Ntakirutimana

IV. COMMON GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE EXISTANCE OF A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE APPELLANTS

400. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana and Gérard Ntakirutimana argue that the Trial Chamber erred by not ruling that physical and testimonial evidence presented at trial demonstrated that there existed a political campaign aimed at falsely incriminating them, and that such campaign created a reasonable doubt in the case of the Prosecution. [642]

401. In support of this ground of appeal, the Appellants revisit the evidence that they presented at trial, and contend that this evidence proves the very existence of the political campaign. The Appellants rely on Exhibits 1D41A, a film narrated by a certain Assiel Kabera, and P29, a publication by African Rights entitled “Charge Sheet No. 3: Elizaphan Ntakirutimana”, [643] as well as the testimony of Witnesses 9 and 31. The Appellants suggest that Assiel Kabera, a former Prefect of Kibuye, his brother Josue Kayijaho, IBUKA (a survivor’s organisation in Rwanda) and African Rights campaigned to “vilify and secure the indictment of [Gérard Ntakirutimana and Elizaphan Ntakirutimana] on fabricated charges.” They submit that this campaign led Prosecution Witnesses FF, GG, HH, KK, YY, SS, MM, DD, CC and II to make false allegations at trial, thereby calling into question their credibility. [644]

402. The Appellants argue that Defence Witness 9 provided incontrovertible proof of the existence of a political campaign against them. The Appellants refer to Witness 9’s testimony that he saw the then Prefect Assiel Kabera, Witnesses FF and GG and others attend four closed meetings between November 1994 and March 1995 “to secure indictments against the Appellants”, as well as seeing Witness FF at a public meeting during which accusations were levied against three individuals. In addition, the Appellants refer to the witness’s testimony that a certain Edison Munyamulinda was allegedly beaten for failing to add his name to a list of persons who were making false accusations against Gérard Ntakirutimana. They contend that the witness’s testimony is corroborated by the evidence of Witnesses QQ, and 31, and Exhibits P29 and 1D41A. [645]

403. The Trial Chamber assessed the evidence of Witness 9 at length in its Judgement. Regarding the closed meetings attended by Witnesses FF and GG and Kabera, it noted that Witness 9 did not personally know what had been discussed during the actual meetings, the witness having testified that he did not attend any of them. [646] In addition, it reasoned that meetings held during and after November 1994 were not relevant to the Appellants given that they had left Rwanda in July 1994 and that Witness 9 alleged that the objective of the meetings was to plan the arrest of people they did not like within the region. [647] Finally, the Trial Chamber considered the only evidence which may have suggested that the meetings were held to falsely accuse individuals, that of a confrontation between the witness and an individual – neither Witness FF nor GG – who, having come out of a bar, allegedly tried to obtain more beer by threatening the witness to “do what he had done to others”, citing the name of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana. [648] The Appeals Chamber notes that Witness 9 testified that he did not know what the man intended to do and that the man never said what it was that he would do. [649]

404. The Trial Chamber concluded that even were these events to have occurred as described by Witness 9, “a vague suggestion of false accusation does not … amount to a reasonable probability that the Accused was a victim of a propaganda campaign.” [650]

405. The Trial Chamber also examined Witness 9’s testimony that a man was assaulted for failing to make false accusations against Gérard Ntakirutimana. [651] The Trial Chamber noted however that upon cross-examination Witness 9 testified to an alternative explanation for the assault on Munyamulinda, which was not related to his refusal to accuse Gérard Ntakirutimana. [652] It added that, in any case, the incident occurred sometime in September 1994 while the meetings involving Kabera and Witnesses FF and GG did not commence until November 1994, [653] and that Munyamulinda was not a Prosecution witness. Further, the Trial Chamber noted that Witness 9 never stated that Munyamulinda was pressured to make “false” accusations. [654] Accordingly, the Trial Chamber found that the assault was, at most, an isolated incident and did not create a reasonable possibility of a political campaign against the Appellants. It added moreover that no connection had been shown to exist between the assault on Munyamulinda and the Prosecution’s case. [655]

406. In their submissions, the Appellants have merely restated evidence already heard by the Trial Chamber, and sought only to present their interpretation of the evidence without addressing the findings of the Trial Chamber. In light of the evidence, the Appeals Chamber is of the view that the Trial Chamber’s findings are reasonable. As such, the Appeals Chamber sees no reason to disturb the findings of the Trial Chamber in relation to the evidence of Witness 9.

