The Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi, Case No. ICTR-01-72-T
Judgement and Sentence – 2 December 2008
1. Trial Chamber III will now render its judgement in the case of
The Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi. The Chamber will read out a summary of the
Judgement. The written judgement is the authoritative version and will be
distributed after this hearing.
2. Simon Bikindi is a Rwandan citizen born on 28 September 1954 in Rwerere
commune, Gisenyi prefecture, Rwanda. In 1994, he was a famous composer and
singer and was working at the Ministry of Youth and Association Movements of
the Rwandan Government. On the basis of an Indictment confirmed on 5 July 2001
and the related orders for arrest and transfer, he was arrested in The Netherlands on
12 July 2001 and transferred to the Tribunal on 27 March 2002. His trial
commenced on 18 September 2006 and closed on 7 November 2007, with a site
visit in April 2008, followed by the closing arguments in May 2008.
3. Simon Bikindi is charged with six counts pursuant to Articles 2, 3 and 6(1)
and (3) of the Statute of the Tribunal: conspiracy to commit genocide; genocide or
alternatively complicity in genocide; direct and public incitement to commit
genocide; murder and persecution as crimes against humanity. More specifically,
the Prosecution alleges that Simon Bikindi participated in the anti-Tutsi campaign
in Rwanda in 1994 through his musical compositions and speeches he made at
public gatherings inciting and promoting hatred and violence against Tutsi.
According to the Prosecution, Simon Bikindi collaborated with government
figures, leading figures of the MRND, the CDR, the Interahamwe as well as with
RTLM and those responsible for media programming, to disseminate anti-Tutsi
propaganda and encourage the genocide. Further, the Prosecution alleges that
Simon Bikindi participated in military training of Interahamwe, encouraged the
militias to attack the Tutsi population and was responsible for specific attacks and
killings perpetrated in Gisenyi prefecture, by virtue of his direct participation or his
authority over Interahamwe, particularly Interahamwe members of his Irindiro
ballet, and civilian militias.
4. The Defence contends that Simon Bikindi was not a politician, but a
musician whose songs did not incite discrimination or violence against Tutsi, and
argues that he did not take part in the anti-Tutsi campaign through his songs or
speeches and did not participate in any of the killings and attacks alleged in the
Indictment. The Defence also argues that Simon Bikindi had no authority over the
Interahamwe and no influence over the Government, the MRND, the CDR or the
RTLM.
5. The Prosecution conceded that Simon Bikindi left Rwanda on 4 April 1994
and returned via Zaire around 12 June 1994. As a result, it abandoned its allegation
that in early April 1994, Simon Bikindi arrived in Kicukiro commune on a bus with
about 20 Interahamwe, and there participated in the killing of an unnamed wealthy
Tutsi.
6. At the closure of the trial, the Prosecution also conceded that it had not
presented evidence in support of the allegation regarding the killing of a group of
Tutsi women escaping to Zaire. The Chamber further observes that the Prosecution
has not adduced evidence in support of the allegations regarding an attack on the
Gatenga Youth Center in February 1994 or the killing of an unnamed wealthy
Tutsi businessman in Nyamyumba commune in June 1994, nor the allegation at
paragraph 37 of the Indictment that Simon Bikindi advocated the extermination of
the Tutsi over the public radio air-waves. The Chamber therefore summarily
dismisses those allegations.
7. The Chamber has considered the Defence’s submissions regarding alleged
defects in the Indictment with respect to the killings of Stanislas Gasasira and of
Karasira and his family. It concludes that the Prosecution’s failure to mention those
specific killings in the Indictment did not prejudice Simon Bikindi’s ability to
prepare his defence since he received timely, clear and consistent notice before the
start of the trial that he would have to defend himself against those allegations.
8. Before turning to its factual findings on the remaining allegations, the
Chamber recalls that it has jurisdiction only in respect of crimes committed
between 1 January and 31 December 1994. The Chamber has considered evidence
relating to pre-1994 acts only as means of clarifying the context or establishing by
inference certain elements of Simon Bikindi’s conduct in 1994, notably his mens
rea.
9. The Chamber has organised the Prosecution’s factual allegations against
Simon Bikindi in nine chapters: (i) his status as a well-known composer, singer
and leader of the Irindiro ballet; (ii) his collaboration with Government figures,
MRND and CDR political parties; (iii) his relationship with the Interahamwe; (iv)
his relationship with RTLM and Radio Rwanda; (v) his participation in political
gatherings; (vi) his musical compositions; (vii) his broadcast of anti-Tutsi
statements through a vehicle outfitted with a public address system; (viii) his
participation in specific attacks and killings (ix) his continuation of the anti-Tutsi
campaign from exile in Zaire. The Chamber will now summarise the factual
findings he made under each of those nine chapters.
