THE PROSECUTION OF THE CRIME OFGENOCIDE:

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF APPROACHESBETWEEN INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL

LEGAL SYSTEMS

BY

NEWAR T. HAMEED

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of therequirements for the degree of Master of Comparative

Laws

Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of LawsInternational Islamic University

Malaysia

FEBRUARY 2011

ii

ABSTRACT

This dissertation discusses the prosecution of genocide, the crime of crimes, in bothinternational and national tandems. During the World War II and before the adoptionof the Genocide Convention, the acts of destroying specific groups were prosecuted inNuremberg by the International Military Tribunal, although under different names ofcrimes. After the adoption of the Genocide Convention, the international communityhas set up ad hoc international tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunalfor Rwanda to prosecute for grave international crimes including the crime ofgenocide. In addition to these tribunals, national courts such as the Spanish NationalCourt have been involved in the prosecution of genocide. Two case studies areconducted which include the case of Akayesu before the ICTR and the case ofPinochet before Spanish and the UK courts. This study analyses the differences inboth international and national prosecution and identifies rights of the accused and thevictim which are affected. However, since the international and national legal systemsadopt different laws and procedures, disparities emerge between them in prosecutinggenocide though the crime is one and the same. Thus, the study recommends thatthere should be standard laws and procedures for the international and the nationalprosecution of genocide so that the rights of the accused and the victim are protected.The permanent and generally accepted International Criminal Court should be thestandard model for international and national tribunals.

iii

صّالبحثملخّ

على كواحده من أخطر الجرائم ،الدقاضاة عن جريمة الأبادة الجماعية ىذه الدراسة تتناولبأن جرائم أبادة مجموعات معينة، خلال الحرب وتجدر الأشارة .الدولي والمحلي ينالصعيدالثانية وقبل أعتماد أتفاقية تحريم الأبادة الجماعية، كانت تتم الدقاضاة عنها في نورمبرج العالدية

وبعد أعتماد أتفاقية تحريم الأبادة . أمام المحكمة العسكرية الدولية تحت مسميات مختلفةالدولي بأنشاء محاكم دولية خاصة لمحاكمة الدتهمين بأرتكاب جرائم قام المجتمع الجماعية،

مثل المحكمة الجنائية الدولية الدتخصصة برواندا، كما ية خطيرة بما في ذلك ىذه الجريمة، دول. لعبت محاكم محلية أخرى مثل المحكمة الوطنية الأسبانية دورىا في محاكمة الجريمة نفسها

المحكمة الدولية يسو أماميقضية أكا نموذجين للدراسة وهما على مل ىذه الأطروحوتوتشتمت كذلك .محاكم الدملكة الدتحدة و اندا و قضية بينوشيو أمام المحاكم الأسبانيةالخاصة برو

تحديد حقوق الدتهم وكذلك جوانب الأختلاف في الدقاضاة بين المحاكم الدولية والمحلية دراسةد وبما أن الأنظمة القضائية، الدولية منها والمحلية، تعتم. والمجني عليو في جرائم الأبادة الجماعية

فالفوارق في ىذه القضية بينهما ظاىرة على الرغم من أن الجريمة انين وأجراءات مختلفةو قوبالتالي توصي ىذه الدراسة بضرورة وجود قوانين و أجراءات موحده لتتم تطبيقها . واحدة

وبهذا . عند الدقاضاة عن جريمة الأبادة الجماعية ولكي تحمي حقوق الدتهمين والمجني عليهمينبغي أن تكون المحكمة الجنائية الدولية الدائمة والدقبولة بشكل عام ىي النموذج الصدد،

.والمحلية الدتخصصة الأخرى المحاكم الدولية و من قبلالقياسي الذي يحتذى ب

iv

APPROVAL PAGE

I certified that I have supervised and read this study and that in my opinion, itconforms to acceptable standard of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, inscope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Master of Comparative Laws.

