No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: Prosecutor v. Uwinkindi
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- International Legal Documents
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011
References
End notes
* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda website (visited Oct. 6, 2011) http://www.unictr.org/Portals/0/Case/English/Uwinkindi/decisions/110628.pdf.
1 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Referral to the Republic of Rwanda (Rule 11bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence) (June 28, 2011) [hereinafter Uwinkindi]. The Prosecutor filed his request for referral of Uwinkindi to Rwanda on November 4, 2010.
2 The Completion Strategy was put in place in 2003 when the Security Council called upon the ICTY and the ICTR ‘‘to take all possible measures to complete investigations by the end of 2004, to complete all trial activities at first instance by the end of 2008, and to complete all work in 2010’’ (‘‘Completion Strategies’’). The Security Council also called upon the tribunals to focus on the prosecution of the most senior leaders who are most responsible for crimes within their jurisdiction. See S.C. Res. 1503, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1503 (Aug. 28, 2003); S.C. Res. 1534, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1534 (Mar. 26, 2004).
3 See Prosecutor v. Laurent Bucyibaruta, Case No. ICTR-05- 85, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Referral of Laurent Bucyibaruta’s Indictment to France (Rule 11 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence) (Nov. 20, 2007); Prosecutor v. Wenceslas Munyeshaka, Case No. ICTR-05-87, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Referral of Wenceslas Munyeshaka’s Indictment to France (Rule 11 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence) (Nov. 20, 2007).
4 S.C. Res. 1966, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1966 (Dec. 22, 2010).
5 Statute, infra note 18, arts. 1 & 6.
6 Four of the Prosecutor’s requests for referral were rejected by the ICTR Referral Chambers (and in three cases confirmed on appeal) mainly on fair trial grounds. See Prosecutor v. Yussuf Munyakazi, Case No. ICTR-97-36A-R11bis, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Request for Referral of Case to the Republic of Rwanda (Rule 11 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence) (May 28, 2008) [hereinafter Munyakazi] (Munyakazi was confirmed on appeal; see Munyakazi, Decision on the Prosecution’s Appeal Against Decision on Referral Under Rule 11 bis (Oct. 8, 2008)); Prosecutor v. Gaspard Kanyarukiga, Case No. ICTR-02-78-R11bis, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Referral to the Republic of Rwanda (June 6, 2008) [hereinafter Kanyarukiga] (Kanyarukiga was confirmed on appeal; see Kanyarukiga, Decision on the Prosecution’s Appeal Against Decision on Referral Under Rule 11 bis (Oct. 30, 2008)); Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55-R11bis, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for the Referral of the Case of Ildephonse Hategekimana to Rwanda (Rule 11bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence) (June 19, 2008) [hereinafter Hategekimana] (Hategekimana was confirmed on appeal; see Hategekimana, Decision on the Prosecution’s Appeal Against Decision on Referral under Rule 11 bis (Dec. 4, 2008)); and Prosecutor v. Jean-Baptiste Gatete, Case No. ICTR-00-61- R11bis, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Referral to the Republic of Rwanda (Nov. 17, 2008) [hereinafter Gatete].
7 The ICTR Rule 11 bis in its current amended form provides:
-
If an indictment has been confirmed, whether or not the accused is in the custody of the Tribunal, the President may designate a Trial Chamber which shall determine whether the case should be referred to the authorities of a State:
-
in whose territory the crime was committed; or
-
in which the accused was arrested; or
-
having jurisdiction and being willing and adequately prepared to accept such a case, so that those authorities should forthwith refer the case to the appropriate court for trial within that State.
-
-
The Trial Chamber may order such referral proprio motu or at the request of the Prosecutor, after having given to the Prosecutor and, where the accused is in the custody of the Tribunal, the accused, the opportunity to be heard.
-
In determining whether to refer the case in accordance with paragraph (A), the Trial Chamber shall satisfy itself that the accused will receive a fair trial in the courts of the State concerned and that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out.
-
When an order is issued pursuant to this Rule:
-
the accused, if in the custody of the Tribunal, shall be handed over to the authorities of the State concerned;
-
the Trial Chamber may order that protective measures for certain witnesses or victims remain in force;
-
the Prosecutor shall provide to the authorities of the State concerned all of the information relating to the case which the Prosecutor considers appropriate and, in particular, the material supporting the indictment;
-
the Prosecutor may, and if the Trial Chamber so orders, the Registrar shall, send observers to monitor the proceedings in the State concerned. The observers shall report, respectively, to the Prosecutor, or through the Registrar to the President.
-
-
At any time after an order has been issued pursuant to this Rule and before the accused is found guilty or acquitted by a court in the State concerned, the Trial Chamber may proprio motu or at the request of the Prosecutor and upon having given to the authorities of the State concerned the opportunity to be heard, revoke the order and make a formal request for deferral within the terms of Rule 10.
Int’l Crim. Trib. for Rwanda [ICTR], Rules of Procedure and Evidence rule 11 bis, U.N. Doc. ITR/3/REV.1 (1995) (entered into force June 29, 1995) [hereinafter ICTR RPE]. Unlike its ICTY counterpart, the ICTR RPE Rule 11 bis does not require the Referral Chamber to consider the ‘‘gravity of the crimes charged and the level of responsibility of the accused.’’ See Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia [ICTY], Rules of Procedure and Evidence rule 11 bis (C), U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.7 (1996) (entered into force Mar. 14, 1994).
8 Uwinkindi, supra note 1, ¶¶ 223-24.
9 Id. ¶¶ 61–132.
10 Id. ¶ 91.
11 Id. ¶ 92.
12 Id. ¶¶ 99-100.
13 Id. ¶ 103.
14 Id. ¶¶ 95-96.
15 Id. ¶ 108.
16 Id. ¶¶ 109, 112-13.
17 Id. ¶¶ 131-32.
18 Statute of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals art. 6 (5), S.C. Res. 1966, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1966, Annex 1 (Dec. 22, 2010) [hereinafter Statute]; see Uwinkindi, supra note 1, ¶ 200.
