[Chapter I] [Chapter II] [Chapter III] [Chapter IV] [Chapter V] [Annex IV]
CHAPTER V
SENTENCING
879. The provisions of the Statute and the Rules relevant to the Chamber’s consideration of an appropriate sentence for the Accused are Articles 22, 23 and 26 of the Statute and Rules 102, 103 and 104 of the Rules.
880. Pursuant to Article 23 of the Statute and Rule 101(A) of the Rules, the Tribunal may impose only a term of imprisonment on the person convicted, up to and including imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s life, and the restitution of property or proceeds acquired by criminal conduct.
2. Purposes and Principles of Sentencing
881. Both Accused have been found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. These crimes are of an utmost gravity; they are shocking to the conscience of mankind, in view of the fundamental human values deliberately negated by their perpetrators and the sufferings inflicted. These crimes threaten not only the foundations of the society in which they are perpetrated but also those of the international community as a whole.
882. The gravity of the offences shall therefore be reflected primarily in the Chamber’s decision on the sentence to be inflicted upon the Accused, in order to serve such primary purposes as retribution, deterrence, protection of society, stigmatization and public reprobation of international crimes.General deterrence is particularly emphasized in this respect, so as to demonstrate "that the international community [is] not ready to tolerate serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights". [1178]
883. Article 23 of the Statute and Rule 101(B) of the Rules also require that the individual circumstances of the Accused and the existence of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances in their case be thoroughly considered. Application of these principles allows the Chamber to fulfill its "overriding obligation to individualize [the] penalty", with the aim that the sentence be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [1179]
884. The Chamber emphasizes in this context the importance of the principle of gradation in sentencing, which enables the Tribunals to distinguish between crimes which are of the most heinous nature, and those which, although reprehensible and deserving severe penalty, should not receive the highest penalties. The imposition of the highest penalties upon those at the upper end of the sentencing scale, such as those who planned or ordered atrocities, or those who committed crimes with especial zeal or sadism, enables the Chamber to punish, deter, and consequently stigmatize those crimes at a level that corresponds to their overall magnitude and reflects the extent of the suffering inflicted upon the victims. [1180]
885. This principle is apparent in the relevant dispositions of the Rwandan Criminal Code and the practice of the Rwandan courts in respect of sentencing, which the Chamber duly considered in its decision. Specific reference is made, in this regard, to the different categories of génocidaires or perpetrators of other crimes against humanity and the corresponding sentences to be imposed by the courts of Rwanda in their respect in the the Rwandan Organic Law on the Organization of Prosecutions for Offences constituting Genocide or Crimes against Humanity, committed since 1 October 1990. These range from a death sentence to life imprisonment or a term of imprisonment, depending on the criminal behaviour considered and the existence or not of aggravating circumstances such as the convicted persons’ positions as leaders, the particular cruelty with which their crimes were committed, or their being found guilty of sexual violence. [1181]
886. Article 23 of the Statute and Rule 101(A) of the Rules are consonant with the principle of gradation in sentencing. They provide for flexibility in the determination of the sentence to be imposed. Thus, individuals convicted of genocide, of crimes against humanity or of Violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II pursuant to Articles 2, 3 or 4 of the Statute may each face the highest sentence if the circumstances of the case, after assessment of any individual and mitigating factors, are deemed to require it. By the same token, not all persons convicted of genocide, to name but the "crime of the crimes", are bound to serve the highest sentence.
887. Bearing the above considerations in mind, regard will be had to a further purpose of the sentence, that of a possible rehabilitation of the convicted person. [1182]
3.1 Prosecution
888. In its Sentencing Brief, the Prosecution submits that the extreme gravity of the crimes committed by the Accused calls for a high sentence, especially, considering the following aggravating circumstances, inter alia:
(i) As for Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, he was the overall head of the Mugonero complex and was respected as an "intermediary between the people and God"; he personally ferried attackers to the Complex as well as the Bisesero area; he is responsible for the destruction of the roof of the Murambi Church where Tutsi persons sought refuge. Finally, after the events, he decided to flee Rwanda and failed to perform any burials for the Tutsi killed, or to hold a remembrance service for the dead.(ii) As for GérardNtakirutimana, the Accused was the de facto head of the Mugonero Hospital between 10 and 17 April 1994 as well as a respected person in the community; he took part in meetings to plan the attack on the Complex; he discharged Hutu patients from the hospital just prior to the attack; he went to the Kibuye gendarmerie camp to procure weapons for the attack; he personally took part in the attack on the Complex as well as in the attacks in Bisesero; after the events, he decided to flee Rwanda and failed to perform any burials for the Tutsi killed or to hold a remembrance service for the dead.
