United Nations A/56/351–S/2001/863

General AssemblySecurity Council

Distr.: General14 September 2001

Original: English

01-53621 (E) 231001*0153621*

General AssemblyFifty-sixth sessionItem 62 of the provisional agenda*Report of the International Criminal Tribunal for theProsecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide andOther Serious Violations of International HumanitarianLaw Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and RwandanCitizens Responsible for Genocide and Other SuchViolations Committed in the Territory of NeighbouringStates between 1 January and 31 December 1994

Security CouncilFifty-sixth year

Note by the Secretary-General**

The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of theGeneral Assembly and to the members of the Security Council the sixth annualreport of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of PersonsResponsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of InternationalHumanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan CitizensResponsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory ofNeighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994, submitted by thePresident of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in accordance witharticle 32 of its statute (see Security Council resolution 955 (1994), annex), whichstates:

“The President of the International Tribunal for Rwanda shall submit anannual report of the International Tribunal for Rwanda to the Security Counciland to the General Assembly.”

* A/56/150.** The present report covers the period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001.

2

A/56/351S/2001/863

Sixth annual report of the International Criminal Tribunalfor the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocideand Other Serious Violations of International HumanitarianLaw Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and RwandanCitizens Responsible for Genocide and Other SuchViolations Committed in the Territory of NeighbouringStates between 1 January and 31 December 1994

For the period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001

ContentsParagraphs Page

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–7 3

II. The Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8–74 3

A. Composition of the Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8–12 3

B. Judicial activities of the Chambers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13–71 4

C. Regulatory activities of the Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72–74 12

III. The Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75–77 13

IV. Office of the President. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78–90 13

V. Office of the Prosecutor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91–127 15

VI. The Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128–210 19

A. Judicial and Legal Services Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151–192 22

B. Division of Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193–210 27

VII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211–216 30

3

A/56/351S/2001/863

I. Introduction

1. During the period under review, the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) rendered onetrial judgement, bringing the total number of trialscompleted thus far to eight, involving nine accusedpersons. A further six trials involving 15 accused havecommenced and are currently proceeding.Consequently, 24 of the 48 persons presently detainedhave either been tried or are in the midst of trials.Twelve new indictments were confirmed and six newarrests and transfers to the Tribunal were effected.

2. The Appeals Chamber decided four appeals onthe merits, 14 interlocutory appeals and four requestsfor review during the period under review. Theconvictions and sentences handed down by the TrialChambers in respect of four persons were affirmed onappeal.

3. Judges of all three Trial Chambers and theAppeals Chamber participated in the ninth and tenthplenary sessions held by the Tribunal. During theseplenary sessions, matters of policy, procedure andplanning were extensively discussed. Amendments tothe Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence wereadopted, with a view to expediting trials withoutcompromising fair trial procedure and also inaccordance with recommendations made by the ExpertGroup (see A/54/634). At the tenth plenary session, theelections of the President and the Vice-President of theTribunal were held.

4. The judges of the Tribunal and of theInternational Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia(ICTY) held a joint seminar in October 2000, under theauspices of the Government of the United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland. The objective ofthe seminar was to discuss challenges common to bothTribunals and issues such as the harmonization of thejurisprudence and procedure of both Tribunals.

5. During the period under review, the Prosecutorrefined her strategy for conducting investigations andtrial preparation. The Prosecutor has recentlycommunicated her future investigation programme andher intention to prosecute 136 new suspects by 2005. Itshould be recalled that in its report, the Expert Groupanticipated a heavy workload for the Tribunal and drewattention to the need to make the necessary provision tohandle this workload. Consequently, the President ofthe Tribunal has addressed a request to the Secretary-

General, to be forwarded to the Security Council, forthe provision of ad litem judges (A/56/265-S/2001/764,annex). This request is similar to the solution adoptedfor ICTY by the Security Council in its resolution 1326(2000).

6. During the period under review, the Secretary-General appointed a new Registrar to the Tribunal. Anew Chief of Administration also took office during theperiod. The administrative functions performed by theRegistry and the judicial support that was rendered tothe Chambers were maintained without interruptionduring the transition phase and have been considerablyenhanced since the appointment of the seniormanagers.

7. The present report reviews the main activities ofthe Chambers, the Office of the Prosecutor, theRegistry and the Administration as well as thecooperation received from States and variousinstitutions.

II. The Chambers

A. Composition of the Chambers

8. The Chambers are composed of 16 independentjudges, with three judges serving in each of the threeTrial Chambers and seven judges serving in theAppeals Chamber.1 The Appeals Chamber comprisesfive of its seven members when it sits on appeal orreview.

9. On 24 April 2001, the General Assembly electedtwo new judges, Judge Winston Churchill MatanzimaMaqutu of Lesotho and Judge Arlette Ramaroson ofMadagascar, to serve in the Trial Chambers. After thesenewly elected judges took up office, the President,Judge Navanethem Pillay, assigned Judge MehmetGüney of Turkey and Judge Asoka de ZoysaGunawardana of Sri Lanka to serve as members of theAppeals Chamber.2

10. Upon the death of the Presiding Judge of TrialChamber II, Judge Laïty Kama, on 6 May 2001, theSecretary-General, on 31 May 2001, appointed JudgeAndrésia Vaz of Senegal to serve the remainder of thelate Judge Laïty Kama’s term of office. Judge WilliamH. Sekule was elected Presiding Judge of TrialChamber II, pursuant to article 13, paragraph 3, of theTribunal’s Statute.

4

A/56/351S/2001/863

11. On 6 June 2001, the President, in accordance witharticle 13 of the Statute of the Tribunal and afterhaving consulted the judges, assigned judges to theTrial Chambers, as follows:

(a) Trial Chamber I is composed of JudgeNavanethem Pillay (South Africa), presiding; JudgeErik Møse (Norway); and Judge Asoka de ZoysaGunawardana (Sri Lanka). Judge Gunawardana wasreplaced by Judge Andrésia Vaz (Senegal) on 9 July2001;

(b) Trial Chamber II is composed of JudgeWilliam Hussein Sekule (United Republic ofTanzania), presiding; Judge Winston ChurchillMatanzima Maqutu (Lesotho); and Judge ArletteRamaroson (Madagascar);

(c) Trial Chamber III is composed of JudgeLloyd George Williams (Jamaica, Saint Kitts andNevis), presiding; Judge Pavel Dolenc (Slovenia); andJudge Yakov Arkadievich Ostrovsky (RussianFederation).

12. The Appeals Chamber is composed of JudgeClaude Jorda (France), presiding; Judge Lal ChandVohrah (Malaysia), Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen(Guyana), Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia (Colombia), JudgeFausto Pocar (Italy), Judge Mehmet Güney (Turkey)and Judge Asoka de Zoysa Gunawardana (Sri Lanka).

B. Judicial activities of the Chambers

Trial Chamber I

The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana (ICTR-96-11-T), Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza (ICTR-97-19-T)and Hassan Ngeze (ICTR-97-27-T), referred to asthe “Media” case

13. This trial commenced before Trial Chamber I on26 October 2000 and continued to 9 November 2000.The hearings resumed on 5 February 2001 andproceeded until 12 July 2001. The Prosecutor presented25 witnesses and intends to call further witnesses froma list of 97. However, the list will change considerablydepending on the availability and willingness of someof the witnesses to testify, as well as efforts made bythe Trial Chamber to control the number of necessarywitnesses for trial purposes.

14. The Trial Chamber rendered decisions on 25motions, several of which were rendered orally in order

to save time. These motions included attempts by twoaccused persons in the course of the trial to change thedefence counsel who had been assigned to them on thebasis of indigence. Barayagwiza instructed his defencecounsel not to represent him at trial and he has chosento boycott his trial. The Trial Chamber deniedcounsel’s motion that based on codes of ethics theyshould be allowed to comply with their client’s wishes,and ordered their continued participation. Despite theTrial Chamber’s ruling, counsel subsequently withdrewfrom the case. The Trial Chamber directed theRegistrar to permanently remove the said counsel fromthe Tribunal’s list of counsel compiled to representindigent accused. Even though Barayagwiza hasdecided not to be present during his trial, the TrialChamber, in the interest of justice, ensured that newcounsel was assigned to represent him. Ngeze haspreviously dismissed four sets of his assigned counsel.His request for a fifth change of counsel was denied.He was, however, permitted to conduct part of thecross-examination of one of the witnesses.

15. Material subjected to disclosure included morethan 600 witness statements, 600 audio cassettes andapproximately 500 other documents, out of which 250items have thus far been tendered as exhibits duringtrial. The Trial Chamber held periodic statusconferences and issued scheduling orders in respect ofthe numbers, nature and content of documents andexhibits that were subject to disclosure, and gavedirections on matters related to translation, copies andtranscripts.

The Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema(ICTR-95-1-T)

16. During the period under review, Trial Chamber Iheard closing submissions in September and October2000 in the aforementioned case. On 19 October 2000,the trial was adjourned for the Trial Chamber’sdeliberations and preparation of its judgement. On 7June 2001, the Trial Chamber, in its judgementconsisting of 450 pages, acquitted Ignace Bagilishemaof all charges. It subsequently ordered Bagilishema’sconditional release, after having considered theProsecutor’s motion for a new warrant of arrest and anorder for his continued detention, pending thefinalization of the Prosecutor’s appeal against thejudgement. In spite of the Trial Chamber’s order forprovisional release, Bagilishema is having problemsobtaining entry into any country, pending the appeal.

5

A/56/351S/2001/863

The Tribunal has grave concern for the plight ofaccused persons who are subsequently acquitted andurges the international community to open their bordersto them.

The Prosecutor v. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana,Gerard Ntakirutimana and Charles Sikubwabwo(ICTR-96-10-I and ICTR-96-17-I), referred to asthe “Kibuye” case

17. During the period under review, Trial Chamber Iconducted the initial appearance of ElizaphanNtakirutimana, the hearings of four motions and pre-trial conferences. The Trial Chamber granted theProsecutor’s motion to join the two indictments anddenied the defence’s challenge to the jurisdiction of theTribunal. The trial is scheduled to commence on 17September 2001.

Trial Chamber II

18. During the period under review, Trial Chamber IIwas seized with six cases, comprising three joint cases(referred to as the “Government 1”, “Government 2”and “Butare” cases) and three individual cases,involving 20 accused, of which 17 have been arrestedand 3 are still at large. This heavy caseload resulted ina large number of pre-trial motions being filed. TheTrial Chamber disposed of these pre-trial motions,which resulted in 75 written decisions being issued anda number of motions being disposed of orally.Consequently, the trials of Juvénal Kajelijeli, Jean-de-Dieu Kamuhanda and the six accused indicted in the“Butare” case (see para. 22 below) commenced on 13March 2001, 17 April 2001 and 12 June 2001,respectively.

19. Upon the death of Judge Laïty Kama, PresidingJudge of Trial Chamber II, on 6 May 2001, the judicialactivities of the Trial Chamber were temporarilysuspended. On 16 May 2001, the President of theTribunal temporarily assigned Judge Erik Møse to TrialChamber II, pursuant to rules 15 (E) and 27 of theRules of Procedure and Evidence, to assist withpending pre-trial motions. On the same day, JudgeWilliam H. Sekule was elected as Presiding Judge,pursuant to article 13, paragraph 3, of the Statute.Another member of the Trial Chamber, Judge MehmetGüney, was assigned to the Appeals Chamber on 4June 2001. The President, on 1 June 2001, assignedJudge Winston Churchill Matanzima Maqutu and JudgeArlette Ramaroson to Trial Chamber II.

The Prosecutor v. Juvénal Kajelijeli(ICTR-98-44-AT)

20. The accused was initially indicted with sevenothers in the “Government 1” case. Trial Chamber II,following a defence motion, ordered that this accusedbe tried separately. The main problem encountered inthis case has been the Prosecutor’s repeated non-compliance with the Trial Chamber’s orders for aseparate indictment and her insistence on modifyingthe indictment, which caused delays in thecommencement of the trial. The trial commenced on 13March 2001 and one witness was heard. Following thenew composition of the Trial Chamber, the trialcommenced de novo on 2 July 2001.

The Prosecutor v. Jean-de-Dieu Kamuhanda(ICTR-99-54-T)

21. The trial of the accused started on 17 April 2001.Three witnesses testified, including two prosecutioninvestigators. The trial will resume on 3 September2001, whereupon after hearing the parties, a decisionwill be taken on whether to continue with the trial orstart the trial de novo, due to the new composition ofthe Trial Chamber.

The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kanyabashi (ICTR-96-15-T); Pauline Niyramasuhuko and ArsèneShalom Ntahobali (ICTR-97-21-T); SylvainNsabimana and Alphonse Nteziryayo (ICTR-29-T);and Elie Ndayambaje (ICTR-96-8-T), referred to asthe “Butare” case

22. The trial of the six accused was scheduled to starton 14 May 2001, but had to be re-scheduled to 11 June2001, as a consequence of the death of Judge Kama.On 11 June 2001, Trial Chamber II considered motionsfiled by the parties and the trial commenced on 12 June2001. The first prosecution witness testified until 27June 2001 and the trial was then adjourned to 22October 2001, allowing the Trial Chamber to proceedwith the trial of Juvénal Kajelijeli.

The Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu, JustinMugenzi, Prosper Mugiraneza and JérômeBicamumpaka (ICTR-99-50-T), referred to as the“Government 1” case

23. This case involves seven accused persons, ofwhich three are still at large. For the period underreview, Trial Chamber II ruled on 14 pre-trial motions,

6

A/56/351S/2001/863

rendering written decisions in respect of all of themotions.

The Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera, AndréRwamakuba, Mathieu Ngirumpatse and JosephNzirorera (ICTR-98-44-T), referred to as the“Government 2” case

24. With regard to the accused, Trial Chamber IIruled on 48 pre-trial motions, rendering writtendecisions in respect of all of the motions.

The Prosecutor v. Eliezer Niyitegeka(ICTR-96-14-T)

25. During the period under review, Trial Chamber IIruled on 12 pre-trial motions, rendering writtendecisions in respect of all of the motions.

Trial Chamber III

26. For the period under review, Trial Chamber IIIdisposed of a total of 86 motions, of which 66 (over 75per cent) were decided orally during two trialproceedings. Oral disposition of such a significantnumber of motions on the trial record has enhanced theTrial Chamber’s efficiency.

The Prosecutor v. André Ntagerura (ICTR-96-10-AT); Emmanuel Bagambiki (ICTR-97-36-T);and Samuel Imanishimwe (ICTR-97-36-T),referred to as the “Cyangugu” case

27. The trial of the accused commenced on 18September 2000, before Trial Chamber III. It bearsnoting that a delay in the commencement of the trialwas avoided when the Trial Chamber rendered an oraldecision on the record, granting leave to the leadcounsel for the accused, Ntagerura, to withdraw. TheChamber’s decision to permit the withdrawal wasinformed by the finding that that co-counsel toNtagerura was sufficiently well versed and capable ofcontinuing with the trial, without undue delay.

28. Since the commencement of trial, the TrialChamber has heard a total of 38 witnesses over thecourse of 61 trial days. In addition, the Chamber hasdisposed of a total of 54 motions and applications madeduring the course of the trial proceedings.

29. The Chamber anticipates that the Prosecutor willpresent an additional six witnesses and should formally

conclude her case-in-chief shortly after the resumptionof the trial in September 2001.

The Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza (ICTR-97-20-T), referred to as the “Semanza” case

30. The trial began on 16 October 2000 and isproceeding simultaneously with the “Cyangugu” case.During the period under review, the Trial Chamberheard testimony from 24 prosecution witnesses overthe course of 29 trial days. The Trial Chamber disposedof a total of 21 decisions on motions and applicationsmade during the course of the trial proceedings.

31. For all intents and purposes, the Prosecutor’scase-in-chief has been concluded. All that remains forthe Prosecutor to close her case is the introduction ofan expert report. If the Prosecutor decides to tender thisreport into evidence without calling the expert witnessto testify and the defence decides not to cross-examinethis witness, the prosecution’s case will be closedwithout any further hearing. At a pre-trial conferenceheld on 26 April 2001, the defence confirmed that thepresentation of its case is expected to commence on 1October 2001.

32. On 3 November 2000, the Trial Chamber issuedits decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion to take JudicialNotice. By taking Judicial Notice of various factualmatters of common knowledge and of a panoply ofdocuments, the Trial Chamber was able to expedite thetrial. The Judicial Notice decision is also significant, inits own respect, since it is the first time that theTribunal has pronounced a ratio decidendi delineatingthe nature of the facts of which Judicial Notice may betaken.

The Prosecutor v. Anatole Nsengyumva (ICTR-96-12-1); Gratien Kabiligi (ICTR-97-34-1); AloysNtabakuze (ICTR-97-34-1); and ThéonesteBagosora (ICTR-96-7-1), referred to as the“Military” case

33. With regard to the aforementioned accused, TrialChamber III has disposed of all but two of theoutstanding motions and the case is ready for trial.However, owing to the hard realities of limited humanresources and judicial time, the Chamber’s engagementin the simultaneous trials of the “Semanza” and the“Cyangugu” cases has left very little time andresources to be dedicated to the commencement of athird trial. Moreover, it is the Trial Chamber’s opinion

7

A/56/351S/2001/863

that it would be inadvisable and impractical tocommence a third trial while two are well in progress.

Future judicial activities of the Trial Chambers

34. Since the commencement of the first trial inJanuary 1997, the Tribunal has rendered eightjudgements in respect of nine accused. Five accusedhave been convicted after full trials (Akayesu,Rutaganda, Ruzindana and Kayishema, Musema) andthree accused after guilty pleas (Kambanda, Serushago,Ruggiu). One accused has been acquitted(Bagilishema). Another accused (Ntuyahaga) has beenreleased, following the withdrawal of the indictmentagainst him, at the request of the Prosecutor. Sevenconvicted persons lodged appeals, five of which havebeen determined by the Appeals Chamber (Kambanda,Serushago, Akayesu, Ruzindana and Kayishema). Twoappeals are pending (Rutaganda and Musema). Of the48 accused in detention, 24 have either had judgementsrendered in their cases or are in ongoing trials. Theproceedings against 24 accused are still at the pre-trialstage.

35. Apart from the accused referred to above, theProsecutor, in February 2001, outlined her workschedule up to 2005. The Prosecutor estimates that 29indictments will be submitted for confirmation by herOffice for the year 2001, 30 indictments for 2002, 30indictments for 2003, 30 indictments for 2004 and 17indictments for 2005. Although these figures areestimates, they imply that the Tribunal may have 136new accused who, according to the Prosecutor, will beinvolved in 45 new trials, with an average of 3 accusedpersons being jointly tried.

36. The Tribunal has taken such measures as arewithin its power to improve its procedures throughamendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Ithas also adopted measures to improve its internalorganization, including its Court Management Section.These improvements have resulted in a significantincrease in the Tribunal’s efficiency in meeting itsheavy workload. However, there are inherent limits asto how much the three Trial Chambers can accomplishunder the present system.

37. During the period under review, the three TrialChambers conducted trials on a twin or multi-trackbasis. Trial Chamber I3 concluded the trial of IgnaceBagilishema and prepared the written judgement intandem with the hearing of the “Media” case, involving

three accused (Nahimana, Ngeze and Barayagwiza), astwo judges who constituted the Trial Chamber for theBagilishema case also constitute the Trial Chamber forthe “Media” case. Trial Chamber I is currentlyconducting the “Media” trial, which is expected tocontinue through the greater part of 2002. A trialinvolving two accused (E. and G. Ntakirutimana) willcommence before Trial Chamber I on 17 September2001. This trial will be twin-tracked with the “Media”trial.

38. Trial Chamber II is currently conducting threetrials on a multi-track basis. The Kajelijeli trialcommenced on 12 March 2001 and the Kamuhandatrial commenced on 17 April 2001. Following the deathof the presiding judge and the new composition of theChamber, the trial in one case started de novo and thetrial in the other case may also start de novo. The“Butare” trial, involving six accused (Kanyabashi,Nyiramsuhuko, Ntahobali, Nsabimana, Nteziryayo andNdayambaje) commenced on 11 June 2001.

39. Trial Chamber III is currently conducting twotrials on a twin-track basis. The “Cyangugu” trial,involving three accused (Bagambiki, Imanishimwe andNtagerura), commenced on 18 September 2000. Thetrial against a single accused (Semanza) started on 16October 2000. The trial in the “Military” caseinvolving four accused (Bagosora, Nsengiyumva,Kabiligi and Ntabakuze) is expected to commence inthe first quarter of 2002.

40. This will lead to judgements for a significantnumber of cases during the current mandate. It isimportant to recall, however, that conducting judicialproceedings at the international level is a far morecomplicated task than at the national level. There aremany reasons for this, such as the legal and factualcomplexity of the cases, the volume of documentssubject to disclosure and translation, the large numberof witnesses, interpretation of testimony fromKinyarwanda into French and English, ongoinginvestigations by the Prosecutor and the defence, theavailability of witnesses and the schedules of defencelawyers, most of whom practise in countries outsideAfrica. Moreover, in cases with voluminous files, bothparties regularly request more time for preparation. Insuch situations the Trial Chamber has to balance theaccused’s right to fair and expeditious trials againstpossible delays in the commencement of the trials. Anexample may serve to illustrate why the trials areprotracted. Most of the witnesses testify in

8

A/56/351S/2001/863

Kinyarwanda. Their testimony is interpreted intoFrench and from French into English, and vice versa.As a result, the time needed to complete a singlewitness’s testimony is more than three times the timetaken in a national court. Problems of communicationduring the testimony, including cultural and linguisticcharacteristics, also take time. Furthermore,considerable time is expended in reproduction andtranslation of massive case files, which includethousands of pages of documents, books, journals,photographs, maps, audio and video cassettes.

41. An analysis of the cases being heard by theTribunal reveals differing patterns. Some trials arefinalized within a few months, where, for instance, thedefence is willing to make admissions to narrow thedisputed issues. Other trials, particularly joint trials ofseveral accused persons, may take more than a year forthe presentation of evidence. The testimony of onewitness may extend over several days as each defencecounsel exercises his or her client’s right to cross-examine the witness. Even with careful planning andactive intervention by the judges, trials with largenumbers of witnesses are necessarily protracted.

42. The complexity of cases currently pending isconnected, inter alia, with the alleged rank and statusof the accused and their respective alleged roles in thekillings in Rwanda in 1994. The Prosecutor’s strategyhas focused from the outset on those suspects who arealleged to have been in the highest positions ofleadership and authority and on those who are allegedto have taken the most prominent roles in the events.These persons are alleged to be former politicalleaders, high-ranking military officers, media leaders,senior government administrators, prominentbusinessmen and public figures. The trials of accusedwho are alleged to have been the veritable architects ofthe killings will necessarily be legally and factuallymore complex and take longer than the trials of personsof lesser rank and status.

43. Another trend in the judicial activities of the TrialChambers is the increase in the numbers of trials ofaccused being tried together. Although joint trials areexpected to significantly shorten the number of actualtrial days spent in the courtroom, the number ofwitnesses to be heard and the volume of evidence to beexamined in joint trials is much greater than in separatetrials.

44. Long periods of court time expended on pre-trialpreparations of cases is also a matter of concern. Notonly the commencement of trials is prolonged, but alsothe period awaiting trial for accused persons indetention. The reasons for the increased length of timespent on pre-trial proceedings may be found in theconfluence of several factors, largely beyond thecontrol of the Trial Chambers. The most prevalentamong them are the following: the advent of jointindictments, successive amendments of indictmentsinitiated by the Prosecutor, increase in the number ofinterlocutory motions submitted by the parties,increased complexity of legal and factual issues beingaddressed in the decisions rendered on pre-trialmotions, complaints relating to disclosure andtranslation of documents to be used in the case, as wellas general lack of preparedness on the part of theProsecutor to proceed to trial. On the other hand,precedent rulings handed down by the Chambers overthe past five years have forestalled certain motions,such as challenges to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

45. With the available resources, the Trial Chamberswill be able to complete the trials of all currently helddetainees by 2007. If the Prosecutor accomplishes herinvestigative initiatives as indicated above, theTribunal will have a further 136 people indicted by2005. Depending on the rate of arrest of these personsand on current resources, the Tribunal will not be ableto complete these trials before 2023. This isunacceptable, particularly in the light of the rights ofan accused to be tried without undue delay.Furthermore, conducting trials so many years after theevents may throw into question the reliability of theevidence. Therefore, to expedite these proceedings, thePresident has requested the Security Council to amendthe Tribunal’s Statute, to make provision for thecreation of a pool of ad litem judges. If this reform isimplemented as proposed, by 2002, the Tribunal willbe better placed to complete the trials of the detaineescurrently awaiting trial by 2004 and, depending uponthe rate of arrest, the trials of the 136 new persons by2011.

The Appeals Chamber

Ongoing reforms

46. The period under review was a crucial year forthe Appeals Chamber. A number of recommendationsconcerning the work of the Appeals Chamber were

9

A/56/351S/2001/863

made by its Working Group, endorsed by the judges atthe plenary and subsequently implemented. A “Mirror-Registry” was established at The Hague, to give partiesthe option of filing appeals documents either at TheHague or in Arusha. Additional staff had been recruitedon a temporary basis to reinforce the Appeals ChamberSupport Unit in The Hague, resulting in greaterassistance being provided to the judges. In November2000, the Security Council provided for two trialjudges to be assigned to the Appeals Chamber,increasing its membership to seven.4 On 1 June 2001,the President of the Tribunal, after consultation withthe judges, assigned judges Mehmet Güney (elected on8 November 1998) and Asoka de Zoysa Gunawardana(nominated on 21 March 1999) to the AppealsChamber. Judge Güney moved to The Hague in June2001 and was sworn in as an Appeals Chamber judgeon 12 July 2001, while Judge Gunawardana was to takeup his new duties at The Hague in September 2001.

47. As part of the ongoing reforms, the PresidingJudge of the Appeals Chamber, in consultation with thePresident of the Tribunal, issued Practice Directions tostreamline the procedure for the filing of writtensubmissions and to regulate the size and format of thepleadings filed before the Appeals Chamber. Severalrules, including rules 108, 109, 117 bis and 117 ter,were amended during the plenary sessions held inNovember 2000 and June 2001, to achieve the samepurpose. These measures were instrumental in allowingthe Appeals Chamber to complete most of the appealsthat have been filed, thus ensuring that the appealsprocess, particularly in respect of interlocutory appeals,did not impede ongoing trial activity.

