UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA

Habyarabatuma Cyriaque, as the de facto commander, knew or should have known that the gendarmes he sent to Cyahinda could commit killings against Tutsi refugees, failed to take preventive or punitive measures, and thus is criminally liable under the doctrine of superior responsibility for the genocide committed by his subordinates.

Citation
RLR V.4-2017
Parties
Prosecution: Ubushinjacyaha; Defendant: Habyarabatuma Cyriaque
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
17 December 2015
Case Number
RPA0317/08/CS
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Command Responsibility, Genocide, Accessory Liability, Superior Responsibility
Source Language
en, rw
Criminal Law International Criminal Law Command Responsibility Genocide Accessory Liability Superior Responsibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubushinjacyaha

Prosecution

Habyarabatuma Cyriaque

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Habyarabatuma Cyriaque was criminally liable as a superior for the acts of subordinates during the genocide at Cyahinda
  2. 2 Whether he knew or should have known about the crimes and failed to prevent or punish them
  3. 3 Whether his removal from office absolved him of responsibility

Ratio Decidendi

Habyarabatuma Cyriaque, as the de facto commander, knew or should have known that the gendarmes he sent to Cyahinda could commit killings against Tutsi refugees, failed to take preventive or punitive measures, and thus is criminally liable under the doctrine of superior responsibility for the genocide committed by his subordinates.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • The judgment of the Military High Court is upheld.
  • Costs are to be borne by the State treasury as the appellant is incarcerated.