Victim identification

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 20.10.2010 RUKUNDO Emmanuel

160. As the Trial Chamber correctly observed, where the number of victims is large, each and every victim need not be identified in the indictment.[1] While the Trial Chamber noted that there was no evidence adduced regarding the specific number of deaths resulting from the abductions from the Saint Léon Minor Seminary, the repetitive nature of the abductions and the fact that at least one bus was used to remove the identified refugees suggests that there was a significant number of victims.[2] In this context, the Appeals Chamber considers that the identification of the victims as Tutsi refugees taken from the Saint Léon Minor Seminary was sufficiently precise to allow Rukundo to prepare his defence.

[1] Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 90.

[2] See Trial Judgement [The Prosecutor v. Emmanuel Rukundo, Case No. ICTR-2001-70-T, Judgment, 27 February 1999], para. 589.

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 14.12.2011 BAGOSORA et al. (Military I)

132. The Appeals Chamber recalls that a decisive factor in determining the degree of specificity with which the Prosecution is required to particularise the facts of its case in the indictment is the nature of the alleged criminal conduct charged.[1] The Trial Chamber correctly stated that where an accused “is alleged to have given precise orders for the killing of specific individuals, the obligation to provide precisions as to the circumstances thereof is as its highest”.[2] In the present case, the Prosecution was, at the time of the filing of the Indictment,[3] in a position to provide information that was obviously valuable to the preparation of Nsengiyumva’s defence by naming the victim, and should have done so.[4] The Indictment was therefore defective in respect of the identity of this victim, as well as the time and place of this particular event.

[1] Kamuhanda Appeal Judgement, para. 17; Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 25; Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 89. See also Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 324; Ntagerura et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 23.

[2] The Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, Decision on Nsengiyumva Motion for Exclusion of Evidence Outside the Scope of the Indictment, 15 September 2006 (“Decision on Exclusion of Evidence”), para. 69.

[3] See Prosecution Response Brief (Nsengiyumva), para. 114, referring to Witnesses AS’s and ZF’s Written Statements disclosed on 20 July 1998 and 12 July 1999, respectively.

[4] Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 25; Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 90.

Download full document