THE PROSECUTION OF THE CRIME OFGENOCIDE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF APPROACHESBETWEEN INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL
LEGAL SYSTEMS
BY
NEWAR T. HAMEED
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of therequirements for the degree of Master of Comparative
Laws
Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of LawsInternational Islamic University
Malaysia
FEBRUARY 2011
ii
ABSTRACT
This dissertation discusses the prosecution of genocide, the crime of crimes, in bothinternational and national tandems. During the World War II and before the adoptionof the Genocide Convention, the acts of destroying specific groups were prosecuted inNuremberg by the International Military Tribunal, although under different names ofcrimes. After the adoption of the Genocide Convention, the international communityhas set up ad hoc international tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunalfor Rwanda to prosecute for grave international crimes including the crime ofgenocide. In addition to these tribunals, national courts such as the Spanish NationalCourt have been involved in the prosecution of genocide. Two case studies areconducted which include the case of Akayesu before the ICTR and the case ofPinochet before Spanish and the UK courts. This study analyses the differences inboth international and national prosecution and identifies rights of the accused and thevictim which are affected. However, since the international and national legal systemsadopt different laws and procedures, disparities emerge between them in prosecutinggenocide though the crime is one and the same. Thus, the study recommends thatthere should be standard laws and procedures for the international and the nationalprosecution of genocide so that the rights of the accused and the victim are protected.The permanent and generally accepted International Criminal Court should be thestandard model for international and national tribunals.
iii
صّالبحثملخّ
على كواحده من أخطر الجرائم ،الدقاضاة عن جريمة الأبادة الجماعية ىذه الدراسة تتناولبأن جرائم أبادة مجموعات معينة، خلال الحرب وتجدر الأشارة .الدولي والمحلي ينالصعيدالثانية وقبل أعتماد أتفاقية تحريم الأبادة الجماعية، كانت تتم الدقاضاة عنها في نورمبرج العالدية
وبعد أعتماد أتفاقية تحريم الأبادة . أمام المحكمة العسكرية الدولية تحت مسميات مختلفةالدولي بأنشاء محاكم دولية خاصة لمحاكمة الدتهمين بأرتكاب جرائم قام المجتمع الجماعية،
مثل المحكمة الجنائية الدولية الدتخصصة برواندا، كما ية خطيرة بما في ذلك ىذه الجريمة، دول. لعبت محاكم محلية أخرى مثل المحكمة الوطنية الأسبانية دورىا في محاكمة الجريمة نفسها
المحكمة الدولية يسو أماميقضية أكا نموذجين للدراسة وهما على مل ىذه الأطروحوتوتشتمت كذلك .محاكم الدملكة الدتحدة و اندا و قضية بينوشيو أمام المحاكم الأسبانيةالخاصة برو
تحديد حقوق الدتهم وكذلك جوانب الأختلاف في الدقاضاة بين المحاكم الدولية والمحلية دراسةد وبما أن الأنظمة القضائية، الدولية منها والمحلية، تعتم. والمجني عليو في جرائم الأبادة الجماعية
فالفوارق في ىذه القضية بينهما ظاىرة على الرغم من أن الجريمة انين وأجراءات مختلفةو قوبالتالي توصي ىذه الدراسة بضرورة وجود قوانين و أجراءات موحده لتتم تطبيقها . واحدة
وبهذا . عند الدقاضاة عن جريمة الأبادة الجماعية ولكي تحمي حقوق الدتهمين والمجني عليهمينبغي أن تكون المحكمة الجنائية الدولية الدائمة والدقبولة بشكل عام ىي النموذج الصدد،
.والمحلية الدتخصصة الأخرى المحاكم الدولية و من قبلالقياسي الذي يحتذى ب
iv
APPROVAL PAGE
I certified that I have supervised and read this study and that in my opinion, itconforms to acceptable standard of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, inscope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Master of Comparative Laws.
.………………..............................Mohd Hisham Mohd KamalSupervisor
I certified that I have supervised and read this study and that in my opinion, itconforms to acceptable standard of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, inscope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Master of Comparative Laws.
.…………………………………..Mohammad Naqib Ishan JanExaminer
This dissertation was submitted to the Department of Islamic law and is accepted as apartial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Comparative Laws.
…………………………………...Badruddin IbrahimHead, Department of Islamic Law
This dissertation was submitted to the Kulliyyah of Laws and is accepted as a partialfulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Comparative Laws.
