Untitled Document

216. On or about 10 June, Witness GGV saw the Accused at a meeting at Kibuye Prefecture Hall, which began sometime between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. His Interahamwe friends had told him to attend the meeting to prevent being found and killed by Interahamwe searching for Tutsi in their homes. [204] They gave him clothes with which to disguise himself at the meeting, which was attended by Hutu members of the Kibuye population. He arrived before the meeting began, and sat at the back of the hall, and saw Ruzindana, Kayishema, the Accused and Musema arrive. These leaders, including the Accused, sat on a podium in the front of the hall facing the audience, about 20 metres from the witness. Other people sitting with the leaders included Dr. G�rard Ntakirutimana, Joseph Mpambara, Enos Kagaba, Mathias, the Conseiller of Gishyita, Mika, the Conseiller of Mubuga and the Bourgmestres of Rwamatamu, Gisovu, Gishyita and Mabanza. Ruzindana spoke about the objective of the meeting, which was to find ways of killing all Tutsi in Bisesero. The audience responded with applause. The witness heard the Accused speak using a microphone. He promised that he and Ruzindana would provide material support in terms of weapons for “finishing off” the problem of the Tutsi in Bisesero. The witness stayed until the end of the meeting, about three hours later, between 2.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. [205]

217. The following week, Witness GGV attended a second meeting at the same venue. He arrived at the meeting at about 10.00 a.m. in the same disguise. Gendarmes and others were already there and the officials, including the Accused, Musema, Ruzindana, Kayishema, a high-ranking official who was a lieutenant, and the same officials as at the previous meeting, arrived later. They sat in the same places, as did the witness. The objective of the meeting was for the Accused to provide answers to the questions he had been asked at the first meeting, the most important concerning the lack of weapons, which the Accused had promised, at the last meeting, to supply. During the meeting, the Accused distributed weapons to representatives of groups of people. These weapons were to be used in killings in Bisesero. After the distribution, the Accused said that the attacks would take place the next day in Bisesero. He presented the attack plan on a blackboard and said no one should be spared. The Accused first drew a circle on the blackboard and wrote the word “Bisesero” inside the circle. Around the circle were the points of departure for each group of attackers and the designation of the leader of each group with the name in full or in initials. The Accused would read out the names of the leaders as he wrote them down. The five points of departure outside the circle with “Bisesero” written in it were Karongi, Rushishi, Kiziba, Gisiza and Murambi. The Accused’s group would leave from Kiziba. No one opposed the plan. The witness said that the Accused incited people to participate in the attack. He told bourgmestres to tell able-bodied men in the population to participate in the killing of Tutsi, and said he would be present personally at the attack. The leaders incited people to participate in the attack. The leaders, including the Accused, encouraged people to go to the attack. All the leaders said they would bring people to the attacks. Sikubwabo and others expressed support for the attack by stating that they would be there, and incited everyone to go. The witness said that they were saying this in anger but were joyful as they spoke. At the end of the presentation, the witness got close to the board and could see what was written on it. The witness stayed until the end of the meeting at about 3.00 p.m. [206]

218. The witness testified to the Accused’s participation in an attack the next day at Kiziba against Tutsi in Bisesero, as planned (see II.2.9 above). This attack resulted in a large number of victims among the Tutsi refugees. [207]

219. It was suggested by the Defence to the witness that it was extraordinary that he would find himself in all the places where the leaders were, and be able to relate, from memory alone, these details five years after the events. It was also suggested that he was merely implicating everyone he felt ought to be responsible. The witness responded that the events were unforgettable. [208] The Chamber finds that it is not incredible that the witness would have been at such meetings, given that his friends from whom he was seeking protection were Interahamwe, and the witness had been advised by them to attend these meetings in order to save himself from being killed by Interahamwe looking for Tutsi in their homes.

220. The Defence also suggested that it was extraordinary that in his travels from Kigali to Taba with a falsified identity card through many roadblocks, the witness was never identified as a Tutsi, given his Tutsi features. The witness disagreed. [209] The Chamber finds no merit in this suggestion.

