Decision - Peter Robinson

ci R_19* qq--itS-:fi -':ooQ(t+1A2] - QAsl g]Intelnational Criminal Tribunal for RwandaTribunal p6nal international pour le Rwanda{J{622$rt,1UNITED NA IONSNA]1ONS UNIF.SOR: ENGTRIAL CHAMBER IIIBefore Judges:Registrar:Date:Dennis C. M. Byron, PresidingGberdao Gustave KamVagn JoensenAdama Diengl5 Julv 2009THE PROSECUTORY.fdouard KARf,MERAMatthieu NGIRUMPATSEJoseph NZIRORERACase No.ICTR-98-44-TC.c':.i:;'.-: -l'i:'--:..';B-|R ;V]J 5lq: ?-rrrnDECISION ON JOSEPH NZIRORERA'S MOTIONS.FOR ADMISSION OFWRITTEN STATEMENTS AI\[D WITNESS TESTIMOI\"YRule 92 bis of the Rules of Procedure and EvidenceOffice of the Prosecution:Don WebsterArif ViraniSaidou N'DowSunkarie Ballah-ContehEric HuskethTakeh SendzeDefence Counsel for fdouard KaremeraDior Diagne Mbaye and F6lix SowDefence Counsel for Matthieu NgirumpatseChantal Hounkpatin and Fr6d6ric WeylDefence Counsel for Joseph NziroreraPeter Robinson and Patrick Nimy Mayidika Ngimbi{e1

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motionsfor Admission of Written Statements and Testimony446\f15 July 2009 |INTRODUCTIONl. In a motion filed on l0 December 2008, Joseph Nzirorera seeks to have admittedstatements from I 12 witnesses pursuanto Rule 92 bis (A) of the Rules of Procedure andevidence ("Rules") and testimony from l5 witnesses pursuant to Rule 92 bis (D).1 Nzirorerasubmits that all the statements and testimony proposed to be admitted meet the requirementsof Rule 92 bis of the Rules. However, Nzirorera submits that certification has not beenobtained, as required by Rule 92 bis (B), as the Registry requested, with a view to avoidingthe waste of scarce resources, that the process be delayed until the Chamber had decided onthe admissibility of the statements. He has attached a letter from the Chief of the CourtManagement Section at Annex A to his Omnibus 92 bis Motion in this regard.2Consequently, Nzirorera requests the Chamber to order the Registrar to obtain certification ofthe statements admitted.32. The Prosecution opposes Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus 92 bis Motion.a It argues that:(i) Nzirerora has used this motion to expand his witness list and that Nzirorera has failed toprovide identiffing information for the 127 witnesses listed in his motion; (ii) Nzirorera hasincluded in his application statements going to proof of the acts and conduct of the accusedwhich is contrary to Rule 92 bis (A); (iii) Nzirorera has failed to adhere to the formalrequirements of Rule 92 bis (B) and (C); (iv) the nature and the source of the evidence isunreliable; and (v) there is an obvious need for cross examination of the witnesses and thiswill unduly expand the length and breadth of Nzirorera's Defence case.t In an annex to its'Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus Motion for Admission of Written Statement and Testimony ("Nzirorera'sOmnibus 92 6js Motion"), filed on l0 December 2008. Nzirorera also filed supplements to his Omnibus 92 bisMotion to replace six witness statements that were previously attached to his original Omnibus 92 6is Motion:Supplement to Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus Rule 92 6is Motion, filed on 22 lanuary 2009 ("Supplement toOmnibus 926rs Motion"); Second Supplement to Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus Rule 92 6is Motion, filed on 26January 2009. Nzirorera filed a reply brief: Reply Brief: Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus Motion for Admission ofWritten Statements and Testimony, filed on 6 February 2009. The Chamber notes that the public anne*es toNzirorera's motions, read in conjunction with Nzirorera's Pre-Trial Brief, could reveal the identifyinginformation for a number of witnesses subject to protective measures in this case. Accordingly, the Chamberwill order the Registrar to re-file these annexes confidentially.'Omnibus 92 Dis Motion, para. 5; Annex A to Nzirorera's Omnibus 92Dis Motion, Facsimile from Jean-P6ld Fomete, chief of the Court Management Section to Peter Robison, datedzg September 2008.'Nzirorera's Omnibusg2 bis Motion, para. 9.oProsecutor's Response to Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus Motion for Admission of Written Statementsand Testimony ("Prosecution's Response"), filed on 2 February 2009, para. 5. On 15 January 2009, theChamber granted the Prosecution request for an extension of time to 3l January 2009 to respond to JosephNzirorera's Omnibus 92 6is Motion: Prosecutor v. Mouard Karemera, Mauhieu Ngirumpatse and JosephNzirorera, Case No. ICTR-98-44-T ("Karemera et al."), Decision on Prosecutor's Motion for Extension ofTime, 15 January 2009.tProsecution's Response, para. 5.The Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera, Matthieu Ngirumpatse atndJoseph Nzirorera,Case No. ICTR-98-44-T 2/25a&

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motions for Adnission of Lltritten Statemenls and Testimony l5 July 2009lt\6xoResponse, the Prosecution attaches a table where it indicates its views on all the writtenstatements and transcripts Nzirorera seeks to have admitted.63. In a motion filed on 4 May 2009, Joseph Nzirorera seeks the admission of a statementfrom EmmanuelNyamuhimba pursuant to Rule 92 bis (A)i and in a motion filed on 29 June2009, he seeks the admission of a statements and transcripts of testimony of RPF insiderwitnesses pursuanto Rule 92 bis (C) and (D).8 The Prosecution opposes these motions aswell.eI. Preliminary IssuesDELIBERATIONS4. The Prosecution raises two preliminary issues relating to Joseph Nzirorera's motions of4 May 2009 and 29 June 2009. First, the Prosecution argues that Nzirorera did not show goodcause for not complying with the Chamber's previous order to file all of his 926rs statementsby 8 December 2008.10 The Chamber notes that Nzirorera explains that he did not attach theadditional statements and transcripts included in these additional motions to his 92 bisOmnibus Motion because the whereabouts of Emmanuel Nyamuhimba were unknown inDecember 2008rr and because he only learned in June 2009 that the RPF insider witnessescould not be located.12 The Chamber considers that these explanations constitute good causefor these supplementary motions.l3 The Chamber finds it in the interests ofjustice to considerthese motions and finds no reason to order that fees related to the motion be denied.5. Second, the Prosecution argues that Joseph Nzirorera has failed to comply with therequirements of Rule 73 ter by adding Emmanuel Nyamuhimba and the RPF insideroConfidential Annex attached to Prosecution's Response.tJot"ph Nzirorera's Motion to Admit Statement of Emmanuel Nyamuhimba, filed on 4 May 2009('Nzirorera's 92 6is Nyamuhimba Motion").8Joseph Nzirorera's Motion to Admit Statements and Testimony of RPF Insider Witnesses pursuant toRule 92 bis, filed on 29 June 2009 ('Nzirorera's 92 6is RPF Insider Witnesses Motion"). Nzirorera also filed areply: Reply Brief: Joseph Nzirorera's Motion to Admit Statements and Testimony 6f Rff Insider Witnessespursuanto Rule 92 bls, filed on 7 July 2009 ("Nzirorera's 926is RPF Insider Witnesses Reply").tProsecutor's Response to Nzirorera's Motion to Admit the Slatement of Emmanuel Nyamuhimba, filedon 7 May 2009 ("Prosecution's Response to Nyamuhimba Motion"); Prosecutor's Response to Nzirorera'sMotion to Admit the Statements and Testimony of RPF Insider Witnesses pursuant to Rule 92 6is, filed on 6July 2009 ("Prosecution's Response to RPF Insider Witnesses Motion").r0Prosecution's Response to Nyamuhimba Motion, paras ll-12; Prosecutor's Response to RPF InsiderWitnesses, para, I l.ilNziroreraos 926is Nyamuhimba Motion, paras 7-12.12Nzirorera's92 bjs RPF Insider Witnesses Motion, pua.2; Nzirorera's 92 6is RPF Insider WitnessesReply, para. 3.'ttKaremera el a/., Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motions for Reconsideration of 24 October 2008Order, for Extension of Time, Subpoenas and Video-Link and on Prosecution's Motion for an Order toNzirorera to Reduce his Witness List. 2 December 200E.Tla Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera, Matthieu Ngirumpatse and Joseph Nzirorera, Case No, ICTR-98-44-T 3125sq

