Individualised findings

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 27.02.2014 NDINDILYIMANA et al. (Military II)

139. Finally, in support of his contention that the Trial Chamber violated Rule 87(B) of the Rules, Nzuwonemeye points to several paragraphs of the Trial Judgement, in which he claims that the Trial Chamber erred by making joint findings related to him and Sagahutu.[1]

140. The Appeals Chamber recalls that Rule 87(B) of the Rules provides in the pertinent part that “[i]f two or more accused are tried together under Rule 48, separate findings shall be made as to each accused”. Notwithstanding this provision, the Appeals Chamber observes that the Rules anticipate that two or more accused may be tried together on the basis of the same crimes.[2] Indeed, jurisprudence regarding the advantages of joint trials reflects that they may be used to ensure that the same evidence is available and assessed with regard to each accused and thus result in a greater likelihood of consistent evaluation of the evidence, findings, and verdicts on the basis of the same facts.[3] In this context, a trial chamber may make findings of guilt for more than one co-accused on the basis of the same evidence so long as a majority of the trial chamber is satisfied that each accused’s guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.[4]

141. The Trial Chamber concluded that Nzuwonemeye’s involvement in the killings of the Prime Minister and the Belgian peacekeepers had been proved in light of the evidence before it.[5] It made individualized findings regarding the applicable forms of responsibility and separately identified the counts and crimes for which Nzuwonemeye was convicted.[6] Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber is not convinced that Nzuwonemeye has identified any violation of Rule 87(B) of the Rules.

[1] Nzuwonemeye Appeal Brief [Nzuwonemeye Appellant’s Brief, 23 January 2012 (confidential); Corrigendum to Nzuwonemeye Appellant’s Brief, 1 February 2012 (confidential)], paras. 131, 132, citing Trial Judgement, paras. 47-50, 64-66, 1715-1719, 1730, 1733-1735, 1739, 1740, 1744, 1745, 1853-1889, 2090.

[2] See Rules 48, 48bis, 49, and 82 of the Rules.

[3] See Pandurević and Trbić Decision of 24 January 2006 [Prosecutor v. Vinko Pandurević and Milorad Trbić, Case No. IT-05-86-AR73.1, Decision on Vinko Pandurević’s Interlocutory Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Joinder of the Accused, 24 January 2006], para. 23.

[4] See Rule 87(A) of the Rules.

[5] See Trial Judgement, paras. 1715, 1719, 1740, 1744, 1745, 1888, 2093, 2094, 2098.

[6] See Trial Judgement, paras. 1745, 1888, 1889, 2013-2025, 2093-2095, 2098, 2107, 2146, 2149, 2154, 2155, 2163.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 87(B)