Project Report on

“International
Criminal
Tribunals”
Submitted to : Submitted by :

Prof. Kajori Bhatnagar Ravleen Kaur

University Institute of Legal Section B

Studies, 72/16

Panjab University
 Acknowledgement
It is not possible to prepare report without the
assistance and encouragement of other people.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to

Professor Kajori Bhatnagar for giving me this
opportunity to do this wonderful project. It helped
me do a lot of research and I gained a lot of
knowledge throughout this.

I would also like to thank my friends who constantly

helped me throughout the project.
Index
 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
Introduction1

International criminal law is a subset of public international law, and is the main subject of
these materials. While international law typically concerns inter-state relations, international
criminal law concerns individuals. In particular, international criminal law places responsibility
on individual persons—not states or organisations—and proscribes and punishes acts that are
defined as crimes by international law.

International criminal law is a relatively new body of law, and aspects of it are neither uniform
nor universal. For example, some aspects of the law of the ICTY are unique to that jurisdiction,
do not reflect customary international law and also differ from the law of the ICC. Although
there are various interpretations of the categories of international crimes,1 these materials
deal with crimes falling within the jurisdiction of international and hybrid courts, including the
ICTY, ICTR, SCSL, ECCC, and the ICC. These crimes comprise genocide, crimes against humanity,
war crimes and the crime of aggression.2 They do not include piracy, terrorism, slavery, drug
trafficking, or other international crimes (whether or not also criminalised in the national laws
of BiH, Croatia, and Serbia) that do not amount to genocide, crimes against humanity, or war
crimes.

International criminal law also includes laws, procedures and principles relating to modes of
liability, defences, evidence, court procedure, sentencing, victim participation, witness
protection, mutual legal assistance and cooperation issues. Each of these topics will be
addressed in these materials.

The Aims, Objectives and Justifications of International Criminal Law2

Aims – two types – forward looking (teleological) and crime focused (deontological)

1
https://iici.global/0.5.1/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/icls-training-materials-sec-2-what-is-intl-law2.pdf
2
https://nexusnotes.com/downloads/international-criminal-law-full-course-notes/
- Retribution – Punishing those who have done wrong irrespective of other future benefits on
the basis that they deserve it. ICT (International Criminal Tribunals) such as ICTY have tried to
make it less about revenge and more about expressing outrage at crimes. Likely that the crime
in many circumstances cannot be repaid through punishment. Different states will have
different cardinal points (level of severity of response).

- Deterrence – Best known justification of punishment. Reduces chance that offender of

population as a whole will repeat the offence because of fear of punishment. Humans however
do not always act rationally in situations.

- Rehabilitation – the idea of reformation of the offender.

Broader goals

- Vindicating the rights of victims – sense of justice being done and of closure on the crime
through seeing prosecution or being able to testify what happened.

- Recording history – forensic scrutiny of crimes will set down a permanent record of them
which will stand the test of time.

- Post conflict reconciliation – testifying and revealing what happened can create an
opportunity for moving onwards in peace that justice has been served – ‘no peace without
justice’.
 International criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia
Introduction-

The international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) was created by United Nations
Security Council Resolution (UNSC) in 1993 to prosecute persons responsible for genocide, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia beginning in 1991.
This encompasses the crimes resulting from the conflicts within and between Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo and the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia following the fragmentation of Yugoslavia.

The ICTY was created in the midst of war and the UNSC resolution proclaimed that the tribunal
would contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace and ensure that violations are
halted and effectively redressed.

Although conflicts continued in the region after the courts creation, the ICTY has been able to
put some of the senior political and military leaders responsible for trial.

Background –

Conflicts in Yugoslavia in 1991 were characterized by large scale violations of international

criminal law committed especially against civillians, most notably sexual offences and the
practise of ‘ethnic cleansing’. Pictures of concentration camps in Bosnia which evoked the
memories of Holocaust caused public outcry and led to the demands that something needs to be
done about the situation.

The members of the UNSC were reluctant to risk endangering their troops by taking military
action, but in October 1992 the Security Council created a Commission of Experts to investigate
war crimes in the region. In its interim report, the commission called on the UNSC to create “an
ad hoc international tribunal” to prosecute crimes in former Yugoslavia. The UNSC unanimously
mandated the Legal Council of UN Secretary General to draft a statute for the tribunal. This
statute was then unanimously adopted, which related to international peace and security.
The creation of ICTY was an innovation in international responses to mass violence and a
landmark event in the development of transitional justice.

