WITNESS INTERVIEWING AND

SUSPECT INTERROGATION
By John Bosco SIBOYINTORE
LLB(Hons),LLM, DLP
NATIONAL PROSECUTOR & HEAD OF GFTU
ILPD TRAINER
 COURSE CONTENT
• INTRODUCTION
• DEFINING INVESTIGATION AND ITS PURPOSE
• THE THEORY OF INFORMATION-BY DR.WILMER
• THE CRIME SCENE/LOCARD’S PRINCIPLE
• LOOKING AT DIFFERENT TOOLS FOR INVESTIGATION
• ABC
• 5WH
 Cont’n
• RAPPORT
• PEACE MODEL
• ADVOKAT
• 10 POINT SUSPECT DESCRIPTION
• THE INVESTIGATION TRIANGLE
• DEFENCE OF ALIBI
• CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
 Cont’n

SUSPECTS INTERROGATION
WITNESS INTERVIEWING
PRINCIPLES IN WRITING A STATEMENT
EVIDENCE
DUE PROCESS OF LAW
RELEVANT CASE LAWS
 Quote

• “The duty of a lawyer is always to place before the

judges, and to help them to arrive at, the truth, never to
prove the guilty as innocent.”Mahatma Gandhi
 INTRODUCTION
• Society is offended by Criminals. Once a crime is committed, the
society requires clarification on what exactly happened and who is
responsible. It is through investigations and conducting interviews that
a criminal is identified.
• In the modern world today particularly in international criminal law
sphere, in matters relating to conducting an interview with a witness or
an alleged offender, an interviewer has to display some interview
techniques, if he/ she has to succeed in his/her interview mission.
 Intro..
• The training aims at sharing notions and experience of how witness interviews and suspect interrogations are
conducted, what useful evidence should be collected at the crime scene, who to interview and interrogate, what
investigation skills should an investigator possess to enable him/her collect the needed evidence, safe keep it for
further use in court.
• Investigation tools such as “5WH”, “ABC” together with “PEACE MODEL” and “ADVOKAT” not forgetting the
“TEN POINT SUSPECT DISCRIPTION TECHNIQUE” will be underlined during the training in to tailor and fit
the evidence threshold required in the prosecution of Crimes.
• We will also tackle issues of recording Statements, upholding the rule of law through observance of the due
process of law relating to the rights of suspects (enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution) as well as those of
witnesses and victims. The USA common MIRANDA Rights
• The trainer is expected to bring up some practical examples and case laws during the training which will help
trainees to understand better the theoretical and practical aspect of the course.
INVESTIGATOR’S MIND SET
AN EAGLE EYE KIND OF
 MEANING OF INVESTIGATION AND
PURPOSE
• An investigation refers to the process of collecting information
in order to reach some goal. It may as well refer to the process
of collecting information (or evidence) about a crime in order
to:
• (i) (determine if a crime has been committed;
• (ii) identify the perpetrator;
 Cont’n
• (iii) apprehend the perpetrator;
• (iv) provide evidence to support a conviction in court. If the first three
objectives are successfully attained, then the crime can be said to be
solved.
• Several other outcomes such as deterring individuals from engaging
in criminal behaviors, and satisfying crime victims have also been
associated with the process.
 ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME
Criminal Investigations for different offences being investigated should bear two important elements
to build on:-
• Actus reus- an act, omission or state of affairs
• Mens rea – guilty mind
• “Actus non facit reuem nisi mens sit rea” which means the act itself does not constitute guilt unless
done with a guilty mind. Both an act (or omission) and a guilty mind must be proved for criminal
offences.
• Actus Reus (Physical element)+Mens Rea (Mental element)= Offence
• Investigation therefore, aims at finding both Actus reus and Mens rea, it is the primary role of an
investigator or a prosecutor in a given case investigation or any interviewing process.
 Wilmer Theory on investigation
• A useful perspective on the criminal investigation process is provided
by information theory (Wilmer).
• According to information theory, the criminal investigation process
resembles a battle between the police and the perpetrator over crime-
related information. In committing the crime, the offender emits
"signals," or leaves behind information of various sorts (fingerprints,
eyewitness descriptions, murder weapon, etc.),
 Cont’n
which the investigator attempt to collect through investigative activities.
• If the perpetrator is able to minimize the amount of information
available for the investigator police to collect, or if the investigator is
unable to recognize the information left behind, then the perpetrator will
not be apprehended and therefore, the perpetrator will win the battle. If
the investigator is able to collect a significant number of signals from
the perpetrator, then the perpetrator will be identified and apprehended,
and the police wins the battle.
 Cont’n
• This perspective clearly underscores the importance of information in a criminal investigation.
• The major problem for the police in conducting a criminal investigation is that not only is there
potentially massive amounts of information available, but the relevance of the information is
often unknown, the information is often incomplete, and the information is often inaccurate.
• Further, to be useful in proving guilt in court (where beyond a reasonable doubt is the
standard), the evidence must have certain other qualities, and certain rules and procedures must
be followed in collecting the evidence.
Source: MAP Willmer, Crime and Information Theory, RL Birmingham, 1971.
Thomas M.Cover & Joy A.Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, Stanford University, 2nd ed, American
Statistical Association, March 2006.
 ABC PRINCIPLE

An investigator should always bear this principle in mind

in order to successfully accomplish investigative task.
• Assume nothing
• Believe no body
• Check everything
 BURDEN OF PROOF
• Burden of proof Article 107 of Rwanda Code of Criminal Procedure
• The burden of proof is on the public prosecution or, in case of a claim for
damages or private prosecution, on the victim of an offence or his or her
rightful beneficiaries.
• The burden of proof is on the public prosecution or, in case of a claim for
damages or private prosecution, on the victim of an offence or his or her
rightful beneficiaries.
 BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
• The legal burden of proving (and disproving) all facts in issue
in criminal proceedings is borne by the prosecution.
• Thus, the general rule is that the prosecution must prove the
elements of the offence (actus reus and mens rea) and must
disprove the facts in issue raised by the accused’s defences.
 Cont’n
• An accused is always presumed innocent until proven guilty by a final court
decision. An accused is not obliged to prove his or her innocence unless his or her
guilt has been established.
• However, where evidence to support the offence is presented, the accused or his or
her legal counsel may present all the defences available to him or her, raise a plea
of inadmissibility or show that the allegations against him or her do not constitute
an offence or he or she is innocent and present all the facts challenging the veracity
of incriminating evidence.
 FACT IN ISSUE

