François Karera v. The Prosecutor

02/02 '09 11:22 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR E oor tc rn-o 7'1+-A u+ln g? : ,o?'?!PfL, rrbi nuar r€"elft{ ffi '??"L?f"t ""o" Rur @}@ lnternationaCl rfminalT ribunalf or Filvanda uNItEMtror€ IN THE APPEAI,S CIIAMBER Before: Judge Fausto Pocar, Presiding Judge Mohamed Shshsbuddeen JuilgeMehmet Giiney Judge Ltu Dequn ICTRA ppealsG hgmbor Judge TheodorMeron Date0:2 Fcb.ruon|Ao Regisfrer: ffi. [dqYrrq Dieng 2 February 2009 r,i..' ': n FRAI.{9OrSK ARERA ISo rIl.q2uJ> Y. dolrJ :: c)c) -'XjtJ TIIE PROSECUTOR l* 6 cl CaseN o.I CTR-01-74-A - JI,]DGEIVIENT Couuself or the Appellant Office of the Prosecutor Ms. CarrrelleM archessault Mr. IlassauB ubacarf a[ow Mr. AlexaudreBergevin Mr. AIex Obote-Odora lvlr. ChristianD eslauriersA, ssistant Ms. Dior SowF aIl h[r- AbdoulayeS eye Mr. Fraugois-XavierN sanzuwera f"." Mr. Alfred Orono Orono tl:if pour'le nwrnf Ms. Florida Kabasinga pinal itrtcrnatio'rct Tribunal Ms. B6aniceC tapaux cF.'rFfl, ED',rG9l-c9E-1llI*"^?Tl1ilii^TEIJI;* EB$lltElIiy-L'Jilkl;';i#:.;.*,iilY'":lX:1 g n q s 8 .19i. ..9M& l9 :.- f.ol qLLt

'09 02/02 11:23 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR @ooz ffiln CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION tr. STAT.IDARDOS F APPELLATE REYIEW IIL ALLEGED GEITEIIAL ERRORS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE EYIDENCE (GROUNIDO F AppEAL 2,IN PART)*... ..,,...r....,!.r.. -.-.---...5 A. At Lscpo GsliERArE, nnonsI N TI{EA ssesslrpNro F THEA reelletr's Tesrfi\doNy.....,...........5 1. RulesA pplicablet o the Assessmenotf an Accused'sT estimonya rrdP rovisiono f a ReasonoOdp iuion ....,,,..,......,.,....5 2. Alleged Enor conoerningI nferencesth at the Trial ChamberS horrldH ave Draqmf rom the Prosecution'As bsenceo f cross-Examinatioonf the Appellant ....,.,g B. Ar,LeceoE RRoRlSN T HEA ssessunqro EC nctnrrsrAl.irrAEl vorrvce -,-.--....,..,.,l1 C. Ar-LeaepE nr.onsr NTHEA ssESsMENoEt H eARseyE vneNcE............... ..._...-.-.1-2.- D- At-t Bcrp EnRonsI N THEA sspssNmlror FU NcoRRoBoRATEEvDr pntcp. .............14 E. AILpcpp ERRoRRSE LATTNTGo r rrE OssERvnTrowlvsl qDeD URJNrc* n Strs Vrsrr.....,.,.......1. 5 F. CoNctu sloN.......... .-.....,.16 IV. ALLEGED ERRORS REI,ATING TO TIIE F"IhIDING THAT TIIR APPELLAI{T ACTED AS PREFEC|T DE IIACTO IN 'TilGALI.RIIRAL'' BEFORE 17 APRIL 1994 (cRorJND OF AppEAL 3).............. -......._.......17 A. AI.LecepE nnonR ELATINrGo Tl{EO rncnr, DssrcNarroNo FK icnu pR.nrpcrune N 1994..1 7 B. At-t scep EnRoRn qF nnnc IIIAT FoRMERP nrrecr Col,rnB znruNGU wAs EtaeowpREDro Apponr ttru ApreLLeNTp nernct

l D II,rTEN.LI., c. ALLEGEpE nnons w Fn un ia rIrAT m Apppr,taNr Acrnp es De Fecro pREFEc B r EFoRE 17A pnn 1994.-...-.-.- .............................--... .....19 1. AllegedE rrorr elatingt o theL ettersS ignedb y theA ppellant 'T or t heP refoot"......,............20 2. AllegedE rrori n Relyingo n CircrrnstantiaEl vidence -.-........,........21 3- AllegedE rrorsi n Assessingth e Evidencea ndi n Failingt o Providea ReasonedO pinion,-,21 4. Allegation that No Evidencew as Adducedt hat the Appellanth ad Exercisedp owers o f the Prefecat fier1 4J anuary1 994.,....... ...-._.-.-.23 D. Cowcr,usroN.--,,...., ----....2j Y. ALLEGED ERROR,SR ELATING TO TIIE APPELI.ANT'S INVOLVEMENT IN TIIE MRIID AND IILS AUTIIORITY OVER Tffi,INTERAEAMWE (cROtjND OF APPEAL 4)'-'-...'-'.'. .....-.-.-,-rr..... ..-.,.24 VI. ALLEGED ERRORS REI-ATING TO THE FIIIDING THAT IEE APPELLANT WAS IITVOL\IED IN A CA]VIPAIGN TO ICrt L TI]ITSf,SI N NYAilIIRAMBO SDCTO& I{YARUGENGE COMMUI{E (GROUTID OF APPEAL 5)...... 28 A. AT.ICCCP ENNORSR ELATING TO T}TEA PPELLA}IT'S AUTHoRITY ovER CovIvI.nu PouceMEN 29 l. AJlegedE rror in Failing to provide aReasonedO piniou.... ..............2g 2. Alleged Error in Refnne on prosecution E vidence.--__._--.,. ....-.--_--,.30 3. Alleged Error inFailing to Give proper weight to Defence Evidenoe ...............3E B. At Leceo EnnoRsR ELATINcro rIIE AppptlaNt's ORpgRsr o Kr-l

K.rreucuzA,s Feltly,...40 C- ALt scED Ennons RELATINGT o rHE Fn tpwc rr{AT TtrEA ppELLANTO noeREu tirc KrLLrNc or Tl-lTsrsn No DBsrnucrroN oF Tr{EIRH Ov.esw Nvel,merroo........_.-..-- ..........42 1' Alleged Error in llaking a Finding of Fact on a Generala nd RedundantA llegation ...........42 2- Alleged Eror in the Assessmenot f Prosecutiona ndD efenceE vidence ......-.----43 I CaseN o.: ICTR-01-7+A 2Febn:ary2 009

'0S 02/02 11:23 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR tso oc ilult 3. Conclusion..----.,.... .....47 D.ArlecppEnnons RELATINrco rruFINpINc rsATrse AppmLANTo RDERETDr rATC ERTAIN Housnso r Ttrrsrsn e Srenep ......-47 E' Ar"LecpnE nnons RELATINTGo rHE Fu.iorNct uer KaneBnw wes Knr.gD oN Tt{E AeeELLANI'OSn ogns .....--_-..........4g F. ALLEGEDEnnonRsE LATINGTroI{ E Frxpnqcrr{ATu nAppellexr Onoenrppor,rceua:.r Kar-unmrno Knl MLrneKEzr ..,.....52 G. A:-t-pcppE RRORSRELATINcrlT-loE F npnqc rrrATT riEAppELLANTwaI:sw ou^D INT r{E MunoenopNoncursE..........--_-, ...__..........54 H. At-t pcep EnnonsR ELATINTGo rHEK tr.lnqc or Nyacere-ne oN TFIEA ppelr,H.lr' s onnERs. 56 I. CoNctu sloN............ ........._.__ ..,...5g YII. ALLEGED ERRORS REI-ATING TO TEE KILLING OF TUTSIS IN NTARA]VIA (GROUTYDO F APPEAL O.--_... 59 A. ALLEGEEDn RoRNs nEAssESsMENorrr pnosecurroN E vTDENcE ....,................_59 1. AllegedE rrori n Rglyiago n prosecutio W n ihessesW ho Lied ...,..... .........^.......60 2. AllegedC ollusionb y prosecutio W n itnesses...,..,...,... ....,................-63 3. AllegedI nconsistencieins the FrosEcutionE vidence ......65 B. ALLEcEpE n-noRrsN T HEA sspssvrmno FD EFENCEev prrrce .........._,70 C. CoNcr-usroN......._-- ........73 \rIII. ALLEGED ERROR^SR ELATING TO THE KILLING OF TUTSIS IN RUSHASIII COMMUNE (GROUNDS OF'APPEAL I. A}[D ? A]\ID GROUI{D OF APPEAL 2, N

PART).-....'qrrx.....---r x,rEi6.,.,..r--t.,.r.,....r.......-..r..,r.r.rr ....,...--74 A. ALEGEDE RRoRRs ELATTNroG R oenerocKs.,....... ...-.-...74 B' ATLEGEDEn nons RELATINTGo lfEETnlcs HBlp w Rusnq,sruB ETwEENAp nu. Ar.rDJ uNB 1994"" ""' ,............,......76 l' AllegedE rors rolatingt o a MeetingH eld at RwankubuS uoo"a*y S"froofi n April tgii.,le 2' Alleged Errors relating to a Meeting Held.a t RushashiS ub-Prefecir:reo mo" in June lgg47g 6J ' Au- onc-tluslon """""" """..--'r".".....-...--..---"' ..-..,7g C.At,LecpoEnnonsRELATlNGro.?ecrFIcATIoNMEETINGs',...........''''' D. Ar.LeceoE RRoRsR ELATTNrGo nlsDlsTRtBUTroNopW raloNS ......-,..... -..........82 E' ALLEGEDE RRoRsR ELATINGT o rrc MunoBn oE Gerunq corsulrenor Knrnsruvcp sEcroR .....-E5 1' AllegedI nconsistenciebse twecnt he Testimonieso f WimessesB MR, Cvo, BMN and BMM....._- _.......,.......86 2. AllegedF aiJt*eto ProvideR easoafso r Rejecringth eA ppellant'sT estimony...__-,.,.,..........g9 3' AllegedF ailrrreto Determineth eP laceD, it", *i taeoutyo fthe perpetarors.-.----....,........g9 F. CoNelusroN.-.-.,.... .........g2 DK,A LLEGED ERRORS RELATING TO THE ALIBI (GROUND OF APPEAL E).............gg A- ArLgcEp EnnoRsr NT T{EA prucerroN oFT r{EB Unpexo r pRoor ......9 3 B' Aruecsp Enr'onsR ELATINTGo Tr{EP ossruu.trvo p TRavsLLn\cF RoMR urm'.rcrnl-..,,.,.,.....92 D C' . A C T o ,L N E c C r E , O u E s N r N o O N R . S . IN .. T .. H .. E . A .. S . S ESSMENTO F TTIEE VNP:{CE OU AIB, .,, lOO --.,102 X. ALLEGED ERRORSR ELATING TO THE,T RIAL CIIAM]BER'SL EGAL FINDINGS (GROUNDO F AppEAL I"0)..... .......,r,r....r- .....103 XL ALLEGED ERROR IN TS:ARING THE CASE OF TEARCISSE RENZAHO WIIILE lffi#+Hc rN DELrBERarroNso N THEA ppELLAlirPSc asE (cRouND oF APPEAL 11) tw II Caso No-: ICTR-0I-74-.A, 2 February2009

'09 02/02 11:24 FILX0 031705128932 ICTR @o oc snlf xrr. aLLEGED ERRORSR ELaTING TO SENTENCTNG(c RorJND OF AppEAL 12)..110 XIU. DISPOSITION i XrV- AI{NEX A: PROCEDIIRAL BACKGROUil{D .s.,h...,.--....-......-..u6 I A. NOTICE OF A}PEAL A}ID BRIEFS.,... .,,.,........I. 1..6._ B.A sslcxrexro FJ UDGEs .........j-...........:....-.._...,. ,............1..6.1 C, MOION RELATEDT O TITEA DMSSION OFA DDIfiONALEVDET].TCE ......LIT D.t lr,+nntco FT r{EA rrpEAL..... ...---..1..1 7 xv. aNNEx B: crrED I\.TATERIALASI ID DEFINEDT ERIr[,s._ .....118 A.JIRIsrRIIDENcE...-.... .,.llg l. ICTR ..,.,...,........: -__.1,1. 8 z.r CTy ......120 B. Deru{EDT eRMsa NpA esRrvrATloNs... .-.......-122 lu CaseN o.: ICTR-OI-74A 2 February2 0O9

'09 02/02 11:25 FAI 0031705128932 TClR @o os 5pl 1' The AppcatsC hambero f the InternatioualC riminal Triburralf or the Frosecutiorro f persons Responsible for Gcnocicle and Other Serious Violations of Intemational Humanitarian Law Comminedi n the Territory of Rwandaa nd RwandanC itizensR esponsiblefo r Geuocidea nd other Suchv iolations committcd in the Tcrritory of Neighbourings taresb etweenL January 1994 and,3L December 1994 ("Appeals Chamber" and "Tribunal", respectively) is seized of an appeal by FrangoisK 'arera( '?ppellant") againstt he Judgemenrre ndercdo n 7 Deceurber2 ffi7 in the caseo f The Prosecutorv - Frangois Karera ('Trial Judgemenf) by Trial charnberI of rhe Tribupl (.Triat Chamber"). I. INTRODUCTION A. Backeroupd ' 2' The Appellaut was born in 193E,i n Huro sector,M usasac oulmune,K igali prefecflue.l For fifteen ye&rsh e was the bourgmestreo f Nyamgengec orumune,i n Kigali-ville prefecnrre.zo n 9 November 1990,t he Appellant was appoiuteds ub--prefeciut Kigali prefecturea nd on or aropnd 12 April 1.994,bew a"sa ppointcdb y the Iatcrim Governmenta sp refect of Kigali prefectgre.3 3' The Appellantw as tried on the basiso f an amendedin dichent dated 19 December2 oo5 ('Amended Indictrnent'), which chargedh im with individual criminal responsibility 'nder four counts: genocide( Count 1); complicity in genocidc (count 2); exterminationa s a crime against humanity

(Count 3); ana mtrrder as a cime against humanity (Count 4). He was additionally chargedw ith superiorresponsibilityu nder Counti 1.,3 and4 , Thcsec ountsr elatcdt o attacls againsr and the murder of Tutsis in Nyamirambos ector6 fvyunrg"ngec ourmunq Kigali-Ville prefechrre);in Kigali prefecture and at the Ntarama Church (Ntarama sector, Kakenze conunune, Kigari prefectue). 4' The Tlial Chamberf ound the Appelluoi soit y, uncterA rticte 6(l) of the Satue of the Tribunal ("Stafirta')' of genocide (Couut l)a and extermination and mgrder as crimes against humaniU (corurts 3 and 4, respectively).sr n{ rriar chamber acquitted the Appellant of the alternative charge of comgftcitf in genocide( Count 2) ia ught of his conviction for genocide.d 'while the Trial chamber also found that the,Ap I ,pellantw as responsiblea s a superiorp ursuantt o I I ' "K T ig ri a a l l i - J R u t d tr g u e f m a e s n in qp * 1 t 9 ? 9 |. 4 i t w T a h s e o e A f t f p c i i p i o a e l m a ly l s p c n b s tE a n m €d It au b l g r na t . s n ti o o - l d i r c i, " p 5t 'r r h ; a i u h v t - " t a ] h s It " e e e T 6 ri 3 s s r w c ir h r i f a ' r o D op r b - a e s r r a " e s " r -5 r i e ' . " 5 d t - i i 5 i u ii g i * d . i s e t e o s e i r e a i r u k a o t h i d E a g x e h i th ib c e i t p t r o p e t f " 4 e t ; c i L t E * o r . e i ?l:"!#'rffirtiffi ffiffnt 'Trial Judgemenpt,a ra-2 3, ' Trial Judgemet\ pzra-2 4. ' Trial Judgeoentp, aras.5 40,5&,549. ' Trid Judgemcupt,a ras.5 57,5 60,5 61. CaseN o.: ICTR-01-7+A 2Februar2y0 09

'08 02/02 11:25 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o os 50ilfr Article 6(3) of the statute, it did not enter a separate coaviction on rhat basis but considered the Appellanr's "superiot positiorr as atr aggravating factbr in sentencing".T fJ imposed a single sentence of irrprisonnent for the remainder of the Appellant's life-8 B, TheAppeal 5' The Appella-nt presents twelve grounds of appeal challeaging his convictions and his sentence-H e requests the Appeals Chamber to overturn his convictions and to order his release.el n the altemative, he rcquests the Appeals chamber to order a rotrial ffi, 3$ a frrther alrernative, to quash his life sentencea nd substin-rteit with an appropriates eniencc.toIo his Appcllant's Briel the Appellant dropped his Ninth Ground of Appeallr and a*sa consequence' the Appeals Chamber will not addresst his ground of appeal. 6- The Appeals chamber heard oral argunents regarding this appeal on 28 August 2008. Having consjderedt he wriuen and orar submissionso f tho parties,the Appeals Chamberh ereby 12 rendersit .sJ udgement. jtriat luag"-ent para-5 49- ' Trial Judgementp, afas. 566,577. ] TrialJudgemenqp a165- 85. 'l.Iotice of Appeal p.28; Appellant'sB rief, p_6 1. '" Noticc of Appee! p- 2E;A ppella.ut'sB riof, p. 61. ^' Thc Appellant ackDowledgetsh at "lbc Priall cha.m.ber'sc rroneousf inding of fact did not occasio!,a miscaniageo f justice for the Appellaat"- Appellant's Brief, para.3 10. * The AppealsC haurberp oints out tbat somCa specuo f thc Appellant's grouudso f appeala re iDexrdcablyin ternuined. Thcrefore,f or esseo f analysis,G round of Appeil I and purt oi GroundJ t app"ur z riiu L ooot"*scd' ndcr Ground of Appeal7 . CqseN o.: ICTR-01-7+A 2February2 @

'09 02/02 11:26 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @oot iloslfr II. STAI\IDARDSO FAPPELLATE REVIEW 7' The Appeals Chasrbor recalls the appticable standardso f appellate review pursuant to Article 24 of tlre Statute-T he Appeals Chamberr eviews only errors of law whicb invalidate the decisiono f the Trial Chambera nd errorso f fact which haveo ccasioneda rriscarriageo fjustice.13 8. As regards of law, the Appearsc hamberhas stated: "'rors where a Party allegesf tat rherei s an crror o{ la1,. Ft pry must advancea rgumcntsin supporto f thc subnrissiona nd exPlah bow the error invalidatei tni o""is;on. llowevcr, if the sppeuaoCs argwneBtsd o not suPPortll c contentiog rhet party doesn ot autouatically tosi its poiufsuce the Appeals $ an!9r may stcp in an4 for othcr riasons, tud iD favour or rrti conientit n.t therei s an crror of ]aw." 9- Whcre the Appeals Chamber finds arr error of law in the tial judgemcnr arising from the application of an incorrect legal standard,t he Appeals Chamberw ill articulate the correct legal interpretation and review the relevant facfiral flrrdings of the Trial Chamber accordingly. In so doing, the Appeals Chambern ot only correctst he legal error, but, when necessafy,a pplies the corroctI egal standardto the evidencec ontainedi n the trial recorda nd determinesw hetheri t is itself convincedb eyoudr easonablod oubt as to the factual findi"g challengedb y the

appcllanrb eforet hat furding maybe confirnredo n appeal.rs 10- As regardse rrors of fact, it is well establishedf trar the Appeals Chamberw ill not lightly. overturnf indiugs of fact madeb y a Trial Chamber: Wberer he DStencga llcgesa r erroneousfi nding orfact" the AppealsC h,'qber must give dclerence to lho Trial Chan'b€r that receivedt heevideocc at tial" and if wiU orrly interfere in-rrrosefi ndings wbere no rearcuablet ier dfact corrld hsve reachedr hp sanref inding or wherg the findiugls wholly erroncerrsF, urthermore,l he.erroneousfi ndi"g will be revoked oi revised onty if rlc eior occasioncda miscarriageo f justice,l6 11. A parry cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not srrcceeda t trial, unless it can demonskate that the Trial Ctamber's rejection of rhose arguments constituted an error warranting the intenrention of the Appcals Chamber.tt Argumeuts,which do nor have the porential to causet he impugned decision to be reverscd or revised may be irnmediately dismissed by tfre Appeals Chambera nd needf lor.b e consideredo u the merits.ls 'rl*" yy,-l4nnal Juclgcmenpla ra8. . Scea koM arti| AppatJudgemepns! ra-E - 'i"r 2"-:frerilIffSJ-out"''ent, Para.-9a ningNtaldrutimor*e ppcnJt udgem6"qp ara-1 l (citationso nitred)_ SeeM arti4 AppealJ udgcnent,p ala, l0_ iiY*:y Arnal Judgcoent,p ara. l0 citing KrsldAp-pesl Judgcurentp, ara.4 0 (cir.arionso mittea)- ;";' s s - e u e y M y w ", r r r y y i d $ p A p p r* p t e al J Ju u d d g g c c m m c e n n t q p, p a a r r a a . . l r I r . . s s e e e ea a r lt s o o M o r a ic r ti l c p . p A - p ie p tJ c u a d Jl g u e d m ge e m nq e p n a pl r e -a - r r s a _ r-+ - CaseNo-:I CTR-01-7+A 2 Fcbruary2 009

02/02 '09 11:27 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR @o oe so+fn 12' Ia order for the Appeals Chambert o assessa rgumentso n appeal,r he appealingp arty must provide preciser eferencesto relevantt ranscriptp ageso r paragurphsin the decisiono r judgenrentt o which the challengei s made.teF urtheq the Appeals Ctamber ca.nnotb e expectedt o consider a pafty's submissionisn detail if thcy are obscurec, onhadictoryv, aguq or sufferf rom otberf ormal and obvious insufficiencies. Finally, the Appeals chamber has inhercnt discretion in selecting which submissionsm erit a detailedr easonedo pinion in writing and will dismiss argr.mentsw hich are evidently unfoundedw ithout providing detailedr casoning.2o te hactice Dit"ttion on Forsral Requireaeursf or Appealsf rrrr Judgementp, arc- 4@). seeM uwnyr AppealJ udgemcut, pua.t2- N seeM nrunyi AppearJ udgemengp ara-1 2- see alsaM a,rti6 ApglJudgemcnt, para 14. CaseN o-: ICTR-01-7+A 2Februtry 2009

02/02 '09 11:27 FILX0 031705128S32 ICTR E oos sosfg III. ALLEGED GENERAL ERRORSI NTHEASSESSMENT OF TEE BVIDENCE (GROT]NDO F'APPEAL 2,IN PART) 13' In his second Ground of Appcalzl the Appellant submits that in its assessmenot f the evidence' tbe Trial chamber committed "flrrerous effors of law" that invalidate the Trial Judgemenat ndm adee lroneousfa ctualf indingso ccasioninga miscarriageo fjustice.zzS pecificully, he contendst bat the Trial Chambere rredb y applylngi ncorrect standardso f Iaw in its assessmenotf his testimony and fu consideriug conflicting, hearsay, circunstantial, and uncorobomted evidence'aH e furthera llegess everael rrorsr elatedt o the Trial Chamber,sc onducto f a sitev isit.za L4. The Appealsc hamberw ill addressth eA ppellanr'sa rgumenrisn turn.b A. Alle{ed General Errors in the Assessmenot f the Apoe[ant's Tes$imony 15. The Appellsntc ontenfu( i) that specianl :les shoulda pplyt o the assessmenorf an accused,,s testimony and tbar the Trial Judgementd id not provide a reasonedo pinion in this rcspecqa ud (ii) that the Trial Chambere rred in law by failing to concludet hat the portions of his resrimonyo n which the kosecutioud id not cross-examinhei m qrelse srabfished. 1.

16. Relying on Canadian ca$e law, the Appellant first avdrs that "special rules for the assessmenotf evidencet hat flow from the presr:rnptiono f innocencea pply when an accused choosest o testily in his owo trial".26I n .sucha situation,J udgess hopldf irst evaluatet tre accused,s credibility, then state whether they believe him, a!4 if applicable,e xplain why thoy are satisfi.ed beyondr casonabled oubt of his guilt despitec ,onhadictorye videnc".2?I- ut he Appellant,sv iew, such li 5o-ri"c of Appeal,p aras. tf-/t1;AppeDanf s Brief, paras.G 46_ I Noticeo f Appeal,p ara.17. i tlt {gP"t*t also gives noticc that he intends to detail under eachg round of apperl rhe fachral and tegal errors jn F" T"4 fudge'ment( Appcllant's Brief, para-+ !), Iu.the Appellant's Bief (pgas, ?, rs, sol *a i" luoslief i" R pt (pass' 9' 17, 12, L4, 17' 87), the Appellart additionally a:rijcs generale rrorsi o the assessn.euotf his defe,nceo f alibi- Thc Appeals Chambcrn otes ths.ti n his Notice of Appea! rit" eppettant doosn ot attegez ucu ,-ors under the Sccond G wi r l o l n th n e d r o e f f o A r p ec p o e u a s l' i b d u e t r a rm ll t d h e e r A l h - e p _ E p ig c h ll l a h n G ta's r r o g u u n n d e o n l t A s* i p t" " t r e l- a S i6 9 t G he ali 9 b t i e u p " p ro "a * l" u n p a a e ,r r a C s l .2 a 2 p 1 t" - , z 3 u g i. ).The Apperts chamber I Appelanf r Brief, pans. al-a-6.

' The following rwo 0rgrhents will be ad&essedU efowr { Grpter vltr: (i) Tho allegation rhat rhc Trial Cbamber efted in law by foiling to cmsider th4t ils fu{q th"., tt: a{reuant hetd pao-ficetionm ootingsw as incompatibtew irn the Prosecution'sa llegationsl 6tarint to his particip.atio3rl pfttines gcoru-asingc rines in risusui *a rl-or"irl*i"! to mnrderso r incitenentt o co'mit nydgr. np.p{t*l'r nna[, ry,i1zz, t;;ffig ro T;;lu["*r g,n,,n,.4t7,316- 456' Appcllant's Brief' pan' 29. seea ko Brie'f in Repln p*rf-il,78; and (ii) rlic -A,ppellanr's-courentitohna t rle Trial chambcr's reasonsfo r rcjecti-ngh is testimouy,a t pairfiitn {oo or tm rrial Judgemenra, rc inadequatea f,d co",rihrte ' g " l crror of law. Appcllant'sB rief, para-2 1_ | Appcllant's Brief, para-t 4; Notice of Appeal,p ara.2 9. I "' Noticeo f Appea\ para-29;A ppellanl'sB rief, paras.1 4 15, rE, t9: Brief in Reply,p ara_g 4. CaseNo-:I CTR-01-7+A 2 Fcbnrary2 009

02/02 '08 11:28 FAX0 031705128932 ICTB @o ro 5o5I a procedure P reventst he Judgesf rom urrduly shifting the burden of proof to the accuseda rrd from eroneously examining whether the accuqed'st estimony raises a reasonabled oubt regarding the chargesa gainsth im.znH e emphasizesth at sucha n approachis supportedb y the Appealsc hamber,s holding in Muhimatw to the effiectt hat "[a]n accusedd oesn ot need to prove at trial rhat a crime 'could 'preclude not haveo ccurred'o r thep ossibilityt hati t couldo ccur,,,.F L7. The Appellaut trext submits that in order for a convictedp erson to understandth e reasons supporting his conviction, the Trial Judgements hould set out clearly why the Trial Cbamber acceptedo r rejectedc ertain allegatiousa nd the accuscd'se xplanationsa bout them-3oH e statcst har "the mai-nc riticism againstt he Trial Chamberi s not only that it failed to provide adequatere asons for its findings, but also that it t'ailed to explain why it did not believe l(arera's evidence on practically all the facts alleged agarnsth i-".31 Relying again on Canadianc asel aw, hc contends that sucha failure constitutesa n error of l,aw.32 18. The Prosecutionre spondsth at the Appellant'ss ubmissionas re presented"i n very general tsrms" and that they do not establisht hat the Trial Chamberd ivegarded its obligation to provide a reasonedo pinion or committeda n error capableo f

affecting the Trial Judgemcnt.3I3t submitst hat a propef,r eading of the Trial Judgements howst hat the Trial Chamberc onsidereda ud evaluatedt he Appellant's testimonyt ogetherw ith the evidencec alled by both rhe hosecution ard the Defence.3a The Proswution further contendst hat the Trial Chamberp rovided clear, reasonodf indings of fact as to eache lcmeoto f eachc rime charged,a sr equiredb y the TriburyI's jurisprudence.ss 19' Regarding the Appellant's contention that spccial rules should apply when assessinga n accused'st estimouy,t he Appeals Chamberr ecalls that the Tribunal's Chambersa re not bound by national mles of evidence or national case law.36Y lhile *[t]here is a firndamentald ifference betweenb eing an accusedw, ho might testify as a wihcss if he so choosesa, nd a witness",3t7h is doesn ot imply tbat the nrles applied to assessth e testimony of an accuseda re differeut from those applied with respcctt o the testimony of an "ordiuary witness". A tier of fact shall decide which witness'st estimonyt o prefer, without necessarilya rticularinge very stepo f its reasoningir r reaching ]l Appelanf s Brief, paras.1 6 tB; Brief in Reply, pafirs_E 6 g7. ii fnnelant-s Pqd, pars-1 7,c idngMuhimanaA ppcalf udgementp, sra-t g- "" Appellanfs Bdef, paras-7 , 8, " Appellant'sB rief, para.22. ]i AppelUurs Brief, pans. 22"%Ii Notice of Appeal,p ara.3 1. " Rospondcotts Brief, para. 5E. I Respon<leutB'sr ief, paras.6 0-62,6 9, " ReqrondenLB'sr ief, para"5 9. - Rule 89(A) of the Ruleso f Procedurea nd Evi&mcc of the Tribunsl C.Rr:les..)T: hep roscctttor v- Edowrd Karemera et al., CasoN o- ICIR-9844-AR73.8. Decisiou on Interlocutory Appoal nesarding Witness ttoofing, if la"i iOOZ, paras.71, l- CusoN o-: ICTR-01"74-A 2 February2 fD9

ICTR @o rr so+lr this decision'3BI a so doing, as for any wituess, a Eier of fact is required to dotermind rhe overall credibility of an accused testifying at his own tialse and then assesst he probative value of the accused'se vidence iu the context of the totality of the evidence.a There is no requirernenti n the Tribunal's jr:risprudencet bat the accused'sc redibility be assessedfi rst and iu isolatioa from the rest of the evidencei n the case. 20' Furthermore, it is settled jurispmdence that every accused has the right to a reasoned opinion under Article 22 of the Statute and Rule 88(c) of the Rules.al A reasonedo pinion ensures that the accused carr exercise his right of appeal and that the Appeals Chamber can carry out its stautory dury under Article 24 of the Statute.ozH owever, tle reasoned opinion requirement rclates to the Trial Judgement as a whole rather than to each submission made at tial43.Indeed, theT rial Chambeisr not rudert heo lEgalont o justify its findingsi a relaliont o everys ubmission maded uringt het rial-T beA ppealsC hambesre eillsr hrr ir is in 11fd,gis eetiono f theT iis] Cfrum*i asl o whichl egala rgpmenttso sddrcssW. ith regardt o thef actualf :ndinggt he Trid Chau,beirs requiredo nly to Take f indiugso f lhosef actsw hicha ree ssentiatol thed etermirationo f guilt on a particularc ou.ur t t -ls" ot lTTsary to rcfur b the testimonyo f everyw

itEesso r evay-piecco f ovidenceo n the trial recordI.t is to bc prasumetdh nrt re Trial Chanbero valuatesd[ rhi ;yidence presentetdo it, as t ong a st herci s no ind.icariornh nlt fusT iial Chsobcrc ompleteldy isregardeadn y particttJapr ieceo f evidcnceT. heren ay be an indicationo f disregardw len u"iO.oruw hichi s clearlyr elevonttot he findingsi s uot addressebdy thc Trial Cbam6er'rsc ssoniugb, ut not every inconsisteucwyh icht be Trial Charrbefra iledt o discussre ndersit s opiniond efec-dvot..- -l If $; Trial Chanberd id not refe,rto thee videnceg ivcnb y a witnesse, vcni rit is in coilrsdictiont o tbe Trial Ctramber's finding, it is to be presr:mod that the Trisl Chanber assessedo nd weished the evidence' but found tbat the evidence did uot prevent it from arriving at its acmal nnilinss,z Additionally, a Trial Chamberd oes not need to serout in detail why it accepted or rejected a particular testimrrny,a5T his is equally applicablet o all evideoce, including that tendercd by rhe accusedp erson. 2L- A review of the Trial Judgement reveals that the Trial Chamber did consider the Appellant's testimony and made assessmentso f the probative value of that evidence.6 It was not obligcd to s7 Gotii Appe-eJl udgemeutp, ara 17;K voilca Apeal fudgemenr,p ara l?5; prti6 etat Dr:cisiono f 5 Septenbcr 2(pg, para-I l- 38 KupreikiCe t at- AppalJudgement, ptara3- 2. '^\ta*!ryaimoy *

Appg4 Judgementp, ara 391, crttngLtusemaA ppealJ udgemcnqp ara 50. SeeM usenta-Appe.aJur dgemen!p ara.5 0.( rcgardingt be assessiento f dicurnentarye videucet enderedb y aa accused if :npp* of his alibi); MuhitnenaAppesfJ udgernentp, ara. 19- " Mtnutyi AppearJ udgemcnt,p am- 144' citiug_SrrzEAc pp.ul Judgemengp ura- 154 Kanulunda Appeal Judgeaenq -W a.32; K*Iijcli Ap,ryg Judgcmcnl para.5 9; Semar4aA ppealJ udgemrnr,p aras.1 30, 149. See,e .9.,I irnaj et d. Apgcc.JJu dgementp, an EI. " Lirnaj et aL Appeal Judgementp, ara. 8l; Kvockee t al. AppearJ u-dgemenp! an- 23. T K** et al- Appr Judgemengp qra.23 (citatioaso mlltteol;S iiba l';ypealJudgeoooqp ara- I52i Ntaterura et aL lppttl Judgcrrent'p ata.2a6; NiyitegelcaA pparJudgc'"nent,p ia- tz+; Kijetijeli, eipeor frrds".rr& para"?o;M wema Appeal fudgcurent'P aras.L 8-2o;D mai et aL AyryealJudgenringp ma-lt;-Natetitiiina Uarina,iCajrpearJuagcmenr" ozra.@3. u^Muhi-or-Appeal fudgemeut, para-9 9; Simba AypeilJudgement,p ara 152; MusemaAppcalJ udgenent,p nras-l g_ 20_ * see,h ter alia,T rial JudgeurenpLa Es. 30,? 4,g ,49,64, 65,7 2,73,104,1 33,2 ?5-ng,3Qg,342-g45,373,3gu3g4, 402" 406,4 15, 430 , 449, 463- 46U,4 79 49t, 51 5, 5 16 _ CascN o.: ICTR-01-74-A 2 Febrtrry 2009 nl,{rt

02/02 '09 11:30 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @otz soalA systematicallyiustify why it rejecrede achp art of thar evidence.T he Appellasr's claim that the Trial Chambere rred by failine to explain why it did not believe him is rherefored ismissed_ 2. Nlesed Error concetuineI nferencest har the Tdal chamt)ers hould Har. D,ra\r/nfr .* ft. 22' The Appellant submits that the Trial Cbamber erred in larv in failing to conclude that tbose portions of his testimony that the Prosecution did not g1'sgs-slamine w ere established.aTR eferring to Rule gO(GXii) of the Rules, the Rutaganda AppaLJudgemenla8 and Canadian jurispnrdence, hc 'Tailure submits rhat the to cross-examiuea wihess on an aspect of his tesrimony implies a tacir acceptancoo f the truth of the witness's evidence on the matter".aeT he Appellant also contends that the Trial Chamber's failure to provide a reasoned opinion on this question constitutes a1 error of law, since he cannot ascertaint he Trial Cbamber'sr easonsf or disbelieving him.5o 23. The Prosecution r.espondst hat it was open to the Trial Chamber not to draw a negative inference from the hosecutiou's decision flot to cross-exa.urjnet he Appellant on certain details of his testimony where he repeated his denial of the allegations against him.sr In this respecl rhe Prosecution recalls that the Trial Chamber alr'eady heard the parties' arguments on this issue and ruled tbat

"the Prosecution is uudcr uo obligation to sross-examine the Accused on a1l aspectso f its ca$e",52 24- Tbe Appeals Chamber finds tbat Rule 9O(GXii) of rhe Rules does not supporr rhe Appellant's contention. The nrle merely statest har "[i]n the sross-examin4fis,no f a wihess who is able !o give evidence rclevant to the case for the cross-examining party, counsel shall put to that witness the nature of the case of the party for whom that counsel appears which is iu cou6adiction of the evidence gtveD by the wirtess." The ICTY Appeals Cha:nber has previously stated, regarding the similarly worded Rute 90(I!(ii) of rhe ICTy Rules, thatit: seekst o facilitate the fair aad efEcientp resoutationo f evidencew hilst afforrting tbo winess being cross'cxaminedtb e possibility of explniningh imself on thosed spcctso f his testfoo"y by lhe opposingP arty's evidencg so saving the witness frour-baving to rcalrf:earn "eoeodul*eAs"stl"yai n It t'lotice d tppt* para- 25- The authoritstivc French vetsion of this paragaph rcads: .,fu clumbre de premi&re inscarrcea errd en droit en [neJ conchnrttp as que lcs portiow du t€ttuignage ic i'appelarrt sur ksquellesn o'*aipa €E cawre-inlerroti devreient effe turues pou, arfirde-c-"T he g"Sn L-,sfaribi i"r""*"r"fi reads: ,Thc Tiial chamber ened iu hw iu f:nding thal tbosep ortions of the Appellanff rcstimonyo o *ni"r, rp o'rr not coss-exam.ined wcrc to be

considcrcde stahlishecf',w hilc it should nad; 'the Trial Chamborc .rredi n law il lot finding rh{t thosc portigf gf thg -APpeflanrs testimony on which he was not crass-exarnirrsdo ,ou to Ur co,sdcred established'- *A,,pRpuctlalagna'sn B da ri ef, paras-2 5,26- AppcalJ udgemenpt,a ra-3 IO. loif"p e"ll*llt!{tl pu. ?q (citationo mir.tcd)N; oticeo f Appcal,p ar.a.26. Appcllant'sB rief, paun-26. * Respondent'sB rief, para-6 7. " Respoudcnfs Brief, pera-6 7, guoting Trial Judgernenqp a'a- I9l, andf.n .

250. CaseNo.I:C TR-01-7+A 2 Febn:ary2 009

02/02 '09 11:31 FAX0 031705128932 IClR @o rs 5o?,fn order to do so and eoabling the Tricl chanbq-to evalu:fiet he ccdibility of his Fstimony rnore accuately owing to the explanationo f the witnesso r his counselsr 25. The centralP urposeo f this nrle is to "promote the fairness of the'proceedingsb y errabling the witness[ ...J to appreciateth e contcxto f the gross-examininpga rty's questionsa, ndt o co'meot on rhe contradictoryv ersion of the eventsi n quesfion,'.s 26- For the requirbmentso f this nrle ro be fuHilled, there is no need for the cross-ex4mining Party to explain every detail of the contradictorye vidence.F urthermore,t he nrle allows for some flexibility dependingo n the circumstancesa t trialss This thereforei mplies that if it is obviousi n the circumstanceso f the caset hat the versiono f the witnessi s being challenged therei s uo needf or rhe cross-exarriningp afty t(l wastet ime puningiitsc aset o thew itness.s6 n - The Appeals Chamberu otes that th'e term "witness" under Rule 90 of the Rules docs nor always equatet o afl accusedw ho choososto testifjr. Therei s a firndamentald ifferenceb etweent he 'he accusedw, ho might testify as a wituessi f so choosesa, nd a witness.T he Tribunal ,,does n ot reflexively apPlyr ules goveming any other wihess to an accusedw ho decidest o tesrify iu his own case".5?W hen an accusedt estrfiesi n his owu defence,h e is well

aware of the contexto f the Prosecution'sq uestionsa ndo f the Prosecutiou'sc ase,iu sofara sh e hasr eceiveds ufficientn oticeo f the cbargesa nd the material facts supportingt hem.ssF urthermore,t he accused,sv ersion of the cvents is for the most part challeuged by the Prosecutiou,w hilc his testimony is aimed at respondingt o Prosecutiou'se videncea nd allegationsI.n thesec ircumstancesit, would serven o useful pupose to put the nature of the Prosecution'sc aset o the accusedin cross-examinationT. he AppealsC hambert herefored oesn ot find that Rute 90(G)(ii) of the Ru1esw as intendedt o apply to an accusedt estifying as a wihess in his own case.T he AppealsC hambern orest hat, in any evenl tt Prosecuto,v - Radoslat_Qr&tnina nd Momir Tawi.caseNo- IT-99-36AR?3.7, Dccision on thc larcrleculory Appegl #qost_qPgosion of the Trial Cbtnbcr, as of Right,6 Juue2 -W2"p.4. ^ oo 9i iss-uet,h e eppatlt^ggfaaPprqves of frc larguue useOU y the Trial Chamberi n prosecutorv . Vujadin lgTovti et aI-, Cas,eN o. IT{5'86-T, Order Seningr orrh Guidetinesf orthc ProcedureU nder Rgte 9g(ID(ii), 6 M*.1 2W, l (' Po povil Order"), para- L 'j !h Ftiryl", &9ln-q:4: Chambcra pprwes of tie la.ogrugcu sedb y the Triat charrber in prosecutar v- Radosla, Brdanin atzdM omh Talic, CaseN o- rT-99-3GT, Deiision; *Motion tb D""t-" nute ggiH)-tu) Void to m n:acoitr Is in Violadon of Anicle 2l of the Statuteo f

the lirernational Tribunal- by the Accusetl RadoslavB rdsnia aad on "Rulo 90(II) (ii) Subnissiory" bI the Accuscdfvfld Tali( 22_March zri,O2l. sraanrz Decision'1, p*"s- 13, 14, Prosecutor y. Na.rcr Ori{ CaseN o_ IT-03-69-T, becision on partly CoufrOcntiA Defence Motion irg;di"g ,I; Consequearccosf a Party Failing to hrt its Caset o lvihesses Pr:rsuaort o Rule go(Hxii), lz January 20f)6, pp. l-2i P-ttpoi6 Order,p ara.2 . 'o Ap T p h e e s l A s c p b p a e D al x s b c e h r u r'e s l r ie b s e ) r s n t o a t t e c s s& th a a t t t t h tr e c r e ca q s u e ir o e f m B c r n o ti ' w o n p e u u t th lu e r n c ase (o -t n o r w hc h i r c v h ih o rh s e s a B * r s d a n n o in t D ap e p ci t s y i w oo h , c c n o i n t f i i s rm ., e o d th b fr y w t i h s e o porfectly clear thar hc ha: had firll norice beforehandr nat thcrc is an iateation to impeachi fe ceaibility of tlre story which he i5 l6lling- of cqqse I do not dcny for a moAent tlat therea re casesin which rhat notice basb eens o distinaly snd urmistakably givcq- and the poinr upon which he is impeachd andi s to U" i-p*J"+ i, ,s mqnircsqt trari t is aot s le 7 o cssaryt o wastct imc in-puing questionsto him,uponif i Brownev , Dunn(Ig93j 6 R. 6, CI,1.1. Prlidi t al, Decisiouo f S-Septehieriood,p rra 11. s The questiono f the lack of notice will b" Gated ,"po"t"ty by the Appealsc hgsrber , seeb elow cirapter vltr(D) snd Chapter) L 9 CaseNo.I:C TR-0I-74A 2 Februar2y0 09

'09 02/02 11:31 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @otn 501 ln Rule 90(G)(ii) of the Rules is silent on any inferencest hat may be drawn by a Trial Chamberf rom a witness'st estimonyt hati s not subjectt o cross-examination- 28' The AppearsC hamberf urther notes that the relevant holding of the Ap,pealsc hamber in Rutagandar eads: La' Chambre d'appel eslime qu, d'unc maniire linhrale, un.ap artie qui nc contre-irtrerroge pas un tdmoin sur ute diclaration d,onn1ea dnct tarilemerx L ai u apiiiiin dutit t6moin sur ce poittt t!-C!zntr1 de premiEre iutance n,aurait do " n e c r a p c a t s a commis ur1ae rregr de droit en I'esp&ce, en ind.uisaft du fait quz rfupel@rt n'avait pas cintre-interrogd le ttmoin e sw la distribution d-'a,rtnzs-q, uc celui-ci ne coiestait pas la v€raci€ dc Ia dhposiiion duiiit te*o;;- su, c" point. Ceci Ata?tt dit, il ne ressort pas clairimcnt_ du Jug-ne meryt qle h Clwnbre de premiDre instatzce est efrectivcment parverw,e d ut* tcll.e conck*ion semblipltttE, ju;"w u soit limitfue h 'okr qE l'Aitpehnt n'atatt pds contre-interrog| l.e t€moin e su, i q*-srt;;;h;, sanst outqoi, en tirer quelques cons€quences que ce soit dans ses colclusio^'1""tteiter.-6c ravb aa u Chanbre d'appel, cel argument estd ipowvu de fondcments 29- The Appeals Chamber reca[s that in Kamuhandn, the Appeals Chamber stated rhat this holding in' Rutaganda "does not stand for the proposition that a

tier of fact must infer that statef,ents not challenged druing cross-examiDation are true," afld rhat it is within the discretion of a Trial Chamber to decline to make such an infcrence.60 Thus, the Appeals Chamber eruphasizes that a Trial Chamber has the discretion to infer (of not) as rrrre stat$nents unchallenged during srosg-eaar.ninationa,n d to take into accountt he absenceo f cross-examinatjono f a particular wituess when assessingh is credibiliry.6l 30' The Appeals Chaurber notes that in this iastance, the Appellant, who resti-fied at the eud of the case, had consistently denied the allegations against him throughout the proceedings aad claimed thar he did not know anything about the crimes allegcd.62T he Prosecurion cross-examined the Appellant on a number of issuos.63U uder this sub-ground of appeal, the Appegant has failed to poirtt to any finding allegedly affected by the lack of cross-examination by the kosecution bur # nnagandtt APP-caql dgedcul, pam. 310 (footuote omitted)-T he Appcals CbamberD otest hat &s F.ngtishv ersion does not accuratelyr eflpct ttre Frencb authoritative version- fne nilrisu .The AppeE Chil-b* considerst hat a party who fails to cros$-eranine_ovihcss u.pona porricular s "u ta rs te io d n e - n ie t r - a s c d i s tl r y acceprst tre tuth of the wiuess's evideaceo n the ulafte,r.T hcrefore the Trial Cbambera ijnot *,n ii;;o, ollaw in the

casef ,t bar, in iDferrhg that thc Appellanf s failure to cross-cxamineW iness Q on tbe wcaponsd i.t iuu,io' mea.ott bat be did nor challenget le truth of the wihess's evidcnceo n tle &ancr. Ttrai oei"g sai4-it is unclcar from the Trial Judgenenl whether tho Trial Cbsubcr drew infercocesf tom this failure. ilth"t, ii.-wears tn"rit onrv-*ted lhat t;e Appelhnr failed to cross-eKe'dirqy imT: Q t sarding the spccific rtot"rroL *"iihout rnqking *y imoon"* iu its fact'al couclusionsI' t is the or:iuion ot' the Appealsc na-Litttat this argurnentis without ro,qr?ation- fn ora"ito-n :ry ,ti*, tbe uuancesin toduced b ' y T h th e e Appeals Chssber in its f15ain& tlrlee ngUsnt ruslation oi tn" n rt trrros eutsuces9 f rhis P w a iE ra e g ss a p u h P s o h tra o t p tl e d r r t c ic a u d l : a rs tate A d p re p n o lta a c ls ir c ly h a a m cc b e e p r t s c lh o c o s tu id th e ma ! t " r t r l I * t i " u ? i r e s n ,s e ra e ll v , id a e n p c a e r o ry i w rlo h o o r f " a u il e s r . t T o h c c r , c rc s f s o - r o et g h r e n i T n r e ia a l chs'ber [would have] not coumitltedi an error of law in "r r he casea t bll, in iuferring tlnt thc Appellant,sf ailure to cross-cxamineW ifncss.Q on thc weapons distribution neant lhat U" Aii 6..,n of tho wihess,s evidenceo a rhc matter." "ot "f,ate=n[1tr" ! KanulwndaAppealJ uclgcmenpl ara-Z O4- ii Kajelijeli AppealJ ulg99cnc Para.2 6; Nahinana et aL AppearJud e g ' encngp aras.g ze E?:ta ndf n. t893. :*TT..z?2lAAuugguusstt22000066 ; T . 22 Aafiist2006;7z.3 AugustzooB_' pp-3 1-6ttT.23 Ausu* 2ffifu. L4. l0 CaseNo.:I CTR-01-7+A 2 February2 009

02/02 '09 11:32 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR @o rs sr/oln merely makes a general referencet o his oral argr:nents at trial.a In tbese circumstaucest,b e Appellant has not demonstratedt hat the Trial Chamber commined an effor of law iu not consideringa s establisbedth osep ortionso f his testimonyo n which the prosecution d id not cross- cxarnineh im.6 3L' The Appeals'Chambefri uther declincst o considert he unsubstanriateads serrionm adeb y rhe Appellant with respectt o the rack of a reasonedo pinion on this poinr. 32- For the foregoingr easons,t his sub-groundo f appeali s disuissed. B. Nlesed Errors in the Assessmenot f circumstantial Evidence 33' The Appcllant submits that the Trial Chamber commirred 'hany e*ors of 1aw in its assessmenot f circumstantiate vidence".6 f le arguest trat "[w]hen the [hoseortion] relies on circuostantial evideucet o prove an allegation,t he guilt of the accusedm ust be the only possible inference to bc euYn from that evidence."67H e contendst hat the Trial Charnber . .disregarded mauy cultural and social factors which could have sheda differeut light on the evidence,a nd based on which it could have made different fiudings.'68H e also contendst hat a "quick analysiso f the evidencet --'l in relation to all the Trial Charnber'sf indiags showst hat a reasonablcf tier of facr could trcverh ave drawnt he facnralc onclusionsr hatt he Trial Chamberd reil'.6e

34. It is well establishedth at a conclusiouo f guilt can be inferred from circumskntial evidence only if it is the only reasonablec onclusiona vailablef rom the eviddnce.TWo rether a Trial Chamber infers the existenceo f a panicularf act upoa which the guilt of rhe accusedd epeudsfr om direct or circrrmstantiale vidence, it must reach such a conclusion beyond reasorrabled oubt. If there is auothcr cortclusionw hich is also reasonablyo penf rom that evidence,a nd which is consistentw ith the norr-existenceo f that fact, the conclusiono f guilt beyondr easonabled oubt cannotb e drawn.Tr I SzeN oticeo f Appeal,p arx.2426;Appellaot's Brief, paras_? 5,26. iAty specific arEutnentsra isecbl y thc Appellanti n rehtoo b this allegarionw iII be dealt wirh bclow in the respecrive ulraDErs. f Ubtice of Appeal,p ara-3 3- "' Appellant's Brief, para-3 2. refering to NahinanaAp -t p 6 e 3 a ; l Jurtgemen!p an s2\ Ntegerurae t aL AppearJudgemcnt p * rTf:.3ffi.j99,znd.Mpam_\raTrarJvdgement, pare Noticeo f Apfoar, para.3 4.- Noticeo f Appeal pere-3 5. ] Noticeo f Appeal para,36. '" Ntagerkra et aL Agpeal Ju<lgmcut,para- 306. Seea l.sloS ere65a Appeaf Juftemenq para-Z Zll Nahimana et al- Appeal Judgemcntp' aras' 524, 9a6; eelebiti-Appeal-Judgemenpt ara--+sa;,silkia drn* fudgemeat,g r"a. iu; vasiljaiE Appcal Judgemen!p ara- 120; Krstii App""t ludgemeag b srs- ar; Kvocta a'it_ effiJuogtcug para_ 237. 7-t Magentre et a,L -Appial Judgemeat, para-3 M. Seea .I,soA ekhiCi Appeul Judgcruent,p aro- 458; ,Sla*ic Appcal Judgomcnlp ara.2 19. lt CaseN o.: ICTR-OI-74-A ZFebnuar2yf fi9 \l{4

O2/O2 '0S 11:33 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @o ro +111fr 35' Under this sub-groundo f appeal,h owever,t he Appellant merely makesg enerala llegations rcgardingt he Trial chamber's assessmenotf circumstantiale videncew irhout subsrantiatingth em or providing any referencet o the Trial JudgementT. hereforot his sub-groundo f appeali s dismissed-72 C. Alleged Errors in the Assessmento f Hearssy Evidence 36, The Appellant submits that the Trial Chamber systemarically erred in grving hearsay evidence weight or probative value contrary to the standard. developed by the ICTY in rhe Aleluovski Decision, according to which 'the weight or probative value to be afforded to that evidence will usually be less than tbat glven to the testimony of a witncss who has given it under a form of oath and who bas been cross-examiued, although even this will depend upon thc infinitely variable circumstances wbich surround hearsay evidence".73H e argues, in this rcspect, that the Trial Chamber erred in fact by gving weight to evidence that a reasonable trier of fact could simply not have consideted',14a ud by disregarding '"a good deal of evidence" favourable to him which it sho'lo have accqrted.TsH e flEther argues that the Trial Chamber erred in law in failiag ro justify, in marry instances,w hy it preferred hearsaye videncet o the Appellant's uncontradictedt estimony.?6 37- The kosecutioa disputes the

Appellaut's alleguions that the Trial Chamber did not asscss hearsay evidence properly, and notes that the Appellaut did not poinr to any specific example or show how the Trial Chamber ettetl.11It conteodst hat in such circumstances,i t is suffi,cientt o nots that the Trial Chamber cautiously assessedh earsay'evidence in accordance with the Tribgnal's jurispmdence.Ts 38. The Appcllant replies that with respect to the allegations couceming events in Nyamirambo, the Trial Chamber erred in preferriug secoud or third-degrce hearsay evidence to the Appellanr's corroborated and un-contradicted fs5tim6ny-7eH " ulso submits that neither the Trial Cbamber nor tbe Prosecution provided justification for this pretbrence.Eo 2 Ttc nppeals Chrmlrer will-addresss epararclyt he Appeltaut's argurnentsre larcd to the assessacnto f circunstailial E ev idcncet hat baveb ecnr aised-withg reaters pec-ificiryu nAuro ther grounOsS. ceb elow Clap^Dteer .wis-iou, tvotle-oq {eneal" uaras. 3s<oieppeuinis n{er, pTry. 33134 arng Aklcto*,t paria-1 5 (ciration *li3te!); Brief b Reply' paros.3 3, 34 also attngAlekrouskrD ecision,p *u. Is (citation ominco)- j] Noticc of Appea[ para_4 0_ 'o Noticoo f Appea[ parr- 39; Appellant'sB ricf, paras.3 3.34- * A;rycllant's Brief, para 35- *i Respoodcnt'sB rief, para_6 3_ jl Respondent'sB rie4 para-6 3. " Brief in Reply,p aro-3 3- * Brief inReply, paras3- 3, 35. t2 CaseNo.I:C TR-01-74A 2 February2 0O9 \.4.(.

