## Facts

- Jean-Paul Akayesu served as bourgmestre (mayor) of Taba commune, Rwanda, during widespread violence against Tutsi civilians in April–June 1994.
- He was charged under the ICTR Statute with genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious violations of common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II, based on events in Taba commune.
- Trial Chamber I convicted him on 9 of 15 counts, including genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and crimes against humanity (extermination, murder, torture, rape, and other inhumane acts), and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
- Akayesu appealed his convictions and sentence, asserting fair-trial violations (including counsel-related complaints, bias, and evidentiary errors).
- The Prosecutor cross-appealed, contesting aspects of the Trial Chamber’s legal analysis concerning Article 4 (common Article 3/Additional Protocol II), Article 3 (crimes against humanity), and Article 6(1) (individual criminal responsibility).

## Issues

1. Whether an indigent accused’s right to free legal assistance includes a right to counsel of choice and whether counsel-related disputes required reversal.
2. Whether the Trial Chamber’s conduct and rulings demonstrated bias or otherwise rendered the proceedings unfair.
3. Whether admitting hearsay and other challenged evidence violated the rules of evidence or the accused’s fair-trial rights.
4. Whether the life sentence reflected legal error or an abuse of discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.
5. Whether asserted errors raised in the Prosecutor’s cross-appeal required changes to the Trial Chamber’s legal characterizations or outcomes, including under common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II.

## Decision

- The Appeals Chamber rejected all of Akayesu’s grounds of appeal and affirmed his convictions.
- The Appeals Chamber affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment.
- The Appeals Chamber largely dismissed the Prosecutor’s cross-appeal, while clarifying aspects of the applicable law; no additional convictions or increased sentence resulted.
- The Appeals Chamber held that free legal assistance for an indigent accused does not entail a right to select a particular assigned counsel, and limitations may be imposed in the interests of proper administration of justice.
- The Appeals Chamber held that hearsay is not categorically excluded; reliability bears on admissibility and weight, with cross-examination functioning as a principal safeguard where feasible.

## Legal Principles

- The right to counsel for an indigent accused guarantees legal assistance without charge, but not an unfettered right to choose a particular publicly funded lawyer; the tribunal may limit counsel choice to protect orderly and fair proceedings.
- Claims of counsel incompetence or changes in representation warrant relief only upon a showing that the conduct resulted in an unfair trial or a miscarriage of justice.
- Judicial impartiality is presumed; disqualification or reversal requires substantiated facts showing actual bias or an appearance of bias that would lead a reasonable observer to doubt impartiality.
- Under Rule 89(C), relevant evidence with probative value may be admitted, including hearsay; however, reliability is pertinent to whether evidence is “probative,” and evidence may be excluded if it lacks sufficient indicia of reliability.
- The opportunity to cross-examine witnesses about hearsay components of their testimony is a key protection of the accused’s fair-trial rights.
- Affirmance of convictions can, as a practical matter, confirm trial-level determinations that sexual violence may constitute genocide (as serious bodily or mental harm) and crimes against humanity when the required contextual and mental elements are proven.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Chamber affirmed Akayesu’s genocide and crimes against humanity convictions and life sentence, rejecting asserted fair-trial and evidentiary errors, clarifying that free legal aid does not include counsel of choice, reaffirming a strong presumption of judicial impartiality, and confirming that hearsay may be admissible when sufficiently reliable and subject to meaningful testing through cross-examination.


Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-A (Int’l Crim. Trib. for Rwanda June 1, 2001)