Tortured Law/Tortured "Justice"-Joint Criminal Enterprise In The Case Of Aloys Simba (original) (raw)
Related papers
Leiden Journal of International Law, 2004
2004 marks the tenth anniversary of both the start of the genocide in Rwanda and the establishment of the ICTR by the UN Security Council. In the past decade the ICTR has operated slowly but progressively, and it has delivered some insightful case law. Legal issues continue to arise, however, in the practice of the ICTR. This article considers some of these issues, namely the vagueness of the indictment, complicity in genocide, and the nexus requirement for war crimes. The overview shows that in various instances the ICTR has relied on pivotal case law of the ICTY. Moreover, it is demonstrated that, on occasion, the case law of the ICTR has been somewhat inconsistent. Nevertheless, the ICTR's case law is a next step in the building of a sound international criminal law system, and there will certainly be more opportunities for the ICTR to contribute. These contributions will only be worthwhile, however, if the ICTR's output continues to be of high quality.
Bond Law Review, 2001
extract] To delve more deeply into the ICTR's handicap in addressing the human rights situation in Rwanda through the international penal process, this Article makes use of a distinction of looking at human, social or for that matter world affairs: the actor-orientated and structure-orientated perspectives. They can be seen as two ways of reflecting, and reflecting on, social affairs and legal tradition, each of them focusing on different aspects. The legal paradigm (especially criminal law) is biased in favour of the actor-oriented perspective due to its simplistic concreteness, identification of the evil actor, apprehension and prosecution. This Article sets out to consider how far the ICTR has fulfilled its objectives, which transcend the prosecution and conviction of guilty persons. The contention is that the ICTR still has not made the most of its opportunity to facilitate change. The Article explains some of the reasons why the ICTR has not fulfilled this opportunity.
Prosecutor's abuse of power before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
2014
Cet article examine de manière critique l'important rôle que joue le procureur devant les juridictions pénales internationales telles que le Tribunal pénal international pour l'ancienne Yougoslavie et celui pour le Rwanda. Il examine les fonctions du procureur ainsi que son indépendance, sa redevabilité et son professionnalisme. Il démontre enfin l'abus de pouvoirs du procureur dans deux importantes affaires jugées par le Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda, en l'occurrence les affaires André Ntagerura et Gratien Kabiligi.
2024
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) adopted the practice of plea bargaining to prosecute alleged perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide. The ICTR Trial Chamber had admitted guilty pleas of 10 alleged perpetrators and had decided on their charge/sentence accordingly. However, an inflection point was created with the decision of the ICTR in Kambanda , a one that indicated not only that a head of the government might also be denuded of immunity but also how the impugned practice supposedly violated the procedural due process rights of the accused. Specially referring to the judgment of the ICTR in Kambanda, the paper provides a comparative portrayal of the cases wherein the ICTR had decided matters based on the admission of guilty pleas and the subsequent reduction in the sentence or the number of charges (counts). The main argument of the paper is that the decision of the Trial Chamber not to grant any remedy to Kambanda despite pleading guilty was seemingly erroneous. The paper uses analytical and descriptive approaches to connect frameworks and facts demarcating the practice of plea bargaining in ICTR.
Leiden Journal of International Law, 2003
Bremen, on a project on the internationalization of the state monopoly of violence.
Global journal of interdisciplinary social sciences, 2014
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was created by the Resolution 955 of 8 November 1994. This tribunal was established for 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 such violations of international law committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 st January and 31 st December 1994. This article analyzes the trial rendered by the ICTR for defendants who were prosecuted for the crime of conspiracy to commit genocide for acts committed in the years prior to 1994. The case of Colonel Théoneste Bagosora, Ferdinand Nahimana and their co-defendants have served us as examples to examine whether or not the period of the temporal jurisdiction of ICTR had an impact on the establishment of evidence presented by the Prosecutor. In these trials, the prosecutor was criticized by the judges for presenting the evidences of crimes that were committed outside the temporal jurisdiction, thus, the accused of the crime of conspiracy to commit genocide were acquitted.
New England Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2008
What will be the legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda? Existing literature suggests that jurisprudence and hard-won “best practice” are the most valued commodities. Celebrating this bequeathal to the corpus of international law is testament to the Tribunal’s hard-won vivification of the crimes over which it has jurisdiction. Reducing the Tribunal’s work to “black letter” jurisprudence and technical “best practice” is, however, an expression of the teleological and utilitarian ethos of legal knowledge which extracts usable commodities from the evolving, contingent social context in which they are fashioned.