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):||14 June 2011|
|PDF File Size:||17.44 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.38 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Jean-Paul Akayesu – Wikipedia
In addition to this argument from custom, there is the fact that the Geneva Conventions of and thus Common Article 3 were ratified by Rwanda on 5 May and Additional Protocol II on 19 Novemberand were therefore in force on the territory of Rwanda at the time of the alleged offences.
An analysis of the provisions of the Statute is therefore not conclusive. Although ICTY Appeals Chamber has, on several occasions, addressed the issue of the interpretation of common Article 3, it should be noted that it has never found it necessary to circumscribe the category of persons who may be prosecuted under Article 3. In essence, the operations must be continuous and planned.
Metadata of the document in the Legal Tools Database:
The Chamber, therefore, concludes the violation of these norms entails, as a matter of customary international law, individual responsibility for the perpetrator. 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.
As mayor, Akayesu was responsible for performing executive functions and maintaining order in Taba, meaning he had command of the communal police and any gendarmes assigned to the commune. The trial is the subject of the documentary film, The Uncondemned. It suffices to recall that an armed conflict is distinguished from internal disturbances by the level of intensity of the conflict and the degree of organization of the parties to the conflict.
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 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. 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: 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.
As per Common Article 3, these criteria have to be applied objectively, irrespective of the subjective conclusions of the parties involved in the conflict. An inherent question follows such a description, namely, what constitutes an armed conflict?
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.
The above reference criteria were enunciated as a means of distinguishing genuine armed conflicts from mere acts of banditry or unorganized and short-lived insurrections. That the legal Government is obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military in possession of a part of the national territory.
Would it have sufficed for the Rwandan criminal code to foresee individual criminal responsibility for the acts Akayesu was accused of?
All these counts are covered by Article 4 of the Statute. All of the guarantees, as enumerated in Article 4 reaffirm and supplement Common Article 3 and, as discussed above, Common Article 3 being customary in nature, the Chamber is of the opinion that these guarantees did also at the time of the events alleged in the Indictment form part of existing international customary law.
The Trial Chamber held that rape, which it defined as “a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive”, and sexual assault constitute acts of genocide insofar as they were committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a judgmenf group, as such. Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in qkayesu Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Retrieved 25 September Who has to respect Art.
It found that sexual assault formed an integral part of the process of destroying the Tutsi ethnic group and that the rape was systematic and had been perpetrated against Tutsi women only, manifesting juvgment specific intent required for those acts to constitute genocide.
In actuality authors of violations of common Article 3 will likely fall into one of these categories. 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.
AKAYESU, Jean Paul (ICTR-96-4)
Under Article 6 1 akauesu the Statute of the Tribunal, individual criminal responsibility is attributable jugment 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.
Appeals Chamber [ Source: It should be stressed that the ascertainment of the intensity of a non-international conflict does not depend on the subjective judgment of the parties to the conflict. Therefore, no clarification has to date been provided on this point in the jurisprudence of the Tribunals, except for recent holdings by an ICTY Trial Chamber.
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. At all times relevant to this indictment, a state of internal armed conflict existed in Rwanda.
A number of precisions need to be made about the said criteria prior to the Chamber making a finding thereon. Both groups were well-organized and considered to be armies in their own right.
Rather, the Chamber finds it necessary and reasonable to establish the applicability of both Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II iudgment.
The court clarified that Genocide is a specific crime that takes the accused outside of the scope of armed conflict. Akayesu was charged with five counts under Article 4 of the Statute and was acquitted on each hudgment the said counts.
The four Geneva Conventions — as well as the two Additional Protocols — as stated above, were adopted primarily to protect the victims as well as potential victims of armed conflicts.
Thus, the victim is chosen not because of his individual identity, but rather on account of his membership of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
In each paragraph charging genocide, a crime recognized by Article 2 of the Statute of the Tribunal, the alleged acts or omissions were committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic or racial group. It is required as a constituent element of certain offences and demands that the perpetrator have the clear intent to cause the offence charged.
It marks a new step forward in the unceasing development of the idea on which the Red Cross is based, and in the embodiment of that idea in the form of international obligations. If one accepts such an interpretation, should it also apply to the ICTR? Thus, it would not be necessary for the Chamber to determine the precise nature of the conflict, this having already been pre-determined by the Security Council.
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.