ict for yuguslavia
DESCRIPTION
description of international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavis (international law)TRANSCRIPT
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia
The Tribunal building in The Hague
Established 25 May 1993
Country former Yugoslavia
Location The Hague, the Netherlands
Coordinates52.0679°N 4.3535°E Coordinates : 52.0679°N
4.3535°E
Authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 827
Judge term length Four years
Number of
positions
16 permanent
12 ad litem
Website http://www.icty.org/
President
Currently Theodor Meron (United States)
Since 17 November 2011
The International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of
International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, more
commonly referred to as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia or ICTY, is a body of
the United Nations established to prosecute serious crimes committed during thewars in the former Yugoslavia,
and to try their perpetrators. The tribunal is an ad hoc court which is located in The Hague, the Netherlands.
The Court was established by Resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council, which was passed on 25
May 1993. It has jurisdiction over four clusters of crimes committed on the territory of the
formerYugoslavia since 1991: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of
war, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The maximum sentence it can impose is life imprisonment.
Various countries have signed agreements with the UN to carry out custodial sentences.
The final indictments were issued in December 2004, the last of which were confirmed and unsealed in the
spring of 2005.[1] The Tribunal aims to complete all trials by the end of 2012 and all appeals by 2015,[2] with the
exception of Radovan Karadžić whose trial is expected to end in 2014[2] and recently arrested Ratko
Mladić and Goran Hadžić.
The United Nations Security Council called upon the Tribunal to finish its work by 31 December 2014 to
prepare for its closure and transfer of its responsibilities to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal
Tribunals which will begin functioning for the ICTY branch on 1 July 2013. The Tribunal will conduct and
complete all outstanding first instance trials, including those of Radovan Karadžić, Ratko Mladić andGoran
Hadžić. It will conduct and complete all appeal proceedings for which the notice of appeal against the
judgement or sentence is filed before 1 July 2013. Any appeals for which notice is filed after that date will be
handled by the Residual Mechanism.[3]
Hadžić became the last of 161 indicted fugitives to be arrested after Serbian President Boris Tadić announced
his arrest on 20 July 2011.[4]
Criticism
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found
on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is
resolved. (November 2012)
Skeptics argued that an international court could not function while the war in the former Yugoslavia was still
going on. This would be a huge undertaking for any court, but for the ICTY it would be an even greater one, as
the new tribunal still needed judges, a prosecutor, a registrar, investigative and support staff, an extensive
interpretation and translation system, a legal aid structure, premises, equipment, courtrooms, detention
facilities, guards and all the related funding.
Criticisms levelled against the court include:
Moscow has criticised the ICTY has being ineffective, costly and politically motivated, “The tribunal has
long discredited itself and Šešelj’s case is just one more proof of that. Even Carla del Ponte admitted that
the case against him was politically motivated,” [27]
On 6 December 2006, the Tribunal at The Hague approved the use of force-
feeding of Serbian politician Vojislav Šešelj. They decided it was not "torture, inhuman or degrading
treatment if there is a medical necessity to do so...and if the manner in which the detainee is force-fed is
not inhuman or degrading".[28]
Reducing the indictment charges - after the arrest of Ratko Mladić, Croatian officials publicly
condemned chief prosecutor Serge Brammertz for his announcement that the former Bosnian Serb
General will be on trial only for crimes committed in Bosnia, but not for those crimes committed in Croatia
(Škabrnja massacre, shelling of Zadar,Šibenik, Požega, Kijevo as well as the destruction of the Peruća
dam).[29][30]
Critics[31] have questioned whether the Tribunal exacerbates tensions rather than promotes
reconciliation,[32] as is claimed by Tribunal supporters. Polls show a generally negative reaction to the
Tribunal among the Serb and Croat public.[32] The majority of Croats and Serbs doubt the tribunal's integrity
and question the tenability of its legal procedures (although the Serbian and Croatian opinions on the court
are almost always exactly the opposite with regard to the cases that involve both parties).[32]
Critics[who?], even within the United Nations, have complained of the Tribunal's high cost. The two-year
budget for the Tribunal for 2004 and 2005 was $271,854,600 (currently $324 million).[33] The cost is borne
by all U.N. members.
