The Prosecutor v. Yussuf Munyakazi

lcrn4?-94-T 1374 AolO OS--O?- e ra42) \r/45 lisr4 @@ fnternationalC riminal Tribunal for Rwanda Tribunal p6nali nternationalp our le Rwanda UNMD NAIONS NATIONS UNIES OR: ENG TRIAL CHAMBER I BeforeJ udges: FlorenceR ita Arrey, Presiding MparanyM amy RichardR ajohnson Aydin SefaA kay Registrar: AdamaD ieng C- Date: 5 Julv2 010 (.') ; t ,i r-i Cl c) THE PROSECUTOR |' >,,::j:.. v. n Yussuf MUN"YAKAZI c) m CaseN o.ICTR-97-36A-T JTTDGEMENAT IID SENTENCE Office of the Prosecutor: Counself or the Defence RichardK aregyesa JwaniM waikusa SegunJ egede BarnabdN ekuie DidaceN yirinkwaya EtienneM utabazi DenisM abura . MalienH abyarimana Andrd Nteziriraza

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazr,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 \373 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ,...................I...... l. Overview ........I 2. AllegationsN ot Fursuedb y the Prosecution ...........4 YussuMf unyakazi........ ........................5 CHAPTER II: FACTUAL FII\DINGS.............. ...........6 l. Introduction .......................6 2. A1ibi.......... .........................6 3. Munyakazai sL eadero f theB ugaramhan terahamwe.................................13 4. Recruitmenatn dT rainingo f theB ugaramlan terahamwe..........................32 5. StoredW eaponas ndA rmedt heB ugaramIan terahamw.e.. .......................40 6. Fooda ndT ransportati.o.n.. ......... .......47 7. Attacko nN yamashekPea rish1, 6A pril 1994.. ........ ...............58 8. Attacko n ShangPi arish2,9 April1994........... ........................68 9. Attacko n MibiliziP arish3,0 A pril 1994.. ......... ......................81 2.1 2.2 2.3 3. CrimesA gainstH umanity (Count3 )............... ...,.107 3.1 3.2 J.J 3.4 Judeementa nd Sentence ,14,tl1:

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyalazr, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 r3?2 ANIIEX A: PROCEDTTRALI IISTORY tt4 t. 2. a 4. A}[I[EX B: l. a. b. Judeement and Sentence

Prosecutorv . YussuMf unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5J uly2 010 13?l CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1. OVER\rIEW (i) Introduction 1. The case before this Chamber concerns Yussuf Munyakazi, who hails from Rwamatamuc ommune,K ibuye prdfecture,R wanda.l n 1994,h e was a farmer in Bugarama commune,C yangugup rdfecture. Based on his alleged acts in Cyangugup rdfecture, the Prosecutionc harged Munyakazi with three counts under the Statute of the Tribunal: genocide,o r alternatively complicity in genocide,a nd exterminationa s a crime against humanity.T he Defenced isputeda ll the charges. 2. The trial commencedo n22 April 2009a nde ndedo n 15 October2 009,a fter 19 trial days. The Prosecutionc alled 11 witnesseso ver the course of seven trial days, and the Defencec alled 20 witnesses,in cluding the Accused,o ver 12 trial days.T he Closing Briefs weres ubmittedo n 16 December2 009,a ndt he closinga rgumentsw ereh eardo n 28 January 2010. (i, Atibi 3. Munyakazio fferedt wo alibis, one for 16 April 1994,t he day he is allegedt o have participatedi n the attack on NyamashekeP arish;t he secondf or 29 and 30 April 1994,t he dayso n which he is allegedt o have participatedin attackso n Shangia nd Mibilizi Parishes. The Trial Chamberf ound that both alibis weren ot credible. (iii) Munyakazia s Leader of the Bugaramalntenhamwe 4. The Indictmenta llegest hat Munyakaziw as a leaderw ith def aclo authorityo ver the BugaramaM RND Interahamwem ilitia.' 5. Prosecutionw itnessest estified that Munyakazi was the leader of the Bugarama InterahamweH. e wentt o politicalr alliesa ccompaniedbIyn terahamweu,s edm emberso f the Interahamwea s bodyguardsh, ouseda nd fed memberso f the Interahamwe,a ndp rovidedo ne of his homest o the groupf or use as a headquartersIn. addition,t hey testifiedt hat Munyakazi led the BugaramaI nterahamwed uring specifica ttackso n NyamashekeS, hangia nd Mibilizi ParishesD. efencew itnessesd escribedM unyakazai s an old man,w ith no interestin politics, who was devotedt o farming and to his religion. Although the Chamberh as not found that Munyakaziw as the dej ure leadero f the BugaramaIn terahamwe,it has found that he was a leaderw ith def acto authorityo ver the Interahamwed uringt he attacksa t Shangia nd Mibilizi Parishes. (iv) Recruitmenat nd Training 6. The Indictmenta llegest hat Munyakazi,a longw ith severalo ther men, helpedr ecruit andt rain the BugaramaIn terahamwe." 7. ProsecutionW itnessB WW was the only witnesst o testifu that Munyakaziw as involvedi n recruitingI nterahamweA. ccordingt o this witness,M unyakazit ouredt he region in 1990i n his capacitya sa membero f theM RND, urgingl ocaly outhst o join they outhw ing I SecondA mendedI ndictment( "Indictment"),p ara.1 . 2 Indictmentp ara.8 . Judgemenatn dS entence .m4 ,{

Prosecutorv , YussuMf unyakazr,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t37a of the parfy.T he Chambern otest hat the Indictmentd oesn ot covert he year 1990a ndt hat the Prosecutiona dducedn o evidencet hat the Interahamwew as alreadyi n existencea t that time. WitnessB WW, an accomplicew itness,w as inconsistenrte gardingt he datet hat he, himself, joined the Interahamwea nd provided no details about recruitmentd uring the Indictment period.T he Chamberh asf ound that the witness'e videnceis , therefore,o f limited evidentiary value,a s it was uncorroboratedin all respects. 8. Three Prosecutionw itnessest estified that the Interahamwei n Bugaramar eceived some form of military training. According to thesew ifiressesa, certainA thanaseN dutiye, also known as Tarek Aziz, who lived in one of Munyakazi'sh ouses,w as either one among severalt rainers,o r the chief instructor,o f this groupo f Interahamwe.O ne of thesew itnesses testified that Munyakazi and Tarek Aziz were presentt ogether during a training session. Apart from this testimony,t he Prosecutiona dducedn o evidencel inking Munyakazit o the training.I n addition,t he Prosecutionfa iledt o showt hatt he relationshipb etweenM unyakazi and TarekA ziz wasm ore than one of landlorda ndt enant.T he Trial Chamberh asc oncluded that the Prosecutiond id not prove beyondr easonabled oubt that Munyakazie ither recruited or trainedt he BugaramaIn terahamwe. (v) WeaponsS: toragea nd Distribution 9. The Indictment alleges that Munyakazi armed the Bugarama Interahamwe with weaponsth atw erer egularlys toreda t his house.' 10. OneP rosecutiown itnesst estifiedt hata rmsw eres toredin Munyakazi'hs ouseT. hisw as an accomplicew itness,a nd his evidencew as,a t times,i nconsistenat nde xaggeratedA. nother Prosecutionw itnesst estified that Munyakazi distributeda rms during the affack on Shangi ParishT. his witnessw as alsoa n accomplicew itnessa ndd id not know Munyakaziv ery well. The Chamberv iews the testimonyo f theset wo witnessesw ith cautiona nd has only accepted their evidencew here corroboratedG. iven the issuesr egardingt he credibility of these witnessest,h e Trial Chamberh as concludedt hat the Prosecutiond id not prove beyond reasonabled oubt that Munyakazi armed the Interahamweo r that he storedw eaponsf or the Interahamwein anyo f his houses. (vi) Food and Transport 11. The Indictmenta llegest hat Munyakaziw as amongt hosew ho providedf ood to, and regularlyt ransportedt,h e Bugarama Interahamweto andf rom variousm assacres ites.a 12. Two Prosecutionw itnessesa llegedt hat the Intdrahamwea te meals at Munyakazi's houseT. he Chamberfo undt hat the evidenceo f theset wo witnessews as contradictoryT. hus, the Trial Chamberh asc oncludedth att he Prosecutiodni d not proveb eyondr easonabldeo ubt that Munyakazi provided food to the BugaramaI nterahamwe,o r that he participatedi n a commonp lan to providef ood to theI nterahamwe. 13. SeveralP rosecutionw itnessesa llegedt hat Munyakazil ed the attackso n Shangi Parisho n 29 April 1994 ando n Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994.T hey furthert estifiedt hat Munyakazi arrived at the crime sites with two vehicles carrying Interahamwe.D efence witnesseds eniedt hat Munyakaziw asi nvolvedi n thesea ttacksT. he Trial Chambehr asf ound that Munyakaziw as a leadero f thesea ttacks,a nd that he arrivedw ith trvo vehiclesc arrying groupso f Interahamwef rom outsidet he Shangia nd Mibilizi areas.T he Trial Chamber 3 Indictmentp ara.9. 4 Indictmenpt ara.1 0. Judgemenat nd Sentence ,-in'T

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 r36? therefore has found that Munyakazi facilitated the transportation of the Bugarama Interahamweto the two crime sites. (v ii) Nyamashek e Pa rish 14. The Indictment allegest hat Munyakazi hansportedt he BugaramaI nterahamwet o NyamashekeP arish,l ocatedi n Kaganoc ommuneC, yangugup r|fecture; wheret he Accused personallya ssistedth eI nterahamwei nkilling hundredso f Tutsi civilian refugees.r 15. The Prosecutionp resentedtw o witnessesw ith regardt o the killings at Nyamasheke Parish on 16 April 1994. These witnessest estified that Munyakazi led a group of Interahamwe,w ho attackedt he parish on the morning of 16 April 1994. The Defence submittedt hat a major attack took place on 15 April 1994, in which Munyakazi did not participateT. herew as no subsequenat ttackt he following day,a nd, indeed,t herew as no need for sucha n attackb ecausea ll the refugeesa t the parishw ere killed duringt he 15 April attack. 16. The Chamberh as also considerede videnceo f an attacko n the CIMERWA cement factoryb y BugaramaI nterahamweo n the samed ay ast he attacko n NyamashekeP arish.I t is implausiblet hat the BugaramaI nterahamwep articipatedin both attacksg iven the distance betweent he two cites, 85 kilometres. There was also no evidence that the Bugarama Interahamwew orked in two or more factions. 17. Thereforec, onsideringth e evidenceo f the CIMERWA attacki n additiont o Defence evidencet hat no attack took place at NyamashekeP arish on 16 April 1994, the Trial Chamberh as found that the Prosecutiond id not prove beyond reasonabled oubt that Munyakaziw as involved in an attacko n 16 April 1994a tNyamashekeP arish. (viii) ShangiP arish 18. The Indictment further alleges that Munyakazi transported the Bugarama Interahamwet o ShangiP arish, locatedi n Gafunzoc ommune,C yangugup r{fecture; where the Accused personally assistedt he Interahamwei n killing hundreds of Tutsi civilian refugees." lg. Six Prosecutiown itnessetse stifieda boutt he attacko n 29 April 1994a tShangPi arish. Thesew itnessesa llegedt hat Munyakazi led a group of Interahamwe,w ho attackedS hangi Parishd uringt he afternoono f 29 April 1994.T hey testifiedt hat approximately5 ,000T utsi civiliansw erek illed duringt he attack.T he Trial Chambefro undt his evidenceto be credible. The Chambera ccordedli ttle weight to the evidenceo f thlee Defencew itnessesw ho weren ot eyewitnessesT.h esew itnesseste stifiedt hat they had not heardt hat Munyakaziw as involved in the attack. 20. Accordingly, the Chamberh as found that the Prosecutionp roved beyondr easonable doubtt hatM unyakazwi ast he leadero f the attacko n ShangPi arisho n29 April1994. (ix) Mibilizi Parish 21. The Indictment allegest hat Munyakazi transportedt he BugaramaI nterahamwet o Mibilizi Parish,l ocatedi n Cyimbogoc ommuneC,_y angugup rdfecture;w heret he Accused orderedth eI nterahamweto kill only Tutsim ales.' 5 Indictmentp ara.1 2. 6 Indictmentp ara.1 3. ' Indictmenpt ara.1 4. Judgemenat nd Sentence ,"rtL4

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazt,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t9613 22. Four Prosecutionw itnesseste stifiedt hat Munyakazil ed a group of Interahamwet hat attackedM ibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994,a nd that 60 to 100 Tutsi civiliansw ere killed during the attack. The Chamberh as found this evidencec redible. The Chambera ccorded little weight to the testimonyo f the one Defencew itnessw ho statedt hat no attackt ook place on 30 April 1994 and other Defencew itnessesw ho were not eyewitnessb ut said that they hadn ot heardt hat Munyakaziw as involvedi n the attack. 23. Accordingly, the Chamber has found that the Prosecution has proven beyond reasonabled oubt that Munyakazi was a leadero f the attack on Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994. (x) Legal Findings and Verdict 24. The Trial Chamberh asf ound that the Prosecutiond id not prove beyondr easonabled oubt that the Accusedp articipatedi n a Joint Criminal Enterprise,a s alleged in paragraph4 of the Indictment.T he Trial Chamber,h owever,h as found Yussuf Munyakazir esponsiblep, ursuantt o Article 6 (l) of the Statutef,o r "committing"t hem assk illingsa t ShangPi arisho n29 April1994 anda t Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994, 25. While there was no direct evidencet hat Munyakazi harboureda ny animosity towards Tutsi civilians,t he Trial Chamberw as ablet o infer, on the basiso f circumstantiael videncet,h at Munyakazii ntendedt o destroy,i n whole or in part, the Tutsi civilian group.T he Prosecutionh as furthere stablishedth e chapeaue lementso f crimesa gainsth umanity. 26. Munyakazii s, therefore,g uilty of genocide( Count l) and exterminationa s a crime againsht umanity( Count3 ). He is not guilty of complicityi n genocide(C ount2 ). (xi) Sentencing 27. The Chamberh as consideredth e gravity of eacho f the crimes for which Munyakazi has been convicted, as well as aggravatinga nd mitigating circumstancesT. he Chamber sentenceMs unyakazit o a singles entenceo f 25 yearso f imprisonmentH. e shall remaini n the custodyo f the Tribunal pendingt ransfert o the Statew efe he will serveh is sentence. 2. ALLEGATIONS NOT PI]RSIIED BY THE PROSECUTION 28. At the end of its case,t he Prosecutions tatedt hat it would not pursuet he chargess et out againstM unyakazii n paragraphs1 l and 15 of the lndictment.oT hereforet,h e Chamber hasn ot consideretdh esea lleeations. t T. 4 June2 009p .35; Indictmentp aras.I I and 15. Judgemenatn dS entence

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl'C, aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 136? 3. YUSSUT'MT]I{YAKAZI 29. At the outset,t he Trial Chambero bservesth at mosto f the informationa vailablea bout the Accused came from the Accused himself. Yussuf Munvakazi was born in 1936 in Rwamatamuc ommune,K ibuye prdfecture,R wanda.eH e is a Muslim.lo He never went to school, but attendeda n adult literacy pr.ggrammew, hich was set up in 1968. There, he learnedto reada ndw rite in Kinyarwanda."I n April 1994,M unyakazihadt wo wivesa nd 13 children.l2 30, Munyakazim oved to Bugaramai n January1 960a nd begant o acquirep ropertyt here for agriculturaul se.'' In April 1994,hew as a successfufal rmer,a nd a relativelyl argel and- owner.l4H e also ownedf our housesa ndt hreev ehicles.lsT he Trial Chamberis of the view that,b y the starto f the conflict, Munyakaziw asr elativelyw ealthy by Bugaramas tandards. 31. Munyakaziw as a founding membero f the local agriculturalc ooperativen amed CAVECWI, which was establishedin 1968.'oI n 1991,h e was electeda s presidento f CAVECWI and remainedi n that positionu ntil May l993.tt He was chairmano f Banque Populaire in Bugaramaw hen it was founded.l8H owever,t he time frame for this positioni s unknown. 32. Munyakazir emaineda membero f the MRND party following the advent.ofm ulti- partyp oliticsi n Rwandai n 1991b ut neverh elda n official positionw ithin the party.'v 33. Munyakazif led to the DemocraticR epublico f the Congo( "DRC") on 7 July.l gg4.20 He was anestedt hereo n 5 Mav 2004 andtransfenedto the Tribunal on 7 Mav 2004.21 e T. 15 October2 009p . 13. The SecondA mendedI ndictment,p ara.1 statest hat he was born in 1935. to T. 14 October2 009p p. 31, 50;T . 15 October2 009p .32. " T. 14O ctober2 009p .20; T. 15 October2 AA9p .12. " T . 14 october 2009p . 25; T . 14 october 2009p . 33. " T. 14 October2 009 pp. l-2. 'o T. 14 october2 009p p. 2-4, 10-12;T . l5 October2 009p p. 12-13. tt T. 15 October2 009p . 13. tu T.14 Octobe2r 009p . 19. " T. 74 October2 009p p.20-21. 't T. l5 October2 009p .12. 'n T. l4 October2 009p .2l T.l5 October2 009p p.20-21. toT. 15October2009p1. 8.I n lgg4,theDemocraticRepublicCoof ngowasknowna sZaire. " T. 14 october2 009p p.33-34. Judgemenat nd Sentence

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t3€,6 CHAPTER II: FACTUAL FINDINGS 1. INTRODUCTION 34. In its factual findings, the Chamberc onsidersw hethert he Prosecutionh as proven beyondr easonabled oubt the materialf acts,b oth pleadedi n the Indictmenta nd pursueda t the closeo f its case,w hich underpini ts chargeso f genocidea ndc rimesa gainsth umanity. 2. ALIBI Introduction 35. The Trial Chamberr ecallst hat it is settledju risprudencct hat an accusedd oesn ot bear the burden of proving his alibi beyondr easonabled oubt." The Appeals Chamberh as reaffirmedth e basicp rinciplesc oncemingth ea ssessmeonft alibi evidence: An alibi doesn ot constitutea defencein is propers enseB. y raisinga n alibi,a n accused is simplyd enyingt hat he was in a positiont o committ he crimew ith which he was chargedA. n accusedd oesn ot beart he burdeno f provingh is alibi beyondr easonable doubt.R attrer" [h]e musts implyp roduceth e evidencete ndingto showt hath e wasn ot presenat t thet ime of the allegedc rime"o r, otherwisest atedp, resenet vidence"l ikely to raisea reasonabdleo ubti n the Prosecutiocna se."If the alibi is reasonablpyo ssiblytr ue, it mustb ea ccepted. Wherea n alibi is properlyr aised,t he Prosecutiomn ust establishb eyondr easonable doubtt hat,d espiteth e alibi,t he factsa llegeda ren everthelestrsu e.T heP rosecutiomn ay do so,f or instanceb,y demonstratinthga tt hea libid oesn oti n factr easonabalyc counfto r the periodw hent he accusedis allegedto havec ommittedth e crime.W heret he alibi evidenced oesp rimaf acie accounfto r thea ccused'asc tivitiesa t the relevantti me of the commissioonf the crime,t he Prosecutiomn ust" eliminateth er easonabpleo ssibilityth at thea libii s true,"f or exampleb, y demonstratinthga tt hea libi evidenceis not credible.23 36. Pursuantt o Rule 67(A)(ii)(a), the Defenceh as a duty to notiff the Prosecutiono f its intentt o entert he defenceo f alibi. This notifications houldo ccur beforet he commencement of the trial and be specific enought o enablet he Prosecutionto preparei ts case.2Faa iluret o show good cause for the lack of notice may have an impact on the Trial Chamber's assessmeonft the credibilityo f the alibi.2s r 37. Munyakazir elieso n two separatea libis.O n 16 April 1994,t he dateo f the attacko n NyamashekeP arish,h e claims that he participatedin two separatee fforts to assists pecified neighbouras nd neverh ad an opportunityto leaveB ugaramac ommuneO. n 29 and 30 April 1994,t he dateso f the attackso n Shangia nd Mibilizi Parishes,M unyakazi claims that he attendedf uneral proceedingsfo r a friend that took place over three days. Thus, Munyakazi 22 Zigiranyirazo,J udgment( AC) l6 November2 009p ara.1 7.S eea lso Niyitegeka,J udgemen(tA C), 9 July 2004,p ara.6 0;K ajelijeli, Judgemen(tA C),23 May 2005,p aras.4 2-43;D elalic et al., Judgmen(tA C), 20 February2 001, para,5 81;M userna,J udgemen(tA C), 16N ovember2 001,p ara.202;K ayishemaa nd Ruzindana, Judgemen(tA C), I June2 001,p ara.1 13. 23 ZigiranyirazoA ppeal Judgemenpt aras.1 7-18( internalc itationso mitted). 2a Kayishemaa nd Ruzindana,J udgment( AC) I June2 001p ara. 1l l. " SemanzaJ, udgment( AC) 20 May 2005 para.9 3.S eea lso Kayishemaa nd RuzindanaJ, udgemen(tT C) 2l May 1999p ara.237. Judsemenatn dS entence

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t%5 deniest hat he was presentd uring the commissiono f the crimes outlined in paragraphs1 2 through1 4 of the Indictnent. Alibifor 16A pril 1994 YussufM unyakazi 38. Munyakazi denied that he was presenta t NyamashekeP arish on 16 April 1994. Rather,h e remainedi n Bugaramat hat day to assistf riendsa ndn eighbours.'o 39. He testified that ProsecutionW itnessE sidras2MT usengayirel eft Mibilizi hospitalo n 15 April 1994,d ue to the deterioratings ecuritys ituationi n the Mibilizi area,a lthoughh e had not yet fully recoveredf rom the 7 April grenadea ttack on him.'o The following day, Munyakazi made arrangementsto transportM usengayiret o the DRC to receive medical attentionE. arly in the momingo f 16A pril 1994,M unyakazai ndh is neighbouras greedth ata certainA ndrd Nyirimbibi would help Musengayirec rosst he river to the DRC. Nyirimbibi then travelledw ith Musengayirea s planned.M unyakazir emainedi n Bugaramaw aiting for a reportf rom Nyirimbibi on the successo f the mission.2Ney irimbibi returnedt o Bugaramaa t approximatelyl1 a.m.,a nd informedM unyakaztih at he hadb eena blet o assisMt usengayire crosst he borderi nto the DRC.30S oona fter his return,a t approximatelyn oon that sami day, Nyirimbibiw asa rrestedb, eatena, ndf orcedt o paya f,rnefo r assistingM usengayire'fsli ght.3l 40. At approximatel5y :00p .m. on 16A pril 1994,M unyakazwi as informedt hata certain IsaacB uregeh ad beenk illed during an attackt hat day at the CIMERWA factory.M unyakazi and his driver went to CIMERWA and discoveredth at Buregeh ad indeedb eenm urdered. Munyakazif ound Burege'sw ife and five childrena nd broughtt hem back to the safetyo f his housea t approximatel5y :30p .m." ProsecutionW itnessE sidrasM usengayire 41. Witness Musengayirew as at the Mibilizi hospital from 7 April 1994 until approximately1 May 1994.A ndrd Nyirimbibi camet o seeh im at the hospitala nd eventually took him to the DRC. After spendinga nighta t Nyirimbibi'sh ouset,h e witnessa nivedi n the DRC between3 and4 Mav 1994." Alibifor 29-30A pril 1994 YussufM unyakazi 42. Munyakazid enie9.thaht e was presenat t Shangia ndM ibilizi Parisheso n 29 and 30 April 1994r espectively,"a nd offeredt wo differenta ccountso f his activities.D uring his examination-in-chioenf 14 October2 009,M unyakaztie stifiedt hath e did not leaveh is house 'u T. 14O ctober2 009p p. 47-49;T.15O ctober2 009p .33. '' Witnessesre ferredt o the WitnessE sidrasM usengayirev ariouslya sE sidras,E sdras,a ndEna. tt T. 15o ctober2 009p .33. 'n T.14 October2 009p p.44-46. 3o T. 14O ctobe2r 009o .45. " T. 14 october2 009; . 46;T. 15 october 2009p .59. " T. 14 October2 009p . 48. tt T.z4April 2009p p.S -0.T .27 April2009p p.9-10. 'o T. 15 October2 009p .29. Judgement and Sentence

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyal<aziC, aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t36t+ on 29 April 1994.T he 29th was a Friday, the Muslim day of rest, and Munyakazia ttended prayersa t 3:30 p.m. and then again at 6:00 p.m. He read the Koran betweent he prayer sessions." 43. During his testimonyt he following day, on 15 October2 009,M unyakazit estifiedt hat on27 April1994,a certainE medeyoK abungow ask illed afterh elpinga Tutsin amedG ratien Gahizi cross into the DRC. Munyakazi attendedf uneral proceedingsa t Kabungo's home which begana t p.m. on 29 April 1994 and lastedf or three days, in accordancew ith 7:90 Muslimt radition.'" Deliberations Noticeo f an alibi defence 44. The Trial Chambero bservesth at the Defencep rovidedn o notice of alibi as required by Rule 67 ( ) (ii). Neverthelessf,a ilure to providen otice pursuantt o Rule 67 (A) (ii) does not meana defenceo f alibi cannotb e invoked.R ule6 7(B) ensuretsh e right of the accusedto rely on the defenceo f alibi, regardlesso f prior notice." This provision is consistenwt ith the principleo f the presumptiono f innocencea nd the duty of the Prosecutionto prove guilt beyondr easonabldeo ubt.'o 45. However,t he Chambera lson otest hat in additiont o providingn o noticeo f the alibi before the commencemenot f trial, the Defencep rovided no notice that Munyakazi would rely on an alibi during the cross-examinatioonf Prosecutionw itnesses,in the Pre-Defence Brief, or duringt he testimonyo f Defencew itnessesT.h e alibi waso nly introducedd uringt he testimonyo f the Accusedw ho appeareda st he lastD efencew itness. 46. In its closinga rgumentst,h e Defencec oncedetdh at it did not providef ormaln oticeo f an alibi, but arguedt hat it had alludedt o one in the Pre-DefenceB rief." The Chambern otes that in that brief the Defences imply statedt hat Munyakaziw ent to the mosques everatl imes a day andt hat he only left Bugaramac ommuneto rescueT utsis.""T he Defencef urthera rgued in its closing argumentst hat it had not providedn oJiceo f an alibi defenceb ecauseo f translationd ifficulties and becauseit was not certainw hetherM unyakaziw ould testiff: ...n ousn 'avonsp ase uu n enfetiena vecM onsieuMr unyakazqi ui doitn dcessairement sef airep art raducteunr,o usp ermettandte s avoirq ues ed dgageaiednet s ad dfensdee s moyends 'alibi.E t cen 'estq uel orsquece las 'espt r6sentadin sil,o rsqu'ial d€cid6 des e nt prdsentecor mmet6 moinp ours ap roprec auseq,u ec ecis 'estr €v616d nous. " T. 14 October2 009p p. 50-51 ; T. 15O ctober2 009p p.32,50. 'u T. l5 october2 009p p. l-3, 32, 54-55. " Rule6 7 (B) states":F ailureo f theD efenceto provides uchn oticeu ndert his Rules halln ot limit ther ight of the accusedto rely on the aboved efences". 38 Nchamihigo,( Trial Chamber),N ovember 12,2008,para.20.S eea lsoN chamihigoA ppealsJ udgementp, aras 94-99a ffirmingt heT rial Chamber'sD ecisiono n thisp oint. tn T.28 Januar2y0 10p p.34-35. ao Pre-DefencBer ief, parus.1 1,23. o'7.28 Januar2y 010p . 5l (p. 59 in French). MR. NEKUIE: Secondly,it is importantt hat I shouldb ring to the attentiono f the Trial Chambert hat the Defenceo f Mr. YussufM unyakazih ase ncounteredp roblemst hat the Trial Chamberi s awareo f andt hat when,i n its presentc omposition,i t had to take on boardM r. Munyakazi'sc ase,i t wasn'tc ertaint hat Mr. Munyakaziw as going to appeara s a witnessf or his own Defence.A nd so we, therefore,d id not havea ny discussionw ith Mr. Munyakazi,w hich hast o be donet hrougha n interpreter,w hich is why we weren ot awaret hat he would presenta n alibi. And that is why, when he decidedt o testify in his own Judeementa nd Sentence

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 136? 47. Thus, accordingt o the Defence,i t was not until counselb eganp reparingM unyakazi to testifr that they discoveredt hat he could provide alibis for the days on which the Prosecutiona llegedt hat he participatedi n criminal activities.a2T he Trial Chambero bserves that Munyakazit estified that he could speakS wahili,a3th e native languageo f Lead Counsel who is Tanzanian.M oreover, it simply beggarsb elief that the Defencet eam, having had regular accesst o their client throughoutt he courseo f the entire proceedingsw, ould only happent o discovera t the eleventhh our of the trial that the Accusedp ossessefdu ll alibis for the threea ttackst hat lay at the hearto f the Prosecutionc ase. In sum,t he Trial Chamberf inds theD efence'se xcusefo r providingn o noticeo f its alibi to be wholly unpersuasive. TheA libi: l6 April 1994 48. The only evidences upportingM unyakazi'sa libi for 16 April 1994i s Munyakazi's own testimony. 49. Munyakazci laimst hat on l6 April 1994hea nangedfo r Musengayire'tsr ansferto the DRC, helpedt he Burege family, and participatedin religiousp ractices.N ot only is this evidenceu ncorroboratedb, ut Musengayireh, imself, testified that he did not leave Mibilizi hospitaul ntil earlyM ay 1994.T he Defenced id not challengeM usengayire'tse stimonya bout Defence,w e got to know that he was going to raiset he alibi. So at no point in time did the Defence intendt o conceala nythingf rom the Prosecution. In any case,t his was only a clarification sot hat the Trial Chambers houldn ot focus on the possibilityo f the Defencen ot being ethical,b ecauseth e laws or rulesg overningt his Tribunal authoriseu s to makeu se of sucha meanso f Defencee vena t the last minute. Event he Prosecutionis awareo f this. So I was seekingt o maket his clarificationj ust so that the Defencei s understoodin sofar ast he measuresh e took is concerned, (Frenchp, . 59)M 'NEKUIE : Deuxidmemen:t il est importantq uej e fasses avoiri la Chambreq ue la Ddfensed e MonsieurY ussuf Munyakazia connud esc onvulsions,q ue la Chambre..d. onfla Chambree stp arfaitemenct onscientee, t que,l orsqued anss a compositiona ctuelle,e lle s'estr etrouvdee n train de prendree n main le casd e MonsieurM unyakazi,i l n'6tait pasc ertainq ue MonsieurM unyakazic omparaitraitc ommet 6moinp our sa d6fense. Ainsi donc,n ousn 'avons pase u un entretiena vecM onsieurM unyakaziq ui doit ndcessairemenste faire par traducteurn, ousp ermettantd e savoirq ue se d6gageaiendte sa d6fensed esm oyensd 'alibi. Et ce n'estq uel orsquec elas 'estp r6sent6a insi,l orsqu'ila d6ciddd e sep rdsentecro mmet €moin pours a proprec ause,q ue ceci s'est r6vdl6i r nous. oz T. 14O ctobe2r 009p .49. M. JEGEDE: Madamel e Pr6sidentj',a i un commentaireL.a Chambres es ouviendraq u'Esdrasa ddposdd evantte l, et cetteq uestionn e lui a pas6 tdp osdeL. a questionn 'a pas6 t€ posded l'6poqueE. t la D6fensem aintenant dvoquec etteq uestioni titre d'alibi. Mais si la Ddfensea lldgueq ueM unyakazi6 taita illeursl,e 16, alors,e llea uraitd 0 nousc ommuniqueur n avisd e d6fensed 'alibi et elle auraitp u m€me le fairep lus tard,m aisl e fairem aintenantc,' estt otalemenitn admissibleM, adamel e Prdsident. M.NEKUI: ...Lorsd e la pr€paration de MonsieurM unyakazin, ousa vonsc onstat6q u'il avaitl a possibilitd d'expliquers ajournded u l6 avril, et c'estc e quen ouss ommese n train de faire.J en e saisp as pourquooi n nouso pposele fait quen ousa urionsd 0 le faired I'occasiond u tdmoignagde' Esidras. Qu'est-ceq uec elav eut dire?Q an 'a absolumenpta sd e sensn i de fondementjuridiqueE.t donc,je ne voudraisp asq ue nousp erdionsd u tempsl d-dessusM, adamel e PrdsidentC. elad 'autantq u'il n'y a rien qui nouse mpOchde' 6voluers urc ettel igned e questionnemedn'ta prdsle s dispositiondsu Rdglemendt e proc6dure. 43 T. 14d ctober2 009p .20. Judgement and Sentence

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 is6z this dateo n cross-examination,sd espitet he fact that Musengayire'sc ross-examinatiotno ok placet hreed aysa fter the examination-in-chief.as 50. The Chamber further notes that there are discrepanciesin Munyakazi's several explanationosf his activitieso n 16 April 1994.A s describeda bove,d uringe xamination-in- chief, Munyakazi testified that on 15 April 1994,N yirimbibi collectedM usengayiref rom Mibilizi hospitala nd took him to his own home.O n 16 April 1994,M unyakaziw aitedi n Bugaramaf or news from Nyirimbibi about his journey to the DRC with MusengayireA. t ll:00 a.m.,N yirimbibi reportedto Munyakaztih att he trip hadb eens uccessfuAl.t 5:00p .m. that same day, Munyakazi learned about the attack on Tutsi refugeesa t the CIMERWA factory, and the killing of Isaac Burege. Munyakazi went to CIMERWA and brought Burege's surviving family membersb ack to his house.T hey anived at the house at approximatel5y: 30p .m.t hat duy.ou 51. During cross-examinationM, unyakazis ummarisedh is activitieso f 16 April 1994 somewhadt ifferently,s uggestingfo r the first time that he personallye scortedM usengayireto the DRC beforeg oingt o CIMERWA: "...We hadt o takeE sidrasto Congo.. ..So I took Ezra to Congo and then went to CIMERWA to take the family...."47M oreover,t here were discrepanciesin the time frames cited by Munyakazi.M unyakazi testified that he learned aboutt he attacki n CIMERWA andB urege'sk illing at2:00p .m.o n 16 April lgg4,48a ndn ot at 5 p.m. as he had stated during the previous day's testimony. Munyakazi said that Nyirimbibi informed him that the missiont o the DRC had beens uccessfual t approximately 8:00 a.m., and not at 1l:00 a.m. as he had testifiedt he previousd ay. In a third account, Munyakazia ddedt hat he learnedf rom his son at approximatelyn oon that Nyirimbibi had beena ssaultedfo r helpingM usengayirele aveR wanda.ae 52. While the discrepancya bout Munyakazi'sp ersonapl articipationi n Musengayire's trip to the DRC may be attributablet o a mistake in wording or interpretation,t he Trial Chamberi s more concemeda bout the other discrepancierse latedt o the times at which Munyakazi learnedo f Burege's killing, the dateso n which Musengayirel eft Mibilizi hospital,a ndt he time at which Munyakazil earnedt hat Musengayire'str ip to the DRC was a successI.n consistencieins the recollectiono f timesa nddatesm ay in somec ircumstancebse attributablet o the passageo f time; however, in this instance,t he differencesa rose in Munyakazi'sa ccounto f the samee ventso ver two consecutived ays.T hus,t he Trial Chamber is unablet o athibutet he discrepancietso the lapseo f time sincet he eventsd escribedA. t no time has the Defencea rguedt hat the facultieso f the Accusedw ere in any way diminished becauseo f his advanceda ge or someo ther factor. Thus, the Trial Chamberc oncludest hat the discrepancieisn Munyakazi'st estimonyr egarding.!risa ctivitieso n 16 April 1994a re significant. 53. Thereforet,h e Trial Chamberf inds that Munyakazi'sa libi for 16 April 1994i s not credible.N everthelessa,s will be discussedin more detail below, the Prosecutiond id not establishb eyondr easonabled oubt that Munyakazip articipatedin the eventsa t Nyamasheke Parisho n 16A pril 1994( seeC hapterII .7). oo T. 14 October2 009p p. 45-47. ot T.24 April 2009p p.5 -6.T .27 Apr\l2 009p p.9-10. ou T. 14O ctober2 oo9p p.44-48. ot T. 15O ctober2 009p .33 (en),p p. a0-al (fr). o'T. 15o ctober2 009p .33. o'T. 15o ctober2 009p p.5 s-59. Judgemenatn dS entence l0

Prosecutorv . YussuMf unyalmzl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 136 l TheA libi: 29-30A pril 1994 54. The Prosecutiona llegest hat Munyakazip articipatedin an attacko n ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994, and that he participatedi n a separatea ttack on Mibilizi Parish on 30 April 1994.'uT he Accusedt estified that he attendedf uneral proceedingsf or a certain Emedeyo Kabungoo n both thosed ays. 55. The Trial Chamber notes at the outset that Munyakazi gave one account of his activities on 29 April 1994 during his first day of testimonya nd a significantly different accountd uring his testimonyt he following day, claiming that he forgot to mention certain detailsr egardingh is activitieso n 29 April 1994d uringh is first dayo f estimony." 56. On 14 October2 009,M unyakazi'sf irst day of testimonyM, unyakazit estifiedt hato n 29 April 1994h e attendedp rayers essionsa t 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., and readt he Koran betweent he prayer sessionsI.t was only on the secondd ay of his examination-in-chietfh at Munyakazir ecalled,i n responseto a leadingq uestionf rom his counsel,t hat he had attended funeralp roceedingsfo r Kabungo on the afternoono f the 29n andt hat the proceedingsh ad lastedt hree days.M unyakazi did not clarifu the inconsistenciesfo, r example,b y explaining that he affendedK abungo'sf uneralp roceedingso n the 29th, but left for shortp eriodsa t 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to attendp rayers essionsa t the mosqueT. he Trial Chambert,h erefore, finds no reasonablee xplanationf or the discrepancies. 57. The Trial Chamberf urther notest hat the Defencep rofferedn o corroborationo f any aspecot f Munyakazi'sa libi. It adducedn o evidenceo f Kabungo'sd eath,c alledn o witnesses involved in the allegedf uneral proceedingsto give evidence,n or did it produces tatements from any such potential witnesses,a lthoughM uny-akaztie stified that somew ere still alive, 'Defence and at least one was still living in Bugarama." In addition, the offered no conoboratinge videncet hat it is Muslim traditioni n Rwandat o observea three-daym ourning periodf ollowinga death. Thereforet,h e Trial Chambecr oncludesth atM unyakazi'sa libi for 29-30A pril1994h asl ittle evidentiaryv alue.A s will be discusseidn furtherd etailb elow,t he Trial Chamber finds that its reasonableneshsa s been overcome by the compelling Prosecutioenv idencep lacingM unyakazia t Shangai ndM ibilizi Parisheso n 29 and3 0 April 1994,r espectivel(ys eeC haptersII .7 andI I. 8). Conclusion 58. The Trial Chamberr ecalls that the Defencep rovidedn o notice of an alibi Defence and hasf ailed to show good causef or this omission.T his is not dispositive,b ut it is relevant in assessinwg hethert he alibi is credible.M oreover,w hile undero rdinaryc ircumstanceist might be extremelyd ifficult to recall what took place orr a particulard ay 15 yearsa go, the Trial Chambern otes that the crimes for which Munyakazi is chargedt ook place on three specific dates.T he Accusedw as arrestedo n 5 May 2004,t he SecondA mendedI ndictment was issuedo n 3 November2 008,t he Trial commencedo n 22 April 2009,a nd Munyakazi testifiedo n 14 and 15 October2 009. As alreadys tated,t he Defenceh as advancedn o reasonablee xplanationf or Munyakazi'sf ailure to recall that he had an alibi until the last days of his trial, andt he suspiciousc ircumstanceusn derw hich the alibi was finally raisedc auses the Chambetro seriouslyq uestionit s crediblity. 59. In summary,a lthought he Trial Chamberis mindful that the Accusedd oesn ot havet o proveh is alibi beyonda reasonabled oubt,t he Chamberf inds the alibis,b oth for 16 April 1994a nd2 9-30A pril 1994,a dvancedb y Munyakazti o be inconsistenat ndc ontradictoryIt. 50 Indictmentp, aras.1 3, 14. tt T. 14O ctobe2r 009p p.50-51T, . 15O ctobe2r 009p p. 1-3. tt T. 15o ctober2 009p .32. Judgementa nd Sentence 1 ll t A ,1 ilrll 'l

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyalmzl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 1360 further concludest hat the groundsp rovidedb y theDefencef or the failure to provide notice of the alibis areu nreasonable. Judgemenat nd Sentence 12

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 r3s? 3. MT]I\'YAKAZI AS LEADER OF THE BUGARAMA INTERAHAMWE 60. ParagraphI of the Indictrnenta llegest he following: YussufM unyakaziw as born in 1935i n Rwamatamuc ommune,Kibuyep rdfecture, Rwanda.D uring the periodc overedb y this indictnent [src],Y ussufM unyakaziw asa wealthyb usinessmana nd commerciafl armeri n Bugaramac ommuneC, yangugu prdfecturea nd a leaderw ith def acto authorityo ver the BugaramaM RND Interahamwem ilitia.53 61. The Defenced eniest hat Munyakazih ad any involvementw ith the Interahamweo f BugaramaW. hile it doesn ot disputet hat Munyakaziw as a membero f the MRND duringt he relevantp eriod of the Indictment, it assertst hat he held no leadershipp osition within that parfy and was_tooo ld and preoccupiedw ith otherp ursuitst o have any involvementw ith the Interahamwe.to Evidence ProsecutionW itnessB WX 62. WitnessB WX, a Hutu, worked in close proximity to Munyakazi's housei n Misufi cellule, Bugaramas ecteur." Until 1993,t he top MRND party official in Bugaramaw as a man namedM abwire, who left office becauseh e opposedt he reprehensiblea cts committed by memberso f the MRND. Later, the witnesss awM unyakazileadingM RND meetingsa nd rallies originally led by Mabwire, and deducedth at Munyakazih ad replacedM abwire.'oT he witness began seeing Munyakazi in the company of Interahamwei n or around 1992 or lgg3.s7 63. Munyakaziw as involved in Interahamwea ctivitiesi n the days and weeksf ollowing the death of President Habyarimana.s8D uring that period, the Interahamwe met at Munyakazi'sh ouse and travelled in vehiclest o Mibilizi, Shangi, and other placest o perpehatec rimes, often in the company of Munyakazi.seT he witness knew about this becuus.t heI nterahamwew ould brag aboutt heir crimesu pon their retum.60M emberso f the Interahamwe acted as Munyakazi's bodyguards,c arrying firearms and accompanying Munyakaziw hereverh e went.6lT arek Aziz, an Interahamwe,l ived in one of Munyakazi's houses.62 r 64. The Interahamwel ived at Munyakazi'sh ouse,w hich was locatedn ear the customs building at the DRC border. According to the witness, this house was referred to as 5r Indictmenpt ara.1 . Seea lso,P rosecutioCn losingB riefparas.5 1,138-142. 5o DefenceC losingB rief paras.1 -16. ss P rosecutioEnx hibit6 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 24 April2009p . 12 (closeds ession)T; .24 April2009 p_nl.5 -16;T .27 April2009p p.35,3 8 (closeds ession). 'o T.2'l April 2009p p.27-28. s7 T.24 April2009p . 18. 58 T.24 April2009p p.23-24. tn T.24 April2009p p.23-24. uo T.24 April2009p .23. u' T. 24 April 2009 pp.17,2 2; T. 27 April 2009p . 21. u' T . 27 April 2009 pp.2 0-21. Judgement and Sentence l3 ,/t n 1jl I

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyalcazlC, aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t358 "headquarters"b, ut the witness did not know what this meant. The Interahamwew ere positionedth eret o monitor thosew ho weret ravellingt o andf rom the DRC.63 65. The Interahanwe began military training exercisesb etween 1992 and 1993, at a football field locatedi n an areac alled Tenth Street.oM* unyakaziw ould go to theset raining sessionsb, ut sincet he witnessw as not amongt hosew ho were trained,h e could not sayw hat Munyakaziw as doingt here.6sT arek AziztrainedtheI nteraharnweo nthe useo f firearms.65 ProsecutionW itnessE sidrasM usengayire 66. Witness Esidras Musengayire, alias Ezra, a Tutsi, lived in Citd Bugarama in Bugaramac ornrnunein Cyangugup rdfecturei n April 1994.6H7 e lived in Munyakazi'sh ouse from 1982 to 1984, and during that time, Munyakazit reatedh im like a son.68W hen the witnessl aterm ovedt o his own house,M unyakazic ontinuedt o considerh im as a membero f his family until the outbreako f the genocide.6e 67. Munyakazi was a member of the MRND party but held no elected office in the ur".'o The presidento f the Interahamwei n Bugaramaw as Job Mabwire.TlH owever, "o* the witnessw ould seeM unyaka zi in the companyo f the Interahamwe.'zT he witnessn ever heard Munyakazi refer to himself as the leader of the Interahamwe.O n the conhary, Munyakazileferredt o the peoplel iving in his housea s Interaha we.'3 Tarek Azizlived,in Munyakazi'sh ousea nd told the witnesst hat he, TarekA ziz, was responsiblefo r trainingt he Interahamwe.'*O ther Interahamwe,s ucha s Liere and Mundere,l ived with Mama Safi, one of Munyakazi'sw ives.TsT he witness later statedt hat Munderel ived with Mama Safi, and that Liere was one of Munyakazi'sn eighbours.TIn6 April 1994, before the witnessl eft Bugaramat,h eI nteraharnwew ould meeta t Munyakazi'sh ouse.77 68. The witness believed that Munyakazi was influential within the Interahamwe.H e recalledt hat, prior to 7 April 1994, the Interahamwea nd the JDR, the youth wing of the MDR party, clasheda t a locationk nown as Kizura. A personw as killed by the Interahamwe, and Munyakazi was detained for two days. The Interahamwe demonstrateda gainst Munyakazi's arrest by blocking the road to CIMERWA for a day. Munyakazi was subsequentrlye leased.Ts 69. On 7 April 1994,at about6 :00 a.m.,t he Interahamwec amet o the witness'house, draggedh im out of his house,a nd took him to Munyakazi'sh ouse.TMe unyakazit hen asked the Interahamwet o leave. Musengayireb elieved that the Interahamwew ere expecting ut T.27 April2009p .34-35,38( closeds ession). uo T.24 April 2009p . l8-19. u' T . 27 April2009 p. 32. 66 T.24 April2009p . 20. 67 ProsecutioEnx hibit5 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 23 April 2009p . a9. ut T.23 April2009p . 5l; T. 27 April2009p .2. un T. 27 April 2009p . 2. 'o T. 23 April 2009 p. 52;T . 27 April 2009p . 6. " T.27 April 2009p . 15. " T.23 April 2009p . 52. '' T.27 April 2009p . 14. 'o T.24A pril2o09p .4 . " T.27A pril2009p p.1 5,1 6. 'o T.27 April 2009p . 16. " T.24 April 2009p . l. " T. 24 April 2009p p.2 -3. " T.23 April2009p . 49. Judgementa nd Sentence IA 4!+

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 li57 Munyakazit o order his killing. Instead,M unyakazil ed the witnessi nto a room in his house and lockedt he door to protecth im. Soont hereaftera, membero f the Interahamweb roket he window and threw a grenade into the room, and the witress^w as gravely wounded. Munyakazit hen arrangedt o havet he witnesst akent o the hospital.o'Thew itnessd id not see who threw the grenadeb ut later learnedt hrough Gacacap roceedingsth at the grenadew as thrown by an Interahamwen amedZ acharieM ario, oneo f Munyakazi'ss ons.6r ProsecutionW itnessB WW 70. WitnessB WW, a Hutu, testifiedt hat Munyakaziw as a membero f the MRND and,i n that capacity,r ecruitedy oung peoplet o join theI nterahamwei n lgg0.82M unyakaziw ould travel in a vehicle with a megaphoneu rging young peoplet o join the Interaha*re.83 The witness first statedt hat he joined the Interahamwei n March 1993,84b ut later said he had beenm istakena nd actuallyj oined theI nterahamwein March l9g2.8sA t that time, the official objectiveo f the Interahamwew ast o "fight for" the country.86 71. The Interahamweu nderwentd aily training in 1993, and Tarek Aziz, who lived in Munyakazi'sh ouse,w as one of their instructors.s7-Munyakahzai d at leastt wo Interahamwe gu*d, during the haining sessions.8Tsh e Bugarama literahanwe usedw eaponsth at were storedin lVlunyakazi'hs ouse.oI'n terahamweb odyguardkse ptw atcho verM unyakazi'sh ouse at night.'"F ollowinge xpeditionsto attacka ndk ill Tutsi civilians,theI nterahamwea tea t the house belonging to Munyakazi's wife Rukiya.el Munyakazi also provided Interahamwe uniformst o the witnessa nd a numbero f otherm emberso f the Interahamwein March lgg4.e2 When Munyakaziw antedt o give instructionst o the memberso f the Interahamwe,h e did so within his compoundb ecauseit s walls were six or sevenm etresh igh, and othersc ould not overheawr hatw asb eings aid.e3 72. Munyakazi led the attacko n ShangiP arish.eHa e called the Interahamwet o an open 'ogo field near" the cooperative"a nd instructedt hem to therea nd do what we were supposed to do there,"w hich the witnessu nderstooda s an instructiont o kill Tutsi civilians.M ost of the Interahamwew ere armed.T he witnesso nly had a machetea nd a club becauseth e firearms availableh ad alreadyb eend istributed.eAs lier the killings at ShangiP arish, theI nterahamwe who participatedin the killings went back to Rukiya'sh ouset o have a meal beforeg oing home.'o 'o T. 23 April 2009p p. 49-50;T . 27 April 2009p .9. " T.z4April20o9p .4 . t2 ProsecutioEn xhibit 12 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 29May 2009p .9 (closeds ession). " T.29May 2009p .23 (closeds ession). to T. 29 May 2009p . 9 (closeds ession). "t T.29May 2009p p.23-24( closeds ession). 'u T. 29 May 2009p . I I (closeds ession). t' T. 29 May 2009p . 12( closeds ession). tt T. 29 May 2009p . 13 (closeds ession). tn T. 29 May 2009p p. 13,3 I (closeds ession). to T . 29 May 2009p . 13( closeds ession). n' T. 29 May 2009p . 28 (closeds ession). n'T.29 May 2009p . 36 (closeds ession). nt T.29 May 2009p . 29 (closeds ession). no T. 29 May 2009p . 16( closeds ession). ns T.29 May 2009p p. 16-17( closeds ession). tu T.29May 2009p p. 19,29 (closeds ession). Judgementa nd Sentence 15

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyalazi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t356 73. Munyakazia lso gavei nstructionsto attackM ibilizi Parish.W hent he attackersa nived at the parish,M unyakazi said: "Don't you know why you are here?" A local hader named *[b]ut Bandetsia dded: you are looking at us as if you do not know what you havec omet o do here."F ollowingt hesew ords,lhe Interahamweim mediatelys unoundedth e parishg rounds and begank illing Tutsi civilians.T hey did so quickly becauseM unyakazit old them that it was gettingl ate.'' ProsecutionW itnessB WR 74. WitnessB WR, a Tutsi,e8w orked at the CIMERWA CementF actoryi n Bugaramaf or nine years until the day PresidentH abyarimanad ied.eeW hile the witness was working at CIMERWA, Munyakaziw ould comet o CIMERWA, but the witnessd id not know what he was doing there.lo0O n the day of PresidentH abyarimana'sd eath, the witness stopped working and fled to his native locality in Shangii n Gafunzoc ommuneb ecauseh e no longer felt safe.l0lT he witnessw as unablet o estimatet he numbero f times he saw Munyakazip rior to April 1994,b ut eacht ime the witnessw ent to CdrdB ugaramah, e would seeM unyakazi.'u' 75. On an unspecifiedd ate,a t Ijambwe, the Interahamwea ttackedm emberso f the JDR, the youth wing of the MDR. Munyakazio rderedt he Interahamweto retum to their vehicles, which they did immediatelyu pon receivingt he instruction.loT3h e witnessc oncludedth at Munyakaziw ast he leadero f the BugaramaIn terahamweb ecausee acht ime the Interahamwe went out, Munyakazi led them, and becauset he population of Bugaramar eferred to the Interahamwea s" Yussufs Interahamwe."to4 76. Following the death of PresidentH abyarimanat,h e witness soughtr efuge at Shangi Parisht ogetrerw ith otherT utsis.losO n29 April 1994,M unyakazil ed a large-scalaet tacko n the parish.''oT he witnessb elievedt hat Munyakazis ignaledf or the Interahamwet o attackb y firing the first shots,a fter which the Interahamweb egant hrowing grenadesa nd shootinga t the refugees.loT7h e attackl astedu ntil the evening,a ndw hen it was over,lhe witnessw as too disorientedto know whethert herew ere any others urvivorso f the affack.lo8 ProsecutionW itnessB WU 77. Witness BWU, a Hutu, was a farmer in 1994.10eH e saw Munyakazi on two occasions.lloF irst, at a meeting held at KamarampakaS tadiumi n Cyangugup rdfecture in late 1993.11T1h ere,t he Cyangugup rdfet Bagambikii ntroducedM unyakazia s the president n'T.29May 2009p . 35 (closeds ession). e8 ProsecutionE xhibit 2 (personali dentifications heet). nn T.22 April 2009p . 4l (closeds ession)T; .22 April2009p . 55. too T.22 April 2009p . 56. tot T.22 April2009p p.5 5-56. 'o' T.22 April 2oo9p . 42. 'ot T.22 April2009p p.48-49. 'oo 7.22 Aprit2 009p p.48-49. 'ot T.22 April2009p .43. tou T.22 April2009p .44. 'o' T. zzApril 2009p . 45. tot T.z2April 2009p p.45-46. roe ProsecutioEn xhibit 13 (personaild entifications heet). tto T. 4 June2 009p . 9. tttT.4 June2 009p p.5,9,l l, 19. Judgementa nd Sentence t6

