Semanza Judgement 15 May 2003

150. Witness VF testified that in the morning of 10 April 1994, after Paul Bisengimana and the police attacked her hill, she fled towards Ruhanga where she heard that people were resisting attacks. [208] En route, the witness travelled through Rugende, a small commercial centre. [209] At approximately 10:00 a.m., the witness concealed herself in a bush to avoid Interahamwe militiamen, who were chasing people. [210] From her hiding place, which was five metres from the road, she observed the Accused, whom she identified in court, in a white pick-up truck with armed soldiers in the uniform of the Presidential Guard. [211] She noted that the Accused was not armed. [212] The witness testified that the soldiers began to shoot, killing many people in Rugende, and she fled on to Ruhanga. [213] In contradiction to her prior statement, the witness denied that Bisengimana was also in the vehicle with the Accused. [214]

151. Later the same day, the witness joined a group of between 15,000 and 20,000 mostly Tutsi refugees, including her relatives, at the school and Protestant church in Ruhanga. [215] Soon after, the Presidential Guards and Interahamwe surrounded the complex and shot some of the unarmed refugees who were resisting the attacks using stones and pieces of wood. [216] The witness testified that the Presidential Guards ordered the women and children who were hiding indoors to move outside to be killed by the Interahamwe. [217] Witness VF testified that the Interahamwe partially undressed her and others, doused them with petrol, and set them on fire. [218] The refugees, including the witness, were also beaten with clubs and machetes. [219] The witness testified that almost all of the other refugees died during this attack and that she was seriously injured. [220] The witness, who suffered serious injuries affecting her ability to clearly identify those around her, could not confirm that the Accused was present during the attack, but, nevertheless, concluded that the attack was committed by members of the Presidential Guard led by the Accused, since they were the same soldiers whom she had seen earlier in the day in Rugende with him. [221]

152. Prosecution Witness VAO testified that she learned about the events at Ruhanga from a woman whom she met in a refugee camp in May 1994 and who, according to her, is now dead. [222] This woman told VAO that many people were raped and killed at the Protestant church in Ruhanga, which was later torched. [223] The woman told VAO that the refugees at the church initially resisted the Interahamwe, who left to seek reinforcements and returned with the Accused. [224] The witness was told that the Accused ordered the Interahamwe to rape the survivors and that the women and girls were raped. [225] The witness also recalled hearing that the Presidential Guard and other people with guns from Bicumbi were also present, but gave no details. [226]

153. Pierre Duclos, a Prosecution investigator, testified that when he visited Ruhanga, the church was completely destroyed. [227]

154. The Accused testified that he could not go to Ruhanga because he had enemies there who would have killed him. [228] He recalled that on 10 April 1994 he was in Ruhango in Gitarama prefecture. [229]

155. Defence Witness ZC testified that he had never heard that the Accused led attacks on Ruhanga in 1994. [230] He stated that the Accused had enemies in Rugende who were prepared to attack him and that, therefore, the Accused could not go to Ruhanga. [231] The witness explained that in order to travel from Gahengeri to Ruhanga, one would necessarily pass through Rugende. [232] The witness had not heard that the Accused passed through Rugende with armed escorts in 1994, which, had it happened, would not have escaped the notice of the local population, according to him. [233] Witness ZC also denied that the Accused could have been accompanied by armed escorts since all soldiers were fighting a war. [234] The witness subsequently admitted that there might be an alternate route to Ruhanga through Musha. [235]

156. Defence Witness BZ testified that he conducted an investigation into the events in Ruhanga and was given information about these events by the conseiller of Mfumbwe. [236] The witness explained that some people from Gikomero sought refuge at Ruhanga parish after killing a cellule official. [237] The witness testified that when people heard that an official had been killed, they called the gendarmes in Kabuga. [238] According to this witness, the gendarmes opened fire on the refugees at Ruhanga, leaving many victims. [239] The witness was not told that the Accused was present in Ruhanga during this event. [240]

157. Defence Witness MV testified that she heard that five days after the death of the president, RPF supporters began attacking Hutus in Ruhanga, an area with mainly Tutsi inhabitants. [241] According to her, some Hutus fled to Kabuga and others to Rugende. [242] The witness explained that residents of Rugende accompanied the Hutus back to their homes in Ruhanga. [243] Halfway there, they were attacked by the people of Ruhanga and RPF soldiers. [244] The Hutus fled and sought assistance from the gendarmes of Kabuga. [245] The witness saw the gendarmes travelling on foot to Ruhanga. [246] She heard that the gendarmes were then attacked near the church and the school in Ruhanga, resulting in a fight between the gendarmes and the RPF soldiers in which some people, both Hutu and Tutsi, were killed. [247] Witness MV was not told that the Accused was present during the events at Ruhanga and did not see his white car passing through Rugende. [248]

158. Defence Witness SWT testified that he did not observe the killings in Ruhanga in April 1994, but that he heard from refugees who had fled Ruhanga that they were attacked during the night by people wielding guns and knives. [249] The witness explained that his sector conseiller asked twenty unarmed [250] young people to escort the refugees back to the site of the attack. [251] When they arrived, the group was attacked again and the young people, who were under the leadership of the Interahamwe, [252] returned to get reinforcements from the gendarmes. [253] They reported that some of the witness’s neighbours were amongst the attackers. [254] The witness explained that neither the people who assisted those being attacked nor the gendarmes were from the Accused’s commune. [255] The witness testified that he did not hear the Accused’s name mentioned in relation to the fighting, which lasted for ten or eleven days, and did not think that the Accused had any relationship with the incident because he lived too far away. [256]

159. The Chamber has carefully considered the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses VF and VAO. Witness VF gave detailed eye-witness testimony about the events at Ruhanga church on 10 April 1994. However, as a result of her injuries, the witness was unable to confirm that the Accused was at the scene, but assumed that he was since she could identify the Presidential Guards with whom she saw the Accused earlier in the day. The Chamber is not convinced that this assumption is reliable, since, as Witness VF admitted, she had difficulty making identifications as a result of her injuries. The other Prosecution witness to testify about the Ruhanga church events in the Prosecution’s case-in-chief, Witness VAO, could offer only hearsay evidence. Although she was told that the Accused was at the scene, the Chamber cannot be certain of the accuracy or time frame of the events she described. Witness VAO was also the only witness to testify about rapes occurring during the attack at Ruhanga church, again solely on the basis of hearsay.

160. The Chamber recalls that Prosecution Witness DCH, who testified extensively about events at Ruhanga church, was called as a rebuttal witness for the sole purpose of rebutting the defence of alibi. In rejecting the Defence request to call rejoinder witnesses, the Chamber reaffirmed that “[a]ny evidence adduced in rebuttal that falls outside this narrow issue will not be considered by the Chamber in its deliberations.” [257] Therefore, the Chamber emphasises that the evidence of Witness DCH may be used only to rebut the Accused’s alibi and cannot be used to support the substance of the Prosecution’s case against the Accused. The Chamber is of the opinion, moreover, that to rely on the evidence of Witness DCH to convict the Accused of direct participation in the Ruhanga massacre would violate the Accused’s right to a fair trial, since the Accused was not given the opportunity to respond to the new allegations that were raised only in the Prosecutor’s rebuttal. The Chamber notes that the evidence of Witness DCH, which substantially departed from the evidence proffered in the Prosecution’s case-in-chief, alleged the Accused’s personal involvement in multiple attacks in Ruhanga from 14 through 17 April 1994, rather than a single attack at Ruhanga church on 10 April 1994, as alleged in the Indictment.

161. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Chamber finds that an attack against Tutsi refugees occurred at Ruhanga church on 10 April 1994. However, the Chamber does not find any evidence proving that the Accused worked in close cooperation with Bisengimana to organize or execute this massacre. Moreover, the Prosecutor failed to prove that the Accused was present during the massacre at Ruhanga church. The Chamber, therefore, finds that paragraph 3.10 of the Indictment has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

162. The Chamber will consider the allegations relevant to paragraphs 3.11 and 3.18 of the Indictment together because the alleged incident of torture and murder (paragraph 3.18) occurred during the events at Musha church (paragraph 3.11).

