Marc Nerenberg

The accused was charged under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act with genocide and crimes against humanity for allegedly participating in the 1994 Rwandan genocide by intentionally killing Tutsis during attacks in the Kibuye region.

Numerous witnesses described massacres at Mugonero hospital and subsequent attacks in Gitwe, Murambi, and Bisesero.

The Crown relied on both direct eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence that the accused joined groups of attackers.

The court found serious credibility issues in several key Crown witnesses, including evidence that some allegations had been fabricated or exaggerated after investigators revealed the accused as the target of an investigation.

Given inconsistencies, unreliable identifications, and lack of corroboration, the court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the killings or materially assisted the attacks.

The accused brought a pre‑trial motion seeking an order compelling the Crown to produce a structured “livre de procès” setting out all material facts supporting each alleged criminal act and identifying the witnesses tied to those facts.

The accused argued that the exceptional measure was necessary due to the alleged complexity of the prosecution and relied on the court’s case‑management powers under the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act.

The court rejected the request, finding that the case itself was not unusually complex and that the Act applies to mega‑trials involving numerous accused and counts.

The court further held it could not restrict the Crown’s discretion to call admissible evidence where full disclosure had already been provided.

The motion was dismissed, although the Crown was ordered to provide a final witness list prior to trial.

The accused brought a motion seeking a declaration that evidence placing him within a broad geographic region during the alleged offence period should not be treated as an alibi defence requiring advance notice to the Crown.

The accused argued the indictment was too vague as to time and location to permit a specific alibi disclosure obligation.

The court held that the disclosure provided by the Crown gave sufficient detail for the accused to understand the allegations and determine whether an alibi existed for particular incidents.

The court also held that there is no freestanding right to an alibi defence and that issues regarding late disclosure must be assessed contextually when the evidence is presented.

The motion was dismissed.