Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:33:43.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Monitoring the Trial of Onesphore R. Before the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Nicolai Bülte ,
Johanna Grzywotz ,
Tobias Römer  and
Leonard Wolckenhaar

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

“Twenty years ago today our country fell into deep ditches of darkness—twenty years later, today, we are a country united and a nation elevated.”

Those were the words of Rwanda's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Louis Mushikiwabo, on 7 April 2014, as he spoke to the Rwandan People at the twentieth anniversary of the beginning of the Rwandan genocide. Thousands of Rwandans gathered at Rwanda's main sports stadium, the Amahoro stadium, in Kigali to mourn their losses together. Ban Kimoon, the UN Secretary-General, lit a flame at the Kigali Genocide Memorial Center and not only expressed his solidarity with all Rwandans, but also emphasized that the United Nations could and should have done more to avoid the most devastating chapter in Rwanda's history.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , May 2015 , pp. 285 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Mushikiwabo, Louis, Remarks at the Commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide, United Nations (March 5, 2015), http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=7572.Google Scholar

2 See Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt [OLG], Case No. 5-3 StE 4/10 - 4 - 3/10, 2014 (Feb. 18, 2014) [hereinafter Judgment of February 18, 2014].Google Scholar

3 See The Trial-Monitoring Programme of the International Research and Documentation Centre for War Crimes Trials (ICWC), Monitoring Report No. 2, Philippe-University Marburg 1 (last visited Mar. 5, 2015), available at https://www.uni-marburg.de/icwc/monitoring/monitoring-prozessbeobachtung-marburg-frankfurt-olg-onesphore-r.Google Scholar

4 Kroker, Patrick, Universal Jurisdiction in Germany: The Trial of R. before the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt, 54 Ger. Yearbook of Int'l L. 671 (2011).Google Scholar

5 See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 220a. StGB since has been embodied in the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (VStGB - Statute of International Criminal Law). Because the older version was in place when the massacre was committed, and the new law is not more lenient, R. was charged based on the older version. An English version of the Statute is available at https://www.mpicc.de/files/pdf1/vstgbleng2.pdf.Google Scholar

6 Cf. Press Release, OLG Frankfurt (Feb. 18, 2014), available at https://olg-frankfurt-justiz.hessen.de/irj/OLG_Frankfurt_am_Main_Internet?rid=HMdJ_15/OLG_Frankfurt_am_Main_Internet/nav/d44/d4471596-ad85-e21d-0648-71e2389e4818,d7012aab-1bf3-4417-9cda-a2b417c0cf46„,11111111-2222-3333-4444-100000005004%26_ic_uCon_zentral=d7012aab-1bf3-4417-9cda-a2b417c0cf4b%2boverview=true.htm&uid=d4471596-ad85-e21d-0648-71e2389e4818.Google Scholar

7 Those to come but also the already ongoing trial against Ignace M. and Straton M. before the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart.Google Scholar

8 Cf. Wistinghausen, Natalie von, VStGB und Strafverfahren; Beweisaufnahme und Angeklagtenrechte, in Völkerstrafrechtspoutik 199, 201-02 & 208-09 (Christoph Safferling & Stefan Kirsch eds., 2014); Hansen, Florian, Zwischenbericht zur Verfahrensbeobachtung im Strafverfahren gegen R. vor dem Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, in Völkerstrafrechtspoutik 433, 435.Google Scholar

9 See Safferling, Christoph, et. al. Das Monitoring-Projekt des Forschungs- und Dokumentationsientrums für Kriegsverbrecherprozesse (ICWC), Marburg, in Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 564 (2011).Google Scholar

10 Cf. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Training Manual for Human Rights Monitoring 285 (2001); Trial observation tor Criminal Proceedings 4 (International Commission of Jurists ed., 2009).Google Scholar

11 See Hansen, supra note 8, at 435.Google Scholar

12 See id. at 436.Google Scholar

13 In addition, it has a highly complicated historical background. This will not be examined here because it is beyond the scope of this article.Google Scholar