• These are the issues that the prosecution are required to

prove (or disprove) in order to prove the guilt of the
accused and the issues that the defence are required to
prove in order to prove a defence they have raised.
• The defence do not raise a fact in issue where a defence
merely amounts to a denial of the prosecution case.
 STANDARD OF PROOF
• The standard of proof which the prosecution must reach in order to
discharge the legal burden is the criminal standard of proof, namely,
“proof beyond reasonable doubt”
• In practice, judges are often directed that they must be “satisfied so you
feel sure”, this direction does convey the appropriate standard of proof.
• Whilst absolute certainty is not required, the judge should not convict if
there is more than a remote or far-fetched possibility that the accused is
not guilty.
 EXAMPLE: GENOCIDE AND ALIBI
OR MURDER AND PROVOCATION
Where the accused is charged with genocide and the defence of alibi is in
issue. Prosecution must prove elements of genocide beyond reasonable
doubt and prosecution must disprove defence of alibi beyond reasonable
doubt. Failure to present both, you lose the case.
What investigators and prosecutors are required to do is to gather evidence
for both allegations and prove beyond reasonable doubt on one hand and
disprove beyond reasonable doubt on the other hand. That is why some
tools of investigation techniques are employed.
 RAPPORT
• The more relaxed a witness is made to feel, the more likely it is they will ‘open up’
during the interview.
• Rapport is a connection or relationship with someone else. It can be considered as
a state of harmonious understanding with another individual or group.
• Building rapport is the process of developing that connection with someone else
with an aim of understanding each other’s feelings or ideas and communicate well.
 Cont’n- Rapport
• Allow the witness time to express themselves, especially when dealing
with personally traumatic events.
• Adopting this approach and method should allow for a more accurate
statement to be obtained.
• Good rapport should allow the witness to react to an interview
environment and not just respond to a perceived interrogation
environment.
 RAPPORT
The more relaxed a witness is made to feel, the more likely it is they will ‘open up’
during the interview. 
When time permits, before starting the interview take time to speak to the witness,
place them at ease, find areas of commonality, family, sport, interests etc.
Building a rapport with the witness should lead to good co-operation between
interviewer and interviewee. When appropriate maintain eye contact, show interest in
what they are saying, make it personal, make them feel that they want to tell you their
story.
 Cont’n-Rapport
• Allow the witness time to express themselves, especially when dealing with
personally traumatic events.
• Adopting this approach and method should allow for a more accurate statement to
be obtained.
• Good rapport should allow the witness to react to an interview environment and not
just respond to a perceived interrogation environment.
 5WH
• This is regarded as an engine for an investigator to Conduct investigation when asking
questions.
• What happened? (Act)
• Who did it? (Suspects)
• Where did it take place? (Place)
• When did it happen?(Time,day, month, year,,)
• Why did it happen:?(Reason for committing crime)
• How did it Happen? (Mondus operandi)
 TED Format
• Continue to place the witness at ease, make the whole process
personal, and focus your attention on the witness:
• TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED,
• EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU WERE INJURED by the fugitive. 
• DESCRIBE TO ME IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WHAT YOU SAW
the fugitive doing?
 INVESTIGATION PREPARATION
Planning and Preparation:
The interviewer will know the subject matter, and will know the points they wish
brought out during the interview, which can then be translated into an effective
statement.
Plan your interview and prepare a list of the points and areas to be covered.
Points required, which will ultimately provide the evidence to support and prove any
subsequent charges, which may be filed. 
• Fail to prepare then prepare to fail.
 INTERVIEW COOPERATIVENESS
• Cooperativeness is the most important factor in an interview situation. Why are some
people hesitant?
• Fear of being apprehended
• Not wanting to get involved
• Fear of retaliation (from the accused)
• Past negative criminal justice system experience
• Don’t like the police
• Don’t want others to think they are “informing”
 WITNESS INTERVIEWS
o Meeting the prosecutor in advance or on the day of their appearance and having
their questions answered, can help a witness to feel prepared for their court
experience and able to give their best evidence.
• Providing assistance before and at court is especially important where witnesses
are vulnerable and/or intimidated. The purpose of special measures is to enable the
witness to give the best evidence they can.
• Without discussing the options with the witness the prosecutor will not be able to
assist the Court.
 TALKING TO WITNESSES FOR COURT
PREPARATION
• R v Momodou & Limani [2005] EWCA Crim 177; [2005] 2 All ER 571; [2005] 2 Cr App R 6
(Court of Appeal)
“48. …Training or coaching for witnesses in criminal proceedings…is not permitted…..The witness
should give his or her own evidence, so far as practicable uninfluenced by what anyone else has said,
whether in formal discussions or informal conversations.
The rule reduces, indeed hopefully avoids any possibility, that one witness may tailor his evidence in
the light of what anyone else said, and equally, avoids any unfounded perception that he may have
done so…..
The risk that training or coaching may adversely affect the accuracy of the evidence of the individual
witness is constant. So we repeat, witness training for criminal trials is prohibited.
 R v Momodou con’t
49.This principle does not preclude pre-trial arrangements to familiarise witness with
the layout of the court, the likely sequence of events when the witness is giving
evidence, and a balanced appraisal of the different responsibilities of the various
participants…Witnesses should not be disadvantaged by ignorance of the process, nor
when they come to give evidence, taken by surprise at the way it works.
None of this however involves discussions about proposed or intended evidence.
Sensible preparation for the experience of giving evidence, which assists the witness
to give of his or her best at the forthcoming trial is permissible……
Nevertheless the evidence remains the witness's own uncontaminated evidence.”
 HOW TO START AN INTERVIEW
CONCEPT

