|Decision Regarding False Testimony - 02.03.2016||
NTAKIRUTIMANA and NTAKIRUTIMANA
9. Rule 108(B) of the Rules provides:
If a Chamber or Single Judge has strong grounds for believing that a witness has knowingly and wilfully given false testimony, it shall refer the matter to the President who shall designate a Single Judge who may:
(i) direct the Prosecutor to investigate the matter with a view to the preparation and submission of an indictment for false testimony; or
(ii) where the Prosecutor, in the view of the Single Judge, has a conflict of interest with respect to the relevant conduct, direct the Registrar to appoint an amicus curiae to investigate the matter and report back to the Single Judge as to whether there are sufficient grounds for instigating proceedings for false testimony.
10. What constitutes “strong grounds” represents a heightened threshold for initiating investigations into allegations of false testimony, and has been distinguished from the “sufficient grounds” standard applied to initiating the prosecution of an individual for false testimony or contempt. […]
11. A party seeking to institute proceedings for false testimony bears “the onus to prove the alleged falsehood”. Despite having been instructed to provide references to transcripts from the Ntakirutimana case that, in his view, amounted to false testimony, Ntakirutimana does not specify which portions of Witness HH’s testimony he alleges are false. This omission weighs against establishing that strong grounds exist for believing that Witness HH knowingly and wilfully gave false testimony before the ICTR.
See also paragraph 17 and footnote 57.
 See The Prosecutor v. Eliézer Niyitegeka, Case No. MICT-12-16, Decision on Request to Initiate Proceedings against Witness GGH in Niyitegeka for Giving False Testimony under Solemn Declaration and for Interfering with the Administration of Justice, 26 February 2014 (“Niyitegeka Decision of 26 February 2014”), para. 10; The Prosecutor v. Eliézer Niyitegeka, Case No. MICT-12-16, Decision on Request to Initiate Proceedings against Witness KJ in Niyitegeka for Giving False Testimony under Solemn Declaration and for Interfering with the Administration of Justice, 28 January 2014 (“Niyitegeka Decision of 28 January 2014”), para. 17.
 See The Prosecutor v. Édouard Karemera et al., Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR.91, Decision on “Joseph Nzirorera’s Appeal from Refusal to Investigate [a] Prosecution Witness for False Testimony” and on Motion for Oral Arguments, 22 January 2009 (“Karemera et al. Decision of 22 January 2009”), paras. 17-20.
 Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-14-A, Judgement, 9 July 2004, para. 253.
 See Order of 13 October 2015 [Prosecutor v. Elizaphan and Gérard Ntakirutimana, Case No. MICT-12-17, Order for Submissions, 13 October 2015 (confidential)], para. 10; Order of 12 November 2014 [Prosecutor v. Elizaphan and Gérard Ntakirutimana, Case No. MICT-12-17, Order for Submissions in Relation to the Motion to Appoint an Amicus Curiae to Investigate the Apparent Recantation of a Witness Testifying before the ICTR Pursuant to Rule 108(B), 12 November 2014 (confidential)], paras. 12, 13.
|IRMCT Rule Rule 108(B)|