48. Although the Appeals Chamber succeeded indispensing with many outstanding cases on appeal, anumber of significant issues remain to be resolved, toensure that the Chamber will be able to cope with theincreasing number of appeals that are likely to be filed,as the Tribunal increases its trial activity. Thetranslation of decisions and other documents preparedby the judges at The Hague continues to be a majorproblem. At the present time, these documents muststill be sent to Arusha to be translated, which createslong delays in the finalization of documents due to thedistance between the drafters and the translators.Vacant translator posts at The Hague must be filled, aswell as similar additional posts that may be obtainedunder the Tribunal’s next budget, to overcome thissituation. There is the need to separate the “Mirror

Registry” from the rest of the Appeals Support Unit atThe Hague. Furthermore, a number of staffing-relatedissues need to be addressed, including the recruitmentof a Legal Officer to head the Appeals ChamberSupport Unit, the selection of Legal Officers to serve inthe Unit and the approval of additional posts in thenext budget, to provide the Unit with a staffingstructure similar to that of ICTY. More important, theissue of the administration and management of the staffin the Unit will need to be addressed by the registrarsof both Tribunals, in consultation with the judges, toensure that those staff members are able to work underfavourable conditions. Finally, the issue of supportstaff for the two judges from the Tribunal assigned tothe Appeals Chamber at The Hague will also need to beaddressed to ensure that the judges are provided withthe same level of support as their ICTY counterparts.

49. The level of activity of the Appeals Chamberduring the period under review indicates that the workof the Appeals Chamber will undoubtedly become thenext major challenge facing the Tribunal in the future.For this reason, now is the time to take the necessarymeasures to ensure that the Appeals Chamber will beable to cope with the increased workload in the years tocome. To this end, a study had been initiated by thePresiding Judge of the Chamber, the results of whichare to be discussed by the judges of both Tribunalsduring their yearly joint seminar in October 2001.

Appeals activity

50. During the period under review, the AppealsChamber decided 14 interlocutory appeals, six appealson the merits and four requests for review.

Interlocutory appeals

Bagambiki v. The Prosecutor (case: Bagambiki,Imanishimwe and Ntagerura v. The Prosecutor)

51. On 7 September 2000, the Appeals Chamberconfirmed the decision of Trial Chamber III anddismissed the notice of appeal filed by EmmanuelBagambiki. The Appeals Chamber held that thegrounds of appeal raised by the Appellant did not fallwithin the ambit of rule 72 of the Rules.

Barayagwiza v. The Prosecutor

52. For the period under review, the AppealsChamber rendered three decisions in the case. On 12

10

A/56/351S/2001/863

September 2000, the Appeals Chamber, constituted bya bench of three judges, dismissed two appeals filed byBarayagwiza against two decisions rendered by TrialChamber I on 11 April and 6 June 2000, respectively.The appeals raised objections in respect of matterspertaining to the temporal jurisdiction of the Tribunaland challenged the validity of the indictment. On 14December 2000, the Appeals Chamber dismissed aMotion for Review or Reconsideration of its decisionof 31 March 2000, on the basis that the Motion lackedmerit. On 13 December 2000, a bench of three judgesof the Appeals Chamber dismissed an appeal filed on18 September 2000 on the basis that it did not satisfythe requirements of rule 72 of the Rules.

Kabiligi v. The Prosecutor

53. On 13 November 2000, the Appeals Chamberdismissed an appeal filed by Gratien Kabiligi againstTrial Chamber III’s decision of 13 April 2000, for thereason that the alleged irregularity pertaining to thepre-trial proceedings did not fall within the ambit ofrule 72 of the Rules.

Kajelijeli v. The Prosecutor (case: Bizimungu,Kajelijeli, Karamera, Ngirumpatse andNsabimana v. The Prosecutor)

54. During the period under review, the AppealsChamber rendered three decisions in the Kajelijelicase. On 10 August 2000, an appeal was dismissedbecause the notice of appeal had been filed outside theprescribed time limits. On 12 December 2000, theAppeals Chamber rendered a second decision on amotion to grant relief from dismissal of appeal (appealagainst decision of the Appeals Chamber, dated 10August 2000). In the decision, the Appeals Chamberdismissed the motion and confirmed its previousdecision. Finally, on 6 February 2001, a bench of threejudges of the Appeals Chamber dismissed a motion tolimit the admissibility of evidence on the basis that themotion did not fall within the ambit of rule 72 of theRules.

Ngeze and Nahimana v. The Prosecutor

55. On 5 September 2000, the Appeals Chamberdismissed interlocutory appeals filed by FerdinandNahimana and Hassan Ngeze because most of thegrounds of appeal were inadmissible, as they did notfall within the scope of rule 72 of the Rules. Judges LalChand Vohrah, Rafael Nieto-Navia and Mohamed

Shahabuddeen appended separate opinions to thedecision.

Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor

56. During the period under review, the AppealsChamber dismissed two appeals on the grounds thatthey did not fall within the ambit of rule 72 of theRules.

Nsengiyumva v. The Prosecutor

57. During the period under review, the AppealsChamber considered an appeal filed by AnatoleNsengiyumva against a Trial Chamber decision whichhad denied his motion, objecting to the jurisdiction ofthe Tribunal in respect of the amended indictment. Theappeal raised issues relating to subject matter, personaland temporal jurisdictions of the Tribunal. The appealwas dismissed on 13 November 2000 on the basis thatsome grounds of appeal were inadmissible under rule72 of the Rules, while others lacked merit.

Nzirorera v. The Prosecutor

58. On 18 September 2000, Joseph Nzirorera lodgedan appeal against the decision of Trial Chamber IIwhich had dismissed his motion challenging thelegality of his arrest and detention, and his request forthe return of personal items that had been seized. On23 February 2001, a bench of three judges of theAppeals Chamber found that the appeal could satisfythe requirements of rule 72 (D) of the Rules and ruledthat the appeal should proceed before the full bench ofthe Appeals Chamber. On 4 May 2001, the AppealsChamber dismissed the appeal on the basis that thegrounds of appeal were either inadmissible under rule72 (D) or without merit.

Semanza v. The Prosecutor

59. On 4 December 2000, the Appeals Chamber,constituted by a bench of three judges, dismissed aninterlocutory appeal filed against a Trial Chamberdecision of 11 September 2000. The appeal wasdismissed because the grounds of appeal raised werenot related to the personal, subject matter, temporal orterritorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and therefore didnot satisfy the requirements of rule 72 of the Rules.

11

A/56/351S/2001/863

Appeals on the merits

Akayesu v. The Prosecutor

60. During the period under review, the AppealsChamber rendered seven decisions, some of whichwere a consolidation of several motions, and issued sixother orders. Although the trial of Jean-Paul Akayesuwas the first trial completed by the Tribunal, theappeals process was characterized by protracted legalbattles, initially between the Appellant and theRegistry, and later between the Appellant and theRespondent. This, coupled with the changing ofAppellant’s counsel on several occasions, resulted inthe final judgement being rendered on 1 June 2001.Akayesu filed several motions after the appeal hearingswere concluded and during the period of deliberation,which included a motion requesting the translation ofthe Appellant’s brief and reply, which wassubsequently granted by the Appeals Chamber.Akayesu also requested the Appeals Chamber to referhis case back to the Trial Chamber, since he had filed amotion for review of the trial judgement before thatTrial Chamber. That motion was dismissed on 16 May2001. On 28 May 2001, Akayesu requested the AppealsChamber to reconsider its decision. That request wassubsequently dismissed on 1 June 2001. The AppealsChamber ruled that the motion was an abuse of the dueprocess for which counsel might be sanctioned andaccordingly directed the Registrar to forfeit all fees dueto counsel in respect of the motion.

61. On 1 June 2001, the Appeals Chamberunanimously rejected each of the grounds of appealraised by Jean-Paul Akayesu and confirmed the verdictand sentence handed down by the Trial Chamber.

Kambanda v. The Prosecutor

62. On 19 October 2000, the Appeals Chamberrendered its judgement in respect of the appeal filed byJean Kambanda against the conviction and sentencehanded down by the Trial Chamber on 4 September1998. The Appeals Chamber unanimously dismissedthe eight grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant andaffirmed the conviction and sentence rendered by theTrial Chamber. The judgement was rendered at ahearing held at The Hague, pursuant to an order issuedby the President of the Tribunal, in accordance withrule 4 of the Rules, which provides that a Chamber or ajudge may exercise their functions away from the seatof the Tribunal, provided that this is authorized by the

President of the Tribunal and is in the interest ofjustice.

Kayishema and Ruzindana v. The Prosecutor

63. During the period under review, the AppealsChamber rendered 10 decisions on various motions inthe case and issued orders on matters of procedure,prior to rendering its judgement on the merits of thethree appeals. On 1 June 2001, at a hearing in Arusha,the Appeals Chamber rendered its judgement,confirming the guilt of Clement Kayishema on all thecounts for which he had been convicted by the TrialChamber, as well as the sentence of life imprisonment.The Appeals Chamber also confirmed the guilt of ObedRuzindana, as well as the sentence of 25 years’imprisonment, and ruled that the Prosecutor’s appealwas inadmissible.

64. Although the written judgement in the case wasready when the oral judgement was delivered, it hasnot been made available for distribution, due totranslation difficulties. It is anticipated that the writtenjudgement would be released after the period underreview.

Musema v. The Prosecutor

65. Hearings on the merits of the appeal were held on28 and 29 May 2001 and the Appeals Chamber iscurrently in deliberation. Additionally, four decisionswere rendered and nine orders were issued by theAppeals Chamber. A few weeks before the hearings,the Appellant filed a motion requesting the AppealsChamber to compel the prosecution to discloseexculpatory evidence. The prosecution gave notice ofdisclosing further evidence days before the hearing.The day of the hearing (28 May 2001), Musema filed amotion requesting the Appeals Chamber to admit thestatements of three witnesses as additional evidenceand requested leave to file a supplementary ground ofappeal. The Appeals Chamber will render its decisionon this motion in its appeals judgement, which isscheduled to be rendered in November 2001.

Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor

66. During the period under review, 11 decisionswere rendered and three orders were issued by theAppeals Chamber. The appeal process was delayed bythe withdrawal of the Appellant’s counsel, who hadbeen on the case since the commencement of the trial.

12

A/56/351S/2001/863

Following a motion by the Appellant’s new counsel,the Appeals Chamber ordered the Registry to avail tothat counsel audio tapes of the entire trial as thecounsel from whom he was taking over was unable tobrief him owing to medical reasons. The parties areexpected to file their briefs in September.

Requests for review

67. During the period under review, the AppealsChamber disposed of four motions for review.

Akayesu v. The Prosecutor

68. As mentioned above, the Appeals Chamber, on1 June 2001, dismissed a motion for review filed inrespect of this case.

Imanishimwe v. The Prosecutor

69. On 12 July 2000, the Appeals Chamber dismissedthe motion for review filed by Samuel Imanishimwe,which related to an interlocutory appeal on thejurisdiction of the Tribunal. In its decision, the AppealsChamber noted that only a final judgement or adecision on an interlocutory appeal, which terminatesall proceedings, may be reviewed pursuant to article 25of the Statute and rule 120 of the Rules. In this case,the Appeals Chamber found that the impugned decisionwas not a final judgement and that there was no rightof appeal against this particular decision.

Kanyabashi v. The Prosecutor

70. On 12 September 2000, the Appeals Chamberrendered a decision on a motion for review orreconsideration in the case. The Appeals Chamberfurther expanded on the nature of interlocutorydecisions that may be subject to appeal and held thatappeals might only be filed against interlocutorydecisions rendered by a Trial Chamber, pursuant torule 72 of the Rules, dismissing an objection based ona lack of jurisdiction. Alleged flaws in due processleading to an interlocutory decision which violated therights of the accused could not be characterized asobjections based on lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly,the motion was dismissed.

Semanza v. The Prosecutor

71. On 4 May 2001, the Appeals Chamber renderedits decision on the Appellant’s motion for review of adecision it had rendered in the case on 31 May 2000.

The Appeals Chamber held that the decision of 31 May2000 was not a final judgement and accordinglydismissed the motion.

C. Regulatory activities of the Chambers

72. Both the Trial Chambers and the AppealsChamber continue to identify areas for improvementand adopt the necessary amendments to the Rules ofProcedure and Evidence to either remedy perceivedproblems or otherwise increase the Tribunal’sefficiency. During the period under review, judges fromthe three Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamberamended the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure andEvidence during the ninth and the tenth plenarysessions.

73. At the ninth plenary, held on 30 November 2000,rules were amended as follows:

• The amendment to rule 48 bis (Joinder ofindictments) now provides for persons who havebeen separately indicted to be jointly tried if thecrimes for which they are indicted are alleged tohave been committed in the course of the sametransaction;

• The amendment to rule 94 empowers the TrialChamber to take judicial notice of adjudicatedfacts or documentary evidence from otherproceedings of the Tribunal;

• The amendment to rule 108 (A) (Notice ofappeal) harmonizes the English text with theFrench text and serves to provide clarity on thecomputation of time limits for the filing of anotice of appeal;

• The amendment to rule 109 (Record on appeal)dispenses with the need for the parties to providea full trial record;

• The amendment to rule 117 (A) (Expeditedappeals procedure) now harmonizes this rule withthe Practice Direction previously issued on theprocedure for the filing of written submissions inappeal proceedings;

• The amendment to rule 117 bis (Parties’ Books)removes the ambiguity from the previous textwith regard to the requisite time limit for thefiling of the Parties’ Books of Authorities;

13

A/56/351S/2001/863

• The amendment to rule 117 ter (Filing of the trialrecords) corrects an error in the heading and inthe text of the previous version of the rule.