No indictments for NATO officials - even though the ICTY indicted and convicted individuals from every
nation involved in the Yugoslav Wars, not a single indictment has been issued for NATO officials. Noam
Chomsky observed that the ICTY should have indicted Tony Blair and Bill Clinton together with Milosevic
over Kosovo War.[34]
68% of indictees have been Serbs (or Montenegrins),[32] to the extent that a sizeable portion of the
Bosnian Serb and Croatian Serbian political and military leaderships have been indicted. Many have seen
this as reflecting bias,[35]while the Tribunal's defenders have seen this as indicative of the actual proportion
of crimes committed. However,Marko Attila Hoare observed how, apart from Milošević, only Momčilo
Perišić (Chief of the General Staff of theYugoslav Army) has been indicted from the Serbian military or
political top when it comes to wars in Croatia and Bosnia.[32]
According to Attila Hoare, a former employee at the ICTY, an investigative team worked on indictments
of senior members of the ‘joint criminal enterprise’, including not only Milosevic but also Veljko
Kadijevic, Blagoje Adzic, Borisav Jovic, Branko Kostic, Momir Bulatovic and others. However, upon Carla
del Ponte’s intervention, these drafts were rejected, and the indictment limited to Milosevic alone, as a
result of which most of these individuals were never indicted.[36][37]
Allegations of censorship - in July 2011, the Appeals Chamber of ICTY confirmed the judgment of the
Trial Chamber which found journalist and former Tribunal’s OTP spokesperson Florence Hartmann guilty
of contempt of court and fined her €7,000. She disclosed documents of FR Yugoslavia’s Supreme Defense
Council meetings and criticized the Tribunal for granting confidentiality of some information in them to
protect Serbia’s ‘vital national interests' duringBosnia's lawsuit against the country for genocide in front of
the International Court of Justice. Hartmann argued that Serbia was freed of charge of genocide because
ICTY redacted some information in the Council meetings. Since these documents have in the meantime
been made public by the ICTY itself, a group of organizations and individuals who supported her said that
the Tribunal in this appellate proceedings "imposed a form of censorship aimed to protect the international
judges from any form of criticism".[38]
Klaus-Peter Willsch compared the Ante Gotovina verdict, where the late Croatian president Franjo
Tuđman was posthumously found to have been participating in a Joint Criminal Enterprise, with the
897 Cadaver Synod trial inRome, when Pope Stephen VI had the corpse of Pope Formosus exhumed, put
on trial and posthumously found guilty.[39]
Too mild sentences - some circles, even within the Tribunal,[40] complained at small sentences of
convicted war criminals in comparison with their crimes. In 2010, Veselin Šljivančanin's sentence for his
involvement in the Vukovar massacre was cut from 17 to 10 years, which caused outrage in Croatia. Upon
hearing that news, Dr. Vesna Bosanac, in charge of the Vukovar hospital during the fall of the city, said
that the "ICTY is dead" for her: "For crimes that he [Šljivančanin], had committed in Vukovar, notably at
Ovcara, he should have been jailed for life. I'm outraged...The Hague(-based) tribunal has showed again
that it is not just a tribunal."[41] Danijel Rehak, the head ofCroatian Association of Prisoners in Serbian
Concentration Camps, said: "The shock of families whose beloved ones were killed at Ovcara is
unimaginable. The court made a crucial mistake by accepting a statement of a JNA officer to whom
Sljivancanin was a commander. I cannot understand that."[41] Pavle Strugar's 8 year sentence for shelling
ofDubrovnik, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, also caused outrage in Croatia.[42] Judge Kevin Horace
Parker has even been named in a Croatian Journal as the main cause of failure of the system because he
dismissed numerous testimonies of witnesses.[42]
Some of the defendants, such as Slobodan Milošević, claimed that the Court has no legal authority because it
was established by the UN Security Council instead of the UN General Assembly, therefore it had not been
created on a broad international basis. The Tribunal was established on the basis of Chapter VII of the United
Nations Charter; the relevant portion of which reads "the Security Council can take measures to maintain or
restore international peace and security". The legal criticism has been succinctly stated in
a Memorandum issued by Austrian Professor Hans Köchler, which was submitted to the President of the
Security Council in 1999. British Conservative Party MEP Daniel Hannan has called for the court to be
abolished, claiming that it is anti-democratic and a violation of national sovereignty.[43]
[edit]Response to Criticism
Supporters of the work of the ICTY responded with to critics in various publications. In a response to David
Harland's New York Time opinion, entitled "Selective Justice," Jelena Subotic, the assistant professor of
political science at Georgia State University and author of “Hijacked Justice: Dealing with the Past in the
Balkans, responded that the critics of the Tribunal miss the point, "which is not to deliver justice for past wrongs
equally for 'all sides,' fostering reconciliation, but to carefully measure each case on its own merits." She
stressed that "We should judge the work of the tribunal by its legal expertise, not by the political outcomes we
desire."[44]
On the other hand, Dr Marko Hoare explained that the accusations of Tribunal's "selective justice" are
stemming from Serb nationalist propaganda. He wrote:
"This is, of course, the claim that hardline Serb nationalists and supporters of Slobodan Milosevic have been
making for about the last two decades. Instead of carrying out any research into the actual record of the ICTY
in order to support his thesis, Harland simply repeats a string of cliches of the kind that frequently appear in
anti-Hague diatribes by Serb nationalists."[45]
Human Rights activist, Ina Vukic, stressed that: "Convictions in criminal courts only deal with justice and reality,
or evidence. And the evidence so far assessed in ICTY has reflected the reality that was: Serb aggression –
most brutal at that. It is only logical that there will be more Serbs than any other ethnic group represented in
convictions dealing with that war.
CasesMilan BabićFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milan Babić
Милан Бабић
1st President of Republic of Serbian Krajina
In office
1991–1992
Prime Minister Dušan Vještica
Succeeded by Goran Hadžić
Personal details
Born February 26, 1956
Kukar, Yugoslavia
Died March 5, 2006 (aged 50)
The Hague, Netherlands
Nationality Serb
Political party Serb Democratic Party
Religion Serbian Orthodox
Milan Babić (Serbian Cyrillic: Милан Бабић; February 26, 1956 – March 5, 2006) was from 1991 to 1992 the
first President of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, a self-proclaimed state largely populated by Serbs of
Croatia that wished to break away from Croatia.
He was indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 2004; he
was the first ever indictee to admit guilt and make a plea bargain with the prosecution, after which he was
sentenced to 13 years in prison. He was found dead in his Hague prison cell on March 6, 2006, having
apparently committed suicide.
