¹ Mushikiwabo, Louis, Remarks at the Commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide, United Nations (March 5, 2015), http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=7572.Google Scholar

² See Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt [OLG], Case No. 5-3 StE 4/10 - 4 - 3/10, 2014 (Feb. 18, 2014) [hereinafter Judgment of February 18, 2014].Google Scholar

³ See The Trial-Monitoring Programme of the International Research and Documentation Centre for War Crimes Trials (ICWC), Monitoring Report No. 2, Philippe-University Marburg 1 (last visited Mar. 5, 2015), available at https://www.uni-marburg.de/icwc/monitoring/monitoring-prozessbeobachtung-marburg-frankfurt-olg-onesphore-r.Google Scholar

⁴ Kroker, Patrick, Universal Jurisdiction in Germany: The Trial of R. before the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt, 54 Ger. Yearbook of Int'l L. 671 (2011).Google Scholar

⁵ See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 220a. StGB since has been embodied in the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (VStGB - Statute of International Criminal Law). Because the older version was in place when the massacre was committed, and the new law is not more lenient, R. was charged based on the older version. An English version of the Statute is available at https://www.mpicc.de/files/pdf1/vstgbleng2.pdf.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Press Release, OLG Frankfurt (Feb. 18, 2014), available at https://olg-frankfurt-justiz.hessen.de/irj/OLG_Frankfurt_am_Main_Internet?rid=HMdJ_15/OLG_Frankfurt_am_Main_Internet/nav/d44/d4471596-ad85-e21d-0648-71e2389e4818,d7012aab-1bf3-4417-9cda-a2b417c0cf46„,11111111-2222-3333-4444-100000005004%26_ic_uCon_zentral=d7012aab-1bf3-4417-9cda-a2b417c0cf4b%2boverview=true.htm&uid=d4471596-ad85-e21d-0648-71e2389e4818.Google Scholar

⁷ Those to come but also the already ongoing trial against Ignace M. and Straton M. before the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Wistinghausen, Natalie von, VStGB und Strafverfahren; Beweisaufnahme und Angeklagtenrechte, in Völkerstrafrechtspoutik 199, 201-02 & 208-09 (Christoph Safferling & Stefan Kirsch eds., 2014); Hansen, Florian, Zwischenbericht zur Verfahrensbeobachtung im Strafverfahren gegen R. vor dem Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, in Völkerstrafrechtspoutik 433, 435.Google Scholar

⁹ See Safferling, Christoph, et. al. Das Monitoring-Projekt des Forschungs- und Dokumentationsientrums für Kriegsverbrecherprozesse (ICWC), Marburg, in Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 564 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Training Manual for Human Rights Monitoring 285 (2001); Trial observation tor Criminal Proceedings 4 (International Commission of Jurists ed., 2009).Google Scholar

¹¹ See Hansen, supra note 8, at 435.Google Scholar

¹² See id. at 436.Google Scholar

¹³ In addition, it has a highly complicated historical background. This will not be examined here because it is beyond the scope of this article.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. StGB § 6, in Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch 1 (Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, & Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen eds., 2013); Volkmann, Caroline, Die Strafverfolgung des Völkermordes nach dem Weltrechtsprinzip im Internationalen Strafrecht und im Völkerstrafrecht 37 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See supra note 5.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Kroker, supra note 4, at 673.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. I BGs 100/94, 1994 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ] 14, para. 232 (Feb. 13, 1994).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Nevertheless, the Generalbundesanwalt shuts down investigation based on universal jurisdiction if a domestic link is missing due to the principle of opportunity {Opportunitätsprinzip) to avoid a violation of a state's sovereignty. Cf. Generalbundesanwalt, Juristische Zeitung (JZ) 311 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. id. Google Scholar

²⁰ See Wistinghausen, von, supra note 8, at 199.Google Scholar

²¹ See OLG, Case No. 2 Ausl A 175/07 (Nov. 6, 2008).Google Scholar

²² See Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, ICTR - Trial Chamber III, Case No. ICTR-97-36-R11bis (May 28, 2008); see also Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, ICTR - Appeals Chamber, Case No. ICTR-97-36-R11bis (Oct. 8, 2008).Google Scholar