165. Prosecution Witness VA testified that she sought refuge at Musha church from 7 to 13 April 1994. [258] The witness explained that there were refugees in all six buildings of the church complex. [259]

166. Witness VA testified that she saw the Accused, whom she identified in court, [260] as well as Bisengimana, Rugambarara, Rwabukumba, and Rwakayigamba come to the church between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon on 9 April 1994. [261] The witness stated that the Accused led this group. [262] The witness was confident in her recognition of the Accused because she vividly recalled seeing the Accused in 1992 leading an MRND rally where the participants arrested Tutsis and dragged them through the mud. [263] According to the witness, the Accused and those who came to the church with him held a meeting with the priest and some of the refugees. [264] Witness VA testified that after the meeting, she heard the Accused tell Bisengimana that the church had to be burned down to kill the refugees inside. [265] Witness VA testified that Bisengimana expressed his reluctance to burn down the church, and instead proposed starving the refugees to death. [266] The witness noted that the Interahamwe then guarded the refugees on 11 and 12 April 1994 to prevent their escape. [267]

167. Witness VA testified that on 13 April 1994 at 5:00 a.m., the Interahamwe, who had spent the night outside the church, opened fire on the Tutsi refugees in the church. [268] The witness stated that she could see the assailants through the window of the church. [269] She explained that the Interahamwe continued firing until 10:00 a.m., but were not able to open the church, so they went to Bicumbi for the Accused. [270]

168. Witness VA testified that the Accused and several Interahamwe armed with traditional weapons arrived after 10:00 a.m. in a Toyota belonging to Bicumbi commune, and were followed by three vehicles transporting policemen and soldiers armed with guns and grenades. [271] The witness later clarified that she saw three vehicles in total: a Toyota vehicle that belonged to Bicumbi commune, in which the Accused came; a vehicle from the Gikoro commune driven by Manda, which transported petrol and Interahamwe; and a Toyota driven by Rugambarara, with soldiers and policemen. [272]

169. Witness VA testified that the Interahamwe, policemen, and thirty to forty soldiers attacked the church with gunfire and grenades, injuring her and others inside. [273] The witness stated that the Accused led the attack against the church. [274] Witness VA further testified that Manda and Twagerayezi climbed on the roof of the church and threw petrol on it, burning a young man on the lower part of his body. [275] Witness VA stated that the soldiers and Interahamwe fired a rocket-propelled grenade that broke a hole in the wall, and that the Interahamwe entered the church and opened its door. [276] The witness stated that the Accused, Bisengimana, and Rugambarara then entered, and the Accused asked the refugees in the church to identify Rusanganwa, a Tutsi teacher and “an important personality” in Gikoro commune. [277] Witness VA testified that Rusanganwa came out of his hiding place because he had no place to go. [278]

170. According to Witness VA, Rusanganwa was told to stand at the entrance of the church, and the Accused asked him when the “Inkotanyi” were going to arrive. [279] Rusanganwa responded: “I am not God, I know neither the day nor the time.” [280] Witness VA testified that the Accused then took a machete from Hatageka, an Interahamwe accompanying him, and cut one of Rusanganwa’s legs and an arm. [281] Bisengimana then took the machete and cut Rusanganwa’s other limbs. [282] The Interahamwe put Rusanganwa in a vehicle where they were throwing other dead bodies. [283] Witness VA never saw Rusanganwa alive again. [284]

171. The Defence pointed out during cross-examination that Witness VA had told investigators that the Accused and Bisengimana came to the church on 10 April 1994 to ask about Rusanganwa. [285] Witness VA responded that she had been confused about the date, and clarified that she did not see them on 10 April 1994. [286] The Defence also observed that the witness statement notes that the Accused cut only Rusanganwa’s arms. [287] The witness explained that she told the investigators that Rusanganwa’s legs were also cut and that the omission of this from the written statement was a mistake or a misunderstanding on the part of the investigators. [288]

172. Witness VA stated that after attacking Rusanganwa the Accused ordered children to leave the church. [289] The witness explained that, outside the church, Hutu children were separated from Tutsi children, and the Tutsi children were then killed by gunfire and grenades. [290]

173. The witness testified that she saw “everything” because she was covered with dead bodies. [291] The witness explained that when the assailants came to load the dead bodies in vehicles, they noticed that she was not yet dead; they struck her head with a hammer and undressed her. [292] Later, they threw her in a pit full of dead bodies, from which she subsequently escaped. [293]

174. Prosecution Witness VM, a Hutu, testified that on 7 April 1994, he took refuge in Musha church when the killings started in Bicumbi. [294] The witness noted that other Hutus also sought refuge in the church. [295] Witness VM testified that the day after his arrival at the church, the Accused, whom he identified in court, along with Bisengimana, Rugambarara, and members of the police came to the church. [296] The witness was confident that he saw the Accused at Musha church because it was “impossible” not to know the Accused, who during his tenure as the bourgmestre, had been introduced to all the school children in the commune. [297] Witness VM testified that the Accused appeared to be the leader of this group because he was giving instructions. [298] Witness VM testified that the Accused was taking notes, which the witness believed were the names of particular refugees being sought. [299]

175. Witness VM testified that four to six days after he took refuge at the church, several vehicles arrived in the morning full of Interahamwe, soldiers, and policemen. [300] Through the openings in the walls of the church, the witness saw the Accused transporting the Interahamwe in his brown car, which he had seen the Accused use on other occasions. [301] The witness later clarified that the Interahamwe did not come in the Accused’s vehicle, but rather followed in several vehicles. [302] Witness VM testified that armed soldiers also followed the Accused. [303] Witness VM stated that among the attackers he could identify two Interahamwe named Mugabo and Manda. [304] Witness VM stated that he also saw Bisengimana. [305] Witness VM testified that the Accused led the attack. [306] He explained that he knew the Accused as a bourgmestre and that he witnessed the Accused giving instructions, including to shoot people. [307]

176. Witness VM testified that the Accused, Interahamwe, police, and soldiers went into the church compound and asked the refugees to open the door to the church. [308] The refugees refused to open the door. [309] The witness stated that the attackers then fired bullets and grenades into the church through an opening they had made in the wall before they shot at the door and entered. [310]

177. Witness VM explained that after entering the church, the attackers threatened to shoot anyone who would not leave. [311] Witness VM indicated that he and others went outside, but noted that some people stayed in the church. [312] Witness VM stated that after he left the church, he heard shouting inside the church as well as explosions and gunfire. [313] The witness testified that he was not certain if the Accused was one of the attackers who entered the church because the church was very large and because he was made to go outside. [314]

178. Witness VM testified that outside the Accused ordered the Hutus to identify themselves from amongst the refugees and stated that nothing would happen to them. [315] Witness VM stated that he identified himself as a Hutu and that a soldier then questioned him. [316] Witness VM stated that the refugees claiming to be Hutu were lined up, and that the Accused directed the attackers to kill the Tutsi refugees. [317] Witness VM stated that the Accused then also directed the killing of those refugees whom he recognised as Tutsis in the group of the Hutus. [318] On the Accused’s directions, the soldiers and Interahamwe killed the Tutsi refugees with machetes and guns. [319] The witness stated that many people were killed during the attack. [320] The witness testified that he did not witness the Accused shoot or cut anyone. [321]

179. After being read his prior statement, Prosecution Witness VD recalled that he saw the Accused and Bisengimana on 13 April 1994 between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m. at the Musha sector office with people from various cellules of Musha sector. [322] The witness testified that the Accused, whom he identified in court, and Bisengimana had been driving around Musha sector in a white Hilux looking for the people to whom they had given weapons in order to go to Musha church. [323] Witness VD also testified that later an individual named Micoyabgagabo, who had participated in the attack at Musha church, told the witness in a bar that the attack against the Tutsis was successful because of the Interahamwe brought by the Accused. [324]

180. Prosecution Witness VV stated that she saw the Accused, Bisengimana, and Rugambage around 10:00 a.m. at some point in April 1994 in front of a house where she was hiding in Nzige sector. [325] Witness VV testified that she saw the Accused and Bisengimana in a grey sedan-style vehicle. [326] The witness testified that Major Rugambage arrived to meet them with soldiers. [327] From the uniforms they were wearing, Witness VV also recognised three soldiers of the Presidential Guard who had come in Major Rugambage’s vehicle. [328] Witness VV explained that while the men were talking, many people gathered around them and she heard the Accused address the crowd about killing and raping Tutsis. [329] Witness VV testified that after speaking, the Accused, Bisengimana, and Rugambage went to Musha church, where the witness could see smoke and hear the sound of explosions. [330]

181. The Prosecutor’s investigator Pierre Duclos testified that when visiting Musha church in 1997, he observed holes in the doors and the roof where the metal was torn by projectiles fired into the church from the outside and a mark that he was told was dried blood. [331]

182. The Accused denied that he was at Musha church between 7 and 13 April 1994. [332] He indicated that it would have been impossible for him to be there and that he was either at his home in Gahengeri or had left the region. [333]

183. Defence Witness BZ, a corporal in the gendarmerie, stated that he was on leave in Gikoro during the events in Musha between 10 and 14 April 1994. [334] Witness BZ testified that a young man called Rugamba had shot at a night patrol and then fled to Musha church. [335] According to the witness, members of the night patrol went to the church where they found many people, including Gikoro’s RPF leaders. [336] The witness explained that the night patrol went to ask for assistance from the gendarmes, who were posted at the commune office, and from the soldiers who had come from fighting the Inkotanyi in Byumba. [337]

184. Witness BZ explained that he was at the commune office when the first gendarmes returned from Musha church. [338] The witness stated that one section of the soldiers and gendarmes had gone to the church, and the refugees threw a grenade at them. [339] Witness BZ testified that the soldiers and gendarmes returned to the commune office to get reinforcements and that he went to Musha church with this second group. [340]

185. Witness BZ stated that the commune had approximately eleven gendarmes, and the soldiers from Byumba numbered approximately forty or fifty. [341] Witness BZ noted that the soldiers and gendarmes came on foot, and that the only vehicle he saw at the church belonged to the sisters. [342] The witness also stated that he did not see civilian authorities outside the church. [343] He recalled seeing Interahamwe, including their president, Jean Claude Mukwiye, outside the church. [344]

