ICTR

This article is published by invitation in a special symposium issue of the John Marshall Law Review entitled “International Law in the 21st Century: The Law and Politics of the International Criminal Court.” The article compares the International Military Tribunal (also known as the Nuremberg Tribunal) with the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (also known as the Tokyo Tribunal), the two ad hoc international war crimes tribunals the Allies established after World War II to prosecute suspected atrocity perpetrators from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, respectively. The article examines these two tribunals’ similarities and differences, especially as they relate to the tribunals’ designs, staffs, and operations. The article concludes by suggesting that future research should consider whether and, if so, how similarities and differences between the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals affected their results, including their durations and judgments.

Are the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols antiquate regulations, respect the new post-modern warfare methods? What international regulations States and organized armed group must observe, when conducting armed conflicts in a transnational context?
The paper wants to address the issue above, with a tripartite approach: the first section discusses the textual analysis of the Geneva Convention; the second section investigates over two leading cases (USA Supreme Court and ICTR) which extensively offered a legal qualifications to the conducts at stake; in the third section I illuminate the position of the most authoritative scholarship, and finally proposing an original interpretation.

This article seeks to critically analyse and discuss the implications of the ratio decidendi of the International Court of Justice’s judgment in the Genocide Convention Case. The writer argues that the high standard of proof adopted and the incorrect application of ICTY case law has led the Court to establish an unnecessarily high threshold for the establishment of the dolus specialis for genocide and the subsequent attribution of State responsibility. This outcome makes it difficult to make a finding of State responsibility for genocide, which in turn damages the ability of international criminal law to prevent genocide and deliver justice. The paper also covers individual criminal responsibility, collective responsibility, the impact of the ratio on Darfur and the ICJ’s subsequent decision in the Croatia v Serbia Genocide Convention Case.

Taking into account the severity of the offences, the long lasting impact on the safety and security of societies, the large number of victims and communities affected, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are considered the most serious forms of offences. The crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are “unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity” and are deemed to “threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world”.  They may involve hundreds and thousands of victims directly, can be perpetrated by multiple individuals and a plethora of witnesses; they can be committed with extreme and repeated brutality. 
And while the aforementioned statement suggests the hierarchy of the crimes, placing war crimes on the bottom-line compared to crimes against humanity and genocide, bearing in mind that all these crimes tried by the Tribunals are extremely serious international crimes, in this paper I will look into the nature and general characteristics of each of these crime, which will be followed by a brief discussion on whether the intent and special characteristics of those crimes can be a reason for the creation of hierarchy of crimes. Further, I will discuss the relevant case law of International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR), to understand what the approaches of the Tribunals are when it comes to the hierarchy of crimes, and whether ICTY or ICTR do, in practice, consider war crimes to be less severe and less serious than genocide and crimes against humanity.

Abstract.
“Your Brain is the Hardware of your Soul. It is the Hardware of your Very Essence as Human Being. You cannot be who you really want to unless your brain works right. How your brain works determines how happy you are, how effective you feel, and how well you interact with others. Your brain patterns help you with your marriage, parenting skills, work, and religious beliefs, along with your experience of pleasure and pain”.
Daniel G. Amen, M.D.
This paper is about the potential understanding of the development of Information and Communication Technology (origin and meaning of information and communication technology, internet and e-commerce). The paper will further assess the development of online business in Tanzania from traditional means to modern means that is electronic business system, and the law governing these exchanging of information. Then lastly the roles and impacts of information and communication technology in conducting various online businesses and conclusion will be cemented.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first permanent international tribunal established by the Rome Statute in which rape and other forms of sexual violence crimes are listed as crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Rome Statute also recognized persecution as a crime against humanity on the grounds of gender. The inclusion of a broad range of gender crimes in the Statute has been seen a groundbreaking development in international criminal justice and widely accepted that the ICC would end the history of impunity for gender crimes in international criminal law. In my dissertation, I examine whether the ICC has been successful in terminating impunity for gender crimes, as it was thought. In this context, first I elucidate the evolution of the conflict-related sexual violence crimes in international criminal justice. After, I examine the feminist movement’s contribution to the inclusion of gender crimes in the Rome Statute. Last, I analyze the ICC’s investigation, prosecution, ​and interpretation strategies for gender crimes by focusing on the Kenyatta case of the Court, in order to display whether the Court has been successful on the punishment of these sexual violence crimes so far.