02/02 '09 11:34 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR @ott 39- It is well established that, as a rnatter of law, it is pamissible to base a conviction ou hearsay evideuce'sr A Trial Cbamber has the discretion to cautiously consider hearsay cvidencesz and has the disc:retion to rely on it.s While the weight aad probative value to be afforded to that evidence will usually be less than that accorded to the evideuce of a witness who has given it under oath and who has been cross-examined, it riviU depend upon 'qthe inf:aitely variable circunstauces which suffound hearsay evidence".fla Thus, the fact thu the evidence regarding a ryecific evenr is hcarsay evidence does not in itself suffice to render it not credible or unreliable.F The source of information,*u th" precise character of the inforrratiou,st afld ttre fact thar other evidence corroborates the hearsay evidencessa re relevant criteria in assessingt he weight or probative value of hearsay evidence' In any event, it is for the appealing parff to demonstate that no reasonable kier of fact could have relied upon hearsayo videncei n reaching a specific finrting.se 40. The Appeals'Chamberre jectsthe unsubstantiated and vague coutentions made under this sub-grouudo f appealt hat the Trial Chamber systematically erred in its assessmcnto f hearsay evidence, that it taiied ro provide a reasoned opinion in relation to its assessment of hearsay

evidence, and that it also failed to explain why it reljed upon that evidence aud disregarded evidencet hvor:rablet o the Appellanl 4L- Furthermore,'the Appeals Chamber finds no merit in the Appellant's conrent1ont hat the Trial Chamber erred in preferriug hearsay testimony to the Appellant's unconkadicted tesrimony. 'Contrary to the Appellant's assertiort,s his testimony denying his panicipation in all of the cimes was challenged by Prosecutione vidence and was thus contradicted.elA s noted above, the fact that the evidence regarding a specific even! is hearsay evidence does not in itself sufEce to render it not credible or unreliable'9zS uch an assesilnentw ill depend,upont he particular circumstanceso f each case, i '.t MuvurryiAppearul a!*--L !-. 7o;M uhinaruAppealJ udgemeurp,a ra-4 9; GactmbitsiAppeJaul dgemcnpra, ra. 115^ @ ktaganda Appeal JudgemenJp ara- 34; Ndindabalizt Appeal Judgemreupr,a ra. 115; AkqcsuAppeal JudgemcnE ga,ras.2882,8 9,292. I i * Nah!ry _u et aL Apprc_al_Judgemepna!r o- E3l; AkayesuA ppeal Judgemenr,p ara-2 V2i Naletitii and,M artinwiy Appeal Judgemen\p ard-Z L7- I w AlekrwskiDecisio+p ara 15,j i1 t::,_ e- g ., Nahima nz i t at ap lealJudg cnenl W as.2 I5, 473 . "" Nalimaha er ct Awdal ry4gqTq.para 831; NdindabahizAi ppeal Judgernenrp, ara. ll5 (abour.travai.fiable H- g:ly]9vi!gc4; Semanze4i'p"rt Judgemengp ara- 159;R utaganito ttypca rudgeniecqp

aras-L 5d 1s6, rsg. NdituIobdlriziA ppealJ udgemcu!p ara- 1l S. * Nahimana es ul. Appa) Judgementp, ara- 473 (for aa ilrusration of bearsayt c.qtimoniesc orn:boratinge acho thor); Gacwtbisi Appal Judgemenqp ara- I 15_ * Nahhuut tt 4^npPfl..-ly-agg:"q P*" 109 (codc€rrdng second-dcgreeh earsay evidcnce); SemanzpA ppeal f-, ud.sengnt g ar_a-.l9f ; Naletilic izndM artinzwit: r''pp,carru dgemeit, paru,-z t1, 2lg. Appellanfs Brief. para.i35n; iief in Reply,p "*r. ff, SS.- ^ See,e .9 ., Trial JudgemenpLa r,as|- | .UL2Z,4 OI-4I7, 43l4gg, 499-5t 0_ n 5"" tulrropara-3 9. i 13 CascN o-: ICTR-()1-7,1+\ 2 February2 009

02/02 '09 11:35 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o re +qvlfr 42. For the foregoingr easonst,h is sub-groundo f appeails dismissed. D- Arleged Errors in the Assessmento f uncorroborated Evidence 43. The Appellant subqrits that the Trial Chamber erred ia law by applying rhe Tribunal's juispntdence oD curoboration erratically and by failing to provide a reasonedo pinion in relation to the corroboratiorro f evide,rrce.eH3e contendst hat "the allegationso f mary witrressess hould have been discotm[ed"o n ttus gror:nd,%T h" Appellant arguest hat the possibiliry of collusion between vribressesc ould constihrtea sinrationw here corroborationi s required.esIr r this respect,h e alleges that the Trial Chanitet erred by not requirif,g corroboratiou of the allegationsm ade by four hosecuriou witnessesc oncerniugt he cventsi n Ntaramad espitei ts observationo f the possibility of collusion among them-s He also submits that a lack of reasonedo pinion in the Trial Judgement makes it impossible to know the basis to believq or uot, uncorroboratede videncg ..the level of corroboratoi n reguired[ - . . ] and what is considereda s corroboratingc vidence."eT 4. The Prosecutionr espondst hat the Trial Chasrberc onsistenrlyin dicatedw here the evidence was corroborated,a nd where corroborationw as requiredi n relation to the Appellant's presencea t the crime scenea ndi is participationi n the crimesa

lleged-e8 45. The Appeals Cbamber recalls that a Trial Charnberh as the discretioo to decide, in the circumstauceso f eacfus ass, whethor corroboration of cviderrcei s necessaryeea nd to rely on uncorroboratedb, ut'othenrrisec redible,w itnesst estimony.lmT herefore,a Trial Chamberm ay, clependingo n its assqssmenrte?ly on a singlew itness'st estimonyf or the proof of a materialf act.lol It may thus convict an accusedo n the basis of evidencef rom a single witness,a lthoughs uch evidencem ust be assesscdw ith appropriatec aution.totA ny appealb ased on the ab.senceo f ll nppeUant'Bs ricf, paras3. 6,3 9. * Notice of Appeal, para-4' Z ] Appellnnr'sB rief, porai.l Z, lA. Y,j Appcllarrt's Bri{ paru 4O. " A14rcllant'sB rief, para, 39. '" Rcspondent'sB ricf, para-6 5, refaring to Trial_Iu<lg:menqp aras.1 74, Zl5. ZLg,j ffi, 5S%56LT he Appcals Cbambef obscrvestb at the rcf,crencbto pragraphs Sj2-561 is obviousli incorrecL n Mtthi^ar-Aprreal Judgearert,i ari +g; KaiebjetiAppealJ udgcmenlp ara. l7e citing ilry itegekaAppealJ udgccrenl pgra, 92; Runganda Appeal Judgementp, ara_2 9. '* Ilfn'tmyi APpeelJ udg,bmenpqa- ra- l2E; MuhimanaA ppeal Judgemeoqp aras. 101, :rZO,l 1g,207; Nah,imatae t aL *pp"r: Judgemenpt,a tac,,547,633E, 1 0. L"' Kaieliieli Appearr udgemcn!gT 110, ct'y|Niyiugelcu.Appoal rudgeme-apqa ra-9 2; semenzpAppcaJt urlgonc,at" para t53. Seea ko Kordi| and CerkeTAppeaJl

udgcrnent par{ n+, c{tng Kifrefkit ,t of p.ppA}'a'eme;t, p-u_ 33- ra Kordil wtd eerkezAppegl Jrr<l8en:en!p an 274-r n Korclii and CerIGz,t be Appcals Cba.oba a-Kls-o;r hde{;l;dA trhrka"t, ..carc must be taken ro guard alaidst thc exerciseo f uu underlyiqgm otivc on tlre patt o? ut" *ihess.; 4-pp"ul J udgencnt'p ry:-71!: slalo Ntagerurac t lL AppearJudgernenpqa ra-2 03. TnN tagentraa t al.,theappcars Ctramber conf:rmed thatl"cousidering tlat accomplice- itoessur nay have motives or ioieo6vcs to implicrirc Urc accusodP ersonb elorc *tb Tribunal, a Chamber,w hcn weighing thc probative value of such ovidence,i s borrndt o t4 CaseN o.: ICTR-01.-7+A 2Fobruary2 @9 S&

02/02 '09 11:35 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR @o rg melr corroborationm ust thereforen ecessarilyb e againstt be weight attachedb y the Trial Chambert o the evidencein questiori,lo3 46. The Appealsictr*U* dismissesth e assertionms adeb y theA ppellantu nds this sub-ground of appeala s general:andu nsubstantiateTd-h e Appellant's$ ubmissionre latiagt o possiblec ollusion betweent he four Prosccutionw itnesseste stifying aborrtt he evenrsi n Ntaramaltr wiil be addressed below-105 47. For the foregbingr easons,t lris sub-grouudo f appeali s dismissed. E' Alleeed Errors relating to the Obseryations Made durine the Site Visit 48. The Appellant submitst hat the Trial Cbarubere rredi n law by failing to pnovidet he factual 6ndings arising froJr the site visit, thus denying him the opporhrnityt o prcsenta firll defence,a s well as the right to an intelligible judgemenllo6 fl1e Appellant further submits thar tbe Trial Chambere rrsd in fact by making factual findings which are contrary ro thc observationsit made dnring its sirc visit in Rwanda from 1 to 3 Novembe r 2006.10H7 e arguest hat observationsm ade during the site visit ilrought to ligbt certain details about the Ntaramaa reat hat are nor revealcdi rr the Trial JudgementllosH e arguesr hat, absenta procd,s-verbal,p ictwes or admissions,it is now impossible to use the obsenrationsn rade dwing the site visit to challenge the qedibiliry of

unreliable witresses,a nd to demonstratet he Trial Chamber's errors in this respect.l@H e also contendst hat this pfvents the Appeals Chamberf rom assessingth e accuracy of the evidence collectedd uringt he sitev isit.llo 49-- The Proseculionr espondst hat the Appellant makes only vague assertions,w irhout establishingh ow the:Trial Chambere rredb y disregardingo r omitting to considera ny specific fact or observation,s ucha s to make appellatein terventionn ecessary l . l t It ave,rsth at the Appellant failed tQ show aoy elToro f'Iaw or fact in the Trial Chamber'sa sses$nenot f witnessest' estimoniesa nd the parties' submissionso n the observationsm ade dudng the site visit.tt' The prosecution f urther carefully considert le Ofality of tbc circumscanceins which it was tcndered.'N, tagerura et aL ApryrcalJudgenrepna! ra 2&t (citation omiucd). : ro^3 KordiCu rd icrkezApir"rt Judgemen!- para_274. ll friat Judgemenpt,r tus-Z SOg, dg,I H. '*,See rnfa OarasZ. StelS. appeitantlsB gef, pafti,44. ]l 'ij Notice of Appcal,p etis.43,4- ,'"l'i tpe"n_*, j B*t?f:p*ri +5._Se ! 1 s2 lppellanf s Bricf, para.2 07; AT.28 August2 008p .

54. Alrpcuant's Bricf, parp' 45; A.T- T Aleust 20oE pp. l\ 13- The Appensnr submirs rlut hc was Dor obligcd o fEqu€st that mimrtcs be taken dr:ring the site visir and that it wss lhe oUUgitioao f rfre fiiJ CUgmUetro ensrw that a repolt of the sitev isit be pioducedA. T- 28 August2 008p . 13. "'Al4rcllant's Brief, paril 42;A T. 28 August2 008p _5 5- "' Respoudent'Bs rief, para.7 3. ru Rcspondensf Brief, para-7 6 - CaseN o.: ICTR-OI-74,A 2February2 009

'09 02/02 11:36 FAX0 031705128932 ICTB @ozo +151n assertst} lat the Appellarrt doesn ot e.sBblishth at the failure to producea sEilrate reporr amountst o arre rror that could hlu" *y impact on the verdict.r13 50. Trrrning to thp Appellant's conteutiont hat the Trial Chanrbere rredi a law by failing to keep records from the site visiq the Appeals Chamber first uotes that at no time during the tial proceedingsd id the $ppellant object to the absenceo f suchm aterials.r)nM oreo.,netrh, e Appeals Chambern otes thatithe Trial Chamberc onsideredth e parties' submissionso n the observations maded uring the site visit in reachingi ts fi:rdings,lt5a nd explainedh ow its observationsa ffectedt he assessmenol f the cvidence.l16T herefore,r heA ppealsC hamberd ocsn ot agreet hat, in rel),rngo n its observationst,h e Trial Charnberd eniedt he AppeUantt he right to presenta fuIl defencea nd to be provided with a reasonedo pinion. The AppealsC hambere mphasizestt rat derailedr ecordso f Trial Chamber's sirc visits should norrrally be kept. The purpose of a site visit is to assist a Trial Chamberi n its determinationo f the issuesa nd thereforei t is incumbentu pon the Trial Chambert o ensuret hat ttre parties are able to effoctively review arrf findings made by the Trial Chamberi n reliance on observatipnsm aded uring the site visit.117T he Appeals Chamberh oweverf inds that ia this caset he

Appellant hast rot dernonstratedth at he was prejudiccdb y his iuability to challenget he Trial Chafiber's obsen,r atioos and that the partiesh ad the opportunity to make argumentsb asedo u their observationso fithe site visit in theL closing argumentsa nd closing briefs to which the Trial Chamberre ferredi n its Judgemenllls : F. Conclusion 51. Accordingly,l he SecondG roundo f Appeali s dismissedin part. J[s remaininga rggmerrts presentedin the SecondG round of Appeal will be.consideredb clow under ChaptcrV II. ii] SasponOeu B rs ri ef,p ar;a7.6 ; r'lT-2 3A ugus2t 00gp p. 4L,4 2* "'The AppealsC hanberiob*crvcths{ JE 4pqgU.a" c r o nsentewdi thoutr esewationto tbes itev isir ,SceT hep rosecutor u' FrongoisK arerq C1* \"r ICTR-2001-?+1 n"rqce Fppon*" to rho prosecutor's M orion fon a View (Locus in SgJ St*-4, 54, snd 89iof theR 'les of hoccduro andEviderice)l,z May 20o6. "-l'rialJudgcmcot pams.-133r,5 9 (andf n.2L7),160 tr-atu- 218), t5t,:os. see also prosecurionoosingBrief, fras. 20' 24,389, 4L8,-15_?a,n d.fl-_4141D efenceO osing Brief. p#as. g3, ttt, fe+. AS, irs 55S"1;,A+,i-i i;T.Ti Novenba 2006 pp.7 , 35)38, 40, 41, 53. "" TrialJudgemenpt,a rasfi sl, 159,1 60,1 6l, 305- "1 -sy* records.mayr skb diffcrent forms and it will dependo o thc circumstanceso f the specific case to derurnine which form will be rnost aBpropriate. rl8 ,SeeT rial Judgemcn!p .ras. t3g, 159,1 6l. t6 iaseNo.; ICTR-01-7+A 2Fcbntlary2{09

02/oz '09 11:37 FAx 0031705128932 ICTR @ozt fi+|fr I IV. ALLEGED ERRORS RELATING TO THE F'INDINGTIIIff TIIE APPELLANI ACTED AS PREFECT DE FACTO IN'IKIGALT.RURAU' BEFORE1 TAPRILr s94( c,R ouND oF AppEAL3 ) I 52. The Trial Chbmberf ound tlat, beforeh is formal appoinnnenta sp refect of Kigali prefectrue on 1.7A prit L994,t hb Appellant exerciseda t leasts omeo f rhe authodty which wor:ld normally have been exercisedb y rhe prefect.lle It rejectedt be submissiont hat he only exerciseda uthority as su6- prefectrespousiblfeo r economica ndt echnicaal ffairs-Im 53. Under this ground of appeal,t he Appellant submjtst hat the Trial Chambere rredi n fiading: (i) that rhe prcfecture where he exerciseda uttrority was named "Kigali-Rura1"; (ii) thag under Rwandanl aw, the fol*ut prefect, COmeB izimungu ('tsizimungu"), was empoweredto appointh im pret'ecta d interim; and (iii) that he acteda s prefect de facto of "Kigali-Rural" before his official appoinment to this post on 17 April Lgg4.r21 54. The Appealec hambcr will considert hc Appellant's af,gumenrisa rurn. A. AIleEedE rror relatine to the OfficialDesienstion of Kieali Prefecfure.in1 994 55- The Appellant submits ttrat rhe Trial Chamber erred in designating "Kigali-Rural" the prefocturew here he successivelye xercisedf lrnctions as sub-prefecta nd prefecf while fu 1994,i ts official nfiile was Kigali prefechrre.t"H e conrendsth at

this error showst he superficialn atpreo f the Triat Chamber'sa ssessmenotf thc evidence-rB 56. The kosecutionr espondsth att his claimi s groundless.lza 57. The AppealsC hambera greesw ith the Appellant that the Trial Chambere rredi n dcsignaring -tn the prefectr:re" 6icdi Rural" as it was ofticially uamedK igari prefectgre lgg4-t,s Flowever,t he Appellant hasn ot shQwnt hat this error adverselyim pactedt he Trial Chamber"sti ndings- 58. Accordingly, ihis sub-groutd of appeali s dismissed. ftU Judgemcnrp"a ras,77,z47, lll Ttirl Judgemenpt,a ra-if2 0- :: !t Notice-o! Appert, paias-a 6-74;A ppcllant'sB rief, paras-4 7, 48,51, referring ro Exhibir Dl9, RwandanO fEciaI Gazotte1 5 October1 993i l-] N"U* of Appert paru- 48,49;A ppcilanr'sB rief. para.4E. Noticeo f Appeal"p aras,5 0, 51. "" Rcspondent'Bs ricf, para-79, '- ExhibitPl4. t7 CascN o.: ICTR41-74-A 2 Februar12r 009

02/02 '09 11:38 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @ozz +131fr B- s*"d E*o" io Fhd,oFglt Fg*qr fu.fu_t c0^" Biri-*gr, *", E oo."""d to 59' The Appollant submits that the Trial chamber errcd in finding that he exercised&, jure Powers of the prefb*t subscquentt o his "appoiatnnenf' to this posirion by rhe former prefect Bizimnngu on24 Arlsust 1993-12H6e clairnst hat the Trial Chambere rredi n finding that Article 12 of LegislativeD ecrbeN o' 10/75 of It March 1975 ('T-egislativeD esreeN o. 10/75,,)a llowed Prefect Bizimungu to appoint a successoriH. e contendst hat, pursuaott o Legislative DecreeN o. 70n5, only the Presideuot f the Republic appointa prefecrl2TH c arguest hat, in auy evenq "[to sirtceB izimrrngu'sp bsidona sp refecth adb Ln krminated on 4 Augu$r1 993,B izimunguc ouldu ot exercise any powEr after that date and cousequentlyc ould not have appointedh im trrefect ad inteim.rzs 60' The Prosecutionr espondst hat the Appcllanr exercised,f uuctions de jure as prefect cd ifierttu-rzeI t recallsrt he Trial Chamber'sf trding to the ef,fectt hat, pgreuantt o Article LZ of LegislativeD ecleeN o. 10/75,B izimunguw as entitledt o dclcgates omeo f his powersa s prefect after his appointnenit o new position.l3oIt further poirrtst o DefeuceW itnessp IZR,s testimony " that a prefect was ientitled to assign a sub-profect for the coordination of the prefecrure,s activities,l3.r 61- In a lener

dai€d 24 August 1993,B izimungu inforrned the Appellarrt that he was .hereby designatod prefect ad hterim of Kigali prefectue to coutinue to acr as thel did during [Bizimungu's] Ieavew hich expirest oda/'.132T he Appellanrd oesn ot challenget hc existenceo r authenticity of this letter. Rather, he denies having acceptedt his appointmeuta nd clnims tlrat Bizimunguw as not lbgally empoweredto appointh i-.133N o evidenceh asb eonp resentedro show that the Appellant forrrally acceptedth e appointmenr 62- The Trial Chamberr ejected the Appellant's subrniesionsa nd evidence that no one was appointedt o replaceB izimungu before 17 April 1994 andthat onty rhe hesident had the power ro designatea prefect ad inteim or an acting prefect.r3aIn so doing, it reasonedt hat ,.the Rwandan legislation did not prgventB izirnungu from delegatingc ertain offi,cial powe6 to [rhe Appellant] iu ij appeUo"rBsr iefp, aras4-9 -52. i'"iJ I:F::l*|ryfl,pami. 53-56A; ppellanr lr 's ic f, parasa. e_Sr;AT28. A usus2r0 08p . 5. '" Noticeo .f4 pry4, paras5.7 ,5 8 ;A ppellanstB ' rief,p arass. i, 6L 63;A T. zf euguszt -6ops. s. Respondensf Brief, para.8 0. rl Respondensf Brief, iara, 80. "'Responderut'sB rief, para.8 0- "'Exhibit Pl5, p. l0- : ]'*l fp"g"nt's Brief, para,b5.1 , 6i; AT. ZEA uErst2 008p p_5 _7. Trial JudgencDtp, aras7l 5, 76. 18 CaseN o,: ICTR-01-744 2Febnnry2CfD

'09 O2/O2 11:38 FA.X0,0 31705128932 ICTR @ozs ryzft August 7993" and firat Articles 17 atd 19 of Lcgislative Decree No. 10/75 did not reserve the competencet o designate" a' sub-ptefecta a an 'interim' or 'acting' prefect', exclusively to the Presideulls The Trial chamber thereforei mplicitly found that Bizimungu was legally enfi.fledt o delegateh is powers'or to appointa prefect ad,t nterimeven after the rerminationo f his appointuient asp refecto a 4 August 1993.

63. The Appeals'Chambecro nsidersth at nothingi n LegislativeD ecreeN o. 10fr5 suggesrtsh at Bizimungu was cntilled to delegatep refectoralp owerso r to appoint a successoret ven temporarily, after r-he tcrmiuation of his appointuent.l35 How"ver, the Trial charnber,s interpretation of Legislative DecreeN o' 10/75 could not have adverselyi mpactedi ts assessmenotf tbe Appellant,s power, sincei t did trbt find that the Appellant,b eforeh is official appointme,nar sp refect on 17 Apnil 1994,e xercisedfi :ncrionso f a prefectd ,eiu re.Instead the Triat chamberm erelyc oncludedth at he "exerciseda t least sbme of thc authority which would normally have fallen under the [prefect],,, which is a finding of,adefactoe xerciseo f power.l37 &- In light of the foregoing,t his sub-groundo f appeali s disrnissed. C' AleEd Errof in Finding that the Aupellant Acted ns De.Facrop refect mrore 17 Aorfl ' te94 65' Under this sub-grounAr he Appellant arguest bat in fiuding thar be had acted as de facto prefcct trefore 17 Abril 1994, the Triat Chamber orred: (i) in relying on Ietters signed by the Appellant'Tor the prefect'';( ii) in relying on circumsrantiael videncea; nd (iii) in rhe assessmenotf the evidencea nd by'faiti,,g to provide a reasonedq rinion.l3sT he Appellanra lso asscrtsr 6at uo eviderrcew as arlducedt o prove that he had exercisedp owers of the prefect aftff L4January1 994 arrdb

efore his appoihtmenta s prefect on 17 April 7gg4-r3Ts he Appeals framber addressesrh ese argumentsin tura. Tho Trial Cbamber,sf inding at paragraph2 5 of thc Ttial Ju<lgcluenrte fefs to "August 1993". It is clear however rlat the questiona t stake wis *fr"trri diri-t-g";ooid o*"grr. his powers on ?Rry-J Jlte_}pp"tt*r rsprefecr ed iilerim an& + August 1993. "" Article 17 of Losislati.veD ecreoN o' l0fl5 s-uqsugsth at no regard elegationo f powersc ould occrr unlessr hep refect a p s w u r r a h e b s o f p e r o r c i e t n t y m f e d s c u o l t t f p y in t o a h s c n e i h t d p io a L r n r e e g . f g e e It i o c s s r f l a ' t - i a i t @ i l v s ,e c u x s F D h r p i h c u r c r i e c t r f 1 e r P e i e l c r i N 4 o n o ro u - E lt * x r r 0 h e " / i p 2 t b h r 5 f e t e i D s " s e 6 u s n 8 t i > t t ) e s . p - n , r t s t h o o e e f y c s e r c a r e t . t s f , s a a t o ; r i t e E in h x n i n e u s i r i u r l n i i ^ r i r l c s D h . n r e ic t r 9 x a r e , i l t l R r i y o d s w s i- o ' L , b o a o l r * o p r d r " ; * ; " * o t * , e r - n a . L r i , u , i" r t l & r c e G e a p o s r r z e o c c o s fc n p f c q o v t n a . 1 s c a 5 i a b n o n i d l c c i t s t y y o a o a b t f a * a a rl 1993;T rial Judgenenr,p ira. 7S . ^" Trial Judgeoetg para.'.71. ill *dry of-Appca!p arai.S g-zq A,ppellant'Bs rie{ paras5. 4-69_ "' Appellanfs Brief, paras.5 8-61. i : I9 CascNo-:I CIR-01-74rA 2Febnuary2 0O9 I I

02/02 '09 11:39 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR Wozt +71lfr i 66. The Appellant submits that tbe Trial Chamberc rred in relying ou Lettcrss igned by rhe Appellant "for th,ef refect betweenl ate August 1993 and 14 JanuaryI 99q'to find that he had exercisedd ef auo poi*o. of the prefect.I{ He arguest hat "thesel ettersa re ouly a minutep ortion of the official correspondencefr om Kigali prefectrue" in that period and submits tbat other sub- prefects at the Kigq prefccfi:re also signedc orrespoudenceo r presided over meetings after the terminationo f Bizi4rungu'sa ppointmenot n 4 August 1993.1aH1 e assertsth at the letters of 22 Seprernber2, 1 October, and 25 October 1993,w hich tlrc Trial Chamberc onsideredc rucial as they relatedt o securirym attersi n the prefecture,d o not supportt he Trial Chamber'sf actual conclusions that the Appellant e4ercisedi le faao powerso f the prefoct of Kigali prdectr:re. According to the Appellant, the lettersio f.22 SepGmbera nd 25 October 1993a re mercly invitations to a meetingo f the Security Council of the Kigali prefecture,w hile the secruitym easuresd escribedin the lener of 21 October L993 woie taken for the end of the year aud New Year fcstivities arrdd id uot continue until April 1gg4-14iTa re appelant also claim.st hat the Trial Chambere rred in finding that these ttrree leners "[coinciied] with evidencer elating to the killings which took place

in Nyanirambo, Rushashia nd Ntaram4 in which lthe Appellant] was allegedlyi nvolved".Ia3 67. The Prosecutionr espondst hat it wa.sr easorablef or the Trial Cha:nberr o concludeo n thc basis of all the evidedce,a ndi n particular,t hcset breel etters,t hat the Appellant had acteda sp refect boforeh is offtcial appoinrnentt o that post.le 68. The Appealsf rambs finds that the Appellant's argumentis insufficieirt to demonstratetb at no reasonableti cr of fact could have found, as ttre Tria] Chamberd id" on the basiso f rhe lenerso f 22 Septe-rrber,2LO ctober,a nd 25 October1 993,t hat the Appellanth ad exercise{ priu to April Lgg4,p owersb eyoncit he capacity of a sub-prefectf or economica nd rcchnicala ffairs. Conrary to the Appellant's clairi:, it was open to the Trial Chambert o make this findiug by referencet o the 'Tor evidencec ontainedi ri thE threel etters.B y signirrg the prefecf' lettersr elating ro natters falling t@ Noticeo f Apped, perai,S l, 70; AT. 28 Augrut 2008p . 9. '"' Notice of Appcal, pani, 60;-Appella.dt'sB riof, paras.5 tr0. 54; AT. 28 August zoO8p - 8. The Appellont srdes rhar therc werc forr sub-prefectso f the prefectr:rcr esponsiblefo r a giveo departmint in fhe Kigati plefcinse aod tho thrco sub-prcfccLso f the prefec,nrrew, bosc rc.rponsibilitiesc overeda distinct rcrritory of the prefectrue.N otico of Appcal, p.ara6- 0; Appellant'sB rief, para.5 6- "" Al4rcllant's Brief, para!5, 8; AT. 28 August 2008p , 8. "'Alrp"Iant's Brief. parais5. 9, 50- raa Rcspondent'Bs rief, paia.S l. : CaseNo.:I CTR-0I-?4-A 2 Fehruary2 009

02/02'09 11:40 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @o zs +qoll outside his nonrral idutiesa s sub-prefecti n charge of economic ald technical afrai-rs,r4ar t a dme wheun o prefect was oa duty, the Appeltante ffectivclyexerciseds. omeo f the powef,so f the prefect. 69' The possibility, suggestedb y the Appellant that other sub-prefectsm ay have aLsos igned ^le other letters "for [prefect]" is merely speculative-h aoy case,t he Trial ctamber.took that possibility into acco;unitr l concluditrgt hat "[e]ven assumirrga, s statedb. y tthe Appenantl that orher subprefects may hrive signed lettcrs on behalf of thc prefecg rhe correspondencseh ows tbat [the Appellanrl exercisel at least some of the authority which wor:Id normally have fallen under the [prefect]".1tr 2. 70' The Appellaut submits that the Trial Cbambere rred in law by reachingi ts conclusionr hat hc had aGtrad e facto as prefect on the basis of circumstantiale viderrce," whef,easth is evidence could also be iuteri:r*ed othcf,wise"l4?a nd by failing to cousider "uucontrad,icted lpefence] 'tn witnesses"e xplaining a cohercatm annert he situation that existed before thc appoinhent of [the Appellant as prefect on LZA pril lgg4|-.r4R 71. The Appeal, iCnu-U"" doesn ot agree.A s recalled above,i n finding that ttre Appellanr had exercised" at least someo f tlre authoriqt'' of a prefect, the Trial Cbamberr elied on letters he had ! signedi n that canaci!,yT- hesel etters were direct rather than circumstantiale videnceo f his dc facto authority asp refecrp rior to his formal appoinrmentto that position. 3.

72. The Appellant ctaims that the Trial Chamber'sf inrling that he exercisedp refectoralp owers was basedo n a "completely erroneous"a ssessmeuotf the evicleucea nd amountst o a miscarriageo f justice'laeU " oguoithat the Trial chamberf ailed to provide a reasonedo pinion for rejectingt he evidence of Defencd witnessesw ho coherently explained the sitgation that existed before the Appellant's appointnienta s prefect arrdd emousnaredtt rat there was a reasonablep ossibility that the allegationt hat he ha{ acted de faao as prefect prior to his appoinrrnentw as false.ls0F r:rt}rer,t he Appellant submits ttat the Triat Chamberf aited to takc irrto accountt har the Rwandanp atriotic Front (RPF) and the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) were fighring in certain area5o f Kigali 1,"+ "ptl P15,p p. r-1zj'.q^.tt txr-eelc ttersy ere filed 94y ln Kiryar*,andau pou rcquesbt y theA ppealsc barnbcr, H,r}."g{q hasp rovictedlthetairn stationin to Frencha nae ng[sh. Tfiul Judgernenp!a n-77- ; ,,, appetta"CBsr ief,p ara6l 8- il {nnequtls prie! pura6; 9; AT.zgA ugus2t 008p . e_ jliAppeuontlsP rief,p arl. 66. '-" Appettant'Bsr ief,p aras6- 8.6 9;A T- 2gA ugust2 C{Jp,E-9 . 2l i CaseN o-: ICTR{1-74rA 2 February2 009 I

02/02 '09 11:41 FA.X0 031705128932 ICTR @oze ffiqln prefecturea nd that' ion 17 April J.994t,h e date of his appoinhent as prcfecq oaly rhree out of the sixteenc ourmuneso [ Kiga]i prefecnrrew ereu nder governmcnrc onEollsl 73' The koseculion respondst hat the Appellarrt'sr eitertrtiono f Defencee videncef alls shorr of demonstratingt bat tfe Trial Chambere rred in the assqssmenot f rhe evidence."'It assertstb at the Trial Chambert ook linb a"couttt the Appellant's testimony and that of Defencew itress 1[ZR and validly rejected their assertion that no one had exe,rcisedt he duties of the prefect of Kigali prefecturef or about;eightm onths,f rom August 1993t o 17 April rgg4-15T3h c prosecution r ecalls that the Trial Cham#r found c:redibleth e evidsnceo f s/irresses BMJ and BMK to the effect tbat. at a meetingi n Ntararnao n 14 April Lgg4,theAppellanht adp resenlsdh imsstfa sp refectls 74- Contraryt o Jf,t Appellant's assertiorrt,h e Trial Chambert ook into accountt he evidence presentedb y the Defence.a ddresscidts submissionsa,n dp rovideda reasonedo piniou.l5sT he Tlia1 Chamber was not cbmpelled to accept the Appellant's geueral denial that hc assr.rmeda law- enforcementr ole over and aboveh is responsibilitiesa s sub-prefec! especiallyi n view of the fact that ho acluowledgia tlut he had signed letters in the capacity of prefect relating ro security matters-r5T6h e Triaf

iCnamber n oted aad addressedth e Appellant's assertiont hat other sub-prefecrs maY traves igncd similar letters on behalf of the prefecllsT With regardt o WitnessN {ZR, although he testifiedt hat between4 August 1993a nd 17 April L994l5srh erew asn o prefocto r actingp refect in Kigali prefechre,i and that he never witressed the Appetlant inrr.oducingh imself in such a capacity during tfiat feriod, he nouethelessc orrcededth at during the absenceo f the prefbcl a sub- prretbcct ould havos ignedi nvitafons to meetingsa nd could havec haireda meeting.lse 75- The Appealsicha-b"r fiuds that the Appellaat has failed to explain how the assertion coucerningf ighting iir certain arcaso f Kigali prefecture,a s well as the assertionr hat on 17 April lgg4, only three out of the sixteen commrrneso f the Kigali prefecture were under govefiirnent control contradicts* ie triat Chamber'sf inding regardingh is exerciseo f "$ornea uthorig/, of the prefect in Kigali prefecturep rior to that date.T herefore,t he Appellant hasn ot demonspatedth at no rpasonabletr ier of fagt could bave concludectlh at hc exerciseds omea uttrority of a prefect prior to his appointmentto thh post on t 7 April 1994. i Er Appellant's Brief. pari" go.-nu Appollant sfErns that this fact - arisingf r-omh is Lcstimouy- wf,s nor.c onlestedb y t 1 h 5 e 2 P rosecutiona ndm ent\bns1lo courmuneso f Musasa,R ushashi,a naT are,

all locatcdi n thefrushsshi, "b"t i;;urr;.' ResDondeqrB.sr ief. pais-S +. ra? Reslondc,nt'Bs rief, irni*. sz. "n Rcspoudetrt'sB ricf, paia- Se ::l Tdal Judgeocarp, orasj6 Gzz. :5j Trial Judgemcot,p ans),? z , t z. ::j Trial Judgczrent,p arasl7i Z , 73, 77. : T. t-g \ a-y.2AM p. 34-lThew imesst eutioned 1?4 pril 1993.H owever,it is obviousf rom thec ontrexrth ath e mcant 1?A ptil 1994. e i:-ii rtioy200p6- z g;h . te May2 0o6p p-3 3,3 4. CaseN o.: ICTR-0I-?+jA 2February2A09

o2/o2 '09 11:41 FAr 0031705128932 ICTR @ozt +byln 76- Finally' the Appellant submitst har the Triat Chambere rred in law by failiug to apply the 'boyond standard reasonabled oubt" when assessingt be evidence,tft He argues that the Trial Chambers hor:Idh ave found that in view of Defencee vidence,t lere was a reasouablep ossibitiry that the hosecution;sa llegationsw eref alse.'6lT he AppealsC harnbecr onsidersth at this argument is not sufficierrtly substantiatedto demonstraba try effor on the part of rhe Trial Chamber, 4. 77- The Appellan,tc ontendst hat no eviclencew as adducedt hat he bad exersisedp owers of tbe prefect after 14 January1 994,162 7E. This assertioTfalls short of demonstraringa hy, error on the part of tbe Tdal chamber. Tbe Trial Chamber did riot find that the Appellant con{rruously exercised the authority of the prefect from August 1993 cg April L994, but rather madei a finding that he had exercised some of the authority of a lxefeFctt.t* contrary to rhe Apper{nt's conreution,t he Trial chambcr acceprcd ovidence that the Apiippeellllaauutt aacctteedd oonn ssoommee @casiods aass pprreeffeocct t bbeettwweeecnn 1144 J-Iaannrurnanryr na nnrdf t1z2 AApnrriill 1994.S pecificallyb, hsedo rrt he tesrimonieso f WitnbssesB MJ andB IvIIi the Trial Chamberfo und that the Appellant had called himself prefect befof,et he latter datere and rhaq at a mccting ar Ntaramas

ectoro ffice on 14 April 1994,h e naOp roqiisedT utsi refugeest hat he would provido them with secruity,t husa iring within the ambito f the p#ect.l65 :l 79- In ligbt of thq foregoing,t his sub-groundo f abpeali s dismjssed. D. Conclusion 80. For the foregoing reasons,t he Appellant's Third Gror:nd of Appeal is dismissedi n its entirety. ts Appeilant'sB rief, pardl6- 9- 'u'Appcllall's Brie4 par3!6 9. i'oX' I?*: of Appeal parab-6 l-65: Appeilenr'sE rief,p ara.5 gr AT. 2EA ugrxt 200gp .

9. Trial JudgemptrLp erd-t7-7 ]f rriat r"alementia rasi2. 3+ z3gz, 4't. '- Trial fudgenenr ptra-t254- I CaseN o.: ICTR-01-74A 2February2 @9

02/02 '09 LL:42 FA.I 0031705128932 ICTR $Tlfr V. ALN,EGED ERRORS RELATING TO IHEAPPELLAI\1I'S IhI-VOL\/EMENT IN TITR MRND AI\D ITTSA UTIIORITY O\MR THB TNTERAflATUIWE( GROUND OF AppE AL 4) 81. The Trial Chamber found that the Appellant exercised autborify over the pteralwmwe in L994-ttr The Trial Gharnber corlicted the Appellant, pwsuanr to Article 6(l) of rhe Stat'te, for ordering, instigating, and aiding and abetting genocidc, and murder and exte,rmination as crimes against humanity, based in part on the involvement of the Interahamwe in the lillings of Tutsis in Nyamirambo, Ntaraila, and Rushashi- I 6 7 , 82. The Trial Chamber found that the Appellant's position as Presidenr of the MRND in Nyarugenge commuhe after April 1992 had not been established beyond reasonable doubt,ls but that this itr itself dip not exclude the fact that he exercised authoriry over the Interalnnnwe in 1994.t6' The Trial iChamber based this finding orr his previous presidency and continuing membership in thei MRI{D, combined with his importance as the former bottrgmestre of Nyarugenge cornmuire and subsequent firnctions as sub-prefect and prefect of Kigali prefecfi;re,rro The Trial Chamber fbund that the evidence specific to this question, in particr:lar the testimonies of Wifiresses BIVIA andiBLX, iu conjunction with the evidence relating to the events in Nyamirambo, Ntaram4 and Rushishi, was

sufficient to find rhat the Appellant exercised authority ovcr rhe Interalwmwe in 1994.t7 E3' The Appellarit submits that the Trial Chamber erred in its assessnent of the evidence of Witnesses BI{A and BLX relating to his alleged irrvolvement in rhe MRI{D in Nyanrgen ge after 7992 andin concludiLg that he exercised,a uthority over rhe Interahamwe in L994.tn 84' The Appellan! contends that the Trial Chamber erred in law by accepting parts of Wigress BI-X's testimony despito certain factor$ that cast doubt on his evidence.tr He recalls rhat the Trial Chamber itself decidpd to consider'WitrressB LX's evidence with caurion becauseo f rhe wibess's involvemeut in proceedings before Rwandan courts.IT'tF urther, the Appellant contends that'Witness '." Judgemeotp, ao 16- lbe Tri'l chanber f6aat rhnt it had not been csrabrishedth ar his a.thority over lbc Inte"roal lunnwei n Nyamiralnbo, Rushncli or Ntaram* extendcdb eyond his pcrsonal influencc. Tlial Ju_dgerlcnlp ara- 567. 11frU {urtgooeat p , "tns.S SS-S+BS, S2-56t. Tri"l Judgcneut,p ara-j 55. ::: ::: Trial Judgment, para-i56. ::: Trial Judgemeugp ara i55. Trid Judgeaeutp, ara-156. :: ];lNoUry of $n_fcal p aras7. 5,76; Appellant'sB rief, pu;a.rs-7(182. "'Appellant'S Brisf, par:iT'1, "o Notice of Appcal pari76; Alrycllant's Brief, paras-7 z,74,referriug to Trial Judgemoagp ara-5 2. CaseN o.: ICTR-01-74A 2February2 009

02/02 '09 11:43 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR @ozs qs6lfr BIX contadicted ljimself when hc asse.rtebde fore tbe Trial chambrr that tbe Appellant held rtre position of Presid# of the MRND in April 1994.w hilc he had testified in the Karemerae t dl. case that it was Hamadi lNsnimiyimana who held this position at rhat tine.r75 He claims that the Trial Chamber's conclusibu that there was no coneadiction in thc witness's testimony on this point was "completely errcneous.!'r76T n his vicw, Wihess BLX's testimony in the Karernera et al. ca,se corrobonated the Aipellant's testimony that following his resignatioD, in April or May lgg; i Hamadi Nshiniyiurina replaced him 4s MRND president in Nyarugengec ommrrne.rz I 85' The koseculion responds that, the Trial Chamber correc.tly found that the Appeltsl,g authority over the tryteralnmwe in 7994 was bascd on his previous presidency aud continuing membership in the his importance as a former bourgmestre, as well as bis subsequent functions as sub-pre{ect arrd pretbct.rTtI t submits t}rat this ground of appeal is unfognded and sho'ld be dismissedi n its eririrety.tTe I 86. The Appealsichqmbgfl inds no merit in the AllpeUant'ss ubmissionsc hallengingt he Trial Chanrber's assessmenot f Winress BLX. Thc Trial Cha-mbera ddressedi n detail the alleged discrepancyb etweelW itnessB LX's tesfirnonyin thep resenct asea ndh is previoust esrrmonyin the

Karemerae t al. caseibeforeth e Tribunal.rmI t notedt hat.d uring his testimonyi n the Karemerae t aL casc,t he witnessm ehdoned} lamadi Nshimiyimanat wice, fi.rst stating that Elafiadi lr[shimi]nmarra held the position of Vice-Presidento f the MRND in Nyamgengea nd subsequentlys tating that he was Presidento f tneirrm.i.ro in that communei n 1994.'srT he Triat chamber fbund rhat therc was 'bo cleard iscrepaucyb' etweenh is tesfimoniesin the two casesb ecauseth e wihess had sated in I both casest hat ttasrh4i lrlshimilnmanah eld the positiou of vice-Presidento f the MRND in April 7994.rn On appeal,l the Appellant merely repeatst hc argumenth e raised at trial. The Appeals Chamberi .sn ot a secrfndt rier of thct, and a party caflnots imply repeara rgumentso n appealt hat did not succeeda t triallin the hope that the Appeals Chamberw ill considert herq afresh.tsT he Appellant doesr rot dpmonstrateth at the Trial Chambet'sf inding was errof,eousA. ccordingly, the Appellant'sa ppeaol i this point is dismissed- 'il]ll fnPe11antlrP ri"{, p$d,.Zl,rcfcrring ro Triar fudgernenlp ara-5 4. Appellur's Brief, pant,Z S_ 'i'l"l lpp.U*rt'".Bt fr p-n| 76. Scea lsoA ppelluur.sB ricf, para 71. Respondent'Bs rief, p+as, 85-88. "l Rcspondent'sB ricf, p1ra.8 9. :'.:: ' Trtal Judgencntp, ara.!5+. Ild Judgcmcnqp *ra,151f,n . 8I referringt o Karemerae t aI_,T-I 0 March ZOO6pl_g . The Trial Ctrambeor bsenc d that HamadiN shimiyima4a'sp ,ositionw as tror et i.ssuein tbat casc- ^lj 'n' Trial Juclgc,crenpl ara-1 54. Semanza.i lppealJ udgrFcnq para-9 . I CaseNo.:I CTR-01-7+A 2Fcbruary2 009 =\a{_

02/02 '09 11:43 FAX 003,1705128932 ICTR @o so +s5ln 87. The Appcllant also challenges the testimouy of Witness BN4A, asserting tSat the witness "lied ouuigff' and t[at the Trial Chamber erred by failing to rejcct bis testimouy in its entirery.rs The Appellarrt notesithef ollowing discrepancies:w hile'Wihess BMA told the Rwaudan authorities that he had not seeni tho Appellanl druing fhc war, he testifi.ed,b Efore the Trial Cbambef ilrat he had seeir the Appellant iafter 6 Aptil 1994 on at least three occasions in the office of tbe Kigali prefecture.lffiD uringicross-examination,t he wihess claimsd that he might have been ralking about "a difflerent Kare,ra"i while he had stated at the beginning of his testimony thar he only knew one Person bearing this iume.rtr Ftrtthermore, iu his testimony before the Trial Chambcr, the wihess testified to the Appellant's position within the MRND aud his resllting authoriry over the Interahsrnwe, whereas in pre-tial statementst o rhe Tribunal's investigators, the witness had never implicarcd the Appellant as a high-ranking meruber of thc MRI{D.rsz I 88. The Appealsi Chamberf inds no merit in the Appellant's subm.issioacsh allengingt he Trial Chamber'sa ssessmehotf WirnessB N4A.T he Appellants olcly conte$tsth at part of the wituess's tusrirnenyw hich thd Trial Chamberf ound iuconsistcnta nd which it thereforer ejected.rtsT he Appeals Charnbert

it.lh that a Trial Chamberm ay accept some pfits of a wihess,s testimony while rejecring others.'s In the instant casc, the Trjal Chamberf ound credible and relied on the witness's testimony concerningt he Appellant's support to the Interahamwen L99l ^\d lggZ.rvr The Appellant has dot demonstrateda n effor on rhe part of the Trial Chamberi n this regard. Accordingly, the Apt'e[ant's argunent orr rhis point is dismissed, 89. Finally, ure Appeltant submits that the Trial chanber's holding rhar it had not been i establishedb eyondr qasonabled oubt that he continuedt o be hesident of rhe MRND in Nyamgenge after April 1992m eautt hat WitnessesB IvIA and BLX who had testif,ed m rhis effectrehr ad lied-rn The Appellatrt thusr coucludes that the Trial Chamber erred in law by accepting, without explanation, other Pflts of the wiuresses't estimoniest o find tbat the Appellant suppofiod the Interahan*vein 1991land1 992a nde xetciseda uthodtyo vert hemi u 1994.ts i 90. The Appeals phamber rejects the Appellant's contontior on this point. As noted abovg a Trial Chamberm ay apcepts ome P artso f a witress's testimonyw hi]e rejecting others.T hc Appeals I S b Trial Judgeaeal para 53. ^*'Aooellant's Brief. oarr. 8Q rcferring toExhibitDTe,p-29,andD7B,p. 20; T. 19J anuary2 006pp-ZE-30. lI +i,fo1*,:r g q"f,i ,r'q-g l, referrinto! T .r 9r anuairoyo opp4. 146. llj lpp"U" f s Erief, para.8 1, referringt o ExhibitD IOA_ Trial Judgemenpr,o ra.F3. :'l:' Sees erombe JrQ ci_tingS inba P,ppln_Judgemenrp, ata-z t2; Kanulunda Appea1 f'lg aggep-nara.248 "p , p"cfllt1m$g:^_tKll.upp5r1e.{ kita aI- Appcal Judlemenqp o.a-f rS_ Trial Judgencut,p ara 56. ll nia Judgemcpn.rr,a ssi e,+ 2. '] Appellant'sB ricf, pard.8 2, "'Appellant's Bricf, para-8 2. I I 26 CasoNo-:I qfR-01-7+A ZFe&tnry ZACP I

'09 02/02 11:44 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR +8+lH Chamberf urther tlilt that a Trial Chambcrh as rhe obligation to providc a reasonedo pinion, but is not required to aiticulate every step of its reasouingi n detail.r* In the presentc ase,t he Trial Chambere xpUcrtlyistatedt hat it found the wihesses' testimoniesc oncerningt be Appcllant,s support to the Interbltamwen l99L and 7992c redible,rsT he Appellanr has not dmonstrared.a u error in this fiadingl The Appellant's argumentt hat the wirnessesli ed is spcculativea ad doesn ot require fur ther consideration.

