The Appeals Chamber considered whether the Trial Chamber erred in law by holding that Rwanda’s penalty structure, and, in particular, the possibility of life imprisonment in solitary confinement, did not accord with internationally recognized standards and with the requirements of international law. The Appeals Chamber considered, in particular, whether the Trial Chamber erred in relying on the Abolition of Death Penalty Law, rather than the Transfer Law. The Appeals Chamber held:

19. The Appeals Chamber considers that it is not up to the Trial Chamber to determine how these laws could be interpreted or which law could be applied by Rwandan courts in transfer cases. For the reasons provided above, the Appeals Chamber is of the view that it would be possible for courts in Rwanda to interpret the relevant laws either to hold that life imprisonment with special provisions is applicable to transfer cases, or to hold that life imprisonment without special provisions is the maximum punishment. 

20. Since there is genuine ambiguity about which punishment provision would apply to transfer cases, and since, therefore, the possibility exists that Rwandan courts might hold that a penalty of life imprisonment in isolation would apply to such cases, pursuant to the Abolition of Death Penalty Law, the Appeals Chamber finds no error in the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the current penalty structure in Rwanda is not adequate for the purposes of transfer under Rule 11bisof the Rules. 

The Appeals Chamber considered whether the Trial Chamber erred in holding that the current penalty structure in Rwanda was not adequate for the purposes of transfer under Rule 11bis of the Rules. The Appeals Chamber considered, in particular, the Trial Chamber’s finding that the relationship between the Abolition of Death Penalty Law and the Transfer Law was unclear, such that there was a risk that Kanyarukiga, if transferred and convicted, might be subject to imprisonment in isolation.[1] The Appeals Chamber recalled its findings in the Munyakazi case on this issue, and found that:

12.    In Munyakazi, the Appeals Chamber already ruled that it is unclear how these two laws will be interpreted by the Rwandan courts,[2] which could construe them as either holding that imprisonment with special provisions is applicable to transfer cases, or that life imprisonment without special provisions is the maximum punishment.[3] There are no reasons to depart from these findings. [...]

15.    The Appeals Chamber further recognizes that the punishment of solitary confinement may constitute a violation of international standards if not applied as an exceptional measure which is necessary, proportionate, restricted in time and includes minimum safeguards.[4] However, it observes that there was no information before the Trial Chamber that Rwandan law provides for such safeguards.[5]

16.    Since there is genuine ambiguity about which punishment provision would apply to transfer cases,[6] and since, therefore, the possibility exists that Rwandan courts might hold that a penalty of life imprisonment in isolation would apply to such cases, pursuant to the Abolition of Death Penalty Law,[7] the Appeals Chamber finds no error in the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the current penalty structure in Rwanda is not adequate for the purposes of transfer under Rule 11bis of the Rules.