Prosecutor v. Akayesu

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Diane Marie Amann

Prosecutor v. Akayesu. Case ICTR-96-4-T.International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, September 2, 1998.This pioneering opinion marks the first time an international criminal tribunal has tried and convicted an individual for genocide and international crimes of sexual violence. The case arose out of the massacres of perhaps a million Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994. At least two thousand died in Taba, a rural commune where defendant Jean-Paul Akayesu was mayor. A trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda concluded that, although Akayesu may at first have tried to prevent killings, he eventually donned a military jacket and participated in or ordered atrocities. The Tribunal found him guilty of one count each of genocide and incitement to commit genocide and seven counts of crimes against humanity. It acquitted Akayesu of five counts brought under common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Protocol Additional II to those Conventions on the ground that he was not within the class of perpetrators contemplated by them.

Author(s):  
Sunneva Gilmore

The Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda case at the International Criminal Court (ICC) represents the long awaited first reparation order for sexual violence at the court. This will hopefully see the implementation of reparations for the war crimes and crimes against humanity of rape and sexual slavery among civilians and former child soldiers, after previous cases such as against Jean-Pierre Bembe and Laurent Gbagbo were acquitted of rape. This article drawing from the author's role as a reparation expert in the case, is a reflection on the challenges of designing and providing reparations at the ICC against convicted individuals, as well as amidst insecurity and the COVID-19 infectious disease pandemic. It begins by discussing how the Ntaganda reparation order expanded reparation principles for the first time since the Lubanga case, in particular for crimes of a sexual nature. This is followed by an outline of some of the harms as a result of sexual violence from the perspective of an expert with a medical background. The analysis then turns to the appropriate reparations in this case and the details contained within the chamber's reparation order. Final conclusions consider how the procedural and substantive elements of reparations in this case will be instructive to future cases that address sexual violence. Ultimately, key insights are offered on the modest contribution an appointed reparation expert can do in assisting a trial chamber in the reparation process.


2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Szwejkowska

In the last decade of the 20th century, a war in the former Yugoslavia broke out, once again making Europe a witness to an armed conflict. Almost at the same time, another local ethnic bloodshed started, but this time in distant Africa — in Rwanda. Both these events included the most horrifying international crimes against humanity: genocide and war crimes. To prosecute the most important commanding figures involved in these conflicts and hold them criminally responsible, two ad hoc United Nations tribunals were created: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Hague and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. They finished their operation in 2017 and 2015, respectively. The tasks of conducting and completing all ongoing proceedings, including law enforcement, after the completion of their mandates have been entrusted to the UN International Residual Mechanism. One of the crucial assignments of the tribunals and later the Redisual Mechanism was to deal with the request on behalf of the convicted for granting them early release. Although none of the statutes of the aforementioned courts provided any ground for early release, soon it was accepted that both tribunals, as well as their successor, were entitled to proceed despite this issue. As soon as in 2001, the first convict was granted early release, but with no conditions. It is estimated that, to date, more than 2/3 of all convicted by the Tribunals have been released before the termination of their sentence. This should raise the question of how to rehabilitate that kind of offender, convicted of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, to ensure they do not pose a threat to society anymore. Especially since the offenders serve their punishment outside the country of their origin — meaning, different rules apply according to the domestic law regulation of the state that voluntarily agreed to enforce the sentence. This article analyzes the juridical approach of the tribunals and the Residual Mechanism on the issue of early release of the convicts involved in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.


Author(s):  
V. Popko

The article analyses the development of the concept of international crime in the "Hague" period, which covers the last decades of the last century and is closely related to the establishment of ad hoc international tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The article reveals the legal grounds for the establishment of these tribunals, the features of their activities, jurisdiction and principles of responsibility of persons who committed crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The establishment of international justice bodies by UN Security Council decisions has provoked a number of debates about their legitimacy, but it is undeniable that the activities of ad hoc international tribunals have contributed to the initiation of a new stage in the development of international criminal justice, further development of international criminal law, in particular in the development of the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court. All types of tribunal jurisdictions are disclosed, but special attention is paid to the substantive and personal jurisdictions of tribunals, which became the basis for the theoretical justification of the "Hague" modification of international crime, as well as the practical implementation of this concept in tribunal decisions. It is shown that the categories of international crimes that constitute the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (serious violations of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide and crimes against humanity) and the categories of crimes defined in the Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda against humanity and violations of the Geneva Conventions) in the documents of the tribunals have been developed in comparison with the Nuremberg and post-Nuremberg periods. ~ 74 ~ ВІСНИК Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка ISSN 1728-3817 It is shown that the substantive jurisdiction of the ICTY and the ICC does not coincide with the provisions of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. The differences relate to the list of categories of crimes; parallel jurisdiction of international ad hoc tribunals and national courts; extending the competence of ad hoc tribunals to cases of crimes committed both during wars between states and during internal armed conflict, etc. The content of the categories of crimes, their composition, the subjects of responsibility have been clarified. In particular, the characteristic features of the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity are identified; the conditions, elements and subjects for the recognition of their qualifications are indicated. The author pays attention to the principles of personal jurisdiction, shows that in the decisions of international tribunals ad hoc has developed the principle of individual responsibility for international crimes that constitute substantive jurisdiction. The application of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the activity of tribunals is revealed. The author concludes that the establishment of ad hoc international criminal tribunals and their activities has contributed to the development of the concept of international crime and the separation of a special "Hague" modification. Keywords: international crime, tribunal, "Hague" modification, international justice, jurisdiction, criminal liability


PMLA ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 121 (5) ◽  
pp. 1662-1664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Franco

According to the report of the United Nations commission on Human Rights, rape is the least condemned war crime (coomaraswamy, Further Promotion 64n263). Although wartime rape was listed as a crime against humanity by the Nuremberg Military Tribunals and by the Geneva Conventions, it was not until 2001 that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia identified rapists as war criminals. In that year the tribunal sentenced three men for violations of the laws or customs of war (torture, rape) and crimes against humanity (torture, rape) committed during the war in Bosnia during the 1993 takeover of Foca, where women were systematically raped and killed, the purpose being “to destroy an ethnic group by killing it, to prevent its reproduction or to disorganize it, removing it from its home soil.”


2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 664-667

On March 20, 2019, the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals set aside Radovan Karadžić's prior sentence of forty years and imposed a life sentence. Karadžić was convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws or customs of war in March 2016 by a Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and sentenced to forty years in prison. His crimes relate to war crimes he committed during the 1990s conflicts in the Balkans, in particular the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Serbs and the three-year long siege of Sarajevo. The Appeals Chamber reversed part of Karadžić's convictions related to the Overarching JCE and dismissed the rest of his appeal, while also dismissing most of the Prosecution's appeal, aside from the sentence. The Appeals Chamber judges found that the Trial Chamber “committed a discernible error and abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of only 40 years of imprisonment,” and consequently imposed a life sentence.


2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 747-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Trouille

During the first trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), that of Jean-Paul Akayesu, it became evident that many Tutsi and moderate Hutu women had been raped, that “rape was the rule and its absence was the exception”.1 Although, initially, not a single charge of sexual violence was proffered against Akayesu, presiding Judge Navanethem Pillay interrupted the proceedings, allowing ICTR prosecutors to amend the indictment and include counts of rape and sexual violence. Akayesu subsequently became the first case to recognise the concept of genocidal rape. However, post-Akayesu, comparatively few defendants appearing before the ICTR have been convicted of sexual violence. An analysis of the recent case of Ndindiliyimana et al2 reveals that major shortcomings beset the investigation and prosecution procedures, so that crimes of sexual violence go unpunished, although research suggests that adequate legislation is in place at the ICTR to prosecute rape and sexual violence successfully.


2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Elderfield

On November 16, 2012, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) reversed by majority the findings of a unanimous Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Gotovina et al. (Gotovina). In so doing, it acquitted two Croatian generals, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, on all counts of the indictment, including persecution and deportation as crimes against humanity, and four counts of violations of the laws or customs of war.


2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 871-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM A. SCHABAS

The report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, set up pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution, is an important contribution to the evolving law of genocide. The Commission concluded that genocide had not been committed, but that the case should be referred to the International Criminal Court for prosecution as crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Commission did not find significant evidence of genocidal intent. It looked essentially for a plan or policy of the Sudanese state and, in its absence, concluded that genocide was not being committed. The Commission endorsed the ‘stable and permanent groups’ approach taken by one trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). On this point, it exaggerated the acceptance of this interpretation, which has been ignored by other trial chambers of the international tribunals. However, the Commission found that the better approach to determination of the groups covered by the Convention is subjective, and that the targeted tribes in Darfur meet this criterion.


2016 ◽  
Vol 110 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-81
Author(s):  
Joseph W. Doherty ◽  
Richard H. Steinberg

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) have sentenced over 130 perpetrators for genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or war crimes. Sentencing judgments discuss the factors considered by the judges and impose a term of imprisonment. We regressed the sentence length meted out for each perpetrator on the doctrinal factors said to explain the term of imprisonment and on other factors rumored to affect sentencing. We find that the gravity of the crime and aggravating factors declared by the Tribunals as sentencing factors are significantly related to sentence length but that the mitigating factors proclaimed by the tribunals—all but one of which are associated with diplomatic and policy objectives—are not significantly related to the term of imprisonment. We conclude that international criminal sentences prioritize punishment of the individual based on the seriousness of the crime over the other diplomatic and policy goals that the judges claim to be pursuing. We conjecture that this discrepancy is based on functional differences: the sentencing judgment discussion seeks to advance the many policy objectives of the Tribunals, while the declared term of imprisonment is largely an expressive act of retributive justice, which might also facilitate deterrence and reconciliation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document