Judge William H. Sekule, Presiding
Judge Winston C. Matanzima Maqutu
Judge Arlette Ramaroson
Jean de Dieu KAMUHANDA
Case No. ICTR-95-54A-T
Table of Contents
PART I - Introduction 4
A. The Tribunal and its Jurisdiction 4
B. Procedural Background 5
C. Evidentiary Matters 9
D. Witness Protection Issues 13
PART II – The Defence Case 14
A. Introduction 14
B. Vagueness of the Indictment 14
C. In and out of Court Identification of the Accused by the Prosecution. 17
D. The Defence Contention that the Citizens of Gikomero Were Surprised by the Attacks and That the Assailants Came from Rubungo. 18
E. Defence Contention that Prosecution Witnesses Bore False Testimony against the Accused and That the Charges against the Accused are Fabrication 19
F. The Alleged Influence of the Accused. 20
G. The Personality of the Accused was Incompatible with the Description of the Person Presented by the Prosecutor. 20
H. Prosecution Allegation That the Accused Was an Advisor to the President. 21
I. Defence Contention that the Accused Became a Member of the Interim Government under Duress 21
J. Alibi 22
K. Impossibility of Travel from Kigali to Gikomero in April 1994 43
L. Expert Witness 53
PART III - The Prosecution Case 54
A. Introduction 54
B. Paragraph 2.1 of the Indictment (Relevant Time-Frame for the Case) 54
C. Paragraph 2.2 of the Indictment (Administrative Structure of Rwanda in 1994) 55
D. Paragraph 2.3 of the Indictment (Existence of Ethnic Groups in Rwanda in 1994) 55
E. Paragraph 2.4 of the Indictment (Existence of Widespread or Systematic Attacks in Rwanda) 56
F. Paragraph 2.5 of the Indictment (State of Non-International Armed Conflict in Rwanda) 57
G. Ministerial Position of the Accused and his Responsibility as Minister of the Interim Government 57
H. Paragraphs 5.24 and 6.44 of the Indictment (Distribution of Weapons) 58
I. Paragraph 6.44, 6.45 and 6.46 of the Indictment (Gikomero and Gishaka Massacres) 69
J. Paragraph 6.37 of the Indictment (Authority of the Accused on the Local Authorities) 157
K. Paragraphs 6.31 and 6.89 of the Indictment (Failure to Prevent the Crimes Committed by the Perpetrators or to Punish Them) 158
PART IV – Legal Findings 160
A. Admitted Facts 160
B. Cumulative Convictions 160
C. Criminal Responsibility 162
D. Genocide and Related Crimes 170
E. Crimes against Humanity 180
F. Serious Violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II 196
PART V - Verdict 206
PART VI - Sentence 207
A. General Sentencing Practice 207
B. Mitigating Factors 208
C. Aggravating Factors 209
D. Sentencing Ranges 210
E. Credit for Time Served 210
PART I - INTRODUCTION
A. The Tribunal and its Jurisdiction
1. This Judgment in the case of The Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda is rendered by Trial Chamber II (“Trial Chamber” or “Chamber”) of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“Tribunal”), composed of Judge William H. Sekule, presiding, Judge Winston C. Matanzima Maqutu, and Judge Arlette Ramaroson.
2. The Tribunal was established by the United Nations Security Council after the Council considered official United Nations reports indicating that genocide and widespread, systematic, and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law had been committed in Rwanda. The Security Council determined that this situation constituted a threat to international peace and security; determined to put an end to such crimes and to bring to justice the persons responsible for them; and expressed the conviction that the prosecution of such persons would contribute to the process of national reconciliation and to the restoration and maintenance of peace. Consequently, on 8 November 1994, the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, adopted Resolution 955 establishing the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal is governed by the Statute, annexed to Resolution 955 (“Statute”), and by its Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”).
4. Pursuant to the Statute, the Tribunal has the authority to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring states. Under Article 1 of the Statute, the Tribunal’s temporal jurisdiction is limited to acts committed between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994. Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Statute provide the Tribunal with subject-matter jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes arising from serious violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions (“Common Article 3”) and Additional Protocol II thereto. The provisions of Articles 2, 3, and 4 are set out below in Part IV.
5. The Indictment alleges that Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda (the “Accused”) was born on 3 March 1953 in Gikomero commune, Kigali-Rural préfecture, in Rwanda.
6. The Defence admitted the following facts:
Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda was born on 3 March 1953 in Gikomero commune, Kigali-Rural préfecture, Rwanda.
In late May 1994, Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda held the office of Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research in the Interim Government, replacing Dr. Daniel Nbangura.
Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda held the office until mid-July 1994.
In his capacity as Minister of Higher Education, Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda was responsible for the articulation and the implementation of the government policy concerning post-secondary school education and scientific research in Rwanda for the Interim Government.
B. Procedural Background
1. Pre-Trial Phase
7. On 1 October 1999, Judge N. Pillay reviewed and confirmed an Indictment dated 27 September 1999 against Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda and Augustin Ngirabatware and issued an Order for Non-Disclosure of the Indictment. On the same date the Tribunal issued a Request for Arrest and Transfer as well as a Warrant of Arrest and Order for Transfer and Detention of the Accused pursuant to the Prosecutor’s request.
8. The Accused was arrested on 26 November 1999 in France and was transferred from France to the seat of the Tribunal in Arusha on 7 March 2000.
9. At his Initial Appearance, on 10 March 2000, the Chamber found that the Accused was unprepared to enter a plea, considering an issue he raised about a manner in which the Indictment had been redacted. Consequently, the Tribunal granted his request for another copy of the Indictment redacted differently. Accordingly, the Accused’s initial appearance was re-scheduled to 24 March 2000, before Judge Y. Ostrovsky, at which time the Accused pleaded not guilty to all nine counts alleged in the Indictment.
10. On 7 November 2000, Trial Chamber II, composed of Judge L. Kama, presiding, Judge W. H. Sekule and Judge M. Güney, granted the Defence’s motion for severance and separate trial and ordered the Prosecutor to file a separate Indictment pertaining exclusively to Jean De Dieu Kamuhanda, bearing the Case Number 99-54A. The separate Indictment was filed on 15 November 2000. The Trial Chamber, did not consider this separate Indictment to be an amendment of the original Indictment; therefore no new initial appearance of the Accused was required.
11. On 28 December 2000, the Defence notified the Prosecution of its intention to provide alibi evidence with respect to allegations against the Accused. Pursuant to Rule 67(A)(ii)(a), the Defence filed notice of alibi on 31 August 2001. On 8 April 2002 the Trial Chamber granted a Defence Motion to Correct a Material Error in the Notice of Alibi.
2. The Indictment of 15 November 2000
12. There are nine counts in the Indictment, charging Jean De Dieu Kamuhanda with genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. The Indictment alleges that these crimes were committed between 1 January and 31 December 1994 in Rwanda where the Tutsi, the Hutu and the Twa were identified as racial or ethnic groups. The Indictment asserts that during this period, widespread or systematic attacks were directed against the civilian population on political, ethnic or racial grounds, and that a state of non-international armed conflict existed in Rwanda.
13. The Indictment alleges that before the events of 1994, the Accused was the Director of Higher Education and Scientific Research, and then Counsellor to President Sindikubwabo until late May 1994.
14. The Indictment alleges that in late May 1994, the Accused held the office of Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research in the Interim Government. The Indictment further asserts that in his capacity as Minister, the Accused attended Cabinet meetings and participated in formulating the policies adopted by the Interim Government, and that he neither publicly disavowed these policies nor did he resign. The Indictment also asserts that in his capacity as Minister, the Accused exercised authority and control over all the institutions and staff members under his ministry and that he failed in his duty to ensure the security of Rwandan citizens.
15. The Indictment alleges that from late 1990 until July 1994, the Accused conspired with others to work out a plan with the intent to exterminate the civilian Tutsi population and to eliminate members of the opposition, by, amongst others things, recourse to hatred and ethnic violence, the training of and the distribution of weapons to militiamen as well as the preparation of lists of people to be eliminated. The Indictment further alleges that in executing this plan, the Accused and others, organized, ordered and participated in the massacres perpetrated against the Tutsi population and moderate Hutu.
16. The Indictment alleges that from 7 April 1994, massacres of the Tutsi population and murders of numerous political opponents were perpetrated throughout the territory of Rwanda and that these crimes were carried out by militiamen, military personnel, and gendarmes on the orders and directives or with the knowledge of authorities, including the Accused.
17. The Indictment alleges that the Accused and others knew or had reason to know that their subordinates had committed or were preparing to commit crimes, and failed to prevent those crimes from being committed or to punish the perpetrators thereof.
18. The Indictment alleges that the Accused was an influential member of the MRND in Kigali-Rural. It is also stated that the Accused supervised killings during the month of April 1994 in the area of Gikomero commune, Kigali-Rural préfecture, where he had family ties. The Indictment further asserts that the Accused personally led attacks of soldiers and Interahamwe against Tutsi refugees in Kigali-Rural préfecture, notably on or about 12 April 1994, at the Parish Church and adjoining school in Gikomero, where several thousand persons were killed. During the attack on the school in Gikomero the militia also selected women from among the refugees, carried them away and raped them before killing them.
19. The Indictment alleges that on several occasions the Accused personally distributed firearms, grenades, and machetes to civilian militia in Kigali-Rural for the purpose of “killing all the Tutsi and fighting the [RPF]”.
20. For his alleged involvement in the acts described in the Indictment, the Accused is charged with conspiracy to commit genocide (Count 1); genocide (Count 2) or, alternatively, complicity in genocide (Count 3); murder as a crime against humanity (Count 4), extermination as a crime against humanity (Count 5), rape as a crime against humanity (Count 6), and other inhumane acts of crime against humanity (Count 7). The Accused is also charged with the war crimes of serious violations of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II: for outrages upon personal dignity (Count 8) and killing and causing violence (Count 9). For all the Counts, the Accused is charged cumulatively with all forms of personal responsibility pursuant to Article 6(1) and with superior responsibility pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute.
21. On 20 August 2002, following the end of the case for the Prosecution, the Trial Chamber partly granted a Defence motion, under Rule 98, for partial acquittal, and entered a Judgment of Acquittal in respect of Count 1 of the Indictment: conspiracy to commit genocide. The Chamber denied the Motion to enter a Judgment of Acquittal with respect to Count 6: crimes against humanity—rape.