889. The Prosecution maintains that there are no mitigating circumstances. Neither Gérard Ntakirutimana nor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana co-operated with the Prosecutor, nor have they shown that in the commission of these crimes they were merely following orders. Also, while character evidence is irrelevant to this case, the Accused have not shown any remorse for their crimes (although it is acknowledged that a Trial Chamber may consider evidence of background, character, prior criminal acts, and any other information that it deems relevant in determining an appropriate sentence).
890. The Prosecution concludes that both of the Accused fall under Category 1 of Rwanda’s Organic Law and that they would have received the death penalty if they had been tried and convicted in Rwanda; that a separate sentence should be applied for each of the counts on which the Accused have been found guilty and, finally, that they should each serve the more severe sentence, imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives. [1183]
3.2 Defence
891. The Defence made no specific submissions on sentencing. Its case being that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused and that the Accused are innocent of the charges against them, the Defence requests that the Accused be set free. The Defence also called several witnesses and submitted many statements of friends and colleagues, who emphasised the good character of both Accused, their integrity, and the services that they rendered to the community. It is further submitted that Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s life work was dedicated to saving souls and his son’s, to healing the sick and saving lives. Furthermore, both Accused testified about their many years of dedication to church and community. Finally, it is submitted that neither of the Accused was in a position to prevent or stop the massacres, and that they were themselves victims who became refugees. [1184]
892. The Chamber has already noted the gravity of the crimes of which the Accused have been found guilty. It now turns to the personal and individual circumstances of the Accused, prior to reviewing the practice of the Tribunal in respect of sentences in cases with similarities to the present one.
893. The Chamber recalls at the outset the general principle that only matters proved a beyond a reasonable doubt against the Accused are to be considered against them at the sentencing stage. This principle extends to the assessment of any aggravating factors. [1185] Another standard applies to the Chamber’s assessment of mitigating factors. These shall be taken into consideration if established on a balance of probabilities. [1186] Also, the Chamber agrees with the Vasiljevic Trial Chamber of the ICTY that a particular circumstance shall not be retained as aggravating if it is included as an element of the crime in consideration. [1187]
4.1 Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
894. It is recalled that Elizaphan Ntakirutimana was born in 1924 in Ngoma sector, Gishyita commune, Kibuye prefecture, Rwanda.
(a) Mitigating Circumstances
895. The Chamber has found that the Accused was a highly respected personality within the Seventh-Day Adventist Church of the West-Rwanda Field and beyond, in the Kibuye prefecture. It heard and reviewed moving testimony from colleagues and supervisors of the Accused within the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. This evidence consistently described the Pastor’s exemplary life as a church leader, a highly religious and tolerant person, who did not show ethnic bias, even in times of unrest and ethnic tension, for over half a century. Significantly, one such colleague praised "a faithful and honest worker who manifested courage in confronting irregularities with workers of either tribal affiliation" while an other described Pastor Ntakirutimana as "a kind Christian gentleman", an outstanding worker whom he found to be fair and trustworthy, whom he never saw lose his temper, who "worked well with the Hutus and the Tutsis" and whom he never saw making any distinction in their respect. As already stated, the Chamber accepts this evidence and finds that Elizaphan Ntakirutimana was essentially a person of good moral character until the events of April to July 1994 during which he was swept along with many Rwandans into criminal conduct. [1188]
896. The family situation of the Accused has been taken into account (Elizaphan Ntakirutimana is married with eight children of whom seven were alive in 2002).
897. In respect of his conduct during the events of 1994, the Chamber has considered that Elizaphan Ntakirutimana did not play a leading role in the attacks. He did not personally participate in these killings, nor was he found to have fired on refugees or even to have carried a weapon.