…………………………………...Mohd Akram Shair MohamadDean, Ahmad IbrahimKulliyyah of Laws
v
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own investigations, except
where otherwise stated. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently
submitted as a whole for any other degrees at IIUM or other institutions.
Newar T. Hameed
Signature ……………………… Date ……………………….............
vi
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT ANDAFFIRMATION OF FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED
RESEARCH
Copyright © 2011 By Newar T. Hameed All Rights Reserved.
THE PROSECUTION OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDEA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF APPROACHES BETWEEN
INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS
No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of thecopyright holder except as provided below.
1. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished researchmay only be used by others in their writing with dueacknowledgement.
2. IIUM or its library will have the right to make and transmit copies(print or electronic) for institutional and academic purposes.
3. The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in a retrievalsystem and supply copies of this unpublished research if requested byother universities and research libraries.
Affirmed by Newar T. Hameed.
…………………………… …………………….
Signature Date
vii
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents who inculcate in me the belief in Allah
(SWT) and teach me the Islamic and Humanitarian virtues. I also dedicate this work
to my brothers and sister.
AND TO
All those who have devoted their lives in serving humanity and human rights around
the world, I devote this work.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I cannot attribute the successful completion of this dissertation only to myself. I amindebted to many individuals and institutions that have assisted me directly orindirectly in the completion of this research. Most importantly, I will give all theglory to the Almighty God for the gift of life, good health, strength, and patience thatmade the successful completion of this dissertation feasible.
I would like to record my deepest appreciation to International IslamicUniversity Malaysia and special thanks to Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws forgranting me the opportunity to study Master of Comparative Laws.
I should express my heartfelt thanks to my supervisor, Doctor Mohd HishamMohd Kamal, for his untiring guidance, advice, constructive criticism, andencouragement. I extend my thanks to Doctor Mohammad Naqib Ishan Jan for hisinvaluable comments on this dissertation.
I would like to thank all members of Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws fortheir help in one way or another. My thanks also go to the library’s staff ofInternational Islamic University Malaysia and all of my friends.
Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to my parents whom I owe everything I amtoday. Mom and Dad, your prayers, well wishes, and financial support made mecomplete my study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………… ii
Abstract in Arabic ……………………………………………………………………… iii
Approval Page ….……………………………………………………………………..... iv
Declaration Page ……………………………………………………………………….. v
Copyright Page ………………………………………………………………………..... vi
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………………… vii
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………….. viii
List of Cases ...…………………………………………………………………….......... xi
List of International Documents ……………………………………………………...... xiii
List of National Statutes………………………………………………………………… xv
List of Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………... xvi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………… 1
CHAPTER 2: DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE ………………... 9
2.1 Introduction ....………………………………………………………............ 9
2.2 Literal Meaning …………………………………………………………… 9
2.3 Legal Definition ……………………………………………………............ 11
2.4 The Elements of the Crime of Genocide …………………………………... 14
2.4.1 Objective Element (Actus Reus) ……………………………………. 15
2.4.2 The Subjective Element (Mens Rea) ……………………………….. 20
2.5 The Protected Groups under the Genocide Convention …............................ 30
2.6 Forms of Participation in the Crime of Genocide (Punishable Acts under
the Genocide Convention)…………………………………………………..
35
2.7 The Crime of Genocide under Domestic Laws …………………………….. 42
2.8 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………….. 46
CHAPTER 3: THE FOUNDATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL
TRIBUNALS AND UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION OVER GENOCIDE ………...
47
3.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 47
3.2 The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction ……………………………………. 47
3.3 The Foundations of International and National Criminal Tribunals ………. 59
3.3.1 The Foundation of IMT and IMTFE ………………………………… 60
3.3.2 The Foundation of ICTY and ICTR ……………………………….... 61
3.3.3 The Foundation of the International Criminal Court ………………. 68
3.4 The Foundation of the National Courts with Reference to the Spanish and
the U.K. Courts in Pinochet ………………………………………………..
71
3.5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………..
75
CHAPTER 4: THE PROSECUTION OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE: A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CASES OF AKAYESU AND
PINOCHET ……………………………………………………………………………
77
4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 77
4.2 Case Studies ………………………………………………………............... 77
4.2.1 The Case of Akayesu ………………………………………………... 78
4.2.2 The Case of Pinochet ………………………………………………... 89
4.3 Comparative Analysis of Akayesu and Pinochet Cases ……………………. 114
4.4 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………..
122
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………….. 123
BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………………….. 130
xi
LIST OF CASES
Almelo trial, case No. 3, November 1945, Law Rep. Trials of War Criminals, 35,
British Military Court in (Holland).