²³ The jurisprudence of the ICTR referring to this has changed since December 2011. As a result extraditions to Rwanda have been declared legitimate. Cf. Prosecutor v. Uwikinid, ICTR - Referral Chamber, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-R11bis (June 28, 2011); Prosecutor v. Uwikindi, ICTR - Appeals Chamber, Case No, ICTR-01-75-AR11bis (Dec. 16, 2011); Ahorugeze v Sweden, ECHR App. No. 37073/09 (Oct. 27, 2011); Kroker, supra note 4 at 676.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Wistinghausen, von, supra note 8, at 200.Google Scholar

²⁵ See BGH, Case No. 3 BJs 10/08-2 (May 14, 2009).Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. Ritscher, Christian, Die Ermittlungstätigkeit des Generaibundesanwalts zum Völkerstrafrecht: Herausforderungen und Chancen, in Völkerstrafrechtspolitik, 223, 228 (Christoph Safferling & Stefan Kirsch eds., 2014).Google Scholar

²⁷ See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 1, supra note 3.Google Scholar

²⁸ An English version of the Code is available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/index.html (last visited Mar. 5, 2015).Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 28, supra note 3.Google Scholar

³⁰ Cf. supra note 5.Google Scholar

³¹ See BGH, Case No. GSSt 1/07 (Jan. 17, 2008).Google Scholar

³² Cf. Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras. 134-208; see also infra Section C.IV.1.Google Scholar

³³ Cf. Prosecutor v. Gatete, ICTR - Trial Chamber III, Case No. ICTR-200D-61-T (Mar. 31, 2011); Prosecutor v. Gatete, ICTR - Appeals Chamber, Case No. ICTR-00-61-A (Oct. 9, 2012).Google Scholar

³⁴ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 621.Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras. 620 & 731.Google Scholar

³⁶ He is both a linguist and a lawyer and belongs to the staff of the renowned “Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung.” He did a lot of research in Rwanda as well. See infra, Section C.V.2.a) (describing further details on his reports).Google Scholar

³⁷ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 623; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 2 & 3, supra note 3.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 734.Google Scholar

³⁹ See id. at para. 624.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See id. at paras. 625 and 764–65. Cf. BGH, Case No. 1 StR 168/96, 1996 NStZ, 434-35 (May 19, 1996); BGH, Case No. 4 StR 369/11 (Aug. 10, 2011).Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 765. This, however, comes close to circular reasoning; the court did not undertake any investigations in that matter because it had already come to the conclusion that R. was not a perpetrator for the former reason.Google Scholar

⁴² See StGB §§ 25–27.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Fischer, Thomas, § 25, in Strafgesetzbuch mit Nebengesetzen para. 2 (62th ed. 2015).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See id. at para. 5.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Fischer, supra note 43, at paras. 2–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Roxin, Claus, Straftaten im Rahmen Organisatorischer Machtapparate, 110 Goltdammer's Archiv für Strafrecht 963, reprinted in Crimes as Port of Organized Power Structures, 9 J. of Int'l Crim. Just. 193 (2011).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Joecks, Wolfgang, § 25, in Münchner Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch para. 133 (Wolfgang Joecks et al. eds., 2d ed., 2011).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ States are one of the two historically interesting areas of that concept, the other being organized crime in which this concept might be applied. See Joecks, supra note 47, at paras. 140-52 (discussing whether or not to apply it to international concerns).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See BGH, Case No. 5 StR 98/94, BGHSt 35, 347 (July 26, 1994); see also BGH, Case No. 5 StR 281/01, BGHSt 48, 77 (Nov. 6, 2002).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Ritscher, supra note 26, at 229.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Joecks, supra note 47, at para. 5.Google Scholar

⁵² See Fischer, supra note 43; see also BGH, Case No. 1 StR 739/73, BGHSt 28, 346 (Mar. 13, 1979); see also BGH, Case No. 5 StR 492/90, BGHSt 37, 289 (Jan. 15, 1991).Google Scholar

⁵³ See the original charge. The prosecution kept to their assessment that R. was a perpetrator up to their closing statement. Cf. ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 84, supra note 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 790.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See StGB § 27.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See supra note 5.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ At least when the charge is that one killed members of the protected group. All other ways of committing genocide can possibly be considered a less grave incident leading to a minimum sentence of five years. See id. Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See StGB § 49.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See StGB § 38.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras. 775–87.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See id. at para. 788.Google Scholar

