2 4 / 0 9 ' 0 3 t E D 1 7 : 0 9 FAr 0091?0512t832
g oul
ICIR NEETS8 EAGIE ICIR,
ftt5bls
.tLlR-18-t+?xt\q6wry 2.009
eD- o44s'
ftit,
fiisih- eqih)
fruu
K@)@
pinal htefnaiionatpourle
Fwanda
Irjbunl
|ntetnationat
CrinlnalTribunaf
for Rwanda
I'NTTED
NAfiONs.
NAIIS{S TTNIBE
lcTFApp"aG-6;;ffi
Before :
Jrdgc TheodorIUERON,pleddrng
JudgeMohened sSA&i.BtrDnDEN
JudgaDnvidEUNT
fidgc ['aEstoI0CAR
JnilgphteModce WEDf,EERGDE ROCA
'!
Rrgistrar;
Mr.AdrnnDIEt'{G
Declslonof:
Z September200if
i:
Vl,t-
copll to:gon
ti)
Ls5,.^|Jt
"Tct
TIIE PROSECUTOR
tn
(:)
D^,,1+Sg1r
lbu&
Actioo!
vl
.-1
P4ilirc NnRalvrasuEuKo & Atsi46 sbdom
NTAEOBALI
Case.No
tCIR-97-zt,T
x syrn"m
Nse-uffili1f;iJ#ifo^""o
CaseNo.ICI']R-97.29A&B.T
JosephIIANYABASIII
CsssNo.ICTR-96-IS.T
EIiENDAYAI}ffAJE
CaseNo.ICTR.96.&T
Joifi CatcnoICTR-9842-AISbis
DEGIONINTEE
**'
Ms. AdesoladDEBOYEIO
Mr. MaoudBOUWXblECHT
Mr.JonefianMOSES
Sqsnfcl&rlle-Qgsle
rtr-fi'r,.:re4asqhuko:'}{s.
Ntcole BERGEVIN
Fpr Kauvabashi:
Mr. Michel MARCI{AND
Mr.MichalBOyR
For,Ndavarnbaic:
Mr. PienoBOULE
lY&,Claad€
lnlcft1Jtlonlrl Crlrufutnl'l'flbundl lbr Rrvllr|ds
TrtburiAlFchll iutqmoti0nrlDou!l0 nu nd6
JotuCaser'ICTR-98_4Z"AtSri,
cF.ldltl't|t) lltutt fjePy oF Tnr fl{t€tNAL sEEt{Ey ME
co$tD cllnrtt,]t;tt crrNthollMxa l.'o*lqlN^L tAR lrlous
24 Sc$4nber Z0O3
24/05 'Ot irED 17r04 FII 00C1706198032
u 002
IqIR RE( TSE EACUE ICIR
$+!h
1,
TheseappeelrceEccd!d pur.heardaial in whicbone of the ttroe judgooof
rhe
ltiat Chmrberwaslot rg.clcor€d;thcy presartan lssueas !o whebdr the
crsc sbould
c'ontiauocr bs hcardatesb, witfi a substitt rEjt dgebeiry $dsEd b
uar odthc ouryoiag
judge.Thatbcingtte iOnreconmonto ell of theappeals,
a Elnglodgcipimig bsj.aggivcu.
Thi mater,sdsesthis srsy:
.I^
Ttc hackgrrotmd
to rr,Farrpeals
'1 2-
Tbe joirt Fial ot padine Nyiraastuko, Arsioo sbaromNhahobalr,syrvair
Nsabtmana,
AlphonscNtlaryEyo,JosephKanyabashi
ud Elie Ndaymbje (tfu, ,,Butare
uial') etrred ou 12 rrsre 200r'in Trial clamber II beforeJudgcwiuiaro
H. s€trdc
Rpsiding,JudgoWinstorrC. Marasima IvIaquUEndJrrdgeAilene Rlaaroeon_
At the
electionsof rbeTlibuad's judgusby the Gelcrel Assenblyof fre unifcd Natiorqs 3l
oo
January20o3fr rhenewmandato
begimtngon 25 Ivfay200g,JudgeMnqu.uwdgoorre_
elacted;thelastdayofhie rcnaof ofEoewas24 lday 2003,Ttere ra no altenrate
judges.
On 26 Mar,ch2003,IudgeNavauctheol
piuay, th€n ltesident of the Thibunal,
wroreto
the SeeurityCouncilof the Unied Naticmsro rcquest6e Sequity
Couacil,dong orher
thitrgu,to exteld ludge Maqunr'slEm ar theTlib4rflalin ordef!o enable
him to fiuish rhe
rial of the Eutare,theKa aulnnda and,thc Kajetijeti casee.In rbe
meendne!h€gident
Pllley askedthe vorjousDefenceCounselin he Butaretrial whethsr
they would give
rheir couooutto the poscibleeulstitutionof a nowjudgeto (eDlaDo
JudgpMaqunrtc the
puPosesof continuinghat trisl, In tlair responseq
to Judgcpillay, noneqf &e ac€uEed
gavetbeir conseu on rg May2003,the s'curity cormcuadogted
Rcsoliniour4g\ inrer
a/nz,exteirdlrgJudgeltrfaqunr'e
rermof office for psfpooocof fiaishing he Kanudwda
oadKajelijeri casesbut not tte Bwate rriat on 21 May 2003,tte
HrstdragJudgeof &o
Brrara Sial reponcato kesiienc ptuaytha( as of,2aMry 2OeX.,
IutlgeIvlaqutuwouldbe
rmableto sit in $A Eutarc dal.Twenty.threegosecudmwitoqsses
lrade.lready
Estified.
3'
Ot 27 NIay2003,Rule15brswasame,nded.
A flewpEragfirpb
(D) copoweredthc
jtdges
tematning
of a Ttial Ctranrbc,afterthetbJrdj ltdgcwu
inter alianotrc€.lectc4to
decidato condouethepuoceedings
with a subsdlutcjudgE,
if, tskhg ail thc circurstaaces
inlo account,they dcterminedmanirnor$lyiha! doing
do would sonc tlc inrcrestdof
Ju6ticeithatproyioionwouldspplywhorerheaccused
djd not con$entto a continuationof
Joletc!!o !rJctR.9842-Al5 bis
24 Scptember
2003
.t
".;
24/09 'n3 vEDlt:04 FAX0031?0t1g89tz
ICTB REGTEE EACIIE IqIR
Bool
nulh
the heding wi& a $b$tit$e jrdgc such ccnaentboing
rtquired aftc the opeoiag
s*r€meDt'prvidcd fcr tn Rule &4 cE thd beginniflgof rbe prerqtrion
of evideace
pursusir 00Rule 85, both of wbicb e\€!ts hr.r hsppcqpd
in &is care.on 6 rrue 2003,
Iudgo M6ae, who had bcen electcdltesid€Et of the
THbunalon 26 May 2003,
occbrdinglywrcte lo *n pades €oqurtugwlothu they woqld
be wttllng o recoosidcr
thcir positioa &d sobsentDor, conthuarioDof he
fiEl vith a enbedtutcftdga In
re6ponse,'the
DcfeocoCouaselfor rhc Acq:sedSylvajtrNsabiusoead tbc hoaecutiou
'l indirnted rhsir @nrc't ro cqndlu€ th€ dal with a substihrrojsdge.
Thc ranaiuhg
DefenceCOun.reI
leit€r4Qdtheir clieoB, witb[olding of coDsedt
ftr tbe condauatioar
of
thenjai wirh a subsdnnojudgc.
"
4'
Ta$ag into accottntthc variorrsfl$miEsionsof thepaftiesastOc,hethtr
it would
be ia thefu(9rest6of jusdcero co[dnuerbe Ftal with a substitlE judge
udpr t]rc nerp
Rule 15&ts1D),rhe Trial cbamber'coastinrtcdof rudgoselsile and.
JtrdgaRarraroron,
dccidcdthc folowhg ir its "Dcdsionin themanorof proceedhrgs
uaderRurc libir @)m 15July 2003(tle ..EapupedDecision")r
Tbe THaI Chanb€r, ascorstituted by the rwo judgps, hadjudsdiqdo!
b det€mine
the applioabilig of thc new Rule ljbk to thaButare pi1sl,l
The abiliry of an rccu.sedrqdor rbc old Rulc lsriir ro ydtbtrold
couscatand rhusto
fotcc the recourmslcementof a pat-beard cnsr did not ,r^autr! to
a substsnrive
riebl An "Acsraod bad no vespd righl ta rhe pur€ty procedi.[Ilal
ability, no$,
sltserscde4 to rrdtbhold collont ud fotrce 1sconrnr',,.-r,"nt
of the trirl".2 Itr
consequetrce,tho rigbts ofan accuscdiu tfie prddiug
nial would not bc ptjudiced
by tb refroacdvoappiicaUoaof tho new RuIe l56is.
Eve[ if fi6 rtgtr to udtbtold oonssnt wcfc a substaltivs
right, tbe retoacdve
operation of pbc ncw provision to the trjsl did
uot prejuitice rhE rkhtB of ar
accusedin the trial, This was so becaugethe
right to rrithhold ccnsenthd to be
consideredin thc contexr of the othe iaterests
ofjusticn. Thc imerestsof iustioe
I lupugned
Docisicn,
. rnpug:rcd Decioio4 DffoT l.l0pq& ?f. Sai r&o parar. I l_25.
Jaht Cas€r:qIR.9*42,Al5bb
?
24 SrDe6ldr 2oo3
.t
,i
2l/09 '0t fiED17104FAI o0t1?o612gggz
IETT, NEG 1ts8 EACI'E ICTR
wlh
rhoc,edtbat lt wascmrcetto clntinuc the oarewith
a subsd.tb judg! withi! rhe
tenle oftha nOwprovisicn.
r
,
h reachingftis conplusion,accorhfpag Ekn of
thc acedfm a spocdytri4 &l
wlllfugneesof tlc Defenpero procsgdh otrq
cascs,thc abdcbc€of cqrreut in
this case,thc ilecsts of ths vicrimseu,t
wihesses,rheffnacial cosBal|d o&er
Daltsrs,3
r 5.
t-'
In finrheranocof RulE 15Ai, (D) ed (E-),five
of, rho lir acqts€dfrled appcal
against ihe rlllprrgn&dDeciEion m, 2! and ?2
July 2@3 (tbe ..Acsuscd-or tbo
"Appeltrnre).4 The App€llarb. submil as
mue filly ret out below. that ep ftial
Chanbercomsriuodaa erro of lew by deciding
urarrimouslytut ir serrrcrth€ irtsrEsts
of juticc h continuctbodal wfth a subsd,lrlejgdgc jn
tcme of theDswRuIe lsDri(D)
on r,lrcba.eisof rho e*isting Hal record and
dccisisnsin the cagc.Tbey requessrho
Appealsframber intel alta to rrrdex
a tial de now,
Th. proseoMion fiIed tle ,.hosecutcds
Resporce b the aprpealsby
Nfrmasuhuko, Ntatrobali,Nteziryayo,Kanyabashi
md Ndayambaje
of theDecisiol by
the Trial Chanberin tfromartarof proceodings
underRutrels,f.r (D),, mr 3i July 2003
("Prosecutqr's
Roq)onse").Thehoeocutionsubani
E interalio tiat theold R*le 15rr,,did
not covef,the uon-reolastionof a jud.geaod
was thereforetrot E plicabl, to the preseirt
case.Jt frrther atguectiat ao prejrrdico
rosults to fre rightr odthc accnsedfton the
applicationof dre new Rule l5lts to rhe
Fesent caseetd that tle Trial Cbaaberyvas
corect in fiudiag thati1arls itr theint€costs jusdce
of
to coirtiou€Oo p*"*aiog, io tu
casc.
6.
": IEEEgnedDccisjou,e**,Js€o:
,:!'tnt-:f#.fr
ffi ,#'ffi
trffi.,f#,,'ft
ffi #ffi:f ,ffi
:ffi
#rhc
ti;i;i#:,,;h".sr"d
tr ffiK,flfffi?.{ffi"ffi
* ffi
ztrury
2ffiby
mater of procetdntt u'tdzr
^actsd'epPel
ff;^!'t-x;l:4;
'?ll:tr*:I
del4 acu""
iai*"?6""r;^"L;;
E'*ii#Iffii!1ffiW.:,fr:ffi:ffi
"r-
oD22July 2003("i18!yabasbi
A.q,notseNr:lrfrayodcId dEcht; lbasbt^ry
,ewi':i
;'Eii'i,
,"'E:ffi'",#'MEE"{;ffi
rc,,1*Wr:F*,:X:ffi,{,#;iil#'::E"IiHf
"t
IoiEsCBEo
['ICTR-9 S-42-ALibh
2,l Scptc@bn2003
7 4 / 0 9 ' , 0 3trrED
l7;05 F,rI 0031?0F12C9t2
ISII
REGlgE EACtlE IqIR
ft\ltn
7,
Four of tlrc AppelLatrtsfiled their rgfies
on 4 Auggst 2lJ[3.s IIE Accused
mafiobali filed Hs t,REpleued,la ftpowe dttpmcareur
& l,acted,ep$ dz la ,Decbid,
in the ttuner af proceedlngsundcr Rule l bta(D),
dateefu IS Jttlla 200? on! Angust
2@3, whichwasforn dgyeout of riee,6
Howover,by his decislo[dat€d22 Arrgusl2fi]3,
thepre-4pealJudgrln this casedecidedb ru6eiz€
thc reply asvaliiuy fleA.
The five Appetlans made variouecompleintsin
theh Dotic€6of appeal and
teplies;t66ago $rlmissicls maybe aulhqiad as
folows:
The two reqaining.liudges,
lalrely, IudgeSekuleandJudgoR{naoson, ed6dla
lew ln holdingthat thoy hadjurisdiaion ro decjdewbsther
tbe new Rule lshr
'r4s *p'plicableto thep(c6ontcasaT
Theyerredin law in findlug rharrheold.RuIe 15Er.r
did rct crcateanysubstadive
riglrt for the gcoueo4that the applicationof thc
n€wRple l5b,' diit not prcjudic'
the rigbtaof thc accused,andtharthEreforeflre
newRuleappliedreroaotivolyto
rheFesentcae6.r
-___-
#ff"yty_ffi,ffiwir:y,xiffi,rffi
;twxffiw#;
pracedinst und.erRa]etsbb(Dfl'
rffi,H:
triWL"trffi[#,:,ffi
MW
"iF^#f
"yryif
a t" 6i;
dr'i;;;i;*
,prataurar,t
Fapaut a *e
x
p,Hffil#j,uffi
r*-^i'Jfl
r*6gs"s;;
triffip.m*Hrff#Tiff
I)y9:I.s9uxo'a
.,i::
Ndrvr.Drtejo's
nodcc or rpp"+ paris. 3-le NEhobali,s I
,.)ec
nolio! d
Eori*.ii"nfi! il.Io;
Nyuarn sEhuko'!
pa'"s.l+26;
Karyabashi,erjdc"
il_aplesl.
rpD""! pgae. !5_?3i Xrrf,o]6ii,?
"r*'"*,,TXE.
t,'##i*flh}#."tift #&'];3';
[g'-J"H;:;A:i;9fl;r,'*.;il-isir*v"tifr
Icdlt C{6cn'IctR-98-42-Al5rir
2d $opta:|c ?CC3
24/og 'ot trED1?;ot FAI 0031?08128932
ICXN RECIIE EACI]E ICTR
$5,11
'
Theryemed& law io deciding&at it Beffedthe
fte(os1gof justire to continuerhe
Bwoe vtel, rrdrhI substitqtq
Judgeol $e basisof the exietingkial Fcord ild
ilecisionritr tbc case.e
Thosesubniesionswill bc subauecal
in whd follows,But &st it will bc cotrvsri€nt!o set
out theryplicablegmvlsicms.
m.
Rule 6: S"mendinmtof rhe trules (asft reails prior
\
to ond post21./Ildry 2003)
(A) Foposalc fo aorendocnt the
qf
Ruleomay bs made by a Jndge,6e
hosccutonsr the tusisnar *g s.hdlb.
if ;;;jio
uy.ac les th_nnn
Judg.cat a plcosryMeetinsof rhoTrib*r"l
"d"pi;d,
;*;;;t';e'notice
qf theproposal
addressed
to rll ludge.s.
(B) An aosnduent of the
UeadopredorheFrisethanasetiputatedin
yaV
-approve.,i,"fi#J;
|u.$
tuIs, pro"ided
tr ie
lllRdl.C"lmeaoeeithcrdoneil wrifing
by anyappropriate
or coufirmei ln wdting.
(C) An amondment
strallenrerinto forca i?*ediarely, -but shall uot op€rateto
prqiudicctherighrsof thc accused
in anypqrAng casJ''
R*le 14 &[r (as.it read prior to ?7MBy Z0O3)
Tbs menbefs 0f the Ttbunal sharco",in'c to dircharge
tbch d'ties rmtil &eir
placcshavebccnffrorl Tnougl reprac{,idililHil--y
Qqses
which rb6y
uay havebegrm,
Rule 14 n& (asit rtede dDcs2? May 2003)
*=OTs of ih_e
slull contiruc ro dischag! rheir dudesuatil tbolr
T:
placeshavebcenfillei.fribuaal
Rulo 15Dic.'AbsstrcEofr Judge(ss it
re{d prior to 27 NIay2003)
(A) rf
-.sec
;,1r,J#ffiTl:*ffi
j*tis;'r<""vt'oiii','ffi":i
p"',i
,#sltiilfr,ff;.;
ilH.?-Hj"|f,H,
**,
Nyisrmaruhuto'crcrica of.apporl,_p$as
24.50;
JointClrs rtcIR-g g4?.-Aubk
Ntdlob{Ii.i uo rc of ,pp€al, p9cs6,4o5Ei
pars'4l-5i;
Ntsdrrsyo,r
2'+S€ptcnbcrtt$
+
,.
