The appeal case of the FLN-MRCD terror convicts went underway on Thursday, January 20 at the Court of Appeal located in the Supreme Court premises in Kacyiru. In the trial, the prosecution, convicts and the civil parties are protesting a number of decisions rendered by the High Court Chamber for International and Cross Border Crimes which handled the case at first instance level. In this article, The New Times takes a look at the details of what the sides are appealing against: Prosecution’s arguments: The prosecutors are protesting a number of decisions by the High Court. These are: ·Acquitting defendants on some crimes At the High Court level, some defendants were absolved of charges including: creating an illegal armed group, financing terrorism, and joining an illegal armed group. Here, prosecutors insist key suspects Callixte Nsabimana, Paul Rusesabagina, Marc Nizeyimana and Cassien Bizimana should be convicted of the crime of creating an illegal armed group, while their colleagues; Herman Nsengimana, Emmanuel Iyamuremye, Marcel Niyirora, Andre Kwitonda, Emmanuel Nshimiyimana, Jean Cretien Ndagijimana, Theogene Hakizimana, Felicien Nsanzubukire, and Anastase Munyaneza should be convicted of joining an illegal armed group. The prosecutors also contest the fact that Rusesabagina – who once again boycotted the trial – was acquitted of the crime of financing terrorism. They argued that there is enough evidence to pin him to the crime including documents seized from a search by Belgian police at his home. While prosecution had requested for life sentence, he was awarded 25 years of imprisonment. ·Amending the charge sheet by the High Court In the High Court’s ruling in September, some crimes were reclassified, something that the prosecutors are appealing against. For example, during the first trial, prosecutors charged the defendants on counts including: murder as an act of terrorism, kidnap as an act of terrorism, armed robbery as an act of terrorism, arson as an act of terrorism, accessory to murder as an act of terrorism, beating and injuring as an act of terrorism. These however were amended by the court when issuing its verdict and called committing terrorism and taking part in it. The prosecutors argue that the accused should be convicted of every crime that characterized the terror attacks that they did against the citizens of Rwanda. ·Lenient sentences The prosecutors also argued that the penalties given to the convicts were too lenient in comparison to the crimes they committed. This will be delved into in the next hearing. Defendants’ grounds According to the submissions by the 14 defendants who applealed, they said they were not satisfied by the court’s decisions on the following grounds: ·Failure to consider mitigating circumstances A number of convicts faulted the High Court for “failure” to consider mitigating circumstances that should have led to lesser jail terms for them. These include Callixte Nsabimana, Herman Nsengimana, Cassien Bizimana, Shaban Emmanuel, Jean Damascene NsabimanaInnocent Ntibiramira, Jean Claude Byukusenge who argue that they admitted that they committed the crimes during the trial and due to this, they should have got more lenient sentences. Addressing court, Nsabimana, who is also known as Sankara, contended that he had been cooperative with judicial authorities since his arrest, and said that the 20 year sentence was “too harsh” even considering he was a first time offender. ·Convicted in absence of sufficient evidence Some convicts argued that there wasn’t enough evidence for them to be convicted of some crimes. Here, for example, Marc Nizeyimana, a former commander in the FLN said there was no evidence to pin him to the role he played in the 2018 FLN attacks since he was neither on ground nor did he command anyone to go for them. However, earlier on, said that on one occasion Nizeyimana screened the FLN fighters, to identify the able ones who would cross over to Rwanda and carry out attacks. He denied this saying he knew nothing about the attacks, and that the screening was meant to just find out able soldiers who would cross over to the Nyungwe forest where the FLN had a camp. ·Paying compensation should not apply to some A number of defendants like Emmanuel Shaban, Jean Damascene Nsabimana argued that they should not be paying compensation for some attacks in which they did not take part. In the High Court’s verdict, all convicts were ordered to collectively pay more than Rwf400 million to those who were affected by the attacks in different ways. This is irrespective of the roles that each individual did in the terror attacks. ·Not given chance for rehabilitation like other combatants Convicts like Sankara, Marcel Niyirora, Emmanuel Iyamuremye and Emmanuel Nshimiyimana are challenging the fact that they are facing the law, yet some of the people who were part of illegal armed forces were taken for rehabilitation so that they will be resettled in the society. Addressing court, Sankara said that it was unfair that some of the people who participated in the attacks had been rehabilitated and integrated “but me who was far away in the Islands of Comoros, I am getting 20 years for attacks they directly took part in.” The civil parties grounds for appeal: ·Awards were based on court’s appreciation, not evidence: The civil parties protest the fact that the compensations awarded to them by the High Court were based on the judges’ consideration, not evidence provided. The judges awarded damages of just over Rwf400 million for all civil parties saying they did not provide accurate evidence that showcases the value of the losses. However, during appeal, the civil parties through their lawyers maintained there is enough evidence to account for the losses. They also asked the judges to allow them to present to court some of the affected people. The judges allowed the request. The case will proceed on Monday next week.