⁶² See supra Part A.Google Scholar

⁶³ See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 84, supra note 3.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 85, supra note 3.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ As the defense pointed out in their closing statement, that, e.g., trial took place on only twenty-four days, half of them being short hearings, and the average length of one day being 2.7 hours.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 739 (compensating for overlong trials by considering a part of the sentence as already served is common practice in Germany since BGH, Case No. GSSt 1/07 (Jan. 17, 2003), available at http://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/3/07/gsst-1-07.php).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG — Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1964/05, BVerfGK paras. 7, 21 (basing analysis upon previous decisions finding that trial must be held “more than once a week”); see also BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2057/05, BVerfGK paras. 7, 140 (Dec. 29, 2005); see also ECHR App. No. 49746/99 (July 29, 2004) (explaining Cevizoviv against Germany).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras. 794–804.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See id. at 804.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Safferling, Christoph, Internationales Strafrecht — Strafanwendungsrecht — Völkerstrafrecht — Europáisches Strafrecht § 4, para. 12 (2011).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 215/81, 57 BVerfGE, paras. 250, 275 (May 26, 1931); see also BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 864/81, 63 BVerfGE, paras. 45, 61 (Jan. 12, 1983).Google Scholar

⁷² See BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/10, BVerfGE paras. 133, 168 (Mar. 19, 2013); see also BGH, Case No. 3 StR 281/70, BGHSt paras. 29, 109, 112 (Oct. 10, 1979).Google Scholar

⁷³ See Lutz Meyer-Goßner, § 244, in Strafprozessordnung — Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz — Nebengesetze und Ergänzende Bestimmungen para. 13 (Lutz Meyer-Goßner & Bertram Schmitt eds., 57th ed., 2014).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Kühne, Hans-Heiner, Strafprozessrecht 792 (7th ed. 2007).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Holle Eve Löhr, Der Grundsatz der Unmittelbarkeit im deutschen Strafprozess 18 (1972); see also Beulke, Werner, Der Grundsatz der Unmittelbarkeit in der Hauptverhandiung — Neue Entwicklungen, Chancen und Anfechtungen, in Verfassungsrecht — Menschenrechte — Strafrecht — Kolloquium für Dr. Gollwitzer 1 (Reinhard Böttcher et al. eds., 2004) (regarding the principle of immediacy).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See StPO § 261; see also Eschelbach, Ralf, § 261, in Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung mit Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen 42 (Jürgen Peter Graf ed., 2d ed., 2012).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See Wistinghausen, von, supra note 8, at 200.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See Schroth, Klaus, Die Rechte des Opfers im Strafprozess 34 (2d ed. 2011).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Nemitz, Jan Christoph, Die Hauptverhandlung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Beweisrechts, in Internationale Strafgerichte, 53, 56 (Stefan Kirsch ed., 2005).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 351; see also Hansen, supra note 8, at 442.Google Scholar

⁸¹ See id.; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 63, supra note 3.Google Scholar

⁸² See Rolf Bender et al, Tatsachenfeststellung vor Gericht 49 (3d ed. 2007).Google Scholar

⁸³ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 462.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Cf. id.; see also Monitoring Report No. 13.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See id. Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 463.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See id.; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 13, supra note 3; see also Combs, Nancy Amoury, Fact-finding Without Facts — The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions 14 (2010).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See Habschick, Klaus, Erfolgreich Vernehmen 638 (2012).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ An English version of the Act is available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gvg/index.html.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See Hansen, supra note 8, at 441.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 731/80, BVerfGE paras. 64, 135, 148 (May 17, 1933).Google Scholar

⁹² See Cebulla, Manuel, Sprachmittlerstrafrecht — Die Strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer 129 (2007); see also Kranjcic, Christian, Dolmetschen im Strafverfahren: wider die Wörtlichkeit und für wirkliche Zweckorientierung (oder: Wem dient der Dolmetscher?), 31 NStZ 657, 659 (2011).Google Scholar