Prosecutor v. Ytusuf Munyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 l3s5 of the BugaramaI nterahamw".ll2 The witness saw Munyakazi again on 29 April 1994, during the attack at Shangi Parish.rr3T ogetherw ith anotherh igh ranking membero f the BugaramaIn terahamwe,Munyakazlie d a groupo f ab.ou5t 0 or 60 Interahamwei n an attack on Tutsi civilians who had sou.ghrte fugea t the parish."* Munyakazi anived at the parishi n a '' vehiclel oadedw ith weapons.' ProsecutionW itress LAY 78. WitnessL AY, a Tutsi,w asa traderi n 1994,11a6n da leadero f the LiberalP arty.l1H7 e saw Munyakazig oing to political rallieso n numerouso ccasionsin 1993.A long the way, Munyakazio ften stoppeda t the c.ommunoef fice atKabezaf or discussionsw ith local officials or memberso f the population."o Munyakazi was always accompaniedb y Interahamwe carrying political banners and Munyakazi was received by the local population as an importantp ersonality."' However,t he witnessd id not know specificallyw hich position Munyakazi held in the MRND or the Interahamw".t" The last time the witness saw Munyakaziw as when Munyakazil ed the attacka t NyamashekeP arisho n 16 April 1994.121 ProsecutionW itnessL CO 79. WitnessL CQ, a Tutsi, was a farmeri n 1994.t2H2e first met Munyakazii n 1988.123 Munyakaziw as a trader and a very popular farmer in Bugaramaw ho owned many houses. From 1988u ntil 1990,t he witnessw ould seet heA ccusedin Citd Bugaramas, tandingo n the verandao f his housew hent he witnessw ent theret o sell milk.l2aT he witness,t ogetherw ith his wife and about 20 neighbours,s oughtr efuge at the Mibilizi Parisho n 8 April lgg4.t2s Munyakazil ed in the attacko n Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994.126 ProsecutionW itnessB WP 80. WitnessB WP, a Tutsi, lived in Kaganoc ommunei n Cyangugup rdfecture in April 1994.He was 15 or 16 yearso ld at the time of evedts.l2Ht e saw Munyakazi atKabeza Centre twice in 1993, when Munyakazi went past Kabeza Centre on his way to MRND rallies.M unyakaziw ould stop along the way to talk to local residents.''oO n thoset wo occasions,M unyakazi was in the companyo f peoplew ho were singing for him, and the tt2 T.4 June2 009p p.1 9-21,25. t" T. 4 June2 009p p. 5, 9. t'n T. 4 June2 009p . 7. "s T. 4 June2 009p . 28. r16 ProsecutioEn xhibit4 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 23 April 2009p p.2 2-23. tt'T.23 April2009p .3 4. "'T.23 April 2009p p.3 9-40. "e T.23 April 2009p p.33-34.39. "o T.23 April 2009p . 34. t't T.23A pril2009p .23. r22 ProsecutioEn xhibit I I (personaild entihcations heet). t23 T.28A pril2009p .28. t24 T.28 April2009p p.3 0-31. "t T.28A pril2oogp p.l 5-16. "u T. 28 April2009p . 34. r27 ProsecutioEn xhibit3 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 23 April 2009p p.2,8. t" T.23A pril2009p p.2,7-8. Judgementa nd Sentence 17

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t364 witnessh adt he impressiont hat Munyakaziw ast he leadero f thoses urroundingh im.l2eO n t I April 1994,t he witness and his family soughtr efuge at NyamashekeP arish.r30M unyakazi led the Interahamwed uring the attacka t NyamashekeP arisho n 16 April 7994.131 ProsecutionW itnessM P 81. WitnessM P, a Hutu, worked at Mibilizi Parishi n April 1994.13H2 e testifiedt hat the Accusedl ed the 30 April 1994, attacko n Mibilizi Parish. The witness first learneda bout Munyakazif rom one of his colleaguesa t Mibilizi who phonedS hangiP arisha nd was told that Munyakazi and his Interahamweh ad attackedS hangiP arish on 29 April 1994.13I3n addition, the gendarmesw ho were stationeda t Mibilizi Parish had a discussionw ith the leadero f the attacko n 30 April 1994,w hen the Interahamwea rriveda t the parish.T hey then informedt he witnesst hat the persont hey had spokent o was Munyakazi.F inally, the witness could hear everythingd uring the attacka nd notedt hat Munyakaziw as the only one issuing I3 4 orders. YussufM unyakazi 82. Munyakazit estifiedt hat he was a membero f the MRND parfy but was too old to be a membero f its youth wing, the Interahamwe.l3Hs e was not the leadero f the Interahamwe, l36he and n.uri h"ld a position of responsibilityo r ran for an electedp ositionw ithin the MRND.I37H e was not in chargeo f recruitingn ew mem.berws ithin the parfy.l3t He nev.t attended or organised meetings of the Interahamwe."' The Interohamwe met at the communalo ffrce, but Munyakazid id not know what took placed uring thesem eetings,a s he did not follow theira ctivities.'*" 83. The leadero f the MRND in Bugaramas ecteurw as Kassim,Jumapili,laal nd the presidento f MRND at the communal level was Ayubu Mabwire.'"' The leader of the BugaramaI nterahamwea t the communele vel was AthanaseN dutiye, alias Tarek Aziz, and hislice presidenwt asT homasM ugunda.laT3a rek Azizrcntedar oom-ino neo f Munyakazi's housesa nd paid monthly rent like other tenants.taMa unyakaziw as not Tarek Aziz's mentor 'ot nor wash e his supervisor, andM unyakazdi id not considerT arekA ziz to be a membero f t" T.23 April 2009p p.9 -10. t3o T.23 April 2009p . 3. "t T.23 April2009p p.3-5. r32 ProsecutioEn xhibit7 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 27 Aprll2009p p.43-44. "t T.27A pril2009p p.48-50. tto T . 27 April 2009p p.5 1 - 53. r" T. 14O ctobe2r a09p .21. t'u T. 14O ctobe2r 009p .43. t3' T. 14 October2 009p . 21;T .15 October2 009p . 21. ttt T. l5 october2 oo9o .21. r3e T. 14O ctober2 009p p. 23-24,43. 'oo T . 14o ctober2 009p .23. ro' T. 14O ctober2 009o .22. 142 T.14 October2 009p p.2l-22. to'T. l4 october2 009o .22. 'oo T . 14O ctober2 009p p. 16, 4l. to' T. 15O ctobe2r 009o .41. Judeemenatn dS entence t8 4+

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t353 his family.la6T arek Aziz was never Munyakazi's bodyguard,a nd Munyakazi never had bodyguards.laT 84. At someu nspecifiedt ime prior to 1994,M unyakaziw as detainedb y the Cyangugu Public Prosecutorfo llowing clashesb etweent he MRND and anotherp olitical party. During thosec lashess, everapl ersonsw erew oundeda, nda personw as killed. Somep eoplew anted to seizeM unyakazi'sp roperty,a nd he was thereforeb lamedf or the clashesa ndt akenb efore the CyanguguP rosecutorA. n investigationw as conducteda, nd Munyakazi was cleareda nd releasetdh e samed ay he wasa rrested.'oo 85. In April 1994,M unyakaziw asc onstructinag buildingc loset o the customso fficen ear the borderw ith DRC.'*' However,t his buildingw as still underc onstructiona nd couldn ot haveb eenu sedb y the InterahamweT. he buildingw as completedin May-or June1 994.150 TheI nterahamwed id not meeta t or operatein any of Munyakazi'sh ouses.t'' Munyakazid id not stock weaponsf or the Interahamwea t any of his houses,a nd his wives never prepared food for theI nterahamr".r'2 DefenceW itnessN KM 86. WitnessN KM, a Hutu, lived in Bugaramac ommunein April 1994.H e worked at the bank in Bugaramac o**rne.r'3 Munyakazi'sr esidencew as some 150 metresa way from the witness'r esiden"ei n Bugarama secteur.rsM4 unyakaziw as.g ll ordinaryc ustomera t the bank, andw asn ot the biggestr ice farmeri n Bugaramac ommune."' 87. The witness was a membero f the PDI party, and, as part. _ of his functions,h e monitoredt he activitieso f the MRND pafi at the communall evel.'tuT hus, he was in a positiont o know Munyakazi's role within the MRND. Although Munyakazi wag-?m ember of the MRND, he was neithert he chairmann or the vice chairmano f the MRND.'" Nor was Munvakazit he presidento f MRND at the secteurl evel.15H8e held no positionw ithin the purty.tt'T he chairmano f the MRND atthe communalle vel was Job Mabwire.l60T he vice presidenwt asT heobaliM unyakayar:za.tDull rltngt he periodb etween1 993a nd6 April 1994, Munyakazin everc hairedM RND meetings.'o'Munyakazwi as not in a positiont o convene meetingso f anyp oliticalp arty.lu' tou T. 14o ctober2 009p .41. to' T.14 october2 009p .42. tot T, l5 October2 009p p. 25-26;P rosecutioEn xhibit2 3 (Rapporst grl esD roitsd e I'hommea u Rwanda; Octobre1 992ju squ'dO ctobre1 993p roduitp ar I'AssociationR wandaispeo url a Ddfensed esD roitsd e la Personnee t desL ibertdsP ubliques- ( ADL - Kigali - d6cembre1 993D .). tot T. 14 october 2009 pp. 6, 8-9. 'to T. 14O ctobe2r 009p p.17-18T; . 15O ctobe2r 009p p,60-6 1. 't' T. 14 October2 009p . 44. tt' T . 74 october2 oo9p . 43. r5t D efenceE xhibit6 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 3l August2 009p p.7-8( closeds ession). 'to T. 3 I August2 009p . 3 I . tt'T. 3l August2 009p p.8 -9. r5u T. 3l August2 009p p. l4-15. r5t T. 3l August2 009p . 13. ttt T. 31A ugust2 009p .46. r5e T. 3 I August2 009p .13. 'uo T. 3l August2 009p p.l4, 45, 48. 'ut T. 31 August2 009p .46. tut T.31 August2 009p . 15. tu' T. 3l August2 009p . 17. Judsemenat nd Sentence t9

Prosecutorv.Y ussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t35Z 88. The wifiressw as not awareo f a relationshipb etweenM unyakazia nd the youth wing of the MRND party.t64H e did not know whether Tarek Aziz was the coordinatoro f the Interahamwe.H e never saw Tarek Aziz and Munyakazi together.l6sT he witness did not know Thomas Mugunda.l66H e never saw or heard that members of the Bugarama Interahamwew ere involved in crimes,e itherp rior to or after 6 April lgg4.t67 89. On 7 April 1994,thew itnessh earda grenadee xplodea t Munyakazi'sh ouse.H e was told that the grenadew as thrown by a youngm anw ho was angrya t Munyakazif or protecting Musenyagirea nd others. When the assailantsw ho brought Musengayiret o Munyakazi's houser ealisedt hat Musengayireh ad not beenk illed, they set off to kill Shema,a Tutsi, who was Munyakazi'sa dopteds on.T he witnessb elievedt hat Shemaw as killed to senda waming to Munyakazni ot to impedet he killings.l6sS hemaw ask illed by two Interahamwek nowna s Eliere andN oah. Munyakazih ad no authorityo ver theset wo young men nor did he have any authorityo ver any other young peoplei nvolved in such activitiesa fter 6 April 1994.'"' Crimes were committed by the youth groupso f the various political parties,s uch as the MRND, the PDI, the MDR, the PL, and the CDR. Each group,obeyed its own party leadershipa,n dt herew asn o overallc oordinationb etweenth e groups"." DefenceW itnessN DB 90. WitnessN DB, a Hutu, lived in Bugaramaa nd was a farmer in April 1994.'7T' he distanceb etweenh is home and Munyakazi'sresidencwe as approximately5 00 metres.l7T2 he witnesss awa nd hearda boutc rimesc ommittedb y young personsin Bugaramaa ffiliated with suchp oliticalp artiesa s the MRND, MDR, PDI, CDR andP SD.T hesey oungp ersonsc ame from surroundingn eighbourhoodsli ke Muhehwe, Nyabitare, Kibangira, and other areas. These youth groups began committing crimes shortly after the death of President Habyarimana. However, there was no relationship between the youth $oups and Munyakazi.lTH3 e never saw Munyakazii n the companyo f thosey oung peoplea nd doesn ot believet hat Munyakazif ed the men voluntarily.'74 DefenceW itnessN RB 91. WitnessN RB, a Hutu, lived in Nzahahas ecteur-inB ugaramac ommunein April 1994. He worked for the CAVECWI coopelgtives ociety."' Nzahahas ecteurw as approximately eieht kilometresf rom Citd Buearama."oH e first met Munyakazi in 1960 and knew that he *fs u farmer.tTMTu nyakazi* is alsoa membero f CAVECiJVI,a ndh eld a.positionth ere.l78 Munyakazi'sh ousew as locateda pproximately4 0 metres'fromC AVECUVI.ITe tuo T. 31 August2 oo9p . 19. tut T. 3l August2 009p p. 46-47. t66 T. 31 August2 009p . 46. 'ut T. 3l August2 009p . 43. rut T. 31 August2 009p p.25-26. run T.3l August2 009p . 26; Seea lsoF rencht ranscriptp, p.2 9-30. ']o t. I t August2 009p p.26-27. 't' T. I Septimber2 009p . 12 (closeds ession)D; efenceE xhibit l0 (personaild entifications heet). r72 T. I Septembe2r0 09p . 12 (closeds ession)T; . I Septembe2r0 09p . 19. r73 T. I Septembe2r0 09p .13. r7a T. I Septembe2r0 09p . 15. ltt DefenceE xhibit 12( personaild entifications heet)T; .1 Septembe2r0 09p .37. 176 T. I Septembe2r0 09p . 45 (closeds ession). r7i T. I Septembe2r0 09p . 37 (closeds ession), Judgementa nd Sentence 20 4,+ 'l

Prosecutorv.Y ussufM unyakazi,C ue No. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 135 92. Munyakaziw as a membero f the MRND but held no position within the party.l8oH e, therefore,d id not havet he authorityt o organisem eetingsO. nly party chairmenw ere entitled to do so.l81T he witnessw as a membero f the MRND and recalledt hat the presidento f the MRND party in Bugaramac ommunei n April 1994,w as Job Mabwire. The witnessd id not know whetherM unyakaziw as the vice presidenot f the parly at the communele vel nor did he know whetherh e was presidento f the frm.WOa t the secteurl evel.t82H e did not know who the leadero f the Interahamwei n his own secteurw as becauseh e was not a membero f the Interahamwe.ls3 DefenceW itnessM PCC 93. WitnessM PCC, a Tutsi, lived in Ruhokos ecteur,G ishomac ommuneC, yangugu prdfecturei n 1994.H e was the chairmano f the MRND party in Gishomac ommunea nd an lgricultural extensionw orker.l8aH e first met Munya\gi in the early 1980s.M unyakazil ived in Bugaramaa nd was a member of the MRND.totMemberso f the Interahamwew ere generallyb etween1 8 and 35 yearso f age.T heirr ole wast o mobiliset he populationI.f a 40- year-oldw as stronga nd able-bodiedh e could be a membero f the youth wing of the MRND, but this was uncommon.ttuM unyakaziw as not the leadero f the BugaramaI nterahamweT. he Interahamwel eadersc ame from within the Interahamwes tructJre.l8TT he leader of the Interahamwein Bugaramaw as Tarek Aziz. Tarek Aziz was a tenant in one of Munyakazi's housesb, ut he did not live with Munyakazi.l8s DefenceW itnessA MB 94. WitnessA MB, a Hutu,w as a universitys tudenot utsideo f Bugaramain1 994.H e was a nativeo f Bugarama communea ndw ould spind.hish olidayst here.rfeH e spenta significant amounto f time in Bugaramai n 1993 and 1994,''ua nd was in Bugaramat hroughoutA pril lgg4.tetM unyakaziw as his neighbour.lnO' n. of Munyakazi'sw ives, Mama Safi, lived about2 00 metresf rom the witness' family home.A notherw ife, Mama Zainabu,lived about 40 metresf rom his home.le3 95. He first met Tarek Azizin 1987,w henT arek Azizwasa trader.leTa he witnessh ada Tutsi friend who lived in the sameh ousea sT arekA ziz. Thus,h e knew that Tarek Azizwas a tenanti n Munyakazi's housea nd that therew as no specialr elationshipb etweenT arek Aziz 178 T . Septembe2r0 09p p.37, 45 (closeds ession). l7e T . Septembe2r0 09p .38 (closeds ession). tto T. Septembe2r0 09p .39. lEl T. Septembe2r0 09p .40. 182 T . Septembe2r 009 pp. 49-50. ttt T, Septembe2r0 09p .48. rtt DefenceE xhibit l8 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 7 Septembe2r0 09p p.46,57-58( closeds ession). "' T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p p. 47-48( closeds ession). 't6 T.7 Septembe2r0 09p p.52-53( closeds ession). "' T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p . 60 (closeds ession). ttt T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p .61. ttn D efenceE xhibit2 l (personaild entifications heet)T; . l0 Septembe2r0 09p p. 1,3,21-22 (closeds ession). 'no T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p p. 4,22-23 (closeds ession). to' T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p . 10. t" T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p .4 (closeds ession). tt'T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p .9. ''o T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p, .4 (closeds ession). Judgement and Sentence 21 1\

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 l35a and Munyakazi.lesH e never saw Tarek Aziz gatheringy oung people at his residenceH. e nevers aw or heardt hat there was a weaponsd epot in Munyakazi'sh ouse.le6H e nevers aw Munyakazii n the companyo f bodyguardi.le? 96. Munyakazi was a member of the MRND,le8 but had no authority over the InterahamweT. he witnessw as awareo f the existenceo f the Interahamwei n Kigali but did not know that there werc Interahamwe in Bugarama.leeD uring cross-examinationh, e confirmedt hat in a prior statemenht e told the Defencet hat Tarek Azizwas the leadero f the Interahamwe.H e explainedt hat he was not sure whether Tarek Aziz was a leadero f the Interahamweo r simply a memberw ith considerablec lout.200 DefenceW itnessY MC 97. WitnessY MC, a Hutu, was a trader in Misufi cellule in Bugaramai n April 1994.201 He first met Munyakazi in 1985w hen he beganh is tradei n BugaramaH. is businessp remises were close to Munyakazi'so wn.202M unyakazi was a member of the MRND but held no leadershipp osition. Job Mabwire was the presidento f the MRND in Bugaramab ut was not the presidento f the Interahamwe.203 98. The witness knew Tarek Aziz, an Interahamwe,w ho was a tenant in one of Munyakazi'sh ouses.H e nevers aw Tarek Azizin the companyo f Munyakazi andn evers aw youthsa ssembledin front of Munyakazi'sh ouse.2oHae nevers awM unyakazii n the company of bodyguardsM. unyakaziw as too old to be involved in military training.T he witnessn ever heard that Munyakazi had an arms depot in his house, nor did he ever see Munyakazi carrying u *ruion.'ot The witness AenieOt hat he had financed the local Interahamwe togetherw ith Munyakazi anda mann amedE liasB akund ize.206 DefenceW itnessY MS 99. Witness YMS, a Hutu, was a trader who lived in Bugaramas ecteur, Bugarama communei,n April lgg4.2o7T he witnessh ad businessd ealingsw lth Munyakazi3osB etween 1993 and 6 April 1994, the MRND had a youth wing in Bugaramac ommunem ade up of youngp eopleb etweent he ageso f 18 and 30, who electedt heir own officers.M unyakaziw as not in chargeo f the youth wing, and the witnessn ever saw Munyakazil eadingm emberso f this youth group.20eH e never saw Munyakazi distributing kitenge cloth for Interahamwe "'T. l0 Septembe2r0 A9p p.6-7 (closeds ession)T; . l0 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. Itu T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p .9. 'nt T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. tnt T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p .24 (closeds ession). r" T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p . 10. 'oo T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p .27 (closeds ession). to' DefenceE xhibit2 2 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 14 Septembe2r0 09p p. l-2. 'o'T.14 Septembe2r0 09p .3 (closeds ession). 'ot T. 14S eptembe2r0 09p p. 5-6, too T. 14 Septembe2r0 09p p.6 -7,23. 2os T.14 Septembe2r0 09p p. l0-11. tou T.14 Septembe2r0 09p p. 2}-22;ProsecutioEn xhibit 16 'ot DefenceE xhibit2 4 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 14 Septembe2r0 09p p. 30-3l , 33 (closeds ession), 'o* T. 14S eptembe2r0 09p .3l (closeds ession). zot T.14 Septembe2r0 09p .34. Judeementa nd Sentence 22 +

Prosecuot r v. YussufM unyakaz, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 l34Jt uniforms and never heard anyone say that Munyakazi had done so.210H e never saw I I Interahamwe eatinga t anyo f Munyakazis' houses.2 DefenceW itnessT hdobaldG akwayaR waka 100. WitnessT hdobaldG akwayaR waka,a Hutu,2r2w orked at the Ministry of Justicef or niney ears,w hereh e was. "rponribl. for naiionals ecurity, policea ndp risons.2lH3e , then, 149 worked at CIMERWA in Bugaramaf rom 1992 to 1996.''" He knew Munyakazi because Munyakazi was well known in the area, but did not considerM unyakazi to be a friend. Munyakaziw as a membero f the MRND but did not hold any position in the MRND at the communall evel.2lsT he leadero f the Interahamwein Bugaramaw as TarekA ziz.2t6H e never saw Munyakazi in the company of the Interahamwe and believed that, given his age, Munyakazic ould not haveb eena membero f the youth group."" In responseto a question about whetherh e had seenM unyakazi in April 1994, the witness said that he did not see Munyakazit hat month, adding that "I could not go to [Munyakazi's] house in Bugarama becausIe h eardt herew ere alot of Interahamwe[ss ic] there."''" DefenceW itnessE LB 101. WitnessE LB, a Hutu, joined the BugaramaI nterahamwei n February1 993 and remaineda member through April 1994. The witness was the vice presidento f the Interahamwea t the commune level and Tarek Aziz was the president.'" The witness informedt he Chambert hat he had participatedin the 16 April1994 attackonC IMERWA.22o Munyakazi was an old man and played no role within the Interahamwem ovement.22l However,t he witness concededt hat he, himself, was 42 years old at the time he was vice presidenot f the Interahamwe.2 22F ew memberso f theI nterahamwew erea bovet he ageo f 40; ihe witnessc ouldo nly recallf our peoplei,n cludingh imself.223 102. Munyakazip rovided no assistancteo the InterahamweT. he Interahamwen everh eld meetingsin Munyakazi'sh ouseo r his wives' housesT. he executivec ommitteeu suallyh eld meetingso n Sundaysa t the communal office.22Tah e Interahamwew ore kitenge,a nd each membeio btainedh is own fabric.z2Tsh e witnessn evers awM unyakazid istributingk itenge.226 ''o T. l4 Septembe2r0 09p .49. ttt T.14 Septembe2ro o9p .41. tr2 DefenceE xhibit 26 (personali dentifications heet);T . l6 Septembe2r 009 pp. l-2, tt3 T . 16 Septembe2r0 09p . 3. "o T.16 Septembe2r0 09p p.2-3. t" T. l6 Seotembe2r0 09p .6. 2t6 T.76 Septembe2r0 09p p.8,29. zt1 T.16 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. 't* T. l6 Septembe2r0 09p .33. ''n Defence'Exhibit2 7 (personali dentifications heet);T . 17 Septemebr 2009 pp. l-2. 220 T.17 Septembe2r0 09p . ll. 22t T. 17 Septembe2r 009p . 3. 2'2 T . 17 Septembe2r0 09p . 15 . 223 T.17 Septembe2r0 09p . 16. 220 T.l7 Septembe2r0 09p p. 4-5,13. 2's T.l7 Septembe2r0 09p p.4-5. 22u T.l7 Septembe2r0 09p . 5. Judgement and Sentence 'li'{

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t3413 The Interahamwei n Bugaramad id not provideM unyakaziw ith an escorto r security,22a7n d the witnessn evers aw Munyakaziw ith bodyguards.228 103. Prior to 6 April 1994,T arek Aziz renteda room in Munyakazi'sh ouse.22Ine March 1994,t he only personsu ndergoingm ilitary training in Bugaramaw ere Burundianc ivilians. There was no link betweent he Burundiansa nd the Interahamwe. Prior to April 1994,t he Interahamwef ocusedo n mobilisation activitiesa nd community assistancen, ot on military training.23T0h e BugaramaI nterahamwed id not useM unyakazi'sv ehicles,23al nd at no point in time did the witnesss eet he Interahamwee atingina ny of Munyakazi'sh ouses.232 Deliberations 104. The Defenced oesn ot contestt hat Munyakazi owned four houses.23th3a t his familv owneda total of 80 rice blocks,23aan dt hat he was Chairmano f the CAVECWI cooperative from 199I to May lgg3. 23sH e was alsoC hairma n of BanqueP opulairei n Bugaramaw hen it was founded.M unyakazih imselfagreedt hat he was an accomplishedm an in Rwandab efore he fled the country in July 1994."'" On this basis,t he Trial Chamberc oncludest hat therei s consensuas mongt he partiest hat the Accusedw as a relativelyw ealthy and gifted man by the standardos f Bugaramaa t the time. 105. The Trial Chambero bservesth at the Prosecutiona dducedn o evidencea boutt he political structuresi n Bugaramac ommunea nd/or Cyangugup rdfecture, and no evidence aboutr elationsb etweent he variousp olitical parties.M oreover,t he evidencea t trial regarding Munyakazi'sp olitical backgroundw as sparsea, ndt he evidencea bouth is personavl iewso n Rwanda'sT utsi minority, non-existent.T he partiesd o not disputet hat the Accusedw as a membero f the MRND. What the partiesd isputei s whethert he Accusedw as a leaderw ith de facto authorityo ver the BugaramaI nterahamwe. 106. ProsecutionW itnessesL AY, BWP and BWR all saidt hey believedt hat Munyakazi was the leader of the BugaramaI nterahamweb ecauseh e went to political rallies in the companyo f the Interahamwea nd was receiveda s an importantp ersonality.T o illustratet hat Munyakazi had substantiali nfluence over the Interahamwe,W itness BWR describeda n incident that took place at a location known as Ijambwe, during which Munyakazi gave orderst o the Interahamwea nd they obeyed.N o datew as providedf or this incident,n or was the incident mentionedb y any other Prosecutionw itness.N ot one of the three witnesses providedi dentifuing informationa boutt he Interahamwea llegedlya ccompanyingM unyakazi or identiffing information about those who allegedly received him as an important personality.W ithout such detail, the Trial Chamberi s unable to determinew hether the witnesses't estimonieso n this issuec orroboratee ach other sufficiently to allow it to make inferencews ith respectto Munyakazi'ss tatusa t thet ime.W itnessB WR additionallyte stified that "when theseI nterahamwew ent out... Munyakazil ed them," and that the populationo f 227 T.17 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. 22t T. 17S eptembe2r0 09p . I l. "n T.17 Septembe2r0 09p .3. "o T.17 Septembe2r0 09p p.5-7. "t T.17 Septembe2r0 09p . 12. "'T.77 Septemb2e0r 09p . 15. "t T. 14O ctobe2r 009p p.5 -6,8 -9,1 7-18T; l5 Octobe2r 009p .13. tto T.14 october2 009p .4. "t T.14 october2 009p p.19-21. "u T. l5 october2 009p .12. Judeementa nd Sentence 24 ''u-Li

5 July2 010 Prosecutorv . YussuMf unyakazi,C a.seN o' ICTR-97-36A-T, t34? Bugaramare ferredt o the Interahamwea S" Yussufs Interahatnwe."237H owever,t his witnesS als6 testified that he fled Bugaramao n 7 April 1994,a nd it is unclear from his testimony whetherh e he was decribingi l4unyakazi'sa lliged links with theI nterahamweb eforeo r after this date.T he mere fact thal Munyakazim ight, at one time or another,h ave beens eeni n the companyo f memberso f the Interahamwed besn ot, in and of itself, allow the Trial chamber to infer ihut h" was a leadero f the Interahamwew ith def acto authorityo ver them' 107. Accordingt o ProsecutionW itnessE sidrasM usengayireM, unyakazit reatedh im like a son.H e had free accessto Munyakazi'sh ouse,a ndw as,t herefore,i n a positiont o observeth e retationshipth at existedb etweenM unyakazia ndt he InteraharnweT. he Trial Chamberf inds that his testimonyo n thesep oints was consistenat nd was not shakeno n cross-examination' While Munyakazic laimedt irat Musengayirete stified againsth im becauseM usengayirew as ttre presiAenot f IBUKA in Bugarama,23th8e questiono f membershipin IBUKA was not put to the witnesso n cross-examinationa,n d there is no other evidenceo n the recordt o support this claim. Furthermoret,h e witnessa cknowledgedth at Munyakazis avedh is life on 7 April 1994. Therefore,t he Trial chamber seesn o evidencet hat the witness had a motive to fabricateo r embellishe videncea gainstM unyakazi.T he Trial Chamber,h owever' notest he proprio motu pronouncementht e witnessm adea t the end of his testimonyi n which he asked Munyakazi to apologise for his crimes.23Te he witness did not explain the basis of his certitudet hat Munyafazi had committedc rimes.T he Trial Chamberr ecallst hat he was in the hospital from 7 April to 3 or 4 May 1994, when the specific crimes alleged against Munyakazi are alleged to have taken place. Neverthelesst,h e Trial Chamber finds his testimonyt o be crediblea nd reliablei n many,b ut not all, respects. 108. Accordingt o MusengayireM, unyakaziw as a membero f the MRND, but held no electedo ffrce inthe commun-e.,Nhileheia w Munyakazii n the companyo f the Interahamwe, he never heard MunyiU*i indicatet hat he was their leader.O n the contrary, Munyakazi would refer to others as Interahamwe,a ndM usengayireb elievedt hat the presidento f the Interahamwe in the area was Job Mabwire, contrary to the testimony of Prosecution WitnesseBs WX, BWW and Munyakazih imself.'oMo us"ngayiren, everthelesbs,e lievedt hat tvtunyatcazwi as influential among the memberso f the Interahamwe'I n support of this posit'ionh, e describeda n incident,* hi.h he couldo nly sayt ook placep rior to 7 April1994' involving clashesb etween the Interahamwea nd JDR, the youth wing of the MDR party' which resulted in a death. Following the incident, Munyakazi was arrested' and the Interahamwed emonstratedb y blocking the main road to CIMERWA for a day' Munyakazi wasr eleasedfo llowingt hesei emonstrations.2Naol otherw itnessr eferredto this incident' 109. During Munyakazi's cross-examinationth, e Prmecutioni ntroduceda n excerptf rom a report entitleld "Rapport sur les Drolts de L'Homme au Rwanda" which stated that Munyakazic hairedu " vfnr.n meetingi n Gikundamvuroan 11 October1 992.A ccordingt o the report, after the meeting violence broke out, and twelve persons were wounded' Vtunyatazi was subsequently-arresteAd.f ter a serieso f protestsb y the MDR and counter- " ,r 7 , T T. . 2 1 2 5 A O p ct r o il b 2 e 0 r2 0 0 9 0 p 9 p p .4 . i 8 - t; 4 t 9 u ' tunyut- i learnedt hat no Tutsi in Bugaramaw ould testify againsth im' Thus' a decisionw as madet hat the presidento f the Bugaramac haptero f tbikawould testify againsth im, Munyakazi' Musengayireis the presidento f the lbuka associationin Bugarama' ;t;f . fi Lpril 200(ip .l9; WitnessE sidrasM usengayired eclared" Your Honour,I would like to sayt o Vfunyutuipublicly, as ftir r"", i **ld like-tou ttittirn to confesst o his crime, andt hen the sentencew ould be ablet o be diminishedo r reduced. Becauseth e personsw ho committedc rimesa s -- at the samet ime as him havec onfessedth eir crimesu nJ tn.y haveg iven beenr educeds entenceas ndt hey are living comfortablya t home" 'oo T .27 April2 009p . 15. 'o' T. 24 April 2o09p p' 2- 3. 25 Judsemenat nd Sentence '1il--

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 protestsb y the MRND, Munyakaziw asr eleasedo n 17 OctoberI gg2.242ffr.C tu-J346 that the Prosecutiond id not lay a proper foundationf or the introductiono f this report.T he author and the sourceo f this informationa re unidentified,a nd nothing is known aboutt he organizationt hat publishedt he report.T he Chamber,t herefore,c an attachn o weight to the document. 110. In addition,t he Chambern otest hat while the incidentm entionedi n the report is similar to that describedb y WitnessM usengayirei,t is unablet o definitively concludet hat both are referringt o the samee vent.M unyakazia cknowledgedth at he was anesteda fter an incidentb etweent he MRND and anotherp olitical party but said he was arrestedb ecauseh e had fallen out with memberso f the MRND. He addedt hat the office of the Public Prosecutor had investigatedth e matter at the time and found that he was not guilty. Again, it is unclear whetherM unyakazi was referring to the evident describedb y Musengayireo r the human rights report.'4tG iu"n the vaguenisso f the evidencer egardingt he incident,o r incidents,t he Chambera ccordst o it little weight. 111. The Trial Chambera cceptsW itnessM usengayire'as ccountr egardingh is capturea t the hands of the Interahamwe on 7 April 1994. Musengayiret estified that when the Interahamwec apturedh im, he was taken to Munyakazi's housew ith the expectationt hat Munyakaziw ould order his murder.T his suggeststh at Munyakazim ight have had authority over the Interahamwe.H owever, Musengayirea lso testified that when Munyakazi tried to protecth im by placing him in a room in his house,a membero f the Interohamwet hrew a grenade at Musengayire through a window. Furthennore, that same day another of Munyakazi'sa dopteds ons,S hemaS aidi,a Tutsi, was killed by the localI nterahamwe.2aTah e Trial Chamberf inds that these events cast doubt on the allegation that Munyakazi had authorityo vert he actso f the Interaharnweth roughoutth e Indictmentp eriod. ll2. The Chamber acknowledgest hat ProsecutionW itness BWX worked in close proximity to Munyakazi'sh ousei n Misufi beforet he eventso f April 1994,a ndw ast herefore in a positiont o observew hat transpiredi n the vicinity. Neverthelesst,h e Trial Chamberh as doubts regardingh is overall credibility. There are contradictionsin Witness BWX's testimonya bout whether he continuedt o work regularly near Munyakazi's house after 6 April 1994.F or examplet,h e witnesst estifiedt hath e wentt o work on 7 April 1994b ecause, as a Hutu, he did not feel threatened.'*H' owever,h e maden o mentiono f the attackt hat took placet hat day on EsidrasM usengayire--a man with whom WitnessB WX was acquainted. This,t ogetherw ith the witness'c oncessioonn cross-examinatiothna t he evacuatehdi s Tutsi wife to the DRC on or around7 or 8 April 1994,s uggesttsh at WitnessB WX wasn ot at his placeo f work on 7 April 1994.24tn6e triat Chamber..hahse ards ignificante videnceth at Hutusi n Bugaramaw ho weree ithera ssociatewd ith Tutsis,o r assistedT utsis,w erek illed by local assailantsT. he Chamber,t herefore,c onsidersit unlikely that a man with a Tutsi wife 242 ProsecutionE xhibit 23, AssociationR wandaisep our la D6fenced esD roits de la Personnee t desL ibertds Publiques",R apports ur lesD roitsd e L'Hommea uR wanda,o ctobre1 992-octobr1e9 93",d dcembre1 993. to' T.l5 october2 009p .26. 'oo T.l4 October2 009p p.2 6, 40-41;T; . 3 I August2 009p p. 25-26,5 6 . 'ot T.24 Aprit 2009 pp.18,22-23W: itnessB WX testifiedt hato n 7 April 1994h e continuedw orkinga su sual becausea s a Hutu he was undern o threat.W hent he securitys ituationw orsenedh e was forcedt o moveh is '1vork implements."A fter 6 April 1994,t he BugaramaIn terahamweb eganp ersecutinga reaT utsisa nd abducted a certainN zaramba.N zamban everr eturneda ndW itnessB WX believedh e was killed for helpinga Tutsi neighboer scapeth e area.A notherm ann amedN dadayea, lsoa Hutu,h id a Tutsin eighbouar ndh elpedh im escapea crosst he Rwandanb order. Ndadayew as also anestedb y theI nterahamwea ndn evers eena gain. WitnessB WX assumedth at he too had beenk illed. Both victims lived within l0 metreso f the witness'h ouse. 'ou T. 24 April 2009 pp.2 4, 25;T . 27 April 2009 pp.2 3-24. Judgementa nd Sentence 26 'IW^,1.t 'l

Prosecutorv . YussuMf unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t745 would have continued to work near the premises of an Interahamwe gathering following the eventso f 6 April 1994.Thew itnessd id not addressth is issue. I13. The Trial Chambera lson otest hat while WitnessB WX expressecde rtitudea boutt he broado utlineso f certain issues,h e was often vaguew ith respectt o details.F or example,t he witnesst estifiedt hat Tarek Aziz, an Interahamwetr ainer,lived in Munyakazi'sh ouse,b ut he did not know in what capacityh e lived there.H e is the only witnessw ho testifieda boutT arek Aziz's living arrangementws ho did not confirm that Tarek Azizwas, at a minimum,a tenant in this house.T he witress alsot estifiedt hat he would seeM unyakazia t Interahamweh aining sessionsb, ut he did not know what Munyakaziw as doing there. He saw the Interahamwe trainingw ith gunsa nd notedt hat Munyakazi'sb odyguardsc arriedf irearms,b ut did not know whethert he weaponsw ere stored in Munyakazi'sh ome in Misufi. In conclusion,a lthough WitnessB WX saidh e was in closep roximity to Munyakazi'sh ouseo n a daily basisa ndw as, therefore,v ery familiar with what was taking placet here,h e, in fact, knew very little about theI nterahamwew ho are allegedt o haveu sedM unyakazi'sh ousea s a gatheringp lace. ll4. WitnessB WX believedt hat the Interahamwer eceivedt heir firearmsd uring a meeting that took placei n 1993i n Bugaramac hairedb y Andr6N tageruraH. e supectedth is because Munyakazi, the only well-known person from Bugaramat o have attendedt he meeting, assistedN tageruraa t the meeting,a nd the witnessf irst saw the Interahamwew ith firearms soona ftert his meeting.2aNTo ottierw itnessc orroborateadn y part of his testimonya boutt his meeting and, indeed, other witnessest estified that the Interahamwe had received their weaponsfr om locals ourcesi,n cludings oldiersa ndg endarmes. 115. Givent he discrepancieasn d ambiguitiesin his evidencet,h e Trial Chamberw ill rely on WitnessB WX's accounto f eventsp, articularlyth oset hat took place after7 April 1994, only insofara si t is corroboratebdy othere vidence. I16. WitnessB WX assumedth at Munyakaziw as both the leadero f the BugaramaM RND and the presidento f the local Interahamwef or a number of reasons.H e believedt hat the Interahamwe used Munyakazi's house located near the customs building as their headquartersH. owever,t he Trial Chambern otest hat it is not clearh ow the witnessk new this as thii was not the building belongingt o Munyakazit hat he was in a positiont o observe.2a8 The witness also testified that the Interahamweh eld meetingsa t Munyakazi's house,a n allegation supported by WitnessesM usengayire and BWV7.24eHea lio stated that the Interahamwew ould assemblea t Munyakazi'sh ouseb eforel eavingo n killing and looting expeditionsa, nd that Munyakazio ften went with them. WitnessB WW corroboratedW itness BWX's testimonyt hat someI nterahamwel ived at Munyakazi'sh ouse,a nd that Munyakazi employedb odyguardsw ho were memberso f theI nterahamwe.2t0 ll7. ProsecutionW itnessB WU was tried and convictedf or crimesc ommitteda t Shangi Parishi n April 7994,a ndi s thereforea n accomplicew itness.H e testifiedt hat during Gac,aca hearingstr elOi n July 2005,h e pled guilty, but that this pleaw as rejectedb y the court.2sIln that first confessiont,h e witnessd id not mentionM unyakazin or did he refer to the 29 April 2o' T. 24 April 2009p .2l ; T. 27 April 2009p p.2 6-27,3 2. 2o'T.27 April 2009p p.3 4-35,3 8 (closeds ession). 2on WitnessM usengayireT, .24 April2009p p. l, 3: In April 1994,b eforet hew itnessl eft Bugaramat,h e Interahamwwe ould meeta t Munyakazi'sh ouseW; itnessB WW, T 29May 2009,p.29.,( closeds essionw) hen Munyakaziw antedt o give instructionst othe Interahamwe,hed id so within his compoundb ecauseo utsiders would not be ablet o overhearw hat was saidt here. 250 ProsecutioWn itnessB WW, T 29 May 2009p . 13,15-17,19,22,28,34-3(5c loseds ession). T.4 June2 009p p.4,12-15. "t Judgement and Sentence 27 / ^ lf n v l l' .I

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t7& 1994 attackonS hangiP arish.2sH2e only referredt o thosea ttackso n ShangiP arisht hat took placeo n 13 and 20 April 1994, andd id not refer to killings that took placed uringt hose attacks.T he witnesst estified in the instantp roceedingsth at while in prison he providedt he authoritiesw ith a more completes econdc onfessionin, which he discusseMd unyakazi'sr ole in the eventsa t Shangoi n 29 April 1994.T he secondg uilty pleaw asa ccepted,"'b ut wasn ot enteredin to evidencein the instantp roceedings. 118. The witnessg avea statementto ICTR investigatorosn 27 Septembe2r 007.2sIn4 that statementh, e told the investigatorsth at he had namedM unyakazia s a perpetratorin Gacaca proceedings.2sHt owever, becauset he witness' secondg uilty plea was not enteredi nto evidencei n the instantp roceedingst,h e Trial Chamberi s unablet o assessth e veracityo f the witness't estimonyw ith respectto this plea. 119. In assessingW itnessB WU's overallc redibility,t he Chambern otest hat he did not mentionM unyakazi or the Shangia ttack of 29 April 1994 in his first confessionW. hile, at earliers tageso f the proceedingsin Rwanda,t he witnessm ay havea ttemptedto minimiseh is involvemenitn the genocidet,h e Chambern everthelescso nsidersth is point to be of some significanceI.n addition,w hile the witnessw as not askedb y the Defencew hetherh e agreed to testifu againstc o-perpetratorsin return for a reduceds entencet,h e Trial Chambern otes that he was sentencedto a ten-yearp rison term in Rwanda,25d6e spitet he gravity of the crimesh e confessedto havingc ommittedI.n addition,t he witnessh imselfa ppearsto have admittedn amtngm ore co-perpetratorsin, cluding Munyakazi,i n his secondp lea. Therefore, the Trial Chamberv iews his evidencew ith cautiona ndw ill rely on his evidenceo nly where it is conoborated. 120. WitnessB WU testified that during an MRND meetingh eld at Kamarampakas tadium in Cyangugup rdfecturei n late 1993,t he CyanguguP rdfet Bagambikii ntroducedM unyakazi ast he leadero f the Interahamwein BugaramacornmunTeh. e witnessa ddedt hatbecauseh e was a membero f the CDR party, he did not know whethert he chairmano f the Cyangugu MRND attendedt he rally.2sjT he witnessa ddedt hat he was 19 yearso ld at the time of the rally and was not interestedi n other political parties.25A8s no oiher witnessm entionedt his meetingt,h e Trial Chamberc annota ccords ignificanwt eightt o this evidence. l2l. WitnessB WU participatedi n the affackt hat took placeo n ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994.Het estifiedt hat Munyakaziledthea ttacko n the parish.T his evidenceis corroborated, and, as will be discussedi n further detail below, the Trial Chamberi s satisfiedt hat the Prosecutionh asp rovenb eyondr easonabled oubtt hat Munyakaziw as the leadero f that attack (seeC hapteIrI .8). a 122. WitnessB WW was also an accomplicew ho was tried and convictedf or having participatedin the 1994 genocide.2sHee was arrestedin Novembero r Decembero f 1994. Accordingt o the witness,h e providedd gJailso f his crimesi n a confessionp rovidedt o the Cyangugup rosecutor'so ffice in 2005.'o' The witnessw as then tried before tv,roG acaca '52 DefenceE xhibit4 (theg uilty pleao f 2005);T . 4 June2 009p .34. "t T. 4 June2 009 pp. ll-12, 14. "o DefenceE xhibit 5 (statementto the ICTR investigatordsa ted2Ttho f October2 007);7.4 June2 009p p. I l, 16,22,34. "t T.4 June2 009p . 11. "u T.4 June2 009p . 5. "' T.4 June2 009p p.5-6,21-22. 258 T.4 June2 009p . 19 "' T. 29 May 2009,p p.6 -7. (closeds ession). tuo T .29 May 2009p p.25-26,27.A ccordingt o theP rosecutionit, disclosedto theD efencea letterf rom the Prosecutor'so ffice in Bugaramac laimingt hat it hasn o documentsre latingt o WitnessB WW in its possession. Judgemenatn dS entence 28 alYi '{

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazt,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 courtsi n RwandaH. e was sentencetdo thirteeny earsi n prisonb y the frstG acau 1"H43 and fourteeny earsb y the second.H e was releaseda fter having beend etainedf or twelve and a half years. According to the witness,h e was releasedp ursuantt o a presidentiald ecree becauseh e had confessedto his crimesa nd repented.'oT' he witnesst estifiedt hat in April 1994,h e collaboratedp rimarily with Munyakazi andT arek Aziz, who lived in Munyakazi's housea ndw as Munyakazi'sd eputyi n his crimina l activities.262 123. While the Defenced id not ask the witnessw hetherh e receiveda reduceds entencein returnf or testiffing againsth is co-perpetratorsth, e Trial Chambero bservesth at he confessed to a large numbero f killings but was releaseda fter having spentt welve and a half yearsi n prison.M oreover,h e implied that thereh ad beena plea agreemenat lthoughh is testimonyo n this point was not clear.'o'G ivent hesec oncemst,h e Trial Chambera ccordsli ttle weightt o WitnessB WW's testimonye xceptw herei t is corroborated. 124. WitnessB WW, a self-confessemd embero f the BugaramaI nterahamwew, as not askedb y either party whether Munyakaziw as the leadero f the BugaramaI nterahamwei n April 1994.I nstead,h e testif,redth at Munyakaziw as a membero f the MRND andt hat, in that capacity,h e recruitedy oung personst o join theI nterahamre.'uoH e was the only witnesst o havet estified about Munyakazi's role in recruitingy outh to the InteraharnweH. e was also the only witness to have statedt hat the BugaramaI nterahamwes tored their weaponsa t Munyakazi'sh ouse,a lthoughh e was perhapsth e bestp ositionedo f all the witnessess, ave Defence Witness ELB, to have had accesst o the latter information. The Trial Chamber recallst hatb othW itnessesB WX andM usengayirwe erep roximateto Munyakazi'sp remises, but that neitherr eferredt o the storageo f weaponsa t Munyakazi'sh ouse. 125. However,W itnessB WW corroboratedW itnessB WX's testimonyt hat Munyakazi had bodyguardsw ho were memberso f the InterahamweW. itnessesB WIJ, BWR and BWP corroboratedW itnessB WW's testimonyt hat Munyakazil ed the attacko n ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994.P rosecutionW itnessesL CQ, MM and MP corroboratedW itnessB WW's testimonyt hat Munyakaziw as one of the leaderso f the attaqko n Mibilizi Parish.26Tsh e fact that Munyakazi led the attacksa t Shangia nd Mibilizi Parishesi ndicatest hat he did have a substantiadl egreeo f def acto influenceo vert he BugaraqnIan terahamweo n thosed ays. 126. During Munyakazi's cross-examinationth, e Prosecutions ubmittedt hat Munyakazi was accusedin Gacacac ourts in Misufi cellule and Muko cellule of being in chargeo f the Interahamwes tationedi n the Bugaramad ishict; the leadero f the Interahamweo perationsin the Cyangugua nd Kibuye provinces;t hat his housew as the headquarterasn d assemblyp oint for the Interahamwe;a nd that he had sent memberso f the Interahamwet o kill a certain Rwitembagaza.'uMu unyakazi counteredt hat his accusersi n Misufi and Muko cellules wantedto seizeh is properry.26T' heT rial Chambenr otest hatP rosecutioEn xhibits26 and27 'ut T. 29 May 2009p . 8. (closeds ession). 'u'T.29 May 2009p p.6 -7 (closeds ession). 263 T. 29 May 2009 pp. 8,26-27: "After confessinga nd pleadingg uilty and beggingf or forgivenesso f the state, the governmenot f nationalu nity, I provideda ll the requestedin formation,a ndt hat informationw as circulated whereveri t was necessaryi,n the variouss ecleursa nd eveni n cellules. I hadt o providei nformationc oncerning thosec harges." 'uo T.29 May 2009p . 9. (closeds ession). tut T.29 May 2009p p.2o-2r. tuu T. l5 October2 009p p. 35-38;P rosecutioEn xhibits 26 and27( Munyakazi'sG acacafi les)P rosecution Exhibit2 6 providesth e personadl etailso fthe accuseds,u mmariseisn threes horts entencetsh ea llegations againstt he accuseda, nd lists the allegedv ictims of his crimesa ndp roposedw itnessesP. rosecutionE xhibit 27, anotherF iche Individuelle alleginga separatec rime,p rovidesa two sentences ummaryo f the allegationsa gainst thea ccused. "' T.15 octobe2r oo9p . 38. Judgemenat nd Sentence 29

Prosecutorv.Y ussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t744 1994a ttackonS hangiP arish.25H2e only referredt o thosea ttackso n ShangiP arisht hat took placeo n 13 and 20 April 1994, and did not refer to killings that took placed uringt hose attacks.T he witnesst estified in the instantp roceedingsth at while in prison he providedt he authoritiesw ith a more completes econdc onfessioni,n which he discussedM unyakazi'sr ole in the eventsa t Shangoi n 29 April 1994.T he secondg uilty pleaw as accepted,2bsuSt wasn ot enteredin to evidencei n the instantp roceedings. 11 8. The witnessg ave a statementto ICTR investigatosr on 27 September2 007.2 s4In that statementh, e told the investigatorsth at he had namedM unyakazia s a perpetratorin Gacaca proceedings.25Hso wever, becauset he witness' second guilty plea was not enteredi nto evidencein the instantp roceedingst,h e Trial Chamberis unablet o assessth e veracityo f the witnesst' estimonyw ith respectto this plea. 119. In assessinWg itnessB WIJ's overallc redibility,t he Chambern otest hat he did not mentionM unyakazi or the Shangia ttacko f 29 April 1994 in his first confessionW. hile, at earliers tageso f the proceedingsin Rwanda,t he witnessm ay havea ttemptedto minimiseh is involvemenitn the genocidet,h e Chambern everthelescso nsidersth is point to be of some significanceI.n addition,w hile the witnessw as not askedb y the Defencew hetherh e agreed to testiff againstc o-perpetratorsin retum for a reduceds entencet,h e Trial Chambern otes that he was sentencedio a ten-year prison term in Rwanda,2sd6e spitet he gravity of the crimesh e confessedto havingc ommitted.I n addition,t he witnessh imselfa ppearsto have admittedn amingm ore co-perpetratorisn,c ludingM unyakazi,i n his secondp lea.T herefore, the Trial Chambevr iews his evidencew ith cautiona ndw ill rely on his evidenceo nly where it is conoborated. 120. WitnessB WU testifiedt hat during an MRND meetingh eld at Kamarampakas tadium in'Cyangugup rdfecturei n late 1993,t he CyanguguP rdfet Bagambikii ntroducedM unyakazi as the leadero f the Interahamwei n Bugaramac ommuneT. he witnessa ddedt hat becauseh e was a membero f the CDR_party,h e did not know whethert he chairmano f the Cyangugu MRND attendedt he rally.r" The witnessa ddedt hat he was 19 yearso ld at the time of the rally and was not interestedi n other political parties.25A8s no other witnessm entionedt his meeting,t he Trial Chamberc annota ccords ignificantw eightt o this evidence. 121. WitnessB WU participatedi n the attackt hat took placeo n ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994.Het estifiedt hat Munyakazil ed the attacko n the parish.T his evidencei s conoborated, and, as will be discussedin further detail below,t he Trial Chamberi s satisfiedt hat the Prosecutionh asp rovenb eyondr easonabled oubtt hat Munyakaziw as the leadero f that attack (seeC hapteIrI .8). 122. WitnessB WW was also an accomplicew ho was tried and convictedf or having participatedin the 1994g enocide.25Hee wis arrestedin Novembero r Decembero f 1994. Accordingt o the witness,h e providedd etailso f his crimesi n a confessionp rovidedt o the Cyangugup rosecutor'so ffice in 2005.26T0h e witnessw as then tried before two Gacaca "t DefenceE xhibit4 (theg uilty pleao f 2005);T . 4 June2 009p .34. "t T.4 June2 009p p. ll-12,14. '50 DefenceE xhibit 5 (statementto the ICTR investigatordsa ted2Ttho f October2 007);T.4 lune2009p p. 11, 16,22,34. "t T. 4 June2 009p . I 1. 2s6 T.4 June2 009p . 5. 2s' T.4 June2 009p p.5-6,21-22. 2ss T.4 June2 009p . 19 ttt T.29 May 2009,p p.6 -7,(closeds ession). 'uo T. 29 May 2009 pp. 25-26,27. According to the Prosecutioni,t disclosedt o the Defencea letterf rom the Prosecutor'osf ficei n Bugaramac laimingt hati t hasn o documentrse latingt o WitnessB WW in its possession. Judgemenatn dS entence 28 ,vv(