.|
z4/at '03 qED17305Ftt 003r708!29s32
ICIR RE€ ?EB EAEUE ICTR
rgo07
$Lln
(l) a .Iudgei$ for_iltJress
or otborurgcntpersonalrsarq{s,*. {o, reasoqs
of
authorircdllibunal busimss.unabt" d.ccntim€
drid
p*fil;i
h;
casefor I pefiodphich is likcty o beof shat
druUon dd
(ii) fre rema;ningJudgesof the Cbauber
re sarisfiedthat it is i! &e
rnt€lasuof iusticeto aJso,
ttro19
trqat*"g
oj
ry1e€s
fre Judgp
!$nt_er uay trdertharthetrcaingof tlrecasc
in rhcabscnc€
of rhat
icr Jpi.i"a ,f ,*,*l-n*"tr.
i"16}
;#-"
'' tr
(3)If
(i) a Judgais, for lllnsss o otherrurpnt pertonal
resdors,or for reasonsof
authoris€dTlrlog bushess,unlble;
d;il*
sithg iu a put hoarricase
for a poriodwhicbir $tely o bc of stort auton.
ana
(ii) the raaiaing JudgesoJ tbe Ctmbq
afe not satidfledthat ir is in the
in-tsre.gts
of jrrsticeto ordcrthatrhehosfinJofL
n i."
of thatJudgc,tb€o
""* "."t*.
"#rf
(a) thosc *^tE
Judgesof the Charnbermay nevectbeless
corduct
thosc martns yhich r.heysre sadsfieashouH
t;;;;-;#,h"
* *
fufarestsof justicg norwfthsendingtheooseaco
of *ratiuige, il'
&) thehesiding ludgemayadjouratheproceediags.
(c) If aJudgsis, fo1 aly reason,uubrs ro
continuesittiagia a part-heordcasefor
a period whichis l;lely belongettt rr oi uJ"rt
a*.#;, ,[" n""-aisiri;"
lo
"na1
rl$ t poatto tre hecider$
wlo
,rrigo-*"-&, ,odgeto $E ceseandorda
eidrererehearins
orcorth*tion.i
lh. fiJl*rys *t rr,"tpu"i frri'"i
aftec the opening $atcmgore provided
foi in nof" 84, or rhe beginuing of dre
grcrentarion
of widonce
p'rsuht tor.ua gs"taecontinuatos
"r,i"E#*Jini
caooD.lybe ordemdwith theco,usertof frc-acarJ.
@) hr caseof fllncrr ol.al yqleq v.aclncyor in my orher
sjrnilarcircrmsfandoc.
rhe*esidenr m4y,rf satisfiedrhatit i;
i' ii";;#r,
juctice
or
!o do so,authcrizc
a Chamberto cfiduct roltire naferr,
such tL a.fiuoy of decisions,in the
absence
"s
of oagc moreof its me,rnbert.
RuIe 15lts ,.Abssaceol e fu{gs (asir reads
sinc€}7 I\dry 2003)
(A) If
e) a Judgeie, forillaeesor otherr:rgent
pe*onal rqasone,
or fcr reasonsof
authorised
Tliqb4 6adrcsr,
iliooti,*
,triri
ir.". ;;;l#*;
caseforapaiodwhichis tikeiy
"*ti"
lo u" oiuiJi o*uo*, *a
(ii) tbe remairdac^Jufsas
of thc chamberaresatisfiedrftatit is in
ho
intercstsofiusticcto di so,
Joitlt CssetTCf,RFgB.42_Afjrr,,
2a Scptearber
20Ol
<.
t4l09 '00 wEDr?eOGFAtrOOC1?0!12S932
ICIR RECTEE B^GqE ICTR
${h
tboeoraainlng Judggsof the Charab€rruay cd€s that drehpariag
of tb, case
corriduein thc absence
of rharJud8sfor a puM of norEo*-d;t;;
days.
"*$"g
(B)rf
.
'.?
\i
G) a Judgg it, fG
or o&cr orgent personalrca6on$,qr for reasottoof
auhorired rdh$ar Illnoss
busiross,u'abb lD coutinrrositduc_in l-p..t-u"*Jl"
for a pedodwhichis Iitcly ro beof shortduario, -d "
tri) rhn runa&rog Judgeeof the cbmba arc lot sarisfodth{r it is I! thc
int€re$sof justicc to ordcrthatrhsbcaringof rhacas.;"dt *; il"-.fr;;
of tharludgq,theu
(a) thoeoreaaining Judgx of tho Cbanb€r Eay nevcfihehss
conduct
-be
thos€ EBtrcrs wbich thcy ae eatiedcdshoutd dFDogA-;tr lr-h;
iurcrEst$ofjustico,lotwitbstardiugthc absenco
of tl"t Iriiii, ,oO
(b) ths PresiditrgJudgeuay adjoun theproceediugs.
(C) If, by ,"&ton of d€atb illness,rosignadonftom thc Tlib,rr',l,
uoueelection,
nonrcxtensionof rcro qf offre or
any orlet rea5on,a J-udgejS U!aU; 6
lOr
coDfitruoeittingin a pm_bcardcascfc a pcciodwbichis likely *i
U"l*.*-,t_
of a Ehorrduration"
rb€prs.iding{aeo itau t"p*t o tru F"rral"i-fl" ."v
rudgeto thecase-aud
dda sith€rarch""iq ;;Goad"n---"?
_^l-crp"iY trorr
that poinr,
Ilowevcf, after rheope,riageate,nentsoro*a"a foi
Focrrdings
in Rule 84, or tbc b6$n.ing of &c preserrtation
.f u"id;
p*r"*fi;
il;85.
the condruariorrof thc proqcdingf canonrv t orao*a *rti
u"ioniaiii
ilJ
accused,exc€ptasprovidcdfor ia paragaph-p).
@) If, is tle si1pnr'rntr6p5s
memistrodra the lalf s€ote1ce
of pragrapb (C), rbe
ac$s€d vri&holds his coffont tbe renafnfugJudgesnay nongtheloss
decideto
cortinuerteppceedings
Morea Trialctarduerda - iiurtri,,iii,G ,', ,Id";
ar the circumsaEceshto accorruLth€y deterf,ine'naninouslv
-.dJe;;%";
thst doire eo
world scrre rhcitrterwrsofirr6tic!, This-decision
is *hi"rt t
full hncb of ftE AppealsgrTb* by oi&;party. If no
appeal rake,!or the
Appca.lsChamber^+n-""5166dccraid of rhc ilri Ctand;:G ls
hrddrrih;
assig!.fi] tbe exisdngborcb_atudgc,
-*; who,howover,canjoin rhobe,nchil; ;ft;
tre or strcha! ..fiified rhrt he or
m i.riUrrfroa frii*Af o l*r"ff ;d, d;
tho trnoceedings.
OnJyonc subsdrrtionuaaq ,hl, ilgrrph;]i;
g|
"
(E) 'Appcar'',bdcr oarqgraph@) shalltre fired within
'oerisotrsevendaysof filing of tho
nnpugncddBcisiorl-wn sucn
ir
*"a#a
------'
ora'y,
this ti4crrim{r sha'
"- decision,
nrn ftorr thc datcof tbooral
un;s;
Q tF pafiy chaltengi4 thodecisionvrastrorprss6[tor n2prcseltidwhet
rhedccisionwaspconounccd,
in whlch
the r_"_Ii_h.iUru *i ti_
rheda,uonwhicb-&e
"aro
challenging
p*tv ir
Joid Cssen'ICTRd 94Z-ALSbh
""tti"a
otir" illiiralill,?"'
24 Se?tembct
2m-1
=
'
t{/oe '03 tED 1?:06 r,Ar 0031705128932
:'-*
rCtR trEGrm SISUE ICIR
goog
nofl,
(n) tbc Trial Cr.'r,"borbp hdicatcd6at wfibc!
i
d€cision
whicb caec'dratims-lirtit shrll ruatc,a +ir;"gof-G-*Con r+itt follow, in
dccisim.
@ I.ncaseof illaesscgan.'.fiIedracancy ol in aal ofrEt,Inild circ|bstarccs,
elpeslAantter, if satiefied
tba-r
it iein tir-iuilG otGffi t" co,o,au&qds,
a Cbambcrro cedunt routinetra-tters,such
as ,hc d"li';il"f
absenco
of mc or mqc of its ngloers-
dccisione,in the
rv.
n.t
9.
Tho Appeale Cfsmb€r will addresstwo preliminary
argumcrrt. First, *o
AppcllantsssDreqdthat,rhevo,remajning judgusin tha
ButareEial $tt itr rheplcory
wbich fittendedRule t5Dison TI Nlzy ZW a\d
ro
bar tie illpaired tbeir ingorda,.Hry.
Tto ar:umsrt oy€dooksse fact that judg's ca! in a
legisrndvecapapigmakorules
without pfejudioeto fidr rfuht to pr@ounco
il a judiciet capaciryon frc vrres or
oPentiol of therulesgomadc.ll Ia rhiscas€,article
14of fbe Stahrtc,whichgivesa nrlc_
tnaklng coapsleacsto the judges of the Tribuoil, does
not pr€ve,rttbce Aoru later
decidingin thcfujudldal capacityodthevrre.,of oporation
of Ue n{es adopted.
l0'
The secondprcriminay argumcnrrs that the
$/6 r.umaioing
judges ix. theBunre
trial had no jurisdiction to decidewherhcn&e new
Rule r5&& was appricabreto the
Ffesentcase.l2The cont€otiotris that egih Trial Chqnbefnuet be coqpoBod
of three
menrb€(sstd that a Trial Cbmbesie only authorised,
il flrrrhqancecf Rule l5Ei,r@, to
conducttoutine datt.efr iD rh. albseace
of one or uore of its me4!96;lr the question
whetherthc powgs ggafeuedby tho amendedRulc
15Drsapply ro the prie.senl
oaea
csrinotfall Withinthgds&titioa of .toufim s5gq5".
11.
The AppcaisClrasrbc'rcoqsidErsthat aryone
oxeroiringa judicial powerhasthe
rcsponsibilitymd thecorq'eErceto ensrEethat
he hastho poworwhichhe is proposing
to cxsclse. The newRule l5Drs(D)
Ctvear judlcial powerto therworemnirrinC
judges,
roThc
Appeq3sis
6o rroo[droot wis deslgrcd !o prcvad,h-Jnfro,m
bcDc,lidngfr@ thdi!
i f i'H**'*rorre
aatr
Jirrcal
ffi11+.$:*
ru:ii-trHj##Sift,lg
" Snolanttttsv. C-,r"o, giftR" l l A*l'zbOa
"?ffi{1
io-oco"a I iegrstative
pogador rcjatirg to 6p@fic cldas
-'--"'
ofr lcgistadvo
"tuo "rgu;;-t
FrTi"??*T#wn
''
noEroi
ir isrltctheuishfri;-
ScsNdsyrab46'B noriooof apgrco[puas-g.lq
Ieilr CsB6rTCTR.gl-42.Aliri,
atrdNyira&&q$uko,snoriccof appeal,psuls,
3-10.
9
U$optcmb€(A003
.:
24/os '0, f,EDl?i0E Fttr oogl?osttErs2
ICIR REE ffE EAGTE ICIR
[! oro
\2q!h
namoly,thc powor b decidewhetheror not
ir is itr the hletesb of juedceb codaue
a
psrt-hoarCcaea'rrith a substitur€
judge.Thiepowerconpreheads
thoirrcideataipowerro
decide*hothcr or not thisprovisio! is applic8ble
to thepafticuletcascqf $e EnrsrcrialThic incidantelporqr h3f to becx€rcisedby
the two relnaidtrgjudgesto wbo6 tl6 nAin
po'weri5 entrulbd. the i{gpeabChaDber
cfnrnt seea[y enErcnrnrninddby .t,rt ia this
raepec€lt upholdrihcir roasoaiagasexpressed paragraph
in
Eof &a lEp[gled Decision.
't
l\-'
V, Tho nnnre of tlre Appellants' fiain cha]lcpm
12. Tho thnrslof fu Appelhnr"' mein6to{lssg6i5 that
fte aEondodRrrlelS}lc is lor
gutu
applicsbtre
'D the
e d€t' tie
beingftaq werc it ro rypb to rbarhial, it
"rgumcnr
urouldbe fipplyhg rttrocpcctivclyandthatit canaot trra.
do
siaseit cotrcemssubsrandve
rigbts and doeenot clcely ovidoncea rcroq,ectivc int*tim.
Tbeargu'eo. doesr'Ilte
to a pcdding(fial' but dfte it corcsls tle contiruarrce
of tre hi.l i! ilC frn,"' it eay
be questioned
wberleranyjsgueof rekospectivityis involvedevcnlf a
dubstsntiva
righr
is implicared.l' Tbc AppeateCbamberwill, however,prscced
ad ho fooring rharrhe
B|ncqdDelt coEc€m$a gubsra,,tiverishr, in the scose
of there beipg a legifmare
cxpeobdonrc bo ded in a cerraiawayil ordcrto achieve
rhefimdameualobjcc,tivcof
4 fair ri4r qadrhatretospcctiviryis ccnrscquently
involvcdin applyingtho rn."&,ont
pcrding
to a
tial. Nevedbel€ss,
the Appealschsr.ber doesnot coaeidortharthis ends
tlrc aatte,f.
13. Staturcswhich tneko slteBtjols ln plo€drrrl
rogulatosecondfy rafher tban
primarycond'cq $sy appDro exbtingproqecdrlg'arcn
t&oug! thpsswc{r commencad
bsforerhe statrt.s r'ero aade aodin thil scnseEay
bo rcffdsd u rctroapecdvars
By
contast, thereis a p,resuqrdonthat snad*'nb
affecdagsubstandve
righn arcilt4Dd€d
to be prospectivc.r6
grcsumption
firis
is howove(r rebunabhonc; if il ie rebutto4an
---__
I' 04 djfialur gburds.
ruch ouardoagw_+' tui6{ tt,
atpsL96 pq l-old psnring ad a p oro p., rocd Arronly-ecwm! v, venaz2Sfl960t A"c 965-H,L,.
ioii_J-6..f
*a f, baslvl v. USt Ftht
,-"
ffoaucrl jII U.s. z44 ( 1994),at pp,292_zirp". \iilr-&
r*ri"iTLIJ-.*
ot"*'o
&sx vquttdrc (l9o5l, 2 K,8,335i eadpe y. pavL
2t4 yr_ 6sLi 2o3s_E2d 123
irjrli.t*
''".SeeTwnbully.Farnon(1885lt5e.pl23+,pcrrowqL.JrtpJ3E:'Whorotholedrhtt:nerato
Hi:*"v ; E
-Pu#l
;;
i#t"'.
iri' ressooabrc
tosrppose
ffi $St"T'ifffi irt*ffffi
au-*i
r"..,irln-"-fi
;ail.iTJ
lT"T"ffii*"#f;j"#ls::,r*i,ffimr:
Jobt CsJenTCTR-9t-42_nt5 bit
r0
":xff*
24 Sq'ta.ftbt ?005
-a
2U0S ',Ot fiED17:07 FAr 00t170512893S
ICTR REGTgI EACI'E ISIB
nsil,
ansddu'ar' tbough affectiug subsbsdverig!ts, a'plies
,u'oaectifibty (b.afing a'y
inpcdiment qf a cmsffturi@allaftre)
ard socal a{foctexisdngproccedingr.lT
14.
Evidencecapableof rebunhg ftr presuropdoris firniched
tEoug! Rulo 6(C),
which srahsthar'an amcndment
sballertcf isto forceiurnediately,but sharlnot opcrate
to pn{udice the dghts of rhc accuredio a'y peNrdtrg
case-.It ie tue ttst a ptovisior.
stipulati[g tbat a stilhrtcr8 tOc@Eeaceat a coftainti'o
doesnot uecbr'arilymoantlar
&u stdtuteis to govodrlrsvioue oonducrinto whichan toEliry is peqdiqg thargss.
at
" .*
But it dqpcndsoD tbe tsilgLtsgcof tbp cmueqcene proyisiod.
Ifiere rh*e ie one
com'if,ce',reDt ptovision; it agplies ro d'qndmedta of
all kinds. l.hpreforc, every
,tbaediffclyp,
amendgreqrt
enDe$inro frm€
ic., wherb€rsttbsatrdvew procedurat,lt
appliasto all oasosorfwtioh thc Trib,malis thca or
may in funro be reised,tbc sole
.{tdification belngthatfre anenduent,
of whamverkind, mult not ,.oB!€ratE
to prrejudice
thc dghrs of thp acaucdin anypeding ceed..So,thercal ald
only qustion uudcrrhc
Rules, as rhey huvebcen d-aftc4 ls whetberthp new
aroendaeirtto Rulc lSbrs wrll
qrei€lo ro prejudicotheriehtsof rb, AppeIars,
15. Tbar beilg &e ody qucetion,thc Appcllenrs$rbmit
rhacdre new Rulc lsbis
would opEcreto pejudics tbdr dghts in thc pondingc.rsc
fot two mein reasCrrs.
Erst,
they clatn that, undcctbc old huic r5,i.r, tbEyhadan ab,solurc
,ltritbhold
right to
cqrsent
to the coatinuatiol of the casoi since 27 May ?,O01,
tbis rignr has b€oDmaterially
modified.rt Secord,thcy submitdnr theyhadin fact eisrcisod
thatrigh boforc27 May
2003by ref:sing to givc it andhgd rhus..raed a consequcotial
rigtt to a fighoaring,
,nd
thsr&€ newRuJe150/,twouldtal<e{way ttoir right to
a reheriug,tt E"oU*'-ro,
*,itt
bc rddressedir nua
!01 irltcd€d !o IEto awavor lcsco cris{g
A
rufots trar, **
wlcu tbc
r}rctesi'rsa'E
legislea[ci!
rv10Eatcls cf procedurc;dsdnsuit"dH;;;;;#;:
ir dc.rinE
rtca.linr
1ehrs, co-uvetrq
asdlsdnguiarao
rrqm
subftEEftvc
ri
chr h- .6hl1t*T1".'_:.9_T*d-;
.[h;'.TJ
ffi *.*_.:^_ r
Jq€ Frcsumpdoowfls trOttpbUnc,
./,urrr, p,".t
cmT'trs
r lqErb€!
or
r,"r,*,r
.,",**1"
-!.
of-olpArr
$n;;rs T_
orfy^I1r._
u'usiu.licr
irg-"-lTIF
Ndayr,mbrlc,s notice
es,HlTf.!:iff ff.,4il;
EPPsa'r'
p'r$'r8'23i
Nbhobari's
i'T"ffifHeilffi**ru9':'X
rl+:iffi:'ff
lg31ffi:i:{:'"rHff?;T?,:il'#'A{iK,fl',ffi.'ffi;
Nyr.-",,,ri'rro',i"ul?;'ffi
d;ffi#;riffi'ftit-*rffif; ;S?S:J#f i:i;.,otu,
of oppeot,
IoiqrC*e n'ICIR-9t-42-AtSrir
lL
?aScpeo!*;2n03
24/08 ',0t BED17:0? tAtr 00t17061289C2
ICIR, REC IEE EACUE IqM
w
16.