10. First, the Chamber notes that the fact that Simon Bikindi was a well-known
singer, composer, member and leader of the Irindiro ballet is not disputed.
However, in addition to that fact, the Prosecution alleges that members of the
Irindiro ballet were Interahamwe or CDR members, who, as a result of the
mobilising effect of Simon Bikindi’s music, were recruited into the Interahamwe,
participated in military training and subsequently killed Tutsi. While the Chamber
finds that some members of the Irindiro ballet were members of the Interahamwe,
it finds that the Prosecution failed to adduce evidence in support of its allegations
that they joined the Interahamwe as a result of the mobilising effect of Simon
Bikindi’s music, or that some ballet members were also members of the CDR.
11. In relation to Simon Bikindi’s collaboration with Government figures,
MRND and CDR political parties, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution has not
proven that Bikindi collaborated with those alleged to militarise and indoctrinate
the MRND youth wing, the Interahamwe, with anti-Tutsi ideology and to
disseminate anti-Tutsi propaganda. The only specific collaboration proven between
Minister Callixte Nzabonimana and Simon Bikindi is some routine assistance with
European visas. The Chamber notes that some evidence was adduced of possible
collaboration between Simon Bikindi and national leaders of the MRND, in that he
was seen at political gatherings for the MRND, took the floor at two MRND
meetings in 1993 and was praised by national MRND leader Karemera. However
the evidence gave no indication of the nature of this collaboration. The Prosecution
also failed to prove that Simon Bikindi conducted membership drives for the
MRND, or that he collaborated with the CDR party.
12. In relation to Simon Bikindi’s relationship with the Interahamwe, the
Chamber finds that while Simon Bikindi did not hold any official position within
the Interahamwe, it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that, in Rwanda in 1994,
he was held in very high esteem by the Interahamwe and considered to be a figure
of authority in the youth movement. However, the Prosecution has failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that Bikindi agreed or collaborated with national
Interahamwe leaders to militarise Interahamwe militias, indoctrinate them with
anti-Tutsi ideology and disseminate anti-Tutsi propaganda. The Chamber finds that
the Prosecution has also failed to prove that Simon Bikindi participated in the
recruitment and military training of Interahamwe as part of a plan to mobilise
civilian militias to destroy the Tutsi.
13. In relation to Simon Bikindi’s relationship with RTLM and Radio Rwanda,
the Chamber concludes that RTLM was a vehicle for anti-Tutsi propaganda as
early as the end of 1993. However, the Chamber finds that Simon Bikindi’s
involvement in launching RTLM with 49 other individuals, his minor shareholding
in RTLM and his interviews on RTLM, are insufficient proof of a close association
with any of the officials named in the Indictment or of any control over
programming or over RTLM in general. In addition, the Chamber finds that the
Prosecution has failed to prove that Simon Bikindi recorded his compositions at
Radio Rwanda studios, that he made his songs available to RTLM for broadcast in
late 1993, or that under Rwandan legislation, he had a right to forbid or enjoin
public broadcasts of his compositions.
14. As regards the Prosecution’s allegation that Simon Bikindi participated in
the anti-Tutsi campaign by attending public gatherings between 1990 and 1994
where he addressed the audience and performed his musical compositions extolling
Hutu solidarity and encouraging anti-Tutsi violence and made specific exhortations
to “work”, a coded reference advocating the extermination of Tutsi, the Chamber
makes the following findings. First, the Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt
that Simon Bikindi attended a political meeting in a football field in Kivumu in
Rwanda in 1993 at which he addressed the audience advocating that they must kill
Tutsi and during which his music was played on cassette. However, the
Prosecution has not proven that this meeting led to anti-Tutsi violence immediately
thereafter. Second, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proven that Simon
Bikindi was praised at a rally at Nyamirambo Stadium in early 1994 while
preparing to perform for those assembled. However, as there was no evidence of
which songs Simon Bikindi performed or that he addressed the audience with a
speech, the Prosecution has failed to prove that Simon Bikindi’s actions constituted
anti-Tutsi propaganda or were a motivating factor in anti-Tutsi violence. Third, the
Chamber finds that, whereas the Prosecution has proven that Bikindi addressed an
MRND meeting in Nyamirambo on 7 November 1993 praising the success of both
the MRND and the Interahamwe, it failed to prove that Simon Bikindi’s address
constituted anti-Tutsi propaganda or was a prelude or a motivating factor in antiTutsi
violence. Finally, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution has failed to prove
that Simon Bikindi attended an MRND meeting at Umuganda Stadium in June
1994 or, with the exception of the meeting in Kivumu in 1993, attended any other
meeting at which he would have encouraged anti-Tutsi violence. Likewise, the
Prosecution has failed to prove that Simon Bikindi publicly addressed MRND or
CDR adherents with exhortations to work, at an MRND meeting at Umuganda
Stadium in February 1994 and a CDR meeting in March 1994.
