4. FACTUAL FINDINGS

4.1. Paragraph 10 of the Indictment

4.2. Paragraph 11 of the Indictment

4.3. Paragraph 12 of the Indictment

4.4. Paragraphs 13,14, 15 and 16 of the Indictment

4.5. Paragraph 17 of the Indictment

4.6. Paragraph 18 of the Indictment

4.7 Paragraph 19 of the Indictment

4.8 General Allegations (Paragraphs 3-9 of the Indictment)

4.1 Paragraph 10 of the Indictment

  1. Paragraph 10 of the indictment reads as follows:

    "On or about April 6, 1994, Georges Rutaganda distributed guns and other weapons to Interahamwe members in Nyarugenge commune, Kigali."

Events alleged

  1. Witness J, a Tutsi man who lived in the Cyahafi sector in the Nyarugenge Commune, testified that he had known the Accused since he was young because they were in neighboring Communes. He knew the Accused as the President of a sports team, as a Tuborg beer importer, and as someone he had seen leading several demonstrations of the Interahamwe of the MRND party. Witness J said that on 15 April, a policeman named Munyawara arrived in Cyahafi from Kimisagara and said that the Inyenzi had attacked and shot at the councillor of Cyahafi sector. The policeman gathered people together, including Witness J, and told them to follow him to go and fight the Inyenzi who were coming down.
  2. Witness J said the group stopped just below a bar called Mount Kigali by a public standpipe near Mr. Shyirakera's house. At 3:00 p.m., they saw a pick-up truck arrive and stop near the standpipe. They approached the truck and saw two people in front and two people in back in the open bed of the truck. The Accused got out on the passenger side, and went to the back of the truck. He opened the cab and they saw him distributing weapons to young people, some of whom Witness J said he recognized as Interahamwe. Among these he named Bizimungo, Ziad, Muzehe, Cyuma and Polisi and said they were Interahamwe who had gone for training in the Commune of Bicumbi. He said they were his neighbors and he knew them. Witness J said that he was close to the vehicle, indicating the length of the courtroom as a measure. He clarified on examination that the Accused did not himself distribute the weapons but was standing next to the truck as they were distributed. After this distribution of weapons, according to Witness J, the shooting started. Witness J testified that Muzehe immediately shot someone called Rusagara, who was standing with them, and Rusagara died on the spot. He estimated that from the time of the arrival of the vehicle to the time of this first shot, less than ten minutes passed. When he heard the shot, Witness J immediately fled. The shooting continued, and Muzehe and Bizimungo shot at young people known to Witness J, whom he named as Kalinda Viater and Musoni Emmanuel. Witness J saw them fall immediately and jumped over their bodies as he fled home. He stated that all the men he saw shot were Tutsi.
  3. On cross-examination, the Defence produced two pre-trial written statements of Witness J. In the first statement, which was dated 5 December 1995, the witness said the event described had occurred on 6 April 1994. In the second statement, which was dated 3 May 1996, the witness had corrected this date to read 7 April 1994. Witness J maintained that it was either 15 or 16 April that Munyawera came to gather people together and stated that he had said it was 16 April at the time he made the statement. Witness J noted that it must have been 16 April, as on 6 April the plane had not yet been shot down. He said it was not possible that this happened on 7 April either because there was still calm on that date. He also stated that he did not remember saying to the Office of the Prosecutor that the event took place on 7 April.
  4. Witness J was also questioned as to whether the councillor of Cyahafi was shot before or after the distribution of arms. In his testimony he indicated the shooting was beforehand and in the pre-trial statement it was indicated as having happened afterwards. The witness stated that the councillor was shot during a meeting which took place before the firearms arrived. He suggested that what he said might not have been written down accurately. He explained that he had been in a hurry to get back to work when the interpreter translated the statement into Kinyarwanda. The interpreter had said he would come back to him with a revised statement but Witness J said he never did. When asked whether he had not met with investigators again on 3 May 1996, he said he didn't really remember that.
  5. Witness J confirmed on cross-examination that the Accused did not distribute the weapons but that he got out and stood next to the vehicle while those in the back distributed the weapons. Witness J was also questioned as to when he fled - whether it was after Mr. Rusagara had been shot as he stated on direct examination, or as soon as people began getting out of the pickup truck, as reported in the pre-trial written statement. He responded that when the young men received weapons and approached them, they thought they were going to be defended. But then the firing began and at that time he fled.
  6. Witness M, a Tutsi man, testified that he was in Nyarugenge Commune, in the sector of Kimisagara, when he heard of the President's plane crash on RTLM radio. On the next day, 7 April, he went to take refuge at the CHK hospital, which was 8 km from his house, after seeing people who had been killed by the Interahamwe and left strewn along the road, including neighbors he knew. On the way to the hospital he saw Interahamwe who were armed and bodies of people who had just been killed. He also saw two roadblocks, manned by soldiers and Interahamwe, with dead bodies lying nearby. He avoided these roadblocks for fear of being killed. At the hospital, Witness M saw many refugees and many dead bodies, three of which he recognized as Minister Zamubarumbao Fredrick and his daughter, and councillor Ngango Felistian. On 12 April, Witness M left the hospital and went to the Cyahafi sector, where he took refuge in the home of Nyamugambo, a Tutsi man, who told him that the sector was being protected by soldiers.
  7. Witness M said that the sector was peaceful until 15 April, when the Accused "had the killings started". He said he saw the Accused at 9:30 a.m. with six people inside a pick-up truck. They were armed with guns and wearing UNAMIR clothing and vests. Witness M was at a standpipe with other people, and had been there about one hour when the Accused arrived, wearing a military uniform, and stopped in front of the house of Shirakara Nishon. After he arrived, Witness M saw the Accused giving the guns he had brought to the Interahamwe, and saw him give a gun to a man named Muzehe. Witness M said the Accused sent his driver, Francois, to look for Interahamwe to whom the guns would be distributed. He said the guns were short black rifles, which he saw himself, and he said he knew the men were Interahamwe because the person leading them was the vice-president of the Interahamwe and they were wearing the clothing of the MRND party. He said that the Accused told the Interahamwe to kill the Tutsi and if they did not, he would bring in a tank to exterminate them all. Witness M said he was eight to ten meters away from the vehicle and that the Accused, whom he identified in court, was speaking in a loud voice.
  8. Witness M said that the killing began that afternoon. After hearing the Accused say that the Tutsi should be killed, Witness M went back to where he was staying. In the afternoon, Muzehe shot Nyamugambo, the person who had provided refuge to Witness M, with the gun he had received from the Accused and then he came to loot the house. Witness M heard Muzehe say to an Interahamwe who was with him that he was going to tell the Accused that he had already started the job, and Muzehe left directly to go towards the Accused. Witness M was not able to hear what was said thereafter because he fled immediately. He stated that Muzehe did not kill him immediately because Muzehe was his friend and a taxi driver for whom he was a client. According to Witness M, of the 31 people who took refuge in Nyamugambo's house prior to the 15 April, the others were all killed by the Interahamwe. He said he knew they died because he hadn't seen them since. Witness M subsequently sought refuge with Alexander Murego, whose house was nearby, and he stayed in this house until the end of the war, during which his parents were killed.
  9. On cross-examination, Defence counsel questioned the circumstances in which Witness M went to the CHK. The witness stated that he went alone and that all those in the house with him separated when they fled. Defence counsel questioned the date on which Witness M saw the Accused, which he testified had been 15 April. In the pre-trial written statement dated December 4, 1995, the date had been recorded as 16 April. The witness maintained that it was 15 April when he saw the Accused. The Defence pointed out to the witness that on direct examination he had testified that he was with five to ten people at the standpipe, whereas his written statement had indicated that eighty people were there, and that while he testified that the date on which he left his house for refuge was 7 April, the pre-trial written statement indicated this date as 9 April. Witness M affirmed that there were eighty people at the standpipe as he had said in the pre-trial statement. He maintained that he left his house on 7 April, suggesting that it may have been written down incorrectly.
  10. The Defence also challenged Witness M to explain why he had testified that he went to the standpipe to get water, while the pre-trial written statement indicates that he said he went to the standpipe to get guns, which he heard would be handed out for protection of the Tutsi. Witness M affirmed that he went to get guns as stated in his pre-trial statement and he said he thought he had testified to this on direct examination. Defence counsel pointed out that Witness M's statement says that when he reached the standpipe the Accused had already arrived, whereas in his testimony Witness M said that he had been there for an hour when the Accused arrived. Defence counsel questioned Witness M as to how he knew that the people with the Accused were Interahamwe. He said he knew a number of them and that they were the ones carrying guns and killing. Witness M was also questioned on his testimony that they were wearing UNAMIR clothing, which he said he had heard had been taken from the Belgian soldiers who were killed.
  11. Witness M reaffirmed on cross-examination that he heard the Accused say to the Interahamwe that they should go and kill the Tutsi or he would bring tanks to exterminate them. He was asked why he had not mentioned having heard this in his pre-trial statement, and he indicated that the statement he made at that time had been limited, whereas the Tribunal had not limited him and asked him for many more facts. He affirmed that the statement made by the Accused was the immediate provocation to begin killings. When asked how he could have forgotten to mention such an important statement, he said his memory was not good.
  12. Defence counsel questioned Witness M on a number of other details relating to the incident. In response to the question of whether or not Muzehe was armed before he received a weapon from the Accused, Witness M stated that he did not remember well, that he had given approximate dates and numbers, and that his statement had been made a long time ago. He again reviewed details of the event, stating that the eighty people present were crowded but not too closely, and reaffirming the details of his earlier testimony of the killing of Nyamugambo and that he witnessed this killing.
  13. Witness U testified that after the death of the President, the Interahamwe began killing in Nyarugenge. After two days, he left his home because of the killing. He said the Interahamwe stopped him and others with him, arrested them and took them to a place where they were killing people. According to Witness U, soldiers from the Kigali camp arrived at around 2:30 p.m. to calm down the situation. They told the Interahamwe to stop killing, which they did briefly, and the soldiers went back to their camp. Afterwards, Witness U said that the Accused arrived, driving a pickup truck which was filled with firearms and machetes which he himself saw. Witness U stated that he knew the Accused because he had a shop in the business district which sold beer. Witness U said the Accused distributed the weapons to the Interahamwe and ordered them to work, and the Accused said there was a lot of dirt that needed to be cleaned up. The Accused remained there with a rifle which he had over his shoulder.
  14. Seeing this, Witness U said he left the place because they had started killing the people who remained. He hid in bushes below a nearby garage, which appeared to the Chamber to be the Amgar garage. At this time it was 3:00 p.m. and there was no one at the garage. Witness U then saw the Accused arrive, with many other Interahamwe who seemed to be his guards. Witness U estimated that they were approximately thirty in number. Witness U was very near the garage and said he could see clearly through the bush. He said the Accused spoke loudly as there were many people, and Witness U was able to hear. Witness U said this incident took place just below the garage. He said he did not know the name of the owner of the garage. Witness U left the bushes and went further down. When he turned around he saw that they were killing people with machetes and throwing them in the hole.
  15. On cross examination, Witness U was asked how he knew the Accused, how often he had seen him and where. The witness replied that he used to see the Accused in Kigali, in his shop or when he passed by on the way to meetings. He said he knew the Accused was President of the Interahamwe from the radio and from the meetings, and the fact that he took the floor at the meetings and spoke on the radio. On further questioning regarding how he knew the Accused to be President of the Interahamwe and the relationship between the MRND and the Interahamwe, Witness U said he had heard the Accused on the radio encouraging people to kill one another but that this was before the war.
  16. When questioned on the distribution of weapons he witnessed, Witness U affirmed that this event took place two days after the President's plane was shot down. When confronted by Defence counsel with his pre-trial written statement, which recorded him as having said that the distribution took place on a Friday at the end of April 1994, he said he did not remember telling investigators that it was at the end of April. He said the day Agakingiro was attacked was the same day the weapons were distributed and the killings took place.
  17. Witness U affirmed having said to investigators that he hid near the Accused's garage. When Defence counsel recalled that on direct examination he had said he did not know whose garage it was he hid near, he affirmed having said that he did not know the owner of the garage. Defence counsel elicited further detail from the witness on the circumstances prior to the arrival of the Accused in a pickup with weapons, and the witness affirmed that soldiers told the Interahamwe, who he said were from Kimisagara and Cyahafi, to stop killing. He stated that the soldiers did not seize the weapons and left the Interahamwe armed.
  18. Witness T testified that he was a neighbour of the Accused in Cyahafi sector, and that he knew him. He said that the killings that started after the death of the President on 6 April did not reach Cyahafi until late April because there was a group of Abakombozi, people from the Parti Social Democrate ("PSD"), defending the sector from Interahamwe from neighboring sectors. He said that around the time of 24 April, the Interahamwe attacked the Abakombozi and the killings started at around 5 p.m. He said the Interahamwe used guns in the attack. Witness T said that the Accused was present during the attack and had a red pick-up in which he brought weapons. He said that the Accused was standing in the vehicle and at that time the Tutsis and Hutus were separated and that when the killings were taking place, the Accused was sitting in the vehicle. He had an Uzzi gun, and Uzzi guns were being used for the killings. Witnes T said there were guns in the pick-up and that the Accused distributed some of them and the rest stayed in the pick-up. He said the Accused was assisted by the senior Interahamwe in the neighborhood, including Francois, the President of the Interahamwe in Cyahafi. He said the Accused gave the weapons to the President of the Interahamwe, who in turn distributed them. He said the Interahamwe gave weapons to those in the neighborhood who did not have any. On cross-examination, Witness T was asked about the weapons that he saw the Accused distribute, and specifically whether there pistols or only guns. He replied that the only type of weapon brought by the Accused was the Uzzi, although the Interahamwe may have gotten pistols from elsewhere.
  19. Witness Q also stated that the Accused distributed firearms. Responding to questions from the Judges on the connection between the Accused and the Interahamwe, Witness Q testified that the Accused was a leader of the Interahamwe and cited the fact that he was the one who distributed firearms and ordered the distribution of firearms. Witness Q also stated that everyone said that the Accused was distributing weapons at the Commune level. Witness Q was not cross-examined on this statement.