[edit]Early life
Babić was born in the village Kukar near the town of Vrlika, in Croatia (then Yugoslavia). He was originally
a dentist by profession. In 1989, he became one of the directors of the medical centre in Knin, a largely Serb-
inhabited town in southwestern Croatia. He entered politics in 1990, as Yugoslavia began to disintegrate,
leaving the League of Communists of Croatia and joined the newly-established nationalist Serbian Democratic
Party (SDS) at its inception, on February 17, 1990. He was elected President of the Municipal Assembly of
Knin shortly afterwards. At the time, Serbs comprised about 11% of Croatia's population, forming a majority in a
strip of land known as "Krajina" along the Croatian-Bosnian border. Croatia's moves towards independence
following the election of the President Franjo Tuđman were strongly opposed to the partitioning of their country
by their Serbian minority, which was supported both politically and militarily by the Yugoslav People's
Army (JNA) and Serbia under President Slobodan Milošević. Nationalist Serbs in the "Krajina" established a
Serbian National Council to coordinate opposition to Croatia; Babić was elected its President.
[edit]Croatian war
Serbs became opposed to any status that would make them remain in an independent Croatia. After Tuđman
was elected, the first democratic constitution was drafted and gave the Serbs a minority status within Croatia.
In September 1990, a referendum (confined to Serb population) was held in the Krajina on the question of Serb
"sovereignty and autonomy" in Croatia, which was passed by a majority of 99.7%. The vote was declared
illegal and invalid by the Croatian government. Babić's administration in Knin then announced the creation of
a Serbian Autonomous Oblast SAO Krajina on December 21, 1990 and on April 1, 1991, declared that it would
secede from Croatia to join Serbia. Other Serb-dominated communities in eastern Croatia announced that they
also would join the SAO. Babić was elected President of the Executive Council of the SAO on April 30 and was
subsequently appointed Minister of the Interior and Minister of Defence by the Krajina Serb Assembly. In this
capacity, he established an armed militia, blockading roads and effectively severing the Croatian coastal region
of Dalmatia from the rest of the country. Clashes between Krajina Serbs and Croatian security forces broke out
almost immediately after Croatia declared independence, leaving dozens dead.
Around August 1991, Babić became a party to what war crimes prosecutors would later describe as a "joint
criminal enterprise" to permanently forcibly remove the non-Serb population of the territory under his control in
order to make them part of a new Serb-dominated state. His chief accomplices allegedly included Slobodan
Milošević, other Krajina Serb figures such as Milan Martić, the Serbian militia leader Vojislav Šešelj, and
Yugoslav Army commanders including General Ratko Mladić, at the time the commander of JNA forces in
Croatia, all of them accused of and some by now convicted for war crimes. According to Babić's testimony
during his war crimes trial, during the summer of 1991 the Serbian secret police – under Milošević's command
– set up "a parallel structure of state security and the police of Krajina and units commanded by the state
security of Serbia". A full-scale war was launched in which a large area of territory, amounting to a third of
Croatia, was seized and the non-Serbian population was either massacred or ethnically cleansed. The bulk of
the fighting occurred between August and December 1991. Thousands more died and were deported in fighting
in eastern Slavonia, but the JNA was the principal actor in that part of the conflict.
The international community attempted to resolve the conflict in November 1991 by proposing a peace plan put
forward by the UN Special Envoy Cyrus Vance, under which the Krajina would be demilitarised and protected
by a UN peacekeeping force while political talks on its future took place. Babić strongly opposed this, instead
renaming the SAO as the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK) on December 19, 1991 (to which was added the
Serb-held areas of eastern Croatia in February 1992). He urged the Krajina Serb Assembly to reject the Vance
plan. However, Milošević disagreed with this position: his strategic aims in Croatia had largely been achieved
and the JNA was needed for the looming war inBosnia. Babić was sidelined and the Vance plan was pushed
through the RSK Assembly on February 16, 1992. On February 26, 1992, Milošević engineered Babić's
removal in favour of Goran Hadžić, a more pliant figure who was reported to have boasted that he was merely
"a messenger for Slobodan Milošević".
Although Babić remained active in RSK politics as its Minister of Foreign Affairs, he was a greatly weakened
figure. Babić stated that Krajina policy was "driven" from Belgrade via the Serbian secret police; Milošević has
denied this, claiming that Babić had made it up "out of fear".
The Bosnian Serbs' military collapse in July–August 1995 propelled Babić into the post of RSK Prime Minister,
but he held this for only a few weeks. In early August 1995, the Croatian government launched Operation
Storm to retake the entire area of the Krajina (with the exception of the strip in eastern Slavonia, which
remained under Serb control until 1998). Babić fled to Serbia along with the entire Krajina Serb leadership and
200,000 Serbian refugees from the region (most of the Serb population in the Krajina). He was said to have
retired to a chicken farm in Vojvodina.
[edit]Trial and plea bargain
In December 2002, Babić was unexpectedly revealed as a witness against as part of a plea bargain, testifying
before theInternational Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia that Milošević had been personally involved
in the Croatian conflict. The following November, he was indicted on five charges of crimes against
humanity and violations of the laws and customs of war. Although he did not initially enter a plea, he pleaded
guilty on January 27, 2004 to one count of crimes against humanity in an apparent plea-bargain with
prosecutors under which the remaining charges were dropped. He expressed "shame and remorse" in a public
statement and declared that he had acted to relieve the collective shame of the Croatian Serbs, asking his
"Croatian brothers to forgive their Serb brothers" for their actions. His confession to the charge of persecution,
a crime against humanity, marked a major victory for the ICTY prosecutors, as Babić was, prior to his death,
the only participant in the Croatian war to admit guilt. His testimony was of great importance to the prosecution
in bolstering their contention that Milošević was the main actor in the "joint criminal enterprise" in Croatia.
