Stipulations - congo
1. Requirement for Proximate Causation in Incitement Charges
● For charges of incitement to genocide, there must be proximate causation showing that
the alleged speech directly caused imminent, specific violent acts. This condition
prevents unfounded assumptions about indirect influences.
● According to established international jurisprudence, particularly within the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) framework, there must be a demonstrable link
between speech and specific violent acts (Bassiouni, 2010). This principle was notably
upheld in cases such as *The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu*, where explicit intent to
incite violence must be proven beyond mere speculation (UN ICTR, 1998). Thus, any
allegations against our client should not only assert that inflammatory rhetoric was used
but also illustrate how those words directly resulted in imminent violence.
2. Formal Diplomatic Immunity Safeguard
● International law recognizes that diplomats and high-ranking officials are granted
immunity for official acts unless explicitly waived by the official’s home country. This
safeguard respects national sovereignty and limits retrospective charges for actions
taken within formal duties.
● High-ranking officials are afforded protection under customary international law during
their official duties unless expressly waived by their home state. In this instance, if any
actions taken by the accused were within their formal capacity as diplomats or
government representatives of Belgium, they cannot be subjected to prosecution without
breaching established norms governing diplomatic conduct.
3. Intent Verification for Genocidal Incitement
● Establishing charges for genocidal incitement must involve evidence of explicit intent
to incite violence or genocide. Words used as part of national rhetoric or political speech
cannot be interpreted as genocidal intent without this explicit intent.
● Intent verification is another critical aspect when considering genocidal incitement
charges. The prosecution's burden extends beyond demonstrating inflammatory speech;
they must provide clear evidence showing explicit intent to instigate violence or
genocide. Historical precedents show that political rhetoric often reflects national
interests rather than malicious intent toward specific groups. For example, during World
War II, leaders like Winston Churchill faced scrutiny over their wartime speeches but
were not charged with genocidal intent due to contextual interpretations of national
defence versus outright incitement.
4. Mandate for Independent International Review
● Cases alleging genocide must undergo a preliminary review by an impartial
international court to confirm sufficient evidence to proceed. This ensures that
high-profile cases are evaluated without bias and with global oversight.
● The necessity for independent international review cannot be overstated. Cases alleging
genocide should undergo preliminary evaluation by an unbiased tribunal before
proceeding. This aligns with sentiments expressed during discussions surrounding the
establishment of international criminal courts where impartiality serves as a safeguard
against politically motivated prosecutions.
5. Clear, Documented Link between Speech and Specific Violent Acts
● Allegations of incitement must be accompanied by documented evidence directly
linking the speech to specific, premeditated acts of violence. Without a clear link,
charges lack the grounds necessary to uphold justice.
● In cases such as *The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana*, evidence clearly illustrated
how broadcasts led directly to specific killings during the Rwandan Genocide (UN ICTR
Trial Chamber I Judgment No: ICTR-99-52-T). Without similar documentation linking our
client's statements directly to acts of violence or hate crimes within DRC’s context—such
links remain tenuous at best.
6. Judicial Protection Against Politically Motivated Charges
● To prevent political misuse, any charges of incitement should demonstrate that the
accused’s actions occurred outside the scope of formal duties and cannot be justified as
expressions of state policy or national defence.
● It is equally essential that judicial protections are established against politically motivated
charges aimed at delegitimizing foreign officials' actions while performing their duties
abroad. Ensuring justice prevails over political posturing requires rigorous scrutiny
towards claims made against individuals operating under state-sanctioned policies or
directives during conflicts.
7. Time-Limited Accountability for Statements During Conflict
● Legal accountability for statements made during conflict should be limited by a statute of
limitations to account for wartime pressures and intentions distinct from genocidal
motives. This reflects the unique environment in which statements were made.
● The concept of time-limited accountability also plays a crucial role; wartime pressures
can lead individuals into making statements driven more by urgency than genuine
genocidal motives—an understanding reflected in statutes limiting retroactive
accountability based on contextually significant factors present during conflicts.
8. Burden of Proof on Specific Harm Caused by Statements
● For incitement charges to be held, the prosecution must meet a high burden of proof
that the accused’s statements led to measurable harm and widespread violence. Vague
connections cannot satisfy this standard of evidence.
● The burden placed upon prosecutors regarding harm caused by statements must remain
high; vague assertions cannot suffice when seeking convictions rooted deeply within
serious accusations like genocide or incitement thereof—the historical precedent set
forth through rulings like *The Prosecutor v. Hissène Habré* illustrates this necessity
effectively where definitive proof was demanded before action could be taken against
accused parties involved in human rights violations committed amidst civil strife.
9. Requirement for Diplomatic Reparation Options before Prosecution
● When high-ranking foreign officials face accusations, the court must allow diplomatic
reparation or conflict resolution options to be pursued before escalating to prosecution.
This prioritizes peace and international cooperation.
● Last but not least is considering diplomatic reparations prior to escalating matters
towards prosecution—a point underscored repeatedly throughout negotiations involving
global leaders embroiled in conflict scenarios whereby reconciliation efforts are
prioritized over punitive measures whenever possible.
