Ten Years Later, the Rwanda Tribunal still Faces Legal Complexities: Some Comments on the Vagueness of the Indictment, Complicity in Genocide, and the Nexus Requirement for War Crimes

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 537-557

  Van Den Herik, Larissa ^a   Van Sliedregt, Elies ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

complicity in genocide; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; nexus requirement for war crimes; vagueness of indictment

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744482754     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S092215650400202X     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. UN Doc. S/RES/955, 8 Nov. 1994.
2. The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch.I, 2 Sept. 1998 (Akayesu Judgement); The Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Judgement and Sentence, Case No. ICTR 97-23-S, T.Ch.I, 4 Sept. 1998 (Kambanda Judgement). The judgements and other ICTR documents can be found at www.ictr.org.
3. The Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Appeal Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-3-A, A.Ch., 26May 2003 (Rutaganda Appeal Judgement). This Judgement is only available in French.
4. The Prosecutor v. E. Ntakirutimana and G. Ntakirutimana, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-10 & ICTR-96-17-T, T.Ch.I, 21 Feb. 2003 (Ntakirutimana Judgement).
5. The Prosecutor v. Semanza, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, T.Ch.III, 15May 2003 (Semanza Judgement).
6. The Prosecutor v. Niyitegeka, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-14-T, T.Ch.I, 16May 2003 (Niyitegeka Judgement).
7. The Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, T.Ch.II, 1 Dec. 2003 (Kajelijeli Judgement).
8. The Prosecutor v.Nahimana, Barayagwiza,Ngeze, Judgement, CaseNo. ICTR-99-52-T, T.Ch.I, 3 Dec. 2003 (Media Judgement).
9. The Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-95-54A-T, T.Ch.II, 22 Jan. 2004 (Kamuhanda Judgement).
10. The Prosecutor v. Ntagerura, Bagambiki, Imanishimwe, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-99-46-T, T.Ch.III, 25 Feb. 2004 (Cyangugu Judgement).
11. The ICTY was established by the Security Council, UN Doc. S/RES/827, 25May 1993. Judgements and other documents can be found at www.un.org/icty.
12. The Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Decision on the Preliminary Motion Filed by the Defence Based on Defects in the Form of the Indictment, Case No. ICTR-96-11, T.Ch.I, 24 Nov. 1997, para. 20. Trial Chamber I later added in another case that ‘the indictment on its own must be able to present clear and concise charges against the accused, to enable the accused to understand the charges’, The Prosecutor v. Nyiramasuhuko and Ntahobali, Decision on the PreliminaryMotion by Defence Counsel on Defects in the Form of the Indictment, Case No. ICTR-97-21-I, T.Ch.I, 4 Sept. 1998, para. 13.
13. The Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Decision on the Defence PreliminaryMotion on the Form of the Indictment, Case No. IT-97-25, T.Ch.II, 24 Feb. 1999, para. 12. Previously, ICTR Trial Chamber I made a similar observation, distinguishing defects in the form of the indictment (are there sufficient material facts given so that the Accused can identify the charges?) and defects in themerit of the indictment (is there sufficient evidence to support the charges?), The Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Decision on the PreliminaryMotion Filed by the Defence Based on Defects in the Form of the Indictment, Case No. ICTR-96-11, T.Ch.I, 24 Nov. 1997, para. 19.
14. The Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Decision on the Defence PreliminaryMotion on the Form of the Indictment, Case No. IT-97-25, T.Ch.II, 24 Feb. 1999, para. 12.
15. The Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motions on the Form of the Indictment, Case No. IT-98-30/1, T.Ch., 12 April 1999, paras. 14-17.
16. The Prosecutor v. Br-danin and Talić, Decision onObjections byMomir Talić to the Formof the Indictment, Case No. IT-99-36/1, T.Ch.II, 20 Feb. 2001, paras. 18-22.
17. See also for the curing effect of witness statements in case of a defect in the form of the indictment The Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, Case No. IT-97-25, T.Ch.II, 24 Feb. 1999, paras. 14-15.
18. The Prosecutor v. Z. Kupreškić, M. Kupreškić, V. Kupreškić, Josipović, Papić, Šantić, Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-95-16, A.Ch., 23 Oct. 2001 (Kupreškić Appeal Judgement), in particular paras. 124-125, 227, 232, 241, 242, 243.
