2 Int'l Crim. L. Rev. 283 (2002)
Current Developments in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

handle is hein.journals/intcrimlrb2 and id is 293 raw text is: LA International Criminal Law Review 2: 283-295, 2002.                283
if    9  2002 Kluwer Law International. Printed in the Netherlands.
Current Developments in the Jurisprudence of the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
ROMAN BOED1
1. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana: Judgement of the Appeals
Chamber2
Fair Trial; Independence of the Tribunal; Equality of Arms; Burden of Proof:
Alibi; Mental Element: Genocide; Motive; Article 6(1): Individual Criminal
Responsibility; Article 6(3): Superior Responsibility
Introduction
On 1 June 2001 the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda (ICTR) delivered its Judgement in the Kayishema and Ruzindana
case. Both the defence and the prosecution filed appeals against the Trial
Chamber's Judgement and Sentence. However, because the prosecution had
failed to file its briefs within the stipulated time, the Appeals Chamber ruled
that the prosecutor's appeal as well as her briefs in respect of the appeals
of the defence are inadmissible.3 The Appeals Chamber therefore considered
and decided only the grounds of appeal raised by the defence.
Kayishema advanced six grounds of appeal against the merits of the Trial
Chamber's judgement4 and two grounds of appeal with respect to the sen-
1 Legal Officer, Judgement Coordinator, United Nations, International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda. LLD candidate, University of South Africa; LLM, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone
Scholar, Columbia University; LLM, Cambridge University; JD, with Honor, DePaul Uni-
versity; BA, Lawrence University. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the
author acting in his personal capacity and do not represent the views of the United Nations.
2 Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR 95-1-A, Judgement, (ICTR)
App. Ch., 1 June 2001.
3 Kayishema and Ruzindana, Judgement, App. Ch., para. 48. Judge Shahabuddeen dissen-
ted from the majority ruling on these points.
4 Kayishema and Ruzindana, Judgement, App. Ch., para. 11. The grounds were as follows:
(i) the trial was unfair; (ii) the Trial Chamber erred in its assessment of the status of the prefet
and his effective means of action in the Rwandan context; (iii) the Trial Chamber erred in its
assessment of the individual responsibility of a prefet and his responsibility for acts committed

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?