Arrest Warrant Case, No.121 ICJ 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v.
Belgium), (14 February 2002).
Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann, 36 I.L.R. 18 (Israeli District Court -
Jerusalem), 1961.
Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), I.C.J, 91, General
List, 26 February 2007.
Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571, 582-583 (Sixth Circuit), 1985.
Diaz v. Columbia, Case 11.227, Report No. 5/97, Inter-Am. C.H.R. OEA /Ser.L/V
/II.95 Doc. 7rev. at 99 (1997).
France v. Goering, (1946) 22 IMT 203, 13 ILR 203.
Guatemala Genocide Case, Spanish Supreme Court, No. 327/2003, Criminal
Chamber, February 25, 2003.
Hadamar trial, case No.4, United States Military Commission in (Germany), October
1945, Law Reports of trials of War Criminals, 46, UN War Crimes Commission,
Volumes I-V.
John Demjanjuk v. Joseph Petrovsky, No. 85-3435, 776 F.2d 571, United States
Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1985.
Nulyarimma v. Thompson, FCA, 1192, (1 September 1999).
Pinochet Ugarte, House of Lords, 25 November 1998, [2000] 1 AC 61.
Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR, TC, (ICTR-96-4-T) 1998.
Prosecutor v. Blaskic, (IT-95-14-T), 3March 2000.
Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera, (ICTR-98-44-T), 18 May 2006.
Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, (ICTR-2001-64-A), 7 July 2006.
Prosecutor v. Jelisic, (IT-95-19-T), TC, ICTY, 1999.
Prosecutor v. Jorgic, (case no. 3StR 215/98), G.F.H.C, 30 April 1999.
xii
Prosecutor v. Kanyabashi, Trial Chamber, (ICTR-96-15-T), 18 June 1997.
Prosecutor v. Karadzic and Mladic (IT-95-5-R61, IT-95-18-R61), 1996.
Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana (ICTR-95-1-T), 1999.
Prosecutor v. Krstic, ICTY, TC, (IT-98-33-T) 2001.
Prosecutor v. Momcilo, (IT-00-39-T), 27 September 2006.
Prosecutor v. Musema, ICTR, TC, (ICTR-96-13-T), 27 January, 2000.
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Bradanin, (IT-99-36-T), ICTY, 2004.
Prosecutor v. Rutganda, (ICTR-96-3), 6 December 1999.
Prosecutor v. Semanza, (ICTR-97-20-T), 15 May 2003.
Prosecutor v. Serushago, (ICTR-98-39-S), 1999.
Prosecutor v. Tadic, (IC-94-1-A), 15 July 1999.
Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi, (ICTR-01-72-T), (Trial Chamber), 2 December 2008.
Public Prosecutor’s office v. Scilingo Manzorro, Spanish National Court, no. 16\2005,
19 April 2005.
R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet
Ugarte (Amnesty International and others intervening) (No 3), House of Lords, 24
March 1999, [2000] 1 AC 147, [1999] 2 All ER 97, [1999] 2 WLR 827.
Re Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, (1998 Q.B.Div’l Ct), 38 I.L.M.
Re Pinochet: Spanish National Court, Criminal Division. Case 19/97, November 4,
1998; & Case 1/98, November 5, 1998.
Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte
Pinochet Ugarte, House of Lords, 25 November 1998, [2000] 1 AC 61.
Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte
Pinochet Ugarte (no. 2), House of Lords, 15 January 1999, [2000] 1 AC 119.
xiii
LIST OF INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in
Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and
Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August
1949.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
Geneva, 12 August 1949.
European Convention on Extradition 1957.
General Assembly Resolution 96 (I), 1st Session, 55
th Preliminary meeting, 11
December 1946, UN Doc. A/RES/96 (I).
General Assembly Resolution 177 (II) on Formulation of the Principles Recognized in
the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 123th
preliminary meeting, 21 November 1947, UN Doc. A/RES/177 (II).
General Assembly Resolution 489 (V), 12 December 1950, 7th Session, 687 (VII),
International Criminal Jurisdiction, A/RES/489 (V).
General Assembly Resolution 898 (IX), 512th plenary meeting, 14 December 1954,
UN Doc. A/RES/898 (IX).
General Assembly Resolution, 44/39, 4 of December 1989, UN Doc. A/RES/ 44/39.
General Assembly Resolution 50/46, December 11, 1995, UN Doc. A/RES/ 50/46.
International Court of Justice Statute 1945.
International Criminal Court Statute 1998.