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 courtsi n RwandaH. e was sentencetdo thirteeny earsi n prisonb y the ftst Gacac"L Ft33 and fourteeny earsb y the second.H e was releaseda fter havingb eend etainedf or twelve and a half years.A ccordingt o the witness,h e was releasedp ursuantt o a presidentiadl ecree becauseh e had confessedto his crimesa nd repented.'oT' he witnesst estifiedt hat in April 1994,h e collaboratedp rimarily with Munyakazia nd Tarek Aziz, who lived in Munyakazi's housea ndw asM unyakazi'sd eputyi n his criminala ctivities.'o' 123. While the Defenced id not askt he witnessw hetherh e receiveda reduceds entencein returnf or testiffing againsth is co-perpetratorsth, e Trial Chambero bservesth at he confessed to a large numbero f killings but was releaseda fter having spentt welve anda half yearsi n prison.M oreover,h e implied that thereh ad beena plea agreemenat lthoughh is testimonyo n this point was not clear.'o'G iven thesec oncernst,h e Trial Chambera ccordsli ttle weightt o WitnessB WW's testimonye xceptw herei t is conoborated. 124. Witness BWW, a self-confessedm ember of the BugaramaI nterahamwe,w as not askedb y either party whether Munyakazi was the leadero f the BugaramaI nterahamwei n April 1994.l nstead,h e testifiedt hat Munyakaziw as a membero f the MRND andt hat, in that capacity,h e recruitedy oung personst o join theI nterahs re.'uo He was the only witnesst o have testified about Munyakazi's role in recruitingy outh to the Interahamwe.H e was also the only witness to have statedt hat the BugaramaI nterahamwes tored their weaponsa t Munyakazi'sh ouse,a lthoughh e was perhapsth e bestp ositionedo f all the witnessess, ave Defence Witness ELB, to have had accesst o the latter information. The Trial Chamber recallst hatb othW itnesseBs WX andM usengayirwe erep roximateto Munyakazi'sp remises, but that neitherr eferredt o the storageo f weaponsa t Munyakazi'sh ouse. 125. However,W itnessB WW corroboratedW itnessB WX's testimonyt hat Munyakazi had bodyguardsw ho were memberso f the InterahamweW. itnessesB WU, BWR and BWP corroboratedW itnessB WW's testimonyt hat Munyakazil ed the attacko n ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994.P rosecutionW itnessesL CQ, MM and MP corroboratedW itnessB WW's testimonyt hat Munyakaziw as one of the leaderso f the attacko n Mibilizi Parish.26T5h e fact that Munyakaziled the attacksa t Shangia nd Mibilizi Parishesin dicatest hat he did have a substantiadl egreeo f def acto influenceo vert he BugaramaIn terahamweo n thosed ays. 126. During Munyakazi's cross-examinationth, e Prosecutions ubmittedt hat Munyakazi was accusedin Gacacac ourts in Misufi cellule and Muko cellule of being in chargeo f the Interahamwes tationedi n the Bugaramad istrict;t he leadero f the Interahamweo perationsin the Cyangugua nd Kibuye provinces;t hat his housew as the headquarterasn d assemblyp oint for the Interahamwe;a nd that he had sent memberso f the Interahamwet o kill a certain Rwitembagaza.2sM6u nyakazi counteredt hat his accfsers in Misufi and Muko cellules wantedt o ieize his property.2 u' TheT rial Chambenr otest hatP rosecutioEn xhibits 26 and2 7 26t T.29 May 2009p . 8. (closeds ession). 26' T. 29 May 2009 pp. 6-7 (closeds ession). zut T .29 May 2009 pp.8,26-27:" Afler confessinga ndp leadingg uilty andb eggingf or forgivenesosf the state, the governmenot f nationalu nity, I provideda ll the requestedin formation,a nd that informationw as circulated whereveri t was necessaryi,n the variouss ecteursa nd eveni ncellules. I hadt o provide informationc oncerning thosec harges." 264 T.29 May 2009p . 9. (closeds ession). zut T.29 May 2oo9p p.2o-21. 'uu T .15 October2 009p p.35-38;P rosecutioEn xhibits 26 and27( Munyakazi'sG acacafi les)P rosecution Exhibit 26 providest he personald etailso fthe accuseds, ummarisesin threes horts entencetsh e allegations againstt he accuseda, nd lists the allegedv ictims of his crimesa nd proposedw itnessesP. rosecutionE xhibit2T, anotherF iche Individuelle alleginga separatec rime,p rovidesa two sentences ummaryo f the allegationsa gainst the accused. 'u' T.15 october2 oo9p . 38. Judgemenatn dS entence 29 4,4,t

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 r342 are documentsi ssued by the Rwandan SupremeC ourt's Departmento f Gacaca Affairs entitled "Fiche Individuelle de L'Accusd." Neither of these documentss uggestst hat the Accusedw as eithert ried or convictedo f anv crime in Rwanda.T herefore.t he Trial Chamber accordsn o weight to this material. 127. The Defencec ase is that Munyakaziw as no more than an ordinarym embero f the MRND, as were many other Rwandansa t the time. He was never a member of the Interahamwe,a nd indeedb ecauset he Interahamwew as the youth wing of a political party, Munyakaziw ould have been precludq4^fromp articipatingi n such a group by virrue of his advanceda gea tthe time of the events.'oo 128. The Trial Chambern otes that three Defencew itnessesc ast doubt on the Defence propositiont hat Munyakazi was too old to be a membero f the Interahamwe,w hen they testifiedt hat memberso f the Interahamwew ere occasionallyo ver the ageo f 40.26Heo wever, the Defence witnessesa ll testified that Munyakazi was not a member of the Bugarama Interahamwea nd in no way participatedi n its activities. Some of the Defencew itnesses statedt hat Tarek Aziz was the leadero f the BugaramaI nterahamwe,2Tw0h ile others,w ho claimedt o haveb eenk nowledgeablea boutt he activitieso f the BugaramaIn terahamwes, aid that they did not know who its leadersw ere.2'lO ther Defencew iinessest estifiedt hat those committingc rimesi n the Bugaramar egionw ered isorganisedyo uth groups."2 129. DefenceW itnessN KM claimedt hat,a s a membero f an oppositionp arfy,h e closely monitoredt he activitieso f the communalM RND,273a ndy et he could not namet he leaderso f the BugaramaI nterahamwe,a nd never saw or heardt hat the BugaramaI nterahamwew ere involved in the crimest hat took placea fter 6 April 1994.27T4h e witnesst estifiedt hat he had beens ubjectt o post-conflictg ovemmentp ressureto testiff falsely againsti ndividual Hutus. Immediately following his testimony before Gacaca courts that Munyakazi had killed individualsi n Bugaramaa nd that he had organisedra llies,h e was employeda s a principal in a secondarsyc hoolf ollowing a long periodo f ulemploymentT. hus,h e believedt hat he had beenr ewardedf or testiffing for the Prosecution."' 130. DefenceW itnessN RB, who wasa membero f theM RND, explainedth ath e couldn ot sayw ho the leadero f the BugaramaI nterahamwew as becauseh e himself was not a member ofthe Interahamwr.2TW6 itne-sseYsM C and YMS alsos aidt hey could not namet he leadero f the BugaramaI nterahamwei n April 1994.W itnessA BM testified that he was awareo f the existenceo f the Interahamwei n Kigali but did not know that there were Interahamwei n Bugarama.27H7o wever,o n cross-examinationh,e confirmedt hat, in a prior statementh, e said that Tarek Aziz was the leadero f the BugaramaIn terahamweA. t trial, he explainedt hat he was not certainw hetherT arek Aziz was a leadero f the Interahamweo r simply a member with considerablec lout, but the Trial Chamberc onsidersth at this doesn ot adequatelye xplain why he failed to acknowledgeth e existenceo f a chaptero f Interahamwein Bugaramad uring 'u8 DefenceC losingB rief paral 5; MunyakaziT, ..14O ctober2009p .2l; T. 14 Septembe2r0 09p .34;T.17 Septembe2r0 09p .3. 'un T.7 Septembe2rA 09p p.52-53T; . 17 Septembe2r0 09p p. 15,1 6;T . 16 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. "o T. 14 October2 009p . 22; T. 7 September2 009p . 6l; T. l7 Septembe2r 009p . 2. "t T.3l August2 009p p. 46-47;'t.l Septembe2r0 09p p.4 8-50.;T . l0 Septembe2r 009p . 27 (closeds ession); WitnessT hdobaldG akwayaR waka,T . 16 Septembe2r 009p p.8,28-29. "'T.l0 Septembe2r0 09p .27 (closeds ession). "t T.3l August2 009p p. l4-15. "o T . 3l August2 009p . 43. t" T.3l August2 009p p.34-37. 2tu T. I Septembe2r0 09p . 48. "'T.lo SLptemb2eor o9p . 10. Judgementa nd Sentence 30 fl,'1

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July 2010 t34l his examination-in-chief.tttT he Defencew itnessesw ere uniformly unable to describet he command structure of Interahamwe in Bugaramq but all claimed to be certain that Munyakazi was not involved in its activities. The Chamber, therefore, finds Defence WitnessesN KM, NRB, YMC, YMS andA BM evidencer egardingM unyakazi'sr ole with the Interahamweto be unreliable. 131. DefenceW itnessE LB, a Hutu,w as arrestedo n 28 January1 997.27Hee wast ried and convictedb y a Gacacac ourt in Rwandaf or genocide.T he witness,a long with Tarck Aziz and 28 others,w as chargedw ith killing Tutsis, inter alia, at CIMERWA, in Mibilizi, in Shangia, ndi n BiseseroH. e deniedh avingp articipatedin the eventsa t Mibilizi, Biseseroa nd Shangib ut confessedto havingp articipatedin the attacka t CIMERWA."0 In the instantc ase, he confirmedt hat he was the vice presidento f the BugaramaI nterahamwei n April lgg4.28l Thus, of all the witnesses in this case, he was in the best position to observe the Interahamwe'sa ctivities and understandit s structured uring this period. However,t he Trial Chambern otest hat Witness ELB is an accomplice,w ho is currently serving a sentencein Rwandaf or crimes he admittedc ommitting during the genocide.T he Trial Chambert akes into accountt he possibility that the witnessm ay havet estifiedw ith a view to minimisingh is role in the eventso f April 1994, andw ill, thereforea, ccordl ittle weight to his testimony exceptw herec orroboratedb y otherw itnesses. 132. The Trial Chamberc oncludest hat much of the Defencet estimonyr egardingt he structureo f the Interahamwe,o r other criminal groupso peratingi n Bugaramai n April 1994, was contradictorya nd unreliable,a nd,t herefore,s hedsn o light on the structureo r leadership of suchg oups. Conclusion 133. The Trial Chambera cceptst hat memberso f the BugaramaI nterahamwem ay have met regularly at Munyakazi's housei n Misufi. However,i t is unablet o determinew hether they met there at the behesto f Munyakazi,o r Munyakazi'st enant,T arek Aziz. Further,i t considerst he evidence that Munyakazi had Interohamwe bodyguardst o be vague and inconclusive.T he Trial Chamber is further unable to determinew hether the Bugarama Interahamwew asa well-structuredo rganisationw ith a well-definedc hain of command. 134. The Trial Chamber recalls, however,t hat the Indictment does not allege that Munyakazi was "the leader" of the BugaramaI nterahamweb ut rather "a leader" of the BugaramaIn terahamweA. s will be discussedin more detail below,t he Trial Chamberi s satisfiedth at Munyakaziw as the leadero f the attacko n ShangPi arisho n 29 April 1994( see ChapterI I.8), and that he was a leadero f the 30 April-.1994a ttacko n Mibilizi Parish( see ChapterI L9). On this basis,t he Trial Chamberc oncludesth at the Prosecutionh as proven beyond reasonabled oubt that the Accusedw as a leader with de facto authority over the BugaramaIn terahamwew ho attackedS hangai ndM ibilizi Parisheso n29 and3 0 April 1994, respectively. ttt T. l0 Septembe2r 009,p.27 (closeds ession). "n T.17 Septembe2r0 09p . 18. t^'o T. n Septembe2r 009p .24. 'o' T. 17 Septembe2r0 09p . 2. Judeemenat nd Sentence 3l ,*T

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyaleaziC, aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julty2 0w10 4. RECRUITMENT AND TRAIIIING OF TIIE BUGARAMA INTERAIAMWE 135. In paragraph8 of the Indictment,t he Prosecutiona llegest hat [b]etweenO ctober 1993 and April 1994 Yussuf MUNYAKAZI acting in concert with NDUTIYE alias TAREK AZIZ, NDEREYA MUNDERE, REKERAHO Samuel and HABINEZA Theobald recruited and trained the Bugarama Interahamwei n military drills and the use of firearmsa nd other weaponso n diversed atesa t diverse locations in and around Bugaramac ommune.M ore specifically, the training of interahamwew as conducteda t two football fields locatedi n Cite Bugaramaa nd at the CIMERWA football field all [sic] of BugaramaC ommune. 136. In supporto f thesea llegationst,h e Prosecutionp rofferedt estimonyf rom Witnesses BWX, BWW andE sidrasM usengayire.282 137. The Defence denies the charges and claims that the Prosecution evidence is discreditedb y the testimony of the Accuseda nd WitnessesN KM, MEBU, MPCC, YCH, ABM, YMC, YMS, MYA andE LB.283 Evidence ProsecutionW itnessB WX 138. WitnessB WX, a Hutu, worked in closep roximityt o Munyakazi'sh ousei n Misufi cellule,B ugaramas ecteuri n 1994.28T4h e witnessf irst saw Munyakaziw ith memberso f the Interahamwein or around 1992o r 1993.28Ms unyakaziw as the piesidento f the Interahamwe andw as involvedi n the activitieso f the Interahamwea fterP residenHt abyarimana'sd eath.286 139. The Interahamweu nderwentt raining on the football field locateda t Tenth Street,i n 1992 or 1993.287T he witness lived in the neighbourhooda nd was able to see the Interahamwetr aining there regularly.H e estimatedth at approximatelyt en men participated in these sessions.'oToa rek Aziz, who lived in Mu4yakazi'sh ouse, was their training instructor.I t was public knowledget hat the Interahamwew ere training and everyonec ould seet he trainings essions.'oT' he witnessc ouldn ot say how frequentlyt he trainings essions took placeo r providem orep recised ates.2eMou nyakazwi ould go,t o the hainingg roundsb ut the witness could not say what Munyakazi was doing there."' The Interahamwes tarted carryingf irearms trainingw ith them in 1993,b ut the witnessd id not know wheret hey *!d keptt he weapons."' 282 Indictmenpt ara.8 ; ProsecutionC losingB riefparas.5 0-55;T . January2 010p p.5,7. tt' DefenceC losingB rief paras.l 7-23. 284 ProsecutioEnx hibit6 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 24 April2009p .l 1:T.27 April 2009p .35( closed session). '8s T.24 April2oogp . 18 "'T.24 April 2009p p. 18,2 2,23-24. T.24A pril2009p p.l 8-19. "' "t T.24 April 2009p . 20. "n T.24 April 2009p p. 19, 20;T.27 April2009 pp.20-21. 'no T.z4April 2009p p. 19. 2t^' T. 27 April 2oo9p . 32. "' T. 24 April 2009p . 2 l. Judeemenatn dS entence 32 4

Prosecutorv.Y ussufM unyaluzi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t33? ProsecutionW itnessB WW 140. WitnessB WW, a Hutu, was a membero f the BugaramaI nterahamwei n 1994. He was hied and convictedf or having participatedin the 1994g enocide.2eH3e testifiedt hat he collaboratedp rimarily with Munyakazia ndT arekA ziz, who lived in Munyakazi'sh ousea nd wasM unyakazi'sd eputy,t o commit crimesi n 1994.2e4 141. Munyakaziw as a membero f the MRND and beganr ecruitingy oungp eoplet o join theI nterahamwein lgg}.2esH e havelled in a vehiclew ith a megaphoneu rgingyoungp g_ople to join theI nterahamwem ilitia.2t6T he witnessj oined theI nterahamwei nMarcn Pig?e1 On cross-examinationh,e clarified that he actuallyj oined theI nterahamwei nMarch I992.2eA8 t that time, the official objective of the Interahamwew as to fight for the defenceo f the country.2ee 142. The Interahamweu nderwentd aily training in 1993.H e and the other Interahamwe were trained by soldiers and gendarmesb elonging to a detachmentl ocated close to Munyakazi'sh ouse.A mong the instructorsw ere LieutenantN duwamungua nd Tarek Aziz, who lived in Munyakazi'sh ouse.T he hainingt ook placea t locationsc alledK ibangiraa nd Ninth Avenue."'Initially, recruitsw ould usep ieceso f woodt hat hadb eens hapedli ke rifles for practicer ather than real firearms.I t was not until March 1994 that they begant raining with real firearms3oiln the Nyirandakunzefo rest.3o2 ProsecutionW itnessE sidrasM usengayire 143. WitnessE sidrasM usengayirea, Tutsi, lived in Citd Bugaramain Bugaramac ommune in Cyangugup rdfecturei n April 1994.'"'He lived in Munyakazi'sh ousef rom 1982t o 1984 andM unyaka zi treatedh im like a son,e vena fterh e movedt o his own house.30a 144. In April 1994,t he Interahamwew ere alreadyi n existencea nd the witnessw ould see themi n Munyakazi'sc ompany.30T5a rekA ziz, an Interahamwel,iv ed in oneo f the roomsi n Munyakazi'sc ompound.30T6a rek Aziz had a military backgrounda nd trained the local InterahamweT. hew itnessd id not knoww heret heh ainingt ookp lace.ruT YussufM unyakazi 2e3 ProsecutionE xhibit 12 (personali dentifications heet);T . 29 May 2009, pp.5 , 6-7,9. 'no T. 29 May 2009p p. 7-8 (closeds ession). "t T.29 May 2009p . 9 (closeds ession). tnu T. 29 May 2009p . 23 (closeds ession). 'n' T . 29 May 2009p . 9 (closeds ession). 'n' T.29 May 2009p p.23-24( closeds ession). "t T. 29 May 2009p . I 1 (closeds ession). too T.29 May 2009 pp. 12, (English Transcriptp p 24 spellst he location" Kibaringa" hill, while the French Transcripat t p. 3l spellsi s as" Kibangira"). 'ot T.29 May 2009p p.23-24( closeds ession). to' T. 29 May 2009 pp. 24-25( closeds ession). 303 ProsecutioEn xhibit 5 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 23 April 2009p . 48. 300 7.23 April 2009p . 51;T . 27 April2009p .2. ros T.23 April2009p . 52. tou T.27 April 2oo9p p. 15-16. '"' T. 24 April 2009p p.4 -5. Judgement and Sentence JJ &+-

Prosecutorv . YussuMf unyaleaziC aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t33g 145. Munyakazij oined the MRND in 1992b ut never held an official position within the party and never recruitedn ew memberst o the party.to8TarekA zizwas tlr^e^presideonft the Interahamwea t the communele vel, andT homasM ugundaw as his deputy.'"' 146. Munyakazi never underwentm ilitary training and never handled a gun.3loH e was unawareo f military haining at Kibangira forest or at the Bugaramaf ootball field. The Bugaramaf ootball field was locateda pproximately5 00 metresf rom Munyakazi'sr esidence and he would havek nown if military drills or exercisesh ad takenp lacet here.H e neverw ent to Nyirandakunzef orest, which was located in Nyakabuye communea pproximately3 5 kilometresf rom Bugarama".I 147. Tarek Aziz renteda room in Munyakazi'sh ousea nd paid rent monthly like all the other tenants.tt' He moved in as a tenant before the advent of multiparty politics in the country.3l3M unyakaziw as neitherT arek Aziz'sm entorn or his supervisor.3rTaa rekA ziz was an agronomist,w ho worked from Monday through Saturday,a nd sometimesa t night. Therefore,M unyakazi believed he did not have the time to train the Interahamwe.T he Interahamwew ould meet at the communal office. but Munyakazi did not follow their activities.3l5 148. Munyakazic arriedo ut an investigationa nd learnedt hat it was Tarek Azizwho threw the grenadaa t Esidras Munsegayire in tris house on 7 April 1994.3t6T he same day, Munyakazit old Tarek Aziz to leaveh is house,w hich Tarek Aziz did towardst he end of that dav."' DefenceW itnessN KM 149. WitnessN KM,^a Hutu, was a membero f the PDI parfy and worked at a bank in Bugarama n Munyakazi was a regular customera t the bank.3reT here was a "o* ".t18 footballp itch at Tenth Avenuei n Bugaramacommunbeu, t the witnessd id not seeo r hear that MRND youths were^carryingo ut unusuala ctivities or military training there between 1993a nd 6April 1gg4.32T0a rek-Azizw as a tenanti n one of Munyakazi'sh ouses.32T'h e witnessd id not seeo r heart hat the periodo f April to July 1994,TarekA ziz assembled {r]ring young persoxsa t his residence.""T herew as no specialr elationshipb etweenT arekA ziz and Munvakazi."' 'ot T. I 4 October2 009p . 2l; T. 15 October2 009 pp. 20-21. 'ot T. 14O ctober2 0A9p .22; T. 15 October2 009p p.39-41. "o T. 14 October2 009p . 23. ttt T. 14o ctober2 oo9p .30. "t T. l4 october2 009p .16. "t T. l4 october2 009p .23. "o T. 15o ctober2 009p .41. 3t5 T . 14 October2 009p p. 17, 23. "u T. 14O ctobe2r 009p .40. "t T. 14o ctober2 oo9p .41. "'Defence Exhibit6 (personaild entifications heet)T; .3l August2 009p p.5,7-8, 38. (closeds ession). t'n T. 3l August2 009p p.8, 9 (closeds ession). "o T. 31 August2 009p .22. "' T. 3I August2 009p p.2 7,47. t" T.3l Augus2t oo9p .48. "' T. 3l August2 a09p p.27-28. Judgement and Sentence 34

Prosecutorv.Y ussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 133) DefenceW itnessM EBU 150. WitnessM EBU, a Hutu, lived in Bu-gtavtriatimtuarsy e cteuri n 1994.12T4h e witnessf irst met Munyakazi when he was 10 years old.32t trainingsessionsn ever took place in Bugarama.326 DefenceW itnessM PCC 151. WitnessM PCC, a Tutsi, lived in Ruhokos ecteurG, ishomac ommunein 1994.32H7e was a membero f the MRND party in Gishomac om*une.32H8 e first met Munyakazii n the early 1980s, and Munyakazi was a member of the MRND pary.32eT he leader of the BugaramaIn terahamwew as Tarek Azlz, notMunyakazi.330 152. The youth in his arear eceivedn o military training until the end of May 1994w hen civil defencef orcesw ere set up throughoutC yangugup rdfecturea nd the rest of the country. The purposeo f thesef orcesw as to supports oldiersa t the battlefront.C laudienS ingirankabo, a retireds oldier,o rganisedth e civil defencef orcesi n the witness'c ellule.33l DefenceW itnessA MB 153. WitnessA MB, a Hutu, was a universitys tudento utsideB ugaramai n 1994.B etween October 1993 and 6 April 1994,h e returnedt o Bugaramao n numerouso ccasions."' Munyakazi'st wo wives, Mama Safi and Mama Zainabu,b oth lived in closep roximity to the witness' home. While visiting Bugarama,W itness AMB never saw Tarek Aziz provide haining to young people. On Sundays,h e would sometimesg o the Tenth Avenue football pitch t-o.watchfo otball matchesb, ut nevers awo r heardt hat military trainingw ast aking place there."'Tarek Azizwasa tenanti n Munyakazi'sh ouseb ut the witnessn evers awT arckA zn in Munyakazi'sc ompanyT. he only relationshipb etweenth emw ast hat of landlord-tenant.33a DefenceW itnessY MC 154. WitnessY MC, a Hutu, was a traderi n 1994,a nd lived in Misufi cellule in Bugarama. He first met Munyakazin 1985w hen he arrivedi n Bugaramato starth is trade. The witness' businesps remisesw ere in closep roximityt o Munyakazi'sb usinesses.33s 155. There was a football field on TenthA venue. The witnessd id not seem ilitary or paramilitaryt raining taking placet herep rior to 6 April lp94.He also did not seeo r heart hat military or paramilitary training took place in Nyirandakuzef orest prior to 6 April 1994. Munyakazi was not in charge of military training for the youth wing of the MRND.336 '20 DefenceE xhibit 8 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 3 lAugust 2009p p. 50,52,54 (closeds ession). 325 T.3l August2 009p .54. t'u T.3| August2 009p . 57-58. 3tt DefenceE xhibit l8 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 7 Septembe2r0 09p p.44,46,57-58( closeds ession). t" T.7 Septembe2r0 09p p. 46, 58 (closeds ession). t2n T.7 Septembe2r0 09p p.47-48( closeds ession). tto T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p p. 60-6I (closeds ession). ttt T. 7 Septembe2r 009p . 5I (closeds ession). r" DefenceE xhibit2 l (personaild entifications heet)T; . 10 Septembe2r0 09p p. l, 3 (closeds ession). "' T. l0 Septembe2r 009p .9. "o T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. 33s DefenceE xhibit2 2 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 14 Septembe2r0 09p p. l-2, 3 (closeds ession). ttu T.14 Septembe2r0 09p . 10. Judgement and Sentence JJ n1+

Prosecutorv . YussuMf unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t3.?tr TarekA ziz, an Interahamwe,l ived in Munyakazi'sh ouse.T he witnessn evers aw Munyakazi 337 andT akekA ziz together. DefenceW itnessY MS 156. Witness YMS, a Hutu, was a trader and lived in Bugaramas ecteur in Bugarama communein 1994.33A8s a trader, he knew Munyakazi in 1994a nd would see Munyakazi going to the mosque.t3nT he witness never saw Munyakazi supervisem ilitary training Ih.r"I'ooB ugaramai- ootbalfli eld was locatedo n TenthA venue.3ar 157. BetweenM ay and June 1994,y outhsa ged 15 yearsa nd older, from all political parties,u nderwent" training" on the roads. They practicedw ith pieceso f wood sharpened into the shapeo f guns. The purposeo f the trainingw as to preparey oung peoplet o reinforce the armedf orces.T he training was organisedb y the interim govemmenta nd led\ Colonel Singirankabo.'oTt he witnessd id not seeM unyakaziparticipatein thesea ctivities.3a3 158. Tarek Azizwas a tenanti n Munyakazi'sh ouse.3aBoe t*een 1993a nd 6 April7994, Tarek Aziz and Munyakazi did not spend time together becauset hey had different occupations.3aTsa rek Aziz wasn ot involvedi n the recruitmento f membersf or the party and he was not involved in tb.9l eadershipo f the youth wing. There were othersw ho were in chargeo f they outhw ing.'*o DefenceW itnessM YA 159. WitnessM YA, a Hutu, was assignedto the gendarmeriein Bugaramaf rom the middle of March 1994 until 9 April 1994, when he went to the central Cyangugug endarmerie headquartersH. e was assignedto Bugaramatw ice beforet hat: the first time, towardst he end of 1992;a nda secondti me in 1993.E acht ime,h e would stayi n Bugaramafo r approximately a month.3a7T he distance between Munyakazi's residencea nd the gendarmeriep ost in Bugaramaw asa bout3 00m etres.3as 160. Therew eret wo football fields in Bugarama.O nOo f them was in the town itself while the otherw as at the CIMERWA factory.T he gendarmews ould go to the field in town to play football on Fridays.O n other days,t hey would go theret o exercise.T he witnessn everw ent to the CIMERWA field, and was not awareo f any military training sessionsta king placea t the Bugaramaf ootball field.3aeT here was a forest in the Kibangira areab ut the gendarmes couldn ot havec onductedfi rearmst rainingi n this areab ecauselo cal residentsli ved in close t" T. 14S eptembe2r 009p p.7,23 "t DefenceE xhibit2 4 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 14 Septembe2r0 09p p. 30-3l(closeds ession). "'T. 14S eptembe2r0 09p .31 (closeds essionT);. 14S eptembe2r0 09p .33. 'oo T. 14S eptembe2r0 09p . 38. tot T. 14S eptembe2r0 09p .37. to'T.14 Seotemb2e0r 09p .40. tot T. l4Septembe2, 009p p. 40, 53,5 9. too T.14 Septembe2r0 09p . 32 (closeds ession). 'ot T. 14S eptembe2r0 09p .33. tou T.14 Septembe2r0 09p . 47. "t DefenceE xhibit2 5 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 15 Septembe2r0 09p p. 4-5,12. 'ot T. 15S eptembe2r0 09p . 10. '"'T. l5 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. Judgement and Sentence 36 +r

Prosecutorv.Y ussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 i335 proximity to the forest. Had firearmst raining taken place there,t he gendannesw ould have heardt he gunshotsin Bugarama.3so 161. During the time -he w as in Bugarama,h e never saw gendarmesu sing sticks during their training exercises."t The witnessw as not awaret hat civilian youths receivedw eapons haining in Bugaramab etween1 993a nd April1994.3s2 DefenceW itnessE LB 162. Witness ELB, a Hutu, was the vice presidento f the Interahamwea t the commune level.T arek Azizwast he president.tt'TheIn terahamwed id not undertakem ilitarye xercises in March 1994.B urundians,w ho left their countryf ollowing the deatho f PresidenNt dadaye and settledi n the communalo ffice in an areao n SecondA venuec alled Kibanguro,w ere the ones involved in military training. They would run from Kibanguro, meet another$ oup coming from the CIMERWA factory and togethert hey would go to SecondA venuet o carry out military exercisesT. he traineesw ere civilians,b ut the trainersw ere military officers."* Burundiansw ere linked to the Bugaramag endarmeried etachmentb ut there was no link betweent he Burundiansa nd Munyakazi or betweent he Burundiansa nd the Interahamwe. The Interaharnwe'so bjective was not to providem ilitary training to peopleb ut to assisti n communaal ctivities.3ss Deliberations Recruitment 163. The only evidencet hat Munyakazi was involved in the recruitmento f Interahamwe was proffered by ProsecutionW itness BWW, an accomplicew itness. He testified that Munyakaziw as a membero f the MRND party,a nd in that capacityt ouredt he areau rgingt he youtht o join the InterahamweH. owever,h e assertetdh at Munyakazid id this in 1990,a year that is not coveredb y the Indictment, and the Prosecutiona dducedn o evidencet hat this recruitmentc ontinuedt hrough the Indictmentp eriod.F urthermore,W itnessB WW was not certain of the year he himielf joined the Inierahamwe.3t6M oreover, the Trial Chamber considerst hat the recruitmentp rocess,a s describedb y Witness BWW, would have been public and high profile. Therefore,o ther witnessess hould have been able to corroborate evidencere gardingM unyakazi'sr ole in this process. 164. Thus, the Prosecutionh as not establishedb eyond reasonabled oubt that Yussuf Munyakazir ecruitedI nterahamweb etweenO ctober1 993a ndApril 1994. Training 165. ProsecutionW itnessesB WX, BWW, and EsidrasM usengayirea ll testifiedt hat the Interahamwew ere trainedi n Bugarama,thaTt arek Azizwas one of their trainers,a ndt hat '50 T. l5 Septembe2r 009p .9. t'' T. 15S eptembe2r0 09p . I l. 352 T. l5 Septembe2r 009p .9. "' DefenceE xhibit 27 (personali dentifications heet);T . l7 Septembe2r 009 pp. l-2. tsa T.17 Septembe2r0 09p p.5 -6. ttt T.17 Septembe2r0 09p .6. ttt T.29 May 2009p p.9,23-24.P rosecutioWn itnessB WW statedth ath ej oined theI nterahamwein March 1993.O n cross-examinatiohne clarified that he actuallyj oined the Interahamwei n March 1992. Judgement and Sentence JI $k

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 17?,4 Tarek Azizlived in one of Munyakazi'sh ousesW. itnessB WX was the only witnesst o testifr that Munyakaziw as presentd uring training sessionsa, nd thus was the only one to providea directl ink betweenM unyakazia ndt he haining of theI nterahamwe. 166. WitnessB WX worked in closep roximityt o Munyakazi'sh ousea t Misufi in 1994, and said that he was treated like a member of the Munyakazi family. Thus, among Prosecutionw itnessesW, itnessB WX and WitnessE sidrasM usengayirew, ho was considered as Munyakazi'sa dopteds on, were the closestt o Munyakazi.Y et, while WinressB WX was awaret hat Tarek Azizlived in Munyakazi'sh ouse,h e testifiedt hat he did not know in which capacityT arek Aziz lived there.35A7l l otherw itnessesfa miliar with Tarek Aziz agreedt,h at, at a minimum,h e wasa tenanti n Munyakazi'sh ouse. 167. WitnessB WX was the only Prosecutionw itnesst o testiff that Munyakaziw as p-resent at the haining sessionsw hich he said took placea t the football field on Tenth Street."oT he Trial Chambera cceptsth at becauseh e lived closet o this football field, he was in a positiont o know what took place there. However,t he wifiressc ould not provide dates,o r estimatet he frequency,o f the training-sessionsT. he witnesss tatedt hat the Interahamweb egant raining with firearms in 1993,"' contrary to Witness BWW, a member of the Bugarama Interahamwew, ho statedt hat the Interahamwed id not begint raining with real firearmsu ntil March 1994.W itnessB WW's evidencei s partially corroboratedb y ProsecutionW itness EsidrasM usengayirew ho testified that he did not seet he Interahamwew ith firearmsu ntil 7 April 1994.T hat WitnessB WX could not recallt he specificd ateso n which haining took place is not surprising,b ut that he would not be in a position to say whethert hesef irearms appearedim mediatelyb eforet he eventso f April 1994o r whethert hey had alwaysb eenu sed duringI nterahamweh ainings essioniss of greatecr oncernto theT rial Chamber. 168. FurthermoreW, itnessB WX statedth ath e did not know wheret he firearmsw erek ept. Witne'ssB WW testified that firearmsw ere kept in Munyakazi's house,w hich was in close proximity to where Witness BWX worked. The Trial Chambera lso observest hat Witness BWX testifiedt hat the Interahamwet rainedw ith firearmsa t the Tenth Streetf ootball field. while WitnessB WW testifiedt hat this trainingt ook placei n Nyirandakunzefo rest. 169. Finally,t he Trial Chambern otest hat while WitnessB WX testifiedt hatTarekA ziz was the training instructor,W itnessB WW testifiedt hat he was only one of severalt raining instructorss, omeo f whom were gendarmeasn d soldiers.T he Chambern otest hat Witness BWX's evidencer egardingt he training is vaguea nd largely inconsistenwt ith that of other Prosecutionw itnessesT. he Trial Chamberf urther recalls its earlier conclusiont hat the evidenceo f WitnessB WX wasn ot alwaysr eliable. 170. Witness Musengayire,w ho was also close to Munyakazi,c orroboratesW itness BWX's testimonyt hat Tarek Aziz, who lived in Munyakazi'sh ouse,w as involvedi n the training of the Interahamwe.H owever, Musengayires aid nothing about Munyakazi's own role in the training. He only testified that there were often Interahamwea t Munyakazi's home.T he Trial Chamberc annoti nfer that Munyakaziw as involvedi n the traininso n this basis. l7l. As a membero f the BugaramaIn terahamweW, itnessB WW was in a betterp osition than other Prosecutionw itnessest o describet he training regime in Bugarama.H e testified that the Interahamweu nderwentd aily trainingi n 1993,t hat they did not receivef irearms until March 1994,a ndt hat Tarek Azizwas amongt he trainingi nstructorsH. e alsop rovided tt' T. 27 April 20o9p p.2 l-23. tt' T. 24 April 2009p . l8; T. 27 April 2009p . 32. "t T.24 April2009p .2l;T.27 April2009p p.27,32. Judgemenat ndS entence ^{

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyaluzi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 01 0 r333 precise locations for the training sessions.A lthough an accomplice witness, the Trial Chamberc onsidersW itnessB WW to be credibleo n thesep oints. WitnessB WW did not associateM unyakaziw ith the training sessionsn or did he mentiont hat Munyakaziw as ever presenta t the training sessionsH. e only testifiedt hat Tarek Aziz was Munyakazi'sd eputy, and on this point his testimonyw as vaguea s he nevera ssociatedT arek Azizwith the attacks led by Munyakazio n Mibilizi and ShangiP arishesin which he admittedh avingp articipated. 172. The Trial Chamberc onsidersth at, eveni f it acceptsW itnessB WX's testimonyth at Munyakaziw as on occasionp resenta t training sessionso f the Interahamwe,t his evidence alone is insufficientt o find that the Accusedp layeda role in the training of the Bugarama Interahamwe.W itnessB WX testified that the haining took place in full public view on the local football field. Thus, it shouldh aveb eenp ossiblet o corroborateth is testimony.T he fact that TarekA ziz, an Interahamwet raining instructor,w as a tenanti n Munyakazi'sh ousei s of equally little assistancein making a determinationt hat Munyakazi was involved in the training. Conclusion 173. The Trial Chamberc oncludesth att he Prosecutioenv idenceis insufficientto establish the allegationt hat Yussuf Munyakazi,a cting in concertw ith thosen amedi n the Indictment, recruiteda ndt rainedt he BugaramaI nterahamwein military drills andt he useo f firearmsa nd otherw eaponso n diversed atesa t variousl ocationsi n an aroundt he Bugarama commune.360 360 Indictment para. 8. Judgement and Sentence 39

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 01 0 t332. 5. STORED WEAPONS AND ARMED TIIE BUGARAMA INTERAHAMWE 174. Paragraph9 of the Indictnent readsa s follows: Between January and July 1994 Yussuf MUI\-YAKAZI armed the Bugarama Interahamwew ith guns,g renadesa nd otherw eaponst hat were regularlys toreda t his housel ocatedin Cite Bugaramao f BugaramaC ommune.36l 175. The Prosecutionre lieso n the evidenceo f WitnesseBs WW, BWU, BWX, BWR and EsidrasM unsegayire. 176. The Defence denies that Munyakazi either stored weapons for the Bugarama Interahamweo r distributedw eaponst o them.36I2t relies on the evidenceo f WitnessesN KM, NRB, YMS, AMB, YMC, MYA, ELB andM unyakazi. Evidence ProsecutionW itnessB WW 177. WitnessB WW, a Hutu,36w3 ast rieda ndc onvictedfo r havingp articipatedin the 1994 genocideH. e testified that he collaboratedp rimarily with Munyakazi andA thanaseN dutiye, alsok nowna sT arekA ziz,who lived in Munyakazi'sh ousea ndw asM unyakazi'sd eputy.36a 178. There were over 2000 memberso f the Interahamwei n Bugarama,a nd they used weaponsth at were storeda t Munyakazi'sh ouse.T hesea rms includedK alashnikovsl,i ght automaticr ifles, gunsa nd grenadesa, nd werep rovidedb y gendarmesa nd soldiersi n various communes.Tl'tIen terahamwew ould ask Munyakazi for weaponsw hen they neededt hem.365 The weaponsw ere storedi n the third room from the entranceo f Munyakazi'sh ouse,a room that meaiureda pproximatelyth reeb y tkee and a half metres.36T6h e Interahamweu nderwent dailyt raining in 1.993u, singpieceso f woods hapeda sr ifles.I t wasn ot until March 1994t hat theya cquiredre alf irearms.'o' ProsecutionW itnessB WU llg. ProsecutionW itnessB WU, a Hutu, was a farmeri n 1994,36a8n da membero f the CDR party.'ut H. was accusedo f having participatedi n the killings at ShangiP arish and appearedb efore a Gacaca court in Shangis ecteuri n January2 007. He pleadedg uilty to havingc ommittedc rimesa t the parisha ndw ass entencetdo 10 yearsi n prison.H e wast hen releasefdo r time served."' 36r lndictmentp ara.9. "t DefenceC losing Brief parw. 24-33. 363 ProsecutioEn xhibit 12 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 29 May 2009p .6 (closeds ession). tuo T. 29 May 2009p p.6 -7 (closeds ession). tut T.29 May 2009p . 13( closeds ession). tuu T. 29 May 2009p . 3 I (closeds ession). tu' T 29 May 2009p p. 12,23-25( closeds ession). 168 ProsecutioEnx hibit 13( personaild entifications heet)T; . 4 lune2009p .2. 'ut T. 4 June2 009p . 6. t'o T.4 June2 009p p.3 -s, Judgement and Sentence 40 rll /1l1it

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 rRSl 180. On29 April 1994,t he witnessw asm anninga roadblock,rvithw eaponsd istributedb y local CDR leaderG atamobwa,a t BushengeC entrei n Shangi."' Munyakazi anived at the roadblock-at approximately3 :00 p.m., along with trvo Daihatsu vehicles loadedw ith weapons."' The weaponsi ncludedk nives,m achetesg, uns,s harpm etal bars,a nd grenades. Therew ere more than 150 bladedw eaponsi n Munyakazi'sv ehicle. If the attackersd id not have weaponsd uring the attack on Shangi Parish,t hey would go to the vehicles to get weapoxs.T he witness used a macheted uring the attack,"' while other assailantsu sed guns."* ProsecutionW itnessB WX 181. WitnessB WX, a Hutu, worked in closep roximityt o Munyakazi'sh ousei n Misufi cellule. According to the witness,h e was consideredto be a membero f Munyakazi's family.3TsT he wiLess believed that the Interahamwes tartedt raining between 1992 and WgZ?'uH e did not know who gave theI nteraharnwea rms,b ut testified that in 1993,A ndrd Ntagerura and Callixte Nzabonimana,h igh ranking members of the MRND, came to Bugaramab y planea nd landeda t a fenced-inr ice plantation.O ncet hey arrived,M unyakazi summonedt he populationt o a meeting,w hich the witnessa ttended.N tagerurac hairedt he meeting, and Munyakazi assistedh im. Both Ntageruraa nd Nzabonimanaa ddressedth e InterahamweI.t was after this meetingt hat the Interahamwein Bugaramab egant rainingw ith firearms. Witness BWX, therefore, concludedt hat the firearms had been delivered by Ntageruraa nd Nzabonimanad uring this visit. He did not know where the weaponsw ere kept.377 ProsecutionW itnessE sidrasM usengayire 182. WitnessE sidrasM usen^gayirea, T utsi, lived in Citd Bugarama,B ugaramac ommune, Cyangugup rdfecture in 1994.''o The witnesst estified that he lived in Munyakazi'sh ouse from 1982t o 1984a ndt hatM unyakazti reatedh im like a son.3tt 183. Musengayiren evers aw the Interahamwec arry[ngf irearmsb efore7 April l994.He saw them with ropes attending political party rallies and blocking roads during demonstrations.3M8ou sengayirea nd Tarek Aziz would have friendly discussionsa bout the Interahamwes inceM usengayireh ad free accessto Munyakazi'sh ousei n which Tarek Aziz was a tenant.O ne day, prior to 7 April 1994,thew itnesss awT arek Azrzwith a pistol that he carrieda roundh is waist,b ut nothinge xtraordinaryh appe_nethda t day.'o' 184. On 7 April 1994,M usengayirew as attackedb y a group of Interahamwec anying ropesa nd knives.T he witnessd id not seeo therw eaponso n that occasion.'oW' henh e was t" T. 4 June2 009 pp.6-7. t" T.4 June2 009p . 7. t7' T. 4 lune2009p .29. t'o T.4 June2 009p . 26. r75 ProsecutioEn xhibit6 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 2,t April 2009p . 12( closeds ession)T; . 27 April 2009p . 35 (closeds ession). t'u T.24 April2009p p.19-20. t" T.24 April 2009p .2l;T.27 April2009p p.27,32. 378 ProsecutioEn xhibit5 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 23 April2009p .48. t" T.23 April 2009p . 5l; T. 27 April2009p .2. t'o T.24 April2009p . 5. '-t-' T. 24 April 2009 pp. 4-5,7 . 'o" T.24 April 2009p p.4-5,7. n\\ Judeementa nd Sentence 4T

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July 2010 t33 taken to Munyakazi's residence,h e noticedt hat there were three Interahamwep resenf,b ut did not see them carrying weapons.A lthough Munyakazi hied to protect Musengayire,a grenade was lobbed at Musengayire soon after his anival at Munyakazi's house. Musenyagired id not know who threw it. During Gacacah earings,a n Interahamwet estified that the grenadew as lobbed by a membero f the Interahamwen amed ZacharieM ario, who wasM unyakazi'ss on.383 ProsecutionW itnessB WR 185. WitnessB WR, a Tutsi, lived in Gitambi secteur,i n Nyakabuyec ommune,in April 1994.H e worked at the CIMERWA cementf actory canteen.38Tah e witnesst estified that he would seet he Interahamwem ilitia on a regularb asis,a nd that they had firearmsa nd swords. The Interaharnwew ere very well organized.T hey had uniforms, and carried grenadesa nd knives, which the witness believed showed that the Interahamwe was a structured organisation.'8Tt he witnessb elievedt hat Munyakaziw as the leadero f the Interahamwe.3s6 YussufM unyakazi 186. Munyakazi never stocked weapons in any of his homes during the Indictment period.38H7e did not own a firearmd uringt his period.I ndeed,h e did not know how to usea firearm,a ndt husw ould not havec arrieds ucha weapon.'oo 187. The labourersw ho worked on Munyakazi'sf arms each owned their hoes and machetes.M unyakazi never bought or distributed such tools to them.38eM unyakazi personallyo wneda hoea nda machetea, sd id eacho f his wives.I t wasc ustomaryfo r people to have a knife at home in order to slaughterp oultry or to peel bananaso r potatoes.H e did not own an axe andw ould borrow one from his neighboursw hen needed."' DefenceW itnessesN KM 188. DefenceW itnessN KM lived in Bugaramac ommuneH. e was amember of the PDI political party and worked at a bank in Bugaramac ommunei n 1994.3eTr here were no weaponso r armsc irculatingi n Bugaramab efore6 April 1994.D uringt hat period,n o stocks of weaponsw ere held in any home in BugaramaT. he witnessn ever hearda nyones ay that Munyakazwi as in possessioonf a stocko f weaponsin oneo f his housesin Bugarama."'He nevers aw Munyakazi catry a weapon.T herew as a sma[ groupo f gendarmesin the city, and if Munyakazi had been seen with a weapon, he would have been reported to the sendar;erie.3e3 3tt T.24A pril2009p .4. 384 ProsecutioEn xhibit2 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 22 April2009 pp.41 (closeds ession)4,7 . ttt T.22 April2009p . 50. ttu T.22 April2009p p.4 1,4 9-50. tt' T.14 october2 oo9p .43. "t T. l4 october2 oo9p .48. 'sn T. 14o ctoberz tiogo . zz. 'no T. 14o ctober2 009p .33. 'n' DefenceE xhibit6 (personaild entifications heet)T; .31A ugust2 009p p. 7-8 (closeds ession). tnt T . 3l August2 oo9p . 23. "' T. 3l August2 oo9p p.3 o-31. ^^ Judsementa nd Sentence +L

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyalazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 BA? DefenceW itnessN RB 189. DefenceW itnessN RB, a Hutu, lived in Bugaramac ommunea, nd worked for the CAVECWI cooperatives ociety in 1994.3eH4e knew Andrd Ntagerura.3t5T he rice fields were in swampsa nd no plane or helicopterc ould have landedt here. There was a location known as Riziculture.T lte distanceb etweenC AVECUVI andR iziculture was approximately 10 metres.I f a planeh ad landeda t Riziculture,t he witnessw ould havek nown abouti t.3e6 DefenceW itnessY MS 190. WitnessY MS, a Hutu, lived in Bugaramase cteurin Bugaramacommunine 1994,a nd was a trader.3eHt e storedh is goodsi n that he rentedf rom Muny akazi.3eT9h e witness ?^space never saw Munyakazi with a firearm."' His residencew as about 12 metresf rom the rice fieldsw hereN tagerura'sh elicopter.allegedllayn dedH. ad a helicopterla ndedi n the area,t he witnessw ould havek nowna bouti t.*u' DefenceW itnessA MB 191. WitnessA MB, a Hutu, was a nativeo f Bugaramab, ut a universitys tudenet lsewhere in 1994.H e would return to Bugaramat o spendh is holidays.aoBl etweenO ctober1 993 and6 April 1994,h e went to B,ugaramoan manyo ccasionsa,n dr emainedin Bugaramath roughout them ontho f April L994.""M" unyakaziw aso neo f his family'sc losen eighboursT.h ew itness neverh eardt hat Munyakazihada weaponsd epoti n any of his houses.*" DefenceW itnessY MC 192. WitnessY MC, a Hutu, was a traderi n Misufi cellule in Bugaramain 1994.40H4e first met Munyakazii n 1985, and his businessp remisesw ere close to Munyakazi'so wn.4os Munyakazip rayeda nd receivedg uestsa t one of his housesw hich was closet o the witness' home.*'oW hile WitnessY MC was generallye ngagedin- his own activities,h e would see Munyakazia roundh is house.""'H e did not seew eaponso r hear.thatw eaponsw ere being storedin any of Munyakazi'sh ousesp rior to 6 April 1994.Hen eygrs awM unyakazci arrying a weapon.T he witnessr emainedi n Bugaramaa fter 6 April 1994.*uo "o DefenceE xhibit 12 (personaild entifications heet)T; .l Septembe2r 009p p.35,3 7 (closeds ession). "'T. I Septembe2r0 09p . 40. "o T. I Septembe2r0 09p . 40. "t DefenceE xhibit2 4 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 14 Septembe2r0 09p p. 30-31,33( closeds ession). "t T. 14 Septembe2r 009p .31 (closeds ession). 'n'T. 14 Septembe2r 009p p.39-40. ooo T. l4 Septembe2r0 09p .39. oo' DefenceE xhibit2 l (personaild entifications heet)T; . 10S eptembe2r0 09p p. 1,3,21-22 (closeds ession). *'T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p p. 3 (closeds ession)1, 0. oo' T. l0 Septembe2r 009p .9. ooo DefenceE xhibit2 2 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 14 Septembe2r0 09p p. l-2, 3 (closeds ession). oot T. 14S eptembe2r0 09p .3 (closeds ession). oou T. 14S eptembe2r0 09p .6. oo' T. 14S eptembe2r0 09p . I l. oot T. 14S eptembe2r0 09p p. 10,1 5. Judsemenatn dS entence 43

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t3"3 DefenceW itnessM YA 193. Witness MYA, a Hutu, was a gendannep osted in Bugaramaf rom the middle of March 1994 until 9 April 1994,w hen he returnedt o the central Cyangugug endarmerie.aoe His duty in Bugaramaw as to ensuret he safetya nd security of the local inhabitantsa nd to protectt he infrastructureth ere.T he gendarmews ere deployeda t the CIMERWA factory,b ut the witnesso ften patrolledC itd Bugaramaa nd its environs.alo 194. The gendarmesin Bugaramah ad firearms,F AL assaultr ifles and a machineg un, which was positionedo n a hill for the protectiono f Bugaramat own. The lieutenantsh ad pistols. In 1993, the gendarmesw ere never told that firearms were circulating amongt he civilian populationo f Bugarama.T hey were never assignedt o searchf or firearms among civilians."" The witness never heard that Munyakazi had a firearm or that firearms were storeda t Munyakazi'sr esidenceT. he only firearmsW itnessM YA was awareo f were stored at the gendarmerie.orH2e did not know what took place in Bugaramaf ollowing his departu;.4r3 DefenceW itnessE LB 195. WitnessE LB, a Hutu, joined the BugaramaIn terahamwein Bugaramain February 1993. He was the vice president of the Interahamwea t the communel evel during the Indictmenpt eriod.A thanaieN dutiye,a lsok nowna sT arekA ziz,wasthe president.ala 196. Prior to 6 April 1994,t he Interahamwed id not have firearms.M unyakaziw as not a soldier and did not have a stock of weaponsa t his house.H is housew as close to the gendarmeriea,n dt hus,h e would not haveb eena blet o stockw eaponsth ere.al5 197. Prior to 6 April 1994,t he witnessn evers aw TarekA ziz canying a gun. However,o n 7 April 1994a t approximately8 :00a .m.,h e sawh im carryingo ne for the first time.a1T6a rek Azizwas in front of the gendarme'sp ostw earinga military shirt on that day.T arek Aziztold WitnessE LB that his gendarmef riend, Enoch,h ad given him the shirt, a Kalashnikova nd al7 two grenades. Deliberations 198. The Defencec ontestst he Prosecution'sa llegation,i n paragraph9 of the Indictment, that Munyakazi stored weapons at his house, and/or that he armed the Bugarama Interahamwe. Storage of Weapons 199. WitnessB WW, an accomplicew itness,i s the only Prosecutionw itnessw ho testifiedt hat Munyakazi stored arms at his house. As discussed earlier, the Chamber heats this witness' oo' DefenceE xhibit2 5 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 15 Septembe2r0 09p p.4,5, 12. o'o T. l5 Septembe2r0 A9p .6. ot'T. 15S eptembe2r0 09p .7. ot' T. 15 Septembe2r 009p . 7. ot' T. l5 Septembe2r0 09p . 13. o'o T. l7 Septembe2r 009p . 2. 4ts T.17 Septembe2r0 09p .7. o'u T.17 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. o" T.17 Septembe2r0 09p .9. Judgemenatn dS entence 44 A