Factual Findings

  1. Witness J and Witness M both testified about a distribution of firearms which took place in mid-April in Cyahafi Sector, Nyarugenge Commune. The Chamber found Witness J to be credible. He was consistent in his testimony on cross-examination and provided reasonable responses to the questions raised on cross-examination with regard to inconsistencies between his testimony and his pre-trial statement. Witness M, however, stated on cross-examination, that his memory had been affected by the events he had witnessed. The Chamber considers the testimony of Witness M to be unreliable with respect to details, particularly on dates, time, numbers and the sequence of events. The inconsistencies which arose in his testimony during cross-examination as well as the inconsistencies between his testimony and his pre-trial written statement are of a material nature in some cases. Although parts of his evidence are corroborated by the evidence of Witness J, other parts are materially inconsistent with the evidence of Witness J. Although the Chamber found Witness M to be a credible witness in that he made a sincere effort truthfully to recall what he saw and heard, and readily acknowledged his memory lapses, the Chamber considers that it cannot rely on the testimony of Witness M in its findings. The Chamber found Witness U, Witness T and Witness Q to be credible in their testimonies.
  2. The Chamber notes that the testimony of the Accused and Witness DDD indicates that the Accused did leave his house on 8 April, and that he was in Kigali at the Amgar office on 15 April and on 24 April. His defence to the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of the Indictment is a bare denial. The Chamber notes that under cross-examination, the Defence did not suggest to the Prosecution witnesses that the Accused had not participated in the distribution of weapons, or that he was not present at Nyarugenge Commune on 8, 15 and 24 April 1994. Further the Defence did not produce any witnesses to confirm an alibi by testifying that the Accused was elsewhere when the events described by the Prosecution witnesses took place, as he does in respect of other allegations in the Indictment. A number of Defence witnesses testified that the Accused was very busy selling beer after his return to Kigali on 14 April, but the Chamber considers that selling beer would not have precluded the Accused from also engaging in the distribution of guns as alleged by the Prosecutor. For these reasons, the Chamber considers that the Defence has not provided evidence which effectively refutes the evidence presented by the Prosecutor in support of the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of the Indictment.
  3. The Chamber finds that on 15 April 1994 in the afternoon, the Accused arrived in a pick-up truck, with a driver and two men in the back, at a public standpipe in Cyahafi Sector, Nyarugenge Commune. In the back of the pickup truck were guns. The Accused got out of the vehicle, opened the back of the truck, and the men in the back distributed the guns to Interahamwe, including Bizimungo, Ziad, Muzehe, Cyuma and Polisi, while the Accused stood by. A crowd of people, including Witness J, had been gathered together at the standpipe by a policeman named Munyawara before the arrival of the Accused. Immediately following the distribution of the guns, Muzehe shot Rusagara, who died on the spot, and the shooting continued. Kalinda Viater and Musoni Emmanuel were shot by Muzehe and Bizimungo and fell immediately. All of the men shot were Tutsi. The crowd did not immediately disperse when the guns were distributed because they had been led to believe the Interahamwe who had received the weapons would protect them.
  4. The Chamber finds that on the afternoon of 8 April 1994, the Accused arrived in a pickup truck at a place in Nyarugenge where the Interahamwe had been taking and killing people from the Commune. The pickup truck was filled with firearms and machetes, which the Accused distributed to the Interahamwe. He ordered them to work and said that there was a lot of dirt that needed to be cleaned up. The Accused was armed with a rifle slung over his shoulder and a machete hanging from his belt.
  5. The Chamber finds that on or about 24 April in Cyahafi sector, the Accused distributed Uzzi guns to the president of the Interahamwe of Cyahafi during an attack by the Interahamwe on the Abakombozi.
  6. In its findings on these three incidents, the Chamber notes certain common features. In each case, the Accused arrived in a pick-up truck with guns, which he distributed or had distributed, to Interahamwe in Nyarugenge Commune. The distribution of these weapons was immediately followed by the killing of people who, in at least two of the incidents, had been gathered together at these places prior to the arrival of the Accused.
  7. The Chamber notes that the dates of the three incidents - 8 April, 15 April, and 24 April - vary from the date on or about 6 April, which is set forth in paragraph 10 of the Indictment(1). The phrase "on or about" indicates an approximate time frame, and the testimonies of the witnesses date the events within the month of April. The Chamber does not consider these variances to be material or to have prejudiced the Accused. The Accused had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In reviewing the allegation set forth in this paragraph of the Indictment, the Chamber finds that the date is not of the essence. The essence of the allegation is that the Accused distributed weapons in this general time period.

4.2. Paragraph 11 of the Indictment

  1. Paragraph 11 of the Indictment reads as follows:

    "On or about 10 April 1994, Georges Rutaganda stationed Interahamwe members at a roadblock near his office at the "Amgar" garage in Kigali. Shortly after he left the area, the Interahamwe members started checking identity cards of people passing the roadblock. The Interahamwe members ordered persons with Tutsi cards to stand on one side of the road. Eight of the Tutsis were then killed. The victims included men, women and an infant who had been carried on the back of one of the women".

  2. The Chamber is of the opinion that for the sake of clarity with respect to its findings on the events alleged in paragraph 11 of the Indictment, it is necessary to discuss successively the events relating to:

Regarding the fact that Georges Rutaganda stationed Interahamwe members at a roadblock near the "Amgar" garage:

  1. The Chamber is of the opinion that as far as the above allegation is concerned, the Prosecutor must not only prove that a roadblock or a barrier was erected near the Amgar garage and manned by Interahamwe members but also that the Accused himself had stationed Interahamwe members there.
  2. Prosecution Witnesses AA and HH identified in the slide tendered by the Prosecutor as exhibit 144, the location where the roadblock obstructing traffic was mounted, the location of the traffic lights and, on the left of the same slide, the wall of the Amgar Garage. According to the Prosecutor, the Amgar garage was located at the boundary of the Cyahafi secteur, in the Nyarugenge Commune, Préfecture of Kigali-ville. The main entrance to the garage opened onto the Avenue de la Justice where the said roadblock had allegedly been erected and which was indeed the location that witnesses AA and HH had identified as the location of the roadblock.
  3. Witness HH, a Tutsi man, testified before the Chamber under direct examination that the roadblock near the Amgar garage was manned by members of the Interahamwe whom he could recognized by the Interahamwe uniform they wore, made out of red, yellow and green kitenge material, which was similar to the MRND party flag. During his cross-examination, the Defence asked Witness HH to explain the inconsistencies between his testimony and the statement he made to the investigators, as recorded in the transcripts of his questioning, to the effect that the roadblock was manned by soldiers. Witness HH replied that some Interahamwe dressed like soldiers.
  4. Witness HH also testified before the Chamber that the young people manning the roadblock and with whom he had been in touch, had told him that the roadblock in front of Amgar was "Georges'". Witness HH, stated that he had been hiding near the Amgar garage and as a result witnessed what took place at that roadblock. He testified that he saw the Accused come to the said roadblock many times, often in a Peugeot pick-up. According to Witness HH, the roadblock was the Accused's, indeed, like all roadblocks in Kigali and Rwanda, which were all under his control.
  5. Witness HH also testified before the Tribunal that, on 20 May 1994, the Interahamwe had closed the road on which the said roadblock was erected. Witness HH asserted that he witnessed the arrival of the Accused at the roadblock around 9:00 a.m. According to HH, the Accused ordered the Interahamwe to open the road and they complied.
  6. Prosecution Witness AA testified that, up until 18 April 1994, the road in front of Amgar Garage, like the neighbourhood, was controlled by the inhabitants of Agakingiro (Cyahafi). The people had erected a roadblock on that road which the Interahamwe destroyed on 18 April 1994. According to Witness AA, after the Interahamwe had attacked the neighbourhood and taken control of it, the Accused had a new roadblock erected in front of the gate to his garage. That roadblock was solidly built, with beer cases and wreckage from cars spanning the entire width of the road.
  7. Witness AA stated that among the Interahamwe who used to come to the roadblocks, some were dressed in military uniforms while others wore Interahamwe uniforms.
  8. According to Witness AA, the Accused was a famous man and the Amgar Garage, which belonged to him, was referred to at the time as a venue for the Interahamwe. According to the witness, people even spoke of "Rutaganda's soldiers"at that time.
  9. Prosecution Witness T testified that soldiers of the Rwandan Armed Forces had erected a roadblock on the paved road, by a kiosk, near the Agakingiro market. Once resistance waned in Cyahafi, towards the end of April, that roadblock was then controlled by the Interahamwe, who took over from the soldiers, who had gone to the frontline.
  10. Prosecution Witness BB testified that he was arrested at the roadblock near the Accused's home. There were more than 10 people there, some of whom wore items of military uniform and others the Interahamwe uniform. BB explained, however, that none of those people was a real soldier. Some wore berets, with the sign of a pruning hook and a small hoe, identifying them as belonging to the Interahamwe. They were armed with guns, clubs, pangas, hammers, and knives. Witness BB stated that the Interahamwe had told him that their leaders were Robert Kajuga and Georges Rutaganda. The people manning the roadblocks said they would not kill anyone without prior instruction from Robert Kajuga or Georges Rutaganda.
  11. Three defence witnesses confirmed that there was a roadblock in front of Amgar Garage. Witnesses DSS and DF stated that a roadblock had been mounted in front of Amgar Garage from 9 April 1994. According to Witness DD, the roadblock was erected from 7 April 1994 and was located about ten metres away from the garage, close to the traffic lights on Avenue de la Justice.
  12. Witness DD testified that the people manning that roadblock were "bandits". He explained that some of them were armed, but that he saw neither uniforms nor any other signs suggesting that they were members of the Interahamwe. Witness DD also saw no distinctive signs or symbols that identified the people manning the roadblock with any political group whatsoever.

Regarding the matter of the Interahamwe checking the identity cards of persons who passed through the roadblock and ordering persons whose identity cards indicated they were Tutsi to stand on one side of the road:

  1. Prosecution Witness HH testified that he passed the roadblock on 8 April 1994. He stated that people crossing the roadblock had to show their identity cards and also raise their hands so that their pockets could be checked for grenades. According to Witness HH, the people manning the roadblock shot at persons whose identity cards indicated they were Tutsi. Witness HH testified before the Chamber that he managed to cross that roadblock despite the fact that he was Tutsi because he was in the middle of a crowd and he was carrying his identity card at arm's length so that his pockets could be searched.
  2. During cross-examination, the Defence asked Witness HH to explain an apparent difference between his testimony and a pre-trial statement he made to the Prosecution investigators. Witness HH had told the investigators that he passed through the roadblock without showing his identity card because there was a crowd of people around.
  3. Witness HH added that from the location where he was hiding near the roadblock, he had heard the Accused tell the Interahamwe manning the roadblock to check the identity cards very well. Witness HH specified that when the Interahamwe saw a card with the reference "Tutsi", they took the holder into a house nearby. According to HH, people were arrested in this way every day.
  4. Prosecution Witness AA testified that, at the time of the alleged events, the roadblocks, including the one near Amgar Garage, were used by the Interahamwe to "do their job", which, according to AA, meant to arrest Tutsis or other persons and to strip them of their belongings. According to AA, to pass a roadblock, one had to show one's identity card or other document that indicated the holder's identity.
  5. Prosecution Witness BB testified that he was arrested at the roadblock near the residence of the Accused where he was asked to produce his identity card. According to BB, when the Interahamwe who manned the roadblock realized that he was Tutsi, they told him that they had received orders that very day to present anyone who had been apprehended at the roadblock to their president or vice-president. Two Interahamwe, one of whom carried a gun and the other grenades, removed his shoes and took him to the Accused at Amgar Garage. BB was then allegedly beaten by one of the Interahamwe. According to BB, the Accused then left and returned a little later and asked why BB who was Tutsi had not been killed. BB than held the Accused by the leg of his pants and asked him why he had not yet allowed the Interahamwe to kill him. BB testified that the Accused then kicked him and sent him away to do some work, gathering dirt in some area close by.
  6. Under cross-examination, Witness BB acknowledged that upon his arrival at Amgar, when he was taken to the Accused, he was given tea because he was very weak. BB also admitted that a servant had brought him food. He then explained that it was indeed after he had been given the tea and food that the Accused had kicked him.
  7. Defence Witness DD testifed that he could not confirm that the people manning the roadblock in front of Amgar Garage checked identity cards. He stated that he did not see anyone being taken aside and made to stand on one side of the road. Defence Witnesses DD, DDD and DNN testified that identity cards were checked at the roadblocks in order to identify RPF "infiltrators".

