International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) granted early release to 47 individuals, i.e. 85 per cent of those released at the time. For each of these individuals, the President assessed their level of rehabilitation, considered it
‘Slow and steady, that’s the way to win the race’. This sentence, uttered on the courtyard of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) by one of the senior legal advisors of the ICTR’s chambers in 2011, captures the complexities international actors face when they set out to
providing for the security of the witnesses. Trips were even undertaken to the ICTR to learn about its prac- tice and measures were adopted to prevent a “cultural shock”. Notwithstanding the ten- dency of some human rights advocates to be very critical of military tribunals, in the Niyonteze Trial the Swiss
international standards. Th e ICTY’s approach has been followed by the ICTR and the SCSL, though each tribunal made important advances in victim and witness protection. Today, ICC continues to follow the lead of the other tribunals. Although it is still unknown how well the ICC will protect victims and
, the ictr in particular, were pivotal in progressively developing the international law of genocide, and the law of non-international armed conflict.
With this background in mind, this article will explore how and why the ictr was pivotal to reviving international criminal law after Nuremburg and
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter referred to as the Genocide Convention). 3 With the inchoate crime of direct and public incitement to commit genocide made punishable, 4 the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), in defining the crime