UNITED NATIONS Case No: MICT-12-16 Mechanism for Intemational Criminal Tribunals Date: 15 January 2014 Original: English THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Before: Judge Vagn Joensen, Single Judge Registrar: Mr. John Hocking ELIEZER NIYITEGEKA v. THE PROSECUTOR PUBLIC PROSECUTION RESPONSE TO NIYITEGEKA'S Requete aux fins d'un engagement de procedure contre Ie tenwin GGH dans Niyitegeka pour faux temoignage sous declaration solennelle et pour entrave a l'administration de la justice. (Article 1(4) du Statute du MTPI, article 73, 74, 90, et 108 du Reglernent) Office of the Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow Richard Karegyesa Takeh B.K Sendze Received by the Registry Mechanism for Intemational Criminal Tribunals 15/01/2014 14:44 The Applicant Eliezer Niyitegeka
1. INTRODUCTION 1. At trial, Prosecution Witness GGH testified that on 10 April 1994, he saw Niyitegeka in Gisovu transporting guns. Niyitegeka argues in his motion 1 that Witness GGH should be prosecuted for false testimony because information contained in the transcripts of a broadcast of Radio Rwanda cassettes A V/906 and AV/907 of 10 April 1994,2 Jean Kambanda's affidavit of 29 November 2006 3, Jean Kambanda's diary of 1994 4, and the testimony of Witness DIG in the Bizimu,ngu, et al and Karemera et al cases5, demonstrate that Niyitegeka was in Kigali on 10 April 1994 attending a Cabinet meeting at the Hotel des Diplomates. He also contends that the Prosecution should be sanctioned for failing to disclose these materials pursuant to Rule 73. 2. All the issues raised in Niyitegeka's motion are res judicata. The motion should therefore be summarily dismissed. Alternatively, Niyitegeka's motion should be dismissed for lack of merit. It does not discharge his burden of demonstrating that Witness GGH knowingly and willingly gave false testimony before the Tribuna1. 6 Similarly, the motion does not provide justification for the imposition of sanctions against the Prosecution. II. SUBMISSIONS A. The issues raised in this motion are res judicata. 3. Niyitegeka's request for the appointment of an arnicus curiae to initiate criminal proceedings for false testimony against Prosecution Witness GGH is res judicata and should be dismissed as such. The Appeals Chamber in this case, previously held in relation to the transcripts of the Radio Rwanda broadcast of cassettes A V/906 and A V/907 that "... the transcripts relate to the alibi of the Appellant's participation in the Cabinet Meeting of 10 April 1994 in relation with the credibility of Prosecution Witness GGH [emphasis], [a matter] that [was] I Requete aux f ns d'un engagement de procedure contre le tenwin GGH dans Niy tege/:w pour faux temoignage sous declaration solennelle et ponr entrave a l'administration de lajnstice, 6 January 2014 (herein after, Motion) 2 Motion, paras. 13-15. 3 Motion, para. 16 4 Motion, paras. 17-19. 5 Motion, paras. 20-23. 6 Eliezer NZl'itegeka v The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-14-R, Decision on Third Request for Review, 23 January 2008, para. 32. 2
already considered at trial"7 It further found that "... the Applicant's allegation that... witness [GGH] gave false testimony pursuant to Rule 91 of the Rules lack foundation.s 4. On 6 March 2007, the Appeals Chamber denied Niyitegeka's second request for the prosecution of Witness GGH for false testimony. 9 His application was based on information contained in Jean Kambanda's affidavit and Kambanda's 1994 dairy, putting Niyitegeka in Kigali on 10 April 1994. 5. Finally, in his third application for review, Niyitegeka argued that that the testimony of Prosecution Witness DIG in the Bizimungu et al and Karel1wra et al cases, constitute strong grounds for initiating criminal proceedings for false testimony against GGH. The Appeals Chamber denied Niyitegeka's motion and found that no strong grounds have been made out for it to believe that Witness GGH may have given false testimony.l0 6. Niyitegeka's current motion does not add any substance to his previously rejected applications requesting the prosecution of GGH for false testimony. For this reason alone, Niyitegeka's request for the appointment of an amicus to prosecute Witness GGH is res judicata and should be dismissed. B. There are insufficient grounds warranting the initiation of proceedings for false testimony against GGH. 7. Even if considered on its merits, Niyitegeka's motion does not discharge his burden of demonstrating that Witness GGH knowingly and willingly gave false testimony before the Tribunal. ll He simply alleges that the information proffered in support of his motion, could have helped to demonstrate that Witness GGH was not a credible witness. 12 8. The Appeals Chamber has found that merely arguing that the testimony of a Witness is not credible because it is contradicted by some other information does not represent strong grounds to demonstrate that a witness may have given false testimony within the meaning of Rule 91 of the Rules. In this regard, the Appeals Chamber has stressed that there is a clear distinction between the credibility of a witness and false 7 Decision on Request for Review, 30 June 2006, para. 12. 8 Decision on Request for Review, 30 June 2006, para. 13. 9 Decision on Request for Review, 6 March 2007, paras. 11-12,29. 10 Decision on Third Request for Review, 23 January 2008, para. 32. II Decision on Third Request for Review, 23 January 2008, para. 32. 12 Motion, para. 11 3