As to tb€ first of tle AFpelhnle,arFqFu6 ou prejudice,
rhoAppelans aosnfio
tat tncy faa a right b witthold cooseqtllde,r 6e
old RuIc 15Dain 4e casecf a judge
who hasnotrb6€ErF-€bcbd.Evonif tbis assurupdm
we,recofff a,thpAppeaJs
ChqEbcr
considenthlt this would not pur 6nendto e, jlquty,
bccauEe
it is &oescaryro qngyr,er
tfe qucedor.not whethcfec dght to cotrEedt
wasrak.o awaylhtpliciter,ow wbethcrtbc
.. d8hts of the Agpellanteit tb Butaretial wcrc prgjudiaedby rbeopcradonof Tncodcd
Ru.lel5Dis.
17. Thc Appeltanbdonot tate theh argEe,ub as
far &sto sugte$ rhatco!!€at is Ihe
sourceof tbc Tribrual's cotnpGtrac€
to provido for condnuationof a hcaing witb a
substilutejodge, and accordinglyftero rs no ne€d ,o
co'ridcr tire basie of tbat
cosuetercc. Ths ?ribrmal v/i[ Iimir ibelf to obcc'ing
!har, a8 a matt€rof plcading,
consenrDayprecludca pa'ty fiom gucrdonioga decisiab
!o contiuuea b€srisgbut that
conselt caindt givc the Tribuaal coupetenc€to colttrue
if rhc Tlibual does f,or
othFrwisehaveiU rhepover of rbeTribuqdlto condnuethe
hcarlagq&h a substiEte
judgeexisf dalrorucoDs€stThEAppealsCbamber
takoEtb€vi6w thaq6ougb appaently
absolule'tfie right to c@gontto continuationof
6e EiaI wzs not lrftpriatoriar brt
functional' Thp dght to cotrseatgaveprotecdodagainst
possibrcarbiu-ariness
ia the
exerciscof tfuopower of rhc ftibunsl to conriaue&e
hcarlngrvith a subsdturcjudg€;
CoDgerrt
I'ra6only a eafcguard18.
Tho qucstioathcrcfce is whcthertbc safeguard
profirlod tbmughthemccbaaisn
of consenrrrnzteq
the old Rulc l5&b wasreplaccdby th! Eodiflcadonrqade
@,n May
2003 by a safeguad qf
valuoTtc
new
Rule l5lb contatnsvarious
Fuiv€Icur
safcguads:the dccisiooby the two renainiagjudges
ia a judicial one;it is tqkco aftc(
hearingboth sides;ftE two reaajaingjrdgce kaow thg case
ss it hasso fu devolcpod;
treir dccid,onmlst be nnani'qous.anqppoinEEqt
car caly beqladeonce.Frther, rhere
is an ungualifiedright of appealby oitru p6fiy
&G! rbe decisionuken by the two
remainingjudgeedirect to a fuI bcnchof
thoAppcalscbamber.Fina'y, in caseswbcre
rheAppealsChamberaffirnr thofttal Oiarrbds
decisionor if no appealis todgo4 th"
trewlyas'iF*d j,dgE Eurt certify tbatIirehasfarniliarised
him€erfwith thc rccordof rhe
loiat Cracn'ICTR-9E-4zAf
jrii
1.,
24 SepeoberqfiB
-t
l
24l0s '0! WBD17:0? FtX 0051?0tlzggrr
IgIR REGlIE EACUE ICIR
wajn
prcceedings;if hc camor givc the roquircd cenificate
of faniliarbadon, hc cannot
evetrtuEllyb€substitutcd
19.
h effect, rrqda rhenewRula l5Du, 16s![qpoeoof ihoold saftguard
is Eot by
lhe vado$ procodtlcsmentionedin paragraphlg aboys,
h ftc opi.uionof rhc Appcals
chtynbcr,dp value of the old safeguard equivalent
is
to tlp varluoof tbe qow one,trih
the consequence
rlal uo'nzteriA projudiccresuitsb thc accusedfrcrrnpmvidhg
for tte
atpllcadcn
of
tht
law
safcgUmd
wbere
the
accurcd
.
lritlholds [i9 s66santia bcfh cases
thcrcis m equivale$IEor€ctionagairstubirarlnese.It follows
6at, evenrf, tn dhccaso
of a judge whoha.rngt beedro-olpcte4therewqsa righr to conrcnr cqntitruariou
io
of the
trlal wder &e old provisio4 fu op"*.i* of thc rewly ameidcd
Rulo 15bi.rdoesnot
tbc
rights
Fcjodice
of rhcAppeuzntsin thepeadingtrlal
VII
n,
. ll-.i
The secondarg@Eutof hc Appeltaaeconc<aingprcjudicoalsogssumes,
a$thp
AppealschamberuDd*srardsi! tbat in th€ caeeofajudge who h* not
beenrc-elocted"
the Appcretrtstrryl a right to cousentto a condnuadonof rhe nlat
rqtderrhc old Rutre
I56rs. Oa thiEbasis,tbcy sub,Eitthat,befort 21 NIay 2003,thuy
bsd aheadyexesfued
tirefurtBh' to consent.o rhecontinuario
a sf 6e Buew dal rmdcctho ord RuIe rsrb by
rcfusiqgthat consencUndecpangraph(C) of rha{Rule,in rhe
cjrsnrtagces of thecae!,
the Presi&nt of thc Tribrmatcouldonly ordera cqthuadon of &o ploceedings
with che
corcmt of the accused;in tbp absarceof suohconsoa!he was
obfucd ro order q
rE&padng,
Itrccould havs dsn6so before27 May 20Ol-tlad he done
so,bc wouldbavo
beengiving effcct to a tight which had aLoadya€cluedro rbc
Appclhdrs i/he! tbey
refusedto cff'eql Accordbg$, thene* Rule l5rrs oporatos
to prcjudicetbcir righrsia
IhcpeEdingtial withia tbeucarringof Rule(C).s
21.
Bccauseof its iilcro6l thg sccoadarguneirrof thc
Appclt nt6 bqsbcenseroul
However,in tho viow of rhe Ameals Chamber,
thc foundationon wbioh it rcsb is
doflci.nL Evenif, iu theclse of ajudgcwbohasqot be€prc-elected
the.A,ppoll
anq.haAa,
rigit to withhold consemundcfthe ordRurersr',
the App.ab cha$b€r finds frat tbp
right wascepableofbeing
$ralifrcd by the subsrit*ionof a safegua:d
equivalontia value
Joinrcqlg nTCTR-9E41-Afsbis
l3
24 scDleld.bor
2001
24/09 '0, WED1?r0E FAtr0011?06128s12
ICIR.FEelEE XTGUEISIR
ld01{
rys!h
to thalpmovidcd
by tlc rigbt to con$nt aryirh,t it wABsoqualitredby rhenewprovisioo
lte socordargumentofthe Appetlanrsouprejudiccis frccfore rdccted
VItr
Thcintemstsof iusticc
22'
Tbe Apper[atr do not chatellgc tbc oristenocof a disqedo ro dstcmtdc
whcrbcr fro ifierests d juelcc roquire a continuadonof the
tial. As the Appcals
Chqbcr rmdorstand.a
r! their submission
is rhaf in exoiising tlar digoerioq,the Trial
'? rah+'rhet66s6itbd
qqwever,$ubjoctto wharh lata said paragraph
anedrd gf I.Ew.2t
in
35,the AppealsCharnbercqNidersthatftey havenot shovrnhowtbe
trHalChrtbcc (as
conposedby tfie turoneuainbgiJuagas)
cned in balana.g the futcrtstsof justice.1fu
.Apeals Clumbor docstrm proposato rcpeatwberfte Trta] Cbanbcr
ha6saidErd griU
only emphasiso
6c followiog.
23'
The diec*tiou of theTriar chadb€rneant thar,rhetdal ch€,oberhad riehr
rhe
to
€stabllshthepEcisepoint wirhin aoagin of appreciation
at whlch t cottrinuationshould
be ordered.In thardecielon-malCog
proses!,tho Appeals(hambercanhrorveoeody ia
limited circumsrz'c€.,gs,for g1r",ple,wbeloit is of the view thst
therewasI fail.o to
erercigs*re drectetio,n,
or trrat6e Trrd cr'"obet fEitedto takeilro acpounta matqisr
conslderationor took ruto accountan im'ntffiar oue
and that ge Nub.tanceof its
deciaion\as ir cons€quonca
beenaft'ectedIt is not enougbthat the AppealsCSaBber
would havecxe'oisedthc drsfieriondiffacn'y. Howcvrr, even
if a ..iar co*t hasnot
otherwiseeqo4 6e Ep!€ltate.cotrt nust, if ncccgrary,
exarpjrpaaewtto relevad faate
andoircttmstarccsto o(€rcisea diocredo by y,ay of revicw
if ir rhid6 that the judge.s
ruIlngrnayhavereulred in injusriceto tfia appellants."a
r'Er,rrPr?
rcotDote 19, ,
''", Nyiranrasuluro'r
lodce of eoocal'luas'2+5oi Nlzrryayo's sodce
para^.r
of
* vrrw'
12; r;@rEudssr
Kanyabarhi's
s
4p6EI, pq..1ry1^e*as..4t-5_ri
pras. 4r-5Ii
go^qc.
go"dlo_rapp€ar,
Niihobati's
Nrrhobari's
oi agpc4
oi
norico
norico
ogpc4p;ar.4-Gtil
p;;r.4E;il
- seo1f v.
R Mc.catu+
(199tj,92 cr. App.n. zp iji,
ii#l-or*
couft of Ap,crr t'd' can".E
"i e?dti. 1;;,'; ,r., rceding{rejudguonrodtre
Eratlte. R;rtraq-Lrsrr
c,o ukEwi,obcr.orerpnred
rq
nesnthst'cveaif rhere'' nooihervitiainsrrror,anap'pcuaa
councouriTn*fort withrhce*erci6o
lsrflstcoudc'tits dtsEradou
;,.l4.exdfuoa-["-frffi"*"rU,
bl,4,0
wberEuretario.
lyirbi.owhicba rcasouble
sceI"odFrasd"f
ffiffit3:ir:iTfibro-'
JqilrtCa6rn'ICTR.9g-4}-Atihk
ruuileil;;;ffiJilio,r,
L4
custody
Appeat),
tresflz
24 S€p&dlb€r2003
2{/o0 '03 WED1?:09 l'al 00t1706r28903
ISIR NEC TBE EAGIJE ICTR
\wlh
24.
TheAppoirlscbrnbe acccptstharasbctweeaa rpeedybial andanequiabb rial
qeferencoshosldb6 givento he laro. Bnt tbcwis no ucccseryoppositio betwecn6re
rwo; a tcial is inequitableif it ir too lone drEwn ow. Spee4 in tbe sinec of
expadtlousacrs,ie irr ele@intof au cquitablctial. The AppcalsCharnbc doeguot
cotisida that theTlial Chanberosant otherrrjseo! rhaa,in particuls. it wE8itef€crilgro
anpediefiay.The Appealsfhrrnbcr will credit tho Tiial Chamberrvith kuolvingof the
distiuptionbetween"expcdltiouruees"
aod"expedlence".
It notesthattlp Tlial Chmber
' 'v
referredto the cm:*rnrl h article19.1of tbe Stahte frat ,,T!ial Charqbe$Ehallennxe
that a trial is fair atd expeditious,,," and thit it is lh fhar seOso- &o s€Dseof
'expresrloo ,\pecdy
{expeditioumess' . that
Sc
daf" is undcrstoodh mdor
jtrisillctions.a The AppaalsCharobers
considcrstbat iho decisionof rhe1list Cbamb€r
Pasnot baggdo! e*pcdience,
Thereis + preferenco
for Evolestimdy to be hearrd
by eacharil everyjudge.Btr
that doesnot reprEs€Dt
an unbendingrequfudncnt,The RnJesald tho casesshowthat
excqltions can be ugdo, The exoaptionsuray rcla0eeyen b evidelco ilvolvilg an
25,
a66essnentof de.oesf,our,various ways beiag availsble to assist a new judge to
overcoInoar,.ydisadvalages.Thc Appeltanbhaveqot attackedtheprooedqepresqibeat
by Rule 15(A) or Rulc 15@).Unds thoseprcvisims, a witnesscouldbe heardby two
judgeelthat the gocedue iq in offect availabloonly over o shortpciod of time is not
relevEntto fte pcinclplc ilvolved. No have the AppelJantrstacked th6 proceduro
-
lneeotibcdby tho old R'le 15(c) by virtue of whictr,itr s gsn-head qase,a subetmre
judgc could cma in for tte recrainderof thc ujal; rhatdris qrasposdtle only wittr the
conssffof the accuged(whereqpeningstatoro€nta
hadbeennade or svideocehadbcgun
to be prosflt€d) was,agafur,
not rcIevEnrb thc priocipleilvolved- AAdfren thereig he
caseof dqrcsitioa ovidenceadr.inodurrrlorRule71. Is all thoeecascg,the remporully
absentJudgeor the,substitutejudge, as the casemey be, is facod with the trsk of
evaluatingevidenoenot givor beforehiu,
a See, cxeFlE,
for
Btcck\ Ihr Dictiotary,?'Dect,p, 1409,
Johr CrBa!'ICIRg8.42-Af5rrr
15
24 S.tlcrtber 200,c
.L
7
24/Os
'.OgfitrD 17!08 FlI 0qt1?0E128S32
ICIT RBCTEE EAGI'E ICIN
lg uro
wa{h
26-
In paragraph33(k) o.f ih Deqiglon,drc Trial Chaober took "duc note of 6€
fiaancialcosb to thepublic", stnring,,,While664612rycostsrnay nor bc 6e ovediding
ootrriderstiotr
i! lh€ ad&id$rad,otrodjustica,$reymay Dot,o, theothefhad4beignored
rtto€F{r€rr'.It doesEotspgcsrthattheTlial Cba,nberwassaying&at fiamciElcosE
cBtr
jrrsdfy Ieer thqr a fair utal- Rrther thm affiibuting eoimprobablc vicy/
I
to tb6 Trial
Onmber, 6tc AppeolsChaoberFgfersto und€rsrsad
theTrial Cbasbento Ueeayingtt st
u neceagEry
cogu shoul'dnot be iacured; rhrt waspfoger,The Ttisl (hanbcr wasalso
'? entitlcdto
c4nsider6at, fot oncrgasonor arothdr,someof the wifiesssr ftom Rwanda
whohadalreadytesti!,edmigbtnotrghrmfor I !d!r, bialfl 6at againurgtpropef.
n ,
The AppealsCbdb€t doosnot considerir usofulto lay down a had and fast
relatioushipbewcen trre propordonof witrosseswho bavc aheadytestifod md the
exercireof the gower to orde,ra continurtiouof tba rial witft s substihtejudge. fire
discretionto contiaucthe tdal wfth a substitrtejudge is a cliscrrtioo;the Appcals
chamberoanonly interfcrewith the way ia whiohthe digcretioahasbeguarersisEdif it
hasbocoiacorreetlyexer,cieed
in fia circumstacesmeutionedabove.Thoetageroachecl
in eachcaseneednot alwa5rbe Sa eane.The AppealsChmber sc€s!o efror i! the
balaDccoade by the Trial ChBob€rof the varionsinbrcsts of justice ia the cial as it
rclatesro cachof be Appellautr,
So far, tho Appoals Ctmber doeg lot fud that tb€ ftiol Chranb€ff&ilcd to
l.i
exereir€la diaoradonor thst it madegny e[Ior i! axercisibgits disontion cr rhat lts
dcoisiqrrerulEd il iqiuedce'o thgApP.irart'. Tbis is, however,eubj6ctro whari6 Bot6d
below,
1s'
Tho appealbdef of Kanyioarhl,paragqh 32, say€thatzz of 23 witnessee
we(e
and
that
Foteatcd
t}eir tertimouyhasnot trcenvideo+eccded;, tho caedibilityof dre
majority' if not al], of thasewitnesssswas quesdoaedin crose-e>caniraaiion.
see arso
PEragaphs31ff of thc appearbrief of Ndayarnbaje
andpangraphs30ff of the appeal
brief of Nyirao'acuhulo. Irr the cage of thc lasr-mentionedAppelranf
14 of .vr.
! Ist1ufaed
Decisisq p61'rgreh33Oi.
Ioint crsc n'IqrR-98-42-at5bh
16
2/.Sqr*@fu26o
21/og 'ot TXD 1?t0s Fl.l 00$1705120832
t4ot?
IdIR REC lgE EAGIIE ICIR
v2lh
Prosecudol
wih€r6reldvortio hercasehrveahmdytestlfiedTbese
sEtcnmrsyr'ere
Dor
colltov€red,
by ttlcProcccqtion.
30. Theportuion
beingulco by&e AgpellEuts
is rlrarthsabilryb evatuste
clEdaffry
oo I poiat of dcneuour ie xsendal to tlrerebeing a fair trial acmaudaredby the suprue
ilsffiaent, Banely, rh6 SEirlo, ard thst ir tho abscuceof video-recoldingg,lr will not
bc pcssble for the rubetitutejudge io makc such an weluetiotr. Subjactm {le foflowing
'r ttst 0uhi$io[
h ce&cl
The ftnpugued Decision'iaid uothlng abour any suborissio having beenuade trc
the vojudgro aboutthc rbfedco ofyideo-r€cerdiaEF,rrd d$ongy EuggeSC
lhat none was
31.
{
rladc to thqr, As &e Appoals Chamb€ruudeEtandgtLe brlefs before it neirber tho
Appoltaats nor the Ptosecudon asg€fledbefore the Appcals Chaurber lbat srch a
submissioa had bcen oade to the two judge*. Ia fre circn,netEucesof &c casc, &e
Appeals Chamberdoesflot coBslders
it qenecgto considecthe podar,norc particulsly jn
light of the fact that it des ust hsvethe barofit of anyviews of rhetwq judg6! or it
32,
llorever, and iD alry event,it apgeds io the App€8lsCh.@borthat thp two judges
were sntitled to reged the queetlonof subsHtndoaai a pro€osswhich woold be dtvideil
W b€[weeD them ald tho dubstitrrtDjBdge, th" quesrioa of adoquacyof thp rtcords
(includi.ngthe rveilabillty of vidcoreccdirgr) behg a m.atterfor the substitute
Judge he
n aBalso a rervingludge- ltc divisior would be aade ia rhafollo*lng w4y:
lttt"
93.