186. Witness BZ stated that when the gendarmes and soldiers reached the church they asked the people inside to open the door, but the refugees refused. [345] According to the witness, Muteyinkingi, an ex-soldier who was affiliated with the RPF, threw a grenade from inside the church, and then the gendarmes and soldiers threw grenades and fired heavy weapons to open the door. [346] The witness noted that wounded people came out of the church and mixed with the soldiers. [347] The witness stated that the soldiers were scared because the Inkotanyi were in the area, and so they fired and killed many of the refugees. [348]

187. According to Witness BZ, after forcing the door open, the gendarmes instructed the soldiers to take from among the refugees those who had fired at the gendarmes and soldiers or who possessed grenades. [349] The witness stated that the soldiers told the gendarmes to leave them alone to do the “work” because they were more familiar with the Inkotanyi. [350] Witness BZ explained that the “work” was “to shoot these people, since [the soldiers] were saying that they were Inkotanyis.” [351]

188. Witness BZ agreed that a massacre occurred at Musha church and that Tutsi civilians were killed. [352] The witness later added that there were both Tutsi and Hutu victims. [353] Witness BZ stated that he did not witness anyone sever a refugee’s limbs. [354] The witness denied being a participant in the attack on Musha church, noting that he was not part of the Rwamagana gendarmerie squad. [355] According to the witness, after the attack, he went to inform the Gikoro Bourgmestre Bisengimana, who was sick at home, about what had happened. [356] The witness testified that he did not see the Accused during the events. [357]

189. Defence Witness MBZ indicated that her basis of knowledge concerning the events at Musha church derived primarily from what she “heard people talking about”. [358] She testified that she saw refugees going towards Musha church from the north and that she thought they were escaping the intense combat with the RPF taking place there. [359] Witness MBZ testified, without specifying the day, that some people among the refugees had weapons and that the police went to the church to disarm them. [360] Witness MBZ stated that the refugees opened fire on the police, who then called security agents. [361] The witness testified that the security agents opened the church doors and tried to disarm the refugees, resulting in a fight with wounded people and fatalities. [362] While the witness testified that she did not know the ethnicity of the refugees, she opined that the victims at Musha church were both Hutus and Tutsis. [363] The witness noted that she did not hear that the Accused was at the church during the attack; she had heard that no authorities were there. [364]

190. Defence Witness BP testified that he was about eighty meters from Musha church when he witnessed military personnel and civilians at the church massacre refugees who appeared to be from “all ethnic groups”. [365] The witness also stated that the civilians were not armed and did not kill anyone. [366] Witness BP stated that during the attack he did not see the Accused, whom he identified in court, [367] or any vehicles at the church. [368]

191. Defence Witness TDB testified that he heard gunshots and saw explosions at Musha church around 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. on 13 April 1994, which lasted about two hours. [369] According to the witness, he then tried to go to Musha church to see what was happening, but gendarmes stopped him about twenty meters away from there. [370] He explained that he saw gendarmes, policemen, people in “combat” gear, and about 100 dead bodies, including those of two gendarmes. [371] Witness TDB testified that he did not see any Interahamwe nearby, but admitted that he had told investigators that Interahamwe from Kabuga attacked the refugees at the church because that is what other people were saying. [372]

192. Defence Witness MTP stated that about one week after the death of the president, she left her workplace when she heard grenade explosions, but stopped at the church on her way home to see what was happening. [373] Witness MTP testified that police officers had gone to Musha church to verify whether the refugees in the church were armed and that the refugees threw a grenade at them. [374] The witness stated that the police left and then returned on foot with civilians from Gikoro and soldiers from the Mutara war front. [375] Witness MTP clarified that she was not present during the initial attack, but arrived only after the police were reinforced. [376] The witness testified that she saw the refugees start shooting and throwing grenades, and the soldiers returned fire. [377] Once the fighting started, she fled. [378] The witness did not know how many people died, but saw two dead soldiers and two dead police officers before she fled from the church. [379] Witness MTP testified that she did not see the Accused, Bisengimana, and Rugambarara, whom she knew, at the church. [380] She noted that a Tutsi named Mukwiye, who was the head of the Interahamwe in Gikoro commune, was the only important person whom she saw there. [381]

193. Defence Expert Witness Ndengejeho stated that he had adequate knowledge of the events at Musha church, but was uncomfortable testifying about them because he was not there. [382] Ndengejeho testified that Rusanganwa was an MDR member and a school head master in Gikoro. [383] Ndengejeho noted that he was not familiar with how Rusanganwa disappeared, but stated that according to his knowledge, the Accused was not in Musha at that time, so he could not have assaulted Rusanganwa. [384] Moreover, Ndengejeho stated that the Accused could not possibly have travelled from Gahengeri in Bicumbi to Gikoro after 7 April 1994 because the RPF had captured Gikoro commune in the evening of 6 April 1994. [385] Ndengejeho also opined that the Accused most likely could not be linked to the events in Gikoro commune because it was a separate commune from Bicumbi. [386]

194. The testimonies reveal that a large number of civilians sought refuge at Musha church beginning on 7 April 1994 and that the refugees were massacred at the church on 13 April 1994.

195. The Chamber notes that Witnesses VA and VM provided eye witness accounts of the Accused’s participation in the massacre at Musha church. Both witnesses gave similar and largely consistent accounts of how the attack unfolded. After careful consideration, the Chamber finds that both witnesses are credible and accepts their detailed and reliable accounts. The Chamber is mindful of minor differences between their accounts, but is satisfied that these are not material and are explained by the passage of time, the chaos of an armed attack, and the witnesses’ differing vantage points during the assault.

196. Based on the accounts provided by Witnesses VA and VM, it emerges that the Accused, Paul Bisengimana, and others went to Musha church on 8 or 9 April 1994 in order to assess the situation shortly after the refugees began arriving there. At that time, the Accused expressed an intention to kill the refugees. The Accused, Bisengimana, and others then returned to the church with Interahamwe, soldiers, and gendarmes on 13 April 1994 around midmorning. These assailants proceeded to attack the refugees in the church with gunfire and grenades. After gaining access to the church, the attackers ordered the refugees to leave the church, and many complied. At some point after these refugees left the church, the Accused ordered the Hutu refugees to separate from the Tutsi refugees. The Tutsis were then executed on directions from the Accused, which Witness VM saw from close range. While the Tutsi refugees outside the church were being separated and executed, the assailants continued to attack those remaining in the church.

197. The testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses VD, VV, and Duclos provide further corroboration to many aspects of VA’s and VM’s first-hand accounts. Witness VD saw the Accused and Bisengimana gathering local Interahamwe in Musha sector on the morning of the attack on 13 April 1994. Witness VV saw the Accused in the company of Bisengimana, Interahamwe, and soldiers head toward Musha church from where she saw smoke and heard explosions. Duclos testified that he observed tears in the metal door and the roof of the church indicating that bullets had been fired into the church from outside. The Chamber finds these aspects of the testimonies of Witnesses VD, VV, and Duclos to be credible and reliable, and accepts them.

198. The principal points of contention, which emerge from the accounts provided by the Accused and Defence Witnesses BZ, MBZ, BP, TDB, and MTP, are whether the Accused or Interahamwe under his direction participated in the attack and whether armed refugees or RPF infiltrators provoked the attack.

199. The Chamber does not find Witness BZ to be credible and thus cannot accept his account of the provocation for the attack or of who was present at Musha church. The Chamber recalls that Witness BZ indicated that he did not know any other witness who came to the Tribunal to testify on behalf of the Defence in this case. [387] However, Witness MBZ, who was the very next witness to testify, stated that she was married to Witness BZ and that both witnesses were aware that the other was testifying in this case. [388] The Chamber further does not find it plausible that as a gendarme, the witness would remain on leave in the chaos of April 1994 and then accompany other gendarmes and soldiers to Musha church without assisting them in the attack.

200. The Chamber recalls that the Witness MBZ specified that her information concerning the attack at Musha church was based on what she “heard people talking about”. The Chamber highlights that Witness MBZ stated that she never discussed the events at Musha church with her husband, Witness BZ, [389] even though he testified one day earlier and claimed to be an eye-witness. [390] The Chamber cannot rely on her testimony that some of the refugees were armed or that the Accused was not present, insofar as the basis of her account is vague and of questionable credibility.

201. The Chamber recalls that Witness BP observed only part of the massacre at Musha church and that this was from a distance of eighty metres. The Chamber does not accept the witness’s conclusion that the Accused was not present during the attack because the witness did not indicate that he could have identified individual attackers from such a distance and because he did not witness the entire event.

202. The Chamber accepts Witness TDB’s testimony that he heard gunfire and grenade explosions for about two hours on the morning of 13 April 1994, noting its consistency with the first hand accounts provided by Witnesses VA and VM. The Chamber cannot accept as reliable, however, the speculation that Interahamwe did not participate in the attack when by the witness’s own admission he arrived at the scene after the attack had ended.

203. Witness MTP gave detailed testimony about the origins of the attack on the Musha church. The Chamber recalls that the witness admitted that she was not present at the beginning of the attack and that she did not state the basis of her knowledge. Thus, the Chamber does not find her account of how the attack began reliable. The witness also stated that during the period when she was at the church, she claimed to see the refugees fire on the soldiers, who then returned the fire. The Chamber notes that the witness, who was with a “huge crowd”, [391] was only briefly at the church. Thus, her testimony about the nature of the alleged exchange of fire or as to whether particular individuals were present during the attack is not reliable.