• A successful Interviewer is that one who has the ability to obtain

information from all subjects, analyze the information and record it
accurately.
• He allows the interviewee to tell his own story in his own words
without Interruption. Experience has shown that in this narrative, the
interviewee tells all that he or she knows in words of their own
choosing.
 FIRST THING TO DO BEFORE
INTERVIEWING
Introduce yourself and tell them why you’re meeting with them.
Find out about them: where they live, where they work or go to school, who they
live with, who they associate with, their likes and dislikes if possible, ask about
hobbies etc, etc.
Why? Building a rapport with them is building trust….
*** Also watching for “normal” clues: words, movements, normal language,
habits, twitches….
 ADVANTAGE
They are more inclined to furnish more accurate information than if they merely
furnish answers to specific questions.
The advantage is that:
• It gives the interviewee the opportunity to talk freely;
• It places a certain amount of pressure on them to keep talking;
• Their thinking is self-directed;
 Cont’n
• It aids their memory-more things come to mind;
• It makes it easier for them to recall and relate events in the order in which they
occurred;
• It makes it easier to extract the important parts of the story
• It furnishes “ammunition” for direct questioning.
 INTERVIEWS
Conducting an Interview:
• Very rarely will two witness interviews ever be the same.
• The subject matter will often be similar but in most circumstances the information
revealed would be relevant to each individual witness, who may be speaking about
the same incident, but the information revealed will be from a personal perspective.
• It is the job of an interviewer by means of effective interviewing, to obtain all the
relevant information from the witness, which can then be formulated into a
statement recording the relevant events as described by the witness.
 INSTRUCTIONS OF INTERVIEWING
There are five-step methods of giving directions so that the interviewee will
understand and act:
1. Ask don't command
2. Stress what to do, not what to avoid
3. Say why it's important
4. Leave freedom of action
5. Remember - it's a dialogue
 DIALOGUE DURING INTERVIEW
• Confirm that the message received is the message you are looking for and ensure
you exhaust everything in a way of dialogue do not tire the interviewee for the sake
of exploring him/her.
• You can give as many breaks as the witness requires, don’t tired of your witness
actions or look stressed by his break requests.
 EFFECTIVE LISTENING

• Listening is a very important feature in the interviewing process.

• A good and attentive listener will let the witness see that you are
interested in what they are telling you.
• By listening closely you will be able to note sometimes-subtle
changes in tone of voice when the witness speaks of traumatic
events, particularly personal ones.
 Cont’n

Pay Attention
(Look at the speaker directly, Avoid distracting thoughts,
Environmental factors are friendly, Don't mentally prepare a
rebuttal) Show That You're Listening
(Nod / Smile and use other facial expressions, Posture is open
and inviting , Use small verbal comments like yes, and uh huh)
 Cont’n

•Provide Feedback (Paraphrase what has been said occasionally, Ask clarifying questions,
Summarize the speaker's comments periodically)
•Defer Judgment (Allow the speaker to finish before asking questions, Don't interrupt with
counter arguments)
Respond Appropriately (Be candid, open and honest in your responses, Assert your
opinions respectfully )
Only by listening closely will you be able to formulate appropriate questions in relation to
what you have been told by the witness.
If you are listening then there is less chance of you interrupting the witness by asking them
to repeat what they have said.
 EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING

• When necessary, ask clear, precise and relevant

questions in such a way that will illicit, clear, precise
and relevant answers.
• Wherever possible avoid asking ambiguous questions.
 PEACE MODEL
The ‘PEACE’ model should be adopted.
P - planning and preparation: as before plan and where possible, prepare your strategy
before conducting your interview.
E - engage and explain: explain to the witness the reason behind the conversation
interview, engage them in conversation, and tell them the value of their input and what it
will hopefully achieve at the end of the day.
A - account, clarify, probe and challenge: account can be considered the free recall part
of the conversation / interview, where you allow the witness to tell you their story.
 Cont’n
Having listened you then have the opportunity by asking relevant questions, to clarify
certain points, probe areas of interest, and where necessary challenge parts of the story.
C - closure: make sure you have the whole story, ensure the witness is happy that they have
told you everything.
E - evaluation: evaluate what you have. Do you have everything you need, is it relevant to
the enquiries you are conducting, are there gaps, is it contrary to other witness testimony.
 
 The acronym ADVOKAT
• The Acronym is associated with the case (R v Turnbull and others-
England Law Reports/1976/Volume 3 /R v Turnbull and others -
[1976] 3 All ER 549) Whenever the case of an accused person depends
wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more
identifications of the accused which the defence alleges to be mistaken,
the judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before
convicting in reliance on the correctness of the identification.
 Cont’n
He should instruct them as to the reason for that warning and should make some reference to
the possibility that a mistaken witness could be a convincing one and that a number of
witnesses could all be mistaken. Furthermore, the judge should direct the jury to examine
closely the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made.
How long did the witness have the accused under observation? At what distance? In what
light? Was the observation impeded in any way, as for example by passing traffic or a press
of people? Had the witness ever seen the accused before? How often? If only occasionally,
had he any special reason for remembering the accused? How long elapsed between the
original observation and the subsequent identification to the police?
 Cont’n.

Was there any material discrepancy between the description of

the accused given to the police by the witness when first seen
by them and his actual appearance?
This will help the Prosecutor to analyze the issues that may
arise during the proceedings and may decide either to remedy
the situation or drop the case.
 ADVOKAT
The acronym ADVOKAT.
A - Amount of time spent under observation: what was the length of time where
the witness could see the suspect, was it a glance or a lengthy period of time.
D- Distance between witness and suspect: were they close enough to touch,
were they separated by the width of a street, try and get them to gauge a
distance.
V - Visibility: what were the lighting or weather conditions like at the time, was
it at night with no lighting, was it daylight but heavy rain.
 Cont’d
O - Obstructions of view: did the witness have a clear and
unobstructed view of the suspect, or were they in a crowd,
surrounded by many other people.
K - Known or seen before: how can the witness identify the suspect.
Were they at school together, did they grow up next door to each
other, were they at each other’s weddings.
 Cont’n
A- Any reason for remembering: what makes that particular
event stand out. Can it be associated with another recorded
event.
T - Time passed: how long has passed since the witness last
saw the suspect, and what were the circumstances when last
seen.
 TEN POINT SUSPECT DESCRIPTION
Ask these descriptions questions when interviewing witnesses:
1.Colour of Suspect : Black, White, Mixed, Light skinned….
2.Sex: Male, Female.
3.Age: if known, how is it known. Same age as family member, in school together
or if unknown, approximate age.
4.Height: approximate, ask for comparisons, stand up and ask the witness to say
whether shorter or taller than you, or them.
 Cont’n- 10 Points.
5.Build: again ask for comparisons.
6.Hairstyle and colour: short, long, dark, light.
7.Complexion: rough, smooth, spotty.
8.Distinguishing features: Marks, Scars, tattoos, etc, etc.
9.Clothing worn: Well dressed, scruffy, uniform etc, etc,
10. Carrying anything: Weapons, bags, tools.
 CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION
• A crime scene is any location that may be associated with a committed crime.
• Crime scenes contain physical evidence that is pertinent to a criminal investigation.
• This evidence is collected by crime scene investigators (CSIs) and Law
enforcement. The Crime Scene Investigator (CSI) collects and preserves a variety of
evidence from an active crime scene.
• The crime scene investigator is most often a law enforcement professional Officer
responsible for the identification, collection, preservation, and cataloging of physical
evidence at the crime scene.
 LOCARD’S PRINCIPLE
Every contact leaves a trace:
 some of them are visible
 Others need special equipment and materials to identify
them
The crime scene is the main source of evidence
The crucial task of an investigator is to find those traces left at
the scene of crime.
 CRIME ANALYSIS TRIANGLE
•

