Prior personal knowledge
|Appeal Judgement - 04.12.2001||
KAYISHEMA & RUZINDANA
327. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber finds that the witnesses’ personal knowledge of Ruzindana is not a prerequisite for identification.
328. As noted by the Trial Chamber, “prior knowledge of those identified is another factor that the Trial Chamber may take into account in considering the reliability of witness’ testimonies.” The fact that some of the witnesses did not personally know the accused prior to the events is not at all a sufficient reason to invalidate the testimony of a witness who identified the Accused.
 Refers to Ruzindana’s allegations in his Brief, paras. 44 and 45, para. 48 (witness PP-Muyira Hill), para. 49 (Witnesses HH and W – the Cave), para. 50 (Witness RR – the Mine at Nyiramurengo Hill), para. 56 (Witness MM – Gitwa cellule) para. 57 (Witness II – the vicinity of Muyira Hill).
 Trial Judgement, para. 71. On the probative value, see Čelebići Appeal Judgement, para. 274.
 Trial Judgement, para. 71.