From 1997, international actors became more supportive of the tribunals work and it became an
effective institution.

Structure-

 REGISTRY – the registry is responsible for the administrative management of the

tribunal, including for example – the victims and witnesses programme, transport of the
accused their conditions of detention and public affairs.
 THE OFFICE OF PROSECUTOR – it is the organ whose responsibility is to investigate
allegations, issue indictments(which have to be confirmed by a judge) and bring matters
to the trial.
 THE CHAMBERS- the final organ of ICTY is the chambers. It consists of a presiding
judge and two other judges, they are subject to the appellate control of the Appeals
chamber. This seven member chamber sits in the panel of five is headed by the President
and is the final authority on matters of law in the tribunal.

Jurisdiction
The ICTY had jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide
committed after 1 January 1991 on the territory of former Yugoslavia.
Article 2 grants the tribunal jurisdiction over grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions
(which only apply in international armed conflict).
Article 3 provides the tribunal with jurisdiction over a non exhaustive list of violations of
the laws of war or the customs of war.
Aggression is not included in the jurisdiction of ICTY. The open ended nature of the
temporal jurisdiction of the tribunal means that it has jurisdiction over the later conflicts
in Kosovo and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and over peacekeepers in
the area, which are not anticipated by the drafters.
The ICTY had primacy over national courts. Pursuant to this principle the tribunal may
require states to defer to any proceedings they were contemplating or undertaking. The
situations is justified in mentioned in Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
DUSKO TADIC CASE
The first major breakthrough occurred in April 1995, when Germany deferred its own
proceedings against a Bosnian Serb accused of various international crimes, Dusko
Tadic, and transferred him to ICTY for trial
Tadic challenged ICTY’s jurisdiction over him. He had asserted that the Security Council
had no authority to set up a criminal court, that ICTY’s primacy over national courts was
unlawful and that anyway tribunal had no jurisdiction over the crimes he was alleged to
have committed.
The ICTY is formally a subsidiary body of the Security Council, it was perhaps
unsurprising that the Trial Chamber in the Tadic case simply denied that it had the
authority to rule over the legality of its parents actions stating that its powers were limited
to passing judgements on crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia.
The Appeals Chamber by contrast, decided that it had the authority to determine the
legality of its own creation.
APPRAISAL
 It had promoted accountability rather than impunity, including with respect to
leaders.
 Established the facts of the crime in the former Yugoslavia.
 Brought justice for victim and given them a voice. It spend considerable time and
resources to attempt to bring justice to victims even if its practice has not always
been perfect by the enacting standards of the victims rights advocates.
 Developed international law and strengthened the rule of law.
CRITICISM
 Tribunal has been too expensive and bureaucratic.
 Its trials are characterized by delay.
 Its trials are far removed from the populations of the former
Yugoslavia.
 International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda
Introduction and Background –

The UN Security Council established the ICTR under Chapter VII of the UN Charter in response
to the genocide in Rwanda. The 1994 Rwandan genocide was fueled by long-running ethnic and
political tensions between Hutu and Tutsi groups, which were exacerbated during Belgium’s
colonial rule and continued after Rwanda gained independence in 1962.

In the years following Rwanda’s independence, waves of Hutu discrimination, harassment and
violence drove many Tutsis from the country, including to neighboring Uganda where they
formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) in 1990. Following a three-year civil war waged
between the RPF and government forces, Rwandan president Habyarimana agreed to the Arusha
Peace Agreement in 1993, which called for the creation of multiparty democracy in Rwanda.
Hutu extremists denounced the Arusha Peace Agreement and intensified their propaganda
campaign against Tutsis, notably through the press and RadioTelevision Libre des Mille Collines
(RTLMC).

On April 6, 1994, a plane carrying Rwanda and Burundi’s presidents was shot down outside
Kigali. RTLMC immediately blamed president Habyarimana’s assassination on Tutsis (the
responsible parties have never been conclusively identified) and within hours the Rwandan army,
along with Hutu militias known as Interahamwe, began setting up roadblocks, apprehending
Tutsis and massacring them. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were enlisted or coerced into
participating in the killings, which began targeting not only Tutsis but also moderate Hutus, as
well as those who refused to participate in the slaughter.