Victim Suspect

scene of crime
 SOME CRIME SCENE VOCABULARY

CRIME SCENE: Any physical location in which a crime

has occurred or is suspected of having occurred.
 PRIMARY CRIME SCENE: The original location of a
crime or accident
SECONDARY CRIME SCENE: An alternate location
where additional evidence may be found.
 KEY INVESTIGATION VOCABULARY

Chain of Custody: This means the documented and unbroken transfer of evidence.
• Circumstantial Evidence: (indirect evidence) evidence used to imply a fact but
not prove it directly.
• Class Evidence: Material that connects an individual or thing to a certain group
(e.g individual evidence);
• Crime-Scene investigation: A multidisciplinary approach in which scientific and
legal professionals work together to solve a crime.
 Cont’n
• Crime-Scene reconstruction: This is a hypothesis of the sequence of events from before
the crime was committed through its commission.
• Direct Evidence: Evidence that (if true) proves an alleged fact, such as an eyewitness
account of a crime.
• First responder: The first police officer to arrive at a crime-scene
• Individual Evidence: This is a kind of evidence that identifies a particular person or thing.
• Paper bindle: This is a folded paper used to hold trace evidence.
• Primary Crime-Scene: This is the location where the crime took place.
 EVIDENCE
In Criminal Matters evidence is a must. So what is the meaning of evidence?
It is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or
proposition is true or valid.
It can therefore be called a proof, contestation, confirmation, verification,
substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, grounds for,
support for, backing for, etc, etc, etc. It is said that anything can be evidence so long
as it is permitted by the Law.
 TYPES OF EVIDENCE
Evidence can be Physical, Testimonial, Documentary or biological.
• Physical Evidence:
Physical evidence usually involves objects found at the scene of a crime. Physical
evidence may consist of all sorts of prints such as fingerprints, footprints,
handprints, tidemarks, cut marks, tool marks, etc. Examination of some physical
evidence is conducted by making impressions in plaster, taking images of marks, or
lifting the fingerprints from objects encountered.
 Cont’n
• These serve later as a comparison to identify, for example, a vehicle that was
parked at the scene, a person who was present, a type of manufacturing method
used to create a tool, or a method or technique used to break into a building or
harm a victim.
• Testimonial Evidence is a person's testimony offered to prove the truth of the
matter asserted. Especially, evidence elicited from a witness. This is very
common in Rwanda, it may in some cases be the only evidence in a case file.
 Documentary Evidence
• A Documentary evidence is a type of evidence used at trial to show certain
information to the Court or Judge/Jury.
• Although the phrase “documentary evidence” is sometimes used only to refer to
wills, trusts, or invoices, any type of evidence that presents recorded information
in some way can be considered “documentary.” Written documents, photographs,
videos, sound recordings, and printed e-mails or web pages are all examples of
documentary evidence.
• Documentary evidence is typically admitted at trial as an exhibit.
 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
• Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact that is at issue in the case.
 For instance, eyewitness testimony that “I saw the two cars collide” is direct
evidence, because it directly demonstrates a certain fact. Whereas
• Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a
conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast,
direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for
any additional evidence or inference.
 Evidence vis a vis Suspect
• Once evidence is gathered, an individualized assessment must be done to identify
particular charges which fit the specific circumstances of the criminal case given.
• In other words, charging someone before a court is to explain to the judge/or the
jury about the law applicable to the alleged facts accomplished by the suspect
during a criminal case.
• Identify evidence likely to provide reliable information about the crime being
investigated. Evidence has to be married with the Suspect’s alleged acts. In other
words, there must be a nexus linking the evidence to the suspect. (Karen M. HESS
and Christine Hess ORTHMANN, Criminal Investigation, 9ed,(2010). 647p.
 WEIGHING EVIDENCE FOR
PROSECUTION
• The prosecutor decides if there is enough evidence against the defendant and
whether a Prosecution is required in the Public interest.
o It is necessary to keep in mind that the Prosecutor is an investigator’s legal adviser
throughout the process-during the investigation, the pre-trial Conference and the
Court Presentation. Every prosecutor has a task of choosing reasonable charges to
bring before court.
o Two elements should be analyzed here: Are facts correct to be considered as an
offence? Does a prosecution action fit the public interest of the society?
 Cont’n
• When they are reviewing a case, prosecutors must always consider whether the
charges against the defendant are correct. They have to make sure that the
charges reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending and give the court
sufficient sentencing powers.
• It is just as important that the choice and number of charges allow the case to be
explained to the court in a clear and simple way.
• This means that from time to time a prosecutor may alter the charge against the
defendant if there is one that fits the circumstances of the offence better”.
 TYPES OF EVIDENCE
Testimonial evidence includes oral or written statements given to
police as well as court testimony by people who witnessed an event.
Physical evidence refers to any material items that would be present
at the crime scene, on the victims, or found in a suspect’s
possession.
Trace evidence refers to physical evidence that is found in small but
measurable amounts, such as strands of hair, fibers, or skin cells.
 PURPOSE OF EVIDENCE
 May prove that a crime has been committed
 Establish key elements of a crime
 Link a suspect with a crime scene or a victim.
 Establish the identity of a victim or suspect
 Corroborate verbal witness testimony
 Exonerate the innocent.
 Give detectives leads to work with in the case
 IMPROPER EVIDENCE
• Improperly evidence is the evidence obtained by means of a violation of
the Law.
• It is said to be improperly evidence when it is in contravention of
international impropriety or contravention was contrary to or inconsistent
with a right of a person recognized by the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, rights under art 14 of ICCPR or Art 69 (7) of
the Rome Statute. See what our Law of evidence provides as well.
 CONTAMINATED EVIDENCE
• Contamination is the introduction of something to a scene that was not previously
there. This means trace materials are added to a crime scene after the crime is
committed. This can happen before, during and after authorities take samples of
the evidence from a scene.
• Refer to Loftus, EF & Cole, SA (2004) 'Contaminated Evidence', On 24 January,
Stephan Cowans was released from prison in Massachusetts, after serving 6 years
for the nonfatal shooting of a police officer, becoming the 141st wrongfully
convicted person exonerated by forensic DNA testing.
Case Scenario of Contaminated evidence
On 26 April 1999, TV personality, Jill Dando was shot at point
blank range through the head at the entrance to her London
apartment.
The suspect, Barry George was convicted and sentenced to life in
prison. The court of appeal over turned the conviction in
November 2007. The new trial was in June 2008.He was
acquitted on 1 August 2008. Core to the appeal was the possible
contamination of evidence.
Firearms Discharge residue found in the accused's jacket pocket
matched the type found on the victim. The jacket was bagged and
tagged correctly, but then removed from it's protective bag and
placed on a work surface in a police photographic studio.
 Cont’n
Other items from the crime scene such as the cartridge case as well as the door (which
the bullet hit after passing through the victims head, was photographed at the same lab.
In addition, the vehicle transporting the bagged jacket had not been sampled, and
therefore could have contaminated the packaging, which could have found its way
onto the jacket. In addition to this, George was arrested by armed police who handled
the said jacket.
Defense introduced this as possible contamination through a defense scientist with 30
years experience in this field. (Dr Lloyd). Correct procedure in this case....items should
be examined for trace elements prior to being taken to a photo lab.
 Investigating/Examining Evidence
• Collected evidence should also be investigated so that it becomes relevant to the crime
being investigated:
 Drug Chemistry – Determines the presence of controlled substances and the
identification of illegal narcotic drug
 Trace Chemistry Identification and comparison of materials from fires, explosions, paints,
and glass.
 Microscopy: Microscopic identification and comparison of evidence, such as hairs, fibers,
woods, soils, building materials and other materials.
 Biology/DNA Analysis of body fluids and dried stains such as blood, semen, and saliva.
 Cont’n
Toxicology – Tests body fluids and tissues to determine the presence of drugs
and poisons.

