Ignace Bagilishema v. The Prosecutor

ICTRq-b -I/~-/~ 16 j~¢¢2 0o3,,.. .. ~ mrnationaClr iminsTlr ibunaflo r Rwanda TribunaPl6 nalI nternationpaolu rl e Rwanda ENGLISH Ori~nalF:r ench APPEALS CHAMBER Before: JudgeC laudeJ orda,P residing Judge MohamedS hahabuddeen .IudgeD avidH unt Judge.FaustPooc ar Judge TheodorM oron tCTR Appeals Chamber Registry: Adama Dieng 3udgemenotf : 3 July2 002 THE PROSECUTOR (Appellant) ,~ ¯ . V. IGNACE BAGILISIIEMA (Respondent) CaseN o. ICTR-95-IA-A JUDGEMENT (REASONS) e Prosecu3~L.r: CarlaD elP onte -- .... N. ......... II ...... I ItI .IR_t.lm I - NormanF arrell Inlern-~tion~l CHmlnai Tribunal for Rwanda Trlbm~al.p e~ml |ntcrnat|ort.alp our io Rwanda SonjaB oelaert-Suornincn MathiaMsa rcussen CF.R’flI"II.:IT)R IJF COPV Of? THE ORIG|NA[0S EEN BY ME COPlE CER’[’I F’] El~ CONFORME A IJORtGINAk PAR NOUS --- ~o -. ~~.~ Counseflo rt he..Defence: FrangoiRso ux MaroufDai abira

I.I NTRODU.C.T.I.O.N. .................................. b#~tt*u~wmQtlmm@°ea#~mRw~gwwwmmme°mm~m~I~m~w~Immmoa~mmma~5A~v~wwm A.T RIAPLR OCEYD.r.N.o.s. ................... B.A PPEAPLR OC~.O.S. ...........................................5................................. C. STANDARDO F REVIEWO R AN iA~PPEALA GAINSTA CQUITTA.L. ......’.~.*".I."’.=.I~=.H".’"* .’.d’.¢~.’ vl.v ~.’.mv.~.’’."’.==’".¢ .86.".**¯., ¯... .¯ .5....... 7 II. INADMISSIR]~LITOYF THE PROSECUTION’SA PPEAL... !~, FIleT GROUND OF APPEAL: M~LE~ATIONS OF ERRORS/~I~~G TOA RTIC6L(E3 O)F T HES TATU.T.E. ................................................................. 13 1,W hethtehre T riaClh ambceorn sidetrhee"d h adr easotnok nowt"e st. ................... 13 2.W hethetrh eT riaClh ambecro mmittaende rroirn f indintgh ati tw asn ot establisbheeydo nad r easonabdloeu btt hatt heA ccuse"dh adM asont o knowi"n teromfsh ~ti6c(l3eo) ft hSet at.u.t.e. ..................................................................... 20 3.W hethetrh eT riaClh ambecro mmitteerdr orosf l awi ni tsa nalysoifst hes uperior- subordirnealra.t.i~.o,.n .s.h.i.p. .................................................................................. 25 (aI)s suaes~ ot hen atuorfae c ivilsiua1n~ riaourt’hso r.i.t.y. ....................................... 25 Co)I ssuaes ~ of ailubryet heT riaClh ambteorc onsiddeerf acatuot hor.i.t.y. .............. 30

IV, SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL: ALLEGATIONS OF ERRORS RELATING TO THE ADMISSION OF WRITTEN CONFESSIONS OF WITNESSES AA, Z ANYD. .......................................................................................................................... 33 v. THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL: ALLEGATIONS OF ERRORS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE ’¢rRAFIPRO" ROADBLOCK AND THE GATWARO STADIUM ............ 38 A.G ENEREARLR OR.S. ....................................................................................................... 38 I.W he~etrh eT riaClh ambearp plieadn i ncorresctta ndairnda ssessitnhge evidenoc~te h ep resenocfte h eA ccusaetdG atwaSrtoa di.u.m. ........................... 38 2.W hethetrh eT riaClh ambeerr reidn i tsu seo fa ndr elianocnep riowrr /tten state.m.e.n.t.s. ........................................................... 42 3.W hethtehre T riaClh ambeerrr ebdy f indiWnigt nensost c redib.l.e. ................... ’Z. ................4.3......................... B, "SPECIFIC" ERt,’ORS CONCERNING THE TRIAL CHAMBER’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE PURPOSE OF THE TRAFIPRO ROADBLOCK, THE MURDm~O F J~rDrrRA ND Ttm PRBSENCOEF ~ ACCUSEDA T THE GATWARO STAD.I.U..M. ............................................................................................................ 44 1.T heT riaClh ambera’sss essmeonftt her elevaenvti denrceel atitnogt hep

urpose oft hTer afirporaod b.l.o.c.k. .................................................................................. 45 2.T heT riaClh amberr’esl ianucpeo np riosrt atemen(tsst ateanemnatdset o Prosecutiinovne stigataonrdcs o nfessiosntaalt emetnotR sw andaanu thoriti.e.s4 )7 3.A ssessmeonftt hee videnrceel atitnogt hep resenocfet heA ccuseadtt heG atwaro Stadoinu1 m3 1,4 a n1d8 A pr1i9l9 .4. ................................................................... 51 (a)P resenocfte h eA ccusaetdt heG atwaSrtoa diounm1 3A pri1l9 9.4. ..................... (b)P resenocfte h eA ccusaetdt heG atwaSrtoa diounm1 4A pri1l9 9.4. ............5.1........ 53 (c)P resenocfte h eA ccusaetdt heC ratwaSrtoa diounm1 8A pri1l9 9.4. ..................... 54 VLD ISPOS.I.T.I.O.N. ........................................................................................................ 57 ANNEAX:A PPEAPLRSO CEED.I.N.G.S. ........................................................................ I

1.S ummoa:rf~ya crtesl attiofn igl ionnga sp pe.a.l. .......................................................... i 2.M otiofnisl ,:.a’spd a rotf t hea ppeaplrso ceed.i.n.g.s. . (a)I nadmissiobfit lhiePt ryo secutAipopneB’~rs i ef.ii?~?~???????.’.~iiiiiiiiii?~??~????~.~ii~iiiiiiii CoT)r anslaantedix otne nosfid oena dl.i.n.e.s. ................................................................ iv (e)M otionfso rr evie.w. ................... v (d)M otio.m.f .o.rd. i.s.c.l.o.s.ou.£re. ev. i.d.e.n.ac.ne.df . o.rw. i.m.e.sp.sr. o.t.e.c.tm.ie.oa.ns. u.r..e..s.. ................................................... vii e)M otiobnrso uguhntdR eurl 1e1 o5f t hReu le.s. ...................................................... 3.T hAep peJnudd ge.m.e.n.t. ......................................v.i.i.i............................................. viii ANNEX B: GLOSSARY ~at’mt w ,*tl w w e’m’qlm’autlaoa,m,a atI~ ,id ,,,Wp, Wme,,, O in, ,mmn tmRlt nmpu’ Iv’q~0PP@ ~PqDOOlIl,4L~bwmm~,lL",U1,~,’ ’ ~U WPVg~ OLqIlLlI 4t,0~ m, ma,0WX~pww A, FZ"LtN~o.FS’ rnPwA.R TIES 04 B. REr~R~RNECLEASTI TNOG T HEr NSTANCTA SE. .............................................................. X C. CITECDA SB.S. ............................................................................................................. XII D. OTH.REERF EP,..E.N.C.E.S. .............................................................................................. XIII

1. TheA ppva2Csh ambeorf theI nternatioCnrailm inaTlr ibunaflo rt heP rosecutioofn PersonsR csponsiMfco r Genocidaen d OtherS eriousV iolationosf International HumanitariaLna w Committeidn the Territoroyf Rwandaa nd RwandanC itizens responsibfloer g enocidaen do thers uchv iolationcso mmitteidn thet erritoroyf neighbouriSntga tebse twee1n Januarayn d3 1 Decembe1r9 94( "the AppealCsh amber" and" theT ribunalr’e:s’p ectiveilsys )e izeodf ana ppeafli ledb yt heP rosecuti(o"nt he Appellanatg"a)i nstth;e J udgemernetn derbeyd THaiC hambeIr o ft heT ribun(a"lt heT rial Chambero"n)7 June2 001i n thec aseo fT heP rosecutvo.r I gnacBea gilisheCmaas,e N o. ICTR-95-1A(-tTh e:" Judgement"). On 3 July: 2002,f ollowintgh eA ppealH earinogf 2 July2 002i n Arushat,h e AppealCsh amberre ndereidt sJ udgemenutn,a nimousdliys missitnhge A ppe~f iledb y the ProsecutioOnn. & ato ccasiotnh,e A ppealCsh ambeirn dicattehda tt her easonfso ri ts Judgemewnotu lbde ,m adea vailabtloet hep artieasss oona sp ossible.

3. Accordinglyt.h,eA ppe~sC hamber SETS OUT I~RE]EN THE REASONS FOR ITS JUDGEMENT. CaseN o.:I CTR-95.1A.A 13 Dec0mbr, 2002

L INTRODUCTION 4. The amended. Indictmenotf 17 September1 999,o n the basiso f whichI gnace Bagilishe(mtah e" ~Respondenf"’B,a gilishemao’r" t he "Accused"w)a s tried,c hargetdh e Respondenwti thi nvolvemeinnt criminaalc tsp erpetrateidn Mabanzac ommuneb etween1 Aprila nd 31 July1 994( the" Indictment"I)n. h is capacitays bourgmestroef the said communeB,a gilishewmaas c hargeudn derA rticle6s( 1)a nd6 (3)o f theS tatut(ei ndividual criminarle sponsibRitwyi)t hs evend istinccto untsi n respecotf the followincgr imes: genocidpeu,n ishabulned erA rticl2e( 3)(ao)f theS tatut(eC ount1 );c ompliciitnyg enocide, punishabluen derA rticle2 (3)(e)o f the Statute( Count2 ); crimesa gainsth umanity, punishabluen der~ axicle3s( a),3 (b)a nd3 0) of theS tatut(eC ount3s, 4 and 5); violationosf commonA rticl3e of theG enevaC onventioannsd o f AdditionaPlr otocoIlI , punishabulned erA .~icle4s( a)a nd4 (e)o f theS tatut(eC ount6s a nd 5. On 18 Septembe1r9 99,B agilishempal eadedn ot gttiltyt,o all the countsi n the IndictmentT.h e trialc ommencedo n 27 October1 999,a nd endedo n 19 October2 000, whent hec asew asa djournefdo rd eliberation.

6. In itsJ udgemenrte ndereodn 7 June2 001,t heT rialC hambearc quitteBda gilishema on allc ountsi n theI ndictmen1t T.heC hambearl soo rderetdh e immediatree leasoef the Accusedp ursuantto Rule9 9(A)o f the TribunarRsu leso f Proceduraen d Evidenc(et he "’Rules"). B. A2vDeaPlr oc~ eea|n~,:~ 7. TheP rosecutiaopnp ealetdh e Judgemenotn 9 July2 001.I t advancetdh reeg rounds of appeal.T wo of thesec ontaineds everals ubmissionsw,h icht he AppealsC hamber s3ummarizaesd f ollowast thea ppeahle aring: Its houlbden otetdh atth eA ccusweadsu nanimofuosulnynd o tg uiltoyfC ount1s,6 and7 oft heI ndictment, andn.o tg uiltoyfC ount2s,3 ,4 and5 oft heI ndictmbeyna t m ajori(tJyu dgGef ineayp pendae Sde paraatned DissentOipnign ioJnu)d gAes okdae Z Det ’ailosf r hcp ro’ceediaJr.e~f gosu n ¯ id n G A u n n u a eA w x. a rdaapnpae ndae Sde paraOtpei niotnot heJ udgement. 3 T(A)2, Y u]2y0 02p,.4 ~ts eq. CaseN o.:I CTR..95-L.%A 13D ecembe2r0 02

13 Decenlb2e0r0 2

Ground1.:1 .allegatoifoe nns’ orrse latitnogA rticl6e( 3)o ft h~S tatutweh,i ccho mprises threseu bmissions: Firsta Rds econsdt ~bmissiTohne:T rialC hambecra zcdi n lawa ndf acti n its assvsranocfn tth em entacll emenptr ovidfeodr i n Articl6e( 3)o ft heS tatutTeh.e TriaClh ambeirs a llegetdo havec ommittaende xroro f lawa s a resulotf h aving failedt o ask whetheBra gfllshehmaad r easont o k~owt hatc rimesh adb een committebdy his subordinataets t he W~pror oadblockA.s sumintgh at~ he Appc~Cst lambcirs of ~e opiniotnl mtt heT rialC hambehra se xaminetdh et est of whethe~re Respondehnatd r easout o know,t heT rialC hambecro mmittead fa.ctu,~e.rlr ofro rh avinfgo untdh att heR espondehnatdn o "reasotno knowt"h at crlmeh~a db eenc omm/ttaetd t heT rafiprroo adblock. The TrialC hambemra dea wrongl egala nalysiosf " the superior-suborrdeilnaattieo nsuhnidpeA rr tic6l(e3 )o ft heS tatute. ~J~l.~A:l legatioofn ~ rorsr elatintgo thea dmissioofn w rittecno nfessioonfs WitnesseAsA ,Z andY . Ground8 : Allegatioofn e rrorsr elatintgo thea ssessmeanntd v valuatioofn evidcztrceel atitnogt heT rafiprrooa dbloacnkd t heG atwm’Sot adiuWmi.t hr egard to thisg roundo f app¢~t heP rosecutoarl lege~d generaelr rorsa nd thrc~ "s~pcc’~’fe irCrors. (i)F irste rro~A:p plicatoifoa n wroncgr iterwiiat hr egartdo thea sscssmconft evidencree latintgo thep resencoef theA ccuseadt theG atwarSot adiudmu ring

thep c.tiewdh ent her efugeews~ lockeudp ands ubjectetdo mal~:cammansL wella s durintgh eG atwaraot tack; (il)~ j~onedr rorT:h eT riaClh ambeerr reidn i tsu seo fp riowrr ittsetna tements; (fii~)’ dredr rorE:r roneofuisn dinrge latitnogW imcsZs. (B)" Specifeircr"o rs: (i)F b’;te rrorE.r rorr elatintgo thea ssessmemnatd ~b y theT rialC hamber regarditnhge ~ vidcntceen d#rweidt hr egartdo T rafiprrooa dblock; (fi)S ~::onedr rorE:r roirn t hea ssessmoefnt th ee videnrceel atitnog t hem urdeorf Judith,’ (’tiiT)h irde rrorE:r rorr elatitnog t hea ssessmeonft e videnrceel atintgot h~ pre.~nocfe t heA ccuseadt thoG atwarSot adiuomn 13,1 4 and1 8 April1 994. Cas~N o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 Decembe2r0 02 ,:

C,,S tandarodf reviewf ora n a.nveIa afain~ate quitt~ 8~ The presenta ppeali s filedb y the Prosecutioang ainsta cquittably the Trial ChamberT.h ist yp~o f appeali s providefdo ru nderA rticl2e4 of theT ribunalS’tsa tute, whichs tatest hat~ ,e twop artiemsa yl odgea n appealo n ~oundso f an erroro f lawo r of fac 4 t.O n severaolc. casiontsh,e A ppealCsh ambehra sr eitcrattohde s tandartdos be applied in considerienrgr orso n a questioonf lawa nde rrorso f factr aisedi n an appeala gainst convictio5n H.owevert,h eA ppealsC hambehra s neverh adt he opportunittoy definet he standardtso be applieidn considerianpgp ealbsy theP rosecutiaogna insatc quittala,n d deemsi t necessartyo do so in thep resenmta tteri,n asmucahs theg reatepra rto f the Prosecutiognr’osu ndosf a ppearle latetso a llegatioofne sr rorosf f act.

9. Withr egardt o allegationosf errorso n a questioonf law,t he AppealsC hamber considertsh att hes umdardosf reviewa ret hes amef ort het wot ypeso f appealf:o llowing thee xamploef a p~rtya ppealinagg ainscto nvictioann, a ppealb y theP rosecutiaogna inst acquittawlh,i cha llegetsh att heT rialC hambecro mmitteadn erroro n a questioonf law, muste stablitshha tt hee rroirn validattheesd ecision.

10. Withr egardt o errorso f facti n appealsa gainstc onvictiotnh,e AppealsC hamber appliest he standarodf the "unreasonableneosfs t"h e impugnefdi ndingT.h e Appeals Chambemru std eter~nweh ethetrh ef indinogf guiltb eyondr easonabldeo ubti s onew hich no reasonablter ibunaolf factc ouldh aver eachedi,t beingu nderstootdh att heA ppeals Chambecra no nlyo verturan decisioonf theT rialC hambewrh eret hea Begede rroro f fact * Articl2e4 of theS tatutper ovidaess f ollows: "1. Tbe AppealsC hambers halth eara ppealsf romp ersonsc onvictebdy the TrialC hamberso r from the Prosecutioonn t hef ollowinggr ounds: (a)A n erroro n a que:.~tioofn l awi nvalidatitnhged ecision; (b)A n erroro f factw Mchh aso ccasionead m iscarriaogfe j ustice.

2. TheA ppealCsh ambemra ya ffirmr,v versoer reviset hed ecisiontsa kenb y theT rialC hambers,("E mphasis added). Articl2e4 of theT ribu~dS’tsa tuties similatro Articl2e5 of theS tatutoef theI nternatioCnkailm inaTlr ibunal for thel ~oxm~Y ugoslavi(a" ICTY")I.t shouldb e notedt hati n hisR eportS /2570(4d evotetdo ICIT), Sccretary-Oeneorfa tlh eU nitedN ationisn dicatetdh at" It]her ighto f appeals houldb e exer¢isabolno two grc~ndsa:n erroro n a q~estioonf lawi nvalidatitnhged ecisioonr ,a n et’t’oorf factw hichh aso ccasionaed miscarriageoJ fU ’S t"i c~v’j. h e Prosecutosrh oulda lsob e entitletdo initiataep pealp roceedinogns t hes ame ro, Unti"s, para.1 17( emI.~hasaldsd ed). MusemaA ppealJ ’udgementp,a ras,1 5 Io 21; Kayishema/RuzindAapapae alJ ’udgcmentp,a ra,3 20;A kayesu AppealJ udgemenpta,r as.1 74t o 179. Ca~ No.: ICTR-95-1A-A 13 December2 002

occasioan emdi scarrioafgj eu sticAen.a ppellawnhtoa llegeasne rroorf f actm ustt herefore showb otht hee rrotrh atw asc ommittaendd t hem iscarrioafgj eu sticree sultitnhge refrom: t 1. As theA ppealCsh amberosf botht heI CTRa ndt heI CTYh aver epeatedsltyr essed, an appeali s nota n oppommitfyo ra de novor eviewo f thec ase.T heA ppealCsh amber "’wilnlo t/ ightldy~ istufribn dinogfsf actb y a TriaClh amber’.’7 Becaus"e[ t]htea sko f hearinags,s essainndgw eigb.tihnege videnpcree sentaettd r iails l eftt ot heJ udgessi ttiinng a TriaClh ambe[r.,. .l]i lti so nlyw hent hee videnrceet ide onb yt heT riaClh ambecro uld notr easonabhlayv eb eena cceptbeyd artyr easonabpleer sotnh att heA ppealCsh ambecra n substituittes o wnf indinfgo rt hato f theT rialC hamb’~’.sT woj udgesb,o tha cting r9easonabclayn,c omet od ifferecnotn clusioonnt sh eb asiosf t hes amee vidence. 12.T heA ppeahC~h ambehra sa lsor epeatexetxlpyl aintehde r easonfso rt hisd eferentcoe thef actuafli ndingosf theT rialC hamberAss. theI CTYA ppealCsh ambepru ti t in the upres’kAipep eaJlu dgement: TheT rialC hambehra st hea dvantaogfe o bserviwnigt nessiens p otioann ds o is better positiontehda nt heA ppealCsh ambetro assestsh er eliabiliatnydc redibiliotfy t he evidencoA.c cordingilty ,i s primarifloyr t heT rialC hambetro determiwnhee thear witnesiss c redibalned t od ecidweh ichw itnestse’s timotnoyp mforw,i

thounte cessarily articulateivnegrs yt e~o ft her easoniinnrg e achian dge cisioonnt hospeo intlso, 13.T hes ames t~mdarodf unreasonableannedst sh es amed eferentcoe factuafli ndings of theT rialC hambearp plyw hent heP rosecutiaopnp ealasg ainsatn a eqmttaTlh.u s,w hen considerainna gp peably t heP rosecutiaosnw ,h enc onsiderainna gp peably t hea ccusetdh,e AppealCsh ambewri llo nlyh oldt hata ne rroorf f actw asc ommittwehde ni td etermintehsa t nor easonatbrliee orf f actc oulhda vem adet hec hallengfemdd iug. 14.U nderA rticl2e4 (1)(bo)f theS tatutet,h eP rosecutioLni,k et hea ccused, demonstr"aatnee rroorf f actt hato ccasionae mdi scarrioafgj eu sticeF.o"r t hee rrotro b e onet hato ccasionae mdi scarrioafg eju sticiet, musth aveb een" critictaolt hev erdict M~emaA ppeaJlu dgemenpta,n t,1 7;A kayesAup peaJlu dgemenpta,r a.1 78, 7 MuaemaA ppealJ udgeme.npta,~ ,1 8 (quotinFgu rund~ijAap lmalJ udgementp,a r~3 7);s e~a lsoT adid AP~ Judgemen,t , p~.& 64; AleksovspkApi e al J’ ~ u m d n ¢ t,p ara.6 ~ ~ara,gem~ntp’a4r3a5s,~. a nd4 0;K upretkAi/#~ pea.lT udgeanepnatr,a s3,0 a nd3 2;( ~elebAMpip eaJl’ udgoment, See,e .g,T,a d/dAppJe’au]d gomcpnatr,a 6.4 . CaseN o.:I C~-95I-A ,-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

reache’d’.11B ecausteh eP rosecutbieoanr tsh eb urdeant t riaolf p rovintgh eg uilotf t he accusebde yonad reasonabdloeu btt,h es ignificanocfe a n erroro f facto ccasioniang miscarrioafgj eu sticies s omewhdaitf ferefnotra Prosecutaipopne aalg ainsatc quitttahla n fora defencaep peaalg ainscto nvictioAnn. a ccusemdu sts howt hatt heT rialC hamber’s factuaelr rorcsr eatae reasonabdloeu bta s to hisg uiltT.h eP rosecutifoanc esa more difficutlats kI.t m usts howt hatw,h ena ccounits t akeonf t hee rrorosf f actc ommittbeyd theT riaClh ambearl,l r easonadbolueb otf t hea ccusedg’usi lhta sb eene liminated. II.INADMISSIBILITY OF THE PROSECUTION’S APPEAL 15.T heR espondeanrtg uetsh att heA ppellantB’rsi efi s inadmissibbleec aus(e1 )t he Prosecutdiiodnn otc omplwyi tht heP ractiDcier ectioonnt heL engtohf B riefasn dM otions onA ppearli ghftr omt heb eginnionfgt hea ppeaplr ocesasn,d ( 2)t hed ecisiroenn dered 30 Novembe2r0 0:bty t heP re-heariJnugd gew asv iolatedG.e nerallsyp eakingt,h e Respondernetq uestt~h eA ppealCsh amber: [...t]o n ote( i)t hatt heP rosecuthiaosbn e eng rantseedv ereaxlt ensioofnt si met of ilei ts Brieifn c omplianwciet ht h~P ractiDcier ectioofn1 3.8.0(1i;i )t hatn otwithstantdhieng variouesx tensiotnhsv,P rosecuthoarsn otr especttehdet ime-limgirtasn tvhdi m;a ndO ff) thath isB rievfi olatAerst icl2e0 ( a)o f theS tatutaen,d ,c onsequenttol fyi,n da ndr

ule thatt het hirdv c,r slono f tryP rosecutorA’psp ealB rivfo f 19 Decembe2r0 01i s innadmissi,balned,a, c cordintgold yi smistsh en oticoef appeal, t 6.O n 13A ugus2t0 01,t heP residiJnugd geo ft heA ppealCsh ambesri g-netdh eP ractice DJ.rectioonnt heL engtohf B riefasn dM otionosn A ppea(lt he" PractiDcier ectionw"h)i,c h cameh ttof orcoen t hed ayi tw asn otifiteodt hep artiensa,m el1y9 S eptemb2e0r0 1.1T3h e Prosecutifoinl eidt sA ppeaBlr iefo n 29O ctobe2r0 01i,n conformiwtiyt ht heg uidelines laidd ownb yt heP re-heariJnugd ge1.4O n 2 Novembe2r0 01t,h eP rosecutfiiolne da motion in whichi t acknowledtgheadt i tsA ppeaBlr iefe xceedetdh em aximunmu mbeorf p agess et ~o K~preYkAipdp eaIlu dgzrnepnatr,a 3.2 ;s e.~K unaraAcp peaJlu dgemenpta,r a4.0 . llKupre~iAdp pealJ udgement, u Re _ , para2.9 . spoaaesn Btr iefp,a ta5.4 . 13 Th,o* ~’raetiDcier ~tiwoans i ndeesde rvebdy t heR egistorny t hev ariouOsf ficeesl t he H z a , g i" a D ~a e n c d i i s n i A ’o r "n u M s o h t a i o) of n no 1 r 8 e S x e t p ," t em . b e 0 r 0 ,I ando na llD efenc.C~o unseoln 1 8 and1 9 SePprio~smebce2ua It-!oa rt The rendereodn 1 Octobe2rC 01 ~ . Isloonf t flllTeh,e P rO,t’ec v u . t x o g r naceB a.g.dlshemCaa,s eN o.I CT O R 0 - _ 95-1A.A, CaseN o.:I CTR-95I-. A-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

forthi n theP racticDei rectio1n5, andr equestetdh eA ppealCsh ambetro admiti tsB riefa s filedo n2 9O ctobe2r0 01a nd,i nt hea lternatitvoeg ,r anti ta n extensioofn s eve(n7 )d ays filea new Brief.O n 30 Novembe2r0 01,t he Pre-hearinJgu dger uledo n the Motiona s follows: Whereaassa, t ~StlItth,eA ppellaBnrti’esif s n oti no rdearn,d w hereiatsi sn ecessfaorry theA ppellatnotc omplwyi tht her equiremeonftt hse P ractiDcier ectiwohne;r etahse intcrcosftj st tstirceeq uitrhea tth eA ppellsahnotu Flidl ea" n ewb riewfi thai nr easonable time-limaintdw, h eretahse s even.deaxyt ensiooftn i mer equestbeydt heA ppellatnot Rlea newb r,b fi sr easonable; [...G]r antth ~a lternarteiqvuee isntt heP rosecutiMoont’isoa nn dO rdetrh eP rosecution tof ilea nA ppeHanBtr’ise tfh atc ompliweist ht hec riter~itaf ortihn t heP ractice Directwiioln: hsienv e(n7 )d ayfsr otmh ed atoef t hiDse cision.ie i7, The Prosecutiofni leda secondv ersiono f itsa ppealb riefo n 7 Decembe2r0 01,i n conformitwyi tht he aforementionDeedc isioonf the Pie-hearinJgu dge.O n 14 December 2001,t he DeputyR egistraorf the Tribunailn formetdh e Presidenatn d Judgeso f the AppealsC hambetrh att heA ppellant’Bsr ief,c ontaininmgo ret han4 0,000w ords,d id not confortmo theP racticDei rectionno rt o theP re-heariYnugd ge’Dse cisioonf 30 November 2001.

18. On 19 December2 001,t he Prosecutiofni leda motionr equestintgh e Pro-bearing /udget o acceptt he observationosf the Registrwyi thr espectt o the numbero f words containiend theb rief,a nda cknowledgtehda tt hes aidb riefd idn otc onfortmo thec riteria seto ut in the PracutcDei rectionI.t furtherre questetdh e AppealCsh ambetro ~.ntt he Prosecutiao fnu rtheerx tensioofnt imet o enabliet t o filea briefi n corfforntwiittyh t he PracticDei rectionw,h ichw as attachetdo the motion.I n its motion,t he Prosecution explainetdh ati t hadc oncentratoend r educintgh en umbero f pagesw ithoupta yinga ttention ~sI ns uppoorfti tsm otiotnh,e P rosecuetxipolna itnhead"t I nt hee veaionfgW ednes3d1aO yc tob2a0r0 1t,h e Prosecutwiaosin r ttbrmbcytd h eR egisttrhya tt heP rosecutiAopnp’esaB lr iedfi dn otc onfowrimt hS ection l(a)o ft heP ractiDcier ectiionnt ,h ati te xceed1e0d0 p ageosr 3 0,00w0o rdsT.h eA ppeaSlesc tioinnT he Hagudei dn otr eceivae c opyo ft heP ractiDcier ectiboenf or[e. ..1] Novemb2e0r0 1a,t w hicdha tet he AppealSse ctiorne ceivae cdo pyf romt heO fficoef t heP rosecuitnoA rm sha.C"f ,’ TrosecutiUorng’esn t Motiofno rA uthorisattoiE oxrcte etdh ep agel imitto t heP rosecutiAopnp’esaB lr ieafn dA lteraatRievqcu est /brE xtensioofnT ime"T,h eP rosecuvt,o1 rg nacBea gilish~Cmaas,eN o.I CTR-95-12A .NAo,v emb2e0r0 1, ~ara6s .a nd7 . "I)e~s(i"oRne spondeMnott’isof no rt ranslatainodrn e quefsotr e xtensiooftn i me"";P rosecutUirogne’nst Motiofno rA uthorisattoie oxnc .etehdep agel imitto t heP rosccutiAopnp’esaB lr ieafn da lternaRtei~vjeu cst 30fOrNovvmber2e0X0t1e,tn°isfmi e°"n) 4,.pT .h eP rosecuvt.Io grn aBcaeg ili,¢ChaesmNeao ,.I CTR-95-r1eAn-dAe,or ned I0 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A.A 12tD ecemb2e0r0 2

to the numbero f words on each page, and that upon receivingt he observationso f the Registryi,t hadr exiuceidt s brieft o 29,867w ords.

19. On the same day, the Pre-hea~gJ udger enderedt he followingD ecision: Consideritnhga tt heD ecisioonf 30 Novembe2r0 01d irectetdh eP rosecutitoon f ilea n AppellanBtr’ise ifn c omplianwciet ht hea pplicabPlrea ctiDcier ection; Whereatsh ea rgumentpsu t forthb y the Prosecutiionn supporotf its motioni n themseldv,e.s~n otc onstitsuutfef icijeunstt ificaftoirao nn© xtonsiooftn i me; Whereahso,w evetro, e rasurteh att hep roceedianrgesn otu nduldye layeidt, i sn ecessary toa llotwh eA ppdlatnotf ilet hen owB rieafs a ttachteod h isM otion; Whereafsu rthermobrye f ailintgo tilea n AppollantB’rsi efi n complianwciet ht he Decisioofn 3 0 Novemb2e0r0 I,t heA ppellafnati letdo c omplwyi tht heo rdero f theP re- heatinfgf udgien thes aidD ecisioann dh avinags ceaainAcpdp ellantn’osn -compliance witht hiso rdert,h eA ppealCsh ambewri llt akea ppropriadties ciplinmaerays ureisf, necessaarny. ;alt t her ighmto ment. Fort hef oregoirnega sonwse, Allotwh eA r/~Ilatnotf ileh isn ~wB rieaft tachteodt hem otiofno re xtensioofn t ime; Requcstfh eR egistrtyo tram/atmh en ewA ppellantB’rsi efi ntoF rencahn dt o servet he saidd ocumeonn~ t hep artiebse for7e l amutr2y0 02; At’firtmh at,a t thiss tageo f appeaplr oceedintgism,e a llottefdo rr esponsbey the Respondewnitl lc ommencweh ent he Registrsye rvest heR espondeanntd h isC ounsel witht heF rencvhe rsioonft hen ewA ppellanBtr’ise f~.* 20.