From April to mid-July 1994, when the RPF gained control over the country and effectively
ended the genocide, approximately 800,000 Rwandans were massacred, with countless more
raped, mutilated and tortured. To its great discredit, the international community did little to
address the ongoing slaughter in Rwanda. As a consequence of the 1993 Arusha Peace
Agreement, the UN had established the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda
(UNAMIR), headed by Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, to assist in Rwanda’s transition. In
the months preceding the genocide, the UN largely ignored General Dallaire’s warnings of an
impending campaign of extermination. Then, once the genocide had begun, the UN reduced its
UNAMIR presence in Rwanda from 2,539 to 270 personnel, effectively renouncing any armed
intervention to stop the massacre. Only after the RPF had halted most of the killings and forced
Hutu genocidaires toward the Congolese border in July 1994 was any significant international
assistance sent to Rwanda. It was against this backdrop of inactivity, and the then recent
establishment of the ICTY, that the UN Security Council established the ICTR in November
1994.

Structure –

The structure is similar to that of ICTY. It has office of prosecutor, the registry and that
chambers. To ensure a consistent jurisprudence between the ICTY and ICTR they shared a joint
appeals chambers in Hague. Originally the appeals chambers was staffed by judges from the
ICTY. This gave rise to the feeling that ICTR was a poor cousin of ICTY, but was rectified in
2000 when two ICTR judges were appointed to that chamber. Originally, the ICTY and ICTR
shared the same prosecute. However, the job was spilt in 2003 and a separate prosecutor for
ICTR was appointed. The ICTR has always had its own President.

Jurisdiction -

Like ICTY it has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, although
definitions of these two are different in ICTR.

In particular the definition of crimes against humanity has an additional requirement of

discrimination of all crimes against humanity (article 3).

The jurisdiction of the ICTR over war crimes is limited to those in non international armed
conflict (article 4).

ICTR’s primacy over domestic courts is in the same way as the ICTY. Also, it can refer cases to
domestic jurisdictions.
Practice of ICTR -

The ICTR began at a snail’s pace. Also staffing was a problem, recruitment being difficult and
slow. Also funding for the tribunal at the time was inadequate.

The Registry was singled out for very heavy criticism, in particular for financial irregularities,
employing under qualified staff and weak assest management. The office of the prosecutor was
considered to be insufficient and beset by leadership failure by the Deputy Prosecutor.

Of the three organs only the chambers escaped serious criticism. As a result of the report, both
the Registrar’s and the Deputy Prosecutors resignations were sought and obtained.

Also, attempts were made to recruit appropriate people to managerial positions and to improve
financial discipline.

Moving forward -

The ICTRs fortunes took a turn for better in May 1998, when Jean Kambanda, the Prime
Minister of the government that presided over the genocide , pleaded guilty to genocide.
Notwithstanding his guilty plea, which recognized importantly that, genocide had occurred in
Rwanda, he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Inspite of continuing technical, financial and logistical problems, the Tribunal moved into a
phase of increased Trial work, which led the Security Council to increase the number of trial
chambers to three in April 1998. The first trial ended in September 1998, with the conviction of
Akayesu for genocide, in a judgement that not only offered for the first express application of the
genocide convention by an international tribunal, but also determined that sexual offences could
form the actus reus of genocide.

Appraisal -

 It succeeded in trying high level suspects ( it takes juridical notice of the fact that there
was genocide in Rwanda in 1994).
  The tribunal has assisted in the development of international criminal law , perhaps most
notably by its treatment of sexual offences, but also in relation to the responsibility of
controllers of mass media for incitement to commit genocide.
Criticism
 Trials at ICTR have taken extremely long time and have been subject to manifold
delays. These are because of the difficulties involved in translation.
 It had failed to prosecute alleged offences committed by the Rwandian Patriotic
Front after the genocide in 2004
 ICTR is both geographically and metaphorically distant from the people of
Rwanda who remain for the most part uniformed and unaffected by the tribunal.