I
Tte Tribunal should e*rdcavourto oake arreilablcto Tlisl Clallbqs the videoresordiags of witoessE!,ln particutar,of p"otectrd witl€sses. Howover, it seems!o the
I
Appcals chtqber that the adcqdacyof rh€ rEcord of procecdingsis a matcr fo! ttr€
subsdtutejudge to prss ol; rtrat baing sq any insdequacy in tho rpcord does nor
invalidrte thc decision of the TriEI chaotrr to coltinue the Fial with s subEti rejudge,
I
iI
I
I
I
Even after the THal chdeber har decidertin favor:r of cdntiDtrarionwith a subsriftre
judge, the lattcrjoiae tbe borch only upon certifying that he has
familiari?ed hi:n66lf luith
5 Sc. 61.$0
Pqn. 24 of hi8 Rrply.
JoiarCalodIeIR+&4?-A15rit
t7
24SaFEnb€r2093
24/09 'N frtrD1?:09 Fttr 00,1?0513s992
goto
IqM NBCIEE EACOE ICXR
r2lih
therecordof theproceedngs.lbe objectis obviouslyr ensblehiE to acquaiathiosclf
witb thepooceediugE.
If hosannoqhewill aorgivotherquimd cerdficar fird hs ltin not
join fte beoch.Eut he may feel thar,drr€Din thc abreuceof vidgqtscotdhgErttc r?cdd
of proceedingcic clough to e,nablehim to ap,preciaewhat hashapparedFailureto
revicw video-rectrdiugrwhich,becausethey aronon-axisteatdo not fcE part of tbe
recordof theproceedhgr,doesrot noan thatrhojudgehasnc fmlllaiaad hiilelf wirb
therecOrdof {te Focaetlingeasthereco(dstandaandth€refofedo66nqt ilisquallfyhr''.
'r ftco joiniug tic bedch. IIl
may decidcto jolu tho b€nch wie ay qrresdorcof
demearcurbeingleft to beresolvedin therne'.er follofil,ing.
g4. Tte rocou[roscitrrial chambermayrecar witresgessoasto cnabJe
th. substitute
judgeto assess
lhdr demcanour
on particularpolnm.Thercoallilocisiorrwouldbe made
by the recmposedTrial Chanberafferthe proposedjudgehrs joined ir. Whorcvi&orecordingsare availablg sn absentjudge who reviewssuchrecordin$ doogso aEa
rnemberof tbo benchtet ln ail the cagesmEtrtionedin paragraph25 above.In like
mmne,r,in thiE cgsetho substitutcjudge would be hering FcaUed!€6tin rty as a
nembcr of dre recoraposed
Trisl Charnbcr.The recaUpower lioc wilhjn tbe nonoal
comFcirence
of therecomposed
Tfial Chsmber.It wasnot f96th€twojUdgesb authorize
it ro exercisetlratconpotcnce,albougbtheycoulduoteftat competeacc.
35,
Or this basis,tbe solutiouis aefollows: If rhejudgc assigncdby rhe ftesidat
oertiEee"thrt be or clr ha$ faniliariz€d trimself cr helsalf wfth thc Fcofd of rhe
proceedinge"
(which'rr nenrionBdabwg doesnot in this c&sehcludevidc+,recordiugs)
andtlerea{teraccordlaglyjoine tfie benohof thc rlirl chanb€r, &e reoooposed.
Trtal
Chambernay, on a aotion by I puty ot proprio ,nat4 &eA]0a uritncsoon a puticular
issuewhichin ths rdewof drcTrjal Charaberinvolyeoa mattgfof qedibitity which tle
substilutgjudge
mayneedto assess
in thclight of thc wiE1esE'6
dpmeanoun
36.
Tlc Appea.lsChamhgrha.sconsideaad
whethera rrehearing
(as o,pgoged
to a
continuation)couldbe facilitgtedby recqurseto Rule 92rrJ (D), whichprovidcsfr rho
a&rrissionof tanscripb of evidence.
It notes,howev€tr,
thatdrepoceduredoesaol apply
Joi €ascnTCfR-98{Z.A1it{r
1E
?[ Soucober200!
J
2 4 / O S ' O g E r D 1 ? 3 0 0F t X 0 0 3 1 7 0 6 1 2 8 9 3 2
ICII B3GTEE EAGTts IqIR
@orc
IzDIA
in reiationto ,.iheac8 ad condrct
of the accused,,
audmay uot thedefore
bo adequate.
clcffi of tbeAppella[tssi,irh
rrstters
of
d€E€arour
stro+Iy suE€E-ts
T.he
tharso'e, or
alJ' of the 43 witrcgscEwho
tcstified
heve
have dons so i! rcratio b ,tho
rctE sod
condrct of tbe accused'.For
rhis reasol tte AppealsChaaber
is not satisfledthat the
Trial Chasbererredln gving no
considdatiodro the possibilityof
$akitrg recouseto
Rule92Dis.
D(
Disposifion
37-
I
{
\j
The AFpei.lsCbamberfiads tha, be
1lial Chamben
coopos€dof ludge Sekule
ad JudgeRararmon badjurisdiction
to decidcwhether&e DewRule i,5D&is
applicable
to thc Fesent proceoding, rhat
thc Trial Ctrambcrdid not err iD
findir,g rtat rhe
atrtplicadou
of thencw RuIe lsbrj to tb€procccdfugs
docsnot pn{udicefherigho of the
accuscdin tre proceedings,
srd rbatit did rot eag.inconcluding
trat il wssitr theintErosts
ofjusticc rhattheproceediugs
shouldcontinucwith a sHbsdqrbjudge.
38'
Subisotto pafagraph35 above,lhe Appeals
Chmber
disnisseette appeals.
Doneiq Fn8l{s[ endil Frcnch,the
Englisbtext beilg authoritadve.
Theodo lvlsOu
Reeiding Judgeof tre AppealsChanber
fudge MohameaShababuddeen
appendsa d€cluation to tbls decisiol.
rudge David Hunt
rypends a dissentingopi'ion to this deciaion.
Deledthls 246 day of Septembor
2003
At Thc Hague
TheNeftorlands
[Sealof ttrn TribuudJ
JoimCase''ICXR-98-42-At'tnr
249cPtombrr
zo03
:
24/0s '0t WED1?!10 FAX 00t1?061eE932
IqN
rd0?0
NEE lEE EASTIE ICIR
nql^
DECI-ARA:fIONOTJUDGESIIAEABI]DDEENI
1, " .I agreowith lhc decieiodof the AppealsOramberard wolld tik. 19guppogrtr with c
t
foUwing addidorat aEgnn€il aboutwhethrlr uodd! tbp old Rules,lhs
epellaDtebad a rigbt ro
cooi€Etto a continustiolroftb6 trial with a subctitrtejudge.
z.
It ippeareto Ee ftaf it is u$c$rito startwith a fcw remarlsoDRul€ l4ris, asir sood beforc
27 \llzy 2@3. Thc sscoodsert,coccof this rule, tbcn deleted,read:'Thoughreplrce4 thcy
Budges
of ba Tribr:nall sball flnleh sry carreswhich they nay luve beg&", This
Eovision sffuEd rbr
ti*iut
of the ltibrual h the s€rsetbat a preou wirbout thc szrdar of a judgo was bding
e'rlpoweredby RulesmEdaby thejudgosfteusetv€sto fimptionasa judgs, i.c- alrhoughho
bad
becn "taplaced" by anotbcrelectadjidge,r Tbe securiry council id tbe uftillere arbfiir of rb€
Rtructure
of thc Tribural so tis anituded theprovirton is rslevant,on rhebasir of thc provisioa,
tb€SecqdtyCounctlehouldhavefound ir un&cessaryon 19l\4ay2003to oxtendJudgE
Maqutu,s
termof officc to enablb\nm !o completetwo pa*heard csses,&at is to 6ay,if hc
wasayailable,ae
he obvloualywas.Litcwisc, he wor:ldbavebee,a,witlout fte interveationof &e Seaqiry
Coutcil,
able tp co,opler' frp Butare uial; cleariy, ah. secudty couacil bought thrt he could lot do so
witboutits approvarso, on both couras,rb, security cormqlrrook rbeviow that judgc
a
who had
n('f bccqre-electedcouldnot contiuuoro slr wi6out its autbcrity
3,
Rde f4bris,ln its origiral fofin, is relevanqhowerrer,to anundeflEndingof the
sccrpcof the
old Rule 1sbie(c)' the latter havingbeenadoptedwhilo tbe former war io foace.
A cato in which
judges
me of drotbee
w46not Ie clcctedwasdealrwith by fre old Rule 14r,$ it wastbereforenot
mccs'ary m dearfith sucha caseia rle old RuIe lsbi$(c): This view reeti€Gfte operationof the
seemitgly opeu-endedwo(dl 'for any reason"in tbe oid Rurc rlir(c), prcveutins
frcn ftoa
en$ocing the caecof a judge wno bEonot becnrc-clccrod;orhE(wi6otterE
corld be fwo Judg€d
eachaufrodsedto sta'd in fcr onb ard tle srno gacancy- thc .lalacod
but coudnrringjudge
*nnother
uDdcrthe old RulE l4,ls aad
rudge" assiped by th6 ftesid€d under tbc old Rul,e
I
In lh
cf theInEt!^0li@d coqt of rusrice,a simibc formulatiurexiss but it oxirt!
Sa
rs partof tbc prtncigrl lru of
Ih*.hsdud6A
nrncty, rs rlddb t3(g)
€f [he.Saruc
tl, C;rr,-;rtti"g ln4 r!! ,.Miob3rs of rha Coffi 6bau
-rtelr
cqttbustodischa{gc
"f
rleirauticaurrtil pr"*s levotc.rlr-mrrJil""ia,wf;*a,
ri"i it l-n
,ni"r,
begu!-'.II*g rhcpowerw-assoughrto Doconttred bv a nic of'murt '
jh:y Eay bav.e_
"-n"ii.iJ*
,.angr!!'n r/ 0r the Prosec d'a Rolnonsl &red 31 ruly 2@3, rifas
b ttre secrqlaryc"oaal's lerc of 16 Apfil
2003tDtheI'Iesiders of tho Sccruirydurgjl ard Os Oo;fiI G";irb" ater
nodni tbln tc tcfn saor,i.Ar""
cortniDI Plvvislol etE!&t to er*tc t3, palcgraph
"o,
,-hG
-",Jn
-+reiiri S,of lXu Sl",uto-.f
trtqn ionatCq!I1 o! Judc€-, rbcSccrcatr,
ccqffd obdrled "Nevprtulr6', io rt"
rny ixpriclr-pt
ra tne sreuo qr uo i"-t*"dfrrtor""r
"t
Rwalda
of rhcTrib,rsd i" o6o-u
fcrcoGPlcioror{dlng for rbcrxtendo ot e" ;; ;
6;;ludgeo -orgs"
-oonent
o*
!o
oq€oilg cs.6.!'r.EePFrtYrlof tto sccrrity"i6";';
"uo*
corndl * tuc julc
of rlo Trlbrtna! aadof oi
Asscably'
u thcorgsrwhichcrL;rsrrs.jud€ca,
wouldbe
hisli d;;bi, h
rogrdiug tbe le6slity of suchar arrosdodf
""ai
o p.""r"0,.oyql*n"i il;
,r*4t
-.J
CsssNo.:ICfR-9E-42-AIillr
t
24 Seerrcbc(2s03
24/og '07 FED 17:10 FAtr.00$l?051289f!
@otr
ICIR NEGIlE EAGI'E IqIB
,!tBlh
'
,
lslrs(c). This cinnhrsdon is in codornity will &e addttionatwods h the new Rule 15rl(c).
*If' by raoron
of d.ali. . . . , rasignatiolfiom ee Tribulrl, non-rEe,lrcdo&
loc€xtEadoDof t€llr of
o6ce". ltesc wordseE followedby the words',q fm aayotherrcaroo-,lhe
woftl .o6ed, being
aleonewandeorpbasisi4tbattheoascofjudgoowhoeecrm of ofEcehadcqe to al end
for to_
rcelccdon"or othercaueahqd not beenooveatdby tbc pnwiore lary!6gc. Ibe qow fornuladon
is
ako cotrsiEtFltwirh thoint€rFetalicdtlat tho concecaof theold Rulc Is,ir waswith capacity
to sir
h' the pertlcular 'bsrt-hea'd case" and not i! cas6sgcoerally,Tha judgE, to whos case
ihrt
prDvisionwas directed rem!fuicda judgo; hp cquld 6ir ir othq casos,bc coqtiEued!o
havo a
raadatc. Io otharwords,thc condnuatioqFovisiorc of riraold Rulo lSDr's(C)
wotr not lslrod€d !o
apPIX'to&e caseof e judgc wbo crasnot tE electedandwho ttrrefoc couldbot
sit ia rny case.Oa
ihc basisof thc old Rri6 14brr,in sucha cass,tharis !o soy,the casoof a judgo who
wasuot re_
elechl, no que6do[of coutitruiEgtb€,Hal wlh a sobstitutsjudge wouldairel tbejrrdsewho wae
not r+olact€dwouldcuy on u rxual.
4.
By'conuast,underthe n€w Rul,el5t{r, rhemrchincy for orderJngeitbora rehearingr a
cOntinurtionof tte hearirtgntrh a substitruojudgc applieswherca judgehasnot beeorp4lectcd_
It
is thefirst time that Rulo 15buprovidesfor tbo caseof a judgowbocemand4tebascxpted. Ald
it
doosSis' nor by Proetdingrharfio judge whohasuot beeara-oleaedchallcontinuc!o sit atuough
not ft'€Iected' but by providhg thathis placowo'ld be ra*e,nby ajudgc with a contiauingrnand.le
to functionasa judge.s
L]''
5,
It lqay b! askedwlat vould bappentf, beforerheFccnt change,a eittingjudgo waenotreelectedsnd tho security couffiil did nor authorisehim to contiuueto sarveitr a part-b€qd
matt€r,
TVouldnot frc accueodbavohada righ! undortbe old ngime, ro cqfilsnrto fre coutinuation
of tbc
trld with e substlfirtej",{g. u 6ucba case?Thc answects rhar this ovslools
tbs fundancnul
qucstionasto whst the old RuIe 15ri, Erallt wbcnir wa.8adoptcd.h n*
adoptcdiu &c light of the
old RulE14&it RFadin tbe light of iho lader,it as6m€dthatthc Sccudtycouncil
did norcoee igro
&r pictur' af all: &e 1'udgewho' was not ft+I€ctad wouJdsimply ca.y otr
and the needfor
conthdng the tial witb a substiturejudge would uot arisc, Thcrefore
sl6o &e quesdo[ of
cdseDringto a cmtiDustioDof fte ulal r,rrirha substinrte
judgewouldnoi ,rls€.
r
duprr6ldoorPqtot A{t€.Edondiru hge el &'!carI rh ftoced,,lT-g5-9_T
"Ordimnance
of 1t Apdl Z00Z(CIy),
c'[c€nr-ed o0 rqrlacome'Ior zr,Ir ad.ri* , iudged tfu
dd Etd judfa rh€ .'plu"oo,i jlto-r"r"rio.
pirdnut
r p,n-hoa(d
care.
It stu*d&arir w"sfoft*tiro roro n i-iiii^ :iASa;
,ii;iiilt"
U"
y
"
tn" mnr.oior
+d T+t!. kfr tbe Eereicaot 69 thbuDsl. tr
iL **."a ,o"_rd"B;Tii'
,uo ootio*,i*
of rh€Eidi tr
gleedcdtha fact th$ u,o !'nrrru'h{rr
"rinuoua
b!
d;;t-;;
by $a s6&crary .*osd, Tlrc casc is
Mer,yu
4
'Ordqulnn6.
dttisguishobl€,,Sob
dr presidedporiat-,lffoiifu.l:*
f;r,u
A.ro" I oq p!ocUs,,IT_r-2.-. T of 3f i
OcrobF2004"
C{ssNo.:IC]R-98-42.,41
sbr'r
24 Scp,tembu2003
2 4 / o s ' o x f i E D1 7 : 1 0 F A I 0 0 9 U 0 S 1 3 8 S 1 2
- .s0.zr
IdIB, NEE TEB SAGIJE ICIR
'a
nFtiL
tcrl
t,
ffrc qucsti@Eay abe be a*fd wtul wotd hrppe4 rradetrthe old rcglo!, if tha Trlbnnat
rrliscd that $lial'cc cotrld mt bc plrcsd od ttE old Rulo 14DJ,r
b erti[a a judSp cAo had aor be€E
tr
rc'elec&dto cafiy or with e pad-hpardcasa Coilld thc Tribual contlmc trc ulrl witi e sobstiulp
judgo without the constdt of thg accused?Ycg.ltla ia so bccanscof two tbirgr. Erst, tb, linited
ucadng of ths old Rule 15bu worrld etifl Enain Secsud,as fu Appcrlf Chaobcr said in
pal'graph 17 of irE dccido!, 'tonsent cannotgtvE UF Tribusl compctAlceo condnueif rhc
Tribua4 doee mt othErrf,fucbavc iti rh6 pos'er of 6p TnbuEal !o cstrllDuethc bcring witb a
subodtutcjudEc cxistgddlprr conscnt".Thc Tribrnal wonld thcrpforehrve hrd r dg[t !o Erbi irs
olm afisrgpmcntsfor ths contioution of frc nial by Np,poiddrga sr$gdfifiej[dgs; therewasro
t€dremcut usdcr t[o old egtno for the coruenrof thr acculcd!o sucha dec,isionTrue, oolec,st
"n
&fa U" rcquircd i! olc ca.sabut ooi io uoUrc"; b,utffrc appolcntdieecba.y is rtp result of he
wry &at th€ lsvr wer laid alow!, And ir ic upor rbarlaw thsrrhespfelantErDly,
1.