19 Uwinkindi, supra note 1, ¶¶ 208–13.
20 Id. ¶¶ 215-16.
21 Id. ¶ 217.
22 Id. ¶¶ 218-21.
23 ICTR RPE, supra note 7, rule 11 bis (d)(iv)&(E); Uwinkindi, supra note 1, ¶¶ 208-09.
24 The Gacaca court system is part of the Rwandan community system of justice established in the aftermath of the 1994 genocide.
25 Uwinkindi, supra note 1, ¶ 35.
26 Id. ¶¶ 44–51.
27 Id. ¶ 171.
28 These are Phénéas Munyarugarama, Aloys Ndimbati, Fulgence Kayishema, Ladialas Ntaganzwa, Charles Ryandikayo, and Charles Sikubwabo. The three senior ranking accused that are ‘‘earmarked for trial by the Tribunal or the Residual Mechanism, depending on the date of arrest,’’ are Félicien Kabuga, Protais Mpiranya, and Augustin Bizimana. See Report on the Completion Strategy of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, S/2011/317, at 11 (May 12, 2011), available at http://www.unictr.org/Portals/0/English/FactSheets/Completion_St/s-2011-317e.pdf (last visited Nov. 8, 2011). In addition, Bernard Munyagishari, one of the lower-ranking accused, was arrested on May 25, 2011. It is anticipated that the Prosecutor will file an 11 bis motion for the referral of his case to Rwanda.
29 Obviously, this would make it more likely that the Residual Mechanism never conducts any trials if none of the three fugitives are arrested. This is because there are no outstanding fugitives from the ICTY, and all the lesser-ranking cases were referred to the countries of the former Yugoslavia.
30 Statute, supra note 18, art. 6 (1).
31 Transitional Arrangements, S.C. Res. 1966, supra note 4, art. 1.
1 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-I, Indictment charging Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi with Genocide, Complicity in Genocide, and Extermination as a Crime against Humanity, pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Statute, 5 September 2001.
2 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-I, T. 1 December 2010 p. 1. Uwinkindi made a further appearance following the filing of an Amended Indictment on 23 November 2010.
3 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, Prosecutor’s request for the referral of the case of Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi to Rwanda pursuant to Rule 11bis of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence (‘‘Motion’’),
4 November 2010.
4 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-I, Amended Indictment, 23 November 2011. In the Amended Indictment, the charge of Complicity in Genocide is withdrawn.
5 Notice of Designation – Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-R11bis, 26 November 2010.
6 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, Amicus Curiae Brief of Human Rights Watch in opposition to Rule 11 bis Transfer, 17 February 2011.
7 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, Invitation to the Government of Rwanda to make Submissions as Amicus Curiae pursuant to Rule 74 of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 18 January 2011.
8 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, Amicus Curiae Brief for the Republic of Rwanda in support of the Prosecutor’s Application for Referral pursuant to Rule 11 bis, 18 February 2011.
9 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association (ICDAA) Amicus Curiae Brief, 11 March 2011.
10 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, Amicus Curiae Brief of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) Pursuant to Rule 74 (Rules of Procedure and Evidence), 17 March 2011.
11 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, Defence Response to the Prosecutor’s Request for the Referral of the Case of Jean Uwinkindi to Rwanda Pursuant to Rule 11 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (‘‘Response’’), 14 March 2011.
12 Prosecutor v. Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-I, Prosecutor’s Consolidated Response to: (1) Defence Response to the Prosecutor’s Request for the Referral of the Case of Jean Uwinkindi to Rwanda Pursuant to Rule 11 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence; (2) Amicus Curiae Brief of Human Rights Watch in Opposition to Rule 11 bis Transfer; (3) Amicus Curiae Brief of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) Pursuant to Rule 74 (Rules of Procedure and Evidence); and (4) International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association (ICDAA) Amicus Curiae Brief (‘‘Reply’’), 20 April 2011.
13 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, Amicus Brief of the Kigali Bar Association in the Matter of the Prosecutor’s Request for the Referral of the case of Uwinkindi Jean, 26 April 2011 (‘‘KBA’’).
14 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, Defence Consolidated rejoinder to the Prosecutor’s consolidated response and to the amicus curiae brief of the Kigali Bar Association (‘‘Rejoinder’’), 17 June 2011.
15 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, Defence Submissions Relating to the Republic of Rwanda’s Response to 6 June 2011 Order to Provide Further Information Regarding 36 Genocide Cases at the High Court, 28 June 2011.
16 Rule 11 bis (A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence; Prosecutor v. Bagaragaza, Case No. ICTR-2005-86AR11bis, Decision on Rule 11 bis Appeal (AC), 30 August 2006 (‘‘Bagaragaza Appeal Decision’’), para. 8. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTY has ruled that contrary to a strict textual reading of Rule 11 bis (A) those States in whose territory the crimes were committed and/or in which the accused was arrested must also be willing and adequately prepared to accept the case. Prosecutor v. Stanković Case No. IT-96-23/2-AR11bis.2, Decision on Rule 11bis Referral (AC), 15 November 2005 (‘‘Stanković Appeal Decision’’) para. 40. The Chamber notes that ICTR Rule 11 bis (A) is, in relevant part, identical to Rule 11 bis (A) of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
17 Prosecutor v. Kanyarukiga, Case No. ICTR-2002-78-R11bis, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Appeal Against Decision on Referral Under Rule 11bis, 30 October 2008 (‘‘Kanyarukiga Appeal Decision’’), para. 4, fn. 17, citing Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, Case No. ICTR-97-36-R11bis, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Appeal Against Decision on Referral under Rule 11bis, 8 October 2008 (‘‘Munyakazi Appeal Decision’’), para. 4, fn. 15, and sources cited therein.
18 Kanyarukiga Appeal Decision, para. 4, fn. 18, citing Munyakazi Appeal Decision, para. 4, fn. 16, and sources cited therein.
19 Kanyarukiga Appeal Decision, para. 4, fn. 19, citing Munyakazi Appeal Decision, para. 4, fn. 17, and sources cited therein.
20 Rule 11 bis (C); In contrast to its ICTY counterpart, the ICTR Rule 11 bis does not require the Referral Chamber to consider the ‘‘gravity of the crimes charged and the level of responsibility of the accused.’’ ICTY Rule 11 bis (C).
