Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR): Prosecutor v. Rutaganda

Abstract

  • An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided below. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Copyright

Footnotes

Hide All
*

This document was reproduced and reformatted from the text obtained from the ICTR's Press and Public Affairs Unit.

Footnotes

References

Hide All

* This document was reproduced and reformatted from the text obtained from the ICTR's Press and Public Affairs Unit.

1 Preliminary Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution 935 (1994), Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution 935 (1994) (Document S/1994/1405) and Reports of the Special Rapporteur for Rwanda of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (Document S/1994/1157, annexes I and II).

2 The Rules were successively amended on 12 January 1996, 15 May 1996, 4 July 1996, 5 June 1997, 8 June 1998, and 4 June 1999.

3 Decision on the Request Submitted by the Defence, The Prosecutor v. Georges Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, 25 September 1996.

4 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (Case No. ICTR-96-4-T), Judgement of 2 September 1998, para. 1

5 Akayesu Judgement, para. 134.

6 The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić (Case No. IT-94-1-T), Judgement of 7 May 1997, paras. 535 to 539.

7 Akayesu Judgement, para. 134.

8 The Prosecutor v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda (Case No. ICTR-96-3-T), Decision on the Defence Motion to Direct the Prosecutor to Investigate the Matter of False Testimony by Witness E.

9 The Prosecutor v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda (Case No. ICTR-96-3-T), Decision on Appeals against the Decisions by Trial Chamber I Rejecting the Defence Motions to Direct the Prosecutor to Investigate the Matter of False Testimony by Witnesses “E” and “CC”, 8 June 1998, para. 28.

10 See the Defence submissions, transcripts of 17 June 1996.

11 Judgement of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana (Case No. ICTR 95-1-T), 21 May 1999.

12 Judgement of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Case No. IT-96-21-T), The Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić, Zdravko Mucić, Hazim Delić, Esad Landžo, “The Čelebići Case”, 16 November 1998.

13 Akayesu Judgement, para. 562.

14 The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

15 Secretary-General's Report pursuant to para. 2 of Resolution 808 (1993) of the Security Council, 3 May 1993, S/25704.

16 Legislative Decree of 12 February 1975, Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, 1975, p. 230. Rwanda acceded to the Genocide Convention but stated that it shall not be bound by Article 9 of this Convention.

17 Summary Records of the meetings of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, 21 September - 10 December 1948, Official Records of the General Assembly.

18 Akayesu Judgement, para. 523.

19 Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement, para.93.

20 Akayesu Judgement, paras. 563 to 576.

21 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Court on 17 July 1998.

22 Akayesu Judgement, para. 578.

23 Akayesu Judgement, p. 235, fn 144; Kayishema andRuzindana Judgement, p.51, fn 63.

24 Akayesu Judgement, para. 580.

25 Report on the International Law Commission to the General Assembly, 51 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No 10) at 94 U.N.Doc. A/51/10 (1996).

26 Akayesu Judgement, paras. 581.

27 Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement, para.134.

28 Akayesu Judgement, para. 582. Note that this definition assimilates the definition of “civilian” to the categories of person protected by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

29 Ibid., para. 582, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict, Article 50.

30 Akayesu Judgement, para. 584.

31 The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Appeals Judgment of 15 July 1999, para. 305, p. 55.

32 Akayesu Judgement, paras. 589 and 590.

33 See Akayesu Judgement, paras. 603 to 605.

34 See Tadić Judgement and Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction of 2 October 1995.

35 See Akayesu Judgement, paras. 616 and 617.

36 See Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement, paras. 156 and 157.

37 See generally ICRC Commentary IV Geneva Convention, para. 1 — Applicable Provisions.

38 Ibid., 34.

39 Conference of Government Experts on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, 24 May to 12 June 1971, and 3 May to 3 June 1972; Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, 20 February to 29 March 1974, 3 February to 18 April 1975, 21 April to 11 June 1976 and 17 March to 10 June 1977.

40 See Article 1(1) of Additional Protocol II

41 Akayesu Judgement, para. 633.

42 It should be noted that the civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. (Article 50 (2) of Additional Protocol II).