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 f3 z? evidencew ith caution( seeC hapterI I.3). He statedt hat therew ere over 2,000m emberso f the Interahamwei n Bugarama,a nd that they used weaponst hat were stored at Munyakazi's house.T he Trial Chambern otest hat this witnesse xhibiteda generalt endencyt o exaggerate numbers,a nd thereforem ay have exaggeratedth e numbero f Interahamwei n BugaramaI.n addition,t he witness did not provide a time-framef or the storageo f thesew eaponso r say where Munyakazi got the weapons?a lthoughh e did statet hat the BugaramaI nterahamwe only beganh aining with firearmsi n March 1994. 200. The Trial Chambero bservesth at no other witnessc orroboratedth is testimonya bout the storageo f weaponsa t Munyakazi's house.O n the contrary,P rosecutionW itnessB WX, who workedi n closep roximityt o Munyakazi'sh ousei n Misufi, andc ouldt hereforeo bserve what was taking placet here,t estifiedt hat he did not know where the Interahamwek ept their weaponsG. ivent he positiono f his workplacet,h e Trial Chamberc onsidersit likely that he would have seenI nterahamwee nteringt he compoundu narmeda nd exiting with weapons. Wihress BWX's testimony, therefore, createsd oubt regarding the veracity of Witness BW-W'st estimony. 201. Without additionale videncet o corroborateW itnessB WW's testimony,t he Chamber finds that therei s insufficientP rosecutione videnceo n this issuea ndw ill thereforen ot review the Defencee vidence. Arming the Bugara maI nt er ahamwe 202. Witness BWX said he believed that the BugaramaI nterahamwe obtained their weaponsw hen Andre Ntageruraa nd CallixteN zabonimanav isited Bugaramain 1993.H e claimedt hat, during the visit, he attendeda meetingt hat Ntagerurac hairedw ith Munyakazi's assistanceF.o llowingt his meeting,t he witnessb egant o seet he Interahamwetr ainingw ith firearms.al8 203. The Chambern otes that Witness BWX's evidencet hat the weaponsc ame to Bugaramad uring that visit was basedo n speculationH. e testifiedt hat the meetingt ook place in 1993,w hile WitnessB WW, a membero f the BugaramaI nterahamwe,t estified that the Interahamwed id not havew eaponsu ntil March 1994.N o otherw itnessm entionedth is high- level visit to BugaramaI.n deed,D efenceW itnesseNs RB andY MS deniedt hat sucha visit took place,a rguingt hatn o helicoptecr ouldh avel andedi n the areaw ithoutt heirk nowledge. 204. Witness BWW stated that the weaponsp rovided to the Interahamwec ame from gendarmesa nd soldiers;h owever,t he witnessd id not spe._ciwffh en thesea rns were acquired. WitnessB WW's testimonyr egardingth e sourceo f the-weaponws as partiallyc onoborated by DefenceW itnessE LB, who wasa lsoa membero f the BugaramaIn terahamwea t thet ime. WitnessE LB testified that Tarek Aziztold him that he had receiveda gun and grenadesfr om a Bugaramag endarmeo n 7 April lgg4.4teT he evidenceo f ProsecutionW itnessB WR, particularly with respectt o the time-frame in which he saw armed Interahamwe,w as too vaguet o assistth e Chamberin its analysis. 205. Although WitnessesB WW and ELB are both accomplicew itnessest,h e Trial Chambecr onsidersth at they wereb estp lacedt o know the sourceo f the armst hey used,a nd notest hatn eithers aidt he weaponsc amef rom MunyakaziT. he Trial Chamberc oncludetsh at it cannotd eterminet he sourceo f the weaponst hat were usedb y the BugaramaI nterahamwe on the basiso fthe evidencea dduced. o'r T. 24 April 2009p . 2l; T . 27 April 2009p p.2 7, 32. ott T.17 Septembe2r0 09p p.8 -9. Judeemenatn dS entence 45

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 lt,76 206. WitnessB WU testified that Munyakazia nived at ShangiP arish on 29 April 1994, with two Daihatsu vehicles loaded with weapons.H e added that Munyakazi led the BugaramaI nterahamwed uring this attack.A s noteda bove( seeC hapterI I.3), BWU was an accomplicew itness,a nd thus, the Trial Chamberv iews his testimonyw ith caution.T he Trial Chamberf inds that it cannot infer that the weaponsw ere suppliedb y Munyakazim erely on the basist hat he transportedth em to ShangiP arish. 207. Givent hat WitnessB WX's testimonyr egardingth e sourceo f the weaponsu sedb y the BugaramaI nteraharnwew as speculative,a nd that the evidenceo f Witness BWU, an accomplicew itness,i s uncorroboratedt,h e Trial Chamberf inds that the Prosecutionh as not provenb eyondr easonabled oubtt hat Munyakazia rmedt he BugaramaIn terahamwe. Conclusion 208. The Trial Chamberf inds that the Prosecutionh asn ot provenb eyondr easonabled oubt that betweenJ anuarya nd July 1994M unyakazia rmedt he BugaramaI nterahamweo r thathe storedw eaponsa t arryo f his houses. Judgementa nd Sentence 46

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 r3e5 6. FOOD AND TRANSPORTATION 209. Paragraphl0 of the Indictmentr eads: Between January and July 1994 Yussuf MIINYAKAZI acting in concert with ZACHAzuE alias MAzuYO, SEBATWARE Marcel, NDOLIMANA Casimir, MUGUNDA Thomas, NGARUKIYE Emmanuel,B AKUNDUKIZE Elias provided food and regularly hansportedo r facilitated the transportationo f the Bugarama Interahamweto and from the variousm assacres itesa llegedi n this indictnent. 210. The Defence disputes these allegationsa nd relies on WitnessesE LB, NKM and Albert Lavie. It also refers to evidencet hat Munyakazi was never in the company of gendarmesr,e servists,I nterahamwe,o r soldiers;t hat no food was ever preparedf or such personsin any of theseh ouses;a ndt hat suchp ersonsn everg athereda t any of his homes.420 ProsecutioWn itnessB WX 211. WitnessB WX, a Hutu, worked in close proximity to Munyakazi'sh ouse in Misufi cellule, Bugaramas ecteur,i n 1994,a nd was in a positiont o observew hat was taking ^ place thereo n a regularb asis.a2Al ccordingt o thew itnessM, unyakazil ived in this house.422- 212. The witnesso ften saw the Interahamwep reparg^aneda t their meals at Munyakazi's house, but did not know who purchasedt he food.*" From his workplace, the witness observedIn terahamwec ooking in the inner courtyardo f the building.a2Aa pproximatelyf ive Interahamwew ould preparet he mealsa t Munyakazi'sh ouse.W hen the food was ready,t he Interahamwew ould deliver the food to various positions manned by other Interahamwe. Thosew ho preparedt he food lived in Munyakazi'sh ouse,b ut Interahamwew ho were not a2s from Bugaramao ccasionallyjo ined themt o taket heir mealsi n the inner courfyard. 213. Munyakazi was the president of the Interahamwe. Tlte Interahamwe met at Munyakazi's house before leaving to commit offences.a2T6h e witness knew about this becauseth eI nterahamwew ouldbrag aboutt heir crimesu pon their retum.42I7n the daysa nd weeksf ollowingt he deatho f PresidenHt abyarimana,thIen terahamweb oardedv ehiclesa nd travelledto Mibilizi, Shangia, ndo therp lacest,o commitc rimes.a2s' ProsecutionW itnessB WW 214. WitnessB WW, a Hutu, was a membero f the B-ugaramIan terahamwei n 1994. He was tried and convicted for having participatedi n the 1994 genocide.a2Aec cording to the witness,M unyakazil ived in Misufi in Bugarama secteui.a3} "itlut" o2o DefenceC losingB rief paras.5 -13. a2r ProsecutionE xhibit 6 (personali dentifications heet);T . 24 April 2009 pp. 12 (closeds ession)T; . 27 April 2009p .35 (closeds ession). o" T.27 April 2009p p.3 4-35,3 8 (closeds ession). ott T.24 April 2009p . 20. o'o T.27 April 2009p p. 35-36( closeds ession). o" T. 27 April 2009 pp.3 7, 39 (closeds ession). o'6 T.24 April 2009p . l6; T. 27 April2009p .38 (closeds ession). o" T.24 April 2009p p.18,22-24. o" T. 24 April 2009p . 23. a2e ProsecutioEn xhibit 12 (personaild entifications heet)T; , 29 May 2009,p p.6-7( closeds ession). oto T . 29 May 2009p . 8 (closeds ession). Judgement and Sentence 47 ArrY il r

Prosecutorv . YussuMf unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 july 2010 ts24 215. The witness met Munyakazi'sw ife, Rukiya, becausei t was at her houset hat the Interahamwea te their meals. They did not eat at Munyakazi'so ther houses.T hey ate meals at Rukiya'sh ouseb ecauseit hada courtyard,,antdh eyc oulda ssembleth erea fterk illing. This housew as locatedb y the customsb uilding."'' In particular,t he BugaramaI nterahamwea tea t Rukiya's housea fter the attackso n Shangia ndM ibilizi Parishes.a32 216. The witness statedt hat Munyakazi ownedt wo Daihatsuv ehicles,o ne blue and one white.a33H e estimatedt hat about 1i0 Interahamweb oardedt he two Daihatsuv ehiclest hat went to ShangiP arish in April 1994.43F4o flowingt hat attack, the Interahamweb oardedt he vehiclesu pon which they had arrived and travelledt o Munyakazi's housew heret hey had a meal.*" More than 120 armed Interahamwea lso travelledt o attack Mbilizi Parishi n April usingM unyakazi'stw o vehicles.a36 ProsecutionW itnessB WO 217. WitnessB WQ, a Tutsi, lived in Shangsi ecteurin April 1994.H e was a farmera nda membero f the I\4RND.43T7 he witness and his family fled to ShangiP arish on or about 7 April 1994.43O8 n 29 April 1994, Munyakazia nived at Shangi Parish aboarda white Daihatsut ruck accompaniedb y other personsb etween3 and 4 in the afternoon.a3Tt he aao Daihatsup ickup canied approximately4 0 attackers. ProsecutionW itnessB WU 218. WitnessB WU, a Hutu, was a farmeri n 1.994.44O1n 29 April 1994,M unyakazia rrived at a roadblocko n the way to ShangPi arisha t about3 :00p .m.H e andh is vice presidenct ame with trvo Daihatsuv ehiclesl oadedw ith weaponsa nd Interahamwe.T here were about 50 or 60 Interahamwein the group.M unyakazia nd a groupo f armedI nterahamwet ravelledi n the first Daihatsu, which was green. Munyakazi's vice president and a second group of Interahamwetr avelledi n a secondD aihatsu,w hich was brown. The witnessd id not identifu Munyukazia s beingt he driver of eitherv ehiclea ndd id not know who ownedt he vehicles.aa2 219. WitnessB WU was at the roadblockw hen Munyakazia skedf or directionst o Shangi Parish.T he witnessp rovided directionsa nd accompaniedth e attackers.T he vehiclesd rove off at a very slow pacew hile other assailantws alkedb ehindt hem in the directiono f the parish.aa3 ot'T.29May 2009p p. 10,1 9,28( closeds ession). ot' T.29 May 2009p p.2 8-29( closeds ession). ott T . 29 May 2009p . I I (closeds ession). o3o T.29May 2009p . l8 (closeds ession). 43s T. 29 May 2009p p. l8- l9 (closeds ession). otu T.29 May 2009p p.2 0-21( closeds ession). 437 ProsecutioEn xhibit I (personaild entifications heet)T; . 22 April2009 pp.10, l8-19 (closeds ession). ott T.22April2 009,p p.12,21. ott T.22April 2009p . 13. ooo T.22 April 2009 pp. 14,28-29. aar ProsecutioEnx hibit 13( personaild entifications heet)T; . 4 June2009p .2. oo'T.4 June2 009p p.9,27-28. oot T.4 June2 009p p.6-7,32. ^q Judgemenat nd Sentence 48

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 r3Z3 220. After completingt he attacko n ShangiP arish,a man namedG atamobwaw, ho wast he Chairmano f the CDR party, gaveM unyakazi'sv ice,gresidenmt oneyt o organisea reception for the assailantsw hen thev returnedt o their homes.*" ProsecutionW itnessM P 221. WitnessM P, a Hutu, was presenta t Mibilizi Parishd uring the 30 April 1994 attack.aas Munyakazia nived at the parish between4 :00 and 5:00 p.m., with a group of Interahamwe aboard two Daihatsu vehicles. Frightened,t he witness went to seek shelter with the gendarmesT. hrougha small window in the office of the gendarmest,h e witnessc ould seet he ao6 vehiclesa rrive.T hey stoppeda pproximately2 00m etresf rom the witness. ProsecutionW itnessM M 222. Witness MM, a Tutsi, was presenta t Mbilizi Parish during the attack on 30 April 1gg4.44T7h e attack was led by Munyakazi, who together with a significant number of Interahamwe,a nivedf rom Bugaramao n boardt wo Daihatsup ickup trucks.aa8 223. On cross-examinatiotnh,e witnesse xplainedth at he did not actuallys eet he vehicles that day but was told by someoneo ver the phone that the attackersh ad arrived in two vehicles.S incet he witnessw as told that the two vehiclesw ere full, he estimatedth at there had beenb etween8 0 and 100 attackers.I n addition,t he witness statedt hat he did not see Munyakazit hat day, but ratherh eardt hat the leaderw as Munyakazif rom the personw ho had calledo ver the phonet o warn of the attack,a nd from the gendarmesa t Mibilizi who spoket o Munyakaziw hen he arriveda t the parish.aaq ProsecutioWn itnessL CO 224. WitnessL CQ, a Tutsi, soughtr efugea t Mibilizi Parisho n or about 8 April 1994w ith his wife and about2 0 neighbours.oO" n 30 April, he saw two vehiclesa rrivea t the parish carryinga ssailants.aTshl e witnessr ecognizedM unyakazia ndh is.vice presidenat mongt he Interaiamwe.asM2 unyakazil ed the attackersw ho assaultedth e witness.aJ3 ProsecutionW itnessE sidrasM usenga]rire 225. WitnessE sidrasM usengayirea, Tutsi,4saw as adoptedb y Munyakazi at a young_age. Thew itnessl eft Munyakazi'sh ousew henh e got manied,a decadeb eforet he genocide.*"A t some time in the 1990s, before the genocide,t he Rwandan government compensated ooo T.4 June2 009p p. 8-9 "t pior".uti*;,ri[i;iip".sonal identifications heet)T; .27 Apnl2009 pp.43-44. oo' T. 27 April 2009p . 46. a{ ProsecutioEn xhibit 9 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 27 April2 009p p. 58-59( closeds ession). aag T.27A pril2oogp .61. oon T. 28 April 2009p . 7. 450 ProsecutioEn xhibit I I (personaild entifications heet)T; . 28 April 2009p p. 15-16. ott T. zSApril 2oo9 pp.2 0-21. ot' T. 28 April 2009p . 27. ot'T. 28A pril2009p .3 4. a5a ProsecutioEn xhibit 5 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 23 Apri|2009p .48, ott T.23 April2009p .51; T. 27 April2009p .2. Judgemenat nd Sentence 49

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazr,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 lB2z Munyakazif or expropriatingp art of his land,a nd with that moneyM unyakazib oughta blue Daihatsup ickup.-truckM. unyakazia lsoo wneda double-cabiHn ilux, but the witnessd id not statet he colour.*'o 226. The witnessb egann oticing the Interahamwea roundt he middle of 1993.O n some occasionst he Interahamwem oved around in a vehicle that belongedt o the commune,o n otherst hey usedv ehiclesb elongingt o the state-ownerdic e farm.D uring this period,1 993, *" Munyakazdi id not own a vehicle. YussufM unyakazi 227. ln 1994,M unyakazi owned four housesa nd three vehicles.asHs e had a second-hand doublec abin Hilux vehiclet hat he boughti n 1990a nd kept until 1994.a5Heo wever,t his vehiclew asn o longerw orking in 1994.H e, therefore,toughat Daihatsutr uck anda Suzuki vehicle both of which were working in April 1994.*"uH e purchasedt heset wo additional vehiclesin 1993w ith compensatiohne receivedfr om the governmenfto r the expropriationo f parto f his land.a6T1h e vehiclesd id not leaveB ugaramain April 1994.a6M2u nyqkazi'se ldest son,Z acharieM ario, usedM unyakazi'sD aihatsuM arquet o learnh ow to drive."o' 228. Between7 April 1994 and July 1994,M unyakaziw as not the leadero f the Bugarama Interahamwea ndn ever organiseda ny of their meetings.a6Nao ne of his housess erveda s meetingg roundsf or the Interahamwe,a nda t no point in time did the Interahamwec omet o work in any of his houses.a6N5o ne of his wives eni. prepuredfo od for the Interahamwe.a6' 229. Therew as a courtyardw ithin the houseb elong_intgo Mama Safi, one of Munyakazi's wives. The women preparedf ood in that courtyard.uoW' hen DefenceW itnessA lbert Lavie broughtr efugeest o Munyakazi'sh ousef or protection,i t was at Mama Safi's houset hat the group stayed.*oToh e refugeest,h e children,a nd the women lived at Mama Safi's house. None lived in Munyakazi'sh ousea t the markets quare.a6e 230. Munyakazid ivorcedM ama Rukiya in 1987a ndh adn o links with her ln 1994.470 DefenceW itnessN KM 231r In April 1994,W itnessN KM, a Hutu, held a positioni n the PDl.political party at the prdJdctoral level in Bugarama commune and worked for a bank.*" He would meet Munyakazi,w ho was an ordinaryc ustomera t the bank.a7M2 unyakazio wneda Hilux vehicle otu T. 27 April 2009p p. l8-19. ot' T. z4April 2009 pp.2 -3, 7. o" T. 15o ctober2 009p . 13. otn T .14 october2 009p . 10. ouo T. 14 october2 oo9b . 51. out T. l4 October2 009p . l0; T.l5 October2 009p .13. out T . 14 October2 009p . 51. ou' T. 15 october2 a09p . 13. ou T o .14 october2 009p .43. out T.14 Octobe2r 009p .44. ouu T.14 october2 009p .43. out T. 15 October2 009p . 48. out T. 15o crober2 oo9p p.48-49 oun T. 15o ctober2 009p .49 o'o T .14 october2 009p .43 ot'Defence Exhibit6 (plrsonali dentifications heet)T; . 31 August2 009p p.7-8( closeds ession). n" T.3l August2 009p p.8 -9. ,w Judgementa nd Sentence 50

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyalcazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 f32 l which was driven by a man namedZ achariea nd usedf or farming. He nevers aw Munyakazi in that vehicle after April 1994, and never saw youths travelling in the vehicle from -6 Munyakazi's house.a73M unyakazi had trvo wives, on_en amed Mama Safi and a second namedR ukiya.R ukiya's nicknamew asM ama Zainabu.aTa DefenceW itnessA lbert Lavie 232. WitnessA lbert Lavie, a Hutu, lived in the Nyarugengec ornmunein 1994.47Ht e *as a communalp olicemani n Kigali town, andh i-lduty was to ensuret he securityo f the conseiller of Biryogo,A mri Karekezi,a ndh is family.*'oT owardst he endo f May or earlyJ un.e.199h4e, took Karekezi'sf amily to Munyakazi'sh ouse,w hereM unyakazig avet hem refuge.'" 233. The witnessa nd the driver stayedi n Munyakazi'sh ousef or approximatelyf our hours during which time they had a meal.a7T8h e witnessd id not seef ood leavingt he compound. He did not noticea ny youngp ersonsc omingi nto,o r leavingM, unyakazi'sc ompound.''" DefenceW itnessN DB 234. WitnessN DB, a Hutu, lived in Bugaramaa, nd was a farmer in April 1994.48T0h e distanceb etweenh is home and Munyakazi'sre sidencew as about 500m etres.48Hl e never saw Munyakazi in the companV,gft he Interahamwea nd doesn ot believe that Munyakazi wouldh avef ed themv oluntarily."' DefenceW itnessA MB 235. Witness AMB, a Hutu, was a universify student outside Bugarama in 1994.483 BetweenO ctober 1993 and 6 April 1994, he returnedh ome to Bugaramao n many occasions.a8Mau nyakazi's two wives, Mama Safi and Mama Zainabu,b oth lived in close proximity to Witness AMB's house.a8Ms unyakazih ad two vehicles,a n old Suzuki and an old Daihatsu.T he witness never saw or heard that the youths of the MRND used these vehicles.a86 236. In April 1994, the witness-w as in Bugarama.H e did not see groups of youths assemblinga t Munyakazi'sh ouse.48H7e did not see Tarek Aziz or other bodyguardsw ith Munyakazi. He did not know whether Munyakazi's vehicles were assignedt o transport youthsf rom Bugarama.488 ot' T. 3l Augus2t oo9p .32. o'o T. 3l Augus2t 009p . 20. ots DefenceE xhibit9 (personaidl entificatiosnh eet)T; . I Septembe2rA 09p p.l -2. 476 T . Septembe2r0 09p .3. el't 7. Septembe2r 009 pp. 4-5. ott T. Septembe2r0 09p .6. orn T. Septembe2r 009 pp. 6-7. oto D efenceE xhibit l0 (personaild entifications heet)T; . I Septembe2r0 09p . 12( closeds ession). otr T. I Septembe2r0 09p p.12,19. ot'T. 1 Septembe2r0 09p . 15. tt'Defence E xhibit2 1 (personaild entifications heet)T; . l0 Septembe2r0 09p .3 (closeds ession). oto T. 10 Septembe2r0 09p . 3 (closeds ession). ott T. lo Septembe2r0 09p .9. otu T. 10 Septembe2r0 09p . 10. ott T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p . 10. ott T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p . I l. Judgement and Sentence 51 $

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyakazr, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 l32o DefenceW itnessY MC 237. WitnessY MC, a Hutu, was a traderi n Misufi cellule in Bugaramain April lgg4.48e 238. Munyakazih ad a residencei n which he receivedg uestsa nd prayed,b ut also owned threeo ther houses.T he distancef rom the witness'h ouset o the residencew here Munvakazi prayedw as about5 0 metres.aeo 239. Munyakazio wnedt hreev ehiclesi n April 1994:a Suzukij eep, a double-cabiHn ilux and a Daihatsup ickup. The witness the blue Daihatsup ickup to Munyakazi,aebr ut never ;gld sawM unyakazid riving the vehicle."".9n or about1 5 April 1994,M unyakazib orrowedt he witness'v ehiclet o helps omef amilies."' 240. In April 1994,W itnessY MC did not seeM unyakazi'sv ehiclesb eingu sedt o ferryt he youths of the MRND. The.^pickupw as very old and could not have been used to carry anythingh eaviert han rice."'* The witness did not see young people gatheringi n front of Munyakazi'sh ouset o organiset heir departureto other destinationsE. ven thought he witness was generally engaged in his own activities, he would see Munyakazi in the neighbiourhood.oSnuti ing this period,t he witnessd id not see young p"opi" gatheringo r eatinga t the houseso f eithero f Munyakazi'sw ives.4e6 DefenceW itnessY MS 241. WitnessY MS, a Hutu, lived in Bugaramas ecteuri n Bugaramac ommunei n April 1994.H e was a trader and lived approximately1 50 metresf rom his place of business.aeT Therew as no room in Munyakazi'sh ousef or preparingf ood for a group^ofp eople.H e never sawm emberso f the Interahamwep reparingf ood at Munyakazi'sh ouse.*'o 242. He did not seeM unyakazi'sv ehiclesc arryy oungp eoplet o or from rallies.aee 243. Munyakazid id not have a wife namedR ukiya in 1994.500H e heardp eoples ayt hat a woman namedM ama Rukiya was once Munyakazi'sw ife, but that she left Munyakazia nd marrieda notherm an, beforet he witnessm et Munyakazii n 1975..Munyakazi'sse condw ife, who lived in oneo f his housesb etween1 993a nd6 April 1994,w asn amedM amaZ ainabu.sol otn DefenceE xhibit2 2 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 14 Septembe2r0 09p .3 (closeds ession). ono T. 14 Septembe2r0 09p p. 4, 6 (closeds ession). o'' T. 14 Septembe2r0 09p p.8-9, I L ott T.14 Septembe2r0 09p . 15. ont T.74 Septembe2r0 09p . 12. ono T.14 Septembe2r0 09p . 9. ont T.14 Septembe2r0 09p p. ll-12. onu T.14 Septembe2r0 09p . I l. ont DefenceE xhibit2 4 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 14 Septembe2r0 09p p. 30-3l , 33 (closeds ession). o" T.14 Septembe2r0 09p .41. on' T. 14S eptembe2r 009p . 37, too T . 14 Septembe2r0 09p . 35. to' T. l4 Septembe2r0 09p . 35-36. Judgement and Sentence 52

Pr ose c uto r v. Yuss u f Munyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36 4-T, 5 July2 010 tgl? DefenceW itnessE LB 244. WitnessE LB, a Hutu,j oined the BugaramaIn terahamwein February1 993.I n-April 1994,hew as the vice presidenta t the communele vel andT arek Azizwas the president."' 245. Prior to April 1994,M unyakazih ad an old Hilux vehicle which was not functioning. He had another vehicle bought by his wives Mama Safi and Rukiya, but the car was registeredto a certain Zacharie.A ccordingt o the witness,M unyakazi's vehiclesw ere never usedb y the BugaramaIn terahamwet o attendr allies,b ecauseth eI nterahamwew ould walk to 503 ralliesc hantings logans. 246. The witnessn evera te at Munyakazi'sh ouseo r at the housesb elongingt o eithero f Munyakazi'sw ives.soAa t no point in time between7 April and 30 April 1994d id he see memberso f the BugaramaIn terahamwee atinga t any of Munyakazi'sh ouses."'Munyakazi had two wives, who bought a vehicle together,o ne namedM ama Safi and the other named MamaR ukiya.506 Deliberations 247. The Prosecutiona lleges that Munyakazi contributed to the crimes committed at NyamashekyeS, hangi,a nd Mibilizi Parishesb y hansportingt he Interahamwet o the crime sites,a ndb y feedingt hemf ollowingt he massacres. 248. The parties do not dispute that Munyakazi owned four houses. However, the witnessesw ho testifiedw ith respectt o paragraphl0 of the Indictmentr eferred,o ften without clear distinction,t o various housesa nd wives. Therefore,t he Trial Chamberw ill attemptt o clariff Munyakazi'sd omestica rrangementsO. n the basiso f the evidencea dducedt,h e Trial Chamberc oncludest hat the housem ost often cited by the witnessesw as locatedi n Misufi cellule.sUHTe rented out rooms in this houset o a numbero f tenants. A secondh ousew as locatedc lose to the customso ffice near the borderw ith the DRC. Munyakazi claimedt hat housew as still underc onstructioni n April 1994a ndt his was not disputed.totH o*ever, the Trial Chambeirs unablet o concludeo n this basisa lonet hatt he secondh ousec ouldn ot have beenu sed.I n addition, Munyakazi had two other hous-eso,n e for his wife Mama Safi, and onef or his secondw ife. 249. With respectt o the identity of the secondw ife, Munyakazit estifiedt hat his two wives in 1994w ere namedM ama Safi and Mama ZainabuH. e divorcedM ama Rukiya in 1987a nd had no links with her thereafter.soHeo wever,P rosecutionW itnessesB WX and Musengayire, both of whom were close to Munyakazi,t estified that-his two wives in 1994w ere named Mama Safi and Mama Rukiya. WitnessB WW testifiedt hat he atea t a houseb elongingo ne of Munyakazi'sw ives namedM ama Rukiya. DefenceW itnessE LB, who was vice president of theI nterahamwea,l son amedM amaR ukiyaa sM unyakazi'ss econdw ife in 1994.W itness NKM testified that Mama Rukiya's nicknamew as Zainabu.O nly DefenceW itnessesA MB and YMS conoboratedM unvakazi'se videnceth at the secondw ife was namedZ ainubua nd tot DefenceE xhibit 27 (personali dentifications heet);T . 17 Septembe2r Q09p p. l- 2. 503 T.l7 Septembe2r0 09p p. 8-9,12, 16-17. too T.17 Septembe2r0 09p p. 14-15( "Rokia" in thet ranscript). tot T. l7 Septembe2r0 09p p. 14-15. tou T. 17 Septembe2r0 09p . 8 ("Rokia" in thet ranscript). 507 ParticularlyP rosecutionW itnessesB WX, EsidrasM usengayirea nd BWW (exceptw hen he specifiedt hat the houseb elongedto MamaR ukiya);a ndD efenceW itnesseEs LB, ABM, YMC, YMS, andM unyakazi. 'ot T. l4 October2 009p p.6 ,8-9,17-18;T . l5 October2 009p . 60. ton T. 14o ctober2 oo9p p.3-4. Judgement and Sentence 53 ,{t{

Prosecutorv . YussuMf unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 g r3t not Rukiya. The Trial Chamberd oesn ot believet hat any of the chargesa gainstt he accused hingeo n this detail,a nd thus will not makea finding on this issue. 250. Munyakazit estifiedt hat he lived in the two housesb elongingt o his wives,5rwOh ile WitnessB WX statedt hat Munyakazi lived at Misufi in the samec ompoundw here he had roomsf or rent.51A1g ain, the tiial Chamberc onsidersit needn ot makea determinatioonn this issuei n ordert o assessth e specificc hargesa gainstt he Accused. 251. The Prosecution'sp osition is that therea re Gacacad ocumentsfr om Misufi and Muko cellules charging Munyakazi with crimes similar to those in the Indictment.tt' How"ue., theser ecordsa rem erefches individuellesa nd not alleget hat Munyakazip rovidedf ood or 9o transportatiotno the BugaramaIn terahamwe.'t'ProsecutioEn xhibit26 alleges.insteathda t theI nterahamwwe ould convenea t his housea fterp articipatingin killing sprees.''* 252. The Trial Chamber finds that the evidencea dducedb y the Prosecutiond oes not support the allegation that Munyakazi acted in concert with those persons named in paragraph l0-. the Indictment to provide food and transport to the Bugarama -of Interahamwe.''' However,t he Chamberw ill determinew hetherM unyakazi is more directly liable for providing food andt ransportationto the BugaramaIn terahamwe. Food 253. Two Prosecutionw itnesses,B WX and BWW, allegedt hat Munyakaziw as involved in the distributiono f food to the Interahamwe.O nly WitnessB WX testified that the meals werep rovideda t Munyakazi'sh ousei n Misufi cellule.D efenceW itnessesE LB, ABM, YMC and YMS516a ll testified that the personst iving in this particular house were all paying tenants.P rosecutionW itnessesB WX, BWW and Esidras Musengayirec orroboratedt his evidence. 254. WitnessB WX, who wasi n closep roximityt o Munyakazi'sh ousei n Misufi on a daily basis and who said he was treated like a member of Munyakazi's family, testified that approximatelyf ive Interahamwew ho lived in Munyakazi'sc ompoundw ould cook food in the inner courtyard.T hey would then distributet he focjdt o Interahamwep ositionedo utside the compound.I n addition,I nterahamwew ho were not from Bugaramaw ould occasionally eat in the inner courtyardo f the compoundw heret he food was preparedT. he witnessd id not specifyw hent his took place.'" 255. Witness BWW, on the other hand, testified that "it was at Rukiya's place that we 'work' receivedm ealsa fterw ork. We refenedt o it as becauseki lling Tutsisw asc onsidered as a job, andw e were very proudo f carryingo ut thatj ob."ttt In particular,h e claimedt hat the Interahamweh ad meals at Mama Rukiva's housef ollowins the attackso n Shaneia nd t'o T. l4 october2 009p p.2-4. t" T.24 April 2009p .15,1 6;T .27 April2009p .35( closeds ession). 5r2 T. 15O ctober2 009p p. 36-37;P rosecutioCn losingB riefparas.6 0-61. 5rr ProsecutionE xhibit 26 and27 (GacacaF ichesI ndividuellesw ithrespectt o Munyakazi);T . l5 October2 009 pp.3 3,3 5-363, 8-39. ''o ProsecutionE xhibit 26, Fiche Individuelle,E RN 10469036. 5r5 Indictmentp ara l0 ZACHARIE aliasM ARIYO, SEBATWAREM arcel,N DOLIMANA Casimir, MUGUNDA Thomas,N GARUKI YE Emmanuel,B AKUNDUKIZE Elias. s'6 T.27 April 2009p p. 35-36( closeds ession)T; 17 September200p9. 3; T. l0 Septembe2r 009p p.8, 34;T . 14 September200p9p . 7,31-32. s'1 T.27 April 2009p p.3 6-37. stl T. 29 May 2009p . 28 (closeds ession). Judgemenat nd Sentence 54

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazr, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 f3l? Mibilizi Parishes.sleH e added that Mama Rukiya lived near the house by the customs building.s2Ho e did not say whetherM unyakaziw as^presenwt hen the food was supplied,a nd did not sayw hereM amaR ukiyao btainedth e food."' As discusseda bove,t he Trial Chamber is unablet o determinew hetherM unyakazi'sc laim that no food could haveb eenp rovidedb y him, throughM ama Rukiya, becauseh e was no longerm anied to Rukiya n 1994,i s credible. Neverthelesst,h e Trial Chamberr ecallst hat it treatsW itnessB WW's testimonyw ith caution becauseh e is an accomplicew itness,a nd furthern otest hat he did not implicateM unyakazi directly in the provisiono f the food. Thus,i t finds that the witness' testimonyt hat Munyakazi providedf ood to the Interahamwea t Rukiya'sh ousem ust be corroborated. 256. According to Witness BWX, food cooked in the inner courtyard of Munyakazi's house at Misufi was distributed to other Interahamwep ositioned nearby. He did not see where the food was taken, nor did he ask. The witness provided no foundation for his assertiont hat the food was distributedt o Interahamwep ositionede lsewhere,a nd thus the witness' knowledge about the eventual distribution of the food appears to be mere speculation.T he Trial Chamber also notes that the witness did not specify when these incidentsi nvolving food took place.s2F2i nally, the evidenced oes not-provet hat it was Munyakaziw ho was responsiblef or the preparationa nd distributiono f the food at the house in Misufi. Anotherr easonablein ferencei s that the food was obtaineda nd preparedb y tenants of the housew ho happenedto be memberso f theI nterahamwe. 257. WitnessE sidrasM usengayirew, ho the Trial Chamberh as found to be generally credible, did not suggest that Munyakazi fed or provided food to members of the InterahamweT. he witnessh ad free accessto Munyakazi'sh ouse,a nd was well placedt o know of Munyakazi's relationship with the Interahamwe.H owever, the Trial Chamber recallst hat the witnessw as injured and left Bugaramao n 7 April 1994, and thus was not awareo f what took placea fter that date.s23 258. WitnessB WW testified that he and fellow memberso f the Interahamwew ere fed only at the houseb elongingt o Mama Rukiya,w hich was by the customsb uilding,w hile WitnessB WX said that the food was ptepareda t Munyakazi's house in Misufi where the tenantsl ived. This constitutesa significantd iscrepancyF.,o r the reasonsd escribeda bove,t he Trial Chamberi s unwilling to rely on the evidenceo f either witness alone to find that the Munyakaziw as responsiblefo r feedingt he BugaramaIn terahamwe. 259. The Trial Chamberc oncludest hat the evidencei s not suffrcientt o lead to the conclusiont hat Munyakazip rovidedf ood for theI nterahamweo, r was involvedi n a common plant o do so. - Transportation 260. The Chamberw ill now turn to the evidenceth at Munyakazip rovidedo r facilitatedt he transportationo f Interahamwe to the Shangi and/or Mibilizi massacres ites. The Trial Chambern otest hat the Prosecutionh asn ot provenb eyondr easonabled oubtt hat Munyakazi participatedin the attacko n NyamashekeP arish( seeC hapterI L7). s'" T.29 May 2009p p.28-29( closeds ession). tto T.29May 2009p . l0 (closeds ession). tt'At onep oint, WitnessB WW statedi n evidence:'At YussufM unyakazi'sre sidenceth erew as food.B ut in spite of all that he could ask for more food that had to be broughtt o his housef or our feeding.' This statement was not clarified.T . 29 Mav 2009 p. 13. t-" T. 27 April 2009 pp. x-lt (cloieds ession). '"'T.23 April2 009p . 50. Judgementa nd Sentence 55

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 t3t6 261. ProsecutionW itnessesB WW, BWU, LCQ, MM and MP all testified that Munyakazi and the BugaramaI nterahamwea rrived at the Shangia nd Mibilizi crime sites aboardt wo vehiclesP. rosecutionW itnessB WW testifiedt hat Munyakazio wnedt he vehiclesi n which Interahamwew ere hansportedt o the parishes.s2Par osecutionW itnessE sidrasM usengayire testifiedt hat prior to the 7 April 1994 attacko n him the Interahamwet ravelled in vehicles belongingt o the communea nd state-ownedri ce farm.s2sT he Trial Chambers tressesth at the Indictment does not allege that Munyakazi used his own vehicles to transport the Interahamwe to the crime sites but rather that he "transported or facilitated the transportationo" f the Interahamweto theses ites. 262. Witness BWW testified that approximately 120 members of the Interahamwe, includingh imself,w eret ransportedin Munyakazi'st wo Daihatsuv ehicles,o new hite ando ne blue, to the Shangia nd Mibilizi crime sites.52T6h e Trial Chamberi s of the view that the witnessh as exaggeratedth e numbero f Interahamwea llegedlyt ransportedto the crime sites in the two vehicles.H owever,t his aloned oesn ot discreditt he testimonya s witnessesa re often inaccuratere gardingn umbers,p articularlyl 5 yearsa fter events. 263. Therew ere discrepanciesa,l beitm inor ones,i n the evidenceg iven by the witnesses describingt he vehicles.W itnessB WQ saw Munyakazi anive at the Shangis ite in a white Daihatsu,w hereasa ccordingt o WitnessB WU, it was a greenD aihatsu,w ith a brown one behind.W itnessB WW testified that Interahamwew ereh ansportedin two Daihatsuv ehicles, oneb luea ndo new hite.A ccordingt o WitnesseMs P andM M, Munyakazia rciveda t Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994 in two Daihatsuv ehicles,a lthoughW itnessM M's evidencew as hearsay.W itness LCQ saw two vehiclesa t the Mibilizi attack, one of which was a Daihatsu.527T he Chamberh olds that thesem inor discrepanciesm ay be attributablet o the passagoef time andt he chaost hatp revaileda t the sceneo f the crimes. 264. The Defences ubmitst hat the Prosecutionh as adducedn o evidencet hat Munyakazi transporteda ssailantsto ShangiP arish,a nd statest hat ProsecutionW itnessesB WQ, BWR, and BWU only testified that Munyakazit ravelledo n board a vehicle with Interahamwet o Shangi Parish:s28T he Defence further arguest hat there is no evidencet hat Munyakazi transforteda ttackerst o Mibilizi Parish.P rosecutionW itnessM M did not actually see the vehiclest hat anived. ProsecutionW itnessesM P and LCQ did not speci$ who ownedt he vehicleso r whetherM unyakazhi ada nyr ole in providingt his transport.s2e 265. Witness BWX testified that the Interahamwem et and boardedt he vehicles from Munyakazi'sc ompoundb eforet ravellingt o commit crimes.s3W0 itnessesB WQ and BWR both statedt hat Munyakaziled the attacko n ShangiP arisha ndt hat they saw him comet o the parisha ccompaniedbIyn terahamwea boarda vehicle.W itnesseMs P andL CQ botht estified that Munyakaziw as the leadero f the attacka t Mibilizi Parisha nd that he camet o the parish with Interahamwe aboard two vehicles. Witness BWW also stated that at Shangi and Mibilizi, Munyakazic ame in the companyo f the Interahamwea boardt wo vehiclesa nd that he ledt he attacka t thesep arishes. 266. The Trial Chamberi s satisfiedt hat the BugaramaIn terahamwea rrived at the Shangi and Mibilizi crime sitesa boardt wo vehicles,a nd in Munyakazi'sc ompany.W hethert he t'o WitnessE sidrasa lso statedt hat Munyakazib oughta Daihatsuv ehiclej ust beforet he genocide. t" T.24A pril2009p p.2-3,7. t'u T. 29 May 2009p p. ll, l7 ,20-21. t-'-'^T. 28 April 2009p . 37. "o DefenceC losingB riefp ara.74. t" DefenceC losineB rief para.1 05. tto T . 24 April 2006 pp.z )-z+; T . 27 Aprll 2009p .3 8 (closeds ession). Judsemenat nd Sentence )o ,,AA

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 r3l5 vehiclesb elongedt o Munyakazi is immaterial. As will be discussedin further detail below, The Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecutionh as proven beyond reasonabled oubt that Munyakaziw as the leadero f the attacko n ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994,a nd a leadero f the attacko n Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994.O n this basis,t he Trial Chamberi nfers that Munyakazip layed a role in facilitating hansportationf or the BugaramaI nterahamwef rom Bugaramato the two crime sites. Conclusion 267. The Trial Chamberc oncludest hat the Prosecutionh as not provenb eyondr easonable doubt that Munyakazi provided food to the Interahamweb etweenJ anuarya nd July 1994. However, it is satisfiedt hat the overall evidencee stablishesth at Munyakazi had a role in facilitatingt he transportationo f the BugaramaIn terahamweto and from Shangia nd Mibilizi Parisheos n29 and3 0 April 1994,r espectively. Judgementa nd Sentence 57

Prosecutorv . YussufM wtyalazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t3l4 7. ATTACK ON I\-YAMASHEKE PARISH. 16 APRIL 1994 268. Paragraphl2 of the Indictmentr eadsa sf ollows: On or about 16 April 1994,Y ussufM TINYAKAZI, with the Bugaramai nterahamwe, attacked and killed hundreds of Tutsi civilians who had sought refuge at Nyamashekye[ src] Parish,K aganoc ommune,C yangugup refecture, using firearms and haditional weapons. Yussuf MUNYAKAZI transportedt he interahamwet o Nyamashekye[s rc] Parisha ndp ersonallys hota t the Tutsi civilians duringt he attack. 269. The Prosecutiorne lieso n the testimonyo f WitnesseLsA Y andB WP.53l 270. The Defencea rguest hat no attackt ook placeo n 16 April 1994 atNyamashekeP arish, and relies on WitnessesT homas Nahimana, MBRE, YCH, YCC, ELB and Thdobald GakwayaR waka.I t further relieso n Munyakazi'sa libi for this date.532 Evi dence- Nyamasheke Pa r i sh ProsecutionW itnessL AY 271. WitnessL AY, a Tutsi,w orkedi n Nyamashekaen dw asa membero f the LiberalP arry in 1994.s3H3e knew Munyakazib ecauseM unyakaziw ould often stop in Nyamashekeo n his way to and from political rallies in 1993-F ach time Mun-yakazip assedth rought he town, tensionsro seb etrveenth e politicalp arties.s34 272. On Saturday,9 April 1994, the witness' house was attacked.H e soughtr efuge at NyamashekPe arish,a nd his family joine4-himl ater.T herew ereo therr efugeesa tthe parish and morec ontinuedt o arrive after him."'On 13 and 15 April 1994,t he local residentso f Kaganoa ttiackedth e refugeesa t the parish.T hesea ttacksw ere led by a sous-prdfeta nd other local p-oliticalle adersT. he witness'e ntiref amily was killed duringt he attacko n 15 April 1994.536 273. On 16 April 1994,t he witnessw as inside the church standingo n a platform. From that vantagep oint, he could see through the window what was taking place outside the church.T he attack begana t around6 :30 a.m. Residentso f Kaganoa nd memberso f the Interahamwep articipat-edin the attack.s3ATlt hough the witnessw as not wearing a watch at the time,h e believedt hat Munyakazia nivedb etween9 :00a .m.a nd 10:00a .m.w ith a group of Interaha**".ttt The witness could not hear what lvfunyakaziw as saying but saw him talking to the "authorities"a lreadya t the scenes, omeo f whom the witnessn amed.53e 274. Following Munyakazi's arrival, the attackersb roke down the church doors.T he witnessh earda voicea mongt he attackertse llingt he womena ndc hildrent o leavet he church andn ot to be afraid;h owever,h e couldn ot identi$rt he speakerA. s soona s the womena nd 53r Indictmentp ara.1 2;P rosecutionC losingB riefparas.6 4-68,124-129,143-146. 5" DefenceC losingB rief paras.4 9-72.1 63-167. 533 ProsecutioEn xhibit4 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 23 April 2009p .22. tto T.23 Aprif2 009p p.22-23,39-40. ttt T. 23 Aprit 2009 pp.2 3-24. ttu T.23 April 2009p p.25-26. tt' T.23 April2oogp .26. s38 T.23 April 2009p p.26-27. ttt T.23 April2009p p.27-28. Judsementa nd Sentence 58

Prosecutorv . YussuMf unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t3t3 childrene mergedf rom the church,t hey werek illed by the attackersM. unyakaziw as standing at the entranceto the church.'*' 275. The attackersth en enteredt he church.T he witnessw as standing1 5 to 20 metresf rom Munyakazia nd could still seeh im.salI nsidet he church,M unyakazil ed the Interahamwe.He was carrying a pistol.sa2A lthough the witness first testified that Munyakazi was issuing orderst o the attackers,'*'h e later clarified that he heardo rdersb eingg iven at a time whenh e could see.Munyakazsi urroundedb y Interahamr".tooT he attack lastedu ntil approximately 2:00 p.m."'_The attackersfi rst usedg renadesa nd firearms,b efores ettingr efugeeso n fire using petrol.'ooT hey then attackedt he refugeesw ith traditional *eapons.totA t somep oint, thew itnessf ell amongt he bodieso f ther efugeeas ndp assedo ut.s48 276. The witnessc ould not give an estimateo f the numbero f refugeesk illed during each ofthe threea ttacksb ut statedth at4 5,000b odiesf rom the parishw ereb uriedi n 1995. ProsecutioWn itnessB WP 277. Witness BWP, a Tutsi, lived in Kagano commune,C yangugup rdfecture, in April 1994.T he witnessw as 15 or 16y earso ld at thet ime."'The witnesss awM unyakazti 'wicei n 1993a s Munyakazi passedt hrough Nyamashekeo n the way to and from MRND rallies in Kirambo."' Eacht ime, Munyakazis toppedto talk with the local populationa, nd eacht ime he was surroundedb y memberso f the I\m.ND.5s2 278. The witnessa nd his family soughtr efggsa t NyamashekeP arisho n Monday, I I April 1994,a ndr emainedth ereu ntil 16A pril 1994."' 279. Using traditionalw eaponst,h e local populationo f Kaganoa ttackedt he refugeesa t the parisho n 13 April 1994."* On 15 April 1994,c ommunalp olice officersa nd demobilised soldiersj oined the Kagano local populationi n attackingt he parish aga\ylssA pproximately 20 refugeesw ere killed during the attackt hat took placeo n 13 April."o Many more died duringt he l5 April attackb ut the witnessc ouldn ot providea n estimate.ttTt he refugeesw ho managedto surviveh id insidet he churcha nd spentt he night there."o The witnesse stimated that therew ere approximately2 ,250 rcfugeesin the chuich duringt he 16 April attack.s5e t-oo T.23 April 2009 pp.29,36-37. "'T.23 April2 009p .30. sot T. 23april 2009p . : t. tot T. 23 April 2009p p. 30-3l . too.T. 23 April 2009 pp. 45-46. '"'T.23 April2 009p .31. '.A,u. 2 T 3 . April 2009 pp. 32,3 7- 38. "'T.23 April2 009p .38. tot T. 23 April 2009p p.3 l-32. ton T.23 April 2009p p.31,34-36. 550 ProsecutioEn xhibit3 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 23 April 2009p .2. t-t-' T. 23 April 2009 pp.2 ,7 . '-'-"-T.23 April 2009p p.2 , 8, 10. "'T.23 April2 009p .3. ssa T.23e pril2oogp . s. ttt T.23 April2009p . 5. s-5-'T.23 April 2009p p.5 , I l-12. "' T.23A pril2 009p . 6. tt'T. 23A pril2009p . 3. ssn T. 23 April 2oo9p . 7. Judgement and Sentence 59

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 2- tBl 280. On 16 April1994, the attacks tarteda t 6:00 a.m.D uring the initial stageso f the attack, the refugeg^sw ere able to hold back the assailants,w ho were Hutus from Kagano commune.'oS' everalh ours later, the refugeesw ho were postedb y the doors,a nd could see what was taking place.atKabezaC entre,i nformedt he other refugeesth at Munyakaziw as on his way to the paiish.s6l 281. About half an hour later, at approximately1 0:00 a.m., they heard the soundo f whistlesa nd drums.A t that time, a $oup of Interahamwel ed by Munyakazi anived at the parish.56W2 hen the refugeesh eardt he attackersa rrive,t hey blockedt he doorso f the church with benches.H owever, twenty minutes later, the attackersw ere able to break down the doors. The Interahamwe ordered the women and children out of the church and killed them.56T3h e attackersu sedf irearms,t raditionalw eapons,a nd grenades.t6Toh e witnessw as approximaJelfyi ve to ten metresf rom Munyakazia t the time and could seeh im for about3 0 minutes.'otA mong the affackerst hat day was a man named Pima, who led a group of assailantsfr om Gafunzo.s66 282. Munyakazi had a pistol .4!d was the first persont o fire into the church after the womena ndc hildrenw erek illed.tutO therm emberso f ttt. Interahamweth enf olloweds uit.s68 While he was-fing undert he corpsest,h e witnessc ontinuedto heart he soundo f gunshots and grenades.'oH' e also smelledp etrol and heardt he soundo f bodiese xploding."uT he Interahamweb egan firing on the refugeesa pproximately4 0 minutes after arriving at the parish."' Thal_eveningth, e witnesse mergedfr om amongt he corpsesa ndw entt o seekr efuge with a friend.572 YussufM unyakazi 283. Munyakazi denied participating in any attack on NyamashekeP arish.sT3O n the moming of 16 April 1994,M unyakazi.andh is neighboursw ere busy organisingE sidras Musengayire'esv acuationto the DRC."" They decidedth at a mann amedA ndr6N yirimbibi would travel with Esi{ras, and Munyakaziw ould wait in Bugaramato hearw hethert heir trip had beens uccessful.t"A t_approximatellyl: 00 a.m.,A ndrd returneda nd reportedt hat the trip had been a success."oL ater, at approximately5 :00 p.m., Munyakazi Ieft for the CIMERWA cementf actory after hearingt hat his former neighbour,I saacB urege,h ad been tuo T. 23 April 2009 pp.3 , 12. tu' T. 23 April 2009p . 12-13. tu'T.23 April 2009p p.3-4,1 3. 'u' T. 23 April 2009 pp.4,6 -7. tuo T.23 April2009p .7. tu5 T.23 April2009p p.4-5. s66 T.23 April 2009p . 14. tu'T.23 April 2009p p.4 , 13. tt'T.23 April 2009p . 13. tun T.23A pril2009p . 14. t'o T.23 April 2009p . 16. s" T.23 April 2oo9p . 4. t" T. 23 April 2009p . 5; T. 23 April 2009p . l8 (closeds ession). t" T.14 Octobe2r 009p p.47-49. t'o T.14 october2 009p p.44. t-'_t-T.14 Octobe2r 009p p. 44-45,47-48. "o T. l4 Octobe2r 009o .45. Judgementa nd Sentence 60 ,,\\A

Prosecutorv . YussufM urryakazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t3ll killed near there. When he arrived, he found that Isaacw as in fact dead,b ut his wife and childrenw erea live. Munyakazib roughtt hem backt o his homet o savet hem.577 DefenceW itnessT homasN ahimana 284. WitnessT homasN ahimana,a Hutu, was a vicar at NyamashekeP arish in 1999.s78 During this period,h e was able to speakw ith Father{ .Ibalda nd FatherA pollinaire,w ho were at NyamashekeP arishi n April 1994.T he witnessa lso obtainedi nformationa boutt he events of April 1994_$urintgh e period he worked for the EcclesiasticaPl eaceU, nity and Justice Commission."'FathersU bald andA pollinairet old the witnesst hat Pima andh is associates were responsiblef or the attacks on NyamashekeP arish.58M0 unyakazi's name was never mentionedin connectionw ith attackso n the parish.ssl DefenceW itnessM BRE 285. Witness MBRE, a Hutu, lived in Mukinja secteuri n 1994 and was an agricultural instructor.s8H2i s office was in the Nyamashekec ommunalo ffice, which was locatedw ithin the KabezaT radingC entre,5 00 metres,o r a five minutew alk, from NyamashekeP arish.583 286. On 13 April 1994, a meetingw as held betweent he bourgmestre,B ishop Thaddde Ntihinyurwa,thep rdfef, and the local populationw ho were interestedin attackingt he parish. After that meeting,t he witness saw everyonel eavet he communalo ffice exceptt he bishop and the bourgmestreT. he next day, the bishopl eft, taking with him the priestsw ho were at thep arish.5sa- 287. On 14 April 1994, once the bishop departed,t he witness went home. At approximately5 :00 p.m. that day, he heard gunshotsa nd explosions.ssTth is continued throughoutth e night until around8 :00o r 9:00p .m.t he followinguevening1,5 April 1994.He subsequentllye arnedt hat thereh adb eena n attacko n the parish. 288. On 16 April 1994,t he witnessw as in the communalo ffice, and later at the Kabeza Centre,f rom 7:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. He did not heai or seea ny attacko n the parisht hat day. He did not see Munyakazi in the parish or at the communalo ffice and did not hear anyonem entionM unyakazi'sn amei n relationt o an attackt hat dav.s87 DefenceW itnessY CH r 289. Witness YCH, a Hutu, lived in Gakomeyec ellule, Mukinja secteur in Kagano sss communeH. e is a Catholica nd was a membero f NyamashekeP arish. 11"w ent to the parisht wice a week,i n April 1994.Her ecalledv isitingt he parisho n 13 April 1994,to care t" T.14 october2 oo9p . 48. ttt DefenceE xhibit 13 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 2 Septembe2r 009p p.4 , 15. t'n T.2 Septembe2r0 09p p. 15-16. tto T.2 Septembe2r0 09p . 16. tt' T.2 Septembe2r0 09p . 16. t"Defence Exhibit 17 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 7 Septembe2r0 09p .32 (closeds ession). ttt T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p . 32 (closeds ession)T; . 7 Septembe2r0 09p . 34. t'o T.7 Septembe2r0 09p . 35. ttt T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p . 35. ttu T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p .35-36. tt' T. 7 Septembe2r 009 pp. 36-37. ttt DefenceE xhibit 19 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 8 Septembe2r0 09p . 3 (closeds ession). Judeementa nd Sentence 61

