Arusha, July 23th, 2004 (FH) -The so called “Military I” trial is considered one of he most important trial brought before the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

It groups together the former director of cabinet in the Ministry of Defence, Colonel Theoneste Bagosora, the former head of military operations of the army, General Gratien Kabiligi, the former military commander of Gisenyi region, Lieutenant Colonel Anatole Nsengiyumva and the former commander of the Para-commando Battalion in Kigali, Major Aloys Ntabakuze.

The four former military officials are accused by the prosecution of being the architects of the 1994 Rwandan genocide which claimed the lives of an estimated one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

The former army officers are charged with conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, complicity in genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. They have pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

During the last judicial session which begun on 29th March and ended on 13th July , 2004, the prosecution presented a total of twenty-seven witnesses. Most were protected witnesses who came to Arusha to testify but two factual witnesses testified by video link from The Hague and Brussels for security reasons.

In order to save court time during this session, the prosecutor sometimes introduced the use of rule 92 bis which allows witness’s statements to be tabled instead of direct examination by the prosecutor.

Most of the witnesses in this session provided information which touched on all the accused. A witness code-named “KJ2" to protect his identity testified against Colonel Bagosora. He alleged that Bagosora had authorised Interahamwe militia to be given weapons and food.

He also claimed that the former director of cabinet in the Ministry of Defence had spat in the face of a certain Major Jabo who refused to comply with orders to kill Tutsis in Kibuye (Western Rwanda).

Another witness code-named “A” also testified that Bagosora was in possession of a list of Tutsis to be killed.

Further allegations against Bagosora came from another witness code-named “XXY” who said that Bagosora had found them along a highway and ordered them to kill Tutsis along with their babies if they came across them.

“DCN” alleged Anatole Nsengiyumva gave orders for Tutsi women and refugees to be killed in Gisenyi. Another witness “CE” alleged that Nsengiyumva led an attack on Tutsi refugees on the pretext that they were rebels.

Witness “AFJ” alleged that Maj. Ntabakuze had given orders for Tutsis refugees to be killed and that Tutsi women and girls were kidnapped and raped by soldiers under Ntabakuze’s command. Few witnesses testified against Brig. Gratien Kabiligi.

Appearance of witnesses during this session improved much compared to previous sessions where there were difficulties in having witnesses coming to testify.

Among its witnesses the prosecution also presented two expert witnesses. Antipas Nyanjwa, a Kenyan police Inspector who is an expert in criminology and handwriting analysis, appeared before the chamber. He testified on the analysis he made of the handwritings in the diaries of Bagosora as well as documents he alleged to contain the writing of Ntabakuze.

Another witness admitted as an expert witness in this session was a Human Rights Watch advocate, Professor Binaifer Nowrojee who is a specialist in researching sexual violence during conflict situations. She stated that, “rape was used as a weapon of the conflict in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide”.

Although Nowrojee’s testimony did not single out any of the accused, she alleged that some soldiers were involved in sexual violence acts including rape which was widespread and which targeted mainly Tutsis women.

“Today many women in Rwanda are dying in large numbers of HIV/AIDS as a result of rapes which occurred in 1994 making rape a very effective tool of conflict”, she said. Nowrojee was the 75th prosecution witness.

All the accused were present throughout the session. One of them, Ntabakuze, complained on March 30, 2004, a day after the session begun that “he was not being tried fairly” He “expressed dissatisfaction with the trial chamber’s decision to limit the cross-examination of a witness code-named “DBQ” on the grounds that the defence had conducted investigations based on DBQ’s “will say” statements. The chamber informed him that his counsel, Andre Tremblay of Canada had already taken seven hours in cross-examination.

The next session will resume on September 6th, 2004 with the presentation of the remaining prosecution witnesses. According to Barbara Mulvaney(USA), the lead prosecutor in this trial, did not give the number of witnesses still to be produced during the next session which presiding judge Erik Møse announced would end in September. After the prosecution completes its case, there will be a break in order to allow the defence to prepare its case. The defence is expected to begin its case in January 2005. During the last session, defence counsels complained of, “unequal access of documents from various archives presented in evidence by the prosecutor”. The complaint was raised by Bagosora’s lead counsel Raphael Constant from France while the chief of investigations in the office of the prosecutor at ICTR, Mr. Maxwell Nkole was providing information regarding the chain of custody of the evidence acquired by the prosecutor.

The defence also raised concerns over the delay in disclosure of documents and witness statements by the prosecution. They blamed the prosecutor for not following the tribunal’s rules of procedure and evidence which state that information should be made available to either party 21 days before the witness testifies.

The trial is before Trial Chamber One of the ICTR composed of Judge Erik Møse from Norway, Judge Jai Ram Reddy of Fiji, and Judge Serguei Aleckseievich Egorov from Russia.

According to case minutes of July 6th 2004, the presiding judge announced that two of the three judges will sit in another case when the trial resumes on September 6, 2004 and that the shift system would be used at that time.

SV/KN/FH (MLI''0723e)