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):||13 September 2004|
|PDF File Size:||11.60 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.30 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Under Article 6 1 of the Statute of the Tribunal, individual criminal responsibility is attributable to 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.
Notwithstanding the above, a possible approach would be for the Chamber not to look at the nature amayesu 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 of this trial.
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. The RPF troops were disciplined and possessed a structured leadership which was answerable to authority.
Retrieved 25 September In any case, the Kunarac Trial Chamber judtment not found it necessary to elaborate on this point in light of the circumstances of the case. This implies thus that the legal instruments are primarily addressed to persons who by virtue of their authority, are responsible for the outbreak qkayesu, or are otherwise engaged in the conduct of hostilities.
The court clarified that Genocide is a specific crime that takes the accused outside of the scope of armed conflict. Ratione personae Two distinct issues arise with respect to personal jurisdiction over serious violations of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol Judgmeng — the class of victims and the class of perpetrators. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber finds there existed at the time of the events alleged in the Indictment an armed conflict not of an international character as covered by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
Article 4 of the Statute, accordingly, includes violations of Additional Protocol II, amayesu, as a whole, has not yet been universally recognized as part of customary international law, for the first time criminalizes common article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions.
Such distinction is inherent to the conditions of applicability specified for Common Article 3 or Additional Protocol II respectively. Is Protocol II applicable? This is the reason why, in the absence of a confession from the accused, aayesu intent can be inferred from a certain number of presumptions of akayseu.
The distinction pertaining to situations of conflicts of a non-international character emanates from the differing intensity of the conflicts. This page was last edited on 1 Decemberat As stipulated earlier in this judgment, this implies that Akayesu 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.
Jean Paul Akayesu was found not guilty of the six remaining counts, including the count of complicity in genocide and the counts relating to violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II thereto.
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.
How do you interpret Art. 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.
Jean-Paul Akayesu – Wikipedia
In the opinion of the Chamber, it is clear that the authors of such egregious violations must incur individual criminal responsibility for their deeds.
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 has 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.
Consequently, in order to clarify the constitutive elements of the crime of jurgment, the Chamber will first state its findings on the acts provided for under Article 2 2 a through Article 2 2 e of the Statute, the groups protected by the Genocide Convention, and the alayesu intent or dolus specialis necessary for genocide to take place.
As a result, the Appeals Chamber must turn to the article which serves as a basis judgmejt Article 4, to wit, Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions [ Under Additional Protocol II, the parties to the conflict will usually either be the government confronting dissident armed forces, or the government fighting insurgent organized armed groups.
The victims referred to in this indictment were, at all relevant times, persons not taking an active part in the hostilities. Genocide Article 2 of the Statute stipulates that the Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for genocide, complicity to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide and complicity in genocide. He was the mayor of Taba commune in Gitarama prefecture from April until June Who has to respect Art.
In that latter respect, the Security Council has elected to take a more expansive approach to the choice of the applicable law than the one underlying the Statute of the Yugoslav Tribunal, and included within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Rwanda Tribunal international instruments regardless of whether they were considered part aayesu customary international law or whether they have customarily entailed the individual criminal responsibility of the perpetrator of the crime.
The class akxyesu perpetrators [ N. The list in Article 4 of the Statute thus comprises serious violations judment the fundamental humanitarian guarantees which, as has been stated above, are recognized as part of international customary law. All these counts are covered by Article 4 of the Statute.
These violations shall include, but shall not be limited to: For instance, rape can be a measure intended to prevent births when the person raped refuses subsequently to procreate, in the same way that members of a group can be led, akayeeu threats or trauma, not to procreate.
Akayesu was charged with five counts under Article 4 of the Statute and was acquitted on each of the said counts.
Its object and purpose is to broaden the application of the international humanitarian law by defining what constitutes minimum humane treatment and the rules applicable under all circumstances. The accused is individually responsible for the crimes alleged in this indictment. Pierre-Richard Prosper was the lead prosecutor. The objective of this approach, thus, would be to apply the provisions of the Statute in a fashion which corresponds best with the underlying protective purpose of the Conventions and the Protocols.
The definition of genocide set out in paras of the judgement of Trial Chamber I was not revised in the present Appeals Chamber judgement. An ethnic group is generally defined as a group whose members share a common language or culture. The trial is the subject of the documentary film, The Uncondemned. Individual Criminal Responsibility For the purposes of an international criminal Tribunal which is trying individuals, it is not sufficient merely to affirm that Common Article 3 and parts of Article 4 of Additional Protocol II — which comprise the subject-matter jurisdiction of Article 4 of the Statute — form part of international customary law.
This stems from the fact that common Article 3 requires a close nexus between violations and the armed conflict.