.………………..............................Mohd Hisham Mohd KamalSupervisor

I certified that I have supervised and read this study and that in my opinion, itconforms to acceptable standard of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, inscope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Master of Comparative Laws.

.…………………………………..Mohammad Naqib Ishan JanExaminer

This dissertation was submitted to the Department of Islamic law and is accepted as apartial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Comparative Laws.

…………………………………...Badruddin IbrahimHead, Department of Islamic Law

This dissertation was submitted to the Kulliyyah of Laws and is accepted as a partialfulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Comparative Laws.

…………………………………...Mohd Akram Shair MohamadDean, Ahmad IbrahimKulliyyah of Laws

v

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own investigations, except

where otherwise stated. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently

submitted as a whole for any other degrees at IIUM or other institutions.

Newar T. Hameed

Signature ……………………… Date ……………………….............

vi

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT ANDAFFIRMATION OF FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED

RESEARCH

Copyright © 2011 By Newar T. Hameed All Rights Reserved.

THE PROSECUTION OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDEA COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF APPROACHES BETWEEN

INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS

No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of thecopyright holder except as provided below.

1. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished researchmay only be used by others in their writing with dueacknowledgement.

2. IIUM or its library will have the right to make and transmit copies(print or electronic) for institutional and academic purposes.

3. The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in a retrievalsystem and supply copies of this unpublished research if requested byother universities and research libraries.

Affirmed by Newar T. Hameed.

…………………………… …………………….

Signature Date

vii

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents who inculcate in me the belief in Allah

(SWT) and teach me the Islamic and Humanitarian virtues. I also dedicate this work

to my brothers and sister.

AND TO

All those who have devoted their lives in serving humanity and human rights around

the world, I devote this work.

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I cannot attribute the successful completion of this dissertation only to myself. I amindebted to many individuals and institutions that have assisted me directly orindirectly in the completion of this research. Most importantly, I will give all theglory to the Almighty God for the gift of life, good health, strength, and patience thatmade the successful completion of this dissertation feasible.

I would like to record my deepest appreciation to International IslamicUniversity Malaysia and special thanks to Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws forgranting me the opportunity to study Master of Comparative Laws.

I should express my heartfelt thanks to my supervisor, Doctor Mohd HishamMohd Kamal, for his untiring guidance, advice, constructive criticism, andencouragement. I extend my thanks to Doctor Mohammad Naqib Ishan Jan for hisinvaluable comments on this dissertation.

I would like to thank all members of Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws fortheir help in one way or another. My thanks also go to the library’s staff ofInternational Islamic University Malaysia and all of my friends.

Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to my parents whom I owe everything I amtoday. Mom and Dad, your prayers, well wishes, and financial support made mecomplete my study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………… ii

Abstract in Arabic ……………………………………………………………………… iii

Approval Page ….……………………………………………………………………..... iv

Declaration Page ……………………………………………………………………….. v

Copyright Page ………………………………………………………………………..... vi

Dedication ……………………………………………………………………………… vii

Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………….. viii

List of Cases ...…………………………………………………………………….......... xi

List of International Documents ……………………………………………………...... xiii

List of National Statutes………………………………………………………………… xv

List of Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………... xvi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………… 1

CHAPTER 2: DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE ………………... 9

2.1 Introduction ....………………………………………………………............ 9

2.2 Literal Meaning …………………………………………………………… 9

2.3 Legal Definition ……………………………………………………............ 11

2.4 The Elements of the Crime of Genocide …………………………………... 14

2.4.1 Objective Element (Actus Reus) ……………………………………. 15

2.4.2 The Subjective Element (Mens Rea) ……………………………….. 20

2.5 The Protected Groups under the Genocide Convention …............................ 30

2.6 Forms of Participation in the Crime of Genocide (Punishable Acts under

the Genocide Convention)…………………………………………………..