Decision on Joseph N:irorera's Motioru for Admission of Written Statements and Testimony l5 July 2009UL6Kfactor in this regard is whether the evidence relates to a live and important issue between theparties, as opposed to a peripheralone.l88. The Chamber will now address each.of the 116 witness statements and the 16transcripts of evidence sought for admission. The analysis provided below is organisedaccording to the legal basis upon which admission is granted or denied, save for the evidenceof the RPF insider witnesses, which is treated in a separate section.(A) Witness Statemgnts that Go to Proof of the Acts and Conduct of the Accused aschareed in the l.ndictmentAnnexes 4, I5-17,20, 36-37,41,43,47,49, 52, 55-56, 58,61-65,68-69,85,89 and 9I -Statements of Bonaventure Hakizimana, Julius Simpakanye, Alphonse Mbonabihama,Jean-Bosco Ngayumbwiko, Cyprien Ntakaberaho, Marc Ntigura, Majaliwa Bizimana,C{lestin Sezihera, SCraphin Twuhirwa, Churles Bandora, Frangois Gahigi, fean-ClaudeSeyoboka, Mutuyeyezu, Simon. Bikindi, Jean-Baptiste Gatete, Thomas Kifugi, Iean-BoscoSezirahaga, Jean Berchm&ns Imananibkhaka, Aloys Ntabakuze, Protais Zigiranyirazo,Francois-Xavier NTuwonemeye, Hormisdas Nsengimana, Andrd Bizimana, SamuelImanishimwe, Moussa Zari Banganirubusa, Jean-Batiste Baligendere and CyprienMunyampundute9. The Chamber considers that the above statementsought for admission go to proof ofthe acts and conduct of one of the Accused as charged in the Indictment2o and that they aretherefore not admissible pursuant to Rule 92 bis.(B) Witness Statements that are of Limited Relevance. Probative Value or Reliabilitv10. The Chamber finds that a number of the witness statementsought for admission areinadmissible because they are of limited relevance, probative value or reliability. In theparagraphs that follow, the Chamber provides its reasoning with respecto these statements.Annexes 7, 8, 9, I0 and 24 - Statements of Espdrance Nyirakidedeli, Antoine Mburabuze,Jdrdme Nteziyaremye, Juvinal Barayasesa and Magdalena MukamuligoI LThe Chamber notes that five of the witness statementsought for admission containdeclarations to the effect that they have no knowledge of meetings held by Joseph Nzirorerawith authorities in Nzirorera's mother's house. The Chamber considers that these statements'"Bagosora et al., Decision on Prosecutor's Motion for the Admission of Written Witness Stat€mentsUnder 92 bis, 9 March 2004, para. 16.''The Chamber notes that Joseph Nzirorera filed an updated and signed version of the statementidentified in Annex 89 in his Supplement to 92 bis Motion.20Furthermore, the Chamber observes that Annex 20 - Statement of Marc Ntigura has limited probativevalue as, from Ntigura's own declarations, he was not present every day at the Mukingo commune office.Tle Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemerq" Matthieu Ngirumpatse andJoseph Nzirorera,Case No. ICTR-98-44-T 5/25'tbl

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motionsfor Admission of llritten Statements and Teslimony l5 July 2009lt [6tt1,(C) Written Statements that Go to Matters that Require an Oral Presentation in thePublic InterestAnnexes 12, 14, 25 and 5I - Statements of Jean-Claude Nsengiyumva, HarunaManizabayo, Andrd Gihanza and Pierre Cilestin Rwigema24. The Chamber notes that four witness statements sought for admission containallegations of false testimony and/or fabrication of evidence. The Chamber considers thatsuch allegations are to be taken very seriously and that accepting such evidence by way of awitness statement goes against public interest.2T Consequently, the Chamber finds that thestatements in Annexes 12, 14,25 and 5l are not admissible. If Joseph Nzirorera seeks to havethe testimony of these witnesses admitted, he will have to vary his viva voce witness list andhave these witnesses testifu within the limitations set by the Chamber for the presentation ofhis case.28(D) Admissible Witness Statements under Rule 926is (B)25. The Chamber finds that a number of the witness statementsought for admission areadmissible pursuant to Rule 92 bis. The Chamber concludes that each of the witnessstatements below or parts thereof go to proof of a matter other than the acts and conduct ofthe Accused as charged in the Indictment and that they are relevant and of probative value asthey address allegations in the Indictment or issues raised by the evidence adduced by theProsecution. The Chamber also finds that the admissible statements are either cumulative innature, as oral evidence has been heard or will be heard on similar facts, or provide furtherinformation regarding the background to events that occurred in Rwandain 1994.26. Having carefully assessed the statements for which the Prosecution presented specificarguments, the Chamber considers that the Prosecution does not demonstrate how the natureand source of these statements render them unreliable. Contrary to the Prosecution'ssubmissions, the fact that some of these witnesses are Hutus or members of the MRND doesnot automatically render their statements unreliable. Their involvement in crimes allegedly27In addition, the Chamber finds in relation to the statement in Annex 12 that there is no evidence thalthe witness was near Joseph Nzirorera's mother's house at all times and that he was in a special positionenabling him to know what was happening in Nzirorera's mother's house and that the statement in Annex l4 isof limited probative value as it is very vague and is not substantiated by any explanation.28Karemera et al.,Order to Joseph Nzirorera to Reduce his Witness List, 24 October 2008, paras I and ILThe Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera, Matthieu Ngirumpatse andJoseph Nzirorera,Case No. ICTR-98-44-T 9125tv