407. The Appellants argue that the Trial Chamber erred in ruling that the testimony of Witness 31 did not demonstrate a reasonable possibility of the existence of an organized campaign of false incrimination. [656] They claim that Witness 31 provided clear evidence linking Assiel Kabera to the creation of unsupported, politically motivated lists of alleged génocidaires that later led to their indictment. [657] Additionally, the Appellants point to Witness 31’s testimony that Josue Kayijaho of IBUKA and Rakiya Omaar of African Rights visited the Minister of Justice shortly after the publication of the lists. [658] The Appellants contend that Witness 31’s evidence provides a “direct link” between the African Rights report, Exhibit P29, the “propaganda” film, Exhibit 1D41A, and the tainted oral testimony of Witness QQ that was a direct result of these exhibits, and that it corroborated Witness 9’s evidence about the meetings between Witnesses FF, GG and Kabera. [659]

408. The Appeals Chamber notes that, as with much of the Appellants’ appeal on the existence of a political campaign, in their submissions on Witness 31, the Appellants again do not specifically address the findings of the Trial Chamber to show their unreasonableness. Rather, they simply recall the evidence of Witness 31 and suggest conclusions which differ from those of the Trial Chamber.

409. In considering the testimony of Witness 31, the Trial Chamber carefully reviewed the witness’s evidence that, while working for the Rwandan Minister of Justice, Witness 31 handled files which contained lists of names received from Kabera and other persons. The Trial Chamber noted that according to the witness the lists were entitled “List of Génocidaires” or “Lists of people who were involved in genocide”, “who killed”, “who raped”, “who looted”, “those who ate cows”, and only had basic identification of individuals. It further noted from the witness’s testimony that the Minister of Justice titled the document “List of Alleged Génocidaires,” and agreed that no charges should be included on the list, as this was the task of a prosecutor. The Trial Chamber remarked that the witness did not mention having seen the names of the Appellants on the list and did not suggest that the lists were false accusations by Kabera or anyone else. [660]

410. The Appellants have raised no new issues relating to this and fail to show that the Trial Chamber unreasonably committed an error in its findings on Witness 31. The Appeals Chamber notes that the evidence of Witness 31 does not support the Appellants’ claim of the existence of a political campaign to falsely accuse them. The evidence does show that in the last quarter of 1994, the Ministry of Justice compiled a list of persons who were alleged to have committed offences during the massacres. The names of 400 persons appeared on the list, including former ministers, prefects, members of parliament and authorities. However, although Assiel Kabera provided the Ministry with details of possible suspects, the witness testified that there were many papers in addition to his on which appeared the names of possible suspects. Further, her testimony does not indicate that people on the documents had been falsely accused. More importantly, the witness did not testify to seeing the names of the Appellants. [661] In view of the facts presented, therefore, and absent convincing arguments from the Appellants, the Appeals Chamber considers that the Trial Chamber’s evaluation of the lists and of Kabera’s relationship to them is reasonable and need not be disturbed.

411. While the Trial Chamber did not find explicitly on the topic of Josue Kayijaho and Rakiya Omaar’s purported visit to the Minister of Justice, it is reasonable to assume that the Chamber took this into account it in its overall evaluation of the political campaign. The evidence shows that the meeting lasted only long enough for Kayijaho and Omaar to greet the Minister and leave, [662] and Witness 31 does not testify to their having any known political motivation. The Appellants have simply reiterated their interpretation of the evidence, and do not present a valid challenge to the reasonability of the Trial Chamber’s finding. The Appeals Chamber therefore rejects this element of their appeal.

412. The Appellants argue that the Trial Chamber erred in failing to find that film 1D41A showed the possibility of a politically motivated campaign against them. [663] They submit that the film was vicious propaganda directed against Elizaphan Ntakirutimana. [664]

413. The Trial Chamber points out that, from the evidence of the Appellants, the film was probably taken in April 1995, although Witness 9 suggested that it may have been produced after July 1995. The Trial Chamber notes that the film opens with a narration, allegedly by Assiel Kabera, stating that Elizaphan Ntakirutimana was present during the killings at the ESI Chapel. Prosecution Witnesses FF and MM are seen speaking on the film, but the content of their statements was not made available to the Trial Chamber by the Defence. [665]