Prosecutorv . Ywsuf Munyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 lSto for a friend,F rancorsN yiramongi,w ho was a refugee.ssOe n that day, therew as an attempted attacko n the parish,w hich was unsuccessfubl ecauseth e prdfet intervened."' Following the prdfef s intervention,t he situationw as calm,a ndt he witnessw as ablet o contacth is friend.sel 290. On 15 April 1994,t he witnessw as at his house,w hich was quite far from the parish. At around3 :00 p.m.t o 4.00p .m.,h e heardg Ur^rfhoTtsh. e witnessl aterl earnedth at the there hadb eena largea ttacko n the parisht hat day."" That evening,t he witnessm et acquaintances of his,f ormers oldiersi,n a localp ub.T he formers oldiersb raggeda bo_uwt hatt heyh add one at the parisha ndt old the witnesst hat a mann amedP ima led the afiack."' 291. The following day, 16 April 1994,thew ifiressw ent to the communaol ffice. There, policement old him that they had visited the parisha nd that there were no suryivors.teoT he policemena lsot old him that the affackersw ere led by men namedP im4 Kodo, Elias,a nd RutagengwaP. ima was from Gafunzo commune.K odo and Elias were natives of Kagano commune."" 292. On 16 April 1994,t he witnessw as at the communalo ffice from 10:00a .m.t o 2:00 p.m. The communalo ffice was approximately5 00 metresf rom tbg parish. He saw neither Munyakazni or his vehicle.H e did not hearg unshotos r explosions."oH e did not heara nyone mentiont hat Munyakazi andP ima went to the parisht hat day. He was ablet o seet he church on his way home,a nd saw no attack.5eTTh e witnessi nsistedt hat therew as no reasonf or an attacko n 16A pril 1994g ivent hata ll ther efugeews erek illed the previousd ay.se8 DefenceW itnessY CC 293. WitnessY CC, a Hutu, lived five minutesb y foot from NyamashekeP arisha nd the KabezaT rading Centre, in April lgg4.seeT he Iiabeza Tradin! Centre was the largest commercialc entre in the area,a nd local residentsw ould gathert here to trade information abouts ecurityi n the a.ea.6oo 294. On 15 April 1994,t he witnessw entt o the KabezaT radingC entrei n the mominga nd remainedt here until 5:00 p.m. From the centre, he was able to watch the attack on NyamashekeP arish that day, which he said was fed by Pima. The attack ended at approximatel4y :00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m.; however,t he witnesso nly watchedt he beginningo f the attack.H e believedt herew ere approximately2 ,000 assailantsth at day. The attackersth at camew ith Pima gathereda t the tradingc entreb eforep roceedingto the parish.60l 295. On 16 April 1994, in the morning,t he witnessw as again at the KabezaT rading Centre.H e testified that he did not witnessa n attacko n NyamashekeP arisht hat day.o" He believedt hat therew as no purposef or sucha n attack,a s all the refugeesh ad beenk illed 5t'T. 8 Septembe2r 0A9p .4 (closeds ession). tno T. 8 September2 009 pp. 6-7. tnt T. 8 Septembe2r 009p .7. tt' T. 8 Septembe2r 009p .7. se3 T. 8 September2 009p . 16. se4 T. 8 Septembe2r 009p .7. ttt T. 8 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. tnu T. 8 Septembe2r0 09p p. 8-9. 5e7 T. 8 Septembe2r0 09p p. 9-10. ttt T. 8 Septembe2r0 09p p. 8, 10. tn'Defence Exhibit2 0 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 8 Septembe2r0 09p .20 (closeds ession). uoo T. 8 Septembe2r0 09p .26. 60r T. 8 Septembe2r0 09p .21. to' T. 8 Septembe2r Oo9p p.23-24. Judsement and Sentence 62

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 l3o1 during the attack the previous day by Pima's men.603A lthough the witness knew Muny:akazi,u*h e never heardt hat Munyakaziw as in Nyamashekeo n 16 April 1994.60H5e deniedt hat Munyakazi met with others at the parish that day to discuss launching an attack.60F6u rthermoreh, e was not awareo f any links betweenM unyakazi andPima.607 Evidence-Attacokn the CIMERWAC ementF actorv ProsecutionW itnessB WW 296. WitnessB WW, a Hutu, was a membero f the BugaramaI nterahamwei n 1994.H e was convicted by a Gacacac ourt in Rwanda for participating in the 1994 genocide.H e testifiedt hat, in committing his crimes,h e collaboratedp rimarily with Munyakazi.andT arek Aziz,thel attero f whom lived in Munyakazi'sh ousea ndw asM unyakazi'sd eputy.608 297. The witness,t ogetherw ith otherm emberso f the BugaramaIn terahamwea, ttackedth e CIMERWA cement factory on 16 April 1994. The Interaharnwek illed Tutsis, "their accomplices,a" nd othersw ho had gglght refuget here.60Hee specificallyi dentifiedo ne of his o'u victims as the son of Rwamihigo. The witnessp articipatedi n three attackst ogetherw ith the Interahamwe,in cludingt he attacko n CIMERWA. Although he could not recall the dates of the othert wo attacks,h e was certaint he attacko n CIMERWA occurredo n 16 April 1994, becausea colleagueo f his, SamueHl ungurimanato, ld him the date,a ndh e rememberetdh at thea ttackt ook placeo n a Saturday.6ll DefenceW itnessT hdobaldG alonayaR waka 298. Witness Thdobald Gakwaya Rwaka, a Hutu, worked at the CIMERWA cement factory in Bugaramaf rom 1992 to 1996.61I2n 1994,C IMERWA had approximately4 00 employeesn, ot includingt emporarye mployees.6Dl3u ring his time at CIMERWA, he was alsot he nationalv ice presidento f the ChristianP artya ndw as awareo f the political structures andp ersonalitieisn the region.6la 299. The witnessw as not workine when the attacko h CIMERWA beeano n Saturdav.1 6 April 1994.6t5H owever,h e received-ale tterf rom his supervisorre questin!t hat he u "o-pi"t. taska ndl eft for his office.6luW henh e arrivedt herea t approximatel2y: 30p .m.,t he attacko n CIMERWA hadb eguna ndw as ongoing.6rTTh e witnesst estifiedt hat he did not seew ho the attackersw ere but was later told that they were Interahamwe.6lTs he witnesst hen fled the areab ut returnedt o the factory in July 1994.U pon his return, he wrote a report concluding uo' T. 8 Septembe2r 009p .23. uoo T. 8 Septembe2r 009p p.21-22. 605 T. 8 Septembe2r 009p p.23-24. uou T. 8 Septembe2r 009p .24. 507 T. 8 Septembe2r 009p .26. uo' DefenceE xhibit 27 (personali dentifications heet);T . 29 May 2009 pp. 6-8. uot T.29 May 2009p . l4 (closeds ession). 6'o T.29 May 2009p p. 6-7( closeds ession). u" T.29 May 2009p p. 14-15( closeds ession). u't DefenceE xhibit2 6 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 16S eptembe2r 009p p.3,26-28. 613 T. l6 Septembe2r0 09p .25. uto T. l6 Septembe2r0 09p .5. u't T. 16S eptembe2r0 09p . 18. utu T. l6 Septembe2r0 09p p. 18-19, utt T. l6 Seotembe2r0 09o . 19. utt T. l6 Septembe2r0 09p .20. Judeement and Sentence 63 4ili'

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyalazi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 isoE that 50 personsh ad beenk illed in the 16 April 1994a ttacko n CIMERWA, andt hat the attack had been led and perpetated by Tarek Aziz andthe Interaho*re.6re The witnesst estified that after the genocide he worked with a human rights NGO, and that he never heard allegationsa gainstM unyakazi.620 DefenceW itnessE LB 300. WitnessE LB, a Hutu, was the vice presidento f the BugaramaI nterahamwei n April lgg4.62tH e testified that the BugaramaI nterahamwen everlarticipated in an attack on NyamashekeP arish. On 16 April 1994, the witness, together with the Bugarama Interahamwe,a ttackedt he CIMERWA CementF actory in Bugarama.T hat attack begana t 8:00a .m.a nd endedt hat evening;t hus,t he BugaramaIn terahamwec ould not haveb eeni n Nyamasheket hat day. The Interahamwe travelled the eight kilometres between Citd Bugaramaa nd CIMEI{WA on foot.622 Deliberations 301. The Prosecutionp resentedtw o witnessesW, itnessesL AY and BWP, to establish Munyakazi'si nvolvementi n the attacka t NyamashekeP arisho n 16 April 1994.B oth of thesew itnessesw ere survivorso f the attacka nd placedM unyakazia t the sceneT. he Defence offered five wibressesw ho all claimed that Munyakazi did not participate in the attack. DefenceW itnessT homas Nahimanaa cknowledgedth at attackst ook place at Nyamasheke Parishb ut did not cite specific dates.D efenceW itnessesM BRE, YCC, and YCH claimed that there was no attack on 16 April, but that an attack took place on 15 April 1994. Munyakazit estified that he did not participatei n the attacka nd was helping neighbourso n that day. The Trial Chamberw ill also considert he evidencec oncerningt he attack on the CIMERWA Cement factory becausei t took place on 16 April 1994 and is relevant to Munyakazi'sp ossiblew hereaboutso n that day. 302. ProsecutionW itnessesL AY and BWP offeredc orroboratinga ccountso f the attacka t NyamashekPe arisho n l6 April. Both testifiedt hat an-initiala ttackt ook placea round6 :00 a.m.,w hich the refugeesw ere able to repel;t hat around9 :00 to 11:00 a.m., Munyakazi anived with otherm emberso f the Interahamwea nd broke throught he churchd oors:t hat the women and children were orderedo utsidet he churcha nd killed: and that the attackersth en entered the church and killed the remaining refugees.62T3h e witnesses' accounts are consistent with one another and there are no material discrepanciesb etween their testimonies.6I'to i s the view of the Trial Chambetrh atb <ithw itnessews ereg enerallyc redible andr eliable. 303. However,t he Trial Chambern otest hat WitnessL AY was evasivec oncemingh is knowledgeo f Witness BWP. When asked,t he witness did not directly answerw hetherh e knew Witness BWP. Only once the PresidingJ udge intervened,d id the witness say that utn T. 16S eptembe2r0 09p p.2 l-23,29. t'o T. 16 Septembe2r0 09p . 17. u" DefenceE xhibit2 7 (personaild entifications heet)T; . l7 Septembe2r0 09p p. l- 2. u" T.17 Septembe2r0 09p p.ll-12. u" T.23 April 2009p p.3-6,ll-12,23-27,29-30. u'o T.23 April 2009p p. 3-6,3 l. WitnessB WP testifiedth atM unyakazci arrieda pistol,w ast hef irst to shoot into the churcha ndf ired on refugeesi nsidet he church.W itnessL AY testifiedt hat Munyakazic arrieda pistol but did not know whetherh e usedi t, Judgemenatn dS entence 64

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 r30? WitnessB WP was a membero f the Nyamashekep opulation.utTt he Trial Chambern otest his issuew ith somec oncern. 304. DefenceW itnessesM BRE, YCC, and YCH all testified that there was no attacko n NyamashekeP arisho n 16 Aprrl1994. None of thesew itnessesw ere presenta t Nyamasheke Parisht hat day. However,a ll three lived andw orkeda roundt he parish,a nd all threes aidt hat they were in and aroundt he KabezaC entreo n 16 April 1994.T he Trial Chambern otest hat ProsecutionW itnessB WP testified that the KabezaC entrew as visible from the entranceo f NyamashekeP arish.62T5h us, the testimonieso f theseD efencew itnessesth at no attackt ook placeo n 16 April cannotb e discreditedo n the basist hat they were not in a positiont o see what wast aking placea t the parisht hat day. 305. DefenceW itnessT homasN ahimanac orroboratetdh e evidenceo f DefenceW itnesses YCC, YCH and MBRE that Pima was responsiblefo r the attackso n NyamashekeP arish.627 However,h is testimony is basedo n hearsay,a s he was not presenti n the area during the attacks.62A8d ditionally, he did not know the precised ateso f the attackso n Nyamasheke Parish.62e 306. The Trial Chamber recalls that it has already found Munyakazi's alibi to be unreliableT. hereforei,t will not figurei nto thep resenat nalysis(s eeC hapterIl .2). 307. In consideringw hetherM unyakazip articipatedin the NyamashekeP arisha ttack,t he Trial Chamberi s not limited by the argumentss ubmittedb y the Prosecutiona nd Defence.I n particular,t he Trial Chamberw ill considert he evidencea boutt he attacko n CIMERWA on 16 April 1994,w hich neitherp arty referredto in their ClosingB riefs,i nsofara s it relatesto the attacko n NyamashekeP arish.T he Trial Chamberr ecognisesth at the evidencer egarding this attacki s not consistentw ith either party's theory of the case,b ut the theoriesa dvanced by the partiesd o not bind the Trial Chamberin its analysiso f the evidence. 308. Both Prosecutiona nd DefenceW itnesseste stified that a group of Interahamwe attackedC IMERWA on 16 April 1994.A s thesew itnessesd o not appeart o have had a motive to manufactures uch evidence,t he Trial Chamberi s satisfiedt hat this attack did indeedta kep laceo n 16 April 1994.T he Trial Chamber.wilcl onsiderth e implicationso f this finding on its analysiso f the eventsa llegedb y the Prosecutionin paragraph1 2 of the Indictment. 309. DefenceW itnessE LB testified that he was one of the Interaha*reuto who attacke<l CIMERWA on 16 April. He testifiedt hat the attackb egana t 8:00a .m.a nd continuedu ntil nightfall. Therefore,h e believedt hat the Interahamwec ould not have been lggarama involvedi n an attacka nywheree lset hatd ay.o''T he Trial Chambevr iewsh is testimonyw ith caution.A lthough the witnessc onfessedth at he was the vice presidento f the Bugarama Interahamw",53h2. only concededto having participatedin the 16 April 1994 attacko n utt T.23 April2009p . 44 (closeds essionT);. 23 April 2009p .45. utu T . 23 April 2009 p. 12.T he witnesst estified: o 'Refugee w s ho were at the parishh ad beenp ostedi n front of the churchn eart he doors,a nd they could seew hat was happeninga t the KabezaC entre,a nd thosew ere the peoplew ho told us that Munyakaziw asc oming...Theyta lkeda ndw e heardw hatt heyw eres aying.Y ou know, when you are in front of the church,y ou can seew hat is happeningin the KabezaC entre." u" T.2 Septembe2r 009p . 16. 62t T.2 Septembe2r0 09p . 32. u" T.2 Septembe2r0 09p .32. u'o T. l7 Septembe2r0 09p .2. utt T.17 Septembe2r0 09p p.ll-12. utt T. 17 Septembe2ra 09p . 2. Judgemenatn dS entence 65

Prosecutorv . YussuMf unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 tu6 CIMERWA.U" The Trial Chamberi s mindful that the witnessm ay havet ried to minimiset he role of the BugaramaIn terahamweo verall in ordert o diminishh is own role in the April 1994 eventsi n Cyangugup rdfecture. 310. Defence Witness Thdobald Gakwaya Rwaka worked at CIMERWA in April of 1994.63H4e witnessedt he attack on 16 April and later filed a report statingt hat 50 people were killed.635T he wifiress testified that the attack happenedo n a Saturda y and was in progressw hen he arrived at CIMERWA at 2:30 p.rn.u'uH e had heardt hat the Interahamwe members,u nder the commando f Tarek Aziz, werc responsiblef or the attack.63T7h e Trial Chambern otest hat the witness' knowledgeo f the assailantsis basedo n hearsay. 311. ProsecutionW itnessB WW was convictedo f genocidef or his participationin the events of April 1994.638T he witness testified that he and the BugaramaI nterahamwe participatedi n three attacks in April 1994: The 16 April 1994 attack on the CIMERWA factory and two later attackso n Shangia nd Mibilizi Parishes.63Aec cording to the witness, Munyakazi was the leader of the BugaramaI nterahamwe,64oa nd Taref Aziz was his deputy.6al 312. CIMERWA was eight kilometresf rom Bugaramac entre,6aa2n dN yamashekeP arish was approximately8 5 kilometres from Bugarama.o"T' he Trial Chambero bservest hat the Prosecutione vidence does not suggest that Munyakazi participated in the attack on NyamashekeP arish,a ndt hen went on to attackC IMERWA. Nor has it adduceda ny evidence that therew ere two or more factionsw ithin the BugaramaIn terahamwee, nablingo ne faction to attackC IMERWA while anotherg roupw as attackingN yamashekeP arish. 313. The Trial Chamberf urther observesth at the two accomplicew itnessesw ho confessed to having been memberso f the BugaramaIn terahamweP, rosecutionW itnessB WW and DefenceW itnessE LB, both confessedto having participatedi n the attack on CIMERWA. Neither testified that the BugaramaI nterahamwew as involved in a separatea ttack on NyamashekeP arish that same day. The Prosecutionh as alleged that Munyakazi worked togetherw ith the BugaramaI nterahamwe,a ndi ndeedh as shown,a s will be discussedla ter, that he did so at Shangia nd Mibilizi ParishesT. he Prosecutionh as not adequatelys hown why Munyakaziw ould abandont his moduso perandia t Nyamasheke. 314. Thust he following questionsa rise:1 ) Why would Munyakazih aveb eeni nvolvedi n an attack on NyamashekeP arish, which was relatively far from Bugarama,w hen the BugaramaI nterahamwew ere attackingC IMERWA so close to Bugarama?2 ) With whom utt T.17 Septembe2r 009p p.ll-12. u'o T. 16 September2 009p .3: The witnesst estifiedt hat he worked at the CIMERWA from 1992t o1996. u" T. l6 Septembe2r 009p p. 19,28-29. u'u T. l6 Septembe2r 009o . 19. ut' T.16 Septembe2r0 09p .29. u" T. 29 May 2009p . 6 (closeds ession). u3e T. 29 May 2009p p. 14-1 5 (closeds ession)T: herei s somec onfusionin the testimonya boutt he sequencoef events.T he witnesss tatedt hat ShangiP arishw as the first attacki n which the the BugaramaI nterahamwe participateda ndt hat it took placet owardst he end of April. Later he assertedth at the attacka t CIMERWA took placeo n 16 April, andt estifiedt hat the attackso n Shangia ndM ibilizi Parishesto ok placea t the endo f month. uoo T.29May 2009p . 16( closeds ession). 64t T.29 May 2009p . 7 (closeds ession). uo'T.17 Septembe2r0 09p . ll. 643 ProsecutioWn itnessM M, T. 28 April 2009,p .3; MunyakaziT, . 15 October2 009p .33S tatedth att he distanceb etweenh is locality and Nyamashekeis about8 0 to 90 kilometres. Judeementa nd Sentence 66

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 1305 would Munyakazih ave attackedN yamashekeP arish,w hen it is clear that someo r all of the BugaramaIn terahamwew ere involvedi n the attacko n CIMERWA that samed ay? 315. While the Trial Chamberfo undb othP rosecutiown itnessetso be crediblea ndr eliable, in considering the evidence, the Trial Chamber cannot ignore that circumstancesa t NyamashekeP arish in April 1994 were chaotic,a nd that the witnessesm ay thereforeh ave beenm istakenr egardingd atesa nd details. Conclusion 316. In assessintgh e totalityo f the evidencei,n cludingt he unanswereqdu estionrse garding the attacko n CIMERWA and the Defencee videnceth at no attackt ook placea t Nyamasheke Parisho n 16 April 1994,t he Trial Chamberf inds that the Trial Chamberh as a reasonable doubt regardingM unyakazi's participationi n the Nyamashekea ttack.T hus, the Prosecution hasn ot provent hat Yussuf Munyakazip articipatedin an attacka t NyamashekeP arisho n 16 April 1994,a sa llegedi n the Indictment. ni\ Judeementa nd Sentence 67

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 lBa4 8. ATTACK ON SHANGI PARISII,29 APRIL 1994 317. Paragraphl3 of the Indictmenrt eads: On or about2 9 April I 994,Y ussufM UNYAKA Zl, with the Bugarama Interahamwe , attackeda nd killed hundredso f Tutsi civiliansw ho had soughtr efugea t Shangi Parish,G afunzoc ommuneC, yanguguprefectureu,s ingf irearmsa ndt raditional weaponsY. ussufM UNYAKAZI ffansportedth eI nterahamweto ShangiP arisha nd personallys hota nd killed severalT utsi civilians duringt he attack. 318. The Prosecutionre lieso n the evidenceo f WitnesseBs WQ, BWR, BWU, BWW, MP andM M.6aa 319. The Defenced oesn ot disputet hat an attackt ook place on ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994b ut deniesM unyakazi's participationi n the attack.I t relies on Munyakazi's alibi for that datea ndt he evidenceo f WitnessesE LB. YCI andF austinN takirutimana.6as Evidence ProsecutionW itnessB WO 320. WitnessB WQ, a Tutsi farmer, lived in Shangis ecteuri n April 1994,64a6n d was a membero f the MRND..*' In 1993,t he witnesss awM unyakazit rvice at political functionsi n Gafunzo communea nd then in 1994 during the attack on Shangi Parish. He identified YussufM unyakazii n court.6a8 321. Following the crash of PresidentH abyarimana'sp lane,t he Hutus claimedt he plane had beens hot down by the Tutsis.I n ordert o avoid reprisala ttacksb y Hutus,t he Tutsisf led their homesa nd businessesT. he witnesss oughtr efugea t ShangiP arishw ith his wife, three children,a nd other family members.6aTeh e fiist refugiesa nived on Friday 7 April 1994,a nd when the witnessa rrived at ShangiP arisha pproximately2 0 refugeesw ere alreadyt here.650 By the following morning abolt 300 refugeesh ad anived at the Shangi Parish and this numberin creasecdo ntinuously.o'' 322. Between1 3 and 29 April 1994,t herew erem ultiplea ttackso n ShangiP arish.O n 13 April 1994,t here was a large-scalea ttack led by a certainP ima. Approximately2 ,000 refugeesw ere killed during that attack.o" The witnessc annotr ecall the number of attacks that occurredb etween1 3 April and29A pril on ShangiP arish,b ut statedt hat rarely fwo days - went by without an attack.o" 323. On29 April 1994,t he witnesss aw Munyakazia t ShangiP arishb etween3 :00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Munyakazia rrived at ShangiP arishi n a white Daihatsut ruck accompaniebdy about4 0 Interahamwef rom Bugaramaw ho werea rmedw ith guns.M unyakaziw asw earinga 6aalndictmentpara. 13;ProsecutionClosingBriefparas.69-77,130-133,147-l4g uot DefenceC losingB rief paras.7 3-103,1 68-173. 646 ProsecutioEn xhibit I (personaild entifications heet)T; . 22 April2009p .10 (closeds ession). uo'T.22 April 2009p p. l8-19. uot T.22 April2009p p.1 1,1 7. uot T.zzApril2009p . 12. uto T.22 April2009p .21. utt T.22 April2009p p.12,21. utt T.22April 2009p p.13,21. utt T. 22 April 2009p . 22. ^+r\ Judgement and Sentence 68

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t3A3 pair of trousersa nd a long jacket that camer ight down to his knees.S omeo f the assailants wore ordinary clothesw hile othersw ere bare-chesteda nd still othersh ad brancheso n their heads.65a 324. Munyakazi arrived with two bodyguardsa nd was armed with a shotgun.65Tsh e witnessi dentifiedt he men accompanyingM unyakazia s bodyguardsb ecauseM unyakaziw as walkinga heado f them,a ndt heya ccompaniehdi m to the residenceo f them others uperior.6s6 325. Munyakazi asked the witness what he and others were doing at the parish. The witnessr espondedth at they camet o seekr efugea t Shangi.M unyakazit old the witnesst o tell the otherr efugeesto get into the churchs o that he and his men could provide securityf or the refugeesM. unyakazit hen askedt he witnessw heret he mothers uperiorw as. The witnessl ed him to the mother superior's house where he left Munyakazi before retuming to the church.657 326. The main doorst o the churchw ere lockeds o the witnessu sedt he back door to enter the church.T hereh e saw approximately5 ,000r efugeesT. he witnesst hen heardg unshotsa nd sawt hat the refugeesin the backyardw ereb eingf ired upon by the men wearingb ranchesa nd plants.M -unyakazwi as standingb y a sided oor while other guardsw ere trying to breakd own the door.o'oT he witnessw as ablet o seet he killingst hroughv entilationh olesi n the walls of the church.65e 327. The witnessg ot closet o the main door of the churcha nd saw Munyakazia nd his escortf iring at the doors of the church.T he witnessw as able to see Munyakazi's face.660 Then he movedt owardst he middle of the church.66Tl he attackerss mashedin all the doors, and Munyakazi was standingb y the side door, while the attackersw ere lobbing grcnades.662 The witnesst estifiedt hat he was neart he altar,a nd so was not injuredb y.theg renades.663 Munyakazil ed the attack and memberso f the local populationt ook part.oo*W itnessB WQ statedt hat he did not seeM unyakazik illing anyoneh imself.66s 328. The assailantlsa terh it the witnessw ith a spikedc lub andh e lost consciousnesBso. th of the witness' handsw ere broken during this attack.T he witnessr egainedc onsciousnesast around3 :00 a.m. on 30 April 1994.66lu6b sequently, hid in cypresst reesa nd went to .he the convento f nunsw heret iis woundsw eret reated.H e wast hene vacuatedto Nyarushishi.66T 329. The witness did not know how many personsh ad beenk illed during the attack.H e nevers aw Munyakazia gain.66T8h erew ere minor attackso n ShangiP arisha fter the attacko f 29 April,but Munyakaziw as not presentd uringt hosea ttacks.66e uto T.zzApril200p9p .1 3-14. utt T. 22 April 2009p . 27. usu T.22A pril2 009p p.27-28. ut' T. 2zApril2 009p p.1 4-15. us' T. zzApril2 009p p.1 4-15. "n T.22A pril2 009p p.1 5,3 o-31. uuo T.22A pril200p9p .30-31. uu' T. 22April2 009p . 31 . uu'T. z}April 2009p . 33, uut T.LzApril200p9.1 5. uuo T.2zAprit2 009p p.1 5-162,2 ,32-33. uut T.zTApril2oop9. 1 6. uuu T.z2April2 009p . 16. uu' T. 22A pril2 009p p.1 6,2 6,2 9,3 2-34. uut T.22A pril2o09p p.16,32. uun T.22 April2oopg. 27. Av\ Judgementa nd Sentence 69

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyal<aziC aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t36Z ProsecutionW itnessB WR 330. WitnessB WR, a Tutsi, lived in Nyakabuyec ommunea nd worked at CIMERWA in 1994.67P0 rior to April 1994, the witness saw Munyakazi whenever he went to Citd Bugarama.6tWt hile the witnessw as working at CIMERWA, Munyakaziw ould comet o the factory,b ut the witnessd id not know why he cameo r what he did there.672 331. The witnessr egularlyw ent to ShangPi arish,a sevenm inutew alk from his houset,o attendm ass.6t3F ollowing the deatho f PresidentH abyarimanat,h ere was a generals enseo f insecuritya ndt he witnessf led the areab ecauseh e no longerf elt safe.67Oan 7 April 1994,t he witness'e lderb rotherw ask illed.uttO n 9 April, the witnessd ecidedto seekr efugea t Shangi Parishw ith his family.676A ttacks on the paiish begana lmosta s soon as the witnessa nd his family arrived there.67S7p ecifically,t he witnessr ecalleda n attacko n l.!^April, led by a certainP ima.T he witnessw as told that Pimaw asf rom Gafunzoc ommune.o'o 332. On 29 April 1994, there was a large-scalea ttack on Shangi Parish led by Munyakazi.o'' At the time of the attack there were approximately6 ,000 refugeesi n the church; some were outside the church building, some in the presbytery,a nd others were 680 insidet he churchb uilding."""AA ss ssoooonnaa ss tthhee wwiittnneessssss aaww MMuunnyyaakkaazziiaa tt SShhaannggii,,hh ee kknneeww tthhaatt aa mmaassssaaccrrwwee oouulldd eennssuuee..ooT'h e witnessw aso n the road leadinet o the Gafunzoc ommunal office when he saw a white vehicle carryinga group of peoplew ho were wearing leaveso n their heads.H e saw Munyakazi get out of the vehicle wearing an overcoat,b ut could not remembetrh e colour.A s the vehiclea pproachedth, e witnessr an backt o the ShangiP arish buildingt o alert the refugeeso f the imminent attack.682 333. The attack on 29 April 1994 begana t approximately4 :00 p.m.ut' The witnessw as ablet o seew hat was taking place outsidet he churcht hrougha ir vents locateda pproximately 50 to 75 centimetrefsr om the churchf loor.oo* 334. Munyakaziw as carrying a small pistol, and the Interahamwew ere carryingg renades, spiked clubs, swords and spears.T hey sunoundedt he church and forced open the doors. Munyakazib egans hooting,w hich the witnessb elievedw as a signal to start the attack.T he Interahamwet hen began throwing grenadesa, nd firing shots, at the refugeesi nside the church. The attackerse nteredt he church and finished off their. victims using traditional weapons.68Tth e attack lastedu ntil the evening,a nd when it was over the witnessw as too 670 ProsecutioEnx hibitP .2( personaild entifications heet)T; . ZZ lpril 2009p .4l (closeds ession)4, 7. u" T.22 April2009p .42. 6'" T.22 April 2009p . 56. u" T.22 Aoril2009o .43. 6'o T.22 April 2009p p.435, 5-56. u's T.22 April2009p .46. u'u T . 22 April 2009 pp. 43,4 6, 56-57. u'7 T. zzApril 2009 pp. 43-44. u" T.22 April 2009p . 44. 67e T. 22 April 2009p . 44. u" T .22 April 2009p p.5 3-54. utt T.z2April 2009p . 5l 682 T. 22 April 2009 pp. 44, 50-51. 683 T.22 April2009p . 45. uto T.22 April2009p .55. 68s T.22 April2009p .45. Judsement and Sentence 70 i.,$

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyalazl, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 l30l disorientedt o know whether there were any other survivors of the attack.68T6h e witness estimatedth at approximately6 ,000r efugeesw erek illed duringt he Shangia ttack.587 ProsecutionW itnessB WU 335. WitnessB WU, a Hutu, was a farmeri n 1994.H e lived in Shangis ecteur,G afunzo cotnmunea t the time.6t8T he witnesss aw Munyakazio n two occasionsf:i rst, at a meetinga t the Kamarampakas tadiumi n Cyangugup rdfecturei n late 1993;a nd then at ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994.68Teh e witnessa cknowledgedth at he had participatedi n the attacko n Shangi Parish on 29 April 1994, and testified that he had done so together with Munyakazi, the leadero f the BugaramaI nteraho**".6e0 336. The wifiresss tatedt hat between1 2 and2 9 April 1994,l ocal residentsw ageds everal attackso n ShangiP arish.T utsis who had soughtr efugea t the parishw ere able to resistt hese first affacks.A t some point the local residentsr ealisedt hat they were unable to fight the Tutsisa t the parisha lonea nd calledf or reinforcement.6Pelr ior to the attack on29 April1994, EtienneG atamobwat,h e local CDR leader,a skedf or reinforcementsa t a securitym eetingi n Cyang"ugpur dfecture. The authoritiesp romisedG atamobwat hat reinforcementsw ould be sent."" 337. On29 April 1994,a t about3 :00p .m.,M unyakazai ndt he Interahamwea niveda t the roadblocka t BushengeC entrem annedb y the witnessa nd requestedto be shownt he way to Shangi Parish.6eM3 unyakazi and his vice presidentl ed a group of about 50 or 60 InterahamweT. he group at the roadblocki nformedM unyakazit hat the parish was located abouta kilometrea way from the roadblock.T he vehiclesd rove off at a very slow pacea nd local residentsi,n cludingt he witness,f ollowedb ehind.6eAap proximately1 50 to 200 local residentsa t Bushengec entrej oined the^groupf rom Bugarama.o"G atamobwea rriveda t ShangiP arisha fter the starto f the attack.o'o 338. Along the road to the parish,t he assailantss toppeda t a placec alled the Rwagataraka Cemetery.M unyakazi orderedt hem to distinguisht hemselvesfr om the Tutsis, and the men then disguisedt hemselvesw ith leavesa nd branches.6?J7vl unyakazia nd a group of armed Interahamwew erei n the leadv ehicle,a greenD aihatsu.6Me8u nyakazi'sv ice presidenta, nda second group of Interahamwe,f ollowed in a secondv ehicle, a brown Daihatsu.6eTeh e attackerss ubsequentlys plit into two groups;o ne group_^attackethde parish from the main facadew hile the other groupa ttackedf rom the backyard."' 339. Upon arrival at the parish,t he fwo $oups of assailantsb egans hootinga t the refugees. Some refugeesw ere killed by gunfire; othersw ere finished off with machetesa nd other u'u T.22 April 2009p p.44-45. u" T.zzApril 2009p . 54. 688 ProsecutioEnx hibit.13( personaild entifications heet)T; . 4 June2 009p .2. 6tn T. 4 June2 009p p.9,21,22. u'o T. 4 June2 009 pp.4-6. un'T.4 June2 009p p.9,23,26. unt T. 4 June2 009 pp.7 , ?4. un3 T .4 June2 009p . 7. 'no T.4 June2 009p p.6-7,32. 6e5 T.4 June2 009p p.25-26. unu T . 4 June2 009p . 27. un' T.4 June2 009p p.7 -8. "'T.4 June200p9. 27. unn T. 4June2 009 pp.9 , 27, 28. too T.4 June2 009p p.7-8,32. Jtidgementa nd Sentence 71 /1 /rv. I / t" I

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 l3@ weapons. Some refugees were able to lock themselvesi nside the church. Munyakazi o'go instructedt he assailantsto and get axess o as to breakd own the doorsa nd finish off the refugees."T he attackersb orrowedt wo axesf rom housesn ear the church and usedt hem to breakd own two of the church'sf our doors.7oIlt took the assailantsa bout3 0 minutest o force opent he doorsa nd entert he church.7o2 340. After the assailantsfo rced opent he doorso f the parish,t hey approached"a fat lady" namedP etronillaN yiramuteteri.S he beggedt hem for prty. They told her to "apologiseo r seek grace from our leader,Y ussuf." When she moved towards Munyakazi, he shot and killed her with a pistol.D uring this incident,o thera ssailantws erek illing refugeesin sidet he church.T he witnesss tatedt hat he was part of the groupw ho told Petronillat o go and beg for mercy from ![e leader.A part from Petronilla,t he witnessd id not seeM unyakazik ill anyone elseh imself.To3 341. Prior to the arrival of theser einforcementlso cal residentsl acked ammunition.T he BugaramaI nterahamwew as well equippeda nd came with guns, grenadesa nd over 150 bladedweapons.T here were weaponsi n Munyakazi'sv ehiclesa nd if any attackersn eeded weaponst,h ey could get them from the vehicles.T he witnessh imself ran out of ammunition and grenadesa nd thus useda machete.ToTah e witnessk illed five peopled uring the attacko n 29 April 1994. On 30 April, while they were burying the bodies,t he attackersd iscovered peoplew ho were hiding at the scenea ndk illed themt oo.7oTt herew ere between8 ,000a nd 12,000r efugeesin the parishb eforet he 29 Ap-rilm assacrset arted,?0a6n db etween5 ,000a nd 6,000r efugeesw erek illed on 29 April 1994.'"' 342. The attacks tarteda t 3:00p .m. ande ndedi n the eveningw hen it was gettingd ark.708 Munyakaziw as wearinga long coat and a black pair of trousers.H is vice presidenwt as wearinga ^l ong-sleeveds hirt and a sleevelesssw eater. The Interahamwew ore kitenge uniforms."'After completingth e attackt,h e CDR leaderG atamobwasp okew ith Munyakazi, andg aveh is vice presidenmt oneyt o organisea receptionfo r the attackers.7lO ProsecutionW itnessB WW 'Interahamwe 343. WitnessB WW, a Hutu, was a membero f the Bugarama in 1994.H e testified that he collaboratedp rimarily with Munyakazi and Tarek Aziz, who lived in Munyakazi'sh ousea ndw as Munyakazi'sd eputyi n commitingc rimesi n 1994.711 344. Towardst he end of April 1994,M unyakazic alled the Interahamwet o an open field near "the cooperative"a nd instructedt hem to attack ShangiP arish. Munyakazi's specific o'that instructionst o the Interahamwe were we should go there and do what we were supposedto do and by that, he meantk ill^Tutsi." They arriveda t the parisha t approximately 3:00p .m.a ndM unyakazil edt he attack."' 'o' T.4 June2 009p p.8,24. '02 T.4 June2 009p . 32. 'o' T.4 June2 009p p.8 , 31,3 2. 'oo T. 4 June2 009p p.28,29. 'ot T.4 June200p9. 29. 'ou T.4 June2 009p . 8. 'o' T.4 June2 009p . 30. to8 T.4 June2 009p . 8. 'on T.4 June2 009p p.9,27-28. "o T.4 June2 009p p.8 -9. 7rr ProsecutioEn xhibit 12 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 29May 2009,pp.6-7,9,23-24. "t T.29 May 2009p p. 16-17( closeds ession). Judgement and Sentence 72

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5J uly2 010 tzqq 345. The witness could not give an estimate of the number of Interahamwe who participatedin the attack,b ut believedt hat up to 120I nterahamweb oardedt he two Daihatsu vehicles,w hich ferried them to Shangi.M ost of the Interahamwew ere armed.W itnessB WW only had a machetea nd a club becauseth e rifles and grenadesa vailableh ad alreadyb een disiributed among the other men.713W hen they ariived at Shangi, the Interahamwe surroundedth e parish and climbed over the fences urroundingi t..Munyakaziw as wearinga black suit and safarit ype shoest hat day. He was carryinga pistol."" 346. At ShangPi arish,M unyakazti ook nineT utsiso ut of the Broup,li nedt hema gainstth e wall and shott hem. This incidentt ook placet owardst he end of the affack,w hen the witness wasr esting.TlTsh e witnessk illed 20 Tutsist hatd ay.?1T6h e witnesse stimatedth ati t tookt wo to threeh ourst o kill all the TutsisTraTn dt hat the attacke ndeda t approximately6 :30p ...ttt He statedt hat more than 50,000T utsis were killed that day."' Following the attack,t he Interahamweb oardedt he vehiclest hey arrivedi n and travelledt o Munvakazi'sh ousew here they had ameal.72o ProsecutionW itnessM P 347. WitnessM P, a Hutu, went to the Mibilizi Parisho n 7 April 1994,w hereh e estimated therew ere more than 5,000r efugees.72Oln 30 April 1994,o ne of the witness'c olleagues telephonedS hangiP arish to get news and heardt hat Munyakazi and his Interahamweh ad attackedS hangi Parish the previous day. The witness inferred from this news, and other details,t hat Munyakazi was also the leader of the assailantsw ho later attackedM ibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994.722 ProsecutionW itnessM M 348. WitnessM M, a Tutsi,w asp resenat t Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994. He receiveda phonec all warningt hosea t Mibilizi Parisht hatM unyakaziwaso n his way to Mibilizi to kill utt th" Tutsis,a ndi hat he had killed the Tutsisa t ShangiP arish.723 YussufM unyakazi 349. A friend of Munyakazi'sn amedE medeyoK abungow ask illed on27 April 1994.O n 29 April 1994, Munyakazi and his neighboursg athereda t his late friend's house for the funeral.T he mourningr ites lastedt hreed ays.''"_Munyakazdie niedt hat he had participatedin in thee ventsa t ShangPi arisho n 29 April 1994.'" "t T . 29 May 2009p p. l5- l7 (closeds ession). 7to T.29May 2009p p. l7-18( closeds ession). '-tt T. 29 May 2009p p. I 8, 34 (closeds ession). "o T. 29 May 2009p . l8 (closeds ession). "' T . 29 May 2009p . 32 (closeds ession). "' T. 29 May 2009p . 18( closeds ession). "n T. 29 May 2009p p. 17, 32 (closeds ession). "o T.29 May 2009p . 19( closeds ession). 72r ProsecutioEn xhibit7 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 27 April2009 pp.43-44,45,46( closeds ession). "'T.27 April 2009p p.4 8-49. 723 ProsecutioEnx hibit9 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 27 April2009 pp.58-59,62. "o T . 15 october2 oo9p p. I -3. t" T. 15o ctober2 009p p. 4-5. Judeement and Sentence IJ

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 &crg DefenceW itnessF austinN takirutimana 350. WitnessF austinN takirutimana,a Hutu, was a teacherl iving in Gafunzoc omrnunein 1994.72H6e was the presidento fthe youth wing of the MDR partyin Gafunzoc omtnunea, s well ast he secretaryo f the p?W.'"' The witnessk newM unyakazii n 1994.M unyakazwi asa membero f the MRND party.''o 351. In April 1994,t he witness did not go to ShangiP arishb ut learnedt hat Tutsis were seenf leeingt owardst he parish.Tt'Hek ne* Pimaw ell becauseh e was a closen eighbourT. he witnessw as not_parto f Pima's group, and believedt here was no relationshipb etweenP ima andM unyakazi.''uT he witnessl earnedt hat Pima,a n ex-soldier,f orced local residentsto join him in attackingS hangi Parish.T3Tl he attackersw ere mainly local youth and demobilised soldiers.A fter attackingt he parish,t hey would come back and boast about having shot at refugees.T he witness heard about two attacks,o ne between1 5 and 20 April 1994 and the othera round2go r 30 April 1994.732 352. The witness heard from theser eturninga ssailantsa bout the seconda ttack,t hat they openedf ire on refugeesa t ShangiP arish.W hile refugeesm anagedt o flee, the witness lgme understoodth at the attackw as a significanto ne." ' 353. Following the genocide in 1994, the witness closely monitored the Gacaca proceedingsin his area and spoket o a numbero f his fellow teachersw ho had survivedt he attackso n Shangi.E verybody told him that Pima had led the attacks.M unyakaziw as not mentionedin any of the proceedingso r reports.T3Tah e witnessn everh eardt hat the Bugarama Interahamwhea dc omet o reinforceP ima'sg roup.735 DefenceW itnessY CI 354. WitnessY CI, a Hutu, was a farmer in 1994.H e lived in Shangis ecteuri n Gafunzo communea, nd was marriedt o a Tutsi.73T6 he witnesss aw Munyakazi eachtime he went to Bugaramato buy food.73H7e knewt heA ccuseda s" MunyakazitheM uslim".738 355. The witnessh eardt he term Interahamweu sed,b ut never saw the personsr eferredt o asI nterahamwe,e vent houghh e was a membero f the MRND. It was only after the genocide that he learnedt hat it was the Interahamwew ho attackedS hangi Parish, and that these assailantws ereh is neighbours.T3e 356. The witnesss tatedth at in April1994,h is wife's tamily soughtr efugea t his houseH. e was afraid that his housew ould be attacked,a nd,t herefore,o n I 1 and 12 April he sent his t"Defence Exhibit 14 (personaild entifications heet)T; .2 Septembe2r0 09p .37. 727 T.2 Septembe2r 009p .37. 728 T.2 Septembe2r 009p .37. 72e T.2 Septembe2r0 09p . 40. "" T.2 Septembe2r0 09p . 43. 73r T.2 Septembe2r0 09p . 41. "'T.2 Septembe2r0 09p p. 4l- 42. t33 T.2 Septembe2r0 09 pp.4 l-42. '-t_o-T. 2 Septembe2r 009p p. 43-44. "' T. 2 Septembe2r0 09p p.4 2,45. t36 DefenceE xhibit 16( personaild entifications heet)T; . 7 Septembe2r 009p .3 (closeds ession). "' T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p . 5. '_]-it.t Septembe2r 009p p. 10, 12. "' T.7 Septembe2r0 09p . 18, Judgemenat nd Sentence 74

Prosecuot r v. YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36 4-T, 5 July2 010 lzt" male in-laws to Shangi Parish to seek refuge there. Only the women stayeda t his house becauseth e attackersw ere not attacki,r.rwgo mena t the time.tooT he witnessb roughtf ood to his in-lawsa t the parisht wice a week.'*' 357. There were approximately3 ,500t o 4,000r efugeesa t ShangiP arishi n April 1994.742 In April the sous-prdfeot f thep rdfecture,Th€odore Munyengabea, nd FatherM ategekow ent to the parisha nd took 40 refugeesf rom the parish.T he witnessw as at the parisha t the time. No life-threateninga ttack took place on 13 April 1994,b ut there was some looting.to' No meetingse ver took place at RwagatarakaC emetery,a nd the witnessn ever saw the Accused there.O rdinarily,m eetingsw ere held at the football freld.Taa 358. The large-scalea ttack on the parisht ook placeo n 28 or 29 April 1994.T}:rea ttackers camet hrought he witness' neighbourhoodn, eart he communalo ffice. The witness,a nd others who had Tutsi wives, followed the attackersto monitor what was taking place.TaTsh e attack starteda t around 4:00 p.m., and the attackersh ad guns, gtenadesa nd traditional musical instrumentsT. he attackersc ameo n foot. and they were so many that therew as no room for vehicleso n the road.To' 359. The witnessw as able to identi$ three groupsa mongt he attackers:a large group of approximately5 00 peoplef rom Gafunzoc ommunele d by Pima,w ho was carryinga grenade and a gun; a second$ oup from Mwito secteuro f approximately3 00 peoplew ith traditional weaponsa nd drums; and a third group from Bushengeo f approximately2 00 carrying macheteasn dc lubs.'*' 360. The witnessw ent into hiding whenh e first heardw histlesa nd drums.H owever,w hen he heardg unshotsa nd explosions,h e approachedth e attackersto seew hat was taking place but then retreateda gain.'ooH e was able to see the leader,P ima, holding a sword, a man namedM ahembeh olding a gun and roundingp eopleu p, anda man namedM iranzi launching grenadesin to the crowd. At around7 :00 p.m. the witnesss awt he attackersle avingw ith bags ands ewingm achinesa, nd concludedt hat the attackw as over.t4e 361. The following morning, the witnessa nd othersw ho had Tutsi relativesa ccompanied the conseiller,theb ourgmeste andt he communapl olice to the pglish. The bourgmestres ent themt o get help evacuatingth oser efugeesw ho were still alive."u The witnessn everh eard Munyakazi'sn amei n connectionw ith the attack.T he parishw as far from Bugarama.ttt DefenseW itnessE LB 362. WitnessE LB, a Hutu, was a membero f the BugaramaIn terahamwein 1994.H e was the vice president of the Interahamwea t the communel evel and Tarek Aziz was the 740 T.7 Septembe2r0 09p .7. 74t T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. 'o'T.7 Septembe2r0 09p . 15. 'ot T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. 744 T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p . 10. 'ot T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p p. 8-9,2 0. 'ou T. 7 Septembe2r 009p . 9. 707 T. 7 Septembe2r 009 pp. 9, 20. 'ot T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p p. l 0-1 1 . 74e T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p . I l. 7so T. 7 September2 009p . 12. "t T. 7 Septembe2r 009p . 9. Judgemenatn dS entence ti ,r4

Prosecatorv . YussufM unyakazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t27€ president.TTs2h e witnessw as unawareo f the affacko n ShangiP arisha nd did not participate ln the attack.tt' He committedn o crimest ogetherw ith Munyaka zi.7s4 Deliberations Munyakazi'sR olea t ShangPi arish 363. The Trial Chamberh eard four Prosecutionw itnessesw ho were presenta t Shangi Parish on29 April 1994; two as victims and trvo as perpetratorsT. he witnessesa ll placed Munyakazia t the scene.T wo other Prosecutionw itnessesa dducedh earsaye videncea bout Munyakazi'sr ole in the attack. The Defenced oesn ot disputet hat an attackt ook place on ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994,d uringw hich largen umberso f Tutsi refugeesw erek illed. ThreeD efencew itnesseso, ne of whom was a partial eyewitnessd, eniedt hat Munyakaziw as involved in the attack.M unyakazi's alibi for this day has beend iscusseda bove( seeC hapter rr.2\. 364. The four Prosecutione yewitnessesB,W W, BWU, BWQ and BWR, all provided largelyc onsistenfti rst-handa ccountso f the day's events,a nd agreedo n a numbero f material facts. The witnessesa ll testified that the massacreth at took place at ShangiP arish on 29 April 1994,b eganb etween3 :00 p.m. and4 :00 p.m. in the afternoona nd endeda t nightfall. All statedt hat Munyakazi was presenta nd that he was accompaniedb y Interahamwe;t hat Munyakaziw as wearinga n overcoata ndc arryinga gun; that the assailantsfi rst usedf irearms beforec ompletingth e massacreu singt raditionawl eaponsa; ndt hat thousandso f Tutsi were killed duringt he attack." ' 365. ProsecutionW itnessesB WR and BWQ were both refugeesa t ShangiP arisha nd survivorso f the attack.A lthough the Trial Chamberh as doubtsa boutW itnessB WQ's ability to move aroundt he church in the precisem annerh e describedin his testimony,Ttt6h e Trial Chamberc onsidersh is accountt o be crediblea nd reliable overall. It further considerst he evidenceo f WitnessB WR to have beenc rediblea nd reliable.W itnessB WQ testifiedt hat Munyakazip layeda prominentr ole in the attack.I n particular,h e led a delegationt hat went to speakt o the mother superiorw hen the assailantsa rrived. He deceivedt he refugeesi nto believingt hath e andh is menh ada rrivedt o protectt he refugeesa ndn ot to kill them.F inally, he oversawt he smashingo f the parish doors,t he last line of defenceb etweent he assailants and the refugees.7sT7h is latter point was partially corroboratedb y Witness BWR who testifiedt hat the attackersf orced opent he doorsa ndt hat Munyakaziw as standingw ith them when this took place. WitnessB WR also testifiedt hat Munyakazif ired into the church.H e believedt his was a signalt o startt he attack.TsA8c cordingt o thesew itnessesM, unyakaziw as not a mereb ystandera t ShangiP arishb ut the leadero f the attack. 366. The Trial Chamberr ecallst hat WitnessB WU wasa n accomplicew itnessa, ndt hath is previouss tatementas nd confessionsw ere inconsistent.ttItt th"r"fore views his testimony t52 DefenceE xhibit 27 (personali dentifications heet);T . l7 September2 009 pp. l- 2. "t T.17 Septembe2r0 09p . 12. "o T.17 Septembe2r0 09p p.20,25.P rosecutioEn xhibitsl 9A, 20A, and 21A (WitnessE LB's Pro Justitia statementtso Rwandaa uthorities) ttt Sees ummaryo f ProsecutionW itnesseBs WW, BWR, BWQ andB WU. "u T.22 April2009p .32. 75' T. 22April2 009p p. 14-15. "r T.zzApril 2009p . 45. 1tn T.4 June2 009p p. 14-18.T he witnessd id not mentionM unyakaziin his guilty pleai n 2005b ut in his statementto ICTR investigatorso n 27 Septembe2r 007c laimst hat he did. DefenceE xhibit 4A.,R eporto n Judgement and Sentence to ,rl,+