Streszczenie:
Artykuł przedstawia regulacje Międzynarodowego Trybunału Karnego w Hadze, Trybunału Jugosłowiańskiego oraz Trybunału Rwandyjskiego dotyczące przyznanie do winy (guilty plea) oraz instytucji plea bargaining na tle zasady rzetelnego procesu, w tym zarówno zagrożeń dla tej zasady oraz instytucji procesowych mających na celu jej zagwarantowanie. Jako największe zagrożenie Autorka postrzega założenie, że zatwierdzone przez Izbę Orzekającą przyznanie do winy przesądza o przypisaniu odpowiedzialności karnej. Jako instytucje realizujące zasady rzetelnego procesu rozpatrywane są przede wszystkim przesłanki sądowej weryfikacji ważności przyznania do winy oraz zawarta w art. 65 ust. 4 Statutu Rzymskiego klauzulę „interesu wymiaru sprawiedliwości”.

Summary:
The paper presents the regulations of International Criminal Court, as well as Yugoslavian and Rwandan Tribunals concerning guilty pleas in the light of the principle of fair trial, including the hazard to this principle and the procedural guarantees aiming to strengthen the realization of this principle. As the main threat the Author considers the assumption that the guilty plea confirmed by the Trial Chamber is itself a conviction. As the institutions embodying the fair trial the Author discusses mainly the conditions of judicial verification of the guilty plea’s validity and the clause “in the interest of justice” included in Article 65 (4) of the Rome Statute.

This paper argues that the actions and activities of the ICTY have not been beneficial to achieving reconciliation or stability in the Balkans, but to the contrary are part of the reason that parts of the region have remained unstable. This result should not be unexpected as there is very little evidence, if indeed any, that indicates that protracted tribunals like the ICTY (and unlike, therefore, Nuremberg), have ever had, or even could have, beneficial effects on reconciliation. It argues, further, that the primary beneficiaries of the ICTY have been international human rights lawyers and human rights agencies, and in the region itself, the political parties of indictees. Considering the amounts of money spent on the Tribunal compared to those spent on rebuilding the region it seems that the ICTY has functioned better as an anti-war profiteer than it has as a promoter of peace and reconstruction. (transitional justice; politics; Balkans; Bosnia; lawyers)

Setting out from the basic legal issues in relation to subpoenas, i.e., the normative framework, requirements and meaning this article explores how international institutions have interpreted the relevant rules on compulsory process to obtain evidence from states organs of states and private This essay is not intended as an exhaustive study of compulsory production of evidence in international criminal law. Rather, it is an attempt to focus on certain emerging issues and in particular on the experiences of international organs in terms of subpoenas (and largely the jurisprudential findings on the compulsion of evidence of state officials) reflecting the traditional inter-state community’s evolution towards the redefinition of state sovereignty following the internationalization of human rights, namely, towards the global community.

This article analyses how the International Criminal Court dealt, in the case of Al-Mahdi, with the crime of intentional attacks directed against protected cultural heritage sites. The case is discussed in the context of the previous experience and jurisprudence of other international criminal tribunals in prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of cultural heritage crimes. In this respect, the article examines the complementary function of international criminal justice in relation to the shortcomings of national criminal jurisdictions. It also deals with a set of fundamental issues emerging at the junction of the international protection of cultural heritage and individual criminal responsibility, being the gravity of international crimes; cultural genocide as affecting the identity of a group; and the primary obligation of States to exercise criminal jurisdiction over individuals. The core aim of the article is thus to critically analyse the extent to which the ICC judgment in Al-Mahdi may be seen as a breakthrough towards a more efficient international mechanism for counteracting impunity in crimes against cultural heritage.

"This chapter examines two key issues which have arisen as regards the international criminal tribunals' interpretation of the right to a fair trial, namely the parties to whom rights at trial attach, and the use of defendants' right to trial without undue delay as a bar to the exercise of other rights in some circumstances, whilst in other situations, a breach of the right to trial without undue delay has proven almost impossible to assert. These issues illustrate the piecemeal fashion in which questions on the fundaments of fairness in international criminal law have been answered, the lack of an overarching theory guiding the procedural fairness of trials, and international criminal law's resultant failure to serve a standard-setting function for the fairness of trials.