testimony: the testimony of a witness may lack credibility without such testimony amounting to false testimony within the meaning of Rule 91 of the Rules. 1 :3 9. For this reason also, Niyitegeka's request for the Prosecution of GGH for false testimony should be dismissed. C. No sanction against the Prosecution is justified 10. The Appeals Chamber in this case had already determined that although the Prosecution's failure to timely disclose the relevant materials constituted a breach of its disclosure obligation, Niyitegeka did not suffer any prejudice as a result and no remedy was warranted. 14 Niyitegeka's current request for sanctions against the Prosecution should therefore be dismissed as it adds nothing substantive to his previously denied requests for sanction. D. Relief 11. For the aforementioned reasons, Niyitegeka's motion should be dismissed in its entirety. Respectfully submitted on this 15 January 2014. Wor~ Coun~~10 'liz.-iu ~~ Takeh B. ifsendze Appeals Counsel ~~.~~,-- Richard Karegyesa Senior Legal Officer 13 Decision on Third Request for Review, 23 January 2008, para. 32. 14 Decision on Request for Review, 30 June 2006, paras. 57, 58; Decision on Request for Review, 6 March 2007, para. 29; Decision on Third Request for Review, para. 28. 4
TRANSMISSION SHEET/FICHE DE TRANSMISSION FOR FlUNG OF DOCUMENTS WITH THE ARUSHA BRANCH OF THE MECHANISM FOR INTERNATION CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS/ POUR LE DEPOT DE DOCUMENTS A LA DIVISION D'ARUSHA DU MECHANISME POUR LES TRIBUNAUX PENAUX INTERNA TIONA UX I - FILING INFORMATION / INFORMATIONS GENERALES To! A: MICT Registry! Greffe du MTPI From! -------- O-ChambersT----O-Oefencel ------\EJPro-secutionT--------O Other! AuTre:---------- De: Chambre Defense Bureau du Procureur Takeh Sendze c--,-----------------------------------------------------,-=----;-:--;----;-----::-::::-_-::::--------------- Case Name! Eliezer Niyitegeka v The Prosecutor I Case Number! MICT-12-16 Affaire: _ Affaire No: Date Created! 15 January 2014 i Date transmitted! 15 January 2014 Date du: I Transmis Ie: 11-:::---:--:::---.,---:-;-----------------------------------------------------r------------:-'----:-:----::-c---:------,--.,.-,---------------- ~--;--:-,C"C:-:-g-:s-s;--~-~~~~~_~-~~~~~_---_T~~-r_~g_f~_-~-d_L-e_a~~~~~;~;~~~~_~-~~~-~~-.~!-------D-~~:~~-~-~s ----OKTn_~_arw_-::-:~_ Title of Document! Titre du document: Classification Levell Categories de c/assement: PROSECUTION RESPONSE TO NIYITEGEKA'S Requete aux fins d'un engagement de procedure contre Ie temoin GGH dans Niyitegeka pour faux temoignage so us declaration solennelle et pour entrave a I'administration de la justice. (g] Unclassified':-:N-c-o-n-c-:/a-s-s--:e-------O-- Strictly ConfidentiafiStrictemen-t c-oniiciiiiitfet----------- o Confidential! Confidentiel 0 Ex Parte (specify! preciser): o Ex Parte 0 Ex Parte 0 Other Ex Parte! Ex Parte Autre (specify! Defence excluded! Prosecution excluded! preciser): Defense exclu Bureau du Procureur exclu ~o-c-u-m-e--n-t -tyo-p-e-!-~d...--ln-d--ictment!----dorderiordre--------0 Appeals-ookT-o------O Notice-ofAppealF Type de Acte d'accusation Livre d'appel Acte d'appel document: 0 Warrant! 0 Affidavit! 0 Submission from non-parties! Mandat Declaration so us sermon Ecritures deposes par des tiers (g]motion! 0 Correspondence 0 Submission from parties! Requete Ecritures deposes par des parties o Decision! 0 Judgement! Jugement 0 Book of Authorities! Decision Livre de sources juridiques II - TRANSLATION STATUS ON THE FILING DATE/ ETAT DE LA TRADUCTION AU JOUR DU DEPOT o Translation not required! La traduction n'est pas requise -18:!Filing Party hereby submits only the- origina[an,trequests-f"fleregistry totransiatet-------- La Partie deposante ne soumet que I'original et sollicite que Ie Greffe prenne en charge la traduction (Word version of the document is attached! La version en Word se trouve en annexe), 0 English! Anglais (g] French! Franqais o Kinyarwanda --0 FilingPartyherebysubmlts--botil-the origlnaland-the-franslated version for filing, as-follows! ------_0_---0- La Partie deposante soumet ci-joint I'original et la version traduite pour depot, comme suit: Originall 0 English! 0 French! D Kinyarwanda Original en A ngla is Franqais Translation! 0 English! 0 French! 0 Kinyarwanda Traduction en Ang/ais Franqais -OFlTfngPartywill be s-ubmitti'ng-thetranslatedversion(sj-in-du-ecoljrs-e-in-th-ii-foilowlng-olanguage-(sjt O --------- ---- La Partie deposante soumettra la (Ies) version(s) traduite(e) so us peu, dans la (les) /angue(s) suivante(s): o English! Anglais 0 French! Franqais 0 Kinyarwanda Send completed transmission sheet to: IudiciaIFilingsArusha@un.org Veuillez soumettre cette fiche pour Ie depot des documents a: ludiciaifilingsarusha@un.org