Regarding the fact that eight Tutsis had been killed, including men, women and an infant on the back of one of the women:

  1. Prosecution Witness HH testified that immediately after crossing the roadblock, he had heard the sound of gunfire as he ran away; he had turned around and seen dead bodies on the ground. Witness HH testified before the Chamber that they were eight of them including, children, men and women. One of the women who fell was carrying an infant on her back. Witness HH testified further that the youths manning the roadblock later gave him protection. They told him that they had killed men, women and children.
  2. Under cross-examination, Witness HH initially testified that on crossing the roadblock, he had not paid attention to whether the identity cards of people in the crowd were being checked. In reply to the Judges' question as to the material discrepancy between his testimony under direct examination and his statement under cross-examination, Witness HH stated that Tutsis who appeared at the roadblock were detained there.
  3. Prosecution Witness AA, after testifying that the Interahamwe stopped Tutsis or anyone else at roadblocks to strip them of their belongings, explained that when people were arrested, they were led away and the sound of gunfire could then be heard close to Amgar.

Factual Findings

  1. Based on corroborated testimonies, the Chamber finds that as from an unspecified date in mid-April, a roadblock was erected by Interahamwe on the Avenue de la Justice near a traffic light not far from the entrance to the Amgar Garage at the Cyahafi Sector boundary, in Nyarugenge Commune of the Kigali-ville Préfecture. The Chamber holds that, at the said roadblock, the Interahamwe checked the identity cards of those who crossed it and detained those who carried identity cards bearing the "Tutsi" ethnic reference or were otherwise considered as "Tutsi" because they had stated that they were not in possession of an identity card. However, the Chamber notes that the Prosecutor has not led evidence to the effect that the Interahamwe manning the roadblock had been stationed there by the Accused. Hence, the Chamber finds that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused stationed Interhamwe members at the said roadblock.
  2. With respect to the allegation regarding the killing of eight Tutsis, including men, women and an infant carried on her back by one of the women, the Chamber notes that just one witness -Witness HH - had testified to those specific events. However, it notes that the Prosecution Witness HH was unable to provide a convincing explanation of the material inconsistencies, identified by the Defence, in his testimony before the Chamber and his earlier statement to the Prosecution investigators, as recorded. Accordingly, the Chamber has decided to disregard his testimony. Since the Prosecutor had not called any other witness, apart from Witness HH, to testify to such events, the Chamber finds that the allegation regarding the killing of eight Tutsis has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

4.3 Paragraph 12 of the Indictment

  1. Paragraph 12 of the Indictment reads as follows:

    "In April 1994, on a date unknown, Tutsis who had been separated at a roadblock in front of the Amgar garage were taken to Georges RUTAGANDA and questioned by him. He thereafter directed that these Tutsis be detained with others at a nearby building. Later, Georges RUTAGANDA directed men under his control to take 10 Tutsi detainees to a deep, open hole near the Amgar garage. On Georges RUTAGANDA's orders, his men killed the 10 Tutsis with machetes and threw their bodies into the hole."

Regarding the allegations that on a date unknown, in April 1994, Tutsis who had been separated at a roadblock in front of the Amgar garage were taken to Georges Rutaganda and questioned by him. He thereafter directed that they be detained with others at a nearby building:

  1. The Chamber notes that the said allegation follows the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Indictment. The Chamber, in its findings supra on the allegations set forth in paragraph 11, held that a roadblock had indeed been erected by the Interahamwe on Avenue de la Justice, near a traffic light, not far from the entrance to the Amgar Garage, at the Cyahafi sector boundary in Nyarugenge Commune.
  2. Prosecution Witness BB testified before the Chamber that he was arrested at the roadblock near the residence of the Accused because he was a Tutsi. There were many people there, some of whom wore items of military uniform, while others were clad in Interahamwe uniform. According to Witness BB, the people at the roadblock said that they would kill no person without prior instruction from Robert Kajuga or Georges Rutaganda. When they realized that BB was Tutsi, the Interahamwe told him that they had received orders that very day to take anyone apprehended at the roadblock to "the president or vice-president". Two Interahamwe, one of whom carried a gun and the other grenades, removed his shoes.
  3. They took him to a location which Witness BB identified on the slide tendered by the Prosecutor as exhibit 145 as the Amgar garage. Witness BB was taken to the Accused in his office . An Interahamwe hit him. The Accused left the office and returned later. Witness BB testified that he held the Accused by the leg of his trousers and asked him why he had not yet allowed the Interahamwe to kill him. Witness BB testified that he begged for mercy but the Accused kicked him and sent him away to do some work, gathering dirt in a place where a cellar was under construction. Witness BB explained that the Accused had forced him to work on the cellar construction site without payment. In his opinion, he was therefore a slave of the Accused's. Witness BB testified that he stayed at Amgar until Kigali was captured by the RPF because he could no longer move about as he had thrown his identity card in some latrine.
  4. Under cross-examination, Witness BB explained that the cellar was not under construction but that they were actually assigned to demolish part of a wall to create an entrance into the cellar from the Amgar garage. Witness BB also admitted that a mason had been hired to do the work and that the people, including himself, who were involved in such work were not prisoners, but mere workmen. Witness BB stated that there were no prisoners at that time and that, in fact, there were ordinary workmen who went home in the evenings.
  5. Moreover, under cross-examination, when asked by the Defence to explain why, if the Accused had been the leader of a group of killers, BB had chosen to stay at the Accused's place rather than to move about and had found it safer to do so, Witness BB stated that he could not provide any explanation to that.
  6. Prosecution Witness T who had testified that, at the time of the alleged events, he lived near Amgar garage, indicated that a neighbour of his, a Tutsi man, told him that, for a while, he was forced to live inside Amgar garage. Around the end of May 1994, that man was killed. That same day, Witness T, his brother and their employee were arrested. The latter two men were also killed.
  7. Prosecution Witness Q testified that, around 21 April 1994, he arrived at the Agakingiro roadblock where he was arrested because he did not have an identity card and because one of the people there, Vedaste Segatarama, had recognized him. Around 8 a.m., he was led into a garage, together with three other people who had also been detained at the roadblock because they had been identified as Tutsis on the basis of their identity cards.
  8. Witness Q testified that he had not been to that garage before. He identified it before the Chamber on the slide which had been tendered by the Prosecutor as exhibit 145.
  9. Witness Q stated that he was led, along with the three other Tutsis who had also been arrested, into the Chief's office. He testified before the Chamber that he recognized the office of the Accused to which he had been taken on the slide that had been filed as exhibit 149. They were introduced to the Accused, who ordered that they be locked up in the prison because they were Inyenzi. Witness Q explained that, in that office, the people who had been arrested were undergoing some kind of registration.
  10. According to Witness Q, the prison where they were detained was in an Indian temple with the inscription "Hindi Mandal". He recognized it on a slide, tendered as exhibit 165. Witness Q stated that the temple was full, with about two hundred people. Only a small room, located behind the building and used for storage, was not full. Witness Q said that he was there for some three hours. The Accused then returned and said that 10 people should be taken out.
  11. Defence Witnesses DD, DF and DDD testified before the Chamber that, in April, the Accused continued to sell beer within the premises of the Amgar garage. Witness DD stated that he knew the people who had come to take refuge at Amgar. According to Witness DF people of various ethnic groups had been given refuge at Amgar, and no one was held against his or her will. Both Witnesses DD and DF testified that they saw no prisoners at Amgar. However, Witness DD explained that he did not go around the property to check.
  12. Defence Witness DS testified that he remained with the Accused at Amgar from 14 April to 27 May 1994. Throughout that period, he never saw any prisoners or anyone being mistreated.
  13. Defence Witness DEE stayed at Amgar from 14 to 17 April 1994. She explained that she was not the only Tutsi there. She knew some of the other Tutsis there. Of the Tutsis she did not know, she was told that they were hiding at Amgar. Witness DEE testified that she never saw any prisoners during her stay at Amgar, nor did she see anyone beaten, tortured or killed.   

Regarding the allegations that Georges Rutaganda later directed men under his control to take 10 Tutsi detainees to a deep, open hole near the Amgar garage, and that upon his orders, his men had killed the 10 Tutsis with machetes and thrown their bodies into the hole:

  1. Prosecution Witness BB identified on the slide tendered as exhibit 169, a site located between the ETM and the Accused's garage, where according to him the Tutsis were killed. According to Witness BB, at the time of the events referred to in the Indictment, there was a metal sheet wall near the blue fence located at the back to the right. It was at that spot that the Tutsis had been shot.
  2. Prosecution Witness Q testified that after spending approximately three hours in the Indian temple, he was brought out, on the orders of the Accused, who had ordered that 10 people be taken outside. Witness Q stated that he himself, the three people who had been arrested with him at the roadblock and 10 other detainees were led away, around 10 or 11 a.m., to a pit, by men acting on the orders of the Accused. The pit was behind the garage, where there was a house with a tiled roof and a fence. Witness Q identified the metal sheet fence on a slide tendered by the Prosecutor as exhibit 156. He recognized the location of the pit on the slide as exhibit 172, explaining that the metal item pictured on the slide was not there at the time of the events alleged.
  3. At the said pit, the 14 persons were made to sit down in a hole, the location of which Witness Q recognized on a slide, tendered as exhibit 168, and ordered to look down. The people who had taken them to the pit then asked the Accused, who was present at the site, whether to use guns or machetes to kill them. The Accused allegedly told them "to kill with guns, is a waste of bullets." Witness Q stated that the people who had taken them to the pit then started to kill with machetes. At that point he bowed his head and then he lost consciousness upon seeing two persons die.
  4. During cross-examination, the Defence asked Witness Q to explain why his statement to the investigators reflected that he had fainted after one man had killed three persons and a second person had killed three others. Witness Q confirmed before the Chamber that he fainted after two persons had been killed. He asserted that he had made the same statement to the investigators.
  5. According to Witness Q, after those two persons had been put to death, the other four persons still alive, including himself, were made to get up and bury them. Witness Q testified before the Chamber that at that point he had no strength left and the Accused spared him and another man. The Accused kicked Witness Q and told him to leave, and told him that he would be killed on the day of Habyarimana's burial.
  6. During cross-examination, the Defence asked Witness Q to explain the disparity between his testimony before the Tribunal and his earlier statement to the investigators. In the said statement, Witness Q had indicated that the Accused had ordered the four persons still alive to throw the bodies of the victims into the pit and that, once they had finished doing that, the Accused kicked Witness Q who further explained that he then left with the four other persons.
  7. In reply to the question, Witness Q testified before the Chamber that he did not bury the people and that when the investigators had read out the statement to him before he signed it, it did not include any reference to the effect that he had buried the bodies.
  8. Defence Witness DD testified that he knew about the pit behind the Amgar garage and that around 26 April 1994, the Accused had a closed sheet metal fence built in front of the pit. Defence Witness DF also testified that the Accused had a metal fence built to protect his beer stocks. The said fence had no door. Witness DF explained that it was impossible to hear what was going on behind the fence from the garage. According to Witness DF, he was not aware that killings were going on at that location, but explained, however, that after the fence had been built, he could not know what was happening there. He did not hear any gunshots from the said location, but rather from the valley behind the "Hindi Mandal" temple.
  9. Defence Witness DEE testified that on 14 April 1994, the day he arrived at the Amgar garage, she saw a group of about 10 people including men, women and children there. She spoke to some of them and they told her that they had found refuge there. Witness DEE who was not sure where the others had come from, thought that they were the Accused's family members.
  10. During the time that she was at Amgar, from 14 to 17 April 1994, DEE heard gunshots and grenade explosions, but she was not sure where they came from. She explained that she was pregnant and sick at the time and was often lying down.

Factual Findings

  1. The Chamber finds that all the Prosecution witnesses who testified to the aforementioned allegations are credible, including Witnesses BB and Q, and consequently decides to admit their testimonies. Indeed, the Chamber is of the opinion that although under cross-examination the Defence pointed out some contradictions in the testimonies of Witnesses BB and Q, such contradictions are not of a material nature and do not vitiate the consistency of the substance of their testimonies, as to their account of the facts at issue in the instant case.
  2. With respect to Witness Q in particular, the Chamber holds that the said contradictions can probably be attributed to the trauma he may have suffered from having to recount the painful events he witnessed and of which he was a victim. The Chamber stresses further that the time lapse between the events and the testimony of the witness must be taken into account in assessing the recollection of details.
  3. Further, the Chamber recalls that the inconsistencies in the witnesses's testimonies and their pre-trial statements must be assessed in light of the difficulties inherent inter alia in interpreting the questions asked to the witnesses. It also important to note that these statements were not made under oath before a commissioner of oaths.
  4. The Chamber notes that the testimonies of Defence Witnesses DD, DF, DS, DEE and DDD do not refute the fact that the Accused was in his office at the Amgar garage from 15 to 24 April 1994. Such testimonies were offered to prove that the Accused was transacting business at Amgar during that period. The Defence submitted that the Accused welcomed into Amgar refugees of diverse ethnic groups including Tutsis and that no one was held at Amgar against his or her will, nor mistreated, or tortured or killed. The Chamber considers that, in any case, these facts would not exclude the Accused's participation in the events alleged in paragraph 12 of the Indictment.
  5. The Chamber notes, furthermore, that Witness Q identified the hole where the ten persons were killed and where their bodies were thrown on the slide tendered by the Prosecutor as exhibit 168. The Chamber observes that the said slide shows the site identified as RUG-1 by Professor William Haglund, a forensic anthropologist, who appeared as an expert witness for the Prosecution. According to Professor Haglund, who exhumed several sites near Amgar garage, three bodies were exhumed from the hole identified as site "RUG-1". Dr. Nizam Peerwani, a pathologist, who had worked jointly with Professor Haglund and who also appeared as an expert witness for the Prosecutor submitted the following findings on the three exhumed bodies: the first body was that of a man aged between 35 and 45 at the time of death, the probable cause of which was homicide; the second body was that of a woman, aged between 30 and 39 at the time of death, the probable cause of which was homicide; and the third body was that of a man, aged between 35 and 45 at the time of death, the probable cause of which was blunt force trauma.
  6. Firstly, the Chamber, on the basis of the testimony by Dr. Kathleen Reich, a forensic anthropologist, called by the Defence as an expert witness, is not satisfied that the scientific method used by Professor Haglund is such as to allow the Chamber to rely on his findings in the determination of the case.
  7. Secondly, and above all, the Chamber notes that the Prosecutor failed to show a direct link between the findings of Professor Haglund and Dr. Peerwani and the specific allegations in the Indictment. Consequently, the Chamber holds that the findings of the said expert witnesses should not be admitted in the instant case.
  8. Accordingly, the Chamber holds that the findings of the said expert witnesses do not help the Chamber determine the facts of the case. Moreover, the Chamber is not satisfied that the grave site referred to by Witness Q and the one exhumed by Professor Haglund are one and the same.
  9. Thus, on the basis of the corroborating testimonies of Witnesses Q and BB, the Chamber is satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that, in April 1994, Tutsis who had been separated at a roadblock in front of Amgar garage were taken to the office of the Accused inside Amgar garage. Based on the corroborating testimonies of Witnesses Q and T, the Chamber is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused ordered that the Tutsis thus brought to him be detained within the premises of the Amgar garage.
  10. Based on the testimony of Witness Q, the Chamber is satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the Accused ordered men under his control to take fourteen detainees, including at least four Tutsis, to a deep hole located near Amgar garage and that on the orders of Georges Rutaganda and in his presence, his men killed ten of the said detainees with machetes. The bodies of the victims were thrown into the hole.

