ajolitl has consiclered Wirness CBK's evidence in iight c1'the Indicunent and concludcs that the l\oseculion did not charge Ndahimana rritlr having prrsoually conl"rscaled the lveapons ofthe 'l utsis. 'lhe Majority does no! oonsidcr that lhe accused reccixsd adequal$ nolice oI this particulal charge . Moreovcr'. this testimony of Witness CIJK is not corotrroratecl and liis evidcnce thal Ndahimana was involved 1n rhe decision to disa l lhe ref'ugees is conlraclicteii by Lhc u,itness' teslimonl. in .lerom&rr where he said that the-retirgees rvere disarmetl "at solne point.'" bu1 that he did not knou' lvho took the decision 1o do so.'*' 317. Both

Witnesses CDL anej CBR reported hearsal cvidencc lhar Ndahirr,ana and others atlended a meeting or t 3 April I 994, rvhcrc lhe decisjon to search tlie ref'ugecs lvas mecle. Witncss {ll}l- repodecl thar Kanani told him on l3 April 199.1 that he had €ione ro flyangc church io ctrreck r.vhether the rel'ugees lvere armed. lirllowing the instructions given at tlie nreeting held at the communal ol'llce the sal.ne day.-'uo W itness CIIR reporled that his brother-in-lar,r', rvho rvas hiding iri tlre church, told him that the assistanl hourgtrrcslre, as lvell as Seromba, Jtseph Hahilatrbere and cthers, had come 10 search rhe ret'ugees on rhe nighr oi'l-1-l4 April 1991..'"' 318. The h'la"iority recalls that it has observed elsewhc,rc (Chapter. lll. Sections ;1.3.1 .9. ,1.3.1.10. 5.3.1.3" 5.").l.,ii that both Wilnesses CDl, and CIJR are eiccomplices. In addition, neither of'them rel'el b the {bct tliaL the rclrrgees rvere searc.hed or disamred firllowing a niesting held b}. Ndahimana i their previous stalemenls. Oiven that the cvidenee the), reportcd is hcarsa1., ihe N'lt1iot ity lvill oonsider rvhethet' other riouroes conobu'ate 1he above nroniioned allegations.

319. The N{ajorir"v.-' tinds that evidence on the l3 April 1994 meetings. as weli ss evidence on fhe iact tltat Tutsis were searchsd and eventually disarmed, is hearsay, Whils ir rnakes sense that rlc wihess rvould have a{lended the meeting on 13 April l9!}4 i{'nnly riuthorilies and leadcrs rere itivolved, dre Majoril,r' finds the ftrct that none ol'the victim r.vitnesscs wio lvere hiding inside Nyangc churcli rcpol'ted such evcnls trouhling. Only Witncss YAU rcporred in a pr*r,ious sla1cl1lsnl that on a dar' that seems to be 14 ;\pril 1994. Serornba came to disarm the rel'ugees ancl that he carne ag:rin rvith Ka-"-ishema and Kany:rrukiga to take mone], fi"om the relirgees.5as [.lcucver.. rhe wilness was not questioned regarding this part o1'hel statelrcnl dLrring her tesriurony. l'he Ma-lori1y recalls that Proseculion witnesses cils. cBl and cllN r.rcre already refugecs at l,J,vange parish o:r l3 and t'1 Aprit 1994, bul did nol lesrili,'about rel'ugces being searched or clisarmed.'fhe h{rijclity notes that this absence of u'itness reslimony regardirrg relirgees being searched or disanled does nr:1 'il l l Nt4enibrrl()ll'lp. ltl-12 ( lJrenamesof rhc rorrJdilL,l' were llxbilrugira Kamili irnil Sinda-s.rc). -- L j No|enrLrcr':0lU p. "i6. -" Bagttsoru et d1. iJecis;(n] on Ntabskuze l,lrrtjon ibr llsclusioir of Evidcnce. 29 Jurc :j){i6- pt.ir. j.S'cer al,ro. Kdremi'|a el .1.,

L)e{isjon on Delcnce of,rl N1{)1ions fo[ Exclrlsion dl'\fiiness XU&1"s 'l cslimon).. f-of S?rnL:tiols _dg,rin.]l th€ i\?secuaion. nnd ioi [,aclusion of Eviderce ijutside the Sc('ire ol'the trodiciinetl l0 October :006, pi]f!1. l2 "'Def'en(e Lrhibir:1t. pp. 15. 17. '*" T" 11 Noveinl,'er 2{110 pp.69-70; l. 19 N{}vernbcr 2010 p.:0. '"' T. I November 20lQ pp. 1 l-lj. 51s l)efince Exhibit 30, j.,i. The Proteaior ,t. Ndtthimata, Clase No. ICTR-01-68-T 73 i 271.

Page 74

4 5.1 Jtdgeue nt and Settct!cc' mean that the evsnt did nct oecur and finds it crediblc that the rclusces could have begtfdisa$red. Despite this. the N'lajorit-v notes that the PlosecLrtion did not rake advantagc of the opportr:nit"v it had to pfesent first-hand evidence on thi:i paLticular charge in ordcr to cstablish ihat alleged JCE members disarmed rcfugees liliowing rneetings altended h-r Ndahimana.

320. The Maioriq has considered the evidence of Defbnce Witnesses ND7 and ND12, who rvere retlgees at Nyange parish. and testitied that there \\e?e rlo lyeitp,.rns inside Nytrngi: ohurch.-'ae Witness NDl1 testilied that, befcle entering the clwrch, gendarmer wefe coniiscating thc weapons."" ['[orvever" the Majority finds this evidence to lT e of little assistancc.

321. Ulrimately. the fr4ajority finds that the evidence does uot olearl_y cstatrlish when rhe refugees rvere disanued and b;' lvhon. The klajorit-v further finds that the Prosecution ha.s no1 estabiished that the decision to clisatn the ret'ugees $€s rakeu dur.ing the meetings oi'lJ and 14 April 199:1, as discussed abcrve. Therefore. the N4ajority conoludes that the Prosecution has not provrn paragraph 20 of the Indictntent bevond reasonable doubt. At-taqlr oLNvanee Ptrislr, I5 Arril 1994 lntroduclion 322' Paragraph 2l tf the Indictrnent alleges that Ndahimana made sevem! vehicles avaiiable k: his subcrrilinates. including IFJ Kayishema and Ndungutse^ to transport assailants to Nl,ange parlsh. 323. l'araglaph 25 oflhe lndictrnent alleges that, on or about l5 April 1994. Nciahinrana ancl a gmup of named subordinates met ar N-vange prcsblter), ttle CoDhlKoKI and in lilnt cf Gasp:rrd Kanyatukiga's pharmaoy, l'olklrviug thase meetings, tlie aecused ogleled the communzll poliocm;rr. gendannes, I terctltumu'e, an army reservist named rhdophile Rukara ("Rukara") and ct!:er ass?lilallts to'stan rvorking.' The assailants lar:nr:hed an attaok against the Tutsis thdt day. seriousl; injuring ald killing many of them. llabarugira led one of the groups th01 anacked the Tutsis. Ndahim*na, as hotrgt estre of Kivumu u)nmur.te kncw or had rcasorl tc, kncrv ol the ao{s of his subordinaies, but

lbiled to prevent or punish their actions. 324 ' Paragrirphs 26-28 of the lndictuent allege thar diiring tlre attacks. l.idahilnana, Seromba, IPJ Kayishema. Kanyarukiga and others u,ere preselrt. ordering, instigating and supe6,isiiig the assailants by providing them with weapotrs and fuel in an alto pt tc burn the TLrtsi riii-rgees irr die church. The attempt lvas not successlirl. leading Nclahiurana anil tha other merirbers of i'tre JCE k: hold a meeting at Nl"ange presbl,terl to plan I'urther attaeks rltl the "futsis. r'r-dahiuraua lolc lire' assailants that they should cover themselvcs in banana leaves to distinguish thstrselyes 11.ofll ihe rel'ugees they rvere abcrut to attack. Aiier lhr attack. mcnthers of thc .lCIj ordercc] thar rhe bodies o{' the Tutsi victins killed during rhe attacks be buriecl in mass graves at Nyangc par^ish and srurounding areas. -125" 'l'he Delince presented an alibi tbr this date.iir lt suhrnits that Ndahimana artenelerl trhe l'uneral of Dr. N1arvuruhunga in Rufungo on l5 .,\pril 1994. Ndahirnana did nor knos, thar Nyange ohul'ch rvouid be atlacked that day, and onl;. leanred ofthe attacks rvhile at ihe filnerai. As sdon as .1. )'ill.* NDI: T. .:J Jrrusf) lot I p" 4; Wirness NIll l: 't.. I9 .tenuar.-\, 201 I p. 6. " ' ' l - l R . l r t r u a r t 2 t l l t o 1 2 ''' Notice ol' Aljbi^ 3 Septerrller :010: Srpplen'ren1 a(r the Nolice of Alibi fiied on 3rd Setlterlber 20:10. 2i Septerrlheil 20 l0: iefence Closin,e llrieJ. paras. :70-3 3 I " 3 Lt-3 5:: f. 2l Septernber :01 I pp. :17_tr0, il_ll, l'. 2Z Septenl,er 2r) 1 I pp. l-1. l5-16. fh. lt,,:e,utor t. \JJtiotana. ( as( Nt,. l( fR-Ul-.,\-f 74 I 2',14

Page 75

.JidCehteftt dkd SdtLtl1c.' jt| !kc{:r,rLj{t :)Ll L ?26+ hc iras told ;rhout thc a{tach on- thc parish. Ndlhimlnc \ cltl to :ick t\si\til)c{ trorrrdrd jfil,,r ol ' Kibule, Climent Ka.vishema.is2 The Defence also chRllenges thc credihilit-r' of those Prosecuticn rvitnesses who testified that Ndahilrana tvas present at Nyange parish on I 5 April I 994. jit 5.2 fivirierce 5.2.'l l&$ee!1ia! Wr$c$rliBr 326. Prosecution \vitness cBT. a I lutu, was a flrnner iiving in Kivumu r:ornmurc in April lgg4.-554 I'le Farricipared in the killings at N)'ange parislr on l5 Ap;il 1994.ijs lr is not cloar t-rom the record hoiv he l<nely N.lahimana. 377 ' On 15 Aprii 1994" the witness rvas looking allar his cattle then he heard IPJ Kayishena addressing tire population over a tregaphone. Kayisherna wils speaking i.om e rvhite picliup lntck thal belonged to Witness (-'DZ. Kal,ishema directed lrembers of lhe public tu so 1u Nianse oarish ttr conl'rnnt the "'[rq"enzi." fhe lvitness unclerslood the word htl ta:ito rc1'ei ro itusis.'{'' t t.-c ticectcu Krvishcmr's c:ll bccausc Ka.r'ishclna rhrerrtencd trr takc l: s'iJllle ;t'he lailed trr rlo sLr."; ;1r" lvitness" togelher r..ith otlters, walked to the parish. The rvitness was arrnsd rvith a stick that he userl r'.'hen looking aJler catle. He i.vas rveariug his ordinary clolhes, lrut othcLs rverc covered in banana or eucal,yptus leavss. l-le arir.ed at

ihe parish betlveen t l:10 a.m. and nerorr.ssr 328. Upon his arir,'al, the rvitness noticed corpses of Tutsis betr.veen {he Statue of ihe Virgin Mar,r" and the church.5ro According to the rvitness" Rukara had rhro*n a;lrcnacle killinr the victi:ns. 11 is not clear tiom the evidence horv the rvitness knel this.s'i(' 329. Among the co ttrtunal authorities present when the *.itness arrivecl ar lhe church werc hidahirn:rna. IP.l Kavishema. assistarlts to lhe 6orrr&ae,s/,e named Arastas and v6dasto Murangrvabugabo 1a.ii.a. "Mpenda" or "lv1Ipeneie"). I{atri3.ambere. a cl]rtain folbakilir.ehe; a certain Leo'ard Nibiire'e; communal policcmeu named Ni-r ir_r'gcka Appolinair"e Rangira; aml the cotnntunal vetsriuarv olTlcer'. a rnatr narred N1 iremukira.''' Alro prls*nt i.lere ctli:r comn:tnitv l€aders. some xithout t'rillcial posts inclLrding: Kanyarukiga, wifiress ND2li" const:iller ot the {asave secleur; l"latrarugira, congrl/c,r'ol ,\r'ange .r((,furlr: rhe cr;nssrTler cf N"y-ange ,feclfrr: as $ell as teaehers attd headuasters of schools-'r'l lrlp.lda asked the assaiiauts to su11oun.i the shursn ro ensure that the re{itgees could not flee. Habiyambere also issueci instruclions to lhe assailents. s6:} 110. At_ approximately I p.m. on 15 April 1994. rhe assailants gaiher.ed in the courtl.arcr of Nyange church. Fronr that position. the witness eor.rld clearlv see l{dahinlana lake a qun

li.xn .,, ?",j*.. P,.c- lirirl Rricr.lr!ir I t'i: D..tenic ( tuirn.:. Blist. pilr..:iJ. - LlclenccclosingBricf.prr.rs.:7u-331^3i.-r-352r'f.21 septenrber 20 fi pp. .17-60, 7 r-17: 1- . 2l srpredbef 20 r r pr. r-ti" t5-16. 554 Prosecution Exhibit 2: T. 7 Scftcmb!,r 2010 p. 60. '--f 7 Seplember'?010 pp. ?0-71 i"i \,-e therd in orclerro conrnil killings. Ar.l I rrorfe$se.l 10 th.rt,'"): I- I sepienrt).r 2 0 1 0 p . 2 . r5c 1"- 7 Seplcrrltr 1010 pp. ,1?-.tti. 58, 62. - T. 7 Srptcmber :ill (, pp. j 8. 61. -'1-. 7 \eq'Lcrnbcr' l,,l'r nl jo-+o. +,1. rr+. ,,,, , I ? { r p l r n ' F c r l 0 l ' , t ' . . 1 0 : l . 8 S ( t ' L c r n h c r 2 ' l l { , p h "'' | . 7 Septemlrer 2010 p. 40. "' L ? Sepiernher 2"Ii, pp. ..1t,J2. - ' T. 7 s(fi(ml'cr' lirl0 pp. Jj. J7. '"' 1". ? Seplsnrber :Ut U 1r1,. 4l--l:. 7'he lJntsecutrtt t'. t-dahiwttxs, Case No. I(---IR-0l-6[,7 75 / 1"14 n+

Page 76

.Jhir.Ln.,,t ,utJ ,\rtr!(rc. lu 15.. \' .y + )/-r:-2 Kahllisa. :i lurmcr s ldier. and lirc ('ne shol Llt tlre ch!rk t<r\\er trl' lh!' (lttlrch 1r) jlgr]ii{ th!' cotrlnre cement o!'the attack.56a "Ncr itne hail dnrerJ shoot at the churoh, but a$ s!1o11 ai he gavc tke sig.nal" the atlaekers set upon rhe clrurctr."tn5 l{angila zrnd Niy itageka oonlifiuecl liiing at the torver with a gun.tuu Ndahiqrana did rot s{ey at the parish k:ng anrl apptared to be furious. The rlitness I':eard hirn feli the assililanls that the l,rrelpi had killed a relative who rvas a doctor', and that he rvas leaving to provide assistance to the family of lire deoeased.s6T 'fhe tt'itness later lsau:ed fiom the local aurhr:rrities that the decessed was Dr. Ntawut uhunga.'oo Ndahi lana then lett I'lr ltufurrgo and the u'itness did nct sce him again.5"e During the attack that rlay, assailallts first lscd ftad-;tiontl lveapons and gnns. Subsequently. rwo rncn nancd Ahrrrunani"ve and Nibarere spra-v*d the church wirh petrol. Assailants then tried to burn ilolvn thc church. When this l'ailed the-l used d)'n_atnile in ar e{'lort to hreak down rhe church doors" Many l'ulsis tvere liilled_in thc allack lhat d;t1". "" l'heir trcdies wsrc buried latcr that day in a pit under the Caritas building."" 331. The rvitness lelt Nyange churcl, ihat evening. On his *'ay home, he dodge<l roadbloclis that harl beer

erected-tL' keep asseila ts at Nyange parish and to ensurc tiral the Tlrtsis did tlot escape during the night."'' 5.2.? Frosecuticn Witness CDK 332. Prosecution Witness CDK. a Hulu larmer, r,as living in Kivusru ao*rnure i* April l9!]-1.'i-i He participated in the killings at Nyange parish in April 1994.57a'f'[re rvitness kr:e* thal Ndahitnana wits bourgt estre ol'Kivumu comttu*e and hacl seen him hefore the t 5 April 191)4 at*ck. " ' 313. At approximately 9 or 9:30 a.m^ nn [5 r\pril 1994. thc rviiness hcard ll]J liayishetue alrirc in his village aboard a rvhite Toyota Stout wtrich had been confiscated iiom Witness CDZ- lisilg n megaphone. Ka-vishema inibrnied the population that the "kl"n:i,lrad attackcd the cl"'urch.'' Kayishema then direcled drose in the village 1o go to Nyange parish.""'Ihe r"'ilness arrived at ihe parish hetrvcen I I and I l:30 a.m. anr:ed ivilh a machete and a stick. A large eroi.rd ol !-lutns anned rvith tradiiional lvcapons rverc alreari;- gathered in l'ronl of the Statue of rhe Virgin lviar1,. Some rvete covered in banana leaves. lJpou iu'r'ival" the lviiness saw Ndalriuiana, [ia1.het Serolrtba" Caspartl Kaoyarukiga. ld a teaoher narned Nc{u*gutsc or! dleir $iiy 10 ir meet;ng at the {lt-}DliKOKl building."' 331. When the men emcrged ftom the mecting, Ndahirnana a,nd l'ather "llaromba, togclher $ith r grt:up ol' gentlarnie.r, rnol,ed lolvards Nyange

church. At the samc 1inie, Kan,vanrkiga direct*cl a group of Hutus standing in lront o1'the stelue lt) gather stones 10 attack the'i'utsis in ihe church. Soon alier. a group of T'utsis eurerged frrrm the church und beg:rn throrving rocks at thd advaricing 'r I . I S,if'trml'cr :01lr tt'. lr..l:- L 13 \(pt(..nhr, 2'rl0 nl. 1'. ll lJ-l(. 19. ''1. 7 Sefte(nbcr 2{rl(t p. {:. '^ 1. 7 Scptember 2010 p. .17. '"' 1. 7 Septcnrbef :01 0 p, 4::'f. 8 Scpte1]1bcf 20j{l pp. 5. 9" iJ. "'T. 8 Seplenbcr 2{ll0 p. 9. ri" T, 7 SeDtenher 2010 p. 53. iio T. 7 Septenrl,er 2010 pp. aa-+5. '" L 7 Septemher ?010 pp. 44-45. ''' T. 7 Septernber 20I{t pp.48" 6?-70: i ^ 8 Seprerrber 2010 p. 2. "' Pro3ecutiiln Ij\hibit 41. j7a T. I \-oreLnbcr 2lllit F. :i6. ''"f. 8 Norenrbcr 2fll0 p. -12. ''' T. 8 Novenrber 1010 pp. 29--10. -'T. ll November 2010 pp" 31-32. 'fhe Prosecutort. Nt{<th tten !. Cost No. lC'fR-oI-6ti-l' 7$ 1 271 ''7t4-

Page 77

,ludg€tiefilstutscqtett e tO Z,yrf, llutus. full,r.ning this incitlcnt. Krrtrrrukiga ha.l a uulrrcrsrriorr rrilh a c,,ldicr lrrriiTd fi;k;. Rukara thcn climbed on the roof of Kan-varukiga's house ald begal lobbing grenar.lcs st rhe Tutsis. killing a n nlbc:r of them. The surviving Tutsis retreated lorvards the cdrureh. The assailants thel attacked the church. l'irst, trl'o conrmunal police named i\{ahararnu a:rd Muny6ncaram:L and a fomrer soldier named Kabilisa. shot at the church. l'hen. t1v{} nrelt narned ,Arnolcl Nibarere and liaustin lJrvorenani;,e lried to burn it doun. irinall,r, cnrl)l(r)rjes ofthe Asgldi c'cxnpan1. atrempted tu hring dorrn the ciiurclr using dtnirnite.t'n 3l5 The rvitncss saw Ndahitnana again at Nyange cltrrch to-qether u,iih Father Seronrtra and IpJ Kayishema. In Ndahimana's presence, Kayishema told the atrachers "Fight thc Tutsis anfl prove to thcm tliat you are strong and pou'erl'ul young pcople.",;jr 'lhe rr itness rras approximaLclr irvcr metrcs away ftom Kayisherna and Ndalrimana rvhen Kayislicma said this.it" Nrjahinr;rna lernained ilt the arca surri'unJirrg Nlangc church ti:r uppri,xiiuarclt lrru lrourr hcli,rc i..arin! li,r RLll.unr.,,lti apprL)xlmitte l) t p.nl.'' 3i6' Ar an unspecitied time, IPJ Kayishema and others brought a "special maehige rvhich began pieking up the bodies and dropping thrm iu a grar'* lrelcrv rhe Hulldiug olC.aritas."jti

Witrress {lDI{ lcli Nlarrgc chrrrcl) bclr\rcn 5 lrd -{:.tU D.nr.'8' 5.2.-] Prosecr:tion Witness Cl)l_ ii7. ln ";\priJ 199.1, ltrosccLrtion Witness CDI-, a Huut, was a leacner cotitmtttrc.'"' Hc participated in the atlacks at Nyange parish in April l994,jsj 338. On l-s April 1994. the wiuless went to the school rvhere he ivorkeil.'fhs watchnlan rnere requested thal the wilness kicatc a seconcl lvatchman ro replace hinr rvhile hc tcck a short br,:al.5si The firsi rvalcliman told the lvitness that he believecl rhe second rvalchman hail spent lhe night at the Krrbyapa rorrl block. anil thtrs the witness rvent to Nyanlie parish ro seaich lbr tltJ seconcl \\'iilcnman- " 3i9. The r.vitness arrived at Nl,anee parish betrvs'en l0 and I I a.m. At that t;,,,,e. atf&ckers l.vho 111^o -:111":tl{"1. nvangc church rvere involved in a srone-rhrorving fighl rvirh the Tursi refi.:gees at Ille cnt'ch.-.' scmc r)t tlle attrckers rvere krcated_on the N-vange-Kibuye road, i*her* iu a iranana plantation, rvhile still others lvcre in a srnall {i,rcsl.r8e 340' 'lhe ref'ugees suooeeded in repelling the airackers u1)til the attackers starre<i rhroor,*ing grellades at thenr. f)ne Abayisenga. a policeman. threrv a grenade rtrat failed ro expr<lde. .r.hen "Rukara", a tirrnter soldier lvhose rea-l namc lvas Thdophilc iJoneza. climbe6 on rop ,l1. c,ne of tle shops of the snrall trading centre and threrv a

grenade rvtrich exploded. 'lihc refugees then 6egan living in l{ivumu ..' f 8 rorenrl'er'l0lrr Ff 1:-l{ L q N,,\rnrlrr l0l0 fp. tg-t,r. -.- J. $ N01rrnher 2r) llr pjr. l:-lh. -.- f. 8 Nn\ enthcr :ri l0 n 33 -" T. 9 r,\or tnrt<r'lrlrl0 p l.r. -"' T. 8 Nor cnrber lUlU pp. -16---r7- '" T. I Nu\ emher ,-(l l0 p +l . ''"' Prosc,..tnion E\h;bit +6. '8' T. L? No,snrber l0t0ll). lj.J.trlC\i. '" L l l Nor cnrhcr' l0 t0 gr 5-1r. -" T Ll \oi srnher 2ir10 np. 5"7. " T. l2 No\crnbcrf{}ttp 7_ "-T, 12 Novcnrber ?010 p. 7: 'f. l8Ncrvenber2rll0p. t4. Tlr Pranecwor t Ndtthinana, Case Ncj. lCTt{-01-6g-T t-'/ | 274

Page 78

rcl rcatrnF. I hc \\'itncss d itl nor ps1..nns ll.\. sec R rrkata lllr.\\ ine lhe grcnadc n,,, n..,.,3,,R,]F* othcrs. -" Thc rcfttg:ces tk-eing the grenades could nor all letreat into th{r chruch and went into Nl,ange presb-rtery or the nearbl forest instead.sei 341' Around noott, after the stone-thro\'ving attack. the *itness lei] rhe area to r.eturn 1o his school' Llpon reaclring the vicinity of the communal of{ice. ho lieard grera<les explcxling anil retrrned to Ny''ange parish to se1' r"1'ro, was irappening. Ile sarv deacl bodieJon the r.o*d going up ro N1'ange chrrch. and at the cfiurch itsell. I Ie estimatecl rhat approximately .)0 refugees ro.-.c l.lil",1 in the grenade artacks but that there r.vere 200-3{J0 rnore botlies in the courtyarcl ot the church.i!r: 312. Tke mosi prominent priest al the parish at the tirne rvas Father Seromba.ieJ The *,ilnesr sar, Serotnba between 2 ard 3 p'nt. on l5 April 1994 in the presbyter'.r. courrvarel. Larer. Seromba lvas starding ar the secr"eHriat ofNyange parish facing Nyange church" Seroniba tli<l ncthing ro pfe!.'ent attrckcrs from,killing Tursis. but expressed "onci.n -abc,irt the nurnber .-.,f corpsei thar ivere acc.umttlarittg.' '' flc spol.e ti) thc attackers and tire.v decidetl to interrupt the atlacks so that rne bodies coulti be buried. They thcn,rr-sumcJ the anacl.t''5 l'here rverc betrveen 1.500 and z,iilil) 'futsis present

at the church that day,j!r,! 343" .'l group of persons met ]vith seromba, including Ndrurgutse, the gertdarnt:.t.Iiayishema. Kanaui and other members ofthe populaticxi. After their iiscussiin. Ndungiiise askecl ihe *it,,"r, ro contact the person in charge ofthe ;\staldi conrpany's equipment. to request the use of i1s machir:es to.brrrJ.'the dead. The corpscs of thc re|ugces [itt.i tt-tui ouy '\,e.re hur.ied at approrin.]ar..ry z p.m.. behind the cariras resra*rar1 which belougetl to hiange par.ish.',7 rrr., ".1 " il,Li.J urJno " i"*"in, rnachirrc. eallcd apoqrulirt. proridtd rrr tlrcAsrrlji t,irnpanl . j,* lhc f,,yr,,,linrrrs..iJ,""irj " p, an'i enothef nrachine carriei{ rhe dead bodi*s and tnadsri ther}r txrto a hirry rvhich in turn dJrryed lhem intc' a pit.iee l'he rvilness padiciiratsd irr the burial.,'o(, 344. 'flre attacks resunred arler the bwizrs. Gerularmr,r rvere among the assairants.".,, The assailants lried t. break open the doo.s of N.vange church. when rhis fhilcd]the),used d),na'ni1e rhal they had teoeived fionr the Astaldi Company in an eflbrt ro bloq' up the church. wien this t.o failed' the assailants attempted to use petrol to burn clor.vn the church. Ful;;cnce Ka"v*ishema brought the petrol in a.lt"'r1} can. The attackers rvere rrnablc to kill the Tutsi ret'ulces ,rtro noere i;lsice the church thar ,{ar,-642 145'. Tlrose at N,vange church that rray incruded:

Ncrungutse. a numbcr o' gendurtnes, llabiyambere' lianani. and Kan-varukiga. Thi communai policemen rvho participatetl in the ati*cks irtcluded: Abal isenga. Telesphor.e Nyautara, Anasthaie Uzabakjriro '{u.t... ,,Ci"1,ur*:,i, o,r" l\{rkabcri. -Appolinaire Rri'anragira unci Adrien Nivitegeka. policeine,n, inclu<iing ""*u,rt olti"., .Iu{lge rte * on.! Se n le n c e ];i"1 11 lote't9* i0l0 pp 7-8 iln thc Lnglish lrenscript rhis polic*rnan is r.uerred Lo as..Ntab3liscr1gs,.). ""1'. 12 No!eflb€r.:0i0 D. ltl- 5er T. l2 \ovember 201il p. li. '"' I. 12 No!,{rmbcr Z()j{} ;. $. slr '1. 12 November 20101r. g. 'uj l. tf l."orc'rhcr:utrlpp.9-lu .-' l-. l3 Nor emhcr 20lir 1. 10. ' l l2 Nvvernbcf 2n ifl fp. l . l: ( t( \ r. '-' T. l2 No\ ernber' :010 f . t 2 (tC,SJ. '' T. ll NL\\cntlrc-r.:UtU D. ll. dot T. t2 No' e,nhsr lrr tt l. tt I tc,S t. '"r f . l: No\ emb.,r l0lu p. lJ. '"' T. l: l{|]!cnrb(-r t0lLr fp. l-t- t1 fhe Prosecxtor r'. Nd1hhnent. CzLs€ No. ICTR,0I-6g-T _iB ! 214 --a/lpT-

Page 79

JhtlHrwtEr anl.s.'tttt'tlci ,?.? (,O I:labarugira and one trlphrem, opened gun iire on the Tutsi rrfugccs ancl rlrr, church{ Agcer.tain Uzabakiril':c turned crver his gun begause he r.lid not knor.v horv to ise it,i'{,'l 346. The rvitness clid not see Ndahirnana at Nyange parish on 15 April 199:l but sarv hirl on i,i. April 1994 at Mutanoga. On lhat occasicn. Ndahimana saicl thar he rvoukl not join the attackers at the parish the nert da.v because he rvas scheduletl to attenil the funeral of Dr. Ntatvgruhangn.6rj Ilorvever' the witness did see Ndahinrana by the l1ag post in fiont ofihe cogmunal olllce 91l the e_vening oli 1 5 April 1994 at approrimarell 6:30 p.m. I{e was having a discussi*n with IpJ Kayisherna aud coirmunal police ofliccrs Aba-visenga and Kagenza. Ka,r:ishema ancl ;\barvisenga rvere telliug Ndahinlana horv the attacks that clay had urnoldetl. Ihe1..iold Ndahimana ihat rlre atlackers had f-ailcd to kill the 'l'utsi relugees bereause thcy hail r.un our of amnrLnition anr.i Ndahimaria lvas not trhere ta dislribute the nccessarl'eq_uipment."06 Nclahimana prr;misctl to prervi<Je them rvith the necessary cquipnteul lhe nert nroming.,,,)t 5.2.,1 Prosecution Witness CIjJ 3'11. Frr;se-culion wiincss lrNJ. it Hut str.rdent. lived in Gasave .ierrr-:rrr" |"ir,umu comrnune tfi April 1994.608 He pa(ic(raied in killings iri Aprit 1994. inciudins those ar ],rvange

oa.;sh...,i'fl" served his selltence and rvas free at 1he time af his testimon-r ,nld 'fhe .r ir,,"rr k,i.ul Nrlalrin:ana because he was tlte lsaurgmeslre of Kivumu "orr*r,rr.ott 3''18' On l4 April i994, lpJ Ka,\ ish('m€ damc to frarule,r i and askcd members of'the populatiog t1 gtt lo Nyange parish on l5 April i99{.c[ lht r.r imess r'stimared fhat he arrived at the St;tue oi the Virgin lv{ary betu'een lr a.m. and I p.m. ou 15 April l9!}4 alrourrl a lor,,-r ussd b} tho crmrnunal office to transport assailants. At this rine, fighting was alreacll onguing.z,, up.,n "rrio.f tr" uu* Ndahimana together with IPJ Kayishcta, the phaimacist Kan,.,arukiga nrrd a cirtain NSungLrtse at the statu€- of tht Virgin Mary. Ndahimana welcome<l the groulr of assailants, anl asli.jd iSern ri) dress in banatla leaves kr disringuish thernselves fi.),, the Tutsis. I{e also told them thsi Kanyanrkiga rvas nearby and rcad,v to providc rnedical assistance in the evenl they rrerc;r,1rr",t.ii; 5:i:11.y_l*l,,ook,rhc assailanrs ro ihe area where rhey ,r"r* to onort rt,- i,,r'.;.. a, _i"'p";*, Rukara, a rstired soldief, threrr, t h.^,. /}.-*-r^- , I rnree igrenades at liltsis, who then start*d retreatjrlg. Ndahimana was stili pfesent when this took place.6rj 149. :\fter Rukara threrv the_grenades, the assairants pursued the Tursis as rhey rerrealerJ ipto N1:ange chr'rrch and locketi it. Those rvho could not

get into the church r.vere ltilled. J'he u,ilncss testified that Ndahinrana "'<lldered rhe communal poliimen to fire on the persrlns lvlro *ere trr'i'g 603'1. 12 N,]\'sintler 2ill(l D. 9. i'+ T. l2 NUrembcr:tilrl pp. lj-lJ. ' T . l f l N + r e n r h u r l U l { r P . : t r ( l C S t . ' " ' T . 1 : N , ^ e r n h c r 2 l r l 0 l . l J '"' T. l2 \urerrbur.l0l0 pp. tl-15. '''' l-,1 \,'renrl.'er'l0t(] pl1. {:-{1. },ru\(cLrr;on }:\hihit :Lr. ""' l',4 Nor eniber' l01l ) Fr. r'i l -Q.: wdl e vou ons {r1'th(dc l{ulus ra ho lvere la.gcring lijtsis, r4r. wjtn!,-{s.,' A.: I l\,as...)i 'I" 'i N)venlber 2010 p. 11 {lcs) {'lhe, \tioresi r.iecl:rreci. "l also pLryed a rotr: In rlrc ll;rlr iif orlrer pcrs.uls. but the ,lcrert persortr r|c l',.r.uns I fhrsir.rllr I,jllc,l...t. '' .| -l Nor entltr l(r l0 |r t'J i lL'S L "' L J -N!'\ crrher r'r )l r) l. 71. "" T. .l No\embcr 2011) p. _s{1. "'' T.4 Novenrbei.l0l0 i. i2" , , ; I j ) o ' c m l ' . . ] u t 0 1 ' | 1 7 - , 1 q . t . 5 N L , \ c m t \ u r : 0 t r r t , t . : t _ : J i . t a S , . - r r j - | J N o \ r , m l , e r 2 , r l r r n f - l q _ t t : t . 5 \ u \ \ , l n l - r r 2 | | l u f p . o { } _ o l . The Ptosetutor ,*. litlahinutna, Clase t.No. ICTR-01-6[i-T 79 i 27,\

Page 80

Judgenant and Sertefite .tu D ruber 20J I '<7 G to hicle in the tower ol'the church." He lhen cc;nfiscated Lhe guns (.,f twr\ geurlrrrrd.'' t"#,tfiC"C-r,, comply rvitli his direotive. l'he Brigadier llbakilirehe and t',vo c,ommnnal pclicelnen alsio relused t{) shoot" and the l)ourgnlestre asked ttrem to hand over their guns as rvell.'"' 350. After kiliing the 'I'u1sis rvho q,ere unable to relreal inlo N_vange chun:h. ll'.1 Kayishenra and others arived in a Pajero" bringing fuel rvith Lhern.'[he assailants stlrluJ-sprinkling fuL-l on the church lorvet. br"lt the attempt to burn down the chrrrch rvas unsucucsslul."'' l'hc .hnargare sili, leit al'ter 2 p.ni." al'ler having given the uldcr 1o open fi' ".u't \L'h.n the poligemen ran out r;l'iulmunilion they reafised thui the bourgnrc,rrr" had gure and tliat lhe"v had to rvail. ftrr his retunr to get more ammunilion. "l'lre ,lviniess was told thai the bourg rcstrc had gone to the burial ol'a doclrr, a native of Rr*olio.51"' 351. Acccrrdilrg tc tlre witness. there rvere apploxinaiely ,1"00f) a_uackcrs at N) alrgr purish or.r I 5 .A.pril 1994, and approximately 300 Iirtsis rvere killed that day."'" !.afishcnra and Kan) arukiga direcied lhe individu*ls l'r om Kibilira [o spend flre niglt aroulrd ]liyange church,in {rrder to prevenl the refLtgees rvhr; had barricaded themseives insitle the chrrrch lrom escaping."'' I'hr rvilness leii the

church al appr{}ximaLely 6 p.nt.622 3-r2. 'fhe bodies of the 'l'uisis whc rvere killed on I 5 April 1 a9l rr crc bulird in l\.r augc ciose tir tlre Caritas reslaurant. Witness CDI- brought a Caterpillar lraclor r('' t1i;; u rlass grt\L'.rll 5.2.5 Praosguliq:lUrllerc.lB& 353. Prosecution Witness CIIR. a Hutu ianner. lived in Kivumu ((,nrwunt in Afril t(r9J.'ri'fhe rvirness participated irl the killings at Nyange parish on l5 April 1994.{'15 }'le lfltew ih1}t Ndahili':ana was the bourgnre-tlrc oiKivumu comfi tne } and ol}en saiv hirl Llrive past in the (:ohmnne vehicle, a red truck to ivhich Ndahima.na was enritleei "after his appointmellt as , ourgmestre."t'2{' 3-{4. On I "1, t i and l6 April I 99'1, ihc wilness wenl to }.'{yange church to participatc in aliac,ks led by Nciungutse."' On l4 April 199"1" IpJ Ka5,ishema clrtve a vehie le bekrngirrg ro Witness UDZ around the co$tfttune. Usirig a rnegaphone. Kayishema infonnecl lhe locai population that " Iryeuzis" "'" l. 4 Nol'ernltr 201() pp. -i l-i3 11he pr.riicer,^ren A<lrien Niyitegeka (a.k,a. ,,N.Jaherarrru") and Al:;ryisenga" rvlro *l: a nirtive ofRukoko- fircd at the churtir torver. One 01:ihe hlo poiic€nten that !\,ere iiisarmeil lr..as callei.,{ji,,,lili.",r. 'rr T 4 Novenlber 2010 p. 52 tKatishema rras *,ith a ccrtiin Kilagi. ThdoctomLr. an.l Anra {l Nibrrcre u,hen he rranrt: and bhught fuel iLt a Pajero cn!-), ' ' t + N .

, ' c r n h e r 2 r r l { r p : h : l . 5 \ ( ^ ( , n h ( . f 2 f i 1 ( r n j l . "-I. + \o\ember lllllJ p. 5J il ht \\'ilness e-'rplained that whrrt the palliccflrsr'] r'an oul (]l' amnluliti.lrs" ,,they ltid to rvait f<.rr tlre tettt l oi' tLrc bourgnvsire because l L1erc ltas no uav ol lioine to iook l'tl arn nr unjtior t in the ct:rttntne olFica."). oto T. 'N t,-ctembcr ?010 pP. 54-55 (Oo 15 Aprii lg9'tr, ajluri, ii l'or'.1er tdacher, rlas killecl at Nytlrlge chLirch. 'lhi: rvitness could not remcntLler the names ofothers killed):'L .1 No\ cD.iber ?010 p_ 71. o2r 'l'. 4 November ?010 p, 56 (Ndungulse ,lld Bi).atnbere rlr:re also presert). "- '[. '1 No\,ernber 2{}l{} p. sfi. 6:r T, I lrl,.:vembcr. :010 p. 6; prosecution Exhibit 14. "' T. I Novcmbef 2010 p. 6: l,tosccuii0n !,xhibit 14. 6:5 T. I Noremher 2iilr:r pp. 17-18, '-'T. I No\ember 2010 p. 5. 'j2t T l No'''cmber 2010 pp. 11. 14 ("Actuall]. it i! Ndurlgurse rvho led rs. He !r'as our ohiel: our leadrr. |le ls l.id person ivho gar'e us all dre ncr'-s antl all irlifmation in.espect ol \!hat had happcned d. rht castr;txoe ol]jcr, So ner rs tba pef$o1 \tho used to lell lrs wbat hlippened at lrw ct]rrmuka {-'11ice and u.Lr.r also gavc u;i the progllltrne nl lhat ,.ras going ro [ikr. lriaoe."). Jlr Pr,,;eci,r, t r' .\,ialiuatnt, ( rir \1,. t(ltlt- l-,,8-l 8n i 27'+ /w

Page 81

Jtnlxtn,ett antl.;enteni, tt, ,Z:.ry A ltacl irtr,atled rlrt t Dmt unr. Nclungutsc and Ka\ ishcrna inclrcd rhr popularion r,'l tuunet/of,in/.t against lhe refugees.ols 355. On 15 April 1994. Kavislrerna arrived in the same nranner in ihe rvitness' t'omrri*ne. antl agairi incited the population to atrack Nlange parish.6:e The wiiness and orher assal[anrs bcarded tn:cks belonging to the Asraldi conrpany which brought rhem to rhe pari:h. fhc *itne>s bc'lieved rhat the transpoltatirxr had beeu arranged b1, rhe local authoritier.'' "r 356 'fhe trucks dnrpped the assailallts at lhe Statuc of rhe Virgin Malj- at an gnspecilieel time. When the rvitness amived" a large crorvd ol'assailanls hari ah'earlrv g*thered ihere. 'fhe lvimess estimated that therc u'ere approximatell' eight tinres utore assailants than refugees. When he arrivecl. the rvitness. sarv Ndahirnana, Nclungutse, Kanl,arukiga. I{ayishenta^ ivl urangwabugabo. }labarugira. and others.6sl The aurhorities moved alvav from the ,tutuL ;r, the direqtio; of N-r,langa prestryrer,v. Along the n'a1', they spoke lvith thc .garr/lniie-.r. Ther then me.t rvith the priests at tire presb;'rer.1.. bcfolc rcturning 1o rhc ( ODFKOKI brrilding.n'1 3i7. Wheh the aathorities emerged fi'orri CODEKOKI" Ndahimana instructed the iissailsnrs: "Ciu)"s. get l"ourself to wctrk." The assailanls unciersk)od that this was an insarurtiolt to kilt

rhr Tutsis. ;rnd launched an attaok rtsainst the ret'ugces ilt N\.atlge c'hurch.633 Tlre r.viiliess estimales that the attark began betr'vetn l1a.nr. rnd noun.'jr Atter giiing rlris or.cler, l-flahirnana left r.vith commrural Folioemen to attend the funeral ofa doctor lront Rul.uugo.5i5 358' ln the inilial stages 'f the a11ack, the assaiiants thre.,l' srones at the rcrhggg6.6"" 'fho,., a ceflain Rukara arrived rvith a*eapons, inr:lucling grenades.''rt Frt,rn 16g roofui* sh.rJ, Rur,ira threw grenades at the relfugees causing mirnr clcalhs among Lhc I utsis.6l8 The assailanis rhen ,.hopped ovef'the corpsis to continue the atlalk.c'u survir,urs lan tc\wards N-varge church anil lor:ked themselves inside. rvhile others suught rcfugc in N.vangc plcsbl tery and a-thirii group fled t6 a small pltclt ol-rro.rils near N.varrgc parislr.o'' l59 The assail'nts ohased the relirgees to'l.ard Nlange presbl'tery hut rvere stopprd b}, fiather Sen:mba ati<l gendarnes. Faihel. Seromba tolcl Ndungutie an<J lF.l Kal,ishema. t,hj ruere leactrng the alrack, that the priority rvas tc ciear the c:orpses in the courtyarcl.6a", \\ritness cDl.. ivent Lo the Astaldi Compan"- in \Vitness CDZ's vehicle.6a2 Astaldi seut bullilozers ancl a trucli betrveeu 2 and j b31r'.2 ',.r T. I "16 r. 2 utt T. utn r. orn T, i" 1.. 6:r: T. 6:l] j-. 6 J t T . 6 l ! . I _ . .i .T.. 610 ,1. u u , T . u., -f. No\'enlb'ir ?0i0 Fp. 1-l-1j. l\-overnber 2{ll0 pp. t,{- } 7. Nolember 20l0 p, 17. Novernber 10i0 p. 17: 'l'. : No\enrbel.:010 p. lg. Norenber 20lf) pp. 17" 47. November 2rllt)p. zli; 1-. 2 Noi,ernber2{)l0 p.

23. Nolcmb{rr 2010 p- 21. \ovemlrer f0l0 F. ?-1: T. 2 Novcnbei. l0l0 p.

21. Novenrbcr 20 L(.1 p. 2 t, Novernber 2010 p. i8. Nor,entber 20l0 pp. 18-19: 1. I Noventrf :010 fp. j8_j9. Norentber:0lfi p" 18. Nolernber ?1)1{} p. 1,q. Nor€rnber 2010 pp. 1g-20. Norenrbel?010 p.

10. The Prosecutort. Nd1hiMaru. C'ase No. ICTR-01-68-.1- 81 / 271

Page 82

Ju.lgenent ltd SeDtetlc.. 3lt !;e.yal|.\l) lL z-' '/ l-'. p.m. The vehicles were used to coll€ct the corpscs, to <lig a grare under lhc t'ariras bu ili-tfif!-nri td durnp the bodies there.6a3 "]60. Afier the bodies were huried" ibrmer soldiers and comrnunal polic.er.nen hogan firing ar Nyange church and the attack on the church began.oot IP.l Kayishema orived with fuel and the assailants then tlied to burn dor.vn the church hut rvere unsucccsst'ul. ou' 361. 'l'he afiack cantinued until nighticii."l'' "Iiouards the end o1' frheir'] operatiot'' Interuhomt,e lioln l{ibilira arrived on Astaidi trucks carrying raditional r,veapcns. The reinfbrcernents wele asked to spcnd tlie night at Nlange church to ensurc that the ref'ugees did rol escape during Lh* nighl ancl that the artackcrs rvoukl nol arivc late the firliolving day.{'47 At dusk. )ridungutse and IPJ Kayishcnra informed thr assailnnrs that they had nni out ol' "cqiripurcnl" becarse "the stock ofcquipnlent had hc*n locked up hy the hourgnrcsne and thcy rvere rvaiting lirr thc retuni o1'thc Donr.grnc.ilre" to give the assailants more-ou!

362. The rvitncss lelt Nl.ange church at approrimatell'5 p.rn. that rvonilrg, N<11:ngutse tokl hinr that Ndahima.na lctumed later to provide ibod to the reinibrcements fion, I(ibilira.{"' 5.2"6 Prosecution Witness CBK 363. Proseculion Witness CBK, a f lutLr, was l.,l years okl in.{pri) 1994.''1' He rrrrs in a f(,silion to obseLve whal look place at Nyange parish in l9g.{."'' Il is nct clear lion rhe lranscript holv he knew Ndahimana, but he was :rbld to recall his l'ull name and position.o'" He beiievcd that i\'iyrLnge church could hold 2,000-1.()(X) persons.n]' 364. On 15 April 1994. the attackers arrived a1 Nyange parish both on {ior *nd in vehicles. "'l hings rvere so organised" thal vehicles u'ere made available to thosc respdtsiblc l-or transpcrtirg assailants to lhe parish. Among the r.eliiclcs uscd wers a w'hite Stour piekup ruck belonging ro Witness CtfZ; the Kivumu tom tur'te vchicle, a red'loyotii Hiiur: and Colonel Nzaph:rkumunsi's vehicle, a q,h ite tivo cabin pickup truek.u'u'i'he lvitness sar.v tlie rcd llilux ar the parish nn both l5 and 16 April 1994, but rxr tlrose days Nclahirnana travelled in the r'-hite'['o]ola S1{rut belc'rging ic Witness CllZ.a'!

365. At approsimatel,v 9 a.m. olr tr 5 .April 1994, thc witn,rss sarv Seromba, i.ldahiraana, lP.l Kayishema, Kanvarukiga, [lbakilirehc, Witness CDI- as well as the consdllers Habarugir:a. 'r' ;. 1 1',1r e1n6g1 2rr lrr f{,. :1r-2 | : t. I \u\ ('nber 2r,l{, p. -l{. "*' l. I \u\(mbsr ?{r lD Plt.:{)-12 (lhe dtaclrrs rrerc cx-soldiers and communal poiiecnr:n l'rorn Kir.untu iora*rni,, including Adlitn Ni)ilegeks (a.l{,;i. "lUuren€Nvabugabo'"). Appolitaire Rangii'r! Nlu,anta)orna. lrnd .r-soldie. [alncd Kabalisa, ,{nasthase Llzubukaliho ia.k.a. "Ci1'shade") sturted 1o trenrLrlr $'hen hc lilcti his uun, so Kablli$a coni-isciircd the gun ard used i1 hiDlself). .+) T. 1 Novctnber 201(l p. 21. '"" T.2 Nr'lenrber 1{)l0l. 2l- ''17 l-. I Novenbe r:0lal ;p. :1. ,3. ouo T', I I'Jilernber 2{}11} p. 21. 6ae T. I Noveniber 2010 Ip. 30-,11; T. 2 Noveniber. ?010 p. 22. "-" T. : Ncvenber:010 p, 64 (lCSi; Prosc{r}ti(rn F.xhjbit 16. "'' f.2 November 21il(t pp.64-65 (]CS): Itriecutio[ tjxhibit 16. "'1. 3 November 2ft l0 pp. 3-4. "r' T. 2 NoveErber:010 pp. 64-66 {lCS). '.'T 3 Norcmber 2010 pp. 15-16. 26. 33-5"1 (The |-iruntu cciirrrrrrs had onJy one ,,ehiclc. a recl-ctliiured pickup veh;clel. 6t5 T. 3 Ncremiler ?0i0 trr. 54. 'l'he Proseatlar v. Ndahiwtzna, Case N(r. lC t R-01-ai8-'l' 82 t 2il

Page 83

.hdgenenl owl Sentence witness did nclt llear *hal thev said, but allef lhe meeting he s.erv the group lpeaking rvilh Ftruru assailants, alier which a latge-sc*le atlack took place. I'lreiltrackcls inclicled'coinmunil policeuren rvho fired on Nyange chruch tvith guns. The lnterahttnx;e rvere arned rvith tradilicxral lvefipLlns. Getdanttes pafiicipared in the attack as rvell. Attackels wore batlnsa lea.ves and snrall ovnress braneh<s t,r distirtguish dretit>clres lium thc lefrrl:ec>. fhe rrilness pul un b:trrunl lcaves lii thi', pilrpose. At one point. Th6ophile Rukara clinrbed i:n tl':e roof of the Cariras buiklins an.l threlv grenades at the Tuisis. killing a number oftrheln.t'5t' 366. When the 'l r"rtsis realised that they oould not cielbnd thenrselves" thcy retreated into Nyangc 0hurch and loclied themselves in.651 l'he attackers useri l'uel 1tl set banana leaves on fire which tne1.. then threrv into the ohurch in order io kill the lefugees insirle. They then trierl to bunr rl3rvn the church bl "sprinkling" luel around it. More g,enades .rver e also thrclwn that da,v.6:8 Wheu tl.re "authorities"' realised that their plan to burn dorvn the church hatj l|iled, rhey held another tecting at epproximatoly 7 p.m., again at the priests' livine quaders. 'f he lbllcsirg wsre prescnt at ihis second meeting: Ser.rtnba, Ndahirnarra. IPJ Krlrshenra, Kaul arukiga,

Nelungutse, l,4bakillrehe anti Colone I Nzaphakumunsi, arrtr.tttg othcrs."'o Jhc * itnr-ss rjirl not ses Ndahimana between the iirst nieeLinS lhat finished at approximalel-v l0 a,m. antl tlie second neeting that took place that sarue eventng. -' 5.2.7 l!qE-c_q!ie!]l,Xts$lBY 367, Prosecuticn witness ctsY, a l-.lutu, was in a posilion to observe r.vhai was t*ing place al N-vange parish in :\pril 1994. Although he dicl not live ar the parish in ordinarv rimes. hJspent rhe enlire period betrveen l0 and t 8 April l99,1 there because ofsec*riry conciirbns in the region.66r He sarv Ndahintana trvice befbre the events of April i99.1: the first tirne iluring his inaucuratir,p as baurgrnestre , and tire secoucl time rvhile Ndahimima was travelling aiong a roai.u6t 368. on I 5 ApriJ I 99:1, the lvimess sarv Nrlahirnana, lp.l Ka,vishenra; Ndungr.rtse: Kanyaruk ig6 and 'i'hdodomir.(a.k.*. "Kiragi"1 corne into the coun.\ drd of Nrvange presbl..tery"at approximarell, s a.m" k) meet with dre priesrs.bnj Al-ter ths di:cussiorr. fhc gnrLrp iefi tne preit l,tery. lnrnrediatell, therealler" Huttt assailanls tvearing banana leavrs began throwing stones a1 ttre r.el'ugee:. Amr;ng rlre afiackers 'uvere communal lrolicenten. inclucling Maharamrr. Appolioaire and Kabalisa. Tlre refrrgrerr \\'ele able to repel the atackers back tr) the area around the Statire cfthe Virgin fu{ary. As lhe priests rvere

having lunch al approriurately t2:30 p.m.. a fbrmer solclier callecl Rukara clinibetj on the fool of a nearby l1ouse and threw grenades at the "I'trtsi refirgecs. N1an,v rel'Lr;:ecs rvere kined and It'ounded. The surviving refugses thell retreated torvartls l.Jyango church. Those lvho u,erc $nablc to get intrr the churc* moved torvards the coury.ard ot ihe "presbytery rvhere gerrlrrr-nrc.r were stationed."l'a There. thc gentlorntes openetl dre on tlre refugees. The attackers, inclutii:rg ij6 T J Novefttrer 2010 pp' l2-15' 58 (Anong ihc policcmcn, the li-itncss recognized Adrien Mar;1irilriru, [,lb1rgrr3. Kibyutsa ard Leonal. He added that. tlre pori"*,en r"cr. iarrying ri{les, Ai tbr.as hq rcm*rnibcrej, thei. harJ KalashniI'Ir s .rrrl '1t,trtlt<r 11p" ,,1 *uu ,nat do n{'l lire nrrny shors ar tlie :unre tinte."J! L .1 Nolemt}ef :,-rtq p, L ' " f . I \r,\ cmb(r fOl U fp. I j, t.l. '""'L 3 Ncvenbef:010 prr. Ij-16. diq l-. :l Nolember 2(-|10 pl. l6-17, "' T. 3 No1'ember 2010 p. j8. "', l . 9 \ur rnr[,cr l0lrr n. 1,, , t(. a,. l l0 \.! !n]h.f _r0ld p. -ii r i( \j. " t. () No! emhcr lolii p. j6. ", I t N.\ crnlrcr )ri l( r nl). .l{, i I( \ r. ji. " - I Q Nt,rr'nrbcr' l|| l|l 1, _s t: l. l,1 No\(ntr,fl 2jrlri pp 2). jt,, i t {l( \ l 'l-he Prose<:1tlor r. Ndahinato, Case No. lC,l R-01-iig;t. 8l :7.r.

Page 84

l"un-vrrukigu' a certuin Kiragi. and seterrl eorrlrrLnrll p(rlirclnerr nanrcd KuLllisr, n,J6r,rr*."p Jean-h{arie' tried to srr'or into the urrurch. when they discovered rhis nrode of a?'ock ro be unsuccessl-ul. a cerlain l'eonard Nitrarere cante with a t'uel pump an<l cloused the church g,alls rvith petrol itt art eflbrt 1o burn dorvn the church. Latef, the attackers re:rlised that it was iliflicuft tir dernolish ihe chu.ch and treeams )..f)..1']#1.-_fh.: leti aud .erurnerl with a bullcrozer. :r'hey staned to detnoiish the church on l5 April leg-i,.fr.'That evening. aturcti.ers surounded the ohurch in trr.der lo irtt"ck any rcltrgcc tr-'"ing to escape.o'" l hc u irncss cJirnrrc,l rhar 300 r.*tir3,,,c: rrcrc killcd rhar dav."'' 5.2.8 Proseculion Witness CIDJ 369' lirosecution wilness cDl..a Hutu_, \1€s in a prsition tc obserye *.hat ',as taking place at Nyange parish in April 1994.465 lt is not clear lionr rlre rccord how he knerv Ndairimana, bur he was alvare that lie lrad been tnade bourgrrte stre.6,ie -i10 on an unspecified Frida3' night al'fer Prcsident I laby'arimana's death, thc rvilness arrived at Nyange parish at approximarely 7 p.m, and fbund_thar puri oi'Nyong" church hatl been destroved alld that there rvere dead bodies in ihe couftyard,o7o \lririn he arrivecr, Ndahimana, eotr,., s**,i,Lrl 30 Derenber 2() | I iasted epprorimarety lrvo hcurs.'the rvirness,iid r,n"il;;

;il;il;;,Jt'o;;;;;.;;r:;;.il1illt,r'i \Ilhe- I-,- ra1,,n.,,, ',- rL-- -'- 0estfiJvcd. - :::::.:: lelumed ro the churcli the next day. he norieecl rhar rhe c,hurch had b*n crimpleretl, ,Jtlilge ne n/ an.l Se we fic.' 5.2.q 371' Prosecution Witress YAU. a Tutsi houservil'e, iived in Kivutnu cortmtne in April 1994.57i Prior to-the evenfs of April,l99.:r', the nitness tnew ujanimana even belbre he became bot.t.Eirne,ttre ofthe Kivumu "orr,,rrrrr,, .u,4 372' 'l}e rvitness and her famir5, sought rerirge at N,v. .inge parir! ..some crays",after trre death of Preside't Habyarimana.6T-' she reniained theri rbr rr,r..' diur.ru ttn tt,. ir n*rr:' rhiror ;;., ,, Nvange parish, there vas a rvidespreacr a-rrack and ,r*"y, {n;1* we;"'kiri;d.;ti;i,-, *"*,-*,rr- rritn^ess saw a..!'1her xanf ira'ga. arrive .i' a lrus *iil ; ;.;;;p of seircrjcrs *'n.a ,"i,il"gi*,ri,r"*" *Before noon." Kanyiratga met rvith Ndahimarra. rufionrio, rr,,r-arukiga, and F-ather Serr:mba in tront ofthe secretari:ir. soon after, rather seromba.rnet witr-,,g.,up of h;era/atmv,eana th* Lrii;ng began' A teacher 'amerl Gatare. lvhcr r'vas consiclered t' be'an intetg,rual, rvas arnong the firsr killed' Th* wirness then sa* grenades being thrown ancr rieJ ior.,-yange presbyrery. Ndahiuana *as i'r.f.qNorrrnhcrlr)ltrip.jj-:+;f.i0Noveml.er2ill0pp.27.-r0_-_rl(lCli). ' 'T. q NL\rrnbcr i/)t {} D. 5i. ", 1. t0 Norcmlrc-r l0lrj p

J+(lcq). - " " T . l l M ' r e o r b r t l 0 l 0 F . l + { i C S ) . "' T. 1 I Nur ernhrr 2r't r-t n 57tlcbt. ""'T l 1 '\'r'r e rrbcr' 20 r0 t) -r, t r h€ N'lajd.itl: intbrs fiar trre rvihre ss rvix retrrr,iig t0 Fricra). r5 Aprir 1gg4i. '' f I I Nor c-nrbrr ]0 tU trF- l9--10 ;;; ;,.o:!Ti;;f"ffi{11,, pp :r0-31 ('r'he tvtaiorir! iorirs that rhe witness \\,,s rrf.erd.g io Sarufda:. I (, Ai_n il I 99,i). ' . T l 5 s r p ) t c r n b e r 2 t i l U n - j J ( i ( C i : t . t h s e f l c n r l r f : t r l 0 l , . l j r l ( , i ) . ' 1. l5 Srprcrrbcr 201(i l) J2. - l li Sentenrller:nlill.,.,15. "'T. 15 september 20li) p 48 (The lunjorit) irritru that rhc \ritness'thirxj dril irt th,: chrrch r,.,as t5 April I99.1). Tlle ProseLl.itot r. Ntltthinana, Case No. le.l R_01_iig-,I B4 i 274

Page 85

Jtt.lgerrcnt.lltd,S?uterTce tr,,1,r,y,,th L! present "as the killirrgs rvere taking place."t'ts The lvitness sarv lpj Kal is6e uro ou,l gh,,,kr{ | N-vange church bui did not see atry c.)mn.utnal policemen.6r') i7l. At Nyange presb)4ery. the lviluess heard Farher Seromba ask an lrtteroha#ne .lmed Nyirandayimbushi to kill the refugees who had gone ilrto the pr.esb;,tely. T.hat evening she lrearrl Seronrba tell the lnte rahgrrtwe rhat he rvas tired and tlial lhe), should go honte anil r.e-nt, iut that ril€v should return thal nigtrt to kill TLrrsis u,ho had taken refirge in the bell torvei. of Nyarige churult.,'ri' Tlat evening, Father Kanyir"anga entered the rooln in ,r'hich the witress and orher r.f,,g*., *,.r" hiding and atlvised them h llee. Of thc 30 'futsis rvho lled the presbvtery thar niliht, i.,nly rrvo. iuciuding the witness, survi1,ed.6$ I 5.2.10 Prosecution \Vitness CBS 374. Prosectttion Witness CIIS. a Tirtsi. lirad in Kivumu commt.tfte in Aprii l9!),1."$?'lh* witness knew Ndahimana before the events ol':\prii |91i4 trecause the i.vitness hatl visiteil Ndahimana a1 the communal olllce on ai least ote occasion to discnss a pnrblem rvith him.68l 175' Members of t e witness' lbmily r.vere killed on I I April 1994. 'Ile lbll6rving ilav he rvenr ro find-ret'uge ai i\lyange parish rvith his mothcr and some of his siblings.{,s-1 ,t.le;, al.riiecf aL ihe parish on l-uesday l2

April 1994 at appj.oxifiatel),.6 a.m. When the1, ariricd. genlarmr:t rvete pfesent as r're ll as approriimatel_v 2,000'[utsi relhgeeslsi 376. Early ir the,T.miug of 15 ;\pril 1994. the ref,€ices at Nyange parish heard thc sound of rvhistles and drums coming from the hills, rvh-ich the rvitncss understood to 6e a siglal 6 Ilutus ro bcgin an attacli on the Tutsis at the parish.686 Scon a{ter" {)tngeiller Gatrvaza iirll.ecl rvith his "army," and otlicr assailarrts came ftom neighbouring Icioaiilies.f,rT '377 ' The rvitness \1as ou the church squarc that morning.bn" Aft"rrkcrs carne li,.1rr ercr! rdlerc. Vehicles lvere brilrgirrg afiackers to the Statre of rlie fi.gin Mary niu -." '..-^'ui u,rif..,rniru requisitioned a vehicle belonging to witncss cDZ and usecr it ti transprirt assairanrs.6e! -1f'!' ,- {tlar'lcrs disguiserl lhemselves rvith hranana leaves in orcler to riistingr"rish themselves fron. Ine relu8ecs.' ' At iipproximaleJy 8 a.m,, the lvitness saw Nd*hirnana, logeth;f i&irh Kayisrrema and atmed police offieers. in the area where the vehicies rverc dropping offitlac,kers.;\cconiing ki the rvitness: '"lt was obvious thar it. !r.as Ndahimana's gruutr r'rLirh-*os issuiug instruerir:rito rlre atfackers. The attriekers stopped there ancr rher' *,our<i disc,ss with the group made ,p or. "'' L I5 Scptenrhcr :0l{t it. .1q. ''T. l-5 Scntcmher l0l0 r,. ti "r^ T. l5 Septembtr:n10

pp- i{.,-sl. -' T I i Sept!-mber :0 t0 pp. 5l-5j. '-l h \cptcnlhcr l0l0 p. 10. l,r,^eeutr.,n Irtrihir t. "' T. 6 Srpt(rnhcr 2lll (r A. I q. "' 1. 6 Septcmber 2ril{r pl. l.t-l J. ' l-6 "'elt':flhci 2\ll\' itp 14-16 ( fh* lr'irness q\plnined that he arrived 3t NlalEre chu;.ch alier Lillin-ss th:rL qcr..iri.ed on 11, April 11194 illrd *rat he sta,red lirrm "'liresdiy ti' trridar.'" 'The N{ajoriry assumes thr:rclirr,r: th;1r be sta\d al thc .Lritrr'ir il,,rn lrrrrdr.r. ll {nfit l,ir)J trnril l-rr.tur. lj.{t.rjl lviJ). I - {. Scpicnrhcr :0li} D I t. 65' I. t, Sentenr L,er. l0l 0 o. .lj. 6r' |. r,scprrmhL.r iJl0 pp. ti. 1e.22. 16-:7 -'-'l 6 Septellrhrr 2r,lrr pp.2l-22. '"' f.6 s..ptcnrbcr :utO ir. ,:x, ''r T. 6 Scnfenbqr lUl0;r. :r-. The ?rosecupr \'. lld.itim.,nq, Casc No. tCTR_{ll-6$-T $5 i 271 14-

Page 86

Jttdgene nt ond,\ertence 30 Decentl.ter )01 I 6'i T.6 sct'renrher l0l0 pp 21" 22 ' ' I '! sePt'rnb(r 2utri fl. l:-:l Iq n'rliccman rlJr!rrd \i.l')ir(inhcrc lcii l\rt,,rr thu e't(l r,t tlr!' .r!:;:c1.. I hq \ 11nr.5, recognised otltcr police officers [anrerl Nihirernbere. ,{drian ll*{ah!}|anu Nivitegcka. and lial]gira. Ndohimara u,!s nrdcring tlroii* !,rmnrunrl poliecnrcn to .hrlnl ilt thr, rcllrgc{sl. ' - I . fl SeT,rcnrhcr :0 t0 J'p. l-l-1{. ''' T. 6 SrFtemb(i:0ll) pp. l{-15. '" T. 6 srptelrber 2 rL I tr lf . 26-l ? r Conseiller t labarugi* w..as in chal.ge cl.the N].ange chil.ch rr,._.lerri. "-' T. 7 brptcrrhcr. lr) lil pl). )J- lrl. jl. ""- t. o Srntrmbtf l0l iJ fp. :b-17. lq. ',.'T. 6 Scptemhsl ?1rltl F,27:1.7 Scflenrh(r :010 | l.r. _ - | i J ) e | r t c r b L r 2 0 l r j l r p 2 2 - 2 + , . , . c , r 1 r , , . l . l 5 S c p r c n r t , * r ) , r t , , 1 . l i . '"' 'l-. l4 Seprember:0]l] p. :7. '""'1 . l4 Sdpteirrber :0 t0 p. :8. ' 'L 1.1 Septernher 2{,l0 nn. :b. 17. ' ' l-. l-l Seltrrrber I'liLr l) :J, '-'1. 1.1 Seprc bd.:010 p. :]9. Ndahima'a and other authoritics." Jhe wit'ess thus int'erred that the attacker, *"r3eg 3 instru.'tions f'rom Ndahirnana. Ndahinrana renained in the area untii ihe aftackcrs wr:re read). t; be!l - - 379.. The attack ol the reiugees at Nyange parish stafted irt approximately 9 a.m. T'he rei"ugees repelled the assailants bl"throrving stones at

1hem. The assailanta then began sing gfellades that "would kill -10 Tutsis in one go." The refugees began retreating and were ioon oven"-helrne6. The afiack.lasted uxtil approrilnatell'' 3 p.m. Cornnrunal policemen parricipared in the attack. shoorilg ar the rellgees."''-.'l-he rvitness salv Kivunu tomm nt conseilfers Citrvaza and I labanrgim at tLe parish that da.v.6ea {)onviller Catrveza and other leadcru r,vearing banana ieaves surrounditl Nyange church in {.rrder 10 kill the refbgces.t'!5 Another corr.si,/ler" }iabarLrgira, also pe.r-riciparerl in the massacre. and was armed with_a nlacheae and giving instr cti(,n.J 1r; thc a5sijlJnts.o'n Gen"lrn.we,; also part;cipaled in tlre atlack.','" 380. 'Ihe r.vitness survivcd because he hjd irr the kitchen ofNyange presbyterl,. I.le rhen mdved to rhe conidor Ltd ,h.,i.,i1,9 th_. poultry shed rvhero he remalned irnril nigtr*:rit. ihat nicht he flati to (rrtar?rna /)/'!'tz(Jrrie- ' ot thc nroro than 2,000 refugees at Nl.ange parisir. onl), about 20 survived tltc massacres. 5.2.1 1 Prosecution Witness CBI -181. Ilrcsecution wimess cur, a lirtsi ra''er" rivecr in Kivruuu .1)ntrn!!ru in ,,\prir i99-1.r".' lhe rrilness knerr Ndahimlna becausc he $;rs l.hc burrgaii rlrr,of his t.tilt, r fi( .it't ()rr 7 ,rpril lq(){. r(. wimess sought refug* at a fiiend's humr.7.l He thcn muvecl tr.' N.v'.ange parish after irearing fiorn 'I'ulsis ir1 his

,set:teur rhat N<iahimala was encouraging the 'l'ursis to do so. He x,rs rojci tlat lhe baurgneslt'e had already aken l-utsis ther"e in his veiricle. a red To,v'.ota !lilux.703 l+l: ur.iii.a "t Nlirrrile palish on l3 April 199.1 lrr rppr..rxirnare l1 7 p.m. ',, .182' I'he mrisr signiiicani artack on Nyange church Lo.k place cxr 15 Aprir rs94.. During this altack he saw, ihe tbilowing local autholities, among otbel.-s: Ndalrimana." Kayisheina. asslsranl bourg rc:itrc vddasre h'{urangu,abugab., Kanyarukiga. iricrunguts€ and u *",,, noui",r .r"i..r3r 383. 'lhe lvit ess eslinlated that thc nunrber o{ attackers on 15 April I !}!i;tr rvas about len lirnes greater than the nuntrer of'those lvho lrad participaled in previous attacks. causing tlie atlackefs to outnurnber ihc rel'ugees. .l ho attackcrs carricd tricliticnal iveapons, and some rvciie 6anana jeaves. TtE PtotecuIory. Ndahint.|tkt, Case \*o. ICTR-0l-f,fi-1. 86 i 2t4

Page 87

184'. The attack bcgan at about I I a.m. or noon, and continued uulil about 2 ;r.m. rvhen it srartecl to rain. The killings linally stopperl at around 6 p.rn. nhen it started to get dark.7e7 Ll,e anackers surroundittg l*iyange church r'vere arnred rvitl lr'aditional \.!eapons. r.vliile ihe corrmunal policemen were equipped rvith rttode r weapons inciucling firearms. Among rht: p,;rlice oflicers were Ni1,'itegeka, ivftm),antarama and'l-dlesphor.e h4bahirirehe_ tt{ 3s5. Durirrg the attack. gentlanne,s and policemen rvorkeel in crneerl with the attackcrs an.1 shot at the refugees' Those rvht were lrLt shooting stood u,ith the pl'iest aucl watcheil the cvents unfitd. h4anl Tutsis rvere killed that day.7ot .i86. 'Iirgether rvith the relirgees, the rvitness fbughr against the attackers. When lic rsalised rhal thel' lvere beins overpor.vered. he.iumped over th;hu;h ,o,all ancl hid in rhe k cheu or. N,va'ge presbyter] l'or abour 20 minules unril appreximaely 4 p.m.?r0 \\'hirc hc ,, *.; in hi,.ri,,g, iirc rvitness hearcl grenades expli:ding. Soon tfter" geirltrnrcs an.i"*i an,l askecl e&ch pcrson to i<jcntii'v himseltr. 'ihe rvitness scaled lhe llnce ol.1he preilr1..t"ry and flecl kl K*bga,vi.7 5.2. I : !l{o.i!srjisddl4!es$ "eBN i87' Prosecution Witness cBN, a Tutsi f'armer, livecl in Kiwuru c omuu.me inApril 199.{" I1e first ll1er Ndahimena in 19!) I .7r2 lle and his relarives scirght

lcfuge at Nyangc parlsh 4ire to the croun',,g hostilities in his connnne {bllorving the president"s ieath.ll 388', on l4 April 1994. the rvirness-heanl rvhislles an<j people rvere asked ro preprrre for an at*rcl: otr Nyange church the follotving day^r1a Then. on April 1i 1g94. ltutu assailanis qonducted a large- scale attack on the churt:h. Ii began ai about g a.nr.7li Attackers corling &.m trr" iturr"'or $ra Virgin J\{ary. I"iigabano alld the direction of Nlanriyugiri sumoundecl tie church.r'o sor.- tuo traclitional arms rvhire orhers robbed grerades at rhe reiulles resrlti"g i;;r;,t;;;;;iries.-ff 389. ]he assailanis that da3, inclucled: llalisaba; Cirdgoire Gatana; Ctsn-reiller,, Gatr\,.aza arxt Hatrarugira; and Mahame. who lecl it . *irii.'t.rr ;;;;;; fiom t,ugcko: Karyanrkiga: t[,.tr Kayishenra; Mupenda, assislant bo.urgmeslrei and various p,rlic"**u, sordiers arid ,gen4rrruie , who collaborated rvith the attackers and raugrrr them hor.v t<] use the greua<Jes., '. The witness did not see lldahimana ieading any ofthe attacks.Tln .ludgement nd Sentence 'rhe rvitness sarv Ndahimana"s recl IIilux ancl rvas rolcl it had travellcd tluough thc arrd neiehhouring tottlrture,\ with a urr:gaphone calring tlro rocar inhabitants tir go to 1NT. l"l Seprenilrer:0I0 Pp. -i5-tt9: T. 15 Scprcmber:010 1l. -jft. '"' T. 14 Seplember 20l0 pp. -19-, , ' 'T. l{ Scpternbcr 2r,10l. -10. ,"T- ll

SeFr)nbef l0tit lp lq-. . ' T. 1-l SeFtenrt.ef t0lrt pp ll.+.t. ' T. l.l Srptemher l0lt) p. -lj "''1. l3 Seprel]]ber 2(i l0 p. 2. "'T. 1.1 Septernber 2010 p. 15. '- T. lj Senrrnher l0liJ tp. lrr. io. u2-o t. -' L l.l SrFernber lul p. ll. "" T. 13 Seprembr.r 2010 pp.2l-22. " 1. 1-i ScplenrLrer'l0l{} ir,. 2l-1.1. '' l'. lj Sepremt<r :rrfti pp. ::-:-r. ' ' . 1-. I I Scptcmhr 2010 p_ St The Proteuttott. Ndohiuax*, (_.ase N!r. ICTR-01-6g_T rire parisir.Tt)it 81 i )'i.4

Page 88

s"2. I 3 tu{bpse ![!1psifl]a1sse_&lukhdcri 391' Tltdrese l\4ukatricleri. a l'iutu. rvas chiefofthe arlminisrrative and financiai depanlrent ci'tire B.anque continentale A"tricttine in April 199.{.72r she rvas rnarriecl to Dr. Ntawururru*gu on,r ur..u lived in Kigali. The r.vitness tavelled from Kigaii to Gilaranra on I Apri] 1994. a.d theu on io Kivurnu on I I April | 994. 'vhire her hLrsbanJ renrained in Kigari.Tr, ii,r"r.,r*onu'l*u'u' li *iry friend"l'hc lvitness lirst lnet Ndahimana_rvhen she ard rhe dllclor were mar.r.ied in lgg{i. Thc docinr was lhe godfbthcr o1'Ndahimana's sons.7:: 3?z on 14 April 1994, the *'itness was infbnnsd that R.PF soldiers killed her husband durhrg rhe night of l-? \pril Jrt94. Ntlahimana. l crdirrand antl orhcrs ai:carrrprnicd lris I'ocJr to Rulirrg.i. rrr Kiv:trn' cowmune. ar approxi ratell.. 4 p.rn.. .on l4 April f qq+.ti'NJ"ir,;;rq ,,;);;';'R;;;g" ,ntil past midnight 'rganising the firnerai" rvhich rvas to take place ,h" u""ttl;.,;;- Jlrllge thent and Sektetlce 390. 'l'he aliaeks rvere stil .ngoi'g when the rvihess was abre to escape from bel'veen 1 and 2 p.m. b-v ooveri'g himself in banana re*ves ", rlr.';;i;;J;..61 a"*]ii-"*"-"e-,r to go t{} the Kahg:ryi .runior seminary.'r'rre rvitness' *lari'e s arl rrerished ar rhe church.72.

393. Ndahirnana reiurned to Rulungo _at approxiulatejy -t or 6 a.tn. on l5 April lgq4 to colllplete ::1111:tli1': lit the btr|ial, but lcft bef.rte thc bo.lr rvas bLrrieil. Before lear:ing. he i'rbnned the ):n:::',l}tl.:,Y.l 9;:,i j*,l tl.:,*:.rs utuest in Nyringe scoc:," rra l,rr n" i,"J;;;;;iffiffi; i1,:::-1i:-""."t1:,I1:.1.ft..*irn.rrricer tumuscng. ;ho cro;"1,; ;-il;.;;ii;;?,; I*,1l'1E"":.::::lJ:-,1:Jllln ar approximatcrr,?,,'" z p.,., u*t Ji,r ";;,;;;;;;;; r,.r",..,l*",l,s again. Tlre accused then left again rvith,qnicet but ihe rvitness Jid uot knorv rvhere thev went.7r7 394' The ri'ilress estimared the distance between Rufungo anir Nyange rr: be about i0 kikunetres'728 She coull not;rpproximate the distance betwri,, nrrurgu and Kirru1,e.;:e torve1,g1. sheexplainedthattheraac|sbet!veeIlhetwoo,eos''e,eba<l.if 395. ^ Beatrice ,lukankusi, a l.lutu ^1ratler, lived in Nl,ange sa(tex ". &pprax,tnrately 50-100 me*es ar'vay from the conunilual office in I994_7jt :s6' {]n TfiL''sda1-. l4 Ap'il l-994 at approrimatel;- 2 o1 -1 p.*,..t,, the u,itness [c*ned N<Jahimana [:ffilt:f*"t]ue Daitiaisu pickup, ro atterd rhe f'unerat of Dr. Ntarruruhun!* ,ii nrri,,,g" ;- i:o l. 13 Selrentbef :010 f. :3. ''' Dsf'ence Exlib;l 102 ;,;l-] l"l*"* :?1 I pp. 6t. 66: T. 8 i.ebrLrary 2rll I F. 4. -- I.7 February ?01I p.67. '-' t. 7 Fehruar-r 2r-)1t pp.67-63. '.- T. 7 Fcbnrar). :01 I p. 68; T. B Febnrar.y 201 1 p. 18. '""'l-. 7 Febnrarl tol I p. 68. ,- -1". 7 Fehluar.r :r|] I p hy. " l. 8 li,bnrur\.201t D. ti. ,-'T. 7 Fcbruu-" lijt I ll. 68. '', T. [i l.'ehruan ]ttll fl. lh- l7 ,T ? lchrrrrrr ?r)l I fn. J-5: Dc{en.,e lr\hil);r i0l. -' I 7 FcbrLr3r-v l0l I L). 1t. fhe f'rotecdot v. Ndahintata, Casc r-o. lCl,R-tll_6g-T B3 i 271

Page 89

J1KJge t e nt and,\e I lte|E.: i0 becen$er )()l l 197. The rvitness ilicl not see Ndahimana again until 15 April ln9{ ., S?"r$ Ntarvuruhnnga's funeral.Tla Thc witnsss went to th. {r-ureral rvith her brolher-il-larv, Anicet Tu1us.ens9, in his trlrrc Pa.icro. She travelled in the vehicle alo[g rvith Cldmence N{ujawirnana. Anicet's rvifb; Sekimanei Jean" Anicer's ) ounqcr hro1h.cr,, totcthel ivith his r.vifb: Ilcaflici.s mother ir llrv: and lJcatriuc's r'irivcr Alphilnsr, N.lrrdahcrunrra.tj, 398._ The.v left home at approximatel;-- r0 a.n.7i6 Along rhe *ay. they encounrer.ed liufu attackers anJ l utsi rclurces throwirrg stunc\ al caclr trtltci.in the ar.cn >ur,riLljldin- rlt., Strrue,rl.thc Vilgrrr Man" " attd t't.)li a dclottl lo feach fhe l-u*eral.7j5 They ;lnived at Rufuirgc just bcfbr.e l l a.rri]ii'] The rvitness could not estimate rhc disLancc lrrtrvecn N"i:angc ancl Rufirngo but $a!d ihat.,therc r.as qulle a dislatice belrveen the tlvo locrliLies.' r'r'' W l,"n il.t" inivcd. Ndahlinana rvas ahcady plc$cnt and cooniinating thc event.Tal i99. Althr:Lrgh Ndahirnana lvas the 'lnaster of oeremonies', it rhe l'uneral, when the rvitness described.the situaticn at Nlange parish to him, Ndahimana left the 1'uneral rvith Anicet Tumuse'qe in Arricer's Pajero and rvent to Kibu-ve to see the srri.fet,lar Although she could not sa),at lvhat time l\dairimana and Anicet lett the,junerar.

it u,as nor immediately arler she arrive; ai r l a.m.. bLrr belbre slre herself le ti at 5 p.m.7{:r she ,stated, ''we did not look at our watches, and it i.yas a I'an*rar, We did not pily attenti()n to the time."7ra On her way hr:me liorn the luneral, sh* sar.r".manr- clear.l bodies... [end]. . .a tiulLlozer. which rvas collecting the dead [ror]ies.,.7ai 5.2. 15 Defeirce Wiitrcss LicinillS t!:fuI9k:tiSAt ;100. l"€onif le lllurckef isoni, a Hutu, rived in Ngrma m tsutarc prift:trure in r9r).r. Her husb*nd *'as,the &oargrresriz c/"Kivumu (tornt *te from *epternber 1990 u;it 1993.7,16 !.{ ' iirrb-"i *a N(]tn ur'\ilna \\ rre tuends.'-' 401. The v'itness arrived ar Dr. Nhrvuruhunga's rimcral on t5 April 1994 ar approximaterl. li a'm', bttl "at an)'rate...beftrre noon."74$ Nclahirnina *as a1 the housc ivhen she gu tireie, l.lc ,o..as the "masleL of ceremonies" togelher lvith another man namecl .{nicet. N<lahimana lel,i bel.ore the en.l ol. the furienrl eer(,uon\. she bcrievecr it u,as appr.ximarer) r or z p.rn. rvhen she noricecr he was no ltinger thcle.'re A e eitoin Nlukeshimarn lorrr ii.re rvitness ihar Nduhi*unu had gone u) the prdftrlr$t to see \'i'lierher the prdfet couril provide hin rvith assistance to sorve a securii probien i; ir;;r,s- rrr l-.7 frebruary'2{}ll pp. t2-lrl " f 7 F ( b n t a f l : 0 l t F . I . t - ',' i. 7 F"bn,nri :ol1 p. +j. -- T. 7 Fehluan lrtl l n, ,-t '' L l Fchruirf\ 2Ul I p. l_5. '. 'l . 7 Frbnrur.' :01 I fp. t j. ll -.12. -,.

1. T lebruan lOJ I pp. t5-J6. '' T. 7 Frhrr:Ln 2rrl I l. _l:. ''' T. 7 Frbruor."- :01 | pp. "tj, J6. '-''1. ? Fetlruary:01 I pp_ tj-l6. '"' l.7 Fehrua.y ?01I pp. 16. 47. '-- I. 7 FchrLHry 2(|l1p.4i). ''- T. 7 Februor.v 201 I p. 16. ''" T. lt) February 20t I p. 5. - 1, l{} Irebr,uar} Za}it pp.5-6. ]11t 11'l:o*l'i'tntt pi r* 1:',+t *u.ote, 1canre rfiere berore n.on. Nlalhr rIands{,ftre mi'.Lcsi I r,ouldn,r br, $.,y . I riauldn't Lre abie to sa] uhether it rr,as,l l:05 or I I I10. llut" g.n*, nti;: ;p"ol,*g^ I \rcluld sa.y- il,s arcruLtd , ,. , "i*r, "J\'] Inrl thc ft(!l\c Lin]c tt' lh( nrinurc. Nt,. I c,ur.t J,, rh t...]. ' T 10 Fehrunrl 2t,i I nD. l-J I . I S_ 'l-Jte P r o s e c ut nr. t. N dahi n o x.{, Clase No. IL-TR-{, I _6$-T 19 t;.1 4L ',I

Page 90

Jwl!<enent an<l SeEteE'' t,r,.*rr"4,.tO,l Ca L /t* | st:cteur.'-54'l'he burial itself toolt place aL arount! 2 p.m. anil the funerul rcr{r}lDn) cu*I} tr#-.nf[t t approximately 3 p.m. r.r-o more than 100 pcople altended ihl' ceremonl''.''" 'l"he wirness lef? the hrneral ut irLr.ut \ p.rn. :rnd ncver sirrr Ndahimana lc{ulrr.'il 5.2. 1 6 DS&Ice,y jlassi Aqls_"q1-f 'qp$crgg 402. Anicet TLrmusenge. a llutu. was a businessrnan in Citaraura. t5i C)n the morning of 7 April 199.1, lre-left Citarama to go to N1'ange ,seaelr in Kibute prdJecarc because of the sccut it"\ situation.'-"'Ile is L)et'ence Witness lkatrioe Mukankusi's brother-in-larv an,l the qodfather cl Ilefence Witness Thdrcse klukabideri's d3ugh1e1.7i5 The deceaseci. I)r. Ntarvrrruhun-ea. rras the godlirther ol'the witness' daughrer.Tj6 f,le ilid n,:t knorv Ndahimana pr.iol to rhe {uner*|. ?l'7 403. The rvitness knerv Dr. s"t;rwuruhunga rvell and artended his fureral in Rulungo. Although he oould not reglember the precise date of the lirneral. he believed it took place berween l,l and 16 Aprit 199:1."n Ndahimana coordinated the lirneral and rvas alieadl- at the housc rvhtln rhe rritness amived in the morning.T5e Duriug the flneral, the u,itness rvas respJnsihle lbr rvclcoming gussls sn6 providing supplies to Ndahimana.""r At a ce$ain point, r-dahimala askcci the .w-itnels 10 loan him his vehicle so thar he cculd go to

Kibu]e because there r.rers secffilv problcms in Nvango. 'fhe rvitness fearcrl thal Ndahiniana. lvas trying 1o commandeer his vehiclc and deciried to drive Ndahimana to Kibuye himscJf'."'i 'T'hc lvilness helievcd he ha<J been a1 the Ilneral jirr one lrour s'hen he lefl rvith Ndahimana {'or Kibu-v-.e, and thar ihey !ci1 at approximarely ] p.m.;':: 4.04. As they started the trip, Ndahintana told the witness that hc rvas goiris ro Lhe utlfucturr ta lind sohlicr: lrecausc therc rrcrc sccuritr llr.t]hlenrs in Nrange./ui Jhc r,, iirts* dri,\.. i,lol, i,,,,a,.,. i,, the headquarters ct the pri.fecture, Ndahimana spent approximatel-v 40-60 minutcs inside the pt'lfzt "t oltice while the wimess waited in thc car. When Ndahimana smslgeo. ilr was accolnranre.r b j- the prdfet. 'lhe rvitness dicl not know it ivas the prAfer \H\ril Ndahiirana trrl{ 1.,ir,,:r t",'Whsn Ntiah iniana returned to the oat he told the witness thel th'e r. "lbt hatl inlbl.rned him lhat titerc $,er$ no soldiers or gearl,rmre,y availabie.T5J J05. Thc rr inrcss and Nrhhirtrana lhrn \rcnt lt the gcndurnr'ni,. \ilahirnant le ft tlrc rr ilnrrs irr the vehicle rvhile he rvent irside.Tt" Ndahirnana *us ,rt fhe strtion tirr less lhan 30 ntinutes. 'lhe-y then passed by the house ot'air agrononrist nametl Janvier belbre r*lurnins ti: the lltera{. 'tfie rvirness eslimaletl the,v arived back al 1he 1-uneral at aberut 6 p.nr.

l'hc l'rrncral irud r'ld! J, s,) hc ilnd rii T. l0 February ?{)l I fip. I l- Ll. .'" 1. l0 Fchurry':011 I. 13. "'T, l0 Fcbnrary, :01 I pp" 11-12. '" T. l: \4a! :{)l1 p. ?; Defence Exhilrir 128. "' l. 12 i,tav 301 I p. 3. 755 T. 8 rebrLrary zoi i p. t r. ''" T, 12 May 2{}l I p. 5. " '1 . l:. Nlay :011 r:r. 5-fr. "- r. r: ,vaj tor I r;. i. t:. '" 1'. 12 h{a; ?L)ll p. 7. '"'T. 12 h,lay 30ll p. 12. ""'f. 12 \,lay :011 p. ?" ,". j. 1? \1"y i!11 p. l: ("1 thirk lve rrLrst hals left that Fla.)e aroultl I p.rn.. bccause I spr:rt ab{,irl onc hori thefd,,'). ''' T. 12 nIa1 20 t I p. !), " ' f . 1 : N t d r l u t I D p . B . 1 1 . 7o' t - t: rtri :o t t p. 'r. ""' T. 12 1.1a1 ?i)11 p. 8. 'Ilp l'totec ta{r. Ntlahinwru, Casc No. IU.IR-0l-rrg-1. .)1) i 2i4

Page 91

,tudge meti a,td sewe n e 30 l*t9t 2tttt,l (? \daltirtrana hril a fcrr bcers arrrl l{f1 it arou)t{ 7:-i0 p.rn. "j lhc irirrrc:s clropp.ti Nda#a.#*f,,-''6 house at approrimately 8 p.m. before r-eturning to his or.vn houre.76s 5.2.17 l]efenoe Witness C]dnlent Ka]-ishema 496, cld'ren1 Kayisheina. a Hrtu" r'vas the prqler of Kibule pri /e.,ture in April 1994.?6'i Fte rvas tried and convicted b1' this 'tiitrLrnal firr',his panic,ipatirin in the Ja9"{ g*nocide end is cr"rrently serving a senldnce of life inrprisonnrent.TTo 1il7 ' During the aitemoon ol' I 5 April 1994, Ndahimana arived fft rhe lvitness' ofllce ,;:r apprr-xirnatel-v 2 p.m. anrl spent 30-40 minutes nreeting r.vith him.7?r Ile arriver.l, u,:thost an escoR, in a blue vetrricle l,,'ith civilian licence plates driven by a person Lhc rvitne$$ clid not knc'r.v.':j Ndahirnana briel'cd the r.vitness ol the situalion in Kivumu as wcll as the situatioil at N)&lillc paristr. end inl'rrrmed the lvitness of rumouts circulating around thc .:ot ltnune thar there *oo pLni iou o large-scale aililck on Nyange chnteh.T?J lrldahirnana asked the wittess lo s*n4 gr:nclarirtes 1;a Kivumu as reinlircemen(s" but the rvilness coultl no! assist hirl because the ypnrlarmes in Kihuye had lell for Kigtli, i;a Nclahiman* askeci for petrrl and monev tc pay saliu.ies ro his staiT ancl requesled fotirj attd medical care ftir-the displaced persons ane!

war survil.ors.?7J I'he iviiircss hael nir firel or vehicles tc give Ndahimana.776 408. Kayishema and Ndahimana talkcd ahor"rt tlre punishme.:lt erl'1he pcrpetrators of the allacks in Kivumu c.rrrmltne that da-v. Ndahimana told the rvitness rhat lntliviLiuali hid bcen ar.rested anil tl.:e1. discussed hilrv to lransl'er the detainees to ihe Kibuye proseoutor,s o1,llee.?7? 5.2.18,D,ef-bne,e,\V-irn,e,g.s'"1{D^,1-l 409. witness ND13, a Ilutu, rvas an employee at the Kibul.e p;,I/e crw.e in r\)94. Nc]a}il.rana rra<r been the *.itness' student and the1, r.vould meet ',once in a rvhile. :l t{.}' lle heard about rhe killings at N,vange parish bels,een 12 anil 15 April 1g94.77'r on li ApriJ t994, the rvitness saw Ndahimana as he was lea.ving the pr!.Jit's ol.fice. N6*himana $.fnl ro ask the prqftt lor reinlbrceffents in order to protecl lhe ."fug.*r otih" parish because rhe three genrlcrmcs already assigned to hiln were ovenvhelnecl. 'l'he- ptzJbt lvas ullablc to assist rrs ntost ot' ti.lf ge duntrcs had been recalled to Kigali, anil those that remained rvere te protect the propen,r, ofrhe gendarmerie.'s0 it1 T. t2 N.lay:01 I pp. i0, 14-17. '", 1 12 lrlo\ 2rllI pp. ti- t7. ' - Delelre F.ritrihil I l8 t.t', Kul,islwtw & F.u:indar6 {At,\ lu.lgffiient. Dispasjtion. ' ' I-. 18 Aprii20l l pp.31, 6t; T. l9 Aprit2r)ll p. S. ' '" T. l3 April :01 I Hr. 3-l-.r1" 62. ','' T. l8 April20tl pp. 3 i. 63. ''- T. l8 Apfil 201 I pp. j t-:12. ''- T. l8 Aprjl 2{ t pp. 44, S0-5 1- 63. "''f. 18 ApLil ?01 I pp.:it, _tj-J4, Jrt. ' ' f- l9 Apfil 201 I pp. t:-t3_ ''" l. lT.lanuary 2{)t 1 pp. -12; t}elence Ftrhibir 84. ''' f. 17 JanLluv 2()l I p. 2t. 73'l. 17 January:0ll pp.,17-lS. a0. The Prosecutnr t. Nckrhiotaxa, C'ase No. ICTR-tl t-6g-T 9t i 274

Page 92

Judgenpnr aDd Senten& i.2.l0 I)efcncr: \\ iines: NI)ZJ 3A Decenller :tll ! 32,47 4 l 1' Wimess ND24. a l{ufrt, rvas a srnall trusirressrnan living iir Kivuuru contmztre in April 1994.78r I{e panicipated in the genocidc.Ttt the ,,"it rcso'Iirrt b..u,o. arvarc ,.:f Ndahimana rvhen Ndalrjmana became hourgnnrtre in October 1993.7Ei 412' On l4 April 199:!. the rvitress was mnnning a roarllrlock at about 3 or 4 p.m. rvhen a vehicle anived carrying the retnains of a person who used to liye in Iiigali. Approximalely 20 minutcs later the baurgmesfte passed through the roadblosk. The guards rnanning ihe roaCblock lr'arned thar the occupants of that car \verc going to the r-es,idence o{ the deccasetl peison.TEa 'Ihe htsurgmestre lvas i1 a private car, n{}11he comrtrunal vchiclc.'-$i '113' On 15 April 1994. the rvitttess arrivecl irr Nl,ange secteur at around 7 a.nr. an; rvent ro the rLradblcck together rlith other people. Thel sttr;:rped a nLrmber ofvehicles thrt dal. 6ut the witness c{)uld lot relrcrnhcr anr d,.'tails.-rc 1]1 'Thal day a l*:'ge-scale aftaok began at approximately l0:30 a.nr. 'l'he assailants u,ere le<i b1, N'lungutse. iPJ Kayishema and the vice-chairman cl-the krcal court" Gacabutere.ri. Kal,,ishema gave orders to the assailants. Some of the atrackers came in :l car bs[)r]ging t!] .i ccriain ii,,f ir1,,rronu. Otlters came hy lorrl u on filot. lv{any of rhe attackers

covgred thetnselves in banana lelves. !1urus and Tutsis ra'ere throrving slones at each other. The witness left the iaailblock and rvent to throlv stones as lrell. At some point, Rukara- a reser\re officer "lvho rvas ablc to rake position .l1.l a ra.,of.". threw a grenade at the Tutsis r'vho retreated and iocked thqmselves inro Nyangc church. Later ;Iar day. a cate'pillar iva^s hrnusht to destroy the church.TsT No llrearms $,ere ussd rhat riay except fur grenades-7rt j1].^ tl b.*l,",,o.rriu at appr.ximately -1 p.m. and the anackers left the church..fhal s.lrlre dey. the wrnress sl \'!y N(rahrmlnd ar arountl 8,ir,) p.m_in:r 111.1151s paje|o driren lrr :i rlrtJcr rmiircd,ini;et c_oming. f|r:m direation of Kibule. The witiress antl liis group iearched rhe car t ut riru"a nut1,lng.;;; 147hen they searched tlte car, thcse manninq the roadbloili realiscri that the bourgnrcsfre ouas ins;cc. "lLte rvitness.altd his group opened the roaclblock to let rhe car go through anl ldahiffiana rvsnr ro Nyangc presbylery. l{e did 'ot sfay at ths presbl.'rery lcr*g a*el th-* witn,:si sarv hinr le;;e.t;;; ' 111 Anyone going by road to Nx-ange church ivould have hatl to pass through the roacblocli.iti :lltltough lre acklorvletlged that he u,as not at the rc*dbloclt at ell tiines. he asseied drat NilJrilrrana could rot have passed tluough 1he roadblock betrveen l4 and l6 April 1994 ivithout the

rvirriess ?t.r 'l'. I I F-etlruary :01 I pp. 2, 1,1; Der€nce f,rhiirit I 12. .'- J. I I FeLrrurr\ 2f'11 lf. l-3. "'l 2J Fel,ruilf\ 2{,l j F.6 "' l'.2l I'ehrrrur'-, 2lll pf a-.. '-"1. ll Februarr l0l I L'p ::. :{j. ' " T - l l F c h r u : i r 1 2 0 | 1 f p . 9 - l i r , '". I. 21 lrhrrlr-r 2ll1 pp_ li)-12. " " l . l l F - e b r u r r r l o n p . 4 1 . '"'f. 2l F.bruar! 201I pp. l?. 24-25. '- 1. ll Fcl+uar.r -''rl I In. t:-l.i {qij,lcJ). 22, :-.t. ', l ll fsbnr"ur llrll p. 2l ("leb An-!-one ccming from the foad thar came f.om Kig.rli crjulcl $.:e thc roa.lblordi. When tou were going to th9 chufch, 1.ou, of neeess-it;-^ had to ;,.n55 thrrlllgh th.r1 roailhlock. Arld ilhid_and j. 1!lis colllllosed oft\jro rticks, Jou knorv. fior!1 one end oi the ftud b lhci 0thcr.,,.i. The ?rosecutor r. iytizhitxanu, {la11: \o. IC'. L.R_01-6g-T. L)7 i 1't1

Page 93

.Judg€ate t atli.l Sewefice kuowin-r ahout it-,,rtldiug. "A pel.son like hirl couldn't have passecl through such peopre Know,ng. - 5.2.20 Defence Witness NDi:[ 417. witness ND34, a Hutu Ihnncr, lived in Kivumu tpmnurnc in April lg!,l.ier l,le particrparc* ifi the 1994 genoclclc but not at N-v-ange chLrrch,rqa 'lhe rvilncss l'irst ntct Ntlahitnena in i9g"i ancf rvas later loid that hc had been c.lexted bour*nesl;e ol-Kivumu croor,rtlnr,".7"i :118' 'l'he rvitness lvent to N)ange chrrrch on 15 April l9!);l al appfoximarel), 5 p.m. There he sarv corpses in the colxtard as well fls t*o Cai-erpillars---lue \\as gathering cotprer r"hil" the othcr was riigging a pit behind the Caritas hLrileiing.T"i fle lufL thc chulch at apprcxiiiialcly j:.1{-} p.n. rvhen i1 started raining. while aL the church" he sau,two poiicenen, Apprililraire unj ci"oji. talling ro "those rvlio wt)re present'r and Lelling them to galher the corpscs arrr.i lxing thcm lo thg CaLcrpillar. He also sar.v Ka;,ishema. Gacabuterezi, Wilness CDI_. axd Njuusutse.T'7 - 5.2.21 De fb$ce W illg5s ND22 4 l9 witness ND22. a Hutu jirrmer, lived in Kivunru .:ant#ntne h 1t1.t14.ttts He kne1, LhaL Ndahirnana was the batgneslre of liivumu crrntunnnu .'e" The r.virress paiticipated in the attack of 15 April 199'1 on Nvange church anrl u'as impriscxred firr eight years bui rvus i'ree at t6e time 01 his restitlonv.r!u 420. lhe

',vilness clid not see Ndahi*ana at Nyange parish on 15 April rgg4.$t'r,hat da,\,, rhe wltness aniled al the staruc of the virgin vlar1.' ir 7 a.m. A large number cl- llurus rvere gaihercd there as r'ell as the filllorving "officials": Kayishema. Ndungutse" I\,lbekilirehe and Wirness flDt,. I'h'ltt'ts continued to arrive. some oll fool" some cm board ol lorries. The ofticials r.,'efe next Io the Statue of tlte Virgin Mary telling members cf the population that they had ro colrfi.oru th.'frt.irji,i "At solne point" l{utus, including the witness. and Tutsis began tirrorving $t1r1les at each r.:th*r,. Kayishenra. lvho rvas f"urious. asketl Ndungulse r'vhere thc bourgmcstt.c was. N-dungutss ansrvere.i that "he had gone to see his liienels, the Inkitanyi.'" Tursis menagecJ to repotr the l.tLrrtiattackers back to the Statle-of the Virgin lvlary" but Rukara then thlerv three grenacles at the Tutsis, and thg'fLltsis retreated back to Nlange church. .{pp|orimatel\' l{i0 Tllrsii \\io were unabie 1o get int* rhe church u ere killed by trhe assailants. so: 421. seromba asked tliat tlre boclies "be raker awal. and kept somewlrere.,. subsequcntly, rrv. Caterpillars rvere brought' one to dig a grine and the other'oue to tri:nspor{ the borlies that lvere buried belolv the Llarilas buirding.stu Aner trre kilrings anri the hurials. a catrerpillar began 7''2 T. 2l Fcbnrarl' 201 1 pp. 2?

(qui.rtecl). 28-29. ,.. I ll l"l, "', :91 | r\ r.): t)er'crl1. 1 .1,11.;, ," | . J r r r n r u J r ! l U t l c . b 5 . ;,;1. 11 1,e1'*".i allr prr iq"t.(' , . . , r . t t f ( - O n l i l f . t l U t l p 6 + . ,," I ] J I " bil,i,-t. f0 | I }\ 6i I Thc w;tness said I ha1 cacab.rt€rezi $ar 1he |rs:;idsnr of the Canron coujt). -' f.:'r qnril2tll I pf. 2. l(,: l)(t;ncc llrh;hrl 125. '''" 't. 20 April 101 I p. -1. r"r T. l0 .tprit :o t t j1' 1,1-1; '" 1. l0.{tril 2DIl p. _-0. ' - T . : 0 A n r i l l 0 l 1 p n . l - 6 . - L .20 Apnl t0l I tp. u-7.:0. 2.{. ''' T. l0 -{}n il 2011f1,. S. - . Thc lro:iecutor t. N.k,hittt1 a. case Nrr. ICTR-01-58-'I. rn/274 '74--

Page 94

,! ilgenent e .l Ser enie 30 Detenttet.2l|I 7) ttC desnoying Nyange church, but i1 staded raining and the ilernolition \rcpped bcc.ruJre'rtF.*itrJJ the Caterpillnr kept getriug stuck in the mLr<J.s05 122. 'fhe atuck sta(ted at l0.a.m. and ended betrvcen;l ancl 5 p.m. when thc rviuress leli, sonie aluckc15 tetnaincd al thc site.r"^ 5.2.22 Sefeqce WitnessNDf 42i witness ND6. a Hutu. $as an;tstnkli ,L].)mpany cnrployee in April 1994. lle was alsr.r -l'elcsphorr Ndtlttgutsc't ncitlhb\,ur at Ihut limc.'1" Hc l.,neir that Ncjahimlrra ,*ris llrc lplrpar...rlr, 'rf Kilumu curt!nultt.Eut He participlted ir.the killings at \-rrngc prrislr.i',u llc rcrrctl his seittcrre. and was flee at the linle of his tcstimonl.'"'The ,.inre*s hrerv Ndahimana well because he rvcr,rld see hinr tt mass lt Nllrngc ehulch.*" 424. '[he n,irncss tlid no1 see lhe baurgtnesne on 14" l5 or. l6April l9g.1,trj,4t appro:inately | | a'm' on 15 April t 994, the witness ancl other assail*nts leli fol Nlange parish iboartl a 1orr"r,. belonging to a certain Mufill"imana. 'l'he lruck continued lo pick up ass*ilants as it moved towards the parish and held ixole than 30 perserns b1..the time i1 arrivei.8tr 415' 'Ihe lon-r stopped by the Statue ol'tile Virgin N'{ary. rvhele drc assailants 1nel Ndungulss sn{1 othet' atlackers. Nduugutse .insfructed the atlaskirs to nlear banana leaves so that

they -iould be distingLrished fi'onl 'iittsis.sra No meeting'was held at CODIKOKI belbre rvaging the atlack" ancl no mcelirtg rvas heJd on 15 April 1994 by authorities nrrm the cernrrtuu(. at N,vange church or irs vicinill'. lf a rneetlng liad taken prac'e" Ncrungutse wcurd have told re anaokers i1r.,ir;t rr: - '126' fulcre tltarl 1.000 refirgees were at Nyange parish" bolh inside and outside Nyarlge ctrurch.31,' T'he assailarts rvere {bwer in number trur thcir nLrinbcrs;rrew as the etlack progt.*u..j. uo,rgrrs. gave the signal lbr the attnck to begin. In the nieanlirne. ile retirgccs srartccl'rhro1vilg ,ruu", .t tt,* assailants and managetl ro repcl them torvard the area d'rlre col)i_ K()Kl huiLling.xl'- '- - - 427 A soldier named Rr:kara then devised a plall to lie on the rcot'ofa buildiqg in onler to rhror.v grettades at the refilgees Ndungtrtse oitiered ihe assailants to pruvoke rhc reliigees so rhat the). rvould emerge lionr the couttlafd' The plan rvottecl" and atiel RuLara threrr u ,"*.,*n,l grenade at tle ryfLgges, thel stumbled tolvards N.yange church. Manv 'l'utsis at the cntrano{: al thJ church $,ere killed xhile those inside the church locked Lheniselves in, At an unspeci{)eil lime ii sta*etl to r.ain. '['he altackcru spral"ed petrol on rlie chr rh doors in order to ordei. 10 burn them doivn bur diij nol "' t. :ti.'rp.il :{)t I tp. I t,1' ""- T 2| Anril:0t I t)p. 7.

x. '- l 2o.l.rn'r.rr.r 2Utl n.0l: l)(fr.|lLe ] \hiiril LJq. - ' L :6 Janrdr) l0l I p. 61. '.- l' l7 .lirnuar\ :01t p. 18. " . l . l 7 . l q r r L r . i n 2 r t l l p . 2 0 . - ' , | 2 T J r u r r r l { r l t l 1 , ) . l 7 - 1 3 . 2 5 . J q . J 4 r l ( S ) ' 1 ' . 1 7 J r n r r . u l l 0 t t f i r t i - t 8 t i . : q . j l t t c \ ) . "'' T. ??.lar)nary 201 I pp. e-9. ''" 1, ?7 Jd.n ary':011 p.9 ('Ibe $itness added that a man callcd R$anliabiic con.trrrg liom Kjirilira $as also rrronr ihc sJsiLil.tnls,. " T. 17 .l.,nr"r} :01 I f. l+. ' l 2 T . l r r r u u r ' ) , , l l n p | , r - I | . . i i - . 1 r , I l i s i . ' ' T . 2 7 J a l u i r . r : 0 t I p . t J . 'lhe I'rutet ory. Ndahinano, Crso No. ICT,R-0l-68- I 9 1 / 2 1 4 -v+

Page 95

Ju{lq(melt a .l Sqntetlce 3i Det.eubt,r 2lll l. -2-.?-*4 succced. Fillall\ lllc r\sailltlls dccidud ftr Lhru\! sl,ncs fit thc rclirgccs thlougft rhc *r i**r(l ii-tt,,'.'I.{ ' I The attacks at the church ended at approrirnately 4:30 p.m.8le 428. Among dte attackers at Nyange churoh on 15 April 1994. the witnr:ss saw lP.t K{ryishetna and witness cDL. He also sdw communal p{tice of}ioers named Munl.antarallra and Niyitegexa larer rrlten corpses sunounded the church. The policenten had come lrom the .:{.)}ntrrufic of'fice afid "rvere surprised" to see "this horrible scene."8?'r The policemen an ived at the chur.ch approximately one hour aller the stan ofthe atrack thal begen bctweeo 10 and I 1 a,ln. Bv rhe timc ther arrive,l. a number of Tutsis had alreadrr. been Jrilie{i while others had rakeu retugc in the cl.iurch.8il fhey di<J not sPeak to anyole Lrut one of thetn shot twice in the air. The police did not arre$l 0nJr pefpefratofs bur could not havc done so as Ka-visheura ivas prescnt" and was one oJ' thc lcader.s o{'the itlack.s:l (jrnlunnet ttcrt irr the backrard oi'Nlirngc prcihy tcr, hul ..tilvc up-' lrtcausc thct.( r\ct.c to{} nr:r ) altackers."'' l'hc rvitnc'ss tiid nct see et\j' conseillert at Nvargc chLrrclr nor diil he see anv Sssislant /rrrttr!'ntc rirL s.r: I 5.2.23 Delbnce Witness ND 1! 429 ' wihess ND 12. a 'l utsi farmer, lived in Kivumu (o tnlune in ,tpril |

994.8:5 He n'ent 10 seek refuge at N-vange parish on 1_3_April 1994.826 N<.lahimaua came ltr bJ1;ange prosbltery cn lzl April l9!).:l at approxinratell 2 p.m.8?; 430. On 15 ApLil 199;1 an altack was launched bclrvccn !) and 11 a.m. 'i.he atuckers were lErl br. Ndungurse, Kayishema, Gacabuterezi, Witness CDl, antl m*ny olhers.823 43l. The witness did not see dicl not see anyon€ arrive al n-;-ar;re parish in a vehicle rhat clay.82q l'he atlackers headed krwards Nvange charch tc kill the retugccs and-rlre gc ttrluruet repelled r5e6r. SubseqLrenlfl', thetc r'vas anothor a11ack lnvolving ntany h;reruhomu'e w'iio ar.l.lvetJ *iistling anel shouting loudl;-. 'l'h.e gendurme.s were l1o longer present. some !fiexrlrtnt]fs rvere arme|rvith glenades. Onc, nanied Rukara, threr'v grenades aI the refugees. Somc rvere killcd and orher.s retrcated inlo the church'830 'l he rvilnass was ailicltlg those eichangrng stones i,r. ith rc assailapts. hut thc lctrealed tihcn the lsslilurts hegiln to u.re rrcrrarlcs.*J' l:he-attleLer, tl,.n tri.,J to I.,u,.,., dotlrl the church using fuel but did not succeed. A {iiterpillar later:urivccl |rr bur-v the vigims in a place called Rubagano. ;lt approximatelr'4 cx'-5 p.m., the caterpillar begal aftacking the rvalls of ir8 T' 2?. Jaluarl !01 1 pp. I I - I I {The pel soll * ho spray.ed rhe petrol on thc church.s .joors q,tx callecl Arnoicj a*d

rvirs lissisi'id by onc iaustin [Jlvuin:u1i\e]. 31e I. 27 Januar) ?{lI I p. 14. ""1 . 27 Jsnli0ry 2tlt 1 pp. 13, 29-31. 39-41. "-' 'L 27 Januar'.v:0ll pp_ j1-32. "- I. 27 .tanuar) 2011 pp. :9-3 t. --'J. 2l.l lrurr) z'r)l l n. jh rlCS). , , - t . z / J u n l l : ' f l i u l I L r . 1 1 , ""'L l9Januar"v20tl trp. l-:; Defenoe Flrhibit 86. "'" T. 19 lanuar' 2{)t I p. 3. " - J . 1 9 h n u r r . v : t i l l f p " l - 6 . l J - l j . ,r., ].- l,t .lanun..,. l0i 1- lr. 6 | I_hr \ irness oxpi$ined thar CncabutFfezi !\.as a magijtrat€). '' l l9 Jxnrrdr) -2011 pF. l l-l: (Thc lvitncss knerv that a rehiclc haii beet seizotl fi.onl witnelis a Dir- bul he ilic no1 ie^e it rhat dc]). ,!de Chapier III- Seclion 1.,j. ' 'T. 1e Jcnutlf\ fllll l)p. tr-8. ''' T. i9 JrLnudrr :(, I I l1l\. 6.

16. The Ploteclt/r'$.\,. Nd1hitttara, Case No. ICTR-01-6g-T 95 i 271

Page 96

,ludgeaw t o'td Senten.'e the church but stoppecl when it began raining. The Intetaltanu,t withcjrerv including the rvitncss, remained inside the churclr.s3? '1-12. Ndahimana did not come to N;-ange parisli on t5 April t99.t.sr'-'fhe rvirness left the palish on 1,5 April [994 at approxirnately nridnight togethel with witness ND1 l. when they left Nyange chulclt. Witness NDI I told the wituess that refugees had tokl him that Ndahirnana had asked a policernan to open iire on the attackers trying to kill the retLrgees.s3l 5.2.14 De fence Wirriess

NDI I 433. Witness ND11 is a Tulsi surr.ivor of the gc oc;dc. tn 1994 he livecl in Kivuniu con nnrc. He kneu' tlral Niiahini:i*a was the benrgmeslrc of KivLrmu co tmune anil saw hirn tivice bs{bre rlre events at Nyange parish.'Ihe third time lvas rvhen the r.vitness wcnt to seek reflgc at Nclahiniana's house on the nighl ol' l5 April 1994.r;5 43:1. on 14 Apdl lgg4, the witness u,ent to seek ref"uge at Nyange parish.s3t'llcrrveelr l0 ani.! ll a m.. on l5.Aplil 1 99:1. a lalge nuutrer o{'Irurera humve arrfued, at the pafish bl<rvr,ing 1vhistles. l he witness and other Tursi men threrv stones af the assailants and repelled then b::ik tou,ards tne statue o{'the Virgin Mary. 'l'he assailants then begall lhrers,ing gicnadcs at ths rcfugoes" and the lc{il-gees reheatcd back to Ni,ange church. Atrong the a{ackers ucre w;tness LrDl,, Niungutse and IP.l Kayishema. The rvitness did not s-e-e Nelahimana. T'hele rvere approrimateiy 1,000 rcfLigees anel 3,000 assaiiants at thc parish that elay.837 ,115. While the rvitness was inside Nyanse church, a man called l,eonant at.rived rvith fuel and spra;.'ed the chu|ch vyith petrol. The refirgees then sarv a'.special moror" arrivc. It rJug a pit in r.vhich and the dead badies SubseqLrcntlf it cr:rnlpoUnti.3Js werc began buried. 'l'his machine lras .tsed to afiack lhe norlh side irf the church. 1o rain and nightiall came. 'lhe special ntotor

rcurained at the church 436. No meetiug wes hcld that day at the Nyange church compounti or in the irackyar6 sfNy::nge parish. The rvitness ancl others were in the bell fower el(N woukl have been able to sei: if such a lneetine had taken piacc.E:re l hat night, tlte rvitness was in the bcll tolrer rvhcn h* hearcl assailents saying that rhe Tutsis rlould Lre killet.l the lbllowing day,..The rvitncss then ralkeii to a geniltrme v'ho "allorved" him 1rl leare the church nt abgut mid;ighl.r4o 137 ' The rvitness fled rvirh \tr/itness ND12. At r:ne poinl. wiilless NDl2 decided 1o fake ;rnoth€r difecfion. The rvitness went alone to seek ref'uge al the hcuse of the accuserl because he had hearcl that the bourgneslrr had assisted futsis frcrrr Kigali .raclear. Wren he affived, Nclahirnana aske{i liim about tlre prevailing situation at Nyange church beeause he had not {:onc there. NrJaliimana tokl the lvitness that he had aslted lbr assistance lron rhe priJbt. iiubscquently. he gave lhe *,itrress fbod \tr T. lv Jllucrv 2{ll I pp. tr-g. '' T. l(, J.rnudr.\ :Ul I l). 7 "r" T. IL./.tanu r\ 2r)t I p. E. '" D{lencr I \irhir xi: f l* t:rnuurr 20t I f. i0. . - ' T l 8 l a n u a h : 0 | I I i t . . ' l . l 8 J a n u i , r . : U l l p f . r + - \ i i l - i 2 . ' - l. lfi Ja0LJrf\ 2l,l I n0. -ij.-lti. "' 1, 13 JaBuoly 2{)1 1 p. 15. '"'" T. 18 January:011 pp_ jj-j6.66. The Proyecuto| t'. N!lahiit1tltla, Ciisc N0. ICTR-01-6g-.I. ,6 i 2'7.t,

Page 97

an.l provided a policeman named l!{unl/anlarapra. lvho lves gu$fding his house. ro "r-.}-.en{rf .lutlge nent aatl Sentence across the river so thar he could continue kt {)ilarana nritecht e .841 5.2.2 5 l}el'p'rrge W_l!rqi-s*N U7 4i8. Witness ND7" a "tr'utsi farmer, llved in Kivumu coltlttntfi( in April I i)9.tr. She first saw Ndahimana rvherr he can':paigned in I 9gi. and later sar. him around the o,rm*,rure.ru, 439. . 'l}e rvitness soughr refuge ar Nl.ange parish on l0 April 1994.8ar on I 5 April i ?94" * rarge ell&ck look plaoe beginning a! apprcxinalely 9 a.ni.'l'he attickers assaultcd lhe relusees ivho tried to deibld thamselves by- throrvirrg stones al the atlackcrs. In the allernoon, magy relirgees clie6 rvhen the assailants threw grenades at them. "lhe refugees rereateil back into i,*yange rhirch, antl those rvho 1\ere unable to euter rvere atiacked by I'ftIfl; outside the church building.i?a The rvittiess r.vas wounded with a rnache,te. She and others refirgees then went to hide in a roorn in Nyange presl'r1.terv.slj 110. lnrmecliatell' a l'ter slte and other rel"[gees enterecl the room bctrvecn -J lntJ "] p.rp.. Fcttelarnws locked the n:om so that the atlackers could not get at the reftrgres.8l" r'r.crnr thar r,,t,rn r1,.. ,, irness c.uld sce,]:h.r tu.,,T"_ll_ N1'ange p'esbyter.v, and frcm the rvindo* slre could see Nvange church and tlie bsll tor',er."' \\Jhen the

rvitness entered the l.oom she could s€e the leaders of ihe attact< outside. ivho were Kayishema. witness uDL and Ndungutse. she adde<1 that *these are lhe persclls wlto hul the bulldozers come and bur.r the bocljes of fers0ns *ho hacl been l,illed.'" The victims were btrried in a place callcd Rrrhrgano.tut A,u*,ng ..rhc authorities,, r,ho carne to rhe churclr th*r day she also recognized a ttumbet' a{ ct;nseillers ircluding Jean Rrvajekare. and the c.on,reillt r ol Sanza. Sindablcnlcra' Shc rcptrted seeing ltather Seforitba there as ri,eil. Shc diij not knur.v Kan\lrukigJ '' Shc rlid not 'cc.\dahirn:.r.nu during Llrc ntllrek lrut )J\\ llim hr'l\\u\'n li:lrrl 9 p.r1 in ths courtlrrtl of'the prestryterv.l 5..3 Xleliberations .5.3.1 Credibilityol'the Witn*ses 5,3.1.1 Ptosecution lllitness CBT 441 . Prosecution witness {-'RT participated in the attack *n Nyarge churoh on I 5 Aprir 1994, but testified rh,or he did n*t participare ir dle atr.lck the nexr au1.ir,r ttu pi"a grilii'ro norr,g l:::. iO-,':.-|,]i lff ,genuci.l. bcfore rr (ra*rt.a eourl anJ rrus rcterirctl jrr lotri aticr spcntiing crslrr )cars ln prisoll.'-- flc is an ecr-om]rlice llitnessl horveter. it doe.s not {bll fiom his festiuronl ihat ir* "'r 'L l8 JarLuarl'?0l l pp. l7-j8-.1r.),50. j4-j_5. ""'T.24 Januar; 201I p. lj Dej'drce E:ihibit 9j. '"' T. 2-l JiIruilrl 2'lll p -i "''f- 2+ .llns3r\ 2llll pp. 8. l5-lh, - .T-

:.1 JrulLlf] l0ll pp 9-11- jj I I'he witness ideutjllecl tlre Incatjon oflhf roo irt a p.icture siroru to her.); Det.encr E\hibit 94. tr' I. 24 .lanua|i,2r)l I pp- I{.-tS, j-.i- 3ti. ' . L J - l J r n u u r l . : 0 l l p f . , ) . 1 1 . l 5 J l : t . Z - l . t i r n L r i r f l 2 , l l l p p l i i 7 n r i l . l J l a n u i r r \ ? l l p p . l l - 1 5 . - 1 8 . """ f ?.t .li1lurr1 :011 l. lf. "',''f.2+.lirn||or\ 2rti l p. 8. - ' l . 7 s e l l t e r n b ( r 2 r , l i r l . 5 l : t . x s e p r c n l h c r l 0 t 0 l p . " l - : . "'- T. 7 Sel)tcnrbL-r l0l0 ll. -56. 'l.he Prytsectior t'. Nd<iltiaak{t. Ca$r No. X-'.lR-01-6g_T 9i / 774

Page 98

.Judge fiert dfld Se tTte nre lnight have an): parricular motilr to chargc the accused. 'fhe l\{ajoritl. notes he *'ho menlioncd the presence of all communal authorities at thc church on nonetheless. this point does not necsssarily renrler his testirnon-v unreliahle.r":r 442. 'fhe x.itness gave several previous statemcnts to IC1TR inveslig.rtors and also lestilied in thc S?rol b(r cose.Itr* Witness CI]l' discussed the l5 ;\pril l9r)4 killings at N;.ange parish in his August 2000 stalenent. The Ma"lority'notes rhat he did not mentiur Ndahirnana's presenoe at the parish on Ls April 199,1., althoirgh he did name a number ofolher perscns present at the ti3re.n" The \4aj,.,rit; also notes thal in his Octobei 2001 statement, the lvitness did nat mention Ndahimana's prssenc€ at the palish on 15 April 19f)4. although it appears that {laspard Kanya:ukiga lvas the l'i}cus of tl.::s second statemilnl.;:o 443. Tlre rvitness acknorvledged that he did nor ftentilnl Nciahiniana's invr:lvernent in eith*r statetnent, but olaimed that hs had done so in a guilty plea t.) ihr Rlvtindau authorities dated lE January 2001.E5? The Majoril,r ohserves that in rhis slatemenr the lvitness said that Ndahimana llas alnong those rvho used "anor.vs and guns."8i3 l)espite the lhct that the rvitness refbrred ia the 18 Jauuary 2001 statement as a g*ilt_"- plea, the N,lajorit;, notes that he did nor ccnltss an1. of his orvn acl.ions; radler. he reporled Lo the Kibu)'c Prusecutor the involveinent ol'more thau l-5 pcrsons Ii'onr Kivztrmu c:tnnmune. mcst oi' theni holding posilion o1' aulhotily. fhe lv{ajorit.v noiesi ihat rbis statemenr should bc vioved rvith caution. as tlie rvinr{ss \yas still detaincd in 2{)01 and nisht have had an inlerest in involving tlie pre-1994 authorities.

144. Tlte Ma.iotitl. is also troubleel b1, the rvitncss' acktrotvle,dgcntent thar he was nor surc lie r.vould be able to recoguise Ndahimana in court elue to poor cyssight anci the passagc of time.8se while the qitn.ss lvas not asiked rvhether or holv he kngv the accused in 199.tr, his cviderce suggests that he did in l'act knor.r. that Ndah iniana u,as the hrntgnestre of'tlrc Kivun:u c,)trynzute.'"" 4.i5. The *'itness'f'ailure to menrion l,*dahiuranrl's presence at r\u).{iuge llarish on l5 April 1994 il: his first tlvo slaloments, and his f-ailure tcr identi{-v Nelahimana in court, cloes not necessariiy render his srvom tsstimony in these proceedings unreliable; neve.rrhclsss, the h.,lajority ma1, rei,v ot] his evidence onlt' 1y1.,"n corroborateo. sti.T. 7 Seplenher ?010 pp. .10-41, ,1:i (-lior example, thelie wits the inspeciof at th€ judirial !.olicr. K\-i!herna" assistanl boutgtxeslre. Anqstas. then anothef {tie callcd Penda, the Csnhrnal court plcsir.ling jucJge^ llabilurlbere- and thfl therc r.r'as l\'1bali1irche. Bow gnrcstre GrJgoire Ndahimalu, thelc rvas liso Nlr. l,eol:rrij Nil-.arer-c, thefe 1{as Ail en Ni-r-itegeka, rvho u:rs communal policeman. Thers rvas a policernen ivho* nicknante rras (jichade {rioi?etir1., tl.igfe vai l"'1r' Appolinairc Rilngjra. who uas also a contmirnal ofiicefi thi:rc was also i:ommunal .odns{lllc$ ill t:Ltnseillets antl othcr officer."i af

the comwurte. For exempie- \'yir,]lrukira y.ho rvas the c<utmunal \,etdritiix.y olllccf. lhcle !-crt se\,erel ot}j!:ials thcf e,"). t5r Def'€tc€ l--.)dribil !); Uelb.lcc E.\.hibit l0l Dct'e1tc{: F,xhibia l1j l)efencc Erhib;l 12, 3iJ-T..?-,!eptenil1er:trl0 tp. 61. 65:'l.li \c|tenrbcr' :Ul0 Jt t: D!.jrrrr.c F.rhibit 9 (Thc r\:itness dctailcd rhc lj Alfil lq94 killings hrrt did nol rel'€r to the .rccused. llo\{crer. he rleqtioned the accosed in lhc lbll.rlvir}g !o teyti - Ihe sarre ila-r I r-ras at the chrlch. i noticed lhal Ndungutsc .*'a-s arnrcd \{ith r gun, uhieJr accor.ding &r hii mjlitiarirell had Llcclr issued 1{} him by' the bcurgwestrt:. The tblic\ving d'y- the &or{.grarslie ha{j relricved the !ve4ps6 but l\durculs.: h$d rrsed it in the night to tife shors in the air.',J. "' tletiocc Lxhitrit 10. ": 1 . 8 Sepremb<r 2, r I'l f . 5. \(c a,/,,,. P|o.,ccur i.,rr l},hrlrit I. " 'Pruserulion ir\hiL'il l- 6-"1 I-. 7 Scnlember 2010 r- il.. si'n T. 7 seltenber 2010 P. 52 (l'he vinlcss knerv thaL Nclahimane \!.j lou,jirrr.e/rc liJr dbout.iir rronths anC he {jllln. frtrn Ru lirne,, r flp {'rasectior v. iydrthinaua, C.rse No, IC'lR-0i-68-T 98 t 274

Page 99

Judge ne ti ea./ Se nte ncc 5"3.1.2 Prosecution Witws: CDK 3lj Dercnb.rr 2{}l I Z2-4o 4,16. 'fhe Ma.iorit3.' recalls rhat Witness IDK participaled in the atlack txt Nl,ange church on i5 Apdl 1994. The rvitness pled guiltl. \\as se teilued ro li )e:1rs, and remained in prisou at the fitne r-rf bis testimon"v. llc is theltf,rte an accontplice.""' .147 . fn his 2 October 1994 statemenl to Rq,an.lan authorities, Witne s$ CDK denir:d havinlr participated in the Lilling ofa child. However, in a later" stritement *nd guilty plea ro the ltrvaudzur irrltho{'ilies i!*red 26 Oclotrer 1994 and 3 August:000 tespectively, he confessed ti} having ki}l*d lhis ohiid ancl named seveul co-perpelrators in that kiiling.'lhc \lairrlilv r'rotei th:rt the riiiness made no otlrer rcfetence to the killings at Nyange parish ia an.r of lhese threc rlec lalatici ns.'"-' [n a f'outth staterrrent dated 18 August 2000 the i.vitness denied havirrg participated in anv other orimr.s"' 448. In his initial stalenlent to IC'IR invcsligat{)rs cxr I I Ocloher 2001, the Witness ackltorvledged having been at N)."nge parish on 15 April 1994. Although tl.)e statenlenl appeared to fbcus primarily on Kanyarukiga- the rlitiress indicated that Kanyarukiga, Ndungutse and Knyishema were the "three main per:ple in charge o1- $,hat rvas going_oJl that da_v."' 'lhe rvitncss also nolcd Falher Seromtra's presence" [rut did not

menlion Ndahimane.s"a 449" In his 24 .lanuary 2002 slatemcnt to the Kivuniu'lruth {lommission" thc lvitncss also diil nor mention Nclahimana"s prcsence. l-he u iln'r-s: crphirrctl- thL' olrlission by stating that he was specilicaily asked io discuss thc rolc o1- Kau;-arukiga.n' ' Nloreorer. the r.viLness claiincd thnt a certain Nzabagerageza told him lhat he rvas only to discuss those names proviijed !o lrim ancl that he rl'as th.etefot c 'pruhihited" frr:m nenlionirig Ndahimaira, or eise he ivould irave be,en pLlt in prison.o"" lhe \4liorirr c,)nsidcr,; thrse erplaniiti.'ns t,, he unpr.rsuasiru.

450. T he x, itnc ss first mentioned Ndahimana's presonce ot N.vange parish on 1 5 April 1994 r his 29 .lanuary 1003 staten.tent lo tCl'R invesligators. flere. the witaess specilied thaL he rvas adding infbrnatiou rr.'' his 2001 sletement ard provided morc detail.'lhc N,lajorit;.' obscn es thai r,'hile the rvitness gave several previQus stalelnents. he 0nly chargetl Nriahinrana afler he tvas indicted befure this'l'ribunal. In addirion, the witness. prior statenrerrrs io the l{waneian author.ities show riraL he tried to minirnise his txvn responsibility in llie genrnide. 'l'his as such does nor render his ss'orn testirllc'ny unreliable. I'lolvever, coi.rpled rvith the facr that ire rvas still detained et the time of his testimony" it is pttssitrle that he had a motive to charge the accused in order to share or shiil the blante. Ilis approaoh could also be nioaivated by real or peroeived gains in tcrms of corrclitjrurs of incarcerations. In sum. the L4ajority may rely ou his evidence il'here it is corroborated. 5.3.\.3 ltrosecution Witness CDL 151 Witness CDL rvas anested antl convicted on tlvo r:ccasions fix' crirnes connectetl s,ith the 1994 genoeide. Thc L4ajoLif is una{rle to detcrminr; the precise timc of his filsr arrest and conviction. I-le rvas arrcsled a secortd time rvhilst completing ihe community servicc p*ri of I 10 year sentence and again convictcrl cf crimes

committed during the 1994 genocide. I.le rvas scrvjng.l s6r '1. 8 Novenbe; 2010 pp. 19-"10 1lCtS). "'Det'ence Exhibir j7; Del'cnce !.rhibit 5li: Dej'ence E.rhibii 59. "'' D€lenue Eiribit 60. 3s Dcfence Extribil 5,1, s6s Dcfence Exhibit 56: l. 8 Novenrbci. 20taJ pp. 57-jB. 1 ' o f . 8 N u r r n r t r r l U l r , | p . j f i - 6 1 ( t ( S r . Tlre Pro\ecttor .r'. NLlqhittarttt, Cirse No. IL.TR-01-68-T 99 i 274

Page 100

at his second lrial rvere basecl on trirlse testimony. "lhe \yitness clainrs that he rvas lalsely charged ividt distrihuting we.rpons useci during the ttack. ur Nyange churcli. and organising and chairing meo'tings rluring rl{rich the attacks \tete planned.s6s 152. i'he lr4a.joritS notes that in a letter rvritten by the wilness to the Kibuye Proseculor in 19q9" he said that he was not on goocl lcrns lr,ith Ndahimana.*t"' At trial. he confirmcrl this starcmenl but clarified that his differences rvith l.ldahimana were icleoir.rgical and not pcrst,n ir | .1'-t' 453. Despite ihese issues" the lv{ajotit;- notes thai the *itness' evidence was rDnsistent and detailed. Nevertheless. Wilness CDL is an accomplice *itncss. and Lhe Majorit-v bears in tnind that he may have inventecl or exaggeraled Ndahilnana's role in the attacks in order to minimise his ou,n rcspcnsibilitl'. Iior exanqrle, in a statolent provided to IC l'R investigators in 2001" lic clairnce.l: ''i did not take an-v activc part in the killings...l was only au obscrver.'"87r In 2002" he onl"v' admitted :ir requesting machinery lor the burial 0l corpses, aclding rhat ''during the killings...I only tr"ied to reprimand..the people rvho attempted to infliot iniury on the innuccnt viclims arrd ldrlt thdm ol'aheir properl-v."''- Allhougli the wihress is not on trial. a nurnber r::fTvilnesses in this case hate lestifieil that he

rvas among the principal attacliers at N].ange parish. Fcx exanrple. Wi*ress CBK testified tliat lvitness CDL ttxlk paft in a meetirg at the priests' quarters {ll the morning of t5 April 19114" and Witnesses CNJ. CBT. ND12 an<lND7 dl noted that he r.vas among the leaders of the atraeli that fook place on 15 April 1!)94. ln addition" Wihress ND9. a Oacal:a "iudge, testilied that Witnesses CDL rvas accusod of being one of Ndahirnana's co-perpetrators in the (]ucuta proceetlings against Ndahilnana lhat raere held in RwanrJa.sTi (iiven theie concerns with rcgards to thJ witness' credibilitv and r"eliability, the &{a.iority ma} only rely on this r.vitress' testimon} as to rhe events ol' l-5 April 1994 r\&ere it is corroboraled. 5.3.1.4 Prose cltion Withess CN.l 454. witness cNJ p{rricipared iri the 15 April 1994 {rttack on Nyange ohurclr. He spent eighi l"ears in prison and lras releasecl in 2008. He is therelbre an accourplicc rvitness. au<{ the Majurirl bears this in mind rvhile assessing his oreclibilily anrl reliebilitr.sTa'lhe i\,laioriiy notes thoL rhc rvitness lvas cietairted at thc lime he gave previrius statemellts to i(i'tr'lt investigatrrs, as rell as v'hen he testified irt this case. Therefbre, the N,{ajority r.vill consider his evidense u,ith oar-iticru" even though the lvitness asserted that he ivas uncler no plessure to implicate authorities aml thai he 4itj no1

receive a redur:ed sentelnce iu retum tbr tesrif)'ing befole this Tr.ibuual.87i 455 ln a,-guilLy ptea d:rtecl 21 August 2000, the rvitness did not speciflcall,v menrirxr Ndahimarra'" In a suhscqrrcnt, undatecl starenlent updating a 1998 oonli:ssilin, he also l-ailed ro "- | l: \nterqhrr ;{ | llr nt j-}- i.l I t(.t} r. " - ] l 2 \ U r c r n h s r ' 2 t , l r ) p p , j l - J + ' l ( S r . '' Spctiriiallr. hc \.ruli: ...1(t mr,infunfl )uu (hrt I r\ ili nLrl oJr l\rull t.,nrrr rrith lJou,,qnt,tre (.,Ir.ir,,ir,. \Jirhrintr:.r since both of us had applied I'or that samc posl. i\'lentbcrs 'Jl 1he Ml}R -ecrdta.iat jn fivLrmu relirsi:d ro suppon m-l appiicatj'Jo hecause I espoused an ideology r.litl-elent l'rurr tlal ofthe [,orver *ing. N{gr.eover, Icoulcl 6rt,\uppo tht acljvities rfthe NIRND \,vhich hild denied rno a g.,od poJit;ol]... n7' I. l8 NovemLrer:010 pp. 2.1-:i (fCS). "'' Defence Elihibir 7,1, 5': Del'enc€ Exhibit 78. t' T. 2o J,.,riuor. p lo rlL S). -'' T. J NL'\ eni.er :U 10 f . b+ { lt's r. "'' l. 5 Nolrrnber:r)10 pp. 4l -.+2. "'" Defcnce Exhibir .14. 'I h,t: I'rosettrtor v. |d1hinana, Clrie No. ICTR-t)l-bli-l l{)0 /' 274

Page 101

.Jrdgenrcnt&dse tetE. t,t?ir,,4t* k mcnrion N.hhinrarta.*" U'hcn askccl ttr erplain lhr'sc L'nli\si(,ns. rhe u itnrss rai<i.* t.fi6C rJ a llicnticn the names ofall the persons rvho wcre involved in the Nyange massacres because I did nc.t want to be cited as a rvitness[.]"873 The l{a.ioritl. iinds ttiis fesponss unconvinciug as the lvitness implicaied other pecple, such as S*ron'iba arrd Kayiranga, and subscquently appealed as a witne:s il the Scronbo trial. ln addition. rvhile the l\:taiarity acknor.vledges tliat il may nor have bcen pcssible lbt the r.vilness to merfiion the "names ol'all the persr:ns rvho were involved." the i';itncss shauiri have. al. minimum. tlentionecl the names of perscns to u'hom he suLrseclucntl-v ettfibu!.dd * ke,v rolc in the nrassacre" such as Ndahilrana. ,+56. The lvintess tirst n,entioned l{dahimana in his s{atemen{ to thc Rlvandan authofili* irr hlovernber 2001, indicating that lie sar,- ]".ldahimnna and others speaking u,ith Seromba. lfere" the witness plovided a significarrtiy rnore detailed list oi'thc pcrso*s u,fio went to speak to Seromha. l-lc also rel'ened to lTaving seen thesc individuals on "'[:rida-1." rvliich ths kla.iorit,v concludes ',l,as 15 n nril l$rl.r" 457. The Majority' noles that in this statemeni, iu r.vhich the witness said lldahimang alel orircrs lv*re preserlt rlhen the decisicn to demolish thc church ,,vas talien. tlie

rvitness added "'fhe people, I llu\r'lll(.tltir)ncd lbote did n(.}t pl:r\ m,\ mljt)r'rolc. hLrt thc noprrlatiorr tooL theil nr(\rncc us u .ign o{'moral support (mcral reiuforccmcnt 1, ''n'u \\rhen questioncrl sbout this cliscrepanc_v belrveen this stalelxsnt and his lestimonv. the witness cxplaincd that at the titne he wro1| thir statcmcl}t Le hacl beeu promised mone-v by Iialher Seromba's brother;8s1 horvever. rvhen he lcamed rhat he r,vould nlt receive this lnonel' unless he restified in Serourba's defbnce. the wit rss rvrote a second slatdt;lerl tontladicting liis November 2001 sntement.ssr 'fhe wilncss' e:1:lanation ol' th!s issue rve s unclear" but ultimalel-v. thd fust thai the rvi(uess admittecl his u,illingness La provitle cflonecus inl'onlalion tror mone3.'requires his testirnon.v ro br viewecl rvith caution. 458. 'l he ivlajoritv acknor'vledgi:s olher discrepancies Lre!*een Witncss CNJ's t.:stimonl. and l.ris prior statelrents. A1 Lrial, ihe witness estimated thal he afivl.d at ihe Statue {)1'the Virsln h,larv berrveen 1l a.m. anil I p.m. or l5 Aprii 199,1.83r Horvever, in a prior sral*ment he s*iij thar jr"l. *n ived at apprr:rximately 2:30 p^m. While it is possitrle tliat this discrcp:urcy. coukl be i:xpiaincd N:1. the passage of time. the Nfajorill is trouLrleel by the tvitness' ciluiion: "Do nor cr:nsider dl*t dare of tlrat hour. rhat rine, as a real tirne lvhen

rve arriveel at tire churoh. I'm telling -vo'; that I rliel nol rvant to provide additiortal ald conect infbrmarion, so as ltrlr tr: be celled to tesfify in lhe trials ol'the priests. Actualll" tr simply wanted to avoicl that trial."ooa The red5('t) \rll\ thc rJitrrcsr prtr,. i,,lr:tl lalse intbrmation is doubtfLrl. Taliing these vai itxrs considerations t(r3ether. the fr.l:iiorirl rnn. onil ralv on this lvitrless' evi<ience \.vhet e corrobomted. '.] t-l.r;|i., Lrhrbrr 5',. t. 5 Nur<rnbtr 2otrr pp. :..t-5 rtr.sl. ''"-J.5N,,\crnl)crltrllrlt.6tl(\).J-ci?.r&o, l.5Noldnlbe.201 I p.-i (-.. .),ou rdn);1 thajr tlt;s ri\lrti,il! t drs nfli spelk thc !\4rolc t.uth. Is tiaf \hat you drg safing? A.: I agrcr 1\ith )o.1. Anil I give 1ou the rcaso's rir ihat."). ire Defence l-".xhibit,1.ti. ' * ' " L l c t i - n , c L ! , i h i r " l { 1 : l i \ , , \ r r n b ( . r j r I I p n . l 2 - H I l ( \ ) . .- l.-1 \t[ crnt-.<r 2l|l np jr'-2? {t( }r..t?. '"'T. 5 Nilvellber 1010 pp. 5j-54 ("Th!rt anroult of monc-l rvas nrx gilsr 10 nie. hut a p.orni$e \r,as ntj.jr ti,r hiin.j jlrc this ni'ne1 \"iren I lvroti thtr letto:r rvhjch r'vas thg causg ol cocteniion for a i,rcll iime. Ancl allcr haring urila(n thlii igller, nnd I den]andetl tlre prtrmised suni o1 'n1]ne!, I |ras l{rld titil ahe sl}nt o1 nroue,- wes 3t:ing io i:e gir.JLr to me lliet. I utuld have ttltili!'d i,r Ser+mba's Del'cnce. ;\nd thal r.r,as r.r hen I de.idcd to \\.rilii i1l{riher iiltrf (:iirLtf.r(liclinll thc lI''ior,Slfllcr. l,t,,lit.,f\.r,!.ii...l L\(rie{ir\rJlir.tl Jr ,tdnl Jt ilt,,rir.\ I ' l - -l Nur euricr 10l0 t. -i-1. rsa L S November 20lt) p.

32. The lrosecutor t. Nd.llbftana Casc N{r. ILI fR-0I,6$- l' t{i 1 ., :7,j

Page 102

Judgene! 6r.1Senlefice 5.3.1.5 Prose tutiott ITitncs,s CBR S Deienher 1l)/! 3234 459. Witness CBI{ participated in rhe 1i April 1994 ailack on N},'ange church. I-le rvas arresleel in Jull lt)')-l and ch;rrgsd wilh pilniciJ)ating irr the gcnoc itlc.8i' llr ei--nfcssr.l and ras:cnlcntC t(] 2a' leur: in ptis,,n,n5a llc tcstilied Ltrrrt tire Kibuye Pro>eeu(or s olfitt a>Lctl him t(! r\.ilrl\ il rhil Tribrlnal artd intaoducod him to ICTR inrcstigators."'' Oir,en these elcmenfs, the lta-jr,rlity vielvs his testirncry rvidr particulm caution. 4{,0. The ivitness played an important role in the killings. admiLting to having par(icipatetl in nulnerolls allacks on lr)}'ange churcli behyeen 13 and lt! April 1994. When aske.l why ho lailed to disclose tlre names of tl.vo persons he had killed in iris guilry' ple4 he explaired: ',\l'hen I w;rs questianed ou the ururder of tliose tr.vo vic:tims, I thouglt there *ould be uo rvitnesses to lesiif.v against me. So befor'e the investigators. I did not ccnfess to the crimes."sss 461. 'l'he Nla.jolitl'also olrse*es tlial Defence Witnesses NI]24. ND34 *nd ND22 all clainred that while in prison, Witness Cliijl eterte'r.l prcisule cn other dellinees to irxplicnlc auiherritic*. including Ndahimana, in theit conflessious.n" ' The l\l:rjority {irLrntl rhcse \rilnesses creclible rvirh respect Lc their evidence legarding witness cf3ll. v/hile the

Ma.iorif.'is deeply rr{}ubled b} 1hese allcgaiions agiiilsi Witness flBR, it ircknorvledges that he rva$ not rskec.i about these claims dut.ing his testimony, iincl therefbre did not have an opponunity to address them. Considering these f:icts togetlief. the hlajr,rritv vieq,s h'is testimon"v w;th padicula. caution, and may onlv rcll on his testimony rtete rvell corroborated. 5.3.1.6 Prosecuti<tn ll/itness CEK 462' The Majorit;; notes lliat witncss cIlK rvas 14 vears old in April 199:1. 'lhe aqe of rhc wilness ll thc tintc t'l thc evcnt5 rcquircs that his lcstilrrolrr bc r icncLl rr;ih r,,rnc erutir,n.t:' l)csp'rg his,'oung agc. tlie lvlajority notcs that the witness' evitlcnce was consistent and rletaiicd.

463. Flowever" in his statement dared 15 August 2000, Witness CflK relerrecl to Ntjahinrana as having been present at only onc mcering, at Nvange presbytery at nighrf'all, on 'i5 ,dpril 1994.3er The rvitness did not nrention Ndahi:tana in his staterner.rt dared 26 April 200t. birr ihe h,laji,riq notes that lhis statenlent concentfated on Gaspard l(err1'aluliiga. ln his 1002 statemeut. the r.vintess identified Ndahiruana as having lreen cne of,the local leaclers present on l5 April 1994 al a !] a,s" meeti g at the presbytery. ln that statemcnt, he also saicl that Ndahjmanii spoke t<, thc lntt'rahannte pdof to the start ofthe attacks and returned fbr a seccnd meeling the s*me evenilrg.se2 464' In the Se romhc case- the rvitness ret'enecl to ""the boun nestry" as a$ons thcse lvilo ffied to burn rli'rrvn N,'.anec church.se:l This is ineorrsistcfi with the wilness' tes?imonv in the instant casc ln jl. I l f:. *, Ft' i rl0. Ff. 6. q. 2 7 i \cknowledge.l that in \,la) 2rl l0^ he w,is arested again a d pisced ifi cusloitv i. - - " 1 : N r ' ! ( n r b c f : i t l ' t p f . l l - . i 5 . 1 i t , r / r u . \ \ i n r c r , N l ) . 1 : 1 . 2 6 J ! n u r f \ 2 l l t 1 l r , i l C S t ( l c . L i t i . i l r l r u t p r , , , c . . u r i , , r r \\ itrrc5i Cill{ \\ a\ a!.'ltr(tl nl'bei,e ,,rre ol Ndahintana'$ ro-petpetr.aLors b! a {i4.?c.i cilurl}. " l. ,i No\ cmbrr' lfr llr p. :1. -"^ f. I

\L)rrmhcr l0lr) p. i-i. ''' \\'ibrc"c ND2.t I :l Fchruri,rl l0ll p. 32: witress ND2?: T. 2r.) Apil z0{1 pp. 16. 29: wir.ness }iDlli T. 17 lrl'ruan l0ll n|.66-6ri. L tu lr:Lrrr.ur l0tt nF. d-9. '"' T hc ) oL'llg age ol Ihe $ itnes( at the timg of the eve nls rer:luil es thtl his teslirnon.r: be rieued $,ith some caulioi.). -\ee, i., -.Jrl4.rd (If) Jldselncnl. pitra. 7E. " Deilncc Erhilril "10. st'? Dcl'ence Exhibir 4:. p. 7. ier Dellence Flxhibir .ll. Tltc Pr",'.t,1,,, r '.,t,hin*u { rrc Nrr. lr tl{-tri-{r3-l 1 \ ] ) 2 ; ) ,]q

Page 103

.Judsruent atd Sentence )ytf\^'f:'j I f 1 .L --r\l which hc tcstifi'rd lhar hc did not scc thc aijcu)e(i duriug thc atrrck. llrre ro thr inro\Ki\tcntv nffir prior statsment, the lllajori{ rvill consider the witness' testimony that he sa.,v Ndahimana at a rrreeting at Nyallge presbltery eariy in the morning of l5 April 1994 c'nly rvhere coroi:oraicil. 5.3.1.7 Prrssecttti<tn FN;itncs.s C'BY "16j. Witness CllY r'-as convictcd hy a lirst instance (?{irtarn cou$ in 2007 lbr havirg parlicipared in the killings at Nyange chnrch but rvls:.,:quittcd crri appcrl.ira'l'hus. this rvitness is nlrt considere<i an accoltrplice rvitness.'['he Maiuritl nL)tes.tl)ilt the uirncs: r,ras in a gtirrd porijtion [o obser\re ,hfll tooL place rt Nvlrgs pllish in April l99,i.i ') 16{t" I'he l'4ajolitv notes & number o1' discrepancies helweerr the dates erl'evcnts providecl by the rvitness at trial and tirose given in his sLatements daled 2 l.ebrL*r1, 1996 and ;1. Ociober 2000.8e5 hr his 2000 slatemeni. the witncss said that cerlain events took placc on l3 April ltlgr{, rvl'iilc a1 trial he lesril'ied tliat these sanre evenls took place on 15 April 199,1. wher questionecl as to these discrepancies, ihe rvitness explained that fhe investigators laking his statemcltL in 2000 wcre principally interested in the events that look place and dicl not firus on the tlates.*')7'fhe r,virness added that he rectified

the errcrs during his testimurv in the Kcnl ruk!g.1trial:ses a pllirrt rvhich tht: Nlaioriry conchtrJes ;s tnie. Ilorvever, the Majorir;' recails thai il 1996. two J.ears afier the events. the lvimess stated that "the ma in iftecl, h('gan on the I +th. l remember ol' that date because the church rvas desiroled on the l5th.'4r' The hlajoritl, takcs nort: ofthese contradictions. 167 ' Of greaier conoern to lhe tr4ajoritv are the .liscrepancies bettveen thc eviclence given b,v the rvitness at trial and his prior slillements lr ith respecl to the .lates on lr.hioh he sarv htlahimana ar Nyange parish. A1 trial, th-e lvitness teslified that he saw Nrlahimana at the parish r:n g, 9, I i , l:. I 3" i4. l-5 and l6 April 1994.'J{'0 Iiowever, in lris 1996 stal€nenr. the rvitness iirtl;catecl th:rr ie onl; sat' Ndahitnana a "tirr' dar s bcfore the desuuction ofthe church. Tlrat must have been bL"t$een tite I lth and tlie lJrh.''"''' lu his 1000 sratement, the lvirrless inrlicated that he sarv Nrlahirnana oni1., on g. I I and l) April l99J.e": l-lc explaincd thesc discrepancics hl stutinq lhat \\hcn pn.,riclius rh.lr statcmcnt. hs or:l; arrsxcred thc qucstions tllll \\cfe pLrt fo himJ"' '168. 'I'he fvl4jority finds the cotttradictions between his tcstim ly ancl his prior statcments to be troubling and tttav onl;' rely oll lhe rvitness' accorurt in relation to the eveuts that took plar:e on

l5 April 199'l rvhen corroborated. lt rvill not re13. ou his evi<lence with respccf to Nrlahimala's presence at Nyange parish on t-5 Apr.il 1994. 8!a T. 9 Novernber:{ll0 pp. 5f}-57. 8oj lrersecutiorr Llxhinit +:l- 5"' Deience ltxhibit 6?: Dcfcnce Erhibit ri6. "' I ,l No. cnrber li.t In pf. j8-i9 T. tiJ lrorcmhcr. l0tup.:trl(Sl. "'T 'l Nor.-nrhe'r l0t0 p. i:$ ('The events a.e crrrrect dnd accurgte. Br.,t su,ne avenl, 3re tired on thc r\iil( the]. irl taet. hlul l)licc on thc t5th."l; Defence Uxhibit 6g: Derence [lhibit tr9. ' lJ(r'en.e t -\l)it'iI fJ?. ",{ f. ,r N$r cnrht,r. :rl l0 pl. lr,. -tq. 5 | i taS r. ' D c l e n r c I \ h ; b i r . 7 . I t 0 N n \ e n ) h ( r _ . 0 t , r 1 t , . 7 _ g . i 1 { l ( \ ] toz Dcfence E-,.$ibit 66. ''L': T- 10 Noreol.'er 2010 p" --r4 iycgj. The Proseculer r. Nclohiuara. {-'asc Nc. ICTR-o1-68-T l.irh of April. 1A3 i 271

Page 104

323S i99.1 genocide and acquitted by a 470. '[ he witness' le stimon)' was cc]nsistent and unshaken on cross-exarnilation. 'f he Maj,'rit.v observes that rvhile the wilncss' tcstimony is vague regarding somc aspects ol'1hc cvcnLs, r ost notably the dates. it was the rvilness's habit to be presenl at Nyange church by 7 p.m. each evening. fhe N{ljorit1. therefure. accr'pts rhat the rvitness wa$ there by thar hour the evoning ot' i5 April 199-+."' 5..).1.9 Pro.rec'a lion lYinrcts fALi 471. The X.'lajoritv notes that although Witness YAU rvas unable to rac4ll the specifia dates of the events she describecl,'uo the h,lajoriry is able to inibr from the events she described aucj the testimonv of orher rvit*esses i this case lhat she anived at the parish on I i April 1994 and lled during the i:-vening ol'15 April 1994. 172. '1'he l,lajority obserles thitt during her testimonv in the Ser<;mhrs triatr, the x,itness nientii.rned the presenoe of Ndahimura at N1,zurge parish on 15 April I9t)4, although she lvas nol specificall: *sked about hitn.e07 llorvever, the r'vitress rlicl nat rnention tlre presenJe of Ndahinani in her 25 October 2000 statement. Alth,:ugh this statemeut primaril"v concentrated on the activiriss oi Father Seronba, the \vitne$s did nrention a rtumber of other iudividirals as being pleserrt. In sddition, Ihe r.vitness related the meeting that krok place befbre thc

killines and the subsequcnt attack. Sho als* specifically stated "The anly otficial I recognised a! the Nyaure church was cr.,;r,rc,l//cr Viantey "'r0r 473. The Ma.iority also notes that, in her prior statenrent. the rvitness said severei t;lles thai sNle rvas hiding in the basemenl of N,r,6ngs presbl.lery and thal she .'heard" Father Sercurba. Slrc <jid nct see events as they ulttblde.l.e''e This contradicts the wimess' testimony in this case that she fled 1() the first ttroor of rire prcsbytery r.vhere she sar' the events she describecl.'rro fn auy evenr. the Majority is not satistied that the rvitness ctiuld actually see ail the eveflls she elcsel.ibed as haying taken place on 1i April 199'1. Thus, thc lr'tajoritl'may on!;. rely on this.*,itnEss' tcstirrorl;' on the events ofthat da]..where it is conoborated. 5.3.1 .10 Prnserrd ion l['inrcss CBS 474. 'lihe fulajcrity recalLs that mari.rv o[ thc wilness' {allil;- niembers i.vere killed at Nyange church, ancl lheretl:re his rnemorv maSr have been impacLed by the chaotic antl lraumatio na(ure o{. the events. 9ll 475" Ihe rvitnes-s -provided severai prior stalenlenls to ICTR investigators and tesri{ied in the Karyarukigu trial.er2 Ihe N{ajoritS. l'irds that the rvitness rvas evasive in his answers t{l .tueslrons 'r+ L I I Nu\(rnb(r 201i, p. -t L '.- Delcnce lrrhil'iL ? 1 . | | | \vr ernhcr 2r r t g t'. '-, -''T. L5

Scptrnrbcr:01{l |. tr.l l)ertnce Fxhili;il0: Dffence Exhibit 3t. p.l l. '"' Dclcnce L\hibiL -l l. Ff 1t. 17 (lhe \\il$ess elso r€l'crred 1rr the Fresence r:f Nilaliinin.r rt N):rn-q* parlsh on I3 ri. l.l Afril l'lql .rltlrvugh ilre'r,rs nur .t,ecitic.r \ r,leJ xt)oul hinrl. '' o Dcle.Lrcc [rhibir ]1. t!" Delence Exhibit J0. lri 'f- 15 SeptemL.er 2010 !. 49 (,.,..and I 1\is ut e,reuitress oi all that it3ppenerl.'-). "" 1. 6 Sepfer ber 2r)atq pp. 29-:i0 The Proseattor'\,. Nclohiovau, Case hlo. lC'IR,0l-68-T Jud4{:tne t etld Sent€nce 5.3.1,8 Prosccttion Witness CD.l 469. lVitness CDJ was charged rvith participaring in the Gacat:a tourt irr 2007.!r0a Thus, he is not an acscxnplice rvilless. 3l) l.let:snher 2i1l 144 I 274 ,'7rf

Page 105

rudeenentandsettencl Y'4rr,XtLt pur ro hiru rcgurtiinq his prior starcrrrcnts.' I j nrd thrr this h:rti r ncgarive irnprcr ,,rH*+? tfifr,,*.?'s-T assesstnent of his demeanour af rial,er'r In his 15 Novemlrcr 1995 statcmenr, the rvitnciss indicated that he tlid not see IPJ Kal,.ishema, ths borrtri,nfn-tre or ol.bers learling andlor giving cnlers to 1he populalion iluring the lvar."'' l'iurther. rvhilc the u,ilness Frovided inlblniation about Ndahimana's roie in a meeting heid cn II April l9?4. tie did not mention Ndahimalla lvhen asked to name lh* killels at N3ange parish."'n ln his 2 liebnrary 1996 slatelnent, which rvas given ''in addition" lo thc lne dalecl l.Jovember 199-r, ihe rvitness conccted onl-v- a snrall number of details.'" ln lhis statement, he specifically siated thal he hacl "not seen the &{rffj"grlrsrre [Ndahime.llal on the Cay o1- the *ttack 15 April 19941." According to the rvilness, his earliel slatcment lvas nct recctrded properl,r.nls I'he Nlaiority finds thai these omissions rsise concerns. 176. 'I'he Majority l'urther n{}les thaL ihe lritness' lestirncnl' rvas nur clcar regarding hielahimana's prcscncc Juring lhe aLtaek.l'ollorr ing thu rn,"'ctings. Hc mrdc rcfcrcncc tr, thc lact that tht rutboritics presenl did n,i inter'r'ere.'r* but he never rnentionecl Ndahim*na's role in the attack. where he lla$. .rl horv lottg ltu star'ed. Ner ertheless" on

cross-exam jnation he ci:rimeel that N<iahimr.rna w&s pt€scnt during the attack.'''" Gircrr tlre conce:'ns expressecl ;rbove. the klalorit;, rvill ecnsider \Vitness CllS's eviclence credible. rhere corobtnated. with lespect to the mesfing pdcir to thc I 5 ,,\pril 1994 *ttaek, but will not rely on his evidence a.lleging that Ndahinrana rvas present during the altack. 5.3.1,1 I Prosecrtion \litness CEI t77. The Defence pointed to discr"epancies in the rvitncss' pfiof statcrnents regartlirrg the date on rvhich he arrived at N.vange parish and the dates of subsequcnr crents."t' llolrcrer, the qitngss maintained his tc.rtirnon) ir court that h€ arrived on l2 dpril 1994 anel that the attack took place on l-s April l9ttl. '- lrr arhlition. despitc sorrrc discrcprncic.. thc rvitncr., lrcnriL'nc{l Ndnhilrranr's presence during the attack in his slatements clarci! Augusl 2000 and April 2001.q]:i 478. llowever" tlte Nlajoriry recalls its previous observatiolr in relalion to this r.vitness' credibilit;' (Chapter lll. Section 4.i. t.3). ''' tlet'€nce Flxhibit 3; Dal'ence ll\hibit 4: Del'crce ]].rlr!irit 2; DeGnce []],hibir -i; De;'ince filtiibit 6r Deiince Lxtiibit 7: lleienc,: Erhibit 8. Ihe J\,lajrrritr! has alsrr c'rnsider*d the 1'1lct that \\rihrcss CtlS's stdr.mrinl lo lCltl in\'c$ligstors ol Feb|uary M96 r""as rscorded ill the Kivunlu tribunal and that h is statcmcnt oi N,larch 2003

.,r as rccorded at thd r€sidcncc ofthc assistant lorr-gnrctlle, 'lhc Majorily has also ir,nsiJered tlut thd $,itncss \yas dislantl) irelated ro tlir io&rtQnerlrs at the fime and held an iidrninistlaiive positioLr iLr lLlc cotlt\unc at leaitl lior,) 199i 1(, 2(xl]. lhis poinr does rxrl necessu ily rendel his sl!on1 testimo!1y ir thii prooeedi !. uurcliable. -\re Chrptcr. lll. Scotknl 4.1.l. l. ''.'Jee e.9." T. 6 Scpteatbcr' 20lil pp. 34-37 (Tha llirness tried to {r'oid alr:rwsrjng the qresrions put to ltinr t.i1 ullc5in; that the slatelnent r'-as tecorded a long tirne ago, ihat he is nrt the onc who 1vfolg it down. ihat tlte stiteme l \,vai ildl properl)r recorded aLrd that it ilus only rcal back to him); '1. ? -qcpiembcr:t)10 pp. a)-7 ("1 car see th!1t there is.! si€:nature rro this docurnent lvhici is sirnilsl to mine. but ia'r l:u-olf similafirl. I rlouid sal it is somconc rlsc rvho sigrcd Lhis Jocument turJ rrni nrJ,('it. r: Defe,rrc t'li sing Llrid. l)drd:. 7:-7i{. -',' ,\aln nton,r. c . i r/ { .\t r J uLlgr inert. pru.!.. l 94t ,qlliili i'lC) .ludgeneni. para, .i l . ' LtrlenLt f\hibir i: L r. \cplrnrb.r ldl0pl). i8-.11. "" T. 6 Septerntrer 2tl l(, pp. {3-45. "' Def'ence Ei(hibit 4: 'I. 6 Scptelr1b.r 20i0 pp. j0-51 {fhe \{'itne$s cdfrccted his datc o1-birth an.i .orltIrtlcd tl1!r hli t'alher uus killcd on llr.rnday, I I April 199;t and that hc s1a)cd at Nyr ge chulqh liorn

l-ucsdd) tr) Ffidd):. l5 Apfil 199.4). sr! f, 6 september.2010 pp. .1ti-50. "'T. 6 Sepre l]er2010pp. 14-25. ." T" 6 Seplcnrber 2010 pp. 46-5?. ' ' l . l - . 1 S ( t \ t e r n h e r . : r ' l U p n . l { - 5 - ' . r 0 - \ ? : ' l . l i S , . . p r < ' r r b e r 2 | l 1 , r n p . , } - l i --- T. l"l S.Dtcrnher lrll(l pp. jt)-5rr. '-' Defence Exhitr;t :5r Deilnce tirihibit 2{t. Tlu: Ftotecn{ort. Ndcthinuna, Case r,No. l(lTRJ.il -68-T 1$5 / 214 't

Page 106

Julgetturtt ,nd SettLtttt .|tt Uq nt\ .fl"i.. n a') j- t., llg. t,himatcll. thc $ilrless' tcslini\),1\ in rclali,)n n, Ndahimarrr's inrolvcm,.'nt nn ir'{nfrtufi/ " is verl succinct. The r.r'itness dit.l not report rhat Ndahirlana attenr{ed any mcetilrg prior to the attack. Ilc relbrretl tc the accused's pfoseuce during the altack but alid not rcpot1 an]1hing elsc rn relation to Ndahimana's prescnco a1 N)range parish. I'inal1-v. he cxpiained thal he did nol see Ndahimani:r hlnisell'hut hc sarv lhe rctl Hllux leaving and rvas told thal thr'accused trevelled in the arca to incile the populalion to go lo the parish.'r:a 'i-his allegalion is corlrad;cted b1',,other Prosecution witnesses, rvho reported lhat the accused lefi to go ti) a lunerel at lltLfungo.'-' 'l'h.: l\.lajority also recalls it found Defence Witness Charles lluvurajabo to hr credible, and therefdre tloubts that the rerl vehicle $f the r:onur:me was sl.ill funotioniug *n 15 April 1994""''" Ctx:sequcntl"r, the Majoriq, mal, onlS,rely on this wilness' te$timony if conolroralerl. 5.3.1.12 I'rot;et ution lYitness C|JN 480. In his l5 November 1995 statement, the rvitness pnrvided only a superficial account ol tl':e events rhat took place ar 1\'.vange parish bcl*'een 12 and 15 April 199.1. ln that statrsmcnt. he sairl that he sarv S:romba having a meetin€l tvith lhe bourg,;ne.strt at the presb].tery '!n the last .lay ol the

attacks.""'As the witness tlecl the parish on 15 April 1994, tho l\'lajorin assumss that l4reu the rvitness spoke of the "last day of the ataoks," hc was referring to thc finacl ol' 1,r Aprll 1994. Hox,ever, reference to this mceling did not appcar in thc rvitness' tesLimon1. in court. ln l"cl, rhe witness' testimonl did nor teporl an)'tliing relatecl to tlie accused's presence or actiorls on l5 Apr;l 1994. Th* N{ajcrily concludss that rhe wirn€iis did no1 s'}e the accused o 15 Apr;tr 199;1" but ma1, rel-v on his testimr"rn,v 1or the purpose of corroborating odier evide.nr:e in telation 1.o tlre ei-rnts i)t 15 April 1994. 5.3. l. | 3 Lj e li nc e I|'i ttt e s s Th l re s e L{u kob i dc r i .t81. Ihe lr4ajoriti, observes that the witness denied ever usiug a falsc identil;-.e28 l.lorvever, tne Prosecution shorved that she travelled on a false passpclrt uhrn she $,cnt t,' Belgiunr tc' seek asylum.e2e The rvilness explained that she had fbrgotten about this inciclcnt,"r'' irnd ;so conc.sded that hel as;-luIn application conlained incorrect ir.rJbmration abouf hcr employulent histor"v.t]l The Majority finds that this. as such" does not aft'ect the reliabllit! of the rvitncss' testirnon.v.

482. The Nlajoritl turther observes that the witness and her fi:nril1' rlere closr-- f,riends of the accused and ti,at the rvitness had known hirn tbr close to 25 years rvhen she testifleil in the plesent case.ur2 N,lore.,ver, the wifiless u'as gratet'ul to Ndrhinrantr fr.u his assistance in alltxving her to phorte her husband one last tirne betbre he *;is liilled.e3s 'i'he i"'lqiority further takes iltr,r consideration thal 11'hen asked ai:out th? nalure cfher i'riendship rvirh llefbnce Wirness Beatfjce ML*arikusi, fhe lvitness stated that the tl.vo lvDmen wcre no1 close rilenrjs althouch she admitted rlra'r" their families'ivere tiiends and rhat thel. occasir:n;rlly sa,,v each otirer because they troth nou reside .-r T. l.l SrplL'inl'{r:trl0 pp. r5-i9 f. l5 q.ptr.rnb.. lUt{i p, jE. ' Sec r.g.. $ ilircr' CIJ l: T. 7 Septeffber 2010 ir. ,r.l; Wirness CN.l: f. .tr Ncvernber 2010 p. 54; \tiiuesn C'lll{r 'L t Noverriber 2010 p. 23, T.2 November 2010 p.23. --'Sce fhaprcl lti. Secrjon 5.3.1.26. "' Del'ence Exhibit 16A. e'?! 'I'. I February 201 I F. i. "' T. 8 Fet)ruafr 2011 1). 7. ' , n t - _ s r e h n r r r i 2 r t t l p 7 . -" '1. I Februir,r 101 I fr. 8. "" T. 8 lrcbruari 20l l pp. 1i. l8-19. "' L IJ Fehruarj- 2i)t 1 pp. 15- i6. The P, osecutot" r. NddhinuAa, Uase No, ICT LT-{il -6,q-T 106 i 2'74

Page 107

.tufumou aixl St nte*e Jlll.\.,/q'lt,( <) <, in Bclgiurrr. TItc uiLne>s alstr:ricl thar shc nrrd \hikrnktrri rfil\cllcd on lhe sarrc planf'f .ffi rlFf and wers lodged in the sams hotel in r\rusha rvhile waiting to testily.'ria 483. Beafiice &{ukankusi described her relationshin lvith h,lukabideri iis a ckrse one. She said thal rhe5 rvere furrrill, fri<nds. snd that lhc\ rvuuld ofieu rneel to Jilcus: thc c\enr\ that louk pl:rcr in Kivumu cornnwrc in a generai wav. l lorvever, she added that although the tlvo^-lvLrren l':ad travelled to -{rush* together the}. had ncrt talked about their anlicipated testimonies.''" While the Ma.iority linds similarities b$ween the tcstimonies of thc trvo witnesses. it acknorrledges that this iu and af itself is nor determinative evidencc- that the rvitnesses colhrded. ln conclusion. thc Majorit.l finds Witness Mukal:ideri to havc been credible and reliabte . 5.3 "1.1 4 D efe nt: e trl: i t ne s s I t ot i r: e Liu kan kus i 484. During her testirncny in the ,\eronha c:ase, Witness lliukankusi lestified thal l,klahirnana. Fulgeuce Kal"islitma and Ndrurgu{se lve.re';r1 lhe c|:urch rrrr 14, l5 or 16 April 1994. birt that shd did nor see d'ielr. '[}|e rvitness adrnit(ed.. thirt slre prrvided rhis allslver. but :rdded that slic' onl1. responcled to lhe questii:ns put to her.'''" l'he l\,lajority finds the rvitness' explauatiitn lroutrling lruL nofes

thal in any event ll{ukankusi's evidenoe in Sieromba rvas based on l.tearsav. ln sLtnr. 11.]r L4ajoriq' considers her tesiimollv with cauticxr. 5.3.1.|5 Defttrce llritness Litnille A.lurekef isoni 485. The rvitness'tcstilnoll.v \las relatively shcrl and she r.vas not asked to provide a great dcal of detail about the events of 15 April 1994 or the general situation in Kivumu cotfintutrc ar the tim.. Thc Majoriq has identitled nlr parlicular discrepancies in her testimony: it only nates fhat hgr husb:rnd and Ndahimana rvere liiends, rvhich must be ccnsiclered in evaluating hcr teslinron-v.e:" 5.3.1.|6 Defence lli\ttcs,s :lnicet Ii ,tnser'ge 486. 'l-he rvitness testitied that he did :'iot'*tor.r, Ndahimana prior to thc f'r-rnrral the3.' both aflended 0n I 5 April l994.trJ€ 'l he wilness' tesr;nlol;- rvas cr:usistent ancl unshaken on cross-e:aminarion: however, he expressed Lmeerlaintv about dates and the timing of evenls. lnitially, he saicl that he anived ai the funeral "in the morning." trui later he said lie letl th* funeral arountl I p.m. a{1er bcing fhere for an hour. lt tblloivs from llre latler statemerlt that he ;uriveil cf the funelal around noon. Further, although the witness says he returned to the funeral a1 6 p.lt).. ir is nr:t clear to the h.lajori1), that his tavels that afternoon required 5 hours. Thus, it remains possible rirat he coultl have

retugred earlier" 187. t he lvlajutitl nutes that tlie wihtess denied thai he rvas ever arresle.J or that he ever use{.i a 1':tlsc ideltit,,. . "" Hor|cvcr. it emerged that the rvitness had fravelled to ilelgir"tm using a l.lrlse passport, *" ld thilt hr was i rested and detained lbr three week itl Gitarama in l]ecember 1994 :tnd ivas arested in Kenya in December 1998.e41 'fhe rvitness explained thaL h* rjiil no1 con$ider {ne er-r 'f. $ Febmar), :01 I pl-.,. 18. 23. "' T. 7 Febluan.

21) I I pp. 42-43. "" I. ? Febniary 2011 pp. j0-53: Pr.osecritjrrn F,xhibjt j7. ''' l . l0 Fehruif\ l0l l pp. -5-6. 'T. Il lrfrr 2ri1t nf j-o. "' l. 12 l\{ar 2011 r- lll. 'un T. 12 NIal 201 I ;. :0. eliT. I: tvldv 2tltl pp.23-24. flrc Pro!:ecutor t'. NdahiN..,e, Uase No. ICTR,ol-68-T \$7 | 214

Page 108

Judgeme t a\d Senle nce incide$t in Ketya to be an arrest as he had paid urone;v and lvas N,{ajority considi:rs that this pcint docs not necessaril;, r'ender his occurted nn 1 -r April 1994 Lmreliable.

488. The N{a.icllity irls.} noles that, in June 199:1, the rvitriess began to {ear tbr the salbty of his fami(y rnd turned to Ndahinrana tbr irssistance. rvirich Nrlahimana pLovii'led, alrhough tire de,iails o{ this assistance are uuclear.ea3 This raises a qrestion regariling his molivation to lestify: l.tclvever. the Major:it"v acknou,iedges it is possible that he simply sought assistande in rcturn {br providitg Ndahimana r.rith transportation ou 15 April t994. 48t). Finnlly, the Prosecution drcw to tl'ie Chamber's attenlion the faot that although Mukankusi said that she u,eut to the funeml r:n 15 April 1994 together wilh her bfother-in-ltw, Auicot Tumusenge. the latref rlirl not nrention having travelled r.vith lr{ukankusi in his orvn test irticxry.eaa The Majority notes, lrolvever, that the Prosecution did nor ash Truriusenge any questions about his arrival at the funeral, and rherc{br"e can makc no findilgs on this i:sirc. 490. ln oonciusion, the \4ajorily fincls thal 'l'umusenge"s evidenc,e is generally credib]e. It notes hcrvevrr" that lris evidence with rcspecl to the purpose of Ndahimarra's visit tt> the priJbt is lrearsal' provided by the accr.rsed himself. 5.3.1"l7 Dejeru:e ll'itners (.-Itrnent Kcf ithema 491. Former Prdfr Climent Ka.vishemn was tried and convicted b;- this Tribunal {bL his participation in the 1994 genocide, and is currentl,r, serving a silntsnce cl lil'e imprisonmcnl.e{5 .,\s a perpetrator and a former priJbl- thc Majority acknor.vledges that it is possible that he night hal,e an interest in testil)'irig tliat he dirl all he could to provide securifl. inhit own priJicture.

452. Witrress Ka-v-ishema testit'ied that on I i ,,\pril 199.1, Ndahinrana went lo the y:riJicturt tit request reiritbroements and that hs was driven b_v an unlinorvn person in a blLre jeep lvith civiiial licence plates.ea" This ericle ce corroborates Witness Tlrnusenge"s evidonce that he ilfovc the accused to the p#/: cture. The N'lajoritl'also recalls Witness Mrrkankusi's evidence thatT'umusenge drove a blue Pajero." " .+93. Witness l{af ishema also testifiecl in this case thel two bourgnrcstre,s pafticipatcd in the ntassscres. l l*rvever, in the evirlence he gave in his oi.vn oasr in Sepreniber 1998, he said that he did noi krlolv any "pe|sonality t>f the priii:ctut"t af lhe conintmrct '" thar participaleci in ths &.lubug;r Illassacre. The rlitness clainred thot llre eviclence reachcd hiln afrer the trial and denies that he changed his stcr,v to protect Ndahimaua.ea8 The N{a-!r:rity has clouhts ltror,rt these explauationl. 494.. {llement Kayishema further tesrified thal .Ndalrinrana came to the prqfecture rin 15 ,,\pril i994 atter 2 p.m. to ask lbr reinfotre^menis but that Ka_r irlrenra could provide no more ge;'rlarir;r,s because the-'- had all gone lr.l Kigali."*' l 'rreler. irl Ka.r ishcmu's orvn triai, Ka."'ishcma tesrified that e.? 1'- 12 lvlal, 2ol I p. 2.4. '"' T. l: \'I:ri,:0i I p. 21. 'll I t t.U,,.,rtt lol l l.p. l+. l5l Prus(i(irron ( losrn; LI ier. p.rr'.r. 2{ 1. -'' A. n r,'iem,r ,{ lq!zit \1,!ad | .\l' ) Jud!(rn< n L. I)i5fo'ili,,n. "'" T. lS April 2011pp.31.-?3-.14.5i). "' I. 7 Fehruxry 2r)l I p. ,1..5. '4R'f. 18 i\priJ l(rl I pp. 1l-Jl. T t9 ,\pril 20ll pp.4-8; prose{urion E\hitit 61. '' 1 . lS April :||l t ff. : l J.l--rt. {Ji l. tv ,\prit t0 t. X. Th4 Pros.cutot, \,. Ntlahitratu. Case No. ICTR-01-68-1' 103 / :7,1

Page 109

ludseu4nlandsetrtence t25 J-r> the gendarnu:s lelt Kibu1"e on the evcning o1 15 April 1991. tLt the crse ut h"t---(.ftLe ,*a mainiained his version rhat they lcft in ths ufL.,roon bui bef'ore Ntlahimana rcquested assistance.es" On re-e.vaurination. Kayishema noted that thc only gendarwes rernaiuin5i in Kibul'e rvhen Ndahinrana arived rvere those gLrarding the camp, and that thcsc gendttnnts were flot available lbl requisilion.asl 'fhe N4ajerrily has serioLrs concerns about Lhis witness' teslimony and rvill ccnsidcr his evidence lvith caulion. 5.3.1.18 De.fince ll'itness ND l3 495. 'l'he r.virness held an administt"etive pr:sirion rvithin Kiblyr prt;/.(ri rre in 1\lril l')')-1.^He had klolvn the acoused since he w*s a c'hild and rvould see him iiom timr tu timt .rticrw3rds,"'- While this in and of itself ebas rot inilicate that the rvitness had a rrrotive to tesii$ fcr llre accuseri, it is thc klajoriry's view that because of his tbrmer positiorr. he rua;' have hacl an incentive fo provide testimon-v t-avourable to the aLrcused as he did for other figures of aulholity in KivLtmu. Indeetl, the rvitness concedcd that he had been convicted and sentenced to thlee lno ths itttprisonmtttt tor giving I'alse testimony to a Gucitctt coud in a case involving unolhv- bt.nu'gtnesr'c fiour Kibul'e prubcture. The witness denied that he had provided lalse restimony."' Elsewhere he reportcd

that he rvas told tliat Serornba had been rvrongly convicted because he dir'l not pafiicipatc in lile destruction of Nyange church.eia 495. 'lhe &lajoriry fi:dher otrserves significant discrepancies berrveen dre * itness' trial tostitntrnl' and his prior statements. For erample, at trial, the witucss insisted hc'ivas not present at a meeting u,ith Prd./ir Cldurent Kal ishema on lB April 1994.") I{orvevcr" in his l9 October 1995 and l1 April 1996 statenrents, the witness said rhat he paraicipated in a meeting u,ith the prllbt txt 18 April !99r1.e56 The lvitncss artemptecJ to explain the discfcpancy b.v sl*ting that hg ccnsidered his rliscussir-'n with the pre.fe:t lt.t have constiluted a "consultrtion" mther than a "meeling.""' 'f'he N{aiority ccnsiders rhis.jrslifi cation unpersuasive.

197. Civen these conce ffls. the Majority r.r'ill consirler his testimony rvith caLrtion. It alsci llotes that his evideflce lvith fespect to the pr]rpose of ]ldahinana"s visit to the pri.litt is hearsal" provided by. the accuseil hirnself. 5.3.1.19 De/bnca f itues,c ND2-l .198. 'I'he rvitness conltssed that he participated in thc killings al N3.angc parish and that he lillei.l one p*rsofi on 12 April t994. He is therelorc an accomplicc. l-|c,"*as amorg the ass:rilants r'-hr:r attaoked the refugers on 14 Aplil l9!)4, and threw stones aL {he refugees on 1.5 April I 9114 in creler to dralv llie rellgees liom Nyange church.es8 I'lre lvitness rras li:untl guihy of luvir:g m;rnrieil a roadblook that lvas erected.iuri outside the parish on 13 ApLil t91)4."" 15! 'l'. l9 April 201 I pl. 8-9: Pros.culion ljrhibit 5?. " ' 1 . 1 9 . 4 p r i i 2 0 1 I p . 2 1 . ':: l. l7 i:,rL,rrr'] 2r'i1 ''n. t t-li {l( \ll lj<rin.'c l \hii.i( s-1. -" T. tB l:nLra|r- l0l | | tT tlt SJ. "' '{. L7 liinuary 2.0t I p}." 41-43. "'T. 13 Joruary 201I p. 5, ,i' P,osec[tien i-i:)ihibit ;19i Prosecutioit ftrhibit 50. !i] T, 18.lanuar1,?011 11', 7-9. "'o T. : I Fetfuary 201I pp. J-5. i? ('fhe nanlt ofthe pelsol killcd b} lhc \liln{rss \!i!S llrnoccnt lr,lLrhigirrr:ri. t5e 'f. 2l f;ebr.uar) :.t1 1 pp. 5. ?. The Prosecutor t. Nduiimqntt, Casc No. I{lTR-r:ll-68-T \{yt i 214. 'w

Page 110

Jtldte n^ Dt a ,l \.nte4ci l!J:,r'y'"J ,4 q 4Z .<., I +99. 'lhc fvtujoritl rrciills rlle must r(lcvanl liretol in rssessing lhe rvitncs:" urfdilrilit) is to ascedain rvhether the rvitness could gain any benei'it or advantage fiont his tcstimonv befbre the il'ribunal. Here, the Majorir.v notes tlrs.t Witness ND24 rvas a free man at the tims ol'his festim$n) " rhat he did not den1.' his participation in the kiltings snd thar distancing himself lrom the aocttsed rvould have no cousequ€nses" positive or negdliv-e, r'egarding the rvitncss' own responsibility. l'herefore, the Llajcxit,v dcles not believe thal liis testi[ron,'- t'or the Defence dispLays any lnct;.ves 'Jr incentires fiom the rvilness. 500. 'lhe tulajority not€s rhal the rvitness ackncrvledged thrt he rvas nol ahval s al the roadblock, bnt declared tlrrt the accused could nor havc passed through tlie roadblock betlveen 1.1 and l6 April 19-9;{ r"-ithout the rvitress knorving atrout it.'r60 Given the nrrmbcr ,:tf persons rr'}ro would have travelied through the roarlblock on l5 April 1994, and tiie charric nature ofthe events at N)auge parish that da3.. the N{ajoritl' cannot credit the witrless' clairn thar he ivould ltave knor'vn if t[:e aocused had passcd through the roadblook in his absence. Notabl-v" thc rvitness l'ailed tr-- rnention that thq accused passed through the roadblocli early irr rhe norning on l5 April

1994. despite Defbnce evidence shorving thar the accused lvent to Rufiingo early that morning fbr the fimeral. 5.3.1.24 DeJbnce ll;itness ND31 jul. \! itncss Nl)i4 parricipdted in thc genocide but his crimes do nct seilm te tre {elaled to the killinB' at Nlarruc parish.'-' lhc Nlajorirv finds thc rr itncss' cr idcnce to hc rrl lirtriteti piohatirc value wirh respeol to.the everrts of 15 April 199,1 as rhe wirilsss did not allive al thi churoh until approximatell, 5 p.*.'"' It also ftrnncl credible Witness hiDl4's testimony lhat while he anri Witness CBR were in detenfion, the lrtter exerted pressure cn detainces 1o prrrvide firise er,iiience:iSi.tinsl Ndahimlna.e6i 5.3.1.21 DeJbn*e lllitness ND22 502. Witness ND22 irarticipated in the atacks against re Tulsi reirgees at Nyange cirurcir cn l5 April 1994 and is theretbre an accomplice rvitnsss."4'l IIe was a frec nran at the time of his testimonl. and the Majority has no pa$i*ular leason to believe that he might have had a rnotive to testiti irr favour ofthe accusecl.eut 503. The r.vitness testified at trial tirat ire arrived at Nyange parish to ioit the ilssnilants at ? a"m. on l5 April lg94.Er'6 However, in a confessionprov ided to a dccaca court, he stated that he left his harne apploximatelv noon tc) go to the church."o' l{e plrsited that the woman rvho had recorded his stalement rnight have made a nistake il'hich he conld

uot havs detected because he is illiterale.e"s The N{ajority linds this explanation plausible. !641. 2l liebmafv 2011 pp.27-29. "o' T. 1? lebmerl'201'l pp. 65-66 allre witness:rclno{le,;iged thal fii! farti.ipatiox in ihe genocide i|as liflrired (r liilling an unkno*,r petson hiding in a banan3 iield and lr)otirlg bcds, belou*ings and drc propertv ole hluka$uk\\a:'a)- "' f. 17 Fcb. arv 2ltl I p. f)4. -'' f. i0 .\p|il lul I tp. I0. : ,-r0. ''' l'. l(t Aoril201l Dn. t-7- 10. t'i5 Delence Erhii:;it i25. '6" 1'. 2rl AFril :01 1 11. ,,1. "": f l0 Atril l0l I pF.:l':.r: t'ro\r(ririun | .\hihir $Jtl. -"" T. :(r Apr il 201 I pp. li-2h. The Prosecutory Ndahitnana. Case No. lC'Tll-01-68-T l0 i 274

Page 111

Jtklgetue ,7t .tnd -\eklotce try"1u14t tg 504. '[he r.vitness tlrrhsr lesti{led in exatnination-in-chiel' that lic hcurd futfr", Sf?t,#r'ft*O that the dead bodies rvere to be raken artay.el'o {)n cross-examiuation. he said thal irs never salv Ssrornba during rhe liillings at N.vange cl,urch. and cou{d ncl hav{ seen hiur. beeettse he did not gc to Nyange presb],tery. The rvitness claritied that he heard members o{'ihe poplllation sayillg thar Serombi had asked that the bodies be removcd.!';0 'Thc fcsl ol thc rvitncss' evideni.:s r.vas generally consistent, but rhe h{a.iority lrears in mind that he remained al ths SLalue ol:the Vifgill h'lary during the i5 April 199.1 attack and ma) nc* have been in a posilion 1o see everythittg lhat 1{rok place at rhe presbltery that clay. 505" Wiiness ND22 lirther tcstilied tliai u'hile he and Wit:less C]llR rvere in-deterrtir'rn, th€ la$er exeficd pressul€ cn c{etainees to provitle fblse cvitlence against Ndahinana."' 'I'he Frose.:uti.rtl pointed out thr,rl the uitness did nnt in,plicate Ndahinana in hls conl'essic'n. 'l he rritness ansrvi:rerl rhat he could not have implicarcd l.,iclahirnana given that he knelv nothing about Nclahimana,eT2 'l'he lvlajrxity concludes that the ftct fhat the \!itnes$ did not iurplicale the accnscd in his cotrlission does not render his evideuce abcut Witness CBI{'s ooerciott i.rnreiiable. 5.3.1.27 Defence

lf'itness ND6 506. Although Witness ND6 parlicipnterl in the killings at Nyange chure'h, he had finished sen ing his sentencc pliol tr' his icrtimonl. ' 507. 'fhe rvitness asserled thal no meeling rvas held ar thc COI)liKOKt bLrildlng hcliirc Lhe adacl began on l5 April 1994. aniJ that the communal authofities did not parti':iipate in a meetirtg that da1' at either Nyange t:hurch or in its vicinity. '['he witness lesrified specifically that he did not see Ndahirnana at N""-ange paf ish on 1 5 April 1994 anel thirl no r}1ee1ing took place that day. 'l'he rvilness liot€d that if suoh a meeting had taken place, Ndungutse ,lr,oulcl have rold the rvitness an'"i his associates alrout it. The lr.ta.lority notes that the rvitness did not arrive al the parish unlil apprr:xirnatell l l a.il. on 15 April i994. so a meetingJ with or rvitlrout Ndahimrura" could have taken place belbre his arrival. ln addition. given thc chaos of tlre day. it is not clear that the witness rvas in a position to obserue al1 that rvas taking place at thc parish. i:'inall;", wllile most nther rvitnesses refened to the presence of Father Seromba at the parish on l-i April 1994. fhe u'itness did not. This suppr)rts the p.,rssibility that the rvitness rvas not in a position to obscrve all that look placs rt lhc pafish tllat da-1.'" Ncvcrthelcss, the MajOrit-v nolcs that the *itness gavc a derailed accounl ol' the

events at the church, and consirlers his evidence 1o bc generally reliable and crcdibiii in telatiuli thoss events. 5.3.1.23 Defcnce Il ittrcs,g NDl2 508. 'Ihe rvitness asserted tlial "l sarv a iot oI things that happenecl eL the ehurch." ixld that he rvould have knorvn if the bow'gmeth'e hatJ been present ot Nlange par"ish that da-v. I'ire hlajoritl' has substartial doubis about the reliebilily of this stitement givefi that the *.itress retreated inlo Nyange cliurch rvhen the assailanls begari throrving grenaeles rt the relugees, nol l{} rnent;on the lrgc number of refugees inside the church, the poor visibilirl' frorri rilhin thr chrrch and thi) ohaollo '6'! T. 20 Aptil:01t ir. E. 'to T.ln,1n.112,1, I pp. 3l-3:. -_' l. )0 April ln1 1 t\p I',. 2q- l(1. " 1. 20 Apri) :01 I p. .l{}. "'' T, 27 Jamtarl' 301 I p. 18. '"' 1. :7 .lanuarl 20l I pp. 9-10 (]-hr lrjaness addc'd that a matr calle,J Rr.-ar:rk+biir. cr-rmiog tiom fiiirilila \las also amorg th. assailants). The frl)secutot v. Ndahinanq, Case No. 1(-'TR-01-68-T il r , :7.1

Page 112

experiencas al Nyarrge pnrish on I 5 April 199,1 to be crcdiblc and rcdiable, his testirnonl does not assisi the lUajoriry' in detennining rvhethcr Ndahiurana was present that day. 'I'he Majority also notes that Lhe rvitness knoq,s Witness NDlS arcl is grale iirl to him lor having given hirt a job.'1'he ll{ajodty notes that the two mcn travelled to€tether to Arusha.'"" I{owcvcr, in lighl o1'each indir.idLel testilnony, the Majority has no rcason 10 suspect possible ccllusion betlvrlen th{i tw{r rvitnesses. 'l'he kla^iorily also notes that Witness n-Dl2 kno'ivs Witness llDl l and illerv l!-crc togelher at the church. 'l'he risk of collnsion between those tlvo lvitnesses rvill be ad<lressed separately below. 5.3.1"24 lleJbnte ltitness N.Dl I 509. The lvituess is a Tutsi sun'ivor of the kiliings thar took phce ar Nr rn-gc pcrirh.e:- 'l'Lie witness erplained that on 15 Aprit 1994. lte rvas inside Nyange church. When the allackeis arrirerl. ltc went outside to throw stones at thcr'!r. I le later rctreated back irito the church. The N.{ajoriq: notcs that the q,itness testifled that the rci-ugees could se$ what was happening outsidc becausc fhey rent 10 the bell torver Ii'oln lr&iclr a hload vierv ofthq area lvas pcssible. l.-los,eyer. when asked hnrv long he stayetl in the beil rower, the rviLncss ansr.vered, "One couldn't go thgrc and stay {br a long titu*. You cculd go,lhcle lbr

1r.r o rninutes. lhere was a staircase lcading there, and you r"'ou1d return irnrneiJiatt-1y."-'" Givcn that the lvilness rvas inside ihe church. togerhcr r.vi1h over 1.0 0 cLl.:er refi-rgees. the fulajority is not convinced that iie could have seen much of what was r*king place r.rutside the ehurch. 5 i 0. The ir'lajcrity also cousidcrs critical the rvitness' lestimorb- that Ndahimana rsscued hiur on the night oi l5 April 1994.q7'r noting that this gave the witness a reasoll to ptotsct Ntlahimana at trial. j I 1. Tlie Ir{o.jorit1 a lso r1n1". ,,',o, Witnesses ND I 1 and ND12 fled tiom rhe chur e h together on l -_{ April 199-1.-"' \\'irncss n'Dl I explained that they rvere ncightnurs during the evcnrs and that drel' remain neighbours toda.v. They sse each othrr atncst every da;.', anel during "the mourning perioil" disctrssed rltc- cvcttrs thsf touk place in 1994. They also travelled together to Arusha. althr,rugir lhe;- rr cre not houscd Logetlt.-r."'' 512. The Majoriry' obsen'es horvever. that $hile Wirness NDt2 stated thal a i:ulld*zer began destroying Nyange church..on l5 April 199;1, witness NDI I onll'saitl tliat the c.aterpillaf remain€d et the church ccmpound,e8l Further. while Witness ND12 saiel thal the gentlunnes ibught the assailants along side the refirgees on 15 April. Witness NDI I dicl not addr.ess ths role of the gendarmes except to say that a gendatme

allowetl him to flee the chLrch at uriilnight.es:r Despilc these tnitror discrep::ncies, bath testimonies are quite similar and rhus the &la_iofity is"mindful of the risk nf collusion betr.veen the trvo witnesses. ln anv event. both testitronies are of a liltle plobativs va lue. !'J T. lg.lani.rary 2illl pp. I I (quotcdi, 16-17, "" 1" l9 Januar.\' 2011 F, 18{.1{rS). '" Delence Lr|ibit 8t-; T. lii Jarluar-v 2[rll p. -i0. ':'3 l. l3 Jrn arv 20ll pp. 52. n5 tqrr,,rc,rr. - l . lS Jrrruary i0l l |t, l7-jx.-i7-r.r. , ^u !\'rrncsr NDl l: I l(, .tdnunr: :01t p. 3.^ Witr.iiss Nt)l t: '!. 1g .lanuorv 20 j i pp. 37-:ili. rl0. 5{1. :"1-5 j. .''' l. ls.lanuaf.\ 2ul I n. :h. "' '\,rtneslNDll: -l'. lgJJnuLr.) l0llpF.6-8: lvitne\s NDll: I. lg.lacuaf'2t)11pp.35.4{}. ' \ l i L n r s r N D l l : l . l , ) , t i , u . r r \ 2 l t p p . ( F S . t ? r \ \ ' ; t n , , i l ' \ t , l t : 1 . l U , r a n u r r r 2 0 i l p p i 5 _ . i / , ?lrc Prosecutctr y I'(lahi$tut1a. Case No. fflTR-il1-68-T fi2i 271

Page 113

Judge ment ond,\etlte ce 5.3.1.2-s Deknce l{titness ND7 itt ! t;;tnitrt )ltl I 5ll. T'lie rvilress was a victim oI the aluoks al Ny&nge parish on 15 April l9!]4. She acknorvleciged that tliere r''ele thousands oli reliigees rrt Nya ge churoh ihat day. 'lhe rr*itness naintained rhal slre rvas regularly boking out ofthe lvindorv ofNyange presbytery to see rvhat rvas taking place outside. She also testilled that had Ndahiniana come ro ihe parish that day she would Itave been arvare of hjs presenoe beeause sach time a pro1ninent person arrivetl, lhe lnterahanwe sould call the psrson's na le out loud antl qave banana leaves, and shc did not hcar Ndahimana's name callcd.'*l 514. Ilaving visited the site that rvas nnce Nyange parish, the N,fu.iority is of the vielv that tile rvitless oould r:nly have seelt \iefy little ol rlhat llas taking place outside liyaage ;:rres'o-vter1 tlr*t day licm her position. In addition. given tfrc numtrer oll petiple at rhe churoh. the lact that the witttess was hiding and the faumatie nirtare of the dvents. tho h.la.jorit}. concludes that the witnesii rvould not necessarill have seen Ndahirnana had he been present. Finally, no othdr lvitnesses testilled that banana leaves were waved or that the nalnes of pfonlinent persons \yel€ called out r.r hen the1.' ar:ived at the parish.esi Thus, rvhile the Majoriq. fincls thc r.uitnc:s' aecouur

o1'her experie.nces at l\*yange on 'l -\ April 1994 to trc credihle and reliable, her lestirnony does not a$sisl the lv{aiority in delennining whether Ndahimana *as present at N1'ange parisli that day. 5.3. 1.26 D e lb nc e Il i t ne s s C lrr r I e.g Ruvr r tt j c b o 5 15. ll/itness Ruvura.iabo lesrified that the rcd pickup belonging to the com,u fle renr:rincd at his garage frotn late 1993 until the $itness fleel in mid-April l!)q;1. because il needed maior repairs, brut the contwrttu: had not paid die sum lec;uired to fix the vehicie,ern 'l he i\.lajorily tiuds fhe r.vitLress' testimDn) to be reliable and credible. The Nla.iority is ofthe vierv thar the tvitness rvoilld have hartr no motive to testify in favour erf Ndahimana. lt notes that the wilness reported that he '"rvent irltr hiding irrearll \1a1." but thal he clid nol kuow exactly rvhen the "lnterohsm\'(, started l()oting our garage."'' lTorrevrr'. in rc'sponse to a question asked b]' the Cha;n[:er the wittress said. "approximatel], I rvould sav thar it \.!as betrveen a tveek an,;1 a *,qek and a half alier ihe 6th of April.'' 'fheretbre, the witness rvoultl have fled around 15 cr 16 April 1994.'Jss 515. T'ho &{ajority finds that there is very' litle chance that thc vehicle was st.}len bcfbre the attaclis at Nyange parish: and there is even less chance that lrller being siolen it would have been fixed pricx to the

attacks) given that it needed l ajor repairs. Iu any event. the lvlajorit),concludes that Ruvurajabo's restimony raises doubts about the Prosecution ivilnesses' testimi:nies aileging that ths conurunal red pickup was used betu,een l2 and l6 April 1994. In adtlition. rhe l,lajorir-v rccalls that the letter dated 10 April l-99.1, rvrinen b1. the l{ibu1,e pt.l.ftt, alsa nrentionecl that Kivumu .ontmrme rlitl nrrl har.e " u"hi.la.ooo 5.3.2 'I'he Use of Cornnruial Vehirles to Bring Assrilants 517. Faragraph :l of the Indictment alleges tltat Ndahi:nana rrrade tcvcral vehicles available to his subordinates such as Kavishema and Ndungutse to tlansport assailanls to N,vauge parish- t'he 37ze uri'1. 14 .lanuar,', 20i I pp. 35. -17. ") f.2"1 .irrru.n.\ 2rlll fn..i-5. l?. ' ' - J . 3 F r b r u i r L t 2 t r l l n p . - i l - j 5 . -'' I. R Let'ruar\' :01I o. -?6, e33'f. 10 FeL-ruarv ?01i r.'. -rt. "'5"e Dcfen"e Exbibit l: T. l4 ScpBtntrcr Z{}10 irp. 5.4-5.5. T!j" Pto&culot e. Ndahintlna, Case No. ICTR-iil -6N- l 3 i 214

Page 114

Ju.lgetnerr Lrkd te nte nce St;;\(eg{,t)!t ,^ </ /u1 evidence shoq,s that on l5 April 199,1. thc altackefs arrived at rhc- parish itcth ou toet ?irflfEt6firt' vehicles. The Prosecution alleges that the accused, along wirh rneurbers of ths .lCL, assisted in arranging such t ran:podatiorr."" 5 18. Testimonies sholv that valior.rs vehicles rvere usecl to transpoft the l-Iuru assailants. Witness CBK mentirxted the white Srout pickup truck belonging to Wirness CDZ and the Kivunru cornr;izrnc vehicle--a red 'I'oyota l{ilux that was used to bring the attrrc{iers to the churcli,"r Witness CBS sai<l that comm nal authorities requisitioned Witness CDZ's vehicle t,r trrnsprrrl assaiiants.t'l 519. Witness Cn"J said that he en ived a[ the cliurch aboard a lorr whiclr belonged to the Asial*i Company bul rvas. a1 that t'rne" being used by the corlmunal oilice to translrort issailants.nt'This testinlony is cormtruated b1, Witness CBR, rvho testif-ied thal he and other assailants boarded trucks lrek)nging to the Astaldi C.ompanl'. rvhich brought rhenl to N,vangs parish. The r.vihress believed tirat the transpoi-tation had been anauged by the local authorities"'"* Witness YAU is the only witness rvho said thar Farher Kanviranga arived in a bus rvith a group ofsoldiers armed with gLenades.""t 520, Scltne of tlie Deflnce rvitnesses rvho u,eLe arnong the assailants also describer-l horv

lhel' anived iit Nyange parish. Witness ND22 said ftat some Hutus arrived aboarrJ lorries.qr; Wjtn*ss ND6 testif.ied that he l.vert to the parish in Mutuyimara's lorry.'|" 5ll. ln assessing this evidencc, the lVlajority finds that tl.te Proscru{ior.r hu\ n('t prr.\,Lr} be}ond reasonable doubt the allegations containe.l in paragraphs 17 anel 2-l of the luJiehncltt.""' '[he Prose*ution ha! not adeq alely shown thai Wihless CllZ's car rvas recluisitioned to transport ass:rilants and encoLrage ttre local populariou to attack the'l'utsis at N.yange pa|ish. As regards thr red'kryota Hilux, lhe MajoriI has previoLrsll.' slated that Del-ence Witness ]invuraiabo's evidener raises doubts as to whetlief or not this commurtal cirr rvirs even functioniDg at the rinte {Chapter Il1. Section 5.3.1.26). Additionally, the Majolity has stateel elserrrhere that ir rvi!l not rel,v upon the uncorroborated evidence of Witness YA[-] (Chapter lil, 4.3.1 ..1). 5:1. Hvidenoe has shown that h-ncks and lorries did incieed bring Huru assailanis 1o N1.a*gr parish. Horvever'. ap;rrl liorn sonre u,itnesses' belief that Kal.islrema's invalvement cqualierl involvemenl b,v.' lJre kloai authorities. the Prosecuii.)ll has not pul firrlh an1' eviderrce to prove th*t sttch arrthorities--'in panicr.r lar. the accused--"ac n.nlly arranged the uleans of lrunsporl;irion described above. This lack of evidence leaels the

Ma.jority to conslude that ths Prosecution lras not proven beyond reasonable doubt th;it Ndahimana and ofhef communai auihorilies recluisitioneil vehicles and ananged for other nteans of transpor-tation in order tcr trausfer assailarts to N-vange rarish. elo lnclictmcnt. par.as. i7,21. "'l J Nolenrt'cr.-.u jLt ,rp- lj-16.5-r-5.1 (rhe Kivumu cotnnme ba<) ottly oae vehii.le- u rec-r,olrurcd pickup vchicle). -- T.6 Scprroibcr' l{rl0 t\ :7, elJ T. 4 Novenrbcf 2010 p, itt. '-" l- I Noveniher 1010 ir. ]7. '"'1. l5 SeNJrnber 2,rlr., F.,1,). '''" l. ?0 ADI;! 201 1 p. 7. i" l-. 21 Jonu3r-\ 2 l l p. g, '" lndilhrenl, n,uis. 17. ll. The Proseador v. Ndshiman,t, fasc No. ICTR-o1-6tJ-T I1'1 t 274

Page 115

,tu dge &e Et end Se nte t1C! 5.3.1 Aiiili 30 De t.embtr 2Cl I zTv4 523. The Notice of Alibi filed b1. the Defence on ,l September 2{il0 inriicated the lbllorving :n regards to Ndahimana's aclivitics of l5 April 199:l: (l) he rvas at Dr. Nla.r.r, Lruhuriga's house preparing f<rt'lhe doctor's fLrneml liorn 7 a.nr. rntil I p.m.; (2.1 at I p.m, lre le{i the doclirr's h<xrse [0 tra\el to Kihu)je tt mret with f'riJet {]|':ment Kayisherua; {l) he arivcd at approrilnately 3 p.rrl. and eoricluded his mecting with thc pr"lli:1, as weil as a shcrl r,isit to the getdcnuene camp, b1.' approximatel,v 4 p.m.: (4) ftom 4 t0 6 p.rr., he $arelldd back to Kivumu; {5) he retumed to the doclor's house at approrimatel-v 6 p.m. and renrained there ll*r an hour before: ({r) he made a shorl slop at lis home anrl tben moved to Nyange parish lrctwc€n 7:30 and I p.*.t'oo 524. 'Ihe Delbnce relied upon several rvit esses 1il suppofi this alibi.'l'hircsl: ,Vlukabideri testified thal Nelahimana w*s in l{ufuugo at approximately 5 rr 6 a.m, olr 15 Anfil l9!J4.io')0 lJeatri*e Mukankusi said thal she aniveri at ll a.rn. for ihe fLrncral and Ndahinana rvas already theLc.l'rol Hov,ever, Anicet 'l'umuserge" r.vho drove her. said l'irst that they i:rrived "in the rlu'ning," then la{er provirled evidente that they- mal.have arrivecl closer lo nor:,n.ll"t; I.6onille N{ u rekel. iso-iti saiiJ lhr}r she arrived hetween

l1 a,u. and troon fur'rhe funeral anri lhat Ndahirnana rvas alreadv there.''u'' 52-i. Turning to *ie distance belween Nyange and Rulungo, 'f'hfresc N{ukabideri ostimated thc Jislance t.t1*crn Rulirngu and Nyange 1o lre about l0 kilcmetres. brt that thc foads \yerc v.rr bad.r"'tt ilcefticc Mrrkanktrsi sli,l she Ieti hsr h,rrnc irr Nyarrgr \t,('t(ttr at lpplrrirnatel. l0 a.rrr.r i and arived !11 Rulbngo jusl betrirc ll ii.nr.""'{' '[he N4liuritl conrlucies thcrefbre that the <listance betlyegn Nyange and Rulungo cruld be covered ir abr.rul one hour.

526. Thdrese Mrrkabidcri is the onlv person who sal.s rliat shc salv the accust;d at 5 or 6 a.m. otl l5 April 1!)94 bccause he had to finaiise lhe organisatiol of thc burial-l"N? Slie also is the onlr',.' one who could have knorvn at whiat tiure Ndahinana artived. givcri thal shc rvas the host and the other rvitnesses arived ltter in thc morning. '{'he [.{aiority r*calls tliat the wihess' testinrony 1\:as very srliculate and detailed and that her testimon!'rvas u;rshakan !u cross-sxa tirlation. The lv{ajority also rdcalls that the rvitness did not Lry to negate the fa{"1 that Nt{ohim;rna rvas a iirmil5' frientl, but rnainlained that her tes{inlony \r,as nol led by a desire to assist Ndahirlana.r00e'Lhe presence ol'1lre accused at [41&abideri's house rvas coufimred b,v the other rvitnesses rvho tcsiified that Lhe arcused was already bus.v r:rganising rhe br"irial rvhen rhey arir.ed betrveen I I a.ur. and noon. while rveighittg the credibilitl, of the Defenqe evidence. the l\,tra^folitl has consicleled i|at rhe Nr.rtice 3f ;\libi has been tr:ndered in a timelv miln er, beft)re the cnmmcflcenrent of the trial. ln lighr ofthese {itlutrstances. it cottcludss thal the alibi is reasonably possibly lrue. and there{brc rnust bc qe' Ntrtiqe ol Alibi. 3 Septenrlrer 2010. Dt{'l-. 7 lebruar"l 20l l i:. (r8. ,", t. ? Fel.ru"r, tt)l I i-n. J5_to. "'- L ll,\tar:lj,lI Dn 7- l:- 't' l It)

Fcb.r'u.,,rr :iitt ot. t-',. t* " ^ ' t | . 8 f c h r u a r l l 0 | 1 r , . 1 7 , ''riT,7 Febnrar.y 201 I pp..l-i. 14. -!'ee ab.i, Defence Eahibit ltjl. """' I. 7 Febtuar\'201i eD. 4J--16. i'Jor 1- 7 lletrruer.i' 21111 D. 68. 'ont'I. I F"bruat)' 201 I p, 19 ('No. Cou sel lirr the lrfdsec{rion- I leg to ilitGr.$irh you. 1\'1ri{ I rrnr saring is $hat J \fitnessed. I gannot assert uhat is nDl true, just lbr the purposc of.leiLndirg hirn, Ndahinane rvas tr fiienr-i. but I ,.v+urcr like to lell l-cu. Counsel^ that even lor.his election he catre to $c:cr rrc to as| Jrirn /.y/., h, \ or( t.,f hinr. _-\ nJ I t,,lJ rrri, "lh a nrerl1her o{ an{lther p.,ri}.. I aln not tr.}ir'tg 10 lote tbr 1,qys." Ald I told- soI canni]1 -- J cannol -- l calnl)1 d€l.crai hirn jlrst lbr the l,lurpoie ill dei'erding Irim. \\.ta( I hale teslif!€d to is $ hiit I \'ilnr !scd.,"). 'Jhe flestcitto|\' i'.dahinrcm, (';rse \o. lcl it-{}l-bll-l- 115 i 274

Page 116

t,,,UiuSrryZ rs April r.ru.r#mefr ) 517. ln addition, the Ma.iorit_v has considercd that at sonie point dLrring thc llneral. l',ldahinana li'ft Rufurtgo to grr sce, th^e Trrc;&/ at Kibuye. Anicet'l umusenge s&id thrll he leJi rvitli Ndahimana ar approrimareh I p.nl.""".l-colille Murekeyisoni noticed that Nclahimana was no krngcr at thc frinttal arorrrrd I cr ) p.ru." " Prry''r Ka-r islrcnra" coniintrcrl fhJr Ndahimanr lrrir,cd rr his rr1fic.'irr approxirnattly 2 p.m. and spent "lti-.11) minules nreeting rvith him.lo1r Witness Nl)l i testil'ied that on l5 dpril 1994 he sarv Ndahinrana as he rvas leaving the tr;irfi:r's office.r0l3 Bofh N{irkabideri and 'l'utnnsenge reported that the 0ctused returned ro llufungo befiveen 6 and 7 p,m., bu{ thai he did ni}t stalj long befirre he leti again.lt'rl 5:8. 'I'uming Lo thc cortent of ths conversation Ndahimana allegedly hait lvith Ill$r l(a1,ishema" thc N'fajority notcs that t>nl1- Prlfet Ka-_vishema lvas atrls (o provide lirs{ hand evidcnce---1he evidence provided b].'olhel llel'enoe ivitnesses lvas en{irel! hearsay. 'l'he Majoritl has expressed concem widi respect 10 Prilit Ka-visbema's retiability and has lound thal he night hale motrivss 10 testil-v in lavtrur ol'the aocuseci. ln the ab$ence of firrther reliable evi<Jence, rhe klajorit). is no'" convincecl ofthe crxrtenl ofthe ronversation betrveen the trvo nren.

519. Horvsver, based on corroborated el,idence, the i\lajorit.v finds il reasonabl,v possibly true lhat the accused was not presenl al ill"vangc parish during the commission oi'1he crimes thal occufl'cd ir) the afiernoon becanse he lell Rufungo at around i p.m., went t{} see several persons" incluriing the pri.fet, and then returned to Rufungt at approxiolately 6 or T p.nr.l"i: f;iven these cir'oumslitnces, the Majority does trot neetl 1o address the l)efunoe's r:b.ieciicn thar the accus;ed did not received aclequate notice in relarion ro the tirder to stad rhe attack of 15 Anril l g!).1.1016 5.10. Finall1". the Defbnce itsell'argucs thal al1er Ndahimilna carne baok frun Rullngn. tretrveen 7:30 and 8 p.m." he niade a shor.t stop at his home bcic*s moving ot 1rr Nyang* parish.li'r7'l'he &4ajorit-v- has tro teasLrrr to di:uhl that this sutrurission is tnre. Having lbunil rhat the alibi is Julgenent dad Seiieice accepled.lr0e' ie Majorit.v accepts that the accusecl. lvas a1 llufungo cn a.m, tt'"' Nuhintan< et (/. iAC) -llrdgement, para. 414; Xenndantla (:\C] Judgement. fara. Jt; Kltjrlij.li(-4{-) .tudgen!€ni" p.ri'. J l: 1/ftrr ar./ { \( ) trjJ.cn)eni. farjr}. lUj-2|l./' ''" T. 12 &iat :{r1l n. ll. l ! ! r - . , . - , . I ru rcDruil.\ it ri J pl). t U_ t L , . T l 8 A p r i l l r , l l l , f j l . 0 l : t . t q ^ f f i t 2 { } f . . * . " T . | 7 . f u i r u i r \ : r ) l l l p .

i 7 - 3 R , . l . i l . iill l. rfelrrrur. l{rtl i,.6,r: i.,2Nlri :r,ri ft.. ru. ti-r7 "' Ihe \'lr.iorjt.n- rrutes Thirl rt tilds the testinron)' et Airicer l umusecge prrticuLuiy conlincirg. ltecaurc $f its drtail .$i.l cotlsistct]c,r", in ailditi(t1 k) lhe tict that he \i,aur the oDlv orc l.l,ith tl'tc accirscd iiuring tilf tiiurs spcnt tl.avclling (Chat-.lef I.l[. se{dqf 5.3 1,l{il lrir" I unruserge rertilied thal as thd-v staded the lrip a*lt fforn R hing.]. Ncjahinrallr t1;Jcl hilr that hc qis g.ing to the prtyarclt?re h€cafise thcfr \,'ere ss!u[it] pfrf'lcms in ltti1llgs .!rrlr1n- ( l. t: lterl' 201 I p. 9). llc iirrthef stalcd dlat he drrlvc Nd;thimana lo thc prefe.larc's eftics. rvher-e irc rvaiteii in th! rar $biic Nihhjnana rne, u,,,rn the prlfr lirr aprro-xilnaael,\, .10-60 IninLrtes. Nalahinruoa cmerged h.om the dtce \1,ith the preler, \rhr) the laitnrss did no1kno\,!\!gstltepl.c'l!tr.rntilNdahintanato]dhitn{'I',12|v1a].2|}1lp.8),Ndal]in1ana1heoin}brrtedtll.'\'i|nesr1hl fhe prll'cr had infotmcd hinl that there 1\ere no soldiers or gerrdar.rae.i rvailable ( T. 12 l-ia) 20 l I p. 9). A iier ihi] \'isif iiJ the prifet, the t'ritocss dlove Nrlahinrana te the ger.&r?,rerj!. whi:re hr aitcd io the car ii.rr l{) niin les \rhil{ Ndahiruanu was in tlrc gen<larnerra ol}ice. li+lloiling this, the $itness i.rok Nd,ihilnl,illr 1* vi:iit at agr.omrnist nami',.1 -lanvi€r, tnd lhdn

relwned $jth him to Rufitliso {'f, 12l,liy 20ll p. ]0). lhc l,4!jddtl- lirflher ri'ei}l1s-that th.}.iiltsrlcc bet,aeen lhe housc ir', itufungo and tlrc Kibuve priJbcrourl oflicr: is j7.7 kiionebes accor.lirls to rhc R.rol1 olr Srttr \.irii. l-1 J U( 2 l l. |:r'd /) i\J i,;;.V(f S.1 ll 5ct\trinbErllrlt tl.72-7i:"1^22 Sipiiorbef 201I fp. itr-l7. "' N(,lire ol'Al;bi, i Sctlcnlhcr:{.,1t, I'lre Prosecutot t:. Nd1hir{rnd, C,1se No. }{IIR-0i-68-'f' 116 i 1,'t4 1r1

Page 117

.Judgenetll stul Serre ie 3tl llecelnbNtk -", <.LZ L teasonably possibll true; the Ma-iorit"v' lvill nor.v turn to cousidef nhcfhcr its rensonabk{els has been overcome b1.'convincing evidence plaeing Ndahirnana at Nl,ange parish thai day. 5.3.;l N,leetings 5,3.4,1 f'lat:e ond Purytose of tha Xlorning Lleetings 531. ln suppolt oi paragraph 25 of the lndictment. thc Prosccution alieges that at leasl trvo meetings took plaoe b{rfore the attack on Nvange churc'h on l5 April 1!}94, one ar the CODEKOKI building or at ahe Statue of the Virgin Mar3, and one at Nyange presbyterT-. lt s*ems tlrat thc distance beiween these locations was vcry sl.rort. Thercfbre, the accnsetl could have been involvetl ilr borh meetings by tlavelling bellveen the ir:cations rvithin a ver-r,.,short liame time.'l'he i\4ajoritl. will .trldrcss uech of lh(:sc rnectinls in trrrn. 5,3.4.2 trIeetings at Nyange Presb.t;tery or Ptailh Aret Be;fore the ,4ttac*.s 532. lVitness CBY testified that he szru, Ndahimana, IPJ Ka,visherna, Ndungutse. K.an_v*rukiga and llidodonrir come inro the coudyiird of Nyange presbyrry at approxirnate i-v 8 *.nr. anci nie*[ r'vitlr rhe priests.'l'he lvitness explairied that af1.er their rliscussion, the author^ities "lell ancl u,ent out-"lol8 s-l:i. Witness CllK tesrilied thet at approxirnately Q a.m." Seromba, l.ldaiiimana, Ka,rishcnra" Kanl':nrrkiga" h,lbakilirehe. Witriess flDl- and a

uumber. o{ t:o seiller.s mct inside ther bishop's rocnr in the priesfs' living quarlers. 'I-he rvitness could not hear rvhal rhey were saying. but atler the meeting he salv fhe $$up speakiLrg lvith Huiu assailanls. f:ollowing this discussiqn, a large-scale attaek ui Nyange chuich iooi plaoJtore 534. Witless YAIJ 1es1il'ied that fiather Kanviranga. tllJ Ka;-ishcnra. N<lahimana. lr.i:nyarul,i3a^ and liarher Serolnha pattioipated in a nreeling in ftoirt ol'the secretarial sonretirne "belbre noorr. in the rrloflit1g." S+on ther*allcr. Father Serornba mc1 with a grctutrt tsl lute* lantu,t: and the kiliing began.to:o 535. After assessing the details of the rvitnesses' creelibilit,v. the L.,!ajority fincls thar lne Pr"osecution wirnesses do not corroborate each other regardi:rg ths prgcise time,i'l2l locationlt22 or conseqlrences ofthc ncetiug.lD2l - r ( ' I l r J \ o ' e n r h c . J 0 l U r . i 0 r l ( S r . rort T" 3 Nrxemltr ?010 pp. l2-l.l- ,58 (Alrong the policernen. tbe rvitn!,ss recogilizeil Adliel \.lerahanrlr- \,lbir1gr6. Kibyut$a 3nd Leonal): T.,l No\srbtr 1010 p. 1 (Witnsss aditetl th::1. the policamerl nrrc carrying rillcs. :\s iirr as lrt: ferlienbered. they had Kaiaslrtikols anr.l "anothef type .rfgun thiit alo no1 fire rl1anj, shots ai altc sarlr linte.,'). ro:('T. t5 Sectenrlrcr 20i0 r. .]9. tu:r \'l'jmers CBKr T. 3 No\,efiher 2010 p.12 ('lestiiieJ thsl the

tiurtrofilies nrel iir g a.flr.): Witrrcss yAlj: i. lj s<litmbrr 2tJ1rt p +u I Irsrili!.J rlr l Lhc Jurh!,rriie,In!.r ..irt lhc In,,rilir,g.-r. "'"\fjtucsl(BK l I Nt-rcnrLrtri0l0p. 12 {Said lhal it happcne,d atlhe bish.rp's t.{}ol} in thc priesrs' livilg quurtersl; witness YAlli'I. i5 Scptember 2010 p. 49 (Said that it happened in fiont ofrhe sr:.fcrafiat). ilrd i.1a^l{r.it_; i;ter th1i. lvhile lllese places rnight haye beeu olosc to ca":h etiler. the wjtnesses wrre precisc rcgarcling thtir dercription of the l.rcation sf the nteetine. t(':r wihross CBK: L 3 Novcmbct:0llj pp. 12, 53 {Said that al-tcr thc lncctinr l'te tra\r iho lulho.ities srri:akirlr lrith Hutu |]rtailan!.!): Wibess YAli: T'. lJ Septerrbef 2t10 p. 49 isaid lirat altrr the Inrrti,rg. trrrt)cr srr,rrrrhe rrrer irilh e Eroup aI Jrtelehdnv" and thd killing began. Whilc she i11tolvt'd Ndahintna in re.latio!'] to thc n1re,,ir1{. uccorrlirg to her testimony, only Sclonlba t.ilkl]d to rhe asiaili0tsj. The Prosecqo| t'. Xclnhiuoatt. Case Nrr. lcl l{-{t1-68-T 117 i 27'I

Page 118

,Judgeme l dtd Senten<.e 30 5.3.11.3 ,t{r:e ring u*lrc ({}DEKOKI Euildingi St*ue L;.f tlte I'it'gin l4c*, J02r 1 . 4 r,-r.,r.cmbel ?U10 rrrr. 4g. 52. rr"t T. -.1 uo,"rrnher 20 t0 Fp. {t--ili. I . i Nov€nlber 2010 pF. 1:.-23 {lCS). 30. " "T "l NLr,. ernhcr' 2il l r r Drr. J9-51. rD:? T , B l,lovember' :010 pp, 3l --12. -.'i. iJ Nor,enrhcr. :0lll l. .il. ' l, t' SeptcmL-er')t|0 pp. Il-12. "'-" T. o Seprem|1er luI{r F 26. ' n ' ' L i N . " q n t 1 . . , 1 { ' 1 f l 1 1 . l 7 : l . l \ o \ r . n r h t ' r l i l l i 1 , l 8 '-'- T. lNL,rer,rher:0t0p11. I l" 13. '" T. 2 Norembcr 2U ll) p. 2l ' ' " ' $ i L n e r r ( ' l ) k : r - S N U r e o r i r c r , ] 0 l 0 p p . i l - " 1 : ( l ? s t i f l e d t h a t r h e f r i e c t i n g o c i u r r e d h c t l r . e e r t l l l t n d l l r l 0 a . l l r . ) r \Vitncss_Ctls: T.6 Sep{emlrer:010 pp. 2i-22 (1'cstil,ied it occurred at lj a.m.): Wi{ness CllR: .1. : .\-oterrL-f :01{t F. 2l ( l'estified that it occured sometime bdfirrc tlle artrck, wirich he eslimatecl tt5al lrtrr,.ecr l1 a-m, rnC rri:on), Di,rcinbc7 2l) 77 Z 536. Witness CINJ ar.ived ai the Statue ofl the Virgin l\4aly betrveen I l n.nr. and I p.m. 'l'he tighting had already. l-regun"id2a L.lpon his *ffival, he saw Nclih;tliana together ivith lP.i lia-vish':ma, rhe pharmacist Kanyarukiga and o celtain Nclungutse at the Sratu€ of the Virgiu tr'{ary. Ndahirnaita i.velcorned tlie

gro[p of assai lants.ll':5 Kayishema then look the assailants to tbe area u,here the.l l{ere to altacli the 'Iutsis. Ai one point. Rukara, a retired soldier, threlv threo grclrades at Tuisis. lqho then starled retrealing. l'r2{' -.37. Witness CDK teslified thal he arrived nt Nyange pariih between I I anei 1 1 :30 a.m. and thal Ndahirnana. Sercnba* Kanyarukiga eud Ndungulsi held a rneeting at the CODEKOI(l buililing.r":7 I"lis testinrony seems to indicate that air attacli (rccurreJ shonly'afier rhe meeting ended. but he clid rrot rperitr hu\\ l('l1g tltc lncetin$, luste.l."'" 538, Witness tlBS. a rel-ugee, testified rhat he saw Ntlehima$a wilh Ka-vishcrna axl.l armed poJicemen at the Statue of the Virgin klar1.'at 8 a"u. lle testified, "lt r,-as flbvkrus that it rrag Ndahirnana's grtrup $tich uas issuing instruclion to thc altackers"l'2t fur ihe atlack that tleg*n a1 3pprlrx imatcl-\' 9 a.nr. "'I' 539" Witness {]ttR, rvho participated in the afiack$ thal .la},, sarv lhe fbllorving aulhodtles at ther CODtiK()Kt Lrrrilding: .-Nrhlrimana" Ndungulse, Kanyarukiga, f'ayishell':a, Fluri;*grvaL:ugabo. lhbrlrrgila ,1n.1 ,'tltcrr. ')' \,\ hiil lh('Jgthuritirs cmcrgcrl lirrm rhcir lrcerioS,. Ndahi*ra:rl rnsrtucl\'\l th,: assailunis: "(lu.r's. get:,'ur\clf{J/i ) lL) ur11l."rr''r lhc rrilncss cr'ruld lnlv sii\ thJl llri\ t)rcstirlt: look place belbre an attack thal began benveen I I a,m, and

lloon."''l j40" [ven assuming thal the CODIiI{OKI building and r']ie Sralue o1'rhc Virgifl N{ary are referring to the same iocation. rlie lvtajority' 'llnds that thc flrosecution evidence. once ag;rin. varies greally regard;ng the time of thr- allcged mceiing. l)tpcntling on the rvitlress" lire tinrc oJ'the meeting varies firim 8 a.rrr. tc nocrr."'" U hilc lhc,\laj('rit\ docs trot eKFect eaolr ol'th* \\itnes:cs [d be able to repd|t the exacl rime of ihe events he ur she rvitnessed l? years ago, the timing oi the Breeting ifi relaLion to lhe start of the attack is impor.tanl here. 5,11. A detailcd revier,.v of the Prosecution evidence shorvs the evidence to be inconsisteut regarding the tr.vo allegcd meetings. [i'irst, it is not clear which of the t\\{) mictings happcnrd 1ir-rt or rvhich one stadcd the attack. Morc i*rportantll'. the timing c{'the mectings in relation to the s1 {t o{ the attacks is Lrlelear. T i14 P I o,t e c | | / o r \,. it" tl 4 h i nan Lt. Ctrsf Ne. tCTR-0 1 -68-T 118 t 27tt Xr+

Page 119

.lu.lpcnent utLl Slntunce ;1rQ4.. pl24 :i)l I 'z,"LZa i-12. '[ lre ,\liriuritr rr'iil not rcl] i.rn \\'ilness 1 51 lrhir rriis rhc trnl] u itncss trr tcst#dihtiilioil- - thrr)iving was alread-v'' ongoing befure the authorities met at the Srrtuc of the Virgiu irlar"r, " " 543. Witnesses CB'l and ClDl, diil not leport any rleetings; horveref. this coLrld be explained ir;' the possibility that they arrived aller the two mcetings allegcd in paraglaph 25 of the lndiclirenL ccourred. Winress CB'f arrived benveen 1l;30 a.m. and noon, after Rukara threw a grenade al the relirgees and allcr they ivere rcpelled tou,artl N-vange thurch.'0i6 Il0 meltiored lhat thc arlacii on the church slar{ed at approximatell, 1 p.nr.r0r7 According ic Witness CX.}t,. the stone{hrr:rving {ight started *round the sam€ time as he arrlr,ed at the churoh behveen l0 and ll a.m.rD-'8 lle til:ther e:rpl*ined that he hearcl a grenode exploriing aroutcl 12 p.m. ancl rett"lrnerl 1r) the chrLrch.r('re i4.1.. trt lbliolvs liom this evidence Lhat the meelings woukl have occurued at leasl befirrc ll a.m. This assertion is supported b.y the testimr-'nies of Witnesscs t.UK and CBY. inrjer:d, accorCing to \Yitness UllK" lhc attack slarled right al1er a nie*ting that !o{}k piace at approximatciy 9 ir.m. at tir,: priests' living rluarters.r'rt'r AccortJirg (o ('tJY. lhe aita.li strirlcd immertiitily alter rhe meeting

lhar ,lr,..:luluJ al anlrorinratelr 8 3.rlt. itt {hc frssh!tcr\.r"r' $'iructt ) \U did nul pr,rrjLl,,.arrl cle.rr indicalron of tinrc.'"" i4'i. Llorvevst, otlier evidence tend$ to show that rhc attack started aller I tr a.ur, Witness CDK arrived ar the church between ll and 11.30 a.m.1043 Hc leslificd that lollowing a nlceling at the CODEKOKI buitding. Hutus stafl*r'l 10 throlv stones al the'lirtsis, fhen Rukara threrv the grenade. the'ltttsis rvete repelled tc N.vange churcl.r a.nd the attack continued.lua* Wilnuss CllR estiurat{d that the a11ack siarted ailel a meeting at lhe CODIIKOKI building, l:envcen ii a.m. and noitn.'tot ll* reported that F{tttus starte.l to lhrow ston€$ at the Tutsis then llukara thre\.v grenaties al the 'futsis rvho startetl rerreating to the church. 'l he attacl{ then conlinued.i046 - 546. Thc Majority finds these theories diflicult to rer:oncile. While lVirncsses CBK and CLIY esserl.e.i that lhe stone throrving attack started lighL aiier the rireeting thal look plar-re a1 xhc prcsb1,rcry ar aLound 8 or 9 a.nt.; Wilnesses CDK anel CEIi iesrified that the st.one (hrowing a{*ck sral"ted riglrt a{'kr tht meeting that lrrr}k plaoe ar: rhe CC}I}L,KOKI builelirig or the Statud of the Virgin Mar1, at afound I I a.m. 511 . A third version of how the attacl( b*gan is broughl by witn*ss clls rvho r.vas rt N.van{e chutch rqrralr thc rnoming ct I5 April |99l. lr

1 iiid nol rcprirr arr-r rireclinr fir \r;1n,1, prcsi'ycr-v."''' Ihu r', itrtcs:. tcstifieJ tlrrt tlru atLack hc{an at 0 u.,,).' '" llli.r.rer'. shilrrl_r hciirr*. ar g a.m.. he sa\Y Ndahimana with Ka,vishema and armed policeir:en at the S|niLte ol'ihe Vii qin h4ar) . roli 'f. 4 \ovcnrbel2tilt) r''-,19, rort'l . 7 SeprenrbeL 20l0 pp. :]9-,10. {i{;-6i. '"' f. ? Seplend]gf2010 n. 47, ' ' ) r 8 l . l 2 \ r , r c r n b . r . l t ; l r i p l : t . l t N , , r c r n b . , r . j r ) t l , . l J . '"- f. ll Norcinllcr l()lo p. L r ' " 0 | j \ o r e r n l , e r l 0 l 0 p u . l : " 1 1 . : x . r+ T. l0 \'tr eLn hcr' .]rl1ii pp.27-)s. ' " l . l 5 S r l ' L e m h l . r : { l l 0 t : t q t " l } i l , , r c n , r , i r ' - , . ' " f. ti NoienLber J0l0 n ll. rL!a l. 8 t"-olenber 2010 nn. ii-31. ro'5 L 2 Nolernbcr 2t)li] i:, 21. , . ' ' L l \ . ' c n r b r r l r ' 1 , ' i . , 1 , l l - l ' r , I I \ , , r r n , h . , , : i , i ' l l \ : ) ''-"L b Sep(snrb{l :(ll{; r' :2 Ie3 T. 6 Se pteniller 2f.-r10 p. ?6. 'fhe' Prosecutor t Ntiahinattt. Case No. lC'lIt-01-6ll-l 119 I )74

Page 120

Jk{eeftenl.ndsette"c.' [rr"$-Uf, #, Iie asse(ed, "[t lras cd;r,ious that it rvas Ndahinaira's gfollp rhich rvJs issuing ;oi?u6:ii',i H, t[* atlackers."l''4'r 548. Considering these circumstanc.es, the L4ajoriry flnds that the testin)onies oft,re Prosecutiori rvimesses clo not sufficiently coroborate each other tc prove bevond reasonable do bt that Ndaltirnana attended a nleeting at Nyauge presbyter"v- on ths nlorilirlg of 15 April 199,1. No evitNente was aclduoed regarding the content of that reeting, and the Ilrosecutir:n did not prove belond reasonable doubt th&J the accused orderect his alleged suboldinates to start the liillings. Nor did thc Prosscution prove that the accused planned or instigated the killings that occuffed later thal da,l. IJecause the Ptosecution Eviden*e does uot ovefcome lhe ilefdnce alibi lvhich rvas fbun{i 10 [re |easonabl\ possibll truc. lhc al;hi smn(ls.r0i" 5.i.4.4 Evenrs Alier the,Alleged I'lectings i:19. I'aragraphs 26 ao 28 r:1'the fndictrnent allege lhat driring the attacks, Nrlahirnana. fialher Seromlra. lP"l Ka,vishema. Kaly.,amkiga and others wele presel]l. ordefing, instigating md supervising lhe assailants by prr;viding them wilh weapons ancl llel in an atlg,npt tr: burn the l'utsi rcf'ugees in N;'ange cl,urch. l'he atfempl rvas not successful, leading Ndahirlana anri the i:rlrer members of the JCE to hold a meeting at Nyange presbytery to

plan furthe| at*rcks against the T uts i s. lt'5 I 550. Wilnesses CDK, CllS, CBII CBY, ND22. ND6 and NDl2 said that aller rhe meetings the-v obsened the beginning ofthe attack when llutus slafted throrving stones at the refugces. Atler une or sevetal grenades *'ere thrtxvn at the refugees bv a reservist nanred Jluli.ara, the tefirgees relre*t.d to Nyange church.lttt2 Nri evidence u,as acltluced to shorv thal ilukara acte,:l uprin an trnler by thc acoused. 5.3.5 A$aibtitr$ eari*glld!ne,L,eA!a! 55 I ' The lnd ictment alleges that Ndahimana ordered the asssilanls io cover themselves in batlana leaves in order to distinguish themselves tiom Tutsis.loijTlre h{ajolitl notcs that some ut thc I{ufu assailants used banana and olher r;-pe s of leaves ibr this purposr-."'-{ l ltrn cvcr ('trly \\iitnd\s C}iJ testified that the otder to the assailants to cover thcmselves in banana leaves canie fiom Ndahimana.lt)si I'he l!{ajority has previousl,y held that it would not rely cn t}iis accomplice rvitness r+' T. 6 Scpternber' :i) lr r pp- 21-::. , - . ' f . 1 l S : p t i n r b r r l { l l i p l \ . l ) - 7 i L : 2 \ c p 1 ( m h u r : , r l l p f . t ( , , 1 1 . '"-' T. 2 i Scprcnihcr lrrl ' nf. .t. lo.i8..i-l,l?. '" ' Witncrs LDK I 8 No|crnbrr lul0 pp. ,12--l4r \\iilness CBS: 1'. 6 :jcFternbcr Z(|ll) pp. 2l-:l; Witnes$ CI,lt: l. I No\embix 201ti p.

19. T. 2 No"-€mber 2010 p. 22; lvitness cBY; T. 9 Novcnbcr l0l0 p. il, T. ltr Norernber l0l0 p. -10 (lcs); witless ND22r T.20 April 20tI pp. $7; witnesii N1l6: T.27.tan ary 201t f. Il: $ itlress NDll: L 19 J*ouar-"- 2011 pp. G7. 1n'17; wilness cN.t; 'f.4 r1lovember 2r)lr) p. 48. 't. j r\o!erriber 201(, pp. 22-2:l (tls)^ j0 iHe is tlie oniy $'itness !r'ho said thal tightitlg rya! ah r.od] ongoing bcfore Nd[himana und others ''v/eieoned" the assaihr:ts rr the -statue of fte Virsin tr,{aivi- rrjr lndicl1]lent. p*ra:2?. 'ot1 $t;tness CItr: L 7 Sc,ptelrrber 20tt) F. 39 lSome people ha<i banana t€a!,es or slrcalvptirs lrrc lea!es): wilne5t CDKi T. 8 \overnber 2010 p. -ll (Sonre assailints had covere.l themselves \uilh bliiirrra ieaicsj: Witnr,ss CBY: T. l0 Noterlbel 2010 pp. ll l tCS). 65 (,qtdckers rlcrg rvc"arirlg balar)a lea\os): Witness CBK: l'. i Nore,rber 20l0 p. 1-5. ?. 4 N{}len]bcl 2tll0 pF. 48-49 (AttackeN B,er.e tvearing balana lear es and smal] cl.press bm|chel t] dirtingujrh thernsches ftom thq ttiu*.cr,i Witness CBSi l, 6 Septembcr 2rl1{l IJ. 25 (A{acrlefs disgujrcd thi,nselies 1!i1h brri;rn.r leaves to disfirgulsh tlremselves iiont refugees); Witness CBi: T. 14 Segrtembcr 10 l0 p. i j (S1rnle rvcr.e drcssed ir rheir per'."ttal . ft 'lhinu .'tltcrj\ r!cre \\'carjr)r,rJ,l.rlir l(d\'(r L ' i J \ o ' c n r b c r ' ] ' l l | | . l x l . i \ L , r r . n r h r ' , l r i l r r f . : l r l { s J . Tlle Presecator v Nd!1hi\ono, Cssc No. iC-IR-frl-6N-I' l2() i 2'1'1

Page 121

.ltdgenent.rnd Se te'te 30 Decenber )0ll ??I K unless comoborated. (Chapter lll. Sectior 4.3.1.1 1) Therelbre, il iinds tlret the Prosc."trti/on-'lias ncl proven this allegation be-vond reasonahle drubi. 5.i.6 Attack on Nyanee C'burch" l5 ApLil-!994 ii2- 'l'he l\4ajoritl recalls lhat it was unable to dsteflxine licxl dril cvidencc thc preciso lirn* thc ]-s April 1994 altacks on Nyange church began. llorvcvcr', the evidencc does depicl a r*rher co sislent descriptiixt as to /rcr the attack rvas conducted. 'fulsis and llutus began thnrrving skrnes al each other. Aiier a celtain Rukara llrrelv ure or several grenades" rel'ugdes retreeted kr the church. Nvange presbl'tery and a neafby fbrest. F'ollowing the gre ade attaoLs and correspcrriding reireat, the assailants moved torvards the church and killed a nurnber of refirgees rvho rveLe still in the coruty ard. 5.'3.6.1 luduhimantz'-s Parti<:iptttittn und Presenee l)uring the Atrttck on Nvange (.lfuirck 553. Three witresses testified that Ndahimana ordered the start cf rhe attack. Wilnsss CB I teslified Ndahirnana rvas in the courtaafd o1'Nyange church and that he took a grn {iorrr ltabalisa. a f"ormer soldier. and llred one shot at the ciock tower of ths €hurch to signal the commerlccment of the a11aok.r0j6 Wilness CNJ said Ndahimana "orciered thc communal policemcn to firc on the persons r-r'ho rvere nying to hide in the tor,.ier

oi'the rhurch." l{e th.n confrscateil the guns of tr\,r gendarmes and three comurunal poJicemen u,hn lellscd to compll' with his direclive.i"5t $tirress CBR testilied that from outsidc the CODL.KOKI huilcting, Ndahimana insrrustecl the assailants: "GLrys. get yo*rseli to rvork." u.h ich rhe asslilants undersloorl 1r) mrtn lu rttilrl, [hL- i irtsir.]' -3 'l he Nlajcritv has expressed conoe rs abmt the credibilil3'' and reliabilily of each ol'th*se ',vitLiesscs. ln parlicular, as detaiied belalv, lte lvlaicrii3r has doubts abciLrt Witness CNJ's allegation rirat ilrigadier l'lbakilitehe rc:fused to shoot. ln addition. the discrepancies L-retqeen the lhtee aecoults do not ailorv the i\'lajoritl. 10 conolude beyotxl reasonable doubi thrt Ntlahiurana instigareil tlte lrfi;rcks of lvas pll-sically present [o order the assellants to start the killings on i5,,lpril 1994. &Ioreover, this eviilence is coni.adicted by lVitness Y,,\U, ri'ho t€stified that the killings bcgi,.n itnmcdiare 11., af'rer Fatlrer Seromba spoke to the Inte ntlrurmt'e.1"5') 5-r4. A uumber of Proseclttioti witnesses testified thai l\dahimana lvds oresent rLL sol'ile ndinl during the attack. Witnesses CDK. CBR. CBT and CNJ each tcstifir.cl rlxt Ntlahitnarra rr,a: presenl at the sted of the attack" but that he tl,en leli to go to ihe f'unera I at l{ufung0" <.leparting al approximatelv I or 2 p.rri.r{'60 Witness YAU

saicl that Ndahirnana rvas presellt at N!,ange parish "as tlte l'il,lings 'rere taking place" ancl Witness CBI testified that he sarv Ndahirnana during the attsck. "'"' 555. Horvever, cther Proseculion r.vilnesses such as CBY. CDl," {,'Bti, Cl|}S and CUN. alt ol. rvhont were ptesenl dur;ng lhe attack, did not Ldsti{jv thal Ndehirnana $,as present" Aclilititnalll," r . r ' 6 T . T S r p r e r n b c r 2 i ) t 0 p n . . l l - 1 7 : f . 8 S e p t e r n b e r 2 ( ) 1 0 p p . 6 , l l . l 4 - t j - 1 9 . ''-' T. 4 No\ember :i,tD pp. 5l--i.t. r0i8 l. I November 2010 l);. t7-ts. to5'-I. l5 Septernber 2010 r:. 49. ro'rjr lvitt'tess cDK: r'.9 Noverubcr'10l0 pp. 19-:0: trvihess cBli: l,INorernbctzl)10p.23.1.:Norcrnber:0rop. 2l; Willless CB'l: 'I" 7 Septernbef 2010 f. 4?" T. I Septsnber:i]]{.1 pp. .5^ 9- i"lt \\'itne\s CNJ],l.4 \o!*1rbir 2010 p. '!t'J Witness YAL.r: T. l-5 Swrember:i)10 p..tr9t \\/itness LtHl: i-. t4 Scpt{jmbef l0l0 p. l(1. The ?rosec utor'.t. lid11hifi.&tr, Case No. ICTR-0 1-ir$-T' t:,1 i 27'1 1+

Page 122

.luLlgenent ond Senlefice 3{} De.enfut -)|JU 72t',4 Defunce Witlresses NI)24. ND22. Nl)6. Nt)12. NDt I and ND7 also all tostified thar-i{tlairirtrana rA'as ilot prsseni during the altztck.l062 556. 'l"hc Majorily points particularly to Wilness Cll[,'s teslinronr. uhtr saiJ thct iru riid nor sce Ndahiniana at Nyange parish unlil the evening of 15 April l9().1.' ^' Whilc Witnesscs ( NJ. Cl]'f, NDl2 and ND7 stated that Witness CDL rvas anong the leadels ol'the atlaek. it seems that had Ndahimana been thel'e as rvell. they would have nosl likely been together,r"5a 557. ln conclusion, the Majority {inds that the Frosecutlon did not plovide sulTlcient crediblc evidence to overcomg the reasonableness of the accused's alibi. 'Ihe Prosecutiou cvidencc is insullicient 1o establish be;,'ond reastnable doubt that, r:n l5 Aprii I99'1" Ndahimana trdered a uLrniber ol'assailanls 1ti ''slalt rvorking'' and that the attack \vas lauichcd lbJlolving this lrder. Nor did the Priseculior prove beyond reasonable doubl that Ndahinana should be liahle Jbr r:rrdering, instigating and sLrpervising the assaiiants b1'provicling them witli s,ealrons anci f'ucl in an atlcurpl 1c bum the l'utsi relugees in l,iyange clrirrch. Civen these circumslances, the Vlajor'ity does nol rreed rt: address dre Defence's obiection that the allegetion th*t ihe aooused fireJ thc fir:l ,;ht't lhrrt :igrurlied the start ol"the

att*cks on I5 April l99il r.vas not properiy pled in thc lndiclnrrnl. "'o- i.3.7 Atsr:hc-At1ruk otlNr.:anc!-qluls1t 5.3.7 .1 fiistrihurion oJ N{eapons 558. 'lhe Ma.joritl.-has considered Witness CDl.,'s evidence *lleging that Ndahimana lr*d a discussion rvilh IPJ Kayisherna, and trvo men n:rmed Abal.iscngrt trrd Kageuza in front r'f ihe ctxnmunal office on l 5 April 1994 at appruxiltlatel:. 6:30 p.m.r''"" 'l he i\ 1a.jL,r irl r ecu llr thrt it .ivilN not rely on \Vitness CDL's evidenee unless it is corrobolated.

559. I'he Deii:nce conlentls that iL had inadcquate nr:tici: ofthe allegation made b)' Witness f.llli, a1 tial-lhat on l-i April 1!)94 at 6:30 p.m.. lie sarv Ndahimana meeting outside the eonrmunal r:flfice rvith rlvo individuals" and that Nr'lahirrana promisect these individr.rals thar he lvould ensure the assaiiants had enough rveapuis and *mmuniticn for.1.he next clay.l{'6r tu"t Witness {'I}Y: T. 9 Novenher 2010 pp. I9-:0 (r'Liahimana idli righl afi*r the ureelirg. i:elore attack beguu; Witriess Cl)L: f. l2 November 2010 p. l,rl ts:|\i \-dahirnann around (i:i0 p.rrl., allcr the s|1a.k$ had sk)|lpe.i); \lriinris CUK: T. 3 Novembcr 2010 pp. 57--t3" -[. .1 Ntil embo[ 2010;r. I lsaiv Nduhirnana at a rnceting ir the m{lriinlt. {.lid ndt see hinr after li) a,nl. unlil lhe evening. around 7 p.m. \yli{tn he rertuinrd to Nyarge chureh for anothel meelilg1: Witness CltlS: tlel'eircr.: Exhibit.l, P. :l (l)csrribcs a vjsit lry Nddrirnanu on fhur*iey. bur skrtcs h* did not see him the da)'of the etlack); Witn€ss CBN: T. l-' September 2010 pp. 21-?2 (No {rl)nrior ol Ndahirnara in dcscriprion r'1 15 April 1994 4ttack)" 1 . 1 ,1 Sept.rlrber :01() p. -i8 (Ndahinr:rna was rc'r one of the leadefs of the dttlcLs)- i . 14 Sellgllbgr. 2010 F.9 {Stalir}g he did not see Ndahimana on li Afril 199:l)j Wirness \Dl4: l'.21 fibnLrfy 2r)l l p. tl {Diil no,i lee Nilahintura utrtil lj or , p.m. ): Witncss

ND22: T. 2tj .{priL 2t} I 1 p. 7 (Dur.inri attack, K,ryijlicna rskcd Ndungursc \lhere Ndahinirura !ras); Witness ND6: 'I. 2?.tanuary 21)ll p. 13 (Did not sce Nriirhinanii rrt i\y3nge chr.rrch on l5 Aplil 199'l): wi.ness NDl1: r. tg .tanuar,! 201 I p. ? {t}i$ rot ses Nddhimana at N}ange qhu(j.: or1 15 .\pril t99,}); wlueqs Nlil li 'I. l8.lanuaq'- 201I p. l.t (Did no1 see Nd:rhimana at N,lange chuich rhat day): Wiordss NIIT: f . 2.tr.liinun-r 2tlll p.9 LLlid ttor sc,. Nilahinrirrru irt \).ultf lltr\b\ ler.\ uDtil lJ ur.) p.rn l. "' I lS NrJ}etuL.cr 2irl0f.:(,(l('S)_ "'" tvitnr:s (Nl: l. 5 NolrdLFer 2010 p. 1"] {lt,S): Wirness {lUl': t}efence Eihjb;t {, (..'l hc enlir! erercise rra; or"ersecn b) .ludge llabiy3ntbcre an.l \!ilnest CDL."); Wit'n€ss NDj2: I'. 19.lanuarr'20iI p. gr lVit|:r:ss Nl)7: l. l-l Januar' 2011 p. 3rl. rnot T. 21 Seprember 2Ol1 p.74. r"'"i . 12No\enbef 2{,1{p. l,t. li'u" Defenoe Closing Briet, l.

573. T I E Prase cu t or v. Iid{-/r?rrrafl o, Cirse N$. l cf R-0 i-68-'{'

Page 123

ru.tseue lLud,'enfe ce t,ry.ry^itTt ) a l - 560. First, thri Majoritl observes that paragraph 26 olthe lndictlrent allcgc: that tllfrccuseti and othem pr0vidrtl \leapons 10 the assailants in "an *ttempt to burn thg 'futsi ret'ugoes ln thc church.''i('63 This delailed paragraph of the L.rdicrmcnlt does llot eovrr allegations aecording tu rvlrich rveapons w'ere distrihLrled t(i* lhc atlack on N.yafige church; Lhat is, alier the attenlpt to bufn the church tailed. In addition, tlic fulajority linds that the Proscculion pnrvided no olicc o{'this incident in its l)re;liial $riei'rvith regard trr the summary o1'Witness CDI-'s anticipaLsd evidcnce; lhe Proseoutilu crnly noted that 1be rvitness would testil! "thar lhe accused gave the allaokers more bullefs cluring rhis atta.k of I irth April 19..11....'t06e'fhe N,tajorit"v crnclutles rhot the llroscoution failed 1o provide adequate nolice ol Wilness CDL's evidence abo.rt tl€ disoussion ouLside lhe communal ol}lee. rvhich it oonsiders to he a niaterial ftct.'lherelbre^ the Nla^iorit1.'rvill not consider this allegatiou. 5.3.7.2 llfe e t ing at Nyar?Ke l'res b.,-te r.t; 561. Paragraph 26 ofthe Indictment alleges that becarise the attenlpl to bLrrr. dolr.n thc church rvas not successl'ul, Ndahimana and other members 01'the JCE held a urceting at Nyangc plestrl.tery to plan fixthe. attacks on the Tulsis.

562. Prosecution Witness CBK testified that rvhcn the "authorilies" realised th*t their pian to burn dolvn the church had failed. they held a meeting in the priests' living quarters at approximaiell' 7 p.ln. Prcsetlt ai this secoud reeting lvere: Seromba, Ndahimlur:r^ lial ishelra. KirnvrirLrliiga. Ndungutse. Mbakilirehe, Colonel Nzaphakumunsi aud oth!.ts."''" 'fl:is cviderrce is partlrr.' eorfobomted b-v Wilnc$s CDJ, who anivetl at the parish at apprnxhnatel.v 7 p.nr. anrl mrv Ndahirnana- Falher S*rrrttrba and Kanl crukig,r sitting-on thc vetanda ol N\angc pt"c\b) ter\ ha\ ing c discussion rvhich lasted appr oxirrtatcJi- tr.r o hrrurs.r"'r Neilher of the t$'o ',vitnesses tivcrhcard thc conlent ol'the conversation. 56i. ln its Notice of;\libi, the Detbnce acknorvledged that Ndahimana returned to Nyange p:rrish on the eyeuing,o-f l5 April 1994, Ilor.ve ver, it asserts that he rvas onl3, there f'rorn apprr:ximalely I until 8:iU p.m.'"'' \4'itness ND24 testified tltat he sarv Ndahimana travel throush lhe roadblocli llc- was nlanning at approxinrately S or 9 p.rn. tlratda.r. Ndahimalra canrc Jiom the direclion r:if Kibu"ve in a Pajero driven by a man named ,4niecl."''' llr addcd that Ndahimana *,::s headed to Nyangc prcshl-tery trtrt riid nol s(ay jong. an<J the lvitncss saru hin lcavc.l('7'1 Wifness ND7 testifi*ii that lti* ,.li,.i rtot sct,Ndahitnana during the attacli but saw

him be1-..een I and 9 p.m. in the courtyard (rf 1he prlsb)let)." ' Jhcrcst il{ukabicleri said that Ndahimalr& came bask 1o the funelal a1 ap6rroximatel3 6 or ? p.m. that evening but did not sta,o- long.l076 'l'his evidence is corr,:blrrelJ bl. Aniccr 'l'umusenge. rvho said that it rvas aboLrt 6 p.m. lvhen they arrived back at the funeral, arr-l that lie dropped Ntlahimana at liis house around 8 p.m.lur None ol: ihe l)efence rvitnesses irrovide<l infonnati,:n on tlie purpose r-rf the accused's visit ttr the prusbyery nor r4iethcr he met with other persons rvhile there. ro'8 Indictment. Jrala. !6, r(oe Prosccution pre- Ii.itl llriel'" Annex tV, p. 4. rot! I.3 Novembcr 2010 o. 16. rc71 T. I I Nolenrber'2clti p. it}. ' -'\oLicc.rl Alihi. i S(plenibrf :01|- p. j. ' L ll fclrru.rr'. :01| pn l:. l+-2{. '"'" T.ll felrruar) :01 | f.12. 'u" T. 2.tr Januatl 20l l p. rl. tro T. T t ebruari :{i1t p. 69 ''"' I'. 1? lvla1 20l I Ff. 10. lrl-I.t, 17. fha Prosec ot \'. Nd1htnona. C.ise No. ll'TR-()l-68-T 123 | 1.14

Page 124

L4ajority accepts that alier going to Kibui,e. Ndahiurana reiunled to the ibneral and then lvenl to N"v''ange ple sby'rer1'. The Majority furthef accepts that hc met r.r ith father Serontba. Kanyarukiga a$d perhaps other authlrities. llor.rcler, in the absencs o1'finlher elidencc establishing the pllrfx]se ofthat nreeting, the Majorily cannot conolude that Lhc I'rosecution has proven heycnd rcasonahle doubt that the onl3' reasonahle explai:ation is thBl thc meeL;ng rvas held to plan {urtlief atladks o11 J'utsis.l}e Majority noles thal it has fbuntl elser.vhere that on thc morning of i6 Aptil 1994, a meeling occr.rrred in order to pl:rn the atlmk against lhe l-utsis lat*r that day (Ch{ipter IIi, Secticn 6.3.3.3). 5.3.1.i Invalternenl oJ'Ndahimurut ar l4embcr.t *J the ,l(ti in Ordering tlrc Assttilcnts lo flury' the llodies qf the Tutsis'l'hat l.Yere Kil.led lhat Day 565. Nuurerous rvitnesses testified that the lrodies cf Tutsi victinls were buried on l5 .4pri1 1994. Ilorvever. as paragmph 28 o1'the hrdictmeut alleges neithcr a criminal ocl!t\ reut nor a crirnina! mens reo,. the Trial Chamber will not make a fitding on this allegarion.

6. Attnck and Demolitiqn q[ Nv:Lnge Church, l6jlnril 1994 6.1 trrttroduction 566. Tlre Indictnrenr alleges that on or aboul 16 April 1994, Ndahirnana. Serrxnba mrd li;rf ishema. Kan;'arukiga and others met at Nyangc presblterl, Al'ier this rneeting. l.{dahimana slarted s}toot;ng at the refugees thereby signalling the assailants to launch a large scale attadli on the Tutsi ref'u,eucs. On the same dey, Ndahimaua. these same individuals and others, rnet. plenncd and Lruruitll.\ rgrsed to kill all ol'the'Iu1si refugees in Nyange cliurch by clestroving it.r018 -\67. The Indiehnent furthel alleges that the same individuals ordereel the assailants to deslro]- Nyange church using a bulldozer, killing about 2.000 Tutsi refirgees inside. Ndahinana rvas preseilt during the demolition of thc chutch and instigated the assailants to kill the rcfugees. Ile also superviscd the a$ack. Iiollorving the destructicln ofthe church, these same inciividuals" inc:luding Lhe accused. $'ent to Nyange presb,r'ter1"to sliare drinks and celebrate. The bodies ofthe Tulsis killed a{ Nyange parish were buried in rnass graves at lhe parish antl sunounding areas.l0"e 568. The llefence has provided an alibi tbr Ndahinana rl:lat;ng tL) l6 u\pli[ 199,{. 'l'he l}e{incc submits rhat the accuscd hid at a convent beeause he leared the l{ibi[Ia Irlerahanut, rvhom he beliuvrd rvould he prescril ar Nlangc parish rhal

s.rme ili\. s' lrr it" \oticc .,1- ,{libi, thu Dcrl'irer also sulltnilted thal the accussd rras.beirg pLrrsucd b; "rhr same pecrple in J*nrar,v 1993 rvhen he t"rs sork,irtg lor Ruba;r (ii*cn)i."" "i flre l)clencc also ch,rllcncc'r the r;r'cJihilitr {,1 pr',,sccgli,,n nitncsses'""'attd ttotr-s that five witnssses lvho llere al Nyauge parish on l6 April 1994 testitierl that thcy ilad not seen Ndahimana there.l!81 "t' Indicl,n*nt. l,rr.ls. lt-jtl. \'c rrlro. l. 2l ScFrcrrrhcr lUll ll) ? til-lv ," lrrdictnrcnt. luf . .i 1".{.i..\J.,lha. T. 2 I Scolt rnhcr lol I pJr. 7. lr{ '"'' Dcl'errcc ( I rsing i3rirl. ;.11x5. :q--12, 389. Jire .?lro T. 2l Sleptember 201 I pp. {i7-$3. "'' Notice of,\litj. -i Se;r[g|n1r*, 1010..!-er: alo. Supplemenl ro Notice of ;rfii-.i tiled on jrLl Septetrriler^ 21 gepreniber 2010. ro8t 1)e1'ence Closing llriri- l)aras. ;364-3 88. ,5'ee clso. l'. 2l sepreir hef 20 r I pp. 49-50- .5 8, 7j - 7?; .t . 2: sepl€rnber 201 I p!. I -3. Mr Defcnce Cl,:sin g Rriet, paras. 39 l. 39 3 I 3t)j-3{)9. The Prosec tar \,. Nd.lhiwaxd, Cas(: No. ICTR-01-68-T 12.1 i 2'74

Page 125

.ludgeaent .rul Sen/e ce ,\|.e'nn, r 3t1! 1- '> LIL+ 569. 'l'he llrosecu{ion called Wilnesses Ct}|i., CDf .. CIIK. ('N.1. (.'N f, Cl}\'. C'tlf antl ( ti'f td support its case against Ndahimana with fespect kr lhe attask at Nyangc palish on l6 April i1)9'1 The De{bnce called Witnesses tlxl. NlDlT and 1r'iD35 10 supporl Ndahirriana's alibi that hc spenl the day of I6.,1pril 1994 hiding in a couvent, and Witnesses ND22. KRJ. ND6. ND24 and ND7 rvho testilied drat the;- r,ere prcrent at the parish rhat da;." and did n*t s* Ndahimana. 6,2 Evidence 6.2.1 Prpos_e_utrorr_1U.rlrs;t.]elr& 570. Witness CIlIl, a Fiulu farnrer, lived in Kivurnu ronrrn w""e it't April 1994.1'rs 'lhe rviuress particilraietl in rhe killings at Nyange parish.'u3s Earll in.the rnorning of 16 Aprit 1994, IPJ Ka.vishema arrived in the rvitnes:' t,'llt c in a pickrrp lruck-"'oo Llsing a megaphone" he rl okt fhe fesidents and called upo1l thellt to gu to rhe purish.l''r; Thc ivitness and other assailants travellcri to the parish iu trucks provided by thc Astaldi Cornpanl'. They anived there. between 6 arrtl 7 3,m. r'{l 57 L. On his way 10 the chsrch. the $'itness, togelher with Ntagwabira and l1aknzimala, Lilled nvo 'I'ursis in Gakoma cellule.108t 'I'he witness told hirnself befi.rre leaving "l must kill thern."' antl fre r.1i<i.10e0 Llpon amival at Nyarge parish. the rvitness salv the frrltorving authorities

conlbrling in fiant of the priesr's clllce: Father Seromba. l.ldahimana. Kanyarukiga, I labi-vambele . Il.l ltayishema, Vddaste lr,lunngrvabugabo" Ndungutse. Senior Warrant Oificer l{abarugira airtl sever*l ge ndatrnes. The rvitness <iid not hear u,hat the men lverc saying.lt'ol -.72. Affer the discussion, Nd*himaua. hayishema and the other autlrorities. rvith the exceplion r;1' Father. Seronrba, moved to*ard Nyange church.r''e2 The attack on tlre church began between ? and 3 n.m.l0ti Frorn the rigilt hand side ol the counl.ard uear Nyange church, rhJ witness rvas rjcrse euough to rvitness Ndahiuran:r- standing i{ thf fi.ollt <Joor of rhe church,]0ea shooling through the chut'ch's doors antl windorvs. l t'!'i 573. Kayisliema trailed al'ter Ndahimana, also shrioling into N1,.ange churoh. Ndahimana "set the tone'" anci the other authclrities fbllolved. standing neu him in tlre small passage hetrveeu the churcir and lhe presbltery wnlls. According to the witness, "Ndahirnana opened fire on the sida at which the wonten sat in church." Ndahimana rvas using "a ri|e that rv:esn't vely long"'and lh,il had "strips {-tic) arc,und the shouldcr"" The *itness estifiated tbat attacliers shot iit the church co;rtinuously 1ix' apploxirtratell 30 minutes, rrhile assailants surrounded thc church to prcvent rctirgecs tiom escaDittd, I t'ot' rr'i+ l. 1 No,emhcr:01(\ p. 6. ' " T . l N o r e r n b t

r 2 0 l 0 p n , 1 7 - l S . rD3'T, 2 Noveml.et:olt) r-r- 10. r0!7 T. I Novenlber30l0;, :-1: f..2 Novelrlbdr:al!0 p. ,10. ru" T I .ro,.ernber lU10 p- lr. ,r T 2 Nn\e|lrber']0lti p1:. Ji- iJ. ros. l-. 2 November:0lrl p, 34. unr I t tor ember l0 l0 p. 2-l " " l . | \ o \ e m h e . 2 f l 0 p 2 { . "-' T. 2 Nu\ernhcf 20l rr. 15. ro+l T. 2 Novembcr l0llt p. 4,1- ''1 l-. 1 No\ernherl0l0p. l-.1. '""'T. I \r,rernbcr ,l0ti) pp tJ_25. 7'he llrosecutart. Niahina*^ Case No. tC'lK-Ot-68-f 1)3 | 2."11

Page 126

Judgenent attl Sent<,nce P4,.91 f 2t11 <Lt < 571. Aifer the shootiug sr:bsided, thc authorilies rg{urned to their prcviotrs :p,rtrl'ea- Nf art!6 presbl'tery. The u,itness overheard Kanyarukiga sa1,ing. "'fhis church has to be demoiished, f'or within three day's, wc will be able tu rebuild it." lidahimana rvas stancling ne,\t to Kanyanrkiga lvhcn Kan"v-arukiga made this stalenicnt. '["he rvitness did rct hear the resl o,: the conversation, bLrt soon after Kanyarukiga spoke, Kayishema arrivetl rviLh "spccial vchicles" lhat wrre used to tlcnrolish Nyatrge church.rno' 'I'he rviLness tlir! not linr:rv rvho actually gave the order I|r the demolition 1o begin. ' "- l'he drive.rs of the vehicles were three Zairians, named Robe ft. l\litimn. anil IUaurice: and a Rrv*ndan nanred Anasthase Nkinamubanziloee (a.k.a. .'2000,').1 r00 575. Robert "began pierciug holes" in the church basemc,nt r.ralls rvith a bulldozer, evenrually causing the church walls to collapse on rhe refugccs inside. Al1er the roof'ftll in on the rei'ugc.,s, ons ol'the bulldozers r-lug a pi1 behind Nyauge pafish.'lhe bulldoz.,or then began reparaii*g lhe bodies llom the brie ks alrtl pushing the hodies tolvard the pit. 'l"lic rry-ilness cstimated rle dsmoliijon ol'dre r,liuroli staded al apptoxinralel-v l l a-m. alid lasied iate into the al1ernoon,""' l'hr chulerr 11:il'er collapsed al approximately 4 ctr.5 p.m.1ld2 5?6.

As the dermoiition of N.vange church progressed, the rvall of rhe church bell tc.rrvcr rcmaineri slandirrg. A bulldozer ther aftacke.l the bo(am o{'the bcll tower, causing ii ro crumblc l'riinr the trottcm and curve in bc{bre collapslng. l'he rvitncss '"sarv a lcrv refugoes" thr.ough thc brolien giass lvindows ol'tlie bell torver, ancl "through scme herles" where the church.ioinecJ the bell krwor. I'lre rritness r$called having seen a number ol'reflgees alive, includitg cibarles Kagenza, and a ma lvho ran a sntall buslness near the Statue Lil'rhe Virgin li.4ary named Danrien. l le clicl not knorr,, hor.r thel were able to escape.ll')3 577. The wilness could not say ltether Ndahirrrana $,as present rhloughorrr tlid erltite dat trl l6 April 1994110'l because he rvas lbcLrsing on lhe evenrs at tlie ihurch.rr,', 6.2.2 Prosecution lVitness-lD! 578. witncrs ( l)1.- a ljt,tu. rvas a teafher in Kivumu t:tnnuune in l994.lln5 f.le rvas amons thc itssrihnls.""' On l6 April l(.)o{, the tritrress arrivecl irt Nrur3t church strrlctirrri alicL -i a.rri, .t., Iake part in the evenls fhat werc unlbkling tltcrt.'"il''s \\'ho he arriveil, l{ilahirlan*, the eorlmunial trtic1n t ,,. IPJ Kar islrerna. Abal isenga ancl Kagenza wer.e alreadl. in the vicinlii.' iii Nvange chutcli."'' These authorities rlere cotning froln the conrmunal of'fice torvards lhe chirrch. an<t ttre roe? l. I Novenbcr 2010 p.

15. rt'!5 1'.2 Novenber 20i0 p. 56. ro"e T. 2 Noverlbel 20l0 DD. i3-5.1- I10r' T. I No,rentber. 20l() llp. 25-26" rroL T. I Novcnrbcr 30ll) p. 16. ''. I : Nuvumher :0l0 n. i(,. "" 1. 1 Nn\ernhcr 201() l. 1.7. "'''f. I Novcnber 2010 p. .l(i. rroi'1. 2 November 2010 p. ,trS. r r f I I N L , \ e m h e r : r , t 0 p P . 5 7 i . i { l ( \ r . ' " L l 2 N o \ ( , l r l 0 l ' , l l l r . i . i . t - l { t i \ ) ""' 't'. IaNi,\'cnr['c]:r,ilrI l0 "' 'l.l2\o!c!mbc.?010pp. l4- 15" The Plo.rec totr,. i{.'/{thit*atL1, Casc Na, ICTR-0I-CS-T 126 i 2'74 r*t

Page 127

Judgenent ondSententt witness fcllor,et! them.lll0 'l'he borrgneslre rras vrlth solne communal policernen, joined ttie group and conversed \.vitli the policernen.l r I I 579. When the group arrired at N-\iange church, lialher Serrlmtla r.vas standirrg jn I'ront ol'th* chulch secretafiat and Ndaliimana weilt to speek to him. Aficr their conversation. "tbe l:onrgrw:s!ru: came back 1o his policemen and told thcm that the rvork rvas going u:r begin." Ndahimana then r-,pened fire ot rcfugees insiclc the clilrrch. lmmodiatel5 thrreaiter, policemen began shooting through brtrken church rvindoivs inlo the church. Ber,ause Ndahimana lvns lhe irighest anLh<;ritr1 plesent at Nyange. lhe r,vitness considered the shot {ired by Ndahimana "as lhe green light to ki11 the 'firtsis rvhcr were in trhe church."rrr: 'l'he hourgnrc.srre an<i the policemen kept frring at thc rel'ugec" untii they ran out of ammunition: "[wlhen they realised they had rur our of ammufliticn. those persons decided to destro] the church upon the Tutsis and thus kill them."il13 580. Ano{icr uleeting tock place at approximately l0 a.m- at Kan-yarukiga's phamracy. Prescitl a1 fhe meeting lvere: Kanyarukiga, Ndahimana, Kay,ishema, Hahiyatnbere, Hatrarugira. lrldungurse" and Kanani. Also present rl,as at miln named Sinaruliamaga;,e. rvho u.as irr oharge r.rf rnanaging the ,,\staldi Company's equipmett pool, and a gendarnx:.

t'he r:nly person rvho wa:j t1d1 there w.1s Father Serr:rtba. Alier this ser of consultations. the group lvent up the hill. Iiayishr;ma. llabiyaurbere and Enimanuel, lvho rvas in charge of the Astaldi Cornpany-'s equipnren{. laggeri slightly behind. _discussing rva-v-s of reaching the clrivcrs. l'he samr; group therl mov*d tou,ar<ls Nvange chLtrch-ill' S*,. Wfr.u tliey arrivecl *t N-range church, Father Seronrba \ras standing in lhint of rhe secrctariat. Ndahirnana spoke 1o Faiher Seromba, and SeromL,a approved th:: clecision Lo drsttoy th* c,hurch. I'his diwussitut was held in the open. and fhe rvihcss was 0lose cnough to heirr Ndahlm*na and Seromba 1alking.1l15 5S2. A Caterpillar anived, and Kayishcrna and H*hiyamberc rvcnr to kiok {br rhc Caterpillal drivers" as one of the drivers had spent rhe nighl at the crmmunal office. 'l'he drivcn ol rho Catetpillars included lr'litima and Maurice rvlio lvere lrolir ol T,aitiwt nationaliry.'. 'l'hey lrere assisreti try one Anasthase Nkinanubanzi (a.k.a. "Damien'") rvho was a driver with the Asl$ldi {bmpurni..but was suspended at the lime.llld 583. fhe caterpillars began destroying the pa$ of Nyange church 1hat R-as closc:;L h the bcll !ol\er. but the rvalls rvere reinforccd and diflicult to ileslroy. 'l'hus" lr'ether Senrmba adviscil thc drivers lo srart widl lhe baclt wall of the church, rvhiclr was weaLer.liir l,'athe r Se romba

a*<t Ndahirnana werc present and direot.ing the tirivers of tlic bullt]ozers. Ar one Doinl. ihe rel.ucees begut thronitlg sl\\let al th* ('aterpillrr driver). \duhimirril an(l scrr)nrl)it therr lrr.trr iduJ prulirt;\c gear to the drivcls-rrtt t.ihimaiel)'. ihe church r.vas "desrroyecl right down 1o the iasr b1iel,.i"Ihc bell tower lvas the lasl part t*'the clrurch tr come doqrr. Relugees *ere killccl as the church st1lct1.o 3{i L,etemh€r 2{i! | *ffi3"1,3* rrr'' T. 12 NorerrLrer'2010 pD. 15. 17. rrrr T. l2 No"enber 20i0 F: 17. " , f . l : N o \ c m h ( r 2 0 1 0 n 1 7 . ' " T. ll \'r.ernLrer l0l0 p. 19. ' ' L ll N(,\(nrl\'f:lrlU fl). 19-:rj: 'l . l.J N{,!irnl,(.t .Llln 1,. lo. ' , l . l l \ r , r c n , l - " ' . r . l r , l r ) l r . l q : f . 1 , , \ , , \ c n r l , e r l 0 l 0 | 1 7 . '"" f. 12 Novelnbe.20l0 p.20. "',"j', 12 Noi,ember 201l) p. 2 i. " " T. 12 No.;enrber.?010 p. 2t. I he i\'os€clttar r. Nda|timana, C,ise Ne. lOl R,ti1-69-I, 12i | 2t4

Page 128

,.Jud!.ement on.t Se teftce tn ,rtnC,t I :fell dorm on thent.'l"hose who survii,ed rvere "1inisherl r.r[1" br' erssailanl: rt thc sccnc 5frc a'ttaok u,as conrpleted by apprcrximarely 5 p.*.' ' '' i84. I''ldahimana ncither punished the Fer?etrators nor ci.rrnpelled thcm to pay comp*nsation fbr the datnage they hail done. On the contrary', Lhe wilness heard tiral Ndahimana demoted a police oflicer named N,lbakilirehe f-ron the prisition ril" hrigadiel 10 that ol'ordinar"v policeurar iirr not having been active enough duriu6l thc altaci"s, and in pefiiculai fbr not having provided the altackers lirirh enough ammuni{ion thrt day. 'l'he r{ecision to penirlise lvllraki}ilehe r.r'as laken at the first meeting of conseillers co't nunaul aller the atiack.lll{' Nr{ahimana alsr'r reward*d a number ol- atmckers licm Kibilira lvith crrws.llll 6.2.1 Frosecution Wimesj CIIIK 585. Witne-s,s CIBK" a Ilutu, rvas in a position to klorv what rvas taking place at Nl,ange palish in April 199,1.rr2?

586. On the morning of 16 April 1994, the rvirness had tlre impression that "all the Llutus o1'rhe Klvomu tnmrn.me" had come Lo Nyange parish.ll:r The rvilriess \iu Ka-\'ishcmit. Ndahimana, Ndungutse and Firther Seromtra having a meeting at Nyange presbytery. As the,v appn:ached the secl€tariat. Seronrba asked Ndahimana nhal was to be drxte'"bacause all atteutpts had failed." Ndahimana rvas with IPJ Kayishema at that nloment, anel they insistecl that Tutsi inlellectuals wo*[] have to be killed or tlte assailants "rvould have rvasted their tirre." So the rnen decicJe<J to desafrlv the chursh tolver in otder to kill the refir;;ees hirJing there.ll:a lri'dahinana and the others rrcrc otltside u'hen thev irad this discussion, and the *itucss rvas stallrlillg al a nearb) \r'atef tap anC coukl lreat r.r,hat thel- i.vere say ing.lr:5 587: Ciattrpillars thcn arrived to destro) Nyange church. The bulldozers began bl. demolishirrg the back wall crl lhe cirurch. Once the rvnll carne dtrwn, the assailants rvere able 1o a1torL r"m* ut the ret'ugees who rvere in fhe church, but wero unable tcl reach ref'ugees hkling in lhe church {orver. One ofthe drivers u'ho was directcd to attaak the chrrch to\vcr lvas reluctant to c|r: sri. lle asked Ka,vishema. seromba and Ndahinrana rvhether the)' really wanted him to dcstrol. thd church, seromba anslvered: "Yes".vou should demotrish it. Thoie are

mairJ-. l{ulns and the} are going io btlild anothel one." '{'he drivel asked lwice more" and ljather Serouha answered rhat !.he chrirsh had to be destroyed because tliefe were demons inside it.lr:6 588. The witness believed that the bell tower of Nl,ange church coll:rpsecl rt appro-rin"raiei1., 2 p.m, T'hose refil€lees who stu'vived the destniction cf the church were killed by assailants using machetes, clttbs and small irxes. As rhe church was being dcmolishec.l {he lvitncss saq frather scromba. Ndahimana, Kayishema, Ilrigadier h4bal<ilirehe, ancl witness clll. amons erthers.rL:" 'l'lre r r r . - J l 2 M , \ e n r b ( r l 0 l , t F 2 2 . "' T. I I \or cnri.<r' Jt)10 p lJ "-"I. 12 Niivember ?01 0 p. :3. "" Pr0seculion ihhibit I6. tt23'1. -1 1{ovsnlber 1010 p- 17, r'?' l. I \o'rnrl'er li,lt) pf. 17. 2l; Ploseetrrie,rr L^h;Lir 8 r Il. ' '-' T. 3 No\ L'rnber 2rJld Do. 17-18. rl:6-1, li \ovember 201* l-.p. lB-19. ""' T.,l Novenrber?f110 pp. 18-19. 'lix Prcsecutot t:. Ndtthixtqna, {-'!$e No. ICIR-01-68-T j23i ?74

Page 129

Ju Ll ge hte nt a nd,ttet. tc ? bodies rvere then buried in Company.'l?* ,,'2"*,'i',o thtce contm,rn glr\iis usirrB Catcrpillars prolidcd Lt'.-f(" fi.,1,r; 589. Folloiving tlre destruction of Nyange ehurch, F ather Sercrnba- Ndahirnana, Kal,ishema, Kanyarukiga, Mbakilirehe, the conseiller, Nsidabyarrrere. Dabaure, Kanamugire, Ccllnel Nzaphaliumunsi and others met at Nvange presb-vtely and drank wine and beer. Acoording to the witness. "all lve notioed is ttrat therv r.vere fbasting afier the Nyange clrulch had been destroled." The authorities then threw scme bottles to the Interahsnnlg rvho were downstairs. The rvitness \.vas in rhe presblterl' cor.ul)ard as rhis \rrs taking placc, :rird concluded that "it could be noticctl th*i Lhr.rse autht'rilies ucre ltrppl r'"ith rih:rl hacl hrppcncd."irr" 6.2.4 Prosecutiorr \\titness []NJ 590. Prosecution Wilncss CNJ, a Hulu, was a stuaielil livins in Kivumu orir:rze in April l994.rir{' lle participalerl in the liillings a1 l,rl,r,ange parish.ri-'l 591. When the rvitness arived at Nyange parish ai approrimately 9 a.m. on l6 u\pril 199,1. he sarv assailants surrounding Nyange church. Ka-l'isherna, Ndahirnana. V6daste N,lirrangrlabugatrci, Wihtess CDl,, Ndutigulsc, Habiyarnbere and Kan-v-arukiga rvcre all prescnt. One (alerpillar and irs clriver, Anasthase Nkinarnubanzi" rvcre alrcady'at the site and the aLrthorities were disclssing

hcw best to dcstroy the church."l'he depury baurgmestre, Vidaste lv{urangrvabugabo" suggested clealing a lrole in the chr.irch so that ihe assailanls could get inside. but llte hourgnestre countcred tltal it'the hole were too small, the refugees woulcl be in a position to a$iick the assailanls. 'lhus. the authorities tregan discussing the destruction tf tlre entire church. '{'he witness was stanurng approximately t\.vo mefres alvay liom the authorities when he heald them cliscussing the destruclioil of the ctrurch. The rvitness erplained that he rvix,voung and wanted to show the iruthofities thai he lvas au active paltic:ipant in the goings on that <1ay.11rl i92 I'ather Serofirba rvas not prcsent while this discussion rvas taking placc. arul thus Ka1.'ishenra rvent to find hirn. "[he authot'ities then met rvith Fatlrer Seromba. A pproxitnatell' one minr.ttd la1er, the wihi€ss lreard Ndahim:rnit $a!' ''now )iou can s1afl." afler rvhioh Kaf ishema ttkl Lhe Caterpillar driver: "Norv you c3l1 go ahead." 'l'he trullik.rzer then clemolished a rvall, and assailants r3n irrtt, Nlange church to liill the refugees rvho hnd survived. The surviving refilgees responderl bv throwing stones at the attackers. 'l-he bourgme.txre x,oulcl then ortier the ::ssailants t6 lsave the church rvhile the bulldozer nttacked another wall. Each time a wall cr.rllapsed the assailants rvoulcl entet the

cltttt'clt to ltill the refirgees rvho had sunived the falling ilel:ris.rr3: The artack finishcri et approxilrately 3 to 4 p.m. A small section of a u'all of the church reurained slandins but as it shelterctl no relitgecr thtrr,'rras llr) rcasun,h) hring ir drrrrn.rrt' Jhc btrtlie: riclc lrirri.jiti g rrr:r.:. grave_ near the road leading to liibule,''" [n response to a Frosocuiion questiol aiiking lvhethet Ndahiman:r had tried ro stop thr killirrgs. the witness answcred: "what 1.ou,re sal.ing is lr!gh!1.' Ir2s'L 3 Nove mi:er 2ol0 p. ?6. ,,-" l. 3 Nti\ eiDber 2() l0 $. 20, 1r'ro '1. .l Norenlbcf :01r:l p. 42: pruer!tion ll.{bjbit 10. "''-I'.4 Novetrber 2010 p 6-3 ("Q.: Wete lou one ofthese Hutus {hr) \r'cre tal€ofilte Tutsis, trtf, lvitncis:'A.: i rvr}s.'.)i T. 5 Novemtxi 2010 p. i I {lCS) 1"1 also played a role in the kilting ofother pr,!'sinr , but thc clevcn Femoos afc pericns I,plrJ'sicall-r killed."). ' '" '1 . 4 N.'vembdr. :0 t a] pp. 57-j9. " '' l'. 4 Nol,ember 20 t0 p. .59. Lrir T. ,l Nolember 2010 tp. 59-r,0. " "'l'. 4 Nolenrber:01(l p. 62. 'llp Prosecutot r'. Nddkiln.t4a\ Cas* No. ICTR-iil-6ll-T 129 / 2i4

Page 130

,ludgene t ottd seqres& 3() l.)tt'c e nbe t 201 j 77 na lnrusinu." Ndah imane'r. on l-\ cunccnl rrus prcvcntin; lhe derthr ,rl llutu fls\:1ihnl.: *ldntffiY,.t t anJ pin rrn the Tutsis.""'" 6.2.5 Prosecution Witness CN'[' 5S3. Witness CN'f, a Hutu, was a local governnient oi"licial in 199rl.rr'rt Witness {lN'{' participated in the attack at Nyangc parish on I 6 Aprii I 994.I I ''o 594. The r.vitness testified that he wenr to Nyangc church on the dav it r.vas destrmed b"v bulldozers ir '1994 but cr:uld not remember the eract date.rrru Ou that day. IF.f Kayishema arrivecl in the rvitness' cellule tlriving a rvhite Pajelo, The tvitness rvas not lvearing a watch bur esiirnated that it was approximately noon rvhen Kayishema arrii'ed. Kayishema inlbrmetl the rvitness rh*r Ndahimana had askeri rnembcrs ol'lhe population to !!o t{r ti}s cliurch because thc chufoh had necn attacked by the "enen1y." rvhich the witness understooci lo mcan "by'l'utsis."rra. As this nre.*sagc c*me frr:tn lhe btturgrrrestre. the rvimess irnmecli*tely rveni 1.o the church aboarl a vehicle belolgirrg to a person liom lluhengeri. Along the wa1'. he also sarv a ccrlain .ligoma tlriving a white l'ov1lkr pickup belonging to lVitness CDZ. Thal vehicle nas also lransporting Flutu assailants to Nyange parish, and the rvitness helieved that Jigoma had been aLrthorised by the bourgtxesrrt, 1o

<1.iii:1his vehicle.rrar 5S5 'l'he *'ilness lvas not arme.i r.vhen he leli his ccllule. but pickecl up stol€s upon his arrival a1 Nvaage parish.llt: when he arrived, the rvitness sar.v Kayishema holding a rille an{ firing ai the refilgees inside Nyange churoh. He also sarv liJdahinrana holding a rifle anrl rn{)!.irg ;{}ngsr attJcl,rr\ und instrueting 1666 11r "ltirlirkc srlrc nrrbrxi,r. escal1e5.'fl{' Nr.Juhimliia \\Js wcafi * il blaok cerat over black trcusels and hirrl no bg1yd.I t r't A huli.l"rzri started destroying the cJrurch; solne oithe attackefs ctrntintted shooting at the c*uroh,.while olhers rvere tlrrorving slones. and still others r'vere using_traditional rveaputs to kill rhe Tutsis.rrai The hulldozers began demolishipg the church. and rvhen the reti'rgees opened the door trl flee. the assailants rvoull shoor rx ihrorv stunes at them. According to the wilness, "everyone died.'! L r16 i96. J,!',* -::i*.:r leli irr :rppr.oxi:narel,v 3 p.m." rvhile the bulltl.zer ras digging a pit fi;r rhe e()tll5cs."t'I'hc*itncssbelievedlhatNelahimanarvasresponsiblefi.rrthekiiling]s-aeliingthat,', Grdgoire Ndahimana had rvanteil to prevent the attackeri fiom kiliing those feople. tie atla,:kers t'vouldn't have killed thellt." N'loreovir. a ceftain Philippe 'lwahinva told rhe iviiness rha.t he apd others had receivecl cori,s tr.orn Ndahiniaue as a rer*rarcl ibr their, pa:tic.ipaiiun

in the attacks.lras r116 l'. :l Nolernber.20tr{l p. 61. , ' ' ' P r u \ e i u r i o n L \ h i l \ i r I . l l . l i ' N o \ ( n r t * r : r ) l t ) J \ . l , j t l i S J . ' " L l 0 N , \ e n r h c r : { r l L l p . 5 t ( t C S r . "' T ll Nr+tnlbcr :ulD ir' l1 (on the basis ol tlto witness' cntife tcstirlltlrry. rhc f,laior.ia] is ablc to htir thrl thc r l i l n e s s r r u : r e s t i t r i n F r h r ' u t l h e c n t : r l r d r i , o k T l i j r ( r , t t , \ f r i l l ! , / J / ''', L llNorcnrbrrl0L0llr. J l- -l+. 5'"(, .r/.!o Wirness CllK:.l -rl Noi,*mlrrr:010 pp. lB_l!). '' L 10 No!cnrher ltll0 pp. lj-Jj. "-- T. lt)Novcrnher 20lU p..1{. ' , - ' 1 l ( , N o \ ( n ) l \ j l | | l 0 l 1 t \ . 1 . s - J 8 : l . | | N . , . ( I n h { f l l t n l . t . '-'T. 1l ,\D\ emh€.:010 no. 1- J. rrrs T. Iu Nor.emter ]t]lt] pp. l7-+s. "-" f. ir) No,errbcr'l0lrllr. -t?. 'ta7'f. lit Novcmbcr 20i0 p. 4g. rLrs T. 10 Nor,ember 2u10 p.49_ ! he ProJeclrtor.\'. Ntldlli!nalu. Ct.tsg No. ICTR-o1_6g-T irtl )ii

Page 131

.J1td!.ue ut attd Sentence 6.2.6 Prosr,cution Wilness CtlY 30 Decenbtr )171 | 32oB 597, Witness CBY, e Ilutu, wes in a position to obsene rvhat rvas taking place at N.vange parish in Aprii 199.{.rr1e llarly on the molning o{'16 Aprit 1994. the rvitress satr Ndahimana anrl i;{her authcrities at Nyange piesbytery'. They nict with "the piicsL" and then lc1? the prcsl',ytery".r r5{' 598. The lvitness went ortside and. lrefore rctl:rning to Nyange presbltery" discovered thal a sec.ond bulldozer had arrived. The bulldozers rvcrc used to clemolish the shurch. Farher Seroutba r.vas iu the presb3tery during tl.re denl.ilition of N,vange church. Ths rvitness himself did not etfie rg. liom his pcsition lvithin the presb-vter; ofien that day. Later that allefnoon. Seromba rvas drinking beer on the balconl, logether lvith trvo olher priests. Jhe rvitness sarv Ndahh.nana alier the churcl: rvas destroyed. He rvas drinking beers in f'ront ol'rhc priests' living quarte* $gether with "thc aulhorities I mentioned earlier on." a ce$ain Kimaranzara, and a number of police o{ficers. 'l'he1 had crutes ol'bcer lvhich lhe.v.' rvere sharing rvith the buiLlozer drivers.lrjl 6.2.7 -lro:cs!!!se_\4/8!SSS*CDJ 599. l'rosecution Witness CDJ. a F rtu. was in a positicxr 1o know r,rhat toilk place at Nyange parish in April 1994"r r5r 600. Ho went 10 Nyange parish on.,a Saturday in Aplii bur could not spccifl,Lhe

date.ri-': He an'ived thcre at approximatcly 7 p.*."'" Whcn he arived" he noticed that Nyange chrrch had been destro,ved but sa\\,no visible corpses. l-le r.vas,told by an individual at l'J1'ange presbl'tery that rhe church had been clernolished b;'a Caterpillar."" 601. Wiren the rvitness arrivecl, he salv Ndahimana, Kan,varukiga end Fathcr Seromba on the balcony ofhllange presbytery irr l'ront tl'lrather Seron:ba's roon.tl56 J'he1, u,et'c ririnking beers aiid ln a joycus mood. 'lhey remained therc fbr applolimately thtee liours" but thc rvilness rvas not rvithin earshot antl could not hear what thcy nuere saying.' l5? 6.2.8 Prosecution Witngss CBT 6i"i2. fn April 1994. Witness CII'l'. a llutu farmer, was living in Kivumu o'rrr,rr,,ro," ." to Lln 15 Aptil 1994, the rvitness lvas at N),aujre church until approrimately 4 p.m. and.lid no[ relurn there.l15e 'Ihe lbllo".ving liay rvas a Saturc{ay.r160 The x,iiness wenrl to lirs trading centre beible afternoon to make a purch*se. but did llot spencl the entire tlo1, there.ll"' Saturda3, was matket daJ. at Mutanoga and the rvitness heard other shoppers say that the chulch h'ad been denrolished. Inlerahtnute at the market place also rold the rvitness that thcy had seen Nr.lahinrana confiscate t rrJe'l . 9 Nqrveml-.er 2010 p. :16. | ' , L a N o r , : r r h c r 2 i l l ( ) p f . 5 - i - 5 5 l . l ( l \ 1 , \ L r n b c r 2 { , 1 0 p p . j

- ' , j ; t l ( S I ' - 1 . I N o \ ' ( n , L c r : 0 1 ' ) l . 5 5 '"- T. ll Novenrber 2010 F. 14 (lals). ''" T. ll Nolent'er 2010 p. 3i, "-- T. I I \rrvembqr 20l(l pp.3q.40. ,,)) '1. I 1 NoldLrlb.f l0lt) p. lt_ r156 T. II Nol ember.30l0 p. 31. rrr.' f . 1 I NL,\ cmher 2(i10 fp. I l. .i{). ""T ; Septerntcr?{rl0 n 6r}. ""'I - 7 Septerrbef 2tll0 p..{8;'l'. 8 Septenlb :010 p. l. r16') I.8 septitrber:010;. -1- rr'r T. 8 september 201{} pp, 4-5. fhe lTrLtsect(ctr y. ;t"tlahitnanu, Clse No. li.t L'R-01-68-T t i l , , 2 7 " 1

Page 132

,!udge,ment artt| Se rte nte ':un fiom Ndungutse that day.'fhe same individuals told the lvifuess that :' _ rr.. issrrcd thc gun trr Ndunerrtsc." ' 6.2.9 llefence Witness ND I 7 603, . Witness NDl7. a Hutu, r,vas in a position to kuow u.haL took placc tt thr con!cnl in April l99,l.llui During tlre events ol April tfla4, he remained at the c{)r'rVr'nt {rr) ir fx'r'rr ncilf I'a"is.' '''t "l'ii* x'itness lived approxirlately 2t)0 nietres awav from Nclahirnana and knerv that Ndahiuzrna was a per*rn cf aLrthority" but thilught thal Ndahimana did not k.no* him.rr65 601. The rvitness helieved that Ndahimana Iaced pioblenrs in ,April 199.1 because "bs reluscd ti., collaburate !vi1h Lhe persons rvho rvere lJiiing peoplc."""" 'fhe r.vitness belisved that ]tidaliimarra w*s a "targeted parson... because he was not involved in the businsss ol'killing pcople." end because hc had arrested "$ome nl urdere rs."l t67 605. Trvo att+cks on the convent by htteroltannre on the convent rverc repelied by' policc o'li'iccrs assigned b-v Ndahimana !o protect the uuns, iour oi'r.vhom rvere Tutsi aud two of r,-hom rverc tlu1u. The police officers rverc assigncd fo the C$nvent on 16 April 1994. and thc at'tacks ou thc convenf took place a{ier rhe desLruction o{'Nyange ehurch.ll6E 606. On Saturday 16 April 1994, flre accused knrckeci on the dour of the curi,ent al approrimrtel.r' 5 a.nr. Thc

r\itlrcss ofiencd rhc tltrur rrrtl Ndahinranr ueil'ed ilside rrilhour .sar irrg hello. Ile appcared to be very sad.""" l'hc rlitncss saw Ndahimana leave at apptoriirnately 7 p.rr. that er tning usim lhe soutlr r-ntrance of the convent, ard did not sce him leat e botlreen his arrival and depanrue." '' On Sarurdrl' l6 April 199:1. thc rvitness could hear thc destruction of Nlangc church lrom the "convenl rvhere I i.vas *t night."llTl tr.l.l0 f)cfcnec Witnc:s NDJi 6$7. Witness ND-l5. a Hutti, wa,q in a lrositiou to observe lvhat took place at the eonverrt in r\pri! 199,i. 'l'he rvitness llrst sarv Ndahimana dLl.ing Ndahiman*'s inaugru.ation cerem()n1,. ais baurgnestre.Illl 608. After the rvar started. the rvitness *otild arivc rlt the cotivent at approxiinately 4 p,m. anel leave at atlout 7 a.m. .lhe wilness l,as atvare that N1,.ange chLlr.ch r,i,as under afiack but did not go there. At approximatel"v- 5 a.m. on Saturdal' l6 April 199:1. the lviLness sarv l'{dahirnana arrive at the convent" wilness NDlT opcned rhe door and Ndahimana enlered quicki1.. 'l'he rvitncss and orhef petsons present stopped Ndahimana to ask him rvlial rvas going on. 0*e of the ollier individuals pfesent iit lhe time inl'olmed the wit ess that this prrson lvas lhe &orr,qnest s. '[ he rvitness then le il ttre convent at approximaLely 7 a.m. Although he retur':ied to the eonvent at;l p.nr." lic sairi it

rvas .,J#H,,?- i 'r I. R Scpirnrher 30l, nn. .l--1. " " t . . i l r l a ) . 2 o l l f . : ( l c s ) . ' "'T. -1 N.la) 2011 pp" 6-8 ilCli). ''") f.3 l\.la) :0l t pp.4-5 (tCS). t9-20. "" 1'. 3 N{a} ?01 I pp. ,l-5 (lCS }. "'' i . I N.lay 2011 p. 17. r ' t \ l . I t v l a l t 0 t I t \ n . 9 - 1 0 { i C s i . l - r . ' " T. i,tfo; :ull i)f l. Ir) rtt-S/. " '' L :i Ma) 21ll I n. t| CS). rrrl l- -r Ntay 2ol i ;. 8 (lcs). rr7: l'. i lr.lay:01, p.:l1fcs1- flrc Pro.tecdor y. Ntkthinaxa, Llase No. ICTR-O1-68-1' 132 i 27,1

Page 133

J?kfge enl.rnd -ger ettc not until approximately 7:30 p.m. that he lealned tlom other persons at the qonvenl had lefi approrimatel;- a halt'hour eariiet. li7:l 609. The ne:;t da1', Sister Johanna explained to the \ritness that Nilahi;nana rvas seeking refirge fiom perscxrs rvlro rvanted to kill him named Calli-rte. Kimana ald Kayishenra. The $,itness added that duling the urr, Ndahimlrra saved lives, including the lives ofthe four ni.ns at'"lllyange church'' rr h'r sun.irerl the uar."'* 6.2.11 Defence Witness tlX3 610. Wit:less BXi. a I'lutu. rvas a srnall business olvner ilr i 99"+. r lri lhc rr itnr-ss knerv Ndahinrana bccause he rvas a native erf hcr husbancl's co,nrrrwre."t" Wlien the I'lesident died, Witness IlX3 rvas in Kigali. On 7 April 1994, she lcti Kigali lirr Kivumu.1r77 6l I . The rvitness sarv lVdahimana cln l2 April 1994 r*hen he issued a lnisse:-ytasser ro her. '"A tier fl2 April 199:tl, Ndahirnana rvas in hiding because people rvanXed to do harm ro hir:t.."But lvc knew very rvell that hc rvasn't dcad. l-Ic was still alivcr. although he rvas iu hiding."rrT' 612. On 16,\pril i994, the wiuress did noL see Ndahiniana. She heard rhai he had gonc inrd lriding irr the corvsnt of" Ies ,t'a:rox de l'Assomption that day.rrT'r S[:e was tokl fhis fry an acquitintance natned N{ania Yulr'ani, wlio rvas able to leave the convent becarrse shc had not beeri targered by the

killers.llso {i.2.l2 Delcncc \L itncss lvlelarrc \liri}elt,,' 611. ln April 1994" Melane Nkiri"vehe was lhe budget directol in the Ministry. of Finance in Kigali. He r.vas also a nrcmber of the technical commitec of Kivumu €omtu nt! and knew rnq: accused very rveli-l13i ln early April 199:1. th* r.vitness lived in Kigali. bLrl then moved with tir* interim govemmenr 1o ft.{uranrtri in Ciitararna on l3 April 1q94. He rerceined xhere Lrntil the {'all ol thc rovenrlrr-ir1. hut, 'did a hop" to Kivunru comntune in latc May 1994. During this tl.ip he saw Ndahirnana bric 0r. ' '"'' 614. IIe rep r"tsd rhat Ndahimana was suspected ol'associaling hirnsclf rvith rhe RFIr in lg9i.rls' l]e also added thar Ndahimana \\ iis n{jr rcspected by *es6"- aulhoriries ol Kivu;ru {:omutut1(" including V,'irlcss ( l)1, anJ Kanr rrtrkiq:r.' '' I rur 1'. 3 l'laf 2011 pp. j l (tCS). j6. "'' T.3 L.h-r 2011 p. 18. "' ' l-. 23 lreb|uary 201 1 p. ?: Del-enc!" Erhibh I 16. " '''L 23 lrel-.ruary 2(ll1 pp. 4-j. " " T . l J l e h r u u r r : r ) l I f . l 7 | t L : \ J . " 'T. 13 lci-r'u:Lr1 :Ul I trp. J4-i5. ' '- L li lrcbruair 2rrl I F. i4. """ 1'. ?3 Februar-1 201I p. 1.5. r r!' T. 22 t,ebmar:'' :{) I I pp. i-4. l7- I tt. "'- f.1? trebruary l{,rl I t-.. 20. 'r" T. 2l t,.t,,.i,r,i lo I I fp. 7-8. ' ' ' 1 . 2 2 f t | ' r u r r r l r j | | p f . t J - t / ' . l x - t v . r . l The Prosecutort. Ndahimttna, Cesc r,\t'. ICTR4I-6$-l' l3.i I ?74

Page 134

J u,lge me nt end Se nle nca 6.1.1i Ilefente Witness ND{i 3{} Dt:tembe r 20ll 3w5 615. Witnsss ND6" a Irlutu, u,as living in Y-ivurtu tztmnu.*re iu l994.ri$s Thc rl,itness knerv Ndahimana w'ell because he ivould oftcn sec him aL mass.ll86 'J'he rvixncss was anio g thc assailarlts al Nl.ange parish on 15 and 16 April l99.l.rr8?

516. The rvitness an'ived at Nl"ange parish at approxim;rlely noon ui l6 April I 994 togethel rvith nto ueighbours. According b the witncss, "rve knerv rvhat had happened <rn the day i:efore. and we linorv rvhat hatl to happen on that tJay."1r3s \\&en the u,itness an ived. the rool of Nlange church rlas stiil intact and the hell torver rvas still standing, and the re]'ugees r.vere being pelted r.vith slones.lls' Upon his arrivai, the lvitness rvent to greet Ndungutse. Jhe rvitness heanl Ndungutse telling Witness CDl, "Our leadcr [Ndahhnan;r] has abandcried us. Ile's lirgotlen us. lVh*rs is hc'l He asked. And [Ndungutse] said: Weli" I'm goirrg to kmk 1br {ive bo,ys-Jive y{)ung bo"ys l{) accompany trte and check rvhether he's hiding in his house."'l'he ryitncss therl r+rnt rvith a group to Ndahimala's house" rvirich rvas apptoximately one kilonrelre ar.vay lrom the church, ttul they did not l'ind him. Wheu the search ream arrived irack at the church, Nd[ngritse said, "Hven if s,e hrr,e not been able 1r: f-ind N<laliimana. wh evey the case, rve lvill conlinur our rvork."llt'0 6.2. 1 4 Defe!qrj'\.{Leli-HDl,! 617 . Witness ND2 l, a llutu, rvas nrarried to Irrosecuf ion lVirrress CBR at the tirne .)i hef testimony.lrel She testified rhat on l5 Aplil 1994, a large number of assaiJants atlackerJ Ny'ange church. Witness CBR returned f'rom that a11ack arnund 9 p.nr. r.vith a wcrrnd to

lris fbrehea.l ard infbmed her about nhat had taken place at the church.rD2 lle said he ha'l been hii viith a sto*c rvlien the groups lvel'e throwing stones at cach other, I le rvas in a bari shape.r i!r 618. Witness CBR rvas sick for one r.veek and did not parficipate in the Bttack on Nyiuge c,huroh on 16 Apt'il 199,{. The rvitness cared f-or her husband's rvounds and rvas b.l' his $ide throughout if}at . . 9 i Deuod.

619. Althougli Witness ND2l ras not phl,sically present during the attacks at Ni'ange church in Aplil 1994. she rvas iri{brmed aboul fhe attacks b}' a number of other persons as weil.lre5 Witness CIIR nevel told his r.vile that Ndahiurana had been prescnr rrlren the attacks toclk place.rjt6 rri5 uefence Erhibit 99. r r3i '1', 2 7 .l rusrr-:011p. 17. '-t T.:7 l roq l01t pp. lri-l L ''" T. 2i j,rnuari :r)11 p. t.l. ' rse l'. 2? .lanuary 201 t p. 1.1. rle!'1.27 Janrtar] 2011 pp. 15.26 (lhe \,itness rvenr t{) Ndahim$na'\ lrouse logdihet $i1h Djdiri llal;)irlioairr. Hab;yilkrre anJ other )oringsters fionr Kibilira, inciudiog R1r'ai:rkatrije),- T. 27 Ia uafy 20ll p. 32 (The tlisrence betw,;en \yon{e ehurch end lhc,:ummunal office ctuld [rr- co\€rcd in lf] minittes {:ri$alkingl. " ' T . l - l } : e h f u , r \ 2 0 1 | n f - - 1 . - . 1 { J ( S ) " 'l-. l"l lrcbruir\ ir)l1 F. 19. ',e:'T. 14 Febru,rry :itll i.,. 4g. "" f, t+ f.l,r'uuri 2u ip. :0. 17. ' ' " ' l . 1 { ! e l , r u . ! 1 ) 0 1 t p . - 1 2 . rre6 T. 14 Feb|uaD' 2{.}1 I p. ll. 1'he Pro:;ecutot t'. Nddltinrtna, ('ase No. ICIR{1-68-l' 131i 2',14

Page 135

Ju.lge me ft a t ld Se nte nce 6.2. 1 5 Dgfi_tlsW(tpu_ll0-l 3i Lk.eMbc{ :t)l I 620. Witness Nil7, a'lirtsi farmer, livec! in Kivulnu ca mu e in 199,1.]re7 She kriew Ndahimena as llrc bourqmestre of Kivnntu co,arr,r,,". " tt At_opproxiutatcll 4 p.rn. on l0 ,tpril I 994, the witness left her honre to seek relirge ai Nlange prrish.' '''' There \\ cre over 1000 refirgees at the parish rvhile she rvas there.l2qc 6?.1.. On t6 Aprii 1994. the rvitness r'vas hiding in a roo l at N_v-ang* prcsb;-ter1'. I;rom the rvindorv in thai room she coultl see lie bell toi.ver of N3,ange church anil thc Statuc ol'the Virgin klaly.r:"1 'I'he t6 April 1q9;l aitack l'legan ar approximarely 5 a.m- Ily 2 p.m. rhe church hatl been destrol,ed. The rvitrress did not see lJdahimana ar Ny'ange parish on 16 April 1994. lndeed, she did not see hiur until approxintalell 9 r.nr. on l,7..ApriJ 19t)-l- rlhcn he arrivr:d to take sl::vlvors of llie :ittack. inclLrding rhe rrirnsss. to tlre hrrspital.''"' 6.2.16 Defence Witness ND24 62?" Witness ND24. a llutu" rvorked at a local cornpany in April 199-,t"r?{':' i Ie nrannecl a roadblock or.rtside Nlange parish tetu.cen l-l and l6 April 1994, and perlicipated in the atlcck cn Nyange church on 15 April 1994.'"" J'hc rr i1n*ss lirst bccame auare of' Ndahimana nhen Ndahinrana l:ecarne lxturgme^c/re in October I993.i:t'5 623. .,\coording to the witness. he {itl nut

parlicipute in thc attack on Nyange patish on 16 Aprii 199;l as he had other comrrritmenrs.''"" Nelcrthelcss, he tr-stified that "the attackers rvho had come fiom Kibilira came sltr:uting. Some of thern wcre rvealing ban*na leaves" anci lhe)- lvent t$ the chutch rvherc they {bund people rvl.ro had spenr the night.. .And rhe Lrulldozer slarted bi inging dor.vn the {-.hurch, And theleafier, the persous who wcre killer{ rvere buried. A{'ler r}}at ev*nt, I rec*ll tNrat the...lP.f Kayisl.rema amrded the attacke{s who had:rcceptcd ro spcnit the nighl al tlre chureh ifi order xo prcvcltl the'lirtsi[s] l'r"orn fleeing."' lt rvould appear xhat hc learned cl'thcse Cetails l]om a* associate and llom lraders he met at the tradirrg centrc lviren he rvcnt thcrc at approxirnately .1 or -1 p.m. that da-v.l:r'7 624. The rvitness did not mau rhc roadbiock outside N_vange parish ou 16 April 199,{, but believed that if lt{dahirnana has travclled l}ast N.vange market square that day he rvoulcl have sccn him, despite tlg^large mmrbers of people a1 thc sqLrare.r:O8 'l'hc rvilncss clid nol see Ndahimana 1rr l6 Auril 1 994.r20!'

SZAW rLqT l'. :4 Januar'1. 201 | t. 2: Dcltnce bxltibit gj. rrtr'T. 14 January 20ll p.2. 'r"'! T. 2+ .Ianuafr- 20 i i p, :1. rrn' l . ?'l.lanuarv 20t I i'. 4. ':or l - 24 J.rnuary 201I p. Ls. '"''' f. 2.1 Jamrarr 201 I pn. li- 16. 'to' D"fence F.thii ir I I i.' ':or 'i. 21 Februru1. 101 I pp. 2-3. ''" L ll Fehru.rrv l0l I fp.6. lt. ''"' l'. : I [r(.br!+rr ]011 p, ti. ' - o ' t . 2 t t " h r u r . , t 0 t ! ; ) p . t 5 - t o . ? ? . ' '' '1'. I t febrrran 101 l n. llr. r?'ie T. ?l lrcbiuary 201I pp. t6. ?8. lhe Ptevcut{}t \) Ndohioutta.{.ase Nrl. l{.:TIt,0l-68-T IJJ ,' t7l

Page 136

.ludgement anct Se lette 6.1.1 7 Defence Vitness Kltl 625. Witness KR3, a llutu. worked fcrl Kivumu cnruliule irr April l994.lrlr) 3() De.e $et 2Al i 626. On 15 April I994. the r.vitness rvent to Nlange church to provide lbocl ro lwo fef gecs he had senl to seek reluge at Nyange parish. tie arrived nt approximalely noon and left by i:30 p.n':" When the witness arrived at the church, he saw a huge crcrvtl gathered there and.'-as aliaid.'lhe i:t:lldczers had begun striking at the chruch, the rool had coliapsed. and rhe bull<iozer rvas artacl,ing a wall. B-v rhe time thc rvitncss left the area, only the be ll tliwer remained stand ing.l:r I 627. Al i\-1.ange church" the witness sarv Ndungulse: Kafi1.,arukiga; klbakilirehe. Hahilann*r*, Ka-vishenla. and a conrntunal police oi-licer named Niyitegelia. Ile did not see Ndahimana. anel believed that he rvould liave noticed hinr had he been tirere. No one ever {old the rvltness tlr*t Ndahimana had been present at the church on 16 April 199;tr.'rlre rvitness ass*med that Ndahimafla had remained at the funeral ofDr. Ntau'unrhunqa,r2l2 6.2.11l Defence Witness NI)21 628. Witness ND2l" a I lutu f'armer, was living in Kivumu .:om*lune in 1994.)2r' I.le knerv Ndahirnana beciruse he rvas the bolrgra estra ol Kivuuru lornrrrinr,.'t't l'hc rviiness conlcssecl tluring.()acaca proceedings to having particlpated in the anack ol'15 April 199.1 at

Nyangc narislr. ''' '619 on 16 April 1994. the rvitness affi'c{i at in-y'ange parish st approxi*atciy 6:30 or 7 a.m.r:io According to tl)e lvitness, no relirgecs rvcre liilled by rnenrbers of the population lhat rla"y; relilgcu: lvore.killed 'when N1'ange church coilapsed ou thern.l:r7 The bLrl[lozels began by destro-ving t1e u'lll bl the sacristy a1, appn'.rimalely l0 a.m. fhe be ll torver collapsed anrl ihc arLack encler.l ar dPl)rr.rxilnatel) -l p.Tl,'"^ "[lc rvitness described his role a1 lhe parish on l6 Aplil l99ri as that ol'a "cynieal ohsen'er.''?l'T'he witness did not see Ndahifrana thal day,12?" ancl narneil the leatlcrs ol' thc attack that da"v.' as Kayishella, Witness CDL, l\4bakilirehe and Ndungutse.r2:: 6.3 Delibcratioas 6.3.1 Credibilily of the Wirnesses 6.3.1.1 I'ro,yecution ltinrcss (|!]R 6i0. At the outset. the h{a"iority ac,knorvledges thar in a guilt}. plea rlate*I 2F January 2001, thc rr itness cont'essed to having participated fi-rr three days in the crirues cornmiltq<.| al N;.ange parlsh" 3zo3 .t" l. :l Januur. :r)tl l, iJ Proi(Lrrti,n | \hihir vj. '"' T lJ J.rnuarr 20ll pp. ('7-0iJ. '''' T.2;l.Ianuar) 2t)l1 p. rr9. . ' l . 2 o A l ) r ; l : 0 l l l n : . l r r : t ) < t c r i c | \ h i h i L I : j . ' - ' ' T . 1 0 , \ p r i l 2 0 1 1 f . L '"' ' I. 20 .,\pril ?{}11 p. 22. l..i'1 . 2tr ap1;1 3111 1 t. o. '-" T. 20 April201l p. i0. '''' T. l0 Aplil 2tlll pr.9-10. "r" T.20 A;ril t0ll ;r. t0. 1::o T. 20 April :01 1 p. l:. '-' T. :0 April 2011 p. 9. 'l'he Proseattot t. Ntltthiwana, Cdst No. lC'[R-01-ai*-T, t'..6 / 2't4

Page 137

JuLlgiefli:n| and Se |t re inclurling l6April 199,1"r2?:'l'he N'laiority fin<!s it. unlikell, that an indiviclual u,culd fleely conless ro having paltioipated in rrimes irl rvhich he did not ar,tuall)' take parl" Thiis" the l!'lajoritl" co:rsiders that rvhen Witness ND2l testil1ed that her l':usL:and rvas injured cn l5 ;\pt'ii I994, she was either mistaken about the daie or she rvas untruthf'ul for some othct reasotl. 6.1 1. l'he Ma]orily rccalls its serious conccrns rvlth re spect to Lhe clcdibiiily of Witness i.ltlR (Chapter lll" Section 5.3.1.5). Witness CISR is an accomplice lvitness cullenll]' detained, and the N,tajority will colsider his teslimony rvilh o*utiur given its previorls {indings considering the credible and reliable Delence evidence on Witness CBlt's behaviour in prison. lndeed. Defen,'e lyilnesses hlD24" NIl34 and ND22 claimed that while in prison, Witness CIIR eserted pressure on other cletainees to.-implicate autholitias, including Ndahimnna. in their confessions {Ch:ipter lltr, Section 5.3.1.5).'"' 632. Addressing lVitness CllR's prcvious starcments. lhe l\lajorily- acknorvlcdgcs thal ltc had nol been senlenced yet at the time of his stalemenl dated I Oetober 2001 .''* "l'he Mair:ritt recalls Lhat ''a rvilness lvho laces criminal charges that have liot yet conle to tri*l "may have real or pereeived gains 1o lre nrade by incrinrinaling accused persons'antl

may be rempleel or euoeruuged tr: di: sc f'a I se 11 . "1 r:5 6.1i. l'hat being said, Witness CBI{ provided $lat,jmellts to IC I'R investigators tiated .4 ugust/September 20UU and q [)ctobcr ?001 and confbssed 10 thc Kibuye ]trosecunr'* *ffice oir 2{i .{anuar} l{101.'"o Ihusc siatcmcntt as rrell irs hi:, prior le:,tirlron; ln lhc,\r rrlrb{/ e.rsc .lc.,t ribcJ Ndahimana's pafi.icipation in a manner consistent wirh his evidcnce n( rrial.r-':" 634. ln conclLrsion, the N4ajority marv rely on \Vitncss CDR's eviclence rvher* it is cclroborated" despite its resen'ations about thc rvilness'charactcr and possible mertive to charge th* accLlseii through liis activities in priscn. 6.3.1.2 Pyo:se c ution ll"intcss (lDL 635. 'I he l\lajorily'. noles thal other lvitnesses in the trial named Witness CDL, as one rf tlre authorities involved ;n the attack of i 6 April l994.rr:t 'Ihe evidence at trial shows tliat the rvitness tried 1o rninirnize his roie in the killings of 1"5 and 16 April 1994 ar Nyange parish. Several r.vitnesses natned him in relation to his iuvolvemefi in the attacks oflhose tivo <iays. llorvcver'. th,: witness' admissions and acl,norv ledgement of his padicipation i the att&ck$ on Nyange church rue very limited. Indeed" he admittrid thar he lvas the r:ne whr: went to ask sollleone to scnd the bulltlozers that lvere used lbr the l:ulial of the coqrses on l5 April 1994.'l?t

1n addilion, he adrnincd that he participated in the "consuhntions" at the Kanl,anrkiga pharmacy and oppos;re the ofl'icc il rvhich the parislr secretariar was located on the nroming c{ 16 April 199:l at arolncl l0 a.m.rrr0 When asked about the scntence cf liib impriscnnlent *ith criminal rcstriction thai he is currenlly rt2: Def'ence Exhibit 34, p.27. "" Witness NDll: I'.2l fobruary'2011 p.3?; Wjlness ND22: l'.20 Apfij 2011 pp. i6- 29r \Vitnrss ND3rt:'I t? trebruar.v :01I lp. 66-68, | . l3 Feh;ulry 2{}l I pp. 8-9. ' ''5.sIlcfr'ti.e l.thihir -tj- p. j r"l lr:,re nor bcen .(IrcrtccJ:.(t. r. " -.' \ t o Li r t i ht,.t D{ t I aCt .lriJgen rcnl. par ir. l l.r. ''-" t)el'ence Ei:hihii :l:: Dei-ence llr.hibit 3:i; tleienca |:,xhihit 34. rr2i Del'enee E rihit 35. 'ttt witn"ss cBK: T. 3 November' 20lr:) pp. 18-19: \uitncss cN.r; T. 4 rlol,e nrlrer' zr.D U p. i7i witnss! i!D6 r. 27 Jartiirlv l0l I nf. l5- to. : | : \\ itrrrs\ Nf)22: f. 2,r,\l.rJl lrtl I 1,. r. ' L l 2 \ , * c l i , b e r l 0 l , ' p 1 2 { l ( S } r::'r'f. l9 November :0io p. 16. 'l'he Prose;tktt ,-- Ndalinitntr, Crsc No. ICIR-01-h8-l' ii't i :"r4 1,+

Page 138

Jut.lgenent and Sentuncq :0 Der:r,ntbe] :{) | i 3Zol serving. he stated that he was convicted "on the hasis of {iise a.'r:usatit-ns'' ti,r djsnibuHd rFapons that were used tlrring {he attacl; on Nyangc churc}r.l2ll Auothcr clample o1'this rlilnpss' nltempts tc dou,nplav his role in the attacks at Nyange parish can bc fountl in the discussions anongst authotities on hor,v best to destrc,v thc church. Witness Cl.l.l lesiitled that Witness Cl)1- r"-as among the authiirities disoussing the hcst way to desu'o; the church, whilc Wituess {iDl. only tcstificd thaL he heard those aulhoritics ralking.l212 636. The Majorit;. takes into consideration that ths rvitness' accoufit ofevents that da1' m61 f;31,g bcen manipulated to rainiurise his role in the events anci to shiJi the trlame to tlre accused. ln adriition" the &,[ajoriq rccalls its plovious tintlings that th* *itness nright have hcld a grutlge agu;nst the aecused because he had also becn considered lbr ihe position of ltourgmestre that Ndahimala ultimatei.v- rvon. (Chapter lll, Sectiou "1.3. I -9). 63?. Ilor,vever. the Majority bears in mind that his leading rola in the atlacks means lte likei""" rvould havc beer in a good position to discern the role ol individual parlisipants in thr events as thel'unfblded. In surn. the l\'laiority may rcJy on Witness ClDL"s evidence rvhere it is corrotror':rted. despite its reservations about

the rvitness' character and possible mr.rtjves. discussed above" to charge the accused. 6.3.7.3 Prr:*curion ll itncss L'llK 6.18" ,-"{he ll{ajoritl recalls that Witness Cl}K r.vas 1"1 y.cars old at the lime r:i'thc cvcnts at issue.'"'Irr his first slatement 1r.r IC'I'R investigatcrs, dated l5 Augusi 2000, the rvilnelis clid nct nentitrn Ndahim:rna rvith respect to the ettack ol'l{i April 199;} bur did refer to hirn in relation tr"r a p'ior meeting on that samc dal.^Ho\r|er. tlie lv{ajcrlih'Iotcs that the sl.alemdnt focused alliosl exclusivell'on Father Seromba,"'*,\ seiond staremcnr ddtcd 26 April 2001 focused on Gasprrd Kaiil arLrkiga. rvhere lgnin the rvitness retbned to no other attackers on l6 April 199.1 apan h'our Seromba.'"' ln his thinl statellrent, taken in Clctober amel Novenrber 2002, lhe wilneis stated: "On l6 April l9!).4. ilr the morning at about 0800 hours, the leaders again garharecl at lhe Presb)tery. They first had a meeting in one of tlie t.ooms of llre Presb1.tery. Latdr I saw Sercxnba. Ndahinrana, Ka_vishema, Karlar.uhiga" l]olonel Nzaphakumunsi, Ndungurse and IWitness CDLI standing in f'ront of the Secretariat of rhe Farish d iscussing....Ka-vishema told [Witness CDL] ttl assist rhenr in bringingthe Caterpillar to di:strol,the Church...the gloup tvas discussing about the numbel ofl utsis intellcctuals rvho rvere hiding in the Torver.,'i2:," 639. The

rvitness then described the afiack and the destrucrion of Nl,ange c{:urch trut dirl nor mentiotl Nclahillana's presence. Nor did he nrenlion Ndahinrarla's pfeseuoe rvhen he reGired to the aact lhat Seromba, Kayishema and others shared d|inks alier lhe killings. Finall1., he alsr claimeil lhat "[i In Kivumu people had more con{idence iri the priests than in tlre local governlneni of]]ci*}s. ' i , , t . l : \ , , u c m h c r 2 r r l i t n - j + ( l C > r '-". '[. 4 Norembijr 2{]10 }il. 57, jt) awitness LlN.i arrjved at approximatelv 9 a.rn. lir sarv :usgilani: suiro*r.tlirg N.u''zrngc clrrtrch. Kayi-qherna. Ndahimana. \'ddaste N'lurangrvabrLgabo, llitress CDI-. NduneLrtse, Joscph ll:ri-'ilonrbcre urd Kanlarukiga $er'€ 4li prcsent). '''"1heyoungageoi:the\'-iu)e$sl1tthetifteofth€e!,E[tsrcqLr;resihithiskstirl]onyl1eris\\,fd,ithior:1(cilution.i(,c S/116,1 1T( | .luJgrrnL-nf. fr1rn. 7lJ. '' ' tjclencr E\hibir .lt). r:r5 Defence Exh!bir i9. ':36 Deiexce tirhibit 42. pp. 8-9. l tle Ptosecutor t. ,\d*hinantt, Case r"o. ICl R-ail-6N-T L l 8 t 1 1

Page 139

.lu.l4ehtent aldsenlence ji Decrmher :01 I ?200 Father Scr,'mbl \\rs mrrc purrcr{irl lltan the lrur.r'glrr'rrr'r (tls1". :r; lhcse ,rbs".rrrrtid. ilf.,i in conjutctir:in with the absence in each ol'his previr'lus st&telnenls r:1' any mention of lrldahimaila's ptesence or involvemenl in the attacks of 16 April lg94 causes the vlaj0rity, 10 approach this wituess' testimon3, with caution. Thertibre rhe Majorit-v m.4. r*ly on this rvimess' evidence rvhere oorroborute.i. 6.3.1.4 Pruseuttiotl lyittless C'N.J 640. witness cNJ panicipated in attack at Nlange parish on l5 April 1994, and !s an accomplice r.vitness' The rvilness explaiued that lre $,as arrested in January 1997 and sentenced to eig&t.vears imprisonmenl. Since he had ahc*d-v- sperit l1 "vears irr cuslod.r. alier convicring hiin" thc .ludges rcleased him hecause he hac.l spent urorc tinre in prison awaiting trial.r:r8 l oil,li;ng thi{ Limeline. the \'vitliess probabll'' received his sentence around 2008" meaning that oll hiri prior statemcnts **etf given while he rvas detaineti and arvaiting conviction. 'fhe N,lajority ntles tltal in past slatements and cotlttssions ro tl,e Rrvandan authorilies, ths witness rlid nor cletaii all ihe crimes he committed-possibl-v to minimise his olrn role in the crinres that rook nlace in Anril l1X);1. Fsrtherttore. in discussing tlle statemcnts he gave irr Liisovr"r plison, thc u iin.'ss

ir(lrnittc(i tha| he "did not spcak,dte tnrth in all dlese letters" because he did nor rvant to be sunrnlcrred lo testil"y i!.i 'oltts tri:rls.'i'" Ile alio lied irt liis N(rletn[)cr 2001 statcmerrl rrllttJinq Sqr.-rmb;r'r inroirrmclr bcelusc he itacl becrr pft\miscd thirf hii r\r)uld luceir.c muncl 1,, 1,,.i,.r'rF fhc rairnesr'>:.i,.jiiricriuir that he vrould readl'to lie for nroneS' rvarrants oaution" Addirionallv" the q,itness did not irnplicere the accused untii he prof ided supplenlelltan infblrtation tr..l th* Rrxaudan authorities in Noyemtrer 2001. after Ndahimana had heen indicted betbre this Tr.ibLrnal.r2ll 6'{1. Hon'ever" the r.vitness rvas a liee nian at thc time olhis testimonv"l:a] Irr addilion. <iuring f:is tcstitnQu)' a1 triai he lroviJeJ siguificant cletail about the l5 April 1994 atrack r:n N,v-ange parish anil the.Palticlpant.s.''*' TaLing these various considerations rogdher" lhe [,{il-!ority mai relv on this rvitness' evidence rvhere corroborated. 6.3.1.3 l>ro;ec ution'tnntesri CNI- {:42. Wihress CNT participated in the atack at Nyange parish on l{i.dpril 199"1 irnd is thererore an accomplice lvitne^ss. At the time ol'his teslirnony, he hacl con{bssed his crimtrs an6 r.vas d6ing community SCrvics.l?++ 643' lhe rvitness did not remcrnber rhe date on rvhich the crrurch *as destrove<J.r:15 rrul his accoun{ is nevedheless consistent with those ofother wirncsses

rvho festifled abour ihe 0ttack on l{r Apt'il 199-1. Therefirre. the Majr:rity concludes that hc ues describing events thar took place thar cav. l]-'l t*i.n". P-rh;u,, t? np. -i- *-to "" T. J No\irnhrr 2!)10 p. h-tr ! lCSl. ' ' T. ! Norrrnb<r:iil() !'t1. 12..1.5. ':it T. i No,iember z01l ;p. ?0-?? CS]. ''" Dcfence ExhiLrit 46. rru: T..tr Novernber:010 p. 6:l (tcti)- '"-' llelenee Lxhibir 52. r:rd T. l0 Nor.ember l0l0 r:. il ilCS). tlos T' I I November 20 r0;. l3 iThis lvould b€ l6 Ap.il r994 ncco.iiiflg 1.., (rBK's r{istinlorl''). l'ht' Proseeutor t'. Ntlahimana. Case No. tC.I.l.UJl-6g-T 13t) / )11 41/-

Page 140

644. The Majority finds rhat the lvitness' teslim.lnv lacks detail arld is nor ,rfrt.'.,r,3,r(l,3iri JudEe tnent a]rLi Sew e nte ti:r be of particular use rvhen nleking fll.lin$i-( Lrcvond reasolrable doubt. ;\dditkrnell1.,. of all the u'itn*sses thar tesiilied regarding Ndahirnana's presencc duriag lhe demotition ol'Nyange church, lie is the one rvhct plovided the most incriminatory rcport. Indced. rl'hilc Ll'}e other l}rosecLrtion witnssses do no1 colrobor&te each 0thcr on the rlords ullercd b,v'' Nrlairimana during the iittack, none ol'them r*ported that hs "ha{.i a rilk'and wa\ rnnviJrS.nhour tmongst tlto attackcrs,..and he toki us thai'No oue shoultl slip thrctrgh runr firgers'."r'* ln a.lcl]tion" oonlrary to fhe corroboraled evidence showing thar lhe accused rvas'rvilh other autholities rvhen lhe church w:rs demolished. Wirtiess CN'l'teslified lhat "Ka;rishema rvas s1rue1ing close 10 the entrance lvhich could be used Lr] manv persons. As lirr Seromtla. he was a? the dnlrance leacling Lo the inner court. Fle scemed ro lre overt&ken i:f ihe events. ;\nd as f-or Ndahimana, he rras stancling ot the other slde of lhe chtttch."l:17 ihis contradicts the u'itness' prior statemenl of25 &larch 2003 rvher.e he erplained th;rt the three meu were standing in front oithe main door olN;-ange churclr.l:'r8 tiis tesr'rmcny couid be itlfluenced by the desirc to sse the Kivumu

aLrthorilies ccnvictsd fbr thc killirgs at N).flnge {rhurch in order to shi{l or share the blame {'alling iillu his otrr conviction. In conclusjon. the h{ajcrity rna,v rely on this witness u,herc lre is conohoraled. 6"3 "1.6 l>rostcutian ll/itness t'Bl {t45 'l-he Majority recells thar in a slatement provitled tr: IC'f R in,-cstigatlr"s on I licbruarl, 1996. it appears that the lvilness did not see Ndahimana during the ii11acks, but rnly a "f*i,l ila,.vs bc{irre the destruction ofthe church. l'hat must have heen belween the l2rJr and the l3th."r'11q in his 200i) starcment, rhe wilness nrentionecl having seen r'dahimana only on 8, 9, 1l anrj 12 r\pri{ 1994.1:50 lVhen these disctepancies wtre trrought to the attenlioli o1'lhe iviLness, he explained that lvlren providing rhat sratement. he crnly ausrvered the questions that rere put io hir$.rr-'r 'fhe MajoLitl. fi rrds this erplanalion unper:urrivc. 646' ln addition to the concerns discussed above. the wilness' evicience rvas vague. l,asily, his account ofevents on l6 April 1994 alstl snl'tlred fi'oni inconsistencies in compariscrn rvith evidence aciduced.al lrial. F'or example. it appears thal during dre demolition of Nyange church, the lvirness rvas hiding in N1'ange presbyler;,, rvhich could explain the lbcL thaf he tlid n<rt describe l'ldahimana's role during lhe event. Ilowever. the l.vllness rei:oned rhat Seromba rvas also in

tlre presbytery during the demoliticn. shaling Lreers rvith twu other priests.l25: ln sum, the h.{ajorit-v ma3' reiy on lhis witness only if corrotrorated. 6.3.1.7 Pro,secution lYintess CD.l 647 . The evide se of 1r! itness CDJ is of litlle support given he arrived *t thc parish at 7 p.m. I{olvever,,he consistently reported th&t he sau, Ndahimana. kanl.arukiga and Falhsrseromba on thc balcotr\' of N\ang* F.tli.b,)l-.tl- in {iont of Father Scromba's roon ancl that the.v u,ere drinking becr.* and iIr a jolous tunod '"'on this basis, the Majority is iible to inl'er.that the rvilness rvas retbiring:o 16 April 1994. The lv{ajotirl- observes that rvhile the $,ituess' testimany is vague regarding scme ' l l - l . ! r r \ r , r e r , r b c . 2 0 l 0 p . { 5 : l . l l \ u \ e n r h c r : 0 l U l . i . '" T ll N,r\'crnber 2010 n. L r:as Drti:nce Exhibt 70. , : ' " D e l ; ' r c e L r h i b i r b t - I l i r N o r r m l , e r 2 ! ' l 0 p l , . B . i l i t C S l . '' " Dcfenur Exh;bit 60. 1:5' l - l0).',e,nbcr 2trlrl p. -i,I tl( S). ,.:. T. q Nn\rmbrr lUt'r p. :5 '" |. I| \'rrrnrber 2rrl0 ft. II l(fli) The ?rorccutrtr y. I.l.!hi!?ut!ta. Llas€ Na. IC fR-01-6g-T r10i 27,1

Page 141

Judgcne$ ard Senre nte 3t) &.yilhei{)l b a\piidts ol lhc e\cnls. nrosl nolat'l) lllc d,ries. rhc cnli)unt .)t deiiril fls tr) \rhal t".u,,t.l F"rl. ,.friF the authorities rvete allegedly drinking thc ririnking is strspicious.i2J'r The Maioritry hns doubts os lo rvhether thc u,itness could ahserve the scsne so precisely finm his location while in compiete dartness.l2ss "l herefore. the klajo{ity mll)' rely on rhis r.viurcis rn[,v if corroburatcrl. 6.3.1 .8 Prosecutiotr ll'itnes,y CET 648. 't'he irlajoritl, notes that Wilness CR'l' lvas no1 at the c,hurch on 16 Ap|il I 994. and thus his tesiimony is of little plobirtivd value in this instance. 6.3.1.9 Dvfence lliuesse s 549. Delence w*iruesses ND6, ND7, ND24, KR3 and ND22 all testit-ied thar the)'were present during the attack olr Nyange parish on 16 April 199,{, but dirl nct see Ndahim;xra that cia1.. {n addition. Witness ND24 testified ihat although lie $as not prasenr nt the parish he rlould have klorvn if Ndahimana had passed by Nyange centre on his na),tc the parish, Th* Majo:'it_v has fbund elservhere tl.lat the accused might have passed through the roadblock r.ritlrorn Wjtuess NI]14 knowing it (Chapter I, Secriol 5.3.1.19). 6.3.2 Atitri 650. 'fhe Dcfenoc, in its Notice of Alibi l'iied on 3 SepxemLrer 2i110, indicate.l thal Ndahjmana rvas hiding in the sisters' c(xivent on lhe 16 April 1994. ln support ot'fus alibi. the

Dellnce calleC Witnesses tlx3, NDl7 and NDi-l.1;id'l'he h{a.itirit1, recalls that according 1o ttule 67 (Ai iii) (a), the Ilefenoe shail nolily the Prosecutrx' of its illtenr to raise ar alitri "piiol to lhe eommencement lfihe ttial," including the ''tlames and addresses of Witnesses and an;' olher evidence upon r.vhich tiie accused itttend intends ttl rcl.v to establish ttre alibi.'' It] the present case, rvhile rhe l)ef€llr,.- disclosed the nanre and atldress of Witness BX3 at the beginning ofthe Prosecrutlon c)ase, or! the 2l september 2010" the narnes and addresses of \virnesses NDlT and ND35 rere 1o1 filcil b1.. rhe Deibnce u$til April 201 1" three months ailcr the start of the Def'€nce case. [n these circumstanecs. the Plajoritl recalls il.lat a late disclosure of alibi witnesses may afli:ct its assessnteut of ths credibilit-v of t[':e alibi.r2iT f5l Witness BX3 provided hearsav evitlence about Ndahimana's stay at the ccnvent gn l6 April 199:1. She testified fhat N'lama Yumatri. .t lllrl at the convent. told her that Ndalritnana hacl been thele on l6 z\pril 1994.r:j8 witnesses NDlT and ND3J ',,-ere togelher at 5 a.m" on 16 ApLil | !)-t);t at the culvent a{ I'es Staur,g tle I'Assonpriott ("the convent''). Eaoh testified thal the}, ,uru ltl,lohi,"un, aril'e at that hour. Witness NDlT also testiiled tliar he sarv Ndahimana leave lhe (bnvcnt thai evening at 7 p.m.,'tt'rvhile

\!'itness ND.i5 only saitl that he rvas tolcl rhat the accuscd lc11 thc '?51T |I November 2010 p. 40 iTh. \lirrress ctiulti iudicatc the llpe ofbeers thc itssaile.nas wrfc.l.inliing "l lar abie to see thal thev \tere using t}le heer lirrorvrL as I'rirnus...). '-'- T. I l. November 201ti pp. 24, 30. 5l (Thc irittl€ss expl4ineil rhat r.rhen he arrive.J ar the Farish thal Crry hc $e* nr:rn',- r:orps€s, he panickeil th$relbre and ,,r\'{)nt t{Irard:i the perish 1., lhc piace rvhere t r,ras supposecl to b:1. tf. 34y. 1.hg rirtncss iitnltcl er;'hitr,:d rhatic *:r".rrrrJing r.ttrs" lU Lhc:jrlc arLtrlfl;2tl m(lri.j.t\.\il\ in,tn rirJ dirtll,.l it;.. I i^. 5 | 1,. " " '\ic N(tiirc il-Alihr. i Stptcnrlxt' 2lll0; Slrpplenenl ttj the Notioe of Alibi iiied dn jrd Sdtltcrlrb;r :t11, Jl S€fterubef ?010i Addilionirl liorir€ $l Alibi, 7 Af\ril 101 1: Addilidnal N.ri.re of .Allbi, i; Aprij :0 t l. '- Bi.in 'rg]t ea.rl.I)ecisiolr on.leroru.' llic{rnrumgala,s Noticc oiAlibi 7 Jull ?005. pria. 5; ;\jL.lirrrrtlrigo (A.l) ,lLtUgcnrcrrL. pLrr.i. 971 l. I | \r|]rcrnhrr'-'trl I p.2: ' - ' 1 . l 3 F e b n : . r r 1 : 0 1 1 t - f - i ( l C S l . '"" T. 3 tla! 2011 p- 10 (lCS). fhe ?rtsecttor r'. N.lohiudld. {tast: N{r. JCTR-I)l-6g-T 1.t I t ?.71

Page 142

.lrtdgenext ,nLl Stntence :L!!- ! biL:01 ! -?_"1a7 convent at that time.l:6t' Winress ND35 adilsd that he was lold lhat A-dahintanr lasli,linq Iorir persons nanred Calli.:ite" Kirnana anrJ Kal,ishenta-l 261 652. 'Ihe Nlalority is ol'the vierv that the witnesses' eviclense about l6 Aprit 1994 is vsguc, wrth the excepticn ol'the tilne at lvirich thcy sau Ndahimana arrivo at the convc*t and thc tim* ol his departure. Lideed, neilhcr ol'1hese witnesses reports having scen Ni1abirnana betrvecn 5 a.m, and ? p.m. on l6 April 1994. In addition" the belated disclosure o{' Witrresses ND I 7 and N U3 i's identities ma.a suggest that the Defence lias tailored the alibi evitience iu order li: con\)boratd {bat of Witness BX3. The )!lajorily considers seriously- the risk ofrecent labricalion in lhis partioular case. 653. ln addition, the Majority observes thal Wirness NDlT explained dlat his house r.vas localei,{ c'nl;- nlo kilomelrcs atvay l'ro'rl the oonvent but that hc sta),ed at the convent aftd did not ot;me back home liom 6 April 199-1 ntil he leli in May or iune 199"1. He explailed that he slarvrd ai rvilrk because the nuns llere thrcatened and thar he "coulcl not al:andon Lhem to their tilc.'" llo als{} teslilied that he rvas mattied and f-ather ot-fir,e c*ildlen. When nsked rvhy he chose to sla]'*ith the nuns ratller thiu] rvith his lanril,v he responded: "1 nas preoccupicd b;,- dre

t'ate i:{'lhe nuns a*d alsr: by the lhte of nq' ehildren. but since I could not be in trvo places al the sanle time, I contrinued guarding the nuns. Li;ckil1', my children tlid not have any probJems and the nuns also did nor have any proble,m." The rrvlliorir-v flnrls the t,itness' erphnatiul t.oubling. especialll. giveu that the lu s wcrc guardq(l b1 policemen litrrn l6 lpril l9u.f .'-"' 654. Witness ND35 teslil'ied thar he saw Nrlahimana on l{i April 199.1 at ,5 a.rn." nor.ing thal he hintself left the conyent at 7 a.m. and c*me back later al 4 p,m. L,ater, during a discussion r'..'ith i:is eollcagues alound 7:-10 p,m.. lhey Lolcl him thal the accusecl had.just left tl.!e convenl abixrt hrlf au huur earlicr'.'"' 'l'hc fr{ajoritl notes thar, by his orvn teslirnrny, the onl}' evcnt he could have acfirall) rvitnessed first-hancl r.vas the arrival of the aocused at approximatell'5 a.m. 5j5- 'l'he Majoritl'also notes tha! Witness ND6 testil'ied that orr l6 Aplil t99,1 he rvas at r\.vange parish antl overhearcl Ndungulse asking Witness CDI- aboLrt the rvhereabouls o{ lhe bourgwe,stre. 'fhe rvitness thefi went ta look for Ndahimana at lris home but di<l not find him there.llia 'l'he hlajoriry acknorvledges that the rvitnessi is an accomplice, horvever at the lime c1- his lesrirnony he h*d confessed rhe crirnes lre conrmitted. had already been ccnvicted arid hed served his

senlence.llti The Majtx ity does n{Lt consitler that he might have had a uiotive to reitily in tavour of the accus*cl" llovever, dre lvla-i*rit1" notes thirt the i'-itne'ss a<]mitted "you see. there were m:rnv persous. we couldn't see ever)one. And I can only lalk about the people I sar.v and tlrr:se whtr weLe llear nte or with me." Talking specificall;, about Nelahimana. fhe lvitncss restifi€d thar he did not sec hinr bur diil not deny the possibilit'- thar h* r.vas there.i266 It is possiblc thar the ability ofdiulrenr rvitnesses to recognise different individuals, as rvell as their varying vantflge points. ntay illso aocor"ult lirr his f'ailure to see the ftccused. ''uo't. 3 lr4rry :01 I pp" - (lCS). .16. '"'' T. 3 l.{a} 2{l1t p. :i3 0CS). ' - ' I , 1 l l d l 2 { / l I l p . t i " t 8 - : 1 . ''" f. i M.tr :01 | I'f'..11 |ICS| 16. ''"" l" 2? Jaouorv 201I pp- 15, 26. 12 l fhe rritness tcnt to Nd3hin'ian.i"s housc togelhcr with Llidaci: llabvari:nata. Habiyakrrc. anLl othel yolingsae{s frLrm Kib,ilirl. including Rr,,tu akabije (P. 25). ihr \.13jorit,1.' alsrr notci tlrsr rhe Cjstanr't hchr een t) JnSc (h ull Lt dnd the conrrulal ol'fice cauld be cor,ered jn I (i rnilrutes dl lvaiking ( f. j2)). '""' L 1? Januarl l0 | I 1p. l0-3 | . ""'T. ?7 Januafv 201I p.3a {tCS). 'l'he Pra"seeutor t. !i.!ahiw$d, Casc: Ng. lC] R-tll-68-T \41t 21:t

Page 143

,t JE"nettt Jtxl \(4!rn.r J!) t r,\ tnllAt)l ^ 7l'16 656. In conclusi,:n, the l)sfbnce evidonce establishgs oni] rhal tllc acculed xrri\'!-d fit-ifie 'c,.,nvdnt at 5 a.m. and left at 7 p.m. It doers nct aeco llt fi:lr his whcrcabouts at an] point bctwcen lhese lintcs on 16 April 1994. Further', thc Majority no1€s lrvr') poirts. Firstll. tlte.-evidt-ncc rrrittld ttot p|cv*nt the accused frorl going to Nyange church a{let leaving the con\cnt.'-"/ Sccon.ll,v, the \lajoIity has alread,v expressed doubts on the reliability of the teslimonies of Wilnesses NDiT and NIl3i-ir lias also l'ound that their testirncnies presenl a risk of recent l-uhricatkrn ol'evide:rce r.vhich all'ects the hlajorily's anaiy'-sis of lheir credibility.

657. For the reasons discussed above, the Majorit3,. considers the evidcr,ce of Wltnesses NDl7. ND3,r and BX3 that Ndahimana came at the convent or! thc l6 April 1994 earl;, morning and stayed tlierc the rvhole day in hiding is not reasonabl.v possitrl-v tr"ue. 6.3.3 Meetings and Decision tc Dtstroy N:-ange Church. 16 :\udl !994 6.3.3.1 lutocluctiun 658. |laving fbund that none of the Prosecution ivitnesses can be relied upi:Jn lvitliirlrt corroboration" the Majority rvill norv consider rvhether the Proseculicrr's case {rffers any c()iloboruted evidence that would support a linding be1-ond reasonable doubt regarding thc ailegations in paragraphs ?!l-31 ol'the Indictment" 659. Afier revierving both the evicience and paragraphs 29-31 of the Ind;ctment, rhe Majori6, notes that at le&st tlvo meetings are alleged to have taken place on l6 ;\pril 1994 ta plan the k;llirlg of the relugees and the destl'uction of Nl.ange church. N.Iembcrs of the .tCE are alleged to have met ii'rr a first time a1 Nyange presbyte.r;, at an unspecified tirne on the morning of 16 Aprii It.)9'1. Following tliat nreeting, thc assailar:ts shot a1 the chr*ch Lurtil the-v ran oLrl o1'ammunition. A scciind mceting beiween the nienbers of tlii: JCll lhen took place latcr that rnorning near or at the presbyterv. frollor.ving lhi$ meeting. the chLrrch was derrroyed by a bulldozer.. 'l'hose re{irgees who lYcre not

killed by the collapsing debris rverc killed b1'attackers entcling the cl:iu'ch aiiel the collapse of the building's I'acade. 6.3.3.2 First it'[eeti g and ShootinET at Nutng (.:hurch, l6 April ]g9l 660' Prosecr.ltion Witnesses CDL and tllBR both testified that in carly morning. Nrlahimana met with other rrrembers of the .lCE. A{ier this meeling Ndahimana lired a iveapon at ther ret'ugecs, signalling the start of the aftack. According ro witness CBR, wien he urived rit Nyarige perish, ire salv rhe follorving authorities conierring in front ofthe pliest's otlice: Father Seromba" Nilahirilana. Kanyanrkiga. I labi.vamber"e, Kal ishema" Vidaste llluranglvabugatro. Ntlungulse. Senior lVarsnl Officer l{abamgira. antl several gendarnrcs. The witness did nor hear rvhat the men r.vere sar irrg. Alter the discussiotr, Ndahimana shot through the doors anr{ windolvs ofthe church to "set the tone" and the other autholities fi'llorvccl.!268 When Witness CDI- arrived at the parish, Nclahimana. the comrnunal policenten, Kayishema and the other autharities rvele conversing. When this grr.lup., arrived at the church secretariat, Ndahimana spoke to Farher Seronrba. Alter thcir disc6ssion"'the bourf{nv\trc came back kr his policemen ancl lold rh*m lhat the work rvas gaing tc bcgin." '''" .fhc Nlajoritt rcralls thal thc .listarlce llct\.en the r'-;urng* churclr itnd thc corvelt is only 0.4

liilomej..ls. &e l(ep"i1 ,,n Sitc Visir. I I JLrrrr :U I l. pJfi. o t iiit. '"'T l N, x crnbr:r 2r I I I I Pf 1+-:.i: l . 2 Noreml'ar 2{}10 p, 43 (Fronr the rirhi hai}d sicLc o i- thc oourtl.:rrij n{:i)1. \J-.rlrgt church.ihewi1nessw*scloseenoughtt-rrritnessNrlahimana,st?u|di|]g.|i1l|e1iont.ioofo1.|lrc|L]!|ci1-sil.,{}|il1gt1|l1)!'lgil llte doors arld lvindorts oi the church. K:rlishelna lfailcd al'Lcr r-dahinrana. also rhuolinr i{to the clrulch. Ndahjnrma "set tl'le tilnc" and the c'tbtrr aulhodries folknvcd)_ The Prosectior r'. Nr/tthinara, Case No. [CTR-01-68-T 1.13 i 274

Page 144

,iudgtnet;t axil 5e nte nce Ndahimana then opened tire on r-cfrrgees insidr- Nrange chrrrch. lmrrediate ly olliccrs hcgan liring at thc cliurch.''' 661 . Thc Maju^ri[ r)otcs thlt the u itnesses both testified rhat the)' saw Ndahir*ana opening fire at N5ange church.''" \\'itness CBR testified th&t he salv Ndalrhnana using "a lifle thilt lvasn't v€ry long" and that had "striirs (src) around the shouldcr,"r:7r Wifness CDL did not provide alr"r' iniormation on the kind of rveaporr Ndahirlanr allegedl.r used; lre onl)'rcported that Ndahimana opcned file orr rclirtccs insidc thc church.'- ' 662. Hor.vever, the iVlaiority noles th.tr parts of their testimonies difllr with rrgafd to ihe parlicipants r.lf the neeting and r.vitlr regard to horv the meeting urifbided. Acoording to V,ritness CBK the participants 01'the meeting lqere Seromha. Ndahimana. lianyarukiga. l"labiyambere^ Ka"'-ishema, IVrrrangrvabugebo. Ndungutse, l{abalugira attl gendarues.t:t;.{cccrding t(} Witness CDL. the bourgtrrcsrre spoke first to lial,ishema, olher author;tics and conrnruu:rl policenren.lli"l AIler that. hc apparentll lvonl alone ro talk to Seror bir iu f'ront ol' the church secrctariat and came back to teli the policenren tn start killing.rrTi 663, Accotding lo Witness CBR, ailler the discussion. l\dahimana. Ka.r i>hcnra ancl rhc rLlrer authorities, with the exceptian cf Father Sercmbir. moved tswal d thc

cirLrlch,'"' lt alsr: rippear: thal at least Ndahimana and Kayishema shot at the churoh.l:i7 Witness CDL testified Ncialiilrana aud the policemel accompan_ving him shot at lhe church.l2?t 66.11. 'The )llaiority recalls that it has expressed sulrslantiaJ doubts about the credibility. ol' Witnesses Ctst{ and CDl,. "lhe l\,lajorirl'recalls thar Vitnesses Cl}K. CBY. ND7 r:nd ND22 tere also in a position to observe *'hat v,as happenilg al the parish early on l6 April i994" befcx.e rhe stad ofthe attack rrnd the destruction ofNyange ohurch. l{owever, ncne ofthese lvitnesses testilled abr:ttt a first meeting aad a lirst afiack lvhich occurred that day. While the difTerenl vantitge puints of tlie witnesses co[ld explain lhe variances in their testimonies, the h.ia]orily consllers that this first attack. if it had ocourrsd. u,ould have involved fireanns as lvcll as severul people shooting at the cllurch. Othcl pcople prescnt at Nyange parish rvould have heard i'rr rvould have been aware of' its occurlence. 66J. Taking into accoLut the circumstances described above. thr L,IajrLity finds rhat rhe Prosecntion has not proven beyond reasonable doubf that rhe {rcc sed partioipate{i in e nreeting :it Nyange presbytery, nor hav* therv proven that lbllorring this alleged meeting Nd{rhimana fired;ri the ohurch, signalling rhe staft of tl']e altacli. 't"n T 12 Ncvcmber :010 p. 17 lNriahirnana lbrn

opened lire or r*l'ugces irside the churc'h. lnrrncdiatflr! thcreai"ter" policenren also began sboc'tjng thfough l:uoken church rvjndorv: info ahe churclr. Ilecause Ndehirrana {as the highesr slrtho ty l]trselrt at t'iyaflLle chulctl. rlre witqq-ss corsidercd the shot tilcd by Ndahinana "as tllc grceLl iight to kill fhe , futsis 1{her wete in the clurch."}_ ''"'Witness ClllR: T. 2 \or cmber 2010 p. 4j, 'f. I Norernirer'2010 p.24; \\ilncss CLll.: I. tl. Nur.emhcr 2tlt{} p. t?. r2r1 -[. I Novembcr 2010 pr].:.1-2s. r:7: T l2 Ncvendxr 2ttl0-p. 17. "'' T. 1 Novcnlbe.:01{i p. 24. ' ' ' ' J . l l N r : r e r u l t r l 0 l 0 n o . l i , 1 7 . 'rI L l: N,rr cmbcr l0l0 p. ij. '"'l'. I Norentbe. :01() p. 2,1.. ''" l - 1 Novenlbcr :0iti pp. 2.1-2J. '' "' 1'. l1 November 2010 p.

17. The Prosecutor v ]rclahinan*, {-'ase No. ICTR-01-68-T u.t, l7 t

Page 145

Jue* nrht, ritl Se nlc nt' "lrt Dc< rnk,:r )t)i J 6.3.3.3 Seun<l ,Llectitg antl !)cci,tion to l)e.trroS,Nyan14e Churtlt, t6 lprit 199../ Z n + 666. According kr Prosecution witnesses cDL. cllR, cIlK. cNJ anci CBy ii nleerins attended by Ndahirnana and other authoritics took place on 16 April 1994. l-bllowing thar metting, the clemolition oINl.auge churcli by bulldo.zcrs began.

667. At the outse{ thc Majoriiy is satistied that a meeiing occured in lhe niotriing. belrveen 9 and l0 a.m.'''- Tlurtiug to the lccation of the meetirrg, Witnesses {lBR. C{lt, and CBY asserrcd that the discussion tuok place near Nyange presbylery'.r28') witncss cDL said that the meeting began ar Kanyarukiga's pharmacv and that the authorities" ino{udiug Ndahimana" dren rnoved to Nyangt: church to meel wilh Irather Seromba who u,as starrding irr l-rnnt of tire sccretafiiit. r28 i 'lhese tcslimonics orc not ini:rrlt:istcnl, Inlle.rd. it lpPerrrs thal tf'r sccretdriJt und thc llt.*sh] t..tl !\crc il) very close pro.tinritv 10 oue anorher.' -' fh.'r.'l-ort'1hc i\,1aj or ii)j is satis{ietl thar a meeting cccureti hetq'een 9 and l0 a.m. near the presb)'ter;-- on the morning of 1(r April 1994, the locatilrn and tilne cfthe meeting is established be,vond reasonable doub1. 668' wihress cBR heard Kanl.'aruliiga saf ing fo othef authorities, inclu<ling serorlba" that Nyange ohureh hael tn hc dernolishcd. .{ccording to Witless CBR, }.idahimana w:as preselr u,hcn Kanlanlkiga ttrldc lllis :\lrtcmcnl. lhi: t ilncss did not hnr,..r rrh{r git}r thr r'r.d..r ld slJrl rlc\tfi,.\ in! thc chirrch-rlx' 1!S lVitness CBI{ sarv Ka-vishema, Nciahin.rana, Nclungutse irnd Seroniba having a meeting ar Nyange pfesbl'tery. As they approachccl rhc secretafiat, Seiomba asktld Ndahimana whal q,as to be done

"becau-se all attempts had {'ailed." Nclahirnana was to:ietl.rcr rvith lpJ Kayishema at fiiat lnoment, altd they insisted that Tutsi inteJlectuals rvould h$ve to be killed. so the irlel ilecided ro des1fo)"the church tower in otder to kill the refugees.l:8't'l-hc r.ifnc.r u.nr starrdirig rr,l neaylx water t*p and could thereforc heal rvliat Ndahimana and the others u,ere saving bccausc rliclv ri'ere oulside ',vhen the-v had this disiussion.i:3i 3lJ;", il*irTfilr,"*xff: ::;:,1:#IJill'il:rl,:i:, !ll" aurhoriries having a me*ing bur {}'71' Witrress CNJ is the only rvitness reporring rhat the autirn"iries including },14i:himana me1 rvith Father Serotlrba nnd that irnmediately aller. Ndahimana said ''norv 1,ou can,.-starl..' after rvhich Kaf ishema_ told the caterpillar elriver. "Now y-.li c;rn go aheaci..,lri? I.lorve,-er, the rvitness. testinlolly that the accused gale the order to staft the clemolirion of Nyange c,hurch is ioe,,rrctatible '?"'wilness LIBR: T. I Novc'rrber 2010 p. 2J (Aticr lhe sho.raing s.rbsi.led. the auu'rorittej returiled tr) thcir ilevio'i lodation ircarthe prcsbyter'l.'): n'jtness cDr,:'I'..r2 Novenr bdr :0 r {}-pp. r..}-:t).'r. l9 Nolcmbcf 201{l p. l61 !"he r.ncehng occurl ed at apPfoxirnatelJ l0 a.m. at K$tlarukiga's pharmacl'); Wiiness Cll K: I . i N.rve.tl€r :!:) 1 0 ir. I 7 ('I h! rnee1ir1.c. occu ed at an unspecilied tirrre at Nvange presbyrery,): W

itn€ss CNJ: .I.. 4 No\Kmbe. i0t0 pp. 57. jg (RcpodeLl thai thc m(:etirlg o{ituiaed ori)und 9 ii.fi. but did not specj}'v the location); Witness r1'lly: l'. i Nr]vcrnber 20i0 p;, j4-^jj, 'l- l0 lj,:,,,:L'5 i?l,Yfl I l--r.t i iCS I (T-(lrilietl thir the meeting ,ccuriecl ..[il' lhe m.rning,, ,r the prest,vrerlj. -- q/rtr)dss( lJR: L lNn"ernber:0rtp-25;witnelscRy:r.9rlorcmberr010p. j,i: vir);ss {:rri: i..3 Nr:,venrler :010 lp. | ;. 2l: Pr,,s\ cUlion E\lribit I r | ). ' . - ' 1 . l 2 N . , r r m h c r ' l n l , r n l ) l q - - \ U . I l / r N u r ( , n h c r l U t r j I , p l { , . 1 t . ,'-, l,fo\ecurion L.rttibjl it: ltro.cculion lr\hihil .i7; l,r.r,.rccUii,,I L\hillil {:i. '' - l. | \rr\crnbcr 2010 pF. 2-t-j5i l-: Nu\Lrnbrr 20lU p. 5r. -- 1. i Nor ernhfl i0lr) ft. 17. : \: lr\,\Lcuri(,n f,lrihir li ( t i. -" l. -l NorcniLrcr l l0 Fl). t7-lX. '" L q \o\erirl)er li)l0 fp jl":5: L I0 \o,crntrcr lAl0lt.\. l:_rr {t( S) "' T. .tr Norember 201t} n, 59. fhe Pros<tcutttr v. \tlahiBrdnd. Case N{r. LC'fli-0I -6g-:f t4-i / ?74

Page 146

Julgta' u ,It,l 5i, ntcn, t Jlt ; t,.(t-,^ii , r '{igi \vltil .rthe r lcsl.inlonics Jn th{ salrc mccting. I hc NhjirritS rr:c.rlir thrt lhc ii h ilc*i11.' * iLtnlfJ mentionsd Ndahimarta's presellce in some ol his previor.rs slatcntents, in these statelne tlts. hc never said that it r.vas Ndahimana rvho ordered rhe drivers cf the Caterpillar to srart destfoyiug Nyang.s church. I'he Majority considers this to be a serirus olrrissiol. In addilion, the t\,lajorit,v has previcusly decided that it rvould nol relj\,{irl this accoinplicc's eviclence unlcss ctnroboralcdl::to (Chapfer ltrl, Sections 5.3.1.4, 6.i.1.4).

612. Wihess CDl. is the onll,rvinress testil1.'ing thar the decision to destroy N1'ange church rvas taken ar I{an.varukiga's pharmac5 gr' ser,eral pcrsons inciuding Kan5rarukiga" Ndahimana and Ka1 ishenra. I:a{hcr Serrrmba \.!as not tllcrc.I:x' llc addcd tlut \ubsrqlrentlv. Nrjahinrarrr spnkc r,' Seronba. who approved the decision to dcsfroy the ehurch.r?or l.irllorving th;s rii.r{r\sion, a {iaierpillar came and the deslructkrn of the ohurch began.l:"1 'l he &4aiorit1, rec*lls thal ir $.'oulii tlo1 rely on this accomplice's teslimony \!i rout corroboratir:r*. 671. lt fllls tioru lfie evidence recalled atrovc thnt Ndahirrrana attefided the meeting along lvith varkrus ottrer aurhorities. While his actiors or levei or cortribution to that meeting is less clcar, the &{ajofity nonetheless conclLrcles thal the prcsence of the accuscd at the meeting is proven bervcnd reasonable doubr. 674.. Tufring to the purposc of the rnerting, Witnesses CIlf{, CDL, f'BK snd f:N.l all reported llat the decision to destro)' Nyenge church rvas taken clrriug this meeting.lro: The hlajoritl, nores that Witnesses CDJ. CBY, NDI l. NDl2 arrd ND22 reported lhat the dcstruction of the church r.rirh rhe trulldozers staned on l5 April 1994 and thar ths denrolition stdpred thal same tJa_v because jt began to fxin and nightfbll came.l2e:' Fufiher evidence cstablishcd tiir thc uliimatc cicsriucrion or the chuleh

took place on l6 April 1994" lvitness cDL explained, "so rhere was no d.srruc,tion as such oll the 151h, Only the r.vindorvs rvere broken rvhen the greuades werc thror.r,n.'Ihe rviljorvs r:8r T. 4 Norr'en.llrdr ?010 pn. 57-59. r 2 5 ' l . l - ' \ o r e r n h c r l 0 l ( i p p . t D , l 0 ; t . l , ) \ , , \ e n r l ) e r l 0 l 0 l t 6 . " ' I | : N , ' \ . r n b c r 2 r t I U n l r J : t - I ! , N . , \ r m h r . f 2 d j 0 l . 1 7 . T. l2 Ni,\ (nrLrf "ltJl l\D iL)-lr). r:e? witness CBR: T. I Noventber 20i0 p. ?5 {rtrfier th€ shooting suhsidrd, thr a{hariti€s fetumtd ro rhejf pre,'ioris spot rear tlre pfeshllcr,!. I'he ltitltdss or,dhearcl Kanlarukiea saring. -]'bis church lias rr,' be iicniuji-ihed. iiJ| r,iithin al.ee da"vs' r.r'e rviil be able to rrbuild it." Ndahitrana va"s standing nr\i lil lr"envaruliga i.rhen lian.i'aru[iga nade this sttrtenl€tll. 'Il'Ic: $illlcss di nol hear the rest 01'1hc cerlvcrsdtiul. bul soon alter Kanyalukiga spoke. L*_r'isliena .arnved \tith *sl-.ricial vehiclrs'' tl.ri rverc usrd lr) (le'[o]i\h rlte ljhurcltt; \r itnc:is CJ-]1,: ll 12 Novenrber.2{}i0 p. 19, .I. It No"-e|rber ?010 P. 17 iAli€r {he merti$g tLt Kati,vlrlukiga's phannac"v- Nrl^lhirrar;r spoke to f rrher, ser',rnri:r a1l Seiomba app0vcd the decision to destroy the chir.ch. lhis iiisqussion *er hd:d in lhe opcn. and thc F.;tncss \r.,as clrsr eoough to hear Ndrh jmar'lt .lnd Seromba

talking): \l itne ss CBK j T. -l Noi,cm ber 2tl llj pp. I 7- 1g. :.1 {1 lrc rn(n decideil 10 dcstroy the chtrefi 1ou'er in.rrdcr to kill tlrc reiLgees hiding ther{r)t Witncss CNJ: l-. 4 Noql'l}ber 2010 pp, 5?-5g ( Ille \ritnens \!3s stJnJin,c nccr thc luthorities and heafal thrm discusslog tlre dssbuction of tlre clturrh), '- '' \\ itness cDJ: l'. I I No\,Jmber 2010 pp, 3Gj 1 iort Frid,ry night. thJr.r,itnrss rurir ed ar the parish at apprulime&r) 7 p.n, and tound tl'lat part of tbe church hird been drst!-!-ed md thar there *'ere dead boriies in rhe coun;,e{.{,r: \\ ltresJ CBY':T 11) Novenlber:01{) pp.27.:i0-J2 tlCS)iThel startcd 1rl denrolirh thc chufrh on l5Aprii 1994;ml cornptercd the demalitioil on I6,A.pril 199^t]: witness NDllr'f. lt{ Janust} f01l pp. 35.40 r'r!hlie tlre wilness rv*s insirle the chulch. d ms:r callcil Leorar.i arrived \,-ith l"uel and sprd-"-ed the {jhur.ch \rirh petrol. Tile rel.ugees sa\l,' a ',lpeci.ri rnoroi.' rinive. ( dug a pir in r'vhich the d€ad bodies e€re burjddl.'l'his nrachine r.yas tlLen uscd lt, altack rhe nr-,dh sjde or rre church subsequertll it ltgan to min end nighriall carne. The sprciel o(ltof rcnl,ailr{i 'irt the chriroh ctrtil$}und,l: \vihess NDl2: T. 19.tanu8y 20i1 pp. 6-3 {1he allackers then tfiecl to burn drrrvn tJre chlrcl ijsiitg iLrr'l lrirl did r.!ot succeed. "Later-" a Cateqlillff a$iYed to burl the victims in a pllce call.:d

Rubagano. .lt agrro:inrnfei,r, ,1 1;1. j p.m.^ ihe a'aterpillar began sttaoking ihe rvalis ol the rhurch but $1opp€d ltten it b*gln r.;inirc. 'ftrc Ialer..r,4<gnire withjrc"r anc rlte.refugees. including the lr'irness. remained;nsicle the church): wiinrss \:D22. I- jt,,\pdl ziln pp. J r-i: (A1ter thr killin61s and the ilur;.rli. a Cald$illar beiran des(roting the chuiir. b , i1 sl4rted railing and llrc aen.rolilirJ. stilppe.l because rh{i lvheels of the Cateryiliar kept g.1a;ng sluck in thr nlud). Tha Proseaiar r'. \clohinana, Ceso N.r. ICTR{l-68-T 1 'lE | 2'I.l

Page 147

.Judge ntetlt dnd Scnle nce rvere bloken. but deslructiur l,i7r.re took place on the l6th. 'llhe true domolitiun l6th o1'April."'l ?qa'l he lr'lajority linds that th€ clestruclitxr o1'the chulch may have been ,ttempted on 15 April 1994 but lhat it rvas actuall.v deslro-ved on i6 April 199.1. 675. 'l^he Majority also conclucles thirt notrvithstanding thc atlempts to destroy Nyange cl]tucl] i:x l5 April I 994. a decision to destroy thc church rvas taken ar the mceling on thc morning of l6 April 1994. The evidence establishes that the dcciskrn \.vas take to kill the l'utsi lelugecs in Nyangc churoh by destroying it. 'l'he lt4ajority reaches this conclusion based upon lhe dilect and circumstantial evidence adcft"Lced at nial. 'lhe atulok $nd the ult;niate.ie:ifucti.)n o{'the church starled,iusii aller the meeting on l6April 1994.

676. Horvever. Nrlahirnana's urcre Fresencc duling this meeti:lg does nct necessaril,v mean that hc shared lhe criminal in{eni of the melrbers oi'the ^ldltj. As rlcve loped irelorv, the Malclirl finds thal the presenre ofthe aqcused at Nlange church cxr 16 April I994 migirt have heen motivatcd h.r, druess as credible evidence shorving thal he was under threfit wa$ a.lduced during tlial. 677, kr conclusion the Proseculion lbilcd to prove L-'e"v'.ond a reasonable doubl that thc accused shouid be liahle fbr thc charges sct in paragraph 30 ofthe Indictnrent. 6.3.4 ltldahimana's Particiration in the Aftacli on Nvanee Church 678, llaragraph J I cf the lndiclment allegcs thal Nclahhrana and other authorities ordered the a$sailanls lo use a bulldozer 10 deslro)i Nvange ohurch. kiiling about 2,000 'l'utsis relirgees iusicle. 'l'he Indiclment further alleges lhat Ndahinrana $,as presenl during the destruction of the chirch antl lhat he lvas instigating and supervising the assnilants.

679. As a plcliminary maiaer, the Majorill'no1cs that the IJetence conlends that the hosec,-rtion did not properly plead its charg.'that on _16-April 1991 tlrr .rccused "rvas mrving around lelling assailants that no relirgees shoul.l escap.-."'''r' Ihe l\,lajuritl rcealls Lhal. ic accuseii is charged irllh "itrsligaling the assailants to kill the 'Lutsi refugees and supervising lhe allack" on I 6 April 199,1 ar Nyange church. ln this oontext. the lvlajoril!'recalls that rvhile the Prosecution is obliged 1{r state ri}e mal.eriel lacts in the indictnient" there is no such recluiremefil thet il musL slare al] thc evielencc il intends tcr learl lo prove those ma{erial fhcts.l:e" I'hereforc. the Delen*e ohjectiern is gn:undless.

680. Witiresses CDi., CNI', CNJ and CBK ali tesrified that Nilahinrana \vas prcsent dLrring lhe aclual demolition ol'N^;'ange chuch on l6 April 1994.r:" witnesr ct)1' onll' hearcl thal rlie church had been demolished.lzes 6B1. Addlessing notv the evidence on Ndahinrana's invohement during rhe a*ack. Witness Cf}L rcpofted that the baurgnestre and Serombn rried to assist the drivers by sht'r,"vilg them how '.tc r2'! Witners CN0: 'l . 19 Novenrber p. 6: .,\'.itness ND24i 't. l1 Feb.uary. :011 pp. 15. 27: witres! NIt?: '[. 2"]. Jarr.rar,r ?0 | I p. 15r \\ itlress ND6: T. :? Januaq 20lt p. l5; Witness CBR; T. I Nolernber 201{t rrp. Z3-2j. q-itnels CItK: T. .l Novenb€r 20 t0 pp. l8- 19. L 4 Novembrr 2{ilit p. 4; Wjtl)ess CNJ: T. "l N.rr.eml-1er 2010 pp, .5?-J9. '-'''l , :l Sdptinber 201 I o- 73. ttt' Ntngen ru er al (.'\Ci ,llrdgenlenr. p$'r. ztr: ,\l(,tirrtit1}ara €r 1d iAt.) Jlrdg€rrcnt pa(i. ,!70; ^-iyitexek.t tA(\ Judgemert, par'I}. l9J. r:07 witness cDLr T. 12 No{eml',cr 201a} lr. 2ll vitness f L}Ki 'l'. i Norgnt,er ;010 pp. l8-19: '* ihii:ss {-'NJ: i'. 4 No\ crnber llri 0 p. j9: \\ irnecs r'N-t : 1". i0 \"L3\ embef 2010 pp. 45-4fi" f. i,rovenber. 2010 pp, l -il. ' " T. ll Seprcnthcr li ' l() lF 1-l '/'he Prosecuror y..V/o,4,jaa,?a. llase No. ICTR.-01-6t- t' 141 | 2"i4

Page 148

Judge efi Llnd Se /,l.'nt'e Jt|\tcn\1 1I 3l<-l I perfoln the various duties."' I'le iurther testificd that rvhen relugccs hcgan tlttt,rving stLlncr Ji tl'ig Caterpillar drivers, Ndahimana and Seromba provided protective star tr) lllc drircrs-''-' 68:. Winress CNT teslil-ied rlrat Ndahimana directed ihe assailants 10 ensure that no refLigeu escapetl liom Nyange chulch while the attackers wete desttoying it.L-t00 683. Witness CN"l tesrifiecl that eacli time the bulldouer deruolished a wall, assailants tushed intrr Nyange church ro kiii the refugees rvho had survived the lirlling debris. i.i-dthin,ana rvottlcl ther choose when to older the assailants to leave the churclr so that the hulldtzer crould atlack anothef rvall lvilhout harmirrg tie assai lants. I l'll 681. Witness CIJK testilied that Ndahirlana lvas presellt rvhen Seronrba &td the driver-c of the bulkloz-ers to sta( demolishing Nyange church and vhen the ohurch *,as being tJcmolish*r!,r:!: 685. The h{ajoriq,rccalls that corroLroration does not r'equiro rvitncsses' accoutrts to be idcniicai in all aspects since "[e.lvery Witness preselrts rvhat he has seen lrorlr his own poirrt of vierv at tlto tinle of the eyents, or according to how he understooel the eveuts reco*nteel bv i:thers."1r0i Differences can be reasonabl,v- explained by tbe rvitnesses' varying vantage tr-roints dr.lling the allaclt. their

respective knorvledge oithe-involveme t ofpalticular attickers, and llte passage of time.Irra 686. T'he Ma^iorit}. t'inels that rvhile the P|osecnticln r.vitnesses corroborate cach tither as ro tl:e presence of the accused clurlng the destruction of Nyange churcJr, the"v laii to eshrblish be,vond reasonable doubt the role he played riuring the killings. I{ather" the Prosecutiixt lvitrlesses each git g a different account of l,Jclahirnana's actions duling the demolition of ttre church.

687. Witnesses CNTand CIIJJ reporled that fte acaused crdered or directed the essailants during the alleck.ri'rj Holvever, botli o{' them are acconrplices. I'he Nlaiority l'Lrrther recalls thal W irnc$s Clr{I's tesrimcn5r shorvs that he ma,r be moliv:rted by thu desire to shift or rhare the blame falling l'rutr his olvn convicticn, Turning ro Witness CNJ, his willingncss ri.r._lie in a rrritten srirteirenl in excharge i)f money wan:Ilrts his teslimony' !o be taken rvith cautiOn.''"' I hc \1iljcritl dL'cs not llnd these rvitnesses credible wit.h rcgard to their reslirrrwv on Ndahimana's artions drring the atrlack on l6 April 1994.

688. Witncss CDI- rcported that the acrdsed assisted tho dlivers, notably by shor.ving them hcq, "to perfbrm the various dLrLies."il07 f inalll' Witness CtlK onl,v rcl'ers to the *ecused's prerence when Nvange church rvas being demoJislied.l3o8 689. llaving considered the totality of rhe evidence" the lVajority flnds that thd Prosecntiou onl1.' established bevond reasonable doubt that the accused wes ptesrnl during the attack or1 Nyange church. [t has not prcvcn that Ndahimana instigatecl the assailants to ki]l thc'I'utsis or superviscd tire altack at N-vange parish. r:qe 'f. 12 Nolembcr 2010 p, 21. rr0o'1. 10 Novomber f 0l{l pp. 45-48:'1. I I No\'.inber 2010 p. t. 1,,1 -f I N"l'"tnt'c, ZU L0 p. 5t. '" f'. I \n\ ernhei:t) ltj lp, I'r.:6. ".'-' Nahinanu et a/. (Al-) Ju.lgcmsnl. para, .{:E. t"' t,lunvokd:i {AC) ^tudgen}enr. para. 107. r"' I. 4 r''ovcml-.er p. 59; l . l0 Nole:nr [.rer 2010 pp. 45-48; '1-. I I Nr-'vember 20 J0 p. l. '""'vr C:hapter lll. Sedion 5.i.1.4. rrnT T, l2 Nivenber 20t0 p. :1. rr'rr 'I. 3 November 2010 pp. 19"?6. 1'l1e PlLlsecrtor \,. N<fuhiua*t, Ca$e Nq, ICTR-01-68-T 148 i 274

Page 149

.l dgene / a d:;efie G 6.3.5 Drinks at Nyange l)resb"vlr:r] 30 Dete$bc! i()l I 3rto 690. Paragraph 32 of thc lndicnnent alleges that atter the destruction of Nyange churc'h, Ndahin:arra and olher aLrthoritics rvellt to Nyangc presblrery Ir uL-lcbral(- hy slt;rrinru drinks. I'hi: {'rosecution reiies ol Wilncsscs CtsY. CDJ antl CI}K ir support ot lhis allcgilion.' '"' 691. Wimess CBK lestified that lbllorving the destruetion of Nyange church. Ntlahinrana, Father Seromba. I{a1.isherna. Kanyarukiga. C'hristophe lvlhakilirehe, Conseiller Dabama Nsidabyanrere, Kanamugir*, L-.o1or1el Nzaphakuurunsi and others mot at N-v-ange presbytetl and,.lrat"rli rvinc ancl beer. Accordirig ro the wituess, "all rve noticed is that they rvere lbasting allcr the Nyange churclr had been dcstroycd."' 'l-he aulhorities then tlrrew sotrre rlri ks lo lhe lnterohamps 11ilq1 sre;s dolvnstairs. 'l'hc witness. rvho was in the presbycry courlyard whi{e ihis \\as taking placc' coneluded that "it coultl be noticr:d that those aulhorities rvere happy with u,hai hacl happenccl."rjrr' 'l'he lvtajority recalls horvever that Witness CilK did not originalll' rnenlion Ndahilnana's presence when he referred to the la';t that Seromba. Kayishema anr{ others sh*red elrinks after the killings in liis 2002 st*1emenr.l3rr In adclition, Defence Exhibir 43 raises doubt as [o \rhether Nzaphakumr,rnsi was presenl on l6 ;\pril

1994 given th:rr Nzaphakumunsi declared in his si;rLoment daird 2003 tlt*t he dic{ not return to Nyange scctelr belbre ihe end tf April or the beginning of !ia,v 199.}.1''rr 'fheref'crre. the \,lajorit;- has serious cloubts regarcling the rvitness'credibiliq. on *iis pi:inr. 69?. Witriess CllY sarv Ndahim*na drinking becrs in {iant o1'tlre priesls' living q:.rarters aller Nyange churcli r.vas destroyecl with "the authorities I trenticrred enr'lier on."'a certain Kimaranzara irnil a rrumber of police officrr:. T'hey had crates ol'heer which they rvele sharing rvith thc bulldrieee' rlrivcls-'"' Horrcrcr. the Maj,.'rity recalls lhat in his previous $t'.rtetael1ts, thet wilness declared that the last clay he saw the accused rvas 12 cr l3 April l994.lrra 69i. \i/imess CllJ sarv Ndahimana. Kanyaru[iga a*d l;atht:r Seromba on the bnlcon) cf l]ather SeLomba's room at Nyange presbytery ltrllowing the dcslruction o1'N-vangc church. f{e testificd that thei'lvere drinking beers and ihaL lhe grrJup lvas "in a ruther jcyous mood-"'''' l{o1vcver. Lhd rvirness <Jid not plovide specitic details on holv he could.,vitness thut cvent.from his locaticn situaled at l€ast 2Ll r elr"es arvay fitxn the au{horities and in ccrnplete darkness.'"' 694. A'1 the oulse{, tlie lv{ajorit"v- nbserves tliat the rgvidcncc does not ciearly and prccisely sh*lv rvhere the atrtholilies shared the clrinks or rvith whom, although i1 is eslablished that l(anl.aruliiga and Seromba $,ere pre.sent, along rvith Ndahimana.

695. The Majoritl' finds that this particular paragraph clf tho lndict'nent dies nili allege :ui1' criminal act and that this aliegation was addriced to pror;e the intent of the accusecl. The MajoritS' recalls that ibr the genocidal inlent to be proven through circurnstantial evi<lsncc thc- finciing that rtie accused had genocidal intent rnust be ihe r;r/v reasonable in1'ererce that can he drarvlr liom the rr!! Witness CtlK: f. 3 Noyember 2010 p, 20: v*irtess CIJY: '1 . 9 Novcrnlrer 2010 p. 55: Witncss ltf).|: l . I i No!ernber 2010 pp" I l. .|0. rrr(' 1. :i Novenrber 2010 p, 20. ''" Detbnce Exlribii.10. rrr: Det'ene,e Exhibit 41. r''rr '1. 9 N,rvembei 201r) 1.5-r" rrr4 Dctince Ixhitrit ir6; t]ei'ence Etihibit 77. "" T. I I \ovcnrber 2fll0 Fp. I t. 4r). ""' l. I I Nolenber ?010 lp. 2:t {lCS)- i0, 5l f\\itire5s e{plainrli that $'hen hc iriir,ed iil lhe poflsh thai rla,r, hc srl.r' *tlttl'corytses. le panicked and "\tclll lorvards thc pafi$h to the pliice lvhere i lvas suppi]sed to 1)e."' lhe rlitl]ess furtlrer c\plained that lie lvts stan.ling clos€ to tlte gatc aroun.l 20 netres av f,.orl'l the i]uthoritifs). '|'lre Pt asei:utar 1) Ndalxint!t10. ('ase No. tClR-t:)l-aj3-l' tlt) i 214 .lvl_

Page 150

JtLlge!,tent et1.l Serteftc. .tft 4r'r7!y l0 | / 3{8c? totaliry of rhe evidenr:e.r3r7 ht tlie present case. the Majority t'inds that nunr ofthc thlte t itnesses rvere among rhe group ol' person sharing drinks, the alleg*rion that they rvcre celotrtaling i\ thereftrre an in{'ercnce made by the *,itnesses themselves.'Ihe l\4a.iotity is relusta l to relY o11 the witnesses' intelpretation of the event notably because each ol'fheir testimonies raises r,reciibilit1, corleerns. Uitimarcl_v. the MqioLitv furls proven beyoncl r'easinable doubt thnt tlte aceusad shaerl drinhs rvith Kanl.anrkiga, Seromba anil possibly other persons afief the killings on lti .'\pril 1994" !-ionever. the evidence has not establishcd be1onr.1 reasorlable doubt the rcasons lbr tlreir sharittg drinlis. 6.l.fr Burial of the f]odies After the Killines 696. I)aragraph 3l oflhe Indiertment alleges that fcrllowing the destruction ol'Nyangc ch rch" thc liodies o{''l'utsis killed a1 Nyange parish rvere buried in mtss graves at N}ange parish and tl':e sunounding areas. T'he I'rial {lhamber notes that fiis palagr"ph of'tho lnilictment docs nol allcgc a crimhral actus reu,t or mefis rea. Furlher, this prL'agr*ph is oons(ructed in Lhe passive tense and rloes not name ern individual or group who buried the bodies" 'l}crefbre. the 'frial Chamber lvill not ;nake findings cn this allegation. 6.3.7 llqfbnce Ca:q 5.3.7.1

DeNbnce. lltitnes*:s 69"1. tr]efence Witnesses ND6. ND7, ND24. KItl and Nlf22 all testified lhal the]'$,ere prcsent during tlie attack on Nyange ehuroh ur l{i April | 99:1, trui did rot see Ndahirnana lJrat da}. ln additir:n, trViuress ND24 testified that although he lvas uot pieseut at the parish h* rvcxtld have iinorvn had Ndahimana passed by N,r.'ange ura|ket centre on liis way tcr l y:Lnge parish. 't'he lvlalutitl has fouud elservhere that the aocused nright have passed through the roadblook without Witness ND24's knorvledge (Cilapter lli^ Section 5.3.1.19). 698. 'lhe Ma-iority recalls t|at Witness CllK and Witness KR:i were under the impression Lhal "all the Hutus ofdie Kivumu cutt unt r rne-1o N)'lnge plrish on I6,,1plil 1994.i3r8 ond that there were rnoie assailants ihan on prcvirrus ila-rs.'''''[hc lrlajrrriq'est;malc5 that thousands o:[ persons {assailanls and refugees alike} were present $t rhe parish i:n [6 Aplil l!]94. Mtrrover, dre Majority ctxrsiders that the sserle at the parish could crnl)'have been ohar.rfic that day. given that tlle.iftaok involverl hundreds ol assailants tr.ving to kill tho refugees aud thar the nhole of ,.-yange church nas destlo,ved tr;; the use ofbulldozers. causing the death of alnr:;st ali dre refugees.

699. In *ddition, none ofthe lJetbnce rvilnesses rvele in a good position to he able !o monilor all everts and persons a1 the parish carefully. F.or exanrple, \\titrress ND7 had litLle visibiiity fi'txt,t lvhere she rvas hiding in a rocm at N,vange presbytery. !-rom the rvindorv in thar room sh* cr,:uld see the beli tr:i.ver o1'r.o,"--ange chureh and the^Slatue o[1he Virgin Mar.v.]-t:0 Witrress Klll remained ai the churoli only fiom noon to 1:10 p.rn.'"' Fufther. \Yitness ND22's ieslirntNiy ivrrs undermined b]. ','.',.. \t:l!;itttaa ct "rl t A( r J{td:tctn.nl. pilra. 5:,1. '" \\'itncss t BKr l. i Nr'.c-rntrer :rlli) p. Iti Witness KR3: T. 25 janua.! :01I p" 2l (Wilicss slalcd rhaa '1ht crol\'d of a$saiialrts r.vho had attac&ed tlte churfh rmd r.r'hich hal qorne llon all coroe|s ill Ki\urru cr'rprt4e. 'lhete Iere er,en some *'ho tar'it* l'tr.;m ttther contuta.s tpan fiotl {.ivur"ng cttntnntte, . -.lt \!as a comprri crds'al ol people,"). rrre L.3l.l{rve|!1bef 2{ll0 p. lS. ''-' 1'. 2,1.lllruar:v :01 I p, 15, '"' T.14 Janugrv 20li pp.6l-68. ' l lte I' t os e tu ktt tt. l,i dalti w atnt, taso No. lC'I R -0 l -68-l- t't i 2i4

Page 151

Jlti4e tue nt.tnd,,Ce )ilerc e 3{J D!!*,n\.?! :tll 1 z ra8 hi: assenion thflt nrr rclilgesq rvcre killcd hy rrrt'mbcrs rt{ lhL'pdfrulalion that dnr: rarln{ rel-ugcc' rcrc killcd rrhcn thc church e,rllunicd or rllcnr.'''- 700. Furtlier. the L'lajority notes ihat tlre eviclerlce that Witnesses ND6 and hlIJZ2 dk1 nol see ths eccused at N)ange parish cotlld be explained by theil diflerent vantage points and the chaotit llature of the events. 7Al. 'faking these ciroumslanoes into aocount. rhe lvlnjorirl,is of the opinion th*l the Delnius evidence is of lirnitecl probalive value and lails 1o raise rcasonable i.loubl as lo Ndahjmana's presence during the att&cks on Nyarge cliurch on l6 April 1994. 6.3.7 .2 'lhrcats Io the .4ccused 702. Witness ND6 testilied drat around noon cn l6 April 1994, shortly atter {:e arrivrl"l at N-vinge parish, lre wsnt with a groug to Ndahirrana's house. lollorving an of{ler frctrr) Ndungutse and in the presence of Witness CDL.''"' The rvitness and llve other persons obeyed the order birt did not lind him.l:]24 The rvitness also foported fhat: "Nclungutse's prograrxle rvas to kill thc lirlsis rvho har.l sought refirge at the church. So on the l4th he said this 1o us: "I lnse gentlunue.r havs bee,n called br., Ndahinian* so thal thc) can bc positioned there. On the l51h rve wenl to the location. l{e rvasn't thi:re- Ndalrimana must be an acconrplice of tlte

lnytnzis. So rvc nlust go and look I'at l4'en:i:i. \N r: musl go and look tbr Nclahinranfl to show hin: that his el'lbds have all failed."li1: 143. The above testimon,v rcgarding Ndungutse's thrcats to the accused is on11' credible i{'it ean lle coffoborated that Ndahi*rana rvas in f'aet not present ar Nvangc 1;arish:he trol'l]irlg of l6 Aillil 1994 bcfcre the nreeting took place. At the outs!-t, the ,\{ajoritl aclinorvledees thar llrosecution \\/ilnesses CIIR and CDt- r'epolred thal the"y sarv the accuscd a1 around 7 a.n1. at rhe parish. that he had a lncering r'r itlt ofht'r authorities and that he shot at N1'ange chr;rch to signal the ireginning lf an anrck.' '" Iirr rcasuns (\plair)cJ abotc. thc Nfajoril) tlid nt't filrd thcsc 1rr.:rtit'rrs trl thc rr irni.'sscs' testimonies to be sul)iciently compelling. Ralher. the N4ajority helicves that the accuscd arrived later that morniug in ordef to attend the meeting that ttxrk place just betore the destructicn ofihe church. 70,1. The l\{a.iorit1 {inds that Witncss ND6's evidelce is nct necessarily inconsisrcnt 1vitrh its finding that the acsused \ras pr€sent during the meeting that took place late in ths nrorning befl.rrc the atttqk on 16 April 199-1. lndeed, the witness sBid that he arrivcd at I'r-yangc church arounr.l hcon.'"' However. this tiftc was onl1.'an approrimation. Ccmllenting ahoul thc time hc gave trbr another event.

the lvitness explairred "Yr:u know, it is hrrul 10 eslilnatr 1.lre timc rvhen one dtcsu I have a lvatch. We were oJlen tnistaken about tinre. I am explaining myself based cn ihe posil.ion o1' the sr.ur....Wh*t matters to me is au ascount of lhe e,,ents.i'"8 The r.vitness also s0i<i that 11hire ne lvas gone to Juok hrr Nd:rhinana, "fWitness CDLI and Ka,vishema prepared an artacli against thr 't'2 L 20 April ?01 I p- 10. ""T. l7 JrLnu.ul lilll ftl. 1..1-lj. ' " T.:7.lirnu.,rl 2011 fp- 15. -6 l2 ''- f.2J.larru;rr lrllI l\. ?7. I126 Witness CB(: f. I i\lorember 2{ll0 pp. ?3-?4, L 2 Nolember 30l0 p, 3jt Wilncss CDt,: l. l? No\etnbcr 2lirr pp. 1.1-i5, I . 19 November 2010 p. 10. '" T. 27 January 201 | p. 1rt. '"'T. :,7 Jt uary'' :01I p. 32. 'lhe ltosetulot r. )i,lahinqna, Clase No. Ia'IR-*1-68-'I 151 t 2't4

Page 152

.ludgeDtent and SeDtet.! Tirtsis."lr2e 'l'herel'or e. it is possible that the meeting ocounetl durirrg rl.re acknorvledges that he \yas nol at Nyange pnrish.

705. Witness ND6's tesritiiony indicates that Ndungulsc rvas suspicious as to lr:here thc ai:cLrserl's allegiances la1.'. 'lthc tesrimonies of Witnessss NDlT and BX3 corroborate th$ thc ac.used nao reason to he €onserned lbr his saf'et1'. ?06. That thc aiilri uas nol liiurid r.'aslnahl5 pus)iLllJ ttLre does ngt lllian lltut rhs trrrire testimonies ot'the alibi rvitnosses musl be disregarcl.-,1.' "" \\'itness ND17 believcd that r,,!r"lahiuraua wa$ a "fargeted pcrson . . . becausc he lvas not involved in the business of killing peoplc,,'anr:i because he h*d arested suspecred murderers.ljlr wilnsss BX3 sar,v Ndahirnana on 1i April t9v+. and explailed thar "Alier [l2 April 1994]. Ndahimana rvas in hiding hecause peoplc ivanted to do harfir to,him...Bt|t we knew ver.y well th&t he wasn't dead. He r.vas stiil alive, althougl hc i.vas in htdlng.-- - lhe MaJnrirl .tc^calls that Ndungutse was one of'the leaders of'the attacks that lorik placc at Nlarrge church."" lhc l\lajtrritl n,,l(s lh.rr Ndungutsc rras rcerningl_r a pcrson r)l influence. cripable of leading assaiiarts such as witness I\rD6 an,J his grt,up.l't't' lnd"*J, u,ir',1ess ND6 reported that Ndun€utse believed that Ndahiman* was sopp{lrting lhe Tutsi population anri uttered a threaletling stateltent aboLrr him, specitiealll: "\\re rnust go alld look fcrr Ndahitlana to shorv hiin thar h;s efforts have all failed."'tr5

Therefore. the l\{ajoriiy concludes thar tite eviddnce establishes that Ndungutse challenged the accused's authority and that scrnre membeN of'lire population actltalll' thought that the accused rvas a targeted pelson. In conclusirxt. the L4ajt*.i6 flnds that Ndahimaua r.vas under thrrat during the pcriotl in quesriou.,3.,, ,'r- r"."" -t*3',(*g7 1Jt' I.27 J"nu,r.. lrlll p. 15. ' ,\ /.?tt€rr/ir ( ,\ {'i J urlFerncnt. p: Lra. ? l.! (Explainirrg that it is not rudasonablc fbr ii trifr. o f I'rcl t0 $crcpt S.Jme, bdt reiect other puts of a 1'rillless' tesllmon), Even il s{rmo parts of a ri,itness' teriinrony are corrdborei;d b} .rther e'idcnce. a liial Charnber is nljt b1)und to accept thc \!hoie ()1,ihe rast;ntonlJ, ri3r T. -1 l\{av 20l l p. i 7. "'- l'.211 Febiuor.r 20ii pp..t.l-j6. '"'\\ihress CBi(: l-.3 llolentber 1010 pp, -16-17 { Ilstifi€d that Ndungutre was presert at rneeljng in erenirrg of l.i April 199'1): \\iitrless CBK: 9 Novernbef-l0i0 p. "5 l l estjlhd that Nilurgiitse tas ore o1. thr leailers cn I -j ,.\pd l'199,1j: "1,.'li.'.r,r :*]: ,t- J,l.Sct)lc,1rbcr :U tr) p. ,19: Witness ND24: I. t l [ebr:u.r]. t0 t I p. t0 i,,{},r ttro l5rh,..ihc big au.ack rh;,r ilas rtq rrl Ndlrnlutlc-r; wrtncss ND6:. f . 2 7 .larrLrar1 201[ pp, 10. 1]- 15 t.festilicd that it\ss irrlungulsJrr.ho..gavc the signal,li)r lhe ettsck" on li April lq94 and thal he told th€ wilness ro "'contirue

the u,ork" rrn i{r jpr.il 1994.i: wirness ND22: T 20 ADril:01 | D. g aTestitied that Nd.irglrts€ was one oithc leaders ot'thc artack cn l5 Ap;il t99,1). " 't ,"r" " -r - I 1l .larunrr i(lJ I p. lj. ''-- l.27.lanuJrn l0tI o. 17. --' llre Nlulont\ also.rrLrorritrl-r:ts thal witness hlliiri-!-ehe restiied that Ndahirrana tolcl hil that hc leil the ica rict(tr\ at Krlbc\3 (ilsenrl tnciLrl\ Ia)9.1 because ol secudt] cilncer'ls rcllted to liis urion activiti€r al the Ulct1ll_a, a1c his emFlolers' suspioiolls thar lle lvas rvorkinq r.rith the RpF. Iiorvever rhc llljorir\ ti,rr'ls tt,., cr i<i,,n.e uiJitti.-rrrr" gi!'eLr that \kiriiehe did nQl li)1k the alleged thrcots io NLiiihimana ir {;!senyj frili:cnc,t in ear.ly 199j !u.i;ii; s;icii.i, thrrat to Ndahimana oc t6 April l99l in Kibuye p.ilictare. The !)rasetulot t. Ndellinzttn, Clasc No. lC,tR-0|-68-,I 1i2 i 21t

Page 153

J&lger ent 1sd 'eiteacr CII.{PTER ]V: LEGAI- FINDINGE 3{} l)cretfier 2i} I I 3 t86 l. lnt"rod.ucti,on 747' I'he Prosecution has charged Ndahimana lvith genocide (Lbunt l) or in the ahsrnaLirc. complicity in genocide {Count Il). and extcrminatioa a* a crinre against humarritv (Count llli pursuant to Article 6 ( l) ollhe Stehite. 708. l'he Majorit)' fbund the allegarions relative to Nclahimana"s criurinal rcsponsibilit) tbf rhe meelings that tc.roii place on 13 and l4 April i 994 not proven {chaltcr Ill" sections 4.3.3, ,t. j.4"2.I ). 709' In its lacrual findings, Lhe N{ajoritv {buncl that rlre alibi presenred trl. the Detbnce in relarion to the evsnts of 15 April 1994 is reasonabl3 possil:ly rrue and ccvers the rvhole day fior," rhe earl;- motting to rhe end of the aflernoon. ln addition, lhe Majuit-v tound rlrat its reasonableness \ras nrr overcome by convincing evidene'e plac,ing the accused at Ii')ange church on l5 April 1994 {Chapter lll, Section 5.3.4.3.). 7i0. Further in its l'actual findings. the M*jr:rity found tlrat tlie alibi preserted by the Delience rii relation lo the events ol l6 April I 1)Q4 is not reasonat)lt possibl"v true. 'fhe Ma.joriry {irund C:a1 Ndahirnana participated in a meeting that occrrrecl a1 Nyange church on l6 April 1994 just betaie the atl.acks staded. In addition, the trla.iority found established that *luring the *ttacks. Ntlahit1rana was

_present and that, bv his presence, he aided and abetled the crime ol genociele. {chapler l. Section 2.;" 2" $irect Cd$inill Sesmltrlibit_ifr 2,X Article 6 {1i ofthe Sratute. 7ll' Article 6 {l) of the Statute sets o tthe fbrms of intlivicluai criminal rcsponsibilitv applioafrle to tlte crimes falling within the Tribunal's julisdictiorr, namely plannlng. instigaring. ii;:6ering and conrmitting. as rvell as aiding and abeiting. 712. 'fhe lndictrnenl ch:rrges Ndahimana r.r'ith all ihe l'rxfis of intlividual crilninal responsigiJirl set out in Article 6 {1} of the Stirftite. 'f he I'rosecution also seeks tc establish Ntlahim*nais cr.imhral liabiliti for the above acts based on rhe theory olJL'E (basic fbrm).ri3t Befbre setting ibfih th€ legal priuciples applicable to the modes of liability. the Lta.loriry- firsr considefs whethei eac[: fbrm. as relevant to i1s findings, is sufficientll. pleadeil. 2.2 Notiee 7ll The Appeals Clhamber has held that. r.l'here an inriividLral counr ol'the iridictment {ioes rcr lndicate preciscly' the tilrm of lesponsibility plea<lecl" an accused rnight still have recejye6 clcar anrl tirnely notice of the f,onn r:f responsibilir"v pleaded. firr irstance, in other paragrrrphs ol ttre indiclment. I'hus, the iat'rilquires that lhe indictnenl be read as a whole vrhen dctcrurininr wheLncr there is notice of the reievanl modes ofliability applicable ro the

panivulars pJc:ide-,.] in it. i'^ lvhere it is urtclear ticm the indictmenr vvhich lomr or l.oirns of respi,nsibility are pleailed. the lrrosecittj{}n r"- l,r,Jictnrcnt. l1ut.r\ jl -l{1. l,h,\c\.LtLi,,lr l,f(-lfjJl lt!.iLr. |,,rrr q.:, ',.Srrrrra'-'rlAfl.ltrd!cnlcf|t.na|.]s.259,3j8iNtalb,utiirla1A{|'t.ludgentcnt,para..{7^,!:,,1/(f'''!i.i(A(-).IdgejIlti)1. pilra. l7l. n. 31.), St.e {!lso- Gucut rtri (AC} ,l.Ldgcmcnt, paras. l?0-114. Iht l\'t]set:*{n t:. iddahinttno. Ct e No. lCl,R-01-6li-l, l53 r 274

Page 154

..lutlge me nt a ntl Se n te nc e must identil] precisdly the urr"rile -rrr- jllodes uL' li.:bilirr aliegrtl lbr eaoh count ;is such fis thro{rgh it' pre-tli.rl hrii,ll'"" 714. In the preseni case, tlie tlhantber has slated as lbllows: "Grdgoire r*odahimana alleges that r{nicles 6 (l) and 6 (3) cannor be pled tr.ig*ther. The C,'hamber finds that as the ltatefial factual allegatlcxrs contained in paragraphs I-? through 13 are sufficiemr to support each lbrm uf liability and prcvide Ndahimana with sufficicnt information ro investigate the case against him. rhc]'can bc l' lcd cumu lativcl) ."r ' "' 715. Theretbre, the I)efbnce submissions that thc Indicnnent is elet'ective becauss it fbilcd clearly identili' the source of the accused's legal dut1. t{r prcvcnl or h; punish criminal acts. untbunded.l:ral 716' Tlte Chamber has also decided that it found 'iro rjefects in rle pleacling of .fCE in the Amendeel Intlictmeni."rra2 Acconlingly, the Deibnc^e,s allegation that rhe J{lE as a fbni': of liabiiiq,, is not pleaded as requirecl by the law is grrtu nrlless.rral io is /.J Law 717. "Planning" reqrlires that one or more persons design tlre criminal {.rt}n{lucL{(.}nslitutinq onc or moro statuto$ critles--that is later perpetrafecl.tt''tt It is butliricnr to derrrorrsrr:rt.- lhc] the planning was a substantially contributing {'actcr to such crimilal ccnducl.l3'5 l he prgl.r rra lbr

this mode of liability requires thar tlie accused possess the inlent to pian the commission ol'a crjme or. at a nrinimum, be aware of the substanlial likelihood that a crime r.vill bc commiiterl in rne execulicln of lhe acts or omissions olanned.':tao 7l8. "lnsligating" implies influencing anolher person to ccwmit an oflbncc.rl'a7 It is nr-.rt nccossarl t0 plove tilat tltc- crittte rvottld not have beeu perpetmted rvirhout the involvement oi'the aceusetl: it is sufficieni to demoltslrate thet thc instigrtion rras a subsunliallrv contlibuting faclor 19 thc conducl ol rhe person cornmi$ing rhe crime.''"t l'he aislrs re.r 1'or this nrride ofliabililv requires the a*e1se<! 1{) posse$s the inlent tD cause another person lo comrnit a crime. or a1 a miminun, be alvarc of the substantiel likelihcrrd rhat a orinle rvill be eonimifted as a result of the act or onission.rrr') t,r'o, Cacwnbitsi (AC) Judgement, paras. l6l. 16i (citirg Krtu4elac iA{:J -ludlienent. para. l.ix,t; Ntt}ttiri.t!}nd}@ r,AL] Judgenent. !ia|3.475. r3u! Decision or Detlcts ifi the lndictment,30 April 20)0, para. 12. ''ar The DcLince puts lildh that neilhel the l,idicLrnent noilhe Prrscculion'i{ l,re-l dbi llrlei: ciear11 irlenrifics tle sourcr or scope oi tire lei:al rlu[ ol the accused, I he oelence alno arques that no lferial l'?c{s rvere pre,"ented as .'liistiactl) suppofiive" of the allegnti{rn 01' a fi}iluie to

.lischerge this dutv to preldfir cr Dunish, S(e, Det'ence Cltisirrg l]riel, pvara. ''"t Derisi.r on Defc,cts inrhe lntlictneri. ,10 Apf il 2A10,paru.7, '" l)efenrr (-lo.r)rg tlTf:n._.* {1J. gegi5iq11is 1;"iectiin rlre Inliiclnrent..l0 Aplil 2trl0" pafa_ 7, t" \,thintu't,tet tl {A('r.lLrJlcnlrnr. I,-rlr.17(rtcjLing LorJr,r,( (i,r*p:(.q( ).iuJ8cnrLnr.llrfJ l^1. , 1 6 . \ t t 4 u n L { r , t r ' t r I r . \ ( i . t L J L t H c m L n r . p r | r l 7 . j ( ( ; 1 i n C K , , r , i i . . t r ( i r l i : i \ ( r . t r r r l : : e r r r L . n r . 1 r 3 r . ; . ) r 1 . ',.-,, \'alt,in'ona .r ,t!. .r,1(', J ud-..erne'i. pxra. l'19 (cjting {ordit & i**e: 1AC.) .tLrcigenrenl- Faras. 2q, :j 1J. .. ....rra,rttrut,t .r r,'. t/\L I .rudginrrnt. p:fa. 180 rciting Ndiruktbahi:i (.AC) .ludgemcr*, p0f3. 1l?; K.jf.!i.1 ri fj!/i"; t ._\t Lludgcnt(-ni.l)Jr .:71. '.'". '\;'itinu'nt tr ,tl f.\( l JuJsr lrnl, para,.lStl {.ritjng aj,r.7/arbir.rl (AC).Judgcncrt. F1rJ. 129; Ktt.lii & (:e*d: t r',rJ) Ju.llrenlenr. flrr. 2? L "" \'alunuat cr u! r A ( 1 tudggnrsn l. plu.a. 4gt) (citing ,rra.:i t & Cerfu,: l A() Judgelncl]t, paras.:r,,1:). I'he ]jrosacuror | :idahi$dnd. Case No. lCT.l{-01-6g-T i5.l ,, ?7:t

Page 155

Judgencnl ontl Sefience J0 lieieuhet 2Al l ZrRl-I 7l()- "()rtler irrg" r'cqLtilcs tllat thc rce uscd be in a puriti,,lr i,t autll,)r;t\ rvhilc hs ,'r*rfi'c ln.Wcitl anolher persott to cotnmit an oftbuce. ;\ fonlal snperior-sutrordinale rclalionship ber.,veen rhe accused and the pet?etralor is not necessarl,. tt is sullicient thzrl rhere is pn:crf cl'sonrc position r-rf' authority on the part of the accused that trould compel another 1o commit a crints pursuant to the accused's order. The alrlhority creating the hind ofrelationship envisagcd^untler Artie le {r (l ) ofthe Statute feir "orclering" r'nay be informal or ola purcly tempr,fnl_l ntrtrrLe.'"" 72$. I'he Appeals Chamber has held that comnrission prirnarily covers the phvsical pcrpelr:iLiun of I crinte- eouplcd silh.thc requisile mcns ftla-(tt a culpable omission o1'aLr acl lhat is rnandated hr I rttle rrfcrirrrinul lar.r.'tt' -( umntitrirrq" ltas ul:o lrren inlr. rlrreird tr] L(,ntJin threc frr:-nrs trl J('F.: basiq, s)-'stemic anri extende,l.l15: The Pr-osecurion has indicried that it is only pursuiug the hlisie forl ofJCIE in the present case.l3rl i2l . Accr-rrding.to s(tllcd irJr;sprudcncc. rh!'rcquircrl LtLtu\ t(it.r thrLach tbrnl rrt .t('l 1.6111p1i,,.. lh[(c clcnlcntJ.rr" l-irst. u pluralitr ,.r l l)ers.\t]] iq require.l. lhorrqh thc) rrced n,rt be urpirrri:cJ in a military, political cx adtninisrrative structure.

Second. rhele mustr []e a cotrmon nurnose rvhiclr arrolnts to, or involves, the commissir:n erl a crime provided f,.'t in thr \l.llutc. lt is n,,t n.c.ssary that this pur?o$e be previc;r.rsl1' aranged u' fbrni ir latecl. it n':ay materialise extenlponneousJl. anrl be inferred fronr the facts. Third. the paftioiiratio ofthe accused in the comrnon pur?ose is necessar\,. rvhich ilvolves thf perpetration ol one of the crimes provirJed firr. iu rhe Slatute. 'l'lris p,rriicipaririii need n.lt involve the commission of a specific crime undar one oi the prcvisions {for example, murder, exleurtinatioll. torhre or rape), but may take tlre firrm of assisfance in" or contr.ibution to. the exscution r-.rf the cornmnn purptrse . ,{lthcugh an accusgd's contribr.rtion 10 a JCL, need nL-.t be necsssary or substalltial" it shouJd nt least be a significant contribution to the crirncs fbr rvhich the accusecl is fcrund 1o be responsible.'"' 722. The required nlerts rtu i^br eaqh lbnn of JCE varies. In the present case. the Prosecution rclies on the btsic forn, of JCE.Lr5{ fhis basic fbrm requires air intent, sharecl b1, ail cc-perprtr.atr:rs" to colnmit a certain crime.l35t Wrerc the underlyidg crinre requires a spccisl inteut. suoh as disctiminatory intent, thc accusetl, as a nrembcr ofths JCL. nlust aiso share rlris sp*ciat intenf.r:j-5s ''t'3,rg,^tr',91 ,r1. i lt l J, iJgcrne i)t. pafa. ?008

(cilillg -\.e/rdr?:., (A{ lJ .tud(elrrent. par$. :i61. .10.i.1. ',, -..\ t t hi tu!'ttt c ! .t l i \(') Jr rrl;,r rn...rrr. p.rrr. .l 7x. ' - J'irr,.r iI('r Jud{r'm(trt. parir. 3.16 {citing litoikt et ril. (A{lJ Judgemtnt, pnfas. 81.-83., &r/,irrti,,r,kr {il.) Judgcmert, paras. {{13-:1.65: l'?rsrt.wi (AC) Judgemerli" paras. 96-99: }Jticjerac I At) ,Judgcirent" para. --r!}.,!2c rri,rr. f i<i tfldn.t ct,"tl (.\C)Ji\l!.oncrrr. p:t1,. 17t llrdnin \.{C ) .tudgentenl" irlln. .16,1. '''' Pruseulion Prc-|r'r.J Britr. palirs. -'l-2?. ' rrto Sizrbr 1Tc1ludg.,n"nq p"rri. 387 {ciling K'r,tiko et a/.1,4.C).ludcerrcnt. pt)r.t. 96." \takirlttita.rrd iA(.).ludgenrcnr. para '166: ltasilievit ( A(:j Judgenenl" parlr. t{)l.}l Krnitjekrc ( AC,1 Judgelrenr- partr. :}1J, s'ee Lea^ Brtiet?it} lAl.} hdCement. para. 36:1. , '. l-nl { At-') Ju Ll.gEn)cnt. prr':. 301i (citing Brtlonin 1AC ) Ju.igeffcnr, paro. 4-itl). st:e also. Kt oi/;a et ar. \At 1 IuJBenltnt- |an- 90 { \\herc lhe oiJef and abettoi only knorvs tliat his assistancs is hr.lping a sirgle pcrsi:n tr.r comrnil il single crime. he is Lrnll liable ibr aiding arrd ab*ting th.lt cfimc. Ihir is lo cven ii tlre prircip,rlf,eryetrat3r'is parr i,l a ,lCE involvjrg the cornrtission ol turther criutes. Where. ho\\jevcr. tlr lcc ser.l knolrs thal his ais;siar:ce is rupponrng the crimes ol a group of petsons involvcd ir a JCli arnd shalcs rhat inient.

then hr ma) be fbuncl rrinrinalll, rcsponslblc f'ctl the crinies connitled in frrihelance of lhat conrmon purpcse as a c.t-perpel.attr..."). See ols,t l,risil.i<:t,it tat:1 luitetrrcli. lTi'ra- li):: ,r r.?..ri. {t('r.lrJ!,(rn(.nr. r.:rrJ. _rf9. ' l'ru\eiution Prc- fr iul Br.,et. nar',rs. J 1.17. ttt' Sinb,a 1lC1Jlldgemrnl. paru. jFE ({Jiting ,\?dLinrtiB.r {] {AC) JuJAemen! pala. 4t ji ,.cr;ii.jriJ (,{Cl .,Lr.lgcrncnl. ir!ir. li)l: A/r,ri /,^ i \{ rJtrJ$rtnct'1. lr.trJ i:). ' 'Ji7//i.r(t( ) JuJg.nrcnr. Lrl,|a. 188 (citins ,& r,(i.,l.r .,r al iAc) Juclgenteni. piua5. lt,$it()1. 'I'he I'trtsetulor v. Ntlahintana, Ca6c No. IC'f R-{}l-ili-l 153 | 2i4

Page 156

.J Cgenp,t Lttl,SrwLtn/:e -i0 l).crrlltet 'o t I '2 t.Pe lrrtlceci. rrere In6rrlcdgc ol tlre crimirul prrlprrsc..rf other: is nr)r L'n')urh: rhe rcc,Lse.#ul iriit0d lhat hir rrr lrcl a,rr> \\ ill leld to the crirrrirtl resr.tlt.'"" '173. '[he Appeals Chambr:r has explained that an aider and nbexter caniss out ects spe.i{icall} direcleii to assist. encourage or lenil rnoral support 10 the pcrpstration of a specilic crimc. '['hcse aclions nrust have a substanlial effiic1 on its commission.li6" ['he ocrus rclc need not serve as & corditi(rn prtrcticnt for the t'rime and ma.v cccur bcfrrre, during or alier lhe principal crinio has bcefi pcrpeh'rted.''''' 'l hc requisite Dp s re$ of aiding ond abetting is knorvledge.that lhe a.:Ls pdrl'omed assist in the ctxnmission of the speciirc arime try the principal perpetrattr.' 'o' [n ctses of specific inletll cfimes" such as persecution of g€nocide. the aider and abetter must a.lditionall) knorv of lhe principal perpetrator's specific intent."o' '124. Thc N4aioritv- rvill assess these tbrms o{'criminal respcnsibilil;- lvhcre relevanl in its l*gal findings. l. Suleriorf{eqrnsibilitv J.l Legal Principles 7?5. 'l'ire l'ollorling thtee elemenls must be proven to hold an individual. lvhsther a civiliail nr a mililar"u- superior, criminalll.' re sporisiblc pursuanl 10 Artiole 6 (3i of lhe Sralute lbr crin:es comniitted h1" subordinates: ( l) a

superior-subordinate relationsliip existed; (2) the superior knetv or had reason fo knorv rhat the crimin*l ac1.s rvere about lo be ar h*d been conrmirted b1' Iiis subofdinates; and (3) the superic'r failed ru_tlke rlccejsar.r anrJ reasonable measures b Flevent suoh crirnilral irct> or to punish fhe pcrpstftrt,'rs.'"' 726. A superior-suhordinate relationship is estabiished by a shorving of'a lbnnal ,:r infonnal hierarclic*l relationship. 'lhe superior must have possessed the po$er or lhc authority, dt: iure or tlc Jirctrt" trt ltrevent or punish an ollbncc connlilted by his suborciinatcs. -['he supsriof musi havc harl eltlctive contnri over the subordinates af the time the ofGnce rvas committed. Hflective contri:l means the materiel abiii!,v ti) prelent the domrrission of the olGnce {}r 1o punish the princip*l ol'1bnders.,T'his recluireinent is ntit satisfied tr"v a shor.ving of geurral influonoe on tiie parr of rhe a,:cused.l165 721" A superior *,ill be lbund to have possessed, or will be irnputed rvith the reqr:isite rcns red sul'ficienl to incur criminal responsi{riliiy, provided that: (1) thc supcrior lrad actual i,nowiet{ge. \3.t.e ivlpanhuro (TCl1 Judeement, para. 1.,1. t'''r llagatora et al (TCl .l!.rdgement, para. 2009 (.i ifig Bklgoit ,i( c{ ,io*lc (.A,(l) .tudserncnt, para. 12?i ,5ir1lt iAc) Judgentent. para. 85; Bl*jli/ (A(-') .ludgen1eft. paras. 45"46: I,asi/;euii

(AC) .ludgel1rent, par.a. 102r Nt.€at.urd e! tll (AC, Judjeoldnt. Farit. l7i)r. "" Bo|1o.s,,r,t,,t !1. (tt |.tuLlgem(-nr, pa&t. 2tt0q (ritirrg l/dg.l/irl,f {x Jol;ii lA('\ Juclgr;ntcnt. para," 12.7: tlkt.l|ii tACl J lrdgnncnl p,ir a. ,13; .Siri c { .\L'} -ludgcloena. pilra. 35i Nrdtenro .,1 {tl. i .,\C ) .l udgcment. }r.rftr. l??i. ''' Bogosttr ct ,i ('Ill Judcen)ent. pal". 2009 \citlns Bt.tEojeir. & .ktli(: (t\t; Judgeotent. para. il?: ,5'r,rll (..\1. i Judgernelrt, 1rala. 86; lrr.tllTe|ic{(A(') Judgcnrent. paa. l$1: ula.ikit iAC) Judgcrnent. p:va.46t \-tdget.tlru c/./. a,{(]) Judgement, para. 370). ','" , ba::o*,nt er a! I IC ) .lud:LL'nrent. pafa.2Ai9 Gjtins Bklgojer:li t(- .,/aiicl {AC) Jr.rdgemrrt, parr. l:?). ' "'o,rr ('\( i iudgci.n(nt. :'"Lr.!. L8: Nohiwapa e, el I i{:J .l uii!{snrent. pu'a.484: Gacunbilsi (,\CJ Jldgcrnent. prLr}, lJ]:^,l.lErtut,trtul rTt | .luJgc ntr nt. fin3. 627.. 5e rx.lh:Lt tT(:) Judgentent. l15m.400. '" Ilalilo'ii (-\C ) Jud:enlL'n{. yt"u:, 59; Gtrtunbit.si (Aa} Jullgenrcnr, pt)rrr. l!3i t:dje/ijeli{AC) Jud$sment. pafa. 8-i; NtLtgerxla et al IAC) JuCgenrent, paf&s, l4i-3*2: )hago lta et al. (j{:).}udg,enren1, ptfa. 6?3; St:mon:a tl.t\ J.Ldgement, prr3s. 402. .1 I 5. I he P r LN e c ut sr t. :t" dah i nana, Case No, l Cl l{-0 1 -68-.f 15{} i 271

Page 157

,.ludqenltnt dfid S.klence ;t} [:Ecet$er:01], At87 established thftrugb direct or circumstaniial eviclence. that his suburilindtcs wrre aboutd.!t,rlur:r, l,vere comrnilling. or hatl committed a crime uncler the Sl&tute; or (2) ther supct'ior' pussessed inlbnrialion providing uotice ol'the rjsk of suoh ofl"ences b"v inilicating the need l'*r additional itvestigatians in order to ascertain rvhether suqh ofitnoes *ere aboul to be rcnrnrilled. r.vere being tonrnritlrJ ur ha.i hcen corrrrrritted bv suburdirratcs.ltda 728. With {e$pect to aclual knou'ledge. rclevant {r}ctof$ inciude: the numtr*r. typc arul scr:pe o{ illegal acls committecl hy the subordinates; rhe time rluring'rvhich the illegal acls occurrecl, rhc number and types of troops and logistics involvecl; tlre geergraphical lrration; lvhedrer the o0cnffence of the acts rvas rvidespre*d; the tactical tempo r.r1' Qperations; thr nicdu^r operanii ol similar illegal acts; rhe oflcers and staffinvolvetl; and rhr: location of fhe superior at the tiare.rrtt 3.2 Preliminar,vMatters 729. The Delbnce subnrits in its Closilg Bfief that nejther thc Indictrneut nor the prs-Triai llriL'f clearly identifies "the soruce of the lcgal dutl. on rhe accused, nor is the scqre of thc 1eta1 dut1, described in an1' way.,.."ii63 730. The Majoritv recalls the Decisiorr r:n Defects in the Indio nsnt wbele the Pre-Trial Chambcr heid that: "...

superior respcnsibililv has been plcd sul'licientl_v. -t'he Chamb*r recalis tha{ the Anrended lnclictment should be read as a ivhole" 'Ihe Amended Indictnrent alleges that Crdgoirc Ndatrimana v,trs baurgnestre of K ivumu and thal by virtue of his alleged pc)sition had aurhority over those listed in paragraphs i2 anci j7 ot'thc Amended Indistmellt. Fufther. a number of par.agraphs ser out the tlirect uiaterial conduct of:he ar:cusecl brv rvhirh he is alleged to havc ktlolvll or had reason to itnor.v ofthe aots ofhis subordinales but failed &r prevent or punish rhem."r:t6e 731. 'Ihus. the Maicritl, oonoludes that this point is ln unded. 3"3 Deliberations 732' The acoused is charged witlr genrcide or compliciry in genclclcle pursuanl to Artiole 6 (3] of' thc Statute under paraetaplr l2 ofthe lndictmcnt. I.je is also c,harged with exterminaric,lr as a cririt* against hurnanitl' pursuant to Artisle 6 (3) ofthc starute undef lraragraph 3T ol'the lndiclmcnf. 733. 'lhe flldictmenr alleges that h,idahimana is lesponsible li:r the crinres commjtteil bv his de iure and de.fnttr.t snbordinatcs during rhc pcriorl ofb 4llril lqql ti, jt',.\nril le9-l !ht allrgerl snbordinates of Ndahirr:rana include. but are not linlitq{l to: Giltren Rugwizangoga liiinruri. arr rissistant brrlgirreslrc. Vddaste Nl uranglva bu gabo. an assistant bourgme,rtri, FulgJnce Ka3.isliema. the Inspector of Jndicial

Police, chrisbphe l\{bakilirehe" Rrigadicr. ol liivumu gnrununo,. t-onseillet's such as Laurent sindabyenrera, conse. iller o1' sanga ,secteur, Jean Marie viannev 'lu6t|:e|ebiti1at'.1su<1.-eenent';,r4.;1.732:l!ctl:ihasawl'it&(',ilir4.Acj.ludgemtnt'pxfa.2'l; pa|a' 184; B,lgilrsherr.t (Ac) Jo.lgernent, paras. 37, 42; iitagerl.$ er.rl {icl) Jird8ement, paLa. r,19: stnrn:a i.'l{:1 JuJglrncnl. f,rfJ. J0l. '"".' Bt'ga;ora et ol. (TC) Judgemenl p:ira. ?014 (citing Delil, 1TC).h,rctgeme t, pafs.6r+: Slrl!,qdr (IC} ludgencnt" paru. 68: Li kti it ,l { | r } Jrtd!.LrnfltL. p.,i-r. 52J r- '' lJcferrce Closirrt flriej. Inrt. +l-1. ''"- D.ci.i.,n crr l)eti.cr\ in lhe InJirlrnerrt! jr.t April lUtLt. par3. . 1i"l | 711 r ./,f_ The Pro,tecutor t. Ndahiwqru. Cose N{J. lC fR-01-68-T

Page 158

.Judgemtnt and Se tefice Habarugira, r:onseiller uf N.vange .sccteur" other con.geillers, communal emplovees, "gerrrfa rnx:s. lnterahtnnwe and olher Hulr.r civiliairs.lrT! 3..1 General fie Jure Authoritr* 734. 'fhe Prosecution alleges that Ndahimana. as bourgfilestre of Kivurnu cannwv in Aptil 1994, is responsible lbr the acts of his de jure and /c ./ircro subortlinates during that tlne, as he {ailed to take the neccssary and reasonahle measures 1r.l prevcnt such acts or to punish ihe Rerperators. I:l7l ;r;. 'f'lre Defbnce sulrmils that Ndahimana had de jureauthoril.v ovcr only a lirlrite{l number of persl) $. namely communal staff and oorn!]rwlal policernen. h,loreover, any crxrtrol he had rvas more akin ro that ofa "genu'rai rnanuger of il public *gency fcrcused on sor:iai development" tllan thst ofa militarl' commarrdeL.' "- \L'itir respeof to tle .facra zuthorit5'. Ndahimaua had onll. linrired porvers to irrevent the svenfs that occurred at Nyangc parish because irc rvas a meurber of tltc Nll)|l political party, and therefbre could not comrnaud the sqrport o1'rrrosr inhabitauts of Kivumu rvho lvere MRND lol.alists. Fudher, "[Ndahimanaj did not assur]le dLrt,i, of]lcially because rrc ceremony of handover tocrk place. l'Iad thefe been.a_real handover'. the various organs ol fhe tuntnune ...vt'.'i1tl have sought to collaborate rvith h irn.'"'-"' 736. 1t is not irl dispute that

in April 1994, the larv in fbrce regulating the porvers. rights an<) obligations of b{)ut'E?lastres rvas entitled Organisdion Couuttzurcl et f)isp{t.titiolt Organique ttt 23 Novem[T r l9{i3, as arnended b;.' the Ltgislaliic D--etrce ol'26 Septernber 1974 antl Presid*ntial Dcclec ofJ ()ctt'ircr 1977 ("Adnl in jstratirc Lau'1.,' ' 737. ;\ccording ta Adicle Sti of the Ailministra!'rve l-aq: the conruruiial admiuisftation rvas urlder the direct control of the hourgrnestre."'' 738. 'lhc lsttu'gtnc.tlt e supervised the r:oflsrillers cortrnl not6'1"' lil.lcl exercisecl nd inistfarive contrcl over State agents *ssigned ti: lhe canmtne "t )1t Al! c,;mmunnl agents. inolu<liiig adm in isti'iltire.perbun ncl. te,.'i)i)ical personnel and communai police were unclcr the a thorily of the hrturgr u,;tft.t;'''l hc /ra rrrgrnc-slre, a1ier. cr:nsulting with lhe communal ci:uncil cor.ild liire" suspr:nd or' Jisrrriis an\ communal skrif nrenitrers: hol,ever, lhese decisiors had to be approved b1, ihe priltt.'''" ( hapttrs Vl rhruualr Vlll ol'rhc Arlrn inistrrt ir e I arr ser out rhc diseiplirralr lcgirrre available lo te bLnu'gmest? iti case of disuiplinar.r ltoblerns involving comltluuitl ageots. The hourgntest rt \\xs re\p(\nsible f.rr irnprr:ing srrch lnea:urc>,r rr'l 739. 'fhe legislation detailing the de j ure porvers oflhe bourgwestre is lirr,rile<{ in deteunining tire precise aurhcrity that

rvas aclually exercised by the barrgme,stre it:., l|994. 'l'hus" the lair:rity $,i11 consider more specific evidence of Ndahimana's r/a jure and tle -fa<;to aulhority wiih respect 1o ea*h rr7') lndicfmcnt. pinas. 12.37, lrrr lcclictrrrent. i:r:las. 2. 37. rr'2 l)efenee Ulo..riog llriel'" par"s. .tr22-42:i. '"' Delence Closing Bficl, paras. 436, ;138-:140. "' Prossclrliirn Erhibir .17. | " Pr,,se.rrtiorr f \hibir +?. Artiqle o'r. " Prrst.',ri,'n l.rhrl';r 17..\rti;ir. J7. I '-' lfu-ecurion | 'hih;l .i?. Arrr\ lr i8 | ili. ' '' l'rc\rcurlun L\hibir "17- _+diLic lr)4 {Sg); Amendnert of:5 No|effbe. lr)75. A|ticlc i. ' - I ' r L . r < i u r i . n r i . \ h i b i l . l 7 . A f t ; ( l e \ g . r | ? 7 1 d n L l t J ( ? l i ) . rrN'r Prosecution Exhibit 4?- Arnendmenl oi 25 No!rinb(r l9?5_ Atlicle -tl. JtE P!ose. tot r. l"ddhinena, ('ase Ne. lc-iR-{}l-6ll-l 153 / 2?4

Page 159

rultsenetia dsentence ,tT'qffit category of alleged suboadinctes rvho lravs been l'ound tc have participatcd in the ata# ul,, ftange church. 3.5 Speeifrt De Jure Authorit-v e nd Offective Control i.5.1 Comqlj$altolge ?+0. t.ndL'r R\!anilan larr. tlrc J"rirr'grra \/r'{ a\surnid conlpl!'tL resfi}n5ihillt-\' lirr thu..'rprnisatiorr- functioning and control c{ the corrrnunal policc.l:'s' A rncrrrber of thc cornr irnal police was an employce ol the conruune a d srbjsct to thc salne hasic conditions of cmplol'ment as oth€r communal stafl.l:r81 The bturgncstre's polvsr fo discipline meolbers of thc c.)lnmunal poliee rlas the same as f()f othcr slall'. 'The la'rv prescribcd five categolies ol'sanctions. as se1 ort be ioiv. While it rvas the bourgmcstt'r: rvho rvas erclusivel_v empowercd to discipline ccrtnmunal stal'{l srnctions described in the lburth and lilih categories coLrld be imposed b,y th.-./rorrrgrri.',illc c,ttl1 on th."- adl,ito of the canseil cotnmwrul and rvith lhe prior app|oval ol'the prrdier. '"' lhe tl!c Lxlcgoric\ $ere: "(l ) warning; (2) rvith)rcrkiing ofone quaner salary ior one rnonth maxhn!'n: (3) ilisr,iplinary' su$penrir)n {br one month ma.ximum: this sanction involves prohilrition fi om c\ercising any duties and r.virhholcling of salary; (4) extended disciplinary action l'cir an iiirletcnninalc periodl.this slnctir.rn involves tennination ofall salary and

ofall indemnitics; (5) terminution ul selr"iec." 'o* 7Jl. Witncss.Kr) isherna eKplainc.l that the cntnnune included livc policcmen. one hrigadier and his assisrant.'"' Hc furthcl tcstil'ied thal the IPJ of- Kivumu rofim .ne lvas l-ulgenoe Kayishema. rvho remained in his position until he t-led in July 199"1.r186 ln aclclition, h4bakilirehe rvas the bl'igadier of the communal polioe in Kivumu corlnlnE,.t"" Orher \.vitrlesscs crnobi.;raterJ r,lris evidence. Relevant {estimonies refleot that the bourgmestre rvas ths primarJ authorill over Lhe c,omntunal police"ll88 3,5.1.1 {Jjbdn'e t;ontrol (}ver Polictmett 142. The Ma.jiirity lecalls that eft"ective control is not satisficd b"v the nrere shorving ol a general inl'luence on the paft of the accuscrl.rl8e 'i'herefirc" tfie L4ajority rvill first assfss rvhethef tlio accuser.l liad the porver' 1o givc orders or !o lake disciplinaly measurcs Lorvald ihe Kivumr"r poJicemerr in April 199:1.

743. Defbnce Wilness NDIT reported that vo attacks on the qonvent by h terahanr:e w*e repelled by police oflicers assigned bl. Ndahimana to pl'otect the nuns. According to the ivitness, the rrsr Proscculion Exhihit.tr7. Anlendnlent r! 4 Orlslrer t97'1. Articir 4. f iFurahef establislie:i that t]c bilgadl€r of tlid r'otnnttrrtrl polire is Ltn.i.r rhe dulh,rr;t\ \||Lhtb1, tA,t.\!r(t. ' ^'ft{r\rcuti(,1 L.rhiI'ir l7..q.niulcs I".1. I :{ Prosecution [xb:bit 4 ?. A.ticlc ] 3. rrsr Pro:eculion F,xlribit 47^ :\rlicle -12 lNon-o1fi cial tfanslalion). I " ' T . l l , . r p r i l l u l I p p t 8 - ? 1 . """ 1- 18 Anril 101I Lr. i7. . " t l . l 8 t 1 ' r i i l 0 l l p p . 1 9 - - 1 1 1 l . l g , \ p l i l l / r l t f . L '''n \\ ilncs\ COL: I. l2 Nu\embqr 2010 pp, 2-1-24 (Comnrrrual stafl snpcnised [.] the r,d!rrgr4l.rt? include.J co munaL policenen. In addition, tlrt bourp:nestrc r.vas responsible lilr ensufing securitl in his contmutte. and hc rv.r-r aulhorieed lo seek outsjde lbrccs (o restore s{cudtl)i Witncss NDl3: T. 18 Janil:.y:0ll pp.23-2,tr (fhe $,irncs-r c(tlceded that the bourgwestrc uas respousible for rl're organisatio!^ filnctionirg a'!d conaicl of lLre aolrmuitl polic.', a$d rhilt he c$tld punish the btigadier "1'or minor ofl'euccs" in 'hormal tilncs"): virness K8.'-ishcma; '1 . I I April 2lr I I lT>, I8-21 (Pdicemen $,ere tesporsible before the batlrgrtestre acc(r'.linla to the legal provisirus on tltitit rnatter ar)d i,.r,lil uni) pr:r'fornr rllcif J||l] \!ithiit th<;r'tnnun, t. '\,i.Eentroeral.ttCiJud,rcnicnLparlt.ti2S;d-.lr".la(ICi.ludgcnrent,pari.56.l:5?/.irr(Tl')Ju.lgencnl.pi|3.459, lhe Prrsecutol \'. Nlahitnana. Case No. ICTR-01-68-T lit)i 271

Page 160

Judgcnett awlsenlencP. t,'!\",r1*;rth 1tt Y police ofTieeru \lere assigned to the convent on 16 April 1994. and lhe artacks t>n the ttfl bnt'looht place afler the destruction ot N-vange ohurch.l:)e'' Despite the Defedce's assertion that the accus*d was powerless during the genocide, the fbct that, on l6 April 1994*-*lre da"v Nlange church was destroyed-he assignecl pcliccmcn to a ceflain task and rvas obcy*d shcxvs lhat Nclahimana had eflbctive conlrcl over (he policenrcn.

744. The lr4aiori13, has also considered c,ircumstantial evidenc,e rvhich indicates that Ndahjmana took disciplhtar.v rneasrn"es agairst Brigadier Mbakilirehe. ln lrarticular, the Majoritl'has considered Prosecution Exhibit -sl. This ietter, dated 29 Aplil 1994, irdicates that the arcrsed demoted Mbakilirehe fiom the position cf brigadier to that of an ordinary policemau. Tl:e letter aiso indicatcd that hc rvould [:c rcplaced bv Abayisenga and dt&t his deput;- r.vould bc Nif itegeka. PrlJer Kayishema con{irmetl that he received a copy of the lctcr and thnt .Ndririmana hati tirll por.rer to iletnote or promote ccmmunal statTcluring the ntonth ol April lqft.l,j'"' 7-15- The Majoriq notcs,-that l)cfcnce Witness ND22 sat hlbakilirehe a l.ng the leaders ol thc aftack on lo April 199-1.'"' J his evidence has to be considered iu liglrt of Prosecutiou Witness CNJ's evidence regarding tire atfack on l5 April 199,1. lls said that Brigadicr L'lbaliilirehc, as uelJ as anothcr ,uorntlrurtal pr'tliqgmtln. ref'rrsed to shool and thc l:ourgmeslre asked tlcn 1o hand over thcir guns."'Aiso, r.r hilc Witness CDl' said that he lealnt that Nlbakilirehe had been ilemoted because he had not been active enough cluling the aliacks,l3ea Wilnesscs KR3 anri NDl3lcstilied tcr the contrarv.liei Wilness Ka-t,ishcma explainecl that &lbakilirche liad heen dcmoteci because oi' "some dysfunction in the commutral

police." such ns the rransltr of policerroJr to o r.r,tuking d*1;- post and the nlanag€ment o1" rveapi.rns ancl ammunition. ''oo 'lhe Majorit3' nofes ihal rvheflter fvlbakilitelie was actively participating in rhe killings r:r irhether hs rvas reluctzrnt to do si) is nol clearly establisherl by the evidence, nof are rhe reasons tbr his demotiur. [{o*evcr, Prosecurirn! Exltibk -51 clearly established that l!.lbakilirche r.vas replaced bv Abayisenga and that his depury *'ould be Ni,r,itegelia. Fufhermore, Niyitegeka's involvement ill the attacks on N)arige chr.uch on 15 and t6 Apl'il 1994 is rtot disputed (S-ee rvitness testimon-v ccntaineci in Chapter lll. Sections 5.2.l and 5.2.l7). 746. 'l'hal the accused pnrmoled Ni-vitegeka lo the positiotl of deputy brigadier tr.vti r*-eeks afi.er the N1'ange church killings is established. In addition. regardless of the reason {i.u ivlbaliilirehe's detnotion, the very f"act that he wns elemotecl shorvs ihat Ndahimana could demiite (r' rllc!:no:e cornrntural staffduring the nlonth of April l994.lret 747 ' Other evidence *lso sholvs thal Ndahimana had efGctive contfol over the policemen in April 1994. For instanc.e. Wilness NDI I testified thar he escaped the nighr cl. l5 April 1994 ancl Ndahimana assigned a policeuran to escort him to the rivcr so hc co*lcl cross to safctv.li''s Wilsess rreo T. -t N.la! 2tll I pD- q-10- li. r"1 t. 19

Air.it zoti'pp.:-i, ro-rs. ''' T. ?0 April 2{ilt r. 9_ ':"'t '1. 4 Noventter i0to pp, -.-5-1 (-[he \\,ibiess r{!1ed llLlt coNo]urrl pLrLicrrner Ni;.!tcgeliu .inLI Abatisergn lifcd !l tlr€ churrh tciqef. I'he \.!i(ness thcn espl:rir1e.l thal t\ro Cenilarmes rtnsdd |shoot and wdrr censeq[ertl]' disarit,iC Lr! the b1&'8t]14eh tt. f-hre uf the trvo gt'rdalrres that were disamreil ras lanccl Ciicaclj, a nilljve ef iluk{]ko anLl thr orhr,r tt.rs Chlirtrphur l\ll'irl,ilirvhc. tlrr. bri$iLlil:r.r. '-' l. ll lror'tnib<r' llrl l l)l) 22-l-i '"' wilness NDl3: T. 17 Jeru.r-! 21)11 p. :]jr trtr:itness KRjr l. lj Janunrr., ?011 p. 1 ('llie \ritness erpliired th.tl !'lbflkilirebe *:15 dem<Xeel bccause r-rf hls pnnicipnrieri in rhe Lilljngs). 'reo t. l8 Apit lot I p!-:iq-40. '' ' l. lq.\fril :0lt pp. :-+. tb-18. ""' l. lS.lanuarl 201 I pp. -i7-38. The Prosecutor t'. Ndqhituaaa, Cl;rse Nrr. lCTt{-01-68-T l6tl i 214

Page 161

..lud!:ene t alEl Se lkn.e J0 Dt'1ttrbet'fll l^ ?t7A ND I testiflecl that she snw Ndaliurana arrive at the hcalth centre \r ith lirrsis sun irrr.sdt i a!ri- 1994.t:qq Ths rviness also testified the aocused stationed policencn arou l1d the heahh centre irr an afiempt to ensurs their safe,y.-.'-""t Based r'rpon the totaliq. of thc cviderce. the Majoriry couclucles that Ndahirnana had ell'ective cortlol or,er tlie policemen duririg the uronth ol'Apri1 I !)94. 3.5.1.2 Mens Rea: '' Xnew ot Had Reasott to Knotv " 7419. 'Ihe Maiority notes rhat a superior''s actual knowleclge tir:rt his subord;fiatcs ere cotnmining, rvete about tc comnlil cu had comnritled crimes rannol be prssumed. but ma1' be csta hli:-hetl through cirt:um stii ntiu I eviderrer.' l 3.5.1.2. I fivcnts o{'l-l Anril 1994 749. The lv{ajority has found as follolvs: on 15 April 199,1. a large scale atfack r-rccurred al Nl,ange parish, and a$ a result, hundreds of "l-utsi refirgees rvere kilL.d. The Ma.iorit.v notes that Witnesses CIIT. CDK" CI}Y, CDt,, CfJl. flllK, CllN and CNJ implicate communsl policemen, including NiyiLegelta, in the afiacks al the parish.r*t': 754. The Ma-loritl'. ngrees thai at least several polioenren rvere inplicateti in the atlacks tliar occurred cn i5 April 1994 and fhat thr3 ottack was one ol'a large scale. The Majority recalls that neither the presence of Ndahimana on 15 April 1j9:t nor his

liability under Article 6 {t) ofthc Statutc ar!' flot provsn beyond rcasonab]e daubt. The h{ajorit3, iras also lbLrntl unpfove ihat rhe accus*d participated in rneerings aimod at planning thij attacks beltxe l6 Aptil 1994 {Chapler 1ll, Sectkrn ,r,3.-1.3). Rather', the N{njoritv c.oncluded thal Ndahimana \venl to fi.ulinllio r:n l4 April 1994, rvhere he stayed late into the evening, and that he retun':ed to RulLuigo carly in the rnonlirlg on l5 April 199,1.'lhe accused rvas in a di{}brent location than N1-ange, taking care o1'his {iienrj [lr. Nlarvuruhunga's l-uneral (Chapter llI, Section,s. 3.,1 ). r3e'T. 2{} Jaru3i-v :01I r,. 1.1. rlar') T.:0 Januirry 20i1 ;. 14- 1," ,')- !htlihrt, iA( r Jrr,.lgL.rnenr- p,rr'-r, r,,,. '*- \'ilncsi t RT: T. ? scpr(nrhrr 201{.r p. 47: \Viurrss CDli: T. 8 Nor,eml]er 2010 pl). 32-3j. T. 9l\o!*nbtr lrr l0 pp. 18'19 (Testitied lh?t t$o policemen, \{aharamLr and Nlunlarrcaracrii, shrn tr Nyange churchl: \! itncss C!}Y: l. t, Na\,€inbcr 20lii pp. j3-j4.'L 10 No!eDber 21)i0 pp. ?.8- lO-i1.34 liC$) (Re]rofterlthar.,ofr1rlunai polirenren uarrcct K:rbali , i'lsharuotu and a stridcnt n,rmcd Jean-l\'larirl- shot inro the church. In a itetelnenr pror i(ic.l to itlT}l illvaldgators dn 2 tchrutt,v 19')6. he akrad-r- nentioned rhe leildcrs i)f the altark as ti,llolrs: Ka!1lruukiga, l\,lahari l| and Rangifa. both \terd conllnunal policenren); Witness {.lDL: T.

tl No|crnber' :010 p. Q (Acronling td Witll{:ss CDl,, the coDlr]lunal p.Jlicemen r.vho panicipatcd in thq nttacks inclldlcd Jsan-llorici, Nkiba.,- jserlga" T\ilelphoro [])i:!nrirr.L, Anssthase flzabakiriro. l,'lakaberi. Appolinaile Rangira and Ad|ien r,Niyitcgcka. Pr:liccnen. irciudir!: Hsbdugir:t ?rnJ o.€ EplTem, r lso opt ned grtn firc on the fu $i rcfugees and on thc churc-h t; Witne$s CIll: I . l rl Sei]tc$bcf :al i $ p- ,f 0 (Testilied tbat iJon]ntunal policelnen *ete equipped with nrodern ilcapons incJir<iil,rg $real1lrs cnd werc allootillg rl i.ilc trt gees. Anlong the police ofllcers rvere Adrien Ni1-itegeka ia.k.a. "hlah:uarlu"'): f(,lcspho€ Lrlirilor1iarana anil 'f61espho|e lr{irakililehe); \\ itnrss cttN: l. 1:} $ellternher :010 pp- 22-::1" i9; I.2l septernbc. 2$11 141- l.l-i4: Wilners {'BK: T' 3 l\olember 2010 pp. l2-l -i. -JE (Altackers iocluclccl oomnrunal pr-rlicemrn oho tlred into ihc chur.ch \\itlr theif gulrs ar\d lnletdhL,n 'e $.ho rvcle armcd \rltl1 tradit;onal \\ci)pons, (jeltlolnle' pailiciFafeJ a$ rvell): -l-. ?l September 20Ll p l"1 {The I}fosecution also relies upqr Ploseoulioir ExhiLit 51, shoti'-ing that Nd$h;lnaril pfomot€d Nirli{elrek* on 1 April 199-1. lltr.r'er er lhe []harnber did ttot find this clidcnce partjL]ulariv rrrlevant ;1ivcn that ti:e lrler rva': issLred tr.vo *'e e ks bel'ore tlte events aa Nyange church): Wifiess |NJ: l . ,-1

Novearber 2i) 10 lp. j l - j.1 {-lliq t\, iiie ss noted that comn'lunil poiieemen Adfien Nilitcgcka {.3.k.a. "}'lalranrmu") and Atrayiscncn t'irdd ar thc ch fch to!1er. Tlir: witness fhen explained llut tu,o gcrilrrrrTeJ relirsed to shoot and llere qlrisei.luenrl-! disaflned by llle bcai iltlestre. (tt\r ol the hro gedarmes that wcre i.lisn1"ltle.l was naned Cilrtdi, i1 n.Jli./c li Rlkoko anil thr. r,ther *aJ {lfulsli-,p!,er N.lbaliilireh.'. the brigadief). The Pro,secututr t'. Nd{thiMaua. Cr6s No. tCTR-01-68j1 16\ i 274 v

Page 162

,)udgemcttt Ltul Senlcnce 3A l)tt'ewber 2A] | , -2. | 7'+ 751. Thc Appeals Chantber in (elebitilrekl that even general inlirrmation in thc 1i-rsscsrsiorl oft lhe commander r.r'hioh would plrt hil-n on ur-r1ice of possible i:nlarvfll acts by his subordinat."-s is sufficient to incur"criminal liabilit,v.""'i'Ihe L{ajority has lound ir to lx, reasonahly possibl} true that the accused was awa)'Iiom Nyange parish as earll'as i or 6 a.m, cn l5 April 1994. Therelirre" the Majority concludes thal ths Proseculion has fuiled 10 provs hevond reasonable doubr lhat Ndahimarra had rcason to knorv thal crimes were aboLrl to be commilled. 752. "lhe N,{ajority has also considered evidence that a secoud meeting occurred atter the attscks of l5 Aplil 199.1, but recalls that none of the rvitnesses heard the contcnt of that meeting {Chapter 1, Section 5.3.7.2). Additiona!ly, with regard to the purpose olthe mestillg. the Majoritv dces nrit cortsidcr rhat thc planning ol the next day's killings is the only rcasonablE conclusiorl th*t can bc drarvn liom the evidence (Chapier lll. Section i.i.7.2).

753. Tlte lrla.lority recalls that the plrr;ise "had leason to lino*," has been interpreted as "hacl inibnnrtion enabling him 1o conciude'" bl the Appeals Cthambe r jn the {:slehil.r case.la)+ To establish lvhether the accused "had inJbrmation enabling him to conclude"" the Maioritv has considsred various pieces of circumstantial evideuce. In panicular, tidahimana carne back til Nvangc parish-to dre eract same place qbere thc killings occurred-,-only a lbw horrs after thc altack of 15 April 1994 had oeascd. Several wilnesses testified that some htcr{thatr?trs spent ih{} night at llrr' paris} in r)rdcr Lo Frcr,enl. the'futsis il,ho had locked themselves into l.iyangc church lrom r.scaping.'0"' lhc prcscnce o1'assailants at tlic paristi musl. have hecn mrliccatrle *nlrugh lo dtarv tlte all€ntion oi anyone coming there. ln addition. and most inrportantlv, ihe tllajrx'it_v nries that n\rmerous relugees had been kilied, an arlelnpt !o burn the churoh had been e<.inducred, aitei a bulldozer remained at the parish atler it had been used 1o bury corpses. 'l'he situation at 1he parish must have been so chaotic thal anl person coming there tould have knorvn thaf a lirge scals:dtaok had occurred durt da.'-. In a<ldition, while the evidenoe is unclaar regartling tlre purpose oi the meeting. Wiftesses CBK and CD,t corroborate each other on the thct that Ndahimana met with Seromba and

Kartyarukiga.l4ttu Bctlr Kanl.anrkiga and Semmba were presenf at tlre church ard involvetl-irr ditt'elent *ays*,in the attack rhat occuned on l5 Aprii 19g4. 75'{. I'he N'lajority has also assessed the evirl*nr-:e in relalir-'n to th{: events ol'16 Apri} 1994. }t notes that both Detence and l'roseculicn r.r,'ilnesses reported the presence of fhe policernim Niyitegeka rrol onlrv on l5 April 1994" but also on 16 April 1994, ivhen Nclahimana uris pres€nt. Wirttess CBY reponed seeing policerren, togcther rvith Nclahimana, shating drinlis aijer rlie destruclion of Nyange church. TIiis evidence gives furdrer support to the N{a.joli1y's firriling that Ndahimana had reason to knos'that the cornnrunal policernen comrritleil crimes on l5 Apri! j99.1. Ile rvent tci the parish soon after the killings tx the evening of l-s,\pril lt)9.{ arrtl nrct rrirhserttnba and Kanya[rkiga. and rvas preseut on 16 Aprit 199:{. when he again 1rr't with seronrba arcl Kan-varukiga, as rvell as with policcmen, inchrding Niyitegeka, r.vho rvas iclentifl'rd as being oue oi tlte attackers on l5 April 199;1.

755. Civen tJrese citcumstances, rvhile the Nfajority is not pet.suaded thdt Ndahirnalra acr$alll- linew that the comltlullal policemen'ivere irrrplicated in these €vents, it finds rliat Ndahimana llaa 'n' acl.,,Alii { A( ).luJ:rnliiit. far.l J:t- - '' r-p,l€tk1j |.\( )JuLlsrminl. 1,Jru.:.i:. l'';e.eg \\ iliress i'NJ: l.i 'rto'."mber 2010 p.56 (lPJ Kavishcna r ril Kan:.ar'rkiga djrecrrJ the inclirichirLs trorn Kibiiira ro spend the night arounr,l Nlangc chlnch ir'! order to prcvenl thc rel'rgre5, rvhr,r ha,.l barrica,.leLi theinreires jnside the church, li{:rnl escaping); Witness Cl}Yr 'L 9 Norember ?01{) p. 54 il'ftat e!,cring" srt.r.krr! rur(rulderl the ch'.:r' h in r:r tler to utt J\ k rn.\ I L.j ir-rc( rr ) i rrt 1,, c.el|e/. ''" \t inrcss Ctth: L -l Nd crrb(r:rlt) pp. ld-17: \i/itness L-ll.J: I,, I I Nol,omber 2010 D. j0. fhe Protecuor I Ndcthiuana. Case No. ICTR-{Il-68-T \62 i z'i.l

Page 163

.htJg(nent alhls;tnkk:e t, lln.rtl,f 1t'I-\3 r€a:ion kt l,trurr. ht rcaclring thcsc lindings. and corrsiderirg llrc ttlirtirclr rma il 'fl"trtn lrcr' .rl- policemerr in Kivumu cdtmnruttc, the lt4ajoriti, does not aecopt the submissicri that the accuse{l liad no reason 1l] know otlthe participation ofany ofthe Kivumu conrmunal policeinen ;l: trhe alfack on Nyange church lhat or-cuflrd on 15 April 1994. 3.5.1.2.2 Eveuts of l6 April 199.l. '156. 'lhe Majorir-v- h;rs found thal a mceting occurrerl at Nyange parish on 16 April 1!)?4. ,il{teti the decisiern to desrio) Nyange rhurr:h rvas taken by a group ol'*uthorities, in the presence ol" Ndahimana (Chaprcr lll, Section f:.3.3.3i.'fhe Majorit-v has also conoluded lhat the Prosecution has proven beyrxrd reasonable doubt that Ndahimana was present during these kiilings {Chapter lll, Section 6.3.4). '157. I{egarding the questior al'r.r'hether communal aulhorities nere imp)icatcd in thc attack on N;--ange churrh cn l6 April l!)9.1. Witness CBIt referrerl to the plesen.e of lidahiman*, Kayishema arrd oiher aulhorities.la0t Further, rvhen \l itness CDL arriveci ar drc church on the nrolning ol'l{.r April 199,4, IJdahimana r.vas there r.vith comurnnal policemen.rattt When asked atronl rvhictrl authorities rler"e present "ivhen the church ,'vas being clemolished," Witness CllK responded lhat sottte conseillers of l{ivumu tatnnune were there

as r.vell as }Jtlahimana, Kayishema, Christr':rplre Mbakilirehe and ''rrrany others."raOe Witness CBY reported that a{icr the killingr ancl l hr'. tlerlolition ofthe church. Ndalrirnana and ofters, including soure policemerr- wcre sharing b*els.''"'Thi: is the only evidence tending ro shorv that rhe policenren wcre pfesent after the attack o l6 Aprii i994. I'lolvever, the Majoritl has decided elservhere thst it ma]. tlot fely on Witncss CBY utless corroborated (Chapter ll1. Section 6.3.1.fi).

758. Tut'ttitig to the Dcfence evidence. rvhcn asked about which communal authorities he san r-rn 16 April 1994, Witness NI)6 res;rr-rndecl that he saw K*-vishema arrd trvo communal ;roliccmeu.' ;'' Witness ND7 saw Adrien Niyitegeka, N{bakilirelre ancl l(ayisherua on ltr.A_pril 1094" Llrl thL-\ uere llot togethel' ancl the rvitness did not see theli pa(icipating in thc killings. ' ' '' \\'itrc:s Nl)22 d iej not see Ndaliimana on 16 April 1994" but elid see Kayishema and Mbakilirehe among the leaders ol'tl.!n atack.l'1ll 759. llaving assessed the evideitce iir relation to 16 April 1994, the &lajorir1, finds that the pts$ellc€ of comurunal policemen is establishecl, brx that thcir pafiicipation in the killings is nor. Several r.viftesses referre.l to the presence of many "I.lu1us asssilanfs" rvithout further details. Sory)e also mentioned lhe prcscnce r:fl many &talollalrve coming f"rDrn various places, inc)uding Kibilira co mlune. '1he tr'la-iority has no doubt tirat sLrch an at|ick inYolvcd various calegories of'atuckers: indeed, it recalls its tlndi*g thal policemen panicipated in tlle atl&ck that occune<j or 15 April 1994" I{or.vever, thg exact role ofl thc policemen rernains unclgar in relation b 16 i\pril 1994. l\..teie evidencc ol'the prcsence of ccnmunal police is nar sul'fieient to prove bey'ond reasouable do bt lhar the police participated in tlie attaek of 16 April

1994. 'l'he Nla.jority recalls lhat comn:*nd respoasibililv can onll bc consiclered in re lalion 1o cdmes comlnitted or about to bt utmuittecl lt1, tlre subordinates. 'I'hercferre, trlie pr"ool'thal crimes htrd beeu conrmitted or u,#e t,bout b be raoT T. I NL,\,eDbdr 20I{i p. 2,1.. I'ria T. 12 --r'vember:lli I pD. I5.22-23. rt'n"'r.3 n-c-,verriber 2ol i pp. f *-is. '+'c 1'. 9 Nov':mber 2011 p. 55. 'o" '1". 2T.lariu3rv :01I p. 16. r': l.:i ,a,rur,'. Itl1 pf. l{i-:J. ' " T. 2u.Apr;l l l I pp. u. t:. Tlte Prt)secutor r. Ndtthinant, Casr No. lcTi{-o i-68-T 163 | 2 t'.1

Page 164

.ltul ge fi e nt a txJ S. nl e nce eommitaed is fundamenlnl 10 the h{ajorit_v's tletenriinatiur tif lhe accused's gr:ill. Prx: presence of commrmal policemen ciunol be sufficient hrr liie purpose o1'supporting findings under ,Article 6 (-1) ofthe Stat te. 1€'A. 't'he Majorit.y recalls that it is thc Prosecution's respoasibilily tn prrrve the gLtiJl oi'the accused be,yond reasonable doubt. When tlic svidence doos not clearly establish the chargcs, the &'lajority may rell on circumstantial evidence. In thL" case al bar. 1hs Ma,ioriLy finds that thc absenc. ofevidence rvith regard fo the involvemellt ofthe policemen in the events that occLrrred ou l6;\pril l!)94 is mainly due to lhe l'ailure i:f tire Prosecution to tak e tilt arppropliate steps aime* at estabiishing dre categories ofassaiiants presenl al lil_vange church. [r conclusion. thc &lajorji] ll ds rhat Ndahimana cannot he held responsible under Article 6 {3) 01'thr Siatute lor the evel}ts of l6 April 1994, 3,5.1-3 l:'ttiltue to I'rtvent or llwtish 761. According to established jurispnrdence. ths dut), to prevent shoUld be understcod as restins on a superior al any stage befbre the cdlnmission ol a subordinate's crime if he acquires the klorvledge that such crime is being prepared or planned. or has reason to knolv thereoll 'fhc dutv to prevent and the clutv to punish are trvo clistincl legal obligalicns.!{li 762. The

Majority has crusidered the evidencc' of Witnesses Kayishema, Anicet Tunrnsenge anil lVitness NDIJ th{rt on l5 April 1994, aiter'2 p.rn.. Ndahimana weat to r*quest reinforeements flom the prifet because N"vange chruch had heen attacked several times, lrut that the prilit eould nat assist hinr. Thc gcrid,;rnrc,r ot the Kihuye gentlarmerfu camp had lelt to go to Kigali and tlrere 'r,.-a-s no fuel ot lchicles.'"'' As cxpressed elservhere, the lt{ajority does trot bclieve thc eviclence allorvs it to inf'el lYhal the actual purpose of Ndahiniana's travel l<t the pt'lJ'ecturt \.vas that day (Chapter ill" Section 5.3.3). Herlvever, that the accused had knowledge thal thc churcli lvas being anackfd aur:i that he rgqueste(''i the help of gerdar rires does not shol} that hc Look an:v rneasure ro ptevent the commission trf'the crille. 'lhe bourgnestre's comnrand responsibility t>ver the gendtwnrgs wili be addressed belorv.

763. Turning to the duty to punish, rhe hlajority is ol'tlre viorv that the duty to punish i> r separate fbrm of liabilitl' l}om the duty rc prevent. As held by thc Appeals Chamber in llt*iki{: "Ihe fhilure to punish and the l'aiJure to prevsnt involve riiflcrent crimes cotlrmitteil at dil"ftrenr limes: the I'ailure.to_ puaish concer s past crimcs while the failute to prevenl concem lutirc crlmcs of subold inales."rar6 764. When asked aboua meas'Jres takcn regarding the prevailing siluatiorr in liivunlu tot?.t$rtlnL betrveen April and .tul) 1994, \l itncss Ka;..ishena restitied that he 'think[s] he [N.1a)riirranaj evcu q'rote feports on the securit)i situation prevailiug in his (:olt?tnonL.' '" Il,ir',,c',er. no tridcnce of these reports x'as adduced at trial. 'l'he l\'lajorit-y recalls irs findings rhat on 16 Aprit 199-1. Ndahimana was preseltt durinc thc attacks. The Majority'has serious dor-rbfs that ; "!dah itnana wculej liave repofied the killings of I -< April I 994, given that. as the Majority has notcd elscrr,herc, he u'as present al l'{"vange parish on I 6 April [ 994. lurthermore, the lvlajolitl, notqs rhar Kayisircma'.; testirnonl rogarding lhe reports is unconoborated and vague. r"i H.rlilnr.r. 1nt t Jir.lgemr,rrt. n,rr,r:. ;1. 79. '-' \\'ihre:is Kiryishcina: r. II april 20ll pp. li1. 33-34. ,1.{" l. 19 -{plil 2r)u p. ti: witne$s TBnr${nge: T. ll t!{a1 l j J . l l f . ( ) : \ \ i I i ( s . N l r l j : l . l T J n r r r r i r r - r l n i l p p . l 7 - l t { . . l U . '''' 6rri,(la (AC I JuLlceincot. pard.81. ' - ' T l R A p r i l : ( r l l 1 1 . J t . The Proseculor \,. *"dahim*u, Case No. lCl'ld-o1-68-T 164 / )',1-l

Page 165

,la.{gcntent und Si:n*nce Jt} Ilc&'r$.I jtlI l -4|, + L+ 765. In d ) c!ent. the N'lajoril.r r'ecllls rhc Appeals l'hamher"s lindirrg ih:rt ulr,tfi't)ic liga) I siandard ol" supe.rior responsibility, a repod io tJre appr0priate aulhorities mal be sufficienl io dischlrge lhe obligari,.rn to punish olfending subortliir:rtes. trut nltcthcr it is irrdi't'J sLrilleierrl depends on the circumstances of lh,,' cas..'t't Neccssirt lnd ruasonable measltre$ are thosc that san be taken rvithin the competence.of a commander, as evidenced tri.' the degree of effective oontrol ire rvieldecl nver his s uborclinates.la 1e 766. 'fhe lv{ajcxity recalis that the 6o rg'Dresl|c could use substrantial penallies to regulnte fte eonduct of coninrunal policemen (Chapter IV" Section 1.5.1.l). ll'hc ;rccussrl's irlrthotil..'- to impose peralties for indiscipline. i.vhile not a sufficient inclicalor olcommimd responsibility in and ol-it-q{rIl. is nevertheless a ecessary element.

767. In conclLrsion, the Majoriiy firrds that the Proseculion has not established be"vond reasonable doullt that Ndahirlana had the matedal ability to prevent crilncs commi$ed by co:rniunal police at N.vange church. Indeed, dlele is no direct eviclence that lay i{slructions crncerning sr:curil,r nieasures were in facl iniplemented and resulted ir e.riminal clrnduct. Flolvever, rhe Maj{}riry finds that the accssed did have the nraterial abilit-v to punish those c::'irnes through ilisciplinarl' mersurcs such as dem0tion. In light of these circtrnslurces. the lvlajoritv finds that Nrlahinrana is resporrsibie pursu.rnt Io Adicle 6 (-rJ of the Ststuie in relatiou to the crimes commited by the policenren on l5 April 199.1 ar Nyange church. i.,i.2 Communal Staff 768. For the period ccvcred by the lndictment, the atirnhristrati,:n oi Kivurnu c{u!1nt'unc \N&5, according tt'r Rrvandan lai.v. under the direct authority of the bourgmcslrc.l t2u -['he staf]ing of tile cErtntnunal administrul.ion *as subject to thq lollowirlg generai principles, scl out in Atticles Q2 lc 94 of tlre l-arv on the Orga"nisatiorr ol'Conmunes ol'23 November 1963 ("l,aw on xhe Org:rnisation of Cammuned'\'. "Coutttunes ma1.' emplol.' pc'rsonnel io pclkrmr comnlnal funclions. Furthermrre" shouid there brl need, rcpresentatives l'riim State Adnr inistrative Scwice s mal be assig ed 10 (lomt1]ulral Administralile

positions, pul'suant to statutor.v provisions. 'The hourgneure has the authorily ii:r employ" suspencl or lerminale [after con{'crring wilh Communal Council pursrnnt to instructiou-s liom the Minister olthe Inleriarl. All decisitins in regard to empltrr rncnt. sLrspensir:n" ol telnrination cfpersonnel nrust bc approrcJ br the Prefccl or his rcprcscntal it c."r"' 769. The communai stafi was sLrbdivided into threc gr.oupings. 'fhere r.vas lhe "persunne! a.Jminisfi'tttir-e" isecretarial end accounring stafi)-.lbe "pcrtonnel lvchrique" (tecl:nical srafl) end Ihe "polit t trtnmilr(tJ" (communltl policc lbrcc).'"- 3.5.2.1 ['onseillers {'r'lurtrunaur 770. Witness flDL explailed the hierarchy rvithin the ccmrnune as fbllows: the higfrcst ranhing adnrinistrative ol'ljcial jn ths utmtnune was the ,lorrgrzeltrz, Jbllowcrj b,v the conseillcr comnwnal I a 1r Bo,ilolslu a-ACi .[uclscntent. para. 23,{. lJ/4iA/i'(AL i Judgcntent. pJlq. ltj. ' ' - P r d 5 e . u t i 0 n E \ h r b i t J 7 . r12r Prosecution lrrhibir '1?. r\r'ticles 92-94 lNfit-{}iticial lrafislationJ. ja:: Prssecution Erihibit 47, Articles -l-4. The Prosec utor t'. Ndahhnt$.{ Uarc l.lo. lL'Ttt{iI-68-1' t{A t6i i 2i4

Page 166

,ludg4erct eltd Senlence 3{J Decen!)er:lll ) -117 z rrhich uas m;rdc [rp ol' lltc c'crnrrrl/<i t dL' \t,ctcut \. Ath'r tlris c{rtrc ll]c ((nnmtm\:{lall \tti;ctt' iuc luded secretalies. pi.rlicemen. census wotkers zurd the lrssisianlh r)l rhr h,rurgirr<,.tr..lJ:-t 77 | . Witness Kal,ishcma lcstificd that the situation t.t{' the ctnseillars dt se t:teurs r-"-as to bc considercd with eaution hecause theli were olectcd hy lha conmwte'$ populalion. "fhey hail rhe dut5; to assist the baurg ltstre in the running of the utmmune, but it r.vas the l\,linistry of'lnlerior that rvas in charge of sanctioning and punisliing them.rl:a lVitness NDl3 rcporled that onl1'one t1'th* couseillers. l'aurent Sindab.vemera oil San:ra secler,/, rlho \r.rs ii mcnlber tif the N4Dll. h:id good relalions rvilh Nclahimana. All the r-rthers r.vere I\4llND menrhers and dicl not cet aft-ing well *itlr Nciahimana.lals 772. lr appears that mernbers al' the, consei! cortnturu , an clecl*d advisurl bocl-v' o!' .rcle rzr representalivcs, were not rlc lrre subordinates of tlie accuscd in the sense of;{rticie {i (3) elen though each membcr's rvort rxs supcrr.i.icrl h1 the llrri gnrc.r/re. who was entitled to wfite a quarterly report otl his or her acljrities.'"-"'lhis folluws fre'rir tlie applicabie legislation: '"l'he bourgtnestre is responsible. generally. lor executing lhe clecisions of the Communal

Coirrrcil,"ra:l l.egall,v" rurcler Artitle 6 (3). ihe *ccused cannot be lbund to have breached his tluly und*r the doctrine ofsuperior responsibility' ifthe persons in question werc not his true subordinates. 773, In any event, the h{ajority acknorvleclgcs that rvlren Witness Cl}I'arrived al tlic churh on l5 April 1994, he saw Witness Nlj23, tonseiller o1'the Casavc ^recralr, flabarugirq t'tsnseiller ot' Nyange ser:ler;r' and t\e con,veiller of Kivutrrr settteur.rl2\ Witncss CBK fgpofied tlrat {)onseillers i{abarugira, Sindabyemera anil lllahame were togelhef rvith other authoritiesi i}n the morning oi I i April 1994 and that they nt€1 \r,ith Seromba. ['he rvifness did not hear'lvhat the]i said. but aficr the me<tittg-_hr s;irY tlre group rpeaking with ljuLri assailants" al-ter rvhich a lafgi,-sc le att$ck look phcc-'"" \\'itnes:es ( BS arrd CBN refer ta Consilfurs Cat*irza and l{abaL'ugira as being amo:rg the leaders of the attack on l5 April 1994.r4r'r Witness YALI aiso tesrified about dre ueeiing thr:i tr:oli place belore rhe killings and the subsequent atiack on l5 April t994. She specilically stared ''[t]lre only oflicial I recognised at the Nyange church rvas t'onsciller Vianney."ru3i Wilness CBli tsstilied that s<>me tansei.ller.y of KivunrLl conlntune werc Drcse t "lvlren thc church rvils bcirrr demolished."rdr2 774. Therefote. the svidence shows that Conseillp.r

llabarugirt rvas implicated in the killings" lt appears that other con,reiller"r of Ki.u'.utau c.tnfiune participated in the killings as r.vell but the evidellce is not clear regarding their iclentiiies. The I aioritv has;rlso ccNrsidered Wilness NI-)t3's adnrissiott that a nleelitlg took l)lace at the commnnal oflice on 20 April I !)9"1, in rvhich hc rook part, together with corrsejllers tsf lht cumntune and Ihe bourcme^rlle. l,le also confirmed that livc r4:r3 1. l2 Noyembcf 2010 pp- 2:i-2,1. r1?r't. 19 A$it 2o1t pp" ti-ts. ""' T. 17 Jarruary 20i I fr. 3J. ra26 I'Loseoufion lirlr;bif 17, Arficlc 37. I-his iirli,'l*s frtm the opplieablc leFislilion: "1'lt b.) tgnes{rc is respnnsrore. B.'rntrJll). fbr c\(e!'tint Lhc .lccisit'ns oj'the Communirl Corncil.'" {-,\rlicle j tl } (Nun-ollicidi 1ri}tislation}. . ^ I'r6seculi,'n | \hihrt J?- \rti.le iE | \1,n.{rtfir.i.rl rt-nsl.iriurrl 'a:o T. TSrpcmherlr,tf) pJ- J l. J7. ' - | . .l Nor <nrbrr l0 t,r rD I 2- l5 5I rtt'' witness CflS: T. dr iiptember 2010 pp. 2:i-17 ilhr wilness ilated that tl.te ctn:teilltrs oa Klvujrtu lrrtl Nlar:g<. Catrvarzil and Haf,Jrugila rcstrrcctirely. $'{re at thr, parish thal dtrJ'. C{)nsei//e/ (ia1\r'aza and oliier leaalcrs sorr.ruo.iell ft-r. chutch to kill tht refugea's. (.on$eil.ler ijabamgiru, }as.mrcd $itb a nachete ond giring irrit.uctions. Hc f3iti,tipsaell in the mrLs.;Li|el: \\ it|tcsst l]\t l. lj Scptrnri,cr l0lir 1lJ,. lj-:l '"'' Deferce l-.-\h;bi1 l\). rnr: T. :i Novernber 2ui 1 pp. l8- 19. 7he Prose.Nel t'. NLtilixand, Case No. lCtll-01-68-T 166 t 274

Page 167

.hrJgencnttrndSe'tt:nc. t ,,,Z"iry Z i,la"vs later, on 25 ;\pril t994. 'futsis rei'ugees at lhe heallh ccntre \lL-re killerl.llrt lf,.y(titirily - observes that stile the purpcrse of this nreeting is unclear ancl its outconrc not established, tlre oceurence cri'the meeting is clear. Hoq,evet, this evitlence is teo rcmote and general t() supp{ira an inference that Ndahirniilla hatl the material abiliry- to prevenr or punish criures oomuritred b1. rhc con,geillers at Nyange church. lndeed, there is no direct evidence that the aocused gave instruclions and that thos€ instructions r.vere ilnplernented and resulted in crin':inal conduct. 'fhe Prosecution eli<l not adduce sutficient evidencc to show that Ndalimana knelv or had reasrn 1o knorv that ihe utnseillers lvere about to. or irad already commifted criminal acts at N,vanqe chLrrch. Sirnilarly, inc Majodty cannot conclude tlrat t.'dahimana r.vas infbmted ol these acts at an\ time. ln conclusion, the Majtiritl' finds that Ndahilnana is not responsible as a superior under Arlicie 6 (l!) fbr the acrs of the cou:ieiller.r" 3.5,2.2 Assit;turtl Bourgnrestres 775' While the l,arv on the Organisation cf Comwune,s does nri specillcally rel'er to assi5rani ltourgmeslre,r, the evidence shorvs that assistant &oar,"qnestre-r lvere palt of the comnrunal s1afl. while the inclusion of "assisrsnt" woulil seem to impl1., that Lhe bdtgrrh,rrrt had

some kinel cl superio position. the Law on the {Jrganisation of Cononuncs is riot clear {rs to xhe 6sprnsibilirl gr the hourgmcslte towards his ttssistant bourgue,rtre. Therefilre tho ascused's possib!* breach o1, his dutl accrrrding to the larv ot' superior responsibility in relation to 1l']e assistapt lsourgwestres dttes not" in the absence ofrelevattt evidence shorving to the oonlrafy, conre under the purviert ':f Anicle 6 (3) oi the Sratute. 776' Witness {l1l'l' testified tliat tu 15 April 1994. Jre salv the assistant bourgBrs,stlc Mpen{ia order the assailants to sunound Nyange c,hurch.iar* witness cBN said that the asiisrrnr baurgme sve rlas 'tollatrorating" rrith the attackers.'ulj When Witness Ci,t-.[ arived at lh$ chur.ch on l6 Aptil .i9t)1. 11.". aJlegetll;- sarv Ndahimuul Koyisheura an<l the assisra nt bout,g*tt,ttrt:. l\lurangrlabugabo.'*'" 777. 1'urning to Ndahimana's interactions with lhe assislant ltourgrresrre,s. Wilness Nif trJ reporled- thal Ndahirriana "tvas not in good relationships" l.vith lhem anci had irg c1rnlroi over thern.r43? Lle lirrlhel explained that i[assiita nt bourgmest)e.:,t *ere guiJry al.an]. nisc6nduct" .,all lhe boutgtne_stre could do \\'as to prepare a repor1 fOr the benelit of rhe 7a.ly'.rtare or the l{inistry of rhe Interiof bec;iuse the assistant bolr7m6tvr:s \\ cre ansr\qrilble t.r the lvtririistry crf the lnterior. ihrough the

Ministr,i' of Psblic Service."'+j* $tit'ress Ka-rishsmc testilled that N6ahimana. as bsztrgtnestn: tsf Kivutntr cninrlrrnc' lacked r/e,irrre authoritl ovcr thr assistant bortrgmestre s.i4it iVitness ia-vishella c,atcgorised an assistant btntrgmestre as a civil seryant of the ""nrril u,lminiurration intendei to he\r tht bourpnestt.e, but not falling under his direct authorit),. r,l.r0 778..- After.having carelirl13"revierved lhe evidence adduccd at trial, the )v{ajoriry or:nclLrdes rhat lhe Prosecrttion did not prcve beyond reasonabJe doubl that Ndahinr*na knew ol had rsason lo kntrn' that the $ssiritanl bourgmeslres u'ere ab{rut to, or hacl already committe6 crimilal acts at "' T. :5 J,nu,,.,. 3Ut I pp. l5-?6. 30. "-" l Tscptcnrhcr-'l)lr),)I1 Jl-'l2 llhc\fiLflc'.c\r\l:rin\'Jrharl\lfLnrt,rrrls\cdarlcl\iirr.rnrrohusrt.,r.riclrr irncr. '"- l. l.r \eplernher :()t0 nn. :1":1. '-" 'T J N.rr emlrr lt) | I |p. 57-58. '' T l T.larrurrr.r 201 | p. 2l- '"" T. l7 .Ianurr.t irrl1 Or. "r-, -. " " T . 1 x A f r i l : 0 1 I I l ) l t - l + . 2 0 . ' * ' T l S A p n l 2 0 1 l p p . 1 6 - 1 7 . 1 7 . 'll1e Ploseet!or.tt. Ndaltinana, Caee No. ICTR-01+rB-T, lit? I 274

Page 168

.Judqe mert ar?d S:€ntenL^e 3l) Decenber 2lll I 2-ral Nyange chulcir. Nor has the Prosecution prover that Ndahimana har,l thc nratelial abilitft plrtrr$t I or pr:nish such crimes, In conc:lusion, the &lajority finds that Ndahimana is not rcsironsibie as a superior urder Article 6 (3) ofthc Stafute for the aots ofthe assistant &r) uygnr(strcs. 3.5.2.3 Iospeoleur rJe Police Judiciaire (IP.li 779. ln April 1994, the lP.l o1'KivunlLt ttltnmunc u,as fulgencc Ka_vishema. Article 106 (90) oi' the Larv of rrrr the C!'ganisation o{ {lttmmunts states tha! an lf.l, alihor.rgh a ntember of rhe ctmmunal pr:lioe, was answetable $) the Ministire Public.'I'lte Prr:seculion did not tender evieje:rce otr Ndahirnirna"s r/e jurr: aulhrrrity as bourgnrcstre of Kivumu tunrrr i,e over lhe c6rnmulai slal'L 7&0' '['uming to tire evidence adduced at trial, the fulajoriiy acknowl*dges thax l)elcnce Wirness ND13 testil'ied that according 10 At'ticles 58, 6l and 62 ol the l,alv cn the flrganisaticn of {iomrnwtes, the [P.] eamc Lrnder the brsurgnestrc u,ho represented tht urntmuue.l41t 'f hc N{ajorily has assessed ths $pplicable larv aiid finds that these zrrticles refsr more to tlre starus of the bourgtnz,ttrc in general terms thall to his responsibility r-rver the IPJ irr particular. 'I'he h1a-iorit;; has also considercd I)efbnce Witness Kayisliema's et,idenoe that Ndahirlana, as baur*ntestre ol Kivumu.

laoked ,#jare superior authoriiy over the IP.l.raar l\.loreover. the IPJ rvas not subdrdinare.r to the ltaurgt resttz and the bourgTvstre could rnly recli"rest his assistance.jaa3 781' W'itness li1)13 reported that I[t] Kayishema abanciorrcd his responsibililies as a criminal investigations ollicer: rather. hs conrmittcd genocidc-tkus abusing his authoritv.l4'{1 Hr also rcported thai Ndahimana could not take disciplinary acrirxr against Kayishema since he did nrx work under 1he btnrgmestre, but rvas appointed b-v the N,{inisir1, ofJusLice ivr:rking unrier the rffice of the Public roseoutor, rvho was the person to t*rke rliscipliuary action agai;r:it the ll'.1 when necessary.'4tt 782 , ,As lcgards the question of who carried the nrimefy responsibility {br thc lteeping anil ih* admiiiislration of thc rveapons in the tommune, ths Majority {inds that thc evidcnce is inc;nclusir,r. l)efbnce Wjtness ]'{Dl3 said that even lhough the larv povicled tltlt the bourgtutsrre was r}re chief executive in lhe tLtnmttne, he did not necessarily cleal with the r.veapons t'l tbe ,:onnturte.r44$ Ile f-unher explained tirat it rvas the hdgadicr of rhe conmunal police u.hc supervisec! pgiiee ol.1icers- rvas in charge of rveapons and ammunition and kept the key to the rveapons itore.,4t- 783 Alter having carctirlly revielved the evidence adduced at trial, rhc h4ajcir.ity concludes that the Prosecution

has not proven beyonrl rcas*nable doubl that Ndahimala knerv eir hatl lcasojt t{} knov'that the IPJ lvas about to- or had alrea<iy conrnri$ed r:riminal acts at Nyange church. Nor 6itl it prove that Nd*hinla[a hrtd tlie miterial abilitl'h: prevent or punish such crimci. ln conelusion. rhe N'fajoriq' finds that l{clahilnana is not responsible as a supericir under Afiicle 6 {-r) ofthe Statute lor the *cls of IllJ Ka-visherna. lrar T. lll .,anuarr 2t) I L o. 20. ro"'f. l8 a1'r'il j0l I pF t.t-1.i. t6 '"' -L l8,spril 2r)t J n 20 't" i. 17 Jrnuarr 2{)il f'p. 17. lt. ''*- 1. I7 J ruarr lLll | |r, 2tt. ,o.o .1.. lg.lunrari. :01I ,.,.11. I 147 f. I T.tanuarr, ?01 I ;. j3: 1. I g Janoary Zr'[ I pp. :]-.4. Tllt ?rosecticr \t. Ndtthinana. Case Ncr. ICTR-01-6g-T 168 | 2- t4

Page 169

Judge rneft a t td 5l e nt e n;e 3.5.-1 Ogldamios 3{1 Detewher 2tl l l 3r?c: 71J4. Aticle 28 of the I 97;l I.un ttn tht (jentluvweri<, huttionde states" gcncrally. "h'lembers ol' the National Polioe Force {6erul,rrnrcrle ,\',trianulc) ;trt subjvcl to the exclusive authorirl crf their runhing :uperi,.rr: in or..lcr to carr-r out tlreir rnissi.rrr."'-'r" 795. h April 199;1" * l)ourgmestre, not bcing part oftlrc gendurmerie's hietatch.y. could not have irad operational commancl of the allocaled unit. The limited nature ol- the ./e.1rn: reialionship beh{eefi the lrvo sides is el'ident from the lblkxl.itig clause: "ln the execution of a requisition, the Nat.ional Police must maintain authofily, rvhile liaising rvith the aclministr.ntive authorit]. of th€ petitioner rnd providing inlbrmation. not lvithstanding exigent circumstances, regarding the means that it plans to use. Simil;rdy,. the adrninisirative autho(ib- must convey to the National Folice command all usef'ul inlbrmation to acironlplish the rnission.,,r4e 786. I'he Majorit.v concludes that *te bourgme,rlre did niil have de.jwre cernlrol ovcr. the gtndarmts. Horvever, the Appea{s Chanbei has statrd ihat dre possession of r/e.ltre aulhunr; prcvides only s*me evir.lence ol'elftctive ec,ntrol.l4j{' T'hus. the pariicular lbcts in rhis case r-nust bi considered to detemtine rvherther Ndahimana eveloised el'l'ective control ovel the grndil,nus, 787' In terms of general porvers. Defence W'ituesses l{ayishenra and t\l}li testilied tirat Ndahirrana did not have the legal autliority to _issue orders io the gen..lir.ner; rather. he coul<l onl1, request their assistance i:rn securit."- uratlers,lajl In surl. thc Prcsecution did not s{rolr that the Ndahirnana had dt jm,( auahorily over the gendarrncs.

788. The Majority reeails its findings in relatiorl to paragraplrs l6-18 ofthe Lidictmenr {Chaprer IIl, Section 2'3). The parties do not dispute that Ndahinrana chaired a securitv urecting ar rhe Kivurnu commutrai oflice on l l April 1994. and rhat the pariicipants deqidcd that he toulJasl the preier lr: assign a number ol gerulanres to l{.ivuurLr cofitmune , Alier having carel'rrllrv assesseil the evidence in relation to that meL?ting" the lr,lajorit-v has concludecl that rhe cvidence does not inrlicarc g'hether the intent trehind these decisions was lo plotect tho rcfugces or ro harm them.

789. The eridence ;rls,r inclicates that llts gsr,4*rnles tt.ied to protect the refugees at the earlv singes of the attacks on Nyange rhurch. befcrre 1"1 ,,\pi.il ll)94.1as2 i{t:wever, their iole as prorector,s became less pronounced as the num{rer of assailants and thc scale ofthe attack$ grerv. {):lc,e *gain" the events of l5 and l6 April 1994 arc the most relevant i* cielemining the rrsle o{ *rc ge rdeuznet. 790. ln assessing the evidence relating to 15 April 1994, the N{ajorit,r, has elnsi6ercil ti:e testimony of Witnes-ses CBK. {ll)l'. CUS" Ctll anrl CIIN that gcndcr*tes pafiicipale(l in the attal, tNt N1'ange cbnrch.llsl \lrhile the Ma.joritl'fintls rhat these lvitnesses coroborate ear:h tith*r txr ihis lai'' Dclince Erhibit I2a] iNon-!)|fi(ial ranslationt. I It D. ltncc E\hihrt | )0. .\rri..lc l,J I Norr-,,rllidl rfanitatlo,L). '"" t. r r" t-{c' , J Lr.lEcr n( |ll, fdrlrs. e l -92. See al];o, Ren:qro 0t C) .ludsemelit. para_ T5l. " ' \\'itress K.r\ ishenl-r:]j ll _{qrit :0 | I pp. 22-24. 26; \\iirness Nlilj: 1,. I? Jauuar.;- l0l I pp. 2:j-?.1. " - _ J e e e g $ i t n e s s c t r Z : l . 3 s e p t s m b e r r 0 i 0 p . 3 ? ; w i t n c s s N D 2 . 1 : ' r ' . ? r r e b r L r a r l : u l r p p . 7 - g : w j i n c s s N D 6 : f _ .l7,.lanu.try :l|ll f.5t $in)(j\ \lll2: l. Iy.tntlrLar\ 2,lll nf.5-(.. - " \ l i t n c r r ( B R : T . I . . r ( ' \ c n t b y r ' ) t l l 0 p p . l 2 - 1 5 , 5 8 ; W i h t e s s l l D I _ : ' 1 . . l 2 N o v t s r i r r 2 { t l 0 p . i l ; \ V i h r c s s C N J : , 1 _ 4 November 2tll0 pp. Jt-5-l: Witncs$ {-t}!yr T.9 No"-enber ta_i10 pp. Jl-54..1.. l0 Novonircr Z{ll0 pl_\. 1?. jt}-3:; The Prosec or v. tt"tlohiuata, aase A*o. ICTII-01-61-T 'j6r I 2i1

Page 170

Jlrdge leflt and Setltetrce ,Ir L'rytc\2tA,] e point it has concerlts about WitneJs CRS's testinrony.""' In his statcmcnt tlatcd Arrgrr:t :d JrXr ' Ka4,a111t7r;frt, the u,itness said that the gcwluunes alerted the refugees that they u,ere going tc be attacked anti that the-v should try to deibnd themsslves. i{e explaired that what he meant rvas that lhe gerulmne.s did not assist thc relirgees and that suhsctluently "the]. accouplisheal lhe mission_r.rrdcr that they had r.-'ceiVed,'' mcaning that they rvorkeri together rvith thc Iiulus 10 ki!l thc 'I utsis.'*-' I he l\la.iority has serious doubls about lh!s expianation anc.l fintls thc rvilness' rcllod rliat the gerularrnes were patt o1'rhe *tlack inr:rcdihle. Rather. it believes that his 200t) slatenteflt lends to shorv thal fte gendurwes were in fac:! nol hosrile ro the refugees.

791. The Delence evidencc does not implicatelhe gendarnres; indeed. Witncss ND6 testitied rhal n'hen the attack starled. the gen,ln'ut,r u.crc in thr-. hlcLl:rtri ol'Nyange plesb,vtcry. bur ."ga*'c up,' because there were too rnanv adackcrs. o" Ilris is parriall.r coroboratcd hy Wilness irl[)12, wfrO saicl tlrat u'hen the aflackers headcd toi.vards Nyangc chLrlch to kill the lei'ugees. tbt gtnrlotmes repelled dtern" 'l he wilnes.s adderl that subsequently" a larger attack occuu.ed when the ten.l{Jttr?cs rvere nil longer present.l45t F.unterutorc, botli Witriesses NDt t and ND7 r.vere among lhe relugees who iestifie(f thtll tlle ge darrfte-s assisted thern.ia5s The Ma-ii:r'it-v recalls rhat *s the$e ;lvo x\itnesses are Tirtsisi sutvivot's. rhey would have no motive to deny lhe presence ol Ihe gewLrrtu:s had the;'. been there. Consideting the evidence as a rvhole, the lr.tajorit,"- finds tho Detbrce rvitnesses raisc reasonable doubt as to the role ol the gendannes during the attacks ou lr-yange chruch on l5 r\pril I !)!);1. As a result, it must ccuclude thai the Proseourion has nor pr"oven beyonel leascurable doLrlrt that the gendunnes irarrisipated in the 15 April 1994 attask$ et N)ange parish. 792" t'he Majoritl- will rtow address the evidence relaring ro l6 April 199:i. lVitnesses CFlt{ anrl cDL refbrred to the presenoe af geru{annes {rt the parish on rhq lnorjl;l}g of l6

,,\pril 199,1 together r.vitlr Seromba, Ndahimana, Kanyarukiga. Kl-ryisherna, Ndungutse an,.l c,ttcrs.,", 793. 'l he Maiorit-v lirrds that lhe gendarmes' palticipation ln the killings has not been establisner.r by the I'rosccution. anrl their involvehent in the events of l6 April 199,1 ar the parish is nri r.lcar. 'l'he Majority is unabie io conclude thar the onll rcasonablc illtrencc is that thr ge nsktrnt,t pai'tioipated irl the killirrgs at Jl,l.v;rngc p:rli-ih urrtl that Nthhirrrana exerciserJ ei'{bctive eontr6l uvcr them. 'l1re|efbre, it cannot hold the accused responsible {'or the a*tions of the gendunnes pursuant tc} Article 6 (i) ()fthe Slatute. 3."5.4 Rgigrisrs 794. 'fhe Prosecntion lras nol brought evidenl,e 5fi6r.vlng thar a civilian aclministraltir such as lhe acoused could have interposed hirirself in the llu.*nclan arn,y sructure, l.|tcreitrre, ihe hlajorily is ol. the view that lie co'ld 'ot have had dv jure aurhority over the sclidiers involved. wi{ness a ll-s: '1. 7 septenber 2010 pp. 8- 10, .j?i witne}i cl : T. 14 septembef l0l0 pp. :}!-.1l; virne$s c.uN; 1.. Lt S.elltcrnbfr :01 U pp. 22-21- ' " I 6 Sctlen)ber l0lo p. 6l; I . ? Seprember 2010 p. ?f; Dei'ence Lrhibir l; D.teilce t:aiitrit 3. '"' f. 7 Seplcnritr 3{il{) itr. 8-lU. -ll. 't'o'i . 27 Jrn*.1, t{ll i 11. !6. '" T. l9 Jrnu.rc l l I ou. 6-8. 't t uitn"tt NDlt: f. i3 lanuart l(111 pp. 35-16- 6{r

l\\iitoess tallied $ a gerrkyne rtht:,'allt*vcd'' }in to lcarc Nrange-churcJr at alrour rn iclni4ht); \t itness \l)7: tI. 24 .t",.,rr.1, :0I I p;. l a- 1 5^ .ij. :i B iJr rnediat(l). atier she and oth€rfetilgec5c.|erd1hc[oombetu.een3anil.|p'tt.,gerrlra.tllei'lrrcke<].|her.etln]s0|hattl1cai|ackelsc1}|tJ(Jnl)t!ti]. rhe fejirqca5j. rlje witness cLiR: T. I Norenber ?ol0 p. ?+; \iiitrlesj c-'DL: l'. 12 N-o,,.emb.x 20lir qr. 19-10. L l9 No! enlbei. 20 llj p.

16. Ttp Ptosetttor r. Nddhimoh.t, Case No. ICTR-01-6.q-l' l"l'\J i 274

Page 171

.ludgetk. tatdseftt(tte ,,,t..g.ir,6 g 7S5. The l\'l*joriq reealls that the evonts of l5 April 1!)94 adilrcss the iurulrcnrr'nt ultli. utury reservist Thiophile Rukara. l'Iorvever. J{ukara rvas not aclins undgr thc superi,ision ofdrc Rrvandan amr-v in the prescnt casei his involvement will be theretbre gonsidsred under thc acction addTess;ni thir corltrol of'the accused aver the civilian assailants. 3.5.5 Civilian;{ssaila:tts 796. The Prnseeution sought to establish Ndahimana's superit'rr responsibilit_v firr criirres colnlnitled b,v the civilian llutu prrpulation il Kivunru comntntt, including the lntcrahantve militia, through his position as b,ntrplmestrc.''" " Tirc Llcfcnce denicd that the acc.used exerciscd authorit), over civil delbnce forces, 1l erqhuntt'e or olher civilian militia.''"'' 797. T'he i!{ajoritv has determined that tlle case of Rrikara falls in the celegofy c--i'tlie civiiian assailants. lt recalls thot on the morning oi 15 April 199,1, cne, ol possibly s€veral. grenades rvere thrown at the lelirgees lly a reservist narned Rukara, lbrcing them to ieffeat torvard Nyangle church (Chapter lll. Section 5.3.5).r462 I'k.rrvever. the Prosecutiotr did not establish thar ltakara rvas acting ltLttsuant to orders given b1'Ndahinra[a" cr that Rukara n:as under ]{rlahirnana's cf{bctive conirol.

798. The Majoritv believes that the events of 16 April 1994 are tl'ie r.nosl relevant to uclllress Ndahirnana's superior responsibilitl. firr crimes commified b1,the civilian IlulLr population. 1'he evidtnce shows that the civilians r.vere incited to go alld partieipate i the attacks on N]-anl-r.r chutch; horv*vel. it has not been established tlrat Ndahinrana rvas involveei in thc garl'rering or the sr4rervisiotr of htteruhanm,e tbrces. During tlre dsstruction of the churcl':, Ndahimana's preseltc|. fogether \Yith the presence of Sercnrbit. l,lan-larukiga and I{a;-isheina- giv*s the stron!} imprsssioti thal severul persons ol'i fluence in Kivumu comnrlne had an i*terest and invoivcment in th* massacre . Similarly, rl're f'ac1 that lr er'nllarn\t c also carne liom other com.nrlncs. inclLrding Kibilira, indicates the extensive coordinatiol thaa must have involved civilian fclccs outsidc Ndahiniana's lerritorial j urisdiclion.r'16r In the N.lajorir-v's vierv, the record rcflecls thar, at rhe oritical molnents, Ndahim:rna's presenoe anr.l stzrnding as lsourgtnestre fncilitated a large-scale atlacrk on l'ri1si telugees {Chapler llI. Sectiou 6.3.4). While this tends to lellect Nelahinana's general authorit,v. ir is insrrl'ficient 10 concJucle that he had the material ahilitl' to preve t or punish the *ivilian assailants who padicip{rted in the attack. 799' {lnder lhc

circutnstances detaileii above. tlic rscorei does n{}L cstablish Lliat a supe(i{,r- subordinate relationship exisred bet\l,een Ndahimana and the civllian assailants. or that he had thr r16') Indicttrent. pata. 1?. 't'' Deirnce ( l,'sing l]ricf. pdra..ll I. "'' witn':is CU t: I. 7 Scltrlmtltf 2010 p. .tro ('lhgophik Ruhara hecl thro*rl 3 glenade killln-s I!tsis); lViincss Cl)li: l 3 Noventrer'?1)10 pp. :i2-35 {Kan-rsrukiga had a "c.rrrvelsalion" with ihdophiie Rukara ard ilbseqlrdntlt h€ threw gf€nfldes liilling Tutsis): witne$s cBYr 'r. 9 Noi ember 1010 p. 5:. T. l0 Noveml.er ?010 pp. 3t-:il {tcs} tA f(,ffrel soldiel" Ruknra, cliruhed on the rool o1 :r house anr.l lLrrelv greuadcs at the Ltitsi. I\,lany wafe killed aird lromil€d): Wit,ress Cf)L: l 12 A-otcnlber 201t1 p. 8 {"Rukr[d' a tbmrer seldie{. climbe,"i on lop ol' ii sbop rnd thr..\\ gtr]nildcs. Rel'''rgees rctlcaldd)i Witness CBIi: l'. 3 Novemtrer 2010 pp. 12-15, i8 (At one poinr. 1lJopLrile l{ulai.a cli;nbed i.rn Jrc K\]f of the Calilas builcling 3nd th€w grenades st (hc Tut$ls causing thc tler*h ol a number arnong tltem): Wirncss C\J; '1. 'l Noveflllrer'2010 pp. 49--il (A. one Poinl, Ruklrra. a retirt]d s.,ldiet. thrct] thri.e grenadcs iiL Tulsis \.!ho ihet sta(ed felreating)i Witness CltlR: I. I Noventber 2010 pp. 13-li, I. 2 Nolefl1trer :010 pp, 5B-S9 (i\ cidair, llukam arrived 1!ith \!eapons" inrlu.iiug grcnailes. Frorl the rcofol'a sho|" l{utiira thr*u,gr,jnades a1 thc rdlirg.:cs oirusilg iranl dca*'s antorlg the l!1sjs) '"tr -s';re.?.g., Witllcss CllRr'f. i Novembef 20t0pp.?1-2-llWitness{,iN.t:'l-.4N(r!€n1bdr:01tp.56:WirilcssNi)6r'1. ;7 JanuaN :01 I p. t. The Protecutor t. i\-.lo/rhnd!1,1. C'!Nc No. lCTt{{ll-68-T i 7 t i z'7,1 _,w) ffr-

Page 172

.lulg;enenl an|senterce \li l)lrs1v1hsv tr'r t 2i(,4 rrlulcriirl abilil) k, pre\enl ('r punish Lrimes c()rnnli ctl h1 thr'rn :iL N\a'i*r ,;hLrlch. lhli?lii'c.Y,: t cannol be held responsible fbr their actions pursuant io Artiole 6 (3) of lhe StatuLe. 3.6 Couclusion 800. The Prrisecution demonstrated that h-dahiuana exercised effeolive ciintrol r:ver the oomrnunal poiicemen rvho pa(icipated in ihe attacks on N!'ange church cin 15 April 1994. TlTerefbrc, Ndahimana can be held responsible fbr their crinres cornrnilled at Nya:igc parish, pursuant to Articlc 6 (3) afthe Statute. 801. 'l'he Prosec*tion failecl to demonslrate thar Ndahimana eKerci$ed effecrive crvrtrLri r''r' lxrte superior resportsibilirrv over anv other cat€gory of assailanls prove[ to haye cr:ntrni{ed crilnes at Nyange parish. Consecluently^ he ci:nnot be held responsible fbr iheir crimes at Ni.'ange pai ish" pursuant to Article 6 (3) nfthe Statute.

4. Gerrotidq '{,1 Introc}uction 802. Count I of the lndictmenr charges Ndahinrana rvith genocide under Artiole 2 (3) {a) of the Statute. Law 8lll. To {ind an accr"rsed guilty ofthe crime of genocide. it musl be cstablishcd that the accnsed committed any one of the enumemted acts in Afiicle 2 (2) of thc Statule, with thg speciiic interl to destroy" in whole or iri part" a group, as-such. that is dcfined by one ofthc pl.olected rate:lor;es o1- nrlionalil\. utcc. cdruicitr ot' r'cligion. 't"' Ahbough rlrclc is no rrumulic tlrrrrhol.i. th* pcrpcrrnor' must act with thc intcnt to dcstrc)' at least a substanlial part ol- lll(J gruup.'*" I hr- pcr,lrctrator nred not be sololy niclt;valed b-v the criminal intont to commit genocii..le, not' docs tllc existence oi' peilsonal m{}tivc precli:de hinr l}om having the speeific intent t,-t conrnil genrciele.ra66 804. ln the absence ol direct evidencs. a llcrpetrator's Nens rett as to the cri:re cri'genocide rna1. be inf'ered fiom reievaut facts and circumstantial evidence provirrg thc exisfcnce of such inrent beyold reasonahle douhl. Pactors that may estahlish the requisitc specilic inrenl include the general context. th$ perpelretion o1'olhef culpable acts s)'stematically directed against thc same grouF, thc scale ol'alrocities comtnillcd, the systenatic largeiiflg o{'!iclims on account of'their n*rnbership in a particular gfoup cr the

reperition ofdestruclive and discriminafory, acts.la{'7 tnot Bogarrrra et el. ('l (:l .I u d,eenren r. pua. 2l l5 (aiting Nahiman.t et al. {\(J Judgclnent. par.fi!. ,192. .196, 522-:2J; ]'!ivie'{eka (AC) Judgenent. pal]a,. 481 Ga*rubirsi (,\C) Judgenrcnt" p$a. 3t): Ilt i:lanitx i'l(l) JLrrlgcinenl, p:rras. 681- 695). '0" Eogos,,ro et Lll. lft:i Judgerrtetlt. pela. 2115 (citine ,\!ron$a (,{a') Judgen}eur. fara. 175; OactthtiLri tA\:l Judgenrcr,I. p$ ir. -l+: Sir?ra ! TC I J rr(lq€i}}ent, pa$. rl 12: -t!rr?dn:d (TC) Judgelnqit, parn. :i l6 ). '" B.rgr,,te7i1 e1 ../l iT( ) Jrrdcerrcrra. Fd|", :ll5 {ciring ,\l'til,r lACi .tudilen€nr. para. 269, \takinlinau {.A.ti, \ Jr.ldgernenl per"s. 302--l0J; ,t"iyitegeka ( A{tJ .tudgencnt^ paras.48-j,l: Kry{)jcld. (A{:).toilge enl 1.n". l0: tcttiLr{ *rrt,1 (t( I JuJgcnt.rtt. pafir. .l(.,)t. '.'Bago.slrattal'|lC').lud3i'n]enr.]]iI.a.:tl6(citi'lg.\i,fol,b.1(Ac)hdgcl1re!lt'para.176(rrtir.ringt|1Se|.o||1bat1-: Judgement. para. 320j; Nuhinanc et dt. ( ACj .Judgel]leol. pafts. -i?4--slj: St?t&il (AL-) J,,id3crrt!1{. paia. :(;t: {.iocunhitsi (A'C) tudgefidnt" paras. .1il-41 ; tlutug*ntla (A(\ .ludgerrrent, }'ala. 52,{; ^!?*r,lra (AC') ,kLrJgenrerii. par.a. 162 (citing Jelhi.i (A{.') -l udgement. pu.a. 47): K.t},ishena & Ruziudano {AC I lcdsencnt" palas. 147- 148). 'lhe I'tosei:trtat t:. Ar*thimana, Case No. lCIR-01-{t8-I' n2.t )"tl

Page 173

.ludgement ont{ Senlence 30 Detexrber !{t ii^, ?.'t6 805. I'he ?rosecution charges ){dahim*na rvith killing and ceu\ing seliou: bodil; t,r nrffilliar*r to ulembers ol' the 'fursi gruup... l'he 1\1a.jo|.it1, has mke0 judicial *otice of the l'ac[ iba1. the '] utsi elhnicil:y is a protccted group.'*"' A conviction ltrr the crinre o1'genocicle recluires a .sholving fhet rhe principrl perpetrato intentionally killed one ol rnore urembers of the group.'*"' T'he r\ppeals Chanber has noled th;rt lhe iemi "seriaus bodily or mental harrn" is not defined ir the Statule. and that the definition of such hann has no1 squarell'been addressetl.llt0 E.rarnples of serious [ioilily harm are torture, rape and non-ialal phlsiccl violerrce that causes disflgur-etrent or ssrifils injury to the erter:la I or intcnral orgarrs.'"' Scrious nrental harrn inclLldes, "more than minor trr temporary, impairnre"nt o{ nrenral fbculties such as thc int-liction Lrf slrong {ear or terror" intimidaticn or thrcat."'' ' To ;upport a conr icliort lilr genocidc. thc hudili ol llrcrrLrl harm in{Iie te,,{ on nlcmhers oi a Cloup musl be ol'sucir a sedous naturc as to threaten iLs cleslruetiou. in *h,.,lc ,rr in purl.lr-' 4"3 Reliberations .!.i. 1 (illingsat N)ange ('hurch. 16,\pril 199.1 806. ln its factual findings, the lvlla,jority fbund that. basetl upon the corroborrilinc evidence c'i' Prosecution Witnesses CBK, {lBY.

Cl\-J, CDL and CBR, the Prosccution has proven b*vond reasonable cloubt that lale in tbe morning on 16 April 1994, bclirre tlic dcstruction o{'Nyange church be gan, Nclahimana met at N;-ange presbyety with fralher Seromba. lP.I Ka;rishena, Kan;-artiiiiga and othef nteurhers ofthe JClr. 'l he l\'lajority is lirrther satirfied thar NeJahimana rvas prcscnl ditririg this meeting rvhen the othel Fart;cipants planned end irgreed to kill all the retritgees al rhe church by destroying it (tlhapter I11. Sectiern 6.3.-3.3). 807' fn its firetual iindings. fhe Majorit]' hrtlter determined that tho acc sed rvas present during thc deslruction ol Nyange church and the killing of the'l'ursi rel'ugecs on l6April Itig.{ {chapler lll, Section 6..i.:i). 808. hi light of these circuurstiutces, the Majority turns Io ccursider the rnost appiopr;ate lmode or modes of liability applicable to Nclahinrana's conducl. The Llaiority r.ecalls thar the Appreals Chambcr has highlighted the inrp(lrlancr- ol unambiguously !-xpfessing the scopc of a conyicled person's orirninal responsibilit"v.' " ' It has slso attirmed that a l'rial Ch*mbcr nrav cumulativelv 'aar l)ecision on Prosccutifil'J NIaLion for.tudlcial Noticc. 7 Apfil 2010. \tt! Bagosoro et a/. (l Ll) Jlrdgerneot, l-.arc. 2l 17 tciting Sinfu.r (l{.) Judgeirent, Frga. -;4 (rciirrilg tr Kali\he fl & Rtr,:il/r/.r1id i \('lJrflic(ln..trl. prra. li, rr. ' '

" S.torrir.r { \ C J I udgcm crlt. Jrir t a. ,}6. ^5ec /lro. Ke}'ijhcrt.1 & Rtttndattu ('L)1.ludg€ntcot. pnras. I 1 l}. i i 3 i lri u.hich the Trial Ch:imber stalt'd "thd 'cdusing srrious nrenlal hann' should be interpreterl ofl il case-by-case lrsir in ligtrt st thc frle\,aut iurisBr$,Jence."]. 'qt ser,,wha (Ail) .lu,lgrr er)t, para. ;t6 (ciijng !;e .t,t:i { l (:).fudgernent, pare. :r:0 (cjting Ko\ishc, $ & lltEiatidta) (TC) .ludgement, pdra. I09lt t"ktg?n -a er .rl. ('tt) Jlrdgcment. para. 661i. '''-..:l$o,nb4 (AL-) JuCgernelll. para. 46 iciting Kajeliieti (.IC) Ju.lcrment, pafa. 8li (citing Xdtisheua & Rt!:it.!6n.1 {1().ludgr'rnr'nt. parJ. Iltrl:,\.//drrdr'l( t.lud:r(ntcnl. i).tr.1..t2lj. "' .S.'rtrarl'ir /A('r.lrrdEernenl. p:ra. 46 tcitilrg (.4clr1,/i (ICi Judgelnent. i_aa|a. lgl; Kruiiinit \-l-(..) Jud3enent. para,. It62); ReForr of the Intenlarional La\.v comnlissior] ol1 rhe worli oi its Folr,v-Fljghth sess;on 6 l,,la)':() Jul). 1996, uN CAOII Iniemational l-a\1 Commission"5ls1 Sess..Supp.ljo.ttl,p.9l.U^*Doc_l\ijlll0(l9ii6). tala ,See Ndiurktlnhi:i {AC) Juclr:en}enr, lar.as. l:2 {"\thile an accused car be coLrvii-ted ior a slugle crilnc on the b.}nts of-sevcra I modes of liabilit). alteftali\ e c$rvictkrns Grr ser rral Drrttles ol linbitity are, in general, i-nconr piiiibl€ with tbe principle that n ju.igement h35 to express unantbigLrously tlre scopr ol'tl:e corric,ted

leison's crinrinai r.esponsibilitl.. This principlc lequires. hter .tlia. thal tlte scntence cor.respordJi 10 thc totaliry ef euill incurrr:tt b;, thc i:o1.l,i j*ed pelto!.!. This totalit-v ol guilt is Cetertlircd by the /c/t/,r /cllr aud Lhe rzcnr rca ot'the cour,icted per.son. The modes ol liahiliil. nlaY either augmslt (e.g.. commissior of lhe crjnle \ritir direct illtenl) {r. lcsscn 1e.g.. ai{iing 0nd abctrirg a criBre \uth 'l'he Proserlttoi r. Ndttltintano, Casc No. ICIK-{il-ii8- I' L ii .t;+

Page 174

.Adgente | .u1d Settetlc( rel-cr t(r fariorrs modc5 ol rcsporrsihilil) \rhera it is crirninal conduct.'"'' 809. ln tltis instance, the fuIajorit-v has considered that thr:: accused's fesponsibil:ty srerns finnl his irresencs ilt iho meetilrg on 16 April 1994 and iluring the subsequenl killings. Tirerefote. the ProsecLtlio-n hris ttot;lroten thal tite irecu:ed planncd. insrigatcd or crdvreJ Jn.\ 1,, tllt' r'rinlEs chlrged.'"'' ou.erer. tlrc lVlirjoriry- rviil assess uhether'. by his preseitce. Ndahimana cr-rrutrrilted the crine ofgenocide tlrrough a JCE or aicled and alrctred the crirre olgenocide. 4.3.2 Dcxs ltresence olAccused Consritufe *n Omission:ls Hvidqnce_qtl4[igp4lip* d.[!!: 8 10. lnvolvement in a .l(.lH mav he proven b-v evidcnce charucrcrised a^s an r:mission. The ob-iective element ol'panicipaticn is liatisl'ied as long as the acsuscd has "cixnrnilted an act 01' an omission rvhich contribules to lhe common criminal pupr:rse."1477 llc.ivcver" lhe omission cl'the aocosed that lorms the st:lus reu,t of this niode t1'liability cannot simpt; be the tirilure tu prev€llt or punisb.taT8 81 I ' in cottvictions under tlris modq, the act of cmission is often cotnbined rvith ptevious positive acticlris. Ollen. itt order to provo the requisile ruens ne lor this rnorle of liability, it is necessar.v ro combine the accused's inaction rvith previtius positive aetions lhar point

toward the accused's shared criminal intent.l at" 812. In the present case, the Ma.jorit-v is nor conlinced beyond a Leasonable coubt that Ndahimana shared the requisite specific inlenl of the other mcmLrers of the JCE. Spccifieally. the Prosecr*ion fhiled to provc bcyond reas,:rnable douL'rt that the accused sirareil the inteut io destro-v the 'l'utsi populatirin it rvhole or in parf. "'!" 813 'fhe Majority tecalls that the evidence as to whether Ntlalrirrana atended one or nro megtings at Nyange church on l3 ,April 1994 and whether an atl;rck was lalinched thiil 5ame dr] ;s unclear. lt corrcluded rhat Ndahirnana attended one meetiug at N1.,ange presbyter"y but if hail n{x been proven beyond reasonable doLrbt that thc authorities plannecJ the extcnnination ol' dre Jirtsis on l3 April 1994 (Chapter lll" Secriorr 4.3.31. In addition. r.rhilc the h{ajodt1, fbund rhat Ndahimzuta went to thc presbltery on l4 April 199.1, rhe Prosecution did no1 prove that lr.idahimana le1! anrl "?T'1'6 neceslrary to firllv characterise a-ii-accuseil's av'areness tltat a ,:rime yill ir{}babl.\' lx .('nmjlted) the gnr,-ity ol.the crille, I h!rs. the cri,niral jiabilitv ol.a convictcrj Tr'rron has to he esriihlirhuJ Unc,luirur.]llJ."tlrtlf trl ..il:!tinns{,tniit(.Jr.) '' SeY ,\r/irr.lLr6,rri:i I \( ) Jlli.lgr'mcn1, para. 12? {An accused can Lre conyicled lirr a single ciinlc on the bajis arf several

nodcs of li:bilitl), para. 123 (Noting that tire Trial Chamber uanrcd to cnrphasisc thai n full i haracte; i:sti.rn oi the aucused's c'rnducl had tr) rumrleti\ cJ-r rel er to various modes oi' rilhilirt)i e{Eu bitsi { A{,:).rutlgemtlt, para. ? 4 (Rccal-ling thnr the accused played a central role in plan ing, insligati g. ortlelinc, coninittirg aird ai-iiing:rnciabettrqg Itttocidt atd extenniuation itr his eonnrtne ofRlsurrro, therc thousanJs rrl lir-siri ter.e kille(i* seriuusl! harmcdl. '"'.' itdi01.uent. 031llN. I{). }-5 , ''i rt,,.,. {; , r .r1 rA( l.tuJlcn1cnl. 1,.rIb. t8-, '- ' .-\lputnharu llf'J Jud2jcrnerit. lira. :19 {.,The Chsntllcr ernphalicail), fejc.ts this approach_ |..ilut.e to preler1 .1f punish a orime canao. be.haf3ctcrised ns a foflr ot Lromftissi(lt 0fthgt sLrnte crinc.'r tcnrphasis eddetl). tale iL.{paabar,o (1{,).Jlrdgemrilt. paru.24: xjaJika et al (Aa,t.) JLrdscment, f{ra. i9j (lhc: Appeals Chanber uphelii a conviction ol participati{iu in a JLIE based on the ilccus9.1.s faiiurc to prevent or punis}r crinrcs rhai ur:re bgng corrmitled b1'camp 6luards. fhe.{ppeais Chanber cortsitiereei also: "[]l that he heli a hjsh-rankine posr'tiorr in r:.ic catnp and had sortie degree authc'rily over the guards: L2l that i1e hed sn{ltiem inl'ixnre ro pre,uenl or-h;lt ioi}L( ot rho abuses lrul that he mads L]sc ()1'that intluencc only ven, r.are,l:-; fiil tlrat he car.r.icii out his tasks rljligenti).. prrdicilatits activell in thc rurning oi the canp; that tirrough his olrn participatiorr- ir1 lire eyes oi erher polii.ipauis. ire e,,do.se,1 $lut rres hlpp<nitrg irr th( cJrnp. l. '-'" Slrllrte- ,41(ijic -2 The Pr<tsecutttr r'. Ndahiucntt, C.!se No. ICTR-01-6g-T t'74i2',14

Page 175

Judgeo*rtt cfld S(ntente 30 D&'enber 411 ?t6 tefirsed to assist thg reflgcrs. Nor did the Prosecution prove beyond r!-asonablc doLrtrt thlil-nri "rttack, orchestrated by the accused's subordinates, occurred alier rhe meeting on l4 April 199,1 (Chnprcr itl, Section 4.3.4.2.1 ). 814. 'l'he Ma.iority lbund thal Ndaltirnana's alibi fcr l5 April 1994 \ras reasonablt possibll lrLrd and that no inferences can be dralvn fium liis lisit to Nyange prasbltery thal evening (Chapter 1ll" Seclion 5.3.3). Therellrrc, the lr'lalority cannot rely'on plevious positive aotious of the accused iil conclude that he shared tlre specific intent of'the main pcrpetrators. 815. '|iurning to the evenls ol'l6 April 1994. the klajorit,l recalls that the l)r'oseci.Ltion r,rnly provsd that Ndahima.ne was presenl at the meeting and subse,-1uenl atrack. Thcrefofe. the i\4ajorit;. frrund ihat even if the accuseti bore responsibitriq, tbr the events that occurred that da1. he did not. however. piay a central role in planning the killings at lrlyange church. That is, he did not issue orders i:r espress irrstructions to kili Tutsis (Chapter III. Section 6.3.4). 816. 'f'he Majoritl. further recalls that in nrost cases. genooidal intent ivill be provcn h.v circr.rmstantial eviclence. Horvever, in such cases, the finding that the accused possessed lhe reqnisite t?7ens ree must tle the einly reasonzrble infercnce from the trltalit,r' o1" ahe evirJence.laBi Here the Majorit,v does not conclude that tlie orlly reasonable inferenr,e which can be dlarvn fiom rhe evidenoe is that the accused possessed genocidal intent.

817. Accordinglv, thc Maiority has also addressed the circurnstanlial evidence presonleil by rnlr Prosecution, tending to shorv that Ndahimana had a criminai inte t d*ring the period cove"red b5 Lhc lndicnuent.

818. Witness CBI t*:stilied thar on l3 April 1994. Sercrnba handed Ndalrirlana a lisr conrainins l ulsis' names" aud that those people u,ere Lrroughl to Nyangc parish.l'8:'lhe [,.la1orit,v. horvcvi:r.. lbund that it would trot rely on this witnos$ unless corrol:oralcd. ln additiol, the h.{;riority also concluded that there was no eviclence shou,ing thar, al t!'!at tiulc. the aecused q,:rs spui-red *n by, criminal intentions, llor \vas there evidence that tiie'l'utsis rvere brought go Nyange church on Ndahinrana's instruotiorls (chapter lll, section 3.3). o1her evidence. such as wllness cBy's tcstimony. suggested that Ndahimana irr lact did nol have criminal ilLentions towanls the refugces; indeed. the rvitness rcpoded that on 13 April 1994 he hearel Ndahirnana direct the assailants to gd It,lme-tlsi 819. furlliertnore" the N.lajoril3, acknorvlerlges that the Proscc tion relies on eviclcnc,c alleging that Hr[u woli]en were remrxcd frlrn Nrirngc chnrch trn 14 April ]994 in crdcr tr-r "prove Ndahimana's genocidal intent."rtt+ Neverrlieless. in urllitir"rn ro ils clbserr,atigi tlra{ ir ru''.lu lct not tely o.n \&lmess CIIS' testirnony unless conr:br:rated, rhe l!{ajorit1,oonsidere.l thrit the evirlencc alleging that Ndahinrana retnained in flre car while the three Hutu rvotren wete being called out from lhe cliurch by K.ryishema could. ai most, shew th.d he k elv abc'ut

K*yisheura's rrimiir*l i ienl.. bur nol necessariJl'that he shared it (t.:hapter lll, Sectkrn 4.3"4.2,2j. [{ere, t]re lv{a.ior.iL1, does n{jt conrju.ls tt.8t Nahinanu et o!.|\C).ludgefi]cnt. para. j2,1. 1a3: T. 14 Sel,tembet 20lt pt 30-33 ilVitness noted lhrl itnlolg the Iutsis tiri]L arived sirbscquertlt, al the dr l.cn, nir sa$, Amoine Karake and his I'arnily). rasr I. l0 Novembel :010 pp. lq-i0 iic-q) (*A.; Ile [Ndalrimona] \\as Elking to ah* ]irlus lrho hail arlscled rhc l !;sjs- Q.: So" cor.ect n\e if I atn lrrong that tr'i.. Ndahinrara rsled atiackcfr trr _gl home -- to rrturn ao thf,ir ,r)lres? A.: \'cs. hr.luld thctn.to rtr ht'rnc. brLt I rl(' nul know lvhether thc,r inmediately i.rbe.rcd. because l rli<l not t'ollo!,, thttr up-',). '-"' Pro)(culiun Clo'ina llrirt DJrJ!. 62-6-1. The Prowctttort'. N(hhimatr, Ctase No. ICTR-O1-68-T 175 / 274

Page 176

Jltdgehe nt.rfid SeittetE.' that the oniy reasonable inli:rencc to bc drarvn fiom the genocidal intent. "y'r'(? cr itJcncc is tlt:rt \lLlahimarrr-f,,ttc.std 820, On the contrar-v. the Mriorit-v finds it plausibl* rhat Ndabimana's pfeseuce at ){1-auge parish on the dal,s preceding the destructiou r:f Nyange ohurch {ioukl have baen lnotivated b} all attelrft tt) protect the refugees lather than to harm them. lrrdeed. the Proserution's submission regarding Ndahimana's criminal intent is challenged lTy other evidence teuclirg 1o shorv thai the accused came alter the at(acli ol1 l.t April 1994 and aslied the gent*o"mes to frctect dre rei"ugee.r. Pruseculion Wimess CDZ left Nyange church lhe night of 14 April 1994 because he believed that lhose s1a) ing tlrele *'erc risking dcath. because genry'ra"rre.r had i*dicated to the \.vitnsss thc high risk .|f staying al thc church,"o' Defence Witncss ND24 explained that or l:l April l9!]4, the assailanls, inctruding the lyi1ness. triecl 1o launch an attacli on ihc church [']ut rvcre unable to do so because xandarmes sfuol inro the air to dispcrse the assailants. and thaf no l ursis rvcre injured on 1.1 April l994.r a$" 821. ln relatior to the evsnts of 16 April 1994. the Prosecution suhmits that "Ndahimana celer'-raterl the killings ol the 'lulsis because it lvas his intention that they be killed."la{7 ln the present instance, the lvlajority

is not satisfled that ttle ouly reasonable conclusion that can be rNrai.vn hom the evidence is that Ndahimana rvas celcbrating thc killings au.l llterelbrr sliared the criminal intent o{'1he main perpstrators (C--hapter ttl, Section 6.3.5.). 82:. That |idahimana had the requisite ddxs ,sltecittlis to incur liatrilit-r under this tnode of participation is not the onl;, reasonable in{brence that aan L1c drarvn fitrtr the totalitl.' of tltc evidence. 823. 'l'he lvla.iority rvill not acldress whether the accused shorld br liabio 1br aiding and abeiting by ornission. The Frcsecution gave clear and consistent infowratirm boih to the rccuscd a*d tu the Chamber that its oarse rvas framed onthe.lireat pdrticipution in criminal activities surrouuding rhc attacks lhat occurred al N)'ange parislr.rass lt rvould therefore ll€ contrary to lhe t"undarncntal lair trial rights ol the accused. including his right to delilnd hinrsell and to knrl.v the charges agiirnst him" il'the L{ajoritv r.vas to flnd him crirninally responsible {br aiding and abetting by ornission"r'lse 4.3.3 Does ltresence of Acc sed Ci.)nstitute 'l'aqit Anproval as Hviden*e of Aidirs and AbetliJu'l 82i1" Ihe Majority rccalls thal an accused ma1'bc convictcd firr aiding and ahelring a crine r.vhen i1 is established th$ his conduct amounted to tacit apprnval rrnd oncouragement {r1'1hc crime and thal such conduct

snbstantially conlributed to that crime.ra"0 Aicling and abetting b;'tacil rrpflrol,al tnd encor;ragement requircs tlie preselce cf lhe accusetl at or near the scene ol'lhe crinre.'41" r{r5 T. I s(prenrh$r ll}l(J nl -15. -17, " " l . 2 l l e b r L r r r r 2 r , l I p r . i , 5 , X . : 0 - : l - r48i Prosecution Cl,.rsine Brieil rara.98. rust &e a.{., lnciictnr"ni" pu.nr. 25-31. t" Rn,t,rtaktha I lt I Jrr,luern.rrt. p:rrcs. lr,. 28. ' '"' .4L'liro|rli (TL ) JuLlsrcnr!'nt. pJ'!. 87 Kfi..\,ishenn & Ru:irulqtru (AC) .tud!!cntcn!. parl]r. 201-202; ,{li.r]?]ir {'l C) ,tudgenlenl, pata" 706. tatt Se'e Lrtktniu (.t\C) .lirdgtnrent, para. 273 rNolirg thal "liln lhe cascs rrhcre this crilet{}ry lof condrrcr amolrnti[g tir t*cil eiiprovel aud entouragrintnt arl the erirrel ri,as applied. thr accu;ed held a position of authorlly. he r.vas phylicrltl Frescnt {rn llle scene ofahe ctime, and his non-inae ,enlion rv0s scen as tacit approv*l and tncr ir.r: ngel1rcut."). ,!ii,7 iJltd. ,5'errr;ir ( 1-C) Juclgerrent- Fata. ':D'!; BLlgilisheiaa {TC, .ludgeruen{. la|a, .36 i',liabilit,,- lir *irling anci i,irelting $ an 'approving spect:dol: prcsupiroses aclual prcsen!€ at the scene of f]]e irritne. or 31 icilsi prcscsre in the inmedidlij liclni1,l" $i tl'ie sccne oftbe crinle."'), The Prosecutol'y. Ndahimanu, Ca,se r\-o. ICTI1-01-68- I' 176 / 2 t-4

Page 177

Judgsaftnt sd Senten.'e 3\uxhepl\ 1ls- L 825. ln cases rvhere this category- of Articlq 6 (1) liability has Lrccn applicd. thc oifurcd held a position o{'authoritv, rvas physicflll} f}rosc.nt-on the sccne ul llre cline and his non-intervention lvas seen as lacit approval and encouragcment. i ": Thc Kuf ishe mu & Ruzintlana'Trial Chirnlber held that "individual responsibiiity pursuant ro Alticl* 6 (l) is bascd, in this instance" n('t on a dLrty te act. blrt from the ellcor.ragement and snpporf lhat might be allirrded to the principals of lhc crinre.'"ra"i ln such ilases. the combinatic'n of a positicn ofi autircrir,v anrl ph;"sical prelcnce ()n the crilns :icenc allows lh<: inli:rence th*t nol-interlbferice by the accused acluallv amr;unled to tacil alrproval and enoourugetnent.l4q4 ' B2{:. ''Encour*geme nt" and 'lnoral su}rporf' are nro lbrrns of conduct rvhich rnay lcad to crimi a; responsibility fbr aiding and abetting a clime.'l'he encouragelflent or suppon nced,lot be e:;plicit; Lr der certain circunrstarces. evsn the acl of being present on the crime sccne (or in its vicinity) as a "silenl speclator" can tre constnrsd as laciti) approving or encouraging the crime, [i-i i*ry case, tfris encourag-rment or mural suppofi musl alrvays sLrbslantiali_v' confribute to the commission of the crime.'*'-- As put by the F\n.undiiju 'lrial Chamber. "'[rvlhile an-v spectalor can be said

to i]e encouraging a speetacle-an auciiefiqe being a nccessan elenrent of a speclacle-ihe speotator in these oases lvas onlv forurtl to be complicit if his stalus was such that his prcsence irad a signilica*t legitinrising or entouraging eft-eot on the principals."rae6 827 . Acconling to tlie ^jurisprudence, the authoritl' ol'lhe accrused. conr bined wiih his pre sence at the cril e scctic, lcads to the conclusion th*r the sccused's eouduct sutistantially contributed to the crinre. It thus ftilio*s 1lia1 e couragement $nd moral stLplil{ ijan ontry iolx1l a suhstanlial contribution to a clinie wherr Lhe principal perpetl.atrrrs ,,. ***r, oi'lhe accused's presence.lltt ltr the present case, Ndtrhimana's presence o l6 AFril 1994 has been eslablished be;-ond reasruablr doubt (Chaptir lll, Secrion 6.3.3.3). 828. 'I'he hlajol'it;' considers thal Ndahimana cnuld nor ignorc thc lact that fhc victlms ol tire attacks at Nyange parish rvete 'l'utsis, For example, et,idcnce rclaring to t"1 Apfil i9q+ shorvs that tiie accused talked to lhe refugees and the_v rold him lhat the1.. had heen aturcked.'rot I hv ,\,lrjoritx- fbuud that Ndahimana oame to Nyange parish on the evening of 15 April 1994 and thar he had reason to knor. rhat a large-scale atlack ocdll .ed thai da;--. In additicrn, thc N4ajoritv found him ctitninaliy respotlsible for the acts committed by the communirl police on l5 April

| 9t)4 as hi: itad rea$on to kltorv that the-v p&rtioipated in rhe killings thal oco$rred thnt da-r bLrr did nc* punish rhem {c hapter IV, section 3.5.1.-1). The ure s ree ofrhe "approving spectator'" may be cleduce<j i'rorn rire ciroumsLrnces, :rnd tna-v include prior conocmitant behaviout: lirr iustance. allowing critnes tu gc ta': Ale.k-,otski (lC) Jtklgemcnt, pofn.8?i &i4,islrcftra & Ruiit.ktka iA{) Juilgth!'rt, p}fas- ?1]1.20:; ,1&rrl,rsrr q11-; Jul8ern<rrt. firrr 7(rr'. .\cd .rl\,, Ftuk$ii.t {T{:) JEdgetialtl pa.as. 2iX-207 (Discussjn{ the .!-irtutL)g.ue c^\tat. '.''k,n,'ijttm,t.|||h'inJa,!|..|.)Judgcmc[l.para'2.}2(lJplieldlr.lr(<l'vis/rertrr&R'l:ik1.'1d1AC)J!1!]l,lrll,!1ett'j]3|i}i. 20l-202t. |a"a Ka1:i:ihenu €{ Ru.ixla}1a {fC) Judgelncnt. ptna.2ll0 (Rcf'et irlg to thc discusjiion of the .1'rerogagat, case rn lurtlti'-i1o 1l( I .luJgenrcnl. far . :07J. t,','" lltJ.latn \AL I l d$emritl. p tJ. 277. , . FurunJ:ija \1( tJ Uddtirnrrl. pard. ::ll '" [t'*1isl]rnt & Rtt:itt,lttau (At'l Judgelne|t. p{a.201: Sk.Nes (TC) Jucigenrent- pa.al.706-707: FurunCi!iu (.Ttj Judgement. pafas. 201-2t9; .lleksolski ('I {l) ludgcmcnt. ptta.88; ltagiti.sherna (l'C) Judf,dmer!t. pat,t. 36; t'tlintlabahi:i (1-C.) ,fudgernenl, para. J.5?. " " ,iee, e.g., Witness NDI l: T. 18 Jrxtuary 2ljl I pp. 3l-j.I, 49-j0 (fle was told tl.tirt the ,}{rcus{d came rL) th€ prc$byrery and talked to rhe refugees);

Wil eis ND12: l'. l9 Janua.,v Z{)l I pp. 4-6. l.l-lj (She raid thal ,,lalil feiugecs c.rul,l he.Li'. rlhat ivats being saicl. lhe retitgecs Lrjid Ndahirnanc thal Ndungutse had led al aLtack againJt tircn anii Lhe gcc'1rsld resgronde<l that "he rlid not have porvers", bur he had asked the genda|ntt:s lt tar$it ue To prol!,c{ thc reiilge{jj). The l>r6ecfior\'. Nd.thinwnd, Case No. lcTlt-oi-68-T 177 i 271

Page 178

.]tu l!, nk:nt "tlhl .\! !1t. n-u jl.Lq.\'' t'lt!r-'' / / <tbf unpurished or providing verbal encotllagement 1o commit 5trch crimes.r'''''"tr,JJhionali, Ndahimana's pre$ence at thc meetillg prior to and during the attack of tr6 Aprii I99;{ shor'vs that Ntlahimana ooulcl not have ignored, nor heen ignorant of the l'acr that the main perpetrators intended to commit genocide. 829. "l'he "approving spectalor" llrust ha\,e a signillcanl strtus if his or lier prc$elicc is to havc the required el"li:ct on thc perpetrators.'''"' Scvcral rr itncsscs tlc..;uribed Ndahimana, lhe hourgnte.ttre o{' Kiv{ms cr:mnrut?t,, arj a person ol' aulhoril),.1501 T'aking this inlo considcralion, the )\la-jaritl concludes thal Ndahimana elefted a serlse of morai authorit-v over the population of his .rrmatare. 830. tlouever, thc N'lajority acknowlcllges that Ndahimana's Jxrsirion ol'aulhority, in and iil' itscll would not s pport a posilir.c Iinding cn criminal rcsponsihilil_v. 'I'he reqLrisite ,Nen,t reo in tlle rurore specific casc of the "approving spogtaror" is thal the accuscrl knolrr thal his presence would be seen by rhe perpetl'alor ot'lhe crinle as cncourugementr or sttppt,ri.'''' ln this rcsprcl,.,\cveral perpetrators reported the enctrruaging e'llect ol'Ndahimana"s pr{5cncc irt N\.arge perish.''"' I'h* lvliliority lbund th'al the accnseel did not instigate or supervise thc ritack.r)"+ in this

eontcxl. the accused's f)resellce is circumstaltial evidcnce that cau be taken intl culsidcralion l{} establish the wens rea of the approvirrg spectator.{i05 83l. Ndahirnana rnust have known thtt his presence dLrling tlio aLtack lrouid have a signific;rnr ericcuraging el1'ect on the assailants as he ',tas a pcrscn tiin{lucncc in thc con:rlsre. ltt"addition, his allendance at meelillgs held al Ny";rnge parish on the da-vs prior to i 6 ."\pril l9t).1., timidst lhe aitacks and nther circumstances prevailing at the parish and in his comfitune conveyed the impressicrn of' him as an "*pproving spectator"" Ndahimana did not openll obiect tr) the killings, and could not have igrrorecl that this would likely be colrsielered [:y the assailants as tac,it apptoval of {heir perpetution of rhe attacks. Ndnhimana knerv that the destruction of the churclr rvould necessaril,v cause the death ofthe Tutsi refugees. In these circumstances" his presence on the scene ofthe crirrrc snbstantially contributed to the attarrk that $as launched. dle Llest.uction ofthe clrurch and the death ct'thc nuurerous refugces inside.l50i' 832. Gdgoire Nclahimana's conducl as an approving spectalor was limited tr giving mcral support t.) the princip:rl perpelr'a{ors ol'the orime. rvhich conslinrtes the ectus rcr,r ol'aidiug ;ind 1\"' 9,ryiliJh?a!,t ilL' 1.ludgs1nun1. 1r1r',i. -l/r. .' .'.. lltt*ili'lt, 'not1t' I

lurlgctnent. f\aIJ. Jr,. '' ' \\itness CBS: L 6 Scprcn]bcr 1010 p. .16; Witlrcss CI]K: l- "1 No.Jomber 2ri10 p. l7: Witncss ND?4: -f, 2L February 201 | p- 30 (-All I kn{-}!v" in general ternrs. is thdt the Dotrgl4r'"rrz rlru io cirargc ,.]t'all r'f us""): Wirncis Nil,i: T. l7 Fdlrruar"y 2011 p. l$ ("1 kno\t that Ndahimana \{ai in a ychicle toufing the conmunt and, i tad. ho was tl're Juthorit) in thc crln.nrre."). 1' -1 B.tyilithemt t lC).l dgenenL. pdr.r, i{'. ''"' Scr Jiseussiun uf tcstiuonies of Wittesses CBll and CDL { Chapaer Ill- Sel.lion {i-1,3.2}. fq l-he N,llrloril .etails tbe Dissenling Opinii;n r.rf.ludue i,iu- paia. ,1" as appenrlc<l l<t tl:tc Serowba aA(i) JiidgemrLrr. I'hich dislinguish*l prrclie:!l ;tssistance frem supcn'ision as lbllorrs: *ln lhc presclrt cirser. Atharrle Scr|ln1bd plil.veJ,t difi'elen( role. While he ac{repted the decisior of the comnunal auth.rrities to dcstro), tlte church, spr:ke u,ith :r bulldozry drivet and utlefed \r'orcts that encoulared hi r Io destro-v the churctr- cren givirg aal!'ice irs ti) thc wcak side ei tire church. Athaiase Se.omba did ii{}i "sopclvise" or "d;re{lt" the ma:sacre and he plal ed no trrie il arry sepulation r.rf l\;tsi rel'ugeer so rl'lat they could be killed." '." Bcatli.then tr l( t.lu,,lecnrcnL. pura..rl- '-'The riuritr rl'c6lls tlrc disscrrtirrg opinion rli,ludge l-iu- para. 16. us appetldcd to ttlrj ,!cr{r{rr., (ACi .ludgcinelt. \,i'hich sllLles as l-ollows: "1he mere knorvledgc that thc dcstmation ofthc church r'r'ou1d nccesserill crtuie thc ddirth rl appror;nllrtelr- 1.5t)0 l'uasi teflgees does not eldcll) correla{e \!ith "an intentio'l to dcnl'ro} in rvhrrlc or in lart til€ 'futsin'." The Proseculttr t. Ndahimana, CiNe Ni,. ICTR-O1-68-'L' 178 / 2',/,+

Page 179

Jutlgenvnr and Se etce itlli rt bt:lAl I .4,(6 () abetting.l'o7 In the h{a.lcrit-v's vierv, Nilahilnana's participatiori through ai..iing and aMrrg i'llacii approval most aptly sums up his crir:rinal .ondilcl. Accordingly, the Nla-loiiry tinds belond reesonatlle doutrt tlrat Ndahimana is rcsponsible l)ursrlant to:\rticle ti (l) of thc Statutr. lbr aiding and abelting the killing of 'lirtsi reftrgecs in N,vange church or1 l6 Apri] I 994, 5. fitrpttlisity in tienoside 813. C.) nt Il ollhe Indiolment charges Ndahimana rvith cornplicity in genocide undsr Article l i3) {e) of thc Slatuts. '[]!e Prosecution has indicated thal the couit ol'complicity is pleacled in the alternative fo rhe oounr ol'gen<lcide (Count I). Accordingl-v, having firund Lhe a,rcused guilty o{' genocide under Count I. the Majoritl' dismisses Count II of the Indic nent. 6. p:jr4sl4sai${llunranitv 6.1 Intrriduction 834. Count lll of the lndictment charges Ndahimana rvilh ertrrmin*tion rs il cr'lme agairst humanit_l .mdef Anicie 3 (b) of the Slatule. 6.7 Widespread or Systematic Attack 835, For an enurlrerated crima under rErticle 3 ta qualify as a crime against hrmaniN, tile Prosecution must prove that there rvas rl widespread or sJ stcmii^tic itttacl l:gi];nrt a civilia* populalion on uational, political" ethnic" racial or religious gtc,r.rnds.'"" Alr attruk ogilinsr r civilirn population lneans the

perpefi'ation of a series of acls cf violencc, cl of the kind ol rnisirestment ret'ered to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (i) o1'A{iclc 3 against that populaticl.i5're Intcnded to be reed as <lisjun$ive elements, "widespread"' rel'ers lo the )arge scale uatule ol'lhe a11ack and the ntlnbel' oi' targeted persolls, r'hik- "systematit" descriLres tl|e organised fftture ol" thc acts of vicleuce and {.ire improhlbilit,r, of thcir randoln cc.rrrrcrr,:f .''' ' Si6 With respect to the reqrisite mens reu" the perpeirator lnust have a*eei witir knou,ledge of the hroader context and knowledge that. his acts fbrmed parl ol the altacli, but need nct sharc the purpose or goals ofthe btoader attack.''" The additional rcquifement that crlnes against humanitl' rio' B,'<rtirJ t,\Cr lu,lgenrenr. lrla. +6. '''IJ,"rgorortrital (T()J Je(i-r1r1.'t- para. L156 (citing .Sgrrrin:a { Atl) -ludgcmcnt, lrms- ^126-_-l-12 ircl'frfir:ti I(r )Law.tu iIC) Judgernent, p!ra.578J; RaugQndo (TC) Judgrimfm. Lta*\ i3. lka)esa {ACj .tudgcn]enl" prfas. .16?. 4lj4; Nt{tkit tttitll.tna (A{l) J'.ldgemttrt" pera. 516: iitoteruta d/ irl. {TC} Jur.lgcmcnt, l)aias. a),7-{i9$; l!tr.irub.rra (T{') Judgcm.rrt' parit. I i : ,!7ialr (1-l') Jurjgemenl, Faf3.4:l: (.idcunbit\i (l'C) J\ttlgcrnent. para.299: 7i;r/iii r.,AC ) jrrdgcncnt. Darrs : {E. 255 }. "t! Bagosora d1 a/, (l'Cl Juiigement, pdm- ?l6j ldlit\g Ncthi 6na ei d!.

(Al)Judceritctli. patas. 9lj-9lg;,{ordt(: /l {:et ke: {A{:') .ludgentent. p.rr a. 666: liuh{lt tt ct r/ (AC).ludgement. la:M.89: Kukarat et al. {,1(:) .ludgenrent, lir.ri. ;l1i l. tirn - '_ u.tEoiotd el 41. I l( )J dcer e t. pala.216-i {citirg 5'd.4inana et q/. {Atl.) Judgertent, pa]a- 920 (qi.rotirrg Jiordl ,4 C'crL1- {Aa } .lrl.lBcr)rent. la.n. e4).. \'tdkil utitnfti.t (AC\ Juclgr,rrenl, Fara. 516l l{pamhara i'IC) ,ludge$ent. pa1n. I ll .sr:niaa:a irci Judgcmrnl, para-s. 328-329: K\norac tl al (rc) Judgc,nent, piir.a. 419; Ktutartx: er al. (Ac) .tudgcnrcnr. ptta. 94'. {iacltnhitsi {AC} J.tdgerneot, lam. 101 {c;ting (i.}cuetl)itti {'!C} Jridge$snt, pa|a. ?99); Ilraiir, (AC) Judgenent, para. 2,1(i; 1}la,iin1 (,{C) Ju.lgerne l, pera. it}l, Li dj rt al. ('lcl Jud-qeine.t, pard. J80.. Br,la iti lt{:) Judgernftt, pa.d, l3-l). "" llagosora et u/. ('f(.:).iu.1gen1{"n1. patLr. 216{i icjli g ajirci.rr,rtei (A{l}juCgenrcna. par!:i. gfi. 103 i;fl'cffin! to ]k,/ii (AC) 'ludgement. 1-raras. 2-i1*?-i2)l G-clic-iAC) J!{lgernent. pil|a" 142:,senoa:a irtc; judsl:lrtefi. paBs. 2f!t-269: .tirrd ( l c) Jud,!.en1ent. pa'?. 42): Kot dli & Cerlte: (;\c) Judecment. paru. 99; Kunarac d ( . \ ICJ Judgdnrcrr. pix.a. 4-14: Kutrurdc el el.1AC'r ]uilgenreot, 1'ara, 1{l:; Blftifr;i {ACi ,}odgrment. prri]s. l {-1271. 'lhe Pr0setutut ,-. Ndahinuno, Case Nrr, lCTk-01-6ll-T t79 i 274 1r{

Page 180

../ud4cnent und Sestence i0 lw1at :,y Cl musl he eommifte(l "on nxti('llrl. polilirrt. elhnic, laciiil (rr religlou) Hru)utid\" .t..,"" nu,#rl ,tFl / ciiscriminator"v nezr r?rl must be established.I5r2 837. Having considered thc tolality o{'the evidence, the l\'la.lorit.v concludcs that thcrc }terc rvidesprearl atlacl{s against the "l ursi Fopulalion in Kivumu towmufle in Aptil 1 99:}. Witnesses recountod atlacks against'['utsis in the days imrnrdiarely fulioiving Presidtnt ]lab"varinrana's doath. l{undreds and possibiy therLrsands ol"l'ulsis sought refuge at N}'arge pari$h. 'l'he eridencc ol the afiacks at N1-ange parish, the scale of the kiili gs and ihe ethnic composition of thc vi0tims. can leael tri ncr other cr:nrdr.rsion than, ir Aplil 1994. in Kivumu c(tymute , there rvere w;{le$prercl a1la.rks againsl the civilian'l'utsi population r:n etluric grounds. 8.18" 6ii,cn Ndahimana's position ol'aulhority at the time ar:d his prescnce at Nyangc parish on l6 April 1994, the Ma.iority linds it inconccivable thai the peryetralors of'the killil:gs. as rvell as Ndahlmana himsel{. did not know that their aclions lbrmcd part o:l'a lvir"lesp|ead a[ack.

7. Exleu.oinslilqll 7.1 Law 839. 'llic crime of' extenrrination requires prool'that an eccuscd participated in a rvidcsptcad or systenalier killing or systematically subjected a r.vidcspread nutrber o1'pcople tr.r conditiotis ol'living thal would inevilably lead to death.'''' lixlenrinallon is distinguishable lrom murdcr iln the ba.iis lhat it is thc ac1 of kiJling ori a large scale.l5rt Altlrough exlermiuaiion is the act of killing a large number _ol' people, suoli a designation dnes not J'equire that a ntnrerical miniraurr :llrsl be r?ached.'''' 'lhe mental element lor extermination is the interrt to perpelrale or *r ;:articipatre in a nrass killing,lsro 7,2 Deliberafiorrs 840. Ndahimana is charged rvith exterrninaiion as a c,riure against huuranitl.' rvith respect to the proven allegations related to the cvenls that untolded at Nyange parish *n l5 anei 16 April 1994.i-r' Tha Ma.iotitl" considers i.vhether the established allegations amount to rxt*nninalicn es a crinc againsl hunranity.

841. The Majorit"v has fuund tliat the killirgs at l{-vange parish un l5 and l5 April 1994 anrount to genocide. It is cl*ar hom those findings that the kitlings at the parish r,vere eond$cted cn ethnis grounds. Ndahimana is liable under Article 6 (3) cf the Statue lbr the crimes corrmitled b,v the communal police on l5 April 199'1. In addition. he is liable under A$icle 6 (l) ol'the, Statute ibr aicling and abetting the killings on 16 Apiil 1994 (Chapter IV. Sectirrn.l.3.^)). 8.12. I\4oreover, the M.|-iority recalls its lindings that hundreds and possibly'thor-rserrr.is i;f lirisi civiiians rvere killed at Nyarrge parish. r\coordingl5,. the lv{ajority has no d.rubt that tha killiugs rvere "t2 Bagtsora et al. (.'t C) .iudgenrent. ]ralo. :166 ,riting ,|La,,-esu ('lC) .tudfterncnl^ paras. 464-l{i9, -a95; Rugilirltern (T'C) Judgenienl. para. 8 ll, '.1,,ti l,iruri l, rnLt t \C ] J uLlgenrenr- par:a.522, Ndikla:tlta lii;i ( lC) Judgemeti, p?fa.,tr30. '" \ILtAirutiDtdn i.{C) JuJrcnrcnt. pafa. 5lt}- See also. ;\dinttabari;j {TC} .ludgeincnt. par.a. 4?i}; ,\ettawa ('l Cj Judgetnerlt. para, -140. 'r)- \'t.'t* L!tnt 4n t .\( )Judgam..rrt.p.rt?.5lh. ','',', l,rctenro er ,,1. r t C r .ludp g61q11. para, 7ljl, See ',l$o, NtaLirutimnfi(t 1AC'J Judgern€nlj paril. j22. ' In\lictnrenr. ]\l]l',.lr i.l-18. The llroirecut{r r'. Ndchinanq. Case Io. lt-"lR-01-68-l' )8i) t 2i1

Page 181

/{k&u.,r'rl ,rr'l \irJr.,( r' j0I',.,n'1"rJLIrr =te6 conducted ol1 a rrassive scale and, thus, axioullt to exteffilinatioil. 'lhe numbtr dl- -l uiii refLtgecs i,vho sought refuge at the parish, and Ndahimana's preselce, demonstrale his knorvledge of the idle ol'the miiin perpetralors to kill on a large scale. particularly given ths corlexl in rshich tht killings took place. 843, 'lhe Majority finds lrldahimana guilty oi' exterrniriation as a crime against l.lrnranitrv b3.' aiding and ahetting as x'ell as b-v- virlue o1'his L,ommand rcsponsibilit-v ovef the tonurrnal police {Co t lll).

8. CumulallleCqnyiction! 8.1 Introduction t144. T'lie h{ajoritr has lbund that the evidcnce suppor"ts findilgs under di{l}rent statutor} pnrvisions on the basis of the same conduct. 'lhc Appeals Chamber has held that crmulili\ c convictions are permissible where each clime has a materially distinct elemcnt not cr,lntained in rlie other.Lils An element is rnaterial[;- clistincl lrom onother it' it iecluires prr:of tf a fact not required 1,r7- the orher elemenl.lsle Where this test is noL me1, a conviction iviJl be enlered oniS under the lrore specific pio'l ision. The urole specific rrffence subsumes the lcss rp-ecifiu unt br'uatrie the oomnrission ofthe firriner necessarily r-"ntails the comurission of thc llttcr'.'"" 845. ln light of thesc iegal principles. the Majorirl.' rurns to considcr rvhethcr it may enter cumulative convictions basetl on its findings. 8.2 Genocide and [xtermination as a Crime Against Humanify 8,16. The Majority's findings rvith resFecr to the crime of genocide (Count l) arrd exterrnination as a crimc against humanitl (Count lll) are based on tlre s. nc cancluct. The t\\o are ireated as dislinct crimes by Arricl€s 2 (3) 1a) and 3 ib) rrf the Statate. respecrivell.. 'tr'he jurispnrcie:rce o1'both this Tribuual and the 1CTY has corls;ster']tly estabJished that each orirne co tains rnaleliaill. tlistinct slerncnts. 'l'he materially distinct elenent

oi"genocide is the specific interl to destro)', in whole rrr irr part. a national, ethnic. racial oi religir:us group. The matelialll' distinct element of e.\termitution as a crime against hunranity is the requirentent that thc crime rvas committed as part of e r.l,idespread or slstematic attac\,,against a civilian populatiori.l52l Convicrtions lar both are perrnissibl* hased on lhe same conduct-lsll 847. Thereftrre. the Majority proceeds to enrer convictions tbr botlr genocide (Counr .t) and extermination as a crime against humanit-v iCount Il) r.vith rcspect to Oregoire lridahiman:r's responsibili4. fbr the killings and altacks ar Nyange parish in April 1994. Itts Ntokirutirtatrtt lAC) JudgemenL para. 5.12 iciting,ttr.rerrd (ACr).tudgcrnenr plras. 158-l?0; Krtytlil <* Ller'l*: \ ACI JuJi:rntent. prrl. l0jjtA/rti.1 (.\( iJuJgentenl. F!r., ll8: /'cteh^;1.\t ).lLd!cl|tcrrr.prrl.Jl;,. '' ' ' it"tokitutiruuua \ \C I J qdgctlr(N. para. 542 iciting d'clcriii 1AC) Jrtdge rnrDt" l)0.r'a. "112 ). Thc srzirda|d rvas {,liu iilcil irt Kunarac et al. {AC) Jlilgeincnl, pera. i68" Sae alw, I,'arilievii (AC) Judgerncnr, paras. 135, l4fi; trr,r/,c {:q.{ll .ludgen1ent. f'rfa. 2l 8. t:10 Popot'll el al. ( fC) Judgement, para. 2l 1l (ciLing Galil (AC) J$dge$ent, p?1,a. 163: dr:r,ii (A(') Judgrr.r:em. ;:are. 2 1 8 i . tt2t Ntukirvtinatu) (AC) Judgcncn!, Fua. il2 (citiug lluse:na (AC'1.ludgcmcn1. par'J. 36{}). ,tee dso, X1rhitfi.r1tt.t/ d ({.C) Judgentent, pa.a. t029t NtoEeru,4 er dl. (AC] .ludgermenl parr. 4?fi; .terrrl,:d (AC), Judgenrent. pr|.l. J 18. "'" Jitdkitrttitttdslt { A{-'l .Lldgemett, lam. j4l iri(ir}g,,1./rjdrkr (A(. } .tultgemcnt- irnra. _170), fhe Prosecutor t. Ntlahi*tna. {lase No. ICTIT-0 t-68-'t' 1 b l j : 7 1

Page 182

Jt kJge nte nt a! tld,ge rte tlc L' CHAFT"0R V: SIINTIINCING 3(] Decenber 201| ]tE:7 l. Introdnctiln 848. The kla.iotity has found Grdgoire Ndahirnana guilt-v of genoi:ide b1, aiding and aberting as rvell as by virtue of his command responsibilitl' over lhe conrnunal police (Coutrt I). hr a<jdition. the Majority has lbund Nclahimana guiltl. of exterminatiol as a crime against hun.ranit,v b;- aiding and abetring e.s r,vell as by virtue o1- his command responsibilit.v over rhe cummunal police (Count III). Therefore, the Majority mLrst tlerermine an appropriare sentence. L*rv 849. All crimes under the 'lribunal's Stalute are serienrs vioiations ol' intemation:il humanitariau larv.l52l $then detr-lmining a sentcnce, 3'lrial Charnher has consiclerable, lhor-rgh no1 uniinrilecl. discretion on account of its obligation 1o individualise penalties to fi1 the irrdividual circumslanci:s oFan accused an<I to refleot the graritl trl the crinrcs corlrn ittetl.l5'l{ 850. Pursuant to A*icle 23 ol'the Stalule anrj Rule 101 of the f{Ules, rvhen detennining an appropriate sentenco the Chamber shall eonsider: (l) the general pmcice rcgarding prison senlences in tl'wanda; (2) the gravlrl ofthe c{fence: i3) the indivitlual circumslanccs oflhc accused. incluLling aggr4vating and nritigating circumstances; and (4) the exrellt l.(, rvlrich anl pcnaitr imp6sci.l bv a coutrofanl

Stalc()n {lt..rccusctl lbrtjre \atnc dd1 lrrs alrc.rrjr hccn scnc.l.r')',tspt,inrc,i oui lrr ihc Appcals ( h^am her. thir lisr ,rf e(rlliidcrlli,,ns is n,,l c\hiiustive *hen deie rmirrirrg irti appr,,priatr. :urteni.e.' - In additiorr. rhe lrial Chrmber shrrll clcrlir lhs rccu:ed lur arrt tirirc sn(nt in Jrt( lior] perrcling transfer to tfie'f'rihunal anrl durins trial.r5:7 - 3. Submissions 851" The Prosecution submits that Ndahirnana should reoeir-e lrvrl concurrenf liii: sentences rrx. Clount I and Count I1I, emphasizing the gravity of the crime--of genocide, fhe presence of rnulriple aggravating fbetors and the lach of anl mitigating thcrors.r!8 It subrnits that Ndahimer.ra ijirecti"l.' participated in crimes of the most heinous natLrre, thus placing hinr in rhe calegory ol the urosr serious ollilnders.r5:e It t'urther submits that aggravating l:bciori inclucle Nrtahiniana's posirion ot aulhatity as hr.turgnteslre of Kivttmu (a,ntntftlu and his abuse ol'1haL posiliol, his direct pirticipatirn as a perpelratcr, the violeul and humiliating nature ol'his acts, as lvell as the vulnerabilirv irl'his victims and the lenplh_r.' teniporal dLnation ofhis offences.riro 852 The Def'ence submits that Ndahiniana's scntence should be rrririgatcd based on the lbct thsi. at the time of tlie crirnes. Ndahimana had onll'been bourgnrestre for six months alti rvhcn he took that position, the

e:ommune rvas already in a critioal situition r.rhich he cculd not c,:rnrrol.l5rr 'lhc '"t GoL,l".1TC) .tu.lgen1ent. para. {i?3 (ciLing do,i.rl?.l' a <I llu:indqnu ( AC1 Judgdrrenl" par". :t67 (qu.rting Adicle I (,f tbe Slature)). rs':r 6arere lTli) JLrdgement, prfa. 67:t (citing (a-le&p/i (A{-t) .l!{lg.,mefit, pdra. :91 }. '-" Statuae, Alticlc ?3 (1)-(3r; RuJc l0l (B) {i)-(i\, ol the Rlles. ,,.: {q(ll(j l}C)l udgerDent. para.29{i (cjtirlg ,,trl.'!?rrd (AC).rudgemcnt. plrl.a. -]80). ''-'Rule l0l ici 01'the RuleN. I 5:' Pr.,'cc,rtion ('ltrsing Ltr rc t'. pilr a\. :84--t I7. {rc -rl,ro- "f. 2l Scplembcr 20 t I pp. 4.j-4?. '" Prorcdtion ( la\; g Brirll puld{. :Jl-JEt. ,' PrlsL.culiun Llosi S l-tf;ci. farri llj9-trlq. '' l)cli'r,c( losrng tJri(t.. ptrir:. ilq-j2l. Tle Prosec utor y. Nd.thi n a n.t, Case Nd. ICTR-()l -6g-T I*2 i 2J,1

Page 183

Jt t dge rrc nt a nil,9e t te n<:t, Defbnce also asserls that Ndahimana took all possible man of goo-d chamctcr rvho is nrarried and the lather o{'nine biological children and tr,\'o adopted chilch en.1ji: 4. IJelibqratiqns 1., {iravity of the Offence SiJ. The^..grar it1 (rf thc oli.rncos coulnitted is tl,e cleridirrg f'actor in rhe detcrmination r.)l tile sellfr-rlce.''r' Cravit-t' entails the particular circunstances of the case, the form anrl clegr*e of tlre participatio of the accused in the crimes and the number of victims.ls:ia 854' 'l'he tr4ajorily has {irund Ndahirnana responsihlc, uncjsr thc lalv ol'superior respixsihilil.,-" ror' the ctimes cr:mmilied b), the communal poiicernen on 15 April 1994 anil ltrr ai<iing *nd abetting the crirnes of genocide as rvell as fbr extermilction as a crime against humanitv \vith respe$t to the events dlat occurrcd at Nyasge parish on i6 April 1994. resulting in the death lrf approxirnarell 2"0{)0 "futsi men. \!ot11en and children. 'The seriotrs gravit-v.' of these crinrcs and t}re loss ol'hunran life and digaity caused by {[rem calnol be Liveremphi]sised. 8i-{. 'l'he Majority notes that, undcr Rwandan larv, similar crimes as those at issue hcre can,v tiie possible penalty of lilb imprisonment, depencling on the narure of' rc accuscd's parricipalion.lii5 1'he general practice ol'this l'ribunal has been to lim;t imposing li{'e

scntences excepi ibr the uii}sL senior Ieaders who planned and orderecl thal alrccities be commitled.ii36 4.? Personal_.AggravntingandlllitignlingCircrliistalces 856. Witli regard to lhe personal circurnstances ofthe ac,cusecl. thc Chamber has broael discr.etion to cottsitler aggravating or mitigating faotors it deems relevant io the determinaiion o1 ar apprcpriate $en1ellee. To be established fcrr consideration. agcravating circumsiauces uruli be r1: D(lan. r ( l(\ing llr ieJ l1 rfr,. \?2-52.i '"' -\frlro-qo..a r .{ L r J ud:cnrnt, l.iril. 98: l,lahi ra,M et.,1. (,{Ci.(dgc!\1eol, pam_ t06(i. . -'',4i,{ltdn t AC r .lu,l3(m(rl. p:1ril. -'-l t ' " Gatetr:. Decilir,r on prijljet{rr.rr.5 Requssr filt Refcrral to thr Rcpublic Dj lt\\anda, 17 Nevcrrbcf ?00$. pr.r.as. 2:-:j (A$sessirg Rwand|r's penalt] stfuclufe)i i{rn1'aniligo, Decjsion orr J,roseculor's ltequesl 1'('r f{ribtral ro the llepulrlit: d linanda, 6 June 200S. paras. :2-25 lstln1d), Ser also Senatra (AC) .ludg.:ntent. p.tra, i77 {,,Tlc comrna,rij ior. Trial Chamfurs 1o 'lt$ve rccdurse 10 the goner:rl practicc reg;rrtiing prison sentericcs in the r:,rurts oi'Rlarda .joes i.to[ {Jb]i-{c th.r Trizrl Cluni]ers to cotllir!fil to th31 practice: it onll obllges thc Trial Chalnbcrs t(r take .rca.iurt of th;,!t pl.lictice..'' r qroting .\i:r//,r/rrrgo rA('rJirdgcrn(nt. prl.a.30j): Drug t Niko/l (AOl .ludgenlcn1. px12. oy. " .Sie

e.g.- Ile,rflr.i iTt l Tl|{1BL1r1rnt, para, 8?1). n. 8i}0 0iting iy'a.ien4i (AC) Jrideernetrr. prrra. -lg3 (Nlrring thiit the leaders- and planncm ol-a particular conllici sttould bear heavier rcsponsibility, uith thc qualit'icatitin thar the !.aliti.' cf the {tfl'eDue is 1he printa|y considera ol in iinposlng a senteuce)). .lhe lvlajofity t{,res thrt lite ser]lences h;ve becn itlposed agllinst sonior govefrlmett and Lnilltarl: authcrrities in th€ tbllol\ing cascs; ,\r),ilagclc ( fa) Iudgenlent. paras. 4!)9, i02 i['liniitet oi lni'c'mratio ); Knmboadu t.TC\ iludgenrert- parus. ,.14. 6l -ri2 { t}r.ime 'tuin islef)r KtiuhLttzila ytt:) Judgeme'n1. paras 6. 764. 770 (lvlinistcr o1 Ilighcr Uducition an<i Scicnrific Reseai('h). [l se.,trai qtlirj. oases. lo1,er level otl'iclals. a-'r tcll gs those lvho tlid rot hold sovomrnert poslliols bavc ,.erciveil lile s(Lrtrlccs. 1'of ir;sh cei {or et a (Tfl) Judgenient. pafa. 58,5 (Prefe ct of K igali.Rrft.rJ: Ka.\isheru & lltt:i|dana (TC,.\ Jr.riigcmenr & srnteni',:. p. 8 (KalisheDa was trI Jl.5t of Kibuye)i G-d.tnftirsi lAct Jutlgenre l, pafa, 21.)tr lEoul gbtestrd ,Nt'usetra (l C l.fudgcr ncnr- irarul. 9q9- 1 {)0 il ( | fl uel t ial d irctor ol ir tea 1.a!ctr)r"! * h o e lerciserl ert ntr.ol ,rver kil lrr.r)l ?, Llt a;].!nd(t 1 lt_; .t r,ii,",,1 "r,, . |aras.:l6{t-.|7j(seconcivice-]rresi{leitot.|nte|uh4fnteutndti0na]|e',.e1);|lttlegekinon 7'18 (commauder a,rd inl]deiltial Burhorit] at Ngoma carnp): Gsr,//. f{I') Jirdgem&nl, par.as. tl;i-dx:i ;;l'nrnrnenr l)e|s0nr1i1}'inB}'umba1ldKil-.Lrngopretcalre'l.,.f(l||'e|'bol,fgne'tfe01.&,{!rafbi.,.',,ntir:'])ii.e(]|lJl'{]i\{romcnan liarnily AtTalls in Alril 199{). Tlt Frosecfior ,-. Xdahinttnq, CeseNo. ICTR-irl-61-f t1i i 2i4

Page 184

Judgement ard Sentence proven be].,ond rcasonat le doubt.t5:r7 Nlitigaring circumstancis need onlJ-- be balance of'the protrabi lities. I j:'3 "1.2.1 Aggravdilg-eue*ll$qrsss j0 L.).,cenbet 2A j i .*RlrfrF 857. The Appeals Chaniber has listed various iectors thai may c1unlil1" as asgraviting 0ircu:n$tances. These include the positiolr ofthe aceussd. the lenglh ofrinre during rvhich lhe cnme continued, premeditation, th': 3cti1-e padicipation of a superior in the criniftal acts of subordinates, the violent natule al the aets, the vuinerability or status 01'the viciirns. a parlicularl5 lrigh nurnirer o{' victiurs and the general cilcutnstances surounding the olTence(s;.'"" 853. Tlte Chamber rnay consider an individual's. p^tsilion olauthority or inf'lucnce. or their ahuse ofthat authorit), as an aggravatirrg. circLrrrrsrance.''"'llorrcrr'r any circumstance thnt is included as an element ofthe crime for which an individual is corrvicted cannot be ci:rnsidered as an agglavltirrg factor.l5al 859, fhe 1\4ajoril"v notes lhat, in the present case, Ndahirnana's abuse r:l- his role as an influeutial autholitl, is an element oi the crinic Rlr rvhich he lyas convicted utlder A *icie {r ( 1 ) and Article 6 (iJ ofthe St.ltute. Theref"ore, it cannot be consielered as an aggravating fbolor. 860. 'l1te lt4ajorily {-urlher {inds that thc ntuuher of victims $1'thr alreck on N",-ange church.

{'or which Ndahirnana is irrdivir{ually rcsponsible. is an aggravating fuctot,l'"t? as is the ibol tha[ aitackx ttrtrk place rt a palish, rrhcl'q people seiughr refuge because of'tlre universeil-v rccogrlised status of suclt r'rlaces as sitttc{ uarics- ' -" ' 8{:1. 'I'he klajolir"v- consi.lers thar Ndahimana's actious did not evidcnce an} paniqular z€al or sadism. He did noi phfsically particinarc in thc kil.l-irlgs. Accordingly. lhdse arc nol lbund ro bc aggravating f-act,rrs. a: surrgurtcd h) thc Pro.c;uli,rrr.'-'' 4.2.2 Miligating Cifcumstancet 862. Mitigliting c.it'cutrslances include factors such as the aecused's cr:operation rvith ihe Prtrsecution, volunrary sultender. evidence of good character rvilh nr prior crimir.ral conl.icfrrrns. comporment in detentiort" personal and limily circumstances. indirect pa{ioil}ation in alleged criminal acts, age aud assistance lo detainees or viotitns.r'*' )tr1 NyiruntauhuAo er *!. t.tC\ JudgeneDt. par,r. (r193 (.ilin| Na/jirut.{ et r.rl (AC-) .tuclgcrrent" para. 1038: {r1tei31i (AC) JnJgement, paras. 8:. 29.t). '''" Nyianusuhuko et rll. (1C) Jirdgernent, p!!la. tt19f lclljng ,trrir.rrr et.r. fAC) Ji,rdgernerl- l:)uta. l{}38," Neja/iieli IAC) Judgenrenl" Fara. 2q4). "' blrli*i,,r-1Ci Ju.lprn)ent, l,.Ir t.,8{t. Ndittlablthi;i tAa) ju.l$er}rent, fera. 1.15. '-', Sg,rr'rr:.,IqL r.l'r{.lBflner1. piira) J35-}36 Dragouir trliL,.\'et,il (Alt)

Jlrdgeme t. parils, iaJl-Jfi.t. '' \1lindt bolti: i r .\t' I J r,d :r'rnc nr - Dilra. lj?. t:" '\enanzrt (ACi Ju,lgcntJnl" pa.ui. 337-338: ]-.!i .lahdhir {AC) .lullgemsnt. p.vl. 135: .\irth.t (-T{.ti .lu.1gemcnr, pafa. 44lt: tsrtgosara el. ai ( IC) .lrdgement. pata. 22.'12: ,lenrgcndo al (l) .luilgcnrdnt. p:u 0. g0: Kdr?/.d ( l (.'i .Ilr{.lg.in.!1t, p;r.r. <7<t: RuL'ttlnh Lu',r I lC | .luJ!:ct ent. l)ar,r. :J. '- ' ' L',ttnnhtu,!,t t \l ) J Lrdr(m(nr. f.jrii . 357.. Ni.tkir tihrcf(r er ,//. (AC I .hdgemrl(lt, Fat:}. 561: (.!,.r.r i'l C) .lu.lgenel1. lrifar. i7(L.\*ll: \l',hinton,t t lr t JrtLl!.rn )t. narr. ^llj. ' "' 1. l l Sr ..lnt.cr 2rt l 1 O *,, Plosccuriufl r'los;ns Brict. t'.rJ. ]t rl /b j. ' '' tslu;/'i. r.\(,, JL,d!.rn(nL. p,lra.6'r(r. fhe l'\)seaio \j. Nd4hittana. Casc l,lo. ICTR-01-68-T 18.t t 271

Page 185

.Jtlrlge nerlt {trd Seme&:e ltl !)A(nhrt2$!l --1t q u 863. The Majority fioies that the Defence adduced evidence tiurirrg frial r+hich int'rcatid-ifat, t prior to the events alleged in thc Indicturent, Ndahimana hacl a history ol plcasanr and cooperarivc telationships with TLrtsis, both in his pn:{bssional and personai lifb.]54" The Defence also poir,ted to the lhct that Ndairimana is married and is Lhe :lhther ol'nine biological children ancl two adqrrettr clrildren.l5aT 864. The l)efenoe submitted evidence that Ndahimana assisted Tutsis during the reievant timt of the ludichnent.t54"" Several rvifiresses tesri{led 1o specilic incidents iu rvhich Ndahiurana penonalll' assisted them to reach a place ol $at'et). rr"" While the fv{ajodt-v is nrindfirl oi' Ndahimuna's liurnanitalian actions. it also considers thr: rlumber nf Tutsis that tire accused assisted in rclarion to the number cf viclims of Lhs altack on |',l.vange church. l'he dispropo$ionate resula o{'this comparison leads the 1\'lajoritv to vielv Ndahimana's assistance to 'l utsis as relatively selective" anil thercfirre il does not consider it to be a suhstantial rnitignting fbctor, 865. In rcspect to the accused's conduct duriig the ovcnts of 1994, the lr{ajority has considered that N\rdahimana did not pla1. + leading rcle in the attacks. [{e did not personaily participate il} these killings. In addition. the

lvlajority did not fil1d that the acctised planned or instigated the crimes. l[is responsibilitl, tbr the criures committed does nol result I'rom a premcditated plan. birt rather. lirm liis belated association to the crimes through his prcscucc a1 N,vange church on i {i April i994. l bc l\'lajority lunhsr lirund thal the accused clicl nat have thc Lequisite rcfis ren 10 support lindings ott othet utodes cf dilscl liabilitv such as J(''lr; indeed, the evidence in this case did not sildu' that fhc onll. reasonable conclusi{}n lo be draln fiom the accuser,l's actions is that he shared tlrs gennocid:r} intent ofthc main perpetrntors. Insteacl, his criminal respo*sibility is rlerived frorl his tarit approvai combined u,ith his presence at rhe crilre scene. 866, 'Ihe l{a]orit;, also finds it signilicant tlrat the acct$cd took positive aclicrts 1o preserre security it lhc t:omnrune in rhe clays {illlorving the deadl of Presideut Habyarimana unlil the heighL ol thc attacks. 'fh* Majotit;, is salisljed that llldahimana used the meeting cf I I Apri) 1994 tir disouss fte security situation ia lhe utnwtu.ne" Additionall]-. on this date, he requester"l trhe pr(:fet Io 1516 Wilress llLrns\i'[.21] Febf arj 2t]11 p. ll ( lrsrille,l thar Ndahlnrns ,'didn,t have anyrlring asrjn,,;1 ar]o e, lor even against Tutsis."); \\'irness Nkirirefie; T. 22 Februaft, :()l I pp. 7-g (Tcstified tllat

Ndal:irnar\? hsd ro1il hkn he hatl to leare his jDb &t the llutrill-a tca ftcto,-v because the arith{rr;lies did not 1;k$ fho lilct lhal hc erl]fli.ryed persorrs liorn olL ethnic,:.roups. This rritness a{!o leltllied that flt his u.edrling. mcmbers oi the bri&rl and l)feto,roi |artles \rere Tutsi}: llitnes$ Nl)2i T l8lrebruarl 201lp.2-jilCS)('lesliiiedtha{*hrr1 xttiiqks on thc'} u*j mjnorities occurerl in (iueL: 'an<l Clciye counnnes io li)91^ Ntlahinrana inlnedjstely went to th{.litcctdr ofhis company to leqrcst that xctiors ire laken 1't) Drolccl them). r5r'Del'eirce Closing Briei, paru. 5:3. Iia3 Dcienr-e Cltrriins t]rief'. oalas. 52?-i2:i. ria! Witness Nlll3il . l7 .lenu:ir-v 2011 p. i7 i"At the tinri ('1'the eveLrts .lufing the gen{aide, cvel if ,\iiahjniana uar unahle {o sa\c rnimy lirtsi li!e$, h€ lia$. ho\e!er" able to gi\e counsel ot ndvica tD $ojns'futsis so that lhe\ eould save' theit'qrvn skins...he assisted pi-ople to llee to go and seek Lefugc els€qhcre."i; Wiinrss NUl l: l - 18 Jilnurrl ?011 pp, -17-)8 (Testilicd that he escaped thc night o1' l-( .{pril 1994 and Ndahirltaru froricied the hclp of a policEman to assist him lo uross tle river to safely); Witnes$ ND7: T. 2.4 lanuaqv 201I p. 5 ('l'.'stitied th:( ou 14 April i99,1 she overheard Ndalrinana tell the gudarmes to open lire on tlie assailanrs il'recessar-v. On 17 Apr;l 1994. the accuseil 1iJ{lk her

and abolt 26 othdf sun'ivors ao ihe healdr cenhe): Wjtness ND6: 1"- !? JanLrurl 2011 pp. 5-1'y ('{estitied 1ih.d \!h!rB he v;cat \''ith Ndulrgutse ro N1'ange parish. the ger./.7/rne]. i!hich n-durrgulse stared ilere sent b;' Nclahilrinlr, chiircd tlLern s\.,a_\' and "actuall) slmost shot at !rs."): wirness Mukankusi: f. T lrebruarl 2Ul I p. lT tTcstiiicd reg:rldin-* sevc|al ilcidenrs rrhsre peopll wcre Javed because the coinmuDal p(rlicct!1cn of colrn1ulill ilBthor.jties stqlpu{{ in). The L>rosectlot't,. Ndchittla a. al:6e Na. ICTR-01-68-T 185 i 274

Page 186

Jltilgetficnt .tnd Seliet . 30 senLl K(rrlur E:i ru tte parisli.rsio '111e [4ojority has *lso considerecl that Nilahimana punish some of the perpetrators ofthe earlier aBacks on'Lulsis.ltt' 867. 'f'he N{ajoritS, recalis its findings that Ndahirnana is liable undcr Article 6 ("}) ol'rhe StatuLe for the crirnes commited bv ths cornmunal police cn 15 April 1994 (Chapter lV. Scclion 3.5.1,ii). Also, the lrtajorily lecalls its linclings that Ntlahimana's preseilco had a subslantial contributing eflbct on lhe altack on Nyange chLrlch ex 16 April 1994. Florvever, the klaiorit"v also takos into accou l elidence relating lo the fact thal the accused was atliliated ivith a moderate poli{iral parr}.. \\'itness NDl3 emphasized the el'fect thal tlle multip,arty syslerx had on the accused's atirhoritl,, given that he lvas a mernber of an opptsiticn pafiy.'"' Witrress CDi.. in his record i:f cuni'ession, stated:'ln terms ofpolitioal parties, I was a memtrer ofthe rnoderate LIIIR party an<i people calieci r.rs traitom and Inhotaryi acc,ornplices."lJs3 The lr4ajclitrv iickntwledges that Ndahimara ulso t"at ,, membet of the minoritl,' nroderate hIDR party and that this cculd have negativeh., iniluenced lhe u'ay he rvas perceived bv the Ilutu scciet-v in Kivunu €onlmune, 868. ln addiiirxr. the Defbnce also subrnitted evidense lo suggsst that. cr)r pared lo olher authofities !n tlte r:orultrite,

Ndahimana's pcrver lvas niinimal.lita Sevetai rvitnesses tesfified regardirrg ocoasions in rvhich pcrsons accused of a$acking 'fulsis *rre arresrd trbllo$ing t..\dahimana's order but rvere released b1, IPJ Kayishema a day or tlvo ialet. without a full investigation into the events.'ttt Witness CBK stated that, "[iln Kivrunu pecple hacl urore contidence in the [plriests rhan in the loc;rl govenrmeut offirials...The local pcpLrlation obeyed him [Father Seromba] more than the jocll aurhor.ities."r''" The L4ajority does nor accept that Ndahirlana's po\\er lvas mininal duling dre events in question and cmphasises fhal such cvidence in no way exonerates Ndahirnana fbr the |ole he played in the eve ts at Nl.ange parish. I"lorvever, the evidence gives the strong impression thal revercl persons of inlluence in Kivunu co ltluw na1l an intefest and were involved in lhe rnassacres. Addilionally, the fulajorily has {irund elservhcrc ihi}x the prcscnce of the accusecl at Nyange church rvas not inconsislent with the assertion liral he rvas under tlrri-at on l6 April 1994 (L-hapter lll, Secthn 6.3.7.2). Lt {i-l1her implies rhar Lhe accusecl's ttj(' T. ?4 Jaru$,v ?01 i p.

70. Ser: aLso T. 19 Aprjl 2il t I pp. --r5--r8 (lCS ); Ddtcrlce j-trllbit I:.1; i . 15 Fcbnrqfl ?0I I p. V ll( \r; Dclen.c L\hii,ir lrE: l. I? febnur.r lrrl I l1lr. l-.1 ,lC\r. '' (ei'e g. '1. :5 .lilnlrifj latl lr 7 ilCS] (lestified rhat rhen Ndailimara l'reard thst Ndurgulse hed lireatened the witllcss llecallie he fefuscd to participate in an attact allainst lutsis, hii instrucleii tel-rlirural ilflioiels trl c{)nisca{'c tltaj I ilear n that \€s ia Ndlrnguls€'s pos:ession. I hjs el'ent took phcr on the 8 A pril 1t)91); 'i-. 24 ,lair illlry 201 1 p. ?0 ('Irstifieif rhar Nilirbinintit sdnt telters '\o lhe connune con.teilleirr anrl nicnr bers o1' rhe cellirl. i:rrlxlnitteej Io cnslrre ihe security of rncnrbers o I the popu l3tion.. . [and] dirbur:ed tonznune ytliccmea tiJ j?c/drrs to crsru,* rlic :eciriity oi tirr: i(Xal inlubitaitts. .. -" ). I5j2."L'. l7 .lanuur-r' 101I IrF. 15-16 (stating- "'the people $,ho eleclecl hirn i,oulrl re:pdct and ilbE)' hirt. blrt rhc othcl pufl of the conlmu iry rvhich dirj not elect hirn did not do so...[Hlis pouels *oirld havc bcen rec1uce,,1, anii he pould nr-rt harebeenasstrrngdsbervouldhave[reendurirgthetiineoithesinglt:-pan.y[sltate.");1. l! Jarruary l0 p. 2r ilndeed- "during ihe tin)a 01'ffultipLlly polilj'-'s the po*ers ofthe io{,'.q'r{ri$"ri lrad been trirrrnred liEriiicallll to sui.lt an ett€nt l hilt those rl hQ \!u e in a ciillbreot

parl" than 1he one to rvhich the bow.gmeth e bclnngcd clid rol l;sten te \!hit the bc,rrrgarcs tre :ai,l. 'r; L 2.l .lanuarl 201 t p. 73 (lCs) lThis cvi<ience r\,as also co oboralcd tr,r, W jrncs$ Kll,l ). ' Dui'encr E-rbit';r 77. o 1-1. "t'Witrss Kayishernar 'f. l8 April ?(lll p.20 (Testilled tfiar IP,l ilat-ishento -rnedilled e gfeiii deal in lhe admirrist|ative tflairs of the coD18uiti."i. ri5t.witness KR3: 'f. :4 .tanuary ?01 I p. 74 ilCS) i.,somedmes rvhen GrCgoire N,.jahimana ar.regalrd so,irc fcoplc. K"tishcl]ra would release them.")l Wilness Nt)5; 1'. ?6 J:uuary 20 i I p. 5-i (w irnels i.f ested irr i.e laricrrr tt, t he kiilii rg ,, t a N'[r' l irQmas ]vlwenclczi. He \\'as tdlC tfual the ho rgmesit'e had authdrised his irrad;t. lle\.-erer. shcrtl] therealler, Kayishema rcleased him rurd the other fi\,e ruspects fionr custocl); lvirn*ss \D-i,l; r. 17 Fcbruru-r- it)ll p.64 l\Vifnessed the u rest of those s{spei:ted o{ Lhe rruriler of ir,{artil Karektzj. but l1,as toicJ by one iji the susoectg \rho jte ).1.r\ :r L nul,le Jijr, larrr thrt Krr ishcirra h.rrj reler:<J ilr, nr Iir,tn fLrit,)ctJ t. -'L T. J \o\€nrl.(.r:r)t0 p. l7: l)etcncr f\hibll .lJ, P. i. 'llt. Prute,tttot \' \.ttlitnt.r';o, ( .r\L \o. l( lR-i,l-Ali-l | ,\6 i 2i4

Page 187

.ludgeftel dltd Sentenie itl Ll.,?r.h./12|tLL -':2 pa(icipation in thrl liillings fta-v hale resulted frol)1 a sense of duress ralher than 1.or .rtrdii* o, ethnic hatred.

869. The N,lajr:r'it_v finds that Nriahimana's gootl chatacter and famill silur*ion nitigates his si:ntenee" The lv{ajority also finds lhe fbct that Ndahimana did lot possess thi genocidai inte t to kill the Tutsis attd that he tried to preserve security irr Kivnnr] connune in the da;"s following t[.le death of Presiclent Ilabyarirnana trfitil the situaticn became ertremell- chaotic. to carry significanl lveight as mitigating fbctors in sentencing. linaily. the lVajoritl'has also considered the influerce ,:rf cther authorities of Kivurnu comt|lune as being relevant in i1s cieterrr inatiorr of Ndahimana's sentence. 5, Ccnclusion 870. I'he Majoriry has the discrctiarr to impcse a singlc senLencc and notes tlia! this practicc is usually appropriate lvhere the offences nral.' be characleriscd as belongirig tc' a single criurinal hansaction.'t-'i S7l. The lvlajolilv has considered the gravitl"r:isach of the crimes lbr u,hich the accltsed hrs been convicled, as rvell as the aggravating and mitigatilg oircurnstancas mentio ecl b;- the partir:s. 871. {lfilsidtring the relevant circumstances discussed in ihe Judgement above, and haling ensured that the accused is not beiug punishe<l twice lirr the same crffence. the Mnjority', Judge Arre1, dissenting. sentsnces firdgoire lrldahimana to a single sentence ol'; 15 YEr{R.S OF IMPR.ISONI{8NT CONSnQUENTrAr, Or{nERS 873. This setitence

supe$edes anv otlrer sr:ntence imposed on Grdgoire rr-ciahinrana by anl. orhel State or institution. Crdgoire Ndahimanil shall receive credit for tin:e serue<i since his arre$t rlri ll August 2009" p{rsuant to J{r.rle l0l (C) of the Rules. 874. 'J'lre above senterrce shall bc sened in a State designared h], the ]\.ssident ol,the Jriburral. in consuitalion with the Chamber. 'I'be Governmenl of Rrvanda and tlie dcsignalsd State shaJl lre notified of such designation by the Registrar.

875. Lhtil his transfsr 1o his designated places ol' imprisonment, Grigoire Ndahirrana shall [:e kepr it detenticln under the present rouditions, 876. PulJuant to ilule 102 (R) of the Rules, on notice ofappeal. ifanv" cnfgrcenient rif the ahove sefitenee shall be sta!ed utitil a decision has been rendered on the appeal. r*-ith the conrricted persol: ncvenheless rrnru in irrg in rlctcntiulr.

877. Judge Are_v- appenils a dissenting opiniol to this Judgenent. litr i,rzru i I C) .luclgenrenr- pira, 585; )lttittdqbahi:i itc ) Judgt:n\cnt" pari.49?. Tke Proscctiory. Ntkthitttard, Case \o. tCTI{-01-68-T 181 i 2i!t

Page 188

-tu,l+e'.ncat 4.nd fu nte trcg Arusha. 30 .Decernber 201 l, done in English. l0 Decttnbet'?{ll i fr"f Aydin Sefa -'\kay Judge 315l FloreilCe Rita Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov [Seal of the Tribunal] 'l he Prosetvtor v. Nrlahiwaa, ('aJc }io, IC 1 R-0 I -69-T 188,/ 274

Page 189

Stso I . ln nry opinioll. the instanl oase is r-rne ofjoint criminai enterprise pa r excr:lletrce. The Accused, Crdgoire Ndahimana- may not ltave been the euterprise's mastennind. if in<ieecl there w?rs one" but he parricipated as actively in thc: enl_eryrise as Athanasr:' seronr ba. Gaspard Ka:ryarukiga, Fulgence Kal ishema, Tdlesphore Nehtnguise,l:sB aud others. albcit in his Lrlvn lnannsr. 2-. In its llre-De l'euce Briell the Delencc argued rhat the killirig oi''Iutsi eiviJians begaii in Ndahirnana's absence Judgeneut ard Senlence I)issenting Opinion of Judge Florence Rita Arrey Introduction ]lJ Deceuber 201 I and tl jlhout his knou'ledge. lProsecutiul Wilnesses] resril'ied that the killi;rgs sr.:rrter.1 cn rhe hills, thnl l"utsis,,vere kilied" thr.ir cows e:tlclt and their hoLses bLrnrt.-Cri!:oirc Ndahintana rvas certaifily nol responsible lbr ll:is. Tlrerc coLrl,l rircrc.lbrc rrot hur clctn anl. established plan" rvhelher designed r:rr rlcckled by {irigoire Ndahin:a'a, ,,vith a vielv to extenn;nating the't'utsi of the comln,:ne.'rtn i' I am oi the vierv that the plannilrg and preparation oftlre massacres c{irl not rnke place on cne single day or at olle or rrvc isoiated.nrJetings. Iiather" the pl*n evc)lved over time ri,irli parricipanrs joining the enterprise as the planning developed. Early entlrusiasts of the plan ro kiil the Tlrtsi civilians of Kivumu r:or'ri.r

w apptar to have iu;luded rdlesphore N,l,,ngutre, Furqencr", Kayishema. and caspard l{an;,arukiga. among others.tJt'('There is no evidcnce rrrat\dahimana ,.vas among this group o{'earl"v- adherenls. and ineleecl. he nra.v hal,e been reluctant to join lhe enrcrpris* in its initial stages. llut as tlre planning progressed" "nnr*nru, among KlvunlLr decision,makers strengtitened and th* mrmbcr of pffticipanls in the enler.prise mulfipliej, I agtee rvith rt . Uo;,,n11 that there is no evidence that r'vher 'l'dlesphore N<iungutie committeci the firit crimes again st 1l'L.rrsi civilians -il the days imnrediatel-v lbllorving rhe dlaih ot- Prcsidenl Hab,varimana" l,kiahimana suppo:ted the$e crimes or shared Ndrugutse,s crirninal intenr.i)0r .lhi5 diise, hoocu.r,. i;;;.r". ,,* the genocide commilled at N)'iuige Parish on Ii and l6 April 1994" and. as this opinior r.i.ill detail. I arn satisfietl that by 14 April I994. Gregoire Ndahimana knerv of the impenciing genociele, sharei! the cfirninal intent ofhis co-perpetratclrs. and marle a significant conlributi6n to tf,cinrerpr.ise. ],iE t n'Ie tb3t Fulgence Ka,-ishema and. TeLrsphore Ndungutse ha1,e n{rt trcen tricil b} rilis ll.ihunal a|.1 tiar Kanl'arukiga's citsc is not )i:t cclmplete. I rely exciusilely on rii" cuid",rce ,aou"ed in rhis casc irr iraking cunclusi.*s irlroLrt lhcirlar1icilrrlron irr rhc rrcnr. rr \ren;c pirri.h. - -.

Plf-l-)clfltLrr Brjfi. l,rr;. llt', ' " Dclincc wilness NDll: l. 18 Januall- 2rll{J pp.3{fi1. 'lt coull be lhe IIth- KirJishfrna" cacrlbuiefezi ilfu Rrlshema' sell1 a lstlc' 10 ths l'tctulhamwe addresse{l to a cenain Jean i}i}so(i. \rhrr \r.as ar, ltlterah{t,!1re ufour area. And in that fettcr that htferah.tnNe $as asked 1o slart the kiiling of rhi'llutris in thsl rreii. Alil hc $as |skcd to lea'c no stone unrurned' tQ lnakc xure rhat no Tutsis cscaped." sirress ND6: T. ?7.;anrBry 20li p. :r, '".ourgutr",, pr'ogramme *as to kill the'l-utsis who haci sought !€lirge at the clurrh." Also see eujjtnce iiiscirsseii bejo;. *rlt N''lungutse pal1icillsteil in earlt killinss Qf Iutsisll1 ritur"nu "o.rr-", wihess yA{ti t. t-s sei:teuber.2{tti}^ pp. 4i- ;16: on one occasiorl' the vilnesij an"l1lir31 rrt!.e11:s gavc ,,t.r,e) tr, [o; iri"nro on,ll Kanya.ukiga t{] get t'()oiii but rlrd) ne'er brought aLry. Nloreg'er. r.vhen a sisler or N"r ange crrLuch rried ; bdng t'*,d a, it" , "iirg".u:'iin;,iri,*,, .,"r lianyarukig;r "ptrured the ,irod . . . olr ti.]c grou.ld... ''o' ludgemelL para. 99" Tlle Prtsecxtot'\'. NdshiBafla, Cale No. IC.IR-0i,6iJ-T )89 / 274 -v4

Page 190

Judg€4erlt a d SLntefirc Jti l,)etember 2l]l J 3r+? 2, Att4elis on 'Ilulsi civilian$. 6-1 1-Altgil 1994 .1. As noterl a[:Ovo, I agree with the Majority's conclusiQn thaL lhe Prosccution has not cstablishcil thdl Ndirhimanr uas linblc lbr Ndungrr,.e's killing ol (ircgoirc \JakLrhalrn.r ": lhcrc ir no trvidence that he plan ed, instigal*tl lrr organised rhis killirrg. N{oreover, Ndungutse rvas a leachcr" 1d the Proseculion h*s not eslablished thar Ndahimana had authority over teachers *idrin the meoning of Ariicle 6 (3) r.rf the Statute. I am also satisfied that Ndahirnana had aresred a nuurtrer of low-level inrlividuals he mry ha.ve believed r.r,erc resprrnsible for tlrr firs1 killings.r163 5. Holvever" I bear in mind that KivLrmLl had a populatiori ol' onl;.' just ovcr J0,000 in habitants;rj6a that Ndttrlgutss u'as lrell-knor.vn {br his tongstanding anri-'l'utsl scntimenrx;ls"s 1621 ildLrngulse, in addition to his profbssidn as teacher rvas also the Vice-Chairnran of {hs Kivunr* {:ornn e MIINI):'$i and that Ndahimana rvrote a leftel'on ll April l!}9.1 inciieating thal hr wa$ rwarc thal-. Ndurigutsc \\a\ responsible klr "assault[ing]" persous "ur thrr- basis of their cthnieirl."''o' (-)n this eridenoe. I am satisfied thar by ll April 1994, Ndahimaua knerv that 'l'Jlesphote Ndungittse had participated in the killing of Crdgoire Ndakuirana, and took nrl steps kl have him ,letalned

or disanned. I consider this failrrre to take those measures ar,ailable rvithin his porvers as bourgtnestre to be r:f pafiicular significalce given that Ndahimana late| harl n*dungutse disarmed, after the killings at N_.rrrrge parish. r.rhelr NdultLttse thfealened Defence \\iitness KIt3, onc rt Ndahimana't associatcs.'t' n J. Secili!'n to Move Refusess into Nya[selehurc.fr" 1l-13 April lgj4 6. I agree rvith the Nlajority's conclusion r.vith respecl tc paragraph lg oi'rhe iridictrnent. Flolrever" I believe it is inpolt&n1 to cmphasise that retugees et the N)'enge church lvere not li'ee to rvander. 'fhe evidence !s conclusive that a roadbrlock was cstablishcd approxinratel.v 20 Io 30 lfieares {i'om }',iyauge charch on 13 April 1994 for thc purpose ot'restricting ihe lnovo,nent o l"I'uts is.r 5{'o As the Prosecution nrakes no mention of this roadblock !n the Indicllnent, I s'ill nrlL asscss l'lclahirnana's possihle contribution Kr the cr:nfinement tf 'lutsis. li6t Judgement. pala. 99. rstr '1. :'6 J anuary. :01 I pp. 50-i-l; lhe ,rin grtrt sl.e asktd Adricn Niyitege trra atcl I Jtdspho.e M.rn],antapLnla l,Ilrrr\l \i\ nfr:ort: in connecrion \\ith lhe killittc oi lh1)nlds Nl\\eitJeTi. ' "- Ptt^r.uktr \'. '\il,1iimo d. l(.''l li-:00 l-P] -611. flrcisi{-ir on the lilosecutign's Ntoaion }br.ludiciai Norice, T Apr.il :010, Adjudicated Fad r. I j65 wilncss CDL: T. l 1 Novernber ?0l0 p.

6{.1: f. il Noviirnber' 20 t0 p. 3i and wilncs$ CIll{: l . 1 Ndv.ftber :f}tL} pp. 7-,t. I l- I 6'l. | | lrotc,nbcr 21r1rr p. o0: f. l7.tirl,ur\ 2t)l I p. jl. - 'n'rltn,rc i \hihil I l,) r('r: Scc :rl:u L l? I (hru,r-r:ul I np. Js-lh rl( \/ '''' i. lrr ianury) 2{r|| fp. 7-S (lf \). ' - o ' s < c ' t i ' r c r u r n p l r : . \ \ ' i r n c , s N I ) : 1 : l . 2 r F e b r u a r y l 0 p p . J . 7 . : r - 2 2 , 2 : r . 2 6 - 2 7 ; w i t n c s s { j D t . : . r ' . 1 I N ( , v c n b d r ?A1A p. 61 Also see Witnesr r!D24. f. 21 liebruarl 201l l. lq: \lhen asl€d $'helher the l'tnri ci,-ilians at Nr:nge chutch had l'rcedctn of moYemcnt, thd \vitrlcss responderi: '"OI'course lnoil. ll rhc\ h.rJ l<jl th.rr Juuarj,rn Lhcr r.torrld liavr becn kjlled. s..' that tLlet had to s|3l nl ti.]at loealion.'. The Prt;seuior I Ndahinantt. (tase N.). ICTR-0l-68--l' l90 t 27tl

Page 191

.Judgetueli atul sentuuce JD Lu..nbqt 201 ) n_ 7. I f'ufihcr notc that the c{rrechism hall was not inside the cbu'ch.r!?' and rhus rio 3"1..!Jt# Lht' Vairrriti"s conclusion thdl "the t,:tirr:uu: c,.,uhi have *oirc inii(-lu thc ,.hrrrch a, rarlr ai 7 Anrii 1 90+.. "ty t ,1. lS lplil [994 {'113 April']i 8. At rhc outset, I observe that the Prosecution has not allegccl tlic comurission ol'arlv {"1.in1es on l3 antl J 4 ;{pril 1 99"1, and thus the i'elevant evidence goes tc Ndalrirnana's kurlr ledge 1;d in rcl11 on those critical ttvo d;rys prior to the massacres. 9' I t-urthel note that rhe DefLnce has adduced no evidence indicating thar Nr.lahimana lvas no{ af N1'ange parish on l li April. Nc'veuhe less. the burden remains on the llrosecution rg provc tha1. Xf{tim1n9 rvas tr<tt only present.at the parish that day bu1 rhal his pr.esencc was in so*re i.vay li ke<i lyith the kiliings thar tcok placa there on I 5 and I 6 April 1g94. 10.. ^l agree_ with the N'{ajority finding that Ilutr: assailants attagked the refuger,,s at Nyalge parish on l3 April bul that the Pnrseculion has rurt prilven ihat Gaspard KanyarLikiga instigatetl tiie utteck that ela1..1''72 1l There is no evidence lhat get lennes werr stationsd in KivturLr tttrxntwtrc prior ti.t Ndahimana's requisition of 1 r Ap'iJ r 994, anrJ it is .ot i' dispute rhat o' r r ,tpril t _cl+. Ndahimana" in his capacity nis boltrgne'trt-

requesred that the prilbt assigtr gentktrme.r i: Nyai.,u* parish. I':loir|s later, four gendarmes arrived in kiyt rrv ,.r,uro,rrrc. Thus. i corrsiilcr the rolc oi thc gerularnes il the subsequent cvcnLs at Nyange parish lo be o1'relevance. On lhe evitlencc availahlc" h'--rr'vcver, I camrot conc lude they prayed a hannfirr roie ai Nyangc parish .' 1 3 Aprii 1994. 1,2 Prnviding a l,ist of Tutsis t, fathe r Seromha in Ndahimana,s llresence 12' Witness CBI testified that at an unspecifiecl tinre on 13 April 1994" Serorrlra asked rhe re{itgees lvhetlrer there rvere "an-v other persons whr: rvere srill there on dre hill.'. Witness CBI gave Serotuba a list of l'utsi civilians who hicl not come to the pansir. and Serosba ilanded the lisr ro Ndahirnana. I-ater thal day' Witness f,lfll salr the 'l'utsis *i,,,u. n,rn,.n he had listsd arivc ar the fl*,:^lT 1'l:ived in.a vchicre beronging ro wirncss crlz..'t'htt vehicrc rvas rlr;o.i, irlo'n.,un t]trncd Y i )tti.tlla Jlsdma.' " 13' This incldenl rvas nr:t adequaterl convcyed by the prosecutrou in paragraph 14 of rrre hdictment. l-{owever" the Def'cnce has laised no olrjections rvith r.egards to nctice on this issuE. Mofe irnportantly, this evidelce goes to the mens rei a{ the Accused" a nlateriel ircl that was pled in the Indictmenr.l5?a +.1 Attaek on the Parish and Rde ofthe 6e darntes Assisnerl to the prrish ;'70\itre\)(Bk. [. J \o\<nlbcil

f0l$ l]. .u, _ J (lgement pora. l5i). '' - Judgemenl para.28:. '-'''I- 14 Seltember:010 pp.30-33. Arnring the ldtsis lrho arri!fl] srbsrqusrtl-"- at the churuh- t5c \litness sa* .,\ntoine liarake and hi5 iunily. '''' See lbr example. pro.rrci]r. r ,-. Kanvantkiga, tC1.R_t)2_7g,.,\tt7j.2, Dccision on Gasparr.i Ka|).ar krsJ s lntsrlorut,Iy Appoal ofa llecision on rhe lj*clusir i.,f f,l.,i,lence,:: Viarcit:Ofif, paras. ff_fO. The Prr.\ecutor t'_ Ntlahinqna. (ascNo. l{lTit{i-6g_T )91 i 27a

Page 192

paraicular his evidence with respect to F'afher Seromba's recluest lot a lisl of'Iiltsis who hac nor cone to the parish. and Ntlahimana's role in ensurins that the1, n'ere L'rrought :o the par.ish. '[he witness flrst provided details of this incident in his t'irst starernent to investigators date<J August 2000, ivell before Ndahimnna rvas indicted b1,'tlris TriLrrinal. As the wilness was personal13, involverj ilt providing names of lutsis who had not aruived at th* par;sh to Father Serolrba q,ho thcn gave the list to Ndahitnana, he would have had a better recollection of the details of tlis incidenithan ol others that took piace during rvhat u,oukl have troen a traumatic period fbr the $,itness. a Tutsi. Morcover.,,it is clear f'rom the witness' testimon3, thar hc blanred himsclf lbr providing the nemcs ro Seromba,l5Tt' ancl this too r'vould har'e made the incidenr a memlrubls <ine. lrinalll,. i nole thaL tlie rvitness provided a substanlial amount ci'detail aboul this inciclenl, naming bolh 1i* relugees n4xr rvere brought to the parish that dey and details of the vchicle in rvhich they arivetj. as rvell as rhe name of the driver.'"' I also observe lVitness YAI-I testified thst Ka;-ishema and Kanlari.rkiga brought T'utsis to ihe chur"ch in Kanyarukiga's -_vehiole that ctay fullorving a neet;ng wjth Ndahimana and olher alleged mellibers r.rf lhe JCH.ri,-r 15. On Witness CBI's evidence in particular, anci thc evidencs of'Witness YAIJ rvhich supports his accounl thal alJeged rnembers ol'thejoint criminal enlcrprisc broughl'IirLsis ro thc clrurch ut i3 April 1994. I am satisficd that NrJahin:ana participatecl in bringing 'l'utsis u,ho had rcnained sr houre or rvith lriends *nd famili, ro N)."ngs parish on I 3 April 199:1.

16. I concur rvith the l\lajority that on I I April | 994" those" incluriirrg Ndah imena" w,ho decilecl t1r lnove the retitgees who lvere at the ccuntunal ollice to N1'ange parish. rnay havc clone so bec.ause they beiicved they could better prot$ct and assist the refugces ai the parisir.li?q While there is 1r; evidence that on l3 April 1994, mem!:em o1'thc joint criininal enterpriie lbrce.l 'Lutsi ref'ugees r.vliir were in their hotres r:r rvith lliends and I'anil-l'to Nyange parish, I ian think oi.no plausible benigo tnotive lbr such transfbrs on that da-v, padicularlv as tlre iransier appears lfl have ireen principalll engitteeretl by Athanase seroinba, Fulgence Kayishemn and cjaspar.d Kan-varukiga, ali of q,irom appeaf 10 have Lreeu early suppofters cr1' the plan to exlemrinate Klvttgru cinytuna's ll'ulsi rj75 I conli'3cr thi:t man)' {tf tttc c(tncenls e-\pressed_b) the lvajolit! il'l pl.agraphr f26 ef the Judgernent \!ith respctr 1i) :lt: "YLililty of witness llHl ra'eic spcculdtivc. whilc I ilo aireeiharihe ieci rlrar thc virness filr *re nccri ro.,ini.rrr.r fthe RPF I that he would be absent fiont Ru'anda ,"r,hile testifiiirg in the i:rsrant pr.oceeclingt', r,,ouid be problematir. I sec llo disqeFancies suggeliting thal the rritress' lies 10 thc RPF irnpacte<i on his eviilenco. I drr nol r,onsiiirr rnt dis!-repan!l' n"tcd irr.lrr.igrph 227,'fthe Judgctrleirl to bc lL

significanl one parriurrlarty as the r.ritne:: a,lnittcd iu lrirl uI'rI lre drd nor sci NdiLl]ilnall.r or1 7 -\pril 1994- Fufihcr, as t rrjll djscuss in norc delilij belorv, I consiclcr the evincnce on the a1'ail€rhilitl- ofthe rcd ccrmmunal rehicle to be too incooclu$i!,c to makc a flnCins lltat lroLild irtp:lct rlll \vrlnoss qedibility' I do l1ot agree with the [lajoritf irr pflfa$eFh 2:i0 (]fthr: Judgomcnl that rhc':\litness recanLcrl arrl asscnicn oi mectjrgs " ll$lller tlle witrrdsN dcciddd lhfir nh t hc had pLeric,uill.iicscribecl as .'a rnciting.. 1va,r'jn iai:r -ir cotlv€rsation.'" lb rny nrind this is a sirrrple natter of se antic, rarher thalr a discrep.anc,r. i:irallr,- irith r.e:pe.t lo thr ::?fllll _:,:Tllll'r:- in paragtitPh 23 | oi lhc Judgernenlt" ihar ir di.l nor in.l 'his a|eourt sur,iicienrt,v coni,;ttling an,"r ocrarle{:t trtirr lcsirt-d to lhc mtrctin!:s N{Jahirnani} irllclredly attended". I rccall that tlris ltllness 1vas a,.i-iiigec at tho timc ol the events: ancl on this basis. I find it unlikely ihst he iroul<I havc bcen ablc trr providc morc detril. I hjrihel. disarj.cr lvith lbe Majotil]is finding nt pamgftrph 479 that ttra ta.r that "the rrit|ess iliii nor repo that NdaLrimana terrderl anr fleeriirg l:rf iot to the attark" ol t 5 Af fil lg94 is siglliiicant. As a rel ugee. the $,ltltess nlzry llot h :t\,€ ,re e n il1 a pos jtiin to -obsetre

iceetirtgs taking place at the p|esbytery'. bn 1be co]]ariir).. j ionsidcr llre tict atlat thc lyjlnoss dili m,t menhon I*lly: llnl"lp. ion i rncclir)g-s.rrr.t5. A6l.il 1994 suggests thal lre \.vas nor ovefty dele|n.riled to inrpLicar N o a i ) r r f i r n o I n c J c h i r n J r \ c J \ l s l l c a l n f t l t ( J ! \ ' s f \ i n l . ''," Dcii'ncc E\hrhit:5 {Al '' " T. l"l Srlllcrnher:trlU Fp. jo-jj. ' - ' l . I i S e p t e r n b e r 2 0 l r ) p p . + J - 4 5 . ' .fudgenrcnr. Fcfas. lJ5- l-lb. 7he jlrosecutor ,-. it-dchinauu. Ca-re No. IL.TR-01-66-.I. 19: r 2 7.i

Page 193

Judgerten artl Sentence t) D.kernlr\|il i, :2. lLrk population. For example, Witness CBS tcstifieci that on 13 ,{pril 199.1, Scr.onr freirlsc-lT-t.}J dislributc ibtrd to the rgty$c-r-'s. and askEd !.ht: gendartner to slrcor iny refugee taking bixranas iionr the rr0nalla plcn(otion.'"' \liihress t_'ts1 also testiticd that rvhen thc reI'ugees tricd to niek bananas lrom trees neai' the parish that day, Falher Seromba tlrreatr;ner.l tc shogi thern.lrol \\iitless NDll sratod that on I I April 1994, Kayishema and olhers sent a letter aclclressed !o a cefiain Jean llosco, an lnlushafiwe in the area. {n thal letter Jean Bosco lvas dircctecl "b start killing th*'l'uLsis in thr: area, and "lvas asked to leave no stone nnlurneel, to niake sure liliit no'l'ulsis esc*Ded.',i58? Witnesses CRI{ and CRY both lesrifiecl that Kanyarukiga lvas inr,.,hccl in rhc atri}cL un rhe rr t-ugees that look place on 14 Aprii l994.ris3 l?. .ln conclttsion, I partially disaglec r.vith the hlaiority's flnding Lhat 'uo e,'ir"leur:c shuwr tlat at thal time Ndahimana rvas sprrled on by crimilal inlentions..."rtnf !\'hils I u1 ullirlc iLr conclu;e he1'ond reasnuable doubt that Ndahin:ana shared Lhe intent of'1hc ear.liesl ryicmbers o1'rhe -;6rn1 criminal enterprise on l3 April .199.;1, I arn cedain that by this rjate he rvas a.,vare 6f lheir intenr r.c hann the reftlgees. I'here is no evidence that he took any

o1'rhc nleasures rvithin his p{lwers ns bourgrnestre to hinder their plans. 4"J Ndahimanaos Presenoe rt Nvenge Farish on 13 April 1994 .1.1.1 11"- ll: |1qiq$ has raiscd.concems ivilh respect to the credibilitl. ol Prosecution Witncsses cBl(,''"'cBY'"u and cD.rr:8?. I do not agree eitirery rvith its c.ncrusions. I srad b).noring that none o:f'thesc rvitnesses has been accused of participaling in the genociele, no evidence has i:een adduced suggesting that an)' of these r"itneises had a *motive to lie. and all three werc ul a parficlllarl)' good posilit)L to obssrve rvhat was taking place at the parish rJuring th* period at issLrc. 19' To my mind, Witness CBK's age *t the lifie of the events is not a tactor iu assessilg his credibility.rjss \tr'hile hc was obiectivei-y young, he ,"as treutJ as an adulr b}', those aroul6 him, a'cl ifl particular Fatlter Seromba. ln his firit'statcmiJ-nt ta ICTR invqstigators in 2000. thc rvitness onlv refbrred ro Ndahirnana as having been !.rescnt at Nyange parish ai oue rreeting anrl thar lrecting to.]k place on l5 ApliJ 1994 ^at nightdlr" in the piesbltery r*n l.lo*r"*r, iir'"iri.r"rr", lir.rr.o almost erciusively on seromba, r.vhioh *as natLrial given'rhe lvitne$s, posilion at the time. hr addition. the sta1.ement concentrated on the events oi ii and l6 ;\pril 1994 ratlier than rhe leael-up 1o the. gcnocicle-lrlr, Sirnilally, i am not

particularl.y concer"ned ahout the lvilness, iailure tc menlk)n i'Jdahimana irr his secclrd slatement riaie<i 2001 is that statelreni concenlratcd alnrost enlirel,v 'n Oaspard l{anyarukiga and was extremely short. In this statemenl, the lvitness s;iid th*t he hacl seen Kanyarukiga ar the parish on t4 April is-9.{" hur this is all he had to say about rhe read up ro u:e [r' I o \eprrmherlfrlo p. t4 '"' r.il sel's",'11'., .1111,0. to. ""'T l8 J$rrdn l|llrtp|. -to_jl. "" \\'itn,-ss ( IIR;-f. lNoremtrer2Ul0p. l6; Wjrness CBy:,I,. l0 No\.ember Z{ 0 p. 27 ii(]S). '-"".ludgenrent. Ir.rl u. :fo. ' JuLlgflnciir Fal.rs. 2j5-:18. '"" Jrrdgernetrr parts )-!a-l{0 ''o' JutJgerntnt p:Lras :+l-:lf. b+7 '-"' See.ludtcrlte t lir u. l-rj. ' -- D(ler!e E\lubir -l(,. 1i! l)etbnce Exbib;t 40. TIE P,asec tor.t,. Ntlllthtatxa, Casrr No. tCTR-01-6g_T 1r3 t 274 44,4 '"7

Page 194

J udge nett atul S< ntc nce allacks of l5 and l{i April l994.rrer Despite minor discrepancics. liis slatement Out"C Jfld, Jttr!-# strbsequetrt teslitttotties^-in the Seromlsa awd Karryurukiga trials rvere gener.ally cfitsisteut with hi$ evidence in this case.lsq: I alsa note that contrar.v to other rvitnesses, Witness CBi{ testitisd thai he did no1 see Ndahimana iluring the a{ack on 15 April l994,rjqj xticli suggests thal he }a,as nol or'erz-ealorts in inplicating Ndahiniana in tlie events at N1'ange parish. Furthet.. it is evicjent liom iiis prior statemenls that although the rvitness considcred Atiranisc Seromba to he most resnonsible firr the killings at N-vange parish-lvhich is nnsurprisiur given the uitncss' posilion rt llrc plri:6-- he lvas very caref].tl to sir]'thst he never sarv Seromba aclu{}ll!'{ake part iJl a ki,ling.'lhe wltness *lso took care, both irt tliese earJy sluternenl,i and a1 tiirl, ro.iisiinguish beilreen lvhat he sarv and whar he inl'encd. Irlore generalll", his demeanour at trial. fie ornt,uit ,lf <tetail he prrivieied, and the fact that he r'vas not shalien on cross-eramination. all cr'rulc]'ed credibiliq' an<t reliability. Finall1,, rnucir ofthe s'itness' evidence is corclborated in r'hole or in pan b;- other rvitnesses. 20' t-hlike the lVlajorit"'-. I am not esper,i:rily concene<J by Lhe iliso.dpdnoies txltweur Wirness CllY's evitience at lt'ial and

his prior statelnerlLs rvith respeit tu tlurcs.li"r I a1r sulisfieJ rrjr"h tiie witness' eKplilnaticn that rvhen he rvas firs1 intervier,led inves(igaiors rvcre principalll..interested in thc evcnts that ltlok place and did not lbcus irn the dales.rr"j l{olvever, I ckr sharr lhe l.e..ier}-ations ol the L{ajoritl ,with respecr to his evidence about evenls on 15 anrl 16 Aprii.i5e6 Thar said, the witness' account of events lvas consistent with the evidence of other witnesies { td i do noi clouirt that he was at the pafish during the peliod at issue. The lvitness testified that he sa,,,r Ndahimana ar |f5 nlri;t on 3,AJ'ril l9ql. Thc Defcncc hrs adrJuccd cvi.lcnce intJicaring [hnr Ndahinrrri:r rrcs in Klgalr that day.'- ' I do ntrt t-tttd tlie evidence on This issue conclusivs but obscrvc that evelr ift diC, I rvould not consider fhis discreparrcv about Ndahimane's presence at Nyange parish qn g April ti; be of suffic'ient significance to rendet the witness' evidence entirgly uureiiabie. i filther note tliat at lrial,.^the wilness onl"v testiiied to having seen Ndahimana at thc pai ish in the cad3.' rnourilgs ol l5rv3. and 16 April l994r5ee and irr rhe latc aftemoo, "f 1i; l;;jij;i"i'i,",iii';-,r'r-r"'r,I n"rr pa(icipated in the attacks on those days. I'hLrs 1ike witness ctlK, he does not appear.lo have beer: ovtrzealous in implioating Ndahimana in the events ai Nyange parish.

Fu.rrher, the n itness providerl substantial detail aboi.rt the events at issue. his te$timon]; in ihii case rvas generally oonsisient rvrllr ri:'I Defcnce Ex-hibit i9. itt. Ptosecutiorr Exhibir 19; DelcncL- Exhihits -1g,,11.4:. At para.237 ot ttrs.ludg€nl€nt, the N.1aio!.iii' flotcs ihat "witneslj cllK tcslified in the.tiro,tird c|ise tlrat hlr nreeline$ |.]ok placc un 14 r\pril 19i),1. lh lilrtbef s1,irj th:d the rei'ugees Iere disanned'al sorne poinf'but that he cliil not i<no* wilo rrrade the rleci:rior to rjo so. Ilo\re]-er- jn ihe Kqtl))uruAigq rase he said that the Tutsis r.r,e|e disirrmed on l-l April 1994 ir), authofilics incLurling Ntlahimana. Iia;'ilhem:r' Kan,r'utukiga. lvfbakilirehe and witness i'Dt,." l see ,u .iir",."prnay tretu,efr th{}sc tu,o,ralcments. lhe second strilement darcs not indicate that the witness "suddcnl\'" knerr ivho tr,oi the dccision to disiu.in thr railgijc!. ''"' 1. 3 Novernbcr 2fil0 n. J8. r5!a lucigenient. para- 466. ' ' " t . l 0 N o r c n r l ' e r . l r r l r J p . I | { l ( s ) '-'" .1u,lgenrenr. pa|as. .166-.168. | ,rrn csncerLrecl that in his 1996 !1atem€ltt {Detence ljrhr.bii 6?)" fie onl). rne,rrronerl hevi[g secn Ndahimana orce beibre thc e\ents :d F-]'ange parish. ll1 hjs :000 statgnlent r,rhich rral rnor.,] delalled (Del'ence Exhibit 66). he nDted lBvittq se€rr Ndahinana on-ser,eral o."casi{,rns pf!{:}r tr) the ilta.ks on I i

rtn.i l6 , .pfrl, but did not mentiorl Nclahimanil's o."r"nia on those da1,s. Horve\er, I obr*,!" ttrut fl,rt secutrd stal.emenl. prctvided unly a relati'r'eh sup'€rilcial account of the events 0o 15 and 16 April ancl rellrrcd 1o ro Drcrtings at all. N,t re,,jr,rr, both statements .fbcused plina|ily"on Athanase Serornba. Ne!r:11i1"1.r0. I rvill only rel." on WitDlss CtJy,:r gvidcn.r u,rtfr fcy.'Lt lclhc (renll ot lj rlLl l6 \pril \\herc it is rolruborli;J. " l)ete.ce \\jitnesser Lrneriil NlLrnsl. T.2g.l'ebnrarr 20il pp. r-7; uirriss tlxl; 'r'.2:i frerrruar):0lr p. lg: and \\itnL'rrKRi: l. 2JJ,rrrLrur.r 2'rl t pn 57- i8 tl(.Sr ' --' l . (j \o\ cnther -l0lrr Dlr. J^-J7 rl( S,. . | : f ! < n l l ' c f l n l r r . p r . 5 + - 5 5 : l l u \ , ) \ c m h e r f { r l t , p . j : ( t { s r . I. I \r|1 cnrt'er j0 itr pp. .1u-.t7 i t(.{ ,. F.i) 'fhe Prosecutor I Nrtahiuaaa. Case No. ICTR-(I l-6g-T 19.t / 274 -1r'/I !T

Page 195

../u(/Cat ea! clnal Se lt.t!c<' hisev!dence inKcnyan&iga,1t'0randhervasnotshakcnoncross-cxanrinati.n.rinurr..* witness' evidence is corrobora{ed in r.vhole or in pan by other iviincsses. 21' \Vitness CDJ was cotlsistent antl clear on cross-exarnination. While he lves not speoiiic with respect to the daLes of the calendar nonth. he rvrx cl*ar about lhe <Ja;..s olthe oueok on rvhich the events at the church took place, and this evidence rriu consistenl with ;hff of othdr rvitncsse$. it lyas the witness' habit to an ive at the parish at a specilic tinre each day. an<i this ren*lers lris rec6llection sbout tilnes tc.bt pa(icularly rcliable l7 years after the events. I have no reservatjons about re u'itness" credibility and reliability. 4.3.2 :\ssessment of Evidenge ).2. witness clrK desc|ibed rrvo meerings ar ihe presbylcry on 13 April r 994 attendr:ci iiv nlcmbers ol'tlie allesed JClli ing1u,1;'t* Ndahimaxa, one irr ihq morning ancl a sccond in the crrt! al-tem.on'r602 witneis cDJ orLrl:$. i::.,u ,recti'g with surr{i of rhc same parricipanls, incruurng Ndahirnana, iri tlie early evening.lnn'' 'l'hesc restiintxries ard nol nlN.ltt-rall,"- crelusivij. Witiiess {.1D.} would not have been in a pr;sitiun Io observe meelings thal rook praoe earrief in the day, and Witness CllK miglir nol have seen a meeting that took plaoe in the ezrrll, evelring. fVlt,e.iu CHI ccnoborated witness CBK's

evidenoe that member.s of the a egecl JCE met irt thi presb.vierl. in mid-nroming on 13 Ap|il 1994.16'4 I accr:r'cl no rveight tc) the tact ttrat Witness CBI believeci ihat meeling took place at approximateti, l0:00 a.m. ,vhije Witness CBK testif.ied that it ror:k piace at l1:00 a'm' Witness CBI also corroboratcd Witless CBK's evidence that Ndahimana anl Serr.rmba were.together at the parish latcr that da1,'. I fbunii Witness CDJ to be credible and reliabie aJdo n,ri t'eel that his evidence reqriires corroboration to be,"fi.J rp.. 23' As notecl above, witness CBK resfified that he s:lv N<Iahimana iincl olher menrbers of theJoint oriminal enterprise' inclu<Jins seroniba, Kayisherna and Nciungutse. tblror.ving rhe attacrk at abuul 2:00 p'm' wirrress CBY tesriied that he sar.v Ndahimar,*.,i,1 uth", authorities at fhe parish torvanl the end of the artack" and that NrJahimana tord trre assairarit, io go hc,nls.,,,,', witness yAU restilied that she.anived at the parish on l3 Aprir rw+ at mioaa,t. rJpon arrival, she sarv Ndarrjniana au.N other alleged mernbers of the joint eriminor .nt",;;;, iJctLrding lralher serourrra. rurgsnce lial"ishcma. and Kanyarukiga, rneeiing in fiont or rhe p"rior,r r**,.ii.ioiiti s;;r.:l ;t . ?it" *" relcr to tlre arncl rltat took nlacc that iiay, I infbr that unl o,rioe,l antl sau these indi'idrai togerher alier the a ack. witness i:Dl r"'rtilrci rhar hc

saw -NirJi*ana t.,gcther rvith scromba anil Kanrarukigu in thu *arl1 crcninil.t,','l 24' I am theretbre satisfied that tle Proseeution has proven bevond reassnable dou6t thar Ndahimana pa$icipated in at least three meelilrgs rvith other ntembers of the allegecl .]{.E, including lather Se.rourba, Fulgence Kayishent:r- nna fellspf,."e Xa,,,,g,,rr", un i -.i April l?94, one thst took place in the moming bclbre tlre day"s attar:k, anotirel rhat io-<ri flace just alier rhe artack. arnt f ul.,i,.ri that evenins. ''' Deti'ncr F.,,hibirs 6s.,rrd {.9. " - j l . i N u \ c r n b r f 2 0 l 0 f p . i , - 7 . l { ) , ) { . '-"' I- l1 \urernher 2rltr)pp. 28-l(). '"T. liSeplemhcr:!]! fn.:v_rrr-f 2 t S..fr..rnbL.r 2Lrt I I II. t . t t i \ 0 \ r n r k r : r r l 0 l f 1 9 . 1 0 ( t ( \ ) . ;;.; I i5 Scprrnrhcr l0tdtl..U-4-r. I ini'or that rhc lvitness arri|er.l iin l3Aprit l9q,{. ' ' T . l l N o r ( l r b o . l n t ( t t , F 2 3 _ : 9 I'lle Plolecuto{r. Nd,,hi anq, Cese i,\o. lc.fRl)l-6g_.f 195 i 214

Page 196

.lwigetnenl unct Seae*t J0 Deyher 20ll '<l L+ 25. While I accept Proseci"ttion Witrress CflY's eviclence rhal Ndahimana clirecterj thddailanr:l lhat d?rv to go hon'te-l6as { cannot determine rvliether he tlid this to prolccr tlie refrrgees of because he had concluded that the atlackers rvould be ovenvhelmed by the iarge nunrber of rc1'ugees. Floltuver, this evidence demonstnrtes that Ndahimaua had some iul'luence over the attacke6. 4,4 Conclusion-l3 April 199;{ 26. Iam satisl'ied that Ndahimana pailicipated, loget]rer rvith Athanase serrr:mba. caspard K;rny;rlukiglt ancl Fulgence Kayisherna in the decision lo bring'l'utsi civilians ll&o hatl no! sorlre tc) the parish to the church cn [3 April 199.1. I do not believe the purpi:se r:f this trperation was 1t protcct the refttgees. I am f-urthcr satisfied rhat Ndahimana knew about the attack thaf tcok place on 13 April 1994' No evidence rvas adtiuced that he took any me.rsures rvithin his j:rowers es bouvgtneslrc to punish the perpetrators of tlris attack or deter subseqLrent a aolis. Although the de'tails are unavailable, I rlo nnt douirt that the f.tte ofthe rcjugees \\as eliscuss*rl bv }idahimana and mentbc|s ol thejoinl ctitninal cntcrprirc U li,\pril 199i. lalrr tirrthcI sctislicrl-rhar ii-r thi* drte. tn-enlbem ol the alleged JCE, irrcluding Father Serourba and Tdlespholc Ndungctse. had n9 intention of protecting the

fef'r'lgees and that Nd.rhir:rana was al.varc of this. Nevertheless, I carur0t conclude beyond reasonable donbt that Ndahimana sharccl rhcir irrrentr on 13 Lnril 1994_ 5. l4 April I99.4 {..! 4:\pril'l) 5.1 The.{"libi 27. Muoh ofNdahimana's alibi lbr this day is no1 incornpatible lvitir the Prosecution's evidence. i am salislied tlral Ndahirnana may have I'aciliratecl the passage oi'Dr. Ntahuru$,unga's corpss through the roadblock h1" the parish. and that Ndahimana spent some title in (he rnid to late altemoon a1 d1e home of thc deceascd. The nrairr incompatibility is xhe eviclence oi' lle{ince witness Thdrtse Mukahideri that the accused was present al hci house l.l.om 4:00 p.m. until rridnight thal da;. As 1*'ill discuss in mote dijtail belorv.rt""' I am oflhe view that !,luk.rbitieri.s evidence rvas sufficiently' unreliable thar it cr.rulej be overclrmc bl ccnpelling prosecgtion cvidetce.

28. The evidence of Defence Witness ND?4 is not enLirej), incompatiblc wirh tlre {,rosrcurion evide*ce. The rvitness r,r,as manniug the roadhloci,i just outside the pariih on t4 April I994. He salv Ndahinrana pass throLrgh the roadblock on lris way to the presb_vter] l:etween l:0oand 2:00 p.nr. on 1'f April l$91'. when Nclahiniana arrivcd a1 rhe presb).rgry, "ever3.'cne Iinclu<iing rhe'luisis] mcved towards lrim, even the gentfurmes" but the rviruess courd not hear lvhal fhel u,ere sayirrg. Ndalrimana returncd lrom the presbl4erv appklximately .10 minures later.r61! J'ie rvirness sarv Ndahimana again laler that day. Betr,veen l:00 ancl 4:00 pil.. thosc nianning thc roadirlock searcneLl the ve.hicle carning the 'hiotul remairis'" of a nan ,"i.,u ,"o, killed in Kigali. Appraxi'rately 20 mi,ules later, the bourgnestre "'passed b""- ihere". and his vehicle to,., ,uau se,ir"he,l.ld,l 29 Although $'iitness ND2'l's account ofthe attacks at the church rvas il sorfle respects unshaken on cross-exarnination elespile the Prosecul.iot's eflbrts to confuse him. I nel,erthelesi have conferns about the wiaiess' creclibility. I recall that he lvas an accomplice ir.r the atlacks ar Nyange. and " ' l . l 0 \ . , \ c n , t . . . r : U t u t \ l ) . l q - : 0 r i ( S l rrssent, Jl.tfii. -r ). '"r0 1 . 2l t-ebrL,r,r l0l l pp 8-9. '" T.:i Fehlrar. :tl t l1l) 9. )2. 'Ilre Proseuttat 't. Ntlzrltinara, Case No. ICTR-01-{ilJ-T tt)6 I 274

Page 197

,/udg,e nen at,J Stnttnct JA bt:ce xr )01 I 2t4 eonfes\cd lo having niirliripated 1n epg rrf Lltc carll killirgs ,'f futsiJ iir llrc (.'onttftKll('.'t' li pa{isulnr. t hav,l reservaticns aboul: his r+peated insistellce t{':at Nrlahilran:r ci:ultl nt'1 have p*ssed rhrough the roadblock manned bv the witfiess withrrr"rt the rvirness Lnot\ ing ubtrrLt ir. ""' f)n re- examilration lhe rvitness testilled that "l could only knorv about those who passed b,v lhe roadhhck if I sarv rhem. Bur l'm telling you that basically lve were at the roadblock all the linre because, eveu to gel our food, rve got this not tar i"roin that rcfldblock. So I can speak to the things th0t I rvirnessed. BLtt as to the events o{ incidents that I did not lvitness. I can't speali to thern."l6]a Yer, b;' the ivitness' own account he was not at the foadblock during signiiicant pcriods. LIc rvas not therc r.vhile he participaied in the altacks orr l.l rnd l5 April. nc,r'rvas he at the roadbkrck r.vhile artending to fhmil), business on l6 ApriJ,l''ri lVlorcovr'r. he sai,l ''when wc rvete tired, lve rvould go home."'{'f' l hus. I dc nol accept the witness' con(ention that Ndahimane could not have passed through tlie toadtrk:ck on the wa-v to or l'rom N,-r.'ange parish during rhe period l3-16 April 1994 g:rjept al the times indicatcd h), the lvilnsss. I furlher note that the witness appcared !o hold lrulgcnce

Kayishema. and 1o a lesser extent Witness CDI.,. alone responsible fcrr the geuocide at Nyange. fhis is perhaps i:ecause he rvas closer to those particular participant$ in the JCFI thar the others, trLrt he provided littic fcrundation loi his geue_ral as$en;Llns ihat IPJ Kal.isherna lvas llorc influential in Kivlimu (ommunt' than Ntlahinrana-'"' ' 30. Irinally. I nole that bolh Witnes$cs CDt, and Nll24 restified abc.,u1 the passage erf l)r. Ntawuruhtnga's corpsc througJh thi:' Nyange roadblock on flie aliernoon of l4 Aprii in suppolt o1' their particular posilions abourl Ndahimana's de .lucttt authoriry that day, Wilness CDl. lestified thar r.vhen on t,l April" inriividuals manning the roadblock adempred to opell the colljn ol llr. Ntarvuruhunga" Ndahimana intervenecl and ensured safe passage tirr"lhc vehiole.l6tr Witncss ND?4 testified lhat ivhen Ndahituana arrived at 1he roa<lblock" after the vehicle hcaring Fr. l'itarvuruhurrga bodl has passetl rhrouclt thc roadblock. his cs.r was searched as thoroughlrv as a vehicle [riven b,r' any otlru iudividual."''' ,-\r I have concerns ;rbour the reliability of both rvifiresses, I c,an make no conclusive findings on this rnatter, but as I will discuss beloiv,l62o Witness Cl)L's account is more consistent rvith other reliable cvidence regarding Ndahirnana,s authcritl. at the tirne, 5.2 Ffcefing at ftIutan*galNyangr: Mafket on the

Aftern*on ol 14 April 3 1. I share many of tlre .concerns e.rpressecl b1.' rhe Majority with rcspeot io \\iit ess cl]]-'s credibility and reliability,t62r anrt arn_,therefore unrvilling to rel3, ol his unoonc.,boraterl evidence. l therefore concur with the h,lajorityr6lr tl?at the pr.osecitiou has llot provrn paragr:aplr 2.1 cf rlir ludictmett beyold rcasonable doubt. '',t 1. : I F"hrr"l'. .irll I lp. l,-s- " '-"'l II I rhrua.\ :fi11 fl). ]7-19. IINdahiota n "l]a{i passed lthr{}ughlthi}1. foaijbiock. lre rvoulii havc knr:rrn:rboutit one lva-i" of ahc other...,A person like hi:n couldn"t pass through such a place witholt people linorving." "And if Ndaiitnala llad Passed lry that ploce I rvotrld have seen hinr.,.[]$f il'it per$'Jr1. f.ir;nstarrce the L,oLrrgrnestrc. ha,.l t1 pu"s b;. I rlould hare seen hint." "lfhe hacl passed b!, 1ve wotil{l heve lino*n_" 16r'rT. ?l FebluaN z0l I p.,10. 'u'tT. ?t Fchruarj'20J I pp. ]J- l i. -r8. 'o'o '1 . 2l February' 2Ol I p. 7 {quoredi, t, I l. t 5. '"'' L ll f;ebru.tr-v 2ol I p. :i. '-'' t. l2 \.,,\emhcr 2irl11 lt,:-J: f. lli \r,\urnber lr)10 pp. l0-,lr-iii. " I. 21 F€hruarr :01 | D.9. ro:! l)issent, para. lB-s. , t. Judgr,,ent. t'.ua.. ll.r-118.-152!5-.. '- - .lLd'Jenicnt. I'Jrir. -1 12. flte Plor-*crtor r'. Ntlahit luna. Cass No. ll-TlLJ) 1-69-T 19i i 27.1

Page 198

,Judgene / a,t.l Seqrcftce 5.3 Tlre Rnle {rtthe Genddrt res on l,{ April lg9,l -Z t q I 3.2. l''lclalrimana requisitioned four..gtzntlarntes li.o'r the priJit on..!^r.April 1994, ui/u.rign*a ltt:.*"n tc Nyange parish. As I will rliscuss in niore derail lr.lo*,ioii it il th*r"1rr. ntn,u-,:*r" rrnut NdahLnana hcars a dcgrcc o l'resportsihiiit.r lbl thcir con(luct rt rhc parish a,'tiiig ,li" ",, ",,,, ui irru" 33'.. .Witness CBN. a refugee in 199'1" testified that on 1i April 1994, police officers conliscared traditional rveapons licm trre lfr,usees,l! tord the refugees thai they wourLr rr* protected'b,ll poiice officers and ge ndannt !.]")1 witncss YAIJ. also a refu-gee at the time of the ;venls in question. Iestifisd that on 14 April 199-1. liarhcr, Sr'rolnhr asLcd"the glmrtunrc,t to conflscate ',sticlc..that rvere in the possession ollhc tclitgccs.ru:t shc also Lcstilic.i that she sarv lhe ge ntlurnrc,s, mcetmg rviLh members of'lhe.ioint crinrinal entcryrise" inclucling Nilalii:nana. latcr rhat s;i;; ;];;.i;t'sh" ',,1h., 'lrsen'e.r Lr*r t\\{:t xcnd1mes lvere-prescnt dudng trre a$acks that da.r, and tliti nolhing kr assisl the refugees.lo'17 \litness cDZ, a refugee, tesrifie.r;iat he n".l ,tr*.t ur*t *" rr,r,"rJr:,,,iir',iii,:"i'i**uu* gendarnes had indicated ti) ihe wihes$ that it wor.rltl be <Jangerous to remun ai tl.re chrrch.r6:r'r wit*ess cillR, an acc'*ipriae, lestified

ihar cn I4 Aprir, Ntluigutse, Kayishema u,r.i u g,uup or assailants. inclLrding the lvirness. gathered at the Strtue oi the vigin Man: at upproii,u*"_'ty r t,oo a'm' Ndungtttse and Kayishenra tnot with the gentktnrrs rvho rol<j ihe altacliers that thev r.vould be ovenvh.elmed by the large nunbers olreftrgeei. Ndungutse uno xullrrl"ro ..pli*,r.:ir",rr' ao ,rrr*, q'e can'" and-convinced the gerrdcrrne.i to lei the assailints carrl. out the aftack. 'tr"he gen<larmes tlte, cut a rope rvhich served as a roadbbck and retrcatecl.l63u i4' witness ND24, an accontplice. tesljfierl rhaL he arivecl ar the roadbluok he was lnannrng al 8:.tlp a.m, At;rpproximatelrv 1 l:00 a.m., assailants trd j1. Nj*rgrtr" a ivecj al Lhe roadblink ar.med rvitlr clnbs. T'he geruronnes shot into the air. ancr trr* "ttu"t"ru, incruding those manning rrle roadblock. rall a!!a). The entire incirrent _ rasted ut uui :ri"lr-rinrr*s. and the rcadrrlock was re- estitblished. b-r' approxintately l2:00 notx.16-'l lvirxess N-Di.-an accrxnplice ivitness, lestified rhat on l'i Ap'il 1994, Ndungutse directed a s,rall gnrup or"oo,it :0 persons. inr:lu4ing rhe *itness. r. go to Nyange parish to kilr the_refugees ttrerel wrren rhe group iffived at the ch.;ch" wLtungLrrsc T:.Y ,- the getularntes. The gendarncs rold the group to-r.erreat. When thel, failed to do so. the gendsnnes shot in the air. On ,rhe ua,v back fiom'rhe

church. rhe group ,uu intc flrifa,iier Mbakilirehe. when he reame{ 1f what had 1"k?; ;;.;.-;{;;kirirelie saitl, ,,rr is rhe !:saurgmestrc rvhcr has c'omplicated matters firr us be{lause he broughr in tJnse gentrurnro.v.,' r.rre g,itr*ss dic, not hear the conversation bctrveen Ndr.ngutsc anu viLalinJ,. ou, r.vas lolcr about it latcr bv Ndungutse.r632 witness NDr2, * re firge"e. t.rLrri"a iir"t'-r' .pproxirnatery r0:00 a.nr..,n r4 Ao';i t?' Drsserrt. nar:rs. ::0. 2:6. '"-r' l-l Scltcnt L'er' lil I 0 n i6' T. l'lsipteinher:0i0p.8. I agrfe u,iLh tlte i\,tajofiys asscssm.nt of \!ih.sscij\,s eridencc yith respect trr Ndalrimana's.;rltuse of rcr-ugee, u, p".rffih i"z+'uf thc Judgcrre t. Fo' that rcaso*. I 'arrlor l1l:ll,:t ]Lr: jh: ar'lseculion has proven [,evon<J rsasonable doLrtri rliai Nctahimana l.er.balti, abused the,t.utsi rel.ugees rL r'jYange or 14 ApLil"fh'rt said t * ":liii:. rrith.rhe lr'la-icrirl "t p"r"g,;,;h zzs thai the ta* thr,t,.lrjire r.r.i1r.rr:;s scerrLs to berr a grudge against the accuscd besrusc hc did rrnr pic,r,itle assi:ti,,"! t,;r tt,"l^"ti,g"", ricspitc ilr,r high posiiion ho held iu thc c/)rt8t'r'te'" renders tris "ui.lerrce unr"tiairiellffi- ;;;r,:'::,"r", ariy viLlinr-s resrirnon].fourd tre deerrLed yllr'li:rblc,.\l) orln !ror is rhal rhjs \\itn(sl *.,,.u.n"r"J1, ;.:Jll,i:. "- *'" . r rf )cftcnrbcr'l0lr) nrr. Jj_.1r, '"'I l5 rcptcnrhcr 1r'1U F1-. l7--16 '- L l5 SctrLcrnntr 2010 oc. .17-,lti. ,,,. 1 i1;|',t t, rhe .irrrrss r,.r. r'etcrrint ro I hursdrl j..t \pril t.Je.l. '--. T. 8 Scpren:ber' _\Lrt() pt J5, 17. -", f. l Nrr|errrbcr' l tU pl. I.i_ 16: 1. 2 \,,rrnrh,.r. :t)lr,, t1p. t{. 1 i. t 7. '"-' T. :l Febnrdr\ ,101I pF. 7_tt. f0. ' - T.17.tanu,]rJ 2trl I u).-l_7. J0 Ljecembe.r 20| l Tl€ Prcsec bt 1,. Nt1ahinma, aase No. ICTI{-01-6g-T 198 i 274

Page 199

./u d ge txe nt itnil Se n tc nce 1994. Ndungutsc arrived at the parish widt a group of sdackers. 'l here rverc tllree parish lvho were able to chase the aitadkers arvay. T'he attackers did not return tbat da-v. l'he rvitness saw Ndahirnana at the presbytery at approxinrately 2:00 p.nr. that irlicflto r). ['[e spoke to the refugees asking them who led the attaok. They replied that it was Ndungutse, to which Nclahimana rdsprnrdcd that hc "did nijt hr|e po\\ crs" bul lhat hc had asLed the p. ruku trcs t.r liec'1r proteurirr3 rlre refirgres.'o" \\'itness NDI i lestified that on i4 April 1994, he rvent to seek refuge ai the Nyange church. IIe arrived at approximafcly l0:00 p.m. Whsn the witress arrivsd at the ohufoh, somc of his relatives inlormed him that Ndunqutse had launched an attack on the ref'usees that day but thal ihe genclur*res had repelled ths assaiiants.l'il1 Witness ND7, a rcfuguc-, restifi;.d rhar un I 4 i\pril 1994" lluru assailants led hy Ndungutse, Kal.islrema and Wirnsss CDL anacked the parish br"rt the ge*lurmet rvere able to repel tht attack. I.ater, the rvitness overheat'tl Ndahinrana telling the gendarme s that the-t tycte 10 prolecrt thc retrgees and that lhe"y could lire r'rn any altackers il' r 6 t i nTccssaf\ - "- ll5. 'Ihus, Prosecution rvitnesses testified that tlte gendantes posted a1 Nyangr parish did not protect theln on l4 April. rvhile Defence

u'itnesses testil'ied ftar thcy did. I am t.ri' thc vierv rhat the Prosecution evidence is not neccssarily incornpatible rvith that of the Dclbncc, as it rvould appuar that there \Yns more than one attack or skirmish betr.vcen Hutu assailants and l'ulsi rc{lrgees on 1.1 April 1994. Witness CllN, for exarnple" testified that on t4 April, f{utLrs launched a "signiiicant" attack n the rcfugees al approximately 8:00 a.m, He added: "rve repelled the atlackers bur once again. tltey came back and altacked us, And again, ue repeiled thrm," aurl "[llhruugh(]ui (he itay we conlronted attafker.l who rvere aflacki g us," but "rhe aftemo(fn uttack tlid nol hsr k:ng.'^r6in'l'he witness elso (estified thal the assault stoppecl rr'hile Ndahirnana and other members of the alleged JCIH met at the presbytery.'6tt 'fh* eviclince of witness yAU also supporrs the notion rliar thcfe werc a series of sltirmishes or afiacks that day. although she did not provide a tinrefi.ame lbr these inciderts. She testified that "we woukl push thern back, but they rvoukl corne up agrin and so forrh and so on."]618 Witness CBK ditl not mention an attack in tho mcnring but relers to r;ne that rvculd appear to have taken place in the early a{ternoon. I le also indicated that this attack took place alier a meeting of-.lnembers of the alleged joint criminal enterprisc, in*ludius Ndahin.rana, at

tlre presbl'tcry'.1"3e lVitness CBY inrJicaied rial an atlaclt tr-.rok place iu the late rnorring alier a nrceturpi of lemhers of the allegcd .lCE, includirrg Ndahimana. These intlil.iduals \,,erc no lt.,n*cr pleselt when the a ack slarled but the]- retuflied whilc ir il,as onroing.r'''u wihress ct)L ti.rir:rd ihat h,r saw llle a.isaileiits returning liom the church rl appr.,-'.irrr arr.l1 3:00 p.m. on l4,April lgq4, thus I i fer th&t he saw them socn aller the altacl' crrtictl.'6t' \\'ilness CtlR 1es1ifisd thal fie parricipateei in eu ;ithck lhat b|j*an ai apro.\imalely I l:00 a.m. on 14 April 1994 ancl that rhe assailirltl te{i ar approx itlr:tleJ-"" ):00 p.rn.'"" Ali these witnesses" a mir of victims and accomfllces. inclicale thal. rhe attack that took place on 14 April 1994 snded at approximalell 2:t)u or. .t:0ii p.nr. l hc prosccutjon witnesses also all testifieel thal the attack ended besause the assailauls li.ere oulnumhered bv:ne retiuuees, and did n.r indicare thel 1e g€rulorms,s assisted in repclling thr assailants rl.i,t Lll_\. 163r '1, 19 Janua:1 :{)l i pp. 4- 6. '"'* I. 18 Januarl 20ll pp. 3 I -3:t. 49-50. " ' ' f . 2 . 1 l r u d f \ 2 r r t l p l . - l - - i 1 t - l r '"" 1'. l3 Seprembe.20 i0 pp. -56" 62. ''' 1 t-i Sgp1sl15.1 :0|'' plr. l8-ll. j". r,-'-6r '"'" f. L5 \cDtenrbrr'1010 0F.47-.llt- 'or,' T. r -\eftcmr,*f :,10 FIi. I,- I l. -i6-57 I Engiish). .t. 3

No'ernbcf 2r)10 pp. 12- 14. 63-70 (Fre..h). '"-' T l0 "lxcnrl,er _'rrt{) l,l, 2;-18 rt( S} ' ' - ' t . l l \ o . e n r h e r : 0 1 0 f p - 1 , j : t . l 8 \ . ] \ e l h c r : r r t 0 l l , 1 0 . + , 1 - \ t l ' ' ' " T . l N , , \ e r n h , . r 2 n l r l l p . l 3 - l n : l . : N , , \ E r n b c r . l t ) 1 0 p p . l t _ t i . l i . 'l'he Pros*.eutor t. Nrlahimana. Case Nl;. lCTlt-01-68-.I' l.it i 1'14

Page 200

.la.lg.lktent antl Stntence J8 Deca4!2tt. .lu <l< 36. llefenc'e Witness Ni)24 also testifiecl that an attack srarted in thc late nrorning ","'tC ifii i!)9'l_at appriiximalety l t:00 5.nr. 'l'hc assailants rvere armed rvith clubs. "l'he gentloinc.s shot intt: the air'' and the aftackers, inclucJing those mallni g the roadbtock, ran away. The e*tire ingi.lanf lasted about 20 minutes, and the roadbl,rck was rc-established b,v approrimatell' l2:t)(t noon.i;;t'; note dlat the witness provided a nruch shorter tinlefi'ame 1br the attaci tlran thai proviclecl bf other r'vilnessss' While t do not consider this aocomplice witness to be credible or reliable. and *bre*o that significaut tspects of his testirnony are contrary lo that of more reliable *ir:resses. this 4ces 'or ffiean that every single detail of his testimony. including his e,videncc abour the timing ofthe attack" is uttreliable' Def'ence Witness ND6, rvho also acknor.viedged having participatetl in in attack, said the attack began at 10:00 a.nr. and was repelled Isy the geitlarnrcs r.vhen they shot illto the air. 'I6is evidence is oonsistenl with Witness ND24's cvidence iirat this incident look place in the morning and did not last iong.r6{ witness NDl2 also rcferred to an allack tliat took place at apprqxilnatell, l0:00 a'rr hut tcsti{led thal the attackels did not return afier the gentlarnre,r chased dr.,n

u*ou-i#'l have-doubts regalding Witness NDl2's celtiluele on this rnattcr'as rr. utin..i rrn ii," ,.",rur"a i, the church huiltling during air trur a rew nrinures of his stay ar rhe p;rrish.f ; li;ii".*'rniiii' .'rn, plor ide,J hcarsll evidence atr,.rirr tltc .r,ridrrnrryr rulc in ti,iling arn JJ.i ,n/ ll:^-l}-t1l::ioencejaken rog€rher, j am satisfred thaithe gendarme.r assignecr by N<larrinanii r' Nyange pafish repeiled an afack thal tlrok piace on the rn{};ing ol l"l .4pri1 199.i. l.lorvever" rt rs :*":l:::,TTjll:I^,1':. "1,:i:.*f io ilray a.prorectivd rcte ,f,,;;si,.,;i";;; a,y. il_',i*ii,g ,, :5j:jj:::i"::.1,':.:,:,r? ,.{th' view diaiwhiL 0o.,," ,,,*,'.,t.'"ru'.,iit .. "il-e.,l lc'E;il;;j'iA'; ',;;;-";,;;;;;i rlr .rrtr rrrugc€5 o|1 rJ Apf lylr4, a concdrted and cei0rdjnated decision to laltnch a massive attack otl the rel'Lrgees "ruy noih*r* b"en tz*,en or concferrsecl until some time on ntil sune time on :j:. llllll :,' I hursdar 1..1 April tccarrsc glrl,tmes had indicare,l ro rhe rr ilrress rhar ir uoulcj bc f:'S:.::i-1ll.lt"::n at the church.r6", I r;Dlt ,r,u r,. .r.,.,iLoJl,;ilil il.ili#ffi#ffi;; : - i . r _ . _ . ^ . . , : . l O + 9 r r r v l r i l . J ) L s r l r l t l c l t l t l . l l s ] I'i"i];t fl:-1."_,.. --li^i asiuch Lna.v ha'e besn prir,1, ro better inibrmation il.* the gerulatru t tha, other less in{luential Tutsis. l8' In conclusion" I beiieve that the role

of the gentlnrmes assigneci by Ntiahimana fo the parish *gr ': change on 14 Aprir 1994. t am. satisfierj_iirat the-v protecterr the relirges on the morning or. 14 '\pril 199;t' I can rlake no coriclusicxrs on their rolo rrrt", thut,rrru, utrtru,.,gt tt"y ;;;,'r^"* ofi-et ed^r^c lective assistancc as ilr the case of \l.itneis'crii. ar I rvill <iiscuss i, firr.ther detaii belol.'o'" I arn sstisficil rlrat they sided rvith tlr" unu"f"rr; "u Ji Apri] i994. 5.4 Particip'atinn of the Ctmmnnal pnlice in thc Altaek(s) on 14;lpril 1994 "19. witrress {jBY tesrifie.t fhat Ka'1.,arLrkiga. Appoiinaire Rangira and rllariaram u. leo thc allaokers on r4 Aprir r994.'i'he ratter two,r'rrn nu"i* comrnunar poi;ce o t"fic".r. ,iriro,,grr-i *,a Witness CIIY's ev;deJlce lvilh r t: ",1-..P'*:,:i lt*f;,,ir;;;::f"""JiiJi"-ffli:;:i*,,.;Xlil?ififi,fffi:l]j the events of 15 April 1994' and I thus pref'er to iely 6n his eviclence where it is co*.hcwrtecl. r"' T. 2 i Frhruarl 2')l I pp. 7-li. :U. , "'- Tl lj Jrnua,J :U | | Fp. +_7. ' ' - 1 . I 9 J . m u , 1 r \ : 0 1 I p 1 r . J - b . " -'f- iti l.rnpiir\ 2r)l l p. l l. ' " L l s . k n L r a f \ 2 r r l l p p . l t - J J , J q _ S r j '."' T. 8 Sclrernbef lrrlU pp. j5. j?. ' f. 8 Septerrrbcr l0lr)pp. J5_Jo. '"-' l)irtcut. p:Lra. F7. 7he Progeeator,-. \dohinanu. Case ho. lC.l.ll4I_6g-,I lOO | 171

Page 201

,! Jtcnt't| d' .\t n!.n.a ilt lryilrr 4J <r5 \\'itncss CIJR tcstlticd lhat IPJ Kai ishcrrra frl'ticiltslcd irr lltc anacl. lhill look pliree on tfdf dul ' ''' As I * ill discuss in more det*il [rc]orv, I heli*ve lhat Ndahirnana was liablt lbr Kavishema's condLrct during this pet'iod trut lrave significanf concerns about Witness CBR^s reliability and .-lll not relv on his uncorrcborated evidence. No olher lvitness mentiolicd the rolc crl'these pnlicc ofllccrs in the attack. or atacks, on this day, 0ud thus I conclutle lhat the Prosecution has not l]toven beyonel a reasonable doubt that Ndahimana's subordinntes altecked'futsi refilgces at N)"enge parish on l4 ,,\pril 1994. 5"5 Ndahirnara's Presence tt Nyrnge P{rish on 14 April l99il ,10" 'The ll,lajority has lbund that Ndahinana pa:ticipated in one mcctirrg with ci)'tbers ol"the .l{llr on l:l April 1994. ancl that "'Ndahimana is not charged in reiation lo a second meeting att i'l April 1994. bul only {irr the one meeting menlioned in paiagraph 23 of rhe lnrJicln:en{."rti: I rcsptliliiil; disagree. Wtrile I agree that had the Ilrclseoulion known its case in detail ahead of rrial" il n.*uld have rele sd (o ore or several meetings in paragraph 23 of the ln<iiclmentr, I rio:tx believt ils failure to menlirn more than one meeliug relic:ves thc Chanber of its obliga(icn to revierv tlie evidence in its trrtalit,v. Pa:'ticipation in a rnerting is n01 * crime, bul the evidence on tlle tneetitlgs ut 14.April 1994 is relevant 10 the kuowledge anil intent of the accLlsed.'lhus. I conclr"rde thal ihe meetiugs that day were nor material {ircts rhat were to be pled ivith precision in the lndic*nenr.

41. I consitler Wirness CUY's evidcncc thal Neiahirrraua participatcd in a mecling rvith othcl iriembers olthe JCE at Nyange plriih ar 8 r.rrr ,,n l-1 April" " to be reliable. NeverLhetress. I prefbr to cor'l.rent|?te on the nldetirgs lhal look plac,e latel thet da;-" Ol thc basis ofthe cvidence adduced. i conclude that Ndahima a paiticipatcd in at least Llvo meetings with memben of the JCI: :at ihe parish cn 1;1 April 1994, r:rre that look place between apploximarely i l:00 a.m ;lnd l:-li) p.nr. *nd one that eveniDg. lt may be that members of the JCE met tlvice both befilre and afler the ilisarmament of the refirgees as descriLred bl Witness C'Bli. Wirnesscs CllN. Clil. LBK anei CBY ail testified thai tl'le attack stffted 1vhile Ndahimana ancl other nrertrbers o1'lhi) JCi:i 11€re slill }r thc parish ar immediateil. after their tleparture early that aftefnoon" .Xl" I ain further satisfied ur the evidenca i:f Wilness ClIlJ. rrham I fin<i lo h< ,,:liahic.''ir th::l. Nriahimana parti!:iFalecl in another meeting with members of lhe JCli that evening. Wirh rcspi:cl tr': lVitness CDJ" the l'lajority tbund that the "\vitness' testimoriy \.v.$ vagu€ regirrtling lire dati:s aud hours ol the el,ents he rcported. and he cor.rld not provide anl. inlirrnration {rr the pLrrpo:jr cl'tlic meetings" helcl on l4 April 1994. I respeettrlll-v rlisagree. Witness CIDJ's llrst sntement lo ICTIi

in 2001 is not inconsistent rlith his evidence ar trial. It is simpl5, a superl'lcint statenlent, ailrl {he rvitness f'ailed to provide ciates. In his testirnculy in this oase, lhe rvitness refered to events that tooli place cxr "Mondav". "Tuesday", "Wednesday", €tc. rathrr than I t. 12 and 13 April. llis gvirlence aboirt lvhat he ol,served at Nyange parish on "Frida1." and "Saturday" is consisient N'il.n lfre evit.ience of other rvitnesses with resp€ct to the erents that. {ook place o Frida"r, 15 April *nd Saturdry t6 April 199.1. 'fhus, I cannot ag.ee that tlie witness r{ias vaglte $'ith rssl}esL to dates. iiLrrthcr. ir is my vielv thc rvilness' acknorvledgemcnt th*t he tlid noi ovcrhear th* c{lnvcrsations r{ lhe palisli do*s no more than suggcst that thal the witness lvas nol interi:sfed i* txaggcrulrlrg Ndahim*ng's role in the events *1 N;-ange parish. l:rinally, Ndahimana's prescncc al thc parish tiiat t65'l'. I Novernl-.,,r 2010 pp- 13-lai;.t.2l,-aveml,"rr2010 pp. t4-li. l7- '"" ,ludgenrert" para- :90. '"' '] l0 \ovembcr' 20lti Fp. 27-:9 ( laS). 'o"' judgement, para. ?-trl. The Prostctuor v. fdehit,t,]tn. Casc N(r. lcl ll-0i-6$-T :01 i 274 1L+

Page 202

.ludgeoEqt un.l Senk lcc 3{i Detzwhr:r )tit I 2tzA ercling is fi.lrthL,f ((rrroh()rilrcd h1 thc cviclcnee of \[itncss (tlS. lncl I rl,t n,rt eartVift'rt Wflil..( l\,lukabideli"s evidence that Ndahimana !v$s at her hor e all evening to be reliable. ,lJ. I recognize that thors are discreparcics belrvcen the u,itnesses' accounls ol'lhe nteetinss and the attack or aflacks that day. I attdbute this to the passage ol'time, and the fact that becauss thc attack (or aflacks) on l.l April resulled in no fatalitics, any attack (s) woLrld not havc been as memorable as the attacks the following days, '1'hus, on thc basis o:f'the evidcnce taken together, i conclude thal Ndahimane spent a si,enificant zrmount of time at the parish on l4 April 1994 in tl:e pfesenee of mernbers ofthe J{lH. and that he r.vould have been aware ofthe attack(s) thal took place that day. 44, I"inally" I disagree ivith tlie Majority thal "thc_ l\'osiecuiion eviclencc on lhe ccnsequenecs oi' {he alleged meeting [is] vague and inci:nclLrsive."'o" While it is tme that no lvitncss artende.l 1[re meelings at issuc. or cverheard the discussions, givcn the scaie of the attacks Lhal took placc on I 5 and 16 April 199;1, and the massive number of partioipants in lhose atlacks, I bei;eve thal the offensir.e reqLrired ertensive planning and thal the co,rrdinated dccision to kili rlie refilgees war laken well bel'ore the first

allacks cn lhe morning of l5 April 199.:1. T'hus I conc]ude that th* tnl-!' reasonable inference is that in ar Ieast two mee:tillgs rvere held on 14 April 199,1, mentbers of rhe JCE and Ndahimana disoussecl the thre of the refugees. antl that by that date no influenrial pariicipant iu these r eetilgs e.Kerted himself to pfotec't ih€m. 5.6 "Disarming" of the Refugees 45. At the outset I nole (hat Defence Witness rruDT testificd thal some.of the' retugees arrived al the clrurcli with small sticks that the-v lel1 at the entrance of tlre church.'o" r"hi]c \\ irness NDl2 testified that the refugees at the parish "did not have anything in thc folm ut arms."'-j'l anr of thc vierv that the terrn "arnr or weapon" nray be misleading. No evidence has Lreeu adduccC suggesriri-q that the refirgees rvere equipped rvith fireanns cr similel weapons. The evidence does shora,, hou'ever, that the relugees lvere able to repel attacliers both on 13 April and on the morning ol 14 April usittg stones aud objecls rvhich Witness CBK desclibed as "borvs antl rlachetes" asd Wilness YAIJ described as "sticks." I firnher note that certain rvitn*sses testii:ied thai the retlEees rvere "disannetl" on 13 Aprit lf)9'4"r6is rvhile cthcrs seid this tcrok phcr on I I April. "'" I arn :urisiieil rhat on Ii or 1.1 April 1994. memben o1'the alleged.lc[j dccided 10 scarch the ri:lirgces and remrvc all objects ftom

lhem rhal coukl be termcd a ''tradilional weapon." fl]crc is no cvidence ol'lighriug xt11(lng the reltgees. and thus I am furlher satislied that the onl-v reasonable infcrence is rhal the decision to dis.enrr the relitgees rvas taken to deprive the relugees r:1' their abilitl to priltect tlietnselves in l'urtherance of the comnon plan r.vhich \r,a$ !o sxte ninate lhs 'l'utsi population o1' Kivumu comnune gatherecl a1 the parish. What remains to detennine is r,vliether the acclsecl either contriLrutecl lo the "dis:rmamen1" or knew about il.

46. Witness CBK testifled that lbllorving a meeting on l3 April, he overheard merntrers o1'the JCE discuss rhe need to disarm the refugecs. On 14 April 199.1. lbllorving a meeting of inlluential individuals" including Ndahimana, mcmben of the JCti disarmed the rclirgecs, Ntlahimema r.,,as r6ti Ju,.lgement, piua. 198. '")' T. I N{J\rntt{.2t)ll f. l. " ' L lg.lrnuar\ 20ll D. r,. r'5! wiblesses cl!\.rnLf CDl-. r"'e nitnesscs CBK glrd YAtt. I'he Prlseiul{}l \'. Ndshinrutw Casc No. IOI R-ril l-68-1' q 202 ' : t-l

Page 203

.hklgetYnt end Sewett. Jl: l)ctr:t:th5 2()lJt -< | 4) (') present n{rile this toerk place.'6ttt' I n{]te thal the wihess' evidene c trn the times .tf U'#erii6ait lhe subsequent tlisposal r":f the anrs \ras relativell tletailed. I do not consider the lvil.nsss' lestiln l)' in Serunbo thal he did rlot knolv i.vho took thc clecision lo c{)nfiscate the $'eapons to ire inc.onsistent rvith his eviclence in this c:rse" as he nrerely testilied in this c:ase thal tlie {iecisiot} lvas taken at a nreeting in lvhich a uumber of named persons lvere present. ln additicru. although the rvitness' reference to this incident in ^!er-rrli6a rvas fleeling, he did say that ihe cont-tscate'd lvetipons were taken to thc communal otlice. Witness YAt,l tcstified tliat ["ather Seromb;l askcd rhe gentlttnnes to {:'onfiscate "stichs' in $rer p65sessir:rn ofthe ref-ugees i}nd rhxt thc} ciid ,o.1"''l \{ itness CBN testiflied that pcliee olficcrs tooli traditional weapons belonging to the refugees. but beiieveil rhis took place on 13 April 1994.1662 I recall that this rvitness stated, "...undgrsla dling] the circuntstances in rvhich l lbunei mysel{'.... I rvas panic-strickcn. I rvas very very liightened. And il' it rl,as possihle ltrr me, I q,oulcl havc committed suicidc. but I had iro clioicc antl I coLtld not cvcn tlec."l&i Civen the circumstanccs. it is po:siblc rhat tlrr u iincss rras mislaken aboul the

rlates, hut I *ccord little significance to any snch error. Witness NDtl resiified that rvhen he arrived at the parish on 14 Aprii 1994. he observed thar rel-ugees had lried lo brirrg rveapons into the church but these arms had treen confiscated bt lhc ge ntkrrrtrc.r.r*" Firrall"".', Witness CDL testified thar on tl April 199.f at some time betrveen noon and 2:00 p"m., he came acro$s ;{ssistant lsourgrne.tlre Kanani rvho tokl him thal follolving a rneeting of members ofthe alleged joint iirinlinal enteqrrisc. ineluding Ndahimana. Kanani anrl others had checked the refLrgaes to. see rvhelher the,v rvcrc ailrieii. Traclitional weapons rvere found in the search but ro firearms.'n"' Although Witness CDL,'s evidence lvas hearsa,r" and does not e<.rroborate other evidence on lhe location of lhe meeting tl':at plecedeil lhe searqh lbr lveapons. it docs corroLrorate the evidencc ofother lr'itucsscs that a searrh took place and thar Ndahimana knerv about it. 47. lVitness CBK stated that the coutiscation of the refugees' ob.iects took place afier a mesiing among mernbers cf the JCE that hegan 3t approximatel) l l:00 a.m on 14 April. Wirness tlBl pafiially corrotrorated this evidence stating that he sa*' Ndahirnana and other ntembers of the alleged JCE meeting lvith Father Seromba at approximat.ly 1l:00 a.m. ,,r. no,rn.'tuu Wilness CBN testiliod that he sa*'Ndahimana logether rvith other

mernbers of rhi: alleged JCll tlrat d;r-v beru'eeu noou and l:30 p.m. Witless CLiS testifled rhat hc sarv Ndahirnana together with othel menbcrs of the alleg*d JCE on the afternoon ol 14 April. '18. On the evidence adduced, I do not believe that those respousible lbr "disarming" the refirgees did so witlt the expectation the police ani gendarmes rvould protect the refrlgees. On rhe ctinrrary,, I aln satistted that metnbers of the joint criminal enterplise decided to remove ihese articles in order to facilitate the subsequent exrermination of the refugees. Whether Ndahimana was lxesent n,h*n the disarmrunent took place is not ol'p.rralnounl imporlance. Of greater significanor, is rvhether Ndahirnana kneu, about rhe decision to "disarm". and rvhether he kreiv that the pupuse oithe conliscation u,as to daty the ref-ugees the abilit-v to dctbnri thernscives duri*g firrlhcoming attacks. I am satisfled that the Prosesution has pt,:veu beyond reascxrable doubt that he hrd this knowlctlgr-. h{orerrver, Ndatrimana took n0 steps rvilhin his polvers as bourgme,\trc, to interlbfe tyith the p1an. r6fl I. 3 N,i)r.enber 2010 pp. t0-12.56-j?. ri" T . l5 septernhur :{)10 pp. {5-16. ,.,,l I l-l ^a*1.,"P" 2(rl l.56: l. t+ S(prcDrl,(.f t(rlrrn. L l , l + ; c p t c l n o e r l L l l { r p , / , r6i '[. lS JaDuarv 201I pp. 31-i:1, -19,i0. 'o"' 1. 11 Noverrbcr 20lrj pp. 69-7{lt I. t3 Novernber 2t}10 pp. "19--<0. '"'-'T. I4 Septerlbcr 20l0 pp. 36. 3gr '1. :1 Septenrbc. 2011 pp. 6, I 1. 1l* I'ytsecrtor y. N.Joltintena, Ca$e No. IC IR-0 t-68-T' 213 | :74

Page 204

Judgene t $|d Sentence 5.7 Removal of the Hulu Wor*en lrom the Church 3l De'ternlter )l)l l 336 49. In its closing arguments, the Defence submitred that the allegatit.rn that Ifultu rvottten ntarried to'l'utsi men rvere remcved lierm thc chLuch on i4 April 1994 in Ndahimana's plesence rras not pieaded in the lndictment. It conclLrded that the failule lo plovide lvlr'. (-itt<goirc Nrfuhirnana rvith "sufficicnt notice fi) mecl those allcgalions renders thc in{brmarir,n r)r tc:ililnun} i;rtul.""'"' lfirst note that the llefence di.l not raise l|ris issr.re until ckrsirig argL[nenls, and that it rvas able to adclress the allegation dLrring its eross-examinalion of lVitness CllS.'oo" I aiso obsene that {his ail"'gation rvas oonlained in the Ploseculion's sr.lmnlary of'Witness CBS's anlicipated 1estimon3" in its Pre- 'l'rial llrie l'. Finall;, I consider of relevalrce a decision cf the Appeals Clhamber in Kd .t;drukigo adtlressing an anllogolrs submission frrnr the Defence that the lact that Kan,varukiga threrv f'ocrel destined far the reti:gees on the ground lr.as nct speeificall"v pleaded in the lirdicrnrent. The Appaals Chamber held that "[g]iven that ihe lndictrnent pleads as a malerial f"act the sper;ific slete of min.l alleged, the f'ac.ts by which his mcru rerr is to be established are matters of evidence iutd nced nat bc pleaded."1661' I observe that paragraph I ofrhe

Indictfient only rofers to the nrens rua lbr complicity in genocide. but conclude that paragraph 9 taken togetlier rvith paragraphs I and 28 ol tho Indictment and paragraph 71 of lhe Pre-'irial llrief" put the accuserl on sufTicient notice rr1'the ifiens ren alleged x,ith respecl to the crimes of genocide and e,\tennination. Whiie I believe ihat al this advanced stage in thc {iibunal's lrisrorl,, the l]rosecLrtion should have been ahle to plead the rirens rc,: lbl tho crinie oi'genocide more clearly in the lndictnenl, I conclLrde that the De{bncc has suffered no prejudice as a rcsult o1'the l.'mseoution's lack ol'clarir.v-. Willi respect io the rcni.)val of the llutu rvomen from the church, I consiclel that this is a malter oi'evidence supparlittg the alleged rne s /eu, and thirt in any event the Defence has suflered rr: prejudice lvith resplct to this malrcr. 50. 'Ihe only rvitness to have testified about the re:noval o1'Hulu worr{in ftoirl }rly.ange church o:r l4 Aplil 1994 rvas Prosecution Witness CBS.16?r''The iVajoritl, has erpressctl concerns *ilh respecr to thc $'itrless' credibillt-r and reliabilit,r,, but their mosl signif;cant conccrrr, r.vilh rvhic-h I r:r>rcur" relates to his alleged sighting of Ndahintana at Nyange p*rish on 15 April 19q4.'u" I do not i'67 T. : I Seplenber zal0 D. 73, 166E f. {r September 1010 p, 58. 1659 See lbr example, P/ o.recrtor \'.

Kot'r{tt.,.kig|r. ICTR-02-78-AR7.}.?^ Decision on {}aripard Kan}afukiga's Inte.loculofy Appeal tll-a Decisir.rl on the Erclusion ofEvidcnce" 23 L,larch 2all0, parils. 8-l{). Se,r a15o -,Jr:t('rrr' ,S}.r/i)/, j\ttihobali and Pauline Nyirowasuhuko t'.'Ihe Prosecutor, Case No. I{-"1'R-97-1i -,\R73, Deci!;{rt1 on the Aitpeals [J.i I'aulilre N-riraniasuhuko arrd Arsire Shalonr Niahobaii o]! the "f)coision on l)ete{ce llrgeit N.lotion to l-reclir€ I' is oi lh-c f \ jdlJrJ( r 'f Witncsscs R\ arr,l Qllz Inadmiisittle", 2 .hl) 20{t4, pdr:r.r, l4- 15. "''' At 1,rt""1up11 iLtl ot thr .ludgcnrc[r. the i{ajodt,! states that it "is ttoul)led by the trct thar. ltrron{ ail rhc \1iti'}csscs thal rlerc prdscni 3t Nlrtngc pa.;.rh on llla'el'eniug ol l-l ,{pril i994, \li;ues5 CfJS is rhs ,rnl1 onc rrhr: rcrr:e11s lliir! sorl* Hutus rvere reno!'ed litrnr N)auge church." Firsl. I nore tliat there lycrc apfroai latcl-v 1500 k) :000 feiu€iccr 11 the ohurcl| that cvcnin,{r, and tl}at the v'!st rlr:iorit: of those potentiirl \4itnesses to th;$ ilcidgnl r.rerc ertcrmiratetl sier Lnc tbllorving ijals. l he l'eu' s!rli\'{,ls rvho testiJied in this case ma) net haye been in a posilion t(r witress this inririrti. l[ is clear lirrrl thc clidilnce of the three xitnesses l'ho sere in a good positior to obsclve rthat was taiiing placc at tht parish in gellelrl. allK, {l[rY and CD]. that thel rvere oiler occupied

\!itl'r otht tasks ancl $.re rirl l.rerrranlLtt obseners. 167l I concur *ith the corcen erpresserJ b, thc ivla-icii it) in paragfaph ,175 ol'thc Judgijinenr thaj ti'i.r $,i1:lcss providei-i luo stntements ir rvhich he said that he did not see Ndahiflsllri ot N!"rge palisi rin 15 April 199.1 an.i tlrar he contradictcd lbese srutenlents at trial, ai1.l tl'u.rs he cannot l-.e relied upon on this point. I do [o1 ilgrrs lhat \rirh tl]e ltlajority at pamgraph 213 ofthe Judgenrenl lliat tl)e tlct tha. "witness CltS' stateme t 10-trib nal investigallrrs oi' februart l9t6 il,as recorded aa thr Kivunu tribuial and that his sta1.em.'nt of lvlidoh 200-i $as reeor<jcai .ri lhe resiilence of the &ssistant t)tttrg testrc" is significant. lvlore irnf{ntarti}. I ijo no1 agrce r\,;tlr the luai{niu'r .oncluiion at pnrcgraphs 219 and 475 ol the Judg€mcnl lhat the \iiillsss was evasive on cross-examination. I f' nhc,r .lisaglee \\,ilh the l"lajoritr's lindlng in patagraphs 219-221 of thc Jud-semeLrt tLut thcrr, verc itignificarl cliscrepuLrcics Llfillccn thi: Ihe Ptovctrutr v. Ndahinana, Case Nrr. lC'Ij{-O i-68-T 204 / 27t

Page 205

Jttdge nent ond Sentence conclude that his evidence was investigators in 1995, the rvitness rvas aslied about the "liind ofpeople rvho stayed" at th{.: church. The rvitness replicd that "...a smal! number ofltrutrr rvomeu rvho lvere mafried to Tutsi hr"ere at the church]. ' re Llulu look those women out of the church on 'l'hursday. 'Ihe next day the killings started." In this same stalement, the witness also said that hc saw the hautgmes/re^ a.rive at the church each da,v in a vehicle" and "this happened from Mcnday liL[ "t'trursday."'" '' ln a secr:nrl statement plovicled to lcTlt investigirtors in 1996, the lvitness said that he sarv Ndahimatla arrive at the church in a vehicle on "'I'hui'sday" together witli ll).1 Kayishema, Brigadier Mbakilirehe. rutd a police officer named Aloys Nishirimbere. "K;ryishemrr caure in the ehurch and trlok th€ Htttu women who were married to J'utsi lnen out olthe Church. 'fhe baurgwstre Ndahim*na sta;'ed itl the car."l67r t inlbr that ivheu the witness spoke of the ''Thulsday" beiore the attacks he rves refbning to 14 April 1994. ThLis. I conclude thal rhe lvitness has been consistent in his account tl Ndahimana's presence cluring the reJroval .)f the llutu ivives of Tutsi men fiom Nyange church b;, lP.l Kayishenra on rhe evenins of l4 April 1994 sincc 1995-1996, long betbre Ndahimana tt'as indicted by this Tribunal. I fiuther observe that

statenrcnts laken b"v ICTR invcsticalors in tliis casE at this time rvere generally cxtremel-v superficial in nature, fbcusing primaril.v on the anachs irl which civilians rvere killed rather than on the lead up to the atlacks.'fhus, I consider ihe witl)ess' ret'erence lo thg leuroval ot'Hu1u women in such an earl.y stalen]ent !o be ol'parlici.llar signi{icance. f;'urlher, this incident would have been niemorable if the lvilness believed that it r'vas an indication that rhe hte of the 'l'utsi rel'ugees had been sealed, as appefis to have becn the case. trnrleed. the only reasonable conclusion is that the women were removed l'i om tlre church in preparariou for the large-scale attack that rvas to take place the next day.

51. Finalt"v. I note that Witness CBS's testirnony is partially corroborated by Winess f:DJ, a w'ilness I bslieve \t'as credible end relitble, and rvho testiljed that he sa\r Nrlahintana at 1he parish on the eveuing of' 14 April 1994. 'Ihe evidence ri1'Wiinesses CIJS antl CDJ is also consistellt lvitll Lhat o{'o1hcr rvitnesses rvho testilied that Ndahimana spent a signilicanl affount ol'rims at the parish on l3 and 14 April in the oompanv of Kayishema- Ivlbakilirehe aud crher mernbers of the allcgr'.1 joint clitninal enierprise. 'l hus, I oonclucle that the Pfosccution has proven be3.cxrd reasonatile douhl that Ndahimatta was preset11 when ldutu women were removsd from 1hf chruch on the rvening oi' l:t Aptil I994 hy Fulgence Kayisheml and Police Ilrigadiei Christophe h4bakilirehe. l'he h4ajoiity has lbund that "harl lNctahimanal had animus againsl the Tutsis, he probably rvould ha.'-s pfqrgd a more active role in the removal of the l.lutu 11omen than...st*,v-ing passively in the vehicla."""* To my ntind this is sper:ulative as mally high-level perpotqrtors preltr to renain behintl 1he scenes, '':' and may even rvish to leave their victims rvith the impression tlrot thet are on their side. I arn satisfied that I'Jdairimana knelv that these $,omen were tal(en out ofthe chr.rrch in nrenaraiion for tlre lrrge-:calc attack thal ",ras t,t Lrl',e plaec llic next tlar. NJalrirnanr was

li.{hakilirehi'silireet superior, I'le was also a highel ranking authoritrv than IPJ Kayishema. Once again. Ndahiniana took nr-r rneasules rvithin his authorir,"- as hourgrnestre to interfere witlr the criminal plan. On thc conlrary" I \lrtness' l99i and 1996 siatelneDts wiilr respefi 1{! lhe lemolal of Ilutu 1\onren I'rom lhe ahuch i]l1 1"{ ^}]ril 1994. is .rll,r{aleln'rllt: pr,tt rJed hr rvitttrssc: ar tirt'tintr \r\'r( sunrrlir.iJl in narur( '' '' l)erenre Urhibit i. rru. ,1. 5. r"?! I)etbnce E:hibit.tr. o. ,1. tut* Judsement. para. 301. '' Ar atr e";Ltrrfle.rl *re rlpe ofconrideration that ma! hilve beel] iq ahc minds ol paq)r'1rato.j al the tiine" see llriencc i:jliLlibil '12, a rl'ihlcss statemcnt providcd by Witness (lilK To Pf{Ncc{rtion invcs1lgn1613 in ?00f in 'nhich ibe wrhess :aid that Fr{her Seromba elecided to save sonte 'l utsi chili}en "to Plo\e 10 th€ adlirnring ltPl 1brues iltai ltr hfld saved sumc l lsis. Father Serutba wa$ conliliced of this pJan lrecause h€ B:ls told the RPF hale hearci tr,lrat has happtrned in Nlange and that t\.hcn the), irr;ve ir Nydnge. 1.he; rvo0lil kiLl hjn betau:e of his pai'ticipation in rlrc gerocide." 1'he Prosecutct' t:. ]i,Jahtmttrn, Case N$, ICTR-01-68-I' ?1)5 i 1'14

Page 206

;ffiX''ir''or*r.n.. <ruring rhe removato{'rhe IIuru rvorreu inclioares *#:['#h preparanons. :.ft Conclusions on l3 *nd I'l April 1994 52. On 13 and l,{ April 1994. Ndahimana and nrembers of the.ioint crlninal enterprise held a series of meetings at Nyange parish. I am satisfied that the Proseculion hair established thaf by l;l Aprii i994 rnembers ofthe joint criminal cnterprise had agreed to cxternrinitte the Trtsis olKivunrr camt une. To ihis erd. thsy i) transpoded Tutsis who lrad not colre 10 the palish to 1he church on 13 April 1994; ii) "disarmed" ihe refugees to weaken their potential resistance: and iii; removed tire Hulu wives of 'I'utsi civilians fiom harm's rvay. While no evidence has been adduced silggcstrng that Ndahimana ivas amorg the most firrcel'ul advocatcs ol'the plar.r. or that he hail a prc-cri'ting anlipathl' lo*,ard the Tufsis o{' his comnttsue-- indeed I recall tirat he had anested sonre ol ilie individuals r.vho may have been involvcd in the earliest attacks on 9 ancl l0 April 1994-the Proseculion is nat requirecl to prove "personal elitliusiasnr nor satisl-actir.rn, ntrr personal initiatir e ir perfirrming the relevant contributlon to the common plan."]676 Ndahiniana.,las the highest nnking pcrlitioal ol'ticial in Kivumu c()nlmune and at Nl,ange paL'ish. He spellt a grcar r.leal ol'time in the companv of trembers ofthe JCE and lvas thus aware ofthe

inlent olindivirluals sr:cdr as Seromba. Kaf ishenra, Ndungulse and Kalyaruliiga. Fudher, il is m1- vier.v thar had tlre members of tho JCL]. believeel that Ndahimana lvas opposed ter their plnn andiar that his ocntriburion to the plau rvoul,.i lre insignificanl, thc! tould have ericluded lrim liom their discussions. Ndahimnna participatcd in the transtar of Tutsis who had nilt coute 1o thc pa|ish to thc church on I 3 A.pril 1994. I le was, at ihe very [eas!. ar'vare of the disarming ol'the refigees on l-1 or l4 April 199;1, and hc rvas present wh;le llutu rlomen rvete taken out olthe church ou the evening of 1,{ April 1994. lle rvould have knon,n tlrat the l'our gewlarmes assigned to Kivunru cotnmwrc rvould not be in a positioa to protecr the relfgees from lhe coming onslauglrt. He did not nsk tlle prtf|t or state agencies lor more reinforcements on that day. More importantly, he did not assi€ln the armed comnlun&l policcmen" under his direct control, to protect the refLrgees, I rm lhercfore salisfied that ihe only reasonable conclusictr on the totality of the evidence is that by l4 April 1994 Ndahinrana shared the crimital inlent of individuals such as F'ulgence Kayishema, Caspar<1 K*rnyarukiga. 'ldlesphole N<iungurse and Athanase Serotnb* and was therefirre himself * membef of fiejoint criniinal enterprisc- Ndahimana's contributir.rn to that enre4rrise rvill be discussed in

more derail belc,rv.L"tt 6. ls, Asdl994 f:.15 Apr.!l") 6.1 GeneraN Overviefi, ofthe Day's livents il. when taken togeLher" ths cvidence suggcsrs the fbllorving sequcrlce of'evcnts on li April 1994 at Nyange ltarish: i) Betveen 8:00 a.m and 10;00 a.m, tnernbers ol'the.ioint c,riminal enterprise met together at the ptesbyier): ii) folbwing ihis n'teerillg Huru assailants f4gan tlrr6,,r in; stolles at tbe Tutsi ref'ugees, but the I'utsi refugees rverc able to repel thenr back to the Statue of the Virgin l!'lary; and indeed it ma1'be that the assailants rvele deliberately trying ro lure the Tutsi rnen arvav from the chw'ch buildingl6Ts iii) sometinre betrveen 11:00 a.n.,'urci l2-,i)0 uoon, meurbers ol the joint criminal enterprise met ot the CODEKOKI building localed by the Sratue of the Virsil Mar-v; iv) follorving this mecting. a uran named Rukara climbed atop Kan-varr.rkiga's shop. also 1616 (r'dla (AC) JutkcLnerlt, paras, l0i-106. '"" 1)issent. paras. 208-231. 1673 T. 27 Jatuar'1 f01I pP. 11-1l:Witrless ND6 testificd thdt the arlackers delibcrutcl! lurcd thij reiirgdcs urvav fi.onr thc chutcb While J htve c{rr.erts about tbis ttitn(s!' olr.mjj clrdibiiil-v. his cr;id!'rcc on thi: point is p3air:ihJe. 7he Pt'o,eetutor r. Yrlllti una. Ciasc No. ICTR-0l-6t-T II)h ! :.7:l 'x+

Page 207

Judgeneut artt! Sentence 3$ Dc!:embL'r'?t)I I 21?> lo{rared in the area of rhe Statue. ancl began thrc}wiug grenades at the advancing ndg"JSf'1f d. significant numbsr. The sun'iving refusecs thcn rqtl'eated into thc church. Dozctts or ti)(lrc f!-{ugecs who rvere unable 1o get into the Church building were kiiled b1- assailants using firearms in |he church courlyard. Assoilanls then trici.l 10 attack the relugoes inside th(} church Lrsirlg a panopl;- of' scheures.'ltey shot through the church rvindorvs, the)' lried to burn do\Yn lhe doors o{'thc chLtt'ch or thc erntire struoturc of'thc church, and they attsmptsd to blorv up the church using d,wamite. \\rhen all tliese ef-lbrls lbiled, Fether Seromba called on tlie assailauts tc bur;-- the viclirils. A hulldoeer from the Astaldi compan-v was bloughf to the church fol this purpose, and the corpses of rhose refugees who ivrre killed outside the church qere dumped in a pit by the Caritas building. I'he renrainder ol-the al'ternoon is not as clear. lt lvould appear, h<.lrvever" that sorne lLt the scene ahead-v contenplated using tlre bulldozer to attack the structure of the churclt, but it began raining and the bulldozer got stuck in tl,e mud. A group of assailnnts tlte wenl horne, lvhile another gruup encilcled the churr:h to ensure that refugees could not escape during the night. Members ofthe JCE then met at the presb)ter_v again

that evening. 6.? lntroqtruction to a$sessment ofcvidenee 54. I am satisfled rhat Ndahirnana attended the iuneral of Dr. Juvenal Ntarvuruhunga in tlte verl late morning or eari_v afternoc'r'r Lrf 15 April 19!);1. I also belisve tlrat the Delence evidence indicating that Ndahirnana tmveled to Kibuy'e to see pri.fit Cl6ment Kayishema thirt afternooll is reasonably possibly true. I'{olrever, there are signiticant elornents of the l)eltnce case for this da1' that I do Eot accept as tfue bscause I have serious reservations aboirt the ciedibi]itv of Deltnce u,itnesses and believe the Del'cnce evidence has been overcome b,v mcre conqrelliug Prosecution eviderrcs. In addition. I obsen,e rhat ths Delbncs rvilnesse.s displal,ed a remarkable mertr'rry f'or limcs given the l7-.vear lapse betrvcen tl]c events a1 issue and thcir iestimony in this trial. and that tlie [ines provided appear to havc been neatl.v-' tailored to cxonelale Ndahimana. 'fhus, lvhi]e ceriain aspecls of' r.r-dahimana's alibi art: reasonably possibly true, I am salisfled thal tlie Prosecutiou lias proven bevond reasonable doubt that Nclahimana lvas presenl at Nlange parish on the nrorning o1' t5 Aprii 1994" that he panicipaled in two meelings rvith otlicr members of the .ioint ciirninai enterprise rvhile there and did not leave urrtil al'ter rhe srafl of the second at{ack lhat day. 'l'he Ilrosecution has fur1her

established that Ndahimana returned 10 the parish on the evening cl 15 April 1994 and again met with rnembers ofthejolnl crinrinal enterprise. 6.3 Defence Witness Credibility 6.3.1 _V:tnp_sj_l-nse_rs"Llulsbidcri 55, Witness ]'herdse Mukabideri provided Ndahimana r.vith an alibi frorn i:00 or 6:{J0 a.m unlil the early aflemoon.Ji'7t She is the rrnlr Dcft'nic rritness rvlio testifieci to having seen Ndahimana belbre 11 a.ni. on this day. 1'he fi,fajorily has fbund ihis witness. among olhes, to be "generalll. eltrJible."'1530 t respectfirlll tiisagree ancl imleerJ have grave reservatjons abi,rul thjs rvitness' credibility. The witness testifieil that she first nret Ndahintana al her rveclclirig in 19t6. Ndahintana rvas one r.lf her husband's friends and was also the godtather oiher late husb*nd's sous. The r.r,itness at'rived in Kivumr.r tron Kigali on 12 April 1994 and rvent to visit Ndahirnana either the same day or the lollorving day. Ndahirnana arrived with the bod1, o{'the rvitness' husband al her home on 14 April 1994, and spent many hours rvith hsr preparing ibr. and presiding over, her r6te T. 7 r'ebrua.r.! :01| D.

68. I6sr.iu<lgement para. :-ii. The ?rovcuto| \,. \.kthit .7!w, Clase No. ICTR-OI-68-T :47 t 27,t 't+

Page 208

Judgeneti tutd Senlencc ,Ul,)ct t tfb{ 2nl I /.'l 4- iiusband's funeral.rt'Er 01her rvitnesses describeci Nclahiurana as thc "N{flsrer ot'Ccftffiiict'at llic iirneral.l{82 Yet, rvhen asked on cross-cram ination *'hether she and Ndahiurana r.vere '1lose liiends she ansrvered "l would sa""- no.'16$j While I acknorvlcdge that there is no scientific nreasure lbr the "cioscness" ol'a f'riendship, I am ol'the vielv that she and Ndahimana rvere sufficiently closc that she had a motive to exculpats him.r68a Similally, I believe shc may have downplaycd the nature ol' her liiendship $,ith Delllice Wihress [4ukankusi in order to rninimize the appearance o1'collusirn belween the two wi{nesses.l{'85 I further nd(e that ivhile fhe wilress rvas relatively preciser about fhe times she salv Ndahilnana at her house on 14 and l5 April. and said he aiislsted her in organiz.ing the lirneral. slie provided no delail on the nalure of tlris assislmce. linaily, the rvitness'hus!:and rvas killed on the night of l.l to l4 April and thus hel n:etnory of the sunr:nnr.1ing ddr-s may llave been shaken by the trailma ofthis event. !or these reasons, I do nor llnd this witness ri.'liable excepi rvhere corroborated. 6.3.2 Witness tldatriceNlukankusi 56. l'he lvlaiorily also firund thal Wilness Bdatrice Mukankusi rvas "generall-v credib1e."r686 Again, I r€spectfully disagree. Witness N{ukankusi lestili€d ihar

rvhen she i}rrive.l *t Mukadiberi's hoLrse "slightil before I I o'clock" Ndahimana rvas already present.l6rT 'fhe r.vitness dicl not explain holv she coultl be so ptecise about hertirne ofanival at the house lT years a fter the events al issue. Indeed, lvherl asked a cptestion about a particular incident on cross-examination. she state<l: "Ytxr are ccmplicating m1' lif'e, real11.. You are asking me to give y..ru the time lbr events rvhich happened in 1994?,.f'ome on. Do )ou really think I can rernqmb*r the times at which all ths events look placc?" "^^ Ftl'tltcr. llten askr-d the time at rvhich she infbrmetl Ndahimana thct she had seen srone throwing at ths chufch. she ans*ered: "Wc did nol look at our tratches. and it uzs a fixreral. We <Jid not pay allention to the time."r{'8e fhc wilness was onl,v requirc.d to snr rvhether shc infonnefl Ndahimatia ol-this incidenl immediatciy upon aniving at the l'unerai or \.vhether shc d jrl so la1er. -\7. I also found that this witness rvas cvasive in ansrvering questicxrs ou cross-ex:imination, even s'hen addressing relativel.v- minor discrepancies betrveen her tcstimony in the,ser.rr?,4a casc and her evidence in this trial. The rvitness was clusive even rvhen anslrerine the rllosl straightfbnvard questions. For example. *lren asksd rvhether T'utsis tvere larseted ia April 1994. she responded "when you sa;, tJral it rvas the 'l'utsis

lvbo rvere corrcen,tctl or targered. rvhat I lvould saf is that lYe were ali al'raid.li r'r1-{r Whcn asked to aclclress a more significant discrepancy henveen her evidence in the Sernarlo trial and her restimon,v irr this trial r.vilh respect Ndahimana'i presellce at Nyangs church she was pa ioulally evasive. stating: "[b]ut i:l'I answersd in that r,vay that I ttid. it's because that qLrestion was put to rre during that 1rial. Othenvise I dicln'l have that inlbrrralion. At the time o{'the svents I was not aware ol'this in lbrmaLion." l6qr 'u*r '1 . ? I-eh|uar. 2(rll nl.6?-6i(. '-- Sec Jhr c\arnfle. wilnt'ss Be.itrice iuukukusi: l'.7 Feb|uart 20ll p. l5: witncls i'hfrdse Njuknbidcri: j.7 i:ebruay ?01 1 p. 58: lvilLres$ ,{nicet 'furnuseoge: 'L 12 t!.1ay 2(}l 1 p. 7. "-' L ll lribrLraN:011 D. 16, "' I. lt tcbn,u,., 20| pp. l6-ti). " o' f. I Fcbnrqr\ 20 1 1. Fi\ l t, :-1. """ Ju.lgemcnt. FiLr,i- :ia. '""'1. I IehLui,rr 2Jll ft). Jj,,16. '"" l. 7 F:t'r'uarr 201 | p. il, ' " l . ? l : r b r u n l r : 0 l l D . - 1 6 . "nu T. 7 l .hru:r.i :ol I p. ,t6. '"'' T. 7februar-\'201I p. jl. The Pros.cttlot 1'. Ndahinana. Case No. ICITR-(ll-6g-T )Ag i 274

Page 209

to afiack the relugces at \!],angc prrish cLruld have t:rken FLace on l.tr April 1994 a1 l\'lulanLrgit square,lt'': On the evidence ol Wimesscs CI)Li'""arrti t'NJ.r6ur I zurr satisfied that such an incitlernt ciid take placc at that locatioli un thc aftemoon of l4 April 1994, ahhough the Prosscl.ltiexr has nct established be-yond rc*sonablc cloubt tliat Nilahiniana participalcd in this incident. For these reesons, I have significanl concems atroul lhis rvitness'creditriiity. 6.3.3 Witness Anicet Turnusenge 59. I rcspecrfully disagree. r.r,ilh the N{ajority's conclusion that Wirness fumuseage vras "unsliaken on cross-examination."'oo' Indeetl" t am conccmed by the rvinless' l'ajlurc 1o <lisclose his prior arests in Rr*,.anda arid Kcnya r.vhen *sked about such arrests b) thc Prosecrtion, and did not find his explanation lbr liiling ro meution these incidcnls pcrsuasive.r6"6 More inporianll;', although the dekils are urtcleiu, it rvould seem that in June 1994, Ndairilnana provided the rvilness rvith assist+nce at a tin'le rvhen he fearerl For his security and that of his {'amil1,.l6"7 I'hus, r'vhile some aspects of the rvitness' lestimony were crerlible" I belicve he h;id a mr.llive for ad"iusting det;rils" including times, to pro{.ecl the accused. 5.3.'1 Dslbnedtiluss CldrrenlKa:tilre$a 60. I share the N{ajorit""-'s concer s aboul Witni:ss Cldment Kayislienra,'6ut I w;sh to

strrss, horvever, that Kayishema was tried and convicted bl. this T'ribunul li.rr.his parrieiparir,n in rhc l9!)4 genociile, and is cun'cnlly serving a senteree ol'life im prisonrnenr,'n"" and that lre testillerl Lhat he intendcd to present'1terv evidence" to tlie l'ribunal that woukl ex{}ncrate him. l70l *s is his right puNuant to Rules 120-123. I oonsider it of partici.rlar signiticance that the lvitness does nor consicier' his case to be olcsed, ancl observe that given his position as pifet at the time ofthe events at issug, it is in his legal interest to testify that he and his subuclinates. inclucling Ndahimaua. did all they could do to provide security in Kibuye prc.fecture. That said. il rvas the witness' posilion that he dicl nct "lrave any subordinates"'_and that bourgnutres in particular rvere elltirsly eutouotlous" a clailn abort ivhich I am sceptical.lT{'1 61. There were also nuurercus <iiscrepancies, both minor and slgnificant. br:tra'een lite witness' {estirrrrxr,,'. in this trial and rhat in his own trial. For erample. Kal,isherna testilled in rhis case that tw!,J baut gnrcslres participated in tlre rnassacles. I lcrvever- in the evidence hc' gave in his olvn case ill September 1998, he said that he did not knotv any "personality of the r:olrmrffr:,s ''. rvho had participated in ttte Mubuga massacre. The witness claimetl rhat hc learncil about thc

actjrjLics 16o: T, 7 ltebrua|v lol I D. I l. L6e3 T l2 NovemLer 20lb p. i l'on T. 4 Noveml-.er 2010 i. 50: I am $atislieC thdt Karcte,vi and \,{uknogd m.}rkct./squa.e rrcrc th+ sa'-nc locatioll, "'"' Judgentent. pam. 486. '"'u t. lt Ntr,r 2rrl I pp. 18. :U. l-1-1"t. "'-''L I:.\Ii\ 1011 D. 7i. l'-3 Iudgtme ,rl purr. JQtt. ',^,,!,,1"1,,,rr* r. KLt.ti\hentu 6nl Ru:/rr1rrra. lCl l{-95- l -A- Juligemenl I .lun€:001, l)is$r:iitil . " " l. t8 AFril iOl I p. "19. ""' 'I. 18.,\pril 20tl p. 7. flrc Pro&'ctdor.\'. Ndahirnaut, Case Na. ICTR.0l-68-T 249 i ?"7,1

Page 210

Judg!:tneDtiuklsentence tr r\tf Uq itf tltc trr'r bu.ur:ank.\trcJ aftcr his o\Ur lrjirl. and derricd lhat ilc ahcrcd hiq aecoulrf-lt{ in'rret ' Ndrhimanir.' "- | lirrrl this esplcnulirin un;)r'rsua:,ive. {]1. Ka;-ishema furthef teslified that Ndahimana came to the pre.ftcture ttrl 15 April aIler 2:00 p.trt. tc ask fcx reiutbrcentents but that Iia)'ishema rould prr:viele ntl' ntate gendanties because the;' had all left ior Kigali-r70r l{urrclcr, at Kal ishenr.r's oun trial. Ka;-ishema restified that the getulurn,'s leR Kibuye on thc evcning ol' l5 ,\pril lr)9:1.''''' 5J. Generail-v. I find this r,vitness to be *nleliable and cannot rely on his evidence. 6.1.i L(qnilLsN!.r.,rck1-'rqcni 64, I concur rvitli the lr,lajorit,v'.'s assssslrrent of the crcdibiiit;- of' Defence Witness t"doni]le . I Tari l\lUfcKL-\ lSOlll. - 6.{ Conrlusion on the.{lihi 65. I arn satisfied that Ndahimana was not prqsent at Nyangc p*.ish driring the altemoon of 15 April 1994, and that he padicipaled in the lirnelal of Dr. Juvenal Nlarvuruhunga during his absence fiom the parish. [t is also reasonablv possible that hc travcleil to Kibuye to vish prlpt Cldmenr Ka"v'.ishema. Ciiven the passage of'time, horvcver. i believc that the Del'€nc* r..ritncsses may have been mistaken ivilh respcct to the prccise tirnes that Ndahimana arrivetl ar the tirneral" lcft lor Kihuve, and re*med frorn Kibuye" 66. It is the

Detbnce case thar rvhen Wilness lr4ukankusi infbrmcd Ndahimana o1. the {ighting at Nyange palish that she had winessed cn her rvav 1o the l'uncral. Ndahin.rana cienartcil alnrosl itnurediately lbr KibryelT"d lvhere he asked tJrre prifet to proriclc rcinforccmt nts r.tr the prateclion o{'the relugees.l707 First, as iliscussetl ahove, f ain satisl'iecl that Ntlahimana was a}rare on l4 April 1994 o{'the impending atlack of'l5 April. and there{bre c{o no1 belig,e thar Ndahimana leamed of the attaek fiom witness l\4ukankusi- second, as cidnrent Kayishema was the orlv lvitness lo have testified about the sulrstance of his rneeting rvith Nclahirnara thal ria,v-. ancl I clo ni:r find this rvitness 1o Lre credible, I accr]rd no iveight to his eviclence thal Ndahitnana camc tu seel, assistance to proteci the retugees. lndeed. circumstantial evidenoe lnitigaies againsi such a disorr-ssion. Although the tlott gendarme; assigned to Kivumu .omnmlle mal ntx have been under the direct de.iut"e authority of any single indiviclual in Kivr.rmu comnturl. it wolld appeaf rhat tirev were involved in discussions ahout the fate of tlie refugees antl follorved the iristructkrns of metnbers of the ,ioint criminal e nterpritc.'tns Thus. I am ririsfied that Ndahimana clid not beiie vi. that any number of gendarme': would proteot the refugees. In addilion, had Ndehiprana r+anted fr-r reirttbrce the

gettdarrues he could have assigned the oommunal police to protect lhe ref"ugees at the r1!: T 18 Al)ril ?tl I pp.41-12: T. 19 April 201 I pp.4-[i. Trt].nscripts oiKalishsnra's tcstinlirry ir hiJ o*.n case tjlccj as Ilrosecution Exlribit 61. 1"' I l:t April i0l I pp. 11. .r.]-.I t. .l-|'l. t,J Anr;l t I | 11. r,i. , - L 1t,\pril 2r|l I np Jt-.r. |,.ijtls! ri|rs !,fKalishcnra's resLinr,,rr) tilc,lin l i u,!n (t\.,:r) | .\trjhtt pf(,.(.iLr{i.1n r,: -- .iuJgcmenr. !'irJ 48J. ' "'1 . 7 I cbrulll ltil I pn. 15-16. ''u' sre \,itnclc,'\rri!er-Iunrus€irg,l:,r'. l2 r!la"i,20r i p.9; witness crdneml Kayishclna,'r'. 1s Aprir 20 Fp, .r,.r:, '' l l Nor('nrb(f 20t0 pp. 15-lb.T.2Novemlrer20l0p. 16: Witn(ss CtlR lrslificd thator t4Apri1, N'jungrtse anil lia'visLretla spoke rvitl) the .genddr Ej atmed lvith gms. l he genclirrrnes ado-iseil the ass:lilante thal because the rel.ugec: lar outnumbire{ tfie attaclters. thc as$ilatl|S shoLrld postporre ti}eir drtaok. Sce olso Wilncss y,At.i: I. ii Sepleorl.cr 2r)10 pp. -1{F.17" The Prosectutr y. Ntkthimata, Case \o. ICTR-01-6g-T :lit 1 27,1 vt

Page 211

JtnlgcDtint,lnJSt,th'tttL tt tt|t..:/2it/) parish. As I rvill discuss in further tletail belorv" I am satistied that thefe rvijre a1 lcas'dlLl\,ff communal police ollicers lvorking in Kivumu comtntnd at thc time of the events.lr0q I rvill not speculate on the real purpose o1'Ndahimana's visit to the pr{.fer on l5 April I 994, if intleed such a visit look place. but atn netefihelcss able to concluds that the Dcfi:ncc account is not croclihje. Finallr--. i.vhile W itness 'fum usenge's evidence thal he arel Ntlahirlana retlrrned ro the {irneral al'tcr vi.siting the prtJbt hut before going liome is rcasonabiy possibly 1ruc, I bclis,e thal hc nra.!,. havc adlusted the timeline of {his visir to protect the adcused. 6,5 ()ther Del'enee trvidenre 67. Witness NDf4 manned the roadblock.iust cutsir.ie Nyangc parish and parliuiparcd in the attacks on Nyange parisli that krok place on l4 and l5 April lg9{.r7r'' Acr:ordirrg ro tjl( \\,itncss. cn 15 April 1994' he only sau Ndahimana auive at the raadbkuk on l5 April 199.1 at approxirnarcry 8:00 to 9:tl0 p.m and then leave again shortly thereal'ter.17' 1 Nclahirliina clrulcl not liave Dassoc through the roadbkrck betrveen l4 and l5 April without the nilness krrorr.ine abolt ir:'..,\ rrerstrr like him couldn't have passed rhrough sucb a place v, itliclr.rt pcoplr Lnolinc.',r7r- ,\r Jjsousserl abcve' I do nof find tltis rvitness credible or

reliable.rTrr I fiulher note that the witness insiste<{ that the only firearms used at fhe parish t'tr l-5 Aprii rve-re grenaries, a point conteslgd 5v nurnerous }\ ilne:srs rrhu testitied lhiil. othcr fireilrms uere Use,l-r;l I 68. wilness ND22 testified rhat he participatcd in rhe _attack at Nyangc parish on 15 Apri! l994.i7rs but that he dicl not see Nclahimana ttrere that clay l''' 'fh* n,itness also test;lied tllnt at 1xr unspeci:lied point, Kayishema asked aboul t'\dahim:lnr's lvhereabouls and Ndu*gurse *nsr.vered that "he hacl gtilre 1o see his liiends, the Inkatatt.vf'.ti1l I note that this ll.itness lvas-an accornplice and therefore ccxtsider his evidence with caution. hr atklition. I believe that there were at least 4{.X}0 pecple.at Nyange parish, inclurling both ret'ugees ancl assailants. on l5 April 1994, anC therelore thai it is possible that Ndahirnana was pfeseut antl that Witness ND22 did not see him. Finally, Ndalirnana was not present at the parish during th* entire dav of l5 April 1994. thus I ac,cept that Kayishema nlay have asked about his locarion. lIo*ever. eien il true" this evirlclce rvouitl not sigttily.' that \dahimrna rras ncrer at thr f,arish un rhat d:}. 1l];. ,, ,, l'i].":* NDr-r clso parliciprte\i ir) tlrc artrcks ar Nyange Palish on l{. l5 :.irrJ l6 April 199+- - btll did l)Lll scc the hottrgmt'Jrt on l-.l. I5 or l6 April 1,r94.1''u I

rcspectfullr Jisagrec uirlr the Majority's assessment that because the r.vitness ccxrpliter-l his senteuce icr his rrartici-oatitin rn the events a1 Nyange church, his evjdence does not require caurious revierv.r?ru Fero;s h;;;;;ang,) oi urotives lbr embellishing the truth. Some ma,r, hopc io curry {avcr with the curre nt regime, otrlers ma,'" harbor such expectations in the event of regirne change. sonre nlay owr "onrl,l.rrtion1 t,, porverful indivicluals in the communities in rvhich they live, uiether connr:cieti ro the regime or no1 ,::-.--*_._'"- "'"'Dissent. para. 2l l- ''" f.2l Fel,n,a.., 2iil I pTr. I ll. _l:. ' " T. f lFebnLirf.\ lrtil p. 12. ',-T. :t pjhr].lirr.\ lir! | nt). :7 (.tu,,LeJ), :x-2o. ' " Llir:ent. p.tra. 2q. "'" 1". ?t FebrL,ary l0l I p.41. " " 1. lf,.{pril 2tll I pp. 1,1- 22. " '' 'l' 20 .April 201I p. 20. ""'1.20 April 1011 pp.6-7" 20.24. "'"'l ' 27 Januar)' 201 I p.

13. On this basis. I also ilisugree rrith th.' hld-ioritv,s rrssessmcnr oi. Dcl.cnce \l/itnes:j NDl.i :ra p_atagritl)h J{)9 of tlllj J uLlgemenl. ' _ ' [ . J ? . r r n l r a r r ? o t I p p . t 7 - 1 8 . . ] i . : e . i . l r l ( \ . , . ' " .1{r(lgement, pa,ir. f6l. The Prasecuk)r t. Ndahinana, Case Nrr. ICfR_01-6fl-T 211 i 2'j4

Page 212

,./udge Nelt oud Senten,:e 3t) [p4tnh,,t ]i I I ,, Al2 q'hile othel's lua,v expect fo reccive such consideration in the luture.r/rr In additiol, ,:Vmber ol accomplice rvitnesses in this case appeared intent on pointing the tingcl crclusirely at thc particular individuals lhey 1"1,1 responsible for instigating their orvu crinrirrirl acts.lT:l The nrofires ror m isreprcsentation or cmfrroidery are man-y, and I am of ihc vir:lv t'het an individual rvho has bccn found guilty ol'Iirr more grievorrs crimes than perjurl' cannol bc presLrmetl to bc rclling ths truth. 'l'hus" when a convicted genociduire testifiss. whelher lirr thc ltrosecutir:n or {br lhc De{cnce, Lhd,. rvitness' credibilit-v- requires panicular serutinl, and I preter to rci,r, rrrr such cr iLlcncc trnly wh*rc com.rborated unless there is a compelling reascn to relv on il alore.lT''l 70. t l'urther respectfirll.r disegt.-c rrith thc l\'lajorlf's conclusion that this witness rvas "generally' r'cliable and credible."r '" \'itnc"s NI)6 *a: a lorv-level Demctfaior sssociated rvith 'l'dlesphorc Ndrniguls,;, and his evidence lbcused almost exclusitcll ,rn Ndulgurse '.r r.ole in t c attacks and what the witness leamed iiom N.lungnLse. I-le mentionccl ilo irther important pdrpctratofs or leaders apart fi'om WilLress CDI- and Fulgence Kayishema,lT2i but rv|eli hc reilerre6 to lhe lelter two men he did nor indioal€ rvhy he

beiieved that thel were responsit;le lbr thc attacks" I atn also lrcrubfecl by the wifiress' evidence thar he did nut see an) eilher conseillers rkt se<:teur or assislanl iortrgrne,tlre,t at Nyange patish on either l5 or l6 :lpril 1994. Despite the trial's lircus on the asdvities of Ndahintana. ample evidence rvas addueed that indiviriuals hokiing such positiols pafticipated in the attacks on Nvange parish.iT16 The i.l,itness als* testitied th;rt courmunal polioe officers onlv arrived at the crime sile after the hillings on l5 April and rhat rhcl "rrele sLrrpriseil,.to see "this horrible scenc''.ltlt As I will discuss in more detail t elow.'t,* I amiarxtieJ rhai at least nirre qonrnrunal police oilicers lvere present at fie palish during the attachs of l5 April and Participated in the aflacks, thus I cannot crctlit the i{ ltne ss' testirtol.ly on this iss1tc. I note that constillers de secteurs, assistant loar3nr eslres aod cornnunal policcmerl rvere ail alleeed bv tr1e Ptosecution to liave becn Llndel the eit'cctive control of the l:sot*grnestre in ..\prii 1Q94. I-hus. grrs ''-' 'gee lbr example Witness CflR: f- : Novenlbsr'2{ll(}. pp. 4-6 (lC-S). l-he !!.itn(jss tesrificd thur ;nj.juential tncritb*rj o1'Gaspnrd Kanlaniliiga's {'llntil}, to \rhorn his $,ite. Defeoce lViurs-ss ND2l. tvas ri:ii.**r1, !.'{rrie.i pros$ure qt thc rritness and..his r'vife to testiil' lbr the

liarr.n-arukiga tlefel]ce. whcn this liiilei;1 rlleinbc$ o,' K*nj-a.Lrligais tilrli; b|ibed metnbers tri the cornnunitl to testii) f'alsclv sgeinst tbc {'itness. Although wirress CBR ivas ai'rcc0mpliee" tl:is evjdencc is plaLisitrle al Lte ,::orl'cssed to a signiiicant number ol crimcs bo|h 10 gle llwandirn dutLlorilies iulil rg rnrr liibunal iut appeaN to argue thst afier the Kanv.riukiga tfial he 1\'!n ai{litionally charged 1{iih cr.irres l.re dirl n.}1 com!ni1. Ilis etjdence also conlinns that lie rvas iried rnorc than once for lris Farticipiiiot !n th€ cfim€s al \1,angt: p3r'ish by R$andan autirorities. witnesses |-DL &nd Bx3 also said th3t thel- had lDcn iricd srtd cr.lnvi6€11 nor,j rhan olce fof orirnes rclilteil to the gcnocidc 'Ihus, I calllrot a,lrree rvith the prcsun'tpirr--n lllat once a g.{nci:idatire iras scrierl |];sSntence nc'h.:.lothing nrore to ibal or gair fronr the itrvandan arlhoriries or the conrrru rt afo,nd lrim. ,_ 11'r c\rnrirte: \\ rtiress NDo arrd Ndungutsc and \litness Nl)2,1and Fulgence Kayishema_ ''"''1. l2 Novdmlk. ?0lr) pp. -13-i4 {lUSi "'" Judgrlneot pom. 507. "-"I.27 January 2011 pp. t5-16. "'" See for example, Witness Ct.)l,: T.l2 Novertbef 20 10. p, l2 ic_c. l9-20,.1, t9 Norembcr:0ll)l, l6j djsolss]llg tlic rite ,oi assistant 6rar€ln.r.!lr".t tiilbert Rugrrizangoga l(anani a:rd \tidasre Murun€ie.abugabo {ati3 LirlpLrrd,,i. w'itrLess clll: I'.

l'l s€ptembe. 2{110, p" i19. lvitness ciitir -r. t ^-o1'enrter 2010 ir. 2,li res-iifieii iirar vtur.augwuLug;r.,r, llj::i1:J,.]i,:i:].la nn in B, nn.I 4. Apr.il lee4. w;tncrs L'NJ: .r. ,r Norember 20lrj p. s7^ i9: sari r4urar]rvabugrbo l1*r:,,111" rn rllc,an.lLr r,n 16 -\J'r iJ t994. Witness C)t-i; 1. 7 Seplemler .:0 ti), p.,tri"47: testiiled r\at" crurtre br Jeau \rxne vrinnc] irnsrrugrrii prfli(itl.tred in the l5 Aprjl rgg4 atl"rck. wirness cBK: 'r.. 9 November ?0ltr pir. 53_-i3: tcstilied that llaburllig! partjcipaled in.lhe Lneeling ai the presbytcrY i:rn rlrccreningof lJ Apdl ltt4.\trjtnesscFN:1. 13 Septenibet 2010 p. 22-23: te stilicd rhff Habai:uriga panicipatecl ir thc t 5 A i.rii I q!i4 attack. Witncss \.A U: I . 6 ::llt]:b,'] 2t'jtt pp- 16-:? l' .lj scplcnlber 2010 pt. i2-.13 reslilied rhal Hallafui.iga mor lrith iJlher members er rhil 'r( t' olr I ) Aprr I l('tr'l nnJ frf ticiP0led jl] tbe kiJlings thar da,r'. witness CIJKj 'l . ii \tvenrber 2il l{.t pp. 16- l 7i resiife!; that he $a\i' 'on3"i//e/ l-aurent Sindablenrcp pa.licipate ir ihe nreeting of mcmbrrs ot the JCll on thr evening of l-d April 1994 ''" l. 27 Janudry ?0l l pp.29-.!1.19-41. "-" l)isjerll. para, 2l l. ilte Prosecfiot \,. i\'.|ahi .afi.r, Case i;o. ICTR-01-68_T : 1 2 , 2 7 t

Page 213

JuJp\rwt Ltti \Lnt, nLr 3rt \, nb.):ll panrcular tusttnion) anncars ro hrvc trcen clclihcratelr tailolrd t,r '.hickl the accuscd #r ,1"6F Afiicle 6 (3) liability, and this casls dnuht on the lvitless' evidence r.vith regard to Ndahimana's Article 6 (l) llability.

71. It is also significant that the witness insisted that no meeting rvas heltl at CODEKOKI beftrre the atfacks on 15 April, arld that uo meetiug rvas heltl on 15 -,\prii involving comurunal autltorities anyrvhere at Nyauge ohurch or in its yicillih'. Ile argued &at if an) such meerings harl taken place, Ndungutse lvould have toid the att&ckers. including the wituess. about i1..17:'r I anr disturhcd b,v thc rvitness' certitude on this issr.re and do nt.rt find his reasons fbr this ccrnintl.. persuasive. The tvitness also testilied that on l5 April hc over hcard Ndungutse telling Witness CllL: "Our lcader [Ndahimana] has abantlonccl us. flc's lbrgolten us. Where is hc?"ltl" hLrl Witttcss CDI- made no mention of anv such conversaticn during his ol'n evidenc,:. 'l'aking ali riesc issues togethcr I have substantial reservations abou! the witness'overall credihiiil_y.

72. I also observe that givcn the nrunber ofpersons at Nyange patish on 15 April, the mere fhct tliat Wilness ND6 did nor see Ndahimana at the parish does not nlean that Nelahimana rvas not there. This sarne ana!-sis hclds lirr \\'itnesscs ND7, ND | | an<J NDl2, who rvcrc fefilgees at the parish rather than accomplices, bu1 testified that the]- did not sce Ni.lahimana al thc rlarish {}n l5 April.

73. Witness ND7 also testified that she ooulil see the church and bell torver l.rom her position in the presb1,tery. I laving participated in a site visit. I do not bclieve this rvas possible.

74. I anr c,lrnoerned b1' Witrress NDI l's insistence that nu rleering tuok place *t lfic pitrish that &ry, andthatila nreeling had taken place he rvcluld have scen it.l7'f lhe ruirn.r.. l, ref,rg"*" erplainetl thai he began tlre day of 15 April inside ttre church antl that rvhen the aftackels arriled he rveni ortside to throw stules at thenl. l':le latef retreale{i back into rhe church. When asked what }re oould see fronr dre chr-rrch thal day, Witness NI)li ansrvered ih:rt the tefugees cr:ulel see lvhat rvas Itappening outside because he lvent to the bell tou,er iiom lvhich a broad vierv ol' the area rva: possible' l'"lorvever. rvhen asked ht.rrv long he stayed in the bell to\,ve[, the rvitness answ*red: "'(Jnc cculdn't go there and stay fbr a long time. You couid go tlrere for trvo lninutes..."1 7r2 [ also note thi:t Ihe witrtess said that he could ot say rvhether Father Serornba had treen at the parish cn l;i ancl I5 ,|Ptil.'ttt while the vasr majoritl' o{: r".'itne sse s said rhat Sercmba was prese t *nd no lvilness saii1 that he u"s no1' Civrlr that the witness spenL much of the da;- hiding inside the church, lqgerher with,o'ver 1,000 other refugees" and that he rvas only able 1o rnake sho( visils to thg bell ioivcr, I find his convictitln that hc rvoulcl have seen a meeting if it had taken plaoe dubious. I also question his mcltives l'or ni;rking such an asserlion.

75. Witness NDi 2 testilled that Nrlahinana saved his liti: rxi the night of I 5 April I 994, anel thus the \ritness had a motive to exoneratc him. Furthrr. witness NDl2 saitl thal when hs sa,o Ndahimana.l,lter that night at Ndahimana's homc, Ndahimana askeri the r.vitness abcut condirions at the churcfl""''' ]'he Detbnce itself concecles rhat Ndahinia:ra \yent ro thq parish that cvenin-q.,7:,t r7r' 1'. 27 January 201 I p. 14. "" T" ?7 Jaruar'1 :0rr pr). 15, :6; T. 27 ,rarluar]- 20rt p. -1?, Ir iws a tc.n nrirurc *ark fiorl Nyange church to the qtnm*pl algce. rTrr '1. l8lanuar; 201 i p. :i5. "'- I. J3 January 20i I pp. 52. 65" "" 1 . l8 Janufl-y':01I p. "16 ilus). '''" l- I I January 20I I Fp. -l7-38.,t0, j0, j4-jj. "" DefcD.:e Notice of Alihi. The Frosecuior y. \tlahluana, Cl?rse No, ICTR-01-6g-I 2ti I 2i4

Page 214

.lud.4tntent tuci;inrcntL iub, dlk 4, tj__ l'hrrr. cither N,laltitnanr rrisfcntcicnted his kr)o\! lcdge dl cvcnrs at rhc parish ro rh. #cd #rP night of l5 Aplil" or the r'vituess rvas untru$fuI abouf their discussion at trial. Irinally, i observe that Witnesses NDI I and ND12 f'led f'rom the church together on 15 Aprit 199,1.173'., Wimess Nllll explained lhat they ivete neighbours during the events and rhat thcy renialn ncighbors loclay. l'he-v sec cach other alurosl evcty day, and during "the mourning pcriod" discussed the evcnts that tcok place in 199:1. 'T'hey also fravelleil tolicthcr t{r Arusha altliough rhe1.'rv*rc not housed 16geth*rl7:7 'fhus, I take into ccnsideralion the possibility that the 1wo rvitnesses rnay have discusied issues related to their eviclence in advance ol their teslimonies. 6"6 Conclusion on l)efence Evidence for lS Aprit 1994 76. li'or the reasons discLtssed above" I believe thc De{'encc evidence fhat Ndahimana rvas nol present at all al Nyange parish on 15 dpril 1994 c0uld he ovcrcorne by more compelling ]'rosecuti0n evidence. 6.7 Prosecutiontryirlence atte.nfgd a iuner*l on 15 April 1994.'l'hey. horvcver" aiieged thal he atrende.l afier leavilg Nyange parish hetween about 11:30 a.m and 2:00 p.m on l5 ;\pril lg94.r7i3 78. At trial, nine Prosecution rvirnesses--cBK, cBy. {::BS, cBT, cDr{, cNJ, {rI}R, y..\t.l attd CBI-- placed Ndahimana at N,vatgc

parish cn the nro rins ol 15 April l gg4. All nine rvituesses provided statements prior to Ndahimaua's indictment Uy this riitunat. Oi'those r.vituesscs. only three. tlBR, cBI. and cllr" retlrred, ttr"Ntlah imrna's pr*r.n., ar the pafish on the morning c1 r5 April 199"1 in these eall-v statemcnls.tTie whjle this is ir,ruhling, I do nor bclieve thar Lh* lailure c,J, th*se wilnesses to melilion Ndahimarra's presence in their llrsi statemerls necessari h' r*nd*rs their evidence at lrial on his presence unretiatrle. lvr*n1'c{'the rvirnesscs' first staternenrs ',n"r* ,*ou",iiji a ltutnber appeared lo conoenttrte primaril;r on the role of Alirana:c S,rnrmba:r'r un,l'urtlr,u ft>cused on lhe niosi visible leaders of the attacks.rTa2 'Ihis latrer poinr is signiticant because ncr lvilness alleged that Ndahimana personally, led grriups ol.assailants tw rhis da;,. 7.9' . - 'I'he N{ajority has concludeii tbat a "detailcd revierv of the l,rcsecul.ion evielence shurvs tlie evidence Io be illconsistent reganling the trvo alleged nteetings- irst. it is not clear rvhich ol.tlie two neetings happened first or rvhicli one startcd the attack. Niore importantly. the timing of dre meetings in relation [o the start oI the atlacks is unclear.,'r71] | respectfirlly disagree. as I ,r.iill now explain, l,l; )t,y::t \Lll:r -f. trr .trnu.rr\ 201 I p. 8; \t iurcss Nll | 1: 1.. I E .iqnirarl. 2(il I pp.

j7_j8, 40. j0. -i;l_jj. ' 'l . l E J.rnu.lf\ l0l l p. 56 '" See lirr exrrilrlt' \tr I hrts; (-BT: I. 7 -qeptember ?all0 p.42: T. g Sc;)t.mbc.:010 pp. i" 9, l_t; lvih.iess CDK: .1.. 9 Novenrber'21)10 |. 1{r- Witoess CN]i T.4 Nr\\,en111ei. :tittt p. 5l; \lirrress Clli{: -l. l ,\..o!eml.er :010 p. ::1. I. : Noveolber 20la) D. 2.1. , , , U i t * ' r n t i , D c l ! ' f i r . c l , r l r i h i t j 2 : \ \ i r n , . s s ( L . l J c f ( n r { t . r h i b i , J r { t ! , : \ 4 r r n . , s i ( . t , t . 1 , r , 1 . , r . u 1 ; u r l \ l r i t , i r j irec Tr)r e\arrfl!' \{'rtnsst CBN: Defen.e l*j\hibit 16 (Ai; witnrss CBy: l)cieni,e Erhibh 67: \Vitndss C].iZ: Defence Iixhibit l -i. r'4r,.see lor erample. s itness cBl: Defence L.ahibit 2i (A): witnes: yAl.r: DeLr;ce ftrh jlrif l0 {A): witDess (.BK: l).li'nec I rhihit l0: \ irn<rs ( tly. D(tbnc(, |]\hil,il 67. ' " See t'rrr Er\rmfle: vr';n)es\ ('t)K: Delenre Exhibic 56: wilrress cN.l: Deierce l\hibit 441 \!iuress cl]N: Delenc{, trhibir lr, A. \\'rlnrls ( B\ : l)(ti.,nrc | \hit,rt 67. '" J dg\-nlert. par.l. 5+l, 77. A number of Proseoution witnesses s Fport thc Defbncc cviclenr:e that Nclahinlana fhe Prosecrior t. Ndohimon. Case No. ICTR_o1-6g-T 2i.l I 274

Page 215

.hdZenlenl as.l Selttc ce 6.7.1 Eadr&l:xmgM-epjug-snd thEFir$A{es! i0 !)eccnber 2{)l l 3\2Ll 80. trvitnesses cBK. cLlY and CBS alt testified that they sar.v Nrlahinana at Nyange parish on l5 April 1994 before the a acks began that day. Iloth Witnesses CllK anLl CllY saw r.idshiqrana a't 1bc prcshJ'1ery in lhe company oi'Fulgence Kayishema" and caspard Kanyarukiga" amon{ orhers. wimesses cllK and cllY r'vere botlr rveli placed 1o observe whal was taking place at the presbl,req, .luring the eYents at issue, both gave delailed descriptions of r.vhal thel' sarv. anil I oan fincl nr nroiive for either to lie or exaggetate. In addition. neither appears to have been zealousll. determined to implioate the accuseri as neiaher testifie.l that he was presenl at Nyange parish during lhe attacks that day and neither rvihress said that he heard rlre clisoussions that took place that d.r!. betrveen rnembers of the JCIE. I have greater reservaticxrs about relying on the evi<Ience 6f Witless tlBS with respect to his sighling of Nclahirnana during the earl-v rlolning tf 15 April. Whel interviewed b-r- ICTR investigators irr 1995, Witness CBS was asked 1o diseuis the ectiyities of the bourgmes{re during the attack on the church. Ile responded that he sai.v Ndahimana arrive at the church in a communal 'ehicle cuch da1 lionr Mondai through rhursrlay. fhr those L1a;,s he spoke tt.ith .pendurnes and.

cornurunal otficers. but on Frida1,, the day o1,tire killings ,.1 .iid not see him."''"'' Hu ttpcal*rl rhar hc did nt,t.sec thc huurgttrcttn',)n tilc .lal ()f lhc xlrx;L in J subsc(lLr.;nl slatemett dated 2 liellruar.v 1996.''"^At t|ral. Witncss CltS explainetl )et the investigalor had inaceLrately recorded his statemeuts.lTa" wtrile ii is ccrtainll, possible lhat inl.cstigators ened in faking statelnents. I have diliicult-r. in bcJicring thal rhe-\ rioukl have errerj rq,ici cn the sarnc significant point. 'l'herefore, I cull rel-v on WilLress CIIS lo the cxrent that his testimon),- partiallrv crlrroborates the rror.e rcliable evidence rrf Witnesses CRK and Cll.ly. 81. .. Ths Majority has firulrd "that lhe Prosecution rrritnesses do not coroboratc each othef regarding the precisc time. location or consequ.nces ol'1he mceting.'17;7 I respec irrir- disngr.ec. r note 1llat witness cBK tesrified that the meeting took place at ipproximatclv 9:$0 a.m" rvhilc !\iitness cllY spoke of'a meeting at 8:00 a.m. and ihat rvhile borh rviiiesses lefbried t6 the prcsenc* of Fulgence Ka,vishema antl Gasparcl Kanyalukiga al lhis meeting. they cliil.er ed o1 tle, orllcr. pa ioipants. 'Io my milcl sr.tch rliscrepiueies are t; be expected givJn the passage of iinie and tlre chaos ol'the da-v- wirh resrject t() the location of the meeting. witness cBK;fi.er;d the mos1 precise bccouflt. He testified

that the men first mef together in ihe bishop.s r(xrm in the priests" livrng quarters and then came dowl together to the secretariat, which is kreated itr the presbytery. where thel' spoke to rhe attackers.r?48 \+rirrress ( By uus Iess pr.ccisc tesriryirig only rhat he sarv"tire me,: :::l- l: r:. ''thc priesr" nr rlre pre'b.r'rer1 . ' ' r' \L irrr.ss c Bi tlid rrot sa.r he ril r.r Ntluhimarrr meering l',ii']:{l$l]il:Tben oI Lhe JCE. hur said rhat rrc sarr him srr',rrh hcrurc ar_lhc slarue of rhc virgin l\lilry. \\htcii uirs less than 100 raclcrs lr'm thc.;hureh rnJ prcsbl tcr.t.. I ttl lhcse ric.:,,rrnts lrr* irr no rvay inconsistcnt. tt"" [)*len"e J"]xhibit ii. lr.

1. I.6 Septembe.:010 p. 5{). t inl.er rlrat rherl the wil ess sl}oke of ir('rda} 1lY{rugil I hutscar he rvas reterrinq to d1e dafes ol 1i-l,l Al')fil 199.1. an..] tlst \\4ien he said hL'did not sce Nrlahimarr; urr j'FLich"t he r\'.rs rei(rfjrlg r,1 lf Alrril loru. "-' Del;ncc [>.hihir.l r'15 1'. 6 Septernber 201i) p. .50. ''' Judiilnrnt. p^r.]. jJ5. , , - \ \ ' i t n c r : ( B K : 1 . J N o \ i n 1 l , c r : i , l r ) | I l ' '"' U,itncss ( iJ\': I Lr\o\enrhcr2(lJ0p.ji. ""' T.5 Seple,nber 2010 p.22. " ' 'Altlrough lhe l{egistry failed to take note^ol it,in jls sire visil }{€por1, I obserte that m}.colleagues and I irrlorrr,,llv agreed durirg the $ite'isit ihat the Statue oithe Virgin tdar) xnd K6n)-anlkiga,s pharn,acJ .,lereie.s lhr" 20t;r;;|'.' away tlofi the Nyange ohurch buitding. Tre Prc.tecutor r. Ndahimona, Ctrrse No, ICI.R_0J-6g_T 215 i 2J.1

Page 216

6.7.2 83. Jwtlgenent ttn<l Sentence 30 Detenbet 2{)ll 82. '\s to the consequenoes 01' the meeting, :rll thrce Proser:ution ,"i,n.rrrt,kod# Hutu assailants arrned with stones a[tl/crf rraditianai weapons altacked the rel gecs strtrn alier thev srrr lrdirhimaiil carl.r'that,,,,,nring.'t5: lhus. I lurther rcspl'clfull_\ Jis;rgrce irith rlre Majorir.r Js concrlusion that "Witness CNJ... was the only rvitness to testify that stone-throrving wlrs alre*dy ongoing before the authorities met irt the statue of the Virgin Mary" later thal mcming.lT5l In conolusion, on the evidence of witnesses clBY and CBI{. which is partia lll.. cor.r.oborated b1. witness cBS. I am satisfied that ar appraxirnately 8:00 or'9:00 a.rn on l,{ April 199;1, Ndahimana met \.v;rh Fulgence Ka;-ishema. Gaspard li+nvarukiga, and othefs aa thc prcsbyter'},. Althoush no evidence rvas adduced about the theme of the ureeting, I believe the only reasiuatle ;ufirence is that thcse irrdividuals discussed rhe attacks lhat were to take Dlacs that dav. Second N{eetinq and Start ofthe Second Round oi':{1tar:ks Witncsses CBT. CBI. CDK. UNJ. CBR and y,AU all placed Ntlahimana at rhe parish solnetios betrveen 11:00 a.m and l:00 tr.m at the stad of the secoud roun{ of attacl$ that da} ill which the assailants used live amrnunition. including grenades. against the re.fugqcs. 84. ln her first statement to ICTR iuvestigators in

2000. \l itness y:\LI said that the orlly auth'(nii)' she saw at Nyange p,rrish on 15 April 1994 rvas con,geillet' vianney.lTia while thi> is troublitrg, I consider it of significance thar in lhe S*rntbc tlial she menlilned Ndahiurana s presence ai Nya ge parish on thar day although she w.s not spec,ifically asketl a.bc,ul him.1?!5 Finally. given her tirneline ot ovents I bclieve thal Witness YAI-I would have sern Ndahimaua i:efbre going to hide in the presbytery, and thus I have little reason to dorrbt her testinonv on this isslre' Witnesses CBT, CDt<, CN.l and CBR are accomplice rvitncsscs. I iriu uithc lieu that n',ir cn* of these rvitnesses was so rcliable thal liis evidence cr.rLrld bc relied unon rvilhgut conlborction. rtl the same timc, I L;elieric thal each ol'tllese witnesses was su{Iicienlll, srcdible to he relied upcn in the event of adequalc corrohoration, panicularly as lherc was no allegatior ol'colli.rsion amcrg ttreur" I assume that conditions at the parish rvere chaoLic on I 5 Aprii and there&rre lirrther cr:nsicler lhat accomplice rvilnesses were betler placed to observe ihe attacks as they unlolcled fi.orn the Statue :fll" :-itsi!rlit'', lltan tther rvitnesses rvho rvere either retirgees or r:bsen ers in the vicinirX o1.the plesh.\ ler')'. '-' I sh re man]' o-f the concerns raised by Lhe N{ajoriry witlr respecl ro the cred;Lilitv d. Witness CBR in

particular,rTsT but note that {i'om hiJ first staienient provicletl to ICTR iuvr:stisarors in :000. the witness re1'ened to Ndahimana's presence ar the parish tluriirg the ;;;s- li;t rre t'vitness subsequently providecl a number ol statements both to the Rrvafidau judiciary ancl to 1CTR investigators, a d testilled in both the Kanyxakigu and,gextmhu trials. l.iis evidcnce has begn detailed frorn his fit'st statement througlr his testimony in this case. hr atJclition. lris evidence is r"5i wihess clBK: r. 3 N.lenrllef :{}i0 p. t.trt witners L't}y: t. 9 Novenr}ef ?0i0 p. 5r, ;.. i0 No'cmhe!. p. .10 tas)i \\ i r(,s ( ,tS. |' r' S(ltcm.Jef lr t0 t). 2.2. '"t Jr,J""'r"nr p,rrn. 5Jl '' ' Ocfrncc E^hil-it io '*' Dei'erce F.:,\hibit:il, p.

17. See alll fefen.e [xhibit jl. p. 14] the,\ltness llro rel.errr:.1 ro tlre presencc of NLtrhinrar.r ar rhr pa, ish on .t l.L1r t.l April 1994 alrhourh shc u,ai nor specii-rcalt,\, asked abo.Lt him. . 't"t-.1.Y9 nct -'!-!rec \\ rth lhe l\lirjodt! at para. 555 c\flhd Judgcment 1ht rhe ilrr thal ,,{rthcr pnJs.lcutier! $,itncsics such as cBY, {lDL' clj(' clis and CBN-all olvhum rlerc preirnr riulirg the dliack, did n{n !ciril,! rhar \dahjru:rarr lvas present" is significanl" Wilnesscs CBY and t--tlK di{l no{ partieipair in rne attarks an.l \rould have remainec jc or around the Presb)ter.-v: witlesses llBs and CBN rrere refugees, witn,rss C'Dt, ardled at the s.ene lirtq th;lt dor. I tiave f-rs_crr.rcJ m.. (( ccrnr reSJrJi!t! rhos(, Defenc!: \ritnc.,r(: \ih,r jl3tcJ,f,., n.f"ir;n,.* "",' ,; " ;;.,.;'..;;;.r*, ' ''-. .lLLdgenlent. lrltas. +5(t-.1t,0. '"" f)eti.r rcr E.iltibit -12. lhe Prosetut,:u.v. Ntlaititttorut, Case r,\o. IC.t-R_li j-tig_l 2l{) i 2}4

Page 217

descriplions ofthe.lftaokthat took place on 15 April, ,Judge Me nt qnd Se te nte generally ,ronsistent rvith tliat o1'Witnesses CDK, Ctl'f" an.l CNJ. cach rrf rrlrtrm ,."3JU.?,3 Witncsses CN.l, CDK and CllR ail t*stilieLi that Ndahimana. Iiulsence Kavishsma, Kanyarukiga and NclungLrtse meL logethcr al approxiiraleiy 1l:00 a.ni or soon rhereal'ter at the CODEKOKI building or thc StaruL' ol'the Virgin Mary, and that an arm-v reserrist naurecl Ruhara began tlil:rving grenades at the rcfrrgc,r's imrn-cdialelr thcreafrcr, thLts launching a seconr{ and mcre significanl atlack on the reflugees that dar.'"'' lhc ]-rill C'harnber's Sire Visit revealed that trhe CODEKOKI building rvas rvithin several melers of the Sutue anri rhus these acoourts are nor iticonsistent. Il rvould appear that Witness UB'I' anived irr lhe alea.just after llukafa began tliro',t ing grenades. meaning atter the meeting observed by Witnesses CNJ, CDli, and CBR, bur he cruoborated thoir evidence that Ntlahirnana was presenl at the stafi of the seconcl attack.l?6t Witrless ClDl". a high-ranking perpettator, partiripaieiJ in the attack on l5 April an<i dirl not see Ndahirrrana thrt dav. but bv his ()\1n sccuun{ did not nrrivc rlrtil sorrrr: rintc afrer hc lrr:ar,t lhc grenades exploding flom a distance.lT6l Thus, it is possible that he arr.ived ajler Ndahimana lefi. S6 Witnesses CBI'^ tlDK. CNJ and Cfllt all

describerl the attack that l'olknled lhe meeting in a similar manner, ancl they all describecl Ndahimana as having plaled a role at the start olthal atlfick. although they dif'fered on cerTain dctails. For example" *inress CBI' testified that he sa\l, Ndahimana shoor at tl're church.rTnr while Wilness CN.l tcstitied that N,:lahirnana ordered rhe polirre to shoot at the church.r76i While these tliscrepancies nray be attribr.rtable to the "arious vinrage paints of the rvitnesses. I am onl,v satisfiecl on ths eviiiense of Witnesses CBT. CIll. CtlK. C|,1J. CBR "and YAl.l taken logether thatr the ProsecLltion has proven te-vond rcasona$le cloLrbt thal Ndahimana met rvith other members of the joint criminal enlerprise imlnediateil,. before the start of ihe second afiack. and that he r'vas pressnt. and not tus a ltere b.v"'stander. at thc sul.t ol- thal sccr,nrj attack rvhich began berween appr.xirnately ll:00 a.n ancl noon on 15 April. In addition. the evidence indicates that in contiast to the limited numbem ol'aflackcrs preseni a1 Nyange parish o6 l3 and i'l April. there lvere several lhousand attackers pres{jnr on l5 April. 'l'hus I conciutic that ttre Prosecution. has proven beyoncl reasonable eloubt tha1 Ndahiman:r participated in planning the a11acks, and thaf he knerv that aLrociries lrould be oommited that ila;, and that the ge:ntlirntes assigned to the church rvould be in no

positir.rn to repel the assault even ifrhey *.ished to oo so. 6."t.3 87-' 'lhe h4ajority has found thal "the Del"ence wihrcss*s rujse re*scnable doubt as to fhc role: of the genthrnv,r d*ri'g the alracks on n-yange chnrch r:n 15 April ; 994.-r;c'r r ,.*p.*iru " disagree. I did nr:t lind Witness NI)6 tri be a reliibie rvitness. liurtler. he could not 1taw riitness*el each crinre ccrmmitleil ;n the aLtack. Witness NDl2 ciid not testil-r' that thc s t ularnz€r.r rcpclls{i ll}e ataekers on l-s April, trut rather that he tliir not see them that rJal ,i'o' r''urthc,.. rrr. ir""""ut;u" evidence is not incompatible lvith the pr:ssibiliq, thal in<liviclual geu6armes offer.ed seleeiive l/je wimesr cNJr T. 4 Novenrbcr 20 l0 pp. 47-q9.52: T. j No,elnber ?0r0 Fp. z2-r3 (lcs).3r); \\ritress cDK: r.! l!,1);'1{,t :,,tO,m ;l-i2; \\ j8ress (.BR: I'. I N1r\'ember 2010 pp. t7. 4?: T. j .lovenrt"i :0 iil p, t 8. ,_ l / :ief'rernlrfr ?{)l(} pn. 10,,1:. " - ' l . I : N o \ c n r h c r . : 0 l l r l . 8 . ,.:, T 7_SeptcU,ber 201rr p. J2..17: I.8 Srprenrbcr t0l0 pt,.6. |. I4-tj, t9 ' ' " , 1 . . " 1 \ o \ c m h c r l ( l l 0 i \ 5 ' r l 1 5 \ o r ! n t b c f l r r l 0 t . j i . , rrL.llente t, J\afir. 7ql ' T l(, J.lnulr) liJl l pp. 6-6 The Pros':(1tkjt v, Ndohinwna, Cirse No. ICIR_01-6li_l, z t i 1 2 ; 4

Page 218

Ju.tselnentandse tencc trry(fil j assistance to the refugees as described bv witnesses NDI I irnd Nl)7.rro" t,r .,,,n6}-"! ,hlhl evidence of Witnesses CBK" CDL" Ctls, Ctlf and CBN, I am satislleil thal rhe g(l?dafl,?e.i assigneri to Nyange parish participared iii the auack ol- I -5 April.rT6i 6.7.4 Hve niugklgeljng ti8. 1-uming ro the rneeting that took place .rn 1be cvening of 15 April 1994, I rcc*ll my opinion that Defence \Vitness Anicet 'lirmuserge may have treen niistaken lviih respect to tiiiring o1' the evenis he described. 'l he same is lrue itrr Witness ND2.1" llhcrrtr I diri no1 find cspec:i:rlly leliable. Witrresses CDJlT6t auci CBKIT'ie both testilled iha( Ntlahimana met ivirh iiasrard Kanyafrkiga ancl .{thanase Seromba that evening at the presb}tery. I ccrusiiler Wiruess CDJ to 6e a particularly credible rvitness, and his evidence is con.rrbor:rted b1, Wirness CBK. As it was Wit ess LIDJ's habit to arr;!,e at the chi.tt'ch every tlay irt a p.r$ioular rime" I consider lris recollecriou ofiiurcs to be fiore acctlmte thall those nf othcr lvinlesses. On this basis. I conclude that Nclahimana urer bgetliqr wilh Athanase seiornba and Gaspard Kanyarukiga, anlong cthers. at the prcsbyrer,,- on the evening of I5 April 1994. The l\'lajoritl'has concluded that the Frosecution has noi "prove6 beyonil reasonable dcuLrt tltat the only reasonahle explanation is that th€ meeting

was lreld i0 plan iurther attilcks on Tutsis. 'fhe lr,lajorir1, notes that it has lirLrncl else*,here thel on thc nrorning irf' l6 Api.il 1994" a meeting occunecl in crder to plan the attack sgainlrt tlre 'l'u1sis later thit rlav..lTjc I l€speclfully disagrcc. Althcugh I concur that the details ofxhe corrvcr.sctiun irr. unklro\\n" i b"ii"r,a the only reasonable in fercnce is that the men disoussed the atlaehs that tcok placc at the parish that day anrl the conlinuation oflhe olGnsive that was to take plaoe the nert clay. i do n{i( beli;ve that *n attack oflhe scale and magnitude ofthe one that took piace on 16 :\pril1'/7r'c6uld have been planne; al one *{ lrcc meeting otr the morning o[ the 16April. 7" 16-4.nril 1994 (.,16 Apritll 7.7 The Alibi 8q. I concuf rvith the lvlajority that the alibi of tlie ac,cusecl 1or '16 April lg94 is not reasonably possiL,lv trr"rerT?? but wish to make some atlclitionaj remarks. ln suppoj of the alibi. ttie Del'ence called winresses NnlT anrl NDj5 who were together at 5:00 a.m at the sisrers, conve r on l6 April 1994" Each testified that they sarv the AccusJcl arrive at ihat hour. Witncss ND 17 als6 testitied th:rt lre sarv Ndahimana leave the convent rhat evening at 7:00, n.hile wilress ND35 oni1, saitl that he r'vas tokj that the accused ietl the convenl togeth*; at that time. \Vitness ND3S aclded that lie rras also told that Ndahimana at the'

convent hidirlJ ii.om the Kibilira intet.ah,t;,, ,s. \,Vitnsss '"- witness NDll:.T. rJ January,2i111 pp. :r5-jo, 66 (wirnclr hlkecj ro a gendtltne who ',aro\red^. him ro r!,r\c \1an-ue -cf wcli at abolrr midnjght); wihlers ND7: l'. 24 Januar,! 2011 i:,p. 14-lj. jj. 3ll ilrnnrcdiarelv a1i{ shc anrl (]der fellgees eni€fed tire room [ret!\,eet 3:00 attil 4:0 0 p.u.r.. gurr*rrr,", ii"ked ahe roont so thrt the :r1lai",kefs roi]Ld nol !l€1 at tlie rc'lug(r'bJ. ' \\ itne.s ('ltK: l. .l N,j,,errbcr l0l0 pp. l2-lj, 5lJ; \trritncss CDL: I. i: NoveLnber:010 p. i-1: $1ilnesr CNJr I. "i N.verrber 2010 pp. 5l-53: witness tdY:'I.9 \:ovenlbcr r0r0 pp.53-5{.. i. l0 Nortrnler 2010 pp. 17.30-12: will|e$r cB-si-T. 7 s€pternt'ef :tjr0 pn. 8-l{), .]:j \virflesi cRr: 'L r4 septernrrer 20rr.} pp. j{l-.r; witnejs c'Itx: I. r.i Srficrirbcr lr il( pp.2l-2-i. '''" t. | 1 Nur.rmber l(i liJ Dn- :9-tU. '..'J .i Norenrber :Utrti)p- L4_17, ' 'Ju(lgemrnt, piLr,tr. :o.l- 7.56. "" Both Pros€ctrtion witness CBK rd Deirncc wilness KR:l ivcre undcr the rmpressi<,-n thar',a!l Lhe Hutus ol rlle Kitunu cotnrnune" came to Nlanee narish on ltr Aprir rs94. \\ itrlcss ctiK: 1', j Novcmber :0r 0 p. r ?: witness r.R,r: 'I. :-i Janunrr ?()l I tr. 2l. "' Jrd*.,nint, pa,a. 657. 'l'he Prosettttot r: Nd1hinata, Casc No. iCl,R-01-6g_I, 21N | 2"!4

Page 219

,.ludgenent ttnil Slentence i!"\ttttbctll I a: I t-r-t BX-:l provided hears*y e vidence about Ndahirnana's s1a)j at lhe e onrenr on 16 *dr il: M[mY Yumani, a nun at the convent" tr.rld Witness BXI that Ndahimana had been rliere thar day" 'l'he rvitness dicl nol sa"'- rvhen l\4anta Yumani transmiltcd this infurnralion. Finally. Witness Nl)6 testilled that on l6 April he rvas at N,vange parish and overhearel Ndungutse angril-v asking aburi the rvhereabcxtts af the bourgnestre. The lvitness then went tcl lcroli lbr Ndahinraua a1 his horni,' [ut did not lind him there. 9a). I nole that even if the accounas olthe tlvo eyervitnesses rvete lo be considerecl generall.v cleditlle, their acsortnts rvould nrrl cunstitLrte u full alibi, as thcse witpesses aotually s6w NJahinrana belrveen 5:00 a.ni and 7:00 p.m otr 16 April 1994. Horvever. the alibi is pmblematic for oiher reasolls too' It is cleal that Witnesses x-Dt7 and ND35 sp€nt consirlerable amoul]ts all titre irt th€ convenf ai rhe Yery Ieast clurirrg the perio{l at issue. Although ihel. r.vere not asked abor.rt their. reiaticxtship at trial. the ttvo rr'itnesses testified on ihc sarle ilay in L4ay 20i 1, raising the prissihilir;.' that they travelled to Arusha tuBcther and discus:ed their piospective testiFtony. In ac]dition, their evidence abotlt l6 April 1994 rvas generally quite vague wirh the exception lfthe time at rvhich

the witnesses sarv Ndaltimana arrive at the convent and the time of his departu.e. Their aqcouuts l,,ere haz,v in other ways too. Fcr example, witness ND17 gave a verv vague account of a{::cks on the convent atler I6 April 199:l thal uere repelled by gendatmcs he bclievetl were assigned to prolecl the convent by Ndahimana. Altliough he recailed the dalc that Ndahimana r.vas a1 tire convcnt^ he did not remember the dates on rvhich the cofivent rvas attacJred.iTT3 lVitiiess ND]5 r.iid not rnenlton any threats or attacks on 1ie convent.

91. Mote inrpoftantly, the Defbnce oflered little supporr lbr its asseriion thar Ndahimnua rv&s under lhreat on l6 April 1994' Witness ND6 stated that Ndungutss, a local school tcaehcr. ra,as angry x'irh Ndahimana lbr his ririlure to appear a1 Nyilngc parish on r6 Aprir r994, nhire witn{lss ND35 statcd that he xas told that Ndahimana lvas riLruiLrg fiom the kibiiira .nrlerirlrrrmy'r-. I tlrerefbre have vetrv iittle hasis on lvhich to assess who ptJcisely threalencd l.lclaliurana, lr4ren exactly he lvas threatencd" or thr; circumstances leaeling to the rhreal-s against hirrr. ]}c Dclbncc itself allorvs that Ndailinrana \vent to Nyange pllish aft-er his relurn {iorn the fuleral on l5 ,,lpril 1994 at approximaterly 8:00 or 9:00 that evening. No evidence has been adducecl sriggesting thal a threal arose behl'een lhat time and 5:00 a.m the nexl rroi-liing causing Ndahinrana to lir inLl"hirling. ln additior' I am unable to undersland why Nclahirlana l",lu l-.1 h"u. believed he lvas in" iianger on l6 April bul not on l-i April or l7 April 1994. Witness NDlT testified rhat he rernained at rhJ convenr l"rcm 6 April t 994 until his r-lepartur.e il jule | 994, lelving his tanrill, alone, because he fearet! for thc security oj thc nuns at (he conrcnt.l"i Four oIrhc s]r rirnc at the conrcrrt r.er.c futsi. rrrJ girrn the attaoks on Nyange parish on 13. 14. ald l5 April 1994, it was

alreacly clear that assailants diej nr;tt consider religious establishments to be protected. Thns. I cannot unierstand lvlry Ndalrinrana would have chosen to hide at the convent, rvhich rvats ni]t a particularly pr.otected ar.ea. and which r'vas located onf .i one liilomctre arvay ficm Nyange parish r.vhere the (ibilira k,tel han)\t e ar\d <rther .assei lants gathered on l6 Aprii 199,1. Finallj I iecall that th,; Defence does nor disprrte tnat Ndahinrana retllrned to his tlutics as hrturgnreslre' on l7 April 1994 antl reurainecl it1 thal posrtlorl unlil fhe iirll ol'the lnteriln Gcvcmmenl in late J une or carly July I 99:1. 92' Related to the alibi is the evitlence of Defence Wirness NDtr, rvho testifiecl thar on i6 April 1994 he rvas insfructed hy Ndungutse to tind Ndahimalxr and hring llim to the church. The witness rvent tc Ndalrlmana's hcine bilt did not find him there. I have discussed this rvitness. r?7r'1. 3 l,la),20 p. t01ICS). " ' l'.3 l,{a} 201I p.2{}. The Prosecut{y t. r\"Llahinand, C.!sc No. IC]l ll_01-6g_T 719 i 2|,tr

Page 220

!'ntirelv discount the possibilit-v that there ma.v lnve been tristlon bet\.veen Ndahimana anLl Ntlungurse,'''" htrt as I rrill diseuss in niore detail helotv I am satisfied that Ntlahimana harj some degree o1'authority over Ndutgr:tse.l777 Finaily, I as will be discuss beiorv, the rvitncss' account oi going 1o searc* fbr Ndalriurana is not t.nily unccrroboratcd, it is entirely a1 odds r,yi{h the urtte substantiatcd evidence of Prosecutiou rvilrresscs. 9"1. In conelusion, on rhe evidence available, I cannot conclude lhat Ndahinana mav have Itiddsn in lhc con\'€nt on l6 April 199,4 because he did not 11i4nt ro par.ricipate in thc adacls that lvere to take place that day at Nlange parish, or because he rvas under threat fi$nt indivicluals :rnltiqpy rvith his alleged opposition to ihe attacks. I tlicrefbrc coricur rvirli thc lVa.iority that Ndahimana's alibi 1br 16 April 1994 is not reasonably possibll.. truc. anci nor.v turn io thc Prosecutiou evid*nce. 7.2 First Meeting 16 April and Shooting at the Church Ruitdin,a 94. Prosecuticn Witnesses CDL and CBR both gave detailetl accorllltti of rhe att$ck on rlre parish cn 16 April 1 9921, and Ndahiu, ana's rnle in the a11acks. lloth lestifieil that rvhen rhev arrivei.j at the parish earl,l" ;.t ,1t* morning, Ndahirnana *as alrcad;'prescnt 3nd nlccring ivirl] ,,thci rllegecl meuberrj o{ the Jq:int criminal entcrprise. Afier this meeling

Ndahilnana lirecl a r.veapon ar r6e relilgees inside the church, signaling the start ofthe attack. 9-5. Dtlbnce \liitness ND21, Prosecudon Witness CBR's wif'e. testilied that \f itncss CllR Fas. wounded on 15 April 1994 and remainecl homE firr a rv*ek srd thcrelbre coulcl nct ndve padiciJrated in the attack on N7-ange parish on t6 April 199.1. According 10 thc l\,itness. u4len hcf husband arived home rvith a rv.und on his lirrehead at approrimatcry. g:00 p.m or: i5 .dprir 1gg4'1i78 "[li]e said he,.had been sttned. App*rently, rhere lvere two ci1r1']ps wh6 r.vere haul!:ig stones at cach olher."i77e On the hasis ot'this inibmatirin. I conclude that wirness Nllz l ll:canr thst Witness CBR had been rvounclecl in the atracks at Nyange parish ol' L5 ,April I994. I arn rl.the yjeq, that the incrident in whiclt Hutu assailants and 'tirtsiielirigees thre\.v stones at each other ,,vould liav* finished by approximarely I I :00 a.m that molning lhe,i "Rrko."" began rhrorving grena.res at the retugees and the refilgees retreated inlo the ohurch.1780 lf Witness CIBR had been si [adl1. wpunc]ed in the exchange ofrocks that roak place befbre 1 l:00 a.m, it is not clear rvhy lre did nor ,.tu,r, Lo*. Ltntil 9:00 p.m and did not exhibit s-vmptoms until midnight. 1v{ore imprrrtanrlv. witless cBR prcx'ided a statenrent to ICTR investigators in January -rg6-6.t;sr In that stateffi;nt. in which

the tritncss appcars to htvc hccn askcd prirriarilp to ad,lrcss thc rirlc Lrl Atharmse \et.urrrbn. cricl irr r second statemeltt dated 9 Oct,:tber' 20{Jl,rt5) rrltich tircusctl more closely on Kanyaruiiiga. the wilness said that he had been prcsent at Nyange parish on i6:\prii t9s+. an{t deicrib.,eti Ndahimana's participatiol in a marrner coflsistent lvith his evie]encc at tri;1. finail], inagLriltyplea dated 2{5 January 2001' the rvitness con.{'essed to havirg pafi;cipated in the crirnes c..,nrmitted ai Nyange parish on three days i 1{iq4 including re ,+piii tqq+.''" I r'i1d it irlprotrarrr"- ir.,* *,, l?ti Dissent para. {ig. 'trd Der'ence iixhibit I l o i{-.;. ' "' Plrz. 180. rt'3 r iJ l,eL,ru.rlr 2(ll I Fn. t9-2(r. ' '. 1-. 1-l Felrrururr 201 I o. .lll- lt3o Dissent, pala.-85. ' '"' Del'ence Erhibir 12. r?8: De&nce Erhibit li. r78r Dctence F!hibit i,l. 'l'lv Ptosecutot y. Ndrthimantt, Casc No. I{ITR-[rl-f)l-f 224 1 27,1

Page 221

not actuall,v take part. Tlrerelbrc I cannot cledit Witness ND21's cvidcnce that \\rituers CBR tvas not at Nyange parish cn l5 April 199:1. Mole generalll'" Witnr.ss CIII{'s account nf Ndahinrana's panicipaticn in the cvenLs o{' 1f! April 199:l h*s been consisrent sinco ?000, meanirig belire l'idahimana was indictcd by this 'l ribunal. 'lhus. despite mv elccp reservaliolrs about Witness' CBJi.'s characrer, I belicve I can rely crn his cvidence in soure circumslance: and rvhere corroborated- 96. lVitness CDL confbssed tc having been a perpetrator in tlre attacks ol'16 April 1994. IIe har also ireen named b-v other $'iftesses as r:nc cf the leaders of tlrc attack thal day.'ts' 1 thcrrtbre take into consideration the possibilitv that the rvilness' accounl {r{'ovenl$ may have been aratgcd t* minimise his role in the atacks tlial day. llcrwevcr, I also bear in niind that i:ecause of his lcading role in the attack he lvould have been in a pa(icularly good position L() discern the rolc ol'inclividual parlicipants in *e everls as they Lrnlblded. 'l'he rvilness lirst identilied Ndahimana as a leader of ihe attacks at Nl,ange parish in general in an extremely delailcd confessiiin he providecl to the Ituhlic Proseoutor's Office of Kibuye on 16,,\pril 1999.r7st In that confession. he describecl N<lahir;rana's presence and role al N.vange parish in a manner qrrnsistent rvith his

evidenc.e at lrial iti this case.l736 In that confession, the rvittess also noted that he ivas not oll good teuls with Ndal,imana. At trial. lie explained tirat theif disagreenrents lvere political r:lther thin perscxral.'7" While this nright st ill provide him rvith a tttotive fbl eraggerating Ndalrimann's culp*bility" I recall that the wirness testilied ftat he did not sec Ndahimana at Ny-engc parish on i5 April 199.1, l7x8 anil theref-orc d*es not appear to have beer detennined to implicate Ndahimana in each and everv atrocity contmitled at Nyange parish. tr-evertheless. I lvill only rel)' on this wilness' cviileuce whcre it is corroborated.

97. I ant satisfied that the tesrimonies of witnesses cBR ancl cDL tenc to conoborale eacl: other or Ndahinrana's presettce at Nyange ctrurch together ivith other mernbers of the.joint crimin*l entelrrise on l6 April 1994. llowever, Witness CDL testified thar Nrlahimana cruly fired one shot to signal the stad of the attack after *1rich ihe communal police conrinued firirig, i?8o ancl while Witness CBR also said that Ndahimana fired.th-e first shots, his evidence appcars 6 indicale th*r he ccntinued shooting rvith the other assailants.lTeO fu{y reservations about the credibilit}.ol the$e irvo witnessqs are sltch that even rvhen they closely corroboraie each other- I prcfer that iheir cvidence be liu'ther suppo{ed. 'I'hus, I am not sarisficd tliat thc l\.ose*rtion has proven paragraph 29 ol'*re Indictrnent Lreyond reasr:nahle doubt. '1"3 $lecond Meeting 16 April antl the Dorision to Destroy Nyangc Church 98. Tle l\4a.joriry- has held that "the l\osecution iailed to prove beyond a reasonable dnuht that tlre accused should be liable fbr the charges set iri paragraph :o of tte lndiclment.',r7e1 I respectfitlll' disagrce. Both Witnesses CDL a,rd CBR tesrifred that after the sliooting ceased. the Accuscd and thc other arithorities then mea agaiu to cliscuss hor.r to rlcmolish tlrt chuich. Wirncss r'3awilncrs cBK: r. -l No\'ember 2010 Fp. 18-19: \f irness ND6: 'l'. 2i .ranuar] 20 t r

pp, r 5, 2ti, 32; witorss NDrz: I,, ztllp l ?011 p, 9. ""'Delen0e Exhihit 77^ o. 7. r?8' Dctinee lixhibir 77, pp. t r-12. . ' o l - l x \ d , c r l ] h ( r : 0 l r r l \ p , : l - _ r j ( j r : t . l a N , r \ r n i h e r : r r l U n l l '-"' llrt'en('c E\hihit ?7. p. I t. '."' t. 12 No\eltlt)Er 2Ul{}1. i7 ' ' ' l . I \ o r t n r L . e r l i , l 0 | n . : l - : i . ' Ju,.l-srm(nt. par:l h77. The Pro[eclttor \'. N.ldhin.lt:t, Case No. ICTR-01-6g"7 22| 74

Page 222

the mdetiiig began at Kiuryamkiga's pharmacy and thal the iruthorities. inclurling Ndahimana. then moved to the church to meet $,ith Father Seromba who rvas standing in lionl of the presb]1ery secrctariat.ries As ncted above. the St*ue of the Virgin ll4arv" the COIIIKOKI buildinu an{tr Kaul"anrkiga's pharmacl r.vere less than 200 meters a\.vav fiixu the N.vange chr:rch and presbl4elv bLrildings. ]'hLrs, I do not oonsider these accounts to bo illcotisistenl. Witnesses CllK, CtlY and f,lrr,-.1 alsr: testified that Nilahirnana padicipatcd in {i ncctifig 3r the lresbytel }. rvith other members oltlre alk:gcd .lt.I to rliscuss the destruction of tlrc church.r-'{ 99. witness cBK saw Ndahirnana, Kayishema. Ndungulse, and Serolrrba having * mecrilg at the presbyter)'. lle ovetltearci Seromba asking rvhat \"-as ro be rlone about the tailecl allempts to kill thc reftruccs. an.l N.lahim;rna and Kal ishema rcpll thar killing l ursi int*llccrulls u;rs a priurir-r. after which the group irnmediately decided to destro.v the church.';"j I note thar this witness described a number of nreetings liom l2 to16 April benve*n mL-rnbsrs of thc JCI-I, but gencrallv said he did not hear the discussions. Civen this factor and his position whcn thc Ciscusiion r.Js helel" I thd his accounr of this discussion hr be credible. 100. witness cBR cverheard Kan1.'arukiga sal,ing "'This churoh has to be

dernolished. [...j within three cla1"s" lve will be able to rebuild it." Ncl$hit'nana wirs standing tsxt to Ksnyiruliiga rvhen Kan;'arukiga nrade this statement.lTe6 Witness tlDL testifie{i that Nclahimana spoke io rarher Sercnrlra, ard seromba approved the decision to destro! the church.ii')7 Thus. rhe eviilence rI Prosecufiott Witnesses CDL and CBR lhat Ndahinrana activel""- participated in the decisiou ro destro-v the churth is c.orroborated b;- Frosccution Witness CBK.;\s rvill be discussed in r1or.e detail below. this eviclcnce is consistent u,ith fhe evidence oi'cther Prosecution witnessos lvho also sarrr and heard l',klahirlana prnviding tactical advice, sul)port and conrfolt tn ilic assailants. l0l. in conclusion' I am satisl'led that the Prosecution has proven bevcxrd reascua.ble rjouot that cn 16 April 1994, Ndahirnana ntet rvith menrbers of the ailegeri ioint criruinal cnrelr:rise and rnutually' agreed to kitl all the Tutsi rcfirgees in Nvangc church br dcstr<,1 ing it. r7e. 7 .4 l{dahimana's Parlicipation in the Atlack 147. _ . The N{a.ioritv has held thal it "finds that the Prosecution onl,v- establisher! beyon4 reasonable doubt that tlie accused was present cluring (he attack nn Nyange church. lt hai not p*::lj,l$j Ndahimuna. instigcted the assailants to ltill the Tulsis or sqrervisecl rhe atrack at Nlarlge llurish."'' - | rcspectlirlh tlisagrcc. it|3. Witlress

CBK lestified tlint tine r:f the drivers o1'the bullck:zcrs rvas relucl:tnt fo attack thc chLr|ch and asked Kavishema, Seronba ancl Nclahinana tr.v;ce rvhether.lhel, reail,v i.rented hiln 111 dettroy 1he church. SeromLra ansrvered: "yes, you shoulcl dernolish it. 'l'hcre ,,* rirony Hulu$ xnrl r'e2T.I --oveml.er 2010 o. 2i. ',', I .t1\.,'enrf'e' l0ldpp. l9-10: t. | 9 No\ en)l1er :rr i 0 pf. trr,l/ "-t q-itnesscDt-: l l2 No\ ernher 20ri) p. 21: witrress Cti*; T.-1 Novernhq?0r0pp. li-lB-1.),2:i: \\.,itr€ss clrr r. :l Novc''bfl 2010 pp. J7-^5t. witness cNr':'I. l0 Nov*mber:0r0 pp.4-i-48: f- n Ntivcmher 2ir$, pp. {-3; witn*ss CIJ)': ] . D Nnr enrber.JOl0 pp. 5^l-i5. , ' ' t . j N u r c r n b c r 2 0 l r t F l . l 7 . l . r : l l r r s c e u r i . r r r f \ h i h i L S r l l '''.'f I N0vErnbef 2tl l| l]. 25. ' , ' r ' 1 . l l N o r . n 1 l ' " 1 ] r l r i p . l u : l l q N , , \ c j n b f l 1 r 1 1 p 1 7 . '-- Prtrg'sp1i llr ol the lndifirnrnt. ' ludgentcnt. ncra. h89. The P,oo-ecat.tr \'. Nddhiwna, Case No. lcl ll-01-6g-.I

Page 223

,Judgenetft atld SL'ntenL-e 3l) D€tetnber :!lli,,^ rher J1r3 *.h* k' f,uild anothcr onr'."r:'"' \tr'itncss L \J lcstilicd rhaL alicr thc tttcrttbrrt "Rlrl ,t met rvith Fa{her Scromba. he heard Nr.ldriurana say "now }'ou carl start," afict whiclr l(ayisherrra told the buildozer driver; "t.,,*olv yeru can go ahead." In addition. €ach time the bulldozer demolishcd a wall anr.l assailanls rushed inlo thc church to kill the rcfugces rvho had survivsd Lhe lilling debris. Ndahiniana woulel choose when to order the assailanls to ieave lhe church so that the buiidoeer could atrack another wall withnut harming lhc assailants.r80r Wirness CN'l'tcstil'ied that Ndahimana directed the assailiints to ensLtre that no re{'usee escaned from the churc]r while the aruckrrs lvere Jestruling ;t.ld': Wilrr.rs CL)1. tcstificd thrtirhen rei'uge., h.grn ihrouing stone5 rt lhe bullt|,zr:r ririvers, Ndahimana and Seromba plovided the drivers lvith prirtectivc g,:ar.'ou' \\ itness CNJ testiiied tlrat when ,4ssistani bourgmestre, Vedasle 1\,lureurgwabugabo suggested boring a hoie into the ohurch t'agatie to allorv the assailants to enter the church, Ndahimana rppcsed llie suggestiorl arguilig that if the hole lvere roo small fhe ref-ugees r.vould be in a positir)n 10 attaok the assailants as they entefed llre church, lmmedi;rtel.v therclfter. tbe aLrtholirics began disoussing thc destnrction of the entire

edilice of rhe church.rB"* \\Iirncss (DL also tc.srilierl that at an unspecified time. a group of persons mrived at the parish tei tell Ndahimana that an "attaek" had st*rted in lhc .tecteur ot Casave. Ndahirnana ordEred Jhose wlo had arived with the ifitbrnaticn to qo assisl the attackers in (lasave.lsoi t04. Finally Witnesses tlDI-, trNT, LINJ and CBK al1 restified lhat they snw Nelahimana *t Nyange parish during the actual denrolition of the church,l8tr6 rvhile Witness CBI' rvas told thai Ndahiurana ltad becn at the parish on i6 April 199.4.rrr07 As Witness L-B'f's eviclence \ras hearsay I rvill only rely cn it lreeause it was adeqr.rately coroborated by rnore dircct evidenci:, Whether Ndahinrana rvas present throughout the darv or sirnply dLtring signi{icant parts ol thc dal is iuconsequential.

105. Again I note that tvhile I share many of the N.{ajority's concerns rvirh respect to the indiridual credibilih of the Prcsecuti6p sgconrylice u,itnesses. rvith the olception of Wilness CNT.''^ arrd am ofthe vierv t[41 n61 one offhese witnesses rvas so reliable th:rt his eviclence could r8r') T. 3 Noveml-.er 2ol0 p. :6. rstr '1'..1November 2010 p. 59. r t 0 [ . l t t N . , i c r n h . . r ' 2 r ] l ' l p p . . l 5 " + X i f , I | \ L ) \ u n b e r 2 ! t I i , p . l . ' ' ' ' 1 . l l N o r r m b e r l ( l l l ) n l l r8o' T, 4 Norember 2010 rl;. i7-i9. I'ut T. l2 Norcrnbcr :nlri p. 2l. '"' \\ irners (l)1.. T. 12 \rrv(rubEr 2010 p. ?1: wi rcrs ('tlK: ll. i NovemlreL 20l{J pp. l8-llrr witne$s cN.r: 'I. 4 No1embc| 2010 p. 59; \Vitncss CNT: T. l0 N0venrlrr.?010 pp. 45-48, T. I I Novcnbcf 2010 pp. i-3. r8" I. I SentcmL''cr :01{) l1$. 3-4. rs08 I lcspeitfulll disagree with the \'laiority's assessment of witlles$ CNf's cfedihilir-l at para, fi4 of lhe ,tudgernefit. First. I d{r not agree that the rvitness' tcslimon} laclidd sulllcient delail to be reljed rlpon, lie providecl del.ail aboui l.he drivers ani;1 r'el-ricles tiqling attackels to the parish. Ile descril-.ed dle attack ir a rtanrret consisl€nl with his pafticipaaion as a lo\v-ievel petpetratr)r. H(, rvas aisrr ple'cise in explaioiag Nclahirnana.s lthlsical position ir1 reiaiion to that {ri l(a}i$ltefi'i and Seromtrt on 16

April, a|d nemtd 'Iutsi victints c,j: tbe atta.k that day. Nlore irnpulantly, I do not agree that thc \!ilne$s' testimon) at trial lbolit the posilion tif the accusrd is io{onsirtent with his:001 slatcmenl ard the elidenfc of other tvitnesscs. ln Defencc E_\hibit 70, his 20a13 stardnlcnr- lhc lr,itness $iltcd i.hat Lre ,'sarv Ka;.ishena seromLJa. Ndahimana assisting in the deirrolition oi N.lrnge churcfi. Thc-v rvele standing in fiont ofthe main doof." At trial iT.1! Nor.,enrtler 2tll0 pp. ,1-5), thc uilness lestified that he sarv all ihreo r]tcn $iLlil iire netcrs of the nruiti eltrance du.ing tlle denlolition of the church. ln my vierv, the !^,itness wrls more frrecise ar trial tlran lre ,"r,as in iris flrst statemenl, but he was not incot'rsislent. Finally. I cr-rllsider the Nlajoriiy's conohrsion thul "[hlis testimon) corl{l L]d irltlLrenced b.v the desire to see d1e Kivunru authllilies conricled t'or ilre killirrgs:t N)argi l']arish in or.ier t{} shiil rlf sh3re thd blame fallinli Iiollt his u*r l:onviction" 10 be sFeculative. I nuletha'lels a!!ee tl'tat ils hc lvas 3s;l;qqtrrp11,lq \!iuess, his er idencc m|!st be lrcatcd *ith ri]ution. The Prosecutot r,. lduhinana, Case No. lCTl{,01-68-T 4

Page 224

JLdge$e et 6tt(l Setlt.nce t' t"{'it'j'\ be relied upon rvithout corroboration, I believe that each ol" thosd rr itnesst's !irs strlficicnfn'! credibE/ to be relied upcrn in the evenl ofadequale oorrrrboratiou. 106" I observe lhat the [!(flsecrLtion witnesses do ttot corrohotate each other'{in Lhc prctisc derails o1'Ndahimana's participation in the attack. Horvsver, I rccall that torfoborati()Il does nol require witnesses' accounts to be identical in all aspects since "[e]very rvitn*ss prcsents u'hat he has seen ftom his oun point of vierv al the timc of ihe evsnls. or according to horv hq underslood the svenrs Lecounted by others."l30e Diffbrences too can trc rcasonably' explained by the rvitnesses' var.ving valtage points duringi the attlck,.lh-eir respcctirc kuorvledge of the involvemenl of' panicular attackers, and the passagL' t>t iime.r*r''' Civen thc suhstantial passage of'titne helrveen thc events at issue and the teslimony of rvihesses in the trial, lhe l:1rge number of assailants aud refugees at tlie church on 16 April 1994, and the ch*os that rvould liave surrounded a massaore ol' the rnagnitude described by rvitnesses, I am not trcrubled b_v tlie fact that no lrvo rvitnesses heard of sar.v Ndahimana participating in plecisei,"- lhe same nianner. Iiarlrer, I rely trn lhe facl that al] the rvitnesses desc,ribed Nderhiniara as having taken an active role in the

destfuction of lhe Church, and that no \r,itress testified th t Ndahimana faced resistance liom his co-perpetrators to liis approach, instructifils or manner of participation. Further, the witrresses' descriptions of the ntanner in rvhich Ndahimana participateel ilre generally oonsislent. For instarce, no rvitness said thai he saw l.Jdahimara perscnally kill a Tutsi civilian or lead a padicrilar group ofassailatls. Rath*r he appears to have concentrated on providing tactical suppod and advice to the assaitanls. I thefeibre conclude that the PrL'secution has proven heyond reasonable doubt that Ndahiurana activcly participated in the killings at Nyange parish on l6 April 1994. and in ;rarticular that hc instigatcd the assailants and supervised the atlacks. 7.5 tr)rinks at the l'resby(ery 107. The Majority has found "proven be1'ond rcas,-ualrlc doubt thet the accused shsred d.rinks wilh Kanyarukiga, Seromba and possibly other persons atler the killings on 16 April 1994. Ilowever. the evidence has not established beyond reasonable doubt thc reasons fbr their sharirg drinks."lsrl 108. Witnesses CBY, CllJ and t lBK all testiiied thal Ndahimana ancl otlrer rllegrd membem of the .lcint crinrinal enterprise had drinks at the presb,"-tel,v tbllorving th€ destnrction ot the church-isll 1ii9. Witness C-BK teslilled thal lbllorvins the destructicxl lrf t[':e church.

Ndahimana. Fathe: Seromba, Kayishema. Kanvarul<iga, Christophe Mbakilirehe, cons,:iller Daframa Nsidabyamere. Kanamugire, {lolonel Nzaphakumunsi, aruI others nlet.rt the presll}ter}.' and drank rvins mcl beer. Accolditig to the \.f i1ress. "all lve noticed is tliat they were feasting irfter lhe Nyange c,hurch hac! been destroyed." The authorities then threw some drinks fo te hfler han ,'c rvho were dorvnstairs. The rvitness" rvho rvas in the presbltery courtlal(l rvhile this rvas tcking place.. corrclurled thatr "it o<'ruid be noticed that those autliorit;es lverc happy rvith whar had happcned."'" ' \\itnt:s CDi also saw Ndahimana, Idanyaruliiga and Irathcr Seromba ou the balcony of Fathcr Seromba's room at the 'r' )v,thi,nutrt it,:i rA( l JuJg(menl. fJ,a. J18. "r",lrl,lai,rii (A( ) Jrr,lgr.rncnt. parr. | 07. '"" Judgerrreut, panr. 69,1. '"''Witoess CtlK: l'. 3 Noldrnb€r:010 p.2$: Witness CBY: T.9 Nor,errrbcr llll0 p, i5: Witnssi CDJ: '1. 1l Norcnber :010 pp. .l l. 4ri. riir T.3 \o.;rrnber 2010 p. 20. 'Ihe l'rosecltt{}t \). Ndaltinona, Ca$e No. lCfR-01-lili-l l2-1r 271

Page 225

Jtdge ue nt cnd,'iefite!rc.' presbytery fbllorving the destruction of the church. that the €iloup lvas "in a rather jo1,'ous ulood."l$11 .1(l | 'pt ,'ntl ct l{} | i I le rerrilicd lh.ir rhcJ, rr"r. 0,,#,*ll.#.l 110. This evidence is suppfited by Witness CBY, rvho saw Nrlahimana after the chru'ch wa: destroyed drinking beer irr front of the priests' living quafters togethef with "the authorities l mentioned earlier on," a certain Kimaranzara, and a nunrber of police ot-ficers. They had crates ctr' beer which they rvere sharing ivith the bull<iozer <lrivers.rrrs I i 1. The Majorily argues thal ''\Vitr''ess CUK did not oliginally menrion Ndahi iana's pfesence rvhen he referrecl to thc_ lacl d)xt S*ombc. Ka;islrcma atrd others shared drilks afler the killings in his 2i)02 statement.''r3ro I ndte thrt ir Delbnce Erltitril 42, tile rliuless' 2002 statement. the witness said that "'frt]lier the ohurch ivas pulled dorvn, Colouel Nzaplakunruusi, Father Serorr':ba and the lccal authorities rvent upstairs in the presby'tery 10 driuli and celebt'ate.''lsli 'l'hus I flncj nr: inconsi$tency. and a-s discussed eat lier. find tiris wilness to be gener:rlly credible. I find nc. reason to doubt h;s evitiettcc on tbis particular point. particular as i( is corroboratcd by Witnesscs CDJ, whcln I fbund to be credible and reliable. and witrsss CIIY, whom l found to be crsdible on nlost

points. Further, given Witncss CD.l's position at thc pafish. I do nat egreo wilh tho f\,{aiorit}- rhat his lbilure to "'provide specilic detaiis on hoqr he coulci rvitness that cvenl liom his localion sitr-ralecl at leasr 2{) rfletres awa,v {iom the aulhorities and in complete darkness" is signilicant.r8rE I assume that rhe padicipanis in the gathering did not meet in complete darkncss. t also respectfulll disagrec with ihe h{ajorit5"s {inding that "the evidcrte docs nrrl clcarl"v anil precisely sho* where the apthorities shared drinks and r.vith whom."'^'" .\ll rhrcr r..ituesscs said the gather;ng took place at ihe presb),lery. Witness CIJK anc! CD^l bolh refened t{r the presence ol'Nclahirnana. Sercmha, Karl,\ aru kigir. .arlrottg others. .{nd ivhen. Wilness CIDJ rel'erreel tc "the aulhorilies I rnenrioned earliel c'rr.' 'u-' it is clcar that l.re is re&rring to this same cor.e group. atnong others. 112. 'l'hr-rs, on the cvidence ol'Wilnesses CIJK, CD"l and CIIY, all oi'r.vhoni lvere rvsll-nlacetl to observe rvhat u'as taking place at the palish in April 199"1, I am sarislicrj th;tt thc 1,r1:i:eLrriun has proveu paragraph 32 ofthe Indictment beyond reasonable doubt" While celebrating genocitie is not e crinte covered b!'the Statute, I expect that the Pmsecution pled Lhis allegatkxr firr the puipose of proving Ndahimana's intent on this date. I am satisfie<I that the evidence pr.oves thal atler l"stltt to 2,000 ofhis comnnfl,e's residents had been urassacretJ lll l5 and lf].,\pril i!)!);l Ndahi6ran:: shed no Iears.

8. Lqsq!-Findings 8. t Ndahim*na's Authority 1lJ. 'lhe parties dtl not dispule that Ndahim:rna vu'lrs l:sout gmestre o{'KivLrnrn )mttryp? dutittg the period covered b3" the Indiolment. In its Pre'Itial Bl.ie1; tire Prusecutlon arquecl thar..for the averag€ citizen of Kiyumu comntune, tllc haurgntstrc wrruld havc beerr c,rnsidired thc 1in*l aulhoriq'on msn,v issues. He would appear to suoli i citizen as almosl a denri-gocl. an all powerful human being r'vho oould impacr upou manv aspeots,.)f life." It \.vent cn to conolurie that Ndahirrrana '*'{ T. I I N<'r enrher li} l0 l)p. -r l. .lr}- '" f. a No\ernhcr Z(rl{r p. 5;. ''. lL,,l:crrrenr. turd. trtl. x tLl r,)nl,rotc l-l | | !(,terfirg lJ l)e,:.n,c- l,\hiL,;l J,r. ''r l)elin.r rrhihil 12. f. j ronplrJri( rrldcLl). '''" .ludq(rnerrt, pxra. h9i. l]1" JL,.1gcnrcnr. pora. ov-l. " 'T. q No1'(fl]I,(f lUt'tl. i5. T!t! Pt osecutor r. it-dahiwdnat, Clase No. ICTR-$l -6lt-T. 225 | 2'14 ry

Page 226

"'pcssessed the material ability to crintrol the actious of a rvide segment ofthe popula commune" l"rom rhe brigaclier of the communal police to amred civilians.rrll l14. It;s the Defbuce position that "the porvers and meiurs of Nclalrinrana rvas ertrernell' limitrd and could not allcnv him to prelellt the €vents that occurred in Nvange."r8z2 N,lore concfet€l). the Defence arguecl that l,Jdahimana was .i lllember of the I\4DR and lbllorving the rdrent of niulti-parrl puJiti-c: "onl;r those belonging lo the same panv werc obeying to the b, nr,zrnc *rv 's instructions."' ^" I li. ln its Closing llriel'. rhe Frosecution dispuled the Dclbnce contention thal Ndahilr.ran;] 30 l)ecentbar 201l JI;,H, had no de.fittrt; authority during the rvents of -April 199:1. arguing that "Ndahimalu's porver and influenoe iu Kivuniu commure remained undilrinished from Aplil urtil he fled Ru'anda in Jul,v."l::a tn its r:krsing atgumert. the Proseculiou ref'erreel to Ndahimana as rhe'"suprei e authority in Kivumu conntuttt:" at thg time Nlange chruch rvas destrort ecl. I slj .Judge ne nr and,9e nte ncc I 16. It is m], view that in a number of instences. tlie ltroseculion has conllated the bourgt €srrc's liability fur ihilure to ccntrol his subordinates pursuant to Article 6 (-l) ol'the Statilte, $ith his liability fbr t'ailing to perform a legal duty purs[ant to Article 6 (l) ot- the Slature.

For example. I oannot find th{rt Ndahimana had effective contnrl over ''llutLi civilians". rvilhin the meaning of Article 6 (3) of the fitature, as posited by the Prosecution in p*ragr;rph 37 of the lndictment. tl7. As discussed above, I *m satisfied that in the cla3.'s fbllorving the deatlr ol'President lJabl"arimana. a number of promiren! inclividuals in Kivumu came Logether anrl agreecl iet exlerrninate the 'ftttsi population of lL\e c<tmntune.I arn ftrrther salisfied that b,v some tim* on I4 April l!)9;1. bourgtnestre Grdgoire Ndahimana slrared rheil criminal inlent. ihus Lrccomiug hinrself a mentber of the JCIE. I rvill nolv turn to the Bvidenee on Ndahirnana's tle.iurt antl de Ji:ttlo authority- in oreler to evaluate his cnuributions to thejoi t qrilninal enterprisc. 8.2 De "/nru Autk*rity i]8. lt is not in clispute that in '{pril 1994. the larv in l'crce regulnting the porvers. rilits lrrlil obligations of batrgtnestres rvas a lar.v entitle<\ Organistrtion (:owft?tuldle; f-)ispo.sitiott Orgtuiqu,t of 23 Novembel 195.1. as amended by the Legislative Decree of 26 september 1974 atstl Presidenrial Decree of 4 Octot er 19'17 ("Aiiministrative l-ii ',v").rn?{' l l9. According lo Article 56 crl' the Adntinistr.atir.e I.,aw, e bourgtu:.rrrx, w:rs both rlie represe tative crf the central authofity in the conntme and the persrrn ifi cilt irrn (,1'aLr1|orit,r in the cor|tlultc.

'l'he conrnrunal adminislration rvas under the direct control ,sf lhe bourytn, -r!rr.j':' 120. f n^ additiorr. lhc bouryure.strt' wa: rcsnor)sihl!'. intcr tliu, l',)r e\iie utilr* lc$:, an{,t rcgtrlatirrrrs:rx:q \ pcrvising lhc t.ttt\cillt.r,, a rttttmuntt u.t.'': ' prcsiding d\ct tll( c$nrmunal Jlr ,, , ' P r , ) s c r ' L L r o r I ' f e - l - r i , t l l l f i . l . f d r d l i ..- Lrelen(-e I LorrxE tJrrcl, i)iLril. -l-16. "" Defence Closi n-e t}r.iet'. paras.,137,,139, "'-- l'rosec,ution lfinal 'l-rial tlriet'" para,6. r':j -L 2l !;eptember 20i1 p. j. lr2i Prosecirticn [irhibir,17. rEj pr.oseouti,rn E;i.ribir 4?. Article 6{.1 Ior3 Pr.,.(, Lli,,'r l,\hrl\it-ll. 4rri.l( 57- T'uc l'rcsecutor,-. liddhin{raq, Casc No. ICTR-ol-6il-T 226 I 27,1

Page 227

Jtirlgerrent und,lentertct, ,rryri-j"tff council;rs:t0 replesenling the &)nu?xune in matters crf justice:rrrL anll crcrcising-d/m L iltratrve control over state agents assigned to the commurrt.]332 ln emergeneies, the bour1nxe.\tre could" on his orrrr ittitialivc. irrtposc police lnrflsurr'I including lrenallics ni'n{)l r}}rrrr tlrrn sr\en dars in prirlrr and 100 franc t'in.'s.'^" Ilore generaliy, he could incarcerate any individual causing puhlic disorder fi'r up 1o -lS hoLrrt.'"' All comnrunrl rgents. irreluding udmirlistrati\c |lcr':,\rnncl. tsr"lrni.ll personnel and the comnrunal police rvere under the aulhorit-v of lhc torirgrreJlrc,r8ls'lhe bougmeslre. alter consulting rvith the oomrnunal c0uncil. corrld hire, suspcnc|...,.lr ciismiss an-v communal slafl rnember; but, thesi deoisions rvere to be approrcd by thc lsre/{t.'""- (h pters Vi through Vlll of tlre Administrutil,e J,arv set out the disciplinary regime ava ilal.:le to the bourgtnestre in ease cd'disciplinary pmblems involving oommunal age)rts. "l'he ltourgmestre rvas lesponsible for imposing sush measures.lslT ancl in cases rvhere the irrdividual was nccused ofhaving comnrined a €!?ve error, the bourgtneotre cou[d suspen<i the individual peuding investig:rtion,l83d i r i With respeot io the communal police" the lai.v stipulated that the communal police rvas a force established at the ctntmune level. It rvas undcr

the sole *uthorilv rfthe bourgnwstre r'vho userl it to lllfill his dutv Lo nrainuin and re-eslablisli public ixdel ancl execute la.,vs anci regu lations.r 8rt 'lhe bourytrnrsttt rissumerl complete responsibilifl' Ibr the organisaliixi. l'unctioning and ccntrol oi thc c{rmmur)al p,'lice.'uu' .Article 109 t93) of fhe Administrative Lalv set out the duties of the oonrrnrurai police, and established that the police musl imulediatel,y intirrm lhe baurgmestre o{ aov offence that it was avare o1'.18a1 lvltmLrets of the communal ltolice $,ho rvere nalned as ludiaial poiice oflicels u,ere ansrvsrable to the Public Prosccutor.is4z 122. Delbnce Flxhibit 120 is a law on the creation ol thc (jent{ttrunerie Natianrie. d*ted :3 Januarl' 1974^ Article 28 of the larv established thatr "members ttf the jt:ndttrnwrie Natitsyrrit:, nt carrying out their rvork, are undel the e.<clusive authority r:f their hiei*rchicai superiols."lslr (Jn this basis. I concfrrde that gendannes lvere not under the direct oontrol ol a bourgnestre in the same nanner as the conllllunal polioe. Nevertireless. the larv requirerl crm[runication bet*een the adrninistrative euthofities, inchrciirrg tl'te bourgme,slre, ancl tlrc genciarme,r/e on issues rel;rting to public order. Article il7 stipulated that the Administrative Authority and rhe aientlarmcrfu Natiott,tiu: rlerc required to communicate inibrmation to eaeh other

ou rnotlefs of puL,lic order lhat might resrrit in preventive or punitive measures, and that each membcr of the Gendarfierie was ro eslablish reguiar cilntacts $,ith the Administ{'i ive Authority. Arlicle .18 added that where there was a thteal of public discrder these contacts werc to be tightencd irr crder to coordinate lnsasrres atd prcpa.c r8:o Prosecotion Erhibir 4?. Article -17. r':") I,rosEcution F..t:rhibit 4?. Adiclc 17. r"' P,,,iccr,ti,,n l-.\l,illil .|1.,\nicl( 58 r7r. '' " Pr,,r(\'r,li{ n I \hil,il t7. ArLi,jl. 5x,t tl. L3r-' Prosfcution E\hib;t 47. Afticli 61, rrri Prosecurion Exhitrir "l?- -Article 62. rsji Proserution E,r.hjbit 47, Afiicle 104 (8ll): Arllerlduent of 25 rr-or.,einber 197j, Adjcie -1- r33t Prosccution Exhibit il7. Afiiclcs 9:t 17?) anrt 9.1 (7g). Ltlr p1q15g6u1ion Exhibit 4?, Anlendment ofSi Noreinber 1975, Aticle l-1: .i Les ireiites discipliraires sllnt inlligies 1:ar le krulgineslre. . .. > '''o Pr.,.e.L,tion I \hrbil .l?. q.nren.L.rcnt ot 2i \1,\cmhcr l075- Ani(lL'{li '-.'ProsecutitlnF\hibitlT.Arrjclclrl.l(E8)andl06(92);ai]dAnlen.l.nrentoi4c)ci.jber. 197?, Arlicle l. ''"" Pri)stiutitrn t-{hihit-17, .Amcndment of .1 C}clober 1977, Article.l. Aricle 7 fLrlhrl eslairlishes tbat the i}rigadioi.ol' tltr i,'rnnturral pr'lir.r is uirJr'r thc:rutlrofit-\ of I lte ,rur(r/,rrtr,. ' ' - _ P f . A c ( u r i o i t l , \ h i h i t J " . A r r i r . k l t e { q l r t i ) . u , 1 1 , f f i ! i a t l , r s l . r t i i , n . '--' Pro.e. urion Lyl)ihil -t7- ,\flicje l(ro {9ill 13ol ''l-es menrbers tle l? cendanneric Nalionale sonl plards pour l-e{ecution de lellr rnissi$rl, soui I'i}ritoritd r:iolusile de Ieurs tulTdl.iturcs bi4n|clriques. ,r fhe n osec tor t. Ndahimttwt, Case No- ICTR-01-6S-T 221 i 21'1

Page 228

Ju"lgenent o|d Sewence 3lj De{enb.tt'21}l I ?rtl the ir implcmentalion. Pursuant to Articlc 39, excepr in cases al .fiv't c tnLtiau e, tlre grn:#rlrrr'.' was required to liaise rvith the Administrativs Authcrity. arrd iteep hirn inlirrmed oi an-v rreastu'es it intended to implernent. At the satne time. the bourgmt.sfre lvas required to lransln;t to the gentl*rnerte an.v'' inlbrmation tliat colrld assist the gendanncrie in the itnplementation ol' its rnission. Finalll', .trticle 40 stated that l6e ge*darmerb rvas roquired 1o issuc special repoils to the Administrative Aulliorities on extraordinary evenls rslating 10 public order and securiq'. 123. ln 199.tr. Rwanda was a party to the Fourth Ceneva Convcntion and Addiiionel Protocol II ofthc Ceneva Conventionsll'r t r, *.tl o, rhe Cenocirl* C tinveltion.ls'li P rsucnt to Articles 1. i and 146 of the Foufilr Ceneva Clollvertion, part IV of Prolocol II of the Convent;olr, and Anicles I, V and V[ ol'thc Cienocide Convention, 5iovcrnr]ent officials have a posilive obligalion to protest the civilian popLrlation in tiures of internal con{lict and,'or gcnocide. It is my vierv that Articles 56 and 57 ol'the Rrvandan Adminisirative l,aw. laken tosc'lher rvith Alticlc I 01'lhs 4 ()ctoher lq77 Jmell(f mcnl.r'+" lirrthci inipuscd il lcgal lirrf-\ un Rrranilirrt hir '.gm(\!t"<.s kr secur\'iaw a,td,,rJer irt theit cofimunes.'l'o this encl, the

law proi,icle d the lsourgmcstre tvitlt dt .lurc e:flective crxlroi over the commrrnal police, the only tcrces ol- larv aud crder assigned ta a comnntue on a permanrnt hasi:;-1347 124. With respect 1o Ndahimana's aulhority over individuals such as thc Inspeclor oi'rt:e Judicial Police, Assislart baurgmestres, a;nd gendsr !e.:;" I considcr ir :ignilicant that the bout'g4rneslre exercised admin!strative colltlol ovea state egcnts assis0cd t() tllc (.rrrmrnl'.1\rN Ihus, rvliiie a &ora;gne.J/rc may not have had the same degee cf aulhoritrl over state agents assigned to the com*tune that he did over commnnal stillT ancl comnrunal police. he did have some rtregree ol' authoritv over them. r25. lVith respect to gendomes, in panicular, I consider it of'crilical imponance that thc 1974 larv on the Gendonnerie Nutic*tLtle required extensive coordinaticn. and reciproeal repol'tilg" belween the gendannes assigned to an area and the relevanl administrative autliorit-v. I recail that in BoSkoski, the Appeals Chamber approvetl 'l'ri*l Chatnber dcterminations that "civilian :iuperirr.i. who mal lack the disciplilrary or sanclir:nilig porvers o1'nriiitary. commanrlei's may dischargc their obligutirrn lo .punish by rcperrting to Lhe cfinpelent euthorities r.vhenever a crime has hei:n commincd...'''"*' lt $ent on to note that the elentents oi degree of effective colltrol over subordinates and the

necessarv *nd reason:rble measures rvithin the competence of a superior are intelrelated. as ihe fblnrer rllrl be evirJerrce o!'tlie hner, "t fh,,r. I di, not accel-.t lltc Delcn;c lrgunent that Ndahirnana had no authoritl, rvhatsoever over the IPJ, .r\ssistant bour.gnestt,es ar the tbut gendcrme's requisitioned by Ndalrirnana antl assigned br-- prlfet C'.lintent l{al ishenra to Kivumu tafttftlune cxr 11 April 1994. t3't f'rcEecuttr y. N.l.lhinrsra,[CjTR-2001-PT-68- Decision en the prusccution,s i\.lotion 1.or.,udi{irl Nljtice, 7 Apfll 2o l' r l:,r' l Jl Comn).rn Kno'r leJqr t i. tsu5 PrL,tettittr t. Ntlahimawt, tLfn-:OO l-pf-gS, Deci-,tion on the I,fos€cutior's lvorion tbf Judiciel Norice. 7 -{pnl :01t. la.'t. of( ,)inntol Kn{,\\leJgc. \ dtJ \ i.. '"n Pr.rscctttion E)'hibil +7. + oltl'ber lg7? amcndment, Article l: .r La pi:lice tonmunalc...est p!ar; $ous I'aulerite du bourgmestre qui I'r.rtilise dars sa lS hc de rnainlier de l'rtrdrc public ,jt d'cxicrtion iles j,ris cr rigloncnLs, r iljnoillciaL t8'slation: "Thc communal poljoe iF under the authorit). ot thc hi,u|gnrr-srrc 1\h(,Uic.s |l rn hrs Jutl r,t ttt.rirttuin I'Lrblic orLler Jn'i intf'l(nl(nt lr\\s tnJ rc! lilt i(,,1\." 1 '"' l'ro:e.-rrtiun ,r-\hrhit 11. Ti(lc ll, C]hapt€r ll. Secriln 4, Anicle i 0,.1 {gg): Chapter I AnrenclneLrt of 4 t}ciotrfl.Je77. { n i ( l r l . r''r Pr.,-e(.rti,,a I rhibir .11. ,\liclr. i8 I I l). ' " / r , , 1 ( u i l l | \ ( r . l u , i t s e m ( n l . l \ . 1 . I t I '" 8cr.,'larIi r \( rJr,dr..rncnr. f:tfil. 2:. I fhe Prosp-ctior v ^udahiBdte, CascNo. 1C'l'R-o1-68-T 718 i 214 ,@

Page 229

Jud:lekte t (n.jsenlence ifi l)ecenber 1{}l l '2,.1o I26. ,\t tlris.iLrnuture. I rccall thlt rrhile I think il i5 ds5clrlial to propelh r\illualdre luih,i'r. cf zr l:ourgmrstre during the perir;d a1 issue. rese tindings are not For the purpose ,-r'1'asse\sing Ndaliiurana's liabilitv lbr the acts of his subordinates pulsuanl 10 .Article 6 (3) ol- the Slaluts. brLt lbr the puryose of assessing Ndahinana's liabilitl, bodr for his acts in sr:pport oi the JCE and fc,r his thilure to prevenl anrl punish the crimes of his assooiates in the JCE as well as those of his subrrr'<1inates, in accordance wilh the larv onjoint crinrinal enlerprise. 127. 'l'uming 10 the rleasures that lvere available 1o a hourgnestt'e to prever']t crime in 1994, I recall lhat rvhen a bt>tu'gtnesh'e ryas alvale lhal a crriilie rvas about lo take place, he cr:uLl requisilion gendanne.r and olher state scuurity forces.,^18'l enflct cnlcrgellcy measurds ailowing hinr ler incarcera.te individuals frrr up to selen dars.'o''' arrd m:tke use of the communal Folice. With respect to ihose measures available to punish crime, I am of the vierv thar it u,as a ba rgmeste's drlLy ,\s the representative of lhe central ar:thnrity' in the cornnune to oificially intbrm high ranking me Llers of the gendurnel'le or other ministries sifting in Kibuye. MLuarnbi or Kigali of'crinre; conrmitted by, their subordinates rvhile

assigned to Kivurnu comnn$t. [t lvas eqirally his duly t* itttbrm regional or state level larv entbrcement authorities of sucl'i crimes. I note that even l]etince Witrtess NDl3, r.vhour I did lot find credible rvith respect to Ndabinlana^s authorit5.'" rc{brred to a bourgneslrc's ability to rvrite r renird lo,^tlrc 1ri'fet r ure (\r stale levcl autholiljcs in casc ol' triiscondtrcl by an Assistant bourgrneslrt'.t''' \\'iflr rcsp<cl to nriiitary resenists and gendon #, Witness Cldrlrent Kafishema, another Defbncc rv!1ness rvhosc credibility \!ith rcspecl 10 Nr.lahiman*'s overall aulhoriry I tbund rvanting, testified llraf ihe relalionship is that sirrce tlie military or genrlarnte resetvisl is dressed in civilian clothing, ifhe lives in the r:ontmwtt:, he qloes nct cr:me directl-v under Lhe orders of the bourgnestre. but tho &orurg*rr:slr-e has the righf tc cnsure thal he is ilisciplined and to see rvhat he does in the r-oiir tnune.otsi4 128. Civen lhe haurgmeslre '.r overarching rcsponsibiiif,v for larv and order in his comrnune. \ reject the l)e{i:nce contenti(rn that any such duty could only' have cncornpassed misconduct bl subordinates or associales in ihc context cl'their ol'ficial iluties.l8-05 On the cintraly', I conclLrdc thir the bu '+mestre had the iegal duty to initiale measures lea<ling to criminal ol disciplin;tn ptoceedirigs againsl ail govenment ollicials

r.vork ing in Kivruriu cotutttt{ e in ;\pril 1994 allegecl tcr have commilterl crimes there by repolting them 1o the competent auth{rrities. I rvili nr,rrv cunsiddr rvhether Ndahimana had the r/elirero authority t!) do so. 8"3 -Da F*r.to Aulhoritl 129 'l'he Delenoe subtnils thut Ntlrhirrrana huc).nu lr.Tttto authtirily, in April 1994. basecl in large parl oa liis membership in an opposition punu.'tto trrtl the relativcl-v' shon perioel benveen 6e time he assumcd the posit;on oI' bourpEnrcstre and the events r:rl' 1994.18s7 'I'lie Del.ence also relics on evidence that Ndahimana took steps t(\.pre\cnr the atlackr. ancl lrgues that he s,as uverlvhelmec ny tlte de:,tnrr:tire lorccs in the r.ontmunr,.t' t r8jr Ser Witness'1" l? Nolenlber :010 p. 2.1. a d evidence tlrar Ndahimana did elledjrel) re(lxi-lition gelr,ift]rrres trom tbe pftfectkr. tt1 I L{pril I994. r"2 pr,,cr..uri,,l | \hibit +7. Arti,..lc ol. r"j l. t7 Janu:rr., 20i I pp. :"1-:5. ' " " I . l 8 ^ p r i l l u l l p p L 7 - 1 8 . -'' Deten.e l-inal ltr;\.t. nar.rr. {lJ-llj. r356 l)etbnr,e Final Briel nar.as. 4jj-441. r";' Delence l- rnal tsr icl. puln -l-llr: \\ itlcrs i\.lelane Nkiri)ehe l 22 lrcbrlaf! 2{]l t p. lj. ' ' t-l{|lrLr,r Ki]-ish(nrr. l. l:{ Alfil lfllt l'. t '- The ||osecuor t' Ntlah*nana. Case No. lCflt-0I-68- l' :2.j ! 27 4

Page 230

*dge nre nt $1.1 Sefttence 130. The Prosecution disputes this co tentiou, rell.ing priniatily ,on Ndahiurana's aliegcd leadership role in lhe attficks of l5 anci td .Aplil J994.rNl" 8.3.1 Credibilit): of Defbnce Witnesses 8.3.7.1 Intruducti<tn 3l) Detenber 2f)i ) u,"3J,PS 1:ll. Three Defi:nce rvitncsses, NDl3,i85t' KR3.13{'r and h,lclane Nkiril'ehe.rr''l wilose testimonies cenlercd on Ndahiurana's authority in April 1994. testified that altho gh Ntlahinana rsJe Proseculor's Filal Trial Briei'" Ddra-{..i-7. 1rf.tl' 'L l7 l.rnl(3r\ l(!ll Fp. i. I l-l+ (lCS).:f]-::.24-25 (lOS). .10 (tC$), 33,35-3?,.11 (IOSi: h,,\pril 1994. Ddlbncc Wjtriess NDI J \aas an en'lplo) ee of Kibu-ye pfelectore. lle hacl once treen a br)alliraeslre and was thrrelore in a positiriLr to appreciate tho autlorir;'. and respotrsibilitics of borirgrreslres, parlicularll in lhe period prcc€ding the introdrLction of mulli-|r*t)/ p.ilitics. Drtring the period ttf singlc party t e, bt*rgmeshes .,rviclcler,1 large po$ers'" and \rcre lie "undisptted nt3stdrs oi the comrnune."According to the llitness, ahe .ie J.rcto authority of boargors.r///J repressnrilrg r:pposition pafiics diminishei:i $,ith ahe advenr oi multi-pai1y ruie. Tiris aulhority, in p&1, resied on their role $s chairperscins ol-the ruling polit'cal parr1. Once !ruili-f3lt), rule *as introduced- bow.gmesre-t end otlter aulholili(s lt{) lorlger cnjo)'ed

thc suppod ot reJpecl of membefs of {rther poliair.:al partics: -...lvhen ,a h{}urgttlesh,e \\,it aleclcd a Loadrf of tLre cotnnlune, ii l.!as...the membsrs of his parties (sic) $ho rvou[1 ]is1en and obe] lti,q il]:trurtions...cilizens ri ln- b*l{rnged lo dii}ifert political parties vhose candidate was not elacted.,.did nol obey tlrc 6<;01grire,rrr.e." Ndahinrana had little authoril) txcar:ie he was a menrber {!f the lvlt)ll. a nriDority poiili.trl parl! it lris conrmune, On this baris. he "coultl sal nothing" to indilidualJ rvho rvete ntcnrlxrs ofthe l'lltND. l\'l(' eovcl'. in Kivunru (otl1ntune. the tlDl{ was considered to l-1e itl crhoois lvilh the l{PF.Alth{rugh Ndahirlana rvas elecled^ he rlas sulroql,;1ed b] inllividuals \"-h+ opposed llinr "liecause lie n"s an iridliectual and had not lil.ed ill Ki\.umu" Ierl kxg. lhe wirnr-:ss was roid that Ndahimanl haii ton lhe elcetions beraule o1'1he suppot of religious lcaiict s lnd -ulher associutions-'' Nduhinrana did not "cDjo) ths lroperation" of tlte Kivun]ltt c.rtseilleys. . tr6r 'l-. :4 .lanu:r.v 2011 pp. 55-56, 67-6S. 70-71. 7l-?6 (all in clo:cd sessioir); 1 , ?5 .iar;uur.y l0l 1 pp. 7 lsee also lrrrnch tIansc.iirl P 8.l{.S). I l. 1-l-1.}. 16-26 (JOS),2s-31- 36--18,53-.1i, 58 (lCSl: wianess Kl{3 ivrr: io a pr.rsirirrn h} conirr*r1!. on the aulhi'rit) o1'tlte 6or.'gnieslre oi Kivtltnu . otnnu\e in 1994.,{pproxirnateiy 25

pefso s look p8d inthe electicn .)1' Ndahjmana as 0ourgue,rffe. Ndahirnana "behai'ecl. . . properly" iluring the genocide. but bccau$e oi'opposition politics at tLre tine, "a huge part of the populaLion...did llot obcl his ordcrs." Ndahimana rranted "io sprea{i his auahorit\ (x,er... Ilie ccnmune without takilg into accou]lt the vicw-\ of an,v panicular paft]r. but ths nierlrbafs of tlte N{{tND did itot u3nt to llear allythitlg about Ndahinrana's antholity. 'i hd witness noted l.hat tcrl 01 lhe elercn cornmunal ioaluillers .;cr,: members rrf tlre illItND. the eier:entlr rvas a lnellber oi the NIDI{. In addition. the boul-gftte$tre cliri rrrt enjoy gooC rolations ljtb thc cunrmunal strti'f as the majorit-r- {'1'th1i Jtafl'\ruc members oltbe MRND. fle also.lid no1 havc g,rod relations lvith IPJ Ilulgence Kayishema tvho nas a menlber ol the l\lllND. !'ullhcr, \elahiLnaLta did no1 enjol gc,p- ielations with the Pr€sident of tbe "Calttiinal" coult, Joscph llabilanlbere. becausc l.Iabilam[.:ere ras a tlernber of the hll{ND, and because hc rla$ on ths payroll o1-thc L,linjslin ofJusticc ilrd the c./,rr*€ had cr sa} over.juLlgcs. Chiels of se ice n'ere unde| rhe outhority of rlre botrgnrcstre, brit he cor d uot give oi.lors to scr.virx,htacls, ilnd lllo-lt sciiiee heads \verc meinbcrl ui'lhc N'IRND.'1he bourgnesfte also had poor re'atiolls \ ah Iilrtsphor.e Ndungtse. \!ho \.!as

il member of the MI{ND. '"-- T ll Fehltrarr 20ll1p J J.7-8. l0-20" 22.:6. l:i; lrr April i99,1, \\ itoess l\{clane Nkirilehe was the ilLrdgel directol ill the \linistry of Finan.:e in Kigali. lic was aiscr a menrlrcl rrllhe k'clrnicrl cofinliltcc oi Ki!urlll colrlrrLrne. \ornraiiy. the techtllcal comntittee u,ould rrcit once fel guar'ler" but it ilid no1 rrLeet durilg iime Nclahimane 1!ar bottt gttk'stre. Nkiril-ehe rvas also a neniber oi ihe |JDR. Nkirilche and Nilahiniana rv€tc tiolr the sat)1e cejluje, attenried the same scl]r:ols. and tere botlr lneil]brfs ol'the "eiite." lu early April 1994^ the uinesr liled in Ki|ali. bul tben nloYid \xith the interin qi]ternment to l\lururrbi rfl Git.ll3rnt,rn 1l April 1994 Ile rcmaincd dtrr.,;t until ihe lull ni ilie golornrten! but "did a hop" to Kivumu conmune in latc lVI*.v 1994. Duririg this trip he sarv Ndahinrara bricllv. Betbrc becomilg b.rlrgtnesh e Ndahimena rtorked at a toa factor] in Ruba;-e. Nclahimana uas ti)rceil tr lcavg l{u6;iya lbr secrtrit! teasrrls. Ndahirrana joined rhe \tDI{ s.xnetimc afi€f.Tule 1992. Dcspiae rhc faot thar hc lud onl} recenlly joined the paty. Ndahirnana u'lxr electer.l on tltc basis ol lris chalisma. populaiity and reputati{tn jn the comrnLrre. Ndahirn:lne rcceived I l0 rotes $,hile his oppr]nent, CDL" receivcd only trvdr.otcs. Ihose voting in tlie general election tot bourgnestre included r:oncr,l/lelr. nernber. of the tcchnical cqnrrnission, he1,Js oi;cn'ices- chuirrnctr o1'political Falties, at]d heads oi thd religious dcnr-rminations. lr 11.]nt election, Ndahimalla Ieceived 19 votes. the LII{ND cirndidate Jean Bapliste liagcnza ie{cilcd l5 votci. und ! third landiiltc. r.r1o nas a The Prosecutor r. Nd,thimawr. Case No. ICTR-01-6t-T 2.n i 2't4 -tr

Page 231

Judgenent artlse nle nce t, ,"Hrlr6,g xvas bourgntesbe. tre had next to no tle frcto authoriry as hc rtas consistentll' saFt6g'od b;v associates and subordinates rvho u,ere members of the i!lli.N-D. This evidence rvas supporled by prdfet Cl|ment l{ayishema" rvhose credibility I adt.lressed earlier. anil a number of other Dcfbnce witnesses. I only address the credibility of' ProseeLrtion rvitncsscs rvhere I disagree lvith thc IVajoril"v. 8.3.1.2 DeJ"enr:e Witness KR3 132. Witnsss KR3 was in a positior to iliscuss dre authorit]- tf the btnu'gnesrtz ilt Kivumu commune, but I obseno that hc said thar hc rarely le{t his house during tlre critical periotl of 6-2{} Anril I 994. Ir"3 l3l. Aocording to rhe witiress. he went to N-vange parish on 16 April 191)4 to brirg food i<r trvo ),or.rng girls w'ho had sought refirge therr and remaiued in the area ofthe parish fi:r.just over a:l hour as an "observer."rs6a The rvitness lvas scntenced to clcvcn vears in plison fbr his participaticn in the 1994 genocidc.ls6i By June 2010 he rv*s no longer in tletention but flet1 liom his honre because of rurnoLrrs that Nyange secteur L;ccdca jr:dgernsnts u,efe under rcvierv, and that thg re\ ieu proce$s was resulti:lg in lengthier priscn terms than the original judgments pri:vided lirr.r86" I'ltc rvitness testifled thal he had becn told thal on revie* his senlence had bcen revised to

li{'* imprisonmenl.llor 'l'he Prosecution clicl no1 relbr to, or ask to have tenderecl into ei,idence, judicial records fbr lhis ivitness. 'Iherelbrc, I can only rely on thc rvitncss' clvn testirnony that "one ol'lhe clizlges against" him rvas thal he had nrt prevenlecl the nrassacres.'868 ' 134. As the Prosecution has not introduced an-v ofthe rvitness'juclicial rccords into evidence, it is more difllcult to asssss rvhcther the witness ma}. have tried to minimise his or.vn role in tlre evenls o1'l6 ApLii 1994 at N)'ange parish. I bear in niind. horyever. lhal Wirness CllR tcstified in detail about the killing of a'l'utsi named lr.idakubana on the night o1'7 .April 1994, ald Wirtess KR3's parricipation in rhat inci<Jent.rt6iJ hi addition, Witness CI)l. testifie<l tliat -[Witness KR3l was {rn the side ol'lhe atlackem" on l6April ll)9,1.rs7{' As lhave significant reservations,uvith rcspect to r'lernbet oflh€ PSD, received live !,otes. Ndahimana rec'eived \,otes ii{-rn} ntenrhdfs ol the N.{RND ai \&ell as menrbets o1' the PL. Wlren NCahitnatra assumed duty irr Ocrobcr l99i and there was no oificial hando|er. lhe idcl ihat thrre r1'as nc handovet ccrerlloilv nadc it easier tbr Ndahirnina's ollll{)nents td sdbotagc his rvo|k. Bccause hc iost the Nrlli{ eiFctiun. witncss CL)L $rs Nciahirnana's eneoly l'rom lhc $tan. in rddiliotr. lbllowi|1{ rhe eloction. the iosi;rg

N,tRrr-D candidate, Kagenza, did eve.ything to hxrnstdllg the eit"cctile functionirg .rf thf ceilnnlune. The sanre was lrue Ibr IPJ Kayishirrra- anoll'ler member of tlie I\'{RND, *ho \lanled to ohntmct ''iil the grnd rvorlt of l\'lr. Ndnhjmail&. Cenerall,l:. all the N{I{ND seNice hqads tried tL\ impede Ndahimanii's rvork. When thc rlilncss visited Ndabimana in latt Ltav 1994. Ndrhinrana tolil hjfi that lrt rvas o*-cmhelmsd atrd that he r.r-:s being sabotaeed by .,frcoirlc .rlro had grudge ngainst hirn,"-l'he lrlltND s pponers rvho vcrred for Ndahinranr in the clectioit for bourgnestre $cre no1 ahi. safie N{RND supparters rvitl rvliorn hc had b ri.o!k within the communal of}ice, 't"r 'L :4 .latuary 201I pp. 57-68: 1'. 2J Januax}- 201 I pp. 12-14. 22-23: 'lhe \ritne$s rerrlqincd ar horr* 1i-rrn 6 tc l0 Apdl. On I t Apfil. he ettended thc seculitr! m€eting it the communal otlice. l-le $as lrrrms ei 12 Aprii $'rd rtent ro rhe conmunal otlice briefly onli A!]ril. He remgined at hone on 1.1 a d I5 Apfit, but \"-cnt to the llil.ish on l6 Apfil fin' just o!$:rn hour. He agsiu rertained at llome oLl 17. l8 and lg April but pallicipated in a r)eetlng at the conrnullal ollice (jn 20 April 1994. Du ng this period. lhe $,,ilncsd onl1 sa,,v Ndrrhimana at iJ]eotings held at the communal ,rlii.e ,'n,1 I anJ l{} .\pr il. ''* T. 25 Ji.rrrirclr :rtl I |n. I .]-ll. - ' - l . l j J r n L r i i r \ : U l l F . 8 r l C S i . ' " ' L l 5 J . , n , - r r r l 2 0 t l f l . q - l | | ( l ( s ) '""L li Jrnuan 20ll t}.. (,-l0lf'SJ. Itdr'f,25.lunuen,:0ll r'. l0 {l C.S J '":o I. I Noventber:Orr.t pp. d-g, ' i8'-'r T. l: Nr]l'embcr 2t)10 pp. 17-28, The Prasecltlor \,. Ndahinatu, Cilsc No. ICTR-01-68-'l' 231 i 2'7.1

Page 232

.f$ageme t atd Senknce 3ll De.sttb.'r !(]ll <lo thc cretlibility of botir Wilnesses CBR and []DL. I do not aceor{i in,'rdinatc \reighl t() theii-r etidence rvith respect to Wirness KR3's participation in the gcnocide.

135. I{ore troubling is the rvitness' lestimon} 6at. although he spenl appfoximately an hour and a half at Nyange parish on 16 April 1994 and sarv a bulldozer dernolishing the church. he did not rvitness any killings while rher"e. The rvitness added that ire sa1. lPJ Kayishema, Ndungutse, Kanyarukig4 Mbaliilirehe, tlre brigadier of the communal poliee" and pclice officer Adrien Nii'itigeka, at the parish that rtay" bui diO nct knorv whether they tvere involied in the attacks.lBir I have difTicultl' believing that the witness sar.v no killings that day''. Further, givcn thc rvitness' position in the comnune, his failure to assess the roles played by N{bakilirehe, Niyitegeira. Ndunglr.rse, Kayislrema and/or Kanyarukiga, strains credibiiity.r 87? On this same note. I observe that r.vhen asked b-y the llrosccution to explain why thc killings at Nyange parisir were not aclclrcsseti during a rneeting chaired by Ndahirnana at the comnlunal ollice on 20,April i994, Witness KR3 claimed "it was difficult to identili. lhe persons who had launched lhe attack on the refugees at lhr church. There 'lvere no ririgleadrrs..."lsT3 When askecl rvh5, the oommunal ruLhcrities took no fileLsure$ to punish the assailanls who killed {he survivors at the health ceflor" lrcated 5ii{} meters from the courtnunal ol'fice on 25 Ariril 1994. lhe u,itness cxnlained lhat "r,r'e couid not

est;ablish the iclentities ofthe killers."l*7r Again. given the r,,,itncss' position. I can only conclude thai the rvitaess was deliberatell.' unruthful, and suspect thai lre may have been trying to rlinimise his ou,n oulpabilitl. by pleading ignorance on behalf ofall comtrunal olfir,ials. 136. 'lhe r.vitness staled that Ndahiniana did noi enjo3; g{lod relations r.vith the ten Kivunn.l t:onseillers s.ho rvere members oi the [,lliND, those members of rhe communal sttrff who were members ol" the MRND, the chiefs of serviqe rvho rvere mr.trbels ol' lh{j ]!lllNl) or the pres;deflt {){' the local court, 1\iho \.vas also a menlbet of the MRND.'87t lloncver.. the onlv eratnple he prrvirled related to the relationship bet*een Ndahimana and Fulgence Kayishena. Specifie*lly, he testified that lia;-ishema had- released suspects that Nclahimana had had aruested tbr the killing of ihe Ndakubana family.l375 I lorvever. on ctrss-exnminatioi], the witness clarifieci that r one o0casrdll. Ndahimana and Kavishema had iointl;- proceeded to arrest a suspec-ted nerpetratclr in the killing ofa Trrtsi and that hc had evcr intiurated that Ndahimana and Ka-vishema lvele collrpleteh opposed to each other: "there wers poi ts on which the-v were opposed and points on rvhich they agrcsd.,'r8i: ln addition, 1he witness acknoi.vledged that he himself had had good rclations rvith Ndahimana, aitherugh he rvas

a nrenrber ol'lhe I\{RND,rl3?ii and did not explain whl.. he alone, among coflrmunal stafl' menrbers belonging 1rr the hlRl{D" had good relatiexs with tlte lsourgnut$1r.,. I arn of tho lii-* tliat lhe willess lvas idealll placed to 1rrovid€ specific exanrples of<liscord betrvcen Nilahintana ancl other ccmmunal authorities. His failure to do so casts serious tloubt as to thc reliabilitv o1'l;il ovcrl;- genelalised eviilence on this point, 137. There rvere several important cliscrepancies bet'rveen Witness KR3's testimonv irr this trial, and his pt iof sfaleme-nts and testimonv in other cases. At trial for example, the' rvinress testifier! that he returned 1o rvork on 20 April 1994 and that he did uoi see Ndahhliana can;ving a lvc{rpuu urtil June 1994. However" in a stal.ement dated l4 SepLembcr 2000, thc *.itness stated that lvhen [.]* tttr I. 24 Januarl 201t pp. r!;8-69; l'. 2j Janoari 20l l pp. 2G21. " J. 2.1.t$ru,rrr j0l I tp.r.X-d(,: f. 2S.lr uJrj 201 | llp. 22,2i. ," I ts ran,,xrr illl p. ll r . -l Januirf! lu I I rl, ju. r'-i l. ll.l.rnuif\ 2dl I nF. ?i-75 rlCS r: t . 25 JanL!:rr.! 2i,l I pp. u. lt. ' " " 1 . 2 . ' | . l r l r . u l l 0 l l { l ( 5 J : l . : i . l J n u r r } l 0 i l p . 1 8 ' ' l.15 Jiduar.. l0ll trp 4ri.0l rl( sr: Prirs(uuLron I\hil,;l 5.i. p. In{l( \r. "" T. l-5.frruar) 2iJl I t, l{). l'lE Pro.riic tor \'. Ndqhiuanrz, fasc No. ICTR-01-68-T 2_12 / 2"74

Page 233

Jwlgenen! u.l Sester.i.' 3() Dece$Abq2nl I '< tn retuured to the offlce after the events at Nyange palish he salv Nchlrirnan;i cLirrying t guft# /ll$/ rvitness also lestillsd at trial thal F alher Seruri.tra attcnded lhe 11 ,April secur'\ rneeting at the communal ollice. I'his statement is eonsislent with his statenrenl kr a l{wandan 'l ruth Commissiun irr 20021880 but irlconsistent rvith lris testirnony duling the ,!|e.ramha case where he testiiied tlurt. Semmbs ha.d not atrended the meeting. When this discrepanc) r{Js pointed out tu t,he, *itncs: in this trial. he stated rhat he had made a ulistake r',,hen lre testi{ied in rhc J(,rt,r;lr,r trial.,.., This suggests that the rvitness rnal havc ''Inistakenl!" provided exculpatory cvidcnce lbr Seromba during his case. Tlte r.vitness was also inconsistent during his crcss-examinat"ron in this trial. Ile testilled that ol 20 April 1994, l:ourgme.stre Ndahiniana held a meeting of ccrurnrunal lv{}diers to discuss, Drzer rrlr . the conduct of the bligadier ofthe communal policc. Although the r.vitness llrst said that it u'as not a ni€e1ing tor tonseillcr:; o{ secteuns, it later enrelged that at least six oflhe elevt:n canseillers afiendci.l this meeting. r 38: t-38. The \ritness testilletl that Ndahimana had had poor relations r.vith 'Iil6sphorc NdLrngutse, who rvas a member of the IVIRND. ['le then rvent on to explain that Ndungutsc

thrsatened 1o liill thc r'vitness fbr refirsing tc) accornpally Ndnngutse rvhcn he Inunched an attack ol the Nclakuhana fbntii,r' on or ahor.rt 8 April 1994. When the witness told Ndahimana about Ndungulse's threaf, Ndahinrana asked the nerv trligadier o1-lhe corn rnurra l.police Jcan-[Josrd Aba-v''isenga to confiscate Ntlungirtse's gun r.vhich Abayiscnga rvas able to dtr.'nn First" it r.ras n(.'t Jt all clear wliy NdungLrtse waitcd Llntil h{a1' 1994 1r: Ihreatcn the rt, itncss for having fbiled to parlicipate in an attack thar took place on or about 8 April 199.1" More importantly. this anecdofe on:v dem{xsLrates Lhat Ndurgutse had poor relations r.vith Witness KR3 and no1 tliat lre had pcor relalious r.vith Ndahirnana. l:19" For tlte rcasous above, and because the rvirness r.r,as not able to Srrovide a siugle example lo support his general theotl rhat Ndahimana rves nor on good lcrms lvith the vasl majorit-v ol' Kivutnu cotrunune's top ollicials, I concluiie that this witness rvas not cl'edibls in any rcspecf. 8.3 "1.3 Defence {l'itnes,r NI}l 3 140. During the period at issue, Witness NDl3 lived in l{ibuye town. While the ivitnsss testifled ;n a detailed and definitive nlanner on a nurnher ol critical issues. the source of his intblnalion and cettituilc was olkn unclear. In an)1 event, his evidenc* i.vas entirely basetl ,:n hearsay. 'l'he lvitncs$ admitted that he did not

visil Kivumu comtnun€ rJuring the period bcti.veen 5 and l7 April 1994, and said thal hc onl;- sarv Ndahir.nana one fime clur.ing thal pcriod" on l5 Apr.i! 1994 when he saw lJdahimana coming out ot'thc T.ziler's o{fice in Kibuye knvn, 'Ihe lvirness infurmed tlie Chamber thal his infoflnation attout events in Kivumu cr, tmltne rvas bose,cl (nt repolts he teceivcd ll'onr liiends and tclarives lvhu rvere living in lhe conrmr** at th* tirle: "l had man;- people in lltal contntune who needed m1.' advice and i.vho rvould ask me horv the.t, coLlltJ c,oncluctr themselves during those events. So it rvas very easy l'or nie lo kn\rw \rhxt *;rs hirppcninr in that commulp besause I rvould receive itlbrmation Oonr those inriividtrais."rEra 141' The witness rvas told. fbr example, that Fathel Sslomba ha{l beeu rlrongll convicr*d l.recause Scrcmba had not participated in thc destruction oIN;-angc p*ioh.'tt- 'l his is not supporteil rr r l. :5.l.llu.rr\ 2oll p..i7j Pro.reution I-.rhibit 5lrhr. r',"1 .25.lenu,r\ :0ll pp. -lf'. 19-51){lCS); Prosecution })xlijbit S,t (h). p,3- quesi.ion ll. ' ' - ' l . 2 5 J * r u : n : 0 1 t p p . " 1 6 - 1 8 . 5 U r l C S ) l P r r r s e c u r i o n E x h i l l j t j . t . p . t : j , 1 9 { l C S ) ,-'- T l5 J.rnuurl lU lt p. 16.pp.28-2eit(\i. '"' f. l5.hnLrary 2{\l l p. 7 { t('Sr' I rcnch: l. 25 JrnUJr) ]0 l l F. 8 { l t( )r. ' " 1 . l 7 . l a r r u r r ' r : { l , l I l ' f . l q { l f S J . + 1 . ''o- T. I J J,,nurrv :Ul I pli. 4:-,1.1. 'l'he Prosei.lnot v Nd(hi kr a, Case No. lCl R-01-68-T 233 / 274 ,nq,

Page 234

Ju..kemen and S.,nte ce -:{} I'tp?nber /}l l-- 'd.. | ') l-\ by anl of the evidence in the instant trial, and thus casts doubt on the rctiability ot #" ltnli*- "information"' more general11..

142. The rvitness asserted rhat Ndahimana had not been able lo obtain the cooperation ol dle Kivumu cor,selller.r. When asked b1'the Prosecution horv he knerv this. the rvitness conceded that he was "not an elervitness clf these events. But people rvoukl repott to me..."18'td Yer, rvhen askerl about events ir\ the ,cecteur in which his brother was a cottseitler, the witness stated: '"i ?]n una\\iate of events that cccurred in nry absence. If m1" brother was a conseiller in tl\at vcleuv, that is not cnouuh fbr me to sivc. an account ofevents that Lrnfblded in thal seclsrr.''1887 loggerheads throughout the relevaut period. 1888 he coulcl not sal lvhethel Vitness CDL had resigned li"om his pclsition rvithin the commune before or alter Ndl^himarra bctxme beurturtstre because the incident toclk place after the witness left. the cssmnfit,.''o' lrl,rreover. he insisted th?]t lvitness CDL r.vas a menrber of the MRND.rs!0 a lbct clisputed b; Nlelalc Nliiri.r'.'Lrc" a high ranking nember of the MDR,lSer and Witness CDL himse lt who said he nas a mernbcr of the h{DR.rnur 144. The rvitness insisted dral polilical parties suoh as the NIDR, th€ PSII and rhe PI- lrad Yielvs that differed significantly frorn those of the Iv'lR;\D. and theretbre thxt rhe padies, or indivicluals \.viflr;n those parties. could not llave.joined forces in April 1994.'^'' L)u cross- examination. he conoeded thar the

Interirrr Priure Minister in April I 99,1 "rnust have heen a member oithe MDR" and that the Kibuye przlir, Clintent Kayishema. \vas a menrber of lhe PSD.rNe" tsoth have been ferund guilty o{'ge riocide h,-v this Tribunal.rsei 143. Although the witness rvas reltain that Wirness CDI' and Ndaltimana had been a1 l)n examination in ohiet, Witness NDl3 testil'ied tha{ IItJ Kayisherna tvas appoiirled [r1, the MinistrJ of Justice, bui "in his roulinc duties" rvas a subordinate oi the office n{ the ;:rosecut.ir" meaning that onll the prosecutol' coLrld discipline him. r'e6 llr:rvever, on cross-cxam ination he ccittcede<l that "[t]he boutgnestre is tlre superior ofthe IPJ."r8e7 The rvitness also testified that the irrigadiel of the corumunal police tbli undcr the supervision of the Ministrl' ol Interrior, anel adamatttly asseded thal Ndahimana had no say over the comurrutal police"ir"* assertions that are uo1 supp,rrted b1'' the Arlrninistrative Law or other evidence. IIe insisted lhat the bourgttte.rrru eouLi nr'rf disrniss or in any rvay punish eithet' an IPJ or the brigadier of the communal police, and thar new laws lvere wlitten a{ler the tw{r in$titutions wers established. lsett hLrt no such lar.vs r.vere tendered rt8"'1. 17 JaLrrLary 201 I F. 41. rr87 T. lSJunrraf_v:0ll p. 15. rrsj T, 17 Januarl'?0li p. ?J. rs:'r'f. 18 Januafy 20lt p,3. rrq'T. lslJanuary 2011 t. 3. ' ' o ' T . : :

f c L ' ' u u . 1 l u l l f l ) . t t - l l . " -I 18 Nor enrber 2 10 n .lt Lr''r l'. 18 lanuary 2tl I I p. l. r3e1 T. I8.lanuur').:ol I F.2. 13"j PrLt.tecu.or r' liatibaulo ICTI{-97-23-T. Judgcmeit and Scnrerre" .1 Septdmber l99B ChanrLrer on 19 October ?0r10)t Proseclttot v Clefi,lnt Kdlirhetnd ICTR-95-t-'1. Senrenc€ 2j Apprals t-h.rnrir<r ou I lunc l00l t. r"'61. l7 txn r"l l0l t m 27-:8 - - 1 lB.liuu,rrj 2011 p.:0. '""" T. I7 .lanlinly 2t) I i p. 36. rre'1 . l8 Jaruary ?01I pp. 2l-22. The Prosecutor"t. |idalimqn{L Casc No. IC'I'R-01-6S-I (.rtlirinrd bl Appeal! May 1999 (afiirnicC by 234 i 27,1

Page 235

Judge $te nt dnal Se rte ttc(, -1{) !.)a<:ttnber ){)l l ?. roa into evidence. lr,lore ;mportauLlt. it is not in ilispute that Ndahirnana tlitl pLrnislr rhc hrighrfiir tt"ltlc- | communal police, Cihlistoflre Mbakilirehe, aller tlie events atNlangc parish.' ""' 146. 'fhe Def'ence did not 'contest the Prosesutirxr submission that the Ar.lnrinistrat;ve Larv, entered into evidence as Prosecjutiorr Exhibit 47, rras in place ar the time the wilrress himself rvas a baurgmestre as rvell as during Ndnlrimana's teuure. As discussed above, lhis larv is cltal r."itli regards to the rclationship berlveen the ltourgmestre ald the conrmunal police. Thtts, I can onlv conclude that the rvitness rvas deliberately unlruthfirl, at least on this point. fiudher, wlren lhe Prosecution shorved Witness ND13 the letter fiom Niiahimana. dated i0 April 1994, dcrnotirrg stl:nnunal police brigadier Christophe Mba1,;ilirehe, the wit ess cxplainetl: "11 I said that Ilourgnt:stre I'Jdahimanir was llot l'espcctcd, that docsn't meen he was no longer bourg,mestt'e; be \\as slill bourgtttt:,st_rt . He rvould give ilslructions, but those instructions rv{r{ not.. .iinnlcnlcutctl. .."""'' Horrever. Defunce Witness KR3 restilied that lvttrakilirche's rlemotirn rrus. implemerrte.L ud, iriilecd. his sucecss,lr .leun-lJo:er, ,{b 1;sr'rrgii s ccesslirll} J:iLIr]td ll}e Dosttlun ()l Dllladldr.- -" , t. ninltty, Or.

lvirress testificd that "oommunal larv reqrirerJ'' that the kcy to the arrnoury rcmain in the control o{' tlre brigadier of lhe cornmunal police: "it rvas the brigailicr of the ccmmunal pclice who s1atu1oril1' managed the lveaprorrs,.." Holvevcr" he could ciie no lalv suppodi g this position although he had once been a boiu'gntesttt himsell'.ltOl 148. More generally', as r.vas the case rvith Wihress KR3, the witness had a great cleal to sa,y about Ndalrirnana's poor relationship r.vith othel olficials in Kivumu conmune, but could not provide a slngle coucrete example of the r'vay in rvhich thesc sour relalionships manifesied themselves In the coumune's routine business, or during the evenrs o{ April 1994, l4q. There \'-ere also signilicant disorcpanr:ies belween the rvitness' testrimony at llial anil his prior statements and testimonies. For example, in response lo a questiou fium the Pfosec*tion about a nreeting the witness attended lvith PriJbt (.linent Kayishcma on 18 Aptil 1994. the r.virn*ss insisred: "'l did not even attsnd that rreetlng. I rvas nol present. I tras nor in Kibuye because | [':arl gerne to visit my fbmily at Karongi. Therefbre, tr did not attencl any ofrhose mectings. I hcard abcut them. l was told that those meetings had taken place, i:ut I did not attend those meetings."let'l Howcvet, it ernerged lhat in a statcmcnt pfovided to IC'lR investigators on 19

Octobcr 1995. thc witness lratl said that he had panicipated in a niecring with thc prifet on | 8 April 19q'1.ret5 Hc provided {urther d*tail ol'his visit_ to tht priJir orr this tla; in a subscquent stale '}ent lo lC'l"it investigatols dated 11 April 1996.r""' Asked ro expl;rin rhis discrep:rncy, thc witness slaimed he had rnisttndetstood the quesli'on because he considered his discussion rvirh the prlfl; Lhat day tc have con$ti1u1ed a "consultalion" rather than a "meeting'' addiug: "...counsel {br the plosccUtion. You need to know the dillefcnee betlveen a meeting and a consultalion session""l'j07'l'his explanation is unpersuasive as tfie witness had emphatically testified mcrnents earlier that he rvas visiting his lamily in Kalongi on l S ;April 1 994 ancl was not in K ibuye.rer's ln this same l !)9i statenrent,re0') the re@ Plosecution E-\hibit 5 l. '*' T- l8 .ianuaq :011 p. :5. ' l'. 15 Januilr\ :Ul I p 7 {lCS}. '"" l'. iS.t,rrruarr 20ll pD. i-4. '"0'T. 18 ,la,ruar.i :ol I r,. 5. r*r Prosecution ilxhihjr 49 (.{}. r!6 1'rosecution Lrhibit 50 (A). '"'-f- 1E t,rnr,ar. 2trl I pl. 7-q. ' '"' f. l8Jenurr) :Ul I p.

5. Tlle F! o.eeculor N. Ndchimana, Ca,se No. ICTR,0l-68-T 235 t 1'1.1

Page 236

,lu.lgertett .it'J Sentence Jt gg1ler 2{} I } ? ro? q,itness claimed that Cldment Kayishema u,ls not responsible ftir crimes commitlecl in Rfifyel '[. J is onir guiltl' of ncrt having been able to protect peopie", while at trial he testilletl that tlrc prJji t lvould meet with the Intevahomu,e each time the,v rehuned liom killiugs at "the church" antl on this basis ''... ar the time rve thought that Pr'.lit Kr.r,ishemir e.rll;rtrorated tvith lhe inierahatnwr: even if' hc rras rrol ahvrrrr rrith them al thc scene ofthc killings."l'1" I i0. Frin*lly. I ndte ihat the witncss c-onccdcd Lhat he had been scntenced to three months imprisonnrenl tbr giving lhlse lestimony to a Gocuttt taLtrt in a case involving utlIlter lsorrgmeslre liom Kibuye prl.ftchre. |'he rvitness denied drat he had pnrvided l?lse testimony arguing ihat "the judges ofthat court at that lirne didn't iike bearing tlie contrary to rvhat they r.vanted rc hear.'"leir I clo not accord undue rveight to this conviction as I aur nol larnilinr with the details of the trial process, Neveftheless. I oonoluele dlat I caltnot rel,,'- on this witness' evidence $,ith respect to Ndahirnrna's tle facto atthori\,v in April 1 994. 8.3. 1.4 D eJb nt t ll' i t nes s l'(e la*e N k i r i ve he 151. lVitness lvlelane Nkirilehe r.vas the budget director in the Ministry c'f f-inance in Kigali rlhcn lltc ionflie I L'rulncd in Alrril tqUJ.

llr rras irls,' I rnember ul' tlrr rechniirl cL)mn)it{ee ;it Kivutnu r'orllvirc.'"'' Ilorrcver. he rvas not in Kivumu connulne tluring the eljents ,i1 issue in Lhis LJsc, The technicrl coirtmiltcs u Lrltl nurm:rll) mLet rl cc pur (lrrr,'ter bul ir rlir.J n(rr rcct .ltrrirr;r rlrc tirne N,.hlrirrran;r r',as haaigrrrcsl,i'. "' ' ?5:. When asked horv he lrail llrrmed..hi. impressiun of Ndahimana's aurhority in 1!)94. Nkiriyehe repliecl: "here I mLrst be speeific,"'"'' He tltcn rrcnt crrl ro say that he had seen 1!hat \.vas happening in Kigali and Gitarama. and that he spoke with Nciahimana rluring a briel'meeting whiclr lasted lcss than llve mirrutc5 at lhr: end uf lvla;- 199.{-1ult IIc ct,nclu,lcd thet t'olh rhc aLrtht,rilics in Kivumu and the lnterim Coveflrrrtent in Gitarama were "overwhelmed" by th.:; milirias: ',[ilt tvas the nrilitia [sicl that wele n:ling"relt' The wifiress concludett rhat "[Nciahimanal was uraking an efforl, but he rvas really overwhelmed bccause most of those nilitizun*n didn't rvallt fo Iisten to him." Nkiriyehc added that aller meeting with Ndahimana in late klay i99;1" he mcr wilh ,'othef otficials and other people" u4to told him that "Ndahimana rnade an ellbr{...but ...rvas ulable to prsvent u'hat had happened."lelt I'he \.vifness did nrrl natnc his soutccs or <ietaii ar:y of'the "elforts" made by Ndahimana. t53 Nkiriyehe conceded that he hati rot

visited liivumu in April 1994. When aslieel airout meetings chaired b"v Ndahimana that Inollth. ths witness anslvered: "l didn't evcn knorv about those r"0e Pn.rsctutior Exhibit 49 {A)- I'rr" P.rsecutio! E (hibit 49 iAi. D. s. 'u" L 18J.,nurrr 20ll D. lT llCSr. ,.,,.l- jil"l''"'r 1!ilP ':-.. ,-,, r . rr f(DruJ -rul I pp. | /- | r. '"- T.:l Fehrlarr:0l l n. ll. *'tT 22 F*Lnuai;'2011 pp. :3-24: -19-4{J. r}2-,13. P.2.ti "we .lidn't cven hare,ivc nlirllrtcs. \tr/e hadjust oponed the ti.st becr. and r've said cheers to ot)c iuotftei, and rhen he had ro lcave...rue did shake hards. but r.ve clidn'r r.eellv discusi." Itr{ T.:2 l.ebruary 2irl l pp. ?-3-2.1. "" 1.22 Fcbruafy 201 L p. 25. l'he Pres.cut.)r ,-. i\"duhimartr, Clrse N{r" tc'ft{-01-68-f 136 i 271

Page 237

rudsenunt untrientence ,,, rg,ui,"#k" meetings."lerr When asked rvhether IPJ Ka-yisheura rcrnainecl ll)J unl,il...lul1. 1 q()4.-Til,iri)'ehe--- *nswered: "l don't know aboul that. I don'1 knolv because I rvatn't therc."'" " 1-{4. I'he lvilness was a member ol'national branch oi'the MDR.re20 and corrlted irallots ir rne Kivutltu conmmne l\1DR primary elei:tions,lo2l 'l'hus" he lvas ucll plece,,l to arsess int.'rrial l\'lllR politics anil i credit ths details he providcd about the lvlDl{ election to choose lho l\41}l{ candidale lbr the cleclion of'Kivumu l:ourgmestre.t')1 'l he witnr:ss also lcstili*ri that irr the gurrelel clcclii:n Nclahimana \r'iln 19 votes. ancl his MRlrlD opponent got 15 votcs."" and that Nthlrirnlna received vt{es from nrernbers of rhe MRND as lvelJ as nrembers of tlre I'l..ltt:a Fle a<Ided th{ir the MI].ND supporters rvho voted lbl Ndahimana in the election far lsonrgrnestrt \.v,lre no! those MliNIl supportcrs-rvith whum he had to rvork in lhe communal of'fir:e but prcvicled no detail tL) suppot th;s nssertion.''-' IIc did not nilme a silrgle member ol the *'IRND ivhtr voted f"or Ndahinl{rna or ari}'otrl those rvho later refirsed to rvork rvith him apait f'roni IPJ Ka3,isliema. Ifthe bailol was secret. it rvas not elear holv lte knerv that Nilahimana hatl received any' MRND support. Allhough ths rvitness rvas originally from Kivrunu tommt*w, the foundation

for his knorvlcdgs about the general electior in Kivrnnu and MNRD polirics rvas not aleaf. 155. lteferring ao ivlRND obstruction of Ndahirnana's rvork, Witness Nkiri,vehe stated "l can give yau an example" and theu rvent on to sa;. that the MRND schocl inspector elsured that sorne teaclrers '1'lid not listen to lvhat the bortrgmestre had to say at ail" an{l that tho same lvas true lirr lP.l Kayishe ra. l":le added that" I can gire "vuu ln$lr\ othcr eranrples,"le?6 bur went txr 1o prr:vide an abstract exanrple mther than a cor)ur!-te ouc.'""Alrhuugh the u,itness could ;lovirle no spccific exatnple of the negative rclationship he believed existed bctr.veen rr-dahimana and his associates and subordinates rvho n'ere mc'tnbers of the h,1RND" the r.vituess could remember tliat Ndahinrana had bem elecLecl three times as presidenl during secondary school,re?8 llis seiective merntry ft:r dctail is troubling.

156. I luither observe thet the witness testifiecl that r.vhen he visited Ndahimana in late Mav 1994, Ndahintans rold hirn that he lvas ovenvhelmed and that lie $,as heing sabotaged by "peq:rc rvho had gludge against him."re:e and lhus it would appear that Ndahirnana l.rimseli'was a1 least oge source oi'the r.vitness' infonnation. 157' Finally, I ant distutbed by the rvitness' contention that ths lnteriul Governrnenr it Gitarama r.vas overrvhelinedby the Inrerahtlmve, and can only conclude that Nkiril.ehe's political rer8'I. 22 Februun 2011 o. 27. l o r o - T. ll l--c['r'uar_r :U] I n, -l:. r'q:o T. 22 Februall, 20 L I o. 4. | , l ; r c n r L l a f l l u t j n . I L re2: 1 . ?? I'etr: uar: 2011 pp. l0- l t, I3-la. ,,.. I 11 l."l'*,,':r)llnp lr,-ll. , ,.. .1, 11 l"l'"''l :lll I P :: r . ii r'eDrilai) lu I I 1l. lb. 'e?6 T. :: Februaft 20l I p. li. '"' T 22 Fcbluarl 20 Ll p. 17: "S3) the bourgmeshr tells the tPJ tc hardle thil tilc, Lrr to intcn enc in this lrtartcr, or.[.) io<)k into thir titltiltiott !!hele the population Js facing some iiifllcultics. aod tLre lPJ... doiisn't \ranr h., {lo lbis bFen se the IP.l was like a police cotnniissioret lralher than a civili,u policernanJ...1.{rl instiirce, if thero was a moior arcidcj]t, or if lherr: \ras a case of pcople u'bo had fought in this secteur. i1 \\'as the place of a policeman to go thcre. And i1'th. liourt:mesbe has been told. 'There hrd bcen soue fighring Ju this se.teu!', ard if he dlls 1he IpJ to go thcfe an,.l lodk at thc matlcr hut he duc:tr'L gr'. thrt s alread) a f'r.rb{cnr. ' '" T. 1l Frl'nir; lOt I p. 8. ttrn T" 22 February 20 t I p. 22. l he llrosecrl{}r |. Nd.}hinitkd, Case No. I C lll-01-6S- l' x.1'1 ! 274

Page 238

.lutlgenrcnt uxdSeatcnce i0 ttr'A\:lil analysis was designerl to minimise the responsibilily ol'atl authorilies iu rhe t994 genocidE1 this vein, the rvitness also testified that Nd*iiirnana's authorit)' iu i'[ered i]r pa because there had {reen no fornlal handover ceremony aller his eleclion.l')il' He did not elaboratc on Llris theme. and I canlrol accept as tru€ that Nd:rhimana's authority lvas significantly diminished clue to the lack ofan offioial handover ceremony.

158. On these crinsiderations taken trogether. I conclude that th;s witllcss rvas neither credible nor reliable. 8.3.1 .5 De.ftnce lf itness NDl{ I i9. Witnsss ND2,1 testified that iroth fPJ Kavishe nia and a certain CacabLtterezi" thc president c{'the local coult, rvere lnore resocoled than Ndahimura in Kivurzttt cunrnune .

160. The. Clramber has heard evidenci] abour thc participation il the climes of a ccrtain I'labiyambere who r'vitnesscs said rvas lhe president of the local court, rt'j: but has heard little evidence about Gacabuterezi, an individual the rvitness claimcrl was more porvcrfll than thc bowrpptestre. Mole generalll', althcugh the evidence cleally indioates tlrat IPJ l(ayishcnla activel,y participaled in the crimcs committcd at Nlange parish" the rvitness appears to have bascd his conclusion that he and Gacabulcrezi were Lhe rnosl porver"tiri individuals in Kivumu, and that ihel' alone rvere responsihle fbr thc crimes committed at Nyange parisli, on rhc fbct that l(ay.'ishei;ra supervisecl the roadblock manned by the rvitness ard thal he led attackels i N].'ange rx 15 :\pril lgg4.r eir l6l. ,l,,hare previousJl expressed reservations aboul Witness rr-D24's credibility and rcliabiliti.''" I turthtr believc thal he was not in a posilion to assess Ndahimana's r/e.f;rrr aurhoritl', and thus accoril lifile weight to his er.idence cn this issue. 8.3.1.6 Defbnce lltitnes"y Nf)23 162. Defbnce Witness ND2J rvas a t'onsailler dt recleur in Kivumu conmune in April lg?4.re:rs 'Ihe rvitness rvas originally a member of thc ir4RND, but at an uuspecified tirne in 199,tr resigrned liun rhe N1RND.re:ri ln April 199.1, he did not belong ro a political part1...ie:i7 63. The rvimess temained in his

pcsition until July 1994, and although he rvas elected b,v mettlbers of tlre population, he remained answerable to, and under the authoriry of, lhe bourgmtstre throtrghout fhat periot1.re38 ".. [!he bourgnrcstre... initialcd dccisions and those tiecisions rvire senr to us." The cornmunal coLurcil met tr.vice a rveek and rvas "briefbtl on horv the comlrune had to be ' ' ' ( [ . 2 2 t . b r r , r r ' r 2 ( ' n p . l 5 . I n - t ? . '"'' T. 2t l:cbru.rr"r l(ll I rro.lj_1.1. r!3'? Witress ('DL; T. I I Niovernber 2il I0 pp. 69-70; .& ilness KR:t: l'. 2.1 JaruirT 201 I p. 75 (tCS); W itne ss CBR: l . I Novembet ?(l10. p.

10. The P.osc$ition .eters ao Hahi)'rllnbcre asthe Presiilent oi the Lantr:rr*l (bud ir,l pafa. IIof thc ln{ii.:tm€nl. I itt,tt not cenuir this i$ ac.lra1e as lhl}lc $cie 1,lo {arton! in llr'lenda:rt lhc tinis. ' ' " I l t l . h r . r r r . , l o | | n f ? l - : . 1 . - r l "* Diss.nr. tl]r'a llrl. ''"T 1{)AnrilltjlLpp.-11--12(lcs).47:DcfcnreExhibirt2:l(I,ersonal tden,iticaaior shoer). " I 19.A,pril :r)t I n. iq " : l . l , J \ n r i l 2 0 t I n i l { l C \ r : I t e \ p r i t l r ' | | f p . l J . i , , . '"" T. 1a +.prii:0ll tit -il- or). 'lhe ['nsecutory Ndahinqru, Case NfJ. tCTIt-O1-611-T 238 t 211

Page 239

,/ dge Eul t! d 'Senllnk 30 De\e ber 2t)l I 3 lCI<> run."r'io T"lre aclurinistrative machinery of llte t'onmtutzc rvas liurctioning in ttre pe.it i-dtnnleeYthl death of Fresidcnt }labyarimana and .luly 1994.1!'tr 1611. This rvitness' testimony tends to suppod the Prosecution's vierv of Ndahinriina's ,r' ficto authorit,"- radrel than that ofthe Def'ence. Given the rvitness' position. I Lrelieve he rvas rvell placed to discuss Ndahinrana's delcclo authcrtity, and conc,lude that the witness rvas reliable on this particular evidence. 8.3.1 .7 Defettce 14 itness {.'l(.nteut Ktrvi,tlwma t h ) - Witness Climent Kayishema testifiecl that once violence broke out in April 199;{ in Kivnmu, Ndahimana laohed any'eflbc.tive control over ltis c:ommune beoause of tire overrvhehning numbel rrf people cornmitting violence in the street.leal I recall my finding above that Ka"vishenta uas not a elediblc rr irness.rui: 8.3"1 "8 Defence l['itnes,y Emeritu h4rmsv 166. It lras Wilness Fimerita Munsy's cvidence that she heard lrom "people" rvhose names she coulcl uot remember. because "the.v r.veren'i people that I kuerv," that on an r.rnspecified Care "Ndahinrar:a's mini support tean had proposed thal they shorrld gr'r and search his hrxrse becaus* he rvas being suspected oi hidiug Tutsis." The rvitness concluded that if Ndahinlana"s assuciates u,ere seeking to search Ndahimana^s lrouse, it

rva^s hecausc ''[Ndahima*a'sJ behaviour rvas not consistent rvith rvhat thcse peoplc rvere eloing at the time."lea:) 167. 'l-lre ,,vilness furlher recalle.i that on an unspecified ocsasion. she, heard Ndahimana complain tbat the pldfer of Kibul,e hael either acted in bad t'a ith or was tota ll5, "unconscious." because rvhen Ndahirnarra harl asked the pftJbt to send hirn gent tnnes to protoct Kivumu, the prilit hld Senl oltlr l',sur yendunnes. NdaIilttana-*us attn6rcd b,r thc prifi't'.t r(dctiolr tnd rallr'J hirn nirnrcs.'"* Although the r.r.ilness denicd it- '"" hcr cr idcncc indicared thrt :,hc rnrl her husLranti. ,lean-N{arie Vianney Nzapfbkamunsi" a lieutenant clrlonel in lhe gendurmerie, rvqre close fiignds of the accused aud a nuurber of alibi witnesses. Il]deed. Ndah]mana staved a1 their housc on the nisht thcy heard of President l lab.,,ariurana's death.iea6 This rvitness' tcrtirn,,n-r eb,rut Ndahimarrl's character and aulhority at the timc of lhc cvents at issue was vague, and alrhoLrgh she could noi name 1be persons who she said had spr:kcn pr:sitively abor.ri Ndahimana during this p*riod or sa.v rvheu the conversalion abolrt the /#&r had taken place, shrl did remember that ofi the night o1'6-? April i99;1, Ntlahinrana slept in her cr'\i'tidot nc\t ttr hct daughter's godfuther, altJrough he rvas o*e of 40 guests wtro spent thal night a1 her hom.".'"t' lvlure

gen!,rally, I tllt at the lime that she trstified tliat Wilnessi N'lt;nsy's inlerest in appearing belirre the court was to exonerate ber husband and rhose '"'o 1 19 April 201 1 p. 61. r'r' I. l9.{pril 2r)tl pp. +o-.17. '*' T. ll A,prij :ull F!\ rh'18. r""2 llisscnt- pari:-r. a,o-r:1. rerr ']-. 1g Fetluz.ry 2{}ll oD. l?-1g. ''u T :6 I-.tr'u".i 2ol I pp. 1.1. t9. ' " L 28 Febrrra|r 201I DD. t6-+7. ' ' t . lx l'"1,r,'r., l0l I ;.i, l- i 7 t. rt. ''" I.:l Fct'fuiu) lrll I 1.. ?J. The Prote.lttot'\'. N.tthi lentt, Clle hl('. lCTt{-01-68-T 239 t 2i4

Page 240

Jwl4er ern and Se letrce associated ivith him, inclLrtling Ndahinana, lrom any allcgatirrns agai,i.l thcrn.lolt atlach undue lveight to lrer evidence. 8.3.2 Clonqlusion on Defence Evidence on Ndahiln:ina's -Da Frr;trl AuthoritJ 168. On the basis of the evidence adduced bv the Deibnce. I l'ind its argument lhal Ndahirnana had little ar n<t de ficto autholity as btxtrgmestre fo be unpersuasive. That saiti. Ndalrimana can only be held liable tbr his acts and omissians as bourgtne ,:;tre, if the Prosecution has proven thai Ndahinrana enjol.ed both de faato as r.vell as rJe.Trrc authorif in this position. 8.3. j Inclicia of Ndahim;rna's l}: Fr:clo Authority 8.3.3 "l Inlroduction 169. As discussed above" I camlot accent the Dei'ence evidence that due to a t{ilure of poiitical colrabitatiori in Kivumu o)mmtrne, the bow'gtnestre had iro aurhoriq or iniluenee over snJ- official rvho did lot belong to the MDt{. I note that no Prosecution rvitness testjlled crplicitl3.. on the relations between Ndahimana arxl tliose persons over r.vhom he is alleged to have hatl auth,)rirv or inlluence. I have thercftrre revierved circLunstanlial evidence I considcl rclevant in assessing Ntlahiniana's dc fucto aulhority in the co* rtune. 8.1.'f AutfsqgOyg1lhgflurrnul]ll P.clice 170. I recall that I have fbund that Ndahilnana had direcl tJe iure authtritv ovei the communal policc.rore '171. Witness rvD34

testified that on 9 April 1994. a grcup of llLrtu assailants atr:tcLcd a Tutsi nanretl l\4artin Karekezi.leir'On a Suntlay at afpr.o.rirnatell, 8 a.m.,'utr lire rritnesr surr-Ndahimana afrive at the Kareltezi hone in the colnpany ot lwo ccrmmunal policenren. one of*hom was nanred Leonard Kibyutsa. Ndahimana asked persons r.vho hatl gathered at the sceue atlout the killings. anLl rhey provided the names of suspects in the Karekezi killing.r'r! This cviilence suggesrs {hat Ndahiniana had authoritl'over the colllmunal pollce on !) April 1994.

172. According to Witness ND5, between 8 and l0 p.m. crr rhe nighr of 9-10 April 199"tr" afiackers in lhe witness' cetlule kllled au old man nameri Thomas lulrre ndc-zi.r'01 [hc nc..r cla1." rxr l0 April. the rvitness and tive others were anested by policeuren named ;\dr.ien Niy'iregeka. alias Mahal'anu. and 'Ic<ldsphore N4un-vantaraura in connection rvith thc killing. During thc arrest. Niyitegeka told the lvirness that he had been direcfed b1--' N<Jahimanii to affest rhe suspecis inclutjirrg the rvitness.leia This evidence irtlicates dret the c,.,ririnurrul llolice, inclu<ling r\drien Ni_vilegeka rvhc plal'ed a promitrc-nl role in the attack of 15 April 1994, abirled try Ndahirnana"s directir.es on l0 April I994. '-t'l . :E F.l'ru.,r; l0l I 1T. 16. 11-q2. '" " Drsscrrt. pJr]s. l:1. l:7. 't5! T. i 7 Fcb&ary 3{}l I p. 6:i. '"' I i f-er that this lvas Sundar l0Alfil 1994. ''''I. l7 Febrlary 20l l p.6"3. '"' l'. 26.i"lrua.! 201 I p. 50. r"5{ i . 26 J:rnuar';' :{)11 pp. si}-5.1. The Prosecufory. Ndahitrana, Clase No. ICTRJII-6lt-T q, z'ta t 2'1't

Page 241

tollcther t.r arrest all individual accuscd of haring killcd a Tutsi civilian in the days immediatei,v fbllorvirrg the death of Pr"esiclent [ [abr.,rrinr ana.r"rt This rvrs cornrborated [r"v Witness ND34.les5 'l his evidence undeunines Witncss KR3's o$r1 tesiimon], and that o1'othcr Defbnce wiLnesses, that Ndahimana and IPJ Kayishcma'werc working a1 cross-purposes in ApLil 1994.

174. Witness ND4 testif}jd that on i: April 1994, a grorip of llutu assailants atta0ked Tutsi civilians at a lclcation narnetl Muryamanihula llills. Ndahiurana seut police oilicer Niyitegclia, aka Vlaharamu. to the scene. Niyitegeka rlispersed the attackers by shooting ons assailant in the leg.r"'- The evidcnce that the attackers in this incident r.vere dispersed by Niyitege,ka r.vas corroborated by Witness ND5.rei3 Again. this evidence indicat*s that Nciahimana rv*s dirccting the arlivi{ies ${ th$ communal police, afid in panicular, Adrien Niyitegeka. on l2 April 1994.

175. The Defente atlduced eviclence that those suspcL:ts Ndahirnaua had arrestecl ir'] connecliort rvith thc kiliing of Tutsis or 9 and l0 April i994 r.vere snbsequently leleased by IPJ Ka1 islrerna.'"'" Witrress NDi testilied that lrom 15 April "[Fulgence] l{a;-ishcma r.vielded more porver than Ndahimana"lq6\) but the rvitness prervided no fbunclation fbr his conclusion on this issue. As noted above, hr.rth Witnesscs KR3 and NI)3:l tr:stified that on at lcasr one occasion, firJ Kayishema and Nclahimana arrested th$ suspects together.t"nl Ancl rvhile the cvidcncc in this casc indicates that Kayishenra rvas an earl;., scpporter of thc JflE,le52 withoLlt 'leriflcatirxr of the applicabie crhrinal proccdure at the 1ilnc. I cannot conclude lhal l,ia;,ishcnia released suspects i:l order to further the JCFI- ll may be that the releases lvere consisleltt rvilh the applicable lau."' in place at the time.'out I also nole that Nclahilnana had at least *l€ven communal police olficers uncer his control.'l'here is no evidenoe that the Il).1 enjo,v-ed this tlpe of sirpport. Finaliv, Kayishema and Ndahimana often attende<l rneelings togelher duriug the period Ii-16 April 19!).{.'lhus. on the basis *f this eviclenee alone, I am uot satisfied that IPJ Kaf ishema had lhe desire or abiliiy 10 undefln!nc Ndahirnana. I f'urrher note that Telesphore Ndungutse. a l$adir of these earlv altacks,

wr:n1 unmolested b,v the comrnunal authorities, a d thris J cannot even be certain that l{dahimana had arrested the principal peryelrators ofthese early crirnes. ' " f.:J.lar[rr,. :U ll t\n...1'],ol (l( \/- Prr]\c!uri,,n Fxhihir 5'1. l\. lorl( \, ' " l. i8 Felrnrlr llrlI Fp. 2-l -' f. l7 | -'hru.rry :trl I I'p. -(7-.i8 | I( S). '"' L 16 Janu;Lr' 20 | I D- 5-J r'5! Witness Enrerita Lluriyl T. 28 Februar.y 201 I p. l8; Witness KI{-r: l. f4.tanuar.v ?{ll I pp. T,l-75. '"''r T. l7 Fcb.uan' :itl I rT. 18. '5 l-. 1iJrnuary':011nl.lr).{11i)CS),1)roseculfunExhibit53^p. l6tlcls); l. tSt;ibruar} 20 pp. ?-:j. ''" srr lin e\rnrfllc. r)et'enle \!'itness NDll: r'. 18 Jajruary l0l0 pp. 110--r l. ,lt crruld be the ltth, Ka)ishenr& Gai:alrutelezi and Rushenra- sent a letter ta tlte hircrqltawy,e rdr.lrrissed b a ce(ai, .lean l|{)tco, who {as an hitrahqwve Qf our aree. ,\nd il1 lbat )'iltet lhal !n!.,t6hdnn'e rvas askcti t0 start tlrc liilling ol the Tuts;s in that draa. And he lvas asked to leavc no stonc unlurned. tr.l ntake sur€ that no'fuRis esir.lped." AIso see dvidcnce eliscrissed abrrve (har \JLIrlUt\c lrJnicri,$eJ in eirrl) LilljrrSs If I ursi.i in lrirr,rnu..L,/r,4rrr?1,. "" l:or errmplc, \{ itflcss ND5: l.l(} Jilcuirv 2011pp.50-53: or'! 10.,\pdl, the lr'itrcss lnd flvr: orlers \\,cre arfesrec by police olficels, d.ier Niyitegeka, anel f€l€sphore L,lunyanter?u.r:i irr

,:,onitectioo ,,ritli rhe killing oi an elderl_r, .l.Lrtsi named Thomos {$c'n<lezi thc previous night. Dufing the arrest, Niyitcgeka tdd the witness that hc h:!d b*cn dir.crte.L l') Ndabirnana to afest the $$pects inclLrding thi t.,itness. 1"he nert drl ^ the srrp€cts ntel with rhe ll,J Keyisherta $hLr ir11er\'id\ved i.hem 1br appfoxitnatel)' ,10 miautes, Atier the intery'e*. Ktlishi:rna trld trVirrre:,s NDj and rhc othc. 'uspe\t\ thaL rhcr coulrl !u litlmc rrhil( hc eiJtlFl(.Lcd his irr.c.irili,rLicrrr. The Pyosecutor y Ndqhinarut, Case No. ICTR-01-68-T :, , )7.1.

Page 242

JudgLntent and Sentence 30 l)ecenber )0 | t -. a ncfT 176. \\'itress Nl)2-l rc:lilicd thal ,rn 1"1 ..\pril legJ. \\hcn Ndahirncna ruent #oug-fi''hf I riiadblock mltnrtetl b,v thu rvihtess on his r'yav {o N}/ange parisfi. he lvas accompanied by nvo armerl pt,licc ollicers.'"'r 'l h is suggcst s Ndahimana could direci the comrnunal police on l4 -A pril 1994.

177. Witness ND7 testilied thal on 17 April 1994. after consultins $,ith Seromba" Ndahimana and a nLrnL:cl of cnrnnrnrral police ol'ficers took 27 rvounded 'Iutsis fioni N"v-ange parish io the cornrnunal lrcolth centcr.'"o' \\'itness NDI corrobcrated cvidencr that Nclahirnana broLrght rvounded T'utsis to the health cenrcr thal da1'. He also ensuled drat the cenire ivas protecteri bv communal pulieemcn. Llorrerer'. thrce da1's laler a group ol' assirilants killed the surivors at the health centcr. '''"" \t'itness KR3 cunfirmecl that sulivors rvere takcn to ihe communai heaith cenler. and that the)'rvere later killed there.le6T This eviclence indicates that l',ldahinrana \\as still directing the commtutitl police on l7 April 199,tr. I rvill not speculate aboul Ndilhinana reasorls iol using the communal police to protect Tulsis on l7 April l9!):tr bLlt nor 0n l5 and l6 Apl'il.,\s the killings aL the conururlal health center were not nleadetl in the trndichlleut. I rvill make no {irrther deten-rlinatior s on this issue. I 78. lVitness NDlT tcstified thal on an unspecified dare tbllorving rhe altacks on Ny'ange parish, commltnal police officers. a,s-signed hl Ndahiurana io pr,.rtec't the sisters' convent rvere able to repel assailants on the conveut.'"n" This elidence t(ro il)dicates that Ndahimana was still sble to dilect the activities ofthe oommunal police after the killinss at Nvange.

179. Ilroseoulion Hxhibit j I is a lerter lrom Ndahim:lra demo|inc the brigadirrr of rhe cotnm'onal police, Chrisrophe lvtbakilirehe. to the posilion ofan ortlinary policeman, and appoinling Jean Brtsco Abayisenga as brigadier and Adrien Niyiregeka:rs Abarvisenga's depLrty. lt is no1 in elispure drat this teorganisation oI tJre ctxrmunal police \,va! itnplrmeuted- and I cr;ne:lirde that this reorganisatiott $upllorts the Prosecuiion position that Ndahinrana exerciseal bath cle .irn.e trnd (le Ja.t,) controi over the cotnnunal police as ltaurgmestre. WhRt reulains in dispute is the reasur firr &{bakilirehe's demotirxr. 1 rvill cliscuss this in assessins }Jdahimana's iuteut belorv. l8fl. When Ndungutse thrertelicd to kill Wirrress KR3 llor rel'Lrsing to €ccompanl NdvngrLtse in an ailack on the Ndakubana fami)y on {}r about 8 April 1994. Witness KI{3 toki Ndahimana about the threal against him. Ndahimana responded by asking the new brigadier ol'the conrnlun*l policc. Jean-Bosco Aba)'iseuga, to collfiscatr Ndungutse's gun--which ;{,bayisenga rvas able to _r lat'9 {tu, 8.3.,i Meetingq t8t. lt is not in dispute that Ndahimala ch*iiretl a meeting rln l1 Aplil 1994 to riiscuss securit-v in the arca, and that tonseillert and olher communal leadels participared in ihis mecrrng. F.olltrwirrg tlris rneeting. Ndahimana called the preJdt Io ask thal he assign gentlLtrme,r t6

Kivul*u co,nmzfie, and the pri.fet complied sending filur to Kivumu lhat very day.leTi' No eviclencc has been adducecl suggesting ihat influential members ol- the community clid not it[dnd this nreeiirlg cotrvened by the bourgme'tll?. or tl.lat the decisions laken a1 the nreeiing that clav rvere ror "1 1. : I Febr,,r",, l{il l ln. x. j0- .t9. '"^'L llJanuarr 2011 DLr. i9^11- 'o6i t'. 20.tanuari 2011 pp. ro-l l. ' " f . 2 5 . l a r | l r u r ' ' 2 r , l l f . p . i ( ) - l l r l ( \ . , '-'6 T. .l \! 201 I p. 1J. " " f . : i J n n u . r . . ' : b t t . p ; r t C s r t t n g l i s h ) : ' l ' - 2 j J s n u e r y : 0 1 l p . 8 1 l l C ) ( t , r e n c h ) . ' ' Set rur (\arnplr. \f, lrrc.. \lt?'r: T. i9 April inl I py:. .1v-52. 'l'he I'raser:utor y. Ndahinana. Case No. lC'Tl{-01-68-T 2.t2 i 211

Page 243

.Jud4a.ktetit t tld Senlence 3/t l)ect:ntber ){ll I , 3 o?C implerne nted. 'lb my'mind. this evidcnce indicates that Ndahimrna bL,d dt finlo luth()|if simiiar'kr- tliat oiany other l{}rrrKme,stre on I I April 1994. 182. llqualty significanl, Wilness KR3 testified that on 2tl Aprit 199,1, bour"g ie stle Ndalrimona heltl a meeting of communal rvorkers and unneillcr,t tt: discuss. in/er oliu, thc con{i ct of the brigadier ol'the communal police.JeTr Ir r.rould lirnhcr appear that n'dahirnalrl's tlccisiou !o denotc Mbakilirehe r.vas appxned lr,y ths communal council af this metting.''"- A procedure J'or ilividing prt4:erties behnging to the'l'ursi victims at Nyange rvas also discusseii antl approverl.r"7:j This evidence establishes that wilhin firur days olthe genocicie at Nyange parish. Ndahimana rvas able 1o canduot trusiness as osutl at the communal oflice: he rvas able to get council assent lbr his ciecision to demote N.'lbakilirehe. and a procedure in place for the division 0f lirtsi pt'operies. 8.3.6 Othql-lodicia of /)c ltrcr.r Aulhoritv i83. As disousseci in delail alrove, the evielence estabJishes that rvhen \idahinrana gave direciives or suggestions to the attackers {rn 16 Aprit 1994. those directions rvere implementecl.reTa i 8.1. Witness BXj testificd that on or about ll April 1994. lhe rvitness decided to have her granrlchildlen. liv;ng oulsi.le tbe co$flurc. broughr

to her hcmc in Kivunru. fn order to hare he r grandchilclren pickeil up b,v a Iiiend. tl.ri: lvi1l*ss obtained a /cllsc-'-pc-rser ltom Ndahima:rir. lt rr,as tlre Tvitness' undersranding that intlividuais rnanning loadlrlocks lvr:uld allou, luissez-1tassers holders to pass through roadblotks urr niolc:ted.'" " I'his eridence indicates that Ndahimana harl a critical role iit contlolling the movement clKivumu residents during this prriod.

185. Witn*ss CDL tcstified that rvhen on 14 April 1994. iudividuals mannirg a roadblocli atlempted lo ope^n.the colfin o1'Dr. Ntawuruhunga, Ndahimana intervened and ensured safi: passagc for thc vehicle. lt7l' 186. Wititess ND23 r.las a Kivumu cu mune utnseilley. t-lc testitied that dLrririg-rhe pcliod Aprii to July 1994. he rvas ansr,verable to and under Ndahimant's autlrt'rit],. '" ' ' *...['I]he borrgmtrlre...iaitiated decisions and those decisions \velr sent to fconseillersf."'llhs communal council met trvice a rveek and rvas "brief'ed on how the commune had to be run.'"ilrs tu aelelition. the comnunal cfl'ice lvas linctioning throughoul rltat pcrior.1.le7e Irl7. lu response to a question ahout Ndahimana's authority over rhe communal pr:hce, Witness ND2,l stated thal he did not linow the relationship but aclcled: "all I knor, iu general ierms, is that the btntrgme slt t: r'as in charge of all nf us."le!f' l\l'ituess ND3 also described Ndahinana as rerr 'L 25 ]anuarv 20t i p.26.pf. lB-29ttCS). -'- \triLne\5 (R i. l. :l .lJ .r:rf) 2trl l l. ih i l( qt. ' '-' \\'itl(ss l{R 1: I . : j .}an uif,\ 2() I I pp. 2q--it}, 58 (ICS); l he ma tter ol. l'u tsi proFertie s \\'as .liscusscd jn dctaiL. .tad ii lvas decided ti-nt rnl person ruhn "urrntecLto use land befi-.nging to a i'utsi \ictirn r.vituld Flry rsnt to tlleir local conrei/ler. \\'h0 r,,ould ther ttansffl the nloiev to the ct ntnrune,te'J ",'a [)issent, pdr"s. l(]2_l t)6. re?t 1 . 23 l eb|uar: ?011 pp. 8-9 alcs). i:l-:15. ''" L I:\n\ernher:r)l tp. l-J: l.ld \,^i,rnh|f 2i)t0pn. 10.lq_.<{, ' " T l q A p r i l l t r l t p p . 5 7 . 6 0 . ' '" t. l9 Apri! 201 I rJ. t,l. re?e T , l9 .4;ril t0 ;. 47, 'ei'T.2i Februarl ztit t p.:;0. "fhe llrosecutot r. .tidQhinatu. Case No. f{"}'R-0 i -68-'1' :Jt l7l /lw

Page 244

Jvdgement qnd,Sinknc.t t,,#',K,#t - -'the airthorirv in the commune."r''Y' as rlid \A'itrics: ND5 rvho trstilletl thar rhc frLrit'i.;hilZ Kivumu rcspected Ndahiurana because he rvas a person o{ authorit),. le32 188. It was the view of Wiiness tlBK rhat Alhanase Seromba trad spiLitual authoril-"- cver lht attar:kers at hiyange parish and that Ndahimana had adrninisrrative aulhority over 1Jtem, an<l thet if Seromba and Ndahirnana "had put their heads together" to pr€vent th€ events fiom rakiug place, thel. woLild not have occurred: "Ndahimana and Seromtra colluded 10 bfing abo t rhe destnrction ol the church."193l 189. Witness CRN testifi-ed that the Ndahimana "rvas the supreme leader because he was il':e hot*ntge.stre ai Kivumu tom ume... And everlthing that lvas taking plaoe irs the camtnne fell u der rhr . respurrrsi.b il ity uf the buff'gme,strt because he is the highest or supr.:me authorit_y- at cdrnnrailc teve l_ t90. ,,\ccorcling to Wihess Clll,. one err two r.veeks after the killings at |,ly&nge" Ndahi*rana summotted Kivttmu resiclents and annv resene soldiers. and had rbe reservists iraifi the other' tolti resloclll\ lll cl\ll dete cc. -- 191. I;inally" I consider it signilicant thnt Ndahilnana remai ed in o1-fice until tlirealened by the Rll!' advance in late .lune or earJy .J ul-v 1994 rvhen he llcd to tlie Democralic Rcpublic

o1'1he Congo. 8.3.7 Couclusion"on Ndahimana's De -{bCto .aUlfprrbt 192. On this evidcnce taken together, much of \.vhich *'as provided b.v Delbnce tvitn*sses. tr lind it establislisd rhat Ndahimana had de ,facto authoritf in line r.vith his de jare aLrthority in Aplil 1994. 8.4 Iluress i93" [n its Pre-Defcnce Briet, the Det"ence alleged that Ndahimana rvas a "viclirn of Folitlcal violence"'lvhen he rvorketl in Gisenyi. that MRND militiamen in (iiscnl i suspectcd hinr ,rf bcing an RPF agcnt alier he ttaveled to Abidjal in January 1993, and that he lvas thereafi*r thre8tened by ths Infertlutmx'e and lled to Kivumu in thc rriirldle ol'lhe night."rqs{' lt added that the Delbnce lrouhl adduce evidcnco thal Ndahimana rlas under thrcat ftom the Kihilira Inleruhttuttte and thu$ could not have risked going to N),ange parish on lti April 1994,r"V T'he Malority has fbund rhal "Ndahimana rvas under threat during the period in qnestion"l''ss. end that the "accuseci's participatiln in the killings mav have resulted l'ronr a sense of duress rather than from extretnism or etlinic ltatrcd.'r''n" I resncctlirllr rlisar:ree. rssr T. t7 Febrrary 201 I p. lt. 1"3? 1. . 26 Janugr\ 2o1l $. i7, r'83 T. 4 Nor.eniirer 2itl0 p. 17. '"'a L tj Scptcoil,rr :U J I fp. 5x-i.,. ""' l. 1: Nore,rbcr lnlLl p. 2_; '"'u f're-i)(fcDce lJricl. nJru.

18. L'37 f're-Deience Bliei'. oaLa. 116. lo" .t r.,rgenicnt^ tlr,r. 7tir,. '' *' .luJEemcnt. paru. 8OU. The Pt asecatur v. Nddhimanq, Ca$e No. ICTR-(rl -68-T 244 I 2'7 '1

Page 245

criminal ;rctivit) uni.ier duress but thlt hc \\as nol presenl dl N).!tnge parish on l5 anrl l6 April l9i)4 and did nor oontrihule lolfie crir[cs in an) u'a;'\lhirtsocvur.'"u'lhatsaid. I do nol beliei,e it rvrtu]d be in the 'urterests of,lustice to overlook evidence of duress simply b€cause Detlnce Counsel optecl to pursue another legai strateg,v-. 1q5. \tr/iuicss Nlll t testified that r,vhen he arrived al Ndahimana"s ltousc on thc night of 15 April 11194, Ndahimana asked hinr about ihe siruation at Nyange church because he h*id not been there. Ndahimana also told the r'vilness that he ha.l asked the nrifet tbr assislance "because rlte lnterahrtmv'e has spenl the rvhole tlay pursuing [himl as lve]ij'retl Wit ess Nl]17 teslitled that Ndalrirnana h;id problerns in April I994 because "he ref'used to collaborate rvith the persons rvhr: were killing peo[!e."]'": T.he lvitness Lrelisr ed thar Nc.lahjmana rvas a *targeted persrrn. . . lrecause he was not involved in the business of killing pec1rle," aucl beciruse he hatl arrested "some murdercrs."loei \{ritness ND3,5 tqstified that he leamed lion a Sister Johanna rhat Ndahimana sought rof'uge at the Sisters'&) 1cut on l6 April 19aJ fiorn pursors lvhc rtanted to kiil him nanied Callixte, Iiinrana and Ka."-ishemr.r"' ' \^'ltness Melane Nkiriyehe lestilidd thal Ndahimana lvas s spected of having assoeiatcd rvith the RPF in l993.ieqs

Witness Clfment Ka.lish*ma asserted that when Ndahimana caure to visit him on Ll ;\pril 199:t the lrvo men discussed a number of issues including Ndalrimana's personal "insecurit),.., even bslore hc bcaam* hourgmeJtle. hc had fac*d problems of insecurit"v. "['hose plohlems had led hirn to leave his p$stiug lat the 1ea t-ai.tory l itt 1{ubava"let6 196. As discussed above,'e" unlike the Majoritl.,l''oo I do nct consi<ler Witness ND6 to have been a credible rvitness. I also have serious concems regarding the reliability ot' the remailring evirience thal NrJahimaua rvas under duress during rhe pcriod atr issue as that evidencc u,as hearsay and it was cxcessively' vague. 'l'hose wlio teslilicd that rr-dahimana lv;ts under thr';at at the 1ea factory in Gisen-ri in early 1993, plovided no detail of tlie prr:blem or link rvirh thc allege.i threats againsr him in April 199.1. L4oreovcr, within than six monfhs c{'having rcturn*d 1'r'our Cisenyi tc Kivutnu, Ndahimana rvas elected botu'SrnesttE of Kivr.mru cotlttulte. This suggests that he rvas genetally liked and respected rvithin the {:Lrn's ut1e. In rdiliti*n, it woukl appear lhet rvhile nt Nyange parish on the morning of I 5 April. l'ldahimana made no secret of the ftrct that he planned to attend the funeral cf l)r'. Juvenal Nt*wuruhunga that day. No evidence ivas adduced suggesting that Ntj;riritnan* was harassed while at the funeral.

C)n the contrar!', Defence rvitnesses tesri{icd that Ndahimana tlaveled later that day to KiLlr;.e tor.vn in the contpany of Anicet 'fnunsenge rvhom he had orrll jxst nll't that rntrming, and urescorfed by the communal police or afl)' other arirled individual.'"'" Finalll. Nilahimana spent a gre'at cleal of time in 1be compan,v ot' membels of the joirt crinrinal enterprise from I I through 16 April" miuty ril w'hom were influential ruembers oflhe colnmunil)-, and he coniiuued in his positicln as hourgnestre thrurghout the relevant perlod. I also consider it siglificant that Ndahiurana had at least eleveu comnrurral police ollioers a1 his dispclsal relo lfel'enc* Nolicc of Alibi. Lrlr I. I8 .Tamrarr, 20i I n. 37. 'oe2 1. :i L{a,,- 2tti 1 po. ,l-s ttCsi. ""r'r. 3 N4 y 2ol1 p. 17. rFa l. 3 Nlar' :01 I |1. i8. 'o"t l.22 Frl.,r"u".v iol 1 Do. T-8. 'noo t. t8,tpril ?titt p.6!. '"' I)isscm par::. 69- re'ri .l ud !.ienienl. taras. 702-705. 't! W,iness C-ldrnenr Kalisherna: 1', t8 April 20il p- 62; wjtncss Anicer lunirsrnqer'1. 12 N1ry:{i1l pp.7- li: Witness ND24: T. 2l Febirrarl- 2011 pp. 2a, 36. 'l'he Proseirulot y. lttluhintana, Cdse No. lC'T]R-01-ai8-l' 215 i 214

Page 246

tudE.ntt.nt,ritJ.l(.nt(.n& t,'ly'rffi,z and appcars to haic had a clos.' riorking rclrtiorrship r'titlt rhc prtili"i.ll,us. I llni-fl2rcvlirlift,iv evidencc suggesting that Ndah'rnrana was under duless to be lnpcr:Liasivc. 8,5 Joiul Criminal fnlerprise 8.5.1 t$rqduliq1 197. The Prosscution has allegcd in paragraphs I I and 36 ollthe lndicnnenl that h-dahimrna rvas a member of a joint crirninal enterpr'rse. that ihe purpose ol this enrerprise was tht extermination of Tursis at Nya ge parish. and that Ndahimana is fherefbre' liable tbr the genocide coniniitted al N)'ange palisli, pursuant lo Article 6 ( t) ol"the StatuLc. It)8. Tlre Frosecution has proven that ajoint orinrinal enterprise sxisteci in Kivr"itttit cornfiutl{ irr April 1994, and that its pufpose lvas to externlinate the Tutsi population of Kivuutu utmnutp itt q,hole or in part. I rvill lot mal..e a finding on the precise nrembership of the JCll, but conclude tliar its core members included: Athanase Serornba" the N-vange parish priest. Gaspard Kanyarukiga, an influentiai businessman. T6lesphore Trldungutsc, a local teacher and Vice-Clhairman ofthe Kivumu c{} finune L{li.ND, and lulgence Ka.vishema. the Kivrlmu lirspeclor o1'the Juiiicial Policc. 'lliete may have been personality clashcs or taclional disputes rvithin the enlerprise but wliat is relevanl is thal the membefs rvere able tri rvork togelher Lo achieve a

comriron goal, which was the genocide o1' Kivumu's l'Lrtsi polrLrlation. 8.5.1 N"d.dtuiala-:-1nistri 199. The lr4ajoriq has held that it cannot "conclude that thc only reasonable inlbrence rvhich can be dralvn from ihe evidencc is lhat the accuscd possess*d genocidal intent.":t'0('I respectl'ull,v disagree. At the outsst I observe that had Ndahimana displaycil the oppositidn to the plan. ard had as liltle inl'lLlence, as suggestcd by Lhe Defence evidcncc, the othor membem ol'1he .join1 criurinal ellterprise coulci have proceeded to irnplemenL their pJan rvithout him. On Lhe ci:*tnrry, Llie eviclerce establishes that Ndabirnana met regularl.-v r.vith the mernbers ot'thu criminal enterpfise lhroughr,'ut the relev*nt period. bcfore, during, arid inrmediately afrer the killings. 'li.r my minr{ this ladt oonsiitutes primo .fhcie evidenoe that he acc:epted tl'le plan. and that his p*rticipation in the enterprise rvas valuable. and possibly essential. 20t). l{orvever, I cannot rely on prina.facie evidencc alonc and recall that I bclicvc tliat tlc Froseeution has estalrlished beyond reasonable derubt that bl. some tiare on l4 April I99"{" if no1 beibrc, Ndahimana sharecl the intent of his co-perpetLators.2o0r l-lere I u,ould simpl,v like to add that the iact that Ndahimana did not assign any of the conmunal police oflicers under his authorit-v to tein lirrce the gewlorntes at the parish, despite the threats I am certain he was .rware of, suppons u.ly linding that he did not wish to see tlie fefugees prolected.