Thig couclusioniB rot Llcontistercwirh thc rcfcmcc ia &e olrl Rr:lo lfDi@) (rcraircd il
the new Rule lSti(F)) !o "1a 'lnfillcd yacatcy or ... any othersirnilrr cfucuurEncce".Ig ruch a
eihution,dr provisiot prcrvidedI sp€cilicreaedy ia thal thc Presidentcorld "autlrorisca Chrnbcr
to conduccmudae manore,suchas tho delivcy of docisions,ln &c abecdccof ose or rqorr of io
&pnbcrs". Thc p'rovisiol gtovidcd for lho caserfhcceone or laoru thaaonc nembcr was ahcntl
alsothereocdy which it provid€dwE! Dotr coDtinuadon
jddgo,
of rhcfrlal t 'ilh a $ubEdtut€
8.
In Eum,I do lor s$ee vith
rc ftndrlnsntal $rumpdo,nof thc appctla4ottar rho old Rule
15biJappllcdn the cascof a judge who hadnot beeorc-elecred-h suchI case,whr|r rharR lc !pa6
readwith tto old Rule l4air, no $resdo! could ariseof the rrial coorinubg wifr r sub imtc judgo,
Thcroforc' tlcrc could lo! be a g'sgtiou of the aBrpcltanrs
baving r tighr unctcndrc otrd'egiuo m
congcir to such a co huadoa ald of rhat rcscrtodright being iEpaked by subeoquenrly
nadc
Rnl6E.
Donoil English,!d il F.reach,tbo Englisbbrc bdingardoriErive.
pt*."-""--,-r.-*.-.
MoharnedShahabuddcen
Dared24SoptsInber
20(E
At TheHa$rc
TbeNo&orlands
'
CarrNo.: ICTR.9B,12-LLSbb
2tt Septeubrr 2003
l4l0,
' 0 3 W E D1 7 : 1 1
F ' A X0 0 9 1 7 0 8 1 2 8 s 3 2
tgozs
ISIB RgC lEB EACUE IdTB,
nr !l
ii'oi4
-
DISSMITII{GOPIMONOFJIIDGEDAI'DEUtr{I
Bm*grouudto tlE appeal
f.
Thc five appellan&(Arsine $b8loa Ntalm6ait,paulineNyiranasulukr, Alp;16r,se
Nbzirlayo' JowphKanphshi andEtie Ndeyubaje),togethe.r
*'ith a eixrhaccused
(Sylvaia
Nsabinrna),bavebeens&ndingEIgl beforcftial Chaubertr ifl fte RwmdaTribuoalrircc
12June2@1. Thejudgro asuignod
!o Trial Ctsmberfor lhar ptrposowereludeesSekule
MfqunrmrdRrnaroson.
" ,r
2.
\-
tial
Cha&ber II was bearinBttris casccoatsnporlneouslyvJltb rwo oth* cases,f,or
reasoncwhic-harenot i@diatoly apparenl The mandate(or termof office) of all tbreejudgcs
'vlrssdlre to conokrdsaa ?Al'4.ty rhis yesr.
of
At tlrc olection of judgos for a rpw mmdatc,
sonductedby tbe Iff GaaaralAsseorblyoo 31 Januaryof this yer, Judgel4squnt was
aot
IFelected. In Lfarch, Iudgo Pillay (fren tlre Presidentof the RwandaTdbuual) reglcsad thc
LIN Secretary.Gcoeml
to s€ekftom rhe IIN Seoniry Council a[ extensiol of JudgeMuqgtu's
aandareto erablc hlrn to couolu& all tbree c,treshe was bcaring. Ou 19!day, thc Sccurity
coulcil passsdr ftsolution extcndirgJudgeMaqutu'smandrtclD r€lationto thc oth€f,two cases
but not in reladon to this casp, IIis nand* in plation to thie case
"cecrdmglyexpirtd on
24May.
3.
As rt %May' rho onry provisiors il tho Rulos of proced*c asd Eviderc! (Rules')
dcalingwith the tlabitity of a judgc ro takepfi ia a hoqing wEreto tF found in Rlle
lsbr
fAbscdce of a Judge"):
i.
:rj
(A)If
(i) a ludgo Ir. fu lllncssor oder ugcat gcrrooalrtarorg or for rsarocs
of
authori$rtfibuugJ b$iness,rtubL o coDtinu,siniry j! g pEt-hcsdcrscfor a
pcriodwHchie lilcclyto bcof sbct rtur*iqr1end
(ii)-rle,remel,",ng
Jlrdglsof rle Chsnbsrsta rdlsficit hat ir is h th. iateresrs
of
jDrticc b do !q
tborc lrdllDiEB Judgesof tbe Cbrnbc nay ord€r ttt rDsherdlg
of tbe case
continucill tbc tbloace of thlt ludge for r pqlod of mt aarc thra -fivc wolilg
day".
(B) E
(i) e ludgc i\ f& illIIEEdq 6&cr drgElt perro?:slrr6lofls,
or for re|!on6 of
authorl$d ltibunel burinogo,uuabloto con;inuesini* in a pgr_hegrdo0ro
for r
plriod which is liklly ro beof shortduratioD,orl
(ii). the-rE@dntngllrdgcsof thoChrmboruc lot lqtirfrd thsrit h in
theinrereacrd
Jutic€ !o Gdq th* lbe 53zing gf th6 c$t conrinuein the absoooo
of har Judg;,
then
ICTR-g8-42-A15rrr
i
+
'.
24 SoptlrDbcr2003
24/0C
'0S WED17rll FA.tr'
0031708126932
E ozi
ICTRREGIIE EAqUE ICIR
itsi'|
(ri thore tmbing tdgEs qf te ChaJtrba(
rory EcycrilsleBscoDdrs ltola 6rr1cs
*'high &ay 11! sads66d&g+ bu di6por.d of in tns iBrEtrsb of jurdc+
'|o(1virh5tl[dlg &e abEcdcrsf6rt Iudge,alrd
(b) 6i PrgridlEglldgs aoy adjourdthEFers€dhgs.
,
(C) If a ludge lC for ruy ream$ ErblE to crqtirNc dnbg h r p8t hE[d. cas€frr a
p€fiod ntbittr b [bly b bc lolg€r 619 of r shwt itlntiou t[o Prosidirgftdt! shal
reportro rb Frolidot wiro ney assig aoorhcrIrrdgco hE ."n ad fo* riter a
Ehouing r conriusado!of 6o pocrcrbrgr troEt tar FilL llo*egcr, rfer 6c
opcdng satmlorr Foliilcd fd b Ruls 8a, a da bcgidihg d 6c
6t ndo of
evideocogunraot b fule 85, tha mtbrut'on of tre plocss+t"E cu oly bc
orderd crllt $p sodr.Etof ths rcc|lsed
(D) I.Dcaseof illa*s or rr dttned vacfrcy tr in s[y 6ah.ciirDflr cirqfilHlr€c, r!€
PrEsrldEd
Ety. if sati!frcdrhatit ir ir tb itr6€5E of justrcc o do sq rtfurfue a
Chrabcs b codl4t rerdrc Ertar, such s tfo aiUqy of aec*oq, ir tc
abreoccof oc or qrc of its membotr.
On 27l4ay, the judgesof thc RwandaThlbuial ausDdcdtlc Rub, so thar 0reodsting
par (C) war rcplaoodby rcw paragrapbs
(C), @) md @),in the followiag tcoos:
(C) Ii by reaool of dcrr!, ilhl.A!, resignario[tom thc tribqfil mn-rarloction rcnercEflsisaof Ern of of6cl c,r fcr aay othe !,casorga JuCgeiB ulabl€ b €oori r
sinirg iD i pert-h€{d cssefor e pqlod Fr''-h ie lilcly o 5c lmgor Sb qfa 3!cd
dus{$oa,tbo Frerldl.g lr:dge ahrll rqort to ea Ptesl&lr nrhoEry rcsignroothc
Jud€eto &c 0069Ird orda dta a rahcariagor coatirution of'thc prooediags
tom tbarpoin. Ilowrw(. sf€f the opeai4 uaroocrE povided fo h-Rttc g4 or
tbc bcgi$ilg of rh. prQreflatiooof cvld@cepursuaufo Rrrb 95, &6 polti$rtion
'
of l- proocedbgscs! ooly bc cdrrd witt tte ca,sgrff616r a6clsc4 rnoopes
prwiiled fcr in prsgreph @)@) E ia tlroofuun$rrarcs aortiolEd i! rle tist ssdbEc€of paflErspi (O. 6c accrrad
withholdi bfuconscnqtbe t€{lAi[irg JrdeEsory aoopdcLasacdiaoto Eo!t'rElptlrs
.. Foc€edllg! bdorc a Trirl (*c-hc wirh I EubFtirte lqdg!
E, btiDg a[ tbo
circ{E3nucEsjrio lccounl hey demminc rur"i.rondy tharddag so tdrrld €erya
he i €(ect6of jusrics, THs &cisioa ia qtbjcct to rpp"at dlrcctly|o a foll Dcnpbof
tha Appedr Chmbecby eitberpa$y, If rc eppealis irtm oerfi eppatr Orpltr
dBrEs tltc &Elrloo of tbeftial Cbroher. es hrsi(bnt sbdl [ssigl o thc c*inirg
bcdcba Judlq wfu, ho*evr, csDJoin the beoc! ooly efter he or-ahohs ccrutrJ
hirurf er b.[tgH x/ith ee recod of tc pmcecdng*
rblr !c or shot63 t-iti";..d
Ody oued$stindo! uder drir putgnph oay bc Eids,
@) .AppEds.r!td!. pua''glalh (D) Bball.bc fibd x'Ibin revctr dsla
ot ftlng of 6c
-time"lhit
blpuged decldoo, Whensuc! dooirionB nrldErEdorElly,this
iha nm
AorDth: drb of tbr q-aftLs-l|lcE,u{ll€ss
(i) the-p$ry chaleDgiDgrhc dcdsion vss ,Dt ptc€EEtoi rc!,rEscnhdwh@ tbc
drcllion w|3 proDlrnc€d,h whichcaratho tlne-llDit EhaUrul toE rhodarcon
urttch Ihc ^hrtl-rdng partyir r*i$c.rl of fta qnl decido& o[
(ti) tc Trisl Ch6b:r hss idicared that { urias! decicionwi! tbllor,,
in which
cass,thr tim+limit 6hrll !u! f€m ffling of rlo q.rlho decisios.
Theexistingprr (D) wEsisdsslgnatedaspar(F).
ga 28 May, Judg+lvlgse(whohadbccomerheProstdentof tlre iftlhnal)
aurhorigod
th6
two remainhg membergof the Trial Chg,mbcr
to conduqtruutlnernstrc$ ln accordance
u/iththc
5.
,1
ICTR-98.42"A15ttr
1
'
,4 Sepftmber200C
2U0S '0A VEDL7ttz PAtr0031?0i1f8992
ICTR NEC IlE EOCIIE ICIT
Ruls' Ttat powerwasgivenro dre&esidenrboth by the
Rulc asir srood.or 24May (rn par@))
a:d rlereaftcr (ia parF)), The presidenttherawrotc
to thopartieoukhg whe&cr,i! theright of
dre cvearswrich had ocowe4 tireywould cons'nt to rhe
cortiludo[ uI tbe Har ]vith snoth€r
judge bedngsubsdtricdfor Judgp
Maqur,r Sucbcosaentwould harrcbeensdEcisnt ro anblo
the Preeidentto esergamotherjudge pqxsurntto thp
uew par (c), and tbe abeoce of co$eor
wonld ,havebeearrclevaffio tb8 dstemiustiG to be nlade
puEuanrto t!€ !eq, par @) ss to
whethefthe cortinuationof the uiat wlth a substinredjudgp
wodd s€rystheirt*ost, ofjusticc"
Botb Sylvain NMbiEila ard fte prose€EtioaconsotrE4but
all fivE Eppellan&qposed fte
'' cgrtiuturicn of the tdsl Two of rlreappdlants
flled notionr by whicl tlrcy sou#\ tnter aric. a,
nrling 46 tO whethcr ftc tu'o remnidng j'dges had '!.tisdictiou"
to dctsnnino whaber thc
arnendcdRuIe lSDrb ralhor thar rhe Rulo ss exisred
it
or 24ldey ,nx applicrble in thc
circumrtanccsof this c6a
6.
ltre two rem.aining
judgesof theTrtal Chanberisvitcd $rbirsiqs
(i)
in nrling tlat dray trad ,ijurisdiction,,to deqmisc whefher
thc asended Rulc was
ap'plicable;3
Cu)
(iii)
tler it vgos60applicable;Etrd
in dnter:mfuing
in cucluding thar&o inbrcstEof jusricewould bo Eervedby conilrurng
ADmuhcparticsbob
asto v',hethcrtbe ameqded
Rule appliedand,if so,asio whetherthelnteffisoof juBticewoulttbo
servedby coadnuurgttre tial wi$r a subsdn$ed
jddge. They subsoguerflyconcluded$at the
ameldedRuIe applie4 ad that theinterestsof jucticc woqldbo
eorewed-t The appcllals thea
apporlcd.zTheyague rhat1i1gttvorcmairrilgjudgosof
thpTri8l Cbaribq qred:
substitutedjudgp.
Tlulo rrs rraions subridiaryi6s).s laiscd by the aI,pcllantr,
aad
considedngthesethreepdncip4 issues.
tho rial with a
ihesecan bc deelt rvith when
I
Prose,40rv Nvirananruthto arir' IclrIUgg42'T, Deci'iotr
rn ,oo Msttar of proca€dirg'uldor
15Jutyz0s3(!ftblOrrnberDecisiod).
,' S:l?
lsliPl
Nodooof AFpcar
oipecisioa 5 41 vau"r oi-rrllaiog, udcr Ru.ro
l5br:r(D)'Daed15Juty2003,
m trvly2003(t{mtobaliaeueaull_ttoucc
-[Uc{nt
tyi"iiiriTtirur^r0o"",,
,agatu*theDc*loo ,r
thc-Maner,
"i.4p.'rr
of.Roc€rdoru
ztffi
-l/rrrLAppcql,);Alphonse
i,fri"-.",rrr'o
11rslrfoi,'rri'uiy
.p*iilou
nicz*yryo'sAppedA*h$ rhcDccisiqn
U ifo
;f
Un'&*niio
iiii[fi
ReDd€re.d
by lde." sokolak?r*lq *d R -r*;" ;; Gl"ty """*UoG
zoor, rr r,,ty 2oo3CNieziryayc
&."t')t ApegrF'reurarm rutc rsbl.
ig of-rrru-niilr'iiiL*-.
,rd Evid*r' , ?z ruryz@i
(xanpb*hl Appcal");Noticeer appgrt".ra
Agril, ;";d;
Eiu.o
D.dstor rtrtheMdF of
rra,
Pf$ccaffqes
UurtertuI. 15gA(D1"
Rulcsof procedrne
_CfuGH(ot ;;l&fi.liit,
andEvuenco),
(NdVurtepepi,."rj.
r' N$hobali
-? lury2003
Apporl, ss i
NdayaArbqic Appcol, par 15-
i'i"i+=ss,,rlufo Apperl,.
- Tr+r
pars
2.3, t4;
'+r
vruJ !-J,
KrulEbalhi
aBul.dDn6l}l Appai,
^*ot'
prrs
2l_34; --i
O* *tOt
-:
IcrR-9E-42-A1J'it
3
24 scpnmbcrzo03
24/09 'os IED 1?:12 FAX00tr705128909
IC'IR RECIlE EICUE ICTR
@0 2 8
ttfr.k
The powu of tbe two rtrnaldngJudrs to ruIe tllt eey tad porrcr
to detqnlne whetherthe anreqAedRul".r*.r rppil.abld
7-
Tlro appollantsarguethar Rulc tSlf,r in iho form h whtchit srooda8 t 24
NIay?-wJ
(whenJudger&qrrfir'r oandatein rerrdon to uis cas! cxpircd)is the ody
relerut oouae of
powerfor the two raainbB iudgesof he Trial cburber to dctcmias an! issue
ia trc csse,ard
that thc erxtcntof thosepowersdeperud
uponothordeterrminadoos
rncds[y ft6 prccidart of tlle
ftibusai- Thoy submittharR'le 15rtu docslot pondt rhc two lemd,'isg judg$ to detqotne
whethecthc arnendedRule wasapplicableto this caso,wtdctris aot a
"roEtinsmrficd' coverEd
., bgthe Rule' audwhiehcouldorly haveboo dcrmdned by a Trial clraobcr *togally
constiuEd
to thateffect''.4
8.
The Trial CborlberFjectod'thearguuentthat rhelggueasto whslherfhs id€[ded RuIi
was applicablcto the ptqtant casew$ separabfto,E 0re iesueas to wbefter tbs brffese of
justice woild bc servcd,bycmthuing ttristial with a ncwjudge as
a resultof thc orpi,urionof
IudgeMaqufir'srnandrl+t This wascoEei't. Tha jttrrpretatioo o( for exanplo,a
Srlercladng
to ttle admissibility of orridBnceis not soparat€fioo the appli,oado$of drat rrde ro the
&ernination of the adqisslhtflry of fte evi&lce in qucction. h the
lmsotrt case,the two
teBainingjudg€s wereobliged0oiletemine which versionof Rule l5bi,s wagapplicablcto Ere
situalion ln which they fouod themselvesaftlr 2l l1t[1ybefore they cirold act rmder dthcr
version. Thoj5r.le as to whethertheanandedRrrlewaeapylicablewts &csssarilyi0cideatalto
thcir tasl(uadorRule l5!ir, The arguments
of o'. appe[anb!o lhe conrary qe rejccted
9,
rr has alsobccnsub'dttedthatRulc 15Dirwu urendodby tho
Fago crocludiryth" r*o
=I9mafuingjudges of tris Trial Oraober) in order to rpsolvethe iesucwtich had aiBeniu the
plosert,case!aodthat an objectiveobssrv€rcould lhooeforo
lnfer &A th6 trvo remdntngjudgBs
wore lot itrp0rdal6 ThEteiE
substgnoe
ia this subfiission. The judgosof the Rwanda
"no
Tribual wcre urerelyfollorvingtheir uvualpracticeof adDptiDg
$levsnt auren&cutswhichhad
prcviously beea madeby rhajudges of yugoelavTribunal to fiar Tiibieal'e
Rulcr. 'firose
emendufits weremado.by thoJudges'ofdc yugoslavTdbuual m 12Docembcr20O2(beforc
ihe electionfor tle Rwandajudgeshadtakenplace),ffid theywgr€adoptedby rhejr:dg*
of tho
Rwmda Tribunal on the first occasionuponwhiohthatThibual's Rulaevere beiagconsidered
by thosejudgessinccDecember,TheRulescanonly be amcndedby thejUdges the
Tribunal.
of
co
Tficrc
bc uo vslid (c rcsporulbla)submissionthatjudgeswho neccssarilymusttstc pail in
,t**r, prr231Nrtayamb4ie
Appe.qr,
pare9.10- App6t,prf 9; Nytalusubuko
I *ial
l+++Cbmbtr
Dcrdsirnr.rlrg B,10.
