143. […] While a trier of fact is not obliged to detail every step of its reasoning, in view of its concerns regarding the credibility of Witness KXX and its decision to accept his testimony only where corroborated,[1] the Trial Chamber was compelled to explain why it relied on the uncorroborated account of Witness KXX instead of Witness YH’s testimony with regard to the time of the Appellant’s arrival at Kaduha Parish. The Appeals Chamber will consider below whether, and if necessary, to what extent, the Trial Chamber’s error affects its findings relating to the Appellant’s participation in the attacks at MurambiTechnicalSchool and Kaduha Parish on 21 April 1994 within the time frame emerging from the relevant testimonies.

152. Turning to the issue of distance and driving time, the Appeals Chamber recalls that a Trial Chamber has the obligation to provide a reasoned opinion,[2] but is not required to articulate the reasoning in detail.[3] Although certain evidence may not have been referred to by a Trial Chamber, in the particular circumstances of a given case it may nevertheless be reasonable to assume that the Trial Chamber took it into account.[4] There is no guiding principle on the question to determine the extent to which a Trial Chamber is obliged to set out its reasons for accepting or rejecting a particular testimony.[5]

155. […] the Trial Chamber failed to expressly discuss the Defence evidence to the effect that it was impossible for the Appellant to travel from MurambiTechnicalSchool to Kaduha Parish within this time-frame. The issue was clearly controversial and the evidence presented by the parties in this respect was contradictory. The Trial Chamber should have been clearer in finding that the Appellant was at both MurambiTechnicalSchool and Kaduha Parish, which the Trial Chamber deemed geographically proximate, thereby rejecting his argument regarding impossibility. However, the failure to be more explicit does not indicate the lack of a reasoned judgement, particularly in light of the approximate nature of the evidence offered by Witnesses KSY, YH and AJT1 as discussed in subsequent paragraphs.

44. The second error of the Trial Chamber was its failure to provide a reasoned opinion in relation to the feasibility of travel between Kesho Hill and Kanombe. […]

45. The Appeals Chamber notes that “[t]here is a presumption that a Trial Chamber has evaluated all the evidence presented to it, as long as there is no indication that the Trial Chamber completely disregarded any particular piece of evidence.”[1] However, this presumption may be rebutted “when evidence which is clearly relevant to the findings is not addressed by the Trial Chamber’s reasoning.”[2] […]

69. The Appeals Chamber is mindful that evidence concerning specific travel details taken after several years can only be of limited assistance in establishing the time and exact itinerary purportedly taken by Zigiranyirazo on 12 and 17 April 1994. Nevertheless, the various estimates reflect that Rubaya in GisenyiPrefecture is not in close geographic proximity with the Kiyovu area of Kigali. As a result, the distance, time, and feasibility of travel are highly relevant factors in view of the evidence placing Zigiranyirazo at Rubaya on 12 April 1994 and 17 April 1994, as each trip would have resulted in a significant period of absence from Rubaya.[3] […]

70. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber did refer generally to the lengthy journey from Kanombe, which is near Kigali, to Rubaya in recounting the alibi evidence.[4] Therefore, it follows that it was aware of the significant distance in assessing the allegations related to the Kiyovu Roadblock. In such circumstances, the Trial Chamber should have provided clear reasons as to why the alibi did not account for the time when Zigiranyirazo was seen at the Kiyovu Roadblock. This is especially so given the alibi evidence that Witness Bararengana saw Zigiranyirazo on 12 April 1994,[5] evidence which is not easily reconciled with Zigiranyirazo’s presence, according to Witness BCW, at the Kiyovu Roadblock around 11.00 a.m. or 12.00 p.m. on 12 April 1994. As noted above, the brief absences in the area surrounding Rubaya did not provide a reasonable basis for discounting the alibi. While the Trial Chamber might have reasonably rejected Witness Bararengana’s testimony for a number of other reasons when weighed against that of Witness BCW, it did not do so. Rather, it expressly stated that it did not discount Witness Bararengana’s evidence.[6]

In paragraph 20, the Appeals Chamber recalled the essence of the right of an accused to a reasoned opinion and its limits with references to Limaj et al. and Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgements. It also clarified that

20. […] Additionally, a Trial Chamber does not need to set out in detail why it accepted or rejected a particular testimony.[1] This is equally applicable to all evidence, including that tendered by the accused person.

139. As recently recalled by the Appeals Chamber:

The fair trial requirements of the Statute include the right of each accused to a reasoned opinion by the Trial Chamber under Article 23 of the Statute and Rule 98ter(C) of the Rules. A reasoned opinion ensures that the accused can exercise his or her right of appeal and that the Appeals Chamber can carry out its statutory duty under Article 25 to review these appeals. The reasoned opinion requirement, however, relates to a Trial Chamber’s judgement rather than to each and every submission made at trial.[1]

As a general rule, a Trial Chamber “is required only to make findings on those facts which are essential to the determination of guilt on a particular count”;[2] it “is not required to articulate every step of its reasoning for each particular finding it makes”[3] nor is it “required to set out in detail why it accepted or rejected a particular testimony.”[4] However, the requirements to be met by the Trial Chamber may be higher in certain cases.[5] It will be “necessary for any appellant claiming an error of law because of the lack of a reasoned opinion to identify the specific issues, factual findings or arguments, which he submits the Trial Chamber omitted to address and to explain why this omission invalidated the decision.”[6]

141. […] The Trial Chamber does not have to refer to the testimony of every witness or every piece of evidence on the trial record; it is to be presumed that the Trial Chamber evaluated all the evidence before it.[7] In fact, the Trial Chamber specifically stated that it had “carefully deliberated” on the evidence presented to it. Both impugned passages merely stress the fact that the Trial Chamber could not present and discuss “all the evidence” in the judgement, a statement which cannot, by itself, be equated with a failure to examine the evidence in question, nor with a failure to provide sufficient reasons for the conclusions reached in the Trial Judgement. The Appeals Chamber considers that the approach taken by the Trial Chamber in the impugned paragraphs was not in error.

142. The Appeals Chamber also recalls that it is necessary for any appellant claiming an error of law based on the lack of a reasoned opinion to identify the specific issues, factual findings or arguments, which the appellant submits the Trial Chamber omitted to address and to explain why this omission invalidated the decision.[8] […]

18.     The Appeals Chamber recalls that in determining whether or not a Trial Chamber’s finding was reasonable, it “will not lightly disturb findings of fact by a Trial Chamber.”[1]  In the first place, the task of weighing and assessing evidence lies with the Trial Chamber.  Furthermore, it is for the Trial Chamber to determine whether a witness is credible or not.  Therefore, the Appeals Chamber must give a margin of deference to a finding of fact reached by a Trial Chamber.[2]  But the Trial Chamber’s discretion in weighing and assessing evidence is always limited by its duty to provide a “reasoned opinion in writing,”[3]  although it is not required to articulate every step of its reasoning for each particular finding it makes.[4]  The question arises as to the extent that a Trial Chamber is obliged to set out its reasons for accepting or rejecting a particular testimony.[5]  There is no guiding principle on this point and, to a large extent, testimony must be considered on a case by case basis. The Appeals Chamber of ICTY held that:[6]

[t]he right of an accused under Article 23 of the Statute to a reasoned opinion is an aspect of the fair trial requirement embodied in Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute.  The case-law that has developed under the European Convention on Human Rights establishes that a reasoned opinion is a component of the fair hearing requirement, but that “the extent to which this duty . . . applies may vary according to the nature of the decision” and “can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case.”[7]  The European Court of Human Rights has held that a “tribunal’ is not obliged to give a detailed answer to every argument.[8]

19.     In addition, the Appeals Chamber of ICTY has stated that although the evidence produced may not have been referred to by a Trial Chamber, based on the particular circumstances of a given case, it may nevertheless be reasonable to assume that the Trial Chamber had taken it into account.[9]

20.     It does not necessarily follow that because a Trial Chamber did not refer to any particular evidence or testimony in its reasoning, it disregarded it.  This is particularly so in the evaluation of witness testimony, including inconsistencies and the overall credibility of a witness. A Trial Chamber is not required to set out in detail why it accepted or rejected a particular testimony.  Thus, in the Čelebići case, the Appeals Chamber of ICTY found that it is open to the Trial Chamber to accept what it described as the “fundamental features” of testimony.[10]  It also stated that:

[t]he Trial Chamber is not obliged in its Judgement to recount and justify its findings in relation to every submission made during trial.  It was within its discretion to evaluate the inconsistencies highlighted and to consider whether the witness, when the testimony is taken as a whole, was reliable and whether the evidence was credible. Small inconsistencies cannot suffice to render the whole testimony unreliable.[11]

21.     It is for an appellant to show that the finding made by the Trial Chamber is erroneous and that the Trial Chamber indeed disregarded some item of evidence, as it did not refer to it. In Čelebići, the Appeals Chamber found that the Appellant had “failed to show that the Trial Chamber erred in disregarding the alleged inconsistencies in its overall evaluation of the evidence as being compelling and credible, and in accepting the totality of the evidence as being sufficient to enter a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt on these grounds.”[12]