14 Cf. StGB § 6, in Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch 1 (Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, & Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen eds., 2013); Volkmann, Caroline, Die Strafverfolgung des Völkermordes nach dem Weltrechtsprinzip im Internationalen Strafrecht und im Völkerstrafrecht 37 (2009).Google Scholar

15 See supra note 5.Google Scholar

16 See Kroker, supra note 4, at 673.Google Scholar

17 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. I BGs 100/94, 1994 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ] 14, para. 232 (Feb. 13, 1994).Google Scholar

18 Nevertheless, the Generalbundesanwalt shuts down investigation based on universal jurisdiction if a domestic link is missing due to the principle of opportunity {Opportunitätsprinzip) to avoid a violation of a state's sovereignty. Cf. Generalbundesanwalt, Juristische Zeitung (JZ) 311 (2005).Google Scholar

19 Cf. id. Google Scholar

20 See Wistinghausen, von, supra note 8, at 199.Google Scholar

21 See OLG, Case No. 2 Ausl A 175/07 (Nov. 6, 2008).Google Scholar

22 See Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, ICTR - Trial Chamber III, Case No. ICTR-97-36-R11bis (May 28, 2008); see also Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, ICTR - Appeals Chamber, Case No. ICTR-97-36-R11bis (Oct. 8, 2008).Google Scholar

23 The jurisprudence of the ICTR referring to this has changed since December 2011. As a result extraditions to Rwanda have been declared legitimate. Cf. Prosecutor v. Uwikinid, ICTR - Referral Chamber, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-R11bis (June 28, 2011); Prosecutor v. Uwikindi, ICTR - Appeals Chamber, Case No, ICTR-01-75-AR11bis (Dec. 16, 2011); Ahorugeze v Sweden, ECHR App. No. 37073/09 (Oct. 27, 2011); Kroker, supra note 4 at 676.Google Scholar

24 See Wistinghausen, von, supra note 8, at 200.Google Scholar

25 See BGH, Case No. 3 BJs 10/08-2 (May 14, 2009).Google Scholar

26 Cf. Ritscher, Christian, Die Ermittlungstätigkeit des Generaibundesanwalts zum Völkerstrafrecht: Herausforderungen und Chancen, in Völkerstrafrechtspolitik, 223, 228 (Christoph Safferling & Stefan Kirsch eds., 2014).Google Scholar

27 See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 1, supra note 3.Google Scholar

28 An English version of the Code is available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/index.html (last visited Mar. 5, 2015).Google Scholar

29 Cf. ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 28, supra note 3.Google Scholar

30 Cf. supra note 5.Google Scholar

31 See BGH, Case No. GSSt 1/07 (Jan. 17, 2008).Google Scholar

32 Cf. Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras. 134-208; see also infra Section C.IV.1.Google Scholar

33 Cf. Prosecutor v. Gatete, ICTR - Trial Chamber III, Case No. ICTR-200D-61-T (Mar. 31, 2011); Prosecutor v. Gatete, ICTR - Appeals Chamber, Case No. ICTR-00-61-A (Oct. 9, 2012).Google Scholar

34 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 621.Google Scholar

35 Cf. Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras. 620 & 731.Google Scholar

36 He is both a linguist and a lawyer and belongs to the staff of the renowned “Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung.” He did a lot of research in Rwanda as well. See infra, Section C.V.2.a) (describing further details on his reports).Google Scholar

37 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 623; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 2 & 3, supra note 3.Google Scholar

38 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 734.Google Scholar

39 See id. at para. 624.Google Scholar

40 See id. at paras. 625 and 764–65. Cf. BGH, Case No. 1 StR 168/96, 1996 NStZ, 434-35 (May 19, 1996); BGH, Case No. 4 StR 369/11 (Aug. 10, 2011).Google Scholar

41 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 765. This, however, comes close to circular reasoning; the court did not undertake any investigations in that matter because it had already come to the conclusion that R. was not a perpetrator for the former reason.Google Scholar

