On May 6th, the Chamber ratified the prosecution's application for an amendment to the indictment so that new charges of sexual crimes can be included. After many months of procrastination, this motion was submitted on April 29th, while the witnesses supporting these new charges were still giving evidence to the court. The defence struck out at what it called a « lottery », while the prosecution justified itself by its duty to see that « justice is done ». Sexual crimes in the forefront

At three in the afternoon on April 29th, Lennart Aspegren was in a bad mood. « We received a prosecution motion this morning to have the indictment amended. It goes without saying that the Chamber will deliberate on it as soon as the defence's response had been filed. However, I'd like the prosecution to know, and this is valid for the other OTP
representatives and their superiors, including Mrs. Arbour and Mr. Muna - that in terms of courtesy, I am very surprised indeed that an amended indictment is being brought in at this stage in proceedings. This morning, during the pre-trial, you didn't even mention your intentions. That could easily be taken as a personal offence ». Following on the heels of the President of the Chamber, the defence counsel expressed his disapproval. « Like everyone else, I am amazed. I'm very annoyed because there are factual errors made in this motion » said Steven Kay.

« To see justice done »

On May 5th, the day after the defence response had been filed, the motion was defended in court. Prosecuting counsel Jane Anywar Adong stressed that on January 21st, having just received the testimonies, she had warned the court of the prosecution's intention to file a request for amendment during a pre-trial conference. The Senior Trial Attorney emphasised that charges 8 and 9 of this very motion, finalised three months later, rather than the amendments strictly speaking, narrow the area where the Prosecutor intends to proceed. Although charge number 7 clearly constitutes a new charge, for crime against humanity, based on the fact that « strong evidence has emerged », she added that « excluding acts of sexual violence would not only be an injustice toward the Rwandan people, but it is also our duty to justice done ». Professor Wladimiroff, Alfred Musema's second lawyer, pleaded that « the new accusations do not clarify the indictment, they reflect the fact that new evidence has come out ». He condemned the fact that such matters should not be dealt with like « a lottery », and maintained that a fair trial was based on a previously-established indictment. The Dutch counsel also argued that the prosecution should firstly have presented the amendment motion to the confirming judge and not the Chamber. As for the late nature of the motion and the warning given by the prosecution in January, Mr. Wladimiroff noted that « an accused answers indictments, not intentions ».

« You can't change horses »

Jane Adong felt that « we should not be restricted by formalities. The important thing is that justice should be done ».
Navanethem Pillay asked her « why wasn't this motion brought earlier, at least before the hearings got under way ? » « All this time, consultations were taking place between the various departments in the OTP », answered the Senior Trial Attorney, who « needed to be sure that there was enough evidence » and check the credibility of the testimonies. Regarding the defence counsel, Pillay stated that after the initial appearance, « the indictment can only be modified with leave granted by the Trial Chamber », thus refuting the argument presented by Professor Wladimiroff on the role of the confirming judge and the necessary « double guarantee » provided for in this area, according to him, by the Tribunal's legal system. Wladimiroff begged to differ, and stressed that the Chamber had to deal with the evidence after, not before, sufficient evidence had been established to support the indictment's amendment. He referred to the risk of prejudice. Judge Pillay replied that the debate, in its present form, was not part of substantial deliberations. She showed herself however, to be concerned to respect the defence's right to prepare: « You say that under the current indictment, the accused has no reason to investigate the rapes. How do you explain this since the statements on the acts of sexual violence were given to you on January 21st and that you went to Rwanda? » Mr. Wladimiroff wanted to draw the judge's attention « to the fact that the defendant was only answering charges brought against him in the indictment ». He also explained that after P and J had given evidence in early March, « we were expecting the prosecution to make a move and they didn't, so we carried on working on the existing indictment ». Judge Pillay remarked however, that the defence had not been taken by surprise and that it had managed to cross-examine the witnesses, to which the lawyer replied « cross-examination is a very limited way to prepare a case », and then lashed out at the lateness of the motion filed by the prosecution. You « can't change horses at this late stage », he declared. Again he argued on the basis of case law in the Blaskic case, at the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, where the Appeals Chamber had stated that leave to make an amendment would be granted on new evidence, and not on the basis of new charges. It was obviously a distinction of the same type that Wladimiroff was making between the current case and the Akayesu case, in which the request for amendment on similar crimes had been made before the evidence had been presented.