414. The Appellants’ argument seems to be, first, that the film shows that Kabera intended to falsely incriminate Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, and, second, that Kabera’s pronouncements would have had a far reaching effect in a Rwandan society “with an oral tradition of a simple largely illiterate population, where people often do not distinguish between what they see and what they hear and believe”. [666] Yet the evidence would appear to contradict the Appellants’ arguments. As the Appellants point out, neither Witness FF nor Witness MM, who appeared on the film, claimed in their witness statements or testimony that they saw either Appellant at the ESI Chapel on 16 April 1994. Although this might suggest that Kabera’s statements about Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s involvement may have been untrue, it did not lead Witnesses FF and MM to subsequently incriminate Elizaphan Ntakirutimana. Additionally, as the Trial Chamber noted, Witness 9, who viewed the film prior to testifying, recalled a voice near the middle of the video stating that “Pastor Ntakirutimana had done nothing in regard to the events of 1994.” [667] The Appeals Chamber agrees with the Trial Chamber, that had this film been intended to be part of a campaign of false incrimination, it would not likely have contained exculpatory statements of this kind. [668]

415. In light of the evidence, the Appeals Chamber does not view the Trial Chamber’s finding that, even if Kabera made allegations against Elizaphan Ntakirutimana and asked Witness FF to speak about the attack on Mugonero, no other related evidence supports the idea that film 1D41A was part of a campaign of deceit against the Appellants, or that it tainted the Prosecution’s case, to be unreasonable. [669] The Appellants offer no new argument to the contrary. Their contentions on this point are thus rejected.

416. The Appellants argue that the Trial Chamber erred in failing to find a reasonable possibility of an organized smear campaign from Exhibit P29, a booklet published by African Rights. [670] They submit that the repeated quotes by Prosecution Witnesses FF, GG, HH, II, KK, MM, SS and YY are generally extreme and inconsistent or contradictory with their trial testimony. [671] The Appellants contend that every page of the issue concerning Elizaphan Ntakirutimana contains “obvious editorial and quoted false propaganda,” and urge the Appeals Chamber to read the edition with care. [672] The Appellants finally assert impropriety and collusion in the fact that many of those interviewed by African Rights later became Prosecution witnesses. [673]

417. The Trial Chamber made reasonable findings on each of these issues. Noting the symptomatic nature of witness inconsistencies in Tribunal cases, the Trial Chamber maintained that the Appellants had not demonstrated how such inconsistencies, while pertaining to individual credibility, had genuine bearing on a “concerted effort to fabricate evidence against the Accused.” [674] Despite the Appellants’ exhortations, the Appeals Chamber will not review the trial evidence de novo. Even if there were some merit in the arguments of the Appellants that the contents of the report are at times extreme and inconsistent with the witnesses’ subsequent testimony at trial, this alone does not establish that the Prosecution case was tainted or that the witnesses’ evidence was unreliable. In the view of the Appeals Chamber, the Trial Chamber, as fact finder, made reasonable conclusions based on the evidence presented. All of the witnesses in question who the Appellant submits formed part of the political campaign and who are quoted in the report had their evidence tested by the parties and the Trial Chamber. Additionally, the Trial Chamber found that the Appellants have failed to establish in any non-speculative way how giving an interview to African Rights prior to testifying before the Tribunal indicates a campaign of deceit of the sort that would taint the Prosecution’s case. [675] Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber considers that the Trial Chamber’s findings in relation to Exhibit P 29 are reasonable.

418. In addition to the argument that there existed a political campaign instigated by Assiel Kabera and others, the Appellants contend that the Trial Chamber erred in its assessment of the credibility of Prosecution witnesses. The Appellants argue that, motivated by political propaganda, Prosecution Witnesses GG, HH, KK, YY, SS, FF, MM, DD, CC and II fabricated allegations, testimony, or both. [676] The Appellants point to inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony of Prosecution witnesses, and submit that the Trial Chamber erred in failing to “make adverse credibility findings” regarding Prosecution witnesses and in relying on testimony given by such witnesses. [677]

419. The Appellants allege that inconsistencies in testimony of the various witnesses are evidence of political pressure on witnesses, and thus reinforce their contention of a political campaign to falsely incriminate them. Furthermore, the Appellants point to the very identities and associations of the witnesses as evidence of their political motivations. The Appellants’ theory is that the Trial Chamber erred in relying on the testimony of these witnesses, whether for their alleged political motivations, or for their inconsistent testimony (in itself evidence of a political campaign, according to the Appellants).

420. As detailed below, the Appellants generally fail to show how individual discrepancies or inconsistencies in testimony prove a concerted propaganda campaign against them. While such inconsistencies may call into question the credibility of a witness’s testimony, the Trial Chamber has already dealt with each of the allegations. The same can be said of links between witnesses and groups or individuals seeking indictment or prosecution of the Appellants: while probative of the credibility of a witness’s testimony, and duly noted by the Trial Chamber, such alleged associations do not prove the existence of an organized political campaign against the Appellants.