221. The Chamber recalls that Witness GGV was found to be a credible witness in II.2.9.2 above.

222. The Defence adduced alibi evidence in relation to these events. Witness TEN-6 stated that he did not hear of the Accused’s presence at the Kibuye Prefectural Office from 7 April to 22 June 1994. However, it is not disputed that the Accused attended a meeting there on 3 May 1994. Witness TEN-6 disavowed paragraph 5 of his prior statement dated 27 September 1995, wherein he stated he had seen the Accused and Edouard Karemera regularly in Kibuye Prefecture from 6 April to July 1994. He claimed that he had signed it under pressure from his superior and out of fear for his life. However, on cross-examination and in response to questions from the Chamber, the witness was evasive as to the specifics of the falsehood and the pressure. Moreover, the Chamber notes that paragraph 5 does not in itself incriminate the Accused and would not have served those who allegedly pressured him into making the statement. [210] Paragraph 5 would have supported Prosecution witnesses who have testified to his presence in the Kibuye area; the disavowal of this paragraph and subsequent testimony that he saw the Accused in Kibuye only once, sometime after 22 June 1994, supports the Defence assertion that the Accused was not in the area of Kibuye as alleged. Even without regard to the disavowed paragraph, Witness TEN-6’s testimony is not inconsistent with the possibility that the Accused was present in Kibuye unobserved by the witness. As the witness claimed that he had made a false statement, the Chamber finds that Witness TEN-6’s evidence is of questionable veracity.

223. The witness stated that he did not know about two meetings in Kibuye on 10 and 17 June. [211] He does not offer direct evidence of the Accused’s presence elsewhere on or around 10 and 17 June 1994. This does not amount to alibi evidence, and does not raise a reasonable doubt that the Accused was present at the meetings as alleged.

224. Witness TEN-10’s alibi evidence on these dates was examined and rejected in II.2.9.3 above.

225. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that on or about 10 June 1994, between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m., the Accused attended a meeting at Kibuye Prefectural Hall as one of the leaders, together with Ruzindana, Kayishema and others. The objective of the meeting was to find ways to kill all Tutsi in Bisesero. The Accused promised to provide weapons for the killing of the Tutsi in Bisesero. The following week, the Accused attended another meeting at Kibuye Prefectural Hall, with, amongst others, Ruzindana and Kayishema. The meeting was held to permit the Accused to answer questions posed at the previous meeting, including in relation to the promise of weapons made at the previous meeting. At that meeting, the Accused distributed the weapons to group representatives for use in killings in Bisesero. The Accused stated that the attack would take place the next day in Bisesero. The Accused presented the attack plan on a blackboard: a circle with “Bisesero” written in the circle. Around this circle were written the names of the designated leaders of each group of attackers and the points of departure for the five groups of attackers, which were Karongi, Rushishi, Kiziba, Gisiza and Murambi. The Accused encouraged people to participate in the attack, and was himself a leader for the Kiziba group. This plan was carried out in the attack at Kiziba the next day against Tutsi in Bisesero, which attack was led by the Accused and resulted in many victims amongst the Tutsi refugees. The findings relating to the alleged incitement by the Accused will be set out in II.4.6.4 below.

226. The Chamber refers to II.2.9.1 above where Witness GGV’s testimony of this meeting is set out.

227. The Chamber refers to II.2.9.2 and II.3.1.2 above, wherein Witness GGV was found to be a credible witness.

228. The Chamber refers to II.2.9.3 and II.3.1.3 above, wherein the alibi evidence adduced by the Defence was examined and rejected.

229. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that on one evening on or about 18 June, the Accused attended a meeting in the canteen of Kibuye Prefectural Office where he promised to supply gendarmes for the next day’s attack and urged bourgmestres and others to do all they could to ensure participation in the attacks so that all the Tutsi in Bisesero could be killed. Another attack took place the next day as planned.