 Latent Prints - Identification and comparison of fingerprints or other hidden

impressions from sources like feet, shoes, ears, lips or the tread on vehicle tires.

 Ballistics (Firearms) – Study of bullets and ammunition through the

comparison of fired bullets, cartridges, guns, and gunpowder patterns on people
and objects.
 Cont’n
Tool marks – Examines marks left by tools on objects at a
crime scene or on a victim, such as a hammer used to break a
door or a screwdriver used to break a lock.

 Questioned Documents - Examination of documents to

compare handwriting, ink, paper, writing instruments, printers,
and other characteristics that would help to identify its origin.
 Crime Scene Search Personnel
Team Leader
 Photographer
 Sketch Preparer
 Evidence Recorder/Custodian
 Evidence Recovery Personnel
 Specialists
 Attributions of Team Leader
 In charge of crime scene
 Ensures safety of personnel
 Prepares administrative log
 Prepares narrative description
 Conducts preliminary survey
 Cont’n
Monitors search process
 Makes team assignments
 Responsible for scene security
 Conducts final survey
 Releases scene
 12 Stages of a Crime Scene Search
1. Preparation
2. Approach scene
3. Secure and protect scene
4. Initiate preliminary survey
5. Evaluate physical evidence possibilities
6. Prepare narrative description
7. Depict scene photographically
8. Prepare diagram/sketch of scene
9. Conduct detailed search
10. Record & collect physical evidence
11. Conduct final survey
12. Release scene
 CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
• A credible witness is a person making testimony in a court,
tribunal, or acting otherwise as a witness, whose credibility is
unimpeachable. A witness may have more or less credibility,
or no credibility at all. ... A credible witness is the one
"competent to give evidence, and is worthy of belief.”
A credible witness is "competent to give evidence, and is
worthy of belief." (Giannelli, Paul C., "Credibility of
Witnesses" (1978).
 Cont’n
• The witnesses' credibility or worthiness of belief is an
important factor in most criminal trials.
• In some trials, it is the only issue; once the jury has decided
which witnesses are credible and which are not, the question of
guilt or innocence is easily reached. Witnesses to the Case are
paramount in dispensing justice.
 Cont’n
• False testimony under solemn declaration and contempt of the court are very grave
offences, as they constitute a direct challenge to the integrity of the trial process.
• Maintaining the integrity of the administration of justice is particularly important in
trials involving serious criminal offences.
• Although all perjury is serious, the Chamber is of the view that the most serious
category is where the perjured evidence is being given to lead to the conviction of
an innocent person and the second most serious category is where, as in this case,
the perjured evidence is given in the hope of procuring the acquittal of a guilty
person.
 CREDIBILITY &REALIBILITY OF
WITNESSES
• Credibility relates to a witness’s sincerity whether the witness is speaking the
truth of events he/she believes to be. Reliability relates to the actual accuracy of a
witness’s testimony.
• In determining this, a court will consider a witness ability to accurately observe,
recall, and recount the events or the issue at hand (R.V.Morrissey, 1995 Can LII
3498(ON CA)[1995]O.J No.639 (ont.C.A) Per Doherty J.A. at para 33)
 Cont’n
• There is an important distinction between the veracity or truthfulness of a witness
(credibility) and the ability of a witness to accurately relate his or her evidence
(reliability).
Both reliability and credibility are important aspects with respect to determining the
truth and accuracy of any witness’s testimony.
It is also important to note that a credible witness may not necessarily always be a
reliable one and that a witness whose testimony is not credible on a particular point
will also not be a reliable witness on the same point.
The reliability of a witness can be affected by a number of factors.
 Cont’n
• The most important factors include the witness’s ability to correctly observe,
process, interpret, retain and recall information correctly.
• Other factors may include whether the witness was experiencing stress, fear or
fatigue.
• One must also consider whether the witness is intelligent, whether they have
listened to other people or the media’s account of the events, or whether there are
other external factors that may affect their ability to recount an event.
 Cont’n
• Are there discrepancies between what the witness said at Police/ Rwanda Investigation Bureau
(RIB), at the Prosecution Office or at trial and what they said for example at in an out-of-court
statement?
• Does the witness have an independent recollection of the events. or are they relying solely on
notes? The notes could even be someone’s stuff a witness is relying on!
• This is not an exhaustive list of considerations; there are many other factors that can affect
reliability, such as for example, testimony from a witness who has been bribed, under the
influence of alcohol or drugs at the relevant time.
• Turning to credibility, there are certain indicia of credibility that an investigator can use to
determine a witness’s truthfulness.
 Cont’n
• Examples may include a criminal record containing offences of dishonesty, some
motive or interest in the outcome of the trial.
• Other behavious such as bias, conduct, demeanour, collusion, or glaring
inconsistencies in prior statements can cost a witness credibility kill off your case.
• Some or all of these factors may combine to lead an investigator to conclude that a
