|Decision on Additional Evidence - 16.09.2009||
10. […] The allocation of investigative resources is a matter of trial strategy which rests squarely within the discretion of Counsel: it cannot provide the basis for claiming that material was “not available” for the purposes of Rule 115 of the Rules. […] Finally, the Appeals Chamber is not convinced by Mr. Bikindi’s claim that ineffective assistance of counsel explains the failings in earlier investigations. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber notes that Mr. Bikindi changed Lead Counsel during the course of the trial. His suggestion that a further investigative mission would not have been approved is simply speculation.
25. The Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that Mr. Bikindi exercised due diligence in obtaining and presenting this material at trial. As stated above, the allocation of defence resources cannot justify a delay in bringing evidence before the Tribunal. While it is true that the records of the Gacaca proceedings which occurred after Mr. Bikindi’s trial were not available, Mr. Bikindi has not justified why the underlying evidence could not have been obtained at trial. Mr. Bikindi has also failed to demonstrate why he could not have raised his concerns with respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, in particular bearing in mind that he obtained a new Lead Counsel during the course of the proceedings. Finally, Mr. Bikindi made no submissions related to the availability of the evidence concerning Witness AKK’s schooling or the distances between Kayove and Kivumu.
 First Motion [Simon Bikindi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-72-A, Defence Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Bikindi's Presence in Germany, 9 June 2009], para. 33.
 See supra para. 10.
|ICTR Rule Rule 115 ICTY Rule Rule 115|