(t 66rqDecision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motions for Admission of Llrritten Statements and Testimony l5 July 2009Annex 6 - Statement of Pierre Ntamushobora34. In a statement signed on 2l February 2008 in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's LeadCounsel, Pierre Ntamushoborasserts, inter alia, that he was the President of the MRND inNyakimana commune from l99l as well as a member of the MRND Committee forRuhengeri prefecture and that the Interahamwe was never established in Ruhengeri.35. The Chamber considers that the issues raised by the Prosecution regarding PieneNtamushobora require that he appear for cross-examination.Annex 18 - Statement of Protais Rukeraminingo36. Protais Rukeraminingo signed a statement on l8 October 2007, in the presence ofJoseph Nzirorera's Lead Counsel, in which he states that the PSD flag was never removed bythe Interahamwe in Ruhengeri.3o37. The Chamber decides not to call Protais Rukeraminingo for cross-examination as hisstatement touches upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annex 19 - Statement of ThCogdne Bamproeye38. In a statement signed on 14 February 2008 in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's LeadCounsel, Thdogdne o'Rusatira" Bamproeye makes declarations relevant to allegations ofInterahamwe attacks against Tutsi in 1992-93 and in relation to the adjudicated fact ofmassacres in Munyemvano's compound.39. The Chamber considers that the issues raised by the Prosecution regarding ThdogdneBamproeye require that he appear for cross-examination.Annex 28 - Statemeil of fdrilme Bicamumpakdl40. In a statement signed on26 January 2009 in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's LeadCounsel, J6rdme Bicamumpaka makes declarations in relation to Witness BTH's testimonyand the allegation according to which he is part of a joint criminal enterprise with the threeCo-Accused in this case.41. The Chamber considers that the issues raised by the Prosecution regarding Jdr6meBicamumpaka require that he appear for cross-examination.r0On 8 June 2006, Joseph Nzirorera also sought to have the statement of Protais Rukeraminingo admittedin relation to violence committed against opposition parties. The Chamber declared evidence on this issueadmissible as background evidence: l'. 8 June 2006, pp.24-25.3r The Chamber notes that Joseph Nzirorera filed an updated and signed version of the statement identified inAnnex 28 in his Second Supplement to 92 bis Motion.The Prosecator v. Edouard Karemera, Matthieu Ngirumpatse and Joseph Nzirorera,Case No. ICTR-98-44-T I l/250q

Decision on Joseph N:irorera's Motiorcfor Adtnission of Written Statements and Testimony l5 July 2009A46t IAnnex 30 - Statement of Aloys Simba42. In a statement signed on 12 March 2008, without the presence of a witness, AloysSimba declares that he was not part of a joint criminal enterprise as stated in the Indictment.He also claims that he was not a member of a network often referred to as "Friends of theAlliance".43, The Chamber considers that the issues raised by the Prosecution regarding Aloys Simbarequire that he appear for cross-examination.Annex 3l - Statement of Charles Nyandwi44. In his statement signed on 3 May 2008, in the presence of a witness, Charles Nyandwimakes declarations in relation to killings in March 1992 in Bugeserand the investigation heundertook thereafter showing no involvement of the MRND in the Bugeserattacks. He alsomakes declarations in relation to Ahmed Mbonyunkiza's credibility.45. The Chamber considers that the issues raised by the Prosecution regarding CharlesNyandwi require that he appear for cross-examination.Annexes 32 and 33 - Stutements of Bernard Habyarimanu and Ldon Habyarimana46. Bernard Habyariman and L6on Habyarimana signed statements on 29 June 2006,without a witness present, in which they declare that they were not in Rwanda in 1992, thatthey did not participate in any MRND meetings, especially any meeting that would havetaken place in Vddaste's building, that they do not know Ahmed Mbonyunkiza and that theynever heard about a collection of funds in July 1993 for the Interahamwe held at H0telRebero in Kigali.47. The Chamber considers that the issues raised by the Prosecution regarding the BernhrdHabyarimanand L6on Habyarimana require that they appear for cross-examination.Annex 40 - Statement of Marcel Gatsinzi48. In a statement signed on 20 March 2008 in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's leadcounsel, Marcel Gatsinzi declares that he never attended any meetings at the office of theKigali ville prdfecture from April 1994 onwards, contrary to the evidence of Prosecutionwitnesses UB and ALG.49. The Chamber considers that the issues raised by the Prosecution regarding MarcelGatsinzi require that he appear for cross-examination.Tle Prosecutor v. Mouard Karemera, Matthieu Ngirumpalse andJoseph Nzirorera, Case No. ICTR-9844-T 12125ilb1

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motiora for Adnission of Written Statements and Testimorryl5 July 200946L roAnnexes 42 and 44 - Statements of Justin Ugiyekera and Dieudonnd Ndayisenga50. In statementsigned on I May 2007 and I I May 2007, respectively, in the presence ofthe investigator for Joseph Nzirorera, Justin Ugiyekera and Dieudonnd Ndayisenga makevarious declarations in relation to the testimony of Prosecution Witness HH.51. The Chamber decides not to call Justin Ugiyekera, nor Dieudonnd Ndayisenga forcross-examination as their statements touch upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annex 45 - Statement of Sdraphin Rwabuhumba52. In a statement signed on 19 May 2008, without a witness presento S6raphinRwabukumba declares that he never received weapons crates from Roumani and that he leftRwanda in April 1994.53. The Chamber, finding the contents of this statement to be an important issue in thistrial, considers that the Prosecution should be allowed to cross-examine SdraphinRwabukumba, as it has requested.Annex 46 - Statement of Godilieve Barushwanubusa54. In a statement signed in the presence of Co-Counsel for Joseph Nzirorera on 3 February2008. Goddlieve Barushwanubua declares that she never lived in Kanombe and that she neverreceived weapons.55. Taking into account the relevant part of the issues addressed in this statement andfinding them to be important issues in this trial, the Chamber considers that the Prosecutionshould be allowed to cross-examine God6lieve Barushwanubua.Annex 48 * Statement of Stanislas Mbonyimana56. In a statement signed on 25 September 2007, in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's LeadCounsel, Stanislas Mbonyimana declares that on 26 March 1994 he was seriously injured inan attack by Interahamwe and stayed at the Kigali Central Hospital until the second half ofMay. He adds that on 28 March 1994, Madjirwa Bizimana was appointed as his replacementand that he did not attend a meeting at the Kigali prifecture office at the end of April andbeginning of May.57. The Chamber decides not to call Stanislas Mbonyimana for cross-examination as hisstatement touches upon a peripheral issue beirveen the Parties.The Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera, Matthieu Ngirumpatse andJoseph Nzirorera,Case No. ICTR-98-4+T l3l25,a{'k1