21 Bagaragaza Appeal Decision, para. 9.
22 Stankovic´ Appeal Decision, para. 50.
23 Munyakazi Appeal Decision, para. 4 (footnotes omitted).
24 Motion, paras. 9 (i), 12-20.
25 Motion, paras. 4, 9 (ii), 21, Annex B.
26 Response, para. 32.
27 Motion, para. 19, Annex F (Articles 89-91 of the Rwandan Penal Code).
28 Prosecution v. Kanyarukiga, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Referral to the Republic of Rwanda, (TC), 6June 2008 (‘‘Kanyarukiga Trial Decision’’), para. 20.
29 Transfer Law, Article 2 (stating that the High Court is conferred with the competence to conduct in the first instance, trials of accused persons referred to Rwanda from the ICTR and of persons extradited from other states); Transfer Law, Article 16 (stating that the Supreme Court of Rwanda has the jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions taken by the High Court).
30 Motion, Annex E (Rwandan Constitution of 2003).
31 Motion, Annex G (Law No. 13/2004 of 17 May 2004 relating to the Code of Criminal Procedure).
32 Response, para. 264.
33 Response, paras. 266-267.
34 Response, paras. 268.
35 United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32: Article 14 Right to Equality Before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial, CCPR/GC/32, 23 August 2007 (‘‘General Comment No. 32’’), para. 30.
36 Response, para. 269.
37 IADL Brief, para. 11.
38 Motion, para. 105.
39 Response, paras. 36, 39.
40 Reply, paras. 6, 10; Rejoinder, paras. 12-23, 38-46.
41 General Comment No. 32, para. 56.
42 Reply, fn. 13.
43 On 22 October 2010, the ICTR Prosecutor, sent a letter to the Prosecutor General of Rwanda requiring that the latter confirm if Mr. Uwinkindi was indeed tried in absentia in Rwanda, on what charges if so and what steps would be taken to clear the way for his new trial in Rwanda.’’ On 28 October 2008, Prosecutor General of Rwanda referred the matter to Domitilla Mukantaganzwa, the Executive Secretary of the National Service of Gacaca Courts and indicated that the Gacaca trials had violated Article 2 of the Transfer Law (Organic Law 11/2007 of 16 March 2007) and Circular 1285/DG/2008 of 10 December 2008 ‘‘prohibiting Gacaca Courts from judging genocide suspects living outside the country.’’ He concluded by asking Mukantaganzwa to void the convictions so that Mr. Uwinkindi could be tried either by the ICTR or the High Court of Rwanda. On 3 November 2010, Mukantaganzwa sent a letter to the President of Kayumba Gacaca Appeals Chamber instructing him to review the Gacaca judgements in accordance with her instructions and the laws cited by the Prosecutor General. On 4 November 2010, the Kayumba Gacaca Appeals Chamber vacated the Kayumba Secteur Gacaca conviction dated 7 May 2009 of the Accused. The Appeals Judgement states that the conviction was not in accordance with the Transfer Law. On 5 November the Ntarama Secteur Gacaca Appeals Chambers vacated the Ntarama Secteur conviction dated 20 August 2009 of the Accused on the same basis.
44 Reply, Annex A. The Ntarama Secteur Judgment solely states that the Accused is guilty of supervising and planning acts of genocide, and using his position of authority to and leading the genocide. However, attached to the judgement is a document which appears to be an Indictment charging that: ‘‘L’accusé a donné des instructions pour lancer les attaques á Kayenzi. Il était en compagnie de Mukumira. Les faits se sont déroulés á l’église de Kayenzi, le 10 avril 1994. C’est á cet endroit que les auteurs des tueries s’étaient établis. Tous les biens pillés y étaient entreposés, notamment les vaches que les meurtriers abattaient ainsi que celles qu’ils gardaient. L’accusé ordonnait de tuer les gens qui venaient chercher refuge à cet endroit.’’ The Kayumba Secteur Judgement found the Accused guilty of ‘‘a) tenue des réunions au cours desquelles les tueries ont été organisées; b) avoir amené les personnes qui on tués des Tutsis a Kayenzi; c) meurtres de 135 personnes a Kayenzi; d) meutre de haguma; e) participation aux attaques lancées a Ntarama.’’.
45 Response, paras. 155-157. ICDAA Brief, paras. 52-56; HRW Brief, paras. 99-100; IADL Brief, para. G.2.
46 Reply, para. 80 citing Article 29 (4) of the ICTR Statute (immunity for defence counsel extends only ‘‘as is necessary for the proper functioning of the Tribunal’’).
47 Motion, Annex H.
48 Response, para. 132.
49 KBA Brief, para. 51.
50 Response, paras. 398-417; ICDAA Brief, paras. 64-71 ; Rejoinder, para. 83.
51 Response, para. 399 (Marcel Bivugabagabo-France), para. 401 (Pascal Simbikangwa-France), para. 414 (SosthéneMunyemana- France), paras. 415-416 (Callixte Mbarushimana-Germany- France-ICC).
52 Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, Case No. ICTR-97-36-R11bis, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Request for Referral of Case to the Republic of Rwanda (TC), 28 May 2008 (‘‘Munyakazi Trial Decision’’), paras. 25-39; Prosecution v. Gatete, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Referral to the Republic of Rwanda (TC), 17 November 2008 (‘‘Gatete Trial Decision’’), paras. 85-87; Munyakazi Appeal Decision, paras. 8-21; Kanyarukiga Appeal Decision, paras. 6-17; Prosecutor v. Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-R11bis, Decision on the Prosecution’s Appeal Against Decision on Referral Under Rule 11bis (AC), 4 December 2008 (‘‘Hategekimana Appeal Decision’’), paras. 31-38.
53 Motion, paras. 29-30.
54 Response, para. 57.
55 Response, para. 56. Amicus Curiae Brief of the Republic of Rwanda in the Matter of an Application for the Referral of the Above Case to Rwanda Pursuant to Rule 11 bis, 1 October 2007, Prosecutor v. Kayishema, Case No.ICTR-95-1.