91. Thc AppealrjCfr^*b", obsenest hat, ia any even! the Tbial Chamberm aden o finding on I the Appellant's autliority based on the evidenceo f Witresses BIVIA and BLX alone- The Tria] Chamber'sr elianccion WimessesB IvIA and BLX is limited to a generali llustration of the Appellant's authority over tho Interalumwe without aoy linlr to particular events. The Trial Chambcrm erely noied rhat the evidenceo f WitnessesB MA and BUK regardingt he Appellant's suPPortto the Interahamwen l99L and 1992w as crediblea nd supportedth e fact that rhe Appellant exercised auttrority bver tho Interalnmwe.'s In addition, it hcld that the cvidence adducedi n relation to the spec!fic events in Nyamirambo, Ntarama, and Rushashi also showed rhat the Appetlante xerciseda uthority over the Interalntnwe.re7 92. For the t'oregfingr easonst,h e AppealsC hamberr ejectst he.Appellant'ss ubmissiontsh att he Trial Chambore o"diin tbe assessmenotf the eviderrceo f WitnessesB IvIA andB IJ( relatingt o his ! involvemeuti n the ttFI.fD in Nyarugengea -fter7 992 andin fuiding that he exerciseda uthority over thel ruerahanrwetn Xggq.A ccordingly,t his groundo f appeails dismissed. rY SceS imbaAppeuJf udfepeat, para- 152 -"_Tl rial Judgencut,p ara 156. :: Tritl Judgemeulp ara-56- r'7 Trial Judgeneot,p *a i56,r eferring to Trial JudgeneogS cctionsI I.4-6. i 27 CaseNo.:I cfR-01-7+A 2 Fcbnrary 2(D9 SlrL

02/02 '09 11:45 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @otz +aslfr l \rI. ALL4GED ERRORS RELATING TO TIIE FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS INVOL\iED INA CAMPAIGNTO KILL TUTSIS IN wm,una+mo sEcTo& NYARUGENGcEo MMtrNE (cRouNDo F I APPEAL 5) 93' The Trial cn"-U", found that in April 1994 tbree policemenr Kalimba Habimana and '?erb Kabarate,w ho stationedin [the Appelant's] housei n Nyamirantro [...] corumittedc rimes together with rhe hi:t'eralnmweo peratingi n that area".le8s pecifically, the Trial chamber found that: ! I Between S t[o tO.1n U t199-4], rheI nteralwnwe followett after Kabahay", a Ttrtsl, and killed hi- in ButamA-+n ot far away- fromN yamaaEbo-T hey then rcporteat o te poud*" rhrr,h e bad bcenkilled[ -.:l; - BetwecnI and 10 Apdl 1994,p oliceorn Kalimba forced a man !o kill lvlurekez! a Tuts! at tbe roadblockn eatlr( ar€ra.'s house[ ,..]; ' q t0 April_1994_'_Ndingutsae T,u tsl was afiestcda udk illed by rhe policemen atd Interehqnwe not far awayf rom Karaa's bouse[ .. .]; i - on z{ Aptil 1994P' alatinN vaeatarqa Tutsi"w ask illed at a roadblocka boutt hreep lorsf romh is houseb ypoucpmaKna limbai. .ll-tt 94- The Trial Chamber firrther tbund that the perpetrato$ were aware that the vlctrms were Tutsis and that they killed thern prusuant to the Appellant's order ro kilt Tutsis.m Based on these findings, tbe Trial Chamber convicted the Appellan! pursuanr to Article 6(1) of the Starure,

for ordering genocitle aub exterrrination and murder as crimes againsthumaniry.ml 95. Thc Appellanp submits ttrat the Trial Chamber crred in its factual findings in relarion to his involvement in a cainai+ to kill Tutsis in Nyamirambo scctor, Nyanrgenge courmnne .M He argues that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that (i) he exercised aurhority over rhe three policeme,n involved tit ftt killings; (ii) he ordered, by relephonc, the ki[ing of Kabuguza's family members between 7 :*d 10 April 1994; (iii) he gave orders to kill Tutsis and ro demolish their houses in NyamiramQo betwccn 7 and 15 April L994;(iv) he gave orders to spare certain Tutsis and their housesb etween;7a nd t5 April L994; (v) a man called Kahabayew as killed in April lgg4 as a co[scquence of the orders given by him; (vi) he ordered policemaa Kalimba ro kill a T\rtsi called I ::@ ]] Trial Judgr:orcngp ara.5 35. I Trial Judgcmenpl ara.536. ]'"l 'N T o r t i i a c f e J uagcmentp,a rassj +0, SS7,5 60,S 6L_ of Appeal,p ans,ll-t&; Appellanr'sB rief, parasg. 3-r84; .A,T2, g August2 oogp p. 24,2s- 28 CaseNoI.C: TR-01-7+A 2 Febnrary2 009

02/02 '09 11:46 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR @o gc +8?,lf I Mruekezi between:Ea nd t0 April 1994; (vii) he was involved irr the killing of Jean Bosco Ndingutse on 10 abtit 1994; aud (viii) a man called Palatin Nyagatarew as kiltsd following his orderst o kill Tutsis at Nyamiranbo.2otT he AppcalsC hamberw ilt considert hesea rgumentsin rurn, ; A' Alle€ed Emors relatine to the Apoellantts Authority over Commune policemen 96. lbe Trial CnamUer found that the Appellant had authority over the tSree policeuen who guardedh is housei n Nyauriramboa nd manneda roadblock near his house.2eT hc Trial Cbamber firrther found that the rhreep olicemenc ommittedc timesi n the areao f Nyamirambo.2os n. In this sectiob,t he AppealsC ha:rrberc onsiderst he following allegatiouso f erro6 rclaredt o the finding that theiAppellant had authority ovEr the policemen: (i) alleged failrre to provide a reasonedo pinion; (ii) allegede rror in assessingP rosecutione vidence;a nd (iii) allcgedf ailure to give propcr weight to Defencee vide,nce. l AlleeedE rror in Failingt o Providea ReasonedO pinion 1- I 98. The Appellarit submitst trat the Trial Chamberc rrcd in taw in faiting to identify rhe evidence showing the Appellhnt's alleged de jure or de facto authority over the communal policemen Kafimba"H abimana"randlk barate allegedlyp osreda t his housei u Nyamiramboa nd in omitting to explain how be could have

exerciscd any authority over policemen who were outside the administrativet erritory in which he worked-206 99. The Prosecutionp rimarily respondst hat the Trial Chanrberd uly consideredth e evidenceo f several witnossest ci establish that the tbree policemen took orders from the Appellant and committedc riminal dcts.M i 100- A review of ihe Trial Judgementr evealst hat, contrary to the Appellant's coarenuon,t he Trial Cbamberp rovided a reasonedo pinion for the impugnedf indings arrdi dentifred rhe underlying 'Witnesses evidonce.2oTsh " friir cunber relied on rhe evidenceo f BMF, BIvII{, BLX BMU, BI\4A, BMG, and lME to find that the policemen Kalimba" Habimana, and Kabarate were "communal policemen" under the Appellant's authoriSr,r afher than under the authoriry of the prefcct of Kigali-ViUe prefecture.2oTeh e Trial chamber's conclusion that the Appellant exercised aurhorityo ver these / olicemen is not basedo n the preiniset hat he hadd ,e jureauthority over theo, u AppelJant'sB rief, parJp.1 83,l g4. :^ : Trial Judgeacuqp arui 122.s zz - Tti"l Judgemeupr,a rasl1 68, L92,196,209.5 35. '* Notice of Appctrt"W ab. gZ-g+;AT. 2g August 2OOpE- 14. *'Rcspondent's Brid, paras,9 l-96, sp-p ara 95, "o Trial Judgemenpga ras:1 1G122. i 29 CaseNo-:I CTR-01-74A 2Febmar2y0 0e Sl/,t-

02/02 '09 11:46 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @o en +8r1fr evefl though the Titat Chamberr ecalled that iD a state of emergencya prefect car requisitiorr I communal pouce'2]oI nstea4 the Trial Chamber's conclusion is supporredb y the eviderrceo f severalP rosecution'*im"ttu. who testified that the policemenw erc guardingt he Alrycllant,s house I and mannins a roidblock in front of i! that these policemen ctaimed to be tbe Appellant,s subordiBatest,h at the Appellant ordered them to kilt futsis and destroy their houses,a nd rhat peoples aidr hatt bej obeyedt he Appellanr'so rders.2ll I I f 01, This argumeirti s therefore dismissed.

2. Loz' Thc Appellant submis that the Trial Chambere rredi u finding rhat tbroughoutt he month of April 1994 he exerciseda utbority over certaiu cou}munep olicemen since the evidenced oes not permit this inferencel.2Ht' e contendsth att his erroro f fact occasioneda miscarriageo f justice.zr3 103. The Appellit that since there was no legal basis for the allegaton trat he had "r*"*, authority over the $U""-"o, tJrek osecution had to support its allegation by pr,ovidinge videnco that he continuoustti* effectivcly exercisedd e facto authoriry over ttre policemend 'ring April L994.2rH4 e submits;tratt his allegationw as" ldzarre"c onsideringth e Trial Chamber,sfi ndingst hat the Appellant Ieft lfigali on 7 April 1994 and remainedi n Rutrengerib etween 7 and 19 April Lss4.2ts i 104' The AppeUailt argues that thc Trial Chamber failed to take into account existing 'tompelling reasonsif or discouating" the evideoce provided by Prosecution witaesses2l6a nd ignored evidencec oritradictingt he Prosecutiona llegationo r "rend.er[ing]it lessp lausible,,-2tM? orc , specifically' he assertst hat the Trial Chamber.erredi n relying on rhe 1s5rimofl! of prosecution WitressesB MU, BIJq BMA, BMG, BMF, BMFI, andB ME.2rB 105- Tbc Appeals Chamber will consider t}e Appellanr's arguments in tunr. ]l frid fuagro, errLp ar*1t22. l'" Triar Judgemenpqa raslf.2 0-122. fjl Triat tudgemenrp. arasiI. l2-119,

tzt, Lzz_ "&.dp4lcllo.!t's Brief, pard 89- fi nnpeffontlsB rief.p ard.E Sr, cferringr o TriatJ udgemenpr,a z- 537, ]"3.pp"tt".f s Brief, P*3: 17: TtreA ppell:.nrt *ails thatN -yarrirambwoa st ocatedin, Kigafi-Villep refecnrqa ndn or in Kigali prcfecturg of w{ri*r he was a iub-prcfecl ,-,_1*l -pqcU",ts Brid, paral.8 8. refering ro Tri4l Judgeae,or,p aras.479, 500. Noticc of Appesl parab.8 5, 86. n"A14r{la1 1's Btief, para-l9 0, ttoAppella n t's Bricf, parai. g t-r rs- CaseN o.: ICTR-01-74,A 2February2 S)9 I \rq-" I I

O2/O2 '09 11:47 FILXA 037705128932 ICTR @o cs : 4aoffr (a) Witnes.sB MU 106. W'iuressB MU, arr official from Nyamirambo,t estified r.hata rouncl 10 Aprit 1994, three commrrnep olicemeq Safaxi,I Glimba and Thonras,m amed a roadblockf urf rout of the Appellant's housea ndw ere engagedin kilUngs.=teA ccbrdiugt o the wihess, on 10 April Lgg4,thep oliceuen told him that they reportedt o the Appellant and not to TharcisseR euzaho,t he prefecr of Kigali- Ville prefecture.zo : L07. The Appellant assertsth at'WitnessB MU lied andm adec oatra<Iictorys tatemenrsH. e argues 'link tbat Wituess BMU'b testimonye stablishedto o tenuous4 betweent he Appellant and rhe policemenm anning'ar oadblocki u front of his houset o supportt he finding madeb y the Trial Chamber.zl 108. The hoseculon resPondsth at the Appellant simply reiteratesh is submissionsa t trial ou the credibility of kosecution witnesses,in cluding Witness BMU, whilE failing to show that the Trial Chambera ctcdu nredsonablyin relying on this evidence.z2 109. In assessingW ikressB MU's evidencot,h e Trial Chambero bservedth aq as an ofEcial in Nyarugengein 1994'urcl someonew ho .knewt he Appellant personally,t he witnessw as in a good position to obsewe the evenrs.% However, the Trial Chamberd ecided to considerh is evidencc with caurion, si.ncci t found that the witness "may have beerri nfluenced by a wish to positvely affect the

criminal proceedingsa gainstt himl in Rwanda."z tlO. The Trial Chambert lren observedth at WimessB MIJ's prior sratementosf 1998 and 2ff12 ("199ES tatemeuf'a nd*20ft2S tatement"r,e spectivelyd) o aot mentionp olicemena t a roadblocki u front of the Appellant's housea nd tbat "[h]e explainedt hat he wasn ot askeda boutt bem and added that in his 1998$ tatemenht e onty describedw hat peopler old him, andn or what he Eaw."H \ilbile the Trial Chamberc bnsideredt hat this was "not quite coasisrentw ith his testimony that he had heard from a subordinatea bout the policemen'sp osition at thc roadblock,ni't neverrhelessfo und that this inconsisten?yd id not affect rhe wiaess's credibility. u6 ft. Trial Cbambera ccepted Witness BMU's explanationsf or the disctepanciesb etweenh is testimony and prior statements regardingt he numbero f roadblocls in Nyamiramboa nd his knowledgeo f the roadblocls when he zre 'consider[ed] Ths Tdal Cba.Eb€r it likely rhat Safari and Thomas wcre rhe first oanes of Kabarata and Habimand'. flial Judgc@engp are- I I i. :: Trinl Judge,mr",npt,a ra. i89. llj appemorsB rief,p ara!e. z-se. ] ResponrtcnBt'rsi ef,p ans.9 6-98. f rriat Jvagenenpt,a ri.,tt r. -' Trial Judsement. DsrL il l 3- lt;atudEement, iare ! rs- "" Trial Judgrmonl" para il15, i 31, CascN o-: ICTR-01-74jA 2 February2 009 i I I

02/02 '09 11:48 FAX 003.1705128932 ICTR @o ss +Tqlfr left his houseo u lf April 1994-n7T he Triat Ch^mbera lso acceptedW itrressB MU's evidence about the policemeri and their crimes at lhe roadbloCki n front of the Appellaut's housei n April 1994, including tnai they claimed to be subordinateso f the Appellant and not of tbc prefect of Kigali-Ville.228 I ll1. The Appella:irta ssertsw ithout more detail that the Trial Chamber erred in considering ! WitnessB MU's evidenceb ecau.qhee lied.22Ae review of tfrebrial Judgemenrte vealst hat the Trial Chambera cceptedt lirSw itness's evidenceo nly after a careful considenationo f the variousf actors relcvant to the assesimonto f his oedibility.z3o6 this respcct,t he Appellant has failed to esrablish 'witness that the Triat chambfr erreai n acceptingt he evidenceo f BMu.

112. The Appellairt firrther argues that contary to Witness BMU's explanation in cross- examinadoutb at in ihe 1998a nd 2002 Statementsb e only recounredw hat peopleh ad told him, those statcmentsin fact included details of what he saw in the sectora fter 6 April 1994 and even mentionedt he specihcp ersonsw ho marned thc roadblocls and those who q/cf,sk iltsd at such roadblocls.4l In adclition, thc Appellant assertst hat V/imess BMU should have menrionedt he I nalneso f the policeien in his statementss ince ho statedt hat he learnedt heir namesf tom a repon he receivedf tom so,meouee lse.42F inally, he argucst hat Wiaess BMU provided a different explanationi n court iby stating that he had omitted mentioning the role of the Appellant and the policerneu" becauseli e was not askeda ny question[ slc] aboutt hem".!3 LL3. In the 1998S latementW, itnessB MU r*ounted in generalt ers$ the eventsi n Rwandaa nd. in his $ectorf rom tneib"ginning of the war in October1 990r o the endi n tgg4.2j4T he focus was nor on specific situationsai rising in the areao f Nyaminrnrbob ut rather on broadere vents.T he witrress mentioncd in general the setting up of roadblocks where Tutsis were killed end rhe failure of competenta uthorities to stop thesek illings, but gave no descriptiono f a particular roadblock or kiline. In addition,;the Appeals Cbambcrn otes that" as with the 2002 Statement,t he

l99E Statementf ocussedo 1 the role of TharcisseR enzahoi n the genocide.I n thesec ircumstancesit, is tmderstandablerh at Wioess BMU did not mention the pr.eseuceo f three particular policemena t a roadblock and the crimes they comnitted urrder the Appellanr's alleged authoriry- In addition, WitnessB MU was aft only recountingw hat he witncssedp ersonally,b ut also referredt o what he had heardf rom others.T he AppealsC hambert hereforec onsidersth at WituessB MU's explanations l-]' Tr f" ia o l t Judgemenpl arastI l5, 116. Judgeocutp, ara il15. i^] appelaat's Brief, paral9 6. ::: Trial Judgeroeupt,a raslI 13, I 15, 116. appeXant'sB ricf, parzirg2- f_j -'Ay4rcllant's Brief, par4 92- I Afuu.,t's Brief,ia r:r 93- i 32 CaseN o.:I CTR-01 -7+lc, 2Februry 2CD9 :

sr+".'+-., 02/02 '09 11:49 FA.X0 031705128S32 ICTR @osz +78!a were not at oddsw ith the contento f the 1998S tatementT urning to the 2002 Staremeu!i t is clear that the focus agaiDw as Renzaho'sr ole drrring the genocide-W hile in this statementr, he witness rocounted the existince and firncrioning of roadblocla in general,h e did not describe specific oventsa t toadblocks. r74. Witrress Bil'ru explained in his testimony that be did not, in theso lnevious sratements, mention the seningiupo r a roadblocki n frorrt of the Appellaat'sh ousca rrdt he comgrissiono f crimes by policemei uoder thc Appellant's control becauseh e was not askeda ny questionsa bout them' This explanationi s consistentw ith thc subject-matreor f thcse sratemeats.*,T he Appellant has not demonsfratedth at no rea,sonablteri er of fact could have forurd tbat theseo missionsd id not affect WitnessB MU| s credibiliry. 115- Pointing to pe alleged conradiction benreen Witness BMJ's testimonya nd.t he 20o2 statement regarding't he number of roadblocks in Nyamirambo, fhe Appellant claims that rhe "inflated number of roadblocks cleafly shows Witness BMU's desire to aggravatet hc charges against Kareran"B6tr e appeAs Chamberr ecalls ilrat the Trial Chambera ddressedth is alleged itrconsistencya nd acientedt he explanationp rovided by the wihess thar in tbe 2OO2S tatementh e was askedo nly aboutt he numbero f

roadblockso n the main road from thc regional stadiumt o the centre of rown' andinot about the enfue sector-87T he Appellant has not, showu that rhe Trial Chambere rred in rcaching this conclusion,W itnessB MU's explanarionis consistentw ith the facr that in he 20O2S tatiment, the numbero f roadbl&ks was mentionedi n relarion to his owu role in disuibuting weaponsiart oadblocksi n the sector.EsIn addition, the AppealsC hambern orest hat the Appellant's ^t"ttior that the wihess inflated the number of roadblockst o aggravarer he chargcs : against him is mere speculation.

116. The Appellatit further contends that, of the three witnesses who testified to thc presence of policemen at a roadblock in front of the Appellant's house, only Witness BMU establjshed a link betweea the policcmen und the Appellant, and tlurt this link was too tenuous to support a f'rding that the Appellant exercised any authority over the policc,men.23eT he Appellant assef,tst hat -[a]ll e tggE Statemenpt,p -3 -i. fl rria fuOgc-""{parasi,I ts, il6- 'o 9T A l p 1 pe l l : la * n r t - 's = B P rie l_ f, Y pa j r . :i l Y O ll: S : 3 P .f " n . : S a 1 B* a j ; :t ivlTt.u l , a 4 q p * f - . . i 1 i rnyi:s* .rsessa r t o €L r ; h t o o T t - ria r r c -c * h a a s n a b s uo r , o sb s o c i n ., a r t * io a rnl ; p ;; a . r f a 'f s f# r n i p l ' i 6h " " d o ; f some_timea fter l0 AprilJp94, whrrcas at trial hg tcstified that ho r,*d previousty,o"i""J i"pon, aboqtt s h .r e u ! r $ oadblocks_ A *W ppe J lla * n * tn , s 1 1ts"ri{d:, I* p . a ? ra | : 95. *H:o_wc"v:c:r1- 9th._e AAnprrpellecrut 'nd d nt o a s e nn s no t tac lorrs'mi' rrhhara rih,an ,r'T i,.rria rr q rL " - ' - ' L t ^ 'i - l "J ^ ; - ; -) ; ril : i - iliff.; r,p llation for rhqt_rynardc.ist crepi.icy- Blff' :: Trial Judgeaacupga ra,116. ::2OU2 Staremeupl p-4 5, -'Appellant's Bricf, parar9 8, 33 CaseNo.:I CTR-01-7+A 2 February2 009

02/02 '09 11:49 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o ge #rlfr what fsic.l WitrressB MU said on rhis point is that the policemen boastedt bat they reported to IGrerar athert hant o Renzaho,t hep rdfetof Kigali-Villd,.24 ll7- The Appeals Chamberd isagreesT. he tink establishedb y Witness BMU berweent he three policemen and the Appellaut was not tenuous.A ccording ro Wituess BMU, tbe policemen,w ho wel€ aware of the witness's official position, told him that they were obeyirrgi nst'ctions of the Appellanta nd were workiug fel him, not for Renzahot,h e prcfect of Kigali-Ville prefect're.ur In addition' the Trial chamber's fiading on the Appellaut's position of authority ovcr the policemen doesn ot stando n WitnessB M(J's testimouya lone.T his aspecto f his tesfimgnyw as corrobomted by the testimonieso f WitnessesB MF, BMH, BMG, andB ME.Z2 118- The Appelluit', contenriont hat the Trial Chhmuere rred in the assessmenotf Wihess BMU's evidenceis therefored ismissed.. : (b) WitnessesB M4 andB LX 119. The Appellaflt subEits thar he calrnot "comprehendh ow WitrressesB I\,IA and BLX could haveb eenb elievedo n the issueo f communep olicemen"w hereast he [Tria]l Chamberr ejectedt heir testimoniesio relationt o [other allegationsa gainstt he Appellanta nd] alsor ejectedW iuressB LX's testimooya s to the distriburiono f weaponsin Nyamirambo".2a3 72O. The Appealsb hamberr ecalls that it is not

unreasonablefo r a Trial Chambcrt o accepts ome Partso f a witness'$r esdmonyw hile rejectingo thers.2#T heA ppellanth asn ot shownh ow tbe Trial. Chambcr erred in aqceptingo nly portions of the evidence of these witnesses.T he Appellant,s contentioni s thereforbd i smisscd. (c) WimesseBsI \{F I h udB MII LZI. The Trial CnltoU* fouudt hat "[t]he testimonieosf t.--I WihessesB MF andB MH, are generally consistent a.boutt he police officers. They said rhat Karera left Nyamirambo but continucd to visit thef,e, that policemcn remained at his hou5e, regarded Karera as their superior and communicated with tii- Uy phone, that they committed crimes, distributed machetcs, and.o rclered others to commit cfimes."245 m Appcllant'sB rief, para.9 t- '" ^ T_- l I anuarl ?-M p - VL-S e e also T, VL I antwy 2006 pp.j , 6, 7- !.LSea T rial Judgemenpqa ras1. 12.l 17, ttE. Appcllant's Brief, pul l+n - l*] s:" szprc Chaper IV Atleged Etlors RclatiDgt o the Appellanr's Involvementi n thc MRND and his Authority over the Intcralntnwe (Grouad,ofA ppeal 4). para E7- ^' Trial Judgemeutp, ara-7 1.2. CascNo.:I CTR-01-74-A 2 Febntrry 2009 \.]lJ-

'09 02/02 11:50 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR E ogs +76l/, 122' With regardt o Witress BMF, the Appellant claims that shep rovided many derailsr egarding the presenceo f "o.-*u policemen in front of the Appellant's house, but that norhjng in her teshmonys howst hzita sulrrior-subsrdinxls relatiorrshipe xisredb etweenh im and the policemen.z6 I 123' The Appeals chamber find.s that contrary to the Appcllant's coatenrion, ' Wiuess BMF,s testimony supportst he finding that the Appellant exerciseda uthority over ttre three policemen. Indeed, the wihess'testified that she knew the policemen and that they had been guardirrgt he Appellant'sh ouseb gforeA pril lgg4.%7s he alsot estificdr bati n the secondh alf of May 1gg4 she heard PolicemanK zilimba tell his colleagueH abimanat hat the Appellant had fursruc6d him by tclephouet o spaxes bmeT utsi families.as The Trial aamber was thereforee ntitled to take tbcse aspectso f WitnessB MF's testimsayi nto accounti n assessiugw hethert he Appollant exercised auttrority over the popce,men. L24' The Appetlant submits that wirress BMH lied with regard to the relationshipb euweettrh e : Appellant irnd the pblicemen and that the Trial Chamba erred ia assessingth e evidenceo n rhis point'2aeT he Appellpt arguest hat WitnessB MH could uot have witnessedt be Appellant ordering the policemcnt o deshoy houseso f Tutsi betweeu1 0 and 15 April 1994,s inces he

was not pre.sent in thc aread rrring thirt perio4 as evidencedb y her 1998 Statemenrw here she said that prior to 22 i May 1994,s he badlgpento nc and ahalf monrhei n a place qft61 rhen her house.-oH e fuither submits tbat when confronted with this discrepancy,s he provided an explanationt hat evcn the kosecution did notibclieve and whicb, therefore, should not bave been acceptedb y the Trial Chamber. The Appellant assertst hat Witness BMIfs cxplanation to rhe effect that she had informed the hoseclrtion that there was au error in her 1998 statement one year prior to her testimonyc ontradicti the Prosecution'sa ssertiont hat this infbrmation had beenm adc availablet o it only twenty-fo beforeh er testimony.sr L25' Thesc argumeutsw ere already addresseda nd dismissedb y rhe Trial chamrr:r.Ez me Appellant hasn ot shgwnh ow the Trial Chambere credi n acce,ptingW ituessB MH,s explanationsa s to the discrepanciesb etweenh er trial testimony and prior statementsT. his contentioni s therefore I dismissed. f .O.pperlenBr'sri ef, para,f Of . :: Trial JudgeocuLp ra*'97. l: Trid JudEe,ncniia rasr 137,t 7l. -'Appellaafs Brief, paraiI.0 Z. -u AS4nllant's Ericf, pTt .103.F 4ppepnrs Bricf refers to e srarcmenot f 19 August 2006. ft is apparenftr om rhc F co r Btcxta s well a.st hc exhibit ilrl-bcr that the Appcltant meantt o rafcf,t o rhe StatencDiof tgAugust l99g_ Alrycllant'sB rio! parai. tmrOO " TiaI JudgemeoLp arasi1 63, 164_ Ca.seN o,: ICIR-Ol-74iq. ZFebmary2 009 \C/rt

'09 02/02 11:51 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o lo ++51fr 126. The Appellairt firther contendst hat the tesrime6.. of WimessesB MF and BMH we,ren ot acceptedb y the Triql Chamberi n severalr espects.n amely with regard to tbe Appellirnt,sp resence during an attacko n 8 April 1994,t he order to kill Kabuguza,'andth e circumstarceso f his death.E3 -'nsny He arguest hat WitnessB MF's tes regarclingt he killing of her youngerb rother and twenry Tlrtsis was also aoi ad',';ttcd.m He furtlror submirs that the Trial Chamberd id not fiad, these wihesscs credible with regard to the events of 8 April 1994 and should have rejected these testimoniesi n their entirety-5s L27. v/ith regardl o tn" aftacko f 8 April 1994,d heT rial Cbamberf ound tharW imcssesB MH an4 BMF were geueral$ credible and coucludcdb a{ed ou their testimony that the afiack had raken place.a6H owever,i iaia not find establishedb ergnd reasonabldeo ubtt hat rheA ppellanto bse,rved the attack and tbat m,emberso f his fanily *o" presenr?d espitet he evidencep rovided by borh "tio wibesses to this effect.T he Appellant clairust natlsincet he Trial Chamber'sf indings suggesredth at WitnessesB MF andiBMH had falsely attcmpted i o impucareh im, the Trial Cbambere rred in law 'tn behevingt he rest of their testimonies."trTTh e;A;lpealsC hamberr ecallst hat the Trial Chamber had the discretion tci accepto nly pan of the wit4ess"s'

evidence.T hs Trial chamber reachedi ts conclusion on the eyidence of these witresses {ft". t aoing carefully consideredt he crcdibility c'halleagcsm ,tdeb v F" Dcfence,l ncluding the ullegationo f collusion.s8 It did rrot find thul thesc lA,ppellantr witnessesh ad attanpted to falsely implicate the bur merely reftairrd from entering a finding oa the Pres?Dceo f rhe Appellant thi attack becausei t was nor persuadcdb eyond " reasonabled oubt wit| re.spectto the part of their glideuce that directly implicatedt be Appellantse. The Trial Chambere xpressedd oubt as to whettrerlit would haveb eenp ossiblef or rle witnesscst o recognize someotrefr om their vantagep oints, girlen the circgmstanceso f the attack-2trT he Trial Chamber'sre asoaings howst hat it did not disbefieyeth e witnessesa' ccounr,osf the attackb ut thati t applied additionalc autiont o their ideutificafon o! the Appellant and declincdt o errtera convicriou on the basis of their dridence.T he Appellant hasd pt shovmh ow the Triat Chambere rredi n failing to disregardt he tesrirnonieso f thesew itnessesin {eir entirety. (d) WitnessB ME L28- The Tlial Charnberf ound credibleW itnessp tvlE's evidencer egardinga meetingh cld on rhe mornrngo f 15 Aprit,fgg+ at the Appellant'st ouJe whcret he Appellanto rdereda large crowd to I fi +pn"l*l:. P.l.f-, p *+ lq, refeningro Trirl luagement,lparla3s3., 13%I 4o, 145- fi fmeu-f s Briet pot+ Iry, referringr o Trial Juctgeme [ n a g ra - 199. :: Idrl Judgemenprs, rasrl0 Z, 108. I llj t'iat Judgemeniagt e irrs. lj AppcUaatB'sr ief,p arat1 08. I :" Tiltzl ludgenreal prasi 13G135. ^'Trial Judgement,p ara-i I35, 36 CascN o-: ICTR-01-74-A 2 February2 009 V.{

02/02 '09 11:52 FAX 0031705128932 TCTR @o ar 'ft+|fr deshoyh ouseso f Tutsis.26Ilt notedt hat the witress testifiedt hat the policemenw ho stayeda t the Appellant's housef articipated in ths meeting and concludedt hat her testimouy corroboratedt he evideuceg iveu by olher witnessesr egardingt he Appellant and rhep olicemen.za 129- The Appellant claims that the testimony of Wihess BME at best permirs a finding that he gave orderst o the cofilmuuep olicemeno n the moming of 15 April !994, but doest rot suppofi any inferencet hat he exeiciseda uthoriryo ver them druing the entirem onth of April Lgg4.263 I 130' The AppealsiChamberrg reest hat the evidenceo f WitrressB ME alone could not supporta finditg of the Appellant's authorityo ver the policement hrougbA pril 199a.H owever,t he Trial Chamber only con'sideredt tris evideuce as corroborafve of other evidence regarding the relationshipb etweerlt he Appellant and the policemen.F rom a review of the relevantp ortion of the Trial Judgement,it iis evident that the Trial Chamberc onsideredt hat Wirness BME's evidence corroboratedth c testimonieso f w'itnessesB MF, BMH, BLX, BldA, BMU, andB MG in relationto the presencea rrdr ole of the policemena t the Appellant's housea ndt he natureo f their relationship with the Appe[ant.ls Witness BME's testimony was nor only corroborariveo f these other testimoniesb, ut alsoisulryortead finding that"o n 15 Aprit 1994,t he Appeltantw as ia a positiont o give orderst o thep olicemen.

131. The Appellant further conlendst hat ttre testimonyo f WitnessB ME could uot be bclieved.26s He averSt hat, if belitpve4t his tes"mOnyw ould conflicr with the prosecution,s a llegatiOut hat the Appellaotw as irr Ntdramao u the samed ay.66H e furtherc laimst hht'WitressB ME's evidenceth at the Appellant ondereiJa crowd to kill Tutsis and destroy housesb elouging to Trrtsis on L5 April 1994a lso connadict{ the Trial Chamber'sf indings that the killings resllting from theseo rdersh ad beenc ommittedp rior to that darc.NtT heses ubmissionsw iu be consideredb elow underS ectiouC , 'Witness (e) BMG : 'With I32. regard io Wimess BMG, the Appetlaat merely statest bar rhe Tria1 Chamberd id nof believe him regarding the killing of F6lix Dix and Kabuguzaa rrd recites his testimony ttrat rhe Appellant's house *as guarded by commune policemen, namely Karimb4 Habimana, and m Tri"l Jodgemenpt,r raC.1 33,134. ilj ffil fuagaDenl paral, tO3, t t A. :: Tdal Judgemenpt.a ru-itt 8, f*r {nnutlant's Brief, par:is-1 09,1 10. Trial Judge,o,eDpqa ra-it 18. '* Appellanfs Bricf, pard t1t. I Appellant'sB ricf, para.1 11. I ]]-eppelant's Brief-par,ir-,111r,e f€rdlg to other nrFsectionso f the Appellad's Brief dealbg w15 thc kiltings of Kabuguz4 lGtrabayc,U qrekezi, andN diugutse- : 37 CascN o-: ICIR-01-7+'A ZFcbwzry2009 St{ - i

<r-" -:#.. ?#-g '09 02/02 11:52 FA.X0 031705128932 ICTR @otz i +fill i Kabarate'68T he Appellant acknowledgesth at WitnessB MG gaved ctails of the Iirrks which existed betweent hesep olici** and the Appellant and points out that the wihess clearly explaine<tIh at he did not see the Appellant conrmitring or ordering any crime_6e 133. The Appe\lt does not attempt to show an emor on the part of the Trial Chamber in assessingt his witness's evidence. Accordiagly, the Appeals Chamberr ejects the Appellant,s vague and unclear asscrtions in rclation to Witness BMG. L34. At the outsct of its asscssmenot f the Defencce vidoncer clated to the Appellant's authority over the policemen,ltl" rriA Chamberr ecalledi ts findings under a previouss ectiono f the Trial Judgemeatth at it acpomde"dli mited weight" to the evidenceo f the Appellant's relatives,W itnesses ATA, KD, and 8"5."0 The Trial Chambert hen proceededto considert he testimonieso f Defence WitnessesK BG, *lK and GM, but accordedt.h cm limjtcd or no weighl rn so doing, ir reasoned 'T/itncss that KBGi who did not notice anythiog peculiar, only passedb y Karera,sh ousei n Nyamiranrboa boutt hreet imes in April lLggfil".zT1Itn otedt hat "[a]lttroughh e did not personally see crirnes being iotnmitted, he conf,irmed that the peoplo who manned tbe roadblock in Nyanrgerrgec onsriitea crimes against civilians,"z7zw ith regard ro Winress

KNK the Trial Chambern oted that ler evidencet bat "there was no roadblockn ear Karcra'$ housew as basedo n her visits in the area between January aud 6 April 1994, whereast he roadblocks were set up latet''.273T he Trial chamber found that witness zEM "lacked fifst-hand knowledgo about the events," and that "lfJis testiruony that he was not to]cl about the involvement of Karera or the policemen iu the r{m8s in Cyirnrgiza in 1994 carries limired weight comparedt o direct and consistenet videncefr om otherw itnesseism plicatingt hemi n the killings."2za i 135' The Appellaqt submits ttrat the Trial Chamber ened by 'tnreasouably dismiss[ingJr he testimonieso f WitnejssesA TA, trO, BBK, I(BG, KNK and zR1r,4w, ithout providing satisfactory explanationfso r sucbal decision."275 135' The Appeals l Chamber n otes that eight Det'encew itnesses,n amely, the Appellant, rbree wihessesr elatedt o T- (wimessesA TA, KD, and.B BK), and witnessesK BG, KNK zBM, and i I ljl app"ua,t's Brtuyfp, .r{ I t z. :: Appclalt's Brief, pani 1I2, ll rriot ruagementp, i"a.lt tg. :-. Trial Judgeurengp aro-|t t9. :: Trial Judgrrnenrp, an-lf t9- :'''" Trial Judgpmentp, ara-j t t f - ''" Trial Ju-dgccrenpt,a ro. l f tl Appelhnt's Brief, parr| I14, refecringto irial Judgemenpt ara_1 19. ,38 CaseNo.:I CTR-01-74rA 2Fcbntary 2OO9 :

--___-'* '09 02/02 11:53 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @otc wzft BMP, testified in lation to the hosecutiou's allegationt hat the Appellanr was presentin Nyamiramboi n Apr,il 1994a ndt hat he gaveo rderst o the policernenu trderh is authority.2?6 i 737' Ilt the cours+o f its assessmenot f the relevant Defencee vidence,t he Trial Chambers tatcd that it accordedl imited wcighr to the evidenceo f wirressesw ho were rclated to the Appellaat oa the groundt hat "[w]hile theser elationshipsd o noq in themselvesd, isoedit thc witnessest,h ey may account for the wihesses' inclination to resolve any lapse in their recollections in a mantrer I favourablet o Karerd."z7T7 heseo bservationsm erely demonsrrateth at rhe Trial cba'ber viewed the evidencef rom Defince witnessesw ho had close relationshipsw ith the Appellant or his family membersw ith cautifn and doesn ot demonst^r te perse that the Triar Chambere rred in law in its i assessmeDotf this evidencc. I 138. The Appeals Chambern otes that Wibesses ATA, KD, and BBK were away from rhe Appellant's house in Nyaminrrnbo after 7 April 1gg4.27T8h erefore, the evidenceo f these rhree wihesses was not significant with regard to the presencea ud role of the tfuee policemen at rhe Appellant's housea frfi 7 April 1994.I rr thesec ircumstancest,h e AppealsC harnbers eest ro error in thc Trial Chambera lcordinc Iimiled weight to the evidenceo f thesew

itrresseso n this point. : 139' with regardi to wihesses KBG, KI{K and,Z BM, the Trial chamber consideredr heir testimoniesb ut it is {pparentf rom the Triar Judgemenrt hati t did not find their evidencer clcvarrl or significaut regarding the Appellant's authority over the three policemen and their role in the commissiono f crimesi n Nyamirambo.2TTeh e Appellant.hasn ot showna uy error in this approach. i, L40' The Appcalsl Chamberr ecalls that theltle task of weighing and assessinge videncel ies, in the first place,w ith $e Trial chamber.T hc Trial Chamberh ad rhereforct he discretiont o assessth e relevancea nd weight of evidenceg iven by boih Prosecutiona nd Defencew itnessesw hen reaching a dccisiona s to the'Appellant'sa uthority.t*ni*" Appellanth as not demonsnapdh ow the Trial Chambera busedit s'discretioni n this respecdA. ccoqdinglnt he Appealsc hamber dismissesth is sub-groundo fappeal. 'Jl rriar $ agu-enr p arasr:m. tog. lj Trial Judgcmengp aro-i+ SS- r05f ort bcs ummaorrvt hl w'oersetse, stinrouir:s. ;g.|;'.H#, x frfr* M par M a u -3 r 1 r* . o 7tpp"J'foag.rro I q para. lE; Rutagan&te#"f Judgenent pata_3 {Il KupreikiC etal Appeal Judgvmen! I CaseN o.: ICTR-01-74A 2February2 009 \AJ_.

'09 02/02 11:54 FAX0 03.1705128932 ICTR @ot+ +TIIf r B. l4l' The Tria] C,hamberf ound that bctween 7 arrd l0 April 1gg4,t he Appellant gave, via telephone,a n order io kill Kabugr-rza2tAl t the sameh mc, the Trial Charuberh eld that it could not conclude beyond re,asonabled oubt that Kabugrva was kitled by rhe policeme,ns tarioneda t rhe Appellant's house,s incet he time and place of the killing wereu nclear,n o one obserr,,etdh e alleged killing, andn o one hLarda nyo'e ass'me responsibilityf or ir-*z 742- The Appellaut submitst bat the Trial charnber ened in law by making this finding basedo n connadictory iipru*iUr" evidence.zs'S ince the Trial chamber base4 its finding on the "oa testimonies of witr,ressesB IVII{ BMU, and EMF, the Appellant firsr reiterates his previous submissionst hat the I testimonieso f these tbree wihcsses should be rejected in their entirety.zsa Next' the Appellatit recaus that ttre Tdal chember listed rbe various contradictions and inconsistenciesin tlle testimonieso f WitnessesB MF and BMH and claims rhat there were additional inconsistehciesth at the Trial Chamberd id not note.2s5H owcver, he points to only one I example: the fact tliat Witness BMF testified that the Appellant orderedt hat Kabug*za,s entire farrily !s kill6{ whilc WiurossB MH staredt hat the Appellant instnrctedt hat the other membe,ros f Kabuguza's family bres lared.286T h"

Appellant coDtendstt rat WirnessesB MF, Bi\dF1 and BMU lied in their rcstimo4ies,2nH e arguest hat the Trial Chamben" speculatedin order to make up for the shortcomingso f ithe kosecutor's case," thus ignoring the "reaEonablep ossibility that Karera ! bad nothingt o do with the killiag.'2881 '5. Appellanta sserrstb at this finding hasi mpacrodo n the Trial Chanrber's cci:rclusion that the Appellant exercised aurirority over rhe policemen in Nyamiraurbo.z8e I I L43. The kosecutipn responds that this sub-ground of appeal is unfounded.zsoI t submits that the jxamincd Triat Chamber ddy the wimesses' evidencq considered the coauadictiops, and providcd a reasoned explanatign fon accepting rhe bsdmonies.2el It claim.q that the Appellarrt has failed to show how the Triali Chamber's explanation was unreasonable or unfourrdd.zn Moreover, the kosecution notes th{t even though tbe Trial Chamber found that rbe Appellant ordered Kabuguza ll rria Judgeucnpga ra.lr+s- :-'': Ttirl Judgcrrenpta, ra-lf+S. ]| N ap o p ri e c u eo a r ' A rs o d o ri e e a r, lr ' p r* a F " . * - ?g 12,-:gt:6 . r,A zb 1 ' 4 - rc[an B r's ri ef,p ars-t 2]7;N r.2gA ugus2t 00gp p. t4,42,43. fi {mc11ant]!*{ .!, parojr.? -5c, itingT riatJ udgetnenpt,a rast.4 G.t44_ """.dppellant'Bs rief, pad LZS- '"' Appellant'Bsr ief.o aratlz 6. ]-l' A e T i . r ieUart'sB rief,i arap.r zz, tZe. 28A usus2t 008p j t+. I nespona"nsf Brief,p '4a"f Of. l" Responded'Bs riet,p aia.9 9. "" RcspondentB'sr icf, fnfa, 99. 40 CaseNot-*:- Or-rq-ln 2 February2 009 \-{,L

'09 02/02 11:55 FA-X0 031705128932 ICTR @ots 4?Dlf to be kirle{ a "rcading of the Trial Chamber'sl egal findings shows rhat it did not hold the Appellaut respr>nsibiefo r this murder."B3T he Prosecutionc oncludest hat the Appellant has not demonstarcdt he imiaa that a possiblee rror as to his role in Kabuguza'sk illing could havoh ad on the vudict and that this sub-groundo f appeals houlda ccordinglyb e dismissd .7e4 1i/,. The Triql Chamber'sim pugnedf inding stqndso n the evideuceo f WitressesB MU, BMF, and BMH. The Trial Chasrberf ound that'TVitnqsscsB MF and BMH gave I generallyc onsistcut account about overhearinga policernan talk on the telephonei n Karera's house about kitung Kabuguza".DsH owever,i t noted a nurnbero f problematice lementsi n the evidencer elated to the Appellaut's alleged 6rder to kill tkluguza and to tus allegedm urder. Specifically, W.ihessB MU statedt hat the killing of Kabuguzao ccurredb ctwcen 7 and l0 AFil 1994,W ibressB MH did uot provide a datef c the phonec orrversatioub, ut implicitly situatcdi t in April 1994,a nd.'WirresBs MF said that both the pirone conversationa nd the killing of Kabugr:zat ook place in May 1994. In -'nony addition, Witness BIr4Ifs tes indicated that severald ays separatedr be phone conversarion and the killing of Kabuguzaw hile WihressB MF testifredr hat the killing took place on the morning after the conversation.F

urthermorc,W itness BIvIF testified ttrat Kabuguza's entire family was killed, informatiou cbrroboratedb y Wihess BMU, while Wihess BMH sraredt hat the Appellant had decidedt hat Kabugr:za'sw ife and children could li.re.t96O n the basis of thesei nconsisrencios, the Triat Chamberc onsideredt hat the circumstancest,h e location, and the rime of 1fosk illing rcmainedu nclear and as a consequencer,e frained from ooncluding ' beyorrd reasonabled oubt that Kabuguzaw as actuallyk illed by the police ofEcerss tationeda t Karera'sh ouse".ze7 L45- The Appeals Cbamberf inds, however,t hat the Trial Chambers hould have adopteda more cautiousa pproachi n its assessmenotf the Prosecutione videncer egardingt he personw ho ordered the killing- The testimonieso f WihessesB MF and BMH were not corroborarivea s to the period of the Appella-ot's P urPortedo rder to kill Kabuguza,T he cvidence provided by 1ryihessB MH is speculativea s to the identty of the personw ho ordereflf ts lailting.29Ff,, rrtlr"rroore,n o clarity exists as to whether tbe scopeo f the order was to kill rhe entire family of KabuguZao r to spareh is wife and children- The Appcals Chau,bert hereforef inds that the Trial Chambere rred in finding that, berween7 andl0 Apiil lgg4,the Appellanro rderedt he murdero f Kabuguza. L46' Neverthcle.*'l rhi, error could not lead to a miscarriageo f justice since no conviction was entscd on the basis of the allegedo rder to murder Kabuguza.T he Trial Chambcr'sa ssessmenotf u RespoudeurB'sr ief, para.l 00, ciringT rial Judgernenpt,a ras.5 38-5 59, ; 5u.qo_u*Dt' s Brid, para_I 0 I ; Ar'. ZUA ugusr 2009 pp. 4\ 43. "' Triul Iudgemeogp ata"'13 9. :Trial Judgeoent,p aru- 139-144. o'' Ttial Judgemeatp, ara- I45- 4l Cn-rcN o.: ICTR-0f -74-A 2February2009 5-nr-

'09 02/02 11:55 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o lo +61lfr the Appellaut's autliority over the policemeni s primarily basedo n the evidencet llar in 1994,r bey lived in aud guardech is house,t hat they received orders from him, that they referredto him as 'boss" and that they manued a roadblock near his house.2sAccordingly, the AppealsChamber dismissesth is sub-groundo f appeal. : C. .AlleqedE rrors relatins to the Findins that the Appellant Ordered the trCllins of IULsis 147. The Trial Chamberf ound that benveen7 aod 15 April 1994 the Appellant gave orderst o kill Tutsis and destroyt heir housesi n Nyamiramboa t locationst rearh is house.3mIt further found that between8 and 10 April L994o r aroundt hesed ates,t he policen,renw ho guardedt he Appellant,s housed estroyedth e'houseso f Kahabayea ndF clix Dix with the assistancoef the Interalnn*r,e.snl In finding that tbesee ventst ook place pursuantt o tbe Appellant's orders,i t relied on rhe evidence providedb y winressesB ME, BMG, BMFI,B MF, BMu, andB LX.302 L4E' The Appellant submits that thc Trial Chambere rrod in law and fact in findiug tbat he had orderedt h6k illing of Tutsisa ndt he desfructiono f ttreirp roperryin Nyarnirs6bo.303 149. The AppealsC hamberw ill considcrtheA ppellant's argumentsin turn.304 150' The Appellad first contendst hat the Prosecution'su nderlyinga llegationi tsclf was ..gene,ral and redundant" and ttrat

the Trial Chambere rred by making a finding of fact from evidencei n supporto f sucha n allegation.totT bi, argumentis summarilyd ismisseda s the Appellurt only raised it in thc Notice of Appeal and did not develop it sufficiently to enablet he Appcals Chambert rr asscssth e allegeds rror. lj *q TrialJ udgcmepuat,r a1- 36- ,il Il{ I"9*nt, pr*s..t_r-o.r2r2sg^ -r4sL, 62-t68t?, 3, tE?.r s2,r s5_rs6,2o3. ""- Ttar Judgpmengp ara 168. I Triar JudgemeotP, ara- : 168'q oss-refcrring SectionI l.4-7 of tbe Trial Judgcurenwt lrcre thcseH llings are discussed. :: Trial Judte,menrp, rras- 159-166 lI X"ry of-Appeapta rai-g : app.U*r,sB rief,p aras1. 29-145. HD*T. eppellau:t'sa tlu-ur,ts in ietatioo ro tris alibi (eppcuani;s Brief. para 130) are considcredb elow unclorC hapter 36 Noti"o of Appea! p"tu"*.9 6 e9. 42 CascN o.: ICTR.0I-Z+A 2 February2 009