421. The Appeals Chamber reviews below each of the Appellants’ challenges to the credibility of said Prosecution witnesses.

422. The Appellants claim, inter alia, that Witness GG could not have reasonably been found credible since he had long been acquainted with Assiel Kabera. [678] The Appellants, quoting from the African Rights report discussed above, allege that Witness GG made false claims against Elizaphan Ntakirutimana because of a desire to “destroy [the Appellant Elizaphan], whom he called ‘evil’”. [679] They categorize him as an “early participant” in the alleged campaign, eager to have the Appellants convicted on false testimony. [680] In addition, the Appellants submit that Witness GG had attended IBUKA meetings and talked to IBUKA representatives, although the witness denied this at trial. [681]

423. The Trial Chamber found that Witness GG knew Assiel Kabera and met with him in early 1995. However, since the Appellants presented no convincing evidence pertaining to the content of the meetings, the Trial Chamber accepted Witness GG’s testimony that he and Kabera had not discussed the war. [682] Additionally, the Trial Chamber found only “limited significance” in the fact that African Rights interviewed Witness GG, noting that in the aftermath of the genocide, many human rights organizations interviewed survivors. [683] As the Appeals Chamber noted above, even if Witness GG’s statements to African Rights were to be deemed questionable, this alone would not suffice to call into question his credibility. The witness’s evidence was tested at trial by the parties and the Trial Chamber. The allegations of the Appellants that the witness “wanted to destroy them” as part of a political campaign, were considered by the Trial Chamber who found no basis for such claims. In the absence of any arguments from the Appellants that differ from those presented at trial, the Appeals Chamber finds the Trial Chamber’s credibility evaluation of Witness GG reasonable.

424. The Appellants claim, inter alia, that Witness HH could not have reasonably been found credible since he first denied, then admitted to being a cousin of Assiel Kabera, with whom he met while Kabera was prefect of Kibuye. [684] The Appellants cast doubt on Witness HH’s credibility by stating that he listed Josea Niyibize, a brother of Kabera, as his contact person in a 2 April 1996 witness statement. [685] They suggest that the witness was intimately involved with people who were determined to destroy the Appellants, and cite a discrepancy between the reported contents of an African Rights interview with HH and his in-court testimony as evidence in this regard. [686]

425. The Trial Chamber took into account Witness HH’s inconsistent testimony regarding his relation to Kabera, noting the fact that Witness HH corrected himself under cross-examination to state that he was related to Kabera and had known him for a long time. [687] Recalling that Kabera had been a prominent figure as prefect of Kibuye, the Chamber found no evidence suggesting that meetings between Witness HH and Kabera related to the case against the Appellants. It therefore did not find a basis for concluding that Kabera had influenced HH’s witness statements or testimony. [688] Furthermore, the Trial Chamber included in its analysis the fact that Witness HH listed his cousin, a brother of Kabera and alleged member of IBUKA, as contact reference for his written statement of 2 April 1996. [689] The witness denied having knowingly communicated with either IBUKA or the RPF, and the Appellants failed to raise contrary evidence at trial. [690] In regard to the Appellants’ argument that Witness HH was part of a group with African Rights set on destroying the Appellants, the Trial Chamber stipulated that during Witness HH’s testimony, neither the Prosecution nor the Defence addressed his brief statements in African Rights. [691] The Trial Chamber concluded its analysis by finding “no support for the Defence contention that Witness HH was part of a political ‘campaign’ to falsely convict and accuse the two Accused.” [692] The Appellants have raised no new arguments with regards to Witness HH’s connection to a political campaign. The Appeals Chamber therefore finds the conclusions of the Trial Chamber to have been reasonable.

426. The Appellants claim, inter alia, that the Trial Chamber could not have reasonably found Witness KK credible due to discrepancies between statements he gave to African Rights and his in-court testimony. [693] Additionally, the Appellants claim impropriety in Witness KK’s friendship with YY and the fact that both witnesses gave statements to African Rights on 17 November 1999, and gave their first statements to the Tribunal in October and November, respectively, of the same year. [694] The Appellants do not explain how these facts connect Witness KK to a political campaign.