3. Trial Phase
22. The Trial Chamber ordered protective measures for both Defence and Prosecution Witnesses. These included the use of pseudonyms, the non-disclosure of the identity of Witnesses, and the disclosure to the opposing party of identifying information before 21 days of a Witness' testimony at trial. Following a Defence Motion, the Trial Chamber requested the cooperation of certain States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in order to facilitate the execution and enforcement of the Chamber's order for protective measures for Defence Witnesses.
23. On 22 March 2001, a Pre-Trial Conference was held, and the trial was scheduled to start on 17 April 2001. The Prosecution filed its Pre-Trial Brief on 30 March 2001.
24. On 17 April 2001, the trial began before Trial Chamber II, then composed of Judge L. Kama, presiding, Judge W. H. Sekule and Judge M. Güney. The Prosecution presented its opening statement, and the first Prosecution Witness was heard. On 18 April 2001, the trial was suspended until 3 September 2001.
25. On 3 September 2001, following the death of Judge Kama and the assignment of Judge M. Güney to the Appeals Chamber, the President’s Order pursuant to Rule 15bis(C) dated 20 August 2001 was read out in court, inviting the Trial Chamber to make a determination as to the rehearing or the continuation of this part-heard case. The Defence requested a trial de novo, pursuant to Rule15(E), and the Prosecution did not object. The Trial Chamber, composed of Judge W. H. Sekule, presiding, Judge W. C. M. Maqutu and Judge Ramaroson, granted the Defence request, and the trial re-started with a hearing of the Parties’ opening statements and the testimonies of three Prosecution Witnesses. This trial session was adjourned on 25 September 2001, ending the first session of the Prosecution case. The Prosecution case was heard during two further trial sessions, from 28 January 2002 until 19 February 2002, and from 6 May 2002 until 14 May 2002. The Prosecution closed its case after having called 28 Witnesses and introduced 53 exhibits.
26. A Pre-Defence Conference and a Status-Conference were held on 15 May 2002. The Defence filed its Pre-trial brief on 25 July 2002.
27. The Defence case was heard during three sessions: from 19 August 2002 until 12 September 2002, from 13 January 2003 until 30 April 2003 and from 5 May 2003 until 15 May 2003. A total of 36 Witnesses were called by the Defence, including the Accused, who testified first, and 88 exhibits were introduced. On 15 May 2003 the Trial Chamber adjourned the proceedings.
28. On 13 May 2003, the Trial Chamber denied a Motion for Leave to Call Rebuttal Evidence filed by the Prosecution on 14 April 2003, pursuant to Rule 85(A)(ii) of the Rules. On 15 May 2003, the Chamber issued a Scheduling Order for the filing of the Closing Briefs and the Closing Arguments of the Parties.
29. On 22 May 2003, the Chamber granted a Defence motion and admitted into evidence two written statement of a deceased Witness.
30. The Prosecution and the Defence submitted their Closing Briefs on 2 July 2003 and 13 August 2003, respectively. Closing Statements were heard on 27 and 28 August 2003, and thereafter Judge W. H. Sekule, the Presiding Judge, declared the trial hearing closed, pursuant to Rule 87(A).
C. Evidentiary Matters
31. The Chamber will, in this Part of the Judgment, address general evidentiary matters of concern that arose during the course of the trial, Witness protection issues, and some general principles of evidence evaluation, including the impact of trauma on the testimony of Witnesses, false testimony, the use of prior Witness statements, and problems of interpretation from Kinyarwanda into French and English.
32. The Chamber has considered the charges against Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda on the basis of testimonies and exhibits introduced by the Parties to prove or disprove allegations made in the Indictment.
1. General Principles of the Assessment of Evidence
33. The Chamber notes that, under Rule 89(A) of the Rules, it is not bound by any national rules of evidence. The Chamber in this case has therefore applied, in accordance with Rule 89(B), the rules of evidence, which in its view, best favour a fair determination of the matters before it and which are consonant with the spirit of the Statute and the general principles of law, where such have not been expressly provided for in the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
34. The Chamber notes that many of the Witnesses who have testified before it have seen and experienced atrocities. They, their relatives, or their friends have, in many instances, been the victims of such atrocities. The Chamber notes that recounting and revisiting such painful experiences may affect the Witness’s ability to recount the relevant events fully or precisely in a judicial context. The Chamber also notes that some of the Witnesses who testified before it may have suffered, and may continue to suffer stress-related disorders.
35. The Chamber recognises, in addition, the time that had elapsed between the time of the events in question and the testimonies of the Witnesses.
36. In assessing the credibility of the Witnesses, the Chamber is mindful of the considerations which motivated the following judicial pronouncements. We begin with the observations of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) in the Kupreskic case saying:
[…] It is certainly within the discretion of the Trial Chamber to evaluate any inconsistencies, to consider whether the evidence taken as a whole is reliable and credible and to accept or reject the “fundamental features” of the evidence. The presence of inconsistencies in the evidence does not, per se, require a reasonable Trial Chamber to reject it as being unreliable. Similarly, factors such as the passage of time between the events and the testimony of the Witness, the possible influence of third persons, discrepancies, or the existence of stressful conditions at the time the events took place do not automatically exclude the Trial Chamber from relying on the evidence. However, the Trial Chamber should consider such factors as it assesses and weighs the evidence.
37. In that pronouncement, the ICTY Appeals Chamber was reiterating its opinion in its earlier judgment in the Delalic Case. There, it had said as follows:
As is clear from the above discussion, the other matters raised by Delic as undermining the credibility of the Witnesses are not, in the view of the Appeals Chamber, of such a character as would require a reasonable Trial Chamber to reject their evidence. The Appeals Chamber is satisfied that on the evidence before the Trial Chamber it was open to accept what it described as the “fundamental features” of the testimony.
Delic also refers to certain inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, which he states illustrate that it was unreliable. The Appeals Chamber notes that as an introduction to its consideration of the factual and legal findings, the Trial Chamber specifically discussed the nature of the evidence before it. It found that often the testimony of Witnesses who appear before it, consists of a “recounting of horrific acts” and that often “recollection and articulation of such traumatic events is likely to invoke strong psychological and emotional reactions […]. This may impair the ability of such Witnesses to express themselves clearly or present a full account of their experiences in a judicial context”. In addition, it recognised the time which had lapsed since the events in question took place and the “difficulties in recollecting precise details several years after the fact, and the near impossibility of being able to recount them in exactly the same detail and manner on every occasion […].” The Trial Chamber further noted that inconsistency is a relevant factor “in judging weight but need not be, of [itself], a basis to find the whole of a Witness’ testimony unreliable”.
Accordingly, it acknowledged, as it was entitled to do, that the fact that a Witness may forget or mix up small details is often as a result of trauma suffered and does not necessarily impugn his or her evidence given in relation to the central facts relating to the crime. With regard to these counts, the Trial Chamber, after seeing the victim, hearing her testimony (and that of the other Witnesses) and observing her under cross-examination chose to accept her testimony as reliable. Clearly it did so bearing in mind its overall evaluation of the nature of the testimony being heard. Although the Trial Chamber made no reference in its findings to the alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, which had been pointed out by Delic, it may nevertheless be assumed that it regarded them as immaterial to determining the primary question of Delic’s perpetration of the rapes. The Appeals Chamber can see no reason to find that in doing so it erred.
The Trial Chamber is not obliged in its Judgment to recount and justify its findings in relation to every submission made during trial. It was within its discretion to evaluate the inconsistencies highlighted and to consider whether the Witness, when the testimony is taken as a whole, was reliable and whether the evidence was credible. Small inconsistencies cannot suffice to render the whole testimony unreliable. Delic has failed to show that the Trial Chamber erred in disregarding the alleged inconsistencies in its overall evaluation of the evidence as being compelling and credible, and in accepting the totality of the evidence as being sufficient to enter a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on these grounds.
38. As a general principle, the Trial Chamber has weighed all the evidence presented in this case and, accordingly, has attached—or declined to attach—probative value to the testimony of each Witness and exhibit, according to its relevance and credibility. The Trial Chamber recalls that it is not bound by any national rules of evidence and, has been guided by the foregoing principles recalled above , with a view to a fair determination of the issues before it. In particular, the Trial Chamber notes the finding in the Tadic Appeals Judgment that corroboration of evidence is not a customary rule of international law and as such should not be ordinarily required by the International Tribunal.
39. The Chamber notes further the decision in the Aleksovski Appeal Judgment that whether a Trial Chamber will rely on single Witness testimony as proof of a material fact, will depend on various factors that have to be assessed in the circumstances of each case. It may be that a Trial Chamber would require the testimony of a Witness to be corroborated, but according to the established practice of this Tribunal and the ICTY, that is clearly not a requirement.
40. In the Musema case, the Trial Chamber affirmed that it may rule on the basis of a single testimony, if in its opinion the testimony is relevant and credible. It further stated that:
(...) it is proper to infer that the ability of the Chamber to rule on the basis of testimonies and other evidence is not bound by any rule of corroboration, but rather on the Chamber's own assessment of the probative value of the evidence before it.
The Chamber may freely assess the relevance and credibility of all evidence presented to it. The Chamber notes that this freedom to assess evidence extends even to those testimonies which are corroborated: the corroboration of testimonies, even by many Witnesses, does not establish absolutely the credibility of those testimonies.
41. The Appeals Chamber in the Musema case held that these statements correctly reflect the position of the law regarding the trial Chamber's discretion in assessing testimonies and evidence before it.
4. Hearsay Evidence
42. The Chamber observes that Rule 89(c) of the Rules provides that “a Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value”. The Chamber notes that this Rule makes provision for the admission of hearsay evidence even when it cannot be examined at its source and when it is not corroborated by direct evidence. The Chamber, however, notes that though evidence may be admissible, the Chamber has discretion to determine the weight afforded to this evidence. The Chamber makes its decision as to the weight to be given to testimony based on tests of “relevance, probative value and reliability.” Accordingly, the Chamber notes that evidence, which appears to be “second-hand”, is not, in and of itself, inadmissible; rather it is assessed, like all other evidence, on the basis of its credibility and its relevance.
D. Witness Protection Issues
43. In analysing evidence received during closed sessions, the Chamber has been mindful of the need to avoid unveiling identifying particulars of protected Witnesses so as to prevent disclosure of their identities to the press or the public. At the same time, the Chamber wishes to provide in the judgment significant detail to assist in an understanding of its reasoning. In view of these concerns, when referring to evidence received in closed sessions in this Judgment, the Chamber has used language designed not to reveal protected information yet specific enough to convey its reasoning.
PART II – THE DEFENCE CASE
44. In an effort to challenge the case for the Prosecution, the Defence raised several issues as described below.
45. The evidence of the Defence will be considered together with the Prosecution evidence. The Chamber has, for each Prosecution allegation, considered in full the evidence presented by both parties and has weighed such evidence appropriately.
