Charging an additional incident
|Appeal Judgement - 02.02.2009||
Download full document
296. Therefore, in alleging the distribution of weapons in Rushashi, the Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, the annexed witness summaries, and the Prosecution’s Opening Statement did not simply add greater detail to a more general allegation already pleaded in the Amended Indictment. Rather, these submissions expanded the charges specifically pleaded in the Amended Indictment by charging an additional incident of weapons distribution at a new location. This is an impermissible, de facto amendment of the Amended Indictment.
297. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that, as a matter of law, the Prosecution’s post-indictment communications could cure the failure to include the allegation of the Rushashi weapons distribution in the Amended Indictment and that they in fact did so. […]
|ICTR Rule Rule 50 ICTY Rule Rule 50|