35

2.7 The Crime of Genocide under Domestic Laws …………………………….. 42

2.8 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………….. 46

CHAPTER 3: THE FOUNDATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL

TRIBUNALS AND UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION OVER GENOCIDE ………...

47

3.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 47

3.2 The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction ……………………………………. 47

3.3 The Foundations of International and National Criminal Tribunals ………. 59

3.3.1 The Foundation of IMT and IMTFE ………………………………… 60

3.3.2 The Foundation of ICTY and ICTR ……………………………….... 61

3.3.3 The Foundation of the International Criminal Court ………………. 68

3.4 The Foundation of the National Courts with Reference to the Spanish and

the U.K. Courts in Pinochet ………………………………………………..

71

3.5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………..

75

CHAPTER 4: THE PROSECUTION OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE: A

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CASES OF AKAYESU AND

PINOCHET ……………………………………………………………………………

77

4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 77

4.2 Case Studies ………………………………………………………............... 77

4.2.1 The Case of Akayesu ………………………………………………... 78

4.2.2 The Case of Pinochet ………………………………………………... 89

4.3 Comparative Analysis of Akayesu and Pinochet Cases ……………………. 114

4.4 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………..

122

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………….. 123

BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………………….. 130

xi

LIST OF CASES

Almelo trial, case No. 3, November 1945, Law Rep. Trials of War Criminals, 35,

British Military Court in (Holland).

Arrest Warrant Case, No.121 ICJ 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v.

Belgium), (14 February 2002).

Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann, 36 I.L.R. 18 (Israeli District Court -

Jerusalem), 1961.

Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), I.C.J, 91, General

List, 26 February 2007.

Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571, 582-583 (Sixth Circuit), 1985.

Diaz v. Columbia, Case 11.227, Report No. 5/97, Inter-Am. C.H.R. OEA /Ser.L/V

/II.95 Doc. 7rev. at 99 (1997).

France v. Goering, (1946) 22 IMT 203, 13 ILR 203.

Guatemala Genocide Case, Spanish Supreme Court, No. 327/2003, Criminal

Chamber, February 25, 2003.

Hadamar trial, case No.4, United States Military Commission in (Germany), October

1945, Law Reports of trials of War Criminals, 46, UN War Crimes Commission,

Volumes I-V.

John Demjanjuk v. Joseph Petrovsky, No. 85-3435, 776 F.2d 571, United States

Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1985.

Nulyarimma v. Thompson, FCA, 1192, (1 September 1999).

Pinochet Ugarte, House of Lords, 25 November 1998, [2000] 1 AC 61.

Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR, TC, (ICTR-96-4-T) 1998.

Prosecutor v. Blaskic, (IT-95-14-T), 3March 2000.

Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera, (ICTR-98-44-T), 18 May 2006.

Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, (ICTR-2001-64-A), 7 July 2006.

Prosecutor v. Jelisic, (IT-95-19-T), TC, ICTY, 1999.

Prosecutor v. Jorgic, (case no. 3StR 215/98), G.F.H.C, 30 April 1999.

xii

Prosecutor v. Kanyabashi, Trial Chamber, (ICTR-96-15-T), 18 June 1997.

Prosecutor v. Karadzic and Mladic (IT-95-5-R61, IT-95-18-R61), 1996.

Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana (ICTR-95-1-T), 1999.

Prosecutor v. Krstic, ICTY, TC, (IT-98-33-T) 2001.

Prosecutor v. Momcilo, (IT-00-39-T), 27 September 2006.

Prosecutor v. Musema, ICTR, TC, (ICTR-96-13-T), 27 January, 2000.

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Bradanin, (IT-99-36-T), ICTY, 2004.

Prosecutor v. Rutganda, (ICTR-96-3), 6 December 1999.

Prosecutor v. Semanza, (ICTR-97-20-T), 15 May 2003.

Prosecutor v. Serushago, (ICTR-98-39-S), 1999.