Before the Appeals Chamber, the Respondent submits that the appropriate disciplinarmye asurei s a declaratioonf nullityo f the AppeUant’Bsr ief,w hich,a ccordintgo ~he Respondentw,a s filedo ut of timei.s In supporto f his argumentt,h e Respondenrte ferst o the Kayishema/RuzindaAnpap ealJ udgement,w hich states: [...p]r oeedurtfilm e-limmi’test ob e respectaendd[ ...a]r ei ndispenstaobt lhee p roper functionoi1n"tg h eT ribmmaln dt ot hef ulfilmoefni tt sm issiotnod oj usticVei.o latioofn thestei me-lira:uintasc,c ompabnyia endy s howinogf g oodc ausew,i lln otb e tolerated.t9 21. The Appeal:~; Chamber rejects the Respondent’s arguments. Considering the exceptionacli rcumstanceosf this case,t he AppealsC hamberh oldst hat therei s no reason ~7" Decisi(o"nP rosecutiUor:gae’nsMt o tiofno re xtensioofnt imet oM e itsa ppeablr ieifn complianwciet ht he PracticDei rectioonn t hel engtohf Briefasn dM otionosn Appeal"T)h,e P rosecutvo.r l gnacBea giILvhema, CaseN o.I CTR-95-1Ar.eAn,d ereoxnt 1 9 Decembe2r0 01,p . 3 (emphasaidsd ed), 1~T (A)2, J tll2y0 02p,. 1 79. 11 CaseN o.:i CTI~-95-1A.A 13 Decembe2r0 02

0 fori mposinagn ys pecifidci sciplinamreya suroen theP rosecutioTnh.ed isciplinary measurceo nsistiinndg e claritnhge A ppellanBtr’ise ifr regulaanrd t hea ppeailn admissible becausoef n on-compliwaintchte h er equiremeonftt sh eP ractiDcier ectiiosni nappropriate int hei nstancta sea ndw oulbde q uitdei sproportioInnat thee,c aseo fT heP rosecutvo.r Kayisheamnad R gffndantah,ed ecisioofnt heA ppealCsh ambesre ttintgh ed eadlifnoer t he filinogf b riefwsa sc learb,u tt heP rosecutfiaoinl etdo c omplwyi thi t.I td idn ots eeka n extensoifot ni m1e: .of Lli0t sb riepfr iotro t hatd eadliintes;m otiofno rc larificaotfit ohne time-linfwiatsfs i lelda tea,n dt heA ppeaICsh ambecro nsideriendt ,h ej udgementth,a ti t hadf ailetdo s ubstantitahtebe a siusp onw hiciht w ass eekinrge liefI.t sf ormamlo tiofno r extensioofnt imew asf inallsyu bmittoevde rt wom onthasf tetrh ed eadlihnaed e xpireTdh.e Prosecutailosno f:a iltetdoc omplwyi tht hen ewd eadlisneet b yt heP re-hearliundgg eT.h ere wast herefoar ree peatpeadt teronfn on-compliaanndac el acko fd iligenocnet hep arto ft he Prosecutiinot nh eK ayishema/RuzicnadsaeIn.na t hep resencta se,h owevetrh,e f ailurteo compliys o fa markeddliyf ferennatt uret;h eP rosecutdiiodnf zlei tsb rieifn c onformity witht heg uidelisneetsb yt heP re-hearJiundgg e. 22.F hrthermorteh,e P rosecutioanf,t era cceptintgh eo bservatioonfs t heR egistry

regarditnhgen umbeorf w ordisn t heb rieafn da cknowledgtihnagtt heb rieifn q uestidoind notc omplwyi tht hec ritersieat o uti nt heP ractiDcier ectiotno,o kt hen ecessasrtye ptso curet hen on-compliawnicteht het extr eferretdo a boveT.h eA ppealCsh ambecro nsiders thatt heP rosecuthiaosnt huss howpnr oooff d ispaticnhf ilinag n ewb rieifn compliance witht hec riteriinat heP ractiDcier ectioonnt hes amed ayt hati tf iletdh em otiofno r extensioofnt imeT.~ eP rosecuttihoenr efotroeo kt hen ecessasrtye ptso c orrecitt se rroars quicklays p ossibalned i mmediatealfyt ert hep roblewma sb roughtto i tsn oticeI.n a ny caset,h eD efenchea sf ailetdo e stablitshha th ew asp rejudiicnea dn yw ay.

23. For theser ~asonst,h e AppealsC hamberd ismisseasl l of the Respondent’s argumenotnst hei r~dmissibioflt ihteya ppeal. ~9 Kayishema/Ruz.iAnpdpaenaaJl u dgemenpta,r a.4 6( footnotOemsi tted). Ca~ No,; ICTR-95-1A-A 12 13 Dec.emb2e0r0 2

FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL: ALLEGATIONS OF ERRORS RELATING TO ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE STATUTE 24,I n itsR rstg rounodf a ppealt,h eP rosecutiaodnv anctehsr ees ubmissiroenlsa tintgo thea nalysimsa deb y theT rialC hambeorf theR espondentr’ess ponsibilfiotuyn deodn Articl6e( 3)o ft heS tatutaen dt o thef indingbsa sedt hereowni thr egartdo thec rimes committaetdt heT r,x fiprroo adbloicnkM abanzc2ao° mmune: Firsts ubmissiotnh:eT rialC hambecro mmittaend e rrori n notr ulinogn the issuea s to whethetrh eR esponde"nhta dr easotno k now"t hatc rimehsa db een c2o1mmitbty~h iss ubordinaattet sh eT rafiprrooa dblock; Secon~du bmissiotnh:eT rialC hambecro mmittaend e rrori n findintgh att he Respondednitd " noth aver easont o know"t hatc rimehsa db eenc ommittebdy hiss ubordinaattet hse s aidr oadblo2c2ka ;nd Thirds ubmissiotnh:e T rialC hambecro mmittaend erroro f lawh x itsl egal analysci)sf t hec onditiornesq uirfeodr a persotno b ec onsideraesda superior w3ithi~nt em eaninogfA rticl6e( 3)o ft heS tatute? 25.W ithr egardt o thef irstt wos ubmissiontsh,e P rosecutiroenq uesttsh eA ppeals Chambetro quasht hea cquittoafl t heR espondeonntC ountis, 3 and6 oft heI ndictment andt o remitt hec )~set o a TrialC hamberO.n theb asiso f thet hirds ubmissiotnh,e Prosecutiroenq uesttsh isC hambetro notet hee rrorrsa iseadn dt o maket hen ecessary correctiinot nhsei ntereosftj2 sl4 lstiC¢. 1,W hethetrh

eT riaClh ambecro nsidertehde" h_,.rde ~sotno knowt"e st 26.T heA ppealCsh ambeerm phasizefsi,r sto f all,t hatt heP rosecutidoone sn otc ontest thea nalyswihsi c"ht heT riaClh ambemra deo ft hea pplicabllaew z,~b uto nlyc ontestthse 20A ppellBarnite’pfsa, r 2~.u4 . 21I BM.p,a ra2s..5a n2d, 3t9o 2 ,44. ~z2~I/ bbiipdpda.a_r,x,a 22a s....47 t 50o2 .,S9. ~ AppellBarnite’pfsa, r ~.2,..6~82.,. 6a9n 2d, 75T;( A2)J ,u l2y0 02p,. TriaJlu dgempeanrta 4s4.t o4 6i nclude. etscq, 13 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13D ecemb2e0r0 2

..... applicatiboyn t he, saidC hambeorf thec riterisae to uti n Articl6e( 3)o f theS tatuteT.h e Prosecutiosnu bmitst hatt he TrialC hamberc ommitmadn erroro f law in not scekingt o knoww hethetrh eA ccuse"dh adr easont o know"i n termso f Articl6e( 3)o f theS tamt,o,r , in otherw ords,w h,.-thehre possesseidn formatiwohni chp uth imo n noticeo f ther isko f crimesb eingc ommitmodr crimesw hichh aveb eenc ommitteadn d requirinhgi m to carry o2u~ta na dditionianlv estigatoirop nu nishhi ss ubordinagtueisl toyf s uchc rimes. 27.F or a properi nterpretatioofn t he "hadr easont o know"s tandardt,h e Prosecution relicso n them anneri n whicht hisi ssuew asa ddresseidn theC elebidA2ip7 pealJ udgement and proposeasn interpretatioofn t he concepto f "inqnlrnyo tice"( i.e.,a supefior’s affirmatidvuet yt o inquirfeu rthewrh enp uto nn otice)T.h eP rosecutidowne llast lengtohn theq uestioonf a pplyintgh ea boves tandartdo civiliasnu perioirns supporotf itsa rgument thatt hes aido bligatiaopnp lietso a lls uperiozr~s R,eferritnog p aragrap9h6s6 t o 989o ft he Triall udgemetnhLe .A ppellasnutb mittsh att heT rialC hambeorn lyt riedt o establisohn, t he basiso f direcotr ck-cumstanteivaild encteh,a tt heR espondehnatd a ctualk nowledogfe the facts2.9 Accordintgo theP rosecuttihoenT ,r ialC hamber’fsi ndingisn paragrap9h8s8 a nd 989 of theJ udgemenrte vealt hatt he" hadr easont o know"s

tandarwda sn ote xamine°d JIt furthesru bmittsh ati nsofaars t hes tandarodf criminanle gligenacse a ppliebdy theT rial Chambe3rJ differRse int hatu sedi n the CelebidAip peal/ udgementi,t is necessartyo determinweh ethetrh el egali ngredienrtesq uirefdo rc riminanle gligen3c2e coulda mountt o the" hadr easotno krtows"t andar3d3,i n accordanwciet ht heC elebidj3iu4 risprudence. 2~AppellBarnite’pfsa, r a2.. 40 2 2 7 8 T T ( h A e ) P , 2 r l o i s l e l2 c y 0 u 0 te 2 io p, on . ~ , n’~ 2 i ;A d p e*t p rh e sa l t" l tP sa h Bn i r i t s i s e a pf n a, i r m a p 2s o ,. r 6 t t o qa 2 un . et 1 s 4 t . ioonnw hi0iht w oulbde a pproprifaotrte h is AppeaClhsa mbt~op ronounncoet,o nliyn v iewo ft hisc asoen a ppeablu,t a lsion v iewo ft heg uidantchea t needtso b eg ivetno t heT ilaClh amtmarnsdt hep artiienso thecra sesT.h"e P rosecuitsir oenf errhienrget o paragr2a4p0ho ft heL ~e~ebAipdpia aJlu dgemeCnft,A. p pdlamB’rsi efp,a ras2., 14t o2 .38S.e ea lsoT (A), ~/eb y 2~2,p .3 0:’ q’bPer os~cutisounb’msi ssiisot nh att,h ec onceopfti nquinroyt icaes,d evelobpyet dh e idiA ppeaClhsa mbaeprp liteosa lls uperiuonrdse trh eS taturto0g a~sosf theirf ormalo r legals tatus, 2r~gardolfew shse thtehre ayr ec iviloiram ni litia." .~ppellaBnrti’espf a.r a2.. 40T;( A)2, J ul2y0 02p,.4 1. ~Appe~aBnrti’espf a,r s2,, 41T>(,A )2, J ul2y0 02p,p .4 1-69.. ’~lI ~s houlbden otetdh att heE uglivsehr

sioofnt he, ludgemuesnetts h et woe xpress"igornoss nse gligence" and" criminnaelg llgen(eCefT" r iaJlu dgemefnoLre xampplaer as8.9 7a nd1 005). 32A ppdlanBtr’ise fp,a ra2.. 42T.h eP rosecutiisro enf errtiont gh ee lemenatpsp libeydt heT riaClh ambienr ~aras1.0 1a1n d1 012o f~ .hJeu dgement. AppellaBnrti’espf a,r a2s,.4 a2n d2 .43, Accorditnogt heR espondetnhteA, p pellamnits interprtehte~e edl ebiAdpip eallu dgome(nRte spondent’s Brief1,t ara1.2 2)".F neR espondseunbtm itthsa tth eI CTYA ppeaClhsa mbdeera flhyd dt hatw hereiatsi sn ot 14 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A.A 13D ecembe2r0 02

28. Afterc onsiderintgh e Appellant’asr gumentst,h e AppealsC hamberh oMs,f or the reasonsse to utb elow,t hatt heT rialC harabcarc tualleyx aminetdh e" hadr easont o know" standardH.o wever,t,h e distinctiobne tweent he "knowledgea"n d "hadr easont o know" standardcso uldh aveb eene xpressemdo rec learlbyy theT rialC hamberT.h e" hadr easont o know"s tandarddo esn otr equirteh ata ctualk nowledgeei,~ re xpliciotr circumstantibael, establishNeodr.d oesi tr equirteh att heC hambebre satisfitehda tt hea ccuseadc tuallkyn ew thatc rimesh adb eenc ommitteodr werea boutt o be committedI.t merelyr equiretsh att he Chamberb e satisfietdh att he accusehda d "someg enerali nformatiionn his possession, whichw ouldp uth imo nn otico,f,e 3p5 ossibluen lawfualc tsb yh iss ubordinates.

29. In paragrap8h9 6 of the ]rudgementt,h e TrialC hambers et fortht he standarfdo r establishtihnegA ccusedm’esn sr eau nderA rticl6e( 3)o ft heS tature: [...t]h ek nowleedlgceu ~onftu uperiroers ponsibwiillilbt eyf ulfilliefxt lh eA ccused actualklnye wo fo neo rm orec rimecso mmittoerad b outto b ee cumnititnec do nnection w~itt~ah r oadbloocrak l,t ernatwiavspe ultoy n n otiacned f ailteodi nqttfiurrvt her. TheT rialC hambefru rthecro nsider"e’dk nowledg[ea’s ]a n indispensabellee menotf [...J thel iabiliotfy a superio[r. ..]"b,y holdintgh at" them entaell emenotf k nowled[gmeu stb e] demonstratebde yondr easonabldeo ,,37 ubt.O n theb asiso f thisd efinitiotnh,e T rialC hamber founda,f tere xaminitnhge d irecetv idencteh,a ti tw asn oti na positiotno establitshha tt he Accusedh adk nowledgoef the murderosf 1uditha nd BigiHman3as. It thereforper oceeded to examinteh ec on~pto f"knowledgoer" ,t heA ccused’mse nst ea underA rticl6e( 3)o f the requirtshda tt hes uperia¢c)tru alalcyq uaihnbtn sowlift ht hei nformat(iwohne thietrw asp rovidoerdm ade av~et oh im)t,h er ek~vainntf ormatoinolnyn eedtso b ei nt hel mssessoifot nh eS Ul~rio(rS.ea el soT (A), Jul2y0 02p,p .2 08-21F4u)r.t hermotrheoR, e,s pondceonnts idtehrastt h eP rosecuitsi" oant tempttoiu nsgv t hv Bagilishceamsaet os olvteh el egails suoef l iabiliotfmy i litaorryc ivilisaun’ " standasredt o uti nt he~ elebiAdpip

eaJlu dgemeonutg hnto tt oa ppltyo c iIv~itltisoauran~sn r dsi uo(brRmsei sttpsho anttd he~nt’s Briefp,a ras1.2 4a nd1 4.1T;( A)2, J ul2y0 02p,. 2 10)W.i thr espetcott heP ros¢~’utmiaoincn’o sn tention, believtehaa tt heT riaClh ambe"re xpliciatnldyh npHc{tlayp"p lietdh e’ %~Ir easotno k nows"~ dard (Respond~Bnrti’esf p,a ras1.4 2a nd1 51)T.h eR espondpeonitn tosu tt hatt hef actt hatt heT riaClh amimr conclutdheadtt herwee ~.t-w op o~ibglr¢o uposfm abordin(atth~ceso mmunpaoll i¢a~n dp exsosntsa ffitnhge roadblocnkesc)e ssarliilmyi ttsh eo btigattiooa ns sestsh eR espondemaet~’t se ai nr espeocftt heu nlawful aotwsh icmha yh avbee ecno mmitbtyet dh esger oup(so ri ndividiunat lhse g roup()I bidp.a,r a1.4 5)a,n dt hat thet osfto rc riminnaelg [lp enecret comptahses" ~h arde astoonk nowc"o ncep(tI.b idp.a,t a1.5 6). ~5~ ¢lebiAdpip eaJlusd gemepnatt,.2 38. 36Erpan a.s.al.cs.l .cled. 3~T ria~lr udgempeantta,9. 6 7I.t f ollofwis’ .otmh ipsa ragrtahpahta supe~o"rk’nso wl~Icgoev"e ttsh et wo ooStandnaarrdnso(’l1,yt) oh Ree spon’dkenneotwr( ’ 2 t)h Reo spon"dheandt reastookn n ow TriaJlu dgemepnatr,a 9.7 5. 15 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A.A 13 Decembe2r0 02

Statuteo,n the basi,;o f the availablcei rcumstantieavli denceg,u idedb y the indicisae t down bay9 the Commissioonf Exportsi n its FinalR eport.

30. The Appeal,,;C hamberr ecallst hat the murderso f Juditha nd Bigirimanaar e the only criminal acts acknowledgedb y the Trial Chamber as having been perpetrated by subordinateso f the, Respondent.W ith regard to the murder of Bigirimana,t he Trial Chamberh eld in paragraph9 74 of the Judgementth at it was not convincedt hatt he Accused had been noHfiedo f the imminento ffenceb y Bigirimana’wsi fe.~ It also underscoretdh e factt hat" it [was]n ot possibl[e. ..]t o lookt o otherk nownf actsi n an effortt o determine whethert he Accusedw as at his officeo r at the bureauc ommunalo,r at any rate closeb y, when the offencew as committed.T"h e TrialC hamberf urtherh eld that "[a]st he Accused’s locationi s unknown for the date on which Bigidmanaw as killed,t he corresponding indiciumo f knowledged oesn ot enteri nto the Chamber’esa Jculation’s’.41 Withr espectt o the murdero f Judith,t he TrialC hamber,i n considerintgh e Accused’sr esponsibilitays superior4,2 took into accounti ts earlierf indings,a nd in particulart,h e fact that the Respondentd eniedh avingh ad knowledgeo f the .murdero f Judith4.3 Besides,i t appears from paragraph9s8 5 et seq. of the TrialJ udgementt hat the TrialC hamberc onsideretdh e 39 TrialJ udgemenpta,z a.9 68.T heT rialC hambeirs referrintgo paragrap3h8 6o f the~ elebidAip peal Judgemenwth,i chi n lurer efertso thef ollowinign dicifae aturiinng thes

aidR epor(tU niteNda tions Commissioofn E xpertRse porSt/ 1994/67t4h)e:n unabo~f illegaalc tst,h et ylmo f illegaalc tst,h es copoef illegaalc tst,h et imed l.u’iwnhgi cthh ei llegaalc tso ccurretdh,e n umbearn dt ypeo ft roopisn volvetdh,e logisliiCnSv olved.a.ri~fV t,h eg eographilcoacla tioofnt hea ctst,h ew idespreoacdc un~no¢f~ t hea cts,t he tactictaelm poof o per~ontsh,em oduOsl ~ranodfis imilairl legaalc tst,h eo fficearnsd s tafifn volveadn,dt he locatioofn t hec ommandaetrt het ime. 40T heT riaClh ambeirr ade.e.cxcl~ sidetrhea~t " [W"JimeZs tse stifiteodt hee ffectth att heA ccusewda sp uto n noticaeb outt hei nlpettdimnugr dersa,n dz anye venh avee ncouragtehde irc ommissioInn. t hec aseo f Bigirimanaan.d f ort her easongsi venc adizt,h eC hambecra nnoatc cepWti tnesZs’ st estimoanbyo utt he presenocfe t heA ccuseadt theT rafiprrooa dbloschko rtlbye forBei girimawuaast akeanw aya ndk illedn;o ri s theC hambecro nvinctehda tt heA ccusewda sn otifieodf thei mminenotf fencboy Bigirimanwai’fse .I n tho caseo f JudithW,i tnesZs claimetdo havec onversewdi tht heA ccusemdo mentast ’tcrW itnesYs and Ru~al edJ udithp ~tt ilew indowo f theA eeu,~d’osf ficeH.o weverf,o rt her easongsi vena bove,t he Chambehra sd ecidetdo disregahrids e vidence6.~".T riaJlu dgemenpta,r &9 74. ~!T riaJlu dgemepnatr,a 9.7 7. 42I bid.p,a ra9.6 6. 43 TheT riaClh ambeirnf actc onsiderienpd a ra9.6 2o

ft heJ udgemetnhta t" lilJts arguabtlhea tf ft heA ccused hads ~ent heg roupp assb eforhei sw indohwe wouldh avea ppreciat~eed H k¢lihooofd a n imminenotf fence. [.~.].H owever/,n thea bsencoef anye videncteh att heA ccusendo ticetdl zep rocessiotnh,i sl ineo f ~,.gmfntatli~odns n owhere(.¢"m pl~iasd ded)F.u rthermorteh,eT d~lC hRmboetm phasiztehda tW itness ~.heP rosecutiso onw nw itnesse,f fectiveilnyv itetdo alludteo a toleranfcoer c riminaclo nducitn the proxLndto’fty h eb ureacuo mmunaslp,o kien steaotfd h iso wna ndo thersu’m rea,s onexcio nducattt het Lrne.T"h e unreasonceodn ducitn questioinn thisp ar&r efertso thef actt hatW imesseYs, Z andR ushimbpaa sseidn fronto f thec ommunacl. ~ccg,i vintgh ei mpressitohna tt heA ccusewda si nformeadb outt hec rime~ atw as aboutto bec ommittoeJd. ~~ e persoonf J udithC.f .T riaJlu dgemepnatr,a 9.6 3. 16 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

Prosecutiotnh’eso rtyh att heA ccuse"dw oulhda vef oundo uta boutt"h em urdeorf Judith latera nd" uponl ~t:inign formeodf t hec rimes houlhda vei nitiataendi nvestigattioon identiafnyd p unisthh ep erpetratoorfst "h ec rimeT.h eT rialC hambearl soh eldt hev iew that" thec laimt hat.J udith’msu rdewra sp ublikcn owledigne M abanzcao mmun[el acked] sufficiefnotu ndat’i’o¢n4.F ollowiannge xaminatoifot nh ei ndicirae latitnogt heA ceused’s presencteh,e g eographilcoacla tiotnh,e t imea,n dm oduosp erandtih,e T rialC hambeera rae to thec onclusiro.nh att herew asn o evidencteo showt hatt hek illingosf Juditahn d Bigirirnwaenraen otj usti solatoerde xceptioinnacli dentrsa,t hetrh ani llustratioofan s routinoef whicthh eA ccusecdo uldn otp lausibhlayv er emainuenda war~e I.n otherw ords, theT rialC hambedre cidetdh att hee videnpcuet f orwarbdy t heP rosecutdiiodnn otp rove beyondr easonabdloeu btt hatt heA ccusehda dr easont o knowt hatm urderhsa db een committaetdt heT rafiprrooa dblock. 31.T heA ppealCsh ambecro nsidertsh att heP rosecutiosnu’bsm issioanrse b asedo n a partiaaln alysiosf " theT rialJ udgemenTth.e A ppealCsh ambecro ncedetsh att heT rial Chambedri dn otc xplicitrleyf ert o the’ Chadr easont o know"s tandardT.h eA ppeals Chambebre lievesh,o wevert,h ats implyb ecausteh eT rialC hambedri dn ote xplicitly declarteh att heA cctzsdcidd n ot" havree asotno k nowd"o esn

otm eant hatt heC hambedri d notr efetro t hes tandarAdn.a nalysoifst hel udgemesnhto wtsh att heT riaClh ambeirn deed soughtto k noww hethetrh eA ccusehda ds ufficieinntf ormatieonna blintgh eC hambetro findb eyonad r easonabdloeu btt hatt heA ccuse"dh adr easotno k now." 32.M oreoverw,i thr egardt o thec oncepotf "criminanle gligencceh"a llengbeyd t he Prosecuti4o6n t,heA ppealCsh ambeorb servetsh att heT rialC hambeird entificerdi minal TrialJ udgemenpta,r a,9 86( emphasaidsd ed). 4s TrialJ udgemenpta,r a.9 80/fni ne( emphasaidsd ed)I,n thoo riginwazls ioonf theT rialJ udgomennta,m ely theE r~isvhe rsionp,a ra.9 80m ade:" [,.,I]f them urderosf 1uditahr idB i~anwae rei nstancoefs a larger t~umbeorf victimosf tht~T rafiprrooa dbloctkh,ei nferentchea tt ileA ccusekdn ewa boutt heo ffencmoisg ht haveb eenp lausibBluot.t heries n oe videntcoes howt hatt het wok illinwgesr en otj usti solatoerde xceptional incidentrsa,t hetrh ani llustratioofn as r outinoef whicht heA ccusecdo uldn otp lausibhlayv er emained 4G TheP rosecutsiuobn~ tisn deetdh at" iti s importatnot e xaminweh ethetrh el egalo lemcnotfst hos tandard whicht heT rialC hambt~arr ticulatfeodr c riminanle gligenccoeu lda mountto the" hadr easotno know’" standairnda ccordawnicteht h¢~ .elebij4uir isprude(nAcpep.e"l lanBtr’ise fp,a ra2.. 41e ts eq.) 17 CascN o,:I CTR-95-1P,~-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

negligenacse a "thirbda siso fl iabili,t~y7.T hisf ormw asq ualifiaesd a liabilibtyy o’m’i4sssiownh,i ctha ketsh ef ormo f" crimindaelr elictoifoa n p ublidcu ty.

33. The AppeaLsC hambsrw ishest o recalla nd to concurw ith the Celebidi jurisprude49nwhceer, ebay s uperiorr’ess ponsibiwliiltlyb ea n issuoen lyi ft hes uperior, whilssto meg enerailn formatiwoans a vailabtloeh imw hichw ouldp uth imo n noticoef possibltem lawfa~c tsb y hiss ubordinatdeisd,n ott aket hen ecessaarnyd r easonable measurteosp revetnhte a ctso rt op unisthh ep erpetratthoerrse of. 34.T heS tatutdeo esn otp rovidfeo rc riminalli abiliottyh ert hanf ort hosef ormso f participatsitoant etdh ereine,x pressolry i mplicitlIyn.p articulairt, w ouldb eb oth unnecessaanrdyu nfaitro h olda na ccuserde sponsiubnldee ar heado fr esponsibiwlhiitcyh hasn otc learlbye end efineidni nternaticorniamli nlaalw . 35.R eferencteos " negligenmc teh"e c ontexotf s uperiroers ponsibialrietl yi keltyo l ead to confusioonf thoughta,s theI udgemenotf theT rialC hambeirn thep resencta se illustratTehsel. a wi mposeusp ona superiao rd utyt op revenctr imewsh ichhe k nowosr h as reasotno knoww erea boutt o be committeadn,d t o punischr imewsh ichh e knowso r has reasotno k nowh adb eenc ommittebdy, s ubordinaotveesrw homh e hase ffecticvoen troAl. militacroym mandeorr,a civilisaunp eriomra,y t herefobreeh eldr esponsiibflh ee f ailtso ’~ TheT rialC hambesrl zaetdh ati t woul"da ddretshse steh reer oadblocIk~sl oown theb asiosf a lla vailable evidencceo ncernitnhge ire stablishmaenndto

peratiaonnd d ~idew hethetrh eA ccuseids liabluen dero neo r tuoroef t het htefao rmosf liabilit(yc,f".T riallu dgemenpta,r agra8p9h1 )I.t c ontinuiend p ara8,9 7t hat thh’bda siosf l iabiliitnyt hisc ontexits g rosnse gh’geneLea.s"t lyt,h eT riaClh ambesrt ateJdn pare1.0 14/n finet hati t hadg iveni r~r easonfso rb eingu nablteo findt heA ccusegdu iltuyn derA rticl6e( 1)a nd6 (3). Nevertheleascsc,o rditnog t ileC hamber",t heq uestiotnh atr emainiss whethetrh eA ccuseids nonetheless liablien n egligenfcoert het wod eath[so fl udia~n dB igitimana]T.r"iCafJl u dgetu¢pna[r,e 1.0 15. a8 TriaJlu dgemenpta,r s.8 97.I t wast hush eldt hat",[ hin[dh e]a,s bourgmestarneo ,b ligatitoon m ainta/n ordera nds ecuritiyn Mabanzcao mmunei,t wouldh aveb e.~na grossb reacohf thisd utyf orh imt o have establisrhoeadd blocaknsdt henf ailepdr opertloys upervitshee iorp eratioantsa tim~w hent herwea sa high riskt hatT u~ic iviliawnosu ldb e tuurderirnA c onnectiwoint ht he."( emphasaidsd ed)C.o nsequently, testinfgo rn egiJgenaccec,o rditnog t heT rialC hambeorr,d inaprryi nciploefst hel awo f negligenacpep ltyo detezminw~h ethearn accusepde rsonw asi n breacohf a dutyo f cm:¢t oward~s or herv ietimT.h en ext questiiosnw hethetrh eb reaccha usetdh ed eatohf thev ictiamn d,i fs o,w hetheirt s houlbde c haracteriazsed sos eriouasst oe onstku,t ea crime(.T riaJlu dgemepnatr.a I.0 10)T.h eT riaClh

ambesre tf ortthh es tandafrodr ~xaminitnhgi s" foromf ;tiabfliitnyp "a ra1 011o f theJ udgement C~eL°e .btAdpip ea]lu dg~tuepnatr,a s2.3" 0t o 239.T he~ elebiAidpip eaJlu dgemepnoti ntosu tt hatA rticl7e( 3) of theI CTYS tatutew,l h/cihs identictaol A rticl6e( 3)o f theI CTRS tatute",i sc oncernweidt hs uperior liabiliatryi sinfgr otuf ~aurteo a cti ns pitoef k nowledNeggel.e cotf a dutyt o acquirseu chk nowledge, howevedro,e sn otf eaturien thep rovisiaosn a separaotfef encAe .s upexiiosrn ott herefolri~a bluen detrh e provisifoonr s uchf ailurbeust o nlyf orf allintgo t aken ecessaarnyd r easonabtluee asurtGos p revenotr to punish,("~ elebiAdpip e~/udgempeanrta.~2 26). 18 Ca~N o.:I CTR-95I- A-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

discharhgies d utieass a superioeri thebry d eliberatfealiyl intgo perfortmh emo r by c°ulpabolryw ilfuUdyi sregardtihnegm f 36.D ependionng t hen aturoef theb reacohf duty( whicmhu stb e a grossb reach)a,n d theg ravitoyf t hec onsequentcheesr eobfr,e achoefsd utieism posebdy t hel awso fw arm ay entaial d isciplinraartyh etrh ana criminlaila biliotfay superiwohro i ss ubjetcotm ilitary disciplinTeh.el ineb etweetnh osfeo rmso f responsibilwhiityc hm aye ngagteh ec riminal responsibiolfit thye s uperiuonrd eirn ternatiolnaawal n dt hosweh icmha yn otc anb ed rawn h-1t hea bs~acotn lyw ithd ifficulatnyd,t heA ppealCsh ambedro esn otn ~dt oa ttemptdtoo so in thep resenJtu dgemenItt. i sb etterh,o wevert,h atT rialC hamberdso n otd escribe superiroers ponsibiilnti etrym osf n egligeantca el l. 37.T heT riaClh ambemru stb es atisfitehda tp,u rsuatnot A rticl6e( 3)o ft heS tatutteh,e accuseedi the"rk new"o r "hadr easotno know",w hethesru cha stateo f knowledgies proveddi rectolryc ircumstantiTahlelA yp.p ealCsh ambeirs o ft heo piniotnh att het estf or criminanle gligenacse a dvancebdy theT rialC hambecra nnotb e thes amea s the" had reasotno k nowt"e s,i:n t ermosf A rticl6e( 3)o ft heS tatutIen.t heA ppealCsh amberv’ise w, theT riaClh ambesrh oulndo th avec onsidetrheids t hirfdo rmo fr esponsibilaiutdy,i, n t his sensei,t committaend e rroro f law.T heA ppealCsh ambecro nsiderhso,w evert,h att he errodro esn oti nva.tidtahteeJ udgemensti,n cea,s p ointeodu tb eforet,h eT riaClh amber esrabfishtehda tB agilishenmeai thekrn ewn orp ossessiendf orraatiwohni chw ouldh ave enablehdi mt o concludien, thec ircumstanacte tsh att ime,t hatt hem urderhsa db een committoerdw erea boutt ob ec ommittbeydh iss ubordinates.