42 See StGB §§ 25–27.Google Scholar

43 See Fischer, Thomas, § 25, in Strafgesetzbuch mit Nebengesetzen para. 2 (62th ed. 2015).Google Scholar

44 See id. at para. 5.Google Scholar

45 See Fischer, supra note 43, at paras. 2–7.Google Scholar

46 See Roxin, Claus, Straftaten im Rahmen Organisatorischer Machtapparate, 110 Goltdammer's Archiv für Strafrecht 963, reprinted in Crimes as Port of Organized Power Structures, 9 J. of Int'l Crim. Just. 193 (2011).Google Scholar

47 See Joecks, Wolfgang, § 25, in Münchner Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch para. 133 (Wolfgang Joecks et al. eds., 2d ed., 2011).Google Scholar

48 States are one of the two historically interesting areas of that concept, the other being organized crime in which this concept might be applied. See Joecks, supra note 47, at paras. 140-52 (discussing whether or not to apply it to international concerns).Google Scholar

49 See BGH, Case No. 5 StR 98/94, BGHSt 35, 347 (July 26, 1994); see also BGH, Case No. 5 StR 281/01, BGHSt 48, 77 (Nov. 6, 2002).Google Scholar

50 See Ritscher, supra note 26, at 229.Google Scholar

51 See Joecks, supra note 47, at para. 5.Google Scholar

52 See Fischer, supra note 43; see also BGH, Case No. 1 StR 739/73, BGHSt 28, 346 (Mar. 13, 1979); see also BGH, Case No. 5 StR 492/90, BGHSt 37, 289 (Jan. 15, 1991).Google Scholar

53 See the original charge. The prosecution kept to their assessment that R. was a perpetrator up to their closing statement. Cf. ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 84, supra note 3.Google Scholar

54 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 790.Google Scholar

55 See StGB § 27.Google Scholar

56 See supra note 5.Google Scholar

57 At least when the charge is that one killed members of the protected group. All other ways of committing genocide can possibly be considered a less grave incident leading to a minimum sentence of five years. See id. Google Scholar

58 See StGB § 49.Google Scholar

59 See StGB § 38.Google Scholar

60 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras. 775–87.Google Scholar

61 See id. at para. 788.Google Scholar

62 See supra Part A.Google Scholar

63 See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 84, supra note 3.Google Scholar

64 See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 85, supra note 3.Google Scholar

65 As the defense pointed out in their closing statement, that, e.g., trial took place on only twenty-four days, half of them being short hearings, and the average length of one day being 2.7 hours.Google Scholar

66 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 739 (compensating for overlong trials by considering a part of the sentence as already served is common practice in Germany since BGH, Case No. GSSt 1/07 (Jan. 17, 2003), available at http://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/3/07/gsst-1-07.php).Google Scholar

67 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG — Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1964/05, BVerfGK paras. 7, 21 (basing analysis upon previous decisions finding that trial must be held “more than once a week”); see also BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2057/05, BVerfGK paras. 7, 140 (Dec. 29, 2005); see also ECHR App. No. 49746/99 (July 29, 2004) (explaining Cevizoviv against Germany).Google Scholar

68 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras. 794–804.Google Scholar

69 See id. at 804.Google Scholar

70 See Safferling, Christoph, Internationales Strafrecht — Strafanwendungsrecht — Völkerstrafrecht — Europáisches Strafrecht § 4, para. 12 (2011).Google Scholar

71 See BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 215/81, 57 BVerfGE, paras. 250, 275 (May 26, 1931); see also BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 864/81, 63 BVerfGE, paras. 45, 61 (Jan. 12, 1983).Google Scholar

72 See BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/10, BVerfGE paras. 133, 168 (Mar. 19, 2013); see also BGH, Case No. 3 StR 281/70, BGHSt paras. 29, 109, 112 (Oct. 10, 1979).Google Scholar

73 See Lutz Meyer-Goßner, § 244, in Strafprozessordnung — Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz — Nebengesetze und Ergänzende Bestimmungen para. 13 (Lutz Meyer-Goßner & Bertram Schmitt eds., 57th ed., 2014).Google Scholar