427. The Trial Chamber extensively evaluated Witness KK’s credibility and testimony. [695] It noted, generally, that the Appellants claimed the witness was not credible because of his alleged participation in a political campaign against Elizaphan Ntakirutimana and Gérard Ntakirutimana. [696] The Trial Chamber also considered the question of the time at which the witness saw Elizaphan Ntakirutimana with Obed Ruzindana near the ESI Church, and found the related inconsistencies of little significance in light of the amount of time that had passed since the events. [697] Additionally, while accepting that Witness KK’s testimony on this issue corroborated evidence from other witnesses, the Trial Chamber did “not place great weight on [it] because of doubts created by the discrepancies.” [698] The Appellants do not here substantiate their allegation that such inconsistencies were “[lies] to destroy Pastor Ntakirutimana.” [699] The Trial Chamber demonstrated that it took such allegations into consideration while evaluating Witness KK’s credibility and came to a reasonable conclusion.

428. In regards to allegations of improper connections between Witness KK and Witness YY, while the Trial Chamber does not specifically address the issue, it does note that Witness KK and Witness YY listed each other as contact persons, and that Witness YY held public office at the local level and was therefore easy to contact. [700] While Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s Appeal Brief stresses the close relationship between Witness KK and Witness YY, it fails to provide any new evidence of impropriety on the part of Witness KK. Indeed, Witness KK stated at trial that he did not talk to Witness YY concerning the investigation or the Tribunal. [701] The Appellants offer no argument to the contrary, but rather rely on reiterated facts and implications. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber does not find the Trial Chamber’s assessment of Witness KK’s credibility unreasonable, even in light of the Appellants’ allegations of political influence or motivation.

429. The Appellants claim, inter alia, that the Trial Chamber erred in finding Witness YY credible. [702] They seem to allege collusion between Witnesses YY, KK and GG based on the temporal proximity with which the three witnesses gave statements to both Prosecution investigators and African Rights. [703] They claim that Witness YY had a politically motivated “animus and intention to destroy Pastor Ntakirutimana and Doctor Gérard” as evinced by statements to African Rights and that he was the leader of a second wave of political witnesses against the Appellants. [704] Finally, the Appellants cast aspersions on Witness YY, claiming he reserved his allegations against the Appellants for the last six lines of his witness statement with the intention of “holding his attack until the trial.” [705]

430. The Trial Chamber took into account each of these allegations. As with Witness KK, the Appellants fail to bolster their claims linking Witnesses YY and KK or GG; their reliance on suggestion and implication creates neither a new nor a compelling argument. The Trial Chamber addressed the Appellants’ claim that Witness YY started a “second wave of politically motivated witnesses.” [706] The Trial Chamber noted the Appellants’ assertion that the first evidence of a political campaign took the form of the video recording ID41A, [707] filmed on or around 16 April 1995. It then noted that Witness YY gave his statement on 25 October 1999, more than four and half years later. [708] The Appeals Chamber deems reasonable the Trial Chamber’s conclusion on this matter: such an extended break between the alleged commencement of the campaign and the “second wave” of allegations is more indicative of the absence of an organized campaign than the existence of one. [709] With regards to Witness YY’s previous statements, rather than viewing Witness YY’s brief comments regarding Elizaphan Ntakirutimana and Gérard Ntakirutimana as indicia of animus, the Trial Chamber interpreted the last paragraph as likely evidence that Witness YY’s interviewers, in conclusion, specifically asked him about the Appellants. [710] The Trial Chamber noted that were Witness YY involved in a political campaign against the Appellants, he would likely have made more damning statements about the Appellants, rather than merely describing their conduct in a cursory manner. [711] Such a conclusion is reasonable in the view of the Appeals Chamber.

431. The Appellants claim, inter alia, that the Trial Chamber erred in finding Witness SS credible. [712] Gérard Ntakirutimana asserts that Witness SS’s awareness of Philip Gourevitch’s book [713] influenced his testimony and undermined his impartiality, making it impossible for the Trial Chamber to accept his testimony. [714] Additionally, the Appellants state that Witness SS listed a hospital co-worker, the son of Charles Ukobizaba, as his contact person; they highlight their incredulity at the witness’s statement that he had not discussed the case with this man to whom they attribute “an obvious interest in securing the conviction of Gérard Ntakirutimana.” [715]

432. The Trial Chamber noted the Appellants’ general submission that Witness SS was part of a political campaign. [716] Consequently, the Appeals Chamber deems it reasonable to assume that the Trial Chamber took the allegation into consideration when evaluating the witness’s credibility, even if it did not expressly discuss the Appellants’ specific allegations against Witness SS. The Appeals Chamber reiterates that in writing a reasoned opinion the Trial Chamber need not address every detail that influences its conclusion. In regard to Gourevitch’s book and the letter mentioned therein, the Trial Chamber noted that Witness SS was but one of five Prosecution witnesses (Witnesses MM, YY, GG, HH and SS) who testified concerning the letter. [717] Witness SS only mentioned the book in his statement, and did not mention the book in his testimony. While the Appellants referenced the statement in their Closing Brief, [718] they refrained from cross-examining the witness on this issue. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber found Witness SS generally credible, though it did find portions of his testimony unpersuasive. [719] While the Appellants continue to reject Witness SS’s contention that he refrained from discussing the case with Charles Ukobizaba’s son, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Appellants submit no evidence to contradict this assertion.