230. Witness KJ testified to seeing the Accused sometime in June at Kibuye Prefectural Office. At approximately 5.00 p.m. that day, he saw several ONATRACOM buses transporting Interahamwe to the Prefectural Office. They were chanting: “Exterminate them, flush them out of the forest.” The Accused then arrived with G�rard Ntakirutimana and Ruzindana, and spoke to the people in the Prefectural Office. He said he had come so they could pool their efforts in overcoming the enemy, and promised they would get his contribution in due course. He said he had asked Kajuga to assist him with Interahamwe and that not less than a hundred would come.The Interahamwe were happy to see the Accused present because it meant that problems they faced would now be resolved. The people reacted to his speech by shouting and applauding him. Kayishema and Musema were present at the meeting as well. The witness stayed for the duration of the Accused’s speech. [212]

231. The Chamber refers to II.2.2.2 above, wherein Witness KJ was found to be a credible witness.

232. The Chamber refers to II.2.9.3 and II.3.1.3 above, wherein the alibi evidence adduced by the Defence was examined and rejected.

232. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that sometime in June, at approximately 5.00 p.m., the Accused spoke at a meeting at Kibuye Prefectural Office, which was attended by Kayishema, Ruzindana, many Interahamwe, and others. The Interahamwe were chanting: “Exterminate them, flush them out of the forest”, meaning the Tutsi. The Accused told the audience that he had come so they could pool their efforts in overcoming the enemy, that is, the Tutsi, and promised they would get his contribution in due course. He promised that not less than a hundred Interahamwe would assist in the attacks against the Tutsi.

233. Witness GGD testified to a meeting organized by the MDR officials in Kibuye in the middle of March 1994 in Gatwaro Stadium in Kibuye, wherein the Accused, as guest of honour, spoke about the causes of unrest in Kibuye at the time. The witness arrived at the meeting shortly before noon when the meeting had already started. There were more than 200 people present. Kayishema was present as well. The Accused was in front of the witness on a podium, with about four rows of seats between them, about 4-6 metres away, under the same covered stand of the stadium. He could see the Accused clearly. Using a microphone, the Accused said the troubles in Nyarutovu, Gishyita and elsewhere were due to the Inyenzi, and the young people would be mobilized to fight against, and neutralize, the Inyenzi. In Rwanda at the time, according to the witness, there was no doubt “Inyenzi” meant “Tutsi”. All Tutsi present, including the witness, were frightened and left for fear of violence erupting at the meeting. The witness was at the meeting for about 15-20 minutes. [213]

234. The Chamber refers to II.2.3.3 above, wherein the Chamber declined to rely on Witness GGD’s evidence. Therefore, the Chamber finds that the allegation that the Accused incited people at Gatwaro Stadium in mid-March 1994 to fight against the Tutsi has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

235. On 13 April 1994, Witness GGH saw the Accused at Rugarama in Bisesero, where the witness was seeking refuge in a bush close by the road, about 100 metres from the Accused. The secteur conseiller had asked civilians to take guns, machetes and spears to attack the Tutsi population. The civilians burnt the houses of the Tutsi and attacked them using those weapons. Sebahire was present, and he was speaking with the Accused – the witness heard the Accused tell them to go to work. Subsequently, an attack was launched from that location. The witness stated that he was hiding because Tutsi were being attacked by Hutu, some of whom were his neighbours, and others who came from various locations. [214]

236. The Chamber refers to the discussion of Witness GGH’s credibility in II.2.1.2 above, wherein he was found to be a credible witness. The Chamber recalls that the witness’s evidence on this event in particular, was accepted, despite discrepancies with his statement.

237. The Defence adduced alibi evidence from Witness TEN-22 to rebut this allegation. This alibi evidence was examined and rejected in II.2.2.3 above.

238. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that on 13 April 1994, the Accused was in Rugarama in Bisesero with armed attackers. The Accused told the attackers to go back to “work”. The Chamber is satisfied that “work” refers to killings of Tutsi. Pursuant to his instructions, the attackers launched an attack against Tutsi from that location.

239. Witness GK testified to the Accused’s speech at a meeting in Kibuye Prefectural Office on 3 May, which he attended. The Prime Minister Jean Kambanda, Kayishema, and officials and representatives of political parties, churches and civil society, including the Accused; Emmanuel Ndindabahizi, the Minister for Finance; Donat Murego, the Secretary-General of the MDR; and Edouard Karemera, Vice-Chairman of the MRND were present. Many people, about 300-400, attended the meeting. It started around noon and ended around 4.00-5.00 p.m. The witness stayed for the duration of the meeting. The Accused was sitting, with the others mentioned above, on a podium at one end of the room, facing the audience, which the witness did not think included any Tutsi. Kayishema first spoke about the deteriorating security situation in Kibuye and stated that Kibuye Prefecture supported the interim government. Then the Prime Minister, Jean Kambanda, read his speech. He spoke about the need to review the Arusha Accords, and increase the influence of the Rwandan Government in the Arusha Accords. He mentioned that his government would face up to the Inkotanyi, unlike the previous government, which was made up of Inkotanyi accomplices. He asked the people to be vigilant against the enemy, the Inkotanyi, which had infiltrators everywhere in the country who had to be rooted out. The witness understood the words “Inkotanyi”, “accomplice” and “enemy” to cover the Tutsi in general. [215]

240. However, Kambanda also said that it was not necessary to mistreat an ordinary citizen, as the enemy was not one’s neighbour, but the Inkotanyi. He said a Tutsi seeking refuge with his cattle and children was not the enemy. Kambanda talked about the need for each Rwandan to know how to defend himself, and the need for weapons for each Rwandan. He said that it was necessary to re-distribute illegally obtained weapons through the proper administrative authorities, and to have proof that people were Inkotanyi before they were attacked. However, the witness maintained that that was not the essence of his message. [216] He agreed the ostensible object of the meeting was a call for peace, but he said the problem was the words used. These weapons Kambanda talked about were used for the killings. Kambanda knew the people would interpret “Inkotanyi” or “enemy” as “Tutsi”, as there were no Inkotanyi in Kibuye, and the people understood that what he meant to say was “Tutsi”. He said the words were used here “in a political context, but the people are speaking the same language”. The words were a “pretext”, similar to the language used on RTLM to talk about the enemy without saying “Tutsi”. It had nothing to do with the security of people. The witness said “in Kinyarwanda we do not deal with issues in a direct manner”. Complaints about attacks from RPF were often used as pretexts to attack people. The witness had never seen any RPF members/soldiers in Kibuye. Kambanda, in making that speech, was aware of the killings in Kibuye, at the church, in the stadium and elsewhere, and that these killings involved the gendarmes and armed forces. The witness stated that the meeting that was supposed to be aimed at restoring security did not do so. The killings did not cease in Kibuye after the meeting; instead, the situation deteriorated. He stated that the government did not protect people before or after 3 May. The government did nothing to stop the killings. He confirmed that the government did not provide any assistance to any refugees or orphans in Kibuye after 3 May. [217]

241. The witness testified to the Accused’s speech at the meeting, during which he spoke about a split within the MDR party. He welcomed Kambanda as Prime Minister and gave MDR’s support to Kambanda’s government, stating further that it was necessary to have a strong government not comprised of members from the previous government. The director of the hospital in Kibuye, L�onard Hitimana, asked why the MDR had not instructed its youth to stop participating in the killings, as the MRND had done with its youth, the Interahamwe. He also asked about the security of survivors, including children, at the hospital. Regarding the first question, the Accused commented that the question should not have been put in the first place and the director was living in the past. Murego answered in the form of a Kinyarwanda poem, to chastise the director for having asked both questions. The MDR were saying that they did not need instructions, they had come to an agreement amongst themselves and understood themselves without speaking. The audience laughed at the replies and the witness interpreted the laughter as an expression of support of the answer and mockery of the person who had asked the question. As for the children at the hospital, the witness understood the Accused to be saying that they should be killed. The witness felt the answers were “offensive” and “frightened” the listeners. [218]