Part 1 of this piece outlines some instances where the ICTY, ICTR, SCSL and ICC have extended rights of the accused to other actors at trial, with a specific focus on the prosecutor as a new rights-holder at trial. The excruciating irony of this unfounded extension is that it often has a detrimental effect on the rights of the accused, whom the enumerated rights were intended to protect in the first place. On occasion, and in a sporadic fashion, the international tribunals have also elevated certain interests of other parties to the status of rights, which can also come to bear on the position of the only true rights holder at trial- the accused. Part 2 aims to illustrate the ease with which judges can assert the right to trial without undue delay and the need for expedience as a reason for a decision, compared to the immense hurdles which an accused must overcome to show that the right has been violated."

This chapter will first discuss the role and contribution of ICs with regard to promoting, maintaining or restoring peace, as a community interest, within the larger legal and institutional framework of the international legal system. Simma has defined ‘community interest’ as a consensus according to which respect for certain fundamental values is not to be left to the free disposition of States individually or inter se but is recognized and sanctioned by international law as a matter of concern to all States. The second aim of this chapter is to analyze the contribution of these courts to clarifying different aspects of State responsibility, the responsibility of international organizations, as well as individual responsibility with regard to promoting, maintaining or restoring peace. The issues selected for a more detailed discussion include the prohibition of the unlawful use of force and non-intervention, the duty to prevent mass atrocities, the duty to investigate and punish perpetrators thereof, and duty to cooperate with international criminal courts and tribunals. By analyzing relevant case law and referring to legal findings of these ICs, this chapter tries to shed light on different components of required conduct for individual States, third States, international organizations and non-state actors more generally. This chapter shall focus on the work of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which is entrusted with settling inter-State disputes and providing legal advice to the main UN organs and specialized agencies; the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC); and the work of the two ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR), which are entrusted with investigating and prosecuting individuals for having committed mass atrocity crimes, namely genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. These selected ICs have dealt extensively with specific issues and aspects of State responsibility and individual criminal responsibility for mass atrocity crimes which present a threat to international peace and security.

The Rwandese conflict (1990-2012) started by an ethnic latent conflict that generated deep feeling of grievance in the Rwandese population from both ethnic groups – Tutsis and Hutus. From 1962 until 1994, the Rwandese government was pre-dominantly Hutu. During that period, Tutsi were discriminated, attacked and victims by the new political regime. This has led thousands of them to become refugees in the neighbouring countries. Therefore, oneside violence was occurring until 1988. At that time, Tutsi refugees in Uganda formed the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), key actor of the conflict. On October 1 1990, the conflict broke out by the deterrence attack against the Rwandan government from the RPF coming from Uganda. Weeks later, both parties started efforts to end the conflict peacefully. Due to
the ethnic characteristic of the pre-conflict, negotiations were in vain: ceasefire agreements were broken nearly immediately as both parties distrusted each other’s. On this point Barbara
Walter states «civil war negotiations rarely end in successful peace settlements because credible guarantees on the terms of the settlement are almost impossible to arrange by the combatants themselves »(Walter, 1997: 335). Also, the two parties had for leaders “extremists” Hutu or Tutsi that tend to go back to earlier struggles and confrontations as well as insist on their positions. Mediation was then engaged to end the conflict notably because of the important repercussions on the Great Lakes region.The conflict has had two phases: the first one being the civil war in Rwandese borders (1990-1994) and the second one that occurred in DRC (1994-2012). This paper will only look at the efforts to prevent violence in Rwanda (1990-1994) and the efforts for peace building (1994-2012).

"The information and communication technology has probably had the greatest impact on society than any other technology. People rely on information and communication technology for all the advantages delivered such as powerful information access, storage and better reproduction of sounds and images. However, it is from the same technology through which one’s privacy, secrecy and confidentiality is infringed. 
This paper involves Five Parts in Roman Letters. The First Part (I) will deal with both, the origin, meaning and types of Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) and telecommunication, because we cannot speak about telecommunication without first explaining what makes it to exist and that is information and communication technology.
Part II will deal with the concept of Privacy, from its origin, meaning and types. The Third Part (III) will deal with the overall concept of telecommunication in Tanzania.
Part IV will explain how does the development of telecommunication brought effects (both negative and positive) to the user (customers) in relation to their privacy and how does the law solve the dispute when it comes to the negative impacts. And lastly Personal Assessment (Part V)

"

Contemporary dimension of genocide

Abstract
The Genocide was defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and on normative grounds it was not the subject to any amendments. Nevertheless it was interpreted by different courts and tribunals which exercise the jurisdiction in the context of this crime. The Courts defined the notions of the “protected group”, “to destroy the group”, “to destroy in whole” and so on. After almost seventy years of its adoption the Convention is quite lively document with timeless value and only constant recalling of the cultural genocide by the domestic courts reiterates that this crime left outside the Convention still needs its place in binding international law.