38. Accordingtlhye,A ppealCsh ambedri smisstehse P roseeutiofni’rss tp arto ft his grounodfa ppeal, 50 See,e ,g.,S umming-uopf theJ udgeA dvocatie~ BabaoM asaoc aso( Rabaul1,9 47),r ~mrteidn Law Reportosf Trlalosf WarC riminalUsN,’ WCCV,o l.X I,a t pp.5 6 to 60. 19 CaseN o.:I C22~-95-1A-A 13 Doeemb~2r0 02

2. Whethetrh e,T riaClh ambecro mmitt~e de .,rroirn fincl{ntg_ hati tw asn ote stablished ~a reasonaEtdeo ubtt hatt he Acc~" hadr easont O know"i n t¢~so f Article6 (3_) oft heS tatute 39. The Prosecutiosnu bmitst hat,w eret he AppealsC hambert o considetrh att he Trial Chambeerx aminetdh e" hadm asont o know"s tandarwdi thint hem eaninogf Articl6e( 3) theS tatutet,h eT rialC hambecro mmitteadn erroro f facti n findintgh att he Respondent "didn orh aver easont o know"c rimesh adb eenc ommitteadt theT rafiprroo adbloc5k1. For theP rosecutitohni,s ~e rroro ccasionae mdi scarriaogfe j usticwei thitnh em cauinogf A Ricle 2542.o ft heS tatute. TheP rosecutipount sf orwartdh ef ollowinagr gument: Thef aetuaf!i ndingisn the TrialJ udgemenatl lowf ort hec onclusiotnh att he Respondenpto ssesseedn oughi nformatiotno put him on noticeo f possible unlawfula cts by his subordinatesT.h e TrialC hamberd id not takei nto consider.~Ltitohne contexti n whicht he two murderso ccurredn,a mely,t he baek~ounodf widespreaadt tackso n Tutsic ivilianst hroughouRtw andai n general,a nd in the Kibuyep refecturea nd the communeo f Mabanzai n p5aarticular; The Respondenwta s thusa ware,i n otherw ords" hadm asont o know",t hath is subordinatheasd c ommittesde rioucsr imesB.y itsv eryn aturet,h isi nformation s~A ccorditnogt heP rosecuti~o¢fn a,c tuafli ndinogfst heT riaClh ambearn dt heu ndispuetveidd

enocne recordde arlsyh owt ha"tt hmea joritcyo’nsc lustihoantt h eP rosecudtiidon no ta dducseu fficieevnitd entcoe supportth e’ hadr easotno k nows’t andairsds ou ~nabtlhea tn or easonalb~lrei corf f actc oulhda vec ome toa similcaorn clusi6o~n.A. p"p ellmBarti’espf a,r a2.. 67. s~A pl~llaBnrti’opsLa r~2L..6 7. ,~aI ns uppoorfti tsc ontetattihoePn r,o s¢0uatdivoann tcheesf ollowmianigan r gum~,-nts: - Parai.0 1o9n layl lowfso rt hec on¢lustihoantt h ep recidsaet oef t hek illinogfJs u ditahn dB igirimhaansa notb eeens tabli(sAhpepde llaBnrti’espf a,r a2.. 47); - Thoskei llinmguss ~b.e p laceidn t hec ontexotfo theerv entsw,h icthh eT riaClh ambefro unwde re establisbheeydo nrde asonadbolueb tt:h ee ventwsh ictho okp lacien M abanz(aI bid.p,a in2.. 48)i,n Kibuy(e/ bid.p,a rs2,. 49a)n di nR wandian g enia(lI bidp.a ras2.. 52a nd2 .53)t;h ep urposaen d functioonfit nhge T ra._firporaod bl(o/cbki d1.~,r as2., 5t4o 2 .58)k;n owlebdygt ¢h ¢A ccusoefdW itness Z’sp ast( /bid.p,a ~:~2.. 59a nd2 .60)t;h ec losper oximiotfyt heC ommunOaflf icteo t heT rafipro roadblwohcekr teh em urdewresr ec ommit(t/ebdi dp.a,r a2., 61), 2O CaseNo.I:C TR-95-1A-A 13 D~ombe2r0 02

triggeredt he duty for the Accusedt oi nquirfeu rth5e4ra nd,fo llowingt he inquiriest,o preventc rimesf rom beingc ommitteodr to punisht he perpetrators thereof".~5 The Prosecutioanl so basesi ts argumento n its earliers ubmissions relatintgo "as’u’pse6n"or’asf firmativdeu tyt o inquiref urtherw henp ut on notice t5o7 demonstratteh att he sames tandaradp pliedt o the Respondenitn thisc ase.

41. The AppealsC hambern otes that the Appellantr elieso n certaing eneralf indingsb y the Trial Chamberr elatingt o the backgrounda gainstw hicht he killingso f Juditha nd Bigirimantao okp lacei n ordert o proposeo,n the basiso f thiss electionv,a riousf indingosf fact that the Trial Chamberc ould,a ccordingt o the Pros~ution,h ave reached.I n the AppealsC hamber’sv iew,t hesef indingss houldb e placedb ack in theirp roperc ontexta nd the allegationrse latintgh eretos houldb e considereidn the lighto f the overallf indingosf fact made by the TrialC hamber.

42. The Celebic~A ppealJ udgementm akes it clear that "a showingt hat a superiorh ad some generali nformationi n his possessionw,h ich would put him on noticeo f possible unlawfula cts by h& subordinatewso uld be sufficientt o prove that he ’had reasont o 54T heP rosecutpioosni ~t hat" fft hes uperifoari ltso remaianp prisoefd h iss ubordinatuensl’a wfcuoln duct andt hes uperihoard t hem eanst oo btaitnh ek nowledgbeu,td eliberartodfyr ainferdo mi nvestigatfiunrgt her, itm ayt mp resumtehda th eh ad1 1~or equirmeedn taell emednutr inhgi sf ~tilutroep revenrte,p orotr p unishC.f". AppellanBtr’ise fp,a ra2 12 55 ~he Prosecu " tisou ’ nb J " ~ i " t~h att heR espondehnatd t hed utyt o invvstigaotre i nquirfeu rthebrc caust~h e evidux~ocne t her cc.ordde monstrattheadt t heR espondeknnte w:( I)a boutt hew idesprekaidl linogf Tutsi ei~antsh att ookp lacea llo verR wandai,n thet owno f Kibuyaen di n Mabm~.a(;2 )aboutth ef actt hatt he perpetratoofr tsh esem assacrweasr e/,,adl sog endarmepso,l icemeonr,d inaH~u tuc iviliaannsd i nhabitants of Irisc ommun(e3;) t hatT utsiwse ret arg~e(d4;) a boutth ef a~tt hatr oadblocwk~s’ ~i nh~’enfdlayn g~otls Tarscii vilia(n5s);t hat* .heT rafiprrooa dblowcaksa ta strategliocc atio(n6;)f linatt l easotn eo ft hep ersons staffitnhge T rafiprroo,a dblowcaks,a ne x-soldiCefr.A, p pdlanBtr’ise fp,a ras2.. 62a nd2 ,63. TheP rosecutsiuobnm itt~h att heR

espondefnati leidn hisd utyt oi nve~tigfautr~t h(~I bid.p,a ta2,. 64)a,n d offerss omes uggestioonns h owt heR espondecnotu ldh avem eth isd utyt o inquir(eI bid.p,a ra.2 .65), followiWhn,ig"c ht ~t. wouldh aveb eenc leart hats ~vorc~o urseosf actiowne reo pent o himi n or&a"t o comply . withh isd utya sa superitoor p reventth ec ommissioofcn r imeosr t o punisthh ep erpetrattohresr eof(,/"b /d., pax-2~, 6d). ~6Appellan,t B’rsi,e pfa,r as2:..1t 4o 2 ,38T.h eP rosecution,. submitthsa tth ep recifsoer moarlt echnisctaalt oufsa ¯ r.~,tao ~ ¢noswt anaarta,,o rm er roseeuti"otnh,e ~ies n o indicattihoantt h~d rafteorfs th~S tatutien tondteod l ayd ownd ifferesntta ndarfdosr d iffereenatt egoroif~s uperior(sA.p"p e~anBtr’ise f, co~Rierda eb,yi nternatijounrails prudoenn tchee s ubjecTth.e pr po~sae.2c .u1t7i)Iho.ton s w,ue bvmeiarftt,ls~ i yntsthet ishsp e do issitticinacobntnbie eotnw eecni viliaannd m ilitasrUyp erioirnsA rticl2e8 oi"t he Statutoef t heI nternatioCnr.i~m inCaolu r(t" ICC"w)h,i ciht qualifais~b einign novatiavnedd eviatifnrgo m ~7Appellant’lsaCWUBSrtii°enmff ao,rr yC ep~.When2,62thaeltloeOgifentfd he eIn ncdeisc2t.wm6oe7rnc,eto mmit(tIebdi.dp .a,r a2.. 2e9t s ~q.) 21 Cas~N o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 De~ombe2r0 02

know’’.’SsT heA pp.~ alsC hambeern dorstehse f indinogf t heI CTYA ppealCsh ambeirn the ~elebiAdpip eaJlu dgemetnhta tt hei nformatdiooens n otn eedt o providsep ecifdiect ails abouutn lawfauclt ~.,c’o,m mittoerda boutto b ec ommittbeydh iss ubordinateWsi.t5hr9 e gard tot hea rgumenatcsl vancbeyd theP rosecutiotnh,eA ppealCsh amberh,o weverd,e emsi t necessatroym akea distinctbieotnw eetnh ef actt hatt heA ccusehda di nformataiboonu tth e generasli tuatitohna tp revailiendR wandaat thet ime,a ndt hef actt hath eh adi n his possessigoenn erailn formatwihoinc phu th imo nn oticteh ath iss ubordinamtiegsh tc ommit crimesW.i tht hisd istinctiionn m ind,t heA ppea/Csh ambeird entifibeesl owt hem ain argumenatdsv ancebdy theA ppellatnots upportth ec ontentitohna tt heR esponde"nhta d masont o know"t hatc rimesh adb eenc ommitteodr werea boutt o be committeadt the Trafiprrooa dblock. TheA ccusekdn ewo f thed angerounsa tureo f theT rafiprroo adblock. Accordintgo theP rosecutiotnh,e roadblocokp erateldi kea ny other roadbloicnkR wanda0f Oint heb asiso ft heg enerafla ctuafli ndinbgys the TrialC hamberre latintgo roadblocktsh,e P rosecutiaosns erttsh att he TIrafiprrooa dblowcaksu sedt oi dentiafnyd k illT utsisfl (2) TheP rosecuticohna llengtehse T rialC hamberf’isn dinign paragra9p3h7 o f the Judgementth atW itnessy gavea n accounto f the purposea nd functionoifnt gh er oadblotchka tw

asd ifferefnrto mt hea ccounotf W itness Z. Aocordintgo theP rosecutio"nW,i tnesYs n everg avet hisa pparently cruci~edx planatiinoh ni so ralt estimoinnyc ourt.T"h eP rosecutsiuobnm its thatt heT rialC hamber’pso into f departurseh ouldh aveb eent heo ral t~stimogniyv ebny Witnesys i nc ourta,n dt hatt hep ortioonf thew ritten statemenrte liedu ponb y the TrialC hambeirn paragrap9h3 7 of the l6u~dgemesnhto ulhda veb eenp utt ot heW itnesisn c ourt. 5~ ~elebidAip peaJlu dgemenatr,e .2 3 59 . P gem hasisa d ~o¢ ~d ~ b’, ffAip peaJlu dgemenDta,t a2 (38 ~ d~a) .J~m c~ csponaeandtm itttehda th e hadg ivenno specifiincs truction i~co peratci,o:n~ " theT rafiprrooa dbloc~k A.p pellanBtr’ise fp,a re2.. 54, paxa2.. 58. ~2AppellaBnrti’esf , 17 Se@tvmbe2r0 00a,~s 2 ~.;5.5..,.UaT shP ~ert oosseeccuuttirioeeon,fn ze hr~stl o. p,a.r.~a.,9 T 3-0no .f.~ t h.e.T .r.i.a.l.3g ." uedae ~m t he.S tatemenOtf ,Tadg~nltevagtc rtso t he: 3tate~conft 1 7S ept~eIr9’’ ~’9’ ’-,~=p pe~~sn l~r,l~’mo~ustt. h atp ate9.3 0o f the CaseN o.:I CTR-95.1A-A 22 13 Decembe2r0 02

TheR espondeknnte wt hatW itnesZs wasa n ex-soldiweirt ha criminal recor6d3. Withp articulraerf erentcoe t heK ahanC ommissiRoenp or~t ,the Pros,~utisounb mittsh att hisf acti s mosti mportanRt a.r guetdh at," the undisputeedv idencoen records howst hatt he Respondenktn ewa bout WitnesZs’ sp ast’.’6~L eavinags idet hise videncteh,e T rialC hambeurs ed ~+te ,i ¯ ¯ upaen~stliacn guagei"n concluditnhga tt heA ccusehda dn otg ivena c6o6mpleptiec turoefa llt hosset affmtgh er oadblock. 43.W ithr egartdo thek illingosf Juditahn dB igirimantah,eA ppealCsh amberre calls then eedt o placet heR espondcntm’esn st eai n relatiotno the" hadr easotno know" standawridt hitnh ec ontexotf t hee videnacvea ilabtloet heT riaClh ambearn,d t om akea generaalp praisca,lf t heC hamberf’asc tuafli udinignst hisr egaridn ordetro e stablish whethetrh ea 11egeerdr oresx ist. 44+A sr egardtsh eP rosccutioanl’lse gatiornesl atitnogt hee rroneoausss essmeonftt he purposoef t heT rafiprroo adbloctkh,e A ppealCsh ambehro ldst hatt heP rosecutihoans obviousnloyt d emonstrattheadtt heT rialC hambemra dea nu nreasonafbilned inagb outt he Icgi~maptucr posoef t her oadbloicnkq uesti~o7nI .ndeedt,h eP rosecutmieorne lrye fertso someo f theT rialC hamber’fsm dingwsi tha viewt o assertintgh att heC hamber’s assessmeonftt hep urposoef t her oadblowcaks e rroneouWsi.t hr egartdo t heP rosccution’s argumencto

ncerniWnigt nesYs, theA ppealCsh ambeorb servetsh att heT rialC hamber correctrleyp rodutcheedt ranscroifpW ti tnesYs’ sw rittens tatemeanstw ella sh ist estimony durintgh et riasls,T her eferenmcaed et oW itnesYs’’s "statemenitn’p a"r agra9p3h7o ft he Defence~x hibi6t4 .T heP rosecutsiuobnm ittsh att hisp ortioonf thew rittesnt atemeon£tW itnesYs w asn ot specificaplultyt ot hew itnesisn c ourta,n dt hatt heC hamberp’osi nto fd epartusrheo ulhda veb eent heo ral tgstimgoinvyeb n t hi"s/ Vim, +,n,,~_ 6’ ~Y OiSn S ..... ,J.A,p pella’sn tB r’iefp,a ras2.- 59a nd2 60;T (A)2, July2 002, ~,~4 9 S¢cm paracaAlpalr~ Jlsa Bnntc fp,a ra2.. 25T;( A)2, J al2y0 02,1), ~AppollaBnrti’epsfa ,r a2., 60T.h e~ osscurteifoentr ost heT ,7 J un2e0 00p,p .1 52t o1 54a,~ dt oD efoncv exhibNiot.1 00T.h eP rosecuatlisorone fetrost heT ,8 S un2¢0 00p,p .2 30t o2 45a ndp ,4 2a nd9 February 2000p,p .2 9a nd3 0. ~A ptmllaBnrti’espf a,r a2,. 60T.h eP rosccurte/foentro sp ara9s2.4 -9a2n5d7 54o ft heT riaYlu dgcment. Triallu dgempeanrta,9s 3:6a nd9 :38 6A . +tT~a lJ ua.g.o..m onpta,r a.s..9..3 0a nd9 29,t hel atterre producWeism esYs’ st estimoanty theh earinogf 7 Febrna2r0y0 0L T,7 F~;brua2r0y0 0p,p .3 ~-36). 23 Cas~N o.:I CTR-9S-1A-A ’ 13 Dccembo2r0 02

TrialJ udgemcnti6s9 a lsoa ccuratsei ncet heT rialC hambeirs implicitallyl udintgo Witness Y’sw rittesnt atemenAts. to them ores pecifiacl legatitohna tt heT rialC hambeerr redi n referrintgo and relyingu pont he priors tatemenotf Witnessy , the AppealsC hamber indicatetsh att hisa llegatiiosn dealtw ithu ndert het hirdg roundo f appeala,n dr efers thereforteo its findingrse latintgh ereto7.0 Lastly,w ithr egardt o the Respondent’s knowledgoef WitnesZs’ sc riminarle cordt,h eT rialC hambedri dn oti ndeedt akee xplicitly intoc onsiderattidolno f ther elevanetv idencIet. mustb e recalledh,o wevert,h ata Trial C7h1ambeirs n oto bligetdo givea detaileadn swetro everya rgumenrta iseddu rinag trial, andt hati t is fort heT rialC hambetro assessi,n concretew,h ethear superiohra si n his possessiosnm ~cienitn formation.

45. The AppealCsh ambero bservetsh att he TrialC hamberr eliedo n certainf actsw hich weren otd isputebdy theA ppellautf,o re xamplet,h att herew erep ersonamlo tivebse hind thek illing7s2, andt hatt herew asn o evidencaes to whethetrh eA ccusewda sp resenatt the communaolf fices,. :)a s to determinweh etheirt wase stablishbeedy ondr easonabldeo ubt thatt heR esponde"nhta dr easont o know"w ithint hem eaninogf Articl6e( 3)o f theS tatute. The AppealsC hamberi s of the opiniont hatt he Prosecuthiaosnn otd emonstrattheed unreasonablenoefs st he TrialC hamber’ls’ mdingt hatt he Respondenhta d no reasont o knowt hath is subordinatweesr ec ommittinogr had committecdr imeso n the personso f Juditahn dB igit~anoar, t hem iscarriaogfej usticree sultitnhge refroImn.t hel ighto f the foregointgh,e A ppealCsh ambefri ndst hati t is unnecessatroy a ddrestsh ei ssueo f whether customairnyt ernatiolnaawli mposeas d utyo n a civiliasnu periotro inquirfeu rther. 46, In conformitwyi th the above-mentionceads e-lawr elatingt o the standardf or examininegr rorso f facto n appeal7,3 theA ppealCsh ambedri smissetsh isp arto f thef irst groundo f appeal. TheJ udgemerneta ds":W itnesys,,o nt heo thehra nds,a idt hata nyonwei thp ropeird ont~catwihoent,h er TutsiH,u mo rT wa,c oulpda sst hroutghhe m adblowoikt houetx perienpcrionbgl ems." 70S eep ara9.4 e ts eqo.f ~ hep reseJnutd gement. 71K ayishema/RuziAnpdpaenaaJlu dgement, para1.6 5;F urund~Aipjpae aJlu dgemepnatr,a 6.9 ;( ~elebidi Appe~Judg~mpeanrta,4, 8 1. re,f ore xamplTer,i aJlu dgemepnatr,a s9.4 49,5 2a nd1 020. ~ Cfls.u prap,a r1&0 e t~ ,eoqf t hep reseJnutd gement CaseN o.;I CTR-95-1A-A 24 13D eomtbe2r0 02

3. Whethert he THal Chambqr comm~cde rrors of law in its analysiso ~ s__ttbordrienlaatt~i on,ship 47.T he Prose.catisounb mittsh att he TrialC hamber’asn alysiosf the conditionusn der whicha persocna nb ec onsiderteod b ea superioirn t~rmso f Articl6e( 3)o ft hi¢S tatute flaweidn twoi nstauces: The TrialC hambeerr redi n lawi n statintgh atc iviliancsa no nlyb e found liableo n conditiotnh att heye xercisae military-stycloem manadu thority overa llegesdu bordina~t4e sa;nd The TrialC hambere rredi n law in construinsgu periorr esponsibility exclusivelbyy virtueo f a person’dse jurea uthorityA.c cordintgo the Pros~mutitohne,T rialC hambemra del ittloer noa llowanfcoer t hep ossibility thata persocna nb c considerae sdu perioorn t heb asiso f a de factoe xercise o7fs pc,w ereo fc ommanadn dc ontrol.

48. The Prosecutiocno nsidertsh att he TrialC hamberm isapprehendtehde overriding factor( nameltyh e"C~ZlCC;avceo-n"t rols"t andard)w,h ichi s usedt o determinweh ether personc anb e consideread s uperiourn derA rticl6e( 3)o f theS tatut7e6. TheP rosecution requesttsh e AppealCsh amberi,n the interestosf justicet,o taken oteo f th~ errors committebdy theT rimC hambearn d to providteh ea ppropriarteem edy. a~0.)_I_s~s ua~s t ot b.en aturoef a civil!.SaUnP Cxior’s.anthoHty 49. The Prosecu’tiotna kesi ssuew itht he TrialC hamberf or over-emphasizitnhge "militafreya tureos:"~ "t hes upc~or-subordirndaatt~i onshiTph7e7T rialC hambera,c cording to theP rosecutiotno,o kt hev iewt hata vid,l¯ ians upm ¯ o S rs ’ respons ¯ i ¯ b w ilrictqym . repsr ooft hat thep owerse xercisebdy suchs uperioorv erh iss ubordinataerse similatro the "command" 74A.~ppc-uaspr Btrti epfa,r a2.. 70, 7~I bidp,a,r a2s,.7 a0n d2 .74. 7~] bidp,.,a r2a..7 5 77 ~ bM.p,a ra2,. 72..PTrhoes ecutciiotnea ss a ne xamptlhee f actt hatt heT dilC hambuesre tsh ee 2cpzcssion appmgosfm ih’taprcye woarn"ds ubjecptrso ooff a superitootr h ep resenocfme i litasrtyy laeu thoriTtoy. illustr1a8t0te,hi ¢7118,3 T6r6i4aClbaantdtn htTe~r ri’aSlolfe galJudtghcPemr eonste.ccauiPttPpieraos°rn aa4 cs31h.,5’ 0 1,5 11,5 21,6 01,6t 3o 1 65, 25 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13D e,c ombe2r0 02

powerso f a militarys uperior7.s It timbers ubmitst hat the Trim Chamberm isconstruetdh e principlien the ~et’ebidAip pealJ udgemenbty subjectinag superior’rse sponsibiliwthye n exercisinhgi s authorittyo a military-styclhea ino f colnnlan7d9. The Prosecutiosnu bmits tsh°att herei s no indicatiotnh att heT rialC hambefro cuseodn thet esto f effectivceo ntrol, 50. UnderA rticle6 (3), a commandero r superiori s the one who possessest he power authoritiyn eitherv . de jureo r a de factof ormt o prevenat subordinatec’rsi meo r to punish the commissioonf a crimeb y a subordinataef tert he crimei s committed8"~. The powero r authorittyo prevento r to punishd oesn ot arises olelyf roma de jure authoritcyo nferred througho fficiala ppointmen8t2. Hence," as long as a superiorh as effectivec ontrolo ver subordinatetso, the extentt hath e can preventt hem fromc ommittincgr imeso r punisht hem aftert hey committe~;tlh e crimes,h e wouldb e held responsiblfeo r the commissioonf the crimesf f he failedt o exercisseu cha bilitieosf control.8"3 The effectivceo ntrotle sta pplies to alls uperiorwsh,e flaedre jureo r de factom,i litarosyr4 civilian, 51. Indeed, it emerges from internationalc ase-law that the doctrine of superior responsibiliitsy n otl imitedt o militarsyu periorsb,u t alsoe xtendst o civiliasnu periorsI.n the~ elebircia se,i t wash eldt hat: 78A tt hea ppeahle aritnhge P

rosecutiontshtaatt ed "It]hTer ialC’h ambiesrf irm/cyo nvLnetehdaa t person coulodn lyb e c, onsiderae dde jtoes ulmrioorn: c ondititohna tt hatp ersowna sa ctinags a quasim ilitary commander."TC(fA.) ,2 July2 002,p . 52. wAppellanBtr’ise fp,a r~.2 :73.T heP rosecutiroenf ertso paras2.5 2,2 54a nd3 04o f the~ elebidAip peal Judg©ln~L *°Aplx~llaBnrti’esf p,a r,2x. 73.T heR e~a)ond,o fnotrh isp art,c onsidetrhsa tt hea rgtmxetnati sexbly the ~osect.~bieofno rteh eA ppealCsh ambeirs a displaoyf c itatiofnrso mt heJ udgome~mla~dte o uto f contexatn d a mi~5_,teti~¢toaftt ihoeTn r iaClh ambera’nsa lysiAsc.c orditnog h im,t heC hambe"rc orrectildye ntifitehde ~aractoristtiheastu nderpitnh er vlationsbhoitpw ~tnh eR espondeanntd h iss upposesdu bordinatwehsi,c h wouldm akei t possibl,t:o findw herhvro r uott herew ass ufficiencto ntrotlo establischo mmand responsibiliTthyeD. e": ~oncscu bmit~sr thetrh at" contratroy t heP rosecutocro’nst enti[o.n. .]t,h eT rial Chambedri dn otr efert o the’ trapginogfs m’i litarcyo mmanbdu ttet he’ tr~piagosf’ d e jurec ommandC.f". Re s~d entsI tBne¯f,iJ np art.teulpaarr,a s1.7 4m ad1 75 n "CelebiAdpip eaJlu dgemenpta,r a.1 92:" [u]ndearr ticl7e( 3),a commandoerr s uperioirs thust heo new ho possesstehsep oweorr t kt¢a uthoriitnye ithear d ej ureo ra def actfoo rmt op revenat s ubordinactrei’msoe r to punisthh ep erpetratooftr hse c rimaef tvtrh ec rimies c ommitted." SZ/b/dp.i,n t1a9.3 . ~ 1bidp’a ra1~9 8. s,A /e ksovslAaP lxm.lI udgemenpta,r a.7 6 M fineT.h eI Cq’YA plmalCsh ambetro okt hev iew" thati t doesn ot mattewrh ethe[rt heA ccusewda]s a civilioarn m ilitasruyp erioirf, i tc anb e prove,t4h at[ ...]h e hadt he powertso p reveonrtt op unisihn t etraosf A rtic7l(e3 )." 26 CaseN o,:I CTR-95.1A.A 13 Decembe2r0 02

[...t]h ed o¢~zionfcs uperiroers ponsibielxitteyn tdosc ivilisaunp erioornsl yt ot hee xtent thatt heyc ×et¢ias ed egreoef c ontroolv erd leisru bordinawtheisc ihs similatro thato f militarcyo mmanderass, In thisr espectt,h eA ppealCsh ambenro test hatt heM usemTar ialJ udgemenwth,i cht ook intoc onsideralt~ieoR nw andasni tuatiopno,i nteodu tt hat" iti sa ppropritaota es sesosn a case-by-cbaassei st hep owero f authoriatcyt ualldye volveodn a n accusetdo determine whetheorr noth e possesstehde p owert o takea lln ecessaarnyd r easonabmleea suretso p’r’esv6entth ec ommissoifot nh ea llegecdr imeosr t op unisthh eipre rpetration. 52.H encet,h ee stablishmoefn cti viliasnu periorre sponsibilrietqyu irepsr oofb eyond reasonabdloeu btth att hea ccuseedx erciseefdf ecticvoen troolv ehri ss ubordinatients h,e senset hath ee xercisae dd egreoef c ontroolv ert hemw hichi s similatro t hed egreoef comroolf m ilitacroym mandeIrtsi .s n ots uggesttehda t" effectciovnet rowri’l in ecessarily bee xercisbeyda civilisaunp eriaonrd b ya militacroym mandienrt hes amew ay,o rt hati t mayn ecessarbiel~ ys tablisihnet dh es amew ayi nr elatitoonb otha civilisaunp eriaonrd a militarcyo mmander. 53,I n thei nstancta se,t heT rialC hamberre lieodn t heC elebiTdrii alJ udgemenwth,i ch wasa ffirmebdy t heI CTYA ppealCsh amberi,n h oldintgh at: [.--]f ora ci~dliasnu periord’es~ -eoef controtlo be

