Right of equality before the Tribunal
|Appeal Judgement - 29.09.2014||
KAREMERA & NGIRUMPATSE
51. Article 20(1) of the Statute provides that “[a]ll persons shall be equal before the [Tribunal]”. The Appeals Chamber recalls that this provision encompasses the requirement that there be no discrimination in the enforcement or application of the law.
55. […] the Appeals Chamber recalls that “[i]t is beyond question that the Prosecutor has a broad discretion in relation to the initiation of investigations and in the preparation of indictments”. This discretion is not unlimited, but must be exercised within the restrictions imposed by the Statute and the Rules.
56. The Appeals Chamber observes that the Prosecution alleged that Ngirumpatse made arrangements with Bagosora to obtain weapons for the Interahamwe on 11 April 1994, and that Bagosora was not charged for this particular event. However, the Appeals Chamber rejects Ngirumpatse’s contention that this fact alone could substantiate an allegation of unequal treatment.[…]
 See Delalić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 605 (addressing a mirror provision in Article 21 of the ICTY Statute), referring to Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 75 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
 Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-AR73.4, Decision on Karadžić’s Appeal of Trial Chamber’s Decision on Alleged Holbrooke Agreement, 12 October 2009 (“Karadžić Appeal Decision of 12 October 2009”), para. 41; Akayesu Appeal Judgement, para. 94; Delalić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 602.
 Karadžić Appeal Decision of 12 October 2009, para. 41; Delalić et al. Appeal Judgement, paras. 602, 603.
 See Indictment, paras. 38, 39. See also [Karemera and Ngirumpatse] Trial Judgement, paras. 716, 739, 740, 1450(1). The Appeals Chamber addresses elsewhere Ngirumpatse’s contention that this allegation was placed “[o]n or about 10 April 1994”, and that this was inconsistent with the Trial Chamber’s finding that the distribution of weapons took place on 11 April 1994. See infra para. 366.
 See generally Bagosora et al. Trial Judgement.
|ICTR Statute Article 20(1) ICTY Statute Article 21(1)|