15. The Chamber now turns to the allegation that Simon Bikindi participated in
the genocide by composing, recording and disseminating songs encouraging ethnic
hatred, which were then deployed in a propaganda campaign to target the Tutsi as
the enemy and to sensitise and incite the listening public to attack and kill Tutsi.
The Prosecution refers to three specific musical compositions in the Indictment:
Twasezereye (“We Said Good Bye to the Feudal Regime”), Nanga Abahutu (“I
Hate the Hutu”) and Bene Sebahinzi (“The Sons of the Father of the Cultivators”).
16. For the reasons given in the Judgement, the Chamber finds beyond
reasonable doubt that Twasezereye, Nanga Abahutu and Bene Sebahinzi
manipulated the history of Rwanda to extol Hutu solidarity. It further finds that
Nanga Abahutu and Bene Sebahinzi characterised Tutsi as Hutu enslavers, enemies
or enemy accomplices, blamed the enemy for the problems in Rwanda, encouraged
Hutu solidarity against a common foe, the Tutsi, and finally supported the spirit of
the Bahutu Ten Commandments published in Kangura. Although the evidence
does not establish Bikindi’s intention in composing Twasezereye in 1987, the only
reasonable conclusion in the Chamber’s opinion is that Simon Bikindi composed
Nanga Abahutu and Bene Sebahinzi with the specific intention to disseminate proHutu
ideology and anti-Tutsi propaganda, and thus to encourage ethnic hatred. In
the context of rising ethnic tension in Rwanda during the early 1990s leading to the
genocide, Twasezereye was also later used as a vehicle for anti-Tutsi propaganda.
In light of the inflammatory content of RTLM journalists’ commentary
accompanying the repeated broadcasting of Simon Bikindi’s songs and the
testimonial evidence, the Chamber finds that Simon Bikindi’s musical
compositions were used by the RTLM in a propaganda campaign to promote
contempt for and hatred of the Tutsi population and incite the listening public to
target and commit acts of violence against Tutsi. In 1994 in Rwanda, Simon
Bikindi’s three songs were indisputably used to fan the flames of ethnic hatred,
resentment and fear of the Tutsi. Given Rwanda’s oral tradition and the popularity
of RTLM at the time, the Chamber finds that these broadcasts of Simon Bikindi’s
songs had an amplifying effect on the genocide. However, there is no evidence that
Bikindi played any role in these broadcasts or in the dissemination of the three
alleged songs in 1994.
17. In respect of the Prosecution’s allegation that Simon Bikindi broadcast antiTutsi
statements and his songs through a vehicle outfitted with a public address
system, the Chamber finds, based on the credible and convincing evidence of
Prosecution Witnesses AKJ and AKK, that the Prosecution has proven beyond
reasonable doubt that in late June 1994, in Gisenyi prefecture, Simon Bikindi
travelled on the main road between Kivumu and Kayove as part of a convoy of
Interahamwe, in a vehicle outfitted with a public address system. The Chamber
finds that when heading towards Kayove, Simon Bikindi used the public address
system to state that the majority population, the Hutu, should rise up to exterminate
the minority, the Tutsi. On his way back, Simon Bikindi used the same system to
ask if people had been killing Tutsi. The Chamber considers that the Defence
evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt in this respect.
18. Regarding the alleged attacks and killings in which Simon Bikindi is alleged
to have participated, the Chamber finds the following.