⁹³ See Hansen, supra note 8, at 441.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 351.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See Kranjcic, supra note 92, at 659.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Hansen, supra note 8, at 441.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See id.; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 12, 28, 52, & 62, supra note 3.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See Hansen, supra note 8, at 441.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ See BGH, Case No. 1 StR 111/02, 2003 NJW 1, para. 74 (Sept. 26, 2002).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See supra note 6.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 494; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 16, 22, 44, & 68, supra note 3.Google Scholar

¹⁰² See Hohnel, Andreas, Audiovisuelle Vernehmung trotz Zeugenschutzprogramms, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1356 (2004); see also Norouzi, Ali, Die Audiovisuelle Vernehmung von Auslandszeugen 15 (2010).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See Swoboda, Sabine, Videotechnik im Strafverfahren 177 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See Safferling, Christoph, Völkerstrafgesetzbuch und Strafverfahren, in Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch — Bilanz und Perspektiven eines „deutschen Völkerstrafrechts“ 189 (Florian Jeßberger & Julia Geneuss eds., 2013) (providing further information regarding the criteria).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See Hansen, supra note 8, at 440; see also Norouzi, supra note 102, at 20.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 27, 34, 36, 39, & 73, supra note 3.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See Bender, supra note 82, at para. 1427.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 66 & 73, supra note 3.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 446.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ See Roxin, Claus & Schünemann, Bernd, Strafverfahrensrecht Ein Studienbuch, § 27, 220–21, para. 9 (28th ed. 2014).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ But, nevertheless, there were at least some issues in this regard: The accused's wife alleged her husband was traumatized, and the defense also seemed to suppose a traumatization. Cf. Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras 595–96. The defense, however, declared that the accused was not willing to be evaluated in this regard. See id. at para. 596. Moreover, the court summoned two professors as experts for general questions on quality and credibility of traumatized witnesses or witnesses suffering from PTSS. See id. at paras. 462-66; cf. supra Section C.V.1. 1.1.Google Scholar

¹¹² See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 323. There, the court further found the expert's general estimation confirmed by one witness and by the defendant himself when he said that, after 6 April, the day of the assassination against president Habyarimana, he more and more lost control over the citizens. Nonetheless, the court explicitly stated that its persuasion would follow at first from the depictions of Dr. Hankel. Following the wording of the judgment it seems, however, that he addressed only the issue of the power and social status of Rwandan majors in general. On the other hand, he certainly reported on the history of Muvumba during the war from 1990 on and was, as a witness, also examined concerning some concrete information on the defendant. See id. at para. 211; cf. id. at para. 656–57.Google Scholar

¹¹³ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 623. Within the argumentation of the court, it is difficult to clarify the relation between the rather abstract considerations on the authority and obedience made by Dr. Hankel and more concrete evidence on concrete acts between citizens and the defendant as given by other witnesses. In any event, the court employs and somehow combines both and so repeatedly refers to Dr. Hankel's general statements on this structure of power in Rwandan communities. Cf. supra note 112.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ See supra Section C.IV.1.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ The court considered itself capable of an appropriate examination of witnesses from such a sociocultural foreign background with a different value system and a different culture of narration and communication. See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 469. But see von Wistinghausen, supra note 8, at 201; see also Hansen, supra note 8, at 442 (illustrating some of the problems of cultural differences when Rwandan witnesses are examined).Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ These are the numbers the court assumed for the time between 6 April and 18 July 1994. See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 204.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at paras. 134–208.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Cf., e.g., id. at paras. 143 & 146.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ See id. at paras. 158–159. Cf., e.g., id. at paras. 173 & 212.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ See id. at 300.Google Scholar

¹²¹ See id.; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 2 & 3, supra note 3. During the trial Dr. Hankel was asked for a second report. He delivered this second one orally as well. It concerned the question of punishability of the acts under the then law of Rwanda. See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 643.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Cf. von Wistinghausen, supra note 8, at 201 (stating that knowledge of the historical and political backgrounds of the events in question was necessary to be able to shed light on the facts of the case in order to fulfill the duty of establishing the truth as prescribed by the principles of the German criminal procedure—this duty can be deduced e.g. StPO § 244); BGH, Case No. 1 StR 54/51, BGHSt paras. 1, 94, 96 (Apr. 4, 1951); BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2628/10, 2 BvR 2883/10, 2 BvR 2155/11, 2013 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1058, 1062 (Mar. 19, 2013); see also Ritscher, supra note 26, at 223, 229.Google Scholar

¹²³ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 300 (explaining in notable length in comparison to the other paragraphs of the judgment).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Cf. Id. at para. 300.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ See id. at para. 300. These characteristics, according to the court, are impartiality, consistency, high auditability, enumeration of the employed sources, and a scientifically substantiated method.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ See id. at para. 623.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ See id. at para. 301; Cf. Id. at para. 311.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ See id. at 301.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ See id. at paras. 302–09.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ And the press—the “tageszeitung”—wrote that his level of knowledge concerning the coming to terms with the past in Rwanda was unique in Germany. See Johnson, Dominic, Ruanda-Völkermordprozess in Frankfurt: Tag 3 – Krieg um die Gutachter, available at http://www.taz.de/165728/ (last visited Mar. 5, 2015).Google Scholar

¹³¹ See Wistinghausen, von, supra note 8, at 201; see also supra note 116 (ascribing the knowledge of this context to the appropriate conduction of the trial and finding of the right judgment); cf. Ritscher, supra note 26, at 229.Google Scholar

¹³² Cf., e.g., Judgment of February 18, 2014, at paras. 656–64, 713-15 (concerning the question whether the accused might have been in a threat situation and possible regarding implications in Dr. Hankel's explanations).Google Scholar

¹³³ See BGH, Case No. 3 StR 136/56, BGHSt paras. 9, 292-93; see also Roxin, supra note 110, at 218, § 27, para. 1; see also Roxin, supra note 110, at 219, para. 2.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ See BGH, Case No. 1 StR 631/51, 2 BGHSt paras. 163, 165-66 (Feb. 29, 1952); see also BGH, Case No. 3 StR 374/52, 3 BGHSt paras. 169, 174-75 (Sept. 18, 1952); Roxin, supra note 110, at 221, § 27, para. 10.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ See Roxin, supra note 100, at para. 10.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ See id. at para. 2.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ See Roxin, supra note 110, at 386, § 45, margin number 43; cf. StPO § 261.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ E.g. BGH, Case No. 4 StR 399/58, 12 BGHSt paras. 311, 314-15 (Dec. 18, 1958); BGH, Case No. 2 StR 555/81, 1982 Strafverteidiger paras. 210-11 (Jan. 20, 1982); BGH, Case No. 1 StR 618/98, 45 BGHSt paras. 164, 166 & 182 (July 30, 1999); cf. BGH, Case No. 2 StR 367/04, 49 BGHSt paras. 347, 358 (Nov. 12 2004); Roxin, supra note 110, at 219, § 27, para. 2.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ See Schmitt, Bertram, vor § 72, in Lutz Meyer-Goßner & Bertram Schmitt, supra note 73, at para. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ See StPO § 73.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ See Roxin, supra note 110, at 222, § 27, para. 12 and at 388, § 45, para. 46.Google Scholar

¹⁴² See StPO § 24; see also StPO § 74; cf., e.g., StPO § 79.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ See StPO § 74. But see Roxin, supra note 110, at 222, § 27, para. 14; see also and Schmitt, supra note 73, at § 74, para. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ See STPO § 24.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ See supra note 130.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 2, supra note 3.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ See id. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ See id.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ See supra note 130 (describing the mainly responsible forces for the genocide in the U.S. and the then Tutsi rebels around today's Rwandan president Kagame).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ See id. Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ See id. Google Scholar

¹⁵² See supra Section C.III.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ See supra Section C.IV.2.2.2.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ See supra note 130 (equating Kagame to Stalin).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 471.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ See id. at para. 471.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ See id. Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ See id. at para. 701. The court cited a witness that worked as a prosecutor for the Rwandan state with positive statements on the independence of Rwandan justice and the phrase that he would be a “a man of the law.” See id. at para. 501. The court added it would be highly unlikely that the Rwandan state would want to intervene in foreign trials in order to reach a conviction of the accused as, in the eyes of the court, Rwanda had supported the work of the defense counsels in the trial at hand. However, von Wistinghausen made some very critical remarks an the cooperation of the Rwandan authorities from the defense perspective. See von Wistinghausen, supra note 8, at 204.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ See, e.g., Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 542. See von Wistinghausen, supra note 8, at 202-03 (elaborating on this particular problem).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ See Wistinghausen, von, supra note 8, at 202–04, 208 (providing further references and in between on problems with the dependence on cooperation with the ICTR as an international tribunal also).Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 471.Google Scholar