56 Response, para. 51.
57 Reply, paras. 7-13.
58 Motion, Annex G.
59 Prosecutor v. Stanković, Case No. IT-96-23/2-PT, Decision on Referral of Case Under Rule 11bis (TC), 17 May 2005 (‘‘Stanković Trial Decision’’), para. 32; Bagaragaza Appeal Decision, para. 9.
60 ICTR Rule 101 (B) & (C).
61 Reply, Annex A.
62 Kanyarukiga Trial Decision, paras. 85-86. 63 Mpanga prison facilities are currently housing convicts from the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Amended Agreement Between the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda on the Enforcement of Sentences of the Special Court of Sierra Leone, 18 March 2009.
64 Motion, para. 109.
65 GoR Brief, para. 70; First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment Offenders, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 3 September 1955.
66 Response, paras. 386, 387.
67 Response, paras. 371-374.
68 Response, para. 369.
69 National Human Rights Commission, Activity Report for 2009-2010 (January 2009 – June 2010) Kigali, October 2010 (Unofficial translation), Annex 29, wherein the Commission reported after visiting several prisons in Rwanda(including Mpanga) to monitor inter alia ‘‘the life conditions of detainees’’ as follows:1 Canteens intended to help detainees supplement their regular food supply are not yet operative although they are stipulated in Instruction No. 09/08 of the Minister of Internal Security, 16 June 2008. 2 Cutlery available is old and insufficient. 3 Detainees have no prison uniform and borrow uniforms from other detainees when appearing before a court or to meet visitors. 4 Minors and HIV infected persons are detained far away from their families for the latter to assist the detainees with food to supplement their prison diets. 5 In some prisons, detainees who have mental illness and contagious diseases are detained together with persons not infected.
70 Response, paras. 367-368.
71 Response, paras. 376-380.
72 Response, paras. 383-385. The ICTR is an ad hoc institution with a time-limited mandate. International Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners have to be met by potential States of enforcement of ICTR sentences. Reliance and expectation is placed by GoR on the UN to supply sustenance to prisoners @ $802 per month, same as is being paid by the SCSL for its prisoners at Mpanga prison. However, there is no agreement in place ensuring that the UN will supply these funds, neither has Rwanda allocated a budget. (Response, para. 379).
73 Response, para. 370.
74 HRW Brief, para. 110.
75 Conditions of detention in a national jurisdiction, whether preor post-conviction, is a matter that touches upon the fairness of that jurisdiction’s criminal justice system and is an inquiry squarely within the Referral Chamber’s mandate. Stanković Appeal Decision, para. 34. These internationally recognised standards include: (i) Freedom from torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as contained in Article 5, Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 7, ICCPR; Article 5, African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (‘‘AChHPR’’); Article 16 (1), Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Principle 6 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988) (‘‘Body of Principles’’); and (ii) all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person as contained in Article 10 (1), ICCPR; Article 5, AChHPR; and Principle 1 of the Body of Principles.
76 Transfer Law, Article 23 of Organic Law No. 11/2003 of 16/03/2007, concerning transfer of Cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from other States, citing the Body of Principles which guarantees the same standards both upon transfer and after conviction.
77 Article 23 of the Transfer Law.
78 GoR Brief, para. 106.
79 Motion, para. 38.
80 Motion, paras. 57. GoR Brief, para. 24-57. 81 Motion, para. 38.
82 Motion, para. 51. Annex M (ICTR WVSS Data 2005–2010. These statistics do not refer to the number of witnesses who travelled from third countries to testify at the ICTR).
83 Motion, para. 55.
84 Motion, para. 52.
85 Motion, para. 53; GoR Brief, paras. 116-119; GoR Response, paras. 8-43.
86 Motion, para. 88; GoR Brief, para. 123 states that from 2006 to 2010 the High Court of Rwanda presided over 36 genocide cases and, during 2006 to 2008, the Supreme Court heard 61 appeals or other post-conviction proceedings in genocide cases. The 36 genocide cases have been detailed in ‘‘Republic of Rwanda’s Response to 6 June 2011 Order to Provide Further Information Regarding 36 Genocide Cases at the High Court’’.
87 Motion, para. 57; GoR Brief, para. 24-57. 88 GoR Brief, paras. 40-45.
89 Article 13 of the Rwandan Constitution criminalises ‘‘revisionism, negationism and trivialisation of genocide.’’
90 GoR Brief, para. 61.
91 GoR Brief, para. 62.
92 GoR Brief, para. 55.
93 GoR Brief, paras. 52-53.
94 GoR Brief, para. 50-63.
95 KBA Brief, para. 49-63.
96 Response, paras. 81-82, 110 (The redacted version of the affidavits are in Annex VIII. Unredacted versions of the affidavits have been filed as ex parte Annex I for the sole benefit of the Referral Chamber); Rejoinder, paras. 90-91.
97 Response, paras. 82.
98 Response, paras. 84-86 ; Rejoinder, para. 92.
99 Response, para. 89, HRW Brief, para. 29. 100 Response, para. 90.
101 Response, paras. 98-96.
102 Response, paras. 86, 96, 105, 122. Annex 18.
103 Response, para. 110.
104 Response, para. 120 citing GoR Brief, Annex D.
105 HRW Brief, paras. 14, 38-40.
106 HRW Brief, paras. 24-35.
107 ICDAA Brief, para. 29.
108 ICDAA Brief, para. 57.
109 HRW Brief, para. 41.
110 IADL Brief, paras. 31-33.
111 Amnesty International, Safer to Stay Silent: the Chilling Effect of Rwanda’s Laws on ‘‘Genocide Ideology’’ and Sectarianism, 31 August 2010, p. 8.
112 Response, Annex 1, para. 68 (Statement of Filip Reytnjens on behalf of Jean Uwinkindi, 11 March 2011).
113 Reply, para. 66.
114 Reply, paras. 83-87.
115 Reply, para. 66.
116 Reply, para. 65.
117 Reply, para. 86.
118 Reply, para. 93.
119 Reply, paras. 90-91.
120 Draft Organic Law Establishing the Organization, Functioning and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Article 13.
