264. […] The Appeals Chamber has previously held that genocidal intent can be proven through inference from the facts and circumstances of a case.[1] Correspondingly, the Appeals Chamber has held that it is sufficient if the evidentiary facts from which the state of mind is to be inferred are pleaded.[2] […]

The Appeals Chamber addressed the issue of vagueness of an indictment following the principles laid out in the Kupreškić Appeal Judgement. The Appeals Chamber reaffirmed that the Prosecution should only plead the modes of responsibility on which it intends to rely, and that the alleged mode(s) of liability of the accused in a crime pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute should be clearly laid out in the indictment. Following ICTY and ICTR jurisprudence, the Appeals Chamber held that the mode of liability of joint criminal enterprise must be specifically pleaded in an indictment. The Appeals Chamber stressed that if the Prosecution is relying on the mode of liability of joint criminal enterprise, it is not sufficient for an indictment to charge an accused for “committing” the crimes in question under Article 7(1) of the Statute. It is not sufficient for the generic language of an indictment to encompass the possibility that joint criminal enterprise is being charged. See paragraphs 21 and 22.

21. The practice of both the International Tribunal and the ICTR requires that the Prosecution plead the specific mode or modes of liability for which the accused is being charged.[1] The Prosecution has repeatedly been discouraged from the practice of simply restating Article 7(1) of the Statute unless it intends to rely on all of the modes of liability contained therein, because of the ambiguity that this causes.[2] When the Prosecution is intending to rely on all modes of responsibility in Article 7(1), then the material facts relevant to each of those modes must be pleaded in the indictment. Otherwise, the indictment will be defective.[3]  The Appeals Chamber further reaffirms that the Prosecution should only plead the modes of responsibility on which it intends to rely,[4] and considers that the alleged mode(s) of liability of the accused in a crime pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute should be clearly laid out in the indictment.[5]

22. Similarly, when the Prosecution charges the “commission” of one of the crimes under the Statute within the meaning of Article 7(1), it must specify whether the said term is to be understood as meaning physical commission by the accused or participation in a joint criminal enterprise, or both.[6] It is not enough for the generic language of an indictment to “encompass” the possibility that joint criminal enterprise is being charged.[7] The Appeals Chamber reiterates that joint criminal enterprise must be specifically pleaded in an indictment.[8] Although joint criminal enterprise is a means of “committing”, it is insufficient for an indictment to merely make broad reference to Article 7(1) of the Statute; such reference does not provide sufficient notice to the Defence or to the Trial Chamber that the Prosecution is intending to rely on joint criminal enterprise responsibility.[9] Also, if the Prosecution relies on this specific mode of liability, it must plead the following material facts: the nature and purpose of the enterprise, the period over which the enterprise is said to have existed, the identity of the participants in the enterprise, and the nature of the accused’s participation in the enterprise.[10] In order for an accused charged with joint criminal enterprise to fully understand the acts he is allegedly responsible for, the indictment should also clearly indicate which form of joint criminal enterprise is being alleged.[11] The Appeals Chamber considers that failure to specifically plead joint criminal enterprise in the indictment in a case where the Prosecution intends to rely on this mode of liability will result in a defective indictment.[12]

The Appeals Chamber reiterated that a vague indictment not cured by timely, clear and consistent notice causes prejudice to the accused. See paragraph 24.

161. In cases where the Prosecution intends to rely on a theory of joint criminal enterprise, it must plead the purpose of the enterprise, the identity of its participants, the nature of the accused’s participation in the enterprise, and the period of the enterprise. The indictment should also clearly indicate which form of joint criminal enterprise is being alleged. Failure to specifically plead joint criminal enterprise, including the supporting material facts and the category, constitutes a defect in the indictment.

162. In the Simba Appeal Judgement, the Appeals Chamber determined that an indictment properly pleaded the identity of the participants by identifying the physical perpetrators by general category, such as Interahamwe, and then further identifying them with geographic and temporal details related to each massacre site.[4] The Indictment in the present case provides the same degree of specificity when the reference to the Bugarama Interahamwe in paragraph 4 of the Indictment is read together with paragraphs 13 and 14, alleging that Munyakazi and the Bugarama Interahamwe attacked and killed Tutsi civilians at Shangi and Mibilizi parishes, respectively, on 29 and 30 April 1994. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber erred in law in concluding that the reference to the Bugarama Interahamwe was too vague and in limiting its consideration of the evidence to only the named participants.

347. With respect to mens rea, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the indictment may either (i) plead the state of mind of the accused, in which case the facts by which that matter is to be established are matters of evidence, and need not be pleaded; or (ii) the evidentiary facts from which the state of mind is to be inferred.[1]

36. The Appeals Chamber recalls that where it is alleged that the accused planned, instigated, ordered, or aided and abetted in the planning, preparation, or execution of crimes, the Prosecution is required to identify the “particular acts” or the “particular course of conduct” on the part of the accused which forms the basis for the charges in question.[1] When the Prosecution pleads a case of “instigation”, it must precisely describe the instigating acts and the instigated persons or groups of persons.[2]

37. Paragraph 10 of the Amended Indictment does not fulfil these requirements. It merely states that the attack in Rwankeri cellule was carried out on Uwinkindi’s instigation without providing any details about when, where, and by what conduct Uwinkindi instigated this attack. Contrary to the Prosecution’s assertion, paragraph 10 of the Amended Indictment only specifies that the attack following Uwinkindi’s instigation occurred on 8 April 1994, not the act of instigation itself. Moreover, the Appeals Chamber considers that the Prosecution’s contention, that “the furtherance of the JCE” conveys by what means Uwinkindi instigated crimes, confuses the objective of his alleged instigation with the specific act or course of conduct that needed to be pleaded.

38. Apart from the broad category “armed assailants”, paragraph 10 of the Amended Indictment also does not specify to whom Uwinkindi’s instigation was directed. Furthermore, it does not indicate whether the alleged perpetrators of the killing of Paul Kamanzi were among those instigated by Uwinkindi. This manner of pleading does not inform Uwinkindi of the exact nature of the charges against him.

249.     The Appeals Chamber recalls that, in determining whether an accused was adequately put on notice of the nature and cause of the charges against him, the indictment must be considered as a whole.[1] Ngirabatware was charged with participation in a joint criminal enterprise with the common purpose to exterminate the Tutsis under Count 5 of the Indictment.[2] Count 6 of the Indictment charges Ngirabatware with rape as a natural and foreseeable consequence of the execution of the common purpose to exterminate the Tutsi civilian population.[3] Accordingly, despite the minor nuances in the language,[4] the nature of the common purpose under Count 5 of the Indictment is identical to that under Count 6. In fact, Count 5 and Count 6 are the only counts in the Indictment alleging that the common purpose of the joint criminal enterprise was the crime of extermination. A plain reading of the Indictment thus indicates that the common purpose of exterminating the Tutsi civilian population pleaded under Count 6 of the Indictment was linked to the charge of extermination contained in Count 5 of the Indictment. In these circumstances, the mention in the chapeau of Count 6 of the particulars concerning Ngirabatware’s participation in the joint criminal enterprise “as set forth above”[5] can be interpreted to refer solely to Ngirabatware’s alleged contribution to the joint criminal enterprise to commit extermination as set forth in Count 5 of the Indictment.

16. The Appeals Chamber recalls that where joint criminal enterprise is pleaded as a mode of liability, the Prosecution must plead the identity of the alleged members of the joint criminal enterprise.[1] […]

At para. 161, the Appeals Chamber recalled its previous case-law in Ntakirutimana, based on the Krnojelac Appeal Judgement:

With respect to the nature of the liability incurred, the Appeals Chamber holds that it is vital for the indictment to specify at least on what legal basis of the Statute an individual is being charged (Article 7(1) and/or 7(3)). Since Article 7(1) allows for several forms of direct criminal responsibility, a failure to specify in the indictment which form or forms of liability the Prosecution is pleading gives rise to ambiguity. The Appeals Chamber considers that such ambiguity should be avoided and holds therefore that, where it arises, the Prosecution must identify precisely the form or forms of liability alleged for each count as soon as possible and, in any event, before the start of the trial. Likewise, when the Prosecution charges the “commission” of one of the crimes under the Statute within the meaning of Article 7(1), it must specify whether the term is to be understood as meaning physical commission by the accused or participation in a joint criminal enterprise, or both. The Appeals Chamber also considers that it is preferable for an indictment alleging the accused’s responsibility as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise also to refer to the particular form (basic or extended) of joint criminal enterprise envisaged. However, this does not, in principle, prevent the Prosecution from pleading elsewhere than in the indictment--for instance in a pre-trial brief--the legal theory which it believes best demonstrates that the crime or crimes alleged are imputable to the accused in law in the light of the facts alleged. This option is, however, limited by the need to guarantee the accused a fair trial.[1]

At para. 162, the Appeals Chamber then relied on the ICTY Appeals Chamber’s holding in Kvocka to find that “failure to plead a JCE theory, including the category of JCE and the material facts supporting the theory, constitutes a defect in the indictment” which can however be cured by the Prosecution’s subsequent submissions.[2] It then held:

163. The Appeals Chamber adopts the holding and rationale of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in Kvočka. The mode of liability under Article 6(1) (including the JCE theory) must be pleaded in the indictment, or the indictment is defective. As Krnojelac makes clear, however, such defects may be cured by the provision of timely, clear, and consistent information -- for example, in a pre-trial brief.[3] This approach is consistent with the Appeals Chamber’s approach to all other pleading failures.[4]

For example, while the words “joint criminal enterprise” need not be contained in the indictment, other wordings may be used:

165. The words “joint criminal enterprise” are not contained in the Indictment. This absence does not in and of itself indicate a defect. As the Appeals Chamber noted in Ntakirutimana, the Tadić Appeal Judgement used interchangeably the expressions “joint criminal enterprise”, “common purpose”, and “criminal enterprise”.[5] It is possible that other phrasings might effectively convey the same concept.[6] The question is not whether particular words have been used, but whether an accused has been meaningfully “informed of the nature of the charges” so as to be able to prepare an effective defence.[7]

In the present case, however, the Appeals Chamber noted that such language was not sufficient because other language in the indictment dispelled the clarity that language could have provided.  (paras 171-172).

469. The Appeals Chamber recalls that when an accused is charged with conspiracy to commit genocide pursuant to Article 2(3)(b) of the Statute, the Prosecution must plead in the indictment: (i) an agreement between individuals aimed at the commission of genocide; and (ii) the fact that the individuals taking part in the agreement possessed the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.[1] […]

[…]

473. The Appeals Chamber is of the view that, contrary to the Trial Chamber’s determination,[2] there is no requirement for the Prosecution to specify in the Indictment when the conspiracy ended. The crime of conspiracy to commit genocide is an inchoate offence, the actus reus of which is “a concerted agreement to act for the purpose of committing genocide”,[3] and does not require evidence of the time range and end of the conspiracy. Of significance is when the agreement was formed, not when it ended. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber erred in determining that the Indictment was defective because it failed to specify “when the conspiracy ended”.

474. […] Moreover, contrary to Nyiramasuhuko’s assertion, the Appeals Chamber considers that the specific individuals with whom the accused is alleged to have reached the agreement aimed at the commission of genocide do not necessarily have to be identified by name and that identification by general category in the Indictment can be sufficient to provide adequate notice to the accused.[4]

56. The Appeals Chamber finds no error in the Trial Chamber’s determination that the Indictment sufficiently pleaded the crime of deportation and recalls that, in relation to the alleged forcible displacements of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats […] the Indictment stated that such displacements occurred “either across a de facto or de jure border or internally without the crossing of a de facto or de jure border”.[1] The Appeals Chamber further considers that the allegations were pleaded with sufficient specificity, particularly considering that the expulsions resulted from a number of attacks over a prolonged period of time and that Karadžić was not alleged to have directly participated in such expulsions.[2] The Appeals Chamber likewise considers, in view of the established practice allowing cumulative charging, that the Prosecution was not required to distinguish in the Indictment which events resulted in deportation as opposed to inhumane acts (forcible transfer).[3]