"6
Ntcztyalo A!E6er,par G; i(aoyolurlt Appcal,par 19,
Icr*-98_4z.Al5r&
t
4
24 seoftab€( 2oo3
00917051289t2
24/og 'nl frxD 1?r12 FA.tr,
ICIR IEC lgB EACUE IqtR
9021
trzlh
tle 8.ttlc'nsfting proccn fail to rct inpanialty whcu thoyarecalled,rryonto drtcrminesitherthc
propcriabcpaeradonof a nde which theyhaveru€Ededor its appllcationin e paficrrlar case, D
would bo equallywithout slrbstsf,ceb infer that eJudce'slrpaatality iu deledriuingeitb€rrlo
i*erprotation or appllcadonof r Rule could be challengadaccocdlryb hdu/be o{ shevoted lr1
tho nub-mqldng procast.
A&t!,e1 gubrdis6orwhiohhasbeeanade is thatthe S€{urity Cou,ucilacteduulrwfirlly ia
rtftcing to lrrnocr" JudgoMaquiu'dmendsbto heartle prcG€ntcasc(i) by violeringtho ,tight
10.
''J
, tgrgquality" of atl acorsedas gurraoteedby ArricJe.fiI)'of the Tdburfl'r Starue,ed (ii) by
contsBvrf,idg"the prhciple of irre*oovabilitf urd therebytbc indcpcadenna
of thaftibrpal, es a
jurfuewhoee631rlers[sl, 1ot beenre,newed
fin thc GcncmlAssonbly olqctio,n]uay continucto
form part of thc Trial Chambcronly 'tf he c shebegsrubodratior tpn theSecudtyCormcil".?
The secmd part of thts subtolsslonis jn part baseduponthe deletim of rthcsecoqds€ntetrceof
Rlle 14bi,sat theneetilg of rhejudgeson 27}rtay. La arz4May, thatRUlcwagtn thesetcrps:
Theupubcu of 6c TribrsralcltallcoEtlnqs
to dlschrgctiair duticsuEdtth.foptrccr
bavobcaofille( Ttoughrcplscc{ SEyshgllftnishaDycascawhict ttrry mayhave
b.EunThis submission ls al6o witbout rubstaflce. Ibo cocondseot€nccwould have hqd no rralidity in
the situatico whae the judge's mandatohad expire4 it corrld havebeeo valld ouly in rclatioo to
tlo intsmd 4ranggmlnh Bade by he Prsidetrt in aesigniogjudgoo The Tribnual's Statuie
povides for the clcctim of its jrrdges by the Gcneral Asseubly fq e tcm of forn yearc, Tho
Sccuity Council carnot be roquired to overcofro the problems crnaFd by an uusrrccessfirl
nominatis! for re-cleqtio by automatically cxtondhrg every unsucceosfirl judge's rnmdato
rirrrrcly ber-ausche c sho may be pefi"bpad tu a rial. Whcfirer it is appqpiara in dra particular
case to q(tord the mrrdarc of orch a judge in ordor to frnish a uial is a mncr for ft'. security
Coucil and aot for rhe Tlibunal to dete'nnlne. The fagl that JrrdgeMaqutu wa! hearing tbreo'
ca8esco[teEporaneou{y at the tins hig nrmdate expired Wasoo doubt A tubgtantial rBsso[ for
tbo Security Coucil's d€cisiol, Thc submissionis rejccc4
The decistonthat the amerdedRule Wasspplicable in rlis crre
I 1.
Tho oppcllontshad arguodin rheT.igl chamberthat the appticationof thc rncnded Rule
to a cffe whlah was pan h€rd qt the rime when thc amcndm€fltwa6 sdopr€doffeudsdtho
t
KEDyeb$hi Appcd! p1{! 15-19.
ICTX.-9842.Al5Dir
F
24 Seprenbcr2003 .
'0t trED17:tt &tr 00,3170512E032
ICIN NEC fiE
EAGEE ICIR
t4 028
llllt^
pesuuptiol againottic routspecdvc
appuoadon
of tegislltiu.t Thoi*ric hpreconceras
RuIe6(c),wbichu allrclovant
timeshasbeeqin thcfollorving
temst
ar ecndn€li rlsfl cdrr lntoforceiE$sdiacly, bntrhrlt rct op*al€o puftdice tbo
riglis of lb6|Eqr6ed
ta sry pctrdhgca6a
rhe arrpellaffi had srgu€d(aad oontrnuob arg*) trraqp'or to thp ameod'eot,
rhcy had. a
subtstflrtiverighr to l?fi$c ftdr co!'€''t to fte cotbuatior of rh€trial.witr
a $$stiild judgq
andthat the removsl of rharright by tho anendmentto rtulc lsth pEjudicsd treo.e
TheTrial
chamber hcld thst frp rrght to Ffuse suoh couseo.wlr nor a firndamemaldght b
which
- \$" 6(c) 4plied-10 Alrernadvsly,th rrial chambdr h€ld rha4 cvecrif
dre dght to rd*o
coDgcdwere to be regardedrs a ft'nd&n rb] dgbq Rule 6(c) ft4lrEd it !o trke
irJo acco,Ilt
otler intEresbof Jrutim which putrtre rights of tlre
rypellantain thdr:$ropetr legnl cmtexp.rl
T[erc sre tbreeiseUoe
whichaust becoileid€Eed
berc,
L2'
Erst thc apFellans'claimthatzucha right b rpfusetheir c@sentro a continuationof ths
eial cxistedprior to tho rq\etrdmprtdcpcndsupon whorherRule lsrtr(c) in iro originar
foro
appliedto the siuratisnwherea judge wasunableto contiaucsini,rg bocarJse
he or sbebadnot
baenre"clecFd, That Rulo l5Dr'^v
pcrmitc.dtbe ftesidodt of thETribunalb ordcr a continuarion
of thc hoaringwiri anotherjudge whcrooos of tlrejudgosof the Trial Ounber rvat ,.{0r
aqy
rerson" ruable to codinuo siningin dropart-heardcasettor a poriodrrehich
is likely to beImger
'of
ftan gf a short duatiod. The non-ro-slection
such a Judgehardly +reatcsaa iaatriliry ro
cmdnue sining for a gcclorlof shortdrratioq ands'ch c sltuatiouwar uot
contcnplatedby thc
Rule' The ftibuBl hasrndoubtedlyalwayshad au fuherentjurisdiction to
malceguchan o(der
wherea judge hasnot beenre+1ect64andtharj,Eisdictiondocanol d€pcod
upqntlc corrsentof
ftc awuse4 bu it waEnot Foviaed for ln thoRulcs, Thc ameadodRulE lshrs@)
malpc sucha
provleionfor thefret drnq ro $ar rbepositionst pEEcDtwhenajudgo
harrnotbccnro+lectodis
h$ (l) the PEddoEt rnry origr the tial to cotrtlnuepursuantto p{F(C),
but in certain
drcumstanceso'nlywith *ra consentof thc acct$c4 and(2) whcrettrcconsf.nt
cdtbc rccus€dhas
beenwithhcld, rhe tvo reraaininCjudgesof thc Tllal CharoberEsy
ordcf thc trial to cotrtitue
pursrantto par (D), but only if rheyaresatisfedthar suchcorrdnuaion
wo'rd se*e the interests
of iustice.
I NEhoba[Appcal,pq
l5i NrtryrnbajcAppe4pflrlt,
- NyualEasuElro
Asocat.Eln7. 19 -I); Nbzky.4o Appcal,pars2a-25; KanyalashiApperl, pu40;
NdgnubqicApl.+ p"rj 1}.t+,
'-.- llbl
ftrnilaDecbio\pt
24,
"
Ibid, ear 25,
ICTR-98^42-Al5Irb
6
=.
246op1eaber2003'
21/as 'as fED 17rlt Flx 00s1?0st2803t
ICIR NEGXUE EAG1IE ICIR
@ozs
,
t,
IIOIh
13'
Seconoy,the obligadoaof theTdEl Cbarnborat all tioss iB!o cngrue
tharthe trial is flir"
with fuIl respectsfor &! dehts of the accused,rt The righr of fto
accrrsedto a fair Eiat is a
fi$dffiFntsl d$t ro whlch Rulc 6(C) applies. Tte issqa uuder nde
6(C) aB ro whethd
Rule lS.lts opecaresimocdidtaly tn the presoat caos thereforc rlcpen& upon
wb'thq its
operationMll prejudicc *al fundanenraldght 1his meaost d,
il orOerto deunnine ttn
applioationof the glueodcdRDIe,it is accxsary ia the
Sreseotcaeeto cdsidar the merits of tI6
dctcnrdnadonof thc nrlilg thar thc inteiestsof justicp would be servedby
cmtiruing the trial
with a eubsdfirtldjudge.
14
Thlrdly, rheTtial chanber wss h eu'orin idicrForing Rde 6(c) u, r'quiring !o rake
rr
Itrlo acco' t othlr int€restsof jue$ce vhich put those rlglrs of the accusedin fteir ,lropor
conter4", Ttre intcradg of justice goncnlly de r€levfllt to th€
AEostiod of rhe aoended
R.ulol5Dis ooceit is doEraircd tbat thc rEendedRuIarppiias, brotthey whoUyilrclovart
erc
to
the issueasto whethcrRr:Ie6(Q doniesthe iuopdiate operadonof that aueadcd
Rule. If rhcro
is a fi:udamentalright of the accusedwhich is prejudtccdby the imrfiliate operadot of arr
anendedn:le, theuthe aucofupat doesnot operar€in relationto theccsoagainstthataocuoed.13
lte denisionllut f,helnterestsof Justicawodd bGrened by contnulug the riur
The pbErBe"inbssE of juotice" is a pfiorernonb. 11is uscdtlnoughoutrle Rulee ln
varioussituadotc, with obviouslydiffff€nt cdtotarioro. Iho jaterestsof jueticemrxt bo Eken
15.
into accountin derernhiag whethera chanbcr m a judp uay exeriec rbiir fiDcdons away
froo the searof the Tribunal,lawhethectbc Rcgistrarehorrldbe instructodto assigaco]n6el to
l:.'j:'
lhe iDtergst5of tte accuse4lswbefier the conductof counsetfcF oitberparty warraots
rBPr6s€nt
the imposition of saDctionsby r Chamber,r6whetbcr a judge or a Trial Orqrber may, iD
*ceptional circrElst€rc€s,ordor non-disclorureof any docuEeotor idoreAtion to tlre public
undl firrthq order,rTwhcrher an ifldicmgat or Clocu46t or ia.futgadon should not be
dlsolose4rt wherhordnpositionsaay be taken for a trial,lt whothq the pmsecutodslist of
t:z
l,
sbnru. Article19_l
Chaobcr-of_the
YugoglevTrih{r.l hrr ncotliseil n <Iisdncdor
bctnrcena tiEfit anda
I!
'Troccdr{li
ttrt lntitleEetrf
: Pmtccgtoru BlaiHC,n 95-1+AR10B)tr,
Dcdd.'nonl+qaccution
nrro{tion
ta Sd
AsidcthcDcctsionoftbe App€sts
Ctsirbsrot29 JufyF9?, 12 ATlC,lgyl,pxLZ,
t4
RulE4.
tt Rr:d.e4lqmltu.
r6
RulE46(4),
RuIo5E(A)ll
Rs!.53{q.
tt
-{
Rule71(lr)ICIR-g8r42.AI56ir
2C03
24 Septeruber
24/09
'0t IED 17r13Ftt 0091t0512E901
Boco
E.,1ii
witlessE!Eay bs Eir8tatd of vad€dafterfta comruenceuant
of ttrc bjdl,b whotherdhepubiic
sbouldbe cfi'dudd fton the pmccediags,zl
whctherpersonewho hevo becnchrgcd jointiy
Ehouldbc tied scparatcly,awhethrr rhe ugualordor of crlling $dbe6sr
shouldbe varied,a
whctha svldeuceof a coodsleotp{fiem of codductEay be adnitted,24
asd wh€ttrEd
idditional
cVidance
thDuldbc adrdttcdoa apgoal,a
\_j
16. Thc Triol Chqber cwEctiy obse,lved
tharFejsdicg to m Eacused
is alwaysr matcr of
"i e(e$" to tho aduitri4tsationodjustioq'd but lt also obgervedthet errentbe rriolationof
a
subeundvorighr of ttp ac6irE6d
catrnot
considcred
be
iu isolation dtd it aloesrlot prsr€nt rh€
"
i4ler€Eeof justiceboiagccrvod.t It tlay bo ftar, lo tlle dorFxt of cousidariag
only theclaioed
Io* of ihe rigbt to refueoconscoth thecorthusd,gnof the biNl, arrdrfto sertbg
out wharEey
bc desqibedas the procednat editlementgof the acqrsedqruEcralo{ in Article fi of the
Sratute'&is obseryatioD
was4ot in&dd€dto suggestthattbs hElcstr ofjusticerDaybosoflredby
denyingtbe 4c1rsada fah tial. But the ob66rvatiodwasunfqlqual€ in ib generdity. ifirg.o
uay be manydifficulder plaoedin trrewayof theaccuredin thecourseof,Epplybgsn .in&lcsts
of justice" test h v4ioug eiuatioog,so tbat thp tial is not a perfcctou€ (suchas
6o needto
pptect Yicrlini ad wihesses),butthe sbBcacc
of perfectioodoesnot n]e€t thattbs fial will not
bc a fair ono,a ltrowevc, hc intErcEts
of justicc castrotbe serrledwherethe accusodis daied a
fair tdsl.
Althoughuo-onehasexprctly refered to tbie m*ter in &e prgglot case, necessary
it is
to emphrsisethatthe vcry goper endonerocnt
by rhesesurityco.ac -in tbe stmgcst temsof ihc Cg4qpleqon
StrategJr
of Areyrgoslav Triurrul endite wgiag of thc RwaudaTribrmatto
fomaliso e Biu{ila(stratcgy!o couplate its work wltldn a psrtlcular tlmqd sbould
not be
irtcrltEled assnetrcowrStuert by tbescc,|lriryCoucil to etthsrTribunnl couduct trials
to
its
so
thatftay wouldbc otherhan fdir trials. Tbe adoptionby bo& fibrnals juet thig
rios of &e
at
$tPrBsspowtr to orderthc cotrtifluatiorrof a tial rgaif,stthc u/ishesof the sccursdwherb
one
17,
D Rute73rar&).
: Rnlc7e(Axiil),
I' Rule8?@).
85(4.
r Rulc
Rufog3iA).
nuutrs@),
3
'
:*
Trirl Chaobs Dcctsion,prr 31.
tbt4p'(so,
Iadii, Docigionoq-rh.e_Prosccuror's
lr{odo RequcedlgMca^snrer
nfp!,
fu Vicdos !!d Wirtes6ar,
I JRrcry rzs^rLwgcry-e*l-Fr,tt w 74i rii-iir
0ee5)
plo6oadioD_fnr-Floe"tire
Meacun;,; triy m,
- Daaldci oo l$orlor by
" tIN SecurttyCoucil Rcroltldonl5g3,28 Aug2003.
rcTR-98-42-A15rit
v aai; a ara rcry-1friil,
parf f .
_:
ar
24 ScfEmber2003
24/09 'n3 filD 1?:14 FAI 0D31705lg8gsz
ISIT, NtsSTEE EAEIJE IdIS
lglvir I
fttih
jttd$ is uurblero conthuci! a rial shouldnot thercfore
bc seena6a wfinrlrrm conducta tlal
whichir nolo6grrafair eial fo theaccused18.
In considcringtb€ lntrrcse of justice, the Trial Cbafiber took ir$o accourtr
numbarof
nattere- theright of rhga.cuBcdta b€ bJedx,ithoutudduedelay,the oeedfor judidal
ecooom_y,
tbo fact ftat otherpnoce.edlugs
tuvc beeocottilued with a suhstitrtodjudge by consont&e fart
&at ofls of the accued in tbc presentcase (SylvEit Nsabimaur)had couscNdcrl
to trc trial
continuiq&thertgbtsof vtctims md wibles8es,drepoesiblity tha soe of tbe wltessce
lEaydqr
give
rcfrfi!
to
widence
.
in a low nial iheleogrhof thc €as€,ib dro qrd complefiity,rharighrs af
c,thcraccugOd
awattingUA who wlll havato wait lmgr for a trial datE,thc fin,ndal cost,snd
tho fact ihat "proceedingF
mustf,ot.beallowedro dragon mdlcssly- tbcy 6ust c@s to an end
rt sore pohr. rhe Tdd chauber rppeareto havehadsouo difBcutryi! $$itrg vhat would
ba
rnvolvod in starti:rgrhe trial ane''*,30
but all of the appeilantshaveaccpptcdthar they would
rcmair boundby tbe nlinge uade dr:ringthe trid to da&, althoughthey maintainthcir cxist.mg
rlght to challcnge6oeo decisioaeou appealagainstconvictioLsl
19-
Tho
'chief
argumenrt"of the aFpellatrBwhich the Tria] charqber consi&Fd was rhst
their right to a fair Eial requlredoachjudgein thc caseto be gved ft€ opponnity to oba€rvefor
himsclf or hersclf the dce€&our of every wihess csll€d in rho case. Ihc tial Chmber
accoptedthat this wae "indegd[...] an imporfantcoqsidef,atioa",
but eaid,thd it wa6,howqver,
ole which necdedto be 'tccoaciled wi& otlrerconsidcfatims,iacludiag,g6 6;a,,,ple,the
right
to a speedytrial". It disposcdoftha argu4eurtin this way:r
'
Ia thi!ae$rd,va notqfirsqrhrt6r rgcosdr
of theproccedings
dorltlsr Bcocr,b or
S4 p*S. t: ftr a $rbsriillojudgcn rwiew6gsj EEords
g pcr oi b" or
1!1: il
F
n6r dury 6ndto dl{w ldcrerces torn *eq sys t! 6c nsrE of wiress da@eqpE It
is glrfctrlrrty Fsilrocd 6sr $iE wil be Dowible_ andwlll bc donc_ wtcl rto irrti
rrsto bmissisntou the oew of deocguos of prlticulfi wr'tnsr8ag
ss6E 6Id of lho
fiat.
rte oecoudpoinraade by the Trial chamberie thal" as only 23 wimcseeshadaot becnseonby
the rubstituM judge of an ardcipafed83 witnesseEto be calledby the prosecution,ttratjudgc
xdll havc obstrvgdthe '.bttlk" of the witnessesfor tbe hoescution and all thp witrosse8 the
for
Defence' Thirdly' although8tc Tnal Clrambersrtrssedthat "it is ioporunt ror anyjudgc a
in
$
]l
72
Trial Ctgrflbq De6lslon,par St(l),
Ap_
TM9fr
Fd, par53; Nytruouufiuko_Appoo! par a7' Ntezlryry,oAppcsl. pIrB gS-37; Kasyabrlhi
!!p:cl pE 49r NdlFEb+i€ Appoal,pan.2*h-.