B. Vagueness of the Indictment
46. The Defence requested the Chamber to rule the allegations concerning the events at the Catholic Parish of Gishaka as vague; and, consequently, to exclude or disregard the evidence presented in support of that aspect of the Prosecution case.
47. The Defence submitted that only paragraphs 6.44, 6.45 and 6.46 of the Indictment refer to the Accused’s alleged involvement in acts allegedly committed in the commune of Gikomero.
48. The Defence submitted that in the above paragraphs of the Indictment, the Prosecution vaguely refers to weapons that the Accused allegedly distributed in his commune of Gikomero and to massacres which he allegedly led. Nowhere in the Indictment did the Prosecution provide the particulars of the circumstances in which these crimes were allegedly committed.
49. The Defence submitted that although it is alleged at paragraph 6.45 of the Indictment that the Accused personally led the attacks in the préfecture of Kigali-Rural, this is insufficient to give the Accused notice of the allegations relating specifically to the massacres at the Catholic Parish of Gishaka. The Indictment said nothing about the massacres in the Catholic Parish of Gishaka. Accordingly, the Defence argued that the Accused has not been properly informed as to the nature and the reasons underlying the accusations brought against him in that regard.
50. The Defence thus submitted that the Indictment, the pre-trial brief and the evidence disclosed pursuant to Rule 66 do not refer to the massacres in the Parish of Gishaka. It argued that it was only at the time of the Motion to amend the Prosecution list of Witnesses that the Accused understood that the Prosecution was also imputing to him responsibility for the massacres at the Parish of Gishaka.
51. The Defence relied on the jurisprudence of this Tribunal as well as on ICTY jurisprudence.
52. In response to this issue, the Prosecution, during its oral closing statement, recalled that the Defence, raised a few preliminary matters on the vagueness of the indictment to the effect that the crimes the Accused was alleged to have committed in Gishaka were not properly before this court. In response, the Prosecution argued that the indictment was not vague. The Prosecution stated that the testimony of the crimes committed were properly before this court and they were validly pleaded and led in evidence. The Prosecution informed the Court that these were matters the Court was entitled to take cognisance of and that the Court could find the defendant guilty on this basis.
53. The relevant paragraphs of the Indictment are paragraphs 6.44, 6.45 and 6.46
54. In the Prosecution Pre-Trial brief, Gishaka is mentioned once in the Annex summarizing the statement of Prosecution Witness GAB.
55. The Prosecution Pre-Trial brief also mentioned Gicaca in the Annex summarizing the statement of Prosecution Witness GEU.
56. In its opening statements (17 April 2001 and 3 September 2001) the Prosecution did mention that a massacre took place at the Catholic Church in Gishaka close to Gikomero, on the same day [12 April 1994] and that one Witness, GET, whose statement had been available for a long time, would give evidence about the mass graves that were found at Gishaka and the approximate dates of the massacres.
57. Relating to this issue, the Chamber recalls its Decision dated 6 February 2002. The Chamber, in that decision, disposed of a Prosecution Motion to amend its list of Witnesses in order to add three Witnesses who would testify on the Catholic Parish of Gishaka. In the Decision, the Chamber considered the Defence argument that allegations with regard to the Parish were vague because they were neither mentioned in the Indictment against the Accused, nor in the Pre-trial Brief. On this issue, the Chamber ruled thus:
“The Chamber is of the opinion that, although events at Gishaka Parish were not directly referred to in the Indictment against the Accused, the said Indictment states that the Accused is alleged to have “[s]upervised the killings in the area [Kigali-Rural]” during the month of April 1994. The Chamber notes that Gishaka Parish is in a Commune located in the Préfecture of Kigali-Rural and that similar mention of the activities of the Accused can be found in the Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief. Additionally, the Prosecutor points out that her opening statement sets out allegations with respect to the involvement of the Accused in events that occurred in Gishaka Parish. It is also noted that the Prosecutor filed exhibits identifying locations at the Gishaka Catholic Parish.”
58. The Chamber further considered that it was necessary to give the Defence sufficient time to prepare for the cross-examination of the said three Witnesses. Hence, the Chamber directed that they be heard at a subsequent trial session.
59. The Chamber notes that it is alleged at para. 6.44 of the Indictment that the Accused had family ties to Gikomero commune, Kigali-Rural préfecture, and that during April 1994 he supervised the killings in the area. At paragraph 6.45 of the Indictment, it is alleged more specifically that the Accused was responsible for the massacres at Gikomero Parish in Gikomero commune, Kigali-Rural Préfecture. The Chamber finds that the precision made in paragraph 6.45 of the Indictment does not preclude evidence tending to substantiate the allegation made at paragraph 6.44 of the Indictment that the Accused had supervised the killings in the area of Kigali-Rural préfecture in April 1994. Thus, the Chamber finds that the Indictment is not vague and that it sufficiently gave the Defence notice of the allegations relating to Kigali-Rural Préfecture within which the Catholic Parish of Gishaka is located.
60. Moreover, the Chamber recalls its Decision of 6 February 2002 mentioned above whereby the Defence was given time to prepare its cross-examination of the additional Witnesses who were to testify on the Catholic Parish of Gishaka. In the circumstances, the Chamber finds that no prejudice would have resulted to the Defence.
C. In and out of Court Identification of the Accused by the Prosecution.
61. The Defence points out that the Prosecution had its Witnesses identify the Accused by two methods: in and out of court. For the out of court identification the Defence recalled that the Prosecution presented a picture to the Witnesses from which they were supposed to identify the Accused. The Defence argued that contrary to the established methods set up by the Tribunal for the identification of Witnesses, the Prosecution used methods that ought to be entirely unacceptable to this Tribunal. The Defence stated that the methods used by the Prosecution significantly departed from customary methods of identification. The Defence reminded the Court that in the picture that was used by the Prosecution in the identification process, the Accused was the only man with a group of females and also that the Accused had a red mark on his shirt which was meant to make the identification even easier. The Defence recalled also that the second picture used for identification was just an enlargement of the earlier one, which then amounted to the fact that only one picture was indeed used for the process of out-of-court identification by the Witnesses.
62. Secondly, as regards the in-court identification, the Defence recalled that the Prosecutor asked several Witnesses to point out the Accused in the Courtroom where the Accused was flanked on both sides by two uniformed guards, while the rest of the people at the Defence side of the Courtroom were women. This, in the opinion of the Defence, made the identification of the Accused all the more improper.
2. Discussion and Conclusion
63. The Chamber notes that in Court the Witnesses were not asked to look at a specific part of the Courtroom to identify the Accused. The Chamber is mindful of the fact that the Witnesses were asked to look in the Courtroom as a whole and see if they could identify the Accused. The Chamber notes further that the process of the identification of the Accused in the Courtroom does not stand in isolation: it is rather part of a process, the culmination of which is the identification of the Accused in the Courtroom.
64. The Chamber has also noted the Defence submission on the issue of the identification through the use of photographs.
65. All these issues have been considered in the assessment of the evidence in the case. The Chamber has assessed the credibility of each Witness, bearing in mind all the factors argued in favour and against each Witness.
D. The Defence Contention that the Citizens of Gikomero Were Surprised by the Attacks and That the Assailants Came from Rubungo.
66. The Defence, in their case, sought to show that the killers at Gikomero on 12 April 1994, came from Rubungo and were not Interahamwe from the Gikomero commune. The Defence recalled the evidence of its Witnesses that the assailants came from Rubungo. The Defence stated further that assailants from Rubungo forced residents of Rubungo village to flee to the Gikomero Parish where they killed them. The Defence asserted that this supported their theory that the Accused was not in any way connected to the massacre at Gikomero Parish. The Defence recalled further that one Bucundura, a pastor from Rubungo, was the first person to be killed when the Interahamwe arrived. The Defence stated that this fact established their theory that the killers were from Rubungo and not Gikomero as had been stated by the Prosecution Witnesses.
2. Discussion and Conclusion
67. The Chamber finds that there is no conclusive evidence that the attackers came from Rubungo. The Chamber also notes the evidence of Witness GEC that local Hutus joined those who had arrived in vehicles. The Chamber has considered all the evidence tendered and finds that as far as the criminal responsibility of the Accused is concerned the issue raised by the Defence is not material.
E. Defence Contention that Prosecution Witnesses Bore False Testimony against the Accused and That the Charges against the Accused are Fabrication
68. The Defence asserted that Prosecution Witnesses bore false testimony against the Accused. The Defence Witnesses stated that any Witness who stated that the Accused was in the Parish of Gikomero or Gishaka was lying.
69. The Defence noted that one of the characteristics of the post-genocide period is the multiplication of false accusations, which are sparked by a wish to settle accounts. The Defence presented a Witness who testified that he was asked to falsely testify against the Accused.
70. The Defence attacked the credibility of most Prosecution Witnesses. The Defence submitted that most of the Witnesses who claimed that they saw the Accused at the Parishes of Gikomero and Gishaka did not know the Accused. The Defence further submitted that some of these Witnesses could not identify the Accused, even in the Courtroom. It was the theory of the Defence that these Witnesses were just out to discredit the Accused, an innocent man, and cause mischief.
71. The Chamber has noted this criticism levelled against Prosecution Witnesses. The Chamber does not, however, accept this sort of broad challenge, especially as it is not substantiated by the evidence. The Chamber has assessed the credibility of each Witness on the basis of the specific factors relating to each Witness’s testimony.
F. The Alleged Influence of the Accused.
72. The Defence recalled the testimony of certain Prosecution Witnesses to the effect that the Accused was such an influential person that he could have supervised and directed the massacres committed in the commune of Gikomero in April 1994. The Defence further recalled that the Prosecution argued that the Accused’s influence was in the nature of holding a command position as a hierarchical superior. The Defence maintains that the Prosecutor improperly applied the command doctrine of liability of the hierarchical superior. The Defence, on its part, maintains that the Accused was not an influential person at the national, communal or local level.
73. A general review of the evidence shows that the Accused held a prominent position in the country and this gave him certain influence in the Gikomero community. However, the Chamber analysed the evidence adduced in the case with the aim of determining any act or conduct of the Accused material to his criminal responsibility. The Chamber did not merely come to conclusions from a general assessment of his social, economic, or political status.