In his own trial, Babić gave testimony that was used to indict Milošević. The former also appeared at the trial of
the latter to give evidence. In one case, Milošević denied that he supported Babić by quoting transcripts of his
tapped telephone, where he referred to Babić as "an idiot", "ordinary scum" and "Tudjman's trump."[1]
In June 2004, Babić was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment when the court rejected the prosecutors
recommendation for an 11-year sentence. The court found him more responsible than the prosecutor
characterized him but also gave him credit for voluntarily surrendering and pleading guilty. The court found that
while "Babić was not the prime mover, ... Babić chose to remain in power and provided significant support for
the persecutions." [2] He was sent to a secret location to serve his sentence, which was an unprecedented
move by the court. This led to some unproven speculations that Babić had been given a privileged treatment in
exchange for his testimony against other defendants. The official justification for not disclosing his location was
concerns for his safety from people who he testified against.
Fellow Serbs that Babić accused for war crimes in Croatia, during his trial in The Hague: [3]
Slobodan Milošević
Milan Martić
Jovica Stanišić
Franko Simatović
Momčilo Krajišnik
[edit]Death
Milan Babić was found dead after he reportedly committed suicide on March 5, 2006 while in the ICTY
detention unit inThe Hague, Netherlands, where he was in the midst of giving evidence against Milan Martić,
his successor as President of the breakaway RSK. While the suicide was confirmed by the Dutch authorities,
the information that he hanged hi
Ramush HaradinajFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ramush Haradinaj
4th Prime Minister of Kosovo
In office
3 December 2004 – March 2005
Preceded by Bajram Rexhepi
Succeeded by Bajram Kosumi
Personal details
Born 3 July 1968 (age 44)
Glođane, Yugoslavia
Political party AAK
Ramush Haradinaj[a] (born 3 July 1968) is a Kosovo-Albanian politician,[1]a former officer and leader of
the paramilitary organization UÇK, and the former prime minister of the disputed Kosovo. He leads
the AAK party.
Following the dissolution of Yugoslavia and internal warfare, Haradinaj was among former UÇK officers
charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) with war crimes and crimes
against humanity against Serbs, Roma and Albanians before and during the 1999Kosovo War. He was
acquitted of all charges on 3 April 2008.[2] The prosecution appeal in 2010, based on intimidation of many
witnesses, led to a partial retrial in The Hague, Netherlands.[3][4] Throughout the full trial and appeal process, 19
potential witnesses died in mysterious circumstances.[5]The international court found that many of the crimes
described by the prosecution had taken place, but concluded that the prosecution had not provided sufficient
"direct evidence" to prove Haradinaj′s participation.[6] On 29 November 2012, Haradinaj and his co-defendant
were acquitted again on all charges, on lack of evidence.[7]
Contents
[hide]
1 Early life and war years
2 Interim years
3 Kosovo War
4 From soldier to politician
5 Trial for war crimes at
ICTY
o 5.1 First trial
o 5.2 Second Trial
6 Organized Crime and
scandals
7 Family and personal life
8 Notes
9 References
10 Further reading
[edit]Early life and war years
Haradinaj was born on 3 July 1968, as second of nine children, in the village of Glođane, near Dečani, in
the Serbianprovince of Kosovo. He spent his youth in his native village with his parents and siblings, and
completed primary school in Rznici and secondary school in Dečani and Đakovica.[citation needed] After graduating
from high school in 1987, he did his mandatory military service in the Yugoslav Peoples Army, where he later
be promoted to platoon commander. After the Kosovo War, Haradinaj attended law school at the University of
Pristina.[8] Haradinaj also earned a Master's degree in business from the American University of Kosovo, which
is associated with the Rochester Institute of Technology inNew York state.[citation needed]
mself[4] is still unconfirmed.
International Criminal Tribunal for RwandaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rwandan Genocide
Background
History of Rwanda
Origins of Tutsi and Hutu
Kingdom of Rwanda
Rwandan Civil War
Hutu Power
Assassination of
Habyarimana and Ntaryamira
Events
Initial events
Chronology
Gikondo massacre
Nyarubuye massacre
Parties responsible
People indicted by the
International Criminal Tribunal
Genocidaires
Akazu
Impuzamugambi militia
Interahamwe militia
Kangura
RTLM radio
Response
Rwandan Patriotic Front
International community
United Nations Mission
Opération "Turquoise"
Effects
Great Lakes refugee crisis
Gacaca court
First Congo War
Second Congo War
Resources
Bibliography
Filmography
V
T
E
Wanted poster for the ICTR
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) (French: Tribunal pénal international pour le
Rwanda, TPIR) is an international court established in November 1994 by the United Nations Security
Council in Resolution 955 in order to judge people responsible for the Rwandan Genocide and other serious
violations ofinternational law in Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between 1 January and 31
December 1994.[1]
In 1995 it became located in Arusha, Tanzania, under Resolution 977.[2] (From 2006, Arusha also became the
location of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights). In 1998 the operation of the tribunal was
expanded in Resolution 1165.[3] Through several resolutions, the Security Council called on the tribunal to
complete its investigations by end of 2004, complete all trial activities by end of 2008, and complete all work in
2012.[4]
The tribunal has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which are defined as
violations of Common Article Three and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions (dealing with war
crimes committed during internal conflicts).