'09 02/02 11:56 FA.X0 031705128932 IClR @otz +681/' 2. 151' The Appellahtn exr contendsth at the Trial chamberc ommitteda numbcr of errofs, which are dctailed below, io rhe assessmenor f prosecution aud Defenceevidence related ro this ailegation.306 (a) Alle9edh consistenciesin Datesa ndT imesP rovidedb v prosecution W imes.res L52' The Appellant tists andh ighlights allegedi nconeistencieisn the daresa ndt imes providedb y Prosecutionw ibesses iu relation to the allegcd orders.w He contendst hat ,.[i]t is absolutely unbclievable that ttie chamber found on the basis of rhis evidence, thar Karera gave orders, between 7 arrills April 1rgg4t,o kill the Tirtsi and destroyt heir housesi l Nyaminrmboa nd that, consequently,b etween E and 10 April 1994, thc policemen who were guarding [his] house destroyedt he houseso f Ifuhabayea nd F6lix Dix, with the assistanceo f the Interalunrwe,,.30H8 e suggeststh at "[t]he evideucem ust have bccn examinedi n arr offharrrrm auuert o make the frnding that an impossiblef act hasb eenp rovenb eyonda reasonabled oubt?,.3oe ',nonies 153. The Appellut arguest hat the tes of the prosecution w itnesscsw ho testifieda bout the allegedo rder to kiII Ttrtsisw etrc" so conradictory" that the Trial Chamber , .ought t o aarnit', that they wcre probably speakingo f different events.3loH e furthcr submitst trat the Trial chamber erred in concludingt hat therew

ere severals tageso f destructionr esulting from more than one order glven by the Appellant, deppitet he fhct that all the witnessesw ho restified about the dcstnrctiono f the houseso f Tlrtsiss tatedt hati t occurredin rmediately'aftetrh e orderh adb eeng iven.311 L54. The Prosecotioo, "rpoods that the Appellant simp)y lists inconsistenciesio rhe hosecution witnessese' vidence'ih'itltoutd emonstratinsgp ecificaltya ndi n a well arguedf iuulnerh ow the Trial Chamberf ailed to mbke good use of its power to assessth e evidencr.rr3l2It submitst hat the Tria] Chamberd uly cousideredt he testimonieso f a1l the winressesi,n cluding Defencew itresses, ard recallst hat it is withirt a Trial charnber'sd iseetion to assessth e contradictionsin light of the cntire evidencea rrdd etermihea wihress'sc tedibility.3l3 155' The Appeals Chamberr ecalls that the task of weighing and assessirge videncel ics, in the first place,w ith the Tria1c hamber and that it is within the Trial Chambcr'sd iscretiont o assessa nv : ff app"tt-t'-s Brief. parap.1 31-lrf4. # ;l t tt g flH * : l =:. :p : T lI.* i f l - f r : g li i; ( tt . u d i h:rylr,t'",Gf ns; i" t . h p et ; e ; s " r * im td on ; oi i e ; fw s J i i r f a f e ;H ssBc ,T sM i U ^ B, i M ;I c 'i ,B u n ? tr,B Mr{l ndB ME. ifl effieuanbq.rd ir-- rsz< r-in"sri " *iii*rl. t'o nipett*t'rB.iJ', iard. 138. iofj' nlf nctqt's^B1ef, para-1 39r, eferringt o Trial Jutlgcmenpt,a ra. RespondenBt'sri et para-1 03. I 43 CaseN o.: ICTR-OI-?+A 2 Febnary 2009

02/02 '09 11:57 FAX 00317051289J2 ICTR @o rs +6+|fr inconsistenciesin tle testimony of witnessesa nd to determine whether, in light of the overall evidencct,h e wibresseas ren onethelesrsc liablea ndc redible.sta 156- Tbe Appeal.'C 'lrt,b", notest hat, under Section 4-7 ofthe Triat Judgement,3ttste Trial Chamberf or:nd thati'the Interalu,mwei n Nyamirambof ollowcd after Kahabayek, illed him in lthe neighbotuingc otwnuneo fl Butamwab enveen8 and 10 April [19941,a nd reportedt o Karera's policement hat the kiling had takenp lace" and that *[t]he killing was a cousequencoef Karera's ordet'"3rcA s to thelutt;tlg of F6lix Dix, the Trial Chamberf ourrd rhat "it must have occurred bctween 8 and 15 April [1994], when the Tutsi housesw ere desFoycd" bur declined to enter a conviction ou that basis,r easonirrgth at therew as not "sufEcieute videncet o find beyoudr easonable doubtt hatt he threep olicemenw erer esponsibleo f kirring F6lix Dix [sie]."317 L57. Therei s no dbubrt hatt he Trial Chamber'srmeotioonf the destuctiono f houseso f Tutsisi n this section of the Tnial Judgementis a referencct o its prior findings in section 4.5 of rhe Trial Judgeinent.3lsT here'the Trial Cbamberh eld ttrat "between 8 and 10 April lg94 or arouud these days,t he policemenw ho guardedI (arera's housed estroyedt he houseso f Katrabayea nd Dix, with the assistancocf the Interahan*+t4t.3r9 15E' It is

apparenit nat in making this findin& ttre Trial Chamberr elied chiefly on 'W1hess BMU's testimony'3*T lre Trial Chambcra lsoc onsideredth e testimonieso f WitnessesB MG, B^4F, BMH, BIJ(, and BME, and it appe4rst o have, fourrd them corroborariveo f Witness BMU's testimonyo n this poinl32l The Trial Chamberc onsideredt hc diffeiencesi n theset estimouiesa s to the date of the eveits and did not fi.nd that these differences amor:ntedt o a conflict in rhe eviderrce.3zT he Appeals Chambern otes that thc range of dates provided by WitnessesB MG, BMF, BME, andB MH included the shortert ime-frameg rren by Wirnes.sB MU. The Triat CAa:nber 'Witness specifically concludedt hat BMH's testimonyt hat Karerag aver he order to destroyh ouses between1 0 and 15 April IL994l doesn ot contradictW imessB MtI's evidencet har Kahabaye,sa nd Dix's housesh ad beend emolishedb y l0 April [1994]- andt hat rhe "evidences uggeststh at there was more than one order and seveal stageso f clestructoi n'.38 The Appellanr hasn ot demonsmabd 313 ResgrondenBt'sri ef, pra- 104. ']'i'i SeeB agi leshenu Appeal Judgc,ncurp, ara, 7g, Trial JudscrnenlS eaion 4-7 $!ilinss of rosephK ahabayea udF eExD ix), ]l! Tr;at fuolu-""t, po:as.1 8! 183. ]'j Trial Judgemffitp, aras.1 84,1 85. iii H{ I"lg*enl section4 -5 (c)rdert o Kill rursi and Destroyt heir Houscs)- :' rnal Judtementp, afa-1 68. :_*T tiaf Judgemenpt,o ros_1 52"1 66,1 6?. ::: Trial ludgernengp aras_1 59-166. ll Trial Judgcsrenlp ara. 166- '- Trial Judgemenpt,e ra-:166- CaseN o, : ICTR-01.7,1-A 2Fcbruary2 009

'09 02/02 11:58 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR @oqe w6lfr I that no reasonablefr ier of fact could have concludedt hat the evidenceo f WirresscsB MG, BMF, BMH, BIJC andB ME was cousiste't as to the dateo f the events. 159' The Trial chamber.fouad witness BME's testimony credible aud acceptedr hat her testimony that tho eventsi n guestiono ccurred 1 ou 1 5 April 1994w as grven honestly.3zIat however *it coocludedt hat [wasJl ikely that wimest Bluc erred rogardingt he precised ate of the evenr,i n view of her fraumatic situation" aud the circuilstaoces,ssT he Trial chamber consideredw hether her testimonyc ontrAaictedw itness BMU's cvidencet hat Kahabayo'sa nd Dix's housesh ad been destnoyedb etween 1 *d 10 April 1994-326cIto ncludedt hat witress BME,s evidencet hat the order to destroyh ousest ook placeo n L5 April 1994d id "not excludet lrat Kahabaye,sa nd Dix,s houses had already been idemolished"'3z7 The Appeals chamber finds that the Appellarrt has demonstrated that the Trial chamber errcd in making such a finding- 160' The AppealslChambefirn ds no errori n the Trial Chamber'sfr ndiogt hat .,betweeu 7 and 15 April Lgg4,K arerag ave orderst o kill Tutsi and destroy rheir housesi n Nyamirambo,a t locations near his house."34T his finding is suppontedb y the evidenceg iven by 1virressesB MIJ, BMG, BMF, BMH' BLK and BME, which the Appellurt has not successfullyc hallenged.T he Appeals

chamber will addressb elow. under SectionsE , F, G, anclH , the Appellant,.sa rgumeutsr e,latedt o the link lstween the killings audt hcsco rrJers. flleged o) .l 161' The Appellant claims that tho Triar charhber's holding leaves open tbe .teasonable possibility that the hotuesw ere dostroyedb efore [hel gavl the order to destroyt hefir-,,32e 162' The Appeats Chamber notes that in its reasooing 1eadiagr o the conclusion thar the Appellant committed genocideb ased on the kilting of Kabatraye,M urekezi, Ndingurse,a nd Nyagatare the Trial Chamber fbund that they "were kiilled pursuant to Karera,s orders to the policemen andI nteralumwe to kill Tutsi[s] and desfroyt heir homes,w hich were given betwenn7 and 15 April [1994]-33a0n dt hat the Appellant'so rdert o destroyt he houseso f Ka]rabayea ndF elix Dix dco demonsuqte his genocidal inteul33r The Triar chamber considered the alegcd 11In" Jndgerneupr"a ras-r 5Ft6 t, t6Z 166. : ftial Judgernenp! an,l60. : Trial JudEpmenpt,a ra-'lffi. ludgemeu(p ara,166. ::: Iti"I :'-: 'A T p t p ir e l l J a u n d t' g s e meutp, ara- I 68. Brie,f,p ara.1 40. ';ol 'TI4riqa l {" cementp, rra-5 38, Judgenengp ara-5 39. 45 CaseN o.: ICTR-01-7+A ZRebrvary2 @9

02/02'09 11:58 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR @o so +65lfr inconsistencyb etwgent he time'fra.rnesid entificd by somew itresseso f the order and the timing of the houses' destmctioa. While one wihess stated that tbe Appellant ordered the dest'ction of houseso n 10 April 199a' anotherw iEresst estified rhat the order was grvea on 15 April 1994 and two other witnessest estified that similar orders were made on or after E Apnt 1994.T he Tria] Chamberr easonedt hat "[t]be eviderrces uggestst hat there was more than one order and several stageso f destructionr33azn da cceptedth e possibilityt hat lfthabayc's andD ix,s housesh ada lready beend estroyedo n ]0 April Lgg4.'IlneA ppeals chambcr seesn o error in this reasoninga nd finds thereforet hat the Appellant has not showrtt hnt no reasonabletr ier of fact could bave reachcdt he couclusiont bat the Appcllant orderedt he destructiono f the housoso n the basis of the evidence. Furthermorq the Appellant has not showu that no reasonableti cr of fact could have reachedt he conclusion that his order to destroy houseso f Tutsis as well as the destnrctiono f the houseso f Kahabayea ndF elix Dx illustrareh is gcnocidali nteat. i (c) AllegedD iffcr.e hdalT reatmenot f Dcfencea nd p rosecution w irnesses 163. The Appellant further alleges,w ithout elaboration,d iffuential Feahenr of Dcfence and Prosecutionw ihesses by the Trial Chambera nd claims that

the Trial Chamberf ailed to explain why it did uot believet he Defencee vidence_333 L&. A review ofitl,e Trial Judgeuentr evealst hat rhe Tdal Chambert ook irrro accountr he totality of the eviden'cea nd discussedin detail the evidenceg lven by both Prosecuriona nd Defence witnesses.3*C onraiy to the Appellant's clain, the Trial Cbamtiere xplainedw hy the evidence givenb y Defencew ituesses"d id not weakent he evideacea rlducedbyk oseflrtion wihlesses,,:335 WiEressK GBiconfirnsd thqr, Benel,ally,t hoso who manaedt hc roadbloclcsa ttaclceda nd looted civilians' ttgStrnT 4 f4':_t_ou-ony confirrrs.that Kahabaye'sh ousob ad been aesuoy.a between 7 Aprtt 199a.qndr 99- TVitnessK D, who said tbat it was demorishcain hte Juni tgg+, did uot observc its destruction and her accolrrt was gasedo n information from otners arrd is aot in couforrrity with evidcncef rom olhcr wimesses.33d 165. Ttre Appellant has aot demonstrated, how the Trial Cbamber erred in making this ftnding. His appeaol n rhisp oint is rhereforcd ismissed. ll friar fuaguorenqp oro-,166. ]]'Appellanfs Brid, paras-t a2. L43,I45- I Tlial Jurlgcrrent,p srast L46l67. ::: Trial Judgeurenpt ars-,167. "" Triol Judgemenpgu ra-.167. 46 CuscN o.: ICTR-01-74A 2 Febritary2 009

tso sr 02/02'09 11:59 FAX 00Cl705128932 ICTR +6'lt (d) Aleged Shiftire of the Burdenq f hoof 166. The Appellant allegest hat the Trial Chamber'ss tatementth at the Defencew itnessesd id not weakerrt he Prosecutione videnceil lusEatcst hat it erroneouslys hifted the brrden of proof-337 167. The kosecution respondst hat the Tria1 Chanber did not reverset he burden of proof and that "[h]aving seena ud heard the wituessest estify, the Trial Chamberc ould very well prefer the tostimonies[o f the) Prosecutionw itnesses[. ..] to the extetrtt bat thesew ihessesg aver eliablea ad credibled escdptionsrowf hatt hey obsenedi n persou,a lthoughw ithminor contradictions."33s 168. The Appeltant has not shown how the stare,menint questiou demonsrratesth at the Trial Chambers hifted the burdeno f proof.

3. Conclusiqni 169. For the foregoingr easonst,h is sub-groundo f appeails dismissed- D. Allesed Engrs relating to the Findine that the Apbetlant Ordered that Certain Eouseso f *@Y ; 1?0. Thc Trial Chqfnberc oncludedr hati n the period bdmeen7 and1 5 April Lgg4,thcA ppellant orderedt hat certain houseso f Tutsis should oot be destoyed.3teI n making this finding, the Trial 'Wiuresses Chamberr elied mainly on the testimony of BMF and BMHmand also consideredt hat Wimess BMG's evidbncec orroboratedt hat of WitnessB MF about sparingt he life of a Tutsi man namedC allixte Kalisa-3ar 171. The Appelladt submits that the T+aI Chamber'sa ssessment..o,hf " evidenceo f these witrressesa nd its nniing that certaiu houseso f Tirtsis wero sparedo n the Aplrllant's orrdersa re The hosecution respondst hat the Trial Chamberp roperly assessodth e evidence "noneous.342 concernhg the order that certainh ouseso f Tutsisb e spared.%3 I L72. The Appellani first contendst hat kosecution SfitnessesB MG, BMF, and BMH do not corroboratee acho ther siflce noue of thcm "gave rhe samer eilions advaucedb y [the Appellant] or l] Appettant'sB ricf, Wai l++,giring Triat Judgenent para-f 6Zl ]lj fespo_ndcnt'Bs ricf, para. lfl (citatiouso mited). ciring Trisi,Iudgemengp aras.1 59, 162"1 65. ]'] ftiaf Judgcneul,p ara-173, :: Trid Juctpoeur,p arasl1 73,1 74- :: Tti.l Judgcurcnpl an.rl74. I Notice of Appeal,p aru I02; A;rpellaur'sB riet, pora-1 49- '-' Respoudent'Bs rief. parus.I lQ 1l l. 47 CaseN o-:T CTR-01-?4-A 2February2009 Y4 i

02/02 '09 12:00 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o sz I ryzlf by those persons who were quoting him, as to why the Iives and horses of some Tutsi had to be spared."g . I L73- The Appealsc hasrberrocallsi ts holding in the Nahimanae t al. Apg.al Judgementth at: I two lestimoaicsc orroborateo -1ea- notler wbcn one prina facie credible rcstinony is compatible with the oth\erimafecie crodiblet qtiuony.resrtaing rhei aure factoia sequenJor Elkcd rads. It is aot neceisaryt hat bot testinonics ue iaanicat ii att m describet he samef act in the saEe way. Etlery witnessP resentsw bat he hA. sieeDfr om h " i s J r l o e q c m ts p oint of vicw ai the time of tle cventc G according to how hc rrudastood tb evcflts recouoLd by otbers. It follows rhit corroboration*i y ?ort.ae"-*ryo soEe darqila differ betwcen testr:uonieEp rovided thnr 1s credible testinony describcst be facrs in questiou iu a way *,Uicn i" .oJp*-Uf" with the descriptiong rveni n anothrr crediblet estimduy.il5 "ot 174' Thc AppealsrChambefrir rther recalls that minor inconsistenciesc onrmoolyo ccuri n witness testimonyw ithout renderingi t unreliablea nd thar it is within the discretiono f rhe Trial Chambcrt o evaluates uchi nconsistenciesa nd to considorw hethert he cvidencea s a whole is credible,w irhout cxplainingi ts decisionin overyd etail-% L75. While the Trial Chanber did not explicitly addresst his matter, the AppealsC

tramberf inds that the allegedi nconsistencyis mi',or and that it is not relevantt o the marerialf acrs gnderlyingt he conviction- Accordiigly, the Trial Chamber's fail:rc to addresst his issue does not render its reliarrceo n the witne'sscse rroneous. 176- The Appellant next alleges that Wincss BMG's tesrimony is '!ory confirsing" and contradictsW 'itnessB MF ast o the time period of the ordersa llegedlyg iven by the Appellant.3aT 177. The AppealsrC harnbern otes that the Triat Cbambff chiefly relied ou 'Witness B MF's testinouy' not WitnebsB MG's, in making the fincling on the Appellant's order to sparet he lives of certain Tutsis-ffi Wtiile Witness BMG's testimony suggeststh at the order to spareC allixte,s life was given sometime,before1 5 April 1994,W itnessB MF tastifiedt bat ttre orderw as grveni n the secondh alf of May 1994.3cetr le4shing its conclusiont hat the evidenceo f Witness BMG corroboratedt hat of Witness BMF "about the sparingo f Callixre",t$ th" Trial Chamberr easoned that it was not clearjfrom WitnessB MG's testimonyw herberb c personallyh eardt he Appellant make the order, or dearneaa bout it from otherssl without addressingt hc apparcutd iscrepancy betweent he datesi dJntified by the two witnessesa s ro when the Appellant ordsredt bar the life and ljl rtppeUufs Brief,p a"dt.+ 4. ^ Nahinana et aL AgpdJ.Jurlgcment, paft.4ZE. LiKvoCtu et aL AppnalJirdgcmepnat ra"Z f. l- Appenant'Bsr ief,p al'! 148. a rriat Judgernenpta rai-t z+. jf friatJualementi arast1 37,1 7r. - I ' TriofJ udgemenpge ra i - t Z+. Trial Judfemenits, ta- irz+- I CasoN o.: ICTR-0I.74JI4, 2Fabruay20fD \ztt I !

O2/o2 '0s t2:00 FAX0 031705128932 IC13 E ose 4ezlfr houseo f Callixte IGlisa be spared.W hile it would have beenp referablef or the Trial Chambert o addresss uch an aliparent discrepancy,t he Appeals Cbamber does not find that this omissiou amountst o an efior iince the testimoniesa ren ot incompatible.

178. The Appcllairtf inally submitst trat'WitnessB MH's evidencem ustb e dismisssfsl incei t was "obtainedf rom otbei persoosa nd doesn ot tally with the evidenceo f the two orherw ihesses tBI\dF audB MGJ."35T2 ttislunsubstantiatesdu bmissionis dismisseds incet he Appetlantb asn ot explained what differeacese xist betwoent he tcstimorryo f WitnessB MH and WiraessesB MF and BMG. To the exteut that the dppellant is challenging thc hearsayn ature of Witness BMH's testimony,r he Appeals Chamberr ccalls that "hearsaye videucei s admissiblea s long as it is of probative valuc," and that a Trial Chainberh as the discretiout o cautiouslyc onsiderh earsaye videncea nd to rely on iLtts i L79' The Appealsiframber finds that the Appellant has not shownt hat rbe Trial Chambere rred in relying on WitnesiesB MF, BMH, andB MG in rcachingi ts finding on this poinr. 1E0, This sub-grorrrnodf appeails therefored rsmissed. E. A]legd Errors reletine to the Findinq that lGhabaye was Kill€d on the Aooellsntts Ordens 181. The Trial Chdmber found that" pursuafltt o the Appellanr's order to kill Tutsis, Interaharnwe in Nyamirambo follqrwed,J oseph Katrabaye and killecl him ia Butamwa between 6 and I0 April 1gg4.354"I \e Intaralianm'" then reported the killing to rlre Appellant's policerrren.3ssp artly on rbe basis of thcse findiilgs, the Trial Chamber found the Appellant gutlry of ordering genocide and

extermination and mtrder as crirnes against htrmanity-356 182- The Appellarrt submits that tlrc Trial Chnmber e,lred in finding that Kahabaye was killed on his orders357a nd ,ori*nd, that the Trial Chamber errcd in the assessmento f thc evideuce.s* The fi 1nn"O*,'s Brief,p .rra-1 48S. eealroN oticeo f Appea!p ara 101. ' Jee svDrd lrafa- Jy_ I t ia ruagi-*t, parait.g z slo. "- Tlial Judgementp, aru- I 82, :: Triat Judgemeupt,a ras.5 40,5 55,552,5Sg,5 60. ii{otoe otAppcal.paras.t 03-l15; AppeDsnr'sB riof, paras.t 5&165- "- Appellant's,Brief,p aras-1 51-165-T he Appcllaatc iics paragraphs1 08-113o f thc Trial Judgeucntt o denonstrate that tbe Trial Chanber was wary of Witsress5 MU ana 'hored fu rhe *ornr that bp was lyiol:''1x" npp..fr-Orrrt i notest htrLt be Trial cI"-rber held that WitnessB MU's teft ipoay sbouldb e consirlcrcd* iiti iutio. (,*riiC be r"y n".,u beeu inlluerrcedb y t' wisft to posilivcly affect.tbc -"-Tl pr6cecaingsq gainsth i- in Rwaacta)u t , ."rt rry-'; ft" sftuemsnli athe APPcttant'sB rief, lha Trial Chasbtr did nit conctudc ntit tne fihcss *"s fvi"g- rriar rualura' para ll3. Thcreforc, thc Appeals Chambcr need not addrcsst he irnsuUstanti"t"aa rgg-o"itfi"t inis fact wai rrwE pleadcdint heAmcndedlhdictuentN. oricco f Appea[ para_l1 2. 49 CascNo-:T CTR-OI-7+A 2February2 ff)9

02/02 '09 12:01 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o sl +qlfr Appellaar contends i that all tbree Prosecutionw itnesses,u pon wbom the Trial Chauber relied in mekingt he abovef ihding,'WihessesB MU, BMF, andB MG, gaveh earsayc videncea ndp rovided rro direct evidencei mplicating tho Appellant in Kahabaye'sm urder,t5eH e claims tXat the Tdal Chamber relied on ithe "incomplete 4ccounts" of witnessesa ud particularly opposest he Triat Chamber'sa cce,ptancoef the tes''mony of WitnessB MU in light of its prior assessmenotf this witness.3oH e furthfi allegest har no causall ink was establishedb erweent he order and l(ahabaye's ki[ing.36l The Appclhaf slaims that fbe Trial Clgmbcr failed to examinet he factual contradictions in the witnesses'e siimonies and erroneouslym adei ts finding event hough "it hasn ot bcen proved beyonda rcasoaableidoubttt rat Kahabayew ask illed on l(arera's ordef,s."362 i 1E3. The Prosccuiion responds that the Trial Chamber correctly found that Katrabaye was killed on the Appellant's o,rders-36I3t submits that rhe Trial Chamber relicd on rhe restimonies it deemed credible and found ithar th. Appellant had given orders to the Interahamwe and policemcn.se Further, the Frosecution points to the Trial Chamber's previous finding that thc Appetlanr exercised 'Interalnnrwe autlrority over tho and the three policemen guarding his house.365T hus, the Prosccution concludbs that "the death of Kahabaye was undoubtedly the direct consequenceo f the Aprpellanl,'so tders, ana tne Trial Chamberd id not commit any effor in this ,"gartl-"366 !

784. The AppealsiChambenr otes that the Triat Chamberr elied oo the testimonieso f Wihresses BMU, BMG, and BMF in making is finding on this point-3n Wiaess BMG sratedt hat he heard that IGhabayeh ad beenk illed in Butamw4 a location outsideN yamirambo,b ut did not know by whom.36W8 itress BMF observedth e Appellant[ slling Kalimbar harh e uo loogcrw antedt o seet hc "filth" of horxes of Tbtsis in front of his housq pointing to the housesr rearby,s uch as those of JosephK ahabaye,F elix, and Vianney Hitimana-36eH e testified tbar Kahabayew as arresreda ud kiUedb y Interahmrwei n April 1994.37A0s summarizedb y the Trial Ctambea'WihessB MF also testified thtt Interahamweb oasted" to the policcmen about having killed [Kahabaye1".37Wl itness s appcttant'sB rief, para-1 63- Seea lsoB rief in Rcply,p ara 33. * Appellant'sB ricf, para-1 52. "' ^frppellant'sB ricf, para 159. ]ll Appettant'sB ricf, para.1 59. "o' Rcspondenl'sB rief, pora- I 12- rq ncfundent's Brie4 para- I la. ]l Respondeot'sB dd, para 114,c iriug Trial Judgementp, aras.5 63, 562. ll Respondeot'Bs rief, para"1 15. ll1mat ludgcmenpEar i3t.z s-rso,t E2- lf rti*Judlc,ncnsiruatiz. z.i si'. jl Trial Judgcmcnqy ara"1 78. ]j" Trial JudgenmLp aras.1 78 , L82. i" lrjfl-Jyggencu! 9ar{-178, No speciEci nformarioni s grvea as ro the identiry of rbc said policenrea.I t soous that lbc Trial chanber infcrred ftom tbe coDlc,xrrh at the

peoplei n_volvcdh cre the lnlicemr:o it-aing tne appar*tt house'W itncss BMF tesrified that he wrs not p."seni wlren Kabbayc wrs "r e ki r l e le d but rrmr "[t]his information'[--.] was *Interahamwes relatedt o [hin]-" He furtber statedt bat [.vc] wero boastinga boutw bat 15oy-ft"ad one,a nd * il"y UJ no fessou to lid'. He specified ftat bc did "not rcmenber exacrly the uame of tbc porson from whom tnel goi fUt CaseN o.: ICTR-01-74-A 2 February2 009

02/02 '09 12:02 FAX0 031705128S32 ICTR @o ss +60!fl BMU receiveda telephoner eport from a subordinateth at'"t}te policemena t Karera'sr oadblockh ad kiiled JosephK ahabdyea nd Fdlix Dix and thefuf amilies land that] they also destoyed their houses, accomparriedb y Intdrahamwgt- 31H2 e flrrther testified that on the sa:ned ay he personallys aw the nrins of theh ousesa ndn oticedt hat "JosephK ahabaye'sfo lks" hadb eenk illed,.373 1E5. The Appeals Charnber notes that no direct evidence supports the Trial Chamber's conclusiont hat the "'bteralnmwe in Nyamirambof ollowed after Kahabaye,k illed him in Butamwa betweenE aud 10 April [1994], and reportedt o l(arera's policcment hat the killing had takeu placen',3?T4h e Trial,fudgement is insufficiently clear as to how the Trial Chamberr eachedt his 'Tlre conclusion Furthermore,i n finding that killing was a consequenceo f Karera's ordet''375th e Trial Chambero mitted ro specify which order it referredt o and did not reveal how it establisheda link betweent he murdero f Kahabayea nd any order given by theAppellant. 1E6. Based on the Trial Chamber'sf actual findings, the Appeals Chamberf inds that no reasonablctr ier of fact could havec oncludedb eyondr easonabled oubt that Kahabaye'su urder was a consequencosf an'ordert o kill Tutsisg ivenb y the Appellant.T he evidencere gardingr hel ocation of the crime and the identity of the

perpetrators accepted by the Trial Chamber was not corroborateda nd,i n,fact, remainedc onflicting. WimessB MG testified that ths murder occurredi n Butamwa,w hile'Witness BMU seemedto place it in Nyamirambo.W itness BMF testified that the murder had beenp erpebatedb y Interalnnnve while, accordingt o Witness BMU, the perpetrators were the policcmcn undcr the Appcllanf s authority. The Trial Chnlxberi tself recogyrizedth at there was "lirdted iuformation concerningt be specific circumstarrceos f his dearh land that] no wiuress observed1 frek itling"376b ut entereda finding that "the ki[ing [of Ka]rabaye]w as the consequence of Karera'so rdet'',3zw ithout explainingh ow it reachedth is conclusion.

187. In sum, the Appeals Ctramberf inds that the Trial Chambere rred in finding that Joseph I(ahabaye's killing was "a consequenceo f l(arera's ordeC'.A ccordingly, the Appeals Chamber grants this sub-ground of appeal and reverses the Appellarrt's convictions for genocide arrd exterminationa ndm urder as crimesa gainsth umanityb asedo n this eveut. information, bur [rhar] tbqc wcrc mnny Interahatwes [nc] pa$sin8 by this location, and lhey casre to brief the policeoeurcgarrlinB thcipcoplo lhat thcy bad killcd". Hnally, bc statcd that hc "heard this from the Interehomwcs [slc] tbemselves becau$c thcy ytrc-ryporting io tho policc,mcu. Thcy wors Do[ lslling rno about tho incidonr Thcy wcrre lqlking to tbc policemen " T. 18 January 2Q06p.7. :: Trial Judgemeut,p er*. 177, I82. 3D Trial Juogeoeut, poq. tz9. "'TdaI Juduemcul pfirg- 182- t7] rriar rualeurcnqp ari rtz ]j TrialJudgemenptu a'.1 82. t" Trial Judgemengp ar:L 182- 5l CaseNo.:I CIR{1-74-A 2Fcbruary 2009

02/02 '09 L2:03 FAX0 031705128S32 ICTR @o so +5'tlfr F. KiIl Murekezi 1E8. The Ttial Chamberf ound that between8 aud 10 April 1994,p olicemanl Gtimba forced a man to kill Muekezi, a Tutsi, at tl:e roadblockn eart he Appellant's housea nd later boastedt.h at he had carried out the killing following the Appellant's order.378It found that the testimonieso f Witnesses BMU and BMG corroboratedc ach other and were reliable despite their hearsay natuto.3TPe artly ou this basis, the Trial Cbamberf ouud the Appcllant gurlty of ordering genocide and extersination audm urder as crimesa gainsth umanity.38o LSg. The Appellant submirst hat tbe Trial Cbambere rredi n fiading that he had.o rderedK alimba to kill Muekezi-3", tn" Appellant clairns that the Trial Chamberb asedi ts nnaing on 'lurely circumstautial cvideoce" arrd that this frnding "amounts to specr:lation and is, therefore, ..rroneous."382 190- The Appellant claims that the testimonieso f WimcssesB MG aud BMU, on the basi,so f which the Trial Ctramberm ade this finding, are inconsistenta nd fail to provide a gufficient link betweenh im and the murder.3ffT3h e Appellanth igbtights that the Tria1C hambfi'trever mentioned or explainedh ow it could be satisfiedt bat conflicring evidencew hich it rreatsdw ith cautionp rovos a contestedfa ct beycindre asonabldc oubl"384 191. Thek osecucionr espondsth att he Trial Chnmbedr id uot errin

mekr'ngth is finding-3s5 L92. The Trial Chamber relied primarily on ttre testimony of Witness BMG in making the impugnedf inding.386It also found that'WitnessB MU's eviderrcec orroboratcdw iures$ BMG's evideuce.38Tt he AppealsC hamberh asr ecalleda bovet hat nrro testimoniesc onoborateo ne anothcr when one prima facie crdible testimony is compatible with tbc othst prima facie credible testimonyr egardingt he sarnef act or a sequenceo f Iinked facts and tlrat it is not necessaryth at both testimoniesb e identicali n all aspectso r describeth e samef act in the samew ay-38I8t follows tbat corroborationm ay exist even when the testimoniesd iffer on somed etails,p rovided tbat no cledible ll rti"t Juftemenr, para- 192 ::: Trial Judgeneogp ara-1 89. l: Tdal JudgemenpLa ns. 54Q 557,5 60_ l'"ljl YI* of Appoal paras--llGl27; Appotlam'sB rief, paras.L 6GL73;Briefin Repty,p ara.3 4- NoHceo f Appeal,p ara-1 25. ill Iq* olAppcrl, paras.1 18,1 19,l zt; Appellant'sB rief, pora-1 69;B ricf in Reply,p arr- 34_ "* Brief h Rcply, uara.3 4. 38J Rcspondeui'igri.f, puras-I if-illg, :* ' Trial Jud[Fmenlp uras-1 86,1 88-190. Trial Judcenlento. ara.l E9. 1*t sr" s"pri para-lir3. CaseNo.:I CTR-01-7+A 2FebnaryZ0/|lg

02/02 '09 12:03 FAI 0031705128932 @osz rysalfr lestimony describesth e facts in questioni n a way which is incompariblew ith thc descriptiong iven in anothe,cr rediblet estimouy.3se L93. Contary to the Appellant's cofltention,t he evidenceo f WitncssesB MG and BMU is nor inconsistento r conflicting. The wihesses corroboratee ach othcr as to the fact that Mruekezi was kiUed and as to the location of his killing. Wimess BMG saw policeman Kalimba force a young man to kill Murekea at the roadblock in front of the Appellant's houseb etween8 and 15 April Lgg4.xn Subsequently,K alimba boasted that rhe Appellant had ordered him '"to go and get 'Wirless Murekezi and his wfe", but that he did not fitrd the wife.3el BMU testified that betwecn7 and 10 April 1994 s subordinater eported to him over the phone that the Interalnnnwea nd the policemen who guarded the Appellant's house had killed Mruekezi and his rwo sons at the roadblock in front of the Appellant's house.3eT2h e time-framesp rovrdedb y thc two wilnessesa re consi8tentT, hc Appellant has not shownh ow the Trial Chambere rredi n hnding theset estimonies coroborative. L94. The Appellant submits tbat the Trial Chamber relied on cvidence conraining 'lhree hearsays" and favorired Witress BMG without providing au explanation for why it found his evidencere Hable.39l 195. The.AppealsiChambedr ismissesth e Appellant's contcution-T he

Trial Chamberc hiefly reUedo n the testimonyo f WimcssB MG who sawp olicemauK alimba force a man fo kill Murekezi- 'Witness BMG was thereforea n cyewitnesst o the killing. He was also n ctireclw, ittrcsst o Kalimba boastingt hat he had iarricd out the A1ryellant'so rder'to go and get Murekezi andh is wife-.3s 196. [u any case,t he Appeals Cbamberh as alreadyr ecalled that it is for r]re appealingp arry ro de,nonstratet hat no,reasonablet ier of fact cor:Id have taken iuto accounth earsaye videncei n to Sees uDraDlg;s-1 73- ]l f*A fuage-""t, para,1 86. '" Trial Judgeocutp, ara-1, 86. :: Trid Judgmcng gaxa-L 87. ll" Appellants Brief, gta. L7O- '" Trial Judgement'p ara- 186. Wituess BMG stated that "[h]c was brought thcrc by Interahanwvesw ho wel€ accompgnied_bay policenan who was Suafdingl the Appallant'sl housg ana wireo thcy got Dc,xtb 'the Appellanf sJ house't ho policemanl ed Murckezi and conpclled Hrr to lie dows, ald'rrren he orderei i'yo*g matr to fiir'u"," t"i rha yorng uan relirscd 1" dg :Yl l_no longcrrcmcm,bcrt lre na&e of rhat yorug man, So wlcu rnoy oung marrr efnsJ to do-so,t_h e policemanl oadcd his rifle aod - in mdcr to fire - to shoota t ihe y6uog oro- So r*,ftunO o yo*t -* ** thrl, hc just took his uacbete and kille<l Mun:kczi- Tbat was the circunstancao f Mrnckozi,sd eath.H c'nsd 6c* t Jcen from a place which wa.sfn rther away from thcre,a nd tre wasb roughtt

o the roadblocl in order0 ob e killed aadl wor:tri also like to add thll' thc policeman'sl auc was !{a]inr-ba L . atcr ou, lc boased ttrrt it was tt}e AppllanJ wto oraereJ him 1o go and get Murekezi and Helen, r}at is Murekezi's wifc, Lut the policemal <lid not find Murckczi's wifa He provided this information latel. but I wss thcrc when he hought Mr.rckezi there at thc roadblock,"T . 9 Joorury i4x5;, 2L- CaseN o.:I CTR-01-7+A 2 February2 009

02/OZ '09 12:04 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o se ry+|fr re46hing a specific finding.rrs The Appellant has not done so in rhis insrancea nd thereforeh is cont'entiouth at the Trial Ctrambere rredi n retying ou hearsayt estimonyi s dismissed. 197' Finally, the Appellant reiteratesh is argumentm ade at trial that he was not cross-examiaed about his deniat or tne incident and submitst hat the Trial charnbere rredi n law by nor considering that suchu nchallengedd enial constitutest acit acceptanceo f his account.3e6 198' The Appeals'Chamberer callst hat a Trial Cbamberh asr hed issrerioua s to whethero r not to infer that statementsw hich have uot been challengedd uring cross-examinariona re true-3eI7t has already rejected the general contention that the Trial Chamber erred in not making such an tnfere'ncefr om the fact that the hosecution did not cross-ex4mineth e Appellanl3esC ontraryt o the Appellant's assertio[ the absenceo f cross-examinatiodno es not imply that the prosccution acceptedth e Appellant's denial of this incident,T he Appellant's argumearis dismissed. lgg. This subgroundo f appeails therefored ismissed. G. Alleeed Err:ors relaths to the Finding thst the Appellant wes lnvolved in the Murder of Ndinsutse 2C0- The Trial Ctrrambefro und that oa 10 April Lgg4, Jean Bosco Ndingutse, a Tutsi, wdS arrestoda nd killed not far away from the Appellant's houseb y Interahafirwe

andt hc policeuen who wereg uardiugt le AppeUant'sh ouse.3eTeh e Trial Chamberfo und that this kiUing wa.so neo f the kiUingsp erpetratpd P ursuantt o the Appel.lant'so rdersg trrcnt o the policcmen a.,dI nteraharmvd betwcen7 aurd1 5 Adril 1994t o kill Tutsi memberso f ttrc population.@I n making this frnding the Trial Chamberprimarilyr elied on'WitnessB MU who testifiedt hath e sawN dingurseb einga rrested by the policemen drying the a.fternoouo f 10 April !994, about 300 metresf rom the Appellanr's house'orL ater that day, one of WitnessB MU's subordinaterse portedt o him that Ndingutseh ad bee'nk illed by the policemen andI nteralumwe.&2P artly on this basis,t he Trial Chamberf ound the Appellant guilqyo f ordering genocidea nd exterminationa ndm trder as crimesa gainslh umanify.e3 "t Seesuprapara.3g. 1Te pp.ti*r.'i nri.f, prra-I z 1. o'' Sees uDraDarE-:9. ]l see sap'ai:ua- 30. f l , lt * * " P jf: ; : - - * B :H :t * " ^ lt " ff _ 1 T T P .w :9 h 1 o y , ] f u fr n ^ d ,w er h t h ic e h a ur. p h o o l r ic ito c yf m th e e np - c fu rp lc c [a ra n t q e d g rb u e a c rd im e c dh , i s it h i o s u c s re ein a r N f ro w y r u a r m t u h r i e r e a c s H m o t n b r os $ .e d a r u h 4 T a ri t a i l l t l J,udgeucnpt,a ras.1 93,1 96,5 35. f* .' f.ia Judlmert paras.5 35,5 36,5 3g. Trial Judgemeupt,a ras:1 93-195_ -," Trid Judgenenr,p ara 193. * Trial Judgemculp, aras.S aO 552, 560. CaseN o.: ICTR-01-74-A 2 February2 009

02/02'09 12:05 FAX0 031705128932 TCTR @o ss 4561f zot' The Appellairt submitst hat the Trial Charrrbemr adea n effoneousf indine sincet he evidence did nor show that he orderedt he murder of Ndingutse.e He coutendst hat the Trial chamber relied 'Wihess $olely on the hearsayt estimonyo f BMU, which did not provide any direct evidenceo f the Appellant's involvementi n the iucident leadingt o Ndingutse,sm urder.oj 2o2. The Prosecutionr espondst hat the Trial Chamberp roperly assessetdh e evidencec onccrning the muder of Ndineutse'ffi It submitst har the Triat Chambe,wr as within its discretioni n finding i WimessB MU rredible andr elying solely on his restimony.4T 203- The Appealsichamberf inds thatthe Trial Chambererredin finding that Ndingutseh ad been killcd pursuantt o thp Appellant's orders given between7 and 15 April 1994 to the policemena nd Interalnmwe to kill Tutsi' The Trial Chamberf ound that the killing occurrcd shortly after the Appellant had giveniano rder to kill Tutsis and destroyt heir housesa nd in aplaceneart he location where the order wasigiven.H owevet, WitaessB M{.I was the only wituessw ho testificd about this event and the Trial,Chamberd ecidedt o considenh is testimonyw ith caution,{Es ince he might "have been influencgd by a wish to positively affect the crimiaal proceedings4 gainst thiml in Rwanda''.ag 204- Witness BMIJ testified that he saw the

policemen guarding tbe Appe1ant,s house arrest Ndingut"*ea nd that ldter they "took two vehicles[ beloneingt o Ndiugutsel,a nrinibusa nd a peugeot 504" to the Appellaht's compound.arHo e also testiticd r}lar he was told by a suborclinateth at Ndiugutse was killed by "Karera's policemen" and Interahantwe.alrT he Appeals Chamberf inds that no reasonablctr ipr of fact could havea ccqrtedt,h is witness'$u ncorroboratedh earsayt estimouy that the policemenw ,hok illed Ndiagutsew ere the policemenw ho guardedt.h e Appellant's house. Furthermore,t ro reasonablet rier of fact cor:Id have concludedo n the basis of that circumsrautial evidencet hat the only reasonablein ferenc€ was ttrat Nclingutseh ad been killed pursua't to the Appellant'so rderst o kill Tutsis. 2O5- In sum, the Appeals Cbamberf inds that the Trial Chaorbere rred in fact in finding that Ndingutse had been killed pr.rsuantt o the Appellant's order. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber grants thjs sub'ground of aPpeal and revcrses the Appcllant's convictions for genocide and exterminatiorra ndm urder a.sc rimesa gainstf uumpnibbr a.sedo n this everrt f*i IqUg: o! Aqpeal,p ara-1 31: Apt 6llanr'sB rief. para-l Z9_ Brief i! Reply,p aro.3 {; Appellaat,sB licf, para. U6. * Respondcnt'sB fief, pora- 120, *' 'para- Rcsponitenr'sB rief, L2\ ciring jvifregekt Appcd^Judgeorent,p ara. LlL, Sce also Muhimana appd $t99|:gt,tT:1^01, trT.r:s ela Agw,niudsemepnat,* e2;G actimsi xpir*t ruogu-,-q pam*72. ;'frial Judgemenf,p ura-r l 1J , * Trial Judgenent para 113. CascN o.: ICTR-01-7+A 2 February2 009

02/02 '09 12:06 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o oo +55lfr E Allee€d Errorrs nelatins to the Killfug of Nyagatare on the Aopellantrs Ord.rs 206' Thc Trial chanber found that a Tutsi man naned Palarin Nyagatare was killed at a roadblock by policeinanK alimba on} April 199{ ard that this followed rhe Appellant,so rderst o kill Tutsis in Nyaroimmbo-auP artly on tbis basis,t he Trial chamber found the Appellant guilty for ordering gerrocidea id exterminationa ndm urdera s crimesa gainsth umanity.al3 207. The Appellat submits ttrat the Trial Chamber erred irr fact in fiudiug rlrat he was responsiblef or the Iilling of PalatinN yagatare.olH4 " contendst hat even 65rrmiqg that he gavet he order to kill rlrtsis in Nyamirambo,t he Trial chanrberc ornmitteda factual eror in finding rhat this order resultedi n Nyagatare'sk illing.als Th" Appellant recalls thut the wirnessesw ho claimed thar he gave sucha n order pointed to t]le time period between7 nd 15 Aprit 1gg4,w hereasN yagarare was killed on, 24 dpril 199a.416th is, the Appellant contetrds,c ouplcd wirh the facr rt*t the Prosecution was r:nhble to Prove that the Appellant Eavea . specific order to kill Nyagatare, illustrdtes that there is oo evidencet hat Nyagatare'sm ruder was rho result of bis allegedo rder.att He fifther claims ttrat the Trial Chamberf ailed to meeti ts obligation to providc a reasonedo pinion on this finding.al8 zOE-

The Prosecutionr espondst hat the Tiial Cbamberp roperly found that the Appellaut,s cder resulredin the ftirringo f Nyagatare.oFt,i rrt, it submitst harw itrcsscs BMH andB MF corroborated each other on the facts of the killingj2o Second, the Prosccuriona rgues thar the Appellarrt's contentionr elaring tcj the ten day differenceb etweent he daL of the allegedo rder and the killing is. "without merif' since "the period of ten days is not too far reuroved"a nd the Trial Chamberf ound beyondr ea.sonabldeo ubt thatpolicemarrK atimbak illed Nyagatareo n the Alrpellanr,so rders.4l 209- 1a making the impugned finding, the Trial Chamberr elied on the circumstalrial hearsay evideuceo f WirnesseBs MF andB MH. Both witnessess tatd thatN yagararew ask illed, on24April 1994 and mentionedr he iuvolvement of Kalimba, one of rhe policemen who were guardingt he Appellant's housq in the killing of Nyagatare-42w2it ress BMF testified rhat IGlimba confirmedt o l!0. t . u rztuary2 M pp- 17, 24. l:-. Trial ludgemmLp ara 193. " j Trial Judgeocnl,p ara.2 03- '" Trial Judgcrncnpt,a ras:540,5 57,lffi. .l: I".i* of Appeat ps* llg; Aplnllont's Brief. para_I EI ; Brief in Reply, para.3 3. lil loq* of Agped, parar1 35;A pp:llaat,sS rief, para"t Af . ;; Todc-: o f apfi* paras.1 36,8 7; Appeltanfs srief, pafa. r3l- "' Appellanr'sB rief,.p ararl 8l- '': Appeilsnt'sB rief, pan lE3- "]] Respondcnt'Bs rief, puas- 123,L 24. i. Respondcnt'Bs rief, paia- 123, 'i-' Respourlcnt'Bs ricf, para-L 23. Trial Judgemenqp aras,2 00, 201. CaseNo.:I CTR-01-7+A 2 Fcbruary2 009

02/02 '09 12:08 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @o or 45cfr her that he (Katimba) had orderedN yagatare'se xecution.aBW itness BMH statedr hat Nyagatare was killed bV a gto'up which included Interalnmwe lutd the Appcllant's polic"men.4%W itucss BMI{ firrther testified tbat Kalimta subsequentlyto ld thc assailantsa r Nyagatare'sh ouset o spare 'Ve his children, stating havej ust killed thcir fathe,f'.46 'Wttnesses 2lO. In assessingth e testimonieso f BMF and BMH on this pofuq the Trial Chamber noted: i The tesfimouy'of thc ts'o relativesw as consislstr iu rclatisr b tbe timg location and po:r;lelrators- They both testified th{t Palatin [Nyegatare]w ask illed on 24 April and heardK alimba xdnirring to berngi nvolve{ in rhe killing- The Chanrberr ecalls tbar rbc witnessesw ere personrlly rcquainrca with Kslimbqtrnd that Wihess BMFeqioycalh is potoction t,.,1. Ir is alsoc lcur rhzi Palatinw as killed at a madblocki n the area[ ...].' 211. The Appeals Chamber recalls that a pemon in a positiou of authority may incur responsibility for ordering another I lerson to commit an offlencea2if? the personw ho receivedt he ords subsequentlyc ommits the offence. Responsibility is also incurred whe,na n individual in a position of authorityb rders an act or omissionw ith thc awareflesso f the substaDtialli kelihood rhat a crime will be gsmldned in the execution of that order, and if that crime is

committed by thc psrsonw ho received'theo rder.a$N o formal superior-subordinatree lationshipb etweent he accused and the perpetratoris ,required;i t is sufficieut that therc is proof of somep osition of authoriryo n rhe part of the accuqedth at worrld compelt he perpeuotort o commit a crimc purstutntl o the accu$cd'6 order.49 212. The Appeals iChambcr notes that, contrary to the Appellant's contetrtiotr, thc Prosecution was not compelled tci prove that the Appellant gave the specific order to kill Nyagatare. However, the Appoals Chamber is not satisfied, in the circuttrstances of the case, that the elements of the mode of resporrsibility of ordering were established beyond reasonable doubt" Vlhile the evidence demonstrates that Kalimba was involved in the mr.uder of Nyagatare, a relatively long tirne lapsed between the Appellaut's general order co kill Tutsis and the killing of Nyagatare, and no clear link has been established between the order and tlre evidence relating to the murder. The Appeals Chamber finds therefore that no reasonable tier of fact could have for:nd that rhe only reasonable conclusion available from the circumstanrial hearsay evidence of Wirnesses BMF and BMH was that Nyagatare was tiUeo as a resulr of the Appellant's gcneral order ro kill Tutsis in Nyamirambo. 423 T. l8 Januar12 006p - 3l; Trial Judgemenpgr rr 20O- '- Trial Judgeoentp, ara-'201- * Ttial ludgemeuqp ara-;201- : ftial Judgencnt,p lra'201 !' !,lahima'na e tal-AugeiilJ.udgenr:ntp, ara-4 tl_._,geaet soG atii Appal ludg-ernengp ara l?61N tagerznaeta L .A,ppeal Judgemat, para-3 65: Kordii and eerkezAppealJ udgementp, aoas2. E, ZS- 57 CaseN o-:I CTR-01-7+A ZFcb'ruaqr 2@9

02/02 '09 12:07 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @oez +filn 213. Accordinglyj tUis sub-ground of appeal is grhnted. I.