4.4 Paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Indictment

  1. The charges set forth in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Indictment are as follows.
  2. Paragraph 13 reads as follows:

    "From April 7 to April 11, 1994, thousands of unarmed Tutsi men, women and children and some unarmed Hutus sought refuge at the École Technique Officielle "ETO school" in Kicukiro sector, Kicukiro Commune. The ETO school was considered a safe haven because Belgian soldiers, part of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda forces, were stationed there."

  3. Paragraph 14 reads as follows:

    "On or about April 11, 1994, immediately after the Belgians withdrew from the ETO school, members of the Rwandan armed forces, the Gendarmerie and militia, including the Interahamwe, attacked the ETO school and, using machetes, grenades and guns, killed the people who had sought refuge there. The Interahamwe separated Hutus from Tutsis during the attack, killing the Tutsis. Georges Rutaganda participated in the attack at the ETO school, which resulted in the deaths of a large number of Tutsis."

  4. Paragraph 15 reads as follows:

    "The men, women and children who survived the ETO school attack were forcibly transferred by Georges Rutaganda, members of the Interahamwe and soldiers to a gravel pit near the primary school of Nyanza. Presidential Guard members awaited their arrival. More Interahamwe members converged upon Nyanza from many directions and surrounded the group of survivors."

  5. Paragraph 16 reads as follows:

    "On or about April 12, 1994, the survivors who were able to show that they were Hutu were permitted to leave the gravel pit. Tutsis who presented altered identity cards were immediately killed. Most of the remainder of the group were attacked and killed by grenades or shot to death. Those who tried to escape were attacked with machetes. Georges Rutaganda, among others, directed and participated in these attacks".

Events Alleged

  1. Witness A, a Tutsi man who had worked for the Accused as a mason, testified that on 7 April 1994 he went with his wife and five children to the ETO, a kilometre away from his house, to seek refuge and protection because the UNAMIR troops were stationed there. Upon his arrival, he realized he had not brought any food or blankets and returned home for supplies, leaving his family in the ETO compound. According to Witness A, there were approximately six thousand refugees in the ETO compound, outside and inside the buildings. When Witness A returned that evening, after circumventing the Interahamwe he encountered outside, he was unable to re-enter the compound for there were too many people. He spent the night near the sports field of the ETO.
  2. According to Witness A, the next day Colonel Leonides Rusatila arrived and asked the Hutus to separate themselves from the group. Thereafter approximately 600 to 1,000 Hutus left the compound. The witness testified that on 10 April 1994, UNAMIR troops left the compound, although the refugees begged them to stay, as the Interahamwe had already surrounded the ETO compound. The departure of the UNAMIR troops created panic among the refugees and caused many of them to leave the ETO entrance; as a result, Witness A was able to re-enter the compound where he was reunited with his family. The Interahamwe also came in at that time and mixed in with the crowd of refugees inside the building. According to Witness A, the refugees then decided to proceed together to the Amahoro stadium. They therefore left the ETO and headed in that direction but were diverted en route by soldiers at a roadblock. They were gathered together with their arms up over their heads, and ordered to lie on the ground. A soldier with a megaphone then came to them and told them it was not a good idea to go to the stadium and suggested instead that they go to Nyanza, where he said they would be safe.
  3. Thereupon, Witness A and his family headed for Nyanza in a group of approximately 4,500 persons, flanked on both sides by Interahamwe. According to the Witness, at this time the Interahamwe, armed with machetes, clubs, axes, spears, and nail studded metal sticks had started killing people along the way, threatening people, forcibly taking young girls, spitting on them and committing atrocities. Along the way, Witness A saw the Accused coming in the opposite direction from Nyanza in his vehicle. He pulled over to the side of the road, got out, and stood leaning against the vehicle. Witness A saw a mason who had worked for the Accused pleading him for help, but the Accused waved him away.
  4. Upon arrival at Nyanza, Witness A saw the Accused again who was directing the Interahamwe into position to surround the refugees who had been gathered together in one spot. Armed soldiers had taken position on the hill overlooking this spot. A sack full of grenades was brought by a man, and Hutus were told to show their identity cards. These Hutus were allowed to leave. Some Tutsis who tried to pass for Hutus were killed on the spot by the Interahamwe who knew them, and others were forced back into the group. A grenade was then hurled into the crowd and the soldiers began to fire their guns. Those who tried to flee from the group were snatched back by the Interahamwe surrounding them. Witness A saw the child his wife was carrying on her back blown off by a grenade. He was shot and fell to the ground, still holding another of his children in his arms. Others fell on top of him.
  5. When the shooting stopped, Witness A heard the soldiers tell the Interahamwe to go to work, and the latter proceeded to kill people with clubs and other types of weapons. They also singled out some girls and put them aside. According to the witness they "had their way" with these girls and then killed them. Most of the women killed were stripped of their clothing, "so that Tutsi women could be seen naked." The Interahamwe continued to "have their way" until they left satisfied at around 11 p.m. Witness A's wife and four of his children were killed in this attack. His five year old child, whom he had shielded in his arms, sustained injuries from a grenade explosion. According to Witness A, when the Interahamwe returned the next day at dawn, he pretended to be dead. His injured arm was stepped on and he was hit on the head with a sharp object to see if he was alive, but he did not move. He spent that day, which he testified was Tuesday 12 April, at that spot, while the Interahamwe looted the bodies. In the morning of 13 April, RPF soldiers came and took him and other survivors away. Witness A testified that there were approximately two hundred survivors.
  6. During the cross-examination, Defence counsel challenged the testimony of Witness A as being inconsistent with his prior statement dated 7 December 1995 made to OTP investigators. He had stated that he had three children, all of whom had died in the attack. When asked about his prior statement as to the number of children he had the witness maintained that four of his children had died in the attack and that only one had survived. He testified that he had no interest in saying there was a survivor among his children if they had all been killed.
  7. Witness A was also asked about which radio station he was listening to on the morning of 7 April 1994. On direct examination he had testified that on that day he had tuned in to RTLM. The Witness explained that he generally listened to RTLM but that on that particular morning he had tuned in to Radio Rwanda. He further testified that RTLM broadcast only in the afternoon and that he had also learnt about the death of the President on RTLM on 7 April 1994 in the afternoon. Defence counsel also asked him how he had managed to listen to the radio, as he had testified that he did not own a radio. The witness explained that he listened to the radio at his neighbour's house.
  8. The Defence also asked the witness whether he knew the Accused well. The witness answered that he had never spoken to the Accused but had known him for six years, having seen him many times and having worked for him. Through further examination, Defence elicited additional details with respect to Witness A's earlier testimony regarding such matters as there being other persons with the Accused in his vehicle and the Accused positioning the Interahamwe at Nyanza.
  9. Witness H, a Tutsi man from Kicukiro, testified that his house was attacked and searched in February 1994 by Interahamwe, armed with clubs, who had arrived shortly before a vehicle. Witness H was told that General Karangwa and the Accused, who owned the vehicle, were inside it. The Witness said that the Accused was his neighbour and lived 600 metres from his house. He knew the Accused as a businessman who imported beer, and he also knew him as the vice-president of the Interahamwe. When the killings began after the plane crash on 6 April, Witness H took his family to the ETO school, for their protection, where UNAMIR troops told them to come inside the compound. He stated that there were 3,500 to 4,000 refugees at the ETO, some of whom were in buildings but most of whom were on the sports field where Witness H was. The witness testified that the Interahamwe, armed with guns, grenades and other weapons, came and surrounded the ETO, but that they did not attack because they were afraid of the UNAMIR troops.
  10. On 11 April 1994, Witness H saw the UNAMIR troops packing up to leave. A group of refugees, including the Witness, positioned themselves in front of a UNAMIR vehicle and begged the troops to stay, but they would not. According to Witness H, once UNAMIR left the ETO compound, the Interahamwe immediately entered and proceeded to attack, firing guns and hurling grenades. At that time, Witness H saw the Accused with Gerard Karangwa, the President of the Interahamwe at the commune level. According to the Witness, as an Interahamwe official at the national level, the Accused ranked higher than Karangwa. They were in the group in front of him, and the group began throwing grenades and firing. The Witness saw the Accused before the shots were fired.
  11. Witness H testified that he left the ETO with others and headed for the Amahoro stadium which he thought would be safe as it was under RPF control. En route, they were stopped by the Interahamwe and led to a road where they found soldiers who ordered them to sit down on the road. Thereafter, a military commander came and told them that he was taking them to Nyanza where he could ensure their safety. Led by Colonel Rusatila and surrounded on both sides by soldiers and Interahamwe, the group of refugees was escorted to Nyanza. Along the way, the Interahamwe, who were armed with machetes, grenades, spears and other weapons, beat and threatened the refugees. Of the four thousand refugees, many were injured en route to Nyanza. Witness H saw the Accused on the way to Nyanza, at the Kicukiro centre. The Accused was in a separate group talking to a number of people, including Mr. Kagina, a teacher at the ETO school whom he knew to be a member of the Interahamwe. When they arrived at Nyanza, the Interahamwe and the soldiers ordered the refugees to stop and to sit down. The Hutus were told to identify themselves and to stand up. They showed their identity cards and were told to leave. Thereafter, grenades were thrown and shots fired at the group. Witness H managed to escape and hide under a small bush sixty metres away. From that location, the witness heard shots and cries of pain. When the soldiers ran out of grenades and bullets, they asked the Interahamwe to begin killing people with knives. The killing lasted for more than an hour. Witness H heard the soldiers tell the Interahamwe to look around for people who were not dead yet and finish them off. Witness H testified that he did not see the Accused at Nyanza. He had waited until nightfall, and then fled to Kicikuro.
  12. Under cross-examination, Witness H confirmed that he had been at the ETO compound from 7 to 11 April. The Defence asked Witness H whether he had met Interahamwe on the way to the ETO, to which he replied that he had seen several groups of Interahamwe carrying weapons, but that they had not prevented him from going to the ETO. The Defence also asked Witness H to state specifically where he was located on the ETO sports field, the number of UNAMIR troops and their location. Witness H stated that he had moved around on the sports field during his stay at the ETO. He testified that the UNAMIR troops were camped near the sports field. When questioned on the activities of the Interahamwe before the soldiers left, and the circumstances of his departure from the ETO, Witness H stated that while he was at the ETO the Interahamwe did launch small-scale attacks, which were repelled by the UNAMIR troops.
  13. Defence counsel also asked Witness H how the refugees reacted to being diverted from the road to Amahoro stadium towards Nyanza, whether they believed what they had been told about their safety, how they felt, his location within the crowd of refugees, en route to Nyanza, and the location of the bush at Nyanza where he hid during the attack on the refugees as well as the location of the Interahamwe and the soldiers during that attack. To those and related questions from the Defence, Witness H replied by providing additional information that had remained unclear under direct examination.
  14. Witness DD, a Tutsi man who was a high school student in 1994, testified that he was a neighbour of the Accused and also knew him as the vice-president of the Interahamwe. When he learned of the death of the President, Witness DD and his family fled to the ETO for refuge because the UNAMIR troops were there and they thought their safety would be ensured. While at ETO, Witness DD saw the Interahamwe, some on foot and others in vehicles. They were armed, but Witness DD said they felt safe because of the UNAMIR presence. At the ETO, Witness DD stayed on the sports field, and had gone into one of the buildings only once. He estimated that there were approximately 5,000 refugees on the ETO premises. On 11 April, when the UNAMIR troops left, Witness DD saw the Interahamwe attack. He testified that Interahamwe leaders were present and named the Accused as well as the councillor of Kicukiro, who was also his neighbour, as having been among these leaders. He saw the Accused at about fifty metres away from the ETO entrance, together with the councillor and many others he was unable to identify. According to Witness DD, all of them were armed, and the Accused had a gun. Witness DD fled the ETO when the Interahamwe attacked and was thus separated from his family.
  15. Witness DD went to the Sonatube factory, where he and other persons were stopped by soldiers who ordered them to sit on the ground, which they did. The soldiers said they would take them to Nyanza where they would provide them with assistance. According to Witness DD, the women with children were forcibly separated from the group and raped by the Interahamwe. Witness DD stated that he learned only later that the women had been raped, when he saw them again and they told him that the Interahamwe had made them their wives, raped them and impregnated them. When they arrived at Nyanza, the refugees were assembled and surrounded by soldiers and Interahamwe. The Hutus were then asked to show their identity cards and to separate themselves from the group, following which they were allowed to leave. Witness DD also saw a person who tried to pass for a Hutu, shot on the spot. Once the Hutus had been separated, the soldiers began to kill people and throw grenades. When they stopped throwing grenades, they asked the Interahamwe to check the bodies for any survivors and to finish them off. Witness DD testified that he did not see the Accused again after the ETO.
  16. During cross-examination, Defence counsel asked Witness DD about the circumstances in which he had seen the Accused at the ETO - where precisely it had been, and whether it was an open space with unobstructed view. The witness testified that he had been on the sports field when he saw the Accused. The Defence counsel submitted that in his pre-trial statement, Witness DD had stated that he had seen the Accused when he left the classroom with his family and that the Accused was in the school yard. The witness maintained that he had been on the sports field, and reiterated that he had come out of the classroom to see members of his family. He stated that the confusion stemmed from the fact that there was a basketball court near the entrance to the ETO. The Defence Counsel noted that there were several buildings between the sports field and the ETO entrance and that the witness could have had an open, unobstructed view. The witness responded that he had been on the sports field and that there were no buildings there.
  17. Witness W, a Tutsi man, also a neighbour of the Accused's, testified that he knew the Accused as the vice-president of the Interahamwe, and also as an engineer and a business man. On the morning of 7 April, Witness W fled his home, for Luberizi. On the way, he met the Accused setting up a roadblock in the company of the Interahamwe.
  18. There were many people at that location and Witness W was able to return to his house, where he hid in the nearby bushes until nightfall, when he fled to the ETO together with four of his sister's children. He went to the ETO because the UNAMIR troops were there. Witness W testified that after the UNAMIR troops left, the Interahamwe and the Presidential Guard immediately entered the ETO compound, armed with grenades, machetes and clubs. He recognized some of the Interahamwe he had seen with the Accused at the roadblock on his way to the ETO but did not see the Accused. The Interahamwe then began to throw grenades onto the sports field and between the buildings where there were many people. His older brother's children and other people he knew were killed in that attack. Witness W also saw his mother die from a blow from a club. He himself was injured though not seriously and was able to flee through the back of the ETO compound to the house of a white person he knew. The latter who could not keep him in his house advised him to go to Sonatube.
  19. Witness W walked towards Sonatube, together with others who had fled the ETO. They were stopped at Sonatube by soldiers who told them that Rusatila had ordered that they be sent to Nyanza where their security would be ensured. There were approximately 4, 500 refugees at Sonatube. They sat on the ground for about 30 minutes, and were forced towards Nyanza by the Interahamwe and soldiers of the Presidential Guard. Along the way, the refugees, surrounded by the Interahamwe, were mistreated. Some were stripped off their clothing or money, and others were killed by the Interahamwe and the Presidential Guards. Witness W recognized some of the Interahamwe on the road to Nyanza, and he observed the vehicle of the Accused bringing in Interahamwe as reinforcements. He testified that the Accused could have been in this vehicle, which he only saw from afar, but he did not actually see the Accused. As they approached Nyanza, Witness W realized that they would be killed rather than protected. He and about 150 of his companions broke away from the group and fled. Some of them were shot from behind by the Interahamwe. Witness W and his companions hid in the forest nearby waiting for nightfall, during which time they heard gunfire from the Nyanza hill. They then fled to an RPF zone, the group of 150 having been reduced to only 60 by the time they arrived.
  20. During cross-examination, Defence counsel asked Witness W which members of his family arrived at the ETO school with him. The Witness stated that his father, the children of his elder brother and others living in the house were with him. When confronted with his testimony on direct examination, he explained that he had mistakenly said he was with the children of his sister but that he meant his brother. Most of the cross-examination of Witness W related to other events and not to his experience at the ETO and Nyanza.
  21. Luc Lemaire, a captain in the Belgian army who served with UNAMIR, testified that he was stationed at the ETO school, until the departure of UNAMIR troops from ETO on 11 April. He testified that there were approximately 2,000 refugees in the ETO compound by the time UNAMIR left. Captain Lemaire testified that at that time there was increased aggression by the Interahamwe near the ETO and that the latter were gathering quite near the compound, and were seen sometimes with weapons. Under cross-examination, Captain Lemaire was questioned about the Interahamwe. He stated that he had not seen Interahamwe in uniform near the ETO, but that he knew that the people he had seen were Interahamwe for they were able to move about freely and he had been told so by those at the ETO compound who knew them.
  22. Defence Witness DZZ, a Hutu woman from Kicukiro, testified that she fled to a nearby church mission on 7 April, after hearing the sound of shooting. From there, on the same day she was taken by a Belgian priest to the ETO, about one and a half kilometres away, along with a group of 25 other refugees. She testified that when she arrived, there were about 2,000 refugees at the ETO. More people came subsequently, and Witness DZZ said she continued to hear gunshots. While she was at the ETO, she said that RPF soldiers in uniform came to take away some people who were Tutsi. On 9 April, the UNAMIR soldiers told Witness DZZ that they would be leaving, and she left the next day, on 10 April. Witness DZZ said that about 500 people remained at ETO by the time she left, and that many of those who left went to the Amahoro stadium. Witness DZZ returned home, which was approximately three kilometres away. She testified that she did not see any bodies or any roadblocks on the way. Under cross-examination, Witness DZZ stated that she could not testify to what happened at the ETO after she left on 10 April, or to what happened subsequently at Nyanza.
  23. Defence Witness DPP testified that in April 1994 she was living in Kicukiro, approximately 400 to 500 metres from the ETO. She said that she saw the UNAMIR troops leave the ETO on 11 April on her way to get medicine for her sick child. After they left, she saw about fifty people including some people she knew go into ETO. She testified that they were not wearing uniforms and that some of them were armed. She heard gunshots, but from far away. Witness DPP saw people coming out of the ETO, carrying away school property, and then she saw men, women and children leaving the compound. She stated that they were not running and were unharmed. She testified that she did not see the Accused. In May 1994, Witness DPP sought refuge at the ETO. She said that at that time bullets were falling on the ETO, and she encountered some people who had taken refuge there after 6 April and stayed there throughout this period. She testified that there were mostly Tutsi but some Hutu refugees as well. After 11 May, Witness DPP said that Government soldiers came to camp at the ETO as well, and that there was no problem between them and the Tutsis there. She testified that on 23 May everyone left the ETO, as the RPF were shooting. During cross-examination, Witness DPP stated that she stayed by the ETO for two hours on 11 April. She said that she did not see people in the ETO being attacked and clarified that she saw people entering but could not see the place where the refugees were from where she was. She stated that one person she spoke to told her they were on the way to the stadium but had been stopped en route and forced back. This person also told her that when they reached where they were going some were killed by knives or shot dead.
  24. The Accused testified that on the morning of 11 April, his neighbour woke him up to tell him that the RPF were already in the neighbourhood and that they had killed a child. The Accused decided that he and his family had to leave their house in Kicukiro. They left around 7:30 a.m., with 14 people in his vehicle, and they drove to the house of an acquaintance, passing through many roadblocks. He found his acquaintance about to leave for Kibuye with his family. They left the house of this acquaintance around noon, and after much trouble at the roadblocks, arrived around 5:30 p.m. in Masango, where the Accused had a house in Karambi. The Accused described a mass exodus from the city, with many people on foot and others in vehicles. The Accused said he was never in the ETO, at the entrance or in the compound, on 11 April or any other time. He said he knew of the buildings there only through the slides which had been presented during the trial proceedings and that he had had no reason to go to the ETO. The Accused said he remained in Masango commune until 14 April, when he returned to Kigali. During cross-examination, the Accused said that he had not been aware of the fact that there were refugees at the ETO.
  25. Defence Witness DDD testified that she and the Accused and their family had left their home on the morning of 11 April and gone to the house of a family friend in Kiyovu, where they arrived at around 9 a.m. They found that this friend was leaving Kiyovu for security reasons. After managing to obtain petrol, Witness DDD said they left Kiyovu around mid-day for Masango, where they arrived at 6 p.m. She said that the Accused remained in Masango until 14 April.