Evidence and no prejudice

Twenty-four hours later, the Chamber gave its ruling. It had decided to « accede to the prosecution's motion ». The ruling, delivered as a brief verbal statement, pointed out that the Rules of Procedure and Evidence « do not give clear deadlines for the prosecution to file motions to amend an indictment ». The judges also observed that there was no prejudice. They felt that « although the motion was filed in the middle of the trial, it did not cause irreparable prejudice to the accused » and that this « modification would not delay the procedure excessively ». They then assessed « their study of the evidence » and concluded « that there were very good reasons for thinking that the prosecution had presented evidence which constituted the basis of another indictment against the accused ». The trial procedure therefore would have to follow a new course, and the accused would have to make another initial appearance. As the defence did not object, this appearance was carried out immediately. In front of his judges, Alfred Musema again pleaded not guilty to the three added or modified charges in the indictment now brought against him. Twenty minutes after the start of the hearing, and with his customary high level of respect shown to the Tribunal, the accused returned to his seat behind his lawyers. There was one outstanding concern in the minds of the judges. Both parties had the right to file preliminary motions again, which, would unquestionably threaten the objective of finishing the trial before the hoped-for deadline. The prosecution unsurprisingly, said that it had no such plans. Mr. Kay, with no alternative, left himself some final manoeuvring and thinking space. « At the moment », he didn't think so, but he warned that « this isn't the sort of thing to be decided hastily ».

The January 13th witnesses

'I', N and M were the principal new witnesses presented by the prosecution in relation to the charges of sexual violence against Alfred Musema. 'I' is the only one whose testimony has always been part of the case. The other statements incriminating Musema in these crimes were all gathered in Kibuye by the special investigation team on January 13th 1999. This fact was a continual source of astonishment for the defence when the witnesses appeared before the court.

'I''s testimony began with a 45-minute in camera hearing. While hiding in Nyungwe forest, she found out on April 12th that her house had been visited and looted by the bourgmestre of Gisovu, Aloys Ndimbati, but that « women and children weren't killed ». On April 13th, between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning, 'I' left the forest and returned to her house with her children. Her husband remained in hiding in the tea plantations. On the same day, at around 11 in the morning, she left home again, « with Kaberuka, a guard from the factory ». He « said Musema had said they should hide in the factory so they wouldn't be killed ».

'I''s tale

Having taken refuge in the factory with other Tutsi employees, a man called Rwagapfizi told them that « Musema had rung and said they had to leave the factory because he didn't want our blood to be spilt there. The Interahamwe were in font of and behind the factory and advancing towards us. The people guarding us hit us until we left. We ran out towards the tea plantations and in other directions. Canisius helped me carry the youngest child. We went to the guest house. The Interahamwe surrounded us. Canisius fled. The Interahamwe began smoking something, I don't know whether it was cannabis. Bayingana and Nyarugwiza [the factory's agronomist and the head of personnel respectively] were there. They had a typed list. They said they had to look at it so they didn't miss any names. The first name on it was my husband's. I was the second, along with my children. The third was Canisius. The fourth was his wife and children. Those were the names I could see. They asked me where my husband was. I told them he was dead. Nyarugwiza told some other Interahamwe to beat me but not kill me because they had to wait for Musema, who was coming the next day, so I could tell them where we had hidden the weapons, where my husband's body was and what the inyenzi's secrets were. They hit me, and killed the others in front of me. Anunciata had hidden in the plantations. I stayed with Ndori's children in Bitihuse's house, where we spent the night. The next day I saw Musema when his car reached the factory. Then people told me that Musema had arrived. I thought I was about to die. Musema had two soldiers with him. There was another vehicle. I saw Kaberuka and Barawigirira James arrive. They told me they were coming to pick up my children and Ndori's, but a man immediately killed Ndori's children because he didn't want them to die in an atrocious way. I threw stones at the vehicle and that's how I came to be in front of Musema's car carrying the two soldiers. Musema told the Interahamwe and some others to put the children in water barrels and to put them in bags and if they were frightened to kill them then not to look.
He said to do the same thing with Ndambaje's and Mugozi's children, and that he would give a thousand Rwandan francs for each person killed. When he was asked what should be done with me he told them I shouldn't be killed, that they should keep me and that he would bring some Twas to the guest house. As Musema had just arrived, everyone obeyed him. I managed to escape and hide in the bushes near Bitihuse's house ».