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motions for Adtnission of l(ritten Slatements and Testimony l5 July 2009u6607Annex 53 - Statement of Innocent Twagiramungu3258. In a statement signed on 2 December 2008, in the presence of the investigator forJoseph Nzirorera, Innocent Twagiramungu makes declarations in relation to killings atKabeza.59. Taking into account the relevant part of the issues addressed in this statement andfinding them to be important issues in this trial, the Chamber considers that the Prosecutionshould be allowed to cross-examine Innocent Twagiramungu.Annex 54 - Statement of Runyinya Rarabwiriza3360. In a statement signed on 9 January 2009, in the presence of the investigator for JosephNzirorera, Runyinya Barabwiriza declares that President Habyarimana and the MRNDsupported the Arusha Accords.61. The Chamber decides not to call Runyinya Barabwiriza for cross-examination as hisstatement touches upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annex 59 - Statement of Abdulmohamed Bandsli62. In a statement signed on l3 October 2006, in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's LeadCounsel, Abdulmohamed Bandali makes declarations in relation to the testimony of Jean-Bosco Twahira about weapon importation to Rwanda. Some documents in relation toTwahirwa's employment at the Etablissements Rwandars are also attached to the statement.63. Taking into account the issues addressed in this statement and finding them to beimportant issues in this trial, the Chamber considers that the Prosecution should be allowed tocross-examine Abdulmohamed Bandali as it has requested. However, the Chamber finds thatthe documents attached to the statement are not admissible pursuant Rule 9? bis.Annex 66 - Statement of Vincent Rutaganira64. In an unsigned and undated statement, Vincent Rutaganira makes declarations inrelation to Prosecution Witness ZF's testimony. Joseph Nzirorera also seeks to have thisstatement admitted in relations to adjudicated facts 99-l0l and 107.65. The Chamber considers that the issues raised by the Prosecution regarding VincentRutaganira require that he appear for cross-examination.32The Chamber notes that Joseph Nzirorera filed an updated and signed version of this statement in hisSupplement to 92 bis Motion.rrThe Chamber notes that Joseph Nzirorera filed an updated and signed version of this statement in hisSupplement to 92 bis Motion.Tlv Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemerq Matthieu Ngirumpatse and Joseph Nzirorera,Case No, ICTR-98-44-T l4l25gbr

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motionsfor Adnission of lltritlen Statements and Testimony l5 July 20094640 (Annex 67 - Statemefi of fCrdme Ngendahimana66. In a statement signed on l2 October 2006, in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's LeadCounsel, Jdrdme Ngendahimana makes declarations in relation to Prosecution Witness ZF'sevidence.67. The Chamber decides not to call Jdrdme Ngendahimana for cross-examination as hisstatement touches upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annex 7I - Statement of Jean Chrysostome Ntirugiribambe68. In a statement signed on 11 March 2008, in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's LeadCounsel, Jean Chrysostome Ntirugiribambe makes various declarations in relation to theGisenyievents.69. The Chamber considers that paragraphs 6 and 7 of this statement are unclear andexcludes them. The Chamber decides not to call Jean Chrysostome Ntirugiribambe for crossexaminationas his statement touches upon a peripheral issue befween the Parties.Annex 72 - Statement of FClicien Muberuku70. In a statement signed on 23 October 2008, in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's LeadCounsel, Fdlicien Muberuka makes declarations in relation to Prosecution Witness ZF'sevidence.71. The Chamber decides not to call Fdlicien Muberuka for cross-examination as hisstatement touches upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annexes 73 to 83 - Stutements of Emmanuel Mbigtambe, foseph Bamporineza, IldephonseNtatije, Jonathan Ntarago, Anastase Abiyingima, Gaspard Mnurano, Thacien Munana,Oreste Habarurema, fean Dumasctnd Semanza, Faustin Gakumbe and Perry WillardMunger III72. The above statements, signed in the presence of a witness, contain declarations relevantto Witness XBM's testimony.73. The Chamber decides not to call the authors of these statements for cross-examinationas they touch upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annex 84 - Stalement of Hassan Ngeze74. In a statement signed on 24 May 2008, without the presence of a witness, Hassan Ngezemakes declarations relating to the evidence of Witnesses ZF and XMB regarding theexistence of the Zero network and MRND meetings.Tlw Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera, Matthieu Ngirumpqtse and Joseph Nzirorera, Case No. ICTR-98-44-T l5/25\tl

Decision on Joseph N:irorera's Motions for Admissiongf Written Statemerrts and Testimony(+l5 July20096{oV75. The Chamber considers that the issues raised by the Prosecution regarding HassanNgeze require that he appear for cross-examination.Annex 87 - Stutement of Alphonse Nzungize76. In a statement signed on 5 October 2006, without a witness present, Alphonse Nzungizemakes declarations in relation to Prosecution Witness ZF's testimony.77, The Chamber decides not to call Alphonse Nzungize for cross-examination as hisstatement touches upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annex 88 - Statement of Alphonse Higaniro78. In a statement signed on 4 December 2008, without a witness present, AlphonseHiganiro declares that no national-level MRND meeting was held in Gisenyi after theFebruary 1993 RPF attack. He adds that neither Colonel Bagosora nor Colonel Nsengiyumvatook the floor at any MNRD meeting during the multiparty system era.79. The Chamber decides not to call Alphonse Higaniro for cross-examination as hisstatement touches upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annex 90 - Statement of Cldment Kayishema80. In a statement signed on 29 April 2008 in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's LeadCounsel, Cl6ment Kayishem asserts that while he was prdfet of Kibuye prdfecture from 3July 1992 to July 1994, the MRND never applied to organize a meeting at Gatwaro Stadiumafter July 1992 and that he never attended any MRND meeting or rally at Gatwaro Stadium.81. The Chamber decides not to call Clement Kayishema for cross-examination as hisstatement touches upon aperipheral issue between the Parties.Annex 92 - Statement of Donotille Niyitegeha82. Donatille Niyitegeka signed a statement on 29 September 2008, without a witnesspresent, stating that she never attended an MRND rally in Gatward Stadium in June 1993 orat any time during the multi-party era.83. The Chamber decides not to call Donatille Nyitegeka for cross-examination as herstatement touches upon a peripheral issue befween the Parties.Annexes 93 and 94 - Statements of Shadrack Sendugu and Shudrack Nikobasanzwe84. In statement signed in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's Lead Counsel on 24September 2007 and 2l February 2008 respectively, Shadrack Sendugu and ShadrackThe Prosecutor v, Edottard Karemera, Matthieu Ngirumpatse and Joseph Nzirorera, Case No. ICTR-9844-T l6125!\1