204. The Chamber has also carefully considered the Accused’s alibi, discussed above in Chapter III, in the context of all the evidence submitted concerning the events at Musha church. In particular, the Chamber recalls that the Accused claimed to be in Gitarama town on 13 April 1994 when the massacre occurred, which was confirmed only by the testimony of Defence Witness PFM, whose testimony, in the opinion of the Chamber, is biased by her close personal relationship with the Accused. The Chamber further emphasises that even if the Accused had gone at some point to Gitarama, as his evidence indicates, the testimony of Defence Witness TDB, who travelled from Gikoro to Ruhango, Gitarama on 13 April 1994, confirms that the Accused could have travelled between the two places at that time.

205. The Chamber notes that the Accused’s alibi does not call into question the reliable and credible identification of the Accused at Musha church around midday on 8 or 9 April 1994. The Chamber recalls that the Accused, who claimed to be at his home on 8 April 1994, was not actually seen there from early morning on 7 April 1994 until 4:00 p.m. on 8 April 1994. The reliable and credible sighting of the Accused at Musha church is not impeached by the simple belief of Defence Witnesses KNU and PFM that the Accused never left his home on 8 April 1994. The Chamber also recalls that the Accused claimed to be at the commune office in Nzige until noon on 9 April 1994 when he allegedly left for Ruhango, Gitarama, arriving nearly twelve hours later. The Accused’s alibi on 9 April 1994 likewise does not preclude his presence at Musha church on 9 April 1994, as the evidence suggests only that he remained at the commune office until around noon.

206. The Chamber therefore finds beyond a reasonable doubt that Tutsi civilians were killed at Musha church by soldiers, gendarmes, and Interahamwe militiamen on 13 April 1994, as alleged in paragraph 3.11 of the Indictment. Upon considering all relevant evidence, including the alibi, the Chamber finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused participated in this attack by gathering Interahamwe to take part in the attack and by directing the assailants to kill Tutsi refugees, as alleged in paragraph 3.11 of the Indictment.

207. The Chamber further finds that the Prosecutor did not introduce sufficient evidence to prove that the Accused worked in close cooperation with Bisengimana to organize the massacre at Musha church.

208. The Chamber also does not find that there is any reliable evidence on the record to demonstrate that there were armed refugees or RPF infiltrators in Musha church or that they provoked the attack at Musha church and engaged in armed resistance.

209. The Chamber notes that Victim C is Rusanganwa and that his torture and murder, alleged in paragraph 3.18 of the Indictment, occurred during the events at Musha church on 13 April 1994.

210. As explained above, the Chamber has found that the Accused participated in the massacre at Musha church on 13 April 1994. The question at this point is whether the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused tortured and killed Rusanganwa during the course of this massacre.

211. The Chamber recalls that Prosecution Witness VA was the sole witness to testify about this event. The witness first stated that the Accused cut Rusanganwa’s arms and Bisengimana cut his legs. The Prosecutor later asked whether the Accused cut one or both arms. The witness answered that the Accused cut a leg and an arm. In cross-examination, the Defence pointed out that the witness’s written statement mentions only that Rusanganwa’s arms were cut. The Chamber recalls that the witness attributed this omission to a misunderstanding by the investigators who took her statement and to whom, the witness testified, she told that Rusanganwa’s legs were also cut.

212. The Chamber is satisfied that the apparent confusion or contradiction in Witness VA’s account is not material and is explained by the trauma of the event, the manner in which her testimony was elicited, and an apparent misunderstanding between the witness and the investigators. Her testimony concerning this event was otherwise detailed and vivid, and the Chamber accepts that the witness heard the Accused question Rusanganwa about the RPF advance and then saw the Accused strike him with a machete.

213. Therefore, the Chamber finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused intentionally inflicted serious injuries on Rusanganwa after questioning him at Musha church and that Rusanganwa died as a result of those injuries.

215. Prosecution Witness VN testified that on 7 April 1994 he began to feel insecure in Nzige sector and that he sought refuge on Mwulire Hill. [392] The witness stated that on 8 April 1994 there were more than five hundred people seeking refuge there, the vast majority of whom were Tutsi, and that they were attacked. [393] The fighting started at about 2 p.m. and ended at around 4:30 p.m. with no casualties on either side. [394] Witness VN testified that there were more than 100 assailants led by François Rwabugibo, a policeman from Bicumbi commune. [395]

216. The witness testified that the attacks continued on 9 April 1994, and that by 10 April 1994 there were more than 5,000 refugees gathered at Mwulire Hill, all of whom were civilians. [396] The witness stated that the attacks lasted through 18 April 1994. [397] The witness indicated that the attackers were armed with guns and grenades, as well as traditional weapons, while some of the refugees had traditional weapons, including spears, arrows, sticks, and stones. [398] Six members of his family died during the attacks on Mwulire Hill. [399]

217. Witness VN testified that the Accused came to Mwulire Hill on 18 April 1994, the day when the assailants carried out a large-scale attack on the refugees. [400] According to the witness, the Accused brought Interahamwe and soldiers and their equipment in a red Toyota pick-up truck belonging to the APEGA school. [401] The witness stated that the Interahamwe and soldiers whom the Accused brought joined other assailants in the attack on the refugees. [402] The witness testified that after bringing the Interahamwe and soldiers, the Accused stayed near his vehicle. [403] The witness did not see the Accused participate in the fighting. [404] The refugees tried to defend themselves, but were vanquished on 18 April 1994 because the attackers had brought “relatively heavy arms” and soldiers to back them up. [405] The witness testified that on 19 and 20 April 1994, RPF soldiers came and took away the wounded. [406] Witness VN stated that on 18 April 1994 the RPF was not in Bicumbi yet, but that they were in Gahin and Rukara, and also at Kayonze market in Kayonze commune. [407]

218. Prosecution Witness VP, a Tutsi who identified the Accused in court, testified that he sought refuge on Mwulire Hill from the afternoon of 13 April 1994. [408] When he arrived on Mwulire Hill, he found that over 5,000 people, mostly Tutsis, were taking refuge there and that their numbers kept increasing, so that by 18 April 1994 there were about 10,000 refugees. [409] The witness testified that from 15 through 17 April 1994 there were daily attacks on the refugees, which the refugees tried to ward off with stones. [410] The witness recognised several of the attackers including people who, according to him, had received arms from the Accused and Rugambarara. [411]

219. Witness VP testified that on 18 April 1994 the assailants mounted a major attack and defeated the refugees on Mwulire Hill. [412] On 18 April 1994, the witness stated, the Accused came to the hill before midday. [413] According to the witness, the Accused was in a military uniform and was carrying a firearm. [414] The witness specified that the Accused, accompanied by commune officials, soldiers, and Interahamwe, was on the west side of Mwulire sector, while other assailants were on the other side, and that thus the refugees were surrounded. [415] The witness testified that the Accused used his firearm during the attack to shoot at refugees who were on a football field near the sector office. [416] The witness stated that many of the refugees died on the football field before noon. [417]

220. Witness VP stated that when the assailants ran out of ammunition, around 1 p.m., the attacks ceased until about 2.30 p.m. when the assailants, including the Accused, returned. [418] According to the witness, the assailants then attacked the survivors of the earlier attack. [419] The refugees tried to defend themselves, in particular the women and children, and their livestock, but were defeated, the witness stated. [420] The attack continued until about 5 p.m. and the assailants killed many people so that “the whole hill was full of corpses.” [421] The witness testified that his oldest child was killed during this attack, as was his brother-in-law and other relatives, and that one of his children is disabled as a result of the attack. [422]

221. The Accused denied that he participated in the attacks at Mwulire or that he was present in Mwulire on the dates “contained in the Indictment.” [423] He specifically denied that he was in Mwulire on 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 April 1994. [424] The Accused added that he learned from refugees that on 18 April 1994 Mwulire was controlled by the RPF. [425]

222. Defence Witness Nyetera testified, without indicating the basis of his knowledge, that the RPF controlled Mwulire from the beginning of April 1994 and that from “the very first days of April … even before the 6^th of April” the RPF had “people” there. [426] Witness Nyetera acknowledged that he knew that the Mwulire Hill massacre took place in April 1994, but could not recall the specific date. [427]

223. Defence Expert Witness Ndengejeho testified that he learned that in Mwulire there had been a conflict between Hutus and Tutsis due to infiltrators. [428]

224. Based on the testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses VN and VP, and Defence Witness Nyetera and Defence Expert Witness Ndengejeho, the Chamber finds that in April 1994 there were attacks on mostly Tutsi, civilian refugees on Mwulire Hill. From the record of testimonies of Witnesses VN and VP it emerges that in April 1994 mostly Tutsi refugees sought safety on Mwulire Hill so that by 10 April 1994 there were more than 5,000 of them at that location, and by 18 April 1994 there were up to 10,000. From 8 April 1994 the refugees came under daily attacks. On 18 April 1994, the refugees on Mwulire Hill were attacked and vanquished by the assailants including Interahamwe, soldiers, commune officials, and the Accused. In particular, Witnesses VN and VP testified about the deaths of their relatives resulting from this attack, and Witness VP stated that the assailants killed so many people that the whole hill was full of corpses.