Factual Findings

  1. Having heard and reviewed the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses regarding the allegations set forth in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Indictment, the Trial Chamber finds Witness A, Witness H, Witness DD, Witness W and Captain Luc Lemaire all to be credible witnesses. They presented a similar account of the refugee situation at the ETO, the attack by the Interahamwe following the departure of UNAMIR troops, the diversion of refugees heading towards Amahoro stadium to Nyanza, and the massacre of refugees by soldiers and the Interahamwe which took place at Nyanza. Extensive cross-examination of the witnesses primarily elicited further details and background, without revealing any material inconsistencies. The Chamber considers that such inconsistencies as pointed out were not material and could for the most part be attributed to external factors relating to pre-trial statements and other language and translation issues. For example, the Defence highlighted the fact that the trial testimony of Witness A that he had four children who died and one who survived was inconsistent with the pre-trial statement he signed in 1995 stating that he had three children, all of whom died. The Chamber considers that the witness knew how many children he had and how many of them died, and that the error can be attributed to difficulties of transcription and translation, as addressed under the Evidentiary Matters.
  2. Having heard and reviewed the testimony of the Defence witnesses, including the Accused, regarding the allegations set forth in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Indictment, the Trial Chamber makes the following findings with regard to their evidence.
  3. The Chamber notes that Witness DZZ was not, and did not claim to be, an eyewitness to the events at the ETO compound and at Nyanza on 11 April. Her testimony confirms that there were refugees at the ETO compound, but as she left prior to the events alleged in the Indictment, her testimony cannot challenge the eyewitness accounts of these events presented by the Prosecution. Her assertion that most refugees had left the compound and that only about 500 remained there by the time she left on 10 April, is inconsistent with the testimony of all the witnesses who were still there on 11 April when UNAMIR left, including Captain Luc Lemaire, who estimated - as they all did - that there were several thousand refugees at the ETO compound on 11 April.
  4. Witness DPP was on the road in front of the ETO on 11 April, and she saw the UNAMIR troops leaving. She saw other people, including some armed, enter the compound, but she could not see inside the compound from where she was standing. She heard gunshots, although she said they were far away. She subsequently saw some people departing from the ETO but those people were not harmed and they were not running. The Chamber considers that much of this testimony is consistent with evidence provided by Prosecution witnesses, with regard to the departure of the UNAMIR troops and the subsequent incursion of others who were armed. Witness DPP concluded that these others went to loot the building, but testified that she was not in a position to see what was happening inside.
  5. The Chamber accepts the evidence of Defence Witness DZZ and Defence Witness DPP but finds that this evidence does not refute the evidence presented by the Prosecution with respect to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Indictment.
  6. The Chamber has considered the testimony of the Accused and Witness DDD, jointly, as their testimony is consistent and puts forward a defence of alibi, claiming that the Accused was en route to Masango on 11 April and was not present at the ETO, at Nyanza, or at any of the locations on the way to the ETO from Nyanza where Witness A, Witness H, Witness DD and Witness W testified that they saw him on that day. The Chamber notes that the alibi defence was not introduced until near the end of the trial, after the Prosecution rested its case. Neither the Accused nor Witness DDD mentioned the alibi at the time of the arrest of the Accused or during any of the pre-trial proceedings.
  7. The Chamber particularly notes that Defence counsel did not mention the alibi of the Accused in her opening statement or in her cross-examination of any of the Prosecution witnesses who testified over a period of 18 months. Consequently, Witness A, Witness H, Witness DD and Witness W were never confronted with and given an opportunity to respond to the assertion that the Accused was not present on 11 April at the ETO or at Nyanza and that their testimony must therefore be false. The Chamber has found these Prosecution witnesses to be credible, and finds the extremely delayed revelation of an alibi defence to be suspect. The inference to be drawn is that this defence was an afterthought and that the account of dates was tailored by the Accused and Defense Witness DDD, following the conclusion of the Prosecution's case. The only witness to support the alibi of the Accused is Witness DDD, and the Chamber is mindful that she has a personal interest in his protection. For these reasons, the Chamber does not accept the testimony of the Accused and Witness DDD that they were on the way to Masango on 11 April.
  8. On the basis of the testimony cited above, the Chamber finds it established beyond a reasonable doubt that from 7 April to 11 April 1994, several thousand people, primarily Tutsis, sought refuge at the ETO. As all of the witnesses testified, they went to the ETO because UNAMIR troops were stationed there and they thought they would find protection there. The Interahamwe, armed with guns, grenades, machetes and clubs, gathered outside the ETO compound, effectively surrounding it. Colonel Leonides Rusatila separated Hutus from Tutsis at the ETO, prior to the attack, and several hundred Hutus left the ETO compound. When the UNAMIR troops left the ETO on 11 April 1994, the Interahamwe and members of the Presidential Guard entered and attacked the compound, throwing grenades, firing guns and killing with machetes and clubs. A large number of Tutsis, including many family members and others known to the witnesses, were killed in this attack.
  9. Witness H saw the Accused at the time of this attack on the ETO, just before shots were fired, together with Gerard Karangwa, the President of the Interahamwe at the Commune level, in a group which began throwing grenades and firing. Witness DD also saw the Accused at the time of the attack, armed with a gun, about 50 metres away from the ETO entrance. Based on this evidence, the Chamber finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused was present and participated in the attack on Tutsi refugees at the ETO school.
  10. Many of the refugees who escaped or survived the attack at ETO headed in groups towards the Amahoro Stadium, where they thought they would be safe as it was under RPF control. These groups were stopped en route by soldiers, gathered together near the Sonatube factory and diverted, having been told that Colonel Rusatila had ordered them to Nyanza where their safety would be ensured. Some women were taken forcibly from the group and subsequently raped. Flanked on both sides by Interahamwe, approximately 4,000 refugees were then forcibly marched to Nyanza. Along the way, these refugees were abused, threatened and killed by soldiers and by the Interahamwe surrounding them, who were armed with machetes, clubs, axes, and other weapons.
  11. When they arrived at Nyanza, the refugees were stopped by the Interahamwe, assembled together and made to sit down in one spot, below a hill on which there were armed soldiers. They were surrounded by Interahamwe and soldiers. Hutus were told to stand up and identify themselves and were allowed to leave. Some Tutsis who tried to leave, pretending they were Hutus, were killed on the spot by Interahamwe who knew them. Grenades were then thrown into the crowd by the Interahamwe, and the soldiers began to fire their guns from the hillside. Those who tried to flee were brought back by the Interahamwe surrounding them. This attack took place on 11 April, in the late afternoon and into the evening. Many were killed in this attack, including Witness A's wife and four of their five children. Following the shooting and grenades, the soldiers told the Interahamwe to begin killing people. The Interahamwe then began killing people with clubs and other weapons. Some girls were selected, put aside, and raped before they were killed. Clothing had been removed from many of the women who were killed. The killing lasted more than an hour. The soldiers then told the Interahamwe to look for those who were not dead and finish them off. The Interahamwe left at approximately 11:00 p.m. and returned on the morning of 12 April, when they came back to loot and to kill all surviving refugees. Approximately 200 people survived the massacre.
  12. On the way to Nyanza, Witness A saw the Accused coming in a vehicle from the direction of Nyanza, pull over to the side of the road and get out. Thereafter, he saw the Accused wave away a person who had worked for him and approached him from the marching group of refugees for assistance. Witness H also saw the Accused on the way to Nyanza, standing in a group talking to a member of the Interahamwe whom he recognized and other people.
  13. Witness W saw a vehicle belonging to the Accused bringing in Interahamwe as reinforcements. At Nyanza, Witness A again saw the Accused, directing the Interahamwe who were armed with grenades, machetes and clubs - into position to surround the refugees just prior to the massacre. The Chamber finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused was present and participated in the forced diversion of refugees to Nyanza and that he directed and participated in the attack at Nyanza.