G. The Personality of the Accused was Incompatible with the Description of the Person Presented by the Prosecutor.
74. The Defence recalled the testimony of the Prosecution Witnesses who described the Accused. The Defence asserted that the character of the person that was described and presented by the Prosecution is entirely different from the character and the person of the Accused. The Defence recalled the testimony of the Prosecution that the Accused is a frenzied extremist and a notorious anti-Tutsi who entered Government in order to exterminate all Tutsi. The Defence stated that the Prosecution was unable to produce any document, speech, or policy paper to that effect. The Defence maintained that the Accused was not an extremist, as the Prosecution would have liked to prove but rather a calm and loving family man.
75. As stated before under Sub-section F of this Part, on influence of the Accused, the Chamber has assessed the totality of the evidence of the Witnesses in relation to all the acts and conduct of the Accused, as part of the process of assessing the Prosecution case.
H. Prosecution Allegation That the Accused Was an Advisor to the President.
76. The Defence recalled the allegation of the Prosecution that the Accused was an advisor to the President. The Defence asserted that the Accused was never an advisor to the President.
77. The Chamber finds that no evidence was brought to substantiate the allegation made by the Prosecution that the Accused was an advisor to the President of Rwanda.
I. Defence Contention that the Accused Became a Member of the Interim Government under Duress
78. The Defence further submitted that the Accused became a member of the Interim Government because his life and that of his family were threatened and at stake, and, as such, the Accused had no choice but to accept the position in the Interim Government. In these circumstances, submitted the Defence, the Accused became a member of the Interim Government under duress. The Defence therefore maintained that the Accused should not be held liable in any way for the acts of the Interim Government as the Prosecution sought to do.
79. The Chamber has noted the submission of the Defence in respect of the appointment of the Accused to the Interim Government. The Chamber further notes that this appointment occurred in May after the events that are charged in the Indictment with regard to Gikomero commune. The Chamber therefore finds the evidence tendered relating to the appointment of the Accused to the Interim Government irrelevant to the acts and conduct of the Accused as regards events in the Gikomero commune.
80. Moreover, on the basis of the evidence heard at trial, the Chamber finds no merit in the contention that the Accused was reluctant to be appointed Minister.
81. Following the start of the trial, the Defence advanced an alibi pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. In his alibi, the Accused asserted that at all times material to in the Indictment, and especially from 7 to 17 April 1994, the Accused was not present during any of the massacres that occurred.
1. Applicable Law
82. Pursuant to Rule 67(A)(ii) the Defence shall notify the Prosecution of its intent to advance an alibi as early as reasonably practicable, and in any event, prior to the commencement of the Trial. Although Rule 67(B) provides that the failure to give such notice does not limit the right of the Accused to rely on the alibi, the Chamber may take such failure into account when weighing the credibility of the alibi.
2. The Burden of Proof Regarding the Alibi
83. As has been held by the Appeals Chamber in the Celibici Case, the submission of an alibi by the Defence does not constitute a defence in its proper sense. The relevant section of the judgment reads:
“It is a common misuse of the word to describe an alibi as a “Defence”. If a defendant raises an alibi, he is merely denying that he was in a position to commit the crime with which he is charged. That is not a Defence in its true sense at all. By raising this issue, the defendant does no more [than] require the Prosecution to eliminate the reasonable possibility that the alibi is true.”
84. Therefore, as consistently held throughout the jurisprudence of the Tribunal and as asserted by the Defence, when an alibi is submitted by the Accused the burden of proof rests upon the Prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in all aspects. Indeed, the Prosecution must prove “that the accused was present and committed the crimes for which he is charged and thereby discredit the alibi defence”. If the alibi is reasonably possibly true, it will be successful.
85. Pursuant to Rule 67(A)(ii), the Defence is solely required at the pre-trial phase—in addition to the notification of his intention to rely on the alibi—to disclose to the Prosecution the evidence upon which the Defence intends to rely to establish the alibi. Thus, during the trial the Defence bears no onus of proof of the facts in order to avoid conviction. But, during the trial, the Accused may adduce evidence, including evidence of alibi, in order to raise reasonable doubt regarding the case for the Prosecution. It must be stressed, however, that the failure of the Defence to submit credible and reliable evidence of the Accused’s alibi must not be construed as an indication of his guilt.
3. Notice of Alibi
86. The Defence Notice of Alibi filed on 28 December 2000 states as follows
That at all material times of the Indictment [sic] specifically related to the events unfolding from 7 April to 17 April 1994, Mr Jean De Dieu Kamuhanda remained at his home in Kigali without interruption, between 6 April and 18 April 1994. On 18 April he travelled to Gitarama, accompanied by his family and several neighbours.
4. Defence Statement of Alibi
87. The Defence asserted that the Accused, in compliance with Article 67 of the Rules, notified the Prosecutor of his intent to raise an alibi in support of his defence. The Defence asserted further that this notice was served in December 2000 and March 2001, prior to the presentation of the Prosecution case. The Defence stated further that the Accused provided the names and addresses of Witnesses and the places he was at the relevant times of the events.
88. The Defence submitted that by raising the alibi defence, the Accused not only denies that he committed the crimes for which he is charged but also asserts that, at the times that the alleged crimes were being committed, he was not at the scenes of the crimes.
89. The Accused testified that he learned of the death of President Habyarimana on the morning of 7 April 1994. He was at home in the company of his wife and two of his children, Rosine and Fernand. His two other children—Irène and René—were on vacation. Irène was in Nyabikenke at her grandmother’s and René was at his aunt’s in Kimihurura, a neighbourhood of Kigali. According to the Accused, he remained at home with his wife until 8 April 1994 when he went to pick up his son René, who at the time was four years old. His wife had gone to the residence of Defence Witness ALR in order to telephone her son René. She found him in a state of great anxiety. Thereupon, the Accused decided to go and pick up his son as he could not bear the thought of remaining far from him knowing he was in such a state of anxiety.
90. According to the Accused, it took him two attempts to complete his mission to pick up René. During the first attempt, in the early morning, he was accompanied by one of Defence Witness ALS’ household staff, one Canisius, and by one Mr Karemera. The second time the Accused went out, at the beginning of the afternoon, he was accompanied by a neighbour known by the nickname “Juif”. The Accused testified that upon his return the family had already moved to the house of Defence Witness ALS, who lived next door, because it afforded better protection against flying bullets. The Accused further testified that during the evening of 8 April 1994, the family of Defence Witness ALR joined them at ALS’s house. Together they remained there until their departure on 17 April 1994.
91. The Accused testified that he did not leave his neighbourhood from 7 April 1994 until 8 April 1994 when he went to look for his son René: and that during the entire period of 7 April 1994 to 17 April 1994, he was in his neighbourhood with his family and neighbours and that they did not leave each others’ sides. The Defence averred that during that period the Accused and his family shared meals in common in the home of ALS, and that the women and children slept inside the house while the men slept outside. The Accused stated that on 17 April 1994, the situation in their Kigali neighbourhood of Kacyiru had deteriorated, forcing the Accused and his family to move several metres from the residence where they had spent the night.
92. On the morning of 18 April 1994, stated the Accused, he visited the Hôtel des Diplomates, which was located near the military camp in Kigali city, to try and contact his friend General Gatsinzi, as the situation in the neighbourhood had deteriorated. The Accused testified further that General Gatsinzi provided them with a bus and that he and his family, ALS and her family and ALA and other neighbours got onto the bus and travelled to Gitarama from there. The Accused testified that they arrived at about 8:00pm on the night of 18 April 1994 and spent the night in the stadium. The following morning, he met Defence Witness ALB, who agreed to accompany him to Nyabikenke where his in-laws resided. The Accused returned at the stadium on the same day, still accompanied by ALB. After ensuring that ALS had departed for Butare, and ALR had left for her parents’ in Gitarama, the Accused returned to his own family.
5. Evidence on Alibi
a. Evidence of the Accused
93. The Accused, Defence Witnesses ALS, ALR, ALB, ALM and ALF, all testified regarding the whereabouts of the Accused between 7 April and 17 April 1994.
o 6 April 1994
94. The Accused testified that on 6 April 1994, he went to work at 8:00am and at around 8:30 or 9:00am he went to the district of Zaza with a colleague called Jean D. Ndayisaba. The Witness testified that the reason for this trip was to continue with the preparations for a mission to France planned to start on 9 April 1994.
o 7 April 1994
95. The Accused testified that he was at home in Kigali with his wife and two children on the morning of 7 April 1994 when at around 6:00am his night watchman informed him of the death of the President. The Accused testified that he did not go anywhere that day and remained at home the rest of that day.
o 8 April 1994
96. The Accused testified that at around 10:00am on the morning of 8 April 1994, he went to look for his son René who was staying with his aunt at Kimihurura, one of the districts of Kigali-Kacyiru commune, about two kilometres from the Accused’s house. The Accused stated that he was accompanied by two people, Canisius, who was a member of Defence Witness ALS’ household staff and one Mr. Karemera who is a relative of the Accused’s wife. The Accused stated that on the first attempt to go to Kimihurura, they were unable to do so as there was a roadblock which had been set up and the people manning the roadblock began to shoot at them. The Accused stated that later that afternoon he went out again to get his son from Kimihurura and that he was successful this time. On that occasion, stated the Accused, he was accompanied by a neighbour more commonly known by his nickname “Juif”. The Accused testified that on 8 April 1994, he moved his family from his house to the house of his neighbour Defence Witness ALS because they all felt that it was safer there and also because they wanted to keep ALS company as her husband was not in the country. The Accused does not specify in his testimony what happened on the night of 8 April 1994. The Accused stated that the family of ALR joined them at ALS’s residence either on the afternoon of 8 April 1994 or on the night of the next day, but he was unsure of the exact date.
o 9 to 16 April 1994
97. The Accused stated that after going to pick up his son from Kimihurura on 8 April 1994, he neither left the house of Defence Witness ALS where he was taking refuge with his family nor did he leave ALS’s residence until 17 April 1994, when he fled to Gitarama with his family. The Accused stated that they all ate together and the men slept outside to protect the families. The Accused stated further that the men who were in the house stayed together 24 hours a day. The Accused testified that during that period he saw his wife on short periods in the morning for tea and in the evening for dinner.
o 17 April 1994
98. The Accused testified that on the evening of 17 April 1994, due to the escalating insecurity, at around 6:00pm, he and his family, together with the families of ALS and ALR left the residence of ALS and spent the night at a military post located some 500 metres from ALS’s house.
o 18 April 1994
99. The Accused testified that on the morning of 18 April 1994, he went to the Hôtel des Diplomates which is located in the centre of Kigali where he contacted his friend General Gatsinzi, a ranking soldier from the préfecture of Kigali and Chief of staff of the Rwandan Army in April 1994, by telephone from the hotel reception. The Accused testified that two jeeps were given to them by General Gatsinzi and the various families got into the cars and they were dropped off at a military camp in Kigali. The Accused testified that he arrived at the military camp at around 2:00 or 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon. The Accused stated that from there they left for Gitarama and arrived there at between 8:00 and 8.30pm on the night of 18 April 1994.
b. Evidence of Defence Witnesses
100. Defence Witness ALS testified that she was a neighbour of the Accused in Kacyiru in Kigali in April 1994 and that they shared a wall between their houses which were less than a metre apart. Defence Witness ALS testified that her house was situated in such a way that it was protected from the gunfire so the Accused and his family decided to move in with her.