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Statute 1994.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Statute 1992.
International Military Tribunal Charter 1945.
International Military Tribunal for the Far East Charter 1946.
Rules and Procedures of the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda 1995.
xiv
Security Council Resolution 780, 6 October 1992, UN Doc. S/RES/780.
Security Council Resolution 935, 3400th meeting, 1 July 1994, UN Doc. S/RES/780.
Security Council Resolution at its 3217th meeting, on 25 May 1993, UN DOC.
S/RES/827.
Security Council Resolution at its 3453rd meeting, 8 November 1994, UN DOC.
S/RES/955.
United Nations Charter 1945.
United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide 1948, UN Doc. A/RES/260(III).
xv
LIST OF NATIONAL STATUTES
Australian Genocide Convention Act 1949 (Act 27).
Ethiopian Penal Code 1957.
Irish Genocide Act 1973 (No. 28/1973).
Israeli Law on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1950 (No. 5710-1950).
Rwandan Organic Law No. 40/2000 of 26/ 01/2001 setting up ‘Gacaca Jurisdictions’
and Organising Prosecutions for Offences Constituting the Crime of Genocide or
Crimes Against Humanity Committed Between October 1, 1990 and December 31,
1994 (No. 40/2000 of 26/ 01/2001).
Rwandan Organic Law on the Organisation of Prosecutions for Offences Constituting
the Crime of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity 1996 (No. 08/96).
Spanish Constitution 1978.
Spanish Criminal Procedural Law 1985.
Spanish Organic Law of Penal Code (10\1995 of November 23).
Spanish Organic Law of the Judicial Power 1985 (6/1985 of July 1).
UK Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
UK Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996.
UK Extradition Act 1989.
UK Human Rights Act 1998.
xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A.J.I.L. American Journal of International Law
Am. U. Int’L. L. R. American University International Law Review
Ariz. J. I. C. L. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
Berkeley. J. I. L. Berkeley Journal of International Law
B. U. I. L. J. Boston University International Law Journal
Case W. Res. L. R. Case Western Reverse Law Review
Colum. Human Rights L. R. Columbia Human Rights Law Review
Colum. L. R. Columbia Law Review
CNI Centro Nacional de Información
Cornell. I. L. J. Cornell International Law Journal
DePaul. I. L. J. DePaul International Law Journal
DePaul. L. R. DePaul Law Review
DICOMCAR Direccion de Comunicaciones de Carabineros
DINA Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional
E. J. I. L. European Journal of International Law
Emory. I. R. Emory International Review
Fla. J. I. L. Florida Journal of International Law
Geo. J. I. L. Georgetown Journal of International Law
Geo. L. J. George Law Journal
Geo. Wash. Int’l. L. Rev. George Washington International Law Review
Harv. Hum. Rts. J Harvard Human Rights Journal
Hum. Rts. Br. Human Rights Brief
IACHR Inter American Court of Human Rights
ICC International Criminal Court
ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia
I. J. I. L. Indian Journal of International Law
ILC International Law Commission
ILSA. J. Int’L. C. L. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law
IMT International Military Tribunal
IMTFE International Military Tribunal for the Far East
J. I. C. J. Journal of International Criminal Justice
LOPJ Organic Law of Judicial Power
MAPU Popular Unitary Action Movement
Mich. St. J. I. L. Michigan State Journal of International Law
MIR Marxist Revolutionary Group
MSU-DLC. J. I. L. Michigan State University-College of Law Journal of
International Law
New Eng. L. R. New England Law Review
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
N. Y. U. J. I. L. P. New York University Journal of International Law and
Politics
O. J. H. G. S Oxford Journal of Holocaust and Genocide Studies
Pace. I. L. R. Pace International Law Review
xvii
REINICIAR The Corporación Para La Defensa Y Promoción De Los
Derechos Humanos
RPF Rwandan Patriotic Front
Stan. L. R. Stanford Law Review
Sydney. L. R. Sydney Law Review
Tex. I. L. J. Texas International Law Journal
Tex. L. R. Texas Law Review
Tune. J. I. C. L. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law
U. Ill. L. R. University of Illinois Law Review
U. Miami. I. C. L. R. University of Miami International and Comparative
Law Review
UN United Nations
UP Union Patriotica
Va. J. I. L. Virginia Journal of International Law
Whittier. L. R. Whittier Law Review
Wis. I. L. J. Wisconsin International Law Journal
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
After long underdevelopment in controlling of international humanitarian affairs, the
twentieth century has seen unprecedented developments in the international protection
of human rights. These developments could be attributed to an increasing sharing of
fundamental principles and predictions among nations. Therefore, the international
community now admits the importance to protect humanity from the various violations
of human rights. International criminal law is one important instrument to perform this
task. International criminal law refers to the process of the understanding of two
different legal systems which have developed through different ways to become in co-
existence. These systems are: the criminal law aspect of international law and the
international aspects of national criminal law.1
International criminal law is a body of rules which possesses international
features, contains penal characteristics and consists of criminalisation of certain types
of conduct traced via international criminal court, national courts, and hybrid courts.
