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.

Author: Gardarisar Fenrikree
Country: Iran
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Relationship
Published (Last): 18 January 2016
Pages: 466
PDF File Size: 10.59 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.94 Mb
ISBN: 870-2-82240-937-8
Downloads: 1123
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kazragul

At least for those rules which are neither incorporated into Rwandan legislation nor self-executing? Affirms the verdict of guilty entered against Jean-Paul Akayesu of all the counts on which he was convicted and the sentence of life imprisonment handed down, [ In the present case, evidence has been presented to the Chamber which showed there was at the least a conflict not of a international character in Rwanda at the time of the events alleged in the Indictment.

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. Tadic [ Part B.

ICC – Legal Tools record: Judgement (The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu)

Akayesu not only refrained from stopping the killings, but personally supervised the murder of various Tutsis. 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.

The religious group is one whose members share the same religion, denomination or mode of worship. Is the obligation to sanction genocide an element of customary international law?

The offence serious violation must be committed within the context of an armed conflict; The armed conflict can be internal or international; The offence must be against persons who are not taking any active part in the hostilities; There must be a nexus between the violations and the armed conflict. This is the reason why, in the absence of a confession from the accused, his intent can be inferred from a certain number of presumptions of fact.

Can akayes assume that the acts committed by Akayesu were prohibited under Rwandan criminal law? Skip to main content. Moreover, all the offences enumerated under Article 4 of the Statute constituted crimes under Rwandan law in 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.

ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu | How does law protect in war? – Online casebook

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. Must it have included repression of this crime in its national legislation? The Security Council, when delimiting the subject-matter jurisdiction of the ICTR, incorporated violations of international humanitarian law which may be committed in the context of both an international and an internal armed conflict: Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part paragraph c: Thus, on the basis of objective criteria, both Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II will apply once it has been established there exists an internal armed conflict which fulfills their respective pre-determined criteria.


Otherwise, it might be judgmenr that these instruments only state norms applicable to States and Parties zkayesu a conflict, and that they do akayesuu create crimes for which individuals may be tried. Under Additional Protocol II, the parties to the conflict will usually either be the government confronting dissident armed forces, or the government fighting insurgent organized armed groups.

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. Appeals Chamber [ Source: The victims referred to in this indictment were, at all relevant times, persons not taking an active part in the hostilities.

Further, these armed forces must be able to dominate a sufficient part of the territory so as to maintain sustained and concerted military operations and to apply Additional Protocol II.

At least Tutsis were killed in Taba between April 7 and the end of June,while he was still in power. Would it have sufficed for the Rwandan criminal code to juvgment individual criminal responsibility for the acts Akayesu was accused of? This consequently rules out situations of internal disturbances and tensions.

ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu

As regards individual criminal responsibility for serious violations of Common Article 3, the ICTY has already affirmed this principle in the Tadic case. The RPF increased its control over the Rwandan territory from that agreed in the Arusha Accords to over half of the country by mid-Mayand carried out continuous and sustained military operations until the cease fire on 18 July which brought the war to an end.

In the field of international humanitarian law, a clear distinction as to the thresholds of application has been made between situations of international armed conflicts, in which the law of armed conflicts is applicable as a whole, situations of non-international internal armed conflicts, where Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II are applicable, and non-international armed conflicts where only Common Article 3 is applicable.

Akayesu was charged with five counts under Article 4 of the Statute and was acquitted on each of the said counts.

AKAYESU, Jean Paul (ICTR-96-4)

A number of precisions need to be made about the said criteria prior to the Chamber making a finding thereon. What is the special intent or dolus specialis necessary for genocide to take place? Is it necessary for a rule of Art. The question of applicability ratione loci in non-international armed conflicts, when only Common Article 3 is of relevance should be approached the same way, i. Must the act be linked 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.

This degree of organization should be such so as to enable the armed group or dissident forces to plan and carry out concerted military operations, and to impose discipline in the name of a de facto authority. Consequently, in order to clarify the constitutive elements of the crime of genocide, the Chamber will first state its findings on the acts provided for under Article 2 2 a through Article 2 2 e of the Statute, the groups protected by the Genocide Convention, and the special intent or dolus specialis necessary for genocide to take place.


It should be recalled that the four Geneva Conventions, as well as the two Protocols, were adopted primarily to protect the victims, as well as potential victims, of armed conflicts. Trial Chamber – Paras 3 to [ Source: At all times relevant to this indictment, a state of internal armed conflict existed in Rwanda. Five teachers from the secondary school of Taba were killed on his instructions. Would this mean that the extermination of other groups such as handicapped people, some political groups and homosexuals by the Nazi regime would be qualified as a crime against humanity but not as genocide?

Other factors, such as the scale of atrocities committed, their general nature, in a region or a country, or furthermore, the fact of deliberately and systematically targeting victims on account of their membership of a particular group, while excluding the members of other groups, can enable the Chamber to infer the genocidal intent of a particular act. 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 [ 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.

Now, such punishment must be applicable to everyone without discrimination, as required by the principles governing individual criminal responsibility as laid down by the Nuremberg Tribunal in particular. The Chamber holds that the expression deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, should be construed as the methods of destruction by which the perpetrator does not immediately kill the members of the group, but which, ultimately, seek their physical destruction.

The Chamber, also taking judicial notice of a number of UN official documents dealing with the conflict in Rwanda infinds, in addition to the requirements of Common Article 3 being met, that the material conditions listed above relevant to Additional Protocol II have been fulfilled.

As stipulated earlier in this judgment, this implies that Akayesu would incur individual hudgment responsibility for his acts if it were proved that by virtue of his authority, he is either responsible for the outbreak of, judgmsnt is otherwise directly engaged in the conduct of hostilities.

Under Article 6 1 of the Statute of the Tribunal, individual criminal responsibility is attributable to one who plans, instigates, orders, commits or otherwise aids and abets in the planning, preparation or execution of any of the crimes referred to in Articles 2 to 4 of the Statute of the Tribunal. Its object and purpose is to broaden the application of the international humanitarian law by defining what constitutes minimum humane treatment and the rules applicable under all circumstances.

Further, as pertains to the intensity of conflict, all observers to the events, including UNAMIR and UN Special rapporteurs, were unanimous in characterizing the confrontation between the two forces as a war, an internal armed conflict. Must the State of which the accused is a national be a party to the Convention on Genocide?