74 See Kühne, Hans-Heiner, Strafprozessrecht 792 (7th ed. 2007).Google Scholar

75 See Holle Eve Löhr, Der Grundsatz der Unmittelbarkeit im deutschen Strafprozess 18 (1972); see also Beulke, Werner, Der Grundsatz der Unmittelbarkeit in der Hauptverhandiung — Neue Entwicklungen, Chancen und Anfechtungen, in Verfassungsrecht — Menschenrechte — Strafrecht — Kolloquium für Dr. Gollwitzer 1 (Reinhard Böttcher et al. eds., 2004) (regarding the principle of immediacy).Google Scholar

76 See StPO § 261; see also Eschelbach, Ralf, § 261, in Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung mit Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen 42 (Jürgen Peter Graf ed., 2d ed., 2012).Google Scholar

77 See Wistinghausen, von, supra note 8, at 200.Google Scholar

78 See Schroth, Klaus, Die Rechte des Opfers im Strafprozess 34 (2d ed. 2011).Google Scholar

79 See Nemitz, Jan Christoph, Die Hauptverhandlung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Beweisrechts, in Internationale Strafgerichte, 53, 56 (Stefan Kirsch ed., 2005).Google Scholar

80 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 351; see also Hansen, supra note 8, at 442.Google Scholar

81 See id.; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 63, supra note 3.Google Scholar

82 See Rolf Bender et al, Tatsachenfeststellung vor Gericht 49 (3d ed. 2007).Google Scholar

83 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 462.Google Scholar

84 Cf. id.; see also Monitoring Report No. 13.Google Scholar

85 See id. Google Scholar

86 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 463.Google Scholar

87 See id.; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 13, supra note 3; see also Combs, Nancy Amoury, Fact-finding Without Facts — The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions 14 (2010).Google Scholar

88 See Habschick, Klaus, Erfolgreich Vernehmen 638 (2012).Google Scholar

89 An English version of the Act is available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gvg/index.html.Google Scholar

90 See Hansen, supra note 8, at 441.Google Scholar

91 See BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 731/80, BVerfGE paras. 64, 135, 148 (May 17, 1933).Google Scholar

92 See Cebulla, Manuel, Sprachmittlerstrafrecht — Die Strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer 129 (2007); see also Kranjcic, Christian, Dolmetschen im Strafverfahren: wider die Wörtlichkeit und für wirkliche Zweckorientierung (oder: Wem dient der Dolmetscher?), 31 NStZ 657, 659 (2011).Google Scholar

93 See Hansen, supra note 8, at 441.Google Scholar

94 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 351.Google Scholar

95 See Kranjcic, supra note 92, at 659.Google Scholar

96 See Hansen, supra note 8, at 441.Google Scholar

97 See id.; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 12, 28, 52, & 62, supra note 3.Google Scholar

98 See Hansen, supra note 8, at 441.Google Scholar

99 See BGH, Case No. 1 StR 111/02, 2003 NJW 1, para. 74 (Sept. 26, 2002).Google Scholar

100 See supra note 6.Google Scholar

101 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 494; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 16, 22, 44, & 68, supra note 3.Google Scholar

102 See Hohnel, Andreas, Audiovisuelle Vernehmung trotz Zeugenschutzprogramms, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1356 (2004); see also Norouzi, Ali, Die Audiovisuelle Vernehmung von Auslandszeugen 15 (2010).Google Scholar

103 See Swoboda, Sabine, Videotechnik im Strafverfahren 177 (2002).Google Scholar

104 See Safferling, Christoph, Völkerstrafgesetzbuch und Strafverfahren, in Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch — Bilanz und Perspektiven eines „deutschen Völkerstrafrechts“ 189 (Florian Jeßberger & Julia Geneuss eds., 2013) (providing further information regarding the criteria).Google Scholar

105 See Hansen, supra note 8, at 440; see also Norouzi, supra note 102, at 20.Google Scholar

106 See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 27, 34, 36, 39, & 73, supra note 3.Google Scholar

107 See Bender, supra note 82, at para. 1427.Google Scholar

108 See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 66 & 73, supra note 3.Google Scholar

109 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 446.Google Scholar

110 See Roxin, Claus & Schünemann, Bernd, Strafverfahrensrecht Ein Studienbuch, § 27, 220–21, para. 9 (28th ed. 2014).Google Scholar