Many international crimes have emerged through international criminal law whether
by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international conventions,
international customs, and general principles. One of these crimes is the crime of
genocide.
1 Christoph J.M. Safferling, Towards an international criminal procedure, Oxford University Press, 2003,
at 5.
2
The term “Genocide” was proposed by the legal scholar Raphael Lemkin,
drawing on the Greek word, Genos, which means race, nation, or tribe, and the Latin
Caedere, to kill. Interchangeably, he took into account the ancient Greek term ethnos,
which has basically the similar concept as genos.2
Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948, as any of the following acts committed
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious
group, as such:-
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Actually, despite the Convention’s title uttering on both prevention and
punishment of the crime of genocide, the principal focus is directed to the
prosecutorial and punitive part more than preventive part.3
The substantive and procedural aspects of criminal law system, by prosecuting
its violator, could play an auspicious role in order to ensure the rights of the accused
person and the rights of the victim. Although international and national criminal
courts do cooperate to enforce international criminal law in certain aspects, so long as
each criminal system has its own laws and procedures to achieve justice, divergence
2 Raphael Lemkin, Axis rule in occupied Europe: laws of occupation- analysis of government-proposals
for redress, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944, at 79-95. 3 William A. Schabas, Genocide in international law: the crime of crimes, 2nd Edition, Cambridge
University Press, 2009, at 520.
3
between both legal systems would be expected.4 Consequently, these differences may
affect the rights of the accused and the victim.
The objectives of this study are:
1. To determine the nature of genocide and identify the protected groups.
2. To study the systems of international and national courts in prosecuting
the crime of genocide.
3. To identify the differences between the two legal systems in the aspects of
definitions of genocide and the criminal procedures.
4. To suggest acceptable ways of protecting the rights of the accused and the
victim.
1.2 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
This study is focused on scrutinising the prosecution of the crime of crimes,5 namely:
genocide, in the international and national courts. The international community has
shown interest in prosecuting the perpetrators of genocide via many instances such as
the adoption of the Genocide Convention 1948, the establishment of ad hoc
international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the
permanent International Criminal Court. In addition to these international measures, a
number of national courts have engaged in prosecuting genocide. The foundation of
international and national criminal courts is considered. However, due to legal and
practical effects, the two legal systems are taking different approaches in prosecuting
genocide. Therefore, the differences between the two legal systems are assessed
4 John Dugard & Christine Van Den Wyngaert (Eds), International Criminal Law and procedure,
Dartmouth-Ashgate, 1996, at 69-101. 5 As genocide was called by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Prosecutor v. Kambanda
(Case No. ICTR-97-23-S), Judgment and Sentence, 1998, Para 16.
4
comparatively and the way they influence the rights of the accused and the rights of the
victim to a fair and transparent trial is covered. Furthermore, the definitions of the
crime of genocide in international and national laws are highlighted. In concluding the
study, suggestions are given to narrow down the differences between the two legal
systems and make them consistent.
1.3 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The rights of the accused and the victims in the prosecution of genocide cases could be
affected by the non-uniformity between the international legal system and the national
legal systems.
1.4 HYPOTHESIS
The study examines the following hypothesis:
1. That since differences in the laws and procedures of prosecuting the crime
of genocide between the international and the national legal systems could
affect the rights of the accused and the victims, standardisation is needed.
1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW
Numerous books and articles have been written on the prosecution and punishment of
the international crimes and on international criminal tribunals.6
Tella, F., in his book, Challenges for human rights, discusses the historical and
present status of the international criminal system. He shows the stance before the
6 Safferling, n 1, at 54-365; Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops, An introduction to the law of international
criminal tribunals: A comparative study, Transnational publishers, 2003, at 89-181; Ralph Henham,
Punishment and process in international criminal trials, Burlington: Ashgate, 2005, at 13-75; Steven D.