101. She testified that she saw the Accused on the morning of 7 April 1994, when he came to her house to discuss the shooting down of the President’s plane. Defence Witness ALS stated that the Accused left Kacyiru only on two occasions during the period of 7 April 1994 to 18 April 1994. She testified that the Accused left her house on 8 April 1994 and went to Kimihurura (which is about 1.5 kilometres from Kacyiru) to pick up his son René who had gone to his aunt who lived in that area. Defence Witness ALS stated further that the Accused went on foot and that he was accompanied by ALS’s domestic servant. She stated that the Accused made two trips to Kimihurura that day before he was able to get his son.
102. Defence Witness ALS testified that she saw the Accused everyday during this period because he was living in her house. Defence Witness ALS stated that she could not specify the number of times she saw him during the day because they were always together. She stated that she never lost sight of him for longer than a two hour period. She testified that they shared meals together and that when he was not accompanied by the women, he was resting in the house, walking in an enclosed area or in the company of the other men in the house. Defence Witness ALS stated that the Accused could not have left the quarters without her knowledge because she was always with the wife and the children of the Accused, and that the Accused could not have left Kacyiru without informing either his wife or his children.
103. Defence Witness ALS testified that the Accused was absent a second time on 18 April 1994, when he went to seek the assistance of his friend General Gatsinzi at the Hôtel des Diplomates as the security situation had worsened.
104. Defence Witness ALR testified that in April 1994 he lived in the Kacyiru neighbourhood of Kigali city, across from the Accused’s residence. Defence Witness ALR testified further that he saw the Accused on the morning of 7 April 1994 when most of the residents in the Kacyiru neighbourhood came out of their houses and met by the roadside to talk about the shooting down of the President’s plane. He testified further that he saw the Accused again later that day when he met with him in the afternoon to talk about what was happening in the country. He testified that on 8 April 1994, he moved to the residence of ALS for security reasons and the Accused was there as well. Defence Witness ALR testified that between 7 April 1994 and 18 April 1994, the Accused only left the house on two occasions. The first time was on 8 April 1994, when the Accused went to pick up his son René and the second time was on 18 April 1994, when the Accused went to seek assistance from his friend Gatsinzi.
105. Witness ALR stated that during the period of 8 April 1994 to 18 April 1994, he saw the Accused everyday. He stated that they were together every night. This was because from 8 April 1994, the men who were in ALS’s residence, which included the Accused, “Juif”, Revocate, ALA, Telesphore Jean-Baptiste, ALB and the Witness, carried out night patrols in their quarters and they were always in a group.
106. Defence Witness ALR further testified that after these night patrols, he always had tea with the Accused in ALS’s residence. He stated that they all had their meals together and were at each other’s side during the day.
107. Defence Witness ALR stated that during the period from 8 April 1994 to 18 April 1994, the Accused left the residence of ALS twice. The first time was on 8 April 1994, when the Accused went to fetch his son René, and the second time was on the morning of 18 April 1994, when the Accused went to see his friend General Gatsinzi.
108. Defence Witness ALR testified that on the evening of 17 April 1994, the three families of ALR, ALS and Kamuhanda, left ALS’s house and sought refuge in a shelter designated by military personnel which was not far from their location.
109. In Cross Examination, the Prosecution pointed out to the Witness that, contrary to his testimony in court asserting that the Accused had left Kacyiru on 18 April 1994, he had, in a prior statement to the Investigators from the Office of the Prosecutor, asserted that the Accused left the Kacyiru neighbourhood on 12 April 1994. The Prosecution also pointed out that Witness ALR had omitted to mention to the investigators that his family and that of the Accused had left Kacyiru with the family of Witness ALS.
110. The Witness explained that he had made a mistake during his Witness statement. The Witness testified that he realised his mistake when he spoke to his wife later that evening after speaking to the investigators. The Witness stated that it was during the conversation that his wife reminded him that the correct date of their families’ departure from Kacyiru was 18 April 1994 and not 12 April 1994. The Witness testified further that he did not make any attempt to inform the investigators of his mistake. Witness ALR testified that he forgot to mention that the family of Witness ALS travelled with the Kamuhanda family from Kacyiru.
111. Defence Witness ALB testified that he was one of the neighbours of the Accused. He stated further that he had known the Accused since 1975 when they were both students. Defence Witness ALB stated that his family and that of the Accused had, for security reasons, moved to stay in the house of Witness ALS on 8 April 1994.
112. He testified that during this period, he saw the Accused several times in a day. On 7 April 1994, Witness ALB stated that he was with the Accused and they discussed the security situation in Kigali. On 8 April 1994, Defence Witness ALB testified that the Accused went out to find his son René, he stated that the Accused came back at 12:00 noon without his son and went out again and came back at around 3:00pm in the afternoon, this time with his son. Defence Witness ALB testified further that on the night of 8 April 1994, he began security patrols accompanied by the Accused and Defence Witnesses ALR and ALA. He testified further that he was with the Accused from 8 April 1994 to 14 April 1994.
113. Defence Witness ALB stated that he, the Accused and the others were together every night, throughout the night, until approximately 6:00am the next morning. Defence Witness ALB stated further that he saw the Accused during the day from approximately 10:00am till noon each day when they met and carried out patrol of their quarters. He testified further that they had lunch at noon each day and rested after that until about 2:00pm; and then met again after dinner which was between 6:00 and 7.30pm each day. Defence Witness ALB testified that he saw the Accused everyday between 8 April 1994 and 14 April 1994 and that there that the Accused could not have left the quarters within that period of time.
114. Defence Witness Ingabire Theopitse Kamuhanda (ALF) is the wife of the Accused. She testified that the Accused could not have travelled to Gikomero between 6 and 18 April 1994; because, first, they did not leave each other’s side during the said period and, secondly, access to the Gikomero commune was impossible.
115. Mrs Kamuhanda testified that on 8 April 1994, the Accused went to Kimihurura to look for their son René, who was staying with the Witness’ sister. The Witness stated that the Accused twice attempted to go for his son, once in the morning and later on in the afternoon, before he was able to get him from Kimihurura. She testified that on both occasions, he went on foot and was accompanied the first time by a gentleman known as Innocent Karemera and the second time by someone known as “Juif”. The Witness stated that from 8 April 1994 to 17 April 1994, a routine was set up and followed by the men who were in the residence of ALS and the Accused was a part of it. She testified that the men met from 4:00pm to 6:00pm each afternoon. At 6:00pm, they would all go and spend the night outside returning in the morning towards 6:00am. The men, the Accused included, would have breakfast and then rest till 10:00am. Between 10:00am and 12:00 noon or 1:00pm, they would meet again. At 1:00pm, they would have lunch and thereafter rest. They would meet again at 4:00pm and the cycle would begin again. The Witness testified that this pattern was followed as closely as possible from 8 April 1994 to 17 April 1994, although there were some days when the shelling and bombardment were so intense that the men, including the Accused, stayed inside the house and did not venture outside. Thus when her husband was not with the family, he was with the other men, conducting patrols in the neighbourhood within calling distance.
116. Mrs Kamuhanda testified further that due to the intensive fighting in Kacyiru, a decision was made on 17 April 1994 to leave the neighbourhood. She testified that all the families present in the house of ALS, did not spend the night of 17 April in ALS’s residence but rather spent the night outside at a house which was guarded by two soldiers. She testified that on the morning of 18 April 1994, the Accused left ALS’s house with Defence Witness ALR and sought out his friend General Gatsinzi who provided them with a Jeep that took them ( the families of the Accused, ALR and ALS) all to Camp Kigali. She testified that at Camp Kigali, they got on a bus which took them to Gitarama.
117. Defence Witness ALM testified that he lived in Kacyiru south in 1994, which is about 1.5 kilometres from the Accused’s neighbourhood. He testified that he saw the Accused twice during the period of 8 April 1994 to 17 April 1994. He testified that he saw the Accused around 10 April 1994, when he went to the Accused’s neighbourhood. He stated further that the Accused was standing close to his house with Witness ALR and some other people who the Witness did not know. Witness ALM stated that it was around 2:00pm in the afternoon and that he spoke to the Accused for about twenty minutes. Witness ALM testified that he saw the Accused again around 13 or 14 April 1994 before he left Kacyiru. He testified that he saw the Accused at practically the same place he had seen him earlier on 10 April 1994. On the road in front of his house with the same people that he was with on 10 April 1994. Witness ALM stated that he talked with the Accused and those he was with for a few minutes. He asked them if there was a general migration of people to their neighbourhood, as he saw happening in his, due to increased fighting in areas beyond Kacyiru. He testified that after the Accused and his group replied him in the negative, he promptly left and went back to his own quarters.
6. Prosecution Allegations on Alibi
118. The Prosecution in their case contended that the Defence alibi was contrived after the Accused knew the nature of the case against him. The Prosecution maintained that the Accused went out of his way to procure Witnesses to try and bear out his contrived alibi. The Prosecution maintained that the evidence they presented during their case-in-chief, did not place the Accused at his residence at all relevant times. The Prosecution maintained that the Accused had ample opportunity to travel to Gikomero to commit all the crimes alleged against him.
119. The Prosecution stated that the testimony of the Defence Witnesses lacked credibility and that the Chamber should not rely on them. The Prosecution stated further that the Defence Witnesses should not be believed as every alibi Witness was a friend, a colleague or a Hutu who shared his political leanings. The Prosecution maintained that all the Defence Witnesses were biased and therefore their testimonies ought to be disregarded by the Chamber. The Prosecution stated further that the testimonies of the Defence Witnesses should not be given credence as they contradicted each other and these testimonies were simply attempting to “fit around the Accused’s contrived story.”
120. The Prosecution maintained that the alibi theory being propounded by the Accused did not exclude the possibility of the Accused travelling back and forth between Kacyiru and Gikomero.
121. The Prosecution in attacking the alibi of the Accused enumerated the various inconsistencies in the testimonies of the various Defence Witnesses. They include the following.
a. The Accused’s Attempts to Retrieve His Son.
