While it is an elementary precondition for a just verdict that it is based on a truthful set of facts, judicial proceedings are surprisingly limited in their capability to discover the truth. In spite of various hopes articulated in the transitional justice arena a criminal trial is not well equipped to establish a truthful historical record. After briefly outlining the reasons for this limited capability the following article portrays and analyses the judicial proceedings that lead to the first conviction by a German court for genocide in the context of the atrocities that occurred in Rwanda in 1994. Although the accused was finally convicted as a perpetrator the facts of the case do not support such a finding. A closer look at the procedural history of the case, however, demonstrates how special features of the procedure aided to come up with such a result.