433. The Appellants claim, inter alia, that the Trial Chamber erred in finding Witness FF credible. [720] The Appellants contend that she constituted part of the second wave of witnesses organized by Kabera to falsely incriminate them. [721] The Appellants link Witness FF to Kabera and the alleged political campaign by evidence that she met with him in late 1994 and 1995 and by her appearance in video recording 1D41A. [722] The Appellants point to a scene in the video during which another interviewee, when asked how he knew a fact to be true, pointed to Witness FF and said, “[s]he told me.” [723] Gérard Ntakirutimana claims Witness FF’s testimony was “influenced or orchestrated,” and points specifically to the fact that the witness’s statements became increasingly detailed, in some instances implicating Gérard Ntakirutimana in court where the witness had not done so in earlier statements. [724]

434. As discussed in relation to Witness YY, the Trial Chamber was unconvinced of the existence of a “second wave” of witnesses against the Appellants. [725] The Trial Chamber noted the Appellants’ general contention that Witness FF participated in a political campaign. [726] However, regarding her association with Assiel Kabera, the Trial Chamber found that the witness denied discussing the genocide with him. [727] The Trial Chamber also noted that the witness avoided incriminating Gérard Ntakirutimana when she had insufficient basis to involve him and that she appeared credible in court. [728]

435. With no new arguments nor a minimum showing of specific contradictory evidence from the Appellants, the Trial Chamber’s credibility conclusions do no not seem unreasonable to the Appeals Chamber. Neither does the Trial Chamber’s assessment of Witness FF’s contribution to record 1D41A. The Trial Chamber found nothing to undermine her credibility in the fact that she was interviewed as a survivor of the 16 April 1994 attack on the Mugonero Complex. [729] Furthermore, Witness FF testified to having been interviewed by a man named Raymond Rutabayira, not Assiel Kabera, and that she was unaware of anyone else in the film who made reference to her as a source of information. [730] Considering that the Appellants did not provide convincing arguments or evidence to refute this testimony, the Appeals Chamber does not find the Trial Chamber’s conclusion to have been unreasonable. Similarly, the Trial Chamber’s failing to find a connection between Witness FF and African Rights or any human rights organization [731] does not seem unreasonable.

436. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber addressed at length the increasing detail and enlarged role of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana and Gérard Ntakirutimana presented by Witness FF in her later statements and testimony. [732] The Trial Chamber analyzed the claim in relationship to each specific event, finding the witness’s testimony regarding events at the Mugonero Complex to have been credible. [733] With regards to events in Bisesero, the Trial Chamber, noting Witness FF’s general consistency in placing Gérard Ntakirutimana as a participant in the shootings, specifically found that “the information about Bisesero in Witness FF’s written statements and in her testimony does not indicate that she formed part of a campaign to ensure [Gérard Ntakirutimana’s] conviction.” [734] The Trial Chamber reasonably reconciled inconsistencies. [735] With regards to events on Mutiti Hill, the Trial Chamber found Witness FF’s testimony credible, pointing out that it was “clear and consistent [and] was not shaken under cross-examination.” [736] In light of the aforementioned explanations and in the absence of conflicting evidence or new arguments on the part of the Appellants, the Appeals Chamber does not find the Trial Chamber’s evaluation of Witness FF’s credibility and of the Appellants’ argument that she formed part of a political campaign to have been unreasonable.

437. The Appellants claim, inter alia, that the Trial Chamber erred in not concluding that testimony from Witness II provided “direct evidence of a witness being used as part of a campaign to falsely incriminate [Elizaphan and Gérard Ntakirutimana].” The Appellants point out that the witness bore striking similarities with an individual who gave a statement to African Rights on 19 November 1999. [737]

438. The Trial Chamber addressed the issue of Witness II’s credibility. [738] It noted the similarities between Witness II and the person interviewed by African Rights. [739] However, lacking the full statement given to African Rights and noting discrepancies in the witness’s explanations, the Chamber concluded that evidence from Witness II did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Elizaphan Ntakirutimana participated in the attacks on Muyira Hill. [740] In the view of the Appeals Chamber, such a conclusion is reasonable, and the Appellants have not presented evidence in support of their argument that the witness was used as part of political campaign to falsely accuse the Appellants.