122. The Prosecution recalled that during his testimony, the Accused stated that on his first attempt to retrieve his son, he was accompanied by Canisius (ALS’s domestic employee) and Karemera. The Prosecution recalled further that during his testimony, the Accused referred to the companions as houseboys. The Prosecution however noted that Karemera is also referred to as a family friend or relative, later in the testimony.
123. The Prosecution reminded the Court that the testimony of Defence Witness ALS is different from that of the Accused. She testified that the Accused was accompanied by Canisius on both attempts to retrieve his son.
124. The Prosecution recalled that during the interview of Witness ALR on 12 March 1999, he stated that to his knowledge, the Accused went to Kimihurura somewhere between 9 and 10 April 1994.
125. The Prosecution recalled the testimony of Defence Witness ALB, that on the first attempt to retrieve his son, the Accused was accompanied by a member of the family of the Accused’s wife.
b. Reasons Why the Accused Returned after the First Attempt.
126. The Prosecution reminded the Court that the Accused stated in his testimony that on his first attempt to get his son, he was unable to make it as he was shot at by men guarding a roadblock who were not wearing uniforms.
127. The Prosecution recalled further that during the testimony of Witness ALS, she made no mention of any shooting at the Accused. Rather she testified that at the Accused’s first attempt to fetch his son, he was met by a group of soldiers who told him to go back.
128. The Prosecution recalled the testimony of Witness ALB who stated that he was told that on the first attempt by the Accused to retrieve his son, he witnessed a shooting which is why the Accused returned.
c. Accused’s Second Attempt to Retrieve Son
129. The Prosecution recalled the testimony of the Accused that on his second attempt to retrieve his son, he was accompanied by Nizeyimana “Juif”.
130. The Prosecution reminded the Court of the testimony of Witness ALS that the Accused was accompanied by Canisius a houseboy on his second attempt to retrieve his son.
131. The testimony of Witness ALB was noted by the Prosecution that on his second attempt to retrieve his son, the Accused was accompanied by Juif.
132. The Prosecution referred the Chamber to the differences between the testimonies of the Witnesses regarding those who accompanied the Accused when he went to look for his son.
d. Discussion to Move to ALS’s House
133. The Prosecution recalled that during the testimony of the Accused, he stated that there was no discussion on whether or not to move to ALS’s house.
134. The Prosecution also recalled the testimony of Witness ALS who stated that she raised and discussed with the Accused, the matter of moving to her house.
135. The testimony of Defence Witness ALB on this matter was that he spoke of moving to ALS’s house with the Accused and they decided to move.
e. Decision to Move to ALS’s House
136. The Prosecution recalled the testimony of the Accused that the parties present for the decision to move were Defence Witness ALS, the wife of the Accused and the Accused himself. The Accused claimed that no one else was present when the decision was made.
137. The Prosecution reminded the Court of the testimony of Defence Witness ALS who stated that Defence Witness ALR was present when the decision to move to ALS’s house was made.
f. Parties Living at ALS’ house; Alibi and Notice of Alibi
138. The Prosecution recalled that in the original notice of alibi dated 10 April 2001, the Defence stated that Defence Witness ALB was resident in ALS’s house during the period from 8 April 1994 to 18 April 1994. The Prosecution reminds the Court that when the Defence tendered the Revised Notice of Alibi, the claim that Defence Witness ALB lived in ALS’s house during that period had been struck out. The Defence now stated that ALB was not living in the house of ALS during the period of 8 April 1994 to 18 April 1994.
139. The Prosecution recalled the testimony of Defence Witness ALB. The Prosecution notes that during the interview at his home and during his testimony in court, Defence Witness ALB stated that he did not live in other people’s homes during the period following 7 April 1994. He stated that he slept in his own house during the period from 7 April 1994.
140. The Prosecution noted the testimony of Defence Witness AG who is the mother-in-law of the Accused. The Prosecution noted that in her Witness statement on 31 July 2002, the Witness AG stated that the wife of the Accused never told her that she spent a few nights in another house in Kigali.
141. The Prosecution reminded the Court that during her testimony in court, however, the Defence Witness AG recalled suddenly that the family of the Accused and other neighbours had assembled in the house of one of the neighbours.
g. Organisation of Patrols
142. The Prosecution recalled the testimony of the Accused that they spent the night of 7 April 1994 outside. He later stated that he did not go outside on the night of 7 April 1994 but rather stayed inside the house. The Prosecution recalled further the testimony of the Accused that during the day he slept outside with the group with whom he patrolled the area.
143. The Prosecution recalled the testimony of Defence Witness ALS that the men, including the Accused, returned at dawn each day and slept in the sitting room and in the corridor.
144. The Prosecution recalled the Witness statement of Defence Witness ALB given to the Office of the Prosecutor on 5 January 1997. The Prosecution recalled further that he stated that he stayed in Kigali for a week with his family, after which he left the neighbourhood. The Prosecution noted that he did not tell the investigators that he participated in neighbourhood patrols. The Prosecution noted however that during his examination-in-chief, Witness ALB testified that he and the Accused had been involved in night patrols which was contradictory to his earlier statement given to the Office of the Prosecutor on 5 January 1997.
h. Night Patrol Systems
145. The Prosecution recalled that the Accused stated that there was no roster or system concerning protection of the house. The Prosecution noted that the Accused later testified that there was a system.
146. The Prosecution recalled also the testimony of Witness ALR that the men were involved in what was traditionally known as night patrols and that the night patrols were organised in such a manner.
i. Trajectory of Bullets
147. The Prosecution recalled that the Accused testified that his house acted as a shelter for the bullets that might have hit ALS’s residence.
148. The Prosecution recalled also the testimony of Defence Witness ALS that the bullets came from the right side of the house and flew over the house of Witness ALS.
149. The contradicting testimony of Defence Witness ALR that the bullets came from the north has been noted by the Prosecution.
j. Date the Accused Left for Gitarama
150. The Prosecution recalled that the Accused stated that he left on 18 April 1994 with his family to Gitarama. The Prosecution reminded the Court that the Accused stated that this was done with the help of ALS and ALR’s family. The Prosecution recalled further that the Accused stated that he went with ALR’s vehicle and a driver.
151. The Prosecution recalled the testimony of ALS that they left for Gitarama on 18 April 1994.
152. The Prosecution drew the attention of the Chamber to the contradictory evidence of Witness ALR. The Prosecution recalled that during his Witness statement given to investigators from the Office of the Prosecutor on 12 March 1999, Defence Witness ALR stated that the Accused and his family left Kacyiru on 12 April 1994. The Prosecution recalled that the Witness when testifying in court at a later date stated that the Accused left Kacyiru on 18 April 1994. The Prosecution noted that a second inconsistency was the fact that Witness ALR only mentioned the departure of his family and that of the Accused. The Prosecution noted that Defence Witness ALR did not make any mention of the departure of Defence Witness ALS and her family.
k. Bus Trip to Gitarama
153. The Prosecution recalled that the Accused testified that on the bus trip to Gitarama, he was sitting next to Enzi Muleka’s wife and that he did not get up at any time during the trip.
154. The Prosecution reminded the Court of the contradicting testimony of Defence Witness ALS that on the bus trip to Gitarama, the men remained standing and the Prosecution also recalled her testimony that the Accused stood in front of her during the journey.
l. Showing of Identity Cards.
155. The Prosecution recalled the testimony of the Accused that on the bus trip to Gitarama, the group had to show their identity cards to men who were not in uniform and who were not armed. The Prosecution further recalled that the Accused stated that the bus had no military escort.
156. The Prosecution reminded the Court of the contrasting testimony of Defence Witness ALS that on the journey to Gitarama, the group was not required to show their identity cards and further more that there was a military officer on the bus with them.
m. Gitarama Stadium
157. The Prosecution recalled the testimony of the Accused that he spent two nights at the Gitarama stadium with Defence Witnesses ALS and ALR.
158. The Prosecution reminded the Court of the contrasting testimony of Defence Witness ALS that she spent only one night at the Gitarama stadium after which she left.
159. The Prosecution noted the testimony of the wife of the Accused that the Accused spent at least two nights at the stadium in Gitarama.
160. The Prosecution also recalled the testimony of Defence Witness AG, the mother-in-law of the Accused, that the family of the Accused spent a night at Gitarama stadium.
n. Presence of Interahamwe in the Kacyiru Neighborhoods.
161. The Prosecution recalled that the Accused initially stated that there were no Interahamwe in his neighbourhood. He later changed his testimony by stating that the Interahamwe were everywhere but he did not see them during that period.
162. The Prosecution reminded the Court of the testimony of Defence Witness ALS that there was a small wood in the area of Kacyiru where the Interahamwe used to meet.
o. Relationship Between the Accused and ALB
163. In discussing the relationship between Witness ALB and the Accused the Prosecution noted the testimony of the Accused that he knew Defence Witness ALB since 1974 but they were not friends. The Prosecution also noted the testimony of Witness ALB who stated that the Accused was his neighbour but there was no special relationship between them. The Prosecution noted the apparent contradiction by the wife of the Accused who testified that the Defence Witness ALB was a long time friend of the Accused. The Prosecution was of the view that the Accused and Witness ALB sought to hide their friendship so that it will not seem as if the Defence Witness ALB’s testimony was biased in favour of the Accused.
164. The Chamber notes that there is no issue raised by the Prosecution regarding the alibi notice in terms of its delivery, timeliness or content.
165. The Chamber has made a finding on the Alibi of the Accused after a careful consideration of the testimony of the various Prosecution Witnesses who testified that they saw the Accused in Gikomero commune in April 1994.
166. The Chamber has carefully considered the alibi of the Accused and the Defence Witnesses and finds as follows :
167. The Chamber finds that the Accused may have been in the Kacyiru area at some time during the period of 7 April 1994 to 18 April 1994. The Chamber finds, however, that this did not preclude him from travelling to the Gikomero commune at times during the same period.
168. The Chamber has weighed the testimony of the different Defence Witnesses and finds that their testimony as to what exactly took place at Defence Witness ALS’s house has significant contradictions.
169. The Chamber particularly notes the testimony of Witness ALS. She testified that the Accused never left her house except on 8 April 1994 when the Accused attempted twice to retrieve his son René from Kimihurura, succeeding only on the second attempt. She testified that she saw the Accused practically 24 hours a day and that the Accused never left the house again until 18 April 1994. She testified that it was impossible for the Accused to have left the house without her knowledge, considering especially that she was always in the company of the Accused’s wife.