Keywords: genocide, The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ICC, ICTY, ICTR, Guatemala, Montt,

The provisions on genocide protect four exclusive, amongst others the racial, groups. Yet, international criminal tribunals are manifestly uncomfortable with collective groupings and interpret 'race' rather inconsistently. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to a subjective approach based upon the perpetrator's perception of the targeted group. The victim's membership is accordingly not determined objectively, but by the perception of differentness. This article incorporates the theory of imagined identities into law, thereby providing tribunals with a tool to define 'race'. Its essence is that even if the group does not exist, it must be granted protection because of its perceived and thereby socially relevant differentness. This partially socio-anthropological approach will have to be brought into conformity with the principle of strict legality. It will be demonstrated that the theory of imagined identities has been applied in case law, thereby enhancing not only its theoretical, but also its practical relevance. Abstract: The provisions on genocide protect four exclusive, amongst others the racial, groups. Yet, international criminal tribunals are manifestly uncomfortable with collective groupings and interpret 'race' rather inconsistently. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to a subjective approach based upon the perpetrator's perception of the targeted group. The victim's membership is accordingly not determined objectively, but by the perception of differentness. This article incorporates the theory of imagined identities into law, thereby providing tribunals with a tool to define 'race'. Its essence is that even if the group does not exist, it must be granted protection because of its perceived and thereby socially relevant differentness. This partially socio-anthropological approach will have to be brought into conformity with the principle of strict legality. It will be demonstrated that the theory of imagined identities has been applied in case law, thereby enhancing not only its theoretical, but also its practical relevance.

The investigation of the historical evolution of victims’ participation in criminal
proceedings outlines to what extent the path of victims has been an issue subjected to what can be
described like a “yo-yo effect”. Victim-centred approach to justice was the norm starting from the
primitive social groups, at a later stage in the Roman criminal law tradition and up to the medieval
Anglo-Saxon customs. During the 1700’s and 1800’s, the raise of Nation-State, matched with the
Enlightment theories on the social contract, led to a monopolistic administration of justice by the
central government, turning victims from leading actors to marginalised parties of the criminal
process. This model certainly applies the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, which gave no
attention to the role and rights of the victims and survivors in the formation of accountability
mechanisms. The International Criminal Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have done
little to provide justice also for the victims of gross violations of human rights. The aim of the
present study is twofold: firstly it intends to provide an ample historical precedent, which clearly
shows that in the past victims had a primary role in the criminal proceeding, since the goal of
criminal justice was to redress the wrong they suffered. Secondly, it attempts to prove that the
cyclical marginalization of victim’s role within the criminal justice system was mainly led by political,
ideological and economic justifications

Although the right to self-representation is recognised by many international human rights documents and the statutes of the international criminal tribunals (the ICTs), there have been difficulties in case management while enforcing the right for defendants before ICTs. It has been well argued that those accused of international crimes should be fully afforded the right to defend themselves if they choose so, despite associated difficulties. This paper examines the difficulties caused by the (ab) use of self-representation before the ICTs and discusses whether defendants at the ICTs should be fully accorded the right to defend themselves, scrutinising key cases from different ICTs.

The key topic of this draft paper was initially addressed during an internal presentation delivered to the senior legal staff of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) at the International Criminal Tribunal for the formrr Yugoslavia (ICTY) on March 7, 2008, as part of the prosecution case against Vojislav Šešelj. The paper addresses the problematic relationship between the concept of causation and the use of tropes, that is, metaphors, metonymies and other figures of speech in international criminal trials and jurisprudence. The use of metaphors, for instance, shows that specific instruments of language can be employed in an inappropriate manner as part of the process of analytical and deliberative reasoning. Based on specific legal requirements, such as those found in speech-related crimes, metaphors used in judgments do not clarify or explain the various forms of causal relations between the evidence and the criminal acts. As a matter of fact, the use of metaphors, as found in judicial records, only indicates an evidentiary and logical vacuum in legal analysis and deliberations. This author demonstrates that the currently available jurisprudence and trial records of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), all testify to that effect. The analytical models presented in this working paper, based on both theory and practice in international criminal trials, offer a novel step toward an improved, philosophical and pronouncedly cognitive scientific interpretation of the forms of evidence involving the element of causation in primarily speech-related international criminal cases.