"similtaor" t hato f a military commaaderri,t ec ontroolv ers ubordinamtues tb e "effectivea"n,dt hes uperiomru st havet he" ’materiaabli littyo" p revenatn dp unisahn yo ffenceFsu._ rthcrmtohteee ,x ercise of def actaou thorimtuys tb ea ccompanbiye tdh e" thet rappinogfst hee xerciosfe d ejure authorityT"h.e p~sentC hamberc oncursT.h eC hamberi s of thev iewt hatt hese trappingosf authoritiyn cludef,o re xamplea,w arenesosf a chaino f commandt,h e phaslnso tm theo rigina¢l~,e lebiTdrii aJlu dgemepnatr,e 3.7 g,a ffirmoenda ppeailn t he~ ¢lebiAdpip eal Ju t, p a~t.1 .97_ /n.fineT,h.e I CTYA ppealCsh ar~cro nsideriend p ara.1 97o f the~ -elebiAdpip eal Juagememnatt [ qnd eterminiqnuge stioonfs t esponsihii~tt iys necessatroy l ookt o effectievxee rcisoef poweorr c ontroaln dn ott o formatli tlesT.h isw ouledq uallayp pliyn t hec ontexotf criminracls ponsibiIlnky. _generatlh,ep oss_csscico~dn e jurep oweirn itselmfa yn ots ufficfeo rt hef indionfgc ommanrde sponsibiflfity Jt doesn otm anii~eisnt e ffecticvoen troall,t houag hc ourtm ayp resumteh atp ossessioofn s uchp owerp rima faciree sultisn e ffecticvoen trouln lespsr ootfo t hec ontrairsyp roduceTdh,e A ppealCsh ambecro nsidetrhsa t thca bilittyo exercics£e~ ecticvo¢n troils necessafroyr t hee stablishmoefn dte f actoc ommanodr superior r~ ty.a n.d_thau~sr ees, w itht heT riaClh ambetrh att hea bsenocfef ormaalp pointmiesnr

tt otf atatlo a Immsut. vaol eonqIguc irv~aarllCet snott a~ ,,~jo unrsesi tbaipllruiofstvo yirm,d ce ee pdrl tlarilcn~o SnoedfSi s tuipaoernresim roeerts .Mp uo~nisdi’absri -ilgsi~ mtmiyest nphtla atdc eeAf dla.tc htsootu taghtheu s degreoef c ontrowli eldebdy a dej ureo rd e factSou ltrimeary t aked ifferefnotr msa, d e,facstuop erimours t bef oundt ow ielsdu bstantiaslilmyi lapro werosf c ontroolv ers ubordinattoe bse h eldc r/minalrleys ponsible fort heira cts,T heA pp~tlCsh ambetrh erefoarger eewsi tht heT rialC hamberc’osn clusi[o.n. .]("f ootnotes omitted). 8~ MusemTar iaJlu dgemepnatr a1.3 5.T heT rialC hambebra sedi tsf indinogn earliecra se-Leaswt ablishiend theA kayesTur iallu dgemnet, ( para4.9 1). 27 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A.A 13 Decembe2r0 02

p~actiocfoi ssuinagn do beyinogr dersa,n dt hee xpectattihoanti nsubordinamtaiylo ena d tod iscipliancatriyo Int.i sb yl ~ester appintghsa tt hel awd istinguicsihveisl isaunp eriors f~romm erer abble-rousoerr ost hepre rs~osf influence, 54.T heT rialC hambearl sor eiterattehda ta civiliasnu periowri llh avee xercised effecticvoen troolv erh iso rh ers ubordinaitnet sh ec oncrectier cumstainfcb eost hd ef acto controaln dt het rappinogfsd e jurea uthoriatmyp resenatn ds imilatro t hosef ounidn a militmcyo ntex8ts.: (’heT rialC hambewre ntf urthetro p ointo utt hati tsa pproacwha s considtehre c haractoefrt hed e jureo r dej ure-lirkeel ationsh(iipnFs r ench",q uasi-de jure"b)e tweetnh eA ccuseadn dh iss upposesdu bordinataensd,t hent o determiinfe t he Accuseda’usr hofi~(,w.h etherre alo r contrivewda)s c omparabtloe t hate xercisiend militacroyn text,89 55.T he AppealC~h ambehro ldst he viewt hatt he TrialC hamber’asp proactho the notioonf " effecticvoen troiln"r elatitoonc ivilisaunp eriwoars e rroneoiunsl aw,t ot he extentth ati ts uggesttehda tt hec ontroelx ercisbeyda civilisaunp erimours tb eo ft hes ame naturaes thate xercisbeyda militarcyo mmand9e°rA .s theA ppealCsh ambehra sa lready statedt,h isi sn ott hec aseI.t i ss ufficietnhta tf,o ro ner easoonr a nothetrh,e a ccused exercistehse r equir"edde greoef"c ontroolv erh iss ubordinatneasm,e lyt,h ato fe ft~ctive

controHlo.w evears,c oncedbeydt heP rosecutio9n1, thise rrodri dn ota ffectth ev erdicats theA ppealCsh ambeirs satisfitehda tt heA ccuseddi dn otp ossestsh er equirmeedn st ea. TheA ppealCsh ambetrh erefocroen cludtehsa tt hise rrord oesn otr endetrh ed ecision invalid. ~ TriaJlu dgemenpta,r e4.3 (foomotoemsi tted). TriaIlu dgemenpta,r e1.5 1,w hicrhe adass follow"s(:, ,.a] c ivilisaunp eriwoirl lh avee xerciseefdf ective controolv erh iso r hers ~bordinaitnet sh ec oncrectier cumstainfcb eost hd ef actcoo ntroaln dt het rappinogfs de9j urea ytho.r itayr ep reseamn ds imiltaort tmsfeo unidn a militacroyn text(.e"m phasaidsd ed), TriaJl’ udgerapeanrte 1.5 2,w hicrhe adass f ollow"s[:. ..f]o rt hec haractoefra civiliadne’ jsu rea uthority ~0wheflrheearlo rc ontrivmeuds)tb ec omparatbolt eh ate xercisienad militacroyn text." CeiebidAip peall adgemeutp,a ras.1 96,1 97 and 256.T heI c’rYA ppealCsh ambecro nsideretdh at ’"C~omxaauad t’e,r mw hicdho esn ots eemt op resenptm rticu_cLoanrt roveirns iyn terp~tatnioornm,a lmleya ns powertsh ata ttactho a mih’tarsyu psaSowrh,i lstth ¢t erm’ controlw’h,i chh asa widerr etreatinmga,y encompapsosw erwsi eld~.bxylc ivililaena derIsn.t hisr e~pectth,o A ppealCsh ambedro esn otc onsidtehra tt he ntlei s controverstihaaltc ivilialne adermsa yi ncurr esponsibUiJnt rye latitoon a ctsc ommittbeyd t heir subordinaotreo st hepre rsonusn detrh ejexf

fecticvoen tro~l-,~ eeticvoen trohls sb eena ccepteidn,c ludiinng ~oo e jurisprud.eOnfc teh eT ribuna_la,sa standafrodr t hep urposoefs d eterminsiunpge riroers ponsibi[l.i.t.y] " : : moteosr mtte(dp)a re1.9,6 )I.t f urthheerl dt hat’ q’hceo nceopfte ffecticvoen’t reovle ,r a subordiniante, thes ensoef a materiaabli littyop revenotr punis¢hd minaclo nduchto,w evetrh atc ontroilse xercis-e ids t he threshotlod b er eacheidn establishai snugp erior-suborrdeilnaaOtoen sfhoirpt hep urposoef A rticl7e( 3) th¯ mSmte( "footnote~omme(dp)a re.2 56). 9~ProseeuAtpilomnl lanBtr’ise fp,a ra2.. 75. 28 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A.A 13 Decembe2r0 02

56.T heA ppealCsh ambenro test hea mbiguiotfy t hee xpressiao cno ntrivdeed j ure-like authori(tiynF rench",a utoriqtuda si-jduer efacti~c2ea n"d)a cknowledtgheasti ti sd ifficult tog rastph em eanintgh ereoIfn.t hec ontexotf p aragra1p5h2 o ft heJ udgementth,ec oncept seemst o formp arto ft her easoniunsge db yt heT rialC hambeirn examinitnhge d e jure authorietxye rcisbeydt heA ccusebdu,t i tc anb ei nterpreitned di fferewnaty sT.h eA ppeals Chamberre iterattehsa tt hec asel awo ft heI ntsmatioTnraiib unamlask esi tm andatotroy uset hee ffecticvoen trotle stf orb othd ej urea ndd ef actsou perioCrrse.a tiinngt ermediate levelosf a uthoriitsy u nnecessaanrdyi tw oulidm paitrh el egala nalysoifst hec riminal liabiliotfya superiuonrd eArr tic6l(e3 )o ft heS tatutaes,w ella sh eighttehne c onfusion identifytihnegv arioufso rmosf a uthoriatnyd i nstituteifnfge cticvoen troAll.t houtghhi s wordinigs i nappropritahteeA ,p pealCsh ambecro nsidetrhsa ti ti so fn oc onsequetnoct eh e Judgemengti,v etnh ati tw asn otu nreasonatbolc eo nclufdreo mt hee videnpcree senttehda t theA ccusewda sn otl iabluen deArr ticl6e( 3)o ft heS tatutfeo rt he~ ngsa tt heT rafipro roadblock.

57. Withr egardc o the Prosec"u u’osn a rgumentth att heT rialC hambemri sapprehended theC .elebjiu¢rii spru,.’btyer necqet tirai cnigv ilisaunp eritoore xercihsiesc ontrtohlr ouagh m9i3litary-stcyolmem andt,h eA ppealCsh ambedrr awsa ttentitoon i tsp revioudse cisions andt o thoseo f theI CTYA ppealCsh ambe9r4. It emphasiztehsa tt hel ineo f reasoning 92 TriaJlu dgemepnatr,a 1.8 3. 93 Accedintgo which’ Yederenc[v,s, ,]t o concepro~f subordinatihoine,r archayn dc hainosf command /.,,lneneoAt b e establishiend t hes enseo f formaolr ganisatiosntarlu,c turseos l onga s thef undamental requiremeonft a n effe~tipvoew ert o controtlh es ubordinatiionn t,h es enseo f preventionrg p unishing crimincaoln ducti,s sati~’~ieCd~, K"a yi,~hem.atRuzAipnpdsaan3lau dgcznenpta,r a2.9 8( footno5t2e0 )T.h e ApI2~MCsh ambexrc ferretdo the( 3elebiAdpip e~Y udgeme(npta ra2.5 4)w herei~tuh eI CTYA ppealCsh amber underscortehdi sp rinciplTeh.e A ppealCsh ambetrh usc onsidextehda t:" [t]hTer ialC hamberr’esf erencteos conceptosf subordinatihoine,r arcahnyd c hainosf commanmdu stb e readi n thisc ontextw,h ichm akesi t apparetnhta tt heyn eedu otb e establishientd h es enseo f forraaolr ganisatisotnraulc turseos l onga s the ~damentarle quiremeonft a n effectivpeo wert o controtlh es ubordinatien, t hes enseo f preventionrg ~unishicnrgi mincaoln ducits,s atisfied." ~t wast hush eldt hatt her

elationsbheitpw eean s uperiaonrd h iss upposseudb ordinamtaeysb eb oth" direct andi ndirectw"i,t ht he: provistoh ate ~f~tiveea nuomlu sta lwaybse establishFeudr,t hermor"et,h el aw relatitnogc ommanrdc sl:onsJbirleictoyg nisneosto nlyc ivilisaunp eriorwsh,om ayn otb ei n auys uchf ormal chaionf commanadn,d d e factaou thoritfyo,rw hicnho formaalp pointmIesn rte quiredC,~",~ .elebiAdpip eal Judgemenpta,r as2.5 2a nd3 04.T heA pp~lCsh ambesrt atetdh ati t [.,.]r egardtsh eT rimC hambears having rccognitsheedp ossibiloiftb yo thi ndireacstw ella sd irecrtv lationsshuibposr dinaatnidoa ng reetsh att hism ay be thee ase,w itht hep rovistoh ate ffecticvoen tromlu sta lwaybse establish[e.d. .]("( ~lebiAdpip eal Judgemenpta,r a2.5 2)I.: f m’thecro nsidertehda ti tw as" [...s]a tisfitehda tt h,T riaClh ambewra sn oti nf act impositnhge r equiremoefns tu cha fonnalispcods itiionna formaclh aionf commanads, o pposetdo requiring thatt hemb ep rootfh atE ,eliwda sa superiionrt hes ensoef h avintgh em attalaabli littyop revenotrp unisthh e actso fp ersonssu bordintaom h im.("p ara3.0 4). CaseN o,:I CTR-95I-A -A 13 Decembe2r0 02

adoptebdy theT rialC hambewri thr egardt o gendarm9e~s andr eservis9t6s cana ctualllye ad one to thinkt hatt heC hambesro ughtt o determinteh eA ccused’pso sitioans parto f the "gendarmericeo mmando"r the "stricth ierarchicaslt ructuroef mih’tarpye rsonnel." Consideritnhga tt heA ccuseda,s a civiliaand ministratoifvfei cewro uldn oth aveb eena ble to operatien thiss tructurteh,e T rialC hambedre ducetdh ath e couldn oth avee xercisaendy de jurea uthorityw hatsoeveorv er gendarme9sv. However,t hesef indingdso noti n themselvecso nstit~.Latne e rror,c onsideritnhga tt he TrialC hamberm erelys oughtt o establiswhh ethetrh e Accusewdi eldedde jurea uthorityi,t thereforter iedt o determine whetheRrw andanl awc onferrepdo werso n a bourgmesttrhea tw erec omparablteo thoseo f militarcyo mmandeirns termso f controolv ers ubordinatetsh,u sp lacinhgi mi n a position silrtilatro thato f a militarcyo mmanderf,o r the purposeo f evaluatintgh e de jure responsibiloiftt hye b ourgmestar ec,i viliaand ministratoifvfei ceorv,e rm ilitapreyr sonnel.

58. Consequentltyh,e TrialC hamberd id not intendt o requirep roofo f the Accused’s positioinn t hem ilitarcyo mmansdt ructutroee stablitshhe e xistenocfe e ffecticvoen trolb,u t soughtto knoww h~theri,n thisc ase,i nl ighto ft hee videncper ovidebdy theP rosecutoirt, wasp ossiblteo concludteh att heA ccuseedx ercisdeed jurep9 o8wers. ~_)__I.s suea st of ailurbey t heT rialC hambe.rt Qc onsidedre f actoa uthority 59. The Prosec:atiosnu bmitst hatt he TrialC hambere rredi n makingl ittleo r no allowanfcoer t hep ossibilitthya ta persocna nb e considerae sdu perioorn theb asiso f a de factoe xerciseo f powerso f commanda nd control9.9 For his part,t he Respondent emphasiztehsa tt heP rosecutidoind n ota dducea nye videncaet trialt o demonstratthee d e factoa uthoriteyx ercisebdy theA ccuseodv erc ertaignr oupso f subordinateAsc.c ordintgo 9s TriaJl’ udgempeanrta,!. 8 0. 9~ TriaJlu dgemepnatr,a s1.8 4a nd1 85. 97 TriaJlu dgemepnatr,a 1.8 0.T heC hambceorn siderfeodro, x amplt0h,a tt hed ej urer elationbsehtiwpe en gendarmaensdt heb ourgmeawtarsel imitvSde.e a lsoT riaJlu dgcmcpaatr,a 1,8 6w h~et heT riaClh araMr heltdh a"tf ilAec cusea.sdb ,o urgmesdtirdne o,t h avdee j uraeu thoroivtoyrr c s¢rviisntM sa banczoam mune." 9sI nr lairse gartdh,oT riaClh ambpeori ntoeudt w,i txhc feretnoeg ee ndarme,tth,a tth eb ourllme,thtardet o approaocthh eorf ficiiafIh ~e n eedemdi litaarsys ista(nTcrei aJlu dgemepnatr,a1 .8 18)x ~dt hahte w oulhda ve hadt o refearn yp roblmtsh ate mergetdo thec ommandoefrt heg endarmeriien Kibuyet own (Trial 3udgemepnatr,a 1.8 2). 99AppollBarmi’eSfp ,a ra2.. 74. 30 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13D ee~nba2r0 02

him,t heT riaClh am]:celre arlcyo nsiderbeodt hd ej urea ndd ef actpoo werosn t heb asiosf elveiedenacded ucebdy t heP rosecution. 60.T heT rialC hlmabesre to uti n paragrap3h9s, 4 3,1 51a nd1 53o f theJ udgemeintts approaicnhe xaminitrhtegi ssuoef t hee xistenocfed ef actaou thoriatsyp arto fi tso verall analysoifss uperiroers ponsibiiltii tnyd;i cattehda t" [t]heex istenocfte h es econedl emeonft subordinatniaomne,l dye f actcoo ntrowli,l lb ec onsideraesdn ,e cessaroyn,a case-by-case basisi,n t hec’ o’u1r°s~oef t heC hambera’nsa lysoifst heP rosecutifoanc’tsu aall legations. TheT riaClh ambe~rt ootkh ev iewt hat" [a]c ivilisaunp eriwoirl lh avee xerciseefdf ective controolv erh iso rh ers ubordinaitnet sh ec oncrectier cumstanicfbe ost hd ef actaon dt he trappingosf de jurea uthoritayr ep resenatn ds imilatro thosef oundi n a military c1o°n2text". 61.T heA ppealCsh ambeirs oft hev iewt hat,w hent heT rialC hambecra met o applyt he testo f"effeectoinvter otlo"t hef actosf t hee asei,t m adel ittlael lowafnocret hep ossibility thatt heA ccusecdo uldb e consideraesd a superioorn theb asiso f a def actop owero r authoriotvye rh iso rh ers ubordina1t°e3Fs u.rthermoirne p,a ragra1p5h1 o ft heJ udgement, theT rialC hambewrr onglhye ldt hatb othd e factoa ndd e jurea uthoritnye edt o be establisbheefdo rae supericoarn b ef oundt o exerciesfef ecticvoen troolv erh iso rh er

subordinatTehse.A ppealCsh amberre iterattehsa tt het esti n allc asesi sw hethetrh e accuseedx erciseefdf ecticvoen troovle rh iso rh ers ubordinattheissi; s n otl imitetdoa sking whethehre o rs heb add ej urea uthori1t°y#.T heI CTYA ppealCsh ambehre ldi nt he( .elebidi AppeaJlu dgeme’ntth a"tI silso nga sa superihoars e ffeeticvoen troolv ers ubordinatteos, thee xtentth ath e ,~anp reventth emf romc ommitticnrgi meosr p unisthh ema ftert hey ~0oS eeR espondenEtM’osf ,p ars.1 79,t heD efeneree fertso paras1.6 4,2 00,2 23,3 04a nd3 22o f theT rial Judgement. ~°tJudgerop~anrts,1. 5 3( emphasaidsd ed)I.n t hisr egardt,h eT riaClh amberre fertso i tsf indinign c hapter of theJ udgement un Judgemenpta,r a1 51. t03S e~m particuplaa~ra s1.6 3,1 65,1 83,1 86a nd1 99o ft heT riaJlu dgement. 1o4T heA ppealCsh atst,h orh oldi llp ar&1 92ofi tsd elebidAip peaIlu dgemetnhta t" undeArr ticl7e( 3), commandoerra superiiosrt hust heo new hop oss~ssse t,h ¢~p oweorr authoriitnye ithear d ej ureo ra def acto formt op revenat s ubordinast cer’i moer t op u~sthh ep ~rl~etraotfot rhse c rimaef tetrh ec rimies c ommitted". CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 Decembe9r0 02

committtehde c ~:aesh,e w ouldb eh eldr esponsifbolret hec ommissioofnt hec rimeisf h e fIa°i5letdoe xercissuec ahb ilitoifec so ntrol". 62.T heA PI~O2[Csh ambeirs t herefoorfet hev iewt hatt hel acko fp ropecro nsideration oft hed ef acteoh m’actoefrt heA ccuscdr’ess ponsibiblyit thye T riaClh ambewra si ncorrect andu pholdtsh eA ippellantth’isr sdu bmissiHoonw.e vears,t heA ppellacnotn ceAIe°s6,t his by itseldfo esn oti nvalidatthee j udgemenTth.i si s so becausteh eT rialC hambewra s correcitn f indintgh att heA ccusende ithekrn ewn orp ossessiendf ormatiwohni chw ould havee nablehdi mt o concludien, t hec ircumstanactet sh att ime,t hatc rimehsa db een committoerd w crca boutt ob ec ommittbeyd h iss ubordinates. ica~ ,elebiAdpip eaJlu dgemenDta,t a.198. 106S eep ar&2 .75o ft ileA ppellanBtr’ise f. 32 CaseN o,:I CTR-95]-. A-A 13 Decomb~2r0 02

IV. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL: ALLEGATIONS OF ERRORS ~LATING TO THE ADMISSION OF WRITTEN CONFESSIONS OF WITNESSES AA, Z AND Y 63.D urintgh et rialf,l eeP rosecutpiroens entfeld’ a’ewei tnessdeest aini~nR wandtao testify,n amely WitnessesY , Z and AA, who appearextb efore the Trial Chamber on 7 February2 000,8 ,.9 Febnmry2 000 and 10-11F ebruary2 000 respectivelyI.n the courseo f theirt estimonyt,h ey each statedt hat they had made writtenc onfessiontso the Rwandan authoritieisn whicht heyr ecognizehda vingp articipateidn the genocideA.t the end of the Prosecutiocna se,m xd somet imeb eforet he openingo f the Defencec ase,t he DefenceF rieda Motiono n 20 April2 000 requestintgh e TrialC hambert o ordert he Prosecutiotno disclose the writtenc onfessionpsu rsuantt o Rule6 8 of the Rules.l°T7h e Defenccp rayedt he Trial Chambteoro rde~rh eP rosecuttiodo ins clotsheec onfessiionnq su estiocno,n sidertihnagt discloswuarsne e cessfaorryt hed iscovoefrt yh et rutahn df ore valuattihnecg r edibiolfity theW itness1e0s8I. n i tsr espontsote h em otiotnh,eP rosecuitnidoinc attheadit t w asn oti n possessioonf the documentsp,o intinogu t thati t was for the Defcncet o use the resourceast its disposalt o conducti ts investigatioannsd , in particulart,o obtaint he documentsi t deemedr elevantf or the triaLt°9 On 8 June 2000,t he TrialC hamberd ismissedt he motion Klcdb y the Defeno.:p ursuantto

Rule5 8 of the Rules)~oT he Chambera lsos tatedt hat: m7 "Requesotf theD c&:ncfeo ra n Orderf orD isclosubrye t heP rosecutoofr t heA dmissioonfs G uilto f Witn~seYs, Z andA A",T heP rosecut!o>r. ] &,nacBea giliahemCaa,s eN o.I CTR-95,1Af-iTl,e do n 20 April ?oR000T.h eP rosecutiroens pondoefdt 1 0 May2 000a ndt heM otiowna sh eardo ralloyn 2S May2 000. Att heh earinogf 25 May2 000,t heD efenccel arifiietds p ositioansf ollows":O urr equesits intendteod havet heC ourotr detrh eP rosecuttoord isclotshee sceo nfessiosntaalt emenAtnsd.l etm e addt hatw e failt o understwahnydt heP roc~-’cudtiodnr o tt aket hisi aitiatiHvoew.c anw itnessoeasl letdo testifbye foryeo ur ely ont hef actt hatt heyc orLfess t,h eigrt tflta,n dy eth idef romy out hesceo nfessiosntaait emenTthsi?si sw hyw e believteh ate ithetrh eP rosecuthoarst hiss tatemeinnth erp ossessioorns ,h eh ast hem oantso g ett hemI.n a ny casew,h atevtehre c asei,t i s upt oh ej~t ob rintgh isd ocumebnetf orteh isC ourAtn dl etm ea ddt hatd urinogu r lastt ript o Rwandat,h eD efenctee amc ontacttehdeP rocureoufr K ibuyteo r e,q uesdti sclosuorfte h ef ileosn the~wei tu~sacnsd t hisw asr ejecteIdt. i s,t herefoornel,y t heO fficoef t heP rosecutwohri chp,u rsuatnott he powersc orffoxao~n them,c au procurteh esed ocumentsT.h esed ocumentasr e indispensabfloer t he determinaotfi tohne t ruthT.h ed ocumenatrse i ndispensaibndl eet

ermintihnegc redibiloift tyh eswei tnesses. Thereforuen,d eRru le6 8,D efencios o f thev iewt hati ti s ther esponsibiolfi tthye O Mceo ft heP rosecuttoor producteh esed ocumenmf,a ilinwgh icht heO fficoef ~e Prosematcoarn norte lyo n thee videncoef these witneascesv,i denwchei cihs taintewdi ths uspicioCn~,."T ,2 5 May2 000p,p .8 0a nd8 I. m9 TheP rosecutsiuobnm ittsh at",[ t]hDee 2vnchea si nformtehde P rosecuttihoant t heyh adr taiueatfeodrt he saide videnfcreo mt heW hirPda rtbyu tt hata cceswsa gd eniedA.n ya ttemptto i mposae d utyo n theP rosecutor 33 C~e No.:I CTR-9S-IA-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

UnderP ,,ule,9 B the Chamb~m w, propiro mo~, ordure" "" evidencHe~.t vincgo nsidertehde f actsa ndc lxal~lanQc~~ .s. a~ ,o~,.,. ..... thev iewt ha4f or a bor~d otorminatioofn t hem atersb dor¢i t,t heP rosocudiosn orderetdo produc~ee writtecno nfessioonfs P rosecutiwoint nessYe,s Z andA A.T he Chamboirs o f thev iewt hatt hes aidw rittecno nfessicoonusl bde mazeriianle valuating thec redibiloiftt yh es aidP rosecutwiiotnn esses. TheC ham~:~hre rebdye cidetsh att heP rosecutisohno ultda ket hen ecessasrtye pst o obtaitnh e~ n’i~ccno nfessioofn wsi ~esseYs, Z andA A.T heP rosecutiiosn d izcctctdo takes uch~ ]tcpbsy 23 June2 000a ndt o forwartdh es aidw rittecno nfessiotnos t he Chamber-1~: 64. Before the Appeals Chamber, the Prosecutions ubmits that the Trial Chamber con,anitte~sle veral,e rrorso f law in admittintgh e writtenc onfessionosf WitnesseAsA , Z andY intot het rialr ecordT.h ee rrorsa re seto uta s followIs :~ thema cknowledge (I)T hef actt hats tatemenbtys w imcssacrsc a dmR1ewdi thouhta ving thec onwntosft hew rittccmo nfessioorno sf feri.ntgh eamn o ppo inconsistenocri ceosn ~adioCiboentsw eetnh eirt estimoannya m ctrw nRcnw (2)T hef actt hatt heD c3¢nics¢a llowetdor elyo no ut-of-costttartte mebnytw si lnesses ¢hallengteh ec redibiliotfy t hew imesscwsi thouhta vinogf feretdh ew itnesseasn opportuntiote yx plaitnh es tate.cudtusr incgr oss-examination; (3)T hef

actt hatt h¢rw¢a sn oo rdecra llinbga ckw itnessfeosr a dditioneaxla mination rheiw~r ittceonn fessions; to exercishee rs tatutoproyw ertso obtaifno rt heD denccev idcncien theh andso f a thirdp arryw ouldb e contratroyt hep rovisi~onfAs r ticl1e5 oft heS tatutoeft heT ribunaanld a lsot o existicnags el aw.C"f ." The ProsecutoRre’ssp onsteo. t heD efencMeo rioun~ dorR uIc6 8 fort heD ~sclosuorf¢ t heA dmissioofn G uiltb y WitnesseYs, Z andA A,"T heP rosec~ctvo.r I gnaceB agili#hemCaa,s eN o.I CTR-95-1A-1T0, M ay2 000, papa5.. ~o TheT rialC hamberi.n deepdo inteodu tt hat" It]hdei ~losuo~b ligatiuonnd erR ule6 8 ~olatetso "the existenocfee videnkcneo wnt"o theP ~osocutAo rl.i terailn terpretamtiigohnst u ggestth atm erek nowledogfe exculpateovriyd enicne t heh andosf v.t hirpda rtwyo ulsdu ffict~oe ngagteh ~r esponsibiolfi tthyeP rosecutor undetrh atp rovisioHno,w cvctxo, a dopstu cha motorinwgo,u ldi,n th~e xtremael,l ofwo rc ountlemsost iontso bef ilewdi tht hes ol~L ~xtentioofen n gagitnhg¢ P rosecutionrt oi nvestigatainodnd si sclosuorfie s suewsh ich them ovinpga rtyc onsi.d~weedr e’ knownt’o th¢P zosccutoTrh.i sw ouldn otb ¢i n confor~wtiyt hA rticl1e5 of theS mm~e.U ndert hatp rovisiotnh,e P rosecutiosr responsibfloer ~ nvesfigatioSnhse.s halla ct indepndenatnldyn otr eceivien su~cdof~rso mm ays ource7.. TheC hambeirs inclinetdo equat’ek nownt’o "custodayn dc onWolo’r

"possessioTnh’i.sw oxdinigs usedi n Rules6 60 3)a nd6 "/((2o)f theR ulesw,h ich pertaitno thei nspecfibeym o nep artyo f documentbso,o ksp,h otogr~@ahnsdt angibloeb jectosf theo ther partyT.h ust heo bligatioonn t heP ros¢outtoor d isclopsoes sib~lxec uIpatcovriyd ¢owcoeu lbd~ effectiovnel y whent heP rosecutio:r~i n actuaclu stodpYo,s sessioorn h,a sc ontroOlf thes aidc vide..nTch¢e,P rosecutor cannodti sclosteh atw E~chs hed oesn oth ave.[ .,.]9I.n thep resencta s~,t heP rosecuthoars s tated categofica~Uayts hei s noti n possessioofn t hew rittecno nfessioonfs w itnessYe,s Z andA A,a ndt he Dcfenchea sb roughnto evidencteo thec ontrarTyh.u st heC hambemru std ismistsh eR ule6 8 motioonf the DcfcnceC"f,. " Decisioonn t heR equesotf theD ofcncfco ra n orderf orD isclosubry~ t heP rosecutoofr t he Admissioonfs G uilto ~’W itnessYe,s Z andA A,"T heP rosecutvo.r } [gnacB¢a giUshemCaa,s eN o.I CTR-95- IA-Tt,e nderoend 8 June2 000p,a ~as6,, 7 and9 . m Ibid.p,a ras1,0 a ndl I. u2A ppcllanBtr’ise fp,~ za3.. 39. 34 13 Decembe2r0 02 CaseN o,:I C1~-95-IA-A

(4)T hel ~.ctth att hew rittecno ~cssiownesr es ubsequenutsleydi na ssessitnhge credibiolfiW tiyt ns,s cYs, Z andA A.

65. The AppealsC hamberu nderstandtsh e thrusto f the Prosecutiona’rsg umentto be a demonstratitohna tt hea bove-notperdo ceedinwgesr eu nfairc,o nsideritnhga tt heT rial Chambern everg aveW itnesseys, Z and AA the opportunittyo explaint hemselveosn the contradictiobnest weent heiro ralt estimonya nd theirc onfessionbse foreR wandan authorititels~,T heP rosecuticoonn tendtsh att hea dmissioonf thew rittecno nfessiownass instrumentianl t he assessmentth eT rialC hambemra deo f the testimonoyf WitnesseYs, Z and AA, who testifietdo the eventsw hicho cculteadt the Gatwaros tadiuma nd at the Mabanzcao mmunaolf fice..llaT heP rosecutisounb mittsh at,f f theT rimC hambehra d heard thee xplanatioofn st heW itnessoens t hec ontradictioints w,o uldp robablhya vea rriveadt a differecnotn clusioInt. f urthesru bmittsh at,s incen eithetrh eP rosecutinoonr t heA ppeals Chambeirs in a positiotno determiwnhea tt hatc onclusiwoonu ldh aveb een,i t is necessary t1o1h 5olda fresthr ial.