The rape and murder of Anunciata

« That night, I came across Anunciata, who told me that she had been hiding in Ndori's house. We decided to hide near the guest house to find out where the attacks would be taking place. We were two and a half metres from the bungalow. I was with Anunciata. Between us there was only one row of tea plants. Anunciata was with Blaise, who was 5. The child cried because he was hungry. Anunciata said: »I don't want them to kill all of us. I'm going with the child« . She got up.
Musema called her. He was at the bungalow. He said: »Come here, we'll kill you like the inyenzi killed the others« . Anunciata went. The child cried a lot. Musema called the Twas, told them to rape her, and to cut off one of her breasts and give it to the child if he was hungry. I know they did cut off one of her breasts because they said: »Now you only have one breast, we can't kill you« . I know they raped her because they said: »You slept with Tutsis, now you're going to sleep with Twas« . I heard screams. Then it sounded as though she was snoring. They killed her child first. I heard a blow and the child died straight away. At that time I heard Musema talking to Bayingana and Ndimbati. He told them they had worked hard, that there was nobody left on the list and that he would give them 40,000 francs each ». The witness continued her tale, of the days spent at the home of Mushokambere, who had taken care of her children, her departure for Mwendo, her arrest by Interahamwe who took her to the communal office in Gisovu. The bourgmestre, Ndimbati « was angry and locked me in his office. He said he was going to see Musema. He insulted me and kicked me ». When the bourgmestre left, 'I' escaped through the window and went back to Mushoka, whom she described like this: « I had promised him money but he didn't force me to sign anything. He had a good heart, he helped people, he liked my husband and that's why he protected me ». However, two policemen, two factory guards and Kaberuka came back to look for her. « They took me away and said that Musema and Ndimbati were waiting for me in the communal office. When we arrived people started to beat my legs with clubs so that I couldn't escape ». This time it was the actions of an officer that saved her life. He was a former co-student of her husband and was married to a woman with mixed Hutu-Tutsi parentage, said 'I'. The soldier took her in his vehicle to Kibuye. « That was in early May. A lot of people were coming out of the bush because the Prime Minister had said that the wounded should come out and be treated in hospital. That wasn't true ». She signed IOUs to inhabitants of Kibuye willing to put her up for financial reward, and hid there until July, when she was finally saved by French troops.

Don't stain the factory with blood

For half an hour 'I' spoke without interruption. During the examination conducted by the Nigerian trial attorney Charles Phillips, she said that, near the bungalow, she identified Alfred Musema by his voice: « I could hear what he was saying but I couldn't see him ». She then gave information on the fate of other Tutsis from the factory, of which she is, to her
knowledge, « the sole survivor ». She also gave details on the fate awaiting the children. « Yes I saw bags. When I was hiding at Mushoka's sometimes the Interahamwe used to come. I hid in the forest where there were dead bodies. In the daytime we went and hid there. We burrowed in among the bodies so they would think we were dead. I could see tractors coming to drop bags containing dead children. I opened some of the bags, and they had children who were still alive in them. There were three bags. In each one, there were dead children and others in agony ». 'I' said she was absolutely certain she had recognised the children of Ndambaje Jean-Paul, an electrician at the factory, and those of Mugozi, a driver, both of whom were Tutsis. The defence lawyer would base his cross-examination mainly on two pieces of evidence, in order to weaken the witnesses' credibility: photos of the guest house taken during the defence team's visit to Gisovu, in March and a hand-written statement by the witness, dated April 15th 1995, and signed in Gisenyi. A year after the dreadful events, 'I' wrote: « Musema was in Kigali when the President was assassinated. On April 7th, he launched an appeal to all his staff to remain calm, especially since he had found out that people were going to attack the factory.
Through the head of personnel, he had asked all the staff to stay at home until April 13th. On that day, they were to come to the factory where there was a higher level of security thanks to the guards. On the date indicated, we all turned up. At 10 in the morning the militiamen arrived with Ndimbati. »You must leave the factory so no blood is spilt inside«
Barawigirira told them. »We panicked and got out immediately« . Steven Kay asked: »Was it Barawigirira who said 'so no blood is spilt inside'?« . »It was Nyarugwiza. He said it when they were forcing us out« , continued the witness. »You told us this morning that it was Rwagapfizi. Who did say it?« , said the lawyer, insistently. »A lot of people were saying it« ,
answered 'I', hesitatingly, then stated »it was Rwagapfizi« .