121 Reply, para. 84.
122 Response, paras. 81-82, 110.
123 Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75- R11bis, Decision on prosecution’s Motion to Order the Disclosure of Unredacted Affidavits to the Prosecution, 17 June 2011, disposition. (The Chamber denied the motion).
124 Munyakazi Trial Decision, para. 61.
125 Munyakazi Trial Decision, para. 61, fn. 126. HRW Brief, para. 38. fn. 16 of the Response, citing the example of Prosecutor v. Nchamihigo, Case No. ICTR-01-63, where 91% of the defence witnesses came from abroad, Prosecutor v. Ntagerura, Case No. ICTR-96-10,where 100% of the defence witnesses came from abroad, and Prosecutor v. Imanishimwe, Case No. ICTR-97-36, where 100% of the defence witnesses were from abroad. 126 GoR Brief, Annex D; Response, para. 120.
127 Article 13 of Organic Law No. 3/2009/OL of 26/5/2009 (amending the Transfer Law). 128 The affidavits of witnesses: JUO39, JUO40, JUO41, JUO42, JUO43, JUO49, JUO68, JUO69, JUO82.
129 JU057, JU77, JU056, JU061, JU062, JU063, JU060, JU050, JU059, JU064, JU013, JU065, JU066, JU067, JU058, JU82, JU069, JU070, JU072, JU073, JU75, JU074, JU038, JU039, JU040, JU041, JU042, JU043, JU045, JU046, JU075, JU076, JU98, JU080, JU036, JU46, JU36, JU020, JU62, JU079, JU080.
130 JU057, JU77, JU056, JU061, JU062, JU063, JU060, JU050, JU059, JU013, JU066, JU067, JU058, JU82, JU068,JU069, JU070, JU071, JU072, JU073, JU75, JU074, JU038, JU039, JU040, JU041, JU042, JU043, JU049, JU045,JU046, JU048, JU61, JU075, JU076, JU077, JU078, JU080, JU036, JU46, JU36, JU020, JU62, JU080.
131 JU98, JU46, JU020.
132 JU057, JU056, JU062, JU063, JU060, JU050, JU059, JU013, JU065, JU067, JU058, JU070, JU071, JU072,JU61, JU078, JU079. 133 Motion, para. 48.
134 GoR Brief, para. 61.
135 GoR Brief, para. 61.
136 Response, paras. 124-125
137 Law No. 18/2008 of 23/07/2008 Relating to the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology; Law No. 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes; Law No.47/2001 of 18/12/2001 On Prevention, Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Discrimination and Sectarianism.
138 Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights (‘‘ECHR’’); Article 19, ICCPR. As pointed out by the Prosecution (Response to HRW, para. 29), it follows from human rights case law emanating from the ECHR and ICCPR that prohibiting negation or revision of the Holocaust does not constitute a violation of freedom of expression.
139 GoR Response, paras. 8-30.
140 GoR Response, paras. 8, 14, 31, (cases of Jean Baptiste Bogera, Anastase Ntakirende, Faustin Munyurabatware).
141 Response, paras. 91-96.
142 HWR Brief, paras. 33-34.
143 HRW Brief, paras. 30-40.
144 Article 13 of the Amended Transfer Law. 145 Kanyarukiga Appeals Decision, para. 33. 146 Article 50 of the RCCP.
147 HRW Brief, paras. 28, 40.
148 GoR Response, para. 44.
149 Hategekimana Appeal Decision, para. 34 citing Munyakazi Appeal Decision, para. 40; Kanyarukiga Appeal Decision, para. 31.
150 Prosecution v. Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55BR11bis, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for the Referral of the Case of Idelphone Hategekimana to Rwanda (TC), 19 June 2008 (‘‘Hategekimana Trial Decision’’), para. 68.
151 Response, paras. 115.
152 Article 14 bis of the Amended Transfer Law.
153 Article 14 bis of the Amended Transfer Law (stating that alternatives are available ‘‘where a witness is unable or for good reason unwilling to physically appear before the High Court to give testimony’’).
154 Munyakazi Appeal Decision, para. 42; Kanyarukiga Appeal Decision, para. 33. Hategekimana Appeal Decision, para. 26.
155 Response, para. 116.
156 Reply, para. 85; Article 13, Draft Organic Law establishing the Organization, Functioning and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
157 Motion, para. 42.
158 Document on VWSU, p. 6. Nikuze Donatien, Acting Coordinator, VWSU, Document on Victim and Witness Support Unit.
159 Motion, paras. 43. Annex I.
160 Motion, paras. 39-41.
161 Motion, paras. 44-45, Annex J (Ordonnance No. 001/2008 du 15 décembre 2008 Président de la Cour Suprême portant instruction relative á la protection des témoins dans le cadre du renvoi d’affaires á la République du Rwanda par Le Tribunal Pénal International Pour Le Rwanda (TPIR) et par d’autres Etats).
162 Motion, para. 46, Annexes K and L.
163 Motion, paras. 46-47.
164 GoR Brief, para.65-77.
165 GoR Brief, para.82-85.
166 Motion, Annex J.
167 Response, para. 138-141.
168 Kanyarukiga Appeal Decision, para. 27; Munyakazi Appeal Decision, para. 38.
169 Response, paras. 143-145.
170 Response, para. 145.
171 Response, paras. 97-100; Motion, Annex I; GoR Brief, Annex C.
172 Response, para. 146-147.
173 Response, paras. 148-150; GoR Brief, Annex F.
174 Response, para. 151.
175 Motion, paras. 46-47; GoR Brief, paras. 23-26; HRW Brief, paras. 63.
176 HRW Brief, paras. 55-62.
177 Prosecutor v. Janković, Case No. IT-96-23-2-AR11bis.2, Decision on Rule 11 bis Referral (AC), 15 November 2005, para. 49. Kanyarukiga Trial Decision, para. 69; Gatete Trial Decision, para. 60; Hategekimana Trial Decision, para. 64; Munyakazi Appeal Decision, para. 38.
178 HRW Brief, paras. 51-53
179 Hategekimana Trial Decision, para. 64. 180 Munyakazi Trial Decision, para. 38, Kanyarukiga Appeal Decision, para. 27.