242. The witness said that the words were “pregnant with meaning”. He said the words spoken had to be interpreted “by bearing in mind where those statements were made, and to whom they were addressed. [The Accused] did not say clearly ‘kill the children’, but such a response given to a question regarding children should be understood by whoever wanted to understand…Whoever wanted to protect the children is a RPF supporter. That is what that sentence wanted to get across”. He stated that “the people who listen to these words were afraid”. He added: “[T]hat was a meeting which was not ordinary. When you got into the meeting room, you were afraid. These are not words which were funny. They were laughing, but they were mocking the person who was saying things which did not go with the period. These are not words which should call for any laughter. They were not laughing because they were happy; it was a way of expressing their support to the answer.” That was his understanding as a Rwandan and he believed that any honest Rwandan would understand it the same way. [219]

243. The people at the hospital in Kibuye were Tutsi survivors from the massacres against Tutsi at the Catholic Church and the Home St Jean on 17 April. These survivors were killed immediately after the meeting. A census conducted at the time placed the number of people at the Church and Home at 3112. The witness tried to protect these people, but gendarmes were not supplied for this purpose, and a group of young people, called “Power”, were finally employed to maintain safety and security at the hospital, although there were problems with this group as well. The witness received a report, the day after the meeting, saying that the children had been killed. The witness personally saw corpses in the town, too many to count. At the time of the 3 May meeting, there were no corpses in visible areas, but the stench of decomposed bodies was everywhere, and near the church there were still dead bodies. Yet, nobody at the meeting mentioned dead bodies. At the meeting, one Tharcisse Kabasha asked Kambanda how the massacres should be stopped. He said the Prime Minister should encourage the people to stop the massacres as it was inconceivable for a leader to watch with folded arms the perpetration of such massacres. He was the only person who dared to ask such a question. The question was not answered. [220]

244. The witness testified to having known the Accused well before 1994, when the Accused was working at Radio Rwanda. He knew that the Accused was from Gisovu commune in Kibuye, and was the MDR Chairman in Kibuye Prefecture from 1991-1994, although he did not have any official dealings with the Accused. The witness identified the Accused in court. [221]

245. The Defence submitted that the witness is an accomplice whose evidence ought to be treated with caution. The Chamber notes that even before his arrest, the witness had been talking to many people, including officials and journalists. The Defence did not adduce evidence of criminal involvement on his part in the events giving rise to the charges faced by the Accused, but submitted that Witness GGV named Witness GK as a leader of attacks. [222] It is noted that the names on the sketch drawn by Witness GGV are Witness GGV’s report of persons whom the Accused described as leaders; it is not Witness GGV’s testimony that these people, including Witness GK, were actually leaders of the attacks. [223] The Chamber concludes that the witness is not an accomplice as defined in paragraph 48 above, whose uncorroborated evidence is subject to special caution. Nevertheless, the Trial Chamber has exercised caution in evaluating his testimony.

246. There were some minor discrepancies between the witness’s prior written statement dated 15 and 16 May 1996 and his testimony, and in his testimony itself, for example, concerning the date of death of the children at the hospital, but they do not substantially affect his credibility. [224]

247. The Defence asserts that in the absence of expert testimony on the interpretation of the words used at the meeting, Witness GK’s interpretation should be discarded in favour of the literal interpretation of the words. [225] Witness GK was testifying to his personal understanding of the words used in their context and his impression as a member of the audience how that audience would have understood those words. As a Rwandan, and someone who was present at the meeting and personally heard those words, he would be in a better position than an expert to understand the nuances and hidden meanings of the words used, and to assess the reaction of the audience at the meeting.

248. The Defence used the transcripts of a radio broadcast of the meeting (Exhibits P4 and P5) during cross-examination to question the witness on his memory of what was said at the meeting. [226] The witness could remember some, but not all, of what was said at the meeting. The Chamber notes that it was the atmosphere and tension at the meeting that made an impact on the witness. The witness did not present a one-sided version of events; he remembered comments that were both beneficial and detrimental to the Prosecution’s case. He was careful to explain that the words spoken were not intended to be understood literally, but that the words had a hidden meaning. This was his position throughout his testimony. The Chamber does not consider that his inability to remember everything recorded as having been said at the meeting affects his credibility.

249. It was suggested to the witness by the Defence on cross-examination that Prosecution investigators had prompted the witness during the interview, and that the witness’s statement is therefore not his own. The witness denied this and the Chamber accepts that the witness did not merely confirm what the investigators said, but recounted what he knew. The witness maintained his testimony throughout cross-examination and was very clear in his opinion that the words used camouflaged the real meaning, and he was not shaken from this position by cross-examination. The Chamber finds Witness GK to be a credible witness.

250. The Prosecution contends that the two-week lull in killings after this meeting was spent organizing attacks to implement the plan for such attacks made on 3 May. The Defence submitted that the two-week lull indicated that the meeting’s message for peace had had an effect in stopping the killings, at least for a short time. [227] The Chamber notes that immediately after the 3 May meeting, the Tutsi survivors at the hospital were killed. By 4 May, the children at the hospital had been killed. However, there was no evidence to show that these killings occurred as a direct result of the meeting. The Chamber further notes that approximately two weeks after this meeting, large-scale attacks took place at Muyira Hill on 13 and 14 May, in which a number of persons who had attended the meeting were present. The attackers were provided with transportation to the killing site. Their vehicles were parked at Kucyapa, from which meeting point the attackers set off to kill the Tutsi refugees, as a result of which a large number of Tutsi refugees were killed. However, no evidence was adduced to show that during this two-week period, the Accused and others were organizing the attacks in implementation of a plan made on 3 May.

251. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that on 3 May 1994, from around noon to between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m., the Accused attended and spoke at a large meeting at Kibuye Prefectural Office held at the initiative of the Interim Government, which was also attended by officials and representatives of political parties, churches and civil society. The meeting was called ostensibly for pacification purposes; however, the killings and deteriorating security situation in Kibuye were not condemned. At the meeting, the Prime Minister, Jean Kambanda, referred to Tutsi as “Inkotanyi” and “accomplices”, and asked for the crowd to be vigilant against them as they were the enemy. He also said that they had infiltrators everywhere in the country who had to be rooted out. He denounced the previous government as being made up of Inkotanyi accomplices. [228]

252. The Accused addressed the meeting and supported the calling of the meeting. He expressed support for the Interim Government and Jean Kambanda. The Chamber finds, from the content of the discussions and the Accused’s conduct and words spoken at the meeting, that the Accused supported actions or inaction in failing to protect the Tutsi population, which resulted in the deaths of many Tutsi victims.

253. The Chamber refers to the discussion of Witness GGM’s testimony of this event at Kucyapa in Bisesero in II.2.6.1 above.

254. The Chamber refers to the discussion on the witness’s credibility in II.2.6.3 above. The Defence submits that the witness incorrectly identified the Accused as his view was blocked by the sorghum and it was getting dark at the time. The Defence submits that in such conditions, the witness could not have seen anything from the sorghum field. The Defence raised the dangers inherent in identification evidence. [229] The witness was clear that he could see events as they unfolded although he could not see everything. [230] The witness was within close range, that is, 30 metres of the Accused, whom he knew prior to these events, and had the opportunity to observe the meeting for 30 minutes.

255. The Chamber notes that this meeting is mentioned in the witness’s statement dated 20 March 1996, wherein he mentions the same words used by the Accused and also mentions that he used a loudspeaker to address the people. His testimony on this event is largely consistent with this statement. The witness gave a clear eyewitness account of incidents personally observed by him, and the Chamber finds him to be a credible witness.

256. The Chamber refers to the discussion of the alibi evidence adduced by Witnesses TEN-16, TEN-8 and TEN-22 in II.2.2.3 and II.2.4.3 above, wherein the alibi evidence was examined and rejected.

257. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that in the evening of 13 May 1994, the Accused held a meeting at Kucyapa after the 13 May attack against Tutsi refugees at Muyira Hill, for the purpose of deciding on the programme of killings for the next day and to organize these killings against the Tutsi in Bisesero, who numbered approximately 60,000. The meeting was attended by about 5,000 people. Using a loudspeaker, the Accused thanked attackers for their participation in attacks and commended them for “a good work”, which phrase the Chamber is satisfied refers to the killing of Tutsi civilians. The Accused told them to share the people’s property and cattle, and eat meat so that they would be strong to return the next day to continue the work, that is, the killing. The next day, the witness and other Tutsi were pursued and attacked throughout the day.

258. Sometime in May 1994, Witness GHA saw the Accused once in Bisesero, where the witness was seeking refuge from the attacks in Mugonero Hospital. He said there were so many people seeking refuge in Bisesero that they were like the grass on a hill. These people were Tutsi who were targeted for massacres and seeking refuge from these attacks. He heard from others that the Accused used to go to Bisesero regularly. On this particular day, in the afternoon, he was hiding in a bush near the road that led to Bisesero, when he saw the Accused, wearing an overall and carrying a long gun, arrive to participate in the killings in Bisesero. He came in a vehicle full of soldiers who were dressed in military camouflage uniforms and carrying firearms. The vehicle was red with an open back part, without railings, where the soldiers were. [231] These soldiers were members of the national armed forces. Using a megaphone, the Accused called upon Interahamwe, who had been killing during the day and were about to leave, to return to continue to kill the Tutsi in Bisesero. The Interahamwe had firearms and grenades, and they were working with members of the population who had nail-studded clubs and machetes and sharpened bamboo poles. The Accused said there were too many fugitives and the RPF was about to reach the area, and they had to continue the killings so that when the RPF arrived, they would find no refugees alive. In his vehicle he traversed the entire Bisesero area, including Gakuta and Gitwe. In the same vehicle with the Accused was Mika from Gishyita secteur and the Mubuga secteur conseiller. They were both also armed and moved on with the Accused. The attackers consequently returned and continued killing until nightfall, thereby killing an “unbelievable” number of people. According to the witness, “all that was due to Niyitegeka”. However, the witness never saw the Accused shoot anyone. He saw the Accused in Bisesero for a total of less than ten minutes. [232]

259. Describing his hiding place, Witness GHA said that there was a pine forest in the area, on the left in the direction of Kibuye. There were many vehicles parked on the right-hand side on the way up. Other vehicles carrying Interahamwe would park there before going to kill, and subsequently take the vehicles back home at night. He went there because he was tired and the bush was so situated that if he were killed it would be with guns by soldiers, and not by being “clobbered to death”. The witness remained in the area until after nightfall and left when the attackers left. He estimated the distance between himself and the Accused as being about 6 metres. From his hiding-place, he heard gunshots and explosions. Many were killed near his hiding place. When he left it the following morning, he saw many bodies, some of whom he knew. According to the witness, no one survived. There were too many bodies to count; he had to move around them and he became accustomed to the odour. He had never seen Inkotanyi in the area. After that day he never saw the Accused again as he continued to flee on the hills. There were very few survivors of this event in Bisesero. [233]

260. The Defence submits that the witness was vague and imprecise in giving his testimony. [234]

261. During cross-examination, the Defence pointed out that in Kayishema, the witness could furnish detailed information about his time in Bisesero, including the date and precise time at which he arrived in Gitwe; he could not furnish the same information in this case. It was suggested by the Defence that the reason the witness did not want to furnish such details was because he did not want to open himself up to potential contradictions. For instance, the Defence suggested that he was in Gitwe until June, nursing his wound, and could not have seen the Accused as claimed. There is no evidence to support the Defence’s speculations.