225. Witness VP gave evidence that during the attack on 18 April 1994, the Accused, who was armed and accompanied by commune officials, soldiers, and Interahamwe, shot at refugees who were on a football field near the sector office and that many of these refugees died. Witness VN testified that on that date, the Accused brought Interahamwe and soldiers and their “equipment” to Mwulire Hill. The Chamber understands “equipment” to mean implements that were used to kill and injure the victims. While Witness VN testified that he saw the Interahamwe and the soldiers whom the Accused brought join other assailants in the attack on refugees, he testified that the Accused stayed near his vehicle and that he did not see the Accused take part in the fighting.

226. The Chamber finds the evidence given by Witnesses VN and VP to be credible and reliable. In the view of the Chamber, the statement of Witness VN that he did not see the Accused take part in the attack is not inconsistent with VP’s testimony that he saw the Accused participate in the attack by shooting at the refugees. The Chamber recalls that the attack took place throughout the day and that it involved many people. Witness VN did not indicate at which time or for how long he observed the Accused at Mwulire Hill on 18 April 1994, and he did not specify the location at which he saw the Accused on that day.

227. The Chamber has also carefully considered the Accused’s alibi, discussed above in Chapter III. In particular, the Chamber recalls that the Accused claimed that on 18 April 1994 he was travelling in Gitarama prefecture, from Ruhango to Gitarama town, an account which was supported by Defence Witness PFM, who, in the opinion of the Chamber, is biased by her personal relationship with the Accused, and by Defence Witness CYS, who also had a close relationship with the Accused.

228. Upon considering the entire evidence on the record including the alibi, the Chamber finds beyond a reasonable doubt, based primarily on the eye-witness account of Witness VP, that the Accused participated in the killings of Tutsi refugees on Mwulire Hill on 18 April 1994. The Chamber finds, however, that there is no evidence on the record that the Accused organized, executed, or directed the attacks.

230. Prosecution Witness VAK, a Tutsi, testified that on 11 April 1994, he sought refuge at the Mabare mosque, which he identified in court from a photograph marked as Exhibit P5, 14(A). [429] According to the witness, on the morning of 12 April 1994 at approximately 10:00 a.m., Interahamwe, Bicumbi commune police, and the Accused, whom he identified in court, attacked the Tutsi refugees in the mosque with guns and grenades. [430] The witness stated that the Accused, who appeared to be in overall command of the attack, carried a small shotgun and wore a long overcoat. [431] The witness noted, however, that he did not see the Accused shoot at any of the refugees. [432] Witness VAK explained that the attack continued until 4:00 p.m and that around 300 people were killed. [433] According to the witness, after the killings the Accused adressed the Interahamwe and told them: “We came to assist you, and I believe that those who have not been killed would not be able to resist you. Go and find them and exterminate them.” [434]

231. The Accused denied participating in the killing of refugees at Mabare mosque and confirmed that he was not at Mabare mosque on 12 April 1994. [435]

232. Defence Witness MDB testified that during April 1994 she was staying with a family member in Mabare sector who lived in the vicinity of Mabare mosque. [436] Witness MDB explained that beginning on 7 April 1994, “purport[ed]” refugees from various places began to gather at Mabare mosque. [437] The witness testified that the refugees were both Hutu and Tutsi and estimated their number at around 500. [438] The witness stated that these people were armed with arrows and spears, and that they stole at night from the local residents, creating insecurity. [439] According to the witness, the local population therefore contacted the security forces, in particular the gendarmes, who went to the mosque to disperse the people there. [440] The witness testified that she saw uniformed gendarmes pass by her house on their way to the mosque. [441]

233. Witness MDB stated that she was not present at the mosque during the attack, but learned about what had transpired there from her relatives who went to the mosque to see who was causing the insecurity. [442] The witness testified that when the refugees saw the gendarmes, the refugees began attacking them, using arrows and firearms. [443] According to the witness, the gendarmes, acting in self-defence, shot at the refugees. [444] Witness MDB testified that the civilian population did not “intervene” on the side of the gendarmes, but that they followed the gendarmes and were “very near” to them. [445] The witness, who had earlier identified the Accused in court, testified that she did not see the Accused at the mosque and that nobody told her that he was there. [446]

234. Witness MDB testified that “many” refugees died during the attack and that she did not know of any gendarme who lost his life there. [447] Subsequently, however, the witness stated that “not many” of the refugees died because when some died, the others fled. [448]

235. Defence Witness Nyetera testified that he heard about the Mabare mosque events, but that he did not hear of the involvement of the Accused in them. [449] The witness stated that “people were informed that there was an armed band made up of Moslems and that there were weapons in that place and this is what happened. The gangs met and confronted each other, some of them had fire weapons, bows and arrows and so on and so forth.” [450]

236. Defence Witness CBN stated that, based on information she gathered from policemen, Tutsis sought refuge in Mabare from all other sectors of Bicumbi. [451] According to the witness, other Tutsis joined the refugees in order to make the sector a Tutsi area. [452] The witness stated that the Hutu population felt threatened and tried to defend itself against this invasion, particularly because some of the Tutsis were armed and attacked the population. [453] This resulted in a large fight. [454] However, the witness explained, no one came from outside the commune to kill the Tutsis. [455] The witness stated that the Accused could not have taken part in the attack because he had left Bicumbi on 9 April 1994. [456]

237. Defence Expert Witness Ndengejeho testified that he heard and read that the persons responsible for the massacre came from outside the commune and that there were about 1,500 people in prison on account of the massacre at the mosque. [457]

238. Prosecution Witness VAK provided first-hand, detailed testimony about the events at Mabare mosque on 12 April 1994, which the Chamber finds to be credible and reliable.

239. The Chamber recalls that Defence Witness MDB’s account of the events is based primarily on her personal observation of gendarmes on their way to the mosque and on the recollections her relatives who were at the mosque during the attack shared with her. The Chamber accepts her account that government security forces and members of the civilian population went to Mabare mosque and that gendarmes killed a number of the refugees there. The Chamber, however, does not find her account reliable concerning whether the refugees were armed or whether they provoked the attack, or whether the Accused was present, because she did not see the attack.

240. The Chamber recalls that Defence Witness CBN’s account of what occurred at Mabare mosque derives solely from information she gathered from unidentified policemen. There is no indication whether her sources had any first-hand knowledge of what had transpired during the attack or shared with her everything that had occurred. The Chamber also notes that the statement that the Accused did not participate in the massacre is based solely on the Accused’s statement to the witness at the commune office in Nzige on 9 April 1994 that he was fleeing. The Chamber, therefore, does not find CBN’s account reliable.

241. The Chamber does not find Defence Witness Nyetera’s account of a clash between “gangs” to be credible or reliable because he provided no basis for this assertion, which conflicts with the first-hand account of Prosecution Witness VAK and with that of Defence Witness MDB who was nearby.

242. The Chamber notes that Defence Expert Witness Ndengejeho’s account lacks sufficient detail to be reliable, particularly where it is also based solely on what he read and heard from unidentified sources.

243. The Chamber has also carefully considered the Accused’s alibi, discussed above in Chapter III, in the context of all the evidence submitted in respect of the events at Mabare mosque. In particular, the Chamber recalls that the Accused claimed to be in Gitarama prefecture on 12 April 1994. This claim was supported by Defence Witness PFM, who, in the opinion of the Chamber, is biased by her close personal relationship with the Accused, and Defence Witness SAM, an acquaintance and a frequent visitor to the Accused’s home, who allegedly saw the Accused in Ruhango market around 9:00 a.m. on 12 April 1994.

244. After considering all relevant evidence, including the alibi, the Chamber finds beyond a reasonable doubt, based primarily on the account of Prosecution Witness VAK, that the Accused was armed and present on 12 April 1994 during the attack on Mabare mosque and that the attack resulted in the death of around 300 Tutsi refugees. The Chamber finds, however, that there is insufficient evidence on the record to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused organized, executed, or directed the said killings. The Chamber is mindful of Witness VAK’s testimony that it appeared to him that the Accused was in overall command of the attack. However, the witness did not explain the basis for this view in any detail, and the Chamber did not find any evidence on the record to confirm that the Accused directed the attack on Mabare mosque.

246. The evidence concerning the alleged violence at massacre sites has already been considered by the Chamber in its factual findings in relation to Paragraphs 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13 of the Indictment. [458]

247. The Chamber has already found that a substantial number of members of the Tutsi ethnic group was killed at Ruhanga, Musha church, Mwulire Hill, and Mabare mosque.

248. The Chamber finds beyond a reasonable doubt that Witness VF and other Tutsi victims suffered burns and other forms of serious bodily harm during the attack on Ruhanga church compound on 10 April 1994. However, the Chamber has already found that the Prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused participated in or was present during this attack.