This paper addresses the question of the relative gravity of crimes against humanity vis-a-vis war crimes. The issue is tackled from a double perspective. Firstly, the categories of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are compared at the general or legislative level. The analysis is mainly based on international treaties and other instruments that consider these crimes from the viewpoint of their diverse nature. The author concludes that it seems possible to infer that genocide and crimes against humanity are considered more serious than war crimes.
Secondly, the paper focuses on the judicial and sentencing implications of the determination of the degree of gravity of crimes. In this perspective, it examines Nuremberg and Post World War II jurisprudence as well as International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) case law. The issue of national regulations concerning penalties applicable to the different categories of crimes is then tackled and some national case law dealing with the same problem is reviewed. This section of the paper also confirms that there is room for concluding that crimes against humanity are considered more serious than war crimes. However the author stresses that, at the present stage of evolution of international criminal law, any possible answer can only be tentative.

Introduction to this book addresses the conceptual and evidentiary issues relating to the nature, role and position of propaganda in international criminal law. A sequel to the earlier 'Propaganda, War Crimes Trials and International Law: From Speakers’ Corner to War Crimes' (Routledge, 2012), this book is the first to synthesize the knowledge, procedures and methods of international criminal law with the social cognitive sciences. Including a comprehensive overview of the most relevant case law, jurisprudence and scientific studies, this introduction and the book as a whole offer a series of practical insights and strategies for both academics and legal professionals

A critical analysis of the case law before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Court for Sierra Leone relating to sexual and gender-based violence. This piece discusses the significant developments made within international criminal law regarding the prosecution of sexual and gender-based violence during conflict as a result of the prosecutorial strategy jurisprudence of the ad-hoc institutions. Written and published as part of LLB.

The international criminal courts (ICCs) - the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the Former-Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, the recently-established permanent International Criminal Court, and hybrid internationalized tribunals such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone - are the international community's attempt to address the worst of the criminal manifestations of racism, nationalism and large-scale xenophobia. Based on five months of ethnographic research at the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), analyzed using Erving Goffman's dramaturgical framework, this article examines the means through which moral authority is constructed and communicated by the ICTR. Specifically, the article advances the argument that the ICCs seek to personify the Generalized Other; that they claim to embody the universal authority and morality of the international community. The generalized other is an organized and generalized attitude with reference to which individuals define their conduct. The Generalized Other and institutions help socialize people in different parts of society to have the same responses, interests, and moral beliefs and conceptions of selves needed for understanding and synchronizing with others. It is through interactions - immediate and mediated - with Generalized Others that the self arises and is negotiated; that stigmatization of individuals and groups occur; that social concepts are defined; and that psychological citizenship manifests. Therefore, the interplay between inclusion and exclusion, hegemony and diversity in institutions that have the potential not only to communicate for, but also to embody and personify the international Generalized Other, as well as the very existence of such social institutions, is of great social significance.

The analysis of the ethnographic data traces the three dimensions of jurisdiction - geographical jurisdiction (space), temporal jurisdiction (time) and subject-matter jurisdiction (story) - which are also the three dimensions of theater and of reality. In describing the negotiation of each dimension the article explores the philosophical notion that law qua law claims legitimate and supreme authority and the sociological notion that courts, including international criminal courts, are among the most significant institutions to perform, dramaturgically speaking, such claims by explaining that, more specifically, courts try to fashion themselves as the embodiment of a truly universal Generalized Other proclaiming the universal morality of the international community. In contrast to that projected unity, a close decoding of the face-to-face interactions, the performances, which give rise to the abstraction the ICTR demonstrate that the negotiated reality that is the ICTR (and by implication, ICCs generally) is an emergent of and, at least to a degree, a reflection of cultural and gender differences and diversity. Whether or not one concludes that the ICTR's projection is successful, the attempt has profound implications for the formation of the self and citizenship of individuals in the international sphere.

