Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda v. The Prosecutor

Court	International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Case number	ICTR-99-54A-A
Decision title	Judgement
Decision date	19 September 2005
Parties	Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda The Prosecutor
Categories	Crimes against humanity, Genocide
Keywords	crimes against humanity, extermination, genocide
Links	Judgement

Summary

From late May until mid-July 1994 Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda was Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research in the Interim Government of Rwanda. He was also a member of the Mouvement Républican National pour le Développement et la Démocratie (MRND) in Kigali-Rural préfecture.

On 22 January 2004, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found Kamuhanda guilty of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. The Trial Chamber sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his life. The Accused had supervised the killings in Gikomero commune, Kigali-Rural prefecture. He had distributed firearms, grenades and machetes to the Interahamwe militia. He had also led the attacks at the parish church and adjoining school in Gikomero, where several thousand Tutsi civilians were killed.

Kamuhanda raised 15 grounds of appeal. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTR dismissed the Trial Chamber’s finding that Kamuhanda had instigated and had aided and abetted genocide and extermination. However, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber had correctly held Kamuhanda responsible for ordering genocide and extermination and ruled that vacating the findings that Kamuhanda had instigated and had aided and abetted the crimes did not require the imposition of a lighter sentence.

Procedural history

On 22 January 2004, Trial Chamber II found the Accused individually criminally responsible for instigating, ordering, and aiding and abetting the killing and extermination of members of the Tutsi ethnic group in Gikomero Parish Compound, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber found Mr. Kamuhanda guilty of genocide (Count 2) and extermination as a crime against humanity (Count 5). For each conviction under Counts 2 and 5 the Trial Chamber, by a majority, sentenced the Accused to imprisonment for the remainder of his life, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The Appellant appealed his convictions and sentences, and requested that the Appeals Chamber quash the Trial judgment, enter a verdict of not guilty on each of the charges, and order his immediate release, or, in the alternative, return the case to a differently composed Trial Chamber, or, as a further alternative, overturn the sentences imposed and sentence him to a fixed term of imprisonment. The Accused divided his grounds of appeal into three categories: errors of law, errors of fact, and appeal against the sentence. Within these categories the Appeals Chamber identified fifteen grounds of appeal.

Legally relevant facts

Under his first ground of appeal, the Accused submitted that the Indictment had not properly informed him of the nature and cause of the charges against him (para. 11).

Under ground 2 in part, he challenged the Trial Chamber’s assessment of the exhibit introduced by the parties (para. 29).

Under ground 4, the Accused contended that the Trial Chamber erred in the burden of proof it had imposed on the Defence (para. 35); and uder ground 5, the Accused argued that the Trial Chamber had misapprehended the standard of proof (para. 45).

Under ground 7 in part, the Accused maintained that the Trial Chamber distorted the Defence position regarding the origin of the attackers (para. 51).

Under grounds 9 and 6, in part, the Accused challenged the Trial Chamber’s assessment of his testimony (para. 89).

Under grounds 11, in its entirety, and 2, 5, 6 and 7, in part, the Accused challenged the Trial Chamber’s findings regarding the impossibility of travel from Kigali to Gikomero in April 1994 (para. 99). Also, under grounds 12 in its entirety, and 2 and 7 in part, Mr. Kamuhanda submitted that the Trial Chamber erred in its findings concerning the distribution of weapons to participants in the massacre at the Gikomero parish (para. 130).

Under grounds 3, 10, 13 and 14, in their entirety, and 2, 4, 5, and 7, in part, the Accused challenged the Trial Chamber’s assessment of the alibi evidence and its finding on his presence at the Gikomero parish compound (para. 163).

And finally, Kamuhanda challenged the Trial Chamber’s verdict (ground 8, para. 56) and his sentence (ground 15, para. 344).

Core legal questions

Whether the Indictment had properly informed the Accused about the nature and cause of the charges against him (ground of appeal 1).
Whether the Trial Chamber had erred in its assessment of evidence (ground of appeal 2, in part).
Whether the Trial Chamber had misapplied the burden of proof (ground of appeal 4).
Whether the Trial Chamber had misapprehended the standard and tests for assessing evidence (ground of appeal 5).
Whether the Trial Chamber had erred in holding the Accused responsible under Article 6(1) of the Statute for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity (ground of appeal 8).
Whether the remaining grounds of appeal advanced by the Accused should be granted.
What the effect on the sentence would be, in case any of the grounds of appeal was accepted.

Specific legal rules and provisions

Articles 2, 3, 4, 6(1),(3), 20, 23(2) and 24 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Rules 4, 54, 77(C)(i), 85(A)(vi), 90(G)(i), 91(B), 98, 101, 103(B), 107, 115, 118 and 119 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Court's holding and analysis

The Appeals Chamber vacated the Accused’s convictions for instigating genocide and extermination under Counts 2 and 5, respectively (para. 365). The Chamber also overturned, with Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting, the convictions for aiding and abetting genocide and extermination under Counts 2 and 5, respectively (para. 365).

The Appeals Chamber affirmed, with Judge Weinberg de Roca dissenting, the Appellant’s convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute (para. 365).

The Chamber, with Judge Weinberg de Roca dissenting, dismissed the appeal in all other respects and affirmed the sentences imposed by the Trial Chamber (para. 365). The Chamber ordered that credit was to be given to the Accused for the period already spent in detention from 26 November 1999 (para. 365).

In his separate opinion, presiding Judge Meron underlined that paragraph 77 of the present judgment did not make any changes to the law of the Tribunal concerning multiple modes of liability (para. 366).

In his separate opinion, Judge Schomburg disagreed with the decision of the majority to quash the Trial Chamber’s finding that the Accused had also substantially assisted in the massacre at Gikomero parish compound on 12 April 1994 through the distribution of weapons (para. 367)

In his separate and partially dissenting opinion, Judge Shahabuddeen disagreed with the decision of the majority not to maintain the Trial Chamber’s finding of ordering and its finding of aiding and abetting regarding the Accused’s actions at Gikopero parish (para. 416).

In her separate opinion, Judge Weinberg de Roca agreed with Judge Shahabuddeen that a conviction based on more than one of the modes of responsibility enumerated at Article 6(1) of the Statute was not impermissibly cumulative (para. 417).

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Weinberg de Roca underscored that she would not have affirmed the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the alibi evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt as to the Accused’s presence in Gikomero in April 1994 (paras. 418-419).