439. The Appellants allege inconsistencies in testimony by Witnesses CC, DD and MM, and generally question their credibility. [741] It is unclear how such allegations go specifically to show the existence of a political campaign. Rather, the Appellants seem to collate Witnesses CC, DD and MM into a category of witnesses whose alleged testimonial inconsistencies weaken the Prosecution’s case, thereby providing circumstantial evidence that a campaign existed. The alleged inconsistencies were addressed in sections of the Appeal dealing wholly with individual witness credibility. The Appeals Chamber does not consider that these alleged inconsistencies provide circumstantial evidence of a political campaign against the Appellants.

[642] Id. In the Trial Judgement, the Trial Chamber found that “the arguments advanced by the Defense under this section, taken individually or collectively, fail to create a reasonable possibility that the Accused were subject to a campaign of false incrimination, having any bearing on this case.” Trial Judgement, para. 177.
[643] “Charge Sheet No. 3, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, U. S. Supreme Court Supports Extradition to Arusha”, report of African Rights, dated 1 February 2000 and tendered on 2 November 2001 as Exhibit P29.
[644] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), p. 76.
[645] Id., pp. 82-83.
[646] Trial Judgement, para. 762.
[647] Id., para. 766.
[648] Id., para. 761; T. 29 April 2002, pp. 86-88; T. 30 April 2002, pp. 66-69.
[649] T. 29 April 2002, p. 86; T. 30 April 2002, p. 68.
[650] Trial Judgement, para. 766. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber used the words “reasonable probability” rather than “reasonable possibility.” However, such word choice, when viewed contextually, appears to be a merely a typographical mistake. The standard adopted and consistently applied by the Trial Chamber is one of reasonable possibility.
[651] Trial Judgement, paras. 764, 767.
[652] T. 30 April 2002, p. 69, Witness 9 testified, “Now, coming to details, the fact that he was beaten up in public, that was not told to me because I myself was present at the spot. Now, as for what he told me regarding the reason for his beating, he told me that because the person whom he had wronged had pardoned him in public, but later on he was beaten up in public using the same pretext.”
[653] T. 29 April 2002, p. 119.
[654] Trial Judgement, para. 767.
[655] Id.
[656] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), p. 84.
[657] Id., p. 83.
[658] Id., p. 84.
[659] Id.
[660] T. 15 April 2002, pp. 76-94; Trial Judgement, paras. 769-770.
[661] Id., para. 771. The Trial Chamber found “There is no indication that the list from Assiel Kabera was the product of a campaign of false incrimination; there is no evidence connecting Kabera’s list to the two Accused; and there is no evidence that the compilation of lists by the Rwandan Minister of Justice in late 1994, as described by Witness 31, has somehow tainted subsequent investigations by the Prosecutor of the Tribunal.”
[662] T. 15 April 2002, p. 111.
[663] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), pp. 77-80, 82-84.
[664] Id., p. 84.
[665] Trial Judgement, paras. 754, 772.
[666] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), p. 78; Trial Judgement, para. 772.
[667] Trial Judgement, para. 772; T. 29 April 2002, p. 156; T. 30 April 2002, pp. 96-97.
[668] Trial Judgement, para. 772.
[669] Id., para. 773.
[670] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), p. 79.
[671] Id.
[672] Id.
[673] Id., p. 80.
[674] Trial Judgement, para. 774.
[675] Id.
[676] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), pp. 76, 79.
[677] Id., p. 31.
[678] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), pp. 8-9.
[679] Id., pp. 9, 81.
[680] Id., pp. 46-47.
[681] Appeal Brief (G. Ntakirutimana), paras. 112-116.
[682] Trial Judgement, para. 237; T. 25 September 2001, p. 51.
[683] Trial Judgement, para. 237.
[684] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), p. 19.
[685] Id.; Appeal Brief (G. Ntakirutimana), para. 46.
[686] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), pp. 19, 81.
[687] Trial Judgement, para. 253; T. 27 September 2001, pp. 132-134.
[688] Trial Judgement, para. 253.
[689] Id.
[690] Id.
[691] Id., para. 254.
[692] Id.
[693] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), p. 20.
[694] Id., p. 21.
[695] Trial Judgement, paras. 261-267, 544-549, 599-608.