74. At the tenth plenary session, held on 30 and 31May 2001, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence wereamended in the following respects:

• The amendment to rule 3 (Languages) extends tothe suspect the right to use his own language;

• The amendment to rule 7 ter (Time limits)provides greater clarity on the computation of thetime limits prescribed in the Rules of Procedureand Evidence;

• The amendment to rule 15 bis (Absence of ajudge) now allows for a hearing in a part-heardcase to continue before two judges of a TrialChamber for a period not exceeding five days, ifthe third judge is unable to sit at this hearing dueto certain reasons;

• The amendment to rule 40 bis (Transfer andprovisional detention of suspects) establishes theday of transfer of the suspect to the Tribunal asthe beginning of the period of provisionaldetention, for the purposes of calculating theperiod of provisional detention;

• The amendment to rule 41 (Preservation ofinformation) establishes an obligation for theProsecutor to draw up an inventory of allmaterials seized from the accused and to serve acopy of this inventory on the accused. It alsoobliges the Prosecutor to return those materialsthat have no evidentiary value;

• The new rule 55 bis provides for the issuance ofwarrants of arrest to all States, with a view tofacilitating the arrest of an accused personmoving from State to State to evade arrest;

• The amendments to rule 73 bis (Pre-trialconference) and rule 73 ter (Pre-defenceconference) enables the parties, after thecommencement of the trial, to move the TrialChamber for leave to reinstate the original list ofwitnesses, or to vary the decision on whichwitnesses are to be called.

III. The Bureau

75. The Bureau is composed of Judge NavanethemPillay, President and Presiding Judge of Trial ChamberI; Judge Erik Møse, Vice-President; Judge William H.Sekule, Presiding Judge of Trial Chamber II; and JudgeLloyd George Williams, Presiding Judge of TrialChamber III.

76. During the period under review, the Bureaudiscussed and decided on matters related to the judicialmanagement of the Chambers, the support rendered bythe Court Management Section to the Trial and AppealsChambers, and the budget for the Chambers SupportSection and Appeals Unit. It held regular meetings withthe Registrar on matters relating to the overallcoordination of the work of the Tribunal.

77. The Bureau reviewed the recommendations of theOffice of Internal Oversight Services in its report onfee-splitting and the exchange of gifts between counseland accused and other improper practices at theTribunal’s Detention Facility (A/55/759) and madesuggestions to the Registrar on the manner in whichsome of those concerns might be dealt with.

IV. Office of the President

78. The President of the Tribunal is JudgeNavanethem Pillay and the Vice-President is JudgeErik Møse.5

Rulings and reviews

79. During the period under review, the Presidentreceived a request from an indigent Appellant, inaccordance with article 12 of the Directive onAssignment of Defence Counsel for a review of theRegistrar’s decision denying his request for assignmentof co-counsel chosen by him. On review, the decisionof the Registrar was reversed for the reason that theaccused had not received notification of the applicableformality. The Registrar subsequently filed a request tothe President to reconsider her decision. The requestwas denied.

80. At the request of two indigent accused persons,the President reviewed two of the Registrar’s decisions,in accordance with article 19 (E) of the Directive. Inthese cases, the Registrar’s decisions denying theaccused persons’ requests to withdraw their assignedcounsel were affirmed.

14

A/56/351S/2001/863

81. Following an ex parte application from theProsecutor, the President ordered the continuedincarceration of the convicted prisoner Jean Kambandain the Detention Facility ICTY for a period of sixmonths. At the expiry of that period, a subsequentapplication from the Prosecutor was granted to extendthis order for a further six months. The President alsogranted two other ex parte applications made by theProsecutor for the incarceration of convicted prisoners,Omar Serushago and Georges Ruggiu, at the Tribunal’sDetention Facility in Arusha for a period of six months.In all three cases, the Prosecutor submitted that theconvicted prisoners had expressed their willingness tocooperate with her Office and to testify as witnesses intrials pending before the Tribunal.

Designation of States in which convictedpersons will serve their sentences

82. Mali, Benin and Swaziland have signedagreements to enforce sentences handed down by theTribunal.

83. Three convicted prisoners, Jean-Paul Akayesu,Clement Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, will betransferred to state prisons to serve their sentences assoon as a treaty between the United Nations and theState concerned is finalized and the detention facilitiesare completed.

Proposal on the issue of compensation forvictims

84. During the period under review, the President, onbehalf of the judges, submitted a proposal to theSecretary-General on the issue of compensation forvictims of the events that took place in Rwanda in 1994over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The judgesagree with the principle of compensation for victims,but believe that the responsibility for processing andassessing claims for compensation should not lie withthe Tribunal, but with other agencies within the UnitedNations system. In that regard, the proposal putforward three options for consideration.

Compensations for persons wrongfullyprosecuted or convicted by the Tribunal

85. The President submitted a proposal to theSecretary-General for the amendment of the Tribunal’sStatute to provide for the compensation of personswrongfully prosecuted or convicted by the Tribunal,with the request that the proposal be transmitted to the

Security Council for consideration (S/2000/925,annex).

The creation of a pool of ad litem judges

86. On 9 July 2001, the President submitted aproposal to the Secretary-General, for the creation of apool of ad litem judges to serve in the Tribunal(A/56/265-S/2001/764, annex). The proposal aims toincrease the Tribunal’s judicial activity and contains adraft amendment to the Tribunal’s Statute to allow forad litem judges to serve on the Tribunal and to formpart of the existing Trial Chambers. If the proposal isadopted, the Tribunal’s judicial productivity isexpected to double.

Meetings with diplomats, governmentrepresentatives and representatives of non-governmental organizations and universities

87. During the period under review, the Presidentheld meetings with 15 government representatives fromvarious Member States. The discussions covered aseries of issues, including the achievements of theTribunal, as well as the problems it experienced in itsdaily operations. The President requested the support,cooperation and assistance of the States concerned andraised the possibility of persons convicted by theTribunal serving their sentences in the prisons of thoseStates.

88. The President also held meetings with delegationsfrom various universities, institutions and NGOs fromdifferent parts of the world. Issues discussed includedthose relating to the research assistance that may beprovided to the Tribunal. The President secured thesponsorship for the second judges’ seminar by theGovernment of Ireland and Trinity College. All judgesfrom both ICTR and ICTY will participate in theseminar.

Conferences

89. The President, the Vice-President and the judgesparticipated variously in the following meetings:

• On 28 and 29 July 2000, the Presidentparticipated in the Conference organized by theCenter for Legal Action on Human Rights and theInternational Human Rights Law Clinic at theWashington College of Law, AmericanUniversity, Washington, D.C., where she

15

A/56/351S/2001/863

presented a paper entitled “War Crimes, Genocideand other Crimes against Humanity”;

• From 6 to 10 September 2000, the Presidentparticipated at the seventeenth Congress of theInternational Federation of Women in LegalCareers, held at Toledo, Spain, where shepresented a paper entitled “Women in ArmedConflicts”;

• The President, the Vice-President and the judgesof the Tribunal participated in the ICTR andICTY Judges Seminar held from 30 September to1 October 2000 in Ascot, United Kingdom,initiated by the United Nations Office of LegalAffairs and hosted by the Government of theUnited Kingdom;

• The President participated in the InternationalConference on Perspectives for Research andPolicy Making, held in Bonn, Germany, from 14to 16 December 2000, where she presented apaper entitled “Facing Ethnic Conflicts”.

Practice Directions issued by the President

90. During the period under review, the President, on24 April 2001, after consultations with the Bureau, theRegistrar and the Prosecutor, issued a PracticeDirection on the withdrawal of pleadings. The PracticeDirection simplifies and shortens the procedure forwithdrawal of pleadings by providing that it is notnecessary for a party seeking to withdraw a motion, acounter-motion or a response to a motion to file afurther motion requesting leave from the Trial Chamberfor such a withdrawal. Instead, the party may do so byfiling a Notice of Withdrawal with the Registry or byoral submission to the Trial Chamber if the case isbefore the Trial Chamber.

V. Office of the Prosecutor

91. The Prosecutor is of the view that the aim of herOffice is to investigate the most serious crimes withinthe jurisdiction of the Tribunal, to indict thoseindividuals that are alleged to be responsible for thosecrimes and to prosecute them diligently and inaccordance with the highest international standards.

A period of reorientation

92. During the period under review, the Office of theProsecutor continued to implement and refine itsestablished strategy of investigating new cases,preparing existing cases for trial and conducting trialsbefore the Trial Chambers. At the same time, theperiod was one of considerable reorientation for theOffice.

93. The Prosecutor undertook a substantialreorganization of the structure and control ofinvestigations and embarked upon a major programmeof recruitment of new personnel. In this process, shefocused her attention on the balance of resourcesbetween the needs of investigations in Kigali and thecomposition of trial teams in Arusha.

94. The Prosecutor was especially concerned with thestandard and quality of the presentation of prosecutioncases at trial, an issue that has implications for allstages of investigation, for the preservation of evidenceand for the conduct of prosecutions themselves.

95. New systems were introduced within the Officegoverning the formal opening of investigations, theassignment of Senior Trial Attorneys to oversee anddirect ongoing investigations and the allocation, tonamed individuals, of the responsibility for thepreparation and conduct of investigations andprosecutions.

96. The Prosecutor believes that a key to the smoothpresentation of cases in court is well-organizedevidence collection. A particular need was identifiedfor improving the storage, indexing and retrieval ofitems of evidence held by the Office. Evidencecollection was therefore consolidated in Arusha and asuitable secure location was prepared to house it. Aspecial project was also undertaken, with the assistanceof the Evidence Unit of ICTY, to recruit staff toundertake a comprehensive audit of the holdings and ofthe various protocols governing the handling andproduction of documents and other items of evidence.

97. Significant changes in key personnel were alsomade among the senior prosecution staff which had anunavoidably unsettling effect on prosecution work.However, efforts were made to minimize their adverseimpact on those prosecution teams with cases at trialbefore the Trial Chambers.

98. Reorganization of the Appeals Section in theOffice of the Prosecutor was also undertaken during the

16

A/56/351S/2001/863

period under review. The Prosecutor believes that itwould be beneficial to have staff from both theTribunal and ICTY co-located in an Appeals Sectionand able to work together. Since the Appeals Chamberdeals with cases from both Tribunals, common legalissues often arise and similar arguments may berequired to be prepared and presented. Key questionson such important legal issues as the intent requirementfor genocide, cumulative convictions, review ofproceedings as well as admission of additionalevidence on appeal have been dealt with in both ICTRand ICTY appeals. As the workload of the AppealsSection increases, the advantages of avoidingduplication of effort and being able to use existingresources flexibly are obvious. The Prosecutortherefore determined that for a trial period of one year,the best arrangement was for the majority of herappeals staff to be stationed in The Hague. Certainposts were retained in Arusha, to form the necessarylinks between the appellate work and the trial teamsfamiliar with all the details of the proceedings at firstinstance.

99. The period under review saw an evolution in therelationship between the Office of the Prosecutor andthe authorities of Rwanda. While regular contactscontinued to be established with the Government inKigali at a working level, particularly through theOffice of the Prosecutor General, Mr. Gérard Gahima,the Prosecutor also met with President Kagame onseveral occasions. In addition she had numerousmeetings with the Minister of Justice and with theMilitary Auditor. The basic feature of all thesemeetings was an increased openness on the part of theProsecutor to inform the authorities of Rwanda of thenature of the work conducted by her Office and toexplain the policy behind the activities of herinvestigators. As a result, a greater flow of informationand a higher level of understanding, coordination ofefforts and cooperation were achieved.

100. The Prosecutor stressed her understanding of theneed to make the work of the Tribunal relevant to thepeople of Rwanda and reiterated her desire to holdparts of trials in Kigali. She helped to facilitate theprovision of international assistance for therefurbishment of the premises of the Supreme Court ofRwanda, with a view to that court being suitablyequipped to accommodate the Tribunal’s hearings.

101. The Prosecutor also consistently expressed herdesire to see victims and survivors of genocide being

given a greater voice in proceedings before theTribunal. She also expressed her hope that the Tribunalwould have more scope to provide for compensationfor victims, possibly linked to the freezing of assets ofpersons convicted by the Tribunal. These ideas, whichwould involve consideration of changes to the Statuteof the Tribunal, were presented to the Security Council.The Prosecutor also explored with certain NGOs thepossibility of their seeking to be heard by the TrialChambers on behalf of victims.

102. The Office of the Prosecutor also increased thelevel of cooperation, extended both formally andinformally, to authorities of countries other thanRwanda by seeking assistance in the investigation andprosecution of crimes committed in Rwanda.

Investigations

103. The Prosecutor is of the view that theInvestigations Division in her Office is empowered tointerrogate suspects, interview witnesses and victims,take witness statements and gather evidence againstpresumed perpetrators of crimes, falling under thejurisdiction of the Tribunal. For reasons of security andconfidentiality, the present report cannot give details ofongoing investigations or of the suspects who are theobjects of the Prosecutor’s attention. In general terms,however, current investigations are concerned, interalia, with central and local government figures,members of the armed forces, militias and civildefence, prominent businessmen and intellectuals,members of the clergy and certain media figures. TheTribunal’s mandate also allows the Prosecutor toinvestigate allegations of crimes committed bymembers of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) in theaftermath of the genocide in 1994.

Reorganization of the Investigations Division

104. The Investigations Division has a staff of 120 andis one of the most important components of the Officeof the Prosecutor. Its organization and operations havea tremendous impact on the activities of the Tribunal asa whole.