262. The witness had been shot and injured while he was seeking refuge in Bisesero. In his testimony in this case, the witness identified the person who shot him when he had previously maintained in other testimony that he did not know who shot him. This was the first time he was telling the Tribunal that he knew the identity of the person who shot him. It was suggested that he claimed, wrongly, in Kayishema that Ruzindana shot him but a close reading of the transcripts reveals that the witness does clarify later in that case that it was not Ruzindana, but rather, one of the Interahamwe with Ruzindana, who had shot him. [235]

263. The witness claimed to be able to see, from his hiding-place in the bush, the movement of the Accused’s vehicle to Gitwe. He explained that he could see the opposite hill from his hiding place, as there was nothing obstructing his view. He also stated that the Accused traversed the entire Bisesero area in his vehicle. The Chamber considers that it is unlikely he could have seen this from his hiding place, and that it could not have occurred within ten minutes, which was the length of time for which he observed the Accused.

264. In light of the inconsistencies, the Chamber considers that Witness GHA is not a credible witness and that his testimony of having seen the Accused sometime in May in Bisesero is unreliable.

265. The Chamber refers to II.3.1.1 above, wherein the testimony relating to this incident was set out.

268. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that sometime around 17 June 1994, the Accused and others attended a meeting in Kibuye Prefectural Office. During that meeting, the Accused distributed weapons to representatives of groups of people to be used in attacks against the Tutsi in Bisesero, and sketched a plan for the next day’s attack. The Accused encouraged people to participate in the attack and told bourgmestres to tell able-bodied men in the population to participate in the killing of Tutsi. He said he would be personally present at the attack

[204] T. 27 Aug. 2002, pp. 8-9; T. 28 Aug. 2002, pp. 65-68.

[205] T. 27 Aug. 2002, pp. 11-19, 114; T. 28 Aug. 2002, pp. 10-11, 70; T. 27 Aug. 2002, p. 24 (Fr.).

[207] T. 27 Aug. 2002, pp. 29-38, 44, 75-76, 79, 117; T. 28 Aug. 2002, pp. 60-62.

[213] T. 29 Aug. 2002, pp. 103-113, 126, 138-139, 142.

[215] T. 17 June 2002, pp. 221-231; T. 20 June 2002, pp. 174-176, 225-241.

[217] T. 19 June 2002, pp. 58-74; T. 20 June 2002, pp. 101-107, 167, 173, 180-181, 190, 225-231.

[218] T. 17 June 2002, pp. 233-240; T. 20 June 2002, pp. 122-123, 162-165, 203-206.

[219] T. 20 June 2002, pp. 117-118, 122-123, 203-206, 225-231.

[220] T. 17 June 2002, pp. 241-250; T. 19 June 2002, pp. 83-96.

[222] Defence Final Trial Brief, p. 71, para. 6.

[225] Defence Final Trial Brief, p. 85, paras. 66-69.

[226] T. 20 June 2002, pp. 53-62; Defence Final Trial Brief, pp. 76-81, paras. 23-48.

[227] Defence Final Trial Brief, p. 86, para. 73.

[228] Kambanda pleaded guilty to genocide before the Tribunal and was convicted on 4 September 1998.

[229] Defence Final Trial Brief, pp. 163-164, paras. 17-19, p. 168, para. 36

[230] T. 26 Aug. 2002, p. 7.

[231] T. 13 Aug. 2002, pp. 47-50.

[232] Id., pp. 6-12, 47-50, 111, 123-127.

[233] Id., p. 12-17, 31-38, 110, 127.

[234] Defence Final Trial Brief, p. 140, para. 26.

[235] T. 13 Aug. 2002, pp. 68-69; Kayishema, T. 16 Oct. 1997, pp. 60-61 (Fr.).