586. The Appellant abandoned the appeal he had initially filed against the sentence. [1081] However, under the section “Relief Requested” in his Appellant’s Brief, he requested that, if the Appeals Chamber quashed one or more of his convictions, but not all of them, it should “reconsider whether the sentence given to Mr. Rutaganda remains appropriate, in all of the circumstances.” [1082]

587. The Prosecution did not present any arguments in response to the Appellant’s request for relief. [1083] In the appeal it filed against the acquittal on Counts 4, 6 and 8: murder as violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the Prosecution indicated that it would not be necessary to reconsider the penalty if it was successful in its appeal, as the Trial Chamber had already sentenced the Appellant to a single sentence of life imprisonment. [1084]

588. The Appeals Chamber will therefore not reconsider the penalty on the grounds of an error of law or fact committed by the Trial Chamber in handing down the sentence, pursuant to Article 24 of the Statute. Considering that the verdict was revised as regards Counts 4, 6 and 7 – murder as violation of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and murder as crime against humanity –, the Appeals Chamber has jurisdiction, in the instant case, to determine whether the evidence Trial Chamber considered in determining the verdict is still valid. [1085]

589.It transpires from the Trial Judgement that the Trial Chamber sentenced the Appellant to a single sentence of life imprisonment for all the counts on which he was found guilty, [1086] namely Counts 1, 2 and 7 alleging the crime of genocide, extermination as crime against humanity and murder as crime against humanity respectively. [1087] Having examined the appeals lodged by the Appellant and the Prosecution, the Appeals Chamber hereby revises the verdict as follows: it affirms the convictions for Counts 1 and 2, namely, genocide and extermination as crime against humanity; [1088]  it reverses the acquittal on Counts 4 and 6 and finds the Appellant guilty of murder as violation of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; it sets aside the conviction on Count 7 and acquits the Appellant of murder as crime against humanity; and it affirms the verdict on all the other counts.

590. The Appeals Chamber reviewed in detail the Trial Chamber’s examination at paragraphs 447 through 473 of the Trial Judgement on the determination of the penalty. The Appeals Chamber notes in particular that the Trial Chamber relied heavily on the fact that the crime of genocide has the unique feature of being committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such. [1089] The Trial Chamber thus found that the crime of genocide constitutes the “crime of crimes” [1090] which must be taken into account in deciding the sentence. [1091] The Appeals Chamber recalls that there is no hierarchy of crimes under the Statute, and that all the crimes specified therein are serious violations of international humanitarian law. [1092] In the instant, an analysis of the Trial Chamber’s conclusions reveals that the key features of its finding on the seriousness of the offence are based on considerations of the Appellant’s conduct and on the fact that genocide is inherently an extremely serious crime. The Appeals Chamber considers such an observation correct in the context of this case. The Appeals Chamber further notes that the Trial Chamber considered the extreme gravity of the crime of genocide, with which the Appellant was charged, as the first aggravating circumstance. [1093] The other factors which weighed in favour of a heavier penalty were that the Appellant: used his status in the community to carry out his crimes; [1094]   played a leading role in the execution of the crimes; [1095] and never showed remorse for the commission of the crimes. [1096] The Trial Chamber found that the aggravating circumstances – notably the abuse of his position of authority and his attitude subsequent to the commission of the crimes [1097] – “outweigh[ed] the mitigating circumstances”. [1098]

591.The Appeals Chamber holds the view that a penalty must reflect the totality of the crimes committed by a person and be proportionate to both the seriousness of the crimes committed and the degree of participation of the person convicted. The gravity of the crime is a key factor that the Trial Chamber considers in determining the sentence. [1099] In the instant case, the Trial Chamber considered the extreme seriousness of the crimes mainly because the crimes were motivated by heinous prejudices based on such factors as race or ethnicity and for the specific intent of destroying the Tutsi group. The gravity of the Appellant’s conduct was emphasized because he abused his personal position in the community to commit the crimes and because of his attitude subsequent to the commission of the crimes.

592.In the opinion of the Appeals Chamber, the finding of not guilty on Count 7, namely murder as a crime against humanity, therefore has no effect on the gravity of the crimes and the Appellant’s conduct on which the Trial Chamber relied in deciding the penalty. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that the Trial Chamber noted in its factual findings that of the 4000 persons taken to Nyanza, only approximately 200 survived the massacre. [1100] It emerges that revision of the verdict in respect of both the acquittals and the new convictions, does not affect the validity of the factual elements which form the basis of the sentence of life imprisonment. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber holds that reconsideration of the sentence handed down by the Trial Chamber is unnecessary.