416. For the conclusion that the Appellant’s medical background could be cited as an aggravating factor, the Trial Chamber relied on what the Trial Chambers respectively held in the Kayishema and Ruzindana and Ntakirutimana Trial Judgements.[1] The Appeals Chamber does not, however, find that the two ICTR cases are persuasive precedents for the present case. In the Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, the Trial Chamber simply stated that as a medical doctor Kayishema owed a duty to the community and that this constituted an aggravating factor[2] but did not give any explanation as to the legal basis for its conclusion. The Trial Chamber in Ntakirutimana held that:

the Chamber notes that Gérard Ntakirutimana acknowledges that he departed the hospital leaving the Tutsi patients behind. He explained that the gendarmes had directed him to leave because of increasing lack of security. The Chamber is aware that the security situation was difficult and that, for instance, Oscar Giordano left a few days earlier. However, in the Chamber’s view it is difficult to imagine why the Accused was at particular risk, compared with the remaining persons. According to his own explanation, he did not return to the hospital to inquire as to the condition of patients and staff. The overall situation leaves the Chamber with the impression that the Accused simply abandoned the Tutsi patients. This behaviour is not in conformity with the general picture painted by the Defence of the Accused as a medical doctor who cared for his patients.[3]

This statement of the Trial Chamber as to the duty of a medical doctor appears to have been made in a context which is completely different from that of the case before this Appeals Chamber. Thus, while in that context the conclusion of the Trial Chamber may well be persuasive, the same is not true when the same reasoning is transplanted in a completely different context such as the case of the Appellant. Caution is needed when relying as a legal basis on statements made by Trial Chambers in the context of cases and circumstances that are wholly different. The Appeals Chamber considers that these statements by themselves provide too tenuous a basis for holding that the previous background of the Accused, and the ethical duties stemming from it, are an aggravating factor in international criminal law. While the Trial Chamber has discretion in determining factors in aggravation, the Trial Chamber must provide convincing reasons for its choice of factors. As the basis on which the Trial Chamber found the existence of this aggravating factor is rather tenuous, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber committed a discernible error in identifying the professional background of the Appellant as an aggravating factor. This error impacted on the Trial Chamber’s determination of the sentence and therefore the Appeals Chamber will take it into account when revising the Appellant’s sentence.

416. For the conclusion that the Appellant’s medical background could be cited as an aggravating factor, the Trial Chamber relied on what the Trial Chambers respectively held in the Kayishema and Ruzindana and Ntakirutimana Trial Judgements.[1] The Appeals Chamber does not, however, find that the two ICTR cases are persuasive precedents for the present case. In the Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, the Trial Chamber simply stated that as a medical doctor Kayishema owed a duty to the community and that this constituted an aggravating factor[2] but did not give any explanation as to the legal basis for its conclusion. The Trial Chamber in Ntakirutimana held that:

the Chamber notes that Gérard Ntakirutimana acknowledges that he departed the hospital leaving the Tutsi patients behind. He explained that the gendarmes had directed him to leave because of increasing lack of security. The Chamber is aware that the security situation was difficult and that, for instance, Oscar Giordano left a few days earlier. However, in the Chamber’s view it is difficult to imagine why the Accused was at particular risk, compared with the remaining persons. According to his own explanation, he did not return to the hospital to inquire as to the condition of patients and staff. The overall situation leaves the Chamber with the impression that the Accused simply abandoned the Tutsi patients. This behaviour is not in conformity with the general picture painted by the Defence of the Accused as a medical doctor who cared for his patients.[3]

This statement of the Trial Chamber as to the duty of a medical doctor appears to have been made in a context which is completely different from that of the case before this Appeals Chamber. Thus, while in that context the conclusion of the Trial Chamber may well be persuasive, the same is not true when the same reasoning is transplanted in a completely different context such as the case of the Appellant. Caution is needed when relying as a legal basis on statements made by Trial Chambers in the context of cases and circumstances that are wholly different. The Appeals Chamber considers that these statements by themselves provide too tenuous a basis for holding that the previous background of the Accused, and the ethical duties stemming from it, are an aggravating factor in international criminal law. While the Trial Chamber has discretion in determining factors in aggravation, the Trial Chamber must provide convincing reasons for its choice of factors. As the basis on which the Trial Chamber found the existence of this aggravating factor is rather tenuous, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber committed a discernible error in identifying the professional background of the Appellant as an aggravating factor. This error impacted on the Trial Chamber’s determination of the sentence and therefore the Appeals Chamber will take it into account when revising the Appellant’s sentence.

200. […] The Appeals Chamber […] recalls that a trial chamber has the discretion to select which legal arguments to address.[1]

93. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Rules are to be interpreted in accordance with their ordinary meaning in their context and in light of the object and purpose of the Statute and the Rules.[1] Under Rule 104 of the Rules, upon completion of the presentation of the parties’ cases, a single judge must deliberate and decide separately on each charge contained in the indictment on whether he is satisfied that guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and shall impose a sentence in respect of each finding of guilt if he finds the accused guilty on one or more of the charges contained in the indictment.[2] The Appeals Chamber considers that the textual and contextual interpretation of the Rules supports the principle that once a charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt, a finding of guilt follows. Considering that the Rules apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings under Rule 90 of the Rules,[3] this principle similarly applies to contempt proceedings.

94. In addition, it is well established in the jurisprudence that “a trial chamber is bound to enter convictions for all distinct crimes which have been proven in order to fully reflect the criminality of the convicted person”.[4] While this principle emanates from jurisprudence concerning the crimes covered by Article 1(1) of the Statute, the Appeals Chamber sees nothing to suggest that the obligation of a single judge to enter a conviction does not equally apply to the crime of contempt, once all the elements of the crime have been proven. The Appeals Chamber further finds unpersuasive Munyeshuli’s argument that the language of Rule 90(A) of the Rules vests in a single judge the discretion not to enter a conviction for a proven crime. While a single judge has discretion to decide whether to initiate contempt proceedings,[5] neither the Rules nor prior jurisprudence support the conclusion that such discretion extends to the decision whether to enter a conviction for contempt, once all the elements of the offence have been proven.