Modern international tribunals have developed a presumption of unconditional early release after prisoners serve two thirds of their sentences, which decreases transparency and is generally out of line with the goals of international criminal law. I trace the development of this doctrine to a false analogy with the law of domestic parole. I then suggest an alternative approach based on prisoners’ changed circumstances and enumerate criteria for tribunals to use in future early release decisions.

This introduction by Susanne Buckley-Zistel is part of an edited volume by Susanne Buckley-Zistel/Friederike Mieth and Marjana Papa (eds.) entitled "After Nuremberg. Exploring Multiple Dimensions of the Acceptance of International Criminal Justice". It is based on a collaborative research project with research fellows from situation countries at the International Nuremberg Principles Academy from 2015-2017. http://www.nurembergacademy.org/resources/acceptance-online-platform/overview/

Modern international tribunals have developed a presumption of unconditional early release after prisoners serve two thirds of their sentences, which decreases transparency and is generally out of line with the goals of international criminal law. I trace the development of this doctrine to a false analogy with the law of domestic parole. I then suggest an alternative approach based on prisoners’ changed circumstances and enumerate criteria for tribunals to use in future early release decisions.

This chapter demonstrates how a cognitive linguistic approach to the criminal analysis of open source information can effectively be used to define and utilize propaganda-related evidence in pre-trial and trial phases in international criminal cases. The chapter explains the paths, logic and criteria for identifying and categorizing open source evidence in the given context (historical, political, cultural) and lays out the conceptual instruments needed for a cognitive linguistic analysis and interpretation of specific types of textual material potentially useful for the investigative and prosecutorial purposes within the frameworks of the existing war crimes trial records, jurisprudence and international law. Part of this instrumentarium includes concepts such as intentions and intentionality, causality (physical and mental), intentional causation, semantic analysis, speech acts, conceptual framing and priming, institutional facts, free will. A novel analytical model, evidentiary feedback loop, is offered for prosecutorial purposes. The main objective of this methodological framework is to explore and explain the multiple meanings and links emerging between words and actions, or words as actions, that is, ultimately, the criminal acts that may have occurred as a direct or indirect consequence of widespread and systematic propagandistic actions and communications of semantically sensitive or specifically designed units of linguistic information in the sphere of public life.

Near the end of his essay on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Thierry Cruvellier drops the word "pogrom" to describe the 1994 genocide. This reference to traditional European anti-Semitism subtly advances his argument that the Rwandan genocide must be viewed in other terms than the Holocaust.

This paper explores the silences and the gaps that cut through witness testimonies at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) by applying a trauma lens to the narratives that emerge on the witness stand and by contrasting those with a survivor testimony. It compares the recollection of a traumatic experience with the production of legal meaning. To do so, it focuses specifically on a survivor testimony shared with the author at the Rwandan Nyange memorial in 2014 where the crimes in question happened, and the ICTR The Prosecutor vs Athanase Seromba trial that relates to the events at that particular site. This paper shows that the experience of trauma not only challenges the language of law but also blurs the legal narratives and functions of tribunals like the ICTR.

The International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh that has been found by the Bangladeshi Government to try war crimes during India Pakistan war of 1971. The tribunal is violating the fair trial rights as guaranteed by Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Humanitarian Law and the standard of the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh is far below than that setup by The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. These irregularities imply serious concern over the proceedings of the said tribunal. Study seeks to describe the International Law about war crimes particularly with respect to fair trial provisions and it compare the proceedings of the Bangladeshi tribunal with the other internationally recognized tribunals.

The author argues whether it is possible to build the hierarchy of the core crimes in international law in the light of international documents and specifically the Statute and practice of International Criminal Court. Arguments are focused on the meaning and application of gravity which is the element of the mechanism of admissibility and at the same time the element of imposing a sentence by the ICC. Gravity seems to replace the hierarchy of crimes as a factor allowing to build conclusions relating to the committed crimes.

This paper explores the silences and the gaps that cut through witness testimonies at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) by applying a trauma lens to the narratives that emerge on the witness stand and by contrasting those with a survivor testimony. It compares the recollection of a traumatic experience with the production of legal meaning. To do so, it focuses specifically on a survivor testimony shared with the author at the Rwandan Nyange memorial in 2014 where the crimes in question happened, and the ICTR The Prosecutor vs Athanase Seromba trial that relates to the events at that particular site. This paper shows that the experience of trauma not only challenges the language of law but also blurs the legal narratives and functions of tribunals like the ICTR.