249. The Chamber has also heard evidence that other people, including Witness VA and the child of Witness VP, were injured during the massacres at Musha church and Mwulire Hill. Defence Witness BZ mentioned wounded persons mixing with soldiers at Musha church and Witness VN testified that the RPF soldiers took the wounded from Mwulire Hill. However, the Prosecutor failed to lead evidence about the nature or extent of these injuries, and thus the Chamber is unable to conclude whether these injuries amount to serious bodily or mental harm. Witness VA also testified that Manda and Twagerayezi burned a young man on the lower part of his body when they climbed on the roof of Musha church. However, the witness did not specify whether this man was a refugee or an attacker and did not mention his ethnicity. No witnesses testified about any bodily or mental harm inflicted during the attack at Mabare mosque. The Chamber therefore finds that the Prosecutor has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the massacres at Musha church, Mwulire Hill, or Mabare mosque included the causing of serious bodily or mental harm to members of the Tutsi ethnic group. Although it is likely that many victims at these sites suffered a variety of injuries, particularly given the weapons and methods used by the attackers, the Prosecutor did not present sufficient evidence to enable the Chamber to make a specific finding about the allegations of causing serious bodily or mental harm during the massacres. The Chamber finds, therefore, that the Prosecution has not proven these allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

250. The Prosecution did not lead any evidence about rapes or other forms of sexual violence during the Mwulire Hill, Musha church, or Mabare mosque massacres. Prosecution Witness VAO was the only witness to testify about rapes during the Ruhanga massacre. The Chamber recalls that she was not an eye-witness to the alleged rapes, about which she learned from a woman whom she met at a refugee camp. The Chamber finds, therefore, that the Prosecution did not prove these allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

251. The Chamber notes that various assailants raped several Tutsi females, including Prosecution Witnesses VR, VAW, VAV, and VAO, at various locations in Bicumbi and Gikoro communes during April 1994. None of these women, however, was raped during the massacres referred to in paragraphs 3.8 through 3.13 of the Indictment as alleged in paragraph 3.14. These crimes appear to fall within the broad language of paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16 of the Indictment. However, the Chamber decided to disregard those paragraphs because they are impermissibly vague. [459]

253. Prosecution Witness VV, a Tutsi woman, stated that on the morning of the attack at Musha church in April 1994 at approximately 10:00 a.m., she overheard a discussion between the Accused, Rugambage, Bisengimana, three members of the Presidential Guard, and a crowd of others from Bicumbi and Gikoro. [460] She stated that the Accused asked the crowd how the work of killing Tutsis was progressing, to which they responded that they were busy doing their work. [461] The witness testified that she then heard the Accused say: “Are you sure you’re not killing Tutsi women and girls before sleeping with them…. [y]ou should do that and even if they have some illness, you should do it with sticks.” [462] The witness explained that the Accused used the Kinyarwanda word kurongora, which means “to marry” and also “to make love”. [463]

254. Witness VV testified that three of the men who heard the Accused’s instructions came to the house where she and her cousin were hiding. [464] She explained that one of the attackers stayed inside the house with the witness, while the two other men took her cousin outside. [465] The witness testified that the man told her that they had permission to rape them. [466] She stated that the man removed her clothes and had non-consensual sexual intercourse with her and told her that he would kill her if she resisted. [467] The witness explained that she could not see what the other two attackers were doing to her cousin, but heard her cousin scream that she preferred that the attackers kill her. [468] According to the witness, when she left the house, she found that her cousin had been killed and buried. [469]

255. The Accused denied any knowledge of rapes in Bicumbi commune, explaining that “[i]n Rwandan tradition or culture, rape has never existed.” [470] Other Defence witnesses made similar broad assertions, stating either that rape is unknown in Rwanda [471] or that they did not see or hear of any rapes in 1994. [472]

256. The Accused denied that he was in the area during the relevant period. [473] The Accused also specifically denied that he ordered Interahamwe to do as they pleased with Tutsi women, including raping them, and noted that he was accused of being in multiple places at the same time on that date. [474]

257. The Chamber notes that Witness VV is referred to in the Indictment as Victim A, and that her cousin is Victim B.

258. The Chamber has carefully reviewed and considered the transcript of the evidence of Witness VV, which was given by deposition pursuant to Rule 71. The Chamber finds her consistent and detailed evidence to be credible and reliable. Although the witness did not specify a certain date in April 1994, the Chamber notes that she testified that the event was contemporaneous with the attack at Musha church. Therefore, the Chamber finds that the attack on Witness VV occurred on or about 13 April 1994.

259. The Chamber finds that the unsubstantiated claims of Defence witnesses that no rapes occurred in their localities or in Rwanda are not credible or reliable. The Chamber also notes that there is no reliable or credible evidence that places the Accused at another place during the meeting.

260. The Chamber has also carefully considered the Accused’s alibi in relation to these events, discussed above in Chapter III. In particular, the Chamber recalls that the Accused claimed to be in Gitarama town on 13 April 1994 which was supported by Defence Witness PFM, whose testimony, in the Chamber’s opinion, is biased by her close personal relationship with the Accused.

261. Upon considering all relevant evidence, including the alibi, the Chamber finds based on the testimony of Prosecution Witness VV that the Prosecutor proved beyond a reasonable doubt that on 13 April 1994 at approximately 10:00 a.m. the Accused directed a group of people to rape Tutsi women before killing them. The Chamber also finds beyond a reasonable doubt that Victim A was raped by one of the men in the group and that her cousin, Victim B, was taken outside and killed by two other men from the group.

262. Witness VV did not observe what happened to her cousin after she was taken outside, but testified that she heard Victim B screaming that she would prefer to be killed. On the basis of this evidence, the Chamber is not able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Victim B was also raped and/or tortured before she was killed.

264. Prosecution Witness VAM, a Tutsi, testified that on 8 April 1994 at around 9 a.m. she saw the Accused, who arrived in a car alone, and Rugambarara, who came in a vehicle with Interahamwe, stop in front of the house of one of her sons. [475] The house was located on the road, near the witness’s house. [476] The witness heard the Accused say that the witness’s family was not yet killed and that no Tutsi should survive, that the Tutsi should be sought out and killed. [477]

265. Witness VAM testified that afterwards a certain Denis from Gahengeri arrived and asked the Accused and Rugambarara for weapons to go and “work” in Mwulire because the Tutsis there were defending themselves. [478] The witness observed all of this from about ten meters away, from a spot behind her son’s house where she was hiding in a sorghum field. [479] The witness stated that Denis said that one person from her family was among the Tutsis who were defending themselves in Mwulire. [480] According to the witness, the Accused, referring to her children, told the Interahamwe who were there: “You have to look for them and kill them. And this young man who is here in Mwulire, you have to find him. And I will give 300,000 francs to anybody who brings his dead body to me.” [481] The witness stated that the Accused put this bounty on one of her sons. [482] After giving the order, the Accused left and the Interahamwe started to look for the witness’s family. [483]

266. Witness VAM testified that from her hiding spot in the sorghum field she saw an Interahamwe called Rutegesha, one of the people told by the Accused to kill her children, shoot at her son’s home. [484] She later clarified that the person who shot at the house was Antoine Rutikanga. [485] The witness stated that no one was in the house, however, because they were hiding in the sorghum field. [486] After the shots, the witness stayed in the sorghum field because in her view there was no other place of refuge to which to run. [487]

267. The witness testified that later that day, at 12:30 p.m., she saw the Interahamwe kill six people. [488] The Interahamwe found four of her children who were hiding in the sorghum field, and beat them with clubs and machetes, killing them. [489] The Interahamwe also killed a neighbour and her child. [490] When the assailants found them, the witness testified, that they said: “Now, we have to kill you because the Tutsis must die” and killed them on the spot. [491] The witness stated that the assailants knew her children. [492] The Interahamwe included Rutagakwa, Antoine Rutikanga, and Manigura. [493]

268. Defence Witness CBM1 testified that he knew some of the members of Witness VAM’s family. [494] The witness testified that he knew that Witness VAM’s son’s house was located “very near” the road to Gahengeri. [495] The witness stated that he could not say whether there was a sorghum field in front of the house because he did not know the exact location of the residence. [496] Witness CBM1 testified that he did not witness, nor did he hear, that members of Witness VAM’s family were killed in a sorghum field close to the said house. [497]

269. The Chamber finds that Prosecution Witness VAM, who provided a detailed first-hand account, is credible and that her testimony is reliable. The Chamber does not consider as material the fact that the witness first said that it was Rutegesha who shot at her son’s home and later stated that it was Rutikanga who did so. The Chamber accepts her account of the events set out above. The Chamber is bolstered in this finding by the fact that VAM observed the events herself at a short distance. The testimony of Witness CBM1 did not refute the evidence given by Witness VAM. Rather, the testimony of CBM1 corroborates the testimony of Witness VAM to the extent that it confirms certain names she mentioned.

270. The Chamber has also carefully considered the Accused’s alibi, discussed above in Chapter III, in the context of all the evidence submitted concerning these murders. In particular, the Chamber recalls that the Accused claimed to be at his home on 8 April 1994, which was supported by Defence Witnesses KNU and PFM, whose accounts, in the Chamber’s opinion, are unreliable as well as biased by their close personal relationship with the Accused. The Chamber also recalls that the Accused was not actually seen at his home from early morning on 7 April 1994 until 4:00 p.m. on 8 April 1994, and that his alleged presence there is corroborated only by the beliefs of Witnesses KNU and PFM.

271. Upon a review of all the evidence, including the alibi, the Chamber finds beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence of Prosecution Witness VAM, that on 8 April 1994 in the morning, the Accused met Rugambarara and a group of Interahamwe in front of a certain house in Bicumbi commune. The Accused told the Interahamwe that a certain Tutsi family had not yet been killed, that no Tutsi should survive, and that the Tutsis should be sought out and killed. Later the same day, the Interahamwe searched a field near the house of the family mentioned by the Accused, found four members of that family, and killed them. At the same time, the Interahamwe also killed two neighbours of the family.