EE Chebor Dccisio!. pfi 33(e).
ICTR-98"42-A15rr,i
?4 Septemb.r2003
z4/ot '03 f,lD 17:14 FAI 0051?06tt8g92
ICTE REC TUE EACUB ICIR
tg 0t3
rcrih
cas to ob'servs
everyrvibessu ureytesti$/, only oucjudgemaybe srubstitrtod
ard theorhef
t{roj'dgss will haveee,sraJIthotr'ib€sscs.Thefoutb poiarwrsexpressed
ia thisway;s
,
Fo*thly' urhik condd,fadorof tho recd fo. cv€fy
jrdgc F r'scssdoopaour is
c€{laid,
y r_tw iqpemtt ord, wa rcb Srr lr s||4 -Uccolgdrroa
clr; f.r;
poccda thrt scs n ry rr theovonldingcsn$idsndoa
"ft o-f,lo
of whrt tt t''.,^
. ti
tial wtl ogb it e*rendy^ditrEu[- if ;r fupq$b - rva to ,t"n *rnrr.uO,.,o
og"
hftI prrclr,u roRutal5btr(D).
lhe Trialchuber efi.p'osscd
its concrudrcn
rnrsretionto &io is'r€ itr th€fouo*ingtEr's:r
Ylhcro 6cre is c cotftict, as [Pp€IfE!o cEbt in thecircnosfiqser,
b€trr$o Oc fght to
qd
rhatnabiliryJf e sutttiarsjuag.,o ots,*.lt-G.**,
rydy EilI
ot -u
vlul€stWhobarhstlfllC,it is csrist! EkesiqE
-io(la&cSrdaxcescssit uowraUrj$
to.rcdasedo p<oblo of ooejudgo lc dniry
rnacEsedu'iif 6p estloonv st somc
l4-Iljs=1,- s^rli*o1lry6f.ilT- ftr rtrd EAtrer- tg ir iEb rE&asdrb poblei ot aaay
-,*: qn. As bdict&drbove, tba l€cordswiu bs Fviewod rd clqtget
could olks
cuD'rls$onr b rsdst tla Sughtiturrludgp od 6c otle ludget dc'.(oin.
b
this iss!€.
rt.oupw!.rr!d-rie€,ir
Uay,offrc;SiL rp"ayrr4irri-o
lTlf-rygfi:uttio
$
ro3ra6a resutrd rlcbnEoqsemat of thc ril!
20.
The dceisionby rheTrial chrmber was,of coune, a discrctiodaryone. It io for the party
challenginglhe exercfucof a disc:ctionto idontip for thc AppearsGraarherr ,tisceruiblc,,ccror
ma.leby tbe Trial Chrbb6. It mustbe dcoonstraredftu tlp
Trial Ctanber misdkectedirs€U
eitherasto the principlc to be applts4 or asto the law wbich is mlsyantto tho exercis€of O,"
discretion,d that ir hu $ven wdghr o extrarpouror iral€vaf considaations,or
that it ha6
fEilcdto givc wsi8ht q sufEcientwelghl lo retevantconsidccadoos,
or tfrat it hasmadcatr crror
a8 to the facn upc,uwhich it has cxo,"isedir dirczction. In relation to the
Trial chasbds
findings of fact upon which ir basodits exeroieoof dscrutiou, tbe party chauagilg my sucl
finding muotdonronetatcthat the particularfinding wasonc whichno readqableuibunalof fact
ij:' r.,:;;'
could havcreaphe4o( that it wasinvalidatedby an eu,orof lau'. Both tn de&refuiug whethcf,
the Trial Chanbcr i""o*tctlt ;;r"iccd is discroui ana the evcratthat
fin
it bcoqlps nmoeEary
to do eo)in thp exerciseof ite own discretim, thc Appealschurber is
in the stunepo,ridooas
war thc llial chanbe( to d€ciaethc conect prlndple to be appliedor
ray other issueof law
whichjg rclevantnothe exerciseof thedigcreton. Evenif tbo precisonatrm the
of
euonnade in
the cxuqise of th6 disaetiotr aay 'ot be app{€nt on the frcc of the rmFugned
dccision,the
resultnay nevenhclossL so ufiearonableor plaidy unjustthat th€Appears
chamberis ableo
inftr that the THNI chamber must havo fsil'd to exe'sile rts discredon
Foperty. once the
AppealsChaober is sadgfiedthatthc rffor itr ths ore,rciseof thc Trial Chrrobcr'sdiscretiol bas
lt
tt
3t
&f4 pgr33(e).
rH4prE33(D.
Thk i3 r &&.rance
b tfu arc 6 pro*rutor y l,Iyirwna]',rtE4Jlc
Aom*Ibb theperd ryF.rl is bmught(r6c
fooEore t),
ICTR-98-42..4r5rir
10
2093
?4 Septcmber
24/og
'0s EED17:t6 l'll
0031?05128032
lgort
ISIR REGlsE EAGIjEIqIt
,t
t06lh
lrejudiCedfsc party which corrplains d th€ o(etcis& it c/iU levjcw tlre ofdcr yni.tr a[4 it
appm,Pri4te
md $"ithoutfeffE, Bsbstituteits ovm exaclrc of discr€tionfor thal of dre ftial
:
Chmbers6
21,
It is mt posElblato lay dovroa$y had ud frst rul6sasto whetic td wb.t is not rclovant
to thEiltclests of jueticeh everycrse whetcajudgo hasnot bcco!e-€l0oFdands,tlere&e issuc
is whpthertho continurtio of tbe.trial sen/Esthosciute.rest8,bcyondrepeatingtlrat, whapvcr
detimcnt may be causedto ttreaccusedh srrcha caseby takbg otheriDt$ftsrsjJllo aCCortrt,
tho
ti$ nrst rcrndn a fair ooo,eventhougbpuhgpslot a lrrfect onc,
22'
Th€ woight affordcdby ftq Trial Cbamberto som€of tho consid€ratiogs
it rook inro
'fii5
{cconnt glves ds6 to co[sidtrable concem. rn
paftttdal case,vhors tic appellmtstavc
conceded- albeit rnft:ctmtly- thd accepUncoof their rguncnt (0ru qly a newtiat will be a
fair tdal) will prejudiccttrcir dght !o ths crpodition whicb tbe condruarionof the tial would
havcaffoadedttrecr"it is rurprisingthar&e frct hfq€st which thc Tdal Chemr,erbastakeniilo
$counf in holding thrt the intercsteof jusdce wonld be sencd by such a cootinuatiouwastbe
right of tb€ sppeilantsto be tricd witrout rudue ttclay. It is cveBmor€EEpdsingthrt tbc righr to
a speodytial shouldlu ttrosocircumstances
bc idrntified astbe Ddn facttr to ouwcigh thc accd
for a trial in which each of tho three judges wbo detenninethe reqlt will havc h8d the
oPpsJtulityof obeervingall of tbe lrifiE88cs, TFpdgbt to a sp€edyE EtreEldDcdrelevaot,but
the prcuinencc given to it in thic casesugtc.ststhat the Trial Ctra:'xbermay havcplacedmom
importmceuponthat rigt t thm it wmsrted in thosecirounstances.Mofmvs, threiaadcqnacy
of the rtsourcesavall4blo!o the Tribwal !o try oth€(accusedpersouswho havebcc,rln custody
fot r long period and the fiarcigl cost of tho Trlbual we,rerlso issuesof ninimaf wdght iu a
caessuch as this' ypt ttrey too havebeenutcqr into accou[t in ouweiglllng rhe right of thesc
appcllanb to a trial in which iach iudge rvlll have had ttro opportunityof obse*lng atl the
witOessas,Ilowevcr, thcseblenishce,eventakernormulatiVely,rre hslrfEcicAtin tbeosclvesto
de@onstratean ErTqrin ttre orsrcise by &e Trial Chanbel of thc Widc disctretim which
Rulo l5Dis(D) givesto ii
23.
The fapt ftat otherproceedingshavebeencontinuedwith s substitutedjudga by conse,nt
ic completelyinolevaatto whotherparticularprocoediagsshouldbo oontirued,againetthewishee
of anaccused A ptty co alwaysconsenrto arrorderagaiosthis iil468ts if be wishseto do so
*
Protccumrotr4g4Ssvillfj1t4g.31.A$Tt,rc-y"01*5{L4R?3& ICTY-01-51-AR,?3,
lcasonsfotDrclsirn -a
onPrcalcurionInterlocunryApperJFro'nRcftrsaf
b Wff loind4c,lg Apr20O2.
pors5{
.?
ICIS.-98:12-Al5ris
tI
24 Srprombcr
2003
'00 ltED 17:15 PAI 0001706I,28932
ICTR REGIIE EAGI'E ICIR
1403d
tDslh
(cvenwherecontraryto a spccificprcvisionh m6 Rules),prorldodthd tlto cdq ig
otheiwisc
jrdsdicrim
wittri! trc
of ttrp Tdb$al. But &e contr(t i:r which thooeothergroceedhgswous
discussedat variow plsposin he Tlial chambedsDechios docsnot suggcet1trd it placedrny
wcight upou thoi fact h tbe FeseDtcrrc. what be context do688ug:gcst
is rhat 6e Triel
Gmobor referrodto that facl oaly in odcr to aokDfl'tedgottroirpocmre given!o ttp collsert
of fre acaused
iu tho66calcs. fire Trial Chanberwastlot tt clor in doingso. ThEfact ftar ond
of the accusedln thc prcoemtcasohadconreubdro thc coqtiuuationof tle rial ryasrolovamrc
theinte(eetsof justice, in tbatir wouldfiEs a bifrmareduial ud thusadditionatoaeodih{reof
, jq$cigl rEsotElces'
but it worttdhavebccoprcferebleharl the Trial ChamborglsoEx!rcsi1y
recopised that in thp cnaart lodntdal eachof tbe appeuf,b is o be aacordcdthe saro right
ae if hri were belng niod rcparatoly.t Howcvcr, this doesnot dcEsfiaro n cnor in fte
ex,sciesof theltia] CtaeHs
diBcdldoneithor.
24,
The Tlial Ch@bk Decision docs aevqtbclessdcoonsrratoermr in rplation to rlree
Itraficrc.
25.
The firEt concetrmthe cleariadication$at dre Trial Chmlq dld uot acc€ptthat it t,
n0c68saryto tho faimcse of a rrial for all tble ju+es to hrve the oppctunity to obsenrc,
idependmily, the dcmcmourof all witnesses.Ths TdaI chrmbcr saidtharsucha racognition
would oako it'extselrly difficult - if aot iEpossiblo- e',Brto oder conthurdon of a tial
pusumt io Rule l5;tb(D)",38rld it Foceed€dto malressqfosa ordardespitotu fact tharme of
thc judges hsd not seer B of ttu, wlEesses. The Ttial CbsEbermadb!o rcfcrcnm to any
prosFct tltu the sub$ia&d judge would heve m orprpuamiry
to observcsuchdoEoeour for
himselfor hsetelf. It cmaot bc dispubdrhar,ar tle Tljal Chanborconcedo4it is illpoltmt fo(
rll thrcenial judges to tu ablcto obecrne,independcntly,tho denomourof all wioorses. The
atucoccof rhat opporarnttyori appealhas been ideotified as thc basiefor tho nrle that ttre
Appealii frambcr 11ustgive I Bargin of &forcnce to a finding of fact rcachedby a Tdal
chanber.se If thc euh*itrrtEdjudgs hasDothad the sano advanugoasse othcrtwo judgesof
obsor.ringwib€ssed,thai judgermst lrecessadly
fuve to give defersncoto whattio oher judg€6
hadoboerved,and 0rerefop hasao indopardenrbasisfor judging that deureanout,Readingtho
traaBcdpt;or tsenbg to fle eubmissions
judgs in no betec
of counsel,plac€srh' Bubstituted
e Bulo82(A),
n *trvrnt prssaCs
i! 6! Trid Cbrsb+rDeciston
b qored ia pr 19,.rpra.
sI Protecutury
"
Tad6,leFLg4f-i, tud€Eror,15ldy i99, pn dat prasectlr//r
v AlchJow$,
Igfy-95-lryl.
A ludfenq Z4F.cbzooo,pr d3: hTls./;uror
v Deiatiia jt, fCCy46-Zt,Irdgnenq2OFciizooo,pr gs6; -L
Prot.curorv BB lLAdrr-. IgfB,-95-lA-A, ReFdorE
ior JudgDllrr, 13Dec2ggZ.-p!Ig11_12,
ICIR-98-42-Al5rtr
12
I
24 S€orosbarg0O3
24/05
' 4 3 nEDl7:16 FAI 001170812s932
-
ICTR NEGTEE EAC1IE Id[R
u0r5
ta+jl,
positio'4tlaa rheAppealrchalnb€f,
ia beariugaBrppealla dcternrfuiug
tbofacteof thocass
TheoflrolEllity to sEctha d€aeanourof thewibcsserhasalwaysbeenregadedaseaocrrtial
26.
when Rule l5D& was fi18t iutrodrcod iu thc yugoslav Trtbqoal oowing a bial to
cootinueior threedaysin dre abs€nceof a judgc, tbe pcriodselecedwaoa relativolyshofi qnc
because
it waerecogDlsediltat theabeenr
judge wouldnot ontybe e4lect€dto readthc tan8c[ipt
of *re evideocogiven il hls or igf absencebut mrer alsobe glventhe cppmunlty to yiew the
vidco+eccding of &or .yidescein ordor0ojudge for himgcEm bpfteff &e dpqeuour of tbe
whemgiviag thareyidcoce.In the contcxtof a coatiuuingthl, theperiodoverwh&;h
. wltuessc.s
thie would bo gra.cticablewas ilocessaily Ehorl Tho oyporhrlity to yldw thc vid+recordiug
hag,horrever,becorcgardedar essQotial4o
That oppofiuoityto view drevideo-recordiog
pl,accg
gl ibsentjudgg in tle saueposidonastlc Tlial Charnbcitself i! r6ladon
b evidcoccwhichhad
beenta}on by way of depoeltion(whra the lrroceodingsare also vidcc.fsped).al Thp mole
extcosiv€task involved in the smendadRuIel56F has best justified (aod lt could only bc
justified) upon thc beaisrhat au op,pofiudtyto vierr the videe.recordingof the ovidenceis
cssential,a{ld fte aEondEdRulo ibeu contonplatesthat Urismay takesone tine, Ihc Rwanda
Tribuaalro*aly copiedtha origiaatRuleandtheaqrended
Rulewirhouralt€ratioo,
n.
Tha eoconderrot nade
the 23 wlbesees who have
thc Triel C'haraber
is ihst it hasnotsftrr.ed to thp fict that, of
givea evideaceia the bjd, 22 of tbpu werr protectcd
witoesses,In accordarcawith
usualpracciccin the RwasdaTtibunsl, r protectedwitnessis
not includsdla the
of thetrial. Tlere ls sinrplyuo,thiagto whichtle Eubstibred
of ths doEreanourof those
an ird?cfldpar assegsncDt
judge cgt rpfer il otder to
i.'
wltaesses.az
thcre is soap
as to wlethcr the wiUresses'
ou,! voicescarrbe heardo,nthc
It iE lor suggcalEdfr',lt-aju$o vbd.frrr u rdg[ tb eyid€dceof r nrunberodwlUessqswonldbo requred o
of _hc_ev$eo.cc
ol croqr Eacbyitres!, or ava 6c {,hols pf rhc ovtdmci of ray
TY ry "ilao:l!"*gF
It y|oulducilllty bc riecesrary,
judgc
fc
tbc
to vica tb3vid€o.r€coraqg
ot cdy ru rcbari
:Yl tg"t9.
wlracrsca
wforc
evid.oco
is
iryodrDr
r! 6c caseof elrbcrpiy
ir g*,ri*ry
S".t""lt
tj_",
:lg1
ip-d8ix$! (ffi shown,fs qelple, bi &o aaogcrbtor tbi qoesqrmirrdd),
"ti"i
.,
tu
p_Sfl voc!
p dogbt say tb4 a Judge.whols ror Fe.c'd rlhen thc evldcaceis
ir dcoicd rhe
opprmrdryio uk hisor hc ownqrlc,sdooi
qr ttt tuitreor.'quesliorssr,codirurily akeiBivcs
by biatjudgesftr
oaeofm€ Toss6ur,Ths fire is ro
clarity in thc oyldea
It ig, hov€r/€r,lhCobugrd'onof couiral
wihess.ortrto rasa{p4irm himc hcrb srsuredratrlrooyid@cc
of thri*in"st it giwn
tho 981||*c
clsqlyl
it is nor fte obltgatifr of
to do so, Tbes€cmdrosrQn
- when
fdr.j[dB6 to rlk qrrcstiols
sittiugrs
sittiug
rs.tbc
tbc tribuud
tribundof &ot
hot - is rortinrrlly rorestth6s.alrssyor tm ronury or a. vira"rsi Thcr:seof tbar
oppcnnity byjudgesis raraly-mth{ advurtagp
of rheprrry iatr-B oe vidoss,andir losrk Eor($alry o
&edisdvarFgoof thorccused-ft{r is Uu:anirprrfcctoq it is lngcmt ,aao ba Eid |[fair,
."