19. Kupreškić Appeal Judgement, The Prosecutor v. Z. Kupreškić note 18, para. 89.
20. Kupreškić Appeal Judgement., paras. 89-90.
21. Kupreškić Appeal Judgement., paras. 88, 92, 95, 98.
22. The Prosecutor v. E. Ntakirutimana and G. Ntakirutimana, Amended Indictment, Case No. ICTR-96-17-T, 7 July 1998.
23. Ntakirutimana Judgement, The Prosecutor v. E. Ntakirutimana and G. Ntakirutimana note 4, para. 49.
24. Ntakirutimana Judgement., paras. 53-54.
25. Ntakirutimana Judgement., paras. 55-63.
26. Ntakirutimana Judgement., paras. 565; 613-614; 669; 690; 697-698.
27. Ntakirutimana Judgement., paras. 613-614; 697.
28. Namely paras. 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 of the Indictment. ('3.7 Between 1991 and 1994, Laurent SEMANZA chaired meetings during which hemade threatening remarks towards Tutsis and those who were notMRNDmembers.’, ‘3.8 As of the beginning of 1994, Laurent SEMANZA chaired meetings to incite, plan and organize the massacres of the Tutsi civilian population.’, and ‘3.9 As early as 1991, Laurent SEMANZA aided and participated in the distribution of weapons and the training of young MRND militiamen, the Interahamwe who were well structured, complementary and acted in concert with the Armed Forces in the non-international armed conflict abovementioned (sub-parag. 3.4.2), and continued to do so until 1994, inclusive. During the events referred to in this indictment, several of these militiamen were directly involved in the massacres of the Tutsi civilian population. Laurent SEMANZA intended these massacres to be in junction with the non-international armed conflict as stated in subparagraph 3.4.3 Ntakirutimana Judgement. ‘)
29. Semanza Judgement, Laurent SEMANZA chaired meetings during which hemade threatening remarks towards Tutsis and those who were notMRNDmembers.’ note 5, para. 50.
30. Namely paras. 3.15 and 3.16 of the Indictment. ('3.15 Between 6 April and 30 April, 1994, in Bicumbi and Gikoro Communes, Laurent SEMANZA instigated, ordered and encouraged militiamen, in particular Interahamwe, and other persons to rape Tutsiwomen or commit other outrages upon the personal dignity of Tutsi women, and such people did rape Tutsi women or commit other outrages upon the personal dignity of Tutsi women in response to the instigation, orders and encouragement of SEMANZA.’, and ‘3.16 Between 6 April and 30 April, 1994, in Bicumbi and Gikoro Communes, Laurent SEMANZA had de facto and/or de jure authority and control over militiamen, in particular Interahamwe, and other persons, including members of the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR), communal police and other government agents, and he knew or had reason to know that such persons were about to commit acts of rape or other outrages against the personal dignity of Tutsi women, and he failed to take necessary and reasonablemeasures to prevent such acts,which were subsequently committed. Laurent SEMANZA intended the acts described in Paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16 to be part of the non-international armed conflict against the RPF as stated in subparagraphs 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 Semanza Judgement.')
31. Semanza Judgement, Namely paras. 3.15 and 3.16 of the Indictment note 5, para. 51.
32. Cyangugu Judgement, Semanza Judgement note 10, para. 29.
33. Cyangugu Judgement., paras. 29-39.
34. Cyangugu Judgement., para. 64.
35. Cyangugu Judgement., para. 66.
36. Cyangugu Judgement., para. 68.
37. Cyangugu Judgement., para. 69.
38. Niyitegeka Judgement, Cyangugu Judgement note 6, para. 44.
39. See for a commentary on this judgement W. A. Schabas in A. Klip and G. Sluiter (eds.), Annotated Leading Cases, Vol. II (2000), 547;W. A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law (2000), 293 et seq.
40. The Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Judgement, CaseNo. ICTR-95-1-T, T.Ch.II, 21May 1999 (Kayishema and Ruzinana Judgement), paras. 91 and 205, 207 resp.
41. The Prosecutor v.Musema, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, T.Ch.I, 27 Jan. 2000 (Musema Judgement), paras. 168-183. Akayesu Judgement, The Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana note 2, paras. 530, 532.