witness’s evidence can be accepted as part of the investigation finding process or
not.
 SUSPECT INTERROGATION
• Meaning of Interrogation: It is a controlled conversation between two
persons to obtain a confession or admission of guilt.
• An interrogation can mean a single question or a series of questions.
In most countries, Police or authorized agencies
do interrogations of suspects all the time.
• Police stations usually have interrogation rooms for questioning
suspects. When someone is doing an interrogation, they're looking
for answers, and it's usually about something very serious.
 Purpose of Interrogation
• Goal is search for truth;
• Establish the suspect’s guilt;
• Suspect absorption and bring back harmony to Society and ensure
Security
• May involve the suspect at a psychological disadvantage
• You must advise suspect of legal rights, known in the US as (MIRANDA
Warnings) .
 PREPARING FOR SUSPECT
INTERROGATION
• Thorough preparation is required prior to the suspect interview
• Read all reports
• Review criminal history of the suspect
• Get background on suspect from arresting officers or others
with information
• Visit the crime scene
 LOCATION FOR INTEROGATION
• Most should take place at RIB Station or Prosecution Office
• They should take place within a short time following the arrest
• The answers will be more spontaneous
• The suspect has less time to fabricate deceptive answers
• Use a sparse interview room
• Creates a tense environment
• Results in a greater probability for a confession
• Offers less distractions and forces the suspect to focus on the questioning
 Interrogation tips & interrogation room
preparation
• Inquisitive Interview room
• Observant
• Energetic
• Good Communicators
• Problem Solvers
• Patient
 Cont’d
• Prior to questioning, the interviewer should state his/her name, agency, and position
• Give Miranda warnings ̶ they are required when
• The suspect is in custody and…
• Prior to interrogation
• Statements and confessions must be voluntary ̶ Investigator conduct will be illegal if it is judged to
have:
• Overreached
• Intimidated
• Coerced or
• Defeated the free and independent exercise of the suspect’s will
 Rights of Suspect/Miranda rights
• Miranda v. Arizona Case,384 US(1966)
Miranda was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court.
The court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made
in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be
admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant
was informed of the right to consult with his counsel before and during
questioning and of the right against self-incrimination.
 Cont’n
• Miranda was arrested at his home and taken to a police station for
questioning in connection with a kidnapping and a rape
• He was 23 years old, poor and completed only half of the ninth
grade.
• Officers interrogated him for two hours, resulting in a written
confession
• Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape
 Cont’n
• There was an Appeal and the issue was that, Miranda had not been informed of his
rights. Appeal was found valid and the Supreme Court’s decision held that:

• “Evidence obtained by the police during custodial

interrogation cannot be used in court unless the subject
was informed of the Miranda rights prior to interrogation”.
• Police must inform a person subjected to custodial
interrogation of his/her constitutional rights.
 Rights of a suspect
• Miranda Warning (rights)
• The right to remain silent
• The right to not self-incriminate
• The right to have an attorney present during the questioning
• If the subject cannot afford an attorney, one will be –appointed for him or
her prior to questioning, and other rights are enshrined in various Rwandan
laws(Constitution Art 29 and Art 46 CPP) also see Article 14 ICCPR.
 WHAT You are required of
• Introduction and legal warning
• Questioning the suspect. :
• Be friendly, yet professional
• The investigator should take the verbal initiative
• Establish rapport, “How have you been treated so far?”
• Shift from general conversation to the specific offense
 Cont’n

• Attempt to classify the suspect’s behavioral category

• Tailor specific questions to a personality type
• Identify body language clues that might indicate deception
• Provide a dignified way to admit their criminal
involvement.
 Verbal Clues to deception
• Changes in speech patterns
• Repetition of the question
• Comments regarding the interview
• Selective memory
• Making excuses
• Oaths
• Character testimony
• Answering with a question
• Overuse of respect
 Cont’n
• Increasingly weaker denials
• Failure to deny
• Avoidance of emotive words
• Refusal to implicate other suspects
• Tolerant attitudes
• Reluctance to terminate interview
• Artificial boredom
 Cont’n
• “I don’t think so.”
• “I can’t recall.”
• “Not to my knowledge.”
• “I can’t remember.”
• “Not that I can think of.”
• “Not that I can remember.”
• “Not as far as I know.”
• “I have never heard that before.”
 Closing the Deal
• Requires momentum
• Requires timing
• Requires control
• May only get one chance . . . be ready!
• Happens in steps
• Don’t rush it! Past trouble
• Similar incident in the past, admitted to it
• Third-person
• Denies virtually everything
• Prejudice on the interviewers part
 Suspect Gets Religion!
• “Honest to God . . .”
• “I swear on my mothers grave . . .”
• “May my parents drop dead if I’m
lying . . .”
• “As God is my witness . . .”
OPPOSITES & QUALIFIERS
• “Honestly . . .”
• “I would never do . . .”
• “I’m not the type of person . . .”
• “You may not believe this, but . . .”
• “This is going to sound like a lie, but . . .”
 CLOSING A DEAL