214. The Appeals Chamber grants the Ground of Appeal io part and reverses the Appellant's convictions for ondering and extcrmination and murder as srimes against humanity, basedo u the allegedm ruderso f Ndin gutsc, and Nyagatale. llryl. O*1._rrrla bo GaticAppcaJl udgenengp aras.152, 157; Kordi( aad S.-f' *" App-! Jud gencngp ara.3 q B laikif Appl ludjcurcnq para4- L temazza Appeaf JudgLTrenl pars- 361. I I 5t CascNo.:I CIROI-74A 2February2 009

02/02 '09 12:08 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR @o se ryszff, vII- ALLEGED ERRORSR ELAIING TO Tr{r' KILLING oF TUTSISI N |ITARAIVrA( GROUI\D OFAPPEAL 6) 275' Tbe Trial cdauber found that at a meeting at Ntarama sectoro ffice on 14 Apri1 199d tlrc Appellant promisedito provide security by bringing sold.iersr o protecr the refugees.coI r further found that on 15 APIil L994, the Appellant eucourageda group of Interahamwe arrds oldiers to attack the refugeesb t the Ntarama Church instead of providing the security he had promised.atr Severalh undredT utbis were killed during the attack.a3B2a sedo n thesef indings, the Trial Chamber found that' the Appellant "substauti.allyc ontribured"t o the artack and thus insrigatedg enrride.ass Additionally, the Trial Chamberf ound that the Appellaat was presentd uring the attack and that he participaredi n it by shooting, thus committing genocide.e Based on rhesef indings, the Trial Chambera lso found,that the Appellant instigateda nd comsritted exterminationa s a crimc against humaaity,a3asn di nsfgarcd murdera s a criue againsth umanity.ar 216- The Appellant challengest hesof iadings and contendst hat the Trial Chamberc om.rnitred el3onlo f fact audl a1 rn reachingt hem.sTH e submitst hat the Trial Chambere rredi n its asscssment of the evidencea nd that it shouldh avef ound that the allegationt hat he was presenta ndp articipated in the attack at

ttre Ntatama Chr:rchw as "pure fabrication".4s The Appellant claims that the Triat Cbanber's f:adings 4re "unreasonable"a3agn d thaq at the very least,t here is reasonabled oubt as to his participationi u tts attackm The Prosecutionr espondst hat this ground of ap'eal has no morit and shouldb e sumoirily dismissed.att he AppealsC hamberw ill considert he Appellant,ss pecific contcnti.onsin tunr.#z a- Alleeed Errors in the Assesomenot f prosccution Evideuce 2L7- The Appellani submitst hat the Trial Chambere rred in relying ou witnessesw ho lid.#3 He also submitst hat theitriaf Chambere rredb y admittingt estimonieso f Prosecurionw itnessesw ho .i ili f-;rt Jud.gsmentp, nas.24f-l}.4- *" Trial Judgemcutp, aras.2 9%315. -]l Tiial Juagcurentp, ara i3t 5 ;: Trial Judgemengp arasr5 41-544. * Trial Judgementp, ara*$ 43. ':: Tti"I Judgenrcorp, arast5 54, 557- "l Trial Judgeucnt,p ara-p 60, ;'].l Nod* of Appe4 para*. 141 -f 29; Appellanf s Briof, paras.I g5_225. Appella*'s Briet, pams.1 88-225s, p-p ara 211. *,'Appellant's Brief, porai 191. * Appcllfit's Brid, paral2t 1. *j Respondcnr'sB rief, pa+a"L 27. t' 43 The App.llant's coulcdtiont hat his a]ibi raiseda .r casonabled oubt wiII be consiitcredb elow in chapter Di eppaiant's Bric! parar1 91. 59 CaseNo.:I CTR-Ot-7+A 2 February2 0O9

'09 02/02 12:08 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @oaa, ; +5t\fr I 444 colluded amougt hemselvest o implicate hin: nnd that the inconsistcnciesin the evide,lrceo f the Prosecutionw itnessbsr aise reasonabled oubt as ro his involvement in the attack on the Ntarama Churcho n 15 Aprit 1gg4.445 1. AllegedF ,rrori n Relvingo n ProsecutionW itoessesW ho Lied 'Witnesses 2L8' The Appell# *gu", that Prosecution BMI and BMK lied and that rhe Trial Chambere rredi n exilaining or acceptingin consistencieisn their testimouies.tr (a) WitrressB MI ir zLg. WitnessB Mi testifiedt hat on 15 April 199a,t he Appellant,i n the cogpany of soldiers, gmdarnes, andI nter,ahamwea, tlackedt he NtaramaC hurch.ft7T he witnessd escribedt he Appellant as a "commauder" htho directed the atrackerr.4s Th" Trial Chamber acceptedW itness BM,s evidencc as to tte Appettant's involvemeni in the attack on the Ntaranra Chuch.ee The Trial Chamberc onsideredlttratth ere were similaritiesb etweenW itnes'sB MI's accounto f the eventsa nd the accountso f the three other ProsecutionW itnessesB Mf, BML, and BMK who testified about this attack.ffi : 220. The Appellailt contends ttrat Witness BMI Ued45la rrd claims that the Trial Chamber provideda n explanafonf or WitnessB MI's "lies" withouta uyb asisi n the evidence.a5z 221- The Prosecudlorne spondst hat eveni f the Trial Chamberd id trnd that it hadn or beenp rovcd. beyondr

easo'nabled iubt traq as testified by'$/itness BMt, the Appellant issued,o n 9 April lgg4, an order to kill T\t *lt and loot their property, the Trial Chamberh ad discretion to accepro ther aspectso f thc witnesi's evidence.as3 222. Ttre Appcll*i a.guest hat the Trial Chamberd id,n ot believeW irnessB MI when he testified that" at a meetingi n Gatoro cellule on 9 April lgg4, the Appellant orderedt he killing of Tutsis and the looting of their PToperty.otIon this regard,t he Trial Chambers tatedt hat 'TVitness B MI was not cleat''in ttrath e testifcd not only to the allegedm eetingi n April 1994b ut alsot o an eventf u Lgg2 *I Appelbm'sB rief,p aral.z OozOS. Aru)elart'sB rief,p aru 209; l T, ?9 August2 00t pp.2 5,2 6.T hoA ppellanat sscrrrsh arr ls T.sisCl hambeerx amined # th esoir consistencieasr p rirqraphs2gl-t93 03o f thei iiat JudgcmenAr lpeua*'s erief, para.2 0g. AppanantB'sr id par+.i Sg,1 96199. ;* I4rl Ind_gecrengp arasi.269-274, sumnf,rizing Witness BMI.s tostimony_ *e Trial JudgcoenL Da$-272^ TriatJ udiernenirto, * bos. fl frin r"asemenidqn Qg+- 'rr Appcllant'sB rief, parai 196. l]i lpfr"tt*t's!1]ef, parai 198,r eferriog to Trial Judgencnr,p ara-2 29. "'Rcspondeof s Bricf, pah, 129. 6a Appellant's Brief, parai 19e; Corrigendumt o thc Appo[snt's Brief, para-Z _ : 60 CaseN o.: ICTR-O1-7,Lh, 2Febnrary2 @9 s i \r-r.(

02/02'09 L2:09 FA.X0 031705128932 IClR B oss +50lfl and rhat his "testimdny also raised other issues".45T5h e Tria] Chambers tatedt hat even if someo f the discrepanciesin lris testimony could be ascribcdt o the fact that he was not accustomedto court proceedingsa nd thaf he had communicationp roble,ms,#6th e witness's seemingc onfi:sion of rwo different meetingsr emainerja matter of coucern.6?T he Trial Cbambert ook into accountt he lack of corroboratinge videricea nd concludedt hat the allegationr elating to the rneetingi n Gatoro cellul.e hadn ot beeup rovedb eyondr easonabldeo ubt.a5fl 223- The Trial Chamber'sr easoningd oesn ot suggestth at it found WiuressB MI to be dishonest or to otherwise lack credibility. Rather, it suggestst hat the Trial Chamber consideredt hat rbE substanceo f the witness's evidence,p articularly sinceh e was the only wimesst o testify aboutt he allegedm eetingi n Gatoro ceIIuIe,d id not supporta finding beyondr easonabled oubt in relatiorr to this allegatiou.T his Fndiog did aot precludet he Trial Chamberf rom consideringa nd relying oa 'Witress BMI's eviddncei n relarion to other allegations-A s alreadyr ecalle{ it is trot unreasonable for a Trial Chsmb"ir to accept some parts of a wi0aess'st estimony while rejecting ott..rs.4se Conuequentlyt,h e Aplrllant's argumentis rejected.

224. The Appell4ut fi:rthcr argues that there is a discrepatrcyb etween Witness BMI's prior statemento f 4 Mayi 2001460a nd his testimony at trial in reJationt o the br:rning doum of his htruse.#lT he AppealsC harnbeqr otest haut he evidencea t trial wsst hat the wiuess discovcrcdth ar 2 his house was burned down on 14 April t9g4 The witncss's prior statemento f 4 May 2001 indicates that his house was burned down on 8 April 1994.463T he Appellanr also arguest hat 'Witness BMI denied meetiug a member of the Prosecutionr ,eama fter 18 January 2ffi,yet the Prosecutiou'sw ill-say statementsin dicate that the wihess informed the hosecution on 23 Januar;r 2006 and 26 January2 006 that there were errors in his wriEen statement.@A review of the fsansgriptsin dicatest hat, under cross-examinationlh, e wifiresst ostified that he arrived in Arushao u 16 January2 006 and met thc Prosecutiono n 18 January2 006 aud that he did not meet with the Prosecutiono n23 o126 January2 0A6J6 225- Having observedW itness BMI in court, the Trial Chamberc onsideredt hat the wihess was not accustomedt o'court pmceedings and had prroblemsc ommunicating and that some ]l rtia Judgemengp ara-|2}B. I fria hrdgcucnl pan'nZS. *' Trid Judscmenl' o1aanta 2a2.292-9,23o. 11!f i"t Jud!,eorent, "t' Sees uprapara-8 8, f*;' A e p p p p c e lla ti" n " t t ' - s s P B t r F ie f- f , . p p * a ra- 1 1 9 9 7 7 , - r cferring to Exhibit Dl9 ccrntainingW itnessB MI's staremenot f 4 May 2001- j fii-ar tuagr-*t p;,ms.2 27, %n - q'ExhibitDlgA- * SeeExhibilsD 20, D2l: 6 T. 3t Junuary2 CfrSp. 2. 6l CaseNo.:I CTR-OI{4-A 2 Febnrary2 009 \tr{

02/OZ '09 12:10 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @o os +4qfi inconsistenciesc ould be attributedt.o this.6 The Trial Charnbere xpresslyt rotedt he inconsistencies relating to the date Wimess BMI's housc was buroed down and tbe dare when he met with the Prosecutionp rior tq his testimo\ y.467T he Appeals chamber recalls that it fall5 q{thin the Trial Chamber's discretion to determirrew hether an inconsistencyi s sufEcient to cast doubt on a witness's credibiliryl#8 The Atr4r1lant's argumentsf ail ro show thar the Triar chamber erred in assessiuwg itnessB MI's credibilifya ndi n relying on his evidence. I 226- Wiuress BMK restified that, on 14 Alril lgg4, he attendeda meeting chaired by rhe Appellant at the Nt4rama sector office.@ H"lsat"o that rhe Appellant openedt he meering by announcingt he dcath of the PresideotjToT he witness also statedt hat the Appellanr addrossedth e Tutsis at the meeting arrd claimed that they were ihe onesw ho ki1ed the presidem a r nd tfrat they were "going to pay tbr that"jTt Witncss BMK further tesrified that, on 15 April L994, the Appellaug in the companyo f Interalurwe ands oldiers,a rrived itr Ntaramas ectoro n boarclo ne of six buses-a?H2e stated that the afiaclcer$i,n cluding the Appellan! emergedf rom the buses arrd startcdt o shoota t thd refugeesa?w3h o werei n rhe vicinity of the NtaramaC hgrcb,t he sectoro ffrce, and the school.aTo 227- The Trial

Cn4*Uo found that it had not beene stablishedb eyondr easonabled oubt that the Ap'pellantth reatene.d.futrsei fugeesin a meetiuga t the Nhrama sectcro ffice on 14A pri1 !gg4.s5 It '?ould reasonedt hat a threat of this nafire be of a dramatiec harabtera nd rrot easyt o forget" and. that it was "signifirtt" thot only one of the rhreeP rosecutionw itnessesw ho testified about this meeting, Witne.ssB I\4K,{?6m entionedt his tbreat.oTTT :neT rial Chamberf ound neverthelessn, o basist o concludetb at WitnessB MK licd.a78 228. The Appellant contendsr hat WitrressB MK lied and "Eied to implicate thiml fa1sely"i n the eventsa t the NtaramaC ll:rch.41eI n this rcgard,h e claims ttnt tie witnessa lso falsely restifiedt hat f ttiat Judgementp, ua.'?29- : lj Trial Judgeeant,p arz^1 229f,n - 288- w SerombaA uDeaIf udgemcur, para- 115, referriug to^fungaruta Apryul Judgemenq pta_ 443;M usemaAppcal JHdeTT,,.p"ti. tg; irt"uw lppeat tua!*t*t, purL +n; Krrirume Appeal Judgcrrenl para. 156. :: Trid Judgenentp, ara'237. "tar. :j: Trid Judgcmenpl,a ra,238. Triol Judgcrnenpt are.p38- ::: :*:": Trtsl Judgcoent, paxs-i262. Trial Judgmeug para-263. Trial Jrxlgenenqp an-262- :: "' Trial Judgeoent,p ara-,253. '.j See Trial JudgemtnI para.? 5.3. ljl Trial Judgened,p ara.2 53. :l: Trial Judgemcnrp, *" boz. "" Alpellanf s Brisf, par.r:1 99- CssuNo-I:C TR-01-7+A 2February 2009 Y-d4- I

'09 02/02 12:11 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @oez ++8ln 'thrqatened the Appellant thousandso f Tutsis" at a meeting the clay before thc artack on the NtararnaC hr:rclr-4o, 229' The Prosecutionr espondst hat everri f the Trial chamber found that ir had nor beenp roven beyond reanouablct toubt that the Appellant threatenedT utsi reflrgees,i t did not couclude that WimessB MK's entiree videncew asn ot credible.arl 230- The Appeats'Cha-mbecro nsiderst hat the fact that the Trial Chamberd id not rely on this witness's testimonyl aboutt he Appellant tbreateningT utsis at this meeting doesn ot ,oean that his testimonya boutt he Appollant's involvomenti fl the attacka r the Ntara4a Churcho n 15 April 1994 Iackedc redibility. As stateda bove,i t is not unreasonablefo r a Trial chamber ro accepts omep arts of a witness's testirnonyw hile rejecting others,42C onsequenflyr,h o Appellant has failed to show 'witness that the Trial chamber erredi u rclying in part on BMK's evidence. 2. 231- The Appellant submits that the Trial Cha:nber erred in law by grtmining, withour corroboratign"t he testimonies of ProsecutionW itnessesB ML, BMJ, BlvIIq and BMI, despite having fottud implicitly that it was likely that there was coUusiona mong rhem.s3H c assertst hat these wihesses colluded to implicate him.f8aT he Appellanr arguest hat there we,rcd erails in the witnesses't estimonicst hu they would notihave

rememberedw ithout discussingt hom with each other' particularly siuce they testified to af, eveut which had occrrrredt welve yearsc arlier.*t Th" Appellant $tatest hatiall fou wifircssesr esiifiedt hat, on 15 Apfil 1gg4,b usesw irh soldiersa nd Interahamwea rrived in Ntarama and that the Appellant atighted from the secoudb us carrying a long rifle and wearirig a long coat.46H e submitst hat Winesses BML and BIvLJw ere interviewed on the samed ay andratt he samel ocation, 1 ud t hat.ona nothero ccasion'WihesseBsM I and BMK were also interviewedo n the sa.aed ay and ratt he samel ocation-#7T hc Appellant also claims that WitnessesB MI and'B ML made similar l'corrections"t o their statementsa, s well 4s simil* 'txistakes",ott *d that therc were shiking similarities in the descriptionst hey provided.aeeH e arguest hat the discrcpancyi n th'c testirnonieso f the four witresses with regard to their ..mutual 2E. Ausus2t 00Si. zO- -a'8R1c ^s--p oncle, nt's. *B ri-c':f , para. , L : 2 ^ 9. --------l e See-n/praparaE_E . 1t3 nppeUanG Bricf. paras.z e},224. *Appe[ffiL's Brief, paras2- 04.2 05. * Alryellant's Brid par;L2 .02. '* Appcllant'sB rief, parz-2U2. '"' Appellant'sB rief, para.1 95. ttt A'fpel]aor's Bnet;ql2gl- The Appcllaat ctaims tbat both wituessesin itially sitlted that Bizimaaa wss a school 4 {^ e r ecor aadl ater cbanged'thcirs tatenenGr c say thal he was l,prison airector- appctl*t's Brief, p-or Zm, 53 CaseNo.I:C TR-01-74A 2Fcbruary2 009 FrL

02/02 '09 12:11 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @o oe ++iln 'nsuspicious" acquaintancesi"s a.nda ssertst hat Witness BMI admitted that they all stayedi n tbe same wihess protection house while in Anrsha and even shared their meals.o9To h" Appellant submits tbat the onl,y rational conclusiont hat could be rlrawn from this is that rhe witrressesh ad discussedth e events'andt hat their attemptt o deny this fact shouldh ave urged.r heT rial Chambert o dismisst heir testimoniesin their entirery.4l 232. The Appellant also submits that paiagaphs 250 atd 307 of the Trial Judgemeutc ontairr conbadictory fuidings.ae' He arguos ttrat io no"guph 250 of the Trial Jud,gemen!t he Trial Chamberd id not exiluOe that therem ight hfve beenc ollusioa, while in paragraph3 D7 ofthe Trial Judgoment,t he Triql Chamber found no for rhe Defence conrgntion that rhe wihesses ibasis discussedth e eventsb cforet estifying.ae3 I 233. The Prosecutionr eslrcrndsth at the Trial Chambcrp roperly dismisse{ as "uufounded,,,t ho Appell.aot'sa llegation of collusion.aeaIt submits that rhe Appellant's arguuents do not show an error otr the part of the Trial Chamberasa nd arguest hat the fact that there were sinilarities in the dcscriptionso f the eventsb y WimessesB MK, BMJ, BML, and BMI doesn ot in itself amountr o collusion.aff 234. The Appeals Chambern otes that collusion can be defined as afl agreemetrqu sually secret,

betweent wo or mofe personsf or a fraudulent,u nlawful, or deceiffirl purpose.onI f an agreement between witnesses ifor the purpose of untnrthfirly incriminating an accused were indeed establishedt"h eir evidencew ould have to bc excludedp usuant to'Rr:Ie 95 of the Rules.4s I-u thE present instance, thb Trial Chamber rejectd the possibiliry of collusion berweeu the for:r -tl eppettorr's Brief, pafti. 203. *'Applbnes Brief, pard.Z 0+. '* Noticao f app"rt, pares.1 69.1 70. "]'Notice of Appcal,p aras.1 69,1 70- 'l Respondcnt'Bs rief, p+ss- 132"137. aei Rcsinndent'sB def, iara- t32. "* Respondent'Bsr icf, para 133. '[te "" Appesls chamber notest hst Bleck's Law Dictionary, 6P Edition definesc ollusion as "[a]n ageemc't bctween ts'o or tDoreP crsonst o defrlud €. Pcf,sono f his rigbts by the forqrs of law, or to obraitra n ob-juenctta tdnU'nArfA co by law. It implias lbs existcnceo f fraud of sosre kiud, the enliloymont of fraudulent means, or of -*, for the AqgonplisbEc ot of an unlavfirl pr.apose", 1t8 Rule 95 of the Rules statos:" No evideoces hall bo admissibleif obtaincdt ry methodsc hich cflsts ubshntial doubt on its rcliabili9 or if its udmissioni s antitbcticsl g, Td woutd seriopsly aryegr. tbe integnry of rhe proceeOiag_s, , See, also, mutatism utandis,N ahimanae t aL whqe tbe AppealsC hanber disnissed tne tcsGony of a uitncss insifar as ii was not corroboratcdb y other

atxliblo cvidencg lraviug found that cvelr if tle eyidcnccw as ..insufEcicut t " ooUfitr, with certaintyt bal lthis Ttness] wss paid for bis t.sti**y rgainst lthe accused]i,t [wasJn onethelessc mJt ," i;;;; this possibility' which undegirbty castsd oubt on ttre crertiuitity of tiris witness.';rt uI"" rulea that .:if rbc Trial Chamber had beesa waroo f the fact that thc proseculor's i nvestigatorq uestionedtl re wibess' moral characters, uspcctingh im qf having beeui nvolvecli n qhe _ subcnation o f odrer witnesscsa nd of being prcparcdt o tesdfy in retum for uronly _ tne Triat Chambcr would bave bcta bound to find that thcsc maEersc asii*6* doubt on [rhic wiuess'sl oediUifity. Hence,l ikrc any reasonabletr icr of fa"q it would hgvo disrcgardedh is testimouy,o r at leasti orill bavo,q,rir"d thutit be corroboraFdb y other cndible evidence,"N ahimanae t aL ltppealJ udgeuenr,p ara 545- I CaseNo.I:C TR-0I-74A 2Februnry2 009

02/02 '09 12:12 FAI 00q1705128932 ICTR @o os +46lfr Prosecutionw itnessest esrifying about the events is Ntarama.oeTt h" Trial Chamberh eld that ir could not "exclude lhat the witnessesm ay have discussedt he events of L994,i n spite of [theirJ general denials of Ulling dotre so".S@It took into accormtt hat two of the wihesses gavc their respectives tatementdto investigatorso n the sarned ay at thc samep lace aud that the orhert wo gave their statementso n dnotherd ay at the samel ocatioo.solI t also consideredt hat all four witnesses lived in the samea reh,t ravelled togethert o Anrshai n connectionw ith the rrial, aud had their meals together in the safc ihouse-s2H o*"rrur, the Trial. Chamberr easonedt hat the differencesi n the testimonieso f the fohr winressesd id not supportt he allegation of collusionso3a nd concludedt hat there was no basis ito nnd that they colluded to untruthfirlly implicate the Appellanls@ The Appellant hasf ailed to show thar the Tria1C hambere rredi n reachingt his conclusion, i 'Ine 235. Furr}rermore, appeats Chamberi s not convincedb y the Appellant's claim that the Trial Chamberc ontradictedit self at paragraphs2 50 and 307 of the Trial ludgemenLT he Triat Chamber consistenflys tatedin iboth paragraphtsh at it did not excludct he possibilityt hat the witnessesm ay havej ointly discussortth e eventso f L994b ut that there was insuffi.cientb asist

o concludet hat they colluded amongstt hemselvesin order to unruthfirlly implicate rhe Appellaul Consequently,r he Appellant's argumen{is rejected- i3- AlleeedI nconsistencieins rhek osecutionE vidence 236. Tbe Appellant contendst hat the inconsistencicsin the evidenceo f WitnessesB MK BML, BMI, and BMJ raise h reasonabled oubt as to his allegedi nvolvementi n the anacko u the Ntarama Church on 15 April i Lgg450as nd that the Trial Chamber down-playedt hese inconsistenciesb y finding explauations i f or ttrem-506H e also suggestst hat the forensic leporfF tenderedb y the Prosecutiorra s well ft" Tlial Chamber'so bsenrationsd ruing its site visit are inconsistentw ith 1u the evidenceo f the PJosecutionw ihesses.soA* Iso in this regarrdh, e claims that ProsecutiouW imess BME testified that th; Appellant was not presenti n Ntaro-a in the morning of 15 Aprif t994,bvt tather that he was iniNyamir:robo.5oHe e also contendsth at rhe site visit showed,w ith respoctt o i ::i'rffilr. T Tti"I Judgementp alf.l 25-0-S. eea \o-Trial Judgemengp afs. 308 ("[als observedp reyiously,i r ca-onobt e excluded that -thc w itesses may baye discusscdt he eveffs of 1994,e itba prcviously or in connecrioaw in mveUing to anrsha g: taking their mestst ogclrtrer."). rw Trial Judgcrnenpl ara.'25O ]T rrial Judgemenrp, ara-p ,50- T ruot Judlernenr,1"r".b so. fsl mat ludgonenqb ara bot. appurai-rl Bry!' pfi". lot.The Appellant assenst hat ne Trirt chanbsr elamined txese inconsisteuciesa t p^aragraph2s9 3 to 303 of qheT rial Judgcmenl ]l Noticc of Appeadp arai. t50, t6z_ 'u' Ilfihibit P30- ; l]l eppeUant'sB ricf, p*"s. +l,ZVt. )uY Appellcnt'sB rief,p nrni? -lo, CaseNo-:I CTR{)I-7+A 2Fabruary2(W

'09 02/02 12:13 FAX0 03170512E932 ICTR @ozo ++51fr '"that Ntaram4 it was impossible to $eeO e school from rbe Chr:rch [and] that the rear of the c5'rch was more damageci than 1$s ftonf'.510 The Appellant submits t}rat this ,.could mearr that the attackers carne froml the hill rather than from the road",Slt The Appellant further contends that since "the doors of oNATRACOM buses opeued to the right ano not ro rhe lcft, as asserted by the witresses suspected'of collusiou-' if the buses rvere couring from Kigali, the prosecution wihcsses who testjfied on thc icircumstances o f the anack could not have seen the peqlle who were alishting from them.512 237 - The hosecuion ,"rponds that the differences and variations in the testirnonies of rhese witnesSes can be reasonably eXplainsd.sl3 It submits rhat the Appellaut has nOt demonstrar,odt hat there are no reasonable explanations to justify these discrcpancies and variations.sla 238- The Appeals Chamber recalls that a Trial Chamber, as the primary tier of fact, has rhe responsibiliry to consider inconsistenciest hat may ariso among the testimonies of witr,esscs.SlsIn undermking this reqionsibility, rhe Tlial framb€r is required to consider any explanations offered for these inconsiste,nbiesw hen weighing the probative value of the evidence.slc In tho present casg the Appellant does n9t specify any of the alleged inconsistencies, but

refers generally to paragraphs 293 to 303 of the Trial Judgement wherc, he notes, the Trial chamber examined the inconsistencies.slTT he Trial Chamber held that the fom Prosecutionw itnessesd esqibed the attack 5imil6ly in terms of locuion, time, attackers,m ode of transport, and thc Appellant's preseoce,5tsIt considered that theie were variations in the evidence in relation to the Appellanr allegedly addressing the attackers, but held that thcse variatious did nor affect the credibility of rhe wihesses-sleT h" Triat charuber reasonedt hat these witnessesm ay aot have heard some parts of the Appellant's "alleged statement because their positions were difforenf' and also becausc .lteir memories may vary! due to the lapse of time siuce the evenr".520T he Appeals Chamber accepts that different people rtay'see and hear things diffcrently from different vantage points.s2l Consequently, the Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that the AppeUant has deu.onstrated that rhe Trial Cha.arber's finding is unrea^qouable. lll appeUanrsB rief,p ara.4 3- "" Appcllant'sB ricf, p.ar44 3. li Appellant'sB rief, para.4 3. "'Reslnnde,ul's Brief, para.I 3S. t* RespondenrB'sr icf,,p ara-1 35. i:Slmba AppealJ udgemonp! ara.I 03. "'" MuhimanaAooealJ udglTent, para.5 E; NryitegelnAppalJu gement,p ara_9 6_ It? eppcuant'sB ?ef, para.2O9. ::: Trial Judgementp,u a-294- :: T.ial Judgemenqg aa-295- :*:^: Ttirl ludgemen! para 295. SeeG acumbiEi AppcalJ udgementp, ara-8 e r.efering to NiyitegelwApp.al Judgemcu!p ari t+2. CaseN o,: ICTR"O1-7+A 2February2 @

' .. ::). '05 02/02 L2:14 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @ozt ; +++/fr I 239. With regard tg the Appell.ant'sc ontentiont trat it was impossiblet o seet he Ntarana school fro'm the NtaramaC hurch, the Appeals Chamberu otcs that the Appellant is merely reiterating aa argumentw hich he alreadyP resenteda t frial and whicil was futly addrcssedin rhe Trial Judgemelrt. 'Wiuress The Defence challenged BMK's testimony, who statcd that, from his vantage point, somewherein the nailley,b elow the Ntaramas chool, he saw rhe Appellant attackingt ho Ntarama Ctrurch on the morniingo f 15 April L994.52T2h e Trial Chamber,i n assessingth c credibiliry of Witness BMK consideredt he evidenceo f DefenceW ihesses 7-AC andN r(Z to the effcct fhat ir was impossiblet o segt he school ftom the chrrrchb ecausee ucalSrytutsr eesa nd bananap lantations werc blocking the viiw.sB The Trial Chamberc oncludedt hat Witress BMK was credible on this Poitrt In reac.hingt tiis conclusion,t he Triat Charnbert ook into accountt he following ele,ments: WimessZ AC wasn o!fu a positiont o assestsh e visibitity conditionsW; ihess BMK who ,\pas a t a considerabled istanse ftom the school, towards the church", stated that while there was an eucalyprusf orest nearby,a t his location the land was free of vegetatiotr.S2T4h e Appeals Chamber finds that the Appelltnt has failed to show how the Trial Chambere rred in its assessmenor f

Witness BMK's testiimonyo n this point. Thc Appeals Chamberd efers to the finding of the Triat Ctrambera nd notss tit"t it legitimately exercisedit s di,scretionin detef,midflgw hich version of the eventsr elacingt o the hnack on the NraramaC hurchw as credible.ss 240' With respectt o his argumentt hat the forensic report tendereda s a Prosecutione xhibit is inconsistentw ith othir Prosecutione videncei n relation to the attacko n rhe NtaromaC turch,s26th e Appellarrt assertst h{ the forensic report indicates that ttre weaponsf ouud at the site were a. machete,a knife, sevtiralc lubs,o ne lance,a nd one broken arrow; that the assaultt ookplace tbrough holesm adeb olow thi Chr:rchw indows with the rnassacrcta king placei n the middte of the Church; and that most of the victims were killed with macheteso r blows to the head.s2T?h e Appellarrta lso states that it is evidbnt from the site visit and tbe photographsi n the forensic report that the attackerse rrteredth e Shruch tbrough rhe front" which faced the hill.s28H e claims that this scedado is in confornity withithe Defencee videncet hat the anackc onomenceodn Kinksri Hill and tbat t1e Tutsis were chasedt o the Ntarama Chruch, and that it is inconsisrentw ith the prosecution's evidencet har rhe at[ackersa rrived at the Churchi u buses,sr9 z\ugusl2006 p. 15. : Tdal Judeemptrt. oara- 305- :: Triat ludlenenr,i ara- pos. * ,Secs uoraosra!O- . fl eppetiant'Bs ri.f, puas.t 9/Z-1'94,zm,Z}g. llj appaU"r's Brief, parar1 94. appcttant'sB rief, pui ZVl. lt]4i nptrnllant'sB rief, pan.Z OI. 67 CaseN o.: ICTR-01-7ZLA 2February2 009 Y4r 'l

'09 02/02 L2:15 FAr 0031705128932 ICTR @otz +$|fr 24t. The ltosecu$on respoudst hat the forensic repo'rti s not conclusiver egardingt he weapons that wereu sedb y the attackers.s3o 242- The Trial ChLmberi s primarily responsiblef or assessinga nd weighing evidencep resented at trial asd it is incuinbent on the Triat Chambert o take an approachit considersm ost appropriate iu this rogard-53hl Pre$entc ase,t he Trial Cbamberh ad the disqrction ro considerr he forensic Fu report in its assessm6notf the totality of tho evidence.W hjle the Trial Chambera cknowledgedth e existenceo f the forensic rcports32i t only refered to it in relation to is finding that, at Ntarama,a large number of refugoesw ere krlted.$r Although certain evidencem ay not have beenr efqred, to by a Trial Chamber,i u the panicular circumstanceso f a given case it may nevenhelessb e reasonableto assr:me'thatht e Trial framber took it into accotrul534 243- The Appeatsi Chambe,a greesw ith the Prosecution'ss ubmissiont hat rhe forensic reporr is not conclusiver egar{ing the weaponst hat werc usedb y the attackers,a rrdt hat the forensicd octors idenrified.t he causeso f death only ftom the skulls they had analyzed.s3Tt be Appeals Chamber furttrern otest hat theiforensicre portd oesn otper se contradictt he Trial Chamber'sfi udings,b ased on Prosecutione videlce, that the attackerso f NtaramaC hurchu sed guns,

kaditional weaponsa ud g.enades.5toIn deed,, t tre foreusic rE)ort acknowledgest hat the nrrurber of bodies oxamined is appreciablyl esst hanithen umbero f peoplek i[eds37 The forensicr eport also notest he existenceo f the impact of shrapia "on the corner of the building".stt Io th"r" cirqlnstances, the Appeals Cbamberc onsiderst fat tlre Appellaut has failed to demonskateth at the Trial Chamberc rroneously failed to considera nj inconsistencyin the Prosecutiou'se videncea rising frorn thc forensicr eport, i rfr/ith 244. regardt b the claim that the site visit and the photographsin the forensicr eport show that the attackc ommdncedo n Kiakwi Hill andt hat the Tbtsis were chasedto the NtaramaC hurchi s inconsistentw ith the,Prosecution'se videncet hat the anackersa rrived at the church in buses,t he Appeals Chamber observest bat the Trial Chamber concluded.t hat several hundred.a ttackers participatedi n the atthck againstN taramaC hurchw hich starteda t 10.00a -m.o n 15 April 1994 and that several hundred Tutsis were killed during the attack.s3eT he Appeals Chambern otes that contrary to the Appellant's contention,t he forensicr eport doesn ot necessarilys how that the attack startedo n Kinlrvi HiIl. Frrrthermoret,h e fact that the attacke$m ight havec omef rom a sr:rrounding 5s Respondat'sB rief, pah. trc. s! ntttagandaAppeaJl idbene"r, para. 188. lj Trial JudgencoLp arasi2 56,? 92, fn 354- :" Trirl ludgmrent, panst 257- 315, qt- 292,fn. 354. ]i,sr'zDa AppeatJ udganint, poru- r52, referring ro M uena AypeaJJudgenen!p ara_1 9. ]]] Respouaent'sB rief, para-I 4O. ::: TnolJugHT"lq xara.29Z;ForcnsicR cpon p. 15. ]]l Raspondeat'Bs ricf, parr. 140. 'tt* Exhibit Pgo. CaseNo.:I CTR-0f-74-A 2 February2 fJ09 S"..,

'09 02/02 12:15 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @ozt +4Lff hill flqss not necessarily contradict the Trial ctramber's findings that the Appellant and other assailantsc emei n busesa nd that the Appellant "encourageda group of Interalnnzutea nd soldierst o hurry up and attack the refugees"a ssembledin the church.tr Finally, tbe AppealsC hamberf inds that since the qucstion at stakei s related to the chronology of the atrack the Appellant could not haveb eenp rejudicedb y tbe absenceo farecord ofthe sirev isit on this point. V+5' The Appellant claims that WitnessB ME testified that rhe Appellaut was not iu Ntaramab ur rather in Nyamiramboo n the morning of 15 April Lgg4.54Hr e firrtber contendst hat in fiading that tlre Appellaflt was at Ntaramao u L5 July 1994,t he Trial Chamberf ailed .to addressth e contlicr'rng evidenceb y WitnessB ME, who allegeld] that on 15 April 1994,b etween9 a.m. arrd.1 0 a.m-, Karera was instead in Nyamirambo".n? The Appcllant avers thaq if believed" this testimony conflicts with the Prosecution'sa llegationt hat he was in Ntaramao n the samed ay.*t 246- The Appellant merely reiteratesa n argumentt hat he presenteda r tial and that tbe Trial Chambera ddresscda nd dismissed.5#H e doesn ot show how the Trial Chambere rred in doing so. The AppealsC hambern otcs that WimessB ME's testirJpoatyh ar the Appellant was at Nyamirambo between9 '00 a-m-a nd 10.00a .m.ssm

igbt conflict wifn tU" testirnonieso f prosecution W ituesses BMK and BMI ptalins the Appellant at ths Ntararnap hurch on the saruer lay at or aroufld 10.00 a.m-5trI lowcver, whils thp Trial Chambert bund. f tto"r, BME credible wirh regard to her testimony that she saw the Appellant insmrcfing a t#ge crowd to lcilt Tirtsis and desroy their houses,*7it found it:tfety that WitnessB ME erredr egardingt he prccised ateo f the evenqi u vicw of her traumatics ituation'da8a ndt hus refrainedf torn enterinE ffiy specific finding as to the datea nd time of that eventb asedo n her testinrony.I n thesec ircrmsrancesi,t was within the discretiono f the Trial Charubert o considert hat WitnessB ME's testimonyt hat the Appeuantw asi n Nyaminrmboo n 15 Aprit 1994 dtd not raise ary reasonabled oubt as to his presencein Ntaramao n rhe samcd ay. The Appellant has r4ereforef ailed to show how the Trial Chambere rred in nor cousideriugr hat WitnessB ME's evidencer aiseda reasonabled oubt as to his involvemeuti n tbe a.ttacko n the NtaramaC hurcho n 15 April 1994. vl:7. Accordingly,t heA ppealsc hamberd ismissesth is sub-groundo f appeal. j]] ft- Judgemen!p :l,rar,2. 92, iL5- l'" Ttial Judgemmlp ara"3 15- l--"" j A ppenent'sB rid, psra 210. Bridin Reply,p ua- 54. *' Al4rcllant' s Brief, para-1 I l. ll f* Ilrl l"dgencot, para. lqg, refcrring to DefeuccC losingB rief, para_2 29. !.'-See T rial Judgemcnpqa ra 142. l] ,SeeT rial Judgeurcnpt,a ras2. 62,269_ :l TrtuI Judgemenrp, ara^s1. 47, 159. '* Trial ludgenen! para-1 60. CaseNo.:I CTR41-7+A 2Fcbruary2009 y4_L

'Og 02/02 L2:16 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @ozt +qlfr AIIeged Errons in the Assessmenot f DefenceE vidence 248. The Appellant contendst hat the evidencep resentedb y the Defenco, througb Witnesses NKZ ml.7AC. MZN, and DSM, reoderst he Trial Chamber'$f indings unreasonable,sHe e provides his account of the testimonies of thesejf ive wihesses,t* but orrly makes spccific argulllents in relation to Witnessesl ll(2, 7-W andi7 itcJsr The Appellanr arguest hat the Trial Chambere rred in law by failing to consider" a reasonablep robabitity" offered by his alibi that he wffl not presenta t the attack ar the NtaramaC hurcb5sza nd by failing to acceptt he coaoborating testimonicso f the Dbfencew ihesses wbo testified dhath e did.n ot participatei n this anack553H e assertst hat this cvid'encer aises a reasonabled oubt tn the Prosecution'sc ases5a4n d that the Trial Chambere rred in finding that he participatedi n the attack in view of the inconsistenciesiu the testimonieso f the Prbsecutionw iktessesw hen weigheda gainstt he probative valuo of the Defence evidence.$s 249. The Prosecution responds that the Appallant's submissions should fail as they are insufEcienrr o call into guestiont he Trid Chamber'sa pproachin assessingth e Defeacee videnceo r the reasonablenesso f the impugued findings.5s6 'Wihesscs 25O. NKZ arrdZ H both tqstified that $ey participatedi n thc attack and did not see the

Appellant.ssTT he Appellant challengesth c Trial bhanrber'.so hservationt hat ir was possiblef or him to hep resontw ithout WihpssesN I(Z andZ H seeingh i-.558T hc AppcalnC hanrhenr otesf lurt in assessiugtb e evidenceo f Wihess l\ilQ, the Trii,cbamber rook into accountt hat the witness, wa,sn ot certain about the date of the attack but learneda bouti t from otXers,t hat be had seent he Appellant only once before, when the Appellant wis bourgmestreo fNyanrgengec orumuue and that it was not clcar wheu in this period (foom L975t o 1990)t he witnessh arl seenh i-.55s Thc Trial appcUaot'sB rie1,p ans,2l2-219. f * {li"u-tls e1i9i' iaras. 213-219-T he Appellant aes€f,tsi nte:r a?athat'wiuressN g2, who perriciparedin tlp anack, testified that he did not see_tlreA ppcllant and tbatrhe appeuaai wus not mentionedt nthc Gicdca turrings in relatioa to thc al'tack wimess ZII, vho participabd in tbe anicr, did uot see the Appellaat and also did not bear tlut tho A *c p o p m e m lla i n fie t w e as involved iu the attack when he an€udod ttrc Qacaca hearings]-Wihcss zrtrg, *no faniApateA i" similar t'o that of tlrc Grcaca co*1""_(igUg oddgd) as well tbe Grcaca bearingsa nd wbo bpar " d Y*ry prisonerst estify about the Ntruana attackq including cd,nfsssionosf " W iin i oesses NKZ aatt Zfff, aia not hear tbc Appcllant's name:nentimed io rclation to this anack unrit iccchuy when foru pcrsonsr

utuming from Anrsba t"ttn"a lo his involve,:ncnqW ihcss IUZN, a sotrdierw bo wa-r ".Tri1$d-sf genocide_tq stified that he did not bcar that tbe Appellant wasi uvolved in the anac\ ond witaess DSM. a poticb ofncl, aia not hear of trc appeuant being involved in the artlck $-r AppeDant's Brie{ pat*- 212-219. :: Th; Appcllanr's s'ulmissious alibi wirr be actchcssdi ;bolow in Ch4prcr IX. l3 epperirit's Brief, pra.223. li npp"U."t's Brief, ltara-223. ]]'Notice of Appcal,W rz. L77. ]]] nespoorteot'sB ricf, para 148. ll: Trial Ju<lgemcotp, ans. 279, 282, 283,286- Iltpp"u*i's Bricf,p arai.i t, rai";^[ro ni"r Judgemepna! in:-o o. 55t Ti'ar.lurtgcmcn!p -u* SOg, CascNo-:I CIR-0f-?+A 2 February2 009

02/02 '09 L2:17 FA.X0 031705128932 ICTR @ozs M0lfr Chambe'ra lso took into accountt hat the witnessw as trot presentw hen the arbck commertceda nd would not therefore have observedt he Appellaut's arrival.s@F urthermore,t he wihess did not observea ny buses,w hich contradictsth e consistenet videoceo f four hosecution witnesses.5T6hl e Trial chamberc oncludedth at'witnessN KZ's evidenceh ad ..limited w eighf'.i62 'Witness 25L- In relation to zftl, the Trial Charnbert ook into accountt hat a friend had pointed out the Appcllant to the wihess wheu the Appellant was bourgm^estrea ndthat berween1 97ga nd 7994 the wihess had seent he Appcllant on only three occasious.56T3h e Trial Chambcrc onsidercd that under theses ifcumsta.ncesth, e witness's ability to recognizet he Appellant in the midst of ..a high numbero f perspnsf lrnnins helrer-skeltet''w ould be Umiteda nd that the wirness'sa ssumption that ThadddeS ebuhindow, ho by the witness'sa ccountl ed the afiack,sew ould havep oinredo ut the Appellant to the witness was speculative.s6T5h e Trial Chamberc orrcludedt bar the witness's evidenceh ad limitod reliability.566 252- It is within a Trial Chamber'sd iscretiont o accepto r reject a wikress'st estimonya fter secitg the wifiresst qstify and observingh im 61her underc ross-exnmination.tT6ht e Appellanth as 'Winresses failed to showt hatt hc Trial Chambore rredi u assigningli miffi weightt o tbe evidenceo f NI(Z andZ IH.

253. In relation to Witness ZAC, the Appellant atguest hat thc Trial Chambe,r'sa ssessmenot f 'biased this witrress'se videnced emonstratedit s mannct'' when it reasonedth at the eviderrcew as of Iimilsd significanceb ecauseit was hearsay.56W8i tness Z{Ctestified that he was a prisonerw ho. chairedt he "tJrumali comminee" andl istenedt o the coufessionsm adeb y WituessesN I(Z and ZIH and tbree other prisonersr clatirrg to thc Ntarama attacks.s6Ien addition, the witnoss listened to approximatelytw enrj'civilian pnsonersd escribet he Ntaramaa ttacksa t rhe Gacacaproceedings and" accordingt o him! rone of them nontioned the Appellant.flOT he witness assertedth at it was only in the Gacacap roceedingsi n 2005, and afier baving testified before rhe Tribunal, that fo'r stuvivors indicatedt hat the Appellant was presenta t the attacksi n Ntarama.ttl The Trial Chamber ff matr "aer-*p"..509. :: Tdd Judgcncnt,p ara-;309. ]_*T rid Judgcocnt,p ara.,309- :: Trid Jutlgcurenpt,a ra.3l0- :: Ttiel Judgcneutp, ers-2 83. :l 5;1 6 0 rT' riin"l rluuddgeiennenegn iip aarraa-- ;3 311 00.. s]f.j ll mr s ri * ad o t r lr r uu r d b aieg -t me p me "i u i e " t u a iiqaa g rr . aa m 33 ro 11 t 00.. udggm?t para- 116,r eferring w Aktyesu AppeaJl udgemen! pta_ 147, "* A;4rcllarrt's Bric,f, paral 227. li r.ia Judgemefuiur,r az, tl. :j: Trial JudgeocnLp xa" 287- "' Trial JudgemcnLp ara.2 88- 7l CaseNo.:I CTR-01-7+A 2 February2 009 Y/r

02/02 'OS L2:18 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @o zs ,tffi|fr assessedth e evidencco f S/itness ZAC andc oncludedt hat it fisd "limifed significance"b ecauseit was "hearsay"e vidcnce.fl 254. The Appealsp hambern otest he Appellant's arguneflt concemingb ias on behalf of the Trial ChamberJ udges,A q statedi n previousj udgernentso f the Appeals Cbamberso f this Triburral and tbc ICTY, it is for thb appealing party allcgng bias to rebur the presumptioas f imFartiality enjoyed by Judgeso f the Tribunals.v3L r this reqpectt,h e AppealsC hamberc ousistentlyh eld thatt herei s'? high thresholdt o reachi n order to robut the presumptiono f imFarrialiq/'thar attachesto a Judgeo r a Tribunal.sTa 255. In supporto f his contentjont trat the Trial Chambe,wr asb iase{ rhe Appellant arguest hat the Trial Chamberd id pot hesitatet o.convict him "solely on questiooableh earsaye vidence,a nd sometimesb y uiple hearsay,b ut was not swayedb y the honest and consistentt esrimony of an individual like Wimess2 AC".575T he Appellantr pterst o paragraphs1 62, 707,1.Gg,5a1n6d 192t o 194 of the Trial Judgbmenitn supporto f his argumput.sTT 256. Hearsaye vid.bnceis admissiblei f it Ir , foUutive value, and the Trial Chamberh as the discretiont o coosideit his evidonce.s?I8n paragrapht 62 ofrhe Trial Judgemenlt he Trial Chamber expressedit s satisfactiont hat ProsecutionV /itnessesB MG, BMF, and BMH gavet

rrrtbfrrl accounts 'of what they had observedW, ihessesB MG, BMF, andB MH testifiedt o what tbey had heardt he AppeUants ay, but tlreir testimooiesm ust be distinguislredf rom Witness ZAC's testimony,w hich was basedo n what he heardf rom third parties.T heset hreew irressesa Lsop rovidcd their respecrive. observationosf what,theA ppellantw asd oinga ndw hom he wasa ddressingIn. thesec ircumstauces, 'Wiuressos it was reasonablefo r,the Trial Chambert o prefer tho direct evideaceo f BMG, BMF, and BMH to theh earsay6 videnceo f $/itnessZ AC.