4.5. Paragraph 17 of the Indictment

  1. Paragraph 17 of the Indictment reads as follows:

    "In April of 1994, on dates unknown, in Masango Commune, Georges Rutaganda and others known to the Prosecutor conducted house-to-house searches for Tutsis and their families. Throughout these searches, Tutsis were separated from Hutus and taken to a river. Georges Rutaganda instructed the Interahamwe to track all the Tutsis and throw them into the river".

Regarding allegations according to which in April of 1994, on dates unknown, in Masango Commune, Georges Rutaganda and others known to the Prosecutor conducted house-to-house searches for Tutsis and their families, and that throughout these searches, Tutsis were separated from Hutus and taken to a river:

  1. Prosecution Witness EE testified that he saw, on three occasions, the father of the accused and other Interahamwe go to pick up Tutsis in vehicles, telling them that they were taking them to a safe location. Witness EE testified that he had seen these vehicles go to the river. He also explained that other people were led on foot to the river. He testified that his neighbours had told him that the people taken to the river had been thrown into it. Witness EE also stated that, from the window of his house, he heard people say they were returning from the river where they had just thrown Tutsis.
  2. Under cross-examination, in reply to the Defence, EE indicated that he could not see the river from his house.
  3. Prosecution Witness C also testified before the Chamber that, in Masango, the people who were tracking the Tutsis went to collect those who had sought refuge at the Bureau communal in order to beat and kill them. Witness C testified that many Tutsis had therefore been killed in the Masango region. Those who sought refuge at the river were thrown into it while others were thrown into mass graves. In reply to questions from the Chamber, Witness C specified clearly that he did not see the Accused participate in the said massacres.

Regarding the allegations formulated as follows "Georges Rutaganda instructed the Interahamwe to track all the Tutsis and throw them into the river":

  1. Prosecution Witness O testified before the Chamber that he saw the accused, on 22 April 1994, at about 5 p.m., in Masango. According to Witness O, the Accused was in mufti, armed with a short firearm and was driving a white Toyota pick-up which he parked at some 15 metres from Witness O's shop. Witness O then stated that he saw at the rear of this vehicle, guns partially covered with a tarpaulin. Witness O also testified that the Accused was accompanied by Robert Kajuga, National President of the Interahamwe and some 10 other people including about four in military uniform and others in the distinctive green, red and yellow Interahamwe uniform. Witness O testified that some of the men accompanying the Accused carried grenades or firearms and that Kajuga was carrying grenades on his belt. Witness O further stated that he saw the Accused speak with a certain Karera, in charge of the Youth Wing of the local Interahamwe za MRND, in Masango, near a pole from which a flag flew.
  2. Prosecution Witness V testified before the Chamber that the Accused held a meeting at a place known as Gwanda (sic), located between Masango and Karambi, on a date he could not accurately recall. During the examination-in-chief, Witness V situated this meeting at the beginning of the month of May 1994 and, under cross-examination, he stated that it was rather in April 1994. Witness V stated that the Accused conducted this meeting in his capacity as Vice-President of the Interahamwe. Witness V testified that the Accused said during that meeting that it was necessary to stop eating the cows of Tutsis and to get rid of the Tutsis instead. Witness V, a Tutsi man, who attended the meeting, fled to safety. According to Witness V, the massacres in Masango started after the Accused had held the said meeting. Witness V testified that prior to that there had been some looting but no killings.
  3. Prosecution Witness C saw the Accused attending an MRND meeting at Masango. According to the witness, the Accused was wearing the uniform of the Interahamwe. The father of the Accused, Esdras Mpamo, was also in attendance as well as a certain Jean-Marie Vianney Jyojyi. The two individuals who took the floor, Mwanafunzi Anteri and a Protestant pastor urged the gathering not to support the Arusha Accords and to fight the enemy. According to Witness C, the RPF and the Tutsis were referred to as "the enemy" at the time. The witness also testified that the proverbs used at the meeting were meant to convey the notion that Tutsis, their families and children were to be tracked. Witness C noted that the Accused was present throughout the meeting and did not object to the statements made there. He was seated with Mwananfuzi Anteri and Sebuhuro at the table facing the gathering. His father, Esdras Mpamo, a former Bourgmestre of Masango who at the time of the events alleged was an MRND parliamentarian was also seated at the table next to the speakers. Witness C testified that the attacks against the Tutsis started after that meting.
  4. Prosecution Witness EE, for his part, testified before the Chamber that he had attended a meeting, after 6 April 1994, at which the father of the Accused, Mpamo, who was chairing the meeting, had declared that Tutsis had to be killed to prevent them from taking over. The meeting was held near the Masango Communal Office. According to EE, the Accused was in attendance and was seated next to his father, at a table facing the audience. He explained that the Accused and his father were not the only ones seated at the table and that the Accused had not taken the floor.
  5. Under cross-examination, Witness EE testified that he had attended that meeting because he had received a written invitation from Esdras Mpamo. He confirmed that he was personally surprised at the statements made at the meeting and that he had not reacted, nor had the bourgmestre, Louis, who was also present. Witness EE then indicated that he was also seated at the table, next to the speakers, facing the audience.

Factual Findings

  1. The Chamber notes that the Prosecutor had led no evidence in support of the allegations that in April 1994, the Accused had conducted house-to-house searches for Tutsis and their families in Masango Commune and that, throughout these searches, Tutsis were separated from Hutus and taken to a river.
  2. Regarding the allegations that Georges Rutaganda had ordered the Interahamwe to track down all Tutsis and throw them into the river, the Chamber is satisfied, based on the testimonies of Witnesses C, V and EE, that the Accused had attended at least one meeting at which specific statements of incitement to kill Tutsis were made. The Chamber notes that the Accused did not object to such statements and that, in view of the authority he exercised over the population and the position he occupied during that meeting, being seated at the table of speakers next to his father, the former bourgmestre of the Commune, he had acquiesced to such statements. The Chamber notes however that only Prosecution Witness V had testified that the Accused had chaired the meeting and had taken the floor. The Chamber notes that V's testimony on this point is not corroborated by those of Witnesses C and EE, both of whom had declared that the Accused was indeed present at the meeting and had taken a seat at the table of speakers but had himself not taken the floor. Accordingly, the Chamber holds that, on the basis of uncorroborated testimonies presented to it, it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused ordered that all Tutsis be tracked and thrown into the river.

4.6 Paragraph 18 of the Indictment

  1. Paragraph 18 of the Indictment reads as follows:

    "On or about April 28, 1994, Georges Rutaganda, together with Interahamwe members, collected residents from Kigali and detained them near the Amgar garage. Georges Rutaganda and the Interahamwe demanded identity cards from the detainees. A number of persons, including Emmanuel Kayitare, were forcibly separated from the group. Later that day, Emmanuel Kayitare attempted to flee from where he was being detained and Georges Rutaganda pursued him, caught him and struck him on the head with a machete and killed him."

Regarding the allegations that on or about April 28, 1994, the Accused, together with Interahamwe members, collected residents from Kigali and detained them near the Amgar garage and demanded identity cards from them:

  1. Prosecution Witness U testified before the Chamber that, on a day, that he was unable to pin point but that he put after 6 April 1994, at about 3 p.m., he hid in a bush near a garage of which he knew neither the name nor the owner. Later, Witness U recognized the said garage on a slide tendered by the Prosecutor as Exhibit 143. The Chamber notes that the garage identified is Amgar.
  2. The witness testified that he clearly saw the following events unfold near the garage from where he was hiding. The Accused and some 30 Interahamwe, some of whom were in military uniform and others in mufti, armed with tools such as machetes, took away some 30 people there to kill them. According to Witness U, the Interahamwe looked like the bodyguards of the Accused.
  3. Prosecution Witness AA testified that on 28 April 1994, around 10 a.m., Interahamwe conducted a house-to-house search in the Agakingiro neighbourhood asking the people to show their identity cards. They took away those they detained towards the "Hindi Mandal" temple, located near the Amgar garage and a mass grave, at a place now called Jango. According to Witness AA, streams of people who had been forced out of their homes headed up towards that location. Witness AA was among the persons detained and led near the garage. He testified that the Accused was present at the location where the detainees were gathered. According to Witness AA, the Accused was the leader of those Interahamwe. He wore a military uniform, comprising a coat and trousers, and carried a rifle.
  4. Under cross-examination, Witness AA reiterated his testimony that the Accused himself did not directly conduct searches, at least he did not see him do so. The Accused was present at the location where the detainees were gathered, near Amgar garage. The accused was already there when AA arrived. Also under cross-examination, Witness AA testified that the Accused carried a pistol and not a rifle, and that he also carried grenades on his belt.
  5. According to Witness AA, the persons who managed to leave this site where people had been assembled were Hutus. Those who were kept behind were either Tutsis or people from another ethnic group, known as member of political parties opposed to the government. According to Witness AA, those persons were later killed and buried on the spot.

