Félicien Kabuga, one of Rwanda’s richest men at the time of the 1994 genocide, is set to appear in court again on Wednesday, October 6, a judicial source confirmed Sunday.The 84-year-old was also one of the alleged operators of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, a radio station used to fan hatred and incite killings of the minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus.
Previously, on June 1, a defence motion seeking his provisional release was denied as the Trial Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals held a Status Conference in the Prosecutor v. Félicien Kabuga case, in the Courtroom of The Hague Branch of the UN court.
The parties, through informal communication, earlier agreed to an in-person status conference at the Hague Branch of the Mechanism.
According to the UN Court, in view of his current condition and care regime, Kabuga may choose to appear via video-teleconference link or waive his right to be present, should he elect to do so.
The in-person status conference will be held on October 6 at 2.30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Hague Branch of the Mechanism.
In a motion filed on May 6, Kabuga requested a stay of proceedings on the basis of his health and, in the alternative, his provisional release on humanitarian grounds to an appropriate facility in The Hague to be identified by the Registrar in cooperation with the Defence.
His lawyers claimed that, among others, based on medical reports, there is sufficient medical information to conclude that Kabuga is not fit to stand trial.
The Prosecution, in response, also filed a motion, later, requesting that the defence’s motion be denied on the basis that: the request for a stay of proceedings, whether temporary or permanent, is premature; and that the requirements for provisional release are not met.
Conditions required for provisional release are that: there must be compelling humanitarian grounds; the suspect does not pose any danger to Prosecution investigations or witnesses; and in light of the suspect’s condition, there is no flight risk.
At the time, the Court also found that the Defence did not demonstrate that a request for a stay of proceedings was justified.