A Steady Race towards Better Compliance with International Humanitarian Law? The ICTR 1995–2012

in International Criminal Law Review
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This article reviews the legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) under a specific compliance perspective and asks whether the Tribunal’s jurisprudence furthered the adherence to norms of international criminal and humanitarian law. The Tribunal’s impact on the circulation, emergence and enforcement, of the prohibitions of genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law will thus be scrutinised. Furthermore, the legitimacy of the ICTR’s jurisprudence plays a major role as human beings not only follow a logic of consequence but also a logic of appropriateness. This combined approach will show that the ICTR – despite its shortcomings – has furthered compliance by diffusing the norms of international criminal and humanitarian law not only to Rwanda and the Great Lakes Region, but also to the international community.

A Steady Race towards Better Compliance with International Humanitarian Law? The ICTR 1995–2012

in International Criminal Law Review

Sections

References

3

UNSC Res. 955 (1994) Preambular paras. 8 and 7.

13

Schmelzlesupra note 8 p. 10.

15

Hurdsupra note 11 p 386.

16

Lamontsupra note 14 p. 16.

17

Schmelzlesupra note 8 p. 10.

18

Lamontsupra note 14 p. 18.

23

Hurdsupra note 11 pp. 388 et seq.

27

Amannibid. p. 120 stresses the fact that ‘[p]unishment not only deprives a criminal of liberty but also signals the existence and extent of societal reproach’.

31

Amannsupra note 26 p. 122 underlines that unenforced law does not render the law meaningless but still exerts an ‘expressive effect’.

40

Kriegersupra note 26 p. 11; International Committee of the Red Cross ‘The Roots of Behaviour in War – Understanding and Preventing IHL Violations’ 2004 pp. 6 et seq. <www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0853.pdf> 8 January 2014.

46

Gallimoresupra note 41.

47

Amannsupra note 26 p. 116.

50

Møsesupra note 43 p. 932 et seq.: ‘There can be no doubt that the Tribunal’s proceedings relating to persons in very high positions have sent a strong signal to the world including the African continent that impunity will not be accepted by the international community’.

54

Nmajusupra note 41 pp. 367 et seq.

73

Ceronesupra note 68 p. 191.

77

Gregory Townsend‘Epilogue to Hotel Rwanda’ASIL Insight7 December 2011 15 (32).

85

Bergsmo and Webbsupra note 32 p. 351–352.

86

Møsesupra note 43 p. 936.

95

Gallimoresupra note 41 p. 246.

99

Jallowsupra note 41 p. 272.

108

Gallimoresupra note 41 p. 247.

109

MacKinnon supra note 101 p. 22; Gabriela Mischkowski and Gorana Mlinarevic ‘…and that it does not happen to anyone anywhere in the world’ The Trouble with Rape Trials Study Medica Mondiale e.V. December 2009 p. 39 <www.medicamondiale.org/fileadmin/content/07_Infothek/Gerechtigkeit/medica_mondiale_Zeuginnenstudie_englisch_december_2009.pdf> 8 January 2014.

110

Jallowsupra note 41 p. 273.

119

Zaharsupra note 111 p. 36.

125

Shannon E. Powers‘Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts: Implications for International Criminal Law and Transitional Justice’ASIL Insight23 June 2011 Vol. 15 Issue 17; see Alison Des Forges and Timothy Longman ‘Legal Responses to Genocide in Rwanda’ in Eric Stover and Harvey M. Weinstein (eds.) My Neighbor My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity (Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2004) pp. 49–68 at p. 56.

134

Diengsupra note 131 p. 408.

136

Diengsupra note 131 p. 409.

140

S/RES 955 (1994) preamble para. 9.

141

Carollsupra note 52 p. 172; United States Institute for Peace Rwanda Accountability for War Crimes and Genocide 1995 p. 14 <www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR13.pdf> 8 January 2014. But see Inneke Onsea ‘The Legacy of the ICTR in Rwanda in the Context of the Completion Strategy: The Impact of Rule 11bis’ in Cedric Ryngaert (ed.) The Effectiveness of International Criminal Justice (Intersentia Antwerp 2009) pp. 173–194 at p. 174 who speaks of 237 remaining out of formerly 600 judges as does Human Rights Watch Law and Reality: Progress in Judicial Reform in Rwanda 2008 p. 12 <www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/rwanda0708webwcover.pdf> 8 January 2014.

