The Prosecutor v. Athanase Seromba

Court	International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Case number	ICTR-2001-66-A
Decision title	Judgement
Decision date	12 March 2008
Parties	The Prosecutor Athanase Seromba
Categories	Crimes against humanity, Genocide
Keywords	crimes against humanity, ethnic group, extermination, genocide, intent to destroy, kill, serious bodily or mental harm
Links	Judgement

Summary

During the Rwandan genocide Athanase Seromba was a Catholic priest at Nyange parish, Kibuye Prefecture. On 13 December 2006, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR convicted the Accused of aiding and abetting genocide and crimes against humanity against Tutsi refugees who had sought refuge at Nyange parish in order to escape attacks. The Trial Chamber also found that Seromba had assisted in the killing of Tutsi refugees as well as in the commission of acts causing serious bodily or mental harm. Thus, the Chamber convicted him of aiding and abetting the crimes of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment.

Both the Accused and the Prosecution appealed the Trial judgment. On 12 March 2008, the Appeals Chamber overturned the conviction of the Accused for aiding and abetting genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and substituted convictions for committing genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity for his role in the destruction of the church in Nyange Parish causing the death of approximately 1,500-2,000 Tutsi refugees sheltering inside. The Chamber increased Seromba's sentence to life imprisonment.

Procedural history

During the events of 1994, Seromba was a priest at Nyange parish, Kibuye Prefecture.

On 13 December 2006, the Trial Chamber convicted him pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute for aiding and abetting genocide and crimes against humanity against Tutsi refugees who had sought refuge at Nyange parish in order to escape attacks. The Trial Chamber further found that he had held discussions with the communal authorities and had accepted their decision to destroy the Nyange church, which had led to the death of at least 1,500-2,000 Tutsi refugees. In addition, the Chamber concluded that the Accused had given advice to a bulldozer driver and with his words had encouraged him to destroy the church. Therefore, the Chamber held that Seromba had aided and abetted the killing of Tutsi refugees in Nyange church.

The Chamber also found that Seromba had assisted in the killing of Tutsi refugees as well as in the commission of acts causing serious bodily or mental harm. Thus, the Chamber convicted him of aiding and abetting the crimes of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment.

The Accused submitted ten grounds of appeal challenging his convictions and his sentence. The Prosecution advanced three grounds of appeal challenging the Accused’s acquittal for planning, ordering, and committing genocide as well as extermination as a crime against humanity, as well as his acquittal for conspiracy to commit genocide.

Legally relevant facts

Under ground 1 of his appeal, the Accused submitted that his trial had been unfair because the Trial Chamber had ordered that if he chose to testify, he should do so before the Defense called its last remaining witness (para. 15).

Under ground 2, the Accused challenged several paragraphs of the indictment as “incomprehensible and inadmissible” (para. 24).

Under ground 8, he challenged his conviction for genocide (paras. 32-65).

Under grounds 3 and 4, the Accused contended that the Trial Chamber had erred in its finding that he had prevented Tutsi refugees from taking food form the Parish Banana Plantation and that he had refused to celebrate mass for the Tutsi refugees (para. 68).

Under ground 5, the Accused challenged the Trial Chamber’s finding that he had dismissed four Tutsi employees, one of whom had been subsequently killed (para. 69).

Under ground 6, Seromba submitted that the Trial Chamber had erred in its finding relating to the deaths of Tutsi refugees (para. 88).

Under ground 7, he challenged the Trial Chamber’s finding relating to his role in the destruction of Nyange Church (para. 98).

Under ground 9, he argued that the Chamber had erred in its legal finding relating to his conviction for extermination as a crime against humanity (para. 132).

Under ground 1 of the Prosecution’s appeal, it maintained that the Trial Chamber had erred in not entering convictions for the charged of committing, ordering, and planning genocide or extermination as a crime against humanity (para. 152).

The Prosecution also argued that the Trial Chamber had erred in finding Seromba not guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide (para. 209).

Both the Accused and the Prosecution challenged his sentence (paras. 226-227).

Core legal questions

Whether the Accused’s right to a fair trial had been violated.
Whether the indictment against the Accused had been defective.
Whether the Trial Chamber had wrongly convicted the Accused of genocide.
Whether the Trial Chamber had erred in certain of its factual findings.
Whether the Trial Chamber had erred in its finding relating to Seromba’s role in the destruction of Nyange Church.
Whether the Accused’s conviction for extermination as a crime against humanity was erroneous.
Whether the Prosecution’s grounds of appeal relating to the acquittals of the Accused and the sentence imposed on him 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, 6(1),(3) 20(1),(4), 22, 23 and 24 of the ICTR Statute.
Rules 15(B), 48, 54, 85(A),(C), 90(F), 98, 99-106, 107, 109, 118(A) and 119 of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Court's holding and analysis

The Appeals Chamber found that the Accused’s right to a fair trial had not been violated and thus dismissed his first ground of appeal (para. 23). He had not lacked notice of any charge or material fact that had formed the basis of his conviction because of a defect in the indictment and thus it dismissed his second ground of appeal (paras. 29-30).

The Chamber granted the Accused’s eighth ground of appeal in part and quashed the Trial Chamber’s finding that Seromba had aided and abetted the causing of serious bodily or mental harm (para. 66).

The Chamber had already quashed the Trial Chamber’s findings regarding the events challenged under grounds 3 and 4 so it didn’t need to address these grounds (para. 68).

The Appeals Chamber dismissed the Accused’s fifth, sixth, seventh and ninth grounds of the appeal (paras. 87, 97, 131, 151).

The Appeals Chamber granted the Prosecution’s first ground of appeal in part, holding that Seromba had committed genocide as well as extermination as a crime against humanity (para. 206).

The Chamber dismissed the Prosecution’s second ground of appeal (para. 225).

The Chamber, with Judge Liu dissenting, imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on Seromba (para. 239).

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Liu disagreed with the Majority that the Trial Chamber had erred in finding that Seromba’s participation in crimes had amounted to aiding and abetting genocide and extermination and argued that the Majority’s extension of the definition of “committing” had been applied with no indication of the criteria or legal basis (para. 18).

Further analysis

S. Wirth, ‘Committing Liability in International Criminal Law’, in: C. Stahn and G. Sluiter, The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009, pp. 336-337;
F.Z. Giustiniani, ‘Stretching the Boundaries of Commission Liability: The ICTR Appeal Judgement in Seromba’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2008, Vol. 6, pp. 783-799;
K. Gustafson & N. Janisiewicz, ‘Current Developments at the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2008, Vol. 6, pp. 569-607;
G. Townsend, ‘The ICTR Appeals Chamber judgment in Prosecutor v. Seromba’, ASIL Insights, 2008, Vol. 12.