Regarding the allegations that a number of persons, including Emmanuel Kayitare, were forcibly separated from the group and that when Emmanuel Kayitare attempted to flee, the Accused pursued him, caught him and struck him on the head with a machete and killed him:

  1. Witness AA testified that the Accused was on the spot where the detainees including him were assembled. According to Witness AA, all the persons detained had their eyes riveted on the Accused in the hope that he would have mercy. Witness AA testified that the people were afraid and that whenever the Accused looked at them they cast their eyes downwards. Witness AA was seated, crouching some 10 or 20 metres away from the Accused.
  2. According to Witness AA, the detainees included Emmanuel Kayitare, nicknamed Rujindiri. Witness AA knew Emmanuel Kayitare's younger brother, Michel Kayitare very well. A man called Cekeri told Emmanuel that he knew him and that he was aware that he was going to the CND. Witness AA testified during the examination-in-chief that Emmanuel took fright and took off running. Witness AA saw the Accused grab Emmanuel by the collar to prevent him from escaping. The Accused seized a machete from Cekeri with which he struck Emmanuel on the neck.
  3. In answer to questions from the Bench, Witness AA reiterated that the Accused did kill Emmanuel not with a bullet but rather with a machete. Witness AA then explained that the Accused was not carrying a gun but rather a pistol. When reminded by the Defence that he had testified before the Chamber, just as he had stated to the investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor that the Accused was carrying a gun, Witness AA replied that it was a pistol.
  4. Under cross-examination, Witness AA testified that the Accused had grabbed Emmanuel by the collar of his shirt when the latter stood up to run and therefore had not chased after him. He further stated that the Accused had not even taken a step; he had merely turned around and grabbed Emmanuel. In answer to the Defence, Witness AA added that the Accused had seized Emmanuel with one hand while holding the weapon with the other hand. Witness AA confirmed that the Accused did not run after Emmanuel. Witness AA then stated that when he was called by Cekeri, Emmanuel stood up as if to walk towards him. Emmanuel walked by the Accused. That was when the Accused grabbed him by the neck.
  5. Witness AA then insisted on the fact that the Accused held Emmanuel by the collar of his shirt and not by the neck as he had previously stated to the investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor.
  6. Under cross-examination, Witness AA reiterated his statement to the effect that the Accused had struck Emmanuel on the neck with a machete. In response to the Defence pointing out an inconsistency between his testimony and his statement to the investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor in which he had alleged that the Accused had split Emmanuel's skull, Witness AA stated that he had seen the Accused strike Emmanuel with a machete, that there had been a splash of blood and that he had covered his eyes with his hands.
  7. In answer to the Bench which had asked whether the splash of blood was from the front or the back of the head, Witness AA stated that Emmanuel had fallen with his head to the ground and that there was so much blood that neither his face nor his hair could be seen.
  8. Prosecution Witness U testified before the Chamber that Emmanuel and another person, nicknamed Venant, were among those arrested and taken near the garage close to where he was hiding. U knew Emmanuel very well. He stated that Emmanuel and Venant were tied together with their shirts lest they escaped. The Accused untied them.
  9. Witness U testified that he had then heard the Accused, speaking out loud so as to be heard, telling those who were with him that he was going to show them how they should work. According to U, the Accused had a machete hanging from his belt with which he hit Emmanuel on the head . Witness U testified that Emmanuel's head was split in two. Emmanuel fell dead instantly. According to Witness U, Emmanuel was killed by machete in a single blow.
  10. Witness U testified further that when Emmanuel fell, the Accused then took the kalachnikov which he was carrying on his shoulder and shot Venant who also fell beside Emmanuel.
  11. Again according to Witness U, the Accused then picked up their bodies and threw them into a pit with the help of those who were with him. Witness U identified the pit into which Emmanuel and Venant were thrown on the slide tendered as Prosecution Exhibit No.169. According to U, Emmanuel was a Tutsi and Venant, a Hutu who did not approve of the killings.
  12. Witness U also stated that as he attempted to flee, he saw the Accused engaged in killing with a machete assisted by Interahamwe. The bodies were then thrown into a pit. Witness U stated that there were two pits - a small one into which two bodies were thrown and a larger into which a lot of bodies were dumped.

Factual Findings

  1. The Chamber is of the opinion that Witness AA is credible and, consequently, accepts his testimony. Although contradictions emerged under cross-examination in his testimony with regards to details, such contradictions are not material and do not impugn the substance of his testimony on the circumstances of the death of Emmanuel Kayitare. The Chamber finds that such contradictions may be attributed to the possible trauma caused to Witness AA as a result of recounting the painful events he had witnessed and the period of time between the said events and AA's appearance before the Chamber. Additionally, the Chamber recalls that the inconsistencies between the witness testimony and statements made before the trial must be analysed in the light of difficulties linked, particularly, to the interpretation of the questions asked and the fact that those were not solemn statements made before a commissioner of oaths.
  2. In the instant case, the Chamber notes, for instance, that the difficulties Witness AA faced in describing accurately the type of weapon carried by the Accused, that is, whether it was a rifle or a pistol, may be explained by lack of knowledge of weapons and by the fact that the witness is unable to tell apart the two types of weapons. Similarly, the Chamber is of the opinion that Witness AA's inability to indicate whether the blow unleashed by the Accused cut off the head or neck of the victim cannot call into question the reliability of his testimony since it is difficult for a lay person to ascertain the respective limits of the head and the neck.
  3. Based on AA's testimony, as substantially corroborated by Witness U, the Chamber is satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that, on 28 April 1994, the Interahamwe conducted a house-to-house search in the Agakingiro neighbourhood, asking people to show their identity cards. The Tutsi and people belonging to certain political parties were taken towards the "Hindi Mandal" temple, near Amgar garage. The Accused was present at the location where the people caught were gathered. He wore a military uniform, comprising a coat and trousers, and carried a rifle.
  4. Furthermore, after considering the respective testimonies of Witnesses AA and U, the Chamber is satisfied that they are corroborative as regards the circumstances surrounding the killing of Emmanuel Kayitare, a Tutsi, by the Accused.
  5. The Chamber notes that Witness U identified the grave where Emmanuel and Venant were killed and into which their bodies were thrown on the slide tendered by the Prosecutor as exhibit 169.
  6. The Chamber observes that said slide tendered as exhibit 169 shows the same view as the one tendered by the Prosecutor as exhibit 269, which has been referred to by Professor William Haglund, a forensic anthropologist, who had appeared as an expert witness for the Prosecutor, as an exhumation site identified as "RUG-1".
  7. According to Professor Haglund, three bodies were exhumed from the hole shown on the slide tendered as exhibit 269(2). Dr. Nizam Peerwani, a pathologist, who had worked jointly with Professor Haglund and who had also appeared as an expert witness for the Prosecutor, submitted the following findings on the three bodies exhumed: The first body was that of a man aged between 35 and 45 years at the time of his death the probable cause of which, according to Dr. Peerwani, was homicide. The second body was that of a woman, aged between 30 and 39 years at the time of her death the probable cause of which was homicide. The third exhumed body was that of a man aged between 35 and 45 at the time of his death the probable cause of which, according to Dr. Peerwani, was blunt force trauma injuries.
  8. Firstly, the Chamber, on the basis of the testimony by Dr. Kathleen Reich, a forensic anthropologist, called by the Defence as an expert witness, is not persuaded that the scientific method used by Professor Haglund is such as to allow the Chamber to rely on his conclusions in the determination of the case.
  9. Secondly and, above all, the Chamber notes that the Prosecutor has failed to show a direct link between the findings of Professor Haglund and Dr. Peerwani and the specific allegations in the Indictment or even to call the attention of the Chamber to the fact that the slide tendered by the Prosecutor as exhibit 169, identified by Witness U as showing the hole where Emmanuel and Venant were killed and into which their bodies were thrown shows the same view as the slide tendered as exhibit 269, featuring the exhumation site "RUG-1".
  10. Consequently, the Chamber holds that the said findings are not helpful to the Chamber in determining the facts of the case. Moreover, the Chamber is not satisfied that the grave site referred to by Witness U and Witness AA and that exhumed by Professor Haglund is one and the same.
  11. Finally, on the basis of the testimonies of Witnesses AA and U, the Chamber finds that it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Accused struck Emmanuel Kayitare with a machete and that the latter died instantly.

4.7 Charges as set forth in Paragraph 19 of the Indictment.

  1. Paragraph 19 of the Indictment reads as follows:

    "In June 1994, on a date unknown, Georges RUTAGANDA ordered people to bury the bodies of victims in order to conceal his crimes from the international community."

Events Alleged

  1. In respect of the aforementioned allegation, Witness Q testified in direct examination that he was hiding in the house that belonged to a person he identified as Thomas when an Interahamwe named Cyuma took him and a young girl to a hole behind the Technical school of Muhazi (École technique de Muhazi). The Witness said that when he arrived at this hole he saw the corpse of this nephew lying inside. He said that the young girl was killed by an Interahamwe named Karangwa, on the orders of Cyuma and he was about to be killed when a woman he identified as Martha, who at that time was the head of the cell, stopped Cyuma and the others from killing him.
  2. Witness Q testified in direct examination that, whilst at the hole behind the Technical school of Muhazi, he saw another hole that he referred to in his evidence as the third hole and he stated that he saw the Accused, in the company of other people, standing in the vicinity of this hole. The Witness stated that, from where he was, he could see this hole but he could not get to it. The Witness stated that the Accused thereafter called Martha who immediately went to him, whereupon the Accused ordered a stop to all killings during the day and the dead buried immediately, as the killings were badly perceived by the people the Witness described as "whites" and "foreigners". According to the Witness, the Accused further ordered that killing should only take place at night.
  3. Witness Q testified in direct examination that the Accused was addressing all those people in the vicinity of this third hole when he ordered that all killings be stopped and all corpses buried. The Witness stated that he did not hear the Accused give these orders but that he had learnt of these orders when Martha returned to the vicinity of the hole behind the Technical school and conveyed them to Cyuma, Karangwa and the others who had been participating in killings. When the Witness was asked by the Prosecutor to state what Martha said, in conveying the orders of the Accused, the Witness stated that Martha said that it was necessary to stop the killing. The remaining people will be killed after the burial of the Late President Juvenal Habyarimana.
  4. Under cross examination Witness Q stated that Martha conveyed the orders of the Accused when she stated that the killing must stop and the dead must be buried immediately, because the foreigners were not in favour of the killing. In the tail end of his cross examination, the Witness stated that he saw and he heard the Accused give orders to Martha and the other people that were in the vicinity of the third hole. The Witness also testified that this incident took place at the end of April 1994.
  5. Witness AA testified in chief, that on 28 April 1994 he saw the Accused kill Emmanuel behind the Amgar garage. The Witness also testified that there was a mass grave site at this location and many bodies, including that of Emmanuel were later exhumed from this mass grave.
  6. Witness HH testified that he was hiding in a bush near a roadblock and he saw Prefect Renzaho telling people manning a roadblock to stop the killings during the day because there was a satellite that was monitoring their activities.
  7. The Accused testified that he was taken by a member of UNAMIR to a roadblock where a UNAMIR convoy was stopped. He stated that there were 72 adults in the convoy. He stated that the roadblock was manned by angry people who were armed and soldiers. He stated that on his arrival at the roadblock, people from the neighbourhood, some of whom were armed with sticks and machettes, gathered around. The Accused stated that the people at the roadblock were intent on killing those traveling in the convoy. The Accused said that when the people saw him alight the UNAMIR motor vehicle, they mocked him. The Accused stated that he spoke to some of the people at the roadblock and he told them that they were being monitored by satellite, in an attempt to persuade them to allow the convoy to pass.
  8. Under cross-examination, the Accused confirmed saying to people that they were monitored by satellite and therefore people should not be killed. He stated that he made these statements to remind people of their responsibility. According to the Accused, he also used another argument to remind people of their responsibility. He would say that the International Community would not come to their assistance if they knew about any killings, but the Accused stated that he did not have any contact with anybody in the International Community.

Factual Findings

  1. The Chamber considers that Witness Q identified the Accused in court, he knew of the Accused and of his father, before the events of 1994 and he described the Accused as a rich business man who lived in the neighbouring Commune of Masango. The Witness also testified that, after having been stopped at a roadblock at Agakingiro, he was taken by a person he identified as Vedaste Segatarama to the Accused. The Witness described how he was made to enter a little office and presented to the Accused. The Chamber is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Witness Q is able to positively identify the Accused and that the Accused was present at this hole that served as a mass grave, as testified to by the Witness.
  2. The Chamber notes that there are discrepancies in the testimony of Witness Q, such as his factual account of the exact words used by the Accused, in conveying his (the Accused's) orders. Despite these discrepancies, the Witness nevertheless conveyed clearly the crux of what was ordered, that is the killing should stop and the bodies buried in order to conceal the dead from the foreigners.
  3. It is clear from Witness Q's evidence that the Accused was present at this mass grave site and that he ordered the burial of bodies. However there is no evidence that the Accused gave these orders, in order to conceal his crimes from the International Community. The Chamber is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Accused ordered the burial of bodies in order to conceal the dead from foreigners. The Chamber is however not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that in giving the said order the Accused sought to conceal his crimes from the International Community.