170. Concurring with ALS, Mrs Kamuhanda also testified that she was always in the company of the Accused, never taking her eyes off him.
171. Clearly, there is a potential for bias in the evidence of ALS and Mrs Kamuhanda. The one Witness is the wife and the other a family friend and neighbour with whom the Kamuhanda family may well have gone through a difficult time together. Although a potential for bias tends to taint the testimony of a Witness, since it is harder to show that such evidence is independent of all motives of interest, this will not always be the case. There may indeed be instances when the testimony of a Witness with a basis for bias may come with evident indicia of reliability which will assist the search for the truth. That said, it needs also be said that the evidence of a Witness from whom bias might be expected is not helped by material contradictions. And such is the case with the testimonies of ALS and Mrs Kamuhanda. The Chamber finds that it is the Accused himself who contradicts the testimony of Witness ALS and his wife, when he testified that he did not see his wife much during the period of 7 April 1994 to 17 April 1994. The Chamber notes that the Accused testified that he saw his wife twice or sometimes three times during the day. The Chamber recalls that the Accused testified that he saw his wife in the mornings for tea, in the afternoon for lunch and sometimes he saw her for dinner. It thus becomes difficult to rely on the evidence of ALS and Mrs Kamuhanda when they testified that the Accused never left Kacyiru between 7 April 1994 and 17 April 1994 because they were with him all the time and he never left their side so as to be in Gikomero on 12 April 1994 and commit the crimes alleged.
172. The Chamber has also noted the evidence of Defence Witness ALR. During his cross-examination, it was pointed out that he had no independent recollection of the dates involved in the alibi. Specifically, he admitted that he was mistaken when he told the investigators of the ICTR Prosecutor’s Office that the Accused left Kacyiru on 12 April 1994; and that it was his wife that reminded him that it was on 18 April 1994 that they all left Kacyiru, including the Accused and his own family. In view of this, the Chamber feels unsafe relying on this Witness as regards the other dates to which he testified in relation to alibi.
173. The Chamber has considered the testimonies of Witnesses ALR and ALB and finds that there are some contradictions in their testimonies. The Chamber considers that if these Witnesses were together as they claimed to be, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, then it is most inconsistent that they should have differing accounts of what happened. The Chamber has also noted that the Accused in his testimony does not really go into detail as to what the men who were in ALS’s house did during that period. The Chamber notes that the Accused just testified that they were together 24 hours a day and that he does not really state what the exact routine was during that 24 hour period.
174. The Chamber finds that the evidence of Witness ALB does not exonerate the Accused from being present at Gikomero, in the circumstances that he was sighted there. The Prosecution evidence, upon which the Chamber relies, does not claim that the Accused was in Gikomero for any extended period. Prosecution Witness GEK, for instance, testified that she witnessed a meeting during which the Accused distributed weapons on between 6 to 10 April 1994. That meeting lasted 20 to 30 minutes. For his part, Prosecution Witness GAF testified that the Accused was at the Gikomero Parish for one or two minutes. That being the case, the time-lines described by Defence Witness ALB cannot foreclose the possibility described by these Prosecution Witnesses who testified that the Accused was seen in Gikomero on or about 12 April 1994.
175. Finally, the Chamber also notes the evidence of Defence Witness ALM. Notably, he testified that he saw the Accused twice during the period from 8 April 1994 to 17 April 1994. Surely, these two instances could not afford an alibi which would exclude the possibility of the Accused going to Gikomero. The Chamber attaches no weight to the testimony of Witness ALM.
176. The Chamber has weighed all the different testimonies that have been adduced and comes to the following conclusion as to the alibi of the Accused. In coming to its conclusion about the alibi of the Accused, the Chamber noted in particular the testimonies of the different Witnesses as to the patrols that took place in the quarter from 7 April 1994 to 17 April 1994. The Chamber noted the testimonies of these Witnesses that these patrols were mounted primarily to protect them and their families from looters. The Chamber has also noted from the testimonies that these patrols were very intensive and around the clock. The Chamber has carefully analysed these testimonies and finds it incredible that a patrol as intensive as this would be mounted just to protect the Witnesses and their families from looters. The Chamber finds that in an attempt to provide an alibi for the Accused, the Witnesses ended up relating stories that appeared designed for a purpose and therefore not credible. The Chamber finds that the Accused may have been at the house of Defence Witness ALS at times during 7 to 18 April 1994. The Chamber finds, however, that the Accused was able to travel to and from Gikomero commune between 6 and 17 April 1994. The Chamber refers to its earlier findings that it was not impossible for the Accused to move around from 6 April 1994 to 17 April 1994. The Chamber therefore finds that the alibi of the Accused from 6 April 1994 to 17 April 1994 is not credible.
K. Impossibility of Travel from Kigali to Gikomero in April 1994
177. The Defence asserted that it was physically impossible for the Accused to participate in the acts or be at the places alleged in the Indictment during the period 6 April 1994—13 April 1994.
178. In connection with the Prosecution’s allegations about the massacre at the Gikomero Parish, the Defence submitted that the Accused did not travel to Gikomero after 6 April 1994, and could not have travelled there, as the principal travel routes leading from Kacyiru, Kigali where he alleged to have been at that time to Gikomero were not passable due to the fighting. The Defence stated further that it was impossible for civilians to move on the three roads leading out of Kigali to Gikomero due to the combat situation and the position of the armies at that time. The three routes that led to Gikomero from Kacyiru, Kigali at that time were the Kacyiru—Kimihurura—Remera—Gikomero route, the Kacyiru—Kimihurura—Remera—Kanombe—Gikomero, and the Kacyiru—Muhima—Gatsata route in the direction of Byumba.
179. The Prosecution did not call any evidence specifically rebutting the evidence of the Defence on impossibility. The Prosecution’s Application to call rebuttal evidence was denied by the Trial Chamber on 13 May 2002. The Prosecution therefore focused on the credibility of the Defence Witnesses.
a. The Kacyiru—Kimihurura—Remera—Gikomero Route (Kigali/Remera Artery).
180. On subject of this route, the Defence led the evidence of Laurent Hitimana and Witness VPG.
181. Defence Witness Laurent Hitimana was protected Witness RKA but he renounced his protected status. His evidence related to the Kacyiru—Kimihurura—Remera—Gikomero Route (Kigali/Remera Artery). Witness RKA testified that in April 1994 he was living in Remera in Bibare area of Kigali. He testified that as at 7 April 1994 the exit from Remera by the tarred road towards Kanombe was closed by the government forces (the FAR), at the junction known as Remera. The Witness testified that on 7 April 1994 refugees started arriving at Bibare. The refugees said they had come from Remera I and Remera Kicukiro because the RPF had attacked their neighbourhoods. On 7 April 1994 the Witness had to move from his home in Remera moving eastward to Gasogi where he arrived on 8 April 1994 after spending the night at the bureau communal of Rubungo. The Witness testified that on 10 and 11 April 1994 there was a flow of refugees, arriving at Gasogi coming from Jurwe, who were fleeing the RPF. The Witness returned to his house in Remera on 11 April 1994 and saw that soldiers of the FAR were patrolling the road leading to Amahoro stadium.
182. According to the Witness, the only route one could take to Gikomero was the Kigali-Remera-Kimironko-Karama-Gikomero Route, which was impossible to use because the government forces already blocked it.
183. The Witness stated that the road through Kicukiro was blocked by the RPF at the Kicukiro junction point and it was therefore not possible to use it to get to Gikomero.
184. In cross-examination the Witness stated that he did not go to the positions of the Armies and that the positions he gave were either the officially known positions of the Armies in 1994 or were based on the information he got from the refugees.
185. Defence Witness VPG lived in Kacyiru, Kigali, in April 1994 but was originally from Gikomero Commune and a member of the Electoral Commission on which the Accused also sat. He testified that it was impossible to travel to Gikomero around 12 April 1994 because all the roads were cut off due to the fighting. According to him, there were two main routes from Kigali to Gikomero. The first route was the Byumba route and the second route was through Remera. According to the Witness, the more practical route was the one through Remera; and it was the route he used when he travelled to Gikomero on 25 April 1994. The Umuganda Boulevard separated the two fighting parties and was insecure. The Remera Gendarmerie station had already been taken by the RPF.
186. Defence Witness VPG testified that from the Accused’s house it was not possible to move towards the Kanombe airport. Defence Witness VPG testified that the second route was not available for use because the RPF had control of it. According to Witness VPG, to go to Gikomero on this route, one had to turn towards Kabuye and then Nyacyonga, zones that were already in RPF hands as at 12 April 1994.
187. In cross-examination the Witness stated that in 1994 he was neither in the military nor was he a combatant and that he did not personally visit the locations he was testifying about.
b. On the Positions of the Different Belligerents on the Different Routes Leading to Gikomero
188. The Defence led the evidence of three Witnesses: RGM, RGG and RKF who were all military people.
189. Defence Witness RGG was Gendarme in April 1994, stationed at Muhima camp in Kigali, and was in charge of security. The gendarmerie controlled the Kigali—Gitarama route, the Kigali—Ruhengeri route, and the Kigali—Kicukiro route. Defence Witness RGG testified that on 7 April 1994, he was sent to Remera camp to collect bullets. He successfully avoided RPF positions by taking a detour to avoid the CND where RPF soldiers had been stationed since 8 December 1993. As soon as Witness RGG left the Remera Gendarmerie station, the RPF began shooting at the station from the CND. On his return to Muhima the Witness was assigned to go and reinforce the Gendarmerie headquarters. The Headquarters were attacked by the RPF on 7 April 1994. On 9 April 1994 Witness RGG undertook another mission to Kicukiro. On 9 April 1994 it was impossible to travel the Muhima—Remera road.
190. Defence Witness RGG testified that the FAR controlled the Kigali—Gitarama, Kigali—Ruhengeri, and Kigali—Kicukiro routes. The RPF controlled Kigali—Kinyinya, Kigali—Remera—Kimironko, Kigali—Kibungo and Kigali—Byumba.
191. Defence Witness RGM was a young gendarme of low rank stationed at Jari camp, Rutungo commune, six to seven kilometres from Kigali. He testified that on 7 April 1994 he heard that gendarmes at the Mugambazi and Nyacyonga refugee camps had seen the RPF columns coming from the hills. By 8 April 1994 the RPF had taken the Mugambazi and Nyacyonga camps. On 8 April 1994 the RPF attacked the Cyangugu Battalion, forcing them to withdraw. On 9 April 1994, a vehicle was sent from Jari camp to Kigali for supplies, and at about 11:00am before the vehicle reached the Karuruma road it was ambushed by the RPF. On 12 April 1994 the RPF attacked Jari camp and the gendarmes withdrew to Shyirongi on the road to Ruhengeri. In cross-examination the Witness stated that the government forces were in control of Jari until 4 July 1994. On 12 April 1994 the road from Byumba to Karuruma was open. The Witness testified that he received the information about the ambush at Karuruma from his company operator.