898. Finally, 78 years of age at the time of sentencing, the Accused has spent more than four years in detention. His wife, among other witnesses, has testified about his frail health, due to a condition from which he has suffered for years. His poor health was evident throughout the trial proceedings. Considered together, the Chamber finds that these are important mitigating circumstances in Elizaphan Ntakirutimana’s case.
(b) Aggravating Circumstances:
899. The Chamber now turns to the circumstances considered as aggravating in the Accused’s case.
900. As a highly respected personality and a man wielding certain authority within the Seventh-Day Adventist Church of the West-Rwanda Field and in the Kibuye prefecture, the Accused was deemed to have abused the trust placed in him.
901. The letter written to him by the Tutsi Pastors on behalf of the refugees at the Mugonero Complex was found, among other evidence, to be a symbol of his perceived authority among the general population. It is recalled that the Mugonero refugees trusted that, on the eve of the attack, Pastor Ntakirutimana would intercede in their favor before a municipal authority such as bourgmestre Sikubwabo, and that his intervention could prove instrumental in saving their lives.
902. Many among the refugees at the Mugonero Complex on 16 April 1994 were parishioners and pastors of the West-Rwanda Field of the Seventh Day Adventist Church for which Pastor Ntakirutimana was responsible. These persons were in his care. They were his "flock", to recall the wording of the Pastors’ letter. On his return from Gishyita, he failed to go in person before the Pastors and the refugees to inform them of the bourgmestre’s negative response to their plea. As noted earlier, the Accused thus distanced himself from his Tutsi pastors and his flock in the hour of their need. [1189] This, which may be characterised as dishonourable for a man of the cloth, was considered as an aggravating factor.
903. Later, on the same day, he further abused the trust the refugees placed in him by conveying individuals, whom he knew were set upon attacking them, to the Complex. The same abuse of trust was considered an aggravating circumstance in respect to his association with attackers in Bisesero.
904. Furthermore, considering his authority, as emphasized above, his presence at the scene of the attack against the Complex, not to mention his association with the génocidaires he ferried in his own vehicle, could only have been construed by the attackers as an approval of their actions, if not an incitement thereto. The same circumstance was considered aggravating in respect of the Accused’s involvement in attacks launched on Tutsi refugees in Bisesero.
905. Another aggravating circumstance in respect of his association in the attack of 16 April 1994 is that the Mugonero Complex was considered a safe haven. Similarly, in Bisesero, he was found to have associated himself with attacks against a church and schools or other buildings where the Tutsi refugees were seeking shelter.
(c) Conclusion
906. Having reviewed all circumstances in the Accused’s case, individual, mitigating and aggravating, the Chamber declares itself sympathetic to the individual and mitigating circumstances of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana. Special weight has been given, in reaching its decision on the sentence, to his age, his state of health, his past good character and public service.
4.2 Gérard Ntakirutama
907. The Chamber now turns to the Accused Gérard Ntakirutimana, born in 1958 in Ngoma sector, Gishyita commune, Kibuye prefecture, Rwanda.
(a) Mitigating Circumstances
908. The Chamber notes that, at the time of sentencing, the Accused was 44 years old, that he is married and that he has three children. To his credit, the Accused did not profess or show ethnic bias prior to the events. Furthermore, the Chamber has made statements on his good character. [1190] The Chamber particularly bears in mind how, during his testimony, Gérard Ntakirutimana related what prompted his return to Rwanda in 1993, namely his hope to contribute to development and to promote peace within his country. However, these considerations do not detract from the fact that, in times of ethnic bias and tension in the prefecture, he associated with the génocidaires in his area and became one of them. These circumstances were accordingly deemed to carry little weight.
909. The Chamber further considered as mitigating factors the following actions of the Accused, which were not contradicted by the Prosecutor, in April and May 1994:
(i) The night of 7 April 1994, the Accused provided shelter in his house to the wife, daughter and two grandchildren of Israël Nsengimana, a Tutsi colleague and friend of his; [1191](ii) On 8 April 1994, he proposed to Catherine, his Tutsi house-help, to stay in their family home, as he feared for her security; [1192](iii) A few days before 16 April 1994, he drove Clémentine, the Tutsi wife of Jean Nkuranga, himself a Tutsi and the director of the ESI Nursing School, to Gisovu, and their children, as part of the evacuation from the Complex of families of senior Hutu employees; [1193](iv) During an entire week, while in Gishyita, he took in his care two orphaned and injured Tutsi children he had found among scattered bodies, nearby the Mugonero Hospital, on 18 April 1994. [1194]
(b) Aggravating Circumstances
910. Turning now to the aggravating circumstances in the Accused’s case, the Chamber notes that, although not to the same extent as his father, Gérard Ntakirutimana was a prominent personality in the Mugonero area. A doctor, he was one of the few individuals in his area of origin to have achieved a higher education and one of the rare schooled in Western universities. It is particularly egregious that, as a medical doctor, he took lives instead of saving them. He was accordingly found to have abused the trust placed in him in committing the crimes of which he was found guilty.