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motions for Admission of ll/rilten Statements and Testimony l5 July 20094{1c4Nikobasanzwe make declarations in relation to meetings in Nkuli commune on 6-7 Aprilt994.85. The Chamber decides not to call Shadrack Sendugu or Shadrack Nikobasanzwe forcross-examination as their statements touch upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annexes 95 and 96 - Statement of Frangois Xavier Mvujekure and ManayeriNkundabakura86. Francis Xavier Mvuyekure and Manayeru Nkundabakura signed statements on 19February 2008, in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's Lead Counsel in which they makedeclarations in relation to the massacre in Munyemvano Compound.87. The Chamber decides not to call Francis Xavier Mvuyekure and Manael Nkundabakuraas their statements touch upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annexes 97, 100, 105 and 106 - Statements of Frangois Rwabukumba, EvaristeMicoyabagabo, Amandin Mbonyintwuli and Litric Danko88. Frangois Rwabukumba, Evariste Micoyabagabo, Litric Danko and AmandinMbonyintwali signed statements on 15 October 2007 and 16 February 2008, in which theymake declarations in relation to the massacre in Musha Church. The first three witnessessigned in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's Defence Counsel, while the last witness'statement, in Annex 105, was signed without a witness present.89. The Chamber decides not to call Frangois Rwabukumba, Evariste Micoyabagabo,Amandin Mbonyintwali or Litric Danko as their statements touch upon a peripheral issuebetween the Parties.AnnexeS 98, 103 snd 104 - Statements of Antoine Rutikanga, Callirte Bitegwmaso andJean Nsanzumuhire90. Antoine Rutikanga, Callixte Bitegwmaso and Jean Nsanzumuhire signed statements onl5 October 2007 and 3l October 2007,in which.they make declarations in relation to theattack on Esther Mukanukaka's home. The first witness signed his statement in the presenceof Joseph Nzirorera's Lead Counsel while the other statements, in Annexes 103 and 104,were signed without a witness present.91. The Chamber decides not to call Antoine Rutikanga, Callixte Bitegwmaso and JeanNsanzumuhire for cross-examination as their statements touch upon a peripheral issuebetween the Parties.The Prosecutor v. Edouqrd Karemera, Matlhieu Ngirumpatse andJoseph Nzirorera,Case No. ICTR-98-44-T l7125lht

6&sDecision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motions for Admission of Written Slatenents and Testimony l5 July 2009Annexes 101 und 102 - Statements of Evartste Munyabarame and Marcel Gakwhi92. In statementsigned on l6 October 2007 in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's LeadCounsel, Evariste Munyabarame and Marcel Gakwisi declare that Laurent Semanza was notpresent during the attack againsthe Mabare Mosque.93. The Chamber decides not to call Evariste Munyabarame, nor Marcel Gakwisi for crossexaminationas their statements touch upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annex 107 -,Statement Enos Kagaba94. In a statement signed on 27 September 2007, in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera's LeadCounsel, Kagaba makes declarations in relation to the attack of Muyira Hill and hisattendancemeetings in Kibuyeprdfecture ofTice in June 1994.95. The Chamber decides not to call Enos Kagaba as his statementouches upon aperipheral issue between the Parties.Annexes 108 snd 109 - Stutements of Omar Bizimungu and Hashim Uwayisaba96. In a statement signed on l8 October 2007, in the presence of Joseph Nzirorera'sDefence Counsel, Omar Bizimungu makes declarations in relation to events that allegedlyhappened in Kibuye. In a statement made without the presence of a witness on the same day,Hashim Uwayisaba makes a similar declaration.97. The Chamber decides not to call Omar Bizimungu or Hashim Uwayisaba as theirstatements touch upon a peripheral issue between the Parties.Annexes Il0, lll and ll2 - Statements of Mannasseh Gskwere, Fulgence Rukerikibayeand fean-Baptiste Kahihura98. Mannasseh Gakwere, Fulgence Rukerikibaye and Jean-Baptiste Kahihura signedstatements in the presence of a witness on 4 November and 6 November 2008. Thesestatements contain declarations that neither Eliezer Niyitegeka, nor Gdrard Ntakirutimanawere present at the attacks in Biseslro.99. The Chamber decides not to call Mannasseh Gakwere, Fulgence Rukerikibaye or Jean-Baptiste Kahihura for cross-examination as their statements touch upon a peripheral issuebefween the Parties.TleProsecutorv.EdouardKremera,MatthieuNgirumpatseandJosephNzirorera,CaseNo. ICTR-98-44-T l8/25rLl

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motions for Admission of lVrilten Stdements and Testimony l5 July 2009tt6rcq.Annex 128 - Ststement of Emmanuel Nyqmuhinda100. In a statement signed on I I April 2009, Emmanuel Nyamuhinda states that he wasnever present at a meeting at the Kigali prdfecture in late April 1994 which Joseph Nziroreraand others attended, according to Witness AI.G.34l0l. The Chamber decides not to call Emmanuel Nyamuhinda for cross-examination as hisstatement touches upon a peripheral issue befween the Parties.(E) Admissible Witness Transcripts under Rule 926r's(D)Annexes lI3 to 127 - Transcripts of lYitness Testimony in the Ndindiliyimana et al.,Bizimungu et aL, Bagosora et al., Ntakuritumana, Zigiranyirazo and Kajelijeli trials102. Joseph Nzirorera seeks admission of the transcripts of the testimony of 15 witnessesfrom the Ndindiliyimona et al., Bizimungu et al., Ntahtritamana, Bagosora et al., Musema,Zigiranyirazo and Kaj e I ij e/i trials.3s103. The Chamber finds that all of these transcripts go to proof of a matter other than the actsand conduct of the Accused as charged in the Indictment and that they are relevant and ofprobative value. The Chamber thus finds these transcripts admissible pursuant to Rule 92 bis.104. Considering that the purpose of Rule 92 bis is to streamline the presentation of theevidence and noting that the Prosecution has already cross-examined these witnesses, theChamber denies the Prosecution's requesto cross-examine these witnesses. However, in14The Chamber notes that the Prosecution argues that this statement goes to the acts and conduct of theaccused: Prosecutor's Response to Nzirorera's Motion to Admit the Statement of Emmanuel Nyamuhimba,para. 10. However, the Chamber finds that the statement does not in fact do so - it relates to the presence ofEmmanuel Nyamuhinda at a meeting and does not discuss the presence of Joseph Nzirorera or the otherAccused at this meeting.35Annexes I 13 to 127 of Nzirorera's Omnibus 92 bis Motion: The Prosecutor v. AugustinNdindiliimana, Augustin Bizimungu, Frangois-Xavier Nzuwonemeye and Innocent Sagahutu, Case No. ICTR-00-56-T ("Ndindiliyirilana et al."), DBll-2, T. 12-13 June 2007; The Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu, JustinMugenzi, Jdrdme-Climent Bicanumpaka and Prosper Mugiraneza, Case No. ICTR-99-50-T ("Bizimungu eta/."), Agnds Ntamabyaliro,T,2.l-29 August 2006; Bizimungu et al.,Emmanuel Ndindabahizi, T. 30 April-3May 2007; The Prosecutor v. Elizaphan Ntqkirutimana and Gdrard Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-Tand ICTR-96-17-T ("Ntakirutimand'), Faustin Twagiramungu, T.4-5 February 2001; Annex Bagosoraet al.,Joshua Ruzibiza, T. 9-10 March 2006; The Proseculor v. Protais Zigiranyirazo, Case No. ICTR-O1-73-T, AloysRuyenzi, T. 3 April 2007; Bagosora et al., Witness ALL-42, T. 8-9 November 2006; Bagosora e/ al, WitnessBRA-I, T. 5-6 April 2006; Bagosora et al., Witness LE-I, T. 19-21 October 2005; Bagosora et al., LucMarchal, T. 30 November-5 December 2006; The Prosecutor v. Jwdnal Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T,Witness JK-27,T. l7-18 September 2002; Ntdkirutimana et al., Gerard Ntakirutiman4 T. 8-10 May 2002; TheProsecutor v. Alfred Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Alfred Musema, T. 10-27 May 1999; Bagosora et al.,Witness LIC-I, T, l3-14 April 2005; Bagosora et al., Witness BDR-1, T. l4-15 April 2005. Annex A to JosephNzirorera's l6h Notice of Rule 68 Violation and Motion for Remedial and Punitive Measures: Testimonv ofRPF Insiders, filed on l4 April 2009, Ndindiliyimana et al., Alpha-l, T. 1-2 July 2008.The Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera Matthieu Ngirumpatse andJoseph Nzirorera, Case No. ICTR-984+Tl9l25{b,l