181 GoR, Annex F (Directive No 01/2011 of the Secretary General of 10 January 2011. Regarding the functioning of the Office of the Prosecutor General (Unofficial Defence Translation), at Registry Pages 2546-2545; Article 73 of Services to Witnesses and Victims (Unofficial Defence Translation)).
182 Motion, para. 45.
183 KBA Brief, para. 3.
184 Rwanda acceded to ICCPR on 16 April 1975. Status of Ratification, Reservations and Declarations, ICCPR.
185 Constitution of Rwanda, Article 18. Article 19 also provides: ‘‘Every person accused of a crime shall be presumed innocent until his or her guilty has been conclusively proved in accordance with the law in a public and fair hearing in which all the necessary guarantees for defence have been made available.’’
186 Article 13 (6) of the Transfer Law.
187 Motion, Annex D (Article 2 of the Amended Transfer Law).
188 KBA Brief, paras. 13-20.
189 GoR Brief, paras. 8-16. GoR Brief, Annex A, para. 2.
190 Response, paras. 320-340; HRW Brief, paras. 110-112.
191 Motion, Annex T (Law on Rwandan Bar), Article 6.
192 Kanyarukiga Trial Decision, para. 58; Gatete Trial Decision, para. 49; Hategekimana Trial Decision, para. 55.
193 Motion, Annex T (Law on Rwandan Bar). Articles 56 and 60 do not promulgate a legal obligation for lawyers registered with the Rwandan Bar to provide pro bono legal aid, but merely a prohibition to refuse or neglect the defence of an accused where they have been appointed to do so (Article 56) as well as an affirmation that the Law Society Council provide for the assistance of persons who have insufficient financial resources by establishing a consultation and defence bureau (Article 60). 194 GoR Brief, para. 24; Rule 11 bis Motion, paras. 103-104.
195 KBA Brief, paras. 21-36.
196 Response, paras. 341-364.
197 HRW Brief, paras. 110-112. The Chamber notes that Annex C of the Prosecution’s Reply contains the 2010Rwandan Joint Governance Assessment Report which highlights the lack of a sufficient number of lawyers and the challenges of accessing legal aid centres in Rwanda, pp. 36-37.
198 Kanyarukiga Trial Decision, para. 57; Gatete Trial Decision, para. 48.
199 Stanković Appeal Decision, para. 21.
200 KBA Brief, paras. 33-36.
201 Hategekimana Trial Decision, para. 55; Stanković Appeal Decision, paras. 50-52.
202 Kanyarukiga Trial Decision, para. 62; Gatete Trial Decision, para. 53; Kanyarukiga Appeal Decision, paras. 2122.
203 Motion, paras. 63-70.
204 GoR Brief, paras. 46-63.
205 KBA Brief, paras. 37-48.
206 Response, paras. 152-164.
207 HRW Brief, para. 113.
208 ICDAA Brief, paras. 40-56; IADL Brief, Section G (stating ‘‘Defence counsel and teams cannot freely function and carry out their work in Rwanda, free from intimidation or threat in Rwanda’’).
209 Reply, paras. 64-82.
210 Motion, paras. 73-92; GoR Brief, paras. 117-128; Reply, paras. 67-68.
211 GoR Brief, para. 55.
212 Response, paras. 155-157. ICDAA Brief, paras. 52-56; HRW Brief, paras. 99-100; IADL Brief, para. G.2.
213 Response, paras. 155-157;HRWBrief, paras. 99-100; ICDAA Brief, para. 53.
214 HRW Brief, para. 99; ICDAA Brief, para. 54.
215 Reply, Annex U.
216 HRW Brief, para. 99.
217 HRW Brief, para. 100.
218 Response, para. 157.
219 Reply, paras. 77-80.
220 Reply, Annex O (filed ex parte because of order of protective measures for Witness GEX/A7).
221 Reply, paras. 79-80.
222 Article 29 (4) of the ICTR Statute (immunity for defence counsel extends only ‘‘as is necessary for the proper functioning of the Tribunal’’). Prosecutor v. Bagosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Decision on Aloys Ntabakuze’s Motion for Injunctions against the Government of Rwanda regarding the Arrest and Investigation of Lead Counsel Peter Erlinder, para. 46 (immunity applies only to the performance of their duties as defence counsel).
223 Reply, paras. 79-80.
224 Gatete Trial Decision, para. 52; Hategekimana Trial Decision, para. 60; Kanyarukiga Trial Decision, para. 61.
225 IADL refers to the U.S Supreme Court case, Dombrowski v. Pfister, 38 U.S. 479 (1965) that gives a definition of the legal concept of the ‘‘chilling effect’’ as being the threat of possible prosecutions based on legal provisions using unduly vague, uncertain and broad. IADL argues that this definition applies to Article 13 of the Constitution criminalising ‘‘revisionism, negationism and trivialisation of genocide’’. It concludes that this provision present the possibility of prosecution for an indefinite period of time, chilling the Defence for any case transferred from the ICTR to Rwanda. IADL Brief section G ‘‘Defence counsel and teams cannot freely function and carry out their work in Rwanda, free from intimidation or threat in Rwanda’’, paras. 27-33.
226 ICDAA Brief, paras. 40-56.
227 Kanyarukiga Appeal Decision, para. 21. 228 Response, para. 311, Response, Annex 26. 229 Response, paras. 301-312.
230 Response, para. 312.
231 ICDAA Brief, para. 51.
232 Reply, para. 89 quoting: Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al., Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Judgement, 28 November 2007 (‘‘Nahimana Appeal Judgement’’), para. 48.
233 KBA Brief, para. 41. Reference is also made to Article 44 of the Rwandan Code of Criminal Procedure.
234 Response, paras. 309-310.
235 Nahimana Appeal Judgement, para. 48; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, No. ICTR-96-4-A, Judgement, 1 June 2001, para. 91; Prosecutor v. Seromba, No. ICTR-2001-66-T, Decision on Motion for Disqualification of Judges, 25 April 2006, para. 9; Prosecutor v. Karemera, No. ICTR-98-44-T, Decision by Nzirorera for Disqualification of Trial Judges, 17 May 2004, para. 11; Prosecutor v. Karemera et al, No, ICTR-98-44-T, Decision on Joseph Nzirorera’s Motion for Disqualification of Judge Byron and Stay of Proceedings (TC), 20 February 2009, para. 6.