142

In 199410000 people were detained in Rwanda in 1998 the count was already at 130000 detainees i.e. 1000 to 3000 people were arrested every month see L. Daniell Tully ‘Note: Human Rights Compliance and the Gacaca Jurisdictions in Rwanda’ 26 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (2003) 385–414 at p. 389; Payam Akhavan ‘The Trials of Concurrent Jurisdiction’ 7 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law (1997) 349–374 at p. 357 speaks of 90000 in 1997; and Ngoga supra note 139 p. 324 even speaks of 200000 in 1996.

144

Carollsupra note 52 p. 188.

147

Amnesty Internationalsupra note 146.

152

Powerssupra note 125.

156

Neuffersupra note 149.

157

Westbergsupra note 42 p. 353.

158

Carollsupra note 52 p. 192.

167

Nsanzuwerasupra note 41 p. 948.

169

Onseasupra note 141 p. 189.

174

 E.g. OLG Frankfurt 6 November 20082. Strafsenat Ausl A 106/08 BeckRS 2008 23907; Vincent Brown aka Vincent Bajinja et al. v. The Government of Rwanda and The Secretary of State for the Home Department 8 April 2009 High Court of Justice Divisional Court CO/6247/2008; Ministère Public v. Marcel Z 23 October 2008 Cour d’Appel de Toulouse Chambre de l’instruction no. 2008/00029; Ministère Public v. Claver Kamana 10 January 2009 Cour d’Appel de  Lyon  <www.rnanews.com/politics/846-france-refus-dextrader-un-gcidaire-prm> 1 October 2013 the Swiss and the Finnish governments refused equally to extradite see Decision on Request for Extradition of the Finnish Ministry of Justice in the Case of Francois Bazaramba 20 February 2009 and ‘An extradition to Rwanda is impossible’ 1 July 2009 <www.iol.co.za/news/africa/an-extradition-to-rwanda-is-impossible-1.448136#.Uk7EvVMzKK4> 1 October 2013; different Sweden: Sylvère Ahorugeze v. Riksåklagaren 26 May 2009 Högsta Domstolen Ö 1082-09. In that particular case Sylvère Ahurogeze v. Sweden 27 October 2011 European Court of Human Rights no. 37075/09 8 January 2014 the ECtHR ruled that the extradition would not violate the ECHR.

192

Diengsupra note 131 p. 420.

206

Gallimoresupra note 41 p. 252.

207

Carollsupra note 52 p. 193.

215

Gallimoresupra note 41 p. 258.

218

Carollsupra note 52 p. 179.

220

Gallimoresupra note 41 p. 254.

225

Schmelzlesupra note 8 p. 11.

235

Jallowsupra note 41 p. 270. See also The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesuibid. paras. 81 et seq.

244

Von Bogdandy and Venzkesupra note 22 pp. 25–27.

247

UNSC Res. 1165 (1998).

249

Møsesupra note 43 p. 922 note 7.

251

Carollsupra note 52 p. 181 et seq.

252

Møsesupra note 43 pp. 924 930 et seq.

254

Carollsupra note 52 p. 183.

255

UNSC Res. 1431 (2002).

256

Carollsupra note 52 p. 195.

260

Møsesupra note 43 p. 931.

267

Carollsupra note 52 p. 180.

276

Gallimoresupra note 33 p. 240.

278

Nsanzuwerasupra note 41 p. 946.

280

Diengsupra note 131 p. 412.

281

Møsesupra note 43 p. 937.

287

Von Bogdandy and Venzkesupra note 22 p. 37.

289

Van den Heriksupra note 58 pp. 184 et seq.

292

Akhavansupra note 56 p. 999.

306

Schomburgsupra note 258 p. 2.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 47 47 20
Full Text Views 88 88 53
PDF Downloads 6 6 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0