Prosecutor v. Tadic, (IC-94-1-A), 15 July 1999.

Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi, (ICTR-01-72-T), (Trial Chamber), 2 December 2008.

Public Prosecutor’s office v. Scilingo Manzorro, Spanish National Court, no. 16\2005,

19 April 2005.

R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet

Ugarte (Amnesty International and others intervening) (No 3), House of Lords, 24

March 1999, [2000] 1 AC 147, [1999] 2 All ER 97, [1999] 2 WLR 827.

Re Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, (1998 Q.B.Div’l Ct), 38 I.L.M.

Re Pinochet: Spanish National Court, Criminal Division. Case 19/97, November 4,

1998; & Case 1/98, November 5, 1998.

Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte

Pinochet Ugarte, House of Lords, 25 November 1998, [2000] 1 AC 61.

Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte

Pinochet Ugarte (no. 2), House of Lords, 15 January 1999, [2000] 1 AC 119.

xiii

LIST OF INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in

Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and

Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August

1949.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

Geneva, 12 August 1949.

European Convention on Extradition 1957.

General Assembly Resolution 96 (I), 1st Session, 55

th Preliminary meeting, 11

December 1946, UN Doc. A/RES/96 (I).

General Assembly Resolution 177 (II) on Formulation of the Principles Recognized in

the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 123th

preliminary meeting, 21 November 1947, UN Doc. A/RES/177 (II).

General Assembly Resolution 489 (V), 12 December 1950, 7th Session, 687 (VII),

International Criminal Jurisdiction, A/RES/489 (V).

General Assembly Resolution 898 (IX), 512th plenary meeting, 14 December 1954,

UN Doc. A/RES/898 (IX).

General Assembly Resolution, 44/39, 4 of December 1989, UN Doc. A/RES/ 44/39.

General Assembly Resolution 50/46, December 11, 1995, UN Doc. A/RES/ 50/46.

International Court of Justice Statute 1945.

International Criminal Court Statute 1998.

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Statute 1994.

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Statute 1992.

International Military Tribunal Charter 1945.

International Military Tribunal for the Far East Charter 1946.

Rules and Procedures of the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda 1995.

xiv

Security Council Resolution 780, 6 October 1992, UN Doc. S/RES/780.

Security Council Resolution 935, 3400th meeting, 1 July 1994, UN Doc. S/RES/780.

Security Council Resolution at its 3217th meeting, on 25 May 1993, UN DOC.

S/RES/827.

Security Council Resolution at its 3453rd meeting, 8 November 1994, UN DOC.

S/RES/955.

United Nations Charter 1945.

United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide 1948, UN Doc. A/RES/260(III).

xv

LIST OF NATIONAL STATUTES

Australian Genocide Convention Act 1949 (Act 27).

Ethiopian Penal Code 1957.

Irish Genocide Act 1973 (No. 28/1973).

Israeli Law on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1950 (No. 5710-1950).

Rwandan Organic Law No. 40/2000 of 26/ 01/2001 setting up ‘Gacaca Jurisdictions’

and Organising Prosecutions for Offences Constituting the Crime of Genocide or

Crimes Against Humanity Committed Between October 1, 1990 and December 31,

1994 (No. 40/2000 of 26/ 01/2001).

Rwandan Organic Law on the Organisation of Prosecutions for Offences Constituting

the Crime of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity 1996 (No. 08/96).

Spanish Constitution 1978.

Spanish Criminal Procedural Law 1985.

Spanish Organic Law of Penal Code (10\1995 of November 23).

Spanish Organic Law of the Judicial Power 1985 (6/1985 of July 1).

UK Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

UK Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996.

UK Extradition Act 1989.

UK Human Rights Act 1998.