66. The AppealsC hamberd ismissetsh e foregoinagr gumentsW.h ere,a s in the present case,t he Prosecutiiosn directebdy theT rialC hambetro obtainf urtherm aterialt,h e Prosecuticoann norte lyu ponR ule9 8,a s thatr ulec ontemplattehsa tt hep artyt o whicht he directiiosn g ivewni lli tseltfe ndetrh ef urthemra teriailn ,videucaes p arto f itsc ase.T he TrialC hambedro e,,;h~o weverh,a vea cleapro we-r asp arto f itsd utyt oe nsurteh att het rial is properlcyo nducte-d t o directt heP rosecutitoon o btainm ateriawlh ichm ayb e relevant to thec aseo f thea ccusedI.n sucha ease,t hef urthemra teriaslh oulbde producendo,t o n.ly to theT rialC hamber,, buta lsot o thea ccusedI.f anyu sei s to be madeo f thatm aterial J t~T (A)2, J uly2 002p,, 1 14T.o d emonstirtastp eo intt,h eP ros~utaidovna neam nsu mbeorfp rinciptlheast applbye forteh eT ribumwtilt rhe spetcott heu sea nde valuatoifop nr iowri tnesstsa temenTthseP. r osecution advanctels~p rincip~l.eb .a"tI fa witnewsass n otc ross-examoinan ne idn consistetnhcecy r,o ss-examining Party--t.hoeTr r iaClh ~nbor--r-emquusetts hta tth ew itnebsesr ecallfeodra dditiocnraols s-examinCa~t.ion." ’ p peUanst B ncfp,a rs3.. 3I .T heP rosecutgiroonu nidtss a rgumesnpte cificoanla l dye cisiroenn derbeyA natt :namtImTor n 2 Novemb2e0r0 i1n t heK a)elijcaalsteS .e eT (A)2, J ul2y0 02p,p .8 7t o9 5. ll4T he" " ~ecutisotna ttehsa itt sa ppeoanlt hipso incto ncertnhsee ventastt heT rafiprrooa dblotchkek, i lling of~ ludiatnhd t hee ventastt heG atwasrtoa diuTmh.eP rosecutciiotnep sa ras6.1 76,3 57,4 77,4 8,9 169,2 0t o 9229,5 2t o9 54a nd9 61o ft heT riaJlu dgemeCnft.T. ( A)2, t idy2 00~ ~, T 5 (A)2, l dy2 002p,. I 12. pp.1 02a nd1 03. CaseN o.:I CI~-95-1A-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

durintgh et riali,t : museti thebre e liciteidn e videncfer oma witnesosr t endereidn e vidence i1t1s~elf. 6% In the presencta se,c ounself or the defencseh ouldh aveb eens toppebdy the Trial Chambefrr omr eferrintgo thatm ateriadlu ringt hec ourseo f hisf inala ddreswsh eni t was nori ne videncTeh.e t endeorf thef urthemra teriaals a defenceex hibiwti thouhta vinggi ven thew itnessetsh eo pportunittoy d ealw ithi t in cross-examinawtaisoa n serioubsr eacho f thed utyo ff airnesosf thet riala,n di t ledt ot her ighotf theP rosecutitoonh avet het hree witnessreesc alletdo explaitnh eirp reviouisn consistsetnatt ements.

68. The Prosecutionc’osm plaincta n be rejectefdo r yet anotherr easonA.t the appeal hearingt,h ej udgesa skedt he Prosecutwihoenth etrh e argumentasd vanceodn appealh ad beenp resentebde foret heT rialC hambera,n d,i n particulawrh,e thetrh e Prosecutihoand requestetdh eT rialC hambetro callb ackW itnesseYs, Z andA A so thatt heyc ouldg ivea n explanatifoonr the contradictioTnhse. Prosecutioand mittendo t havingd onet hisa nd concedetdh ati t shouldi ndeedh avea skedf ort hew itnessetso be broughbta ck1.17 As to why,u ndert hesec onditionst,h e Prosecutiowna s raisingt he issueo n appeal,t he ProsecutiAotnt ornehya dt hef ollowirnegp ly: Theo nlrye asIo nc ang ivyeo ui st heo neI statetdh,a wte s ubmit~h atth eries a problcrn witht h~j udgemenatn,d m aybep arto f thatp roblehma so ccurtb~e causteh e Prosecudtiidon no ta skf ort hew itnestsoeb se c allbeadc wkh etnh eD efendcied nd’oti t. Sow es ubmit’hta tth aits p otentfiaaill ubryet heP rosecuttihoetn r,i aslh ounlodt p revent thatt heseea xorbse r ~ti/ieTdh.a ti st heo nlyt hinIg t hinIk canc oncedteoy our snu~bmissainodnI s c onceydoeu lre gaplo intass,I havceo nceded, 69. Thus,a t no timed id the Prose~0utiorne questt he TrialC hambert o callb ackt he Witnesseisn questioAnt. no timed idt heP rosecutiroani set hei ssueo f unfairp roceedings beforet he TrialC hambera,l thougiht appealeodn thisg round~.9 The AppealsC hamber

considertsh ati f thisd id not happeni n the presentc ase,i t is probablbye causteh e n~PrasecUvt oSrl obodaMni lo,~cviIdT,- 02-$4-AR7D3e.c2i,s ioonn A dmissibiloiftP yr osecution InvestigatEovri’dse nc3e0,S ¢ptemb2c0r0 2p,a ra2.4 :" Itw oulodf c ourstex ~q uitwer onfgo rt heT rial Chambeirnd, e temtitnhieni gs sueisnt het rialt,or efetro m ateriwahli cmha yb ea vailatboli et b utw hicihs noti ne viden[c.~. .]." n~T (A)2, J uly2 002p,p ,I 16a nd1 17. tiIeb idpl.1, 2 0. ~9S eet heq uestipountsb yt hej udgaetsf ilaep l~thle arinpga,r ticulTa(rAl)y2, J uly2 002p,p .1 32t o1 37. TheR espondseunbtr atih~a tt heO fficoef t heP ros~utnoorto nlyd idn oto bjectto t hosdeo eumenblesi ng 36 CaseN o.:I C’I~-95-IA-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

Prosecutwiaosnh opintgo havet hec onfessiosntaalt emenotfs t hew itnessreesm ovefdr om ther ecorrda thetrh ana dmittitnhge c onfessioanss e videncaen d,i nt hec ircumstances, requesttihnegW itnessteosb ec allebda ck.

70. TheA ppendCsh ambetrh ereforheo ldst hatt heP rosecutionj’uss tificatiiosn unfound1e2d°.T he. AppealCsh ambecra nnoatc ceptth ea rgumentth att heT rialC hambeirn thise asew asu ndear dutyt oe nsurteh att heW itnessweesr ec allebda cku,n detrh ep retext thatt heC hambeirt sdhfa da sketdh att hes tatemenotfst heW itnessbeesm adea vailablIet. ist hes oler esponsibiolfti hteyp arttyh actl aimtso h aves ufferperde judiicnet ,h ise aset,h e Prosecutitoonr ,e questth eT riaClh ambetro h avet heW itnessceasl lebda cka ndt oj ustify sucha request. 71.I n conformiwtiyt ht hec ase-laowf theI nternatioTnrailb unaltsh,e f actt hata n appelladnitd n otr aisea n objectiboenf orteh eT rialC hambemre ansi,n thea bseneoef exceptiocniarlc ums:tantcheasth, e w aivehdi sr ightto r aisteh ei ssuaes a valigdr ounodf appea1l2.~I nt hei nsrancta set,h eA ppealCsh ambehro ldtsh ati nt hea bsencoef e xceptional circumstantcheiss,p oundo fa ppeamlu stb ed ismissed. adrnittb~u,t m adeu seo f thes aidd oemnentfso,re xamplien thec losinagr gttmenT~(.A ),2 July2 002,p p, 222a nd2 23. ~zoT heA Plx~Csh ambetrr iedt o understatnhde a ctuabla siso f thisg rounodf appealp,r vsemtebdy the Prosecutdiuorni ntgh eh earinogna ppeaals f ollow’s~:I ti s nots olelayn i ssuoef f airnetsost hep roseeutiort, butt hati sn ott heb asiosn lyo ft hea dmissioofnt hes tatemenatnsdi, t c an’bte s oldays a ni ssuoef f airneosrs

prejudicteo, t heP rosecu~ocna’sse b,e causteh eu ltimadteet emainahtaisot no b eo neo ft het rntl~lnocfst sh e testimoonfy t hew ilalestea~nsd,t hati s exactlwyh att heT riaClh ambelro okeadt thosset atemenftosr .T hey thepdriodlsno~’ooutnk s ctaisaett,bh uetmfw ,oh raa ztt~ ih sesylui oenro ekleadat tti tooht neh mef .o.rm.w eIa,,as v n e,tr haedcyii dlto oyro takrt tu h~¢so’t rmo as c¢c0wm h’~atchtyaeh,nre ds yi u fp tphoerytexi gointgo r elyo ni tf ort hatp urposien,m yr espectsfuublm issiiotn’,sn oto nlya ni ssuoef f ~’n~sist,’ sa lso an issuoef e nsuritnhge a ccurabcyyt het rieorf factt hati s makintgh atf actuadle terminatTihoanti. s the positiionna nutshelTlh.et riehra st hed iscreteivoenn w h~¢a parthya s,f ore xamplwea,i vead r ightt,h et rier h~st l~d iscretitooan d miatd ditioneavli denecvee nw herteh ev videnwea¢s a vailabaltet riailf theyt hinikt goest o miscamaogfe j v,~tieI¢ a,m nots ayintgh ati s thes tandahredr eY,o urH onottbru,t t hep oinbte ingi f youc ani maginteh eP ~os~ulifoani lingd,e arliyn thise ase,t o askf ora r¢-heat~ogr replye ase,b ut subsequenittl fyi ndso utt hatt hew i~¢scso nfessiosntaalt emenwtes~ c ornl et01c oea’eeadn dt he doubtt hatt heya rea bsolutenloytt rue"T A 2 Jul2 P Y toi sn o m KambandAap .poaJlu dgemenpta,r a,, 2. 5~. )S ,e ea lys 0o0A 2k,ap ype.s1 Au3l 7~t po~e 1 J3u9d,gemenpta,r a.1 13.T hep rindploef waiverw asa lso’ affirm,b~yd I CTYA ppealCsh ambei~n ~¢ ~¢lebidAip pe,,a,ll udgcane(npta ra.6 40), FurundYjAjpap eaJl’ udgemo(npta ra1.7 4)a ndT adidAppJe’auld geme(tpaatr a5.5 ), 37 CaseN o..’I CTR-95-~A..A 13 Decembe2r0 02

THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL: ALLEGATIONS OF ERRORS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE "TRAFIPRO" ROADBLOCK AND THE GATWARO STADIUM 72. As regardtsh isg roundo f appeal,t heA ppealsC hambeurn derstandtsh att he Prosecutbieogna ub ya llegitnhga tt heT riaClh ambecro mmitttehdr egee neraelr rorisn its assessmeonftt hee videncceo ncernitnhge c rimecso mmittaetd t heT rafiprrooa dbloacnkd Gatwarsot adiuvm’,2A ccorditnogt heP rosecutitohne,s eer ror"sa ffectth ea ssessmoefnt th e evidencteh rougho,u,ti.2aT heP rosecutitohne na llegetdh att heT rialC hambecro m~tted thre"es pecifeinc’"o rsi,nt hes ensteh att heya llr elatteo t hea ssessmoefnt th resep ecific issueisn t heT riaYla dgemennta,m elyt,h ep urposoef t heT rafiprrooa dbloctkh,em urdeorf Juditahn dt hep resencoef theA ccuseadt theG atwarSot adiumI.n lighto f thea bove- Mentioneerdr orst,h eP rosecutiporna yetdh eA ppealCsh ambetro reversteh eJ udgement withr espetcotC omlt1s t o6 oft hei ndictmaenndtt oo rdear newt rial. Ax,u Generale rrQrs 1.W hB_~~B_ .~ljCahla mbe~rp lieadn j ncorrecs_tta n,tianC~ ~e_ssitnhge _e videnocfe ~ep reser~ocfet heA ccuseadt GatwarSot adium 73.A s tow hethe’t~hre A ccusewda sp resenatt theG atwarSot adiumt,h eT rialC hamber madet hef ollowignegn eraolb servations: Theq uesliwohn¢ the~r¢ A ccusewda sp resenatt t heS tadiuims critictaol a llt hec harges coveritnhge l :efioId3 t o 18 Apri1l9

94I.t followfsr omc asel awt hatm erep res¢nacte thes cenoef crimhleavIe ntiss noti n itselifn criminat[i,n,g, ]O.n eo bviourse asofno r ffdsi s thatp resencmea yh avet hep urposoef preventiunhgv c ommissioofn g rimes. Nonetheleists"t, h eP rosccutciaonne stablitshha tt heA ccusewda sa t theS tadj,duumr ing the¢ ritic~~r iodi n quostioao,t here lementosf participatiino tnh e~ imvm ayb e presumabolJe:i mputablAe p.e .rsoinn authoritsyu,c ha s theA ccusedr,u nst her isko f truinigd en~ewdi tht hep ~rpetratoofrt sh ec rim~usn leshs~ is seent o be activealnyd demonstrabolpyp osintgh o crimesT.h gmfor¢t,h ~ Pro~cutimouns tl oads ufficient ~zzS eeI n,educttioot nh ep resenJtu dgeme(npta ra7.) , Thea llegeedr rorsa,s ~ t outb yt heA ppealCsh ambeirn the~ troducftioo tnh isJ udgemeaa~rtc, follows(:i )~ Applicatioofn a wrongc riteriwai thr egartdo thea ssessmeonft e vidence reA~ntgo thep resencoef theA ccuseadt theO atwarSot adiudmu rintgh e1 redewdh ent he~ fuge.e~ ~. =_ . ,..~.,?~,~:r ~vum a~ use o~ priorw rittens tatemeats;(ii~iL)_ ~:E ~on~us wrongr elatintgo Wim#s~s. 38 CaseN o.; ICTR-95dA.A 13 De~embc2r0 02

evidencteo convincteh e Chmberb eyondr easonabldeo ubtt hatt he Accusedw as presenattt heS tadiuamts omep oindtu rintgh er elevapnetr io~dz.5 Inv iewo ft hist,h eC hambewri llh avet ot reaat barea llegatoifop nr eaonwciot hc aution. Putd ifferental lya,c ko r"d etaiwli llr aisdeo ubtsT.h eC harabweirl lt hene xaminteh e testimonoife ost hewri tnesseosr, l ookt op riosrt atementtos c larifoyr t esta wimoss’s allegatioInfs c.o rroboratiison no tf oundt hrougthh isp rocesdso,u btwsi llr emaiann d presencwei lln oth aveb oone stablishIetd i.s incumbeonnt t heP rosecutitoon a dduce sufficieenvti dentcoe c onvintchee C hambetrh att heA ccusewda sp resenatn d,f f so,t o demonstrhaitser oled urintgh ee vents.126 74. The Prosecutiomna inlys ubmitst hatt he TrialC hambere rredi n law in its assessmoefnt th ee videncien,s of ara si tm adec orroboraotfit ohne t estimoonfyw itnesses a pro-condittoie osnt ablitshheg uilotf t heA ccuseodft hec rimecso mmittaetdt heG atwaro StadiumI.n o therw ordsw,h enevtehre T rialC hambedre termintehda tt herew asa lacko f detaiiln a testimoniyt, e xamintehde t estimonOifeo st hewri tnessaensd l ooketdo prior statemenitns o rdert"o clarifoyr testt hew itnessa’lsl egatioTnh.u s,a ccorditnogt he Prosecutiotnh,eT ~ialC hamberre lieodn thisp rocesosf seekincgo rroboratoifo tnh e allegefda ctsI.n t hisc onnectitohne,P rosecutsiuobnm ittsh atd ifferesntta

tememnatdse b y thes amew itnescsa nnobte u sedt oc orroboreaatceho rder.127 75.T heA ppeahC hambeorb servefsi rsto f allt hatt heT rialC hambewra s righti n proceediwnigt hc autiowni thr especttot heq uestioofnt hei dentificaotfit ohne A ccuseadt theS tadiumA.s the.A ppealCsh ambeorf theI CTYi ndicateidn theK upre~rMAdp peal Judgemenat .T rimC hambemru stp roceewdi the xtremcea utiownh ena ssessian gw imess" identificaotfia onna ccusemda deu ndedri fficuclitr cumstances: In casebse fot’t~h isT ribunaal T,r iaClh ambemru sta lwaysi,n t hei nteresotfs j ustice, proceewdi the xtremcea utiownh ena ssessian gw itnessi’d entificatoifo tnh ea ccused madeu nderd .~ulcti rcumstancWehsi.l ea TrialC hambeirs noto bligetdo refert o everpyi eceo,J ."e videnocne t het riarle coridn its~ dgemenwth,e ra~ findinogfg uilits madeo n the basiso f identificateivoind encgei venb y a witnesusn derd ifficult circumstanctehse,T rialC hambemru str igorousilmyp lemenitt s dutyt o providae "reasonoepdi MonI"n, p ~ticulaar r,e asonoepdi niomnu stc arefulalryt iculatth~ef actors relieudp oni n suppooRf thei dentificatoifo tnh ea ccuseadn da dequataddyd resas~ ll~ significfaanctz orism lmctinnegg ativodnyt her eliabiloiftt yh ei dentifica~tviiodne ace. 76.A fters tatinign,p aragra5p3h2 o f theT rialJ udgementth,a a barea llegatioofn t he t6~ * presenocfe t heA ccusesdh"o ulbde t reate"dw itcha utioann"d t hat" al acko fd etaiwli ll izsT rialJ.u dgemepnatr,& 5 31 12~/bipda.r,a 5.3 2. c,7A pp~llanBtr’ise fp,a ra4.. 3t o4 .9,n otabplayr a4.. 7. 39 CaseN o,:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

r m + acd oubt9,5s t heT riaClh ambesre to uti tsg eneraalp proatcoha ssessienvgi denicnev iew oft hen eedt op roceewdi thc autioans i ndicataebdo vet:h eT riaClh ambefri rsti ndicated thati t" wille xaminteh et estimonioefs o therw imesseasn"d t hati t may" lookt o prior St a temen"tisn,o rdetro " clariofryt esta witnessa’lsl egationTsh"eT. r ialC hambetrh en wento n to sayat~h"f f"c orrobo-r a¯tiisno ont f ountdh rougthh isp rocesdso,u btwsi llr emain andp resenwciel ln oth aveb eene stablishFeidn"a.l liyt,s tatetdh ati,n a nye vent",i ti s incumbeonnt t heP rosecutitoon a dducseu fficieenvti dencteo convintchee C hambetrh at t1h2e9A ccusewda sp resenatn d,i fs o,t od emonstrhaitser o led urintgh ee vents". 77.W hilec onsideritnhgee videncaed ducebde foriet ,t heT rialC hambeirn deeadd opted thea pproacdhe scribaebdo vew,i thr espectto thep resencoef theA ccuseodn 13 April 1994x,3°1 4A pri1l9 9T4M and1 8A pri1l9 94.132 1~ KupregkAMp peaJlu cLgement,.p3a9r.a. ~ Judgmentp,a ra.5 32. ~o Indeedt,h eT rialC hambecro nsidertehde t estimonioefs t wow itnes,mensa,m elWyi tnessAe sa ndA C,w ho claimetdoh aves oont he.A ccuseadtt hes tadiufmi,r sbty assessitnhged etaialn dl ogitch ereitnh,e nw,h enever itd eemeidt n ecessarbyyc, o mparitnhge t estimontioe psr iosrt atemenotfs t hew itnesseasn,dp ointionugt a ny inlaereinntc onsistenSceieeT sr iaJlu dgement I~1h i P d e - a - , -~ m ’-

e " i ~ n " alC h’ambesrt ate _ dw,i thr , e p g a a r rt a d 5 o s 3 , W 3 i t t o n 5 e 4 s 3 As . , that" [t]hcei rcumstanocfe Wsi tnesAs’ s sightinogf theA ccuseodn thisd aya ren otc lear.("T riaJlu dgemenpta,r a . 547)a ndt hat" [aJsf ort he A ccUs’esd c onducatn do th~dre tailcso ncernitnhgec oursoef h isv isitt,h ei nformatsiuopnp libeydW itnesAs wasv eryl imited(.T"r iallu dgemenpta,r a.5 48)I.t iso nlyJ u "thea bsencoef o therd etailtsh"a tt heT rial Chambelro okeidn top riors latcmenotfs W itnesAs a nds latetdh att he" It]hceh ronoloogfy v isitbsy the Accuseads foundi n W~’mosAs’ st estimodnoye sn otc oincidwei tht hato f hiss tatemeonft 2 9 June1 999." (TriaSlu dgemenpta,r a.549W)i.t h’r espectto WitnessA’C ,t heT rialC hambecro ncludtehda th ist vstimony "doesn otd onvineincgolryr oboratthea to f WimesAs. "( TriaJlu dgemenpta,r a.5 51)a nda ddedt hat" [t]he doub~t theC hamberm’isn di s notd isl~lleb.yd c onsideratoifot nh ew ituesss’tsa temeonft 2 1 ~lun1e9 99." (TriaJlu dgemenpta,r a.5 52).F inallyt,h eC hambecro ncludtehda t" [tJhpea ucitoyf th~e videna~s to the A p~U~s~ escnee(.i ncludintgh e conditionosf observatioinn a crowdedS tadium)a dducedb y th~ ¯ osecuti~orno mw xmesseAs a ndA C,w henc onsiderteodg ethewri tht hel acko f mutuaclo rroboratitohne, mgnso ~’u ncertaiinnt tyh ea ccounotfsb othw itnessaesst ot hed ateo ft hes ightinagn,dt hes uggestiboytn h e

tiouW i~¢SStehSa tt he_ Accus+ewxaisi n Maballczoam mwa~t 9 a .m.o tit hed a in quesdon rerunmsm m er roscc + usu eovni n d e ~ eo r-t heA ccus,esd ~ esencaet t heS tadiuomn 14A pril1 9 Y 94f allssh o,rt of thea pplicabsltea nda~redr ~of".( TriaJlu dgeme,n,t, ,~,, ;a~ ’~ ~Qe q~~.:r^mt,t ~, ’n+a--m- o-ccr, :~,n_slc.l _ertehce¯et v iodenco~ef,j tph.memt ,~h.,,.r .e,oew/ i.tnessensa,m elWyi tnessAeAs, A etG , who testifiteod h avinsge ent heA ccuseadt thes tadiuomn thatd ate.T .dalJ udgemenpta,r a.6 06.A s concerns WitnesAsA ,t heC hambesrt atetdh ati t woulda sses"sh i as.aw holei nc hronologiocradle r.("T riaJlu dgemenst t,e stimoannyd a nye redibillitsys uetsh atm aya rise par&6 07).A ftera nalysitnhge w itnesst’e stimoannyd priosrt ateme(nTtrsi aJlu .;|gemepnatr,a6 .0 8t o6 18)a,n dm indfuolft hef actt hatt hes aidt estimownayst o treate"dw ithc autioann"d t hat" othesro urcewse"r et ob e lookeidn to" forc orroborat(iTorni"a 3l" udgement, para6.1 9)t,h eT riaClh a~:abceorn cludtehda t" [i]vni ewo ft hec onsideranbmlneb eorf difficultpireess ented by WitnesAsA ’st estimontyh,e C hambeai-s unablteo accepatn yo f itse lementusn lestsh eya res trongly corroborabtye odt hers ou:te[e.s. .]("T riaJlu dgemepnatr a6,3 6).A s concerWnist nesAs, theT riaClh amber 4O CaseN o.:I CTR-95-IA+A 13 Decembe2r0 02

78.C ontrartyo theP rosecutiocno’nst entiotnh,e A ppealCsh ambeirs of thev iewt hat by adoptinsgu cha n approacht,h eT rialC hambewra ss implye xercisitnhge r equired cautioMni ndfuolf t hen eedt op roceewdi thc autioinn t hee xaminatoifoe na cha llegation regarditnhge i den~ficatainodpn r esenocfet heA ccuseadt t heS tadiutmh,e T riaClh amber focussoenda ssessitnhge c redibilaintdyr eliabiloiftt yh ew imessaepsp earibnegf oriet . Withr egartdo e acl:wti tnesist,w asw ithiint sd iscrettiooa ns sesasn yi nconsistennoctieeds andd etermiwnhee theirn, Hghto ft heo veralelv idencteh,e w itneswsa sr eliabalned h is evidenccree diblTeo.t hise nd,i te itherre sortteodc orroboraotfit ohne o ralt estimofnryo m otheerv iden’c-e~,i ncludiontgh etre stimon1i~e4so ,r comparoerd c onfmntehde c ontenotf theo ralt estimoonfyt hew itneswsi thh isp riosrt atementu(ssB )u,tt heT riaClh ambedri d nots uggestth atc on:~borawtaison ne cessairnye vercya sea sa matteorf I aw. "}9.T heA ppealCsh ambefra ilst o seei n whatw ayt hea pproacahd optebdy theT rial Chambefro rc orroboratcioonns tituatnee sa terO.f c oursea,s t heP rosecutsitoant edi,t i s wells ettletdh at" thet estimoonfya singlwei tnesosn a materifaalc tm ayb ea cceptaesd evidenwciet houtth en eedf orc orroborat,i,otn~.6H owevetrh,e A ppealCsh ambecro nsiders thatt hisj urisprudecnacnen obte i nterprettoem de ant hata TriaClh ambecra nnorte

sortto corroborattihoenT ;r iaClh ambecra nd os ob yv irtuoef i tsd iscretiIonnt .h ep resencta se, theT riaClh ambewra se ntitlteodv eriftTh ef actasn da ssestsh ec redibiloiftw yi tnessbeys referentcoet het estimoonfyo thewri messes. 80.M oreovetrh,e A ppealCsh ambedri smissetsh eP ros~utiona’rsg umentth att heT rial Chambesro ughmtu tua"lc orroboratoifo dni"f feresntta temenmtasd eb y thes amew itness notetdh ath ist estimownays " verbyr ief"r,e garditnhgeA ccuse.da’lsl egepdr e.scnbeeof orteh ea ttac(kT rial Judgmentp,a ra6 39)T h~ Chambern orexlt hatt hei nformao~v idcd p w r a o sd v i i *m d ,o eb u dy tt o W i i .t n. n t e e s r As p r w o a ( it s T -" u i al1 u dgcmcnpta,t ’a6.4 0)F.,m al~,l theT ri . m by.yW.i mesAs m h¯isp ¯ .nors t . atement ..,,. __ Y _. : _t;nambef¢o undt hat~ h¢ ex~denee Chambebre ganb y consic,c ar¯cm lg"e caerr(.tT ariionam’llt nsdt ghtamtaenpta . ,r a.6 4)1 L a.s.t.yl., wzthr espectto WitnesGs, the P go to thec matbiliotfy W itnesGs’ st esthnon(yT"r ial J’udgemepnatr,& 6 44),t hen,a ftearn alysihnigs t estimoinny d erniilt foun theP rosecution’ wasi nsuffici(eTnrti a1lu dg0menpta,r as6.5 2a nd6 53). , d that s evidene~ 133 ~e ,¢~~ o.ri nstanTcrei allu dgeanepnatr,a s5.5 1,6 08,6 19,6 21,6 28,6 29,6 36a nd6 53. ~ Fore xamplaet, p ara6.3 6,t heT riaClh ambesrt atetdh at" Inv iewo ft hec onsideranbulmeb earn dv arietoyf ~ata~yted=W:.Y~ce .s"s _AA_’_s_testimtoh,eaC yh ambeirs unablteo accepatn yo f itse lementusn less 13s uy omors ources. 63:eef,o ri nstancTer,i alJ udgemenpta,r as5.3 6,5 38,5 40,5 49,5 50,5 52,6 10,6 12,6 15,6 18,6 22,6 22a nd CasoN o.:I CTR-gS-IA..A 41 13 De.cembe2r0 02

(namelya, c onfessionsatla temeonft a witneswsi thh isp reviousst atement).T1h5e7A ppeals Chambeirs oft hev iewt hat,i n thisc ase,t heT rialC hambewra ss implys eeldntgo establish thec onsistenocfy t hes aide videncea,n dh ence,t hec redibiliotfy t het estimonwyh,i chi s parto ft hem ainr esponsibiliotfi ae st riero f fact.T heA ppealCsh ambetrh erefocroen siders thatt he TrialC hamber’fsi ndingssh ouldb e viewedw ithint he contexto f the Trial Chambero’vse ral.la ssessmeonft t hec onsistenacnyd c redibiliotfy t hee vidence. 81. /n viewo f the foregoingt,h e AppealsC hamberf indst hatt he Prosecutiohna s not demonstratetdh att he TrialC hamberc ommittetdh e allegede rrors.C onsequent/tyh,e AppealCsh ambedri smissetsh isp arto f thet hirdg rounodf appeal. 2 ~theT rialC hambere rred~ --lR.tlL~oef and elianeeo n riorwrittesnt atements J . ¯ 82. The Prosecutioens sentiallsyu bmitst hatt he TrialC hambere rredi n relyingo n inconsistencbieetsw eetnh es tatemenmtasd et o Prosecutiionnv estigatoorns t,h eo neh and, and confessionaslt atementmsa det o Rwandana uthoritieso,n the otherh and,w ithout havinga ffordetdh e saidw itnesseasn opportunittoy explaint he inconsistenciTehse. Prosecutiroenf erst o itss econdg roundo f appea1l38a ndn otest hatt heD efencdei dn ot cross-examcienret aiPnr osecutiWoint nessweist ha viewt o testintgh eirc redibiliotnys ome aspectosf theirt estimotnhya ti t considerceodn tradictoarnyd,a lsot hatt heT rialC hamber didn otu sei tsd iscretitoonp utq uestiotnosw itnesses.