19. Considering the vagueness of the Prosecution evidence or the
inconsistencies and contradictions within its evidence, the Chamber finds that the
Prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt:
- that Simon Bikindi went to Gisenyi prison in June 1994 where he was involved
in the killing of eight Tutsi prisoners;
- that Simon Bikindi participated in the killings of Stanislas Gasasira or of
Karasira and his family;
- that sometime in mid-late June 1994, Simon Bikindi announced to Interahamwe
at a roadblock in Rugerero that they should search for Tutsi and kill them and
that after uttering these words, he led a caravan of armed Interahamwe to
Nyamyumba commune and killed Tutsi, including Kabayiza and Father
Thaddée Gatore as well as two other unidentified priests, and pillaged the
belongings of Tutsi residents;
- that following a meeting held at Umuganda Stadium there was an intensive
search for Tutsi, as a result of which Ancilla, a Tutsi woman, and her 4 yearold
daughter were killed following Simon Bikindi’s order;
- that, at the end of June 1994, Simon Bikindi established a roadblock at Camp
Scout near the Pentecostal church on the way to Commune rouge, in Gisenyi,
and that he gave orders to the Interahamwe manning it to kill Tutsi as a result of
which Tutsi were actually killed;
- that in early July 1994, Simon Bikindi, in the company of Interahamwe to
whom he gave orders, transported three Tutsi women by removing them from a
compound in Gacuba cellule in Gisenyi and driving them in his car to
Commune rouge where they were killed by Interahamwe.
20. Further, the Chamber notes that, save for the specific incident concerning
Ancilla discussed above, the Prosecution failed to adduce evidence in support of its
allegation that Simon Bikindi is responsible for the acts of sexual violence
committed by Interahamwe against Tutsi women in the course of the execution of
his orders to kill all Tutsi in Rubavu area. Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the
Prosecution has abandoned its allegation.
21. The Chamber therefore concludes that Simon Bikindi’s participation in the
specific allegations of attacks or killings alleged by the Prosecution has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
22. Finally, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution has not proven beyond
reasonable doubt that Simon Bikindi continued to demonstrate his anti-Tutsi stance
while in exile in Zaire between July 1994 and early 1995 by composing and
performing anti-Tutsi songs and by collaborating with ex-FAR military leaders and
former MRND-aligned government officials to continue the anti-Tutsi campaign as
a means to regain power.
23. The Chamber will now summarise its legal findings in respect of each of the
six counts charged.
24. Under Count 1, the Prosecution charges Simon Bikindi with Conspiracy to
commit genocide pursuant to Articles 2(3)(b) and 6(1)of the Statute.
25. The Chamber has found above that the Prosecution failed to prove its
allegation that Simon Bikindi agreed or collaborated with President Habyarimana,
Callixte Nzabonimana, Interahamwe leaders, MRND leaders or persons
responsible for media programming to militarise the MRND youth wing or
indoctrinate Interahamwe militias with anti-Tutsi ideology and to disseminate antiTutsi
propaganda. In any event, the Chamber notes that, even if had found that
Simon Bikindi had collaborated with MRND leaders to disseminate anti-Tutsi
propaganda, it would not have been sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that Simon Bikindi agreed with them to commit genocide. The Chamber considers
that agreeing to disseminate ethnic hatred against a protected group does not go as
far as agreeing to the destruction, in whole or in part, of that group.
26. In the absence of any evidence in the record that Simon Bikindi agreed with
any of the individuals named in the Indictment to commit genocide, the Chamber
finds that the Prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Simon
Bikindi conspired with others to commit genocide and, consequently, failed to
establish Simon Bikindi’s criminal responsibility under Articles 2(3)(b) and 6(1) of
the Statute for conspiracy to commit genocide. The Chamber finds Simon Bikindi
not guilty on Count 1 of the Indictment.
27. Under Count 2, the Prosecution charges Simon Bikindi with genocide
pursuant to Articles 2(3)(a), 6(1) and 6(3) of the Statute on the basis of his
responsibility for killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of
the Tutsi population with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a racial or ethnic
group, as such. In the alternative, the Prosecution charges Simon Bikindi with
Complicity in genocide under Count 3 pursuant to Articles 2(3)(e) and 6(1) of the
Statute.
28. The Chamber has found above that the Prosecution failed to prove Simon
Bikindi’s participation in any of the killings or infliction of serious bodily harm to
members of the Tutsi ethnic group alleged under Count 2. In addition, the Chamber
finds that the Prosecution has failed to establish that Simon Bikindi’s alleged
subordinates – Interahamwe, civilian militias or members of the Irindiro ballet –
participated in the criminal acts alleged. As a result, the Chamber considers it
unnecessary to discuss whether Simon Bikindi was the de jure or de facto superior
of those alleged to be his subordinates.
29. As regards to Article 6(3) liability, the Chamber emphasises that the
Prosecution’s allegation that Simon Bikindi could be held criminally liable for the
crimes committed by the “Hutu population” lacks merit in fact and in law.