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.J.I.L. American Journal of International Law

Am. U. Int’L. L. R. American University International Law Review

Ariz. J. I. C. L. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law

Berkeley. J. I. L. Berkeley Journal of International Law

B. U. I. L. J. Boston University International Law Journal

Case W. Res. L. R. Case Western Reverse Law Review

Colum. Human Rights L. R. Columbia Human Rights Law Review

Colum. L. R. Columbia Law Review

CNI Centro Nacional de Información

Cornell. I. L. J. Cornell International Law Journal

DePaul. I. L. J. DePaul International Law Journal

DePaul. L. R. DePaul Law Review

DICOMCAR Direccion de Comunicaciones de Carabineros

DINA Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional

E. J. I. L. European Journal of International Law

Emory. I. R. Emory International Review

Fla. J. I. L. Florida Journal of International Law

Geo. J. I. L. Georgetown Journal of International Law

Geo. L. J. George Law Journal

Geo. Wash. Int’l. L. Rev. George Washington International Law Review

Harv. Hum. Rts. J Harvard Human Rights Journal

Hum. Rts. Br. Human Rights Brief

IACHR Inter American Court of Human Rights

ICC International Criminal Court

ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former

Yugoslavia

I. J. I. L. Indian Journal of International Law

ILC International Law Commission

ILSA. J. Int’L. C. L. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law

IMT International Military Tribunal

IMTFE International Military Tribunal for the Far East

J. I. C. J. Journal of International Criminal Justice

LOPJ Organic Law of Judicial Power

MAPU Popular Unitary Action Movement

Mich. St. J. I. L. Michigan State Journal of International Law

MIR Marxist Revolutionary Group

MSU-DLC. J. I. L. Michigan State University-College of Law Journal of

International Law

New Eng. L. R. New England Law Review

NGO Non Governmental Organisation

N. Y. U. J. I. L. P. New York University Journal of International Law and

Politics

O. J. H. G. S Oxford Journal of Holocaust and Genocide Studies

Pace. I. L. R. Pace International Law Review

xvii

REINICIAR The Corporación Para La Defensa Y Promoción De Los

Derechos Humanos

RPF Rwandan Patriotic Front

Stan. L. R. Stanford Law Review

Sydney. L. R. Sydney Law Review

Tex. I. L. J. Texas International Law Journal

Tex. L. R. Texas Law Review

Tune. J. I. C. L. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law

U. Ill. L. R. University of Illinois Law Review

U. Miami. I. C. L. R. University of Miami International and Comparative

Law Review

UN United Nations

UP Union Patriotica

Va. J. I. L. Virginia Journal of International Law

Whittier. L. R. Whittier Law Review

Wis. I. L. J. Wisconsin International Law Journal

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

After long underdevelopment in controlling of international humanitarian affairs, the

twentieth century has seen unprecedented developments in the international protection

of human rights. These developments could be attributed to an increasing sharing of

fundamental principles and predictions among nations. Therefore, the international

community now admits the importance to protect humanity from the various violations

of human rights. International criminal law is one important instrument to perform this

task. International criminal law refers to the process of the understanding of two

different legal systems which have developed through different ways to become in co-

existence. These systems are: the criminal law aspect of international law and the

international aspects of national criminal law.1

International criminal law is a body of rules which possesses international

features, contains penal characteristics and consists of criminalisation of certain types

of conduct traced via international criminal court, national courts, and hybrid courts.

Many international crimes have emerged through international criminal law whether

by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international conventions,

international customs, and general principles. One of these crimes is the crime of

genocide.

1 Christoph J.M. Safferling, Towards an international criminal procedure, Oxford University Press, 2003,

at 5.

