The Jelisić Case and the Mens Rea of the Crime of Genocide

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 125-139

  Schabas, William A ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

complicity; genocide; means rea; Rome Statute; specific intent

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012941981     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156501000061     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, UN Doc. S/RES/827 (1993), Ann., Art. 4.
2. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, UN Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), Ann., Art. 2.
3. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 78 UNTS 277 (1951). On the Convention in general, see also W. Schabas, Genocide in International Law (2000).
4. Prosecutor v. Ntuyahaga, Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion to Withdraw the Indictment, Case No. ICTR-98-40-T, 18 March 1999.
5. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-10-T, 14 December 1999.
6. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Judgment, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998.
7. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Judgment, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, 21 May 1999.
8. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana note 6.
9. Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Judgment, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, 6 December 1999; Prosecutor v. Musema, Judgment, Case No. ICTR-ICTR-96-13-T, 27 January 2000.
10. Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Judgment and Sentence, Case No. ICTR-97-23-S, 4 September 1998; Kambanda v. Prosecutor, Judgment, Case No. ICTR-97-23-A, 19 October 2000; Prosecutor v. Serushago, Sentence, Case No. ICTR-98-39-S, 2 February 1999; Serushago v. Prosecutor, Judgment, Case No. ICTR-98-39-A, 6 April 2000.
11. Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Review of Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61, Case No. IT-95-2-R61, 20 October 1995; Prosecutor v. KaradBić and Mladić, Consideration of the Indictment within the framework of Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Case No. IT-95-5-R61, IT-95-18-R61, 11 July 1996.
12. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Requests for the Indication of Provisional Measures of 8 April 1993, 1993 ICJ Rep., at 16; 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 of 13 September 1993, 1993 ICJ Rep., at 32; Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Preliminary Objections, 1996 ICJ Rep., at 595; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Counter-claims, Order of 17 December 1997, 1997 ICJ Rep., at 243; Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium et al.), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 2 June 1999; Application by the Republic of Croatia Instituting Proceedings Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 2 July 1999.
13. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Prosecution's Pre-Trial Brief, Case No. IT-95-10-A, para. 3.1; Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Prosecution's Appeal Brief (Redacted Version), Case No. IT-95-10-A, para. 4.9; Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., Prosecutor's Second Revised Pre-Trial Brief, Case No. IT-95-8-T, para. 141.
14. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Prosecutor v. Jelisić note 7, paras. 121, 226-227, 245, and 268.
15. Id., paras. 226, 227, 238, 245, 246, 272, and 296.
16. Id., paras. 121, 213, 225-226, 251, 252, 268, 272-273, 288, 300, 453, 456, 458, and 461.
17. Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Case No. ICTR 97-23-S, Id. note 11, para. 16. See also, Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Id. note 8, para. 91; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Id. note 10, 6 December 1999.
18. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Prosecutor v. Kambanda note 6, para. 108.
19. Prosecutor v. Jelisić Prosecution's Appeal Brief (Redacted Version), Case No. IT-95-10-A, para. 4.22. See also Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., Id. note 14, para. 142.
20. D.P.P. v. Beard, [1920] A.C. 479 (H.L.)
21. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Id. note 7, at para. 497.
22. Id., at para. 516.
23. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session. See UN Doc. A/51/10 (1996), at 87. See also Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-seventh session, 2 May-21 July 1995. UN Doc. A/50/10 (1995), at 43, para. 79.
24. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session (1996), Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session., at 87.
25. See, e.g., M. Bassiouni, Commentary on the International Law Commission's 1991 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, 11 Nouvelles études pénales 233 (1993).
26. Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on Appellant's Motion for the Extension of the Time-Limit and Admission of Additional Evidence, Case No. IT-94-1-A, 15 October 1998, para. 73; Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., Judgment, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998, paras. 408-413; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Commentary on the International Law Commission's 1991 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind note 8, para. 103; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Commentary on the International Law Commission's 1991 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind note 7, paras. 309, 501
27. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Prosecutor v. Tadić note 7, para. 544.
28. Prosecutor v. Akeyesu, Prosecutor v. Akayesu note 7, para. 536, citing National Coal Board v. Gamble [1959] 1 Q.B. 11, [1958] 3 All E.R. 203.
29. D.P.P. for Northern Ireland v. Lynch [1975] A.C. 653, [1975] 1 All E.R. 913 (H.L.). See also J. Smith & B. Hogan, Criminal Law, at 133-135 (1992).
30. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Criminal Law note 2, Art. 7(3); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Criminal Law note 3, Art. 6(3); Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN. Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Art. 28.
31. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court note 7, paras. 216-218.
32. UN Doc. E/AC.25/SR.4, at 3-6. See also Kadic v. Karadzić, 70 F.3d 232 (2nd Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 64 U.S.L.W. 3832 (18 June 1996).
33. R. Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress, at 79 (1944).
34. Prosecutor v. KaradBić and Mladić, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe note 12, para. 94. “Project” may be an overly literal translation of the French word projet, which means “plan,” and possibly reflects the role of French judge Claude Jorda in the drafting of the decision.
35. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Prosecutor v. KaradBić and Mladić note 7, para. 477.
36. Id., para. 651.
37. Id., para. 579. The Tribunal cited the Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May-26 July 1996, Id. note 26, at 94.
38. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Id. note 8, para. 94.
39. Id., para. 276.
40. A.-G. Israel v. Eichmann (1968) 36 I.L.R. 18 (District Court, Jerusalem), para. 195. On the plan, see also paras. 193-194.
41. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May-26 July 1996, A.-G. Israel v. Eichmann note 26, at 90.
42. See, e.g., Proposal by Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, comments on the proposal submitted by the United States of America concerning terminology and the crime of genocide, UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.4, at 4.
43. Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Addendum, Finalized draft text of the Elements of Crimes, Proposal by Algeria note 36.
44. Id., at 5.
45. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Id. note 33, Art. 30(3).
46. Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Addendum, Finalized draft text of the Elements of Crimes, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court note 36, at 6.
47. Annex on Definitional Elements for Part Two Crimes, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/L.10, at 1. The draft also specified that “when the accused committed such act, there existed a plan to destroy such group in whole or in part.”
48. The draft proposal specified that genocide was carried out “in conscious furtherance of a widespread or systematic policy or practice aimed at destroying the group”; see Draft elements of crimes, UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/DP.4, at 7.
49. Comments by Canada, Norway, New Zealand, and Italy, 17 February 1999, on file with the author.
50. Discussion paper proposed by the Co-ordinator, Article 6: The crime of genocide, UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.1: “The accused knew […] that the conduct was part of a similar conduct directed against that group.”
51. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Discussion paper proposed by the Co-ordinator note 33, Art. 9(1).
52. Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, 10 December 1998, para. 227.
53. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Prosecution's Appeal Brief (Redacted Version), Case No. IT-95-10-A, at 64. See also, Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., Prosecutor v. Furundzija note 14, at 66-67.
54. According to the Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, “a policy must exist to commit [crimes against humanity, although] it need not be the policy of a State.” See Prosecutor v. Tadić, Opinion and Judgment, Case No. IT-94-1-T, 7 May 1997, para. 655.
55. R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701, 819 (per Cory J.), cited with approval in Prosecutor v. Tadić Judgment, Case No. IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999, para. 266. See also Prosecutor v. Tadić, Opinion and Judgment, Case No. IT-94-1-T, 7 May 1997, para. 657.
56. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Opinion and Judgment note 7, para. 469; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Opinion and Judgment note 10, paras. 109-119 and Prosecutor v. Musema, Opinion and Judgment note 10, paras. 289-299; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Rutaganda, Opinion and Judgment note 8, para. 626; Prosecutor v. Serushago, Opinion and Judgment note 11, paras. 13-14.
57. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Prosecutor v. Akayesu note 33, Art. 17(1)(d).