105. Under the new organizational chart, the Divisioncomprises four Investigation Units, each headed by aCommander. The Investigation Units were assignednew duties by category. Each Unit is divided intoinvestigation teams under a Team Leader. Certainteams fall directly under the Director of Investigations,

17

A/56/351S/2001/863

because of the nature of their duties. Such is the casefor the Tracking and Special Investigations teams.

106. Under the direction of one of the InvestigationsCommanders, the Investigations Division hasintroduced a Witness Management Team, designed todeal with the often sensitive task of establishing andmaintaining contact with witnesses during the earlystages of a case. At the later trial stage, it is theRegistry, and not the Office of the Prosecutor, whichorganizes the transport and appearance of witnessesbefore the Trial Chambers. A priority for the WitnessManagement Team is therefore the creation of anintegrated system for meeting the needs of witnesses.

107. The composition of the investigation teams wasstreamlined such that each team has a Legal Adviser, aCriminal Analyst, a Sexual Assault Investigator, aLanguage Assistant and a secretary. A centralizedAnalysis Unit, headed by a Senior Analyst, assisted bythree analysts, summarizes the evidence, coordinatesoperations and prepares summary reports for the Officeof the Prosecutor.

108. Since the Akayesu judgement, investigations ofsexual violence have been expanded. Experience hasshown that assigning a sexual assault investigator toeach team resulted in greater efficiency. Hence, duringthe reorganization, the Sexual Assault Team wasdecentralized. However, a core unit is still in place toprovide coordination and supervision, as this is ahighly sensitive and complex domain.

109. A special team within the Investigations Divisiontracks the whereabouts of accused persons who are stillat large. The Tracking Team was divided into twogroups, on a geographical basis. One group coversEurope and North America, while the other coversAfrica. During the period under review the TrackingTeam was placed under the direct supervision of theProsecutor and the Director of Investigations.

110. A special investigation team was also establishedas part of the reorganization of the InvestigationsDivision.

Operations of the Investigations Division

111. In the period covered by the present report, theoperations of the investigations teams covered NorthAmerica, Western Europe, central and western Africa,as well as eastern and southern Africa. Over 620

witnesses have been interviewed and 594 witnessstatements obtained.

112. In addition to conducting new investigations, theinvestigation teams were also engaged in performingthe significant task of supporting the trials in progress.Owing to the scale of the prosecutions and the complexnature of the Tribunal’s cases, many issues arise in thecourse of a trial as the evidence unfolds and as thedefence case emerges. Many of these questionsgenerate additional enquiries and the investigativeteams are frequently required to perform urgent tasksfor the Senior Trial Attorneys in court. These tasks takethe form of additional investigations and evidence-gathering regarding accused persons already arrestedand currently being tried in Arusha as well as theprotection of and assistance to witnesses preparing totravel to Arusha to testify in court. Furthermore, duringthe trial preparation phase, investigators have played anactive role in surveying crime scenes and analysing thedocumentary evidence obtained from searchesfollowing the arrest of accused.

Operations of the Tracking Team

113. Steps were taken to streamline the procedures forthe authorization of missions and, given the number ofmissions undertaken in Europe, negotiations havebegun with the authorities of Belgium with a view toopening a field office for the Prosecutor in Brussels.

114. Four suspects and accused were arrested in twoAfrican countries: Samuel Musabyimana, an Anglicanbishop, was arrested in Nairobi on 26 April 2001.Simeon Nsamihigo, who is alleged to have been theDeputy Prosecutor of Cyangugu, was arrested on 19May 2001 in Arusha. Sylvestre Gacumbitsi and JeanMpambara, both of whom are alleged to have beenbourgmestres, were arrested on 20 June 2001 inKigoma, United Republic of Tanzania.

115. Numerous rogatory commissions in several Stateshave led to the identification and seizure of many bankaccounts belonging to accused persons being sought bythe Tribunal. During the period covered by the presentreport, many searches have been conducted in severalcountries.

116. The Rewards Programme for War CrimesInformation, sponsored by the Government of theUnited States of America, offers new opportunities fortracking down the Tribunal’s suspects and accused. Theprogramme offers a reward of up to $5 million to

18

A/56/351S/2001/863

anyone who gives information leading to the locationand arrest of a person wanted by the Tribunal.Accordingly, a direct telephone line is being set upwithin the Investigations Division through which alltelephone contacts will be channelled.

Operations of the Special Investigations Team

117. The new organizational chart contains a newlycreated Special Investigations Team, in charge ofspecial investigations. During the period under review,the team’s operations were intensified and should leadto the indictment of additional persons responsible forserious violations of international humanitarian lawcommitted in the territory of Rwanda between 1January and 31 December 1994.

Cooperation with Interpol

118. The Investigations Division management hasendeavoured to increase cooperation with Interpol. Forits part, Interpol has trained three investigators incriminal intelligence analysis. About 15 red noticesregarding the Tribunal’s fugitives have been forwardedto Interpol for distribution throughout its wide channelsof communication.

Other activities of the Investigations Division

119. The Prosecutor is of the view that, given thenumber of potential suspects and the relatively limitedresources of her Office, a careful selection of targetsfor investigation has to be made. Of necessity a veryhigh cut-off level has been set for those cases selectedfor prosecution at the international forum. TheProsecutor’s investigative strategy has focused fromthe outset on those suspects in the highest positions ofleadership and authority and on those who are allegedto have taken the most prominent roles in the events.Special attention is given to crimes of sexual violence.

120. In February 2001, the Prosecutor prepared anestimate of the investigative workload for the comingyears, involving a total of 136 new accused persons.The Prosecutor anticipated that in 2001 she wouldpresent indictments for confirmation against 29accused. In each of the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 itwas estimated that 30 new indictments would bepresented. By the end of 2004 the InvestigationsSection should therefore have finished most, or all, ofits work on new cases, but it will not be until the end of

2005 that the remaining 17 indictments will bepresented.

121. The Prosecutor’s estimate is therefore that by2005 the Trial Chambers will have before them all theindictments that are going to be issued by the Office ofthe Prosecutor. The Prosecutor will then be able toreport to the Security Council that the Prosecutor’sinvestigative mandate has been fully discharged.However, not every indictment will result in a separatetrial: a maximum of 136 new indicted accused mightmean 45 new trials.

Legal Advisory Section

122. Legal advice and direction is provided to theinvestigators by a team of seven Legal Advisersworking under the supervision of a Senior LegalAdviser. These lawyers are based with the investigatorsin Kigali and also have responsibility for finalizing theresults of investigations and for the preparation of theresulting draft indictments. During the reportingperiod, the Prosecutor introduced an importantclarification between the roles of the Legal AdvisorySection in Kigali and that of the Senior Trial Attorneysin Arusha. Henceforth, the overall responsibility for thedirection of an investigation will lie with a Senior TrialAttorney specifically assigned to the case when theinvestigation is formally opened. While the LegalAdvisory Section will continue to give day-to-dayadvice to the teams and will continue to prepare thedraft charges against the suspect, the finalresponsibility for the form of the indictment and for itspresentation to a judge for confirmation will lie withthe Senior Trial Attorney in question, who will beaccountable to the Prosecutor and to the Chambers forthe conduct of the case.

Prosecutions

123. According to the Prosecutor, delays to the start ofmany trials in the preceding year were caused bypreliminary legal issues, many of which had to beresolved by way of interlocutory appeals in theAppeals Chamber. The period under review thereforerepresents a welcomed increase in the number of trialproceedings before the Trial Chambers. The“Cyangugu” case (The Prosecutor v. Andre Ntagurera,Emmanuel Bagambiki and Samuel Imanishimwe) beganon 18 September 2000. The period under review alsosaw the start of what will be the most important series

19

A/56/351S/2001/863

of trials before the Tribunal, namely the prosecution ofthe leading government, military and media figures.

124. On 30 October 2000, the accused TharcisseMuvunyi was transferred to the custody of the Tribunalby the authorities in the United Kingdom, and on 8November 2000 pleaded not guilty to the chargesagainst him. His arrival was followed on 25 November2000 by the transfer of Innocent Sagahutu after hisarrest in Denmark. He also awaits trial after pleadingnot guilty to all the charges against him at his initialappearance held on 28 November 2000. Bishop SamuelMusabyimana was arrested in Nairobi on 26 April 2001and was transferred immediately to the Tribunal’sDetention Facility in Arusha. He pleaded not guilty toall the charges against him at his initial appearanceheld on 2 May 2001.

125. Within the Office of the Prosecutor, a great dealof activity took place in respect of cases in which thetrial itself had not yet begun. Within the trial teams,steps were taken to recruit case managers and legalofficers in order to build up the strength of theprosecution team and to improve the capacity of theteams to discharge the Prosecutor’s pre-trial andcontinuing duties concerning disclosure of informationto the defence. Many preliminary legal issues are dealtwith in advance of the trial by way of written motions.This work, which often attracts little public attention,paves the way for the hearing of evidence before theTrial Chamber. The Prosecutor, however, remains eagerto examine new ways of further narrowing down thecontested issues at trial and of speeding up the actualtrial process. More work needs to be done to eliminateunnecessary and distracting problems concerning theadmissibility of evidence before the Trial Chambersand to streamline the process of leading evidencebefore the trial judges.

Appeals

126. During the period under review, briefs were filedand appeals were heard in the Kambanda case (June2000); the Kayishema-Ruzindana case (October 2000);the Akayesu case (November 2000); the Musema case(May 2001). Written proceedings in interlocutoryappeals continued in the Semanza and Barayagwizacases. By the end of the period, there was only onepending appeal where the filing of briefs had notended, namely the Rutaganda case. During the period,the Appeals Chamber rendered judgements in the

following cases: Kambanda, Serushago, Akayesu, andKayishema-Ruzindana.

127. The Prosecutor is of the view that these firstjudgements by the Appeals Chamber provide importantguidance on numerous substantial legal and proceduralissues. The clarification of such issues as the definitionof genocide, the intent requirement for crimes againsthumanity and the scope of persons who can be heldresponsible for war crimes in internal armed conflictsremove uncertainties about the law which have causeddifficulties in framing indictments and the presentationof cases. Important guidance has also been provided onsentencing issues. Further, the judgements have settlednumerous procedural issues relevant to the dailyconduct of trials and it is therefore expected that trialsin the future will run more efficiently.

VI. The Registry

128. The Secretary-General appointed Adama Dieng(Senegal) as Registrar of the Tribunal effective 1March 2001, following the completion of the four-yearterm of office of Agwu Ukiwe Okali (Nigeria) asRegistrar.

129. The Registry continues to administer and servicethe Tribunal with an emphasis on the provision ofeffective judicial and administrative support to theChambers and the Office of the Prosecutor, as well asreforms in the strategies and management systemsutilized in providing such support. In this context, atthe request of the Registrar, a comprehensivemanagement review of the organizational structure andstaffing of the Tribunal was undertaken by a team ofsenior officials from the Secretariat at Headquartersfrom 21 May to 1 June 2001.

130. Although the Tribunal’s staffing strength has beenadequate in some areas, it has been severely inadequatein others. The Tribunal has therefore had to resort tothe temporary redeployment of significant numbers ofposts from one organizational unit to another in orderto meet operational needs, especially in the Registry,where most of the structural and staffing problems havebeen identified. These problems include that of theuneven structural linkages of posts and the under-graded levels of posts in the Registry relative to thefunctions and responsibilities assigned to such posts,with a resulting negative impact on staff recruitmentand retention.

20

A/56/351S/2001/863

131. The management review thus assisted theTribunal in assessing the functionality of its currentorganizational structure and allocation of staffresources. Its recommendations to the Registrar wereincluded in the Tribunal’s budget proposals for thebiennium 2002-2003.

Office of the Registrar

132. The Office of the Registrar remained a keymechanism in the formulation and implementation ofoverarching policy initiatives in the Registrar’s roles inadministration, judicial support and the Tribunal’sexternal relations.

Enforcement of sentences

133. During the reporting period, on 31 August 2000,the United Nations signed an Agreement with theGovernment of the Kingdom of Swaziland on theenforcement of sentences of the Tribunal. Swazilandthus became the third Member State, following Beninand Mali, to commit itself to enforcing the Tribunal’ssentences. Agreements were also successfullynegotiated with two other Member States, with formalsignings expected to take place in the near future.

134. With the completion of the judicial processes in anumber of cases that were on appeal, the practicalenforcement of the Tribunal’s sentences has become apressing matter. There is, however, a practical problemunique to the Tribunal: the need to obtain resources toupgrade facilities and contribute to the costs ofenforcement of sentences in African countries that haveagreed to assist the Tribunal in this area but do nothave the financial resources to do so. The GeneralAssembly in the period under review appropriated tothe Tribunal the sum of $250,000 to enable it to assistin the refurbishment of prison facilities where itsconvicted persons would be transferred to serve theirsentences.

Public information activities

135. Building on its work during the previousreporting period, the Press and Public Affairs Unit hascontinued to ensure the widest possible disseminationof timely, accurate and complete information about themandate, organization and achievements of theTribunal to the press, the international community,professional milieux and the general public. A strategicand proactive approach to communicating the work of

the Tribunal, targeting the Tribunal’s variousconstituencies, including Governments and NGOs, hasbeen utilized by the Office of the Registrar.