¹⁶² See id. Google Scholar

¹⁶³ See id. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ See id. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ See id. at para. 472.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 85, supra note 3.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 472.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ See id. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ See id.; see also Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 473 (backing this up with the report of the psychological expert Prof. Dr. “E” stating that Rwandan witnesses would not be exposed to stronger influences than witnesses from other countries or cultural backgrounds).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 475. Cf. id. at para. 485.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ See id. at para. 474.Google Scholar

¹⁷² See id. Google Scholar

¹⁷³ See id. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Cf. id. at para. 477.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ See id.; see also Judgment of February 18, 2014, supra note 2, at paras. 504-09 (discussing whether such economic interests of witnesses might have played a role in the case at hand–and rejected this idea). Thereby, the court especially paid attention to the witness reimbursement paid by the German state as this amount of money might be of a considerable level for many witnesses living in circumstances that are very poor even for Rwandan standards; Cf. id. at paras. 350, 582–83.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ See id. at para. 478. Accordingly, there it sounds rather as if Dr. Hankel only reported statements of Rwandan persons, especially prisoners, in this concern. However, in margin number 506 the court explicitly stated that this estimation was Dr. Hankel's own and independent one: There the court referred to the “information by Dr. H. …, that according to his estimation a considerable number of prisoners in Rwanda is wrongfully convicted because of false witness statements due to the fact that witnesses had accused innocent persons to have committed genocide in order to get or keep the possessions of these persons accused by them” (emphasis added).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ See id. at para. 479. A guilty person, the court said, is already found with the conviction of G. by the ICTR and also economic interests could not be seen as a convincing reason to make false accusations against the accused.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ See id. at paras. 481–82.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ See., e.g., id. at paras. 483—84 (describing a possible conspiracy against the accused—for which to exist the court as well did not see any substance).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Cf. id. at para. 487, 490-91 (concerning further arguments the long time period between the massacre and the beginning of Rwandan prosecution of the accused).Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ See id. at para. 487.Google Scholar

¹⁸² See id. at para. 489.Google Scholar

¹⁸³ See id. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ See supra Section C.V.1.1.2.a).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 495.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ See id. at para. 495. Cf. id. at para. 496.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ See id.; see also ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 41 & 73, supra note 3.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ See ICWC, Monitoring Report No. 70, supra note 3.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ See Judgment of February 18, 2014 at para. 497.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ Id. Primarily, the court saw several self-contradictions in the declarations of the witness. But amongst other reasons, it especially was a disadvantage for the witness to maintain that the presiding judge had asserted him confidentiality–whereas, of course, due to the public character of the proceedings confidentiality is not possible: The court rejected this allegation and used it to take the general willingness of this witness for untrue statements for granted.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ See id. at para. 701 (noting that it deemed exertion of influence on the trial by the Rwandan state possible-in principle; but also that, at the same time, it is convinced that no witnesses were suborned to false accusations against the defendant).Google Scholar

¹⁹² See id. at para. 379.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ See id. at para. 381.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ See supra note 1.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ Forges, Alison Des, Kein Zeuge Darf Überleben — Der Genozid in Ruanda 879 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ See Funk, Viktor, Deutsche Justiz ahndet Ruanda Massaker, Frankfurter Rundschau (Feb. 19, 2014), http://www.fr-onIine.de/politik/urteil-ruanda-deutsche-justiz-ahndet-ruanda-massaker,1472596,26244284.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ Cf. supra Section C. and Section C.IV.1.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ Cf. supra Section C.IV.2.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ Cf. supra Section C.V.1.Google Scholar

²⁰¹ Cf. supra Section C.V.2.Google Scholar

²⁰² Cf. supra Section C.V.3.Google Scholar

²⁰³ Cf. supra Section C.IV.4.Google Scholar

²⁰⁴ Cf. supra note 7.Google Scholar

²⁰⁵ Cf. supra Section B.Google Scholar