4.8 General allegations (Paragraphs 3-9 of the Indictment)

  1. The Chamber now considers the general allegations in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Indictment.

    Paragraph 6 alleges: "In each paragraph charging crimes against humanity, crimes punishable by Article 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal, the alleged acts were committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population on political, ethnic or racial grounds";

Paragraph 7 alleges: "At all times relevant to this Indictment, a state of internal armed conflict existed in Rwanda";

Paragraph 8 alleges: "The victims referred to in this indictment were, at all relevant times, persons taking no active part in the hostilities":

  1. In respect of the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Indictment, Witness C testified that at a MNRD meeting held in April 1994, it was stated that Tutsis were the accomplices of the RPF. It was also stated that every Tutsi was the enemy(3). Witness EE testified that a meeting was held at the Commune office, following the death of President Habyarimana. During this meeting the Accused's father stated that Tutsis had to be killed, to prevent them from assuming power(4). Witness Hughes testified that, following radio announcements calling for the apprehension of Tutsis, people actively sought Tutsis at roadblocks and on the streets. Tutsis were terrified to walk the streets. Hughes stated that Tutsis were in hiding, even in areas where the killings had not begun(5). Witness W testified that following the death of the President, people in vehicles used megaphones to spread propaganda messages about the Inkotanyi. Following this announcement Tutsis were killed, their houses looted and burned, and their cattle killed.
  2. The Chamber considers that Witnesses A, B, H, W, O, Z, BB and HH testified about the construction of roadblocks immediately after the death of President Habyarimana. People fleeing for safety, were intercepted at such roadblocks. Some people were selected to be killed, whilst others were allowed to proceed. Such selection and separation process began with the erection of such roadblocks.(6)
  3. Witness W testified that the Accused ordered Councillors and heads of cellules to erect roadblocks. Roadblocks were immediately erected and all persons passing through these roadblocks, who produced identity cards indicating their Tutsi ethnicity, were apprehended and some were immediately killed.(7)
  4. Witness A testified to having observed Tutsis separated from Hutus at the Nyanza crossroads(8). Witness DD also testified that, at Nyanza, soldiers and members of the Interahamwe surrounded her group. According to the witness Hutus were asked to leave such group. Hutus were then asked to produce their identity cards. On producing their cards, a man who had lied about his ethnicity was immediately killed. The Tutsis were thereafter attacked by soldiers and members of the Interahamwe. The witness recalled that grenades were used in such attack(9). Witness H also testified, that soldiers were everywhere. The soldiers asked them to sit down and told Hutus to identify themselves and leave. They attacked the remaining group of people, by throwing grenades and firing guns into the group. The Interahamwe also participated killing people, with their knives(10). Mr Hughes testified that a group of survivors from the Nyanza massacre were found with machete wounds to the back of their heads and limbs.(11)
  5. Witness Z, a Hutu living in Kicukiro, testified that when he came out of his house, he observed corpses of men and women near a roadblock. He stated that he and others were divided into four groups to dig holes, collect and bury bodies(12).
  6. An expert witness for the Prosecutor, Mr Nsanzuwera testified that the Accused held a high position within the Interahamwe and exercised authority over members of the Interahamwe. The witness also testified that the Accused was often present at roadblocks and barriers, issuing orders(13). The Accused testified that after he joined the MRND party in 1991, he was involved in the creation of its youth wing, the Interahamwe za MRND, and was subsequently its second vice-president.
  7. Defence witness DNN testified to hearing that the Interahamwe received military training. The witness also stated that such training commenced at the beginning of the war(14). Witness DNN confirmed that they received this training(15).
  8. Defence Witness DZZ stated that she had heard about the Interahamwe receiving military training, but only after the beginning of the war(16). Defence Witness DNN confirmed that the Interahamwe received such training.(17)
  9. Defence witnesses DDD(18), DD(19), DNN(20) and DZZ(21) testified that RPF infiltrators were identified at roadblocks, by virtue of their falsified identity cards. Defence Witness DEE testified that identity cards were verified at all roadblocks she passed through in Kigali, except the roadblock near the hospital. She stated that being in possession of an identity card, indicating Tutsi ethnicity, was justification enough to be killed.(22)
  10. Witnesses H and DD testified to hiding in the house of a Burundian and survived house to house searches. Defence Witness DF testified to house to house searches conducted in Kigali. Witnesses U, T, J and Q testified that the Accused was present and participated in the distribution of weapons to the Interahamwe. It has been established that weapons were distributed to the Interahamwe. The Accused was present and participated in the distribution of weapons on at least three occasions.
  11. The Accused testified that:

    "It developed a situation such that the people who were identified as RPF unfortunately I regret the fact and most of them were Tutsis. 90 percent were Tutsis and this led to a generalisation and excessive behaviour which also affected people who I - you know - old men, children and so on and so forth."(23)

    "What happened in my country - in our country is an incident which I would call a tragedy, a tragedy. It's a series of massacres, of killings which affected people from the RPF and the Inkotanyi. Yesterday, I spoke about the generalisation of the Tutsis and this even affected children."(24)

  12. According to Expert Witness Nsanzuwera, the Tutsi were systematically targeted as such, because they were considered to be opponents of the regime. Mr Nsanzuwera testified that, the militia, including the Interahamwe, killed Tutsis and Hutus who opposed the Hutu Regime, the victims of these massacres being civilians. Mr Nsanzuwera also confirmed that the Interahamwe's involvement in the killing of Tutsis was not spontaneous but well planned(25).
  13. Professor Reyntjens, an expert witness for the Prosecution, testified to the existence of a plan formulated years prior to the events of 1994 in Rwanda, which suggests that the attacks were systematic(26). Mr Hughes testified that the attacks appeared to be pre-planned due to their consistent pattern.(27)
  14. The Chamber finds that there is sufficient evidence of meetings held to organise and encourage the targeting and killings of the Tutsi civilian population as such and not as "RPF Infiltrators", as testified to by Defence Witnesses DDD, DD, DNN and DZZ. The Chamber also finds that this organisation and encouragement took the form of radio broadcasts calling for the apprehension of Tutsi, the use of mobile announcement units to spread propaganda messages about the Inkontanyi, the distribution of weapons to the Interahamwe militia, the erection of roadblocks manned by soldiers and members of the Interahamwe to facilitate the identification, separation and subsequent killing of Tutsi civilians and, the house to house searches conducted to apprehend Tutsis, clearly suggest that a systematic attack on the Tutsi civilian population existed throughout Rwanda in 1994.
  15. The Chamber accepts the testimony of expert Witnesses Mr Nsanzuwera and Professor Reyntjens that the attack on the Tutsi population was of a systematic character. The Chamber also accepts Mr. Nsanzuwera's evidence that the victims of the massacres were civilians. The Chamber finds that the attack on the Tutsi population occurred in various parts of Rwanda, such as in Nyanza, Nyarugenge Commune, Kiemesakara Sector in the Kigali Prefecture, Nyamirambo, Cyahafi, Kicukiro, Masango. The Chamber finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the attack on the Tutsi civilian population was of a widespread and systematic character.

With regard to the allegation in paragraph 5, which alleges that : "The victims in each paragraph charging genocide were members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

  1. As indicated supra in the discussion on the applicable law, the Chamber holds that in assessing whether a particular group may be considered as protected from the crime of genocide, it will proceed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account both the relevant evidence proferred and the political, social and cultural context.(28)
  2. The Chamber concurs with the Akayesu Judgement (29), that the Tutsi population does not have its own language or a distinct culture from the rest of the Rwandan population. However, the Chamber finds that there are a number of objective indicators of the group as a group with a distinct identity. Every Rwandan citizen was, before 1994, required to carry an identity card which included an entry for ethnic group, the ethnic group being either Hutu, Tutsi or Twa. The Rwandan Constitution and laws in force in 1994 also identified Rwandans by reference to their ethnic group. Moreover, customary rules existed in Rwanda governing the determination of ethnic group, which followed patrilineal lines. The identification of persons as belonging to the group of Hutu or Tutsi or Twa had thus become embedded in Rwandan culture, and can, in the light of the travaux préparatoires of the Genocide Convention, qualify as a stable and permanent group, in the eyes of both the Rwandan society and the international community. In Rwanda in 1994, the Tutsi constituted an ethnic group.
  3. The reference to ethnic origin exists in the Rwandan life today as it did before 1994, although with different connotations, but still used by most Rwandans, inside and outside of the country. All witnesses heard referred to the Tutsi as a particular group and identified themselves before the Chamber by ethnicity.
  4. The Chamber notes that the Defence did not challenge the fact that the Tutsi constitutes a group protected under the Genocide Convention, and further notes that the Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement (30) and the Akayesu Judgement (31) establish that the Tutsi group is a group envisaged by the Genocide Convention.
  5. Consequently, after having reviewed all the evidence presented, the Chamber finds that the Tutsi group is characterised by its stability and permanence and is generally accepted as a distinct group in Rwanda. Therefore, the Chamber considers that it constitutes a group protected by the Genocide Convention and, thence, by Article 2 of the Statute.

Regarding paragraph 7, which alleges that at all times relevant to this indictment, a state of internal armed conflict existed in Rwanda:

  1. Paragraph 7 of the Indictment alleges that there existed in Rwanda at the time set out in the Indictment a state of internal armed conflict. According to the testimony of Professor Reyntjens, in the early 1990's Rwanda experienced a period of political turmoil while in transition to a multiparty political system. During this time several political parties were organised in opposition to the ruling party MRND. These parties included the Mouvement Démocratique Républicain (MDR), Parti Social Démocrate (PSD), Parti Libéral (PL), Parti Démocrate Chrétien (PDC) and the Coalition pour la Défense de la République (CDR). The Accused testified that these political parties competed to recruit new members. Among the activities to attract newcomers was the creation of youth wings, and the Interahamwe was the youth wing of the MRND.
  2. According to the Accused, the term Interahamwe attained a negative connotation and came to be used to describe in popular usage, after 6 April 1994, a large or loosely organized militia which is said to have fought against the RPF(32).
  3. Mr Nsanzuwera testified that the Interahamwe evolved from the youth wing of a political party into a militia(33). Mr Nsanzuwera further testified that, on 5 January 1994, the President of Rwanda was sworn in but he did not swear in a government and the National Assembly as intended by the Arusha Peace Accords. Moreover certain obstacles remained that prevented the full participation of other political parties in the interim government. Consequently, widespread insecurity prevailed in Kigali. On 6 April 1994 the plane carrying President Habyarimana crashed. The interim government appealed to the population to join the civil defence and the RAF to fight against the RPF and eliminate the moderate wing within the government(34).
  4. The armed conflict between the government and the RPF resumed. The RPF battalion engaged in hostilities with the RAF, according to testimonies by Mr Reyntjens and Mr Nsanzuwera. Immediately, roadblocks were erected in and around Kigali and later extended to the rest of the country to prevent the penetration of RPF. However, according to testimonies of eyewitnesses heard by the Chamber, and of Mr Reyntjens as expert witness for the Prosecutor(35), one only needed to be a suspected sympathiser of the RPF to be targeted. This resulted in a globalisation of crimes with Tutsis being systematically targeted and eliminated for representing the majority of RPF infiltrators. The Accused further testified that roadblocks were set up initially by civilians who, as the "civil defence" were rallying together against the RPF(36). According to Mr Nsanzuwera, the civil defence was mainly composed of Interahamwe members and radical youth wings of other political parties like the CDR which aimed at the elimination of the Tutsi as a support for the RPF(37). The Defence expert witness, Professor Mbonimpa, called the RPF a militia and agreed that militia also had a command structure, wore a different uniform, was armed, and capable of carrying out war. Both sides mobilised people for war through their radios, including the RTLM radio on the government's side. He stated that the RPF said that any force that intervened in the conflict was regarded as an enemy force(38).
  5. The Chamber notes the findings in the Akayesu Judgement and finds that the evidence establishes that there existed an internal armed conflict in Rwanda during the time period alleged in the Indictment.

1. See Chapter 1, Section 3 of this Judgement.

2. See Chapter 4, section 3 (of the present Judgement), factual findings on the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Indictment.

3. See Testimony of Witness C, transcript of 04 March, 1998

4. See Testimony of Witness EE, transcript of 04 March 1998

5. See Testimony of Witness Mr Hughes, transcripts of 25, 26 and 27 May 1998

6. See supra, Chapter 4, part 2, on Factual Findings, para. 11

7. See Testimony of Witness W, transcript of 28 May 1997

8. See Testimony of Witness A, transcript of 24 March 1997

9. See Testimony of Witness DD, transcript of 27 May 1997

10. See Testimony of Witness H, transcript 26 March 1997

11. See Testimony of Witness Mr Hughes, transcript of 25 May 1998

12. See Testimony of Witness Z, transcript of 20 March 1998

13. See Testimony of expert witness Mr Nsanzuwera, transcript of 24 March 1998

14. See Testimony of Witness DZZ, transcript of 11 February 1999

15. See Testimony of Witness DNN, transcript of 16 February 1999

16. See Testimony of Witness DZZ, transcript of 11 February 1999

17. See Testimony of Witness DNN, transcript of 16 February 1999

18. See Testimony of Witness DDD, transcript of 16 February 1999

19. See Testimony of Witness DD, transcript of 17 March 1999

20. See Testimony of Witness DNN, transcript of 16 February 1999

21. See Testimony of Witness DZZ, transcript of 11 February 1999

22. See Testimony of Witness DEE, transcript of 09 February 1999

23. See Testimony of the Accused, transcript of 21 April 1999. In French this reads:

"Il a évolué, et une situation telle que les gens identifiés comme au FPR, malheureusement je regrette, étaient à plus de 90% Tutsi. Ce qui a conduit à une globalisation que je déplore - et même jusqu'à maintenant - à une globalisation et à un excès, un débordement… un débordement qui a touché également les personnes vraiment que moi je… des personnes, des vieillards, des enfants, tout ça."

24. See Testimony of the Accused, transcript of 22 April 1999. In French this reads:

"Ce qui s'est passé dans notre pays c'est un incident, mais pas un incident, moi je le qualifie de drame, de drame. C'est une série de massacres, de tueries, qui ont gardé les gens du FPR et les Inkotanyi, j'ai expliqué hier dans la globalisation des Tutsis, qui a connu même des débordements jusqu'à atteindre les enfants."

25. See Testimony of expert Witness Mr Nsanzuwera, transcript of 23 April, 1998

26. See Testimony of expert Witness Mr Reyntjens, transcript 13 October 1997

27. See Testimony of Witness Mr Hughes, transcript of 25 May 1998

28. See Chapter 2, section 2 of this Judgement

29. Akayesu Judgement, para. 170

30. Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement para. 291

31. Akayesu Judgement para. 170-172

32. See Testimony of the Accused, transcript of 22 and 23 April 1999.

33. See Testimony of expert Witness Mr Nsanzuwera, transcript of 24 March 1998.

34. Ibid.

35. See Testimony of expert Witness Mr Reyntjens, transcript of 14 October 1997.

36. See Testimony of the Accused, transcript of 22 April 1999

37. See Testimony of expert Witness Mr Nsanzuwera, transcripts of 23, 24 and 27 March 1998

38. See Testimony of expert Witness Mr Mbonimpa, transcript of 6 April 1999

1. Introduction | 2. The Applicable Law | 3. The Defence Case | 4. Factual Findings | 5. Legal Findings | 6. Verdict | 7. Sentencing