Tharcisse Muvunyi v. The Prosecutor

Court	International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Case number	ICTR-2000-55A-A
Decision title	Judgement
Decision date	29 August 2008
Parties	Tharcisse Muvunyi The Prosecutor
Categories	Crimes against humanity, Genocide
Keywords	crimes against humanity, genocide, other inhumane acts, rape
Links	Judgement

Summary

From 1 March until mid-June 1994, Tharcisse Muvunyi served as Lieutenant Colonel in the Rwandan Armed Forces, stationed at the École des Sous-officiers (ESO) in Butare prefecture. This case concerns Muvunyi’s responsibility for crimes committed at various locations in Butare Prefecture between April and June 1994.

The Trial Chamber had convicted Muvunyi of genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity and had convicted him to 25 years of imprisonment.

Both Muvunyi and the Prosecution appealed the trial judgment. The Appeals Chamber overturned the convictions for genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide based on a speech he had given in Gikonko, and other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity. The Appeals Chamber also quashed Muvunyi’s conviction for direct and public incitement to commit genocide based on a speech he had given at the Gikore Trade Centre and ordered a retrial limited to the allegations connected with this incident. The Chamber set aside the sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment.

Procedural history

From 1 March until mid-June 1994, Tharcisse Muvunyi served as Lieutenant Colonel in the Rwandan Armed Forces, stationed at the École des Sous-officiers (ESO) in Butare prefecture.

On 12 September 2006, the Trial Chamber had convicted Muvunyi pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute for direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation with an attack involving ESO Camp soldiers at the Groupe scolaire near the camp. The Trial Chamber had also convicted Muvunyi of genocide pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute for failing to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the killings or to punish the perpetrators of attacks at the Butare University Hospital, University of Butare, Beneberika Convent, Mukura forest, and at various roadblocks in Butare Prefecture. In addition, the Trial Chamber found Muvunyi guilty pursuant of Article 6(3) of the Statute of other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity for mistreatment of Tutsis at the Économat general, Butare Cathedral, ES Camp, Beneberika Convent, Groupe Scolaire, and various roadblocks in Butare Prefecture. Muvunyi was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.

Muvunyi submitted fourteen grounds of appeal challenging his convictions and his sentence. He requested that the Appeals Chamber overturn his convictions or, in the alternative, reduce his sentence.

The Prosecution advanced two grounds of appeal challenging Muvunyi’s acquittal for rape as a crime against humanity and requested the Appeals Chamber to increase his sentence to life imprisonment.

Related developments

On 29 August 2008, the Appeals Chamber reversed Muvunyi’s convictions and ordered a retrial limited to the allegation under Count 3 of the indictment that Muvunyi was responsible for direct and public incitement to commit genocide based on a speech he purportedly gave at the Gikore Trade Center in Nyaruhengeri Commune, Butare Prefecture.

Following Muvunyi’s retrial on this allegation, on 11 February 2010, the Trial Chamber convicted him for direct and public incitement to commit genocide based on his statements in mid to late May 1994 at a public meeting at the Gikore Trade Centre and sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment.

The Accused presented two grounds of appeal and requested the Appeals Chamber to overturn his conviction. The Prosecution submitted one ground of appeal challenging Muvunyi’s sentence and requested the Appeals Chamber to increase his sentence to 25 years of imprisonment. On 1 April 2011, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR dismissed both appeals and upheld the Accused’s sentence to 15 years of imprisonment.

On 6 March 2012, the President of the Tribunal granted the Accused’s application for early release.

Legally relevant facts

The Accused presented fourteen grounds of appeal challenging his convictions and his sentence. He requested that the Appeals Chamber overturn his convictions or, in the alternative, reduce his sentence (para. 5).

The Prosecution advanced two grounds of appeal challenging the Accused's acquittal for rape as a crime against humanity and his sentence. It requested that the Appeals Chamber convict the Accused for rape as a crime against humanity and to increase his sentence to life imprisonment (para. 6).

Under grounds 1-6 of his appeal, the Accused submitted that the Trial Chamber had erred in law in convicting him of genocide (paras. 13, 33, 48, 75, 89, 102).

Under grounds 7-8, he further contended that the Trial Chamber had erred in law and in fact in convicting him of direct and public incitement to commit genocide (paras. 114, 134).

Under grounds 9, 10, 11, 13, he claimed that the Trial Chamber had erred in law in convicting him of other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity based on events that had not been pleaded in the indictment (para. 149).

Under ground 12, the Accused submitted that the Trial Chamber had committed errors relating to his authority over ESO Camp soldiers (para. 159).

Under ground 14, the Accused argued that the Trial Chamber had erred in imposing on him a single sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment (para. 170).

Core legal questions

Whether the Appeals Chamber should reverse the Accused’s conviction for genocide under Article 6(3) of the Statute which was based on his role in various attacks against Tutsis during April 1994.
Whether the Trial Chamber had erred in convicting the Accused of direct and public incitement to commit genocide for his speech at Gikonko in Mugusa Commune and for his alleged speech at the Gikore Trade Center.
Whether the Trial Chamber had rightly convicted the Accused for other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity.
Whether the grounds of appeal advanced by the Prosecution should be accepted.
In case any of the grounds of appeal were granted, what the effect on the sentence imposed on the Accused would be.

Specific legal rules and provisions

Articles 2(3)(a),(e), 6(1),(3) and 24 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Rule 118 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Court's holding and analysis

The Appeals Chamber granted the Accused’s grounds 1-6 of appeal and reversed his convictions for genocide (paras. 32, 46-47, 72, 88, 101, 113).

The Appeals Chamber granted the Accused’s seventh ground of appeal and reversed his conviction for direct and public incitement to commit genocide for his speech at Gikonko in Mugusa Commune (para. 133).

The Appeals Chamber concluded that the Accused’s conviction for direct and public incitement to commit genocide on the basis of his alleged speech at the Gikore Trade Center was not safe and, accordingly, quashed it. In addition, the Chamber ordered for a retrial pursuant to Rule 118(C) of the Rules, limited to the allegations considered under THE aCCUSED’s eighth ground of appeal (para. 148).

The Appeals Chamber granted the Accused’s ninth, tenth, eleventh, and thirteenth grounds of appeal and reversed his conviction for other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity (para. 158).

The Appeals Chamber had already reversed all convictions based on the Accused’s role as a superior under Article 6(3), thus, it did not need to address his twelfth ground of appeal (para. 159).

With regard to the Accused’s ground 14 of appeal, the Chamber held that, in light of the fact that it had reversed the Accused’s convictions and had ordered for a retrial for one of the charges, it did not need to address any alleged errors relating to his sentence. It noted, however, that the principle of fairness demanded that any sentence imposed by the new Trial Chamber could not exceed the twenty-five years of imprisonment imposed by the first Trial Chamber (para. 170).

The Appeals Chamber dismissed the Prosecution’s grounds of appeal (paras. 169-170).