43 See ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, commentary on Protocol I, Article 50.

44 Ibid., Commentary on Additional Protocol II, Article 13.

45 See Akayesu Judgement, paras. 635-636.

46 See ICTY Tadić Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction of 2 October 1995, para. 69.

47 See Akayesu Judgement, para. 643 and ibid., para. 70.

48 See Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement, para. 188.

49 The indictment against the major German War Criminals presented to the International Military Tribunal stated that “the prosecution will rely upon the facts pleaded under Count Three (violations of the laws and customs of war) as also constituting crimes against humanity(Count Four)”. Several accused persons were convicted of both war crimes and crimes against humanity. The judgement of the International Military Tribunal delivered at Nuremberg on 30 September and 1 October 1946 ruled that “[…] from the beginning of the war in 1939 war crimes were committed on a vast scale, which were also crimes against humanity.” The commentary on Justice case held the same view: “It is clear that war crimes may also constitute crimes against humanity; the same offences may amount to both types of crimes”. The trials on the basis of Control Council Law No. 10 followed the same approach. Pohl, Heinz Karl Franslau, Hans Loerner, and Erwin Tschentscher were all found to have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. National cases, such as Quinn v. Robinson, the Eichmann case and the Barbie case also support this finding. In the Tadić case, the Trial Chamber II of ICTY, based on the above reasoning, ruled that “acts which are enumerated elsewhere in the Statute may also entail additional culpability if they meet the requirements of persecution”. Thus, the same acts, which meet the requirements of other crimes — grave breaches of Geneva Conventions, violation of the laws or customs of war and genocide, may also constitute the crimes against humanity for persecution.

50 Akayesu Judgement, para.468.

51 Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement, para. 627.

52 Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement, paras. 645, 646 and 650.

53 Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tafazzal Hossain Khan Regarding the Verdicts Under the Charges of Crimes Against Humanity/Murder and Crimes Against Humanity/Extermination, para. 13.

54 Ibid.,para. 33.

55 The Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskić and others, Decision on Defence Challenges to Form of the Indictment, IT-95-16-PT, 15 May 1998.

56 The English text quoted is an unofficial translation of the following “Code pénal du Rwanda: Chapitre VI - Du concours d'infractions”: “Article 92 — II y a concours d'infractions lorsque plusieurs infractions ont été commises par le même auteur sans qu'une condamnation soit intervenue entre ces infractions. Article 93 — II y a concours idéal: Lorsque le fait unique au point de vue matériel est susceptible de plusieurs qualifications; Lorsque l'action comprend des faits qui, constituant des infractions distinctes, sont unis entre eux comme procédant d'une intention délictueuse unique ou comme étant les uns des circonstances aggravantes des autres. Seront seules pronocées dans le premier cas les peines déterminées par la qualification la plus sévère, dans le second cas les peines prévues pour la répression de l'infraction la plus grave, mais dont le maximum pourra être alors élevé de moitié”.

57 See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcript of 08, 09, 22 April 1999.

58 See Closing Argument of the Defence, transcript of 17 June 1999.

59 Ibid.

60 See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcript of 22 April 1999.

61 See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcript of 08 April 1999.

62 See Testimony of Witness DNN, transcript of 16 February 1999.

63 See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcript of 23 April 1999.

64 See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcript of 22 April 1999.

65 See Testimony of Witness DNN, 16 February 1999.

66 See Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 67.

67 See Testimony of Georges Rutaganda, transcripts of 21 and 22 April 1999.

68 See Testimony of Witness DF, transcript of 17 March 1999.

69 See Testimony of Witness DD, transcript of 16 March 1999.

70 See Testimony of Witness DDD, transcript of 15 February 1999.

71 See Testimony of Witness DEE, transcripts of 09 & 10 February 1999.

72 See Testimony of Witness DEE, transcripts of 09 & 10 February 1999.

73 See Testimony of Witness DEE, transcripts of 09 & 10 February 1999.

74 See Chapter 4 of this Judgement.

75 See Chapter 1, Section 3 of this Judgement.

76 See Chapter 4, section 3 (of the present Judgement), factual findings on the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Indictment.