257. In vicw of the above, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Appellanr has failed to demonstrateb ias on the part of the Trial Chambera s a result of its assessmenotf Witness ZAC,, evidence'T he Appellant has alson ot shownt lat a reasonabletr ier of fact would have fouud that the evidenceo f Defence'wihessesra isedr easonabled oubt aboutt hc Appellarrt'sp articipationi n tho attack at the Ntarami Chr:rch and that the Trial Charnber'sf inding is unreasonableT, hc Appeals Chambert herefored inmissesth is sub-groundo f appeal. I rriar Judgeuc,upr"" tai3tz. tl,l,s,:"."..s. $ryi*gekogrjpe_aJl udgemenpr,o ra-4 5; RuagandaAppeaJl udgeaentp, aras-3 9-125. " 5 - 7 * N r ohima,nae t aI- ApfrIfldgefi€dl prra.s-4 ?-90- Seee ka fdtuuleiia Appat Ju gEmenl para. 19?. Appcllant'sB rief,!lua. 22zl "o In paragraph1 68 of Fe J4at tygcucn! the Ttial Chamb€r found th!.l tle Appellant had ordued rhc hlfing ef Tutsis and tbo de.structioho f tbeir bouscs and rhat tbe poligerneng uqding tbc Appellanir ho*. had destoycd fta botucs of Kahahayea ndp ir. This fintting hasn o direct siEnifiqan€c io the appeUsoi's argumcnl CaseNo.I:C IR-01-7+A ZFebruaq 20(D

02/02 '09 12:18 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @otz ryillfr C. Conc[rsio-n 258. Tbe Appeafs,Chambefri nds that the Appellaut has failed to demonstratca ny effor in the Trial Chambe,r',fsiu dings in relation to his participationi n the meetinga t the Ntaramas ectoro fEce on 14 April 1994 and his paniciparion in an attack at the Ntarama Church on 15 April 1994. Accordingly, tbrs groundo f appeali s dismissedin its entirety. np'peUa"rsE ric! pua-?!22- f''l" Sees upapara-39, 73 C-nsNo o-: ICTR-01.7+A ZFebruaxy20C8

02/02 '09 12:19 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o ze +s71fr YIff. ALLEGED ERRORS RELAIING TO THE KII f,AqG OF TUTSIS IN RUSTTASETC OPIMUNE (GROIII{DS OFAPPEAL L AD{DT AND GROUND OFAPPEALz,IN PART) 259. The Trial Chamberf ound that many Tutsis were killed in Rushashic ommunes tartingo n 7 April Lgg4.s7etl e:triat Chamber found that rhe Appellant was aware that, from that date, roadblocksh ad been set up in Rushashic orrmunew here Tutsis were killed,t'o Th. Trial Chamber also found that betwpenA pril arrdJ uue 1994,t he Appellant held meetingsi n Rushashic ommung where he raiseclm oney for weapons,e ncouragedy ouths to join tbe Interaltatnwe, af,d r:rged the conrmissiono f crimes agaiastT utsis.sslT he Trial Chamberf ound tbat in April or May 1994,t he Appellant brought more than twenty guns to the Rushashi cornmune office, whicb were subsequentlyu sed to kill Tutsis at roadblocks.ssB2a sed.o n thesel iadings, the Trial Chamber convicted the Appc$ant, prusuant to futicle 6(l) of the Stanrtc,f or instigating aud {ding and abettingg enociclea nd exterminationa s a crime againsth r:mauity.s83 zffi. The Trial Chamber also fouud that in April or May 1994, at a roadblock in Rushashi corlmuue, the Appeilant instigated the killing of ThdonestcG akunr.SsBaa s"d on this finding, thc Trial Chamberc onvictedt ho Appellant, pursuantt o Article 6(t) of the Statute,t 'or instigating and aiding and

abettingd r:rder aea crine againsth umanity.58s 261. The Appcllaritr aisess eve,raclh allengesto the Trial Chamber'sfi sdings which the Appeals Chambera ddresseisn tum. A. Allescd Errors relatingto Roadblocks 262. The Trial Charnberfo und that sevemlm adblocks,a t leastf out, w€re establisbcdia Rushashci ommuncf ollowing thc Prcsident,s doalh on or about ? Aptil f994. CiviliaDs, induding Interaluumve.w ero umoogst those who manncdt iterrt-T utsis were urgeted a[ thc roadb]ocks,T be Chanber is sulisfrcdl hat Karra visited Rusbashbi riefly betweca7 aEd 10 A,pril and that he wu firlly awArct hat roadblockse xistedt berc and thet T\ilsi wcrc being killed at thernfrom Ap'ril onwstds,s6 fl trid luage-enr, pm.,545, refaring to the facnreJfi ndings in ScctiouI I-6 of the Trial Jurlgeracnt, lI lqtt ludg*-cn! para-r546r,e ferring to tbo fflctud Endingsi n SectioaI I.6.3 of rheT rial Juelemenr lll l.iut Judgacng P*a:!1{, refening to tbe facnrall indings in Sectiont r.6.4 of rbe Trial Ju-dlemenc lI Itiul Iudgdnenl paua'ii! treferring to tbc facilal findiugs in Section8 .6.5 of tbe Trial Judicmenr. ]-o Trial Judgcucnt paras,5 48,557. :'-: Itt t Judgernenlp ara.,559r, eferring to lbe fachralf indiugs in SecriooI I.6.6 of lhe Trial Judgenenr Trial Judsemento araj5 60. st6 Trial JudEe,neniia ra.,376-S eea lsoTrialJ udgenrenpt,a re.5 46. CaseNo.:I CTR-01-7+A ZFebruary2 @9 5t{,t

02/02'09 12:20 FA.I0 031705128932 ICTR @ozs #bln In making tbis finding, the Trial Chamberr elied on ProsecutionW imessesB MR, BIvIM, BMO, arrd BI\.G.587W hile the ;Trial Chasrberd id not rely solely on thc aforemerrtionedfi ndiug to enter a conviction againstt he Appellaut, it consideredt his finding in holding that the AppeUant'sc onduct druing the meetingd lela in Rushnshib etrveenA pnl and June 1.994a msrrrrtedr o instigatrng genocidea nd exterqinatioa as a srime a$aiusth umanity.sssS ;m;IarIy, the Trial Chamber'sf :nding is relcvant to irs fiuding that he brought j*r ao the Rushashic ommuueo fEcc.\rhich were aimed for the usea t the roadblocks."Sse I 263. The Apl2euir', *n contention f , *, the Trial Cha:nbere iled in preferring Prosccutioa widence to Defenceievidencein order to hod that the Appellant was presenti n Rushasbbi efore 19 April 1994a nd was iiwaret hat thcre were[oaAU*"* *OLat Tutsis were being killed ar rhemf rom April onwards.ssTo$ enneats Chanrberr f,iUo Oat"rst his submissionb elow.ter ,l 264. Ttre Appellarit further submits ttrf tre Trial Char:rber'sf inding that ttre dEcisiont o erect roadblocksc ould noi have been takeu wlthout corrsultationw ith senior officials at the prefecture offlrced id not ,opport thc Trial Ctra-U"r'J finding that he was awatreo f rhe existenceo f roadblocks before 19 April Lgg4.5eT2h e Appellant that he could.n ot have been ouc

of rhose "senjor frvr:es ofEcials" becauseh d had exercisedn o aufhorirVi n Rushashic ommunep rior to his appoiutrnenat s prefect of Kigali prefectureo u L7 April 1894,a nd he did not have a direct link wirh the commune authorities.5e3 265. The Appelant also submitst hat Frosecuti.onseaan d Defencew ihesses5sp reserrtedth e ltrvo Trial Charnberw ith diametrically versionso f rcstimoaies"r egardingt he lallings at roadblocks.seA6c cording to the wihesses,t he Appellant "was indifferent to rhek illings at roadblocks", whcrbas Defence wi tesffied that he "drd his best,a nd not without success, ttt Trial Judgemeal, paru- 363-376. ss Triat Jud'g"-orC p.ri- 546, referring to rhc findings in Section II-6-3 of the Trial Judgenrent (sec Trial Judgementg ara.3 76 );Tiial Judge,ncutp aras-5 5r "' Trid fudce,menl oar.t s+l - tn Notice ofapgrl paras.1 88-19OA, ppcltant's l*f, paras.2 &243. The title of tlris subground of appeal( Notice '"Ibe of Apperl, p 20, title of Sectioo 7 -L: Gramber eoed b frnding that Ka-reraw as inyolvcdln setting up roadblocksa t Rushashi";iA ppcllanf s Brief, p. 42" of Sectiou7 -l:,'Ttrc Trial Chamba erredb y finding that KteA was involved in tho ercction of roadblocksi a is misleading,W hile the rirlc refie,rsto allegede nors in finding that the Appellail wasi nyolved in seningu p in Rushasl4t he Appellut hasn ot developedt his arguucnt in his Appellaaf s Brief

andl in fact, bas il that the Tria] Chambcr mado-n e finding to -qic etfecl Appilarrt's F_.ief, p atr 239, referriag to Trial Judgooen! 367. l! ryi nX"section(sB ) i ano (C )o ndhnpr"irX 'f" NoUci of Appeal,p anis-r n, tf3. Notice of Appea! para-1 92.I n this regard recalls Witness BMIt's accountt har the communea utlroritiesh ad ' s * l fEarizuazdD tLu uruutua ufthe nrrdblocks, Noricc pafa- 194 rcfe,rriagt o Trial ludgcnrent,t mrn. j Z7. :*n^t he Arppellaut rders to the tesrimonyo f WitnessesB MR BMM, BMB, BMO, andB MN. Alrycllanr's -B^;iepf,a ms.22623l. sei Th; Appellant refers ro his own tcstimoay as as the tes'imonyo f DefenceW itnessesY N'/.,yq., yAII, and MZR Appe)lants' Brief, pans. 232-21t. o'o Appcllant'sB rief. pofi.z40- 15 CasoNo-:I CTR-01-7+A 2 !-ebuury 2009

02/02 '09 L2:20 FAI 0031705128932 IClR @o eo +?5ft to pacrfy the region where he was s[a[iouid",5e7The Appellant finally submits that the Trial Chamber "presumed his liability" and "accqrdcd weight only to the evidencew hich supportsa finding of thc Appellant's liability"-se8 266. A review of the Trial Iudgementr eveals,h owever,t hat the Trial Chamberd id not "presu.ue his liability" or rely,on its imFlicit finding bc was a senior official at the prefectureo fEce to concludot hat the Appellant koew about the on of roadblocksi n Rushaship rior to 19 April 1994. Instead it relied on the evideuce of WitncssesB MM, BMR andB MO, who saw hirn xl roadblocks.sge 267. AccordinglY,,thissu b-grolndo f is dismissed. B. 26E, The Trial Cha.mberfo und that April and June 1994, thc Appellant held severtl meetings in Rushashic ornmrrne,w here he Boney for weapous,e ucouragedy ourhsr c join tbe Interalnmwe, arrd.uged tbe commission of qhmcs againsl Tutsis.ffi The Trial Chamber found that "[t]hese statementsi nstigated ftg ssmmissi(rn of crimes against Tutsis", that "[a]s an authority tigure, Karera's encourageureutw ould have alsubstantial effect in the kiltings which followed" and that "ft]is tbreats ageinsl those who did not participate in anti-Tutsi acts wo'ld be taken seriously."@lT he Trial Chamberr elied oo ti"r" facnral fu*tr in convicting the Appllant for instigatingg enocirlea nde

xterminationa sa crimea gainshr umonity;tr2 269. The Appellatit submirst hat the Trial Chamberc ommiftede rrors of Iaw and fact ia meking thesef indings.60T3 hj AppealsC harnberw ill ionsider eaclro f thesea llegede nors ia firn. 27O. The Trial Chamberf ound that "[a]t tlre Rwankubas ecoudarys chooli n April l994,Karera spokei n favour of establishinga nd reinforciug roadblocksa nd encouragedth e youth to co-operate with the army."66 It founcl that "[t]his was done in a period when Tutsis were being targeteda t 5n Appellansf Brief,v ara,.240. lll Ni,ii* of Appoa!ia ra"s1. 89,1 90, "" Tfial Juclgcmcor:l.a ras3. 68-370. f mar Jud[cmenpt,a ns.4 L7,5 46. :-. Trial Judgcmenpt ara.5 46. * t4+ Iudgemeni paras. 5a6, 54E, 555 (rcferring to Trial Judgement,S ectiou II-6 and to the legal flndiqgs oo gcnecide),557. ; * 6 * 0 3 rNr-.o:-t- iceo -4f Aa-p-^p-t eal.p- ^a-- ras,r1 n9o 8,-2 A0r 1,42^.% ;A^ ppc " llant'sB rief, paras.2 45-ZSB. Trial Judgcmentp, an" 4L7. Seeu lso Trial Judgcmcnl para-4 06, CaseNo,I:C TR-01-7+A 2 February2 009 A4(

02/02 '09 L2:21 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR E oer +o+1fr roadblocksb y Interalwmwr.t$0'Iam akingt his finding,t be Trial Chamberreliedo n the evidenceo f Witness BlvD.606T he Trial cbamber also consideredt he AppoDant'st estimony "that he held a pacification meetinga t the schoolo r22 or 23 April" and did not find it convincing "[t]o the extent this is allegedt o haveb eent he samem eetinga s tbc one referredt o by WitnessB MB."6ot The Trial Chamberf urther fouud tlmt "lhlis evidencet hat it was decidedt o remover oadblocksf rom certain places[ in Rushashi]l wasl unclear,a ndn ot corroboratedb,y other evidence".flt 271. The Appdlant submitst har the Trial Chambere rred in law and in fact when it rejectedh is accountc oncerningt he allegedm eetingi n Rwankrba in Apil 1994.60He e conterrdsth aq contrary to tho Trial Chamber'sf inding, his testimonyw as corroboratedb y WitnessY AIf.6r0 The Appellanl flrther submis that the Tlial Chambere rred in law io relying on the uncorroboratede videncoo f Witness BMB while requestingc orroborationf or the Appellanl's testimony.6ttT he hosecution respondst hat ttre Appcllant hasn ot demonstratedtb at the Trial Cbambera busedit s discretion,6l2 272. The Appellant's contentiont hat the Trial Chauber erred in fact in failing to find that his testimony was corroboratedb y Wirress YAII is unfounded.W hile the Appellant testified about a meetingh eld at

Rwankubas econdarys choolo n 22'ot 23 Aprit 1994,t13W itrt"ss YAII testified abouta meetingh eld in tbe sccondw eeko f May lgg4inRushashi coDlm.une,uwtoit hourd escribing more speciflcally the location where the meeting was hcld or the personsw ho allegedly a$ended it6lt Thus ttre fact that the Trial Chamberd id not rrake a fincling to the effect that Witnessy AlI referredt o the sa.nrcm eetinga s the Appellant and thereforec orroboratedth e latter's accountreveals no effor. 'Witness 273. Turning to the Appellant's contentiont hat the Trial Chambere rrcd in accepting BMB's uncorroboratedt estimony, the Appeals ChamUerr ccalls that ir is well establishedt hat a Trial Chamberh ast hc discrction to decidei n the circumstauceso f eachc ascw hetherc orroboration of evidencei s necessary.6tTeh e Trial Chambero bsewedt hat Witness BMB was about sixteen meEesa way from thc Appellqnt when listeningt o his speecha nd was satisfiedt Sat t5e wirneSS f triat Juclgc,ncnlg ara-4 17. :: Trisl Judgcnrcn!p ara-4 06, i friut ludgeurenl paras.3 92,406. f'* Trial Judgenent,p srs- 406, roferring to Trial JudgemeutS, ectiont r.6.3. A;pellaut's Bricf, pat*?52, lil4pp"l*t's Brief, plr:a-2 52.r efcrring to Trial Judgementp, ara"3 99. lij Noticeo f Appeal,p aras2- 0Q 201.A ppellanr'sB rief. paras.Z 5f, ZSZ. i'l Respondmt'sB ricf, para t58- lii r*n Judgeoeup,t rz-3 sa,- :': T. 11M ay 2006p p-6 7-7Q;T. 12Mry 2QO6p . 2, :''l T. ll May 2006p p.6 7- 7o;T - L2l[lay 2V)6p - 2- o'o,See .ruprcp ara.4 5. i 7i CaseNoI.C: TR-01-7+A 2 February2 009

02/02 '09 12:22 FILX0 031705128932 ICTR @o ez ffi3[fr "must have heard what ho sflid".6r?T he Appellant challengesth e Trial Chambetr'sre lianceo n \Miuess BMB's 0estimonyo n the sole basis that it lacked corroborationw ithout advancinga ny reason why WibressB MB's testimony would have required corroboration.A s noted above, :rcceptanceo f and relianceo n uncorroboratede videncqp er se,d oesn ot constitutea n error in law.

274. The Trial Chamberr ejecredt he Appeltant'st estimonyi n reLationt o this incident uoting that it was uncleara nd not corroboratedb y other ovideuce-61titr tight of WitnessB IvIB's accounl which tbe Trial Chamberf ound credible,a nd in light of its obsenrationsa boutt he Appellant's tesrimonyi n relation to rhis incident, the Appeals Chamber does rrot find that the Trial Chamber acted unreasooablyin rejecting the Appellant's uncorroboratedte stimony.A ccordingly, this sub-grouud of appeails dismissed.

2. Afle$edE nors reladne to aMeeting Held at RushashiS ubhefecfirtg Offica in June 1994 215. The Trial Charnberf ound that "[a]t the Rushashi [sub-prefecture]o fEce in June lgg4, 'work' Karera askedw hethort he had beend one, which in that context mcaflt the killing of T\rtsis, and a*ked why Vincent Mundyandamutsa [s rc], a moderateH unr belongrngt o the MDR party, had not been ldlled.-6le In making this fuding, the Trial Chamberr elied ou the account of Witrress BMB urhich it fottnd credible, noting that it was gcucrally iu conformity with rhe wihess's prior statementto investigators.6m 276. The Appallant submits tbat the Trial Chamber.e ned in fact and in law in making this. finding-62Tr he Appellantc ontetrdsth aq accordingto Defence'WitnesseYsC Z and,yAH,h e had in fact protectedV inceut Mr:nyandamutsa6oIn his view, the Trial Chaflber erredi n law by failing to find that their rcstimonieso n this point shedr easonabled oubt on the Prosccution'se videncc.6- ' fhe Appellant also submitst hat the Triat Chamberc ommitted an error of facr in its assessmenorf the credibiJity of WitnessasY CZ and YAH.6% He argucst hat the Trial Chamber'sa pproachs hows bias.65T he Prosecutionr espondst hat the Trial Chamberc orrectly rejecteclt he evidcnceg iven by WitnessesY CZasd YAH that theA ppellanthadp rotectedV incenrMunyandamutsafl6 1ll rri"t tudgemenrp. arr- 406- ::: Trial Judgementp, ara

406. "'' Trial Judgr:urenp! ara.4 17. ol rtior rudgement,ia ra- a0B. i nt Appolaai's n;eflparo.2S3- * i Aplrlant's Brief. pstro-25.3rd, erring to Tfi0l Juclgccicntp, aras,3 57,3 60. ' " W -^ i A tn P e P s o se u s T !'lBd!! 41u. zsl, 254, referdng to Trial trudgeurentp, ara.374-T be A,ppellanra lso submi6 tbat he ald YIIZ and MZR testificd that he barl hel<ls evc.ra-l" etings ?or thc rpstorationo f peaceiu Rq.sha.sohoj mmune. Notice of Ap5:eal pata,.?02. I appelfant]r Ptir! paras.2 55, 256, referring ro Trial Judtemetrtap aro.4 16. "- Aopellont's Brief. oarB,2 58- tr Riipooa"nt's Briei puras-I 59, I 60- C.se No.: ICTR-01-74-A 2FebruaryzCfD <1,L.L

02/02 '09 12:23 FAI 003170512E932 ICTR @o ec ffizls 277. A review of the Trial Judgemerrrte vealst hat the Trial Chambere xplicitly consideredt hat 'V'ibesses YCS [sid627a ud YAII testifi.cdt hat Vincent Muuyandamutsaa, Tutsi, was prorectedb y Karera", but rejected their testimotry.d2ET he Trial Chamber assessedt he evidsnce given by thcse wihesses as follows; WirnessY AII testified abop E meetingh eH Uy Kftcra in May 1994 sayrngt bat tne comnune hrd bccomc calm- However, he also stged th{t his wife contiuuedt o be tbreatene<bl y bandits. This contadiction weslccnsh is crcdibility. Furthermore,t he witness said tlat tho meeting ln the third weeko f May in Musasaw asc o-chairedb y Kareras rd s civil defeucco fficer, wbo was respousible fsr fir{ruiting youths to reinforw the military. Witncss YCZ also said that Karera and a-miliru-y officcr wer-et he key speakersa t ar outdoqrm eetingi n Musasai n June 199+_It rS surprisingt bat meetingsa hf,iredb y EiEtary arrdc ivil defenbel, eadecws ere rimad at contributrngt o reionciliatim and pscitrcation,r atlrel than.gncorragingy outbs to join Breb attle, The Chamberh ss somc doubts sboul tlcsc two testimonies.flt 27E. The Appeals Chambers eesn o error in the Trial Chamber'sa ssessmenotf the evidenceo f 'Witnesses YAII andY CZ- The Appcllaat has noi submitteda ny argumefltt o demon$bareth at it wfls uftEasonable for the Trial Chambeqt o

prcfer the Prosecution evidence ou this point, Furthermore,t he Appellant hasf ailed to a,dlvhncea ny argumentin supporto f his submissionr hat the Trial Chamber'sre asonings howsb ias. Conclusion 279, For the foregoingr eaqonstth is srr of appeal is dismissed. c. eventsr egardingm eetingsh eld in Rushashbi gtweenA pril andJ une1 994.63B0a sedo n the evide,nce grven by the Prosccutionw itnesses,t he An'fiellant nores, the Trial Chamberf ound that between April andJ rme7 994,h e particrpatedin six mebtingsi n Rushashid r:ring which he incited the looring and killing of Tutsis.oslo n the other handlhr ootur rhat the Trifll Chamberd educed& om his testimony arrd the evidence given by Defe,ncew itnesses rhat he migbt have participated in 'lacification meetings"i u Rushashia nd Musdsa-63T2h e Appellant contendst hat the Trial Chamber erredi n law by failing to addresst he conflictiirg evidcncei rr respecto f the meetings,a ndb y failing i I I I I Itl I T_Tny""t frorn thc coDtoxto f this paragrapathr at lhc Trinl Gamber was rcrertin! to Witacssy CZ fr fri{ {uagcr entrp ara-3 74, re,ferriugt o Trial JudgenientS ecriont r-6_4 "- Trial Judgrrnentp, ara.4 16. llapprU-rs Brief, para.2 +z- I o" Ab!!Tl'-s- Briei. puas- 245 Geferrinst o Trial fr|oe**f paras-3 ?9-389),247 (rcfcning to Trial Jurtgeuent, oaras4- 01417)- tt' epry-lTqi nrtef, paras-2 46 (rcfening to Trial. frloge-eoL paras. 39O No),241(refcrring to Trial Judgemenr, paras.402,403). I CaseN o.: ICIR-01-74-A 2February2009 Srr-

02/02 'Og Lzi24 FILX0 031705128932 ICTR @o en wIl fr to conclude ttrat it cast a reasonabled oubt on the Prosecutione vidence,63h3 particular, the Appellant challengest he Trial Chamber:'ss tatementt hat it would "focus on the meetingsa t which IGrcra" accordiug to thc hosecution $/itnesses,a llcgedly was present".@ Hc submits that this statefiIentr evealst hat the Trial Chamberi ncorrecfly assessedth e evidencca nd "might have even shiftedt he burdeno f proof'to him, raisingt he issueo f bias.635 281. Tho Appellant arguest hat the Tdal Chamberin the Mpanbara cascw as facedw ith a similar situation where the witaesscsg ave two different versions of eveuls, one in which the accused encouragedk illings and the othcr in which he discouragcda ttacks.t36T he Appellant notes rhat in that case the Trial Chambcrg ave the accusedt he bencfit of the doubt in light of the conflicting evidence,a nd contendst hat the Trial Ctamber in his cases houldh ave at least articulatedi ts reasons for not relying on the conflicting evidenceir had previously accepted.637 282. The hosecution responds that the Appellant's arguments ^ro premised on ^ misintcrpretationo f the facts and of tho Trial Chamber'sf indiug.638lt submitst hat the Appellant merely summarizcst he evidenceo f Prosecutiona rrd Defencc witnessesa s recountedi n the Trial *another Judgemenat nd suggests way to assestsh e evidsuce"w

ithout establishiuga ny erroro n lhe part of the Trial Gamber-53eIt arguest hat the fact tbat Prosecutiona nd,D efencew itnessesg ave cmtradictorya ccountso f the eventsd oesn ot in irselfi mply a reasonabldeo ubt-640 283. The Trial Cnt-Uut assessetdh e Defencee videncere latingt o the'f,>acificatiomn eedng$"in detail-flI V/bile it fodnd that thesem eetingse, xcaptf or onc,e2d id not relatet o any of the meetings' allegedb y the Prosecution,ft3it notedt hat the evidencec ould "arguablyt brow somel ight'' on whflt the Appcllant may have said at other meetings.s When reaching its findings about the incriminating meetingsh eld in Rushashi,t he Trial CIrarnbere xplicitly statedt hat it did not "exclude that [the] so-callcdp acificationr neetrngsw ere held" and that it "assessedth e totaliry of the evidence"o n this point.#t 6t Noqce of Appea! para- 198;A ppellonf s B:ief, patas.2 7 -29, 249, %i0: Brief in Reply, puras.7 7, 78. The Appellanr contendst hat ttre only reasonablein fcrcnce the Trial Chnnher could havem edef rom-rfiu *"idence was o* siilil* to 1p infcrcncem adob y tbc Trial Cbauber in,Mpanhara- 6il AppeUant'sB ricf, para 2zt{1c. iting Triul Juigernent,p aras. 4(/',415- l- Appelbnf s Bricf, Wra. 248, I"l App"ttror's !t"f-, para.2 43,p oinring b MpanbtpaTrinl Judgementp, atas. fu65.7\_ Io.' o e pputta"t'sB1ef, puas.T1,28,r eferringt o MpambaraTrialJ udgemCnpqa rls- 70,lu,146. Respondcut'Bs ricf, paro-1 51. o" Rcspondent'Bs ricf, paras,1 52,1 53. f ResponclentB'sr icf, para.I 53. *l trirt fudgencnr,p &s. Wz, 4ft3,4Ls,416- ;3i.+ lu(Uacnt, para 406. Seein fra Sub-section2 , discnssi'g allegede rors rclariug b this meeting. i" Tdal Judgcurenpl aras4. 15,4 16- * Triel Juasqnenqp ara.4 04. nr Tri.l Judlemeati,a ra- aLl - ; EO CaseNo.I:C TR-01-7+A ZFcbruary2009 {(r(-.

02/02 '09 12:24 FAI 0031705128932 IClR @o es ffi01fr 284. In acceptingt hat "pacification meetings" had taken placqffi the Trial Chanbcr observed 'bot trat the evidencew as clear as to whcther suchp acificationm cctingsw ere aimeda t preventing crimcs beiog committedb etweent he Hunrs( for iustauceb y tJreA bdsesofr omRuhengeria gainsrt be Abambogo),p reventingi nfiItratiorr by ur*nown persons,a chievfurgre conciliatioub etweene xueme and moderateH unrs, or mitigating animosiryb enveenH utu and Tutsi."&7 However, the sole fact that the Trial Chamo-cmr aden o determinativec onclusiour egardingt he purposeo f thesem eetings does not constinrrca n error. In the instant case,t he remaining doubt about the ptrpose of these metings was to ths beilefit of the Appellant"b ecausetl r Trial Chamberm adei ts findings basedo n the presuuption that such meetingsh ad takenp lace.tr It is implicit from the Trial Judgeuentt hat the Trial Chauber considered the fact that the Appellaat held these "so-called pacification meetings"w as not irreconcilablew ith the fact that hc participaredi n other meetiagsi n Rushashi.ee It is well estabJishctdh at a Trial Chambcrd oes,noth ave to articulatee very stepo f its reasoning.6s0 Takiog into accountt hat the aim of the "so-calledp acification meetings"w as unclear,t he Appeals Chamberf inds no rnerit in the Appellant's contention ttrat the Trial Chamberf ailed to provide a reasorred opinion with regarrd to the alleged conflict between the evidence regarding the 'lacification meetings" and the cvidence in relation to thc Appellant's participation in meetings eucouragingc rimesi n Rushashi.

285. A review of the Trial Iudgementf irrther revealst hat the Appellant cired the Triat Chamber's statementt hat it would focus on the meetings alleged by the Prosecutiono ut of conrext. The Appeals Chamberf inds that fis statement6ls imply reflects the Trial Chamber'sa pproacht o first. considert he ovidencer elatedt o the meetingsa ll'egedb y the Prosecutiorl and to subsequentlya ssess whether the Defence evidencec ast reasonabled oubt on it As noted abovo, the Trial Chamber explicitly recognizedt hat statementsth e Appellautmadea t meetingsw hich did not form part of the hosecutios's casem igbt haves omer elevancea s to'\vhat he [was] Iikely to haves tatede lsewhere in the sane period" and it thus explicitly considercdth e Defencee videncein this regard.6'The Appellant has not demonstratedth at tIrc Trial Chamber'sa pproachs howsb ias or that it shifte<lt he burdeno f proof. Accordingly,t his submissionis dismissed. !-lmal Judgemcnrp, an-,375 - :: Trial Judgenentp, ara-,375- :: Tlial Judgeaeutp, arasl3 75,417. *t Trial Iudgmrnt, poro,.4\7- !ee, ialsT aftq thc Trial Charnber'sf rndbgs thar (i) ar the sectrxo' flico in RuShaShr!h e APpeIla+ pullicly ora{$ the looting a.od tbn killing of Thtsis; (ii) outsiae the commuoc ot6ce, tre sougbt contribntionsf or yerpoq in order Doq ght the Inkototyi, their accompliccsa nd ihe MRND oppoDcutsa; nd (iii) outsice Olp communc ofrice, hc lought crrotribu[ous anrl tncouraged hunCeOss f ndrhiaiggatiyg-futdbcnrat anJ iusincss lcadcrs to fight the Inkotanyi nayingt har rhen: shouldb e no sunrivorsa t tlc roadblocks -" SImhaA ppeal Judgcmcntp, ara. 152. ll Trial Judge' eoq para 404. "' Triol Juclgcmcntp, aras.4 O4,4 L5, 4L6. tl C.rseN rr.:I CTR-OI- 74A 2 February2 009

'09 E oso 02/02 12:25 FAX0 031705128S32 ICTR +21lfr 286. The Appeals'Chamberfi lds that the Appeliaut has not substantiatedh is allegadont hat the 'lacification evidencet hat he participatedi n meetings"i s incompatiblew ith evidoucet hat he was involved in the killings in Rushashia nd Nyamirambo.A lthough the Trial Chambcrd id not make a specific fuiding on how the Appellant could have been involvcd in the killings in Rushashia nd Nyamirambow hile he participatedi n "so-calledp acificationm eetings",t his omissiond oesn ot amountt o ar €fior. The Trial Chamberl egitimatcly exercisedi ts discretion in determiningw hich versiouo f eventsw as more crediblea odt hc AppeatsC hamberd eferst o this finding.

281. Accordingly, the AppealsC hamberd ismissesth is sub-groundo f appeal. D. A[eged Errors relatine to thl D'rstribution of Weapons 288. The Trial Chambcr found that during April and May L994, the Appellaut transported weaponst o the Rushashci ourmuneo fficc and tbat thesew eaponsw er€ groent o the cotzseillersa td subsequentlyre achedt he Interaltnnwe at the roadblocks,w here they were used to kill firtsis.653 The Trial Cha^urbehre ld that "ftly brirrg:ngg lrns" the Appetlanta ssistedin tbe kiltiug of Tutsis and convicied him pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Stanrte for aidiug and abetting genocide and, exterminationa s a crime againsth umanity.6s 2E9- Under his First Ground of Appeal, the Appellant submits that the Trial Chambere rred in law in enteringh is conviction for aiding and abettirrgg e,nocidea nd exterrninationa s a crime against humanity basedo n this event-65Ts he Appellant primarily conrendst hat he did not have adequarc noticeo f thcsec hargess incet he allegationo f weaponsd istibution in Rushashwi as not pleadedin the ArncndedI ndicunent,6s6H e also arguest hat the Trial Cbambere rred in its assessnento f the evide,lrce.6vT he Appellant finally submits, under his Severrth Grroundo f Appeal, tbat the Pnosecutionfa iled to establisha nexusb etwecnt hc Appellant aud the eventsa t the roadblocks.6s 290. With respectt o tbe lack of adequatetr otice,t he Appellant

submitst har tbe allegationt hat he distibuted weapousin Rushashid id not featue in the AmendedI ndictnent and that, as a mattero f Iaw, ttre omissiono f this allegationc ould not haveb eenc uredt hrought imely, clear, and consistent 6 T.iat ltrds*nenl Dara.4 3E. oI 5t f tirf l"agemenl iaras. 5+7, 548,555,557. Noti"u of Appea!-psrs.sg -15,2O5-21QA ppellant'sB rief, po*- S, L5g-280. -" Noticeo f Appeal para.s9-- t5,205: Appellant'sB rief, ptrzs-259-274. ]] Notice of Appea\ paras-9 -15, N6210;Appellanf s Bricf, paras,n 5-286. *o Noticeo f Appe{ para-1 91;A ppellant'sB rief, pars.244. 82 CaseN o.: ICTR-01'74-4, 2Fcbnury2009 St-{-,r_-.

02/02 '09 12:26 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @o ez +zBlfr information.6seH u ctaims that this omissiorrc ould haveb eenc ured ooly through an amendmenot f the AmendedI ndicffienL6tr which the Prosocutionfa ilcd to request-trl 29L. The hosecution respondst hat the Trial Cbamberc orrectly found that the Appellant had received sufficient notice of the allegaflono f weaponsd isnibution in Rushashia ud that any defect in the AmendedI ndictmcnt bad beenc uredb y subsequentti mely, clear, and consistentir rformation provided to the Appcl.lanrtr2T he hosecution submitst hat the distibution of weaponsin Rushashi was not a ncw cbarge but rathet' a matcrial fact underpinning thc cbarges of genocide and exterminatioaa rrdm rrrdera s crirnesa gainsth umanity.63 292. Tbe chargesa gainsta u accuseda nd the material facts supporting those chargcsm usr be pleadedw ith sufficient precisioni n au iudichent so as to provide noticc to afl accusd.6'6$4l hethcr a fact is "material" delrnds on the nature of thp Prosecution'sc ase.66T5h e Appcals Chasrberh as previously held that wherc it is allegedt hat the accusedp lanrred,i nstigated,o rd'eredo, r aided and abenedi n the plaming, preparation,o r exccu[on of the allegedc ri$es, t]re Prosecutionis required to identify the "particular acts" or "the particular courseo f conduct" on the part of rhe accused which forms the basisf or the chargesin question.6tr

293. An indictment which fails to set forth the specifi.cm aterial facs underpinningr he charges againstt he accusedis det'ective.*t Tho defectm ay be curedi f the hosecution providest he accused with timely, clear, arrdc onsistenti nformation detailingt he factual basisu nderpinningr be charge,668 However,a clear distinctionh as to be drawn betweenv aguene$isn an indictment and au indictment omitting certainc hargesa ltogether.treW hile it is possible,a s stateda bove,t o remedyt he vagueness f^ Notice of Appeal,p aras.$ I5, 205; Appellant's Brief, pans- ?65, 267. I Appelant's Brief, pan 267;A T- 26 Aryust 2008p p. 52,53. fr Appellant'sB rief, para"2 59;A T- 28 August2 008p . 52- * Rcspondent'Bs rief, paras2- E,3 8, * Respondent'Bs rief, paras,3 6, 37; AT. 28 August2 008p . 34. * -Mt*urgi Applul Judgeueut, para. lE; SerombaA ppeat Judgcmenqp aras, 2?, 10o. Sec also Simba Appcal Judgemengp srs- 63, rcfening to luluhintatzaA ppeal Judgemeogy ans- 76, 167, 195; Guuntlieri Appeat Judgdcnq para 49. @ Nohi^-ro et al_Appea!J udgerneulp ata.322;N dindabahiziAppeaJt udgccren!p ara 16;N tag*zra d aL Appea| Judgenent,p az.23. * seromba AppnalJ udgemerr,p ata-2 7, attng Ntagerurae t al. Appca] Judgemengp orr- 25. wt Nlagenca et al. Appe.dJ udgemcut pan- Ei NiyitegekaA ppesl Judgement,p :ra. 195; KupreJLiEe t aI. Appaat lH'iffitlTrljfuoge-*t, n aca2- o,r cferdtgtosa romb { a p pear J

udgcmcnpla ral oq sinba AppatJudgemeot, para- 64; Muhimano Appgal Judgement,p ras- 76, 195. 217; Gactnrtti*i A,ppealJ udgeneut, para. +1, SZc arso Ntagentrae t al AppcslJ udgemenpt aras.2 8,65. * Ntagerurae t aL,eyrycxJl "fgj'menCp ata,.32S- eea leoM wwyt AppesfJ udgcurenpt,a ra.Z O,6 rinlBagosora et dL, Decieiono n Aloys Ntubakuzc'sI ntcrlocutery Appcat ou Quostionso f Law Raisixl by lhe29 June2 006 Trlaf Ctauter f Decisios qn Motion for Exclusiono f Evidence,p arn.3 0. CaseNo.I;C TR-OI-7+A 2 February2 009

02/02 '09 12:27 FILX0 031705128932 ICTR E oee +x7lr of an indictmcnt, omitted charges can be into fie iudictuent only by a formal flo amendmenpt ursuantt o Rule 50 of the Rules- 294. The Trial Chamber found that the dishibution weaponsi n Rushasbid id not form part of tbe Amended Indictment and tha! as a material fact ing the coutrts relating to genocide and extei:nination as a ctime against hr:manity, it have been pleaded therein.6t Howevef,, tbe Trial Ctramberf urther found that the Appellaut suffisient notice of this allegati,on through the Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief and the of the anticipated tcstimonies of 'Wituesses BMA, BLY, BMM, and BMN, which annexedt o the ProsecutiouP re-Trial Brief, as well as the ProsecutionO peningS tatement.fl2 ial Chamberf ound that since the Defence *at - had no uole during thc trial"673 objecred to admission of evideuce concenring the distri.butiono f weaponsi n Rushashi,t he burdeno f had shifted to it to'*defionstrate that lack of notice prejudiced Karera."fl4 The Trial held that the Defencc failed ro moot this burden.6?5 295. Noue of the paragraphsi n tho Amended makes an allcgation of weapons distributon in Rushashi. The Amerrded includes two allegatious of weapons disuibution. Paragraphs9 and l0 allegc that the larrt disnibuted weaponst o conmune police or civilian militias in Nyaminrmbo and thar as consequenceo f his conduc! many Tirtsi

civilians were killcd by communop olice or itias and local resideutsi n Nyamirarnboi n Aprit and May 1994.fl6 Paragraphs2 5,26, and the Amended Indictment allege that from 7 April 1994, the Appellant organized and ordgred i campaign of exterminatiou against Tursi civilians iu the commup.eo f Nyanrgengow, hich inclu inter alia, the distribution of firearmst o cosrmunep o1ice.6uT hesep aragraphsa .reD .ovt ague,i specifically describet he circumstanceso f two particularincideutso f weaponsd isfibution in other than Rushashi.678 296. Ttcrefore, in allegiog tbe distiburion of in Rushashi,t he hosecution Pre-Trial 's Brief, the annexed wihcss summaries, and the OtrleningS tatementd id not simply add flo Nta_gerurear al-Apral ru$gme$ perz-32. Seca lso Mutaiji eppear Judgemcoqp ara-2 0, sitin| Ba.gosorae t al., Decision on Aloys Nrabalcuz.eI'sn terlocutoryA ppeal or Question!o f-taw naisea ty tfri 29 JuneZ OOEm irf Chamberi pecisioa on Modon for Exclusiono f Evidcncq para 30. I trt t Jud,geroenpta ras4. 18,a l9- 'l: Trial Judgementp ant a20,421. f,t The Triol cr'o-r'cr noted that "[o]nly [&c Dcfence] Closing iti"t.*oi"ed an objection-. Trial Judgenenqp ara- 421. I 11 tri*t Judgemaugp ara-4 2t. I "j'- Trial JuCgcEcDtp, ara-4 21. I f,.6 nnenoe,ilndicurlenq paras.9 , 10. f, Amendedl ndicErent, ians. 5-Z?. il tq Appealsc bt-qo notes rhat tbe Triul Grasrber addresse<i.lo nvo tliflorcot sectionso f the Trial Jrrrtgernentrh e allegation in paragraphs9 and 10 of tbt' Ancodcd Iqdicment See Trial Judgcrnent,. Secrion4 .14, addessing the 84 Crsc No.: ICTR{L-1+A 2 February2 009

02/02 '09 12:27 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @o es +zlefr greater detail to a more general allegation already pleadedi n the Amended ftrdictnenl Rather, these submissionse xpanded the chargeqs pecifically pleaded in the Amended Indictrnent by cturging an additionali ncident of weaponsd istribution at a new locatiou. Thjs is an impermissible, defaAo amendrneuot f the AmendedI ndictment 297. For the forcgoing reasons,t he Afpcals Chamberf inds that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that, as a matter of law, the hosegution's post-indictmentc ommunicatronsc ould cure the failure to include tho allegation of the Rruhashi weaponsd istibution in the AmoodedI ndicment and ttrat they in fact did so. The Appeals Chambert herefore need not addresst he Appellant's remaining argtunentsu uder thc First aud SeventhG roundso f Appeal in relation ro the Rushashi weaponsd istribution. The AppealsC lrambeng rantst he First Groundo f Appeal and reversesin part the Appellant's convictions for aiding and abottiug genocidea nd exterminationa s a crime against humanityi rr so far as they are basedo n the Rushashwi eaponsd istibution. E- AIIeeed Error.tsr elatfug to the Murder of Gekuru. CozseZerof Kimisauge Sectot 29E. Relyingo n'WifrresseBsM R, BMO, BMN, andB MVI,67telt e Trial Chamberfoundrb at in April or May 1994 Karcra said to the Interahsnwe aLt bc Kinyari centrc ros.dblock t}tat Gakuru, the

canseiller of Kiurisange sectff, wari an Inkotarryi or Inyewi ald ordcred that he be arrested By dohg so, Karcra left him in the hsnds isf Intcraltqywe. Undcr thc p'rcvailing circuastance.q bc musl havc rnder-sioqd thet Gakrru wouldibe killed.ffi Zgg. The Trial Chrimbcrc oncludedf roni the Appcllant's conducta t severall ocarioqs,i ncluding 'the the incident at the Kinyari centrer oadblocl that principal perpetratorsa s well as Karera hacl thc intention to kill prior to the act sf ftilling.'d8l It found.t trat by thesea cts,t he Appellant "intended to bring aboutt hc deatho f thesep ersotrso ria t the very leastw as awar€ of the substafltiall ikelihood that murder would be commined as a result of his conduct."682B ased on this event" thc Tria] Charuberc onvictcdt he Appdlant for instigating and aiding and abettingm uder as a ctime against hum-.nity.683 300. The Appellant submits that the Trial cbamber er:ed in law in enrering this conviction.6s In this section, the Appeals Chamber considers three principal quesdons arising from the Appellant's coutentiorrs discussed below: (i) whether tle Trid Chamber erred in relying on prosecution Witnesses BMR, BMO, BMN, and BMM despite contradictions betwecn their testimonies; (ii) allcgation of weapousd istihution in Ny'miranbo; ard rrial Judgemeut,s ection 6,5, addressingt he allegatioa of, weaDonsd istributioni n Rushashl I rriuruuge-eBr, Paras4. y56, *THal Judgemeupt,a ra-4 56- f] friat Judge,nentp, ara-5 60- ::: Trial Judgementp, ara-5 6O- u* Trial ludgementp. uras5- 60,5 61, I 85 CaseNo.[:C TR-0I-7+A 2 February2 009 I

02/02 '09 12:28 FAX0 031705128932 IClR @o so +ulr whether thc Trial Cha$ber crred in rejecting the Appellant's testimony without providing adequatie reasons; and (iii) whether the Trial Chamber erred in hotding him responsible for instigating and aiding and abetting Gakunr's murder when it was unable to determine the place, the date, and the pef,petratorst hereof. L Alleqed lrconsistencies betweent he Testimonieso f WitnessesB MR BMO. BMN and BNOvI 301. The Appellant submits that tho Trial Cbamber erred in assessing the evideuce by finding thar he was involved in rbo ftilling of Gakr:nr.685H e contends that the Trial Ctrambcr ,hainly relied on the testimonies of fWitnessesl BMR and BMO to construct the narrative of rhis event" and alleges a number of contradictions between the testimonies.6s6H e submits that the Trial Chamber erred in law in failing to address these contradictions.6fl The Appellanr submits tlat in light of the differences between the various accounts given by the wihcsses, tre Trial Chamber erred irr finding that the allegation was proven beyond reasonabled oubt.688 302. The Appellant, in particular, highlights the followiog incousistencies: - Witness BMR testified ttrat the event occurred at the end of May 1994 while Wihess BMO testificd that it uras sometime in April 1994;68e - Witness BMR testified to having seen Gahlrr arrive in a Toyota Corolla

while'Witness BMO claimed he saw a Peugeot 505.6e0T he Appellant submits that the Trial Chamber rclied on the evide,nceo f Witresses BMR and BMO who allegedly bad seen the Appellant usfug Galqrru's vehicle after he had been kiled. In his view, this finding "rs of little rclcvance" in Iight of the contradictory accounts regarding the vehicle driven by Gakun:, as well as the fact that the Appellant owned a car similar to the car descdbedb y'Witness BMO,6el - Witness BMR testified that the conseiller, his wifc, and a driver were inside the car while 'fied Wimess BMO tes that he saw the conseiller, his wife, and their two children,6% 303. The hosecution responds that the Appellant has not advanced any argrrment es1allishing ttrat the passage of time, referred to by the Trial Chamber, was not a reasonable explanation for justifying the discrepancy in the testimony regarding the precise date and time relevant to the evenrs lNotice of Appea! parw.2Ll-220; Appellur's Bricf, paras.281-290. *' Appollant's Brief. Dafa.2 90. €6 Afullant's Brief. iatt"zt+. s7 Aileilat's Brief, iara. 289. ffi N6iicc of Appeal iara. 219. 6tt Noticeo rniieal. oua.216, ffi Noti"u ni-p.ot, iara. 216; Appollant,sB rief, pan. 284. -' "f Notice of Appeal"p on-217; A,ppellant'sB rie{ paras.2 84,286. g^ CaseN o.: ICTR-01-7+A 2February2 009

02/oz'09 12:29 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @o sr +z+1fr that led to the killing:of 6"g*n.o$ It submits that the has failed to challenge the common featr:reso f the wituesses'a ccountsa cceptedb y the Chamber.I n its view, tbc Trial Cbamber duly assessedth e evidence before it, including Appellant's arguments arrd tho alleged discrepancies.6*1 304. As a preliminarym atter,t he Appeals considerst hat the alleged iuconsistencies shouldb e viewcd agairrstt he backdropo f the numerouss imiladties found by the Triat Chamberj n WifiressesB MR's audBMO's accountsw hich areu ot ctratlengeodn appeal: Both testifie<l thnt thc conseiller arrived at the Kinyari centre roadblock in a whire sedan car crith others, tlut Karc;ra and a man colled Visnney SimFarilubwabo wqc then, that Karera was asked to coDfr-ml hc cowetller's idcntity, thet hc sdcrcd his arresta nd deteotion,a nd that the conseillcr wus laler killeit Th{se wo \ritncs.sesa, s weII as Witness BMM, also said tbat lGrers. bad the power-lq save6 c coiuciller- It is notedt hat they borh saw Karera use Gakunr's csr aftef,h e was folled-s , I Moroover, cotrtrary to rhp Appellant's contention, the Triat Chamber explicitly addressedt he allegerli nconsistenciesa n! nobd that "[i]n light of the imFortant similarities ourlinerda bove,t he Cbamber does aot coufiaer these discrepancies significanL"6tr It firther explaiued that "[c]orrsidorablet

imc has sincet he event and the wiuressesm ay have recalledt he date and lassed per.ceivedth e vehicle diff"fently,"6fl I 305. It is within a TriallChamber'sd iscretiont o assessa rryi nconsistencicisn the restimonyo f witnesses,a nd to dete,rmipew hether, in the light of the overralle vidence, thc witnessesw ere uorrethelesrse liablc ana cr$iUte-ut8T he Appellant hasu ot advanceda ny reasont o demonstrateth at the Trial Chamber'se xplaJationw asu reasonable. I 306. The Appellant ntt 1* submitst hat Wtness BMR testified that the Appellant bad statedt hat the passengeras t the roadllock were Tutsis whereas,a ccordingt o WitnessB MO, the Appellant clicl not mention their ethraicitylt'nH e contendst hat this contradictioui s particularly signifi.cautb ecause 't it is central to the allega$ou that he told the Interaharnwea t the roadblock that Gakunr was a T\rtsi.7oo jf Noti"e of Appeal,p an:2!6; .sB rief, para.284, @ Resiondert's Bricf. paia. l7o. f5 triarfuag"o'*cp *i. jso. fl ftirr lualemenlta,r as+. sr,+ sz. *' Trial Judgeuengp ara. 152. lseJcec s $u u D p r4 i , p ga n la . l l J S J. S. T Noti"r of Appeo! para.2 16; Appellanr'sB rief, paro-2 84. 7@ Appellanf s liriar,iara zA5- CaseN o-: ICTR-01-74-A ZFebrury 2009

O2/O2 'OS L2:30 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @o sz l. ttr Itqq lk't1tt 3O7. The Trial Chambere xplicitly addressedth is dirfferencea nd consideredit insignificanr.7oIlt explaiuedt hat "[b]ot]r witnessesc onveyedt hat Karera createda n impressiont hat tlnec onseiller or his compauionsw ere Tutsi or accomplices."T0T'h e Appellant has not explained why this explanatioub y the Trial Chamberw as unreasonable.

308. The Appellaats ubmjtst hat WitncssesB MR, BMO, BMM, andB MN alsod ifferedi n rheir tostimoniesa s to the date and time wherrt hey had learnt about Gakunr'sm urder,7oH3 e submitst hat Witness BMR leamed at 3 p.m. from people who "seened" to have been eyewionessetso these killings that the detaineesh ad been ki11ed.7@Ac cording to the Appellant, Wirness BMO hcard 'Winress "later" when he returned to thc areat bat the conseiller arrdh is wife had been killed.Tos 31414706h ad seen arfter6 p.m-, on a date he cor:ld not specify, four individuals killed at the corlmune office following an order fmm the Appellanf?m Witnuss BMN testified that she saw Gakuru at the coslmune office at 1 p.m., that he was led away, and that she saw him againa t tbe prison. WitncssB MN firrttrer testified that shel ater heard someI nteraharnweb oastingt hat they had killed Gokr rrr.Tos 309. The AppealsC hamberf ails to seeh ow the fact that the wihessesl earneda boutt he murder of Gakurua t different times and occasionsp rcseutsa contradictioni n their accountsM. oreover.t he Trial Charnber addressedt he alleged contradiction between Witnesses BMR's, BMO's, and BMM's tes"monieso n this point itr the Trial Judgementq nd statedt hat "[tJhe fact that one of the witnessesm ay have grvc[ an incorrect time estimate,t lriltecn years.a fi.ert hs event,d ocsn ot affect his overall ctedibility.uToe1 1r" Appellant has not challengectlh e Trial Chamber'sr easonirrgT. his sub-grouado f appeails accordiuglyd ismissed.

310. Finally, the AppealsC haurbern otest he Appcllant's conte,ntiouth at Witncss BMR testified that he and his colledguess ent someoneto look for the Appellant in a bar whereas$ /imess BMO testified that the Appellant was at the roadblockw hen thec anseillerrequestretdo slrak to hirn.7lo 11 friat Ju<lgcmc,npga ra-4;5L, i:l Trial Judgc.menpt ara-4 51. "'ApDellanf s Brief, para 285. ltiii* of appeaf iara- 218; Appetlant's Brief, pan.286,ci*Bg Trial Judgemengp an- 442- '- Notice of Appcal. parr 218. ?s Tte AppcUante rioneoustyt gf.crst o V/itncssB MN. However,t be contexlr. cvpsls +hrt he intenderlt o n:fcr to Wimoss BMM. T Notice of Appca! paral 218: Appellant's Brief, pua 286. I Notice cf Appe"t, pua-218: Appellanf s Bricf, para-2 87. j"] Trial Judge,ocn\p ara-4 54. "" Notice of Appcal, pua- 2L6; AppelanCs Eriaf, para- 284- He also submits thut \l/ihress BMN testified rhlr rho Appellant was at the conmuoe office while WitnessB MM shtcd that he was at Kinyari contro.A ppellant's Brief. para. ?34. CaseN o.: ICTR-OI-7+.A ZFctnaryZo}9 <,({

02/oZ '09 12:30 FAX0 031705128932 ICIR @o sc +zzlA 311. The Trial Charnberd id not explicitly addressth is matter.T he AppealsC hambcrr ccalls that minor incousistencicsc ommonly occuri n wimesst estimonyw ithout renderingi t unreliablea rudth at it is within the discretiono f a Trial Chambert o evaluatet he tes-imonya nd to considerw hethe,rth e evidencea s a whole is cedible, wittrout explainiug its decision in every detail.7ll In light of the Trial Chamber'sd etaileda nalysiso f both similaritiesa ndd ifferencesin the wiEressesa' ccountst,h e Appeals Chamber 6nds tbat the allcgcd inconsistencyi s minor. The Trial Chamber'sf ailure to addressth is issued oesn ot renderi ts relianceo n the wiFressese rroneous. 31.2. Accordingly,t he Appellant's appealo u this point is dismissed.

2. AlleeedF aihre.to ProvideR ea.sonfos r Rejectinet heA ppellaot'sT esrimonv I 313. The Appell4a{, l6palls that he testified at *ial ttnt he lnew Crakunr but t}rar be had never heardtbat Calqrru was present or that he was in Rushashi.trzH e submits that the Trial $U"a Chambere rredi n law in failing to justify its decisignt o rcject his testimonyo n this point.7l3 'Trial 3L4. The Appeals,Chamberb as previously hel{t that if a Chamberd id not refer to the eviderrceg iven by a witress, eveni f it is ilt coutradictiout o the Trial Chanrber'sf inding, it is to bc presumedt hat rhe Trial Cbambera ssesseda nOw {igneA rhe evidence,b ut found that the evidence did not preventi t from arri"ing at its actualf indinls."7l4 Th" Trial Chambere xplicitly noted tbat it I basedi ts finding on the totality of the evidencel, ,lrf,rr"i t, includingt he,A ppellnnt'$t estimouy.Trs The Appellant has not shown that the Trial Qhanb.er acterl unreasonablyb y not cxplicitly discussingh is evidencep, articularlyi n Ughto f tbp fact that the testimonyw as limited to denying the allegationa gainsht im.7l6A ccordinglyt his appeails dismissed. 3.

