The Prosecutor v. Yussuf Munyakazi

Court	International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Case number	ICTR-97-36A-A
Decision title	Judgement
Decision date	28 September 2011
Parties	The Prosecutor Yussuf Munyakazi
Categories	Crimes against humanity, Genocide
Keywords	crimes against humanity, extermination, genocide
Links	http://www.unictr.org/Portals/0/Case/English/Munyakazi/judgement/110928.pdf

Summary

Yussuf Munyakazi was a landowner and farmer in Bugarama community, Rwanda. On 30 June 2010, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR delivered its judgment on Munyakazi’s case. It found that Munyakazi had been a leader in the incidents that had taken place at Shangi parish on 29 April 1994 and Mibilizi parish on 30 April 1994 and that he was responsible for the deaths of 5,000 Tutsi civilians. As a result, the Chamber convicted him for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and sentenced him to 25 years of imprisonment.

Both Munyakazi and the Prosecution appealed against the judgment. Munyakazi submitted eight grounds of appeal challenging his convictions and sentence and requested the Appeals Chamber to acquit him. The Prosecution presented three grounds against the Trial judgment. The Appeals Chamber dismissed all grounds of appeal, upheld Munyakazi’s convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and affirmed the sentence of 25 years of imprisonment imposed upon him.

Procedural history

The Accused was a wealthy landowner and farmer in Bugarama commune (community), Rwanda. Trial Chamber I found that he held de facto authority over the Interahamwe from Bugarama during attacks against Shangi and Mibilizi parishes on 29 and 30 April 1994, respectively. On 30 June 2010, relying on the Accused’s role during these attacks, the Trial Chamber convicted him of committing genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. He was sentenced to a single term of 25 years of imprisonment.

The Accused presented eight grounds of appeal challenging his convictions and sentence and requested the Appeals Chamber to enter a judgment of acquittal.

The Prosecution advanced three grounds of appeal against the Trial judgment. It requested the Appeals Chamber to convict the Accused for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity at Nyamasheke parish, for his participation in a joint criminal enterprise in connection with the massacres at Nyamasheke, Shangi and Mibilizi parishes, and to increase his sentence to life imprisonment.

Legally relevant facts

Under ground 1 of his appeal, the Accused submitted that the Trial Chamber had erred in rejecting his alibi (para. 12).

Under ground 2, the Accused contended that the Trial Chamber had erred in assessing his authority over the Bugarama Interahamwe (para. 30).

He further argued that the Trial Chamber had erred in convicting him for the crimes at Shangi parish (ground 3) (para. 62) and at Mibilizi parish (ground 4) (para. 99).

Under ground 5, the Accused maintained that the Trial Chamber had erred in findings that he facilitated transportation of the Interahamwe. (para. 128).

Under grounds 6 and 7, the Accused submitted that the Trial Chamber had erred in assessing the legal elements of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity (para. 131).

Under ground 8, the Accused contended that the Trial Chamber had erred in assessing his sentence and requested the Appeals Chamber to reduce it (para. 167).

The Prosecution submitted three grounds of appeal, requesting the Appeals Chamber to convict the Accused for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity for the attack at Nyamasheke parish (para. 148), for his participation in a joint criminal enterprise in connection with the massacres at Shangi and Mibilizi parishes (para. 158), and to increase his sentence to life imprisonment or, alternatively, to a term of imprisonment longer than 25 years (para. 180).

Core legal questions

Whether the Trial Chamber had erred in the assessment of the Accused’s alibi, his authority over the assailants at Shangi and Mibilizi parishes and the evidence relating to the crimes that took place there.
Whether the Trial Chamber had erred in finding that the Accused had facilitated transportation of the Interahamwe.
Whether the Trial Chamber had wrongly convicted the Accused of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity due to errors relating to the legal elements of the crimes.
Whether the grounds of appeal advanced by the Accused and the Prosecution regarding the sentence imposed on the former should be granted.
In case any of the grounds of appeal were accepted, what the effect on the sentence imposed on the Accused would be.

Specific legal rules and provisions

Articles 6(1) and 24 of the ICTR Statute.
Rules 67(A)(ii)(a),(B), 101(B)(ii),(C), 103(B), 107, 118 and 119(A) of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Court's holding and analysis

On the Accused's first ground of appeal, the Appeals Chamber found that he did not demonstrate that the Trial Chamber had erred in the assessment of his alibi (para. 27). The Chamber further held that the Accused had exercised authority over the assailants at Shangi and Mibilizi parishes. Thus, it dismissed his second ground of appeal (paras. 59-60).

According to the Appeals Chamber, the Trial Chamber had not erred in its assessment of evidence regarding the crimes at Shangi and Mibilizi parishes. Hence, the Accused’s third and fourth grounds of appeal were dismissed (paras. 96-97,125-126).

Regarding ground 5 of the appeal, the Chamber held that the Trial Chamber’s findings related to transportation did not underpin his convictions, thus any alleged error on the part of the Trial Chamber did not invalidate the verdict (para. 129).

The Chamber found that teh Accused had not demonstrated any errors in the Trial Chamber’ assessment of the legal elements of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity (para. 144).

The Chamber found no discernible error in the Trial Chamber’s assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the sentence (paras. 171, 178).

The Appeals Chamber dismissed all three grounds of the Prosecution’s appeal (paras. 155, 164, 187).

In their separate opinions, Judge Güney, Liu and Vaz expressed their concerns regarding the application of the extended form of the mode of liability of commission, since it encompasses the other modes of liability enumerated in Article 6(1) of the Statute and its scope of application is unclear (paras. 1-2, paras. 1-5, and para. 2 of the respective separate opinions).