111 But, nevertheless, there were at least some issues in this regard: The accused's wife alleged her husband was traumatized, and the defense also seemed to suppose a traumatization. Cf. Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras 595–96. The defense, however, declared that the accused was not willing to be evaluated in this regard. See id. at para. 596. Moreover, the court summoned two professors as experts for general questions on quality and credibility of traumatized witnesses or witnesses suffering from PTSS. See id. at paras. 462-66; cf. supra Section C.V.1. 1.1.Google Scholar

112 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 323. There, the court further found the expert's general estimation confirmed by one witness and by the defendant himself when he said that, after 6 April, the day of the assassination against president Habyarimana, he more and more lost control over the citizens. Nonetheless, the court explicitly stated that its persuasion would follow at first from the depictions of Dr. Hankel. Following the wording of the judgment it seems, however, that he addressed only the issue of the power and social status of Rwandan majors in general. On the other hand, he certainly reported on the history of Muvumba during the war from 1990 on and was, as a witness, also examined concerning some concrete information on the defendant. See id. at para. 211; cf. id. at para. 656–57.Google Scholar

113 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 623. Within the argumentation of the court, it is difficult to clarify the relation between the rather abstract considerations on the authority and obedience made by Dr. Hankel and more concrete evidence on concrete acts between citizens and the defendant as given by other witnesses. In any event, the court employs and somehow combines both and so repeatedly refers to Dr. Hankel's general statements on this structure of power in Rwandan communities. Cf. supra note 112.Google Scholar

114 See supra Section C.IV.1.Google Scholar

115 The court considered itself capable of an appropriate examination of witnesses from such a sociocultural foreign background with a different value system and a different culture of narration and communication. See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 469. But see von Wistinghausen, supra note 8, at 201; see also Hansen, supra note 8, at 442 (illustrating some of the problems of cultural differences when Rwandan witnesses are examined).Google Scholar

116 These are the numbers the court assumed for the time between 6 April and 18 July 1994. See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 204.Google Scholar

117 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras. 134–208.Google Scholar

118 Cf., e.g., id. at paras. 143 & 146.Google Scholar

119 See id. at paras. 158–159. Cf., e.g., id. at paras. 173 & 212.Google Scholar

120 See id. at 300.Google Scholar

121 See id.; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 2 & 3, supra note 3. During the trial Dr. Hankel was asked for a second report. He delivered this second one orally as well. It concerned the question of punishability of the acts under the then law of Rwanda. See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 643.Google Scholar

121 Cf. von Wistinghausen, supra note 8, at 201 (stating that knowledge of the historical and political backgrounds of the events in question was necessary to be able to shed light on the facts of the case in order to fulfill the duty of establishing the truth as prescribed by the principles of the German criminal procedure—this duty can be deduced e.g. StPO § 244); BGH, Case No. 1 StR 54/51, BGHSt paras. 1, 94, 96 (Apr. 4, 1951); BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/10, 2 BvR 2883/10, 2 BvR 2155/11, 2013 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1058, 1062 (Mar. 19, 2013); see also Ritscher, supra note 26, at 223, 229.Google Scholar

123 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 300 (explaining in notable length in comparison to the other paragraphs of the judgment).Google Scholar

124 Cf. Id. at para. 300.Google Scholar

125 See id. at para. 300. These characteristics, according to the court, are impartiality, consistency, high auditability, enumeration of the employed sources, and a scientifically substantiated method.Google Scholar

126 See id. at para. 623.Google Scholar

127 See id. at para. 301; Cf. Id. at para. 311.Google Scholar

128 See id. at 301.Google Scholar

129 See id. at paras. 302–09.Google Scholar

130 And the press—the “tageszeitung”—wrote that his level of knowledge concerning the coming to terms with the past in Rwanda was unique in Germany. See Johnson, Dominic, Ruanda-Völkermordprozess in Frankfurt: Tag 3 – Krieg um die Gutachter, available at http://www.taz.de/165728/ (last visited Mar. 5, 2015).Google Scholar