Sierra leonne
Introduction and Background –
The Special court for Sierra Leonne (SCSL) was created in 2002 through an agreemeny between
Sierra Leonne and the United Nations in response to the atrocities committed during the civil
war, that ravaged the country through the 1990s.
The protracted conflict in Sierra Leone opposed pro government forces, namely the Civil
Defense Forces (CDF) to two rebel groups the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and the Armed
forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), as well as each fractions respective international allies.
By the early 1990s, unemployment in Sierra Leonne was widespread and the educational system
had collapsed. Leaders of the RUF, aided by Charles Taylor emerged out of this discontent with
the objective of overthrowing the ruling government taking control of the country’s diamond
mines.
In 1997, a rebel fraction of the Sierra Leonne Army, the AFRC, carried out a coup de etat against
the democratically elected government. The AFRC, then aligned itself with the RUF in an
uneasy power sharing agreement , which opposed them to the pro government CDF. After the
signing and subsequent collapse of numerous peace agreements between the government and the
rebel forces, the civil war officially ended in January 2002.
Throughout, the conflict in Sierra Leonne was marked by exceptional brutality, including the
widespread conscription of children as soldiers and sexual slaves and the physical mutilation of
civilians. An estimated 50,000 people were killed during the Sierra Leonne conflict, while
countless were forced to flee their homes.
Jurisdiction –
The SCSL had the jurisdiction to try any persons who committed crimes against humanity,
against civilians that included: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment,
torture, rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or any other form of sexual violence, persecution
on the basis of politics, race, ethnicity or religion and other inhumane acts.
In addition the court would have jurisdiction to prosecute those who violated the Geneva
Convention of 1949, as well as Sierra Leonne’ s Prevention to Cruelty to Children Act, 19926.
For the abuse of girls and Malicious Damage Act 1861. However, the court doesn’t have
jurisdiction over those under the age of 15. Also, it doesn’t have any right to give death
sentences. Moreover, it doesn’t include genocide and Grave Breaches of Geneva Conventions of
1948.
Further, it is superior to any court of Sierra Leonne and could precedence in cases of conflicting
jurisdiction.
Structure –
The SCSL consists of three institutions, these are Registry , the Prosecutor, the Chambers(for
trials and appeals). The Registry is responsible for the overall management of the court.
CHAMBERS – the statute of the court indicated eight to eleven judges. Three would serve in thr
trial chamber ( of which one would be appointed by the Sierra Leonne Government and two
would be appointed by the UN Secretary General ) and five would serve in the appeals chamber (
of which two would be appointed by the Sierra Leonne Government and three would be
appointed by the UN Secretary General).
Procedures –
Procedure before the SCSL also largely mirror those of the ICTY and ICTR. Thus, the SCSL’s
statute and its Rule of Procedure and Evidence outline the procedure applicable to cases brought
before the tribunal. Under these documents, the Prosecutor has broad discretion to initiate
investigations and to indict individuals suspected of crimes that are within the parameters of the
SCSL’s jurisdiction.
Formal charges against a defendant are marked by the confirmation of an indictment by a pre
trial judge. Following their arrest or voluntary surrender, defendants then appear before the
SCSL, where they enter a plea of guilty on each count of the indictment against them.
Typically, a case will then proceed to trial, at the conclusion of which the trial chamber will issue
a trial judgment which determines the defendant’s guilt or innocence. The trial chamber’s
determinations can be appealed to the appeals chamber, which following an appeals hearing,
issues a appeals judgment affirming, reversing or revising the trial judgment. Defendants still in
custody who are acquitted on appeal are released.
More generally, proceedings against defendants before the SCSL may be terminated if their
indictment is withdrawn or if their case is referred to competent jurisdiction and where a
defendant dies.
CHARLES TAYLOR –
Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, was found guilty of proving arms, financial and
moral support to the RUF i.e. Revolutionary United Front and the AFRC i.e. Armed Forces
Revolutionary Council.
With the aim of destabilizing the country and gaining access to natural resources of Sierra Leone
( mainly diamond mines, he supported the RUF in the preparation of military action in Sierra
Leone. During the military actions, civilians were killed, beaten, terrorized, raped and abducted
and involved in military actions.
Charles Taylor was sentenced to fifty years of imprisonment.
Also the Appeals Chamber of the SCSL confirmed that Charles Taylor assisted and planned
numerous crimes committed during the Sierra Leone’s civil war by the RUF and AFRC. The
appeals chamber also confirmed the fifty years sentence.
 Bibliography
 https://iici.global/0.5.1/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/icls-training-materials-
sec-2-what-is-intl-law2.pdf
 https://nexusnotes.com/downloads/international-
criminal-law-full-course-notes/