192. Defence Witness RKF worked at the Ministry of Defence in 1994 where he was responsible for analysing information related to the military situation in the city of Kigali. According to the Witness, the RPF attacked the Presidential Guard and the Headquarters of the Gendarmerie Nationale on 7 April 1994 and took control of zones surrounding the Amahoro stadium. On 8 April 1994, the RPF took control of the Gendarmerie brigade in Remera, the displaced persons camp at Nyacyonga and controlled Gasozi. On 9 April 1994, the RPF took control of Karuruma. On 12 April 1994, the RPF took control of Jali [Jari] camp to hold the Nyabugogo—Gatsata—Karuruma access. The Witness testified that the RPF controlled the Kigali-Byumba road and no civilian could go there. As for the Kigali—Remera route the Witness testified that it was impossible to use that route to go to Gikomero around 12 April 1994 because the RPF had infiltrated the zone and there was heavy artillery combat underway.
193. In cross-examination the Witness admitted that in a war situation lines of control are ill-defined and fluid and infiltration is possible and further that there were small roads that were passable and that could be used.
c. The Kacyiru—Muhima—Gatsata—Byumba Route (Kigali/Byumba Route)
194. In relation to the Kacyiru—Muhima—Gatsata—Byumba Route, the Defence led evidence of Witness RGB and RGS.
This is the webpage for Math 54 Fall 2014, section 210
Office Hours: W 1-2 pm
Office: 812 Evans
e-mail: tabrizianpeyam@hotmail (I left out the .com for anti-spam purposes)
(12/18) AAAAAND you're DONE!!! Thank you for flying Peyam Airlines, it's been a pleasure serving you, and hope to see you on board again soon!
(12/03) The final exam is on Tuesday, December 16th, and will cover everything, with special emphasis on material after the second midterm.
- I will hold review sessions on Monday, December 8th, Wednesday, December 10th, and Friday, December 12th, from 12 pm to 1 pm in 9 Evans. Here are the problems I'm going to cover: Part I Part II Part III and here is an Answer Key
- Special Office Hours: Monday, December 8th, Wednesday, December 10th, and Friday, December 12th from 1 pm to 2 pm, AND Friday, December 12th, from 3 pm to 4 pm
- Exam resources: You can find a study guide, a mock exam, and practice exams below.
(11/24) Here are the Notes from Friday's special section.
(11/24) I will be out of town on Monday, November 24, and on Wednesday, November 26, so there won't be any discussion section those two days. Please slide Homeworks 21 and 22 under my office door by 2 pm on those two days. There will be a make-up discussion on Friday, November 21, from 4 pm to 5 pm in 39 Evans (sorry about the abrupt room change).
(11/05) Welcome to the differential equations-part of the course! Make sure to check out my differential equations-handouts available here . People in the past told me they're very useful for surviving the differential equations-part of the course.
(10/21) The second midterm is on Thursday, October 30th, and will cover sections 4.5 - 6.3.
- I will hold a review session on Tuesday, October 28th, from 5 pm to 7 pm in 390 Hearst Mining Building. Here are the Problems I'm going to cover and here is an Answer Key .
- Special Office Hours: Monday, October 27th, from 1 pm to 2 pm and Wednesday, October 29th, from 1 pm to 2 pm AND from 3 pm to 4 pm
- Exam resources: You can find a study guide, a mock exam, and practice exams below.
- Pizza party: On Friday, October 31st, there won't be an official section, but if you come by 9 Evans, I will serve some pizza (and more!) and you can get your exams back
(10/02) The first midterm is on Tuesday, October 7th, and will cover sections 1.1 - 4.4.
- I will hold a review session on Thursday, October 2nd, from 5 pm to 7 pm in 130 Wheeler . Here are the Problems I'm going to cover and here is an Answer Key .
- Special Office Hours: Friday, October 3rd, from 4 pm to 5 pm and Monday, October 6th, from 1 pm to 2 pm AND from 3 pm to 4 pm
- Exam resources: You can find a study guide, a mock exam, and practice exams below.
- Pizza party: On Wednesday, October 8th, there won't be an official section, but if you come by 9 Evans, I will serve some pizza and you can get your exams back
(09/05) Here are the Notes from Thursday's special section.
(09/05) I will be out of town on Friday, September 5. Quiz 2 will be administered on Friday from 12:10 pm to 12:30 pm; after you turn it in you're free to go. There will be a make-up discussion section on Thursday, September 4, from 5 pm to 6 pm, in 736 Evans .
(08/30) Welcome to Math 54! On this website you can find hints to all the homework assignments, practice exams, and useful handouts. Use bspace to check your grades and piazza to ask questions! Get ready for an exciting linear algebra-adventure.
Here you can find hints and due dates to all the homework assignments, as well as solutions to the graded problems.
Note: Please take those hints with a grain of salt! There might be some errors, especially since the edition of the book changed.
|Homework 1||1.1, 1.2||Hints||1.2.11||Wednesday, September 3|
|Homework 2||1.3, 1.4||Hints||1.4.11||Monday, September 8|
|Homework 3||1.5, 1.7||Hints||1.7.5||Wednesday, September 10|
|Homework 4||1.8, 1.9||Hints||1.9.9||Monday, September 15|
|Homework 5||2.1, 2.2||Hints||2.2.13||Wednesday, September 17|
|Homework 6||2.3, 2.6||Hints||2.3.30||Monday, September 22|
|Homework 7||2.7, 3.1||Hints||3.1.9||Wednesday, September 24|
|Homework 8||3.2, 3.3||Hints||3.2.34||Monday, September 29|
|Homework 9||4.1, 4.2||Hints||4.2.7||Wednesday, October 1|
|Homework 10||4.3, 4.4||Hints||4.3.21||Monday, October 6|
|Homework 11||4.5, 4.6||Hints||4.6.9||Monday, October 13|
|Homework 12||Hints||4.7.9||Wednesday, October 15|
|Homework 13||5.1, 5.2||Hints||5.2.11||Monday, October 20|
|Homework 14||5.3, 5.4||Hints||5.3.21||Wednesday, October 22|
|Homework 15||5.5, 6.1||Hints||6.1.24||Monday, October 27|
|Homework 16||6.2, 6.3||Hints||6.3.11||Wednesday, October 29|
|Homework 17||6.4, 6.5||Hints||6.5.11||Wednesday, November 5|
|Homework 18||6.7, 7.1||Hints||6.7.16||Monday, November 10|
|Homework 19||4.2, 4.3||Hints||4.3.21||Wednesday, November 12|
|Homework 20||4.4, 4.5||Hints||4.5.21||Wednesday, November 19|
|Homework 21||6.1, 6.2||Hints||6.2.20||Monday, November 24|
|Homework 22||9.1, 9.4||Hints||9.4.16||Wednesday, November 26|
|Homework 23||9.5, 9.6||Hints||9.5.31||Wednesday, December 3|
|Homework 24||Hints||10.2.21||Not due|
|Homework 25||Hints||10.3.11||Not due|
|Quiz 1||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, August 29|
|Quiz 2||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, September 5|
|Quiz 3||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, September 12|
|Quiz 4||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, September 19|
|Quiz 5||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, September 26|
|Quiz 6||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, October 3|
|Quiz 7||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, October 10|
|Quiz 8||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, October 17|
|Quiz 9||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, October 24|
|Quiz 10||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, November 7|
|Quiz 11||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, November 14|
|Quiz 12||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, November 21|
|Quiz 13||Quiz||Solutions||Friday, December 5|
Note: Check them out! You'll find them very useful for the differential equations - part of the course!
Second-order differential equations - Handout (ignore the section on variation of parameters)
Higher-order differential equations - Handout (ditto)
Systems of differential equations - Handout (ignore the section on undetermined coefficients, variation of parameters, and the matrix exponential)
Partial Differential Equations - Handout (ignore the section on Laplace's equation; everything else is actually fair game for the exam)
Midterm 1 Solutions
Midterm 1 - Study Guide
Mock Midterm (Nadler) Solutions
Mock Midterm (Peyam) (slightly on the easier side) Solutions
Midterm 1 (Peyam) (excellent, try it out!) Solutions
Problems covered during the Midterm 1 - Review Session Answer Key
Midterm 1 (Ribet) (ignore 3b) Answer Key
Midterm 1 (also from Ribet) (only do 1bc, 4, 5) Answer Key
Midterm 1 (Vojta) (ignore 1ef, 5) Answer Key
Midterm 1 (also from Vojta) (only do 1b, 2, 5; in 1, the 4 should be a -4) Answer Key
Midterm 2 Solutions Extra solutions to Problem 1 (courtesy DongGyu)
Midterm 2 - Study Guide
Mock Midterm (Nadler) Solutions More detailed solutions (courtesy DongGyu Lim)
Midterm 2 (DongGyu) Solutions
Mock Midterm (Peyam) (slightly on the easier side) Solutions
Midterm 2 (Peyam) (excellent, try it out!) Solutions
Problems covered during the Midterm 2 - Review Session Answer Key
Midterm 2 (Ribet) (only do 1, 2, and the first question in 3) Answer Key
Midterm 2 (Vojta) (only do 1, 6; in 1, the 4 should be a -4) Answer Key
Midterm 2 (Bergman) (only do 1, 2cdf, 5) Answer Key
Midterm 2 (Tataru) (only do 1, 4, 5acd) Answer Key
Final Exam Solutions
Final Exam - Study Guide
Mock Final (Nadler) Solutions
Mock Final (Peyam) (slightly on the easier side) Solutions
Final (Peyam) (really excellent, try it out!) Solutions
Problems covered during the Final Exam - Review Session: Part I Part II Part III Answer Key
Final (Canez) Solutions (excellent practice final, that's the one I used to study for my Math 54 final)
Final (Ribet) Solutions
Final (also from Ribet) Solutions
Final (Holtz) Solutions (this is also a very good practice final!)
Final (Vojta) Answer Key
Final (Bergman) Answer Key
Final (Lenstra) Answer Key (has good chapter 10 - questions)
Final (Poonen) Answer Key (has a good multiple-choice part)
Final (Trang) Answer Key (has a good multiple-choice part)
Final (Tarr) Solutions
Proof of Abel's lemma
This diagram illustrates our progress in this course. It will be updated weekly: