144. It is within a Trial Chamber’s discretion to assess any inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, and to determine whether, in the light of the overall evidence, the witnesses were nonetheless reliable and credible.[1] However, the Trial Chamber also has an obligation to provide a reasoned opinion.[2] From the discussion of the evidence in the Trial Judgement, the Appeals Chamber cannot conclude whether a reasonable trier of fact could have relied on the testimony of Witnesses YAI and CCP to convict Muvunyi for this event. The Appeals Chamber is particularly troubled by the numerous inconsistencies in their testimonies as to the core details relating to Muvunyi’s alleged speech[3] and by the utter lack of any discussion of these inconsistencies in the Trial Judgement.[4] In view of this, the Appeals Chamber finds it impossible to assess the finding that the testimony of Witnesses YAI and CCP about the meeting was “strikingly similar” or consistent with respect to the material facts relating to this charge.

147. The Appeals Chamber recalls again that a Trial Chamber has an obligation to provide a reasoned opinion. In this instance, the Appeals Chamber considers that the Trial Chamber did not provide sufficient reasons for preferring the testimony of Witnesses YAI and CCP over that of Witness MO78. The Trial Chamber did not point to any inconsistencies in the evidence of Witness MO78 nor did it identify any reasons for doubting his credibility. The Trial Chamber appears to have deemed Witness MO78 unreliable solely on the basis that his evidence differed from that of Witnesses YAI and CCP. Such an approach is of particular concern given the Trial Chamber’s express recognition[5] of the need to treat the evidence of Witnesses YAI and CCP, unlike the evidence of Witness MO78, with caution.[6] The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that the Trial Chamber failed to provide a reasoned opinion on this point.