315. The Appellant submits that the Trial Chamber erred in law in finding that it had been proven beyond reasonabtred oubt that he had instigated and aided and abetted Gal$nr's murder wberr in fact it was unable to determine the place, the date, and the perpetators of that o.ime.1L1T be Appellant submiu that the elements of tlre modes of responsibility for which he was held responsible were not established.tlilH e contends that the evidence does rrot reflect that thosc personsw ho received his "' sre suoraoarz.lo. li app"tirrri Brief,p an- 263. j" Appellant'Bs ricf,p an-?89. "' Sees upra para- 20- lfl fdl Judgeoenrp, ara-456- ji] Trial Judge'menpt,a n-48- jij Noticeo f Appeal p8\22V,.r'rppllant'sB rief,p aras.288,289A;T .28 Augusr2008p p.Tt,59- "" AT. 28 August 2008 p- T7. T\e French originol vsrsion of lhc transcriptsr efl,ectst hat Counsclf or the Appellanr makesr efe'renco!o the Trial Judgemenitn Orii. SeeA T - U August 2008 p. 35 of ths Reoch transcripts, CaseNo-:I CTR-01-7+A 2Februar2y 009 ! I

'05 02/02 L2:31 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR +2;lH 'tontribution" comm.itteda ny c",-e.?t9I -nh is view,iit was impossiblet o establishth e ele,meutosf aidins and abetring since it was unknown who evenfually killsd Gahuu on whose orders, and whcre be was kil1cd.72H0 e submitst hat accordiugt o the Prosecutione videnceh e never askcdt har Gakurub e kilted, but merely instnrctedt lrat he be taken awaya nd detaiaed.T2l 316. The hosecution respondst hat the Appellant prompted, the Interalunnte tocommit the offeoce, and that he at least knew that Gakuru was likely to be ti'ri,ed.TnI t submits that the Appellant did not merely facilitate the killing of Gakuflr, and that Gakuru had hoped tbat the Appellant would sa'1rhei s Lfie.ffi'When the Appellant was askedt o conftrm Gakuru's identity, ttre Appellants aid that Gakuruw as an "Inyenzf'.In the Prosecution'sv iew this statemeuitn dicatedt o the Interahamwe that they had to kill Gakuru.?uT he Prosecutiona lso refe6 to Witness BMR's testimony,w hich the Trial Chamberf ound credibld: hccordingt o that wiraess," thesep eoplew ould be taken to a place where everythiugw as taken away from them, their clothes,s hoes,w atchesa nd so or1,a udt hen they were killed."ff 3L7. fre aaus reus of "instigating" implies prompting anotherp ercon[ e c]6mmi1a u offence.72[6t is not necessaryto proYet }at the crime would not haveb eenp erpetatcd without the

involvemento f the accusedi;t is sufftcient to demonstraterh at the instigationw as a factor substantiallyc ontibuting to the couducto f anotherp ersonc omrnittingtl re ctime,?z? 318' Conuary to the Appellant's coatention,t he speciflc identifi.cationo f the pcrpetrators,w ho wcre identified in the Trial Judgementa s Interaharnwe,w s not required for a fiuding that rhe Appellant instigated the killing of Crakunl h any event, the Trial Chambcr did ideutiff tbe perPetralorsI-t is implicit, but certain, in tbc Trial Judgementt har the Trial Chamberf ound tbat Gakuru was killed by the Interalnmwa wbo were informed by the Appellant that Crakgnrw as atr "Inyenzf' and who receivedh is ordert o arresth im. The Trial Chamberf ound that ..[b]y doing so, Karera left him [GaktEr] in the hands of. haerahanwte" ar.d that "[u]nder the prevailing circumstancesh, e must have undcrstoodt hat Gakunr woutd bc killed",728T tat the Trial Chamber 11 ar. 2EA ugust2 ffi8 p. 2it. :1 AT- 28 August2 Cf,8p . Tl. :': AT. 28A ugus2t 008p . 27- :: AT.28A ugus2t 008p . a0. :: AT. 28 August2 008 p. aO- : AT. 2EA ugust2 008p , 40. i'^* N-,% Augnst2 008p - 40, citing T. I Fcbruary2 e6p. V+- Nahinana et aL Appeal Judgemengp ara 4gO yfinaafallZi Appeal Judgemen! psra- I17; Korclii arzd Cerkez Appeal Judgemag pta- T7, 'o' Nahimoia et aL AppalJudgemeut, para.4 {10;G annrbitsiAppeal Judgcrneutp, are 129; Kordic md AerlezAppeal Judgcmenqp ur-?J- ' ^ Tial Judg encnt, para,4, 56 - 90 CaseNo.I:C TR-0I-7+A 2Fehruary2009 \-t_L

02/02'09 12:32 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o es +u)l made such a finding is imPlicit furi ts recollection of the evidenceo f WitnessesB MO ottd BMN-72e While it would have been preferablct br the Trial Chambert o explicitly statet hat ir idenrified tha perpetratorso f Gakiru's murder as being the Interahnnnvet o whom the Appellant indicated that Gaknru was an "Inyenzf,' and who receivedt he order to arresth im, this omissiond oesn ot amorht to an error.

319. However,b asedo n the Trial Chamber'sf acnral fiudings, the Trial Chamberc ould rrot have reasonably concluded rhat the Appeltant prompted the perpetratorst o kilf Crakuru.T he Trial Chamberm ade no fachral findings supporting such a conclusion. It merely conchrdedt.h at the Appellant had informed rhe Interahanwe who later ki]Ied Gakuu that he was an "Inyenzf, and, orderedt hem to firest him. The Triaf Chanber shouldh ave firrttrer explainedh ow, on the basis of thesef actual findings, it inferred that the Appellant had promptedt he Interalwmwet o kilr Galuru. In the absenceo f such an explanation,t he Appeals Chamberf inds rhat the Trial Chaurbere rred in convicting the Appeilant for instigating Gakunr'sf ,urder. 32o- The AppealsC tamber now hrrns to the Alrpellarrt'ss ubmissionr har rheT rial chamber erred in enteringa conviction for aiding and abettingm urdera s a crime againsth umaniry. 32L. Tlrc actus reus of aiding and abettingi s constitutedb y acts or omissiornsth at assist,f i:rlher, or lend moral supportt o the perpetrationo f a specific crime, and which substantiallyc ontributer o rlbe the perpetratron of the criue-?3o mens rea for aiding and abetting is knowledge that ach performedb y the aider and abettor assisti n tnejjconnmissiono f thb crime by the pnt cipal,T3Itt is well cstablishedt hat it is not trecessaryf or arii accusedt o know tlre precise crime

which was iinntteennddeeddaa nndd wwhhiicchh iinn rrhhpp eevveennttww aass ccoommmmiitttteedd,, li ut he must be awareo f irs essentiael lements.? t'ff a^- n a^^^c--c--lused is aware that onc of a number of cr ,ihes w ill probably be committed, and one of those crimcs is iu fact combritteo,h e hasi ntended, o f"tilit"t" the commissiono f thar crime.?33 i 322. The Triar Chamber fou::d rhat the app!u*, told thc Interah,amwe thatGakunr w^s fii "Inyenlf'aud that he orclered his arrest by the Inleral*rnwe, which he must have understood wo'ld result iu his murder.T3aO n the basis of Urcse nJaings, it was reasouable for the Trial Chambe,rt o conclude that the Appellant aided and abetteF *" murder of Gakuru,"t By insrructing tla ItrnTtreerraahhaammwweett oo aarrrreesst tG$ aakkuurun raa nndd tteelllliinngg tthtree,mm tt fhaat t GGaakkuurruu ww aass aann ,,,,IInryyeennzzff,,, . i i t t wwaass rr eeaassoonnaabblel ettoo conclude that the Appellant substantially contri,buted to the commission of his murder through ?1 sn Trial ludgemenpt,a rusu- S, 447. 'j" Nahimanae t aL A'ppAlJudgemengp uu- zl82_ u' Naltiman* et aL Ayprcaflu dgeDrent,p ara-4 EZ- "' Nahimanae t aL Appl Judge,nentp, ara,a B2, j ' ] * l .feeS tatffAppeal Judgemeutp" ara-5 0: Nahimaru et aLAppeal Judgcmcn! pNa.

482. Trial fudgemcnt,p ara-4 56, 9I CaseNo.:I CIR-Of-74-A 2Fcbnrary2009 SL,({

02/02'09 12:33 FAX 0031705128832 ICTR @o so I+NIH specifically assisting and providing moml support to rhe principal perpetrators.F urtherrnore,i n Iight of the evideucea dduced,t he AppealsC hamberf inds no error in the Trial Chamber'sf inding that the Appellant traCt Aer equisitef trensr ecL 323. For the foregoingr easonst,h e AppealsC hamberg rantst his sub-groundo f appeali n part and reversest he Appellalrt's conviction for instigatingm urdor as a crime againsth umanityb asedo n this event.T he Appellant's corrvictionf or aiding anda bettingm urrdear s a crime againsth r:manityb ased on the kilting of Galcuruis upheld. F. Cgnclusion 324. The Appeals Chamber grants the Appellant's First Ground of Appeal and.r eversest he Appcllant's conviction for aiding and abening genocide and extermination as a crime agaiust humanity,b asedo n thc allegedw eepotrsd istibution in Rushashci ommune.

325. The AppealtiCtu*Uo fi:rrher grantst he SeventhG round of Appeal, in parr. and reverses the Appellant's confiction for instigating mr:rdera s a crime againsth umaniryb asedo n thc killing of Cralnrnr. 1'-1 5T^r,i a-l* h d-g cmenl para | .,560- ; 92 C-asNa o.: ICTR4I-74rA 2 F.cbruary2 ffJ9 i

o2/o2 '09 t2: gg FA.I 0031705128932 ICTR @o sz +taln DT. ALLEGED ERRORS RELATINGTO THF'.ALIBI (GROTJI\DO F' APPEAL 8) 326. At trial, the Appellant raiseda n alibi rn his defcnce.73H6e submittedr,h at on 7 April l994,he left his housei n Nyamirambof or his son Ignaceish ousea t the Nyakinamac ampgso f the Rwanda Narional Univcrsity'ru Ruhengerip refecturc.ttt Jhu Appellant statedt hat he a:rived at the campus on that day aud did not leaveu ntil 19 April 1994,w henh e movedt o Rushashti o assumeth e post of prefect of Kigali prefectrue.T3Ts he Trial Ctrainber found that the Appeltaut and his relatives travelled ftom Nya:rrirambot o his son's housei n Nyakinamao n ? April 1ggfle and tlrat he stayed there rrntil 19 April L994.74H0 owever, the TriJl Chamberc oncludedt hat rhe Appclranl did not reurain "consistenflya rrd exclusively" iu Ruhengcrip refectruea ad statedt hat it had no doubt that he was pre,sienitn Nyamirambo aud Ntararna sectors and Rushashi commune whc,lr the crimes were corumitted.Tal 327- The Appdldlt contendst hat the Triat Chambere rredi n law andi u fact in not finding that he rctnainedli n Ruhengeri duriag the period ftom 7 to 19 April Lgg4.1aH e submits that the Tria] Chambere rred in its application of the burden of proof, in its assessmenot f the possibiliry of travelling from Ruhengeri druiug the pcriod covered by his alibi, and in its assessmenot f the

Defencee videncer efating to rhe a,libi.743 i I A. Allgea Erron in the Aoolicafion of the nurten otEgf 328- The Appellaut contetrdst hat the Trial Chamberi ncorrectly applied tbe bgrden of proof in relation to his alibi.?44H e submitst hat the friaf inarrrUer'sc oosiderationo f his alibi at the very end of tbe cvidencec onstimbs an "important indicarion that tbe flria[ clumber shiftcd rhe burdeno f proof"7asH e arguest,h at rhe Trial Ctrarnbere rroheouslya ssessedth e "plausibiliry', of his alibi on the basiso f whcthert he evidenceo f the Prosecutionw itnessese liminatedt he rcasorrablep ossibility that he remainedc onsistentlyiq Nyakinama,Taa6n d assessetdh is issuei n the contexto f tbe ..num!eJ ou Notice of alibi pursulot to RqleS?-( AXii) of the Rules scrved on tbc prosecution o n 9 January2 (D6 (unredactecl vcrsion) annexcdt o the Folclu_tion's Motion for Furtber tua Beaer Alibi's Particulars,E Icd,o n 23 Jonrrary2 006 snd -he Coaigendurn filed-on-26 Jolotry 2006 ('t{otice 9r atibi'). s ee also Decision on Motioo for Further Alibi Partic-Uars,-M7 nrcb 2006 trc); Triat Judgemenrp, aras_4 52_510. :: Trial Judgeneor,p aral459. :: Trial Judgemcntp. aral459- :l: Tri&lJ udgemeopt,a r*. 478_ jl Trid Judgecncnpt,a ra.5, t0- :": Tdal Judgcurentp, ara.5 10- ;:: lt",it" { tpp*t. puas- 221-239;A ppcllant's Brie,f,p aras.2 91-309. ,l TotT d-Altrd, paras2. 21-239;A ppelant's Brief.p aras_2 91_309. ,f fUn g*,1r P l.!,para.2et;.4T 2 . 8 A ugus2r0 08p .i s- ,'l* Appeuant'sB rief. paro.30;B rief inReply, paras.9 . g7. Appellanfs Brief, pan-295t AT. 2g Augusr2 00gp . 16. 93 CasuN o.:I CTTT-01-?+A 2Febn:ry 2009 $l{

02/02 '0s L2:34 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @o se H+lfi of tirnes" he was seeni n Nyakinama"t he possibi)ity of travelling by road from Ruhengeria t that tim6, 41fl the credibility and reliability of Frosecutione vidence.TaHl e also arguest bat accordingt o the Trial Chamber'sr casoning,h e wasr equiredt o prove beyondr easonabLd,eo ubt that he did not at any time betweon7 ud 19 April 1994l eaveN yakinama,i f his alibi were to be accopted."oHne claims that the Trial Chamber erred in its aualysis of the evideaceb y simply compariug the credibility of Prosecutiona nd Defence evidence,T4aes well as ia its finding that the Defence witnessesw ho tcstified to the alibi had credibility problems.7so 329. The Prosecutionr espondst hat the Trial Chamberc ommittedn o error in its statemenot f thc applicablel aw75l and that there is no merit in the Appellant's argumentt hat the Trial Chasrber misdirectedi tself ia, the application of ttrb legal standardsa nd evidendalb urdenw hen considering the alibi.752I t argubs that the approacha doptedb y the Trial Chamber is consistetrtw irh tbs establishedju isprudence of the AppealsC tranrbera, nd that the Appellant hasn ot demomstratetdh at the Trial Charnbcrr eversedt he budeu of proof in relatiou to his alibi.753T he Prosecutiona sserts that the Trial Cbrfrber committed no error in cousideringt he credibility and reliability of the witnesscsa ndc

orreitly placedt heb wdeno f proof on the hosecution.?54 330' Tbe AppealsC bamberr ecalls that wherea n alibi is pleaded,a n accusedd eniest hat he wa.q in a positiont o committ he crimet br which he is cbargedb ecausea t the time of its comuission,h e was not at the sceneo f the cf,irneb, ut elsewher.e7 55lt is setrledju rispnrdeuceo f the nvo ad hoc Tribuuals that in pudtingf orward au alibi, an accusedn eed only producee videnceI ikely to raise a reasonabled oubti n the Prosecution'sc ase.75T6h e onusr emainso n rbe Frosecutiont o prove beyond reasonabled oubt thp facts undeqpinningt he crimes charged..7sIn?d eed, it is incumbenr on the Prosecutiont o establish beyond reasonabled oubt tbat, despite the alibi, the facts alleged are neverthelesfsrt re.758 '" Appellant'sB rio[ para.3 03. j] Appellant's Bric.f,p ara.3 Oa. "" Appellaat's Brief, para.3 06. j] Respondcnt'Bs rief, para-1 85. * Rcspondenr'sB ricf, pans.7z, tE6, The proseculion a lso srbmits that tbc TdaI ctanber's Blaqhg of the facusl findings in relalion to the afibi evidencet owardst ' h la e n e , ad of thc Trial Judgeurcnt" caruoi Uec onseueOa s indicia of the reversal of the burdeu of proof and an eqor of by the Trial chanb€rr', Reslnudent's Bricf, para 60 (.t"d"; oniuod). ]j3 Respoaacut'sB rief. para- lE6. '* Respondcot'sB rief, pera-2 06. 7! Kaieliicti npp4 Jir<lgcurengp ira. 42, ctttng Niyiagelra Appeal Judgement,p are- 6e ctring Kayistenu anct lya ndaru Appl ludgeneot, para I 06, i:,{y:::f^*1ry_l{l9g*,-\p8a.6Q rcfcrrinst o Knyishcmaa rzdR, uzittu tla.AppealJ udgcmenpt,a ra.r r3- :'^:: Nrytkgeka Appealf udgeacuqp ara 60. NiyitegekaA ppealJ udgcmcnt para"6 0, rcfcrring to MusemaAppealJ udgemcut,y wa- 202, 94 Cse No.: ICTR-01-74-A 2 Februnry2 009

'09 E oss 02/02 12:35 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR ,- rnl- ry6ffi 331' In the pres€,nt case, the Appcals Chamber is satisfied thar the Tdat Chamber correctly enunciatedt he law applicablei n relation to the burdcn and standardo f proof concerninga n alibi?se by statingt hat al accusedn ecd only producee videncel ikcty to raisc a rcasonable< Ioubitu rbe ftosrcution case- The alibi d$- pt-ca:gy a separateb urdcn-T he brndouo f proviag bcyond reasouble doubt rhar, *rptt" * q$bi the facts allegeda rc neverthelessE ue remai* ,g,*dy on &c shoulderso f the Prcseculion-' 332- With regardi o the Appellant's contentiout hat the Trial Charnberc rred by failing ro consider his tesrimonya nd alibi first, the AppealsC hambern otest hat at the beginningo f the sectiono n alibi in the Trial Judgcmdnl the Triat Chambers tatedt hat "[n]otwithstandiug [ the] stnrcnge[ of the Trial Judgement.li,n making its factual findings, titl has assessetdh e Prosecutiona nd Defencee vidence in its totaliry't61 arid went on to analyzei n detail the Appellant's testimoay and alibi.?62T he AppealsC hambert hereforef inds that the discussiono f the Appellaut's alibi towardst he end of the Trial Judgemendt odsn ot indicatet hat ir the burdcnt o the Appellarrt.

333. The Appellanta rguest bat the Trial erred when it consideredt he issue to be, and accordinglya ssesscdw, hethert he wihesses eliminsled the reasonablep ossibility that hc re,mainedc orrsisteirtl] at Nyakinama 7 md 19 April 7994.16T3h e Appellant contencls that the Trial Chambere rred in its of his alibi by first consideringt he prosccuriou's evidence tenderd ro,discredit irTe In tbis tbe Appellant arguest hat this approachim poseda burden of proof on him, as he was required l to proauce" morrec ouvincing alibi evidence,t, han the kosecution's evidenbete rrderetdo discreditd hea libi.?6 I 334. Thc Appeals'Chambenro test frat *re lfcal Chambera rticulatcdt he issuet o be whethert he I evidcnce of Prosecutionw itnessesw ho t"stfn"O to seeingt he Appe1lanti n Nyaminrmbo sector, Ntaramas ector,a nd:Rushashci ommltnes lilminategth e reasouablep ossibility that rhe Appella't 'temained consistenily in Nyakinarna in {rrhengeri prefecture".7trT he Trial Chamber further explainedt hat in irs view'qthis depcndso n fow frequently [Karera] was observedi n Nyakinama whether he could use the roads to the otL", *"ar, ild the reliability and credibility of the I iiirt:: :-Eayy ara l AppertJ udsemeilp, *- lt+; MusemaA -- ppeJaur dge,menpta, rc-? -052, 06_ ::TtidJudgemcnt, pan'462- | j]l Trid Juasemenpga rr-i+52. 'u I In_tngi| Uoductoryp ,l9grf,plso f t{rec haprur 4 s * #ri"g rte eventsin

Nyaurimmbaon dN taramot,h cT fial Ch&116er P€ciqcd tbatt bDA ppellint prcse'nteadn alibi 'f surjaauizeaN s defeucsT. rial Juctgcurrnpf rr.- El,2zz.For each fagtuafl -rndbga. ndw benel pplPtiute theT rial chorrth* eystonaticattsyr rmila"i?eb{to r-hrb ch osecudoua ndD efe'cc evidencea, ndd iscussetdh em"It alsos peciflcall-cyo usideregd: ary4gt'* to.ti**i-t"rrTtia Judgcuunrp,r as. 30, 34,48,49,&,65,21731lM,t33,27s-n8,3.?n,34|g4s,3n,ii{,4g4,,tul,4g6,'4it4;A - -' +lB),andlrisatibi(rze T '* r ialJ udgeurc*t ry*. 4:26,81:t2J,222,275t)t rou$oot rher riu r"4eme"i '*.A A , p p p p c e l l l l a a n n t t l !' s rs ! c!, p*r ??i; Driefi n Rcplv.p rra"l f ; nT. 2sA usurtz ooep . te- Brief,p ara3- 03. I "'*I 4 T p r p ia "u l J r u "t d 's g e B m ri e e n f p , t p a, o ra ra 5 3- 0 0 0 3 . ;A T. zEA usus2r 0Ogp- . | |t 6. 95 CaseN o.:iC tn-Or-z+n 2 Fehury 2009 I S44

02/02 '09 12:38 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @r oo +6l H Prosecution's evidence placing him irr Nyamirambo and Ntarama sectors and Rushashi commuue".7fl 335. The Triat Ctamber found that the reasonablep ossibility that the Appellant remaiued "consistentlya nde xclusively" in Rr:hengerpi refecturei s eliminatodb y the "credibiliry issuesr aised in conncctiouw ith Defencee videuce",a s well as the "reUablea nd crediblee vidence"w hich placed thc Appellant in Nyamirambos ector,N taramas ector,a ud Rushashic ommuued r:ring this period,768 Consequeutlyt,h e Trial Chamberc oncludedt hat there was no doubt that the Appellaut was pteserrr in Nyaminunboa nd Ntaramas ectorsa rrdR usbashic ommurrew hen the crim.esw ere committtA.Tie The Trial Chamber'sa pproachis consistenwt ith the legal standardsd iscusseda bovc.T herefore,t he Appeals Chamberf inds that the Appellaflt has faild to demonsEatea uy error od rhe part of the Trial Chambcri n this regard.

336. The Appellant finally arguest hat ttre Trial Chamber'sr easoninge rronenuslys uggeststh at for his alibi to be acceptedh e had to prove beyond reasonabled oubt that he did not leave Nyakinaurab enveen7 and 19 April L994.7mIn this regard, the Appeals Charnbern otes thc Trial Chamber'sf inding tbat tne "credibility issues"i rr relation to the alibi evidence,c oupled with thc "reliable and credible" Prosecutione videncep lacing the Appellaut in Nyaminmbo, Ntara.maa, nd Rushashi,t ogether eliminated the reasonablep ossibitity thar tfre Appellant reurainedc oasistently and exclusivelyi n Ruhonge,tpi refectruo.nth c Triat Chambcr'sr ca.coningd oesu ot inrlicule thc imposition of any obligation on the Appellaat to prove beyond rea,sonabled oubt that he stayed pennanentlyin N-yakinamabetwee7n a nd 19 April Lgg4.

337. Contrary to the Appellant's contention, the Trial Chamber did not conclude that the Appellant returnede very day to Nyakinama.I nstead,i t found that rhe Appellant could travel on the morning aodr eturn "on sormed ays".77T2h e Trial Chamberf ound that therew er.es ignificant gapsi n the alibi evidence allowing for his preseuceo n some days at thc crime sites.zs There is no iadication that the Trial Chamberc onsideredt hat the Appellant must neces6arilyh ave uudertakcn the journeySf rom Nyakinaln6 to the crime Silesa nd back On the samed ay, betweent he mOming and the afternoon.77T4h e Trial Ctranber's asscssmenot f the Defencee videncea bout accessibility of the roadsd oesn ot contradict this inrerpretation.T be Trial Chamberf ocusedo n wherheri t was l: Trta"lJ udgeocngp ara 500. j]] Triat fudgc.mcaip, ara-5 1O- j'l Trisl JudgemeDpr,a rr 510. "" Appcllant'sB rief, prra- 303tA T. 28 August2 008p . 15. ;: T.iul Judgemenpt ara-5 10- "" Tfrsl Judgementp aru-5 05, !-; SeeT rial Judgemeotp ara-5 05. 'n Thc Appealsq htorbut notest be foltowing statemeot" It is important that [WituessY artK] did oot seel (arera every &y, .t he testilicd tbat be occasionallym issedt he prograrn-"( foomoteo mirted).T rial Ju6gementp, ara-5 05. CaseNo.:I CTR-Of-7+A 2February2A09 Sk--

'09 @r or 02/02 12:36 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR H+1ft possible to travel at that period betweenN yakinama and the crime sites and not whether ir was feasible ou the samed ay. Consequenflyt,h e Appeals Cbamberf trds no merit in rhe Appellant's argument.

338. This sub-groundo f appeails accordinglyd ismissed. B' Alleeed Drrors relsting to the PoqqibiHtyo f Travellitrg ftom Ruhenseri 339. The Appellant submits that the Trial Chamber ecroneouslya ssessedtb c Prosecution's evidencci n re}ationt o the possibility of travelling from Ruhengcdp refectr:rea fter 6 April Lgg4.ns The Appellant arguest hat the Trial Cbamberd etermined,i u error, that Defeuce Witness KNK corroboratedt he evidence of Defence Witresses BBA and KBG that the main road between Rutrcngeri and KigEIi was blocked but that an altemative road was available passing tbrough Gitarama.77T6h e Appcllant also contcndst hat speculatingo n the possibility of travelling frorn Ruhengerit o Kigali, without evidencet hat sucha journey was actually undertakend, oesn ot impair tho reasonablep ossibility tbat he remained in Ruhengeri.1l7l: e furttrer argues ttrat the Trial Chamber'sf inding that he moved aroundw ithout difEculg becauseo f his position and the fact that he could use an official vehicle is not supportedb y eviderrce.TTIns addition, he assertsth at the Trial Chambere rted in finding that he was at the Ntaraua Churcho n the mornirrgo f 15 April 1994w hitre acceptingh is alibi that he was in Ruhengerie very day in the morning and atter 4 p.-.ze The Appellanta sguesth at the evidenced emousratedth at it was impos.riblea nd urueuliuticf or him to undertakei n such a

rime-frame the 410 kilomeue return journey ftom Ruhengerit o the Ntarama Church through the itinerary acceptedb y the Trial Chamber which wor:ld have mcanr passing through Gitarama town, Kigoma commune,a nd Ngenda couunune,a s it was the only possible route.TEo 340. In response,t he hosecution submitst bat the Trial Chamberc orractly found that Witness KNK's evidence corroboratedt he cvidence of WituessesB BA and I(BG on the point of the accessibility of the Ruheogeri-Kigali road.78rI t fi:ntrer submits that the Appellalt adducedn o tangible evidencet o demonstrateth at it was impossiblet o travel dr:ring thc period in question,a nd the evidencea dducedb y both partiesw as tbat althought ravel wos dffiorlq it was possiblet brough ll eppetta"t'sl nel pans-2 98-302i AT. ?SA ugust2 008p - 22- _] Appellan's Brief, pan-299- -'"-j'l AppeUat's Brief. paru 300. Appc'Ilanfs Brief, paras-3 01. 302. ::l Bricf iu Ruply, paras.5 0-52. "' Brief in Rcply, paras.5 0-52 '"' Respondeut'Bs rief. parus-1 96-19 8, CaseNo.[;C TR-01-7+A 2 Fcbruary2 009

02/02 '0s 12:37 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @toz ryslfr secondaryr oads,zlrTz he Prosecutiona rguest hat the Appellant's submissioain relation to rhe Trial Chamber'sf uding that the Appellantmoveda rorud without difficulty is false.783 341, In relafion to the Appellenl's argqmentt hat the Trial Chambere ,rredin finding thar Wihess KNK corroboratedt he testimonieso f WitnessesB BA and I(BG, the Appeals Charnbern otes that the Trial Chamber concluded thar it was possible to travel from Nyakinama to Nyanirambo, through Gitaram4 without using the main Ruhengeri-Kiga]i roa4 based on the following asfiessment: rJ/ilnessB BA tc.sliffedt hat tavel was possiblc from Nyexinama to Gitarsna withsut using tbe main Ruheogcri'Kjeali road, and Witncss KBG said tnai m road from Gitaramat o NyauirfrUo was opoaf or lravel betqean { nril andJ uly 1994.T hdr oviderrceis corroboratedb y WirnessI $[K, who testiEedt bat shc uavelledf rom Ruhengeriv ia Gitaramat o Kigali on 16 April'l gg4.7u 342- Drring cross-examinationW, itness BBA testifed, that there was an unpavedr oad leading frstn Ruhengerit o Gitarama,t brough Nyakinam4 without passing tbrough Kigati. However, he cor:ld not testify on whethert he road was accessibleb y a motor veldcle.?8s 343. The Appcals Chambera lso notes that Wimess KBG testified rbar in ApnI lgg4, after rhe killing of FresidenHt abyariman4a ndi n May 1994,7Rrh6e o nly road

accessibleb y a m.otorv ehicle from Kigali to Gitaramap assedt brough the Nyamirambo road, Mt. Kigali, and Nyabrrongo-tt7 \MitnessK BG specifiedt hat he followed that road becauseit was the only safe road and that r6e otherr oadsw ereb locked-788 3M. WitnessK NK also indicatodt trat the'hsual road" from Kigali to Ruhengerwi as .tlocked,, but that it was possiblet o travel by an alternatef oute tbroughG itararna which was safe.78e 345- Therefore,a ccordingt o the testimony of Witness KNK corroboratedb y the evidcnce of V/itnessesB BA and KBG, it was possible to travel from Nyakiuama to Nyaminrmbo, rbrougb Gitarama"w ithout using the main Ruhongeri-Kigalir oad. The Appellant hasn ot showna ny error in the Trial Chamber'sf inding that Witress IO.[K corroboratedt be evidenceo f WitnessesB BA and KBG.

346. The Appellant arguest hat eveni f it was possiblet o travel betweenR uhengeria nd the Kigali reglon' the reasonablep ossibility that hc remainedi n Ruhengeri cannot bc questionedw ithour ] Rcspondent'Bs rief, para 201. ji' Rcspondents' Brief, peru- 203, 204- ]1 fin Judgernenqp a"a-s OO. '* T. lS Ausrut 2UJ6p-48- ts T.9 Mav-20bo.3- t8t T. 9 uav zooei r- tt. to8 T.9 lr.ivzw6i.lt- ts T.9 rvrayz OOei. rs. 9t CaseN o.: ICTR-01-7+A 2Fcbruary 2009

02/02 '09 12:38 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @r oc ryLlfr evidence that hc actually took such a 5ouney.7s The Appears chamber disagrees.T he Trial CIumber excluded tbe reasonablep ossibility that the Appellant remained .tonsistently and exclusively''i n Ruhengeri.TeIol reachingt hesef inrtirrgst,h e Trial Aamber consideredth e evidence of a number of wihesses and reasonedt hat *it was possible to travel from Nyakioama to Nyamirambo,t hrough Gitaram4 without using the main Ruhengeri-Kigali road,,l?9t2h at ..Karera cottld have travelledf rom Nyakinafia to Ntaramab enreenA pril and July 1994"7eut sir,ga n official vehicle; aod that since he had an influential goveilrmetrtp osition aud was well k'oua he would havep assedro adblocksw ithoutm ajorp roblems.T% 347' The Trial chamber also considoredth e credibiliry of the Defencee videnceia relation ro the Appellaut beitg in:Nyakinama and the reliability arrd credibility of rhe prosecution,s e vjdencc which placedh im ar'Nyamiramboa nd Ntaramas ectoma nd Rushashic oulmuuert he locationso f the crimcs.TeTsh e AppealsC hasrbert hereforef inds that the Appellant ha^sfa iled to show that the Trial Chambcrc ommitteda n error in reachingt his conclusiou.

348. The Appellant finally contendst hat the Trial Chamber's finding that he moved around without difficulty by virtue of his position arrd uhef act ilrat he could use an official vehiclp is not supportedb y cvideucea ndi s the,reforeen oneous.teHca ving cousideredth is finding,rt tlr"Appcals Chambern otes that while the Tdal Chamberd id not cite any evidencei n reLrariotno it, ther.ew as relevant evidence on the record supporting this conclusion. The Appeirls Chamber notes, for instance,t hat when the Appellant testifie4 he statedt har on the moruing of 7 April 1gg4 he was recognizeda s an authotiry by one of the "gcndarrnes"m arudnga roadblock and could continueh is Savel after his vehicle had been checked.TeTsh c Appeltant also testified thar on 7 April L994,h e travelled tbrough "tbree roadblocks and one mili6py check-point".DeT herefore, the Appcals Chamberf inds no mcrit in the Appellant's argumenl 349. The Appeals ctrarnber notcs rhar the Trial chamber generally did not embark otr an assessmenot f the "me neededt o u-avel& om Nyakinama to thc crime sccnes.ffi However, the 3App"tt*Cs Brief, para-3 00. ::: Trial Judgemenpt ara,510. '.:: Trial Judgeocnqp ara.5 06. j]' Tlial Judgcorenlp ars-,507. j]] Trial Juagemenpl rra-'508. :':- Trial Judgeucnt,p aras5. OG.5IO- Apellant's Brief, paras.3 01.3 02 Dt Ttisl Judgenonq;ara 508 wbich reads: . ,[---] Howevcc,a s Karera had,a a

r.nflusgti4lg overasental position and was well lrrpwn, tbe Chamberc oosiderst hat ne-would have passedr cadblocks cootro1cdb y Interaltamttc, gerulantnsasoldierosr civilians, arlou-1.major p robt"ms.T bc'useo f an-o-trr"io,re hicle, which S4era said thath e bartw hile in Rr:hcngeri,w ould facilitati tii rt""ut:J ?jT.2:August2006p. tF. :o:*.T . % Auguer2 006p . t7 . SeeT rial Judgementp, ht"s- 506, 5O7- CaseNo.:I CTR-0I-7&A 2 Fehruary2 ffi9 \f-,**

02/02 '09 12:39 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @na +nlfr Appeals Chanber finds ftat the Trial Chamberd id not necossarilyc oncludet hat the Appellant had to travel from Nyakinamat o the srimes sitesi n Nyamiramboo r Ntaramao n thc samed ay. Rather, its fiuding that "Karera could have lived in Ruhengeri, but travelled during the daytime to Nyanrinrmboo r Ntaranras ectorsr, etrrrningo n sorrred ayst o the Nyakinamac afipus by 4.00p .d'80t doesn ot precludea n interpretationt bat althougho n somed ays he retunrcdt o Nyakinamab y 4.00 p.m., on other daysh e navelled from Nyakinamat o a crime site andr enrrnedo n anotherd ay. C, Alleged Errors in lFe Assessmenot f the Evidence on Alibi 350. The Appellant contends that the Trial Charrrbere rroneously found tbat the Defence wihesses who testified to his alibi had credibility problems.soHz u statest hat the contradictions 'Witnesses relating to Defence ATA and KD arc tdvial when compared to the problems of credibiliry affecting the Prosecutionw itnesses.80H3e also arguest hat the Trial Chamberd id not provide goodr easonsf or doubtingt he alibi evideace.sG 351. Tbe Prosecutiorrre spoudst hat thE Trial Chamberh as unfeneredd iscretioni n assessingth e evidencep resentedb y the parties,a nd that the Appellant has failed to demonshateiu wbat way the Trial Chambera busedth at disctctiott.sos 352. WitnessA TA testified that shee nrolled in school a

week after her asival in Ruhengeria nd thar the Appellant was at homew hen she left for schoola t 7.00 a.m. and wherrs ber eturneda t 3.00 or 4.00 prn.t06T he wiuresss ated that in mid-April L994,t he Appellant was appointedp refect and begann avelliag to Rushashi.smT h" Triat Chamberf or:nd that the wirness's testimouyc ould only relate to a few days since she starteds choola round1 4 April 1994a nd the Appellant was appoinred sl Trisl JudFomenlp ara.5 05. @ ApeclarFs Brief. oara.3 06. s lppellant's Brief. iare- 306- I alleUrot's Bricf, para SO7. u Rcspoudent'sB rief. oara-2 10. :t6 Triil Judgemeatp, n a- +sz- Drring her testimonyW itnessA TA staredt hat when sbew as going to schml shew ould leave her home ot aborrt7 a-m-a rd would retuf,oh onaec vay evcninga fter scbool.S hes peciEeaf tat classess tartetta t 8 a.n. andt hat tho distalce betweenh er hoae and thc schoolw as quite long. The classosc adcd at about 2 p-o., aad she '!vas ablc 1og et back homc beweeo 3 pro- and 4 p.m," V/ben retufiling from schoots bef ound the Agpetlanta t nomc- Shc ftrrlhet testified that ftoa 7 April 1994, the Appellant had uo spccific work becauseh e stal'cA il homq in Ruhengeria nd tDat,b eforc thc pcriod when she was going to school the Aplrllant '\yas with us Ue.at he had no other work to do, so be dirln't go anywhere"T . 5 May 2006p . 6. "" n"' THal Judgemeut,p ua-_4?1.^2f-e e:T , 5 May 2005

p- 6 tQ. As for your fatber, ir AFil f994 ro the best of your rccollecti,on,a bdh p lcavc Ruhengeri?A TA- (---) I rumembc4th ql in the middte of Aprrl he informcd us tlat ne baa beeo appointedp rdfet of Kigrli-nnat ard that be intended to go to Rushashi whicl was one of tl:rec omnatnzsin Kigati.rural Prdfecture.Q . Do you rcmemberw hetherh e, initee4 weil !o Rruhasbi?. d I re,nenber tbat bp werrtt here bccausef urihg that p€diod I no lolgcr .sarvh inr at lro39. but d}ripg lbc weekends- that is, oa Sanndayo r Srurday,h e camc bacJt<o seeu s. Q. And when did he leavea gain?.d I sdd that hc would arrive on Saturdaya nd rcurn to Rushashi Ol MOndaym orning. q. (...) For how lcrngd id yrrur lutlu:r, l.ionguis K:tal; tavel tom Rtrhe.ngcr1t 9 RrSbashie ad from Rushashib actst o Ruhcngeri?A , As I have alreadyp oiDtcdo u! be went to Rushashii n Eid-AFil and retr:rnedt o Ruhengerii n early July.l. 100' CasoNo.:I CTR-Ol-?+A 2 Febmary2 009 qq4

02/02 '05 L2:39 FAX0 031705128932 IClt @r os +lolT prefect on 17 April 1994.T hc TdaI Chamberf urther noted that the witness was less sp€cifie abour the period before la April 1994s tatingf rat the Appellant srayeda t hone all the time.ss 353. Winess KD testified rhat betwceu 7 April 1994 and mid-April Lgg4, rhe Appellanr occasionallyle ft his son's housca t the Nyakinama,campuosf ttreR wandaN ationalU niversityt o watch television at the univenity campuso r to visit irofessors, but he nevert eft the campusa ud did not visit the subprefectureo fEce in Rushashi.**f np witnesss tatedt hat after mid-April, shes tarted a busiuessa nd that the Appellant was at homew henlshel eft for work in the moming and when she returnodh omef or ltrucha nd ftom *ork.ilO The Trih'Charubert ook into accountt hat tbe wihess statedt hat rhe Appellant did occasionallyl eave theihousesll and that druing the period of 7 to 15 April 1994,s heb adn ot yet startedh er business.sl2 354, The Appeals Chamberr ecalls tbat it is within a Trial Charaber'sd iscretion to acccpt or reject a wiEtess'st estimony,a fter seeingt he witness,b earing the testimony,a nd observingh irm9 1 her under s16gs-saamination.EInl3 t he presentc ase,t he AppeatsC harnberf iuds that the Appellant has failed to demonstratet har rhe Trial Chambere rred in the assessmenot f the testimonieso f WitnessesA TA andK D.

355. The Appellant fi:rther argues that the Trial Chamber did not advancc afly reasou for doubting the eviderrcea dducedi n support of the alibi.8l4 The AppeatsC harnberd isagrees.I n its assessmenot f the relevant Defence witnesses,t he Tlial Charnber articulated that there were *credibility 'Winress issues".8lsIn relation to KD, the Trial Cbanrberw as of rhe view that. inconsistenciesin her testimony affectedh er credibility.slsT h" Trial Chamberw as also of the view that WitnessesK D and ATA sought to exaggerateth e Appellant's presencei n Rrrhengeri.slTIn relation to DefenceW itnessesB BA and YI\4K the Trial Chamberc onsideredt hat their evidence * Trial Judgcmcnt,p ara 501. r€ Tri-al^Il^dg€rftrut, Para-483, The_Appcllan-t_bstified-th"i-trqs ub.prefecto ffice was in Rgshashi.T rial Jurlgr:mcnr, para.342..Setcc stimonyo f WitnossK D: T. E Ma1-2006p .n.Q.1.-.j So is it your rcstimonyt rrutt " O"zt Einp.il to the 15th ot.april. which is tbc middle of ApdL drring rhosl approxinately eight days, he did *. go ro ttr Jo6- prcfcctura_offre? A. IIe did not go there.D uriog fta1pcdoq I. mj'tef, nad uot yut starieam y cornmcrciala crivities. up until be lcfi for RuhashyCh e did uor teavet he comlounct_1- "oF'", "T"r"i9a,lq J"u_d?gtJerm entp, era-4 83-,Seate stinony of WitnessK D: T, 5 Mry 2006 p, 45. (e. ftom what tine to wh.ctt iDc wcrc you involved in this small business?A It

dependedo n wherhcrw e had gone to pr:rcnaseo ther foodmrffs iu tha marketo r uot, but wc starbd ar 10 a.o- andw e closed 3 t 5 p-a- or 5:30p .m. t.;.1 Q. Vfu* you pft your uJtlcr 1.,. 1,s home iu tbe mornings,w as yollr falbcr there?A . Yes, I lelt afrer brealCist aoa -/f"ther o,,astn o". t...] a. Wai iolu fgf$;r bo_mew heny ou nilr.rmcd?A Yas, I found my father at hooe.)_ ]'l Trial Judgcocut,p axa.502. ::: Trial Judgcocng pan 502. ii)seronba xypal-Judgemenl pare I I6, rafeni4g to Akayew Appeal Judgemcut,p arz- 147. "" AppeUail'sB risf, gan-JU7,nT. 28 AugustZ OUpE- 24- :: frisl Judgemenpt ara-5 10- ]'] Trial Judgementp, ua. 502 "^'Trial Judgencntp, ara5- 03. l0l CaseN o.: ICTR-01-7+A 2 Februury2 009 I SLUL I

'09 @r os 02/02 12:40 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR 4MIH did not reliably indicate that tbe Appellant remainedc onsistentlyi n Rubeugqi.8lsT he Appellant hasn ot shownh ow the Trial Chambera busedit s dissrerionin makingt hesef inrtings, 356. Therefore,t his sutsgroundo f appeali s dismissed. D.1 Conclusion 357. The Appeals Chanber finds that *,f app"ffant has failed to dernonstratea ry error in the Trial Chamber'sr easoninga nd findings in ielation to tbe Aplrllarrr's alibi. Therefore,t his ground of appeali s disrnissedia its entirery- 8lu Triot hrdgement, paras. 504. 5O5. 102 C,ascNo-:I CTR-01-7+A 2Fehuary 2009 Su{

- 02/02'09 12:41 FAX0 031705128S02 IClR @r oz +Dslfr X' ALLEGED ERRORS RELATING TO THE TRIAL CEAMBER'S LEGAL FINDINGS (GROUND OFAPPEAL TO) 35E. Urrdert his ground of appeal,t ho Appellant submitst hat the Trial Chamber,sle gal findi:rgs are elloneousa nd "must obviouslyb e rcvisitedi n the light of admissiblee vidence".sle 359' The Appeals chamber observest hat all of the argumentsa dvancedu nder this ground of apPeacl hallenget he Trial Chamber'sf acnralf indings. The AppealsC hamberh asa lreactya ddressed thesea rgumentsin the respectives ectionso f this Judgement.uoS rn"e no additional argumentsa re presentedu ndert his grourd of appeal,u o firther discussionis warranted_ 360. However, the Appcals Cbamber,p roprio mottt, has consideredr he questiorro f whetbort he Trial Cbambere rred in usrng its findings that the Appellant was responsiblef or the ki.llings of Jose'phK ahabaye,M urekezi, Jean Bosco Ndingutse, ard Patatin Nyagararei n support of the convictions it enteredu nder Count L of the AmendedI ndictrnent for genocidea nd urder Count 3 for extemrination as a ctime ageinsl humauity.B'I The Appeals Chamberi nvited rho parties to addressth is issuoa t the sppealh earing.

361. The Appellant did not directly addresst his issue.ru The Prosecutions ubrnits that it was permissiblef or the Trial Chambert o use its finding on the killings of rhesef our individualsi n $upport of the Appellant's corrviction for genocide and extermiuation since the Appellant had receivedt irnely, ctenr,a nd sufEc,iennt oticc that thesek illings were to be userli n supporto f rhese, charges-82In3 this respect,t he Frosecufionc onteudst hat the AmendcdI ndictuieut has to be read as a whole,s%a nd that the ProsecutionP re-Trial Brief discussedth e factual allegationsb y location, including Nyamirambo,r attref,t tran with rcspectt o eacfrc ount. According to the prosecution, t lre Appellanr was thereforeg iven proper notice that these f our individuak were f,mongt he victims of lus genocidala nd exterminationc ampaigna t that locatio!.$fi I 362. The Appeals Chamberh as already quashedn e Chamber'sf indings in relation to rhe ffriat killings of JosephK ahabaye,J ean Bosco Ndingutse, {no faatn Nyagataref or other reasoos.sfi Therefore,i t need only considerw hethcr it was permi{sible for the Trial Chdmbert o corrvict the 8re Notir" of Appeal,p ara-243, * Sces uDra Ctrailr;rsV to IIL i*lT a ft agrfgrnupiration ofrho Appeal Hearing,p - 2 Defetw addrcssedth e issue of the defectsi n thcAmeoded witbout mnlring direct referecce to lhe sufficiency of notice relatiug to the tillings of lhc four indivj which were chagcd under Count 4 of the Asrendedlndictocnt for mrucltr as a criue against hunanity_ AT. August2008p p.52-54- * AT.28 Augrut2008p .37. w NI-28 Augustz @Ep-37. * AT.28 August2 008p . 38- t03 CaseNo.:I CTR-O]-7+A 2February2ffi \U,(

02/02 '09 12:42 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @r oe ryrlH Appellant for genocide and exterminatioua s a crime against humaaity based on rhe murder of Mtuekczi. 363- The Appeals Chambern otes that the allegationo f the muder of Mr:rekezi is only madea t paragraph3 3 of the Amended Indichrent iu support of Couot 4 for murder as a crime against humanity. The Appeals cha:rrber fiEther notes that, ar trial, rhe Defence objected that ,.several allogatioasr elating to eventsi n Nyamiramboa nd Rushashia re too vague or flot uentioaed in the Indictment or relate only to count 4 (murder) [and that the] [e]vidence in support of these allegationss hould thereforet re excludedo r consideredo nly with respectt o the murder chargd,.l2l The Trial chamber rejectedr heD efe,nceo bjectiono n tbe groundsr hac t--.1 the Defcnced id aot object to any of thin evidencea t the ti.ne it was adaitt€d or at Urec loseo f the hosccution cese Nor did it ruake a geocral pre-tial objectioo Rather, tn" bofroo CIakr:s tbosee xclusiour cquestsf or the first tinc in its closiug submissiousI.t off* * *pi*"tioJ* failing to objcct le rhi-ce videncea t rhe time it was Jmirted tr a[ a lat€r poiEt fuiing rha trial proceedingsT' he Chamberf nds that thErei s no rcasonabl,aEx planationf or ita Defenco-'sla ck of objectionsa t al earlicr stagei n thc tsial. ID the cxerciseo f its diicretiog ir bous tUatt lte burdeno f proof has

shiftcd to the Defeocet o denonseatet hat the lack of notice gcjudiced rbc Accusedi o rhep reparationo fhis defeucc-E 3&. Subsequentlyt,h e Trial Chamberc onsideredt he Defenceo bjection in connectionw ith thc allegation of killings at Nyamirambo on 7 April Lgg4.82Teh E Tlial Chamberf ound "it clear thar Counts\ ,2 and3 includec ventst hat occurredo n 7 April [1994]".s3Wo henc onsideringth e alleged lqillingso f JosephK ahabayeF, 6lix Dx, Murekezi,J eanB oscoN dingutsga ndP alatinN yagatare,s3r tbe Trial Chambe'rd iscussedw hether paragraph3 3 of the Amcnded Iodictuent pl.eadedr hese events with sfficient specifi city.B' However, the Triat Chamberd id not coosider whcther the allegatiousc outainedi n this paragraph,u uder Count 4 (mruder) could also sutrryortth e cbargeso f genocidea nd extccminationa s a crime againsth umanity.

365. In MwwyL the Appeals Chambero bscrvedt hat "the Prosecution'sf ailure to expressely statet hat a paragraphin the Indichcnt supportsa particular count in the Indicunent is indicative that ttre allegationi s not chargeda s a criroe".8t3T he AppealsC hamberc onsiderst hat the sarDern ay be said where a particular allegationi s chargedu nder a particular count only. In rhe presentc ase, the AmendedI ndictmentp ut the Appellant on notice that the Prosecutionw as chargiugh im for tbe lf S"es upraC:bapsrvts p-p axa*214. *'Defence ClosingB rie4p arast.9 3-197,318-31D9e; f-coclclosinsgrg umen(tsT . 24Novembe2r0 06p p. t2-t4).T\e DdEnce statedt }et rhc-allegations9 f kirling nracleu ndcr count iqduracr) *ura ".rory b"-takt into considerilion L o + t a". that Cor:rtJ". DefeocoC losing Brie( par,a,197.S eea l.roTrial iudgcnung paras-f g, gS. Trial Judscgrentp, ara-1 9. oe Trial Judienent psra-g 5- m Trial Judlcorcnr,r ;ara.E 6. llL SeeT rial JudgernenSt,e ctions4 ,7,4 ,8.4.9,4 ,1L, i! SceT lial Judgcruentp, oras-| 83, 184, 196,ZVZ- *' Mwuttyi AyryrcalJufuemeapl ara- 156. 104 CaseNo.:I CTR-01-7+A 2 Febnrury2 009

02/02 '09 12:42 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @r os +061fr murder of Murekeei only under Cor.rn4t . In view of this, there is someb asisf or argumentt hat by reading the AmendedI ndictment alone,t be Appollant would not have understoodt hat he was also charged for ttre same fact utde,r Counts I and 3. In regard to the Amended Indicuneut" tle Prosecutionli ncw the identity of a finite numbero f victif,l$.andw as able, when it soughtt o anrend the Indictment' to specify the circumstanceso f their murder. It chosen ot to list Murekezi's kiJling in the slatementso f facts pertaining to counts alleg:rg genocidea nd cxterrrination as a crime agaiusth umanity. The Appeals Chamberh as previously held that "[eJven in casesw hcf,ea high 'impractical degreeo f specificity is [...] since the identity of the victim is infmmarion that is valuabtreto the preparationo f the defencc case,i f the Prosccutioni s in a positiou to name the viclims, it shouldd o so."'84 366. Turning to the Prosecution'ss ubmissiont hat the AmendedI ndictment has to be read as a whole, the Appeals Chamber notes that while the statcment of facts supportiag Count 4 incorporates the statenents of facts supporting Counts 1 and 3, the reverse is not trge. The statementso f facts supponing Counts 1 and 3 do not incolporatet he statemenro f facts supporting Count 4- This lack of reciprocity night have addedt o the impressiont hat Mruekezi's murder was notincorporatediu Counts I and 3 of the AmeudedI ndichent.

367. The AppealsC hambcrf urther nolos that the processo f aynendingth e initial Indicrment might have laid thc,groundworkf or conirsion on thin issue-O riginally, Mruekezi'sf rilling was listed in a statemerrot f factsp ertainingt o both Counts3 and4 . However,t his statemenot f facs was evenfirally severe4 and Murekczi's killing was subsequeaflym entionedo nly in the staternento f facts applicablet o Count 4. \ilhile the rationalef or the severingo f the original, combineds tatement of facts did not centreo n Murekezi, the ameudmenmt ay have given the messageth at Mr:rekezi's killing relatedo nly to Count 4 of the Indichnent,r athert ban servinga s a key basisf or the gpvest of t}rec hargesin volved.tssT ho Prosecution'sd ecisionn ot to refcr to Murekezi at all in Counts1 and 3 of the Anended Indictmeirt, especially in the context of the Indictment amendmcntp rocess, tftyyAr*i^a_-lpp""t Ju_dgernenpta, rr 25 (quotingK rp reiki| et aLApp.al Judgemenqp ara-9 0)- ]- More spccilrcally, on 25 Novenber 20O5,t hc Prosecutionf ilcd u rcguc.stf or leave to ameuat he Iudictneil Ttrs Prosecution,h ter ali4, requesteda uthorization ! o presentC oults 3 (cxtcrrrination as a cdnc againstb rmanity) and 4 (murder as _a g rime 4gaiosth t:msd$ cr:urulativelyi nstead of altematively. Seek osocurion'J Modon fm davc to Amcnd the [rdictmeut, ptras- l-2. 3.5-3.7,T bc Triul-Cltamber grantedt he

i]osc-curiqn'sr equesti o pa+ allowfug the cumularivep lcadiog of Couuts3 and 4, tho dclction of somep ar graphs,s cctionsa nd words, ioo r.n"i nsertion cf nioes of victims in orrep ara_graphT.h c Trial Cha,mbera lso instructed tbe Prosecutiodt o spccify 'tic location, -i-c and rnannpro f thc doatho f TheOrreUGc skunrt' and "clarify the f4cts which arc intcttdedt.t ipp"rt tlu chargeO i-ur*, i a crirc aguiwt lunurr?: N opposedtoe xterminationa s a crimc agaiwt hwurrifi' (enifiasis sddcd).it sf,*mea ttat "such clsrificatim shouldi nclude thc nancs ef fhs vi6tims, tbo trocrtion"t ime aud -r-"f of lbc afle-goef dn iurdas-. Jce Decision ou &e Prosecutor'sR equestf c Leave !o Amend the IndicEreng Rule 50 of thc Rulcs proceOu.eo o.t Evidenoe' 12 Dcccsrber_200p! .

