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.

Author: Golkis Kajigar
Country: Chile
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Software
Published (Last): 6 February 2017
Pages: 195
PDF File Size: 13.83 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.54 Mb
ISBN: 742-5-45802-398-3
Downloads: 17175
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tebei

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group paragraph e With respect to forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, the Chamber is of the opinion that, as in the case of measures intended to prevent births, the objective is not only to sanction a direct act of forcible physical transfer, but also to sanction acts of threats or trauma which would lead to the forcible transfer of children from one group to another.

Akayesu’s defence team argued that Akayesu had no part in the killings, and that he had been powerless to stop them. 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.

Thus, the conditions to be met to fulfil the material requirements of applicability of Additional Protocol II at the time of the events alleged in the Indictment would entail showing that: It marks a new step forward in the unceasing development of the idea on which the Red Cross is based, and in the embodiment of that idea in the form of international obligations.

Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another akayeeu.

Such distinction is inherent to the conditions of applicability specified for Common Article 3 or Additional Protocol II respectively. Must judgmet be part of the armed forces of one of the parties?

Indeed, the Security Council has itself never explicitly determined how an armed conflict should be characterised. It is today clear that the norms of Common Article 3 have acquired the status of customary law in that most States, by their domestic penal codes, have criminalized acts which if committed during internal armed conflict, would constitute violations of Common Article 3. An inherent question follows such a description, namely, what constitutes an armed conflict?

The Appeals Chamber is of the view that the minimum protection provided for victims under common Article 3 implies necessarily effective punishment on persons who violate it.

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.

The accused is individually responsible for the crimes alleged in this indictment. 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.


Was the Court correct to argue in its conclusion that at the time when Akayesu committed his crimes, Art. From this follows that it is not possible to apply rules in one part of the country i.

Consequently, in order to clarify the constitutive elements of the crime of genocide, 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 special intent or dolus specialis necessary for genocide to take place.

AKAYESU, Jean Paul (ICTR-96-4)

Ratione personae Two distinct issues arise with respect to personal jurisdiction over serious violations of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II — the class of victims and the class of perpetrators. The definition of genocide set out in paras of the judgement of Trial Chamber I was not revised in the present Appeals Chamber judgement. This implies thus that the legal instruments are primarily addressed to persons who by virtue of their authority, are responsible for the outbreak of, or are otherwise engaged in the conduct of hostilities.

However, as aforesaid, Additional Protocol II as a whole was not deemed by the Secretary-General to have been universally recognized as part of customary international law. The Chamber holds that the expression deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, should be construed as the methods of destruction by which the perpetrator does not immediately kill the members of the group, but which, ultimately, seek their physical destruction.

Footnotes [] Trial Judgment, paras and emphasis added. To that end, it is necessary, firstly, to review the relevant provisions of the Statute as interpreted by the case-law of the Tribunals and, secondly, the object and purpose of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. The category of persons to be held accountable in this respect then, would in most cases be limited to commanders, combatants and other members of the armed forces.

The RPF troops were disciplined and possessed a structured leadership which was answerable to authority. Is it necessary for a rule of Art. The Akayesu judgement includes the first interpretation and application by an international court of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group paragraph b Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group does not necessarily mean that the harm is permanent and irremediable.

For Akayesu to be held criminally responsible under Article 4 of the Statute, it is incumbent on 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. It should be stressed that the ascertainment of the intensity of a non-international conflict does not depend on the subjective judgment of the parties to the conflict. However, the Chamber recalls the way in which the Prosecutor has brought some of the counts against the accused, namely counts 6, 8, 10, 12 and In each paragraph charging genocide, a crime recognized by Article 2 of 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.


Mukasarasi was intimidated and her husband and daughter were killed but she found four people who were willing to testify. He was the mayor of Taba commune in Gitarama prefecture from April until June Thus, punishment of the crime of genocide did exist in Rwanda inat the time of the acts alleged in the Indictment, and the perpetrator was liable to be brought before the competent courts of Rwanda to answer for this crime. As a result, the Appeals Chamber must turn to the article which serves as a basis for Article 4, to wit, Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions [ 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.

The territory in their control is usually that which has eluded the control of the government forces.

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 and an internal judgmrnt conflict: All of the guarantees, as enumerated in Article jkdgment reaffirm and supplement Common Article 3 and, as discussed above, Common Article 3 being customary in nature, the Chamber is of the opinion that these guarantees did also at the time of the events alleged in the Indictment form part of existing international customary law.

Thus, on the basis of objective criteria, both Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II will apply once it has been established there exists an internal armed conflict which fulfills their respective pre-determined criteria.

How akayexu you interpret Art.

ICC – Legal Tools record: Judgement (The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu)

In the opinion of the Chamber, it is clear that the authors of such egregious violations must incur individual criminal responsibility for their deeds. The local people and militia killed them with machetes and agricultural tools in front of the Taba bureau communal. Prior to his appointment as bourgmestrehe was a teacher and school inspector in Taba.

The Appeals Chamber is therefore of the opinion that international humanitarian law would be lessened and called into question if it were to be admitted that certain persons be exonerated from individual criminal responsibility for a violation of common Article 3 under the pretext that they did not belong to a specific category. Findings would thus be made on the basis of whether or not it were proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been a serious violation in the form of one or more of the acts enumerated in Article 4 of the Statute.

The list in Article 4 of the Statute thus comprises serious violations of the fundamental humanitarian guarantees which, as has been stated above, are recognized as part of international customary law.

This is so because Additional Protocol II is a legal instrument the overall sole purpose of which is to afford protection to victims in conflicts not of an international character.