911. Furthermore, in several instances the Accused was found to have led attackers against Tutsi refugees.
912. Other aggravating circumstances taken into consideration are: that his crimes were committed with unabated zeal over a lengthy period of time (approximately two months and a half); that he personally shot at Tutsi refugees and that he thus directly and personally contributed to the sheer death toll among the mainly defenseless Tutsi population at the Mugonero Complex and in Bisesero (as evidenced in the case of Charles Ukobizaba, Esdras and the wife of Nzamwita); that he participated in the attack against a safe haven such as the Mugonero Complex, including the very hospital in which he was a doctor, not to mention the specific attacks in Bisesero of which he was found guilty, that targeted schools and other buildings in which refugees sought nightly shelter.
(c) Conclusion
913. Having reviewed all circumstances in the Accused’s case, individual, mitigating and aggravating, the Chamber finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances in Gérard Ntakirutimana’s case.
4.3 Sentences Imposed in Other Cases of the Tribunal of Relevance to the Present Case
914. Clément Kayishema, the former Prefect of Kibuye Prefecture, Alfred Musema, the former Director of the Gisovu Tea Factory in the Kibuye Prefecture, and Obed Ruzindana, a successful businessman from Kibuye, have been convicted and sentenced by the Tribunal for genocide and (as far as Alfred Musema is concerned) crimes against humanity, committed against the mainly Tutsi population in Bisesero or elsewhere in the Kibuye prefecture between April and June 1994. Clément Kayishema and Alfred Musema are serving sentences of imprisonment for the remainder of their lives, while Obed Ruzindana was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment. Their names often resurfaced in the testimony of witnesses when describing attacks during which they saw the Accused in the present case.
915. Kayishema, Musema and Ruzindana were all found guilty, inter alia, of leading assailants against Tutsi refugees in Bisesero and of personally attacking and of firing on these refugees. The gravity of their direct involvement in the execution of genocide or crimes against humanity does not compare with the crimes retained against Elizaphan Ntakirutimana in this Chamber’s Verdict. The particular individual, mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the sentencing of these three Accused, as well as the balance struck by the concerned Chambers, after weighing all circumstances, are also distinct. The Chamber, accordingly, has determined that the sentencing in the cases of Kayishema, Musema and Ruzindana should have little import on the present decision regarding the sentence for Elizaphan Ntakirutimana.
916. The crimes of which they were found guilty do compare, in some respects, to those retained against Gérard Ntakirutimana in the Verdict. The Accused, like Alfred Musema, Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, was found to have led attackers in the Bisesero hills and to have personally shot at Tutsi refugees. However, among other considerations, Clément Kayishema’s position of authority as Prefect of the Kibuye Prefecture was held not to compare with the Accused Gérard Ntakirutimana’s circumstances. Similarly, the Chamber notes that Alfred Musema was found guilty of both direct responsibility under Article 6(1) of the Statute and command responsibility under Article 6(3) of the Statute for his effective control over actions of employees of the Gisovu Tea Factory in Bisesero. Gérard Ntakirutimana, on the other hand, was found guilty of his crimes pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute only. Furthermore, Alfred Musema was found by the concerned Trial Chamber to have assumed leadership during attacks to a wider extent than Gérard Ntakirutimana. Lastly, Obed Ruzindana’s case was deemed to have more similarity to that of the Accused, even though not in all respects and with altogether differing individual, mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
917. As a preliminary matter, the Chamber notes the well-established practice in this Tribunal and the ICTY, as confirmed by their respective Appeals Chambers, which have confirmed that Rule 87(C) and Rule 101(C) of the Rules are worded with sufficient liberality for a single sentence to be imposed on the Accused. [1195] The Chamber recalls that, even where the crimes may be characterized in different ways, the imposition of a single sentence will usually be appropriate in cases in which the offences may be recognized as belonging to a single criminal transaction. [1196] However, the decision whether to impose a single sentence is left entirely to the discretion of the Chamber, so long as the fundamental consideration in imposing sentence is the totality of the criminal conduct of the accused. [1197]
918. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, having considered all of the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the Statute, and the Rules, the Trial Chamber imposes sentence as follows, delivering its decision in public, inter partes and in the first instance, and noting the general practice regarding sentencing in Rwanda,
5.1 Sentence for Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
919. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana was found guilty of Genocide (Count 1A of the Mugonero Indictment and Count 1 of the Bisesero Indictment).
920. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana was found not guilty of:
(i) Complicity in genocide (Count 1B Mugonero Indictment and Count 2 of the Bisesero Indictment);(ii) Conspiracy to commit genocide (Count 2 of the Mugonero Indictment and Count 3 of the Bisesero Indictment);(iii) Murder considered as a crime against humanity (Count 3 of the Mugonero Indictment and Count 4 of the Bisesero Indictment);(iv) Extermination considered as a crime against humanity (Count 4 of the Mugonero Indictment and Count 5 of the Bisesero Indictment);(v) Other inhumane acts considered as a crime against humanity (Count 5 of the Mugonero Indictment and Count 6 of the Bisesero Indictment);(vi) Serious violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II thereto(Count 7 of the Bisesero Indictment).
921. For the crime upon which conviction was entered against the Accused, the Chamber SENTENCES Elizaphan Ntakirutimana to:
IMPRISONMENT FOR 10 YEARS.
5.2 Sentence for Gérard Ntakirutimana
922. Gérard Ntakirutimana has been found guilty of:
(i) Genocide (Count 1A of the Mugonero Indictment and Count 1 of the Bisesero Indictment);(ii) Murder considered as a crime against humanity (Count 3 of the Mugonero Indictment and Count 4 of the Bisesero Indictment);
923. Gérard Ntakirutimana has been found not guilty of:
(i) Complicity in genocide (Count 1B Mugonero Indictment and Count 2 of the Bisesero Indictment(ii) Conspiracy to commit genocide (Count 2 of the Mugonero Indictment and Count 3 of the Bisesero Indictment);(iii) Extermination considered as a crime against humanity (Count 4 of the Mugonero Indictment and Count 5 of the Bisesero Indictment);(iv) Other inhumane acts considered as a crime against humanity (Count 5 of the Mugonero Indictment and Count 6 of the Bisesero Indictment);(v) Serious violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II thereto (Count 7 of the Bisesero Indictment).
924. For the crimes upon which conviction was entered against the Accused, the Chamber SENTENCES Gérard Ntakirutimana to:
IMPRISONMENT FOR 25 YEARS
6. Credit for Time Served and Execution of Sentence
925. ElizaphanNtakirutimana was first arrested in Texas, USA, on 29 September 1996. He was subsequently released and then rearrested on 26 February 1998. He was transferred to the Tribunal on 24 March 2000 and has been detained in the United Nations Detention Facilities at Arusha (UNDF) ever since.
926. Gérard Ntakirutimana was arrested on 29 October 1996 in the Ivory Coast and transferred to the Tribunal on 30 November 1996. He has since his transfer been detained in the UNDF.
927. Pursuant to Rules 101(D) and 102(A) of the Rules, the sentences imposed upon the Accused shall begin to run from today. The full amount of time spent in custody by Elizaphan Ntakirutimana and Gérard Ntakirutimana pending their surrender to the Tribunal and while detained in the UNDF shall be deducted from the time to be served by them.
928. The above sentences shall be served in a State designated by the President of the Tribunal, in consultation with the Trial Chamber. The Government of Rwanda and the designated State shall be notified of such designation by the Registrar.
929. Until their transfer to their designated place or places of imprisonment, Elizaphan and Gérard Ntakirutimana shall be kept in detention under the present conditions.
930. Pursuant to Rule 102(B) of the Rules, on notice of appeal, if any, enforcement of the above sentences shall be stayed until a decision has been rendered on the appeal, with the convicted persons nevertheless remaining in detention.