81. The fair trial requirements of the Statute include the right of each accused to a reasoned opinion by the Trial Chamber under Article 23 of the Statute and Rule 98ter(C) of the Rules.[1] A reasoned opinion ensures that the accused can exercise his or her right of appeal and that the Appeals Chamber can carry out its statutory duty under Article 25 to review these appeals.[2] The reasoned opinion requirement, however, relates to a Trial Chamber’s judgement rather than to each and every submission made at trial.[3]

61. […] The Appeals Chamber finds that there was a need for an evidentiary basis for the Trial Chamber’s conclusions, particularly because these conclusions relate to a highly technical subject: the margin of error of artillery weapons in particular conditions. However, the Trial Chamber adopted a margin of error that was not linked to any evidence it received; this constituted an error on the part of the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber also provided no explanation as to the basis for the margin of error it adopted; this amounted to a failure to provide a reasoned opinion, another error. […]

64. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Trial Chamber considered a number of factors in assessing whether particular shells were aimed at targets that offered a definite military advantage,[1] including the broad spread of individual artillery impact sites and the number of projectiles falling far from identified artillery targets.[2] However, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Agius and Judge Pocar dissenting, finds that the distance between a given impact site and one of the artillery targets identified by the Trial Chamber was the cornerstone and the organising principle of the Trial Chamber’s Impact Analysis.[3] In each of the Four Towns, the Trial Chamber found at least one target which the HV could have believed possessed military advantage.[4] With no exceptions, it concluded that impact sites within 200 metres of such targets were evidence of a lawful attack, and impact sites beyond 200 metres from such targets were evidence of an indiscriminate attack.[5] The Appeals Chamber recalls that it has found that the Trial Chamber failed to provide a reasoned opinion in deriving the 200 Metre Standard,[6] a core component of its Impact Analysis.[7] In view of this legal error, the Appeals Chamber will consider de novo the remaining evidence on the record to determine whether the conclusions of the Impact Analysis are still valid.[8]

21.     […] The Appeals Chamber affirms that it is not necessary for a Trial Chamber to give formal oral or written reasons in response to each and every objection raised by the parties. To require reasons for all objections would place an unreasonable burden on the resources of the Trial Chamber. […]

40.     […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Trial Chamber is presumed to have evaluated all the evidence presented to it, as long as there is no indication that the Trial Chamber completely disregarded any particular piece of evidence.[1] There may be an indication of disregard when evidence, which is clearly relevant to the findings, is not addressed in the Trial Chamber’s reasoning.[2] […]

See also paragraph 54.

396. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber recalls that a trial chamber need not refer to the testimony of every witness or every piece of evidence on the trial record.[1] It is to be presumed that a trial chamber evaluated all the evidence presented to it, as long as there is no indication that the trial chamber completely disregarded any particular piece of evidence.[2] There may be an indication of disregard when evidence which is clearly relevant to the findings is not addressed by the trial chamber’s reasoning.[3] If a trial chamber did not refer to specific evidence it is to be presumed that the trial chamber assessed and weighed the evidence, but found that the evidence did not prevent it from arriving at its actual finding.[4] […]

See also paras. 533, 562, 563.

[…]

700. The Appeals Chamber recalls that a trial chamber is required to provide a reasoned opinion under Article 23(2) of the ICTY Statute and Rule 98 ter (C) of the ICTY Rules.[5] Consequently, a trial chamber should set out in a clear and articulate manner the factual and legal findings on the basis of which it reached the decision to convict or acquit an accused.[6] In particular, a trial chamber is required to provide clear, reasoned findings of fact as to each element of the crime charged.[7]

See also para. 701.

[…]

702. The Appeals Chamber recalls that, in claiming an error of law on the basis of the lack of a reasoned opinion, a party is required to identify the specific issues, factual findings, or arguments that the trial chamber omitted to address and explain why this omission invalidates the decision.[8] […] [A] trial chamber is not required to articulate every step of its reasoning, that a trial judgement must be read as a whole, and that there is a presumption that the trial chamber has evaluated all the relevant evidence as long as there is no indication that it completely disregarded any particular piece of evidence.[9] There may be an indication of disregard when evidence which is clearly relevant to the findings is not addressed by the trial chamber’s reasoning.[10]

[…]

721. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber recalls that a trial chamber need not spell out every step of its analysis or unnecessarily repeat considerations reflected elsewhere in the trial judgement.[11] […]