236 Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement, Appeals Chamber, 21 July 2000 (‘‘Furundžija Appeal Judgement’’), para. 203.
237 Furundžija Appeal Judgement, para. 197. 238 Response, paras. 306-307, Annex 26.
239 Motion, paras. 9 (ii), (iv), 23-25, 72-91, 93, Annex N (Law on Statutes for Judges and other Judicial Personnel), Annex O (Law on Superior Council of the Judiciary), Annex P (Law on the Supreme Court), Annex Q (Law on Organisation, Functioning and Jurisdiction of Courts), Annex R (Law Establishing the Institute of Legal Practice and Development), Annex S (Code of Ethics); GoR Brief, paras. 2, 4, 110-132; Response, paras. 165-262; HRW Brief, paras. 13, 69, 75-96, 116 (b); ICDAA Brief, paras. 4, 8, 10-20; IADL Brief, part. B ‘‘Preliminary Points’’, para. 13, Part. H ‘‘Independence of the Judiciary’’); Reply, paras. 19-66.
240 Article 20 (2) of the Statute; Article 13 (1) of the Amended Transfer Law (stating that the accused shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing).
241 Article 14 (1) of ICCPR (providing that ‘‘In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.’’); Article 6 (1) of the ECHR (protecting the right to a fair trial and providing inter alia that ‘‘everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.’’); Article 7 (1) (d) of the ACHPR (providing that every person shall have the right to have his case tried ‘‘within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal.’’ The ACHRP ‘‘Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa’’ recognises ‘‘General Principles Applicable to All Legal Proceedings’’, among them a fair and public hearing, independent and impartial tribunal). 242 Furundžija Appeal Judgement, para. 177, fn. 239 (holding that under Article 21 (2) of the Statute of the ICTY, which is identical to Article 20 (2) of the Statute of the ICTR, the accused is entitled to ‘‘a fair and public hearing’’ in the determination of the charges against him).
243 General Comment No. 32, para. 19.
244 Crociani, Palmiotti, Tanassi and Lefebvre d’Ovidio v. Italy, App. No. 8603/79, European Court of Human Rights, 18 December 1980, p. 212.
245 The European Court of Human Rights has held that ‘‘in order to establish whether a tribunal can be considered as ‘independent,’’’ regard must be had, inter alia, to the manner of the appointment of its members and their term of office, the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence.’’ Findlay v. United Kingdom, No. 22107/93, European Court of Human Rights, para. 73; Bryan v. United Kingdom, 19178/91, European Court of Human Rights, para. 37.
246 Furundžija Appeal Judgement, paras. 181-215.
247 Motion, paras. 82-84.
248 Motion, para. 8; GoR Brief, para. 117; Response, para. 201. The Defence however states that this expertise cannot to be confused with any indicia of independence or impartiality. Response, paras. 320-333. The Defence expresses concerns regarding the number of sufficiently experienced criminal defence lawyers in the area of genocide trials that would be willing to represent the Accused, should he be transferred. Reply, para. 19.
249 HRW Brief, p. 107.
250 Motion, paras. 74, 79, Annex N (Law on Statutes for Judges and other Judicial Personnel), Annex P (Law on the Supreme Court); GoR Brief, para. 111.
251 Response, paras. 182-188; Motion, Annex E (2008 amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda), Chapter V.
252 ICDAA Brief, 11 paras. 10-16.
253 Kanyarukiga Trial Decision, para. 35; Gatete Trial Decision, para. 34; Hategekimana Trial Decision, para. 38. The Chamber recalls the wording of the 2003 Constitution, Article 142 ‘‘les juges nommés á titre définitifs sont inamovibles; ils ne peuvent être suspendus, muté, même en avancement, mis á la retraite ou démis de leurs fonctions sauf dans les cas prévus par la loi. Les juges ne sont soumis, dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions, qu’a l’autorité de la loi. La loi portant statut des juges et des agents de l’ordre judciaire détermine le salaire et autres avantages qui leurs sont aloués’’: ICDAA Brief, para. 10. 254 Motion, Annex E (2008 amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda). Article 142 provided that: ‘‘The tenure of office for heads of Courts and judges shall be determined as follows: The President and the Vice President of the Supreme Court shall be appointed for an eight (8) year term that is not renewable. The President of the High Court [ . . . ] shall be appointed for a five (5) year term renewable only once. [ . . . ] Other judges shall be appointed for a determinate term of office that may be renewalbe by the High Council of the Judiciary in accordance with the provisions of the law relating to their status, following their evaluation. In exercise of their judicial functions, judges shall, at all times, follow the law and shall be independent from any power or authority. [ . . . ] The status of judges and other judicial personnel shall be determined by law.’’
255 Motion, Annex E (2010 amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda). Article 32, reads as follows: The President and the Vice President of the Supreme Court shall be appointed for an eight (8) year term that is not renewable. The President of the High Court, the Vice President of the High Court [ . . . ] shall be appointed for a five (5) year term renewable only once. In the exercice of their judicial functions, judges shall remain suject to the authority of the law and remain independent from any other power or authority. The code of ethics of judges shall be determined by specific laws. The law on the status of judges and the judicial personnel shall also regulate the term of office of heads of other courts.’’
256 Motion, Annex N (Law on Statutes for Judges and other Judicial Personnel).
257 Motion, Annex P (Law on the Supreme Court).
258 The Chamber considers that Article 72 (1) that provide automatic dismissal in case of ‘‘professional incapability’’ is not to be confused with Article 72 (5) especially dealing with cases of ‘‘infirmity or sickness’’. Motion, Annex N (Law on Statutes for Judges and other Judicial Personnel).
259 HRW Brief, para. 69.
260 Response, paras. 213-215, HRW Brief, paras. 73-74.
261 Reply, paras. 19-31.
262 Reply, Annex B (Report of Activities Office of Ombudsman 2008), Annex C (2010 Joint Governance Assessment, Data Analysis Report). Press Conference, 8 February 2011 (http://www.orinfor.gov.rw/printmedia/topstory.php?id=2187).