Whereas the power or authority over subordinates does not necessarily arise from
official or formal appointment, the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship
is required for the purposes of Article 6(3) of the Statute. The Chamber
acknowledges that an accused may have sufficient influence or authority over a
community to have an ability to prevent or punish outside a superior-subordinate
relationship. However, this would not make him a superior in the sense of Article
6(3) of the Statute vis-à-vis any perpetrator from that community.
30. Therefore, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution has failed to establish
Simon Bikindi’s criminal responsibility under Articles 2(3)(a), 6(1) or 6(3) of the
Statute for genocide. The Chamber finds Simon Bikindi not guilty on Count 2 of
the Indictment.
31. For the same reasons, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution failed to
establish Simon Bikindi’s criminal responsibility under Articles 2(3)(e) and 6(1) of
the Statute for complicity in genocide. The Chamber finds Bikindi not guilty on
Count 3 of the Indictment.
32. Under Count 4, the Prosecution charges Simon Bikindi with Direct and
public incitement to commit genocide pursuant to Articles 2(3)(c) and 6(1) of the
Statute.
33. Based on its factual findings, the Chamber finds that Twasezereye, Nanga
Abahutu and Bene Sebahinzi did not constitute direct and public incitement to
commit genocide. The Chamber has also found that there is no evidence that
Bikindi played any role in the dissemination of those songs in 1994.
34. However, the Chamber recalls its finding that towards the end of June 1994,
in Gisenyi prefecture, on the main road between Kivumu and Kayove, Simon
Bikindi used a public address system to state that the majority population, the
Hutu, should rise up to exterminate the minority, the Tutsi. On his way back,
Bikindi used the same system to ask if people had been killing Tutsi, who he
referred to as snakes.
35. The Chamber finds that both statements, broadcast over loudspeakers, were
made publicly. The Chamber also finds that Simon Bikindi’s call on “the majority”
to “rise up and look everywhere possible” and not to “spare anybody” immediately
referring to the Tutsi as the minority unequivocally constitutes a direct call to
destroy the Tutsi ethnic group. Similarly, the Chamber considers that Simon
Bikindi’s address to the population on his way back from Kayove, asking “Have
you killed the Tutsis here?” and whether they had killed the “snakes” is a direct
call to kill Tutsi. In the Chamber’s view, it is inconceivable that, in the context of
widespread killings of the Tutsi population that prevailed in June 1994 in Rwanda,
the audience to whom the message was directed, namely those standing on the
road, could not have immediately understood its meaning and implication. The
Chamber therefore finds that Simon Bikindi’s statements through loudspeakers on
the main road between Kivumu and Kayove constitute direct and public incitement
to commit genocide.
36. Based on the words he proffered and the manner he disseminated his
message, the Chamber finds that the only reasonable conclusion is that Simon
Bikindi deliberately, directly and publicly incited the commission of genocide with
the specific intent to destroy the Tutsi ethnic group.
37. For the foregoing reasons, the Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that
Simon Bikindi is criminally responsible under Articles 2(3)(c) and 6(1) of the
Statute as a principal perpetrator based on his exhortations to kill Tutsi on the main
road between Kivumu and Kayove towards the end of June 1994. The Chamber
finds Simon Bikindi guilty on Count 4 of the Indictment for direct and public
incitement to commit genocide.
38. Under Count 5, the Prosecution charges Simon Bikindi with Murder as a
crime against humanity pursuant to Articles 3, 6(1) and 6(3) of the Statute.
39. To establish Simon Bikindi’s criminal responsibility for murder as a crime
against humanity, the Prosecution relies on paragraphs 42 to 47 of the Indictment.
The Chamber has found above that the Prosecution failed to prove Bikindi’s
participation in any of the murders specifically alleged under these paragraphs or
of which he was provided notice. The Chamber further finds that the Prosecution
has failed to establish that Simon Bikindi’s alleged subordinates participated in the
criminal acts alleged.
40. Therefore, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution has failed to establish
Bikindi’s criminal responsibility under Articles 3, 6(1) or 6(3) of the Statute for
murder as a crime against humanity. The Chamber finds Bikindi not guilty on
Count 5 of the Indictment.
41. Under Count 6, the Prosecution charges Bikindi with Persecution as a crime
against humanity pursuant to Articles 3 and 6(1) of the Statute. Although the
Indictment is unclear as to the exact nature of the underlying act of persecution
alleged, the Chamber understands that the Prosecution charges Bikindi with aiding
and abetting the persecution of Tutsi through the dissemination of his songs, in
particular through airplay on RTLM.
