Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-A, Appeals Chamber Judgement (Nov. 16, 2001).

ENGLISH
Original: FRENCH

APPEALS CHAMBER

Before Judges: 
Claude Jorda, presiding
Lal Chand Vohrah
Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Rafael Nieto-Navia
Fausto Pocar

Registry: Adama Dieng

Judgement of:  16 November 2001

ALFRED MUSEMA
(Appellant)
v.
THE PROSECUTOR
(Respondent)

Case  No. ICTR-96-13-A

JUDGEMENT

Counsel for the Appellant:
Steven Kay, QC
Michail Wladimiroff
Sylvia de Bertodano

Office of the Prosecutor:
Carla Del Ponte
Norman Farrell
Mathias Marcussen
Sonja Boelaert-Suominen

I. INTRODUCTION
  A. Trial Proceedings
  B. Appeal
II. MUSEMA’S FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL: ALLEGATION OF ERRORS OF LAW AND OF FACT IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER’S ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE AND IN ITS FACTUAL FINDINGS
  A. Standard for Appellate Review
    1. Arguments of the parties
    2. Discussion
  B. The Burden and Standard of Proof at Trial: General principles governing assessment of evidence by the Trial Chamber
    1. Burden and standard of proof
      (a) Arguments of the parties
      (b) Discussion
    2. Corroboration of witness testimony
      (a) Arguments of the parties
      (b) Discussion
    3. The Trial Chamber’s treatment of documentary evidence
      (a) Arguments of the parties
      (b) Discussion
    4. False testimony and Rule 91(B)
      (a) Arguments of the parties
      (b) Discussion
    5. The impact of trauma
      (a) Arguments of the parties
      (b) Discussion
    6. Protected witnesses
      (a) Arguments of the parties
      (b) Discussion
  C.  Application to the facts of this case
    1. Background to the findings made by the Trial Chamber
    2. Challenge to the credibility of Prosecution witnesses
      (a) Gitwa Hill, 26 April 1994
      (b) Rwirambo Hill (end of April – beginning of May)
      (c) Muyira Hill, 13 May 1994
        (i) Inconsistencies between in-court testimony and prior statements
        (ii) Insufficient identification by Witnesses F, T and N
        (iii) The improbable nature of Witness N’s testimony
        (iv) Violation of the right to effective cross-examination of Witness F
      (d) Muyira Hill, 14 May 1994
        (i) Witness AC
        (ii) Witness D
      (e) Mid-May attacks (Muyira Hill and Mumataba Hill) and Nyakavumu cave (end of May attack)
        (i)  Witness H
        (ii) Witness S
      (f) Sexual Crimes
        (i) Rape and murder of Annunciata Mujawayezu on 14 April 1994
        (ii)  Rape of Nyiramusugi  on 13 May 1994
    3. Challenge to the Trial Chamber’s assessment of Musema’s alibi
      (a) Introduction
      (b) General allegations of the parties and general findings of the Appeals Chamber
      (c)  Errors in the assessment of the alibi with regard to specific locations
        (i) Gitwa Hill (26 April 1994)
        (ii) Rwirambo Hill (end of April, beginning of May 1994)
        (iii) The two mid-May 1994 attacks at Muyira Hill and Mumataba Hill, and the Muyira Hill massacre on 13 and 14 May1994
        (iv) Nyakavumu Cave (late May, early June 1994)
  D. Conclusion
III. THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND, FOURTH AND FIFTH GROUNDS OF APPEAL)
  A. Second Ground of Appeal: Late notice of Witnesses
    1. Arguments of the parties
    2. Discussion
  B. Fourth Ground of Appeal: Amendment of the Indictment
  C. Fifth Ground of Appeal: Service of the Indictment
IV. SIXTH GROUND OF APPEAL: MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS BASED ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS
  A. Arguments of the Parties
    1. Musema’s Arguments
    2. Prosecution’s Arguments
  B. Discussion
  C. Conclusion
V. MUSEMA’S APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
  A. Introduction
  B. Relevant Provisions of the Statute and Rules
  C. Musema’s Arguments
    1. The Trial Chamber failed to take into account the need to develop a range of sentences based upon his relative role in the broader context  of the conflict in Rwanda
      (a) Arguments of the parties
      (b) Discussion
    2. The Trial Chamber erred by failing to pass a sentence commensurate with other sentences passed by ICTR for the crime of genocide
      (a) Arguments of the parties
      (b) Discussion
    3. The Trial Chamber erred by failing to take due account of the mitigating factors in this case
      (a) Arguments of the parties
      (b)  Discussion
  D.  Conclusion
VI. DISPOSITION
DECLARATION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN
ANNEX A:     PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL
ANNEX B:     GLOSSARY