5. Tho Ancnded Indicmenq incorporatiug* re Trial Chamber'si nstrucrions,w as fitrctl on 19 Deccnbcr 2A05.S eeT he proseortor v_F ranqoisK orero,Amcodcd Indictoetrt, 19 Deccober 2005, Tbe coacise statenat of facls supportingC ounts3 and4 was severeda nd tbo murdcr of Murekezi was !o Iongcr mentionpdu n<lcr Corut 3, only,b eiogp lcadedu nda Couut4 - CompareA nrendedI nrlictncnt pp- 5, 6, with ancoacirndj.o"roi p. i. 105 CaseNo-:I CTR-01-7+A 2February2009

02/02 '09 12:43 FAX 0031705128932 ICTR @r ro +o5k resultedi n vaguenessw ith porentially seriousc onsequerncefosr the preparationo f the Appellant,s defence. In these circumstances,t he Appeals Chamberc onsiderst hat reversal of the affected convictionsi s approprai te.sto 368. Thc Appeals Chamber furtber notes that the Auended Ildictment was issued on 19 December2 005, sevend aysa fter the filing of the ProsecutiorPr re-Trial gri6.tlz As a result"w hile the ProsecutionP re-Trial Brief included a summeryo f anticipatedw inresst estimony,t tre text of the PnosecutionP re-Tfial Bricf and thc summariesr eferrcd ro either rhe Indictrnent or the draft ame'ndedin dictmeut anngxsdt o tbe ProsccutionM otiou to Amend the Indicmepqs3sb ut not to the AmendedI ndicnnent itself. Turning to the hosecution's contentiont hat the Prosecutionp re-Trial 'the Bdef presented factual allegatiousb y locatiou,i ncluding Nyamirambo,r arhert han with respecr to eacbc ouDt", the Appeals Chamberd oesn ot seeh ow this argumenti s capableo f demonstrating that any defect in the Ameuded Indictment relaring to the facts underlying Cormrs 1 and 3 was curcd by the Pnosecutionke -Trial Brief.

369. In a wodd of limited legal resowccs, tbe AppcJlant'sc ouusel might have focused more attention on Murekezi's killing had tbis key material fact beeum ore specifically linked to a larger number of counts conceming ctimes such as genocide and extemrination as a crine against humanity, which on their face appear even mor? serious than murder_I nstead" the AmendCd Indictment may have grvetr thc opposite irnpresuioq.T bis crror and.t bc conflr.sionit orighl. have generated iu stify reversalo f the Appellant's couvjctionsu nder Couots I and 3, insofar as they rely orr tho murdcr of Murekezi. 37O. Accordfurglyt,} resec onvictionsa req uashed. Y! Sn NtakirutimanaAppealJ udgeucnq yan. TL 'l' cg olt Ttu Prcseiitor v. Fiotgois- kor"ro,Amcnded Indicrucot, 19 Deceabsr Z}OS,w ithhosccution prs-Trial Bdef, 12 December2 0O5. se The h 't o h s c e ctrtion Prc'Triat Brief, which wao fil,ed aflcr the ProsocurionM otioa to Argend tbc Indictment mo.ely refers to indictmeuf' withort specifyrDgw hetheri t poia8 to the Initial Indic@ent otrl he draft eEeudedi ndictnrcni 106 CaseNo-:I CTR-01-74-A 2Fcbruary2 009 q-{

02/02 '09 12:44 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @r rr I +0+lfr )il. ALLEGED ERROR IN HEARING THE CASE OT'THARCISSE RENZAIIO WHILE PARTICIPATING IN DELIBERATIONS ON TIM APPELLANT'S CASE (GROUND OTAPPEAL 11) 37L- The Appellaut submitst hat t.beT rial Chambere rredi n law by hearingt he caseo f Tharcisse Re,uzaho,Eth3ee f ormerprefecto f Kigali,m while it wasd eliberatingo n theA ppellaat,sc ase.sarhl e Appellant alleges an appeaftrnceo f bias on the part of the Trial Judges.s2[ tre subrnils that a 'that reasonableo bsen'eflwould have concluded the deliberationso f the Trial Chamber fin r]re presentc ase]w ere taintedb y its hcaring of the Renzplwc ase".K 372- In bis Appellant'sB rief, the Appellants tatest hat "[{for noq/'he 'Tormally d aclinest o raise this ground of appeal".8#I nstea4 the Appellant makes several "observarions"i n relation to tho hosecution's obliguion to disclose potentially exculpatory marerial pursuant to Rule 5g of the Rules.s5H e submitst lat it is impossiblef or hirn to know whetherp rotectcdw ituessesw ho testified in his trial will subsequentlyre turn to testify in other casesffi sincet bey will testiff under diffcreot pseudonyms.sTT he Appellant conteads that he therefore has to rely on the kosecutiou's compliancew ith its disclosr:reo bligationsp uffiuantt o Rulc 68 of the Rules.sotI n this regard,h e submits ttrat the Prosecutionh as failed to disclosep

otentially exculpatoryw ihess statemenrsa nd testimonioso f threep rotectedw itncssesw ho testifi.edi nthe Renzahot llral and wbo had previously testified in his trial-&4Te hc Appellant also allegesa violation of his right to be tried wirhout unduo delay.u5o 373. The Prosecutionp rovidesn o argumentir r responscn, otirrgt hat the Appellant abaudonedth is ground of appeal.st Yn" ProsecutorvT. harcissRe anzalro,CasNeo .I Cf,R-97-31-TT, het risl i! thatc ases tarte-do n EJ anuar2y 0ffl. f-'fN oI"t,ici-e* of Appeal,p axas.24,5-?Afr;p pellant'sB rief,p aa g2On; -riefi " Rcply,p .".. Oil of Aupeal oaf,or2. 45- w Noti." of Aii,eal, ians-245248. ]'Notice of appca[ paa-248. * Appellaot's Brief. paf& 319- fl aii-"rinR eplyp, at'itso-r -oa. * Brief in Rcply,p aras.6 5,67. :1 Brid ilr Repln paras.6 5. 67- ffi Brief io Ruif* bara.o g. * 9lgt 1"iti, iuo. 6A.Hc also submitst brt lhc testiaeay of Wir.uessA JA, a protccrcdw ihess tr thaR enzolroc ase, could be relevant to a ddcrrrination wbethur Ir AppellarT had aurtrority over tbo policemen in rbo region" sincj WitnessA IA statedt hat bo was a policemani n Nyanrge-ngBT.h p Appdtart i"Umits ttafru *igtess gaver ho-rcrnai'ing part of his testimonvi n closeds cssion,a ndt hat. uss uch,i r wasl ot icccssiblet o the Appellanr-S rietiu Reply, p;. 66: 1oeppaf-rs Brief, pan 320- -' Respondcut'Bs rief, para-7 . CaseNo.[:C TR-01-7+A 2February2 009

O2/O2 'os t2:45 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @ttz +nln 374. The AppealsC hambern otest hat the Appellant'ss ubmissionrse latingt o the Prosecution's failure to dischargeit s disclosureo bHgationsa ndt be Trial Cbamber'sv iolation of his right ro a nial without undued clay'were raisedf or the f:rst time in the Appeal Brief and rhe Bricf in Re,ply.ssIzn light of the fact that the Aprpellantf ailed to "indicate the substancco f the aUegede f,rors"i n bis Notice of Appeal, as rcquired by Rule ttE of the Rules, the Appeals Chamberf inds tbat the Appellant's argumentsd o not warrant arrf to ensuret he faimess of the proceedings ionsideration andt he AppcalsC hambcrd eclinest o considArt hem. 'Chamber 375. Tbe Appeals uow firfls to the argumentsr aisedi n the Notice of Appeal uudert his gronndt o the effcct ttrat the Trial Cbasrberw as taintedb y the evidencei t heardi n rhe Renzahoc ase while deliberaringo n the Presentc ase.T he Appeals Chambern otes that, at the appealh earinga nd in responser o a quebtionr aised by the Appeals Chamber,t he Appellant declaredt hat he had not abandonedth is ground of appeal.B5T3h r AppealsC bamberf inds that tbe explanationsg iveu by the 'Tormally Appcllant for re'instatingt his ground of appealw hich it had dropped"i n the Appcltnrrt's Brief are unctrear.85H4o wever, in lighr of the particular circumstanceso f this casea nd absenta n objection by the Prosecutiou, thc Appeals Chamber will address thc Appellant's argumenr concerningt he allegedl ack of indcpeadeucea ndi mpartie[iry.

376. The Appellant arguest hat in light of the positions rcspectivelyh eld by TharcisseR enzaho and rhe Appellant in'April 1994,r espectively,a nd the locations where they allegedly committerJ oimes, tbe facts of both cffles are linked.sssT he Appellant submits that rlre Trial Judgesh eard witnessesin the Renzatwcaswe ho had previously testified in his rrial and that by doing so they lost the appearanceo f independeucea nd impartiality.s5dT be Appellant allegest ha! whcn hearing the sasrew itnessesiu different cases,t he Trial Judgesw ould cvontuallyb e incapableo f distinguishing the witresses't ostimonics.trT 377. In Nqhitflarrab t aL, the AppealsC harnberre calledt hat [t]he rigbt of aa accusod to b€ tried befce an independent ribgnal is an integral compouenr of his lt8ht to u{+ d3t as providcd in Articles 19 and 20 of tbe Stanrte. [.-.] trlhe independeoce of rhe Judges of the iftibunal is Eparanteed by tbe standards for rlcir selectiop, the icthod of their their conditions of .qervice and the iomrurity they enjoy. Tbc Appeals Clhamber firrtbcr notes that tbc inclcpcndence of the f11-!nnrl as a Judicial orgaa was aifirged by tbe Sccrctary-General at the rimc wben the Tribunal was created and $o ClumUer reafiirns Uu ff"S institu-tignal independcocc me:uls that the Tribunal is entirely inde,peudent of the orga.ns of the United Nations'and of aay State ot group of Sl.ates.A ccordingty, lhe Appeals Chamb& considen l] Applanr's Bricf, parar3 20; Brief in Rcpty, paras,5 9-68. :' AT. 28 August2 008 p-'5 7. T af. 28 aulust 2008p B.5 6, 57. *l eppeUant'sB rief, para.S 20;B ricf in Reply, para-6 7. -o Noticeo f Anpeal.g ans.245-Vl1- tr7 AT- zs eugpst2 OOBp. ,57. 108 CaseNo-:r cTR-OI-?+A 2 Fcbruary2 009

'09 @r rc 02/02 12:45 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR +0zlH that tbere is a suoug presumptiont bat thc Judgeso I the Ttibuq4l take their decisionsi n ftll indqrcn&nce, 0!d it is for thr: Appellent to rebut irr;.cp resumptioo-EB 378. The Appoals Charubern otes that Judgeso f this Tribunal are sometimesi nvolved.i n tials which, by their very nafrre, cover overlapping issues.st9I n this regar4 tbe Appeals Chamber previouslyh eld that [i]t is assuaredi,n the absr.nceo f evidcnP !o thr contrarf, thar, by virdrc of tbeir rainiug a.ud exlnriencc, thc.{udel-wiu rule fairly on tbe issuesb efore iherr, relyiag sololy ald exclusiveiy on the evidutce adduced_inth e particular case.T hc Appeals chamba agies wiiU tne ICTy B6eag tbai "a j-udgei s uor disElalifrcd from trearingt *o 6i mme ctinhsl i:as arisi"g out sf the snms scrieso f eveEtsw, hereb e is orposedt o cvideucer elating to thesee vcnb in both Jases"js Accordingly, tbe fact that the Trial Judges beaxd the Rqrzaho ca,se whiler at rhe same rime, they participatedi n dclibirations on the Appellant's cased oesn ot in itself demonsrrarca n appearanceo f bias on thc pan of the Trial Judges.

379. For the foregoingr easonst,h is groundo f appeails dismissed. l-j'\ anirrvrr-ct aI- AppealJudgcmcntp, ara-2 8 (citaEonso mitted). Nahimuta et aL AppalJudgcment, para,7 8. '* Nahimaru,cr al, AppealJ udgcmen(p ar& 78 (citationso mitted). 109 CasoNo.:I CTR-01-7+A 2 Febnrary2 009 i

02/02'09 12:46 FA.X0 031705128932 ICTR @r rt I +ilfn xff. ALLEGED EI{RORSR ELATTNGT O SENTENCTNG(G ROI[{D OF APPEAL 12) 3E0. The Trial Giamber sentencedth o Appellant to life imprisonnrentf or the crimes of genocicle and exterminationa ndm urder as crimesa gainsth umanity-861 381. The Appellant submitst hat the Trial Chamberc ommitteda n error of law rn sentencingh im to inprisonment forlthe remaindero f his life.8@T he Appellant claims that ,.[t]he numerouse rrors of law and fact tbar flffect the ltrial] Chamber'sf indings are sucht hat the flriall Chambers hould havea cquittedt he eipeUant, and a sentences houldn cver haveb eeni mposedo rr hfun.,,s6H3e posits an alternatef actual conclusiont haq in his view, the Trial Charnbers houldh aver eacheqs64c[ aiming that "[t]his version of [theJ factual f:ading is also as plausible as that made by thc pria[ Chamber."i6In ttre alte,rnativet,h e Appellant arguest trat the Trial Chambers houldh avei mposeda reduceds entencestar na pbads for the Appeals Chambert o substitutet he current sentencew ith an 8fl "appropriates entcnce". 3E2. The Appellant turther submitst hat the Trial Chamberd id not takei nto accountt he factorsi t shouldh ave considercdin determiningt he sentcnce.s6Tto this end, the Appellant points to faclors that accordingt o him sbould have mitigated his sentenccb ut were not consideredb y the Trial Charnber:t he

"pacificatioa meetings"w hich he held in Rushashi:8sh is efforts to ensuret he safety. of Vinccnt Munynndanutsa,a well-known RPF suppott"q87oth e time (thirrccn montbs) spcnt in det,entiona wairingj udgement druing the Trial Chamber'sd eliberations;87ar nd the fact that being sentencedf or the rerrraiudero f his [rfe, tle AppeUanti s not in a position to benetit from the redustion of the sentcnce granted by the Presiding Jud.ged r:ring the delivery of the Trial fudgcment,872 li t iot Judgcocnt,p ara"5 85. lXl!o{* of Appeaf,p at*.V19-255;A ppcllaar'sB rief, patas.32l-J26. I Notice of Appeal pan 2-50. I appeltant's Brief, para 324. N Alrlrllant's Brie4 para.326, ll Notice of eppert, parz63. *'ADDellant's Bricf, oan ?26- ffi ttbir',p of eppeal iera. z5r. f woUceo f AFca[ Wra. 21}iAppella:rr's Briaf, para 325. ,r, lpqn*:'.s Bri{, ry* 1T (yher9.t hc Appcllant challeugcsl be T?ial Cbarnbcr'sf astual findings). Noticeo f Appeal,p an ?54;A ppellanfsBi:rcf,garl,,326. "; ]'- Notice of -Ap!{, Pot -- 251' €s.e! paragapn 25d the Appellant submirst hat "[t]he Trial Chanrberd id not rake into-accotnt [-'.] the f*l th-o *re Presidingr udgi of.rho ffnali bhame had stare4 d:rii"g detivery of rlo roairneii on 7 Deccober 20fjfl, &al ]lE App^.eIaant id tobe givcn ccaii for the pfiiod he spenti u icrcntion sincc his arresti n knyq thati s, 4yearsa nd 16 days-" 110 CaseNo.:I CTR-01-7+A 2 February2 009 Q,r

'09 E rrs 02/02 12:47 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR Noln 383. The hosecutionr espondsth at this groundo, f appeals houldb e summarilyd ismissedb ecause the Appellaut advancesn o afgrhent to demonstrateth at the Trial Chamberf ailed tO exercisei rs discretiOna dequatelyo r tbat it committeda manifeSte rror in detenniningt lre sentence.8?3 384. The AppealsC hamberw ill first addressth e merits of the Aplrllant's argumcntsa gainstt lre Trial ChafiIber's deterruinationo f the seoterrcea nd then will consider how its fiadings on the Appellant'sc onvictionsim pactu poat he sentence.

385. Article 24 of the Stanrb allows the Appeals Chamber to "affirm, feverse or revise" a senteDceim posedb y a Trial Chamber.H owevcr, the AppealsC hamberr ecalls rhat Trial Chambers are vestedw ith a broad discreGonin determiningt he appropriates entenceT. tris stemsf rom their obligation to tailor the sentencea ccordiugt o the individual circumstanceso f rhe accuseda nd the gravity of the crime.874G enerally,t he AppealsC hamberw ill not substitutei ts own scntcncefo r that imFosedb y the Trial Charnberu nlessi t hasb eens hownt hat the latter commineda disceraiblee rror ia exercisingi ts discretion,o r failed to follow the applicablel aw-875 386. The Aprpellantc laims that the Trial Chamber failed to consider mitigaring factors in se'ntenciuhgi m.

387. In addressingth e mitigating circumstancest,lr e Trial Chambers rauedth at: [itJ docs not considerI bEt there are atry sigaiEcautm irig*ing cimnstances. Shce 1958.I Grcra was a raacberu d lalc becamea dtecror of primory cducstion. IIp bclpod build sclrools urd csrablisha socccrt eam for Kigali city [...]. Prior conbihuficrns!o cofiEurity dcvclopncot have beeu considcredb y botlr Tribunals as a midgoting faclor and the Chflnber accondslh is some weighl Thcte is uo evidencct hat Karerad iscrimiuateda geinstT ursis bcfore April 19%, and this is atso accordeds onro woight by tbe Ch'hbcr- Tbe Defence claims that tGraa saved Tlrtsi civiliaas duriag tbc gcnocide,b ut the Chanbcr did not fftrd the cvidenceF garding trcse rescues ctedible. I(ercra showedn o re$orse and ilid Dot coop€ratD with the Prosecution-T he Chemberi s of thc view thar rhe aggravaringc ircurnstanceosu tweigt fre mitigating circumstsnccs.ET6 388. The Appellant made no senteucing subnrissions druing closing argumeuts, Il such circumstances, thc Trial Chamber was not rurder an obligation to seek out information t}tat counsel did not sec fit to put before it at the appropriate time.8?7R ule 86(C) of the Rules clearly indicares that sentencing submission.ss hall be addressedd uring closing arguments, and it was therefore the m Respoudeat'sB ricf, paa,244. 'n,Nahamina a al. AppealJudgemenpl ara. 1037;N tagerurd et

aI. Appe.alJudgemeopt,a n-429;NaJetiIiEo rd y-!t fqi!_+!wal Judgemenlp ora-5 93; Kaieliieli AppealJudgemenpqa rn. 291:Sem*zaAppealJudgenrerr.p sa- 3 1-2;C elebi|i'Appcal Judgemenrp, en- 7 | 7- ''' Nahamina a aL t+pal Judgemenr,p aro- 1037; Ntaguura et at. Appeal Ju gemest, pan 429; Naletiltt ancl Motinovit Appcal Judgenenqp ara 593; Joki6 AppealJ udgenrentp, arr E; XqlaiiAi App"il Judganenr,p ara 291; Sernoua AppealJ udgernentp, ara.3 12; MusemaAppealJ udgemea!p an- 379; fiaii fuagemeatonJ €utencQ Appeal, wra^2,. l]j ftirl fuaement, para-5 82 (foomoteso oiucd)- "" KupreikiC'eta l. ApplJudgcureng pafa. 414. rn CaseNo.:I CTR-01-7+A 2 February2 009

I 02/02 '09 12:47 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @r ro nqln Appellanr's prerogative to idmtify any mitigating circumstancesin stead of directing the Trial Chambcr'sa ffention,tot he recordi n geueral. 389' The Appeald Chamber further finds thar in pointing to rhe "pacification meetiags', in Rttshashia nd to his,allegede tffortst o ensurct he safety of Vincenr Mnnyandamuts4t he Appeltant merely Presentsf acnral assemionsw ithout showing how rhe mitigating circumstancesw ere undervaluedb y the Triar cbamber. Therefore,r be Appellant has not demonskatedt hat the Trial chamber cornminediad iscerniblee rror in its assessrnenotf the individuat mitigating circ'mstances. This sub-gror:ndo f appeali s accordinglyd ismissed.

390. The Appeals Chamberc onsiden that, in senlencing,t he Trial Chanrbcrc orrectly took into account tle gravity of the offences and the degree of liability of the convicred persorr,87t8le iDdividual circumstanceso f the Appellant, and his role in thc crines, includiug any mitigating circumstances,sTaes well as the senterrcingp racticeso f thc Tribunal and furR w^r,da-8sIot found it appropriatet o impose the ma:timum sentence.ssTt he Appellant makesn o submissions uggesting that thc eimes for which he was convicteda re not grave.T he Appeals Chamberr ecalls that even wherem itigatingc ircumstancoesx ist,a Trial Chamber'lisn ot precludedfr om irnposinga sentence of life irnprisonmenqw here the gravity of tbe offence requires rhe imposition of the maximum sentencep rovidcd for."8& Mhdful of the graviry of the Appellanr's crines, the Appcals Charnber doesn ot find any disccnible error in senterrciug.

391. Turning to the Appellant's slaims that rhe Trial Chanberencd in sentencingh im to lifc imprisonmen! when, the charges against him were not proven beyond reasonabled oubt, the Appeals Chamberr ecalls that it has upheld a numbero f the Appellant's grolnds of appeala nd has reversed several of the Appellaut's convictious, namely: for aiding and abetting genocide and extcrmiaationa s a crime againsth umanity,b asedo n the allcged weaponsd isuibution in Rushashi coEunune;f or orderiug genocidea nd extcrminationa nd murder as crimcs againsth gmanity, based on the allegedm urderso f JosephK ahabaye,J eanB osco Ndingutse,a nd palatin Nyagatare;a nd for instigating murder as a cri.mea gainsth r:nanity, basedo n the murder of Gakr:nr.I n addition, the Appeals Cbamber,p roprio motu, has reversedt hc Appellant's convictioas for ordering genocide and exterminationa s a crime againsth umaniry,b asedo n the killing of Murekezi. 392' Thereforet he,questionb efore the AppealsC fia.rnbeirs wherheri t shouldr eviset he sentence imposedb y the Trial Chamberi n view of the findings madei n this Judgement. ll rtiaf fuag€@"nt paras.5 74 , 575 . :: Trial Judgernentp, aras-5 7G582, * Trisl Judgemenpqa ras5- 63,5 84. I I ll2 ; CaseN o.: ICTR-01.74-A 2Fcbruary2009 q11,r* i

02/02 '09 12:48 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @ttz ffi\ln 393, The AppealsiChambecr onsiderst hat the crimes for which the Appellant remainsc onvicted on appeal are extremely grave: fhey include genocid.ea ud exteunination and.m urder as crimes againsth umanity, arid resultedi n the dcarho f a large number of civilians.srsC onsidcringr hat the Triat Chambere xerciscdi ts discrction to impose a single sentencer eflecting the totaliry of the criminal conducto f the Appellant insteado f imposing concurrents entences,*8aao d h ligbt of tho seriousnesso f the outsunding coovicrions,t hc Appeals Chamberf inds that the leversalsd o not warrant a reductiono f the sentenceim posedb y th'eT rial chauber. 3g4. The Appeals Chambcrh as consideredr he mitigating and aggravaringf actors discussedb y the Trial Chamber,d nd conctus with the Trial Chambert hat the aggravaringf actors ourweight he mitigating factors.sss' 3g5. The Appellarjtis uusubstantiatedco utentiont hat in assessingth e Sentencct,h e rime spenti n detention during the,T rial Chamber's deliberatiouss hould have been taken into accounti s also dismissed.T he Appellant has not demonstratedh ow the delibcrationsp eriod in this casec alls for a rcduction of sentence.

396. Accordingly, thc Appeals Chambera fFrms the Appellant's sentenceo f imprisonmenrf or the remaindero f his life. 'Cbarnber 397. The Appcals finally dismissest he Appeltant's claim that the seotenced eprived him of the benefit of any crcdit basedo n the period alreadys penti n dctentiorr.R ule 101(C)o f the Rules statest hat "lcliedit shall be given to the convictedp ersonf or the perio4 f *y, druing which tho convicrcdp ersonw as detainedi n cutody pendingh is surrendert o the Tribunal or pe,ndingti al or appeal". This provision does not affect the ability of a Chamber to iurpose the maximum sentencea, sp rovidedb y Rule 101(4) of the Rules. ] rriar Judgemenpr,a "a.isss. E:yiyit:g:f2A.pped lucllcurcnt,p ara. 26?nq uotiugM wema AprynaJl ud,gcmenpl ara.3 96. I SaaT rial Judgenrcnpqa xas1. 92.315,376,456- ." Trial fudgement'p ara 585- * Trirl Judlencnt, para-5 sz. l13 CaseNo.I:q tR-01-7+A 2 Februory2 009

'09 E rre 02/02 12:49 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR 3qvla XilI. DISPOSITION 398. For the foregoingr e&sonsT! m APPEALS CIIAVIBER PURSUAI\T ro Article 24 of the sranre andR uIe 1lg of the Rules; NOTING thc wrirteh submissiouso f the puties and their oral argumentsp reseuteda t the heariug on 28 August2 fl)8; SITTING in opens dssion; ALLOWS ilre Appe,llant'sF irst Ground of Appeal and RE\ZERSESt he Appellant's convictions for aiding and abetting genocidea nd exterminatioa as a crime against humanity, basedo n the allcgedw eaponsd istributiou in Rushasldc ornmlrne; ALLOWS, in parq the Appcllant's Fifth Ground of Appeal anct RE\IERSES the Alpellant's convictiorrsf or ordering genocidea nd exterminationa nd murder as crimes agaiusth umnrity, based on the allegedr ntrders of Josephl( atrabayc,J eanB oscoN dingutse,a ndP alatin Nyagatare; PROPRIO MOTII, RE\D,RSES the Appellant's convictions for orrdering genocide arrcl exterminationa s a crime againsth umaniry,b asedo n tho killing of Murekczi; ALLOWS, in ParL the Appellant's SevenrhG round of Appeal and RE\/ERSES the Appcllant's coaviction for instigatingm urdera s a srime againsth rrmanity,b asedo n the murder of Gakuru; DISMISSES the Appellant'sa ppealina II orherrespects; AIT'IRI\['S thc Appqllant's conviction for instigating and committing gmocide drrring the attack againstT htsi retugeesa t NtaramaC hrrrcho n 15A pril L994;AIT'IRIVIS

the Appellant's convictious for instigating and committing cxtennination and murder as crimes againsth r.u.anity tbrough the killings of Tutsi refugeesa t Ntarama Chr:rch on L5 April 1994; AI'FIRMS the Appcllant's conviction fm ordering murder as a crime against huuanity based on the killing of Mqrekezi; AFflRI\{S the Annoflaut's couviction for aiding and abettingm urder as a crime again.shr umanity basedo n tho killing of GalcunrA; I'FIRMS the Appellant's convictionsf or insrigatingg enocidea ncl extennination as a srime against humanity, based on his alleged conduct at me€rings held in Rushashci orununeb etweenA pril andJ unc 1994. AITIRMS the Appefant's sentenceo f imprisonmentf or the remaindero f hi.sl ife, subjccrt o crcdit beit g given under Rr:les 101(D) and 107 of the Rules for the pedod iu which thc Appellart was deprivodo f his liberty for the purposeso f this case,t hat is from 20 October2 001; 114 CaseN o.: ICTR-Ol-?+A 2 Febnrary2 009

02/02 '09 12:50 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @r re , 316|H i RIILES that this Judgemenst hall be enforcedi mmediatelyp rrsuant to Rglo 119o f rheR ules;a ud ORDERS, in a""orianc" wittr Rulcs 103(B)a nd 107 of the Rules,t hat the Appellant is to remaini n rhe custodyo f the Tribunal pendingh is transfert o the state in which his sentencew ill be served. Done in English arraiFren"nt,h e English text bcing autboritative. qneE\>rerl - FaustoP ocar MohamedS hahabuddeen MehmetG dhey PresidingJ udge Judge Judge Liu Daqun TheodorMeron Judge Judge : Done this 2odd ay of Febnraryz C/|lg, at Arush4 Tanzania. [Seel of the TribunalJ i 115 CaseN o,: ICIR-OI{4JA ZFcbnlary20fF I

02/02'09 12:50 FAI 0031705128S32 ICTR @tzo Tqsln XfV. AIYI\EXA: PROCEDIIRAL BACKGROUI\ID 1. The maiu aspectso f the appealp roceeding53 1sg trmmarize<bl elow. A. Notice of Appeal andBriefs 2- The Trial Cbamberp rouotmcedt he Trial Judgeinenti n this caseo n 7 December2 002 and renderedi t in writing on 14 Decernber2 W7.

3. On 21 December2 007, the ke-Appeal Judged enied the Appellant's rcquesrt bat the time limit for filing his notice of appeala ccruef rom the date on which rhe Trial Judgemenwt as serrred on him and on his Liaa Counseli n French but grantedp roprio motu aiextension of time of seven days.I On 9 January2 008, the Pre-AppealJ udged eniedr he Appcllant's requestf mreconsideration of the 2l Decembs 2007 Decisiona ndf or a firther extensiono f rime.z 4. Tbc App"Ilarlt frIed his Notice of Appeal ou 14 lanuary 20083a nd his Appellant's Brief on 7 April 2oo8.4O u l{ May 2008,t he Prosecutioufi ted irs Responde,nrB'sr ief.sT he Appellantf iled his Brief in Reply on,2J uue2 008.6 B. AssiEmentof.Iudees 5. Otr 14 Deceuiber2 OO7,thefo tlowing Judgesw ere assiguedto heart hc appeal:J udgeF ausro Pocar, Presiding; Judge Mehmet Giinefi Judge Liu Daqun; Judge Thcodor Meron; and Judge V/olfgang Schomburg.TJu clgeF austoP ocari ssueda n order designatingh irnself as the Pre-Appcal Judgei n this case,8S ubsequentlyo,n 19J une2 008,J udgeM ohamedS hahabuddecwtra s assignedto replaceJ udgeV /olfgdng Schomburgw, ith immediatee ffect.e l^ry:=g_g FrangoisK arcra's Motiol for Extoosiono f Time fc Filing the Notico of Appea! issucdo. n 2l Decembcr 2ffi7 zladf'i led on 3l Dcccmber 2007 ('2L December2 0fi Dccision"). The Frcnch aaniGtior of the Trial Judguaeot was Iilcd on 19 May 2OOfi- i ^9fli"l on

Requ-cstfso r Extension of Time for Filing thc Notice of Appcal and/or for Rccousideration9, January 2008 CP January2 0OED ecision"). 'Dcfence Notice dAppeal, filed tu French( Avis d'AppeDo n 14 January2 008. 'Appellanf s Brief, filed in Rench (Minpire d'eppel (Article 24 fu SaM, RdgleI 11 du Rdghmc* de proe€clure et de Prcwe) on ? April 2008.jThe Appcllant initially submitleda n Alpcllant's grief ou 2E Maich !,QQgth nr exceededr lc word lini: lt!9f4 by ,tho Tribuual's ksctice Direction on Ge Length of Briefs and Mori,ons * app"rl bi approximately7 ,000 wo{s- The Appcllant did nol seeka dvancea utbmizationt o exceedt be word limit but suiiiueO i gotion regardinge fo"f o" qlFy qf filing hie AppollantrsB rief. Thc he-Appeaf Judged ismissedt bis modou and d*-ry{ 6l tt Appellant uust file sn ancuded motion complying with rbc **a limir o! z aprl 200g. SscD octsion 9n Motiou for Leavet o Ex€eed the Wcd r init 3 Apfil 2008- ] ResponaeofsB rief, fled on 16lv1ay2 003. " Brid iD Rcply, flleo iu Rcrrch (Rdpliquea u Mdtttoired e |Itxhr6) on 2 Jr:ne2 00E- ' ordsr Assign;'g Judgest o a csse boforet he Appealsc tamber. 14 Deccmber2 007. t Oraer Oasilletirg a PrCappoat Jdgu, 18 Decembcr2 007. 'Order Roplacinga Judgorina Caseb eforct he eppealsC banbcr,1 9J une2 OOB. il6 CaseNo.:I CTR-01-7+A 2 Februar2yo o9 t4--

02/02 '09 12:51 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR @tzt 3qh.ln c. Motion related to the Admission of Additional Evldence 6' on 28 August 2oo8, the Appellant filed a Motion for Additional Evidcnce.loT he hosecution opposedt his mrltion and requestedir s dismissal.rt on 6 octobc 200g, the Appeltant filed areply.tz On29 Octoberz o}S,theA ppealsC bamberd ismissedrh eA ppcllant,sm otion.t3 D. HearineoftheABpeal 7. pursuant t o a schedutingo rder of I July 200g,r4t he AppcalsC trambcrh eardt he panios, oral argnnrentso o iE august 2008 in Aru,sh+ Tanzatia. On 22 Septembc 200E, the Appeals Chamber graated an'oral motion submined by the Defence at the appeal hearingrs req'esting the Appeals Chambcr to recognize as validly filed the Appellant's Appeal Book and Book of Authorities, submined to the Regsty on 4 August 200g.16 To kesat Additional Evidescq Fled in Freoch (Requ\te extr&nementu rgente $'-!' Defcnse.eytfirc dep rdsenterd esi ldmcnts d,ep reuves upplamentaireso) n 28 augusi ZigB. Itosccutor's Rcryoose! o Appellant Karera's,'RequeEa frenQmznt urgentea c b D€fense auzfru de pr€senur tiEls iliments de preuves upphmenlaire!', Elcd on 16 SeptemUeZr OOE. '" R"ply to the kosocutor's Responsoto Appellant-farcra's_'Req.ut.tee firEmarnenut rgeng da ta D1fense auxfins de pr€scMer det €anptzts de pretnte .tuppl4mentairey'f,i lud_- Frcdh (Riplique d la r€pinse du procfrcur a ta.i eqtgt-e' f{-l

enlyeaurf.ent! dc la D4fetuea uxlins de prdser*erd es ilEnzcntsd ep reuves uppi€mentaires) oa 6 Octoucrz 6Og. uec$lotr oE the Alrpellail,'s Rcquestt o AdEit Additional Evidencep ursuant t o Ruls ll5 of the Rules of Itocedure aadE vide,ncc2, 9 Octob€r, 20OE- 'flf Scleagins Ord91.^!J ury 200t- .iee also: Orda- Iorkeparatioa of Appeal Hearing 20 August 200g. AT. 2EA ugusr2008p p:29-31. - Decision on the Appollant's oral Motiou ro Declareh is Appcal Book andB ook of .rruborities validly File4 22 September2@8- ; ll7 CaseN o.: ICTR-01-72+-A 2 Febnrary2 009 i' tl

'0s @tzz 02/02 L2:52 FAX0 031705128932 ICTR ffi\ln i )(V. AI\NEX B: CITED MIffBRIALSAI\ID DEF"INED TERMS : A. Jurispnrdence 1, ICTR ABayesu Tltc Prosecutorv - Jean-PaulA kayesu,C aseN o. ICTR-96-4-A, fudgemenf,1 June ZlOL ("Akayesu Appeal Judgemenf) Bagosorae fal Tlu Prosecutorv . Bbgosorae t aL, CaseN o. ICTR-9841-AR73,D ecisiono n Aloys Ntabalrrze's InterlocutoryA ppeal,onQ uestionso f Law Raisedb y the 29 June2 006 Trial ChamberI Decision on Motion for Exclusiono f Evidence,l 8 Septembe2r 006 Gacumbitsi Sylvestre Gacurnbitsi v- Tlrc Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-2001-6+A, Judgement,7 July 2006 ') (" Ga c u rnbit si Appeal'J udgemenf Kajelijeli fwinal Kaielijeli v., The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98 | tr\ r\ Judgemreng2 3 NIay 2Q05 ') ("'K aj el ij eI i Appeal Judgemenf tr(*rnuhauda Jeand e Dieu Kamu.lwdav. Thc ProsecuforC, aseN o. ICTR-95-54A-A,J udgement1, 9 September 2OO5(* K amulunda Appeal Judgeinent'') Karemera ef aL The Prosecutor v. Edowrcl l(arernera et al.,.Case No. ICTR-98-4+ARZ3.B, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding'Wimess Prooflng ll May ZOOT Kayishernr nnd Ruzindana The Prosecutor v- Cl'dment Kayishenn awl Obed Ruzindaru, Ca.seN o. ICTR-95-1-A, Judgemenr (Reasons), 1 Jurre 200t ("Kayislrcma and Rrtzintlana AppealJudgement',) IIE C:rsoN o-: ICTR-OI-74-A 2 Fcbruary2 009 i \.-

02/02 '09 12:52 FAX0 031705128S32 ICTR @tzc 31zln Mpambara The Prosecutor v. Jedn Mpartbara. Case No. ICTR{1-65-T, Judgemenf 1l Septcmbetr 2006 (* Mp ambara T lial Judgement") Muhimana Milcaeli Muhilnarta',v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-95-18-A, Judgenen\ Zl May 2OO7 ') (* Muhimatta AppeatiJ udgemcnf Musema Alfred Musema v. Prosecutor,c ase No. IcrR-gGl3-A, Judgernren!1 6 November2 001 lnc ') (" M use maA ppeal Jqdgemeuf Munrnyi T-harcisseM nruryi v. The Prosecntor, CaseN o. ICTR-00-55A-A, Judgemeng2 9 August 2008 (" Iltu[ vunyi Appeal Jridgement") NTshimaDeC taL Ferdinand, Nahinanh,, fean-Bosco Barayagwizn and, Hassan NgeTe v. The Prosectttor, Case NO- ICTR-99-52-A" Judgbment 28 November 2(D? (*Nahimana et al. Ap@,lJudgeurenf') Ndindgbahizi Emmaruzl Nainaanniziv- Thc Prosecutor, Casc No. ICTR{I-71-A, Judgement,1 6 Jmuwy 2OO7 (" N dind aba ha i Appeal Judgement'') Niyitegeka Eliizer Niyitegelu v. Thc Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-14-A, Jud,gemcnl g July 2OO4 (* N iy heg elu Appeal iud,gemenf ') Ntagenrra ef aL Tte Proseculor v. Andri Nlagerura, Emmanuel Bagambikf, and, Sanuel Imanishimwe, Case No. IcrR-99-46-,\ Judgenen\7 July 2006 ('^Ntagerura et al" Ap6,arJudgemenf') 119 CaseNo-I:C TR-01-7+A zFebflary 2009 \L(-L t' I'

O2/O2 'OS L2:53 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @tzt rln 31 Ntakirul"nqne Th.eP rosecutorv . ElizaphanN takintthnanaa nd Girard Ntakirutinuna, CasesN os. ICTR-95-10-A and ICTR-96-1?-A iudgement, 13 Deceurberz O(4C 'NtakirutimanaAppealJ udgement'') Rutaganda GeorgesA ndersonN derabwrweR utagandov.T heP rosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-9G3-A, Judgement 26Mary 20O3( 'Ruta'gandaA ppeal Judgomenf') Semanza LaurentS ernanrtv .77reP rosecutor,CasNe o. ICTR-97-2G'AJ* udgemenq2 0 May 2005( "Semanza AppeatJ udgement"), Seromba The Prosecutorv - AthanaseS eromba,C aseN o. ICTR-2001-66-A,f udgeme,ot1, 2 March 2008 ( Se r on ilta Appcal Judgemeut") Simba Alays Sirnbav . The Prosecutor,C aseN o. IpTR-01-76-A, Judgemen!2 7 Noveurber2 007 (*Sirnba AppealJ udgement")' I I I I | 2.ICTY Aleksovski Prosecutorv . Zatlco'AleksovskiC, aseN o. ft-SS-t+tt-AR73, Decisiono n Prosecrrtor'As ppeal on Admissibitityo f Evidence,1 6 FebnraryW $ 1-etelcswskiDecision) I .I BlagojevidanJdo kic I ,t Pro.reantorv . Vidoje Elagoiai€ and DraSal fokii, CaseN o. IT-02-60-4,,J udgemon,9t May 2007 ("Blagojni6 and Joki[ AplnalJudgement"|) ; Bls5kid Prosecutor,v.T ilamir Blngkii, CaseN 'o. q-95-1+A, Judgcment2 9 July 2OO4(* Bla$a*CA ppeal Judge,rnenf') CaseNo.:I CTR-0I-74JA 2Fcbruary 20O9

02/02 '09 12:53 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @tzs sqoln deletici Prosecutorv . kjniltDelali| et aI.,C aseN o. It96-21-A Judgement2, 0 Febalary2 OOt( Aekbi6i Appeal Judgenrent") Furundiija Prosecutorv . Anto'Furmdiija, ca.seN o. IT-95-L7|L-A,J udgeme,o2gr Jdy 2000( "Fuwdiija Appeal Judgernent"); cslid : Prosecutor v. StaniblavG alii, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Judgement 30 November 2OO6( ,Galii Appeal Judgement"), KordiCand derkez: Proseartor v. Darioi Kordid and,M ario ierkeT, Casc No. n-95-L4n, fudgemen! 17 Decem.ber 2ffi!, (*Kordii and iytcezAppeal Jud.gomenf') Krsdd Prosectrtorv . Radisiav Krsti6,C aseN o- IT-98-33-A,J udgement1, 9 April Z0O4(* Krstii Appat Judgemenf') KupreSkiief aL Prosecator v. hrdt Ruprelkii et al, Case No. IT-95-16-A, Judgcment,2 3 Octobor 2001 ("Kupre{kii et aI. AppealJ udgemcnf') Kvotke ef aL Prosecutor, . *tt osjlat,K voilca et al., CaseN o. IT-98-30/1-A, Judgemeng2 8 February2 005 : ("KvoElca et al. Appeal Judgernent") Liwajetal. ; - Prosecutor'v- FatmirLinni et aL, Case No.IT-03-6GA, Judgcrnent,22 Septembw2oc,T( ,,Limaj et aL Appealiudg"*"#'1 12L CaseN o.: ICTR-0I-74-A 2 Fcbruary2 009 \$.,(| li

02/02 '09 12:54 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @tza 3Ff,ln I\{artii Prosecutor v. Milati Marti1, CaseN o. IT-95-II-A, Judgemen! 8 October 200g (*Manii Appal Judgemenf) Neletilii and Martinovid Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilif ard. Vinko Manirtoyi{, CaseN o. IT-98-34A,, Judgerneu! 3 May ?.N6 (*Naletili( and Martinovii AppealJ udgement") Orid Prosecutor v. Nair Ori(, Case No. IT-03-6E-4" Judgemeng3 Jr:ly 2008 (*Ori6 Appeal Judgement") Prln(,e taL Prosecutorv . Jadra4lcoP rlii et aL, CaseN o IT-04-74,D ecisiono n kosecution's Appeal against Trial Chmber's Order on Contact bctween the Accused and Counsel drrritrS an Accused's TesrimouyP ursuant'toR ule 85(C), 5 Septenbor2 00E ('Prlif et aI., Decision of 5 Septembcr 2009"), Stakii : Prosecutor v. Milothir Stakii, Cese No. ff-gl-2+T, Judgcnenr, 31 luly 2OO3( -StahC TdaI Judgement") Prosecutor v. Mibmir Staki(, CaseN o. fT-g7-24-A, Jud.gemenl2 2 March 2006 ("Stakii Appeat Judgement") Vasiljevid Prosecutorv . Mitar Vasilievii, CaseN o. IT-98-32-A,J udgc,men2t,5 Febnrary2 004 ("Vasiljevii' i Appeal Judgemenf') B. Defined Terms and Abbreviatious I The Prosecutor v. Frangois Karera, Case No- ICIR-01-74-I, Amended Indictrnerit Amendcd Indicrment, dated 19 December 2005 Appellant Frangois Karera CaseNo.I:S TR-01-74A 3 Fcbruory2 009 R-t{-

I 02/02 '09 12:55 FA-X0 031705128932 ICTR @tzt 3ss/n The Prosecutor v. Frangois Karera, Casc No. ICTR-01-74-A, Appellant's Brid Appellant's Brief, filed in French on 7 April 2O08 (Mdmoire d'Appeld e FrangoisK arcra) Transcriptp age from Appeal hearingsh eld ou 28 August 20Ogi n FratEois Karera v. TheP rosectrtorC, aseN o. ICTR-01-74-A.A ll AT, referencesa re to thc official English fransctipt, unless o$rorwise indicated The Prosecutor v. Frangois Karera, Case No. ICTR-01-24A, Brief in Reply Reply to the Respondaut'sB rief, filed in French (Rdpli4ue au M€moire dc l'Intim'6) on 2 Juue2 008 cf, F-atin: conferl (Comparc) Defonce The Ap'pellant,a rrd/ort he Appellant's counsel ExhibitD /Exhibit,P DefenceE xhibit / ProsecutionE xhibit FAR RwandanA rmed Forces to. footnote Intemational Tribunal for the Prosecutiouo f PersonsR esponsible ICTY for Serious Violations of Interaational Humanitariau Law Committedin the Territoryo f theF ormerY ugoslavias ince1 991 The Prosecutor v. Frangois Kerere, Caso No. ICTR-01-74-I, Iadictmerrt Indicnnent dated2 August 2001 The Prosecutor v, FranEois Karera, Case No. ICTR-OI-Z+T, KareraFinal Tria] DefeuseC losirrgA rgrrm.enGf,i led confide,utiallyo n I0 Novornber . Brief 2006 Kigali prefecn-rre Hfecture de Kigali Kigali-Ville prdocrure h€fecture de laVille de Kigali Mouvement r€volutionnaire national poar le dAteloppernent [before July l99ll MRND

Mouvement rdpublicain national pour IB d€rnocratie el le d€veloppement lafter July 19911 The Prosecutor v. Frangois Karera, Ca"se No, ICTR-OL-Z+A, Noiice of Appeal Detbnce Notice of Appeal, filed iu French on 14 January 2008 (Avis d'Appel de la Difense) para- (paras,) paragraph (pamgraphs) Prosecutioo Office of the Prosecutor The Prosecutor v. Frangois Karera, Case No- ICTR-01-74T, The Prosecutio n Ftnal Trial Brief hosecutor's closing Briet frled confidentially on r0 Noveurber 2006 t23 CaseN o.:I CTR-01-74-A 2 February2 009 I

02/OZ '09 12:55 FAI 0031705128932 ICTR @r ze 38v ln Prosecutionk e-Trial The Prosecutor v.,F rangois Karera, Case No. ICTR{f-7+I, The Brief , hosecutor'sPre-Trial Brief , filed on 12 December2 005 TTu Proseciltor v. FranEois Karera, Case No, ICTR-01-74-A, Respondent'Bs rief Responde,lrt'iB rief , filed on 16 May 2008 Rules Rules of Procedr:re and Evidence of the ICTR RPF Rwandan Patiotic Front Stanrte of the Interuational Tribunal for Rwanda established by Statute Security Cormcil Resolution 955 (1994) I Trial Trarrscriint page from hearings ln Prosecator v. FrangoLr T. Karera, Cas{ No. ICTR-01-74. All rcferences are to thc ofEcial English transri:ript unless otherwi so indicatcd The Proseculor v. Frangok Karera, Case No. ICTR{1-74-T, Trial Judgement Judgement arld Sentcncc, 7 December 2007 I I International l Criminal Tribuml for the Prosecrrtiono f Persons Responsiblel for Crenocide and Other Serious Violations of Trihural or ICfR Intenrational l Humauitarian Law Commiued in the Territory of Rwandaa nd $wandan Citizens responsiblef or geuocidea nd other such violatiorirsc omsritted in the tcrritory of neigbboruingS tates, betweenl Ja{uary1 994a nd3 1 DecemberL 994 I.IN United Natiods t%+ CaseNo.:I CTR-0f-74-A 2 February2 009

COURTM ANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIODNE SC HAMBRES ArushaI nternationaClo nferencCe entre P.O.Bo6x 016A, rushaT, anzani-a B .P.6 016A, rushaT, anzanie ,rilTff"!T1,.;sT" el:2 555 7 504207-1s10 4367-702r 1 2129 632 850F ax:2555 7s 04000ts04307r3 1 2129 632 84,8149 PROOFO F SERVICE- BY FAX PREUVED E NOTIFICATION. C HAMBRED 'APPEL Date: 02l0A20Og CaseN ame/ affaire: Karera tcTR-ol-74-A CaseN o/ no. de I'affaire: To: AppealsG hamberS upportU nit,T he /Juge FaustoP ocar,P residing A: Hague: /Juge MohamedS hahabuddeen, - Mr. Koffi Afande /Juge MehmetG uney, - Mr.R amadhanTi . Juma /Juge TheodorM eron - Ms. RosetteM uzigo-Morrison /Juge Liu Daqun ACCUSED/ D EFENSE [l AccusedI Accus' Karera ses/voir'cMs4 X LeadC ounse/lC onseitPrincipaMl:s ,G armelleM archessauElt InArusha/iArus(hsae:e /vohc!M SF3a)x : ! Co-CounselC/ onseiA/ dioint ! Arusha (see/voircMS3)E Fax: OTP' BUREAUD U PROCUREUR HassanB ubacaJr allow,P rosecutor R.K aregyesaC, hiefo f Prosecutions B. MajolaD, eputyP rosecutor DonW ebsterS eniorTriaAl ttorneyin chargeo f case: (Enamel The Hague t La Haye E Arusha (see/ rcr?c MS3) El Kigali From: flJP. Fom6t6(C hiefC, MS) El F. A. Talon( Appeals/TeamlV ) De: E other CC: I Registrar D ol$, NY I D.R egistrar EP&PA EIQTRS pokesperson DSAR E WVSS E DCMS ECSS ESADR E OthET Subject@ing documenb I Veuillezt touver en annexel es documentss uivants: Obiet: Documentsn ameI titrc du document DateF

iled/ Dafe Pages enrcgistrO JUDGEMENT 02t0212009 5141A- 387/A ffiALLFAxTRANsM|SsloNsHEETsMUsTBEANNExEDToTH|SFoRMHo.ot pagest ransmiftedin ctudingt his covers heetI Nombred e pagesf ransmisesp, age de garde comprise:1 11 fn case of trlnsmissiond ifficulties,p leasec ontact:C entralR egistry/ En casd e difricult6d e fransmissionv, euillezc ontacter Tel: 212-9634 828 ext. 5333,5 063 Fax: 212-9632 848 Email:g iani@un.org or lipscombe@un.org CMS3 F