42. The Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, T.Ch.I, 7 June 2001 (Bagilishema Judgement), para. 71.
43. The Prosecutor v. Bagilishema., para. 36.
44. D.P.P. for Northern Ireland v.Maxwell [1978] 3 All ER 1140. See J. C. Smith, Smith &Hogan. Criminal Law (1996), 129-130, and J. Gardner, ‘Aid, Abet, Counsel, Procure: An English View of Complicity’, in A. Eser et al. (eds.), Individual, Participatory and Collective Responsibility in Criminal Law (1998), 229.
45. T.Wu and Y. Kang, ‘Criminal Liability for the Actions of Subordinates-the Doctrine of Command Responsibility and its Analogues in United States Law’, (1997) 38 Harvard International Law Journal 275.
46. H. H. Jescheck and T.Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts. Allgemeiner Teil (1996), 691-6.
47. Ntakirutimana Judgement, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts note 4, para. 787.
48. Ntakirutimana Judgement., para. 788.
49. Ntakirutimana Judgement., para. 789.
50. The Prosecutor v. E. Ntakirutimana and G. Ntakirutimana, Prosecution Notice of Appeal, Case No. ICTR-96-10& ICTR-96-17-A, A.Ch., 21March 2003 (Third Ground of Appeal).
51. Semanza Judgement, Prosecution Notice of Appeal note 5, paras. 388, 394.
52. Semanza Judgement., n. 648.
53. Semanza Judgement., paras. 429-430.
54. Semanza Judgement., paras. 425-436.
55. See E. van Sliedregt, The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law (2003), 25-30, 61-114.
56. Schabas (2000), The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law note 39, at 293.
57. The Krnojelac and Furundžija Judgements are instructive on this point: The Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Judgement, Case No. IT-97-25-T, T.Ch., 15 March 2002 (Krnojelac Judgement), paras. 88-90; The Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, T.Ch., 10 Dec. 1998 (Furundžija Judgement), para. 232.
58. Smith, The Krnojelac and Furundžija Judgements are instructive on this point: The Prosecutor v. Krnojelac note 44, at 130; Att.-Gen. Reference (No. 1 of 1975), [1975] 2 All ER 684, at 686.
59. In a recent case, however, the ICTY Appeals Chamber determined that there is authority to suggest that complicity to commit genocide does require proof that the accomplice had specific intent. This wouldmean that complicity as a mode of criminal participation has moved away from its common-law origins with regard to genocide. The Prosecutor v. Krstić, Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-98-33-A, 19 April 2004, para. 142.
60. Schabas (2000), a recent case, however, the ICTY Appeals Chamber determined that there is authority to suggest that complicity to commit genocide does require proof that the accomplice had specific intent note 39, at 221.
61. Schabas., at 286.
62. See van Sliedregt, Schabas note 55, at 93-101.
63. J. Pradel, Droit pé nal comparé (1995), 278; G. P. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law (1978), 640-5. See also Krstić Appeal Judgement, Schabas note 55 note 59, para. 141.
64. Jescheck andWeigend, Droit pé nal comparé note 46, at 645-6.
65. See C. Aptel, ‘The Intent to Commit Genocide in the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’, (2002) 13 Criminal Law Forum 273; R. Arnold, ‘The Mens Rea of Genocide under the Statute of the International Criminal Court’, (2003) 14 Criminal Law Forum 127; A. K. A. Greenawalt, ‘RethinkingGenocidal Intent: The Case for a Knowledge-Based Interpretation’, (1999) 99 Columbia Law Review 2259; O. Triffterer, ‘Genocide, Its Particular Intent to Destroy in Whole or in Part the Group as Such’, (2001) 14 LJIL 399; C. Tournaye, ‘Genocidal Intent before the ICTY’, (2003) 52 ICLQ 447; Schabas, Genocide, Jescheck andWeigend note 37, at 206-56.
66. Greenawalt, ‘The Intent to Commit Genocide in the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’ note 65, at 2281.
67. Akayesu Judgement, Greenawalt note 2, para. 523.
68. The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Appeal Judgement, CaseNo. ICTR-96-4-A, 1 June 2001 (Akayesu Appeal Judgement).
69. The Prosecutor v. Akayesu., paras. 438, 444.
70. The Prosecutor v. Akayesu., at n. 807, referring to The Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1, A.Ch, 2 Oct. 1995, para. 70.