Arusha,
21 February 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Seal of the Tribunal)
[1178] Kambanda (TC) para. 28, endorsed in Aleksovski (AC) para. 66.
[1179] Delalic (AC) para. 717; Akayesu (AC) para. 407.
[1180] The principle of gradation in sentencing was first acknowledged in the ICTY as reflecting the relative role of the individual accused in the overall context of the conflict. See Delalic (AC) para. 849 and Aleksovski (AC) para. 184. It was endorsed by the Appeals Chamber in the Musema (AC) paras. 381 and 382.
[1181] See Organic Law No. 8/96 of 30 August 1996, published in the Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, 35th year. No. 17, 1 September 1996. The full text of the Organic Law is available on the official Website of the Embassy of the Republic of Rwanda in Washington, D.C at <http://www.rwandemb.org/prosecution/law.htm>. Prior to the Organic Law, including in 1994, the relevant law in force was the Rwandan Penal Code of 18 August 1977. Under the Code, the penalty for murder was life imprisonment, or death in cases involving premeditation or ambush (Article 311 and 312, respectively). While Rwanda ratified the Genocide Convention on 12 February 1975, the Code does not list genocide or crimes against humanity as separate criminal categories. See Code Pénal (18 August 1977), in Filip Reyntjens and Jan Gorus (eds.), Codes et Lois du Rwanda (Butare: Université Nationale du Rwanda, 1995).
[1182] Blaskic (TC) para. 761; Kunarac (TC) para. 836; Serushago (TC) para. 39; Kayishema and Ruzindana (TC) para. 2, upheld in Kayishema and Ruzindana (AC) para. 389 and 390.
[1183] Prosecutor’s Sentencing Brief of 4 July 2002 para. 44-57, 67, 81, 85.
[1184] See T. 22 August 2002 pp. 57 and 58 and Defence Closing Brief pp. 1-12.
[1185] Delalic (AC) para. 763; Vasiljevic (TC) para. 272.
[1186] Kunarac (TC) para. 857, Sikirica (TC) para. 110; Vasiljevic (TC) para. 272.
[1187] Specifically, the Vasiljevic Trial Chamber ruled that the perpetrator’s discriminatory intent in the commission of the crime “can only [constitute an aggravating factor] where the crime for which an accused is convicted does not include a discriminatory state of mind as an element.” Hence, one’s discriminatory intent was not deemed an aggravating factor in respect of a count of persecution considered as a crime against humanity (Article 5(h) of the ICTY Statute). It was however considered an aggravating factor in respect of a count of murder considered as a violation of the laws and customs of war (Article 3 of the ICTY Statute). Vasiljevic (TC) para. 277-278.
[1188] In the words of, respectively, Robert Peck, former President of the Union Mission of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Rwanda from 1984 to 1990 and Pastor De Witt S. Williams, former President of the Central Africa Union of the Church from 1979 to 1982. This correspondence is included in Defence Exhibit 1D21. See also II.6 supra (Character of the Accused Prior to April 1994) and particularly the Chamber’s findings at II.6.3.1.
[1189] See supra II.3.8.3 (b).
[1190] See II.6.3.2 supra.
[1191] See T. 9 May 2002 pp. 33-34 (Gérard Ntakirutimana); T. 11 April 2002 pp. 76-77 and 97-98 (Ann Nzahumunyurwa).
[1192] See T. 9 May 2002 pp. 33-36 (Gérard Ntakirutimana) and T. 11 April 2002 pp. 76 and 77 (Ann Nzahumunyurwa).
[1193] See para. 116 supra.
[1194] T. 9 May 2002 pp. 118-119 and 124-127; T. 10 May 2002 pp. 84-85. Gérard Ntakirutimana’s testimony was corroborated by his mother, Royisi Ntakirutimana (T. 11 April 2002 p. 5), and his father (T. 7 May 2002 pp. 21-24).
[1195] Kambanda (AC) para. 103; Kunarac (AC) para. 344.
[1196] Blaskic (TC) para. 807; Krstic (TC) para. 725.
[1197] Delalic (AC) para. 771; Kunarac (AC) para. 343.
[Chapter I] [Chapter II] [Chapter III] [Chapter IV] [Chapter V] [Annex IV]