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tzqs with caution.A ccordingly, the Trail Chamberw ill generallyr ely on his testimonyo nly when coroboratedb y other witnesses.T he witnessw as amongt hosew ho attackedS hangiP arish on 29 April 1994.H e testifiedt hat Munyakazio rderedt he attackersto distinguisht hemselves from the Tutsi and then form two groups,o ne attackingt he parish from the front the other from the rear.76W0 itness BWR confirmed that many of thi attackersw ore branchesa nd leaves,a nd that they encircledt he churchb uilding upon arrival.T6Wl itnessB WQ also stated that the attackersw ore branchesa, nd testifiedt hat attackersw ere firing on the refugeesfr om both the front and back of the church.76W2 itness BWU further testified that Munyakazi 763 orderedt he attackerst o break down the church doors, while Witness BWQ said that Munyakaziw as presenta st he Interahamweb roked own the doors.76a 367. As noted earlier, ProsecutionW itness BWW, an accomplice witness, has demonstrateda markedt endencyt o exaggeratefi gures,a nd his testimonyw as, on occasion, inconsistenAt. ccordingly,t he Trial Chamberw ill only rely on WitnessB WW's testimony when corroboratedb y other witnesses.T he Defencea rgued in its closing argumentst hat WitnessB WW disputedo therP rosecutione videnceth at Munyakazio rderedt heI nterahamwe to breakd own the church doors.76H5o wever,u pon reviewin! tne record,t he Trial Chamber considersth at WitnessB WW's testimonyw as aboutM unyakazi'si nstructionsw ith regards to fencess urroundingt he parish,n ot the doorst o the church,a nd, therefore,c oncludest hat thet estimonieosf WitnesseBs WW, BWtl andB WQ aren ot inconsistent.T66 368. The Trial Chambern otest hat both-WitnesseBs WQ and BWR statedt hat Munyakazi was the leadero f the attacko n Shangi.TuHt owever,a s crime site victims during chaotic circumstancetsh,e y were lessw ell-placedto makes ucha n assessmentht ani ndividualsw ho participatedi n the attack. In this regard,t he Trial Chambero bservest hat both perpetrator witnessesB WU and BWW corroboratedt heir conclusiont hat Munyakazi led the attack. ProsecutionW itnessesM P and MM providedo nly hearsaye vidence.M oreover,b oth heard aboutM unyakazi'si nvolvementi n the eventsa t Shangif rom the sames ource.N evertheless, their testimonys upportst he evidenceo f both the perpetratorsa nd victims who were present at Shangio n 29 April 1994 andt estifiedt hat Munyakaziledt hat attack. 369. The Trial Chamberc onsidersth at the discrepanciebse tweenth e witnessesre garding the numbero f refugeesa nd the colour of the assailantsv' ehiclesa re minor and can be athibutedt o the passageo f time andt he chaosa t the scene. 370. The Prosecutionc onfronted Munyakazi with testimony from the Ntagerura case, during which former Cyangugus ous-prdfeTt hdodoreM unyangabete stified that on 28 or 29 April 1994, Munyakazi launched a massivea ttack on Shangi Parish killing most of the refugeesth ere.M unyakazic ontestedth e sous-prdfet'as ceounto f events,a rguingt hat the only Confessiono f ProsecutionW itnessB WU; DefenceE xhibit 5A,,P rosecutionW itnessB WU's statemenot f 27 Septembe2r 007. 'uo T. 4 June2 009p . 7-8, 32. 'ut T.22April 2009p p.44-45. 'u'T.22 April2009p p.1 4-15. 'ut T. 4 June2 009 pp.8 , 24. 'uo T.22 April 1994p p. i4-15,3 0-31. '6s T.28 January2 010pp.23-24. 'uu T. 29 May 2009p . 17(closeds ession). 'u'T.22April2009 p.51; T. 22 April2009p p. 14,28-29 Judeementa nd Sentence

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 |P'q4 thing he did on 29 April1994, was saveT utsis.76M8u nyakaziaddedth at he did not know Munyangabe.TM6uen yakazi'sa libi hasb eend iscusseeda rlier( seeC hapterII .2). 371. With respectt o the other Defencew itnessest,h e Trial Chamberb eginsb y observing that Witness ELB was an accomplice witness, and, therefore, his testimony will be consideredw ith caution. WitnessE LB statedt hat he was not awaret hat an attacka t Shangi took placeo I April and that he did not participateb, ut he did not explicitly sayt hat it did ?9 not happen."uT his is dis;uted by WitnessB WU who testified that WitnessE LB actually participatedi n the attack."' While the Trial Chamberi s not requiredt o determinew hether WitnessE LB participatedo r not in the affack,i t neverthelescso nsiderst hat the witnessm ay havet ailoredh is testimonyi n ordert o minimiseh is own role in the eventso f April 1994. Thus,t he Trial Chambera ccordsl ittle weightt o his testimonyw ith respectt o ShangiP arish. 372. The Trial Chamberf ound the evidenceo f DefenceW itnessF austinN takirutimanat o be consistenat nd credibleb ut notest hat his testimonyw as entirely hearsayH. is evidencet hat he heardt hat Pima and local Shangir esidentsa ttackedS hangiP arishi s not inconsistenwt ith Prosecutione videncet hat Munyakazi and the BugaramaI nterahamwew ent to Shangit o reinforce local affackers. The witness was never asked whether Munyakazi had been involved,b ut he did not believeh e would haveb eeni nvolvedg ivent he significantd istance betweenB ugaramaa nd ShangiP arish.77T2h e fact that he did not hear Munyakazi's name mentioneda fter the conflict by colleaguesw ho were presenta t Shangi or during Gacaca proceedingsd oes not confirm Munyakazi's absenceA. ll the witnessest estified that there were largen umberso f attackerso n 29 April 1994,a ndt hus it is possiblet hat Ntakirutimana's sourcesw ereu nawareo f Munyakazi'si nvolvement. 373. DefenceW itnessY CI was uncleara boutw hich partso f the attacko n ShangiP arishhe actuallyw itnessesH. e first statedt hat he went out of his way to observet he attackersa s he had Tutsi family membersw ho were endangeredb,u t then later said he retreatedb ecauseh e was afraido f the attackersT. he Trial Chamberc onsidersth is accountt o be plausibleb, ut, neverthelescso, ncludesth att he witnessw asn ot in a positiont o observee verythingth at took place. 374. The Trial Chambera lson otesW itnessY CI's insistencteh atn o meetingsto ok placea t the RwagatarakaC emetery.A s he was not a membero f the groupsb ttackingS hangiP arish,i t is not clearh ow he could haveb eens o certaina boutt his point. He was equallyi nsistentt hat therew ere so many attackerso n the road to Shangio n 29 April 1994t hat therew as no room for vehiclesA. gainh is certitudeo n this mafferi s disquietingg ivent hath e himselfd escribeda processionto wardst he parish involving hundredso f attackersW. hile the witnesst estified that he first saw the attackersa s they passedt hrough his neighbourhoodh, e was vague in describingh is positiona s he followedt he attackersH. is descriptiono f Pimaa st he leadero f the attacki s basedo n his observationo f Pimaw ith a sworda nd local hearsaya boutP ima's activitiesa t ShangiA. s notede arlier,P ima'sp resencaen dp ossiblele adershipro le duringt he 29 April1994 attackis not inconsistenwt ith theP rosecution'asl legations. 375. Additionally, Witness YCI's claim that he was unawareo f the existenceo f the Interahamwein April 1994,w hen he was a membero f the MRND party,p utsh is credibility tut T. 15 October2 009 pp. 30-32, 5l; ProsecutionE xhibit 24: Prosecutort . Ntagerura,T ranscripto f 24 March 2003;a ndP rosecutionE xhibit 25. NtageruraJ udgementp, ara.4 82. tut T.15o ctober2 oo9p p. 30,52. 770 T.17 Septembe2r0 09p . 12. "'T.4 June2 009p p.9,27-28. "'T.2 Septembe2r0 09p .47. Judgement and Sentence 78

Pro se c uto r v. Yuss u f Munyakazi,C ar,eN o. ICTR-97-36 4-T, 5 July2 010 tzq3 in question.T he Trial Chamberi s not persuadedth at the witnessw as in a position to know whetherM unyakaziw as at ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994. 376. In conclusion,t he Trial Chamberi s satisfiedb eyondr easonabled oubtt hat Munyakazi ledthe attacko n ShangiP arish on29 April 1994. Having considereda ll the evidencet,h e Chamberr ecallst hat the Prosecutioni ntroducedt estimonyf rom six witnessesf,r om a wide anay of perspectivesa, ll confirming Munyakazi's leadershipr ole, and that four of these witnessesp rovidedd etailedf irst-hande videnceo f how Munyakazi led the affacko n Shangi Parish.T he Trial Chamberf inds thesew itnessesto be credible and reliable, and wheret he Trial Chamberh ast reateda certainP rosecutionw itness't estimonyw ith caution,t he material aspectso f Munyakazi'sl eadershipro le haveb eens upportedb y corroborativee vidence.T he Trial Chamberf urther finds that the Defencee videnceh as not raised reasonabled oubt that Munyakazil ed the attack on ShangiP arish.F or reasonss tipulateda bove( seeC hapterI l.2), the Trial Chamberr ejectsM unyakazi's alibi. Moreover,t he evidencep rovided by Defence WitnessN takirutimana was entirely hearsay.W hile Defence Witness YCI gave a partial eyewitnessa ccounto f the attack,b y his own admissionh e spenta t leastp art of the attacki n hiding, and his descriptiono f the attackw as on somep ointsu ncorroboratedF. inally, Defence WitnessE LB testifiedt hat he had neverh eardo f the attacko n ShangiP arish,a n accountt hat theT rial Chambefri nds discreditedb v the resto f the evidenceo n the record. Did MunyakaziP ersonallyS hoota ndK ill Tutsi Civilians duringt he Attack 377. ProsecutionW itnessB WU statedt hat after the church doors at Shangiw ere forced open by the Interahamwe,a woman namedP etronillaN yiramuteteria skedM unyakazi for mercy and that Munyakazi respondedb y shootinga nd killing her.773T he Trial Chamber beginsb y observingth at the victim's namew asm entionedn eitheri n the Indictmentn or in the Prosecution'sP re-Trial Brief. WitnessB WU, an accomplicew itness,w as the only witnessw ho madet his allegation.W itnessesB WR and BWQ both claimed to have beena t the door when it was brokena nd saidt hev sawM unvakazit herea t that time. Neither refened to this incident.TTWa itness BWU's account is unconoborated,a nd therefore the Trial Chamberc oncludest hat the Prosecutionh as not establishedb eyond reasonabled oubt that Munyakazi shot and killed a woman namedP etronillaN yiramuteteri on 29 April 7994,a t ShangPi arish. 378. ProsecutionW itnessB WW testifiedt hat towardst he end of the massacreM unvakazi personallys electedn ine refugeeso ut of the crowda nd shott hem.77Ws itnessB WU, another assailantd, id not mentiont his incidentn or did any of the otherP rosecutionw itnessesT. he Trial Chamberh asp reviouslyf oundt hat it couldn ot makea finding on the basiso f Witness B WW' s unconoboratedte stimony. 379. Thus the Trial Chamberf inds that the Prosecutionh as not proven beyondr easonable doubtt hat Munyakazip ersonallys hot and killed Tutsi civilians at ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994. Conclusion 380. The Prosecutiohna sp rovenb eyondr easonabldeo ubtt hatM unyakaziw ast hed ef acto leader of the attack at Shangi Parish on 29 April 1994 and that he transportedt he Interahamwea nd instructedth em to kill the Tutsi civiliansa t the parish.T he Trial Chamber "t T.4 June2 oo9p p.8 ,3 1-32. "o T.22April2 009p p.1 5-162, 9,30-31;T.2A2 pril200p9p .455, 3. "t T.29M ay2 009p p.1 8,3 4. Judeementa nd Sentence I AMYI /u

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tz.tz infers from Munyakazi's position as leader of the attack, the purpose of which was to exterminateth e Tutsis at the parish,t hat his intentw ast o destroyt he Tutsi civilian population at that location. The Prosecutionh as not proven beyond reasonabled oubt that Munyakazi personallys hotT utsi civilians during the attack. Judgement and Sentence 80

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t2qr 9. ATTACK ON MIBILIZI PARISH.30 APRILI994 381. Paragraph1 4 of the Indictmenrt eads: On or about3 0 April1994, YussufM UNYAKAZI, with the BugaramaI nterahamwe, attackeda nd killed about a hundredc ivilian Tutsis men who had soughtr efuge at Mibilizi Parish, Cyimbogo commune, Cyangugu prefecture, using firearms and traditional weapons.Y ussuf MTINYAKAZI transportedt he InterahaTnwteo Mibilizi parisha nd orderedt hem to kill only Tutsi males,w hich they did. 382. The Defence submits that Munvakazi was not involved in anv attack on Mibilizi Parish.776 Evidence ProsecutionW itnessL CO 383. Witness LCQ, a Tutsi, was a farmer in April 1994.77T7h e witness first met Munyakazi in or around 1988 to 1989, during his frequent travels to Bugarama on business.77H8e never returnedt o Bugaramaa fter 1990 becauseit was dangerousto fravel therea sa Tutsi.77e 384. The witnesss ouehtr efuse at the Mibilizi Parisht osetherw ith his wife and about2 0 neighbourso n 8 Aprii Pgq.rto."Iih.n they arrived aithe parish, there were already approximatel3y0 0r efugeesth ere.'o' 385. The first attacko n the parisht ook placeo n 13 April 1994.I t was led by a certain KayibandaA. seconda ttackt ook place on 18 April 1994 and was led by a man named Bandetseto getherw ith the Cyangugus ous-prdfetA. third attack,a lso led by Bandetset,o ok placeo n 20 April 1994.78T2h e assailantisn eacho f the firstthree affacksw ere residentso f the neighbouringlo calities.Ts3 386. On 30 April 1994,a t approximately4 :00 p.m., WitnessL CQ saw Munyakazie nter the premiseso f the parish togetherw ith a group of lnterahamwew ho were armedp rimarily with traditional weapons,a lthougho ne was carrying a firearm. Munyakazi was carrying a sword.?8Ma unyakazi told the refugees:" You have killed the head of state,a nd you have comet o hideh ere...Y ou areg oingt o pay for whaty ou haved one."785 387. Munyakazit hen directedt he Interahamweto take a group of refugees,in cluding the witness,o utsidet he churchg ates.T he refugeesw ere strippedn aked.T he attackersth en took the refugeesf urther down the road into the forestw heret hey were forced onto a vehicle.T he vehicle was surroundedb y Interahamwet o preventt he refugeesf rom escaping.78A6t that "u See,D efenceC losingB rief paras.1 28-135. 777 ProsecutioEn xhibit ll (personaild entifications heet)T; .28 April 2009p p. 15-16. "t T.28 April 2oogp . 18. "n T.28 April2009p . 19. "o T.28 April 2oo9p p. 15-16,27. ttt T.28 April 2009p . 16. "2 T.28 April 2oo9p . 17. "t T. 2SApril 2009 pp.2 7-28. "o T.28A pril2009p p.20,34. 185 T. 2SApril 2oo9p . 20. ttu T. 28 April2009p . 21. Judgementa nd Sentence 8l

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyalazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t2go point, the refugeesw ere separatedin to smallerg roupso f five or six andt aken-deepeirn to the forest, where they were killed by Interahamweu sing clubs and machetes.'oT' he witness watchedt he killing of a first groupo f six refugeesb eforeb eingt aken himself deeperi nto the forest. He was then hit with a spiked_c lub and lost consciousnessW. hen he regained consciousneshs,e was at the presbyt.ry.ttt 388. The witness recognisedo nly^two men among the attackerso n 30 April 1994: Munyakazi and another perpetrator.'o'T he witness sustainedm any injuries in the attack, resultingi n multiple scarso n his body andt he losso f a finger. The witnessi ndicatedh is scars to theT rial Chamber.Teo ProsecutionW itnessM P 389. WitnessM P, a Hutu, was at Mibilizi Parishi n April lgg4.7etT he first Tutsi refugees besana rrivinea t the parisho n 7 April 1994,a ndt leir numbersr oset o about5 ,000i n the dais that follJwed.Tel 39;. The witnessw as a membero f a coordinationg roupr esponsiblefo r the securityo f the refugees.7eN3u merous attacks were waged on the parish, and they varied in magnitude. Between2 ,500a nd 3,500r efugeesw erek illed in an attackt hat took placeo n l8 April 1994. On20 April, another1 00r efugeesw erei ndividuallys electedb y the attackersa ndk illed. On 30 April, therew as yet anothera ttacki n which between6 0 and 100 refugeesw ere killed.Tea The attacko n 30 April took placeb etween4 :00p .m and 5:00 p.m and lasteda bouth alf an hour.7e5 391. During the attack, the witness was locatedi n a room in a small houser eservedf or gendarmesa t the parish. The room had a window from which he was able to observet he eventst aking place outside.M unyakazi and a group of approximately5 0-70I nterahamwe arrived aboard two Daihatsu vehicles. Some canied firearms and grenadesw, hile others canied traditionalw eapons.T he gendarmesa t the parish pleadedw ith the attackersto leave the remainingr efugeesa lone,a rguingt hat the only survivorso f prior affacksw ere old men, womena nd children,b ut the attackersw ere not deterredT. he leadero f the groupt hen gavea signalt o begint he attack.F irearmsw ereu sedt o signalb oth the beginninga nd the end of the attack.F rom the witness' vantagep oint, he was able to see the Interahamwee nteringt he classroomw, here the refugeesw ere hiding, and later exiting from the classroomsH. e was alsoa blet o heart he variouss ignalsg ivent o the assailantbsy their leaderT. he refugeesw ere killed with bladed* "uponr.t'6 The assailantksi lled the refugeesw heret hey weie hiding. During the attack on 30 April, the attackersd id not ask the refugeest o sit down before selectingt hoset o be killed. The witnessd id not see Munyakazi carryinga weapono n that dav.'t' "1 T. z}April 2009 pp.2 l-22. ttt T. 28 April2009p .22. "t T. 28April 2009 pp.2 7, 33-34. "o T.28 April2009p .22. 7er ProsecutionE xhibit 7 (personali dentifications heet);T , 27 April 2009 pp. 43-44 (closeds ession). 'n' T .27 April 2oo9p . 45. 'n3 T.27 April 2oo9p . 49. 'no T.27A pril2009p p,45,50-51. 'nt T.27A pril2 009p p.45-48,51. 'nu T.27 April 2009p p.4 6-48,52. ''' T.27 April2009p . 56. Judgement and Sentence 82

Prosecuot r v. Yuss uf Munyakazl, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36 A-T, 5 July2 010 t2.8q 392. The witnessk new that the leadero f the attackw as Munyakazib ecauseth at day oneo f his colleaguesp honeda friend at ShangiP arisha nd learnedt hat Shangih ad beena ttackedth e previousd ay by the Accused and his group of Interahamwe.T he witness suspectedth at Mibilizi Parishw ould be the next target.H e thereforec ontactedp ersonsli ving alongt he road to the parish and askedt hem to warn him if they saw Munyakazi. Soon thereafter,o ne of thesep ersonsc alledt he witnesst o inform him that he had seenM unyakazi andh is groupp ass in the directiono f the parish.F ifteen minutesl ater,M unyakazia rrived at the parish.D uring the attack,t he witness was not in a position to see whether Munyakazi himself gave the signalt o startt he attack,o r only orderedt hat the signal be given. The witnessa lso believed that the leadero f the assailantsw as Munyakazib ecauset he gendarmesw ho spoket o the leadero f the Interahamwew hen they anived, in order to dissuadet he attack,i nformedt he witnesst hat the persont hey had spokenw ith wasM unyakazi.Tes ProsecutionW itnessM M 393. WitnessM M, a Tutsi, was presenat t Mibilizi Parishi n 1994.7eDeu ring April 1994, approximately6 ,000T utsis arrivedt o seekr efugea t the parish.A t leasth alf of them died there.o"T his witnessw as alsoa membero f the coordinationc ommitteer esponsiblefo r the securityo f the refugeesD. uring the attack,t he memberso f the committeew ere togetherw ith the gendarmesW. itness MM confirmed that he was togetherw ith Witness MP during the attack.sol 394. Small scalea ttacksa gainstt he refugeesb egano n 11 April 1994.A large-scalea ttack, in which assailantsu sedf irearmsa nd grenadest,o ok placeo n 18 April 1994.A nother large- scalea ttackt ook placeo n 20 April 1994.D uring that attack,t he assailantsfo rcedt he refugees to assemblea nd sit down. The-y then selectedin dividualsf rom the group and killed them outsideth ec hurchp remises.so2 395. On 30 April 1994,a nothera ttackb egana t approximately5 :00 p.m. The witnessd id not personallys eeM unyakazit hat day.80H3 owever,a pproximatelya n hour beforet he attack began,t he parish office receiveda phonec all from a persons tatingt hat Munyakazia nd his Interahamweh adj ust passeda long the road to Mibilizi Parishs inging songsa nd sayingt hat they were on their way to kill the refugeesa t Mibilizi as they had alreadyk illed those at Shangia nd Hanika. In addition, one of the gendarmesa t the parish had a discussionw ith Munyakaziw hen he arrived,a nd then reportedt he contento f the conversationto the witness. The gendarmea lso told the witness that the personh e had spokenw ith was Munyakazi. Survivorso f the attacka lso later confirmedt o the witnesst hat Munyakaziw as the leadero f the attack.8o4 396. During the attack that day, the witnessw as in a room from which he could seeb oth the insidea nd outsideo f the parisir.*oUt pon arrival,the Interahamwea ssembledth e refugees into the courtvard.T hev then selectedt hosei ndividualst hey intendedt o kill and took them 'ih. outsidet he parish.sou remainingr efugeesw ere primarily old men and women. The 'nt T . 27 April 2009p p. 48-49,5 I -53. 7ee ProsecutioEn xhibit9 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 27 April 2009p p. 58-59( closeds ession). too T.27 April 2009p p.6 0-61;T . 28 April 2009p p.1 ,7. tot T. 27 April 2009p . 62; T. 28 April 2009p p.l , 9. to2 T.27 April 2009p . 61;T . 28 April2009 p. 6. to'T. 28 April 2oo9p . 7. too T. 27 April 2009 pp. 61-62;T . 28 April 2009p . 7. tot T.27 April2009p . 62. tou T . 27 April 2009p . 63. n+ Judgement and Sentence 83

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl',C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tzslt witnessh eardt he leadero f the attackt elling them: "I was called and yet there is not very mucht o be done." The witnessu nderstoodth is to meant hat the young men had alreadyb een removedf or extermination,a nd,t herefore,h e did not havet o kill the remaindera st hey were old and had no significance.T he refugeesa pllauded in response.toTt he witness did not recallh earinga ny signalsp recedingt he attack.o'o 397. Within 40 minutes,t he Interohamweh ad selectedin dividualsa nd takent hem awayt o be killed.8oTe hosew ho had been selectedw ere killed in a courfyardo utsidet he parish,a nd othersw ere killed further down the road using bladedw eaponsA. fter the attack,t he wibress sawt he deadb odies.H e estimatedt hat 70 personsw ere killed that day. Two of thoses elected for executions urvivedt he attack.8lo ProsecutionW itnessB WW 398. WitnessB WW, a Hutu,8lr testifiedt hat he participatedi n an attacko n ShangiP arish at the end of April 1994, andt hat the attacko n Mibilizi Parisht ook placei n late Aprrl1994, approximatelyth ree daysa fter the attacko n ShangiP arish.8l2 399. Before going to Mibilizi, the witness,o ther attackersa nd Munyakazi received instructionsf rom a man named EdouardB andetsi,a trader from Nyakabuye,a t a location namedI ngoro.8l3T he witnesse stimatedth at approximately1 20I nterahamwet ravelledt o the parish aboardt he two Daihatsu vehiclesb elongingt o Munyakazi, and brought with them weaponsth at were storeda t Munyakazi'sh ome.o'* 400. The attackb egana t three or four in the aftemoon.A lthough the witness^couldn ot say how long it lasted, he testified that it was dark when they retumed home.o'' When the attackersa rriveda t Mibilizi, they were welcomedb y the gendarmesw ho were sympatheticto the causeo f the Interahamwe.otBo andetsia nd Munyakaziw ere the leaderso f the attacko n Mibilizi that day.8l7T o launcht he affack,t he Accuseda sked:" Don't you know why you're here?" Bandetsia dded:" You are looking at us as if you don't know what to 4o.r:818 According to the witness, the Interahamwef ound only men at Mibilizi Parish when they arrived. TIte Interahctmwec aught the men, strippedt hem naked, and loadedt hem on to a vehicle. From the vehicle they were then taken into the forest where they were killed. As night time approachedt,h e Interahamwek illed somer efug.eesin side the parish itself. The witnessk illed 15T utsish imselfu sinsa machetea nda club.o'" to' T.27 April 2009p .63;T.28 April 2009p . 10. tot T .28 April 2009p . 10. loe T.27A pril2009p . Of; f.28 April 2009p .7. o'u T. 27 April 2009 pp. 63-64;T . 28 April 2009p . 10. 8rr ProsecutioEn xhibit 12 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 29 May 2009p p.6 . "'^T.29 May 2009p p. 15,3 4 (closeds ession). o" T.29 May 2009p p.20,34-35(c loseds ession). t'o T . 29 May 2009 pp.2 0-21( closeds ession). gts T.29 May 2009p . 35 (closeds ession). 't6 T.29 May 2009p . 35 (closeds ession). 8t' T. 29 May 2009p . 20 (closeds ession). 8r8 T. 29 May 2009p . 35 (closeds ession). ttn T.29 May 2009p p.2l-22( closeds ession). Judgemenat nd Sentence 84

Prosecutorv . Yuss uf Munyakazr,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t?'87 YussufM un)rakazi 401. Munyakazi stated that on 29 April 1994, a BugaramaM uslim named Emedeyo Kabungod ied. He and his neighboursg atheredto pray for Kabungo,a nd the mourningr ites continuedf or three days.o" He denied that he had participatedi n any way in eventsa t Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994,o''b ut acknowledgetdh at he heardt hat Mibilizi Parishw as attacked.822 DefenceW itnessT homasN ahimana 402. WitnessT homasN ahimana,a Hutu, was pursuingt heologicals tudiesi n 1994.D uring the Easterh olidays in April 1994,t he witnessr eturnedt o his home in Nzahahas ecteur,a n area neighbouringB ugarama secteur, where Munyakazi lived. He remained in the area througho-utht e IniictmEnt period.823 403. In the early weeks of April 1994,t he witness attendedm ass each day at Mushaka Parish and assistedt he parish priest, Father Antoine Hategekimanaa, Tutsi, officiate at mass.82O4n 16 April 1994,W itnessN ahimanam ovedt o Mushaka-Parisfho llowinga n order from theb ishopt hat seminarianms ovet o theirr espectivpea rishes.o" 404. FatherA ntoine adviseda ll Tutsi refugeest o seekr efuge at Mibilizi Parisho r in the DRC rather than at Mushaka Parish, and Father Antoine's own family followed this advice.82N6 ahimana travelled to Mibilizi three times in April 1994 to check on Father Antoine'sf amily: on 20, 24 and,30A pril.827In May 1994,t he witnesst ravelledt o Mibilizi Parishe very Saturdayt o bring diabetesm edicationt o FatherA ntoine's mother. He did so until ther efugeesa t the parishw eree vacuatetdo Nyarushishoi n27 May 1994.828 405. During his visit to Mibilizi Parisho n 20 April 1994,t he witnessc onfirmedt hat an attackt ook place at the parish on 18 April 1994,a nd that FatherA ntoine's brotherd ied immediatelya fter the attack.T he witnessr eturnedt o Mibilizi Parisho n 24 April 1994t o bring money so that the brother's family could be evacuated.s"A t so.e point, the witness wast old thata certainE douardB andetsil,e adero f the Mibilizi Interahamwe,warse sponsible for thea ttackt hatt ook placeo n 18A pril.830 406. On 30 April 1994, the witnessa gain travelledt o Mibilizi Parish.H e arrived at approximatel1yl :00 a.m.t o l1:30 a.m.,a nd remainedth ereu ntil 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m beforer eturningt o Mushaka.t3lW hile at the parish,h e had a meal with WitnessesM M and MP anda n elderlyp riestn amedF atherA ntoineM uco.83O2 n 30 April 1994,t he witness" did not seea ny attack."83H3e did not seeM unyakazinord id he seey oungm en from Bugarama. t'o T. 15o ctober2 oo9p p. 1-3. t" T. l5 October2 009p p. 4-5. t" T. 15o ctober2 oo9p . 5. tt' DefenceE xhibit 13 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 2 Septembe2r0 09p p. 4-5. "o T.2 Septembe2r0 09p .7. "t T . 2 Septembe2r0 09p p. 8-9. "u T.2 Septembe2r0 09p p.9,29. "' T.2 Septembe2r0 09p p.l 0-l l, 35. t" T.2 Septembe2r0 09p .24. "n T.2 September200p9p . l0-1l. "o T. 2 Septembe2r0 09p . 15. "t T. 2 Septembe2r0 09p p. I 1. ft\ "t T.2 Septembe2r0 09p p. 1l-12,1 9,35. "t T.2 Septembe2r0 09p .13. Judgement and Senfence 85

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyaftazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tg6 He neverh eardl ater about such an attackn or did he hear Munvakazi's name in connection with an attacko n Mibilizi Parish.s3a 407. The witness had good relationsw ith ProsecutionW itnessesM P and MM and they nevert old him abouta n attacko n Mibilizi Parishl ed by the Accusedo n 30 April 1994.H e could not sayw hy they testified that thereh ad beena n attacko n that day but speculatedth at they hadp erhapsc onfusedt he dateo f the attack.83s 408. In 1999,t he witnesst ook overl eadershiopf an EcclesiasticaPle aceJ, usticea ndU nity CommissionT. he Commissionw orkedt owardsr econciliationa mongR wandansD. uring his work with the Commission,t he witnesss poket o 16 families living in Cyangugup rdfecture about the events that took place during the genocide and who was responsible.T he EcclesiasticaCl ommissionh ad good relationsi n Cyangugup rdfecture with a govemment commissiond oing similar work, and the two groupso ften exchangedin formationa boutt he eventst hat took place in 1994.83N6a himanan everh eardi t saidt hat Munyakaziw as involved in an attacko n Mibilizi Parish.837 DefenceW itnessM PCC 409. Witness MPCC, a Tutsi, was chairman of the MRND in Gishoma communei n Cyanguguprdfecturine 1994.83H8e first metM unyakaziin the early 1980sM. unyakazil ived in Bugarama secteuri n Bugarama communein Cyangugup rdfecture.s3e 410. Thew itnessh earda boutt he killingsa t Mibilizi Parishf rom otherp ersonsp, articularly during the period he was in prison, and from Gacacah earingsh e attendeda fter his release from prison.8*IOn prison,h e was told thatt he leadero f the killings at Mibilizi was a certain EdouardB andetsew ho hailed from Mibilizi.8arD uring his time in prison,a nd later during Gacacah earingsh, e neverh eardM unyakazin ameda sa perpetratoro f the killings at Mibilizi Parish.sa2 DefenceW itnessE LB 4ll. Witness ELB, a Hutu, was the vice presidento f the BugaramaI nterahamwei n 1994.84T3h e BugaramaI nterahamwen ever attackedM ibilizi Parish. The main attack on MibiliziParishtookplaceonlS April 1994,andwasledbythelnterahamwofe G itarama and Mibilizi. The leaderso f that attack on Mibilizi were named Kayibanda,S udurea nd Mudeyi. Subsequentlyth, ere were smallers calea ttacksl ed by the Kayibanda,t he heado f the Gitarama Interahamwe. Munyakazi never asked the-Bugarama Interahamwe to attack Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994.844 "o T . 2 Septembe2r0 09p . 13. "t T.2 Septembe2r0 09p p. 14,30. "u T.2 Septembe2r0 09p p. l5-16. tt'T.2 Septembe2r0 09p p. 17,28. t" DefenceE xhibit 18 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 7 Septembe2r0 09p p.46,57-58.( closeds ession) 83e T.7 Septembe2r0 09p p. 47-48( closeds ession). 'oo T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p . 54. (closeds ession). tot T.7 Septembe2r 009p p.54-55( closeds ession). 842 T.7 Septembe2r 009p p.55-56,6 l (closeds ession). to' DefenceE xhibit 27 (personali dentifications heet);T . 17 Septembe2r 009 pp. l-2. 'oo T.l7 Septembe2r0 09p . 12. Judeement and Sentence 86

Prosecutorv . Yussu/M unyalozl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 recs Deliberations 412. Four Prosecutionw itnessest estified about an attackt hey said took place at Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994.T he four represenat broadc ross-sectioonf witnesseso; ne was a survivor,o ne a perpetratora nd two were individualsw ho were otherwisep resenta t the parish at the time. DefenceW itnessT homasN ahimanate stifiedt hat no attackt ook placea t Mibilizi Parisht hat day, while DefenceW itnessM PCC acknowledgedth at attacksh ad takenp lacea t Mibilizi but not specifically on 30 April 1994. In any case, EdouardB andetsew as responsiblef or these attacks. Witness ELB denied that the BugaramaI nterahamwew ere involvedi n any attacko n Mibilizi Parish.M unyakazia ppearedto acknowledgeth at an attack hadt akenp lacea t the parish,b ut did not speciff the date,a nd testifiedt hat he was elsewhere on 30A pril 1994. 413. While the Trial Chamber finds ProsecutionW itnessesM P and MM to be both crediblea nd reliable, discrepanciese xist betweent heir accountso f the attack.W itnessM P testifiedt hat all the refugeesw ere killed in classroomsw 1t[in parishw alls andt hat therew as no selectionp rocesst o determinew ho would be killed.o*'H e also statedt hat therew as a gunshott o signalt he start and end of the killings.8aW6 itnessM M did not mentiona gunshot or others ignall aunchingt he attack,a nd saidt hat the refugeesw ere assembledfo r a selection processa nd were then taken outside the parish to be killed.'ot This latter descriptioni s corroboratedb y WitnessesL CQ and BWW who both testifiedt hat the refugeesw ere grouped togethera ndt aken out to the forestt o be executedT. he Trial Chamberi s of the view that the discrepanciesb etweent he evidenceo f ProsecutionW itness MM and that of Prosecution WitnessM P do not discreditt heir testimoniesa ndc an be attributedt o the passageo f time and confusiond uet o the frequencyo f attackso n Mibilizi Parishd uringt his period. 414. Despite the discrepancies,t he testimonies of Witnesses MM and MP largely conoboratee acho ther on a numbero f otherp oints.B oth statedt hat prior large scalea ttacks had takenp laceo n the Parisho n 18 and20 April 1994.T his was corroboratedb y Witness LCQ .tot Both testified aboutt he wamingst hey had receivedo f an impendinga ttack,8ateh at the leadero f the attack had a discussionw ith the gendarmesu pon arrivalat the parish,t hat o" the attackt ook placel ate in the afternoon,a ndt hat it wa.so f shortd uration. 415. All of the Prosecutionw itnessest estifiedt hat Munyakazi led the attack,a nd that it startedin the afternoonb etween3 :00p .m.a nd5 :00p .m.A part from WitnessB WW, who did not know the exact date of the attack, all the Prosecutionw itnessesa ffirmed that this particulara ttack took place on 30 April 1994. The Trial Chambero bservest hat the identificationo f Munyakazi by WitnessesM M and MP is basedo n hearsayf rom the same sources.tttB oth testified that therew as a telephonec all warning of Munyakazi'sa rrival, and that gendarmess poket o Munyakazi onceh e anived and identified him as the leadero f the 8s2 grou; of assailanir. Wit r"rr iuttutf urthert estifiedt hat survivorso f Mibilizi confirmedt hat the ittack was led by Munyakazi.ss3A lthough this evidencei s basedo n hearsay,t he Trial Chamberc onsidersit to be reliableb ecauseM unyakazi'sr ole is corroboratedb y Witnesses LCQ andB WW. 805 *'iT'.. ;2;7 April 2009p . 56 $;iito6 ppi.i -s+. to' T. 27 April 2009 pp. 6l; 63. tot T. 27 April 2009 pp. 45,5 0-51 , 6 l; T 28 April 2009p . 6, 17. 8oe T.27 April 2009,p p 48-49,51-53T;. 27 April2009p p.6 l-62,T.28 April 2009p .7. "0T.27 April 2009p p.48-49,51;T.27A pril 2009p p.61-62. '5'7.27 April 2009p p.4 8-49,5 l-53; T. 27 April2009p .62. "'T.27 Aprit2 009p p.48-495, l-53;T . 27 April2009p.62;T.2A8 pril2009p .7. "' T.27 April 2009p . 62;T.28 April 2009p .7. Judgementa nd Sentence 87

Prosecutovr . YussuMf urryakaziC, aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 l?3+ 416. The Trial Chamberr elies, in particular,o n WifiressL CQ to establishM unyakazi's role in the attacka t Mibilizi. The witnessw as a survivora nd an eyewitnessto the event.H e knew Munyakazip rior to the attack and recognisedh im among the attackersa t Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994.85T4h " witness'st estimonyw as consistenat nd credible.I t was also generallyc orroboratedb y otherP rosecutionw itresses. 417. ProsecutionW itness BWW, an accomplicea nd former member of the Bugarama Interahamwec, oncededth at he hadp articipatedin the attack.W hile the Trial Chamberv iews his testimonyw ith caution, it notes that his testimonyt hat the victims were assembled, shippJgn aked,a nd taken to the forestt o be killed is corroboratedb y WitnessesL CQ and MM.ott 418. DefenceW itnessM PCC testifiedt hat killings took placea t Mibilizi andt hat Edouard Bandetsew as responsibleT. he Trial Chambern otes,h owever,t hat the witnessw as not at Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994, and that his testimonyi s basede ntirely on hearsay.856 Thereforet,h e Trial Chambera ccordsli ttle weightt o this evidence. 4I9. DefenceW itnessT homasN ahimanate stifiedt hat he wasp resenta t Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994 andt hat no attackt ook placet hat day. His testimonyi s thereforeo f greater significancet han that of Witness MPCC. The Trial Chambero bserves,h owever, that Nahimanad escribedo nly one attack on Mibilizi Parish,s tatingt hat dwing a visit to the parisho n 20 Apyl I99 , he learnedt hat an attackh ad takenp lacet heret wo dayse arliero n 18 April 1994.o''H e did not mention an attackt aking placeo n 20 April 1994 althoughh e said that he went to the parisht hat day, and returnedt here againo n24 April 1994.0'oT he Trial Chambern otest hat threeP rosecutionw itnesses-LcQ, MM andM P-all testifiedt hat a significanta ttackt ook placeo n 20 April. The Trial Chamberc onsidersN ahimana'sf ailure to mention the 20 April attack to be sufficiently significantt o cast doubt on his overall reliability. The Chamberf urther notest hat Nahimanat estifiedt hat there was considerable confusiona t Mibilizi Parishd uringt his period,a ndt hatt his may havea ffectedh is memoryo f events.ss9 420. DefenceW itnessE LB testifiedt hat he was a membero f the BugaramaIn terahamwe in 1994.B ecauseh e is an accomplicew itness,t he Trial Chambert reatsh is evidencew ith caution.A lthoughW itnessE LB testifiedt hat the BugaramaIn terahamwew eren ot involved in the attack at Mibilizi, he was tried and convictedb y a Gacacac ourt on chargest hat includedp articipationin an attacko n Mibilizi Parish.860,TThreia l Chamberf urthern otest hat ProsecutionW itnessL CQ testifiedt hat WitnessE LB took part in the attacka t Mibilizi Parish with Munyakazi.s6Tr he Trial Chamberc onsiderst hat the witness may have wanted to minimiseh is role in the eventso f April 1994,a nd,t hereforeh, ad a motive to dissembleI.t , thereforea, ccordsli ttle weightt o his evidenceo n this matter. 421. The Trial Chamberr ecalls that it has alreadyf ound that Munyakul's alibi for 30 April 1994i s not credible( seeC hapteIrI .2). With respectto the Defencew itnessesth, e Trial tto T. 28 April 2009p p. 17-182; 0: Thew itnessk newM unyakazbi ecaushee b roughth is cattlet o Bugaramaan d soldm ilk to Munvakazi. ttt T. 29 May 2009p p.20-21,34-35T: he witnessd oesn ot give an exactd atef or the attackb ut statedth at it took placet hreed aysa ftert he attacka t ShangiP arish. t'u T. 7 Septembe2r0 09p p. 54-56( closeds ession) "' T.2 Septemb2e0r 09p p. l0-13;T . 2 Septembe2r0 09p .14. ttt T. 2 Septembe2r0 09p p.l 0- I I ; T. 2 Septembe2r 009p p. 12-I 3: The witnesst estifiedt hatt he only attacko n Mibilizi Parishto okp laceo n l8 April 1994. ttt T.2 Septembe2r0 09p p.10-131, 9. 'uo T. 17S eptembe2r0 09p p.24-25. tut T.2 8A pril2 009p p.27,33. Judgemenatn dS entence

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 12'e' Chamberr eiteratesi ts concernt hat WitnessE LB's testimonym ay have been guided by a desiret o minimise his role in the eventso f April 1994,a ndt hat WitnessM PCC was not an eyewitnesst o the events. The Trial Chamberh as further doubts about the credibility of DefenceW itnessT homasN ahimana,a s discusseda bove.T akent ogether,t he Trial Chamber doesn ot considert hat the Defencee videnceto be reliableo r credible. 422. All four of the Prosecutionw itnessesr, epresentingv arious perspectivesc, onfirmed that Munyakaziled the attack. The Trial Chamberf inds thesew itnessest o be crediblea nd reliable and that where the Trial Chamberh as had to approachc ertain aspectso f their testimonyw ith caution, the evidencew ith respectt o Munyakazi's leadershipr ole is well corroborated.T he Trial Chamber is satisfedt hat the Defence evidenced oes not raise a reasonabldeo ubta s to Munyakazi'si nvolvemenat s a leadero f the attacko n Mibilizi Parish. Based on a complete evaluation of the evidence,t he Trial Chamber is satisfiedb eyond reasonabled oubt by the Prosecutione videncet hat Munyakazi led the attack on Mibilizi Parish. Conclusion 423. In conclusion,t he Trial Chamberi s satisfiedt hat the Prosecutionh as provenb eyond reasonabled oubtt hat a groupo f Interahamwea ndo theru nknowna ssailantsa ttackedM ibilizi Parish on 30 April 1994, and that Munyakazib oth led and participatedi n the attack.T he purposeo f the attack was to kill the Tutsi refugeesr emaining at the parish. The Trial Chamberin fersf rom Munyakazi'sp ositiona sa leadero f the attack,t he purposeo f which was to exterminatet he Tutsis at the parish, that his intent was to destroy the Tutsi civilian populationa t that location. Judgemenat nd Sentence 89

Prosecuto r v. Yuss uf Munyakazi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36 4-T, 5 July2 010 taSz CHAPTER III: LEGAL FIIIDINGS 424. The Prosecutionh asc hargedM unyakaziw ith genocide( count 1), or in the alternative, complicity in genocide( count 2), and extermination( count 3) as a crime againsth umanity. His allegedr esponsibilityis basedo n Article 6 (1) of the Statute. 425. In its factual findings, the Chamberd eterminedt hat Munyakazi led the attack on ShangPi arisho n 29 April 1994,i n which 5,000t o 6,000T utsi civiliansw erek illed,a ndt hat he was one of the leaderso f the 30 April 1994 attacko n Mibilizi Parishi n which 60 to 100 Tutsi civilians were killed. He also facilitatedt ransportationo f the BugaramaIn terahamweto the two crime sites.N o other allegationsi n the Indictmenth ave beenp roven.T herefore,t he Chamberw ill only addressM unyakazi's criminal responsibilityf or thesee vents,w hich are chargeda s genocidea nd, in the alternative,c omplicity in genocide.T he killings are also chargeda se xterminationa, crime againsth umanity. 1. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY 1.1A rticle 6 (1) of the Statute 426. Article 6 (l) of the Statutes etso ut severaflo rmso f individualc riminalr esponsibility applicablet o the crimes falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, namely: planning, instigating,c ommitting,o rdering,a sw ell asa idinga nda betting. 1.1.l Planning,I nstigating,C ommitting,O rdering,A iding and Abetting 427. "Planning" requirest hat one or morep ersonsd esignt he criminal conductc onstituting a statutoryc rime that is later perpetratedI.t is sufficientt o demonstrateth at the planningw as a factor substantiallyc ontributingt o suchc riminal conduct.T he mensr ea entailst he intentt o plan the commissiono f a crime or, at a minimum,t he awarenesso f the substantialli kelihood that a crimew ill be committedi n the executiono f the actso r omissionsp lanned.862 428. "Instigating" implies prompting another person to commit an offence. It is not necessartyo provet hat the crime would not haveb eenp erpetratedw ithout the involvemento f the accused.I t is sufficient to demonstrateth at the instigation was a factor substantially contributingt o the conduct of anotherp ersonc ommitting the crime. The mensr ea is the intent to instigatea notherp ersont o commit a crime or, at a minimum, the awarenesso f the substantialilk elihoodt hat a crime will be committedin the executiono f the act or omission instigated.s63 429. With respectto "committing",t heA ppealsC hambeirn Serombah eldt hat [i]n the contexot fgenocideh, owever",d irecta ndp hysicapl erpetrationn"e edn ot meanp hysicalk illing; othera ctsc anc onstituted irectp articipationin the actus reus of the crime.86a 8u' NsengimanaT rial Judgemenpt ara.7 96, citingD ragomir Milosevit AppealJ udgementp ara.268N ahimana et al. AppealJ udgemenpt ara.479. 863 NsengimanaT rial Judgemenpt ara.7 97, citingN ahimanae t al. AppeaJl udgemenpt ara.4 80. 8uo SerombaA ppeal Judgementp, ara. 16l, citing GacumbltsAl ppealJ udgementp, ara.6 0. Judgemenat nd Sentence 90

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t28l 430. "Commiffing" is not limited to direct and physical_perpetratioOn.t her acts can constituted irect participationi n the actus reus of the crime.oo'T he questiono f whethera n accuseda ctsw ith his own hands,f or examplew, henk illing people,i s not the only relevant criterion.86T6h e correct legal sandard is whethera ctionso f the Accusedw ere "as much an integralp art of the genocidea s weret he killings which [they] enablr,1.:r8T6h7u s,t he question is whether the evidence supports the conclusion that the Accused becamea principal perpetratoro f the crime itself by "approving and embracinga s his own the decisiont o committ he crimea ndt huss houldb e convictedfo r committingg enocide."868 431. "Committing" has also been interpretedto contain three forms of joint criminal enterpriseb:a sic,s yitemic,a nd extended.8T6h9e Chamberw ill discussM unyakazi'sa lleged participationin the basicf orm ofjoint criminale nterprisbee low( seeC hapteIrI I.I .l .2). 432. "Ordering" requirest hat a personi n a positiono f authority instructa notherp ersont o commit an offence.N o formal superior-subordinartee lationshipb etweent he accuseda ndt he perpetratoirs required.I t is sufficient that therei s proof of somep osition of authorityo n the pan of the accusedth at would compela nothetro commita crime in followingt he accused's order.T he authorityc reatingt he kind of relationshipe nvisagedu nderA rticle 6 (l) of the Statutef or ordering may be informal or of a purely temporary nature.87C0 ulpability for orderingr equiresa n awarenesso f the substantialli kelihoodt hat a crime will be committedi n the executiono f an order.87Tl he orderd oesn ot havet o be direct;i t canb e implieda ndb ased upon circumstantiael vidence.81H2o wever.t he order must have a "direct and substantial eifect"o n the crime.873 433. "Aiding and abetting,"a ccordingt o the consistenjtu risprudenceo f the Appeals Chambero, ccursw hen someonec arrieso ut actss pecificallyd irectedt o assiste, ncourageo,r lend moral supportt o the^perpetratioonf a certains pecificc rime,w hich havea substantial effect on its commission.o'oT he actus reus needn ot servea s condition precedentf or the crime and may occur before,d uring, or after the principal crime hasb eenp erpetrated.8Ttth e requisitem entale lemento f aiding and abettingi s knowledget hat the actsp erformeda ssist 'ut SeeG acumDilsAi ppeal Judgementp, ara.6 0 in which the AppealsC hamberh eld that supervisinga nd directingt he separationo f Tutsi refugeess o that they could be killed constituted" committing;'; Ndindabahizi Appeal Judgementp, ara.1 23. tuu From SerombaA ppealJ udgementp, ara. 161,f ootnote3 69: "Committing" is not limited to physical perpetrationo f a crime.S ee,e .g.,A RCFBoLDC: Rtr\,IINAPLL EADTNG,.EVIDEANNCDEP nncrlcr (2007),$ l8-7; BunfusgerichtshoIfB GHI [(German)F ederalS upremeC ourt of Justice]26 luly 1994,E ntscheidungedne s Bundesgerichtshoifns Stafsachen[ BGHSI] 40, 218 (236). 867 GacumbitsAi ppeal Judgementp, ara.6 0. 86e SerombaA ppealJ udgementp, ara. 161. tun SimbaT rial Judgemenpt ara.3 86, citing Kvoika et al. AppealJ udgemenpt aras.8 2-83,N takirutimanaA ppeal Judgemenpt aras.4 63-465,Y asiljevit Appeal Judgemenpt aras.9 6-99,K rnojelac Appeal Judgemenpt ara.3 0. Seea lsoN ahimanae t al. AppealJ udgemenpt ara.478. t'o Bagosoroe t al. Trial Judgemenpt ara.2 008, citingS emanzaA ppeal Judgemenpt aras.3 61 , 363. "t Nahi*oro, Barayagwizaa nd Ngeze,A ppealJ udgemen2t 8 November2 007 para.48l. 872 Kordit & eerkez.T rial Judgment2 6 February2 001 para,3 88 873 KamuhandaA, ppeal Judgment1 9 Septembe2r 005para.76. t'o Bagosorae t al. Trial Judgementp ara.2009,c itingB lagojevit and Jokit Appeal Judgementp ara.1 27,S imit AppealJ udgemenpt ara.8 5, Blaiki| Appeal Judgemenpt aras.4 5-46, Vasiljevit Appeal Judgemenpt ara.1 02, Ntagerurae t al. AppealJ udgementp ara.3 70. "t Bogosoroe t al. Trial Judgementp ara.2009,c itingB lagojevit and Jokit Appeal Judgemenpt ara.1 27, Blaikit AppealJ udgemenpt ara. 48,S imit AppealJ udgemenpt ara.8 5, Ntagerurae t al. AppealJ udgemenpt ara. 372. Judgementa nd Sentence 91

Prosecutory.Y ussuMf unyaknzi,C useN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5J uly2 010 t2fe,6 the commissiono f the specificc rimeo fthe principalp erpetrator.8t6Icna seso f specifici ntent crimes,s uch as persecution genocide,t he aider and abetterm ust know of the principal _or perpetrator'ssp ecifici ntent.o" 434. The Chamberw ill discusst hesem odeso f liability where applicablei n making its legal findings regarding the culpability of Munyakazi for the crimes alleged in the Indictment. 1.1.2 Joint Criminal Enterprise Introduction 435. Paragraphfso ur and five of the Indictmentr eada s follows: 4. During the period coveredb y this indictment,Y USSUT' MIII\TYAKAZI, acted individually or in concert,a s part of a joint criminal enterprise,w ith Ndutiye alias TAREK AZTZ, NDEREYA MUNDERE, REKERAHO Samuel, HABINEZA Theobald, ZACHARIE ALIAS [S1q MAzuYO, SEBATWARE Marcel, NDOLIMANA Casimir[,] MUGUNDA Thomas, NGARUKIYE Emmanuel, BAKUNDUKIZE Elias, the BugaramaI nterahamwem ilitia and others.T he object and purposeo f the joint criminal enterprisew as to commit genocidea nd crimes againsth umanityt argetingt he Tutsi racial or ethnicalg roup.I n executiono f thej oint criminal enterpriseY ussuf Munyakazi acted with members of the joint criminal enterprisew ith the intentt o destroyt he Tutsi populationi n whole or in part. CHARGES INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY Article 6 (1) of the Statute 5. The accusedY, USSUF MIII\-YAKAZI, is individually responsiblef or the crimes allegedi n this indictmentp ursuantt o Article 6(i) of the Statute.T he accusedp lanned, ordered, instigated, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparationo r executiono f these crimes.I n addition, the accusedp articipatedi n a joint criminal enterpriseth e purposeo f which was the destructioni,n whole or in part, of the Tutsi racial or ethnic group in Cyangugua nd Kibuyep refectures.Tof ulfil this criminal purpose,t he accuseda, ctingi ndividuallyo r in concertw ith othersk nown and unknown, significantly contributed to the joint criminal enterprise.T he crimes enumeratedw ithin this indictment were within the object of the joint criminal a enterprise. 436. In its Pre-Trial and Closingb riefs, the Prosecutions tatest hat it is relying "primarily" on the basicf orm ofjoint criminale nterprise.sT8 437. The Defence deniest hat Munyakazi participatedin a joint criminal enterprise,a nd contestst he Prosecution evidence linking Munyakazi with Tarek Aziz andlor Thomas Mugunda.I t specifically rejectst he Prosecutiona llegationt hat Munyakazi and Tarek Aziz "u Bagosorae t al. Trial Judgementp ara.2009,c itingB lagojevit and Jokit Appeal Judgementp ara.1 27,S imit AppealJ udgemenpt ara.8 6, Vasiljevit AppealJ udgemenpt ara.1 02,B laikit Appeal Judgemenpt ara.4 6, Ntageruraet al. AppealJ udgementp ara.370. "' Bagosorae t al. Trial Judgementp ara.2009,c itingB lagojevit and Joki6 Appeal Judgementp ara.1 27,S imit AppealJ udgemenpt ara.8 6, Krstit AppealJ udgemenpt aras.1 40-141. o'o Pre-TriaBl rief, para1 0;P rosecutioCn losingB rief, para.1 8. ,'rkY Judsemenat nd Sentence