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motions for Adrnission of Written Statements and Testimony l5 July 2009U66a3order to fully assess the testimony of these witnesses, the Chamber finds it necessary to admitinto evidence the totality of the transcripts of the testimony of these witnesses as well as theexhibits admitted during this testimony.(F) Statements and Transcrints of Evidence of RPF Insider Witnesses105. Joseph Nzirorera seeks admission of four witness statements and one transcript of thetestimony of RPF insider witnesses36 pursuanto 92 bis (C) and (D). The Prosecution aversthat three of the documentsought for admission were previously found by the Chamber tobe of limited relevance or probative value in decisions rendered on Rule 68 motionssubmiued by Joseph Nzirorera.3T [t also asserts that the other fwo documents are of similarcontent and are thus equally of limited relevance and probative value.3E It submits that givenits prior findings on this evidence or similar evidence, the Chamber should deny theadmission of the statements and transcripts of RPF insider witnesses pursuant to Rule 92 bis.106. The Chamber notes that the standard for determining whether material is exculpatoryunder Rule 68 implies a much higher threshold than is required for determining the relevanceand probative value of evidence sought for admission under Rule 89(C). Under Rule 68, theassessment of whether evidence is exculpatory depends on an evaluation of whether there isany possibility that the information could be relevanto the defence of the Accused. This isdetermined by whether the material may tend to disprove a material fact againsthe accused,undermine the credibiliry of evidence intended to prove those material facts, or serve tosustain a valid excuse or justification for the alleged criminal conduct.3e Under Rule 89(C)however, the assessment of whether evidence is relevant and probative requires that theevidence be in some way releva,4to an element of a crlme with which the Accused ischarged and have some value in proving or disproving an element of a crime.a0 On this basis,16oAnnexes 129 to 132 to Nzirorera's 92 bis RPF Insider Witnesses Motion; Annex A to JosephNzirorera's 166 Notice of Rule 68 Violation and Motion for Remedial and Punitive Measures: Testimony ofRPF Insiders, filed on l4 April 2009, Ndindiliyinana et al., Alpha-l, T. l-2 July 2008.17Prosecution's Response to RPF Insider Witnesses Motion, paras 17-18 (in relation to Annex 129.,referring to Karemera et a/., Decision on Prosecutor's Rule 68(D) Application and Joseph Nzirorera's l2hNotice of Rule 68 Violation, 26 March 2009, paras 18, 23 (in relation to Annex.130, referring to Karemera eta/., Decision on Prosecutor's Rule 68(D) Application and Joseph Nzirorera's l2s Notice of Rule 68 Violation,26 March 2009,para, 16), and 39 (in relation to Annex A, refening to Karemera e/ a/., Decision on JosephNzirorera's l6m Notice of Rule 68 Violation: Testimony of RPF Insiders, 3 July 2009, para. l4).18lbid.,paras 29 (in relation to Annex l3l) and 33 (in relation to Annex 132).3eKaremera e/ a/., Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's l6'h Notice of Rule 68 Violation: Testimony of RPFInsiders, 3 July 2009, para. l3 (and sources cited therein).40Bagosora et al.,Decision on Admissibility of Proposed Testimony of Witness DBY, l8 September2003, para. 4.Tlw Prosecutor v. Edouard Karenera, Matthieu Ngirumpatse and Joseph Nzirorera,Case No. ICTR-98-4+T 20/25h

Decision on Joseph N:irorera's Motiorsfor Admission of Written Statements and Testimony l5 July 2009t+6dolTrial Chambers have admitted evidence that provides further particulars in relation to thebackground and context of the events that occurred in Rwanda in l994.al107. The Chamberecalls that it previously found that the evidence of ERN and ALPHA-Irelating to alleged RPF infiltration activities was not exculpatorya2 and that similar evidenceby R223 was only "marginally exculpatory."a3 Nonetheless, the Chamber finds that theevidence of R223, R289 and ALPHA-I, despite its generality, is sufTiciently relevant andprobative for the purposes of Rule 89(C) as. it alleges that some of the crimes which wereblamed on the MRND, the Interahamwe or the Habyarimana regime were committed by theRPF.108. The Chamber also finds that the evidence of R2l7 and R297 is also of sufficientrelevance and probative value as it provides further context and background to events thattook place in Rwanda in l994.aa The Chamberecalls, in this regard, that it admitted evidenceduring the Prosecution case for the purposes ofbackground and context.as109. The Chamber is moreover of the view that all of these statements and transcripts go toproof of a matter other than the acts and conduct of the Accused as charged in the Indictmentand thus finds that this evidence is admissible pursuant to Rule 92 bis.ll0. With respecto the witness statements for which admission is sought under Rule 92 6is(C), the Chamber is satisfied, on the balance of the probabilities, that the authors of thewritten statements are persons who can no longer with reasonable diligence be traced. Indeed,in a letter dated I June 2009, the Witnesses and Victims Support Section reported that it wasunable to locate any of these witnessesa6 and Joseph Nzirorera submits that he has also beenunable to do so.ot The Chamber is also satisfied, as per Rule 92 bis (C), that thecircumstances in which the statements were made and recorded evince sufficient indicia oftheir reliability, having been signed and countersigned in the presence ofa representative ofthe Office of the Prosecution.4rSee, e.g., i6id., paras 30-33.42Karemera et al., Decision on Prosecutor's Rule 68(D) Application and Joseph Nzirorera's 12ft Noticeof Rule 68 Violation, 26 March 2009, para. 18; Karemera et a/., Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's 16* Notice ofRule 68 Violation: Testimony of RPF Insiders, 3 July 2009, para. 14.4!Karemera et a/., Decision on Prosecutor's Rule 68(D) Application and Joseph Nzirorera's 126 Noticeof Rule 68 Violation, 26 March 2009, para. 1644C/ Bagosora et al., Decision on Disclosure of Defence Witness Statements in Possession of theProsecution Pursuanto Rule 68 (A), 8 March 2006, para. 6.45See, e.g., T. 23 February 2006,p. 15; T. 16 May 2006, pp. 53-54; T. 8 June 2006, p, 25.46See Confidential Annex A to Nzirorera's 92 bis RPF Insider Witnesses Motion.41Nzirorera's 926is RPF Insider Witnesses Motion, paras 7-8.The Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera" Matthieu Ngirumpatse andJoseph Nzirorera,Case No. ICTR-98-44-T 2ll25([,?