2

The term “Genocide” was proposed by the legal scholar Raphael Lemkin,

drawing on the Greek word, Genos, which means race, nation, or tribe, and the Latin

Caedere, to kill. Interchangeably, he took into account the ancient Greek term ethnos,

which has basically the similar concept as genos.2

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948, 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:-

a. Killing members of the group;

b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring

about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Actually, despite the Convention’s title uttering on both prevention and

punishment of the crime of genocide, the principal focus is directed to the

prosecutorial and punitive part more than preventive part.3

The substantive and procedural aspects of criminal law system, by prosecuting

its violator, could play an auspicious role in order to ensure the rights of the accused

person and the rights of the victim. Although international and national criminal

courts do cooperate to enforce international criminal law in certain aspects, so long as

each criminal system has its own laws and procedures to achieve justice, divergence

2 Raphael Lemkin, Axis rule in occupied Europe: laws of occupation- analysis of government-proposals

for redress, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944, at 79-95. 3 William A. Schabas, Genocide in international law: the crime of crimes, 2nd Edition, Cambridge

University Press, 2009, at 520.

3

between both legal systems would be expected.4 Consequently, these differences may

affect the rights of the accused and the victim.

The objectives of this study are:

1. To determine the nature of genocide and identify the protected groups.

2. To study the systems of international and national courts in prosecuting

the crime of genocide.

3. To identify the differences between the two legal systems in the aspects of

definitions of genocide and the criminal procedures.

4. To suggest acceptable ways of protecting the rights of the accused and the

victim.

1.2 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY

This study is focused on scrutinising the prosecution of the crime of crimes,5 namely:

genocide, in the international and national courts. The international community has

shown interest in prosecuting the perpetrators of genocide via many instances such as

the adoption of the Genocide Convention 1948, the establishment of ad hoc

international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the

permanent International Criminal Court. In addition to these international measures, a

number of national courts have engaged in prosecuting genocide. The foundation of

international and national criminal courts is considered. However, due to legal and

practical effects, the two legal systems are taking different approaches in prosecuting

genocide. Therefore, the differences between the two legal systems are assessed

4 John Dugard & Christine Van Den Wyngaert (Eds), International Criminal Law and procedure,

Dartmouth-Ashgate, 1996, at 69-101. 5 As genocide was called by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Prosecutor v. Kambanda

(Case No. ICTR-97-23-S), Judgment and Sentence, 1998, Para 16.

4

comparatively and the way they influence the rights of the accused and the rights of the

victim to a fair and transparent trial is covered. Furthermore, the definitions of the

crime of genocide in international and national laws are highlighted. In concluding the

study, suggestions are given to narrow down the differences between the two legal

systems and make them consistent.

1.3 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The rights of the accused and the victims in the prosecution of genocide cases could be

affected by the non-uniformity between the international legal system and the national

legal systems.

1.4 HYPOTHESIS

The study examines the following hypothesis:

1. That since differences in the laws and procedures of prosecuting the crime

of genocide between the international and the national legal systems could

affect the rights of the accused and the victims, standardisation is needed.

1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW

Numerous books and articles have been written on the prosecution and punishment of

the international crimes and on international criminal tribunals.6

Tella, F., in his book, Challenges for human rights, discusses the historical and

present status of the international criminal system. He shows the stance before the

6 Safferling, n 1, at 54-365; Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops, An introduction to the law of international

criminal tribunals: A comparative study, Transnational publishers, 2003, at 89-181; Ralph Henham,

Punishment and process in international criminal trials, Burlington: Ashgate, 2005, at 13-75; Steven D.

Roper & Lilian A. Barria, Designing criminal tribunals, Burlington: Ashgate, 2006, at 1-96; Anna Petrig,

“Negotiated justice and the goals of international criminal tribunals” Vol. 8 No.1 (2008) Chi-Kent J. Int’L

& Comp. L 1-31.

