Darfur and the ‘Odious Scourge’: The Commission of Inquiry's Findings on Genocide

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 871-885

  Schabas, William A ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Darfur; genocide; intent; International Criminal Court; state policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010134060     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156505003031     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. UN Doc. S/RES/1564 (2004), para. 12.
2. R. Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” Laws of Occupation,Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (1944).
3. The Security Council had never used the ‘g-word’ until 1994, when, some two months after the beginning of the Rwandan genocide, it noted ‘with the gravest concern the reports indicating that acts of genocide
4. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, (1951) 78 UNTS 277.
5. Secretary Colin L. Powell,Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,Washington, 9 September 2004. A Department of State report on Darfur issued in September 2004 did not use the term genocide, but said” ‘The non-Arab population of Darfur continues to suffer from crimes against humanity. A review of 1,136 interviews shows a consistent pattern of atrocities, suggesting close co-ordination between GOS forces and Arab militia elements, commonly known as the Jingaweit (Janjaweed).’ See ‘Documenting Atrocities in Darfur’, State Publication 11182, September 2004.
6. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’, UN Doc. S/2005/60, para. 518.
7. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’., para. 519 (emphasis in original).
8. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’., para. 569.
9. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9.
10. UN Doc. S/RES/1593 (2005), para. 1.
11. Prosecutor v. Krstic’ (Case No. IT-98-33-A), Judgment, 19 April 2004.
12. Prosecutor v.Blagojevic’ et al. (CaseNo. IT-02-60-T), Judgment, 17 January 2005,paras. 665-666.The trial chamber in Blagojevic’ takes the lead from Judge Shahabuddeen's opinion in Krstic’ “ Prosecutor v. Krstic’ (Case No. IT-98-33-A), Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, 19 April 2004.Judge Shahabuddeen noted that while the five punishable acts of genocide involve physical or biological destruction, this does not limit the scope of the words ‘intent to destroy’ in the chapeau of the provision. Thus even an intent to destroy a group in a cultural sense-i.e., ‘ethnic cleansing’-could fit squarely within the parameters of the definition. But to the extent that this interpretation is set out in an individual opinion but not echoed in the views of the majority, it is not unfair to say that the approach is implicitly rejected by the Appeals Chamber.
13. Prosecutor v. Brdanin (Case No. IT-99-36-T), Judgment, 1 September 2004, para. 694.
14. N. Lerner, ‘Ethnic Cleansing’, (1994) 24 Israel Yearbook of Human Rights 103; D. Petrovic, ‘Ethnic Cleansing-An Attempt atMethodology’, (1994) 5 EJIL 342.
15. Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Further requests for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 13 September 1993, [1993] ICJ Rep. 325, Separate Reasons of Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht, para. 69.
16. Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide., at 447, para. 123(A)(ii).
17. C. Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution, The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy 1939-1942 (2004).
18. A.G. Israel v. Eichmann, (1968) 36 ILR 5 (District Court, Jerusalem), para. 80.
19. The Origins of the Final Solution., para. 244(1-3); also, paras. 186-187.
20. ‘Situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia’, UN Doc. A/RES/47/147, Preamble; ‘The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, UN Doc. A/RES/47/121. Probably not toomuch legal significance should be attached to use of the term ‘genocide’ by the General Assembly in these two resolutions. At the same session, the General Assembly also adopted a resolution entitled ‘“Ethnic cleansing” and racial hatred’, UN Doc. A/RES/47/80, that did not so much as mention the word ‘genocide’ or refer to the 1948 Convention.
21. Prosecutor v. Jelisic’ (Case No. IT-95-10-A), Judgment, 5 July 2001; Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al. (Case No. IT-95-8-T), Judgment on Defence Motions to Acquit, 3 September 2001; Prosecutor v. Stakic’ (Case No. IT-97-24-T), Judgment, 31 July 2003; Prosecutor v. Krstic’ (Case No. IT-98-33-A), Judgment, 19 April 2004; Prosecutor v. Brdanin (CaseNo. IT-99-36-T), Judgment, 1 September 2004; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic’ et al. (Case No. IT-02-60-T), Judgment, 17 January 2005.
22. Prosecutor v. Krstic’ (Case No. IT-98-33-A), Judgment, 19 April 2004; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic’ et al. (Case No. IT-02-60-T), Judgment, 17 January 2005.
23. Prosecutor v. Krstic’ (Case No. IT-98-33-A), Judgment, 19 April 2004, paras. 134, 140. Also Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana (Cases Nos. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A), Judgment, 13 December 2004, para. 500.
24. Prosecutor v. Jelisic’ (Case No. IT-95-10-T), Judgment, 14 December 1999, para. 100; Prosecutor v. Jelisic’ (Case No. IT-95-10-A), Judgment, 5 July 2001, para. 48. And crimes against humanity too” Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (Case No. IT-96-23/1-A), Judgment, 12 June 2002, para. 98, fn. 114. The law has evolved so far in recent years that even mere serial killers, not to mention the Hell's Angels and theMafia, now fit within the parameters of crimes against humanity as interpreted by the ICTY Appeals Chamber. The Darfur Commission cites the famous pronouncement in Kunarac, noting, with respect to its discussion of crimes against humanity, at 52, that ‘It is not necessary, but it may be relevant, to prove the attack is “the result of the existence of a policy or plan”.’
25. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’, The Origins of the Final Solution. note 6, para. 520.
26. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of theCrime of Genocide, (1951) 78UNTS277, Art. II; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, UN Doc. S/RES/827 (1993), annex, Art. 4; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, UN Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), annex, Art. 2; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Art. 6.
27. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of theCrime of Genocide note 6, para. 508.
28. Prosecutor v. Akayesu (Case No. ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment, 2 September 1998, paras. 428-429.
29. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’, ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’ note 6, para. 498.
30. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’., para. 501.
31. Prosecutor v. Rutaganda (CaseNo. ICTR-96-3-T), Judgment and Sentence, 6 December 1999, para. 57; Prosecutor v.Musema (ICTR-96-13-T), Judgment, 27 January 2000, para. 162.According toGué naë lMettraux, inhis recent study (International Crimes and the ad hoc Tribunals (2005), at 230), ‘Although themeritorious agenda behind such a position is obvious, this proposition would appear to be, unfortunately, unsupported in law and at the time of its exposition in fact constitute purely judicial law-making.’
32. Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli (Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T), Judgment and Sentence, 1 December 2003, para. 817.
33. Prosecutor v. Krstic’ (Case No. IT-98-33-T), Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 599.
34. Prosecutor v. Krstic’ (Case No. IT-98-33-T), Judgment, 2 August 2001, paras. 555-556. Also” Prosecutor v. Brdanin (Case No. IT-99-36-T), Judgment, 1 September 2004, para. 682.
35. Moreover, theCommissionseemstoconfoundtreaty lawandcustomarylaw. WhentheAkeyesutrialchamber said that the 1948 Genocide Convention protected all ‘permanent and stable groups’, it was interpreting a treaty text, not making a pronouncement on customary law.
36. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’, ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’. note 6, para. 509.
37. Prosecutor v. Semanza (Case No. ICTR-97-20-T), Judgment and Sentence, 15 May 2003, para. 317; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli (Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T), Judgment and Sentence, 1 December 2003, para. 811.
38. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’, ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’ note 6, para. 508.
39. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’., para. 509.
40. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’., para. 511.
41. ‘Now the Star-Belly Sneetches/Had bellieswith stars./The Plain-Belly Sneetches/Had none upon thars.’ In Dr Seuss, The Sneetches and Other Stories (1961).
42. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’, ‘Now the Star-Belly Sneetches/Had bellieswith stars./The Plain-Belly Sneetches/Had none upon thars.’ note 6, para. 518.
43. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’., para. 513.
44. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’., para. 514.
45. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’., para. 515.
46. Prosecutor v. Krstic’ (Case No. IT-98-33-T), Judgment, 2 August 2001, paras. 85-87.
47. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’., para. 49; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic’ (Case No. IT-98-32-T), Judgment, 29 November 2002, para. 227; Prosecutor v. Musema (ICTR-96-13-A), Judgment, 16 November 2001, paras. 366-367.
48. Prosecutor v. Krstic’ (Case No. IT-98-33-T), Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 142.
49. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’., paras. 90-94.
50. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’., para. 91.
51. Prosecutor v. Niyitegeka (Case No. ICTR-96-14-A), Judgment, 9 July 2004, para. 53.
52. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic’ (Case No. IT-96-22-A), Judgment, 7 October 1997, para. 10; Prosecutor v. Tadic’ (Case No. IT-94-1-A bis), Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassese, 26 January 2000.
53. Recently, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR endorsed the view that genocide was the ‘crime of crimes'” Prosecutor v.Niyitegeka (CaseNo. ICTR-96-14-A), Judgment, 9 July 2004, para. 53.Also Prosecutor v. Stakic’ (Case No. IT-97-24-T), Judgment, 31 July 2003, para. 502.
54. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9, Art. 25(3)(e).
55. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court., Art. 124. See also Arts. 31(1)(c) and 33(2), which suggest that genocide and crimes against humanity aremore serious than war crimes.
56. ‘Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur’, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. note 6, para. 522.
57. In the 1951 Advisory Opinion, the ICJ said that ‘the principles underlying the Convention are principles which are recognized by civilized nations as binding on States, even without any conventional obligation’. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Advisory Opinion), [1951] ICJ Rep. 16, at 2. The ICJ has also described the prohibition of genocide as an erga omnes norm” Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company (Belgium v. Spain), [1970] ICJ Rep. 4, at 32; Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Bosnia andHerzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia andMontenegro)), Preliminary Objections, [1996] ICJ Rep. 595, para. 31.
58. United NationsWar Crimes Commission, History of the United NationsWar Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws ofWar (1948), 35.