131 See Wistinghausen, von, supra note 8, at 201; see also supra note 116 (ascribing the knowledge of this context to the appropriate conduction of the trial and finding of the right judgment); cf. Ritscher, supra note 26, at 229.Google Scholar

132 Cf., e.g., Judgment of February 18, 2014, at paras. 656–64, 713-15 (concerning the question whether the accused might have been in a threat situation and possible regarding implications in Dr. Hankel's explanations).Google Scholar

133 See BGH, Case No. 3 StR 136/56, BGHSt paras. 9, 292-93; see also Roxin, supra note 110, at 218, § 27, para. 1; see also Roxin, supra note 110, at 219, para. 2.Google Scholar

134 See BGH, Case No. 1 StR 631/51, 2 BGHSt paras. 163, 165-66 (Feb. 29, 1952); see also BGH, Case No. 3 StR 374/52, 3 BGHSt paras. 169, 174-75 (Sept. 18, 1952); Roxin, supra note 110, at 221, § 27, para. 10.Google Scholar

135 See Roxin, supra note 100, at para. 10.Google Scholar

136 See id. at para. 2.Google Scholar

137 See Roxin, supra note 110, at 386, § 45, margin number 43; cf. StPO § 261.Google Scholar

138 E.g. BGH, Case No. 4 StR 399/58, 12 BGHSt paras. 311, 314-15 (Dec. 18, 1958); BGH, Case No. 2 StR 555/81, 1982 Strafverteidiger paras. 210-11 (Jan. 20, 1982); BGH, Case No. 1 StR 618/98, 45 BGHSt paras. 164, 166 & 182 (July 30, 1999); cf. BGH, Case No. 2 StR 367/04, 49 BGHSt paras. 347, 358 (Nov. 12 2004); Roxin, supra note 110, at 219, § 27, para. 2.Google Scholar

139 See Schmitt, Bertram, vor § 72, in Lutz Meyer-Goßner & Bertram Schmitt, supra note 73, at para. 8.Google Scholar

140 See StPO § 73.Google Scholar

141 See Roxin, supra note 110, at 222, § 27, para. 12 and at 388, § 45, para. 46.Google Scholar

142 See StPO § 24; see also StPO § 74; cf., e.g., StPO § 79.Google Scholar

143 See StPO § 74. But see Roxin, supra note 110, at 222, § 27, para. 14; see also and Schmitt, supra note 73, at § 74, para. 3.Google Scholar

144 See STPO § 24.Google Scholar

145 See supra note 130.Google Scholar

146 See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 2, supra note 3.Google Scholar

147 See id. Google Scholar

148 See id.Google Scholar

149 See supra note 130 (describing the mainly responsible forces for the genocide in the U.S. and the then Tutsi rebels around today's Rwandan president Kagame).Google Scholar

150 See id. Google Scholar

151 See id. Google Scholar

152 See supra Section C.III.Google Scholar

153 See supra Section C.IV.2.2.2.Google Scholar

154 See supra note 130 (equating Kagame to Stalin).Google Scholar

155 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 471.Google Scholar

156 See id. at para. 471.Google Scholar

157 See id. Google Scholar

158 See id. at para. 701. The court cited a witness that worked as a prosecutor for the Rwandan state with positive statements on the independence of Rwandan justice and the phrase that he would be a “a man of the law.” See id. at para. 501. The court added it would be highly unlikely that the Rwandan state would want to intervene in foreign trials in order to reach a conviction of the accused as, in the eyes of the court, Rwanda had supported the work of the defense counsels in the trial at hand. However, von Wistinghausen made some very critical remarks an the cooperation of the Rwandan authorities from the defense perspective. See von Wistinghausen, supra note 8, at 204.Google Scholar

159 See, e.g., Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 542. See von Wistinghausen, supra note 8, at 202-03 (elaborating on this particular problem).Google Scholar

160 See Wistinghausen, von, supra note 8, at 202–04, 208 (providing further references and in between on problems with the dependence on cooperation with the ICTR as an international tribunal also).Google Scholar