83. Withr egardt o the use madeb y the TrialC hambero f confessionsatla tementst,h e AppealCsh amberre iterateist sc onclusiocnosn cernitnhge secondg roundo f appealT.h us, iti su pt ot hep artwyh iccho nsideirtss elafg grieveidn,t hisc aset,h eP rosecutitoonr ,e quest the TrialC hambetro ca//bactkh e witnessefsO r furtherc ross-examinaantd piroonv ide justificatfioorsn u chr equest. - = I~6~-- ~~IZY’ ’~,¢/~m~ A ~.,~..I~__ J__ " Th~ ~ati~llr a~esi ss:; wi~a ~’~- a u_~_ ~;_. ppea/Judgemenpta,r as,4 92 and 506 stated’:W ithr esignetrh i~. -~. ..... 2002,a ¯ war1e5’2p. ~ ,Pa ’ r . eviP° , rU , oS . sT t ehce m u ~ t as i h o ,u n ~ S mu ct no, aa o yr nt fp t ¯ e p - ~ h o m r u z ecs oc no’ o t b r - t r l r , r o ~ eo b , mb. o - oa. r ,, ra. a ,. a t , .t e ~ .i , r t a , o. e ~ . s u n f u . . m eb a / . a rs n t t . a re d t t e . q e l h du . s e e e et d . A a ’ na ,u c tt . u it r e c l m ~* l - t e ~I 3~ n ,- umt °. rp , , . , ih , " , ~ ~a ., , dsa ., &id . :"~ tsd _, i e ,2m_ odo , S e n)f~ gP . T w ,r (h . o Ai) s 2c, e h,1 I c 0 au 1 u ml 1 t y t ’Witness "s e.o.R.t.e.ss . ~osataatt emeonft t 1 o 1 p N a o r v a e 6. m 3 b 5 1 o e 9 f r t 9 h 9t e o J t u h d e g R e w m a ew n nh d te a~ r nt te h h o eT r r i i t a i C ¢ l . h o e a es m r b o he b er o l r dt az h th a e~ t # statemeonf2t 2 a nd2 3S eptemb1e9r9 9.("E mphasaidsd ed). J~ AppellantB’rsi efp,a ras4,. 10a nd4 .12. CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A.A 42 13D ecembe2r0 02

84.W ithr egartdo thes pecifiics sueo f theT rialC hambes’r re¯lianocne priorw itness statemenat sq,u estiroani sesde veratli mebsy t heP rosecutitohne,A ppealCsh amberre fers to itsf indinigns paragrap9h4se t, eq.o f thisJ udgemeanrti dd ismisstehsi sg rounodf appeal.

3. Whethert heT rialC hambre erredb y findin~Witnc~rte dible 85. TheP rosec’~ttiimopnu gnpsa ragra7p4h7 o ft heT riaJlu dgemenwth,i crhe ads: Whilet h~ Chambearc cepttsh atP astorM ugangwaa st aken~ omt he communaolf fice areat o thec ommunaflo otbalfli elda ndk illedt,h ee ventlse adinugp to hisd eatahr e unclearT.h eo nlyp urporteeyde -witnetsos t hek illinwga sW itnesZs, whosvt estimony theC hambehra sf oundt o be unreliabilne relatiotno thea llegatiotnesn dintgo incrimin~ahteAe c cuse(dS eei,n p articul$aurb,- s~tiVo.n5s. a5n dV .5.6i,n fra)1,a 9 86.D espitteh ef actt hatt heT rialC hambearc tuallfyo undi nconsistenacnidef sl awsi n WimesZs’ st estimontyh,e P rosecutidoone sn otu nderstatnhde " basifso rt hec ategorical conclusitohna tw henevtehre e videnocfeW itnesZs t endst oi ncrimintahteeA ccusesdu,c h evidenicse u nreliab,l,e1.4T°h eP rosecutsiuobnm ittsh ata revieowf t heT riaClh amber’s assessmoefnW ti tn’~Zs’ss e videnrceev ealtsh ats ucha findiinsgn ots ubstantiated.

87. TheA ppealCsh ambenro test hatp aragra7p4h7 c onstitutae gse neraclo nclusion drawnf romt he" rriNC hambero’bss ervatiionnp sa ragrap7h4s8 e ts eq.o ft heJ udgement. TheA ppealCsh ami:i~sro ft hev iewt hatt hospea ragrapphrso vidae c leavri ewo ft heb asis fort hef indinsge tf ortihn p aragra7p4h7 ,a ndd ismisstehse A ppenanta’rsg umenitnst hat regardF.o re xamplet,h eA ppealCsh ambenro test hat" thew itnes[sZ ]g avet wod ifferent versioanss toh owh e founodu ta bouitt [theo rder[]g ivebny theA ccusetdo Semanztao killM ugaag’a’]m.~ [~aTer iaClh ambefru rthesrt atetdh at" [t]hissh ifitn a ccoun[tgsi vebny 1~ Emphasiasd ded. 140 A 11 t’ pl~a n s Briefp,a ra,4 .17.T heA ppealCsh ambesru msu p as followtsh eP rosecutioanl’lse gatiotnhsa t theT riaClh ambecro mmittaend e rroro f fact(:1 )a t para9.4 7,t heT rialC ~tamlxd~ird n ots ubsumtiiattse findintgh atW itnesZs w asn ote rexh’balned m erelmya der eferentcoe o therp artso f theJ udgeme(nnta mely, SectiOVn.s5 .5a ndV .5.6)t;h eT rialC hambeprr occei&nd a similarra mmeart pata9.4 8o f the3 udgemen(t2;) ,heP rosecutfiaoinl tso seeh owr eferentcoe S ectioVn, 5.o6f t he~ udgememnaty s ervaes a basifso rt heT rial Chamberg’esn eraclo nc:Msiaotn p ara7.4 7o f the$ edgcmensti;m ilarlay~,o rditnog t heP rosecutiSoenc,t ion V.5.5w,h ichr efertso S.:ctioVn. 5.4.o1f theJ udgemendto,e sn ots ubstantisautceh a fmdin3 m the fmdgi Inm igmnb e~d t h-e Prosecut-iaopnp eartso be at var.iancwet g; ( ) oreovcr, evidencaed ducebdy theP rosecutiaogna instth eA ccuseidn res1":teho~ ottfh tehfrei c nrdiimneig~snsm t mhictJ muiddn g BeimseenTsthe.er o comesi ndeepda rtlfyr omW itnesZs. m TrialJ udgemenpta,r a.7 49. 43 13 Decembe2r0 02

WitnesZs] betweedni recetx aminatiaonndc ross-examinagtiivoenst hei mpressioofna n attempbty t hew itnestso claimt hath isk nowledogfe t heo rdera llegedilsys uebdy t he Accusewda sm orei mmediatthea ni ti nf actw as.T lzise fforcto ulds temf roma desirteo incrimintahteAe c cusmeodr ed ecisiv[e.l.y. ,], .142 88.A s theA ppealCsh amberre calleeda rliert,h eT rialC hambeirs notr equiretdo articulianti et sJ udgemeenvte rsyt epo fi tsr easoniinngr eachipnagr ticuflianrd in1g4s~.T he AppealCsh ambe:rr ecaltlhsa ti no rdetro establiasnh e rroorf f actt,h eP rosecutmiuosnt provet hatt heT rialC hamber’rse asoninwga si ncorrecatn,d a s suchr esulteidn a miscarrioafgj eu st~.S~i.m plcyr iticistihnegr easoniandgo ptebdy t heT riaClh ambeirsn ot an adequatdee monstrattihoant t heT rialC hambecro mmiRexatn erroro f fact.A s the Prosecutfiaoinl etd. od emonstrtahtaett heT riaClh amberf’isn dinwgesr eu nreasonatbhlies, grounodf appeamlu stb ed ismissed. B.’ _’S;Decifelr¢~"r _ocrosn cernitnhgeT rin~lh amber’syt~eosfst mheene tv i.d,enicne relatitoon_ t hep urposoef t heT rafiprroos _dblo,ctkh~e m urdeorf J uditahn dt h~ [zw4e4sencoef .thAec cusead. .tt heG atwarSo~ d!um 89. TheA ppealCsh ambehro ldst hatt heq uestionrsa isedb y theP rosecutiwoint h respecttot hc" specifeircr"o rrse latteo t hremea ind,i stinicsts ue1s4:5t heT riaClh amber’s assessmeonftt her elevaenvti denrceel atitnogt hep

urposoef t beT rafiprrooa dbloctkh;e TrialC hamber’rse liancoen previousst atementnsa,m elyt,h es tatementmsa det o Prosecutiinovne stigataonrdts h ec onfessiosntaalt emenmtasd et oR wandaanu thorit(ioens thisp ointt,h eA ppealCsh ambewri lla ddrestsh eP rosecutioanr’gsu menatss a whole, insotahsrt hisi ssuaer iseisn r elatitoonv irtualallylt heq uestiornasi seda)n;df inalltyh e TriaClh ambera’sss essmeonftt hee videnrceel atitnogt hea llegepdr esenocfe t heA ccused att heG atwarSot adium. ~ ldem,p ata.7 49( Emphasaidsd ed). 143K ayishemw’RuziAnpdpmema lJ udgemenpta,r a.1 65;F urund~iAjpap ealJ udgemenpta,r a.6 9;~ elebidi Ap.~aJlu dg~’mcpnatt,a 4.8 1. ’~ As rccaJle.bdy the AppealCsh ambeirn the introductitoon t he presenJtu dgemen(ti:) F ~. Error rclazintgo thea ssessmemnatd eb y TrialC hamberre gardilnhgo e videnctee nd#tewdi thr egartdo Ttafipro roadblo(ciki;)S econJdI :IZg.EDr.r oirn t hea ssessmoefn tth ee viden,c er elatitnogl hem urdeorf J udith(;R i) .~de rrorl:~ rtorr~ latitnogt hea ssessmeonft c videnr~e latitnog t hep resenocre" l h¢A ccuseadt theO atwaro Stadiuomn 13,1 4 and1 8 Apri1l9 94. 44 CaseN o.:I CTR.95I:A.- A 13 Dc¢~mlx~2r0 02

TheT rialCh umbse’ ra sse.~.omfet nhter _e levaenvti,d e-,’-r~e-l_a_t_it notg h ep urposoef~¯ : _- Trafiv_rrooa dbl~t~ 90.T heP rosecutiroenf ertso theT rialC hamberf’isn dingisn ChapteVr o f theT rial Judgemeanst r egardtsh ep urposoef theT rafiprrooa dblo.clka 6I t arguetsh att heT rial Chambeerr redb yn otc onsidertihnegt estimonoife sWi tnessKeCs. A B,R A,Z Ja ndt hato f theA ccuse1d4.vT h4-~A.p pellasnutb mittsh att hee videnrceef errteods howtsh att heA ccused wasa warteh ati dentifc3a,r dwse reb eincgh eckeadt r oadblocwkhsi,c hha db eene rectefdo r thep urposoef ide.ati~iTnugt sisA.s e arlya s theb eginnionfg A pril1 994,t heA ccused knewt hatT utsiwse rea ctivelsyo ughotu ti n Mabanzaan do therc ommunewsi thiKni buye prefectuArcec.o rdi:taogt heP rosecutitohne,a bove-mentiWointende ssreesv ealtehde r eal p~u4rsposoeft her oadbloncakm,e lyt,of inda ndk illT utsis. TheP rosecufsiuobnm ittsh att hea forementitoensetdi monsiheoswi ne ssencteh at: TheA ccusepdr ovidetdh eb ourgmestroef Tambwea nd twoo therT utsi wom,~wni thl aissez-pasi;sn1ed4ri9sc atitnhga tt heyw ereH utu Them ainp urposoef thes ixr oadblocmkosu nteidn Mabanzwaa st o identify T;u~tss°is The, Accuseddi ssuadfeidv eT utsin unsf romg oingt oK ibuyteo wnb ecause o~f5~~,r~o adbloctkhse yw oulde ncountoenrt heiwra y; 14sI ndeedt,h eA ppealCsh ambenro test hatt h~a rgumenatdsv anee.b~ytl h eA ppellainnt t hev

ariougsr oundosf radiia ~ verys i~a ndc anb e groupeadn da nalyseudn dert hreem ainh eadingass, s eto utb elow. TriaJtu ageruepnatr,~ s9,3 5t o9 38. 1~7A ppellanBtr’ise fp,a ras4.. 32t o4 .34. ~ AppellantB’rsi efp,a ras4., 35m ~d4 .36.I n eSsencet,h eP rosecntioanr’gsu menptr esentebde forteh e AppealCsh amberre peattsh eo nep resentbeedf or1eh eT rialC hamberP.a ra4,, 14o f theI ndictmerneta ds":I n ~icularI,g nsceB ~it.4shelm~ar mitteadn de ncouragIendt erahammwiel itiamteon setu p roadblocakts strategilco cationisn anda roundM abam:cao mmuneT.h ep rimarpyu rposoef thes aidr oadblocwkass t o sctre,n individuiarltso rdetro identiafnyd ~ ingloeu tT utsis.I"ni tso peninagr gumenbtesf orteh eT rial Chambetrh,e P rosecutailolne getdh at’ fino rdetro e nsurteh atn oT utsrie mainaeldi veb,e i t thosfer omw ithin or outsidteh ec ommunet,h eA ccusesde tu p roadb lockwsi thiMna banztao helps creetnh osfel eeinfgr oma s fara waya s Gitaramaan dK igali.("S eeo n thisp ointT,r ialJ udgemenpta,r a.9 26).A ccordintgo the ProsecutiBoang,i lishewnalsaa warteh atT ntsiwse rei n dangewrh ilcer ossitnhge r oadblodcco,n sidertihnagt hei ssuefda lsied entictayr dasn dt hatt hep urposoeft her oadblowcakst oi dentiafnyd k illT utsis. i~9T estimoonfy D efenc~~ W,itnesKsC S eeA ppellanBtr’ise fr.a ta4. 31c ititnh T " ~Test ’imonoyf Witnc-sAeB .S eeA ppe " llasn , Btr iefp,a ra,.~ , - 32c,i t - inTg, 1g5N eo hvaelm~ bl1eu9rd9 g9pe,.m 1e0np9ta.,r a.2 43. 45 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

The Accusehde lpedt heb rother-in-loafw D efencWei tnes7sj by providing himw itha n identitcya rd,w hichh adt hew ord" Hum"w ritteonn it,t o enable hisw ifea ndo therT utsitso crosst her oadbloctkhsa th adb eene recteodn t he K1i5g2Mi-Kiburyoea d,w ithouetx periencipnrgo blems; TheA ccuseids suedo verI 00l aissez-passaenrdsf euilledse routet o persons fromo utsideM abanzac ommunea nd gavea witnesss everalb lanki dentify cardsw hichh adt he word" Hum"w ritteno n thems o as to helpc itizenosf M~a5b3anzwah ow erel ivingi n Kigali.

92. TheA ppeal,C~h aml~.orb $ervet~h att heT rialC htmabocro nMder,e At het ~,~timordcs of allw itnesseesa :Llebdy theA ppellanitn otherp artso f theT riall udgemeneti,t heirn ChapteIrV entitle"dG eneraIls sue’s’ts4o r in thes ectioenn tide"dR oadblocskisg hteidn MabanzaC ommune."T.h e TrialC hamberc onsideretdh eirt estimoniefso r the purposeo f "establishwihnegt hetrh eA ccusewda sg eneralsluyp portiovfe t hem assacre,s,.1asI ti s the viewo f the AppealsC hambert hatt he factualf indingcso ntaineidn ChapterV of the /udgemenmtu stt hereforbee read" m thel "ighto ft he,G ,eneraIls suesd"e altw ithe arlierI.n anye venta,s theJ udgememnuts tb e vieweda s a whole,i tw ouldb e incorrectto a ssertt hat in ChapterV of the Judgementt he TrialC hamberf ailedt o takei nto accountt he submissiornesl atintgo thet estimonioefs W itnesseKsC ,A B,R A,Z J,a ndt het estimonoyf theA ccuseidn ChapteIrV of thel udgemcnt. 93.M oreoveri,n ChapteVr of theT rialJ udgementw,i thr egardi n particultaor thei ssue as to thep urposoef meT rafiprroo adbloctkh,e T rialC hambearn alysetdh ee videncbee fore it in ordert oa ddrest~h es pecifiqcu estioans to whethetrh er oadblochkasd o figiuabUeye n setu p by theA ccustxfto rc riminaplu rposesT.h us,i t beganb y analysintgh ed ocumentary is1T estimoofnD ye fenWci~t neRsAs. S eeA ppellanBtr’ise fp,a re4.. 33c,i tintgh eT riaflf udgemepaaarte,. 249, 152 T~s

"ttmonoyfD efencWei tnesZsJ .S eeA llant’Bs " m Testim n o yo ft heA ccuseSde.eA ppellPsa IBn~rti e-fa m n 4 e a f A f . p, , a . r , 4e a . ., 3 . e ! 3- . r , - ~ r , i . tn . hg . e . T . r . iaSlu d~ nmnt, ~ ¯ 2 ~eeT rialld uge men,t pare2.4 3f orW itneKsCs , ; ] ’ r u . d . g . e . n . l , pe ~ an , rt ~~ &2~ , 4 o 9 J ,f u o n r ze W ~ i . ,p t ~ p n . e , R s ; a As 9 ~ t ; . T o . r o . i / p a . a Jl r u a d 2. g 5 e 3 m . ent, paraa.pApBe afrostr2o 5W3i tneZSJSbheacvnea nJduadngaelmyespneatdr, au.ntdheer2 s5e5qs.eoctfthfiAeOo¢ rn¢ ettlT sherede .l etveasntti omfWo intyn ess M t a s b s a . w . _ . C. . oa . m . m . u . nien"t hefactufailn ¯ dinogfts h eT .riaCl’ h t a h m eJ b( u ~S d re g J e e u m d e g en e nt m t e i pn t at l r " , e e8 R d .8 o 7 a e t d s b e l q o . S ) ai . kgsh teidn x natJ uagemepnatr,e1 .1 0. 46 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A.A 13D ec.emb2e0r0 2

evidenpcree sentbeydt heP rosecut1i5o~na ndt hens crutindi tzheet estimonoife tsh et wo Prosecutiowni,mse sswehso r egularaltyt endetdh eT rafiprrooa dblo~c5k7 O nt heb asiso f ther elevaenvti dencteh,e T r/aCIh ambecro nsidertehda ti tw asU nablteo c onclubdeey ond reasonabdloeu bttl :~tth ea imo ft heA ccusewdh,e nh es etu pt heT rafiprrooa dblocwka,st o screeonu ta ndk illT utscii vilians.ltShael/ iag hot£ t hea bovet,h eA ppealCsh ambefri nds nothinugr ireasonaibnl teh eT rialC hamberr’esa sonianngd f indingwsi thr egartdo this specifpioci ntI.t t h~:;refdoirsem istsheesA ppellanstu’bsm issoinot nh ipso int. v~~ statements t~ "~w: - anna authorJ’ ¢s 94.F irstlyt,h eP rosecutiroenf ertso theT rialC hamber’fsi ndingass regardtsh e inconsistencbieevs~ eetnh et estimonioefs W itnesseys a ndZ in theS ectioonf the Judgemtehnet3 fu dgement,dealitnhgep~ u5r,pwoiostfeht thheT rafiprrooa dblRoecfke.r rtionp ga ragr9a3p7h o " e Proseeuts/uobnm ittsh at: The Trim Chambere rredi nsofara s it reliedu pon the writtens tatemento f Witnessy for the truth of its content,a ttributinmgo re weightt o this statel:aentth ant o his testimonbye foret he courta nd doings o withoute ven puttingt he statementto the Witnesst o determinweh etherh e acceptedi t as truei;, ..~ -= ~:1bidp.a,r a9.3 5. i).~T riaYlu dgement, ’°°A tp-ara9.3 8o f t.h-ePT~ r 9i3a7ll. udgementth,eT rialC hambesrt atetdh at" the

~t" "kT~ .,~2~ J (as out ratheri n the ......... m documentatoiro rne ,...,.=T.r~a fiproany a , rm ° o f ~ f u i | l a e t A : c O arlb e S a"t"..aItt "h~pso’i n"~ts t ha ~ tt p h c eP a r :a , uon$t ’ ~mselve. -s Andthe T ¯ da - l - C " h - u ~, m .,0u1 ~ illstru"ctioas Js~, ,,;_3 , cusedw,h oah e setu p theT rail-o-s-_ ecutihoansn ots hownb cyon--~- :- l~rt husc oncluded zmsp aragrrgOpahd ,s,., vt,.,.,. . =,.prroo adblocwka,st o t d h / e f e f n eg e r m ia i ne ea cc sr u e n e t s os c f a . ~ p t - ~i s u , nr , gTt , ,hm ~ ’e t s w w eWi o .it p , tn r ehe o ss s uss e Zn c dt u ee t rs¯ w i st ’ ~ o ti t n oft n oiht e deeh s Ad a s c t ew te sh h o e A r e - g . s u c l r a e ad eo ty nu t t o m ~ n a_dk~ ~i rlelT, ua t * ss c o"" a n ¯ v a d ~d i eo; a ’ u, a b s tth at the tom elteorfs t het ~F, roRdp p ~..eda sk,e_d dh eidm the Trafiprmoa dblokc gave ¯ asedt o b¢ r " to ~recta roadbloc"kb ~causv H h t i e a h d d e e e A s n x c e t P c tu i / u ¯ p f a s r i i e¯ o c n d t a a e W w " h d t s d i h a b i h t e t l o i R n t o n ~ u e ’ h c , t " s - - k , b A s - - ~ - s v a P L .. , w, a . t . a . s h d . x e n . , u R w . - t u a .S u k s o .y a r n m T n o w p o t a a s , a t c h h ~ o ag ~ t u d¯z s , l e eW v , da p~ ri ~ s h st " , s ci .n . t am e . h sr s . Y r he s . , lt . o eh n ve t a m h nr _ s e to o_ t "a t. r d ¢h u b f ¯ e e l ’rh t a o e k i n e .

wo w d r ’ hz x , r s ;~ t t i a . o ’ h n i . T ot g dt t u t u h , t c , a s x h i . t i a p n . n . c s y . r e o . . e i a n . r e ¢ g a a v / c p -n a, ~ r t o s a h b w po l e tp e / ¢ m _/ r s a , s to ’::outrtohlem ov-e-m-e.no-tf,,s/-- nc kroutDaaetatnr thy teiTe rmapftiitvrnorog io- n ~f.i,l~t’r-ta~’ht’:ee.c_ ?o"sYm.. m auinahe,a,O dc’% o,Om tfenr ootmes o i m ~ i 0 t tod) ’ , , =" =~u~ucK;I,C S’LI.tltOh0a t theA ccused Appellasn Btr iefp,a ra4., 40T.h eA Ppellarnetf ertso i raa rgumenrtesg arditnhgeF ustg rounodf a ppeal. CaseN o.:I CTR-95.1A.A 47 13 Decembe2r0 02

Thought herem ay be circumstaucwchse rea statemenmta y be admittefdo r theu ~utho f itsc ontentnso,t ablpyu rsuantto R ule9 2biso f theR ulesl,e~n o such consideratiowna s givenb y the TrialC hamberi n admittingt he statemenfto rt hisp urposeI.t appeartsh att heT rialC hambemra y simply have:b eenm istakeinn itsa ppreciatioofn t hed ifferenbceet weetne stimony andp riors tateme~n6t2.M oreoveirt,s r eliancoen thes tatememneta nst hati t placedg reatewre ighotn theo ut-of-cousrtta temetnhta nt hel ivem stimonoyf a witness.163 95. Secondlyt,2 1eP rosecutiocnh allengetsh e TrialC hamber’fsi ndingass regardtsh e murdero f JudithR.e ferrinmga inlyt o paragrap9h5s9 t o 961o f theT rialJ udgemen~tc,~i t raisedt hef ollowinmga ina rguments: The inconsismucrye liedu pon by the TrialC hambert o find WitnessZ unrc).iablaer isesf roma differencbee tweenW itnessZ ’s confessiotno Rwaudana uthoritiesh,i s writtens tatemenatn d his testimonyH.o wever, neithetrh eD efencnco rt he TrialC hambepru tt hiss inglei nconsistentcoy ~6tA ppeltanBtr’ise fp,a za4.. 44I.n t hiisn stantchee,P rosecuitsir odne rdtnogR ule9 2hiosf t heR uleosf ICTYa ndt hec asel awr t~atitnhge reto. 16~A pp~/laBurti’espf a.r a4.. 44. je xl~b icp£a,r 4a.,4 4. J~P ata9.5 9o ft heT riaJlu dgemerneta ds":O ncaeg aint,h eo nlyc videnocfet heA ~usexld’isr ect involveimnet nhte k illionfgJ uditihst het estimoofnW yi tneZs.sH ec

himetdoh aveh ada conversawtiitohn theA ccusiendf ronotf t ~,t b¢ureacuo mmunajlu,s ta fteJru dithweassc ortpeads t".P ara9.6 0o ft hcl udgcment readsT:h eC hambaecre ~ttsh atW itnegs sw asi nvolviendt hek illionfgJ udith(.A ccordtionW gi mcsYs’ s statemeonf1t 7 S eptemb1e9r9 9W,i mesZs,R ushimabnadh el edJ udittho h erh ousew,h crs~h ew ask illebdy RushimbHao)w.e vetrh,eC hambcearn norte lyo no thears pecotfsW itneZs’ss a ccouonftt hei ncidenAtn.d" theT riaClh ambeard ded":I nh isc onfessoifo2 n2 J tme1 998W,i mesZs a dmittheids i nvolvemiennt th e muaieorfJ uditbhu ts aindo thianbgo uatn ¢ neountwei.trht heA ~usr.idns, p itoef m entionhiinmig n r elation tot hek illionfgP astoMru gangHae.f irsrtc farrtcodm eetitnhge A ccusiendh iss tatemoefn1 t8 S eptambcr 1999w,h arhee d eclare"dH:ea skeuds w herwee h adf ounJdu ditahn,d b eforweec ouladn swehre,w ento nt o say:’ Thato’ksa y.T’h iiss i nc ontradicwtiitohhni st estim(oansye x¢crpdt aeb,o vea)c,c ordtionw gh icthh e witneshsa dt heo PIX~Rtntiotr ye pltyo t heA ccusedq’use stiboenf orbee intgo ld",T hat’fsi ne"O.t lmr inconsisteanrceai pepsm ’-b.unttn eendo tb ee nteriendt hoe reT.h ep oinits t hatth es upposceodn versation betwec,n W itnesZs a nd~ hoA ccuseidsn otc orroboraWtiemde.sY s w ho,a ccorditnoWg i tnes7s, ,w aso nly somem eterash eaddi dn otr efetro a nyc onv¢~atbieotnw eeWni tneZs sa ndt heA ccuseIdt.i sp ossibloef, cours.t~h,a tt heA ccuswehdo w as,a ccorditnoWg i tneYs,si nh iso fficweh enJ uditwha st akepna stt,o ok noticaen dc amoeu tt ot hee ntranwchee rhee m etW itneZs.sH owevetrh,i mse rpeo ssibilciatnyn ofto rtitfhye accouonfta witnewshso smea reliabiilsiq tuye stion(aVb.l5e. 4a.n1d5 .5).S"e eT riaJlu dgemepnatr,a 9.6 1 (Footnootmeist ted). 48 CaseN o.:I CTR.95-1A-A 13D eoctab2e0r0 2

the WitnessO.n thisp oint,t heP rosecutiroenf erst he AppcalCsh ambetro t1h6e5s ,~congdr ounodf a ppeal; The inconsistendcoye sn ot underminteh e cvidcnct,h att he Accusedc ame out of his officew henJ udithw as escortepda sth is premisesa,n d had a cons~rsatiowni thW itnessZ . Furthex,W itnessY ’s testimonyi s not inconsistewnitt hW itnesZs’ sa nd cannotb e usedt o discrediWti tnesZs’ s testimondyu ct o thef actt hat" thes upposecdo nversatiboent weeWni tnesZs andr .heA ccuseids n otc orrobora’t’e1d6.6I n thatc onnectiotnh,e P rosecution contendtsh atW itnessZ ’st estimoniys corroboratseudb stantialblyy t he testimonoyf Witnesys) 67A ccordintgo theP rosecutiotnh,e TrialC hamber shouldh avea skedW itnesseYs a nd Z to explaint hemselveosn thesem inor inconsisten)c6i8es.

96. In the lighto f the above,t he AppealsC hamberu nderstandtsh att he Prosecution takesi ssuew itht he..T rialC hambeorn twom ainp ointsI.n respecotf thesep ointst,h e A~p6p~ealCsh ambecro nsiderass follows: TheT rialC hambenro to nlyr eliedu ponp riors tatementisn ordert o assess thec redibiliotfy t hew imsssebsu ti t alsou sedt hemf ort het rutho f their contc:at.

