255. Pursuant to Rule 101(B)(ii) of the Rules, a Trial Chamber is required to take into account any mitigating circumstances in determining a sentence.[1] However, the accused bears the burden of establishing mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence.[2] If an accused fails to put forward relevant information, the Appeals Chamber considers that, as a general rule, a Trial Chamber is not under an obligation to seek out information that counsel did not see fit to put before it at the appropriate time.[3] Rule 86(C) of the Rules clearly indicates that sentencing submissions shall be addressed during closing arguments, and it was therefore Rukundo’s prerogative to identify any mitigating circumstances at the time. The Appeals Chamber notes that Rukundo made no sentencing submissions at trial.[4] This in itself would suffice for the Appeals Chamber to dismiss his argument.

388. The Appellant made no sentencing submissions during closing arguments. In such circumstances, the Trial Chamber was not under an obligation to seek out information that counsel did not see fit to put before it at the appropriate time.[1] Rule 86(C) of the Rules clearly indicates that sentencing submissions shall be addressed during closing arguments, and it was therefore the Appellant’s prerogative to identify any mitigating circumstances instead of directing the Trial Chamber’s attention to the record in general.