Prior personal knowledge

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 04.12.2001 KAYISHEMA & RUZINDANA

327.    […] [T]he Appeals Chamber finds that the witnesses’ personal knowledge of Ruzindana is not a prerequisite for identification.[1]

328.    As noted by the Trial Chamber, “prior knowledge of those identified is another factor that the Trial Chamber may take into account in considering the reliability of witness’ testimonies.”[2] The fact that some of the witnesses did not personally know the accused prior to the events is not at all a sufficient reason to invalidate the testimony of a witness who identified the Accused.[3]

[1] Refers to Ruzindana’s allegations in his Brief, paras. 44 and 45, para. 48 (witness PP-Muyira Hill), para. 49 (Witnesses HH and W – the Cave), para. 50 (Witness RR – the Mine at Nyiramurengo Hill), para. 56 (Witness MM – Gitwa cellule) para. 57 (Witness II – the vicinity of Muyira Hill).

[2] Trial Judgement, para. 71. On the probative value, see Čelebići Appeal Judgement, para. 274.

[3] Trial Judgement, para. 71.

Download full document