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyalmzl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tz?? recruited,t rained and/or anned the BugaramaI nterahamwe,a nd thatMunyakazi provided food ando r transportt o the BugaramaIn terahamwe.s?e Law 438. According to settledj urisprudence,t he reguireda ctus reus for each form of joint criminal enterprisec ompriseso f three elements.ooF'i rst, a plurality of personsi s required. They needn ot be organisedi n a military, political or administratives tructure.S econdt,h ere must be a common purpose which amountst o or involves the commission of a crime provided for in the Statute.T here is no need for this purposet o have been previously anangedo r formulated.I t may materialisee xtemporaneouslayn d be infened from the facts. Third, the participationo f the accusedin the commonp urposei s necessaryw, hich involves the perpetrationo f one of the crimes providedf or in the Statute.T his participationn eedn ot involvec ommissiono f a specificc rime undero ne of the provisions( for example,m urder, exterminationt,o rture, or rape),b ut may taket he form of assistancein , or conhibutiont o, the executiono f the commonp urpose.ttt 439. The required mens rea for the basic form of joint criminal enterpriser equirest he intent to perpetratea certain crime, this intent being sharedb y all co-perpetrators.8W82h ere the underlyingc rime requiresa speciali ntent,s ucha s discriminatoryi ntent,t he accuseda, s a membero f thej oint criminale nterprisem, usts hareth e speciailn tent.883 Application Evidence-YussuMf unyaknzi and AthanaseN dutiye, also known as TarekA ziz ProsecutioWn itnessE sidrasM usengayire 440. WitnessE sidrasM usengayirea, Tutsi, knew Munyakaziw ell becauseh e had lived in Munyakazi'sh ousef rom 1982t o 1984.D uring that time Munyakazit reatedh im like a son. AlthoughM usengayirela term ovedt o his own house,M unyakazic ontinuedto considerh im as a mernbero f his family until the outbreako f the genooide:8s4 441. Tarek Aziz had a military background and was a member of the Bugarama Interahamwe.tttA number of Interahamwe,i ncluding Tarek Aziz, lived in Munyakazi's house.88M6u sengayireh ad free accessto Munyakazi'sh ouse.W hent he witnesss awy oung people gathered at Munyakazi's home, Tarek Aziz informed the witness that he was ttt DefenceC losingB rief, paras.5 0-63;D efenceC losingA rgurn.nt,Z 8 January2 010,p p. 5l-54 (fr). "o NsengimanaT rial Judgemenpt ara.8 02, citing BrilaninAppeal Judgementp ara.364, SimbaTrialJ udgement para.387. "' SimbaT rial Judgemenpt ara.3 87, citing Kvoika et al. AppealJ udgemenpt ara.9 0 ("Where the aidera nd abettoro nly knows that his assistanceis helpinga singlep ersont o commit a single crime, he is only liable for aidinga nda bettingt hat crime. This is so eveni f the principalp erpetratoris part of a joint criminal enterprise involving the commissiono f further crimes.W here,h owever,t he accusedk nows that his assistanceis supportingt he crimeso f a group of personsi nvolvedi n a joint criminal enterprisea nd sharest hat intent,t hen he may be found criminally responsiblefo r the crimesc ommittedi n furtheranceo f that commonp urposea s a co- perpetrator."),V asiljevit Appeal Judgemenpt ara.1 02,T adit AppealJ udgemenpt ara.2 29. 882 NsengimanaT rial Judgemenpt ara.8 03, citing Brdanin Appeal Judgemenpt ara.365' SimbaTrialJ udgement para.3 88, citing NtakirutimanaA ppeal Judgemenpt ara.4 67, Vasiljevit Appeal Judgemenpt ara. 101,K rnojelac AppealJ udgemenpt ara,3 2. ttt SimbaT rial Judgemenpt ara.3 88, citing Kvoika et al. AppealJ udgemenpt aras.1 09-l 10. t'o T.23 April 2009p . 5l; T. 27 April2009p .2. ttt T.24A pril2009p .4; p.6 (Fr). t'u T . 27 April 2009p p. 4, I 5-I 6. Judgement and Sentence 93

Pro se c u to r v. Yuss u f Munyakazi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36 4-T, 5 July2 010 t27g providing them with military training.88O7 ne day prior to 7 April 1994,M usengayires aw Tarek Aziz carryinga pistol aroundh is waist. The witnessd id not recall any specifice vent takingp lacet hat day. ProsecutionW itnessB WX 442. WitnessB WX, a Hutu, worked in close proximity to Munyakazi'sh ousei n Misufi cellule, in Bugaramu rrr, in 1994.8sTea rek Aziz's real namew as Ndutiye and he was "o^ bom in Nyakabuyec ommuneT. arek Azizlived at Munyakazi'sh ouse,b ut the witnessd id not know whetherh e was a tenant or whetherh e was livine there for free.8eMo unvakazi found employmentf or Tarek Aziz atCAVECWI.8er Tarek iiztrainedthe Interahaiwe, andwas oneo f the bodyguardsw ho alwaysa ccompanieMd unyakazi.se2 ProsecutionW itnessB WW 443. WitnessB WW, a Hutu, was a membero f the BugaramaI nterahamwei n April 1994. He was tried and convictedb y a Gacacac ourt in Rwandaf or havingp articipatedin the 1994 genocideT. he witnessc onfessedth at he was involvedi n the killings of Tutsisi n April 1994 and testified that he collaboratedp rimarily with Munyakazi and AthanaseN dutiye, alias Tarek Aziz. Tarek Aziz lived in Munyakazi'sh ousea nd was his deputy.te'I n 1993,t he Interahamweu nderwentd aily training,a ndT arekA ziz was one of their insiructors.8ea YussufM unyakazi 444. Munyakazit estified that Tarek Aziz camef rom the Nyakabuyec ommunew, hich was far from Bugaramac ommuneT. arek Azizbeganw orking as an agronomista t CAVECUVI in 1991o r 1992a ndfromt hat time on was a tenanta t Munyakazi'sh ouse.8eH5e occupiedo ne of the roomsi n the housea nd paid monthly rent like all the othert enants.T arek Aziz became Munyakazi's tenant before the advent of multiparty politics.8e6M unyakazi was not Tarek Aziz' protector,g odfather,m entor or supervisora, nd Tarek Aziz was not consideredp art of Munyakazi'sf amily.8eDT espiteh is nicknameT, arekA ziz wasn oi a Muslim.seMs unyakazi n"u"i hud any bodyguardi.8eeM unyakazi did not help Tarek Aziz obtain the job at CAVECUVL TaTek Aziz was hired through an open application and testing process. Although Munyakazi was the presidento f CAVECUVI at the time, he was not involved in thist esiingp .o.err.too ""'T.24 April 2009p p.4-5,7. ttt T.24 April 2009p p.5,7. t" P.o...uiion Exhibit 6 (personali dentifications heet);T . 24 Apri|2009 p.12 (closeds ession); '1 .27 April 2009p . 35 (closeds ession). tto T.27 April 2009p p.20-21. tnt T.27 April 2009p p.21,22-23. 'nt T.24 April 2009p p.21-23. 'nt T. 29 I'iay 2009,i ri. o-s (closeds ession). tto T.29 May 2009p p.12,24-25. tnt T. 15O ctober2 009p p.39-40. tnu T. 14o ctober2 009p p. 15-17,23. 'nt T. 14 october2 oo9p . 41. ttt T. 14O ctobe2r 009p p. 16-17;T.15O ctobe2r 009p .40. t'n T. 14 october2 009p p.23,42. too T. l4 October2 009p p. 16-17;T.l 5 October2 009p p.39-40. Judeement and Sentence 94 44

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t277 445. Tarek Aziz was^^thper esidento f the Interahamwea tthe communall evel, and another person-wash is deputy.vuT' arek Aziz worked from Mondayt hrough Saturdayin cluding.some nights.'"' Due to these long working hours, Munyakazi rarely encounteredh im"' and Munyakazi believed that Tarek Aziz did not have time to provide military haining to the local youth.M unyakazik new that the Interahamwew ould meeta t the communeo ffrceb ut he did not know what they did there.eOMau nyakaziw as not aware that Tarek Aziz had been dismissedfr om a military detachmenitn Butare,n or that he was later dismissedf rom another positionh e held in a Prosecutor'osf fice.eos 446. Tarek Azizwas at Munyakazi'sh ouseo n 7 April 1994,w hen a grenadew ast hrown at EsidrasM usengayire.eoF5o llowing the incidentM unyakazic anied oui an investigationa nd discoveredth at it was Tarek Azizwho threwt he grenade.toA' t about5 :00 p.m.,o n 7 April 1994,M unyakazit old Tarek Azizto leaveh is housea nd Tarek Aziz did so towardst he end of the day. After leaving the house,T arek Aziz and the other assailantsc ontinuedt o kill peoplet hat samed uy.to*M unyakazid id not know where Tarek Aziz went after leavingh is house on 7 April 1994, but assumedt hat he stayedw ith friends who were gendarmes. Accordingto Munyakazi", [TarekA ziz] took parti n the attacksle d... by gangso f killers."eoe DefenceW itnessN KM 447. WitnessN KM lived in Bugaramac ommunein April 1994.H e was a membero f the PDI political party and worked at the bank in Bugaramac ommuneT. he witnessh ad known Munyakazia ll his life.erOT he witnessf irst met Tarek Azizwhenthey were in primary school. Later, they both took a series of tests for admission to the School for Non-commissioneOd fficers (ESO) in Butare. Tarek Aziz was eventually admitted to the school.In1 994,T arek Azizwasa rice farmera nda seasonawl orkera t CAVECUVI.eIl 448. Tarek Azizwas a tenanti n one of Munyakazi'sh ouses.elT2h e distanceb etweent hat residencaen dW itnessN KM's housew asa pproximately1 50m etres.W itnessN KM wasn ot aware that during the period betweenA pril and July 1994 Tarek Aziz assembledy oung peoplea. t his residenceI.f such meetingsh ad takenp lace, the witnessw ould have seen them.''' He did not know whetherT arek Aziz wast he coordinatoro f the Interahamwe.T he witnessn evers aw TarekA ziz andMunyakazti ogether.ela 449. There was no special relationshipb etweenT arekA ziz and Munyakazi between6 April and l7^lyly 1994.A lthoughT arek Azizwasa Muslim,W itnessN KM nevers awh im at the mosque.''' Memberso f the youth wings of the MRND, PDI, MDR, and CDR political partiesw erer esponsiblefo r the killings of Tutsi civiliansa ndt he lootingo f their properties. 'ot T. 14O ctober2 009p . 22; T.l5 October2 009p p.3 9-41. no'T. 14o ctober2 009o .23. no' T. 14O ctober2 009p . 17;T. 15O ctober2 009p . 40. eo4 T. 14 october2 009o .23. tot T. l5 october2 oo9p .40. nou T.14 october2 oo9p p.3 6-38. not T. 14o ctober2 oo9p . 40. not T. 14o ctober2 oo9p .41. no'T. l5 october2 oo9p .62. ''o DefenceE xhibit 6 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 3 I August2 009p .8 (closeds ession). elr T. 31 August2 009p p. 20-21,46. 'rt T. 3 I August2 009p p.27, 47. ''' T. 3l August2 oo9p . 48. nto T. 3l August2 009p p.46-47. ''' T.3l Augus2t 009pp.27-28. ,q Judgement and Sentence v)

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tz76 When they came together they respectedn o particulara uthority.el6 In the witness' view, Munyakazi,T arek Aziz andM ugun$,qw ere not responsiblefo r the terror inflicted on Tutsis andH utusw ho opposedth e MRND.'" DefenceW itnessN RB 450. Witness NRB lived in Bugaramac ommunea nd worked at CAVECUVI in April lgg4.er9T arek Aziz's real name was Ndutiye.eleT arekA ziz was employeda t Technoserve without Munyakazi'sa ssistanceh; e appliedf or the positiona nd then took a test.T he witness saw TarekA ziz every day becauset hey both worked at CAVECUVI.e2o The witnessw as unawareo f MRND pafty structuresin Bugaramap rior to April lgg4,e2rb ut was certaint hat therew as no link betweenM unyakqi andt he youth wing of the MRND, and that suchy outh did not live in Munyakazi'sh ouse.e22 DefenceW itnessM PCC 451. WitnessM PCC, a Tutsi,e2l3iv ed in Ruhokos ecteurG, ishomac ommunein Cyangugu prdfecturei n 1994.H e was the chairmano f the MRND parfy in Gishomac ommunea nd was also an agricultural extension worker in that co*^une.t'a Witness MPCC first met Munyakaziin the early 1980s.e2s 452. The leadero f the Interahamwei n Bugaramac ommunew as AthanaseN dutiye, also known as TarekA ziz. Tarek Aziz was a native of Nyakabuyec ommune,a nd died in prison after the genocide.l n 1994,TarckA za was an outreachw orker in Bugaramaa nd a tenanti n oneo f Munyakazi'sh ouses.e26 DefenceW itnessA MB 453. Witness AMB was a studento utsideo f Bugaramac ommune\ n 1994.e2H7 e was a native of'Bugaramaa nd would returnt here during the holidays.t" The witnessf irst met TarekA ziz ii 1987.e 2eT he witnessw as told that Taiek A ziz wis originally namedA thanase Ndutiyte, but changedh is name when he convertedt o Islam upon arrival in Bugarama ,o^*unr.nto Th.rr-*.re rumourst hat Tarek Azizhad,beend ismissedfr om the miliiarv.e3t From 1991t hroughA pril 1994,T arekA ziz workeda t Technoserve.eM3u2n yakaziw as not etu T. 31 August2 009p p. 26-27,41. n't T. 3l August2 009p .47. ntt Def"n"eE xhibit 12( personaild entifications heet)T; . I Septembe2r0 09p p.35,3 7 (closeds ession). ntn T . Septembe2r0 09p . 41. nto T. Septembe2r 009p . 42. e2l 1 , Septembe2r 009 p. 50. t, T. Septembe2r 009p . 41. n" T.7 Septembe2r 009p .58 (closeds ession). nto DefenceE xhrbit 18 (personali dentifications heet);T . 7 Septembe2r 009 pp.46 (closeds ession). n" T.7 Septembe2r0 09p .47 (closeds ession). "26T .7 Septembe2r0 09p . 61 (closeds ession). ttt DefenceE xhibit2 1 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 10 Septembe2r0 09p .3 (closeds ession). ttt T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p p.3,2l-22 (closeds ession). nt'T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p .4 (closeds ession). n'o T. 10 Septembe2r0 09p .25 (closeds ession). "' T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p . 4 (closeds ession). n3t T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p p.5-6 (closeds ession). Judgement and Sentence 96

' Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 Julv2 010 \z?5 tt3 involved in the recruitmentp rocessa t Technoserve. Thewitness knew that Tarck Aziz was atenant in one of Munyakazi'sh ousesb ecauseh e hada friend,n amedS elemaniw, ho wasa lsoa tenanti n the sameh ouse.e3a 454. The housei n which Tarek Azizwas a tenantw as locateda t the former marketplacea t Misufi cellule. The tenants' rooms were at the back of the house.e3Tsh e witnessn ever saw Tarek Azizwith Munyakazia nd believedt hat the only relationshipthate xistedb etweenth em was one of landlord-tenantM. unyakazid id not haveb odyguards."o 455. The witnessw as in Bugaramao n 6 April 1994,a ndd id not seey outhsa ssemblinagt Munyakazi'sh oused uringt he periodb etween6 and3 0 April 1994."' However,t he witness did begin seeinga n unruly youth group aroundB ugaramaa fter 7 April 1994.I ts members would covert hemselveisn bananale avess o thatt heyc ouldn ot be identified.e3A8t thatt ime, Tarek Aziz was still living in Munyakazi'sh ousea s a tenant.T he witnessa ssumedb ut was not certaint hat Tarek Azizwas one of the leaderso f the group. However,t he witnessn ever e3e sawT arek Aziztraining young people. DefenceW itnessY MC 456. WitnessY MC, a Hutu, was a traderi n Misufi cellule in Bugaramas ecteuri n 1994.e40 He knew AthanaseN dutiye before he adoptedh is nickname.A thanaseN dutiye assumedth e name" Tarek Aziz" after watchingt elevisiond uringt he Kuwait-Iraq war. The witnessd id not believe he had converted to Islam."*' TarekA ziz was working for an NGO known as Technoserve.H e was a tenant in Munyakazi'sh ousew hen he was working at Technoserve and at the time the Interahamwew as established.eTa2h e witnessn ever saw Tarek Aziz in Munyakazi's company either before or after 6 April1994. He never saw youths of the MRND assembling in front of Munyakazi's house. He never saw Munyakazi with bodyguardsa nd nevers awh im carryinga gun.e4' DefenceW itnessY MS 457. WitnessY MS, a Hutu, was a traderl iving in Bugaramac ommunein April 1994.H e rented out space from Munyakazi to store his goods.'** Tarek Aziz was a tenant in Munyakazi's_h ouse and hailed from Nyakabuyec ommune,w hereasM unyakazi was from Bugarama.'o'T arek Aziz was a Christian. The witness did not know whether he ever convertedt o Islam. The witnessn ever sawM unyakazia nd Tarek Aziz goingt o the mosque together.T he witnessw as not awareo f any relationship-.betweeTna rek Aziz andM unyakazi apart from that of landlord-tenantT. he witness assumedt hat Tarek Aziz and Munyakazi couldn ot haves pentt ime togetherb etween1 993a nd6 April 1994b ecauseth eyh add ifferent e3r T. 10 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. e3o T. 10 Septembe2r0 09p p.6-7,34 (closeds ession)8, . o" T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p .35 (closeds ession) e36 T . l0 Seotembe2r0 09p . 8. ntt T. l0 Septembe2r0 09'p.1 0. n" T. 10 Septembe2r0 09p .26 (closeds ession). n'n T. l0 Septembe2r0 09p p.26-29( closeds ession). noo DefenceE xhibit2 2 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 14 Septembe2r 009p .3 (closeds ession). to' T. 14S eptembe2r0 09p p.6-7. no'T.14 Septembe2r0 09p .23. e43 T . 14 Septembe2r 009 pp. 7, ll. eaa DefenceE xhibit2 4 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 14 Septembe2r0 09p p. 30-32( closeds ession)3,3 . e45 T.14 Septembe2r0 09p .32 (closeds ession). Judgement and Sentence 97

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazr,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July 2010 occupationTsa. rekA ziz workefdo r Technoservaen,d t he witressd id not ,.,rJ"1f4 Munyakazih elpedh im get the positiont here.ea6 458. Tarek Aziz was a member of the MRND. However, he was not involved in the recruitmentf or the MRND, and he was not a leader of its youth wing.ea1T here was a differenceb etweent he youth wings of the political parties,w ho were peacefulc heerleaders for their parties,a nd the brutal thugs,w ho were known asI nterahamwe,w ho were operating in the areaa t the time. Tarek was a self-nominatedle ader of the thugs in Bugarama.ea8 According to the wihess, anyonew ho was a member of the MRND was refened to as Interahamwe,y oung and old. Both the witnessh imself and Munyakazi would have been referredt o as memberso f the Interahamweb ecauseth ey were memberso f the MRND. All memberso f the MRND occasionallyw orc kitengef abric to parfy rallies.eae DefenceW itnessT hdobaldG akwayaR waka 45g. The witness,a Hutu, worked at the RwandanM inistry of Justicef or nine yearsw here he was responsiblef or national security, the^police and the prisons. He then worked at CIMERWA in Bugaramaf rom 1992t o 1996,"'uW ith the advent of multi-party politics in Rwanda,t he witness togetherw ith colleaguesf oundedt he Christian DemocraticP u.ty.ntt Following the death of hesident Habyarimana,t he witness began to believe that his colleaguebs lamedh im for the President'sd eathb ecauseh e was a membero f an opposition parfy.H e felt threateneda nd beganw orking unusualh ours.es2 460. The witness testified that the leader of the BugaramaI nterahamwew as a certain Athanase,a lso known as TarekA ziz.es3F ollowing the introduction of multiparty politics, Tarek Aziz often appeareda t MRND party meetingsa s leadero f the local militia, although individualsf rom otherp olitical partiesw ere alsom emberso f his group.T he witnessc ould not say whetherT arek Aziz was responsiblefo r all the attackst hat took place in the regio^|, but said he participated in many attacks and spared or killed whoever he wanted."* Following the deatho f PresidentH abyarimanaT, arekA ziz camet o the witness' houset hree times, eacht ime asking for money.T he witnessb elievedt hat Tarek Aziz would havek illed him if he had refusedt o pay. During the conflict, the witnessn evers aw Tarek Aziztogether with Munyakazi.ess DefenceW itnessE LB 461. WitnessE LB, a Hutu, joined the Interahamwein February1 993.ln April 1994,h e was the vice presidento f the BugaramaI nterahamwea t the cornmunel evel, and Athanase Ndutiye, also known as Tarek Aziz, wast he president.e5P6r ior to 6 April 1994,T arekA ziz renteda room in Munyakazi'sh ouse.M unyakazik new that Tarek Aziz was the presidento f nou T. 14 Septembe2r0 09p - 33. no' T.14 Septembe2r0 09p . 48. not T.14 Septembe2r0 09p .48. non T.14 Seotembe2r0 09o .49. "o Defence^Exhib2i6t (personaild entifications heet)T; . 16 Septemebr 2009p .3. n5r T. l6 Septembe2r0 09o .4. ns'T.16 Septembe2r0 09,pp.l l-12. nt' T. 16 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. "t T . 16 Seotembe2ro o9p . 13. ttt T. l6 Septembe2r0 09p p. l3-la. n56 DefenceE xhibit2 7 (personaild entifications heet)T; . 17 Septembe2r0 09p .2. Judgement and Sentence 98

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyakazi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t773 the Interaharnweb ut the witness never saw Munyakazia ssisting Tarek Aziz, and the Interahamwew ould hold their meeingsa t the communalo ffice not at Munyakazi'sh ouse.esT From 7 April 1994,T arek Aziz ando therp ersonsb egant o threatenM unyakazi,a ccusingh im of shelteringt he enemy.T arek Azizleft Munyakazi'sh ouseo n 7 April and went to live with a groupo f gendarmes.qs8 462. Prior to 6 April 1994,W itnessE LB nevers aw Tarek Aziz carryinsa gun. On 7 Apr-il 1994,a t about 8 a.m., the witness saw Tarek Aziz for the first time armedw ith a gun."' Tarek Az\z was in front of the gendarmesp' ost,w earingt he shirt of a military uniform. He told the witnesst hat a gendarmen amedE noch,a friend of his, had given him the shirt, a Kalashnikova nd two gr-enades.'uToh e witnessf urther noted that after the 7 April attacko n EsidrasM usengayireh, e saw Tarek Aziz carryingo nly one grenade.T he witnessc oncluded that Tarek Azizhadthrown the secondg tenadea t Munyakazi'sh ouse.e6l 463. The witnessi nformed the Chambert hat he had participatedin the 16 April 1994 attacka t CIMERWA in Busarama.e62 Evi dence-M unyakazia nd Thom as Mugunda ProsecutionW itnessB WU 464. ProsecutionW itnessB WU, a Hutu, was a farmer in 1994.e6T3h e witnessp articipated in the crimest hat were committed in April 1994a t ShangiP arish.e6aT he witnessn ameda numbero f co-perpetratorsin, cluding Munyakazi,w ho he saidl ed the BugaramaIn terahamwe duringt he attack.'o' 465. ThomasM ugunda was a high-rankingm embero f the BugaramaI nterahamwe.T he witnessl earnedt his after the conflict when he was incarceratedto eetherw ith Mueunda.T he witnessf irst met Mugundao n 29 April 1994,d uringt he attacka t Sfr'angPi arish.e65 466. On 29 April 1994, Munyakazi and his Interahamwec amea s reinforcementsto kill Tutsi civilians who had soughtr efugea t ShangiP arish.M unyakazia rriveda t the roadblocka t about3 p.m togetherw ith Mugundaa nd about5 0 or 60 Interahamwe.e6T' hetwo men arrived in separatev ehicles.e6A8 fter completing the attack, th9^C DR leader, Gatamobwa,g ave Mugundam oneyt o organisea receptionf or the attackers.'0" tt' T. 17 Septembe2r0 09p p.3-4. "t T. 17S eptembe2r0 09p . I l. nse T.17 Septembe2r0 09p . 8. nuo T. 17 Seotembe2r 009o .9. nut T, 17 Septembe2ro o9; . 10. tut T.17 septembe2ro o9; . 11. e63 ProsecutioEnx hibit 13 (personaild entifications heet). tuo T.4 June2 009p p.3 -4. tut T. 4 June p. 4; the witnessl isted:P ascaNl dayisabeG, r6goireN tezimanaJ; acqueMs irambi;N icoddme ?009 NyagasazaE; tienneG atamobwaA; im6 Matos,M ategeko. nuu T . 4 June2 009p . 24 nu' T.4June 2009 pp.6-9,24. n" T . 4 June2 009 pp.8 , 24,2 7. tut T.4 June2 009p p.8 -9. Judeement and Sentence 99 .tt4

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t772: ProsecutionW itnessL CO 467. WitnessL CQ, a Tutsi, was a farmer in April 1994.O n 8 April 1994,the witness soughtr efuge at Mibilizi Parisht ogetherw ith his wife and about 20 neighbours.eTOo n 30 April 1994,a t approximately4 p.m., the witnesss aw Munyakazi enter the premiseso f the parish togetherw ith a group of Interahamwew ho proceededt o attack the parish.etlT he witnessr ecognisedo nly two men amongt he attackersM, unyakazia nd ThomasM ugunda.eT2 ProsecutionW itnessE sidrasM usengayire 468. Witness Esidras Musengayire,a Tutsi, lived in Citd Bugaramai n April 1994.e73 o'the Among the memberso f the BugaramaI nterahamweth e witnessw as familiar with, first" was Athanase Ndutive. Others included a certain "Muzunda" who also worked at CAVECUVI.974 YussufM unyakazi 469. Munyakazi testified that the leadero f the BugaramaI nterahamwea t the commune level was AthanaseN duti'ye, alias Tarek Aziz. Another high ranking membersw as Thomas Mugunda.eTs DefenceW itnessE LB 470. Witness ELB became a member of the Interahamwein Bugaramac ommunei n February1 993,a nd remaineda membert hroughouAt pril 1994.T he witnessw as the vice presidento f the Interahamwea t the communel evel and AthanaseN dutiye, also known as Tarek Aziz,wasthep resident.eTM6u nyakaziplayednor ole inthe Interaho**".n7' 471. The witness participatedi n the 16 April 1994 attacko n CIMERWA in Bugarama commune during which many people were killed. Some of the attackers were the Interahamweo, thersw ere Burundians."tM unyakazid id not contributet o the attack.e TeA part from the attacko n CIMERWA, the witnessp articipatedin no other'attacks.e8o e70 ProsecutioEn xhibit 1I (personaild entifications heet)T; . 28 April 2009p p. 15-16. n" T.28 April2oogp p.2o-22. t" T.28A pril2 009,p p.27,33. e73 ProsecutioEnx hibit 5 (personaild entifrcationsh eet)T; . 23 April2009p .49. n'o T.24 April 2009p . l; T. 27 April2009p .12. n" T.14 october2 oo9o .22. e76 T. 17 Septembezro o1p . z. t" T. 17 Septembe2r0 09p .3. t" T. 17S eptembe2r0 09p p. 1l - 12, 14. n'n T .17 Septembe2r0 09p . 11. tto T. l7 Septembe2r 009p p.12,16. Judgemenat nd Sentence 100 .?4,/L ,,/| .i

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyalwzi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 taTf Deliberations Introduction 472. The Prosecutiona llegest hat Munyakaziw as a membero f a joint criminal enterprise, the purposeo f which was to commit genocidea gainstt he Tutsi population.I t relies on the basicf orm ofthis modeo f liability.'o' 473. The Indictment names the following alleged co-perpetratorsN: dutiye, alias Tarek Aziz, Ndereya, Mundere, Rekeraho Samuel,H abinezaT heobald, Zachariea lias Mariyo, SebatwareM arcel, Ndolimana Casimir, Muguna Thomas, Ngarukiye Emmanuel, and BakundizeE lias. 474. With respect to the specific contribution of the Accused to the joint criminal enterpriseth, e Prosecutionin its Pre-Trialb rief allegesth at:" ...between6 and l6 April 1994, the Accusedu sedh is def acto authoritya nd influencea st he leadero f Bugarama Interahamwe to further the aims of the joint criminal enterpriseb y planning, ordering, instigating,o r otherwise aiding and abetting the commissiono f genocide and extermination."esT2h is descriptiono f the contribution of the Accusedi s reiteratedi n para. 49 of the Prosecution's ClosingB rief. In its ClosingB riel the Prosecutionfu rtherr ecallst hat it "...relies on the theory of Joint Criminal Enterpriset o establisht he individual criminal responsibilityo f MUNYAKAZI."'''With respectt o the particularc ontributionso f the allegedc o-perpetrators, the Indictment and Pre-Trial Brief allege that Ndutiye, also known as Tarek Aziz, participatedin the recruitrnenat ndt rainingo f the BugaramaIn terahamw.ttoT he Indictment accusesT homas Mugunda of having worked in concert with Munyakazi to facilitate the transporto f the Interahamwet o the crime sites.e8T5h e Trial Chambero bservest hat, with these exceptions,t he Prosecution,i n its Indictment and Pre-Trial Brief, simply lists the alleged co-perpetratorso f the crimes without describingt heir alleged positions and contributiontso thej oint criminale nterprise.'oo 475. The Trial Chamber,h owever,i s equallym indful that the Defenced id not objectt o the vague notice provided by the Prosecutionw ith respectt o this mode of liability. Thus, the Trial Chamber is left to infer many of the material facts of the alleged joint criminal enterprise. 476. The Trial Chambero bservesth at no evidencew as adducedw ith respectt o many of the personsn amedi n paragraph4 of the Indictment.O thersw ere mentionedi n passing,b ut either without specific referencet o their role in the BugaramaI nterahamweo r without linking the individual to the Accused.A fter a thoroughr eview of the evidence,t he Trial Chamberf inds that of thosep ersonsn amedi n paragraph4o f the Indictment,t he Prosecution has only adducede videnceo f probativev aluel inking Munyakazit o two personsT, arekA ziz andT homasM ugunda.T hus,t he Trial Chamberw ill only review informationw ith respectto theA ccuseda ndh is connectionto thoset wo individuals. 477. The principal basisf or the assertionth at Munyakazi andT arek Aziz co-perpetratead joint criminale nterprisefo llows from the evidenceo f ProsecutionW itnessesB WX, BWW, andE sidrasM usengayireP. rosecutionw itnesseBs WU, LCQ and EsidrasM usengayireg ave evidenceli nking Munyakazia ndT homasM ugunda. e8r Indictment,para.4P; rosecutioPn re-TrialB rief, paras.14-16P;r osecutioCn losingB rief, para.1 8. e82 ProsecutioPn re-TriaBl rief, para.1 8. e83 ProsecutioCn losingB rief, para.1 8. e8a Indictmentp ara.8 ; ProsecutionP re-Trial Brief, para.8 e85 Indictmenot ara.1 0. e86 P rosecutionP re-TrialB rief. para.1 7. 41- Judgemenat nd Sentence l0l

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyakazi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tz?a Munyakazia nd Tarek Aziz 478. The Trial Chamber understandst he Prosecutiont heory of the case to be that Munyakaziw as a leadero f the BugaramaI nterahamwea nd that Tarek Aziz was either his deputyo r a closea ssociateT. his associations uggesttsh at the two men shareda commonp lan to commit the crimesa llegedi n the Indictment. 479. The parties do not dispute that Tarek Aziz was a tenant in Munyakazi's house in Misufi cellule, and that he was one among a number of paying tenants living there. Prosecutionw itnessesd id not say when Tarek Aziz becamea tenant while Munyakazi testified that Tarek Azu moved into the house well before the events alleged in the Indictment, and this evidence was corroboratedb y Defence Witness YMC. Whether Munyakazil ived in this samec ompoundo r elsewhereis unclear.H owever,e veni f the two menh ad lived next door to eacho thera sl andlorda ndt enant,t his is not sufficiente videnceto concludet hat they shareda commonp urposet o destroyt he Tutsi populationa nd collaborated to achieveth is goal. 480. Prosecution Witness BWX testified that Munyakazi helped Tarek Aziz obtain employmenta t CAVECWI when he anived in Bugaramai n the early 1990s.T he Trial Chamberh as acceptedt hat the witness could provide relevant information becauseh is workplacew as locateds ufficiently closet o Munyakazi'sc ompoundi n Misufi cellule in 1994 that he could observew hat was taking place there.H owever,t he witness did not provide a foundationf or his knowledge about recruitmentp rocessesa t CAVECUVI. The Chamber further notes that while Witness BWX testified that he was present at Munyakazi's compounda lmost daily prior to April 1994, and that he was treatedl ike a membero f Munyakazi'sf amily, he did not know whetherT arek Azizwas a tenanti n the house.B ecause all otherw itnessesw ho testified to Tarek Aziz's living arrangementws ere awaret hat he was living in the housea s a tenant,W itnessB WX's failuret o acknowledgeth is point castss ome doubto n his credibility. Munyakazit estifiedt hat he first met Tarek Azizwhen the latterc ame to Bugaramat o take a test forrecruitment to CAVECUVI. He deniedh aving helpedT arek Aziz obtain his job there. Although the Chamberf inds Witness BWX uedible in some instancest,h e assertiont hat Munyakazif ound TarekA ziz ajob was not corroboratedb y any other witness and is lacking in detail. The Chamber is therefore not convinced that Munyakazio btainede mploymentf or Tarek Aziz in I 991. Even if he had, this alonew ould not constitutee videnceo f a strongr elationshipb etweent he two men in 1994. 481. WitnessB WX further claimedT arek Aziz was one of the bodyguardsw ho often accompaniedM unyakazi. ProsecutionW itness BWW, on the other hand, who admitted having been a member of the Bugarama Interahamwe,t estified that Munyakazi had Interahamweb odyguardsb, ut did not mentiont hat Tarek Aziz was one of them. Moreover, ProsecutionW itnessE sidrasM usengayirew, ho was very closet o Munyakazi,a nd alsok new Tarek Aziz, only said that Munyakazi was seeni n the companyo f InterahahamweG. iven thesec ontradictings tatementsa nd the gaps in WitnessB WX's knowledgec oncerningt he relationshipb etweenT arek Aziz andM unyakazi,t he Chamberi s not persuadedo n the basis of his testimonya lonet hatT arekA ziz acteda so neo f Munyakazi'sb odyguards. 482. ProsecutionW itness BWW stated that Tarek Aziz was Munyakazi's deputy but provided no further detail.esTP rosecutionW itnessB ry-IJ, on the other hand, testified that Thomas Mugunda was Munyakazi's vice president.esT8h e Trial Chamber recalls that WitnesseBs WW andB WU wereb otha ccomplicwe itnesseas ndw ill thereforea ccordg reater e81 T. 29 May 2oo9p . 7. ntt T. 4 June2 009p .9,27-28. M Judgemenat nd Sentence 102

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 l2-61 weight to their evidencew here it is corroboratedP. rosecutionW itnessE sidrasM usengayire did not suggestth at Munyakaziw as Tarek Aziz's superior.D efenceW itnessesM PCC, AMB, YMC, ELB, NRB, NKM and ThdobaldG akwayaR wakaa ll testified thatA ziz had no special relationshipw ith Munyakazi.Indeed,D efenceW itnessE LB testified that their relationship after 7 April 1994 was a hostile one. When the totality of the evidencei s consideredt,h e Chamberf inds that the Prosecutionh asn ot provenb eyondr easonabled oubt thatTarek Aziz wasM unyakazi'sd eputyo r a closea ssociate. 483. In addition,t he Trial Chambero bservesth at the Prosecutionh as adducedn o evidence indicatingt hat Tarek Aziz was presentd uringt he attackso n Shangia nd Mibilizi Parisheso, n 29 and 30 April 1994 respectively,o r that he otherwisec ontributedt o thosea ttacksi n any manner. The Trial Chamber further recalls that it is not satisfied that Munyakazi was involvedi n the training of the BugaramaIn terahamwe( seeC hapter.I IL4). 484. It is thereforet he Chamber'sv iew that the evidenceo f Munyakazi's relationshipw ith TarekA ziz is insufficientt o demonstratea, st he only reasonablec onclusion,t hat the two men participatedin a joint criminal enterpriseto destroyt he Tutsi population. Munyakazia nd ThomasM ugunda 485. The Prosecutiona llegest hat Munyakazi acted in concert with Thomas Mugunda, amongo thers,i n a joint criminal enterpriset,h e purposeo f which was to destroyt he Tutsi population.O ne specific charges temmingf rom this allegationw as that Munyakazia ctedi n concert with Thomas Mugunda and others to provide food and transportationt o the BugaramaIn terahamwe. 486. ProsecutionW itnessB WU, an accomplicew itness,t estified that Munyakaziw as the presidento f the BugaramaI nterahamwea nd that ThomasM ugundaw as his vice president. Defence Witness ELB, another accomplicew itness but one who was better placed than WitnessB WU to know the structureo f the BugaramaI nterahamwe,t estified that Mugunda was the vice presidento f the BugaramaI nterahamwea ndthat Tarek Azizwas the president. WitnessB WU was the only Prosecutionw itnesst o have linked Munyakazi and Mugundai n this manner.I n addition, WitnessB WU was from the Shangia rea and not from Bugarama, and his knowledgei s baseda lmoste xclusivelyo n the attackt hat took placeo n 29 April 1994 in which he admittedh aving participated.A third accomplicew itness,P rosecutionW itness BWW, who admitted having been a membero f the BugaramaI nterahamwe,w as also in a better position than Witness BWU to assesst he relationship between Munyakazi and Mugunda.T his witnessd id not mentionM ugundai n his testimony. ProsecutionW itness Musengayire,w ho also linked Munyakazi to the Interahamwe,o nly said that a certain "Mugunda"w as a tenanti n Munyakazi'sh ousea ndw orked at CAVECUVI. 487. AlthoughW itnessB WU refenedt o Mugunda'sp resencea ndh is role asM unyakazi's deputy during the attack on Shangi Parish on 29 April 1994, Witness ELB testified that Mugundaw as not presentW. hile the Trial Chambear cceptsth at WitnessE LB may havel ied about Mugunda'sp resencef or a numbero f reasonst,h e evidencen everthelesps its the evidenceo f two accomplicew itnessesa gainte acho ther.T he Chambern otest hatP rosecution WitnessB WW, who alsoa dmittedt o havingp articipatedin the attacko n ShangiP arish,d id not mentiont he presenceo r role of Mugunda.T he Trial Chamberc annotc oncludet hat Munyakazia nd Mugunda participatedi n a joint criminal enterpriseto exterminateT utsis at ShangiP arish on the strengtho f WitnessB WU's uncorroboratedte stimony.T he Chamber further observesth at the Prosecutiond id not refert o Mugunda'sp resencea t ShangiP arishi n Judeement and Sentence 103

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tz6g its Closing Brief or closing arguments.O verall, the Trial Chamberh as heard insuflicient evidencea boutM ugundat o properlya sseshsi s possiblero le in the Shangai ttack. 488. ProsecutionW itnessL CQ was a victim of the 30 April attacko n Mibilizi Parish.H e testified that he was able to identiff only two of the attackerst hat day, Munyakazi and ThomasM ugunda.A lthough the Chamberc onsidersW itnessL CQ's testimonyt o haveb een credible and reliable overall, it notes that he is the only witness to have placed Thomas Mugundaa t Mibilizi parish,a ndt hat he did not sayh ow he knew Mugunda.M oreover,h e did not describeM ugunda'sr ole. WitnessE LB testifiedt hat Mugundad id not participatei n the attack.T he Trial Chamberr ecalls,h owever,t hat he had a motive to dissembleP. rosecution WitnessB WW, who admittedt aking part in the attack,d id not mentiont he participationo f Mugunda.R ather, he testified that the two leaderso f that attack were Munyakazi and a certainE douardB andetsi,w ho is namedi n neithert he Indictmentn or the ProsecutionP re- Trial Brief. The Trial Chamberf urther notest hat the Prosecutiond id not refer to Mugunda's presencaet Mibilizi Parishi n its ClosingB rief or closinga rgumentsT. he Chamberfi ndst hat the evidencei s insufficientt o concludet hat ThomasM ugundap articipatedin a joint criminal enterprisew ith Munyakazi to exterminationT utsi civilians at Mibilizi Parish on 30 April 1,994. Conclusiono n JCE 489. The Trial Chamberc onsidertsh e Prosecution'lse sss pecifica llegationi,n paragrap4h of the Indictment, that the Accused participatedi n a joint criminal enterprisew ith the "BugaramaI nterahamwe"t o be too vaguet o supporta conviction. 490. As set out above,t he more specifica llegationt hat the Accuseda nd Tarik Aziz and/or ThomasM ugunda and/or other personsn amedi n the Indictment participatedt ogetheri n a joint criminal enterpriseh as not beens upportedb y sufficiente videnceC. onsequentlyth, e Trial Chamberre jectsjo int criminale nterprisaes a modeo f liability in this case. Overallc onclusiono n other modeso f liability 491. The Trial Chamberr ecalls that Munyakaziw as a prominentm an in Bugarama community on the basis of his wealth and prior positions at Banque Populaire and the CAVECWI cooperative.H e was thereforei n a position of authotity at the crime sites.T he Trial Chamberr ecallst hat althoughi t found that the Prosecutionh ad not establishedb eyond reasonabled oubt that Munyakazi personallyk illed Tutsi civilians at the crime sites, it also found that the Prosecutionh as establishedth at Munyakazi was the leader of the attack at ShangiP arisho n29 April 1994,a nd a leadero f the attacko n Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994( seeC hapterI I.8 and ChapterI I.9), andt hatt he purposeo f the attacksw ast o eliminate the Tutsi civiliansw ho had soughtr efugea t thosel ocationsO. n the basiso f his leadership position at the crime sites, the Trial Chamberc oncludest hat Munyakazi was as much an integralp art of the the killings as thoseh e enabled,a nd that he approveda nd embracedth e decisionto committ he crimesa s his own. The Trial Chamberth ereforefi nds he is liablef or "committing" the killings at Shangi and Mibilizi Parisheso n 29 and 30 April 1994 respectively. Judeementa nd Sentence 104

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tac7 2. GENOCIDE (COTTNTSI AND 2) 492. Count I of the Indictrnentc hargesM unyakaziw ith genocideu nderA rticle 2(3)(a)o f the Statute.I n support of this count, the Prosecutionp oints to massacresa t Nyamasheke, Shangai ndM ibilizi Parisheso n 16,29 and3 0 of April 1994.T hesec rimesa rea lsoc harged in the alternativeu nderC ount 2 as complicityi n genocideT. he othera llegationsin supporto f thesec ountsh aven ot beene stablishedT. o the extentt hat the Trial Chamberf inds Munyakazi responsibluen derC ount1 , it will not discussh is liabilityu nderC ount2 . 2.lLaw 493. A personc ommits the crime of genocide( Article 2(3)(a) of the Statute)i f he or she commitso ne of the acts enumeratedin Article 2(2) of the Statute( actusr eus)with intentt o destroy,i n whole or in part, a national,e thnical,r acial or religiousg roupa s such( "genocidal intent").e8Ael though there is no numerict hreshold,t he perpetratorm ust act with the intentt o destroya t leasta substantiapl art of the group."'The perpetratorn eedn ot be solelym otivated by a criminal intent to commit genocide,n or doest he existenceo f personalm otive preclude him from havingt he specifici ntentt o commit genocide.eel 494. The jurisprudencea cceptst hat in most casesg enocidali ntent will be provedb y circumstantiael vidence."' ln the absenceo f directe vidence,a perpetrator'sin tentt o commit genocidem ay be infened from relevant facts and circumstancesth at lead beyond any reasonabled oubt to the existenceo f the intent.F actorst hat may establisht he specific intent includeb ut are not limited to: (a) the generalc ontexto f the perpetrationo f otherc ulpablea cts systematicallyd irecteda gainstt hat sameg roup,w hethert hesea cts were committedb y the sameo ffendero r by others,( b) the scaleo f atrocitiesc ommitted,( c) their generaln ature,( d) their executioni n a region or a country, (e) the fact that the victims were deliberatelya nd systematicallyc hoseno n accounto f their membershipo f a particularg roup,( f) the exclusion, in this regard,o f memberso f other groups,( g) the political doctrinew hich gave rise to the acts referred to, (h) the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts and (i) the perpetratioonf actsw hich violatet he very foundationo f the groupo r considereda s suchb y theirp erpetrators."' 495. The Indictment chargesM unyakazi with killing memberso f the Tutsi group. It^ig firmly establishedth at civilian memberso f the Tutsi ethnicityc onstitutea protectedg roup,"* andt his fact is not disputedb y the DefenceT. he killings allegedm ustb e linkedt o the intent to destroyi n whole, or in part, memberso f the proteciedg roup.eeIsn the instantc ase,t he Defenced oesn ot disputet he legale lementso f thec rimeo f genocide. ntn NahimanaA ppealsJ ,paru.492. nno Bagosorae t al. Trial Judgementp ara.2ll5, citing GacumbllsiA ppeal Judgemenpt ara.4 4. nn' NtakirutimanaA ppealJ udgemenpt aras.3 02-304,N iyitegekaA ppeal Judgemenpt aras.4 8-54. ne2 NahimanaAppeaJl udgementp, ara.524G. acumbitsAi ppealJ udgemenpt,a ras4. 0-41 and44. ee3 Sero mba AC J, para. 176 , citing in partS ero mba T C J, para.3 20. nno S eea lsoB agosorae t al. Trlal Judgemenpt ua.2l 16 andn ote 2338 ("Furthermore,e veryj udgementr endered by this Tribunal concerningg enocideh asr ecognisedth at the Tutsi ethnicity is a protectedg roup."). nnt Kayish"*o and Ru:indanaA ppeal Judgemenpt ara.I 5 I . {T Judgementa nd Sentence 105

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyalcazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t2'66 2.2 Application 496. The Trial Chamberh as alreadyf ound that Munyakaziw as the leadero f the attacko n ShangiP arisho n 29 April 1994,a ndo ne of the leaderso f the attacko n Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994( seeC haptersII .8 and II.9). All the evidencein dicatest hat apartf rom a very small numbero f individual parish staff and gendarmesw, ho were not killed during thesea ttiacks, thosep resenta t the two parishesw ere predominantlyT utsi civilians. The assailantsk illed approximately5 ,000-6,000r efugeesi n the courseo f the 29 April 1994 attack on Shangi Parish.eeA6p proximately 60_-10T0 utsis were killed by the sameg roupsd uring the 30 April attack on Mibilizi Parish."' Very few refugeess urvived either attack, and thus the Trial Chamberis ablet o infer that the overall intento f the attackersw as to eliminatem emberso f a protectedg roup on the basis of its ethnic composition.T he Defenceh as not suggestedth at therew as any otherm otive or purposeo r intentu nderlyingt hesea ttacks. 497. The Trial Chamber recalls that it has rejected the Prosecution'sa llegation that Munyakazip articipatedi n a joint criminal enterpriseto commit crimesa t theset wo locations but that it hasc oncludedt hat Munyakazi" committed"t he killings pursuantt o Artiole 6 (1) of the Statute(S eeC hapterII I.l.l .2). 498. The Trial Chamber finds very little direct evidenceo f the intent of the Accused. ProsecutionW itness LCQ, a survivor of the attack whom the Trial Chamberf ound to be crediblea nd reliable, statedt hat the Accusedt old the refugeesa t Mibilizi p^arish",Y ou have killed the heado f state...Y ou areg oingt o pay for what you haved one.""oB eyondt hat the Prosecutionh as adducedn o direct evidencet hat the Accuseds haredt he animosityt owards Tutsist hat wasw idespreada t the time. 499. The parties do not dispute that those who sought refuge at the parishesw ere predominantlyT utsi civilians. Both parishess ustainedp rior affacksi n April 1994,a nd the evidencein dicatest hat assailantsa ttackedS hangia nd Mibilizi Parishesa t the end of April to completet he killings of refugeest hat had beeni nitiatedb y other groupso f assailantsb ut left significantn umberso f survivors.T he only reasonablfein. ding on the basiso f the evidence adducedis that the assailantsw ho perpetratedth e killings on29 and3 0 April 1994a t the two parishesp ossessetdh e intent to destroy,i n whole or in substantiapl art, the local population of Tutsic ivilians. 500. The Trial Chambera lso finds that the only reasonablein ferencet hat can be drawn from the evidencea dduceda t trial is that in leadingt he attackso n thesep laceso f refuge,t he Accusedw as aware that the attacksw ere part of a context of widespreada ttackso n Tutsi civilians.T he two attackst ogetherr esultedin thousandso f civilian deathsa, nd therei s no evidencet hat the Hutu staff and gendarmesp resenta t the parisheso n the days in question rvere targetedt ogether with the Tutsis who had sought refuge at the parishes.W hether Munyakazi led the attacksb ecauseh e shareda n animosity towards Tutsis or becauseh e soughtt o curry favour with political associateosr authorities,t he Trial Chamberf inds that in leadingt he attacks,M unyakazis haredt he specifici ntentt o eliminatet he protectedg roupt hat hads oughrt efugea t theset wo parishes. ee6 WitnessB WR,T.2 2 Apri|2009,p.54.;W itnessB WU,T.4 June2 009p .30 "t WitnessM M, T, 27 April2009 pp.63-64;T.28A pril 2009p .10; WitnessM P, T. 27 Aprilr2009,pp.45,50- 51. nnt T. 28 April 2009p . 20. Judgement and Sentence t06 4L

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 rz6S 2.3 Conclusion 501. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber finds Munyakazi guilty of committing genocide (Count1 ) pursuantto Article 6 (1) for the killings of Tutsi civiliansa t ShangiP arisho n29 April 1994a ndM ibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994.H e is thereforen ot guilty of the alternative chargeo f complicity to commit genocide( Count2 ). 3. CRTMESA GATNST TTUMAMTY (COUNT 3) 502. Count 3 of the Indictmentc hargesM unyakaziw ith exterminationa s a crime against humanityu nderA rticle 3 (b) of the Statute.I n supporto f Count 3, the Prosecutionp ointst o the killings of peoplea t NyamashekeS, hangia ndM ibilizi Parisheso n 16, 29 and3 0 April 1994r espectively. 3.1 Widespreada nd SystematicA ttack 503. For an enumeratedc rime underA rticle 3, sucha s exterminationt,o qualifu as a crime againsth umanity at the ICTR, the Prosecutionm ust prove that the crime was committeda s part of a widespreado r systematica ttacka gainstt he civilian populationo n national,p olitical, ethnic, racial or religious grounds.eeAe n attack against a civilian population meanst he perpetrationa gainst that population of a series of acts of violence, or of the kind of mistreatmenrte fenedt o in sub-paragrap(ha ) to (i) of Article 3.100T0h e chapeaue lementsa re disjunctive:" widespread"r efers to the large-scalen ature of the attack and the number of targetedp ersons,w hile "systematic"d escribesth e organisedn ature of the acts of violence andt he improbabilityo f theirr andomo ccurrence.toot 504. With respectt o the mensr ea, the perpetratomr ust have actedw ith knowledgeo f the broaderc ontexta nd knowledget hat hisacts formedp art of the attack,b ut needn ot sharet he purposeo r goalso f the broadera ttack.'"' The additionalr equiremenat t the ICTR that crimes againsth umanity must be committed" on national,p olitical, ethnic, racial or religious grounds"d oesn ot meant hat a discriminatormy ensr eaneedbee stablished.1003 505. The Trial Chamber has consideredt he totality of the evidence,i n particular concerningth e ethnicc ompositiono f the individualsw ho werek illed duringt he eventsin this case.T he Trial Chamberi s satisfiedt hat therew asa widespreada nd systematica ttacka gainst the civilian populationo n ethnic grounds.A s noteda bove,b earingi n mind the specificn ature and circumstanceso f the killings, the Trial Chamberi s further satisfiedt hat Munyakaziw as awaret hat the killings he participatedin formedp art of tlris broadera ttack. 3.2 Extermination Law 506. The crime of exterminationi s the act of killing on a large scale. The actus reus consistso f any act, omission,o r combinationth ereofw hich contributesd irectlyo r indirectly nnn ICTR Statute,A rticle 3. 'ooo Nohimara et al. AppealJ udgemenpt aras.9 15-918,K ordit and ierkez Appeal Judgementp ara.666, Kunarace t al. AppealJ udgemenpt ara.8 9. 'oot Nahinana et al. AppealJ udgementp ara.920. t0o2 GacumbitsAi ppealJ udgemenpt aras.8 6, 103. toot SetakoT rial Judgmentpara.4TT,citingBagosoraaelt. Trial Judgementpara.2166,AkayesuTrial Judgemenpt ara s.4 64-4 69,5 95 , Ba giI i s h em a T rial Judgemenpt ara.8 1. Judgement and Sentence r07 ,."i,'V"l 'I I

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 1"'34 to the killing of a large numbero f individuals.A lthough exterminationi s the act of killing a largen umbero f people,s ucha designationd oesn ot suggestt hat a numericalm inimum must be reachedT. he mensr ea of exterminationr equirest hat the accusedin tendt o kill personso n a massives caleo r to subjecta largen umbero f people.toc onditionso f living thatw ould lead to their deathi n a widespreado r systematicm anner.''"" 3.3 Application 507. The Trial Chamberh as alreadyd eterminedt hat Munyakazi committedg enocidea t Shangia nd Mibilizi Parisheso n 29 and 30 April 1994r espectively(s eeC haptersII .8 and II.9). The Trial Chamberi s also satisfiedt hat the numbero f killings was sufficiently larget o amountt o exterminationG. iven the high concentrationo f Tutsi civilians at the two parishes, it is cleart hat Munyakazii ntendedt o kill on a massives cale. 3.4 Conclusion 508. AccordinglyT, he Trial Chambefri ndsM unyakazgi uilty of committinge xtermination (Count 3) as a crime againsth umanity pursuantt o Article 6 (l) for the killings of Tutsi civiliansa t ShangPi arisho n 29 April 1994a ndM ibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994. t00a SerombaA ppealJ udgemenpt ara. 189,N takirutimanaA ppeal Judgemenpt aras.5 16, 522,N dindabahizi AppealJ udgemenpt ara.1 23,B rilanin Appeal Judgemenpt ara.470,476,G acumbilsiA ppeal Judgemenpt ara 36,SemanzaAppeaJl udgementp arcs.268-269,Staki|A ppeal Judgemenpt aras.259-260. Judgement and Sentence 108

