Independent proceedings
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Decision on Motion to Void Trial Chamber Decisions - 30.09.2011 |
NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare) (ICTR-98-42-A) |
|
|
NOTING further that […] proceedings for contempt and false testimony “are independent of the proceedings out of which they arise”; [1] Karemera et al. Decision, para. 25 and references cited therein. Cf. The Prosecutor v. Hormisdas Nsengimana, Case Nos. ICTR-01-69-A and ICTR-10-92, Decision on Prosecution Appeal of Decision Concerning Improper Contact with Prosecution Witnesses, 16 December 2010, in which the Appeals Chamber considered an appeal against a decision related to contempt allegations issued by Trial Chamber I after the rendering of the trial judgement in Mr. Nsengimana’s case. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on False Testimony - 16.02.2010 |
KAREMERA et al. (ICTR-98-44-AR91.2) |
|
|
20. The Appeals Chamber further finds that the Trial Chamber erred in concluding that ordering the prosecution of Witness BTH was premature because an assessment of his credibility will be undertaken when deliberating on the Karemera et al. case and that such prosecution would risk causing serious prejudice to the Karemera et al. proceedings. An assessment of a witness’s credibility is a separate inquiry from that of the prosecution of a witness for false testimony.[1] The Trial Chamber hearing the case in which the witness testified will assess the witness’s credibility in its consideration of the evidence adduced in that case.[2] Prosecution for false testimony is a separate trial conducted by a separate chamber of judges, who will consider evidence relating to the allegation of false testimony.[3] Therefore, proceedings for false testimony need not be deferred until the completion of the trial in which the false testimony was allegedly given but can proceed contemporaneously. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber recalls the finding in Rutaganda that: A credibility determination may be based, but does not necessarily depend, on a judicial finding that a witness has given false testimony. The testimony of a witness may lack credibility even if it does not amount to false testimony within the meaning of Rule 91. Thus, an investigation for false testimony is ancillary to the proceeding and does not impact on the accused’s right to a fair trial.[4] […] [1] The Prosecutor v. Georges Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-A, Decision on Appeals of the Decisions by Trial Chamber I Rejecting the Defence Motions to Direct the Prosecutor to Investigate the Matter of False Testimony by Witnesses “E” and “CC”, 8 June 1998, (“Rutaganda Decision”), para. 28. [2] See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Judgement, 28 February 2005, para. 659 (“The Appeals Chamber considers that the Trial Chamber was entitled to exercise discretion in its assessment of evidence presented by all parties to the case, in accordance with the relevant Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Whether all of the Defence or Prosecution witnesses were credible was a matter for the Trial Chamber to decide.”) [3] Rule 91(F) of the Rules stipulates that “[n]o Judge who sat as a member of the Trial Chamber before which the witness appeared shall sit for the trial of the witness for false testimony.” [4] Rutaganda Decision, para. 28. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that contempt proceedings have, on a number of occasions, been instituted contemporaneously with the trial in which such contempt was alleged to have arisen. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević, Contempt Proceedings Against Kosta Bulatović, Case No. IT-02-54-R77.4, Decision on Contempt of the Tribunal, 13 May 2005; Contempt Proceedings Against Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-05-88-R77.1-A, Judgement on Allegations of Contempt, 25 June 2009 (arising from Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović et al., Case No. IT-05-88-T, proceedings which are ongoing). |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on False Testimony - 16.02.2010 |
KAREMERA et al. (ICTR-98-44-AR91.2) |
|
|
25. The Appeals Chamber considers that, similarly to proceedings for false testimony pursuant to Rule 91 of the Rules, discussed above, investigations and proceedings pursuant to Rule 77 of the Rules are independent of the proceedings out of which they arise and can be undertaken contemporaneously with those proceedings.[1] As separate proceedings, they give rise neither to concerns regarding inconsistent findings, nor to concerns regarding the expeditiousness of the trial. […] [1] See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević, Contempt Proceedings Against Kosta Bulatović, Case No. IT-02-54-R77.4, Decision on Contempt of the Tribunal, 13 May 2005; Contempt Proceedings Against Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-05-88-R77.1-A, Judgement on Allegations of Contempt, 25 June 2009 (arising from Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović et al., Case No. IT-05-88-T, proceedings which are ongoing). |
||