Orders by telephone

Mr. Kay continued to read out the document. »Nyarugwiza, who was on the telephone, came in. After his phone call, Musema had just asked him to put the following people to one side: Twagirakayego [Canisius] and Edgar Rwagapfizi.
They were to be tied up until he returned. He would kill them himself, he said. However, the order came too late. The militia had already killed those individuals. Then some Interahamwe were tied up and killed. They were castigated for having been too hasty in their work. Musema made a big thing about killing those four people by cutting off their heads« . Kay asked whether 'I' was in the factory when this was said and the people were killed. »I heard what they said but I wasn't there. It was said when the Interahamwe found me by the guesthouse« , replied the witness. Mr. Kay then asked 'I' to clarify the position of the phone, which was »in the office and with us inside the factory « , with a flight of stairs between them. »So when you heard it you were in the factory, is that right?« he asked. »We were in the process of leaving. We thought he had betrayed us« , replied 'I'. »Just now you told us you were with the Interahamwe when it was said ...« , said Mr. Kay, pouncing on this point. »It wasn't just Nyarugwiza who said it. Rwagapfizi did too. Rwagapfizi said he heard it from Nyarugwiza who heard it from Musema« , said 'I'. The lawyer stirred up the confusion a little more: »But you told us it was too late, that Rwagapfizi was already dead« . Steven Kay then moved on to the scene of the rape and murder of Anunciata, the wife of the factory's chief accountant, in the vicinity of the guesthouse. Imperturbably, he quoted extracts from 'I''s hand-written statement of April 1995. »Musema, it was he who killed Twagirakayego's wife, Mrs. Anunciata, who was disappointed not to have found her husband (...) She was taken from behind the guesthouse. She was carrying her son, Blaise, aged 5 (...) Musema completely undressed the woman and asked the crowd to boo her. Then one of the men in the crowd ordered the Batwas to rape her on the spot« . The witness then had to explain the differences between this hand-written statement in kinyarwanda and her evidence given before the court.

Handwritten statement

»It was other people who said that *that Musema had undressed Anunciata+. What I am using are the things I saw and the things I heard other people say. Most of it is what I heard. I wasn't there. I heard other people talking about it. A lot of things were said at that time. Only a machine could remember such awful events« . »If you're telling us what you heard, did you also hear that « one of the men in the crowd ordered the Batwas to rape her on the spot? » « At that moment, there were a lot of things being said, and I heard Musema. What we have before us *the statement+ is what I told a priest. I'd ask the judges to keep the version in my statement to the investigators ». « No, you were asked to write how Anunciata was killed, and you wrote out by hand, what you had heard people saying ». « It really shakes me up when I remember what happened.
Those are things I saw. I can't lie in three different statements. In kinyarwanda, the vocabulary can be swapped round.
The important thing is that the person you're talking to understands ». « Then one of the men in the crowd » is a long way from « Musema ». That's nothing to do with your language.« »I mentioned Musema in the other two statements and I thought I'd included him in that one as well. When I remember it, I get really choked up. I'm better at telling the story when I answer questions« . »This is the first time you've seen this statement since April 15th 1995 and nobody has shown it you and asked you questions about it. Is that right?« »It's the first time that I've seen the statement because I gave it to a priest« .
»Were you surprised when I brought out this statement ? Did you think you would only have to answer questions on the two others ?« »I'm not surprised. I can't answer questions about anything I didn't write« .