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motionsfor Adnission of Written Statemenls and Testimony l5 July 2009t1-6WI I 1. With respecto the transcript for which admission is sought under Rule 92 brs (D), theChamber finds it necessary to admit into evidence the totality of the transcripts of thetestimony of this witness as well as the exhibits admitted during this testimony.(G) Joseph Nzirorera's Oblisation to Provide Full Indentifyins Information for hisWitnessesI12. The Chamberecalls that Edouard Karemera was required to provide full identiffinginformation for all of his witnesses prior to the commencement of his defence,as informationthat is routinely required by Chambers in this Tribunal.aeI13. The Chamber finds that Joseph Nzirorera must comply with this requirement andprovide full identi$,ing information with respecto each of his Rule 92 brs witnesses withinten days of this decision. Nzirorera is further reminded to provide sufficient detail so as toenable the Parties to undertake meaningful investigations.(H) TheJime Allocated to Josenh Nzirorera for the Presentation of his CaseI14. By an order dated 24 October 2008, the Chamber reduced the number of JosephNzirorera's live witnesses to 55 witnesses fitting within 45 trial days' length of time anddirected him to file his application for admission of written statements pursuanto Rule 92Dls.so In making this Order, the Chamber did not take into account the need to cross'examinethe authors of written statements admitted pursuant to Rule 92 bis. The Chamber thereforeconsiders it necessary to vary its previous Order regarding the time allotted for thepresentation of Nzirorera's defence.I 15. However, this does not mean that Nzirorera should be allotted further time in a mannerthat would go against the objectives of the Chamber's previous Order, in particular theprinciple of proportionality and the expeditiousness of the proceedings. The Chamber thusaccords I hour for the cross-examination and l5 minutes for the re-direct examination of each48Karemerq el a/., Decision on Prosecutor's Submission Concerning Edouard Karemera's Compliancewith Rule 73ter and Chamber's Orders, 2 April 2008, paras 7-8.4eNdindiliyimana et al., Decision on Prosecutor's Extremely Urgent Motion for Disclosure of FurtherIdentifying Information Relating to Defence Witnesses, 17 April 2007; Muvuttyi. Decision on Prosecutor'sMotion for Disclosure of ldentifying Information Concerning Defence Witnesses Pursuanto Rules 69(c) and73ter,9 November 2005; Bogosora et al., Decision on Sufficiency of Defence Witness Summaries, 5 July 2005.50Karemera et al., Order to Joseph Nzirorera to Reduce his Witness List, 24 October 2008, paras I and ILTle Prosecutor v. Edouard Kqremera, Matthieu Ngirumpatse andJoseph Nzirorera,Case No. ICTR-98-44-T 22/25!{.'l

tJ 6QooDecision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motions for Adnission of lltritten Statements and Testimony l5 July 2009of the fourteen authors of admitted 92 bis statements, for which it requires cross-examination.The Chamber thus grants Nzirorera three extra days for the presentation of his case.FOR THESE REASONS, THE CHAMBERORDERS the Registrar to re-file the Public Annexes to Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus Motionfor Admission of Written Statements and Testimony, Supplemento Joseph Nzirorera'sOmnibus Rule 92 6rs Motion and Second Supplement to Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus Rule92 bis Motion confidentially;ORDERS Joseph Nzirorera to disclose to the other parties alt identifying information for theauthors of the statements identified in Annexes I (Michel Bakuzakundi), 2 (AlphonseNtilivamunda), Annex 3 (Dominic Gatsimbanyi), 6 (Piene Ntamushobora), l8 (ProtaisRukeraminingo), l9 (Thdogdne Bamproeye),28 (Jdr6me Bicamumpaka), 30 (Aloys Simba),3l (Charles Nyandwi), 32 (Bernard Habyarimana), 33 (L6on Habyarimana), 40 (MarcelGatsinzi), 42 (Justin Ugiyekera), 44 (Dieudonn€ Ndayisenga), 45 (S€raphin Rwabukumba),46 (Goddlieve Barushwanubusa), 48 (Stanislas Mbonyimana), 53 (lnnocent Twagiramungu),54 (Runyinya Barabwiriza), 59 (Abdulmohamed Bandali\,67 (Jdr6me Ngendahimana), 66(Vincent Rutaganira), 7l (Jean Chrysostome Ntirugiribambe) 72 (Fdlicien Muberuka), 73(Emmanuel Mbigtambe), 74 (Joseph Bamporineza), 75 (Ildephonse Ntatije), 76 (JonathanNtarugo), 77 (Anastase Abiyingima), 78 (Gaspard Mnurano), 79 (Thacien Munana), 80(Oreste Habarurema), 8l (Jean Damascdne Semanza), 82 (Faustin Gakumbe) 83 (PerryWillard Munger III), 84 (Hassan Ngeze), 87 (Alphonse Nzungize) 88 (Alphonse Higaniro),90 (Cl6ment Kayishema),92 (Donatille Niyitegeka), 93 (Shadrack Sendugu), 94 (ShadrackNikobasanzwe) 95 (Frangois Xavier Mvujekure),96 (Manayeri Nkundabakura), 97 (FrangoisRwabukumba), 98 (Antoine Rutikanga), 100 (Evariste Micoyabagabo), l0l(EvaristeMunyabarame), 102 (Marcel Gakwisi), 103 (Callixte Bitegwmaso), 104 (JeanNsanzumuhire), 105 (Amandin Mbonyintwali), 106 (Litric Danko), 107 (Enos Kagaba), 108(Omar Bizimungu), 109 (Hashim Uwayisaba), I l0 (Mannasseh Gakwere), I I I (FulgenceRukerikibaye) and I l2 (Jean-Baptiste Kahihura) of his Omnibus Motion for Admission ofWritten Statement and Testimony and Annex 128 (EmmanuelNyamuhinda) of his Motion toAdmit Statement of Emmanuel Nyamuhimba, within ten days of this Decision;ORDERS Joseph Nzirorera to obtain certification, as prescribed by Rule 92 Dis (B), of theuncertified statements identified in Annexes l-3,6,18-19, 28, 30-33, 40,42,4446,48, 53,The Prosecutor v. Edouard Kuemerq Matthieu Ngirumpatse andJoseph Nzirorera, Case No. ICTR-98-4+T 23/25^v