241. Witness KR3 tsstified that at the 1t April 1994 rneeting chaired b1, Ndahimana at the comnrunal ollice, the parlicipants decided that the 'I'utsi relugees at thc church rv.lre to be givcu {bod rvhich rvas initiallv tlestined for the sludents of Ntambr.vc sccondar-v- school. and that the {bod stored at the nLrtrjtional center and at thc presb),tery w.as also to be clistributed lo the rel'uge es.:''{': l'he atnmune w*uld prcvidc transportat;on lirr the {bod. specilicalll,, Witness (.lDZ's vehicle and i:r 2Dtr' J u,:lge nrent. pela.8i6" '""' Disseni, para. 5!. ''" 1'- 2l.Ianuary 201I p.

61. Th€ Pro5ecri$t. iitlahitnarza, Czrse No. ICTR-o1-68-T 246 | 274 ,t

Page 247

Ju.lge%e,lt .tnC Seate\cat Ju D*J'.;!.et 201 | z,o4 biue Daihatsu beh:nging tc Antoine lrvagirayezu. 'i'he trvo lellicl!'s \rerc r., be utfJ \ r:h! lsaur+'nteslre ti:: lransporf the iood and crsure secuLilJ,.2rr{): I{orvever, f}rosecutiolt Witness CHS testified that lvhile at the church. the rel'ugees rcoeive<i no lix.rcl to eal.ln"+ Inllecd, pr(cnunt \voffien and cltildren irt the church begau dying of hunger on 13 April 199.1.''"' -l hi\ etidence w*s coroborated h;r lVitnesses CNJ, YALj. CD.l and CBI u,ho all testified that the relirgees neler receiveri any lirod fiom the authorities.:!06 Given" t{dahimana's numerous trips to the p4risll prior to tlre anacks he sltoultl have known that the refugees rverc d-ving of stan ation. I consider his thilurc tc ilnplemenL the decisions taksn at the meeting of 1 I April 199.1 rvith respect tc lbod lbr the refirgees to be a lirfiher indication of his intent during the perioii alicr thar meeting.

202. On the aiiernoon cf l6 Anril 1994. Ndahimana and other mernb,ers olthe JCE celebrated the successtul implementation ofthe crimiual plan at the presbytery. ri point rvhich I believe ftrther illustrates that Ndahimana shared the intent ofhis co-perpetraloff. 20J" Ott 20 April 1994, bou'gnteshe Ndahimana helcl a meeting ,.,f cum m unal.rvorl ers and cortseillers to dilcuss" inter alia, the con.luol ollthe brigaclier of the ucrnnruniil policc.-""" ,\ \(cond item on the ageneia related to thc prop€rties belonging tc "['utsis.'l'his issue was eliscLrssed irr detaii. and it *'as decided that any pefson who *'ished to use l:uel beJungiug to a futsi r icLitn uouitl pa1' lerit to their local conseiller rvho rvouid then trust'el the monel tu lhr,- corirlririre.iu"o The' tirct tlral Ndahimana and his associates chose to address the division nf Tutsi propefiies rarhe[ tkarl punishment ofthose responsible lor the lJllings at Nyange parish brttressss ml e,r,rnclusiru belolv that irldahimana shared the intent of his co{erpetrabrs lvithin the joint criminal enrerpli.r* througbout the fsievant period.

244. Proseculioti Exhihit 51 is a lettet ftorn Ndahimana demoting ihe brigadier of rhe cotnmunal police, Christophe &{bakilirehe. to the positiol} ofan orrlinary polictnran. and appointing Jean Bosco .,\tra_visenga as brigadier irnd Adrien Niyitegeka as Abayisenga's deputy. 'l'he letrer itself does not explain lhe reasons fol the demotiou, but ral"ers to prior rvarnings issued tc' Mbakilirelie dating back to 1988, meaning bcfbre Ndahimana becanre bourgme:;tre . Witrress KR.] testitied that lv{bakiiirehe rvas demoted heeause "he did not conduct hirlself properlv [cluri;rg tne troublesi. l-le i.vas the police brigadier, Instead of calling on tbe police olficers to restore older. he <1id something else" and that led to thc dclerioration of securil_v.'':t'{") wilness Nl)l:l pr.oriidcei heamay evidence slrggesting that N{bakilirehe sjded rvith tlic atrackefs during the 15 April attack.:t'rt' Witness Climent Ka-vishema, who as priJit r.vas in{brnied cf the clianges in the comnu.rnal police . couhl on!1 sa;'rhrt 1\{hakilirehe had bcen derrrotcd rlLre to "dysl'unctioring" in thc connLrniil p.rlice.t"" l)roseeqtitin Witness CDI-" on rhe cther hand, testifieri that Mb;rkilirehe nas demolc(r "l'or not liaving treen very active duriirg lhe attagks. . . fand ] bec,ause he rlas being aoc.userJ ol" haring refused 1o p|ovide the policemen rvith enouglr ammimition during the art.acks of

Friclay. zoti T. :4lanuar-" 2tit I p. 64. 2'oa'f- 6 Septomier 2tll0 p. 16. rloj l-.6 Septemlle.l0l0 p. 16. "'"'\lritnoss YAU: f. 15 Seprember20t0 p..16; wirness cl]Ii 't. 1.1 s€premher 20l0 p.3. I'. I5 septerntrer 2010. p.46: \\'j_tr)eii ('[)J 1". llNo\.'nhcf]0lirl'.4i]; Wifiess llNJ: 'I. 4 Nol,ember 2{i l$ p. 70. '"" L lj J;rnrran :tII p. li,. np-:8-2qilC\J. . ' l . : i J a n u , r r ) 2 0 | I p l . : t - 1 0 - j 8 ( I ( S ) . '""' [. ]l lanr.utr -*1,1I t\. ;h tlt-S]. See also lirench transdipt :4.l{nuary'?r)l I p. 84 (H()] rrhicl q)|eari te be rrr1.e aucurale: "aelui-ti s'est mal oomporta' pctdant )es tlaubles. ll itait bfigadicf clc la policc cg:nrnuralc, arr ljrLi \l'rrrdunnrr.iJc\policier>Llrssur'<rlac(ir'r.||itc. lj l t:il r lrc.l]u:r-.. - " " T. 17 Janurrr 201L pp. {-7. " " l . l t { A t r i l : 0 f . l 0 1 . l ' / , \ f r i l t 0 t t t ) . -''- T. ll Nol enrhcr :0 'ii F. l:. 'I he l)rosecutot v- Ndcrhiaratn, {-'ase No. l{l lR.a.ll -68- t 2.t1 ., :7 J

Page 248

the cliurch nnd rvhen Mbakilirehe ts rvell as ttyrJ tomwunal polioetnen refused this order. Ndahimarta asked thcm to tum over their guns.20il I have signiliean[ cutrrcrns lrbout \\'itnrss Cl)I.'s reliability and am therefore unwilling to rel;, cxr his evidence unless con'ot')oratod. As cliscussed *lrove. I find Wituesses KR3 and Nt]24 equall_v-, if nol morc, unreliable. I hnve {ewer coneems about Witness CNJ's reliability but iitn unwilling to malie a lindiiig on l{baliilirehe's rolo i* rhe atfacks on th? basis of his evidencc counled with th"rt of Wilness CDt- alone.

205. It is ni:tt in dispLrle, horvever, that Ndahimana ieplacecl lv{lrakilirehe rvi{h pcrlice ol'licers Jean Ilosctl Alrayisenga and Adrien Ni-vilegeka. lYinresses cl]l- anli CN.r iroih !c!riiieJ !ha( Abalrscr8a a.rirl)l] p,niiciraF{l in lhe kir,rs5 o,, 1s epril r,l+.2014 Witnesses CBT. CBY. CBS an<J CBN tesxilied that Niyitageka plaJ'ed a partie:ularl"v active role in ihis attack.?'lr Given that Nd*himana repiaced lr4bakilirihe tvith nr',: other police otlicers r.vlrn participated in the aitack, I am satisfied that rvhate\,cr his reasrxrs fix' dernoting Nlbakilirelie" Nclahimana did not punish hini for having participated in the attacks al N1ange parish.

246. I resali that ithen '16lesphore Ndungutse threatened Wifne$s Kll-1, Ndahirnana \vas eble to have Ndungutse disarmed. Thus I conclude that rryheu Ndalrimana wa ted to talie action agalnst high-level perpetrators, such as Ndungutse, he was able to do so. I rvill discuss Ndahimau*'s iiabiiiry for his ontissit.rns as bourgmestre belorv, but ar this.junolure rvish to en4rlimise that tlle f'rct that Ndahilnana took noue of the reasonable md necessar;- mrasures rvithin his authdrjt\.,to punish the pcrpetfators cf tltc l<illings at Nyange parish, is * criticai point rvhich reirrfbrces nv conclusioi: that he shated ttrle intent cf his c*perpetrators, {;iven Ndahimana's pafiicipa1io11 ill nrmerous meetings rvith rnembers of thc JCE and his active pa$icipet;on in the massasre of l6;\p|il 1994, I find Witrress KR3"s suggestion -lhet n() punitive mersurss wcrc lakcn bccause Ndahimana tlid no1 kn('\\ $ ho lhL'ncrpctrat(,rS \\erciurb ro b..' JcririJ of lrrerit. 2{7. [n oonclusion. had Ndahimana onll' participated in meetings with individuals sucli as Auasthase Sefomba and the gerulwnrcs at Nyange parish prior lo the genocide that rool, place on l5 and 16 April 1994. I ivoLrld agree rvith the h4ajorit--- that a reasonable infbrence could be thirl Ndahimana's intont and participation rvere benign.20rt I{r:rvever, given his part;oipation in llrtlrerous meetings wilh orher mcnrbcrs o1'the

JCli throughollt the pr-riod ol'13-16 Aprii, logether ivilh the rither cilcumstanlial evidenoe relevan! to the asse$slnent ol'Ndahimana's mewt rea. | l\ncl lhat tl.re Proseculion has proven treyond reasonablc doi"tbt that h).an urkrrown time orr i.4 April i99,1 Ndaliimana shared the intent of his ccpeqretrators to destroy iu Fart or in rvhole ihe 'liltsi community of KivM:rlu conlnu.tne " 8.5.i@ 8.5.3. tr .4t t iye As s is tant e 208. Turning to Ntlahiurana's contribution to the JCll, I reeall ihat a:, bourgntsrrc. Ndahimana lvas fhe highest-ranking politicai authority iir*ed ro the killings at N"v-ange parish. I :t'rr T. 'l Noveml,er:010 !rp. 5l-j-l: 1he police olficer Adrien Ni!'ilcgeka nicko,we lvlah.lfanlu, tir.cd at tfic churl,b tovcr, One ol the lutt prlice oliicers u.ht, *tle disarsted *,as named tjicadi. "'*Witress CDL: l. 12 Noi,ernbclr 2010 pp. ?-9; Virness CNJ: '1. 4 Novenrb(r 20lt) pp. Jl. 5_1. tt"'' Wi.nes, CBY: T. 9 Novcmbcr 20lti pp. 53-Ja" T. l0 Novembet 2010. pp. !1, J0,32 1l{iS): Wirnqss CIJS; T. 1;i Seplrnrhcr l0l0I {0: \\'irnrss CBN: l. ll Srttcnrl)<r lUlri 1111. :2-l_t r " o T 2 5 . 1 . 1 r ' r L u f \ : 0 i l o . l , l r t ( S i . 2t'? Judgement, iara, *:ii. 'I'he Prose<:utor t. Nththintano, Crsc No, lC'Ill-01-b*-[ 2.llJ I :74

Page 249

,lu.f,lakleftr and Se tence Jtj l.)&elf!er :n li, < ^'c-'t have lbunrl thal lre had subshnrial de.iure an , tit.ftLcto a[thorit] in lhe ronaran<,. While IdrmX b€l certain that his panicipation in the JCFI r.vas a slne rlua tron for lhc genocide cr:mmitled at Nyange parish. I anr nonetheless satisfieil that hild he used ftis full auihorily to impede the work oi the Jtlt:r. the JCIE rvor-rlrt have suftered a sett-rack. 8"5.3.1.3 f lanning 2A9. I have tbund that Nclahimana paftioipateci in at least eight meetings r.vilh member"s ol'd;e joint criminal enterprise in lhe period l3-16 April 1994, at lc*st sir r:l'rvhicir ttrok plaoe bef<lre the first rountl of kiliings on 15 April 1994" rurcl at lcast trlo more belbre the ssoond iound of liillings on l6;\pril 1994. On this evidenoe, I arn satisfied that Ndahirnana actively pirfiicipatr:il iu plannirig the killings at Nlange parish. 8.5.J.1 .4 lnstigating 210. I h*ve pleviously l'crund that tin l6 April 1994. Ndahinana both itrstigated and snpenisecl the attackers at N),ange parish. 8.5.3.2 Purticipution of (itrratn! I'<tlirc O.ffittrs in the Atutcks )11. Ndahimana's rcsponsibiliti; tbr the role plax-ed b1, the commrnlal poli.e in the killirtgs caa be erpressed both as liability for onrission and liability for comrnission: Ndabiniana botli tbiled to assign the police under his authr.rrity to protect the refugees at tlre parish alter

tlle aftacks ur lJ or 1.1 Aptil 1 99.{" aud ensured they participated in the attaoks on I 5 and I {r Aprit 1994. 'l'he evi<lence itrdicates that there lvere *t least eleven communal policc erfficers in Kivumu cotllmunc in April 1994. znd, that at least nine panicipated in thc !i.\pril I994 atlauk: Jean llosco Abayisenga: r|rE Adrien Nil,itegeka aka N{rhar,:mu;r''ru Appolinaire lLangira;10:'r At}ranase LlzubukaliholUzabakiriho, aka Cicyare or Gieadi;r'?l Tclc:plrrrre N{ unyantaraura;:022 N;.aniara::i':l I la barLriga::0:1 Makalreli;202i and Ephrerrr.:un \!'itnesscs adr]ed that i:hristophe h{bakllirche rras present at th* parish thal day hut did not dessribe his padicipation,:02'- Witncsses l"lD34 ancl Beatrice lllukrurkusi also lefbrr$d ro a police ollicer named Leonard Kib1.'utsa but not in connection rvilh thc attacks on Nyange parish.2023'Wilness CllS relbrred to Lhc prc$ence o{'a communal poliec ollicer named Aloys Nishirernberc at the parish on 1.4 April.r'r:' Although Wirness CIIY lssti{ied :'i8WimessCBR: f. INo\'embcr2010p.?0;WitncssCNJ:'L4Nolrmbc|l0l{tpp.51,53, t"'o wil,rer* L-Dl-.: T. 12 ND\emto 2tll0 p. !)l Witness LttlR: '1. I \ovcnrbcr':010 p.:0. \{itncss Clllt 1. l4 Septenbcr'2010 p. 40 (French: T. 14 Sepr€nrL.er 2010 F. 4.1); Witn{s-q CDK: T. 8 Novcnber 1010 pp. 32--15, T. 9 \o\etnhir 2rlU pl ll{-lq: \L ilrrcjs ( B | : I 7 Scl'rcrnbrr 2010 pp. J l-J.. ' '"

\l'itnesr eD[-: T. l:No\cnrhcr21]t0p.9;WitrossCBI{: T. I Nevcnlber 2tll0 p.?tl; Witnels Cf]Ti "i . 7 Septcmhn. ?010 pp. 41-"11: W ilness )iD34.: l'. l7 frebruar5' 201 I p. 65. -"' l\ritn€ss CDL: I. 12 Novernber ?010 p. 91 Witness CUI{: l. I Noveryber 2010 l. ?0: Wirness ND3,ir '1 17 Februan. ?01i p.65. 20:? Witness Clili: T. i Novenbcr 2()10 p. 20; Wilnesr (:Ill: 'T. 14Scprcnbcr20t0p.40(lrrrnehl.l{Scplcml--.e.?l)lij p..4J); Wihress CDK: l. 1l N.rvembe.2ill0 pp. 32-35. 1. 9 No'ombc:.2010 pp. llt-19. ''"" Witr€ss aDLr T- l l Npvenber 20i0 1. 9- ra \\'irrr|'i: (. BR: t.lN.rrernber'2trlrr. r, ltt. ?':i Witnes$ Cllllt: -L l No\,cntber:{_)11) p.zal. :@6 Witrresr CDt,: '1. 1! Noremiler 2010 p. 9. to:'\\'ihcss CBI: 1. 14 Septemb.^l' 20lil p. 40 {lirench J. 14 Seprember 2010 p. ,1.1): lvitness (tL}Ii l'. 7 -{cpteml'er ?010 pp. "trtr-42: Witness CllK:'f. 0J Novernber :010 pp. l2-l_i: Witness CNJ: 1.4 r\-ove1nber..2010 ll. 5l-j3: Nibakilirehe rcfuseilNdahirrana's ordcrt0 shoot at rhe rellgees; Witness ND22:'l'.20 April .?ttl I pp..{-6. t''-' l. l7 leh'u,r.1 2011 fn. oj-r,.ll l. 7l,rbrurf.\ lrrt I p..;: '" ' Deirncc E\hihit l- o- J The Prcecutort'. s(lahirnuna. Casc No. ICTII-01-68-T 249 i 214

Page 250

iltdgenent an.l Serie c., 3() Dece4-ber ){)l I aa oR that anothsr partic;oant nam€d l{abalisl *as also a polise office.r. Wihresses CIIR and Cnk{aic; lP rtas a formei militar-r'' ofticer.2t:tt As perpelratcrs in thc. attacks. I strspuu! thc laftct ttr o r,, itltesses rverc better placecl to assess his position. 212. 'Ihe lr4ajcrity has lrelil that "the Prosecution has not established be1-ond reasonable rloubt that Ndahimana harJ the material abilitl, to prevent crimes committed b;- communal police at N,vange church."zo3r I respectfully disagree. Tlre Ivlajority and I both agree that Ndahirnana had z/e jrre authori[. over the courmunal police. and I ccnsider the cvidonce that he also had de Jatto authofit]'over the police to bc couclusive. No evidcnce has been adduced suggesting that Ndahimana ever derrounced the participation of tlrs courmunal police in the afiack. or that he suspendecl or dismissed a piilice oflicrt ibr haling participated in the atacks. Civen these elements taken loeether rvith the evidence above that Ndalrimana did have de Jttctt.t aLrthority ovel' thl: "o*runil police.:(t': I not onl1.'lrelievc thal ]Jdahimana rvas in a posilion to prevcnt ihe crimcs cermtnitted by the l6c*l police *nd did not ctr: so, but am additionally ofthe vierv that he ensi.tred that the commullal polioe rvould pfirticipate in the attacks th,rt lmk_.place on 15 anil l6 April

i995"'i'rr m1'mind. this is rhe cln ly reasonable inference ort the evidenoer.'"" 8 -5.3.3'I\an-wart st i 't't 213. I agrce with the [,tajority thal when Ndahimana arcl Lhc othcr pa1'ticip.:uls in the rrlecling held on I I April 1994 decided to requisition vehicics be longinE; lo rnemhers ol'1he communit,v, thc!' did not necess;rrily interd that the vehioles rvouJd be Lrsed to ferry altackers to N)*nge parjsh. Hor.vever, conclusive evidence has been adcluced that at least one vehiole. beltNiging to Witness CDZ" rvas requisitionetl by Nclahirrana follorving the 1l-,,\pril 199;1 nreeting,?Dla and that lhis veliicle rvas later usecl to f'erry attackors to Nyange parish.'u" I am satislied that this vehicle could not lrave bern used fcr this prrmose rvithout Ndahimana's consont. :14. With r*spect lo the attackers' use o{'the Con.imunal Oflioe's retl 'lkr.yota Ililu:, I not* rhat lle l'ence Witness Charles l{uvurajabo testified that it did not ieave his fatht:r's gariige durirtg tlris peri -,d.:n--" I rr:spetrfulll disagree with rhe lvla-iority's conclusion that Ruvurujat.ro's evitlence r.',:rs reliahlc.l"-' I recall thiit the u itnts: r\as ii'l utsi iarrd thut hc rdrnitl+d har ing gorrc intu hiding 'l rvr:uld sav that it lvas betrveen a week and a week and a half aficr thc bth ot ,\l)l il",/ ' o l he \\'ilncs:; did not provide a tounclation t'or his cenainq, ihat the communrl

vehicle <lid uot leave his {ather's garage duriug rhe pelir:d at issue. More generally, I find the svidence on the communai vehicic r,.r :0ro trVitness CBR: T. I Novernbcr 2010 p. ::: Witnrss CIJR described Kobnlisa as rrn ex-sltdirr but tcstified lhrit he \lorked together rvith ihe communal police on this da,r. Witrcss CDK also Jcsuibcd Kebalisa s a lonner loldiei: I tl Noveniber ?01t1 pp. 5:]-i4: 't . I 0 Nerenrbef 201 li pp. 27. 30-32 {lCS). :crr Judgerncnt. oara. 767. r('r? tlis;eL1t. paras. l7l -180. 2'r3r Witness CBR: T. 2 November 101() pp. 3-i-341 Witiess CDL: t. 1.1 \o! e mber :010 p 14- 15. l l. l !; Witncss Clld: T..r N,'rcml.cr l0l0 tn. lli-lq.:0.2F :('3r Prosecution l:rhibit 5. 20rr Witness CDZ: 'f. I Septrmber 2010 p. 3.1t Witlens CtsRi'1. I Novehbor ?010 pp, J't, ?0. f. 2 Nolember 2{ilt) p- 5.1r Wihesn CIJI{: T. ii NoveqbeL 2{}10 p. 15: \\itners CI}S: l'. 6 Septenrber 201t) p}r. 27-?8i Witness CBT; l-. l \cpi( rnhlf :t, | {) fp. (i:ii]: \tilnci. (-N | : L l0 Nirl cn,hur 2U I U p.,lJ '"" L S febrrrrr' .-'01t nn. )j-.io. _ ' J u d e c m t n L - o r l l 5 l i . 30rE't. t0 F,ebru*iy :011 pp. 2s-29. 3: The f1'osecutor,;. Nddhit ena, Ciise No. ICTt{-fll-68-T 25{) ! 2'1'}

Page 251

,JtdBetn. nt .DlJ Srttt t tc{ 3$ Decenher 201l ,n,-,R9, 88 At'ticle 6.3 of the Statute, the h{ajorit-v- ciles the Appeals Chamber jurisprudcnoc cstablishing that "[e]flective cr:ntrol tnean.s. the marerial ability to prevent the commission of the afTence or to lltnish the princlpal of1'enders,"20aa and tliai "[n]ecessary ancJ reasonable mcasures aro those rl:at can be r" 'Sre for <r,rnr1'lc. luJgcrncrrt pala. .17.1 \rith re-p(ut L\J \!rrnr.ss ( lll -*'' T. 25 lanLL!r'\ 2{}l I l. -rt tJCS). -""'1. l8.lur[n ]0ll ..D. l--1. it't' \\'it,t"r. CN-1, l'.,tl'tovcorbcr 101{, i]. 54: On l5 Aptil 1994 *,hen the comrnunat poljce mn out ot. an'ltnunllruir, "thet had b wait f'or the r|.:hrm of lhe hourgue,\lte because there \ras no *a-y- ot going to look I'or arnllu.nition in the cdt?/r?t ? ot'l'icc". Wiarle ss CBR. T. I Novqnlbc. 2tl l0 p. 2 I : Late ifl the da) on l5 A p.il, Ndullg.rtsc an(l jucliciat policc ilspectcl Kayishema inlbtmed tfie assailants. iucluding ahe r!itness, that they had lrln erut of"equipment" bocause,'t']e stock ofequ\r ent had been Lrcked upbylhc- hollr1nestre andrhe!'wele lrnjtinll I'or thc rettint o]- tl'!c ,{r trgntetit e" to give thc a:sailantir more. sihe scDl-, l. t2 Nol embcI zaJt0 pp, l4-1-{:,{t rp}rro\imatcl},6:l(} p. i). l5April M9.1, the \&itlless sarv r-dalritnano haYiug a disculsiou rvith Kayishenra and Abaliscnga outsicic tfic

co,r.,,r]unai oilicc. Kayishena and Aba)isenga told Ndahinruna dlat the attackefs had lbilcd to kjll the l'urti rel'ugees l.,ccausc ihey haLj run out of ammurlilion ald Ndahiflt$na \\.os not there to disllibure the lecessaq. eqiliprneiit. Nrlshi:nana pr.rrr-riterl1r ptoviie lh(.nl \;rlh tlrs niac\r r) cq iIrncnL th\' ne\l m mini. "''' Witless CDt-: T' l1 Nolembe.2010 p.6?: flre disaance tretlvocn the lomnrulai of i-Lco anii lht cliuuh rvirs alPr'1\itrr.rtel\,.rne kilutncter. '"" J udgeincnl, pald. i-10. TIa PntsecutLtr v. n"dahinqna, Case No. ICTR-01-6$-T be too parenthetical and contradictory to make a clear findjflg.'l'hus. unlilie the \.{ajoritt'" co sidered this issue in assessittg the crudibilitt .lf * ilncsses.2u") 8.5.3.4 /mrwmirion 215. \Vitness KR3 asserted thal both Ndahimana and blieadier Christoohe i\4bakilirehe heid the ke;, to the cornrnunal armoury.ro4o Witness ND 13 beliei.ecl that onl-y the brigadier of the cornrnunal police had a key.:0ar Prosecution Witnesses CDL. CIIR, and CNJ all teslitled that Ndahirnana had a role in the distribution of woapons held at the oommunal ofTice. fbr Lrse Lr) the oomrnufial police.:oa2 Witnesses CBR and CDL r,vero not the lnost credible of thc Prosecutiilu's \.vitnesses, and Witness ND l3 rvas nol a credible Defence rvitness. I a]so note thal the evidcnce ol' Witnesses CltR and CNJ i.vas hearsay. Neve(helcss" I liud that

circumslantial cvidelloc corrobotates the evidence oi'the threc Prosscutiolr rvitnesses. lt is not in dispule that assailants used firearms to ilrtack Nyange church in the late nlr:rning of earlv allernoon 01' 15 ApriJ 1994 anri laler ran out of ammunitiofi. 'l'he evidence also establishes that Christophe Mbakilirehe, the Lrrig;rdier o1' the cctnrmunal polic* was present at the churh tliar cia1, but no el,idenoe rvas rdduccd suggeiling lhat he tlavelled the short distanue flom Nr.lnge parish td the communal office to repleu;sh the lveapons stock of the assailants.-""' Ndahiniana. oir thc othet hancl, was not at the parish whe thg assailan6 ran out of ammunition. artd did llot retnrl to the area until latel that eveniflg. The evidence is eclually conrrlusive that fhe ue)it day. i6 ,,\pril 199{" the a$sailants again anived at Nyange parish equipped with fireanns and ammunition. There is no evidence suggesling rhal anyone but Ndahimana and lt{bakilirehe had keys to the communal wealrolls stock. Thus. f lind that the oniv rea-souairle inflrence is that Ndahimana made ammunition availablc to thc attackers eithef tlpon retuming liom Ru{utgo on the ereuing of 15 April. or in aly event belbrr the artacli began the next day. 8.5..1 Pagicipalg1rft]nrission I t o . In its discussion of Ndahimana's liability for lbiling to prevent and punisil pr.lrsuant to 25 | i 27;t

Page 252

Jwleet ent and S.,fie ce 3tJ Decttmher )0! l ?.OR taken rvithin the comp€tence of'a commander, as evidenceel b,v rhe dcgree ot .-tTectir'.'tffitrrii lil' r'vielded over his su b<-'r'el inetes. "20'r s 2t7 . trn deterrnining rvhelher an individual is culpable for fhiling t,o take ncoessary nnd reasonable measures to prevenl criminal acts or to punish the perpetralors ur,der Arlicle 6.3 of the Statule. the Appeals Chamber in Blaikic held that lvhat oonstitutes a reasonable and necessary nreasure "is not a matter of subsiantive larv but r;f evirlence...":0at' and tltat "n"..r*urynil reasorable measures are such that can be taken lvithin the cofilpetencc of a [superiorl as evidenced b)' the degree of eftective contrul he l,ielded ovcr his subordinatcs. The rneasure of sLrtrmidirrg reports is...applicable'under some qircumstances"'2047 2 i8. Once again I rvould like to stress that I assess the reasonahle and nee.essar-v measrrrs that rvere available to Ndahimana to prevent and pr.rnish ffirne iu 1994 not lbr the purpose oi establishing ,'vlretl,er he was a supeficn rvithin the meaning of A$icle 6 (3) of the Statute, but in order to deterrnine whether his omissions, taken together rvith his acts, resulted in a significant contribulion to the JCE, pursuant to the jurisprudence and Article 6 (1) of thc Statutc" lt is my lic'r that the exisiing jurispnrdence on Article 6 (3) liability

is oi'value in assessing the signilir"'ance of onrissions under Arlicle 6 (l) of the Statule. For example. I do not believe tliat an;- principal perpetralor at Nyange parish apan liom rr*dahinrana and Chlisarphe klbakilirehe, the llrigadier ol the communal police, c0uld be lield liable specilically fbr l"ailing 10 asslgn thc communal polii"e to protecl the refugees at the parish r-rnder cilher Ar"ticles 6 ( l) or 6 (3) ol"thc Slatute.

219. I recall that pu(suant to Article 56 ofthe Adninistrative Larv, a iorrgnie.rtle rvas lrcth the represenlafil,e of the ccnlral a thority itt tlw commuw antl the personil'ication ol'auihority in the t o*,ntrn" "t"'t The communal police was under the sole authoritl of the bourgneslre rvht> used ;t Lo I'ultili his duly ta nraintain and re-cstabiish pr.rblic ordcr *n<l execure lalvs alcl rcgulalions.:('i" A bout'gmeslre also had certain direct larv enforcement porvcrs. For instance, iu emergencies hc couid incarcerate persons lbr up to seven days.20-0 He coultl alsc requisilicn state levcl sec urily' lirrces.:{'i1 On ris basis" I have concluded that the bourgmesrle liad a legal dut]" to ensure law ancl order in his con nune. 'l'his sets Ndahirnana apart fiom other ruembers cf the ioint crinrinal cnterprise such as Seroniba- a priest, and Kanyarukiga. a businessman" lvho marr. have had influence in rlie cotnmunir,"-, antl in Seromba's case a uroral ol religious obligation to protect civilians. but did not have a legal dutl' to do so. 220, 'Ihe hourgmesire was alv' rcsp(,nsihie for c.rcrcising adnrin istr.ative conlroi {rver state agenls assigned Lo lhe contmune.'"" On the evjdcnee jn this case. I liavc sonclirdeci tlial "smle agents" include, inter otin, gendarrues. the lnspecto' clf the Judir)ial ]tolice" ;rnd AssistsnL Isour''gnestres. Civen a bourgntestre'.r responsibility

fcrr lalv ancl order in the comntune coupled rvlth his rtrle as representaxi\.e of the central governmerlt in the toxrrnune.:o51 ernd his aclministrative roij JudgeLnent. para. ?{,5. '?@i Bla;*ic Appeal ,ludgcnlcnl. pal?s.69,72. ,'". tJluikt. Appcnt .11;slg.31a3n1. lcr.r- 7:. S(:c also ltoiillstl ( rllt) .lurig€mert. itard. 2:i4. ''" lros(culion E\hiblt 17- Arriirlr'6t) :iae l'r'osecution Exhibil "17. Aficlc 104 (88'r und l0l{ (9? }: an d Arnenclmc,al of :l Octolxr i 97?. ;lrtii:lc I . : 1' Pr,'securiun t,\lril'ii l?. Anicl( oI 205' See Wilnesr T. 12 Novemt1cr 2()10 p. 2.1. rnd eliriencc rhot ho .]id el'foctivell- rcquiritioil gen.laljtrcs {rLtr tilt pr{.licnre on I t Apfil 19q4. ' . Pr',.:ccrititr l.\Jril)ir "17- .\nicl(. 5:l r I I ). ''' Pr"secrrti.'u | \h;hlt 17. cr|i.l*{'tl 'll1e lrrosecutor r. Ndnhituanq, CBse No. ICTI{-01-68-'f 2s2 i 214 1+

Page 253

Judgenlest r1tld Sen/ence 3{t l.\:cenlltr 2{l I I control over state trgents.ii'5a it is my vierv ll\al n hourg esttz had an obligatitxt ," ,'F- *rF prcfbssitxial misctrnduct and crjnrinal activit). comnlirted by $ta1e agerts lo thrir hierarcirlial superiors in Kigali. Kibu;"e or lv{urambi. lnelc'ed. ll'ail to see how a superior in a slale instituticirr seated outside lhe <:omwurse would learn of lnisconduct or criminal aotivity cDmlnitied b-r a sltbordinate assignecl to Kivu.,tu comnurt. unless it was repofted to him b1. the lndividual responsible fbr lar.v and order in the area cr,rvering the crime site. in this case lbe btna'gnrcsn e . 221. {lonseillers cotn tutrlux rvere elected olficials" ard thus while on the evidelce ol Wilness NI)23:0jt I suspect that the ltourgmtslrc httl a grealer degree <tf d<z.facto authority over thern rhan suggested i:y lhe Arlministr:ative,l,arv" I agr:ee with the lVlajoritl, tliai the Prosecution has not prilven this belond reasonable doubt.'"" That said. ds lhe b()ut'gmestt" was responsiLlls lbr lar and order in his cotnmurc, I believe he lrad a dur.v to re;rort con,ye ilters,.judic ial officials. militia, and cil,ilians alleged to have oommitted crimes to the competent larv enfrxcement alithol'itit:s ttpon receiving groundeel infonnation that such individuals might have participated in grave criminal activi4/ in his *smmur.l am only

satisfied. horvever, that Ndahimana kneu, or had reason to know of tlie participation in the genocide at t*\yange parish of those associales within thc JCE with rvhonr he planned the attacks at N."--angc parish. his subordinates in tl'rc conmunal policc. ancl thc statg agents assigned k.t tlte u;nmune. nrqlning thc ['J. Assistxnt ltturgmestres and gcntluntes, ttil?u ll'hom he rvotded on a rcgular hrsis,'"- I cannot inlbr tlral he had lhc requisile knowletlge rvitil rosipect b inclividual cottseillers" judicial otlicials and inetividual membcrs ol'militia groups, and thus rvill not exanl;ne any legal obligations Ndahimana niiglrt have had to report clirnes commiited by these latrer groups to the 0ompelen! aulhorities. 8.3.4.1 Spe c ili c, Omi s s io ns 222. On l0 April 199,f, Ndaliimana scnt a lcttcr to at lcast ot\e corLtyiller askine him to "preservc secntil3," in the .rerfe r under his authorit)' and "avoid divisi6rrs,":nss and thaithe next day he sent a letter to a colleagLrc vrithin thc Ml)R parrl-,lo cnsule thal MDR mernbers in his area did not stir up ethnio lensions as Ndurrgtitse rrrs ..1.'ing,t"" I eonsider these letters to be part o1'the mininrurn nscessar]' i:nd re*sonable measures thul a brsurgmestre \\ould take when facing elhnic violence in his <:ontttune. 2?3. I llrthel' recall that on 9 anc or l0 April, Ndaliinana had arrcsled a nurnbcr cF persolis rvho rvere

accused ol-having parlicipalcd in the lirst killings ol 'f'Lrtsi civiiians ilt Kivumu u)ntmimr lollorring thc dcath at l'r'csid{.'nr I"lah.arimarrr.r"^'' and ihcr in c:iepalalc incident t,ir l2 April. trc instructed the cotlilnunal police lo repel individuals attackillg I'ctsis civilians, tvhich they did.r0r'i I considef that these acls too demonstralo thal Ndaliimana toc.rk rcirsonablc and necessarl, mcasures lt) addrcss violence in his region in the six days lirllorving thc death o{'the president. 'l'herc is nc 2'jo Plosecution Erhibit 47. Aticlc. 5ll (l l), 2oij'L t9 AFrii 20l l p.61. 2ot6 Jrrclgemsnt Dera. i72, .('tt tnirt" t reipectlulll disagtee \.tilh the Nlajoril!'s iindlngs in paragfaphs 77i1, 7s: irlrd ?91 ot the .l!.lgerirenr. Cottrary tr) the \,laioriry at parigruph 775 of the JlLdgomeltt, I a t net satistird that ^Assi$tant l,rlr3're.i/rer rl.ere cimLnlinaI sta1l] $'iihin lhe rne0oitrg ofthe ,Adnrinistrativd L,ti!v. I consi<1cr it cqually pihrsiLJle that they. i.r,eic ltatc agcnrr assigned to lhe c.r//&rre- :o5r Del'en.'c Erltibit l()l tl]). 2D5e Delencre Exhibit I l0 (Ci. "''' wilness ND34: T. 17 lrcbruary' 20ll pp 6.1-64. T. rB t]ebru,r.r'y z0l i pp. 3, r7l \&iroess NDj: r. ?6 January 20r1 m 50-5 i. i0. j'): \\ itness l.,jtJ; 'l . 25 JarrU.ri\ l0l | ll. lX rl( Sl. '' \\'iurc\\ \Dl: l . l / Frhnrr'_y :r,l l lrl 17. ifi r l( S). The Prosecucr v. NLr.thinaha. Casc N.r, iC'll{-0 t -6ti-T' :-i -] J7i

Page 254

Jrkteetnen{ .tfti1,S.tit nc.: .i() Dttr!1,her 2l)ll <nx {vidence, ho'ivever. that Nrlahimana took an}'neccssary or reasonablc nrr'ilsut'cs t,, pr*r.nf-.o pilisF inter-etlinic crime afrer l2 April 1994" and as discussed above, I am satisfied rhat he continued to rvieid the sarne authoriry'afler t2 April i994 that he did r.r.'hcn he took these constructive mcasures.

221. Accordhrg to Witness KR3. tbllcr.ving the kiilings at N-yange parish. Ndahinrana sent * ntte to ccfl],i?rexe utnseilter.s antl r embers al cellule or:mmittees asking thar thcl ensure tlie secu|itv rf their" citizens arid that 1[1:1 end manhunts against l\rtsis.:!d: Witness Cldmenl Ka,vishema testified that hc t}orrglrt Ndahimana "even wrote reports ol1 the security situation plevailing in his commune.":')iii I cannot credit this evidence, as both these witnesses were pafiicularly unreliablc and could not praduce even a single copy oflhe allelied comtrunic.ltions frr rcp.rd thcil-corrtcnl in an-\' dctri..

225. As discussed above. I am satistied that Ndahimana had etlbctive ccntrol over the cotrmunal police. Yet he did not assign the cournunal police to protect the Firisli o1r 14 April 19!)4 *1ten I aur certain that he rvas awars ofthe plans tbr tho onslaught the next ila;.. Ou the contrary. witnesses bc.rth fbr the Prosecution and the Defence testilied that the conlmunal police took a reai:l role in altackiug the church or l5 April.2q5d 'Ihe evirience that Ndahirnana deLnutcti lrrigatjier blbakilirehe for his palticipation in the attacks is Lrnpersuasive. 'lhere is no cither evidencc that Ndahimana punished ulher comnrunal police oficers rvho took part in Lhe attacks, lndccd. two oi' the o{Ilcers rvho took part in tltc atucks i.vere promoted ineluding one who tcok a leading rolc.:''t;j 726. On t1 April 1994. n\dahirnana requisitioned gandcrnes. As discussed eatlier, I believe it is quite possible that on the day he made the rcq est fre expectc,d that the gend.zrmss wou]d prolecl the Tutsi population. I'Jowever. rvhen they instead opted to join the attaLrkErs on 15 anti 16,4.pri1 i994 ralhef than protcct rhe reiugees" Ndahimana did not chastise them or report their crim*s tc thcir superiors in th* gendarmtrle or tlie pr"6fet" In rcquesring their assignrncnt to KivLruu com nme" I beiieve lie acquired a special duty to monitor lheir perfomrance.

227. As noted abnve. I am satisfied that Nt.lahiniana had a tlcgree ol real authority over IPJ Fulgence Kal,ishema, a member of the comnunal police, albeit cne ansr.verable h thc PLrblic Ptosecutct'. 'rf only as a state agent assigned to Kivurnu c<),nmun€.llascd on the evidence adduced in this case. I am satisfied that Ka"vishema pla"ved an active role in tlre genocide at Nyangc parish.?'r"{' Jherc is no evidence that Ndahimana inftrrmed Kayishema's supcfiors in the Public Prosecutor's offlce or olher compeLent authcrities, ol'Kayishema's role in thc attacks lbllolving the killings. 2Z&. I anr fufther salisfied thal Vddasre l\lurangwabugalro {alias Vdclasre N,{upende), an Assistant hourgntestrc padiripalecl in the attacks.2067As'ain" there is nr: e.n'-idsnce that Ndalrimana intbrmed lV{rrrangr.vabugabo's superiors or other cornpetcnt authorities cf hlurargrvabLrgabo's partic.ipation ir] tlre crimes at Nyarrge parish on 1 5 and l6 April | 994. :o'': T. 2-+ Januuy 201I pp. 70-71; L 25 Janur4' 2011 lp. 11. 25i T. 2j January ?0t I fp..j:}. j{t-.j? (KjS). t rojccurior Frh'hil 52 alr). ri'i:J T. t I Apr.il ?01 I r. .,ll. --'Sc. for rr,rmplt. iVirrr.:.vs r'ilR. t DL. ( NJ. t{j I\l}o. '"" [)isrenl- t'!fxs. ]U"l-2tl< :F6 See for exampLe: Wihcss C[] I i 'f. 7 Scptenr bcr 2010 pp. 3?-l8" jti. 6?i witness (lN^f: 'L 4 Nlrvcnr bcr 2010 pp. 49- {1. l.5No\crnher2t)10|f}.h0-r)1;\!itnessCBR: I. I No\erflber 2f]10 pp_ 14, 17. ' " sce I r r.rampk. \\'irn.'ss cBT: T. 7 seFtcrnber 2010 p. 42; wilness clllL: L l Noleilrbcr. 2010 p. :4: wirnes$ C N.i; 'L 4 lr tr v en ber' 3{l I rl p. 5 7. The Pr<tsecutor N. Ndaliwonq, Case No. lC'l li-0l-6I-T 2 5 4 i 2 7 4

Page 255

.ludge rxoi at d Se nte rce t,,t"r.r*r3Ogl+ adduced indicating that Ndahimarra iook an1.' 229. IVarc generally, ncr evidence has been measures rvhatsoever to punish any of the peryetnlors alier the arttacks iri his <:onxnune. C)tt tbe contrary, on 20 April 1994. i.vhen Ndahimana convened a mceling at the communal ollice rvith conseillers and communal stall; he opted tc discuss tlre diviskrn of'the prope$ies belonging to the victinrs ol'the crimes raiher than the pLlnishment ofthe pcrpetrators.

210. On this basis, I [relieve the only reasonable inli:renr:e is 1l]at one ol Ndahirnana's nrosl signiticant contribulions to the JCE lvas to assurc his associatcs and subordinates, cithcr erplicitil, or tacitly, that he lvould no1 use rose ttreasuros rvithin his authorit-v as hourgmestrc to punish therm f'or cornnifting crimes at Nrvange. and thal this encouraged their participaricn in the crjmes. 8.5.5 CL'Inclusion on JCE 231. In cottclusitttt. I fiud that Ndahimana provided the criminal plan rvith tire imprirnatur of th€ highest political authority in the region; that he participated in the planning ot the crimcs cotnmitted at Nyange parish on 1i and l5 April 199.t; rhat he provided taclir,al advice and suppr.rrl tc the nttackers on 16 April; and provided tiansport throughout the pericd ancl ammuniiion to the attackefs tlurirg the attacks. liquall.v impcrlantly, t believe h* prcviclecl his asstrciates anrl subordinates rvith blanket immtmitv l'or their participation in the gcnocide that took place *t Nyange padsh on l5 and l6 April 1994.'l'al{en logether, I helieve his contrltrutiiin to the basic fbrm o{'.lCil can oniy be reasonablS, evaluated as a signilicant one. 9" Seqtencinq 9,1 .dggravatingFactors A substantial section of' Kiv$1111r connnlne's 'l r.rtsi population. 1.500-2,000 cirilians. r.ras ertcrnrinaled over two days in April 199;l in horri{lc condilious. 'i'he

evidence indicates thst the vjctinls rvere starved before they ivere killed. I consider the gravit_v ofthe crime arrd the authoriry cf the accused ;rt the tirxe 10 be aggravating hcrors for purposes ol' sentencing. I a$.ec wiih the l\{ajority lhat rhe fuct ihat the massae rc.r!,ok pldcc in a plrish, a universall;. recognized plar,e ol' sanetuil). is I lunher aggravatirrg licrur."'"' 9.2 M;tigating Factors 2ll' I concur rvith the Majoril;, at parlgrnph 866 of the .Inclgemenr that in rhe clays imrnediatell" firlk:'wing tte death rl'l)resident I{ab-v-arim;rna. Ndahimana ha<J indivitluals suspecreii o1'crimes againsl 'l'utsis arrested. and that he ssnt at leasl two lr-l1srs to local oolilical learlers ccndemning the inter'-elhnic !iLrlgnqg.20r"' In additir:n, cxi lhe balanre d nrLrbrb;r;tie\, I uunclude thal on I I April 1994. he recluisitiorted gentlnrmes l'rtxn Lhe pn:fit tr:t trefter prolgcl rirc r.el-ugees. I fulther agree thet these constructive earlv steps constitute a ntitigating lhcfor. ll4' the parties adduced next to o el,idence on rhs polilics ol" the I\,lDl{. srtl lhus I a* ptrzzlcJ b1 thc \'laj.rlit*-'s citnclrrsion lhtt f hc MDR r\ai a 1'r)luricr.ttc pp jit;ial FJrtt ". irn(i th l Ndahimana's afliliation wilh the MDR san constitute a mitigaling l'aercr.ri';"'l lic piimti fulinister rif :tos .luiigerrerL para. 3i50. ""'Exhibits Dl08(jl) and Exhibil t)ll{i((:): lettcrs trorri Ndahinraft,t asking offiriats tLr fnsurc sicr.l.ity j1 Kjliur:; r('70 Ju<Igemeut, para. B{i7. 'fhe Proseutor.t'. ldcthiuana. Case No. ICTI{-0,-68-T 255 I 2,-.\

Page 256

,hvlge he nl an4 Se ;tterce 3il De.enbet 20t l rhe Interim Gorenrmenl. Jean KambanrJa. rva-s a membcr gt- tbe N'11)R.207r Witness CDl, clairnsl to haye been a member 9f the moderate iving of the [vlDR,:072 brt this affiliation did not prevent the wilness frcul actively partioipating in the genoejde. As discussed above, I find the little evidettce suggesrlng that Ndahimana did not enjoy the authorify of otlret' borrgmcrtres to be neither crerlible nor reliable. More generally, I do rot accept that flrembership irt a putticular politip!f,afri-call5 c.1 cDnstirure rmirisatihsfuctor. .5,0 K 5 2-15. I respeclfull_r disagree u,ith thc Majrrrity's conclusio,r that the "fdrnii,'.' situatirtn" of t]re Accused is a mirigating factor.2ml On the contrary. I am personally of rhe vierv that given the fact that the aocused had cleven c,hildlen.:o'a he shoultl have had more consi<teration fol the l'amilies of others. Nevetthelss, I consider lris family situation to constitute neither a miligating factor nor at': $ggravaling ftrc.tor tbr purposes of sentencing.

236. Finelly. I stnrngly disagree r+ith dre Maiorit;''s consideratioti of rltc evidencc that "sevelal persons r:f influence in Kivu.mu {jommune had an inrerest and involvement in the massaeres", and its concl$sion that "thc influence of other authoriies in Kivumu tort tufte" is releyanl to sentencing.2ot5 As detoiled above. I take it as a given that crintes oIthis scale and nalure are mcst often cornmitted by a nunrber ofpersons of intluencc acting logeth€r. While. I agrec wiLh the Nlajority that Ndahimana lvas nol a lone lunafic in Kivumrr co fttutfle. I do not consider tltis to be a m itigating factor in sentencring.

237. As I have sonuluded thaL Ndahimaua was not a mere accomplice il the genocide at Nyange parish, but a principal perp€lralor of that crime, I rvould irar.e s€nlsnced him to a longer term of imprisonment than did the Ma-jrxity.r076 Done ar Arusha. 30 December'201 | G--l Florencetita r\r/e;* Judge i.)rr \rv irrress \D t J; l'. l8 Janrrar] :0I I lp. 1-.J. " ' Detin.e Exliibit 77. t. t.l. "''l Judcemcrrr. pari), 864. :utn llelince t'in*ing uric!: paras. 5:2-JlJ. "'' Judgenrenr- rrst r. 868. :('?6 Judlemrnq paru. $71- Tle l'rusecutor v. :u*dahkuna, Case No. IC'IR-0I{B-T iSeal ol"th+ Tribunall 25b i 2it -fr

Page 257

]o K2- l. Crdgoire Ndaliimana rvas initially indicted ori 20 June 2Al [.20tt c.lrr ir ch*rge o1"genooide: eir in the allernative. oomplicity in genocide: conspiracy,to crxlmit genocide; and crinies against humanity for extermination rvhich are oflences stipulated in Articles 2 antl -l of thr: Statute of the Tribunal and punishable under Articles 22 and 23 ofrhe Statute ofthe Tribunirl. On 5 July 2001, the lndictment agiinst Nclahinrana rlas corrected and confirme,1.20?n f. On +Jul] 2ullit. thE f)rosecution issLled a Warant of Arest and Order 1br'l'ransfbr againsi the irccr.lserl.'"' ' -l-he ( hambel leldered a Decision on the Prosecutclr's Flx lrurx: liecuest lirr Search" Seizure Arest and Transflr on ,tr July 2001.2c80 3^ On 2l Decenrlrer 2001" the Chamber renderec] a l)ecision crn the Prosecutor's x Parte Reqnest lo.llesciltd the Non-Disclosure Or<ler ol'4 Jull 2ii() | relating ro tlie hl(lictmcnt and Warrant of Arrest-:{isL 4. 'lhe accused was arested on I I Augusl 1009, in ths Denocrutic Republic of Congo anil therea{ler trans{tfftd to the seat ol ihe 'l'ribunal in Arusha nn 20 September 2009. Ndahiurana nrade his in;tial..?ppearanr,e bel'tue the'l-ribunal ru 28 Seplember 2009 and he pJeaded nct guilty to all charqes.:082 5. The {lharnber aud the parties discusscd preparations tbr trial at al iutbrmal sratus confbrence on 2-l October 2009.'Ihe Chambcr tirereafter lssued a

Scheduling t)rder instructing thc PLosecution to lile its lr{olion lrol l.eave 1o Afirend the Indictncnl and anclhcr Motion for Prxection t-rl' Potential Witnesses b-v l6 Novemher 2{.X}!}, and ordered the Dcl,ence to {ile its reply" if an1., within five= days aller the dffIe the lranslated copy of the proposetl Amended lndictmcnt rvas served on ir :083 .jr1.lgc mev atd St hte nc e Annex .A: Frocedural Ilistory :I}TF] INDICTM}:,N'I' Jt) Decenfur )lil I 6' On 16 Novcmber 200S, thc Ptosecution filed ar Arncnded Indictmenl charging Ndahimana with genoeide (Count I), alteruatire11., complicitr irr cen,lcidc (Count ll). ard extermilration as a crime againsl humanity (Count lllJ.'"" Ndahimanu d.enier.l all the cha1gg5.2{,8: 7. On ,1 February 2010, based on the i Ndahfuuana. and the fact that the anendlnent confinned lndi{-:tment. the Chamber gr.antetl Indic,tment.:"s6 'I he ltrosecLrtion then filcd the :{'r" IndictLnent. 2ll.lune 2001. :rt8 lndictnrenr Confinnatior l!{etncrunduot fiom lC'l R pf,lsecutor. j Jl1;. ?001. :0:' Warrant rt'Arcor an<J Ordu fcrr 'Iiansief. 4 iul). :0{i0. ?!80 l)ecision orr the Prose"cutor's !i' l'r'la Rcqucsr ltr serch. Seizrre Arrest and lio.sfur. 4 Jaly 2t)01 . rt'si [)ecision on rhv Pfosfcuror'j 1ir /sde lieqrist to [l($.in,l the Ncn-Disc|rsure Order .rf J Jui), lrt)l felating to the lnJirrrnfnl irnd \\3lran{,rl Anc\t. ll f)r'femilef l{r{,t. ' '' -I. 28 lcu€nrL'er :0irq o.

12. I '^r Sched ulir,g t trder u rrd.-'r R ule j.l c,ii the l{ules ol }\ oeedure and Fi iclenr-,e. ,l November 1009, - ' ArrrcnJc.l lndirirncnl, la No\ ( In b(r 2(lt)9. :'"" \dettinutttr. frc(lui, tt l'tr'tt!Ji.!?//c. l(t N(,\cnlb(,f 2n'iq. -"- De.isiltl .rn Pr,rsccultrr's Rcqucst 1ur Leav', lo [ri]e an Anlendcd lndiclment under Rult j0 of thr Rules LJf Procedure aid Fl\,idence" li Februru.r 2010. 2ot7 Amen&d llrdictrreni. 5 Fcbruaiv 20 t0. The Prosecutor t Nrkhirou. Case No. IC]-l{Jll-6E.1- Juiy 2001 caufinnation of the lndictrnent against sought would bring correction ancl clariqv ro the Ieave tbr 1hs Prosscutor 1o file au Arnended Amended lndicment cn i l*cbruarv 2010.:f'3? Thc 251 i 27't .W

Page 258

Jttdgeuent and Setterrce Chamber thereattcr issued a scheduli$g ordcr to Ndahimana bo made on 9 {rebruary,20l0.2{rir'r PI{I'-TRIAI. PFIAST] 30 l)ecenber 2l)l I the elf-ect tltal a I'udher initial appearance by 3o8 | 8. On 4 lV{arch 2010 the Chamber granteil. in paft, the ProsecLrlion's Motiori fbr Protective Measures filr its Witnesses and ordered the Prosecstion to file confidentially-. rhe lisi o{ its lilncsscs rrho ucr.'allcadl the hencljcialic's ol llnrtecti\e mcasLtres. tl)e contcnts ol'the prrrtcetilc neasurgs. arrd the cases in rvhich such protective orders wers issucd.l''4" 9. On 5 N{arch 2010. lhe Defence illed its l4otion Alleging Dcfeots in the Amendeil lndictment. 2t'nt' Iu its Decision issuect on 30 April 201{i, rhe Pre-Tlial Charnber foLrncl thar th{rre nerc no defec.ts ir the Arnended Indiclnrent" The Chantber fcrlrnd rhat the tbrm ancl nern rea tor rne alleged JCE, as well as thr natlne of Ndahimana's tralticipation irr the nllegerl JCE" were properll, pleaded in the lndictment. It also helil thal rhe idsnlily ol'the alleged msrnbers of the JCE rvas sufficiently pleaded by staring the names and catcgories ci penons involved in thc alleged .l[JE.. f'lolvever, the Prosecuriou ryas ordered to "provide more specificity as to tke identit;r, cf 'others' ili paragraphs 15. 17-26 and 29-32 or add the words 'rvhoss identil-v is unknorvn'ter'ald others'."2"ei tlr l8

August 2010 the Prilsecutirrr re-Illed thc Amended indictmenf in the case *l''I'he Pro:ccutd' w. {}rd go ire N dahit s wyut.)re ) t0. On l5 l\{arch 2010. rhe Prosecution llled its Motion {br JLrdiciel Norice,2re:} u,hich rvas granted by the Cliamber on 7 April 2{}10. In granting the moiion, the Chamber took judicial noricr- of the genocide lha{ oecured in Rwanda in 199;1. infomialion about N,vange church and its looatio:l. exisling Rw*ndan la*,, as well as Rwancla's international status in 19g4 as a stale part)- to lhe Genocide Conventicrn and rhe Ceneva Conventions and their Adrliticxral prororols.20"a I I . The Prosecution iiled its Pre-'liial fJrie{'ori l5 March fOl O.]t't's 12 On l;{ June 20lii. the Registrar issuecl a l)eoision on the Wiihdrarval of the Assignment oi Beth Susan Lyons.. -Co-Coursel for Grdgoire Ndahiman;r,l0e6 rvho rvas then replaced by lr4r Wilfied Ngunjir.i Nderitu.tt'e7 li' The Detbnce filed an urgent motion to adjour* the rrial temporarily cn 24 August 2010.:0')g f-lorvever. the trial commenced as schedulsd on 6 Seplernbcr 2010, ald beclutse therc rvas :]! :",t Suh.duling t)',Jer rrndsr' l{nL: j0 lrncl 54 ofthe llLrles ofproc€dLrre and Evjdencf" E l,cbrua4 :0lfj. '"'Ilc(isioli nn the Pfr's,tdutiun s Nlotion ibr Prolelrtile measures ibr its \{;tllesses - Atticles 19. 2{) and 2l of lhc Statute tind Rules 54. tjg. 73 and 75 trfthd llulcs d.Procedul.e and

L1li(lcirce, { h{afoh:01{}. :tao Ndahirrana Deicnce lUotion flr Deiects in thq Indictmcnt" 5lr,,larch ?010. :0"r l-recision on \drhimanr's \lolion an De{ects in the AmEnded Lldi.iment. 30 Aprit 1010, pares :1"1, p. 6. 2002 Arnen"ied lndichena i$ittl the eddition of'\vhosc identiries are onknorvn." at p agraptis 1.5,17-26 ind 29-:12 *t orde|eti b.r rhe l-ri l Chinnb(r in its RrLle 72 Decjsion ot 30 April 2010), lg August 2010. :L-r Prosecution's hlQtion lirL J$Jicial Notice Pur:ruar)1 to llule 94 of tl'!e Rules oi' Pr.occdu|e ani.l lridence. I i Nlafcil l 0 l L ' . 2!er I)ecision on lhe Pr$secirtion's l\.,r,tion ior .lr\licial Noticc- 7 Apf:l 2010. pp. 5-6. r{'ei Prosecution Pre- frirrl Er.iet'^ l3 (4arch ?010. :o!" Deliisiot on th.. wilhdral\'al olthe Assienmdnl ofBeth susan Lyons ds co-counsei for Lirdgoir.c Ndahjmana. 1.1 Ju e 2lil0. tooT l.ettcr fte,m llCDt\'1-c. R.€1: lCl'tfJL]D-l1-5-2"{)9-1191}lD\.,\sslllni,rg l\,'tr. willi.lt Ngunliri Nilerir as ('*counscl to Reprc\c : lhe AccLrs(,J Crdsorre \dahinrrrr.l. :.i .tul) 2{,10. - -" Llrq€rt l)(t-enc< Nlr'lion l(,r rldjournmeot ol'thi' Flea.ing ofthe'tlial Pursuanr to Arliclt'?rl (2) end (.1) ofthe SLatute ofthc lC'TR dnd Rcqurst fur (-loRv!:|tinc a Slatul Conf€ri,'1]!e. 2,tr Augurl 2t)10. The ['tose.utt)r t. ildtthiNund, Case No, ICTR-ftl-6S-l 253 / 2"14 ffi

Page 259

,J kLtge ue nt aut.l Se fircnce informal meeting on 14 Septernber 20i0. rvhere ajl p*fties regarding the trial scheclule, the llhamber ruled the Deibnce's moat on 15 September 2010.:'rq'l TRIAI, PHASN 3A Dei:emhe| 2 iI canle 10 a satisfilctory agfeenlent request l'or a stalus conlltercd as 30&D 14. T'he Prosecution commenccd its case on 6 Senternber 2010 and concluded on 19 Noveniber 2010.:i0! It ptese*tetl its rvitnesses antl tendercd tr5 erhibits inlo ovidence.

15. The Def'ence tilcd its Prc-Defence Brief on 7 Dccemi:er 2010.:l!l It courmenced its case ,.rn l7 January l0l I and concluded on 12 Ma"v :011.:r'): Ii presenlsd its rvitncsses and tendered a total of 128 exhibits into evidcnce. 16. ^,.The Irial Chamber granted inlerirn proteclive measures to Delbnce rviinesses in Seplember 2010.-'- On 7 December 2010, the'lrial Chanrber issued its drcisior.rs on t.llo Prosecution nrotiuns relaling to tlre Particulars of the Alibi anci tc the Site Visit in Rwanda.2r0a On l4 lf,ecember 20tr0" the Trial Charnber ardered the Defenoe to rccluce its rvitness list.2r{'i In Febnrarv 201 l. the Clllarnlrer allor.ved the Detbnce to vary its rvitness list,2lt)6 t,ut denied thc Defence leqLrert to lrear cedain u,itnesses b;' video link.:107 i-he Charnber fi.rrther granted the Defence's Motion for Variation of lts Wirness List and Protective L'leasures for lts Nerv Witnesses2l't aucl later delivered anr:ther ilecision on a Defence l\'{otjon to Var-r' lts Witness List.2r0e 17. On 3 Ma1' 201I the Chamber denied the Detence's motion to admit a rvifir*ss' testjmon,y Lrnder Rule 92&rs of the Rules.:rrl 18. 'lhe Cliamtror clecidud to grant a motion by the DeGnce 01'Cirspard KanyarLrkiga requesr;rr:i the disclosure of materials liorn tlie'l'ria1 i:f Gr€goir.e Ndahinrana on 20 Januar,v 20t LrrI I tr,T'RTIII,R I'ROCTEDINGS 19. Ftom the comtnencement of this trial

on 6 September 2010 and until ils conclusion on l2 &la.v 2011, the Trial Chanrber sat fo( a t'erv sessions under Rute l5bis due to the co cunent ?'oe Decisior on Defence Nlotjon tbr A,lirlulnfient ofthe Slart oi.'ffial and Request to llorlene a Status (lln&fenc{, t-i Septernbef 2010. rita - .. .. '", L 0 S{ft(nib.r lf} lri l. :: l. lq \u\cnrh{.r lrrtU F. . ''" D(lincc Pr'<-Tlir l Bricl, 7 l)cc<rnbr'r' J0 1 0. :r!2 T. I7 Januarl 20t I p. l: 1-. l: N{a} 201 1 p. i(i. ''"' hterim (Jrder on Protecti\:e Measures ibr llef'enr.r Witliesses. l: Srptelnbcr 2010. :'u'r [)ecision Dn tl]e Prosecutor's lr'lotion lil Pdrticultu's of Alibi. 7 Decenber 2010; l)eainiin or the Proseculioc s l\l'rti,'l t,rr \i'e \ i\ili;I lhc l{(prrhlir ut R*anJ.r.7 l).c(rnhei 2filU -" Or.ler lol tht' DrfeDuL, lo ReJU.e l1s List Of Witrejses (Rules 54 a\.j 7jte,^ (D) o1'the Ilules oj procodure an<j !lvidence). l-1 Decelnter ?010. :'on Decision cn l)efence l'l.rtion For Letve to Vary Its 1l.'iin€ss List and correct lhc I'leuccJnym d a witness- 1l flbruall :011. :r07 l)ecisiou Qn Dellnce N{otion ro He$r ihe Tes{imon}, ol Witnesses BX7 a1t.l FB I r,;r Video Llnii" 25 Febfrisf}, ?01 l. :r0" []ecision c,n Llsfenoe l\,{otion to Van lls \Vilnriss List anil Request fir Proidclire L.'leiuurcs fot Ne$ Wih'}esses, i I l.larch :01 l. lrne Decision on l)efencr Motion 1.r) V l Ils \\itncss Lirt, i3Aprii :01l. :rL'r Decision on Det!.nce's l!.lation tbr the Admissjon of Wiiness To-ltjrnony purnuatt to Rule 920ri {With Stnrii}. l-orlidential tulrex l). 3 l\,Iay 201 l 2trr Decisktu on hlotior by Ciaspard ],an-l-aruliiga i'r Djsclos[re {'f,{]l l\4ateddl lrom the Proceeding;r ol Gregrrlr Ndahiintnzr. 20 Jauuarv 201 1. The I'rasectiot ,*. Ndahin na, CasoNo- l{t' t-01-f,B-'I 251) i 211 ryt

Page 260

Judgenext atrd 5enle nca -l(l l,)ecember )011 assignnlent ol- Judge ilakhtiyar 'liumukliamedov \n ll'he Prox:cutor N. Nzal)oni,fiet'ut tlial whicir is on-goingattheTribunal. 2 |,?'- q Jr-z | | 2{}. The Chambel issued a decision as to which localions rvere to be lnspeottd on the site visit on 28 April l0lJ Ihe plrries propo:.cd thc lrrcations in Rrianda rthcl.c thc c\.nt) rcliLtil$ l) thc triill oLcurrerl." "' l'he site visit r s runiluctetl helrr.een 7- l {r J irne :0 l l.i r r' ll. The parties lroth submitted theirClosing Briefi on 25 JLrli 20il.)']r Thc Closino Argulnents by both pafiies at'I'riai were licard b.y the Chamber on 2 | r:ld 21 Scpt.'rirbcrl0I|.r1'- 22. On 19 f,)dober 201 l. the Trial Chanrber issued a scheduling oriler to noti! the padies thar theoralsummalyol'itsJudgementrvouldbecleliveredatI1:00a.m.6nl7r.,lovcmbcr201I.:rr6T oral sumnlan, ol'1liis Judgemeal u,as read publicly an that date. '"- Schcduling Order'lbr Site Yitit lo Rwanda. )'iling ofClosing Bficl.s arrd lleariug oI Closin* Argumen|l. 28 Ap!.il ? 0 1 1 . - r ' R r p , , r r n \ i t r \ r i < i l . l { e [ l ( | R l t - r r , 0 { - t I i i ! | | . I i t u n e : 0 1 | "' ' Scht'duling f)rdcf fi,r Sile Visit t,, Rl4acda. l:iling of Cl(rsirlg ltfiei! and Hcadng ol Closing Arliuments. :E April 2Ol l. p. 8. ,\'ee aLro" Prosecurlon Closi|g Briei ?5 .tuly 201 J : D€tbrlce Clos;ns Bri$, 25 July Z0l 1 . -"'Schtlduling Ortler lbl Sile Visil 1o Rrlurdri. liling of Clloring llrief's and lleariilg of Closing .Argunicnrs. 28,4prii 2 t l l l p t t S e . , r / ' o L : I S e l l l ! , r n b c r 2 0 l l : t . : l \ ( l t c , n F c . : U l l . '' Sch|dulinr ()rJL r l9 Octobcr 2n I t. p 2. The Prosecutor r. Nd.)hi*oi.!. Case No. lC"llR-01-68-'I' 260 t 2.11

Page 261

..ltldtiemenl and Se tehce Annex B: Delined Terms and .f urisprudenee T. DIT FINNS TNR,MS AF{D AI}BIII1VI,{rION S21 1] Church :10 D.'Le, het 2A!! 3c?ff N;'ange chutch Defence Closing Brief Tlte {}rnsetutor v. *"tluhimantt.IC'fR-2001-68-T', De{bnce {liosing [irie{,25 .lul1,20l I De{ence Pre-Trial Erief 'l'he Prosecutar v. '\ldahinana. lCl'R-200 | -68-1. Pre-lJeience llrief. Pursuant t{r l{ule 7lle/ ol'the IlLrles ofProcedure and Evidence, 7 Decernber 2{i l0 IC'I'R or 'I'rilrunal International Crinrinal Tributtal tbr the Prrrsecution of Persons Respmsible lbr Cenocide and 01her Serious Violations of International llunranitarian Law Comlnitied in the Teritory eif l{wanda anri Rrvandan Citizens Responsible lbr Gcnocide and Other Such Vir:lations Commificd ln the Territor'], ofNeighbouring States. l'retrveen I January t 99:l and 3l Decenrber 1994

ICTY lnlernational '[iibunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible lbr Serious Vio]ations ol' Inlernatir.tnal LiumaniLarian l,alv Committed in the'l"et'::itory o1-thc [\rrmcr Yugr:slavia sir:ree l1)91 F'irst Amended In.lictment T'he Pro,tecutor y, Ndahitttun.t.lClTR-200l-68-1, Arnended trririictmellt. l6 November 2009 0riginal lndictrnr:nl Tle Frosecutor t. Ndahinana.lCTR-2001 -68-1, Indigtment, l0 JLrne 2001 trwlictnrent I'he I'rosecutar y. Ndahinana.lc'f'R-100 i -68-1, Aurendc{l lndictment, lB rlugLrsr 2010. "ICE Jcrint Climinal Enterprise :1r7 Acoording rr'' liuie ?1Li ), ai'rhe Rules. thr masculine shall include the t'emininc and the sjncular tho plursl. and tjrc- !efsa, 'lhe Protetttto! r. Ntlahinano, Casc No, lCIli-01-68-l' 2{t1 i 2"14

Page 262

.Jltdgenknt alnd Setie ce D{djorilv A niaiorit"v o{'the'liial Chamber composcd of Judge Sefa Akay MDR Mo uvert rct* Nw<t(roI iq1rc Ri public ain li{I{NI} :0 Decenb$' 201 | 3oT J Ii+khtiyar 'l umrLrkliamedov and .fudgc ilydin Llouventenl. Riwtlutioltnoire Nutiorutl pour la Ddm{rcratie el le Diwlappewent n. tirotnote p.(ppJ page ipages.) para. (paras.) paragraph t para graphs) tsarish Nyange parish P!- |'*rti Libdrol Fresbytery Nyange presb;'tery llrosecutrion Closing Brief The Proset:utor t. Ndahittann, Case No. ICTR-:001-68-T: Prosecuror's Cbsing Br.ief, 25 .lul1' 201 1 Prcsecution I're-Trial llrief 7he Prcsetutor v. Ndahintsnu. Case Nr:. ICTR-2001-68-Pl', Prosecutor's Pre-Trial llrief, l5 Mareh 20t 0 The Prc.tec tor '-. N,lahinunq, Case No. IC'l R-01-63-l 262 i 21'j

Page 263

Jltdge Ent 6n'1,Settte cal

PSII Forti Social- Denotratt RPA Rrvandan liatriotic Army ]iPF Rrvandan (Rivandese) Patriotic Fronr Ihles Rules ol'Procedure and Evidence c.rfthe International Criminal']'ribunal lbr Rrvanda Second -rtr ynen*.led lndictrnrnf '['he Froseculor v" Ndahitntrna" Case No. IC'I'R-2001-68-1, 5 Fetrluary 2010 'I'hird Amended lndictmell I'he Prosecutor v. Nduhimtma.ICll{-2001-6S-I, Amencled Indictrrent, l8 Augusr 2010 Statutr Statute ofthe lnternariorlal C.riminal Tribunal fbr Rivanda" esrablished b;- Securiq. Council Resolution 955 t . 'l'ranscript UI{AIV1IR Llnited Nations Ass;slance Missiotr fbr Rrvanda {tND}' Lhitcd Nations Derention triaci lity 30 Decenber 2011 3o1 6 The Fr<>seaapr t. Ndahionnq, Case No. ICI R-01-6S-T 26: i 2"1,! 1u

Page 264

Jwl{e bte nt a nd S.'r t.41 c e 2. JUR'SPRU'NNCE 30 Dect:ntber iQ I l 3cq 6 2.1. IC'I-R Akryesu The Proseuttor v. Jcrut-Psul Ala4,ssy, Case Nc. ICTR-96-4-A" Judgement. Airpeals Chanber. 1 Juue 2001 (",4kayesu {AC], .}udgement") The Pntsecutor r. ,Ieun-Paul ,4ku'vsu. Case Nc.r. ICITR-96-4-T, Jr.rdgement, T'rial Cltanber 2 Septernber 1998 (".4knte su l'lC) .futlgement") Bagilishema the ProseL:utor v. lyirutce llagilishema, Case No. lOfR-9-5- I A-A. Juclgenrent, Appeals Chamber, 3 .lul1 ?t)02 ("llcgilishema (AC) Judgement"') T!rc Prosetutor v. Igttace Bagilishenut, Case No. ICTR-95-lA-1'. Judgement. Trial Chamber. 7 Jtrne 2001 ("Bagilisheon {TCI) Judgement") Bagt}sora et ft|, 'fhe Prusecntur v. l{hioneste Bugosota. Gratien Kahiligi, Alty,r Ntuhaku:e and Artulole Nserzgijrunttt, {lase No. ICTR-98-41 -T, Judgement, Trial Chamlrer. I 8 Decem bcr 2008 (" Bugosoru et a/. ('fC) J udgement") The Prcsetutor v. l'hioneste l*tgitstn'o, Gratien Kabiligi. ,4lqs Ntahaku: and, lnal*le Nsengiyurnva, Case No. l(lTll-g8-41-'f. Decision on Aloys Ntabakuze"s Inlerlocutory .Appeal on {)uestions of l-,aiv Raisecl tr-v lhe lg Jrne 2006'liial Clhamber I Decision on Llotion lirr fixclilsion of f:vidence. l8 September 2006 Bikindi The ?rasea ov r'. .\'r'rnon Bikintli" Case No. ICITR-01-72-'f. Judgernenl Appeals Chalaber. I I March 2010 l" Bikindi ( AC) Judgement") The Pvr.tsecult:u' y. Simon Bikindi, Case

No. ICTR-01-71-T. Judgeurent, 'liial Charrrber. 2 Docember 2008 (" /]lfri;rrli (T'C) .fudgement'') Gacumbitsi Sllve,strz Gatuni;it,ci v.7he Prcsecutor, Case No. ICIR-2001-64-A, JLrdgemenr, Appeals Chamber, 7 July 2006 ('"{;dn bitsi (AC) Judgertenr") Gatete Tle Prosecuior \'. Jean-Boptiste Gatete, Cuse No. lC'lR-lti00-61-'l', Judgement. l"rial ChambeL.3l lr'larch 201 I {"Gatere (TC) Judgenrent") 'fhe Prosecutcr y. Ndtthimen.t, Cla.re ^-o. ICTI{-o1-68-f 26,1 i 211 ,-lt+

Page 265

..lu tlge oe nt cnd Sentence )t) Ltcttnber )ttl I The Prosec:utor :,. ,Iean-flaTttiste Gatute, Casi^ No. ICTR-1000<i1-R l lliri. Dccision on Plosccut{)r's Request for Referual to the Republic ofRrvanda, T'rial Chanrber. l7 November 2008 ,-.*r# lr Kajelijeli *J \' t -J .luv6.nul lkieliieli v. I'he Prosetutor, Case No. IC'I'R-98-.14A-A, Judgemenl, Appeals Chamber,23 Tr{a,v 2005 (" Kajelijeli (AC:J.ludgement") The Pros*xtar t" .lut tnsl K.Qelijeti, Case ].it. ICITR-98-444-1'. .ludgement" 'Irial Chamber, i lfer:ember f00l ("Kajelieti {'l(:) Judgernent"} Kambandl The Proseu$or v. ,letrn Katnlsanrlrr, Case No. ICITR-97-23-S, Judgement" 'lrial Cirarnber" 4 September 1998 ("}{arrbanrla iTC) Judgemcnt") Krmnhanda Jectn du l)ieu Ksrnultondc v. The I'yosecuttt', Case No, IC'llt-99-54.4-A,Judliernent, Appeais Chamber. l9 September 2005 i"'Kamuhanda (AC) Judgcment") T'le Prasecutor t'. .Iean tle l)ieu Kanuth*ndtr, Clase \o. tUT'R-q9-54A-1. .ludgemerit, '['ri;rl Clharnber, 22 Januarl' 2004 ('' Ka nu h u nda (l'C 1 J udgenent") Kanyarukiga Gaspord Kattl;ayul{ifn v, Tle Pr1seculr.'}. Case No. ICTR-02-7&-AR7]-2, Decisit)n <in Caspard Kanl'arukige's Interlocr:tol), Appeal of a Decision on the Exclusion of Evidence, 23 l\4arch 2010 Karemera et al. The Ptasetutor ,-. Kuremera et rl. Case No, IC'IR-98-,14-T" Decision on lleli:nce Ol'al Molions liir Hxclusion of Wilness XliM's I'estimony. for

Sanctions Aga;nst the Prosecution" and fcrr Exclusion of lrvicience Outsiile the Scope ol'the lnrlictmeni. I s Ocl{rber 2006 Karera L-rntqoi:; Kcrertt v. 7'lw Proser:utor. Case No" t(l'l'R-0I -74-A. Juelgement, Appeals Chamher. 2 F ebruarrv' 2009 (" K a r*a \AC,) ItLclgemeni") The Prosecutttr v. Fronqais K.arext, Case No. ICTtr{-01-7.4JI', Jrxlgenrent alcl Sentence. Trial Chanrber. 7 DecerrL-,er 2007 ("Kare ra ('lC) Judgernent") Kayishema and R.uzindan* The Pro,gecutrst r'. {.'}dnen! Kav-ishema a d Obed Ilu:inddnr-r, {tase No. ICTR-95-l-A, Judgeruenr, Appeals Chanrbcr" I .lune 2A0l {"Kayishertu and llu:intlunu Judgenienl (AC)") Ttk PrLrsecqlot ,. Idahintrra, Clase No. ICTR-01-6&-I 265 i 2.'1'1

Page 266

,Judgene t drd Se nterce 30 l,)eccuher 20i j T!rc Prosecutot' v. t.'limenl Kayi,shenta otd Obetl Ilu:ind$ttt. ('.ase No. IC IR-95- l -f, Jud;;ement. Trial Chamber, 2l N'la1' 1999 ("Kayishenta i.rntl Ru:indantt \"1C.) Judgetnellt") h'Ipambara 3n?3 '!'he Prosecutor ,-. ,.lenn i\fltantbaru, Case No. lfl1'R-O1-65-I'. .lLtdgcment, 'I'rial Chantber" I l September 20A(t (" Mp*tnlnra (TC) Judgemcnt") Musema '4Uietl lv{usenta v. Tht Prosecutr.;r, Case No. ICTR-96-13'A" J dgelrenf, Apperils Chatttber. 16 November l00l (" l4usema {A{ } Judgement") The Prttsecutor t' Alrt"ed ],[uscwa, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T. Jtldgetnent, Trlal Chamber,27 January'' )Q00 (" Mttsena (TC) .ludgement") Muvun"vi Tharcis:te lv{u,-um;i t'. The Pro,tecuktr, Case Nr:. IC']'II-2000-55A-A, Judgement, Appcals Chamhe r, 29 August 2008 {" h'lut,un.,"i I (AC) JLrdgenicnl"i tharr:isse .r\4uvunyi v. 7'lre J'rosecutrsr, Czrse No. lC.fl{-2000-55A-A, Judgemenl. Appeltls Chamber. I Aplil ?011 (".L1ttvun;'|ll (AC) Judgement") Nnhirnana et al" Fet ciinand Nchi.munu, Jeun-Basco B*raytrg*i:tt and llassan Ngeze v. The I'rosecutor. Clase No. ICTR-99--52-A. Judgement, Appeals Chamher, 28 Novembet 2007 l."Nahimana et al. (AC) Judgement'"1 7'he Prasecutor v. I.brdhrcnd Nohimanl, Jearvliosto Barn,p'ogriza cntl llassan Ageze, Case No. ICl'I{-99-52-1 . Judgement and Sentence. 'l'rial flhamber"..} Dscr:mber 2003 ("Nahiuona et al.

('1'{.} Judgement"; F{chamihigo Simean Nclnmihiga v. 'l'hc Prr:setut<tr. Case No. lc'f R-2001-6:j-A, .ludgemetrt, Appcals Chamber, l8 irl:rch 2010 ("Nch*wiltigo {AC) Judgenrent") Tlp I'roseculor v. Simeon n"chanihigo, Case No. ICT'R-':001 -63-'l'. Judgement, Trial []hanrbei^ 1l Noverrrber 2008 ('"Nchcmihigo (TC) Judgemeut") Ndahirnana '[he Proset'utor v. Grlgoire Ndahir;tortu, Case No. IClR-2{l0l-68, lxceplion Prd-iurlicielle pour Vices de Form L'acte D'accusation Fondde sur I'A:r',icle 72 (A) iii) du Rcglement de Prccidure er de Preuve, 9 November 2009 (Ndahinu:ntr, Erceptian Pri.lutlicielle") The Praseaiiet \'. Nr.lahinana, Case No. ICTR-lll-68-T 166 i 1"14 ry{

Page 267

Juilge ne n / .tn.l Se fi te ui e 'l'he llntsecuttn' v. (irdgoire Ndahinutns. Case No. ICTII-200 1 -68-p1", Bde1, I 5 March 201 0 ("Prosecution Pre-'l rial llrief ') 31 l)ecertrbet 2a I t 'l'he Prusecutor's Pre-'f rial 3nryz Def'ects in lhe The Proseculor v. Gr<igoire Ntluleimana, ICTR-2001-68-llT" Defbnce N{otion on Amended lndictment pursuant to Rule 72. 5 &larch 2010 T'he Pro.yecutor t Grigoire Ndahimartu. ICTR-2001-68-PT, I)ecisiorl on Ndalimana's Nlotion on Deli;cts in the .Amcnded lndictment" 30 Anril 201 0 ("Decision on Defbcts ltt the Atttende{l Indictment") 7'1rc Prosecutor v. {iriguire Ndahisnsnc. Uase No. lCTl{-?001-68-1, Arrended lndictment. l8 Augusl 201 0 (''lndictme nt") 'I'he Prosecutar v. (h'dgaire h dtthimanLt, Case No. lcTll-O1-63, Notice of Alibi ['ron: thc De tte e of Gr*goire Ndahirnana Under llule 67(A) (ii) of Lhe Rules o1' Procedure arcl fir,iclencc" 3 Septenber 201 0 (''Notice o l- Alibi. 3 Septernber 20 10") The Proseu$or t. Gftgoire Ntlahirnawt, Clase No. I[ITR-01-58, Supplenrent to the Notice nf Alihi Filed on 3rd Sepiember 2010, 21 September 2010 The Prosecutor v. (lrtguire Ntiuhimanu, Case No. lalTR-O1-68-'l'. Orilgoir'c Ndahirnana's Pr*- Detbnce Bricf Pursuant to Rule 73lcr ofthe Rules of Procedure and F,vidence" 7 December 2010 ("Defbnce Pre-Trial Briet") I'he Prosecutrtr r (irigoira Ndahimawr" Llase No. IU flt-O1-68" Noiice ol'Alihi t.lnder

ltulc 67(4) iii) o1- the l{ules of Procedure and lividence. 7 Aplil 201 I (*Additional Nctice of Alibi. 7 April 201 l') 'l'he Pt'osecuktr ,-. {irlgoire Nttlltiruan*, Case No. ICl'i'lt-01-68" Additional Nolice of Alibi Unctor Idnle 67(A) {iij of tbe Ilules of Procedrre and Eviclence. l3 April 20ll {"'Adciilianal Nr:tice o:[Alibi, l3 April 201l") The Pro.seculor t'. (irigoire n*dahimana, C'ase No. ltlTR-01-68, lnteloltce hlenorandrm: itepr,rt on Site Visit 17 to l0 .lune 2011), Rei ICTR/11-6-04-l li0l0, I j June 20 t 1 ("Report on Site Visir ',) Tht Prosetutor t,. Grigoh'e Ndal mana" Case No. ICTR-2001-68-T, Proseculor's lrilal Trial Brief, 25 Jul1 20l I ("Prcsecution Closing Br"ief ') Ttxt Prosecutar' ,-. {-irdgoire Ntkhimana, Clase No. ICTR-01-68, Defbnce's final }}riefl 2-1 .lull, 201 I ("De{ence Closing Brief-') Ndindabahizi Iinntoruel Nt/inil{tbahizi t'. ll-he Pro.se<ttlor, Casc Nc. lC'flt-01-71-A, Juduemenr, Appeais Clramber, 16 Jani.rary 7Q 7 ('" Ndindab*/ri:l (ACl) Judgenient") I'he Prasccutor v. Hnurtunuel n"dindahahizi, Case No. tCII{-2t}01-7 l-t, .ludgernent and Senlericc. Tiiaf Chanrber. Lr Jut-v 200;l i"Ndindsbahizi (TC.! .tudgernent") 'l'ke frosec$or y. Ndtrlima.is, Clnse No. IC l R-01-tt3-1' 2tt'1 I 2'14

Page 268

Jltdger enf qfid.\e |rletue' Niyitegeka fiilzer Ni.t'itcgeka v. I'he llrrLvu or, Case No. lc'lR-g{t-14-A, July 2004 (" ,\1'negeka (AC) Judgcmenl") 30 De(:entb.t )t)ll 3a1I I .iudgement, AppeaJs Chatnber, lllte llrosetutor ,- Ii/iizer Ni.v'iltgek*, Case No. ICTR-96-14-'1', .lLltlgemenl and Sentencc, 'frial Chanrber, l6 lvfay 2003 (."Niyitegeka (1'C) "Iudgement") Ntagerura e1 *1. The Pn:secutor v. zlndri Nlogerura, Enmanue! Bagnn$iki crul Samuel Imanishimwe, l.ase No. ICTR-99-46-A. Judgement" Appeals Chamber, 7 Jull' 2AA6 ('Ntagerura et al. (A{ \ "l udgement") 1lrc Prasecuttsr v. Antlri Ntaget'ura, Eantanuel Boganbiki und Samuvl lnunishimwe, {ase No. ICTR-99-46-T. Judgement and Ssntence. 'l'rial Chambcr. 25 I'ebnrary 20{J4 ("Ntcgeruru et al. (l'C) .Iudgement") Nlakirutimana 'l'he I'rosecuror t'. Eli:tphan Ntakirutinano antl (iirartl Ntakirutinana, Case Nos. fcl'ft-96- li]-A and lClt{-96-l7-A, Judgenient. Appeals Chamber, l3 lfecember 201i4 {"Ntatlruti,,I na (t N lakilat ittutr{} (:\C) J udgement") Tht Prase culLn' u'. Elizaltluut ]*ukirutimttna and Girard Ntukirutittt(lfta, Carie Nos. {CTR-96-i0-T and ICTR.-96'17-T, Judgemenr and Sentenoe, Trial L'hanrber. 2l February 2003 ("Ntakirutiwana tt Nrakinrtrnana ('lC) J udgement") Nyiramasuhtko et rl. Arsene Shalrsm Ntahohuli and jlaltlitv Nvirsma.guhuko y.T'he ?nsctutrtr, Case No. lC'fR 97-:i- AR-73. Decision on the Appeals B,v

|tauiine Nyiramasuhirko and Arsdne Shalom Ntahobali on tlre "Deciskm on Del'ence l'Jrgent l\4otion lo Declare Parts of thc Hvitlerrc* ol' Wihesses RV and QIIZ lnadmissibie"" Appeals Chaniber,2 July 2004 Renzaho I'harcisst, Renzohr; v. ?he Prosecutor, Case No. l(l'llt-97-3l-A" Jildgement, Appeals Chamber, I April 201 | (" lle nzaho (AC) Judgernent") Tlrc Pro,secutor v. Tharcisse Renzaho, Case No. ICTIT-97-31-'l', Judgernenl and Sentence, Triai Chambec l4 Julx" 2009 ("Ren:aho ('IC) .ludgernent"l Rukundo Emmmnel Rukutula v. The Prosecutor, Cass No. ICTR-200i-70-A, Jutlgement, Appeals Chamber. 20 Octolrer 2010 l" Rukundo (AC) .ludgement") The Prosetulorr:. Ndahiwono Case N'r. IC'l lLO l-61-T 261{ 1 2?.1

Page 269

,.J udge ffie nl 0 nd Se fite hk Rutaganda 30 De.ea$er 2{}l i 3u7o (ieorges :lnderson Ntlerultunm,e Rrifttrftndo y. 'l'he ]>rosentc'r" Case Nr.r. IC'lll-96-3-A. Jitdgemenl, Appeals Chanrber" 26 May 2fr03 (" Ruragandu (AC) Judgernent") The Prose.cutor t. Georges ,4ndersart Nderuhumv,e R:utu*unda, Case No. ICITR-96-:J-T, .ludqement. 'I'rial Chan.rber.6 flecelnber 1999 ('Ilutaganda (TC) Judgernenf') Semanzil I'ourtnt Senon:u t'. 'I'he J'roseculor, Case r.\o. lC'fR-97-20-A, JudgemenL" Appeals ChamLrer, 2i) tulay 2005 (Sentnzu {AC) Judge ment") 'l'he Froser:utor v. Lnrettt Senzonza, Case No. lcl'R-97-20-'f', Judgernent and Senlenr::e, Trial Clramber, l5 h,lay 2003 ("Semanza ('l'Cj Judgernenr") $erombn The Prosecutor v. .4rhuna:;e Serr.;rnba, Case No. IC-'TR-2001-66-A, Judgemenl. Appeals Cheulber, l2 March 2008 ("Serotnba {A{lt Judgement"l The Prosetutor t,. .4thsnase Sentnbtt. Case r.,*o. ICTR-2001-66-1, Judgeurent. liial Chamber. ll December 2005 ("Serorrbo ITC) Judgement") Serushago Otnar Stru.shago r'. 'l'ke Prostcttlor, Case No. ICT'R-98-3S-A" Judgcrnent, Appeals Chamber. 6 April 2000 ("Serushago (AC) Juclgement") Sctako The Prosecuktr t. Elthrern ,9etaio" Case No. ICTR-04-81-'I', Judgeurent and Senlence. Triai Chanrber. 25 February 20t0 ('Setako ('IC') Judgement") Simba Alays Siwltn y. The Prvsecutor, C-'ase No. ICTR-0l -?6-A, .ludgement. z\ppaals (ihan:ber, 27 November 20(17

(."Sinthd (AC) Judgemeut") lfhe Pvo'ceculor v. Aloys Simba. Case No ICTR-01 -76-'I'. .ludgement aud. Sentence" 'I rill Clirarnbcr" l3 Deceniher 200,1 ("Snrba ( lC) Judgerncut'') Zigiranyirazo Protais Zigiyotl,-it'ctzo v. 'I'IE Praseuttrtr, Case No. IClli.-01-73-A. Judgement, Appeals Chamber, I6 November 2009 ("Zigirary.,ira:Lt (A(l) Judgemenf') 'l'le Ptosetrrtor v. Ndahinana, C:r5e No. ICI R-{ll-{r3-T 269 i 274 v

Page 270

Judgenent a*l Sentence 2.2. ICTY Aleksovski 3i Llecenber ?!JJ I T'he Prostcutor v. T,ej*il Delalit. Zdravk"o Mucii (a.k.a, (a.k.a. "Zcnga"), Case No. It'-96-21-A. .ludgemenr, ( At kbiti (ACI krdgerneni ") Delid "Pu,"o"), Ifurzim llelil antl listul l"antti* Appeals Chamtrer, 20 )ie bruary 2001 The Prusecutur t. F.asin Delic. Case No. IT'-04-83-T, Jr:dgement. Trial Chamber, 15 September 2008 ("De lii (TC) Judgenrent') Fur*ndiija Ttrc Pr{tsecutor v. Antu Furundirya. Case No. lT-95- 17ll-'}'. JLrdgernent, l'rial Cthamber, 10 I)eccmLrer 1998 (" l;unlul2i ju ('IC) Judgcmcnt ") 3oe 1 T'he Frosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski. Case No. 11'-95-1411-A, JLrdgenrenl, Appeals Chambcr. 24 March 2000 (",4leksovski {AC) Judgernent) Tlp Proset:utor v, 7-htkt Aleksnvski. Case No. fll-95-i411-l'. Judge*rent, 'l'rial Chamber, 25 June 1999 (,4teks o v-tki (AC) .Iudgement") Ehgojevif el al. The Prosecuror v. I'ir*tie Blugojcvit tutd f)ragon hkit, C,ase No. lT-02-60-,4, Judgoment. Airpeals Charnber" 9 ir{ay 2007 (" Blagojetii & Ja&lc (AC) Judgenrent") Tke Prasecntor v. I"idoje Blagojevii n*d Dragan Jokit, Case No. IT-0?-60-I" Judgement. lrial Chamber, l7 January 2005 l" Blagojer,i{ <k .ktki{ {'lC) iudgcmenr") Bosk0ski et al. 7'he Prosecutor v. [,jtlse l]t>ikoski and Joh.In 7'artulot'ski, Case No. ff-L]4-82-A^ Judgement, Appeals Chanrber, I 9 May 2010 i".Ber,ito,r*l & ?'ariulav.ski (AC) Judgenrent") lllaiki6 The Pras<:culor v. Tihottrit' Blaikit" Case No. lT-95-'14-A, Judgemeni. Appeals Chaniber. 29 JLrl"v 2AA4 f Btaskit IAC) Judgement") Brtlanin '{'he I'rosetuior y. Ratloslov Rrt'ktnin, Case No. l"l'-99-36-A, .ludgement, Appeals Chamhr. 3 Apri! )007 ("Rrdanin (AC) .ludgement") Delal!{ et al. {"Celetiiii") The Prosecuto| t. Nclehiwan*. l'ase N{j. ICTR-tll-68-T 21A i 274

Page 271

.)udge new at,J St nle nce tlalii j I t . i , ' r , h l , e r : t ) I I 'llrc Froset:utor v. Stanisl* Calii, Case No. I'l -98-29-;\, Judgemenl. Appeals Charnber, 30 November 2006 ("Galri (AC) Judgement'") ilad*ihruanovif et al. The Prosectuot v. Enter Ha'liifursanovit ttnd Atnir Kuburu^ Case No. lT-01-47*A. Judgement, Appeals Charnbe r. 22 April2008 (" Hud2ilusanrs',-it & Kuhura (At:) Judgenient") X'Ialilovi€ 'f'he Prosectior tt. fi$er llutilovit, Case No. I'l -01-48-A, 3udgement, Appcals {ihamber, l6 {lclotrer 2007 (" Halilovii {AC) Judgernent") Jelisir! The Pro,veculor v. (]oran ,leli.:i{, Case No. lT-95-10-;\, Judgemell" Appeals Chamber, 5 Jul1 20{}1 (''.r,:lt;s# (;\{r) Judgement") Kordid et. al Tle Prosecutor v. Dorio Kortli{ ttnd tr'Iario Cerkc:, Case No. lT-S5-14/2-d, Judgernent. Appeals Chamher', 17 llecernber'2004 {"Kordii' tt (erkez {AC) Judgcnicnt") T'ht Pxtsecwttst' v. I)t:nitt Kortlit anil ,n*vio Cerkez" Case No. l"l'-9 -< - I4l2-"1', .ludgemenl, 'l rial Charrber. 26 lrebruary 2il01 ("Kordit & f-'cr'&e: ('lC) Judgemcnt") KrajiSnili The Prt'secutar v. ll'lorntilo Kra-iilni*, Case No. IT"00-39-T. Judgemelt. Trial llhamber, 27 September 2006 (" Kroj iin i k (Ttll) JLrdgemenf ') KrstiC The Frasccutcr t'. Rodisluv Kr.sl#. Case No. lT-98-33-A. Ju.lgement. Appe:.rls Chanrber. 1!):\pril 2AA4 {" tir,vit (At) .ludg€merlt") Krnojelac Tlze Pu.tscu$or v. Mikn'ad Kntojelac- Case No. l'f-{r7-15-A, Judgement, Appeais Chaniher. l7 Septeniber 2003 ("k'ruitluc (.AC) .ludgement") I-he Prosecutor v. I:lilorad Krnoiekrc, Case No. l1--97-25-T', L)ecision on lireliminary iV{olion,:n Form of Amended Inclictment, ll Febrtrary 2000 {."Krru;jeltrc Decision r-rf l1 l'ebrLlary, 2000") 3o6I 'l'ke I'rosecutor y. Ndahknata, {lase No. IC'fR-fl I -611-1' 271 i 271

Page 272

,Judg€ e t at&l Settenae Kunarac et al. l0 L)trcmbel 2Al I 3o€? The Frcsecutor v. I)rogtljub Kunarac, Radomir" Kovcr' .$ul k)r.7t1 fukotit, C.ase Nos. IT-96-23-A and l'l -96-2311-A, Judgcment, Appeals Charnher', 12 Junc 2002 {" Kunorat et tl. (AC) Jttdgernen{") l'he Praseu$or r,. llra.golj ub Kancrttc. llsdomiv Kot'ud antl &tr'on l'uktn,ii, Case Nos. I'l -9fi2-1-"t' and I'l'-96-?l/ t-'f, Judgenrent. 'l'rial Chamber, 22 Fcbruarv 2{J{JI (" Kuntrac tr trl. {l'ti Judgement"') Kupreikif et al. Tlte Pvssecutot' ,-. Zovan Kuprtikii, Mirjan ktpreiki{:, Vlark.o Kupreikii, Drcgo Ja'sipotit, I'lcditnit Santii, Case No. lT-95-16-A" .ludgement. z\ppeals Chanrber" 23 October 200tr ("Kupreskii et dL (AC) Jrrdgement") Kvodk* ef al. Ihe Pntsetutor v. l:lirosla,- Ktoikt, lllado )lndit, h:r,n /tgic and Drogoljuh Prcci. Case No. I'l: 98-i0/l-A, Judgement. Appeals Chamber.2S fiebruarv 20{)5 ("Kvoika et al (.4C1 JLtdgeni*n?") Linaj et al. The Frosetutor r'. l;atntir L,inaj, Isak ,tdusliu Ilorudin ]lals, {lase No. l'I-03-{;6-l'. Judgemeut, 'l'ri;rl Chamber, 30 November 2005 (" Liwj tt . (TC) Judgement") N*letilid and Martinovii The Prosecutor v. Ntttetitit und Murlirtovit {u.k.u. "Ihta") crul f'inhtt llfitrrinr.n'il 1a.A u 'Stda"i. Case No. I'f-98-34-A, Judgement, Appcals Charuber, 3 May 2006 ("Nuletilii & Murtitto"-i[ r,\l) Judgernent") Flikolir! ']'he Prosecutor v. Dragan Niktlit, Case No.

I'f-94-l-A, Juclgement" Appeals Chamber. "1 frebruar_y 2005 (" Dragau n'i&o/i6 (AC) JLrdgement") Ori6 'l'|rc Pro,secutor v. Naser Orii:, Case No. l1-03-68-A, Judgement, Appe:rls Chamber. 3 Jaly 2i}08 ("tlrl {AC.1 J udgement") Popovif et al. The Praseculor','. L'ujcdiu Popovii, Ljubiia Benro, Ilrago Nikolii. Ljt$ontir Bttros,ciuttitt, Radiw.t ie l{ilerit. Milan Gvro and I;inko Panthsv,-it, Case No. I1'-05-88-T'. Judgement, Trial Chamber. 10 .lune 2010 l"Popot,i{ et ul. (TC') Judgemenr"l Tlte Propcutort Ntishhnaru. Casc No. ICTR-01-68-T 212 i 274 'kr

Page 273

,IudgemL,|t a ,f Se$renc. Simii j0 December 20i I j06 6 The Pra.secuhtr v. tllagoje "Sllii, Case No. I'f-9-r-9-A. Judgemcnt. Appeals Charriber. 28 November 2006 {''Simit (AC) Judgemenl") I'he Prostcutor v. Illogoje S'nrl1'. Clase Ner. IT-95-9-T" Judgement, 'li'ial Cha:lber, l7 Octobir 201)-1 ('^trn;l (fC) Judgement") Slakiri Tle Prosectlor y. I'Iilamh,,l)al#, {lase No. lT-97-24-A, Judgement, Appeals {lharnber, 22 Nlarch 2006 {"Stakit (AC) .l udgenent"i Strugar nte FroseLutar t'. Ptrvk Sl.ugar. Case No. IT-01-42-T. Judgemerit, Trial Cliaurber, 3 I Janucr'1 2005 ("Sri"rrgar ( I'C) Judgement") Tadi6 T'he Prosecutor v Duiko"I'tulil, Case No. I'T-9.1- l-A. Judgement^ Appeals L'hamher. l5 .luly 1999 {" Tndit ( AC.} Iudgement") VasiljeviS The fro.yecuttsr r'. lfilar tr'asilie';i{.. Case No. lT-98-32-A. Judgement, Appeals Clhanrber, 25 February 2004 ("\'asiljet'i{, (AC) Judgenrent") flv llyotecntot t,. i\i.lthil a11.t. Case \o. ICTR-01-68-T 273 ; 274

Page 274

.1 udge tae nt ontl Se neat e ANNOX C: INDICTM&NT 3u l,:e.c thrr 2uI l ['l his page has been intentionally lel'f biankl jce 5 'l'he l't'ot€cutat r. Ndq!1imano, C.ne No. tCfR-(tl-6L-T 2',74i2'74

Page 275

zDgl

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA

THE PROSECUTOR

AGAINST

CNTCOTNT WNAIIIMANA Case No. ICTR-2001-68-I &t re bt

AMENDED INDICTMENT I. The Prosecutor of the Intemational Criminal Tribunal for Rwandq pursuant to the authority stipulated in Adicle 17 of the statute ofthe International criminal rribunal for Rwanda (the "Statute ofthe Tribunal,') charges: Gr6goire NDAHIMANA with: Countl Genocide Count II Alternatively to Count I, Complicity in Genocide Count III Extermination as a Crime against Humanity II, THEACCUSED l. Grfgoire NDAHIMANA was born in 1952 in KIVUMU commune.

2. Grfgoire NDAHIMANA was at all times referred to in this indictment the bourgmestre of KIVUMU commune, KIBUYE prefecfure, Republic of Rwanda 3 ' During the events which are the subject of this indictment, Nyange parish was located in KIVUMU commune, KIBUYE prefeclure, Republic of Rwanda. Nyange Church had a seating capacity of 1500 to 2000 persons.

Page 276

3"63 III. CIIARGES AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS 4. Between I January and 31 December 1994, citizens native to Rwanda were slassified according to the following ethnic or racial classifications: Tutsi, Hutu and Twa, 5. Befween 6 April and 17 July 1994, throughout Rwanda, there were widespread or systematic attacks against the civilian population based on Tutsi ethnic or racial identificatiorL or perceived sympathies with the Tutsi. As a result of these attacks, large numbers of ethnically or racially identified Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed.

6. Between 6 April and 17 Jrly 1994, genocide against the Tutsi group occuned in Rwanda.

7. The general allegations contained in paragraphs 4 tbrough 6 above are incorporated into each of the allegations set forth below. Counts I and II: GENOCIDE, or alternatively, COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE 8. The Prosecutor of the Intemational Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda charges Gregoire NDAHIMANA with GENOCIDE, a crime stipulated in Article 2(3Xa) of the Statute, in that on or between the dates of 6 April 1994 and 30 April 1994, in

KIVUMU commune, KIBUYE prefecture, Republic of Rwanda, Gr€goire NDAHIMAITIA was responsible for killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members ofthe Tutsi population with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a racial or ethnic group, as such, as outlined in paragraphs 13 ttnough 33.

9. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda charges Gr6goire NDAHIMANA with COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE, a crime stipulated in Article 2(3)(e) of the Statute, in that on or between the dates of 6 April 1994 and 30 April 1994 in KIVUMU commune, KIBUYE prefecture, Republic of Rwanda, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA was responsible for killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the Tutsi racial or ethnic group with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Tutsi racial or ethnic group or with knowledge that other people int€nded to destroy, in whole or in part, the Tutsi racial or ethnic group, .ls such, and that his subordinates would contribute to the crime of genocide, as outlined in paragraphs 13 through 33. Individual Criminal Responsibiliqt under 6 ) I0. Pursuant to Article 6(l) of the Sratute, the accused Gr6goire I\IDAHIMANA is individually responsible for the crime of genocide or altimatively complicity in genocide because he planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the preparation or execution of these crimes. With respect to the commission of these crimes, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA ordered those over whom he had authority as a result of his position described in paragraph 2 above, and he instigated and aided and abetted those over whom he did not have authoritv.

Page 277

3o6z 1 l. In addition, the accused Gr6goire NDAHIMANA willfully and knowingly participated in a joint criminal enterprisc whose common purpose was the commission of genocide against the Tutsi racial or ethnic group and persons identified as Tutsi or presurned to support the Tutsi in KIVUMU commune, KIBUYE prefecture. To fulfrll the joint criminal purpose, the accused acted with othels including Athanase SEROMBA, Parish Priest of Nyange, Gaspard KANYARUKIGA, an influential Hutu businessman, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, Judicial Police Inspector of KIWMU commune: Judge Joseph HABIYAMBERE, President of the Canton Court, Cilbert Rugwizangoga KANANI, an Assistant bourgmestre, V6daste MUITANGWABUGABO, also known as Vddaste MUPENDE, an Assistant bourgmestre, Tdlesphore NDUNGUTSE, a Teacher, Anasthase RUSHEMA, a Teacher, Clristophe MBAKILIREHE, Brigadier of KIVUMU comrnune, Th€ophile RUKARA, an army reservist, conseillers such as Jean Marie Vianney HABARUGIRA, conseiller of Nyange sector, Laurent SINDABYEMEM, conseiller of Sanga sector, Ferdinand MLNYARUKATO, conseiller of Ngobagoba secteur, other conseillers, gendarmes, the Interahamwe militia, communal policemen, and other Hutu civilians, all such actions being taken either directly or through subordinates, between the period of6 Apdl 1994 to 30 April 1994. Individual Criminal Resoonsibilin under 6B) 12. Pursuart to Article 6(3) of the

Statute, the accused Gr6goire NDAHIMANA is responsible for the crimes of genocide and complicity in genocide because specific criminal acts were committed by subordinates of the accused and the accused had reason to know that such subordinates were about to commit such acts before they were committed or that such subordinates had committed such acts and the accused failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetratofs thereof. Grdgoire NDAHIMANA is responsible for the acts of his de jure and de facto subordinates in KIVUMU commune, including but not limited to Nyange Parish between the period of 6 April 1994 to 30 April 1994. The subordinates of Grdgoire NDAHIMANA include but are nor limited to: Gilbert Rugwizangoga KANANI, an Assistant bourgmestre, Vddaste MURANGWABUCABO also knorwr as Vidaste MUPENDE, an Assistant bourgmestre, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, the Judicial Police lnspEctor, Cbdsrophe MBAKILIREHE, Brigadier of KMMU commune, conseillers such as Laurent SINDABYEMERA, conseiller of Sanga sector, Jean Marie Vianney HABARUGIRA, conseiller of Nyange sectot other conseillers, communal policemen, communal employees, gendarmes, interahamwe and other Hutu civilians.

CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR COUNTS I AND II 13. Following the death of the Rwandan President on 6 April 1994, Tdlesphore NDLINGUTSE led attacks against Tutsi civilians in theft homes in KIVUMU cornmune, killing Martin KAREKEZI, Thomas MWENDEZI and some members of the family of GrCgoire NDAKUBANA in furtheranoe of the joint criminal e erprise referred to in paragraph I I ofthe indictment.

Page 278

30€t 14. Subsequent to the said attacks, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA and other members of the joint criminal enterprise ordered that Tutsi civilians be directed to the Kirumu Communal Offrce and Nyange Parish in order to exteminate them.

15. From 8 April to 16 April 1994 Grdgoire NDAHIMANA, Athanase SEROMBA, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, Gaspard KANYARUKIGA, Vddaste Murangwabugabo also known as Vddaste MUPENDE, Laurent SINDABYEMERA, Jean Marie Vianney HABARUGIRA and others whose identities are unknow\ attended several meetings at the Kivumu Communal Office, various locations in Nyange Parish such as the Presbytery, and the CODECOKI and areas near to it, The object of these meetings was to plan the extermination of the Tutsis in KMMU cor nune.

16. On or about 10 April 1994, Gr6goire NDAI{IMANA, Athanase SEROMBA, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, Gaspard KANYARUKIGA and other members of the joint criminal enterprise attended a meeting at the Kiwmu Communal Office in order to plan the extermination of the Tutsis and to request gendarmes from KIBUYE prefecture to join in the killings.

17. On or about 1l April 1994, Gregoire NDAHIMANA, Fulgence KAYISHEMA Telesphore NDUNGUTSE, Vedaste MURANGWABUGABO also known as V€daste MUPENDE, conseillers and others whose identities are unknown held a meeting at the Kivumu Communal Office at which it was decided to requisition a vehicle belonging to a Tutsi trader named Aloys RWAMASIRABO, which Fulgence KAYISHEMA and others used to transport assailants to Nyange Parish and to make announcements encouraging the population to attack Tutsis.

18. On or about 11-13 Apdl i994, Gr6goire NDAIIIMANA, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, T€lesphore ND{INGUTSE, Vddaste MURANGWABUGABO also known as Vddaste MUPENDE and others whose identities are unknown decided to move all the Tutsis at the Kilumu Communal Offrce to Nyange Parish, and to send gendarmes to Nyange Parish to confine the Tutsis in firtherance ofthe joint criminal enterprise.

19. On or about I l-13 April 1994, Gr€goire NDAHIMANA, Athanase SEROMBA, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, Gaspard KANYARUKiGA and others whose identities are unknown met at the Presbytery and the Kivumu Communal Office and decided that all Tutsi refugees at Nyange Parish should be moved into Nyange Church. In furtherance of the joint criminal enterprise to kill the Tutsis, Athanase SEROMBA ordered that the Tutsis be moved to Nyange Church where communal policemen, gendarmes, Interahamwe and Hutu civilians confined the refugees pre\€nting them from leaving.

20. On or about 10-13 April 1994, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA, Athanase SEROMBA, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, Gaspard I(ANYARUKIGA, Joseph HABIYAMBERE, Christophe MBAKILIREHE, T6lesphore NDTNGUTSE, Gilbert Rugwizangoga KANANI and others whose identities are unknown held meetings at the Kilumu Communal Office and the Presbfery. Immediately following these meetings, Christophe MBAKILIREHE, Gilbert Rugwizangoga KANANI and other members of

Page 279

3o6a the joint criminal onterprise disarmed the refugees in Nyange Church in furtherance ofthe plan to attack and kill the Tutsi refugees.

21. On or about 13-16 April 1994, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA made several vehicles available to his subordinates such as Fulgence KAYISHEMA and TClesphore NDTINGUTSE to transport assailants to Nyange Parish. These assailants joined other killers who included interahamwe, communal policemen, gendarmes and others whose identities are unknora'n in killhg Tutsi refugees at Nyange Parish, Grdgoire NDAHIMANA as bourgmestre of KIVUMU conmune knew or had reason to know ofthe acts ofhis subordinales but he failed to prevent or punish their actions.

22. On or about 13 April 1994, GrSgoire I\IDAHIMANA, Athanase SEROMBA, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, Gaspard KANYARUKIGA and orhers whose identities are unknown held a meeting at the Presbytery to plan the extermination of the Tutsis. On that same day, the assailants launched an attack against the Tutsi refugees at the instigation of Gaspard KANYARUKIGA.

23. On or about 14 April 1994, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA, Athanase SEROMBA, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, Gaspard I(ANYARUKIGA, Joseph HABIYAMBERE, Christophe MBAKILIREHE and others whose identities are unknown met at the Presb1.tery. After this meeting, some Tutsi refugees told Gr6goire NDAHIMANA of the attacks that had been larmched against them. Grdgoire NDAHIMANA stated that the Tutsis werc inyenzi who had killed the President and he refused to assist them. Thereafter, the subordinates of Gr6goire NDAHIMANA such as the communal policemen, gendames, Interahamwe and other assailants surroundins the parish launched an attack against the Tutsi refugees in the church. Gr6loire NDAIIIMANA as bourgmestrc of KIVUMU corlmune knew or had reasoo to kno* ofthe acts ofhis subordinates but he failed to prevent or punish the.ir actions, 24. On or about 14 April 1994, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA presided over a public meeting held at the Nyange market square that was attended by Gilbert Rugwizangogi KANANI, Christophe MBAKILIREHE, Joseph IIABIyAMBERE, Fulgenie KAYISHEMA and others whose identiries are unknovm. At that meeting, Gaipard KANYARUKIGA instigated the crowd to kill the Tutsis at Nyange Church.

25. On or about 15 Apri.l 1994, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA and his subordinates, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, Christophe MBAKILIREHE, TClesphore NDUNGUTSE, Vtdaste MURANGWABUGABO also known as Vddaste MUPENDE and others whose identities are unknown held meetings at the presbflery, the CODECOKI and in front of Gaspard KANYARUKIGA's pharmacy. Following these meetings, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA ordered the communal policemen, gendarmes, interahamwe, an irmy reservist named Th€ophile RUKARA and other assailants whose identities ari -Fo*,to 'start working'. The assailants launched an attack against the Tutsis seriously injuring and killing many of rhem. Jean Marie Viarmey HABARUGIRA led one of the groups that attacked the Tutsis. Gr6goire NDAHIMANA knew or had reason to know of the acts of his subordinates and failed to prevent or punish these astions.

Page 280

305q 26, During the attack on 15 April 1994, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA, Arhanase SEROMBA, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, Gaspard KANyARUKIGA and others whose identities are unknown were present, ordering, instigating and supervising the assailants, and aided and abetted the assailants by providing them wittr-weaponi and fuel in an attempt to burn the Tutsi refugees in the ihurch. Aowever, the attempt was not successtul, Ieading Gr6goire NDAIIIMANA, Athanase SEROMBA, Fjgence KAYISHEMA, Gaspard KANYARUKIGA and others whose identities ur" *lior"o to hold a meeting at the Presb)tery to plan further attacks on the Tutsis. 27. o.n or about 15 April 1994, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA told the assailants that rhey should cover themselves in banana leaves to be easily distinguishable from the refugees they were about to attack in furtherance oflhe plan to kilfthe Tutsi refugees. 28. on_or about I 5 April 1994, members of the joint criminal enterprise ordered that the bodies of ihe Tutsi victims killed during tire attacks be buriea in mass graves at Nyange Parish and sunounding areas.

29. On or a!9ut 16 April 1994, Gr6goire NDAIIIMANA, Athanase SEROMBA, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, Gaspard KANyARUKIGA and ot.hers whose identities are unknown met at the Presbytery. After this meeting, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA started shootin€ at the refugees thereby signaring the assiiants io launch a large scare attack on the Tutsi refugees.

30. On or about 16 Ap/'l 1994, Gregoire NDAIIIMANA, Athanase SEROMBA, !qlS"*" KAYISHEMA, caspard KANYARUKIGA, Joseph HABIYAMBERE; Tdlesphore NDI-NGUTSE,_-l1Tft1r" RUSHEMI, Gilbert Rugwizangoga KANANI, Vddaste MURANCWABUGABO also known as Vddasre fr WShinE, Jean Marie vianney HABARUGIRA and others whose identities are unknown met, planned and mutually agreed to kill all of the Tutsi refugees in Nyange Church by destroying it. 31.9i_1-6,_{q.!t 1994, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA, Athanase SEROMBA, Futgence KAYISHEMA, Gaspard KANyARUKIGA and others whose identities *, ,r,rr,io*n ordered the assailants to destroyNyange church using a buldozer, k ling about 2000 Tutsi refugees,inside. Gr6goire_NDAHIMANA was iresent during the d"emolition of the church and was instigating the assailants to k l the Tutsi refugJ"r *a rup"-i.iru the aftacks, 32. After the destrucrion of t{e_rc^!r1ch, the authorities, including Gr6goire NDAHIMANA,. Arhanase S-ERqMBA: Fulgence riaVrSHnUi, c*-p*a KANYARUKIGA and others whose identities ," irnk ro*nLnt to the p;esb),tery to celebrate by sharing drinks.

33. On or 39gu1 t6 April 1994, afier the destrucrion of the Church, the bodies of the Tutsis killed at Nyange parish were buried in mass gmves at Nyange parish and surrounding areas.

Page 281

effi Count III: EXTERI{INATION AS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY 34. The Prosecutor of the Intemational criminal rribunal for Rwanda charges Gr6goire NDAHIMANA with EXTERMINATION as a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, as stipulated in Article 3ft) ofthe Statut€, in that on or between the dates of6 Aoril 1!94 and 30 April 1994, in KIVUMU commune, KIBUYE prefecture, Rwanda, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA with intent to participate in the killing of an number of individuals and knowing that his action was part of a vast murderous enterprise, was responsible for plaruring, instigating, ordering, committing or otherwise aiaing ana abetting in the planning, preparation or execution of the killing of the ciiilian population as part of a widespread or systematic attack against that civilian population on political ethnic or racial grounds, as follows. Individual Criminal Resoonsibilitv under 6( I ) 35. Pusuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute, the accused Grdgoire NDAHIMANA is individually responsible for the crime of extermination as i crime against humanity because he planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted i; the preparation or execution of these crimes. with respect to the commission of these crimes, Gr6goire NDAHIMANA ordered those over whom he had authoriW as a result ofhis position described in paragraph 2 above, and he instigaterl and aided and abetted those over whom he did not hav€ authority.

36. In addition, the accused Grdgoire NDAHIMANA willfully and knowingly participated in a joint criminal enterprise whose common purpose was the commission of extermination as a crime against humanity against the Tutsi racial or 91!_ry9 Uoun and persons identified as Tutsi or presumed-to support the Tutsi in KIVUMU commune, KIBUYE prefecture. To fulfilt the joint criminal purpose, the aocused acted with authorities of KIVUMU commune such as Athanase sglioir,tga, Parish Priest of Nyange, Gaspard KANYARUKIGA, an influential Hutu businessman, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, Judicial police iorpr"to, of KIVUMU commune, Judge Joseph HABIYAMBERE, presidenl of the Canton Court, Gilbert Rugwizangoga KANANI, an Assistant bourgmestre, Vddaste Murangwabugabo also known as V€daste MUPENDE, an Assistant bourgmestre, Tdlesphore NDTINGUTSE, a Teacher, - Anasthase RUSI{EMA, a Teacher, Chrisiophe MBAKILIREHE, Brigadier of _KIVUMU communeJ ThSophile RUICA.RA, an anny reservist, conseillers such as Jean Marie vianney HABIRUGIRA, conseiller of Nyarge sector, Laurent SINDABYEMERA, "on.iille. of Sanga sector, Ferdinand MLTNYARUKATO, conseiller of Ngobagoba sector, other .oru"ill".., gendarmes, the. Interahamwe militi4 communal policemen, uni other Hutu civilian's al such actions being taken either directly or through subordinates, between the period of 6 April 1994 to 30 April 1994. Individual Criminal Responsibilitv under 6(3 ) 37. Pursuant _to Article 6(3) of-the statute, the accused Grdgoire NDAHIMANA is responsible for the crime of extermination as a crime afainst humanity because specific criminal acts were committed by subordinates ofthJaccused and the accused

Page 282

3o:57 had reason to know that such subordinates were about to commit such acts before they were committed or that such subordinates had committed such acts and tle accused failed to take the necessary and reasonable m€asures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof. Gr6goire NDAHIMANA is responsible for the acts ofhis de jure and de facto subordinates in KIVUMU commune, including but not limited to Nyange Parish between the periods of 6 April 1994to30 April 1994. The subordinates of Gr€goire NDAHIMANA include but are not limited to: Gilbert Rugwizangoga KANANI, an Assistant bourgnestre, Vddaste Murangwabugabo, also known as V6daste MUPENDE, an Assistant bourgmestre, Fulgence KAYISHEMA, the Judicial Police Inspector, Christophe MBAKILIREHE, Brigadier of KIVUMU commune, conseillers such as Laurent SINDABYEMERA, conseiller of Sanga sector, Jean Marie Vianney HABARUGIRA, conseiller of Nyange sector, other conseillers, communal policemen, communal employees, gendarmes, Interahamwe and other Hutu civilians.

38. The Prosecutor relies upon the allegations in paragraphs 13 through 33 in support of the charge of extermination as a crime against humanity. The acts and omissions of Grigoire NDAIIIMANA detailed herein are punishable in reference to Articles 22 and 2i of the Statae of the Tribunal Dated in Arusha this I 8rh day of August 2010 Hassan

Page 283

N8: Thi$ form is avaiiabte ofl : http:/lwww.icir.orglENGLlSH/cms,/cms1.qoc TK&$IAmtS$!SH Sfrr€Y FOR Ftl"lHS OF &@eUr',!Ep*TS W|T*N eSeS .:r::i:rtll,iitiqjijit'!j!ir!*:ie$1&!*s*t&wl*Mit:i:it::ir.:.l:j.riri:i.:L:.... COURT IWANAG6i$ENT SEETIOI{ iArl. !l 0f the Dl.ectrle trr the R4atstr,/l the Charnbers / Fi! w$ffi !ltii.\r.r i,jri nt.il I - G€I{ERAL II{FORMATIO&! Team I N. M. Diallo LJ Apf€al$ Chamber I lhe HsgLre Team ll R. N. Kouambo Teaiir lll C. K. l"lometowu Oefence (name*) Pfo$eclltor's OJfice tnamesJ The Frosecutor vs. Crdgoire ND.aI]tM,rN,l - --liaieTt.rfioe;: tc-TR:0t-.;$-ll Transfiitted: ta lanuary efti s dale: 30 nscemb*r 2011 919'11l!anqgrge: S Engtish I French lf Kinyar..rvanda JUIXJF]]\.INNT AN} SIiN'I'ANC[ Ciassification Level: ex Parte Stristly Confidenliat / Under Soal Confidential Public TRIM Document TyBe: fl lndictmerr{ ff Warrant Ll Llecrsion lJ Affrdav't E Oiaclosure I Order tl Conesponcence D Noiice of Appeal n Appeal Eook n Sook c{ Au.thoii.iies CMS SHALL take ne-essaryiffi regarorng transtation. X Filing Party hereby subftits only the original, and will not subnri* any transiated versic4: I Reference materiai is provided in annex to faciJitate transl€tion. Target Language(s): CI|'S SHALL hJOT tair* any F illfs iql{P::1 :?bT$ rgIH tl'}e origina} and rhe tianstare.t yer$ion iqr ritins, as rgilows: fl - TRANSLATTOH qTATUS ON THE FILING DATE Ct{$ $t|ALL htCT

rat e a U Filing Party wit, be submitting n Ensrish " ** u"H'*::#rsion{s} in due course '" tg?lgff#Euasefs): XtNoLy F|LL tN THE EoxEs BELot\r LJ The OTP is overseeing translaiion. The docurnent is submitieci for tran*tatton tol I The Language Services Section ot the ICTR / A/usha H l^l]e Langudse Servrces Seclion of the ICTR / The Hague. L_J An accredtted servrce lor translatron: see detarts be6w. tlame of contael personj Ilarne of tervice: Address: E-maillTet./Fax: lJ DEFENCE is overseejng h anslat;on lhe document is subrTritteC to an accre{jrteal service FDr translation (fees will be sutlmitied io DCDMS): Name 0f cgntact personj Name of service: Addre$s; E-mail/Iel. lFax: flr - TRAltsL4TroN pRtoRtTtsaTloH Cf 5'! {Updated on ??Jnne ?0l.ft