* Thc.posirioDi[ lbq Y'rgodbvrdbifl i! dlfigGDL,.whar.apro(eded*iocss glv€sEeiilsnce
in p Duc
tcssiol, &o &ce of rhe lvlurss rs Soffi F tre p$tlc t asorteC, Orc crnot-ftpursed * tn Vf;mi
*"Tr!!l*!
r€rds on i separaF
l|d.o-rrpc thc odktomd plca:rc of tbc *itnoss, ard ihb wdisroned _g
vcasio!is dryryB $rajlablr !o ltl&blcl! judga o ree te witlcss gviug evidcnceagrin (or todfrc frst !il[c). ' .=
rgtR.98"4?-A15rir
I
f
24 Sopffite{ 2003 .
24/sg '01 nED17r13 FAtr00r170t128931
qgor0
ICIB RECTflE TAGI'E ICIR
twlh
audic.trpe, b{rt (oyeo if thp wimcsse,s'own voicegcan be heard)the eirbetitrtedjudge Mll
-'
rcceiveI1o,lrorEthqn rdgiual Bssistsnco
ftm bearingtte wi&66s€s'voicesmlass hc q ghc
sPeabthe iaEE lsngltageas&e wlmesses,As it wal theusrralpracticoof tho Rwada Tribunsl
not to imlude any protecadwihesscsofl thpvidco-r*ordiug, &c Trial Chaobccwaelacssatity
awzroof ttrEabreuccof ory ruch video-racondiryia this cace.Yet aI rhat*re ftial cbanbcr did
wajt to,malcethe zuggesdor(which har alrcadybecf,refixFd)fid th€ dubedtd€dj,dg, could
debrminethe abscntwimrscs, derneaourfto readingthoeanscriptsrd ftom tho submissiqos
'
\.i
of oorrnsel.€ The evidcocegivo by tbcscwitf,scsosis saidby the appella*s to be vttal to thc
', c{50 againstthcDa,artdrhcpnoeecution
app€a6to ecceprrhatthis is so, Altloug! RuIa l56i@)
trovidcs that the newly sssignedjudge EuBt ceaify a fasiustiry '\ryith fte rccord of dre
of aay video+ecordia
g re&t rhat
trrocecdingstbeforcha or slrecanjain 0rebench,theabeeace
$Eh a certificatiooprovida ao protcctiooat alt to tb6 rppellantl tbatsuchjudgefu in a position
!o assessthe dcugmort of drewitnesscd.fte abeonc€
of ssy referelrca19thi3 tEDorta[t tr|aftc(
whidt was dinecilyFlcvant to the otrerdseof th€ ftial Chamber'sdiscrEtionindicdcs clsarlv
thatit grve gFvely insufrcieil lyeightto this issuc,
28'
the third ftror madeby thc Trial Chrnber conccrosits asscgsrDcnt
tbatit was"egsiet''to
coi,rtinuowith a gubsdmred
jrdge ttranto redressthe "problem' of delayin Btarthgagai&in ftar
it 8lrye{irsto hrve aseffiEdthat all 23 witnesscswouldhavoto give thcir evidcocoi! ful agalaar
a rcw tial. The Trial Chubcr gaveuo considerationto the prospcrtthst &r oftDslv€ u6eof
Rule 926is@)whereapptcable,{ togetherwilh r limit66 6t61to cnxs-ei{aminerh6sei6€s6es
in
ordEr to assistthe substitutcdJudgeto agecestheir deEraoour,cotld well have reducedthc
'lroblem" of dolayby a
substartialanourt.
i
\-J
t,,
i'::j
29.
These rhree ofiqs of omission de,Dosgtared30 far estsblish failurcs by bc Trial
Cbanbereitberto tt&e inF as€du[tor to giw snmcienrwgightto rolorrantald inportant mrtt€rs
in tte cxerciscof irs dsoadon. fftg sadsjgc of thardecretionhu accordinglymisc&ded But
therehasalgobeenen enor of condrsios EadBby tlroTlial Chauber.
fr-
Judicial apedienoa ehouldplay ro part in docisionsrelating to ttre faimcss of a triaJ.
Thor€8re, hoveyer, two clea indicarionsin tlre Ttial Chubcr Decisionlhat expedjcnpedid ia
fact Play a sub$andal part in the conclueionrerche4 Thcre is the obecrrrationto which
s Prrgreph 25,.n+rn,
n 'rA arrsnbtttli
1 r'wc ft of cvldrDtc giv{d by r witress in proc&tiugs boforctc rn'urnal rvtich
"6tni1 o(herihffi
goosto lroof of a rraitar
ths actsandcorrdnc!of the rcculccl"
JqTR-98-42Ar5&tr
i4
i
f
24 SeFembci2003
24/09 ,ot IED 17:16 FA.E00gl7051ZE0Sz
ICIR RBGTIE f,ACI'B XdTs
40t7
t^4ll
!\raln
."
&ne
basaheady
na& thaf,tf it is rccessary
fo a[ threojudgesto hayo9Dopportudty
b
assess
the deqeanott of all the wihpsses,ir wlll be exrucly difficult _
tf uot impoedblo_ frr
q o(dotrto be rnade pu$rail ro RuIc fs,rir@)
for ft. co4ltiduationof rhe hial, The TEiaI
charnbertbal procccded!o deElminpwhe8rerrhecmtinuationof
the riarl sowcdfhc rrtaerts of
justice in the presentcare by referenccto which
waethe "easied'ceu1se
lo foUow. Fickiqg the
'easi€d'
cou$e could be jultified only if the inbnsts wbich opposedthe
new bial whidr tJ,c
dppel@ts soughf were very weighty ilde€d As alrcadypoin&d ouq
the Eai! iurenesrupon
whch tle Triol Chaubcr relied was the rigbt to e speertytial, ia circumsAncec
whcrs the
, agrelleqrshavc accepbd r Ioss of ocpeditiooia Ordcrto obtah a fair
tdal. None of thp othcr
iotersstEid€ntitredby the Trial Chanber,ey€aral<eqcumuladvely,wanatted.his
d6t!@inatior
trofnguade for the sakoof orpedience,rho Trial chambcr thdrefo* ent-dby giviag
weichr to
aEe)(harEou8
consideratiut.
31'
Thers is yet €aothprbasisupm which the cxerciseof fro Tlial Chubea's di$tlcti@
miscsried The decislonreach€dth4t the intctess of justicc wrrr Bervedby r
continrution,
<lespite
the absanceof auyoppottunity{or thc subsriNiadjudgeto assose
tho demeaoonof 22 of
tho 23 witresseswho havegiv'anevidenc€in the Eial to d$c, was(on tho baslsof tbc
facton to
which thc Trial chEmberiM g.,.awsisht, vrhichexcludedary prospecr
ftst that jMgo would
hrve suohan oPpofuniiy by havingwitnesses
reoallod)sounroasonable
or plaioly unjusttha
thc
Tdal C&a@be(failed to enerciseits discrotion
of thos€threc
Foporly. The cousequoacaS
independeotfinding that the exercieEof discretiond6caried would
normally bc for the
App.als Chambcrto quub the decisionand thento coosiderfor itsclf whm ths proper
ocercisc
of disc{aflotrshouldb€.
. . t -: '
32'
The AppoalsChaubct's Decjsioniu the poesentcesehas interprsredthe fsilm of the
Tdal Omrnberro rsfer to &e fict trat therci8 no video-recordingof 22 protectcd.wlbossesas
shongly suggestingthat no submissionhadbeenms6r by the app6flantscotrc€ffijlg thiopoint..5
It hasaccondinglydmlined to coosida thepoinE"morc particularlyin the light of the facrthat
it
doesnor have the bendit of ary views of &e nro judgcs on it'.4s An flppelaic court carmot
validly abdlcareitr respoosibiliryto detcrminem
Elporl againsttheo(erciseof disslelion,whore
rhar lppeal is bas€dupol the frilure of lho fint instancecorEt to give suftrcientwdght to
a
# Ap^peals
Chrubcr Dccisiso,Dq 3I . Thc ApgoabCharnberbls nOrbecnfr.rouredwittr ho submissioBmrda
bcforc tbc Trirl chanbcc, Ilc ucrpecddi pracedrPor ttc abscocefiou thc appcsrbri;;;f
--- ;.fd*
to su+ $!9frir$orr6
l
*_ Appeela(hrrrrlef, hrving breor!d! ra r,.,eTrtC Cbeoberiq il roy view.higtrtyep""ut"w". "*
Docisio4 pnr 31.
ICTR-g8.42-Al5dI.'
-t
24 Scptember
2003
24/og '03 wEDl?i17 FrI 00t17051280t2
ICIR REGTEBEAGIIE ICIR
lgl uJ!
lr
iS li,r
relevqt consid€ration"sinpry becruecit har not bad fis bca.ft of any
r&ws fu that coqt
upor that issr:e. It ls tho very abscnceof suchvisws which dgruonstat€sr!*
drefirst.jnctelrca
cout fdled ro gve flrfEcidt weight to that relovoil considffiior aod rh6t
tbe ex,ersiseof ib
diec(ctia,nthctcbyoircarried.
33.
i'
II
I
,As already*at4
tho Trial Chamberwasrcc€sserilyawareof fbe absenceof any such
video-recording. llrey did trot necdb be toid of that fact by dre
appelats.f The nppeats
chamber has accepcd tbat it iB essEntialfor a fair fiar thst art
tho judge' heve &o abdlrryto
, evdluatethe dsueaooru d ttre M&esscs and drat, in the absenceof
f vtdeo*ecorrding,the
subsdtrbd judgr wiil not be abl€ to uake thrt Evaluatioo.s thc failure
of a Trial Charoberro
givc slffc'ient w€ight to sucha relevantard iryorht
$atte[ in tbc exercio of ia discretion
canot be overlookodmeretybccausoa
l'rty Eny lot havotord 0re Trid or,uber soaerhing
wldohthejudgesaheadyloew. TheTrial chnnbcr doecrjbedttc ep,pcrau'
argumcntthat tbelr
rlgbt to a fak hiai raquirEdeactrjuCgeln the case!o be giv€n the olpqrfuniry
ro observefq
hirneslfor fuerEelfttc deooooos of evcrywitneee
calledrn thair caseaetheir..ohlef, rrgrmcat
rrsneadof sguarelyfacingr:pto theproblerr cauacdby the abeence
of anyuideo-racordiags
of 22
of 23 of ttre witreesesaheadyca]Ied,rhe Trial Chanb€r ssid thst sucb riglrt
a
uecdedto bc
recotdled with otha coosidcratiou sr.rchas a dght to a s@y rial.
The Trial cbmber
frffefo,s wesi! efis by laiJmgto grveeudicientweightto the ncedfor all
tbreejgdgesto have
&e ability to evaluatotlo demcanourof the witnessesald to 6e fsct
uut, in the abseaceof a
video-rocoililg ttlc subctitfed judge would lot b€ ablc to mal<cthat evaluation
without thc
witsssio beingcalledto gim evldenceagria.
l"-l"'
34.
I
i
I
Ths sotmon Proposd by the Appeals(haabeCs Decislonis rtaq al$oug[ it is correct
to say that tb aulity of tho judges to cvaluarEdsucarour (or credibility,
as thc Appcals
Charber hasput it) ie ossenfirlio tbefairncesof rherlal _
(a)
it i6 fd thc substiartod
Judgeto dctcmine the adogurcyof thorecotdof proccedings,
ond
that if hc ls uuahletholebyto f4nilisrise hiEscIf wfth thc earlierpAocoedings
ho will ao!
join lhc b'ench;snd
t Th*r
tre iuagu tilt snta mskorhecrcrordinrryar*p*ion 6st rhasubsriurcd
ju,rg. cdrld dlretuirE 6€
ibgcurwitncrc.gitsnen .',,fr"-lT.alne 6e taiaaifr"oo to.-t" ,Ornt*f."rof "ooumii.i;loy""a
ay_doubrthrt thcp'vccaarranCrhc abconoc
of ory vlaeo.rgcordidg.
.,
'" Ibll, pr 3O.
ICTR"9E.42-A154,
-r
?4 Scp!:nbcr 2003
r1l08 '03 mD l?r1? FrI 0091705129001
ICM REC lgE SAEUE ISIR
EIOsI
,t
t00th
O)
$
cd)
,
the subsflElcdjudgcmayfod eal eyrn itr th6 absence
of
of
"16"o-1p66,{inga
thcsewitngoscs,
tfio recod whichie rvaikble is zufgdpntGomablehim -.to
vhd baehaqrpetcdn;
{pFrecialg
m
judgcuay deci& to Jbh
if not, thosubgrihrted
Fe bedchwi6 aoyqresriouiof
demeanour
bcingluft to bc rcsorr,ed
by thorccoopossd
xhial chrmbcrdeciding
to r€call rdtne,rs€e
for the euttdtrted judge to aseessft€ir demoarorqsu
yarticulr gointsif, h theviewof tharTiid Chrnb<, thcpointhvolvosa maffff
of credittllfyvhich thatjudgomayneedto rasolvsln that roacr.€
3ejlgrr dprtlng rvi$ thc rdfiits of thla prcposodeolutico,jt unst bo poirtEd out that, as
$rch a rcleva[t solurionhaduot ben considrcpdby rho ftiat Ctrrnlq, and particularlyrs tie
ltial Clumber cleady declinedrc accoptthc Arcmtsecceptcd by tbe AppcalschubrD thrt thc
33.
r.t,
esEdtial to th6 faimessof tbe EiaLit necessaaily
follows ttrd &s sxerciseof the Trial CtrambedE
dircratioomisasrded Ia thosscircuustarces!the saly oraer whlch the AgpealsChanrbercao
appoprlalely urke is to upholdthoappeat,Eush theTtial Charabcr'sDeoisiroamd e,rercjseirs
ocm 'liscr€tion as to wbothertrc intcccstsof justice would be senrodby drc continuationof the
triat If tho Appeah ChamberfccleitselJto be ia theposidouto do so,it aoutdthenmakoodec
dirccdugthe rocooposedltial Chamberto considertbe rucall of witncsspsas alnady outlincd.
If thc appealis elrrPly disisscd withoutany suchord€d beiugmrdg thq pcsidon1er11cils
Esit
now is, withod my obligrtion upontlreTrlal Chamborto carrJ.out the solurionpoposed36.
Errt lhec i.s a flas?in the Appcalschanbor's reasonilg. Rule l5Eis@) povidoa only
that ihe substitutedjudEc day notjoin thc bemh until he or sbs 'tas cerdfcd 6at he of Ehehas
famili.rised himself or hglseu with the record of the procoedings". It doesrot givo to d|o
Eubstitutcdjudg€ eithof thg po.*{sror ttre obxgrdonto tlcterrdnethe adequacyof the reoordof
procoedbgt. The subsdtEEtjudgr nay join rbc hnci evcolf he or ahels Eor sarisfiedtiar ir
wlll be'pos*ible to obssnf€the demeanouof 6G witncsseseitherfrom tho rtcond wi&out ay
video-recodiugr o frqb tbat rrecordplue tho rccalllog of sorp of the wioaaecs. As ir ha6
akeadyboeopolntedout, tbc certificationrcquircdby Rute lsbic@) pmvidosno prorectiornto
thEapp€llarfisfhat ths substitutedjudgcis in a positionto aeecss
the denp*rour of thewihesses.
.wirhout
This flaw leadeto a aurnbs of problems,
any ordcr ftom the .A,ppoals
efisalcr to fie
recompoecdTlial Chanberto coaeidcrsucha prrocedre,the substihrteal
judga cannotinsistupol
-4
o'Ibid,gtszl-25.
ICTR-9H2-AI5'i?
17
24 Scpembe{20ft1
2 4 / s 9 ' 0 5 rED r?i 17 FAr 003U051c8932
ICIR NEGIlE EASIE
IqIB,
I
nt ih
wifrossce
beingrecalred"
wtratiotohepeusbould
thesnbstiutedjudge
renrabdiesadsfod
va.!
lds q bef
diufy b ass€tt the 'dfrle$O'f of the rrrito"sscs
bea'se, for exampre,soae of thc
tf itaes.* loefua'"d for recatr
havcdiador arctoo sick or loo tightened
ip r+Eppe.".t'o & !! q
sbpobugEdto dsolose+hi.1digeatir&ction
to tte pa_ties?Doeslhe recoupoeed
Triat Chobcr
omtiruq or doesit hsva pof,rfi to reoouider
itr dsoi'ion to c.ntiruE tbr triat aoMthstaqdi:rg
the diemissalof thie appeel? Thc
Appearrchaqbq's p'oposeil eolutio, witou
th. appeal
beingr+he14Flovid€sno s*foguarttsat all,
37'
Ia otercioing rny owtr <riqcrction
we.retbo spp€arto be ryheld, I wordd not aooept
1tro
" sdlbtion wblch tho App"a,le
ChembcrDccielontas propoeod Whilst
I eocsptttar rccaUing
witooeecsndu eoabretbo $bstitruedjudge to
observotheir d€medour if ftey do FaptreaqI do
not belienrethat fbe Appear,rc\-f,er is ia
any position to as'osstbr iE€u,ryorl thc matarial
b€6'rc it Eo issrrcwiich trrc Trjal cbanba fr
ed !o oo'Aider- &cth* recehhg wib""s€s !o
glve evidencein tho oristiug tsial (as the
Appcsl, Chanb€r DecieionguegeEb)would,cslce
gr€416d'ray th"o stadng a new tial
with frp prcbabl. advaatages
of theplooed,reseffoded by
'
Rslc 926ts' onry thc two rcuainiag membersofthc
Trial cheber oanmakerhatassossmcnt
Dlrposfion
38.
Accordiqgry,I would upholil the
+pcat" quasl thc THal Cb.qbcfr Decisionud renit
ftc matter!o the tn'o ruaiaiag3-udg$ of ihe
Trjat Ctsmbcr b r€consldcrlbEEattcr,ia thc ligb
ofwbal basb€€nsaidin thie DissentingOpfuiorl.
Doneiu Xnglisb andFreaeb tboEngli6hlext bajDgx1rrhoritaq,,p.
Z4&aarof Soproorber
2003,
flg!
At The$_e
Hegrre,
TbeNe$srlands
y€;)
-=-+
lq-rk
----
JudgoDaeidHrBt
----__--_
to It n'rd^'Erood
h
Srr t!3ly of th! qdbsses 9/lre idtctrdwfth AIDS.
ICTR-9S42.Al5Dii
IE
-1.
7
2a Se.pteob€r2003