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):||9 May 2014|
|PDF File Size:||12.57 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.89 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Akayesu was charged with five counts under Article 4 of the Statute and was acquitted on each of the said counts.
Refworld | The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (Trial Judgement)
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. To so add Additional Protocol II should not, in the opinion of the Chamber, be dealt with as a mere expansive enunciation of a ratione materiae which has been pre-determined by the Security Council.
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. Rather, the Chamber finds it necessary and reasonable to establish the applicability of both Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II individually.
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.
He was the mayor of Taba commune in Gitarama prefecture from April until June For the first four of these, there is mention only of Common Article 3 as the subject matter jurisdiction of the particular alleged offences, whereas count 15 makes an additional reference to Additional Protocol II. Would that be necessary to claim that customary law criminalizes violations of common Art.
The category of persons to be held accountable in this respect then, would in most cases be limited to commanders, combatants and other members akaydsu the armed forces. First and Second Grounds of Appeal: In each paragraph charging genocide, a crime recognized by Article 2 aoayesu 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.
Furthermore, the Chamber notes that measures intended to prevent births within the group may be physical, but can also be mental. Notwithstanding the above, a possible approach would be for the Chamber not to look at the nature of the building blocks of Article 4 of the Statute nor for it to categorize the conflict as such but, rather, to look only at the relevant parts of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II in the context judhment this trial.
Guilty of Crime against Humanity Murder [ The Chamber notes that Rwanda acceded, judgmrnt legislative decree, to the Convention on Genocide on 12 February The concept of armed conflict has already been discussed in the previous section pertaining to Common Article 3.
ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu | How does law protect in war? – Online casebook
By virtue of his presence during the commission of the sexual violence, beatings and murders and by failing to prevent the sexual violence, beatings and juudgment, Jean Paul AKAYESU encouraged these activities. In the field of international humanitarian law, a clear distinction as to the thresholds of akahesu 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.
With respect to the second Ground of Appeal, the Prosecution moves the Appeals Chamber to hold that the Trial Chamber erred in applying the public agent ajayesu in its factual findings in this case.
It suffices to recall that an armed conflict is distinguished from internal disturbances by the level of intensity of the conflict and the akzyesu of organization of the parties to the conflict. From this follows that it is not possible to apply rules in one part of the country i. For Akayesu to be held criminally responsible under Article 4 of the Statute, it is incumbent akayes the Prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Akayesu acted for either the Government or the RPF in the execution of their respective conflict objectives.
The court clarified that Genocide is a specific crime that takes the accused outside of the scope of armed conflict. This consequently rules out situations of internal disturbances and tensions.
Extending its solicitude little by little to other categories of war victims, in logical application jufgment its fundamental principle [the Red Cross] pointed the way, first to the revision of the jugment Convention, and then to the extension of legal protection in turn to prisoners of war and civilians.
Situations judggment internal disturbances are not covered by international humanitarian law. On 2 SeptemberJean Paul Akayesu was sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the nine counts, the sentences to run concurrently. The aforesaid, however, is subject to the caveat that the crimes must not be committed by the perpetrator for purely personal motives.
The duties and responsibilities of the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, hence, will normally apply only to individuals of all ranks belonging to the armed forces under the military command of either of the belligerent parties, or to individuals who were legitimately mandated and expected, as public officials or agents or persons otherwise holding public authority or de facto representing the Government, to support or fulfil the war efforts. As regards individual criminal responsibility for serious violations of Common Article uudgment, the ICTY has already affirmed this principle in the Tadic case.
This degree of organization should judgmeny 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.
Indeed, the Security Council has itself never explicitly determined how an armed conflict should be characterised. As stipulated earlier in this judgment, this implies that Judgmenr would incur individual criminal responsibility for his acts if it were proved that by virtue of his authority, he is either responsible for the outbreak of, or is otherwise directly engaged in the conduct of hostilities.
ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu
It should be recalled that the four Geneva Conventions, as well as the two Protocols, were adopted primarily to akaysu the victims, as well as potential victims, of armed conflicts.
Common Article 3 and other rules in other parts of the country i.
In any case, the Kunarac Trial Chamber has not found it necessary to elaborate on this point in light of the circumstances of the case. Hence, the Chamber deems it reasonable and necessary that, prior to deciding if there have been serious violations of the provisions of Article 4 of the Statute, where a specific reference jjdgment been made to Additional Protocol II in counts against an accused, it must be shown that the conflict is such as to satisfy the requirements of Additional Protocol II.
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. In the opinion of the Appeals Chamber, the Trial Chamber erred judgmetn requiring that a special relationship should be a separate condition for triggering criminal responsibility for a violation of Article 4 of the Statute.
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 akayesk an internal armed conflict: The Trial Chamber held that rape, which akahesu 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 targeted group, as such.
Such distinction is inherent to the conditions of applicability specified for Common Article 3 or Additional Protocol II respectively.