226. […] Although the Appellant was lawfully apprehended pursuant to Rule 40 of the Rules, the manner in which the arrest was carried out was not according to due process of law because the Appellant was not promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest. As held by the Appeals Chamber in Semanza, a suspect arrested at the behest of the Tribunal has a right to be promptly informed of the reasons for his or her arrest, and this right comes into effect from the moment of arrest and detention.[1] Before providing the reasons for this conclusion, the Appeals Chamber first notes that in making an urgent Rule 40 request, the Prosecution is not required to provide the suspect with a copy of a warrant for the arrest.[2] Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber finds that in this case, the Appellant’s right to freedom from an arrest contrary to due process of law was not violated due to the lack of an arrest warrant by the Prosecution or the Benin authorities, given the exigencies of the circumstances in which he was arrested. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber does not agree with the Trial Chamber that the Prosecution was not required to have evidence tending to show that the Appellant may have committed crimes within this Tribunal’s jurisdiction at the time it made its Rule 40 request to the Benin authorities. By making a Rule 40 request for the urgent arrest of a suspect, the Prosecution is, by definition under Rule 2 of the Rules, making the claim that it possesses “reliable information which tends to show that he may have committed a crime over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction.” Indeed, in this case, the Prosecution represented in its request letter of 6 June 1998 to the Benin authorities only that it had “compelling and consistent evidence of [the Appellant’s] participation in crimes committed in the Republic of Rwanda between 1^st January and 31^st December 1994.”[3]

251. On the basis of the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber concludes that […] the Appellant’s right to be informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time of his arrest as required under Article 9(2) of the ICCPR was not properly ensured.

See paragraphs 79-82, 85 of the decision.

See also paragraphs 83-84 of the decision.

Disclaimer: No Word version of the present decision is currently available. It has therefore not been possible to include the text of the decision. Instead, the reader is directed to the relevant paragraphs of the decision.

42.    As regards Nyiramasuhuko’s request for an appropriate remedy for the violations found at trial, the Appeals Chamber observes that the only violations determined to have occurred were the violations of her rights to be informed of the charges against her and of initial appearance without delay recognised in the 12 October 2000 Decision [The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko and Arsène Shalom Ntahobali, Case No. ICTR-97-21-T, Decision on the Defence Motion for Exclusion of Evidence and Restitution of Property Seized, 12 October 2000 (originally filed in French, English translation filed on the same day)].[1] The Appeals Chamber recalls that “any violation, even if it entails a relative degree of prejudice, requires a proportionate remedy”.[2] The nature and form of the effective remedy should be proportional to the gravity of harm that is suffered.[3] In practice, “the effective remedy accorded by a Chamber for violations of an accused’s fair trial rights will almost always take the form of equitable or declaratory relief.”[4] The Appeals Chamber considers that, in situations where the violation has not materially prejudiced the accused, a formal recognition of the violation may be considered an effective remedy.[5] Nyiramasuhuko has not developed any argument to demonstrate that the recognition of the violations of her rights to be informed of the charges against her and of initial appearance without delay by Judge Kama in the 12 October 2000 Decision was not an effective remedy. Nyiramasuhuko’s claim is therefore dismissed.

See also para. 50.