Photographic evidence

The defence council quoted from other parts of the statement: »After that, they started to hack her to pieces with picks, ibysuti, a kind of carved wood often used for killing animals (...) They cut off her breasts, her hands and her ears and gave them to her son to eat (...) Then Musema ordered her to be cut into small pieces« . On the stand, the witness said: »What I heard myself was the part about the breasts. The other details were told to me by other people. When he was speaking there was a lot of noise. I couldn't hear everything he said« . Mr. Kay quoted again from the document he had taken from his folder: »I kept watching this dreadful scene because I was also hidden in the guesthouse« . The witness replied: »Yes, I was able to follow some of the things that happened and hear some of the remarks made. When you write to someone, you write vaguely« . The lawyer pounced on her, while feigning astonishment: »Do you often write letters with paragraphs entitled: 'The charges against Alfred Musema' ?« Steven Kay had not yet finished. He also used photos of the guesthouse to argue that the existence of a fence actually obstructed the view. The witness replied that » at the time of the events it was visible« . The defence counsel finally ended his questions by quoting 'I's statement given to the Swiss investigators in June 1995: »You say: « I ought to mention that I know I am the only witness to these events ». You knew that nobody could come and tell a story contradicting yours, didn't you?« . 'I' retorted: »Musema did many things in many places. I was only speaking about what I saw myself. I can state clearly that the people from the factory were hunted down, and that out of all of them, I'm the only one to escape« . Trial attorney Charles Phillips conducted a complementary examination that consisted of a summary of the charges levelled against Alfred Musema, and this brought the witnesses' appearance in court to a close: »In fact, you never saw Musema do anything at all, you heard it and you knew him well enough to recognise his voice, is that right?« . »Yes« , answered 'I'.

Rape in Muyira

'N' is a 39 year-old Tutsi, originally from Gitesi. On April 9th, because of the attacks, he left his home to go to Gitwa hill. »From April 9th to the 24th, there were 60,000 of us. The attacks started on April 10th. On April 26th, there were a lot of attacks and many dead. There were 5,000 people left« . N left Gitwa that day: »The survivors from Gitwa went to Bisesero. Only a thousand arrived in the Bisesero mountain chain on that same day« . N was on Muyira hill. »Every day we climbed up there. There were large-scale battles. We managed to repulse them because we could regroup on that hill. We were dispersed again on the 13th. That was the day when there were very few survivors« . It was also the day that N said he had seen the accused. »They met up in a group near the road sign. When they reached our level, that's when Musema said something. He was talking to a police officer called Ruhindura, asking him whether a young woman named Nyiramusugi was already dead. Ruhindura said she wasn't and Musema said that it was of paramount importance that Nyiramusugi should be taken to him« . »Was this girl caught and taken to Musema?« asked Jane Anywar Adong. »In the end, Ruhindura caught her at about 3.30 in the afternoon. I saw Ruhindura and four others dragging her on the ground towards Musema« . »Where were you?« »I was lucky. When I ran away towards the top of the hill I stopped in a bush. I wasn't far from him, about 40 metres in a straight line. Musema was wearing a gun. When they arrived, Musema gave his gun to Ruhindura, then he went over to the four people who were holding the girl. They brought her up to Musema, stood her up, held her arms out to him and then stretched her arms out at her sides like she was on the cross. Two men took an arm each, and two others opened her legs. Musema got between them, and tore off her underwear. After that he took his own clothes off. Then he said: « Now the pride of the Tutsis is over ». Then he started to rape her« .