263 Motion, para. 23, Annex C (Transfer Law), Annex D (Organic Law modifying Transfer Law).
264 2008 amendment to the Rwandan Constitution: Articles 157- 158; 2010 amendment to the Rwandan Constitution: Article 40.
265 (2008 Constitution: Articles 147; 2010 Constitution: Article 34).
266 Motion, Annex N (Law on Statutes for Judges and other Judicial Personnel), Article 22.
267 Motion, paras. 72-76, 81, 85-87, Annex E (2008 amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda), Annex N (Law on Statutes for Judges and other Judicial Personnel), Annex O (Law on Superior Council of the Judiciary), Annex P (Law on the Supreme Court), Annex Q (Law on Organisation, Functioning and Jurisdiction of Courts), Annex S (Code of Ethics).
268 Motion, Annex C (2007 Transfer Law), Annex D (2009 Transfer Law), Article 2 of the 2009 Transfer Law provides that ‘‘[ . . . ] the accused person in the case transferred by ICTR to Rwanda shall be guaranteed the following rights: 1) a fair and public hearing; 2) presumption of innocent until proven guilty; 3) to be informed promptly and in detail [ . . . ] of the nature and the cause of the charge against him; 4) adequate time and facilities to prepare his/her defense; 5) a speedy trial without undue delay; 6) entitlement to counsel of his/her choice in any examination. In case he/she has no means to pay, he/she shall be entitled to legal representation: 7) the right to remain silent and not to be compelled to incriminate him/herself; 8) the right to be tried in his/her presence; 9) to examine, or have a person to examine on his/her behalf the witnesses against him/her; 10) to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his/her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him/her [ . . . ]’’.
269 Motion, para. 93, Annex D (Organic Law dated 2009 modifying Transfer Law), Article 1 provides that ‘‘[ . . . ] the President of the Court may at his/her absolute discretion designate a quorum of three (3) or more judges assisted by a Court Registrar depending on his/her assessment of the complexity and importance of the case’’.
270 Motion, paras. 73-92; GoR Brief, paras. 117-128.
271 Motion, paras. 73, 90.
272 GoR Brief, paras. 118-120, according to Rwanda, from 2006 to 2009, the Supreme Court has reversed between 17 and 8% of convictions.
273 GoR Brief, para. 123.
274 Response, paras. 200-253; HRW Brief, paras. 11, 66-96; ICDAA Brief, paras. 3-9, 17-20; IADL Brief, Sections E-H. Response, Annex A.
275 HRW Brief, para. 6
276 IADL Brief, paras. 1-16.
277 Response, paras. 204-209.
278 Reply, paras. 32-56.
279 Reply, para. 39 and Annexes A, E-J, and L.
280 Response, paras. 219-226, 231-232, 247-248, 252, 278-280; Human Rights Watch, Law and Reality, pp. 53-57,63-64, 77, 80, 83, 96; Human Rights Watch, Press Release, 11 February 2011; Reply, paras. 21-25, 41-42, 62, 106-108 and Annex H (Kigali High Court Judgement 4 February 2011), and Annex Q and Annex G. Military High Court Judgement dated 14 January 2011.
281 Munyakazi Appeal Decision, para. 29.
282 Motion, para. 112.
283 Response, para. 384.
284 Response, para. 384.
285 GoR Brief, para. 109 (referring to Article 23 (2) of the Organic Law on Transfer of Cases to Rwanda).
286 Response, para. 385.
287 Motion, para. 113.
288 Response, paras. 391-392.
289 Response, para. 392. 290 Reply, para. 104. 291 Reply, paras. 99-101.
292 Reply, para. 102.
293 Prosecutor v. Uwinkindi, Defence Consolidated Rejoinder to the Prosecutor’s Consolidated Response and to the Amicus Curiae Brief of the Kigali Bar Association (TC), 17 June 2011 (‘‘Rejoinder’’), paras. 107-108, 111.
294 Rejoinder, paras. 104-106.
295 Rejoinder, para. 103.
296 HRW Brief, paras. 106-107.
297 IADL Brief, Part I, paras. 5-9.
298 IADL Brief, paras. 12-14.
299 IADL Brief, para. 16.
300 On 1 April 2011, the ICTR Rules Committee presented the revised Rule 11 bis and it was adopted by the Chambers Plenary session. The Rule was amended to read as follows: Rule 11 bis : (D) [ . . . ] (iv) the Prosecutor and, if the Trial Chamber so orders, the Registrar shall send observers to monitor the proceedings in the State concerned. The observers shall report, respectively, to the Prosecutor, or through the Registrar to the President. [ . . . ] (F) At any time after an order has been issued pursuant to this Rule and before the accused is found guilty or acquitted by a court in the State concerned, the Trial Chamber may proprio motu orat the request of the Prosecutor and upon having given to the authorities of the State concerned the opportunity to be heard, revoke the order and make a formal request for deferral within the terms of Rule 10.
301 Prosecutor v. Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-R11bis, Request to Prosecution to Provide Further Information Regarding its Monitoring Programme Pursuant to Rule 11 bis, 23 May 2011 (‘‘Uwinkindi Request to Prosecution to Provide Further Information’’). The Chamber, proprio motu, requested that the Prosecution provide additional information with respect to its monitoring programme. On 31 May 2011, the Prosecution filed its response. Prosecution’s Motion, Annex U.
302 Uwinkindi Request to Prosecution to Provide Further Information, para. 3.
303 Munyakazi Appeal Decision, para. 30.
304 Munyakazi Appeal Decision, para. 30; Kanyarukiga Appeal Decision, para. 38; Hategekimana Appeal Decision, para. 29.
305 Motion, paras. 73-92; GoR Brief, paras. 117-128.
306 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1966 (2010), 22 December 2010. 307 Annex 2 of Prosecutor’s Response to Chambers Request to Provide Further Information Regarding its Monitoring Programme Pursuant to Rule 11 bis; Letter of the Chairperson African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, Commissioner Reine Alapini-Gansou, 26 May 2011.
308 Stanković Appeal Decision, para. 51.