So far, the tribunal has finished 50 trials and convicted 29 accused persons. Another 11 trials are in progress.
14 individuals are awaiting trial in detention; but the prosecutor intends to transfer 5 to national jurisdiction for
trial. 13 others are still at large, some suspected to be dead.[5] The first trial, of Jean-Paul Akayesu, began in
1997. Jean Kambanda, interim Prime Minister, pleaded guilty. According to the ICTR's Completion Strategy, in
accordance with Security Council Resolution 1503, all first-instance cases were to have completed trial by the
end of 2008 (this date was later extended to the end of 2009[6]) and all work is to be completed by 2010. It has
recently been discussed that these goals may not be realistic and are likely to change. The United Nations
Security Council called upon the tribunal to finish its work by 31 December 2014 to prepare for its closure and
transfer of its responsibilities to theInternational Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals which will begin
functioning for the ICTR branch on 1 July 2012.
In March 2010, the ICTR announced plans to digitize all video recordings of the trials, both audio and video, in
all three languages (English, French, Kinyarwanda). This is part of a larger project that included digitizing audio
recordings.[7][8]
Contents
[hide]
1 Rape
2 Trial against "hate media"
3 Composition
o 3.1 Trial Chamber I
o 3.2 Trial Chamber II
o 3.3 Trial Chamber III
o 3.4 Appeals Chamber
4 Office of the Prosecutor
5 The Registry
6 Related legal activities
7 Indictees
8 See also
9 References
10 External links
[edit]Rape
The trial of Jean-Paul Akayesu established precedent that rape is a crime of genocide. "...the [Trial] Chamber
finds that in most cases, the rapes of Tutsi women in Taba, were accompanied with the intent to kill those
women. ... In this respect, it appears clearly to the chamber that the acts of rape and sexual violence, as other
acts of serious bodily and mental harm committed against the Tutsi, reflected the determination to make Tutsi
women suffer and to mutilate them even before killing them, the intent being to destroy the Tutsi group while
inflicting acute suffering on its members in the process."[9] Presiding judge Navanethem Pillay said in a
statement after the verdict: "From time immemorial, rape has been regarded as spoils of war. Now it will be
considered a war crime. We want to send out a strong message that rape is no longer a trophy of war."[10]
[edit]Trial against "hate media"
The trial against "hate media" began on 23 October 2000. It is charged with the prosecution of the media which
encouraged the genocide of 1994.
On 19 August 2003, at the tribunal in Arusha, life sentences were requested for Ferdinand Nahimana,
and Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, persons in charge for the Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, as well
as Hassan Ngeze, director and editor of the Kangur newspaper. They were charged with genocide, incitement
to genocide, and crimes against humanity, before and during the period of the genocides of 1994. On 3
December 2003, the court found all three defendants guilty and sentenced Nahimana and Ngeze to life
imprisonment and Barayagwiza to imprisonment for 35 years. On 28 November 2007, the Appeals Chamber
partially allowed appeals against conviction from all three men, reducing their sentences to 30 years'
imprisonment for Nahimana, 32 years' imprisonment for Barayagwiza and 35 years' imprisonment for Ngeze.
No prosecutions have been brought against the founders, sponsors or anyone related to Radio Muhabura, a
media whose pro-RPF messages were broadcast throughout the country during the 1990-1994 war.
[edit]Composition
The tribunal consists of 16 judges in four "chambers" - three to hear trials, and one to hear appeals. In addition,
there are 9 ad litem judges, making 25 in all. At present, all 9 ad litem judges are assigned to Chambers II and
III. There is an additional pool of 9 further ad litem judges who may be called on in the case of a judge being
absent.
The column denoted by # indicates the order of precedence.
[edit]Trial Chamber I
# Judge Nationality Status
19. Mparany Rajohnson Malagasy Member (Ad litem judge)
List of people indicted in the International Criminal Tribunal for RwandaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The list of people indicted in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda includes all individuals who
have been indicted on any counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or contempt of the
Tribunal by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) pursuant to the Statute of
the Tribunal. An individual is indicted when a Trial Chamber confirms an indictment submitted to it by the
Prosecutor. The Trial Chamber may also "issue such orders and warrants for the arrest, detention, surrender or
transfer of persons, and any other orders as may be required for the conduct of the trial."[1]
GenocideFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the crime. For other uses, see Genocide (disambiguation).
Buchenwald concentration camp was not an extermination camp, though it was responsible for a vast number
of deaths
Part of a series on
Discrimination
General forms
General[show]
Specific forms
Social[show]
Manifestations[show]
Discriminatory policies[show]
Other forms[show]
Countermeasures
Countermeasures[show]
Related topics
Related topics[show]
Discrimination portal
V
T
E
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or
national group",[1] though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much
debate by legal scholars.[2] While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is
found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[3]
Crimes against humanityFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Crime against humanity)
Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory
Memorandum,[citation needed] "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human
dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic
events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with
this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority.
Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the
threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated
inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the
circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."[1]
War crimeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"War Crimes" redirects here. For the West Wing episode, see War Crimes (The West Wing). For the 2005 film,
seeWar Crimes (film).