Repeated rapes

The witness said that the young woman »was single, had just completed her studies and was a teacher.« She was »very well known and very beautiful« and that she was »his neighbour, a Tutsi from the hima clan.« N was asked to describe the scene he had witnessed. »*I+ saw [Musema] take off her clothes and concluded that he had raped her. Musema wrapped his arm around the young girl's neck and the four persons present stepped back. When he had finished, he turned towards the police officer and asked him to give him back his gun.« »How long did the rape last?« »If I tell you it lasted forty minutes you'll tell me that this can't have been possible, but since I was getting tired, it really was possible« he answered. »What happened then?« »I think she rolled over onto her stomach. The four men walked over to her, flipped her onto her back again then gang raped her, one by one. Then they moved down towards the valley until I could no longer see them.« N explained how he came across the young woman again »at nightfall« . She »had wounds all over her body - you could see nail marks on her neck bruises and there was blood everywhere.« With the help of three other people, he carried her back to her mother's house, only to be informed by her brother later on that she »had been shot by gendarmes« . Consistent with earlier witness descriptions, N recalled having seen the accused for the last time at the end of June, before the arrival of the French soldiers. »We all booed him and he ran off« said the witness. Judge Kama then asked: »When Musema raped the young woman was it during the attacks, in full view of everyone, or was it in front of a select audience?« »No, only the four people and Ruhindira were present« replied the witness, »and I was hiding in the bushes.« Senior trial attorney Jane Adong continued: »Did the girl say anything?« »I heard her scream and say « all I can do for you is pray » added N.

Strange appearance of witnesses

Confronted with these new testimonies of sexual violence against his client, Steven Kay's face was rigid with tension, like a man wearing an iron mask. His anger was palpable. The British barrister began his attack on the circumstances under which witness N made his deposition to the investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). With the exception of witness I, whose statement had been on file from the beginning, all the other prosecution witnesses to sexual violence had been identified and questioned on January 13th, 1999. Kay sought to uncover the exact circumstances of this 'coincidence', asking to be informed of how N, then two days later M, followed by J on March 11th had come to be witnesses for the prosecution and by which methods of enquiry. N explained that on January 13th he met two investigators from the OTP in a hotel in Kibuye. He was accompanied by two other people « who were to explain to me exactly where I had to go, people who knew where the Tribunal was. » « Was it to tell them that you saw Musema commit rape? » asked Mr Kay, insinuating that the witnesses knew in advance exactly what kind of evidence the investigators were looking for.
« Why wait five years before saying that Musema had committed rape? You knew that you could approach the Tribunal before, didn't you? » he insisted. Without replying directly to his question, N said that he had already « made allegations against Musema in the local courts near to home. » « When? » asked the barrister. But N couldn't remember: « The problem is that the file has perhaps been lost - I wouldn't be able to help you find it. » Judge Aspegren intervened to ask for more details. N then said that this had happened in 1997, at the Kibuye Prosecutor's office. Steven Kay continued to probe.
« It's strange - in your half a page statement there is only a short paragraph referring to your travelling to Bisesero from Gitwa and a second paragraph entirely devoted to this question of sexual crime. Nothing else. It's also strange that from April 7th to the arrival of the French, you must have witnessed lots of crimes and fighting, yet of the twenty-five lines on
this page, almost half refer to this crime. You knew that they wanted evidence on sexual crimes and that's why you made your deposition only on that issue - isn't that right? » The witness defended himself: « If I were to mention everything that happened to me, the Tribunal would not be able to answer all these questions today. »