71. The prosecution's ground of appeal regarding war crimes did not fall within the scope of Article 24-the provision that regulates appeal-stricto sensu. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber decided to consider this issue of ‘general importance’ with a view to ‘unifying the law’, Akayesu Appeal Judgement, The Prosecutor v. Akayesu note 68, paras. 12-28. Judge Nieto-Navia argued in a dissenting opinion that the Appeals Chamber should not have considered the appeal filed by the prosecution regardingwar crimes, because neitherArticle 24 of the Statute nor any other provision equips the Appeals Chamber with such a power to give ‘advisory opinions’. By rendering pronouncements on issues that would not affect the result of the judgement of the trial chamber, the Appeals Chamber arbitrarily broadened the scope of (Article 24 of) the Statute.
72. Kayishema and Ruzindana Judgement, The prosecution's ground of appeal regarding war crimes did not fall within the scope of Article 24-the provision that regulates appeal-stricto sensu note 40, para. 188. Also here, Trial Chamber II held that a nexus test cannot be defined in abstract terms.
73. R. Boed, ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility for Violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and of Additional Protocol II Thereto in the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’, (2002) 13 Criminal Law Forum 293 at 320.
74. ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility for Violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and of Additional Protocol II Thereto in the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’.; A. Obote-Odora, ‘Prosecution ofWar Crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’, (2001) 8 Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law 2; lecture given by C. Eboe-Osuji on ‘The Contribution of the ICTR to the Development of War Crimes Jurisprudence’, for the ICTR Internship Education Programme, 11 April 2003.
75. Public Prosecutor v. Niyonteze, Tribunal militaire d'appel 1A, 26 May 2000, Part III, Chapitre 3, Section 2. On appeal, however, the Military Tribunal of Cassation noted that the Court of Appeal had not deviated from the ICTR case law, 27 April 2001, para. 9 (both judgements can be found at http://www.vbs.admin.ch/ internet/OA/e/urteile.htm). However, in a case note, Reydams notes that despite the similarity between this case and the case of Akayesu (twin trials), and the application of the same legal standard, both courts (the ICTR and the Swiss Military Tribunal of Cassation) came to different conclusions. L. Reydams, (2002) 96 AJIL 231 at 235.
76. TheProsecutorv.Semanza,PetitionbytheKingdomofBelgiumtoAppearasAmicusCuriae,CaseNo. ICTR-97-20, T.Ch.III, 8 Dec. 2000, paras. 17-18, 25.
77. The Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vuković, Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-96-23-A & IT-96-23/1-A, A.Ch., 12 June 2002, para. 58 (Kunarac Appeal Judgement).
78. Semanza Judgement, The Prosecutor v. Kunarac note 5, para. 518.
79. Semanza Judgement., para. 518.
80. Semanza Judgement., paras. 519, 521.
81. Akayesu Judgement, Semanza Judgement note 2, para. 127.
82. Akayesu Judgement., para. 128.
83. Semanza Judgement, Akayesu Judgement note 5, Separate Opinion of Judge Ostrovsky, paras. 31-32.
84. Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, Semanza Judgement note 3, para. 560.
85. Rutaganda Appeal Judgement., para. 574.
86. Rutaganda Appeal Judgement., paras. 562-563.
87. Rutaganda Appeal Judgement., paras. 575-580, esp. 579.
88. Kunarac Appeal Judgement, Rutaganda Appeal Judgement note 78, paras. 58-59.
89. Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, Kunarac Appeal Judgement note 3, para. 570.
90. Rutaganda Appeal Judgement., paras. 571-572.
91. In a Dissenting Opinion, JudgeWilliams found that there was sufficient evidence to convict Bagambiki for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
92. Cyangugu Judgement, a Dissenting Opinion note 10, paras. 784-793, 802-803.
93. Bagambiki, the former prefect of Cyangugu, stated that ‘no weapons were distributed in Cyangugu because it was not close to the active front’, Cyangugu Judgement., para. 207.
94. Bagambiki, the former prefect of Cyangugu, stated that ‘no weapons were distributed in Cyangugu because it was not close to the active front’., paras. 707-708.
95. For some critical remarks on this development, see F. Mé gret, Le Tribunal pé nal international pour le Rwanda, Perspectives Internationales No. 23 (2002), 194-5, esp. also n. 688.
96. Kamuhanda Judgement, For some critical remarks on this development note 9, para. 741.
97. See the penultimate element of each war crime, Elements of Crimes, annexed to the ICC Statute, 2Nov. 2000, PCNICC/2000/1.