The Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana

Court	International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Case number	ICTR-95-1-A
Decision title	Judgement (Reasons)
Decision date	1 June 2001
Parties	The Prosecutor Clément Kayishema Obed Ruzindana
Categories	Crimes against humanity, Genocide, War crimes
Keywords	cause serious bodily or mental harm, ethnic group, genocide, intent to destroy, kill
Links	Judgement (Reasons)

Summary

The present case concerned two Accused, Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana. Kayishema was charged with 24 counts as prefect of Kibuye with involvement as a superior in the massacres which occurred in that area from April to June 1994. Ruzindana was charged with five counts for his role in the crimes committed in Bisesero between 9 April and 30 June 1994.

On 21 May 1999, Trial Chamber II of the ICTR found both Accused guilty of crimes of genocide. Kayishema was found guilty of four counts of genocide and was sentenced to life imprisonment, while Ruzindana was found guilty of one count of genocide and was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.

Both Accused appealed against their conviction and the sentence imposed on them. The appeal was based on several grounds including lack of equality of arms, defective indictment and inadequate proof against the accused.

The Appeals Chamber, after examining the arguments, ruled that it was convinced that the Trial Chamber did not commit any error on a question of law or error of fact in the case. It therefore affirmed the judgment handed down by the Trial Chamber when convicting and sentencing the Accused.

The Prosecution also appealed against the judgment of the Trial Chamber arguing that the Accused ought to have been convicted on all counts. But the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed because it was filed outside the prescribed time limits.

Procedural history

Both Accused had been charged, according to the amended indictment of 11 April 1997, with involvement in the massacres which took place in the prefecture of Kibuye during the Rwandan genocide.

Kayishema had been charged with genocide (counts 1, 7, 13, 19), crimes against humanity (counts 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21 and 22) and war crimes (counts 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24), while Ruzindana was charged with genocide (count 19), crimes against humanity (counts 20, 21, 22) and war crimes (counts 23, 24).

On 21 May 1999, Trial Chamber II found Kayishema guilty on the four counts of genocide and not guilty on the other charges, while Ruzindana was convicted of one count of genocide in relation to the massacres in the area of Bisesero (Count 19) and was acquitted on all other counts. The Trial Chamber sentenced Kayishema to life imprisonment and Ruzindana to twenty-five years' imprisonment.

Both Accused appealed against the judgment and the sentence handed down by the Trial Chamber. The Prosecution appealed against the judgment and sentence pronounced against Ruzindana.

Legally relevant facts

Kayishema advanced the following grounds of appeal concerning the merits of the Trial judgment: (i) The Trial had been unfair in all aspects; (ii) The Trial Chamber had erred in its assessment of his status as préfet; (iii) The Chamber had erred in its assessment of the individual responsibility of a préfet and command responsibility or responsibility for acts committed by others, (iv) in its assessment of civil defence, (v) in its rejection of the defence of alibi and (vi) in its findings of the crime of genocide (para. 11).

With regard to his sentence, Kayishema alleged errors in the Chamber’s assessment of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as well as in the sentence imposed (para. 12).

Concerning the merits of the Trial judgment, Ruzindana contended that the Trial Chamber had erred in law and in fact with respect to: (i) its determination of intent; (ii) its findings on the individual responsibility of the Accused; (iii) its findings on the role of the Accused in relation to the essential ingredients of the crime of genocide; (iv) its findings on the concept of common criminal intent; (v) its findings on the personal status of the Accused; (vi) its findings regarding the defence of alibi; (vii) its appraisal of the testimony of Prosecution witnesses and reliability of eye witnesses and (viii) lack of specificity of the indictment. Concerning his sentence, the Accused claimed that the Chamber had erred in its analysis of aggravating and mitigating circumstances (para. 13).

Core legal questions

Whether the Prosecution’s appeal was admissible.
Whether Kayishema had received a fair trial.
Whether, pursuant to Rule 67(A)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, at the stage or reciprocal disclosure of evidence, the Defence is only obliged to notify the Prosecutor of its intention to enter the defence of alibi and provide the evidence upon which the alibi is going to be established or it is also required to prove the existence of the relevant facts.
Whether the Trial Chamber had erred in its factual and legal determinations relating to Kayishema’s responsibility for the crime of genocide.
Whether the Trial Chamber had committed errors of law regarding Ruzindana’s responsibility for the crime of genocide.
Whether the issue of resulting death is a legal element in the determination of criminal responsibility under Article 6(1) of the Statute.
To what extent the Trial Chamber enjoys a broad degree of discretion in balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the Accused upon sentencing.
Whether grounds of appeal submitted 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 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(1),(3),(4) 19(1), 20, 22, 23 and 24 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Rules 14(A), 33(B), 55(A), 66(A)(i), 67, 86(B), 88(C), 101, 108, 111, 112, 115, 116, 118 and 119 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II thereto.

Court's holding and analysis

The Appeals Chamber, with Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting, rejected the appeal of the Prosecution as inadmissible in its entirety. The Chamber found that the Prosecution had failed to file its Appellant’s brief on time, on two occasions. It had further failed to file its motion for an extension of time in a timely manner, while it had also filed its Respondent’s briefs out of time (para. 48).

With regard to the two Accused, the Appeals Chamber unanimously dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by Kayishema and Ruzindana against the Trial judgment and sentence. The Chamber affirmed the guilty verdict entered against Kayishema for all the counts on which he had been convicted and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him. The Chamber further affirmed the guilty verdict entered against Ruzindana for the count on which he had been convicted and the sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment imposed on him (para. 372).