• Requires momentum
• Requires timing
• Requires control
• May only get one chance . . . be ready!
• Happens in steps
• Don’t rush it! Past trouble
• Similar incident in the past, admitted to it
• Third-person
• Denies virtually everything
• Prejudice on the interviewers part
 PUBLIC INTEREST
• A prosecutor files a complaint for the public interest.
• When a crime is committed, the society is disturbed. Indeed, when a crime happens,
it affects the welfare of the society.
• The Law allows a Prosecutor to deliberately choose any other sanction which may
fit the offender. Such sanctions are different from imprisonment, they are divisive
measures.
• The decision taken by the prosecutor of prosecuting or just deciding divisive
measures must be identical for similar criminal cases (e.g amicable settlements for
torts and misdemeanors).
 Complete Case and Filing a Case
• The Prosecution is supposed to transmits the complete case file to the competent
court. This case file should be fully furnished with evidence. It should be
complete after all investigations pertaining to how a crime was committed and the
alleged perpetrators indicated.
• The Prosecution should give a precise qualification of charges it is bringing
against an accused person, after fully conducting investigation.
 Prosecution v. Kalisa
• In the Case No RPA 0573/08/HC/KIG of Prosecution v Kalisa Gakuba
Alfred and Rutajoga Eugene, the Court held that “the prosecution
cannot seize the Court and wait for the latter to investigate on its
behalf in order to inform the prosecution the qualification of the
criminal act”. Therefore, Prosecutors are responsible for deciding
whether a person should be charged with a Criminal Offence, and if so,
what that charge should be and bring it against the alleged offender.
 DEFENCE OF ALIBI
• Definition: Simply means that the accused was not at the scene of the crime when
it took place and therefore could not have committed the crime.
• A complete alibi must include three components:
1. A statement by the accused claiming they were not present at the crime scene
when the crime was committed.
2. An explanation of where they were.
3. Names of any witnesses who can confirm the alibi.
 Alibi
• Strengths: In order for an alibi to be considered strong, all three
components must exist. If a full and reliable alibi can be presented,
this is the strongest defence an accused person can use and it will
likely lead to an acquittal.
• Weaknesses: Alibis generally become weak when there are no
witnesses to verify the claims made by the accused. If one or more of
the three basic components is missing, it becomes easier for the Court
to raise doubts about the alibi's credibility.
 Cont’n
• An alibi does not constitute a defence in its proper sense. An accused does not
bear the burden of proving his alibi beyond reasonable doubt.
• Rather, “[h]e must simply produce the evidence tending to show that he was not
present at the time of the alleged crime” or, otherwise stated, present evidence
“likely to raise a reasonable doubt in the Prosecution case.”
• If the alibi is reasonably possibly true, it must be accepted.
• Where an alibi is properly raised, the Prosecution must establish beyond
reasonable doubt that, despite the alibi, the facts alleged are nevertheless true.
 Cont’n
• The Prosecution may do so, for instance, by demonstrating that the alibi
does not in fact reasonably account for the period when the accused is
alleged to have committed the crime.
• Where the alibi evidence does prima facie account for the accused’s
activities at the relevant time of the commission of the crime, the
Prosecution must “eliminate the reasonable possibility that the alibi is
true,” for example, by demonstrating that the alibi evidence is not
credible.
 DUE PROCESS OF LAW
You need to conduct an interview from witnesses or suspects to ensure you do not
violate the grand norm of the land which is the constitution. For example, Art 29 of
the Constitution of Rwanda
Article 29 stresses on the Right to due Process. It reads as follows:
Everyone has the right to due process of law, which includes the right:
Para 1) to be informed of the nature and cause of charges and the right to defence
and legal representation;
 Cont’n
Para 2) to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent Court;
Para 3) to appear before a competent Court;
Para 4) not to be subjected to prosecution, arrest, detention or punishment on account
of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence under national or
international law at the time it was committed. Offences and their penalties are
determined by law;
Para 5) not to be held liable for an offence he or she did not commit. Criminal liability
is personal;
 Cont’n
Para 6) not to be punished for an offence with a penalty that is severer than the penalty provided
for by the law at the time that offence was committed;
Para 7) not to be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation;
Para 8) not to be prosecuted or punished for a crime which has reached its statute of limitations.
However, the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are not subject to
statute of limitations. A law may determine other crimes which are not subject to statute of
limitations.
If you do not conduct an interview it would be hard for instance to observe correctly para 1,
4,5,7, and 8. The rest are known principles of international law (read para 2 and 6).
 Cont’n
Ensure the rights of witnesses are observed accordingly e.g: Rights of the
Victim Article 54 CPP
• Rights of the victim during interrogation
• To protect the victim’s privacy during interrogation, special attention must be paid
to the following with respect to the victim:
• 1° to be interrogated in the presence of a trusted person of his or her choice;

• 2° to be informed of his or her right to remain silent ;

 Cont’d
• 3° his or her right to be informed about the legal provisions which concern him or her;

• 4° his or her right not to be confronted by the offender if he or she is a minor aged
under eighteen(18) years;

• 5° his or her right to be protected if he or she expresses concern for his or her safety
or if relevant organs consider that his or her safety may be compromised.
 CONFROTATION
• Article 52: Confrontation
• The investigator or prosecutor in charge of case file preparation, either on own
initiative or upon request by any interested party may organize confrontation
between the suspects themselves, between witnesses or between the suspect and
witnesses, between the victim and witnesses or between the offender and the
victim of the offence.
• Every confrontation is subject to a statement.
 Cont’d
• Interrogation 45CPP
• In case the suspect appears for the first time, the investigator or prosecutor verifies his/her
personal particulars and informs him or her of the charges against him or her and their legal
characterization and it is recorded in a statement.
• An investigator or prosecutor interrogates a suspect and makes a written record of the
statement made by the suspect. Interrogation is conducted in the language the suspect
understands well.
• The investigator or prosecutor may also interrogate any person presumed to have some
clarification and requests him or her to give testimony under oath in the manner provided for
under Article 47 of this Law.
 Cont’d
Signing the statement (Article 51CCP)
• Each page of the statement is signed by the prosecutor or investigator and the
person interrogated. The person interrogated is asked to read and sign or affix
his/her fingerprint on his/her statement put in writing if he or she agrees to its
contents.
• If he or she is unable to read, the statement is read to him or her.
• If he or she refuses or is unable to sign or affix his/her fingerprint, his/her refusal
or inability is recorded in the statement.
 Cont’d
Testimony of a person having participated in the commission of an offense (Article 48CCP)
• Any person having participated in the commission of an offence or a victim of offence may be
heard as a witness.
Minor’s testimony (Article 49 CCP)
• A minor aged under fourteen (14) years is qualified to testify as an adult.
• A minor aged under fourteen (14) years gives testimony without taking an oath but the court
ruling cannot solely rely on his/her testimony. In that case, the testimony of the minor must be
supported by other corroborative evidence.
 OATH
• Article 47: Witness oath
• After giving their particulars, witnesses are interrogated one by one without the presence
of the suspect. With his/her right hand raised, the witness takes the following oath:
“I.................... swear to tell the truth. Should I fail to honour this oath, may I face the
rigours of the Law”.
• A witness who refuses to take the oath or lies after taking the oath to tell the truth is liable
to the penalties as provided for by the Law determining offences and penalties in general.
• Statements made by a witness are recorded in a statement.
 PRINCIPLES OF WRITING A STATEMENT