97. Accordintgo the Prosecutioonn,l ye videncaed mitteads hearsaym ayb e reliedu pon fort het rutho fi tsc onten(to nt hisp ointt,h eP rosecutiiosn r eferritnogR ule9 2b/so ft he ~ AplmllaBnrti’espf a,t -4s .5 1. ~ssI bm.p,a r4~. 55. t67T heP rosccutiinod~e ecdo1n sidetrhsac to rroboraetxiiosnt" sa sb otwhi tnestseesst iifnye ssenc"et:h at J’uditwha sa pprehenndeeadrt her oadblotchka;t s hew asT utsit;h atR ushimbbrao ughhte rb ackt of its roadblotchka;st h ew ast aketno h erh ousteo b ek illtehde ret;h asth ew ast akepna stth ~w indoofwt heo ffice oft heA ccuseadn;dt ha!tR ushiamnbdaW itneYs ksi llehde rn,o tZ ".S eeA pl~UanBtr’ise fp,a ra4.. 57. ~sT heP rosecutsiuohnr oit~hsa t" [w]imaYs wsa sn ota skeadb outth cr oleo fW i~e.,Zs,sn orw ash e questioanbeodn wth ethW~i mesZs w asf ollowihnigma ndm cctw itht heA ccuse(dA"p pellauBtr’ise fp,a ra. 4.55I)t.a lscoo ntentdhsa "t[ a]Wsi tneZs wsa s5 to1 0m etrbeesh inWdi tneYs,sa ndc ontinouaet do ~ udith’ housei,ti sr easonatbhlacYt mayn oth avch earad c onversabtoitowne Zt amn dt heA ccuseTdh.i pso ssibility isa cceptbeydt heT riaClh mmlmOrn.c ea gaini,t i sn otewortthhaytW itneYs sw asn otq uestioinnet dh is regar(dA"p pollaBnrti’espf a,r a4.. 5S). :~T(A2) J,u l2y0 02p,p .1 ~4t o1 45. CaseN o.:I CTR~95.1A=A 13 Decembe2r0 02

Ruleso f ICTY)n,o tp riorw itnessst atemenTthse.P rosecutisounb mittsh ats uche vidence shoulbde r elieudp ono nlyf ort hea ssessmoefnt th ec redibiloiftw yi tnesses. 98.T heA ppealCsh ambenro test hat,i n thep aragrapohfs t heI udgemenmte ntionbevd theP rosecutio1n7,° fileT riaClh ambeirn deerde lieodn p reviosutsa temeonftw si tnessfeosr thet rutohf t heierc ,n tentH.o wevetrh,e A ppealCsh ambeirso ft hev iewt hats uchr eliance doesn otc onstit~umte er roirn t hisi nstance. 99.T heA ppealCsh amberre calltsh at,a tt het imeo ft het rialt,h eo nlyl egala uthority withr egartdo a drrhssioofen v idenwcaes R ule8 9(Co)f t heR ulesw,h icphr ovidtehsa t" [a] Chambemra ya dm~.a~n yr elevaenvti denwchei chi t deemst oh avep robativvael ue".171 The TrialC hambetrh erefoarses essetdh ea dmissibiloiftt yh ep riosrt atemenstosl eloyn t he basiosf R ule8 9o ff ileR ulesb,y p roperwleyi ghitnhge irre levanacnedp robativvael ueA.t paragra2p4ha sn d2 5o ft heT riaIlu dgemeintts ,e to uti tsa pproaicnht hea ssessmoefnt th e evidencien,t hef ollowitnegr ms: 24.R egardiinng p articultahre a ssessmeonft t estimontyh,e C hambeorb servetsh at, durintgh ep resenttr ialp,r eviowursi ttesnt atemenotfms o stw itnessaepsp zariinng t his casew eret enderiendt heitre xtuaeln tireatsy e xhibitOsn. o ccasiontsh,ep artieasn d, wherea ppropriatthee,C hamberh,a ver aisehda consistenbeeitewse etnh ec ontenotf

an earliesrt atemeanntd t het estimodnuyr intgh et rialT.h eC hamberp’osi nto f departure whena ssessitnhge a ccoungti vebny a wimesiss h iso r hert estimoinny c ourtO.f c ourse, differencbeest weeena rliewrr ittesnt atemenatnsd l atert eslimoniyu courtm ayb e explainbeydm anyf actorssu,c ha st hel apsoef t imet,h el ~guagues edt,h eq uestiopnust to thew itnesasn dt hea ccuracoyf interpretaatnidot nr anscriptiaonndt, h ei mpacotf traumoan thew itnesseHso.w everw,h oret hei nconsistenccairemso bte so explainteod thes atisfactoifo tnh eC hambetrh,e r diabiloifw w imesst’e stimomnayy b e questioned. 25.F inallyt,~ teC hambenro test hath earsaeyv idencies noti nadmissipbelrvs o,e ven wheni t isn otc orroborabtye ddi recetv .idencRea.t hert,h eC hambehra sc onsiderseudc h hearsaeyv ide~lowei thc autioni,n accordanw~i thR ule8 9.W henr elieudp on,s uch evidenhcaes ,a sa llo theerv idencbee,e ns ubjecttot het estosf relevanpcreo,b atiwvleu e andr eliability. 100.T heA ppealCsh ambecro nsidetrhsa ti,n thisc aset,h eT riaClh amberre lieodn prior statemenotfsw itnessfeosr t wop urposeosn:t heo neh andt,o a ssestsh ec redibiloiftt yh e 370I n itsA ppellanBtr’ise ft,h eP rosecutgiiovne tsh ee xamploef thet hirpda ra~alo~ft heT riaClh amber’s findingrse garditnhge p arposoef theT rafiprroo adblocnka,m elpya ra,9 37o f theT rialJ udgeme(nSte e AppdlantB’rsi efp,a ra4.. 38e ts eq,)A,t theA

ppeahle atintgh,e P rosecutailosnoc itepda ra9.2 0i a supporotf i~ argumen(tS eeT (A),2 ~Iuly2 002,p p 150-151) R le9 2&sd idn ote xisatt thet imeo f thet rialT.h eP roseeutioanr’gsu menwtist hr egartdo Rule9 2biso f theR uleso fI CTYa ret herefonroet r elevanitn thisc ase.T heA ppealCsh amlx:nro test hatR ul~9 2bi,h,a s sincbee eni ncludiendI CI’RYu lesS.e eT (A)2, July2 002p,. 1 59. 50 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A.A 13 Decembe2r0 02

witnessaensd,o nt heo thehra ndf ort het rutohf t heicro ntenItn.t hel attecra set,h eT rial Chambehra dg oodg roundtso p roceeidn t hew ayi td id,i nsofaars t hep riosrt atemenwtesr e regardaesdh earsaeyv idencAes. " previowursi ttesnt atemenotfsm ostw itnessaepsp earing int hicsa sew crtce nderiendt heitre xtueanlt ireatsye xhibi’t’s1,7i2t w ast her esponsibiolfity theT rimC hambepLu rsuantto Rule8 9 of theR ules,t o determineb,y virtueo f its discretitohne,w eightto a ttactho s uchs tatemenTthse.A ppealCsh ambehro ldtsh ata,t t he time,n othinpgr eventtehde T rialC hambefrr oma dmittipnrgi ors tatemenatss h earsay evidencea;n dt hisw ast hec asee veni n instancewsh eret hew itnessecso ncernehda d testifaitte rdi M1.7 ~ (2) Ini f.rei nstancwehse ret heT rialC hamberre lieudp ond ifferenbceetsw een thew imessepsr’i osrt atemenatnsdt heitre stimoinnyc ourti,t f ailetdo a sk thew itnessteose xplaitnh emselovnet sh es aidd ifferences. 101.T heA ppealCsh ambehro ldst hev iewt hatt heP rosecuticoann noatl legoen appeal thatt heT rialC hambecro mmitteadn errori n thisr egardI.t wasi ncumbenutp ont he Prosecutiownh,e nn ecessartyo, requestth eT rialC hambetro orderf urthecrr oss- cxamh~afiinoo nr detro d ispealn yd oubrte gardianngyi nconsistentchiaetcs o uladf fectth e credibiloiftw yi tnessTehse.P rosecutciaonnn orta isseu cha na rgumefnotr t hef irstti meo n appeawlh ereatsh e:

problweams n otb roughtto t hea ttentioofnt heT riaClh ambeart t rial (seet hef indinogfs~ :heT riaClh amberre garditnhges econgdr ounodf a ppeal). 3.A ssessmce)nft. _tehvei denrceeJ atitnoet he~ esencoef ~ eA ~,useadt t heQ a,t waro t.S_tadoinu1 m3 ,1A _4a nd1 8A vri1l9 9 a~.)___A~msenocfet ]e Accuseda t e Gatward ium on 13 " 1994 102.T heP rosecu(:a[rognu etsh ata numbeorf i nconsistenncoiteesbd y theT rialC hamber betweeWni tnesAsC ’sp riors tatemeanntd h ist estimoinnyc ouratr ei mmateriaanld,t hat, moreovert,h ei nconsistencwieersen otp utt o theW imesdsu ringh ert estimonmy T,he ~2 TriaJlu dgemenpta,r a2.4 . m Durintgh eh earinogn appealt,h eP rosecutiionnd eeadr guetdh ati t wass omewhaitl logicfaolr t heT rial Chambetro a dmite vide~tacse h earsaeyv idcnicn, s o fara s thec oncernweidt neswsa ss ittinign thew itness boxS.e eT (A)2, J ul2y0 :~p2p,1 60a nd 174A - ¯ 161. ppella’sn Btr iefp,a re4,.

66. CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 51 13 De,c ombe2r0 02

Prosecutiroenf erisn p articultaort hed iscrepanrceyl ieudp onb y theT rialC hmnbeirn relatitoonw hert~h eA ccusewda ss tandianngd w hats heb eardt heA ccusesda y. 103.C oncernitnhge r eproacmha det o theT rialC hambefro rh avintga keni ntoa ccount thed iscrepanacsy t ot het imew hent heA ccuseadr riveadt t heS tadiu~mT,st heA ppeals C1h7a6mbedri smisstehse P rosecutioanr’gsu mentFsi.r stlays,s ubmittbeydt heR espondent, it isc leatrh att heT rialC hamberre cogniztehda tt hed iscreparnecgya rditnhge t imew as immateriaSle.c ondlyt,h ed iscrepanrceyg ardintgh et imew hent hew itnessessa wt he Accuseadt t heS tadiuamp peartso h aveb eenl essc ruciaflo rt heT rialC hambetrh ant hat regarditnhge m omenwth ent heA ccuseids a llegetdo havea rriveadt t heS tadiuTmh.e T rial Chamberu’sse o f’ ~het erm"sb eforaen"d " afteri"n i talicisn t heS udgemeanftf irmtsh is interpretatIinot nh.ev iewo ft heA ppealCsh axnbenro,t hinign t heT riaClh amberc’osu rse ofa ctioinn dicattheast i tw asu nreasonianbt lhei isn stance. 104.W ithr espectto thea rgumentth att hed iscrepanacsy t o thew ordinogf whatt he Accusesda idw asa minoro ne,t heA ppealCsh ambesre esn othinugn reasonaibnl teh eT rial Chamberf’isn dingast paragra5p4h1 o f theJ udgem~Itn. a nye ventt,h eP rosecutihoans failetdo d emonstrtahteea llegeedr rorA.s s tatebdy t heR espondeinttw ,a st hec ombination ofi nconsistenac~i.te osw hent

heR espondeanrtr ivewdh,e rhee s tooadn dw hath es aidt hat wasc onsidercerdu ciably theT rialC hambe1r7.7I ndeedt,h eT rialC hambeerx plained that" ’[i]hta sn otb ee.pnr ovebde yonrde asonadbolueb tth att heA ccusewda sp resenatt t he Stadiuimn Kibuyoen 1 3 April1 994.E vena ssumitnhga tb ew ast heret,h et estimonioefs thew itnessperso videldi ttlien formatiaobno utt hep urposoef thev isitW.i tnesAsC ’s tesfnnosneye mst oi ndicatthea th e simplcya met ov erifwyh ethetrh er efugeheasd a rrived att heS tadiuTmh.e ries i nsufficeiveindte nocfec riminianlt entN.oc rimes, u ndetrh eS tatute ~75T heP rosecutrieofne xso,n thisp ointt,o para5.3 9o ft heT riaJlu dgemewnhti chr eads":A lsoW,i ~esAsC testifiteod s eeintgh eA ccuseodn 13 Apri1l9 94a t theS tadiurbau,t a t aroun3d p .m.T heC hambedro esn ot attacshi gnificatnoct eh ef actt hatW itnesAs m adeI liao bservataito 2n p.m.w,h ~,aWsi tn~AsC a pparently sawh ima t3 p.m.W imesAs t cstiftih~a th e wasg ivinogn lya n cstiraata¢s, h e hadn o watchM.o reoveirt,i s quituen derstandiafb ll:eo twhi messheasd d i~cultiiens r ecallitnhge e xactti meo ft heiorb servatailomno st sixy earsa ftert hee ventH.o weverW,i tnesAs restilietdh att heA ccusejdo inedt her efuge(s" nous retrogvda"t) a roun2d p.m.b ~oret heg ateso f theS tadiuwme roep enewdh,er eaWsi tnesAsC observehdi m arriavte a rou3n pd. m.e.t:hteer re fugweeersae t rcaidnys idMeo.r eovieftr h,e A ccusweasdp resenwt hetnh e re~gfer~o Mma banwzear aeb outtoe ntt~h eS tadiuimts, ~ msu nlikeltyh ahte w oulrde tuartna latesrt age toa skw hethtehret efttgheeeh sa ds enhta da rriveadss, u ggesbtyeW di tneAsCs." SeeA ppellaBnrti’es$ , papa4.. 64. aT~R cspondBernite’pfsa, r a4.0 2. 52 C~m~N o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

hadb eenc ommittaetdt heS tadiubmy t hats tageT.h ereforteh,e rec anb e noq uestioonf l,i,a1b7iglity. (b) PAr.esenoc_ef _.t.he_Aca.tct uhseeC dr atwaSr~od iuomn 1 4A pri1l9 9 105.T heP rosecutisounb mittsh ati n itsa ssessmeonft t hee videncree latetdo 1 4 April 1994t,h eT riaClh mnbearp plieadni ncorretcets tn,a meltyh at" int hea bsencoefd etailisn" theo ralt estimoonfyW itnesAs t heT riaClh ambecro nsidertehdep riors tatemenotfst his w1i7t9nesasn dc omparietds c ontenttoh iso ralt estimony. t06.A ccorditnog t heP rosecutitohne,o ralt estimonioefs W itnessAe sa ndA C contain ampleev idenucpeo ’wah icha reasonabtlrei eorf f actw oulhda vec oncludtehde p resenocfe theA ccuseadtt heS tadiu1m8.°I tf urthesru bmitttehda tt herwea sn ob asifso rr esortitnog thep reviousst at¢n~notfs t hew itnesfso r" corroboratiTohne"r.e forteh,e T rialC hamber erreidn f ailitnogp uts uchi nconsistetnocW iietsn esAs a tt riatlo a fforhdi ma no pportunity tto8p 1roviedxep lanatifoonrts h es aidi nconsistencies, 107.T heA ppealCsh ambedri smisstehse P rosecutioaur’gsu menrtesl atintgo theT rial Chambera’lsl egeadp plicatoifo nan i ncorretcets ti n itsa ssessmeonftt hee videncBey. virtuoef i tsd iscretionpaorwye rt,h eT rimC hambecro ulcdo nsidtehre w rittesnt atements "int hea bsenocfec ,thedre tailisn"o rdetro a ssestsh er eliabilaintdcy r edibiloifta y g iven wimessI.n t hisi nstanciet, i so nlya

ftert heT rialC hambenro tedt hatt hei nformation providbeydW itnesA~ w as" verlyi mit’e’d18t2h ati td ecidetdo p rocee"di,n t hea bsencoef 17~ Re,p ondentB’rsi efp,a ra4.0 8. 17, Trialf fudgcm~n~ta,.5 43, ~9 AppoUantB’rsi efp,e :m4.. 73. 18o App¢llanBtr’ise fp,. ~xa4.. 74W.i thr espectto WitnesAs, t heP rosecutairognu etsh atW itnesAs p rovided detailiendf ormatrieolna titnogt h~p r~senocfo B agilisha~tmt ah eS tadiuamn dc onsidetrhsa tt hod iscl~paney observeb¢yl t heT rialC ~ambcbrc twc~tnh ~t ostimoonfy W i~esAs atadh isp riors tatemenotusg htt o have b¢cmp utt ot heW itnesfso rc larilica(rSjeoenA Pl~llanBtr’ise fp,a ras4.. 75a nd4 .75)R.~ gardiWnigt nesAsC , theP rosecutisounb mittsh att herew asa tr~pleev idenucpeo nw hicht o conclutdh~a tt heW itnesAsC wasa ble to seet heR espondetn~tr ougthh eS tadiugma tesa,n ds eet heA ccusedc’asr ,w hichw asp arkeodn theo ther sideo ft heS tadiuwma ll( SccA pp~IlanBtr’ise fp,a ra4.. 77). ~81A ppellanBtr’ise fp,z ~m4.. 79. m Tria.ll ,adgemopnatr,a5 .4 8. 53 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-A]- A 13 Decembe2r0 02

derail~s8"3,t ol ooki ntot hew itnespsr’i ors tatemenTthse.A ppealCsh ambedro esn otf ind theT riaClh amb’ro, , ,.a pproaucnhr easonable. 108.W ithr espectto thea rgumentth att heo ralt estimonioefs W itnesseAs a ndA C combinepdr ovidseu fficieenvti dencuep onw hicha reasonabTlrei alC hambewro uldh ave fountdh att heA ccu;sweads p resenatt t heS tadiutmh,eA ppeaClhsa mbedro esn otc onsider theT riaClh amber’r,e~a sonitnogb e unreasonabilnel ,i ghto ft hee videncaed duceadn,d consideritnhge c omradictonrayt ureo f thee videnceT.h eT rialC hambears sesseadn d weighetdh ee videncaed ducedi,n viewo f thes pecificci rcumstanocfe tsh ec ase,i n detemainiwnhge thero,n thew holet,h ea ccountosf bothw itnessewse rar elevanatn d clrse4+dible, Presenocfe( heA ccuseadtt heG atwarSot ~dim:ocnL1 8A pri1l9 9, 109.T heP rosecu,asounb mittsh att hea ssessmeonft t heo ralt estimonioefsW i tnessGes andA ,lssa ndt hei nferencdersa wnt herefrwoemr ee rroneouTsh.e P rosecuticoonn tends thatt heT riaClh ambetro oki ntoc onsideratfiaocntw sh icwhe ren ote videnotn t her ecord, andw hiccha useidt t os peculatthea tt herwee reo thefra ctorwsh icahf fecttehde a bilitoyf WitnesGs to seet heA ccuseids.6A ccordintgo theP rosecutioinf, t heT rialC hamber assesstehde e videnccoer rectliyn, l ighotf t hef actt hatW itnesGs k newt heA ccusetdh,e verdicotf t heC hambewro ulhda veb eena ffected.’S7 110.T heA

ppealCsh amberre jecttsh eP rosecutioanl’ise gatioIntsr .e calltsh att heT rial Chambeerx pressvliys iteRdw andian ordetro " bettearp preciattheee videntcoeb ea dduced durintgh et ria,l, ~ssT.h ev isinto doubetn abletdh et riajlu dgetso f orma concreatned 18~I b"" " ma.,p ara5.4 9. ~4 ’~rhcp aucitoyf the¢ videnacse t o theA ccusedp’rse sen(cien cluditnhgec onditioonfso bservatiionn crowflcSdt adiuma)d ducebdy ~ Prosecutiforno mW itncssAo sa ndA C,w h¢uc onsid~etdo gethewri thf ile lacko fm utuaclo rtobot;atliho¢sn i,g nosf u ncertainVt/hiean c counotfs b othw itnessaess t ot hed a~¢o ft he sightinagn,d t hes uggestiboyn t woo therP rosecutwi~otnn esstehsa tt heA ccusewda si n Mabanzcao mmuna~t 9 ~m.o n thed ayi n que.~tiomne,a ntsh att heP rosecutioenv’isd enocfe t heA ceusedp’rse senactet heS tadium on1 4 Apri1l9 94f allssh oRo ft hea pplicabsltea ndaorfdp roof".S ~T riaJlt ldg~mcpnatr,a 5.5 3. lssH eret heP rosocutiiosl mta kinrge ferentcoe p aras6.4 9a nd6 51o f fileT ri~J udgemenSte.eA pl:~llant’s Briefp,a ras4.. 87a nd4 .88. Is6A ppel]anBtr’ise fp,s ra4 87 Ig~ 9A_P e~~,a n,s t -B riefl,m " r " a4 ,90,T heP rosecutiaolns oa rguetdh att hef actt hatt hew i~esmsa yn oth ave knowKna yishesmuaf ficienttolb ye ablet oc learliyd entihfiym d oesn otn ecessaraiflfye ctth ew imessa’b ility ~or~gnitshee A ccuserS.e eA ppedlantB’rsi efp,a ra.4 ,89. TriaJlu dgemenpta,r a1L0 , 54 CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 D~¢mbm-2 002

realistoipci nioonf t hes ituatioTnh.e i nformatigoant hereddu rintgh ev isitc annobte considersepde culatkevsep,e cialgiiyv etnh att hev isiwta sa imeadt a ssessitnhge e vidence relatimnagi nltyo t heq uestioofnt hew itnessceosn’d itioofno sb servataitot nh es tadium. 111.I ta ppeartso timA ppealCsh ambetrh att hem aini ssuef ort heT rialC hambewra st o determiwnhee theWri tnesGs c oulcdl earliyd entitfhye A ccuseadt t heS tadiuomn t hatd ay. TheP rosecutisounb mittsh att heT rialC hambesrh oulhda vet akeni ntoc onsiderattihoen factt hatW itnes~s knewt heA ccusedT.h isa rgumenmtu stb e rejecteads theT rial Chambedri dr ecoe.nitzhea tt heW itnes"sk newt heA ccusewdc U’.’~s~F urthermoriet, appeartsh att hisi ssuew asn otc ruciaflo rt heT rialC hambera;s indicateidn the RcspondenBtr’ise f,1i9t° w asr athetrh ei ssueo fv isibiliwthyi cha ppeartso h aveb een cruciaflo rt heT rimC hamberT.h eq uestiobne forteh eT rialC hambewra sh owW itnesGs wasa ble,g ivent hed istancbee tweehni ma ndt hes tadiumt,o specificaildleyn tiftyh e Accuseadm ongt hea ttacke1r9s1.U ponr eadintgh eJ udgemenitt, a ppeartsh att heT rial Chambehra da veT,p’r ecisied eao ft hec onfiguraotfit ohne p laceI.t a lsoa ppeartsh att he Prosecuticolne arldyi dn otp rovidseu fficieinntf ormatitoont heC hambearn dt hatt he testimonoifet sh ew imessewsh oa ppearbeedf oriet c oulndo ts upporat f indinbgy t heT rial

Chambetrh att heA ccusewda sp resenatt theS tadiuomn 18 April1 994.O ncea gaint,h e AppealCsh ambeirs o ft hev iewt hatt heP rosecutfiaoinl etdo s howt hatt hef indinogfst he TriaClh ambeorn ~ .’Liss suwee reu nreasonable. 112.I n viewo f thef oregointgh,e A ppealCsh ambedri smissaelsl t hes ubmissiomnasd e undetrh et hirgdr oineodfa ppeal. 113.T heA ppealCsh ambetrh erefodries missaelsl t heg roundosf appealr aisebdy the Prosecutiaosnt ,h eP rosecuthiaosnf ailetdo e stablitshha tt heT riaClh ambecro mmittaendy erroro f factl eadintgo a miscarriaogfe j usticoer anye rroro f lawi nvalidattihneg ludgement. ~s9/bipda.r,e 6.5 0. ~9oR espondenBtr’ise fp,a re4.5 5. i91l adzedt,h eT riaClh atnbe~xrp laintehda t" [a]lthouungdhe fra vourabcloen ditioofno sb servatiao fna,m iliar facem ayb ee asilrye ,o gnisablael,b einto tn e,c ~saridliys tinctitvhee,C hambeirs ooneemaesdt o howt he witneswsa s ablet o specificalildye ntiftyh eA ccuseadn dK ayishomaam ongstth ea ttackerosv ert his distancSee.eT" r ia.ll udg,.~’paaernet6..4 9. 55 C~o No,: ICTR-95-1A.A 13 Decembe2r0 02

VI. DISPOSITION Fort hef oregoirnega sontsh,e A ppealCsh ambeorn, 3 Iuly2 002,a t Arushar,u led asf ollows: "’TheA ppealCsh amber, andPursuantEviAdretnicc2el4,eo t f°t heS tatuotfet heT ribunaanldR ul1e1 8o ft heR uleosf P rocedure Cons~der|tnhgew rittesnu bmissioonfs t heP anicasn dt heiro rala rgumenatts t heh earing of 2/xdy2 002, Unant:0aouDsilsym isstehse a rgumenotfsI gnacBea gilishcrmeag arditnhge i nadmissibility of theP rosecutioAnp’pse al, UnamznousDliys missetsh e appeall odgedb y theP J:osecutiaogna instth e ludgement deliveroend7 June2 001a,r mw illg ivet heR easonfso rt heJ udgemeinnt d uec omsv, Afflrlttthsea cquittbaylt heT riaClh ambeorna llt hec ountisn t heI ndictment, Rulest hati t is notn ecessartyh ereforteo considearl lt hem otionfsr iedb y Ignacc Bagilishvpmuar suantto Rule1 15o f theR uleso f Proceduarned E videncaen,d t heM otion forP rotecdMveva surefso rD efeneWei tnesses, Ordertsh ei mmcdiarme leasoef IgnacB¢a gilishcma~ Ruletsh ati ti st herefonroetn cr~ssa.r .y .. t°.c onsidetrh,e," ’RequSutreg emdee l ’Intiemn~ demanddee mainl eveed e contrOljeu dicmw[eR espondenUtr’gse nMto tiofno rt heL ifting ofl udiciCaoln troMle asurefsi]l eodn 2 July2 002, Rulest hatt hisJ udgemesnhta llb e enforceidm mediatepluyr suatnot R ule1 19o f theR ules of ~oceduraen dE vidence. Donei a Frencahn dE nglisthh,e F rencthe xtb einagu thoritative. ClaudeJ orda MohamcdS hahabuddeen PresidiJnugd ge DavidH unt Judge Judge FaustoP ocar TheodorM eron Judge Judge Datetdh ist hirdda yo fJ uly2 002 At ArtL~hTaa,n zania." CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 57 13 Decembe2r0 02

Them asonfso rJ udgemeanrte n ows eto uti nt hef oregoitnegx t. Donei nF rencahn dE nglisthh,e F rencthe xtb einagu thoritative. i ClaudJeo rda MohamedS hahabuddeen DavidH unt PresidiJnugd ge Judge Judge FaustPoo car TheodorM eron Judge Judge Datedt hist hirteendtahy o fD ecemb2e0r0 2 [Sealo ft heT ribunal] 58 Cas~N o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

ANNEX A: APPEALS PROCEEDINGS 1,_ Summaroyf f actsr elatint~orf ilinfosn a ppeal 1. On 9 July2 001,t he Prosecutiaopnp ealetdh e Judgemenrte ndereodn 7 June2 001 by theT rialC hambe1r9.2 By decisiodna ted2 6 Septembe2r0 01,t he PresidinJgu dgeo f the AppealCsh ambedre signatheidm selPfr e-HeariJnugd gei n thep resencta se( "Pill")t.9 3 19 Octobe2r0 01,t heP HI issueda n orders ettin2g4 Septembe2r0 01a s theb e~nnindga te fort hep artietso agreeo n thec ontentosf ther ecordo n appeawl4, By decisiorne ndereodn 30 November2 001 19~ JudgesC laudeJ orda, MohamedS hahabuddeenD,a vid Hunt, FaastoP ocara ndT heodoMre ronw erea ssignetdo thep resencta se. In accordanwciet ht hed ecisioonf theP FIJd ated1 Octobe2r0 01t,96t heP rosecution friedi tsA ppealB riefo n 29 Octobe2r0 01.19O7n 2 Novembe2r0 01,t heP rosecutifoinl eda n urgentm otiofno ra uthorizatitoon e xceedt hep agel imita llowefdo rt heA ppellantB’rsi ef and alternatirveeq uesfto r extensioonf time1.9sU ponr ealizintgh ati tsa ppealb rief exceedetdh e numbero f pagesa llowedb y the PracticDei rectioonn the Lengtho f Briefs andM otionosn Appealt,h eP rosecutiroenq uestetdh e AppealCsh ambetro allowi ts brief as filedo n 29 Octobe2r0 01a nd,a lternativetloy g,r anti t an extensioofn seven( 7)d ays withinw hicht o filea newb rief.B y decisiodna ted3 0 Novembe2r0 01,t heP HIo rderetdh e Prosecutitoon f ilea nA ppellanBrrsi efi n

accordanwciet ht her equiremenstestf orthi nt he PracticDei rectiwoint hins even( 7)d ayso f thes aidd ecisio9n9) Thes aidb riefw asf riedo n 7 Decembe2r0 012.(~:’T he Judgeso f the AppealsC hamberw erei nformebdy the Deputy Registraorf theT ribunalo,n 14 Decembe2r0 01,t hatt heA ppellantB’rsi efd idn otc omply m "NotiocfeA ppearf’l,i eidn E ngliosnh9 /ul2 001 193. ¯ . y . I~ Ordonnan(cDed szgJmtdi’ounn j uged e la miaee n dtate na,.ppel) ", 26 Soptrrab2c0r0 1. "’Orde1r9"O ,c tob2e,r0 01. ~gs" De~isioonnt heC ompositoifot nh eA ppealCsh ambeirnC as~N o.I CTR-95-13A0-N Ao,v emb2e0r0 1. 196" Ddcis(idoenm anddere e pord~e¢d ~lai~I) "O,c tob2e0r0 1, 197u ~ . ~, A rrosec.utni os AppealB rief",f ilmo n 29 O~tolmr2 001a nd "Corrizendurmd atiM~r e,r h ¯ , ~,I~B rief’f,i ledo n 29 Octobe2r0 0r,f,i ledi n Englisohn 30 n~.,.~t..q.’,t ~,, -.,,t ..m e Pros~LlnOll S cutiosn U rgenMto tiofno rA uthonsattiooe nx ceetdh ee Rmit anda lternaRteiqvuee fsitz erx tensoifo" n " ¯ peg’ ’ tot heP rosecutsi Aopnp eaBlr ief a~ timef,i lemd Eng,lisohn2 Novemb2~0 01. "Decis(iRoens pondeMnott’isof no rT ranslatainodfn o rA dditioTniamle P;r os~’cutUirogne’nsMt o tiofno r AuthorizattiooE nx ceetdh eP ageL imitto t heP ros~utioAnp’pse aBlr ieafn dA ltematiRvecq uesfto r EXtenSioonf Time)",3 0 Novembe2r0 01. Case No.: ICTR-95-I A-A 13 December2 002

witht heP ractiDcier ectiwoint hr egartdo t hen umbeorf wordsI.n i tsU rgenMto tiofni led on1 9D ecemb2e(r1 0210,1t heP rosecuteixopnl aintehda ti td welotn r educitnhge n umbeorf pagesi ni tsb riefw ithoupta yinagt tentitoon t hew ordc ounta,n dr equesttehde A ppeals Chambetrog rantth eP rosecutainoe nx tensioofnt imet of ilea brieifn c omplianwciet ht he PractiDcier ectiownh,i chw asa ttachteod theM otiozn°.~T hes amed ay,t heP HIn otedt he prosec¯u t,iso fna ilurteo c omplwyi tht hed ecisioofn3 0N ovemb2e0r0 ia nds tatetdh att he Appea/Csh ambewro uldt akea ppropriadties ciplinamreya sureisf, n ecessaarnyd a t the rightm omentI.I e,h owevesrt,a tetdh ati no rdert oa voiudn dued elaiyn t hep roceedings, therwea sc austeo a llotwh eP rosecuttioof ni let hen ewb rieaft tachteodt heM otiofno ra n E2x0t3ensioofnT imeL ,imits.