5

World War II and after the war, discussing the international military tribunals of

Nuremberg and Tokyo, the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former

Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the special court for Sierra Leone. He identifies the

deficiencies and limitations of the international criminal court, but does not analyse

the implication of having two international and national legal systems.7

Safferling, C., in his work, Towards an international criminal procedure,

examines the great differences between the systems. He investigates in special detail

the rules of the various institutions especially of evidence. He is of the opinion that

efforts have to be made in order to find a general measure. He suggests that human

rights provisions addressing the notion of “fair trial” could be done through

convergence and cooperation of several systems.8

Christine Wyngaert shows that although the foundation of international

instruments is important to prosecute the commission of international crimes, the

consistency from the states is required, otherwise, they can not be properly deemed as

contributing towards the achievement of international justice as a duty.9

William Schabas, in his book, Genocide in international law, discusses the

prosecution of genocide at the national and the international levels emphasising the

cases of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Cambodia, and some Latin American states.

This work explains the historical development of the Convention on the Prevention

and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the problem of prosecuting the crime

of genocide. Nevertheless, the effect of having these two institutions to prosecute the

7 Fernando Flacony Tella, Challenges for human rights, Martinus Mijhoff, 2007, at 21-44. 8 Safferling, C., supra note 1, at 4-5. 9 Christine Van Den Wyngaert, “War crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity: are states taking

national prosecution seriously?” in International criminal law, edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni, 2nd Edition,

Vol. III, (New York: Transnational Publisher, 1999), 237-238.

6

same offences by employing different rules of procedures and evidence is not

assessed.10

Ferdinandusse, W., in his article builds some important question regarding the

enforcement of international criminal law, including the ways for courts to tackle the

inconsistencies between the national laws and the international law. He discusses the

circumstances where international law can form some basics for the national courts to

prosecute the criminals of the crime of genocide. So, this article calls for more

concentration on the study of the possible ways to converge between both systems.11

Weiss, P., in his work, The future of universal jurisdiction, says that there will

not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future but

one eternal and unchangeable law will be enforced for all states and periods. In

addition, he indicates that there will be general rules for all legal systems including

investigation and evidence so as to avoid the difficulties of difference between

different systems.12

Dahlberg, A. in Establishing an international criminal court, identifies big

problems of procedure and evidence through the pragmatic application of the

international criminal tribunals such as that of Nuremberg and Tokyo, as well as

Yugoslavia and Rwanda. These problems include the ensuring of the witnesses’

presence for the prosecution of the crime.13

The wealth of literature is useful in the

progress of this study.

10 See Schabas, supra note 3, at 400-17. 11 Ward Ferdinandusse, “The interaction of national and international approaches in the repression of

international crimes” Vol. 15 No. 5 (November 2004) E.J.I.L 9. 12 Peter Weiss, “The future of universal jurisdiction”, in International Prosecution of Human Rights

Crimes, edited by Wolfgang Kaleck, Michael Ratner, Tobias Singelnstein & PeterWeiss (Ed.), Berlin:

Springer, 2006, at 29-36. 13 Andrea Dahlberg, “Establishing an international criminal court” Vol. 147 No. 6805 (1997) New Law

Journal 1231-1234.

7

1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATION

The study revolves around important legal and procedural aspects in prosecuting the

crime of genocide. The focus is to show how international and national courts are

approaching the legal and procedural issues in prosecuting genocide, how the rights of

the accused and the rights of the victims are protected. It is not the aim of this study to

discuss the whole theoretical and practical aspects relating to the prosecution of

genocide, for example, the defence of self-defence and tu quoque. However, the

defences of superior orders and immunity are discussed briefly. The issues of the

prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide are not covered. The case of

Akayesu before the ICTR is studied, and the case of Pinochet which employed the

principle of universal jurisdiction is studied as well. Other cases, except Saddam

Hussein case, are also referred to.

1.7 METHODOLOGY

This study compares the prosecution of the crime of genocide in both international and

national jurisdictions in order to find out the implications of the differences between the

two legal systems on the rights of the accused and the victims. This research is mainly

library based. The research analyses the provisions of the Genocide Convention and

the Statutes of International Military Tribunal, the International Military Tribunal for

the Far East, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court.

National statutes are also examined. Case studies are conducted on Akayesu from

international jurisdiction and Pinochet from national jurisdiction.