[696] Id., paras. 545, 600.
[697] Id., paras. 265-266, “The Chamber is of the view that the variation in time is of little significance (8.00 instead of 7.00-7.30 a.m.), in view of the lapse of time since the events.”
[698] Id., para. 267.
[699] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), p. 21.
[700] Trial Judgement, para. 275.
[701] T. 4 October 2001, pp. 41-43.
[702] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), p. 24.
[703] Id., p. 23.
[704] Id., pp. 23-24.
[705] Id., p. 25; Appeal Brief (G. Ntakirutimana), para. 138.
[706] Trial Judgement, para. 275.
[707] Id.
[708] Id.
[709] Id.
[710] Id.
[711] Id.
[712] Appeal Brief (G. Ntakirutimana), paras. 119-120.
[713] Gourevitch, Philip, We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda, 1998.
[714] Appeal Brief (G. Ntakirutimana), para. 120.
[715] Id.
[716] Trial Judgement, para. 622.
[717] Id., paras. 206-207.
[718] Defence Closing Brief, p. 158.
[719] Trial Judgement, paras. 392-393 (disbelieving SS’s testimony that Gérard Ntakirutimana shot at him); para. 578 (finding SS’s testimony that Elizaphan Ntakirutimana said that God ordered the killing and extermination of Tutsi).
[720] See generally Appeal Brief (G. Ntakirutimana), paras. 153-161.
[721] Id., para. 154.
[722] Id., paras. 154-155; Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), pp. 78-79, 82.
[723] Appeal Brief (G. Ntakirutimana), para. 155.
[724] Id., para. 195.
[725] Trial Judgement, para. 275.
[726] Id., paras. 129, 537, 671.
[727] Id., para. 129; T. 1 October 2001, pp. 62-63 “Mr. Medvene: Didn’t Assiel [sic] Kabera speak to you in 1995 about what occurred, to your knowledge, in April of 1994? Witness FF: No, we did not speak about the events that took place in April 1994 … Mr. Medvene: And is it true, Madam Witness, that sometime in 1995 Assiel [sic] Kabera asked you questions about your knowledge of the occurrences in April of 1994 while you were being videoed? Witness FF: No, I think the person to whom I spoke about these events was the sous-préfect [sic], but that sous-préfet was not from Kibuye originally.”
[728] Trial Judgement, para. 542.
[729] Id., para. 129.
[730] T. 1 October 2001, pp. 68-69, 71-72.
[731] Trial Judgement, para. 129.
[732] See generally Trial Judgement, paras. 127-130; footnote 160 reads “The first statement of 10 October 1995, is a general account of events at the Complex and Bisesero. The second, dated 14 November 1995, consists of responses to questions about Gérard Ntakirutimana. The third declaration of 10 April 1996 gives a description of the events at the Complex and in Bisesero. The fourth statement, signed on 21 October 1999, begins with the witness declaring that she had not been asked about rape or sexual offences in previous interviews. However, the interview provided no such information but contains another account of the Complex and Bisesero events. The fifth statement, dated 14 November 1998, relates to Alfred Musema and makes no reference to either Accused in the present case.”
[733] Trial Judgement, paras. 128, 130.
[734] Id., paras. 541, 542.
[735] Id., footnote 898 reads “According to Witness FF’s second statement of 14 November 1995, Gérard Ntakirutimana ‘had a gun and was shooting people from the top of a hill’ in the company of, among others, Mathias Ngirinshuti. The witness ‘saw him several times’. It follows from her third statement of 10 April 1996 that she saw Gérard Ntakirutimana in ‘several attacks in Bisesero. He was always armed with a rifle and in company with Mathias Ngirinshuti’, and she saw him in ‘one attack actually shooting at people’. The fourth statement of 21 October 1999, which provides most details, refers to two Bisesero events, one in Murambi and one close to ‘spring of water’ near Gitwe Primary School Gitwe (including the exchange between the Accused and the refugees about him being the son of a pastor).”
[736] Trial Judgement, para. 673.
[737] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), pp. 79-81.
[738] See generally Trial Judgement, paras. 652-655.
[739] Trial Judgement, para. 654; “The Chamber notes that the witness and the person interviewed by African Rights bear the same first name and surname, are both farmers from Bisesero born in the same year, and both sustained a machete wound to the left of the head. These are striking similarities.”
[740] Trial Judgement, para. 655.
[741] Appeal Brief (E. Ntakirutimana), CC, pp. 37, 76; DD, pp. 53, 76; MM, pp. 5, 76, 79.