War
Eras [show]
Generations of warfare[show]
Battlespace [show]
Weapons [show]
Tactics [show]
Operational [show]
Strategy [show]
Grand strategy [show]
Organization [show]
Logistics [show]
Other[show]
Lists [show]
V
T
E
Criminology and penology
Criminology theory[show]
Types of crime[show]
Penology[show]
V
T
E
Rayerbazar killing field photographed immediately after the war started, showing bodies of intellectuals who demanded a separate,
autonomous state from Pakistan(Image courtesy: Rashid Talukdar, 1971)
A picture taken by the Polish Underground of Nazi Secret Policerounding up Polish intelligentsia at Palmirynear Warsaw in 1940 for
mass execution (German AB-Aktion in occupied Poland).
War crimes are serious violations of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international
humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of such conduct include "murder,
the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or
ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages,
and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".[1]
Similar concepts, such as perfidy, have existed for many centuries as customs between civilized countries, but
these customs were first codified as international law in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The modern
concept of a war crime was further developed under the auspices of the Nuremberg Trials based on the
definition in the London Charter that was published on August 8, 1945. (Also see Nuremberg Principles.) Along
with war crimes the charter also defined crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, which are often
committed during wars and in concert with war crimes.
Article 22 of The Hague IV ("Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907")
states that "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited"[2] and over the last
century many other treaties have introduced positive laws that place constraints on belligerents
(see International treaties on the laws of war). Some of the provisions, such as those in The Hague, the
Geneva, and Genocide Conventions, are considered to be part of customary international law, and are binding
on all.[3][4] Others are only binding on individuals if the belligerent power to which they belong is a
party to the treaty which introduced the constraint.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
o 1.1 Early example
o 1.2 Hague Conventions
o 1.3 Geneva Conventions
o 1.4 Leipzig War Crimes Trial
o 1.5 London Charter / Nuremberg Trials 1945
o 1.6 International Military Tribunal for the Far East 1946
o 1.7 International Criminal Court 2002
2 Prominent indictees
3 Definition
4 See also
5 Footnotes
6 References
7 External links
[edit]History
Hsuchow, China, 1938. A ditch full of the bodies of Chinese civilians, killed by Japanese soldiers.[5]
[edit]Early example
The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474, was the first
"international" war crimes trial, and also ofcommand responsibility.[6][7] He was convicted and beheaded for
crimes that "he as a knight was deemed to have a duty to prevent", although he had argued that he was only
"following orders".
Peter von HagenbachFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hagenbach on trial, from Berner Chronik des Diebold Schilling dem Älteren.
Coat of arms of Hagenbach.
Peter von Hagenbach (or Pierre de Hagenbach or Pietro di Hagenbach or Pierre d’Archambaud or Pierre
d'Aquenbacq, circa 1420 – May 9, 1474) was a Bourguignon knight from Alsace and Germanic military and civil
commander.
He was born into an Alsatian-Burgundian family, originally from Hagenbachand owned a castle there.
He was instated as bailiff of Upper Alsace by Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, to administer the territories
and rights in Upper Alsace which had been mortgaged by Duke Sigmund of Further Austria for 50,000 florins in
the Treaty of St. Omer in 1469. There he coined the term Landsknecht—fromGerman, Land ("land, country")
+ Knecht ("servant"). It was originally intended to indicate soldiers of the lowlands of the Holy Roman
Empire as opposed to the Swiss mercenaries. As early as 1500 the misleading spelling of Lanzknecht became
common because of the association with Lanze("lance").
Following a rebellion by towns of the Upper Rhine against his tyranny, Hagenbach was put on trial for the
atrocities committed during the occupation of Breisach, found guilty of war crimes and beheaded[1] at Breisach
am Rhein. His trial by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474, was the first “international”
recognition of commanders’ obligations to act lawfully.[2][3] He was convicted of crimes "he as a knight was
deemed to have a duty to prevent." He defended himself by arguing that he was only following orders,[2][4] from
the Duke of Burgundy to whom the Holy Roman Empire had given Breisach.[5] Despite the fact there was no
explicit use of a doctrine of command responsibility it is seen as the first trial based on that principle.[1][6]
Contempt of courtFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2010)
Contempt of court is a court order which in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority. Often referred to simply as "contempt," such as a person "held in contempt," it is thejudge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts which disrupt the court's normal process.
A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. The client or person must be proven to be guilty before he/she will be punished.
In civil cases involving disputes between private citizens, the behaviour resulting in the ruling is often directed at one of the parties involved rather than at the court directly.
A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:
Existence of a lawful order The potential contemnor's knowledge of the order
The potential contemnor's ability to comply
The potential contemnor's failure to comply
INDECTEES
Aloys NdimbatiFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aloys Ndimbati
Mayor of Gisovu
In office
1990 – July 1994
Personal details
Born Early 1950s
Gisovu, Kibuye, Rwanda
Nationality Rwandan
Residence Unknown
Aloys Ndimbati (born in the early 1950s) is a Rwandan fugitive war criminal, wanted in connection with his
alleged role in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. According to his warrant,[1] as mayor of
the Kibuye communeGisovu, he was present at the scene of and participated in the killings of Tutsis across
Kibuye.
Ndimbati has been charged with genocide, complicity in genocide, direct and public incitement to commit
genocide, as well as with murder, extermination, rape and persecution as crimes against humanity.