77 See Testimony of Witness C, transcript of 04 March 1998.

78 See Testimony of Witness EE, transcript of 04 March 1998.

79 See Testimony of Witness Mr. Hughes, transcripts of 25, 26 and 27 May 1998.

80 See supra, Chapter 4, part 2, on Factual Findings, para. 11.

81 See Testimony of Witness W, transcript of 28 May 1997.

82 See Testimony of Witness A, transcript of 24 March 1997.

83 See Testimony of Witness DD, transcript of 27 May 1997.

84 See Testimony of Witness H, transcript 26 March 1997.

85 See Testimony of Witness Mr. Hughes, transcript of 25 May 1998.

86 See Testimony of Witness Z, transcript of 20 March 1998.

87 See Testimony of expert witness Mr. Nsanzuwera, transcript of 24 March 1998.

88 See Testimony of Witness DZZ, transcript of 11 February 1999.

89 See Testimony of Witness DNN, transcript of 16 February 1999.

90 See Testimony of Witness DZZ, transcript of 11 February 1999.

91 See Testimony of Witness DNN, transcript of 16 February 1999.

92 See Testimony of Witness DDD, transcript of 16 February 1999.

93 See Testimony of Witness DD, transcript of 17 March 1999.

94 See Testimony of Witness DNN, transcript of 16 February 1999.

95 See Testimony of Witness DZZ, transcript of 11 February 1999.

96 See Testimony of Witness DEE, transcript of 09 February 1999.

97 See Testimony of the Accused, transcript of 21 April 1999. In French this reads: “II a évolué, et une situation telle que les gens identifiés comme au FPR, malheureusement je regrette, étaient à plus de 90% Tutsi. Ce qui à conduit a une globalisation que je déplore — et même jusqu'à maintenant — à une globalisation et à un excés, un débordement… un débordement qui a touché également les personnes vraiment que moi je … des personnes, des vieillards, des enfants, tout ça.”

98 See Testimony of the Accused, transcript of 22 April 1999. In French this reads: “Ce qui s'est passé dans notre pays c'est un incident, mais pas un incident, moi je le qualifie de drame, de drame. C'est une série de massacres, de tueries, qui ont gardé les gens du FPR et les Inkotanyi, j'ai expliqué hier dans la globalisation des Tutsis, qui a connu même des débordements jusqu'à atteindre les enfants.”

99 See Testimony of expert Witness Mr. Nsanzuwera, transcript of 23 April 1998.

100 See Testimony of expert Witness Mr. Reyntjens, transcript 13 October 1997.

101 See Testimony of Witness Mr. Hughes, transcript of 25 May 1998.

102 See Chapter 2, section 2 of this Judgement.

103 Akayesu Judgement, para. 170.

104 Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement, para. 291.

105 Akayesu Judgement, paras. 170-172.

106 See Testimony of the Accused, transcript of 22 and 23 April 1999.

107 See Testimony of expert Witness Mr. Nsanzuwera, transcript of 24 March 1998.

108 Ibid.

109 See Testimony of expert Witness Mr. Reyntjens, transcript of 14 October 1997.

110 See Testimony of the Accused, transcript of 22 April 1999.

111 See Testimony of expert Witness Mr. Nsanzuwera, transcripts of 23, 24 and 27 March 1998.

112 See Testimony of expert Witness Mr. Mbonimpa, transcript of 6 April 1999.

113 See Chapter 2, Section 2 of this Judgement.

114 See Chapter 2, Section 2 of this Judgement.

115 Akayesu Judgement, para. 523.

116 See Chapter 4, Section 8 of this Judgement.

117 Akayesu Judgement, para. 468.

118 See Section 2.4 of Applicable Law.

119 See Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on his Mission to Rwanda 11-12 May 1994, para. 20.

120 Organic Law No. 8/96 of 30 August 1996, published in the Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, 35th year, No. 17,1 September 1996.

* This document was reproduced and reformatted from the text obtained from the ICTR's Press and Public Affairs Unit.

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR): Prosecutor v. Rutaganda

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed