The judgment was appealed before the Appeals Chamber, which issued its judgment on 1 June THE PROSECUTOR v. JEAN-PAUL AKAYESU Case No. ICTRT. JUDGEMENT [ ] 1. INTRODUCTION [ ] 6. [ ] “The Prosecutor of the International. I Translation certified by LCSS, ICTR. HAG(A)Ol (E) v. JEAN-PAUL AKA YESU. JUDGMENT. ENGLISH. Original: ENGLISH/ FRENCH.
|Published (Last):||6 November 2014|
|PDF File Size:||12.99 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.34 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
An inherent question follows such a description, namely, what constitutes an armed conflict?
Ratione personae Two distinct issues arise with respect to personal jurisdiction over serious violations of Common Judgmennt 3 and Additional Protocol II — the class of victims and the class of perpetrators. Jean Paul Akayesu was found not guilty of the six remaining counts, including the count of complicity in genocide and the counts relating to violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II thereto.
ICTR | United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
On 2 SeptemberJean Paul Akayesu was sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the nine counts, the sentences to run concurrently. The Appeals Chamber is therefore of the opinion that international humanitarian law would be lessened and called into question if it were to be admitted that certain persons be exonerated from akxyesu criminal responsibility for a violation of common Article 3 under the pretext that they did not belong to a specific category.
How do you interpret Art.
Would that be necessary to claim that customary law criminalizes violations of common Art. General Allegations Unless otherwise specified, all acts and omissions set forth in this indictment took place between 1 January and 31 Decemberin the commune of Taba, prefecture of Gitarama, territory of Rwanda. Judgmfnt majority of these displaced civilians were Tutsi. The offence serious violation must be committed within the context of an armed conflict; The armed conflict can be internal jhdgment international; The offence must be against persons who are not taking any active part in judgnent hostilities; There must be a nexus between the violations and the armed conflict.
In the present case, evidence has been presented to the Chamber which showed there was at the least a xkayesu not of a international character in Rwanda at the time of the events alleged in the Indictment. Despite this absence of explicit reference in the common Article 3  ICTY Appeals Chamber nevertheless held that authors of violation of provisions of this article incur individual criminal responsibility. The Chamber considers that it is possible to deduce the genocidal intent inherent in a particular act charged from the general context of the perpetration of other culpable acts systematically directed against that same group, whether these acts were committed zkayesu the same offender or by others.
Because of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege?
Moreover, the Chamber recalls the establishment of the ICTY, during which the UN Secretary General asserted that in application of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege the International Tribunal should apply rules of International Humanitarian law which are beyond any doubt part of customary law.
Had the ICTR adopted such an approach, would it have violated the principle of nullum crimen sine lege? As a result, the Appeals Chamber must turn to the article which serves as a basis for Article 4, to wit, Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions [ Must the act be linked to the conflict?
What is the special intent or dolus specialis necessary for genocide to take place? This stems from the fact that common Article 3 requires a close nexus between violations and the armed conflict. Retrieved from ” https: The victim of the act is therefore a member of a group, chosen as such, which, hence, means that the victim of the crime of genocide is the group itself and not only the individual.
Genocide is distinct from other crimes inasmuch as it embodies a special intent or dolus specialis. In this context, the Appeals Chamber deems it appropriate to analyze the object and purpose of common Article 3 in particular, and of the Geneva Conventions, in general, which object and purpose, in its view, are determinative in the interpretation of Article 4 of the Statute. Due to the overall protective and humanitarian purpose of these international legal instruments, however, the delimitation of this category of persons bound by the provisions in Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II should not be too restricted.
Furthermore, the Chamber notes that measures intended to prevent births within the group may be physical, but can also be mental. To that end, it is necessary, firstly, to review the relevant provisions of the Statute as interpreted by the case-law of the Tribunals and, secondly, the object and purpose of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions.
Notwithstanding the above, a possible approach would be for the Chamber not to look at the nature of the building blocks of Article 4 of the Statute nor for it to categorize the conflict as such but, rather, to look only at the relevant parts of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II in the context of this trial.
Therefore, judgmenh common criterion in the four types of groups protected by the Genocide Convention is that membership in such groups would seem to be normally not challengeable by its members, who belong to it automatically, by birth, in a continuous and often irremediable manner.
During the Rwandan genocide of mid, many Tutsis were killed in Akayesu’s commune, and many others were subject to violence and other forms of hatred. The class of perpetrators [ N. Conclusion The applicability of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II has been dealt with above and findings made thereon in the context of the temporal setting of events alleged in the Indictment.
Guilty of Crime akaayesu Humanity Murder [ Is the chamber using subjective or objective criteria? This nexus between violations and the armed conflict implies that, in most cases, the perpetrator of the crime will probably have a special relationship with one party to the conflict.
For purposes of interpreting Article 2 2 c of the Statute, the Chamber is of the opinion that the means of deliberate inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or part, include, inter alia, subjecting a group of people to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from homes and the reduction of essential medical services below minimum requirement. The Appeals Chamber is of the view that the minimum protection provided for victims under common Article 3 implies necessarily effective punishment on persons who violate it.
Would the application of a purely treaty-based rule of Protocol II violate that principle? The victims referred to in this indictment were, at all relevant times, persons not taking an active part in the hostilities. The distinction pertaining to situations of conflicts of a non-international character emanates from the differing intensity of the conflicts.
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group paragraph e With respect to forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, the Chamber is of the opinion that, as in the case of measures intended to prevent births, the objective is not only to sanction a direct act of forcible physical transfer, but also to sanction acts of threats or trauma which would lead to the forcible transfer of children from one group to another.