136. The international visibility of the Tribunal is thusmuch higher and its image is fundamentally positive,judging from objective indicators received fromvarious continents. The situation in this sphere of theTribunal’s operations has been enhanced as a result ofthe recruitment of qualified personnel, the institution ofeffective organizational operating structures andinfrastructure, and the systematic application of a clear,proactive and effective public communication strategyby the Tribunal management. The result has been muchgreater global awareness, understanding and supportfor the judicial work of the Tribunal and its widersignificance in terms of the evolution of theinternational system. That improvement has beenparticularly marked in Rwanda, where the Tribunal’sgeneral public information programme iscomplemented by various activities under the aegis ofthe Outreach Programme.

137. The principal vector of information for thegeneral public is the press. Some 380 journalists areaccredited to the Tribunal and a total of around 650journalists and media organizations are included on theTribunal’s mailing lists for distribution of pressreleases and other materials by fax and, increasingly,by email. The list which contains a total of over 1,200addresses, also includes 77 United Nations informationcentres, which themselves distribute the Tribunal’spress releases to their own mailing lists in theirrespective countries. Other important stakeholders andmultipliers of information such as the permanentmissions of Member States in New York, all embassiesin Dar es Salaam and Kigali, human rightsorganizations and other relevant NGOs, university lawschools and research institutes are included in themailing lists.

138. A total of 15 journalists are permanently based atthe Tribunal, working in the Press Centre, which wasinaugurated in 1999. They represent three main pressagencies working in English, French, Kiswahili andKinyarwanda and provide correspondent services forall of the major international agencies as well asreports for the Rwandan, Tanzanian and regionalmedia. Nairobi is the regional media hub for EastAfrica and the venue where the Tribunal frequentlyorganizes press conferences. Missions outside the dutystation provide opportunities for interviews of senior

21

A/56/351S/2001/863

officials of the Tribunal with the national andinternational press of the country concerned. Suchmissions include visits to the Headquarters in NewYork, to Europe or to countries with which the Tribunalhas concluded agreements for the serving of sentencesby persons whom it may convict.

139. The Tribunal’s web site has undergone continuousdevelopment and improvement throughout thereporting period. New staff recruited in both theElectronic Data Processing/Management InformationSystems Unit and the Press and Public Affairs Unitenable the site to be continuously monitored andupdated. The layout of the site has been simplified andclarified, providing easy access for users of all levels tothe information they require. There is a wide range ofgeneral information and the texts of judgements areposted when authoritative texts become available. Acomplete archive of the Tribunal’s press releases since1996 has been created. Other developments haveincluded an expanded section for the library, a specialpage of materials of interest to defence lawyers and asection of documents in Kinyarwanda.

140. The Press and Public Affairs Unit has produced arange of high-quality printed information materialsincluding brochures, leaflets in four languages(English, French, Kinyarwanda and Kiswahili), postersand a handbook for journalists. These items, which areregularly updated, are distributed to all visitors to theTribunal and to delegates to conferences at whichmembers of the Tribunal speak, including recentconferences in Kampala, Nairobi, Oslo and Utrecht.They have also been used to support exhibitions held inKigali, Brussels and Nairobi.

Visitors to the Tribunal

141. The Tribunal continued to receive numerousvisitors during the period under review. Theprogrammes of these visitors — 15 representatives ofGovernments, as well as numerous representatives ofNGOs, professional associations and academicinstitutions — were planned and implemented by theprotocol service of the Office of the Registrar.

Outreach Programme to Rwanda

142. In order for the prosecution of the personsresponsible for the 1994 genocide to contribute tonational reconciliation in Rwanda, as envisaged by theStatute of the Tribunal, it is essential that the Rwandan

people, and in particular their political leaders andother opinion-shapers such as the media, have anunderstanding of and confidence in the work of theTribunal. This implies a sustained and effective publicinformation programme to explain the role and thework of the Tribunal and its relevance to Rwanda.However, for a number of reasons, reliance solely ontraditional public information activities such as thosereferred to above would not suffice to ensure thesuccessful delivery of such information within thecountry itself. The Outreach Programme was thereforeconceived as a series of proactive projectscomplementary to the main public informationactivities of the Tribunal.

143. Given the high level of illiteracy in Rwanda, thelow penetration of television and the limitedavailability of newspapers, the most effective form ofmass communication is undoubtedly the radio. Withadditional support from a donor, the Tribunal hasenabled a journalist from Radio Rwanda to be basedpermanently in Arusha to cover Tribunal proceedings.Judgements and other major events are transmitted livevia a dedicated telephone link to Radio Rwanda inKigali for broadcast within the country.

144. On the occasion of major events, such as thedelivery of judgements, Appeals Chamber sittings andthe opening of new trials, groups of up to sixjournalists are brought to the Tribunal by Tribunalaircraft from Kigali. In October 2000, the OutreachProgramme enabled a journalist from Radio Rwanda totravel to The Hague to report on the Appeals Chamberjudgement in the Kambanda case.

145. The focal point for the Outreach Programme isthe Tribunal’s information centre Umusanzu muBwiyunge in Kigali, which was inaugurated on 25September 2000. It is located in a building donated bythe Government of Rwanda and situated in the centreof Kigali. Heavy use is made of all the facilities in thecentre by a wide spectrum of Rwandan society. In thefirst three months of 2001 the centre received over6,000 visitors. Its Internet access (eight computers arecurrently available), the library and the collection ofvideo archives of Tribunal hearings are particularlypopular with its users. A steadily increasing range ofdocuments in Kinyarwanda is also available. Otheractivities such as press conferences, briefings and afilm show have taken place at the centre. Otheractivities planned include a seminar for journalists,

22

A/56/351S/2001/863

computer-assisted legal research training and anexhibition on the work of the Office of the Prosecutor.

146. In September 2000, a group of 20 Rwandanjudges from courts throughout the country attended aweek-long seminar organized by the Tribunal at its seatin Arusha. Two professors from the NationalUniversity of Rwanda at Butare were enabled to carryout research at the Tribunal in Arusha and an annualprogramme of internships for students of the Universityhas been instituted and is now in its second year.

147. The impact of such direct contact is considerableand almost all participants report that theirmisconceptions about the Tribunal have been dispelledand that they now have a much better understanding ofthe challenges it faces. Another measure of the successof these actions is that the authorities of Rwanda areeager to continue such visits, both of the judiciary(including prosecutors) and of other sections of civilsociety. These will include parliamentarians, regionaland local government administrators, senior civilservants and members of the Unity and Reconciliationand Human Rights commissions. This programme ofvisits will be maintained and developed, ensuring asgreat a diversity as possible among participants and, inparticular, selecting participants from among opinionleaders.

Gender issues and assistance to victims

148. During the period under review, a supportprogramme was set up to provide rehabilitation andcounselling to victims. Five Rwandan NGOs wereselected because of their presence at the communitylevel and their capability to extend the programme tovarious préfectures, to carry out the rehabilitation andcounselling. The programme is managed by the Genderand Assistance to Victims Unit in the Office of theRegistrar and began operations in 1999. Collaborationwith local NGOs thus complements the work of theRegistry in the area of witness support.

149. In the context of the support programme, abooklet titled “Testifying before the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for Rwanda” was produced in threelanguages (Kinyarwanda, French and English) topermit witnesses and potential witnesses to understandthe court proceedings, their rights as well as theirobligations. The booklet serves ordinary Rwandanpeople, witnesses and potential witnesses, many ofwhom have never participated in judicial proceedings

and who are likely to face difficulties in understandingand participating in the relatively complex judicialprocesses of an international criminal jurisdiction.

150. The Gender and Victims Assistance Unit seeks topromote gender balance in the Tribunal’s recruitmentprocess and has also maintained contacts with somedonors and other United Nations agencies with regardto the Trust Fund. In that connection, a paper on fund-raising strategy was produced and, subsequently, abriefing session on project formulation was organizedfor senior officials of the Tribunal with a view toconsolidating fund-raising strategies.

A. Judicial and Legal Services Division

1. Chambers Support Section

151. The existence of the Chambers Support Sectionas an independent section was occasioned by theperceived need to assist the Trial Chambers in theircore functions of researching and writing decisions andjudgements and to render direct assistance for theimmediate needs of the judges. The Chambers SupportSection assists the judges of the Trial Chambers andAppeals Chamber in the preparation of decisions,orders and judgements. The Section consists of lawyerswho are conversant with current national andinternational humanitarian law and who possess a highlevel of skill in the drafting of legal documents.

152. The Section is now headed by two Senior LegalOfficers and has a Jurist Linguist who assures theintegrity of the translations of the judgements anddecisions issued by the judges; three Trial ChamberCoordinators who coordinate the immediate judicialwork of the Trial Chamber; and Associate LegalOfficers who assist the individual judges to whom theyare assigned.

153. The Section is also developing a career structurethat will feature a promotion ladder for the professionaldevelopment of Associate Legal Officers, allowing theSection to attract and retain incumbents of these verydemanding posts.

154. In 2000, the three Trial Chambers produced some200 written and oral decisions: up to the middle of2001, the Chambers had given over 150 written andoral decisions. Each decision entails considerable pre-processing of the motions filed by the parties as well asresearch on the history of the matter and on the

23

A/56/351S/2001/863

relevant jurisprudence. After the initial judicialdeliberations, drafts of decisions are usually preparedand discussed, amended in the light of thesediscussions and recirculated for further deliberation.Depending on the complexity of the issues raised byeach motion, the process of preparing decisions mayproceed through several drafts until the judges aresatisfied with the results. Thus, the figures providedabove reflect the result of a process that may haveinvolved three or four times as many documentarydrafts and weeks of research on each issue.

2. Court Management Section

155. The current reporting period has beencharacterized by a vast increase in court time relatingto trials, resulting in the simultaneous use of all threecourtrooms for trial sessions for the first time. Theperiod has witnessed an intense revision andstreamlining of internal court management procedures,resulting, among other things, in the forward monthlypublication of the Judicial Calendar on the Tribunal’sweb site.

156. The three operational teams created in March2000 to support each Trial Chamber have beenstrengthened. With the benefit of additional humanresources, the court management coordinators have putnew procedures into practice which provide greatersupport to the Trial Chambers and the parties. Thehandling of the work of the three Trial Chambers byindividually assigned teams has provided increasedefficiency in court management operations. Amongother things, it has allowed for readily accessiblepending motions lists, more efficient liaison with theTrial Chambers and parties with regard to schedulingmatters as soon as they arise, the possibility of a rollingcalendar for each Trial Chamber which can beintegrated into the consolidated judicial calendar forofficial publication before the beginning of the month,closer supervision of the service of documents onparties, and the consolidation of correspondencerelating to each case into a common Registry-widecorrespondence file which is scanned into the TRIMdatabase. The team approach to servicing a TrialChamber has enabled increased participation in therevision of work practices at all levels, with anincreased focus on the provision of training to all teammembers.

157. The eighth plenary session, held in June 2000,adopted rule 117 bis, allowing for parties to file

documents either at The Hague or in Arusha. Thisdevelopment required a revision of all operatingsystems and resulted in the establishment of a courtmanagement subunit within the Appeals ChamberSupport Unit at The Hague. Furthermore, the AppealsUnit in Arusha, formerly operating entirely withborrowed posts, has now benefited from two postsestablished by the General Assembly in the Tribunal’sbudget for 2001, while the remainder of the teamconsists of staff under general temporary assistance. Asa result of these developments, a mirror of courtmanagement functions in Arusha is fulfilled by theTribunal’s Registry staff at The Hague, including adual filing system.

158. The electronic record keeping system, TRIM,continues to improve access to the judicial records anddigitization continues on a daily basis. Training ofusers throughout the Tribunal, providing help-deskservices and the development of documentation in theuse of TRIM continues. Work has been initiated toenable remote external users to access the judicialdocuments via the Internet. These users will includethe Appeals Unit at The Hague, the Office of theProsecutor in Kigali and the general public.

159. The audio-visual collection has seen majorimprovements in the method of storage andarrangement. The plan to digitize these records is welladvanced and will improve the preservation of therecords.

3. Court Reporting Unit

160. During the reporting period, two supervisors havejoined the English and French pools of reportersrespectively and have made an encouraging start inestablishing a roster system of teams within eachlanguage pool covering the courtrooms. The additionalstaff has allowed for a revision of standard practices. Aplan for the harmonization and upgrading of equipmenthas been devised, together with a comprehensivetraining programme. The production of in-housereference manuals is under way, as are regular briefingsand other training initiatives aimed at increasingaccuracy and turnaround time. A 48-hour turnaroundtarget for court transcripts is consistently being met,although the continued achievement of this target issubject to the maintenance of staffing levels at thebudgeted level of 24 Court Reporters. A feasibilitystudy regarding the production of transcripts in “realtime” is under consideration. Concerted efforts have

24

A/56/351S/2001/863

been made to retain staff and innovative advertisingavenues have been explored, resulting in all 26 postsbeing fully encumbered in May 2001 despite the highattrition in this area.

4. General Legal Services Section

161. During the period under review, the Section hascontinued to provide legal advice to the Tribunal onwide-ranging issues involving the Tribunal and thirdparties.

Agreements and contracts

162. The Section has advised and participated in thenegotiation and successful conclusion of two newagreements: an agreement between the United Nationsand the Government of the United Republic ofTanzania on the expansion of the Tribunal’s DetentionFacility in Arusha, and an agreement between theTribunal and the Seventh-Day Dental Health Services(United Republic of Tanzania) for the provision ofdental health services to the staff members of theTribunal.