The principles of what should be recorded in a statement remains constant and the
format and layout will very rarely change regardless of the type of incident being
described.
Basically it’s a story, and there should be a beginning, middle and an end.
Set the scene:
Give some background to the witness, marital / family status, where they were living
at the time, what their employment status was, etc.
 Cont’d
Time and place:
Be as precise as possible in relation to a day, date, time and location, of all
incidents or events referred to in the statement. 
Statement should be in chronological order:
Having conducted the interview you should be in a position to lay out the statement
in the order that depicts how events occurred. Beginning, middle and end.
 Cont’d
No hearsay:
There are occasions where hearsay can be useful in that it corroborates what some
other person has actually witnessed, but try and avoid / discourage hearsay where
possible. Allow hearsay only if it can be collaborated.
Names and places in capital letters:
Although not a hard rule, in most cases names and locations are vital parts of the
statement, and this importance can be highlighted by having the relevant details in
Capital Letters.
 Cont’d
Conversations in direct speech and capital letters:
Where a witness recalls exactly what was said, then it is important that it should be recorded in direct
speech and where necessary in capital letters. E.g: “ HE TOLD THE GATHEREING TO GO AND
KILL THEM”
Blank lines: Never leave blank lines or unnecessarily large gaps in the written statement.
Mistakes:
If a mistake is made then cross it out and have the witness initial the mistake and if necessary sign in
the margin.
 TEMPLATE OF A STATEMENT

• WITNESS STATEMENT INFORMATION:

• Last Name: Gender:
• First Name(s): Father’s Name:
• Other Names Used: Mother’s Name:
• Children: Place of Residence:
• Date of Birth/Age: Place of Birth:
 Cont’n
• Language(s) Spoken:  
• Language(s) Used in Interview:
• Current Occupation:
• Former Occupation(s):
• Place of Interview:
• Dates and time of Interview:
• Interviewers:
• Names of all persons present during interview:
 Closing a Statement
• Closing Procedure:
• I have nothing to add to the above statement nor do I have anything to clarify.
• I have given the answers to the questions of my own free will.
• I was informed that I might be called to testify before the Court and that, if called as a
witness, my identity may have to be disclosed to the Court, the accused, and to defense
counsel of the accused. I am currently willing to appear as a witness in Court, if called to
testify.
• There has been no threat, promise or inducement which has influenced my answers.
• I have no complaints about the way I was treated during this interview.
 WITNESS ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This Statement has been read over by me in the English and is true to the best of my
knowledge and recollection.

I have given this Statement voluntarily and I am aware that it may be used in legal
proceedings before the Nyarugenge Intermediate Court and that I may be called to
give evidence in public before the Court.

___________________________ Signed Dated:

 WITNESS PROTECTION ASSURANCES
AND COOPERATIVENESS
• Witnesses whether for Prosecution or for Accused persons need to be protected so
that they can speak freely.
• Possible witnesses for prosecution and the accused choose not to disclose the
information out of fear so you must give protective assurance.
 REFERENCES/BIBIOGRAPHY
• Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, Official Gazette
of 24/12/2015.
• Cryer R et al, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure 2nd ed
(Cambridge University Press, 2010)
• MAP Willmer, Crime and Information Theory, RL Birmingham, 1971.
• Thomas M.Cover & Joy A.Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, Stanford
University, 2nd ed, American Statistical Association, March 2006.
• Martin.J, Criminal Law for A2, Hodder Arnold, London, 2006.
 Cont’n
• Law relating to the criminal procedure Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019
relating to the code of criminal procedure, Official Gazette n° Special of
08/11/2019 nº 27 of 08/07/2013.
• ICTR Jurisprudence on Alibi, Prosecution v. Kabiligi Gratien

• Bassiouni and E.M. Wise, Aut dedere aut judicare: The Duty to Extradite
or Prosecute in International Law (1995)
 GROUP ASSIGNMENTS
• GROUP 1: The Case of GAA at ICTR (www.unictr.org/cases/GAA) about Court Contempt,
Obstruction of Justice where a Prosecution Witness recanted by changing testimony in
favor of accused for bribe.
• Group 2 :The Case of Jean KAMBANDA(www.unictr.org/cases/Kambanda Jean) where
he made plea Bargain agreement with Prosecution and the Trial Chamber denounced the
agreement because of the gravity of the offence and the position of the accused (Former
Prime Minister).
• Group 3: The Case of Gen. Kabiligi Gratien former Chief of Staff (
www.unictr.org/Kabiligi Gratien) The Defence of Alibi that amounted to an acquittal.
 Cont’n
Group 4: Jean MPAMBARA(www.unictr.org/cases/Jean Mpambara) Credibility of
Witnesses and contradictions that cost the prosecution to secure a conviction.
Group 5: The Case of Jean Paul Akayezu (www.unictr.org/cases/Akayezu Jean Paul)
About Witness Credibility and Prosecution Witness Discrepancies.
Group 6: The Case of BAGAMBIKI Emmanuel, Andre NTAGERURA and
MANISHIMWE Samuel. (www.unictr.org/BAGAMBIKI Emmanuel) Indictment
Vagueness.
 END
THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION

Trainer’s Contact Address

JOHN BOSCO SIBOYINTORE
• Email: johnbosco.siboyintore@nppa.gov.rw
• sibobosco1969@gmail.com
• Telephone Address: +250788536137