Roper & Lilian A. Barria, Designing criminal tribunals, Burlington: Ashgate, 2006, at 1-96; Anna Petrig,
“Negotiated justice and the goals of international criminal tribunals” Vol. 8 No.1 (2008) Chi-Kent J. Int’L
& Comp. L 1-31.
5
World War II and after the war, discussing the international military tribunals of
Nuremberg and Tokyo, the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the special court for Sierra Leone. He identifies the
deficiencies and limitations of the international criminal court, but does not analyse
the implication of having two international and national legal systems.7
Safferling, C., in his work, Towards an international criminal procedure,
examines the great differences between the systems. He investigates in special detail
the rules of the various institutions especially of evidence. He is of the opinion that
efforts have to be made in order to find a general measure. He suggests that human
rights provisions addressing the notion of “fair trial” could be done through
convergence and cooperation of several systems.8
Christine Wyngaert shows that although the foundation of international
instruments is important to prosecute the commission of international crimes, the
consistency from the states is required, otherwise, they can not be properly deemed as
contributing towards the achievement of international justice as a duty.9
William Schabas, in his book, Genocide in international law, discusses the
prosecution of genocide at the national and the international levels emphasising the
cases of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Cambodia, and some Latin American states.
This work explains the historical development of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the problem of prosecuting the crime
of genocide. Nevertheless, the effect of having these two institutions to prosecute the
7 Fernando Flacony Tella, Challenges for human rights, Martinus Mijhoff, 2007, at 21-44. 8 Safferling, C., supra note 1, at 4-5. 9 Christine Van Den Wyngaert, “War crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity: are states taking
national prosecution seriously?” in International criminal law, edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni, 2nd Edition,
Vol. III, (New York: Transnational Publisher, 1999), 237-238.
6
same offences by employing different rules of procedures and evidence is not
assessed.10
Ferdinandusse, W., in his article builds some important question regarding the
enforcement of international criminal law, including the ways for courts to tackle the
inconsistencies between the national laws and the international law. He discusses the
circumstances where international law can form some basics for the national courts to
prosecute the criminals of the crime of genocide. So, this article calls for more
concentration on the study of the possible ways to converge between both systems.11
Weiss, P., in his work, The future of universal jurisdiction, says that there will
not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future but
one eternal and unchangeable law will be enforced for all states and periods. In
addition, he indicates that there will be general rules for all legal systems including
investigation and evidence so as to avoid the difficulties of difference between
different systems.12
Dahlberg, A. in Establishing an international criminal court, identifies big
problems of procedure and evidence through the pragmatic application of the
international criminal tribunals such as that of Nuremberg and Tokyo, as well as
Yugoslavia and Rwanda. These problems include the ensuring of the witnesses’
presence for the prosecution of the crime.13
The wealth of literature is useful in the
progress of this study.
10 See Schabas, supra note 3, at 400-17. 11 Ward Ferdinandusse, “The interaction of national and international approaches in the repression of
international crimes” Vol. 15 No. 5 (November 2004) E.J.I.L 9. 12 Peter Weiss, “The future of universal jurisdiction”, in International Prosecution of Human Rights
Crimes, edited by Wolfgang Kaleck, Michael Ratner, Tobias Singelnstein & PeterWeiss (Ed.), Berlin:
Springer, 2006, at 29-36. 13 Andrea Dahlberg, “Establishing an international criminal court” Vol. 147 No. 6805 (1997) New Law
Journal 1231-1234.
7
1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATION
The study revolves around important legal and procedural aspects in prosecuting the
crime of genocide. The focus is to show how international and national courts are
approaching the legal and procedural issues in prosecuting genocide, how the rights of
the accused and the rights of the victims are protected. It is not the aim of this study to
discuss the whole theoretical and practical aspects relating to the prosecution of
genocide, for example, the defence of self-defence and tu quoque. However, the
defences of superior orders and immunity are discussed briefly. The issues of the
prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide are not covered. The case of
Akayesu before the ICTR is studied, and the case of Pinochet which employed the
principle of universal jurisdiction is studied as well. Other cases, except Saddam
Hussein case, are also referred to.
1.7 METHODOLOGY
This study compares the prosecution of the crime of genocide in both international and
national jurisdictions in order to find out the implications of the differences between the
two legal systems on the rights of the accused and the victims. This research is mainly
library based. The research analyses the provisions of the Genocide Convention and
the Statutes of International Military Tribunal, the International Military Tribunal for
the Far East, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court.
National statutes are also examined. Case studies are conducted on Akayesu from
international jurisdiction and Pinochet from national jurisdiction.