110. The Appeals Chamber notes that Rule 67(A)(ii)(a) of the Rules requires the Defence to notify the Prosecution of its intent to enter a defence of alibi “[a]s early as reasonably practicable and in any event prior to the commencement of the trial”. This provision expressly stipulates that “the notification shall specify […] the names and addresses of witnesses and any other evidence upon which the accused intends to rely to establish the alibi”. Ndahimana’s contention that Rule 67(A) of the Rules does not require the disclosure of the names and addresses of the alibi witnesses is therefore incorrect.

113. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the manner in which an alibi is presented may impact its credibility.[1] It was therefore within the Trial Chamber’s discretion to take into account Ndahimana’s failure to provide the necessary particulars of alibi witnesses on time in assessing the alibi evidence.[2] Contrary to Ndahimana’s suggestion, the Trial Chamber was not required to consider whether the Prosecution suffered prejudice from the belated disclosure.[3]

114. The Appeals Chamber has previously upheld the inference drawn by a trial chamber that failure to raise an alibi in a timely manner suggested fabrication of the alibi in order to respond to the Prosecution case.[4] Ndahimana’s arguments that the late disclosure of the particulars was a result of the ongoing investigations and was not motivated by the desire to obtain a tactical advantage fail to demonstrate that such an inference was unreasonable in the present case.