3. On 7 Februar2y0 02,B agilishefmial edh isR espondentB’rsi efi n Respon2s0e4t o whicht heP rosecutiroenp lieodn 25F ebrua2r0y0 22.°sB agilishetmhae nf ileda Motioonn 13M arc2h0 02r equestilnega vteo f ilea rejoindteor t heP rosecutioRne’psl Byr ie2f0.6B y decisiodna ted2 0M arch2 002,t heP HId ismisstehde s aidM otio~n0.7R ecallitnhga tt he Ruledso n otp rovidfeo rt hef ilinogf a rejoindienrr especotf a ppealasg ainsjtu dgement, theP HIp ointeodu tt hatt heA ppealCsh ambemra y,a ti tsd iscretiaolnl,o twh ef ilinogf a writtesnu bmissinoont p rovidefdo rb y theR ulesw,h eres uchf ilinigs w arrantfeodr a propedre terminatoifo tnh ea ppealI.n thei nstancta se,a s theR eplyw ass tillb eing transhtetdh,eR espondehnatd h adn oo pportuntiota yp prishei mseloff t heM otioann dh ad nots hownt hatt hef ilinogf theR ejoindwears j ustifieOdn.c et heB riefi n Replyw as translaitnetdo F renc~h-,0sB agilishfeimlae adn othemro tiosne ekinlge avteo f ilea rejoinder 20~, ~’~oS~OUn" ~ App~B Oer( reducevde rsioa)f"i,l edO r,7 Dgcemb2~0 01. secutiosn U rge~tMto tiofao rE xte~ioonf Timet o Ffl~,i tsA ppealBsr iefi n Complianwciet ht he PractiCe~pr~.B~r.i(ueftfii torr_te.chdnee ,ArSv A,-P~Dl,i~~rl,eo ,cn tt hiLe°~ nn ogftB hr iaenfMdso tioonAn psI f~fMli,~n E :uec~s~(oP.r o.eeutituxra,g, esn tm ofit~~ (:~ext:i~ion’Eon~gf~,i.hl ~ ~ticed irectioonn t hel engtohf briefasn d" tramt oZ Uei tsa ppealbsr

ieifn c ompliawnicteh t he ,, 17 " n R t e i s mf p di o ’l n ,e d o B d e n " 8 nn ~ F et.’ c I’~. b s,. r ~,v. a , .. a2 ,.. r0 ,. y0 p. a2 ,. n .. dt ,2 h P~~2 et a,t_ w e.m;_o o o " o,,an C ,7_ o V_ ravo rr obn iy nrs g a2 n e p0 .fn ~0 id Sa2 la el 1 aeo" e),9 Ldn, D,, 1. e , ~3. c", a. e~ n,, m’ d . 1u 2b . 4,u 0e M . g 0r a . uu 1 r . u . c . J2 h . n0 . e0 . m2 . o.e . w~re . d . pondaee 2~" ProsseutiRoenp’lsBy r ief’f,i leidn /~rlgloins2 h5 Februa2r0y0 2. "Motiofno rl eavteo producae R ejoindteor t heP rosecutioRne’psl Byr ief’f,i leodn 13M arc2h0 02. 2~ "D~siono n the Motionf or Le.,avst o producea Rejoindetro the ProsecufionR’esp lyB rief’, 20 March2 002. 2t.W. .~, rosec.utsi oRne plByr ief"f,i le.di nF rencohn 11A pri2l0 02. CaseN o,:I CTR-95-1A.A 13 Dez.mbe2r0 02

tot heP rosecutioRne’psl Byr iefo n 23A pril2 0022,°9t ow hicht heP rosecutiroens ponded on 1 May2 002~.1°/ni tsD ecisioonf 23 2002 11 May2 , theP IIln otedt hati n ordert o ensurea fairt riale,v eryp artyh ast her ightt o challengteh ea rgumentpsu tf orwarbdy the ProsecutiIonn t.h ei nstancta seh,o wevehre,h eld,o nt heo neh and,t hatB agilishheamda had" toutl el oisidre d iscutelre sa rgumenstosu levp#asr l eP rocureduarn as onM ~moire en rdpons[ea"l lt het imet oa ddrestsh ea rgumenrtasi sebdy t heP rosecutiino nit sR eply Brief]a nd,o n theo therh and,t hatt heP rosecutioRne’psl yd idn otc ontaiann yn ew argumenrtesl atitnog t hem aing roundosf appealA.f teerm phasiztihnagt B agilishehraada tailetdo s howt hafti lintgh er ejoindwearsj ustififeodra propedre terminaotfit ohnea ppeal, and,a ftere xaminitnhge d ocumencto,n sideritnhga ti tw asn otn ecessafroyr t hep roper conclusioofnt hea ppealt,h eP HJd ismisstehde s econmdo tion. 2.M Qtionfsi leads _parotft hAa poea!Dsr oeeexlings 4. Them otionfsi leda sp arto ft hea ppealpsr oeeeAirnagiss es everaqlu estionwsh,i ch theA ppealCsh ambecro mbinfeodr c onsideratuinodne rt hef ollowihnega dings: ~s.i.bilitoyf the ProsecutionA’psp ealP .rief 5, On1 2S eptemb2e0r0 1B,a gilishfeimlae ad motiocnh allengtihnega dmissibiloift-v theP toseeutiaopnp’esa la,r guinngo tabloynt heg roundi,n tearl iat hati tw ast oov agu,waen d imprecisfeo

rh imt o understantdh eP rosecutorg’rso undosf appeala ndh ence,t o adequatperleyp arhei sd efenc2e1.2B agilishseumbam itttehda ts uchl acko fs pecificoiftt yh e ~otmdosf a ppeawla st antamoutnota lacko fg roundasn dt hatt hereforteh,eP rosecution’s Noticoef A ppeadli dn ot" setf ortthh eg roundwsi"t hitnh em eaninogf R ule1 08(Ao)f t he R~es.O n 24 Septembe2r0 01,t heP rosecutiforni edi tsR esponsien Englisahn da n alternatirveeq ues~t. eekinag s uspensioofn t heB riefinsge hedu/aen da n extensioofn 2o9" Requitdee l’lntimedn demandde’ " ero~:ureurf)i"l,e do n 23 AvrU2 002,a utorLmtidoen p roduiruen ed upliquaet ,m ~moireen r’pliqudeu "’v"er/osReeesuptonisoen; ~t-h’eRt eos pondenSte-c-osn Mdo tiofno rl eavteo f ilea Rejoindefri"l.e idt tE nglish o21n~I . MDac~y2c 0i0sni2 o(.Requiteen demand’e ¯ d autor~at~doen p roduiruen ed ttpliquaeu Mdmoireen R~pliqudeu Procureur2)3, M ay2 002. z~t2S eptember"Resp°ndcnt’st2o0h 0a1v.etM h°ePt rio’sme cutoNro’tsi coef Appeadle clarIenda dmissibfliel"e,od n iii CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A.A 13 Decembe2r0 02

time2.13S ubsequentBlayg,i listmwmrao tea lettetro t heP residilnugd geo ft heA ppeals Chambesrt,a tintgh ath ew asu nablteo understatnhdeP rosecutioRne’ssp onsaes,i tw asi n Englisehl.4B yD ec::tsidoant e1d Octobe2r0 01t,h eP HJg ranteBda gilishemrae’qsu esatn d orderehdi mt of ileh isr eplyw ithisne ve(n7 )d aysa fterre ceivitnhge t ranslatoifo tnh e ProsecutioRne’ssp onsweh,i chw ase xpectebdy 8 Octobe2r0 01a t thel ates2t1.5T heP HJ alsof ixed2 9 Octobe2r0 01a s thed eadlinfeo rf ilintgh eP rosecutioAnp’pse aBlr ief, withouptr ejudic’et ot heA ppealCsh amber’dse cisioans to thea dmissibiloift tyh e ProsecutioNno’tsi coef A ppeal.

6. On 26 Cote;be2t0 01,t heA ppealCsh amberre ndereidt sD ecisio2n~.6C onsidering Rules1 11a nd1 08o f theR ulest,h eA ppealCsh ambetro okt hev iewt hatt heo nlyf ormal requiremuenndte trh eR ulerse garditnhge c ontenotf t hen oticoef a ppeails a ne nmneration oft heg roundosfa ppeaaln dt hati nn oc ased oest hen oticoef a ppeahla vet og ived etailosf thea rgumentthse p artieisn tentdo r aisien s upporotf theg roundosf a ppealT.h eA ppeals Chambearl soh eldt hati ti st heA ppellanBtr’ise tfh atc ontaidnest ailosf t heg roundosf appealT.h eA ppealC~h ambetrh erefodries missBeadg ilishemmao’tsi ocnh allengitnhge dmisslblloiftt yh eP roseeufiAopap’esa Blr ief. ~___Transla~tnideo xnt er~.~oifod na adlina.~, 72.1 7 Bagi~hefmial eda motiofno rt ranslatiaonnda dditiontailm eo n3 1 October2001, to whicht heP rosecutiroens pondeodn 14 Novembe2r0 012.1sO n 30 Novembe2r0 01,t he PI-Uo rderetdh eP ro.~ecuttioof inl ea nA ppellaBnrti’eifsn c ompliawnicteh t hec ritersieat fortihn theP ractiDcier ectiwoint hisne vend aysf romt hed ateo ft hed ecisioann,d a lso granteBda gilishemmoat’iso tno t hee ffectth att het hirty-tdiamye -lifmoirtt hef ilinogf t he RespondenBtr’ise fa,s p rovidfeodr i nR ule1 12o ft heR uless,h oulodn lys tartto r unf rom z~.~" prOsecutRieosnp onsteo theR espondenMto’tsi otno havet heP zosecutioNno’tsi coef Appoadle clared InadmissibalnedP rosccatioAnl’tse rnatiRveeq

uesfto ra Suspensioofn t heB riefinSgc hedulaen df ora n ExtensioofnT imo"f,i leidn E nzUsohn 24S entaml,~.9~1 "tnI #.t4Mr.R ouxs1 lettetro ti~eP r,~etsideo_n-f-t I ~ .Cl:T-RIAA p~lpt4e.at~,lC,¢ts~h~v aVa.&m .be2r6. S eptomb62,0T0 1. zts" ’D~cisi(odne ,m anddee r eportdse dg/a/"s 1 0eto :1~p. e.n.s.i.ot~nM o.u.o.tn.o a avct heP " ; , J, , bor2 001. ~7, ...... . .. 2 ~’osecutsi Noont zco~f AppeaDle clarIenda dm;s.,:|"h)1~~:nV ,’. ~,.,~...~’,, ;l.~. ..~. ..ms Motaou/Torra nslatiaonndf orA ddxtionTailm e"f.i le.xoln .qln etah,9~a n~ Tim e e,, r , f o l s i c e e di u n u E o n Rn g e l s i l s m oh n a . 1 , 4 ~ N t¢ o o v c te ~ hs n ep b oR 2 d ~ 0 en r0 n ’ 1 ts . Mo"laonf orT mml"a r-a -oo-nf D.o.c.u.m.e.n.t.as.n .df. ,. o . r . Exten"sioonfs iv CaseN o,:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

thet imet heR egistrsye rvehdi ma ndh isC ounswdi tht heF rencthr anslatioofn t hen ew A2p~p9ellan]tB’rsi efw,h icwha st ob es erveodn t heP artiebsy4 Januar2y0 02a tt hel atest. On2 2J ’anu~2x0y0 2B,a gilishfeimlae ad motiofno re xtensioofnt ime~,°w hicht he PHId ismissoend 2 5J anuar2y0 02o nt heg roundhsh ati tc onstitutaenda buseo f process w~tbitnh em eaningo;f R ule7 3(E)o f theR ulesz,21i nsofaars Bagilishehmaad a lready broughtth ei ssuersa iseidn hism otiobne forteh eP HJa ndt heA ppealCsh amberw,h ich issuewse res tiluln decro nsideratbiyto hne A ppealCsh amber.

9. On 12F ebn~ar2y0 02,t heP rosecutifoinl eda n urgenmto tiofno re xtensioofnt ime a~n2d~f orl eavoef c ourtto e xceetdh ep agel imiatl lowefdo rt heP roseoutiRoenp’lsBy r ief, ~o whicBha gilishcr~e:s~p ondoend2 0 Februa2r0y0 22.23T heP HId ismisstehdi sm otioonn 21 F~bnmx2y0 02o n theg roundtsh att heP rosecutihoandf ailetdo s howg oodc ausef ora n extensioofnt imea J:Lddi dn ote stablissuhc he xceptiocniaxlc urastaanscw eosu ljdu stifiyt s exceeditnhgep age~ imiste tf ortihn t heP2 r2a4ctiDcier ection. c.(f~____Moft0iro~nrse view i0.O n 12 Decembe2r0 01,B a~lishcfmial eda motiofno rr evieowf theO rderr endered by theP I~o n 30 Novembe2r0 012.~ He submittetdh att hep artiesf’i lingssh ouldb e translatiendt ob otht anguagacnsd t hatt hed eadlinaelsl owehdi ms houlsdt artto r uno nly fromt het imeh ew ass ervewdi tht heF rencvhe rsioonf a lld ocumenitnst endfeodr h im.O n 220~ 6Decembe2r0 01,t heP rosecutiroens pondetdo Bagilishemamo’ts ionf orr eview. 219" Dccii s on (Rospondcsr Mtott iofno rT ranslatiaonndf orA d~tionTailm e;P rosccutloUnr’gse nMto tiofno r Authodsatitoon E xce~t heP ageL indtt o the Prosecutiso nA ppealB riefa ndA lternatiRveeq uesfto r ~xt~rtsioofn T ime)"3,0 Novembe2r0 01, 220 ~,,p.~ . , _ ponaents. M,o tiofno rS upplementTairmye,- Limifti"l,e odn 22J anuar2y0 02. ~] "Dceasloonn t heR cspondcnMto’tsi ofno rE xtensioofn D eadline2s5" J,a numy, 2 002. ~

"ProsccutioUnr’gse nMto tiofno ra n Extensioonf Timea nd ¯ I~t ,sR, e~p,l B.yn -c ,f’f,r ie.md . forP ernussitoon E xceetdh ePageL imitisn , Englisohn 12 Februar2y0 02. ".D.¢.c.i.sionoenmet°nh~ crree p°nXeUprr~go tesarne eMtcqo uttt~iistoo efennno, u r ra gne EndxcuteP e,rn osciuoorfnef T uiirlm"eoea,dn 2n 0dF ebru2a0r0y2 . P,a~g eL .imitsm itsp R ye ~1. .~ n,ef2’1, F ebrua2r0y0 2. forP ern"~ "ssztoon E xceetdh e ’1.Motifoonr a Rewcwo f theD eczso,n by theP rcsldeomf theA ppealCsh amberf"i,l edo n 12 December osecutiRoens ponsetso, t heR espondenMto’tsi ofno ra Revieowf theP re-HeatiJnugd ge’Dse cisioonf 30 Nov~r~b2o0r0 1"f,i ledi n Englisohn 20 Decembe2r0 01. CaseN o.:I CTR-95.1A.-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

Bagilishefmial eda secondM otiofno rr eviewo n 21 Decembe2r0 01z,~vc hallengitnhge HJ s Declsloofn i[9D ecemb2e0r0 1,w herebtyh eP rosecutwiaosna llowetdo f ilei tsn ew AppellantB’rsi ef~ tttachtcod theM otiofno rE xtensioofn Time( fileodn 19 December 2001)2.2sT heP rosecutiroens pondetdo Bagilishemase’cs ondM otionf orr eviewo n 4 Jza~n9uar2y0 02. 1 I. By Decisiodna ted6 Februar2y0 022,~0t heA ppealCsh amberre iterattehda to nlya decisitohna tp utsm .1e ndt op roceedimnagysb e r evieweadn,dt hati nt hisi nstanc"en,e ither of thet wod ecisioinmsp ugnbeydt heR espondeinnth is’ motiofnosr r eviewp’u"t a ne ndt o proceedingTsh.eA ppealCsh ambehre ldt hatt hem otionfso rr evieswh oulbde vieweads motionfso rr econsideratainodtn h,a ts ucha motiofno rr econsiderasthioounl bde brought beforteh eP Hiw hoh adr enderetdh ed ecisiogni,v ent hatt heR ulesd o notp rovidfeo r appealtso theA ppealCsh ambearg ainsdte cisionrse nderebdy theP ILl.T heA ppeals Chambetrh ush eldt hati tw asn ecessatroyr efetrh em otiontso t heP HIf orc onsideration. On6 Februa2r0y0 2,t heP HId ismisstehde m otionfso rr evieown t heg roundtsh at,i nt he firsmto tiont,h erwee ren oe xceptiocniarlc umstatnocj euss tifay r ex~nsiderabtyti hoenP HI ofh isd ecisioann,d ,m oreoveBra,g ilishheamdan otd emonstraitneh di ss econmdo tiotnh e existenocfee xceptiocniarlc umstantcheastw ouldw arranat r econsiderabtyit ohne P

HIo f hisd ecisioWni.t hr egartdo t hea rgumernetl atitnogt hei nadmissibioflt ihteyP rosecution’s Brieft,h eP HJe mphasiztehda ti tw asp ossibfloer B a#Iishetmoaa dvancief,n ecessahriys argumenitnst hisc onnectiinoa nn a ddendtuomh isr espontsoet heA ppellasn tB’r ief.2~l 227" Requ~te~n demanddee r~visiodne l’ordotmandcue P rdsidendte la Chambrde’ appel"f,i ledo n 21 Decembe2r0 01. P2,8 .~_ - . ~ . ~c~]slo(rll" tOSecuttsi oUtrlg enMtO tiOfno rE xtellsioofnT JJ~tteo Filei tsA ealsB witht heP ractiDcier ectoinot nh eL onstohfB rief-s- -~,, ,--.,. ....pp rieifn C oi,nl iance aroyf f actrse lattiofn igl iononga sp pea"l~", ,~u~ ,,ouonosn Appeal)"1,9 Decem~,",~ o~ , -- Ptoscculsi oRne spontsoeR c*ponde’n~t’’esq utetnea ma~le "" , --,, w..a ~m ~,a deI aC hambdra ep pedl; l Intlrad’;’. ..,,,,, ~.:. .....-. =. .f li’emdE ng.liosn4h l anu_a9 dr_evfr ~d9vialdoeln o rdon.anee d uP rdsn~tde ~.,~mtntavotno uto,n:R~se rv ioefwt h,D,, t,~ ___.._._.,., -y;-~. "v" 2 ), 6 Februa2r0y0 2 .....-.~ ,~mJgu agse D ecisioonf3s 0 N ovembaenrd1 9D eeembex v ~,,m¢/ .~o x ~e KulesO f Proceduracn d Evidencper ayintgh eC hambetro order the Motiofno ra Revieowf the , ox me n’esmenott me AppealCsh amber’6, l’~ ebrua2r0y0 2. the CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A vi 13 D~raber2 002

~_. Motionsf Qr disclosuroef evidencaen d for w/messW otectiomn~ sures 12. On 12 Decembe2r0 01,B agilishemfai leda motionr equestintgh e AppealsC hamber to ordert heP rosecutitoon disclosree cordingosf Broadcastosn RadioM uhaburtao the Defencez.~= The Prosecutiofni ledi ts Briefi n Responseo n 20 Decembe2r0 01a nd 28 Januar2y0 02=.s3l ~’.ecallitnhga tu ndert hep rovisioonfs Rule6 8 of theR ules" iti s the Prosecutwohro d ctermirlaebs i nitiwoh ethearn itemo f evidencies exculpatoorry n ot,"t he PHJ emphasizetdh att he AppealCsh amberw ouldi ntervenief Bagilishecmoau lds howt hat the Prosecutiohna d not fulfdleidt s obligationsT.h e PHJ dismissetdh ism otiono n 6 February2 002o n the groundt hati t was unfoundeadn d,i n particularb,e causet he Prosecutisotna tetdh ati td idn oth avet hee videncree questaendd t hat,i na nye ventt,h es aid evidencseh owedn o itemo f informatiotnh atc ouldb e discloseudn derR ule5 8 of the R3u4les} 13. O11 8 March2 002, Bagilishemsao ughta n orderf rom the AppealsC hamberf or protectimveea surefso rp otentiaDle fencwei tnesse2s3.sT heP rosecutifoinl edi tsR esponse on 22 March2 002:,’3~a ndt he Respondenfti leda Replyt heretoon 11 April2 0022.37B y Decisioonf 30 May 2002,t he AppealsC hamberd ecidedt o deferc onsideratioofn the motiofno rp rotectioofn D efencwei tnesseusn tilt heP rosecutioan’psp eaalga insatc quittal hadb eenh eard,# vent hatB

a#lishemhaa dr equestetdh eA ppealCsh ambetro havet hes aid w~i3tsnessceasl letdo t estifpyu rsuantto R ule1 15o ft heR ules. 2~a" Requiatret ic7l3ed uR PPo finq l~el aC hamborred onnaeuP rocureduerc omn~niq~u learI Mfenlsees cassettde’se nregistredmele anr tasd iMoM mburaf"i,l eodn I 2D ecemb2e0r0 1. "RespontsoRe e spondcnMto’tsi ounn deRru le7 3f ora no rdsfro rD isclosoufrR ee cordionfgB sr oadcasts onR adiMou habmaf"t,] :i~n E nglisohn 2 0D e~mb2~0 01a nd" ProsectltiSounp’psl en~nRteaslp ondcnt’s Motiounn deRru le7 3f ora no rdefro rD isclosoufrR ee cordionfgB sr oadcaosntR sa diMou haburfai"l,e idn En~ho n 28 Janua~/2001 ~’~" Decisioonnt heM otiofno ra Revieowf t heD ecisiboynt heP resideonftt heA ppealCsh ambeOrn;t he MotioPnu rsuatnotA r6cl7c3 o ft heR uleosf P roceduarnedE videnpcrea yintgh eC hambetroo rdetrh e ProsecuttoorD isclotsoet heD efencteh eT apecso ntainitnhgeR ecordinogfsR adiMou haburOan;t he Motiofno ra Revieowf t heD ecisiboynt heP r~i&notft heA nimalCsh ambe6r F"e brua2r0y0 2. ~.~,Mot . iofno rP tot¢ . c _ toifoD ac fcnWci¢t nes,s,f e¯isl,e odn 8 M T"J~ arc2h0 02. , "ProsecutRieosnp ontsoeA ppcllan(ts’isc W)i tnesPsr otectMioorni onf"i,l eidn E nglisohn2 2M arch 2002. 2~" R~plidqeul e’ iati~mzl~ a r ,fpondsuPe r ocur(e~ul ra r equ~.etnpc r otectdieostn ~ moi~nzsd ~chargfei"l,e d on1 1A pri2l0 02. ~s" DecisioonnM otiornasi seudn dcRzu le1 i5"3,0 M ay2 002. vii No.:I CTR-95-1A*A 13D ecombe2r0 02

e). _Motiobnrso ughutn deRru le1 .15o ft heR ules 14.O n 8 March2 002,B agjlisherfnial eda ConfidentiMaolt iofno rL eavet o filen ew Evidenc2e~.9T heP rosecutiroens pondteod i t on2 2 March2 0022.~ O2n4 125A pt212 002, B9a.g4i2lishfe~nemdh isR eplyt,o w hicthh eP rosecutfiiolne adn o bjectioonn1 May2 002. Bagilishefmrai eda SupplementaMorty ioonn 29 April2 0022~f3o rl eavet o filen ew evidenicnew hichhe s oughtto a dducaes a dditioneavli dencceer taifna ctuafli ndinmgasd e in theT rialJ udgemeonft 21 May1 999a ndt heA ppeaJlu dgemeonft 1 June2 001i n The Prosecutvo.rK ayisheamnad R uzindanTah,e P rosecutifoinl eda Responsteo thisM otion on 9 May2 002~.44T heA ppealCsh ambedre cideodn 3 0 May2 002t o deferc onsideratoifon them otionbsr oughutn derR ule1 15u ntila ftert heh earinogf theP rosecutioanp’pse al againstth ea cquittoafl B agilishe2m~a T.heA ppealCsh ambecro nsidertehda tt hei ssues raisebdy Bagilisheirnn tah ea bove-mentimoonteido nbsr oughutn derR ule1 15w ouldb e relevatnott heP tosscutiaopnp’esa oln lyi ft heP rosecutiaopnp’esa alg ainsBta gilishema’s acquittcaolu lds ucceeidn theA ppealCsh amberT.h eA ppealCsh ambehre ldt hati t was therefoarpep ropritaotf ei rshte art hep artieasr’g umenrtesl atitnogt heP rosecution’s appeal.

3. TheA ppealJ udgement. On3 July2 002a tt hee ndo ft hea ppeahle arinhge lda tt hes eato ft heT ribunianlA rushoan 2 July2 002,t heA ppealCsh amberre ndereidt sJ udgeme2n4t6.I ns ubstancteh,e A ppeals Chambeurn animousdliys missetdh eP rosecutora’psp eala,s wella s Bagilisbema’s z~9" ConfidentMioatli ofno rl eavet o FileN ewE videncef"i,l edo n 8 M~rch2 002a nd" Supplemetnot t he CoafidcntMioatli ofno rS ubmissioofn N ewE videncef"i,l edo n 14 Maxeh2 002. 240" l~oseeulioRne’ssp onst~o Apl~llant(’ssi c)M otiofno rA dmissioofn A dditionIa~lv id~nceF"d,e di n ~sho n 22 Match2 002. 24~" R~pliqcuoen futentidee~ ll’ei ntim~~ l#a r~ponsdeu Procure~u lra r equOteen prc#,¢entadt’idolnd owntu nouveauR"l,e do n 25 April2 002. 24z" ProsecutioOnb’jse ctitoon t heR espondenRte’psl yo n hisM otiofno rA dd/tionEavli dencef"a,l odi n Englisohn 1 May2 002, ~2 "SupplementMaortyi ofno rL eavet o FileN ewE viden,¢f,~i,l edo n 29 April2 002 2~ ~’Prose¯c u¯tsi Roens ponsteo lheR espond~~su Atd d.itionMaolt iofno rA dmissioo’fn N ewE videncef"i,l edi n Englisohn 9 May2 002. 2~ "Decisioonn M otion:sr aiseudn deRru le1 15",3 0 May2 002. ~4~J udgemenTth,e P rosecutvo.r l gnacBea gilish~Cmaas,e N o,I CTR-95-1A3- JAu,l y2 002, CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 Decembe2r0 02

argumenrtesl atintgo thei nadmissibiloift tyh eP rosecutoarp’pse aaln da ffirmetdh e acquitotnaa ll lc ountisn t heI ndictmont’s. ix CaseN o,:I CTR-95-1A-A 13 D~c~mbe2r0 02

ANNEX B: GLOSSARY A. Filings, of the~ Noticeo f Appeal Noticoef Appeafli,l edi n Englisbhy theP rosecutioonn 9 July2 002. AppellautB’rsi ef rroseeutiso nA ppealB rief( F~herr educedv ersion)", filedo n 19 Decembe2r0 01. Rcspondent’Rse sponse "RespondentB’rsi efi n Response"f,i ledo n 7 February 2002. ProsecutionR’esp ly "Prosecut/oRne’psl yB rief,’f,i ledo n2 5 Februar2y0 02. B. Referencerse !attutgo the Indictment AmendedI ndictmenitn TheP rosecutovr. lgnace BagilishemaC,a seN o. ICTR-95-1A-T, 17 Septembe1x9 99. Hearingosn Appeal Hearingosn thea rgumentosf thep artieosn appealh,e ld on 2 and3 July2 002. Bagilishemoar Respondent IgnaceB a#lishema. AppealsC hamber The AppealsC hambero f the InternationaClr iminal Tribunaflo rt heP rosecutioofn P ersonRse sponsibfloer Genocidaen dO therS eriouVsi olationosf International HumanitarianL aw Committedi n the Territoryo f Rwandaa nd RwandanC itizenrse sponsibfloer genocide ando thers uchv iolatiocnosm mitteidn thet erritoroyf neighbourinSgt ates,b etween1 January1 994 and CaseN o.;I CTR-95-1A.A I3 Decembe2r0 02

31 Decembe1r9 94. T Transcripotfst rialp roceedinigns T heP rosecutvo.r IgnacBea gilishemCaa,s eN o.I CTR-95-1AA-lTl.p age numberrse ferrteod int hisJ udgemeanrte t hoseo ft he unofficainadlu ncorrecEtnegdl isvhe rsion. T(A) Transcriopftt sh eh earinognsa ppeahle ldi nA rushoan 2 and3 Iuly2 002A.l lp agen umberosf thet ranscripts oft heh earinrgesf errteodi nt iffJsu dgemeanrtet hosoef DocumentB L20702E.APPEAL.doc. TrialJ udgement TheP rosecutvo.r I gnacBea gilisheCmaas,e N o.I CTR- 95-1A-TJ,u dgemen7t J,u ne2 001. JudgeG tiney’Osp inion Separataen dD issentinOgp inioonf JudgeM ettmet Otineiyn TheP rosecutvo.r I gnacBea gilishemCaa,s e No.I CTR-95-1AJ-uTd,g emen7t ,J une2 001. ProsecutoiroA np pei[lant Officoef t heP rosecutor. Rules Ruleosf P roceduarned E videnocfet heT ribunal. Statute Statuotfet heT ribunal. InternatiTorniablu noarl InternatioCnrailm inTarli bunfaolr t heP rosecutioofn Tribunal PersonRse sponsibfloer G enocidaen dO therS erious Violationso f InternationaHlu mauitariaLna w Committeidn the Territoroyf Rwandaa ndR wandan citizenrse sponsibfloer genocidaen d others uch violatiocnosm mittiend t het erritoorfy n eighbouring Statesb,e twee1n J anuar1y9 94a nd3 1D ecembe1r9.9 4. ICTY InternatioTnrailb unaflo rt heP rosecutioofnP ersons Responsibfloer S eriouVsi olatioonfs I nternational nTYuta__a_rntarLiaawnC ommittiend theT erritoroyf the CaseN o.:I CTR-95-1A-A xi 13 Dcccml~2r0 02

FormeYru goslavsiian ce1 991. C, CitedC ases AkayesAup peaJlu c’’I.gement TheP rosecutvo.r J ean-PauAlk ayesuC,a seN o.I CTR- 96-4-AJ,u dgemen1t ,J une2 001( AppealCsh amber). AleksovsAkpip eal] adgement Prosecutvo.rZ latkAol ek~ovskCia,s eN o.I T-95-14/1- A, Judgement,2 4 March 2000 (ICTY Appeals Chamber). ~elebi6Aip peaJlu dgement Prosecutvo.rZ ejniDle lalie6t a l.,C aseN o.I T-96-21- A, Judgement2,0 February2 001 flCTY Appeals Chamber). FurundBjAap pealJ udgement Prosecutvo.rA ntoF urund£ijCaa,s eN o.I T-95-17/1-A, Judgemen2t1, J uly2 000( ICTYA ppealCsh amber). KambandAap pealJ udgement JeanK ambandva, TheP rosecutoCra,s eN o.I CTR-97- 23-A,J udgemen1t9, O ctobe2r0 00( AppealCsh amber). Kayishema/RuzindaAnpap ealClbnentK ayishemaa nd Obed Ruzindanav . The Judgement ProsecutoCra,s eN o.I CTR-95-1-JAu,d gemen1t ,J une 2001( AppealCsh amber). Kupres’V6Aap pealJ udgement Prosecutvo.r Z oranK upreskie6t L, CaseN o.I T-95- 16-A,J udgement2,3 October2 001( ICTYA ppeals Chamber). MusemaA ppealJ udgement AlfredM usemav . TheP rosecutoCra,s eN o.I CTR-96- 13-A, Judgeanent1,6 November2 001 (Appeals Chamlmr). TadiA6p peaJlu dgen:tent Prosecutovr. .DugkToa di6,C aseN o, IT-94-1-A, Case No.: ICTR-95-1A-A 13 December2 002

Judgement1,5 July1 999( ICTYA ppealsC hamber). Tadid Decision (additionDaelcisioonn AppellantM’ost ionf ort hee xtensioonf the ev~.dence) time-limiatn d admissioonf additionaelv idenceT,h e Prosecutovr. DugkoT adi~,C aseN o. IT-94-1-A1,5 October1 998( ICTYA ppealsC hamber). Blai~laT’r~i alJ udgement The Prosecutovr. TihomiBrl a~ki6C,a seN o. IT-95-14- T, Judgement3, March2 000( ICTYT rialC hamber). ~elebidTir ialJ udgement Prosecutvo.rZ ejniDle lalie6t al.,C aseN o.I T-96-I2- T, Judgement1,6 Novembe1r9 98( ICTYT rialC hamber). Kayishema/RuzindTarniaa l The Prosecutor v. Cldment Kayishema et Obed Judgement RuzindanaC,a seN o. ICTR-95-1-TJ,u dgement2,1 May 1999( TrialC hamber). MusemaT rialJ udgement The Prosecutovr. AlfredM usema,C aseN o. ICTR-96- 13-T,J udgemenatn dS entence2,7 January2 000( Trial Chamber). D. Other.R eference~ ICC InternationCarli minaClo urte stablishebdy the Rome Statutea,d optedo n 17 July1 998,D oe.O NU A/CONF/1 83/9. PracticDei rection PracticDei rectioonn the Lengtho f Briefsa ndM otions on Appeal. Report of the Commissiono f Reporto f the UnitedN ationsC ommissioonf Experts Expexts SI1994/674. Case NO.: ICTR-95,1A-A 13 Deeembea2-0 02