161 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 471.Google Scholar

162 See id. Google Scholar

163 See id. Google Scholar

164 See id. Google Scholar

165 See id. at para. 472.Google Scholar

166 See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 85, supra note 3.Google Scholar

167 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 472.Google Scholar

168 See id. Google Scholar

169 See id.; see also Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 473 (backing this up with the report of the psychological expert Prof. Dr. “E” stating that Rwandan witnesses would not be exposed to stronger influences than witnesses from other countries or cultural backgrounds).Google Scholar

170 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 475. Cf. id. at para. 485.Google Scholar

171 See id. at para. 474.Google Scholar

172 See id. Google Scholar

173 See id. Google Scholar

174 Cf. id. at para. 477.Google Scholar

175 See id.; see also Judgment of February 18, 2014, supra note 2, at paras. 504-09 (discussing whether such economic interests of witnesses might have played a role in the case at hand–and rejected this idea). Thereby, the court especially paid attention to the witness reimbursement paid by the German state as this amount of money might be of a considerable level for many witnesses living in circumstances that are very poor even for Rwandan standards; Cf. id. at paras. 350, 582–83.Google Scholar

176 See id. at para. 478. Accordingly, there it sounds rather as if Dr. Hankel only reported statements of Rwandan persons, especially prisoners, in this concern. However, in margin number 506 the court explicitly stated that this estimation was Dr. Hankel's own and independent one: There the court referred to the “information by Dr. H. …, that according to his estimation a considerable number of prisoners in Rwanda is wrongfully convicted because of false witness statements due to the fact that witnesses had accused innocent persons to have committed genocide in order to get or keep the possessions of these persons accused by them” (emphasis added).Google Scholar

177 See id. at para. 479. A guilty person, the court said, is already found with the conviction of G. by the ICTR and also economic interests could not be seen as a convincing reason to make false accusations against the accused.Google Scholar

178 See id. at paras. 481–82.Google Scholar

179 See., e.g., id. at paras. 483—84 (describing a possible conspiracy against the accused—for which to exist the court as well did not see any substance).Google Scholar

180 Cf. id. at para. 487, 490-91 (concerning further arguments the long time period between the massacre and the beginning of Rwandan prosecution of the accused).Google Scholar

181 See id. at para. 487.Google Scholar

182 See id. at para. 489.Google Scholar

183 See id. Google Scholar

184 See supra Section C.V.1.1.2.a).Google Scholar

185 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 495.Google Scholar

186 See id. at para. 495. Cf. id. at para. 496.Google Scholar

187 See id.; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 41 & 73, supra note 3.Google Scholar

188 See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 70, supra note 3.Google Scholar

189 See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 497.Google Scholar

190 Id. Primarily, the court saw several self-contradictions in the declarations of the witness. But amongst other reasons, it especially was a disadvantage for the witness to maintain that the presiding judge had asserted him confidentiality–whereas, of course, due to the public character of the proceedings confidentiality is not possible: The court rejected this allegation and used it to take the general willingness of this witness for untrue statements for granted.Google Scholar

191 See id. at para. 701 (noting that it deemed exertion of influence on the trial by the Rwandan state possible-in principle; but also that, at the same time, it is convinced that no witnesses were suborned to false accusations against the defendant).Google Scholar

192 See id. at para. 379.Google Scholar

193 See id. at para. 381.Google Scholar

195 See supra note 1.Google Scholar

196 Forges, Alison Des, Kein Zeuge Darf Überleben — Der Genozid in Ruanda 879 (2002).Google Scholar

197 See Funk, Viktor, Deutsche Justiz ahndet Ruanda Massaker, Frankfurter Rundschau (Feb. 19, 2014), http://www.fr-onIine.de/politik/urteil-ruanda-deutsche-justiz-ahndet-ruanda-massaker,1472596,26244284.Google Scholar

198 Cf. supra Section C. and Section C.IV.1.Google Scholar

199 Cf. supra Section C.IV.2.Google Scholar

200 Cf. supra Section C.V.1.Google Scholar

201 Cf. supra Section C.V.2.Google Scholar

202 Cf. supra Section C.V.3.Google Scholar

203 Cf. supra Section C.IV.4.Google Scholar

204 Cf. supra note 7.Google Scholar

205 Cf. supra Section B.Google Scholar