TheInternational Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda referred his case to Rwandan authorities in June 2012.[2]
MOVIESWar Crimes (The West Wing)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"War Crimes"
The West Wing episode
Episode no. Season 3
Episode 49
Directed by Alex Graves
Written by Aaron Sorkin (teleplay)
Allison Abner (story)
Production code 227205
Original air date November 7, 2001
Guest actors
Michael O'Keefe
Gerald McRaney
Tim Matheson
Mark Feuerstein
Renee Estevez
Bob Glouberman
Season 3 episodes
October 10, 2001 – May 22, 2002
Isaac and Ishmael
Documentary Special
1. Manchester Part I
2. Manchester Part II
3. Ways and Means
4. On the Day Before
5. War Crimes
6. Gone Quiet
7. The Indians in the Lobby
8. The Women of Qumar
9. Bartlet for America
10. H. Con-172
11. 100,000 Airplanes
12. The Two Bartlets
13. Night Five
14. Hartsfield's Landing
15. Dead Irish Writers
16. The U.S. Poet Laureate
17. Stirred
18. Enemies Foreign and Domestic
19. The Black Vera Wang
20. We Killed Yamamoto
21. Posse Comitatus
List of The West Wing episodes
"War Crimes" is the 49th episode of The West Wing.
[edit]Plot
President Bartlet asks the reluctant Vice President Hoynes to speak at an anti-gun rally in Texas after a church
shooting, but the uneasy allies have a starkly candid showdown. Hoynes is not comfortable with gun control in
general and being asked to condemn gun owners in his home state specifically. Though the two men spar on
the issue, their conflict quickly boils down to A) Bartlet's view that Hoynes ratted him out on the MS issue and
B) the Hoynes' view that the President lied from the outset and misled him personally. The two men recognize
the differences and agree to put them aside because, as they note, President Bartlet will not be re-elected
without Hoynes on the ticket and Hoynes will not be President one day if he and Bartlet do not win re-election
together.
Donna goes before a Congressional committee investigating Bartlet's lack of disclosure. When asked by her
inquisitor if she keeps a diary, she reflexively answers "no." Clifford Calley, the lead counsel for the
investigation, realizes she is lying: Donna and Cliff dated a few weeks back, and he saw the diary in Donna's
room after they slept together. Cliff follows Donna home and offers her a chance to confess, but she rebuffs
him and turns to Josh for help. Josh is angry at Donna and angrier at Cliff, but brokers a solution that spares
more public embarrassment for either of them.
Leo debates an old friend and Air Force officer about the United States' future stance regarding the War
Crimes Tribunal. The friend, an Air Force General, is opposed to the Tribunal because he is concerned that it
will become an anti-American forum, and believes that American soldiers could be prosecuted under its
authority. Leo argues that the tribunal will have a number of safeguards and is unconcerned about any potential
threat to Americans. The General then reveals that, as a young pilot in Vietnam, Leo unwittingly committed a
war crime when he bombed a civilian target that he had been told was a military target. Leo is horrified, and
asks why the General would tell him such a thing. The General responds, "All wars are crimes".
C.J. informs Toby that a comment of his that puts the President in an unfavorable light (saying the President
would win re-election on the coattails of the VP) has been leaked to a reporter by a member of his staff. The
reporter, who was just kicked out of Myanmar for exposing government involvement in drug trafficking, lets C.J.
deal with the story before he does anything else. She tells Toby, and Toby surprises Sam by handling things
maturely, calling a meeting of the staffers where he gives a passionate speech in which he makes it clear that
he's very hurt but also that he respects all of them. The reporter later tells C.J. he's not about to write a story on
such a stupid matter when there are so many important events that should be investigated.
Sam tries to find common sense when a Congressman proposes legislation that would eliminate the penny.
Jean-Paul AkayesuFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jean-Paul Akayesu (born 1953) is a former teacher, school inspector, and Democratic Republican
Movement (MDR)politician from Rwanda. He served as mayor of Taba commune from April 1993 until June
1994.
As mayor, Akayesu was responsible for performing executive functions and maintaining order in Taba,
meaning he had command of the communal police and any gendarmes assigned to the commune. He was
subject only to the prefect. He was considered well-liked and intelligent.
During the Rwandan Genocide of mid-1994, many Tutsis were killed in Akayesu's commune, and many others
were subject to violence and other forms of hatred. Akayesu not only refrained from stopping the killings, but
personally supervised the murder of various Tutsis.[citation needed] He also gave a death list to other Hutus, and
ordered house-to-house searches to locate Tutsis.[citation needed]
[edit]Trial
Akayesu was arrested in Zambia in October 1995, making Zambia the first African nation to extradite criminals
to theInternational Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).[2]
He stood trial for 15 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the Geneva
Convention. Pierre-Richard Prosper was the lead prosecutor. Akayesu's defence team argued that Akayesu
had no part in the killings, and that he had been powerless to stop them. In short, the defence argued, Akayesu
was being made a scapegoat for the crimes of the people of Taba.
Despite this defence, the ICTR found him guilty of 9 counts of genocide and crimes against humanity. This was
notable in that it was the first time that the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide was enforced. On October 2, 1998, Akayesu was sentenced to life imprisonment.
He was represented by Montreal lawyer John Philpot, brother of Parti Québécois politician and author Robin
Philpot; this connection later surfaced in the 2007 Quebec general election after statements from Robin
Philpot's book Rwanda 1994: Colonialism Dies Hard appearing to deny the extent of the genocide were widely
publicized. [3]
Here is the relevant section of the September 1999 United Nations report[1]:
"Report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and
Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and
Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of
Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994":
The Prosecutor v. Jean Paul Akayesu (ICTR-96-4-T)
14. On 2 September 1998, Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, composed of
Judges Laïty Kama, Presiding, Lennart Aspegren and Navanethem Pillay, found Jean Paul Akayesu guilty of 9
of the 15 counts proffered against him, including genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide
and crimes against humanity (extermination, murder, torture, rape and other inhumane acts). 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.
15. The Akayesu judgement includes the first interpretation and application by an international court of the
1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
16. The Trial Chamber held that rape, which it 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. It found that
sexual assault formed an integral part of the process of destroying the Tutsi ethnic group and that the rape was
systematic and had been perpetrated against Tutsi women only, manifesting the specific intent required for
those acts to constitute genocide.
17. On 2 October 1998, Jean Paul Akayesu was sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the nine counts, the
sentences to run concurrently.
18. Both Jean Paul Akayesu and the Prosecutor have appealed against the judgement rendered by the Trial
Chamber.
Akayesu is serving his sentence in a prison in Mali.
[edit]References
1. ̂ Fourth Annual Report of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to the General Assembly
(September 1999), accessed at [1].
Hassan NgezeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hassan Ngeze (born 1962) is a Rwandan journalist best known for spreading anti-
Tutsi propaganda and Hutusuperiority through his newspaper, Kangura, which he founded in 1990. Kangura
was initially intended as a counterweight to the popular anti-government newspaper Kanguka, and was
financed by high-level members in the ruling MRND party of Hutu dictator Juvénal Habyarimana. Ngeze and
his magainze had extensive links to the akazu, the network of officials surrounding the President and his wife;
this group included supporters of Hutu Power and the architects of the Rwandan Genocide. Ngeze was a
leadership figure in the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic(CDR). The CDR was
a Rwandan Hutu fascist political party that is known for helping to incite the genocide.[1][2]
Ngeze is best known for publishing the "Hutu Ten Commandments" in December of 1990, in which he revived,
revised, and reconciled the Hamitic myth (Tutsis were considered by the Europeans to be a "Hamitic race"
superior to the "Negroid" populations of Sub-Saharan Africa based on their having more Caucasoid facial
features; that is, the idea that the Tutsis were foreign invaders and thus should not be part of the Hutu-majority
country) and the rhetoric of the Hutu revolution to promote a doctrine of militant Hutu purity. The "Hutu Ten
Commandments" were essential in creating and spreading the anti-Tutsi feeling among Rwandan Hutus that
led to the Rwandan Genocide.
Contents
[hide]
1 Biography
o 1.1 Early life
o 1.2 "Hutu Ten Commandments"
o 1.3 Genocide
o 1.4 Trial and imprisonment
2 References
3 External links
[edit]Biography
[edit]Early life
Ngeze was born in Rubavu Commune, Gisenyi Prefecture, in Rwanda. He is a Muslim, of Hutu ethnicity.[3]
[edit]"Hutu Ten Commandments"
In December 1990, Ngeze published the Hutu Ten Commandments (sometimes called the Ten
Commandments of the Bahutu), which made disparaging remarks about Tutsis in general and Tutsi women in
particular.[4]
In 1993, Ngeze became a shareholder and correspondent for the newly-founded Radio Télévision Libre des
Mille Collines (RTLM), which was largely a radio equivalent of Kangura.
[edit]Genocide
During the Rwandan Genocide, Ngeze provided RTLM with names of people to be killed in his prefecture,
[5] which were broadcast on air. He was interviewed by RTLM and Radio Rwanda several times between April
and June 1994, and in these broadcasts called for the extermination of the Tutsis and Hutus in opposition to
the government.
At the same time, Kangura published lists of people to be eliminated by the military and
the Interahamwe andImpuzamugambi militias during the genocide.
Ngeze is alleged to have personally supervised and taken part in torture, mass rape, and killings in his native
Gisenyi Prefecture. He was also an organizer of the Impuzamugambi militia.
[edit]Trial and imprisonment
Ngeze fled Rwanda in June 1994 as the country fell to the RPF. He was arrested in Mombasa, Kenya on July
18, 1997, and was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2003, by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. In
2007, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR reversed some of his convictions, but confirmed others. It also
changed his life sentence to one of 35 years' imprisonment.
On 3 December 2008 he was sent to Mali to serve his sentence of imprisonment.
[edit]References
1. ̂ Christian P. Scherrer, Institute for Research on Ethnicity and Conflict Resolution. Ongoing crisis
in Central Africa: revolution in Congo and disorder in the Great Lakes region: conflict impact assessment
and policy options. Institute for Research on Ethnicity and Conflict Resolution, 1998. Pp. 83.
2. ̂ Front Cover Dina Temple-Raston. Justice on the Grass: Three Rwandan Journalists, Their Trial
for War Crimes and a Nation's Quest for Redemption. Simon and Schuster, 2005. Pp. 170.
3. ̂ Wax, Emily. “Journalists Sentenced In Rwanda Genocide; Prosecutor Said 'Hate Media' Urged
Killings”, Washington Post (2003-12-04).
4. ̂ Hutu Ten Commandments
5. ̂ International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Summary of Judgment
[edit]External links