LLM INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LAW: INTERNATIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW Friend or Foe: Victimised Groups in Genocide Cases A Comparative Analysis of the Judgments Before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court Source: http://www.toxbank.net/development/toxbank-requirements-analysis-group Charlotte Aardoom ANR 951815 European and International Public Law Faculty of law, Tilburg University, the Netherlands Supervisor: mr. D. Djukic Second Reader: mr. dr. A.K. Meijknecht January 2016 Academic year 2015-2016 Table of Contents Abbreviations 3 Summary 4 1. Introduction and Methodology 5 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Methodology and approach .................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Roadmap ............................................................................................................................... 11 2. Genocide 13 2.1 The Genocide Convention .................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Different objective and subjective elements in the definition of genocide........................... 15 2.2 The protected groups ............................................................................................................ 16 2.3 Other groups ......................................................................................................................... 17 3. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) 19 3.1 The Jelisić Case ................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 The Kristić Case .................................................................................................................. 21 3.3 The Stakić Case ................................................................................................................... 24 3.4 The BrÐanin Case ................................................................................................................ 29 3.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 30 4. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) 32 4.1 The Akayesu Case ................................................................................................................ 32 4.2 The Kayishema and Ruzindana Case .................................................................................. 35 4.3 The Rutaganda Case , the Bagilishema Case , the Semanza Case , the Gacumbitsi Case , the Ndindabahizi Case and the Muhimana Case ............................................................................ 36 4.4 The Karemera et al. Case .................................................................................................... 39 4.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 40 5. International Criminal Court (ICC) 41 5.1 Report of the International Commission .............................................................................. 42 5.2 Pre-Trial Chamber decision on the arrest warrant ................................................................ 45 5.3 Separate and partly dissenting opinion Judge Uŝacka .......................................................... 47 5.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 49 6. Discussion and Comparison 51 6.1 Comparative conclusion ICTR, ICTY, ICC: objective, subjective or mixed? ..................... 51 7. Conclusion 59 8. Bibliography 61 2 Abbreviations AC Appeals Chamber COI Commission of Inquiry GA General Assembly GC Genocide Convention ICC International Criminal Court ICJ International Court of Justice ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ILC International Law Commission SC Security Council TC Trial Chamber UN United Nations 3 Summary Four groups are protected against the crime of genocide as envisaged in article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: national, ethnic, racial and religious groups. Other groups, such as political groups or social groups are excluded from this definition, and as such not protected against genocidal acts. The question however arises as to how international criminal tribunals, dealing with perpetrators of such genocidal acts, define membership of these four groups. Do they determine membership on the basis of objective determination criteria such as citizenship, religion and national laws? Or do they instead rely on subjective factors such as the perceptions of the perpetrator(s) or the perceptions of the victims themselves? This question is not so easy to answer as it appears at first sight. In the Rwandan genocide for example the Tutsi population, which were the victims, were not easy to distinguish from the perpetrators: the Hutu’s. They had the same culture, practices the same religion, had the same physical features and practices of inter-marriage made seeking for distinctions even harder. Neither the Genocide Convention nor the drafting history behind it provides a clear answer to this question, and therefore case law has to step in. This thesis provides a comparative analysis of the case law before the ICTY, ICTR and ICC in which the tribunals have elaborated upon this group requirement. The guiding research question is therefore: “How has the group-requirement in the definition of genocide been interpreted respectively by the ICC, ICTY and ICTR in their judgments?”. Ultimately, the conclusion is drawn that the tribunals all agree on using a case-by-case approach in which both objective and subjective factors are taking into consideration. Furthermore, strong emphasis is placed on the perception of the perpetrator and the identification of targeted groups by positive distinguishable criteria. In addition, identification on the base of negative criteria, by which the group is distinguished by the perpetrator on characteristics which are lacking is considered to be an inappropriate identification method. 4 “There are not just bad people that commit genocide; we are all capable of it. It is our evolutionary history.” - James Ephraim Lovelock 1 1. Introduction and Methodology 1. Introduction Everyone can recall the horrendous stories and images of the concentration camps during the Nazi regime in the Second World War (1st of September 1939 – 2nd of September 1945), also known as the ‘Holocaust’. In these camps, millions of people 2, consisting mostly of the Jewish race died from starvation or deadly diseases. Adolf Hitler, the brain behind the Nazi regime and ideology, referred to the Jews as a ‘parasitic vermin’, which had to be eradicated. 3 A more recent example is the genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994. Tutsi’s and moderate Hutu’s were called ‘Inyenzi’ or, ‘coackroaches’, which had to be killed and exterminated. The hatred can be read in the words of a broadcast on the radio in Rwanda: “'We must all fight the Tutsis. We must finish with them, exterminate them, and sweep them from the whole country. There must be no refuge for them. They must be exterminated. There is no other way.” 4 These are examples of groups which were targeted with the specific intent to destroy them, in whole or in part. Such acts are now qualified as genocide, a crime in international (criminal) law, distinguished from other international crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity by its genocidal intent (also called dolus specialis or specific intent 5). This specific intent is one of the three elements present in genocide, the other two elements are the victimised groups and the identifiable acts. 6 The specific intent dictates that the perpetrator must have a specific intent to commit the prohibited acts against the protected groups enumerated in article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter: GC), 1 Brainyquote, Genocide quotes (2001) online retrieved 10-08-2015 from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jameslovel314060.html?src=t_genocide 2 Socio-economic History Blog, ‘Jewish Estimate Sees Number of Holocaust Dead Drop To 2.8 Million!’ (2011) online retrieved 15-07-2015 from https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/jewish-estimate-sees- number-of-holocaust-dead-drop-to-2-8-million/. 3 Holocaust Encyclopedia, ‘Victims of the Nazi era: Nazi racial ideology’ (2015) online retrieved 15-07-2015 from: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007457. 4 Peace Pledge Union Information, ‘Genocide Rwanda 1994’ online retrieved 15-07-2015 from http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_rwanda4.html. 5 R. Cryer, H. Friman, D. Robinson and E. Wilmshurst, An introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, (3rd ed., Cambridge University Press 2014) p. 118-119. 6 Y. Aksar, ‘The “victimised group” concept in the Genocide Convention and the development of international humanitarian law through the practice of ad hoc tribunals’, 1 Journal of Genocide Research 5:2 (2010), p. 216. 5 which sets out the legal definition of genocide. 7 Therefore, the ultimate intended victim of genocide