42. The Chamber has found above that the Prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt that Bikindi’s songs Nanga Abahutu and Bene Sebahinzi extolled
Hutu solidarity against a common foe, characterised Tutsi as Hutu enslavers,
enemies or enemy accomplices and were composed with the specific intention to
disseminate pro-Hutu ideology and anti-Tutsi propaganda, and to encourage ethnic
hatred. It has also found that Twasezereye, Nanga Abahutu and Bene Sebahinzi
were deployed in 1994 in Rwanda in a propaganda campaign to promote contempt
for and hatred of the Tutsi population and to incite the listening public to target and
commit acts of violence against the Tutsi.
43. Whereas there is evidence that Bikindi composed, recorded and performed
Twasezereye, Nanga Abahutu and Bene Sebahinzi before 1994, there is no
evidence of him performing or disseminating them in 1994. The Chamber has
found that Bikindi performed in January 1994 at an MRND meeting in Kigali and
broadcast some of his songs from a vehicle outfitted with a public address system
towards the end of June 1994 on the main road between Kivumu and Kayove.
However, nothing in the evidence suggests that Bikindi performed or played the
specific songs alleged at that meeting or through the public address system.
44. Further, the evidence does not establish that Bikindi’s relationship with
RTLM allowed him any influence or control over the broadcasting of his songs on
the radio. While Bikindi was interviewed on RTLM in January 1994, the
transcripts of the broadcast show that none of the specific songs alleged were
played or discussed. His interview was limited to discussing the political situation
at the time.
45. The Prosecution argues that Bikindi “acquiesced in the manner in which
RTLM used his songs to promote death and destruction”. Mere “acquiescence” is
not sufficient to entail criminal responsibility in international criminal law. In the
present case, the Prosecution has failed to prove that Bikindi’s alleged
acquiescence amounted to tacit approval or encouragement which had a substantial
effect on the perpetration of the alleged crime. The Chamber also recalls that to
hold an accused criminally responsible for his omissions, it must be proven that he
failed to fulfil a legal duty to act mandated by a rule of criminal law. The
Prosecution has failed to prove that Bikindi had a duty in law to stop the broadcast
of his musical compositions.
46. The Chamber concludes that the Prosecution has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that Bikindi disseminated, in one way or another, or played a role
in the deployment of Twasezereye, Nanga Abahutu and Bene Sebahinzi, in 1994.
Therefore, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution has failed to establish Bikindi’s
criminal responsibility under Articles 3 and 6(1) of the Statute for aiding and
abetting persecution as a crime against humanity. The Chamber finds Bikindi not
guilty on Count 6 of the Indictment.
Accused, please stand up and come in front, to the witness box.
47. For the reasons stated and having considered all the evidence presented and
the arguments before it, the Trial Chamber unanimously finds you, Simon Bikindi,
guilty on Count 4 of the Indictment for Direct and Public Incitement to Commit
Genocide based on your exhortations to kill Tutsi in a vehicle outfitted with a
public address system on the main road between Kivumu and Kayove in late June
1994.
48. The Chamber finds you, Simon Bikindi, not guilty on the five other counts:
Genocide (Count 2), Complicity in Genocide (Count 3), Conspiracy to commit
genocide (Count 1), Murder and Persecution as crimes against humanity (Counts 5
and 6).
49. Direct and Public Incitement to Commit Genocide is, by definition, a crime
of the most serious gravity which affects the very foundations of our society and
shocks the conscience of humanity.
50. In considering the appropriate sentence, the Chamber has considered the
Tribunal’s sentencing practice and that under Rwandan law, genocide carries the
possible penalty of life imprisonment, or life imprisonment with special provisions,
depending on the nature of the accused’s participation.
51. The Chamber has also considered your individual circumstances and finds
that you abused your stature as a well-known and popular artist perceived to be an
influential member of the MRND and an important figure in the Interahamwe
movement by using your influence to incite genocide. The Chamber considers this
is to be an aggravating factor.
52. The Chamber does not find any circumstance which could mitigate your
criminal responsibility.
53. For those reasons, the Chamber sentences you, Simon Bikindi, to 15 years
imprisonment, with an entitlement to credit for time already spent in detention
since your arrest in The Netherlands on 12 June 2001. In accordance with
Rules 102(A) and 103 of the Rules, you shall remain in the custody of the Tribunal
pending transfer to the state where you will serve your sentence.