Tharcisse Muvunyi v. The Prosecutor

Court	International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Appeals Chamber), Tanzania
Case number	ICTR-2000-55A-A
Decision title	Judgement
Decision date	1 April 2011
Parties	Tharcisse Muvunyi The Prosecutor
Categories	Genocide
Keywords	genocide
Links	Judgement

Summary

In 1994, Tharcisse Muvunyi held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Rwandan army and was stationed at the École des Sous-Officiers in Butare Prefecture.

On 11 February 2010, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR convicted Muvunyi of direct and public incitement to genocide based on his statements made at a public meeting at the Gikore Trade Centre in Butare prefecture in early May 1994. He was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment.

Muvunyi appealed his conviction and sentence and requested the Appeals Chamber to overturn his conviction. The Prosecution also appealed the judgment and requested the Appeals Chamber to increase the sentence to 25 years of imprisonment.

The Appeals Chamber of the ICTR dismissed both appeals and upheld the Accused’s sentence to 15 years of imprisonment.

On 6 March 2012, the President of the ICTR, Judge Vagn Joensen, granted Muvunyi's application for early release since more than three quarters of his sentence had been served.

Procedural history

In 1994, Tharcisse Muvunyi held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Rwandan army and was stationed at the École des Sous-Officiers in Butare Prefecture.

On 12 September 2006, in his first trial before the ICTR, Muvunyi was convicted of genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity, and was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment.

On 29 August 2008, the Appeals Chamber reversed these convictions and ordered a retrial limited to the allegation under Count 3 of the indictment that Muvunyi was responsible for direct and public incitement to commit genocide based on a speech he purportedly gave at the Gikore Trade Center in Nyaruhengeri Commune, Butare Prefecture.

Following Muvunyi’s retrial on this allegation, on 11 February 2010, the Trial Chamber convicted him of direct and public incitement to commit genocide based on his statements in mid to late May 1994 at a public meeting at the Gikore Trade Centre and sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment.

The Accused presented two grounds of appeal and requested that the Appeals Chamber overturn his conviction. The Prosecution submitted one ground of appeal challenging Muvunyi’s sentence and requested the Appeals Chamber to increase his sentence to 25 years of imprisonment.

Related developments

On 6 March 2012, the President of the Tribunal granted the Accused’s application for early release.

Legally relevant facts

Under ground 1 of his appeal, the Accused submitted that the Trial Chamber has erred in law in convicting him of participating in a meeting which had not been pleaded in the Indictment, namely, the meeting held at the Gikore Trade Center in mid to late May 1994 (paras. 14,16).

Under ground 2 of his appeal, the Accused contended that the Trial Chamber had committed numerous errors in its assessment of the Prosecution and Defence evidence (para. 32).

In its appeal, the Prosecution argued that the Trial Chamber had erred in law and fact in considering the sentence. It requested the Appeals Chamber to increase his sentence to 25 years of imprisonment (para. 64).

Core legal questions

Whether the Trial Chamber had erred in convicting the Accused of direct and public incitement to commit genocide during a meeting at the Gikore Trade Centre in mid to late May 1994 on the grounds that this meeting was not pleaded in the indictment.
Whether the Trial Chamber had erred in its assessment of the evidence.
Whether the Appeals Chamber should grant the Prosecution’s appeal against the sentence imposed on the Accused.
In case any of the grounds of appeal were accepted, what the effect on the sentence would be.

Specific legal rules and provisions

Article 24 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Rules 101(B)(ii),(C), 103(B), 107, 118 and 119 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Court's holding and analysis

Regarding the first ground of the Accused’s appeal, the Appeals Chamber, with Judges Liu and Meron dissenting, held that the Accused had not shown that the Trial Chamber had erred in concluding that the meeting described by the Prosecution witnesses had occurred in May 1994. The Chamber further noted that the Accused had in fact defended against the allegation that he incited the local population during a meeting at the Gikore Trade Center in mid to late May 1994 in both his first trial and the retrial. Consequently, he had had notice of the charge in the indictment concerning the May 1994 meeting. Therefore, the Chamber, with Judge Liu and Meron dissenting, dismissed the first ground of appeal (paras. 26,29,30).

The Appeals Chamber concluded that the Accused had not demonstrated any error of the Trial Chamber in assessing the evidence of the Prosecution or the Defence. Therefore, the Chamber, with Judges Liu and Meron dissenting, dismissed his second ground of appeal (paras. 49, 60-61).

In light of the Trial Chamber’s analysis of the gravity of the offences, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and its substantial discretion in sentencing a convicted person relying on the particular circumstances of a case, the Appeals Chamber found that the Prosecution had identified no error on the part of the Trial Chamber in this regard. Consequently, the Chamber dismissed the Prosecution’s appeal (paras. 72-73).

In their dissenting opinion, Judges Liu and Meron considered that the Prosecution witnesses’ testimony, when viewed in light of the Trial Chamber’s own findings, raised reasonable doubt that no trier of fact could ignore. It also raised the distinct possibility that the Accused had been convicted for statements made well outside the temporal scope of the Indictment (para. 8)

Further analysis

K. Margetts & K. II. Kappos, ‘Current Developments at the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2011, Vol. 9, pp. 1159-1197.