Tharcisse Renzaho v. The Prosecutor

Court	International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Case number	ICTR-97-31-A
Decision title	Judgement
Decision date	1 April 2011
Parties	Tharcisse Renzaho The Prosecutor
Categories	Crimes against humanity, Genocide, War crimes
Links	Judgement

Summary

Tharcisse Renzaho was a Rwandan army officer and waspromoted to the rank of Colonel in July 1992. During the Rwandan genocide in 1994, he was Prefect of Kigali-Ville prefecture.

The Prosecution had charged him with genocide, crime against humanity, and war crimes for his role in the relevant events of 1994. On 14 July 2009, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR convicted Renzaho for genocide, murder and rape as crimes against humanity, and murder and rape as war crimes. The Trial Chamber sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Renzaho appealed the judgment on thirteen grounds. He requested the Appeals Chamber to overturn the Trial judgment, acquit him on all counts of the indictment, and order his immediate release. In the alternative, Renzaho requested the Appeals Chamber to a lower sentence that would reflect his true level of responsibility.

The Appeals Chamber granted some of Renzaho’s grounds of appeal and dismissed others. It affirmed Renzaho’s sentence of life imprisonment, subject to credit being given to time already served.

Procedural history

In 1994, the Accused was Prefect of Kigali-Ville prefecture, a position he had held since October 1990.

On 14 July 2009, the Trial Chamber found Renzaho guilty of genocide (Count 1), murder as a crime against humanity (Count 3) and murder as a serious violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II (Count 5). The Trial Chamber further convicted Renzaho pursuant to Article 6(3) of genocide (Count 1), murder as a crime against humanity (Count 3), rape as a crime against humanity (Count 4) and rape as a serious violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II (Count 6). The Trial Chamber sentenced Renzaho to life imprisonment.

Renzaho submitted thirteen grounds of appeal challenging his convictions and sentence. He requested the Appeals Chamber to overturn the Trial judgment, acquit him on all counts of the indictment and order his immediate release. In the alternative, he requested that the Appeals Chamber impose a sentence that reflected his true level of responsibility.

The Prosecution requested the Appeals Chamber to dismiss all of Renzaho’s grounds of appeal and affirm the sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber.

Legally relevant facts

Under ground 2 of appeal, the Accused submitted that the Judges trying his case were biased against him (para. 14). He also submitted that the Trial Chamber erred in law by convicting him despite a number of defects, including vagueness, in the indictment (grounds of appeal 1; grounds 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12 in part) (para. 52).

Under ground 3 of his appeal, Renzaho argued that the Trial Chamber had violated his right to a fair trial (para. 139).

Under ground 4, Renzaho claimed that the Trial Chamber had erred in law and in fact in concluding that he had encouraged the recruitment and training of Interahamwe in 1993 (para. 247).

Under grounds 5 and 6, he submitted that the Trial Chamber has erred in fact and law in finding him responsible for the killings at roadblocks and distribution of weapons in Kigali-Ville (para. 256).

Under ground 7, he challenged the Trial Chamber’s findings relating to the provision of fuel vouchers (paras. 381-382).

Under ground 8, he contended that the Trial Chamber had erred in law and in fact by finding that he had control over Kigali-Ville (para. 389).

Under ground 9, the Accused maintained that the Trial Chamber had erred in fact and in law in finding that he was criminally responsible for the events at Centre d’ Étude de Langues Africaines (CELA) (para. 413).

Under ground 10, he argued that the Trial Chamber had incorrectly assessed the evidence relating to the attack at Sainte Famille (para. 494).

Under ground 11, he claimed that the Trial Chamber had erred in finding him guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes under Article 6(3) of the Statute based on his failure to prevent the rapes of Prosecution Witnesses AWO and AWN, as well as Witness AWN’s sister. (para. 562).

Under ground 12, he challenged the Trial Chamber’s legal findings (para. 569).

Under ground 13, he challenged the Trial Chamber’s assessment of mitigating factors regarding his sentence (para. 604).

Core legal questions

Whether the Trial Chamber had been biased against the Accused.
Whether the indictment against the Accused had been defective and whether his right to a fair trial had been violated.
Whether the Trial Chamber had erred in its findings concerning Renzaho’s role in the recruitment and training of Interahamwe in 1993 and in the killings at roadblocks and distribution of weapons in Kigali-Ville.
Whether the Trial Chamber’s findings regarding the provision of fuel vouchers by the Accused, his alleged control over Kigali-Ville and his criminal responsibility for the events at Centre d’ Étude de Langues Africaines (CELA) were erroneous.
Whether the Trial Chamber had incorrectly assessed the evidence relating to the attack at Sainte Famille.
Whether the Accused’s convictions for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes should be upheld.
In case any of the grounds of appeal were accepted, what the effect on the sentence imposed on the Accused would be.

Specific legal rules and provisions

Articles 4(a), 6(1),(3), 20(2),(3),(4)(c), 23 and 24 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Rules 50, 54, 67(A)(ii),(B), 68, 69, 75, 87(A), 92 bis, 94 bis, 95, 101, 103(B), 107, 108, 115, 118 and 119 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II.

Court's holding and analysis

The Appeals Chamber found no contradiction in the Trial Chamber’s findings that could indicate bias or a violation of the presumption of innocence. Therefore, it dismissed Renzaho’s second ground of appeal (paras. 49-50).

The Chamber granted Renzaho’s first ground of appeal in part, reversing his convictions for the rapes of Witnesses AWO and AWN, and Witness AWN’s sister (para. 138). Therefore, it did not consider further the eleventh ground of appeal regarding said rapes (para. 563).

The Chamber held that the Trial Chamber had not committed an error violating the Accused’s fair trial rights (paras. 244-245).

The Chamber dismissed Renzaho’s fourth ground of appeal, since, as a general rule, it declines to discuss alleged errors having no impact on the conviction or sentence (paras. 251-252).

The Chamber, with Judge Güney and Pocar dissenting, granted Renzaho’s fifth ground of appeal in part, reversing his conviction of genocide for ordering the killings at roadblocks. The Chamber dismissed the Accused’s sixth ground of appeal (para. 380).

The Chamber dismissed the seventh ground of appeal as well, since the Trial Chamber’s findings regarding the provision of fuel vouchers had no impact on his conviction or sentence (paras. 385-386).

The Chamber dismissed the eighth and ninth grounds of appeal (paras. 09, 491)

The Chamber found no error in the Trial Chamber’s assessment of the evidence relating to the attack at Sainte Famille (para. 561).

The Chamber dismissed Renzaho’s twelfth ground of appeal (para. 599).

The Appeals Chamber affirmed Renzaho’s sentence of life imprisonment (para. 621).

In his partially dissenting opinion, Judge Güney considered that the factual findings supported Renzaho’s conviction of genocide for ordering the killings at roadblocks (para. 5).

In his partially dissenting opinion, Judge Pocar noted that he would have affirmed Renzaho’s conviction of genocide for ordering the killings of Tutsi civilians at roadblocks (para. 13).