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