War council in Karongi

Changing tack, the defence counsel then presented the court with photographs taken at the summit of Muyira hill, where N said he had been standing at the time that he recognised the vehicle owned by the former tea factory director. The witness assured counsel that from where he was positioned, he could see Alfred Musema who was driving along the Gisovu to Gishyita road on the summit of Rwirambo hill. He also confirmed having been able to hear Musema the moment that the attack was about to take place. Steven Kay considered the witness' assertions, and remarked that he was surprised that N had been able to hear Alfred Musema at 10 a.m. ask that someone go and collect this woman since tens of thousands of people were taking refuge on Muyira at the time. Furthermore, how could he possibly have heard Musema talk about the same subject at 3.30 p.m.? « Before the fighting began, he asked *the policeman+ to bring the girl. When they had taken the hill, when they had won, Ruhindura had been able to capture the young woman and took her near to the place where I was hiding », repeated N. Karongi is the highest hill in the mountainous massif of Bisesero. On its summit stands the aerial of the radio and television relay station. M had friends inside the station, and it was there, in mid-April, where he sought refuge from the attacks with his wife and three children. He recalled witnessing a meeting on April 18th between approximately 150 people run by Alfred Musema. « I was in a wooden guard hut. There weren't any windows but there were small openings in the mud which had been placed over the wood when it was first built, through which I could see ».
M estimated that he was about ten metres away from the gathering. Two tea factory vehicles brought people to the spot - « most of them were wearing banana leaves and had grasses on their head. » The accused arrived aboard one of the Daihatsu « wearing a shell-suit jacket » and holding a gun. The majority of the others present, some of them being described by M as wearing « overalls bearing the inscription 'Gisovu Tea Factory' », were carrying machetes and clubs. The witness described hearing Alfred Musema say « they should rise up together and fight the enemy. » M continued: « People asked him questions. They said that the war they were waging could cost them their lives and asked what recompense they would get. He told them that there was no problem, that rewards would be found for them. » Prosecutor Charles Phillips asked: « Was he more specific ? » The witness said yes. « He told them the posts of those who died would be replaced by the unemployed. They could claim their goods as a form of reward, and could take their land and their houses. » The prosecutor continued: « Were there any references made to anyone having a Tutsi wife? » « Yes, at the end. For those who wanted to have a bit of fun, they could rape the wives and daughters without fearing the consequences » claimed M.

Strategy of the meeting

The witness then went on to explain what he saw as the strategy of the gro Photographs

G was 24 years old in April 1994. He happened to be on holiday in his home town of Kibuye at the time, but had left the region years earlier to study. A survivor of the attack on the Mubuga church, he fled during the night of 15th April and found himself, unwittingly, in Bisesero. He recognised some of the leaders of the attack to be the préfet Clément Kayishema, Obed Ruzindana, « a big Mugonero businessman », Charles Sikubwabo, bourgmestre of Gishyita, councillor Mika, Alfred Musema and « many others ». The first time he saw the former director of the tea factory was on May 13th. « That was the day when massive attacks were taking place and many people were killed in Bisesero. All the top leaders who had planned and orchestrated the attacks had come in a show of support and to take part in the killings. » After establishing that the witness was neither a native of Bisesero nor of the region, a vexed Judge Kama exploded: « Look, don't start speechifying - how come you were able to recognise Kayishema, Ruzindana, Musema, Mika and Sikubwabo if you weren't from the region? » G assured the judge that he knew them before « from other regions », which left the Senegalese judge with a sullen, irritated expression on his face. Prosecutor Charles Phillips took up from where he had left off, and had the witness point out that his family lived in Kibuye and that he used to stay there during every vacation. He stated that he had seen Alfred Musema twice before 1994, the first time in Gisovu whilst visiting a member of his family who was working there - « they pointed him out to me when he passed by » - and the second time in Mubuga. This May 13th, G recalled being at the border between the communes of Gisovu and Gishyita, at a place called Kucyapa. « It was at a spot close to Kucyapa where I caught sight of Musema. Later, when the killers were chasing us, they managed to catch Mukangoga Goretti, and Musema ordered that she be brought to him. When the woman arrived, Musema said he wanted to know what the insides of a Tutsi woman's belly looked like. He opened up her stomach with the swipe of a blade. The woman collapsed and the killers gathered around her. Goretti had been pregnant at the time. She had been my primary school teacher, that's how I knew her. » At the close of his deposition, the witness told another story. At the end of April 1994, one of the attackers, a policeman, was found dead. « I know that when people searched the policeman's pockets, they found a note signed by Musema and Ndimbati saying that he would receive the sum of 5000 Francs if he managed to exterminate all the Tutsis of Bisesero in three days. I saw it with my own eyes. It's yet more proof. » Steven Kay then showed the witness five photographs of Muyira Hill.The latter was unable to recognise the place. Nor was he able to give a description of the Kucyapa locality or say if Muyira could be seen from the spot. « Could you tell us where Musema or this woman were standing, at what distance, so that we can ask you questions about this? » continued Mr Kay. The witness replied with a brusque « that's how it is ». It was pointed out that witness G had already testified in court on March 3rd, 1998, in the Kayishema/Ruzindana case, on crimes which took place at the same place in Kucyapa. However, on this occasion it was the former préfet whom he implicated in the crimes.