Nzirorera invoked the protection for Bizimungu’s fair trial rights provided by Rules 90(E) (protection against self-incrimination) and 79 (closed sessions) of the ICTR Rules. In response, Bizimungu submitted that these Rules do not provide adequate protection and requested that the order was denied.
The Chamber considered Bizimungu’s submission that self-incrimination is not the only right guaranteed by Article 20 of the ICTR Statute which may be infringed if he is compelled to testify.
In particular, the Chamber noted that the accused fears that he may be required to testify on matters that have been excluded from his own trial, and that such testimony could provide support for applications to reopen his case.
Similarly, Rule 79 provides for the testimony to be given in closed session, and does not afford any power to limit the content of the testimony.
The Chamber accepted the contention that any order to compel Bizimungu to testify before the completion of his case has the capacity to prejudice his fair trial rights.
Bearing in mind the finding that his testimony is not essential to Nzirorera’s fair trial rights, the Chamber was satisfied that on balance the interests of justice would require that the application to compel Bizimungu to testify before the completion of his case be denied.
Karemera et al., Decision on Joseph Nzirorera’s Motion to Postpone or Compel the Testimony of Casimir Bizimungu, Case No. ICTR-98-44-T, T. Ch., 7 April 2010.