272. The Chamber, therefore, finds that to this extent the allegations contained in paragraph 3.19 of the Indictment have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

274. As the Chamber has found in the sections on the various factual allegations, all proven facts giving rise to the violations alleged under the Statute in this case took place in Rwanda in 1994.

275. With respect to paragraph 3.2 of the Indictment, the Chamber recalls that it took judicial notice of the following fact: “Between 6 April 1994 and 17 July 1994, citizens native to Rwanda were severally identified according to the following ethnic classifications: Tutsi, Hutu and Twa.” [498] The Chamber therefore finds that during the events referred to in the Indictment, Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa were identified as ethnic groups.

276. The Chamber also took judicial notice relevant to paragraph 3.3 of the Indictment:

277. The Chamber therefore finds that between 6 April 1994 and 17 July 1994 there were in Rwanda widespread or systematic attacks against a civilian population based on Tutsi ethnic identification.

279. In support of these allegations, the Prosecution relies mainly on references by various experts and observers to speeches of certain government and party officials, and to the general content of radio broadcasts, as well as certain public and private statements of the Accused. [500] From these sources it is possible to ascertain that the Tutsi were generally identified with the RPF. However, the evidence adduced by the Prosecution is general in nature and is insufficient for the Chamber to make findings about the substance of official Rwandan government policy.

281. The Chamber took judicial notice of the fact that “[b]etween 1 January 1994 and 17 July 1994 in Rwanda there was an armed conflict not of an international character.” [501] The Chamber has no doubt as to the nature of the conflict. Therefore, the Chamber finds in respect of the first part of paragraph 3.4.2 that, during the events referred to in the Indictment, there was a non-international armed conflict on the territory of Rwanda between the Government of Rwanda and the RPF.

282. The Chamber notes the allegation in paragraph 3.4.2 that the victims were Tutsi civilians in Bicumbi and Gikoro communes who were protected under Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II. The Chamber will consider this allegation in its findings, where relevant.

284. The Chamber will consider the intentions and motives of the Accused in the findings made in connection with the specific counts in the Indictment.

286. Prosecution Expert Witness Guichaoua referred to the creation of the Interahamwe “youth movement” and stated that it increased the influence and operational resources of the MRND. [502]

287. Defence Expert Witness Ndengejeho testified that some massacres committed between April 1994 and July 1994 were reportedly committed by the Interahamwe. [503] Ndengejeho explained that up to 6 April 1994 the Interahamwe were the youth wing of the MRND party, but that after that date “Interahamwe came to mean the extreme youth of the various parties, as well as foreign elements.” [504]

288. The Accused testified that the Interahamwe were the youth wing of the MRND party and that their role was to sensitise the population to the ideals of the MRND party and also to recruit members for that party. [505]

289. Testimonies of other Defence witnesses support the proposition that the Interahamwe were the youth wing of the MRND party. [506]

290. Upon consideration of the evidence on the record, the Chamber finds that the MRND was one of the political parties during the relevant times referred to in the Indictment and that a group named Interahamwe was the youth wing of that party. The record bears scant evidence, however, that the majority of Interahamwe went on to become paramilitary militiamen. Accordingly, the Chamber shall reserve its findings on this particular generalised allegation and shall rule upon it only to the extent that it may relate to specific elements of the specific counts of the Indictment.

291. The Chamber also reserves its findings as to the general allegation that the term Interahamwe came to be applied to civilians, regardless of their political or organizational affiliation, who attacked the Tutsi civilian population. Notwithstanding Professor Ndengejeho’s opinion testimony that after 6 April 1994 the term Interahamwe came to be applied to all “extreme youth of the various parties, as well as foreign elements”, the Chamber believes that a finding as to the membership of particular units of the Interahamwe must be made, if necessary, within the specific context of the counts of the Indictment.

293. The evidence shows that the Accused served as bourgmestre of Bicumbi commune for more than twenty years ending in 1993, when he was replaced by Rugambarara. [507] The Accused and Prosecution Witnesses VN and VC testified that the Accused was then appointed to serve in the parliament. [508]

294. Several Prosecution witnesses noted the Accused’s wealth, lengthy leadership role in the commune, and his apparent and perceived connections with President Habyarimana and other government officials, and stated that although the Accused was no longer the bourgmestre he remained influential and appeared to be in control of the commune. [509] Prosecution Witnesses VC and VAO noted that many believed that the Accused was still the bourgmestre in April 1994. [510]

295. Prosecution Expert Witness Guichaoua chronicled the Accused’s career from bookkeeper to the “Great Bourgmestre” and alluded to the Accused’s various political and personal connections with important personalities, including President Habyarimana. [511]

296. Guichaoua stated that, based on his research, the Accused became chairman of the MRND party in Kigali-Rural after April 1992, a role usually held by the prefect. [512] Because there was no prefect at the time, Guichaoua agreed with the proposition that this role allowed the Accused a say in the administration of the prefecture. [513] Guichaoua further explained that as the MRND party chair in the prefecture, the Accused was an ex officio member of the MRND National Committee. [514] Guichauoa noted that, as of 1992, the MRND Central Committee no longer existed, and that, after party restructuring, the National Committee was created. [515] Witness VN also testified that the Accused was the MRND party chairman for Kigali-Rural prefecture and that he played a role in founding several minor, MRND-affiliated political parties with neighbouring bourgmestres. [516]

297. Guichaoua agreed with the Prosecutor’s propositions that (i) the Accused’s leadership role was evident in Gikoro and Bicumbi; (ii) the Accused in April 1994 was in a position to lead killers in attacks against Tutsis as well as Hutus who were opposed to the killings of Tutsis and that the Accused’s orders had to be executed; (iii) the Accused “could” have had a role in the administration of the civil defence program by virtue of his role in the MRND; (iv) the Accused was recognised as an influential person because he was retained as a member of parliament in the transitional assembly; and (v) the Accused was considered a wealthy man. [517] Guichaoua explained that because of his wealth, the Accused was in a position to fund political activities and party militants. [518]

298. Guichaoua explained that the direct power to requisition gendarmes was within the province of the prefectural security committee, composed of the prefect, who was its chair, a representative of the ministry of justice, the prosecutor, and the commander of a military camp. [519] Guichaoua was not aware whether the Accused was a member of such a committee. [520]

299. The Accused denied that he remained politically active or that he held an MRND leadership position, and noted that he had no influence or authority over those responsible for the genocide. [521] Other Defence witnesses, including BZ, Nyetera, PFM who lived with the Accused, and JAM who was part of the president’s household, testified that during the relevant events in 1994, the Accused was no longer politically active and was not particularly rich, influential, or well-connected. [522]

300. Defence Expert Witness Ndengejeho, who was an MDR and government official, acknowledged that the Accused, as bourgmestre, had a high degree of status and popularity. [523] He testified, however, that there was general consensus that the Accused should be removed as bourgmestre because his commune was “becoming his own private backyard”. [524]

301. Ndengejeho explained that when he was in Bicumbi commune after Rugambarara became the bourgmestre, he paid official visits to him and not to the Accused. [525] Ndengejeho stated that after being replaced by Rugambarara, the Accused withdrew from politics, and though he was invited, he did not even attend the prefecture councils. [526] However, Ndengejeho noted that the Accused remained a member of the MRND national committee, but stated that this committee had only an advisory role. [527]

302. Ndengejeho explained that after leaving his post as bourgmestre, the Accused became a businessman and invested in a national transportation company. [528] He agreed that the Accused was rich and had productive land, but stated that having money did not give an individual the power to influence people and events. [529] Other Defence witnesses also noted the Accused’s wealth and property holdings. [530]

303. Based on the uncontested evidence, including the testimony of the Accused, the Chamber finds that the Accused was bourgmestre of Bicumbi commune for more than twenty years until 1993, and that he was subsequently appointed to serve in the parliament that was to be established pursuant to the Arusha Accords.

304. The Chamber finds that the Accused was widely viewed as an important and influential personality in his locality, based, in particular, on his lengthy and successful tenure as bourgmestre, his appointment to parliament, his wealth, his perceived connections to the president, and the consistently held views of the witnesses. The Chamber also accepts that the Accused, at the very least, was acquainted with the president and some government officials. However, the Chamber finds that the Prosecutor failed to prove the extent, nature, and effect of any possible personal or political connection beyond a reasonable doubt.

305. While the Chamber notes that some members of the community believed that the Accused remained the bourgmestre of Bicumbi commune during the events alleged in the Indictment, insufficient proof exists on the record to establish that the Accused actually continued to exercise any of the official functions of the post directly or by influencing Rugambarara.

306. The Prosecutor also did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused held a leadership role in the MRND during the events covered by the Indictment, in particular in April 1994. The Chamber recalls that Guichaoua acknowledged the difficulty in proving that someone was an MRND official, and that his proof came from a rare, undated Ministry of Interior document. [531] Moreover, Witness VN could not remember when the Accused held the position of MRND party chief in Kigali-Rural, and Ndengejeho never specified exactly when the Accused served on the National Committee. In any event, even if this had been established, the Prosecutor failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate the scope of the authority that a member of the MRND National Committee or a prefecture party chair might possess, or the nature and extent of the Accused’s active participation in the party.

