P. 1
Judgement and Sentence - Jugement - Bagosora-Kabiligi-Ntabakuze-Nsengiyumva

Judgement and Sentence - Jugement - Bagosora-Kabiligi-Ntabakuze-Nsengiyumva

|Views: 1,537|Likes:
Published by Kagatama

More info:

Published by: Kagatama on Feb 11, 2009
Copyright:Public Domain


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





194. The Indictments allege that all four Accused, from late 1990 until July 1994,
“conspired among themselves and others to work out a plan with the intent to exterminate the
civilian population and eliminate members of the opposition, so that they could remain in
power”. This plan consisted of recourse to hatred and ethnic violence, the training of and
distribution of weapons to militiamen as well as the preparation of lists of people to be
eliminated. In executing the plan, they organised, ordered and participated in the massacres
perpetrated against the Tutsi population and of moderate Hutus.223

195. In support of this conspiracy, the Prosecution submits that the genocide was
conceived of and planned significantly before 1994 and executed principally through the
events occurring between April and July 1994. It is not argued that the Accused
simultaneously agreed to a plan, or that such a plan consisted of a single course of equally-
divided or unified conduct. Instead, the proper inference to be drawn from the evidence is
that at various times, each of the Accused agreed to participate in a larger, lengthier effort to
increasingly homogenise Rwandan society in favour of Hutu citizens, with the object of
killing Tutsi civilians, as required. It is their participation in this process - and the willingness
to create or exploit various opportunities to achieve it - which is the hallmark of their

196. According to the Defence, there was no plan or conspiracy by the former Rwandan
Government or the Rwandan military to harm civilians between April and July 1994 (III.7).
The Prosecution’s “theory of a planned genocide” is not supported by the evidence. Instead,
the wave of civilian killings that swept Rwanda during this period was triggered by the RPF
attack against Rwanda in October 1990. In launching this attack, the RPF consciously made a
strategic and carefully planned first step that would eventually lead to a violent seizure of
power, leading to a full-blown ethnic conflagration in Rwanda.225

197. Based on the submissions, the Chamber will first consider the earliest alleged
evidence of conspiracy, the work of the Enemy Commission (III.2.2), followed by the so-
called “apocalypse statement” (III.2.3); other pre-April 1994 meetings involving the Accused


The Bagosora and Ntabakuze Defence teams dispute the use of the term “moderate Hutu”, arguing that it is
vague. In particular, the Bagosora Defence submits that it does not take account of the evolving political
situation in Rwanda, where even members of the opposition of President Habyarimana ultimately opposed
complete RPF control of the government either before or after July 1994. See Bagosora Closing Brief, paras. 60-
67; Ntabakuze Closing Brief, paras. 2411, 2396, 2437. The Chamber is aware of the elements pointed out by the
Defence. It observes that the term “moderate Hutu” has been utilised in judgements and is a brief way of
referring to Hutus who were either viewed as being in the opposition, allied with RPF positions or did not
favour recourse to violence in order to solve Rwanda’s various political impasses. The use of the term does not
presuppose, as the Bagosora Defence suggests, that similar divisions did not exist amongst Tutsis. For the most
part, the Chamber has not employed this term in the judgement unless it is describing the language used in the
evidence, the Indictments or the parties’ submissions.


Prosecution Closing Brief, paras. 31-55, 438, 532, 680, 748-751; T. 2 April 2002 pp. 151-166; T. 28 May
2007 pp. 5, 10, 12-14; T. 1 June 2007 pp. 41-42.


Bagosora Closing Brief, paras. 2109, 2133-2216; Kabiligi Closing Brief, paras. 19, 34, 78, 146, 185, 808; pp.
577, 589, 595-600; Ntabakuze Closing Brief, paras. 439-467, 557-608, 754, 2205-2207, 2332-2349, 2502-2516;
Nsengiyumva Closing Brief, paras. 86, 196-223, 3224-3230.

The Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-T

Judgement and Sentence


18 December 2008

(III.2.4); the preparation and use of lists (III.2.5); the creation, training and arming of civilian
militias (III.2.6); clandestine organisations (III.2.7-9); and the RTLM (III.2.10).

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->