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motiora for Admission of Written Statemenls and Testimony l5 July 20094Kt759,66-67,71-84,87-88, 90, 93-98, 100-112 of his Omnibus Motion for Admission ofWritten Statement and Testimony, Annexes 53 and 54 of his Supplemento JosephNzirorera's Omnibus Rule 92 bis Motion, Annex 28 of his Second Supplement to JosephNzirorera's Omnibus Rule 92 brs Motion and Annex 128 of his Motion to Admit Statementof EmmanuelNyamuhimba, within 45 days of this Decision;DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, subjecto the disclosure of the identiffing information of theirauthors and their certification pursuanto Rule 92 bis (B), the entirety of the statementsidentified in Annexes l-3,6, l8-19, 28,30-33,40,42,44-46,48,53,59,66-67,71-84,87-88,90, 93-98, 100-l 12 of Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus Motion for Admission of WrittenStatement and Testimony, Annexes 53 and 54 of his Supplemento Joseph Nzirorera'sOmnibus Rule 92 6rs Motion, Annex 28 of his Second Supplement to Joseph Nzirorera'sOmnibus Rule 92 Dis Motion, and Annex 128 of his Motion to Admit Statement ofEmmanuelNyamuhimba, within 45 days of this Decision;DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, subjecto the disclosure of the identifuing information of JeanChrysostome Ntirugiribambe and the certification of his statement pursuanto Rule 92 bis(B), the statement identified in Annex 7l of Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus Motion forAdmission of Written Statement and Testimony, save for paragraphsix and seven of thisstatement;GRANTS the Prosecution the right to cross-examine the authors of the statements identifiedin Annexes 2 (Alphonse Ntilivamunda), 3 (Dominic Gatsimbanyi), 6 (Piene Ntamushobora),19 (Thdogdne Bamproeye),28 (Jdr6me Bicamumpaka),30 (Aloys Simba),31 (CharlesNyandwi), 32 (Bemard Habyarimana), 33 (L6on Habyarimana), 40 (Marcel Gatsinzi), 45(S6raphin Rwabukumba), 46 (God6lieve Barushwanubusa), 53 (Innocent Twagiramungu), 59(Abdulmohamed Bandali), 66 (Vincent Rutaganira) and 84 (Hassan Ngeze) of JosephNzirorera's Omnibus Motion for Admission of Written Statement and Testimony, shouldtheir statements be admitted pursuant to the present Decision;ADMITS INTO EVIDENCE, pursuant to Rule 92 bis (C), the entirety of the statementsindentified in Annexes 129 to 132 of Joseph Nzirorera's Motion to Admit Statements andTestimony of RPF Insider Witnesses pursuant to Rule 92 bis;REQUESTS the Registrar to assign these statements with an exhibit number in the instantcase:Tlp Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera, l,latthieu Ngirumpatse andJoseph Nzirorere, Case No. ICT\-98-44:| 24125It/

Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motiors lor Admission of llrritten Statements and Testimony l5 July 2009/.t(s1sADMITS INTO EVIDENCE the totality of the transcripts of oral testimony as well as theexhibits admifted during this testimony for the l6 witnesses identified in Annexes ll3 to 127in Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus Motion for Admission of Written Statement and Testimonyand for the witness indentified in Annex A to Joseph Nzirorera's l6th Notice of Rule 68Violation and Motion for Remedial and Punitive Measures: Testimony of RPF Insiders;REQUESTS the Registrar to assign these transcripts and their accompanying exhibits withan exhibit number in the instant case;DENIES Joseph Nzirorera's Omnibus Motion for Admission of Written Statement andTestimony in all other respects.Arusha, 15 July 2009, done in English.o.*ist'rrll ny.onrL'VGberdao GustaveKamJudge6/-t4r--&v-vagn JoensenJudge[Seal of the Tribunal]TIw Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera, Matthieu Ngirumpatse andJoseph Nzirorera, Case No. ICTR-98-44-T 25125

TRANSMISSION SHEETFOR FILING OF DOCUIUIEI{TS WITH CMSi-.nited Nati$nrNations UriiasCOURT MANAGEMENT SECTION(Art. 27 ot the Directive for the Registry)- GENERAL I{FORTATION (To be conpleted bv t,he chrmberrlTo:From:Gase Name:LJ TrialChamber IN. M. DialloLlchief, cMSJ.-P. Fom6t6l{lChamberTC3(names)LJ Trial Chamber llR. N. KouamboLl Deputy Chief, CMSM. Diopll Defence(names)The Prosecutor vs. Edouard Karemera et al.[!l Trial Chamber lllC. K. HometowuLlChief, JPU, cMSM. DiopLl Prosecutor's Office(names)Ll Appeals Chamber / ArushaF. A. TalonLl Appeals Chamber / The HagueR. Muzigo.MorrisonK. K. A. Afande[_lOther:(names)Gase Number: ICTR-98-44Dates: Transmitted: 15072009 Document's date: 15072009No. of Pages: 25 OriginalLanguage: [l English fl French fl KinyarwandaTitle of Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motions for Admission of Written Statements and TestimonyDocument:Classification Level:I Strictty Confidential/ Under SealD ConfidentialX puuticTRIM Document Type:D Indictment I Warrant f] Correspondence D Submission from non-partiesI Decision fl Affidavit E Notice of Appeal I Submission from partiesI Disclosure fi Order I Appeal Book I Accused particularsI Judgement f] Motion I Book of Authoritiesll . TRAilSLATlOl'l STATUE 01{ T}lE FILING DATE (To be complcted by the Ghamben /CMS SHALL take necessary action regarding translation.(_ (=NGe:..I fiting Party hereby submits only the original, and will not submit any translated version.fl Reference material is provided in annex to facilitate translation.Target Language(s):I English X FrenchCMS SHALL NOT take any action regarding translation..:- lfl Filing Party hereby submits BOTH the original and the translated vercion for filing, as f{ows: !Orioinal in E English I French $,,KinyargnndaTranslation in E English I French CFKinyarwAndaSHALL NOT take any action regarding translation.fl fiting Party will be submitting the translated version(s) in due course in the following language(s):flFrenchflKinyanrvandaKIxoI.v FILL IN THE BoxEE BELowU The OTP is overseeing translation.The document is submifted for translation to:The document is submifted to an accredited service fortranslation (fees willbe submifted to DCDMS):The Language Services Section of the ICTR / Arusha.The Language Services Section of the ICTR / The Hague.An accredited service for translation; see details below:Name of contact person:Name of service:Address:E-mail/ Tel. / Fax:III . TRANSIATION PRIOruTTAATIOI{ Officlal urc ONL[Top priorityCOMMENTSIUrgentflNormaltrName of contact person:Name of service:Address:E-mail/Tel./Fax:IRequire date:€ &c-cf*-flHearing date:fl Otner deadlines:NB: This form is available on: http://www,ictr.org/ENGl|SH/cms/cms1 .doc CMSI {Updated on 21 February 2005)