163. During the reporting period the Section alsoreviewed the contract between the Tribunal and RajairTravel and Tours for the provision of travel agentservices to the Tribunal.

Legal advisory services

164. As in-house counsel to the Tribunal, the Sectionrendered legal advice on a wide range of issuesaffecting staff members, such as labour-related issuesinvolving staff members and their domestic workers,landlord/tenant and lease agreements entered intobetween staff members and other local suppliers ofessential services such as electricity and water, androad traffic accidents, some of them fatal, involvingstaff members and third parties.

165. The Section also reviewed and advised on anumber of administrative and management decisionsaffecting staff members, in particular in relation to thejob classification exercise undertaken by the Tribunalduring the reporting period.

Warrants of arrest

166. During the period under review, warrants of arrestwere successfully executed in respect of the followingpersons:

• Samuel Musabyimana, arrested in Kenya on 26April 2001 (case No. ICTR-2001-62-I);

• Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, arrested in the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania on 20 June 2001 (case No.ICTR-2001-64-I);

• Jean Mpambara, arrested in the United Republicof Tanzania on 21 June 2001 (case No.ICTR-2001-65-I);

• Simeon Nshamihigo, arrested in the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania on 19 May 2001 (case No.ICTR-2001-63-I).

Coordination of the ICTR InternshipProgramme

167. A total of 135 internship applications from 22countries (Benin, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark,Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Netherlands,New Zealand, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka,Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda,United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, UnitedStates of America and Zambia) were reviewed, with105 accepted and placed as interns with varioussections and units of the Tribunal. In addition, 33 moreplacements have been made up to 30 April 2002.

168. The internship programme has made positivetwo-way contributions to the Tribunal and sponsoringuniversities and other organizations. However,concerns about the low numbers of interns fromAfrican countries resulted in a grant from theUniversity of Notre Dame, Illinois, United States ofAmerica, to the Tribunal to cover the expenses ofAfrican students/ lawyers who may not be able toparticipate in the programme due to financialconstraints. The grant was made available by the OpenSociety Institute to enable young African lawyers togain practical experience in the public sector domainand acquire first-hand experience in the field ofinternational criminal justice, human rights andinternational law. To date eight African students andlawyers from the United Republic of Tanzania (4),South Africa (1), Benin (1), Uganda (1) and Kenya (1)have benefited from the grant.

5. Witness and Victims SupportSection-Prosecution (WVSS-P)

169. On 7 March 2000, the Witnesses and VictimsSupport Section was divided into two subsections,

25

A/56/351S/2001/863

namely WVSS-P (prosecution witnesses only) andWVSS-D (defence witnesses only).

170. The current reporting period has seen the largestnumber of witnesses that testified before the TrialChambers since the Tribunal commenced itsoperations. This trend will continue and it is expectedthat the number of prosecution witnesses will increaseas a number of new trials start in the coming months.

171. During the period under review, WVSS-Pproduced a total of 93 prosecution witnesses in sixdifferent trials, of which 15 have been detainee-witnesses from various prisons within Rwanda, 3 havebeen expert witnesses and 3 have been unprotectedwitnesses. The remaining 72 witnesses have all beenprotected witnesses.

172. For the first time, WVSS-P, in conjunction withthe Office of the Prosecutor, arranged for a depositionto be taken from a witness in hospital who was unableto appear before the Trial Chamber due to illness.

173. The Section is continuing its post-trial monitoringactivities in Rwanda, as the vast majority of protectedwitnesses for the prosecution come from there. Asincreasing numbers of witnesses are being called totestify before the Trial Chambers, the Kigali office ofWVSS-P is also receiving more witnesses and a greatdeal of preparatory work has to be undertaken. Manywitnesses are receiving counselling and medicalassistance.

174. WVSS-P continues to build on negotiatedcooperation with Member States for the issuance oftemporary travel documents to allow witnesses totravel to and from Arusha. The assistance the Tribunalreceives from the Government of the United Republicof Tanzania is continuous and facilitates the smoothentry and exit of witnesses through KilimanjaroInternational Airport at Arusha.

175. WVSS-P, in conjunction with the Electronic DataProcessing/Management Information Systems Sectionof the Division of Administration, is developing acommon database that will allow for greater efficiencyand security of information with respect to witnessesand their movements. During the period under reviewthe staffing level of the Section was increased, to dealwith its vastly increased workload.

6. Witness and Victims Support Section-Defence(WVSS-D)

176. During the reporting period WVSS-D intensifiedits post-trial monitoring activities in the countries ofresidence of the witnesses appearing before theTribunal. Many witnesses also enjoyed a wide range ofassistance aimed at improving their psychologicalrehabilitation. Throughout the period the Sectionpursued a vigorous policy of building a long-termframework of cooperation with many countries wherewitnesses may reside. Efforts are under way to attractmore countries to accept for relocation in theirterritories witnesses who may find themselves at risk asa result of having testified before the Tribunal.

177. The Section also successfully enlarged itsnetwork of countries willing to cooperate with theTribunal in the area of witness protection management.This proactive policy has resulted in significantachievements, including the ability of witnesses totravel to the Tribunal, irrespective of their status in thecountries in which they live. During the period underreview, WVSS-D brought to and returned from Arushaa total of 19 witnesses who testified in two trials.Those witnesses came from 11 countries in Africa and4 countries in Europe. In many of the cases, WVSS-Dhad successfully negotiated with the Governmentconcerned the issuance of temporary travel documentsfor the witnesses. Most of the witnesses were refugeesin the countries in which they lived. Without thecooperation of countries such as Benin, the Congo,France, Kenya, Mauritania, Mozambique, Swaziland,Rwanda, the United Kingdom and Zambia, none of thewitnesses would have been able to testify before theTribunal. The Government of the United Republic ofTanzania also provided continuous assistance withregard to the facilitation of the entry and exit of thewitnesses.

178. WVSS-D has enjoyed excellent cooperation withthe regional offices of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees, which have assisted theTribunal in facilitating the movement and protection ofwitnesses in countries such as Benin, the Congo,Kenya, Swaziland and Togo.

179. WVSS-D has also completed an OperationalGuidance Manual that will serve as a reference bookfor defence counsel and experts in the field of witnessprotection, in the context of international criminaljustice.

26

A/56/351S/2001/863

180. The approach adopted by WVSS-D in themanagement of its operations is characterized by theenhancement of the skills and career development of itspersonnel. A training programme for staff of theSection covering English language training, firearmsqualification and closed circuit television training hasbeen successfully completed.

7. Lawyers and Detention Facilities ManagementSection

181. In accordance with the minimum guaranteesafforded to an accused and in the interest of justice, 22counsel were assigned by the Lawyers and DetentionFacilities Management Section to represent indigentaccused persons during the period under review,bringing the number of counsel currently assigned bythe Tribunal to 72. These counsel come from Belgium,Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, theDemocratic Republic of the Congo, France, Guinea,Italy, Kenya, Mauritania, the Netherlands, Togo,Tunisia, the United Kingdom, the United Republic ofTanzania and the United States. Defence counsel play avital role in providing legal representation to accusedpersons appearing before the Tribunal.

182. The Section faced several challenges during theperiod under review, including the rationalization ofthe legal aid scheme for indigent accused, in the lightof concerns expressed by Member States with regard tothe rising costs of the scheme; the provision of supportfor defence teams and the maintenance of anappropriate and effective regime for the TribunalDetention Facility; investigations of claims ofindigence by detainees; and administrative controlsrelating to the recruitment of defence teams.

Rationalization of legal aid

183. The Section has had to balance the reality ofbudget constraints against the need to avoid prejudiceto indigent accused persons. In this regard, a proposednew system of payment to defence counsel is underreview by the Registrar. New guidelines on theselection of co-counsel have been established in orderto reduce the possibilities for abuse of the system. Witha view to reducing costs, the Section has restricted thetravel of defence assistants and investigators to thecoordination meetings between members of the defenceteam and the accused in Arusha, as well as to hearingsand trials.

184. Conflicts between defence teams and their clientshave become an increasing feature at the Tribunal.Several defence teams are facing difficulties with theirclients resulting from allegations of violations of thecode of ethics, lack of competence, lack of cooperationand loss of confidence. Such tensions between counseland client have ultimately led to requests forwithdrawal of counsel emanating from the accused. Insome instances, accused persons have requested thewithdrawal of their co-counsel, although the relevantrule provides that these requests may only be made bylead counsel. During the period under review, five leadcounsel were withdrawn for reasons constitutingexceptional circumstances; one of these was dischargedas a sanction for lack of full-time availability to thecase of her client, in breach of the lawyer’s undertakingto the Tribunal upon assignment as defence counsel.Nine co-counsel were withdrawn, five of whom weredischarged on similar grounds.

Enforcement and revision of regulations of theUnited Nations Detention Facility

185. In the light of the findings and recommendationsof the 1 February 2001 report of the Office of InternalOversight Services on the investigation into possiblefee-splitting arrangements between defence counseland indigent detainees at the Tribunal and ICTY(A/55/759), the Registry has taken a number ofmeasures to streamline the regulations of the DetentionFacility, with a view to curbing the offering by defenceteams of expensive gifts to detainees. An importantmeasure instituted recently in this context is thesystematic search of defence assistants andinvestigators visiting the Facility.

Investigation of claims of indigence

186. It is recognized within the Tribunal that theRegistry’s ability to make fully informed decisions onclaims of indigence by detainees depends on its havinga significant investigative capacity for this purpose. Atpresent, the Tribunal does not have adequate humanresources to conduct such investigations and hasrequested such resources in its budget submissions inthe past without success. It is essential, asrecommended by the Office of Internal OversightServices in its report, that posts for the position ofinvestigators with asset-tracking experience be grantedto the Registry by the General Assembly for thepurpose of effective investigation of claims of

27

A/56/351S/2001/863

indigence by detainees prior to the assignment ofdefence counsel at the Tribunal’s expense. In theinterim, the Registry has transmitted letters to theauthorities of various Governments requesting theircollaboration in tracing whether the suspects oraccused apprehended within their borders have anyfixed or current assets. However, a response has beenreceived from only one Government.

Administrative oversight of recruitment ofdefence teams

187. While members of defence teams, such asdefence investigators, are not staff members of theTribunal, but independent contractors hired by defencecounsel, the Tribunal has taken measures to ensuremore effective administrative control over theirrecruitment before approving such appointments. Allprospective defence investigators are now required toprovide an undertaking that they are not relatives ofany detainee of the Tribunal. Security screening ofpotential investigators has been markedly increased bythe Registry with the assistance of relevant nationalauthorities.

8. Legal Library and Reference Section

188. The Legal Library and Reference Sectioncontinued to expand its range of services and increaseits collection of books and other materials during theperiod under review. The Library endeavours to bemore proactive and efficient in its informationdissemination process by using electronic delivery, atrend that meets the requirements of the Tribunal’sAdministration for paper reduction.

189. New electronic products were acquired (onlinedatabases, electronic dictionaries, etc.) through theUnited Nations Consortium of Libraries. Theseservices are being made accessible to all staff on theLibrary’s web page, which has been continuouslydeveloped since its creation in 2001.

190. A major achievement in the activities of the LegalLibrary and Reference Section during the reportingperiod was the production of a bilingual CD-ROMentitled “ICTR Basic Documents and Case Law1995-2000”. In addition to featuring the Tribunal’sdecisions and basic texts, the CD-ROM also containsUnited Nations documents on the Tribunal and variousother Tribunal publications. Some 1,800 documents canhenceforth be retrieved by browsing or by searching

the CD-ROM. This significant development hasdefinitively solved the problem of the inadequateavailability of the Tribunal’s judicial decisions andother documents previously experienced by researchersand other individuals and institutions interested in thework of the Tribunal.

191. Since November 2000, the Legal Library andReference Section has been part of the network ofUnited Nations small and field libraries, an initiativeled by the Dag Hammarskjöld Library at Headquarters.Regular discussions are held in which experience isshared among information professionals in the UnitedNations system on the mailing list of the UnitedNations Special Interest Group on Library andInformation Services (List-serve).

192. The Library has also continued to publish anddistribute its flagship publication The ICTR LibraryQuarterly Bibliography both in print and electronically.The number of requests for selected dissemination ofinformation (SDI) and reference questions hascontinued to grow steadily, following an increase instaff in all sections of the Tribunal. The appointment ofa new staff member during the period under review hasenabled the Library to address the growing numbers ofinformation queries, although additional humanresources are needed to speed up the information-processing mechanism.

B. Division of Administration

193. The Division of Administration is primarilyresponsible for providing services for all activities ofthe Tribunal in the areas of human resourcesmanagement, budget, finance, language and conferenceservices, general services, transport, communications,information technology, security services, procurementand buildings management services. The Division isunder the overall direction of the Registrar and theimmediate managerial supervision of a new Chief ofAdministration, who was appointed in September 2000.During the period under review, the Divisionimplemented numerous organizational initiatives, aswell as various other measures to enhance theprovision of support services to the Chambers andOffice of the Prosecutor.

194. The General Assembly in its resolution 54/240 Aof 23 December 1999 appropriated US$ 86,154,900gross ($78,170,200 net) for the Special Account for the

28

A/56/351S/2001/863

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for theperiod from 1 January to 31 December 2000. Thisbudget authorized 810 posts, an increase of 38 postsover the previous year. In 2000, total expenditureamounted to $83,144,800 gross ($75,817,300 net) andresulted in an unencumbered balance of $3,010,100gross ($2,352,900 net).

195. Voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund tosupport the activities of the International CriminalTribunal for Rwanda was established pursuant toGeneral Assembly resolution 49/251 of 20 July 1995and in response to Security Council resolution 955(1994) of 8 November 1994. During the period underreview, the Tribunal, through its Trust Fund, providedfunding and resources to support numerous newprojects that were directly related to the fulfilment ofits mandate. These programmes include theconnectivity of the evidence database softwareapplications; the conversion of documents into a digitalmedium; a project for the preservation of evidentiarymaterials of the Office of the Prosecutor; acquisition ofequipment for the reproduction of courtroom exhibits;and funding for a trial strategy workshop organized theOffice of the Prosecutor for its legal staff. To date, cashcontributions to the Voluntary Fund from 19contributors have amounted to $8,051,522. As at 31December 2000, the Tribunal’s Trust Fund reserve andfund balance totalled $3,382,923 net. An income of$705,837 and a 13 per cent programme support cost of$57,200 were recorded for the period under review andthe approved appropriation for the year amounted to$939,039.

Information technology

196. While the Administration continued to pursuesubstantive reform and improve the efficiency as wellas the cost-effectiveness of its operations, efforts wereprimarily focused on the enhancement andmodernization of the Tribunal’s information andcommunication technology systems.

197. In the area of information systems technology, theTribunal sought to automate as many routineoperational functions as feasible. Thus, themanagement of the Finance Section was greatlyenhanced by the adoption and customization of apayroll and accounting system patterned after that ofthe United Nations Office at Nairobi. Similarly, theinstallation of an updated version of the SunAccounting System significantly streamlined the

accounting functions of the Tribunal. Additionally, thefeasibility of automating certain administrativefunctions in the personnel area such as the installationof the Field Personnel Management Systems wasexplored with a view to reducing staffing requirements.Significant changes that reduced the workload ofvarious sections included the implementation of anonline help desk, an electronic method of processingeducation grants, a classification rating sheet, and theinstallation of the performance appraisal system (PAS)on the Tribunal’s network. In the area of procurementservices, effective 1 January 2001, the Tribunalintroduced the Reality procurement managementsoftware package, which is used within the UnitedNations system for processing requisitions andpurchase orders for the procurement of goods andservices. The Procurement Unit also initiated andcompiled a procurement plan, thus facilitating bulk andconsolidated purchases for Arusha and Kigali.

Communications

198. The Tribunal began procurement of the audio-visual equipment for the third courtroom. As at 31December 2000, while the majority of the highlysophisticated equipment had been installed, certainmanufacturers had not met proposed deadlines fordelivering the required components due to lack ofavailability. It is anticipated that all the remainingminor parts will be secured and installed in the nearfuture and that the three courtrooms would be equippedwith similar audio-visual capabilities.

199. During the period under review, the Tribunaladdressed its recurrent communications connectivityproblems by initiating negotiations with the FieldAdministration and Logistics Division of theDepartment of Peacekeeping Operations atHeadquarters to increase its bandwidth by directing anadditional satellite through the United NationsLogistics Base in Brindisi, Italy. In Arusha numerousother activities were completed in line with the thrustof the ICTR Administration to overhaul the Tribunal’scommunications systems. These activities included,inter alia: the centralization and installation of a newtelephone network, the installation of a new telephoneexchange at the United Nations Detention Facility, theimplementation of a new telephone billing softwarepackage, the nearly completed installation of thevoicemail component of the PABX system and the

29

A/56/351S/2001/863

issuance of updated telephone directories for Arushaand Kigali.

200. In its effort to further the effective managementof Tribunal resources, ICTR closed its communicationscompound in Kigali, resulting in monthly savings of$5,000 for the Tribunal. Additionally, the installationof 75 telephones for the new prefabricated offices wascompleted. During the reporting period, theCommunications Unit in Kigali also providedcommunication support for the new ICTR Informationand Documentation Centre and routine maintenance forcountrywide communications for the Security andSafety Section and for the Investigations Division(Office of the Prosecutor).

Security and Safety Section

201. In the areas of security and safety, a review of thephysical security at the Tribunal’s headquarters wasundertaken, with a view to identifying areas withinsecurity operations where the improvement of technicalsecurity was required. As a result of the review,extensive improvements are planned, such as theinstallation of an electronic access control system.Once the system is installed, all staff members will beissued a coded identification card that willautomatically allow the bearer to gain access toTribunal premises. This initiative will reduce thenecessity to employ contract-security services and willalso result in substantial savings.

202. The reporting period also saw an increase in theoffice space required to accommodate new staffmembers. As the Tribunal’s offices are now located intwo wings of the Arusha International ConferenceCentre, the demand for additional Security Officers hasin part been reduced by the installation of a 32-cameraclosed circuit television system. From the Tribunal’saround-the-clock control centre, Tribunal SecurityOfficers can monitor and control many areas wherestaff and equipment are located. An upgrade in thesystem for a further 16 cameras is planned for the nearfuture.

General Services Section

203. During the period under review, the GeneralServices Section focused on consolidating andreinvigorating the work of the various units under itspurview. In the area of official travel, the processing ofthe PT.8 form was automated to improve the timeliness

of travel authorizations. Greater emphasis has beenplaced on the control of the Tribunal’s assets and theunit responsible for this control, the Property Controland Inventory Unit, has undertaken a completeinventory by recording 6,000 non-expendable andspecial items. A central database has been implementedin all self-accounting units. Additionally, in order toprovide adequate support to the Office of theProsecutor in its inventory efforts, frequentconsultations are held with the Kigali office tofacilitate a comprehensive and accurate overallTribunal inventory database.

Buildings Management Unit

204. Buildings management services (BMS) werecarried out during the period under review, completingsuch major projects as the construction of a log-base,the establishment of a BMS workshop and storesfacility, the refurbishment of additional offices on fourfloors acquired from the Arusha InternationalConference Centre, the renovation of the InformationCentre (Umusanzu mu Bwiyunge) in Kigali, theconstruction of additional visitors/lawyers booths at theUnited Nations Detention Facility and the completionof a new parking area at the Amahoro compound. Twoadditional projects, the erection of 75 prefabricatedoffices and the completion of a perimeter fence wallaround the Kigali compound, were also finalizedduring the reporting period. These projects have solvedthe office accommodation problems previouslyexperienced by the Tribunal’s Kigali office.

Human resources management

205. In the area of human resources management, theTribunal encountered daunting challenges during theperiod under review. As at 30 April 2001, the Tribunalhad a total incumbency of 716 staff members against872 authorized posts; i.e. 156 vacancies, resulting in avacancy rate of 18 per cent. In terms of geographicaldiversity, a total of 84 countries were represented in theTribunal’s staffing, 41 countries from outside Africaand 43 from the continent. With regard to genderrepresentation at the Professional level, of a total of258 Professionals, 72 were female and 186 male staffmembers. At the P-5 level and above, 2 out of 19 staffwere female, amounting to a ratio of 11 per cent of thetotal incumbency of those posts. Unfortunately, theTribunal continues to experience a high attrition andseparation rate. In 2000, the Tribunal lost 83 staff

30

A/56/351S/2001/863

members, and by 30 April 2001 had lost 13 staffmembers through resignations, non-extension ofcontracts, retirement, etc. From a human resourcesmanagement perspective, this attrition rate has adverseeffects on the vacancy rate and recruitment strategies.

206. A two-year contractual arrangement for theTribunal’s staff was introduced, beginning 1 January2001. The new arrangement is expected to attract andretain the best-qualified candidates, thus impactingpositively on the vacancy rates and reducing thePersonnel Section’s workload generated by the one-year contractual cycle.

207. With regard to human resources development andtraining at the Tribunal, a total of 93 courses wereconducted in 2000. As at 30 April 2001, a total of 47courses had been conducted so far during the year. Thetraining courses offered are in areas as orientation,processing of entitlements, language development,security issues, the performance appraisal system andinformation technology. In addition, in 2000, 172candidates sat for pre-employment examinations.Between 1 January and 30 April 2001, 414 candidateswere tested.

208. During the period under review, a new supportstructure was established in the human resourcesmanagement area. The Information and RecordsManagement Unit was created to address extrachallenges of information management in the PersonnelSection. Its primary responsibility is the managementof the official status files and personnel records, thestaffing table, implementation of the electronic recordsmanagement system, provision of internal controlfunctions (implementation of audit reports),computerization of the operations of the PersonnelSection, and the preparation of quarterly and annualreports. To date, several information management andcomputerization projects have been initiated.

209. The computerization of the personnel proceduresin the Tribunal was initiated in 2000 through, inter alia,the implementation of the Field Personnel ManagementSystem. The system has improved the efficiency andaccuracy of personnel actions, statistics and relatedissues. Some of the noteworthy modules of thedatabase cover: selection and recruitment, staffmanagement, post management, personnel actions,leave records, travel, performance reports, medicalrecords and look-up tables.

210. Another important achievement in the area ofhuman resource management was the additionaldelegation of authority granted to the Tribunal in 2000over the following areas of administration: educationgrant, language proficiency, benefits and allowancesand delegation of authority in classification matters.The Office of Human Resources Management atHeadquarters was required to monitor theimplementation of this delegation of authority on aregular basis, through on-site monitoring missions tothe Tribunal. A monitoring mission was expected totake place in the course of 2001.

VII. Conclusion

211. The period under review saw a remarkableimprovement in the performance of the Tribunal. Thework of the Tribunal has accelerated and its output hasmultiplied. Six trials involving 15 accused were inprogress during the period, with all three TrialChambers actively engaged in trials. In addition to thetrial activities, the Trial Chambers have ruled on alarge volume of pre-trial and interlocutory motions.The Tribunal has demonstrated its ability to render fairand expeditious justice, with full respect for the rightsof the accused, as well as due regard for the protectionof victims and witnesses.

212. Through its jurisprudence, the Tribunal hasshown that international criminal justice is a reality andthat the establishment of an internationally recognizedsystem of justice provides a new avenue of recourse ina world that desperately needs the rule of law, as analternative to the use of force. The Tribunal plays asignificant role in developing internationalhumanitarian and criminal law, as many of thesubstantive legal issues adjudicated by its TrialChambers have not been decided before, and thisemerging jurisprudence will serve as precedent andimpetus for the International Criminal Court and thejudicial Tribunals being established by the UnitedNations for Sierra Leone and Cambodia.

213. During the period under review, the Tribunal had48 accused in custody who are either currently beingtried or are awaiting trial. From the investigativestrategy outlined by the Prosecutor, it is estimated that,by 2005, 136 new accused will be appearing before theTribunal. The Prosecutor alleges that these people heldthe highest positions of leadership and authority andplayed prominent roles in events falling within the

31

A/56/351S/2001/863

jurisdiction of the Tribunal. If these projectionsmaterialize, a drastic increase in the workload of theTribunal will ensue, and even with its present resourcesoperating at full capacity, the Tribunal will not be in aposition to complete these trials in a reasonable timeand in accordance with the rights of the accused,particularly the right to be tried without undue delay.Further, because of their alleged positions and rolesduring the events of 1994, the trials of these suspectsare expected to be factually and legally complex, whichcould result in lengthy trials.

214. The President, the judges and the Registrardiscussed this projected workload at length during theperiod under review and agreed that the Tribunal wouldbe better equipped to handle this workload if thecomposition of judges were increased. The Presidentsubmitted a proposal in that regard to the Secretary-General, to be forwarded to the Security Council forconsideration. An amendment of the Tribunal’s Statutewas proposed to allow for the creation of a pool of 18ad litem judges, with a maximum of 9 judges at theseat of the Tribunal at any one time. The intention isthat some of the ad litem judges would form additionalsections within the existing Trial Chambers tocommence hearing the outstanding cases and to attendto pre-trial and interlocutory matters. These judgesmight also substitute for judges unable to continuesitting in part-heard cases, for reasons such as ill-healthor because it was procedurally or ethically undesirablefor the substituted judge to sit in a particular case.

215. Besides its judicial work, the Tribunal remainsactively seized of the process of national reconciliationin Rwanda, by carrying out various outreachprogrammes within the territory of Rwanda, includinga programme involving the dissemination ofinformation concerning the activities of the Tribunalwith a view to explaining to the Rwandan people therole of the Tribunal in relation to the events of 1994that led to the killing of hundreds of thousands ofpeople. Several other initiatives are being consideredfor the purpose of bringing the judicial process closerto the people of Rwanda. This will afford them theopportunity to be a part of this process and to witnessthe perpetrators of the atrocities in their country beingheld accountable for their actions. These initiatives,together with the ongoing work of the Tribunal, willcontinue to heal and reconcile the Rwandan nation.

216. The present report is submitted by the Presidentof the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to

the Security Council and the General Assembly, inaccordance with article 32 of the Statute of theTribunal.

Judge Navanethem PillayPresidentInternational Criminal Tribunal for RwandaArusha, United Republic of Tanzania31 July 2001

Notes

1 Article 11 of the Tribunal’s Statute, as amended byannex II to Security Council resolution 1329 (2000).

2 President’s Order of 1 June 2001 on the assignment oftwo judges to the Appeals Chamber.

3 Trial Chamber I comprised Judge Erik Møse (presiding),Judge Asoka de Zoysa Gunawardana and Judge MehmetGüney.

4 Security Council resolution 1329 (2000).5 At the tenth plenary meeting of the judges, on 31 May

2001, Judge Pillay and Judge Møse were re-electedPresident and Vice-President, respectively, for a secondterm.