307. The Chamber will address in its legal findings whether the Accused had effective control over militiamen, in particular Interahamwe, and other persons, including members of the Rwandan Armed Forces (“FAR”), commune police and other government agents, as well as, if necessary, whether he used his influence and authority as an agent of the government to advance its war effort against the RPF.

[208] T. 6 December 2000 pp. 26-27, 99, 111.

[209] T. 6 December 2000 pp. 27, 96, 98, 101.

[210] T. 6 December 2000 pp. 27, 58-59, 100.

[211] T. 6 December 2000 pp. 23-24, 27-28, 100-104.

[215] T. 6 December 2000 pp. 28-29, 49-50, 113, 114.

[221] T. 6 December 2000 pp. 31-32, 49, 117.

[237] T. 2 October 2001 pp. 33, 34. The Chamber notes that line 23 of page 33 of the English transcript refers to the parish “in Gikomero” rather than Gikoro. This is inconsistent with the witness’s testimony in Kinyarwanda.

[247] T. 22 October 2001 pp. 119, 123, 126.

[248] T. 22 October 2001 pp. 128, 129, 134.

[257] The Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Decision on Defence Motion for Leave to Call Rejoinder Witnesses, TC, 30 April 2002, para. 13.

[268] T. 7 March 2001 pp. 72, 73; T. 8 March 2001 pp. 18, 19.

[270] T. 7 March 2001 pp. 72, 73; T. 8 March 2001 p. 19.

[271] T. 7 March 2001 pp. 73, 74, 75, 124; T. 8 March 2001 p. 20.

[273] T. 7 March 2001 pp. 75, 84; T. 8 March 2001 pp. 17-20, 23, 31, 43, 56-57.

[277] T. 7 March 2001 pp. 76, 80-81. The English transcripts refer to Rusanganwa in this colloquy as Lusanganwa. After reviewing the Kinyarwanda to French translation, the witness’s original statement in French, and unchallenged references to this individual as Rusanganwa by other witnesses, the Chamber notes that the spelling of this individual’s name as Lusanganwa in this portion of the English transcript is a non-material translation or transcription error.

[281] T. 7 March 2001 pp. 77, 78, 79. The Chamber notes that in the English transcript, the Prosecutor refers to the Accused “cutting off” Rusanganwa’s limbs. According to that transcript, the witness used “to cut off” after initially using the more general verb “to cut”. In contrast, the French transcript generally uses the general verb “couper” and only once uses the more specific verb “amputer”. In order to clarify any discrepancy, the Chamber has reviewed the audio recording of the proceedings. The recording clearly indicates that both the Kinyarwanda interpreter and the witness speaking in Kinyarwanda consistently used the infinitive verb “gutema”, which is consistent with the general verb “to cut” in English or “couper” in French.

[319] T. 6 March 2001 pp. 95-96; T. 7 March 2001 pp. 15, 46.

[325] T. 29 March 2001 pp. 7, 14, 19, 53-54.

[329] T. 29 March 2001 pp. 8-9. See also sec. IV.F hereof.

[332] T. 18 February 2002 p. 130; T. 28 February 2002 pp. 74-77.

[333] T. 18 February 2002 p. 130; T. 28 February 2002 pp. 74-77. See also sec. III.G.2-6 hereof.

[365] T. 3 October 2001 pp. 110, 111, 112, 130.

[373] T. 24 October 2001 pp. 24, 41; T. 25 October 2001 pp. 11-12, 23.

[376] T. 24 October 2001 p. 23; T. 25 October 2001 p. 25.

[378] T. 24 October 2001 p. 23; T. 25 October 2001 p. 25.

[393] T. 9 November 2000 pp. 71-72; T. 14 November 2000 pp. 17-18.

[395] T. 9 November 2000 p. 72; T. 14 November 2000 p. 24.

[398] T. 9 November 2000 pp. 102, 104; T. 14 November 2000 p. 103.

[401] T. 9 November 2000 pp. 104-106; T. 14 November 2000 pp. 60, 61.

[403] T. 9 November 2000 p. 105; T. 14 November 2000 pp. 61-62.

[406] T. 9 November 2000 p. 107; T. 14 November 2000 p. 62.

[409] T. 4 December 2000 pp. 62, 63, 64; T. 5 December 2000 p. 93.

[410] T. 4 December 2000 pp. 63-64; T. 5 December 2000 pp. 84-85.

[416] T. 4 December 2000 pp. 69-70; T. 5 December 2000 p. 99.

[423] T. 27 February 2002 p. 111. See also sec. III.G.2-6 hereof.

[424] T. 18 February 2002 p. 125; T. 28 February 2002 pp. 76, 77, 78.

[435] T. 27 February 2002 p. 114; T. 28 February 2002 p. 78. See also sec. III.G.2-6 hereof.

[441] T. 26 November 2001 pp. 14, 15, 36, 37.

[451] Exhibit D 21, Statement of Witness CBN, p. 5.

[452] Exhibit D 21, Statement of Witness CBN, pp. 5-6.

[453] Exhibit D 21, Statement of Witness CBN, p. 6.

[454] Exhibit D 21, Statement of Witness CBN, p. 6.

[455] Exhibit D 21, Statement of Witness CBN, p. 6.

[456] Exhibit D 21, Statement of Witness CBN, p. 6.

[458] The Chamber has already adjudicated on paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9 of the Indictment. See supra. para. 61.

[471] Witness BP, T. 4 October 2001 pp. 16, 18; Witness ZC, T. 6 November 2001 pp. 56-57.

[472] See Witness KM, T. 9 October 2001 p. 3; Witness MV, T. 22 October 2001 p. 137; Witness BP, T. 3 October 2001 p. 121; T. 4 October 2001 p. 15; Witness MDB, T. 26 November 2001 pp. 23, 40.

[474] T. 20 February 2002 p. 65; T. 27 February 2002 pp. 116-117.

[475] T. 13 March 2001 pp. 31, 32, 96, 100.

[498] Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion for Judicial Notice and Presumption of Facts Pursuant to Rules 94 and 54, TC, 3 November 2000, para. 48. See Annex II, Part A, para. 1.

[499] Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion for Judicial Notice and Presumption of Facts Pursuant to Rules 94 and 54, TC, 3 November 2000, para. 48. See Annex II, Part A, para. 2.

[500] Prosecution Closing Brief, filed 12 June 2002, [“Prosecution Closing Brief”] para. 34.

[501] Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion for Judicial Notice and Presumption of Facts Pursuant to Rules 94 and 54, TC, 3 November 2000, para. 48. See Annex II, Part A, para. 3.

[506] See, e.g., Witness SDN1, T. 30 October 2001 p. 14; Witness ZC, T. 6 November 2001 p. 53; Witness KM, T. 9 October 2001 p. 11; Witness SAM, T. 8 October 2001 p. 70.

[507] Witness VN, T. 8 November 2000 pp. 144, 145; Witness VP, T. 4 December 2000 p. 38; Witness Nyetera, T. 7 February 2002 pp. 99, 101; Witness BZ, T. 1 October 2001 pp. 106, 107, 108; Testimony of the Accused, T. 13 February 2002 p. 102; T. 27 February 2002 p. 11; Witness PFM, T. 13 November 2001 p. 24.

[508] Testimony of the Accused, T. 27 February 2002 p. 17; Witness VN, T. 8 November 2000 p. 146; T. 13 November 2000 pp. 13, 23; Witness VC, T. 7 November 2000 pp. 108-109, 110.

[509] Witness VP, T. 4 December 2000 pp. 38, 92; Witness VC, T. 7 November 2000 pp. 107, 109, 110-111, 114; Witness VAP, T. 6 December 2000 pp. 129-130, 132; T. 7 December 2000 p. 36; Witness VAO, T. 20 March 2001 pp. 46-47; Witness VJ, T. 6 November 2000 pp. 56-57, 93-94; Witness VN, T. 8 November 2000 pp. 150-151, 153, 154-157; T. 13 November 2000 p. 51; Witness Duclos, T. 17 October 2000 p. 24.

[510] Witness VAO, T. 20 March 2001 pp. 46-47, 30-31; Witness VC, T. 7 November 2000 pp. 110-111.

[512] T. 23 April 2001 p. 158; T. 25 April 2001 pp. 25-27.

[513] T. 23 April 2001 pp. 158, 161; T. 24 April 2001 pp. 73-74.

[517] T. 23 April 2001 pp. 139-142, 153-154, 166-167; T. 24 April 2001 pp. 30-34.

[521] Testimony of the Accused, T. 19 February 2002 p. 34; T. 27 February 2002 pp. 17-18; T. 28 February 2002 p. 115.

[522] Witness BZ, T. 1 October 2001 pp. 108, 109, 110; Witness Nyetera, T. 7 February 2002 p. 116; T. 11 February 2002 pp. 12-14; T. 12 February 2002 pp. 182-183; Witness JAM, T. 28 November 2001 pp. 10, 11, 36, 44-46; Witness PFM, T. 13 November 2001 pp. 28-29.

[527] T. 29 January 2002 p. 132; T. 30 January 2002 p. 52.

[530] Witness CYM3, T. 5 November 2001 pp. 18, 19; Witness PFM, T. 13 November 2001 p. 67.