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 te63 CIIAPTER IV: VERDICT Count1 : Guilty of Genocide Count2 : Not Guilty of Complicityi n Genocide Count3 : Guilty of Exterminationa s a Crime againstH umanity Judgemenat ndS entence 109

Prosecutorv.Y ussuMf unyakazr,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 la6a CIIAPTER V: SENTENCING 1. INTRODUCTION 509. Having found Yussuf Munyakazi guilty of genocidea nd exterminationa s a crime againsth umanity,t he Chamberi s requiredt o determinea n appropriates entence. 510. The penalty imposed ought to reflect the goals of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation,a nd the protection of society.P ursuantt o Article 23 of the Statutea nd Rule 101o f the Ruleso f Procedurea nd Evidence,t he Chambers hall considert he generalp ractice regardingp rison sentencesin Rwanda,t he gravity of the offenceso r conducto f the accused, the individual circumstances of the accused, including aggravating and mitigating circumstancesT.h e Chamberw ill alsoc onsidert he extentt o which any peqg"tgimy posedb y a court of any Stateo n the accusedfo r the samea ct hasa lreadyb eens erved.t"t As pointedo ut by the Appeals Chamber,t hese considerationsa re not exhaustivew hen determiningt he appropriates entenceI.n addition, the Trial Chambers hall credit the accusedf or any time spenti n detentionp endingt ransfert o the Tribunal,i n the pre-trialp eriod,a nd duringt rial.'u'o 1.1S ubmissions 5l l. The Prosecutiona rguest hat for eachc ounti n the Indictmentu nderw hich Munyakazi is found guilty, the Chamber should impose concurrentl ife sentencesI.n addition, it is submittedt hat his offencesa re grave and there are no mitigating factors.T he Prosecution furthera rguest hat the Chambers houldt ake into accountt he statuso f the Accusedi n society at the time of the crimes,t he role he played in the executiono f the crimes,h is motivesa nd the manneri n which the crimesw eree xecuted.loo7 512. The Prosecutions ubmitst hat aggravatingc ircumstancesin this cases hould include the motivation of the accuseda nd his goals, as well as planning and premeditation,t he dispositiona nd the will of the accusedin regardt o the criminal act, the extentt o which he behavedin a mannerc ontraryt o his duty andt he statuso f the Accusedi n societya t the time of the commissiono f the crimesi ncludingh is duty vis-a-visth ep opulation.l008 513. The Defences ubmitst hat, in the evento f a conviction," Munyakazi be allowedt he fullest benefitso f the mitigating factorsa s reflectedi n the totality of the evidencea dduced throughoutt he trial." The Defence underscoredth at Munyakazi savedt he lives of Tutsis during the war and that he cooperatedt hroughoutt he trial.looeF urthermoret he Defence submitst hat Munyakazi's age,h ggl^tha ndp iety shouldb e considereda s mitigating factorsb y theT rialC hambeirn sentencing.'''u toot S etakoT rial Judgemenpt ara. 494,R enzahoT rial Judgemenpt ara.8 14. Seea lsoA rticle 23 (l)-(3) and Rule 101(B)(i)-(iv). 100 R 6 e nzahoT rial Judgemenpt ara.8 14, citing Kajelijeli Appeal Judgemenpt ara.290.S eea lsoR ule 101( C). 1007 ProsecutioCn losingB rief pp. 163-193;T.28J anuary2 010p . 17. r008 ProsecutioCn losingB rief pp. 49-50. toon T. 28 January2 010p p.47-48. 'o'o T. 28 January2 ol0 pp.4 9 Judgemenat nd Sentence 110 ?f

Prosecutor v. YussufM unyakazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 te6l 1.2D eliberations 1.2.1 Gravity of the Ofence 514. All crimes under the Tribunal's Statute are serious violations of intemational humanitarianl aw.loll When determining a sentence,a Trial Chamber has considerable, thoughn ot unlimited, discretiono n accounto f its obligationt o individualisep enaltiest o fit the individual circumstanceso f an accuseda ndt o reflect the gravity of the crimesf or which the accusedh asb eenc onvicted.l0l2 515. In determining an appropriate sentence,t he Appeals Chamber has stated that "sentenceos f like individualsi n like casess houldb e comparable"H. owever,i t hasa lson oted the inherentl imits to this approachb ecause"a ny given casec ontainsa multitudeo f variables, rangingf rom the numbera nd type of crimesc ommittedt o the personalc ircumstanceos f the indi-vidlual".ror3 516. The Chamberh as determinedt hat Munyakazic ommittedg enocidea t ShangiP arish on 29 April 1994 and Mibilizi Parisho n 30 April 1994.totoT hesec rimesa re gravea nd resultedi n a substantialn umber of deathsa nd human sufferins. "Commission" is a direct form of participation. 517. UnderR wandanla w, similarc rimesc arryt he possible-penaltioefs life imprisonment, dependingo n the natureo f the participationo f the accused.''''I n this Tribunal,a sentencoef life imprisonmenist generallyr.e servedfo r thosew ho plannedo r ordereda trocitiesa sw ell as the most seniora uthorities.'''oT he Chamberf inds somes uidancef rom casest hat include 'o" Bagosorae t al. Trial Judgementp ara.2263,c itingK ryishemaa nd RuzindanaA ppealJ udgemenpt ara.367 (quotingA rticle I ofthe Statute). '0" SetokoT rial Judgemenpt ara 497,B agosorae t al. Tial Judgemenpt ara.2263,c itingK ajelijeli Appeal Judgemenpta ra.29l. "" SetakoT rial Judgemenpt ara. 498.B agosorae t al. Tria| Judgemenpt ara.2263,c iting Kvoika et al. Appeal Judgmenpt ara.6 81. toto Indictmenpt arasl 3-14. t0ts TheP rosecutorv YussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36AT-RIl Dls, Decisiono n Prosecutor'sR equest for Refenal to the Republico f Rwanda( TC), 28 May 2008, paras.24-32;T heP rosecutorv . Gaspard Kanyarukiga,C aseN o. ICTR-2002-78-RIl bis, Decisiono n Prosecutor'sR equestf or Referralt o the Republic of Rwanda( TC), 6 June2 008, paras.2 2-25 (assessingR wanda'sp enaltys tructure);T heP rosecutorv . Jean- BaptisteG atete,C aseN o. ICTR-2000-6I-Rl lbis, Decisiono n Prosecutor'sR equestf or Refenal to the Republic ofRwanda (TC), 17 November2 008, paras.2 2-25. Seea lsoS emanzaA ppealJ udgemenpt ara.3 77 ("The 'have commandf or Trial Chamberst o recourset o the generalp ractice regarding prison sentencesin the courts of Rwandad oesn ot oblige the Trial Chambersto conformt o that pr4ctice;i t only obligest he Trial Chambersto take accounto fthat practice."'), quotingS erushagoA ppealJ udgemenpt ara.3 0; Dragan Nikolit Appeal Judgemenpta ra.69. to'u Bagosorae t al. Trial Judgementp ara.2270,c iling MusemaA ppeal Judgemenpt ara.3 83 (noting that the leadersa nd plannerso f a particularc onflict shouldb earh eavierr esponsibility,w ith the qualificationt hat the gravity of the offencei s the primary considerationin imposinga sentence)L. ife sentencesh aveb eeni mposed againsts eniorg overnmenat nd military authorities\ n'.B agosorae t al. Trial Judgemenpt arcs.2265,2268-2269, 2277-2279( Directeurd e cabinet of Ministry of Defence,C ommandero f ParaC ommandoB attalion,a nd Commandeor f Gisenyi OperationalS ector);R enzahoT rial Judgemenpt aras.8 19, 826 (prdfecto f Kigali-Ville andc oloneli n the Rwandana rmy); NdindabahiziTrialJ udgemenpt aras.5 05, 508, 5ll (Minister of Finance); NiyitegelaTrial Judgemenpt aras.499,502( Minister of Information);K ambandaT rial Judgementparus.44, 61-62( PrimeM inister);K amuhandaT rial Judgemenpta ras6. ,764,770 (Ministero f HigherE ducationa nd ScientificR esearch)I.n severalo tier casesl,o wer level officials, asw ell as thosew ho did not hold government positions,h aver eceivedl ife sentencesS. ee,f or instanceK, areraTrial Judgemenpt ara.5 85 (pr6feto fKigali- Rural);K ayishemaa nd Rwindona Trial Judgemen(tS entencep) . 8 (Kayishemaw as prefecto f Kibuye); GacumbitsAi ppeal Judgementp ara.206( bourgmestre)M; usemaT rial Judgemenpt aras.9 99-1008( influential directoro f a teaf actory);R utagandaT rial Judgemenpt aras.4 66-473( secondV ice-presidenot f Interahamwea t nationalle vel), Judgement and Sentence lll ,'1\{

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tz60 convictionsf or direct participationi n genocidea nd exterminationt hat did not result in life sentences.lolT 1.2.2 Individual,A ggravatinga nd Mitigating Circumstances 518. The Chamber will consider Munyakazi's individual circumstancesi,n cluding aggravatinga nd mitigating factors.M itigating circumstancens eedo nly be establishedb y the balanceo f the probabilities, while aggravatingc ircumstancesn eed to be proven beyond reasonabled oubt.A ny particularc ircumstanceth at is includeda s an elemento f the crime for whicht he Accusedis convictedw ill not alsob e considereads a n aggravatinfga ctor.l0l8 519. The AppealsC hamberh as held that an accused'sa buseo f his superiorp ositiono r influencer nuy b. considereda s an aggravatingfa ctor.tottI n the Chamber'sv iew, although Munyakaziw as not a figure of nationalr enowno r authority,h e was neverthelessin fluential within his community. He leveragedt his influencet o reinforce and enhancet he criminal activitieso f the BugaramaI nterahamwea t Shangia nd Mibilizi ParishesM. unyakazi'sa buse of this influentialp ositionw ithin Bugaramas ocietya mountst o an aggravatingfa ctor. 520. The Chamberh as consideredM unyakazi'sb ackgrounda nd individual circumstances. The Chamberis mindful of Munyakazi's agea nd acknowledgetsh e assistanceh e providedt o a numbero f Tutsi friendsd uring the genocideH. owever,a s the AppealsC hambero f this Tribunalh ase xplicitlya ffrrmed,it is well within the province.oaf Trial Chambetro disregard such" selectivea ssisiancet"o Tutsis as a mitigationf actor.102T0h e Trial Chamberf urther a i': : : . t : : t l .l considersth e relative "piety" of the Accusedt o be irrelevanta s his piety did not preventh im rl from committingc rimeso r seekinga bsolutiona t Trial. Therefore,t he Chamberd oesn ot ffi regardt hesea sm itigating factors. *H ffi ffi &l 1.2.3 Conclusion sd 521. The Chamberh as found Munyakazig uilty for genocidea nd exterminationa s a crime againsth umanity, offences stipulated in Articles 2 and Articles 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal.T he Chambehr ast he discretionto imposea singles entenceT.h is practiceis usually appropriatew here the offences may be characteriseda s belonging to a single criminal transattion.l02Tl he convictionsf or genocidea nd exterminationa s a crime againsth umanity in this casea reb asedl argely on the sameu nderlyingc riminal acts' 522. Consideringa ll the relevantc ircumstancedsi scusseda bove,t he Chamber,p ursuantto Rule 101,S ENTENCESY ussufM unyakaztio : TWENTY-FM (25)Y ears of Imprisonment '0" Se" for example,S imba AppealJ udgemenpt aras.279-288p, . 103;S etnanzaA ppeal Judgemenpt aras.3 88- 389.K ayishemaa nd RuzindanaA ppeal Judgemenpt aras.l 9l, 194,352:ln Simba,t he AppealsC hamber affirmeda sentenceo f 25 yearso f imprisonmentf or the retiredc olonelw ho participatedi n two massacresIn. Semanzat,h e AppealsC hamberd etermined2 5 yearso f imprisonmentto be the appropriates entencefo r the directp erpetrationo f genocidea nd exterminationa t a massacres iteb y a former bourgmestreT. he Accusedi n Ruzindanaw as a successfubl usinessmanT. he AppealsC hambera ffirmedt he sentenceo f 25 yearso f imprisonmenfto r genocide,b asedo n the direct participationo f the accusedin attacks. tot' RenzahoT rial Judgemenpt ara. 822, citingNdindabahiziA ppeal Judgementp, ara.137. '0te RenzahoT rial Judgemenpt ara. 822,citing Simba AppealJ udgementpatas.2S4-285. toto Bikindi Appeal Judgementp, aras.1 61-63. t02t R enzahoT rial Judgemenpt ara. 825, citing Nahimanae t al. AppealJ udgemenpt aras.1 042-1043S, imba Trial Judgemenpt ara. 445,N dindabahiziT rial Judgemenpt ara.4 97' Judgemenat nd Sentence t12

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t15? 1.3C onsequentiaOl rders 523. Munyakazi shall receive credit for time served since his arrest on 5 May 2004, pursuantt o Rule 101 (C) of the Rules. The above sentences hall be served in a State designatedb y the President of the Tribunal, in consultation with the Chamber. The Governmenot f Rwandaa nd the desisnatedS tates hall be notified of suchd esienationb v the Registrar. 524. Until his transfert o his designatepdl aceo f imprisonmentY, ussufM unakazis hallb e kept in detentionu ndert he presentc onditions. 525. Pursuantt o Rule 102 (A) and 103 of the Rules, on notice of appeal,i f any, enforcemenot fthe aboves entencess hall be stayedu ntil a decisionh as beenr enderedo n the appeal,w ith the convictedp ersonn everthelesrse mainingi n detention. Arusha,5 July 2010,d onei n English. l. 4* ur/'/ -' u'Aydin MparanyM amy Richard SefaA kay Rajohnson PresidingJ udge Judge Judge Judeement and Sentence ll3

Prosecutorv.Y ussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5J uly2 010 |a5g AIINEX A: PROCEDIIRAL HISTORY 1. PRJ.TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 1. On l0 October 1997, the Prosecutioni ssued an Indictment against Emmanuel BagambikiS, amueIlm anishimwea ndY ussufM unyakazi.lo22 2. On 26 May 2000, as Yussuf Munyakaziw as still at large,t he Trial Chamberi ssueda n orders everingY ussuf Munyakazif rom the Indicftnent,t o enablet he trial againstC o-Accused EmmanueBl igambiki andL t. SamueIlm anishimweto proceed.1023 3. On29 November2 002, a Pre-TrialC hamberg rantedl eavet o the Prosecutionto amend the Indictment.lo2T4h e Prosecutionis suedt he AmendedI ndictment on29 November2 002.It chargedY ussufM unyakaziw ith rwo counts:C ount l- Genocide,o r qlternativelyC omplicity in GenocideC, ount2 - Exterminationa sa Crimea gainsHt umanity.'"' 4. The Accusedw as anestedi n the DemocraticR epublic of Congo on 5 May 2004, and hansferredt o the United Nations DetentionF acility on 7 May 2004.'""" Munyakazi'si nitial appearanctoeo k placeo n 12 May 2004.H e pleadedn ot guilty to all charges.1027 5. At a statusc onferenceh eld on 3l August2 007,theP rosecutioann nouncedit s intention to file a motion, pursuantt o Rule ll bis, to transfert he casea gainstY ussuf Munyakazit o anothejru risdiction.10O28n 7 Septembe2r 007,theP rosecutiofnil ed a motions eekingto refer Munyakazi'sc aset o the authoritiesi n Rwanda,p ursuantt o Rule l l ,,r. On 2 October2 007, the Defence filed a responseo pposing the proposedt ransfer. On 2 October 2007, the Presidendt esignateda Benchw ithin Trial ChamberII I to addressth e refenal issues.l0te 6. The Trial Chamber granted leave to the Govemment of Rwanda, the Kigali Bar Association,t he International Criminal Defence Afforneys Association ("ICDAA") and Human Rights Watch ("HRW"), to appeara s amici curiaelq30o n the referrali ssue.I t held a hearingo n 24 April 2008. On 28 May 2008,t he Triil Chamberd eniedt he Prosecution's r.qu.ri for referril to Rwanda.lo3l to22 Prosecutorv . Mwtyakazi,D ecisiont o Confirm the Indictment,l 0 October1 997. to" T.26 May 2ooop . 12. a to'o Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, Decision on the Prosecutor'sE x Parte Request for Leave to Amend the Indictment.2 9 November2 002. to's AmendedIn dictmento f 29 November2 002,C aseN o. ICTR-97-364. 1026 Decision on "Request for Reversalo f Decision Prohibiting Contact with Other Detainees"1 5 February 2005,p arasl ,-2, l0-ll; ICTR PressR eleaseI,C TR/INFO-9-2-592-EN,2A2 pril2009. rott InitialA ppearanceT; . 12 May 2004,p . 9. '0" T. 30 August2 007p .l-2 t02e Prosecutorv . Munyakazi,D esignationo f a Trial Chamberf or the Referralo f the caseo f YussufM unyakazi to Rwanda.2 October2 007. t03o Prosecutorv . Murryakazi, Order for Submissionso f the Republico f Rwandaa s the StateC oncernedb y the Prosecutor'sR equestf or Referral of the Indictmenta gainstY ussuf Munyakazi to Rwand4 9 November2 007; Decisiono n the Applicationb y the Kigali Bar Associationfo r Leavet o Appeara sA micusC uriae,6D ecember 2007; Decision on the Application by the InternationalC riminal DefenceA ttorneys Association( ICDAA) for Leavet o File a Brief asA micusC uriae,6 Decembe2r 007;D ecisiono n the Requesbt y HumanR ightsW atcht o Appeara sA micusC uriae, l0 March 2008. tott Prosecutorv.M unyakazt,D ecisiono n the Prosecutor'Rs equestf or Referralo fCase to The Republico f RwandaR ules I I 6is and 74 of Ihe Ruleso f Procedurea ndE vidence,2 8 May 2008 Judgement and Sentence tt4

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazl'C, aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 B3l 7. The Prosecutiona ppealedth e Trial Chamber'sD ecision.T he Appeal Chamberg ranted permissiont o the ICDAA and the Republico f Rwandao n 18 July 2008 to filrea mici curiae Briefs.r03O2n 8 October2 008,t he AppealC hambedr ismissedth e Prosecutior'sa ppeaal nd upheldt he Trial Chamber'sd ecisiond enyingr efenal of the caset o Rwanda.'"" 8. On 30 October2 008, the Trial Chambera gaing ranteda Prosecutionm otion to amend the Indictment.lo3O4 n 3 November 2008, the Prosecutorf iled the SecondA mended Indictmenta, ddingd etailt o the previousI ndictment.lo3Tsh e Presidenot f the Tribunal,J udge Dennis C. M. Byron, assignedt he Trial benchc omposedo f JudgeF lorenceR ita Aney (Presiding),J udgeM parany Mamy Richard Rajohnsona nd JudgeA ydin Sefa Akay, on 15 April2009. 9. The Prosecutionfi led a Pre-TrialB rief on 30 March 2009.103O6n fi April 2009,t he Chambers cheduledth e commencemenotf trial for 22 April 2009.103T7h e Trial commenced on22 April2009. 2. PROSECUTIONC ASE 10. The Prosecutionc aseb egano n 22 April 2009 and endedo n 04 June2 009.O ver the courseo f sevent rial days,t he Prosecutiocna lled1 l witnessesi,n cludingo new ho wash eard 1038 by depositionin Kigali. 28 ProsecutioEn xhibitsw eret enderedin to evidence. 3. DEFENCEC ASE I 1. Followinga Pre-DefencCe onferenchee ldo n 9 June2 009,t he Trial Chambesr cheduled the starto f the Defencec asef or 31 August 2009.103Teh e Defencef iled its Pre-DefenceB rief on 3l July 200g.to4o 12. On 25 August 2009, the Trial Chambero rderedt he Defence to reduce its witness list.loal rot' Prosecutorv . Munyakazl,D ecisiono n Requestf rom the Interna{ionaCl riminal DefenceA ttomeys Association(I CDAA) for Permissionto File an AmicusC uriaeB rief, l5 July 2008;D ecisiono n Requesftr om theR epublico f Rwandaf or Permissionto File AmicusC uriaeB rief, 18J uly 2008 tott Prosecutorv . Munyakazl,D ecisiono n the Prosecution'As ppeal againsiDecisiono n Referralu nderR ule llbis, 8 October2 008 t03a Prosecutorv . Munyakazi,D ecisiono n ProsecutionR equestf or Leavet o Amend the Indictment,3 0 October 2008. to" SecondA mendedIn dictment0, 3 November2 008. 1036 The Prosecutor'sP re-Trial Brief Pursuantt o Rule 73 brs( BXiD of the Ruleso f Procedurea ndE vidence,3 0 March2 009. '0" SchedulingO rderR egardingt he Commencemenot f the Trial, underR ule 54 of the Ruleso f Procedurea nd Evidence , 17 April 2007. tot' Prosecutorv . Munyakazf,D ecisiono n Prosecutor'sE xtremelyU rgentM otion For the Depositiono f Witness BWW,20 May 2009. to" SchedulingO rder following the pre-DefenceC onference9, June2 009 r0oo YussufM unyakazi'sP re-DefencBe rief, 3l July 2009 'oot Orderf or theD efenceto ReduceI ts List Of Witnesse(sR ules5 4 and7 3ter( D) of theR uleso f Procedure andE vidence)2, 5 August2 009 Judgement and Sentence ll5

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyaluzi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t2,56 13. The Defencec aseo penedo n 3l August 2009. Over twelve trial days,t he Defence called2 0 witnessesi,n cluding the Accused,w ho was the last witnesst o appear.T he Defence alsot endered2 9 exhibits into evidence. 4. FITRTHER PROCEEDINGS 14. On 20 October 2009, the Defencef iled a motion requestinga site visit.l0a2T he Prosecutiofnil ed its ClosineB rief on 16 December2009a. nd the Defencef iled its brief on 17D ecembe2r 009. 15. Closinga rgumentsw ere heardo n 28 January2 010.O n 17 March 2010,t he Chamber issueda decisiong rantingt he Defencem otion requestinga site visit.loo' On 7 May 2010,t he Chamberr econsideredth e Defencem otion for judicial view of the locus in quo, conclu,{igg that,a fter carefulc onsiderationo f all the evidencet,h e site visit was no longern ecessary.'"" 16. The Chamberd eliveredt he oral summaryo f its Judgemenot n 30 June2 010,a nd files thisw rittenj udgemenot n 5 July 2010. r0a2 YussufM unyakazi'sM otion for JudicialV iew of the Locusi n Quo, (Rule4 of the RPE),20O ctober2 009 r0a3 Decisiono n YussufM unyakazi'sM otion for JudiciaVl iew of theL ocusi n Quo, 17 March2 010 roaa Reconsideratioonf "Decisiono n YussufM unyakazi'sM otion for JudicialV iew of theL ocusi n Quo",07 May 2010 Judgementa nd Sentence 116

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 ta55 Af[\iEX B: CITED MATERIALS AflD DEFIN"ED TERMS 1. JURISPRI]DENCE ^. ICTR Akayesu TheP rosecutorv . Jean-PaulA kayesa,C aseN o. ICTR-96-4-T,J udgemen(tT C), 2 September 1998( "A kayes u T rial Judgement") TheP rosecutorv . Jean-PaulA kayesz,C aseN o. ICTR-96-4-A,J udgemen(tA C), I June2 001 ("A kaye s u Appeal Judgement") Bagilishema The Prosecutorv . Ignace Bagilishema,C aseN o. ICTR-95-IA-T, Judgement( TC), 7 June 2001( *B a gilishemaT rial Judgement") Bagosorae t al. The Prosecutorv . ThdonesteB agosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, Decision on the Request for Documents Arising from Judicial Proceedingsi n Rwanda in Respect of ProsecutioWn itnesse(sT C), 16 Decembe2r 003 The Prosecutorv . Th6onesteB agosorae t al., CaseN o. ICTR-98-41-T,D ecision on Aloys Ntabakuze'sI nterlocutoryA ppeal on Questionso f Law Raisedb y the 29 June2 006 Trial ChambeIr Decisiono n Motion for Exclusiono f Evidence(A C), l8 Septembe2r0 06 The Prosecutorv . Th4onesteB agosora et al., CaseN o. ICTR 98-41-T, Judgement( TC), 18 December2 008 ("Bagosorae t al. Trial Judgement"). Bikindi The Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi., Case No. ICTR-01-72-A, Judgement( AC), 18 March 20t0. - Gacumbitsi The Prosecutor v. Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-200I-64-T, Judgement( TC), l7 June2 004( "GacumbitsiT rial Judgement") SylvestreG acumbitsiv . The Prosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-2001-64-4,J udgemen(tA C), 7 July 2006( " Gacumbit si Appeal Judgement") Gatete The Prosecutorv . Jean-BaptisteG atete,C ase No. ICTR-2000-61-R1lbrsD, ecision on Prosecutor'Rs equesfto r Referralt o theR epublico f Rwanda( TC), 17N ovember2 008 Judeementa nd Sentence t17

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tz'4 Kajelijeli The Prosecutorv . Jwdnal Kajelijeli, CaseN o. ICTR-98-44A-T, Judgementa nd Sentence (TC), 1 December2 003 ('KajelijeliTrial Judgement") JuvdnalK ajelijeli v. The Prosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-98-44A-A, Judgement( AC), 23 May 2005 (" Kaj eI ij eI i Appeal Judg ement") Kambanda TheP rosecutorv . Jean Kambanda,C aseN o. ICTR-97-23-SJ, udgemenat nd Sentence(T C), 4 Septembe1r 998( "KambandaT rial Judgement") Kamuhanda The Prosecutorv . Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda,C aseN o. ICTR-95-54A-T, Judgement( TC), 22 January2 004( "KamuhandaT rial Judgemenf') Kanyarukiga The Prosecutorv . GaspardK anyarukiga,C aseN o. ICTR-2002-78-Rllbls,D ecisiono n Prosecutor'sR equestf or Refenal to the Republico f Rwanda( TC), 6 June2 008 Karera TheP rosecutorv . FranqoisK arera, CaseN o. ICTR-01-74-T,J udgemenat nd Sentence(T C), 7 December2 007( "KareraTrial Judgement") Kayishemaa nd Ruzindana The Prosecutor v. Cl1ment Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-I-T, Judgemen(tT C),2 1 May 1999( "Kayishemaa ndR uzindanaTriaJl udgement") The Prosecutor v. Clhment Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-I-A, Judgemen(tA C), 1 June2 001 ("Kayislrcrnaa nd RuzindanaA ppealJ udgement") Mpambara TheP rosecutovr . JeanM pambara,C aseN o. ICTR-O1-65-TJ,u dgemen(tT C), l1 September 2006 (" Mpa mba ra T rlal Judgement") Muhimana Mikaeli Muhimanav . The Prosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-95-1B-A, Judgement( AC), 2l May 2007( *M uhimanaA ppeal Judgement") Musema TheP rosecutovr . Alfred Musema,C aseN o. ICTR-96-13-TJ, udgemenat nd Sentence(T C), 27 January2 000( "MusemaTrial Judgement") Alfred Musemav . TheP rosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-96-13-AJ, udgemen(tA C), 16N ovember 2001( " MusemaA ppealJ udgement") Judeemenat nd Sentence n8

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyalmzi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 12.s3 Muvunyi TharcisseM uvunyi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-2000-55A-A,Judgement( AC), 29 August2 008 (*Muvunyi AppealJ udgement") Nahimanae t al. FerdinandN ahimanae t al. v. The Prosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-99-52-A, Judgemen(t AC), 28 Novembet2007( "Nahimanae t al. AppealJ udgemenf') Ndindabahizi The Prosecutor v. Emmanuel Ndindabahizi,C ase No. ICTR-2001-71-T,J udgementa nd Sentence(T C), l5 July 2004 ("NdindabahiziTrialJ udgement") EmmanuelN dindabahiziv . The Prosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-01-71-A,J udgement( AC), 16 January2 007 (*NdindabahiziA ppealJ udgement") Niyitegeka The Prosecutor v. Elidzer Niyitegeka, CaseN o. ICTR-96-14-T, Judgementa nd Sentence (TC), 16 May 2003 ("NiyitegekaT rial Judgement") EliLzerN iyitegekav . TheP rosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-96-14-A,J udgemen(tA C), 9 July 2004 (" Niyit eg ek a Appeal Judgement") Elidzer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-96-14-R, on Requestf or Review( AC), 30 June2 006 Nsengimana The Prosecutor v. Hormisdas Nsengirnana,C ase No. ICTR-01-69-T, Judgement( TC), 17 Novembe r 2009 (" Nse n gimanaT rial Judgement") Ntagerura et al. TheP rosecutorv . Andrd Ntagerurae t al., CaseN o. ICTR-99-46-T,J udgemenat nd Sentence (TC),25 February2 004( *Ntagerurae t al.Trial Judgement") TheP rosecutorv . Andrd Ntagerura et al., CaseN o. ICTR-99-46-A,J udgemen(t AC), 7 July 2006 (*Ntagerurd et al. Appeal Judgement") Ntakirutimana The Prosecutor v. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana and Gdrard Ntakirutimana, CasesN os. ICTR- 96-10-,{a nd ICTR-96-17-A,J udgemen(tA C), 13 December2 004 (*NtakirutimanaA ppeal Judgement") Renzaho The Prosecutorv . TharcisseR enzahoC, aseN o. ICTR-97-31-T,J udgemen(tT C), 14 July 2009( "RenzahoT rial Judgement") Judgemenat nd Sentence 119

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazr,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t75z- Rutaganda The Prosecutor v. GeorgesA nderson NderubumweR utaganda,C ase No. ICTR-96-3-T, Judgemenat nd Sentence(T C), 6 December1 999( "RutagandaTrialJ udgement") GeargesA nderson Nderubumwek ttaganda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-3-A, Judgemen(tA C), 26 May 2003 (" RutagandaA ppealJ udgement") GeorgesA ndersonN derubumweR utagandav . The Prosecutor,C ase No. ICTR-96-03-R, Decisiono n Requestsfo r ReconsideratioRn,e view,A ssignmenot f CounselD, isclosurea, nd Clarification(A C), 8 Decembe2r 006 Semanza TheP rosecutorv . Laurent SemanzaC, aseN o. ICTR-97-20-T,J udgemenat nd Sentence(T C), 15 May 2003( "SemanzaTrialJ udgement") Laurent Semanzav . The Prosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-97-20-A, Judgement( AC), 20 May 2005( "SemanzaA ppealJ udgement") Seromba The Prosecutor v. Athanase Seromba, Case No. ICTR-2001-66-T, Judgement (TC), 13 December2 006 ("SerombaT rial Judgemenf') The Prosecutor v. Athanase Seromba, Case No. ICTR-2001-66-A, Judgement (AC), 12 March 2008( "SerombaA ppealJ udgement") Serushago Omar Serushagov . The Prosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-98-39-A,R easonsf or Judgment( AC), 6 April 2000( "SerushagoA ppealJ udgemenf') Simba The Prosecutorv . Aloys Simba,C aseN o. ICTR-01-76-TD, ecisiono n DefenceM otion to ObtainJ udicialR ecordsP urusantto Rule 68 (TC), 4 October2 004 The Prosecutorv . Aloys Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-7-6-TJ, udgementa nd Sentence( TC), 13D ecembe2r 005( "SimbaT rial Judgement") Aloys Simbav . The Prosecutor,C aseN o. ICTR-01-76-A,J udgemen(tA C), 27 November 2007( "Simba AppealJ udgement") Zigiranyirazo The Prosecutor v. Protais Zigiranyirazo, Case No. ICTR-01-73-T, Judgement (TC), 18 December2 0 08 (" Zig ir anyi r az o T rial Judgement") Protais Zigiranyirazo v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-73-A, Judgement (AC), l6 November2 009 ("Zigiranyirazo AppealJ udgemenf') Judsemenat nd Sentence t20

Prosecutor v. YussuJM unyakazi, CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 |a5f b. ICTY Blagojevida nd Jokid Prosecutorv . Yidoje Blagojevit and Dragan Jokit, CaseN o. IT-02-60-4,J udgemen(tA C), 9 May 2007( *Blagojevit and Jokit AppealJ udgement") BlaSkid Prosecutor v. Tihomir Bla\ki6, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Judgement( AC), 29 July 2004 (*B IaJki1A ppealJ udgement") Brtlanin Prosecutorv . RadoslavB rdanin, CaseN o. IT-99-36-T,J udgemen(t TC), 1 Septembe2r 004 (*B rdanin Trial Judgement") Prosecutorv . Radoslov Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-4, Judgement( AC), 3 April 2007 (" Brdanin AppealJ udgement") Gali6 Prosecutorv . StanislavG alit, CaseN o. IT-98-29-A,J udgemen(tA C), 30 November2 006 (" Ga l it AppealJ udgement") Halilovi6 TheP rosecutovr . SeferH alilovit, CaseN o. IT-01-48-AJ, udgemen(tA C), l6 October2 007 (Hali l ovi t AppealJ udgement) Jelisi6 The Prosecutorv . Goran Jelisit, Case No. IT-95-10-A,J udgement( AC), 5 July 2001 (*J eI isi 6 AppealJ udgement") Kordid and ierkez TheP rosecutorv . Dario Kordi| and Mario CerkezC, aseN o. IT-95-14/2-,AJ, udgemen(tA C), 17 December2 004( *Kordit and CerkezA ppealJ udgem-ent") Krnojelac TheP rosecutorv . Milorad Krnojelac, CaseN o. IT-97-25-A,J udgemen(t AC), l7 September 2003( " Krnoje lac Appeal Judgement") Krstid The Prosecutorv . RadoslavK rstit, CaseN o. IT-98-33-A, Judgement( AC), 19 April 2004 (" Krst it AppealJ udgement") Judgement and Sentence t2l

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazr,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 tz.so Kunarac et al. The Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac et al., Case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/7-T, Judgemen(tT C),22 February2 001("Kunarace t al.Trial Judgement") TheP rosecutorv . Dragoljub Kunarac et al., CaseN o. IT-96-23-A andIT-96-2311-A Judgemen(tA C), 12 June2 002 ("Kunarac et al. AppealJ udgement") Kupre5kid et al. Prosecutorv . Zoran Kupreikit et al., CaseN o. IT-95-16-4, Judgement( AC), 23 October 2001("Kupreiki6 et al. AppealJ udgement") KvoEka et al. The Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvoika et al., Case No. IT-98-30/I-A, Judgement( AC), 28 February2 005 ("Kvoika et al. AppealJ udgement") Limaj et al. TheP rosecutovr . Fatmir Limaj et al., CaseN o. IT-03-66-TJ, udgemen(tT C),3 0 November 2005( *Limaj et al. Trial Judgement") Dragomir Milo5evic Prosecutovr . Dragomir Milo1evit,C aseN o. IT-98-2911-AJ,u dgemen(tA C), 12 November 2009( "Dragomir Miloievi1 AppealJ udgement") Naletilida nd Martinovid Prosecutorv . Mladen Naletili1, a.k.a. "TWA" and VinkoM artinovi1, a.k.a. "STELA", Case No. IT-98-34-A, Judgement (AC), 3 May 2006 {"Naletili6 and Martinovit Appeal Judgement") DraganN ikolid Prosecutorv . Dragan NilwliC, CaseN o. lT-94-2-A, Judgemenot n SentencingA ppeal (AC), 4 February2 005( "Dragan Nikolit Appeal Judgement").. Orid The Prosecutorv . Naser Ori6, CaseN o. IT-03-68-4, Judgement( AC), 3 July 2008 (*Ori6 AppealJ udgement") Simi6 TheP rosecutovr . BlagojeS imit, CaseN o. IT-95-9-A,J udgemen(tA C), 28 November2 006 (*S imi6A ppeal Judgement") Stakid The Prosecutorv . Milomir Staki6,C aseN o. IT-97-24-A, Judgement( AC), 22 March 2006 (*S ta kit AppealJ udgement") Judgement and Sentence t22

Prosecutor v. YttssufM unyakazl CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t7+cl Tadi6 The Prosecutorv . Duika Tadit, CaseN o. IT-94-1-A.,J udgemen(t AC), 15 July 1999( "Tadi6 AppealJ udgement") Vasiljevi6 The Prosecutorv . Mitar Vasiljevit, CaseN o. IT-98-32-A, Judgement( AC), 25 February ') 2004( " Yasilje vit AppealJ udgemenf Judeemenat nd Sentence 123

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazr'C, aseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5J uly2 010 lz/$ 2. DEFIN"EDT ERMS AIYD ABBREVIATIONS Ahakombozi The youth wing of PSD (Parti SocialD dmouate) party CAVECUVI A cooperativeth at assistr ice farmersi n the Bugaramare gionin processinga nds ellingr ice CDR Coalitionp our la Ddfensed e Ia Rdpublique CIMERWA Cementd u Rwanda-C ementf actorv CI\D ConseilN ationalp our le D6veloppement DefenceC losingB rief Prosecutorv . YussuMf unyakazi,C aseN o.ICTR-97-36A,D efenceC losingB rief, filed on l7 Decembe2r0 09. DRC DemocraticR epublico f Congo.I n 1994,t he countryw as namedZ aire. ESO Ecole desS ous-Officiers ICTR or Tribunal IntemationalC riminal Tribunal for the Prosecutiono f PersonsR esponsiblefo r Genocidea nd Other SeriousV iolations of InternationalH umanitarianL aw Committed in the Tenitory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsiblef or Gmocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between I January 1994 and 3l Decembe1r 994 ICTY InternationalT ribunal for the Prosecutiono f PersonsR esponsiblefo r SeriousV iolations of InternationaHl umanitarianL aw Committedi n the Territory of the Former Yugoslavias ince t99l Indictment Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A,S econdA mendedI ndictment,0 3 Novembe2r 008. Judgemenat nd Sentence t24

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 5 July2 010 t747 JDR The youth wing of the MDR party( MouvemenDt dmocratiqueR dpublicain) MDR MouvemenDt dmocratiqueR dpublica in MRI\D MouvemenRt dvolutionnaireN ationalp our la Ddmocratiee t Ie Ddveloppement p.(ppJ page( pages) para. (paras.) paragraph(p aragraphs) PDC Parti DdmocrateC hrdtien PDI Parti DdmocrateI slamique PL Parti Libdral ProsecutionP re-Trial Brief Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A,T he Prosecutor'sh e-Trial Brief Pursuantto Rule 73 bis (BXii) of the Ruleso f Proceduraen dE vidence3, 0 March2 009. ProsecutionC losingB rief Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi,C aseN o. ICTR-97-36A,T he Prosecutor'sC losingB rief Filedo n 16 December2009 PSD Parti SocialD dmocrate RP (RPP) RegistryP age(s)( referenceto pagen umberi n the casef ile maintainedb y the Registry) RPF Rwandan( alsoR wandeseP) atrioticF ront Judgemenat nd Sentence 125

Prosecutorv . YussufM unyakazi CaseN o. ICTR-97-36A-T, 55 JJuullyy 22 001100 t746 |74 RTLM Radio Tdl4visionL ibre desM ille Collines Rules Ruleso f Procedurea nd Evidenceo f the InternationaCl riminal Tribunal for Rwanda Statute Statuteo f the InternationalC riminal Tribunal for Rwanda,e stablishedb y SecurityC ouncil Resolution9 55 T. Transcript Altfl-EX C: IIIDICTMENT Judgemenat nd Sentence 126

0ffiItfflt Prcsectorv MtnYakazl Second Anended INTERNATIONAL CRI]VIINAL TRIBT]NAL FOR t!;! casNeor c rRs-7 -36,'-t 7+ s ;il;ttl" pRosEcuroR S.tlfrun rhe C?e1€-', +3) <- c 9 a v e CE ; .z -t' (= Yussuf MIJNYAIGZI rrl SECONDA MENDED INDICTM' co The Prosecutor of tbe International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ("The Frosecuto/), pursuantt o the authoritys tipulatedin Article 17 of the Stahrteo f the fntemationai'Cri-i""t Tribunal for Rwanda (the "statute of the Tribunal')' charges: Yussuf MUI\IYAKAZI witl GENOCIDE or, altematively,G oMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE; and EXTERMINATION AS A CRIME AGAINST HTJI\'IANITY, OffETTCES Jpofutra in Articles 2 and3 of the Statub of the Tribunal, as set forth below THE ACCUSED . l. Yussuf VITTNYAKAZI was born in 1935 in Rwamatamuc ommune,K ibuye p'fvrdlimfeycaturrue,Z, R t wanda. During the period covered by this indictnent, Yussuf was a wealthyb usinessmaann d commercialf armer in Bugarama commune,C yangggup rdfecture and a leader with de facto authoify over the *the Bugarama lvCI.[D Interahamwe militia ftereinafter Bugarama 1 interahamwe'), CONCISE STATEMENT Of' F'A'CTSi,n cluding CHARGES Between 1 January and 31 December1 994, cinzens native to Rwanda werc classifieda ccordingt o the following ethnic or racial classifications:T utsi, Huttr, andT wa. Between6 April and 17 July 1994,t hroughouRt wandat,h erew erew idespreador systematic against a civilian populationb asedo n Tutsi ethnic or racial iientificatio " n tt , " " p t o r litioal o-'pApso sitio4r eal or perceived,t o the MRI{D, or perceived sympathiesto ihe Tutsi. a result of thesea ttacks,l arge numberso f ethnioally * o.iotty identified Tutsis and of personsp erceivedt o be politically opposedt o the MRND, including moderateH utus,w erek illed.

l7t& Pr osecuot r v Murrya lcazi SecondA mendedIn dtctment3 November2 008 7+01 4. Dnring the period covercd by this indictrrent, Yussuf MUNYAKATf,, acted Lduii*ffy or in concert,a s par,to f a joint criminal enterprise,w ith IIDUTIrE atias tenef AnZ, MjgREyA, MUNDERE, REKERAHO Samuel, HABINEZA ThEObAIdZ, ACHARIE AIiASI {ARTYO, SEBATWARE MATCCI' NDOLIMANA Casimir MUGUNDA Thomas, NGARUKnaE Emmanuel, BAKUNDUKIZE Elias, the BugaramaI nterahamwem ilitia and others' The object and purposeo f ttle joint criminal enterprisew as t9 commit genocidea nd ,ri*r, ng"ittst-U* nity tatgettngt he Tutsi racial or etbnical gouP' In execltign of tUej oitt criminal enterpdseY ussuf MUNYAKNI actedw ith memberso f the :oint riitni*f enterprisew ith the intentt o destroyt he Tutsi populationi n whole or in part CHARGES II\TDTVIDUALC RIMINAL LIABILITY Arficle 6 (1) of the Statute The accused,Y ussuf MSNYAKAZI, is individually responsiblef or the crimes JtegeA in this indictment pwsuant to Article 6(I) of the Stante. The accused fi.tir"O ordered, instigated, commited or otherwisea ided and abettedi n the preparation o=re xecution of these crimes. In addition, the accused if*trl"i, iu a joint criminal enterprise the purpose of which was the i"rti"ipi6i iestnrctiorUi n whoie or in part, of the Tutsi racial or ethnic group in Cyangugu and Kibuye prefecnres. To fulfil this criminal Putpose'-t he accused,a cting individual'iy or-in concert with others known and unknown, significanfly connibutedt o the joint criminal enterprise. The crimes enumeratedw ithin this Indictnent were within the objecto f thej oint criminal enterprise. Counts1 : GENOCIDE 6. The Frosecutor charges Yussuf MIINYAKAZI with GENOCIDE, a crime stipulatedi n Article ZTlAl of the Stante, in that betweent he dateso f 6 April and ti rury 1994 in cy*srg,, and Kibuyep refectures,Y ussuf MUNYAKAZI' with intent to destoy, in *trote or in par! the Tutsi racial or etbnriog rcu-p'p lann{' ordered, instigatea, comrnitted or otherwise aided and abetted others in the planning,p rep-arationo r executiono f killing or causings eriousb odily or mental it*, to-.|-Uers of the Tutsi group,a sa llegedi n the facfiralp aragraphsb elow: Alternatively, Counts2 : COMPLICITYIN GENOCIDE 7. The Prosecutor charges Yussuf MTTNYAKAZI \ilith COMPLICITY IN GENOCIDE, a crime stipulated in Article 2 @(e) of the Statute,i n that on or between the dates of O eprit and 17 July 1994, in Cyangugu and Kibuye prefectures,Yussuf MUFIYAKAZI, with intent to destroyo r lnowing that other peoptei ntendedt o destoy, in whole or in part, the Tutsi acial or ethnic 9rouP, and'knowing that his assistancew ould contibute to the crimc of genocide instigated,o i otherwise aided and abettedt hose other people in the planning, prepiration or executiono f the killing or causings eriousb odily or mentalh arm to memberso f the Tutsi soup, aso utlinedi n the factral paragraphsb elow;

74 3 seconAdm endIendd icmte3nN t wember2 0r! ProsecutorvM unYakazl 7rt3 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS g. BetweenO ctober 1993 and April 1994Y ussuf MUNYAKAZI acting in concert with I.IDUTrYE a/ias TAREk AZIZ, NDEREYA MUNDERE, REKERAIIO Samuel and HABINEZA Theobald recnrited and trained the Bugarama Interahamwei n military drills and the use of firearms and other weaponso n diverse dates at diverse locations in and around Bugararnac ommune' More specifically, the training of interahamwew as conducteda t two football fields locatedn - Cite Bugaramaa nd at the CIMERWA football field all of Bugarama Cornmune. 9. Between Januarya nd July 1994 Yussuf MIII{YAKAZI amred the Bugarama Interahamwewith guns,g renadesa nd otherw eaponsth at were regularly storeda t his houselo catedi nciteBugaramao f BugaramaC ommune' 10.B etweenJ anuarya nd July 1994 Yussuf MTINYAKAZI acting in concertw ith ZACHARIE AIiASM ARTYO, SEBATWARE MATCEIN, DOLIMANA CASiMiT' MUGI]NDA ThOMAS,N GARIJKTYE EMMANUCIB, AKI.JNDI.JKIZE EIiAS provided food and regularly transportedo r facilitated the tansportation -"f F: bogr*-" Interahamie to and from the various massacres ites alleged in this indictnent. 11.O n or about 1l or 13 April 1994,Y ussuf MUNYAKAZI, with the Bugararna interahamwe,a tbcked and causedm ental hamr to the Ttrtsi civilians who had sought refuge at Cyangugu Cathedrat. During the attack the Interahamwe mili-tiagen Jhot the lutsi civilian refirgeesw ho dispersedi n fright. In the processs ix of th " e t Tutsi civilians were taken by soldiers to the military camp wheref ive of them werek illed. 12.O n or about 16 April 1994, Yussuf MIJNYAKAZI, with the Bugarama interahamwe.a ttacked and killed hundredso f'Tutsi civilians who had sought refuge at NyamashekyeP arish, I(agano commune,C yangugUp rdfecture, using fireaims and taditional weapons. Yussuf MIII\IYAKAZI fi:ansportedt he interahamwet o Nyamashekyep arish and personallys hot at the Tutsi civilians during the attack. 13.o n or about 29 April 1994, Yussuf MIII\IYAI(AZI, with the Bugarama intqahamwe, attackeda nd killed hundredso f Tutsi civilians who had sought refugea t ShangiP arish,G afunzoc ommuneC, yanguguprdfectureu,s ingf irearms ana-traOitionawt eapo$t. Yussuf MUIIYAKAZI transportedt he interahamwet o Shangrp arish and personally shot and killed severalT utsi civilians during the attack. 14.O n or about 30 April 1994, Yussuf MLI|IYAKAZI, with the Bugarama interahamwe,a ttackeda nd killed about a hundredc ivilian Tutsis men who had soughrt efugea t Mibilizi ParishC, yimbogoc ornmuneC, yanguguprifecture,using fireulrms traditional weapons. Yussuf MUIIYAKAZI tansported the interaham "" w d e to Mibilizi parish and orderedt lrsrn to kill only Tutsi malesw hich they did.

l2I+Z Proseattor v Muryaktzi SecondA mendedI ndictme* 3 November2 008?t? 15.O n or around1 3 and 14 May 1994,Y ussufM UNYAKAZI, with tho Bugarama intqahamwe and acting in concertw ith others,a ttackeda nd killed thousandso f Tu15i civilians who had sougbt refuge in Bisesero,K ibuye prefecture vsing firearrrs and Uaditional weapons. Yussuf MUI\IYAKAZI transported the interahamweto BisesEroa ndw asp resentd uringt he attack. COUN3T: EXTERMINATION ASA CRIME AGAINST HU]UANITY 16.T he Prosecutorc hargesY ussuf MITNYAKAZI wittt EXTERMINATION as a CRIME AGAINST EUIVIAI\nY, as stipulatedi n Article j (b) of the sntute,in thato n orbetweenthed ateso f 6 April and1 7 July 1994,i n Cyangugua ndK ibuye prifectures,Yussuf MUNYAKAZI did kill or causea large numbero f personsto be-killed with the knowledge that the killings were part of a widespreado r systematica ttack against a civilian population on political, etltnic, or racial gounds. 17.P aragraph2s tbrouglr 15 abovea rei ncorporatedb y referenceh erein. The actsa nd omissionso f YussufM UNYAKAZI detailedh ercin are punishable in relerencet o Articles 22 and 23 of the Stante. Dateda t Anrshat his 3rd day of November2 008 HassanB ubacar JALLOW The Prosecutor

TRANSMIaSIOI{ SHEET FOR FILII{G OF DOGUTEI{TS wlTH GilI$ United Netion$ COURTM ANAGEMENST ECTION ilatlsns Unies (Art.2 7 of the Directivef or the Registry) . SENERAL I]IFORTATION ITO DE the GhambeE / Fillng I TrialC hamberI Ll TrialC hamberll ll TriatChambellrl ll AppealsC hambe/r Arusha to: N. M. Diallo R. N. Kouambo C. K. Hometowu F. A. Talon lJ Chief,C MS Ll Deputyc hief, cMS LJ ChiefJ, PU,C MS l-l AppealsC hambe/r The Hague J.-P.F om6t6 M. Diop M. Dioo R. Muzigo-Morrison K. K. A. Afande From: X ChamberT CI [l Defence ll Prosecutor'sO ffice LJOther: (names) (names) (names) (names) CaseN ame: The Prosecutovr s. YUSSUFM UNYAKAZI GaseN umber: ICTR-97-36A-T Dates: Transmitted0:5 July 2010 Document'dsa te: 05 July 2010 No. of Pages: lj ?- | originatLanguage: I Engtish n French n Kinyarwanda Title of JUDGEMENTA ND SENTENGE Document: ClassificationL evel: TRIMD ocumenTt ype: n StnAtyC onfidentia/ lU nderS eal n lndictment n Warrant n Correspondence! Submissiofnr omn on-parties E Confidential I Decision f]Affidavit fl Noticeo fA ppeal n Submissiofnr omp arties X puotic n Disclosure E order n AppeaBl ook f] Accusedp articulars [l Judgement ! Motion I Booko fA uthorities ll . TRANSI.ATTOT'ISS TTAATTUUSS 01{ THE FILING DATE o be comDleted by the Ghambenr / CMSS HALLt aken ecessarya ctionr egardingtr anslation. X fitingP artyh erebys ubmitso nlyt he originala, ndw ill not submit anyt ranslatevde rsion. (- I Referencem ateriails providedin annext o facilitatetr anslation. c I r\J TargetL anguage(s): c) ll n English flFrench ll Kinyarwanddl b CMSS HALL NOTt akea ny actionr egardingtr anslation. ,I l l_ -_ l -l r I :t u ;- [ ^ rY r n ^Jq.r, ry L I ^ r9 -^ r h . s , w y -..L-ia- EA?u aL^ ^-i-:r-v-.l --) t 19,t a " i: = --i-,- }J' Original lin EEnglish E French m (rl liqyprwanda Translation lin lEnglish fl French LJ}. ftrVanrvanda CMSS HALLN OTt akea nya ctionr egardintgra nslation. + / | \ + I fitingP artyw ill be submittingth e translatedv ersion(si)n duec oursein thef ollowi.gF lg[&ftr), n English f]French . I Kinyarwanda KtNDLy FILL rN THE BoxEs BELow lJ The OTP is overseeingtr anslation. U DEFENCEis overseeingtr anslation. The documenits submiftedfo r translationto : The documenti s submittedto an accrediteds ervicef or ! fne LanguageS ervicesS ectiono f the ICTR/ Arusha. translatio(nfe esw illb e submiftetdo DCDMS): n fne LanguagSee rviceSs ectiono f theI CTR/ TheH ague. Nameo f contactp erson: ! An accrediteds ervicef or translations; ee detailsb elow: Nameo f service: Nameo f contactp erson: Address: Nameo f service: E-mailT/ el./ Fax: Address: E-mailfT el.lFax: II . TRANSLATION PRIORITISATIOII Oftlelal use ONL Efop priority COMMENTS ! Requiredd ate: lUrgent ! Hearingd ate: n Normal E Otnedr eadlines: NB: This form is availableo n : http: //www.i ctr.o rg/ENG L lS H /cms/cms1 . d oc CMS1( Updatedo n 2{ February2 005)